+Brendan A. MacWade Amazing minds would be informed and incorporate empirical un-biased research and thus not riddle their speech with unsubstantiated claims, inconsistencies and contradictions.
At 25:14, Bell says: "I feel like there are people in this audience, and I have to get on your case, that have not read Marci, that haven't read Samuel Delaney. And I tell you, Times Square Red and Times Square Blue is one of the most amazing theoretical discussions of sexual freedom, sexual liberation. I mean it'll really turn your mind upside down. So I want to encourage all of you to read these works. And in fact that's why we wanted to talk with Samuel Delaney. Because his vision has been so expansive." Goes on to talk about real sexual freedom including the option to have anonymous sex (sex with strangers)
I'm surprised there's only five comments on this very interesting video! Anyways, am I the only one surprised and kind of disappointed that everyone but bell hooks talked about their sex and their personal experience with it? There she was egging on Mr. Delaney and she didn't say anything about how she felt about it in her life. She didn't have to go into actual details of sex acts but I thought it was a bit unequal that everyone felt obliged to talk about their personal thoughts about sex but bell seemed to be more of a distant facilitator of the conversation rather than a contributing panelist to the dialogue.
Part of this for me discusses this idea of transgressive sexual practice on such a largely theoretical level that it feels like lots of talks about nothing sometimes. What exactly is the practical implication of all this theorising, what changes, or what new space is reached by the listener? I am still very interested and will keep my ears and eyes out for more, but.....
I'm a huge fan of bell hooks and love everything the panelists were saying, but it took a lot of patience for me to listen to Chip breathing into the mic. I think i'll check out some of his writing though, I'll likely enjoy that much more.
sexual orientation vs sexual practices as definition of self , desire vs language, .. gay is simply bourgeois construction (oh please) .. confrontational subjects yes dropped like sexual liberation droplets but left to dry up as then are never put to use or here followed up ..
Crazy seeing Bell Hooks and Sam Delaney in the same room. Two amazing writers and minds. And radicals.
+Rick Jones Beta male spotted.
+Brendan A. MacWade Amazing minds would be informed and incorporate empirical un-biased research and thus not riddle their speech with unsubstantiated claims, inconsistencies and contradictions.
At 25:14, Bell says:
"I feel like there are people in this audience, and I have to get on your case, that have not read Marci, that haven't read Samuel Delaney. And I tell you, Times Square Red and Times Square Blue is one of the most amazing theoretical discussions of sexual freedom, sexual liberation. I mean it'll really turn your mind upside down. So I want to encourage all of you to read these works. And in fact that's why we wanted to talk with Samuel Delaney. Because his vision has been so expansive."
Goes on to talk about real sexual freedom including the option to have anonymous sex (sex with strangers)
I'm surprised there's only five comments on this very interesting video! Anyways, am I the only one surprised and kind of disappointed that everyone but bell hooks talked about their sex and their personal experience with it? There she was egging on Mr. Delaney and she didn't say anything about how she felt about it in her life. She didn't have to go into actual details of sex acts but I thought it was a bit unequal that everyone felt obliged to talk about their personal thoughts about sex but bell seemed to be more of a distant facilitator of the conversation rather than a contributing panelist to the dialogue.
Part of this for me discusses this idea of transgressive sexual practice on such a largely theoretical level that it feels like lots of talks about nothing sometimes. What exactly is the practical implication of all this theorising, what changes, or what new space is reached by the listener? I am still very interested and will keep my ears and eyes out for more, but.....
Xolisa Mahlakahlaka Exactly.
Didn't even realise Lamar was Lavern Cox's twin brother!!!
What's with Bell throwing shade at M.Lamar let him speak and shut up..always interrupting him
mcwarhol17 What is all that about?
IDK boo boo
+mcwarhol17 I also took issue with that. It was kind of matronizing.
She seems to have this habit with trans femmes...
It’s because his ideas are half-baked and confusing.
Great dialogue
I'm a huge fan of bell hooks and love everything the panelists were saying, but it took a lot of patience for me to listen to Chip breathing into the mic. I think i'll check out some of his writing though, I'll likely enjoy that much more.
Tim I chuckled, hahaha!
He's in his 70s, wonder what you'll sound like by that point.
Captions/transcript?
there's a transcript/subbed version of this?
Bell SO SHADY! lol
MONA @1:22:22!!!! Love her!!
Every time Lamar started speaking I got worked up. I can’t with these half-baked ideas.
sexual orientation vs sexual practices as definition of self , desire vs language, .. gay is simply bourgeois construction (oh please) .. confrontational subjects yes dropped like sexual liberation droplets but left to dry up as then are never put to use or here followed up ..
Bc u had a good mama