We're Back! And We're All About Hating!

I know this blog has been all fits and starts, and just as we were getting readership, we'd up and stop posting.  For months.  Or half a year.  Sorry!  A lot has happened - as in your two founders are now living in an entirely different country and it's very confusing and weird and we have been to some degree concerned about our anonymity due to some very real mitigating factors that made us wonder if we should even continue this, our beloved blog.

But it's like, I logged in and one of the people I'd most love to be an Internet nemesis with, Joreth, had gone and responded to stuff I posted back in April!  Don't I feel fancy!  And also, Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed and you can bet we have some feelings about that.  Also: Marriage!  Has it ruined any remnants of queer cred and/or a sex life we once had?  Probably but you'll have to stay tuned to find out!  Plus: Republicans are trying to oppress women!  And being stuck as I am in a hotel room in a strange country, I have been engaging with the feminist blogosphere once again, which means new hatreds!

IN A NUTSHELL:  SHIT.  IT WILL BE WRITTEN.

Don't Tell

Less than ten minutes ago I awoke from a vivid dream. I was a young sailor again. Rather than dreaming of big adventure, my mind took me to the experience of showing a new shipmate around and trying to show him the ropes. In the dream, as so many times in real life, that queer Spidey sense was tingling. I knew and I thought he knew each others secret. It was a quiet understanding that neither of us could voice. We had just met and already there was an old secret between us. Our understanding was restricted to glances and the sense one acquires over time about these things.

That is the day to day anxiety and pain of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Someone across from you, knowing your frustration and anger, but neither one can breathe a word. Being queer can be very isolating, but it's so much more so in the presence of other queer people but bound to say nothing.

DADT gets talked about in terms of straight people having to serve along side queers, but nothing is said of queers serving along side each other. It is a stifling loneliness that breeds sadness and desperation. It is being alone in a crowd.

Asexuals are queer if they want to be

I say let them in, and they'll soon wonder why they ever wanted to be part of a movement that includes white gay men. Oh snap!

Kink or Abuse? It's complicated.

I've had an idea percolating in my head for a while about the issue of abuse within the kink community, and how difficult it is to discern it and call it out. We all know that a lot of what we do consensually for fun in kink would be abuse in a non-consensual context. We also know that abusers can and do hide out in the kink community as a cover for their shady behavior, although ideally they will be recognized and called out for it. (And the truth is, abusers are potentially present in EVERY community). But there is a certain level where people are afraid of saying "your kink is not okay" (and for very valid reasons). It is sometimes hard to judge from a distance whether or not someone's kink is abusive or not, and usually not your business to judge, unless you're a dungeon monitor at a party.

I do have a few things I view as abuse that are considered controversial- beastiality for one, or feeding someone until they're so obese that they can no longer be physically independent. I don't believe that anyone who consents to play that deliberately results in broken bones or damaged organs is really psychologically sound to give consent. Yes, I get that it's their body and they can ask somebody skewer their kidney if they want to. I still maintain that it's a REALLY FUCKING BAD IDEA!

Interestingly, as I was pondering the issue of thinly veiled abuse within my own community, I ran across this article, about an allegedly non-consensual "sex slave" who was tortured and abused by her "master" within the context of the BD/SM community. Without making light of this woman's abuse, I find this kind of titillating journalism both insulting to the victim and incredibly problematic in terms of increasing kink acceptance and awareness. I really wish it was framed more as a case of abuse, rather than "kinky" abuse. Consider the not-so-different kidnapping and abuse case of Elizabeth Smart. Would anyone have considered it acceptable or respectful to use nude photos of her to illustrate reporting on her case, the way they have with the Ed Bagley case? Does the fact that Brian David Mitchell is a FLDS religious wingnut instead of an abusive dominant somehow reflect poorly on the mainstream LDS community at large? (And it's likely that as much, if not more abuse happens in religious communities than within the kink community).

If the allegations against Ed Bagley are true, then he deserves to be locked away for life. But I do have a very real problem with the implication that kinky=abuser in the context of this case. A member of my local community lost her job after becoming a leather titleholder and being outed. What's worse is people who are involved in legitimate, consensual kinky practices are targeted by the law and wind up losing not only their jobs and reputations, but have their children taken away or are committed or imprisoned under misleading charges. (To be clear, I am not implying that this is the case with Ed Bagley.)

So, abuse and kink. It's messy from the inside the community, and it's even messier from the outside looking in. So what the hell do we do about it?

Fetlife is the reason I can't have nice things.

Yo, it's been a while since I've posted. Big changes around these parts, and I've been busy moving house (twice, don't ask), restructuring my relationship, sending my novel to agents, and vanilla blogging for pay. Life happens!

However, today I have rants. Yes I do.

Fetlife, for the uninitiated is like Facebook for perverts. It's facebook with no fucking superego. You think Facebook status updates are TMI? Wait until you find out that someone you once hooked up with is in the Bestiality forums looking for a Great Dane for fun times. And for all the hawt 'n sexy gonzo porn people post, there's also castration pics and various stuff that you wish you NEVER FUCKING SAW and will never get out of your mind again.

Kinky people are by nature, drama queens. Hence there is a lot of wank on Fetlife, and I try to keep my presence on there to a minimum so I don't claw my eyes out. Hence, I share with you some of my biggest fucking pet peeves:

1. Trophy pics
I used to take/distribute nude photos in my early twenties. A lot of this had to do with losing a bunch of weight, buying my first digital camera, being young and sort of naive, and living in a place where I didn't have a lot of dating options, so I got a lot of my jollies by swapping dirty pics with strangers. I've also been in several relationships with "artists" where creative nude or semi nude pics and video were taken with artistic intent- and in one case, used to try slut shame me by a mentally disturbed ex, who posted them to facebook.

Here's the thing- I am comfortable with my body, being nude, and being seen nude. I am not comfortable with third parties exploiting that for their own ends.

A lot of wannabe playboys on Fetlifes post scores of pictures of their conquests- explicit and often humiliating (and potentially life destroying, considering that Fetlife has extremely lax privacy settings) pictures of women they've fucked. If these women have given their explicit consent to post these pictures, that's they're business. I suspect, a lot of the time, they haven't, and that's just creepy and gross, and a violation.

Hence, I don't share my nude pics anymore, and I don't post nude pics to Fetlife. Not worth the risk.

2. The castigation of young male dominants
The BDSM scene has a disturbing amount in common with Fundamentalist Mormonism in a particular regard- many older male dominants feel entitled to a stable of young, nubile subs, and make a practice of alienating and humiliating younger male dominants, rather than mentoring and supporting them. It's classic jockeying for alpha male status- the younger men present a threat to their privilege, so they virtually stomp on them in forums, or spread rumors about them in the scene instead of presenting direct feedback.

The usual arguments given are that young (typically anyone under the age of 30) Doms are never experienced enough, they lack introspection, they're only looking to get laid, they don't understand the rules of the scene, yadda yadda etc. and therefore do not have the right to call themselves dominants. You know what? I've met plenty of men in their 30s, 40s and 50s who also have these problems. And for some reason, these arguments don't apply to the 18 year old subs these older dominants favor, or the young female pro-dommes who frequently trade on their youth and looks as much as their topping skills to attract clients.

One of the hands-down best Doms I've ever played with, and whom I am still friends with to this day, is only 24 years old. He was twenty one (and I was twenty seven) when we were dating. His play was hot, inventive, safe, sane, and not bogged down by a lot of protocol and bullshit. The idea that it is automatically "safer" to play with an older Dom needs to be called out for the bullshit that it is, and people should evaluate who they play with on a case-by-case basis.

3. The stigmatization of monogamy
For some reason, it seems that within the kinky and queer scenes, monogamy has fallen out of fashion. I suspect a lot of folks spent their formative years in dysfunctional monogamous relationships and have idealized polyamory beyond what is necessarily realistic. Being raised in a progressive city, I had the inverse experience of having many early dysfunctional poly experiences and coming to the conclusion that it's no longer a style that works for me. I am hardly a traditional monogamist- I have no problem with my partner viewing porn or flirting, playing publicly with a partner, or even playing with others within clearly defined boundaries after a relationship has been deeply established, but the idea of dating free-for-all and multiple emotional entanglements does not appeal to me at this point. And for that, I am told I am somehow not emotionally evolved, despite the fact that I have been through all kinds of experiences. That my desire to form a deep bond with one individual instead of hopping from honeymoon period to honeymoon period and spreading myself across several people makes me somehow jealous and possessive. I know myself well enough to understand that a monogamous relationship with a vanilla person would never in a million years wouldn't work for me, and there is something of an assumption that if you want monogamy in a kinky context, you want to be in some sort of codependent 24/7 power exchange situation. Is it possible to desire a monogamous relationship with a man, as a woman, but still be kinky and queer identified? It's amazing how narrow minded unconventional people can be.

And if I have to hear one more argument about evolutionary biology that monogamy is inherently doomed, I will cut a bitch.

4. Vultures
This is a more specific complaint about Facebook, though it has a degree of gravity on Fetlife as well.

Ok, I will say up front- I am sure there are male vultures as well, but as I am a mostly straight female, I wouldn't know. The vultures I have dealt with have been by and large young, insecure women.

The Vulture's express purpose in life is to try to sabotage your budding monogamous relationship with someone new, and to come around and scavenge your relationship carrion post-breakup. Sometimes they're your partners ex, sometimes they're a person who wasn't interested in dating your partner until competition presented itself, sometimes it's a "friend" that your partner isn't interested in dating and feels bitter as a result. It's icky and I don't know why these individuals choose to prey on other people's relationships instead of ya know, finding their own. The vulture existed prior to social networking sites, but Facebook has made their shady M.O. a whole lot easier.

Classic vulture tactics? Posting old pictures of themselves with your partner and tagging them to make it look like they have "something going on." Constant, thinly veiled "harmless" but creepy flirtatious comments left on your partner's wall. In a recent relationship I basically stopped looking at my partner's wall altogether because the vulture infestation was so bad, and he was unwilling to acknowledge why this creepy shit made me uncomfortable, dismissing it as jealousy (and to be fair, a lot of people like this attention and are unwilling to set clear boundaries). The only problem is, sometimes the exact same shit happens when you're been legitimately cheated on and lied to, and being told it's "jealousy" is a diversion tactic.

One girl in particular felt the need to personally comment on anything I wrote on my partner's wall, as if we were involved in some non-consensual facebook threeway. The vulture's goal is to plant seeds of doubt in the hopes of breaking you up. It's shitty and unethical. Would you walk up to someone in a monogamous relationship and openly hit on them in front of their partner?

Facebook is basically poison for relationships and it's entirely likely that I will choose NOT to be facebook friends with future partners for this very reason. Who needs this drama?

The moral of this story? I should spend less time on the internet.

Prop 8 - Finally Some Good News

As most have no doubt heard, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker has ruled against California's Proposition 8 in a move that no doubt had Rachel Maddow stirring up more than a few cocktails. For anyone who has not read his decision, it's interesting, but long. For those short on time, Slate's Dahlia Lithwick has an excellent write-up.

From here, it's on to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Given the reputation of the 9th, Judge Walker's carefully crafted ruling, and the complete clusterfuck that was the pro-Prop 8 team's case, its hard to imagine that the 9th Circuit won't uphold Walker's ruling, opening the door for the case to head to the Supreme Court.

While the 9th is notoriously unpredictable, at least they'll have to base their judgment on Walker's 80 findings of fact, which he painstakingly laid out.

Some conservatives have openly kvetched that it was unfair to have a openly gay judge rule on the case, but none has taken the time to point out that it has been unfair for closeted lawmakers to legislate on queer issues. If a gay judge should have recused himself, what about a married straight judge, or a divorced one? What about a judge who has chosen not to marry? This case is likely going to be in front of Justice Scalia, and while he's not gay, he has one common trait with many of the pro-Prop 8 people: he's a gaping asshole.

Luckily for them, there's no one saying assholes can't marry. Newt Gingrich has has done it three times.

We're Coming Back

Yes, we've been largely absent for the the last two months. Our ISP has gone from providing really spotty service to providing none at all. Things are apparently fixed, so we can start posting again.

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.

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!

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.