This 1970s Cult Inspired Abusive Teen Rehabilitation Methods Still Used Today

Researched and written by Nicole Carpenter, this article was originally published in Teen Vogue on January 8th, 2024. 

The news has been filled with exposés about aggressive rehabilitation programs using “tough love” to treat everything from addiction to “converting” LGBTQ+ people to a straight lifestyle. But the roots of these “tough love” treatments go back to the 1950s, and an organization called Synanon

Nationally lauded for its allegedly successful treatment programs, the public turned against Synanon in October 1978, when its supporters’ put a 4-foot rattlesnake in the mailbox of Paul Morantz, a California attorney and investigative reporter. Morantz had been pushing for investigations of Synanon—which by then had declared itself a religion and gained nonprofit status. Morantz accused the group of abusing members and advocating violence against its “enemies.” Prior to the attack, the Synanon program had been praised for its groundbreaking treatment of drug addicts and alcoholics as well as the treatment of troubled youth. The public attack on Morantz outed the Synanon for what it really was: a violent cult. 

Tender Loving Care Club 

Movie poster for the film "Synanon" fictional stories of drug addicts in a rehabilitation center
The 1965 movie Synanon dramatized the group which would later become widely known as a cult. Among its stars was Weston-resident Eartha Kitt.

Created in 1958 by Charles Dederich, a former Alcoholics Anonymous member and speaker, Synanon purported to help those suffering from addiction to rehabilitate themselves through “self-reliance and making the person responsible for his own actions.” The program first began as a small community in Venice, California calling itself the Tender Loving Care Club. Members met in a small storefront to play “The Game,” a verbal exercise where anyone was allowed to say anything to debunk excuses given by addicts for their addictions. “Anything” could include mockery and degradation. Only threats and physical violence were not tolerated. 

Dederich envisioned Synanon as a two-year residential program. Attendance grew rapidly and, to accommodate its swelling ranks, Dederich moved the operation from the Venice Beach storefront to a house in Santa Monica in 1962. Neighbors quickly protested having a drug rehabilitation facility in their backyard. The conflict ended with Dederich’ arrest because he didn’t have a health license. 

In what was a cunning publicity move, Dederich chose to serve jail time for the violation while still refusing to move his facility. The highly publicized case drew the attention of some high-profile people who praised Dederich’s “revolutionary” program. Soon, public outcry on behalf of Synanon was significant enough that California Governor Edmund Brown, Sr. actually signed a bill exempting the group from health licensing laws. Donors nationwide began to support the group, supplementing the financial payments already being received by those in the program. 

As Synanon’s star rose, Hollywood A-listers including actors Leonard Nimoy, Robert Wagner, and Ben Gazzara would stop by the house to play “The Game.” In 1965, Columbia Pictures released a film partially written by Charles Dederich entitled “Synanon,” starring Eartha Kitt and Chuck Conners. 

Westport’s Synanon 

Synanon’s publicity and financial windfall allowed the group to expand again. Setting his sights on the East Coast, Dederich purchased an 18-room Victorian Mansion located on four acres in Westport, Connecticut in February 19631

At first, everything seemed rosy for Synanon’s foray into the other side of the country. With ample local support, plans to use Westport as a stepping stone into the Northeast were underway. Connecticut’s United States Senator Thomas Dodd championed Synanon calling it, “one of the most dynamic and vital programs that I have experienced.”2 

Black and white photograph of a Victorian mansion with a grassy lawn, stone wall and gate.
Called the “Old Bedford House”, Synanon’s Westport location may have been the former residence of F.T. Bedford in Greens Farms. (Westport Museum Collection)

Residents in Westport and the neighboring towns of Norwalk and Bridgeport supported the non-profit with donations of food, supplies, and fundraising. The Sponsors of Synanon, a group founded by Westport resident Betty Sobol, helped underwrite and champion the organization. But not everyone on the East Coast was happy about Synanon’s growing presence. Residents complained “[Synanon] is in the wrong place”3 and balked “at the spectacle of criminals and addicts living in ‘respectable’ communities.”4 

By January of 1966, the Westport facility faced legal trouble that reached the Connecticut Supreme Court because the building was zoned for single-family residential use only. Synanon claimed its 30 residents were a “family” since they were all united in the single pursuit of remaining clean and sober. The Court disagreed and a month later ordered the non-profit to vacate the property. 

Boiling Point 

The year after Synanon departed from Westport, Synanon began to change dramatically – converting from rehabilitation to a fully-fledged cult. Members were no longer allowed to “graduate” from the program because Dederich had become convinced that, without the pressure of the community, they would relapse. Couples were now separated, and children were raised communally, with infants living in what was called “the hatchery.” Despite this, juvenile agencies and the California court system continued to send teenagers labeled “juvenile delinquents” to Synanon’s “Malibu Re-Education Camp” throughout the 1970s. At this detention center, teenage attendees were called the “Punk Squad.” 

Organizers soon found that Synanon’s hallmark methods, including participation in “The Game” had little effect on the Punk Squad teens who, unlike willing adult participants, had not consented to rehabilitation. Meanwhile, violence began to be a hallmark feature of Synanon at large. In 1973, in what some members would cite as a seminal moment, a session of The Game ended with Dederich pouring root beer over the head of a member. In 1973, teenagers were required to take part in The Game and became subject to escalating physical abuse. 

Soon young people began to escape from the cult. Alvin Gambonini, a neighboring rancher to Synanon’s Point Reyes facility, sheltered many who had managed to escape. In retaliation, cult members beat Gambonini in front of his family. 

By the time Synanon sought religious status in 1974, with Dederich as its leader, the organization numbered 1,300 members and had more than $30 million in assets. It was the largest property owner in Santa Monica and had a chain of gas stations and an airstrip by 1976. Dederich had fully abandoned nonviolence within Synanon and created the “Imperial Marines” to maintain order—within and outside of the community. Members were brainwashed, mentally tortured, and barred from leaving. Those who escaped were physically attacked if recaptured. In 1977, former member Phil Ritter was nearly beaten to death when his skull was fractured in retaliation for trying to free his child from the cult. 

By October 1978, Dederich’s mania and Synanon’s violent tactics reached a boiling point with the rattlesnake attack on attorney Paul Morantz. Although Morantz survived, he sustained long-lasting injuries from the highly venomous bites. Dederich was arrested on December 2nd, 1978 in connection with the attack as well as multiple other violent crimes. He avoided jail time by pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit murder and agreed to step away from Synanon entirely. As a result of the incident, Synanon’s non-profit status was revoked and the cult slowly collapsed before filing for bankruptcy in 1991. 

The Lasting Legacy of “Tough Love”

While Synanon may be gone, the group’s “tough love” approach of scaring or shaming individuals into rehabilitation, inspired programs that continue today. One such program is the infamous Élan school in Maine, which modeled its “general meetings” after Synanon’s “game,” with teens yelling at one another for any real or fabricated slight against anyone in the Élan house. 

Élan also took inspiration from the work assignments Synanon put in place for residents. Adolescents in Synanon were observed working in “the medical laboratory, in the kitchen, in the news office, in the law office, on the ranch, and in the warehouse.” Likewise, teenagers were responsible for everything from cleaning to cooking to enforcing and policing their dormitory. In both cases, adults – who were former members themselves – were meant to oversee the teens but were rarely present. Additionally, Élan allowed physical abuse in the form of a boxing ring between teens. The “treatment center” closed in 2011 amidst charges of abuse. 

Joe Ricci–Élan’s founder–attended Daytop Village, a rehabilitation program funded by former Synanon supporter Daniel Harold Casriel. Daytop staff included Synanon members and the program still operates today, though distancing itself from abuse allegations. According to a 1982 training textbook assembled for the National College of Juvenile Justice, Daytop Village and other similar centers including, Topic House, Phoenix House, Harmonie House, Odyssey House, Gateway incorporated Synanon principles. 

Despite reports like these, there remain rehabilitation organizations which have continued to use “tough love” methodologies created by Synanon to allegedly cure addiction, deter undesirable behavior, or force LGBTQ+ individuals into heteronormativity.

In a 2007 hearing about residential treatment programs where teenagers had died, the Forensic Audits and Special Investigations Unit in the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found many of these programs had “staff with little or no relevant training,” and engaged in manipulative and “misleading marketing practices” and “negligent and reckless operating practices.” The GAO further elaborated on the complexity of potentially abusive teen rehabilitation programs, noting that since the early 1990s the increasing number of residential treatment programs across the country operated without federal regulation. The investigation noted, “common names for these programs include boot camps, boarding schools and wilderness programs…which are typically in the mountains, the forest or the desert…All of these programs offer in some way to reform the lives of very troubled youth.” 

Despite reports like these, there remain rehabilitation organizations which have continued to use “tough love” methodologies created by Synanon to allegedly cure addiction, deter undesirable behavior, or force LGBTQ+ individuals into heteronormativity. Little action was taken until recently toward federal regulation of these programs and protecting the youth who find themselves inside them—in part because of the profit created by these institutions for the private equity firms that own them. 

In April of 2023 the Stop Institutional Child Abuse Act was introduced to the Senate by Senator Jeff Merkley [D-OR]. Exposing these programs and ensuring open communication about their practices is a key step toward providing better and safer mental health services for America’s troubled youth.

1 “Narcotics Aid Home Stirs Westport Zoning Question,” Bridgeport Post, February 12, 1963, 35.

2 “Dodd Urges Westporters: Give Synanon a Chance,” Bridgeport Post, February 24, 1963, 6. 

3 “Synanon at Home In Westport, And Not An Addict In the PLace,” Hartford Courant, July 21, 1963, 16. 

4 Yabionsky, Lewis, “Synanon, Vehicle for Addicts,” Bridgeport Post, February 14, 1965, 46. 


To learn more about public health in Westport explore our digital exhibition Taking the Cure.

Where Are the Period Rooms?

New staff member, Sasha Arellano, remembrances of the museum and why the historically themed spaces were retired.

When I applied to work at the Westport Museum for History & Culture in May of this year, I didn’t even realize it was no longer called the “Historical Society.” I remembered having fond memories at 25 Avery Place as early as 2004 (anyone remember the Teddy Bear Tea Parties?), but I hadn’t stepped foot inside the Bradley Wheeler house since I volunteered at the museum in college. I couldn’t even figure out as to why I hadn’t visited in so long.  

I was offered the job in June and was eager to start, but on my first day, I was stunned by how much had changed. I missed the homey feel and nostalgia of the period rooms.

In the programs gallery, I was met with a big panel of text that discussed the Paugussett people- the indigenous community of the area we now call Westport. As I am writing this, the word Paugussett is underlined as a misspelling by my computer. The community that is native to this area isn’t even recognized as a word.  

I moved on to the next panel, which states the museum’s mission. In short, the Westport Museum aims to “make history whole” by representing ALL voices in Westport’s history.  

As I went through our main exhibit, Playful Pastimes, I could see the mission statement was not just for show—its essence was weaved into each picture and piece of text I came across. The exhibit focuses on the “Golden Age of Leisure” in the early 20th century—think sports, games, and community events. While the overall theme was fun and colorful, the text was quick to acknowledge the downfalls of this period as well.  

Baseball, the classic American pastime, proved to be a game of discrimination for Black players, and became fully segregated until 1947. Biking, another favored activity, was looked down upon for women. World fairs, while showcasing mostly new inventions and gadgets, also displayed people of color from Africa, the Philippines, as well as indigenous Americans as “exhibitions.” While these are tough topics to discuss, we need to address them in order to see the entire view of our community’s history. Understanding the past lets us really understand why things are the way they are now—so we can ensure inclusion and respect for everyone in the future.  

Having walked through the Museum, I felt great about starting my new job—confident that I was part of an organization that was making a difference by sharing the truth. Sitting at the front desk, I was eager to share all we did with visitors. 

A lot of people come in as excited as we are to see what we’re doing. But then, there are others who are only focused on one thing: 

“Where are the periods rooms!?”  

“I don’t understand why you took them out.”  

“I bet you’d get more visitors if you brought them back.” 

So, Why Did the Period Rooms Have to Go?

As someone who grew up frequenting the museum, I LOVED the period rooms. Something about them made me feel so at home, despite being born at the turn of the 21st century. I understood our visitors’ sadness that they were no longer. However, once I started working at the museum, it became clear to me why the period rooms were not sustainable.   

The period rooms only showed a small glimpse into Westport’s history and did not align with our mission of inclusivity and telling the whole story. How can we understand Westport’s history when we are only being shown a minuscule portion of it?

It also became clear to me why I hadn’t visited for so long. When there is one main exhibit that never changes, people just don’t return that often to see the same thing. Without high visitation numbers, maintaining a museum becomes unsustainable. Many of the people who inquire about the period rooms follow up with “I haven’t been here in years, I was looking forward to seeing them!”  

Many of the people who inquire about the period rooms follow up with “I haven’t been here in years, I was looking forward to seeing them!” 


We hear you—but we also hear that you haven’t visited in a decade or so. Since we are an independent organization, admission fees are a huge part of what keeps the museum up and running. Rotating exhibits on different topics let us keep the public interested and piece together Westport’s history as it relates to the nation to tell as complete a story as possible. Plus, because we get to share a lot of super-interesting stories on a regular basis, we can aim to have something for everyone—including people who loved the period rooms. 

How? We include objects and costumes from our collection in our exhibits. Some of which were used to create the furnished rooms. The difference is that we provide a full and accurate interpretation of these items with lots of rich detail. Our Local History gallery tells the story of the house and the town very specifically, building on what the period rooms started all those years ago.

Now, we have the freedom to create period rooms across different eras when needed—like the 19th century parlor of the Adair family in our exhibit Legacy. Look for more of that in our 2026 programming for the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution. 

I hope that what I’ve written here has intrigued you enough to come and check out all that’s here—instead of what’s not.  


We’d love to see you soon & thank you for supporting our mission! 

Black History Month in Connecticut: Lessons About Race

The fight for equality of education—and for respect in the classroom for children and teachers of color—in Connecticut towns can be traced back nearly two hundred years. Entrenched social biases had long created de-facto segregation within the state’s education system. In 1831, the citizens of New Haven successfully fought the opening a mechanical college for Black men and in 1833 Prudence Crandall, a Quaker teacher was arrested in Canterbury, Connecticut for opening a school for young Black Girls. In 1868, in response to a state Educational Law requiring open enrollment in public schools despite students’ race or color, the Hartford School system voted for “separate but equal” schools for non-White children. 

By the twentieth century, negative attitudes toward Black students in largely White public schools—particularly in affluent neighborhoods—remained entrenched. While the active years of the Civil Rights Movement brought the legal fight against school segregation to the South, Northern communities were often overlooked for their de facto segregation of children of color from public schools.  

Project Concern

In July of 1970 a group called “Westporters for Equality in Schooling” sent a letter to Joan Schine, Westport Board of Education chair. The group asked for Project Concern, a national school integration plan which brought elementary age children of color from under-resourced areas of Bridgeport into Westport schools, to be placed on the board’s agenda. A bitter fight ensued. 

The program was overseen by Cliff Barton, a ground-breaking Black educator who was a former teacher and administrator with passion for looking after students with special needs—including those disenfranchised by racial inequality. Barton had joined the town school system in 1958—the same year former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt made public remarks about the need for human rights and human dignity to begin in “small spaces” including schools.  ”Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination,” she wrote.

Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home – so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm, or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination.


Eleanor Roosevelt, American political leader and activist

By December, the discussion to participate in Project Concern had moved to a vote. On the 7th the Board of Education passed the resolution to bus 25 African American students from grades 1 through 3 to Westport, with the final vote to pass being cast by chair Joan Schine herself.

The vote created community upheaval, and many protested the move, sparking the creation of the “Recall Committee”: a parent group formed to remove Mrs. Schine. On New Year’s Eve an article in the Bridgeport Post reported a petition with nearly 4,000 signatures was delivered to Town hall to request such a recall after Schine refused to hold a referendum. Local attitudes toward Project Concern can be viewed in the documentary film below. 

The City of Hartford had already opted into the program in 1966, with its own share of push back and criticism. Opponents of the vote feared that the program would lead to a “dangerous opening wedge in an undeclared campaign to bring more and more ghetto children into Westport with consequent dilution of the quality of education.”

Today in Westport, we are engaged in a situation in which the forces and agents with the most power reign temporarily in an eternal “king of the hill” struggle.


Joan Schine, Westport Board of Education Chair, 1971

Subsequently, the Westport Board of Selectman called for a special election to remove Ms. Schine. The case went to the Connecticut Superior Court and resulted in the dismissal of the proposed recall vote entirely. Schine continued in her role as Chair and remained active in the town government. In June of 1971 Joan was quoted saying, “Today in Westport, we are engaged in a situation in which the forces and agents with the most power reign temporarily in an eternal “king of the hill” struggle.”  

Where Are We Today?

Project Concern continued and expanded, evolving into Project Choice, and paved the way for programs like Open Choice and A Better Chance which continue today. Despite hard-won gains, the fight for true equity in schools continued leading one scholar to note in his article “Nineteenth Century De Jure School Segregation in Connecticut”: 

“It becomes increasingly evident that Connecticut’s response to the problem of racial isolation in its public schools has been in the past and is now characterized by flashes of decisiveness and statesmanship, interspersed with periods of anguished vacillation.” 

Today, Connecticut student body is almost equally divided between White and BIPOC students. Yet the state’s school districts remain highly segregated. White children largely attend schools with 75% other white children and BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color) children attend schools with 75% other BIPOC children. In 1996 the state Supreme Court ruled on Sheff Vs. O’Neill, finding that the Hartford School District was violating the state’s anti-segregation clauses. However, with little guidance or benchmarks toward achieving desegregation by 2003, little progress had been made.  


To learn more about artists, activists, and educators who impacted Westport and our African American community visit our Remembered exhibition with the button below.

Fighting for Freedom: Black Soldiers in the Civil War and Connecticut’s 29th Colored Regiment

Contributing Writer: Talia Moskowitz

The Emancipation Proclamation, signed in January 1863, freed enslaved people in the rebelling Southern states and allowed for the enlistment of African American soldiers into the Union military. On May 22nd of the same year, the United States Department of War issued General Order No. 143 which established the Bureau of Colored Troops. On November 13th, 1863, Colonel Dexter R. Wright and Colonel Benjamin S. Pardee proposed a bill authorizing Connecticut Governor William A. Buckingham to organize regiments of “colored” infantry. Connecticut Democrats, including Westport’s representative John Wheeler, denounced the bill. They argued that it would unleash “a horde of African barbarians” onto the South. They believed that the North would lose if Black soldiers were allowed to fight, alleging that Black soldiers were cowardly and disgraceful.

Nonetheless, Governor Buckingham authorized the bill, calling volunteers to make up the 29th Regiment Colored Volunteers. The response from the community of color in Connecticut was immediate and enthusiastic. In 1860, according to the census, less than 1.2% of Westport’s population was Black. While Black men made up .4% of the Westport population—only 14 individuals—13 enlisted. The 29th Connecticut Colored Infantry Regiment was organized at Fair Haven, Connecticut, under the command of Colonel William B. Wooster and mustered into service on 8 March 8th, 1864. In a state where 1.8% of the population was Black, the 1,600 Black men who enlisted made up 94% of the African American community who were eligible to volunteer.

Photos of Connecticut’s 29th Regiment, taken in Beaufort, South Carolina, 1864. (Library of Congress)

By January 1864, more than 1,200 Black men volunteered to join the 29th regiment. 400 of those joined the overflow colored regiment, the 30th, in January 1864. The 30th was later folded into the 31st Colored Infantry Regiment, which was mustered into service April 29th, 1864, on Hart Island in New York City.  

On January 29th, 1864, the soldiers of the 29th and 30th regiments listened to an address at the mouth of the Mill River in Fair Haven, Connecticut by the famed abolitionist Frederick Douglass, who told them: 

You are pioneers of the liberty of your race. With the United States cap on your head, the United States eagle on your belt, the United States musket on your shoulder, not all the powers of darkness can prevent you from becoming American citizens. And not for yourselves alone are you marshaled—you are pioneers—on you depends the destiny of four millions of the colored race in this country. If you rise and flourish, we shall rise and flourish. If you win freedom and citizenship, we shall share your freedom and citizenship.

— Frederick Douglass, 1864

The 29th Regiment was present and took part in the last attacks against the Confederate capital city of Richmond, Virginia, in April 1865 and were among the first to triumphantly march through Richmond’s streets. The 29th Regiment continued to fight after the war was “over” and reported for duty in Texas alongside their Connecticut brethren in the 31st. They aided in the efforts to enforce the emancipation of enslaved people in Galveston and oversee the peaceful transition of power, heading to Texas on June 10th and remaining until they were ordered to muster out of service on October 14th, 1865. 

There are fourteen members of the 29th Regiment listed as Westport residents. They are: Private (Pvt.) Samuel Benson, Pvt. Thomas Benson, Pvt. James Burns, Pvt. John Frye, Pvt. Thomas Gregory, Musician Frank Jackson, Pvt. Joseph H. Jackson, Pvt. William H. Jackson, Pvt. William H. Johnson (1st), Pvt. William H. Johnson (2nd), 1st Lieutenant Louis R. McDonough, Pvt. John Thompson, Pvt. Charles C. Williams, and Pvt. Charles Yan Tross. (Note: You may notice a discrepancy between our previous claim that 13 Black Westport residents enlisted, yet 14 names are listed here. That is because Louis R. McDonough was White.) 


Visit Our Exhibit

Interested in learning more about the Civil War in Westport? Visit our student-curated exhibit, “Reluctant Liberators: Westport in the Civil War.” The exhibit is free to view in our programs gallery and on display until November 11th, 2023.

A Brief Glimpse into the History and Fashions of Gay Weddings

For centuries, people in the gay community were unable to legally marry their chosen same-sex partners. Connecticut set a precedent by becoming one of the first of the American states to legalize gay marriage in 2008, but the fight for marriage equality in the United States continued. In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized same-sex marriage as a matter of law. The result was a boom in formal marriage ceremonies among the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ+) community. 

Choosing Their Own Path 

Ellen DeGeneres and her wife, Portia de Rossi, at their 2008 wedding. Ellen is wearing a white suit while Portia wears a dress. Photo by Lara Porzak Photography. 

Even before legal recognition, queer weddings were not new. Photographs and accounts of historic LGBTQ+ weddings were often carefully hidden away to ensure the safety of the couples and those in attendance. The few surviving photos provide intriguing glimpses into how LGBTQ+ couples chose to dress on their special day. While heterosexual tradition dictated that women wear gowns and men wear tuxedos, but no such formal precedent existed for LGBTQ+ couples. 

Queer couples…began to transform gender roles surrounding marriage to fit their unique needs… With each wedding, couples continue to personalize the traditionally heteronormative fashions of marriage.

Many LGBTQ+ couples did not conform to traditional gender roles. Surviving photos show some LGBTQ+ couples opting for conventional, gender-normative wedding garb, while others selected outfits that flouted tradition.

This wedding between a cisgender woman (Alyona Fursova, left) and transgender woman (Irina Shumilova, right) took place in Russia in 2014. While same-sex marriage was (and is) illegal in Russia, Irina was legally male at the time of the wedding. Both women opted to wear traditional white gowns. Photo by Roman Melnik. 

Queer couples — especially those composed of two women — began to transform gender roles surrounding marriage to fit their unique needs, with some women wearing tuxedos while others donned traditional wedding gowns. With each wedding, couples continue to personalize the traditionally heteronormative fashions of marriage.

What the Photos Tell Us 

Images that depict historical LGBTQ+ weddings can be seen on the internet. Unfortunately, we are unable to show most of them because they can’t be verifiably sourced. As a result, we are only able to describe these photos here. In one photo (circa 1930) showing the marriage of two women, one of the participants wears a wedding gown while the other wears a man’s military uniform complete with a sword. In three photos (circa 1928) of two women in wedding attire, one woman wears a white dress while the other sports a man’s suit and top hat.

Overall, there is a sad deficit in our knowledge about what LGBTQ+ couples wore when celebrating their weddings in decades and centuries prior. However, the photos and accounts that have survived give us some insight into the traditions and fashions of same-sex marriage. The trend continues today as modern couples celebrate their hard-won freedom to openly participate in an institution which historically denied them access. 

Want to learn more about the history of wedding fashions? Visit our exhibit I Thee Wed: Bridal Fashion from the Collection to see some of the Museum’s stunning wedding gowns and learn their stories.

Learning the Language

  • Heteronormativity is the assumption that heterosexuality – attraction to the opposite sex – is “normal” and “natural.” It assumes people are heterosexual by default and can be used to construe homosexuality – attraction to the same sex – as “unnatural.”  
  • LGBT is an initialism of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender. Sometimes a Q+ is added to include Queer and other sexual identities (LGBTQ+).  
  • Queer is an umbrella term used for those who do not identify as heterosexual and/or cisgender. 
  • Cisgender refers to a person who identifies with the gender they were assigned at birth.  
  • Transgender refers to a person who identifies with a gender different than the one assigned at birth.