Boob Tube: Women in Uniform
Long ago a sacred vow was made, that somehow, some day, somewhere we lesbian TV fans would get to indulge our Boob Tubing lesbo lust for women in uniform. Well, my slutlings… I am here to tell you that our somehow has come! The some day is today, and the somewhere? The Learning Channel.
Not only does TLC’s new show Police Women of Broward County feature strong, beautiful women in uniform, but they are the real deal: cops, on the job, kicking ass, taking no crap, busting criminals. And the cameras don’t stop there. Like any other reality TV show, they keep rolling once the deputies get home, juxtaposing their roles as officers of the peace with those of wife, mom, and single mom.
Officer Andrea Penoyer
In the first five minutes of the pilot episode, Deputy Andrea Penoyer is in a squad car with her partner, the radio squawking about an undercover drug bust in progress as she answers a call from her seven year old son. She reassures her kid that while she doesn’t get off work until 10 PM, she’ll text him then to say goodnight, and if he’s still awake then, he can call her. “Okay, I gotta go,” she tells him, and as soon as she pockets her cell phone she is out the door, chasing down and detaining a drug dealer. Not your average soccer mom 9 to 5, is it? And even hotness factor aside, it’s fascinating as hell to learn about the lives of these women.
My favorite by far is Officer Ana Murillo, who is not only tough as nails, but manages to wield an unlikely (and utterly charming) mix of no-nonsense gruffness and nearly unflappable good humor… until someone interferes with her ability to do her job, that is. Then the gruff and tough thing takes over and holy god… HOT! It’s like watching a great ass-kicking chick superhero, like Buffy or Xena, only Ana and her fellow officers are real life, every day superheroes.
Officer Ana Murillo, my new TV heartthrob
Is it wrong that I find myself wishing for a battle of the cable TV reality show stars, gauntlet style, with these ladies squaring off against some Real Housewives? I don’t know. But if it’s wrong, I don’t want to be right.
To Watch For Next Week…
Saturday! We can only hope that one, final heaping helping of just desserts is in store on the series finale of Dirty Sexy Money, (ABC, 10 p.m.).
Sunday! Time to invent a drinking game based on catfight references and dick jokes as Kathy Griffin hosts the Roast of Joan Rivers, (Comedy Central, 10 p.m.). And speaking of hot women with badges, it’s the season finale of In Plain Sight, (USA, 10 p.m.).
Monday! The series premiere of Lords of the Revolution, which profiles a different subversive activist (Andy Warhol, Muhamed Ali) on each episode (I hope they do John Waters!), (VH1, 8 p.m.). Kyra Sedgwick on Conan O’Brien.
Tuesday! I haven’t been able to confirm this yet, but according to geek goddess Felicia Day (who starred in it), the unaired 13th episode of Joss Whedon’s Dollhouse ("Epitaph 1," which premiered at Comicon last month and is FRAKKING AWESOME!) is set to make it’s world television premiere tonight (only in the UK, not in the US, you lucky bastards!), (Syfy, 9 p.m.).
Thursday! The series premiere of Into the Pride, in which big-cat expert Dave Salmoni lives alone with an infamously dangerous pride of African lions for six months, (Animal Planet, 8 p.m.).
- Login or register to post comments
- Comments [75]
Tweet
Comments [75]
some peeps have positive opinion and some are go backward with t
I think if were the one whose acting in real life who know how to handle and shoot the guns our lust in L-world tube might be NOT an issue or debate
because through our own get up we could also act like them no matter if you or me is in uniform or a civilian with guns[ ouchhhh its just dont forget our limitation how to use it in real life].......
BuggleM the dmd
I miss
lesbian TV .... I just needed to share.
Heard any rumours of a lesbian show in the works? Anyone? Anyone?
Hopeful me
I'm right there with you......
I miss my TiBette fix.
Oops, did I just say that out-loud?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odbd52SqfE0
*deep breath*
Let's face it
we were never short of something to debate; talk; process; b*tch about - when we had The L Word ... It gave us tons of material.
I miss that common bond it gave us.
Someone needs to be working on a new show. Seriously.
Oh....
"Someone" is.
make it quick "Someone"
... these new emoticons appear less innocent than the old - a little bit
LOL .....
You know, I definately agree with you. The 'community' that was built around the common bond that the show provided, proved to be awesome... there will be more lesbian driven programming. However, creating and producing quality programming, is time consuming. There is an open market right now, and the climate is fairly positive for new directions in programming.
IMO, the on-line lesbian web-a-sodes that I've seen are certainly not a reflection of the quality that our community deserves. And quite honestly, as long as women are driven to watching the, 'lower quality' web programming that I've seen, the 'networks' will be somewhat leery of investing 'big money' into prime-time programming with high production values for our community.
Personally, I don't think that we should settle for anything but the best.... the LGBTQ community deserves quality primetime - network - visibility.
Hands Off My Webisodes
Some stories and characters are meant for comic books and some are meant for Morrocan-bound books. The same is true of webisodes vs. TV.
I hope some web shows like Angel of Death - http://www.crackle.com/c/Angel_Of_Death - never make it to prime time TV. They 'd be ruined. I don't consider them "lower quality;" they're just not meant for a mainstream audience and would look wrong on a TV. Different media — not inferior media. I'm even leery of watching any of them on TV when they're released on DVD.
On the other hand there are exceptions like Sanctuary. It made the leap from Web to TV. Amanda Tapping jokes that she borrowed a corner of someone else's booth at the show's first Comic-Con when it was web-only. The second Comic-Con they were getting ready for the 1st season on SyFy and the panel was moved up to a respectable sized room. This year, they made it to the big time and filled the ballroom at the Hilton. I can't wait for the new season to start in Oct.
http://www.syfy.com/sanctuary/
"When you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will." ~ Pollyanna
I'm all for different media
I embrace new tech - but what I have seen, has not been that great quality.
I'm sure there are some great webisodes out there, it's just that I haven't watched them - and that's the other problem with online tv ... people have to know the show exists first and where to view it ... otherwise you have to trawl through the YouTube!
The Solution to Most of Life's Problems
Everything I need to know about pop culture, including best webisodes, I learn at Comic-Con. There's also AfterEllen.com. They ran B. J. Fletcher Private Eye and Rebecca Drysdale Time Traveling Lesbian (Both are spoofs).
http://www.afterellen.com/video/timetravelinglesbian
"When you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will." ~ Pollyanna
mmm Yeah ...
webisodes ... The only lesbian one I know of is - Girltrash.
As much as I'm addicted to the internets, I would rather view my lesbian soaps on a big screen, sitting on a comfy couch - with the lights dimmed for effect!
The computer can be dam uncomfortable.
Hey Joanne.....
My comment certainly was not intended to diminish the intended 'value' of mini-programming. Or, web-i-sodes. However, with my experience in prime-time programming, I know that when any marginalized group is content with it's 'niche' status, very few individuals (or corporations) are willing to step outside of their comfortable box, and approach more 'challenging' and diverse entertainment. The motivation to do so is diluted by the availability of a 'safer' climate for non-mainstream programming.
Example : BET Television. Since the proliferation of original, minority programing for Black Entertainment Television, the inclusion of cultural minorities in primetime - network - programming is dismal. And, very few complain. Separate, is not equal. But apparently, it placates millions of people. BET is a 'corporate' environment where being isolated from mainstream programming has become an accepted norm. IMO, the effect has been devastating to inclusionary, mainstream television...
Once again I'll say, and I believe this deeply - separate is not equal.
I actually think we don't
I actually think we don't need police.
Skate, I think you have just
Skate, I think you have just officially stolen my reigning title of "Biggest Dirty Hippie of VP." Thanks for taking the pressure off!
I think your title is
I think your title is safe.
Humans survived in North America for thousands of years without police. How did they do it? It wasn't until the 1830's that there started to be what we would recognize as "police forces" in the U. S. I once read a statistic which stated that something like 18% of Americans are employed in an industry broadly described as "security." For almost 20% of us, a paycheck comes from policing other people's behavior. Not producing, fixing, improving or changing anything, but keeping a watchful eye on others. So something is wrong for sure.
maybe
maybe (so called ) justice was not in hands of the police, yet in the hands of all.
you rather have all people being Judge and Executioner if and when and doing ass ...they please?
just wondering
lol
What does justice look like
What does justice look like in a country with an asystematic, localized, largely unregulated method for dealing with criminal behavior? Compelling evidence exists to suggest that such a society would work efficiently, ethically, and fairly. In 1831, before modern policing took serious hold nationwide, Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville came to the U. S. to study its prisons and other aspects of American life. In his book "Democracy in America," he wrote:
"In America the means which the authorities have at their disposal for the discovery of crimes and the arrest of criminals are few. The State police does not exist, and passports are unknown. The criminal police of the United States cannot be compared to that of France; the magistrates and public prosecutors are not numerous, and the examinations of prisoners are rapid and oral. Nevertheless in no country does crime more rarely elude punishment. The reason is, that every one conceives himself to be interested in furnishing evidence of the act committed, and in stopping the delinquent. During my stay in the United States I witnessed the spontaneous formation of committees for the pursuit and prosecution of a man who had committed a great crime in a certain county. In Europe a criminal is an unhappy being who is struggling for his life against the ministers of justice, whilst the population is merely a spectator of the conflict; in America he is looked upon as an enemy of the human race, and the whole of mankind is against him."
So you are correct. A society without modern policing is a society in which important decisions concerning justice and criminality are placed squarely in the hands of citizens. Those kinds of decisions are NOT better left to "experts."
Of course, sometimes citizens made horrible decisions. But as long as "authoritative" outside intervention was kept at bay and citizens were compelled to clean up their own messes, these mistakes frequently proved to be localized and self-correcting. I'm from Massachusetts and the Salem Witch Trials are an illuminating example of this. Horrible, yet highly localized, short-lived, and ultimately self-correcting. If a similar thing happened today, our centralized systems of power and control would make this kind of insanity global and long-lived.
Been There; Executed Them
Leaving "important decisions concerning justice and criminality . . . squarely in the hands of citizens" is called a lynchmob. No thanks. I don't even trust my fellow citizens to make the right choice on So You Think You Can Dance. (Brandon was ROBBED)
"When you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will." ~ Pollyanna
Do you trust officials and
Do you trust officials and authority figures more than your fellow citizens?
without hesitation
Ab so fucking lutely
"When you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will." ~ Pollyanna
Well, that strongly suggests
Well, that strongly suggests that we are fundamentally different in virtually every major ideological way. How did you arrive at that opinion?
No contest
When I'm pissed off at an elected official I vote against them — not blow their brains out. The loud-mouth yahoos at the town halls speak for themselves. Hell, I even prefer Republican pols to those folks.
"When you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will." ~ Pollyanna
That's great; I do the same
That's great; I do the same thing about elected officials. How did you arrive at the opinion that officials and authority figures are more trustworthy than your fellow citizens?
The Better Question
The better question is do I want to live in a society ruled by law or one ruled by the best shot? Or one ruled by the person with the loudest voice who can shout everyone else down? Or one ruled by the most skilled at turning out faux angry armed mobs in order to intimidate the opposition?
"When you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will." ~ Pollyanna
That's a great question, and
That's a great question, and I for one want to live in a society ruled by law. The laws of New Hampshire state that citizens can open carry without a firearms license, and believe it or not, those laws don't change simply because Obama is present. In fact, there are some people who believe that it is more important to uphold the law in exceptional situations - not less. We believe that doing something like making an exception for the president is downright dangerous. Despite the heavy propaganda promoting his holiness, Obama is not king of the United States.
"official,
I can see clearly now
"Despite the heavy propaganda promoting his holiness, Obama is not king of the United States."
Enuff said.
However, I would have the exact same opinion if a gun nut had been hanging out at a McPain rally.
"When you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will." ~ Pollyanna
"I can see clearly
"I can see clearly now
"Despite the heavy propaganda promoting his holiness, Obama is not king of the United States."
Enuff said."
Can you clarify this part of your comment? I don't understand what you mean.
"How did you arrive at the
"How did you arrive at the opinion that officials and authority figures are more trustworthy than your fellow citizens?"
Have you ever hung out at a Wal-Mart?
"When you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will." ~ Pollyanna
Yes. It's what happens when
Yes. It's what happens when people stop believing that they are capable of producing perfectly fine goods and services independently, and start believing the state-delivered line about consumption of official, expert-made, authority produced crap being the key to a good life.
Personally.....
I appreciate laws that 'encourage' people to pick up their dogs poop. And, the laws that 'encourage' people to stop at a red light, or stop sign. I also appreciate the laws that 'encourage' people to not drive while impaired.
In most societies... laws are 'suggestions' to encourage personal responsibility, and along with that carry consequences for those whose personal choices are detrimental to others. I.E., no one can force you to stop at a red light, but the consequence will be yours to live with if you choose not to. Possibly, the resulting injuries to another individual would result in the loss of your personal freedoms through incarceration. In this situation it's not the law that created the negative result, it was the individuals lack of judgment and respect for structural law.
It is incumbent on the populace of any nation, to decide for themselves which, if any laws, they feel are a structural necessity.
People have the choice to stay inside the law, or outside. If there appear to be laws that we deem unnecessary, too restrictive, or possibly arbitrary, we can change them.... laws are made by man, we can change them just as they were created.
Laws are meant to protect our freedoms, not take them away....all the while maintaining a sense of structure sensitive to the needs of the majority. IMO, that's not always a bad thing.
that explain why the USA have
that explain why the USA have the world"s largest incarceration rate.
-Do not follow me, I'M LOST-
I just read recently that the
I just read recently that the USA incarceration rate only started climbing when we privatized jails. Private jails leads to profitting from incacerating criminals, leads to creating stricter laws to lock up more people or keep them longer, then we get prison lobbyists, fear mongering, more prisons, more prisoners...
I think you can see where I'm going with this. We need lobbyists to be put out of business. Period. They are a blight on America.
Yup
Most problems could be solved by banning all group contributions (business, unions, etc.) from politics. I'd like to see a donation limit of $100 per person per election. The problem is that it would be an unconstitutional limit on the 1st Amendment.
"When you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will." ~ Pollyanna
That would be an awesome start Rusty....
Then I would love to see complete, publicly financed elections. That would equalize the playing field. And.... a public system of financing would allow those with less 'charisma', but an astonishing ability to understand the needs of American citizens, to compete equally with the wealthy and/or connected career politicians.
Yes
I agree with everything you said. I'd also make it easier for 3rd parties to get on the ballot, public funding,& included in debates.
"When you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will." ~ Pollyanna
I haven't tried to run the
I haven't tried to run the numbers but doesn't a 3 candidate election make it difficult to win enough electoral college votes?
You're right
I go back and forth on getting rid of the Electoral College. But increasing 3rd party participation is another reason to ditch it. For what it's worth, Perot got a little less than 20% of the popular vote in 1992 and 0 electoral votes so Clinton was still able to get a majority of the popular vote.
"When you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will." ~ Pollyanna
Absolutely....
It seems as though by the time we get down to the debates, some really capable, competent, solid representation has already been filtered out of the process. Money drives elections, and that seems fundamentally flawed.
I'd go further
I'd actually allow a system of publically funded political advertising as long as the ads are screened for accuracy. I would NOT screen for inflamatory rhetoric or anything else. Just honesty.
"When you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will." ~ Pollyanna
I would ban ads and require
I would ban ads and require debates be carried on all networks and that there be more of them. After all, who would screen the ads for accuracy and how would you determine what is or isn't accurate in some ads?
I'd flip that around
Political ads could be more educational than debates from the perspective of educating the public. We already have organizations who screen ads, speeches, etc. for accuracy. FactCheck.org is one of the most reputable. During elections newspapers also devote staff to the effort. I'd allow ads to run free if they are screened for accuracy and run for at least 1 minute. The ad could also have a banner that attests to the fact that they passed the screening. The public might start questioning ads without the banner.
Debates are currently are the least instructive because the moderators have too much control. And some candidates stick to their canned answers (cough Palin) no matter what's asked. I'd ditch the moderators and go back to a Lincoln-Douglas style format and have candidates run the debates.
FactCheck.org has some great stuff on the health care debate. They are non partisan and timely. They already posted inaccuracies from Obama's town hall meeting yesterday and the latest ads from both sides:
http://www.factcheck.org/
"When you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will." ~ Pollyanna
Excellent points Rusty...
And, if there were more debates, with an 'open forum' type of format, the public could ask questions concerning questionable ads. It would be a good way of making sure that the candidates actually take personal responsibility for the information placed in the ads.
At this point, it appears that candidates separate themselves from their own political ads, and take very little responsibility for the distortions that mislead the public. They should be 100% responsible for content... The lack of accountability, it would appear, says volumes about the future integrity and transparency of their cabinets.
Open debates = personal responsibility. What a concept.
Good idea....
I concur.
It sure as hell does
It sure as hell does
Law and Order
and you work your way back around to Mariska! ;)
Twitter Time @kdhales
OK
I get it, its because there's too much hot womans officers so every body want to be caught...
-Do not follow me, I'M LOST-
There you go!
If all women police officers looked liked those in the tv series, there would be no room....we would be shipping the no-good-niks over to you to house! You know, for some 'rehabilitaion'.....I have no doubt that you are up for the job!
Texas Ranger
Twitter Time @kdhales
if all women police officers
if all women police officers looked liked those in the tv series, i would have commit a crime in NY and hoping to be caught by Bonasera
Wait a minute, isn't that why you send us Kelly McC? for "rehabilitation"?
-Do not follow me, I'M LOST-
I've never thought of it that
I've never thought of it that way before. That's gorram interesting to muddle around in my brain. I hope you stick around, Skatey.
Now I know what "gorram" is!
Now I know what "gorram" is!