Tag Archives: Society

The One Sided ‘Mirror’ of the Movies.


We look to the movies to legitimise our sexual identity – using them to help us find a mirror of our own existence. With the inherent heteronormativity and heavy censorship of mainstream cinema, the effect on the LGBTQ[1] community can only be interpreted as a negative one. Being part of this community, I’m interested in finding out how LGBTQ feel they are placed, and/or represented within the movies – with my focus being mainly on the lesbian element. Hollywood’s reluctance to stray from the heterosexual male gaze that still domineers mainstream cinema today, makes finding relatable, and more importantly, real, lesbian imagery almost an impossibility. In order to gain even basic self-acceptance we first need to acknowledge that we are not alone – and it is this lack of real lesbianism in the mainstream that makes this a daunting, and often lonely, unachievable task.

 “They’re our story telling. They’re the fabric of our lives. They show us what is glorious, and tragic, and wonderful, and funny about the day-to- day experiences that we all share – and when you’re gay and don’t see that reflected in any way, ever, in the movies, you begin to feel that something is truly wrong.[2]

With a vast majority of lesbians feeling they are inadequately/ under represented within the movies[3], I sought to find out why something that is so desperately desired, and so easily achievable, is pushed under Hollywood’s carpet. Using a number of key sources I plan to show, explain and hopefully begin to tackle, or bring to light, the problems caused by Hollywood’s heteronormative agenda – focusing on how heavy censorship is a key cause of the unrealistic, stereotypical, and often devilish portrayal of the lesbian on the big screen.


The movies have always been somewhat stereotypical, but when it comes to the homosexual it seems to take stereotyping to a whole new level. The documentary, ‘The Celluloid Closet[4], based on the book by Vito Russo, is an interesting compilation of film clips and interviews with influential actors, writers and directors, of both homosexual and heterosexual nature, that not only investigates the representation of the homosexual in cinema, but also scrutinise it. It focuses on the arrival of heavy duty censorship codes, such as the Hayes code, back in the 1930s, and the destructive effects these rules had on the medium – prompting directors to quickly learn to write between the lines or risk losing the homosexual on screen altogether.

 “Our American people are a pretty decent, homely and wholesome crowd. Cockeyed philosophies of life, ugly sex situations, deep jokes and dirty dialog are not wanted. The decent people don’t like this sort of stuff, and it is out job to see to it that they get none of it.”[5]

For some time it unfortunately seemed, to the untrained, or lonely eye, that homosexuality had been successfully eradicated from the mainstream. Homosexuality was not seen as something respectable people would be associated with, and was therefore something to be frightened and wary of.

 “For all its efforts, the production code didn’t erase homosexuals from the screen, it just made them harder to find.[6]

The Celluloid Closet’ is an excellent example of how even those involved in the movies (directors, writers and actors) had/have little say in how homosexuality is portrayed overall – and instead have to work with the guidelines set upon them by a seemingly conservative/republican bureaucracy.  Even with the demise of these initial codes, the homosexual did not make a positive return to the movies, and although homosexuality “was finally being talked about on the screen, [it was] only as something that nice people didn’t talk about.”[7]and “characters of questionable sexuality would meet with a nasty end in the last reel.”[8] The documentary is sometimes critisied for its open-endedness, choosing to comment only how far the depiction of LGBTQ on the big screen has come, but also how far away the ideal goal still remains.

 “Hollywood still runs scared from the people who feel the very mention of homosexuality, the very display of it in some form on the screen legitimises the subject. Well of course it does, it shows that homosexuals are human beings. The movies could be making us laugh a lot more and cry a lot more if they would actually acknowledge the true diversity of humanity.”[9]

I however believe this to be one of its advantages. It does not sugar coat any of its information, nor does it falsify it. Homosexuality is still under represented/oppressed within the movies today, and we have a long, hard fight ahead of us in order to suppress these often homophobic, heteronormative, Hollywood regulations.


The inherent heteronormativity of Hollywood cannot be denied after watching ‘This Film Is Not Yet Rated’[10]. This witty, yet informative, and incredibly clever documentary turns the tables on the American ratings board – the MPAA – by putting them under the intense scrutiny, over their ratings ‘system’. Again using interviews with directors, mainly from the indie films genre, alongside film clips, and conversations with previous members of the ratings board and their employers, ‘This Film Is Not Yet Rated’ shows the difficulties faced by those wanting to, and making movies about homosexual lives and issues. Showing the MPAA for what it really is – a heternormative, conservative dictatorship. According to Jack Valenti (the MPAA’s then president), his ratings board ‘is populated by parents – normal human beings – neither gods nor fools.’[11] He believed his organisation consisted of the ‘average American parent’. The MPAA however, work under complete secrecy, and until the making of this documentary none of its members were ever known to the public. This secretive, although now known to be republican/conservative group, have taken it upon themselves to decide what we do/do not want our children to see, and get away with doing so by titling themselves ‘the norm’.

“What’s really offensive about that is, for a rater to say, we’re just going to rate these movies like an average American parents – who is an ‘average American parent’? I’m an American parent. I’m a lesbian, I live in Los Angeles, I’m a film maker, I have a daughter. I’m a parent.  I pay taxes and is there anyone on the ratings board who’s a parent like me? I highly doubt it.”[12]

The above opinion is that of, Jamie Babbit, director of one of the more well known lesbian films, ‘But’ I’m a Cheerleader’[13], and is an opinion that is shared by the vast majority of those creating LGBTQ subject matter for the movies. However, since the ratings board is a secretive organisation, one is not allowed to ask if all aspects of humanity are represented throughout ratings process. Luckily for Dick, and the rest of the LGBTQ population, two previous members of this board have broken their silence, and stated that, “Uhm… [long pause], well you know, to my knowledge there weren’t any that were self proclaimed homosexuals on the board whilst I was there. No.”[14] More than anything, this documentary shows us excellent comparisons between heterosexual cinema and homosexual cinema. By showing us just how much harder it is for films of a homosexual nature to be treated as equally as their heterosexual counterparts, ‘This Film Is Not Yet Rated’ cements the knowledge that Hollywood’s perspective on equality is on a par with Orwells, ‘Animal Farm’ – some will always be more equal than others. In the eyes of the MPAA, you will be better placed to have your movie seen my the masses/ deemed acceptable by having heterosexual characters who are unfaithful and/or having numerous one night stands, than you would be if you portrayed a homosexual couple in a loving, committed relationship (See Fig 1).

Fig 1.[15]

“But I’m a Cheerleader was a movie about gay kids who go to a homosexual rehabilitation camp. It’s a comedy, it’s a teen movie, I mean it’s all the things that I thought kids would like and I really wanted teens to see it – and I feel like the most important teens to see it are teens that are in high school in like Wyoming, or like wherever, that are just feeling like they’re the only ones. Especially these kids that are sent to these homosexual rehabilitation camps – and those camps are very real.

So I got a call from the ratings board and they’d said you got an NC-17. I was really angry and really devastated and I didn’t understand why. Because there’s no nudity in the sex scene, and they’re fully clothed. It was ridiculous. But the really offensive thing was at the time that I submitted it to the ratings board ‘American Pie’ had just come out. I had seen the trailer a million times of Jason Biggs masturbating in an apple pie – in the trailer! So what the ratings board then tells me, that in order to get an R, I have to cut one of my girls masturbating over her underwear, fully clothed, you don’t see anything – basically you can tell that she’s masturbating.[16]

This documentary not only stands up to the ratings board and Hollywood, but it is also an eye-opener to anyone who subconsciously thinks these heteronormative ideas are the only way the movies can function whilst more importantly, ‘protecting’ our children.


Upon closer inspection, however, it would seem that Hollywood is not only determined to ‘protect’ our children, but also masculinity – and what better way than to villianise the lesbian.

“The image of the sadistic lesbian is as crucial for communicating this patriarchal lesson to women as the evil witch of the fairy tale is for communicating prohibitions to children.”[17]

In creating a feared female character, the ‘poor’ straight or even confused woman, is left with no other option than to turn to the safety of her heterosexual male counterpart.

“In real life, it is men who perpetuate violence against women. It is men who use rape as a weapon… By dumping these qualities in an exaggerated form onto the lesbian, men absolve themselves of responsibility and induce women not to fear men but each other.’[18]

Fig 2. The heterosexual male gaze is evident in ‘Lesbian Vampire Killers’[26] (2009)

In its creation of the lesbian villainess “Hollywood simply redesigned an old formula. The weaker sex is still divided against itself. Only now it is the lesbian and straight woman who have replaced the whore and the virgin.”[19] The lesbian is used as the perfect aid to propel masculinity forwards, and in return keep women in their patriarchal place. This is the point put forward by Claudette Charbonneau and Lucy Winer in ‘Lesbians in “nice” films’. By best describing the lesbian with disapproving negatives, and removing all appealing characteristics – “she is neither intelligent, nor charming, nor good looking,’[20]– it allows heteronormativity to still inherently prevail in the mainstream. Lesbians looking to these films to for assurance are instead met with the realisation that they are instead, disgusting, sneaky and best kept in the shadows. So it is any wonder 80% of those questioned in a survey undertaken by myself [21]feel they are unable to relate to LGBTQ characters in the mainstream?

Fig 3. Showing both narcissism and desire for the young in ‘The Vampire Lovers’[27] 1970


What may seem like a genre with the biggest ‘breakthrough’ in terms of lesbian cinema is once again a product of the heterosexual male gaze (See Fig 2). The greatest lesbian villain – the lesbian vampire – is born from male desire as a means to prove, “it is not he who is inadequate, he is competing with supernatural powers. A man who offers his woman life though his sexual potency (symbolised by sperm) cannot compete with the vampire who sucks away her life (symbolised by blood).”[22] The lesbian vampire genre is one of the few, if not the only genre to deal with lesbianism in a sensual manner, however the content should not be mistaken as homosexual. What is depicted in these movies once again does nothing to help the lesbian in the real world – they will not help her find her place, and over all acceptance of her sexuality. The “heterosexual context must be very clear: lesbianism must be presented as an aberration.”[23] The lesbian vampire also has a new, yet just as demeaning, characteristic –narcissism. These films teach us that “the lesbians and homosexuals are narcissists capable of making love only to images of themselves”’[24] and that “lesbian sexuality is infantile…; lesbianism is sterile and morbid; lesbians are rich, decadent women who seduce the young and the powerless.”[25] (See Fig 3.) Love between women cannot according to these movies be described by any other means than vampirism. In Hollywood, both words mean the same thing.


As Andrea Weiss states in ‘Vampires and Violets’, even when homosexuality seems to have made a breakthrough in the movies, it is often as a guise for the ‘correctness’ of heterosexuality.

 “While seemingly arguing the opposite, [mainstream ‘lesbian’ films] end up also, more convincingly, affirming the position that lesbians too can find fulfillment in heterosexual sex and heterosexual definitions of womanhood.”[28]

On the contrary to mainstream cinema, is lesbian independent film. This genre deals with lesbianism minus the heternormativity, however, they often go to opposite extremes in order to remove the risk of these images generating male desire. Images of lesbian lovemaking are replaced with subtle glances – it is as if we’ve been catapulted back in time to the 1930s when censorship was first instilled. Regardless of this possibly negativity, this seems to have become a key element in lesbian indie movies.

A young, attractive woman exchanges looks with a nun on the street of New York’s Lower East Side. The nun walks away quickly, but the woman follows her right into a church. And the camera positions our view with that of the bold pursuer, so that we unexpectedly find ourselves guilty of transgressing the taboo, of looking at the nun somehow ‘differently’.”[29]

Although “this goal –not often achieved –is a primary one for lesbian independent film, and one of its defining characteristic,”[30] it is not necessarily a step in the right direction. But one could, and often would, argue the genres superiority to the mainstream. Because of the lesbians absence Weiss makes a similar point to the sources mentioned above, stating, “the process of unearthing a gay iconography involves seeing with double vision. Absence as image. Erasure as image.”[31] Lesbians are left to fill in the gaps, in order to see their own lives. Creating your own narratives could be seen to be enjoyable and therefore, easier to relate too. However when the only option you’re given is to read between the lines, doubt will always be close by.


‘Lesbians and film’ is yet another Jump Cut piece, but one that seems to sum up the majority of the points mentioned in my other sources in one short, and easy to understand article. Simply, yet powerfully, this article shows lesbian oppression within the movies with comments such as, “Lesbians are the women who are penalised for their sexuality more than any other women on earth.”[32] The key feature in this writing is a point made relatively early on,

 “The creating of a lesbian film criticism is particularly urgent, given the intensified use of the lesbian as a negative sign in Hollywood movies and the continuing space assigned to lesbians as gratification of male fantasy in pornography and a distressing number of male avant-garde films. Equally important as an impetus for new criticism is the rise of an independent lesbian cinema, under acknowledged and in need of attention.[33]

This hits the nail on the head. In order to move the focus from “heterosexuality [as] the positive, [and] lesbianism [as] the negative”[34] we need to figure out how to propel these independent movies forward – without hitting the brick wall that is censorship and Hollywood. However, since mainstream cinema and censorship organizations (such as the MPAA) unfortunately hold independent cinema in the palms of their hands this still seems like a major impossibility – “film’s role in enforcing heterosexuality has hardly been challenged.”[35] Whilst heternormativity exists within our male dominated society it is “not only lesbians, or straight women, who may find these images erotic,”[36]and “as long as lesbianism remains a component of pornography made by men and for men, that will affect the ‘positive image’ of lesbianism.”[37]


If we want to be able to relate to the lesbians on movie screen we first need to make the majority of the films made by lesbians, for lesbians, as close to reality as possible. Making this a possibility when “the film’s presentation of sexuality is not even one of liberal ‘equal opportunity’; the double standard of heterosexuality prevails”[38], as long as censorship organizations such as the MPAA exist, is not going to be an easy task, especially when in the majority of mainstream movies the lesbian is identified only by her sexuality. Independent cinema somehow needs to convince the mainstream that the lesbian should “not only [be] defined by, but limited to, her sexuality,”[39]before any significant progress will be made. When it comes down to next years submission, utilising the sources mentioned in this essay, along with the extensive overview in my bibliography, I hope to gather a wider range of relevant sources in order to help me write a more in depth critique of lesbian portrayal in mainstream cinema – focusing mainly on the negative effect having a conservatively ran ratings boards has on the lesbian community. I strongly believe that until Hollywood suppresses its need to remain on its inherent heteronormative path, members of the LGBTQ community will continue having to translate the movies to fit their lives, instead of actually being able to see themselves in them. Unfortunately unless you are lucky enough to fall into what Hollywood describes as the ‘norm’, using the movies as a mirror, in order to gain self-acceptance, or to place oneself within certain social constructs, is something the minority can only dream of.

(Adapted from my Bibliographical essay submission for GSA, Year 3)

[1] LGBTQ – lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender & queer community.
[2]The Celluloid Closet’, 00:03:40, DVD, Dir. Rob Epstein & Jeffrey Friedman, Sony Picture Home Entertainment, 1996 (2001)
[3] See attached survey
[4]The Celluloid Closet’, DVD, Dir. Rob Epstein & Jeffrey Friedman, Sony Picture Home Entertainment, 1996 (2001)
[5] The Celluloid Closet’, 00:16:12, DVD, Dir. Rob Epstein & Jeffrey Friedman, Sony Picture Home Entertainment, 1996 (2001)
[6] The Celluloid Closet’, 00:16:32, DVD, Dir. Rob Epstein & Jeffrey Friedman, Sony Picture Home Entertainment, 1996 (2001)
[7] The Celluloid Closet’, 00:48:30, DVD, Dir. Rob Epstein & Jeffrey Friedman, Sony Picture Home Entertainment, 1996 (2001)
[8] The Celluloid Closet’, 00:58:45, DVD, Dir. Rob Epstein & Jeffrey Friedman, Sony Picture Home Entertainment, 1996 (2001)
[9] The Celluloid Closet’, 01:35:00, DVD, Dir. Rob Epstein & Jeffrey Friedman, Sony Picture Home Entertainment, 1996 (2001)
[10] This Film Is Not Yet Rated, DVD, Dir. Kirby Dick, Magnolia Home Entertainment, 2006 (2009)
[11] This Film Is Not Yet Rated, 00:41:00, DVD, Dir. Kirby Dick, Magnolia Home Entertainment, 2006 (2009)
[12] This Film Is Not Yet Rated, 00:42:00, DVD, Dir. Kirby Dick, Magnolia Home Entertainment, 2006 (2009)
[13] But I’m a Cheerleader, DVD, Dir. Jamie Babbit, Lions Gate, 1999 (2003)
[14] This Film Is Not Yet Rated, 00:41:50, DVD, Dir. Kirby Dick, Magnolia Home Entertainment, 2006 (2009)
[15] Stills from This Film Is Not Yet Rated, 00:41:00, DVD, Dir. Kirby Dick, Magnolia Home Entertainment, 2006 (2009)
[16] This Film Is Not Yet Rated, 00:40:09, DVD, Dir. Kirby Dick, Magnolia Home Entertainment, 2006 (2009)
[17] Charbonneau, Claudette & Winer, Lucy, Lesbians in ‘nice’ films, Jump Cut, no.24-25 http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC24-25folder/NiceLesbianFilms.html – (26.03.2012)
[18] Charbonneau, Claudette & Winer, Lucy, Lesbians in ‘nice’ films, Jump Cut, no.24-25 http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC24-25folder/NiceLesbianFilms.html – (26.03.2012)
[19] Charbonneau, Claudette & Winer, Lucy, Lesbians in ‘nice’ films, Jump Cut, no.24-25 http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC24-25folder/NiceLesbianFilms.html – (26.03.2012)
[20] Charbonneau, Claudette & Winer, Lucy, Lesbians in ‘nice’ films, Jump Cut, no.24-25 http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC24-25folder/NiceLesbianFilms.html – (26.03.2012)
[21] See attached files – Self conducted survey
[22] Zimmerman, Bonnie, Daughters of Darkness, Lesbian Vampires, Jump Cut no. 24-25 http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC24-25folder/LesbianVampires.html – (26.03.2012)
[23] Zimmerman, Bonnie, Daughters of Darkness, Lesbian Vampires, Jump Cut no. 24-25 http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC24-25folder/LesbianVampires.html – (26.03.2012)
[24] Zimmerman, Bonnie, Daughters of Darkness, Lesbian Vampires, Jump Cut no. 24-25 http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC24-25folder/LesbianVampires.html – (26.03.2012)
[25] Zimmerman, Bonnie, Daughters of Darkness, Lesbian Vampires, Jump Cut no. 24-25 http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC24-25folder/LesbianVampires.html – (26.03.2012)
[26] Lesbian Vampire Killers, DVD, Dir. Phil Claydon, Weinstein Company, 2009 (2009)
[27] The Vampire Lovers, DVD, Dir. Roy Ward Baker, MGM, 1970 (2000)
[28] Weiss, Andre, Transgressive Cinema: Lesbian Independent Film, p153, Vampires and Violets, Lesbians in the cinema, (Jonathan Cape: London 1992)
[29] Weiss, Andre, Transgressive Cinema: Lesbian Independent Film, p137, Vampires and Violets, Lesbians in the cinema, (Jonathan Cape: London 1992)
[30] Weiss, Andre, Transgressive Cinema: Lesbian Independent Film, p137, Vampires and Violets, Lesbians in the cinema, (Jonathan Cape: London 1992)
[31] Weiss, Andre, Transgressive Cinema: Lesbian Independent Film, p146, Vampires and Violets, Lesbians in the cinema, (Jonathan Cape: London 1992)
[32] Becker, Edith, Citron, Michelle, Lesage, Julia, Rich, B. Ruby, Lesbians and film, http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC24-25folder/LesbiansAndFilm.html – (26.03.2012)
[33] Becker, Edith, Citron, Michelle, Lesage, Julia, Rich, B. Ruby, Lesbians and film, http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC24-25folder/LesbiansAndFilm.html – (26.03.2012)
[34] Becker, Edith, Citron, Michelle, Lesage, Julia, Rich, B. Ruby, Lesbians and film, http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC24-25folder/LesbiansAndFilm.html – (26.03.2012)
[35] Becker, Edith, Citron, Michelle, Lesage, Julia, Rich, B. Ruby, Lesbians and film, http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC24-25folder/LesbiansAndFilm.html – (26.03.2012)
[36] Evans, Caroline & Gamman, Lorraine, Reviewing Queer Viewing, p213, Queer Cinema: The film reader, (Routledge: New York 2004)
[37] Becker, Edith, Citron, Michelle, Lesage, Julia, Rich, B. Ruby, Lesbians and film, http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC24-25folder/LesbiansAndFilm.html – (26.03.2012)
[38] Weiss, Andre, Transgressive Cinema: Lesbian Independent Film, p151, Vampires and Violets, Lesbians in the cinema, (Jonathan Cape: London 1992)
[39] Becker, Edith, Citron, Michelle, Lesage, Julia, Rich, B. Ruby, Lesbians and film, http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC24-25folder/LesbiansAndFilm.html – (26.03.2012)



I am an idiot.

It’s always upsetting to see people Pro-Life protesting, but when the people protesting are part of the younger/my generation it pisses me off even more. Not only are these protesters young, they’re at university. How can you be educated and still promote this pish?!
I’m going to be quite blunt here, but I’m doing it because I am right. 


I don’t understand why shit loads of people can’t get their heads around this really simple fact, but just incase you fall into this idiotic group of ignorant muppets I’m going to explain why being Pro-Choice is right. 

Pro-Life arguments that I am now going to enjoy ripping fuck out of:

  1. We have to be the voice for that helpless, unborn child. – What about the voice of the woman, eh? When women find out they’re pregnant, that ‘child’ you believe needs a voice is currently the size of a bean. It’s needs do not come into effect until the needs of the women/possible mother to be have been addressed. Her opinions on her life aren’t to be pushed aside because there’s now a ‘more important life’ to think about. When did you decide this bunch of cells were worth more than an already human life? I am aware that you can have abortions at whatever point in your pregnancy but this does not and will not ever change my opinions. At any point in her pregnancy the woman can decide, for whatever reason, that she does not/ can not have this child.  Why? Because it’s her body and it’s her life.
  2. You shouldn’t end life. – Unwanted pregancies/children end lives. Why do the lives of the women get pushed to the back burner the minute people become aware she’s pregnant? Her life does not simply become meaningless because there’s something currently growing inside her.
  3. Abortion is child abuse. – Nope.
  4. God disagrees/The Bible says – Bitch please. I am not going to listen to what a man in the sky/ a book written thousands of years ago by a bunch of men maybe says over a real human being, with real thoughts and feelings.
  5. You don’t have to keep the baby, there’s always adoption. – What if they don’t want to go through pregnancy? There are risks, complications and life changing things that happen during pregnancy. You can’t continue your life. It seriously fucks shit up. Not to mention the emotional and psychological effects carrying a child you never wanted for 9 months.
  6. If you didn’t want a child you should have been more careful and taken precautions. – This one pisses me off a shit tonne. Birth control is not ever 100% effective. Accidents sometimes happen. People sometimes forget. Sex is not just a means to make a child. Sex is something we do for fun, it’s enjoyable, it can and should be allowed to be care-free. If you’re going to tell me otherwise I’m presuming it’s because you’re religious and you’re going to pull the God/Bible card on me, so please re-read point 4. Another thing that angers me about this opinion is What about in cases of rape? You surely can’t tell ALL women they should be on the pill just incase someone decides to sexually assault them. Can you imagine having to carry around/ bring into the world YOUR RAPISTS CHILD? I shudder at the thought of it.
  7. Women who choose abortion do not understand what they are doing. – Just because a woman doesn’t share your views on something doesn’t mean she doesn’t know or understand what she’s doing. How insulting can you be? Your opinions are not right for everyone. This does not make anyone who disagrees with what you would do in this situation wrong. It makes them human.
  8. Abortion frequently causes intense psychological pain and stress. – Carrying a child around in your tummy, you don’t want/ can’t afford to have causes intense psychological pain and stress.

I imagine most the people carrying those signs up there would throw that motto, along with that smile, to the kerb if they ever had to deal with an unwanted/un-planned pregnancy.

I would never tell a woman who was about to go through labour how to do it right and I imagine none of the kids holding those signs would either. Why? Because regardless of how you think you’d cope with the situation, if you’ve never been through it how can you tell someone what’s best? And do you know what? Even if you have, you cannot tell someone other than yourself how best to deal with it. Everyone is different, everyone copes with things differently and everyone is entitled to do it their way. There is no difference in the logic used here to the logic that should be used regarding the choice to have an abortion.

Regardless of whether you’re 14, 16, 45, married, single, in a relationship, a high-flying business woman, a student, a single mother or a mother, it is your body and you are allowed to choose.


I’m a lesbian. Not a fucking unicorn.


Contrary to popular belief, lesbians are not mythical creatures – they’re not there for you to ogle over. They’ve not been put on this planet to help you whack one out whilst you stare at your computer screen either. I’m aware this contradicts what the porn industry feeds you, and I’m sorry to break your bubble but we’re real people and it’s about time you realised.  The reason I’m saying this is because I’m sick and tired of men and they way they often behave around gay women.

Some of the things straight guys say to/at (mainly at) lesbians, that are not now, or ever acceptable:

  • OH MY GOD. Kiss again *gets out mobile phone* – Seriously what makes you think that this is any shape or form acceptable behaviour? I wouldn’t ever dream of whapping out my mobile/camera to photograph or film you and your girlfriend kissing. Have some fucking respect.
  • You’re not gay. You’ve just not found the right man yet. – This is probably the most insulting thing you could say. How DARE you claim that this person you’ve met for all of three minutes doesn’t know their sexual orientation because they’ve obviously not met the right man yet. Usually they’ll go on to explain that the ‘right man’ is them. I’m guessing they’re hoping you’ll believe their bullshit and get into their bed.
  • You’ve not had a shot on my magic penis – I kid you not I’ve had this said to me more times than I count. The first few times it’s hilarious and after than you usually want to slap them a shot. LISTEN UP:  You do not have a magic penis, and even if you did you’re not going to get me on it. Give up. It seems that after a few drinks ‘No’ seems to be quite a hard word to understand, so you usually have to deal with this idiots presence for 10-15 minutes until they realise they really don’t have a chance and move onto the next unsuspecting woman.
    The amusing thing about this one is I’m sure it’s happened to me more in GAY clubs than any other. It’s like they set themselves a stupid challenge or something.
  • Want a threesome? – With you? Strangely enough – No. Don’t believe everything your porn stash tells you. If there’s a dude involved, I’m not in.
  • Can I watch? – Fuck off.
  • But you can’t have sex if you don’t have a cock. – You’re right, I don’t have a cock. 5 points for being so observant! However, I now feel for any woman you’ve ever/are ever going to sleep with if you think you only need a cock to make a woman come.
  • You’re too pretty to be a lesbian – Lesbian doesn’t mean Butch. Lesbian means girls who like girls. Straight folk don’t all look the same – chances are that means gay folk don’t all look the same either.
  • What are you looking at my girlfriend for? Want a fight? – The minute you’re identified as a lesbian some guys just can’t handle it. They think you’re damaging their masculinity or something. The fact you are actually a girl goes straight out the window and they’d happily beat the crap out of you to ‘prove they’re the big man’.
    The time this happened to me I was out with a bunch of friends. I knew his girlfriend and had just complimented her dress and asked where she got it from. This obviously translates to OMG YOU’RE CHATTING MY GIRL UP as lesbians clearly can’t be interested in girl things like clothes – especially dresses.

I’m aware a lot of people are going to read this and tell me to calm down or take a joke, but that’s just not acceptable. Soz. I am not in the wrong for telling people they are in the wrong  for doing any of the above. Respect that, ta.

Rape. It’s no a fucking laughing matter.


This following post may be disturbing and unsettling to some. *trigger warning*

Earlier on this evening whilst I was bored out my brains and couldn’t decide what to watch whilst scrolling through the endless ‘on demand’ progammes my virgin box had to offer, I decided to partake in a little harmless facebook stalking. We all do it from time to time. Looking at peoples pages you forgot existed and what not. As well as it not even beginning to cure my boredom, after a good twenty minutes, I ended up wanting to throw my laptop out the window. Not from exasperation or defeat at not finding anything hilarious to laugh at or anything worthwhile to help ‘better’ my life but because of one single image.

I am not however going to post this image as I happily blocked the person who’d posted it and hope never to pass such horrific imagery onto anyone else. I will however describe in some detail this horrendous photograph. *trigger warning* The photograph shows a young woman being offered a ‘cock sandwich’ as it’s put by a number of US Soilders captioned with a link titled ‘look how badly she got raped’ or something disgustingly similar. The image is blurred out in some parts but lets face it that’s not really doing anything here. The long and short of it is, this image should not have been uploaded.

Apparently it’s not meant to be a ‘joke’ or whatever and is instead meant to raise awareness of rape. Clearly which ever thick cunt’s idea it was to post an image of someone being assaulted to raise awareness is just that, a thick cunt. This happens to many people across the world and seeing even the slightest thing could spark off a panic attack or the like. Seriously, use your noggin and be more fucking considerate.

Go Die.

To cut a long story fucking short. Rape ‘jokes’ are not now, or ever, jokes. They are not funny. They are not ‘lads banter’. They’re fucking horrendous and I’ll happily smash my bottle of Stella over your head if I ever hear one come out your mouth. K.thnx.bye.

Shove yer Royal Wedding up yer arse.


Britain. Let me tell me something you probably don’t know. Not because it’s not bloody obvious but because you’re blind as a fucking bat.


OMG. Shock fucking horror. It’s such a surprise that isn’t it. Since clearly everyone loves the Royal family and all the pish that comes with.

Should probably have these available to all free of charge.

Now, if I push to the side the fact that I couldn’t give a flying fuck about some Prince and his ‘commoner’ bride or whatever they are, there is actually some real bloody stupid issues surrounding this epicly wonderful event. What are those issues? Hmmm… here are just a handful:

  1. Education. It’s apparently meant to be important. But since the Royal Wedding has now been turned into a bank holiday school kids in Glasgow anyway will only be in school in April for a grand total of 6 days. WOW. And not even 6 consecutive days. BRA-fucking-VO.
  2. i) Money. Apparently this event is going to bring us in £900 Million quid from idiots buying tripe like commemorative tea towels, condoms and thimbles. Whoopdy fucking do. But we’re set to lose £5 BILLION because of lost working time. Now I might not be Einstein but them stats are, eh, how to put it… NOT GIID. Dozy cunts.
    ii) I wonder who is paying for this event… Oh yeah. Us. MMM TAXES. The cost of the overall wedding is still unknown but security for the event is costing somewhere between £2-80 MILLION. For that I’d expect to see them strolling up the aisle in a fucking force field.

    Can't touch this.

  3. Drunken Monkeys. If you think we’re a boozing country now… just you wait. Most of us will use the event to get Royally shit faced, excuse the pun, playing some drinking game of doom. So enjoy spending even more money ‘controlling’ those passed out in corners and fighting anything with a pulse.

So aye. Go and shove your Royal Wedding where the sun don’t shine. Cheers.



Translates to: Wanker from Earth

SHOCK FUCKING HORROR. The Charlie Sheen tour has turned out to be a pile of shite. Gutter.

But, no offence mate. What were you expecting? Something out of this world filled with tiger blood and adonis DNA? A total frickin’ rockstar from mars? If it’s Tiger blood you’re after I suggest you pay £13.50 and visit the local zoo and if you want to find a rock star from mars lets hope NASA start a Charlie and the chocolate style factory competition/ you’re a millionaire and a bit of an idiot.

Now I’d be lying if I say I didn’t find his week of ‘ultimate stardom’ hilarious at points, however, I’ll admit that it makes me quite the cunt. The man is clearly going/gone mental. I think it’s probably the latter. And not that I want to go into it to much but a sexist, abusive wanker. ANYWAY. I digress.

Apparently the show’s been getting awful reviews, such as, an “unmitigated disaster” – OMG. NO FUCKING WAY. I thought it was going to be a well thought out, rehearsed masterpiece. Of course. Why else would you pay £46.50 a ticket? Not because you’re a stupid fuck. Of course not. No.

The audience were reported to have started leaving after 15 minutes chanting ‘REFUND’. Soz pal but if you were expecting some new comic lines and unheard hilarity you were never going to get them. Know why? His week of mentalness wasn’t a show, it wasn’t made up and it was in fact probably him needing sectioned. You also expected to hear the ‘truth’ from a man who believes he’s a Vatican assassin. Really? I’m not sure who’re more mental. You or him.

Maybe I should feel sorry for you but then again, why should I? You were fool enough to spend your money on an unstable nightmare man who lets be honest was never going to produce anything that you can’t already, if you must, find FOR FREE on youtube. And sheen does make one valid point – “You paid your hard-earned money without knowing what this show was about.”

If I were you I’d just be ‘happy’ he even showed up at all.

Do your brains live in your bollocks?


To any man saying ‘How would you know if childbirth is worse than being kicked in the nuts?’. You’re right. I don’t. But neither do you. However, how many men do you know who needed gas and air and hospitalisation after a swift kick to the gonads? GET TAE.

The latest fad on Facebook is this question section. Stupid as fuck and rather pointless but today I came across a question with over 70,000 voters and some of the most ridiculous comments I’ve ever read in my puff. I don’t know if what’s being said or the fact that they think they’ve made a valid argument is funnier. The question being:

‘Which hurts more?’

  • Giving birth?
  • Being kicked in the balls?

As it stands now the current stats are 26,464/59,317. But lets face it this question is never going to get a legitimate answer, it’s basically a battle of the sexes. As I’ve said above, I’ve never experienced either and I’m not here to try and preach my pain and tell you my story. Cause I don’t have one. Instead I want to piss myself laughing at the ‘valid’ arguments most men answering this question have put forward. I’d quite like to smack them the face with a hammer but I’m not sure that would end well for me. Unfortunately.

How many men are in this much pain for hours on end?

So here it goes:

‘most of these girls havent even given birth, so they havent experienced EITHER!‘ and ‘i don’t understand how so many girls who have never even gave birth can add their opinion…’
-These ones really gets on ma tits! GET TAE FUCK. I doubt you have to push a baby out of there to know that’s gonna hurt like hell. Tell you what, I have to vomit and curl up in a ball of pain for a week every month just to allow child birth to even be possible in later life. If that hurts I’m pretty sure child birth isn’t going to be a walk in the fucking park. And I’m also pretty sure that the 57,000 wankers who answered with b) haven’t all been kicked in the baws. But that doesn’t matter does it? They’re still OBVIOUSLY right

‘If pregnancy hurts more, then why do women want more babies after? You dont see us men asking for another kick in the bollocks afterwards :)’
– FUCK OFF. Firstly the two things couldn’t be less linked in that aye you don’t get anything decent after a swift kick to the bollocks but pushing that aside seriously why do you think women do it again. It’s totally got nothing to do with the fact it’s gonnae result in a child they’re probably gonna love. Course not. It’s cause it’s EPIC FUN and the best party ever. Gutted you can’t join in the fun.

‘You can get kicked in the balls no matter what the age….’
– LOL. Your point is entirely pointless. Well done.

‘Most women actually want babies. No man wants to be kicked in the balls. So it’s a retarded question. Deal with it women.’
So rather than blaming the ‘SILLY WIMINZ’ as the linking comment to this suggests you should why not blame the MAN who clearly created this ridiculous and god awful question before I find you and drop kick your face into the kerb.

‘Being kicked in the nads isn’t just physically painful, its a pride killer too =(‘
– Get over yourself. Giving birth isn’t just physically painful, it’s a fanny killer and a life as you know it killer too.

‘Half the people who voted “Kicked in the testicles” probably have never been kicked in the testicles. And if they have, they probably deserved it.’
– Now this guy I like. Kudos. But unfortunately there’s only a handful of guys who seem to get it and not let it dent their ‘pride’.

– This guys good. He’s right they both hurt. As much as you probably don’t believe it guys I’m not trying to say getting smacked in the nuts doesn’t hurt.

All this question really proves is there are more men on Facebook or that because you tell us we’ve no right to answer since we haven’t experienced it we’re banned. There’s no proof any one of you have been kicked in the bollocks but your arguments are allowed to stand regardless. However to try and put this into a language you thick cunts might understand. WOMEN CAN AND DO DIE FROM CHILDBIRTH. End of fucking argument.