Sorry I can’t get off this topic..

The other side of the desire coin…

Desire is intimately tied to identification and disidentification. Guattari’s model of desire, that connections are forged because it is the will of the machine to connect, speaks volumes about ideas of identification and disidentification we have been looking at. It is important to remember that through identifying with something, we are also rejecting certain other things. For example, by saying I identify as someone who is not a fan of sports, I am also effectively saying I don’t identify as a person who is a fan of sports. It is clear to see that rejection and identification in Guattari’s model are intrinsically intertwined. What does this also tell us about disidentification? We look at our desire as “votes” for things we wish to continue to exist in our world. By displaying our desire toward certain things, we also cast votes for what our perception of our identity will constitute itself of to ourselves, both purposefully and latently. These outward lots which have been cast, whether they are in the form of our clothing or the like, are then continually perceived by others who are around us, who then use their think-organ to put us in categories based upon our own outwardly expressed desires. However, the perception one has about someone is not aligned with one’s own being simply based on outward appearance and is a weak perception because it focuses itself on a position that is completely removed from the initial desirer.

Disidentification fills that gap and makes light of it. Disidentification is acknowledging the gap for what it is to the person, enlightening others who may not fully understand a point of view. Saying “this is not not me” still has a little bit of this is me in it, but the person has been afforded an opportunity to reflect upon that aspect of themselves and embrace it and its existence, but would choose to not cast a vote for it.

Sorry this kind of turned into a ramble, and I keep posting about Guattari but I can’t stop thinking about him!



In the above Vine by Thomas Sanders, a “typical” damsel in distress situation is subverted in a few ways. Firstly, the rescuer is another lady/damsel. Secondly, at the end of the clip, both the would-be savior guy and the villain comment on how nice it is that the two girls get to ride off into the sunset together.
This plays on a lot of tropes within media but most obviously it plays on the old trope of a guy “winning” a girl by saving her from some bad guy. This is a tired ass trope that has been overdone, but it’s refreshing when it gets subverted. Another example of this that comes to mind is in the Disney version of Hercules. Meg, the leading lady, is captured by a water beast and when Hercules pops up and offers to save her, she refuses. (Incidentally, in the original myth, Hercules DOES slay the water beast and then eventually blood from it leads to his death by way of his wife giving it to him but whatever, this is one of those times where the Disney version is better.) Similarily, in this Vine, the expected outcome of Thomas Sanders’s character saving the girl and winning her heart is subverted.
Another trope this plays on is something of villains and heroes getting along. I’m sure there’s a name for it, but I’ve been studying for finals for about ten hours so you can find it yourself if it is truly important to you. That said, this is something that pops up in a lot of kid’s movies. The example that comes to mind (at least for me) is Kronk and Kuzco in “The Emperor’s New Groove”, where the two have discussions and get along – though Kronk isn’t truly evil, he is definitely allied with the antagonist, yet he cheerfully discusses things with Kuzco.
In short, this vine is cute and plays on tropes commonly found in this type of story, also there’s ladies in love.

last weekly


big picture

I wanted to break down Jose Munoz’s quote for my last weekly blog entry about disidentification as a survival strategy used by a minority population to negotiate a phobic majoritarian public sphere that punishes those who do not fit the phantasm of normalcy because I feel as if this idea does a very good job of explaining the roots of our concept of queer media’s existence as well. Because for so long, queer audiences of mainstream Hollywood film-making have had to settle for “this is not not me,” the media we explored in class that queer media more than anything plays with lines and pushes boundaries, which is what one would expect when the survival strategies related to disidentification are manifested into a public sphere.

So I guess I think maybe Munoz’s definition for disidentification can be loosely tied to concepts of queerness as well. Representation is an acknowledgement of the queer and the more we delve in the more we really understand about people and our minds and what other people think of our minds, ultimately creating one big picture of humanity.

Grace and Frankie

This is yet another example of interpreting a visual product (a Netflix show) with a queer analysis. The show focuses on two women (Grace and Frankie) whose husbands leave them for each other. It relies on both queer reception and queer production. First of all, the show features a relationship (and potential marriage) between two men which is in itself queer. The relationship between the two women could also be interpreted as queer; even though they are not explicitly romantically involved, they grow to have an intimate relationship. More so than that, the show only focuses on characters who are in their 70s or late 60s and gives them sexualities and agency which is often rare for TV shows. Also, the show is centered around divorce (specifically, a man leaving a woman for another man) and life after divorce, which is also rarely shown in a light-hearted manner.

Wreck-it-Ralph and Wrecks

One of the most notable and refreshing things about Wreck-It-Ralph, to me, is the film’s exploration of villainy. Maybe I’m just more inclined to love Wreck-It-Ralph because it’s this colorful, funny mess of a movie with cameos from Sonic and Mario and Q-Bert, but I feel like the various relationships it portrays are very queer.

The intimate friendship between Vanellope and Ralph is built around what most characters hate about Ralph–his only ability seems to be destroying things. Ralph’s ability to wreck is in his programming, but he feels exiled and isolated because he tends to only wreck things that are valuable to him and others.

The scene pictured above is definitely a turning point in the film. Ralph appears to have destroyed another opportunity to be a hero and friend by overloading the minigame that produces the Sugar Rush racers’ cars, making a mess of Vanellope’s kart. He is prepared to see Vanellope crushed and upset with him for wrecking yet another meaningful object. Instead, Vanellope adores the kart specifically because it is a mess. This scene marks the first real friendship Ralph is able to form by “wrecking,” his skill that identifies but ostracizes him.

To love destruction is queer–Ralph “loses” the game, a sequence that by the nature of “play” is usually not rewarded or celebrated. Vanellope’s love and admiration of Ralph (and his love and admiration for her, a “glitch”) queers, in addition to other understandings of relationships, how we understand games, winning, and losing.

6354148512808202861997386604_ngbbs5128c7e808f8a copy

(I think our post for this week was supposed to be relating to what we learned in class. If not, I edited that Spongebob image for nothing.)

Aside from the fact that this class was refreshing and fun in so many ways (being able to write papers on your favorite stuff AND watching Steven Universe for academic purposes is pretty awesome), I learned that “queer” doesn’t always have to do with sexuality. It was hard to remember that sometimes for blog entries–I’d think of something but back out for a while because “there’s nothing gay about that!” Pretty much anything that goes against the norm can be considered “queer”, and that’s something to keep in mind for a good long while.

We watched a lot of weird things this semester. I really enjoyed Rear Window–somehow it managed to be queer in a lot of ways. That whole unit on the Gaze was really neat. Putting words to concepts that you’re mostly unaware of like that is really fascinating. I loved the fan culture stuff, too, just because it’s part of a lot of our lives (whether we like it or not.)

The identity unit was really hard to get a grip on because of all that theory, but it got me thinking about how we act/dress/etc. and why we do that. It’s really strange how things like clothes can give off impressions just by how you wear them. I’m definitely not “careful” about how I dress, but I’ve become more aware of how and why I dress the way I do and what impressions I give off.

And I guess since it won’t matter much now, I was the chick with the red/black hair that sat near the windows in class. I work at the Hawk Shop in the Kansas Union and I like spending time downtown, so if you ever see me, don’t be afraid to say “hi.” Lauren’s the name.

Thanks for a cool semester and good luck on finals!!

More on desire: Body and the Mind

Many of us look at others and desire a quality that they have. Physical appearance or emotional, we look for those who will compliment an aspect about us, or people who will make us happy. Typically this is heavily influenced by our sexual desire.

Your sexual desire is about your body and mind working together. Our feelings for another person are complex and are unique to everyone. Chemistry is important between two people. It is a feeling that happens at a body level.

A strong desire is important in a relationship. To be successful you have to have a strong desire for one another.