ColorLines reports on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researcher Greg Millet's White House statement on Black men and HIV transmission. Turns out that according to the data, the myth about Black men "on the down-low" (i.e. men who identify as straight but have sex with men secretly) spreading HIV to Black women is largely untrue. Black bisexual men are more likely to have protected sex with male and female partners and less likely to test positive for HIV, which explodes the myth of bisexual men as disease vectors. Also interesting is the finding that most gay and bisexual Black men identify as gay or bisexual and are not closeted as the cultural myth seems to suggest.
There's a lot going on here in the intersection of race and sexual identity, of course largely filtered through White social constructs of Black masculinity (and white fear of Black masculinity). White people "hear" that Black people are homophobic without learning anything about Black GLTBQ culture, and the myth of the down-low as a widespread phenomenon in the media further stigmatizes queer Black men as disease carriers and Black culture as homophobic. The findings of these studies are important, so kudos for ColorLines for its great reporting on this issue.
7/15/10
7/8/10
Weekly Savaging: Evolutionary Psychology!
I am not one of those feminists - I understand that there are some basic, general sex differences between the rough, confusing categories we attempt to delineate as "male" and "female". That said, I still have some major problems with evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology as disciplines. Scientists in these fields often completely disregard the influence of culture, worshiping instead at the altar of evolution and theorizing that literally everything we do has some root in caveman behavior. Interestingly enough these theories often tend to back up existing social norms with regards to gendered roles.
But I understand there are some interesting questions raised by studying human evolution, when the research is done properly, by scientists working under respected institutions, transmitting their findings via articles published in peer-reviewed journals.
But what happens when less intellectually rigorous types get a hold of some of the basic tenets of evolutionary psychology/biology? Well, all you have to do is pick up a New York Times or a Psychology Today to find out. The results of one study (often of questionable methodology) are presented as "proof" for why men are likely to cheat and women just need to shop and so forth.
And as if that wasn't bad enough, what happens when an advice columnist with a particular viewpoint gets a hold of some evo psych? Well, you get Dan Savage's latest column and podcast, both of which he devotes entirely to Christopher Ryan, co-author of the book "Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality." Oh, and not one but two blog posts as well. It's fairly unprecedented for Savage to devote so much time to one person's theories, but when he said that Ryan's book, "...is the single most important book about human sexuality since Alfred Kinsey unleashed Sexual Behavior In The Human Male on the American public in 1948," I just had to know who this guy is.
The results of my Internet sleuthing were interesting, but I'm refraining from that discussion until I read the book and even hopefully get a chance to pick Christopher Ryan's brain a bit, if he's amenable. He blogs regularly for Psychology Today as well as The Huffington Post. Based on Savage's references, as well as the other material available, Ryan believes that he has significant evidence that monogamy is unnatural in humans, and particularly for men. This is also something I believe, although I don't yet really think there is scientific evidence to prove it. I'm also not sure if it really matters. Sure, the question of how our sexual culture evolved is interesting, but given that we still live in a world where womens' sexuality is so highly stigmatized, I'd rather spend my energy fighting misogynistic cultural notions about sexuality rather than quibbling over whether we're more like chimpanzees or bonobos.
That aside, I am looking forward to reading the book. His central premise seems largely similar to that of Robert S. McElvaine's in "Eve's Seed: Biology, The Sexes, and the Course of History," in which he argues that the advent of agriculture was responsible for the desire to commodify and control female sexuality, leading to the patriarchal way of life we're all so familiar with.
Yet I'm still a bit skeptical over Savage's gushing praise. While I'm sure the book is interesting, the idea that monogamy isn't natural to men and women isn't a new idea, and I'm curious as to what in particular about this book lead Savage to get so excited while he tends to pass over a lot of other equally worthy books along the same subject matter - like Mary Roach's excellent "Bonk" which gave this jaded Human Sexuality minor some new info to stew on (did you know that vaginal lubrication is just blood plasma? I bet you didn't!).
More to come on this subject soon!
But I understand there are some interesting questions raised by studying human evolution, when the research is done properly, by scientists working under respected institutions, transmitting their findings via articles published in peer-reviewed journals.
But what happens when less intellectually rigorous types get a hold of some of the basic tenets of evolutionary psychology/biology? Well, all you have to do is pick up a New York Times or a Psychology Today to find out. The results of one study (often of questionable methodology) are presented as "proof" for why men are likely to cheat and women just need to shop and so forth.
And as if that wasn't bad enough, what happens when an advice columnist with a particular viewpoint gets a hold of some evo psych? Well, you get Dan Savage's latest column and podcast, both of which he devotes entirely to Christopher Ryan, co-author of the book "Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality." Oh, and not one but two blog posts as well. It's fairly unprecedented for Savage to devote so much time to one person's theories, but when he said that Ryan's book, "...is the single most important book about human sexuality since Alfred Kinsey unleashed Sexual Behavior In The Human Male on the American public in 1948," I just had to know who this guy is.
The results of my Internet sleuthing were interesting, but I'm refraining from that discussion until I read the book and even hopefully get a chance to pick Christopher Ryan's brain a bit, if he's amenable. He blogs regularly for Psychology Today as well as The Huffington Post. Based on Savage's references, as well as the other material available, Ryan believes that he has significant evidence that monogamy is unnatural in humans, and particularly for men. This is also something I believe, although I don't yet really think there is scientific evidence to prove it. I'm also not sure if it really matters. Sure, the question of how our sexual culture evolved is interesting, but given that we still live in a world where womens' sexuality is so highly stigmatized, I'd rather spend my energy fighting misogynistic cultural notions about sexuality rather than quibbling over whether we're more like chimpanzees or bonobos.
That aside, I am looking forward to reading the book. His central premise seems largely similar to that of Robert S. McElvaine's in "Eve's Seed: Biology, The Sexes, and the Course of History," in which he argues that the advent of agriculture was responsible for the desire to commodify and control female sexuality, leading to the patriarchal way of life we're all so familiar with.
Yet I'm still a bit skeptical over Savage's gushing praise. While I'm sure the book is interesting, the idea that monogamy isn't natural to men and women isn't a new idea, and I'm curious as to what in particular about this book lead Savage to get so excited while he tends to pass over a lot of other equally worthy books along the same subject matter - like Mary Roach's excellent "Bonk" which gave this jaded Human Sexuality minor some new info to stew on (did you know that vaginal lubrication is just blood plasma? I bet you didn't!).
More to come on this subject soon!
7/6/10
San Francisco Pride: As Queer As A Five Dollar Bill
So this is what the same-sex marriage has wrought. The homonormative white moneyed gay male collective has worked very hard to put up images of gay life as a series of set pieces depicting happy wealthy white men pedaling bicycles and smiling benignly. Pride, once a radical public casting-off of fear and shame, it is now street party in which vendors hock astroturf and pricey Smirnoff coolers.
The Saturday before the Pride Parade is focussed around Dyke March. This one day may contain the vast majority of true Pride spirit, and well, pride. People congregate in Dolores Park, drinking beer and mingling, looking for old friends striking up conversations with strangers. And queuing up for the Port-a-potties. Later in the day, people take to the streets, marching, dancing, and celebrating queer pride.
Saturday's vibe is much more community and queer focused. It's truly celebratory and that's what is really missing from the big show on Sunday. While Sunday has the parade, stages and booths, it feels out of sync with the grass-roots nature of the communities represented and their struggle for representation. It feels straight. It's a rainbow flag painted on any generic street festival. The parade feels like a presentation for straight people. “Hey folks, marvel at the queer zoo, and when you're done, go grab some brochures about vinyl siding!” Dyke March works because it is their march, not a function of the local tourism board or straight out-of-town gawkers looking to stare at crazy SF queers.
Maybe it's time to take the whole Pride festival back to its roots. Replace the show with more focus on issues and the people fighting for recognition. The big issues should not be reduced to bumper sticker political messages held up on floats. What I'm saying is, call the dykes, we need their help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
