by L. Michael Gipson

I was having a conversation on Facebook about the Oscars, doing my usual campy commentary on everything from the innumerable Grey Garden Grecian gowns to the bizarre choreo-miming to the “Best Song” nominees, when someone stopped my kitsch cold with a single post. The poster was an FB friend spouting annoyance because Tom Ford’s directorial debut, A Single Man, was not a major nominee (Colin Firth was a lone nominee in the Best Actor category). The “friend” sighed and lamented that last year’s Oscars must have been the designated year for the gays, and this year there appeared to be none in sight. You see, gay-themed movies like Milk and openly gay screenwriter Dustin Lance Black and Sean Penn (who brilliantly played gay for pay) were big award-winners at the 81^st Annual Awards ceremony. Reading his naive sounding post, I released an exasperated sigh before settling into what can only be described as a mild but fitting rebuke. A humorous correction was delivered, but now I was annoyed.

More...

Editor's Note: This post is from James Wagoner, President of Advocates for Youth

Last fall, conservatives in Congress managed to include funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs in one of the health care reform bills. Currently abstinence-only funding remains in the Senate bill that will serve as the backbone of the final health care package. Without your assistance, these funds- $250 million over the next five years- will remain in the bill. We are continuing to work with colleagues on the Hill to remove this funding, but we need your help! It’s not too late for Congress to take action.

Last year, President Obama took the long-overdue step of eliminating federal funding for failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. But, abstinence-only supporters in Congress are determined to find new ways to funnel federal dollars to these ineffective programs.

After more than a year of debate about health care reform – and more than a decade of research – three things are clear:

1. Abstinence-only-until-marriage programs simply do not work. In fact, they leave young people at risk by denying them information about contraceptives and condoms.
2. Abstinence-only programs are not health care reform. This amendment was nothing more than an ideological give-away.
3. It’s time for Congress to stop throwing good money at bad programs. The federal government has already wasted more than $1.5 billion on failed abstinence-only programs. We don’t need to waste $250 million more.

The Pitsburgh Steelers' star quarterback, Ben Roethlisberger, has been accused of sexual assault. Again.

Very few details are yet known about the case. We just know that Roethlisberger and some buddies were partying at a club outside of Atlanta Thursday night, and were seen "mingling" with a particular group of women, and the next day, a woman from that group told local police that Roethlisberger had sexually assaulted her.

This column isn't about whether or not he "did it." (Though I tend to believe people who claim they're victims of sexual assault as a default position, both because so much of the culture doesn't, and because rates of false reporting are around 5-7%, which means, statistically speaking, it's at least 93% likely that an accuser is telling the truth.)

This column is about the illogical and dangerous defense his camp is already mounting against the allegations. Quoth his agent, Ryan Tollner, "Obviously, given the prior accusation against Ben, we are skeptical of motive, but we will continue to cooperate with everyone involved.”

Wha?

Let's break this stunning leap of logic down. What Tollner seems to be saying is that this new allegation was inspired by the previous one? That somehow, the woman accusing Roethlisberger in Georgia looked at the awesome time the woman from Lake Tahoe (who previously accused Roethlisberger) is having, and thought, wow. This is a golden opportunity to make some cash and have fun doing it?

More...

Bianca I Laureano

Last week the internets were a blaze with a particular story about the “sexual risk taking” of Latino youth. Surprisingly, or not so, most of the people in the sexual science field who shared the story either via email or on twitter had nothing to say about the article. I found that interesting because I have a lot to say about this topic! The articles that have been written reference a piece of literature titled “Sexuality and Sexual Risk Behaviors Among Latino Adolescents and Young Adults” written by Marcela Raffaelli and Maria I. Iturbide.

Both researchers are academics with a focus on sexuality and Latino communities. Marcela Raffaelli’s biography can be read here  and from what I can tell Maria I. Iturbide may still be a graduate student working with Marcela Raffaelli. I have to say that I think if this is the case, this is great to have an advisor agree to publish with a student; this is rare in graduate school (usually we do bibliography and research and get an thank you at the end of the article)!

I share a few of my initial thoughts on Love Isn’t Enough (LIE) (formally Anti-Racist Parent) yet wanted to go more in depth with my ideas and thoughts about the literature and findings. There are a few areas that stand out to me and these include the date of publication, how Latino is defined, how Whiteness and Blackness is defined, gender discussions, cultural values, and issues of consent.

More...

After producing such quality television like Celebrity Fit Club and Flavor of Love, VH1 announced its latest reality endeavor, Transform Me.

Transform Me is much like any other makeover series -- find a plain Jane, bring in a team of experts to humiliate her, and after a little blood, sweat, and eyeliner, the ugly duckling will turn into a beautiful swan. Transform Me’s gimmick comes in the form of its team of experts: rather than being hip fashionistas or flamboyant gay men, these experts are transgender women.

The transgender trio -- led by VH1 reality alum, Laverne Cox -- promises that rather than focusing solely on outer beauty like all of those other makeover hosts, they will set their sights on “overall transformations.”  So instead of picking women who simply suffer from poor fashion sense, contestants will also be generally unpleasant or boring.
Using members of the LGBTQ community as part of a show’s gimmick is nothing new, and can certainly prove exceptionally successful. Queer Eye for the Straight Guy not only brought gay men into the homes of Middle America, but you could argue that without it we would have never seen Project Runway or What Not to Wear (whether that is a good or bad thing is entirely up to you).

My hesitation with producing a show aimed at exploiting transgender women for a primarily heterosexual audience is that we haven’t reached the level of visibility and acceptance for transgender people that we had for gays and lesbians when Queer Eye debuted. By the time Queer Eye premiered in 2003, Ellen had already come out of the closet, Will & Grace was a major hit, and Queer as Folk was breaking sexual boundaries on cable. But despite a few minor transgender characters on Ugly Betty and Nip/Tuck, we haven’t seen the explosion of representations that we did for gays and lesbians in the late 90s and early 2000s. Is a makeover reality series really the best vehicle for moving transgender acceptance and support forward?

On the other hand, despite being crucified by the LGBTQ community, presenting gay men as nonthreatening and loveable via Queer Eye is probably one of the many reasons more and more heterosexuals are now supporting LGBTQ rights. Having a platform to, not stand on your soapbox, but merely be entertaining has a positive effect on a lot of viewers. Even though I as a queer person might be apprehensive about Transform Me, perhaps this is exactly what straight, Middle America needs right now -- a trio of trans women who they can relate to and laugh with.

Transform Me will premiere on VH1 on Monday, April 19.

I've been avoiding writing about Tiger Woods, in part because so many other people are already writing about him, and in part because I think his so-called scandal is really a tempest in a teakettle. As this cheeky chart so ably demonstrates, Tiger Woods never promised us anything, and so he also owes us nothing. His wife? Sure. He owes her big time, probably more than he can ever repay. But us, the viewing public? Why should we care about whether or not a great golfer has broken his wedding vows?

Still, the story has reared its ugly head (sorry!) yet again, this time due to Woods' recent carefully-crafted public apology. And all the chatter that's followed has reminded me that, if we're going to keep talking about it and talking about it, there are at least a few important points to be made about this marginally meaningful case:

We need to have a serious, for reals talk about marriage and monogamy. Once and for all: there's nothing wrong with sleeping with lots of women (or men, for that matter). What's wrong is lying about it, and doing it without practicing safe sex. If Tiger wanted to sleep around, he just need to a) use condoms and b) not enter into a monogamous marriage. But if he didn't have the perfect wife and kids, would he have been such a marketable hero? Would he have had all those endorsements? Our culture equates monogamy and marriage with being a respectable citizen. Isn't it time we, well, divorced our moral judgments from whether or not a person has a life partner to whom they've promised sexual exclusivity? What matters is not what promises a person makes, but whether or not ze keeps them.

More...

Each semester when I begin to teach my students about the social construction of race, I use several popular culture references to introduce the conversation. My class is not one of those that are separated into discussing each social construction such as “gender week” or “race week.” Instead, I implement an intersectional framework into my syllabus so that students know we are always already talking about race, class, gender, ethnicity, citizenship status, primary language, ability, and sexual orientation (to name a few). If my students are complex, and if I’m complex, how is it ethical to make a “simple” syllabus? I don’t think it is.

Although it’s been over 5 years that Dave Chappelle aired his skit “Racial Draft,” I still use it in my class. I’ve used a lot of his work from season 2 on my syllabus this semester, he is a genius and it is very fun and incredibly effective to talk about the sociological imagination and his skit “Black Bush.” But today, I want to talk about his “Racial Draft” and how media literacy is really at the center of this skit. If you are unfamiliar with the skit take a few minutes to watch it below:

More...

Last week, everyone's favorite male figure skater, Johnny Weir, lost the gold to fellow American, Evan Lysacek. Weir not only missed out on the gold, but didn't even get a medal -- instead coming in 6th.

Lysacek's win has been heralded as a "reclaiming" of the Winter Olympics, of sorts. Masculinity has again triumphed over effeminacy and a new generation of butch figure skaters is supposedly poised to take the stage. In the aftermath of his win, we've already heard Australian radio hosts mock Weir and the sport, while LGBTQ bloggers decry Weir's loss as homophobia. And in the same manner that CBS sought to keep the Super Bowl tightly in its heteronormative grasp, NBC has attempted to reaffirm the Olympics as the ultimate expression of masculinity and heterosexuality. Unfortunately, many of those stereotypes are perpetuated by the (alleged) LGBTQ competitors themselves.

The Winter Olympics have long been seen as the unofficial "gay games," even before the real Gay Games were established in 1982. Much of this perception was born out of the popularity of male's figure skating and the seemingly high number of out gay men who partook in the sport (the same assumptions are made about the Summer Olympics' male gymnastics). Even if they aren’t gay, skaters’ muscular bodies, flashy costumes, and graceful moves leave many fans guessing.

More...

Utah is not a state known for its legislative sanity.  This, after all, is a state that recently made headlines for proposing to honor gun manufacturers on Martin Luther King Day and for considering the elimination of 12th grade to cut back on education spending.

Well, it just got a whole lot worse. 

Utah just became the first state in the U.S. to criminalize miscarriage and punish women for having or seeking an illegal abortion.  Utah's "Criminal Miscarriage" law:

• expands the definition of illegal abortion to include miscarriages
• removes immunity protections for women who have or seek illegal abortions
• treats women as presumptive criminals and leaves them open to criminal prosecution

More...

The US Census wants you to be “counted,” they are also paying folks to do the work (i.e. get access to communities they can’t) and honestly, they are paying pretty well. I’ve gotten a ton of emails and announcements about Latino organizations participating in getting young people to fill out the Census. They’ve gone as far ask asking several musical artists to contribute a song (that we’ve already heard and may already own) to a CD they will give people once they complete the Census. You may have also heard all the chatter about the term “Negro” being on the Census  as well (fyi, it’s been on the Census for decades).

I remember when I was old enough to fill out a Census I was living outside my parent’s home and could fill one out by myself. I had looked at what my mother wrote and she said that she racially identifies as White and ethnically as Puerto Rican. That was one of the first times I realized that our racial identities did not match. I’ve mentioned a few times already about how multiple identities intersect and how they result in very specific experiences especially in different places. So I wonder not how the US Census is going to count LatiNegr@s (along with all the other multi-ethnic and racial people in the US), but I wonder how we can change the conversations we are having about the intersections of Blackness and Latinidad.

The first post I wrote this year  I highlighted people who embodied both identities. I also shared that I had “a post brewing in my mind simply because of this man [Laz Alonso]. You see he was in Spike Lee’s “Miracle at Saint Anna” as the lead protagonists. In the film this Cuban-American actor portrays a Black Puerto Rican soldier. The marketing for this film was specifically dedicated to the Black identities of the characters and their work as (Buffalo) soldiers during WWII. What I find striking (and telling of the racism within our communities) is that there was limited to no Latino coverage of this film and he is the lead character. For this reason alone we must recognize and support the LatiNegr@s in various media positions because even within our own community we are ignored and overlooked.”

Have you heard of the film “Miracle At St. Anna”? It is one of Spike Lee’s most recent films (aka “joints”) based on the book of the same title by James McBride about the US Army's African-American 92nd Infantry Division who were called “Buffalo Soldiers.” Lee has spoken very publicly about the challenge he encountered trying to find funding for the film. A majority of the funds came from other parts of the world, specifically Italy and France with some money put in the pot from Disney. However, Lee has shared he feared the film was not ever going to be funded.

Before we continue check out the trailer for the film:

More...