Insults

One thing that has been on my mind throughout this course is how politically incorrect words are used to classify or put down a person for being who they are. Just like what josh said in his post, saying "fag" was not meant to offend anyone but the truth is, it does.  Today, for some of my friends I hear them say "that's gay" quite frequently and it has become a habit that they don't even consciously think about. I believe that more people are understanding how hurtful it can be to say those words that offend the LGBT community. This should not take priority to other insulting words like fat, ugly, stupid etc.

Brian Gallagher 

Response to Magazine post

I find it hard to believe they would cover that magazine. I would like to think it was meant for a different magazine and they forgot to remove the cover. Our generation is transitioning into becoming more accepting of the LGBT community and of course there are going to be others that will have more difficulty adjusting along the way than most. Being homosexual is becoming more common today and should be viewed more as a social norm than be hidden behind a protective shield. I also agree with what Val states in her post, that society plays a large part in affecting people's lives. Blocking Elton John's family just proves that people are still rejecting and should not affect how a family with two fathers should be viewed. 

Brian Gallagher 

The Slippages

I have often wondered why there has always been the debate about how someone becomes gay. Were they born gay or did they take it on as part of their identity- is it a choice? I feel like this debate is just another way to classify and categorize people. Is it really neccessay to know this? Heterosexual people are never asked if they were born that way or if it was a difficult choice they had to make. By asking these questions of homosexual people, we are right away labeling them as deviant and pushing the matter of their sexuality as if it were a mystery that needs to be solved. To a point, its almost digusting that we have to "pry" into the very privite lives of people, and claim that the interest of it is in the name of science.

And it had never occured to me before class that science and religion seem to oppress people in the same matters, yet they are polar opposites of each other. I don't think that religion or politics should ever keep someone from making choices about their personality, identity, and bodies. Afterall, not everyone believes in the religions , sciences or politics that speak out about these things, so why should we make laws that oppress all people, including the non-believers? These are personal choices that people make and no one (institution) should have the right to interfere with that. It is disheartening to be told that we live in the "land of the free" and yet we aren't allowed to make these decisions, and if we do, we are deviant and going to hell.

Erin Pattridge

P.S. Sorry Jeff! I got it to work after I sent you those emails and messages!

Bisexuality: Myth of Fact

After class on Tuesday, I ended up researching more about "Bisexuality" and the backlash it recieves. I found out that it recieves more critiscim in the LGBT Community sometimes then anywhere else. This kind of shocked me. If the LGBT Community is all about acceptance and change then why arent they accepting the practices of "bisexuality"? From the articles I read it seems that a lot of homsexuals think bisexuality is just a "phase" and that the person will decide to become gay. I don't believe this, but I can't change the opinion of hundreds. If it is a phase, or a choice then let it be. I just think everyone should worry about themselves and not someone elses lifestyle choices. I can't grasp how certain people's mind sets work. I really can't.

~Kyle

Giving a Label

I really like the converstation we had in class the other day. I don't remember who said but I totally agreed with the idea of not placing a label on a person because of their sexual orientation. The term, "homosexual" has recieved so many negative meanings throughout the years, that some people don't even want to openly come out because of the label they will recieve. If our world didn't find homosexuality as such a deviant behavior that the labels would be appropriate in their meaning. Homesexual would just mean someone who likes the same sex and not disgusting, promiscuous, wrong or dirty. A word can mean so much and cause so much turmoil sometimes.

~Kyle

The Mutter

The film on the Mutter Museum was interesting to say the least. It came around at a time when medicine was starting to get off the ground and they needed a school to teach weird diseases. But is the school ethical for today's world? Many believe it is a staple of the past that has a weird collection of human body parts such as Chang and Ang Bunkers liver. Also to answer this question is that it is marketed as a museum for medical students. Whatever the argument I found it very interesting. There are very few places were you can see diseases on display or a plaster cast of conjoined twins.

Response to "Offending Magazine Cover" Post

I was so shocked to see this. I think that the supermarket using the protective shield is absolutely ridiculous and offensive. I had no idea that this had happened. If the supermarket wants to "protect" young shoppers then they should put the shields in front of the magazines with half naked women on the cover. How would seeing an image of two men with a baby corrupt a young shopper but an image of a half naked woman not? Honestly if I had saw that in person I probably would have moved the shield to a different place. Things and actions of this offensive nature towards the LGBT community really upset me. How would the people who decided to put this shield up feel if someone censored their family picture? I have a feeling they would be upset, so how can they justify doing this to Elton John and his family?

"Offending" Magazine Cover: Censor or not?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/3375787/Elton-John-magazine-in-censorship-fury.html

Back in January 2011, a magazine cover showing Elton John with his gay partner and their baby was censored at a supermarket, sparking uproar. What does the class think about this?

- Josh Steffen

Cynthia Wu

On Thursday, Cynthia Wu's presentation on Chang and Eng Bunker was very interesting. It was neat to hear that she attended their family reunion every year and was in contact with their descendants. The discussion that interested me the most was when their identity was brought up. Who were they compared to how they were portrayed? She answered with Chang and Eng were performers and when they started to build capital, they were seen as more white. Having money in that time was only for wealthy whites and Chang and Eng were accepted into that stereotype. In the photos that she showed, the beginning of their career they were showed as exaggerated Asians and darker than they really were. In every picture they seemed to look a little different based on where they were in their career. It was obvious, and pointed out by Wu, that money made them seem less deviant in the eyes of society. They had wives and children and lived a fairly normal life. I enjoyed her presentation and seeing all of the research she has done about Chang and Eng, the conjoined twins.

Gender and Sexuality

In our discussion on Thursday, we were discussing what people thought about the issue of homosexuals being born that way or if it is a choice. I think that Jordan did a good job at pointing out both sides. Some kinds always feel "different" than the other kids when they were growing up. His example was a boy does not like playing with the same things that normal boys do. I believe that this is an example of society influencing the homosexual community. People feel the need to categorize people and need explanations for everything. The issue of not being like other kids if often explained with homosexuality. I am not saying that this happens 100% of the time, but in some cases it could. If someone is told something over and over they might begin to believe it and live a different lifestyle. I feel like this is the case when people are unsure of their sexual orientation. Society plays a large part in people's lives and I think this is another aspect. Some people could be born as a homosexual, but I believe that societal factors play a greater role.

Homosexuality, Homophobia & Religion

On Tuesday, we talked about how acceptance of homosexuality has shifted over time (I like to think its gotten better, but there are still people who are against it). Catholicism was also mentioned. I was raised Roman Catholic, and their teachings say that homosexuals will go to hell. I struggled with this for a long time, wondering if this was true or not. Once I got older, I came to my own conclusion that God loves all of us regardless, and this would not happen (the Bible is open to interpretation). To this day, I consider my religious views to be Christian, and not attached to a particular "denomination." I do not think damnation of homosexuals is Christian at all. I also think we are born either heterosexual or homosexual, although some people have told me they think it is a chemical thing (whatever floats your boat).

A good movie to watch about homosexuality, homophobia, and religion is Prayers for Bobby based on a true story of the life and legacy of Bobby Griffith, a young gay man who killed himself due to his mother's and community's homophobia.


- Josh Steffen

Titles, Titles, Titles

“The Invention of Heterosexuality”

Looks like the medical community is at it again! “Medical men, in the name of science, defined a new ideal of male-female relationships.”  It is also interesting to note that they decided that they now needed to reclassify women – if we enjoyed sex then we were a nymphomaniac, Victorian Sexual perverts but if we showed a lack of sexual pleasure we suffered from a mental disturbance and were labeled as suffering from “frigidity” and “anesthesia”.  The male doctors can’t seem to be able to get things right. It must be an awful responsibility to have to maintain the façade of superiority.

Joyce Abbott

Chang, Eng and Homosexual's Genitalia

During the discussion following Wu’s presentation on Chang and Eng, I couldn’t help but consider the parallels between the medical examination and dissection of Chang and Eng and the examination and sketching of homosexual genitalia. Consider the similarities, for example, in regards to the reliance on touch, vision, and the variance of the observers involved in locating and defining “deviancy” in each of these instances. The medical physicians involved in the examination of individuals’ genitalia were hoping to identify physical evidence to the nature of one’s sexual relationship. Similarly, during the medical examination and dissection of Chang and Eng, there was significant attention paid to Eng’s genitalia, particularly his retracted testicle, perhaps in hopes that it would reveal the nature of their sexual relationship and non-monogamous contact among the twins and their wives.

During the examination of individuals’ genitalia in search of homosexual characteristics, the physicians had to rely heavily on their own perception and senses during the examination. For instance, during the examination, the measurement of genitalia parts was taken with the use of small ruler and fingers, (141). “Vaginal penetration was measured in terms of the number of fingers the examiner could fit into the subject,”(141). The variability of peoples' finger sizes raises the obvious concern of the validity of the approach of touch and vision.

Likewise, during the examination and dissection there was heavy reliance on touch and vision in order to “locate deviancy.” During the examination, in order to deduce how far the body cavities extended into the connective ligament of Chang and Eng, the feeling of the interior surfaces and observation of the movement a finger was employed.

Furthermore, it may be important to consider what purpose Dickinson’s sketches of genitalia actually served. Did they serve a similar purpose to that of the freak show pamphlets, photos, and trading cards of "freaks?"

Why does scientific medicine rely so heavily on these senses in order to locate and identify "deviancy?"

Angela B.

Cynthia Nixon and Bisexuality

Actress Cynthia Nixon explained in an interview for the New York Times that for her, being gay is strictly a choice.

"I understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice, and you don’t get to define my gayness for me,” Nixon stated. Many were uncomfortable with her statement that one’s sexual orientation can be chosen, so two days later, she clarified her statement in an interview with The Daily Beast:

"I don’t pull out the ‘bisexual’ word because nobody likes the bisexuals. Everybody likes to dump on the bisexuals. ...I just don’t like to pull out that word. But I do completely feel that when I was in relationships with men, I was in love and in lust with those men. And then I met Christine and I fell in love and lust with her. I am completely the same person and I was not walking around in some kind of fog. I just responded to the people in front of me the way I truly felt."

But even that explanation was not enough for a large portion of the LGBT community, who seemed to prefer that she just call herself “bisexual” already. A week after that interview, she made the following statement to The Advocate:

"[...] to the extent that anyone wishes to interpret my words in a strictly legal context I would like to clarify: While I don't often use the word, the technically precise term for my orientation is bisexual. I believe bisexuality is not a choice, it is a fact. What I have 'chosen' is to be in a gay relationship."

Consider Cynthia Nixon’s statement, “nobody likes the bisexuals.” This statement makes one consider that perhaps she would identify as bisexual if stereotypes and prejudices did not surround the word “bisexual.” Often individuals are uncomfortable with the idea that bisexuality represents an orientation that could be categorized into either poles of sexual orientation depending on what sexual relationship or experience one considered. For example, Nixon could be considered heterosexual having been sexually involved with men, yet on the other hand, she could be classified as homosexual due to her sexual relationships with women. Our discomfort may stem from the fact that we are reliant and comfortable with duality and distinction. We would rather classify and categorize everything and everyone into neat, separate categories. We grow uncomfortable with ambiguity, when we are able to fit someone into a category easily. Given the negative implications of “bisexuality,” how much of a “choice” does one have in choosing a label to identify themselves with? People should be able to choose the words which they feel fit their experiences and identities, or even defy to label their relationships and experiences in contemporary terms. However, we should certainly be aware that certain words or labels are held at higher regards over others. It is important that we reveal the reality behind certain labels, and dismantle the negative connotations surrounding the label. Our first step in doing should be to allow for bisexual individuals to become more visible within our society.

Angela Barney

The F word

I would like to share a blog post from my English class. I hope some people add their thoughts, specifically, what definition they correlate with the "f" word. Do you think as South Park suggests, the word is no longer a pejorative term against homosexuals? Do you think the word should cease to be used all together? (Sarah, this is my late contribution to the LGBT discussion)    Earlier today in class we talked about made up words, and depending on context how a word can have a different meaning. It reminded me of an amusing South Park episode. The F word episode sought to re-define the slang definition of “fag”. The episode went on to explain that the word “fag” has evolved from meaning an old unpleasant women to a bundle of sticks, and eventually a pejorative term against homosexuals in the U.S. However, as of late, most youth associate the word “fag” with a reckless and thoughtless person or more distinctly: an extremely annoying, inconsiderate individual most commonly associated with Harley riders. I understand South Park is a comedy show and not very formal. What is notable is that South Park brings to light many current and large societal issues. I think they did a great job of explaining that depending on context and the situation, the word fag among the younger generations is used to denote an annoying, inconsiderate person.
      I remember a few years back when I worked as the nurse at a Jewish Camp. My best friend was the pool director. We would always joke with one-another (not around the campers). And once in a while, one of us would call the other a “fag.” In no way did we mean to refer to the other as a homosexual. Our definition of the word was very much related to South Park’s. One day the assistant camp director overheard us using the word “fag.” She was deeply offended, and I remember getting into a heated argument about it. Her point was that we were causing harm to the gay community whether or not we meant it as derogatory. We tried to explain to her that we would never use it out of context or mean it as an offensive term to homosexuals. We did not win the battle.
     The students of South Park in the episode realized that in order for the “fag” word to represent their definition, they had to encourage head dictionary editors to change its meaning. Of course I have learned my lesson about using the term and ensuring I only use it around my friends, and am now careful of who might be near. I am pleased though that South Park brought this issue to many others attentions. If only South Park with its many viewers could afford to bring all modern lingo onto the stage! At the very least, I hope my former boss sat for the airing of the F Word.

Domalski, Josh

Lesbian identity

“The Social History of Lesbian and Gay Identity”

I found it interesting that the authors defined a woman’s desire for a same sex relationship as being only in relation to a male’s place in society.  For example: “ is a direct result of male insecurities, only when a woman seemed to contravene directly masculine priorities and privileges was she punished, actual or perceived threats to male authority and privilege, feminist threat to the system of male authority, perceived violations of gender roles.  Nowhere in this article do I find any such definitions of a male’s desire for a same sex relationship by relating them to the female insecurities or societal role. 

Joyce Abbott

Something I noticed in class

When I realized that we were finally getting to LGBT-related things in class, I was really excited. As most people know, it's something I'm very passionate about and plan on dedicating my life to. However, I know that it's a subject that tends to make some people uncomfortable, not necessarily always because they don't agree with alternative lifestyles, but because they aren't very knowledgeable about it and they're afraid of offending somebody. During Tuesday's class, I noticed that many people who often talk in class were hesitant to participate in the STEPS presentation activity. I also noticed that during class discussion, people were again hesitant to answer any questions. I'm not sure if this was because they didn't do the reading, they felt uncomfortable talking about the gay community, or they were trying to be careful as to not offend anyone, but there were definitely a lot less people participating than usual. This upsets me because I don't want people to be afraid to say something or ask questions. When it comes to the LGBT community and its allies, we welcome anyone who genuinely wants to learn about our history, our cause, and why we're fighting for everything we're fighting for. There will always be rude, ignorant people out there that will make snide comments or ask questions just to be malicious or nosy. However, we understand that some people are just curious, and that's ok. Don't be afraid to say something because you're worried about how you might sound. As long as you have good intentions, you will not offend anybody. We realize that most people are very naive about something that have become common knowledge for us, and we want to help you learn! I am speaking for the vast majority of people I know within the LGBT community when I say that we love talking to people about our culture and history and helping the effort to erase people's ignorance. So in class, speak up, ask questions, and don't be afraid of sounding silly or offensive. As long as your intentions are good, you'll get the answer you want.

Sarah Bradley

history of the homosexual body

One article that we had to read for class on Thurday was called Anxious Slippages Between "Us" and "Them." This article dealt with explanations to the homosexual body. It stated the the reason that people were homosexual was because they were diseased or had a disorder. It linked the body to the homosexual desires. It also stated like homosexuality masturbation was also a disorder and that these two different acts caused a drive in sexual intentions which would then drain their offspring.  The article also said that these different disorders would happen during the embryotic stage and later in life it could be changed if the child was given a normal and healthy life. One thing that this article also pointed out that his relevant to today's world was the fact that we try to place these people into different classifications. We still try to do this today because we are a society likes to have classifications of people. When we see something that is not of the norm to our society the way that we make it unnormal is by putting it into its own separate category. Another part of the article that is also relevant today was the fact that men were looked down upon more then women for have same sex relations. The reason stated in this article for this was because these women were not seen as being powerful and in response to that didnt threaten society as much as males did. This is also the view we hold today as well in the fact that we look differently to two males having sex rather than two females. Its also almost as though we condone same sex relations of females and it is being sexualized within the porn industry and at the same time if someone is to watch same sex porn with males they are looked at as not behaving in the norm of society.

Church vs. Science on the topic of Homosexuality

I was scrolling through Tumblr when I saw this meme, and couldn't help but think this relates to class. Throughout this course we have been talking about medicine and science and how it limits deviant individuals. In my opinion, I believe some religions do the same thing. I don't want people to think that I am bashing any ones religion, because I am not trying to that. However, I do believe that some religions, and individuals, use their religion to limit people that are considered deviant. The Bible says being gay is a sin. The Bible also states that because Eve ate the forbidden fruit, women have to suffer the pains of menstruation and birthing. It just seems like science and religion (which are at complete opposite ends of the spectrum) still manage to relate to each other. And just like in medicine, there are some religious individuals that abuse their power to oppress certain other individuals. I'm not at all saying that religion is bad, or that people shouldn't follow it, but I do think that if you are going to follow a certain religion, you should not use it to limit others. This could be a complete stretch, and I am sure others are going to disagree with me. However, I couldn't help but think that there are some similarities.

The Metrosexual

    The article, “The Social History of Lesbian and Gay Identity” by Mimi Mannucci, states that there is a need for alternative interpretations of sexual identities that lie outside the heterosexual norm (25). We have one, “The Metrosexual”. Before the semester began I read, The Metrosexual Guide to Style. I picked it up at my favorite record shop in Rochester. The book explains and gives advice on many topics—general etiquette, wine, coffee, arts, culture, fashion, grooming, romance, home décor and even mindset. Michael Flocker gives a definition of the Metrosexual in the beginning of the book: 1. Twenty-first century male trendsetter
2. Straight, urban man with heightened aesthetic sense
3. Man who spends time and money on appearance and shopping
4. Man willing to embrace his feminine side
    In Flocker’s Introduction he mentions that the great divide between straight men and gay men has lessened considerably. He states that the metrosexual male has broken “masculine codes” (Intro). Although Flocker references Mark Simpson the man who supposedly coined the term and declared that any male—regardless if he was bi-sexual, straight or gay—could be a metrosexual; Flocker depicts—as evident in his definition—the metrosexual as a straight male.
     The book was a fun read and at the same time informative. However, I would like to separate myself from the high end consumer aspect of a metrosexual. I do have taste, but spending over 100 dollars on a shirt or pair of pants is a little outrageous to me.  I find that as I get older, I care more about my appearance and all the topics discussed in Flocker’s book. Of course some people have responded negatively but in most cases, it is harmless. For instance, my friend visited me from Rochester a few weeks ago and made fun of me because I have lots of shoes, more than a male should, according to her. I am not sure if I would label myself a metrosexual, but I did find myself relating to and agreeing with Flocker’s book on many topics.
    I agree with Flocker that the vision you get of the “normal” hetero sexual male is a macho and aggressive one. The Metrosexual male seems like a hybrid of a heterosexual male and a gay male. I do not necessarily agree though with Flocker that if you are gay, you cannot be a metrosexual. Thus, I think the metrosexual male needs to be better constructed. What I do like about Flocker’s interpretation is the promotion of a more sensitive, knowledgeable and worldly male the opposite of a tough, insensitive and narrowly minded guy. If anyone was wondering, Justin Timberlake and David Beckham are considered the ideal modern day Metrosexual.

Flocker, Michael. The Metrosexual Guide to Style: A Handbook for the Modern Man. Massachusetts: DA CAPO PRESS, 2003. Print.

Domalski, Josh

Gender Roles/Same Sex Couples

Our society puts pretty strict gender roles on us. I think that the media and companies do this in part. If you think back to our childhood what were the toys that were marketed to the girls? Dolls, play kitchens, easy bake ovens, dress up clothes, and make up. For the boys it was sports related toys, action figures, play grills, play tools and cars. Its like they are preparing children for what their roles should be when they become adults. From birth society tells parents how to treat and teach their children. Girls are sensitive and boys are tough. To make a generalized statement I would say that a majority of us were raised into the norm with exceptions here and there. If parents raise their children away from the gender norms, society deems the parents and children deviant. 


I think that our discussion on gay or lesbian couples raising children relates to what I said above. We talked about society seems to think that same sex couples can't raise children, or that if they do then they will also be gay. Society thinks that those children will be deviant and not fit into our "normal" world. When people find out that someone was raised by a same sex couple they are usually shocked. To me it seems like they are surprised that someone who is deemed as normal in our society could have been raised by a same sex couple. It plays into the idea that to raise "normal" children, one must have a traditional parent unit of a man and a woman. 

The Invention of Homosexuality

I think that it is human nature to feel the need to classify and categorize. This just doesn't apply to people, but everything!!! But I thought it was an interesting point that in order to have the term "homosexuality" we needed to have another term to compare it to. The term heterosexuality was to represent the "normal" sexual desires and expressions, whereas homosexuality represented the abnormal. There are still many who are very uncomfortable with homosexual people, but those people can only see as far as sexual orientation, which is very sad. There is so much more to a person than that.

I remember in another class, the professor put up a list of questions that are usually asked of people who are homosexual, but replaced all instances of "homosexual" with "heterosexual". Some of the questions were: What age were you when you first realized you were heterosexual? Do you plan to reproduce as a heterosexual? If you could change your heterosexuality, would you? There were many more questions, though these ones came to mind first. We never ask "normal" people why they chose to be heterosexual, so why should we look accusingly at any other sexual orientation?

I do think that sometimes it is important to have categories, though I am not sure if it is right to place humans in them. If we absolutely must, I would agree with what was said in class- we should not rank the categories. By ranking, we are implying that one is better or more normal above the others. And who is to truly be the judge of that?

Erin Pattridge

catrgorizing people and labeling them

The two articles that we read for today dealt with the hisotry of lesbian and gay and also the invention of heterosexuality. it dealt with the issue of how we catorgoized people in the past. this is relevant today because we still try to catagorize people into different catagories based on characteristics. In class it was said that even within the gay community you are still looked differently if for example you were bisexual or a lesbain. People are being labeled by the way that they act and their behavior. One question that was brought up in class was whether or not we should base people's sexuality on thier idenity or on their behavior and this shows that this is still an issue today about how we catagorize people. The reason for this is because it may not be the right classification for them. I think that this should be based on your identiy rather then your behavior because like someone said in class you may be gay but at the same time you may not have had sex with someone of the same sex or you may have had sex with someone of the opposite sex because you didn't know you were gay at the time. Another thing that was brought up in class was the issue of why we tell people they are not allowed to be together if they love each other. This is relevant to today as well in the past but i feel like we are starting to move away from this because now more and more states are starting to allow same sex marriages. the reason that this was more prominent in the past to not allow same sex marriage may be because they felt that sex and marriage was for the pupose of reproduction only. It also because they do not want same sex couples to have children together in fear that those children may become like them and that was a threat to society.

Gender Norms

On Thursday's class, the gender roles/norms we discussed, I believe are created both biologically and socially.  Men have this idea that they need to be masculine and this is embedded in them when they are younger.  They don't play with dolls but action figures, they don't cry but they dominate.  Women are supposed to be domestic and show emotions.  The class discussion on this was very interesting because we had men saying they are emotional, but it was put upon them to do so in a social context. As a woman, I believe that women and men at a very young age, are biologically aware o gender roles.  I think this is because of child rearing which can be social and biological because of how we act as young children. 
When it comes to women and medicalization and child birth, I was kind of mortified when we were talking about the hospital process as well as a home birth.  I think it is a women's choice if she wants to have the birth in a hospital or at home.  I think, due to so man medical complications possible, I would have my child born in a hospital.  I wish we would have heard form more of the men in the class about this topic because the girls were mostly participating in the discussion.  I would have liked to know if they would want their child born in a hospital or at home and how they feel about seeing the pregnancy and how the media portrays pregnancy. 
The media has a major role on how the younger population sees pregnancy.  My mom and I have talked about 16 and Pregnant and Teen Mom and we both believe that it glorifies pregnancy, but it also shows girls their options if they do become pregnant at this age.  The could get an abortion (which has never been portrayed on the shows) give the baby up for adoption or keep the child.  But, it also shows the youth that if they would become pregnant, they could try to get on the television show and become a celebrity. 

Leslie Walter

Mutter Museum Thoughts and Body Worlds Connections

During Tuesday's class when we watched the movie on the Mutter Museum, I was really intrigued in the whole thing.  When we discussed it in class about if we would go to this museum, I would totally go because of all the interesting history behind it, even though these were once people and it doesn't seem really ethical.  When I was watching this I couldn't stop thinking about the Body Worlds exhibit that came to Buffalo and how amazing it was.  When I actually look back on my experience there, I realize how weird it was.  People signed their bodies over to science to have them displayed in many different ways.  I did not really think about this until Jeff and Angela said something.  The women were in very domestic poses and the men were in very masculine poses.  This really made me think and I totally agree with the gender norms we discussed with in Thursday's class and how society forms them.  Now I am really interested in visiting the Mutter Museum because of this discussion and class!

Leslie Walter

Differences

After reading the passage from Anxious Slippages between “Us” and “Them” I was really angry. The fact that Dr. Dickinson could get away with such and experiment on women and men is crazy. Dickinson wanted to prove the characteristics of a deviant lesbian or gay person.  Does society paint lesbian and gay men in a different light? Are we brain-washed to think that they look different or act different than any other person? This goes back to my first blog post that does our sexuality define us in every sense of the word, do we look different the because of who we are sexually? As humans we judge people all the time, but are we judging fairly? I typed into Google the word lesbian and gay and these are the first images I got. Seems like we as a society we over sexualize the deviant, just like with Sarah Barrtman.

-Sarah Fiorella

Staight



Gay



Lesbian

Define me

In the reading Social History of Lesbian and Gay Identity the author bring up the topic that our sexuality defines us. I think the reading is completely true, looking at society today that is all we are obsessed with. We want to know when we first meet a person what they are. We are determined to define people and put them into categories. For the rest of the weekend I tried to find ways in which we put people into boxes to make life easier for us, but are we really. On my journey I stumbled on Facebook, I realized that Facebook is another way society is trying to manipulate sexuality. Our status about ourselves is a little behind the times. The choice you can be is either male of female according to Facebook. I would have thought that a young company would realize that there are more genders out there. I see the world in a different light now that I have done this reading. I now realize that there are a million and one things that define us (sexuality) every day. From the clothes we put on in the morning to the person we lay next to each night.   -Sarah Fiorella