Figleaf's Real Adult Sex

Paul Waldman of TAPPED wrote such a wonderful indictment of the IJNNWACDI tendency towards conservative perversion that I’m reproducing the whole thing here.

Via Steve Benen, we see that former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, who is challenging John McCain in the Republican Senate primary in Arizona, has some interesting ideas about what gay marriage will lead to:

“You see, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, when it started this move toward same-sex marriage, actually defined marriage — now get this — it defined marriage as simply, ‘the establishment of intimacy,’” Hayworth said. “Now how dangerous is that? I mean, I don’t mean to be absurd about it, but I guess I can make the point of absurdity with an absurd point — I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse. It’s just the wrong way to go, and the only way to protect the institution of marriage is with that federal marriage amendment that I support.”

This kind of thing comes up with alarming frequency from Christian conservatives. For some of them, any issue of gay rights is about sex – — hot, steamy sex, so hot they can’t stop thinking about it. I’ve always said that James Dobson thinks about gay sex more than any five gay people I know put together. And apparently, people like Hayworth think that there is a tide of perversion lapping at our levees, and if we allow a crack in the edifice of heterosexual marriage, it will come down upon us like a tidal wave, drowning us with its forbidden temptations. I wonder what kind of thoughts led them there?

He said it here.

That sounds about right about James Dobson, and one suspects Fred Phelps thinks about it more than every other gay man in Kansas. Any time folks start going into lurid details or taking their proposed prohibitions to extreme lengths there’s gotta be at least a little fire behind all that smoke. Another example, one with almost universally horrific consequences are the white slave-owning men who, while regularly justifying violence against African American men for their “lust” for white women, also happened to have unrestricted and coercive access to African American women. Another example? I always wonder what’s really up when I hear of another regressive state legislator proposing one of those no-exceptions-for-rape-or-incest abortion restrictions. For instance one wonders how long it’ll be before a weeping Glenn Beck upbraids the likes of me for being all nonconsanguino-centerically privileged and just not understanding that, say, Louisiana state legislators deserve grandchildren just like people do. Now I’m forced to wonder whether J.D. Hayworth would support this petition drive... or if he’d change the subject and fulminate about government having no business interfering with private property rights. $%!#%~%

(Quick note, plus attempted guilt expiation for quoting his entire post: I don’t quote Paul Waldman often in this blog but if you’re into politics and social issues TAPPED is a great group blog and you can find a bunch of his other posts here. I particularly appreciated his post Pro-Lifers For More Abortions from yesterday.)

Via DemFromCT of Daily Kos, Kevin Huffman of the Washington Post says

On Sunday, as I hunker down with family and friends for the Super Bowl, I can rest easy knowing that CBS is working hard to defend my heterosexual sensitivities. On the surface, heterosexuality doesn’t seem like a particularly distinctive trait or one in need of broad institutional protections, but many seem to believe that we heterosexuals are delicate souls.

The media, the government, the military — all are ready to head off potential sightings of gay people.

In the case of the Super Bowl, CBS has refused to broadcast an ad by the gay dating Web site ManCrunch.

He said it here.

Sometime soon I’m going to have to write a post about “privilege,” which while technically accurate as it gets, and also glaringly obvious to those who don’t have it, is also nearly-by-definition, completely invisible to those who have it. That said, I like the way Huffman’s point illustrates a really huge problem with the invisibility of being the “normal” against which all else is “other.”

What I really wish people would get is that heterosexuality is as real and durable an orientation as homosexuality. I mean, it’s a peculiar condition of imagining one’s self “the norm” that it’s hard to understand you’re the way you are for exactly the same reasons others aren’t. You’re that way by accident of birth a.k.a. nature.

And by not getting that you’re also going to miss that you’re not “normal” temporarily, you’re not “normal” by whim, you’re not “normal” because you were exposed to the “right” or “wrong” social influence, and you’re definitely not “normal” by choice.

Any more than any given sexual “the other” is.

And that’s the thing. Being gay isn’t a choice! And one of the coolest things about getting that is that if you just thought about it you’d get that your heterosexuality wasn’t a choice either.

And if more people got that they’d get that they really don’t need the media, the government, the clergy, U.S. Marines and the Canadian Mounties, and, especially, various posses of gay-panic-stricken vigilantes to protect their heterosexuality. Or anyone else’s.

I’m in the monthly rotation for the popular “Wise Guys” column at Em & Lo. This week’s question for their rotating panel of single, and married straight men and married or committed gay man was “What’s the deal with manscaping? We’re talking both genitals and chests.” Here’s how I answered it.

Straight Married Guy (Figleaf): Great question! It’s a great irony to me that, at least in Western Civilization, we don’t think anything of the original “manscaping” — men who shave their faces. For instance, you never hear debates about how shaving makes grown men look “prepubescent” even though technically that’s exactly what it actually does. As for the recent trend in straight men trimming or shaving pubic hair, I think you could make a case that it’s driven, at least a little bit, by the same things that drive women to do so: porn and advertising. The two come together in a recent razor manufacturer’s ad campaign with shaved kiwi fruit and hints about the “optical inch” of penis length that comes from trimming away an inch of pubic hair.

There’s also the point that it just feels nicer being kissed on bare skin than on hair… and, for many partners, it feels nicer kissing bare skin than hair. As for men grooming hair on the rest of the body, I think there are two big reasons. First, because it makes us look younger. Not so much “prepubescent” but, since body hair increases with age, not middle-aged or older. Second, because when it’s long it can be itchy both to ourselves and to our partners. Of course the other side of all that is first that a lot of women and/or men think body hair on men is very sexy, and second that stubble can be even pricklier than if we left well enough alone.

I said it here.

No sense analyzing my own writing (heck, I can’t even proofread my own writing!) so I’ll point out that the quality of comments is pretty different on the post at Em & Lo’s vs. their reprinted version at Yahoo Shine.

A number of Yahoo commenters are pretty down on manscaping because they see it as one kind of unmanly or another. Which makes the “Gay Engaged Guy,” Joel Derfner‘s answer priceless

I don’t know, but it doesn’t matter, because manscaping is, for all intents and purposes, dead. Gay men are manscaping less and less each year, which means that in a few years straight men are going to be manscaping less and less each year, and then our national nightmare will be over.

Yup, just let straight America get the notion that not shaving is Teh Gay!

Gillette and Schick stock will skyrocket and we can all go home. Oh wait! Scratch that last bit about stocks. Nearly all American men already own shaving products.

But getting back to the shaving makes you look less manly bit. Shaving makes men look less manly? Which is a riot because of course beginning to shave one’s face is often one of the first outward acknowledgments of manhood for boys.

Which makes the cultural perception gradient even weirder: shaving is supposed to make men look more womanly, meanwhile shaving is supposed to make women look more child-like. If there was any logic to gender conventions, since shaving is one of the first signals of manhood shaving ought to be seen as making women look more manly! I get so confused!

—-

Gender-neutral rhetorical question: do shaved armpits make everyone look pre-pubescent?

Late last month Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon wrote

G.D. wrote a post about how “Mad Men” deals with overt misogyny and not racism because the writers realize that you can sell a likeable misogynist more easily than you can sell a likeable racist.

She said it here.

Just the other day Yonmi of Feminist SF unearths another instance version of the general effect, this time for homophobia.

I have never been sure how Orson Scott Card justifies his homophobia to himself: I know he loathes being identified as a homophobe, because he would rather think of himself as a normal person with a normal distaste for and hatred of gay men who normally wants gay men to be kept in the closet, and chemically castrated or otherwise punished if they fail to keep themselves out of sight.

Read the quote in context here.

I’ve read very little of Card’s work. I put down “Ender’s Game” when I realized the situation (approvingly!) involved authorities having a very small child conduct a planet-slaughtering war by telling him he was just playing a video game. Whether the author suffered from cynicism, callousness, or naivete that kind of moral, ethical, and religious/spiritual lapse was a enough for me to turn my attention elsewhere. But if I’d read more of his work, Yonmi says, I’d have run into more of his homophobia including the proper degradation and death of otherwise patriotic, heroic, and war-effort-contributing characters who turn out to be gay.

Yonmi’s post includes a long pean to real-life British World War II cryptography hero, and computer-theory godfather, and mathematician Alan Turing who was outed for homosexuality, persecuted out of his job, and finally driven to suicide. Based on his body of fiction and non-fiction work, Card, nominally a science advocate and certainly a beneficiary of contemporary computer technology, believes the world would have been better a better place without Turing. (I’m sure a few surviving unreconstructed members of the Luftwaffe would agree.)

Anyway, yeah, racist is an awful word to use against affable people who just blanket hate people of other races. And misogynist is just such an awful label for likable guys who think the highest compliment you can pay a woman is to say “she’s going to make a wonderful mother for someone’s children someday.” And homophobe is an awful word to use against a guy who thinks it ought to be normal rather than disgraceful to hate gay people.

And I can see their point. Calling someone a racist, a misogynist, a homophobe, or other kind of bigot just makes it harder to see they’re affable, likable, NiceGuys™ who just think they should be given jobs they’d deny to others, who should enjoy rights they’d deprive others of, who should benefit from the misery they’d rain down on others. Oh, and who, like Card, think they should get paid to pen scenarios where adults imperil small children’s immortal souls to advance their strategic interests.

Update: And from the Couldn’t Make This Up department of irony, according to the Wikipedia entry for Ender’s Game, the implacable alien foes children are recruited to fight are called “buggers.” What. Ever.

Update #2: From reader comments it sounds like if I’d continued reading I’d have discovered that Ender regrets his participation in planetary genocide and that Card spends multiple award-winning volumes dwelling on Ender’s redemption. They evidently don’t redeem Card’s homophobia though.