Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 5:41 AM
Sun Dec 20
19 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
| Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan Morrissey
| Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
| Twitter
Sadie Stein
| Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
| Twitter
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
| Twitter
Contributors:
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Latoya Peterson
Email
Jenna Sauers
Lizzie Skurnick
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Weekends/Commenter Moderator:
Hortense
| Twitter
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
That goes without saying. But we, unfortunately, don't have movies to promote.
I disagree that they are all lauded as experts, though. They have a pulpit, but not necessarily the credibility to back it up. (Looking at you, Jenny McCarthy!) In Woody's case, I'm less annoyed than I'd be if say, Sean Penn were spouting off. About anything, however worthy. Woody's always been a crunchy hippie kind of guy, so him being into politics doesn't surprise me.
As long as they're well informed about their issues and not sanctimonious twits, trotting off to co-sign leaders and situations whose implications they don't seem to entirely understand, I'm OK with slebs sounding off on what interests them. It brings visibility, and often donations, to issues that might not be brought to people's notice otherwise. But I could see how that would bug you.
11/11/09
i'm confused. TYLER perry is supposed to bring aerosmith back together? really?
madea?! #dinalohan
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
Outrageous! Everyone knows racism only ever occurs in poor, rude neighbourhoods. #dinalohan
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
It seems so Orwellian that a state would allow recording w/ out permission of all parties involved, much less release them to the media w/out permission.
Then again, I wasn't shouting the O word when it was Rod Blagojevich who was recorded w/out permission.
I guess I have selective civil liberty issues. #dinalohan
11/11/09
11/11/09
Wow Fergie. You needed the paid assistance of a therapist to recognize that one? Women are real human beings too you know!
I tried to use that excuse to justify to myself my cheating high school boyfriend with one of my best friends. Even then I knew it was bullshit.
The thought of Fergie with anyone in a sexual way is repugnant. #dinalohan
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
the thing it, this used to be really really common among women, passionate friendship and boston marriages. but the gay panic put a name on same-sex love and began to look at intense homosocial friendships with suspicion. #dinalohan
11/11/09
11/11/09
You say that because of gay panic, society began to look at intense homosocial friendships with suspicion, but I don't think that's the issue with Oprah and Gayle. The two of them have been very upfront about the fact that their friendship has been the defining relationship of their lives, that they talk at least once every day, that they love each other. It's other people who feel the need to label that as "gay", either in derision (tabloids) or to coopt their friendship for some political purpose (Rosie, presumably) that are the problem here.
11/11/09
11/11/09
im not saying that, in fact, im implying just the opposite. that is why i put "real relationship" in quotations. the whole point i was trying to make was that we commonly define "real relationships" as relationships that include sex acts but it is possible to have an intense or even passionate romantic relationship without the sex act. i mean, thats basically the definition of a romantic friendship, which is what i would venture to say most resembles the relationship between oprah and gayle.
therefore, it should be possible for people to have a romantic relationship/romantic friendship without having sex and also be of the same gender--which i think is what rosie was implying. but rosie gets into trouble when she uses the term gay, because gayness is defined by the sex act. this is the main thing i have a problem with. people say "oh, its not a gay relationship because they don't have sex" which reduces the complexity of same-sex relationships in their various manifestations to sex as its defining act.
that reduction is a fairly recent phenomenon though, stemming from late 19th century sexologists like Kraft-Ebbing and Havelock-Ellis and the creation of homosexuality. and this perspective that still influences our understanding of homosocial relationships: its the sex that makes them gay, not romance or the feelings. #dinalohan
11/11/09
11/11/09
Awhat? What is with this need to make up new terms to define friendship? In this single thread, the words gay, friendship, relationship, and romantic have been stripped of all meaning. You say that by not calling their relationship gay it somehow reduces the complexity of same-sex relationships down to the sex act. Gay relationships are more complex than sex. So are het relationships. But this idea that all same sex friendships are gay makes no sense because not all friendships are romantic. Not all intense friendships are romantic.
I'm saying that by insisting that any relationship with depth and love in it be defined as romantic you're reducing friendship to acquaintance. Two gay men can have a friendship that is not romantic. A lesbian and a straight woman can have a meaningful friendship that is not gay. It's not gay panic to say that sex (or at least sexual attraction and/or some foreplay for the virgins out there) defines romantic relationships. Gay and straight.
Here's a quick way to tell if Oprah and Gayle are in a gay relationship: ask them. They say they are not. If you're not willing to let it rest there, I wonder what your motive is for forcing your definition of their relationship on them.
11/11/09
"i have a couple like relationship with a gf, and it's not the fact that we don't have sex that make it not a gay relationship alas the fact that we are not gay"
but what makes you not gay? how do you know? for that matter, what is gay? the thing i worry about is that gay has been reduced to the sex act. you say it hasn't, but why then can't oprah and gayle be considered to be in a gay relationship? because they don't self-identify as gay? why don't they? could it be because gay means you have gay sex and why would someone who doesn't have gay sex identify as someone who has gay sex?
i think we both believe that you can have intense and even romantic friendships that do not involve the sex act. and these can happen between people of the same gender. so why get all in a huff when someone calls it a gay relationships, and what then, makes it not? if the romantic and passionate feelings are there but not the sex, why can't it be gay? because in our common understanding, gay revolves around and is defined by sex. its an unfair reduction. #dinalohan
11/11/09
I didn't make up the term romantic friendship, its a term thats been around a pretty long while and a type of relationship thats been around even longer. And the idea that some friendships take on a romantic character does not in anyway reduce other or all other friendships to the level of acquaintance. thats an absurd accusation to make. I may have a friend whom I do not have sex with but like to cuddle and hold hands with and find strength in their proximity and our intimacy, but that doesn't mean that all of my other friendships are invalidated.
"You say that by not calling their relationship gay it somehow reduces the complexity of same-sex relationships down to the sex act."
No, the insistence that we defend same-sex friendships that may venture into the romantic friendship category from the label of gay by pointing out a lack of sex is what reduces gay relationships to the sex act because what we then use to define a gay relationship IS the sex. By using that lack of sexuality to negate the possibility of gayness, we in turn reduce gay-relationships to sex. of course i know that gay relationships are MUCH MORE than sex, which is why i think its peculiar that we define gay as based on the sex act. And I never said that all friendships are romantic or that people of opposite or the same gender or orientations of whatever cannot have non-romantic or non-sexual relationships. If you heard that then you are willfully misunderstanding.
im saying that WHEN an intense/passionate friendship takes on romantic overtones (which happens!) and we use the lack of sexuality to define the relation in opposition to gayness we are, as a result, reducing gay relationships to the sex act, because if the exact same relationship existed but they did the naughty, we would define it is gay.
and as far as the nefarious political agenda i must have in pointing this out: i think we should reconsider how we reduce complicated human relationships into very simple and narrowminded and restricting categories. #dinalohan
11/11/09
I feel like the fact that there's been no definition of terms here means that we will never agree. As far as I can tell, you're using the word "romantic" to mean important, and that is not my understanding of that word.
It's bizarre because I think if you could read your posts the way they're coming across to me, you'd be disturbed. Basically it's gay panic all the way. First you point out that homophobia made people suspicious of close homosocial relationships. Agreed. Then you say that those relationships have been important throughout time and have value and the gay panic around them was problematic. Agreed. Then you say the relationship is gay if it's homosocial and meaningful. Head explodes. #dinalohan
11/11/09
I kind of get where you're coming from I think your basic impulse is admirable -- you're right to say that there's more to gay romantic relationships than just sex. But:
but why then can't oprah and gayle be considered to be in a gay relationship? because they don't self-identify as gay? why don't they? could it be because gay means you have gay sex and why would someone who doesn't have gay sex identify as someone who has gay sex?
Uh, yes. If they don't see themselves as romantic partners, then they're not romantic partners. If they don't see themselves as gay, then they're not gay. Your identity is your identity. You identify however the hell you want to identify, based on whatever the hell you want to base it on. There is no universal definition of gay, straight, and bisexual to which we all have to cleave; there is no overarching authority that says you have to choose one of those three, and stand by that choice forever. The only person who can determine your identity is you. I mean, if people could go around proclaiming other people gay or straight, there would be an awful lot more straight kids in the world. #dinalohan
11/11/09
and a short history of lesbian-feminist usage of the term:[www.glbtq.com]
i think that you're reducing the complexity of the point or i am trying to make when you said that i say "the relationship is gay if it's homosocial and meaningful" or just not understanding. what i am trying to do in this discussion is question the common understanding of the term gay and ask if there might be a definition that doesn't revolve around the sexual act.
and i'll just be upfront and say that the literary/historical/sociological explorations of romantic friendships have historically fallen under the queer studies scope and this is perspective from which i approach the issue. and perhaps upon further reflection i have been more influence by adrienne rich than i once believed and should use some of her terminology: we want to label women in passionate same-sex friendships as non-gay because of compulsory heterosexuality: you are straight until you prove otherwise (which you do through getting it on gay-style). but under the idea of the lesbian continumm, lesbian relationships are not and should not be defined merely by the sexual acts that may or not take place, but by the bonds, passions, and shared experiences between intimate women.
I would suggest reading EM Forster's "Maurice" Its rather short and pretty good. Its set/written at a time in history BEFORE homosexuality had become a mainstreamed identity--it was still only existed in a medical/psychological context. the titular character has a passionate/romantic friendship with a fellow student. there is no genital-sex, but it is still defined in the terms of the novel as a romance because it is the loving, not the fucking, that makes a relationship. the term homosexual is only used when the character visits a psychologist--its an identity created for him by "heterosexuals" (which is anachronistic term because the concept of heterosexuality meant something else at that time) to define him as "other" than them. and theres a pretty bad film adaptation with a young hugh grant too.
i guess i just think it is LOVE that makes a relationship "gay", not sex. but maybe thats just because im a queer who doesn't like having my identity reduced by a heteronormative culture obsessed with definitions and classifications to what i do or do not do in the bedroom.
or perhaps this: why is it even necessary to distinguish between the platonic and the sexual when the same end is achieved?
11/11/09
11/11/09
1. conflate platonic and romantic love
2. conflate any emotional connection with romance, and
3. override Oprah and Gayle's own definition of their relationship.
I'm not willing to cede the mantle of Queer Perspective to you while you insist on defining other people in ways they would not and emphatically do not define themselves. In this thread you [rightly, imo] rail against compulsory heterosexuality but you seem to be applying the lens of "gay until proven otherwise" to this relationship. They say they're not attracted to women. They say they're not attracted to each other. They say repeatedly that they're not gay.
Theirs is not a gay relationship. #dinalohan
11/11/09
11/11/09
after that i started to use the term romantic friendship/passionate friendship which is probably the best way to describe their relationship as it is defined by the lack of or unimportance of genital-sex, but still allows for intense bonds, affection and intimacy. and i wanted to point out that these relationships, even though genital sex does not necessarily occur, are often classified in the queer spectrum because they challenge the heteronormative assumption that love, affection and dependence are exclusively reserved for members of the opposite gender (who may or may not engage in the sex act). at this point im talking about a historical/sociological framework that we may be able to use to help flesh-out our understanding of a relationship like oprah/gayle.
in the end, i dont care what label is put onto those two in particular, but recognition that sex does not define the meaning or importance of a relationship and the emancipating possibility of recognizing the importance of such relationships when they happen between people of the same gender. im not trying to reduce their relationship to the sex-act but elevate it above the sex-act.
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
However, for other people, I think it is because she is a "home wrecker." Interesting that the hate is reserved for Angelina rather than the men who actually did the cheating. #dinalohan
11/11/09
Anyway, does that semi-explain it? I think a lot of people have the same issues. When really we should just all chill out and focus on our own lives, haha. #dinalohan
11/11/09
also, the article on msnbc says the jolie hate may be because shes is considered to be super pretty and having everything..i can sort of see that..nice looking, check, hot 'husband' check, gorgeous kids check, loads of money check..shrug #dinalohan
11/11/09
I agree that she shouldn't have taken the A Mighty Heart role and I am seriously starting to question Winterbottom's casting choices. And I thought The Changeling could have been wonderful with someone else in the role (she really was bad). I don't agree with the sanctimonious part though. I think she's pretty real. I regularly get called aloof by my friends and haughty by people who don't know me so well; I suppose I give her the benefit of the doubt and don't expect to know anything of her intentions. I think she tries to be a good person and do the right thing and I guess I like that she doesn't give an ish what I think.
Thanks for sharing your point of view. #dinalohan
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09