Comments

1. Fiqah wrote:

   Wow. This is nth-power skeevy. Can it still be called exploitation if someone plays into – nay, embraces – it? This is my Tila Tequila conundrum.

   Posted 16 Oct 2007 at 4:12 pm ¶

2. Colin wrote:

   Can it be called exploitation? Dunno. Are they stereotyping various demographics? Most def.

   It’s strange, that this sort of show can have pioneers. The shows in the Flava of Love, I Love New York, Laguna Beach sort of trashy way can still have trailblazers to be proud of? It’s making me feel a little bit icky to think of the dynamic. We have on one side the low, degrading and to some, boring over-the-top hypersexualization of all those involved, but on the other hand, it is a mainstream genre now, and to have lesbians of color hosting and starring, that should be a step forward, right?

   Posted 16 Oct 2007 at 5:55 pm ¶

3. Nellie wrote:

   >

   Yes dude, that is called internalized oppression.

   As a bi woman, I find this show totally offensive.

   Posted 16 Oct 2007 at 7:05 pm ¶

4. Lee wrote:

   Is it really necessary for Tila’s head to be that big?

   Posted 16 Oct 2007 at 7:07 pm ¶

5. Gregory A. Butler wrote:

   I really don’t understand what the problem is that some folks have with this show.

   It’s a trashy reality show – with a unique twist (of course, thewhole “bi woman being persued by both straight guys and lesbian women” thing)

   Why do folks have a problem with that?

   And what is the beef that some lesbian and bi women in particular have with the show?

   I’m not trying to be a smartass here – I’m genuinely interested in what distresses some folks about this show…please educate me!

   Posted 16 Oct 2007 at 8:37 pm ¶

6. Latoya Peterson wrote:

   Some items of note:

   *On the MTV blog, there were a couple of comments indicating homosexuality was wrong…and about 20 comments rooting for Dani! I didn’t see this one coming…

   *The authenticity of the lesbians is being called into question (but not the hetero-ness of the men…)

   *The MTV blogger says “The lesbians that I know dress in football jerseys and tapered jeans, but these ladies are so stylish and are bordering on drag, which I mean as high praise.”

   ****

   On to the comments.

   Exploitation vs. willing participation vs. internalized oppression…interesting discussion. I tend to follow this line of reasoning in the feminist community (normally when discussing gender roles and sex work) so I am a bit out of my league when discussing it in the realm of homosexuality.

   Fiqah – don’t we face this same conundrum in multiple forms of media? I see it in hip-hop all the time – is a video girl a product of exploitation or a willing participant in getting her paper?

   Nellie, what specifically do you object to? IS it the same stuff Wendi covered or is it something else.

   And Colin – I’m reserving a special place for T. Tequila’s show. I can’t stand Laguna Beach and while FOL 1 was a guilty pleasure of mine, it was really just me gawking at a train wreck. ASAL has made me question quite a few things – it kind of forced me to suspend my ideas about lesbianism and take in another perspective on dating. MTV has dabbled in exploring same sex dating on shows like next, but this is the first mainstream in-depth study.

   Personally, I am waiting to see how the show tackles these issues….and how the MTV viewing audience receives them…

   Posted 16 Oct 2007 at 9:00 pm ¶

7. Wendi Muse wrote:

   i’m watching it now…and i’m already like uber annoyed, as i expected
   most of the men see it as the ultimate fantasy: a house full of hot lesbians and one bi chick with whom they may still stand a chance…it sounds very much like a porn scenario, but one more or less meant for men who find lesbianism and/or sex with women as something for play, but not that’s real. not to mention, some of the men are already sexually harassing the women…

   one of the lesbians also just remarked that tila may be going through a phase, saying ‘we all start out bi-curious”…

   u have no idea how many times i have heard people say this…it’s a big assumption to make, clearly, but it also renders one form of sexuality as nonexistent…when, as kinsey proved, most people are not completely straight or completely gay, but waiver somewhere on a continuum between the two

   and i agree with you, latoya, i am also weirded out by the strict gender roles the show is working to assert for both men and women, and not only in looks, but also behavior.

   i’m also frustrated to hear so many of the lesbians asserting that they’re lesbians because they hate men…it’s like ok so they are breaking one stereotype (or so they think) because they are femme, but then fulfilling another by constantly talking about how they hate men…which is clearly not the motivation for a lot of women who love women. hearing that reminded me of the “i only date x race of men because i hate y race of men.” it just doesn’t sit well with me…i mean that’s their opinion whatever, but it seems like it would just feed people who rely on stereotypes on people who identify as being within the lgbt community…

   more comments coming soon.

   Posted 16 Oct 2007 at 9:42 pm ¶

8. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

   I haven’t watched the Tila show yet, so can’t comment. But I wanted to ask Wendi and other folks: how do you think this show compares to those episodes of “Next” and other MTV dating shows when they have lesbian/bi women on?

   Posted 16 Oct 2007 at 10:01 pm ¶

9. Wendi Muse wrote:

   good question…
   i think it’s the same.
   most of the time, when mtv next features gay or lesbian contestants, the main person almost always makes some comment regarding gender norms and how they want a man or woman, respectively, who fits the ones typical for straight people, and sometimes resorted to insulting contestants who didn’t fit those stereotypes for that very reason (ugh, she was too butch. gross… or ew, too much of a queen. i want a man!, etc)…
   and sure, it works for comic relief, i guess, but it’s come to be expected…and only debunks one set of stereotypes by reinforcing others.

   Posted 16 Oct 2007 at 10:27 pm ¶

10. Lilly W wrote:

    I have an interesting connection to this show: my ex partner, Scout, was the first person kicked off from that show. Only working from what she told me while she was there and after she was eliminated, I feel confident saying that the women on the show didn’t enter into it with genuine political intentions. That’s also not to say that they should be obligated to, or have some duty to be the ambassadors to the heteronormative mainstream.

    After watching the first episode (and dying of laughter as my ex made an ass of herself), I made a short list of the moments where I felt the women were very blatantly objectified and fetishized.

    Random guy: “When the girls walked out to the pool, I thought, awesome, now we can all get laid!”
    - As if to say, oh good, the masturbation sleeves have arrived.

    While I anticipated the usual mainstream media narratives of female-bodied/female-identified queerness (Guy: “she just hasn’t had me yet;” the Dyer’s Lesbian Vampire, etc), I was really shocked how blatantly the women were flattened into hypersexual idiots whose sexual agency is really only validated or confirmed by the men there.

    In the words of my beloved ex, “That Tila is dumber than a bag of hammers.”

    Posted 17 Oct 2007 at 2:01 am ¶

11. CScarlet wrote:

    My girlfriend and I were really intrigued (in a horrified, trainwreckish way) the first episode of Tila Tequila. Did anyone else catch Ashley’s: “I’ve never dated an Asian chick before…but I like Chinese food!” Ewwww!!! Malinda Lo (who I mention below) calls it Asian Fetish Moment #1 because she’s positive there’ll be more. Let’s face it, she’s probably totally right.

    Carmen, the lesbian/bisexual website AfterEllen.com does a Women of Color video blog called the Lo-Down with Malinda Lo and Sara Pecora and they reviewed the first episode in this week’s installment. Besides the awesome commentary, they also do a reenactment.

    I think that being a femme lesbian in lesbian circles actually gets your identity called into question a lot. In straight circles, you probably pass as straight, so it might be better for you. I’m not femme or butch, but apparently I give off a really gay vibe, so I can’t comment on that. Being a butch though is also kind of stigmatized because you ARE so visibly identifiable, and some people might think you’re conforming to a stereotype. I don’t think it’s better to be femme or butch among lesbians, although it probably depends on your location. Most people I know identify as neither.

    Posted 17 Oct 2007 at 9:42 am ¶

12. cw wrote:

    I think people expect too much from these type of shows. Anything for a ratings point. These shows do nothing for diversity other than reinforce stereotypes.

    Posted 17 Oct 2007 at 10:41 am ¶

13. Mr Mully wrote:

    I hate this show and I hate what Tila Tequila represents. As an Asian male I am irked to the nth degree that the only way Asian women can make it in mainstream media is if they are portrayed as promiscuos, sexual beings. Tila Tequila is a caricature as equally damaging to the reputation of Asian women as Flavor Flav is to African American men.

    It’s a sad state of affairs that when you google “asian women” and you get 90% pornographic sights. She is feeding that stereotype and I refuse to watch or support her sleezy career.

    Posted 17 Oct 2007 at 2:18 pm ¶

14. Daomadan wrote:

    Gregory: Do we need to spell it out? There aren’t (m)any shows out there that feature lesbian and bisexual women and especially lesbian and bisexual women of color and here we have a show that is bogged down in stereotypes of not only sexuality but race and gender too.

    As a bisexual woman, this show is just reinforcing everything I have to fight against to teach/tell others that my orientation is legitimate and that I am not sleazy/easy/greedy/a fence-sitter/confused/really a lesbian/etc.

    Posted 17 Oct 2007 at 2:37 pm ¶

15. Wendi Muse wrote:

    gregory, i know u read my old post on tila, but i suggest you go back and look over it again…i pretty explicitly spell out why i was upset when i heard about the show as a bisexual woman (which is one group you mention as needing clarification from) and i am not sure how much clearer one would need to be than that…

    Posted 17 Oct 2007 at 3:18 pm ¶

16. Wendi Muse wrote:

    btw gregory, here is my attempt at summarizing why some people, myself included, may not exactly LOVE Shot at Love:

    1. not all bisexuals feel the need to “choose between men and women.” it’s not always that simple.

    for example, i date people to whom i am attracted and with whom i have an intellectual and personality-based connection. if the person is a man, so be it, a woman, so be it. but i do not wake up in the morning saying “hmmm…i guess i will go find a woman today!” i date people for the same reason straight or gay people do, i just happen not to consider gender.

    2. not all bisexuals or lesbians look like porn stars.

    there is a lot of pressure for bisexual women as well as femme lesbians to be sexed out vixen-esque, or porno-ready. straight women, of course, also have to deal with this pressure, but it’s not seen as an automatic attribute of their existence. when one thinks of bisexuality or lesbianism, the first thing that often comes to mind is sex, only to be followed by the stereotype of a particular “look” that means she is always ready for sex. you have no idea how many men have told me “that’s so hot” after finding out i am bisexual. bisexuality is not synonymous with promiscuity or sexual availability any more than straightness is, but that is the label that we’ve been dealt.

    3. not all bisexuals are “confused”

    this is one of the most offensive lines one can ever hear as a bisexual, mainly because by saying this, it denies us of a sense of our own identity. i am not confused. i know i like men and women. i don’t feel a pull more in one direction than the other. one of the lesbian cast members on the show said that tila may just be in transition to becoming a lesbian, which is just about as bad as saying a biracial person is on his or her way to becoming one race or another (note: i am not equating race to sexuality or playing the oppression olympics…but to me, for someone to tell me i’m confused is just like hearing someone say “you think you’re white!” because i speak clear english). being bisexual is part of one’s identity just as much as being straight or gay is.

    4. there is more to being a lesbian than being femme or butch.

    the show seemed to dwell on this a lot, and it just seemed oversimplified and in many ways heteronormative, relying on gender norms set by our society to mark what type of lesbian someone is. it’s petty and most lgbt-identified people, at least in major cities that would consider themselves pretty progressive with regard to this stuff, hardly rely on these terms anymore as there are zillions of other forms of identity expression that lie in between those antipodes (ie. aggressive, femme-aggressive, soft butch, hard butch, and the list goes on). some people don’t use any term at all…and just identify as straight people do…by their name.

    5. tila and the rest of the casts make tons of comments on very strict gender norms.

    not all men fight all the time, not all women are emotional wrecks, however, tila seems to buy into these stereotypes and takes every free moment in the show (thanks, editors) to remark on what women are like and what men are like, and why she likes those things about them, respectively. for a show that prides itself on “breaking stereotypes,” it REALLY sticks it to the man by, well, rehashing those same stereotypes we hear over and over about the pink and blue.

    6. kinsey would roll in his grave

    for anyone who studies gender and sexuality, kinsey is a name to know. if u don’t know about him, grab a book, or at least take a moment to find him on wikipedia. he basically found, after interviewing lots of people, that most humans don’t identify as 100% straight or 100% gay. instead, their sexuality, or at least their sense of attraction to the opposite or the same sex, lies somewhere on a continuum he called the kinsey scale. this show, as banal as it may be, fosters the idea that people have set sexualities from which they never waiver.

    7. women are portrayed as sex objects, and their devotion to lesbianism is questioned in a way that the men’s straightness is not.

    this is pretty much self-explanatory

    —
    at the end of the day, i recognize that it’s a sad mtv attempt for ratings and tila’s attempt at more publicity, but it’s annoying to see my identity “pimped out” like that so to speak, simply for the sake of more people to make more money. most of the show is also really fake and clearly meant to engage the viewers’ sense of humor, but it seems that all one would be left to laugh at is the degree to which it reiterates stereotypes (of men, of women, of bisexuals, of lesbians, of people of color), which I don’t find funny in the least, especially not when i know that some high school or middle school student who has never met an asian-american woman or a lesbian or a bisexual or if they have, still don’t have a full understanding of what each of those categories entails, will watch this show and begin to internalize stereotypes to which he or she may never been exposed or, in the case of prior exposure, can use the show to further cement a mental picture that was already slightly formed.

    Posted 17 Oct 2007 at 3:47 pm ¶

17. Free wrote:

    Since we’re on the verge of porn … there’s a porn site that purports to trick Mexican women with illegal immigrant status into sex and then have them deported, (the men pose as Border Patrol agents). Their mission?

    “Totally Exclusive Illegal Latinas Getting Banged Or Deported Or Both”

    I bring this up because I don’t think Tequila is to blame for her popularity or her show; she is just taking advantage of what America presents. Ganging up or ignoring her is useless, (useful to the system though, all that misdirected anger and scorn). Tequila’s show is a function of a society “addicted” to race, sex, and phobias. The men and women who will flock to that border patrol scam / latina exploitation porn site belong to the demographic that will gawk at Tequila and her show as they feed that money maker.

    p.s. There border patrol porn site has an Officer Santos.

    Posted 17 Oct 2007 at 3:49 pm ¶

18. ilana wrote:

    this looks extremely sketchy. why would ayone do this to themselves?? bizarre. and tila tequila’s tacky.

    all i know is that Rami is a Jewish name (though it may “belong” to other groups as well).

    Posted 17 Oct 2007 at 4:37 pm ¶

19. Gregory A. Butler wrote:

    Wendi

    Thanks for your patient explination – I know I may seem clueless to you, but remember, I’m a heterosexual man, and I really don’t have a whole lot of first-hand knowledge about the issues and oppressions faced by bisexual women.

    That’s why I was asking – and thanks for giving me such a detailed answer, as well as giving me a glimpse into what the bi world is like.

    On your specific points:

    1. this is one of the hardest things for me to understand about being bisexual.

    Like you, I also “…date people to whom i am attracted and with whom i have an intellectual and personality-based connection”.

    But, in my case, I’m pretty damned specific about what gender those folks have to be – female.

    And, for that matter, what race and apperance – I pretty much exclusively go for lightskinned and/or biracial Black women or brownskinned Latinas – I’m simply not attracted to women who deviate too far from that type).

    So I just don’t get the whole deal of sexual attraction not being pretty specifically tied to what gender that person is. (other straights may have the same problem getting this that I do – thus the whole view that bisexuals are “confused”)

    2. I think I can understand this one. Obviously, most bi women do NOT look like porn stars – but, unfortunately, the first bi woman to get her own prime time show…looks like a porn star (an alternative, Suicide Girls-ish porn star, but a porn star nonetheless).

    3. I can understand why bisexuals would resent being considered confused – but, as I said above, it can be very hard for straights to even imagine how somebody could be attracted to both men and women equally (I know that I have a hard time understanding that myself)

    4. I can understand this too – the show does tend to oversimplify lesbians into studs and femmes – basically, to present lesbianism as a form of “heterosexuality without men” . The media also tends to do the same thing with gay men as well – and I can understand the resentment about this one.

    5. Again, the show is rigidly stereotypical – with women presented as hyperemotional, and men as fistfighting jerks. I had that same problem with the show myself.

    6. The show does have a very unkinseyesque understanding of sexuality. I do understand that, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as “straight” or “gay” – everybody is just somewhere on the Kinsey Scale (I believe it’s 0 – 1- 2- 3 – 4 – 5 – 6, but I forget which end of that scale is almost totally straight and which end is almost totally gay)

    “Gay/Lesbian” “straight” and “bisexual” are all political catagories, not absolutes.

    7. The show also does have a view of lesbianism that’s borrowed directly from straight male-oriented porn.

    That is, lesbianism as such doesn’t exist – all women are oriented towards sex with men, and when women have sex with other women, it’s basically a “warm up” for them having sex with men.

    If you’ve ever watched a straight porn video, you know EXACTLY what I’m talking about here – the two women go down on each other, and then the man comes in and has sex with both of them.

    Lesbianism basically is viewed as a form of entertainment for men – the guy gets to watch the two women getting each other off, and then they turn around and both of them service him.

    In other words, it’s totally different than real world lesbianism.

    That’s basically how A Shot At Love w/Tila Tequila has presented lesbianism so far.

    Again, I understand the objections now – but I still do have some real sincere questions as well.

    Posted 17 Oct 2007 at 8:11 pm ¶

20. fiqah wrote:

    Wendi, darling, you are my shit. Colin, also a little in love with you. Aw, snap. Blog crush!

    Posted 17 Oct 2007 at 9:10 pm ¶

21. Wendi Muse wrote:

    gregory,

    i’m so glad that my responses helped bridge the gap a little bit. i understand that people have lots of questions about sexuality still, especially considering that it’s still fairly new insofar as americans feeling open enough to discuss it (straight, gay, pansexual*, bisexual, whatever) in public forums like this and having tv shows that deal with it.

    it’s always hard for me to explain bisexuality, but the best answer is that i like people. just like straight or gay people, i have a “type.” i tend to like people with dark hair and eyes, and who are intelligent and funny. if that person happens to have a penis, fine, in a vagina, fine, but it’s a nonissue as i can find the qualities i like across the board-in men and women. whoever happens to fit the things i like and who pursues me is the person i will be with. of course, men and women don’t approach at the same time, so it’s just an issue of timing. i don’t alternate genders (like date a woman this year, a man the next). it really just ends up being about the same reasons straight people or gay people pick their mates (just minus the gender concern as i like both).

    let’s say you like blondes and brunettes, you will date either, as long as she meshes well with you. i feel the same way about men vs. women because i just so happen to have developed an attraction to them both that i choose to act upon.

    another thing i hear a lot too is well, what if you marry/are in a relationship with a woman? are you a lesbian then? or if you marry/are in a relationship with a man, are u straight then? well no. i’d still be bi because it’s based on one’s attraction to someone whether the person is male or female. i may be in a relationship with one person, but that doesn’t mean i wouldn’t find other people attractive (platonic or sexually). i just don’t have to act on it (just if a woman found another man attractive despite being married).

    also, as i am not preoccupied with the prospect of having children (if i ever reach a point in my life when i want them, i plan to adopt, no matter what the biological sex of my partner may be), it’s never been a big worry of mine..so that frees up more space too, at least with regard to whom i am attracted and pursue.

    BUT i obviously don’t speak for all bisexuals. just as with straight people, everyone is different and lives their lives in different ways. i tend to be on the more conservative end of the spectrum in that i prefer monogamous relationships with one person at a time, but some bisexuals don’t (just as not all straight people only have one partner/lover) and engage in polyamorous relationships. i like men and women pretty much equally, but some bisexuals prefer one gender to another, etc…there is a lot of variation, but the reason the show annoys me is mainly because it leaves little room for exploring the different facets of identifying as non-straight. there is a lot more relationship diversity within the straight world that we rarely discuss, and i think if we did, we’d realize that there were more parallels than differences…but there is little info out there, which means that people have nothing left to rely but stereotypes unless someone steps in and explains or if they do a ton of research… and the show, unfortunately, satiates more of the former than the latter when it comes to wanting more info.

    *just an fyi, the difference between pansexual vs. bisexual is that bisexual means you are attracted to and act on said attraction to “biological” men and women (in this case, “sex” would be based on biological characteristics, i.e. genitals) whereas pansexuality is an attraction to and acting upon said attraction with people of any sex and gender (which are two separate things). sex is based on chromosomes and anatomy, gender is based on social norms assigned to one’s sex and more mutable than sex), which would include people who identify as transgender (and/or transsexual). pansexuality is a newer term as some found bisexuality to be restrictive and somewhat neglectful of people who identified as and/or were attracted to people who identify as transgender or androgynous.

    Posted 17 Oct 2007 at 9:37 pm ¶

22. Michelle wrote:

    Wendi…

    I appreciated your breakdown on sexuality. While I understand that you were speaking from your perspective on things, I have never, ever had the priveledge of having it so eloquently explained to me.

    I do admit to having a bias, or a least a deep misunderstanding of bi-sexuality that has been eleviated as a result of reading what you had to say about your own sexuality.

    It brings me hope to know that people are being more comfortable with ever expanding ideas about what and who is attractive. For instance, men who are almost always attracted to light skinned women with long hair seem to be very myopic in their definitions of beauty. In some ways, bi-sexuality, as explained by you, is one way of fighting the very destructive and detrimental ideas of beauty.

    Posted 18 Oct 2007 at 12:55 am ¶

23. Fiqah wrote:

    Latoya: congrats on yet another excellent post. Regarding video women – exactly! I actually was flipping past BET (Beyond Excessive Television) last night and your response popped into my head immediately. The whole unholy cash-booty-bling trinity made me so disgusted. It has raised skeevitude to new heights. Whatever happened to “Video Soul?”

    And this one’s for everybody. A two-fold caveat: we all have arrived at this site with various perspectives and EXTREMELY varied levels of oppression awareness. It’s always a good idea to keep in mind that just because a thing does not oppress you directly does not mean that that thing is not oppressive. When you do encounter a moment of classic cognitive dissonance – where something that you held as a given, a norm, or a natural truth is challenged or called into question – take a moment to examine your reaction. There may be some internalized issues with race, sexuality, gender, class and color that you now have an opportunity to face and grapple with. Step up to the challenge. Likewise, for posters who are veteran speakers of Battlin’ Oppressionese (and I LOVE YOU GUYS!) try to be patient with folks who may not quite be at your level. This stuff could be brand new to them. I know that sounds like copping out, but it could mean all the difference between nurturing a dialogue versus suffering a diatribe. An activist’s duty is to foster change, after all, right?

    Posted 18 Oct 2007 at 8:59 am ¶

24. Wendi Muse wrote:

    fiqah, i agree. i think that’s really important…that other people be willing to learn and that those who experience it are willing to discuss it without condescension (as it’s huge turn off to the learning process).

    Posted 18 Oct 2007 at 10:01 am ¶