Late last month Glossier sent the internet into a frenzy with a cryptic Instagram post: a photo spinning gold “G” and a link to a mysterious new account called Glossier Play. The news kicked off hundreds of comments, tweets, and articles wondering what the new venture could possibly be.
Guesses spanned from sex toys to weed (I’d be into both, tbh), with many thinking it wouldn’t be a product line at all, but some kind of platform like a music streaming service or new online community.
When the brand finally dropped this month, it seemed so perfect that no one guessed. Glossier Play is a line of high-pigment, colorful makeup that the brand refers to as “dialed-up makeup extras.” And that’s the perfect description. The six piece collection is a departure from Glossier’s previous skin-focused offerings and includes glitter gel pots, rainbow bright eyeliner pencils, a liquid highlighter, glossy lipsticks, and two tools. In the campaign images the models are still wearing minimal skin makeup, and the products all seem fairly intuitive to use (glitter doesn’t require the same amount of skill level as contouring), so the OG brand’s DNA is still there. And of course, it’s all impossibly cool.
The launch got mixed reviews, some were thrilled with the glossy, glittery offerings, and others were disappointed in the fact that it was more makeup products. I personally sat somewhere in the middle. While I think creating a whole separate brand for Play seems like an interesting marketing call—and was a little disappointed it wasn’t something out of left field—after watching Troye Sivan (one of my many internet boyfriends) pout and apply glitter in the campaign video, I couldn’t wait to get my hands on it.
When the entire collection landed on my desk, I got the hype. Having been stuck in a neutral rut for months, it made me actually want to make plans so I could wear fun makeup. Not that the products wouldn’t look good at the office (our senior beauty editor, Lindsay, calls the Glitter Gelée “Adult Glitter” and has worn it to work on more than one occasion), but even the brand says the products “make getting ready the best part about going out.”
At this juncture of my life, I really only go out if I’m promised dancing. That being said, I have been let down by many a makeup product that can barely hang on through a night of drinking, sweating, and getting my life on the dance floor. Given Glossier Play’s disco-heavy positioning and Colorslide Eye Pencils’ 12-hour claim, I thought the line might be up for the challenge.
The Look
Despite being captivated by the glitter, I was really excited to get into the Colorslide eyeliners, and decided to make them the base of my look. I started by creating a cat eye with the teal shade Hardcore Velvet, and lined my waterline with the baby blue Early Girl. I used a small brush to smudge the two together for a watercolor effect, and oh my God was I impressed. As a cat-eye addict I generally stick to liquid, but these pencils made me rethink my whole world. They are somehow creamy enough to glide on no problem, yet could also easily make a sharp wing—and didn’t do that weird crumbly thing in my lower waterline.
I then patted the Glitter Gelée in Phantasm, a larger iridescent glitter on with the Detailer tool, a little silicone brush that I found helpful for getting a thin, even layer. To be honest I didn’t love how the glitter looked with the liner (maybe too much action for my small eyes), but I have since tried it solo and it’s very pretty. I finished the look with a swipe of the Niteshine liquid highlighter in Pale Pearl, a baby pink, on my cheekbones and nose, and the Vinylic Lip in Pony, a taupey-brown.
Emma Stone’s next movie role is going to take you right back to your childhood — and that’s a good thing! According to The Hollywood Reporter, Emma has been cast as legendary Disney villainess Cruella de Vil in a new movie helmed by I, Tonya director Craig Gillespie.
The movie will play with timelines a bit: Disney’s animated 101 Dalmatians was set in the ‘50s or ‘60s, but this Cruella-centric film will flash forward to the ‘80s, and it is being referred to as an “origin story” about Cruella herself. THR describes the movie as “set in the early 1980s with a punk vibe.”
That means we probably won’t be seeing any of Roger, Anita, Pongo, Perdita, or their many, many puppies — this new movie is going to be all Cruella, all the time. The decade change means it’s possible that Cruella would be hunting for Dalmatian puppies in the present day, but we’re not sure if the movie will go there. All we know at the moment is that it’s set in the ‘80s and we’ll get a glimpse of young Cruella.
If anyone can breathe fresh life into the iconic Cruella and rock that outlandishly glam wardrobe, it’s Emma. She’ll be filling some pretty big shoes, too; remember the Glenn Close version of Cruella in the live-action 101 Dalmatians, back in 1996, which was just as fabulous as the animated version? We’ll probably get to see Cruella’s beginnings as a fashion designer, though we hope she opts to use faux fur for this installment.
Maybe we’ll get to see the exact moment when she dyes her hair half-white and half-black! It’s also the first time we’ll get to see the Oscar-winning Emma take on anything Disney, and we can’t wait. She brings magic to every role she plays, and we’re pretty sure that her interpretation of Cruella is going to be nothing short of marvelous.
UPDATE July 6, 2018 at 10:35 A.M. ET:Scarlett Johansson‘s recent casting as a transgender man in the upcoming film Rub & Tug has re-sparked the debate about whether cisgender actors should play transgender characters. Many aren’t happy with Johansson’s involvement, including Trace Lysette and Jamie Clayton, two trans actors who discussed the issue on Twitter.
“I wouldn’t be upset if I was getting in the same rooms as Jennifer Lawrence and Scarlett for cis roles, but we know that’s not the case. A mess,” Lysette tweeted.
“Actors who are trans never even get to audition for anything other than roles of trans characters. That’s the real issue. We can’t even get in the room,” Clayton echoed.
In response to the criticism, Johansson’s rep gave this message to Bustle: “Tell them that they can be directed to Jeffrey Tambor, Jared Leto, and Felicity Huffman’s reps for comment.” (Those three are all cisgender actors who received critical praise for playing trans people.)
The Internet, naturally, is buzzing about this—as it was last year, when news broke Elle Fanning would be playing a trans man in the movie Three Generations. That’s what prompted the conversation below:
ORIGINAL STORY: In college my family was my group of queer friends, and we existed harmoniously 99.9 percent of the time. There’s only one disagreement I clearly remember—and it was about the 2013 movie Dallas Buyers Club. In the film Jared Leto, a cisgender man, plays a transgender woman, a casting decision that was polarizing both with critics and with two friends in my college squad: Caleb, who identifies as gender queer, and Jensen, who identifies as a trans man.
Jensen took the affirmative: He thought Leto’s casting was completely fine if he was the best actor who auditioned. Caleb, on the other hand, said a cis actor shouldn’t have even been considered for the role. No one really “won” the argument: Both Caleb and Jensen made excellent points.
Which is why their debate was the first thing I thought of when I heard Elle Fanning, a cis woman, is playing a trans man in the new film Three Generations. GLAAD president and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis released a statement approving the film’s message (it centers on a teen’s transition from female to male), but what about the casting? Should cisgender actors be allowed to play transgender roles? The question rages on four years after Dallas Buyers Club.
And the answer is still unclear—well, at least according to the recent conversation I had with Caleb and Jensen. The three of us chatted about Fanning’s casting, and while Jensen and Caleb still have the same opposing viewpoints, they see eye to eye on one issue: The need for better trans representation, overall, in Hollywood.
Read our full, unfiltered discussion, below:
Chris: I remember our group of friends getting into a debate about cisgender actors playing trans roles after Jared Leto in Dallas Buyers Club. It’s happening again with Elle Fanning in the new film Three Generations. She plays a female assigned at birth who wants to transition to male. So I’m curious: What do you two think about this? Is it OK for cisgender actors to play transgender roles? Why or why not?
Caleb: My usual feelings about cis actors playing trans roles is that it’s almost done in a way to make fun of the trans character or invalidate their identity. For instance, in Dallas Buyers Club with [Leto’s] character Rayon: It almost seems as though they went out of their way to make her look bad and trashy in most scenes and almost leaned into the “man in a wig” narrative. And I wouldn’t have an issue with a trans person looking “not so good” in Dallas Buyers Club if that [narrative] wasn’t a normal thing. Trans people sometimes do look bad. We’re people, but in almost every movie where a trans woman is played by a [cis] man, there seems to be little effort in feminizing her. That’s not to say that trans women need to be femme or that having a beard makes her less of a woman, but it’s one side of trans-ness that we’ve been fed over and over again in sort of a tragic way. Much like 70 years ago in pulp fiction novels [where] gay men and lesbian women had to be murdered or convert to straight by the end of the book, trans people usually end up in the roles of someone living with HIV/AIDS, a prostitute, or the butt of the joke.
Jensen: My position is that the actor who fits the role best and has the most skill should play it. I don’t think that just because someone’s trans that they should be handed the role if they can’t act. I find it exciting that our stories are finally being told—of course, there’s always going to be room for improvement in telling minority stories, but the fact that they’re being told at all is progress. As a trans man, I’m not bothered by Elle Fanning playing the role of a trans man if she was the most skilled actor who auditioned.
Chris: Caleb, to your point about cisgender portrayals often invalidating trans identities: Do you think it’s possible for a cisgender actor to understand a trans character’s full complexity? Or are all the roles better suited for trans actors?
Caleb: Oh, cis people can’t ever comprehend trans-ness—not to say that trans-ness is some otherworldly thing that no one could ever understand, but trans people are still working out what trans-ness is and how we interact with our own and what we want our community to be. If we’re still working it out and living it every day, I really don’t think that an actor, even a talented one, can really understand all the sides of the identity he or she is playing. For where we are right now in our culture and in time, I think only trans actors should play trans roles.
Jensen: I will agree with [your] single point, Caleb: I think that there needs to be a wider variety of storylines about trans people, especially trans women, but I still don’t think making the roles solely for trans actors is the way to go. I think we also have to keep in mind reaching a wide audience when trying to gain some understanding from cis people, and that comes with names that have large box office pull. Right now there’s only a handful of trans actresses who have large pull with their names, and they might not fit every single storyline they are presented. And to answer the question about complexity and fully understanding: I don’t think, unless you are trans, that anyone could ever fully understand what we go through, but I also think that cis actors understand the weight that comes with taking such a role. I believe that anyone who would take on such a role would do so with an open heart toward our community and want to help us reach people and open minds.
Chris: The box office conversation is interesting. Caleb, what are your thoughts on that?
Caleb: I understand the temptation for a director or casting company to want to cast big names in trans roles. Dallas Buyers Club wouldn’t have had the pull it had if it didn’t have Leto. I think there are [better] examples of cis people playing trans roles more successfully than Dallas Buyers Club, but I hate that [they] get some sort of “bravery badge” for doing so. But back to the box office point: I think the movies want the money boost, so they put cis actors in these roles so that people kind of think, I want to see Leto playing a trans woman. I think it’s exploitative, especially with the narratives that we’re fed in these roles.
Jensen: I will agree that the narratives surrounding the trans community need to be better. 100 percent. But I will also say those producers aren’t looking for just a “trans actress.” Characters have a specific age and race and Laverne Cox, Jamie Clayton, Alexandra Billings, Candis Cayne, Jen Richards, Calpernica Addams, Kitana Kiki Rodriguez, Mya Taylor, or some of the other relatively few out trans actresses might not fit the part.
Caleb: And that’s fine, but why not cast more trans people than that? Why not bring in new talent? Because I know that more trans people than that are auditioning and not getting roles—roles that are often given to cis people. Specifically for trans women, these roles are often handed to men. I’ve even been happier to see cis women playing the roles of trans women because at least a woman is playing the role rather than someone who is completely removed from both trans-ness and womanhood.
Jensen: I’m not personally a casting director or producer, so I can’t answer those questions. If I was, trust me: I would be pushing for more new faces. I’m sure that there are people who are talented and being overlooked, but I also still stand by my statement that we need to be able to reach people when telling our stories. We need to have cis people show up to the theater, and that means big names. I also will say that in the average person’s mind, when they think of great acting, they think of an actor playing a role that she or he is not comfortable with, that tests their skills as an actor. A straight person playing a nonstraight role, be it gay, bi, or transgender, is just a testament to their ability to act—if they perform exceptionally well. And yes, maybe we should be moving more toward cis women [playing trans roles] than men since it creates so many issues. I even enjoyed Felicity Huffman playing a trans waitress in Transamerica. Maybe if we can’t have trans women playing trans roles, then at least cis women will help stop some of the “man in a wig” portrayals you stated earlier.
Caleb: I disagree. I don’t think we should be OK with queer roles being seen as a test of a cis-het [cisgender, heterosexual] actor’s skills, especially not when we’re trying so hard to work on problems in the representation department and show the mainstream world the wide variety of queer people that exist. We need to showcase more queer talent and let trans people tell these stories and take more input from trans people about these stories and roles to make sure that, in this crucial time of transgender stories being new and educating the public, we get these stories right and showcase a [variety] of trans voices.
Chris: Actors tend to get the brunt of the criticism when these casting decisions happen, but there’s an entire system behind why they’re cast. It’s an agent who puts the actor up for the role, a studio that backs the decision, casting directors who filter who gets to audition, and a patriarchal entertainment industry that prioritizes male talent. Do actors deserve criticism for simply accepting a role? Or should the outrage be directed elsewhere?
Caleb: I think we can certainly hold the entire system accountable. Everyone involved in making a movie that features queer, trans, or gender-nonconforming people needs to be educated on those topics and issues and should know that representation is a huge issue for us right now. Getting our stories right matters so much. I want to have movies about my community and trans people, but I want it done right. I want a [variety] of stories with complex characters who are imperfect and human, who love and are lovable, who aren’t always sex workers, who aren’t the butt of the joke, and who are more than just their transition. I want those movies and the people responsible for making them [to be] just that: responsible. And if the actors and actresses playing these roles win awards and thank “God” but don’t thank the trans people who live authentically and bravely every day, then yes, they should be roasted.
Jensen: Hollywood has a serious problem highlighting trans talent. The industry itself needs to learn and evolve faster on how to improve the way it tells trans stories. I don’t think it’s the actors who should be criticized. They are trying to tell stories, make art, and do what they love, which is perform to the best of their ability. If anything, I think most of the actors do thank the trans community. Case in point: Jeffrey Tambor, who, when accepting his last Emmy, said [to] give trans talent a chance and [that he] hopes [he’s the] last cis actor to play a trans woman. I think that the actors and actresses themselves try to take as much care and research as possible from our community and listen to us. But I think we’ve got a long way to go when it comes to the entire system.
We knew it was slightly too good to be true. Serena Williams took it upon herself this week to shut down one of the most delightful rumors to emerge from Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s royal wedding: that she played beer pong at the reception. Beer pong! Sadly, though, this is just fiction.
“No even remotely true,” Williams told a few news outlets at the French Open this week. “I don’t even drink beer.” We know what you’re thinking: she only says that she doesn’t drink beer. This low-key means the beer pong–ing still could’ve happened even if Williams didn’t play.
But nope. She put this to rest, too, with a very concise statement: “There was no beer pong.” Still, she admitted that her and husband Alexis Ohanian had a “big laugh” over the rumors, and they thoroughly enjoyed their royal wedding experience. Frankly, who wouldn’t?
There are plenty of other amusing rumors circulating about what went down at the royal wedding reception. Personally, we love the image of George Clooney exclusively bartending with tequila and Idris Elba manning the DJ booth.
By far the most poignant rumor, though, is that Markle reportedly broke royal tradition to read a love poem to her new husband. “Meghan totally stole the show. It was the most special part of the entire day and the most unexpected,” a source told The Sun, continuing, “Most of the room was misty-eyed by the final line. Harry looked so proud and had to wipe away a tear.” To be a fly on the wall!
With just a week left until the royal wedding, Lifetime is starting the celebration early with its much anticipated made-for-TV movie about Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, aptly titled Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance (airing Sunday, May 13). Based on the teasers alone, the movie looks like a fun ride—but we wouldn’t expect anything less from a Lifetime original.
The actress who plays Markle, Parisa Fitz-Henley, insists the movie is a touching tribute to the royal couple. “What we’re doing is making a really sweet romance that is an homage to them,” she tells Glamour. “I’m excited to see what they pull off together [as a couple].”
Fitz-Henley was also excited about diving into Markle’s life and career. “I wasn’t a royal watcher [before this],” she admits. “I watched Meghan on Fringe, which I’m a big fan of, but that was my only experience of her. I hadn’t watched Suits. But the more I watched and learned…she’s a really remarkable person.”
The resemblance between Fitz-Henley and Markle is pretty remarkable too, but the former admits she never noticed it. As Fitz-Henley researched Markle more and more, however, she started to see a lot of herself in the soon-to-be royal. “I could relate to her in a lot of ways: being biracial, being an actress, so seeing that, I just felt, ‘Ahh! What an interesting person to take a crack at,’” she said.
Fitz-Henley has a white, American mother and Jamaican father, and like Markle her parents divorced when she was young. “My experiences were very mixed growing up,” she says. “Growing up in Florida and Jamaica, in one place I was a minority, and another place I was part of the majority. Once I was threatened with spending a night in jail because I was, quote unquote, too dark to be out this late.”
It’s because of those experiences that Fitz-Henley says she identifies with the racial struggles Markle has talked about. “I’m both black and white and neither,” Fitz-Henley says. “But I’m really happy to be an adult at this very time in the world where I have the perspectives that I have.”
That’s why Fitz-Henley prefers to focus less on Markle’s seemingly fairy tale ascent and more on the dedicated causes she’ll take on as part of the royal family. “It will be really interesting to see the way she works within a fairly strict system and still be herself,” Fitz-Henley says. Read what else the actress has to say about Markle in our interview, below.
Glamour: Did you and Meghan ever run into each other on the audition circuit? Or go up for the same roles?
Parisa Fitz-Henley: We must have. I know that we must have gone up for some of the same things in the past, and we have close friends in common, which I found out later. Definite social circles crossing.
Glamour: Are any of the close friends you know of hers going to the wedding?
PFH: Yeah, at least one I know for sure. [Editor’s note: Fitz-Henley later revealed on Access Live that it’s actress Janina Gavankar.]
Glamour: Did you talk to anyone that had ever worked with Meghan?
PFH: No, and that was somewhat deliberate. We had a very short time to get started on this. I think after the chemistry read, I was in Canada to shoot the movie a week and a half later. Also, I knew that any real friend of hers wasn’t going to talk about her, and that has stayed the case. That’s very heartwarming to me, to know that we have close friends in common [and still] that I don’t know things about her. It felt right to me to approach this the way that I did, which was getting what was publicly available and then using my intuition as an artist to fill it in. If we were going to be doing some very hard-hitting biopic specifically about Meghan Markle and had months to prepare, maybe it would be a different story. But I feel like what we did preparation-wise felt right for this project.
[embedded content]
Glamour: So what did you watch to prepare for the role?
PFH: Everything that was available of her online. [Laughs.] I watched the engagement video, any interview I could find of her when she was talking about her work. I watched her speech at the U.N. events, episodes of Suits, her Hallmark movie. Just anything that I could put together this version of her that I played.
Glamour: Once she became engaged to Prince Harry, did you start getting mistaken for her more?
PFH: Never. It doesn’t happen. Even now. The hair makes a huge difference. I don’t wear my hair the way that she does. I’ll admit when my hair is like hers, if I’ve seen it quickly, I’m like, “Which one of us is it?” But when I’m not in her look, no. It just never happens. Family and friends have said to me, “Now that I’ve seen it, I can’t unsee it.” But pretty much everyone agrees, when the hair and the look is there, but otherwise, no.
Glamour: Aside from the physical, what was it like trying to emulate her body language?
PFH: The thing that was really a gratifying challenge was embracing the kind of confidence she walks around with. I tend to be a little more nerdy and neurotic than she seems to be, and playing somebody who has that quiet confidence and command of the room…I have those in other ways, it was just really an exploration to embody them as her. We have very many similarities, but we have some pretty significant differences that people wouldn’t necessarily realize. That was interesting for me.
I think a lot of people don’t realize that this is a woman who double-majored in theater and international relations. She could have just as easily been a diplomat as she could have been an actor. When I look at her, I don’t think she left her job to become a princess. I don’t look at her like that at all. I think she shifted from telling the truth of imaginary characters to telling the truth of a real life human being. She’s a person who’s able to convey the stories of people’s lives. She’s definitely somebody who knows herself and knows her purpose; Harry too. This idea that she’s this fairy-tale princess and has been rescued from this working life…it’s not what she’s shown us [through her humanitarian work].
Glamour: Because you’ve studied so much of her life, is it a bit odd when you watch her now?
PFH: By the end of shooting, because we had so many pictures up of her in the makeup trailer, I’d feel like it was watching me! I’ve had a couple times people ask me about the royal wedding, and my stomach flipped, like, “I don’t have to do anything with this! This isn’t my actual life!” I do find myself really protective of her, but then I tend to be protective of my sisters in the world. I definitely want people to know her and not pigeonhole her.
PHOTO: Lifetime
Glamour: You mentioned that one of the ways you relate to her is that you both are biracial. What does it mean then to see her become a member of the royal family, which traditionally has been all white?
PFH: It means a lot. The first time I saw an advertisement with a biracial couple, I was so excited and really blown away. I grew up in places where people looked at us funny and couldn’t understand how it was possible that my mother had my brother and I. My mother is blond and has very fair skin, so seeing this now, I’m really grateful that it’s allowed people to have the conversations that we need to be having right now. It does bring up some of the grossest aspects of humanity as well, [given how some] people are reacting, but it also brings out some of the best. But by bringing out the grossest aspects, we have a chance to put some sunlight on it and clear it out. And that feels really important. People discussing this right now because she happens to be in this family is fantastic to me. It means a lot to me just to see that things are changing.
Glamour: If you could ever sit down with Meghan, what would you want to ask her or talk about?
PFH: I can’t imagine how saturated she must be by everything. If anything, I’d be like, “Girl, can I get you a cup of tea or something?” I have full confidence she can handle everything that’s coming at her. My question for her would probably be “How can I have your back if you need it?”
Glamour: Let’s talk about her style and the Meghan Markle effect. Have you drawn inspiration from her looks?
PFH: Her style inspires a lot of people because it’s simple, beautiful, modest, and flattering. I am inspired by her willingness to show things that are beautiful. To support designers that are local to her, like you see her supporting Canadian designers, especially when she was [in Toronto, and even now]. What I find really inspiring about her is just how she carries herself in this world. When you see the pictures of her from the Tig and from her Instagram, or things that she has written. The whole package is what I think is interesting and inspiring.
Glamour: What are you excited for her to accomplish in this new role?
PFH: I’m excited about the teamwork. When you get intelligent, caring people together who have a shared purpose, all kinds of wonderful things can happen. I’m excited to see what they pull off together, and the way she works within this system. She is someone who is known to be outspoken and diplomatic. It will be really interesting to see the way she works within a fairly strict system and still be herself and be of service in ways that are authentic to her within this larger stage she’s on.
[embedded content]
Glamour: What do you love about her relationship with Harry?
PFH: From what I’ve seen in the press and in their interview, they really seem like friends and are very encouraging of each other. That’s what’s inspiring to me. They’re teaming up to help people together and that is amazing.
Glamour: Finally, will you be waking up early to watch the royal wedding?
PFH: I don’t know! I don’t even know where in the world I’ll be that day. [Laughs.] There’s a possibility I won’t have to wake up early for it, depending on my travels at that time. But at the very least, I’ll be watching the highlights of it as much as is humanly possible.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.
This week, now-former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman stepped down from his office after the New Yorkerpublished a bombshell report in which four women accused him of violence and abuse. He has denied the allegations, but even in an era abundant with details about the alleged sexual practices of our elected officials—from the president down—Schneiderman took an unusual tack. In his statement, he claimed he hadn’t abused anyone, but rather had engaged in consensual “role-playing” in the bedroom.
“In the privacy of intimate relationships, I have engaged in role-playing and other consensual sexual activity. I have not assaulted anyone. I have never engaged in nonconsensual sex, which is a line I would not cross.”
But when I read the New Yorker article, I felt strongly that the accusations leveled against him in the piece don’t describe what kinky folks partake in as part of BDSM (that is, bondage, dominance, sadomasochism).
As a 34-year-old who’s engaged in this type of sexual behavior since high school, I know BDSM to be safe, sane, and consensual. Instead, the behavior that Schneiderman’s accusers describe involves brutal, nonconsensual assaults, which allegedly surprised and scared his victims.
Moreover, in some instances, the abuse wasn’t sexual at all. “This did not happen while we were having sex,” one of the women, Michelle Manning Barish, said in her account. “I was fully dressed and remained that way.” (Two women spoke to the New Yorker on the record, and an additional two women remained unnamed.)
In the piece, journalists Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow wrote:
“[Michelle Manning Barish and Tanya Selvaratnam] allege that [Schneiderman] repeatedly hit them, often after drinking, frequently in bed and never with their consent. Manning Barish and Selvaratnam categorize the abuse he inflicted on them as ‘assault.’ … [B]oth say they sought medical attention after having been slapped hard across the ear and face, and also choked.”
The women claim Schneiderman engaged in other nonconsensual behaviors, including name-calling, spitting on them, and making demeaning comments about their appearance. And there’s a problematic racial element as well: Selvaratnam, who was born in Sri Lanka, said Schneiderman referred to her as his “brown slave” and demanded “that I repeat that I was ‘his property.’”
On their own, these allegations are horrible (and hypocritical), given Schneiderman’s cultivated reputation as not just a feminist, but a champion of abused women. (He recently filed a civil rights lawsuit against Harvey Weinstein, which claims that Weinstein mistreated, intimidated, and harassed his staff.)
But what disgusts those of us who engage in BDSM is any abusive man’s attempt to align himself with us by portraying himself as a dominant playing with his submissives.
But what disgusts those of us who engage in BDSM is any abusive man’s attempt to align himself with us by portraying himself as a dominant playing with his submissives. Myself and others who engage in dominant and submissive power play in the bedroom renounce and abhor anything like Schneiderman’s alleged behavior. Furthermore, as BDSM becomes more accepted in the mainstream — thanks to movies like Secretary and songs like “S&M” by Rihanna — we now also see our sexuality co-opted and contorted.
Consensual “role play” is a handy excuse for Schneiderman in response to these allegations of violence, but they don’t pass muster in the BDSM community. Kink is a dynamic between partners built on a foundation of trust. Ethical role play requires that mutually acceptable behaviors are established beforehand and that limits are respected. The abuse that Schneiderman is accused of is, given his power and rank in legal circles, a distinct case, but alas, it’s also familiar. Most of my own kinky partners have adhered to the safe, sane, and consensual tenets but still, there are outliers, and like Schneiderman, they are dangerous.
I was violated by a sexual partner once, and it occurred during consensual BDSM play. When I used our safe word, he accused me of misunderstanding what a dominant actually does in bed. He implied that it was my fault and did it in such a way as to imply that I was ruining his fun.
But I didn’t misunderstand. I don’t think he misunderstood, either. He wanted to cause pain that I didn’t want to feel, and that was both physically and psychologically abusive. For days, I had the worst bruises that I’ve ever had on my backside. I knew they weren’t like the errant bumps or scratches that can occur to anyone fooling around in bed; I knew these marks had been intentional and had been meant to hurt me.
Like consent itself, talking about BDSM play should be a continual conversation with frequent check-ins.
If BDSM is something you’re interested in exploring with a partner, a conversation about it needs to occur while both partners are sober and well in advance of clothes coming off. And it shouldn’t be one conversation either. Like consent itself, talking about BDSM play should be a continual conversation with frequent check-ins. I’ve been married for almost five years and my husband could probably write a dissertation about my sexual quirks, yet I still have conversations with him about what I do and do not want.
Not only is forthright communication good, ethical bedroom behavior, but it’s also reflective of the fact everyone gets their jollies in a different way. Slapping, choking, or being called a “whore” or “slut” — the behaviors Schneiderman allegedly engaged in — are, in fact, practices that some people find sexy in bed. Others enjoy being spanked, whipped, or caned, being handcuffed or tied up. There are endless ways to engage in verbal and physical sexual power play.
Most crucially, none of these behaviors should come as a surprise to a BDSM partner during play (or as practitioners refer to it, “during a scene.”). Both partners must want the behavior, know how an encounter will happen, and consent to it, with room for the terms of the experience to be readjusted and renegotiated while it occurs. And crucially, within BDSM, the play stops immediately when one of the practitioners wants it to stop — typically with the use of a safe word. (I personally find “stop” to work just fine, but many people use “yellow” for “slow down” and “red” for “stop.”)
Schneiderman’s victims describe his reported behavior out-of-the-blue and not only continuing, but, in some cases, escalating, when they made it clear they wanted it to stop. Consensual sexualized violence shouldn’t cause sustained physical harm, like vertigo or ringing in the ears. Of particular concern is how dismissive Schneiderman was when the women allegedly emphasized how unwanted his behavior was. EJ Dickson, an editor at Men’s Health, aptly referred to Schneiderman’s “defense” on Twitter as a smokescreen for intimate partner violence, and experts cited in the New Yorker back that up: Jennifer Friedman, a legal expert on domestic violence, explained that a “slap is not just a slap—it reverberates through the rest of the relationship, making her afraid of setting him off.” That isn’t kink; that’s abuse.
My experience, and that of Schneiderman’s victims, are the antithesis of how BDSM is truly practiced. As the kink-positive feminist writer Feminista Jones wrote Glamour.com in an email:
“Above all else, those of us who live this lifestyle regard consent as non-negotiable, so when someone engages in nonconsensual kink with someone else, that is generally viewed as abuse. When I heard the descriptions of what he is accused of doing, my first reaction was ‘Are they in The Life?’ because what was described was not unheard of in our realm. However, the women say they did not agree to these things and THAT is the difference — you can’t force your kink onto anyone.”
Or, as Michelle Manning Barish’s lawyer Debra S. Katz told the New York Times, it was Schneiderman’s “fantasy and his fantasy alone that the behavior was welcome.”
My own violation both scared and disappointed me, particularly because it showed how no matter how much I discussed or negotiated beforehand, a man could still hurt me in a vulnerable moment if he wanted. That experience caused me to be less trusting of men in general and more cautious around kinky men, especially.
I have since warned other kinky women I know who are dating about the identity of the man who hurt me; I’ve been warned about other men as well. But one-on-one warnings and whisper networks of the “Shitty Media Men” list variety aren’t enough. Not only does the abusive behavior have to stop, but abusive men need to own up to their behavior — and to stop blaming it on BDSM.
.jpg)
