Today in Racist Sexism

As Renee of Womanist Musings often points out, Black women in our society are in the double, (triple, I can't even figure out how many) bind of being constantly sexualized while also having the standard of beauty be explicitly based in Whiteness. They are accused of looking ugly and "masculine," but are assumed to be available at all times for sex (which feeds into rape culture). They are stereotyped as angry, but also expected to be "Mammy" figures who care for all around them.

This comes out in particularly horrifying ways when Black women athletes are reported on in the media. Caster Semenya comes to mind for me, and so does Venus Williams, and it is the treatment of Venus Williams in the linked article that I want to look at.

The title of this banal (but still incredibly offensive) "article" is "Venus Williams wears a racy dress..." and the actual website address calls her dress "see-through." Which is to say, that she designed (I've read elsewhere that she designs all her tenis outfits, correct me if I'm wrong) a dress where she has black lace overlaying brown cloth where the brown of the cloth shows through. The brown of the cloth is matched exceedingly well to her skin tone (given how off "skin tone" things usually are, regardless of the pigmentation of the wearer, I feel this is no small feat, just think of those ice skating outfits where the "skin tone" bits are just an entirely different color, even with White skaters). So of course, the first major error of this short (5 sentence) article is in the website address, and it is that the dress is "see-through". It is no more "see through" than my pants I am wearing right now.
(I also remember that a while ago, a similarly ridiculous article was written about another outfit that she wore where she again matched her skin tone and the cloth color in order to not show her underwear (I believe). Again they described this as "shocking" or "scandalous.")

Another error of the article is referring to the outfit as a "can-can" outfit, given that it does not share the key requirement of can-can outfits in that it doesn't have a long flouncy skirt (with frills underneath) for the high kicking necessary to rate her activity as the can-can.

The next bit of offensiveness is in the first sentence, where they state that Venus Williams could "find work" at the Moulin Rouge. They then clarify that they mean the historical Moulin Rouge in the third sentence when they reference her "auditioning for a spot at a 19th century cabaret."
For context, the wikipedia article on the Moulin Rouge euphemistically refers to the original dancers at the Moulin Rouge as "courtesans." Of course, it also describes them as the originators of the striptease, and states that the can-can as developed by the courtesans was "an attempt to seduce potential clients" (ummm, what type of clients could they possibly be referencing?) and that in the course of the dance, the revealing of genitals sometimes happened (because that happens all the time at the ballet!). To really hit home what the Moulin Rouge was (and what the dancers were considered to be), even though the article doesn't *explicitly* state that it was a whore-house, it nevertheless refers to when the Moulin Rouge suddenly became a "legitimate nightclub" and that it had a "reputation as a 'high-class brothel'" (which would hardly be necessary to state if it was truly a nightclub in the beginning). So let's just acknowledge it for what it was at the time: a strip club where the workers probably often had sex with the clients.

So, back to the article (sorry for the digression), they are explicitly referring to the historical Moulin Rouge and saying that she could "find some work" there. So they are saying that a strong Black woman athlete is equivalent to a prostitute (or at "best" a stripper).

I want to state for the record that I do not view sex work as an immoral thing/profession. I do not believe that individuals who engage in non-coercive sex work (so, leaving out pimps for instance) are immoral for doing so. However, in our society it is extremely stigmatized to be a sex worker of any stripe, and the most stigmatized group are prostitutes.

And this article compared Venus Williams to a sex worker/prostitute in an effort to shame her.


ARRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH.

That is all in: Today in Racist Sexism.

Search Engines Say the Darndest Things

Ok friends, I generally try to not post more than once a day, because so often I post less than once a day, so I figure: "why not spread out the joy* a little?"
But, today, I just couldn't help myself, because there is something that is absolutely necessary for you to know.

I have a little widget that lets me know how many people stop by the blog/read what posts/etc. It also tells me what searches brought my visitors to The Deviated Norm. One of most recent searches that landed someone here was...

"transgender AND gender bender AND rock fucking AND porno web sites"

I like to think that I'm a pretty open minded guy, but I seriously have to ask something. What the hell is rock fucking?
I identify as kinky, even though there are certainly kinky things that people do that I'm not interested in, I usually know about them. I know about the more regular BDSM fetishes, I know about leather and latex fetishes, I know about Furry communities and people who really enjoy dressing up as babies and get sexual satifaction from that. I know about golden showers and coprophilia. I know about people who are into surface piercing as foreplay, and flogging, and foot fetishes. I know people who are necrophiles. I know even that all of these things I've mentioned are *somewhat* common, if not super common. But rock fucking? I have no idea what the hell that is.

I mean, I honestly feel a little bad for whoever it was that searched for that and got this, because it seems highly unlikely that they found what they were looking for: I'm a pissed off trans* guy (hardly titilating, I mean, unless you really like pissed of trans* guys in a sexual way), one of my most linked to/read/commented on posts is about my deep dislike for gender bending fiction, and there isn't any pornos to be seen here. I also don't think I have any pictures of rocks up on the site.

So, I'm sorry anonymous reader interested "rock fucking" pornos, perhaps you could explain what you were looking for?


*or whatever

Advertising that Makes Deviant E Get All Cranky

Sorry for the long absence.

So let's jump right in with two examples of advertising that creeped me out and pissed me off (for very similar reasons) without them showing or saying a single negative thing.

We'll start off with a Brawny Towel ad with an animated lumberjack singing "Lean On Me"

Opening shot in the most creepy supermarket ever, where they have only two brands of paper towels all in single packs: colorful Brawny (red, yellow, black and white) and a brand apparently called “Paper Towels” in monotone blue and lighter shades of blue. Not only do they have merely two brands of paper towels, but the White woman in business casual, with a full shopping cart of food loaded willy-nilly (vegetables and fruits on the bottom getting *crushed*) is apparently standing in an aisle whose sole purpose is to show off these two brands of paper towels on every single shelf for as far as the eye can see. The red and blue dichotomy of the paper towels cuts down the middle of the screen, where she is standing making a decision between brands.
White woman goes to get Paper Towel brand paper towels.
[Cue modified “Lean on Me” with lone male voice: “Lean on me, when you need something strong”]
She looks delightedly up and over towards the Brawny towels, apparently she has heard the cued music as well.
Cut to close up shot of Brawny cartoon/icon (White man in red plaid, looking somewhat “lumberjack-ish”) on the front of a paper towel package singing. Yes, creepy little icon man is the one singing “Lean on Me”
Cut to wider shot, showing 6 or so identical animations singing: “and I’ll be your friend” as they gesture in unison.
Cut to still wider shot, now showing 3 shelves full of identical gesturing/singing animations on the fronts of paper towel packages all singing and gesturing in unison. White woman watches them, somehow not in abject terror. As she scans all of the animations we see the back of her head. [Chorus continues with: “I’ll help you carry on”]
Cut to woman of indeterminate race/ethnicity (dark curly hair, skin that isn’t pasty white) in kitchen. She has just started walking away from blender full of pink liquid. Blender is on and liquid gushes up, forcing top of blender off and spilling pink everywhere. Woman looks back and belatedly attempts to get to blender before it spills.
[“so call on me brother when you need a hand”]
Cut to hand of woman with paper towel wiping up pink liquid.
Cut to Black woman (mom?) and Black boy (son?) in kitchen. They are at sink and son has paper towel in hand as he cleans caked-on egg off of nonstick pan. Mother is standing behind him holding onto pan as well, smiling down at pan/him as he cleans.
[“we all need somebody”]
Cut to hand holding paper towel going in circles continuing to get remaining egg off.
Cut to White man (father?) and White girl (daughter?) near some stairs. He has a paintbrush in hand and the wall is taped with painter’s tape. Daughter is wiping his face with a paper towel for no discernible reason.
[“to lean on”]
Cut back to front of single paper towel where lumberjack-ish White animation now speaks (music without words continues in background): “Brawny now comes with a money back guarantee.”
Cut to White woman (mother?) and White girl (daughter?) at kitchen sink. Voice over continues: “When you want a paper towel that can do it all,”
Girl is holding paper towel outstretched over sink. Mother has colander of grapes which tips onto paper towel, without towel tearing. Text at bottom says: “Approximately 10 oz seedless grapes, moistened.” Mother and daughter smile as grapes are caught.
Cut back to lumberjack-ish icon pointing at himself, he continues: “Lean on me”
Cut back to shelves full of animations as they finish singing/song: “something strong”.
Cut back to White woman in store picking out a roll of Brawny and placing it in grocery cart in a satisfied manner, she then walks off screen.
Cut to picture of single Brawny roll on tile with information about the money back guarantee in text on screen. Creepy animation says: “Brawny never lets you down”

as always, click on the cut link for as complete a transcript as I can make.

Next we have a Macy's ad for jewelry, with the song "Seasons of Love" being sung in the background.

Opening screen: Black with white star
Music starts, singing throughout:
“five hundred twenty-five thousand, six hundred minutes,”
Cut to picture of tiny baby hand holding adult thumb in that cute way babies hold thumbs.
Cut to (presumably) same baby and father (both Black or Latin@), as baby cuddles onto father’s chest and father holds zir close.
Cut to White older heterosexual couple (white hair) at presumably anniversary party (white balloons) while White child arms hand them a white box. White man has arm around White woman’s shoulder as she accepts box.
Cut to same couple in black and white footage from slightly different angle as they hug and kiss each other on the cheek. White woman has prominently displayed matching earrings and necklace and is holding gift box.
“How do you measure, measure a year?”
Cut to color footage of White rugby playing man in rain coming up to woman. They embrace in a romantic manner. They are smiling.
Cut to close up of her chest where a heart shaped pendant is hanging on a chain.
Cut to White girl in pink walking carrying tray filled with a fork and knife, plate full of food, orange juice, a card saying “Mom” (with a heart and two stick figures drawn in crayon) and a box in a gift bag. Girl looks up at camera smiling.
Cut to same girl and White mother lying in bed together. Mother is holding a star shaped pendant on a chain, and daughter is playing with it. They are looking at each other and the necklace.
“In daylight, in sunsets?”
Cut to first obviously interracial couple. We see two held hands, one Black, one White. Both arms have some type of bracelet on them.
Cut to same couple as they run on the beach towards the surf. It is a heterosexual couple. The sun is low in the sky. White woman is in two piece bikini, Black man is in swimming trunks.
Cut to same couple as he holds her and she leans back, seemingly joyfully. They are still on beach with setting sun.
“in midnights in cups of coffee?”
Cut to black and white footage of mixed race group of women in fancy clothes. White woman in middle has cup of champagne in hand. There is a chandelier in background. All of the women are dancing.
Cut to color footage of Black dancer (from previous shot) up close, as she dances/shakes her head. We see matching earrings and necklace.
Cut to White woman with prominent ring and necklace drinking a cup of coffee.
“In inches, in miles?”
Cut to black and white footage of Black male barber cutting White boys head. Barber has prominently displayed watch.
Cut to color footage of Black woman jogging while pushing Black child in stroller. She has something shiny on her wrist.
“in laughter, in strife?”
Cut to White couple in wedding regalia. Man is wearing tux and bow tie, woman is wearing white wedding gown. They are smiling, she has a bouquet of flowers. Prominently displayed jewelry (shocking, I know).
“How do you measure a year in the life?”
Cut to black screen with information about Macy’s jewelry. Female voice over says: “Fine jewelry for over a hundred and fifty years. For every celebration. ”
Cut back to White couple getting married. Man holds woman in arms while woman shows off wedding ring.
Cut to black screen as voice over continues: “That’s the magic of Macy’s.”

as always, click on the cut link for as complete a transcript as I can make.


So, what creeps me out and pisses me off about these two ads? It has something to do with the idea of taking songs from oppressed groups and putting them into your advertising, and in the process making invisible their origins.
"Lean on Me" was written in 1972. It is a song written by a Black man, in the Soul genre, at a time just following the organized Civil Rights movement. It's a song about community and the strength and power that can be found when people rally together.
The voice in the advertisement sounds stereotypically "Black" and is singing in the genre that the song comes from. Yet they have a White lumberjack as the animated icon portrayed as singing it. They took a song that could reasonably be seen as a song about the strength of social movements, and erased the Black origin of it, and put it into a fucking Paper Towel ad. I suppose I'm meant to be grateful that they included a Black family in the footage? That pisses me off and creeps me out. And of course, they screwed around with the lyrics in the process so that they could do this.
"Seasons of Love" was written for the musical Rent. It's a musical about AIDS. It has numerous gay characters. Seriously, out of a main cast of 7-8 people, 4 of them are in same-gender relationships.
In the advertisement, is there a single gay couple depicted? Nope. There are numerous romantic couples depicted, and not a single gay one amongst them. The ad writers took a song that is couched in the AIDS epidemic (at the time it was written, primarily associated with gay men), and somehow manage to take away all reference to gayness in the advertisement.

Neither of the ads was explicitly racist or homophobic. But by their decision to make things more "universally appealing," they took songs from particular oppressed groups and put them in the mouths of their oppressors. They took something away from the Black community and the Gay community and gave it to Whites and Straights. If we(gays)/they(Black people) aren't good enough to be the icons of your feel good advertising, then you get no fucking right to our creative endeavors.

Today In Meet a Poly Person: Drama Does Not Define Us

Often in online conversations about poly people's relationships, real lived experiences of poly people, (or people in open relationships, or swingers, or anyone else who isn't monogamous) are ignored. There will be a strawperson (or strawrelationship) set up for the blogger or commenter to knock down in their quest to show how very bad and no good we non-monogamous people are. This series was set up in order to combat that. People in non-monogamous relationships aren't all the same, so our experiences aren't.

Hi, I'm Jadelyn, blogger at Witch.Words (and also sometimes at The Border House). I'm a mid-twenties bisexual polyamorous feminist Witch, a student, and a gamer. When I'm not hefting my teaspoon in various arenas of activism, I can be found working towards finishing my years-delayed B.A. and playing way too many video games.

When I try to describe the last year and a half of my relationships to friends I haven't spoken with in awhile, I always get the same reaction. In text, it's something like this: "...wow. That's really complicated, isn't it?" And in person, it's the same plus the addition of raised eyebrows and a very careful neutral tone. It's hard, in our culture, to adequately describe the shifting dynamics of a somewhat fluid polyamorous arrangement.

Some quick terminology notes to begin with, for those unfamiliar with the vocabulary of polyamory. Primary refers either to one's primary partner or relationship. This is the relationship which all involved parties have agreed takes precedence over the others, if a conflict arises. Generally, one is assumed to spend more time and energy on one's primary relationship and partner than on one's secondary and tertiary relationships. Triad refers to a three-person relationship; it may be an equilateral triad - all three persons are considered primary partners - or non-equilateral - one relationship between two participants is primary, and both of those primary partners have a secondary relationship with the third person.

Back to my story. In the past year and a half, my 6-year primary relationship opened to include a third in a nearly-equilateral triad arrangement. It was my first experience with polyamory, and it began as a one-night stand, but we then fell in love and entered what was to be a nearly year-long triad relationship. About ten months later, I reconnected with an old ex and met his fiancee; they, too, are poly, and I became their third. Shortly thereafter, the woman who'd joined my primary and I as our third left the relationship, and things between my primary and I got rocky for awhile. Another six months later, and the other triad I was involved in ended rather explosively (long story), right as I struck up a casual relationship outside these varied triads with a long-time friend of my then-primary and I. Finally, the new relationship with my primary's and my friend proved to be the final push that helped me realize it was time to end the primary relationship I'd had. So in the space of 18 months, I went from a single one-man-one-woman relationship, to a FFM triad, then I became the second F in someone else's FFM triad, then it was my old primary and I, plus still my new triad, then the primary and I and my other relationship, and finally it's boiled down to me, engaged to the friend, and us currently living monogamously.

Through all of this, I've seen (and, sadly, participated in, though I like to think I've learned from the experience) the kind of behavior that makes non-poly people tsk and shake their heads and say "That's what I told you would happen." 2009 was a drama-full year for me, relationships-wise, I admit that. But I've also seen and participated in poly arrangements that were as stress-free as any relationship, monogamous or otherwise, and even more so than some of the monogamous relationships I've had. In fact, I would say that opening our relationship to the woman we came to love greatly enhanced my original primary's and my relationship. We fought less. We had more fun, both with and without her. We both suddenly had avenues to explore in our own relationship needs and sexual desires, that weren't there before. And I will always treasure the great gift that relationship gave me: the knowledge that jealousy is not inevitable. Our culture would have us believe that jealousy is the natural state of a relationship, that affection is a zero-sum game and our partner enjoying the company of another somehow diminishes their love for us. But I learned otherwise. I learned that jealousy follows from insecurity, and that when one's partners are gentle of one's feelings and careful to offer all the reassurance and love one asks for and needs...the jealousy goes away. I learned how to sort through my feelings; how to have open, frank discussions of wants and needs and boundaries in a relationship, and how to respect the conclusions of such discussions. I learned how to tell when I was really hurt by something, and when I just needed to ask for some reassurance to feel okay again; and most importantly, I learned that there is no shame in asking for what I need, because it allows the relationship to continue functioning happily instead of creating resentment.

I am an imperfect poster child for polyamory. As any social justice activist could tell you, it's always easiest to "justify" one's cause to the other side when you have the "right kind" of example, the easy case. For pro-choicers, for example, it's easier to use as an example a mother of two whose pregnancy with a third and wanted child suddenly threatens certain death if she carries to term, because nobody could possibly dispute the necessity of that abortion. Those advocating for health-care reform garnered better results from the angry masses when talking about a single parent with cancer who was laid off and now is dying without the ability to access insurance or treatment. It's easier to push for same-sex marriage when you can show couples who have been together for 50 years, than to acknowledge the serial monogamists or LGBs who only casually date. And when it comes to polyamory, it's easiest to legitimize it in the eyes of skeptical monogamists if one can point to long-term, stable, drama-free, "perfect" poly arrangements, because the fewer visible flaws the relationship(s) have, the harder it will be to pick it apart and blame everything bad on the polyamory. I, on the other hand, with my drama and shifting from one arrangement to another, in quick succession and not always cleanly, am easy pickings for critics, who would claim that all the drama in my love-life stems from the polyamory itself, not the relationships or the people involved.

But it is for that reason that relationships like mine need to be visible, too. Otherwise we allow the disapproving masses to set the bar on what kind of poly is acceptable and what isn't, and nobody wants their relationship to be judged by someone else's standards. If we allow that, then where is the threshold set? Are only stable triads acceptable? How long must a relationship last before it's considered "stable"? Can people sneer at you and question the legitimacy of your relationships and say your husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend/partner doesn't "really" love you, because you're poly, so long as it's an open relationship of under, say, 5 years duration? Polyamory is about respecting the legitimacy of all kinds of love relationships, because we understand that what works for one person won't necessarily work for another. And that includes those poly arrangements which aren't perfectly stable, those which are semi-dysfunctional, because perfection should not be a requirement of our existence any more than it is for monogamous relationships.

As for my poly future? I'm deeply interested in working toward the legalization of polymarriage here in the U.S., because in an equilateral poly group, how do you decide who marries who? Like it or not, marriage confers a certain stamp of legitimacy on relationships in our culture, and it would be terribly hurtful to have to say, "This pair out of the relationship is the "real" one, the legitimate one, and everyone else is legally an afterthought." And while I'm living monogamously with my fiance for the moment, we have talked it over, and we've decided that if or when we meet the right woman, and she's amenable, we would be willing to open our relationship into a triad. I found I was much happier and more comfortable in a mostly- or nearly-equilateral triad than in a situation with multiple independent relationships, or a deeply imbalanced triad; that's just what works best for me. So I very much hope that the Universe allows me another chance to experience that happiness in my life.

Are you Non-Monogamous? Poly? Become a Guest Blogger!

I have recently started the series "Today In: Meet a Poly Person" which I'm hoping will attract people to write narratives combating the idea that there is a single way to be poly, and that people in non-monogamous relationships are bad or deluded or whatever word is the newest way to slam us. So, if you think this might be a thing you'd be qualified/interested in writing about (hint, if you identify as poly/non-monogamous, regardless of your current relationship, or if you are currently in a non-monogamous relationship, then you qualify), please feel free to email me at the address connected with this blog: thedeviatednorm (at gmail)

What I'm looking for is a plethora of voices about the different ways that non-monogamous people relate to commitment, love, relationship styles, children, sex, dating, and just about anything else falling into the "relationship" category that you can think of. And especially people's reasons for being non-monogamous, (aka what drew them to non-monogamy).

I'd also be interested in having people include how polyphobia/their identity as non-monogamous interacts with other oppressions that they have faced (if one wanted to talk about how ze as a poly person of color felt accepted or not into the poly community, or the way that being a woman in a non-monogamous relationship adds to the judgement placed on you, etc.), since it's important in order to create a more full picture of the poly/non-monogamous communities that we not neglect the to acknowledge -isms within our own communities or how our identites shape one another.

Also, if you are in the non-monogamous/poly community and you aren't interested in writing, but you think you might know someone who would be, please feel free to pass this invitation along to hir as well.