January 12th, 2005

I don't know why, but this story said "postqueer" to me

Right to privacy limited in suspicious bathroom use case

From the story:

Hill was arrested after a clerk called police to report suspicious activity, a man and woman entering the store's one-person unisex restroom...

The court had said it would have been different if the two people in the restroom were a parent and child or a disabled person and an assistant. But the defense lawyer suggested the case left some things unanswered, including hypothetically whether a married couple would be allowed to occupy a single-person bathroom.

At the convenience store in question, he added, the sign said "Restrooms," with a symbol for each gender.

"That sign was a little misleading and certainly ambiguous," Erdahl said.


Huh. I'm not sure what I have to say about this just now. Your thoughts?
  • Current Mood
    contemplative puzzled
Oakbama

Barebacking porn

Just read an article in the most recent Bitch magazine (which I had to buy in a store because I let my subscription lapse - oops) about "humilitainment porn", in which people simulate rape and other kinds of sexual violence (mainly against women), and the goal is to make it as convincing as possible that this really happened (it's all staged, btw). Just to clarify, it's not SM or bondage porn where the leather and bondage gear or doctor's outfits or whatever signals that this is something outside of everyday life and very clearly playtime. In the humilitainment, people are dressed in everyday clothes and are humiliated in everyday settings.

Anyway, this got me thinking about the doc. I watched last year at SF's LGBT Film Festival about the rise of barebacking and bareback gay male porn. It's different from the humilitainment porn because the performers are actually barebacking (they're not simulating an unsafe sex act, they're performing it). What do people think about this phenonmenon/cultural product? What does it say about the times, the culture(s)? What is an appropriate response?