Saturday, October 11, 2008 You Are Here: sexuality  | 
Sexuality
Issues of Gender,
Identity, Ethics
and Coitus
The Regulars
Celebrating Sexism the McCain Way
 
Senator John McCain is a maverick genius. Perhaps that sentence won’t play well with the liberal media[1] but it is the Jesus’ honest truth. McCain did what the Obama camp could not, and that is, in the name of civil rights: acknowledge that women are dumb. A bold statement I know, but this has to be his mindset in selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate in the 2008 Presidential Election. 
 
Allow me to elaborate. The McCain camp had been banging the drum of experience, or more to the point, decrying Senator Obama’s lack of it. By selecting Palin, a relative political rookie, they have neutered their own dog so to speak. Sure, they may twist things around and claim that Palin’s time as a Mayor and Governor in Alaska actually makes her more tested than Obama in terms of operations in the White House, but most right thinking political analysts will tell you that, at best, they are experientially a draw, and even that is a stretch.  In that sense, selecting Palin makes any further attack on Obama’s inexperience a moot point. So how could McCain justify a move that eliminates his most powerful weapon? The answer is simple.
 
Boobs.
 
No, not that the Republicans are boobs[2], I’m talking about breasts, mammary glands, funbags, you get the idea. Palin’s got them and so do a heck of a lot of other women out there, and they even have the right to vote now (Senator McCain, himself, was surprised to hear about this latest development having been a staunch opponent of such an idea when he had originally helped found the thirteen colonies). The McCain camp was shocked and thrilled that Obama decided to not have Hillary Clinton be his running mate, and they immediately attacked him for the move. Amazing how time heals wounds - the Republicans jumping on the Clinton bandwagon in the name of self serving political gain. McCain's campaign inundated us with the number. The number you kept hearing about was the 18 million votes that Clinton was able to amass during her campaign and how Obama was leaving them all behind. McCain quickly deduced that if he were to get those 18 million votes that might help him in his fight for the presidency. But how to get them? The GOP logic train quickly left the station:
 
Hillary Clinton got 18 million votes.
We don’t like Hillary, so how could anyone else? Why would anyone vote for her?
Hmmm, Hillary Clinton is a woman.
I bet all them votes was from the women folk.
Hey, we should get ourselves one of them for our own.
 
With the logic train at full speed, the McCain folks snapped into action. What kind of woman though? Answer: it doesn’t matter. The conservative view of women is a traditional one: that women (being God ordained weaker vessels) are not biologically capable of understanding the idiosyncrasies of religion, Nascar[3], and politics. They only liked Hillary because of her gender, and they were probably voting for her just to get back at their dads or some shit like that. A female Republican candidate could be the complete antithesis of Clinton in terms of ideology, but as long she was similar in terms of anatomy, the ladies will rock the vote. The search for the ideal candidate was on. Some still thought McCain would be wise to look for substance above all else and go with a Romney or a Huckabee, but the Vice Presidency can no longer stand to be vaginally challenged. McCain took to the vetting process like one would scour the internet for just the right mail order bride. 
 
Enter Alaska Governess Sarah Palin.
 
She has everything McCain needs to capture the crucial woman vote: She’s a female, she’s a mother, she’s juggling her career and her family, and she has just enough political experience to not make her a complete unknown. Throw in a kid with Down’s and you’ve got yourself a Lifetime movie in the making (and ladies are suckers for those things). With the women vote completely secured (remember it’s been scientifically proven that they don’t know any better[4]), Palin also brings a little something extra to the partisan table. 
 
Besides being easy on the eyes (McCain wants to make the acronym V.P. synonymous with M.I.L.F.), Palin can win over the Dobsonites with her ultra conservative ways. Palin is Pro-Life and Pro-Gun which in Conservative Land equates to family values. Values the way God intended it: we’ll protect your right to life, but once you break out of the womb, all bets are off. Doctor James Dobson, who was originally not supportive of McCain has since pledged allegiance now that Palin is on board. This means either the good doctor is foaming at the mouth for her right leaning policies and values or he has a thing for hockey moms[5].  With women and fundamentalists in tow, McCain’s only real threat on November 4th is a convergence of menstrual cycles and/or the double booking of a National Day of Prayer Around the Flag Pole/Harry Potter book burning event[6] keeping his two main constituents away from the polls. 
 

The bottom line is this: a few short weeks ago, Obama was an inexperienced, elitist outsider who only gave us sound bytes but couldn’t follow it up with action. Now, those same deficiencies are Sarah Palin’s virtues - a little political switcheroo by the diabolical McCain. Further, when Obama criticized Palin's experience, McCain's people responded by claiming that Obama was just being sexist. Brilliant. Apparently, just pointing out the smallish population and budget of Alaska is to claim that women are inadequate, when really all he was doing was putting down Alaskans[7]. Rather than sit there dumbfounded, Obama would have been wise to retort with “You are just saying that because I’m black, suggesting that I’m inherently against white women.”  Then the McCain crew could rejoin with, “That is a supremely ageist response to assume that all ancient people hold to racist values.” That could go on for weeks until election day when everyone just says “Fuck it” and votes for Nader. 

It's just getting juicy, just when we thought McCain was an afterthought, a footnote in history, Sarah Palin inadvertently made it/him exciting. It will be especially interesting to see if McCain’s gamble will pay off as he knows that the way to a woman’s heart is through her chest. Her glorious, voluptuous chest. As this story develops, I will of course keep you, the reader, abreast of all the titillating details.

   
[1] This means you Culture Voice.
[2] They are.
[3] Except for that lesbian Danica Patrick.
[4] By scientifically, of course I mean biblically.
[5] And who doesn’t? If this mini van with snow tires is a rockin’.

[6] Don’t get too comfortable Twilight series, you’re on notice.

[7] America's Canadians

 

 

The dance/Why you may not want to dance with me

by Christin Rice

 
The song lasts exactly three minutes and forty two seconds. It takes twenty three seconds to walk the periphery of the dance floor filtering through partners no one wants to dance with (rotator cuff injuries recalled after one too many swing outs, lack of dance floor hygiene, assholes), past the partners already secured and moving to the interior, drawn by the trombone’s calling. A face of assured sense in ability, yet attempting an affect of invitation with swayed hip and half smile. My posture is best while walking the periphery.
            Partner secured. Whether first choice or seventh, I am now committed to this one dance with this one partner. It takes twenty four seconds to figure out how you lead; the nuanced ratio of talent to direction. The moment I feel an adaptation within myself I feel the first elation. In no other forum of my life do I pride myself on adaptation, accommodation, following. On the dance floor it is my greatest weapon, strength, and holds the key to being asked again or asked by another. 
In seconds twenty five to thirty three I determine if you are weak or strong—not in skill, but in relation to my ability and then in relation to how fun you are to dance with. You can be unskilled, a weak lead, or a beginner: if you are having fun, then I want to have fun with you. If you suck and are miserable, or are fantastic and miserable, or god forbid you tell me how to do something on the dance floor, then my face is painted with fake amusement, and I will not make eye contact with you when the next song starts for fear you think it a good idea to try again. But if half your heart is in it, the part of my heart that still recalls too vividly the Jr. High dances, or rather, moments hidden in the bathroom, will forever root for you. And if you are having fun, and if you are genuinely good, I will get a little intimidated but feel a rush of thrill at the challenge of being better than I actually am. I will follow even more diligently, I will trust the sway of your knee and hip implicitly, I will want you to like me. To affirm me. To not hate dancing with me. I will do anything to ensure a bridge is not burned in the possibility of trying this again.
            And regardless of the in between moments, however we’ve judged each other, we know the dance will end. And as the band transitions into the last bars I will inevitably mess up my footwork. The change of tempo translates to clumsiness, and I shift into analyzing what it means to choose to dip me rather than just one last spin out. I will try to hide my disappointment if the dance ends without flourish. I may succeed. But really, I prefer the moments of a slow dip, or a spin into something unexpected. A satisfying end. Regardless of level, determination or circumstance, I will say thank you. And mean it, because even the worst dance is better than a moment on the sidelines, wishing.

 

The Poking of my Backside: Some Biblical Rants Concerning Homosexuality

by C.C. O’Lorin

You can’t find anybody more intellectually or theological divided about homosexuality than me.  150 days out of the year I lean toward the fact that the sexual ethics of western culture are not derived from the Bible. 

The Bible demands that if my brother dies I must have sex with his widow (Old Testament).  The Bible demands that women must wear a head-covering during worship for fear that the angels might lust after them (New Testament).  We simply do not follow the Bible’s teachings about sexual ethics.  We give weight to the Bible’s authority only when it agrees with the sexual ethics of the Puritans.  So what call is there for me to appeal to the passage that condemns homosexuality when I’m willing to ignore the preceding and following paragraphs entirely?

            Then there are the 150 days of the year when I am forced to consider the whole of the Christian Bible, the deeper themes, the great strides it takes toward moving an andocentric culture to sexual equality.  I am compelled by the overall impact of the Bible’s picture of Humanity, Creation and Creator.  I am humbled by the vision for Shalom and Kingdom Come.  I consider that God’s Creation was intended for perfect harmony and that humanity continually damages ecosystems, relationships, social structures—how can I deny this?  How can it be denied that we are a fallen people who hope for the restoration of the divine Harmony?  This, the central metaphor of the Bible, moves me toward a definition of self and community that yearns for a love beyond mere tolerance.  Am I so arrogant to think that human sexuality isn’t in desperate need of redemption alongside every other kind of relationship?

            Then there are the 65 days of the year when I just think about baseball.

            But, most of the time, I sit on the fence leaning one way or the other.  By the way, I hate being up here.  It’s a pain in the ass!  I sit here thinking of the damage I might be causing because I can’t choose a side.  Will I be as guilty as those passive dolts who lent no decisive action toward slavery or women’s suffrage?  I’m dying to be welcomed down from these pickets by an argument that reconciles the conflict.  I honestly can’t tell you which way I’d fall if I were to be struck by lightning.

            But there is one thing I do know (well two… three, if you count baseball).

            I know why the New Testament was written. That is to say that I know why we have most of the books of Christian Scripture. That is to say that I know what motivated the authors of the New Testament to write down anything at all.

            The central question of the New Testament is What Do the People of God Look Like? Subquestions: Are they exclusively Jewish? Are they exclusively male? Are they exclusively pious? Are they exclusively wealthy? Are they exclusively well-regarded?

The answer to all of these is No. In each of these cases (in which there is no small struggle) the New Testament comes down on the side of inclusion. The Christian default position is supposed to be inclusion.

            (One sidenote: There are only a handful of biblical criteria by which to determine whether or not somebody is a follower of Christ.  There are only a handful of make or break issues. And … wait for it … homosexuality isn’t one of them.  It is a peripheral issue at best and one that is indelibly linked with the abuse of male-prostitution during cultic ritual.  This was the problem that the biblical ancients had with the concept.  But you need not agree with me on that point to agree that homosexuality is not one of the handful of key beliefs required of Christians.)

            Most of the New Testament was written to convince various peoples that messianic Judaism ought to be inclusive of Gentiles, women, etc. If the Jew/Gentile problem didn’t exist, Paul wouldn’t have had the occasion to write two-thirds of the New Testament. TWO-THIRDS of the New Testament was written to convince Jews that circumcision, food purity and a monolithic notion of monotheism ought to be discarded in favor of unity and inclusion. Sweet Jesus—did I just use all caps?

            If Paul, a Jew who never considered his conversion to be a rejection of Judaism, considered inclusion so important to discard three of the primary identity markers of Judaism, shouldn’t we err on the side of inclusion?

            I know this: The homosexual issue can never be warrant for the splitting of the Church. Unless, that is, we choose to flout two-thirds of the New Testament in order to maintain a literal reading of two or three verses.

            This does not answer the question as to whether same-sex romance is intended for humanity or whether there is a view to redeem alternative orientations without demanding traditional heterosexuality.  This is the fence upon which I sit still.  But exclusion on the basis of sexual ideology must be taken off the table as an option for all so-called communities of God.

 

Sweatshop-Produced Rainbow Flags and Participatory Patriarchy: Why the Gay Rights Movement Is a Sham

by Mattilda, a.k.a. Matt Bernstein Sycamore

 

In the fall of 2004, Marriage Equality, a brand new brand of "nonprofit," held two amazing benefits in New York City and Washington, DC. Called "Wedrock," these star-studded events featured numerous celebrities, major-label activist rockers from Moby to Sleater-Kinney, Bob Mould to Le Tigre. Just to get people all excited about marriage equality, the promotional email for the events concluded by stating, "Get angry, protect your citizenship."

 

If gay marriage is about protecting citizenship, whose citizenship is being protected? Most people in this country -- especially those not born rich, white, straight and male -- are not full citizens. The not-so-subtle demand to "protect your citizenship" evokes images of George W.  Bush's screeds against "enemies of freedom."

Gay assimilationists want to make sure they're on the winning side in the citizenship wars, and see no need to confront the legacies of systemic and systematic US oppression that prevent most people living in this country (and everywhere else) from exercising their supposed "rights." This willful participation in US imperialism is part of the larger goal of assimilation, as the holy trinity of marriage, military service and adoption has become the central preoccupation of a gay movement centered more on obtaining straight privilege than challenging power.

 

Gay assimilationists have created the ultimate genetically modified organism, combining virulent strains of nationalism, patriotism, consumerism, and patriarchy and delivering them in one deadly product: state-sanctioned matrimony. Gay marriage proponents are anxious to discard those tacky hues of lavender and pink, in favor of the good ol' stars and stripes, literally draping themselves in Old Glory at every pro-marriage demonstration as the US occupies Iraq, overthrows the only democratically-elected government in the history of Haiti, funds the Israeli war on the Palestinians, and makes the whole world safe... for multinational corporations to plunder indigenous resources.

 

A gay elite has hijacked queer struggle, and positioned their desires as everyone's needs -- the dominant signs of straight conformity have become the ultimate signs of gay success. Sure, for white gays with beach condos, country club memberships, and nice stock portfolios with a couple hedge funds that need trimming every now and then (think of Rosie O'Donnell or David Geffen), marriage might just be the last thing standing in the way of full citizenship, but what about for everyone else?

 

Even when the "gay rights" agenda does include real issues, it does it in a way that consistently prioritizes the most privileged while fucking over everyone else. I'm using the term "gay rights," instead of the more popular term of the moment, "LGBT rights," because "LGBT" usually means gay, with lesbian in parentheses, throw out the bisexuals, and put trans on for a little window-dressing. A gay rights agenda fights for an end to discrimination in housing and employment, but not for the provision of housing or jobs; domestic partner health coverage but not universal health coverage. Or, more recently, hospital visitation and inheritance rights for married couples, but not for anyone else. Even with the most obviously "gay" issue, that of anti-queer violence, a gay rights agenda fights for tougher hate crimes legislation, instead of fighting the racism, classism, transphobia (and homophobia) intrinsic to the criminal "justice" system. Kill those criminals twice, this logic goes, and then there won't be any more violence.

 

The violence of assimilation lies in the ways the borders are policed. For decades, there has been a tension within queer politics and cultures, between assimilationists and liberationists, conservatives and radicals. Never before, however, has the assimilationist/conservative side held such a stranglehold over popular representations of what it means to be queer. Gay marriage proponents are anxious to discard generations of queer efforts to create new ways of loving, lusting for, and caring for one another, in favor of a 1950s model of white-picket-fence, "we're-just-like-you" normalcy.

 

The ultimate irony of gay liberation is that it has made it possible for straight people to create more fluid gender, sexual and social identities, while mainstream gay people salivate over state-sanctioned Tiffany wedding bands and participatory patriarchy. Many straight people know that marriage is outdated, tacky and oppressive -- and any queer who grew up in or around marriage should remember this well. Marriage still exists as a central site of anti-woman, anti-child and anti-queer violence, and a key institution through which the wealth and property of upper class (white) families is preserved. If gay marriage proponents wanted real progress, they'd be fighting for the abolition of marriage (duh), and universal access to the services that marriage can sometimes help procure: housing, healthcare, citizenship, tax breaks, and inheritance rights.

 

Instead, gay marriage proponents claim that access to marriage will "solve" fundamental problems of inequality. This is not surprising, given that the gay marriage movement is run by groups like the Human Rights Campaign and the Log Cabin Republicans, who have more in common with the National Rifle Association than any sort of left agenda, queer or otherwise. These are the same gays who routinely instigate police violence against people of color, homeless people, transgender people, sex workers and other marginalized queers, in their never-ending quest to "clean up" the neighborhoods they've gentrified. Their agenda is cultural erasure, and they want the full Monty.

 

For a long time, queers have married straight friends for citizenship or healthcare -- but this has never been enshrined as "progress." The majority of queers -- single or coupled (but not desiring marriage), monogamous or polyamorous, jobless or marginally employed -- would remain excluded from the much-touted benefits of legalized gay marriage. Furthermore, in order to access any marriage benefits, those not entirely "male" or "female" would need to accept gender tyranny. As gay marriage continues to dominate the mainstream gay agenda, resources are directed away from HIV prevention, AIDS services, drug treatment, domestic violence services, and other programs desperately needed by less privileged queers -- millions of dollars are being poured into the marriage coffin. The fight between pro-marriage and anti-marriage queers is not a disagreement between two segments of a "community," but a fight over the fundamental goals of queer struggle.

 

Gay marriage proponents are anxious to further the media myth that there are only two sides to the gay marriage/assimilation debate: foaming-at-the mouth Christian fundamentalists who think gay marriage marks the death of Western civilization, and rabid gay assimilationists who act as if gay marriage is the best thing since Queer Eye for the Straight Girl. It is no coincidence that queers who oppose gay marriage are shut out of the picture, since it's much easier for a gay marriage proponent to win an argument with a crazed homophobe than with an anti-marriage queer. And every time some well-meaning straight leftist thinks they're being open-minded by taking the gay marriage side, they need to go back to Feminism 101.

 

Of course, Christian fundamentalists make no distinction between diesel dykes and Diesel jeans, or, to be more direct -- they think all queers are gonna burn in hell, Tiffany or no Tiffany. (as in, "I think we're alone now...). Every time gay marriage proponents patiently explain to Fundamentalists, "One, two -- we're just like you -- three, four -- we bash queers more!" the Christian Right gains authority. But this false polarization serves gay assimilationists as well, by silencing queers who threaten the power that lies behind their sweatshop-produced nylon rainbow flags.

 

When gay assimilationists cheerfully affirm, over and over again, to lunatics who want them dead, that of course gay identity is not a choice, because who would choose it, they unwittingly expose the tyranny of simplistic identity politics. Not only have the dominant signs of straight conformity become the central goals of the gay assimilationist movement, but assimilationists see a threat to Christian fundamentalist security as a threat to "progress." Forget about choosing our gender, sexual or social identities, forget about building community or family outside of traditional norms, forget about dismantling dominant systems of oppression -- let's just convince the Christian right to accept us on their own terms.

This has been an excerpt from a larger essay written by Mattilda and published by the now defunct LiP. [Read the full essay.]

 
powered by SnapShot Web