Remember how it was so much fun when you played with a ball as a child? It was a simple round object that gave immense activity and joy.
You can still experience that. By using an exercise ball, also known as physioballs are vinyl balls you can bring back that fun and add variety to your fitness routine.
What’s a gym ball, you ask? Well, a gym ball is a large fitness ball that can be used for stretching, muscle building and maintaining a proper posture. Working out with an exercise ball takes traditional strength training to the next level.
And here’s how it can change your fitness routine for good.
1. Improves Posture & Balance
Whether it is to help you sit up straight or do hold your yoga postures correct, a gym ball is an excellent way to improve posture and balance.
If you’re new to gyming, not knowing exactly what to do can often result in muscle imbalance. Gym ball exercises engage your whole core, as it supports the lower back during training.
It helps you build good balance, both physically and mentally.
2. Firms Figure
A gym ball is truly a flat tummy’s friend. As maintaining a seated position forces you to contract the muscles of your lower limbs, it is great to work on your abs even at home.
If you’re looking to target this area and get your flat tummy back, a gym ball is the answer.
3. Prevents Fatigue
A gym ball supports the lower back and hence preventing back pains. As it makes you maintain a good posture, the micro-movements of your body helps strengthen your back muscles.
It activated the nerve mechanisms in your back and abdominal muscles which in turn reduces stiffness, prevents fatigues and improves core strength.
And you can never get bored with a gym ball.
Bottom Line
Add this new gear to your enthusiastic fitness collection and challenge your muscles to be used in the exercise. Trust us, you’ll see benefits and results faster than before with a gym ball.
Plus it’s incredibly versatile, it doesn’t take up much space, and it’s very low investment.
The note distinguished between the church’s welcoming and blessing of gay people, which it upheld, but not their unions. It argued that such unions are not part of God’s plan and that any such sacramental recognition could be confused with marriage.
The note immediately disheartened advocates for LGBT Catholics and threw a wrench in the debate within the German church, which has been at the forefront of opening discussion on hot-button issues such the church’s teaching on homosexuality.
Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, which advocates for greater acceptance of gays in the church, predicted the Vatican position will be ignored, including by some Catholic clergy.
“Catholic people recognize the holiness of the love between committed same-sex couples and recognize this love as divinely inspired and divinely supported and thus meets the standard to be blessed,” he said in a statement.
The Vatican holds that gay people must be treated with dignity and respect, but that gay sex is “intrinsically disordered.” Catholic teaching holds that marriage, a lifelong union between a man and woman, is part of God’s plan and is intended for the sake of creating new life.
Since gay unions aren’t intended to be part of that plan, they can’t be blessed by the church, the document said.
“The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated, cannot justify these relationships and render them legitimate objects of an ecclesial blessing, since the positive elements exist within the context of a union not ordered to the Creator’s plan,” the response said.
God “does not and cannot bless sin: He blesses sinful man, so that he may recognize that he is part of his plan of love and allow himself to be changed by him,” it said.
Francis has endorsed providing gay couples with legal protections in same-sex unions, but that was in reference to the civil sphere, not within the church. Those comments were made during a 2019 interview with a Mexican broadcaster, Televisa, but were cut by the Vatican until they appeared in a documentary last year.
While the documentary film fudged the context, Francis was referring to the position he took when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires. At the time, Argentina’s lawmakers were considering approving gay marriage, which he and the Catholic Church opposed. Then-Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio instead supported providing legal protections for gays in stable unions through a so-called “law of civil cohabitation.”
Francis told Televisa: “Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God.” Speaking of families with gay children, he said: “You can’t kick someone out of a family, nor make their life miserable for this. What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered.”
In the new document and an accompanying unsigned article, the Vatican said questions had been raised about whether the church should bless same-sex unions in a sacramental way in recent years, and after Francis had insisted on the need to better welcome and accompany gays in the church.
The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit and advocate for building bridges with the LGBT community, said the Vatican note appeared to be a response to pressures within the German church before a consultative assembly to consider bestowing church blessings on same-sex couples. The German church has been at the forefront of pushing the debate on celibacy, contraception and the church’s outreach to gay Catholics, pressured by a powerful lay Catholic group demanding change.
“It seems to be the Vatican’s response to some German bishops who had mentioned this possibility, in the run up to their country’s synod, as a way of reaching out to LGBTQ people,” Martin said in an email.
In a statement, the head of the German bishops’ conference, Bishop Georg B├ñtzing, said the new document would be incorporated into the German discussion, but he suggested that the case was by no means closed.
“There are no easy answers to questions like these,” he said, adding that the German church wasn’t only looking at the church’s current moral teaching, but the development of doctrine and the actual reality of Catholics today.
Other commentators noted that Catholic Book of Blessings contains rites of blessings that can be bestowed on everything from new homes and factories to animals, sporting events, seeds before planting and farm tools.
In the article, the Vatican stressed the “fundamental and decisive distinction” between gay individuals and gay unions, noting that “the negative judgment on the blessing of unions of persons of the same sex does not imply a judgment on persons.”
But it explained the rationale for forbidding a blessing of such unions, noting that any union that involves sexual activity outside of marriage cannot be blessed because it is not in a state of grace, or “ordered to both receive and express the good that is pronounced and given by the blessing.”
And it added that blessing a same-sex union could give the impression of a sort of sacramental equivalence to marriage. “This would be erroneous and misleading,” the article said.
In 2003, the same Vatican office issued a similar decree saying that the church’s respect for gay people “cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.”
Doing so, the Vatican reasoned then, would not only condone “deviant behaviour,” but create an equivalence to marriage, which the church holds is an indissoluble union between man and woman.
Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of the U.S.-based NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice and an advocate for greater LGBTQ inclusion in the church, said she was relived the Vatican statement wasn’t worse.
She said she interpreted the statement as saying, “You can bless the individuals (in a same-sex union), you just can’t bless the contract.”
“So it’s possible you could have a ritual where the individuals get blessed to be their committed selves.”
——
AP National Writer David Crary in New York, and correspondent Kirsten Grieshaber in Berlin, contributed to this report
Pope Francis has disappointed pro-LGBTQ Catholics via a Vatican statement that the church cannot bless same-sex unions. He had previously seemed open to an endorsement.
MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:
Today the Vatican dashed any recent hopes of LGBTQ Catholics that their church might approve same-sex unions. Some bishops had been pushing to give those unions – to have those unions receive church blessings. To those ideas, the Vatican gave a definitive one-word response – negative. Joining us now is NPR’s Tom Gjelten.
Hey, Tom.
TOM GJELTEN, BYLINE: Hi, Mary Louise.
KELLY: That’s quite a response. One word, which – surely a disappointing response for supporters of LGBTQ rights. But it can’t be that surprising, no? I mean, we’ve known for a long time the Catholic Church has opposed same-sex marriage.
GJELTEN: You’re right. It’s not a surprise. It is a disappointment to LGBTQ people and those who support them. Given some of the things that Pope Francis himself has said in the past, in contrast to his predecessors, he’s been more embracing of LGBTQ people. Remember, Mary Louise; he famously said, who am I to judge? And then last fall we heard about some statements Francis had made suggesting that same-sex civil unions – not marriage but civil unions – were OK, that LGBTQ people deserve to be in a family relationship and that LGBTQ couples deserve some legal protections.
Those statements, which came out in a film that’s going to be released this month, raised hopes that he was preparing the church to approve of same-sex marriage. But the Vatican statement today actually reiterated its view that homosexual behavior is sinful and that God cannot bless sin.
KELLY: I’m trying to reconcile that Vatican statement, that homosexual behavior is considered sinful by the church, with what the pope himself – you just told us what he’s actually said.
GJELTEN: Well, it’s important to understand that a pope – and any pope – cannot by himself change church doctrine. That requires action by what’s called the magisterium, which is the pope and the bishops who make up the teaching body of the church. Also, there are some distinctions here, for example, between LGBTQ people as individuals, who can be welcomed into the church, and their unions, which are not welcome. There’s also a distinction between a secular view of same-sex unions and a religious view. When the pope suggested that civil unions are OK, he was essentially offering a secular endorsement. Blessing those unions – that would be a religious endorsement.
KELLY: What has been the reaction to this statement from the Vatican?
GJELTEN: Well, the reaction to the statement from Marianne Duddy-Burke, who is the executive director of an organization of pro-LGBTQ Catholics, was – last October, Mary Louise, she told me that the pope’s statements were a potential game-changer for gay and lesbian people. Today she said this new statement is a huge disappointment and also very hurtful.
MARIANNE DUDDY-BURKE: Particularly the line about God does not and cannot bless sin, which seems kind of like a gratuitous attack on the LGBTQ community.
GJELTEN: And more conservative people, on the other hand, were reassured. They had worried that some Catholics might have been confused by the pope’s statements.
KELLY: If you are part of the LGBTQ community and you are also Catholic, where does this decision leave you?
GJELTEN: Well, what’s clear is that the church is way behind the Catholic people on this. Polls show a large majority of Catholics approve of same-sex marriage. Marianne Duddy-Burke of DignityUSA told me the way forward rests with the Catholic people.
DUDDY-BURKE: They are the ones giving us the blessings that the Vatican is trying to withhold. They are supporting us. They’re affirming us. They’re welcoming us into the family embrace. They celebrate at our weddings. To me, that is where the hope lies.
GJELTEN: And you know, Mary Louise, as we’ve long known, the Catholic Church is very slow to change.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
VATICAN CITY, VATICAN – MARCH 14: Pope Francis holds his homily during a Mass to mark 5th Centenary … [+] of the Philippine Church in St. Peter’s Basilica on March 14, 2021 in Vatican City, Vatican. Pope Francis celebrated Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica on Sunday to mark 500 years since the arrival of Christianity in the Philippines. At the conclusion of the Eucharistic celebration, Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle, formerly the Archbishop of Manila, expressed the gratitude of all Filipinos for the Pope’s gesture of closeness. (Photo by Franco Origlia/Getty Images)
Getty Images
On Monday, in a message approved by Pope Francis, the Roman Catholic Church announced it cannot bless same-sex marriages regardless of how stable or positive the couples’ relationship may be. That hardline response came in response to recent questions whether the church should reflect the increasing social and notably legal acceptance of same-sex unions.
“Does the Church have the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex?” the question asked, to which the response was “Negative.” The Vatican added that that marriage should be limited to a union between a man and a woman, and that same-sex marriage is not part of God’s plan for family and raising children.
It didn’t take long for social media to react, with the vast majority calling out the decision.
Actor Jesse Tyler Ferguson (@jessetyler), who starred in the TV series Modern Family, was among the openly gay celebrities to call out the announcement, “As a graduate of a catholic high school, I am deeply saddened by this archaic rhetoric and not at all surprised. The good news? I’m still happily married & I don’t need the Pope to acknowledge the love that exists in my family.”
Filmmaker Adam Best (@adamcbest) was also quick to respond, noting, “Perhaps the Catholic Church should sit out weighing in on what is or isn’t an appropriate sexual relationship given its history.”
MORE FOR YOU
Actor/comedian (@JohnFugelsang) also responded to the Church in a tweet, “Dear Catholic Church: This tweet contains everything Jesus ever said about how you shouldn’t bless a gay union. And I’ve still got room to include everything Jesus ever said about abortion, masturbation, birth control & how women shouldn’t be allowed to serve as priests.”
It wasn’t just Pope Francis who was called out on Monday.
PBS News Hour’s Yamiche Alcindor quickly turned the spotlight on President Joe Biden, noting, “.@PressSec declines to comment on behalf of President Biden about the Catholic church’s refusal to have priests bless same-sex unions. She says Biden continues to support same-sex marriages.”
Fox News’ Ben Sharpio (@benshapiro) offered a quick retort to the announcement and was one of the few voices that seemed to actually support the church’s stance, “In which we learn that the Catholic Church believes in Catholicism”
Others simply asked why anyone would care what the Vatican had to say on the issue.
“Why would same-sex couples want to taint their marriages with blessings from the Catholic Church?” pondered author Dennis DiClaudio (@dennisdiclaudio).
While most politicians stayed out of this fray at this point, Nebraska State Sen. Megan Hunt (@NebraskaMegan) was among the view to weigh in, “The Catholic Church protected pedophile priests for generations. So this is not a decree that anyone needs to take seriously. If you are religious, your faith is between you and your creator. It’s not the place of another human to ever deny your humanity here on this earth.”
It’s A Sin?
The statement from the church did suggest that homosexuality was seen as a sin. God “does not and cannot bless sin,” the statement added.
As a result, the question of “sin” also made the rounds on social media by Monday afternoon.
“The worst sin I can think of is a lot of Priests molesting young boys & then the entire church covering it up, but you do you, I guess,” posted actress/author Kristen Johnston (@thekjohnston).
Author Steve Silberman (@stevesilberman) took an even more direct shot at the Catholic Church, posting, “Global pedophile coverup network refuses to bless same-sex unions, calling them a ‘sin.'”
Podcaster Ryan Knight (@ProudSocialist) took an even harder line, “I left the Catholic Church when I turned 18. Love is not a sin. Being gay is not a sin. Priests molesting children is a sin.
The announcement regarding same-sex marriage comes less than a week after Pope Francis made his historic visit to Iraq, in his he called for interfaith unity. Now it seems that any unity among American Catholics could be questionable at best.
VATICAN CITY (CNS) — While homosexual men and women must be respected, any form of blessing a same-sex union is “illicit,” said the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The negative judgment is on the blessing of unions, not the people who may still receive a blessing as individuals, it said in a statement published March 15.
The statement was a response to a question or “dubium” that came from priests and lay faithful “who require clarification and guidance concerning a controversial issue,” said an official commentary accompanying the statement.
The response to the question, “Does the church have the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex?” was “Negative.”
“It is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage — i.e., outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life — as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex,” the doctrinal office said in an explanatory note accompanying the statement. Pope Francis approved both the statement and the note for publication.
“The Christian community and its pastors are called to welcome with respect and sensitivity persons with homosexual inclinations and will know how to find the most appropriate ways, consistent with church teaching, to proclaim to them the Gospel in its fullness,” the explanatory note said.
The clarification “does not preclude the blessings given to individual persons with homosexual inclinations, who manifest the will to live in fidelity to the revealed plans of God as proposed by church teaching.”
“Rather, it declares illicit any form of blessing that tends to acknowledge their unions as such. In this case, in fact, the blessing would manifest not the intention to entrust such individual persons to the protection and help of God, in the sense mentioned above, but to approve and encourage a choice and a way of life that cannot be recognized as objectively ordered to the revealed plans of God,” said the doctrinal office.
The statement came days before the launch March 19 of a yearlong reflection on “Amoris Laetitia” that will focus on the family and conjugal love.
The date marks the fifth anniversary of Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” (“The Joy of Love”), which affirmed church teaching on family life and marriage, but also underlined the importance of the church meeting people where they are in order to help guide them on a path of discernment and making moral decisions.
The doctrinal congregation said in its note that some church communities had promoted “plans and proposals for blessings of unions of persons of the same sex.”
“Such projects are not infrequently motivated by a sincere desire to welcome and accompany homosexual persons, to whom are proposed paths of growth in faith,” it said.
In fact, the question of blessing same-sex unions arose from this “sincere desire to welcome and accompany homosexual persons” as indicated by Pope Francis at the conclusion of the two synodal assemblies on the family, it said.
That invitation, it added, was for communities “to evaluate, with appropriate discernment, projects and pastoral proposals directed to this end,” and in some cases, those proposals included blessings given to the unions of persons of the same sex.
The doctrinal congregation said the church does not and cannot have the power to impart her blessing on such unions and, therefore, “any form of blessing that tends to acknowledge their unions as such” is illicit.
That is because a blessing “would constitute a certain imitation or analogue of the nuptial blessing invoked on the man and woman united in the sacrament of matrimony,” it said, citing paragraph 251 of “Amoris Laetitia,” which reiterated the synod members’ conclusion that “there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.”
“Only those realities which are in themselves ordered to serve those ends are congruent with the essence of the blessing imparted by the church,” it said. As such, it is illicit to bless any relationship or partnership that is outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open to the transmission of life, it added.
Declaring “the unlawfulness of blessings of unions between persons of the same sex is not therefore, and is not intended to be, a form of unjust discrimination, but rather a reminder of the truth of the liturgical rite and of the very nature of the sacramentals, as the church understands them,” the doctrinal office said.
The church teaches that “men and women with homosexual tendencies ‘must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.’”
As such, the doctrinal note makes a “fundamental and decisive distinction between persons and the union. This is so that the negative judgment on the blessing of unions of persons of the same sex does not imply a judgment on persons,” it said.
Such blessings are illicit for three reasons, it said:
— In addition to such a blessing implying “a certain imitation or analogue of the nuptial blessing” imparted to a man and a woman united in the sacrament of matrimony, there is the nature and value of blessings.
— Blessings belong to “sacramentals, which are ‘liturgical actions of the church’ that require consonance of life with what they signify and generate,” so “a blessing on a human relationship requires that it be ordered to both receive and express the good that is pronounced and given by the blessing.”
— And, “the order that makes one fit to receive the gift is given by the ‘designs of God inscribed in creation, and fully revealed by Christ the Lord.’” The church does not have power over God’s designs nor is she “the arbiter of these designs and the truths they express, but their faithful interpreter and witness.”
“God himself never ceases to bless each of his pilgrim children in this world, because for him ‘we are more important to God than all of the sins that we can commit,’” the congregation said. “But he does not and cannot bless sin: he blesses sinful man, so that he may recognize that he is part of his plan of love and allow himself to be changed by him. He in fact ‘takes us as we are, but never leaves us as we are.’”
The Istanbul Convention, which Poland ratified in 2015 and has now been signed and/or ratified by 45 countries but not yet ratified by the EU, attributes violence against women to the historical inequality between men and women, and defines gender as “socially constructed roles”.
For these reasons, ultra-conservatives in Poland and across Central and Southeast Europe have, for years, been railing against the document, which they argue will destroy the “traditional family” (ie. heterosexual married couples with children) by imposing so-called “gender ideology” – an umbrella term created by these groups which seems to refer primarily to LGBT and reproductive rights.
Last year, Polish Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro, a hardline Catholic whose United Poland party is a junior member of the Law and Justice-led (PiS) government, filed an official request with the Ministry for Family, Work and Social Policy asking it to initiate proceedings for withdrawing the country from the Istanbul Convention, which he argued was damaging to the family and Polish culture.
Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, despite publicly criticising the Istanbul Convention, in the end decided to park the issue by asking in July the PiS-controlled Constitutional Tribunal to assess the legality of the Istanbul Convention. The court hasn’t yet issued any ruling.
Given the indecision in the governing camp, hardliners saw the citizens’ initiative before parliament as a way to speed things up. According to the Polish Constitution, the president is in charge of carrying out withdrawals from international treaties, for which he needs the approval of parliament.
The draft law asks President Andrzej Duda to withdraw Poland from the Istanbul Convention and establish an advisory body that, over the next three years, would begin a long and extensive process to “develop the basic principles of an international convention on the rights of family” to replace the Istanbul Convention.
However, as can be seen from the letter already sent to conservative governments in the region, the Polish government has already come up with the basic tenets of the alternative convention, seemingly based in part on the draft family rights convention created by Ordo Iuris and the Christian Social Congress that has been in the public domain for about two years.
Representatives of Ordo Iuris and the Christian Social Congress interviewed by BIRN claimed that the Ordo Iuris version has been received with interest by members of the governments of Hungary and Slovakia.
Both the ministerial letter and the Ordo Iuris draft describe a situation where families are “under threat” and need extra protection. Both documents also reject the idea that the main cause of domestic violence is structural inequality between men and women, the premise of the Istanbul Convention.
Instead, the ministerial letter reads: “One of the main contemporary threats to the family is domestic violence caused by pathological factors, such as alcohol and drug abuse, sex addiction or omnipresent vulgarisation and sexualisation of the image of women in mass media.”
Similarly, an Ordo Iuris representative stated in an interview with BIRN about their draft that the causes of violence are not structural, but “pathologies”, which include alcoholism, pornography, social atomisation, the breakdown of family ties and the sexualisation of women in the public space.
When it comes to recommended actions to protect the family, the ministerial letter largely follows the line of the Ordo Iuris draft, while tightening the language and leaving some principles vaguer: it highlights the autonomy of the family in relation to the state, including when it comes to decisions about education; lists a series of “family rights” including “freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of speech, economic freedom, undistorted use of private property, and the right to the protection of private and family life”; then moves on to children’s rights, insisting the “child” has rights from conception; and then proposes civil and criminal remedies states could use to ensure those rights are respected.
Interestingly, in this latter section, the ministerial letter introduces the concept of “crimes against family”. While examples of such crimes in the letter include physical and psychological violence, sexual violence or forced marriage, the text specifies the list is not exhaustive – begging the question of whether actions like abortion or gay marriage might be added at a later stage.
Internalized homophobia occurs when a person is subject to society’s negative perceptions, intolerance, and stigma toward people with same-sex attraction. They then turn those ideas inward, believing that they are true, and experience self-hatred as a result of being a socially stigmatized person.
Internalized homophobia happens when a person consciously or unconsciously accepts homophobic biases and applies these biases to themself. It can happen to anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, though most studies of internalized homophobia have looked at people who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.
Internalized homophobia occurs as a result of the assumption that all people are or should be heterosexual. It is a form of oppression that excludes the needs, concerns, and experiences of LGBTQ+ people while giving advantages to heterosexual people.
In this article, we discuss why internalized homophobia occurs, how it can affect someone’s health, and how to get support.
Throughout the rest of this article, we will replace the term “homophobia” with “heterosexism.” The word homophobia places emphasis on the irrational fears of an individual rather than the systems in place that affect a person’s health.
Heterosexism is a very broad term that includes a range of behaviors. It can involve overt hatred of nonheterosexual people, as well as more subtle biases, such as the belief in stereotypes based on sexual orientation.
However, essentially, internalized heterosexism refers to the development of a negative view of one’s own and others’ sexual minority identities due to living in a heterosexist society.
being unable or unwilling to acknowledge their own sexual orientation
holding their same-sex partner to unreasonable standards rooted in heterosexist stereotypes
feeling ashamed of their sexual identity or orientation
trying not to behave in ways that they see as being consistent with heterosexist stereotypes
refusing to acknowledge their same-sex partner publicly
denying the role of heterosexism in LGBTQ+ oppression
deriding or disliking people who proudly say that they have same-sex orientations
believing that there is a right or wrong way to be a member of LGBTQ+ communities
having a fear of being gay or others labeling them as gay
Evidence suggests that despite its name, homophobia is not a phobia at all. Rather, it is rooted in hostility, bias, and sexual stereotypes.
Moreover, the term is pervasive. It does not reside in the individual but in a broader society that dismisses people who do not identify as heterosexual and treats heterosexuality as the norm.
For these reasons, some advocates suggest using other terms, such as:
Heterosexism: This term refers to the notion that heterosexuality is normal and the default, meaning that other identities and orientations are inferior or abnormal.
Sexual prejudice: This term describes all forms of prejudice about sexual behavior and preferences and treats these attitudes as rooted in bigotry rather than fear.
Antigay bias: It is important to acknowledge that antigay bias can affect a person’s behavior. For example, a person may not wish to tell others that they are gay because they have made a calculated decision to keep themself safe rather than because they have internalized heterosexism.
Nonheterosexual identities remain stigmatized. Suicide rates and mental health complications are high among people who are part of LGBTQ+ communities.
Even in a modern and more accepting society, antigay hate crimes remain common. A 2017 poll reported that many LGBTQ+ people in the United States experience some form of discrimination. In the poll, 51% said that they or a family member from the LGBTQ+ communities had experienced violence because of their sexual orientation.
Many people grow up exposed to antigay bias. As a result, they may fear the consequences of being gay or others viewing them as gay. They may unconsciously accept antigay bias or fear that acting in a “nonheterosexual way” might lead to rejection at work or school or in their family.
Given the high rates of violence and harassment affecting people among LGBTQ+ communities, it is understandable that some people may turn these ideas inward to protect themselves.
Some people may be more at risk of internalizing stigma due to certain factors, such as:
Religious conservatism: Many conservative religions promote antigay bias. A 2018 study found that colleges with religiously conservative climates indirectly promoted internalized heterosexism by being less accepting of lesbian, gay, and bisexual students.
Lack of social support: An unsupportive or hostile environment, which may involve widespread heterosexism, family rejection, or participation in an antigay community, may increase the risk of internalizing heterosexist views.
Exposure to nonheterosexual identities: People with less exposure to nonheterosexual people may harbor more stereotypes, increasing their risk of internalized antigay bias.
Internalized heterosexism can affect a person’s health and well-being in many ways, including:
Poor relationship quality: A 2009 analysis found that, even independent of other factors, internalized heterosexism predicted lower quality relationships among lesbian, gay, and bisexual couples.
Mental health complications: People who internalize antigay views may experience depression. They may be anxious about their own or others’ sexual behavior or feelings. Evidence also notes that LGBTQ+ people use mental health services at a rate that is 2.5 times higher than the rate of the general population.
Chronic stress: A 2018 study that used daily diaries from same-sex couples found that those with higher levels of internalized heterosexism reported higher daily stress. Chronic stress can severely damage health and correlates with a higher risk of many health conditions.
Sexual behavior: A 2017 study of Chinese gay and bisexual men found that those who internalized antigay bias were more likely to pay for sex or engage in sexually compulsive behavior. Substance abuse is also more likely among those who experience stigma or discrimination, and this can lead to unsafe sex practices.
Concealment of identity: People who experience internalized antigay bias may conceal their orientation, which can make it difficult to have a relationship or feel safe. A 2017 study found that many young people do not feel comfortable reporting their sexual orientation. As a result, they may not be receiving comprehensive healthcare — for example, they might miss important screenings or risk assessments.
Some options for getting support may include:
Finding a local LGBTQ+ community: College students may be able to find help on campus. LGBTQ+ bookstores, art houses, and community gathering spots may also be useful resources.
Some strategies for supporting LGBTQ+ colleagues, friends, and loved ones include:
listening to and believing other people’s experiences
accepting feedback and prioritizing being supportive and learning over defending one’s goodness and status as an ally
avoiding any offensive humor, such as antigay jokes, that may make people feel uncomfortable
speaking out when others make antigay statements
fostering a diverse environment, where all views matter and marginalized groups’ opinions count
learning about the unique challenges that members of LGBTQ+ communities face
It is important to understand that being an ally is an ongoing behavior, not a single decision. People should work through any internalized biases. If they have an impulse to disbelieve an LGBTQ+ person about their experiences, they should resist that impulse.
Internalized heterosexism, which people may refer to as internalized homophobia, occurs when a person accepts antigay biases and applies them to themself due to living in a heterosexist society.
Internalized heterosexism continues to be a problem, especially in unwelcoming communities where the rates of violence and harassment are high. It can also have negative effects on a person’s mental and physical health. However, many different support services are available.
In early March 2020, right as the COVID pandemic was really starting to spread around the globe, I received news that I would be covering a historic castle in rural western Ireland that had been turned into a world-renowned luxury resort hotel. Being completely oblivious to the severity of the outbreak taking place, I was thrilled at having the chance to travel.
Europe had never really been on my bucket list. My entire life, I had always gone west. I was a pioneer, an adventurer, an explorer. From my hometown in Ohio, I first moved to Chicago, then Los Angeles, and eventually Australia and New Zealand. Before long, I was tackling Asia, and I loved it. Everyone looked different from me, I didn’t know the languages, the food was unique, and lush jungles bumped into towering metropolises. One time in Singapore, a giant six-foot monitor lizard crawled out of the sewer right in front of me. You just don’t get that in Ireland.
Paula Carroll Photo Courtesy Ashford Castle
This isn’t to say I had anything against the continent, it’s just that Europe always seemed regimented and trapped in the past. But, I’m a traveler. I love the thrill of the chase. If there’s an assignment in Omaha, Nebraska, I’ll gladly go because Nebraska is someplace new to me, and that’s all I need to inspire another adventure.
My mother was thrilled when I told her I was headed to Ireland. She always said we were Irish, however, my mom says a lot of things. But then again, she was raised Catholic, so I suppose there was tangible evidence of Irish heritage. I promised her I’d take pictures, bring home a souvenir, and tell her all about it when I returned.
The first sign that my mom might be right about our heritage came during the flight over to Ireland. I was flying the nation’s flag carrier, Aer Lingus. On long flights, I love to wander the plane. I like to inspect the galley, see how the food is made, and ask the flight attendants questions like, “Have you ever had a moment where you thought the plane was going down?”
I was standing in the rear galley waiting for the bathrooms to open up when one of the stewardesses walked back. She reached into her purse and pulled out a water bottle, then asked, “So, did you have a good trip to America?”
“Oh…” I replied, “I’m American. I’m actually just starting my trip.” She looked surprised. “Really?” she said, “Well, you look Irish. You’ll blend right in!”
After landing in Shannon, I met with my group of fellow travelers and boarded a van to make the hour-long journey up to the famed Ashford Castle (www.ashfordcastle.com). The estate has quite the history. The original structure was built in 1228. From there, it was continually added to more and more. In the mid-1800s, the Guinness family bought the property and built even more additions to the now-sprawling castle. Throughout Ashford’s history, it was home to nobility and even hosted numerous members of the Royal Family.
As we arrived I truly couldn’t believe my eyes, and in all honesty I still can’t believe this place exists. It’s massive. It’s stately. It’s glamorous. I immediately began worrying about me. I am not stately, nor glamorous.
Ash Oak Hall Photo Courtesy Ashford Castle
My biggest concern was the dinner that was scheduled for our final night. It was going to take place in the castle’s formal restaurant, the George V Dining Room (named so because George V used to vacation with the Guinness family at the castle.) The restaurant has a formal dress code that requires a suit and tie for men. I had never worn a suit and tie before. I literally had to go out and buy a suit, shirt, shoes, and a tie, just for this dinner alone. To say I was somewhat anxious would be and understatement.
Ready for another week of Instagram and YouTube Live workouts? We’re streaming straight to your home gym (aka living room, garage, basement, bedroom, or backyard) this week with four new workouts, including strength and conditioning, HIIT, cardio, and an advanced Pilates core session we’re definitely looking forward to. Check out the full schedule ahead and tune in on Instagram and YouTube to get moving! (PS: don’t forget to catch up with our previous live workouts to see what you’ve been missing.)
30-Minute Advanced Pilates Core Workout With Kadee Sweeney (Instagram Live): Monday, March. 15, at 9 a.m. PT/12 p.m. ET
30-Minute Strength and Conditioning Workout With Simone Loves Fitness (Instagram Live): Tuesday, March. 16, at 9 a.m. PT/12 p.m. ET
30-Minute Cardio HIIT Workout With Danyele Wilson (YouTube Live): Wednesday, March. 17, at 9 a.m. PT/12 p.m. ET
30-Minute LIT Method Workout (Instagram Live): Thursday, March. 18, at 9 a.m. PT/12 p.m. ET
News flash: The “super straight” trend on social media, where users claim a “new sexuality” which demands the same respect as those with marginalized sexual identities, is actually just blatant transphobia mocking LGBTQ people and their activism.
Over the last two weeks, (mostly cis) people on social media have started openly identifying as “super straight.” The movement, born on TikTok and popularized on 4chan, is a troll campaign by far-right agitators to invalidate trans people’s gender identities and justify blatant transphobia.
The phrase “super straight” was recently coined by TikTok user Kyle Royce. In a now-deleted video posted on Feb. 21 and re-uploaded to YouTube, Royce claimed critics couldn’t call him transphobic for refusing to date trans women — and refusing to acknowledge them as women — because he had decided that “super straight” is a new “sexuality” that should be respected.
The video racked up more than two million likes before it was taken down. In the weeks since, people have openly identified as “super straight” online to justify their transphobia and mock the struggle for LGBTQ rights. 4chan users on the /pol/ board — an incendiary discussion space notorious for its popularity with far-right trolls — discussed further spreading the “super straight” trend to “drive a wedge” within LGBTQ circles, Insider reports. Screenshots posted to Twitter show 4chan users explicitly linking the “super straight” acronym SS to the Nazi SS and pairing it with the Nazi salute, as well as co-opting language used by the LGBTQ community to call anyone who disapproves of the “sexual identity” a bigot.
Agitators adopted a “super straight pride flag” that imitates PornHub’s logo (and ironically, the logo of the gay dating app Grindr), and have used black and orange emoji to publicly identify as “super straight.” TikTok users have been adding the black and orange square emoji to their bios the way many LGBTQ users include the gay pride flag emoji to theirs, and have mocked important LGBTQ rites of passage by making fake “coming out” videos. Online vendors started hawking “super straight” apparel to further ridicule the LGBTQ pride movement by mimicking pride merchandise.
Amateur rapper Robert Charles’ 2012 song Super Straight, which repeats the phrase “I’m super straight” in the hook, has been coopted as the “pride anthem” for the movement. Trans creators, who already face substantial harassment on social media platforms, are now also dealing with comments littered with black and orange emojis.
Royce told Insider that the phrase was “never meant to be hateful,” and that “a lot of people have the same opinion” but are “too scared to say it in fear of the backlash and the misinterpretations.”
“I created it because I was sick of being labeled with the very negative terms for having a preference, something I can’t control, and getting labeled by the community that preaches acceptance with that sort of stuff,” Royce said.
As trans activists have repeatedly stated, not wanting to date a specific person who happens to be trans is not necessarily transphobic. What is transphobic, despite Royce’s paper-thin argument, is not wanting to date someone for the sole reason thatthey’re trans. Essayist and trans activist Brynn Tannehill wrote in the Advocate: “The belief that all transgender people are unattractive to you (when there are some undeniably very attractive ones), and that you could not have chemistry with them, or you religiously object to transgender people, and even when presented evidence to the contrary, is an expression of transphobia.”
“The belief that all transgender people are unattractive to you, and that you could not have chemistry with them, or you religiously object to transgender people… is an expression of transphobia.”
The trend is still gaining traction on TikTok despite the platform’s efforts to ban hateful content.
Both Reddit and TikTok have cracked down on the campaign, Them reported on Thursday. Reddit banned r/superstraight for “promoting hate towards a marginalized or vulnerable group,” and TikTok blocked users from searching the phrase “super straight” or using it as a hashtag. When a user tries to search for the term, TikTok redirects to the Community Guidelines.
A TikTok representative told Snopes that the company banned Royce from the platform for violating its Community Guidelines regarding hate speech, but he managed to post a video on Thursday evening from his original account. In the video, Royce gives the camera a thumbs-up under a text box that says “I love and support everyone.” Other TikTok users voiced their support by commenting with black and orange emoji. A TikTok spokesperson told Mashable on Friday that Royce’s most recent video was taken down, and that he was banned from the platform again. TikTok did not explain how Royce managed to post after being already banned.
The TikTok spokesperson told Mashable that the platform had launched an investigation into the “super straight” movement, as well as blocked relevant keywords.
TikTok also issued this statement:
“TikTok is an inclusive space for positive and creative expression. Our Community Guidelines make clear that we do not tolerate hate speech or hateful ideologies, and we take action when issues are brought to our attention. We have banned the account in question as well as the hashtag #superstraight.
Part of what makes TikTok unique is that our community — people from all walks of life — can express their authentic selves and we don’t want this to change. We will continue to monitor this situation for further developments and take action wherever necessary.”
This influx of “super straight” content on TikTok sparked discourse that many trans creators found inappropriate and deeply offensive.
Devyn Jaide, host of the podcast “Awkwardly Queer,” expressed annoyance that the discussion around the “super straight” movement didn’t consider trans voices or points of view.
“Honestly cishet people are not really doing it for trans people either. You’re not really a prize.”
“Have y’all ever thought that trans people have our own preferences?” she said in a TikTok video posted Thursday. “Honestly cishet people are not really doing it for trans people either. You’re not really a prize. And why would a trans person want to date a cis person who has to do a whole bunch of mental Olympics to validate them wanting to date them or have sex with them?”
Eden Estrada, a model and YouTuber known as Eden the Doll, posted a similarly unbothered series of videos responding to the hate. In one, she replied to a TikTok video claiming Gen Z was trying to “force” straight men to date trans women: “Have you noticed it’s always the ugliest guys who have the most to say?”
In a second video posted Thursday, Estrada added that no trans women are “forcing” any men to be attracted to them.
“Your entire sexuality is based off of trans women, and yet I believe not a single one has ever paid attention to you,” she says in a reply stitched with a video posted by right-wing agitator teacherluke. “If my existence devalues your masculinity THIS MUCH then maybe you weren’t so masculine after all?”
“If my existence devalues your masculinity THIS MUCH then maybe you weren’t so masculine after all?”
The outrage sparked by the “super straight” movement is accomplishing one thing 4chan users wanted: sowing discord within the LGBTQ community.
Some prominent trans creators haven’t spoken out against the movement — conservative YouTuber Blaire White, who is trans, was criticized by other creators for posting a video referring to hyperspecific sexualities that fall under an umbrella identity known as microlabels as “less valid” than the “super straight” trend. Desi Fambrini, who is genderfluid and uses he/him pronouns, sparked similar frustration from other trans creators for taking a “both sides” approach.
“If we just accepted everyone holistically and didn’t argue about people and whether or not they should be attracted to somebody else, we wouldn’t even have this problem,” Fambrini said in a video with over 1.5 million views. When pressed to denounce the movement and faced with the “super straight” flag in his comments, Fambrini continued to echo the same sentiment: “I seriously think we could all get along.”
Other creators expressed disappointment in Fambrini for speaking on behalf of the entire trans community, and in the process, pandering to cishet comfort. Felipe Campano called Fambrini out for invalidating other trans people in the name of “positivity” in a series of TikToks, before finally giving up on having a productive conversation with him. Campano was especially upset by what they saw as Fambrini enabling transphobia and homophobia rather than use his platform to denounce it.
Campano told Mashable that there is no “middle ground” in discussions of queer activism and education. Queer people, they said, don’t owe homophobic or transphobic people education if those people aren’t willing to investigate it in the first place.
“If cishet allies want to learn about queer people, they should meet us at the starting line.”
“If cishet allies want to learn about queer people, they should meet us at the starting line; we shouldn’t have to pull them up to the start,” Campano added. “My identity and oppression isn’t a debate. Implying I have to concede on that to have a productive discussion does a disservice to queer people everywhere.”
Many TikTok users took it upon themselves to drown out content by self-identified “super straight” creators, like adding fire emojis to the “super straight” flag to indicate burning it. TikTok users are also boosting trans creators to the top of memes popularized by the movement, like the song “Super Straight,” so their content is seen above videos endorsing the movement. Others are calling themselves “superphobic”— a play on homophobic to indicate a disapproval of people who identify as “super straight” — and the tag now has 7.9 million views on TikTok.
Image: screenshot via tiktok
Image: screenshot via tiktok
TikTok creator lateduress took it further, pleading with young men to not fall for the “super straight” movement’s radicalization tactics. In a video they posted tagged #superphobic, they explained that the campaign is “manipulating” teenagers into transphobia and endorsing Nazi symbolism.
“It’s sad to see so many young, vulnerable people being radicalized into this. You guys need to realize that you’re puppets,” lateduress said. “You’re being puppeteer-ed. They’re trying to radicalize you into far-right ideologies.”
Long story short? If you see someone openly identifying as “super straight” on TikTok, you might not want to congratulate them for “coming out” as a more hateful version of society’s default, preferred sexuality. Consider reporting them for violating the platform’s Community Guidelines instead.
“Don’t play games, Christian, if you like dudes, you’re definitely just gay!”
“You can’t hook up with men and still think women would be attracted to you.”
These are just a few of the responses I’ve had to confront after coming out as bisexual last year at age 20.
Advertisement
And it’s not just me. I have a friend who exclusively dated men until coming out as bisexual and was told, “You’re just bored and looking to experiment with women” and “You’re just doing it to be trendy” and “You’re definitely going to marry a man in the end.”
I just can’t seem to wrap my head around these outdated notions of societal norms: When a guy comes out as bisexual, he’s viewed by some as “really gay” and when a woman comes out as bisexual, some say she’s actually “just straight”?
A better name for it is “bierasure,” or bisexual erasure, one of the lesser known issues that plague the LGBTQIA+ community. Bierasure is the tendency to ignore and falsify evidence of bisexuality — being attracted to two or more genders — and its existence. That’s what leads to painful comments when someone comes out as bisexual, such as, “You’re just confused,” “You just want attention” and “You just took a detour on the train to gay town.”
And it’s not just straight people who contribute to the attacks on those who identify as bisexual.
Many of us leave our closet of safety only to be met with skepticism and denial by the very community that was supposed to accept us.
Why does the concept of being attracted to more than one gender threaten those only interested in one?
I recognize the immense amount of privilege the “Bs” in LGBTQIA+ have today.
Advertisement
Bisexual people can fit under a straight or gay “umbrella” and ride the wave, unscathed by questions and harassment by critics, when they choose not to engage.
“Straight passing” can protect us from discrimination. But it comes at a cost. A hatred that builds inside of us, scarring us. That can only be mended by telling our own truth. Otherwise, we are neglecting part of our identity.
I am aware that some people may come out as bi first to test the waters. But most bisexual people are just bisexual.
Advertisement
And forcing someone to “pick a lane” can be just as harmful as saying, “You shouldn’t be gay.” In my experience, both gay and straight communities frequently ridicule those of us who identify as bisexual. But trying to force us to stifle self-expression encourages the kind of closemindedness that only sets us back in history. It limits us from exploring the full range of our sexuality. It forces us to repress an innermost part of ourselves.
How are we supposed to know who we truly are if we’re peer-pressured by some to label ourselves in a way that makes it more palatable for others?
Erasure is exhausting for every bi person who may or may not have recognized who they are. And it stops some of us from wanting to do so. Fortunately, younger people appear to be finding their voice.. A 2021 report from Gallup found that “the vast majority of Generation Z adults who identify as LGBT — 72% — say they are bisexual.” So why do so many of us still feel shut out?
Advertisement
Because our inner voice tells us it’ll be easier to stay invisible than to be ostracized by both straight and gay people who don’t believe in one of the core parts of who we are. Discovery can be a slow process.
I identifed myself as “stick straight” until I began exploring the #altside of TikTok and bisexual commentary on YouTube. I discovered the powerful TEDx talk by Misty Gedlinske, “Bisexuality: The Invisible Letter “B.” Gedlinske’s words in particular struck a chord with me: As bisexuals, we “compartmentalize a portion of our identity so we can better conform to what some might consider normal or acceptable. We lie by omission and hide in plain sight.”
I’ve done this for most of my life.
Advertisement
I knew I liked both boys and girls from as early as I can remember but I didn’t understand that there could be more than one side of who I was. But I also learned, as Gedlinske outlines, that modern society has adapted nasty clichés about us, including that bisexual people will never be equipped for real commitment, because they “haven’t come to terms with who they are” or because they are too “untrustworthy” for a monogamous relationship.
These stereotypes are just as painful as any other homophobic slur that could be screamed at me as I walk down the street holding a man’s hand.
What is it about being bisexual that makes people instantly assume we turn into these feral animals hunting for sexual fulfillment from anyone who gives us a second look? I’m over worrying that if I tell my straight male friend that I’m bisexual, he’ll be scared to be around me, as I might “make a move” on him. Sorry, friend, as much as you think your sweaty Supreme hoodie and Vans sneakers make you irresistible, it’s a hard pass for me.
Advertisement
Because just as straight people do not have sexual interactions with every human they come into contact with, neither do bisexual people.
Invisibility wears you down, though. I wish I had known growing up that there are more than two types of sexuality. I felt too straight to be gay and too gay to be straight. I doubted myself in almost every aspect of my life because I thought this part of my self was a malfunctioning pendulum that just couldn’t make up its mind.
Turning on the TV in 2008 and seeing a bisexual male character onscreen would’ve validated every feeling I was grappling with. Here’s what I want to tell any person struggling with their bisexuality: Secrecy is not worth the temporary cloak of protection it may seem to give you. It spoils the joy of being enough.
Advertisement
I’m proud to share that I found strength in falling somewhere along the spectrum. I’d like to add that it may change as time progresses, and that’s OK too. This journey is not linear and I don’t want anyone to feel that there is an A+B=C formula to solving the complexities of being bisexual.
A bisexual person is not 50% gay and 50% straight, or anything in between, but utterly and completely 100% bisexual.
The author is an actor who recently appeared in the “Saved by the Bell” reboot and the upcoming“Dear White People.” He is on Instagram @christianweissmann
Gay men have long been conflicted in society over the negative stigma associated with male femininity. Being a “femme” man can quickly get you ostracized in heterosexual circles, and that is nothing new. But a recent study published in Trends in Psychology reveals that in the gay community, there is potentially as much disdain for the perception of femininity in gay men as there is among femmephobic straight people. I’m inclined to agree with this assessment, needing to look no further than Grindr and Scruff profiles of self-described “masculine” men who openly declare “no femmes!”
I have often surmised that gay-bashers and straight homophobes are battling their own demons with each attack they inflict. In this newly published study, analysts share troubling survey results that suggest pervasive “negative attitudes regarding effeminacy and internalized homophobia among gay men, bisexual men, and other men who engage in same-sex relations.”
Given the association many people draw between sexuality and religion, and morality, it is no wonder that such conflicts exist in gay men. Though the world has become more progressive, historically, gay people were ostracized by society. Most hid their truth, married women, and lived double lives in a time far less accepting than it is today. In decades-past, a mere hint of femininity could could get someone labeled as gay, whether they were or not. This could be threatening to one’s employment, family, friends, and social status. A femme guy would be seemingly “marked” by society as if wearing a scarlet letter “F.”
Thank God much of the world has moved beyond such primitive thinking. However, many gay men still grapple with these fears, denouncing “girly” gays, suppressing traces of their own femininity in public, and wearing a hyper-masculinity facade like a constant costume. This scenario creates a fertile ground for self-loathing.
Not to politicize the matter, but in my opinion, it is this kind of gay self-loathing that creates peculiar gays like Donald Trump appointee Richard Grenell and the Log Cabin Republicans. These men align themselves with the very political party that consistently votes against their protections and civil liberties as LGBTQ citizens. They vote against their own best interest for candidates who hate them. Is it due to their own internalized homophobia that they would serve and sympathize with their oppressors, like a community of gay Patty Hearsts suffering from Stockholm Syndrome?
I don’t have time to figure that out for the Log Cabin queens or Grenell. Their self-hate is their own mess resolve.
As for the rest of us, in the meantime, I say, baby, twirl, embrace your inner “Hey girl, heeey!” and read more about the revealing Trends In Psychology study of internalized gay homophobia for yourself at Psypost.org
This piece is an opinion piece by one Contributing Writer for Instinct Magazine and may not reflect the opinion of the magazine or other Contributing Writers.
Might be because you’ve spent a lot of time there. It’s the right height, you can easily watch the door from there, and the bartender knows your favorites, so why not? As in the new book “Gay Bar” by Jeremy Atherton Lin, it’s one of the best places to be.
Long before it was legal for him to go there, Jeremy Atherton Lin, like most teenage boys, imagined going to the bar — though in his case, Lin imagined what it was like in a gay bar. Ironically, he says, “I can’t remember my first.”
As someone with a foot in each of two continents, he does have favorites, places that are now closed, re-named, or been moved. He’s danced in them, had sex in them, drank and moved through gay bars with his “companion, the Famous Blue Raincoat,” and anonymously, and with friends-not-friends.
Some bars were carved out of a backroom or basement, or a place that used to be something else, maybe another bar. They’re cavernous; or they’re small and packed with men dancing or doing more; or they’re thick with bachelorette parties and tourists, to the annoyance of the gay men who’ve claimed that bar. Those usurpers don’t know the legacy of feeling gay, but “[I]t goes pretty deep.” Some bars have opened just for the night. Others were raided once upon a time, or will close before a month has passed. Overall, they’re an important part of being a gay man, pre-Stonewall, pre-AIDS, post-epidemic, and now.
And yet, says Lin, “… there does remain something embarrassing about a gay bar.” Still, try to stop him from fondly remembering nights in the Castro or Los Angeles or London …
Absolutely, you could be forgiven for wondering what you got yourself into while reading the first couple dozen pages of “Gay Bar.” Unabashedly, without preamble, Lin leaps right into a hazy description of a night out or two, in a chapter that seems fragmented, like a broken strobe light. Clarity comes, but later, and it’s fragile.
Part of the haze might be due to the autobiographical nature of Lin’s story: there are bars in his tales, but the focus here is more going to bars, with the implied assumption that readers are familiar with those he mentions or others exactly like them. This, of course, may not be true; still, Lin’s sex-and-booze-filled tales of drag, dance, and la dolce vita are compelling, woven with gay history, interesting then-and-now comparisons, and blisteringly-explicit tales of being a young gay man.
And then again, while these stories take readers through the doors of a gay bar, once we’ve literarily entered, there are times when we’re abandoned, the music’s too loud, and we want to just go.
Like a song you don’t particularly like, though, that won’t last long. Really, the surreality of “Gay Bar” is not insurmountable; in fact, if you wait it out, you’ll be mostly glad you did. So look for it — and take a seat.
*The Bookworm is Terri Schlichenmeyer. Terri has been reading since she was 3 years old and she never goes anywhere without a book. She lives on a prairie in Wisconsin with two dogs, one patient man, and 17,000 books.
“This law is a solution in search of a problem, and legislators in Mississippi have not provided any examples of Mississippi transgender athletes gaming the system for a competitive advantage because none exist,” the organisation’s president, Alphonso David, said on Thursday.
In addition to its critical praise so far, Marvel’s upcoming Phase Four is shaping up to be the most diverse yet, including more fleshed-out female characters, “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings” — which predominantly features actors of Asian descent — and promising future queer representation.
Kevin Feige himself has promised that more queer characters in the Marvel Cinematic Universe are on their way. Valkyrie, who has already appeared in a myriad of previous movies, is reported to have an even larger role in “Thor: Love and Thunder,” which will explore the character’s bisexuality (A cut “Thor: Ragnarok” scene was supposed to hint at her being the first queer character in the Marvel Cinematic Universe). “The Eternals,” set to release Nov. 5, is supposed to feature the first openly gay MCU hero, Phastos, but it’s entirely unclear what role or how prominent this will be in the film. Plus, with the introduction of Billy and Tommy in “Wandavision,” better known as Wiccan and Speed — who are canonically gay and bisexual, respectively, in the comics — alongside Hawkeye’s prodigy Kate Bishop, it seems as though Marvel is trying to introduce the Young Avengers to the screen, a group made up almost entirely made up of queer characters.
At this point, avoiding queer representation onscreen simply doesn’t seem to be an option for Marvel anymore, at least not without massive changes from the characters’ established comic book history. So the question remains: Is Marvel ready for outspoken queer visibility in its franchise?
In its movies, the answer remains complicated, especially in terms of international distribution profits. For the smash-hit blockbuster that closed out Phase Three, “Avengers: Endgame,” Marvel made $2.8 billion in worldwide box office sales. If Marvel wants to continue the same level of international success for its future movie endeavors, substantive changes may not be in the cards, as movies featuring prominent queer representation, such as “Call Me By Your Name” occasionally face hurdles when being distributed in international markets.
These hurdles present one obstacle to Marvel’s upcoming queer characters, as it can limit the amount of time and depth these characters are afforded. Disney’s past scraps of queer representation, such as that of two men dancing together in the background in “Beauty and the Beast” and the blink-and-you’ll-miss-it kiss between two women in the background of “Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker” were able to be displayed unedited when the films screened in other countries. This seems to suggest that these smaller scenes are the most Marvel — which Disney owns — would be willing to include in order to protect their international profits without any substantial changes to their movies.
It’s wholly naive to suggest that Marvel would derail hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in profits for an entire slate of upcoming films, so it stands to reason that its upcoming movies will likely have meaningless throwaway moments between queer background characters, just as Disney has done numerous times in the past. Marvel has also shown in the past that it’s prone to this trend of queerness only in their non-superhero, non-important characters. Marvel’s “first openly gay character,” in the form of a short cameo by Joe Russo in “Avengers: Endgame,” in which his character recounts how he’s dealing with his grief while dating a new man.
Furthermore, this cameo happened 22 movies into the franchise — the extensive repertoire which contains mostly movies about straight white men — indicating that queer representation, at least in Marvel’s early films, was not integral to the franchise. In this sense, it seems like queer content isn’t Marvel’s focus, and that’s okay, but perhaps they’ve realized that young and queer people are missing from their extensive content demographics, causing them to cater to queer people as their straight audiences have already been substantially satisfied.
But ultimately, it would be a disservice to pretend as if the entirety of the United States is OK with queer representation onscreen, as other countries aren’t the only obstacle to more fleshed-out queer representation. A more diverse franchise could provoke huge outrage, just as it did for the Star Wars franchise, as fans bullied multiple actors off social media, including Kelly Marie Tran, the franchise’s first woman of color supporting character. As the Star Wars fan base contains a subset of fans spewing vitriolic misogyny and homophobia, it’s no surprise that Marvel may hope to prevent the same from happening to its future content.
As Feige states, there are queer characters in the Marvel universe “you’ve seen and ones you haven’t seen,” which seems to suggest a hopeful future for a number of the bigger question is whether this supposed queer representation is going to be substantial or not, whether it’s simply throwaway lines or acceptable for very minor or background characters only, as queer people deserve to have their stories authentically translated to the MCU, just as the romantic relationships of their straight characters are.
