0081 | July 22, 2019
(r)omance: Alternative Lifestyles
How do alternative lifestyles effect historically heteronormative notions of “romance?” The hosts discuss the ways in which romance has changed in response to the mainstreaming of LGTBQ interests, and how LGTBQ interests have been shaped by mainstream romance.
| C.T. WEBB: 00:17 | [music] Good afternoon, good morning or good evening and welcome to The American Age podcast. This is C. Travis Webb, editor of The American Age, and I am speaking to you from Southern California. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 00:29 | Hi. This is Steven G. Fullwood. I am the cofounder of the Nomadic Archivists Project, and I’m coming to you from sunny Harlem. |
| S. RODNEY: 00:37 | Hi. I’m Seph Rodney, no middle initial. I am speaking to you from The South Bronx. I’m senior editor at the Hyperallergic blog and recent author of the book, The Personalization of the Museum Visit. |
| C.T. WEBB: 00:52 | This is to remind our listeners that we practice a form of what we like to call intellectual intimacy, which is giving each other the space and time to figure out things out loud and together. And today we are continuing our conversation around romance with a lower-case r, although we kind of complicated that a little bit in the last podcast. And I had proposed to Steven, so we just had Pride, right? I mean, to both of us, but we just had the Pride parade. And New York is the largest in the World? Is that right, Steven? |
| S. FULLWOOD: 01:24 | In addition to– so it was both local Pride and then also World Pride, so that’s why it was that much more massive this year. |
| C.T. WEBB: 01:32 | Ah, okay. All right. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 01:33 | As well as the 50th anniversary of Stonewall, so there are number of factors making it pretty massive this year. Yeah. |
| C.T. WEBB: 01:41 | And so what I had suggested was, how does kind of the advancement – and popularization is not the word I want to use, but I’m just going to– I think you guys will know what I mean – of alternative sexual lifestyles – right? – so in The United States, certainly in Western world in general – internationally, although, strongly suppressed, or repressed, sorry – how does that complicate, blow apart, try and fit into the traditional heteronormative kinds of sexuality that we would associate with romance, right, so Hallmark cards and sunsets and rustics weddings and all the rest of that? |
| S. RODNEY: 02:25 | And chocolates and red roses and– |
| C.T. WEBB: 02:27 | Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 02:28 | And cakes and anything that you can buy, anything you can buy [laughter]. |
| S. RODNEY: 02:32 | Yeah, champagne, yeah, yeah, expensive dinners, yeah, yeah, yeah. |
| C.T. WEBB: 02:37 | Yeah. I mean, how does that heteronormativity both restrain or get blown apart by alternative sexualities? And not that Steven is an expert on all alternative sexualities but you– |
| S. FULLWOOD: 02:50 | I like that prologue. |
| C.T. WEBB: 02:51 | But you are very– you are a loud and proud gay man. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 02:57 | Very homosexual, yes. |
| C.T. WEBB: 02:58 | Yeah, yeah, a gay man, and so you’re going to have– |
| S. FULLWOOD: 03:00 | I am very homo. |
| C.T. WEBB: 03:02 | –a kind of familiarity and intimacy with that community that I certainly don’t. So what do you think? |
| S. FULLWOOD: 03:09 | Well, I think, since I’ve been practicing homosexuality [laughter] for all my life, that what I’ve noticed is that the impact that’s it’s taken on the community to sell a product to non-heterosexual people in lieu of a more radical sensibility or more thoughtful engagement, with the idea of visibility– because visibility at one point meant– it was a form of justice, but it’s not really justice. It’s sort of just the beginning. And so when we think about the sort of origins of queer life in the US, gay and lesbian, trans, bisexual, it started out with folks just being who they were. And there’re iterations here and there and different authors and maybe different movements by The Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis. But what it came down to was that the most marginal of marginal of marginalized, black drag queens, street folks, sex workers, kind of ignited the modern civil day rights movement in 1969 at Stonewall, and so folks like Storme DeLarverie, Marsha P. Johnson, Sylvia Rivera, these people, at the sort of initiating this riot, rather than a movement. But by 1970, they were told to march in the back of the parade because there was always a sort of assimilated sort of sensibility around certain kinds of gays and lesbians who were trying to be seen as more mainstream. So I think it started way before that, but that’s kind of where I think this started to be– and there were always factions. There were always different kinds of factions within the movement, but now we’ve got Bank of America and Lyft and these different kinds of corporations, “Happy Pride! Happy World Pride!” and then showing these things on their billboards. But what’s interesting to me is that, so what does your business actually look like? Do you have people in your boardroom or people who– what kinds inroads have you made? Do you provide insurance to same, safer-sex couples, these kinds of things? Those are things that are more interesting to me than seeing two people kiss on the street. Because I mean, that’s de rigueur to me, but maybe not for someone who’s heterosexual. I get it, but I think that some things are lost. And maybe that’s just the way it sort of plays out. And yes, I’m going to use the word capitalism, in terms of, one, having the appearance of being radical or being open when you really just want to fill your coffers. That’s it. |
| S. RODNEY: 05:51 | So what you seem to be– the way that you seem to be answering Travis’s question, Steven, is by saying that you think– and I’m very crudely summarizing what I think I heard you say is that you think that the notion of romance has essentially co-opted the sort of rougher edges, the sort of passionate, wilder aspects of romance within the LGBT community. Is that correct? |
| S. FULLWOOD: 06:27 | Oh, yeah. No. Yeah, Seph, thank you for that summary. I appreciate that. I could have been a little more clear. But I think the co-option is, for many people, necessary, and so it’s more performative than in actuality. Because in actuality, that already existed. Right? So now it’s sort of a public performance. And I know people would disagree with me, and I’m okay with that because maybe I could learn something from them. But I see it as the idea of two men or two women or trans people or two non-binary people kissing on a billboard isn’t radical for someone like me, per se, but it might be for someone who’s heterosexual and who doesn’t really have people in their community or in their circles to know that. So I get it, and like I said, visibility isn’t really justice, but it can inch towards that. But what kind of visibility and for whom? |
| S. RODNEY: 07:22 | But I’m not sure, Steven, that you’re being fair, not to the history, but just fair to Travis’s question. Because Travis’s question is really getting at in what ways has this sort of insertion into public life – and that’s the way I would say it rather than popularization – but– |
| C.T. WEBB: 07:44 | Yeah. I like that. That’s better. |
| S. RODNEY: 07:44 | –simply insertion into public life, these narratives of non-hetero normative people. So here’s a brass tacks example. Right? Here’s a easy one. You go on YouTube and they have these series of videos now where it’s like guess this person’s religion, guess this person’s star sign, guess this person’s– or exes get together and they drink and they ask each other questions. And there’s this kind of roving– rolling, I should say, roster of people that appear again and again in these videos. And there’s one where, something like you try out the best kisser or who’s the better kisser. And so they have these ten people line up and they’re blindfolded. And there’s a woman at the end of the line, or a man, and they kiss all these people. And of course, there’re gay pairings. Right? There’s sometimes women kissing women, men kissing men. And the men, in many instances, not in all, certainly, but in many instances are straight or identify as straight and end up kissing these other men. And of course, there’re gay pairing where they’re both gay and they’re both out and they’re like, “Oh, yeah, no–” and this would have been unheard of 20 years ago. When we were– and I want to say when we were early– yeah, and when we in college, just having two men kiss and appear to actually kind of like it, it’s absolutely unheard of 20 years ago. So there’s a way in which– and that’s just one of the sort of most obvious examples, but there’s a way in which gay and lesbian and alternative lifestyles have become part of the cultural lexicon so that there’s no longer a big reveal. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 09:35 | But the larger, the larger one, because what you just described– |
| S. RODNEY: 09:37 | Yeah. Yeah, and when we talk about romance– go ahead. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 09:41 | When we talk about romance– no you. I want to hear what you have to say. Sorry. |
| S. RODNEY: 09:45 | The point I was making is that the sort of insertion of alternative sexualities into the public lexicon has made it, for me, seem that the definition of romance does get stressed. Because I see romance in these little moments where people do these videos. That’s romance. Right? You have someone produce a video where you get to kiss a stranger or– |
| S. FULLWOOD: 10:11 | But is it romance though? Is it just a– I don’t know if it’s romance. Can you tell me why you think it’s romance? |
| S. RODNEY: 10:17 | Sure. Because you have a moment of, even though it’s performative, it is, but it’s actual physical intimacy. Right? That kind of tenderness, to kiss someone in the way that they– no, that’s romance for me, absolutely. |
| C.T. WEBB: 10:40 | Yeah. I’m not sure I would do it– I don’t know that I’d be quite as certain as Seph is, but I think I’m pretty close to his position. I think performance is an inherently destabilizing activity for identity. And I think because we’re pro-social primates, we are constantly performing ourselves to others and to ourselves. And so even in contrived scenarios, with cameras and other people in the room– I don’t mean to say that therefore it’s real. Of course it’s not that flat. Of course people can put personas on and off, absolutely. The best writing on this that I’ve ever read, by the way, was an article– this was before you and I met Steven. But a few years ago Seph had circulated this– or sent to me this article by RuPaul and just kind of talking about the kind of, the atom at the heart of American cultural performances is the kind of radical alternative gay community in America and that so many things have emerged from that community. And now this is actually where I got the– I mean, Paul talks about the trickster aspect of it. And so anyway, so I think that performances are inherently dangerous and destabilizing, which is, I think, precisely why evangelicals and people who are virulently anti-homosexual are so incensed by the public showing of homosexuality, because they understand that their identities– on a base gut level, I think most of us understand that our identities are actually not nearly as solid as we pretend. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 12:35 | Oh, no. I agree with that. |
| S. RODNEY: 12:35 | Exactly. Yeah. Exactly. |
| C.T. WEBB: 12:35 | And so even though I’m with you Steven, it’s not enough, right? Two gay men kissing on a billboard is not enough. Two women kissing on a billboard is not enough. It is, in fact, how you– it’s the catalyst for that moving into boardrooms and for it ending up in HR departments so that you can get your partner covered while your state is trying to suss out whether you can get married or whatever. Yeah. So anyway. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 13:07 | In some ways it does. I would say that. I want to say something about Seph’s example of the people kissing. I’m having hard time just pulling it into romantic space. I think the intimacy in which these people are kissing one another, because there’re lips on lips, no matter where you’re at – right? – no matter what the cameras are doing or even what people tell you, like on reality shows– oh, you must go kiss that person because it fits their dramatic thing that they want to do, their arc– |
| C.T. WEBB: 13:35 | Dramatic arc, yeah. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 13:36 | –there’s something that’s moving against it. It doesn’t feel like romance. Romance feels like it’s more emotional to me, a little more, maybe– I don’t know. Maybe I have a romantic view of romanticism, because there’s something that’s spontaneous or extemporaneous, something that feels like it’s not as performative. And it feels like it’s– romance, I feel like it needs to be almost outside of someone’s eye or someone’s camera. And I feel like I’m making it too precious, but and when I hear that, I’m like, is that really romance? It just feels like it’s just something people do. If they weren’t kissing, they might be hugging. If they weren’t hugging, then they would just be close to one another. There’s an eroticism and a sort of nuance that happens sometimes with same-sex homosocial behavior. Right? And so I’m trying to figure out– |
| S. RODNEY: 14:30 | Right. Right. Right. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 14:32 | Right. I’m trying to figure out the constellation of my thought around this. I’m like, there’s just something that’s not working for me. Yeah. |
| S. RODNEY: 14:36 | Well, right, let me put a sort of slightly finer edge on what I’m saying. Remember when we started this conversation about romance, and I said that I’d gotten a definition from– and now I’m blanking on the source. But I want to say it was the Good Men Project maybe. And the definition I had mentioned was one of savoring the other person, savoring your intellectual, your emotional, you physical connection with them. There is something in those videos where they are savoring something about that interaction. Even though the camera’s on and even they’re performing, I can tell there is something there that they’re like, “Mm. So I think this about what happened. I think this about how I’m feeling about this.” There’s a kind of moment of not just consuming, not just tasting, but savoring. And I feel like that tips it over into romance for me. Because even in the last broadcast – right? – when we talked about that moment when I’m just making a date with someone and I don’t know how it’s going to turn out, but we’re exchanging emails and it’s getting later and later in the day, and the last email tips over into the next 24-hour day. There’s something about that, and clearly, in telling you the story, I was savoring that interaction. Right? I was thinking, oh, isn’t that cute the way that we kind of kept going throughout the day and that it ended in this moment of kind of promise. I think that’s the key for me is that romance, for me, comes down to having that feeling of I’m going to savor this. |
| C.T. WEBB: 16:30 | And one of the– to complicate the idea that you had put forward, Steven, which I think is fair, you sort of, you reached for the idea of spontaneity and a kind of lack of performativity, which I think is exactly right. I absolutely do believe that that is an aspect of what we think about when we think about romance, lower-case or capital R. But there’s a really– it’s certainly dated now, but there’s a very influential literary scholar, Paul Daman who developed a brand of deconstruction that was sort of counter to Derrida’s. But he does very, very, very strong readings of romantic writers. And one of the aspects of someone like Wordsworth – Ode to Immortality, Recollections from Early Childhood, or something like that. I don’t think I got the title exactly right, but that’s close – is that the very thing that is supposed to provoke the spontaneous reflection and sort of the savoring, to borrow Seph’s word, of the experience of nature, in this instance, or in childhood, is itself an act of self-conscious reflection, that it actually requires the recuperation, the remembering, the return to something already passed and gone. And that is the very stuff out of which consciousness, and therefore performativity is made. So it’s its twin, and maybe its Janus-faced twin, but its twin nonetheless in that, in fact, we have to hide from ourselves in that performance. And what Seph’s very concrete examples of these videos, and what will often catch people off guard about the performance is that it stops becoming a performance. Right? |
| S. RODNEY: 18:39 | Exactly. |
| C.T. WEBB: 18:40 | Right? Like, “Oops. Oh, wait, I’m not–“ |
| S. RODNEY: 18:43 | Right. “I actually– “ |
| C.T. WEBB: 18:45 | Yeah. Go ahead, please, Seph, Seph, Seph, please. |
| S. RODNEY: 18:47 | Yeah, “I’m not as straight as I thought I was.” Or– |
| C.T. WEBB: 18:48 | Yeah. Like, “Oh, shit.” |
| S. RODNEY: 18:50 | Like that kind of surprise, or it gets awkward. It actually gets awkward, and people are like, “Oh, wait. I don’t know how to feel about this man’s scruffy face against my face.” What? That kind of thing actually takes place. And I want to say this too, because it also occurred to me when Travis posed the question about how the notion of romance has been shifted because of this public attention to alternative lifestyles, it’s made me think of the TV series Transparent. Remember how in Transparent, the father figure comes out and he wants to be a woman, starts to dress as one, starts to identify with women in various ways. And he goes to– he ends up having a relationship, developing a friendship with a trans woman. And the trans woman has a boyfriend. And he asks the boyfriend how he fell in love with– and I don’t remember the character’s name. But he describes the moment, the series of moments through which that process occurs. And he talks about it so matter-of-factly, yet so sort of passionately that, for a moment, at least watching, I forget that the woman he’s with is trans. Right? The romantic story that he weaves is one that is very much almost everybody’s story. Right? There’s a moment of sort of, “Oh, I see you. I recognize something in you that I need, or that I value, that I admire, that I desperately want,” and that mirror thing happens. And the other person sees the same thing. So I think that the ways, even the ways that the stories about romance are being told using trans characters, using alternative lifestyles, has made us think, in a weird way, that the alternative is actually not so alternative. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 20:59 | That people are people? |
| S. RODNEY: 21:00 | You know what I’m saying? |
| S. FULLWOOD: 21:01 | Okay. |
| S. RODNEY: 21:02 | In a way, I mean, in a very crude way, yes. Yeah. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 21:03 | Yeah. Right. Yes, and so you guys have been projecting this entire time? This is what you’re telling me? You’ve been projecting this idea of romance because of the way you see romance? Correct? |
| S. RODNEY: 21:14 | I don’t think it’s possible for me not to. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 21:18 | Right. Right. No, it’s just a question, but it’s one that made me think of, I was like, okay, so I saw your scenario with the cameras. And then I said, well, let’s take away the cameras and let’s just walk along the beach, stuff like that. So I said let’s look at two people kissing in public. And I was like, well, that could be taken in two ways. It could be taken as they’re kissing, they’re really into what they’re doing, they’re just really engaged or their performing, or a little bit of all of it. Right? And so I said my projection of that, depending on my mood, would be like, those two people are kissing each other. I wish I was kissing someone. Or those two people are kissing each other. Uh, get a room! Or it’s really nice to see– and I’ll just take it out of the queer part and just put two elderly people kissing somewhere. Because we like to think of those people not having as a romantic life as, say, someone in their 20s. Right? So I was just pushing this all around while you guys were talking, and I was like, okay, so romance, for me, feels so much more special. And that public interference, for me, rubs me in a way that’s not comfortable. And that’s why I was thinking– and it wasn’t that I want them to be quiet or not kiss or any of that, but it just feel like, well, there’s something sort of sparkling and magical when I’m kissing someone. And I may not want that, “All right. Everyone cut off the– action!” I don’t want that. I want to be kissing someone and in an engagement where I’m only just flowing into that other person. Do you know? Imagining that, so that’s what I think it is. It’s that public dimension that I wrestle with. So when you guys were saying that, I was like, oh, okay, I think I have something here now. |
| C.T. WEBB: 23:04 | Yeah. My feeling about the public thing has shifted over the years. It used to bother me across the board. It had nothing to do with heteronormativity. Public displays, PDA from anyone, I just did not– it didn’t make me angry, but I found it too performative, I mean, just to borrow what you said. I felt that way. I feel less that way now. And it doesn’t mean my inclination to engage in PDA has really shifted. Although, it’s probably a little bit looser than it used to be, not by much. But I think to engage in things within view of other people is probably a fairly deep pleasure for a lot of humans because, I mean, when you think about the types of things that we engage in in ritual and the sort of collectivity of feeling that we engage in when we engage in ritual, it seems to me that there’s probably some kind of elemental titillation in public displays that, again, is like you’re really kind of messing with the alchemy of the culture itself at that point. Because culture is kind of invented inside of ritual – right? – or it comes from that. It emerges from it, is what I wanted to say. And so now when I see people– |
| S. FULLWOOD: 24:49 | Do you and your wife, are you guys PDA? |
| C.T. WEBB: 24:52 | Not really, so more than I would probably like if it were just me. But that is something my wife is more– Molly is more into, and so I’ve stretched myself in that way. And yeah, and so I think it doesn’t mean every person is that way. Right? Because, clearly you have a different kind of reaction to it. And so I mean, we get socialized in a variety of ways. And so no, to answer your question, I’ve shifted a little bit, but not probably quite as much as to say that I find a great deal of pleasure in it, so. |
| S. RODNEY: 25:35 | Yeah. But I still want to– I don’t know that I’ve gotten to a place where I feel like we’ve found a definitive answer for Travis’s question. And you know me, like a dog with a bone, I really want to nail down an answer. I think I want to say just straight up, I think the introduction of non-normative, i.e. alternative sexualities and lifestyles into public attention has, I think, slightly reshaped our notions of romance in that I think that we have maybe a little less association of romance with things like flowers, chocolate candy and walks on the beach, I mean, just slightly, maybe. |
| C.T. WEBB: 26:40 | Yeah. I’m down with coming up with a definitive answer. I think you probably both know I think, slam dunk, for sure it’s stretched it out. I mean, I think, even though I understand and sympathize with Steven’s– |
| S. RODNEY: 27:00 | Issue with performativity? |
| C.T. WEBB: 27:01 | Yeah, yeah, there’s a integrity – right? – integrity around that. Right? Because this is really what it’s about. It’s like it needs to be more than just the show. And he wants there to be some character about it. So I’m very much with that. But I think it’s just glacial. It’s just slow. And I think, for sure, the conversation we are having, assuming things continue to move in the same direction, our contemporary– people our age in 30 years, it’s just going to be accepted and the norm that everyone gets their share of the cliché. Everyone– |
| S. RODNEY: 27:46 | Well, I mean, well, maybe the cliché shifts a little. I mean I want to think– didn’t Don Lemon just propose to his boyfriend on air a couple months back? Didn’t that happen? Right, so– |
| C.T. WEBB: 27:56 | Yeah. I feel like that’s a straight up cliché. |
| S. RODNEY: 28:00 | No way. No. No, that’s exactly right. But at least, a la Steven’s argument, it moves slightly away from the sort of absorption or co-option by monetizing the moment. Right? Because all that happened was words were said. Words were said and they looked at each and essentially they made a promise to each other. Right? So there– |
| C.T. WEBB: 28:27 | So I might be more cynical than you on this one. That was the most expensive proposal that you’ve probably ever seen. Do you know how much money they get in advertising dollars on Don Lemon’s show? That proposal was probably like $7 million or something like that. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 28:42 | There you go. No, no, no, you’ve come– |
| S. RODNEY: 28:43 | Okay. Y’all are way, way, way more mercenary than I am about that. I can’t– |
| S. FULLWOOD: 28:50 | So at the bottom of my impatience with it all is proving to anybody that you matter. And I think that the large part of the LGBT community stands in that space where they go, “We’re human too. Look, we’re kissing. We’re human too. We can buy houses. We’re human too.” I don’t buy it. I don’t like it. I say fuck it. Proving your humanity to anyone is ridiculous. And so it doesn’t exactly go where Travis is going, but I think, I was just trying to locate my distaste. Do you know? |
| S. RODNEY: 29:19 | Yeah. But this is the thing about this conversation, Steven, and typically I wouldn’t have an issue– and I’m not saying I have an issue in this instance with your politics. But I think what you’re doing is you’re moving the question of how romance can or will or may have shifted into what do these appearances do in terms of our politics. I’m absolutely with you. Gay men should not have to prove their humanity to anyone. And I do think that is ridiculous– |
| S. FULLWOOD: 29:52 | Nobody– |
| S. RODNEY: 29:54 | –but we’re not talking about that per se. We’re actually talking about notions of romance. And I do think that, compared to 20 years ago, the notion of romance existing between men was generally foreign to our public perceptions. I think just generally, gay men were assumed to be aberrant, weird, broken. So– |
| C.T. WEBB: 30:26 | Well, deviant too. I mean, [crosstalk]. |
| S. RODNEY: 30:27 | Yeah, exactly. So even the mainstreaming of Don Lemon’s proposal says to me that our notions around romance have somewhat shifted, that’s all. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 30:38 | Okay. |
| C.T. WEBB: 30:40 | Yeah. Yeah, I’m with you on that. So, Steven, do you want to have the last word or–? |
| S. FULLWOOD: 30:45 | I keep doing this, going, “Nope, I don’t have anything to say.” So let me think of a last word. I think it was a great conversation. It made me think. It’s making me think more about my discomfort, but also staying focused on the question itself. Because I did go elsewhere. I’m like, “I don’t like this because of such-and-such.” Well, that’s not really the question. So anyhoo. There you are [laughter]. I’m 53. I get to sit on my porch and be a crotchety old man, “Roar [laughter]!” |
| C.T. WEBB: 31:13 | You do. You do, absolutely. Yeah. |
| S. RODNEY: 31:16 | “Romance, yech, double feh.” |
| C.T. WEBB: 31:19 | So okay. I think we are shifting, big shift for our next series of conversations. We’re going to talk about climate change, and we’re going to try do it from, obviously, a way that’s grounded very much in the current scientific debate. I won’t say consensus because we talked about that before the podcast started, and then also try and bring our various areas of expertise to bear on it and try and come up with something interesting to say that isn’t just blasting out kind of staid positions. |
| S. RODNEY: 31:53 | [crosstalk]. |
| C.T. WEBB: 31:54 | So I very much look forward to that conversation. Steven, Seph, do you guys have anything– we can’t see each other, so do you have anything, either one of you want to close with or–? |
| S. RODNEY: 32:04 | No, no, no. I’m good. I’m glad that we talked about this. I think it was really useful. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 32:07 | Me too. |
| S. RODNEY: 32:09 | And actually, it was a kind of nice follow-up to the conversation that I think we started off the year with, which is pornography. |
| C.T. WEBB: 32:15 | Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Good– yeah. |
| S. RODNEY: 32:17 | And I’m glad that we moved in this direction and we’re able to talk about, to me, its more subtle and nuanced aspects of our beings. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 32:27 | Yeah. Lovely. That’s a great way to put it. Yeah. |
| C.T. WEBB: 32:28 | Yeah, sure. All right, my friends, I will talk to you next week. |
| S. RODNEY: 32:34 | All right. Take care, Travis. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 32:35 | Take care. Bye-bye. |
| S. RODNEY: 32:36 | Take care, Steven. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 32:37 | Take care. |
| S. RODNEY: 32:37 | Bye. [music] |
References
First referenced at 18:50
Transparent (Amazon Original Series)
“Winner of eight Emmys and two Golden Globes, TRANSPARENT returns for a fourth season The Pfeffermans take off on a spiritual and political journey as they dig deep into their family’s history. Maura heads to Israel to speak at a conference and makes a startling discovery. Adrift in the desert, Maura, Ali, Sarah, Josh and Shelly set off on their own paths to find acceptance, love, and truth.” Amazon