Hey’all, so I’m doing a thesis about LGBTQ+ representation on social media with a particular focus on the webseries called Carmilla. For those that have watched Carmilla and for those that haven’t, it would help me a lot if you could fill out this survey. Hopefully it helps shed a light to those that don’t understand that representation matters.
i wish i saw more discussion around navigating sex for autistic and/or traumatized people (but especially traumatized autistic people because hello that’s me) instead of just “bdsm/k*nk means you’re brainwashed or retraumatizing yourself” and “get a therapist.”
Sex sells. It does today, and it did 90 years ago, as various pre-Code Hollywood films from 1930-1934 confirm.
The Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA) adopted the Production Code in February 1930, though it wasn’t strictly enforced until the summer of 1934 – hence, the misnomer “pre-Code.” Dwindling box-office receipts brought about by the Great Depression prompted studios to turn to risqué content and films showcasing women using sex as a tool to entice audiences. Whether out of necessity or sheer power, these films proved popular with moviegoers.
In fact, Warner Bros. instructed executive Darryl F. Zanuck to retain 20% of their 1932 output for “women’s pictures, which inevitably means sex pictures,” according to a memo sent to MPPDA President Will Hays. MGM’s THE DIVORCEE (’30) stands as one of the first pre-Codes to frankly explore a woman’s sex life as Norma Shearer’s Jerry forges her own path and evens the score with her cheating husband. The film performed so well that the New York Telegraph reported, “Now every picture concern is trying for something sensational and startling.”
And many did, which proved problematic for moral reformers and those who feared movies promoted immorality as glamourous and pleasurable but did little to warn against its dangerous consequences. With that, state censor boards and the Studio Relations Committee (SRC) – a subdivision of the MPDDA that reviewed scripts, suggested edits to save studios from costly cuts and helped pictures pass state boards – had their work cut out for them.
The notorious BABY FACE (’33), starring Barbara Stanwyck as Lily, a sexually exploited young woman who turns the tables on men and sleeps her way to the top, purposefully pushed the boundaries of sexuality onscreen, resulting in major edits before its debut. Luckily, two versions of the film survive today, the originally released picture and the pre-release cut discovered in 2004, to provide a visual example of what gatekeepers considered too unscrupulous.
After New York state rejected BABY FACE on the basis of general immorality, the SRC directed Warner Bros. to alter scenes to curtail and denounce Lily’s horizontal climb up the ladder. For instance, in the pre-release picture, a Nietzsche-quoting cobbler urges Lily to exploit herself: “But you must use men – not let them use you!” Rest assured, Joseph Breen, future enforcer of the Production Code, rewrote this sequence to spin those words into a morally righteous warning to Lily, saying instead “the price of the wrong way is too great.”
In the pre-release version, Lily beelines for the wrong way after hopping a train to New York with her companion Chico (Theresa Harris). Lily’s father pimped her at a young age, and now she’s taking control of her own power by seducing a brakeman for a free ride. The script’s description of this baiting emphasizes the importance placed upon sex:
“She comes closer to the brakeman, pulling her shirt down… she looks up at him with a smiling challenge… Then his glance strays down to her breasts… The brakeman’s lantern on the floor of the car… The brakeman’s hand reaches in and extinguishes the light.”
These subtle, implicit actions beckon the audience to fill in the blanks, but even that proved too incendiary, and the SRC ordered the brakeman character and conquest “entirely out.”
As BABY FACE illustrates, dialogue and visuals inferring sex could be dubbed over or deleted, but broader immoral thematic issues were not so easily expunged. However, whereas the SRC deemed some sexual content vague enough to skirt the censors, generally excusing implied sex if handled with “good taste.” Individual boards possessed different moral thresholds and chopped films accordingly. In the case of BABY FACE, for example, New York passed the picture with the aforementioned edits, while Ohio and Virginia banned it.
Many other pre-Codes suffered uneven censoring, too. Regarding RED-HEADED WOMAN (1932), the City of Atlanta Board of Review steamed: “Sex, sex, sex, the picture just reeks with it, till one is nauseated,” and Pennsylvania requested three full pages of edits, but Maryland seemed primarily concerned with shortening kissing scenes.
According to Mark A. Vieira’s Sin in Soft Focus, Joyzelle’s infamous lesbian dance in THE SIGN OF THE CROSS (’32) caused an uproar with religious periodicals, but director Cecil B. DeMille refused to delete it, and no censor boards touched it either; it’s surmised that they didn’t comprehend its meaning.
In a unique case, the Academy received an uncensored print of COCK OF THE AIR (’32) in 2007 – with the soundtrack missing for the previously censored sections. This resulted in an experimental re-creation of the axed dialogue, which included a contemporary voice actor dubbing Billie Dove’s purred line, “Would you like to do what’s on your mind?” to Chester Morris, whose enthusiastic answer, “I would!”, was also re-recorded. And the list goes on.
With Hollywood pushing out provocative films, censor boards cutting erratically and moral crusaders fuming, it’s no wonder the hammer came down in 1934, putting an end to frank depictions of sex onscreen for decades.
Hot Take O'Clock But: Big Mouth is a solid idea for a show (normalize puberty and emerging sexuality) that actually turned out as a deeply discomforting sexualization of children for an adult audience that got away with it because Edgy Cartoon Logic.
iif your telling mme that bbeing gay iss a phase
annnd being tranns is a phase
being straight is a phase
bbeinhg a ggirl is a phasse
SoI have always had an interest in contemporary books where characters overcome hardship and work through social issues, feminism, mental illness, LGBTQ+ individuals, identity, etc… Here is a sample selection of some must read books in my opinion! (in no particular order)
sometimes im like im bi, bi sounds cool, but then im like….but pan???? maybe that one’s right??? but then bi has a pretty flag. but labeling myself as one or the other feels like too much commitment. and then i’m like do i even really like men, maybe i’m a lesbian??? but i still find men attractive, but scary??? and then on the other hand intimacy w ANYone sounds terrifying. so then i’m like…. 🌈✨queer✨🌈
Honestly, I’m tired. I see so much material everywhere about ships and about what’s canon and what isn’t. I see people fighting about whether Sherlock is top or bottom (where an overwhelming majority thinks he’s a top). But somehow I never see enough material about his Other sides. His other habits like scrapbooking. Why is he Possibly eccentric and ….to an extent …is he really so eccentric at all?
Firstly, I see it constantly reiterated by Moffat that Sherlock’s decision to not be very sexually active is a Monk’s decision, not an asexual’s one. He isn’t interested in sex because it distracts him, and that means he’s not very produtive, and by this point we know that work is worship for Sherlock.
Now, the question arises, how do we know that he isn’t asexual?
Next comes the Johnlock theory and I am not going to lie, I like it . I really do. Some of the arguments I’ve read during my tenure in the fandom are very influencing and impressive and they genuinely make you think. But the truth remains that it isn’t canon (yet).
And if you’re a BBC Sherlock fan then the entire Irene Adler thing is also very frustrating. Being brought up in a homophobic country, the first time I watched the episode, I remember being sure that she was sherlock’s love interest. This was also compounded in my head as the truth because of Robert D.J’s movie, where Irene is explicitly shown as the love interest too. BBC too called her THE WOMAN, and Mycroft later says “She’s the only woman who matters”. And yet, we never see any explicit proof that Sherlock indeed has feelings towards her. What am I supposed to think then???
The more I think about it, the more maddening it gets. Especially with the subtext. I do think that now I can openly admit that the entire show has a lot of gay subtext (feel free to give your opinion about it) and that really is the jewel of any literature. But what do I make of it all?
An anecdote here: I am an 18yo girl who has read too much of gay fanfiction and conspiracies to never question my own sexuality. I thought I’ve had crushes on my girl friends and thought I wouldn’t mind dating one, but oh boy I didn’t like it at all (Well, now I know I’m straight :/ )
The one insight I’ve gained from here is that sometimes it’s tiring to figure out feelings. It’s ever capricious, obscure and frustrating. Think that from Sherlock’s POV and he literally is obsessed with his work to the point he doesn’t eat because it slows him down. He’s a brain with a body. He makes all of his deductions based on rectilinear principles that rule out the possibility of ambiguity and are necessarily singular in their nature. But feelings are the exact opposite of it - any emotion felt can have multiple causes and hence lead to multiple reactions, and the entire chemical nature of it is broad and overrun by multiple definitions. Even when people do feel certain things clearly, they seldom do express them truly. Modern life has made us to be afraid of intimacy and complete truth without diluting it with small lies. Even when people say that they feel a certain way explicitly, we can never tell if they’re speaking the entire thing truly. How could he possibly compute feelings?
Sherlock is a thinking, feeling being. But because thinking and comprehending is his greater joy, because he is obsessed with being intellectually superior to others, he doesn’t like anything he can’t understand, which itself is a common tendency and shows us that he’s only human. He doesn’t like the entire affair about sex not because he’s asexual, but because he doesn’t like the confusion and the lack of complete understanding of it. But this should never be interpreted as though he doesn’t have any feelings.
We do see in many occasions that Sherlock in fact is capable of showing empathy and does in fact try to comfort people. This very character trait of empathy shows that he isn’t in fact a sociopath. In case of Irene Adler(although the canon material clearly states that she was very devoted to her husband and didn’t have a romantic relationship with Sherlock), Sherlock doesn’t reciprocate her feelings. She repeatedly asks him for dinner and texts him, he denies each time. This tells us he isn’t interested in her. Although, in the end, he helps her. He didn’t need to though, but he does because HE DOES CARE. Caring doesn’t need a definitive cause based on romantic feelings. IT ITSELF IS A FEELING.
With Moriarty, there’s this undeniable tension. Both men are obsessed with each other because they know that they are equals. And we must ask :is this level of understanding any different to intimacy?
And there’s John. Sweet John who is completely devoted to Sherlock. Even in canon it’s pretty clear that the only times he truly is completely caring is when it comes to John. And tbh I don’t want to trip down that rabbit hole right now.
Sherlock does love people, and he’s too intellectual to find out exactly in which way or form does he love them. He simply does. And that makes him the “most humane human being”. He doesn’t love anybody in a sexual way, but why should it mean he doesn’t love anybody? His sexuality is boring. His own forms of love, however are the most beautiful to look at. Can we talk about that?
also if you’ve made it thus far, thank you for reading ! this is my first ever blog and tbh it’s such a rant?! im sorry :( ? i was really going for something and i kept getting disturbed and I lost my train of thought in the process :((( but please fell to comment, consrtuctive criticism is always welcome!
Chubby and cute, because you know. Why not.
My desire isnt to be seen sexually, but to be desired with fire in your eyes and a roar that vibrates through your core….
I want to feel your eyes when my back is to you, looking my body up and down….
I need to know that you need me
For more fun 😘😘😘😘😛🥰
sometimes i feel like i might be non binary, but i dont ever have a problem with she/her pronouns, so idk idk.
On today’s episode of “what am I confused about?”
Artic Monkeys || 505
Back again with another Lee Taemin reaction video! Today I’ll be reacting to one of the most requested songs and that’s “Sexuality”. I’ve heard so much about the live performance that I thought I’d made a full-fledged video. I should’ve known by the song title what the song would be about but I was still surprised when I started reading the lyrics (If you can’t tell by my face). Such a good song though and that live performance was BREATHTAKING! This man is amazing and deserves much more credit than he is given! Again, if you haven’t yet please LIKE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE!