I saw RHPS for the first time in the Fall of 1976, as a college freshman. My small, midwestern Methodist university presented a midnight screening on campus that was free to all students. There were no squirt guns, or toast, or toilet paper, etc. That's how pre-cult-classic it was.
The most blatant difference between seeing it then, and what I will watch in October is how much more educated the general public is regarding "who's who" in the LGBT-yadda-yadda-yadda dictionary.
I think today's public is much more aware (regarding the character - not the actor) that:
• a man who prefers to dress as a woman can be accurately defined as “a sweet transvestite”
• a transvestite can be from place called, “Transsexual, Transylvania”, but not be transsexual
• a man can enjoy sexual encounters with both genders, but prefer to be married to a man
But... a woman (leaving out the 'transsexual' descriptor because in the 21st Century, we're able to recognize that she's a woman) who does not dress as a man, and in fact points up her glamorous femininity through clothes, hair and make-up, yet insists on calling herself a transvestite is at the very least "confused", and at worst - just a hot mess.
Updated On: 8/9/16 at 11:19 AM