Things we liked, or didn’t like, from around the interwebs this week.
John Barrowman responds to criticism of the explicit gay sex in the latest series of Torchwood:
“We kissed, we held each other, we lay on top of each other in bed… and there were lots of complaints about that..
“Nobody complained that I was shot in the head four times, there were burning people in ovens, that I was stabbed by a mob of 50 people hundreds of times and I was hanging dripping my blood in a pit.
“So that’s what confuses me, because you’re not complaining about gay sex, you’re complaining about two men kissing.
“And it’s 2011. And people say, ‘Well why should we have that on television?’ Because the BBC have to represent the greater public – and there are gay people out there who pay their television license.”
Misogyny masquerading as film review. Apparently wanting a career and motherhood involves being a ‘scumbag’. Motherhood is voluntary, doncha know? And if you DO want to work and have a job, don’t let your husband do ANYTHING. Also, it’s up to YOU to figure out how to juggle all the commitments, and not expect your employer to give you any leeway, your colleagues to be supportive. Nor should you, based on this review, actually question a system whereby women are shut out of the workplace once they decide to breed, where the structures are designed to keep women out. And don’t forget, ladies, ambition is the worst thing you could possibly have. It’s so unladylike. [disclaimer: I (Tallulah) have not seen this film. Based on the previews I have seen, it looks ...well, like something I would hate. (Although, Christina Hendricks!) I may see it now, because this 'review' fucked me off no end. As you may be able to tell.]
Maybe having a lot of questions is enough: SadyDoyle on virtue and feminism, with a bit of bonus Jung.
I do believe that the feminist movement can act in ways that are troublingly similar to fundamentalism; I believe it can act as a tool for the self-aggrandizement of individual feminists; I do believe that it legitimizes a sometimes appalling, abusive amount of cruelty toward what it deems to be acceptable targets. And I believe this because I have called women “anti-feminist” for disagreeing with me, because I have fed my own ego with my superior feminism, because I have aimed an appalling amount of cruelty at acceptably sexist dudes.
Dear Judy. I love you, and even as an adult, I now own a bunch of your books. (Tiger Eyes has always been my favourite. Well, and Forever, clearly.) But kittens? Kittens? Really?
Clarisse Thorne reproduces an old blog on what she wishes sex ed had taught her – interesting in the light of the Herald’s sex-ed moral panic.
Charlie Glickman explores the basic concept of sex positivity, in the face of some epic not getting it.
the fact that we’re still discussing things like how many partners someone can have before she’s a slut, or whether it’s possible to respect someone and have casual sex with them, or whether there’s something inherently oppressive about anal sex shows that we’re still stuck on the idea of categorizing sexual acts or desires as good or bad. The very notion that a sex act can be good or bad in and of itself is simply the current iteration of sex-negativity
And to follow that up, a little slut-shaming US morning TV style.
Filament Magazine interviews Dr Tuppy Owens, founder of an organisation that helps disabled people meet their emotional and sexual needs.
Lesley joined Outsiders on her 40th birthday, a virgin, and made up for lost time, having sex with as many of our male members as she could. She said that disabled people make the best lovers because they are accomplished at asking for things and using ingenuity to overcome difficulties.
Some pretties to end the week: Robyn goes in for a spot of Bedazzling. (Which is so brilliant, at least 2 of us edited this post to link to it.)