biosex (n): a portmanteau neologism of "biological" and "sex"
For the past year here at Sexpertesse - as well in my experiences as an educator, researcher, and commentator - I've been using this word "biosex" without letting my audience in on a critical element of the word's history. I've casually talked about "biosex this" and "biosex that" and "his biosex" and "my chromosomsal biosex" as if this was a word that everyone knew and used in everyday conversation. But there's a little secret about "biosex:" the truth is, I made the word up.
For years now, I've watched as some people cringed or became embarrassed when I talked about "sex." The problem was, I wasn't always talking about the act of sex, but rather about the biological reality determined through a sex-determination system. Additionally, I've had conversations in which I mistook one "sex" for another. Once, while chatting with a friend about a new woman I had met, my friend asked, "And what's her sex?" Given the context of this meeting - this woman and I had befriended one another at a health summit for transgender people - I know now that my friend intended to ask me if my new friend was cis- or transgender. However, I, like many people, thought of only the more titillating definition of the word "sex," and so I replied, "Uh...I think she likes dudes," and clarified with the brilliant information that "I think she's vanilla because she wasn't wearing a collar or something." Clearly, I had misunderstood the question; the information requested did not regard her sexual activities or interests, but her biology.
And so I created "biosex." Its etymology is simple: it's a portmanteau of "biological" and "sex," and is used exactly in the same manner as "sex."
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Word of the Day: Qmunity
qmunity (n): a neologism and portmanteau of "queer" and "community" used both as a community name and an individual identity
Example 1:
The qmunity is made up of many people who identify as bisexual, homosexual, transgender, or something akin to those things.
Example 2:
Person A: Is she qmunity?
Person B: Yep, she's qmunity; she's married to a lovely woman named Genevieve!
At present, many LGBT organizations are considering the implications of the continued use of the term "LGBT." They consider both the practical and ideological. On the practical level, they note that "LGBT" fails to recognize all of the aspects of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/or transgender people; for instance, "LGBT" fails to recognize a butch identity or that a bisexual person may feel more attracted to one biosex than another. On the ideological level, some note how a delineated acronym de facto fails to identify the diversity said acronym attempts to include.
In order to address this problem, some have suggested that the LGBT people adopt the identity "queer" in order to be more inclusive. Some, including people both inside and outside the community, are uncomfortable with using the word "queer," citing the term's derogative history. Others, however, claim that adoption of the word "queer" is an act of reclamation, the process of changing the meaning of a pejorative term into one of positivity and community solidarity. For example, the words "nigger," "tranny," and "bitch" have all been (at least somewhat) reappropriated by some members of the black, transgender, and feminist communities.
Personally, I'm on the fence about reclaimation. The idea is beautiful, but I'm not convinced that it's working. One need look no further than ongoing cultural battles about the use of the word "nigger" and the difference between the words "nigger" and "nigga" to see that reclaimation is not perfect. To that end, I'm not totally on-board with the word "queer."
At the same time, I recognize that the term "LGBT" isn't perfect, and so I suggest a new word that attempts to utilize all of the inclusivity of the word "queer" but forgoes its questionable etymology - qmunity. "Qmunity" can be used both as the name of a community and as an individual's identity. Additionally, the word is pronounced as "kew-mew-nit-ee."
Example 1:
The qmunity is made up of many people who identify as bisexual, homosexual, transgender, or something akin to those things.
Example 2:
Person A: Is she qmunity?
Person B: Yep, she's qmunity; she's married to a lovely woman named Genevieve!
At present, many LGBT organizations are considering the implications of the continued use of the term "LGBT." They consider both the practical and ideological. On the practical level, they note that "LGBT" fails to recognize all of the aspects of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/or transgender people; for instance, "LGBT" fails to recognize a butch identity or that a bisexual person may feel more attracted to one biosex than another. On the ideological level, some note how a delineated acronym de facto fails to identify the diversity said acronym attempts to include.
In order to address this problem, some have suggested that the LGBT people adopt the identity "queer" in order to be more inclusive. Some, including people both inside and outside the community, are uncomfortable with using the word "queer," citing the term's derogative history. Others, however, claim that adoption of the word "queer" is an act of reclamation, the process of changing the meaning of a pejorative term into one of positivity and community solidarity. For example, the words "nigger," "tranny," and "bitch" have all been (at least somewhat) reappropriated by some members of the black, transgender, and feminist communities.
Personally, I'm on the fence about reclaimation. The idea is beautiful, but I'm not convinced that it's working. One need look no further than ongoing cultural battles about the use of the word "nigger" and the difference between the words "nigger" and "nigga" to see that reclaimation is not perfect. To that end, I'm not totally on-board with the word "queer."
At the same time, I recognize that the term "LGBT" isn't perfect, and so I suggest a new word that attempts to utilize all of the inclusivity of the word "queer" but forgoes its questionable etymology - qmunity. "Qmunity" can be used both as the name of a community and as an individual's identity. Additionally, the word is pronounced as "kew-mew-nit-ee."
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Bisexual Erasure
Internet news sources have been ablaze this week with the stupidest, most pathetic headline of all time: "Bisexuals exist?!?!" Why yes, Virginia, yes they do, and fortunately, some news sources have captured the sheer absurdity of this "news" with their own clever headline responses, such as the New York Times' "No Surprise for Bisexual Men: Report Indicates They Exist" and Autostraddle's "Study Shows that Bisexual Men Exist, Bisexual People Not Surprised." While these cheeky headlines may be comical, the fact that they must be reported at all exposes a tragic reality: unfounded denialism of bisexuality is a real phenomenon, and bisexual people are suffering from it.
Denialism is the act of repudiating the existence of basic scientific truths, often because that truth violates an individual's worldview. Denialism is rather common, some of the most prevalent forms being Holocaust denialism, AIDS denialism, and global warming denialism, the latter being so contentious at present that the topic is often called "global warming controversy" instead of "denialism" by popular sources despite the fact that no organization of national or international professional standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. When denialism confronts bisexuality, that phenomenon is called bisexual erasure. Bisexual erasure is the tendency to ignore, remove, falsify, or re-explain evidence of bisexuality in real life, history and the news, and/or academia.
Bisexual erasure has many manifestations. It often takes the form of simply overlooking bisexuals, be the intention malicious or accidental. For instance, bisexuals call out how they are being overlooked in the marriage equality debate. (Ironically, that article comes from the Gay and Lesbian Task Force.) Indeed, the ongoing use of the terms such as "gay marriage" instead of "same-sex marriage" by proponents and opponents alike erases bi people by failing to recognize that not all people who desire to marry someone of the same sex are homosexual. The terms "gay or lesbian relationships" and "gay adoption" have similar problems of inclusivity and vercity. On an even more foundational level, the phrase "gay community" excludes bi people, as recently demonstrated by an exchange between news anchor Don Lemon and a trans activist at an NAACP forum, which is particularly intellectually-feeble given the definition of the word "community." (The specific topic of trans inclusion is a whole other ballgame, one that I'll be writing about soon.)
Bisexual erasure sometimes takes the form of doctoring historical information to exclude the possibility of bisexuality. Alexander the Great and Eleanor Roosevelt are commonly "straight-washed" or "gay-washed," when their personal histories clearly indicate bisexuality. Anne Frank's burgeoning interest in the bodies of men and women was famously redacted by her father in early printings for bierotic content. Even historical social institutions such as pederasty often have bisexuality removed from their modern descriptions; historic pederasty is categorized as "homosexual" when, in fact, the vast majority of pederasts (the older men who took younger male lovers) were married to women and fathered children with them, while their young lovers were expected to grow, marry women, and later become pederasts themselves.
In its most extreme form, bisexual erasure actually denies that bisexuality - and by extension bisexual people - exist. Unfortunately, my research finds that this kind of attitude is the most-prevalent form of bisexual erasure, meaning that bi people are most often subjected to the form of denialism that hurts most - the personal kind. This revocation of existence often takes on one of a few standard patterns. The most common pattern is monosexism, the fallacious notion that all people are either heterosexual or homosexual, nowhere inbetween. This ideology manifests itself in the strangest memes, among them the idea that bi people are gays "who are afraid to come out" or that they are really just inquisitive (and apparently hands-on!) straight people. A related view espoused more infamously in lesbian circles is the stereotype that bisexual women feign their bisexuality as a way of attracting male mates, and aren't "really" bisexual at all.
When erasure of bisexuality crosses the line between simple ignorance and pessimism about their character, bisexual erasure becomes the product of biphobia, the wider hatred, resentment, or aversion of bisexual people. Bi people have expressed that they are occassionally the targets of bigotry from both straight and gay detractors.
Malediction of bisexuals from gays has already been partially dicussed; however, there is more to develop. For gays, there is some research that indicates feelings of antipathy towards bi people from some their gay peers originates in a fallacy of accident on part of the latter: some homosexuals adopt bisexual identities as a transitional identity between the heterosexual identity assumed by cultural norm and their actual homosexual one, and, when they later transition from a bisexual identity to a homosexual one, they universalize their experience and thus assume that everyone with a bisexual identity is in the process of becoming gay. Thus, to a homosexual-identified person who has fallen for this fallacy, bisexuals do not exist. Unbelievably, I've heard this argument a lot from from gay-identified people I know, particularly from lesbian-identified women. The mythos of lesbians hating bi women is based in some truth: I recall a rather telling story of a local lesbian discussion group that ceased operation when new leadership suggested that the group's name be changed from Lesbian Chat to Women's Chat. Some members of the group - particularly older ladies - were furious that the proposed name change might suggest that the group welcomed bi women, and that was something those ladies simply couldn't accept! Likewise, pejorative gay community slang such as "lesbian until graduation," "hasbian," and "yestergay" expose other hurtful things bis endure from gay peers.
Malediction from their straight peers is, unfortunately, even more severe. In addition to all of the untrue and hurtful accusations orginating in gay communities about bi people, heterosexuals have had some particularly nasty (and unfounded) things to say about bisexuals. One of the most pervasive negative stereotypes about bisexual people is that they are "greedy." There is no scientific evidence to substanciate this claim. More dramatically, evangelists have infamously scapegoated bisexuals for transmitting HIV to heterosexuals. Epidemiologists have disproven this allegation by studying both the origin of HIV and the historical timeline of medical discovery.
The ignorant-to-hateful attitudes discussed here are behind the avowels against the existence of bisexuality found in the stupid headlines that began this discourse. (Wow, that was a Judith Butler sentence! Sorry, readers.) But the very idea that some researchers had to do a study to prove that people are truly experiencing the feelings they claim to feel is, frankly, pathetic. I mean, when was the last time you told someone, "I feel hungry" and they replied, "Hold on. I'll get my instruments to verify?" Never. And for that very reason - that we don't factcheck people's feelings because emotions are ineffable and understood to be a person's subjective truth - the fact that shit like this is newsworthy is both a total embarrassment and proof of the entrenched depths of bisexual erasure.
This blog wouldn't fulfill my definition of "positivistic" if it didn't offer practical solutions to problems. As the problem I present here is erasure of bisexuality, I suggest that you, dear reader (even if you are bi), undo some of that erasure by taking a few minutes to educate yourself about bisexuality. You could read about the history of the bisexual pride flag, literary depictions of bisexuals, watch a great It Gets Better Campaign video by the American Institute of Bisexuality, or even just see who's bisexual and famous. And make certain to check back here at Sexpertesse; next time, more on bisexuality!
 |
| How freaking excited are you for next week's episode, bi kids?! |
Denialism is the act of repudiating the existence of basic scientific truths, often because that truth violates an individual's worldview. Denialism is rather common, some of the most prevalent forms being Holocaust denialism, AIDS denialism, and global warming denialism, the latter being so contentious at present that the topic is often called "global warming controversy" instead of "denialism" by popular sources despite the fact that no organization of national or international professional standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. When denialism confronts bisexuality, that phenomenon is called bisexual erasure. Bisexual erasure is the tendency to ignore, remove, falsify, or re-explain evidence of bisexuality in real life, history and the news, and/or academia.
Bisexual erasure has many manifestations. It often takes the form of simply overlooking bisexuals, be the intention malicious or accidental. For instance, bisexuals call out how they are being overlooked in the marriage equality debate. (Ironically, that article comes from the Gay and Lesbian Task Force.) Indeed, the ongoing use of the terms such as "gay marriage" instead of "same-sex marriage" by proponents and opponents alike erases bi people by failing to recognize that not all people who desire to marry someone of the same sex are homosexual. The terms "gay or lesbian relationships" and "gay adoption" have similar problems of inclusivity and vercity. On an even more foundational level, the phrase "gay community" excludes bi people, as recently demonstrated by an exchange between news anchor Don Lemon and a trans activist at an NAACP forum, which is particularly intellectually-feeble given the definition of the word "community." (The specific topic of trans inclusion is a whole other ballgame, one that I'll be writing about soon.)
Bisexual erasure sometimes takes the form of doctoring historical information to exclude the possibility of bisexuality. Alexander the Great and Eleanor Roosevelt are commonly "straight-washed" or "gay-washed," when their personal histories clearly indicate bisexuality. Anne Frank's burgeoning interest in the bodies of men and women was famously redacted by her father in early printings for bierotic content. Even historical social institutions such as pederasty often have bisexuality removed from their modern descriptions; historic pederasty is categorized as "homosexual" when, in fact, the vast majority of pederasts (the older men who took younger male lovers) were married to women and fathered children with them, while their young lovers were expected to grow, marry women, and later become pederasts themselves.
 |
| Alexander was a terrible movie. But Colin Farrell! Actress Angelina Jolie is bisexual. And Colin Farrell! |
In its most extreme form, bisexual erasure actually denies that bisexuality - and by extension bisexual people - exist. Unfortunately, my research finds that this kind of attitude is the most-prevalent form of bisexual erasure, meaning that bi people are most often subjected to the form of denialism that hurts most - the personal kind. This revocation of existence often takes on one of a few standard patterns. The most common pattern is monosexism, the fallacious notion that all people are either heterosexual or homosexual, nowhere inbetween. This ideology manifests itself in the strangest memes, among them the idea that bi people are gays "who are afraid to come out" or that they are really just inquisitive (and apparently hands-on!) straight people. A related view espoused more infamously in lesbian circles is the stereotype that bisexual women feign their bisexuality as a way of attracting male mates, and aren't "really" bisexual at all.
When erasure of bisexuality crosses the line between simple ignorance and pessimism about their character, bisexual erasure becomes the product of biphobia, the wider hatred, resentment, or aversion of bisexual people. Bi people have expressed that they are occassionally the targets of bigotry from both straight and gay detractors.
Malediction of bisexuals from gays has already been partially dicussed; however, there is more to develop. For gays, there is some research that indicates feelings of antipathy towards bi people from some their gay peers originates in a fallacy of accident on part of the latter: some homosexuals adopt bisexual identities as a transitional identity between the heterosexual identity assumed by cultural norm and their actual homosexual one, and, when they later transition from a bisexual identity to a homosexual one, they universalize their experience and thus assume that everyone with a bisexual identity is in the process of becoming gay. Thus, to a homosexual-identified person who has fallen for this fallacy, bisexuals do not exist. Unbelievably, I've heard this argument a lot from from gay-identified people I know, particularly from lesbian-identified women. The mythos of lesbians hating bi women is based in some truth: I recall a rather telling story of a local lesbian discussion group that ceased operation when new leadership suggested that the group's name be changed from Lesbian Chat to Women's Chat. Some members of the group - particularly older ladies - were furious that the proposed name change might suggest that the group welcomed bi women, and that was something those ladies simply couldn't accept! Likewise, pejorative gay community slang such as "lesbian until graduation," "hasbian," and "yestergay" expose other hurtful things bis endure from gay peers.
Malediction from their straight peers is, unfortunately, even more severe. In addition to all of the untrue and hurtful accusations orginating in gay communities about bi people, heterosexuals have had some particularly nasty (and unfounded) things to say about bisexuals. One of the most pervasive negative stereotypes about bisexual people is that they are "greedy." There is no scientific evidence to substanciate this claim. More dramatically, evangelists have infamously scapegoated bisexuals for transmitting HIV to heterosexuals. Epidemiologists have disproven this allegation by studying both the origin of HIV and the historical timeline of medical discovery.
The ignorant-to-hateful attitudes discussed here are behind the avowels against the existence of bisexuality found in the stupid headlines that began this discourse. (Wow, that was a Judith Butler sentence! Sorry, readers.) But the very idea that some researchers had to do a study to prove that people are truly experiencing the feelings they claim to feel is, frankly, pathetic. I mean, when was the last time you told someone, "I feel hungry" and they replied, "Hold on. I'll get my instruments to verify?" Never. And for that very reason - that we don't factcheck people's feelings because emotions are ineffable and understood to be a person's subjective truth - the fact that shit like this is newsworthy is both a total embarrassment and proof of the entrenched depths of bisexual erasure.
This blog wouldn't fulfill my definition of "positivistic" if it didn't offer practical solutions to problems. As the problem I present here is erasure of bisexuality, I suggest that you, dear reader (even if you are bi), undo some of that erasure by taking a few minutes to educate yourself about bisexuality. You could read about the history of the bisexual pride flag, literary depictions of bisexuals, watch a great It Gets Better Campaign video by the American Institute of Bisexuality, or even just see who's bisexual and famous. And make certain to check back here at Sexpertesse; next time, more on bisexuality!
 |
| Bi is beautiful. |
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
A Looking into the Mind of a Proponent of Abstinence-Only Sex Education
Turns out, it's pretty empty. Recently, Governor Rick Perry (R-Texas), who is currently running for President of the United States, was asked by one of his constituents why Texas continues abstinence-only sex education when it clearly isn't effective at preventing unintended pregnancies or STIs. To say that Perry stumbled is, well, an understatement. The transcript:
So, the empirical, peer-reviewed fact is that abstinence-only sex education is not working in Texas (or anywhere else, for that matter, but that's for another post). How, then, does Perry justify these facts with his goal of maintaining abstinence-only sex education? He doesn't:
Steve Benen from the Washington Monthly makes a very thoughtful assessment of this situation: "The problem here isn’t just that Perry has the wrong answer. The more meaningful problem is that Perry doesn’t seem to know how to even formulate an answer. He starts with a proposition in his mind (abstinence-only education is effective), and when confronted with evidence that the proposition appears false (high teen-pregnancy rates), the governor simply hangs onto his belief, untroubled by evidence." Paul Waldman builds on this argument when he notes that Perry's position is "95 percent moral and 5 percent practical," meaning that Perry "doesn't have a practical argument [for maintaining abstinence-only sex education] because he's probably never thought about it in those terms, and doesn't much care."
It's this last part about proponents of AOSE - that they don't care about the ineffectiveness of abstinence-only education because pushing their morality unto others is more important than preventing some of the dire consequences of unintended pregnancy or STI transmission - that worries me. Abstinence-only sex education, at its core, is theoretically education, the process of making people more capable of interpreting and managing the world around them through the sharing of knowledge. AOSE's goal, then, should be simple: to educate. However, because abstinence-only education specifically seeks to hide knowledge by not talking about the potentially-threatened things young people might face, it is not, in fact, education at all; it's propaganda.
Yes, I am making the claim that "abstinence-only sex education" is a misnomer, and at worst, a scam. In a schema in which real-world results (like infection with HIV) are unimportant to those who create curricula, the very purpose behind education is lost. Furthermore, people who would throw children to lions that they never saw coming are either so unaware themselves that they are reckless or so apathetic that they are cruel. And I surely don't want someone like that educating my peers or running my country.
Moderator: Why does Texas continue with abstinence education programs, when they don’t seem to be working? In fact, I think we [in Texas] have the third-highest teen-pregnancy rate in the country right now.As of January 2010, Texas actually has fourth-highest unintended pregnancy rate, the second-highest teen pregnancy numbers, and the highest teenage birthrates at 62 per 1,000 live births (the moderator incorrectly reported Texas as having the third-highest teen pregnancy rate). If results like these are Governor Perry's idea of something that's working, I'm terribly afraid to see what his idea of something that's not working is! (Perry must grade on a curve.)
Perry: Abstinence works. (audience laughs)
Moderator: But we have the third-highest teen teen-pregnancy rate among all states in the country. The questioner’s point is, it doesn’t seem to be working.
Perry: It — it works.
So, the empirical, peer-reviewed fact is that abstinence-only sex education is not working in Texas (or anywhere else, for that matter, but that's for another post). How, then, does Perry justify these facts with his goal of maintaining abstinence-only sex education? He doesn't:
Perry: Maybe it's the way it's being taught? Or maybe it's the way it's being applied out there? But the fact of the matter is, it is the best form of, to teach our children.Ok, so Perry is convinced that the "best form" of sex education is abstinence-only education, but, still addressing the first question from the moderatore, why?! This is where things get weird:
Perry: I'm sorry, I'm just going to tell you from my own personal life, abstinence works.What? So, essentially, Governor Perry asserts that abstinence-only sex education works for everyone in Texas because it worked for him. Unfortunately, Perry seems to be totally unaware that his experience is not a universal one, as not everyone in Texas is a white, 61-year-old Evangelical with enough spare cash and political connections to fund a presidential campaign. Thus, Perry's position on abstinence-only sex education is ultimately a celebrity testimonial no greater than Brooke Shields for Latisse, Drew Barrymore for Covergirl, or Mike Rowe for every product that even hints they could use his endorsement.
Steve Benen from the Washington Monthly makes a very thoughtful assessment of this situation: "The problem here isn’t just that Perry has the wrong answer. The more meaningful problem is that Perry doesn’t seem to know how to even formulate an answer. He starts with a proposition in his mind (abstinence-only education is effective), and when confronted with evidence that the proposition appears false (high teen-pregnancy rates), the governor simply hangs onto his belief, untroubled by evidence." Paul Waldman builds on this argument when he notes that Perry's position is "95 percent moral and 5 percent practical," meaning that Perry "doesn't have a practical argument [for maintaining abstinence-only sex education] because he's probably never thought about it in those terms, and doesn't much care."
It's this last part about proponents of AOSE - that they don't care about the ineffectiveness of abstinence-only education because pushing their morality unto others is more important than preventing some of the dire consequences of unintended pregnancy or STI transmission - that worries me. Abstinence-only sex education, at its core, is theoretically education, the process of making people more capable of interpreting and managing the world around them through the sharing of knowledge. AOSE's goal, then, should be simple: to educate. However, because abstinence-only education specifically seeks to hide knowledge by not talking about the potentially-threatened things young people might face, it is not, in fact, education at all; it's propaganda.
Yes, I am making the claim that "abstinence-only sex education" is a misnomer, and at worst, a scam. In a schema in which real-world results (like infection with HIV) are unimportant to those who create curricula, the very purpose behind education is lost. Furthermore, people who would throw children to lions that they never saw coming are either so unaware themselves that they are reckless or so apathetic that they are cruel. And I surely don't want someone like that educating my peers or running my country.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
The Wicked Awesome History of Marriage Equality in New Jersey
Do yous like Jeerzy? Well, hopefully you're not a lesbian looking to buy a wedding dress.
Daily News coloumnist Ronnie Polaneczky writes an apologetic human interest story about a young bride-to-be who was denied service by a bridal store because she is a lesbian. "Apologetic?" you ask? Well, yes; thoughtful and kind-hearted straight person Polaneczky, aftering learning all the facts about what happened to Alix Genter (the bride-to-be) and then speaking to Donna (the bridal store owner/service-denier), ultimately finds that he is really, really sorry Genter has to put up with this kind of crap. "...stories [like this one]... make me want to say 'I'm sorry' to gay people for the nonsense they endure from some heterosexuals who give the rest of us straight people a bad name."
Polaneczky is a reasonable person who logically interprets facts about LGBT people, so there's no real reason for me to address his positions. The bridal store owner Donna, however... well, let's just say that I suspect she lives at 1234 Under a Boulder Boulevard, if you know what I mean. I think now would be a great time to educate Donna about how her opinions about LGBT people are a tad off-base.
Donna said a lot of tragically-underinformed, hurtful things about LGBT people in her interview with Polaneczky, including that Genter is a lesbian only because men let her down and thus she relegated herself to women, that LGBT people love to "stir up drama," and that they are crazy aggressors who... plundge knives into restaurant chairs? Yeah, I don't get it, either. However, none of these sentiments were as out-of-touch with reality than her comments about the recognition of same-sex marriage in her state of New Jersey.
The most interesting part of the whole story is why Donna refused to serve Genter. When Donna called Genter to refuse the latter's business, Donna explained that she refused service because 'what Genter was planning' (i.e., her wedding) was "illegal," and that Donna does "not participate in illegal activities." Well, isn't that upstanding of you, Donna? Except for the fact that civil unions have been legal in your state of New Jersey since 19 February 2007, when the Civil Union Act went into effect.
Prior to the passing of that bill by the New Jersey Legislature, there was a five-year-long, highly-publicized New Jersey Supreme Court case called Lewis v. Harris that questioned New Jersey's legal authority to deny the protections and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples. Lambda Legal filed Lewis v. Harris in June 2002 on behalf of seven same-sex couples seeking to wed in New Jersey: Mark Lewis and Dennis Winslow, Cindy Meneghin and Maureen Kilian, Craig Hutchison and Chris Lodewyks, Diane Marini and the late Marilyn Maneely, Marcye and Karen Nicholson-McFadden, Saundra Toby-Heath and Alicia Heath-Toby, and Sarah and Suyin Lael. When the case reached the state's Supreme Court, the Justices found unanimously that denying same-sex couples the same legal rights and benefits opposite-sex couples enjoy through marriage violated the state's Constitution. However - and this is the really interesting part - even though the Court found that it is illegal to deny marriage benefits to same-sex couples, the Court didn't actually grant marriage equality. Instead, the Justiced demanded that the Legislature pass legislation making opposite and same-sex couples legally-equal within 180 days. The Legislature did so, and thus the Civil Unions Act was passed and signed into law by then-Governor Jon Corzine. So, Donna, your choice to deny Genter on the basis that her actions are illegal, then, was a legally-unfounded claim, and the long history of that fact should have been apparent to you as a resident of New Jersey. The fact that you live at 1234 Under a Boulder Boulevard notwithstanding, of course.
As further proof that Donna's residence at 1234 Under a Boulder Boulevard is somehow the most remote location in the state with the higest population density in the Union with 1,196 inhabitants per square mile, Donna seems to be totally clueless about the legal recognition of same-sex relationships in her state despite the fact that New Jersey is one of the two most-heated hotspots for marriage equality at present! (The other one is California with it's ongoing legal battles over Perry v. Schwarzenegger.) Before the passage of the New Jersey Civil Unions Act, Lambda Legal had already reviewed the bill's content, and found that it would not actually provide all of the same rights as marriage and established their "Civil Unions Watch" in response. The New Jersey Bar Association came to the same conclusion shortly thereafter. Oh, and New Jerseyans noticed, too: by July 2007 - less than six months after the bill's ratification - 211 of the 1,358 couples unionized under the law reported to Garden State Equality that they had been denied full legal equality under civil unions.
Fortunately for these couples, the Civil Unions Act had already formed a group of legislators tasked with monitaring civil unions, the Civil Unions Review Commission. Since their first meeting on 18 June 2007, the Commission collected complaints from same-sex couples about the state's civil unions and, in December 2008, they released their finding that civil unions don't actually provide full legal equality to same-sex couples mandated by Lewis v. Harris; likewise, the Commission recommended that the New Jersey Legislature change the language of existing marriage laws to be gender-neutral so as to include same-sex couples.
In December 2009 - a full year after the Commission's recommendations - the New Jersey Senate Judiciary Committee voted to approve marriage equality in a 7 to 6 vote. The Senate at large, however, defeated the measure 20 to 14, and thus marriage equality was not brought to New Jersey.
But there are no excuses for you to be so unaware of this news, Donna, for the story continues! In January 2010, Republican Chris Christie assume the position of Governor by defeating incumbent governor Corzine; whereas Corzine had said he would sign marriage equality into law should a bill come to his desk, current Governor Christie supports a constitutional amendment barring same-sex couples for marriage. (For those of you who are really following, yes, the current Governor of New Jersey supports legislation that would withhold legal equality to same-sex couples despite the fact that the state's Supreme Court already ruled that doing so violates the state's constitution and the Civil Union Review Commission declared that they couldn't hold out on equality much longer. Some might say that Christie is aloof or a little... out of his mind; but I disagree, for Christie is clearly not tremendously fond of the rules or your stupid opinions, so this kind of feeble thinking is par for the course for him.) Christie's position on marriage equality means that it's highly unlikely the recommendations of the Civil Union Review Commission will become law through the legislative process.
Likewise, in March 2010, Lambda Legal filed a motion reactivating the case for marriage equality on behalf of the plaintiffs in the original Lewis v. Harris lawsuit, meaning that the state of New Jersey, which is in a pretty serious budget crisis and Christie subsequently underfunded public schools through budget cuts before said cuts were found to be illegal by a district judge, must pay again to rehash an issue that was already decided upon several years ago by the Supreme Court of that state! There is a silver lining for gay and bisexual New Jerseyans, however: this time, the Supreme Court will have to recognize the equalness of your relationships, as they tasked the legislative branch to enact that truth and the Legislature failed to do so, so the Court will have to pick up the slack. Equality will come to you soon, at least at the state level.
With all of this money and all these weddings at stake, you'd think that Donna, who makes her living by selling wedding attire, would be a little more cognisant of the suffering of gays and bisexuals in your state. Now, Donna, listen up, cuz this is very important to your livelihood: according to a 2006 study by The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, if marriage equality was to become law in New Jersey, "sales by... wedding and tourism-related business would rise by $102.5 million in each of the three years" following the legalization of same-sex marriage. Additionally, New Jersey's gross tax revenue would "rise by $7.2 million per year," and some 1,400 jobs would be created in your state. Yes, that's $307.5 million pumped into your business in the next three years. You'd have to be crazy to turn down that kind of money, Donna. Then again, it's clearly very remote out there at 1234 Under a Boulder Boulevard and, to use your own words, "You know how they get."
Daily News coloumnist Ronnie Polaneczky writes an apologetic human interest story about a young bride-to-be who was denied service by a bridal store because she is a lesbian. "Apologetic?" you ask? Well, yes; thoughtful and kind-hearted straight person Polaneczky, aftering learning all the facts about what happened to Alix Genter (the bride-to-be) and then speaking to Donna (the bridal store owner/service-denier), ultimately finds that he is really, really sorry Genter has to put up with this kind of crap. "...stories [like this one]... make me want to say 'I'm sorry' to gay people for the nonsense they endure from some heterosexuals who give the rest of us straight people a bad name."
Polaneczky is a reasonable person who logically interprets facts about LGBT people, so there's no real reason for me to address his positions. The bridal store owner Donna, however... well, let's just say that I suspect she lives at 1234 Under a Boulder Boulevard, if you know what I mean. I think now would be a great time to educate Donna about how her opinions about LGBT people are a tad off-base.
Donna said a lot of tragically-underinformed, hurtful things about LGBT people in her interview with Polaneczky, including that Genter is a lesbian only because men let her down and thus she relegated herself to women, that LGBT people love to "stir up drama," and that they are crazy aggressors who... plundge knives into restaurant chairs? Yeah, I don't get it, either. However, none of these sentiments were as out-of-touch with reality than her comments about the recognition of same-sex marriage in her state of New Jersey.
The most interesting part of the whole story is why Donna refused to serve Genter. When Donna called Genter to refuse the latter's business, Donna explained that she refused service because 'what Genter was planning' (i.e., her wedding) was "illegal," and that Donna does "not participate in illegal activities." Well, isn't that upstanding of you, Donna? Except for the fact that civil unions have been legal in your state of New Jersey since 19 February 2007, when the Civil Union Act went into effect.
Prior to the passing of that bill by the New Jersey Legislature, there was a five-year-long, highly-publicized New Jersey Supreme Court case called Lewis v. Harris that questioned New Jersey's legal authority to deny the protections and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples. Lambda Legal filed Lewis v. Harris in June 2002 on behalf of seven same-sex couples seeking to wed in New Jersey: Mark Lewis and Dennis Winslow, Cindy Meneghin and Maureen Kilian, Craig Hutchison and Chris Lodewyks, Diane Marini and the late Marilyn Maneely, Marcye and Karen Nicholson-McFadden, Saundra Toby-Heath and Alicia Heath-Toby, and Sarah and Suyin Lael. When the case reached the state's Supreme Court, the Justices found unanimously that denying same-sex couples the same legal rights and benefits opposite-sex couples enjoy through marriage violated the state's Constitution. However - and this is the really interesting part - even though the Court found that it is illegal to deny marriage benefits to same-sex couples, the Court didn't actually grant marriage equality. Instead, the Justiced demanded that the Legislature pass legislation making opposite and same-sex couples legally-equal within 180 days. The Legislature did so, and thus the Civil Unions Act was passed and signed into law by then-Governor Jon Corzine. So, Donna, your choice to deny Genter on the basis that her actions are illegal, then, was a legally-unfounded claim, and the long history of that fact should have been apparent to you as a resident of New Jersey. The fact that you live at 1234 Under a Boulder Boulevard notwithstanding, of course.
As further proof that Donna's residence at 1234 Under a Boulder Boulevard is somehow the most remote location in the state with the higest population density in the Union with 1,196 inhabitants per square mile, Donna seems to be totally clueless about the legal recognition of same-sex relationships in her state despite the fact that New Jersey is one of the two most-heated hotspots for marriage equality at present! (The other one is California with it's ongoing legal battles over Perry v. Schwarzenegger.) Before the passage of the New Jersey Civil Unions Act, Lambda Legal had already reviewed the bill's content, and found that it would not actually provide all of the same rights as marriage and established their "Civil Unions Watch" in response. The New Jersey Bar Association came to the same conclusion shortly thereafter. Oh, and New Jerseyans noticed, too: by July 2007 - less than six months after the bill's ratification - 211 of the 1,358 couples unionized under the law reported to Garden State Equality that they had been denied full legal equality under civil unions.
Fortunately for these couples, the Civil Unions Act had already formed a group of legislators tasked with monitaring civil unions, the Civil Unions Review Commission. Since their first meeting on 18 June 2007, the Commission collected complaints from same-sex couples about the state's civil unions and, in December 2008, they released their finding that civil unions don't actually provide full legal equality to same-sex couples mandated by Lewis v. Harris; likewise, the Commission recommended that the New Jersey Legislature change the language of existing marriage laws to be gender-neutral so as to include same-sex couples.
In December 2009 - a full year after the Commission's recommendations - the New Jersey Senate Judiciary Committee voted to approve marriage equality in a 7 to 6 vote. The Senate at large, however, defeated the measure 20 to 14, and thus marriage equality was not brought to New Jersey.
But there are no excuses for you to be so unaware of this news, Donna, for the story continues! In January 2010, Republican Chris Christie assume the position of Governor by defeating incumbent governor Corzine; whereas Corzine had said he would sign marriage equality into law should a bill come to his desk, current Governor Christie supports a constitutional amendment barring same-sex couples for marriage. (For those of you who are really following, yes, the current Governor of New Jersey supports legislation that would withhold legal equality to same-sex couples despite the fact that the state's Supreme Court already ruled that doing so violates the state's constitution and the Civil Union Review Commission declared that they couldn't hold out on equality much longer. Some might say that Christie is aloof or a little... out of his mind; but I disagree, for Christie is clearly not tremendously fond of the rules or your stupid opinions, so this kind of feeble thinking is par for the course for him.) Christie's position on marriage equality means that it's highly unlikely the recommendations of the Civil Union Review Commission will become law through the legislative process.
Likewise, in March 2010, Lambda Legal filed a motion reactivating the case for marriage equality on behalf of the plaintiffs in the original Lewis v. Harris lawsuit, meaning that the state of New Jersey, which is in a pretty serious budget crisis and Christie subsequently underfunded public schools through budget cuts before said cuts were found to be illegal by a district judge, must pay again to rehash an issue that was already decided upon several years ago by the Supreme Court of that state! There is a silver lining for gay and bisexual New Jerseyans, however: this time, the Supreme Court will have to recognize the equalness of your relationships, as they tasked the legislative branch to enact that truth and the Legislature failed to do so, so the Court will have to pick up the slack. Equality will come to you soon, at least at the state level.
With all of this money and all these weddings at stake, you'd think that Donna, who makes her living by selling wedding attire, would be a little more cognisant of the suffering of gays and bisexuals in your state. Now, Donna, listen up, cuz this is very important to your livelihood: according to a 2006 study by The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, if marriage equality was to become law in New Jersey, "sales by... wedding and tourism-related business would rise by $102.5 million in each of the three years" following the legalization of same-sex marriage. Additionally, New Jersey's gross tax revenue would "rise by $7.2 million per year," and some 1,400 jobs would be created in your state. Yes, that's $307.5 million pumped into your business in the next three years. You'd have to be crazy to turn down that kind of money, Donna. Then again, it's clearly very remote out there at 1234 Under a Boulder Boulevard and, to use your own words, "You know how they get."
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
A Green Response to Green Birth Control
As concerns about ecological sustainability continue to impact the ways in which people think about how their actions affect our planet, some have began to take critical looks at how and to what degree our methods of contraception degrade our natural resources. "Tree-Humper: What's the greenest form of birth control?" by Slate's Nina Shen Rastogi is one such critical inspection, though it has a few lapses of green judgment.
Writing of condom selection for the eco-minded, Rastogi correctly notes that condoms "contain preservatives and hardening agents to make sure the rubber can withstand a fair amount of friction" and that those additives "make it harder for the condoms to break down in the landfill."
Due to these factors, Rastogi recommends switching to lambskin condoms. I totally disagree for two reasons. First, lambskin condoms do not prevent the transmission of STIs like latex and polyurethane condoms do, putting you and your partner(s) at risk for infection. Why don't they protect against STIs? Well, that begets the second reason you shouldn't switch to lambskin condoms, that being that they are cruel and disgusting. Lambskin condoms are actually made of sheep, meaning that sheep are killed and their intestines harvested for the production of lambskin condoms. I don't know about you, but I really don't desire cute, now-dead sheep intestines to be anywhere near my body, much less my genitals. And, returning, why do lambskin condoms unable to protect against STIs? Because they are made of organic tissue, lambskin condoms have pores, and any viral STI is small enough to pass through said pores. Moreover, the fact that lambskin condoms are derived from sheep means that, in order to make a lambskin condom, you must first make a sheep, and that takes a lot of resources. One study by Cornell University finds that that the energy-input to meat-output ratio of sheep husbandry is 50:1. In other words, it takes fifty pounds of grain to make a single pound of sheep; with production inefficiencies like this one, lambskin condoms are hardly a "green" alternative.
But what about the amount of waste actually made by disposing of condoms? Well, according to Rastogi's calculations, about 1,365 tons of condom waste are produced each year in the United States, which makes condom waste less than .001% of the estimated 152 million tons of trash produced by Americans each year. For comparison, if Americans could waste only 1,365 tons of food each year, they could feed the world's hungriest several times over with the leftovers. Condom waste, then, is truly so neglible in the scope of green thinking that I feel we could focus on much more pressing things, such as the environmental effects of meat production or the continued threats of slashing environmental protection dollars.
Rastogi also exposes rising concerns about how estrogens from birth control are affecting our waters. Back in 2007, some EPA scientists found that higher concentrations of birth control hormones seeping into natural waters increased the number of intersex fish. By netting and sexing 123 fish downstream of the Boulder, Colorado water sewage treatment facility, scientists found that ten of the fish were intersex, supposedly a large number. However, this article (and the research that inspired it) fail to mention how many intersex fish are expected to be found naturally in that fish population. Oh, they didn't talk about the part in which all biosexually-dimorphous organisms have naturally-occurring intersex individuals among their populations? Cuz they do. Given that several meta-studies have disproven the myth that estrogens and phytoestrogens cause biological feminization in human males, I am highly skeptical that increased levels of mammalian sex hormones would escalate the numbers of intersex fish. In fact, the sex-determination system of fish isn't even the XX/XY system of mammals, but rather the ZW system in which males are homogametic and females are heterogametic (the opposite is true in mammals), and so any supposed correlation between human sex hormones and the biosexual expression of fish seems highly doubty.
Fortunately, Rastogi doesn't get caught up on this feeble argument, and instead offers that better water treatment is the best way to avoid dumping estrogens into our waterways.
So, what is something you can do to make your sex greener? Use contraception! The truth is, no matter the ways you prevent pregnancy, the truth is that the resources used to grow a person will always be greater than those to produce all forms of birth control. To make your sex even greener, you can also switch to an organic lube or stick to the internet forms of pornography to avoid excess paper production! And who said going green wasn't fun?
Writing of condom selection for the eco-minded, Rastogi correctly notes that condoms "contain preservatives and hardening agents to make sure the rubber can withstand a fair amount of friction" and that those additives "make it harder for the condoms to break down in the landfill."
Due to these factors, Rastogi recommends switching to lambskin condoms. I totally disagree for two reasons. First, lambskin condoms do not prevent the transmission of STIs like latex and polyurethane condoms do, putting you and your partner(s) at risk for infection. Why don't they protect against STIs? Well, that begets the second reason you shouldn't switch to lambskin condoms, that being that they are cruel and disgusting. Lambskin condoms are actually made of sheep, meaning that sheep are killed and their intestines harvested for the production of lambskin condoms. I don't know about you, but I really don't desire cute, now-dead sheep intestines to be anywhere near my body, much less my genitals. And, returning, why do lambskin condoms unable to protect against STIs? Because they are made of organic tissue, lambskin condoms have pores, and any viral STI is small enough to pass through said pores. Moreover, the fact that lambskin condoms are derived from sheep means that, in order to make a lambskin condom, you must first make a sheep, and that takes a lot of resources. One study by Cornell University finds that that the energy-input to meat-output ratio of sheep husbandry is 50:1. In other words, it takes fifty pounds of grain to make a single pound of sheep; with production inefficiencies like this one, lambskin condoms are hardly a "green" alternative.
 |
| Pweez don't kill me and stuff my intestines into your erogenous zones, ok? |
But what about the amount of waste actually made by disposing of condoms? Well, according to Rastogi's calculations, about 1,365 tons of condom waste are produced each year in the United States, which makes condom waste less than .001% of the estimated 152 million tons of trash produced by Americans each year. For comparison, if Americans could waste only 1,365 tons of food each year, they could feed the world's hungriest several times over with the leftovers. Condom waste, then, is truly so neglible in the scope of green thinking that I feel we could focus on much more pressing things, such as the environmental effects of meat production or the continued threats of slashing environmental protection dollars.
Rastogi also exposes rising concerns about how estrogens from birth control are affecting our waters. Back in 2007, some EPA scientists found that higher concentrations of birth control hormones seeping into natural waters increased the number of intersex fish. By netting and sexing 123 fish downstream of the Boulder, Colorado water sewage treatment facility, scientists found that ten of the fish were intersex, supposedly a large number. However, this article (and the research that inspired it) fail to mention how many intersex fish are expected to be found naturally in that fish population. Oh, they didn't talk about the part in which all biosexually-dimorphous organisms have naturally-occurring intersex individuals among their populations? Cuz they do. Given that several meta-studies have disproven the myth that estrogens and phytoestrogens cause biological feminization in human males, I am highly skeptical that increased levels of mammalian sex hormones would escalate the numbers of intersex fish. In fact, the sex-determination system of fish isn't even the XX/XY system of mammals, but rather the ZW system in which males are homogametic and females are heterogametic (the opposite is true in mammals), and so any supposed correlation between human sex hormones and the biosexual expression of fish seems highly doubty.
 |
| I may not be entirely male or female, but I am ALL FABULOUS (because I'm a rainbow trout)! |
Fortunately, Rastogi doesn't get caught up on this feeble argument, and instead offers that better water treatment is the best way to avoid dumping estrogens into our waterways.
So, what is something you can do to make your sex greener? Use contraception! The truth is, no matter the ways you prevent pregnancy, the truth is that the resources used to grow a person will always be greater than those to produce all forms of birth control. To make your sex even greener, you can also switch to an organic lube or stick to the internet forms of pornography to avoid excess paper production! And who said going green wasn't fun?
 |
| Being eco-conscious and sexy do mix! |
The Furry Community
The furry community is a fandom of people who roleplay as anthropomorphic animal characters with human personalities and physical characteristics online and/or offline. A furry is an individual who identifies with the furry fandom, though the term requires self-identification, and thus who constitutes a furry and who may simply have a passing interest in the community is unclear. Furry behavior seems to differ online as opposed to offline, particularly in respect to the wearing of fursuits, as an online gathering often lacks others to see or appreciate another's fursuit. Many furries do not create fursuits, and instead roleplay their furry identity. Whether online or offline, however, furries adopt their fursona, their anthropomorphic animal character - a portmanteau of "fur" and "persona" - when they participate in furry spaces.
The furry community is expansive, consisting of art and literature websites like FurAffinity, furry social media and personal ads sites like FurNation, furry conventions, and even a furry wiki.
The furry community is not necessarily a sexual one, though as 79% of furries report sexual interest in furries, the sexual elements of this community are tangible. Supposedly, furries feel that the media and social researchers are "mainly obsessed" with the sexual aspects of their community, which they feel evokes negative stereotypes about them by non-furries; unfortunately for those people, this blog is sexological in nature, and so I will indeed focus on the sexual aspects of their culture.
Perhaps one of the things about their depiction that displeases furries is the connection some make between furriness and beastiality. Though furries adopt fursonas and/or may desire to engage in sex with other furries, they are not zoophiles, those with sexual interests in nonhuman animals. (This part's for you, Rick Santorum; I don't want you to get too confused and start saying terrible things about furries like you do about gays and bisexuals, ok, baby?) A central element to the fursona is the human psyche, one that is theoretically capable of consenting to sex. Given this element of furry identity, the furry community does not promote sex with animals.
Furthering a discussion about their sexual identities, there seem to be higher rates of homo- and bisexuality among furries than in the general public, with one study finding that 25.5% of furries identify as homosexual and 37.3% identify as bisexual, way, way higher than modern demographic studies of sexual orientation. The same study found that 32.7% of respondents identified as straight, lower than any research I have ever seen (which the possible exception of the demographics of Cher fans). I am apt to believe that this research is biased in some way, but various other furry sources report similar findings. Inversely, 48.9% of erotic furry art depicts opposite biosex sex while same-sex encounters are depicted 45.6% of the time.
A furry's fursuit may or may not have sexual elements. The aesthetics of fursuits differ greatly from furry to furry, some looking extremely cartoonish or sports mascot-like, others taking the appearance of a human wearing an animale-style outfit (think Catwoman), and others with a much more realistic appearance. Interestingly, very few furries actually own fursuits, as only 18% report owning at least one. (However, fursuits can supposedly be expensive and difficult to make, so the fact that few furries are fursuiters probably has more to do with economics and technical skills than desire or interest.) Of those that do own fursuits, however, many seem to exhibit sexual features, such exaggerated secondary sex characteristics like muscles for males and breasts for females or anatomical holes for penises, vulvae, and/or anuses.
A definitively sexual element of the furry community is well-known neologism, "yiff." The word "yiff" has a complex etymology, but its most common usage seems to be an invitation to engage in sexual activity as one's fursona. Additionally, the continuous aspect of the word - yiffing - is a derived clipping that functions as a community-specific neologism meaning "sex." I suspect that "yiff" was inspired by the bear community's "woof," though no furry sources mention this possible connection.
The cornerstone of furry sexual expression seems to be erotic art. Popular art sites like deviantART and y!Gallery, which are not furry-specific, both include large furry clubs and communities, though FurAffinity (linked earlier) - a furry-specific site - is the largest such hub. The subject matter of such art varies greatly, with furry-on-furry, furry-on-human, and transformation art seemingly to predominate. Transformation, sometimes called shapeshifting, is a genre of furry narrative in which a human morphs into their fursona. Notably, though furries are humoids, artistic depictions of furry genitalia are vastly human, often enlarged or otherwise super-human.
Though visual arts are the center of their erotic products, furry-themed literature also plays a large role in the community; transformation stories are the most common form of furry written erotica. Interestingly, many transformation stories involve nonconsentual change of form, such as when a person is made into an animal/human hybrid against their will by magic or technology. These stories suggest an interesting power dynamic element to the furry community, which I will develop later.
The second-most common form of furry sex expression seems to be online roleplaying. In an online roleplaying session, participant(s) will gather on a forum to engage in en-fursona cybersex. Furries rarely seem to meet for over VOIP technology for roleplaying that involves face-to-face elements, which I feel reflects the fact that few furries own fursuits.
Offline, face-to-face sexual contact between furries seems to be the least common furry sexual expression, though it is possible that real-life pairings involving at least one furry choose to keep their sex lives rather private, as is our cultural norm. However, recordings such as this fantastic, typical exampled called "Literal Wolf Action" expose what I think is a foundational underpinning of furry sexuality: power play. In this video, the non-fursuited individual is rather dominated by the wolf fursuited furry. The human doesn't seem to have much say in the experience, while the furry acts as a service top. Power play is also reflected in furry literature and art, particularly in transformation stories, as many involve the transition of a human into a furry against their will. Lastly, power dynamics are seen in the very subject matter of the furry communities, as there is fascinating interplay between humans and animals that manifests themselves in furry art through unconvential ways, such as bulls - domesticated animals of labor - and lions or wolves - capital predators - that penetrate or dominate humans.
Though not specifically a sexual community, sexuality clearly plays a large role in the drawn to and self-identification with the furry community. For me, two major factors of furry identity yet require more research and thought: why do gay and bi-identified furries appear in such greater populations than in the general population and what roles do power dynamics play in the formation of furry identities? If you're a furry reading this post, write me and let me know what you think about my understanding of your community and identity!
 |
| Furry Sairys Wolf, a well-known member of the furry community, in fursuit |
The furry community is expansive, consisting of art and literature websites like FurAffinity, furry social media and personal ads sites like FurNation, furry conventions, and even a furry wiki.
The furry community is not necessarily a sexual one, though as 79% of furries report sexual interest in furries, the sexual elements of this community are tangible. Supposedly, furries feel that the media and social researchers are "mainly obsessed" with the sexual aspects of their community, which they feel evokes negative stereotypes about them by non-furries; unfortunately for those people, this blog is sexological in nature, and so I will indeed focus on the sexual aspects of their culture.
Perhaps one of the things about their depiction that displeases furries is the connection some make between furriness and beastiality. Though furries adopt fursonas and/or may desire to engage in sex with other furries, they are not zoophiles, those with sexual interests in nonhuman animals. (This part's for you, Rick Santorum; I don't want you to get too confused and start saying terrible things about furries like you do about gays and bisexuals, ok, baby?) A central element to the fursona is the human psyche, one that is theoretically capable of consenting to sex. Given this element of furry identity, the furry community does not promote sex with animals.
Furthering a discussion about their sexual identities, there seem to be higher rates of homo- and bisexuality among furries than in the general public, with one study finding that 25.5% of furries identify as homosexual and 37.3% identify as bisexual, way, way higher than modern demographic studies of sexual orientation. The same study found that 32.7% of respondents identified as straight, lower than any research I have ever seen (which the possible exception of the demographics of Cher fans). I am apt to believe that this research is biased in some way, but various other furry sources report similar findings. Inversely, 48.9% of erotic furry art depicts opposite biosex sex while same-sex encounters are depicted 45.6% of the time.
A furry's fursuit may or may not have sexual elements. The aesthetics of fursuits differ greatly from furry to furry, some looking extremely cartoonish or sports mascot-like, others taking the appearance of a human wearing an animale-style outfit (think Catwoman), and others with a much more realistic appearance. Interestingly, very few furries actually own fursuits, as only 18% report owning at least one. (However, fursuits can supposedly be expensive and difficult to make, so the fact that few furries are fursuiters probably has more to do with economics and technical skills than desire or interest.) Of those that do own fursuits, however, many seem to exhibit sexual features, such exaggerated secondary sex characteristics like muscles for males and breasts for females or anatomical holes for penises, vulvae, and/or anuses.
 |
| A furry named Rabbit in the Moon in her sexy fursona, Autumn Vixen. Notice Autumn Vixen's curvy body, makeup, and exaggerated breasts. |
A definitively sexual element of the furry community is well-known neologism, "yiff." The word "yiff" has a complex etymology, but its most common usage seems to be an invitation to engage in sexual activity as one's fursona. Additionally, the continuous aspect of the word - yiffing - is a derived clipping that functions as a community-specific neologism meaning "sex." I suspect that "yiff" was inspired by the bear community's "woof," though no furry sources mention this possible connection.
The cornerstone of furry sexual expression seems to be erotic art. Popular art sites like deviantART and y!Gallery, which are not furry-specific, both include large furry clubs and communities, though FurAffinity (linked earlier) - a furry-specific site - is the largest such hub. The subject matter of such art varies greatly, with furry-on-furry, furry-on-human, and transformation art seemingly to predominate. Transformation, sometimes called shapeshifting, is a genre of furry narrative in which a human morphs into their fursona. Notably, though furries are humoids, artistic depictions of furry genitalia are vastly human, often enlarged or otherwise super-human.
Though visual arts are the center of their erotic products, furry-themed literature also plays a large role in the community; transformation stories are the most common form of furry written erotica. Interestingly, many transformation stories involve nonconsentual change of form, such as when a person is made into an animal/human hybrid against their will by magic or technology. These stories suggest an interesting power dynamic element to the furry community, which I will develop later.
The second-most common form of furry sex expression seems to be online roleplaying. In an online roleplaying session, participant(s) will gather on a forum to engage in en-fursona cybersex. Furries rarely seem to meet for over VOIP technology for roleplaying that involves face-to-face elements, which I feel reflects the fact that few furries own fursuits.
Offline, face-to-face sexual contact between furries seems to be the least common furry sexual expression, though it is possible that real-life pairings involving at least one furry choose to keep their sex lives rather private, as is our cultural norm. However, recordings such as this fantastic, typical exampled called "Literal Wolf Action" expose what I think is a foundational underpinning of furry sexuality: power play. In this video, the non-fursuited individual is rather dominated by the wolf fursuited furry. The human doesn't seem to have much say in the experience, while the furry acts as a service top. Power play is also reflected in furry literature and art, particularly in transformation stories, as many involve the transition of a human into a furry against their will. Lastly, power dynamics are seen in the very subject matter of the furry communities, as there is fascinating interplay between humans and animals that manifests themselves in furry art through unconvential ways, such as bulls - domesticated animals of labor - and lions or wolves - capital predators - that penetrate or dominate humans.
Though not specifically a sexual community, sexuality clearly plays a large role in the drawn to and self-identification with the furry community. For me, two major factors of furry identity yet require more research and thought: why do gay and bi-identified furries appear in such greater populations than in the general population and what roles do power dynamics play in the formation of furry identities? If you're a furry reading this post, write me and let me know what you think about my understanding of your community and identity!
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Male Oral Contraceptives
Male birth control has received a lot of media attention of late, as scientists have recently succeeded in preventing sperm production in mice. Though various news sources have referred to this developing technology as "male birth control" or "male contraception," in truth, these kind of pills will be called male oral contraceptives. The "oral" part here is important because, at present, males actually have several methods of non-oral contraception, among them condoms, the "pull-out method" (technically called "coitus interruptus"), vascetomy, and castration (no thank you).
Scientists at Columbia University Medical Center have discovered that the drug being tested on mice, BMS-189453, prevents spermatogenesis, the creation of sperm cells by an adult male's body. Previous male oral contraceptive drugs have had mixed results, many of them resulting in permanent sterilization of male mice. BMS-189453, though, does not seem to cause infertility, and allows regular, healthy sperm production soon after stopping the drug, meaning that men will be able to father children if and when their family planning goals change.
I believe wholeheartedly that we should continue to develop these technologies. One reason why we ought to support the creation of male oral contraceptives for humans is for the affective reason: progress is good. The other reason why I feel we should develop these technologies further, though, is much more multifaceted: the male pill will get men more involved in contraception, meaning couples will have more opportunities for discussion and responsibility-sharing, which are the cornerstones of intimacy.
On the other hand, though, with the inevitable production of male oral contraceptives, we must also be careful to avoid the trap of single-partner contrapception responsibility. Single-partner contraception responsibility is a term I coined to expose the erroneous notion among couples that pregnancy and STI prevention is the obligation of only one partner. Unfortunately, Dr. Joseph Alukal, the director of male reproductive health at NYU's Langone Medical Center, caters to this mental pitfall when he says that "there are plenty of men in committed relationships who choose to take onus of reproductive planning on themselves." This kind of mentality supports inequality among sexual partners by suggesting that something that is both their responsibility is the burden of only one, and attitudes like these are what have been the core obstacles to the sexual liberation and equality movements.
In developing these technologies, we must also be wary of toxicity and side effects. Unfortunately, at present, oral contraceptives taken by females have several side effects, among them an increased likelihood of certain kinds of cancer, depression, and pulmonary embolism. In their report about studies of BMS-189453, ABC News notes that the drug has an unusual history: it was originally developed "as a possible treatment for skin and inflammatory diseases," and that the drug's spermatogenesis-stopping side effect was considered "toxic." Painfully, the lead author of Columbia University Medical Center's study seems not to care much about the possible damages that could affect men, saying, "One company's toxin may be another person's contraceptive." The same comment made about women's health would be considered offensive, and sexism works both ways. Men, just like women, are an advantage to family planning, and further development of male oral contraceptives must take their health into serious consideration.
Though I support further development of these technologies, it is important - vital, even - to focus on how male oral contraceptives will not protect men or their partners from sexually-transmitted infections. Hormonal methods of birth control are very effective at preventing unintended pregnancy, but they are 0% effective at warding against potentially life-threatening STIs like HIV, whose fully-developed disease form kills 1.8 million people per year. Thus, consistent, correct condom use will and must remain the preferred choice of pregnancy and infection control, and further discussion of male oral contraceptives must include this fact.
Scientists at Columbia University Medical Center have discovered that the drug being tested on mice, BMS-189453, prevents spermatogenesis, the creation of sperm cells by an adult male's body. Previous male oral contraceptive drugs have had mixed results, many of them resulting in permanent sterilization of male mice. BMS-189453, though, does not seem to cause infertility, and allows regular, healthy sperm production soon after stopping the drug, meaning that men will be able to father children if and when their family planning goals change.
I believe wholeheartedly that we should continue to develop these technologies. One reason why we ought to support the creation of male oral contraceptives for humans is for the affective reason: progress is good. The other reason why I feel we should develop these technologies further, though, is much more multifaceted: the male pill will get men more involved in contraception, meaning couples will have more opportunities for discussion and responsibility-sharing, which are the cornerstones of intimacy.
On the other hand, though, with the inevitable production of male oral contraceptives, we must also be careful to avoid the trap of single-partner contrapception responsibility. Single-partner contraception responsibility is a term I coined to expose the erroneous notion among couples that pregnancy and STI prevention is the obligation of only one partner. Unfortunately, Dr. Joseph Alukal, the director of male reproductive health at NYU's Langone Medical Center, caters to this mental pitfall when he says that "there are plenty of men in committed relationships who choose to take onus of reproductive planning on themselves." This kind of mentality supports inequality among sexual partners by suggesting that something that is both their responsibility is the burden of only one, and attitudes like these are what have been the core obstacles to the sexual liberation and equality movements.
In developing these technologies, we must also be wary of toxicity and side effects. Unfortunately, at present, oral contraceptives taken by females have several side effects, among them an increased likelihood of certain kinds of cancer, depression, and pulmonary embolism. In their report about studies of BMS-189453, ABC News notes that the drug has an unusual history: it was originally developed "as a possible treatment for skin and inflammatory diseases," and that the drug's spermatogenesis-stopping side effect was considered "toxic." Painfully, the lead author of Columbia University Medical Center's study seems not to care much about the possible damages that could affect men, saying, "One company's toxin may be another person's contraceptive." The same comment made about women's health would be considered offensive, and sexism works both ways. Men, just like women, are an advantage to family planning, and further development of male oral contraceptives must take their health into serious consideration.
Though I support further development of these technologies, it is important - vital, even - to focus on how male oral contraceptives will not protect men or their partners from sexually-transmitted infections. Hormonal methods of birth control are very effective at preventing unintended pregnancy, but they are 0% effective at warding against potentially life-threatening STIs like HIV, whose fully-developed disease form kills 1.8 million people per year. Thus, consistent, correct condom use will and must remain the preferred choice of pregnancy and infection control, and further discussion of male oral contraceptives must include this fact.
A Wider Look at Kirsten Moore's "Why We Need Contraception Innovation"
The Huffington Post's Kirsten Moore argues that people ought to be as passionate about contraception as they are their iPhones. In one brilliant line, she writes, "As a reproductive health advocate, I can't help but wonder: What if we were as devoted, critical and insistent when it comes to contraceptive technologies as we are when it comes to cell phones?" The crowning glory of her positions is, however: "OK, maybe birth control isn't as sexy as a smart phone, but shouldn't it be? Actually, shouldn't it be sexier?"
She's right. While an astounding 93% of iPhone owners are satisfied with their cell phone, only 57% of women are satisfied with their pill regimen.
This idea is mind-boggling to me. The other day, I had a heated discusssion with a dear friend about a similar topic: she feels passionately that the combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP)'s side effects outweigh its benefits, while I feel that the pill remains a highly-effective method of family planning on the part of women. In truth, we're both right: COCPs have a tragically-long laundry list of potential side effects, and yet they are great at preventing pregnancy. Now, far be it from me to tell my friend that she ought to begin a pill regimen - after all, I believe that men do not deserve the ability to dictate what women should do with their bodies - but I was particularly surprised when my friend stated that one of her objections to the pill is its requirement that she take a pill daily and regularly.
Yes, that's right - she told me that taking one pill at the same time each day was just too damn hard! I couldn't believe it. If one cannot trust another to care enough about their reproductive health to take one single pill each day, how can one trust them to do much else? For instance, if a cisgender man chooses not to have his gonorrhea treated by a medical professional, how can his partner trust him to have their health and wellness in mind? And also, how could my friend forget what a huge, historic lifestyle change COCPs have been for women?
I think modern women are forgetting what a radical, incredible change the invention of the pill was. There's a reason why we call it The Pill - it's the biggie that changed everything! I know why women are undereducated about the significance and importance of the pill: abstience-only sex education proponents pressure the American government to spend $50 million annually towards abstience-only sex education through Title V. That money corners states into adopting AOSE programs, meaning that young women never learn the history of the pill. And how can a person know what they have never been taught?
Moore's article continues with examples of consumer complaints and desires regarding their COCPs. Among her examples are male oral contraception, green birth control, and "multipurpose prevention technologies." What are multipurpose prevention technologies? Multipurpose prevention technologies are innovations that simultaneously prevent pregnancy and STIs. Writes she, "Remember when we had digital cameras, phones and MP3 players crowding our purses? Now we have one multipurpose device that does it all -- and fits neatly into the pocket of those skinny jeans. Why not ask for the same from birth control? Multipurpose prevention technologies would do just that: combining pregnancy prevention with STI or HIV prevention. Like a condom, these innovations would do 'double duty' and may come in [many forms]...." Well, guess what, Kirsten Moore? We already have those, and they're called condoms!
Her thoughts about multipurpose prevention technologies in relation to women's dissatisifaction with their pill reigmens is where her argument becomes a little, well, silly, for the truth is that condoms will always be a preferable method of unintended pregnancy prevention because they, unlike hormonal methods of contraception, also protect against sexually-transmitted infections like syphilis and HIV. While there are many ways of managing an unintended pregnancy - abortion, adoption, and raising the resulting child among them - modern medicine is greatly lacking in the ability to cure the most detrimental STIs. Strangely, Moore doesn't touch on this subject. Perhaps she imagines that her audience is made entirely of monogamous opposite-sex couples who tested STI-negative prior to their sexual relationship together and thus the worry of infection or disease is not present, but as a single gay man who reads her works, I prove that her audience isn't that specific.
Moore's argument that people ought to be more invested in their family planning than they are in their possessions made by Apple isn't wrong, it's simply myopic. Instead of focusing on how women are unhappy when they have to take a single pill each day, we should focus on how proper condom use bypasses said problem by making it possible for women to forgo hormonal birth control if they so choose and has the more-than-nifty added bonus of keeping them safe from STIs.
She's right. While an astounding 93% of iPhone owners are satisfied with their cell phone, only 57% of women are satisfied with their pill regimen.
This idea is mind-boggling to me. The other day, I had a heated discusssion with a dear friend about a similar topic: she feels passionately that the combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP)'s side effects outweigh its benefits, while I feel that the pill remains a highly-effective method of family planning on the part of women. In truth, we're both right: COCPs have a tragically-long laundry list of potential side effects, and yet they are great at preventing pregnancy. Now, far be it from me to tell my friend that she ought to begin a pill regimen - after all, I believe that men do not deserve the ability to dictate what women should do with their bodies - but I was particularly surprised when my friend stated that one of her objections to the pill is its requirement that she take a pill daily and regularly.
Yes, that's right - she told me that taking one pill at the same time each day was just too damn hard! I couldn't believe it. If one cannot trust another to care enough about their reproductive health to take one single pill each day, how can one trust them to do much else? For instance, if a cisgender man chooses not to have his gonorrhea treated by a medical professional, how can his partner trust him to have their health and wellness in mind? And also, how could my friend forget what a huge, historic lifestyle change COCPs have been for women?
I think modern women are forgetting what a radical, incredible change the invention of the pill was. There's a reason why we call it The Pill - it's the biggie that changed everything! I know why women are undereducated about the significance and importance of the pill: abstience-only sex education proponents pressure the American government to spend $50 million annually towards abstience-only sex education through Title V. That money corners states into adopting AOSE programs, meaning that young women never learn the history of the pill. And how can a person know what they have never been taught?
Moore's article continues with examples of consumer complaints and desires regarding their COCPs. Among her examples are male oral contraception, green birth control, and "multipurpose prevention technologies." What are multipurpose prevention technologies? Multipurpose prevention technologies are innovations that simultaneously prevent pregnancy and STIs. Writes she, "Remember when we had digital cameras, phones and MP3 players crowding our purses? Now we have one multipurpose device that does it all -- and fits neatly into the pocket of those skinny jeans. Why not ask for the same from birth control? Multipurpose prevention technologies would do just that: combining pregnancy prevention with STI or HIV prevention. Like a condom, these innovations would do 'double duty' and may come in [many forms]...." Well, guess what, Kirsten Moore? We already have those, and they're called condoms!
Her thoughts about multipurpose prevention technologies in relation to women's dissatisifaction with their pill reigmens is where her argument becomes a little, well, silly, for the truth is that condoms will always be a preferable method of unintended pregnancy prevention because they, unlike hormonal methods of contraception, also protect against sexually-transmitted infections like syphilis and HIV. While there are many ways of managing an unintended pregnancy - abortion, adoption, and raising the resulting child among them - modern medicine is greatly lacking in the ability to cure the most detrimental STIs. Strangely, Moore doesn't touch on this subject. Perhaps she imagines that her audience is made entirely of monogamous opposite-sex couples who tested STI-negative prior to their sexual relationship together and thus the worry of infection or disease is not present, but as a single gay man who reads her works, I prove that her audience isn't that specific.
Moore's argument that people ought to be more invested in their family planning than they are in their possessions made by Apple isn't wrong, it's simply myopic. Instead of focusing on how women are unhappy when they have to take a single pill each day, we should focus on how proper condom use bypasses said problem by making it possible for women to forgo hormonal birth control if they so choose and has the more-than-nifty added bonus of keeping them safe from STIs.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)