Music Features

Hayley Kiyoko's "She" Is an Anthem for Closeted Kids

Kiyoko's final single from her project "I'm Too Sensitive For This Sh*t" has a music video that will get you in your feelings.

Press Atlantic Records

When I first realized I was bisexual, I didn't know any girls who liked girls in real life.

Keep ReadingShow less
CULTURE

Cara Delevingne and Ashley Benson’s Relationship Is a Gift

Cara Delevingne's public declaration of love for her girlfriend is a reminder of what Pride month is really about.

On Monday, Cara Delevingne received the Hero Award from the Trevor Project for her support for LGBTQ+ causes.

In her speech, she discussed the challenges of being queer in Hollywood, and she had some special people to thank, including a very special woman in her life: her girlfriend, Ashley Benson.

"She's one of the people who helped me love myself when I needed it most," Delevingne said. "She showed me what real love is and showed me how to accept it, which is a lot harder than I thought. I love you, Sprinkles," she said, setting every lesbian and bisexual's heart aflame and giving us all the Pride Month gift that we never knew we needed.

Later, Delevingne shared that she decided to go public with the news of the relationship for two reasons: first, in honor of the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall riots that launched Pride, and second, because this month marks their one year anniversary.

Though they had never actually discussed their relationship in the public eye until this week, fans had long known that sparks were flying—the two were photographed kissing in London last August, and they appeared together frequently over the course of the year, even sticking up for each other when trolls left hateful comments on Benson's Instagram.

They fueled the flames when adorable photos of them cuddling in a car and riding roller coasters together appeared online, along with their matching outfits and extravagant celebrations (Delevingne rented out the Natural History Museum in London for her girlfriend's 29th birthday).

Things reached a fever pitch at the absolutely iconic moment when they were photographed carrying a $400 sex bench into their apartment on May 29th, effectively ringing in Pride Month, as one Twitter user noted.

Their relationship is just a gift that keeps on giving. As a cherry on top, Delevingne later shared this clip of the two passionately kissing, illuminated by sultry red lights.

Benson and Delevingne's admission comes at a time where Pride is rapidly being commodified and distorted beyond recognition. As LGBTQ+ acceptance becomes more mainstream, countless companies and powerful figures (cough, Taylor Swift) are adopting rainbow flag logos in order to sell their products or present an illusion of allyship when all they want is profit.

This fundamentally distorts the meaning of Pride—which began as a riot when Marsha P. Johnson threw a brick at a cop, but is ultimately supposed to be about activism and love. In light of Delevingne's work for the Trevor Project and open proclamation of love for her lady, her relationship with Benson is a gem that reminds us what the rainbow flag really stands for.

CULTURE

From Razors to Disney: The Corporatization of Pride Month

Do the benefits of representation in advertisements and marketing campaigns outweigh the increased corporatization of LGBTQIA identity?

Pride

Photo by Tristan B. on Unsplash

June is Pride Month, and for LGBTQIA folks that means celebration, activism, and remembrance. For corporations, on the other hand, Pride Month means the same thing as every other month—profit.

Over the past few years, LGBTQIA Pride—and in a larger sense, social justice—has become increasingly corporatized. The more accepted traditionally marginalized groups become, the more companies try to commercialize them. The same can be said for Black History Month, Women's History Month, etc. This corporatization is a contentious issue for many within said groups—nobody likes having the core issues that affect their daily lives become money-making props for faceless, morally bankrupt companies.

At the same time, increased visibility and representation does push cultural normalization, regardless of whether or not the intent is pure of heart. Moreover, considering the increasingly widespread acceptance of LGBTQIA movements, it's likely that many of the people conceiving, producing, and pushing these campaigns do support the cause. So is there a way for corporations to engage with Pride Month that doesn't seem exploitative?

Obviously, slapping a rainbow flag on something doesn't make you an ally. Donald Trump proved this by being the first Republican president to acknowledge Pride Month while he continued to push an ongoing campaign against trans people. Similarly, a company turning their logo into a rainbow or pumping out some rainbow-themed hats shouldn't breed good will, especially not when their corporate values don't adhere to social justice principles in the first place (i.e. supporting oppressive labor conditions).


But how about companies that donate portions of their profits to LGBTQIA causes? Some, like Harry's razors, go above and beyond, creating special LGBTQ+ promotions and donating 100% of profits to relevant causes. While they obviously benefit from the good will that "wokeness" tends to build with paying customers, it's hard to argue against a company donating 100% of from a promotion to a good cause.

The waters grow murkier with a company like Disney, which donates a mere 10% of their LGBTQ+ promotional profits to actual LGBTQ+ causes. Of course, 10% of Disney's rainbow Mickey profits likely makes for a greater donation total than 100% of Harry's special razor set profits. But if the issue is sentiment, then Disney doesn't cut it, especially considering their ongoing trend of poor LGBTQIA representation in film.


So then what's the cut-off? 50%? 70%? The answer is holistic. Donating to LGBTQIA charities and causes is always great, even if it's only a small amount. But donations don't exist in a bubble. If a company is using an important issue to ultimately make more money than what they're actually donating to benefit it, then they're appropriating social justice for profit.

The same goes for companies that use LGBTQIA models in their advertisements during Pride Month. Increased representation is great, but if LGBTQIA models are only used during a single month, then they're arguably still being relegated to a corporate novelty. On the other hand, if a company uses LGBTQIA models during other year-round campaigns too, then their participation in Pride Month seems far more legitimate.

All this being said, representation really is important. The recent Gillette ad starring a transgender actor is clearly still intended to sell Gillette razors and probably isn't monetarily contributing very much to the trans community. At the same time, seeing trans people finally treated like normal, everyday people in a widespread advertisement seems like a step in the right direction, culturally.

Ultimately, the corporatization of Pride Month and other social justice-related movements must be gauged on a case-by-case basis. In a larger cultural context, it's possible to accept the benefit of a corporation's involvement while still realizing and remaining wary of the fact that their primary goal is not benevolent.