{advertisement}

Come See Greta Read! Bi-licious Reminder, Sat. 6/6

Bilicious
Hi, all! Just a quick reminder: I’m going to be reading this Saturday, June 6, as part of “Bi-licious”, an evening of spoken word, music, and dance showcasing bisexual artists, performers and activists through a playful mix of serious issues and entertainment. If you’re in the Bay Area this Saturday, it’d be great to see you there.

Part of the National Queer Arts Festival, “Bi-licious” will be at the LGBT Center in San Francisco, at 1800 Market St. (at Octavia), on Saturday June 6 at 7 pm. Tickets are $12.00 – $20.00; if you have a postcard for the event, you can get discount tickets for $10 at the door. Other performers include slam poet Liz Green, musician Khalil Sullivan, The Three Sisters belly dance troupe, and singer/ songwriter Elisa M Welch. There’ll be a panel discussion afterwards, in case you want to chat. Hope to see you there!

Come See Greta Read! Bi-licious Reminder, Sat. 6/6

"I'm Confused": Dance Homophobia, Gender Rigidity, and "So You Think You Can Dance"

So what does it mean when people in the dance world — I repeat, the dance world — are shocked and confused at the sight of two men dancing together?

So you think you can dance
Ingrid and I are fans of the TV show, “So You Think You Can Dance.” Yes, it’s a cheesy reality competition show; but the cheese factor isn’t as bad as it could be, and the level of dancing is quite serious, and quite high. Since I care about dancing, I’m willing to overlook the stupid manufactured drama and the cheese, so I can watch the dancing…. which is very, very good indeed.

A couple weeks ago (I know, I’m behind the times, we Tivoed it and just watched it the other night), they premiered their new season. They started, as always, by showcasing highlights from the audition process. And they showed, for the first time in the show’s five- year history, an audition of two men doing ballroom dance together: Misha Belfer, and Mitchel Kibel.

Misha Belfer Mitchel Kibel
And the judges were completely flummoxed. They were not just confused — a word two of the three judges used to describe their reactions. They were visibly upset. They were so freaked out that they were unable to render a verdict on the pair’s dancing, and insisted that each man repeat the audition with a woman, so they could accurately judge the men’s dancing without the distraction of the same-sexness of it all.

Here, so you can judge for yourself, are a few samples of the judges’ comments. (For those who think I might be taking these out of context — or who just don’t feel that their blood pressure is high enough — a complete transcript of the judging scene is at the end of this piece.)

Nigel Lythgoe: “I’m certainly one of those people that really like to see guys be guys and girls be girls on stage. I don’t think I liked it, to be frank.”

Mary Murphy: This is the first time, honestly, for me to see it. I’m confused, because I see that sometimes you’re both being the female role and sometimes the male, so, like, and then sometimes you’ll do the trick and then he does it too. So it confuses me.

(Quick note from Greta: Switching back and forth rapidly between lead and follow in a dance — what I assume Mary meant by “the male role” and “the female role” — is unbelievably hard to do. It’s even harder to do it gracefully and seamlessly. The fact that these dancers were able to do this should not have been freaking these judges out. It should have been making them give high marks.)

Mary: It was hard for me to even kind of focus on that technique, ’cause I was still just trying to figure out… It would have been easier for me, in other words, if, if one person was playing the female role and one was playing the male role.

Sonya Tayeh: I’m saying that in the genre that I’ve seen, when I see this approach (gesturing), which, I usually see it from the female perspective. I relate more to it as a female. So I just get confused. You guys are both amazing, and the movement quality, but I was just confused in terms of the, the classical form.

Nigel: Do you know what? I’d like to see you both dancing with a girl.

Mary: I would, too.

Sonya: Me, too.

Nigel: You never know. You might enjoy that! (smirking) All right, see you later.

(And at this point, both dancers were sent on to the group choreography, so they could be judged on their dancing with women.)

Rudolf Nureyev
Now, to be fair — for some reason, even though this is making me spitting mad, I still feel compelled to be fair — I don’t think this is homophobia in the strictest sense of the word. I don’t think the judges are fearful or hostile towards gay people. These judges are dance people, and I’m sure they’ve all met and worked with kajillions of gay men before, with no problem. (And in fact, one of these two dancers isn’t gay. Mitchel is a straight guy, originally from the straight ballroom dance world, who switched to same-sex ballroom because it didn’t work out with his female dance partner and he wanted an opportunity to keep dancing.)

I think it’s what I call “dance homophobia.” It’s something I’ve encountered in the dance world before. People are reasonably accepting of LGBT people and our LGBT-ness in our personal lives… but on the dance floor, it’s Heteronormative City. Men are supposed to be men, women are supposed to be women, each is supposed to dance in a certain way, and they’re bloody well supposed to dance with each other.

So you think you can dance 2
It’s the aspect of homophobia that’s about a deep attachment to rigid gender roles, and that sees homosexuality as upsetting those roles. (Which, in fact, it is.) It’s the aspect of homophobia that sees certain kinds of interactions — in this case, partner dancing — as being about one person expressing Masculinity and the other person expressing Femininity, with the two fitting together in some sort of magically ordained way… and that gets confused at best and upset at worst when people call those roles and assumptions into question.

So it’s not like I’ve never encountered this before.

I was still shocked at the judges’ attitude, though. And my first reaction was to say, “You’re dance people. Are you really not familiar with same-sex ballroom dancing? Do you really not know that this is a thing? Do you really not know that this is being taught and danced at dance studios around the country and around the world? Do you really not know that it’s happening on a competitive level?”

Same sex ballroom
But I decided, for some bizarre reason, to be fair for just one more moment. Maybe they never have seen or heard of same-sex ballroom dancing. It is a subculture, after all, a weird little world of a handful of people obsessed with their hobby. I do find it a bit shocking that I, with my extremely limited dance experience, am familiar with a dance form that professional choreographers have apparently never seen or heard of… but hey. Maybe they’ve never heard of longsword dancing, either. So maybe it’s not that appalling that same-sex ballroom would be such a revelation to them.

And then I came up with a much, much better example.

Okay. Maybe they’ve never seen same-sex ballroom before.

Mark Morris
Have they ever seen Mark Morris?

For those of you who aren’t familiar with the dance world: That was a very snarky question. Mark Morris is one of the most famous, important, influential choreographers of our time. In the dance world, he is as famous and important and influential as Alvin Ailey or Twyla Tharpe. The judges of “So You Think You Can Dance” have absolutely heard of him.

And one of the things Mark Morris is most famous for — one of the single most defining features of his choreography — is gender fluidity.

Mark morris the hard nut
Mark Morris loves to play with gender. He has men dancing women’s roles, women dancing men’s roles, dancers switching back and forth between male and female roles throughout a ballet. He has men dancing together, women dancing together, women dancing with men. He has group dances where everyone is doing the same routines and steps, and you can’t tell which dancers are the men and which are the women. (And you don’t care.) He has dances where it’s an important, written-in part of the dance that men dance as women and women dance as men; he has dances where he casts the roles without regard to gender. Mark Morris understands that both men and women all have both masculine and feminine qualities — not to mention qualities that have bupkis to do with gender — and he loves to play with bringing all of those qualities out in all of his dancers. Mark Morris is very far from the only gay choreographer in the world; but he is one of the first to be publicly, proudly, fiercely gay, and to openly weave his gayness, and the way his gayness has informed his playful and fluid perception of gender, into his work.

I repeat: One of the most famous, important, influential choreographers of our time.

Mark morris king arthur
And yet, despite the fact that every one these judges is absolutely guaranteed to be familiar with Mark Morris’s work, somehow they still found the notion of gender fluidity and same-sex interaction in dance to be not only new, but shocking and confusing and upsetting. They were still so freaked out and distracted by two men dancing ballroom together — and switching roles, no less — that they were unable to judge the men’s dancing abilities without seeing them dance “the men’s part” with women. Despite being professional dance people of many years’ standing, they were so fixated on rigid gender roles, so flummoxed at a little same-sexness and gender fluidity, that they were completely unable to see through it and just see the dancing.

Shame on them.

(Full transcript of the judging scene is below the jump.)

Continue reading “"I'm Confused": Dance Homophobia, Gender Rigidity, and "So You Think You Can Dance"”

"I'm Confused": Dance Homophobia, Gender Rigidity, and "So You Think You Can Dance"

Is All Porn the Same?

This piece was originally published on the Blowfish Blog.

You may have read or heard this criticism of porn. I’ve heard it more than once. It goes roughly like this:

CookieCutters
“All porn is basically the same. Porn may be fun and arousing — but as a literary/ art/ cinematic form, it’s inherently tedious. After all, there just aren’t that many ways for people to have sex. So describing or depicting it is automatically going to become repetitive.”

Now. Obviously, I have no truck with this attitude whatsoever. But it took me a little time thinking about it to realize what exactly was wrong with it.

Not that much time, though.

Guide_to_getting_it_on
First, and at the risk of being snarky: If you think there are only a handful of ways for people to have sex, then I feel sorry for your partners. There is quite a bit more variety available in sex than a few standard variations on fucking and sucking. Read any good general sex guide, like The Good Vibrations Guide to Sex or The Guide to Getting It On, and you’ll get a sense of the tip of the iceberg. Or take a look at the wildly entertaining, insanely thorough Human Sex Map. You could spend an entire lifetime trying all this stuff and still not scratch the surface. (Thanks to Joreth for the link on the Sex Map!)

But second, and far more importantly:

What makes porn interesting isn’t that it comes up with some new and different sex act, or some new combination of previously known sex acts.

What makes porn interesting is that it comes up with new ways to look at sex.

Maltese falcon
Think about other topics for literature or film or art. Think about, say, murder. There are only so many ways people can commit murder, too. You can shoot someone; stab them; strangle them; poison them; bludgeon, electrocute, smother, or drown them; set them on fire; cut off their head; hit them with a vehicle; throw them off a high place. I’m sure there are more… but you get the idea. There are probably no more ways to kill a person than there are to have sex with them. Maybe even less.

And yet murder is a vastly fruitful topic for art and film and writing, one that inspires both fascination and respect. Yes, genres such as murder mystery or true crime may be looked down on… but I don’t think anyone would argue that all writing/ film/ art about murder is the same.

Why? Because, while there may be a limited number of basic methods to commit murder, there are a limitless number of reasons to do it. And a limitless number of consequences for it. And a limitless number of ways to feel about it: before it happens, and during, and after.

In cold blood
What makes writing about murder interesting isn’t that it comes up with a new and different physical method of committing murder. What makes, say, “In Cold Blood” or “Hamlet” more interesting than, say, “The Vicar in the Parlor” or “A Deadly Game of Love” or some other generic detective novel of the month is that it makes you look at murder differently. And for that matter, it makes you look at humanity in general differently. It makes you look at what causes conflict between people. What makes that conflict turn murderous. Why some people murder and others don’t. Whether everyone is ultimately capable of murder. Whether murder is ever justified, and if so, under what circumstances. How murder affects the person committing it. How murder affects a family, a community, society as a whole. The relationship between moral responsibility and abusive upbringings or mental illness. Etc., etc., etc.

And what makes good porn more interesting than… well, than “The Vicar in the Parlor” or “A Deadly Game of Love” or some other generic porn novel of the month?

Best american erotica 2008
It’s exactly the same thing. Good porn makes you look differently at what sex means to people. How sex feels to people. Why people want to have it (apart from the obvious biological drive). What people get out of it (again, apart from the obvious). What about sex can be surprising. What about it can be disappointing. How sex can change relationships. How it can change the way people see themselves. How sex can bring out the worst in people, or the best, or the most complicatedly human. Etc., etc. etc.

Now, I can hear a chorus already starting to ring: “Lord, have mercy. Porn with plot. Shoot me now.” And I’ll certainly admit that bad porn can be bad by being too plot- heavy, just as it can be bad by having no plot at all. Plus, to make things worse, a lot of plot- heavy porn makes the mistake of simply dropping the plot in around the sex, with little or no concern for their relevance to each other, in that Plot/ Sex Scene/ Plot/ Sex Scene structure we’re all so depressingly familiar with.

Lost Girls
That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about weaving the two together. I’m talking about making the sex a central part of the character and motivation… and vice versa. I’m talking about sex scenes that get you inside, not just what the characters are physically doing or physically feeling, but that gets you inside how it feels to be these unique people having this particular sex. I’m talking about sex scenes that get you to care passionately about these people and the sex they’re having, and that move their story forward. And I’m talking about non-sex scenes that keep the theme of sexuality alive, taking the changes and discoveries that happen during the sex and running with them. I’m talking about porn where you don’t even divide it into “sex scenes” and “plot scenes,” where it’s all just an integrated part of a compelling and arousing story about sex.

And that kind of porn can come in infinite variety.

Yes, a lot of porn sucks. Porn is just as subject to Sturgeon’s Law as any other art form: 90% of it is crap because 90% of everything is crap. Porn may even be somewhat more subject to Sturgeon’s Law than other art forms — since, like any art form that’s stigmatized or trivialized, talented and ambitious artists often stay away from it for fear of ruining their careers. (A phenomenon with an unfortunate vicious circularity to it.)

But the “All porn is the same” critique is unjust. It marks an unwillingness to explore the more interesting and imaginative regions of it… or, in a more generous interpretation, simply an unfamiliarity with those regions. And to roll your eyes and complain, “I don’t want plot in my porn, I just want it to get me off” — and then turn around and complain, “Porn is so boring, it’s all the same” — is unjustness compounded. It’s trying to have your cake and eat it too… and then complaining that the fact that you can’t is the baker’s fault.

(P.S. Just to clarify: I’m not specifically talking about video porn here. I know that when a lot of people hear the word “porn,” they think “video porn”; but for an assortment of reasons, I actually think video porn is less fertile ground for genuine variety and artistry than other media. I’m talking about porn in general, and about solo-artist media like writing, drawing, and comics in particular. That caused some confusion in the comment thread when this piece originally appeared on the Blowfish Blog, so I want to set the record straight here.)

Is All Porn the Same?

If You Were Evil, Who Would You Be?

If you were an international figure of evil, who would you be?

Over at Respectful Insolence, Orac has been getting a wee bit tired of being compared to Hitler by vaccine denialists, and is pleading with his attackers to at least come up with some more original slurs. So at Traumatized By Truth, DuWayne Brayton has heeded the call, and has come up with a vastly entertaining list of prominent skeptical bloggers… appropriately renamed as international figures of evil. (My favorite is Osama Greg Laden…)

Mata Hari_Paris_1910
And I am thrilled to be on the list, as Greta Hari. “Flaunting evidence, sexuality and erototoxins – she’s into that toxic sludge marinading too!!!1!!111!!!”

I couldn’t be prouder.

So are there any other skeptical bloggers who you’d nominate for this honor? (If so, please post your suggestions on Traumatized By Truth as well as here, since DuWayne is continuing to update his list.)

And if you were an international figure of evil, who would you be?

If You Were Evil, Who Would You Be?

George Tiller and Bill Donohue: How Religion Twists the Moral Compass

George tiller
You’ve almost certainly heard about George Tiller, the abortion doctor who was murdered yesterday: most likely (although we don’t know for sure yet) by a religiously- motivated anti- abortion vigilante.

Williamdonohue
You may or may not have heard about Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, who, commenting on the latest scandal about severe and widespread institutional child abuse in Catholic schools in Ireland, has been vociferously defending the Catholic Church: downplaying the well- documented and horrific abuse, accusing victims of being “gold diggers looking to get money from the Catholic Church”… and screaming at rape victim Colm O’Gorman to “shut up.”

I want to talk about the power that religion has to twist the human moral compass.

Cccp russian propaganda poster
I’m going to start by being fair. Religion is far from the only belief system or ideology that can inspire people who think they’re doing good to commit terrible, heinous acts. Political ideology, for instance, can do the same thing: as we’ve seen in the Stalinist Soviet Union, or the United States in the W. Bush administration. The process of rationalization is far from limited to the world of religion. And because rationalization is often self- perpetuating — when we do something bad, we find a rationalization for why it wasn’t bad, which makes us more likely to do that bad thing again — it can lead otherwise sane and moral people, step by step, into committing atrocities we would otherwise recoil from in horror. This is not limited to religion: it is a fluke of how the human mind works.

But here’s the problem with religion. Here’s what makes religion special, uniquely suited for twisting the human moral compass.

Reality check
With religion, there’s no reality check. There’s no expectation of a reality check. There’s not even any sense that a reality check is a reasonable thing to expect. Heck, in many religions, expecting a reality check is actually considered a bad thing: a sign of weak faith at best, heresy at worst. (Doubting Thomas, and all that.)

In any other moral system, you’re expected to come across. The ultimate criteria of your actions are, you know, your actions, and the affect they have on the world. We can see those actions, and those effects. And while people can argue that their apparently bad actions will have good effects in the long term or in the big picture, eventually they have to come across with those good effects — or else see their moral system condemned, and have it fall by the wayside.

South park heaven
But religion is ultimately dependent on belief in beings that are invisible; voices that are inaudible; entities that are intangible; and events and judgments that happen after people die. In religion, the Ultimate Arbiter of right and wrong is invisible, and doesn’t judge until after you’re dead and can’t tell anyone. And in religion — in most religion, anyway — the Invisible Arbiter in the Sky takes precedence over the actual human reality staring you in the face. You don’t ever have to come across. A belief that your actions will have good effects in this world will only take you so far; a belief that your actions will earn the approval of an invisible god has no limits in how far it can take you.

And therefore, religion has a unique power to twist people’s innate sense of right and wrong. Religion has the power to bend the moral compass to the point where people will commit murder in the name of protecting life. Religion has the power to bend the moral compass to the point where people will defend or trivialize or explain away the horrific abuse of children — the literal, physical and sexual, institutional abuse of thousands of actual human children — and still decry putting a nail through a cracker as a vile offense against all that is right and good. More than family loyalty, more than patriotism, more than political ideology, more than any other belief system, religion has the power to bend the moral compass until it breaks.

(Some of these ideas were developed in a comment thread on Pharyngula.)

George Tiller and Bill Donohue: How Religion Twists the Moral Compass