Crossing the Shithead Rubicon

I write here not to praise the poly community, but to bury it.

So this mess recently appeared on Reddit's /r/polyamory: Am I delusional to think that anti poly backlash is especially ironic and bigoted?

I grew up in a poly family, and am happily ensconced in a my own poly LTR, stable and happy for years.

I get the normal "oh you must be taking advantage of your poor girlfriends"* thing, but am I wrong to find this especially offensive and ignorant when it comes from a LGBT person? I Mean, Really? It seems like of anyone, I would expect them to understand or at least not be so vocally opposed - but honestly, I get the harshest feedback from these folks...Is it just me?

*(I joined a happy bi fem couple that was looking for a man to play with / be a father, so that couldn't be farther from the truth - if anything, I am the third wheel!)

So it starts out fucked up and quickly devolves, leaving the original post as a high-water mark of poly tolerance an awareness.  And for those who followed the link, yes, the OP really calls himself "I_love_latinas".

One person in the thread is reminded of reading Maus and there being a Holocaust survivor character who was racist.  Someone else suggested that it was a bad idea to compare anything to the Holocaust that was not in fact a genocide.  That person was repeatedly down-voted, because suggesting that polys aren't exactly like the Jews in the Holocaust is as bad as, I don't know, maybe the Holocaust.

The polys then veer off to complain that it's not like Jews and Nazis, but rather like "the black community", and no I'm not making that up, and how they're all hella homophobic, including, I guess, the gay ones.  The polys go on to say that it's even worse when black people are homophobic, as they all are, given that white people have gotten so good at tolerating their blackness.  Hear that, people of color?  You're disappointing white polys.  Get on that.

One guy makes up a conversation he supposedly had wherein he told a gay man that he was thinking of trying out polyamory and the man responded with, I shit you not, this is him quoting the guy, "I don't think I approve of your lifestyle".  Yep, that definitely happened.  That sounds exactly like what a human would say to a person suggesting he might be interested in polyamory.  Wait, no!  It doesn't even sound like something that an alien impersonating a human using only lines of Java code as a guide to human dialog would say.  I mean seriously, who the fuck talks like that?  No one.  Ever.  That's who.

What really gets awful, is that the most fucked up, racist, homophobic posts got up-voted while those very few people dissenting were down-voted dozens of times in single comments.  So the message is loud and clear.  See what happens you social justice types?  If you don't let the polys into the parade, you're probably taking your orders from the homos, the Jews, or teh blacks.  The whole thread rapidly started to feel like it had cribbed the script of an episode of "Fox & Friends", but with 50% more bigotry.

And this is not just an example of Reddit being the gaping asshole of the Internet.  It's the steady state of online poly meeting spaces.  It's a fucking constant.  It's a feature, not a bug, and it's only gotten worse.

Poly is largely white, middle class, and thoroughly clueless about privilege and race.  Want to see how they really feel about the gay community, drop into a poly sphere and bring up marriage equality.  Better yet, do that at in the same post as you suggest that co-opting the language of queerness  while suggesting that a relationship model can't be a sexual identity is maybe not cool.  The indignant sputters will be heard all the way from Minneapolis.  But I was born poly!  It is so a "coming out".  People are killed for being poly all over!

If you really want a fiesta of whining, try suggesting that there's something to the fact that non-monogamy has been super common in the gay community long before poly was a thing, yet the number of gay people identifying as poly is shockingly small.

So many are quick to point out that they can't be homophobic.  After all, the wife is totally bi and hooks up with a bi woman some times.  Also, they know a lesbian who has been to their Saturday munch.  Hell, several of them even have a gay friend or something.  Just kidding.  They don't have friends.  Potential friends tend to scatter when a pack of gamers wearing Three Wolf Moon shirt and kvetching about the gays walks into the room.

No, we're not poly.  The reason we're not now, or ever going to identify as poly comes down to the community and their fucked up baggage.  We date other people, but to call ourselves poly is to stand in solidarity with some really shitty human beings behaving badly.

No, not all poly people are like that, but a quick look at that thread is a clear demonstration that the the bad is a huge majority.  It's also not going to get better any time soon.  Look around and see what serious discussion is going on in the poly community.  Nothing.  Zip.  Nada.  Pepomint used to write some really insightful pieces on it, but now we're just left with people posting about snuggling with their paramours and talking about the great things about poly.  They get mad that the queer community keeps them at arms' length but don't care to understand why beyond throwing out homophobic statements with little prompting.  That is, fundamentally, a function of privilege and a function of poly.

If it gets better, we'll let you know.

It's not getting better.

iGive Up: Even in death Steven Jobs provides distraction

In the span of one week, we saw the deaths of two civil rights pioneers, one of whom defined the modern gay rights movement, and the other a cornerstone of the last century's fight for racial equality. In that same week, a former CEO of a tech company died. Two gave hope and voice to millions. The other marketed shiny tech toys.

One could argue that Mr. Jobs' impact was as great as that of both Rev. Shuttlesworth and Frank Kameny. Based on press coverage of their passing, though, one would get the impression that commercialization of the computer mouse stands head and shoulders above the fight for basic civil rights. The goals of a man driven to make his company number one in the marketplace must be more noble than the two who gave their lives and their safety so that others could live without fear, if media coverage is the barometer.

Slate would get some credit for at least memorializing Frank Kameny, if only the piece they published had not served to demonstrate their complete indifference. Not only does it say little about his life, but it appears to have been completely ignored by Slate's copy editors. One paragraph features the sentence, "They then and force the shrinks to listen to their claims that they were not crazy." The previous paragraph tells us that he founded the Mattachine Society. He did not. He founded the Mattachine Society of Washington. A week after the readers pointed out the error, Slate still
had not corrected it.

Farhood Manjoo eulogized Jobs for Slate in an article titled "The Man Who Invented Our World". He also deified the man, going so far as to say "Jobs had no patience for evolution. He was the intelligent designer." The writer even took his family on a pilgrimage to Jobs' house.

Slate's Rachel Larimore wrote "Steve Jobs Baby-Sat My Kids", about how Pixar, and by extension Jobs, raised the bar for children's entertainment. Thanks. Until that, few people had been aware that Pixar puts out good family movies.

On the same day, Aaron Lammer reposted a Longform.org collection of Job's speeches and interviews. Not to be left out of the dogpile, William Saletan wrote about how one should become an organ donor to honor Job's memory. Seriously, if you became an organ donor only to honor Steve Jobs, you should probably consider expediting the process.


Ron Rosenbaum's article on how Jobs was inspired by early phone hacking was published by Slate the day after Larimore's piece. Jobs was clearly inspired by the idea of using technology to circumvent paying for phone service so much that he created devices like the iPad where you are captive to the company store for content.

There was more in Slate about Jobs and Apple that week, but the point stands. And how many pieces about Reverend Shuttlesworth did Slate publish? Zero. Its African-American spin-off, TheRoot, had an announcement, a decent piece on the man's life and work, and a section of Al Sharpton's piece on HuffPo, but apparently didn't think his passing relevant to the general interest. Slate's editorial staff decided that its readers had no interest in Shuttlesworth's life. In keeping with the rest of their coverage, they could have at least tied it back to Steve Jobs, "Civil Right Leader Inspired Millions, Despite Failing to Impact Cell Phone Market."

What is clear is that they were judged based on how their efforts impacted us today. Largely straight, white fans of iPhones carried the moment because their interests dominate our view. This is a small part of the larger picture of how groups must continue to fight for basic rights in an environment of apathy and distraction. It isn't enough to say that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is over, or that people can no longer be fired explicitly because of the color of their skin. The fight for equality is far from over and it never will be as long as we fail to value freedom from oppression over the latest touch screen baubles.

The Low-Down Dirty Truth

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.

Calling Two Strikes On Gay Sports Organization

 For the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance, a softball league that defines itself as an "organization that promotes amateur sports competition, particularly softball, for all persons regardless of age, sexual orientation or preference, with special emphasis on the participation of members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community," one's on base percentage matters less than the side from which one bats. During the 2008 Gay Softball World Series in Seattle, WA, San Francisco-based team D2 had its eligibility challenged by another team. Subsequently, five members of the team were subjected to interrogation by the league and three of the five were found to not be gay enough to play ball. The men were asked intimate details about their sex lives in front of a panel of 25 people, most of whom were strangers.  Quoting from the National Center for Lesbian Right's press release:

"The players were forced to answer whether they were “predominantly attracted to men” or “predominantly attracted to women,” without the option of answering that they were attracted to both. After each player was interrogated, a panel voted on whether he was “gay” or “non-gay.” NAGAAA’s committee refused to entertain the idea that the players could be bisexual. In response to a player’s statement that he was attracted to both men and women, a NAGAAA member responded, “This is the Gay World Series, not the Bisexual World Series.”

Ultimately, the predominantly-white committee voted that Charles, Russ, and Apilado, all men of color, were not gay. The committee voted multiple times on at least one player. The committee also declared that the other two players, both white—one of whom had given precisely the same answers as Russ—were gay. The committee recommended disciplinary measures against Apilado, Charles, and Russ their team, and the San Francisco Gay Softball League, including forcing their team, D2, to retroactively forfeit their second-place World Series win."

There are two major issues at the core of this fight. Policing bisexual identity is deeply problematic. Is being attracted to some men enough, or should we let a cadre of gay male sports fans dictate who is or is not bisexual enough to be in their company?  The way sexual identity in this case is reduced to "gay" and "not-gay" is a clear erasure of bisexuality.  Bisexuals/pansexuals/queers are not "not-gay" but are actively queer people deserving of a voice and presence in queer spaces.  In addition, there is the problem of racial typing in regard to sexuality.  This is obviously problematic with regards to how queer men (and people) of color are marginalized and made invisible for not conforming to the mainstream (i.e. white) notion of queerness.

Can this really be a serious stand as we enter the second decade of the 21^st century? That this occurred is troubling. That 25 adults sat in a room and participated in this tribunal is staggering.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights has taken this on as a legal case, but if you are still angry, feel free to e-mail each and every one of the board members to eloquently voice your disgust.

(This has been a tag-team post by the Girl and Boy)

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]