when the status quo frustrates.

Anal Sex, Rape and What They Mean to Your Average Straight Man

Wednesday, April 8th, 2009

(No, Lisa’s preferences in regards to anal sex or lack thereof are not a theme that is going to be explored in this blog post. If harassed about it, I will briefly state my preference, but hopefully nobody will so far miss the whole point of this post that they will be motivated to ask.)

I got to thinking on this topic today after a brief hop over to Feminsting’s community blogsite where I saw an article entitled “Feminist Critique of Hetero Male Culture Causes Mass MRA Hysteria.” I wasn’t too intrigued by the header there, I’ll admit, because most feminist critiques of anything to do with men and sexuality send most MRAs over the edge of rationality–in other words, well okay but so..? but I was also waiting for about 5 million work emails to finish printing out on my feeble home printer and I had time to kill. So I read it, and followed the embedded link to the original blog post by the author on her own website and read that too.

It wasn’t a bad article, even if the author had to start out with the tired old refrain of “when I was a little girl I was really more like a little boy! because 99% of little girls, unlike me, were all about Barbies and gossip and hated physical activity of any sort–!” I do get tired of that one. It certainly does incline me to agree that the female writers who regularly prop up this stereotype did, indeed, have zero little girlfriends growing up or they’d know better than that. But then, if they acknowledged that to be true, they might have to reconsider why they didn’t actually have more little girlfriends, eh..? I’m sure it’s much more pleasant to imagine that one didn’t because one was simply too guyishly cool for all those little pink rainbow wussies! rather than it being, perhaps, for some other less self-congratulatory reason.

But moving on to the actual point she was trying to make–she certainly got it right about the prevalence of men using being on the receiving end of anal sex as a euphemism for a miserable situation. However, I think she rather missed the boat on why. Men also, just as frequently if not more so, use being raped in the same euphemistic fashion. So, when men are talking about being fucked up the ass by their boss, or the government, or their ex-wife’s lawyer, they’re not actually referring to the mechanics of anal sex–they’re referring to being raped. Since women don’t rape men (yes, I know they do, but bear with me), men are simply using the phrase “fucked up the ass” synonymously with “getting raped.”

That whole idea did strike me as interesting, though–because men also use “rape” euphemistically, with themselves as the main actor, to describe how they absolutely defeated some other person or persons in competition (the competition can be either formal, as in a softball game, or informal, as in getting the best parking space at Wal-Mart). However, they do not ever (that I’ve witnessed) describe themselves as “fucking someone else up the ass” in that way. So the distinction is made, and the distinction seems pretty clear-cut in cause to me. It is homophobic, specifically male-homophobic, and all of a piece with how the most common thing I hear out of pre-pubescent and pubescent boys’ mouths as an insult exchanged with other boys (and since I have a twelve-year-old son and a seventeen-year-old son, I get to hear a lot of this kind of exchange) is, “You’re gay.”

Men, therefore, who use all these euphemisms, have a clear grasp of the essentials–only women and faggots, ie, persons with status less than the standard issue heterosexual man, get fucked up the ass. To be fucked up the ass is to have your human status reduced. If something happens to you that reduces your status in the eyes of others, you have been fucked up the ass. If you soundly defeat another man, you have reduced his status to that of a woman–you have raped him–but you don’t quite want to say that you fucked him up the ass, as he is male like you, because that would make you a faggot and reduce your status too.

This is why we have the seeming paradox of these men fearing rape more than any other crime that could be committed against them, with the possible exception of castration, yet having no issues at all regularly blowing off and otherwise dismissing the rape of women by men, with the sometimes-exception of the rape of a prepubescent woman or a virgin. For them, rape is psychologically devastating because it makes you a homo, and physically painful because while pussies are clearly designed for dicks, assholes aren’t. They accept that rape might also be psychologically damaging because a girl child’s brain probably hasn’t fully accepted adult concepts yet and a virgin is probably saving herself for some special man, and physically damaging because a child’s vagina isn’t quite done developing to full readiness for a man’s penis and because they can imagine that the rupture of the physical membrane that is the hymen could be painful. However, once a female has begun to menstruate and no longer possesses a hymen, her getting fucked in the vagina is totally natural both physically and psychologically–it’s how we were all designed, right?–so it really can’t be considered anything nearly as psychologically or physically devastating as a man getting raped anally by another man. And it doesn’t reduce a pubescent, non-virgin female’s status–she’s already not a virgin, which is the only status boost she could possibly stack onto her pre-existing undeniable femaleness, and once that’s gone, she has no more to lose.

An interesting conundrum that this can present for men who find that they really enjoy receiving anal stimulation–I was in a long-term, monogamous relationship with one (I won’t say which one). He asked me, very hesitantly and shame-faced, after the first time we really made a point of trying it out, if I thought that that meant he had homosexual urges. I said, I don’t think so–who do you want to be doing this to you? Me, or a man? You! he said, very definitely, and I said, Well, I think that’s what defines you as homosexual or not–who you’re doing whatever you’re doing with, not what exactly you happen to be doing. But men who want to perform anal sex on women don’t have this agonizing conflict–because, again, it is getting fucked that reduces your status and puts you in your place, not doing the fucking.

I used to wonder why men seemed to have so much trouble empathizing with most types of rapes, when a woman was the victim, or even why they en masse never seemed to take it seriously when a man was raped by a woman, yet clearly had no trouble at all wildly overempathizing with the horror that was a man getting raped by another man. This is the answer, and it’s a pretty sad one.

On an end note, though, I can’t help but preemptively sympathize with the author of the original Feministing community blog post–one of the very first responses to her article was the following, by a self-described “MRAman:”

If you don’t like butt sex you should just say so. Nobody would be surprised anyway, since everyone knows feminists are always opposed to things men like.

Sigh. Yes, that must be it…well, if I’m lucky, our periodic trollers won’t be around to read this particular blog post and visit me with such sage perceptions as well. Fingers crossed. :)

Okay, I Have Now Been Right Once Too Often

Wednesday, April 1st, 2009

In the not-too-distant past, I noted long before I saw it written or heard it said anywhere else that I didn’t think Bristol Palin’s marriage to the father of her son was going to happen. When that turned out to be correct, I made another note of it, congratulated myself at seeing through the kerfluffle of various amounts of posturing about and/or outright avoidance tactics towards the entire topic by the principals and the media involved, and moved on.

But it’s happened again. And I’m no longer feeling so self-congratulatory. I don’t want to be able to read these people’s minds! I don’t want them to be an open book to me! I don’t want to understand them this well!

Yes, William Saletan is at it again, but this time, he isn’t writing about ladyparts or about any of the other stuff he usually expounds upon (which I mentally dubbed “Frankenstein medicine” a while back, though he’s made a few notable segues into race issues). He…is…writing…about…gays.

Before I go on, let’s recap something from my Saletan bitch session from last week:

…the place where I usually see [Saletan's tactics of "oh of course I'm pro-choice! and now that I've said that, let me do my best to completely undermine the pro-choice stance"] used over and over is in the gay/lesbian debate world, under the rallying cry of “Of course we don’t hate homosexuals themselves! What we hate is homosexuality. Hate the sin, love the sinner!”

Let’s recontext what Saletan has to say, and see if it starts to sound awfully damn familiar to you too:

Every abortion homosexuality dilemma is different, because every situation is different. The person best situated to make the right decision is the pregnant woman person having the homosexual feelings. A few years ago, I wrote a whole book on this point.***

So why do I keep bringing up abortion homosexuality as a moral problem? Because it is a moral problem. It’s the destruction of a developing human being the traditional family unit. For that reason, the less we do it, the better. When I say abortion having a homosexual relationship is bad, I’m not saying it’s necessarily worse than bringing a child into the world in lousy circumstances never marrying someone of the opposite sex. I’m saying it’s worse than avoiding unintended pregnancy in the first place having homosexual desires in the first place. That’s why I keep pushing contraception conversion therapy. If you cause an unintended pregnancy enter into a homosexual relationship and an abortion get married to that person because you didn’t want to wear a condom you didn’t want to undergo conversion therapy, you should be ashamed.

***He hasn’t written one about homosexuality. But I wouldn’t be at all surprised to discover that there was one in the works.

…and, of course, today’s offering from Lord Saletan IS:

Shades of Gay
The heterogeneity of homosexuality.

Researchers contacted more than 1,800 mental health professionals to find out whether they would ever try to change a client’s sexual orientation. Of the 1,328 practitioners who responded, one in six admitted to having helped at least one patient attempt to alter homosexual feelings. The total number of such cases reported by the respondents was 413. That’s nearly one case for every three therapists.

The study’s authors find this disturbing. Treatment to change homosexuality has proved ineffective and often unsafe, they argue. Therefore, therapists shouldn’t try it.

If only life were that simple.

It IS that simple, unless you’re a professional abortion concern troll turning your well-honed skills towards also becoming a homosexuality concern troll.

(OMG, he actually IS WRITING IN SUPPORT OF CONVERSION THERAPY, I thought I was just making a witty comparison..!!!)

In the big picture, the authors are right.

And Will Saletan agrees, women should have the right to choose!

But

I think we all saw that word coming…

…therapy isn’t about the big picture. It’s about lots of little pictures: the worlds unique to each of us. You and I may have the same sexual orientation, but our lives are very different. You know nothing of my family, my religion, or my community. You don’t even know how straight or gay I am. If I tell my therapist that I’d rather try to modify my feelings than give up my faith or my marriage, who are you to second-guess her or me?

In the British study, the therapists who admitted to collaborating in such cases weren’t anti-gay.

Well, of course they weren’t, and Saletan isn’t either, and he is ALSO pro-choice. One thing to love about the English language is the flexibility with which people are able to use it.

The rest of the article is typical Saletan concern trolling, liberally sprinkled with bizarre phrases that only make sense if you don’t think about them too closely, like

The therapists also distinguished between clear-cut and borderline homosexuality.

…”borderline homosexuality?” Like, your right hand yearns to touch Bob but your left hand would really rather stroke Susan?…wtf?

The idea of heterosexuality as a valid “lifestyle choice” turns the argument for sexual acceptance on its head. If a patient prefers to adjust his orientation to family or cultural circumstances, rather than the other way around, should the therapist challenge him?

…uh, the “patient” is always trying to adjust his orientation to family or cultural circumstances; it is NEVER the other way around–at least, this would be the absolute first time ever I have heard of the epidemic of people flocking to therapist’s offices to try to “convert” to homosexuality.

Sometimes, the substitution makes sense. When the patient is clearly gay

…”clearly gay?” Like, when he’s wearing lipstick and heels or she’s in steel-toed workboots and a buzzcut? Yargh…

…and when his discomfort with homosexuality isn’t fundamental to his personality, it’s logical to target the discomfort. But not every case is that simple. A friend once told me she was “primarily wired toward women.” She was my girlfriend for the next year and a half. Another friend told me he couldn’t countenance homosexuality because he was “obliged to believe it’s a mortal sin.” He came out of the closet a year later, but he never left Christianity or conservatism. Another friend lived as a gay man for years, then carried on a multiyear, monogamous relationship with a woman, then went back to the gay life.

“The evidence shows that you cannot change sexual orientation,” says King. But on the margins, I’ve seen it happen.

No, you haven’t. Rinse, repeat–NO, you haven’t, Dumb Ass! Good lord…case 1: your girlfriend told you she was bisexual. I’m sorry to be the one to break this to you, but no, she wasn’t “borderline” or “marginally” straight and the magnificence of your manlyhood resolved her oh-so-confused feelings on the subject–she was bisexual, which is why she used the word PRIMARILY rather than EXCLUSIVELY. Case 2: Your friend was gay, from start to finish, which amazingly enough has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with having religious and political beliefs (I know, can you believe it?). Case 3: Is bisexuality something you just can’t comprehend? Either he’s taking it up the butt and therefore he is G-A-Y or he’s sticking it in the pussy and dammit for several years there he was STRAIGHT!! so he was clearly radically switching his orientation, back and forth, back and forth..! …er, or he’s just bisexual, like your girlfriend in case 1. (So anticlimactic, but the truth often is, I’ve found. Sigh.)

So, what’s going on with me..? Am I mutating into a conservative concern troll or Greta Van Susteren? How is it that my passing observations are coming so ickily true..?

I think I need a hug.

The Revised Church of Homophobia

Thursday, December 4th, 2008

I am tired of the tiptoeing around and kid glove treatment that these assholes automatically get because they associate themselves with Jesus. Spare me this holiday season–please?

No? Well, let me help you, then.

The Pope’s Christmas Gift: A Tough Line on Church Doctrine Vigorous Support of Ten Years to Life in Prison For Teh Homos*

and

Split in Episcopal Church hits new level
Conservatives who fled liberal views of Scripture believe that Teh Homos should be publicly reviled and burn in Hell have formed a breakaway church in North America.

There–much more accurate. Don’t they want their message gotten across more clearly? I’m sure they do!

*The pope also says, Stop touching each other before Mass–we can’t tell which of you are Teh Homos when you do that!

Pride is not the opposite of shame.

Tuesday, July 15th, 2008

I got back from San Francisco pride a couple of weeks ago, and that is one intense. fucking. party., let me tell you.

I thought I would be writing right now about the commercialization, commodification, and normalization of “the gay lifestyle.” I thought I would be talking about how the rainbow-banner Bud Lite banners were vaguely cute but also vaguely sickening; about how the marriage industry is opening its arms to (heteronormatively-attractive and “normal-looking”) gay couples without missing a beat; about how the entire pride industry is a concerted force to push “normalish” (white, affluent, could be straight if they, y’know, wanted to be) gay people into the mainstream whilst marginalizing everyone else.

And I expect much of that is true, but those words didn’t come, in part I’m sure because we didn’t go to the “core” pride festivities at the civic center. We went to the tranny march and the dyke march, both at Dolores park; we also went, albeit briefly, to the giant rave held at the intersection of Market and Castro, where twenty-thousand people pack into the streets and just… dance. And my girlfriend and I cuddled in my friend’s backyard, and watched fireworks that we and nobody else made, and talked about moving to the city.

We thought, just a little, about getting married.

(more…)

Pride: intense!

Monday, July 14th, 2008

I got back from San Francisco pride two weeks ago, and I’m still processing. I have many words to say about the experience and the city. Many. They are merely all freakin’ jumbly. A brief summary of my brain:

raw vegan tiramisu! / has that wheel always been there? / dykes on bikes! / we cant haz a script / civic center is so overrated / so many queer girls… so many… / we must move here / omgwtfbbq.

It’s Almost Like Gays and Lesbians are Real Human Beings. I Don’t Know About You But I’m Just Shocked By The Idea.

Sunday, June 15th, 2008

Tomorrow’s NYT headline: Pope Finds He Is Catholic.

Gay Couples Find Marriage Is a Mixed Bag

The Hotel I Work For

Thursday, May 29th, 2008

I am a front desk clerk at a local chain of hotels that no one outside of the Midwest has heard of. I have worked at my new job for less than a month, and while I hated it, I figured I could hold on until August, when school started again* with a guilty conscience.

This job really is the epitome of contradictory corporate jargon and actual actions. We’re supposed to “go the extra mile for the customer” but every time I did that, I was chastised (do not leave the continentantal breakfast open late for stragglers, do not give the customers batteries for personal items, that sort of thing). I’m supposed to stay at the front desk for my entire shift, but I am also supposed to walk up and down the hallways and do cleaning that takes me away from the front desk. I am supposed to follow a ridiculous script when answering the telephone that wastes everyone’s time and annoys the customer (and oh-boy, I better do it in order or else I am in so much trouble). All of this, like I said, I could have put up with until the time that I could take my exit.

Yesterday, however, after our ridiculous “productivity meeting” I found out that I needed to leave. Now. I’ve turned in my two-week notice, and already have another job on the line. The reason was simple: I found out the company was run by a bunch of Christian crazies.

First and foremost, this particular hotel chain gives out free rooms to Christian pastors, called “Prophet Chambers”. This rooms are gratis, when otherwise they would be 50 or 70 dollars. Secondly, corporate has decided that, in keeping with our “family friendly” image, we are not to rent out rooms to “obvious homosexuals”. I can tell this is corporate, and not our local hotel, because our manager rolled her eyes when reading this memo. When I asked what an “obvious homosexual” looked like, she told me flat out said “nothing- this is a stupid rule that I fully expect you all to ignore”. But still, I cannot associate with a business that has such blatant discriminatory practices.

I checked the website to see if I could find a copy of this policy, but I have so far been unsuccessful. I don’t think this is something that they are publically informing people, but it is still horrible.

I have an unpleasant feeling in my gut now. Even if homosexuality was a protected class, and people weren’t capable of discriminating against them legally, I still have to wonder if they would still get away with it. As front desks, we weren’t supposed to tell them that we didn’t serve them, we were supposed to tell them that there were no rooms available. It’s a kind of discrimination that would be almost imposible to prove.

*I’m still waiting on my acceptance to law school. I haven’t gotten a letter at all.

Why do conservatives hate penguins?

Tuesday, October 2nd, 2007

tango
Nefarious agents of the homosexual agenda.

I post about penguins probably more often than I should, but they’re terribly cute, and for whatever reason, they seem to get used as political footballs far more often than the poor things deserve.

Well, it’s happening again. The most challenged book of 2006, according to the Chicago-based American Library Association, was And Tango Makes Three. I haven’t read it, but it sounds cute: A zookeeper gives two penguins a fertilized egg, it hatches, and they raise the little penguin chick as their own. Aww. Penguins.

I bet you can guess why conservatives don’t like this book.

“The huge majority of parents would avoid this book if they knew it was brainwashing their children to support and experiment with homosexual behavior,” said Randy Thomasson, president of the California-based Campaign for Children and Families.

That argument might be more convincing were it not for the documented existence of gay penguins. Better keep those kids away from zoos as well.

You know, I always wonder about people who go on book-banning campaigns. With all the good causes out there, why expend that sort of energy to make yourself into the kind of laughing stock that tries to get a picture book about penguins pulled from libraries?

More cheap shots

Friday, August 31st, 2007

Craig cartoon

Like the time that Dick Cheney shot that guy, I’m convinced that there can never be enough jokes about Republican homobigots getting busted for the very sort of behaviour they try to outlaw. Schadenfreude doesn’t begin to cover it.

The transcript itself.

Keith Olbermann’s—um—reenactment:

The arresting officer manages to get a bit of racism in there:

Accusing Craig of failing to tell the truth, Karsnia told the senator: “I guess I’m just saying I’m just disappointed in you, sir. I just really am. I expect this from the guy we get out of the ‘hood. I mean people vote for you. Unbelievable.”

So, it’s okay to bust working class black guys for hooking up in washrooms? That’s disturbing, though it fits in nicely with Republican values, I suppose. As Amanda pointed out, using one of my favourite plays ever, Republican moral outrage is about preserving the pecking order more than it’s about an actual moral code. This is why Craig, like Kushner’s Roy Cohn, can claim that he’s “not gay.”

The more we understand the right’s twisted psychology, the better we can fight it. Or at least laugh at it.

Forced-birthers try new strategy: Wishing abortion away

Thursday, June 7th, 2007

Wish-Granting
Natalie Dee says it better than I ever could.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation recently launched a neat little project on Facebook called the Great Canadian Wish List. Canadian Facebook users can make a wish for the country, and other users can support that wish. Facebook automatically ranks them, and CBC News will announce the most popular wishes on July 1st, Canada’s 140th anniversary.

A lot of the wishes are exactly what you’d expect if you follow the national discourse: Most Canadians care about protecting the environment and the health care system, and, for reasons I don’t entirely understand, that hazy concept called “national unity.” Farther down the rankings are the more entertaining ones, people wishing for a tax on Baby Boomers, the ability to manipulate time, the return of the two-dollar bill, and the classic “more wishes.”

But the top of the list is disturbing: The top wish, by far, is “Abolish Abortion in Canada.” Number two is “For a spiritual revival in our nation” (and by spiritual, they mean Christian. No “Allah Akbar”s or references to indigenous faiths to be found there!). The fourth is “Restore the Traditional Definition of Marriage,” which, incidentally, is not something that can be accomplished without messing about with the Constitution.
(more…)

This is what happens when you let a woman write about what it means to be ‘manly’

Sunday, June 3rd, 2007

What does it mean to be a man in a world where women refuse to follow last century’s script? Well, Laura Sessions Stepp doesn’t fucking know, but she does have a deadline so here, enjoy some random quotes surrounded by some stereotypes, and a completely inappropriate and random reference to Johnny Depp.

If you’re wondering what it takes to be a man these days, check out Johnny Depp’s wrist.

Well, that’s not where I’d start, but OK. Mmmmmm, Johnny Depp. Now there’s a guy I wouldn’t kick out of bed for eating crackers…oh, wait, he’s the ambiguous exemplar. My mistake, I was too busy drooling to notice how gay he may or may not be*.

As the unconstrained Capt. Jack Sparrow in the newly released “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End,” he wears a wisp of white lace tied just above his left hand.

A token of his feminine side? Perhaps. Or maybe it’s just what Depp said it is: a trophy piece from a young woman.

That’s right, Sessions Stepp starts her essay (I’d say article, but please) on the tragedy of blurred gender roles with a strained reference to an irrelevant fictional character wearing a single band of lace, ignoring two things: one, that Jack Sparrow already explained that it’s a friggin’ prize from a ladyfriend (score!) and two, even if it wasn’t it wouldn’t matter because Jack lived during the late 17- or early 1800′s** and it was fucking OK for men to do all kinds of fruity things then because back then, they weren’t considered fruity.


ppv1n06s Juan e Haidee - by Alexandre Marie Colin, 1833
Mr. Darcy and Don Juan: Two of history’s most famous poofters

But a good writer never lets context get in the way of a good point, so already we know the rest of Lauren’s essay it going to be golden. (more…)

It’s “Shake and Lay Off Everyone and Close Forever,” and AFA helped!

Sunday, May 20th, 2007

Robert Knight of the American Family Association gazes upon the havoc that his flying monkeys have unleashed upon Ford, and by havoc-releasing-flying-monkeys I mean he pats himself on the back for being around to kick Ford while it was already down. He derives no small satisfaction from the idea that while, sure, he can’t prove that the massive AFA boycott of Ford over their gay-lovin’ ways actually hurt Ford in the least, surely it didn’t help, and close is close enough to warrant a press release.

Have you driven Ford crazy lately?

That would be a good question for the nation’s business media to ask the American Family Association (AFA), which has been boycotting Ford Motor Company for the past year.

Since March 2006, the AFA and 18 other pro-family organizations have targeted Ford over the company’s donations to homosexual political groups and advertisements in homosexual-themed magazines. You’d never know it from media reports.

True enough, the closest thing I’ve seen to regular ‘media reports’ about the boycott are Pam’s occassional mocking posts; her posts every couple of months on the subject make her seem comparatively obsessed next to the deafening silence of every one else on the topic, up to and including Ford which has, as always, slightly more urgent problems:

What’s new: Ford Motor Co. has completed excavation of industrial waste at nine of 12 sites where paint sludge was found at the 900-acre former iron mining site in Ringwood. That brings the total amount of lead-tainted sludge and contaminated soil removed since 2004 to 25,000 tons, Ford spokesman Jon Holt said….

Ford and Ringwood continue to disagree over paying for cleanup work. Ford says the borough has accrued penalties of nearly $17 million — $32,500 per day since November 2005 — for not complying with an EPA order to help pay for the work. Borough officials replied that the town has complied by offering to pay for some of the work and by spending more than $500,000 to aid residents affected by sinkholes that appeared near two areas being cleaned up.


Nearly two dozen salaried workers were involuntarily separated
from Ford Motor Co. in April, a company spokeswoman confirmed.

Ford said the permanent layoffs came before Ford CEO Alan Mulally told shareholders and journalists that layoffs likely would not be necessary for the struggling automaker to meet its turnaround objectives.

A plummeting new-vehicle market share at Ford Motor Co., maybe the sickest of Detroit’s Big Three automakers, has led to anemic customer traffic. In 1999, the Pacifico dealership sold about 300 new and used vehicles a month; in 2007, it expects to sell 190 a month, which is an improvement from a nadir in 2002, when vehicle sales sank to 140…

Economic reality is hitting Ford auto dealers. According to a leading trade publication, the Philadelphia region – even with the closings that have taken place – has the third-highest concentration of Ford dealerships in the nation. There are just too many of them, dealers say, and one-fifth of the 50 or 60 Ford dealers in the region could eventually close.

Everyone knows that Ford is hanging from a noose that it tied for itself. The AFA is only embarassing itself when it tries to insinuate that less than a million people taking the time to sign an online petition is at all responsible for Ford’s 13 billion-with-a-b loss in 2006.
(more…)