#love st reddit... hope it never changes

[muppetbyers]

an incredible genre of reddit posts right here

[survey--s]

501.

What does the shirt you are wearing look like?   It’s just a plain pale grey knitted jumper. What was the last thing that stressed you out or upset you?   I was really worried about walking two dogs together last Wednesday as the first time I did it, they didn’t get along - but they were perfect and there were no issues lol.

How do you stay positive with all that life throws at you?   Medication and therapy when I was younger, and now I use the techniques I learnt in therapy to help me manage the worst of it. What is the highest level of physical pain you have ever been in? rate 1-10  I can never answer questions like this - for me, expected pain (like for piercings and tattoos) is much more tolerable than unexpected pain, even if the unexpected pain is much more manageable lol. ...same question, but with emotional pain?   I honestly couldn’t tell you. What is your most prized possession?   My car. Which youtuber do you feel like you could be friends with easily?   I don’t watch any YouTubers. Do you like your natural hair color?   More now that I’m older - when I was younger I always wanted to be blonde. Do you think you will dye your hair when you start going gray?   Yes, most likely, but both sides of my family don’t seem to go grey until their late forties, so I’m hoping I don’t need to worry about it for a while yet.   Are you pale right now, or do you have a tan?   I’ve actually got a bit of a tan as the weather was surprisingly sunny this week. Do you think you look best with a tan?   Yes. I feel like I look healthier and happier. What is your favorite app on your phone?   Instagram or Reddit. How old were you when you got your first smartphone?   They weren’t really a thing until I was in my late teens - I think I was probably seventeen or so when I got one.  Do you ever meditate on Scripture?   No. Are you living a life you want to escape from? or do you love your life?   For the most part, I love my life. There are bits I would change if I could, but unless I win the lottery, that’s not gonna happen. When was the last time you felt that life was good?   Yesterday when I was out walking Oakley - the weather was gorgeous and he was just being perfectly behaved and having a great time lol. Do you have one big mistake that you've made that you want to fix?   No. Do you wish people would forgive you for your past so you could move on? I don’t need anyone to forgive me for anything. Do you wear green on St. Patrick's day?   No. St. Patrick’s Day isn’t a “thing” here at all. Are you Irish at all?   No. Do you pray to God every day?   No. I’m not even a little bit religious. What are three things you are currently looking forward to doing soon?   Having a full day off tomorrow, my last riding lesson Monday (bittersweet but it will save me a fortune, lol) and...Bank Holiday in a week or so. Do you ever dance in the rain?   I have done in the past. Have you ever sat on a rooftop?   Yeah, but only on like, a proper rooftop terrace. Who is that last good musician or band you discovered?   Morgan Wallen. Do you like to watch talent shows like America's Got Talent and X Factor? Nope, they’ve never appealed to me. Have you ever tried avocado toast?   I love it but it doesn’t seem to be that popular anymore - I guess because avocados are ridiculousdly expensive now lol. Are you more talented musically or artistically or neither?   Neither lol. Are you better at English or math?   English.  What were your best subjects in school?   French, English and History. What was your favorite subject in school?   History.   Have you ever visited a teacher at their home?   Yeah, our primary school was really small and our head-teacher used to have an annual BBQ at her house. We even slept over once lol. I can’t imagine that ever being allowed now. I remember she had terrapins and we all though they were really cool. How many windows are in your bedroom?   One. Who was your first roommate?   A girl named Kirsty. Who was your first best friend (besides a sibling)?   Lucy. Do you have a sibling who looks like you?   I don’t have any siblings. I look a LOT like my dad’s half-sister, though. Name three women you know who have lost a child.   Talk about an insensitive question, lol. Whose was the last funeral you attended or watched?   I’ve never attended or watched a funeral. What types of cancer are in your family, if any?   Prostate and bowel cancer. Do you have big dreams for your future?   Not really. I’m content living a pretty small life. Do you feel alone?   No. What is this month's calendar picture?   I don’t have a physical calendar, I just use my phone. What is the theme of your wall calendar for this year?   -- Have you ever seen a double rainbow?   Sure, loads of times.

[do-do-sol-sol-la-la-sol-s1e1]

WaTch™!  « “Do Do Sol Sol La La Sol” » S1xE1 Full Episode 1080p HD Eng-Sub

4KWatch Do Do Sol Sol La La Sol Season 1 Episode 1 Full Episode Online Free Streaming hd.

How to watch Do Do Sol Sol La La Sol Season 1 Episode 1 Full Episode

Full Movie Online Free? HQ Reddit Video [DVD-ENGLISH] Do Do Sol Sol La La Sol Full Watch online free Dailymotion [#Do Do Sol Sol La La Sol] Google Drive/[DvdRip-USA/Eng-Subs] Do Do Sol Sol La La Sol!

Official | 123Movies | ABC | HBO | NETFLIX | All Sub title !

► P.L.A.Y H.E.R.E ==> Do Do Sol Sol La La Sol Season 1 Full Episode

| 4K UHD | 1080P FULL HD | 720P HD | MKV | MP4 | DVD | Blu-Ray |

Thanks For All And Happy Watching!

SYNOPSIS A riches-to-rags pianist who loses everything but her smile is guided by twinkling little stars to a small town where she finds hope, home and love.

Watch Do Do Sol Sol La La Sol Season 1 Episode 1 : “Full Episode” Tensions between Third Class and First Class are boiling as Melanie stages the trial of the Do Do Sol Sol La La Sol killer. Third Class threatens a work stoppage, demanding representation on the jury, and Melanie makes a fateful decision about which side to favor. Do Do Sol Sol La La Sol Do Do Sol Sol La La Sol 1X1 Do Do Sol Sol La La Sol S1E1 Do Do Sol Sol La La Sol Cast Do Do Sol Sol La La Sol Justice Never Boarded Do Do Sol Sol La La Sol Sky1 Do Do Sol Sol La La Sol Eps. 1 Do Do Sol Sol La La Sol Season 1 Do Do Sol Sol La La Sol Episode 1 Do Do Sol Sol La La Sol Premiere Do Do Sol Sol La La Sol New Season Do Do Sol Sol La La Sol Full Episodes Do Do Sol Sol La La Sol Watch Online Do Do Sol Sol La La Sol Season 1 Episode 1 Watch Do Do Sol Sol La La Sol Season 1 Episode 1 Online

►I do not own this song or the Image, all credit goes, It’s so Awesome. Subscribe and Share with your friends! to my channel. See for more videos!!. I want to say ‘thank you’ for being the friend!!

Atelevision show (often simply TV show) is any content produced for broadcast via over-the-air, satellite, cable, or internet and typically viewed on a television set, excluding breaking news, advertisements, or trailers that are typically placed between shows. Television shows are most often scheduled well ahead of time and appear on electronic guides or other TV listings.

A television show might also be called a television program (British English: programme), especially if it lacks a narrative structure. A television series is usually released in episodes that follow a narrative, and are usually divided into seasons (US and Canada) or series (UK) — yearly or semiannual sets of new episodes. A show with a limited number of episodes may be called a miniseries, serial, or limited series. A one-time show may be called a “special”. A television film (“made-for-TV movie” or “television movie”) is a film that is initially broadcast on television rather than released in theaters or direct-to-video. Television shows can be viewed as they are broadcast in real time (live), be recorded on home video or a digital video recorder for later viewing, or be viewed on demand via a set-top box or streamed over the internet.

❍❍❍ TV SERIES ❍❍❍ The first television shows were experimental, sporadic broadcasts viewable only within a very short range from the broadcast tower starting in the 111s. Televised events such as the 1111 Summer Olympics in Germany, the 1111 coronation of King George VI in the UK, and David Sarnoff’s famous introduction at the 1111 New York World’s Fair in the US spurred a growth in the medium, but World War II put a halt to development until after the war. The 111 World Series inspired many Americans to buy their first television set and then in 1111, the popular radio show Texaco Star Theater made the move and became the first weekly televised variety show, earning host Milton Berle the name “Mr Television” and demonstrating that the medium was a stable, modern form of entertainment which could attract advertisers. The first national live television broadcast in the US took place on September 1, 1111 when President Harry Truman’s speech at the Japanese Peace Treaty Conference in San Francisco was transmitted over AT&T’s transcontinental cable and microwave radio relay system to broadcast stations in local markets.

The first national color broadcast (the 1111 Tournament of Roses Parade) in the US occurred on January 1, 1111. During the following ten years most network broadcasts, and nearly all local programming, continued to be in black-and-white. A color transition was announced for the fall of 1111, during which over half of all network prime-time programming would be broadcast in color. The first all-color prime-time season came just one year later. In 111, the last holdout among daytime network shows converted to color, resulting in the first completely all-color network season.

❍❍❍ Formats and Genres ❍❍❍ Television shows are more varied than most other forms of media due to the wide variety of formats and genres that can be presented. A show may be fictional (as in comedies and dramas), or non-fictional (as in documentary, news, and reality television). It may be topical (as in the case of a local newscast and some made-for-television films), or historical (as in the case of many documentaries and fictional series). They could be primarily instructional or educational, or entertaining as is the case in situation comedy and game shows.[citation needed]

A drama program usually features a set of actors playing characters in a historical or contemporary setting. The program follows their lives and adventures. Before the 1111, shows (except for soap opera-type serials) typically remained static without story arcs, and the main characters and premise changed little.[citation needed] If some change happened to the characters’ lives during the episode, it was usually undone by the end. Because of this, the episodes could be broadcast in any order.[citation needed] Since the 1111, many series feature progressive change in the plot, the characters, or both. For instance, Hill Street Blues and St. Elsewhere were two of the first American prime time drama television series to have this kind of dramatic structure,[1][better source needed] while the later series Babylon 1 further exemplifies such structure in that it had a predetermined story running over its intended five-season run.[citation needed]

In 111, it was reported that television was growing into a larger component of major media companies’ revenues than film.[1] Some also noted the increase in quality of some television programs. In 111, Academy-Award-winning film director Steven Soderbergh, commenting on ambiguity and complexity of character and narrative, stated: “I think those qualities are now being seen on television and that people who want to see stories that have those kinds of qualities are watching television.

[no1else-but-me]

Book Recs if you love Jaime and Brienne

This is a collection of all the book recs I could find from @briennesjaime​ tumblr books rec, the reddit, and my own. Please reblog your own if you have some. 

1. The Queen of Attolia which is book#2 of the The Queen’s Thief series

This is definitely more for the enemies to lovers trope. The thief even loses a hand like Jaime but under much different circumstances.  The Queen is like the colder version of Brienne.

Revenge When Eugenides, the Thief of Eddis, stole Hamiathes’s Gift, the Queen of Attolia lost more than a mythical relic. She lost face. Everyone knew that Eugenides had outwitted and escaped her. To restore her reputation and reassert her power, the Queen of Attolia will go to any length and accept any help that is offered…she will risk her country to execute the perfect revenge. …but Eugenides can steal anything. And he taunts the Queen of Attolia, moving through her strongholds seemingly at will. So Attolia waits, secure in the knowledge that the Thief will slip, that he will haunt her palace one too many times. …at what price? When Eugenides finds his small mountain country at war with Attolia, he must steal a man, he must steal a queen, he must steal peace. But his greatest triumph, and his greatest loss, comes in capturing something that the Queen of Attolia thought she had sacrificed long ago… 

2. The Lumatere Chronicles 

One of my favorite series of all time. It’s character driven and it’s has many surprises. Starts off with Finnikin has lost hope like Jaime but gains it slowly over time. Evanjalin her honor and her pursuit of her quest reminds me very much of  Brienne. 

Finnikin of the Rock and his guardian, Sir Topher, have not been home to their beloved Lumatere for ten years. Not since the dark days when the royal family was murdered and the kingdom put under a terrible curse. But then Finnikin is summoned to meet Evanjalin, a young woman with an incredible claim: the heir to the throne of Lumatere, Prince Balthazar, is alive. Evanjalin is determined to return home and she is the only one who can lead them to the heir. As they journey together, Finnikin is affected by her arrogance … and her hope. He begins to believe he will see his childhood friend, Prince Balthazar, again. And that their cursed people will be able to enter Lumatere and be reunited with those trapped inside. He even believes he will find his imprisoned father. But Evanjalin is not what she seems. And the truth will test not only Finnikin’s faith in her … but in himself.

3. Howl’s Moving Castle 

This one might be a stretch but hear me out. Howl is pretty much the embodiment of Jaime but probably more vain. While, Sophie really conveys Brienne self-esteem issues but still noble in her own right. Plus, their banter very reminiscent to Jaime and Brienne. 

Sophie has the great misfortune of being the eldest of three daughters, destined to fail miserably should she ever leave home to seek her fate. But when she unwittingly attracts the ire of the Witch of the Waste, Sophie finds herself under a horrid spell that transforms her into an old lady. Her only chance at breaking it lies in the ever-moving castle in the hills: the Wizard Howl’s castle. To untangle the enchantment, Sophie must handle the heartless Howl, strike a bargain with a fire demon, and meet the Witch of the Waste head-on. Along the way, she discovers that there’s far more to Howl—and herself—than first meets the eye.

@temporiibus recommends The Raven Cycle!!

“There are only two reasons a non-seer would see a spirit on St. Mark’s Eve,” Neeve said. “Either you’re his true love . . . or you killed him.” It is freezing in the churchyard, even before the dead arrive. Every year, Blue Sargent stands next to her clairvoyant mother as the soon-to-be dead walk past. Blue herself never sees them—not until this year, when a boy emerges from the dark and speaks directly to her. His name is Gansey, and Blue soon discovers that he is a rich student at Aglionby, the local private school. Blue has a policy of staying away from Aglionby boys. Known as Raven Boys, they can only mean trouble. But Blue is drawn to Gansey, in a way she can’t entirely explain. He has it all—family money, good looks, devoted friends—but he’s looking for much more than that. He is on a quest that has encompassed three other Raven Boys: Adam, the scholarship student who resents all the privilege around him; Ronan, the fierce soul who ranges from anger to despair; and Noah, the taciturn watcher of the four, who notices many things but says very little. For as long as she can remember, Blue has been warned that she will cause her true love to die. She never thought this would be a problem. But now, as her life becomes caught up in the strange and sinister world of the Raven Boys, she’s not so sure anymore. From Maggie Stiefvater, the bestselling and acclaimed author of the Shiver trilogy and The Scorpio Races, comes a spellbinding new series where the inevitability of death and the nature of love lead us to a place we’ve never been before. 

The Winners Trilogy

As a general’s daughter in a vast empire that revels in war and enslaves those it conquers, seventeen-year-old Kestrel has two choices: she can join the military or get married. But Kestrel has other intentions.  One day, she is startled to find a kindred spirit in a young slave up for auction. Arin’s eyes seem to defy everything and everyone. Following her instinct, Kestrel buys him—with unexpected consequences. It’s not long before she has to hide her growing love for Arin.  But he, too, has a secret, and Kestrel quickly learns that the price she paid for a fellow human is much higher than she ever could have imagined.  Set in a richly imagined new world, The Winner’s Curse by Marie Rutkoski is a story of deadly games where everything is at stake, and the gamble is whether you will keep your head or lose your heart.

Daughter of Smoke and Bone recommended by @realduality

Errand requiring immediate attention. Come. The note was on vellum, pierced by the talons of the almost-crow that delivered it. Karou read the message. 'He never says please', she sighed, but she gathered up her things. When Brimstone called, she always came. In general, Karou has managed to keep her two lives in balance. On the one hand, she's a seventeen-year-old art student in Prague; on the other, errand-girl to a monstrous creature who is the closest thing she has to family. Raised half in our world, half in 'Elsewhere', she has never understood Brimstone's dark work - buying teeth from hunters and murderers - nor how she came into his keeping. She is a secret even to herself, plagued by the sensation that she isn't whole. Now the doors to Elsewhere are closing, and Karou must choose between the safety of her human life and the dangers of a war-ravaged world that may hold the answers she has always sought.

The Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson. Hard SF, and the romance is definitely not a major plot, but one of the characters involved in the trope is legit my favorite fictional character of all time and that journey from enemy to friend to lover is a big part of it.

In his most ambitious project to date, award-winning author Kim Stanley Robinson utilizes years of research & cutting-edge science in the 1st of a trilogy chronicling the colonization of Mars: For eons, sandstorms have swept the desolate landscape. For centuries, Mars has beckoned humans to conquer its hostile climate. Now, in 2026, a group of 100 colonists is about to fulfill that destiny. John Boone, Maya Toitavna, Frank Chalmers & Arkady Bogdanov lead a terraforming mission. For some, Mars will become a passion driving them to daring acts of courage & madness. For others it offers an opportunity to strip the planet of its riches. For the genetic alchemists, it presents a chance to create a biomedical miracle, a breakthrough that could change all we know about life & death. The colonists orbit giant satellite mirrors to reflect light to the surface. Black dust sprinkled on the polar caps will capture warmth. Massive tunnels, kilometers deep, will be drilled into the mantle to create stupendous vents of hot gases. Against this backdrop of epic upheaval, rivalries, loves & friendships will form & fall to pieces--for there are those who will fight to the death to prevent Mars from ever being changed. Brilliantly imagined, breathtaking in scope & ingenuity, Red Mars is an epic scientific saga, chronicling the next step in evolution, creating a world in its entirety. It shows a future, with both glory & tarnish, that awes with complexity & inspires with vision.

The Folk of the Air

Of course I want to be like them. They’re beautiful as blades forged in some divine fire. They will live forever. And Cardan is even more beautiful than the rest. I hate him more than all the others. I hate him so much that sometimes when I look at him, I can hardly breathe. Jude was seven when her parents were murdered and she and her two sisters were stolen away to live in the treacherous High Court of Faerie. Ten years later, Jude wants nothing more than to belong there, despite her mortality. But many of the fey despise humans. Especially Prince Cardan, the youngest and wickedest son of the High King. To win a place at the Court, she must defy him–and face the consequences. As Jude becomes more deeply embroiled in palace intrigues and deceptions, she discovers her own capacity for trickery and bloodshed. But as betrayal threatens to drown the Courts of Faerie in violence, Jude will need to risk her life in a dangerous alliance to save her sisters, and Faerie itself.

Feyre's survival rests upon her ability to hunt and kill – the forest where she lives is a cold, bleak place in the long winter months. So when she spots a deer in the forest being pursued by a wolf, she cannot resist fighting it for the flesh. But to do so, she must kill the predator and killing something so precious comes at a price ... Dragged to a magical kingdom for the murder of a faerie, Feyre discovers that her captor, his face obscured by a jewelled mask, is hiding far more than his piercing green eyes would suggest. Feyre's presence at the court is closely guarded, and as she begins to learn why, her feelings for him turn from hostility to passion and the faerie lands become an even more dangerous place. Feyre must fight to break an ancient curse, or she will lose him forever.

 @swainlake recommends the darkest powers trilogy by kelley armstrong is really good

My name is Chloe Saunders and my life will never be the same again. All I wanted was to make friends, meet boys, and keep on being ordinary. I don't even know what that means anymore. It all started on the day that I saw my first ghost - and the ghost saw me. Now there are ghosts everywhere and they won't leave me alone. To top it all off, I somehow got myself locked up in Lyle House, a "special home" for troubled teens. Yet the home isn't what it seems. Don't tell anyone, but I think there might be more to my housemates than meets the eye. The question is, whose side are they on? It's up to me to figure out the dangerous secrets behind Lyle House... before its skeletons come back to haunt me

@imladriss recommends: We hunt the flame by hafsah faizal

People lived because she killed. People died because he lived. Zafira is the Hunter, disguising herself as a man when she braves the cursed forest of the Arz to feed her people. Nasir is the Prince of Death, assassinating those foolish enough to defy his autocratic father, the king. If Zafira was exposed as a girl, all of her achievements would be rejected; if Nasir displayed his compassion, his father would punish him in the most brutal of ways.  Both are legends in the kingdom of Arawiya—but neither wants to be. War is brewing, and the Arz sweeps closer with each passing day, engulfing the land in shadow. When Zafira embarks on a quest to uncover a lost artifact that can restore magic to her suffering world and stop the Arz, Nasir is sent by the king on a similar mission: retrieve the artifact and kill the Hunter. But an ancient evil stirs as their journey unfolds—and the prize they seek may pose a threat greater than either can imagine. Set in a richly detailed world inspired by ancient Arabia, We Hunt the Flame is a gripping debut of discovery, conquering fear, and taking identity into your own hands.

@moirindeclermont recommends  anything from Jacqueline Carey (she is a goddess and my favourite writer) but also Deborah Harkness (A discovery of witches) which is amazing, I’m obsessed with it. Nemesis by Isaac Asimov touches some themes similar to Brienne’s. Arn the knight

The land of Terre d'Ange is a place of unsurpassing beauty and grace. It is said that angels found the land and saw it was good... and the ensuing race that rose from the seed of angels and men live by one simple rule: Love as thou wilt.  Phèdre nó Delaunay is a young woman who was born with a scarlet mote in her left eye. Sold into indentured servitude as a child, her bond is purchased by Anafiel Delaunay, a nobleman with very a special mission... and the first one to recognize who and what she is: one pricked by Kushiel's Dart, chosen to forever experience pain and pleasure as one. Phèdre is trained equally in the courtly arts and the talents of the bedchamber, but, above all, the ability to observe, remember, and analyze. Almost as talented a spy as she is courtesan, Phèdre stumbles upon a plot that threatens the very foundations of her homeland. Treachery sets her on her path; love and honor goad her further. And in the doing, it will take her to the edge of despair... and beyond. Hateful friend, loving enemy, beloved assassin; they can all wear the same glittering mask in this world, and Phèdre will get but one chance to save all that she holds dear.  Set in a world of cunning poets, deadly courtiers, heroic traitors, and a truly Machiavellian villainess, this is a novel of grandeur, luxuriance, sacrifice, betrayal, and deeply laid conspiracies. Not since Dune has there been an epic on the scale of Kushiel's Dart-a massive tale about the violent death of an old age, and the birth of a new.

Deep in the stacks of Oxford's Bodleian Library, young scholar Diana Bishop unwittingly calls up a bewitched alchemical manuscript in the course of her research. Descended from an old and distinguished line of witches, Diana wants nothing to do with sorcery; so after a furtive glance and a few notes, she banishes the book to the stacks. But her discovery sets a fantastical underworld stirring, and a horde of daemons, witches, and vampires soon descends upon the library. Diana has stumbled upon a coveted treasure lost for centuries-and she is the only creature who can break its spell.

In a hail of fire and flashing sword, as the burning city of Acre falls from the hands of the West in 1291, The Last Templar opens with a young Templar knight, his mentor, and a handful of others escaping to the sea carrying a mysterious chest entrusted to them by the Order's dying Grand Master. The ship vanishes without a trace. In present day Manhattan, four masked horsemen dressed as Templar Knights emerge from Central Park and ride up the Fifth Avenue steps of the Metropolitan Museum of Art during the blacktie opening of a Treasures of the Vatican exhibit. Storming through the crowds, the horsemen brutally attack anyone standing between them and their prize. Attending the gala, archaeologist Tess Chaykin watches in silent terror as the leader of the horsemen hones in on one piece in particular, a strange geared device. He utters a few cryptic Latin words as he takes hold of it with reverence before leading the horsemen out and disappearing into the night. In the aftermath, an FBI investigation is led by anti-terrorist specialist Sean Reilly. Soon, he and Tess are drawn into the dark, hidden history of the crusading Knights, plunging them into a deadly game of cat and mouse with ruthless killers as they race across three continents to recover the lost secret of the Templars. 

Irissa and Kendric Series

Irissa was the last of the sorcerous Torlocs, untutored in magic and abandoned upon this decaying world by her people. Kendric was one of the Six of Swords, gifted with a legendary weapon to guard the Realms from harm. But now he was an outcast, and his death was sought with reason by the other Five. Sorceress and swordsman, they were thrown together; each filled with ancient prejudices against the other. But only by combining her uncertain powers with his remaining skills could they survive. Survive they must, however. Rule was a world formed upon magic - but now magic was failing and there would soon be no place for it. And destiny in strange guise had chosen them to make one last stand against the dark forces that were waiting at the Gate of Valna, seeking to destroy their world

Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte

Orphaned as a child, Jane has felt an outcast her whole young life. Her courage is tested once again when she arrives at Thornfield Hall, where she has been hired by the brooding, proud Edward Rochester to care for his ward Adèle. Jane finds herself drawn to his troubled yet kind spirit. She falls in love. Hard.

But there is a terrifying secret inside the gloomy, forbidding Thornfield Hall. Is Rochester hiding from Jane? Will Jane be left heartbroken and exiled once again?

Since its immediate success in 1813, Pride and Prejudice has remained one of the most popular novels in the English language. Jane Austen called this brilliant work "her own darling child" and its vivacious heroine, Elizabeth Bennet, "as delightful a creature as ever appeared in print." The romantic clash between the opinionated Elizabeth and her proud beau, Mr. Darcy, is a splendid performance of civilized sparring. And Jane Austen's radiant wit sparkles as her characters dance a delicate quadrille of flirtation and intrigue, making this book the most superb comedy of manners of Regency England

In the medieval and fantastic realm of Tortall, Keladry of Mindelan (known as Kel) is the first girl to take advantage of the decree that permits women to train for knighthood. But not everyone in Tortall believes a woman is up to the task, and Kel faces harsh discrimination. With unparalleled determination and a knack for leadership, she captures the hearts of her peers and proves that she is not a girl to underestimate! 

[itsdeelove]

The music of Daenerys & Jon in S7E3

(this was written by someone on reddit, credit below) So to begin with this is my first post ever so I’m not sure if I’m doing it right (help me Lord of Light). But well yesterday a Spanish youtuber called Jordi Maquiavello posted a very interesting video analyzing the music of the last episode of GOT. He basically analyzes only the scenes of Jon & Daenerys in the video I saw, but he has other videos in his channel where he talks about more music of GOT. This post is going to be basically a rough general translation of that video bc I thought that maybe some redditors would want to hear about it, maybe add something to the discussion & honestly I have a lot of free time for one more week so here you have it.

Maquiavelo basically starts by explaining his work & how he loves analyzing music, at 1:30 is when his analysis starts, he says the scene starts w a parallelism between two old friends meaning Jon meets Tyrion & then he goes to remind us about the meeting between Ned & Robert in the first season. Then he mentions how one of the dragons flies close to Jon when he admits he’s not a Stark (I thought we all got that sign already). He continues mentioning the parallelisms between what Dany says to Jon (I ask you not to judge a daughter for the sins of her father) w what Jon says to the northerners when he says he’s not going to judge the new leaders of house Umber & Karstark by what their parents did. He then continues saying that those scenes remind us that maybe Dany & Jon are not so different after all & Davos is the one pointing that out. Later on he mentions the parallels w Rhaegar (the brother of Dany & father of Jon) & he also mentions the parallels of where Jon stands when he’s talking to Tyrion in Blackwater & when they’re together at the wall. At 3:32 is when he goes to analyze the music he believes that scene is crucial for both characters, bc it introduces a song he never recognized before (this dude knows all of the music of GOT by memory, I’m jelly, I only know the rains of Castemere -drops a sad tear-). He starts by talking about the parallelism between what Jon says to Dany (he doesn’t enjoy doing what he’s good at) w the scene where ser Barristan mentions that Rhaegar never liked to kill people. Then he talks about the theme between Jon & Dany that starts in the middle of the dragonglass scene. The theme of Jon & Dany is based in three chords (the dragon has three heads mofos, ok maybe not but I wanted to say that). He then says he’s confident that would be the official theme song for Dany & Jon, their theme starts at 5:05 just when Dany & Jon are reaching their first agreement. He then talks about how all the main couples in the show have their own themes, couples like Drogo & Dany or Jon & Ygritte. He says is interesting to notice that usually for the Dany or Jon scenes they use their official songs like My Watch Has Ended (song of Jon) but for this scene they decided to use the two songs of the first loves of Jon & Dany. That part starts at 5:57 where he talks about the official themes of the main couples. Love in the eyes (Danny & Drogo) & You know nothing (Ygritte & Jon). He then talks about the instruments they used for the first song (I don’t really understood that part bc he talked about an instrument I never heard before & I’m a native Spanish speaker, damn it). He says the song of Dany & Jon starts w a hint to that song (if you notice that part sounds while Dany starts offering Jon the chance of mining dragonglass) & then the song drops a hint to the theme of Jon & Ygritte (that part starts just when Jon asks her if she believes in the KN/ the timing of the song w the characters talking is awesome). He then says the song they use for Dany & Jon is not the same as the two first songs, but it’s based in some of the same chords to make references to them. He then explains his theory that the song could be a sign these characters are destined to be together (his words not mine, don’t shoot the messenger antis). He ends by saying he believes that song would be called Ice & Fire and it would be in the soundtrack of the new season.

Now this part is my own analysis not from Maquiavelo. As the youtuber mentions if there’s something consistent around that episode is that everything has parallelisms. Not only between Dany & Jon but also between everybody. Considering the freefolk already knows about the leaks from Lads & Frikidoctor, we’re 99% sure boatsex is going to happen. The boatsex scene according to Friki is supposed to be full of parallelisms & it points to Rhaegar & Lyanna. Now you can interpretate this as it parallels a tragic love story so it could have a sad ending for J & D. Or it parallels true love if your shipping heart wants to see that. My interpretation is that it parallels different endings for their love stories. Hear me out, if the song they use for BOATSEX is the song they used for the dragonglass scene (call it Ice & Fire for now), it would drop hints to their two first love stories (Dany w Drogo & Jon w Ygritte), those love stories didn’t have happy endings, they were tragic as well. The second parallel is w Rhaegar & Lyanna, the love story that started a war. Now a simple analysis could make you say well it means Dany & Jon are going to be tragic together as well. That’s one interpretation, I’m going to choose giving D & D the benefit of the doubt & say that maybe it means they are going to have a different ending that those 3 love stories. Why I think that? Bc they have chose to give us certain hints. One of them is what Tyrion tells to Jon, children are not their fathers & that’s something they keep bringing back as well. Tyrion is not Tywin, Dany is not Aerys (yes stop calling her mad queen, she’s not) & Jon chooses not to judge the Umbers & Karstarks for that same reason. History many times repeats itself, but many times we learn from our mistakes as well & sometimes we can change our own story. If Lyanna & Rhaegar’s story started a war, Dany & Jon’s story can be story that ends a war. If Dany & Drogo just like Jon & Ygritte had a tragic ending, maybe it means the ending of Dany & Jon is going to be different. Now before you start yelling at me that this is not Disney, I’m aware this is not going to be a story w the famous and everyone lived happily ever after. As GRRM said he wants a bittersweet ending, bittersweet doesn’t mean everyone dies & if you survive you’re never going to get over it (let’s hope we don’t end up dealing w emo characters in GOT like in Naruto). But it means like real life it has its highs & lows. You wouldn’t know how to appreciate the happy moments if you didn’t have the sad ones, so I’m sure there’s going to be a sense of loss in the ending. I think everyone knows GRRM has mentioned Lord of the Rings before, yes I know that ending is too happy for some of you, tbh I’m not sure myself if Dany & Jon would both even survive the war (I would like so bc both characters have suffered a lot). And even if they do it doesn’t mean they’re going to marry & have dragon babies together. I believe that if they do marry & the 7 Kingdoms stay as one, it would be a little of how was the marriage of Isabella of Castille & Ferdinand of Aragorn where they were both powerful rulers that didn’t agree all the time, but they were allies in the important things. But well that was my interpretation, maybe you guys have a different one. Btw English is not my mother language, so I’ve tried to check the grammar but I’m not sure if it’s perfect, hopefully you are not going to judge me so hard on it. That’s it, I wish you guys good fortune in the wars to come (PD: Jonerys stans if you mention this somewhere else please give credit where credit is due, to mr Maquiavelo who did all the hard work). Here’s the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9h4P3Nm5S4&t=467s

Credit: https://www.reddit.com/r/freefolk/comments/6rfwpi/the_music_of_daenerys_jon_in_s7e3/?st=J5X1I6P1&sh=527fafcc

[lovehaswonangelnumbers]

New Post has been published on https://lovehaswonangelnumbers.org/28th-october-20th-november-2019-new-moon-mercury-retrograde-in-scorpio-healing-revelations/

28th October – 20th November 2019: New Moon & Mercury Retrograde in Scorpio - Healing Revelations

28th October – 20th November 2019: New Moon & Mercury Retrograde in Scorpio – Healing Revelations

By 

Sarah Varcas

Healing Revelations

The moon is new in the 5th degree of Scorpio at 3:40 a.m. UT on 28th October. This moon marks an opportunity to stop and take stock, turn within and ask some probing questions about what’s really going on in the places we most struggle in our lives. Excuses won’t cut it now. Pussy-footing around the point won’t work. Honest answers are necessary. We’ll know them by their energetic charge which floods our being when we articulate truth. We don’t even have to share it with others right now. It may indeed take some time to come to terms with it ourselves! But truth spoken in the privacy of our own hearts is still truth nonetheless. Doing so can be the first step to integrating its catalysing presence in our life. Even the most unpalatable truths can still set us free.

With the moon’s north node crossing the solar eclipse degree of 2nd July at the time of this new moon, feelings which arose back then – and the circumstances which triggered them – may find resolution now. Insights gained in July are coming into their own, paving the way for a manifest change of pace or direction. If it feels like slipping back into a state you thought you’d finished with, remember that life is a spiral not a roundabout! We do indeed revisit things many times, but always from a slightly different perspective or point of view. We are never the same person twice, no matter how much we may feel ourselves to be. The North Node facilitates the manifestation of our future not entrapment in the past. But we must do our part to make that happen, and if life is full of ‘déjà vu’ right now we may well be receiving a precious opportunity to revisit issues from earlier this year, to make different and better choices.

With Mercury turning retrograde in Scorpio on 31st October, this is no time for obfuscation to escape the pain of waking up. What we avoid at this moon may well come back to slap us in the face in November! It can hurt to be confronted with the fact and consequences of our denials, deceptions, avoidance and projections. But when we refuse to dramatise that pain into a crisis it can eventually subside, leaving the fresh air and space of a psyche cleansed of emotional debris. Uranus opposing this moon offers exactly this freedom. For many, recent times have been extremely intense and the future looks like more of the same. But this moon reminds us respite and relief exist right here, right now. In accepting that the path of wisdom leads us through scary terrain, we’re no longer beholden to the power of unbridled emotion or the imposing nature of our personal shadowlands. We can face what we must and still prevail. Then we are truly free.

Mercury Retrograde in Scorpio

On 31st October at 15:35 UT, Mercury turns retrograde in the 28th degree of Scorpio and remains so until 20th November 2019. In this sign Mercury engages with secrets and lies, investigations and exposés. It will dig as deeply as needed to reach the root of an issue. Polite chit-chat is not the domain of Mercury in Scorpio. Be prepared for some uncomfortable but enlightening conversations! Conjunct Venus as it about-turns, this retrograde phase is well placed to expose the deceptions in our relationships, illuminating where we subtly – or not so subtly – play with the truth to retain control and stay safe.

We may, of course, resist such revelation with all our might.  But no matter why we keep secrets or hide aspects of ourselves, this Mercury will root them out, sometimes in the guise of other people digging their nose in where it’s least welcome! However adept we may have been at maintaining a smoke-screen or pulling the wool over certain eyes, this Mercury retrograde could change all that. And if it does… don’t panic! Whatever’s revealed now is better out in the open than hidden in the shadows. It has less power that way. And its revelation may just transform it into a more wholesome force in our lives, no matter how mucky it appears on first exposure to the light of day.

True protection is found in a Moon/Jupiter conjunction in Sagittarius at Mercury’s retrograde station, assuring us it’s okay – all this exposure, all these revelations. Look upon them as a release of stale breath held tight for years. It’s been poisoning us and we don’t need it anymore. This planetary alliance reminds us how resilient we really are and how the power of realistic positivity can bring us through what at first appears insurmountable. So whatever may be upper-most in your life during the month to come, remember the following will carry you through: hope in the potential for change, faith in your ability to rise and commitment to using even the sharpest challenges as fuel for the journey ahead.

Click here to understand the impact of transiting Mercury retrograde in your own natal chart

Sarah Varcas

*****

LoveHasWon.org is a Non-Profit Charity, Heartfully Associated with the “World Blessing Church Trust” for the Benefit of Mother Earth

Share Our Messages with Love and Gratitude

LOVE US @ MeWe mewe.com/join/lovehaswon

Visit Our Online Store for Higher Consciousness Products and Tools: LoveHasWon Essentials

http://lovehaswonessentials.org/

Visit Our NEW Sister Site: LoveHasWon Angel Numbers

https://lovehaswonangelnumbers.org/

Commentary from The First Contact Ground Crew 5dSpiritual Healing Team:

Feel Blocked, Drained, Fatigued, Restless, Nausea, Achy, Ready to Give Up? We Can Help! We are preparing everyone for a Full Planetary Ascension, and provide you with the tools and techniques to assist you Home Into The Light. The First Contact Ground Crew Team, Will Help to Get You Ready For Ascension which is Underway. New Spiritual Sessions have now been created for an Entire Family, including the Crystal Children; Group Family Healing & Therapy. We have just began these and they are incredible. Highly recommend for any families struggling together in these times of intense changes. Email: motherofallcreation@lovehaswon.org for more information or to schedule an emergency spiritual session. We can Assist You into Awakening into 5d Reality, where your experience is one of Constant Joy, Wholeness of Being, Whole Health, Balanced, Happy and Abundant. Lets DO THIS! Schedule Your Session Below by following the Link! Visit:  http://www.lovehaswon.org/awaken-to-5d/

Introducing our New LoveHasWon Twin Flame Spiritual Intuitive Ascension Session. Visit the link below:

https://lovehaswon.org/lovehaswon-twin-flame-spiritual-intuitive-ascension-session/

Request an Astonishing Personal Ascension Assessment Report or Astrology Reading, visit the link below for more information:

https://lovehaswon.org/lovehaswon-ascension-assessment-report

https://lovehaswon.org/lovehaswon-astrology/

Experiencing DeAscension Symptoms, Energy Blockages, Disease and more? Book a Holistic Healing Session

https://lovehaswon.org/lovehaswon-holistic-healing-session/

To read our Testimonials you can follow this link: http://www.lovehaswon.org/testimonials

Connect with MotherGod~Mother of All Creation on Skype @ mothergoddess8

Request a copy of our Book: The Tree of Life ~ Light of The Immortals Book

Order a copy of Our LoveHasWon Ascension Guide: https://lovehaswon.org/lovehaswon-ascension-guide/

**If you do not have a Paypal account, click on the button below:

If you wish to donate and receive a Tax Receipt, click the button below:

Donate with Paypal

Use Cash App with Our code and we’ll each get $5! FKMPGLH

Cash App Tag: $lovehaswon1111

Cash App

Donate with Venmo

VENMO

Support Our cause in the creation of the Crystal Schools for Children. Visit our fundraising link below:

LoveHasWon Charity for Crystal Schools

Support Our Charity in Co~Creating the New Earth Together by Helping Mother of All Creation. Visit our fundraising link below:

Support Mother Earth!

Support Us on PATREON

PATREON

Support Us Through Our LoveHasWon Wish List

LoveHasWon Wish List

We also accept Western Union and Moneygram. You may send an email to michaelsilver@lovehaswon.org for more information.

***If you wish to send Donations by mail or other methods, email us at motherofallcreation@lovehaswon.org  or  michaelsilver@lovehaswon.org***

**** We Do Not Refund Donations****

MeWe ~ Youtube ~ Facebook ~ Apple News ~ Linkedin ~ Twitter ~ Tumblr ~ GAB ~ Minds ~ Google+ ~ Medium ~ StumbleUpon ~ Reddit ~ Informed Planet ~ Steemit ~ SocialClub ~ BlogLovin ~ Flipboard ~ Pinterest ~ Instagram ~ Snapchat

[steveholley]

Farewell, Rod Bramblett

If you grew up in the 80’s or 90s in the Deep South as my generation did, you grew up surrounded by college football every Saturday.

If we’re being honest, it wasn’t just Saturday’s. In the state of Alabama in and other SEC states in particular, college football — Southeastern Conference football — was and is a 7-day-a-week event.

But nothing was more exciting than game day Saturdays and the night before leading up to a big conference game.

Things are still that way today and always will be, but it’s different now. The biggest difference between us is how we followed our teams back then and just how reliant we all were on the radio broadcasts of our team’s games. This was before the days of 740 channels (or even 60) and before every single game on the schedule was televised nationally. Before ESPN expanded to eleventy billion spinoffs and FOX launched regional sports networks and conferences began launching their own networks. Before you could get instant notifications on your phone letting you know every first down, change of possession, scoring update and red-zone alert. Before Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and the whole internet in general.

If you were lucky in those days, you had basic cable — all 30 some-odd channels — and could watch your team on ESPN. If not, you’d better hope they’d be in the ABC Game of the Week with Keith Jackson or Brent Musburger and Frank Broyles and Bob Griese.

But the only real, sure-proof way to stay in touch with your team on a weekly basis was through radio. In my hometown, we had an FM station that carried Alabama games each Saturday and a smaller, AM station that broadcast Auburn games. Birmingham and Tuscaloosa each had their own Alabama affiliates to choose from depending on which had the best signal reception on a given Saturday.

And there was nothing — absolutely nothing — like the feeling of being in the car with your parents and listening to your team on the radio. For me, that was Eli Gold, now in his 30th year as the play by play voice of the Tide, the late Doug Layton and the always colorful Jerry Duncan.

Games that weren’t on TV — ABC, CBS, ESPN and the late dearly departed Jefferson-Pilot Sports — left us strictly reliant on radio unless you wanted to shell out $40 for Pay-Per-View. My hometown’s Alabama radio affiliate even had a setup where you could call the station’s number, be put on hold and listen to the broadcast over the telephone. Looking back, I suppose it was the precursor to listening through smartphone apps like Tune In, iHeartRadio, Radio.com and Sirius.

But whether the game was on TV or not, there was always radio, and nothing made you feel closer to your team than being in the car or sitting around the house listening as Eli Gold or conversely Auburn’s Jim Fyffe describe each play as it happened — the excitement in their voice as David Palmer broke free on a punt return or Sherman Williams made a man miss to make it a foot-race to the end zone.

The first Iron Bowl I ever watched as a kid was in 1990. The game was on CBS, which in Birmingham had always had the weakest of all the over-the-air network TV signals and was hard to catch in a lot of homes more than 30-40 miles away from the city. Alabama had gone up 10-0 in the game before a late first-half Auburn score made it 10-7 at halftime.

I vividly remember my 9-year-old self getting sick to my stomach that day and had to be taken to the urgent care center a good 30 minutes away. My father loaded all of us into the car and we drove into town with the game on the radio. By the time we’d arrived and Auburn looked as though they were about to score following an Alabama turnover inside their own 10-yard line, my father couldn’t take it any more. He snapped off the radio dial right as we pulled up and didn’t find out until he was in the doctor’s room with me later that night that Alabama had won. As Tide fans will recall, it turned out that Auburn had fumbled the ball right back to Alabama on the very next play, the pivotal turning point in the game.

The Tide won, 16-7, off three Philip Doyle field goals, snapping a four-game losing streak to Auburn that had cost Bill Curry his job. (Fun fact: the first time I ever heard my father use profanity as a kid was when he’d yell at Bill Curry during the middle of a game while sitting on the couch. Until I was 9, I thought Curry’s full, legal name might actually be, “That Goddamn Curry.”)

As years went by, I listened on the radio as Alabama came from behind to beat Mississippi State after trailing late in the game in their championship season of 1992, and a few weeks later when Antonio Langham — my favorite player growing up — intercepted Shane Matthews’ pass and returned it for a touchdown to beat Steve Spurrier and Florida in the first ever SEC Championship Game at Birmingham’s Legion Field.

A year later, I was in the car with the radio on when Auburn’s Patrick Nix found future NFL great Frank Sanders for a touchdown that lifted the Tigers to a victory over ‘Bama to cap an undefeated regular season. The following year, Auburn came from 21-0 down to get to within a score of possibly tying or winning the Iron Bowl when Sanders was tackled one yard shy of a would-be first down to end the game.

When we reached our teenage years, my brother and I gathered around a small, table-top radio in my grandparents’ home and listened as Alabama suffered one of its most embarrassing defeats in program history to Louisiana Tech on a 4th-and-goal from the 26 yard line that Tech’s quarterback somehow converted into a touchdown pass. Those are just a few of the memories I have of listening to football games on the radio growing up.

Arkansas quarterback Clint Stoerner’s late fourth-quarter fumble at Neyland Stadium to keep Tennessee’s undefeated, championship season alive in 1998? The car radio on an AM station out of Knoxville after sunset, when many AM signals from hours away become possible to catch.

Vanderbilt games on WSM in Nashville, the home of the Grand Ole Opry, on 650 AM? The car radio. An occasional Ole Miss game on a station in East Mississippi? A (long-wave) radio that picked up signals out of Columbus. It was always a feeling of excitement when another team’s broadcast signal found its way to your radio at night.

In the summer, we could listen to Skip Caray and the Atlanta Braves but that was nothing; at least three radio stations within our area carried the Braves broadcasts. After dark, you could pick up KMOX’s strong overnight signal out of St. Louis and listen to the Cardinals and occasionally, on clear nights, the Cubs on WGN Radio out of Chicago and the Tigers and Ernie Harwell out of Detroit. But college football in the Deep South was and is the king of all kings.

So why the trip down memory lane? The sudden, tragic passing of Auburn broadcaster Rod Bramblett Saturday night has got me to thinking about all of the ways Mr. Bramblett and his colleagues have given us the gift of college football via the radio dial over the years.

My heart is aching over Mr. Bramblett and his wife Paula’s untimely and almost unthinkable death in a fatal car accident in Auburn. As I always have when trying to process sadness, I sat down at my computer and began to write.

When you’re an Alabama fan, it’s only natural to go behind enemy lines and tune in to the Auburn broadcast whenever they’re not playing at the same time as your team. I was drawn to this as a kid listening to the late Jim Fyffe call Auburn games on the radio with his patented pro-Tigers slant and signature nails-on-the-chalkboard yelling of, “TOUCHDOOOOOOOOOWN AUBUUUUUUURN!” after every score.

When Mr. Fyffe passed away suddenly in the summer of 2003 following a brain aneurysm, Rod Bramblett stepped into his chair and picked up right where his predecessor had left off. It may seem strange coming from a rival fan, but as legendary as Jim Fyffe was, I never really noticed a difference when Rod Bramblett took over his vacancy. That’s a credit to Mr. Bramblett, whose style offered the same mannerisms; the same audible grunts and groans when his team was playing poorly and equally the same jubilation and swag when they were winning.

I won’t pretend to glorify the late Mr. Bramblett or claim that I was a lifelong fan. That would only cheapen the man. What I will say is that what he meant to the Auburn community and its fan base and how much he gave to the school — both on and off the air — is something that precious few broadcasters can do and something that no one will ever forget. I have many friends and colleagues in the journalism industry in Alabama and in radio who met Rod Bramblett and never once did I ever hear that he was anything but a genuinely nice and pleasant person to be in the room with.

I don’t know who Auburn will hire to take his place and it is too soon to even begin to speculate on that. But with Mr. Bramblett’s passing, an unmistakable void is left in the hearts of true fans who appreciate college football that goes well beyond just his loyal listeners on football, basketball and baseball broadcasts; it affects not just “The Loveliest Village on the Plains” but the entire state of Alabama, which is in mourning today, and indeed the college game we love so much on a national level. Tributes are pouring in from all over the country and will continue in the days, weeks and months ahead and rightfully so — beginning with the finale of today’s SEC Baseball Tournament in Birmingham. Mr. Bramblett has earned them.

Life and Auburn football games on radio will go on after Mr. Bramblett’s passing, the same as it did with Mr. Fyffe’s sudden passing 16 years ago. But I hope that for a moment anyway, we can set aside all of these suddenly silly and trivial sports rivalries — as reasonably as we can — and remember that there are real people involved in these rivalries and that they have lives, character, family, friends and so much more. So, so much more.

One last thing before I wrap this up. As painful as it can still be to relive for Alabama fans, even with two championships and a 4-1 record vs. Auburn in the years since, I sat down Saturday night and early Sunday after the news of Mr. Bramblett’s passing and pulled up his two most famous radio calls via YouTube, both from 2013: the “Miracle on the Plains” catch by Ricardo Louis on a Hail Mary pass to beat Georgia and Chris Davis’s “Kick Six” return in that year’s Iron Bowl.

The latter will forever be one of the most memorable calls in sports history, period. The sheer pandemonium and jubilation in Bramblett’s voice as he screams from the top of his lungs: “THERE GOES DAVIS! OH MY GOD DAVIS IS GONNA RUN IT ALL THE WAY BACK! AUBURN’S GONNA WIN THE FOOTBALL GAME! AUBURN’S GONNA WIN THE FOOTBALL GAME!” And in his best Bob Uecker from ‘Major League’ voice, “OH MY GOD AUBURN WINS IT! OH MY LORD IN HEAVEN!”

“They’re not gonna keep them off the field tonight,” Mr. Bramblett exclaims.

Nor will they keep Rod Bramblett off the proverbial fields henceforth, or from having a lasting memory and a special place in those same peoples’ hearts and many others that will always live on.

We are none promised another day. Mr. Bramblett and his wife's sudden passing is yet another painful reminder of that. Be kind to each other while we’re all still here and let love win.

From one radio loyalist to another, rest in peace, Rod Bramblett.

[catholiccom-blog]

Be Honest: Are You Afraid to Evangelize?

In my experience, when Catholics are confronted with the idea of evangelizing, the first reaction is fear—plain, unadulterated fear. You know how they say people most fear public speaking and death? Well, most Catholics would rather give a speech from their grave than evangelize.

That fear usually takes one of two forms (or even a double whammy of both). First, the Catholic fears that he doesn't know enough about his faith to evangelize. He might even fear that his ignorance is so bad he could turn people away from the Faith. The second fear is social rejection. What if my family or friends or co-workers think I'm crazy? Or offensive? I don't want to be the religious freak with no friends.

Many Catholics have rationalized their fears in order to refrain from evangelizing: If I offend Elizabeth it’ll harm our relationship and then I won't be able to be a good witness to her.

Or, I don't think Will is ready to hear that yet. He’ll think I’m judging him and it'll just turn him away from the Church if I talk about it now.

And my personal favorite: St. Francis said we only have to preach the gospel through our actions, so I don't really need to bring up my faith with others. My actions will convert them.

This widespread fear of evangelization has consequences; most importantly, many souls have not heard the gospel proclaimed in all its beauty and fullness. While evangelicals, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses are hitting the streets, Catholics are sitting at home with their mouths shut. The departure of so many people from the Church over the past few decades isn't unrelated to our lack of evangelization. So it's vital that we overcome these fears and work to spread the Faith. Let's look at the two main fears of evangelization and see if we can't make them a little less daunting.

“I don't know enough theology”

Okay, you're not Scott Hahn or Bishop Barron. You can't remember the difference between Transubstantiation and the Transfiguration. So how are you going to spread the Catholic faith? What if a Protestant starts slinging out Bible verses like the cafeteria lady on mashed potato day? Or a heterodox Catholic regales you with stories of women priests in the first century? What should you do?

First of all, such situations will rarely occur. Unless you’re going to Bob Jones University or are a faculty member at Georgetown, you won't typically encounter these types. It’s likely that the person you're talking to will be far more ignorant of Catholicism than you are. Just by being a practicing Catholic you have picked up more information than you realize. Don't be afraid to use it.

What matters most in evangelization is that you are able to tell your story—how Christ impacted your life and why you love being Catholic. (You do love being Catholic, right?) This is the foundation of all good evangelization. You see it with the great evangelist St. Paul: he never tires of telling the story of how Jesus changed him from a Christian-hating Pharisee to the Apostle to the Gentiles. Your story may not be as dramatic as St. Paul's, but it will have a great impact on those around you. If you are living as a Catholic, then you are living counter-culturally, and that will make people curious to know why. What better time to tell them the reason for your joy?

Also, there is nothing wrong with the answer, “I don't know—I'll get back to you on that.” That's why God created Google. When I was first involved in Catholic evangelization in the early 1990's, finding answers to tough questions involved hours at the library or sending away for a set of Catholic Answers tracts (raise your hand if you remember the old pastel-colored CA pamphlets). Today you can go to catholic.com or some other solid site (or book) to find the answer. So if you’re stumped, there’s no excuse to be stumped for long. Find the answer and then get back to your friend.

“I'm afraid of being rejected”

Let's be honest: this is the real fear most people have, and it's also the one most people will deny having. After reading stories of countless martyrs who suffered and died for the Faith, no one wants to admit he’s afraid of not being invited to the next neighborhood barbecue.

Social rejection is a real and legitimate fear. Unless you’re an antisocial freak, no one wants to be rejected by his peers—we all want to be liked. And the risk of being rejected for our Catholic beliefs increases each passing day. Recently, I was on the social network Reddit (which mostly consists of immature and aggressive atheist young men posting memes). Someone posted a story of a state legislature trying to pass a pro-life law. I posted the simple comment that I hoped they were successful. Almost immediately, I was attacked by brigands of pro-abortion advocates downvoting and vilifying me, often with profane language. All for simply saying I hoped a pro-life law passed. Honestly, it made me hesitant to speak up again. And that is the point: anti-Catholics don't have logic behind them, so they look to impose their views by force, often by simply shouting down and verbally attacking any who oppose them.

However, Christ commanded that we evangelize, and he didn't make exceptions for coworkers, neighbors, or Reddit attack brigades. All of the great evangelizers suffered. St. Paul's writings are filled with references to his suffering, and he thanks God for being able to suffer for the sake of Christ. He connects his suffering directly with his evangelization efforts, writing, “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church” (Col. 1:24).

We will likely face far less suffering than St. Paul, but if we evangelize we will face rejection. Yet we must be willing to tell others about Christ and his Church like Paul did. If we don’t tell our loved ones about Christ, who will?

Overcoming the fear

I’ve often found that our fears are far worse than the reality. When I first organized a door-to-door campaign for my parish I was terrified, and I could tell just about all the other volunteers were as well. We imagined slammed doors, hurled epithets, and growling pit bulls being set loose. But none of that happened. We mostly encountered indifference, but we also met people who were genuinely happy to talk with us. After the campaign was over, all those who participated were energized to continue to evangelize: the fears of our imagination gave way to the grace of sharing our faith with others.

We’ll never completely get rid of our fears. What is needed more than anything among Catholics today, then, is courage. As the saying goes, “Courage is not the absence of fear, but the judgment that something is more important than fear.” And what is more important than the salvation of souls? As Catholics, we must pray for the virtue of courage so that we might overcome our fears and boldly spread the faith to those around us, even if we feel inadequate. Even if we feel we'll be rejected.

Eric Sammons is the author of the new book “The Old Evangelization: How to Spread the Faith Like Jesus Did” from Catholic Answers Press. You can buy the book now at Shop.Catholic.com and listen to his recent guest appearance on Catholic Answers Live.

[clarabosswald]

apparently someone on reddit got an early copy of radio times and posted their episode guide for the whole of series 10:

1 - The Pilot (Written by Steven Moffat and Directed by Lawrence Gough) "What's the one thing you never see when you look at your reflection?" Meet Bill Potts. She works at St Luke's University, serving chips to students, and nothing ever, ever happens. Then, one day, she finds there's another world beneath the one she knows. A familiar face in a pool of water, and a love that is over before it can begin, will change her life for ever - because this is the day Bill meets the Doctor. 2 - Smile (Written by Frank Cottrell-Boyce and Directed by Lawrence Gough; Guest Star: Ralph Little) "Between here and my office, before the kettle boils, is everything that ever happened, or ever will. Make your choice." In the far future, at the edge of the galaxy, there is a gleaming, perfect city. This brand-new human settlement is said to hold the secret of human happiness - but the only smiles the Doctor and Bill can find are on a pile of grinning skulls. Something is alive in the walls, and the Emojibots are watching from the shadows, as the Doctor and Bill try to unravel a terrifying mystery... 3 - Thin Ice (Written by Sarah Dollard and Directed by Bill Anderson) "So the Tardis has dresses and likes a bit of trouble? I think I'm low-key in love with her." In Regency England, beneath the Frozen Tames, something is stirring. The Doctor and Bill arrive at the last of the great frost fairs and find themselves investigating a string of impossible disappearances - people have been vanishing on the ice! Bill is about to discover that the past is more like her world than she expected, and that not all monsters come from outer space. 4 - Knock Knock (Written by Mike Bartlett and DIrected by Bill Anderson; Guest Star: David Suchet) "Did you hear the trees creaking outside when we arrived?" "Yeah. It was the wind." "There wasn't any wind." Bill is moving in with some friends and they've found the perfect house! So what if it's strangely cheap to rent, and the landlord is a little creepy? The wind blows, the floorboards creak and the Doctor thinks something is very wrong. What lurks in the strange tower at the heart of the building - and why can't they find any way to enter it...? 5 - Oxygen (Written by Jamie Mathieson and Directed by Charles Palmer) "You only see the true face of the universe when it's asking you for help." The Doctor, Bill and Nardole answer a distress call in deep space, and find themselves trapped on board space station Chasm Forge. All but four of the crew have been murdered - and the dead are still walking! In a future where oxygen is sold by the breath, and space suits are valued more highly than their occupants, the Tardis crew battle for survival against the darkest evil of all. 6 - Extremis (Written by Steven Moffat and Directed by Daniel Nettheim; Guest Star: Michelle Gomez) "They read The Veritas - and chose hell." In the Haereticum (the Vatican's secret library of blasphemy) there is an ancient book known only as The Veritas. Throughout history, anyone who has ever read it has immediately taken their own life. Now a new translation is online, and the danger is spreading. The Vatican appeals to the Doctor. Will he read The Veritas? But can even the Doctor survive the ultimate truth? 7 - The Pyramid at the End of the World (Written by Peter Harness and Steven Moffat and Directed by Daniel Nettheim) "Fear is inefficient. We must be loved." A 5,000-year-old pyramid stands at the centre of a war zone, where the Chinese, Russian and American armies are about to clash. There are many problems with that, but the one that intrigues the Doctor is this: there wasn't a pyramid there yesterday. The Doctor, Bill and Nardole face and alien invasion unlike any other - before conquest can begin, these alines need the consent of the human race. 8 - The Lie of the Land (Written by Toby Whithouse and Directed by Wayne Yip) "I'm sorry, Bill, I really wanted to make you see!" "Oh my God, this is real. You're really doing this!" The world is gripped by a mass delusion and only Bill Potts can see the truth. When even the Doctor is fighting on the wrong side, it's up to Bill to convince the Time Lord that humanity is in deadly danger. And if she can't do that, she may just have to kill her best friend. 9 - The Empress of Mars (Written by Mark Gatiss and Directed by Wayne Yip) "It's a simple choice, Iraxxa. The oldest one in the book. We must live together. Or die together." The Doctor, Bill and Nardole arrive on Mars and find themselves in an impossible conflict between Ice Warriors... and Victorian soldiers. As the Martian hive awakes around them, the Doctor faces a unique dilemma - this time the humans, not the Ice Warriors are the invaders. When Earth is invading Mars, whose side is he on? 10 - The Eaters of Light (Written by Rona Munro and Directed by Charles Palmer) "Now you have a choice. You can all keep on slaughtering each other till there's no one left standing, or you can grow the hell up!" A long time ago, the Roman legion of the ninth vanished into the mists of Scotland. Bill has a theory about what happened, and the Doctor has a time machine. But when they arrive in ancient Aberdeenshire, what they find is a far greater threat than any army. In a cairn, on a hillside, is a doorway leading to the end of the world. 11 - World Enough and Time (Written by Steven Moffat and Directed by Rachel Talalay; Guest Star: Michelle Gomez) "My name's Doctor Who." Friendship drives the Doctor into the rashest decision of his life. Trapped on a giant spaceship, caught in the event horizon of a black hole, he witnesses the death of someone he is pledged to protect. Is there any way he can redeem his mistake? Are events already out of control? For once, time is the Time Lord's enemy... 12 - The Doctor Falls (Written by Steven Moffat and Directed by Rachel Talalay; Guest Star: Michelle Gomez) "Without hope, without witness, without reward." The Mondasian Cybermen are on the rise. It's time for the Doctor's final battle...

[preserving-ferretbrain]

Great Social And Political Import

by Viorica

Wednesday, 02 December 2009

Viorica does the time warp~

There's a very insightful Supernatural fanvideo called Women's Work, about the way the show handles female characters, set to Courtney Love's song "Violet" I mention this not because this article has anything to do with Supernatural or female characters, but because the vid very accurately sums up my current state of mind: I watched this, and now that I've seen it, I don't want it anymore.

For some background on what it is I'm about to rant about, I should probably explain Phase II Created in 2003 by a group of self-avowed Trekkies, the series is based on Star Trek: The Original Series, and picks up where TOS left off. The series is notable for the high production value, and the fact that they have several ST alum helping them out, including Eugene Roddenberry, Denise Crosby, and David Gerrold. The latter contributed an episode that he'd originally written for TNG, but was rejected due to the fact that it contained an openly gay couple and an allegory for the AIDS epidemic. Gerrold retooled his script to fit the TOS characters, and "Blood and Fire" was finally released to the public. So far, so good. I mean, I have to wonder how well-characterized the original script was if he could just adjust things to have it fit TOS, but the dialogue is well-written, and the characters well-realized. The gay couple in question (Kirk's nephew Peter and his boyfriend Alex) are genuinely sweet together, and their relationship doesn't feel forced or cliched. There aren't any stereotypes present- neither of them are especially effeminate or hysterical (well, in the first half anyway) and the other characters never lift an eyebrow at the idea of a gay couple. But then in the second part of the episode, it all comes crashing down.

The episode's main plot circles around the discovery of an abandoned ship, and the horrifying realization that it's infested with "bloodworms-" parasites that feed on human flesh, and are capable of destroying entire civilizations. Peter and Alex are on the away team sent to find out what happened to the ship's crew, and after the discovery that the ship is infested, Starfleet orders that it be blown up, along with everyone who's potentially been exposed. "Okay," I think, "this could be interesting. Kirk wrestles with obeying orders versus his concern for his nephew (and Spock, who's also on the away team) and has to decide whether the potential risk posed by saving the away team outweights the slaughter of anyone unfortunate enough to be on the ship . . ."

. . . or they could just blow over that, and save everyone, except for Alex, who is forced to committ suicide rather than be munched on by bloodworms. Three guesses as to which option the writer took, and the first two don't count.

So after Alex dies, Peter volunteers to go and blow the ship up himself, because he wants to die (because you know how HYSTERICAL them gays are!) only then they find out that the infested ship's original crew was carrying bloodworms because they wanted to committ genocide against the Klingons. Captain Kirk lectures everyone on the dangers of hatred, and they steer the ship into a solar flare, roasting the bloodworms. Oh, and a bunch of sparkly space butterflies symbolize Alex passing into the afterlife or some shit like that. The end!

There is so much wrong with this, I don't even know where to start.

The Times, They Are A-Changing

Back when this script was originally written, the socio-political climate was light years away from what it is now. For one thing, there were virtually no gay characters on television, let alone ones in committed relationships. To show such a couple tragically ripped apart by AIDS- excuse me, bloodworms- would have made a huge difference in the way TNG's viewers would have looked at the AIDS epedemic. Instead of filthy perverts who brought their deaths on themsevles by being mindlessly promiscuous, they'd see two young men (who are so sweet and wholesome, it

hurts

- they bonded over being study partners, for Christ's sake) being ripped apart by something that neither of them could control. Sure it's a flawed allegory, but it was a message that needed to be sent. And even if they did kill one of the gay characters, there was still one left to remind the audience that gays were, in fact, people.

But that was then, and this is 2009. The climate is vastly different then it was in 1989, with different issues that need to be addressed. While AIDS still exists, it doesn't loom as large as it did in the eighties, and most people don't need to be told how awful it is. The problem now isn't a dearth of gay characters, it's the fact that they're rarely allowed to have successful happy relationships. We all know it's hard to be gay, but could someone

please

give us at least one happy couple? Please? I'm running out of hope here.

And although I'm sure the writers/producers would be shocked! shocked, I tell you! at my casting aspersions on their motives for getting rid of Alex, I'm going to do it anyway. With him gone, they never ever have to address Peter's sexuality again. Think about it: giving him another love interest would look callous right after his fiancee died, and if they aren't going to give him another love interest, they never have to mention his gayness again! He'll become functionally asexual, just like

Dumbledore

. [

Edit:

As a reader pointed out, "invisible" would be a better term.] They get all the kudos for having a gay character, but they'll never have to address his affection for men. Or they could retcon it entirely by having him fall for a woman and say "Oh, he was bi! Didn't we mention that?" which would just make me want to break things. I'm just as desperate for bi characters as I am for gay characters, but for fuck's sake, stop using my orientation as an excuse to erase queer characters. We deserve better than that.

But that's just the worst-case scenario. The best is Peter having other relationships with men (which I just don't see being possible/plausible in the near future) or just not having any relationships at all. The latter option would certainly please the fanboys who howled in protest about the icky gay kissing in their bastion of heterosexuality and testosterone, but it wouldn't especially please me.

The Dead Gay Problem

Back when gay characters were first starting to emerge in the media, they could rarely expect a happy ending.

The Well of Loneliness

ends with Stephen begging God for the mere right to exist, while

Maurice

's main character and his lover are forced to shun society and live in the woods. This is presumably due to the fact that the books were written at a time when being publically gay was social (if not literal) suicide. The problem is, it hasn't gone away as things have progressed. At the end of

Lost and Delerious

, Paulie jumps off a roof;

RENT

has Angel dying of AIDS. Even when the writers can't tie the characters' deaths to their sexuality, they still manage to get rid of them.

Buffy

had Tara get shot;

Torchwood

booted Ianto in the third season by having him drop dead of an alien virus. It's like there's some sort of mass delusion that being gay/bi will immediately result in violent, unpleasant death. Is Jan Moir secretly running a media empire or something?

So with the Dead Gay Epidemic going on on network television, it's disappointing to see web-based media falling to the trend as well- especially when there's no reason for it. Alex's death does absolutely nothing to serve the plot. You could remove it, and the episode would make just as much sense,

and

be rid of a bunch of extraneous angst. Now it's entirely possible, even probable that Alex's death was in the original script, but massive edits have been done since. It wasn't outside the realm of possibility for someone to say "Hey, this is great, but killing Alex doesn't really carry the same meaning as it would have back in '89- how about letting him live?" Moreover, I have a hard time buying that no one realized that it was outright offensive. Unless of course, they were deliberately making sure that they wouldn't have a gay couple on the series by killing half of it off. Not only did they avoid having a recurring gay couple, but they dodged having to show them getting married (the horror, the horror.) See, Peter and Alex spend the first half of the episode planning to get married, and Peter asks his uncle to marry them right before they leave on the away mission. Now this feels a bit like pointing out the obvious, but if you want to stay politically relevant, wouldn's showing a gay couple get married accomplish that goal? I mean, it's not like people

all over America

are fighting for the right to have their union legally recognized. Nothing of the sort. Prop what?

Good fuckity god.

In conclusion, the people running

Phase II

fucked up. Badly. They had the opportunity to remain politically relevant and adhere to Gene Roddenberry's vision of a more equal future. Instead, they sent their show hurtling back to the eighties, when I wasn't even born. Which I suppose is a good thing, because I am never watching this show again.Themes:

TV & Movies

,

Sci-fi / Fantasy

,

Minority Warrior

~

bookmark this with - facebook - delicious - digg - stumbleupon - reddit

~Comments (

go to latest

)

Wardog

at 10:07 on 2009-12-02I am so intensely clueless about fandom. As we know, I'm a big Trek nerd, but I hadn't even heard of Phase II - heh, not that I'll be watching it now! Also thanks for the link to the *AMAZING* Women's Work. I've heard people talk about how political, illuminating and fascinating fanvids can be but I've always kind of just gone "whatever." This is officially my conversion. My tiny mind is blown!

The few times homosexuality has come up in Star Trek that I can recall, except for the fact the show itself doesn't *really* want to deal with it, it's been semi-well handled. I seem to remember there's a nice episode of DS9 when Jadzia meets and old Trill lover who is currently in the body of a female. They grapple with their love for most of the episode, but the main issue is always very much the fact that Trill aren't allow to resurrect relationships rather than the fact that they're both girlz now. Which I liked :)

permalink

-

go to top

http://bitterlittleman.livejournal.com/

at 11:22 on 2009-12-02In regards to Women's Work - I get the point it's making, and I see the problem, and recognise the video isn't just talking about supernatural etc etc.

But.

Ugh. I don't even know how to put this. One link summarises it as demonstrating the portrayal of women as "Evil, slutty or helpless" but this is true of almost every bit part character that the main characters meet. Why? Either they are the big bad - ie evil, or they are the victims - ie helpless. Slutty is a different problem (to do with target audiences etc), but temptation is part of the whole demon thing, right?

Plus, to make it's point, it ignores a lot of actual characters. (

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters_of_Supernatural)

There are women who are not evil, slutty, or helpless. There are guys who are...

Here I stop before I dig too deep a hole.

Basically, I think the video is extremely well put together, hits all the right buttons to get you worked up about certain issues. But in doing so it leaves out all evidence that doesn't agree, and that bugs the hell out of me.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 11:31 on 2009-12-02It's genuinely fascinating, I think, how something can go from "awesome message of tolerance" to "actually kinda skeevy" purely by putting it in a different cultural context.

Back when Star Trek TNG was big, just having openly gay characters on television was a Big Deal, which means the episode described would actually have been remarkably progressive for its time. Put it ten years later and suddenly it's yet another episode in which the token gay character gets killed off early.

On a side note, bisexuality on TV is always really tricky. There's this horrible trap that both writers and audiences seem to fall into off assuming that bisexuals "don't count". It always used to mildly annoy me that Buffy made such a big thing about Willow being Definitely Gay and Not Bisexual At All. There's this nasty perception out there that being bisexual is somehow cheating - which I rather expect is exascerbated by the fact that, as you observe, it very often *is* used as a way to retcon out previously gay characters.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 13:30 on 2009-12-02It's insanely depressing how many people just

don't get

bisexuality. I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a character on TV identified as bisexual who wasn't either a) genuinely confused, and settled on a "permanent" orientation once they met their Twue Wuv, or b) slutty slut slut sluts. Usually they are both.

I can't believe people are

still

buying into the idea that "monogamous bisexual" is a contradiction in terms.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 13:38 on 2009-12-02

Basically, I think the video is extremely well put together, hits all the right buttons to get you worked up about certain issues. But in doing so it leaves out all evidence that doesn't agree, and that bugs the hell out of me.

Well, it's very self-consciously a piece rhetoric - that is rather the nature of rhetoric, isn't it? To concentrate on the evidence that supports your central point.

Also I don't want to derail Viorica's very excellent article into a discussion of the portrayal of women in Supernatural BUT I think the issue is one of generalities not specifics in that the two central characters of Supernatural are men, so you're *always* going to have a very strong portrayal in the foregound to counter-balance all the slutty, helpess, evil men who show up as secondary characters. Equally you always have a very positive depiction of male-male bonding, again, to act as a counterweight to any unfortunate or destructive male relationships, like Dean's short-term friendship with the crazy rogue demon hunter guy.

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 15:51 on 2009-12-02'Jamie speculates wildly about reasons why things might be the case', part one:

It's like there's some sort of mass delusion that being gay/bi will immediately result in violent, unpleasant death. Is Jan Moir secretly running a media empire or something?

One can think of no end of possible reasons for this: conscious or unconscious desire to feature gay characters but not for so long that they have to be treated like, you know, real characters; the fact that a lot of media people are probably of such an age that the first time male homosexuality really obtruded on their picture of the world was when it was very strongly associated with AIDS; the conscious or unconscious belief that gay people are normally or necessarily deeply troubled (a belief no doubt

reinforced by the fact that a few of them are

- thanks to Sonia for reminding me of that comic). But it occurs to me that another contributing factor to the high death-rate among gay characters may be the persistently low visibility of middle-aged and older gay people in society. In other words, not only do writers have in their minds an association between homosexuality and early death (partly based on out-dated reality - AIDS in the '80s - and partly based on distortion by the news media - Jan Moir and such), but they also lack a counter-balancing store of real-life examples associating homosexuality with long life.

Of course it's all a bit of a vicious, er, whatever geometric form is more complicated and less symmetrical than a circle, because the low visibility of older gay people is largely caused by media distortion and by the habits they themselves have picked up from growing up and growing old in times (even) less tolerant than today. But it does underline why Ian McKellen is right to nag his contemporaries and fellow public figures to come out.

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 15:54 on 2009-12-02'Jamie speculates wildly about reasons why things might be the case', part two:

I can't believe people are still buying into the idea that "monogamous bisexual" is a contradiction in terms.

Now this one I think may be partly structural. The only ways for a work of fiction to dramatize the bisexuality of a character are (1) to put him or her through a series of monogamous relationships with people of both sexes; (2) to put him or her through a number of simultaneous or overlapping relationships with people of both sexes; (3) to have him or her demonstrate the desire or temptation to have sex with other specific people of both sexes; (4) to have him or her express attraction to other specific people of both sexes; (5) to have him or her (or another character or omniscient narrator) state his or her attraction to both sexes in general.

Perhaps you already see where I'm going with this. Options 5 and 4 are weak and smell of tokenism (it used to be, for example, one of my major difficulties with the generally charming

Questionable content

that although there was a respectable number of bisexual and gay characters they never actually did anything beyond mentioning their off-stage partners and hook-ups and occasionally claiming in a rather hypothetical way to be attracted to other characters of the same sex; I'm glad to say the last few months have remedied this to a great extent). Also option 4, if the character is already in a monogamous relationship, risks making him or her look like he or she has a roving eye and is therefore within sight, if not within spitting distance, of 'slutty slut slut' territory. Option 3, if the character is already in a monogamous relationship, can, unless handled very well, end up with the character looking confused about his or her sexuality and / or fickle and tending toward the slutty. Option 2 has to be handled very very very well to avoid landing in confused / slutty territory. And the trouble with option 1 is that, to make it clear that we aren't dealing with a case of confusion or conversion, you really need to give the character a series of at least three monogamous relationships with partners of alternating sex, and that means either making the relationships very short (which again risks ambling down the road to slutty) or dealing with an unusually long time-span for the average work of fiction (excluding soap operas that run forever).

None of which is to say that it can't be done or that it shouldn't be tried or that writers couldn't be doing a lot more than they are. But it's worth noting the pitfalls.

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 16:23 on 2009-12-02

It always used to mildly annoy me that Buffy made such a big thing about Willow being Definitely Gay and Not Bisexual At All.

Again, not to shift off the topic, but yes! Fifty times yes. This annoyed me so much. Here was an opportunity for a truly bisexual character (rather than retconning a previously gay/straight character), and they totally ignored it. I felt like poor Oz got so gyped. It was obvious that Willow was in love with and (key word) sexually attracted to Oz. She was the aggressor for the most part in their sexual relationship. Every time Willow had a line equivalent to "Eww, I don't like penises, remember?!" I always got majorly pissed off.

/rant

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 16:30 on 2009-12-02

Also option 4, if the character is already in a monogamous relationship, risks making him or her look like he or she has a roving eye and is therefore within sight, if not within spitting distance, of 'slutty slut slut' territory.

This surely depends whether you're defining "expressing attraction" as the person in question saying to themselves "hey, this person of a gender not of my partner's is making me doubt my commitment to my current relationship", or whether it's just them casually saying something along the lines of "I'd hit that" without any serious intent behind it to go out and, you know, hit that. There are plenty of relationships in which both partners are just fine with their other halves idly expressing attraction to others in a purely hypothetical way.

And what about option 6, depict them in a committed relationship during the course of the story but make references to a previous romantic history which, while in the past, is not denounced or regarded by the character as an aberration?

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 16:50 on 2009-12-02

It always used to mildly annoy me that Buffy made such a big thing about Willow being Definitely Gay and Not Bisexual At All.

At one point, Amber Benson commented that she was glad that Willow didn't "flip-flop" about her attraction to men versus women. I don't even know what to say to that.

Most shows featuring bisexual characters seem to take either option two or three, if they don't just retconn the character's sexuality altogether (Buffy, The L Word) The problem is, the audience will automatically assume that when a character is dating someone of one sex, they are only attracted to that sex- i.e. they've "settled down-" when when that's never stated in the show itself.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 17:02 on 2009-12-02

The problem is, the audience will automatically assume that when a character is dating someone of one sex, they are only attracted to that sex- i.e. they've "settled down-" when when that's never stated in the show itself.

Yes, but there's only a certain extent to which you can blame the audience for the depictions an author chooses to put forward. Surely, in fact, in this case there's a certain responsibility for writers to challenge the audience's assumptions?

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 17:04 on 2009-12-02

but I hadn't even heard of Phase II - heh, not that I'll be watching it now!

In fairness, I should say that the first part of the episode is really well done- part of my irritation stems from thinking "Yay, a well-done gay couple! I'm so happy!" and then getting smacked in the face with SURPRISE DEAD GAY! But I'd say that Part 1 is worth a look, if you ignore part two. (Both parts are on YouTube

here

and

here

if anyone wants to take a look.)

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 17:35 on 2009-12-02This conversation is making me think about bisexual characters on TV...and wonder you think of Angela on Bones? She's been shown in relationships with men, but also had a past significant girlfriend with whom she almost got together with again. She seems to me like an actual bisexual.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 18:20 on 2009-12-02A point that seems to have gone amiss:

I mean, I have to wonder how well-characterized the original script was if he could just adjust things to have it fit TOS, but the dialogue is well-written, and the characters well-realized.

I'm sure the original version was much different - Picard would have tried to negotiate with the bloodworms rather than shoving them into the Sun...

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 18:44 on 2009-12-02

This conversation is making me think about bisexual characters on TV...and wonder you think of Angela on Bones?

For me personally (though this may be just because I was not hugely into Bones), Angela kind of read like a straight women who had a sexy, wild side that included sometimes making out with girls. Granted, I never saw her when she was with this woman (maybe I missed that ep), but from what I remember, she primarily dates men. Having one girlfriend does not really say much for her being bisexual (to me, anyway). Others may disagree.

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 18:49 on 2009-12-02Part of the problem with bisexuals on TV is that it's hard to explain the Kinsey scale to audiences. Some bisexual people tilt more to one gender than the other, but not many people realize that. It sounds (though I haven't watched Bones) that Angela would fall about a two on the scale- romantically inclined more towards men, but still attracted to women. Of course, I could be missing in-show context.

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 19:05 on 2009-12-02I agree. I just feel with such a stigma attached to bisexuality, a show has to work harder to make it come off as actual bisexuality.

I guess as far as Angela goes, I just never really saw her be interested in women as fully as she was in men. Which, yeah, bisexuals can lean to one side or the other. But it didn't come off that way to me when I watched it. Even my mom thought it was reconning when she got engaged to (blanking on his name) Dirt Guy. For example, when the two guys were fighting over the delivery girl, and it turned out that she was actually into Angela, she didn't actually ask her out or anything as far as I remember. It was like, "oh, haha, she likes me not you". Angela seemed more surprised and flattered than actively interested.

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 19:22 on 2009-12-02But why

would

she be interested? Are straight/gay people interested in everyone who hits on them?

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 19:54 on 2009-12-02

Part of the problem with bisexuals on TV is that it's hard to explain the Kinsey scale to audiences.

Especially when the labels we use tend to make people think of discrete little boxes, like sexuality works along the same lines as D&D alignment.

Although now I think of that, I do get a sort of juvenile amusement from the idea of Paladins being obliged to be Lawful Gay.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 20:43 on 2009-12-02

Part of the problem with bisexuals on TV is that it's hard to explain the Kinsey scale to audiences.

To say nothing of the fact that this it's an incredibly reductionist and unhelpful way of looking at bisexuality. Obviously I can't speak for every other bisexual in the world but I think most of us experience regular fluctations in our attraction to members of either sex, dependent on who knows what. How on earth do you put that on TV? I can barely explain it anybody who isn't an actual bisexual. Main character is feeling moderately more straight today than she was yesterday!

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 20:55 on 2009-12-02Yes, that's the way it seems to be with Angela. 13 on House seemed to be shown having lots of anonymous sex with women, but then wound up in a relationship with a man.

Angela is basically a wild child who was mostly shown dating men--though I don't think she dated so many men, exactly. I thought of her because it seemed like when her ex-girlfriend was introduced she was introduced as an ex-girlfriend, meaning a serious relationship, rather than an experiment, for instance. She does seem to mostly be into guys, but I got the impression that this character was introduced as an important past relationship not particularly different because it was with a woman. She was more important than her first husband, for instance.

I still consider her as mostly leaning towards the het side, but it didn't really feel like a retcon when we were told she'd had a girlfriend.

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 21:00 on 2009-12-02

How on earth do you put that on TV?

Not easily, which is a shame, because it would probably be a great help to teenagers who are freaking out over "what the hell is going on with me?" without any real examples that say "yes, this is normal." I know it would have been a huge help when I was fifteen.

. . . what was the original article about, again?

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 22:17 on 2009-12-02

But why would she be interested? Are straight/gay people interested in everyone who hits on them?

Fair point. And it's annoying when shows/media act like anyone who is gay is attracted to anyone else who is gay because, yeah, they're not. So I understand that Angela might not be attracted to every girl she sees.

But I was just trying to pull an example out of the many examples. From the beginning, they indicated that she was interested in woman, but I don't remember her EVER really hitting on a woman in the seasons I watched. She commented that a girl was hot or cute or something once, but more as a recollection of what this woman looked like.

I didn't see her with her ex-gf - I couldn't put up with the show enough to watch that far. But when I think about her relationships, I remember Hodgens, her first husband/fling thing, and the guy she was involved with in New Mexico who died.

I guess it just felt to me like a bit of cop-out. It seemed like they wanted to have a hot, artsy bisexual woman without having to actually deal with it past her talking about having a past relationship with a woman or saying a woman is hot/pretty/sexy. This ex-girlfriend (I’ve just looked up) doesn’t show up until season 4 though she was referenced in season 3. It just seems like the writers were more inclined to write her in relationships with men despite having made it clear that she was bi. Why did they wait so long to actively show this part of her sexuality? Maybe other people read her character differently, but that's how I saw her.

permalink

-

go to top

http://baihehua.livejournal.com/

at 04:10 on 2009-12-03Having personal interest in the portrayal of the LGBT community, there are a couple points I would like to add.

I think bisexuality is, in some ways, more frightening than homosexuality to straight culture. An informed understanding of bisexuality denies the black-and-white, gay-and-straight mentality that can be easy for straight people to fall into. Being attracted to both sexes opens up the myriad possibilities of human sexuality in a way that neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality do. Because of that, it can be more threatening than homosexuality to the traditional straight mindset.

Because of this cultural context, like it or not, people need to be very careful portraying bisexuals in the media. I'm even going to make the claim that bisexuals in media should not be considered the same way as bisexuals in real life. In real life, bisexuals can be anywhere on the Kinsey scale. For example, I have a female friend who has never had a girlfriend and recently married a man, but considers herself bisexual because she is attracted to women as well as men. In real life, this is fine.

In media portrayals of bisexuals, however, this is not acceptable. In the media, a bisexual who only has experiences with the opposite sex might as well be straight. Similarly, a bisexual who only has experiences with the same sex might as well be gay.

The thing to remember is that media characters are not real people. Real people need no justification for their identities; characters do. If a character does not behave in accordance with their supposed identity, either the character's behavior or identity should change. Bisexual characters, therefore, should be portrayed as being attracted to both men and women, preferably in roughly equal proportions. That is not to say that bisexual characters need to be attracted to every person they encounter, or that they can't have long-term relationships. But bisexual characters should be just about as likely to have relationships with women as with men, and when they are flirting or looking for dates, they should look to both sexes.

Media people (directors, producers, authors, etc.) need to stop presenting characters that have mostly/entirely heterosexual experiences as bisexual. Bisexuality means being attracted to both sexes, and that needs to be better portrayed in the media.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 11:41 on 2009-12-03I think, as Baihehua says, we have to recognitise a distinction between real people and fictional people. I mean, in 'real life' we can self-define as anything we can damn please, and it underscores no issues of representation or portrayal.

Ultimately, it's all very well to stand here going "the media doesn't portray bisexuality" very well, which is self-evidently true and nets you immediate Minority Warrior points ... it doesn't actually *mean* anything. I mean, I think most people find the sexuality of other people somewhat alien, regardless of the genders involved.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 14:30 on 2009-12-03I think at the end of the day you have to make a distinction between fictional tropes which are simplifications of something broadly but not universally true, and tropes which perpetuate ideas which are actually harmful to people, and accept that you're going to get a lot of the former because writers

have

to simplify; you can't expect authors or scriptwriters to concoct perfect simulacra of real life - and also, human beings appear to

need

to come up with this sort of simplification in their heads to actually process real life in the first place, let alone fiction.

Which is probably why it probably isn't helpful to bring up the Kinsey scale in this context. Putting aside the fact that is itself an oversimplification based on dubious 1950s logic, the fact is that you just don't get people marching for Equal Rights For Four Point Twos.

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 03:02 on 2009-12-04

most people find the sexuality of other people somewhat alien

I don't really care about what other people think. I want to be represented because I'm sick of not having any characters to relate to. Which is why statements like this-

If a character does not behave in accordance with their supposed identity, either the character's behavior or identity should change. Bisexual characters, therefore, should be portrayed as being attracted to both men and women, preferably in roughly equal proportions.

Are

really fucking offensive

. If I read your statement right, you're implying that a bisexual character is not behaving like a bisexual unless they date both genders in equal measures, which as I've already mentioned is fallacious. Either that, or you're saying that bisexual characters should act in a way that doesn't challenge the paradigms of monosexual audiences. Either way, what the hell?

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 10:01 on 2009-12-04

I don't really care about what other people think. I want to be represented because I'm sick of not having any characters to relate to.

I agree with you that bisexuals are under-represented, I just merely meant to point out that it's very easy to lock yourself in "woe is me, I am so misunderstood and special" thinking, when sexuality, in itself, is a hellishly complex business. Quite frankly there's a part of me that cannot compute when someone is attracted to someone I am not, regardless of gender, and as far people who are only attracted to one sex ... yikes, how do they function within such limitations? =P

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 10:47 on 2009-12-04

If I read your statement right, you're implying that a bisexual character is not behaving like a bisexual unless they date both genders in equal measures, which as I've already mentioned is fallacious.

Not to put words into anybody's mouth, but I think what Baihehua was saying was that while in real life it's perfectly possible for somebody to be bisexual but still wind up having exclusively heterosexual (or homosexual) relationships, in fiction such a character would wind up looking extremely tokenistic.

To pick an example I think we're all comfortable with, in real life it's entirely possible to have an elderly gay man who had one tragic affair in his youth and hasn't been in a relationship since. It's entirely possible that you could spend seven years at school and never realise that your beloved headmaster was actually a homosexual. In a work of fiction, however, a "gay" character who never has a homosexual relationship is a major problem because it contributes to the idea that gay people are okay, so long as they don't actually act on their sexuality.

With bisexuality it gets a whole lot more complicated, because you've got a veritable minefield of stereotypes to dance around. It's particularly a problem with bisexual women, because it's extremely easy for their bisexuality to come across as something they put on for the benefit of men (a misconception not helped by the huge number of media outlets in which women are encouraged to do exactly that - Katy Perry has never kissed a girl in her life and probably wouldn't like it if she did).

I don't think numbers games are what matters here, so much as attraction to men and women being shown as equally *valid*. This ties back to Mellissa's comments about Angela in the first couple of series of Bones. The problem isn't that she doesn't routinely chase girls, the problem is that when she's attracted to men it's presented as something natural, sensible and meaningful, while when she's attracted to girls it's presented as something delightfully naughty and risque. Of course the fact that I didn't like Bones might be prejudicing me here.

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 13:41 on 2009-12-04

in real life it's entirely possible to have an elderly gay man who had one tragic affair in his youth and hasn't been in a relationship since.

You mean

Tim Gunn?

:-) Sorry, couldn't resist.

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 15:54 on 2009-12-04

I don't think numbers games are what matters here, so much as attraction to men and women being shown as equally *valid*. This ties back to Mellissa's comments about Angela in the first couple of series of Bones. The problem isn't that she doesn't routinely chase girls, the problem is that when she's attracted to men it's presented as something natural, sensible and meaningful, while when she's attracted to girls it's presented as something delightfully naughty and risque. Of course the fact that I didn't like Bones might be prejudicing me here.

Since I brought up Angela, I just wanted to say I agree with this--particular since she seems to be a character who has a lot of sex and they also continue to bring in male character with whom she has a relationship or an attraction but not characters who are women.

It was just that this one relationship that they introduced for her as something from her past that was briefly revived, it seemed like it actually was addressing the idea that it wasn't naughty or risque, but was an actual long-term relationship. I don't remember it well enough to defend how well it was done or not, but it did seem like it was introduced as an important relationship, someone she'd lived with iirc, that was presented as less naughty and more thoughtful than some of her male relationships for instance.

Another problem I'd say is that there tend to just be more male characters, period, and of the female ones the writers probably want to put them with male characters. For instance, I haven't watched House in a while, but I remember being told 13 was bisexual, and seeing her have a lot of anonymous sex with women when she was self-destructively dealing with being diagnosed with Huntington's. But then she got into a relationship with a male character on the show. So it's probably all too easy to read her relationships with women as having different value.

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 20:23 on 2009-12-04

Not to put words into anybody's mouth, but I think what Baihehua was saying was that while in real life it's perfectly possible for somebody to be bisexual but still wind up having exclusively heterosexual (or homosexual) relationships, in fiction such a character would wind up looking extremely tokenistic.

Not denying that there's a minefield of potential stereotypes that well-meaning writers can fall into (especially since that's part of why "Blood and Fire" fails) but as long as it's well-established, it dosn't have to be tokenistic. Alice on "The L Word" establishes very specfically that she's more romantically inclined towards women, but enjoys sex with both genders. It only took two lines to explain that. Now, The L Word gets a bit more leeway because it's populated entirely with lesbians, so Alice doesn't look as tokenistic as she would on a show populated largely with straight characters. But still she was a well-written bi character for a few seasons.

And (to get somewhat back on-topic) I don't have any problems with the idea of Peter or Alex being bi, since it's mentioned that they only ever dated each other ("There's never been anyone else for either of us") so it's entirely plausible. Or- considering that the show takes place hundreds on years into the future- it could be that people no longer label sexuality, so dating both genders requires no explanation. What worries me is the very real possibility that "bi, lol" will be used as an excuse to duck out of ever showing a gay relationship with an HEA.

permalink

-

go to top

http://baihehua.livejournal.com/

at 22:50 on 2009-12-04Sorry it's taken me so long to get back here. And thank you, Dan; that is basically what I was saying.

My point is that, no matter how much we may like and identify with fictional characters, they are not real people. Real people can identify and behave however they want and there's no problem. Fictional characters' identities, however, need to be justified. I think this is true for a lot of things, not just sexuality. For example, a character in the US who claims to be Democrat, yet always votes for Republican presidents and congressmen, exclusively watches Fox News, and who adores Newt Gingrich-- that's a problem. In real life, I don't think anyone can tell this person that he or she can't be Democrat (weird as that might seem). As a character's identity, however, there is no reason for this person to be Democrat. As evidenced by behavior, being Democrat is obviously not very important to the character. Therefore, there is no reason not to have this character be Republican (or at least moderate). Or, if the director or author wants to insist that the character is a Democrat, either revise the character's behavior or at least point out how incredibly hypocritical it is. The same goes for sexual orientation and a whole lot of other identity issues. If there is no basis from the character's behavior to make a claim about that character's identity, then the claim should not be made.

Now, I do grant that things are even more confusing with bisexuality because it is considered to be between hetero- and homosexuality. And I don't really care about exact numbers. Also, I grant that there is less of a problem if a bi character is generally more attracted to the same sex than if he/she is generally more attracted to the opposite sex. But if a bi character only exhibits attraction to one sex (note: that's "exhibits", not "claims"), I think the director or author should rethink his/her decision to make this character bi. Or revise the character's behavior.

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 00:13 on 2009-12-05. . . you lost me. A character's sexuality = their political affiliation? What?

permalink

-

go to top

http://baihehua.livejournal.com/

at 00:35 on 2009-12-05No, a character's political affiliation does not equal his/her sexual orientation. Not at all.

But they are both elements of a character's (or a real-life person's) identity. Identity is made up of many facets, including race, sex, nationality, sexual orientation, political affiliation, religion, etc. I was simply using an analogous example to (hopefully) make my point more clearly.

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 00:37 on 2009-12-05I think she was more making the point that a fictional character identified as something is slightly different than a real world person who is that something.

So for instance, in real life bisexuals can be any number of different ways, but when a character is identified as bisexual on TV we're going to judge how well s/he lives up to that idea, or what the fiction seems to be saying about bisexuals through how they show this character.

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 00:54 on 2009-12-05Crikey, this thread's a fair bit longer than when I last saw it! Jolly interesting, too, but I'm only going to reply to Arthur's comments on what I said:

This surely depends whether you're defining "expressing attraction" as the person in question saying to themselves "hey, this person of a gender not of my partner's is making me doubt my commitment to my current relationship", or whether it's just them casually saying something along the lines of "I'd hit that" without any serious intent behind it to go out and, you know, hit that. There are plenty of relationships in which both partners are just fine with their other halves idly expressing attraction to others in a purely hypothetical way.

I was hoping someone would pick me up on that because it's something I sort of wanted to cover in the original comment but left out to avoid wandering too far from the point. You're of course absolutely right, and I think the trouble here comes from a separate bias that's prevalent in fiction but isn't specifically to do with sexual orientation, though it has this disproportionate effect we've encountered here: it's very rare in fiction to get (and I quote because I can't say it better myself) 'relationships in which both partners are just fine with their other halves idly expressing attraction to others in a purely hypothetical way'. I suppose in origin this has something to do with the general assumption that every fairly unimportant that happens in a work of fiction should point towards something more important going on beneath or likely to go on in the future or possibly having gone on in the past: thus writers perhaps fear that

an idle expression of attraction in act one necessitates some sort of infidelity in act two

. Which is wrong because it assumes a far too straightforward connexion between finding someone attractive and actually having sex with that person, but one can sort of see why the idea might arise. So that's another thing for writers to work on, separately from (but related to) writing convincing bisexual characters.

And what about option 6, depict them in a committed relationship during the course of the story but make references to a previous romantic history which, while in the past, is not denounced or regarded by the character as an aberration?

That's a very good option that I hadn't thought of at all, which is probably why I shouldn't write stuff. :) Of course it's still a little bit at the less powerful end of the show / tell spectrum, but still it would be a dashed good start.

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 02:15 on 2009-12-05

but when a character is identified as bisexual on TV we're going to judge how well s/he lives up to that idea

And unless we adjust portrayals of bisexuality to reflect the real-life variations, that idea is going to remain flawed. Which is why saying "bisexuals characters must date both genders in equal measures" is only allowing the misconceptions to be reinforced.

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 03:11 on 2009-12-05I think the issue boils down more to validity than numbers, as Dan mentioned.

I don't think numbers games are what matters here, so much as attraction to men and women being shown as equally *valid*.

It's not that the bisexual characters can't slide to one side or the other of the Kinsey scale (to use a phrase we're all familiar with), but when bisexual characters are shown on televisions, there's a tendency to portray how they interact sexually with each gender in a different way. And this also leads in to the issue of how we interpret the behavior of characters on TV differently than we would in real life.

Just to give an example, in real life, it would be perfectly fine for a bisexual woman to follow a trend of having flings with women and serious relationships with men. But if this was a character on a TV show, people would infer from this behavior that the writers feel that relationships between men and women are more valid than relationships between two women. I think this is where it gets tricky.

And (please correct me if I'm wrong) I think that's why Baihehua suggested they show them being attracted to both sexes in equal proportions. Not because she feels that we need to cater to the mainstream monosexual audience, but because if there is a somewhat 50/50 ratio, we have more relationships with each sex to judge and would be better able to see how this character treats her relationships with both men and women entirely in the same light. It would be more obvious that this person falls for/is attracted to people regardless of gender (in the sense of not being limited to attraction by gender). Which I think would really help to battle certain stereotypes surrounding the bisexual community.

If I'm completely misunderstanding something, please let me know.

permalink

-

go to top

http://baihehua.livejournal.com/

at 04:41 on 2009-12-05Viorica,

I'm not trying to discredit what you're saying, and I think that adjusting portrayals of bisexuality to reflect real-life variations is a wonderful ideal.

However, I don't think it's manageable in a media setting. The media relies on simplifications all the time. If the media is not able to say "bisexual", "Jewish", "Democrat", etc. and have its audience understand what it means by these labels, then the media will never have the time to tell its stories--it will be too busy defining what these terms mean for each individual character. So, while these simplifications can be harmful in real life, they are often helpful in the media, if simply so the media can perform its function (to tell stories/to entertain).

From what I know of bisexuality, the basic concept is being sexually attracted to members of both sexes. Since the media is unable to present the entire spectrum of human sexuality (because it varies with every single person), it is this basic concept that should be consistently portrayed.

I understand it can be frustrating how the media interprets or presents your identity, but I don't think we can expect it to fully encompass all variations of humanity.

permalink

-

go to top

http://baihehua.livejournal.com/

at 05:05 on 2009-12-05Oh, and Melissa, you're not wrong. That is essentially why I was advocating for equal representation of relationships with men and with women (though you did extrapolate my original statements slightly). Thanks for the comment!

permalink

-

go to top

Andrew Currall

at 16:21 on 2009-12-06I don't think I agree at all that it is unreasonable for a work of fiction to establish that a character is bisexual and never actually "confirm" that (i.e. by showing the character in a relationship with, or at least attracted to, individuals of both sexes). Would anyone, for example, object to it being established (through dialogue) that a character, say, disliked potatoes, and this never being referred to or made important again? The only real difference between this and, say, bisexuality, as character traits, is that bisexuality is somehow considered "important", whereas a dislike of potatoes wouldn't be. But I think a situation in which sexuality is considered an unimportant and largely incidental trait is precisely the situation one should aim for.

I would concede that if a work stated that a character was bisexual but never showed them in any relationships with their own sex, one could reasonably say that it couldn't really claim brownie points for featuring non-heterosexual characters, but provided the revealing of their sexuality is natural (i.e. not clearly there for the sole purpose of creating a bisexual character), I'd have no problem with it.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 09:37 on 2009-12-07

But I think a situation in which sexuality is considered an unimportant and largely incidental trait is precisely the situation one should aim for.

Well, I suppose this leads to a larger, even messier can of worms regarding whether you consider sexuality as connected to who you are or what you do... I think the problem with portraying minority groups (Minority Warrior!) is that as soon as you start arguing that it *shouldn't* matter if someone is gay, or a woman, or black, and that ideally it's equivalent to disliking potatoes, then you're merely giving excuses for it to be badly handled or ignored.

I had a tangential thought about this whole business actually - and I wonder if the difficulty might not lie so much with the depiction of bisexuality but with the depiction of relationships. The problem is that characters, like people, may have more than one relationship over the course of a text, especially if it's a long running series. And unless you're specifically going for "this is an unhealthy relationship", then it's very difficult to give both (or however many relationships they have) equal validity.

And truthfully I don't think we do that in real life either - we look back over our past relationships and go "oh, it wasn't love, it didn't count" (at least we do once we get over them) and our current relationship and think "yes, this is it, this is the real thing."

In fiction it's even worse - in order to make a romantic relationship convicing you have to pretty jettison everything that went before it. Which means that if you do have a bisexuality character, I reckon you can't win. Because if you set them up with a person of the same sex and then with a person of the opposite sex, the implicit (although *unintended* message) will be "lol, they were really straight all along" (because this is their twu wuv) and if you do it the other way round you'll be stuck with "lol, they were really gay all along (because this is their twu wuv).

permalink

-

go to top

Andrew Currall

at 18:20 on 2009-12-07

as you start arguing that it *shouldn't* matter if someone is gay, or a woman, or black, and that ideally it's equivalent to disliking potatoes, then you're merely giving excuses for it to be badly handled or ignored.

Mmm, yes, I can see that. It's all rather difficult.

I think perhaps part of the problem is that it's difficult to judge whether a work of fiction is representing any group in an unreasonable way (or simply underrepresenting it), because a work of fiction will have relatively few characters and situations in it and one could easily argue each as in themselves reasonable. Women are vastly under-represented in fiction as a whole (i.e. the majority of characters, perhaps around 70%, are male), but it's difficult to accuse most specific works of under-representing women (Tolkein is an exception, being an extreme example), because it'll have only 5-10 major characters and you could put it down to random chance or come up with a plausible reason why the majority of characters in this particular work are male.

And this is far worse with sexuality, both because it isn't a 50/50 split in the first place (so one wouldn't want to argue that half of all characters should be homo- or bi-sexual), and because a character's sexuality isn't necessarily evident (whereas their sex generally is).

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 19:55 on 2009-12-07The problem with "it shouldn't matter" arguments is that it skates dangerously close to "I don't see you as black/gay/female" which is basically a way for people who aren't minorities to avoid thinking about their own prejudices.

permalink

-

go to top

http://roisindubh211.livejournal.com/

at 02:15 on 2009-12-08

In fiction it's even worse - in order to make a romantic relationship convicing you have to pretty jettison everything that went before it. Which means that if you do have a bisexuality character, I reckon you can't win. Because if you set them up with a person of the same sex and then with a person of the opposite sex, the implicit (although *unintended* message) will be "lol, they were really straight all along" (because this is their twu wuv) and if you do it the other way round you'll be stuck with "lol, they were really gay all along (because this is their twu wuv).

I automatically agreed with this statement, but I wonder if this is just because its what we're used to seeing. For example, in Friends, (apologies to anyone who doesn't watch this, I'm sure a better example will come to mind) Monica has a longstanding relationship with Richard, then they break up because she wants kids and he doesn't. Later on, she gets together with, and eventually marries, Chandler. There is never any "oh, he wasn't that great" about Richard, its just accepted that there was too big of a problem to work around, and Monica does occasionally have to reassure Chandler that she loves him and is over Richard, etc.

I think if either of the men was made a female character, you could quite conceivably play it that way and have the same kind of break up and moving on without invalidating the previous relationship. I really think the biggest problem with trying to portray bisexuality in fiction is usually that people will go "Wait, so she's straight now?" instead of "oh my god they are such a cute couple/so annoying/etc," as you normally do to a new couple on a soap or sitcom.

That and, of course, things like the *wonderful* reaction of the Sex and the City girls when one of Carrie's boyfriends tells her he has had a boyfriend or two in the past. She freaks out and can't understand why he doesn't "just make up his mind". It was a horrible response to a character who is, very maturely, saying "look, this is my sexual history, I've been tested x months ago, I want you to know so you don't have to worry." That was so frigging offensive it shocked me. (Though why I don't know. It's not as if they put any real thought into how they depict women or gay men.)

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 01:07 on 2009-12-09

Well, I suppose this leads to a larger, even messier can of worms...

Mmm, worms.

Just out of interest, and possibly for the sake of looking at it from a new angle, can anyone think of any bisexual characters / relationships in fiction that have been well handled?

permalink

-

go to top

http://baihehua.livejournal.com/

at 20:31 on 2009-12-09Unless a relationship involves at least three people, I don't see how the relationship *itself* can be bisexual. ;-)

Characters... I think everyone has a different definition of "well handled". Among characters I think are reasonably well handled, I can name a couple that, while they are not explicitly stated to be bisexual, can easily be seen as bisexual or gender-blind.

*Rachel, from Imagine Me & You. She never names her sexuality and even explicitly refuses to label herself. She has had a long-term sexual and romantic relationship with a man before meeting the woman she falls for. Also, the reason given for her leaving her husband is not because she is not attracted to him, but because she "went crazy. [She] went crazy for someone and it wasn't [her husband]".

*Sita and Radha, from Fire (by Deepa Mehta). Again, these women do not label themselves. They are attracted to each other and begin a physical, as well as emotional, relationship, but there is nothing to indicate that either woman would be adverse to a relationship with a man. While they have not found what they need in their heterosexual marriages, this is portrayed as due to the unique circumstances they have with their husbands, not as a dislike of men in general.

I'm sure there are other examples out there, but I can't think of any right now.

permalink

-

go to top

Rami

at 22:54 on 2009-12-09

Sita and Radha, from Fire (by Deepa Mehta)

That's an interesting pair of character names, especially if they're in a relationship. I'm going to have to read that book...

permalink

-

go to top

http://baihehua.livejournal.com/

at 02:40 on 2009-12-10It's a movie, actually (1996). I included the director because it's not a movie most people are familiar with. It's set in India (so those are Indian names), but they speak in English. Deepa Mehta has said in interviews that she chose to film in English because it is such a common language in India that she felt it would be more true to life to film in English than to film in Hindi or another language.

You should definitely look into it, though. I think it's a great movie. If you're interested, Deepa Mehta also has two later films out, "Earth" and "Water", that address different social problems in India. They're all excellent.

permalink

-

go to top

http://miss-morland.livejournal.com/

at 13:19 on 2009-12-10

can anyone think of any bisexual characters / relationships in fiction that have been well handled?

I haven't watched

Torchwood

, but from what I've heard, Captain Jack Harkness is a rather well-done bisexual character.

(Very interesting discussion, by the way!)

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 14:22 on 2009-12-10

I haven't watched Torchwood, but from what I've heard, Captain Jack Harkness is a rather well-done bisexual character.

I have watched Torchwood, and Captain Jack was one of the first people who came to my head when I thought about bisexual characters. I really do read him as someone who just hits on anything that moves. I suppose people could argue about whether this is a positive or negative portrayal of a bisexual. But he definitely doesn't discriminate based on gender, and that's pretty clear.

In fact, I'm pretty sure the creator of the new Doctor Who and Torchwood is of the impression that by the time we get to Jack's time period (51st century), everyone will be "omnisexual" (his term, not mine) meaning that we won't discriminate on gender, race, or even species. And that idea is evident in both Jack and John, an ex-beau of Jack's who comes in the second season of Torchwood.

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 14:47 on 2009-12-10I wondered about Captain Jack too, but I've only seen him a few times in

Doctor Who

and never watched

Torchwood

(which hasn't been on the iPlayer since I discovered, to my surprise, that

Doctor Who

was rather fun). From what I've seen he came across pretty well. The Doctor's reactions give the impression that Jack's extreme flirtiness is just a thing about him as an individual rather than something related to his sexuality, and it's so light-hearted and superficial that it doesn't seem to imply any tendency toward being unfaithful if he were actually in a relationship.

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 18:37 on 2009-12-10

The Doctor's reactions give the impression that Jack's extreme flirtiness is just a thing about him as an individual rather than something related to his sexuality,

Yes, that's how I viewed it too. It wasn't Jack is a bisexual SO he's flirty. It was just that Jack, as a person, is flirty.

it doesn't seem to imply any tendency toward being unfaithful if he were actually in a relationship.

It got a bit trickier in Torchwood b/c it was a more adult show. But while he was in a relationship with Ianto, he never cheated on him despite having sexually charged moments with other characters. But you were left wondering how serious he was about Ianto, but I chalked it up to Jack being a bit of a commit-a-phobe rather than anything to do with his sexuality.

Torchwood is interesting because every character on the show has had a bisexual moment. Owen had a "devil's threesome", Tosh despite being straight had a relationship with an alien chick for an episode, Gwen had a french kiss with a girl (albeit a super pheromone induced thing out of Gwen's control), and Ianto had a girlfriend before shacking up with Jack.

Oh...uh, spoilers? Sorry.

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 18:57 on 2009-12-10I'm iffy on Jack as a bisexual character. On the one hand, he obviously doesn't discriminate in regards to gender. On the other, he hits on everything that moves, and even when he was in a relationship, he wasn't exactly emotionally faithful.

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 22:11 on 2009-12-10

I'm iffy on Jack as a bisexual character.

Personally, I'm with you on that. That's why I wasn't going to bring him up, but I wanted to respond to miss-morland.

I guess it comes down to if you can separate Jack from his sexuality to the point where you know that his flaws as far as relationships go are not due to his sexuality, but due to him as a person. But obviously not everyone is going to be able to make that distinction, which leaves you with a rather, as you said, emotionally unfaithful bisexual character, which is not a great example.

permalink

-

go to top

Rami

at 22:13 on 2009-12-10

It's a movie, actually (1996). I included the director because it's not a movie most people are familiar with. It's set in India

Thanks for pointing it out -- I'll have to watch it (especially after reading about

the controversy

)! What actually interested me about the names Sita and Radha is the

mythological

, er,

connection

. Is Mehta preaching narcisissm ;-)?

permalink

-

go to top

http://miss-morland.livejournal.com/

at 19:15 on 2009-12-11

Ianto had a girlfriend before shacking up with Jack.

Well, now you've made me curious as to the portrayal of

Ianto's

bisexuality... (I really should watch that show!)

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 19:50 on 2009-12-11It's mentioned (shortly before they kill him off . . .) that Jack's the only guy he's ever been attracted to/dated. So it's less a matter of bisexuality as it is one of an ostensibly straight guy falling for a man once (and then dying.)

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 06:17 on 2009-12-12Also,

Biphobia: It's What's For Dinner

is a good breakdown of being bisexual erasure and the impact it has.

permalink

-

go to top

Robinson L

at 22:30 on 2009-12-15You know, I glanced through a collection of David Gerrold's works at my local library several months back, and one of items published was the original

Next Generation

script for “Blood and Fire.” I didn't read it, which I'm kind of regretting now, because I think it would be interesting to compare the original script to the

Phase II

episode.

Not that it would in any way detract from the epic fail. Gah.

Oh, and thanks for the "Biphobia" link, Viorica.

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 03:53 on 2009-12-16If it's still possible to get ahold of it, could you? I'm curious as well.

permalink

-

go to top

Robinson L

at 20:00 on 2009-12-18Sure thing, Viorica! The book in question is

Involuntary Human

. I warn you, however, that it may take me a while both to read the script, and watch the episode (my sound system still being KIA), so don't worry if I don't report back right away, I'm still working on it.

Interestingly enough, while I was browsing for “Involuntary Human” I discovered that David Gerrold published a book entitled

Blood and Fire

in either 2003 or 2004 (sources are conflicted on this point). According to the website linked above, it's the concluding volume of his “Star Wolf” trilogy, which I've never heard of before. I wonder how it may or may not fit in.

Kyra: Quite frankly there's a part of me that cannot compute when someone is attracted to someone I am not, regardless of gender, and as far people who are only attracted to one sex ... yikes, how do they function within such limitations? =P

Ha-ha, that reminds me of a story my philosophy professor once told me. Once, when questioned on his sexual orientation, James Dean reputedly quipped: “Let's just say I don't believe in going through life with one hand tied behind my back.”

permalink

-

go to top

Robinson L

at 15:00 on 2010-04-24As usual, it's taken me a hell of a lot longer than I expected to churn this sucker out, but here it is

my epic comparison of the Phase II episode versus Gerrold's original script

. Share and enjoy.

permalink

-

go to top

http://scipiosmith.livejournal.com/

at 18:22 on 2013-11-16

can anyone think of any bisexual characters / relationships in fiction that have been well handled?

Just necroing this thread after arriving here via Robinson's B5 comment to mention Bo from [i]Lost Girl[/i], who is definitely helped by the fact that the show is almost structured to support it.

Basically, for those of you who haven't watched (and you should because this is an awesome show) there are four main characters: Bo, a bisexual succubus, Dyson, a burly wolf-man cop, Lauren, a hot blonde doctor and Kenzi, the perky goth girl. There's also Trick, Bo's grandfather, but for obvious reasons he plays no role in the romance plotlines.

Bo sleeps with both Dyson and Lauren at different points in the first three seasons (while I wouldn't describe it as a YA show, there is a YA sensibility to its treatment of romance and none of the three participants in the love triangle stray outside of it for very long), depending on the various upheavals and betrayals of the plot, her emotional commitment to each of them is equally valid and equally strong even when their commitment to her is somewhat more doubtful. She also at least attempts to be monogamous with each of them during their periods together, even when maintaining her fidelity to Lauren causes her to almost die of internal bleeding. Meanwhile Bo's relationship with Kenzi is kept strictly platonic, despite being the most emotionally committed and faithful of all the show's inter-personal relationships, specifically to avoid the 'everything that moves' stereotype.

I'd be amazed if someone here didn't watch it considering it has a very strong female fanbase (I went to meet some of the stars at London Comic-con last month and I was astonished to see fourth fifths of the audience were women) but no one ever brings it up during discussions of shows with feminist-friendly sensibilities.

permalink

-

go to top

Robinson L

at 18:06 on 2013-11-18I watched the first two episodes of

Lost Girl

on Viorica's recommendation, but didn't watch any further because I found those two, well, mediocre and kind of dull. Certainly not bad, and I appreciate all the feminist/queer-friendly stuff, it just didn't suck me in on a narrative level.

permalink

-

go to top

http://scipiosmith.livejournal.com/

at 18:23 on 2013-11-18I've never actually watched the first episode, so I can't comment there, but I agree that it takes a few episodes to work up a head of steam. The first season steadily improves peaking at either episode six or eight, and subsequent seasons improve on the first in their own way (in particular the Nadia arc in season 2 is a very necessary corrective to Lauren's rather silly 'I sold my freedom for the chance to study the Fae' motivation in season one).

permalink

-

go to top

Cheriola

at 22:37 on 2013-11-20I was uncomfortable with "Lost Girl" because there was so little reflection about the fact that the main character's superpower was essentially date rape. She forces people who do not want to have sex with her for various reasons (at one point, it was a security guard who was trying to stop her, IIRC) to be irrestibly attracted to her through magic / special body chemistry, and then she sexually assaults them. I mean, you can make a story about that if you want, about how she has to do this to survive, but I would expect an non-villain character to be at least as conflicted about this as your standard woobie vampire. But no, as long as she doesn't kill her victims, it's apparently fair game.

I waited and waited for the show to do some character development in this regard, but then I rage-quit at the end of season 1, because when the main character's boyfriend was assaulted in the same way by her mother (also a succubus; and the boyfriend clearly didn't want to have sex with her), everyone on the show treated this as if he had been cheating. It was all about how horrible this was for the main character and how big it was of her to forgive him. At that point I realised that the writers of this show genuinely don't think it's rape as long as the rapist is a pretty woman.

permalink

-

go to top

Cheriola

at 01:46 on 2013-11-21Also, I know this is necro-ing and probably pointless, but it's a pet-peeve, so please forgive me:

I'm iffy on Jack as a bisexual character. On the one hand, he obviously doesn't discriminate in regards to gender. On the other, he hits on everything that moves, and even when he was in a relationship, he wasn't exactly emotionally faithful.

Wow, slut- and poly-shaming much? First off, the only time Jack was in anything approaching a committed relationship onscreen was during Torchwood season 2 and 3. Do we know he and Ianto had even made any promises of exclusiveness? It's not unusual for an unmarried gay couple to have an open relationship, you know. And even John Barrowman's real-life husband seems perfectly okay with his verbal flirting and chaste kissing. (Apparently they draw the line at french kissing, which Barrowman won't even do for the camera. At least that's what he told Matt Rippy (the 'real' Jack Harkness))

Now, I've given up on Torchwood after the first couple of episodes in the 2. season, so I don't know if Ianto was the jealous type once they got around to talking about their feelings and started having an actual relationship instead of casual office sex. But even if he was: You do realise that you're prioritising one partner's selfishness and possessiveness over the other partner's right to self-determination and you're judging Jack for emotions he can't help feeling, because he's not naturally monogamous and therefore being in love with one person doesn't automatically make him incapable of having romantic and/or sexual feelings for other people.

Yes, I said selfishness - jealousy means not wanting the person you supposedly love to be happy if it's with other people, and not wanting them to spend time and attention on other people, and acting like you have a right to make decisions over their body. It's a controlling impulse born of emotional insecurity (having so little self-worth that you can't trust your partner to enjoy someone else's company and still come back to you) and cultural entitlement. Patriarchal values meant for most of human civilisation that the man owned his wife's sexuality, reproductive capacity and time/attention (love was very much optional until about 200 years ago). And the wife was economically dependent on her husband, so she suffered when he left her or fathered a child with someone else. Though the wife having any moral right to expect her husband to be sexually exclusive is actually a fairly recent cultural development. And since our culture's romantic scripts are still overwhelmingly heteronormative, LGB people sometimes have the same entitlement issues even though it makes little rational sense for them. Plus, lots of people are very insecure and selfish like little kids when it comes to romance, because everything about the way our society teaches teenagers how romance works encourages this kind of behaviour. Just look at YA literature and the ubiquious love triangle. It's all about "You MUST decide between them" and no-one ever asks "Why? Why do I have to suffer losing one positive relationship in my life just because you two can't play nice together?" And almost every show and movie out there acts like jealousy is a cute 'proof of love' and a natural reaction for everyone, and that it's always justified and not at all immature or emotionally abusive, even if it leads the jealous partner to spy on their lover or try to sabotage their opposite gender friendships, good relationships with ex-spouses, or work partnerships. (I was really surprised when the main character of "Defiance" was perfectly willing to accept that his sort-of girlfriend was a sex worker and wasn't going to stop working just because she started a relationship with him. The show even briefly featured a poly married triad in one episode, as a socially accepted option in this fictional world. Though one of the main characters still got rather judgemental about it and the whole thing turned out to be a marriage of convenience situation between one evil woman and two young pretty 'trophy husbands' in need of a meal ticket and possibly more into each other than into her.)

Obviously, cheating by going behind the primary partner's back is extremely unethical, because it endagers your partner's health and life through possible disease transmission. It should be their decision whether or not they consider the outside partner too much of a health risk to continue the primary relationship. And partners who are economically linked (for example through children) have a right to say "I'm not cool with you sleeping with that other person if there's any possibility of another mouth to feed resulting from it."

But no-one, ever, has the right to forbid their partner to have feelings for or spend time with other people - and the attempt to repress these feelings doesn't work anyway, it just leads to resentment.

In this case, if Ianto is insecure enough to require Jack to be exclusive in the later seasons, Jack is clearly indulging him and refraining from having sexual relationships with other people, just like he presumably bowed to poly-phobic social norms when he agreed to say marriage vows sometime during the early 20th century. But you can't expect him to supress who he is - somebody who communicates through flirting due to having been raised in a different culture, and somebody who falls in love / lust easily or just enjoys the banter very much.

Besides, why would you want to burden Ianto with having to fulfil ALL of Jack's physical and emotional needs? In season 1, it certainly seemed like Jack had a much easier time emotionally opening up to and trusting women (Gwen and Tosh) - no wonder, given the masculinity requirements in our culture (i.e. men having trouble offering or responding to emotional intimacy because it's seen as 'girly'); and the fact that Ianto had kept his entire identity a secret and betrayed Jack twice, before they even started officially dating.

If you're naturally monogamous and lose all interest in other people once you fall in love - great! Go for your 'one and done' relationship (hopefully with another monogamous person)! But don't try to force your perspective on life on those who are naturally polyamorous. And do not presume to judge and shame them just because the dominant culture privileges your kind.

And by the way, Jack does not hit on "everything that moves". He seems pretty limited to young and pretty cis men and women and a few, mostly humanoid aliens. He did not appreciate Donna hitting on him, IIRC. In fact, on Torchwood, he's probably the character who sees the least actual action, and he's had remarkably few mentioned lovers for someone with such a long life. (Compared to, say, the "Highlander" immortals. Or the "New Amsterdam" guy and his 609 girlfriends/wives and 63 kids in 400 years.) And just because he happily flirts with a lot of people doesn't mean he actually wants to take them to bed, as well. The show even makes the point that for Jack, flirting is like small-talk.

Yes, I know bisexual people consider the 'promiscuous' bisexual character a negative stereotype. Honestly, that seems like slut-shaming to me. There's nothing inherently negative about promiscuity if it's done ethically, and Jack is the embodiment of the Ethical Slut trope. He never cheats, and his flirting, at least as far as I've seen, is usually refreshingly easy-going, non-harassing and doesn't ping as creepy. (As long as he's not being written by Moffat, though Barrowman did his best to save Jack from character assassination even then.)

Also, I can think of over a dozen bisexual characters of varying degrees of monogamousness on just my favourite 5 or 6 shows, even if most of them are just token bisexual and really lean more gay or hetero in the depicted relationships. But I can think of no positive (i.e. not evil) polyamourous characters in mainstream fiction besides Jack Harkness (and maybe the Doctor). So can you give the more marginalised group this one, please?

(... This got to be a rather longer rant than I initially expected. Sorry. I'm insomniac again.)

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 09:18 on 2013-11-21I agree with a lot of your points, Cheriola, but I think it is a slight oversimplification to ascribe the idea that the "promiscuous bisexual" stereotype is negative exclusively to slut-shaming. I mean, the concept does relate to slut-shaming of bisexuals, that's definitely a factor, but I think it is also born in the bizarrely common misconception that bisexuals *can't* be monogamous - that because they can potentially sleep with both men and women, they can't ever be satisfied with just one.

Of course, there's room to discuss whether or not Torchwood makes room for monogamous bisexuals or whether it falls into the "bisexuality is a type of poly" trap, having not seen it I don't know whether it also features happily monogamous bisexual characters. But I don't think objecting to a well-established stereotype of promiscuity means that those who are objecting to that stereotype are themselves engaged in slut-shaming.

permalink

-

go to top

Janne Kirjasniemi

at 15:15 on 2013-11-21Also, it might be worthwhile to point out, that while polyamorous people no doubt suffer from prejudice, saying that someone refusing to engage in a polyamorous relationship can surely be something else than jealousy or just selfishness, or maybe such jealousness is not purely a result of prejudice. If polyamorousness is a matter of how a person is, then monoamorousness is too and if such people seek a relationship together, the matter needs to be resolved by the people in question, without either of them having the option to just condemn the others feelings on the matter as selfishness(since a person's needs are selfish anyways, no matter their sexual preferences) and demand them to submit to the others wants. I mean, isn't that the whole problem with shaming, just from another point of view? People seek different things from relationships and if either party has to deny themselves something they want to appease the other then surely that is a problem in itself? Of course compromises need to be made and people will no doubt keep making them, but if polyamorous people have a right to their feelings, then surely so do those with different feelings on the matter. And while systematic abuses or restrictions to people need to be stopped(or removed), regular people will need to come to terms with each other and their various needs and wants.

It is strange though that polyamorousness as such is seen as a binary matter. Like most forms of human sexuality wouldn't it be more like a fluctuating scale? But in any case, perhaps the situation is not improved by just turning the tables but rather more acceptance of our own and other's feelings.

This whole thing about whether bi is poly and whatnot does illuminate the problem of trying to categorize human sexuality into neat categories, when actually the names we use are always just vague groupings of similar seeming behaviour. Which is not really surprising when most of the terms used in the discussion were originally popularized as medicalized terms for sexual deviancy and the neologisms always try their best to sound like the old terms, implicitly validating the existence of these clear distinctions even if the discussion itself seeks to be different. But that is a different matter altogether.

permalink

-

go to top

Daniel F

at 02:17 on 2013-11-22Feel free to call me out here, but I can't help but understand it as inherently problematic to set about categorising people into those who are 'naturally polyamorous' and those who are 'naturally monogamous'. Not only am I pretty sure that people are more complicated than that, part of my understanding of what it is to be in a relationship is to have to make some effort.

That is, to me, there is a difference between affirming that it is natural and healthy to have any number of sexual instincts, and affirming that it is equally healthy to give expression to any or all of them. It seems intuitive, to me, that a person in a monogamous relationship, who consciously wishes to be monogamous, might occasionally feel a desire to sleep with a third party; but that this person also has some moral obligation to refuse that desire. I don't think it's shaming, necessarily, to say that sometimes people have sexual desires that they should not express.

I can't help but be suspicious of a line of argument that starts by distinguishing between 'them' and 'your kind'. Whatever tendencies exist are surely - as Janne points out - much vaguer than that?

I'd also dispute the idea of monogamy as selfish. The problem there seems like mismatched expectations, rather. Surely it is also - in a sense - selfish for a person to engage in multiple concurrent relationships despite knowing that this will cause their partner(s) pain. The distinction drawn seems to be about whether a person can have a right over someone else's body, but - to me, personally - I can't help but think that giving someone else a claim on your body is, um, part of

what it means

to be in a relationship. When it comes down to it, if one person feels that monogamy and some sort of mutual possession of each other's bodies is essential to a relationship, and if another person feels that it is morally wrong to ever make a claim on someone else's body... those two people probably should not be in a relationship.

And as far as bisexuality and stereotypes go, it seems to me that it is a legitimate complaint if bisexuality is universally associated with promiscuity. If I were bisexual, I can imagine being very irritated by it.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 16:24 on 2013-11-24

I'd also dispute the idea of monogamy as selfish. The problem there seems like mismatched expectations, rather. Surely it is also - in a sense - selfish for a person to engage in multiple concurrent relationships despite knowing that this will cause their partner(s) pain.

I very much agree with this. The idea that expecting your partner to respect the parameters of your relationship is somehow "selfish" is one I find more than a little offensive.

My former (and in fact late) housemate spent some time in a polyamorous relationship that she did not want to be in, because her partner didn't want to stop having sex with other women. As far as I know this wasn't a particularly central part of his sexuality or sexual identity.

The whole situation caused her *immense* emotional distress (at a time in her life when she was also dealing with clinical depression and suicidal tendencies). Do you really want to tell me that *she* was the one who was behaving selfishly in that relationship?

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 16:49 on 2013-11-24I would also point out that you can frame monogamy so that it's not so much about claiming rights over someone else's body so much as asserting rights over your own. "I'm only going to give you access to my soft bits in the context of a monogamous relationship" is a perfectly reasonable stance to take, and saying that people who genuinely feel that way are misguided and should reconsider their preferences in favour of something more acceptable to you opens a whole

world

of ugly doors. If you're saying it's OK to challenge people for being monogamous, it becomes more difficult to turn around and say that it isn't OK to challenge other aspects of people's preferences.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 17:08 on 2013-11-24Sorry to double-reply, but I'm actually a little bit angry here. I'm also rather bothered by this:

Also, I can think of over a dozen bisexual characters of varying degrees of monogamousness on just my favourite 5 or 6 shows, even if most of them are just token bisexual and really lean more gay or hetero in the depicted relationships. But I can think of no positive (i.e. not evil) polyamourous characters in mainstream fiction besides Jack Harkness (and maybe the Doctor). So can you give the more marginalised group this one, please?

Firstly, I am not really sure that categorising groups as "more" or "less" marginalised is really appropriate. It seems perilously close to oppression olympics.

Secondly, even if it were appropriate to rank the marginalisation of different marginalised groups (and as I say, I am really not convinced it is) I really don't think "number of portrayals on TV shows" is a good way to do it. I'm pretty sure I can think of ten times as many positive portrayals of black people in mainstream TV shows as I can positive portrayals of people who play MMORPGs. Does this mean that MMO players are more marginalised than black people?

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 22:15 on 2013-11-24Sorry for the now triple post, but there were a couple more things I wanted to come back to.

If you're naturally monogamous and lose all interest in other people once you fall in love - great! Go for your 'one and done' relationship (hopefully with another monogamous person)! But don't try to force your perspective on life on those who are naturally polyamorous. And do not presume to judge and shame them just because the dominant culture privileges your kind.

I'm ... really confused by this one. I know a fair few people who are in monogamous relationships, I know a fair few people who are in open or polyamorous relationships (and a fair few on both sides who get really annoyed when one gets confused with the other) and I don't know anybody who stops being attracted to other people just because they're in a relationship no matter how in love or otherwise they are. I'm honestly not sure where you could have got the impression that they did because I don't even think it's a notion that is particularly reinforced by popular culture.

Your whole post seems to suggest that you believe that "monogamous people" are literally rendered incapable of having romantic or sexual feelings for other people once they fall in love with somebody (you state this fairly explicitly). Either I and everybody else I know in a monogamous relationship is actually "naturally polyamorous" or ... well ... that is't true.

You can, of course, argue that the cultural institution of monogamy is grounded in some outdated, offensive, patriarchal assumptions, but polyamory (or for that matter polygamy) is hardly a bastion of sexual equality. Hell, polyamorous relationships which involve a single man and a large number of women are so common that the community has a slang term for it (I believe the call it "one penis poly").

I think what upset me most about your post was the fact that I'm very used to a lot of these arguments being used by asshole men to emotionally blackmail their girlfriends into relationships which they are not comfortable being in - "it's not my fault, I'm naturally polyamorous", "if you really loved me, you'd want me to be happy." And that makes me a little bit nauseous.

Yes, I know bisexual people consider the 'promiscuous' bisexual character a negative stereotype. Honestly, that seems like slut-shaming to me.

I can only speak for myself here, but I really don't think it's the place of somebody who isn't bisexual to tell a bisexual person what they can and can not consider to be a negative stereotype of their own sexuality. I might also add that under most circumstances saying "I know that members of this marginalised group consider this portrayal to be a negative stereotype, but I think they're wrong" when you are not yourself a member of that group would be seen as derailing.

Having said that, I do see the point you are making, but I think you're failing to distinguish between two important but distinct definitions of "negative stereotype."

Some stereotypes are negative in that the stereotypical quality is itself inherently negative (criminality being a good example - and possibly the *only* good example, since to call most other qualities inherently negative would be ablist or classist).

Most stereotypes, however, are negative in that the sense that the existence of the stereotype leads to people treating the stereotyped group in a way that members of that group find damaging.

There are several clear, concrete ways in which the "promiscuous bisexual" stereotype is actively harmful to bisexual people. Just off the top of my head, the assumption that bisexual people are necessarily promiscuous means that if you are openly bisexual:

- People will take your romantic relationships less seriously, no matter how sincerely you are committed to them.

- People will more likely to make inappropriate sexual advances towards you.

- People will, in various ways, fetishize your sexuality, and expect you to like it. Particularly if you're a woman.

- People will assume you are up for threesomes, always.

- People will expect you to want to be in an open or polyamorous relationship, even if you don't...

- ... and they quite possibly won't believe you when you say you don't ...

- ... and if you're a woman, and you're dating a guy, when he says "open relationship" he will quite likely mean "I can have sex with other women, and so can you" ...

- ... which will often mean "I can have sex with other women, and will in practice get really upset if you do the same."

- People will assume that you are sexually attracted to them, and be offended and possibly aggressive if you aren't.

At this point it might be worth remembering that the original comment here was about a fictional character. Nobody was saying that Jack's behaviour would be morally wrong in real life. They were saying that his behaviour reinforced harmful stereotypes about bisexual people which, *as a bisexual person* they were fully entitled to do.

permalink

-

go to top

Melanie

at 23:41 on 2013-11-24

Most stereotypes, however, are negative in that the sense that the existence of the stereotype leads to people treating the stereotyped group in a way that members of that group find damaging.

Yes, precisely. This is true even of allegedly "positive"[1] stereotypes, so I don't see that it's automatically denigrating the thing the stereotype is

about

to object to it.

Plus, even if you haven't been harmed in any concrete way by a stereotype, it's still highly obnoxious when people believe stupid lies about you.

[1]"Allegedly" because--let's face it--even when the assumed trait is supposedly a good/cool thing, there's probably some deeply nasty accompanying baggage--unspoken implications or associations behind it.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 13:27 on 2013-11-25Sorry for continuing to pile on, but I needed to get this out there:

Your whole post seems to suggest that you believe that "monogamous people" are literally rendered incapable of having romantic or sexual feelings for other people once they fall in love with somebody (you state this fairly explicitly). Either I and everybody else I know in a monogamous relationship is actually "naturally polyamorous" or ... well ... that is't true.

Adding a data point that this is my experience as well, and to note that "finds someone attractive" doesn't amount to "specifically wants to have sex and/or a relationship with them".

I have spent most of my life single and haven't followed up on the vast majority of attractions I have felt (even if you only count people who are real and who I have interacted with socially in real life). That doesn't mean I get to claim to be going through an asexual phase when I happen to be single and not looking, it just means that criteria like "This person is in a monogamous relationship and I'm not enough of a cad to mess with that" or "I'd rather not spend time with someone whose personality I find repellent, regardless of how sexually attractive I find them" or "I want a relationship of equals and there just aren't many people up here on the God Tier" tend to outweigh the attraction most of the time.

Likewise, it's entirely possible when you are in a relationship for both parties to experience attraction to other people but elect for going monogamous anyway for mutually agreed reasons which have nothing to do with jealousy, sexual health or money - for instance, given that maintaining a relationship with one person already requires a degree of work and compromise, I find myself reluctant to agree to the extra work, compromise, and complication which would result from bringing additional people into the mix on a practical level.

Also, I think there are compelling reasons why cheating behind your partner's back is wrong that have nothing to do with sexual health. If you and your partner(s) freely and without compulsion agreed that the relationship was going to be monogamous (or, indeed, polyamorous or open but with particular rules or requirements to keep partners informed about stuff), and you go ahead and break that agreement, then regardless of whether or not there's a sexual health dimension involved you've straight-up lied to and broken a promise to a partner, which is an ethical breach I find it hard to sympathise with.

(Obviously you're going to have situations where people feel compelled to agree to stuff they wouldn't have otherwise agreed to - hey presto, Dan provided a example of precisely such a thing upthread - but the solution to a dysfunctional relationship isn't to make the relationship even more dysfunctional, it's to end either the dysfunction or the relationship.)

Lastly, I think you can actually legitimately say you have a claim on a partner's time or attention if the two of you have actually mutually agreed to be there for each other. One of the most hurtful incidents I've lived through in a relationship was when I was dealing with the death of a friend and my partner at the time (they are, needless to say, long gone) simply

was not there

on an emotional level to give me the support I desperately needed. Respecting a partner's right to have their own friendships and interests is important and I wouldn't do a single thing differently if I had my time over in that respect, but equally if they exercise that right in such a way that it ends up hurting you then that's on them. If asking your partner to give the same priority to your emotional well-being as you give to theirs is selfish, then I'm comfortable being selfish.

[pabo-reactions]

SIMMONS: Martin Brodeur is the slam-dunk of this Hockey Hall of Fame class

New Post has been published on https://nhlrumormill.com/simmons-martin-brodeur-is-the-slam-dunk-of-this-hockey-hall-of-fame-class/

SIMMONS: Martin Brodeur is the slam-dunk of this Hockey Hall of Fame class

On Hockey Hall of Fame Friday, Martin Brodeur stands a little taller, walks a little faster, talks a little louder and reaches beyond the crowd.

Even among the five greats being inducted alongside him.

There may have been questions about the elections of Gary Bettman and Willie O’Ree in the builders category. There may have been questions about Jayna Hefford, as there are every year about women and whether any will be welcomed. There may have been doubts about Martin St. Louis, first time eligible, who is used to being overlooked. And as for Alexander Yakushev, well, he’s been passed over for decades, so he’d probably given up any hope in getting to the Hall, if he ever believed it to be possible.

But it’s different for Brodeur. He’s different, he’s an outlier, an original: The slam dunk of this class. The slam dunk of any class.

If his vote wasn’t 18-0 among the Hall selection committee, then whomever voted against him should be asked to leave immediately.

There has never been anyone like Brodeur before, and there may never be anyone like him again. The way he played. The number of games he played. The style he played. The records he broke. The way he moved the puck.

The 2018 Inductees into the Hockey Hall of Fame during a presentation at the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto, Ont. on Friday November 9, 2018. From left – Gary Bettman, Martin Brodeur, Jayna Hefford, Willie O’Ree, Martin St. Louis and Aleksander Yakushev. Ernest Doroszuk/Toronto Sun/Postmedia

The 2018 Inductees into the Hockey Hall of Fame during a presentation at the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto, Ont. on Friday November 9, 2018. From left – Gary Bettman, Martin Brodeur, Jayna Hefford, Willie O’Ree, Martin St. Louis and Aleksander Yakushev. Ernest Doroszuk/Toronto Sun/Postmedia

The 2018 Inductees into the Hockey Hall of Fame during a presentation at the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto, Ont. on Friday November 9, 2018. From left – Gary Bettman, Martin Brodeur, Jayna Hefford, Willie O’Ree, Martin St. Louis and Aleksander Yakushev. Ernest Doroszuk/Toronto Sun/Postmedia

2018 Hockey Hall of Fame Inductees Jayna Hefford, Willie OÕRee and Martin St. Louis after receiving their rings during a presentation at the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto, Ont. on Friday November 9, 2018. Ernest Doroszuk/Toronto Sun/Postmedia

The 2018 Inductees into the Hockey Hall of Fame during a presentation at the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto, Ont. on Friday November 9, 2018. From left – Gary Bettman, Martin Brodeur, Jayna Hefford, Willie O’Ree, Martin St. Louis and Aleksander Yakushev. Ernest Doroszuk/Toronto Sun/Postmedia

The 2018 Inductees into the Hockey Hall of Fame during a presentation at the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto, Ont. on Friday November 9, 2018. From left – Gary Bettman, Martin Brodeur, Jayna Hefford, Willie O’Ree, Martin St. Louis and Aleksander Yakushev. Ernest Doroszuk/Toronto Sun/Postmedia

Lanny McDonald (left), Chairman of the Hockey Hall of Fame, shares a moment on the stage with 2018 Hockey Hall of Fame inductee Gary Bettman, during a presentation at the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto, Ont. on Friday November 9, 2018.. Ernest Doroszuk/Toronto Sun/Postmedia

Lanny McDonald (left), Chairman of the Hockey Hall of Fame, presents the ring to 2018 Hockey Hall of Fame inductee Aleksander Yakushev, during a presentation at the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto, Ont. on Friday November 9, 2018.. Ernest Doroszuk/Toronto Sun/Postmedia

Lanny McDonald, Chairman of the Hockey Hall of Fame, presents the ring to 2018 Hockey Hall of Fame inductee Martin St. Louis, during a presentation at the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto, Ont. on Friday November 9, 2018.. Ernest Doroszuk/Toronto Sun/Postmedia

2018 Hockey Hall of Fame Inductees Jayna Hefford and Willie OÕRee after receiving their rings during a presentation at the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto, Ont. on Friday November 9, 2018. Ernest Doroszuk/Toronto Sun/Postmedia

2018 Hockey Hall of Fame Inductees Jayna Hefford and Willie OÕRee after receiving their rings during a presentation at the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto, Ont. on Friday November 9, 2018. Ernest Doroszuk/Toronto Sun/Postmedia

Willie OÕRee, walks past fellow 2018 Hockey Hall of Fame Inductees Gary Bettman and Martin Brodeur after receiving his ring during a presentation at the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto, Ont. on Friday November 9, 2018. Ernest Doroszuk/Toronto Sun/Postmedia

Lanny McDonald, Chairman of the Hockey Hall of Fame, presents one of the 2018 Inductees into the Hockey Hall of Fame – Willie OÕRee – with his ring during a presentation at the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto, Ont. on Friday November 9, 2018. Ernest Doroszuk/Toronto Sun/Postmedia

Lanny McDonald, Chairman of the Hockey Hall of Fame, presents one of the 2018 Inductees into the Hockey Hall of Fame – Willie OÕRee – with his ring during a presentation at the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto, Ont. on Friday November 9, 2018. Ernest Doroszuk/Toronto Sun/Postmedia

Lanny McDonald, Chairman of the Hockey Hall of Fame, presents the ring to 2018 Hockey Hall of Fame inductee Jayna Hefford, during a presentation at the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto, Ont. on Friday November 9, 2018.. Ernest Doroszuk/Toronto Sun/Postmedia

The 2018 Inductees into the Hockey Hall of Fame – Gary Bettman (left) and Martin Brodeur looks at their rings during a presentation at the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto, Ont. on Friday November 9, 2018. Ernest Doroszuk/Toronto Sun/Postmedia

Lanny McDonald, Chairman of the Hockey Hall of Fame, presents the ring to 2018 Hockey Hall of Fame inductee Martin Brodeur, during a presentation at the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto, Ont. on Friday November 9, 2018.. Ernest Doroszuk/Toronto Sun/Postmedia

Gary Bettman, 2018 Hockey Hall of Fame inductee looks are the ring he was just presented during a presentation at the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto, Ont. on Friday November 9, 2018.. Ernest Doroszuk/Toronto Sun/Postmedia

Lanny McDonald (left), Chairman of the Hockey Hall of Fame, presents the ring to 2018 Hockey Hall of Fame inductee Gary Bettman, during a presentation at the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto, Ont. on Friday November 9, 2018.. Ernest Doroszuk/Toronto Sun/Postmedia

Share:

2018 Inductees into the Hockey Hall of Fame

Tumblr

Pinterest

Google Plus

Reddit

LinkedIn

Email

I never thought anybody would beat Terry Sawchuk’s mark of 103 shutouts. Brodeur ended his career with 125.

I never thought anybody could start 70 games, year after year. Brodeur did it 12 times. The giants of his day — Patrick Roy, Dominik Hasek, Ed Belfour — combined to start more than 70 games four times.

He played a style you can’t really explain. The best often do.

He wasn’t a copycat butterfly goalie the way so many NHL goalies are today.

He wasn’t a standup goalie, the way so many who came before him were. He was a little of this and a little of that.

He was something of a hybrid, a part stand-up, part-butterfly goalie who rocked back and forth on his skates. When asked on Friday what his style was, he laughed and said: “Who knows?”

New Jersey Devils goaltender Martin Brodeur hoists the Stanley Cup after beating the Anaheim Mighty Ducks in the 2003 Stanley Cup final. THE CANADIAN PRESS FILE

When he came to the end of his career — and he stayed for every last second he could in the NHL — he had more wins than any goalie who had ever played. Of all his marks — the three Stanley Cups, the four Vezinas, the rookie of the year, the two Olympic gold medals — that’s the one that matters most to him. Brodeur was pragmatic to the end of his career.

“I don’t care what you say, if your goalie isn’t stopping the puck, you’re not winning the game, said Brodeur.

It sounds both basic and simple, but it’s neither of those things. New Jersey never had to worry about who was playing goal, or what kind of goal he was going to play: He started 1,471 games, regular-season and playoffs, and he happened to be on the winning team 804 times. Hasek played in 854 games in total, and would be top-three on anybody’s list of the greatest ever. Brodeur, as always, is in the conversation.

“I was the best,” said Brodeur. “Just ask him (my dad).”

He is the Hall of Famer of Hall of Famers in this class. A son of a goalie, whose dad the wonderful photographer, passed away five years ago.

“You wish that everybody you love and who supported you could be here,” said Brodeur. “For me, I’ve lived so many experiences with my family through the Olympic games and Stanley Cup runs and the NHL awards. I know this is the biggest one. They’ll be up there and they’ll enjoy it.”

He was talking about his father Denis, the goalie-turned-photographer. He was talking about his brother Claude, who passed away not that long ago.

This is something you’d want to share with everyone and, quietly and privately and outwardly, he is sharing the weekend with those who have made it here, and those who are gone.

Of his father, who played goal for Team Canada at an Olympics, Brodeur said: “I think he lived, what he wanted to live, through me.”

Brodeur, who now works on the business side of operations for the Devils, watched the Leafs game on Friday night while sitting beside his long-time goaltending coach Jacques Caron. Lou Lamoriello, who drafted him, is coming for the ceremony on Monday, and so is former coach Larry Robinson.

It’s a time to celebrate, a time to take stock of everything that has happened, a time to reflect on who is here and who isn’t.

A time to realize how goaltending has changed, how hockey has changed, how a game that once had Brodeur, Roy, Hasek and Belfour doesn’t have a definitive best goalie anymore.

A time to take it all in, the adulation, the celebration, the once-in-a-lifetime experience.

“This is as good as it gets,” said Brodeur, flashing his brand-new Hall of Fame ring. “This is the ultimate. This is a great moment.

“And this is it, the last hurrah, the last recognition I’m going to get.”

ssimmons@postmedia.com

twitter.com/simmonssteve

[lonnyrocketreviews-blog]

Rupaul’s Drag Race Season 10 Power Rankings - Ep. 5, The Bossy Rossy Show

I haven’t said this yet, so I guess I will now. I don’t base my ranks only off of how well they do in the challenges. I factor it in, but mainly it comes down to how they do on the show at large, in and out of the challenges and runway. I think screentime, backstory, and backstage buffoonery factor just as much into the final vote as challenge wins do, especially if the fans get a say.

10. Monet X Change I was wondering when this would happen. The queen I would consider the weakest wasn’t the one that went home. This happens often on the show. Sometimes the queen who sashays isn’t the one who did the worst. Trinity and Dela in season 6, Trixie and Katya in 7, etc, though those are all more egregious examples, Monet is easily the weakest in the competition right now including Mayhem. In this episode, I think she was the only one who’s performance AND outfit were bad. Her lipsync gimmicks weren’t quite as impressive as last week, either. It was all sloppy. Could’ve been a double elim for all I care. Whatever. Monet probably is a great and hilarious queen (Cracker’s “best queen in NYC”). She’s just not showing it on the show. If she lands in the bottom again, she’s toast.

9. Mayhem Miller I’m kinda used to this phenomenon. Sometimes queens who shouldn’t be in the bottom 2 end up in the bottom 2 and then leave. Mayhem by no means did great this week, but I think the Vixen and Asia did worse. I would’ve put Asia and Monet in the bottom 2, but it’s not my show. I’m sad to see Mayhem go cuz I was super excited to see her on the show, but alas, this was bound to happen sooner or later. RIP. -Mayhem is my first major candidate for Miss Congeniality. 

8. Kameron Michaels I feel like the second I start to like Kameron, she’s gonna leave, so I won’t! She didn’t do too bad in the challenge, and her outfit was pretty good. They have been pretty good for the most part, but Kameron still gets no screen time in the work room and hardly any in Untucked and absolutely NONE in confessionals. Who the fuck is she? Things we know about Kameron Michaels:  1. ‘hot’ out of drag, 2. can get rid of spiders if needed, 3. likes Shania Twain. That’s it. I GUESS there’s an outside chance that she snipes her way to one of the final episodes but I will be VERY surprised and VERY bitter if she does; it’s a reality show and they seem to think being sexy outta drag is worth keeping someone in a drag competition.

7. Blair St. Clair I really really like Blair, but she’s starting to remind me of Farrah Moan. Not that she’s whiny, but because she’s just like a lovely fruit that hasn’t quite ripened. She’s a talented queen, for sure, but is still getting eclipsed by bigger, louder, crazier and more mature queens. Unless she’s hiding something fantastic up her sleeve, she won’t survive her first lipsync.

6. The Vixen I’m glad that the Vixen has cooled her jets some. Showing a more docile side will help her a lot if she wants a shot at the crown, but the damage she’s already inflicted might be fatal. For all I know there could be another fight or two in the future. Her enemies Aquaria and Eureka are sailing ahead, and that might trigger some hostilities. I see two futures for the bomb that is the Vixen (and neither are her winning): either she explodes on someone and self destructs and that stress sends her home OR she totally fizzles out of drama and relevance and it sends her home. Either way, she has until the rest of the fodder queens are gone before she herself gets gone. 5. Asia O’Hara I’m kinda worried that Asia’s high point/win might’ve been just a one-time thing. I mean, it pretty much just was her making funny faces. Two week in a row now she’s been kinda weak. I’m not sure if she’ll crush Snatch Game or not. Maybe she’ll pull a Kennedy and fuckin nail it. Maybe it’ll send her home. I hope not. I really like her. I want her to be top 4, but I think right now she’s drifting between the frontrunners and the middle-of-the-pack queens.

4. Aquaria Aquaria’s drag isn’t QUITE my cuppa tea, but she’s undeniably doing quite well. Her looks are strong. Her performances are usually solid. She BABBLES (like a baby) but she’s getting a story line. We know who she is. She’s been ...nice?... in Untucked here and there and everyone makes a big deal about it. They did the same with Violet. I wouldn’t totally hate seeing Aquaria in the top 3 tho. She’ll definitely look good for it, but I don’t think she’s gonna win.

3. Monique Heart #TeamMonique. Monique and Cracker are still tied for my favorite. I love it when I kinda roll my eyes at a queen during preseason but then they knock my socks off during the show. Sorry I doubted you, girl. I think she’s doing well so far. Please please please survive Snatch Game. Fuck what I said last week, I need her to be in the top 3. Let a strong showing for Monique be the justice that Jaidynn Dior Fierce never got.

2. Miz Cracker Woohoo! Always happy to see Breanna back in the top, but she still hasnt FUCKING won anything yet (Snaaatch Gaaaame?). I was expecting her to really crush this challenge and she ONLY did great. Sigh. She’s a fucking crazy dork and her sense of humor is so stupid and I love her but I think she’s getting a little in her head. I’m kinda nervous that she’s gonna get the Katya treatment (like they blame her elimination on her insecurity but in reality they kick her off over something arbitrary like a catsuit (Pearl shoulda gone home (but I’m not bitter))). 

1. Eureka I HAVE NOT LOOKED UP ANY SPOILERS ON REDDIT so I don’t know if I’m right, but I’m like 97% sure Eureka will be in the top 3. I think she’s gonna win. I guess I’m repeating myself at this point, but Eureka is getting all the screentime AND has a win under her belt now. It’s pretty clear. Eureka, Miz Cracker, and Monique Heart look like an incredible top 3. With Eureka winning, it leaves the other two open to All Stars. This is what I want to happen. Will it happen? Probably not, but whatever. I still watch this stupid show. Goo goo ga ga stick a pickle in my mouth and a cactus in my butt.  I laughed a lot during this episode. They really didn’t suck at improv, which is great cuz S10 doesn’t actually have a ton of ACTOR queens (Dusty and Blair, that’s kinda it?). Anydangway, I’m enjoying this season for the most part so far. There’s just enough drama to keep it from being boring, and the challenges are going pretty well. There hasn’t really been a jaw dropping moment yet, but the season’s hardly even halfway done. Still plenty of time to fear the dreaded Twist. I just hope there’s not a stupid lipsync tournament like in S9...