NRE Isn't Why We Fall In Love, But It Might Be Why We Break Up

For years, my biggest issue with polyamory, or more specifically, poly advice, was that the incredibly destructive, relationship-ending chemical rodeo known as “New Relationship Energy” (also known as “infatuation” if you’re level-headed, “limerence” if you’re a psychologist, or “love” if you’re an idiot) was downplayed consistently.  Many poly problems seemed to stem from bad choices or inconsiderate behavior made by one partner in NRE, while the other partner has to deal with the insecurity and jealousy of seeing their SO acting like a crazy person and showing little interest in them.  Feeling like you’re losing your partner to another is the primal fear that prevents many people from exploring poly and haunts many who do.  When you have a partner in full-on NRE, many of those fears seem to be coming true - because, maybe, they are!

For years, most people have viewed NRE, or whatever you want to call it, as crazy chemical drug that induces people to begin relationships for the sake of makin’ babies.  However, an article on The Quartz brings up the idea that maybe the point of NRE isn’t so much to get into new relationships, but rather to get out of an existing one.

It sounds crazy, but it also makes sense.  You don’t need NRE to start a relationship - it helps, but many solid relationships exist without NRE having ever been in play.  And certainly many relationships end without NRE for another factoring in.  But when one person leaves someone for another?  NRE is always in the mix.

The age old question in sexuality and relationship research was whether humans are fundamentally monogamous or not.  There are extremists on both sides arguing their case furiously, but reality seems to be more complicated.  A lot of evidence is starting to point towards the fact that when the status of the sexes are relatively equal, serial monogamy will be the norm.  This article argues that may be the way nature intended it to be.

I’m wary of the naturalistic fallacy no matter who it’s coming from - Conservatives on one side, Christopher Ryan of “Sex at Dawn” on the other.  From a common sense perspective though, ending an otherwise happy, stable relationship does seem strange, until you consider the idea that NRE might exist to encourage us to do just that.  

If there’s some truth to this hypothesis, it might help explain why poly relationships do seem, on the whole, more unstable than monogamous ones.  I know this will get the poly readers I don’t have huffy, but as much as we all love to hate him (and we do kinda hate him on this blog), Dan Savage famously remarked that he’s been to plenty of poly commitment ceremonies, but not a whole lot of poly three-year anniversary parties.  He has a point, and the point isn’t that polyamory is bad or invalid, but it is an inherently destabilizing relationship model.  Shira B. Katz, formerly of Pedestrian Polyamory (which ended when her marriage ended due to...NRE) and currently of Life On The Swingset and an enthusiastic and proud poly person has advocated that line many times as a positive, as does Franklin Veaux.  Two people who are famous poly experts who don’t put a lot of value in established relationships.  It’s not hard to find monogamous or “ish” people who have been together for 10 years.  It is quite difficult to find poly people who have maintained more than one relationship for 10 years.  (And when you do, it’s often a closed triad or V, which for some reason seems to be a more stable structure than others.)

These musings only matter if relationship stability is your primary goal when navigating an open relationship.  It isn’t for everyone, and that’s fine.  Many polyamorous folk look down on those of us who value that stability as engaging in “couple supremacy” and I say, hey, we are all free to choose what’s most important to us in life.  My current relationship is the most important thing to me outside of my basic personhood.  I know I could survive and thrive without my husband, but I just don’t want to, not if it could be helped.  We know, being in an open relationship, that NRE is possible.  Hell, I found myself in crazy, one-sided NRE with a friend that I simply had a crush on.  Despite my deep commitment to my husband, and the fact that I did not find this guy a good match in any other sense, I found myself indulging in fantasies of running away with my crush object.  It’s crazy, it defies reason, or even what I really want in my life, but that’s NRE for you.  It’s not logical.  And like all NRE, it passed, I’m really, honestly glad that he never made a pass at me, and I kept my feelings hidden from him.   It would have been incredibly destructive to the thing I hold most dear, and for what?  Indulging in a temporary chemical high with someone that I’m fundamentally incompatible with in a way that could have very likely harmed the relationship I care the most about?

I’m not saying that being poly is inherently bad, but I am saying it’s inherently destabilizing.   If maintaining an existing relationship is a primary goal of yours, opening yourself up to the possibility with NRE is risky, no matter what poly advice gurus will tell you.  It’s up to you to negotiate responsibly the line between risk and reward.  Tread carefully.

Respectful Disbelief

Identity's is not a touchy topic. Race, religion, and money are touchy topics; on the Internet engaging identity issues is like the kid from "Christmas Story" sticking his tongue to a frozen electrified subway rail. It's an invitation to a Chernobyl-style meltdown on one's blog, Tumblr, or LJ.

So it's rare that a bit of subtle, reasoned response creeps in. Recently an individual (is that the wrong term, in case the person is a fictive-identified collective?) was discussing feelings of being a man-made structure. In the one-on-one discussion, this structure noted an appreciation for the other person's "respectful disbelief".

That term really struck a chord. I've been happy to laugh otherkin, fictives, demisexuals, objectum sexuals, and Randian Objectivists in the past, but I this one phrase stuck with me enough to consider all that. Okay, all except objectivists. They're awful people. Fuck Ayn Rand.

Even if we're devout Christians who don't believe homosexuality is anything beyond proof of Satan's touch, or Dan Savage who feels the same way about bisexuals, we can at least approach identity with basic respect for our fellow humans (and non-humans).

So that's my holiday wish. This season, and in the ones to follow, please, when confronted with an identity that you doubt, dislike, or question, at least be respectful. But seriously, fuck Ayn Rand.

More Savage Assholery on Bisexuality

We've chronicled extensively former advice-columnist-turned-one-man-media-machine Dan Savage's assholery, particularly on the subject of bisexuality (see tags). Or rather male bisexuality, since Dan generally doesn't seem to have an issue with the bi ladies, aside from their general flakiness and habit for breaking the heart of lesbians.


Dan's former issue with bisexual men could be generally summed up as: they don't exist.  They are either gay and in denial, as he was when he briefly identified as bi (and how shocking that a self-absorbed jerk like Dan would take the tiny realm of his personal experience and project it onto something as complex and varied as male sexual orientation) or they're basically straight, because bi men end up in relationships with women.


He's whistling a slightly different tune now, blissfully unaware that this new technology known as "the Internet" has recorded years of him denying the existence of bisexual men, but he's now insisting that the problems bisexual men face aren't entrenched societal homophobia and biphobia but their own cowardice because bi men just won't come out.


Now he's probably right in that it's likely that the majority of bisexual people are likely to marry or have long-lasting relationships with opposite-sex partners.  Part of it just a numbers game.  There are vastly more people interested in the opposite-sex than the same.  There's also the trope that bi people are only into same-sex people for casual flings, but want to settle down in a more traditional manner.  It's a bit of a stereotype, but it does seem that to many bisexual people are sexually attracted to the same sex but not particularly interested in more.   That doesn't mean they're "not really bi" or that "bi people don't exist" - it just means that bisexuality/pansexuality is really an umbrella term that covers a huge range of sexual and romantic orientation styles.  And the fact that we live in a virulently homophobic society with huge social pressures to conform, well, it's not surprising that if you are romantically and sexually attracted to the opposite sex that your life might end up taking the path of least resistance.  This doesn't make a bisexual identity invalid.


And I think with that I might be hitting on one of the main issues I see in gay resistance to, or disdain of bisexuals.  In this lovely little piece, Dan claims he never said bi men don't exist (he just implied it over and for years and years) he opines that bisexual men need to stop whining and come out of the closet already.  I agree about the closet.  All it takes is a little life experience (or a brief glance at the Craigslist M4M section) to realize that clearly a decent chunk of the straight-identified male populace has significant bisexual desire.  But man, it's fucking irritating for Dan Savage, of all people, to be wagging his finger at the craven bisexual men for not coming out yet, when it was exactly attitudes like the ones he's espoused for years that make the option of coming out for bisexual men not a particularly attractive one.


I mean, what does a bisexual guy stand to gain from coming out?  The vast majority of women - even bisexual women - don't want to date a bi guy, the fear being that he's actually gay and in denial.  A viewpoint that Dan still proudly champions, by the way.  According to the bi men I've talked to, gay men aren't too thrilled to date them either, because it's assumed the bi guy is just lookin' for some cock and will end up breaking their heart for a woman.  Well, at least there's the well-established, supportive community for bisexual men...wait.  Nope.  If your friends or family are homophobic, well, you're not "less queer" in their eyes because you like pussy, but there's a decent chance you're seen that way by plenty of your gay brothers.


Now as Dan rightfully points out, if coming out was easy no one - gay, lesbian, or bi - would be in the closet. Yet he totally misses the fact that in addition to serious risks and repercussions, coming out as gay or lesbian does provide a couple of worthwhile benefits - a dating pool and a chance at the kind of relationship you want being a pretty big one! - that is a lot harder to access in the closet.  Bisexual men actually lose the majority of their potential partners when coming out specifically as bi (as opposed to identifying as gay for the sake of dating men, or letting yourself be assumed hetero when dating women).  


This is not to say at all that bisexual men are more oppressed than gay men, or that gay men are capable of oppressing bisexual men by not wanting to date them or not giving them a big ol' "Welcome to the queer club!" hug when they come out.  Gay people, if they want to be partnered and live a "normal" life with a picture of the spouse on the cubicle desk have to come out to achieve that.  Bisexual people don't, necessarily (although let's not forget the largely invisible population of bisexuals in same-sex partnerships that everyone assumes are gay).  So to people like Dan, bisexual men don't have it as tough as gay men do.  And it's true that many bisexual people do possess what people in the sociology world refer to as "passing privilege" or what the social justice set calls "invisibility".  But it's both a perk and a curse.  Sure, you're far less likely to be beat up by a homophobe when you've got a wedding ring and a picture of your wife in your wallet.  That is a powerful privilege that some bisexual people possess.  


But there's a downside: lack of community, isolation, no support network, the feeling that you're projecting a lie - even if you're out - because unless you're walking around with a bi pride button on, opposite-sex-partnered bisexuals will be assumed to be straight.  Opposite-sex-partnered bisexuals do not get to out themselves by placing aforementioned picture of partner on cubicle desk, or walking hand-in-hand with their partner down the street.  They generally will have to specifically raise the issue, because they are assumed straight.  Or maybe Dan just thinks they should wear the buttons?  Maybe a cloth badge of some sort.  After all, they "owe it" to themselves, as Dan suggests, to awkwardly bring up their sexual orientation when no one has asked the question.  Imagine those water cooler discussions:


"What did you do this weekend, Bob?"
"You know, the usual.  Watched the game, went on a hike with the wife.  And just so you know, Jen's great, but I happen to be bisexual."
"...." 


Obviously there are times when a bisexual person can out themselves in a more relevant manner, such as when a co-worker makes a homophobic remark or what have you. But generally, outing yourself as a bi person in a opposite-sex relationship does not function in the same way it would if you were gay.  


Dan also lives in some crazy bizzaro world - perhaps a function of his advanced age, since he was a teenager in the '70s and I'm told male bisexuality was "cool" then - where gay men identify as bi "because it makes them feel superior and/or more masculine".  To be fair, I'm not a gay man, so maybe some gay men do think bisexual guys are more butch, i'm skeptical, but willing to entertain the notion.  I can tell you in the straight world, bisexual guy = gay guy, but creepier, and certainly not more masculine.  A lot of straights who have no problem with gay dudes have a visceral disgust and hatred of bi guys, because they're the insidious, treacherous disease spreaders, and their orientation makes no sense. It's so common for a sort of liberal-ish straight dude proclaim their sympathy for gay men, with the understanding, "Well bro, I mean, I love pussy, but I was born straight.  If I was born gay then I'd like cock as much as I like pussy now, so gay, yeah, I totally get it."  Bi men don't fit into this picture, because what kind of sick fuck would go for cock when he totally likes pussy, too?  Even as our society becomes more accepting of homosexality - as long as you're just born that way - attitudes about sexual flexibility remain retrograde and threatening.  Unless you're a chick, because that's hot.


So bi guys - geez, why won't you just come out already?* 


On a related personal note, my brother visited me this summer.  After too many beers, he came out to me as bisexual.  And this is one of the many reasons my hatred for Savage on this issue is not just snark.  My bro is an introverted, slightly awkward 25 year-old who hasn't exactly had a lot of relationship experience with any gender.  He trends towards the gayer side of the Kinsey scale. He knows I'm queerish.  He knows my husband is a bisexual man.  And yet it still took him this long to come out to me, someone he knew would be supportive.  He said he has no intention of coming out to anyone but his closest friends because all he hears from the straight and gay world alike is hostility towards people like him.  Good job, Dan.  Making life easier for queer youth, all the time.  I'd love to have him look my brother in the eye and tell him how he's making things better for him.


*I do think that bisexual men should come out when it is safe for them to do so.  I just think Dan saying it is a real dick move.

Weekly Savaging: Goodbye, Dan

Dear Dan Savage,

It would not be hyperbole to say that you are one of the most influential figures I've had in my life.  I discovered you as a teenager, when I'd snag copies of SF Weekly paper on excursions to the glamorous, gay city from the Central Valley cow town where I grew up.  I'd immediately flip to the back of the paper to find your advice column, nestled between escort ads.  Hilarious and scandalous, yet practical and strangely heartfelt, your writing deeply affected my understanding of my own sexuality and how I approached relationships.

I became more of a fangirl as I entered my 20's.  Testament to this is that I own a copy of every book you've written, including one signed by you at reading you gave in the Haight (I was that stammering girl with her gay friend who embarrassed you by going on a bit too long about how awesome you are - I'm sure you remember me clearly).  I still recommend "The Kid" to anyone who will listen.  You were my Gay Best Friend when I was stuck in conservative small towns and flyover states.  Plus, I had an not-entirely platonic crush on you.

During the years, as I've become more politically aware, being a fan of yours has cause some problems.  Quite a few people in the circles I run in, both online and off, have a problem with you.  The first complaint I heard was that you're a misogynist.  This was easily brushed aside for me - sure, you might have compared female genitalia to a canned ham being dropped from a tall building, but so what?  You're a gay man, and your vulvaphobia wasn't a problem for me, particularly since you were also so quick to call out straight boys on theirs, as well as to tell them that they don't deserve to be in sexual relationships if they weren't willing to give women the orgasms they deserve.  To me, the benefit you did as an advocate of female sexual pleasure far outweighed some crass humor. 

But the problems didn't stop there.  Your take on fat people has consistently been simplistic, hurtful, and unnecessary.  Comparing people with race-based sexual preferences to preferring one hair color over another ignores ingrained societal racism.  After Prop. 8 passed here in California, you had a horrible blog post blaming Black Californians for the end of gay marriage in California, while whining that Obama couldn't have been elected if not for gay people, which conveniently erased the existence of Black queer people.   And as anyone who has paid attention to you, like, ever knows, you have consistently said fucked-up shit about bisexual men and women, as well as about trans people.

For starters, you're one of the biggest advocates of the obnoxious "female sexuality is fluid (so male sexuality must not be)" meme, which helps negate womens' queer identities in one sense (we're not really ever straight or queer, just "fluid") and completely makes bisexual men invisible, which isn't surprising because you basically don't really believe they exist.  You've also stated that there are no male-to-female transgendered people who ever perceived themselves as gay men, and make jokes about how every butch lesbian will eventually transition to male, both of which display a ginormous lack of understanding about trans experiences.  Oh, and is this an appropriate time to bring up your pro-war stance in Iraq?  No?  Too bad.

But to top all this shit off, you go and pull shit like this, in which you make a "joke" claiming a bigoted cis male politician is actually a female-to-male transsexual.  Then you get an employee of yours to publish a ridiculous defense of a blatantly transphobic act (and not mention, bafflingly unfunny "joke") which is almost as stupid as the original offending post.

I'm sorry, but this whole, "It's funny to say that bigoted figures are really what they hate," is an old, boring, and pointless meme.  Yes, some homophobic politicians have in fact been outed as queer (unlike you, I hesitate to assume that men who have sex with men but have been married to women are automatically gay).  Most homophobic politicians are still just plain ol' bigoted straight folks, and frankly, I care less about their orientation than I do about the actual harm they are doing to GTLBQ people. Then you take that one step further and make a running joke about Rob McKenna being a trans man - presumably, because you think he "looks" like one.  Setting aside the problematic idea that trans men look a certain way, he doesn't even fit the stereotype of what trans guys are supposed to look like!  What he does have is delicate facial features, so I guess that makes him "feminized" in your eyes - so he must be a trans man, i.e. not a REAL man, right, Dan?  I see no other way of interpreting this. 

But now, you're claiming can't be transphobic because you've raised money for trans causes.  Is that kind of like how fundamentalist Christian Zionists must not be anti-Semitic because they support Israel (as far as it relates to their own ends)?  And unable to resist pouring salt on a gaping wound, Queerty (don't read the comments - never read the comments) reports you saying this in your "defense":


"I am not biphobic or transphobic. One my best friends is trans. People accuse me of being biphobic when all I am doing is articulating that a lot of bisexuality has certain issues and problems. Many people did identify as bisexual when they were coming out and it was a lie. That is just true. It is not crazy when you meet a bi person to wonder if they are really bi. It isn't disrespectful. It is rational. Many bi people end up in an opposite-sex relationship so they are not in the same boat with us as gays and lesbians. … I joke about trans stuff. We are not allowed to say tranny anymore. There's the T word and the F word, there is every letter of the alphabet word. … I still use the word "faggot" all the time in my column. Every time that I am on chat shows on cable I make a point of using fag in reference to myself because I don't think it is a dirty word. I don't think we should be stupid about it."

While your wit is well-known, you've never been accused of a being a particularly deep thinker, Dan, as this quote makes clear.  Are you really so self-focused that you cannot conceive of how it's a little bit different for you, as a gay man, to reclaim "faggot" than it is for as a cis person to insist that "tranny" is OK?  Would you really be comfortable being called a "faggot" by someone you know to be an anti-gay bigot?  If words didn't have power, you wouldn't have tried to reclaim and de-legitimize "faggot" as a slur, and you do not get to decide what is or is not a slur for groups you are not a part of.  I mean seriously, sit the fuck down and think on this a while.  Do white people get to use racial slurs if they "have *insert ethnicity here* friends?"  And are you seriously not aware of how incredibly fucking stupid it is to use "I have *insert whatever here* friends as an excuse for any sort of bullshit?

As far as your biphobia goes, for fuck's sake dude, this isn't 1992.  Male bisexual chic has fallen far since the time you were coming out, whereas hey, guess what?  Being a gay dude has become far more accepted.  While yes, every single gay man on earth has a story about a guy who used to call himself bi and is now gay, this idea that men are actively taking on the stigma of male bisexuality in droves as a temporary measure to avoid the stigma of male homosexuality is kind of ludicrous.

And while it's true, based on the simple numbers game, that most bisexual people will "find themselves in an opposite-sex relationship" - what you mean here, obviously, is "will settle down with an opposite sex person."  What you did here is basically declaring a bisexual identity not relevant to queer politics because of a bisexual person's relationships.  An out bisexual person, Dan, can still be on the receiving end of homophobia simply by virtue of being honest about who they are, regardless of who they're dating.  They can still lose their jobs, custody of their kids, or get kicked out of the military.  I know it seems scary, but I promise you that acknowledging that bisexual people face oppression similar to what gays and lesbians face does not actually reduce your claim to the oppression you suffer as a gay man.  This isn't a zero sum game.

Here's the thing.  Unlike, it seems sometimes, a lot of rhetoric that gets thrown around in anti-oppression circles, I get that in the real world, most of us are not generally interacting amongst people who say, know what "cisgender" means or is terribly invested in radical queer critique or anti-racist analysis.  And especially for someone who came of age in a much different gay culture that a lot of this talk you deride as "alphabet soup" and such can seem like politically-correct  women's-study-majors buzzkill bullshit.  And if you were just some random gay guy who had some less-than-cool opinions about what words you are supposed to say or what you think about bisexuals, I wouldn't give a shit.

But you're not some anonymous, increasingly irrelevant negative queen with no power.You're a public figure.  Not just any public figure, but one of the U.S.'s most famous advice columnists.  The "Savage Lovecast" is one of the top 10 most popular podcasts on the entire Internet.  Like it or not - and I suspect you rather like it- you are in a position of authority, particularly to queer youth, but also for straights and how they perceive queerness.  For fuck's sake, Dan, you are Stephen Colbert's "Spokesgay"!  You are a representative for sex, liberty, and gayness to the rest of this fucked-up country. So you have a real responsibility as someone who claims to care about young freaks everywhere  to not be a huge fucking dick about people you don't like or understand.  Because it affects people.

It would be great if you bothered to educate yourself and learn why your views on appropriate language and transgendered people and bisexual people are ignorant and wrong.  Or if you can't be bothered to do that, to at least learn to shut the fuck up about your bigotry in the public sphere. But we both know that isn't going to happen.  So you can continue to increasingly sound like a throwback to some regretful primeval era of gay politics, the "glory days" before you had to worry about the "T" or the "B", because we're breaking up.  It's been a long time coming, but I'm fresh out of excuses for you, and you're embarrassing us all.

Weekly Savaging

So ManOverBored and The Boy About Oaktown are not, in fact, Dan Savage fans.  This might have something to do with the fact that Dan Savage, advice columnist and editor-in-chief of the Seattle Stranger, is one of those rich white gay dudes who has little interest in political organizing that doesn't affect rich white gay dudes.  In short he has been consistently biphobic, transphobic, sexist, fatphobic, and racist and shows no desire to not be these things.

On the other hand, he's the first really sex-positive advice columnist, can be extremely funny, and is usually very good at giving sound, practical relationship and sex advice.  For this reason I have a soft spot for him (and by soft spot I mean, "I own autographed copies of all his books, read his column and download his podcast religiously, and would very much like to have sex with him") but despite my weakness I too recognize that Savage fucks up frequently and have no problem calling him out, as ManOverBored did in this post.

So we've decided to turn our Savage Hate into a weekly column in the spirit of Bitch Magazine's "Petty Jane Criticism Corner."  Enjoy!

For our first official installment, I'm taking issue not with Dan being a dick, but rather with plain ol' bad advice.  In the Savage Lovecast #186, a couple that has been dating for two scant months calls in with a serious issue.  They are a new couple and dig each other, but one wants to live monogamously, while the other wants to be polyamorous.  Neither has indicated a desire to compromise on the matter, and were calling into Dan for confirmation about what their heads were telling them - "We're fucked," as they put it - contrary to the desires of their hearts, because they are clearly infatuated with each other.

Now the Dan I know and love (with reservations) is a big proponent of Dumping The MotherFucker Already (DTMFA) and has repeatedly said that people with irreconcilable sexual differences should not be in relationships with each other.  So I was prepared for Dan to reinforce what this couple already knew - that they shouldn't be together.

Instead he calls them back and suggests they "compromise."  What?  Compromising on being monogamous is like being "kinda" pregnant.  It's not really possible.  He went on to say that couples in long-term relationships can often compromise on these sorts of issues, because they really want to be together.

This is true - in the context of, a couple has been together for a really long time, and one of them wants to make a major change, like becoming non-monogamous - to the relationship.  With the basis of trust that is built up in long-term relationships, this can sometimes work.  It can also end in giant flaming disaster.  But to suggest that a new couple proceed in the relationship for "six months to a year" to see if they could decide to compromise was some of the worst advice that I've ever heard.  While it may be painful for them to break up now, it will likely be far harder for them to disentangle themselves after a year of serious dating when their irreconcilable differences make it impossible to continue.

If they go forward as Dan suggested, the monogamous partner will always feel as if she is trying to "be enough" for her polyamorous partner.  She will never feel secure.  Meanwhile, her polyamorous partner, if he agrees to monogamy for the short term, is going to feel resentful at being forced into a lifestyle that he's clearly not interested in.  That is not a solid foundation upon which to build a relationship.  It's hard enough negotiating non-monogamy within the confines of an established, previously non-monogamous relationship - but these kids aren't even going to have the chance to build it.  They were right - they're fucked, unless one of them magically becomes OK with a lifestyle that they are currently adamant they do not want.

Bad Dan!  Bad!

Dan Savage's Racism: Ruining It For Everyone

As regards the agreeable everyone acknowledges that his judgment, which he bases on a private feeling and by which he says that he likes some object, is by the same token confined to his own person. . . . It would be foolish if we disputed about such differences with the intention of censuring another's judgment as incorrect if it differs from ours, as if the two were opposed logically.
- Critique of Aesthetic Judgment, Immanuel Kant

If we look at commercial gay sexual representation, it appears that the antiracist movements have had little impact: the images of men and male beauty are still of white men and white male beauty. These are the standards against which we compare both ourselves and often our brothers - Asian, black, native and Latino. Although other people's rejection (or fetishization) of us according to the established racial hierarchies may be experienced as oppressive, we are not necessarily moved to scrutinize our own desire and its relationship to the hegemonic image of the white man.
- "Looking for My Penis: The Eroticized Asian in Gay Video Porn", Richard Fung

sorry but, NO ASIANS unless you are REALLY HOT
WM 35yo 5foot eight 170 and I LOVE DICK IN MY MOUTH
- "Skull Fuck Victim Takin Loads Tonight (san jose downtown)", author unknown. Available at http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/m4m/1635287989.html, retrieved 3/9/2010 8:04AM.

vers here and could possibly be open to flip flop if you're hot and muscular too. Sorry not into Asians and no PNP or drugs of any sort. neg for neg.
- "shorter built TOP ready to plow (the city (sf))", author unknown. Available at http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/m4m/1633679711.html, retrieved 3/9/2010 8:09AM.

Horny guy looking for regular HOT fun with Asians. . . . Be clean, safe and drug/disease free. Cute+++. Hairless+++
- "VGL White looking for HOT Asian guys - m4m - 28 (sunnyvale)", author unknown. Available at http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/m4m/1633305340.html, retrieved 3/9/2010 8:11AM.

Human fate still rides upon ancestry and appearance. The characteristics of our hair, complexion, and facial features still influence whether we are figuratively free or enslaved. Race dominates our personal lives. . . . In short, race mediates every aspect of our lives.
- "The Social Construction of Race: Some Observations on Illusion, Fabrication, and Choice", Ian Haney-Lopez.

Yes, it hurts when someone rejects you for your race -- just as it hurts to be rejected for your age, weight, gender, or dick size. But what can you do? Everyone has an absolute right to reject anyone for any reason at all, however unfair or arbitrary the reason may seem to the rejected party. We can't say, "That's not fair, you have to fuck me!" when someone tells us to buzz off because of our race, weight or gender. I assume you've rejected guys -- you can't be attracted to all men, correct? Well, your reasons for rejecting a particular guy may feel just as hurtful to him as "I'm not into Asians" feels to you.
- "Savage Love" February 2, 2001, Dan Savage

we can see that all groups think, theoretically, that interracial relationships are acceptable, yet again whites are the least willing to have such a relationship themselves
- "Same-Sex Data for Race vs. Reply Rates" okCupid trends blog, available at http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/same-sex-data-race-reply/ retrieved 3/9/2010 8:27AM

Q: What the hell is happening?

A: I've decided to do this post as a kind of Socratic dialogue/Montaigne-esque quote-fest. Sprinled with netizen neologisms like "Montaigne-esque" and "quote-fest"

Q: Oh that's precious.

A: That's not a question, and also, shut up and let's keep this moving. It's seriously getting more precious by the minute.

Q: Fine. Question one. Is this post really an excuse to tear into Dan Savage? And also, do you secretly find him DILF-y?

A: It's no secret, I think Dan Savage is a total DILF. As for my motivations, yes, I have wanted to revist this rant for ages. "Who the fucking fuck does Dan Savage think he is?" was my alternate title.

Q: What's the problem?

A: Where to start?

Q: Why don't we do a close reading? Stop cackling with glee, you dork. What's wrong with the first line of the quote from Savage: "Yes, it hurts when someone rejects you for your race -- just as it hurts to be rejected for your age, weight, gender, or dick size."?

A: Actually, that line isn't so bad. At least it acknowledges the pain of racism, though it then goes on to equate that pain with ageism, fatphobia, sexism (or maybe transphobia?) and oh yeah, that last one, dick size, IS ALSO ABOUT SEXISM. But it's okay because under a charitable reading, what that sentence is saying is "oppression hurts," and who would argue with that?

Q: The second line... "But what can you do?"

A: Yeah. Thanks for the message of hopelessness, Dan. Like queer men of color don't get that message all the damn time already. "Oh, something racist happened? BUT WHAT CAN YOU DO?"

Q: Then that next one, wow!

A: "Everyone has an absolute right to reject anyone for any reason at all, however unfair or arbitrary the reason may seem to the rejected party." Racism isn't an "arbitrary" reason. It is a systematic, pervasive oppression that functions both institutionally and through its effects on individuals' conscious and unconscious minds. Also, the "rights" language is thoroughly unhelpful when it comes to things like sex and dating. We have the "right" to say racist, hurtful things, but we also have the "right" to call people on that shit and hold them morally accountable.

Q: What about "We can't say, "That's not fair, you have to fuck me!" when someone tells us to buzz off because of our race, weight or gender."

A: Actually, first of all, we can say that (though it's probably a losing strategy for getting to have sex with that particular person, it might bring its own satisfactions). Second of all, saying something like that is NOT the only alternative to remaining silent and swallowing your hurt.

Dan's assumption here is that the injury is merely not getting to have sex. In fact, there is an added injury to being explicitly told "I am rejecting you because of your race." The fact is that, as Ian Haney-Lopez notes, race mediates every aspect of our lives. This is as true for white people as it is for people of color, it's just that for many white people, the way that racism operates is to make them completely unaware that this is the case (invisibility of privilege blah blah blah is it just me that is bored of explaining this to people?).

On the other hand, most people of color in the U.S. are reminded multiple times each day that our lives are mediated by race, and not to our advantage. For gay Asian men, one of the ways this hits us is through devaluation in the realm of sex. Gay Asian men are either seen as sexless and undesirable or as a fetish (and constantly sexually available), in either case, we are denied sexual agency (our own sexual desires are seen as unimportant or important only insofar as they are a complement to white men's sexual desires). Not only that, but the ideology that Dan Savage buys into demands silent complicity with this sorry state of affairs, almost as a precondition to being allowed into the gay male sexual community.

Q: "I assume you've rejected guys -- you can't be attracted to all men, correct? Well, your reasons for rejecting a particular guy may feel just as hurtful to him as "I'm not into Asians" feels to you."
A: Nice minimizing again, Dan. Nice.

Q: Are you watching Special Victims Unit right now instead of finishing your thoughts on this subject?
A: Sadly yes.

Q: That show is sexist!
A: [watching SVU]

Paquin Steps Out; Internet Responds

Anna Paquin outs herself as bisexual and people across Internet out themselves as assholes. She took part in an anti-hate PSA wherein she said that she is bisexual. According to people at the taping, they had no idea that she was going to say that. Todd Wright of Technorati wrote this:

"It defies credulity to suggest that such women are the object of discrimination. Based on an abundance of movies, sitcoms, men's magazines, women's magazines, teen magazine's, talk shows, websites, porn sites, and idle male conversation, civilizations from other galaxies have long since decided that such women rule our world."

That paragraph made me throw up in my mouth a bit. Yes, because being objectified in men's magazines, pornography and male bullshiting sessions means one cannot be the object of discrimination. So if Anna Paquin wanted to marry a woman, she can because she's wank material for readers of Maxim. Take that, Prop 8!

Wright goes on to say, "The danger here is not in discrimination but in the creation of an identity out of this now rather commonplace behavior. This is Paquin's ego telling her, 'I am not enough.' She's bisexual because she feels she's lacking."

Wow. Luckily, he didn't stop there. "This is true of all sexual identities: straight, gay, bi, transgender. We are not categories." So straight people are also straight identified because they're lacking. Now I'm at a loss.

The comments section of virtually every site featuring the news of Paquin's bisexuality are infuriating, but that's the Internet for you. What really stings is when people who should know better prove they can be bigoted assholes too.


Luckily, Todd Wright isn't the only asshat on the web this week. We also have long-time defender of the bisexuals, Dan Savage. In his blog for The Stranger, Dan said, "Paquin is engaged to be married to her "True Blood" co-star Stephen Moyer. Which pretty much proves that she's bisexual." This echoes his usual sentiments about bisexual people. He makes a biphobic comment, then gets angry e-mails, claims he doesn't have an issue with them, and the cycle repeats. He's consistent if not honest.

It's worth noting that Spike TV's celebrity blog was far less obnoxious. Go figure.