American Horror Story: Why am I watching this?

Super casual post here, but can anyone tell me why I’m watching American Horror Story?

Because it’s not like I have a problem with dark (aren’t I always talking about the receptor sites I don’t have for happy shiny things?), and it’s not like the show isn’t structurally masterful.

The parallels in 1.02 with nurse-murders and the abortion alone are worthy of one essay, and there’s certainly another to be found in “I don’t believe there’s any door beauty can’t open” when linked with the bad girl mirror closet and the broader body of Ryan Murphy’s work (honestly, I should Netflix all his stuff and write that for a journal, because awesome).

But I’m not a horror fan, and I’m more than a little resistant to shows with a guess-the-mystery structure.

Patty, however, is a horror fan, and she’s on board. But I’m like “Why are we watching this grisly murder? Why did we need this level of detail? Why do I feel like this show is trying to make this titillating as we identify with the victims? Is the horror not what happens but how I the viewer experience the horror? Please explain this genre to me, I don’t get it.”

I, in a single sentence, asked this same question on Tumblr last night, and the answers I go ran the gamut from “best show ever” to “because it’s awful.” And certainly, American Horror Story does seem to be, in part, explicitly about rubbernecking other people’s bad choices; much like fandom often seems to be about rubbernecking what’s wrong with stuff we actually love.

But all of this is besides the point. I just want to know why I’m watching this thing and what the purpose of the revulsion I feel is.

Do I just not get the genre? Does it just not matter if I’m miserable and uncomfortable with the content if I am (and I really am) turned on by its structure and winking fourth-wall mocking in-jokes instead? And can I love a show if my experience of it is completely divorced from any character empathy or long-term curiosity about the narrative?

Because I think I might, and, well, that’s strange.

For those of you making your way through this thing (or who have given up on it), what’s your relationship with it?

Glee: sex, contradictions, and Blaine Anderson’s backstory

One of the things about fandom is that it tends to spring up around narratives that need solving. Harry Potter fandom was so explosively huge in part because Rowling does archetypal characters and world-building very well, but it was also huge because the books are structured like mysteries and Rowling wasn’t always edited as tightly as she could have been. As such, fandom appeared to solve what was not yet known while the series was in the process of being published and what continues to not quite make sense now that it is concluded.

Glee, which is often criticized for inconsistent writing, arguably has a similar fandom culture for similar reasons: it presents a compelling world full of archetypal characters along with a whole lot of structural problems to solve. And lately, one of those biggest problems to solve seems to be Blaine Anderson. Specifically, what is going on with him and sex? And I don’t mean Kurt.

Blaine is not appropriate about sex and sexuality, except when he’s too appropriate about it. And neither of those things would be notable or even of any particular interest if his words and deeds around sex since he first appeared on the show weren’t so incredibly all over the map and relatively plot-central.

There’s the inappropriate, yet mature and weirdly responsible, conversation he has with Kurt’s father about Kurt’s own reactions to sex. That seems to mesh with the little-adult version of Blaine we got during his time at Dalton. But it sure as hell doesn’t mesh with the guy who had a crush on an older dude he had coffee with once and then decided to sing a song to featuring a line about sex toys as a way to declare this love.

The seeming randomness of Blaine’s actions around sex don’t stop there: there’s the kiss with Rachel; the attempt at sex in the back seat of the car with Kurt after Scandals; the nagging Kurt about his sexy faces after his failed performance at the random foam party in season 2 (Glee, you are so weird); the perfectly mellow frankness with which he discusses masturbation in season 3; his ever growing list of dubious song choices; his very contradictory responses to Sebastian; and now, his rather intense declaration that he’s not for sale (that is, specifically, a declaration of being unwilling to use sex for approval, and yet….).

So, in summary we have Blaine being uncomfortably forward, often to inappropriate people, about sex, almost always as a bid for approval, regardless of the mode, mixed with defensiveness and anger and assertions that he’s not that guy.

Now I feel a little guilty about this analysis, because it plays so strongly into not just real-world serious business, but so many fandom tropes that I don’t often engage. I’m not judging those fandom trends, but on this one I have to be aware of how my thought process fits in with certain community dynamics.

But my point is that since the spoilers for 3.05 about the fight outside of Scandals first broke during filming, I’ve been looking at Blaine’s behavior around sex and thinking “this guy has some sort of sexual abuse or trauma in his past.”

Of course, there are other explanations for this inconsistency around Blaine; he was originally written neither as Kurt’s boyfriend, nor as a show regular. He also was supposed to be a year ahead of Kurt in school and then wound up being a year behind. So there are plenty of external-to-the-narrative reasons why building a solid profile of just who Blaine is can be a little bit challenging.

But, as an audience member and a fan, I view my part of the creative contract in engaging source material as an obligation to help to find or establish a through-line, most particularly when the property has been unable to do so itself.

This doesn’t need to apply to anyone else, it’s just the way I’m wired around stories. But with Glee and its ever-present, and frankly bizarre, fourth wall problems (and that’s an overdue analysis I owe you guys), this viewpoint feels a little less like a quirk of my brain and more just sort of how you’ve gotta do Glee if you want it to make sense at all.

Which brings us back to Blaine, who (alongside Tina) is arguably one of the most sex-positive characters on the show while also simultaneously dealing with sex in some of the least predictable or reasonable ways. When I combine that with his desperate need for approval, his ability to discuss sexuality in mature and rational ways; the ways in which he copes with his anger; and the little bit we know about his relationship with his absent parents a really clear picture forms for me, with, frankly, less effort than I’d like.

I see Blaine as a guy who had something bad happen to him sexually at a fairly young age. His parents sent him to therapy and that was helpful and gave him the communication style he pulls out both when discussing Kurt’s fears about sex with Burt and when he and Kurt have that chat about masturbation. He’s still got some stuff going on about shame and desire and sex as a way to get praise and approval, but hey, don’t we all. On top of this, Blaine is gay, and his parents (or at least his dad) aren’t super accepting, perhaps because they believe (oh so erroneously) that whatever abuse he experienced may have contributed to his sexuality.

Then all of this gets tangled up with how Blaine relates to authority figures in fairly messy ways — and when Blaine transfers to McKinley, suddenly everyone is an authority figure, even his peers. Cue: our consummate performer is also an awkward boy shifting between personas that don’t fit well; he’s uncomfortable in his own skin and completely unable to figure out what to do to get people to like him; and it shows up in weird ways and at weird times, even with the person he trusts most.

Do I think I’m right? Well, I’d be a little shocked if Glee actually went there, but then Glee shocks me fairly often. But the fact remains that I can’t unsee this particular theory, and neither can a lot of other people with whom I’ve been having exchanges around the “What is going on with Blaine?” theme.

Unfortunately this means that I’m now watching with an impulse towards confirmation bias, which I feel like we got in spades tonight — Blaine lashes out at Sam (and he may or may not know about the stripping — it’s not like Finn would have told him), yes, but what he says and how he says it reads as so much more about himself than Sam that it’s a little startling. Even if I hadn’t been nursing this theory for weeks, I think I would have been after that scene.

Frankly, because I’m inordinately fond of Blaine, I want to be wrong. But because I love when breadcrumbs lead somewhere other than an empty clearing, I also hope I’m right. Sexual abuse is, sadly, something that happens all too often — it wouldn’t be an uncommon story, just one uncommonly told, especially as something other than a central trauma narrative, but just a thing in the landscape of a kid growing up. I don’t know that I trust Glee with a plotline like that, but I know I want to trust Glee with a plotline like that.

But considering how often Glee acknowledges, but doesn’t necessarily investigate consent issues (to name just a very few — Dave and Kurt; Brittany’s “alien invasion” remark; various plotlines technically or explicitly involving statutory rape; the outing theme; Blaine and Kurt after Scandals; Sebastian; the awkward predatory vibe of the Warblers in “Uptown Girl”; and Quinn’s attempt to get Puck to get her pregnant again), I’d be surprised at this point if the show doesn’t go there.

Because, increasingly, it feels like it wants to.

So who said this was a comedy again?

Glee: Kurt Hummel, heteroaesthetics, and feminine modesty

When Glee‘s season 3 started, one of the things we were told was that Kurt’s outfits would be less outrageous — he’s getting older, he has a boyfriend, there’s less need to shock. And for the first four episodes, this was by and large true: there were fewer inexplicable pieces and gender non-conforming choices, and Kurt largely stuck to vests, dress shirts, trousers and stylish scarves. Sure, there were some outrageous accessories, but he’s growing up, not dead….

And then there was sex and Kurt Hummel’s fashion started knowing no gender once again.

At first I thought I was just seeing things as I watched too closely for all the ways I expected a heteronormative bucket of fail to get poured all over the first time narrative in 3.05 in a desire to appease straight audiences. But after watching 3.07 last night, I’m convinced that 3.05 marks a specific and intentional turning point regarding Kurt’s clothing that actually echos back to, among other things, season 1, and is designed to amplify the passing-related plotlines of the current season.

It’s all about the knitwear, starting with Kurt’s first outfit in 3.05.

Sure, he’s wearing a tie, but he’s also wearing one of those form-fitting knee-length sweater (dresses) that he made clear his dad abhors in S1 (he promised to stop wearing them to get his car, remember). It’s a brilliant outfit choice for the scene where Blaine’s nattering on about masturbation and Kurt’s unsure of his own desirability. The male/female content of the outfit combined with the ridiculous animal print and Kurt lounging on Blaine’s bed like a girl goes a long way towards saying, “I’m not like other boys, and there’s not even a short explanation.” But Blaine blows right by that and a conversation that starts about insecurity winds up being about flirtation.

It’s later in that same episode when we see the first of the many, many capelettes and ponchos we’ve seen since (and just in case you weren’t clear these capelettes are girl clothes, Rachel wears one in this episode as well, when she arrives at the Hudson-Hummel home to sleep with Finn for the first time). It’s that scene with Sebastian in the Lima Bean, and Kurt has this severe almost nun-like look going on, what with the high white and black collar, the amorphous shape of the cape over his chest, and the prim disapproval. But it’s important to remember that Kurt never intended to see Sebastian in this scene — this supposed to be him and Blaine engaging in their private routine — and therefore a private, relationship-centered moment, even if conducted in public.

In fact, outfits that are arguably supposed to be about Kurt and Blaine time (or at least Kurt explicitly addressing Blaine with the outfit), remain resolutely feminine in influence from this point on. There’s that equestrian moment in 3.06 in which Kurt is wearing something not only feminine in nature, but in which Blaine is solicitously helping him down from a chair he was standing on (said equestrian outfit, it should be noted, echos the polo motif in Blaine’s bedroom as seen in 3.05).

There’s also that hideous outfit involving the belted shawl/poncho and the leather Sunset Boulevard turban. And then are the three feminine outfits of 3.07 — the kilt (without leggings this time), the long grey knit turtleneck poncho, and the asymmetrical knit poncho worn during “Perfect.”

These clothing pieces aren’t just feminine for all the ways they aren’t masculine. Rather, they are all deeply representative of feminine modesty. Ponchos, in particular, minimize the figure and frequently show up in modest dressing blogs with a range of cultural emphases. That we also have Kurt covering his hair with greater frequency post-3.05 (sure, he’s always been into hats, but I have to argue this is different), particularly in that ridiculous Sunset Boulevard outfit, is also notable. In fact, the only time Kurt shows skin in one of his feminine outfits is when he has some leg on view in 3.07. But, if we argue for the school girl uniform reference, there’s a primness and social modesty connotation here too — regardless of what we’re all thinking on Tumblr.

But Kurt’s clothes haven’t gone entirely this direction. Not in the least. In fact, when he has to engage in public moments — such as his student council election speech (3.06) and election day (3.07) — he’s in masculine attire. Kurt Hummel performs a lot of things — queerness and femininity, of course, but also masculinity — when it suits his needs. There’s a discipline in that, a reading of and playing to the audience that he lacked in earlier seasons. It’s a savvy he’s acquired now, one that speaks both to politics and his own goals as a performer, even as it in no way impinges upon how he chooses to present himself in his private (even if conducted in public) life.

The big aberration here, of course, are the outfits he wears on his date with Blaine to Scandals and when he tells Blaine he’s going home with him (for sex) at the end of 3.05. Those are both what should arguably be private moments, and therefore, to fit the pattern above, involve feminine attire. But they don’t. At all.

My suspicion is that the variance here comes from two things: extradiegetically, to make it very clear that Kurt and Blaine are two gay boys; and intradiegetically, because Kurt is worried in both of these situations about proving man enough — first for gay culture, and then second, for his boyfriend who so clearly wants to be wooed and seduced (see: the Sadie Hawkins dance and Blaine’s interactions with Sebastian). In fact, extradiegetically, the auditorium outfit is actively hilarious, at least if you’ve been following the hanky code discussion over on Deconstructing Glee. That hanky code queer in-joke is, however, part of what makes Kurt’s adventures with gender so utterly subversive and queer.

For folks (largely queer folks) paying attention, Glee informs us that Kurt is happy and eager to be an aesthetically feminine partner in his relationship and play act at that very role… when it’s about his relationship. But that in no way makes him a passive, submissive or traditionally feminine partner; it doesn’t even make him a girl (sidenote: I loathe all the stereotypes it’s necessary to address to untangle what’s going on with Kurt, but it’s the world he, and we, live in). It places a heteroaesthetic dynamic around Kurt and Blaine, while firmly removing any hint of a heteronormative one.

That heteroaesthetic dynamic serves to amplify queerness for the viewer interested in queerness, but also to minimize queerness, by suggesting the actually rejected heteronormativity, for the viewier not interested in, or not comfortable with, that same queerness. This is a type of relatively outrageous passing, one that offers Kurt and Blaine safety both intra- and extradiegetically, without imposing restriction on their significantly queer gender expression and sexuality.

Finally, that Kurt’s feminine aesthetic choices evoke modesty seems to play into broader issues around his experience of sexuality. Kurt has, for all his “baby penguin” denial, always been a sensualist — it’s present in his fretting about fabrics, skin care, and even food (despite the toxic, self-restrictive tendencies we’ve seen there).

Since 3.05 we have seen him project physical modesty and avoid physical contact with people who aren’t Blaine (including, but not limited to, Rachel and the awkward hug that required warning; and Brittany and the lack of hug response/cringe thing), and it is emotionally touching as well as indicative of how much work he is having to do to both segregate his desire from the rest of his life and to integrate it into a necessarily public existence. This parallels neatly with the male/female dichotomy of Kurt’s presentation and additionally with the heteroaesthetic/queerness passing game he and Blaine are, I think, knowingly playing.

Star Trek TNG: Remember that LGBT issues episode that’s actually about straight people?

Since one of the themes of this blog lately has inadvertently become “Well back in my day all we had was Willow and Tara and all that ‘magic is an allegory for orgasm’ nonsense,” I feel compelled to mention that I’ve somehow stumbled on to a marathon of Star Trek: The Next Generation (inexplicably on BBC America) and am currently watching “The Outcast.”

For anyone who may not remember this episode or never watched the show: The Enterprise encounters a species without gender; Kirk stand-in Commander Riker works closely with one of these individuals, who then reveals that she considers herself female and has to keep this a secret on her world lest she be subjected to ridicule, violence and reparative therapy. Riker and this person hook up, and then get busted. Sure enough, she’s subjected to said reparative therapy (which on her awful world actually works), but not before a few impassioned speeches that will sound almost too familiar to any queer person out there.

This episode is central in an annoyance that many people feel about Star Trek. The original series was so cutting edge regarding race, and yet the newer series (TNG, DS:9, Voyayer, and Enterprise) have never exactly included a gay character (despite one or two similarly murky moments as “The Outcast” and quotes from more than one actor on the shows regarding their own interpretations of characters they played to include queerness).

“The Outcast” was their attempt to address LGBT issues in a way that was arguably comfortable to mainstream audiences: It’s upside-down world, no actual gay people here! You can have compassion without being squicked!

I’ve often ridiculed the episode myself. As a gay person, it is annoying in that instead of representing gay people, it is an “issue moment” that made it all about straight people; after all, the structure of the episode allowed the people our society would view as queer to remain the bad guys. Really, in its own way, it’s clever, if a little nauseating.

But watching it tonight for the first time in years, I find myself struck by it as genderqueer person. From that standpoint, it feels far less like a sloppy (and cowardly and annoying) attempt to tell a gay story without a gay character and more like an almost deft look at the reality of those of us who experience gender as non-binary and/or divorced on some level from traditional external perceptions of our physical form.

Emphasis on almost, since I don’t actually remember feeling this way about the episode at the time, and I was definitely identifying as gender-variant by the time this aired.

Most amusing (to me anyway, long story, don’t ask), perhaps, in the end, is that Jonathan Frakes, the actor who plays Riker, apparently has been quoted as saying that the female character in the gender-neutral species should have seemed more male in order to make the message clearer. On one hand, I’m impressed, on the other, that sentiment just seems to muddy already murky waters further.

Then again, I’m the girl who often dresses/feels/identifies as a boy and who gets told that people don’t question my maleness, just my masculinity; since I tend to shop for dresses with masculine avatars in mind and go for pure camp in my feminine selections, I suppose this actually makes sense. Anyway, as such, I may be the worst person to evaluate this hot mess of an ancient Star Trek episode ever.

But if you haven’t seen it, and you’re interested in queerness on TV, this thing is almost required viewing.

Glee: Santana, Dave Karofsky and the naming and shaming of desire

While I continue to attempt to draft a post about what’s wrong withfor Blaine Anderson, this mini-hiatus really belongs to Santana.

To get the basics out of the way: Santana is cruel, and it’s no surprise someone snapped and outed her (Finn) admittedly poorly kept secret (her love for Brittany). But if Santana doesn’t deserve our sympathy (and I think whether she does depends on who you are and how you watch TV), she certainly deserves our notice.

Santana is, in part, the conclusion to the Dave Karofsky story we never got to see. She, like Dave, is a bully. That bullying, while not addressed to her object of desire, is often related to sexuality and gender and is designed to keep her safe, or at least throw up a good distraction. She beards for Dave at the end of Season 2, not just because they are both closeted gay kids, but because they are both closeted gay kids with the same defense mechanism.

While Dave’s been working his issues out largely in private – a conversation with Kurt here or there, a transfer to a new school, hiding out under a cap at the local gay bar – it’s been so private that it hasn’t even happened on our TV screens.

But Santana’s working her issues out in public. And even if that weren’t already clear by the way she baits Finn and moons over Brittany, she certainly doesn’t have a choice now; she’s about to be outed to the entire congressional district.

It’s a critical narrative choice about a character who looks nothing like many people’s stereotypes about gay women, because Santana is the exception to no rule when it comes to the intersection of her gender and her sexuality. Women often simply don’t get to resolve these matters in private the way Dave does.

Sure, Dave got lucky in the generosity that Kurt afforded him, but who women sleep with, how often, and whether they like it too much or not enough is pretty much always a matter for public discourse and opinion. Especially in places like William McKinley High School.

Had Dave’s journey from bully to self-accepting gay man been documented more on our television screens and transpired in the halls of William McKinley, gender-based insults, placing him as a woman, would have been central to the narrative. But that’s not the story Glee is telling about Dave.

It is, however, one that Glee is telling about Kurt.

So let’s predict what happens next, or at least discuss what we’re clearly supposed to expect to happen next: With Santana’s sexuality dragged into the congressional race by a third candidate, she has to attend to her now very public personal life. So does Sue Sylvester, who spoilers tell us will be on a quest to prove her heterosexuality, possibly at the expense of butch-appearing straight gal Sharon Bieste.

But if we’re talking about how homosexuality is used in American politics, especially in places like Lima (my partner, a third or fourth generation Buckeye, may throttle me if I cast aspersions on the entire state of Ohio), there’s no way that Kurt’s not going to get similarly dragged into the race, and it will be Burt’s job to, in an echo of Kurt’s speech for class president, try to rise above the mudslinging.

That it is women — or male characters “tainted” with femininity — that have to defend their identities in public, while people like Dave can grab a fresh start somewhere else is one of those moments of real-world nastiness that can make Glee seem like such an unkind show. For a fantasy, it sure is mean.

But predictions aside, we’re still early in season 3, and I’m still unsure where they are going with a lot of things including Blaine’s constantly shifting self; Kurt’s sudden return to more feminine attire around the events of 3.05; and Rachel and Finn’s struggles with gender role expectations around their relationship to each other and Lima.

But I am convinced that if we’re looking for clues to those sorts of questions, the answer unavoidably rests with Santana. Despite (or perhaps because) Glee‘s main narrative drivers outside of Rachel are male, the show is often overtly about people’s reactions to unusually-located femininity.

So if we want to know what happens next, who better to look at than Santana? She’s an archetype of femininity (a cheerleader) who’s broken the rules (not by being mean, but by being gay) and is about to undergo one particularly unpleasant ritual girls and women face — a big public discussion of the appropriateness of her desire.

It’s something we’ve gotten with Rachel (with Kurt and his gender non-conformance playing mirror) around ambition. Now we’re going to get it with Santana (with Kurt and his gender non-conformance playing mirror again, but he’s a magician, of course, and exists in that other world made up of shadows and the looking glass) around the public naming (and shaming) of desire.

In light of all of that, I bet Dave Karofsky’s glad he managed to get the hell out of dodge right about now. But part of me wishes he would come back in this particular arc and speak up with his masculine affect and relative safety for Santana, Kurt and the relentlessly flawed strength these two — the girl he pretended to want and the boy he actually did — have been forced to have by the way the world so often feels about girls.

Glee: It’s different for queers

Last night, in what was essentially a successful attempt to make it very clear that gay stories are just like straight stories, Glee became the very passing narrative it’s been attempting to elucidate since the start of season 3 around Kurt and Blaine’s disparate gender and sexuality presentations. And, just as that narrative has not mentioned that for someone like Blaine passing can hurt as much as not passing does for Kurt, “The First Time” was, for this queer viewer, uncomfortably silent on all the ways that gay stories aren’t like straight ones.

This isn’t a political judgement. It’s not really any sort of judgement at all. I thought, frankly, that the episode was gorgeous (always, always let editors direct, because nearly every shot and transition will be visually astounding), and despite the tone of a lot of the advance marketing (“a very special episode” indeed), not actually an after school special.

I also thought it got a lot of things right about virginity: how you can’t ever really know what ready means and how terrifying it all is, sometimes, even moreso, when it is right, because you just want to do right by the other person. I also thought it gave us some great character moments and a bucket of interesting when it comes to your favorite preoccupation and mine — Dalton as faerieland (that’ll be a separate post).

But what the episode didn’t give us was the idea that virginity is, actually, not a cut and dried issue, especially for queer teens who, until last night on Glee don’t, for better or for worse, particularly have pop-culture narratives that tell them what their virginity is. And, despite the lovely, “The First Time” didn’t really do anything to solve that problem.

This is where I could tell you about the Great Condom Wrapper Debate on Tumblr (Is it, or is it not empty? Are there one or are there two?). Or the fact that not even the actors can apparently place the scenes cut in with the performance of “One Hand, One Heart” in time (before, after or during sex? Chris Colfer gave a big “I don’t know!” in at least one interview).

I could also mention that it strains my credulity that two boys who had, for a year, refused to touch each other below the waist, decided that their first time was going to be all about penetration, managed said act, and then got dressed for the post-coital snuggles (although the Internet is working hard to make that make sense, and will probably succeed by the end of the day. The Glee writers should thank us all).

But the fact remains that no matter how inappropriate and unfair I think it is, even for straight people, penis-in-vagina or as close as you can get to same, remains the standard for virginity loss in American culture and pop media. This is generally without discussion or challenge unless we’re talking about good girls staying “virgins” by having anal sex on some mediocre b-level cable network movie of the week. And, in making absolutely sure the Kurt/Blaine and Rachel/Finn narratives ran in tight parallel, this is where “The First Time” went, even without explicitly saying so (or, you know, actually making a lot of sense).

This erasure of a part of queer experience (“What is my rite of passage?”) in an effort to show that the two couples are equally as beautiful, in love, and facing the same challenges, is a case of a queer narrative passing as if the world is not different for us, just as Blaine experiences passing because of the style of his performance of masculinity; no matter what people take him to be, the world is still different for him than for a straight boy.

Here, the Glee narrative is able to pass because it’s 8pm on Fox, where we don’t look too closely at certain things on US TV, and where the powers that be worked hard to make sure they would submit nothing in the final cut of the episode that would force later cuts that might un-equalize the focus on the two couples.

But the fact is Rachel wearing a slip to bed to lose her penetrative virginity is just plain logistically different than boys in their trousers. And Rachel deciding that penis-in-vagina sex is what her virginity is about is also logistically different than Kurt and Blaine deciding that their virginities are also about penetration; Rachel probably came to her conclusion in under an hour, possibly in under five minutes. Did Kurt and Blaine?

This what-is-virginity? gap is also mirrored by the fact that we know Brittany and Santana have sex, but yet, this just gets blurred away in the show’s long-term narrative, not, I don’t think because they are still a b-plot or because their virginities are long gone, but because Glee doesn’t know how to say, “these two girls are fucking” without the penetrative assumption, and you really can’t talk about the nitty-gritty of lesbian sex (which is perhaps, sadly, the biggest mystery of all to the American mind) on Fox at 8pm. You can’t particularly de-essentialize the penis. People just don’t get it.

Back when we first found out “The First Time” was coming, I made a lot of dismayed noises about the prurient “Who tops?” conversation around Kurt and Blaine. In fact, I was probably kind of an asshole about it. And, while I remain chagrined by the casual and snarky nature of a lot of that conversation by people outside of the queer experience, I have to sort of eat my words here and apologize.

Because a huge piece of the analysis I want to do about this episode involves Kurt and Blaine’s gender positioning — Kurt, for the first time in this season, is back in his “fashion has no gender” and “I’ve never met a sweater dress I didn’t like” attire; while Blaine gets serenaded by Sebastian as the naive “Uptown Girl.”

This, combined with the Rachel/Finn parallels, and the degree to which teen gay sex became about Glee trying to make a queer experience pass for a straight one, makes who topped (again, if penetration happened, see: the Tumblr condom debate) a somewhat salient question if we’re trying to figure out what Glee’s agenda is around masculinity, femininity and queerness. But because we’re in this cultural moment of normalizing gay, often aggressively, I’m left with what feels like a lot of peculiar and specific road signs pointing, well, nowhere.

This is, perhaps, as it should be. Maybe, we all just need to make up our own minds, and tell the stories we need to have told. But I find myself a little frustrated for gay teens and for passing gay teens, that this narrative was so aggressively about normalization and spoke so little to queer experience, even if it was kind of a great thing to show our straight parents.

On the other hand, when Patty went to bed last night, she said the episode had made me mushy. “But I’m always like this,” I said, brushing my nose against hers. And it’s true, we always are. So I suppose this is one of those things I’m just going have to let go, because this is what fiction always is for each of us, stories that are, and aren’t, our own.

That said, don’t worry, that gender/sexuality positioning post is totally coming, even if it’s going to drive off into a vortex of passing vagueness thanks to the construction of this episode. Like whatever is next for Kurt and Blaine and Finn and Rachel, I think it’s safe to assume: Detours Ahead.

Glee: Remember how I said I wasn’t going to write about 3.05 before it airs? Yeah, well, I also once told my mother I would never have sex before marriage.

So, I’ve spent a little bit of time here, and a lot of time over on Tumblr saying I’m not going to talk about 3.05 until it airs. I’m not going to speculate about the structure of the ep, the deflections I think are present in the trailer, the various concerns about the introduction of Sebastian, or even the significance of the episode even existing.

And then today was a sea of spoilers as various journos tweeted as they watched screeners and everyone flipped out. Me included.

And that’s when I realized that to write about 3.05 well, or to talk about the other topics I talk about here, I actually need to get some of my 3.05 anxiety off my chest. But that anxiety isn’t about the episode, that anxiety is about me.

If you’ve been reading for a while, you know that I was originally deeply resistant to Glee in part because I find high school shows hard. I wasn’t a beautiful loser in high school, I was just a loser, and while I’m over the spectacular disaster of my 20s, there’s a lot of shit that happened — or didn’t happen — when I was sixteen that I’m not, and I just want to get some of this out there.

Because it’s mostly personal, not analytical, and may be more than you want to know about me (although it is resoundingly non-graphic), I’m forcing you to click to get the rest of the entry. But it’s not just about my life, it’s about how this episode of Glee is a case of anxiety being the mode through which all us fans are inserting ourselves into the 3.05 narrative, and why anxiety is probably, actually, the most logical emotion for that activity, no matter how unpleasant it may seem.

Continue reading “Glee: Remember how I said I wasn’t going to write about 3.05 before it airs? Yeah, well, I also once told my mother I would never have sex before marriage.”

Glee: The Rules for Boys

While I not-so-secretly suspect that large portions of last night’s viewing audience were only there to see the trailers for 3.05 (called “The First Time,” for anyone who might not know the basis for my suspicions) and to see if Fox would let a bunch of supposed teenagers sing about being drunk and having a menage a trois in the 8pm time slot, one of Glee‘s best recurring themes was also on display, and that was the rules for boys.

It’s most overt when Finn explains to Rory that “dudes don’t ask dudes to be their friends.” But that remark isn’t just about explaining America’s social habits to the over-eager, adorably scamming foreign-exchange student. Nope, it’s about defining the masculinity that all our male characters have to navigate. Without it as background noise — even if it’s arguably background noise we all know — the passing plotlines around Kurt, Blaine, Dave Karofsky, and the soon-to-be-introduced Sebastian don’t mean anything, not to gay audiences, but to the straight ones who don’t necessarily have a reflex to think about the world as they create it for us.

Finn’s speech to Rory, in fact, goes a long way to explain the friction between him and Blaine in the choir room, because that is not just about Finn’s insecurity and his desire to remain the glee club’s vocal leader and captain-type dude. It’s about Finn’s homophobia, which, no, is not gone, despite the fact that he loves Kurt and does truly see him as his brother.

Because Finn and Kurt’s drama didn’t entirely neutralize because Finn got over his generalized homophobia, it neutralized because Kurt became his brother and the incest taboo made Finn forget about his still existent homophobia as it applied to Kurt. He no longer felt fear of Kurt’s sexuality, because Kurt as sibling became more important to him — and more gross in a sexual context — than Kurt’s being gay.

Blaine, to a given extent, was probably shielded from Finn’s homophobia by that. We see them being friendly around the prom episode, and we have to assume that dealt with each other a lot over the summer. However, Blaine’s transfer removes the incest taboo shield when it comes to Finn’s ability to deal with homosexuality amongst his male peers. Blaine goes from just being his brother’s boyfriend to the dude Finn goes to school with, basically moving him out of the protection accorded to him by his pseudo-family status. And so, aside from the leadership/solo issue and Finn’s insecurity, what does Blaine do that upsets Finn so much? He spends all his time effectively asking everyone, INCLUDING OTHER DUDES, to be his friend.

That breaks the masculine (read: heterosexual) code Finn describes to Rory, and also amplifies the level of competitive threat Finn feels from Blaine, because part of the non-verbalized homophobia in play here, and in the passing plotline around West Side Story, is that gay dudes aren’t leaders, despite the way Blaine was first introduced to us at Dalton (but remember, Dalton was faerie land — not real, and only being reintroduced to provide us with more faeries gay boys).

So here’s a place where Blaine’s ability to pass makes him more threatening to someone like Finn, rather than less, not just as competition, but in the context of Glee’s constant reminder of the fear of “the predatory gay.”

I expect this link between dude friendship rules, predation, and homosexuality are going to get an even bigger focus when Sebastian joins the narrative next episode. How will Blaine, who is so needy, respond to a gay man who works the passing and masculinity thing differently than he does, breaking the guy friendship rules that Blaine is often oblivious to himself?

How will Kurt (who is very aware of those rules, schooled in them as he was by Finn regarding not just himself, but Sam) respond to witnessing that? And, most importantly, how will their straight male friends interpret it?

Will it be about breaking the dude code? Will there be concern for friends who might be facing relationship drama? Or will they back away from what they will perceive as threatening predatory gay culture stereotypes they are not sufficiently insulated from by Kurt’s kinship with Finn because there are just too many other players involved?

Monday seems like a good place to start

Hi. I’ve been quiet lately. I wish I could tell you that was due to unbelievably exciting developments in my life, but, while there have been a few moments of success, promise and absurdity, mostly that’s not true; I just take a long time to recover from trips abroad and sometimes do battle with anxiety.

The fact is that I get behind on things, and my head gets turned around in this season, not just by jet lag, but by how incredibly dark it gets incredibly early in latitudes north of New York City. When I’m grateful for all the light in the sky when the sun is setting here before six, you know Europe’s done a number on me.

But, in logistical news you probably don’t care about, I’m headed up to Boston at the end of this week for less than 48 hours and then Patty’s parents will be here for the weekend. In logistical news you’re slightly more likely to care about, I have a contract for something that you’ll eventually be able to read to drop in the mail today, and also have to send a bio in for a thing or two I’ll be speaking at also at some time in the for now unspecified future.

Meanwhile, my guitar playing is still terrible, but full of hope and amusement, and there are a few things of interest off on the horizon so distant it seems indecent to mention them in the dark season. Of course, knowing my life, they’ll actually be here in half a second and splat all over the windshield of my schedule like a bug. I’ll let you know.

But in terms of giving you something to read other than my own attempts to get my head together (new Fluevogs are here, and really, you do not want to hear me wax poetic about the fact that I now own three, yes, three pairs of plaid shoes), I feel nearly morally obligated to post a link to Gregory Maguire’s “Friends of Dorothy: How Gay Was My Oz?” after all my previous rambling about Kurt Hummel and flying monkeys.

Glee, of course, returns from hiatus tomorrow, and if I’ve been silent about a ton of thoughts and theories I have (because Kurt’s clothes are telling us more things this season, and I’m emotional about 3.05 spoilers, and I sort of want to rant at everyone about how narrative requires conflict — three points that both are and are not related), it’s because talking about all that, in lieu of canon actually being revealed through the show (as opposed to leaks, speculations, and that most dubious of news sources, Tumblr), felt a little bit like having a debate with the vague suggestion of a summer breeze.

Even with hefty spoilers, we don’t know what a thing is until we see it, and in the case of the 3.05 frenzy in particular, I’m pretty strident on the fact that we know a lot less than we think we do. So words on all that are coming, but not until I have something concrete to address them to. I’ll warn you in advance that some of those words, even more than usual, are likely to be pretty personal.

But now it’s off to the really important stuff — putting in the laundry and taking Patty to a haunted house.

Trash day is incredibly surreal

Greetings from Switzerland. I’m in my fourth city in six days, not counting taking off from New York. I’m exhausted, and I have the flu. But, at the moment, I also have a swank hotel room with a bathroom larger than my first apartment. Actually, the hotel room may be larger than our current apartment, and we have a floor-through. More ridiculously, turn-down service also included them setting out some fancy embroidered cloth for my bare feet to rest upon and slippers by the bed. It is all highly absurd. Anyway, this is a work thing, so not on my tab, because, really, I shudder to think.

It’s late here; six hours ahead of home, and 7 and 9 hours ahead of a lot of my friends. I’m tooling around on the Internet, having just failed to get tickets for the Starkid tour (although that mission continues, har har).

Mostly, though, I feel as disconnected from the world as I often do while traveling. My body clock is off; keeping up with the news is a bigger challenge; and my on-line habits are seriously disrupted. Patty and I talk when we can, but it’s all hard. I will say, however, that missing each other for two weeks is far sexier than when we have to miss each other for three or four months.

Meanwhile, there are just four days left to pre-order your copy of (re)Visions: Alice via Kickstarter. Four amazing stories (okay, I haven’t read them yet, but I know all the authors, and some details about some of the pieces) in one really cool anthology premise. I would strongly recommend checking it out.

And while I still need to deliver on some promised thinky thoughts about various TV programs, this small accounting of life lately has pretty much taken it out of me (flu + jet-lag = le suck), so it will have to wait. But hey, I totally called it on The Playboy Club, huh? Gone gone gone. Sort of sad, as I did really care about that Mattachine Society plot.