Scooters, Women's Bodies, and Male Anger

[Trigger warning for Male Anger manifesting in misogynistic language, threats of violence, and verbal harrassment]

Bluejay and I got a scooter back in the spring which we have been using daily as our main mode of transportation. Scooters are excellent, especially in the city. In the city no one can go much faster than 30 mph (the speed that a scooter tops out at) for long stretches anyway. In the city there are often long lines at lights where scooters can mosey up the right side and then scoot off into the sunset when the light turns. In most municipalities, scooters have rights to the bike lanes, thus making us potentially safer than otherwise. Scooters look cool (ours is creamsicle-like, white and orange), and they awesome gas mileage (on a tank of gas from a crappy gas station we only get 50 mpg but on a tank of gas from a high end station we get like 90 or 100 mpg).

One thing that isn't so great about scooters though is Male Anger. Scooters (and bikes) tend to make men in SUVs cranky. A few months back when Bluejay and I were going somewhere (yep, it fits two people), we stopped at the red light. Seems pretty normal, right? Other than the asshole in the SUV (actual bumper sticker: Got Oil?) behind us apparently wanted us to continue out into traffic. He honked, (Bluejay gave him the finger, he doesn't like the tendency of Boston drivers to honk at you for following traffic laws). I took the right on red I was planning on taking moments ago anyway (after having actually deliberated on whether another car would hit us if I did... you know, following those pesky traffic laws). He of courseb sped up, pulled around us into another lane, yelled curse words out the window at us, (I gave him the finger, not realizing that this was the second finger of the encounter), and proceeded to pull into the lane in front of us and weave back and forth from lane to lane when I tried to get out from behind him. Male Anger. Sort of terrifying. You know, what with us being on an open to the elements motorized bicycle, and him in a fucking Hummer (no joke). The best that could be said about him was that he had absolutely no respect for the fact that his actions could have killed us, the worst that could be said is that he was actively attempting to get us to crash.

Last night, on my way home from class I got another taste of the way that scooters elicit male anger. You should know that Boston has a notoriously large community of bicyclists that a) almost never follow traffic laws (as in passing lines of cars stopped at a red for the past minute, and then proceeding to somehow make a left on the red through oncoming traffic), b) rarely wear safety gear (brakes?!? who gives a shit about brakes! helmets? pah! they'll mess up my carefully mussed hair). Perhaps you've noticed from my rhetoric a slight disdain for that type of "loose"ness with one's safety? As in, that even if I meander towards the front of a stopped line I don't actually breeze through reds, and that I wear a helmet, and not a "brain bucket" helmet, but a full helmet with a clear eye guard that I put down in inclement weather.

So I'm stopped at the light waiting for an opening to take my left when a guy pulls up to me (I don't notice him, focusing on oncoming cars) and hisses out the window "put your face mask down, Bitch," just as there is an opening/I'm leaving. Usually in encounters like this I'm too flabbergasted, but in this case I knew exactly what I wanted to say but the coward/asswipe had already sped off.

Does this guy give such helpful safety tips to all the guys around town who think that little half-melon helmets are sufficient? Does he hiss "buy a better helmet, MAN (said with derision)" when he passes them? Does he perhaps verbally assault the male bicyclists he sees around town as they go from place to place without any protective headgear? I mean, really, what exactly is he trying to accomplish here. Did my facemask offend his delicate sensibilities?

I'm not a woman, but he clearly thought I was. I feel (just maybe) that he found the idea of a woman scooting as intimidating. Why? The experience got me to thinking about a town I used to live in where the entire biking community knew about this person who would drive around and while passing them (while they were being entirely safe and legal) would shout obscenities at them (calling them "bike faggots," among other things), and the police refused to do anything because they never "caught her in the act" and she would explain that she was just doing it for bicyclists' "safety" (uh huh? pull the other, it's got bells on it). What is it about bikes and scooters that scares people? What is it about them that is coded as "feminine" (the use of "faggot" I feel like is pretty indicative of a desire/belief that bicyclists are somehow effeminate or less manly if they aren't already women)? And why this need to police the bodies of those who are assumed to be women (or are just assumed to be feminine men)?

Recent Searches and What they Mean to Me

I've been looking at the search terms that get people here to this fine blog (still a WHOLE LOT of hits on my post about why I don't like gender bender fiction. Frankly, I'm pretty sure that years from now I'll be known as "that guy that wrote about gender bender fiction").

While I think that the person searching for gender bending rock fucking pornos is by far my most confusing of searchs, I want to talk a little about 2 general types of searches that I've been getting recently that really strike home for me.

The first is a couple with searches about like so:
"what is it called when u dont like any gender"
So, since I think this is important information to get out into the world: the word you are looking for is asexual. It's a growing movement, of which I am not really a part ('cause I sure do like sex and I haven't really put in the hours/energy to count myself an ally), which isn't exactly a situation where you don't like any gender (I know that some people who identify as asexual nevertheless have romantic relationships and inclinations towards certain genders of non-sexual partner, etc.). I don't know a whole lot more, because, as I said, I am not asexual or really an ally*. I suggest looking for some of their blogs. Here, I'll get you started (I do not vouch for these, I just googled and found them): Love from the Asexual Underground, and AVEN: the Asexuality Visibility and Education Network.
If you are typing words to the effect of "someone who doesn't like people of any gender" into a search engine because you feel like they describe yourself: awesome! Naming what you feel is a great first step to recognizing and loving yourself.
If you are typing those words because a loved one has told you they aren't attracted to people of any gender, also great (that you're taking the time to learn about this), though again, I would suggest not looking to me for answers.


The next major search result that I want to talk about is less happy fun times and more crankyness. That is "ffm." I get a lot of these (ffm marriage, ffm poly, ffm triad, etc). I guess they all go to Jadelyn's guest post Drama Does Not Define Us. The thing is, FFM relationships are the stereotypical poly triad that people (read: straight cis men) talk about.
All the jokes about "oooh, threesomes" are based on the idea of male pleasure/sexuality and about how "hot" it would be to have TWO WOMEN who were having sex with you at once (if you were a straight cis man). There's an assumption that women in these relationships are "able" to have queer relationships at the whim of a man but that men should never be expected to put up with another GUY in their relationship, OH NOES (and certainly not that a guy could be attracted to a man)! It's a frustrating meme, that is frustratingly common.
I really enjoyed the book Opening Up except at those times where Taormino seems to very uncritically take at face value those relationships that fall into the "one penis policy" ("OPP"). I hate that fucking policy. It's a terrible, sexist thing that apparently happens with some frequency.

The "OPP," as I've heard it described is basically as such: a straight (cis) couple is going to open up their relationship. The woman is bi/bi-curious and the man is not. Therefore, he states that it is fair that they both get to have sex outside of the relationship with women. But no men. Afterall, he can't enjoy having sex with men, so how is it fair for her to have sex with men? Not to mention that it'll make him jealous (of course SHE won't be jealous of him having sex with other women because... ummmm.... because women are magical non-jealous people! and because, like, duh, she'll be getting to have sex with women too, so it's totally fair!), and that she might leave him for another penis. It's often offered as a "stepping stone" to a more fair situation where she isn't artificially limited by her partner's genitalia, but that "just for the moment" he isn't comfortable with it. Only, very rarely does it seem that the "moment" ever ends. I mean, why would it? He gets to sleep around with whoever he'd want to sleep with, while he controls his partner/girlfriend/wife! What's not to love hate?

I don't know why people are searching for "FFM poly" and "FFM marriage" on my pretty lil' blog. It might be that they are all happily in such an arrangement. It might be that they are a woman and are actively seeking out such an arrangement. It could be a multitude of things. But you should know, if you don't fall into those aforementioned categories, if you are, say, a straight single (or currently coupled) cis guy fantasizing about how poly chicks are all about the FFMs, or how awesome a threesome would be? Stuff it. I'm sick of poly being envisioned as this field of pussy for the penises to frolick amongst. Poly relationships take work. Queer relationships are as meaningful/"real" as straight relationships (frankly, I feel like sometimes they are more meaningful/real, but I suppose I'm just biased what with being queer). FFM triads and threesomes and V relationships should not be about making the man happy, but about making EVERYONE happy.

Also, in case you're wondering? Any triad I'll be in will probably be QQQ (or possibly QQF, or QQM). Where are the searches for those types of relationships?

*Besides acknowledging that it is a: real, b: not bad, and c: not inherently a "phase." I do consider myself to have gone through a year long phase of asexuality where I didn't have crushes on people, I didn't fantasize about sex, and I was just plain asexual. However me saying that it was a phase for me is no more implying that asexuality is "just a phase" for others, than me saying that since I happened to go through a 10 year phase of assumed heterosexuality, that heterosexuality is "just a phase" for the rest of the world (that is heterosexual). Just because something was/is a "phase" for some people doesn't mean that the identity was/is any less valid. Though I do note that the phrase is almost entirely used by our society when referring to identities that we want to discredit or mark as "bad," so see point "b" for how I feel about that.

"How Many Different Fathers?": On the Intersection of Classism, Racism, Polyphobia, and Sexism

At my agency, families are supposed to be our clients. However, since children are not expected to change their behavior (so long as they are under 16, I believe), the onus of responsibility in ensuring that a case closes generally falls on the mother. Almost always the mother. Regardless of whether the case opened because the father's neglect of the children, and even sometimes regardless of whether it opened because of his abuse of them. Which is a whole other enraging post.

I have yet to have a case where a single father is raising children with the mother out of the picture, whereas the majority of my cases are ones where a woman is raising her children on her own, sometimes due to death of the father, more often due to the relationship ending and the woman "naturally" being given responsibility to raise the children. I often have cases where the father, who is still with the mother, doesn't live with the children, and as such his participation is seemingly only "encouraged" rather than "required" by the Department.

But, I wasn't intending to talk about my feelings about the Department's sexism. Or at least not about that particular iteration of its sexism. Instead I wanted to talk about the judgement that my clients receive about how many different fathers of how many different children they have.

It is, frankly, infuriating that social workers give a rat's ass about some other social worker's client's number of current or former partners. It's bad enough when I have to hear about some other worker's client who *OH NOES!* has 3 children from three different relationships, but to have people begging to know the details of my clients' sexual relationships? IN. FUR. IATE. ING. As it is when I'm complaining about a case to someone other than a coworker, and totally unrelated to what I'm saying, they need to know how many kids/fathers there are in the picture.

The thing is, I seriously don't give a shit how many partners someone has had, other than to get important information about familial relations between siblings and their parents. It is very relevant to me when I find out that one child's father is in jail, but the other child's father lives nearby and comes over once a month. It is relevant to me when I hear that a father of one of the children says that he "wouldn't mind" taking the other children if custody is taken away from the mother. These things matter to me because they say something potentially about how each child feels cared for in their family. They don't matter to me so that I can judge the mother better.

You know what literally never crosses my mind when talking to a mother who has had multiple sexual partners, and children with more than one?

That she doesn't respect herself.
That she is promiscuous and therefore less moral.
That she is out of control.
That she is stupid.

I had trouble writing that list because a) since I don't think those things automatically, it's hard to dredge them up when I try to, b) I fucking hate that these are considered appropriate things to think about someone else's choices to have children or not (or more likely, sex or not, because lots of people would just as harshly judge a woman who has had 3 abortions due to multiple sexual relationships as they would a woman with three children from multiple partners).

But I can see these thoughts scurrying across the faces and hear them embedded in the tones of those who ask me salaciously for my clients' relational details. And you know what? My clients all know that people judge them for these things. I know they know because on the few occasions where I've been able to convince (through my tone, body language, and probably some verbal cues) a client that I am not judging them for their sexual choices (or their father's or mother's sexual choices), they have invariably opened up to me emotionally and physically (less guarded posture, giving me details of their family lives, etc.) more than they had before, and more than they have with other workers.

So, this happens. Where does it come from? Perhaps you've noticed that I titled this post "On the Intersection of Classism, Racism, Polyphobia, and Sexism".

Most of my clients are poor (ok, all of my clients are poor).
Most of my clients are people of color (I was going to get my first white family this week, but another case came back so I still have a history of only families of color).

In our culture, poverty and non-whiteness are treated as though they are synonymous. This isn't the case, but you'll notice that my clients are all poor and they have all been people of color, so they *are* linked.
In some ways, I think the judgement is mostly a facet of classism, because there is an assumption that more wealthy people's relationships have been deliberated on (regardless of how long they lasted prior to marriage or children), whereas there is an assumption (and I can't say whether it's based in fact at all) that poor people are less likely to be married when they have children (I could see this being based in fact because it costs money to marry, and costs even more to divorce), which codes as "less likely to have thought about the relationship, prior to having children" (regardless of whether they've been together for 10 years) according to our society.
However, at the same time, since whiteness = money in our culture, a white family is not assumed to be poor as readily as family of color is. So, when we talk about "poor people" having lots of children "recklessly," as a society we are to be more honest as to our underlying thought processes, talking about "people of color" having lots of children "recklessly." As such, a random family of color* will be more likely to be assumed to have been the product of multiple relationships, as compared to a random white family. Related to this is the fact that since the majority of clients at my office are families of color, a "default" family that is being talked about, unless specified as white, will be assumed to be black (or maybe latino, depending on the social worker's experiences), and as such questions about sexual histories will be mapped onto a "default" family of color.

So that takes care of the classism and racism aspects of what I see going on when people ask "how many fathers?" (incredulously or certain of the answer, take your pick).

What about the sexism and polyphobia?

Well, as mentioned above, the vast majority of childraising parents are women. So, while fathers do get judged for having multiple children, just as often, I hear the mothers being judged for being in a relationship with a man with other children. Additionally, fathers often visit their children at their children's mothers' houses. As such, they have an ability to deny certain children if they wish, and social workers have an ability to neglect to wonder about other children, since there aren't any children in front of them requiring explanations. It's like a magic trick: "No children to see here!" And of course, in those instances where a woman has had multiple children with multiple partners, I NEVER hear judgement of the father for getting involved with a woman with other children. Usually, so long as he doesn't treat the other children like crap, he's just about lauded as a hero for having the courage and kindness to be able to love a woman with other children. Or something.

I trust I don't need to say that women's sexuality is highly stigmatized and denigrated in our society, and that children are the ultimate proof of sexuality. Do I? Because it is. So of course, that's another layer on the judgment cake.

And lastly, the thing that all ties it together with a big fucking bow is the fact that as a society, monogamy is viewed as moral whereas anything else is not. There is a book called The Ethical Slut, which for some in the poly community was their first introduction into polyamory. There is no book that I have heard of (and certainly none which are known in the monogamous community with the same type of recognition) called The Ethical Prude. Because, *obviously* prudishness is ethical. It's like when I heard the criticism of the phrase "white trash" where someone pointed out that specifying someone is "WHITE trash" implicitly assumes that people of color are trash, so you don't even need to put an identifying marker when talking about them. Same goes for The Ethical Slut, but in reverse: in our culture there is no need to write a book about how to ethically be monogamous, because it is assumed to be the case by default(even though lots of mongamous people treat their partner's terribly, or hurt their partner in petty little ways without noticing).

A couple months ago, in a paper to talk about one of my cases, I chose one where I had fucked up. I had assumed that someone had been raised by hir mother, because I have had the privilege of having been raised by an intact family, and my parents never were in a situation where they were too poor to feed themselves and their children, my parents never *needed* to give me to someone else to raise in order for me to eat. My privilege got in the way of my discussion with that client.
With hir partner, however, I was immensely prepared, because as zie was telling me (somewhat shamefully) about hir father and his multiple children, and how zie had 12 half-siblings (or whatever the number was), I was able to to bypass the step my supervisor would have needed, of judging and then working around that judgment. Because that's the topping on the cake for me, while my colleagues might (and many don't) acknowledge that classism or racism play a role in how they treat their clients, NONE of them seem to acknowledge how monogamism** plays a role in how they treat their clients.

I have classism that I have to conciously combat when working with my clients. I have racist ideas that I have to conciously combat when working with my clients. I have ableist ideas that I have to conciously combat when working with my clients.

What I don't have? Polyphobia. And unlike my coworkers and peers, I know that it exists and that it hurts people.


*in this case I believe Asian families would be partially immune
** like it? I just made it up. Do people know of a better word?

An Open Letter to Masculinity

Hey the Dudely Brotherhood,

We need to have a little chat.

When I signed up to be part of this here little club, one of the bits of the recruitment materials that I didn't adore (in fact, I'd say it goes a wee bit beyond dislike) was that whole "patriarchy" pitch.

The thing is, I'm sort of really not down with treating other people as inherently lesser just because of them being women (or people of color, or sex workers, or people with disabilities, or poor, or Deaf, or immigrants). I'm really not a fan of the phenomenon of "mansplaining", or the related phenomenon of when women talk about sexism and violence against women and some of the more DOODLY members of the brotherhood take it upon themselves to say that the women are wrong about their own lived experiences. I've also got to say I'm pretty fucking peeved by this "rape" thing that is almost entirely being perpetrated by clubhouse members, mostly against women. (Do you guys think we could try to kick them out or something? I mean, really, they're making all of us look bad.)

You guys do have things I want though! I promise! Like people using the right pronouns when they talk about you. That's cool. And having an often deeper voice than I have. Neato! Balding?, not so much, but hey, you can't have everything. Ohhhh and suits that fit. That's going to be rad. Oh and you know, just being a guy if you want to be a guy. Of that, I am a total fan.

Also, some not too bad people have been in the club. My dad, for instance, I like him fairly well. Also lots of social justicey folks. At least, the ones that were guys (who just so happen to have been the ones that everyone writes about? I think this might be related to that patriarchy thing). Also a lot of scientists (again, what is WITH you and needing to get all the glory?). I'm just saying, ya'll could have some real selling points if you stopped with that patriarchy bullshit and just focused on being nice peeps.

Anyway, do you think ya'll could work on that before you let me have training for the SUPER SEEKRIT handshake?

Thanks,
TheDeviantE

Ignorance is No Excuse

Someone at the Prop 8 protest/rally had a sign that at first glance I found really funny and touching. It said up top (paraphrase):

"Why are we still having to fight for this?"

And on the bottom was: "Women's Rights, Black Rights, Gay Rights"

But then I noticed the check marks next to "Women's Rights" and "Black Rights."


I know this will shock you, but the kid holding up the sign implying that sexism and racism don't exist anymore, was a white male.

SHOCKER.

After the protest I went up to talk to him about how his sign is really alienating, and more over false, and how the top was good, but implying that gays are way more oppressed is totally bullshit and does nothing to further gay rights.

I tried to not get angry, and I think I did a good job at that, though I wish I had been more on top of pointing out to him the LEGAL effects of racism and sexism (he said that he hadn't meant it to say that sexism and racism don't exist, just that they aren't legislated, which also isn't particularly true).


I was still fuming about it this morning when I got up.

As Teh Portly Dyke at Shakesville* said: Even if you could win the Oppression Olympics, all the prizes SUCK.



*as to the actual post, I haven't read it thoroughly, so in this particular instance this is not an endorsement

Cooking

So a couple weeks ago I was cooking at work with the kids. It's something I do sometimes. A disturbing trend I see is that the girls are always helping me while the boys sit back and then whine and moan when they have to help clean up.

As we're frying something, a much older man walks by and says to the girls (since the boys were sitting elsewhere, while the girls watched how to actually do it) "Pay attention, you're going to need to know how to do this for your husband when you get married!"

(Keep in mind I'm at work, with kids, and this is a resident)

"Well I think it's good for everyone to know how to cook for themselves" I try to reasonably say while wanting to leap at the man's throat.

[Clearly affronted that I insulted his masculine prowess at being the best at everything] "Well of course I know how to cook for myself, I did too before my wife came along. We all know that men are great cooks, afterall we all know the best cooks are men."

"Hehe (ugh)... I bet your wife would disagree with that." (What the fuck! damned if you do cook and damned if you don't.... fuck this jackass)

After he got out of earshot I told the kids "that's not true" but I'm sure that message has already started its evil little passage into their hearts. These girls aren't even 10 and they're getting told by adult men all about their duties...

In the paper yesterday there was an opinion piece about a "horrible" mother. Apparently some girl didn't wear her underwear for her yearbook picture because she'd already learned that pantylines = unattractive and unattractive = utter disaster. He was talking all about how horrible the mother was for bringing her on television to talk about her shame of having the whole school see the photo, when what do you know, apparently the kid didn't sit "properly" enough for the writer's tastes. But what he said (I'm paraphrasing) was that "she didn't learn the lesson well enough the first time"...

And it hit me, in our society girls are supposed to be learning how to behave properly all the time. Someone could break into a girl's bedroom and do a fucking spotcheck on whether she was being appropriately feminine (is she drooling? is she snoring?) and I'd hardly be surprised.

Does he really think that she isn't constantly being reinforced with this bullshit? Why does he think that she thought pantylines were bad, she sprung fully formed from her mother's loins believing them to be evil????


So I say this: sexist old white men (and really sexists everywhere) I'm done with it all. I refuse to let you poison one more little kid's mind with your crap. Pick on someone your own size.

Rape Culture and the Misogyny Olympics

The definition of rape culture: One in which someone can actually type this* on the internet:

You posit that the fact that she is very drunk signals that the guy should not make a sexual advance. this is contrary to the prevailing social norm, however.

"Now folks at home should know this is a very advanced form of victim blaming, not everyone can accomplish it. Mitch has been in training for weeks, and while we saw him pull it off at the qualifying event in Salt Lake, we don't know how it'll go here in Atlanta. Here it comes, there's the set up, and..... ..... AND HE STICKS IT!!! Mitch for the gold medal in misogyny!!!!!! For the thousandth year running the men's team will take home all three medals! The crowd is wild with excitement, back to you Bob."

*[Edit] "this" is meant to refer to the various victim blaming rape apologists on the thread, not the actual body of the review, which is in general quite interesting

The Magic Penis

This alternately should be titled: If You Don't Want to Hear About My Sex Life in College, You May Want to Stop Reading (But Don't Really Stop Reading, Because There is an Important Philosophical Point to be Made).... oh fine, do whatever you want


I don't want to step on anyone's precious, precious toes but.....
Newsflash: Penises are not magic.

As some of you who are familiar with this blog may indeed know, I briefly sort of dated a bioboy while in college (and identifying as not-het). I had with him, probably what I'd consider my first positive sexual experience(s) with a guy. I can't remember ever feeling unduly pressured, and while thinking of our relationship as straight totally fucked with my head, it had nothing to do with the fooling around, which was on the whole very enjoyable (as sex/relationships should be). Which is why it was so damn ironic he told me in all honestness that Penises Are Magic.

Ok. Those weren't his exact words. It was something a lot closer to: "see, I don't want to have [penetrative penile/vaginal]* sex with you because I've heard that the first time a girl has [penile/vaginal] sex, she becomes really attached to the guy. It's a chemical thing."


Uh. Yeah. So orgasms, shared affection, respect, intelligence, whether or not you are cute.... None of that is as important to whether a "girl" (nevermind that not everyone with a vagina is a girl and that not everyone who is a girl has a vagina) becomes irrationally "attached". "Attached" for those keeping score at home, is code word for Clingy, (when reading this aloud, please be sure to say this in a sing-song voice).

What does it say when an all-around cool (I'd say feminist, but I don't know if he identifies as such), somewhat gender non-conforming, politically engaged guy, honest-to-Loki believed that his Magic Penis would turn me "clingy"?

To me it says that something is wrong with society. Whoever originally told him this (he passed it on not as opinion, but as semi-scientific fact imparted by others) believed that lesbians, gay men, and apparently straight men, all can't become attached to their partners. Because they don't have the magic formula of 1 penis + 1 receiving vagina.

To me, it says that we as a culture view Penises as the be-all and end-all, so much so, that any sexual pleasure one derives from non-penile pursuits (including of course, orgasms derived from oral sex, manual sex, anal sex, self-love, or just thinking really hard) couldn't begin to emotionally affect an individual the way that sticking a penis in a vagina can.

Which brings me to another point. This idea is inherently anti-women's pleasure. While there are definitely women who orgasm through solely penetrative vaginal/penile sex, many if not most (I'll have to look it up in I <3 Female Orgasm when I get home) women CANNOT orgasm without clitoral stimulation. Some can't even orgasm while being penetrated (or do so much less easily). So in effect, this idea implies that the act of penetration is more central to sex than the actual orgasm of the woman engaging in the damn relationship. Does this mean that women who are raped are then going to go through this "chemical process"????? I mean, if it's the first time a penis is inside of them!!!! Who knows?

Plus, it seems the height of disrespect to men, implying that they are so callous, that they won't get overly attached to the first partner they have sex with. Especially since boys are taught that they should shuck their virginity at the first possible moment. You'd think then that it'd be some amazing gift someone else could give them: helping them lose their virginity. Instead, someone is out there floating the idea that chemical reactions take place only in female bodies only in the context of having a penis attached to a male bodied person stuck into only the vagina for only the first time, and that these chemical processes will override just about all rationality.

Let's hear it for thinking women are irrational!


For real.

*As an attempt to make the world safer for queer and trans folk, I am constantly using "penetrative penile/vaginal sex" as the way that I refer to what everyone else thinks of as "real" sex/"sex". You'd be fucking surprised at how many MEDICAL DOCTORS have been like "oh, that's a handy way to describe it!/I've never thought of it that way" when I try to answer their questions about whether or not I have "sex". And yes, I DO believe it is a safety thing, because for every doctor/person who believes that only some types of sex are "sex" that's one less person who acknowledges the presence of us queerbos, and who thinks to include our experiences as a normal medical issue.

The Devaluing of Women

The Male Privilege Checklist: 31. I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called “crime” and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called “domestic violence” or “acquaintance rape,” and is seen as a special interest issue.)

"Sir, do you see in the courtroom, the man who mugged you?"
"Yes. Over there, the defendant."
"And tell us in your own words what happened"
"Yeah um, I was at Mulligan's at Fifth and 24th and he, I mean the defendant, came over to me and asked about the game. Um, the Peacocks were winning. Since I'm a Penguins fan, I was sort of bummed. And he and I talked for maybe 10 minutes about the lousy season they've been having. Maybe an hour later, after the game was over, I started walking home, I had work in the morning, you know? Anyway, maybe 10 blocks from home is where he mugged me"
"He mugged you? can you be specific?"
"Yeah, his hand was in his pocket and it looked like he had a gun and he told me to give him all my money. I sort of froze, so I just got out my wallet and gave it all to him."
"And how much did he take?"
"Objection your Honor, relevance?"
"Sustained."
"What happened next?"
"I ran to my apartment and when I got there I called the police, told them I'd been mugged. They, they, didn't believe me. I still had my wallet and my watch. They told me to call back the next morning if I still wanted to make a formal complaint, but told me that since it was a 'he said, he said' situation, it'd be hard to pin it on him."
"Thank you. That'll be all. Defense, your witness."
"So, you were at the BAR Mulligan's when you met the man you accuse of mugging you?"
"Uh, Yes."
"But you DID know him right? You know that he works at the same company you do, right?"
"Yeah, but it's a big company..."
"Your Honor, I have evidence showing that the witness and the defendant had a prior relationship. Exhibit G is videotape footage of them both at the company picnic. See right there? During the Frisbee game they were on the same team, and again here: you see they are shown chatting at the buffet. Mr. Smith, did you, or did you not say after the game: 'Good job Steve, nice catch'?"
"Objection! Whether or not the victim had a prior relationship with the the defendant doesn't have any relevance to whether or not Mr. Kibner stole money from Mr. Smith"
"Your Honor, the witness tried to hide their prior relationship, it goes towards credibility."
"Overruled. Answer the question Mr. Smith."
"Yes. But...."
"In fact, isn't it true that on June 24th, 2009 you in fact lent Mr. Smith some money?"
"It was a dollar for the snack mach..."
"Please answer yes or no."
"Objection! Relevance?"
"Your Honor! Mr. Smith and the defendant had a prior monetary relationship!"
"Overruled."
"Fine. It seems Mr. Smith that you in fact have a HISTORY of monetary relationships. Isn't that right? In fact, did you, or did you not, in the last year give several donations to Bluepeace, Planned Childhood, Habitat for Ocelots, Heifer Intranational, The Red Crucifix, Psychologists without Borders, and Okaywill? And that's just what we found talking to your family. According to your neighbors and friends, it seems you gave to MANY people, isn't that right?"
"Objection!"
"Withdrawn. Mr. Kibner claimes that you told him you wanted to give him some money."
"I didn't!!! I never told him I wanted to give him any of my money!"
"So you just HAPPENED to meet Mr. Kibner in the bar. Mr. Kibner who you had a PRIOR monetary relationship with. And when walking home late at night, you just HAPPENED to run into Mr. Kibner. Mr. Smith, where was your wallet that night?"
"What?"
"I'll repeat it, Mr. Smith: where do you keep your wallet?"
"In my front pants' pocket, why?"
"Mr. Smith, did you, or did you not, take OUT your wallet, MULTIPLE times during the night and flash your money in Mr. Kibner's face?"
"I was paying for my drinks!"
"You were drinking? Mr. Smith, did you get drunk that night?"
"I don't understand..."
"So you admit that you were drunk, and had given Mr. Kibner money in the past. Tell me, If Mr. Kibner was mugging you, why didn't you fight back?"
"I thought he had a gun, his hands were in his pockets and he told me to give him money."
"But he didn't have a gun. And you never said 'No', you never yelled or did anything to indicate that you didn't WANT to give him that money."
"I didn't!!!"
"For all WE know, you really DID want to give Mr. Kibner your money, and only after you got home, you realized that it'd been a mistake. And that's when you called the police. AFTER you realized you wanted your money back. Your Honor. I'd like to suggest that Mr. Smith had an 'unfulfilling giving experience' and is using this farce to cover up his shame."


Does this make sense to anyone? I didn't think so. Yet everyday people suggest these exact same things to rape survivors. On a recent blog post/comment thread at Shakesville one commenter actually described having a a therapist call her rape an "Unfulfilling sexual experience."

UNFULFILLING SEXUAL EXPERIENCE?!!!!!!!

Discuss.

"On the Verge of An Affair" (Why Redbook can kiss my furry ass)

What the fuck? (All emphasis mine)

So... despite any obvious signs of cheating in your so-called friendship, ask yourself: Are you having an emotional affair?

You've Probably Crossed the Line if You...
1. Touch your male friend in "legal" ways, like picking lint off his blazer.
2. Pay extra attention to how you look before you see him.
3. Think crush-like thoughts like "He'd love this song!"
4. Tell him more details about your day than you do your partner.
5. No longer feel comfortable telling your mate about this person and begin to cover up your relationship.
6. Experience increasing sensual tension; you admit your attraction to him but also insist to yourself that you would never act on it.

It's About to Get Physical When You...
[7]. Find yourself feeling vulnerable and turn to the other man for support rather than to your mate or a trusted relative or girlfriend.
[8]. Accelerate the level of intimacy through sensual or suggestive talk over email or the phone.
[9]. Put yourself in a situation where the two of you could be alone.

You Can Avoid the Potential Affair if You...
[10]. Stay honest with your partner. Share with him all your hopes, triumphs, and failures -- as well as your attractions and temptations, which will help keep you from acting on them.
[11]. Make time for just the two of you on a regular basis -- away from the kids, your friends, and family.
[12]. Surround yourself with happy couples who don't believe in fooling around. Having positive, emotionally connected role models will help you stay on track.

I believe we have found the mother lode folks! But let's start at the top and work our way down.

1. So if you touch a guy in a "legal" way that means it's crossing a line. I suppose touching him in an "illegal way" means that you're not? No? Oh. So you mean that the "legal" in that sentence was to indicate that this is ostensibly allowable while in a relationship?
So basically this one should read: if you ever have physical contact with a man other than the one you are officially connected to, you're crossing the line. Thanks for the heads up!
2. I love this. See, this is directed at (straight, because all people are straight) women. Never mind that women are constantly told in our culture that they should pay attention to how they look. See, they said "extra" attention. You can tell it's "extra" because it's "crossing the line"! and you can tell it's "crossing the line" because you're paying "extra" attention! LOVE IT.
3. For realz???? Thinking that someone would like a song is a "crush-like" thought? Damn. I always thought "wouldn't it be cool if he liked me" was a crush-like thought. Righto.
Now off to formally retract every time I suggested a book, movie, song, television show, author, comedian, or performer to someone else (not to mention food! oh god, the formerly happy couples I may have ruined!!!!). Guess I'd better get going since that's a WHOLE LOT of people that I've apparently had crushes on who need to be informed of my cheating, cheating ways.
4. I don't even know what to say to this. Half of what you see on television implies that men are supposed to not give a fuck about the daily lives of their (female) partners.
5. When did "mate" become synonymous with "partner"? I see "mate" and I think: animals. Animals mate. Humans don't really "mate".
Plus, now we're just being confusing to non U.S. readers, since "mate" in the UK (I don't know about elsewhere) means friend.
6. Now the reader isn't allowed to have a libido. Great. I wonder, wouldn't the writer consider it appropriate/"normal" to have a crush on Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Jude Law, some other famous heartthrob? But I guess only if you don't know them, eh?

7. Ok. Fuck you. Officially. Basically we have just erased every lesbian in the world. A) I hate this "girlfriends" crap when talking about straight women. They're called friends. Apparently oftentimes they are girls, because if they aren't (and are instead sometimes boys) you're going to get hit over the head with how you're a BAD girlfriend (because being friends with a boy is impossible.... don't you know all men want is to have sex with every woman around them????). B) When did it become acceptable to have RADICALLY different meanings for words when said by women versus men. If I say 'fish sticks", I mean a breaded fish product made into a "stick" shape, if a cisgendered person says "fish stick" I assume they mean the same thing, not, oh "broccoli quiche". So when I say "girlfriend", I mean a person who I'm dating who identifies as a woman who I like to kiss, and maybe even have sex with. Not, oh, "someone who is absolutely no threat to my boyfriend because they don't even register as a sexual person to me". Those definitions are mutually exclusive. GAH.
This is always extra frustrating because when I hear a straight woman say that, I am suddenly overcome with confusion. Oh my, I assumed she was straight (I'm such a jerk to assume she was straight, I should know that assuming only butch looking women are queer erases femininity and femmes and is totally not ok), oh wow! she's out and poly, that's awesome. Oh wait. She was just talking about "quiche," silly me, thinking she meant the word she actually said.
9. Clearly it is always the woman's responsibility to make sure that she never strays, or is in a compromising position. Didn't you know? Hey.... you know, if you stay late at work you could be alone with someone else at work. Holy SHIT. I guess I better get my ass out of here at 5 everyday. I love this. Not even "avoid being alone" but "avoid the POSSIBILITY of being alone". Ok, I lied. I hate this.

10. This is the same as 4. Teach women that they should never have any secrets from their partners, that they should constantly talk to their partners about everything they feel and think and do, and then on the other hand, teach men that they should be as uninterested as possible in what women feel and think and do. Great. I'll put it on my to do list: irreparably damage my relationship(s) by having unrealistic expectations for myself and partner(s). CHECK!
12. Surround yourself with happy couples who don't believe in fooling around. Having positive, emotionally connected role models will help you stay on track.
Do I have to say more? don't be friends with single people, don't be friends with poly people, you clearly are so incompetent that you can't figure out if your relationship is working so try to just stay out of trouble by being friends with the "right crowd". (Oh and don't be friends with lesbians because then your "girlfriends" will be a threat to your virile virile boyfriends)

Anyone else notice that this is for women? And SURPRISE! so are articles about how to spot a cheating partner. So women should be constantly vigilant that THEY never cheat, and should be constantly vigilant that their (male) PARTNERS never cheat. yeparoo. Women are the sole bastions of responsibility in relationships.

So: disrespect of women, disrespect of men, erasure of lesbians, disrespect of single people, outright disgust with poly people, am I missing something?

And people wonder why I hate pop. culture.

PS. For a super interesting read about the ways that single people are Singled Out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After I suggest you check out the forementioned book by Bella DePaulo.