Fuck The Rules! Part 1

So The Boy spends a lot more time on "lifestyle" blogs than I do, because he has a far stronger stomach than I do.  For example, he's been reading Sadie's Open Marriage for years, written by open marriage/polyamory expert Sadie Smythe, although he's not exactly a fan of hers.  Given her sometimes turgid writing style and tendency to resort to psychobabble, I can't say I blame him.  Still, I wasn't particularly interested in her blog until I happened upon the Boy's netbook, which had this entry from her blog up.

Oh hell no.  As you guys know, there's few things that piss me off more in non-monogamy circles than One True Wayism.  And once again, we have an "expert" declaring that a couple dipping their toes in open relationship waters are "doing it wrong" if they decide to agree upon some basic boundaries.

Sadie describes chucking out the rules she and her husband had agreed upon, saying that rules are:

"...monogamous behavior, monogamous thinking, and that sort of thinking doesn’t fit within the open relationship paradigm. Our partners are not ours to control. Hell, they aren’t even ours at all. Open truly means open in this sense – open to allowing our partners the possibility to navigate their outside relationships without our interference."


Oh really?  I thought "open" meant that my husband and I choose to open ourselves up to a possibility other than strict monogamy.  Beyond that, what "open" means is totally individual and negotiable for every couple that decides to give this unique way of living the ol' college try. Not that I had to adhere to the prescribed notions of some blogger*.


Obviously, Sadie is far from alone in this mindset, which seems to come out of the "Secondaries are people too!" camp.  Because couples who have clearly stated expectations and boundaries hurt secondaries, or something.  Not that I should even be using the word secondary, as it's hierarchical and offensive to imply that my fuckbuddy may not carry the same weight as my husband when it comes to major life decisions.  Sure, I'm exaggerating (a little) but the idea that rules are just a misguided way of controlling relationships with secondaries has gained serious traction in the online poly scene.


Problem is, Sadie and those who agree with her are misapplying basic therapy concepts to relationships in baffling ways**.  "The only person you can control is yourself," is a truism so basic that it hardly needs repeating, but Sadie takes that to mean that there's no point in having established rules with your partner, because that's controlling.


Established boundaries and rules are not necessarily an attempt to control your partner, but rather a verbalized set of agreements about expectations around another's behavior.  I accept that I cannot control my partner and realize that if he wanted to, he could go out and fuck as many women as he wanted and there's absolutely nothing I can do about that.  However, I know and trust that my partner values me and our relationship, so he wants to know what my boundaries and expectations are with regards to him being intimate with other people, so that our relationship can continue in a happy and healthy manner.  And not communicating to him what I'm OK with or what makes me uncomfortable is just a recipe for bitterness, feelings of betrayal, and resentment.


The fact is, open or not, romantic or not, every human relationship is based on explicit or implicit rules and expectations.  My husband expects that I will take care of the food shopping and preparation unless I explicitly ask him.  He expects that I will handle our finances, because that's what we agreed upon.  I expect that he will go to work so we can pay our bills.  He expects that I will not jet off to Berlin for two days without checking in first.  This isn't controlling behavior.  These are all expectations based on discussions and negotiations we've had.  Why are expectations and boundaries when it comes to behavior outside the relationship different?  


Sure, at any point, I can decide to stop cooking and paying the bills and checking in with him if I'm not home, and he can't control that.  That doesn't make the concept of these sorts of agreements invalid, it would just mean that I'm being a really shitty person for changing the status quo without discussing it first.  Relationships function well when people articulate what they are willing to do and what they expect from their partner.  It isn't about control - it's about that favorite Poly word: communication.  Two people sharing their lives simply aren't going to get on very well if they aren't sharing what they expect and what makes them happy or unhappy about their partner's behavior.


Hypocritically, all the "Fuck the rules!" advocates in non-monogamy land ignore the fact that almost all of them have a hard and fast rule even if they claim they don't have any rules: they all have a rule about practicing safer sex.  The majority of people in long-term, established relationships don't use barrier protection with each other, which makes it pretty imperative that they do when playing outside the primary relationship and I have yet to encounter anyone in this relationship model who admits to not having a rule about safer play with others.  (Surely, the most soap-operaish drama in polyamory comes from "fluid-bonding" issues or when, god forbid, a primary-secondary couple end up pregnant.)  


But let's face it: "You must practice safer sex with other partners" is a rule, guys.  A controlling, nasty rule!  After all, you can't control your partner!  S/he could choose to not use a condom with another partner, after all, and there's nothing you can do about it.  I guess rules are futile.  Why do we have them? 


I think that most people who are in these types of relationships trust that their partner will abide by that rule, because it's pretty morally reprehensible not to.  But how is this, then, strategically or morally different from choosing to agree upon other rules?  Why is this a rule the non-rules folks employ while shitting on the concept of other rules?  Don't look at me like I have an answer: it's just silly.  Either rules are "monogamist thinking and unhealthy methods of control" or they're a tool that some people utilize in different ways to create a sense of comfort and safety in their relationships.  


Next time, I'll talk about why the two most maligned rules: "Love" and "Veto power" serve a valuable purpose for some people.  


*Having not read Sadie extensively, I could say I have no real issue with her other than I'm not a fan of her writing style.  But then I saw this abject travesty of a spoken word performance in which she fetishizes, otherizes, and stereotypes black men to justify of her love of "black gangster porn"  and I've decided I'm kind of OK with actively not being a fan based on limited information.  If you think I'm wrong, feel free to say so.


**It would be somewhat inappropriate of me to mention that Sadie announced her separation from her husband just weeks after writing about chucking out the rules.  Wait, whoops.

Slutwalk Chicago DIY Poster Contest: Yr Doing It Wrong

(This article also appears on School for Scandal)

So, I'm pretty stoked about SlutWalk Chicago.

For the uninitiated, Slutwalk is an international feminist movement that began in Toronto, that promotes dissolution of "Rape Culture" by emphasizing that men should be taught NOT TO RAPE instead of all the emphasis on teaching women how to "protect themselves from rapists" with advice ranging from don't wear a ponytail, don't go out alone at night, and most horrifying "don't dress like a slut," the comment that sparked the movement in the first place.
This sort of mindset teaches women to view themselves as "victims waiting to happen" (reminds me of that horrible "potentially pregnant" fracas a few years ago.) I think that self defense education for women is important, but so is anti-rape education for EVERYONE.

All around awesome chick Diamanda Galas once said something along the lines of "Women need to stop thinking like prey and starting thinking like predators," and I think that's what SlutWalk is all about. Driving home the point that even if you're walking down the street in a G string and lucite heels, it doesn't mean you "deserve" to be raped. Nobody should be blamed for their sexual assault. Our culture needs to shift in a way that rape is never considered ok, and that there is more support and less victim blaming and stigmatization of survivors.

The following is a list of things that SlutWalk aren't about (to my understanding):

1. Reclaiming "slut" as a positive label or celebrating "slut pride"

2. Dressing/acting "slutty" in public Girls Gone Wild style (participants are encouraged to wear whatever they feel comfortable in, whether that's a mini skirt or sweatpants)

3. Speaking out against labeling women as sluts. (Well, this one is a gray area because of #1. I think this movement is very anti-slut shaming but not necessarily dismissive of positive sluthood and general sex positivity. But people are still wildly divided on whether or not being called slut is a good thing, and I don't think SlutWalk is intended as a debate on the validity of the slut label.)

None of the above are necessarily bad things and possibly incidental to this event, but I don't think they should be the emphasized in promoting this event. I think a lot of people misunderstand the purpose of this event because "slut" is such a loaded word. That's why I'm a little perturbed by the results of the SlutWalk DIY Poster Contest.

I feel bad picking apart the entries, because to be fair, I DIDN'T enter a design. And it's unfair for me to criticize the works of people who did, because they took the time and effort and put themselves out there, but I do feel like I need to speak out when images seem inappropriate/problematic to the aims of a movement I am a part of. I realize this is my subjective opinion, and if you want to argue WHY you think these posters are great, be my guest as long as you are willing keep dialogue open and respectful.

I will not be reposting images here, but you can click here to see them. I like the idea of a DIY poster contest instead of hiring an ad firm, but I am sad to say that I feel like the majority of these posters miss the point of SlutWalk entirely, and some are just flat out creepy to me.

Of the ten submissions, six feature sexualized images of women's bodies where you cannot see her face. With one exception, they are pictures of extremely thin "conventionally attractive" white women. Four are of women with their lingerie-clad asses in sexually available positions, two ONLY show the ass and no other part of the woman, with catchy taglines like "I think you're sexy but I don't want to rape you," and "Slut Yeah Fuck Yeah." I might be ok with pictures of a sexy REAL people where you could see faces as well as bodies, but these pictures appear to be lifted from mainstream advertising/pornography and I suspect that other people might find them alienating/triggering as well.

I am saying all this as sex positive feminist who loves porn, lingerie, and copious fucking. I don't currently identify as a slut, but I have in the past. I probably will wear something sexy to Slut Walk, because I enjoy dressing up. All this said, these posters leave a bad taste in my mouth. This imagery might make *some* sense if the event was actually focused on "slut pride" instead of rape prevention, but instead I see a feminist movement getting the American Apparel treatment, and it bugs me.

The other side of the coin is a poster that says "Don't call me a slut/other perjorative implying promiscuity" (which flies in the face of the women who do self-identify as sluts, and I don't believe SlutWalk strives to takes a hard stance either way.) Another poster features yet another headless woman in a demure, girlish powder blue dress clutching daisies (it's objectification of a different flavor) with the catchphrase: "Virgin or Slut? Love Who You Are." I understand the positive message that the slogan is trying to convey, but it falls down the Madonna/Whore rabbit hole all over again. Many of us fall outside of that limited dichotomy altogether.

This is about the only poster that I feel accurately represents SlutWalk, so it got my vote. I confess I am let down by the way entrants chose to interpret the meaning of SlutWalk (especially since the movement has been so distorted by the media already) and I hope the winning entry will accurately reflect a movement of women who don't necessarily wish to be labeled in black and white as hyper-sexualized "sluts" or sex-negative "prudes", but complex human beings committed to creating a culture without rape.

Take Your Boobquake And Shove It

I'm sure anyone reading this has heard about Boobquake, which is just a self-aggrandizing bit of culturally problematic slacktivism in response to an Iranian cleric's remarks that womens' immodesty causes earthquakes.

There are a lot of good posts about why Boobquake is both stupid, racist, and offensive, but the best is probably this at SwitchingToGlide:

"I was initially intrigued by the idea as a sort of campy and playful way to collectively disprove an idea, but after about 5 minutes of perusal, it became glaringly apparent that this North American response to an Iranian cleric was more about Islamophobia and ethnocentrism than the rights of Muslim women. The events are a vector for the co-option of feminist rhetoric to further objectify women, and a demonstration of the smug North American sense of moral and developmental superiority over those “other” brown folks in the Middle East."

The author made a very good point about the huge amount of viral support for Boobquake compared to the lack of attendance at a protest against Quebec's racist, sexist Bill 94 which bans the niqab in a ton of situations and is basic religious oppression at its worst.  I saw a lot of western feminists whine at this comparison - obviously we can't all get our asses to Quebec to protest, whereas clicking on a Facebook link is easy -  but the author's point still stands.  Boobquake isn't just popular because it's easy "activism" - it's popular because it cuts across ideological lines to condemn and mock another culture and religion, one that is widely feared and derided in the west.

It reminded me of a recent episode in the Polyamorous community where an Ugandan columnist derided polyamory and all of our favorite Polyweekly contributors such as Datan0de and Joreth went to comment in the most wrong-headed, culturally-insensitive, and privileged way possible.

The issue isn't whether or not in both cases the remarks that spawned the furor weren't bigoted or sexist, as they obviously were.  I'm not a complete cultural relativist.  But the way largely-white, western activists single out displays of misogyny from other countries instead of critiquing the far more accepted versions in Canada and the US is seriously problematic.  It is of no surprise to me that the instigator of Boobquake identifies as an atheist activist, as does Joreth - if there is ever a group that will engage in racist cultural supremacy in the name of their (lack of) religion, it's that one.  I know that's quite a bombshell to drop at the end of the post, but trust me, the post about how atheist activism needs to get the fuck out of my feminism and anti-oppression work will be coming shortly.