AdamSmith

Further thoughts on the topic. I tend to agree with the views below. Queerying Queer B.J. EpsteinLecturer in literature and public engagement, University of East Anglia Posted: 19/07/2013 00:00 Nearly every time I write an article (or talk on the radio) about lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) issues, someone then contacts me to complain about my employment of the word "queer". Typical responses include: "Nice article, but why do you have to use such a negative word?" or "I doubt you really are for LGBT rights, if you say 'queer'." or "You're obviously homophobic." Since summer is the season for LGBT(Q!) pride events, it seems like the ideal time to que(e)ry the term "queer", and to think about why it seems to be a word that divides opinion. I like the term "queer." It's an open word and it brings many of us together. I like how it encompasses all of us non-heterosexuals, whether lesbian, gay, or bisexual, as well as those who are transgender, whether they are heterosexual or not. I like that it can include other people as well: questioning, intersex, asexual, genderqueer, fetishist, sadist, masochist, and so on (there are simply too many too list). I know polymorous heterosexuals, asexual heterosexuals, and heterosexuals in master-slave relationships who use "queer" to describe their sexuality (likewise, I know, for example, asexual heterosexuals who would never describe themselves as queer; to me, calling oneself queer is all about choice). For many of us, queer is anything non-norm (note: non-norm does not mean abnormal; it just refers to anything considered different from the standard one-man-one-women coupling). It connects a wide range of non-norm relationships and experiences together. It can also serve to challenge the norm. I like that the term holds the LGBTQ community together, in part since it is a way of identifying ourselves without having to always break into smaller factions. Not all queers are alike, of course, but there is strength and power in having a joint term for us. But I know that other people see the word very differently. I keep coming across two distinct views on the word, both of which I disagree with. The first is an opinion I find quite frequently in the U.K. and in some other parts of Europe. Here, young people especially object to "queer," disparaging it as a word "old people" use. Some English and Welsh university students at an event heard me use it once and they looked at me and mocked, "How old are you, anyway?" It is outdated to them, and there is no need for it. They think the "queer rights" movement was decades ago, and now we've moved on. They suggest we be more specific, rather than hide behind an overarching label, and just call ourselves gay or lesbian or bisexual or trans and be done with it. "Queer" is an ugly, overly general word and they'd rather we delete it from the dictionary. The "queer eye" notwithstanding, it's not a word that some LGBTQ youth of today recognise or use to identify themselves. The other argument tends to come from older people. They argue that "queer" (like other terms of abuse, such "kike") has such negative connotations that it will always and inevitably be seen as pejorative. It's a harsh, thoughtless word. Often, it is these older people who write to me and accuse me of being homophobic; they say that the word was used against them so often that there is no way of reclaiming it and/or redefining it. They say anyone who uses it must be homophobic in some way (they don't ever seem to mention biphobia or transphobia). As with the younger generation, these older folks tend to recommend specification. "Just say gay," they tell me, assuming "gay" covers both men and women, and also leaving off the "B" and the "T", not to mention many of the other letters in our alphabet soup. I don't understand this desire for fracturing our community into ever smaller subsections. What's great about "queer" is that it's a broad, open term, welcoming any who choose to use it. So we're left, as I see it, with two options. We can let "queer" slip out of grasp. We can decide that it is too old-fashioned or too negative, and we can forget it has anything to do with LGBTQ issues and people. Maybe it can go back to meaning "strange". Or we can continue to use "queer", letting it bind the queer community - that is, the LGBTQ (etc.) community - even if it may not be the only label a queer person might use. I think that "queer" is a helpfully wide label, and it is a shortcut (constantly writing or saying "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, asexual, questioning, poly, etc." is exhausting). It is also a challenge to those who hold normative views, and it is a bold way of claiming space and language for ourselves. So until someone comes up with a better suggestion than "queer," I'll keep using it. Enjoy Queer Pride this summer. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/bj-epstein/queer-definition_b_3615513.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Surely a subset of one or the other of my categories above, nyet?

Also that the Lord protects saints and fools.

Pope Francis to encounter a church in crisis in Brazil By Alessandro Speciale| Religion News Service, Updated: Thursday, July 18, 2:30 PMWashington Post VATICAN CITY — Six years ago, then-Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of Buenos Aires attended a gathering of Latin American bishops at the Marian shrine of Aparecida in Rio de Janeiro and called for the Roman Catholic Church to go toward the “outskirts, not only geographically but . existentially.” Two years after the 2005 papal conclave where Bergoglio was the runner-up to Pope Benedict XVI, the speech helped raise his profile as a man to watch. Next week, Bergoglio will return to Aparecida and Rio, this time as Pope Francis. Though he won’t visit his native Argentina, the visit will draw attention to Latin America’s first pope and his appeal for a poor church that eschews worldly power. Francis will arrive in Rio on Monday (July 22) to preside over World Youth Day, a triennial gathering of the world’s Catholic youth that is sometimes dubbed a “Catholic Woodstock” where papal star power takes center stage. Brazil will encounter a pope unlike any in the church’s modern history, and Francis will find a church in crisis in the world’s most populous Catholic nation. In the first few months of his pontificate, Francis has set the church on a path of renewal through his simple, no-nonsense style that has won widespread support from Catholics and non-Catholics alike. In Rio, Francis’ trademark style will be on clear display: He will visit a “favela,” or slum, on foot and tour one of the world’s most dangerous cities in an open-top car, shunning the bulletproof popemobile of his predecessors. “He feels that for him, communicating directly with the people is better that way,” explained the Vatican’s chief spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, on Wednesday. Organizers expect more than 1 million young pilgrims, from 170 countries, to flock to Rio for the weeklong event. Brazil is home to some 123 millions Catholics and more than 400 bishops. Despite these numbers, according to a report by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life published on Thursday, the Catholic share of Brazil’s population has shrunk from 92 percent in 1970 to 65 percent in 2010. This is largely a consequence of the growth of the country’s evangelical and Protestant churches, which have surged from less than 5 million members 40 years ago to 42 million in the latest census. Most worrisome, according to the report, the growth of Protestantism seems to be a consequence of “religious switching,” with the Catholic Church losing popularity among “younger Brazilians and city dwellers.” The trend seems to be accelerating in recent years, and World Youth Day’s organizers hope a charismatic pope can help revitalize the Brazilian church. Disaffection with the church seems to reflect the wider discontentment in Brazilian society that erupted in unprecedented unrest that has shaken the country in recent weeks. Protesting against widespread corruption and lavish government spending, hundreds of thousands of young Brazilians took to the streets in late June. The protests rocked the center-left government of President Dilma Rousseff just as Brazil prepares to showcase its newfound global power in hosting World Youth Day, soccer’s World Cup in 2014 and the Summer Olympics in 2016. Brazil’s defense ministry has deployed nearly 3,000 extra soldiers for the pope’s visit, and the Vatican is watching the situation closely. Lombardi said he is confident that “everyone will understand that the pope’s message is a message of solidarity with the whole society, calling for a peaceful life and adequate development for everyone.” Even if it pales in comparison with the estimated $13 billion the government is spending on the World Cup, the papal visit’s $150 million price tag — a third of it covered by Brazil — probably won’t make things easier. Responding to critics, Cardinal Odilo Scherer of Sao Paulo countered that the price is for World Youth Day should be considered an “investment in the young people.” While the papal trip to Brazil had originally been organized for Benedict, Francis — who has traveled away from Rome only once since his election — soon confirmed he would keep his predecessor’s engagement. Nevertheless, as Lombardi explained on Wednesday, he has asked for some changes to the original schedule. The visit to the Varginha favela, in one of Rio’s poorest and most troubled areas, was arranged in response to Francis’ personal demands, as well as a visit to a hospital for alcohol and drug addicts. Francis also is scheduled to meet a group of juvenile inmates. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/pope-francis-to-encounter-a-church-in-crisis-in-brazil/2013/07/18/11bebef6-efd8-11e2-8c36-0e868255a989_story.html

Don't think this one has been posted here before. Eek... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/18/white-elephants-10-greatest-in-tempo

Daily Caller sends teen reporter to 'grill' White House on Zimmerman verdict 16-year-old journalist-in-training Gabe Finger asked Jay Carney a 'ridiculous' question in Daily Caller stunt The midsummer somnolence of the White House briefing room was rudely disturbed Wednesday by a media intern with a provocative question about the Trayvon Martin case. "Because of the death threats being received by George Zimmerman and his parents, is the president going to take any action for their security, or are they on their own?" asked Gabe Finger, 16, a journalist-in-training at the Daily Caller. A Florida jury last week found Zimmerman not guilty in the February 2012 killing of Martin, a boy who was about Finger's age. The verdict has provoked passionate demonstrations of disagreement. The "death threats" could not be independently confirmed. Carney responded that the Zimmerman family is hardly quote "on their own," given that George Zimmerman owns a gun and demonstrably has the right in Florida to shoot dead anyone he perceives as threatening . "I would refer you to Florida authorities … The president has called for, echoing the statements of Trayvon Martin's family, for calm reflection in the wake of the verdict, and that continues to be his position, he certainly would oppose any violence of any kind." In an admirable display of journalistic tenacity, Finger followed up. "So they're on their own," he said. Gabe Finger @GabeemtheFinger Just angered Obama's press secretary. Word. 2:21 PM - 17 Jul 2013 Carney replied that if by "on their own" the Daily Caller meant they can now go about their lives secure in the knowledge that their private instincts about someone are enough in Florida to exculpate them should they track and execute that individual, then sure the statement was "ridiculous". "You can editorialize all you want and I have no doubt that you will, but that is a ridiculous statement," Carney said. Then he took a question about arming Syria's rebels. The Daily Caller has a history of stabbing at the country's open wound of racism. The news outlet took the lead last year in a campaign to stoke race-based fear and resentment at the height of the presidential campaign by peddling an old Obama video as racially incendiary. The campaign failed. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/18/daily-caller-intern-white-house

Passing without comment over the faintly kinky air hovering round the delicious syllables "royal assent," we turn to all-knowing Wikipedia... The granting of royal assent is the method by which any constitutional monarch formally approves and promulgates an act of his or her nation's parliament, thus making it a law. In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the United Kingdom, Norway and Liechtenstein), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency (see reserve power), or upon the advice of his or her government. While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is exceedingly rare in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the 18th century... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Assent In a parliamentary or semi-presidential system of government, a reserve power is a power that may be exercised by the head of state without the approval of another branch of the government. Unlike in a presidential system of government, the head of state is generally constrained by the cabinet or the legislature in a parliamentary system, and most reserve powers are usable only in certain exceptional circumstances. The reserve powers of the President of Ireland are called discretionary powers... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_power

Because...they're American?

It was not even during phone sex! ...and sweat, not lube. I swear. (In truth it was a small, especially fragile model of BlackBerry that I did not like in any event. When it died I resurrected a previous BlackBerry that was a brick shithouse by comparison, and could take any amount of moisture, so it seemed.)

Homeless nerd...

Ah. I asked because the way your original post was worded, you were saying that only 1.26% of black men are gay. My personal experience suggests 10% or so is a much more likely figure.

Your source for this number?

I once sweated onto my BlackBerry and short-circuited it beyond repair. The Verizon store looked at it and assured me that sweat is quite capable of damaging a cell phone.

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Original_PDF/2013/07/17/Menino_to_Rolling_Stone__1374089137_4526.pdf

LOL Exactly. I'm waiting for the Mad magazine response -- some highly offensive ad for a 'Spaz' phone.

Your observation seems to me somewhat descriptive of media and advertising imaging of straight sexuality in the U.S., but not much to do with male same-sex representation or reality. It would be very interesting if you could identify the sources from which you draw these impressions.

Can SNL be far behind?

A woman is having an affair during the day while her husband is at work. Her 9 year old son comes home unexpectedly, sees them and hides in the bedroom closet to watch. The woman's husband also comes home. She puts her lover in the closet, not realizing that the little boy is in there already. The little boy says, "Dark in here." The man says, "Yes, it is." Boy - "I have a baseball." Man - "That's nice." Boy - "Want to buy it?" Man - "No, thanks." Boy - "My dad's outside." Man - "OK, how much?" Boy - "$250" In the next few weeks, it happens again that the boy and the lover are in the closet together. Boy - "Dark in here." Man - "Yes, it is." Boy - "I have a baseball glove." The lover remembering the last time, asks the boy, "How much?" Boy - "$750" Man - "Fine." A few days later, the father says to the boy, "Grab your glove, let's go outside and have a game of catch." The boy says, "I can't, I sold my baseball and my glove." The father asks, "How much did you sell them for?" Boy - "$1,000" The father says, "That's terrible to overcharge your friends like that...that is way more than those two things cost. I'm going to take you to church and make you confess." They go to the church and the father makes the little boy sit in the confession booth and he closes the door. The boy says, "Dark in here." The priest says, "Don't start that shit again."