Rape & Sex Education, A Two-Part Rant

So, yesterday, at lunch, the women I work with were discussing their families. I generally like these discussions, since they so rarely veer off into political speak or declarations about how Fox News is just so unbiased. They're a bit on the boring side, but they also make my coworkers happy. And I'd rather have a happy coworker when I need help than the opposite. But every once in a while, a subject comes up that veers us close to the third rail of office discussion.

Yesterday was one of those days. A woman's niece, age 12, was staying after school to finish a test, and was left alone for a few minutes with two boys in her class - also age 12. One of the boys then said, "Let's rape _____". The girl asked the boy why he wanted babies (which seemed like an odd reaction to me, but wevs), and then told her mother after she got home.

Here is the first part of my rant. Everyone at lunch agreed that this was inappropriate. Everyone agreed that the mother, my coworker's sister, should report the incident to the principal. And I was one of those agreeing.

But at the same time, the incident was profoundly disturbing to me. Part of it is because in recent months, a 12 year old girl was raped, by a fourteen year old, and that rape was not seen as a serious matter by school officials. It was also because I happened to sit across from a jerk of an 8th grader at lunch, and his continuous barrage of sexual-type comments were not taken seriously by my school officials, up until I hit him with his own lunch tray. And then I was told "boys will be boys" (yes, seriously, that exact phrase was used). It is because when I was in high school, my regulation tank top was deemed as being "distracting and exciting to the boys" by my gym teacher. And it was only because I have a father who is actually pretty damn scary when he's pissed that I got an apology for that. In other words, we live in a world, even us in the liberaler states in the Union, where schools like to protect their own asses, and where the culture of boys will be boys and girls have to endure sexual comments doesn't stop at the doors of an educational facility.

It is terrible that my coworker's 12 year old niece was threatened (jokingly or not) with rape. On an individual level, it is horrible. Her mother should report the incident to the principal, to the teacher, and maybe calling up the boy's parent(s)/guardian(s) and telling them what their son said. But on a more meta and less micro level, shouldn't we be focusing part of our attention on why this statement could and is casually uttered? I know kids and teenagers and young adults say shocking and controversial things, sometimes in order to seem more sophisticated, sometimes to lash out, and sometimes simply to be seen as shocking and controversial. I'm Facebook friends with a large portion of my sisters' high school, and they have taken to FormSpring like ducks to water, so I know. Trust me. And that could segue into a post about how being gay (or bisexual, or assumed to be gay) is still ZOMG, the WORST thing to be EVER in high school, but I'll just restrain myself. The thing is, something must make it seem like it is okay for this 12 year old to talk about raping his classmate, and it isn't something that affects just this 12 year old. And we should prevent individual 12 year olds from saying such things, but shouldn't we impress upon everyone that rape isn't, actually, something to casually throw around? That it is, actually, a serious offense? That it isn't, actually, something that should be used as a threat, fake or not, faux-funny or not?

But instead, we switched over to sex education, where the second part of my rant comes in.

Mother to the 12 year old girl decided that her daughter's response to a rape threat should probably not be, "Why do you want babies?" So, she sat said daughter down for a sex talk. And talked about how much sex hurt. Always. And about how sex was bad, how sex was unpleasant, and how if you kissed someone, you were kissing every single person he ever kissed (being gay really isn't seen as an option in that house).

First my sister's reaction to the kissing line: "I would have said, 'Well, then I guess I've kissed a lot of people'". Which was, especially if you know her, hilarious.

Secondly, I understand the impetus to discuss sex and what sex is when your daughter is sheltered at age 12. I don't understand the impetus to discuss sex and not touch upon what rape is, why it is a horrible thing to say to someone. It seems that if your sex talk is happening because a kid in your daughter's class talked about raping your daughter, some discussion about rape would be in there. But, no, apparently not.

Third, though, is this: if you decide to have a discussion with your twelve year old about sex because you feel that she is sheltered and needs to have some understanding of it, what the fuck does telling her lies about sex do for her? Seriously now. And here is the crux of the post. As much as it isn't an aberration for a 12 year old boy to feel like joking about rape is acceptable, it is also not aberrant for people to not actually have solid, true information about sex. What benefit is gained from telling a 12 year old girl that sex always hurts, that sex is bad, that sexual contact is something to be avoided? None.

I'm not suggesting that parents should begin telling their children that sex is wonderful, is the best thing ever, and you should totes be open to it. What I am suggesting is that misinformation about sex is troubling, that painting sex as bad or dirty or a necessary evil is problematic, and that telling little girls that sex hurts always is wrong. Morally as well as factually.

This isn't just a problem for this specific 12 year old. This is a problem for all of the twelve year olds who do have parents who aren't open and honest with them, who go to schools where the answer to any sex question is "don't".

And that brings us to this question: is the problem teenagers having sex, or is the problem teenagers having sex irresponsibly?

I would prefer to think of my 17 year old sisters as 5 years old for the rest of their lives. I would prefer to not think about their sexual predilections or habits. But what I want is for them to have the information, to know about sex, to not feel shamed for having it or wanting it. I want them to know about contraception, and also more of the fun stuff. I want them to feel comfortable asking questions, and for them to have the reasonable expectation of honest answers. And I want that for their friends, and their friends' friends. I want sex to not be a mystery to them, not something their parents squick away from discussing, and their school refuses to touch. And I want that for my coworker's niece as well. I want sex education to contain some education about sex. And I don't think that's too much to ask.

Monday Reading List

"We Are Not Animals in the Hood":

Lisa Gray-Garcia says the tours “zoo-ify” poor people and people of color, who will clearly not be paying $65 to drive around looking at projects, tags and bullet holes.

Single-Minded:

Does that go back to the idea that being single is seen as a threat to those in relationships? The idea seems laughable, but somehow it always come roaring back. There are also still so many (namely lumped into the category of “relatives”) that find it strange when you don’t bring a love interest to the Christmas party every year.

Why I Hate Label-Hating:

What is a label? It’s a description. It’s a name. Words are the primary tool our species uses to communicate and “labels” are just that: words we use to explain ourselves and others. The wrong word, especially when it is instituted upon a person by the entire culture, can do tremendous damage, and I understand that most queer people are walking around with considerable baggage because of this, myself included. But that isn’t an argument against labels per se. Once again, it’s an argument against coercion.

When Men Were Men, And Burned To Death:

When men were men and film was in black and white, race car drivers died and were injured in crashes with what now seems like shocking regularity. European motorsports resumed after a nearly decade-long hiatus caused by the Second World War, with sports car and Grand Prix racing adopting advances in engines, materials and aerodynamics spurred by military technology, and the cars went faster and faster from the early fifties on. The speeds quickly outstripped the cars’ rudimentary abilities to protect drivers in a crash, leaving ever thinner margins of for lightweight machines with hundreds of horsepower on tracks made of winding public roads.

From Cute Overload:

Monday Reading List

From 'Vibrator' to 'Cougar Town', Sex Is Still A Man's World:

“Men comprise the majority of the creative community,” said Martha M. Lauzen, executive director of the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film at San Diego State University, and one result is “male fantasies of women’s sexuality.” Dr. Lauzen studied the 2008-9 television season, surveying more than 2,100 of the most powerful jobs in prime-time network broadcasting, and found that only one out of four was held by a woman.

Bending Gender Online for Fun, Profit, and Faux Feminism:

Ironic, but not surprising. Sociologist Shelly Correll has demonstrated that women with kids face a “motherhood penalty.” They’re less likely to be offered jobs and less likely to be paid well. When Correll gave potential employers fake resumes that varied only in subtle references to parenting activities, she found that supposedly childless women were twice as likely as mothers to be called for an interview.

Back!:

What I like about the atheist reactions to these pieces is that they are not down with the sexism in them. What I don't like is that atheist authors are more likely to see misogyny as a problem of these authors and religious folks, and thus not our problem. But sexism is alive and well among atheists, and while it shouldn't be tackled by people like Lofton, who are clearly hostile towards atheists, it can't just be projected onto religious folks and ignored in our own community.

Disability Symbology:

Notice how the second symbol represents people with disabilities as active and independent. There are motion signs and the figure is pushing its own chair.

An organization called Not a Doll is taking the human trafficking element of Dollhouse and bringing attention to it (via Stephanie, who also says, "if Whedonites can get a giant studio to make a high budget movie out of a show that didn't even get a full season, they might just be able to create quite a bit of real life change.")

The How Stuff Works Kiva team has raised $46,950 as of this morning.

And comic:

Quote of the Day

I'm one of ten girls in a room with 700 guys, and I'm not prepared for that. It doesn't feel comfortable for me to sit there and watch that.

- Natali Del Conte, summing up in under 30 words the problem with using female nudity to generate excitement at a tech event.

(From Buzz Out Loud, CNet's podcast of indeterminate length, episode 1121).

Seriously, though, Del Conte is discussing an event for the Boxee where the Suicide Girls (just linking the Wiki article for that one) performed. Her description of the actual offending event is about 3 or so minutes into the BOL podcast, but the gist is that there was full frontal nudity and a couple of girls making out with each other.

What this does is set a clear line of delineation about who the tech product (in this case, Boxee, but this is hardly the first time some geekery has gone awry in its gender presentations) is designed for, and who they don't particularly care about building as their demographic. Because even if some of the other 10 girls in the audience were gay or bi and would enjoy a Suicide Girls show, that doesn't change the underlying assumption - and that underlying assumption should, actually, make the gay or bi girls just as uncomfortable.

The underlying assumption isn't "This is for people who enjoy women making out with each other". The underlying assumption is "at a tech event, this is what women are good for". It turns women into objects, and - as Del Conte flat out says - makes the event an uncomfortable space for those women who dare to venture in. Because even if a girl in question is attracted to women, she's still sitting near a couple of dozen guys who are not aware of her inner life or thoughts, and for whom the Suicide Girls show has been performed for.

I'm not all that interested in tech. I buy what Apple tells me to buy, and I go on my merry way. I don't have an e-Reader, and I'm not exactly entirely sure what makes a good or bad interface. But if I were interested in tech, if I wanted to get a job writing about tech for a tech site and talking about tech on tech podcasts, the last thing I would want is to have my minority status demonstrated so blatantly at any event, but especially an event I was supposed to be covering for my work. The last thing I would want is to see that at the very least the product I was about to be covering, if not the rest of the men in the room, didn't recognize me as a journalist or as a potential consumer. I would not be prepared for that, either.

Monday Reading List

The Company We Keep:

We rely on gay-rights groups to battle it out alone for marriage rights in Maine. We expect feminists to secure abortion rights in health-care reform legislation. We look to the NAACP to effectively respond to racist statements about Obama. And yes, those groups will work hard for those goals. But when they fall short, they are not the only ones to blame. It's fair to look at the entire progressive coalition and ask the hard questions about our movement: What's the use of having a community, a coalition, if you aren't going to fight for each other?

13 Year Old Girl Commits Suicide After Classmates Spread Nude Photos:

As Veronica Arreola said on her Twitter, while the media insists on calling this a “sexting-related suicide,” it’s much more accurately referred to as a “slut-shaming suicide.” Because the photograph she sent is not what drove this poor girl to kill herself — the non-consensual spreading of the photograph, and the subsequent reaction that her classmates and all adults in positions of authority had to it seems to absolutely have been what drove her to despair. And that is a truly vital distinction to make if we actually care about the fact that a 13-year-old girl is dead, and why.

The Real Obesity Crisis:

...even though we tend to believe that children this young are living in their own little fantasy universe in which the actions of adults are only momentarily relevant, this study makes clear that children live in the adult world as well, where diet-talk, body-bashing, and constant, constant hand-wringing about what we look like affects them, and quite deeply, too.

Romance and Sexuality in Harry Potter:

Harry Potter is a bit of a sore spot for me. How much I loathe books can be expressed by the formula L = TP, or Loathing equals Terrible (how terrible it is), times Past (how much effort I put into it when I used to like it). So for that reason, Twilight, whose P is zero, also has an L value of zero–doesn’t matter how bad it is, I don’t happen to give a shit. As it happens, Harry Potter is no slacker in the T department and has the highest P of any book series in existence. You do the math.

So without further ado, I present “Things that come to mind as examples of the twisted sexuality in Harry Potter.“

Yes, I Will Always Play Zoey:

An article on Forbes.com cites research firm Electronic Entertainment Design and Research’s numbers on the subject: of the games on current generation consoles, female characters star in only 3% of games, versus 46% with male protagonists (the remaining are games with a customizable lead character or none). In action games specifically, it’s 3% female, 51% male, and if you venture into shooters, it drops to an abysmal 1%-73%.

Should We Remember Mike Penner or Christine Daniels?:

Penner never spoke publicly about his motives for transitioning back to Mike. But when Penner chose to “detransition”—when he stopped identifying outwardly as Christine Daniels—several experts weighed in on the latest development in Penner’s public persona. According to psychologists, most transgender people who choose to “detransition” do so as a result of external pressures resulting from their public gender transition, and not because they no longer internally identify as transgender.

And, instead of a comic, Twilight's New Moon in Lolcats. A taste, and then just follow the link:

Monday Reading List

Hugo's “Penetrate” v. “Engulf” and the multiple meanings of the “f” word: a note on feminist language:

In every women’s studies class I’ve taught here at PCC, and in many guest lectures about feminism I’ve given elsewhere, I use the “penetrate” versus “engulf” image to illustrate a basic point about the way in which our language constructs and maintains male aggression and female passivity. Even those who haven’t had heterosexual intercourse can, with only a small degree of imagination required, see how “envelop” might be just as accurate as “enter”.

Sady Doyle's The Edward Cullen Underpants Conundrum:

I mean, consider: Edward Cullen has no characteristics, as a person, other than wanting to “protect” Bella and being beautiful and gorgeous and perfect all the time. (And also an insufferable asshole, but that seems more like a mistake than a purposeful effort to give him a personality.) He has no goals in life other than being with Bella. He is over a hundred years old, and he’s never had sex with another person. He’s never wanted to have sex with another person. There is not and will never be a person or a thing or an event that is more important to him than (eventually) having sex with Bella. He is an object designed for the gratification of female desire. He’s the most ridiculous person who’s so amazing at everything, and he’s so beautiful you creamed yourself. And that’s it. And we’re used to dudes writing ladies this way, we’re even used to dudes writing ladies this way and passing it off as “literature,” but the idea of a female author writing a male character in this way, for the pleasure of other ladies, is profoundly disconcerting. Even to me! Because it’s backwards.

Filthy Grandeur's Presentations of violence and gender in the Twilight Novels:

Though all of the Cullens are stunningly attractive, there's a clear gendered difference in their appearances. The men are large, and strong, while the women are small and graceful. Though the women are also impeccably strong, they do not look it.

EAMD is an Angry White Girl:

First of all, I actually have no idea what, if any, of my university's admissions criteria involve race in any way. True, then I should not be arguing about them, but on the other hand, that is precisely the point--not a single goddamn one of those columns actually states how exactly race plays a role in admissions. My guess is because the writers and speculators on this campus don't actually have the slightest idea if or how race impacts admissions. They just use the assumption that it gives minority students a concrete advantage to spew unfounded bullshit about how "qualified white students" are being denied admission to make room for all the darkies who definitely wouldn't get in otherwise.

Meloukhia's Transgender Day of Remembrance:

Some people think that days of remembrance are a waste of time. Or they say that people should be thinking about this “all the time.”

Well, I do.

Every. Single. Day.

I think about it. I think about the people I haven’t known and never will know, now, because they are dead.

And I’d like you to do the same.

Because the thing about a day of remembrance is that it allows us to take a moment, together, as a collective, to acknowledge something.

From See Emily Blog, there's Books Critiquing America Series: Rethinking Thin:

Not too long ago, I thought that anyone who was overweight chose to be overweight, and that if they really wanted to be thin, they could. Many people still think this about the overweight and obese- why can’t they just eat less and exercise more? What’s keeping them from getting control of their lives? Well, according to Kolata’s book, this is a question that has been puzzling scientists for decades. And, spoiler alert, it’s rarely the obese person who is to blame for their weight.

And, because my first car handled exactly this way on ice (and snow, and sometimes rain...) a Zits comic:

I REALLY Need To Stop Reading Advice Columns

Remember that time earlier this month when I said I was going to stop reading advice columns? Yeah. Totally didn't stick. So, here's reason number two as to why I should stop reading advice columns - or maybe just this particular advice column:

Dear Annie: After 20 years of marriage, my wife and I separated, with the plan that I would undergo therapy to discover why I had become disconnected from her over the past few years.

We agreed that after eight months or so, we would attend joint counseling sessions to see what had changed.
After six months, I discovered she had had sex with a man and then later with a woman. She stated, "We're separated, so I feel free to date and do not regret it." I consider this adultery. What do you think? — Husband of a Sudden Bisexual

Dear Husband: A married person who has sex outside the marriage has committed adultery. However, a legal separation, as opposed to an informal parting, often gives spouses tacit permission to date others. We assume this was not the case here. But you have a bigger problem. If your wife is bisexual, your marriage may not be reconcilable. If she isn't already in counseling, you should make it a condition of your continued efforts to save the relationship. Provided, of course, you still want to.

Okay, no. Well, some yes. Obviously, this is a couple that needs some counseling and some help at the whole communication thing, since there shouldn't be a Ross and Rachel "we were on a break" situation here. Things like "Can I sleep with other people during this time apart?" should have been dealt with at the start of this whole trial separation thing, and truth be told, the wife probably should have erred on the side of caution with that one unless she was willing to throw her desire to see/sleep with other people out onto the table.

But the "no" part comes in with the bolded type. "If your wife is bisexual, your marriage may not be reconcilable?" What? Are the Annies really and truly suggesting that bisexuals can't be participants in monogamous relationships? Are the Annies truly suggesting that simply because this woman happens to find both men and women attractive, that alone could be something that makes their relationship not work?

Now, it sounds like this particular relationship may be irreconcilable anyway, what with the lack of communication, the feelings of disconnection, and the (legitimate) feelings of betrayal Husband has. The relationship could be irreconcilable anyway, because Wife has discovered she likes sex with women and men not her husband and she likes the feeling of freedom she is experiencing. All of that is possible.

But. Being bisexual is not an irreconcilable issue in a relationship. Much like being straight and being attracted to people who aren't your spouse (or significant other) is also not an irreconcilable issue. As long as you are attracted to your spouse (or significant other), as long as you are committed to your spouse (or significant other), as long as your relationship and your spouse (or significant other) takes precedence, then there is no problem.

The issue with framing bisexuality itself as being a potential irreconcilable difference is that laced in that idea is the expectation that the bisexual must have sexual relationships with both sexes. Not true. Being a bisexual means, quite simply, being attracted to both sexes. And attraction does not equal application. As I've said before,

Bisexuals can engage in fidelity, just like every other person [who] sublimates their attractions once they are in a committed, monogamous relationship does.

Sublimating desires is part of what being in a monogamous, committed relationship entails. It entails that there is a distinct probability you will be attracted to other people, but only acting on the attraction you hold for your chosen partner. It doesn't matter if you're attracted to guys, girls, or both. Because chances are, in the course of your relationship, you're going to feel an attraction to someone not your chosen partner. In short, bad Annies, perpetuating the stereotype of the bisexual! Although they may have meant well, their analysis is based on the idea that bisexuals are, by their very nature, promiscuous. And that is summarily false. Bisexuals are no more promiscuous than homosexuals or heterosexuals. And that's because bisexuals are still, at the end of the day, people. And people tend to occupy a wide range of personalities and behaviors, among them fidelity. That really doesn't have a set sexuality it attaches itself to.

Monday Reading List

Not The Man I Know by Cara:

This is the danger of making statements about what “the man I know” would and wouldn’t do. It places our own experiences with a person above those of a person with whom they have been violent. And it erases the fact that violence against women exists, that it is being committed right now as I write this, and that it’s being committed by men who we’ve gone to school with, been to dinner parties with, played on the playground with, by men who have been non-violent towards us, who have helped us, who have been nice to us.

Belonging Review: Dollhouse 2.04 from Maia:

Belonging wasn’t the fantasy of killing a rapist, there was a body and it traumatised Priya even more. The fight was messy, Priya had a normal person’s strength and was lucky. Although I’m sure I wasn’t the only one who shouted at the screen “Topher couldn’t you have helped by providing her with Kung Fu skills. But it wouldn’t have worked if he had. And after there was blood, a body, and very few options. There were still fantasy elements – Boyd arrived on cue with body disposal skills, but it was the reality, not the fantasy that we were left with. The scene, or story, didn’t end with her stabbing him.

How I Found Out I Was Politically Correct, a post only slightly marred by the misnaming Joss Whedon as Josh Whedon:

The next time someone complains about “political correctness”, listen close. Chances are they’re either talking about someone not knowing their place, or someone having the gall to tell the listener to act like a decent human being. “What‘s this chick robot doing in my show about walking dude robots? TOKENISM! Chew with my mouth closed? POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE WILD!” These folks are under the impression that they’re “edgy”. After all, what is more rare and groundbreaking than straight white dudes ragging on things? Sometimes I can go an entire day without hearing that! Assuming I don’t watch television or listen to radio or go on the internet, and also spend the entire day in the woods.

Only Those With Power Can Participate In Racism:

...if you're black, say, and engage in prejudiced opinions and behavior against white people, you are not participating in a power structure that systematically oppresses white people, because no such power structure exists. You are engaging in a singular act of prejudice that does not, in the end, change, effect, or even play into the balance of power.

Amanda's Looking at Releasing Dirty Pictures As A Form Of Sexual Assault:

Understanding that this kind of thing is a form of sexual assault also helps us understand how it’s victim-blaming to suggest that the girls deserve all this because they were foolish enough to take these pictures. Whether or not it’s wise to do this doesn’t diminish one bit the fact that it’s wrong to use these kinds of pictures to hurt and control young women. Indeed, the only reason that taking these kinds of pictures is reckless is because there’s so many wannabe sexual assailants out there, and they know that they won’t be held responsible if they perform their assaults by leaking these pictures. Just as rape creates a general loss of freedom for women, who have to control their associations and movements out of fear that it will happen, this form of sexual assault also creates a loss of freedom. In all cases, men should consider how this loss of freedom is wrong not just because it hurts women, but also because it hurts them. When women know that some assholes are out there, waiting to punish and humiliate you if you express yourself a little bit, you don’t express yourself. And the men who might be the beneficiaries of your enthusiastic, consensual self-expression don’t get that. In this case, every use of dirty pictures to punish and humiliate women results in more women deciding that they will never, ever take and send such pictures.

From Garfield Minus Garfield:

Marti Noxon To Pen Feminist-Centered Show

Marti Noxon, she of Buffy the Vampire Slayer fame, is writing a show about "a feminist icon who attempts to reignite the movement by starting a sexually explicit magazine for women", which will star Diane Keaton. I'm... ...up in the air about this.

I should explain a few things. One is that I follow a lot of Whedony people - that is, people who have worked with Joss Whedon. The other is that while I like a lot of them, very few of them bowl me over when they're out of Whedon's sphere of influence. The ones I do like (really, really like) seemed to have gravitated over to Amy Sherman-Palladino's Gilmore Girls - those being Jane Espenson and Rebecca Rand Kirshner.

Marti Noxon is, notably, not one of those people. A little background on Noxon's contribution to Buffy the Vampire Slayer: she penned the episode I hate. I hate one episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and my reasons for hating it are similar to my reasons for hating, in no particular order, Faith (the character), Yo-Saf-Bridge, and Tennessee Williams plays. That is season 3's The Wish.

Noxon was also the co-creator of Point Pleasant, and one of the writers. Which was... just not a good show.

And I'm a bit concerned about the overall premise of this show, and I'm going to quote Jessica Valenti in order to demonstrate why:

But here's something that made me cringe a bit: Executive producer Dawn Parouse said of the show, "There seems to be a new evolution of what women are sexually. Women are acting more like men sexually."

Acting like men? Really? This is a line that anti-feminists use when decrying "hook up culture" and the evils of feminism. Also, women liking sex isn't "acting like men" - it's acting like women who like sex. Just saying.

At the same time, it could be good. It has friggin' Diane Keaton. It is about a feminist, a Gloria Steinem kind of feminist! I love Gloria Steinem! I love Diane Keaton!

And I want to believe that Marti Noxon can make something I will love. Because The Wish is a really well written episode I just can't enjoy. Because I think she got unfairly maligned when she took over Buffy the Vampire Slayer in its UPN years.

But mostly, it's because I want a show where the lead is unequivocally feminist, where that isn't a bad thing. Where it is even a good thing. I want a show where Diane Keaton can kick ass and take names. In short, I really, really want this to be good.

PETA: Turning Over A New Leaf?

PETA as an organization has a repeated and varied history of being sexist, racist, and classist (and oftentimes combining two or more of those), along with being generally unsympathetic to humans in their epic quest to save the animals. They are an example of a "Greater Good" organization, seeming to believe that turning women into sex objects (again and again - and again), dressing up like the Klu Klux Klan, linking murder and cannibalism to slaughterhouses, and equating factory farming with the Holocaust is justifiable in seeking to codify the ethical treatment of animals. A huge problem with this type of campaign is that it equates people who already occupy a lower position in society, people who have historically been considered or compared to animals, people who in many cases still are, with animals - and expects this to be revolutionary and educational.

And yet, there is a recent PETA ad that isn't controversial, that doesn't seem to be sexist, and that is almost... cool. Cloris Leachman is featured in a new PETA ad, clad in a fabulous cabbage dress:

While I don't know that this ad will make anyone suddenly become a vegetarian, I do think it is beautiful, and beautifully done. Leachman looks strong, and powerful. The dress itself looks like a work of art. As an individual ad, I think this is a win. It is a good use of a celebrity; it isn't outwardly sexist, or racist, or classist. It is noncombative, and still visually interesting. It has the added benefit of being reminiscent of Austin Scarlett's Corn Husk dress from the first seaon of Project Runway (only less dried out):

And yet, Ophelia over at Feminocracy wonders whether or not this ad is an example of ageism:

Placing Cloris in a lettuce dress reaffirms the sentiment behind their previous ads–that the female body is meant for consumption, and when that body begins to show age, it must be covered to protect our sensibilities (however, it is worth note that the dress conforms to her figure–so they’ve got to have their sexy factor in there).

In terms of PETA's history, I think the hypothesis is worthy of examination. As much as I love this ad for its individual merits, its place within the pantheon of PETA ads warrants extra attention. After all, PETA has called women 'hags' before, and with every other sexist and racist action, questioning why Cloris Leachman in particular - out of all of the women featured in PETA ads - gets the full body cover is valid. It isn't that I want Cloris Leachman to be objectified or nude in the ad; I suspect Ophelia does not want that either. However, while this may seem to be a way a marginalized body wins out when it comes to objectification, it instead reinforces the idea that after a certain age women become undesirable or asexual. It plays into the way we view how women age; how women become undervalued as their skin wrinkles and their hair grays. Men become 'distinguished' and women become 'old'. It is a familiar trope in everything from business to film; Nicholas Cage can be a viable romantic partner for Jessica Biel, but a friend of mine had a problem with Cher being considered a viable romantic partner for Cage when a mutual friend attempted to show her Moonstruck. The difference between Nicholas Cage and Jessica Biel? 18 years. The difference between Nicholas Cage and Cher? 17 years. This isn't to pick on that friend, because the older man being a logical love interest is fairly common. After all, Sean Connery was a leading man through 1999, when he played opposite Catherine Zeta-Jones in Entrapment; she is 40 years his junior. Meanwhile, women in films become mothers. Sally Field played Tom Hanks' mother in Forest Gump; she is only 10 years his senior.

However, ageism doesn't seem to be the case in this instance with Cloris Leachman. A couple of other ads similar to Leachman's were also made by PETA, one featuring Alyssa Milano:

and Pippa Black:

Both dresses show a bit more skin than Leachman's. They're both more flirtatious (and I kind of covet that pepper necklace Black is wearing), but all of the cabbage dresses are reminiscent of formal wear. 

The problem comes with the promotion featuring Alicia Mayer:

While the others are stylized ads, this one does just seems to be a candid photo much in the vein of PETA's usual publicity protests. The others are of white women. This ad is of a Filipino woman. I don't think we can ignore that aspect of the overt and specific sexualization contained in this image versus the sexy but not exploitive pictures of the other three. This could just be a product of the different environments. But this isn't the only picture treating women of color differently than their white counterparts. The same kind of ad as the Cloris Leachman, Alyssa Milano and Pippa Black ads features the model Kadra:

Her outfit is once again in a different league than the white women who are also focused upon. This demonstrates a similar kind of distinction between the ads Ophelia was concerned with in regard to the Cloris Leachman ad. Different categories of women are being treated differently by PETA. And that difference is incredibly problematic. It is again a reminder of the different ways women are sexualized, and how minority women are oftentimes over sexualized. The ads are a serious issue, no matter how much I like the Leachman, Milano, and Black ads. In the light of other PETA ads, these seem to recognize that their treatment of white women was an issue; but they continue to pull the same old sexist crap in relation to women of color. And it leads to this question: if the way white women are portrayed is changed, why continue framing other women in the previous fashion? Why create a series of ads with different visual stimuli? Why not place all of the women featured in vegetable formal wear, or all of the women in vegetable bathing suits? I doubt PETA could offer a cognizant explanation for the differences.

A Review of Dollhouse's "True Believer", Pt 2

This is part 2 of an extremely long post; part 1 is here.

I'm not going to beat around the bush; I had fully expected some sort of attack on religion, or at the very least on groupthink. But Minear was more clever than that, and it seems that Whedon is as well. Instead of simply doing a "cults equal badness and so does religion" thing, Minear explored how others would (and could) manipulate religion as they would manipulate anything else. As Minear said in an interview,

...I wanted the story turns to be rooted in the Dollhouse premise so I used the sci-fi angle to make a scientific miracle.
They could create a real woman who had really experienced a divine vision. And the fact that she was really blind proved that she wasn't lying. That's why she could recognize Sparrow through touch because the vision she experienced was no lie. Granted, Topher put it in her head, and we saw the 3-D model of Sparrow's head and understood how this was accomplished, but to Echo/Esther, all was true. So when Sparrow knocked the cameras loose and her vision was restored, this was also really a miracle... to her.

What was so amazing about the episode was that it wasn't a falsely religious man using religion to control the masses. It was the outside world, the - ostensibly - good guys who used religion to manipulate, to control. It was the ATF and the Dollhouse who created a situation where a cultish religious leader could come to depend on miracles, where such a man could be convinced that he had been featured in a vision and had been witness to a restoration of sight. These were true believers, even Jonas Sparrow. Unlike Scott Tobias of the A.V. Club, who said, "the fundamental problem for me is this: Sparrow knows he's not a prophet. He knows he's every bit the Mitchum-like charlatan. So when Esther talks of visions and recognizing his face from a dream, that should be proof enough that she's an imposter", it seems clear to me that Sparrow really does think he's doing the best for his community. He's not a Jim Jones type; this much is clear from the fact that his flock is both shocked at the fact there is a cache of guns underneath their feet and by the fact that he does believe Esther. He doesn't make his group take up arms. He isn't interested in pulling a Waco and holding a shoot out. He believes, truly and deeply, that there is another way and that God will deliver him and his people. That he is a true believer doesn't make him any less dangerous; he's still willing to condemn his people and himself to death. But it does offer a more nuanced layer to an episode that could have just been a retread of old ground. Whedon and Minear manage to make the cult seem like something other than an egotist's creation for his own validation.  

At the same time, even though it is not a condemnation of religion or even this religious expression, there is an exploration of this idea of purity; of being able to get back to the garden, or to recreate the garden. Such a sentiment has been around for eons, probably since the first tale of lost paradise entered the conscious lexicon. Even Joni Mitchell declares, "We've got to get ourselves back to the garden". Whedon has tackled, though only briefly, this subject before; in one of the coolest feminist moves, Whedon discarded the idea of our world beginning with a lost paradise on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and instead declared that it had been a hell - that the books were wrong. In Serenity, we saw the Operative working toward creating "a world without sin". But the only world without sin we are shown is a dead world. Here, the world without sin is the pinnacle of achievement in two places, the Children of the Temple's compound and Adelle DeWitt's Dollhouse. As DeWitt says at the end, "A place of safety, of untroubled certainty, of purity. This is the world we must maintain. It is imperative that nothing disturb the innocence of life here. Once any temptation is introduced, it will spread... like a cancer, and all will be infected." And yet, Victor's reaction to Sierra is, in its own way, pure and innocent. His attraction to her is a normal, natural part of life, and only when we consider human sexuality something that creates a less than pure being does Victor's "man reaction" cause concern.

What seems clear is that even scrubbed, even erased of any and everything that makes us what we are and what helps shape us, some bit of us remains. There cannot truly be a world without sin, and what's more, we probably should not even want it. The Actives in the Dollhouse come the closest to being without sin, and yet they aren't something I would aspire to be. The world is messy; but it is conflict that helps shape us, and there are things considered 'sinful' - mostly in connection to sexuality - that are a necessary component of life. To bind a sin to something necessary to the very proliferation of a species seems particularly sadistic.

Grade: A-/A

Note: There may be one more post coming; I still have thoughts, but it doesn't really fit with the religious flow of this installment.

Toothpaste For Dinner Kind Of Sums It Up

I like it when I find timely cartoons; this one kind of sums up the sentiment in both of my recent posts.

Subtle Sexism

I'm not a gamer. I wasn't ever allowed to have a gaming system as a kid, because my parents wanted me to be active or reading a book - which I happily did. The only game I was even ever remotely good at was Duck Hunt, and when we were younger I'd make my best friend play the game constantly when I was over her house. She enjoyed my play drum set when she was over my place, so it was all a wash in the end. Games in college sometimes left me (or the virtual me) standing in a corner spinning helplessly around and around (Halo), or coming in 8th at Mario Kart 22 times in a row. So sexism in video games is something that I haven't really experienced; that doesn't detract from lindabeth's excellent blog post "Subtle Sexism: Analyzing The Witcher". What makes the article such a good read is that she isn't highlighting merely problems in this one particular videogame, but how these issues are reflective of our society as a whole and of gaming culture in particular. Yes, she is discussing this particular game explicitly, but the problems in the game wouldn't be quite so severe if those problems weren't also highlighted out in the "real world".

She highlights several issues about the sexual nature of the game, including:

"After a sexual encounter, you obtain pin-up trading cards to represent that sexual conquest-players, collect them all! (mass-printed cards, authentically medieval, right?) The idea of "collecting" women you have sex with (proof of your masculinity?) is really troubling to me. And by having sex with all the women available, you have a complete collection of women-objects. Having sex with all the women you are able to, thus, becomes a goal for the character, even if the "reward" for doing so is negligible (bragging rights?). As one gamer suggested, "Women are COLLECTIBLE."

This would be troublesome in any context, but it becomes more troublesome given the fact that this is very much an idea present in society; men aren't exactly discouraged from having sex with a lot of women; he may be labelled a "man-whore" (the modification of which just goes to show exactly how sexuality and "bad" sexuality is gendered), but that isn't exactly something that society is shaming men about - unlike women, who if they're "whores" may be good enough to sleep with but not marry in the common meme. It also plays into the "women are objects" idea, something that is furthered farther down in the article:

"in the game, you as the male protagonist can choose whether or not to have sex with the women, but they cannot choose not to have sex with you - you will never hear a "no". They may not suggest sex unless you do/say/buy/pay "the right thing", but you won't hear a rejection. So women's sexuality becomes a matter of figuring out the right tactics, the right series of responses or actions to get her to open her legs up to whomever gets the combination right."

Again, this would still be problematic, but much less problematic if there weren't a crazy line of thought that this is true, that women owe men who do nice things for them sex, and that women should "give" themselves to men who do all those right things. That thought is at the very heart of the Nice Guy™ syndrome:

Which is also nicely demonstrated here:
It is the thought that somehow men are deserving of sex with whatever women they wish to have sex with, and that all women a particular man wants are attainable; it makes men and their sexual wants more important that women and their sexual autonomy. Women's sexuality then always belongs to men; they just have to figure out how to get it. It makes women "collectibles". That the game reflects this is no surprise; that the game reflects any of what lindabeth describes is no real surprise. The surprise are the things that don't passively fall into the same harmful patterns of the culture, the games and books and songs and movies and television shows that - either through design or accident - go the opposite way.

The final point I'm going to lift from lindabeth (and really, you should read the whole article because it is awesomely well-written) before then traversing the comments left both on her own blog and on her Feministing Community post is one relating to two separate issues, those being heterosexism (but only really it seems when dealing with male homosexuality), and a dismissal of women gamers and their concerns:

"at the same time, you are also limited to having sex with women. This makes me pause - for a feature that is considered "optional", thereby theoretically inconsequential, how come sex with men is not an option. I can hear the objections from the homophobes now. But for those men out there in game chat board world who say it shouldn't be a big deal for a woman to play a male character, and to have sex with various women to complete the full game, then what would be the "big deal" for the het men playing that character to have sex with men to complete the card set?"

This is where being wholly in reference to The Witcher becomes a bit tricky for the women gamer who wants to play something other than a male character, because the protagonist of the game is an already-existing character. And this is where it is important to look at The Witcher within the larger gaming context - where what is acceptable in this particular game given the surrounding circumstances becomes part of a larger pattern when viewed in context with other games that arbitrarily do not offer a female protagonist who can sleep with the boys. The response to this line of thought is telling, in both places it is protested. On "Don't ya", Paul says, "The reason there is no option for gay sex is that it would mess with the story, Geralt is a straight male, they aren't being homophobes that's just how the story is." Ausir on the Feministing post asserts that "the game does not follow the plot of the books, but is set after the last book in the series". Which leads me to this: gay sex - especially if it were an optional feature of the game and not part of the linear plot - would not mess with the story. The story as Paul knows it is over; the game is a continuation. And Buffy Summers had a lesbian encounter in her story's continuation after the final episode of the television series, even though she had been up until that point a straight female. And while I may have some issues with that lesbian encounter, my issue doesn't stem from the fact that Buffy is a straight female and that sleeping with a girl messes with the story. Because stories can grow and change in any of their mediums.

Another critique of lindabeth's article, by azazeloo5, saying "The assertion that sex is never "refused" is because of the tale, not the gender's [sic] involved". Except that isn't exactly true; when the tale plays to cultural norms of gender, then it isn't strictly about the tale. The tale isn't a biographical narrative telling of a life that actually occurred; therefore, the tale and everything in it is contrived, and that contrivance follows the norms of the culture it stems from. And while this is hardly the most provocative, it still is representative of a sexist culture - and a subtle sexism because unlike rape or job discrimination or outright objectification, people like Paul or azazeloo5 can dismiss this as not being part of a grander narrative, and of merely representing this one particular tale that is by some stroke of luck or genius divorced from the world in which it was created.

And then there is from zarr, arguing, "Homosexual relationships are not included in the witcher for the same reason that the protagonist of Mass Effect is always portrayed as a male (even though you are given the option in the game to play as a female), audience. How much of the witchers [sic] audience would have cared for a homosexual relationships [sic] (cared enough to warrant them taking the time to put in such a feature)? I would argue a rather insignificant amount as the vast majority of people are heterosexual". And yes, the vast majority of people may be heterosexual. But at least 50% of the people are female; for girls playing the game who may not want to always sex up girls, it could be a nice addition - to not consistently and constantly fed objectified and commodified images of women while you're trying to play the game in its entirety. Not to mention, a good 10% of the population is homosexual - and that is leaving out the bisexuals, and the transexuals and everyone who does or possibly could fall under the "queer" category in the vast experience of humanity.

The last problem I'll mention is this, from Rhett Butler, saying, "The Witcher is puerile escapism and wish fullfillment [sic]. Geralt is the kind of character every guy wishes he was - famous, tough, cool, desired by lots of beautiful women. That's why he never gets turned down, becuase [sic] being turned down for sex is not on any guy's wish list". This actually leads into a problem I have with comic books, a problem I've been meaning to blog about for forever with nice visual representations but haven't yet because I'm just lazy (editor's note: Sorry, John! It will be coming soon, I promise!). And that is this: I have no interest in video games, and not for this issue. But I do have an interest in comic books, and I am frequently turned off from them for exactly this issue. The way most games and comic books are set up make it clear that not only is this a man's world but that it is intending on staying a man's world. This obviously isn't true for every comic book and every video game. But enough comic books have disembodied female parts (boobs, butts, etc.) on numerous pages - and gratuitously - for me to be massively put off. And enough video games objectify women characters and make men the only option - or the default option - that I can imagine it turning a lot of women off as well. I still read comic books - sometimes enthusiastically. And I know plenty of women who not only play video games but revel in them as well; that doesn't change the fact that it truly does suck to have that sinking "not again" feeling, to know that the male gaze is more important than the women readers/gamers, and that the guy wish fulfillment is more important than making games that respect women who want to play them. I'm not up for male objectification; I don't really think that equality should be attained by diminishing the other gender. But I am getting awfully sick of the idea that gaming and comic books have male target audiences just because, without recognizing or analyzing or acknowledging that one of the reasons why some of these things have a disproportionate male audience is the way women are portrayed (or, in some cases, not).

The Conundrum of Bisexuality

I read the Opinion page of my newspaper. I read it sometimes to get myself really angry; I read it sometimes in order to see if there are any sane people in my area writing letters to the paper - those people who don't write in to say that Obama is a Muslim socialist who is going to wreck our economy, take away our liberties, and turn us all into communists. And I read my paper because I do have a genuine interest in the conservative viewpoint. I should probably pick a better paper to read for the conservative viewpoint, but the Republican-American is easily accessible (as it comes to my door - or more accurately, my paper box) and I am heart a lazy person.

Mona Charen's "In Defense of Rick Warren" is one of those examples for why I should find some other paper to read. Barring anything else, her discussion of bisexuality is not only flawed but simplistically separated from the rest of us. She says,

"But what about bisexuals? I ask this not to poke fun or to hurt anyone's feelings, but in all seriousness. How does same sex marriage help a bisexual? I assume if you are bisexual, you believe you need to have sexual relationships with men and women."

Except, that isn't bisexuality; bisexuality isn't needing to have sexual relationships with men and women. It is being attracted to both men and women. Not all men, and not all women. Bisexuality is not only dictated by the actions a person takes but the desires a person feels. A woman can be a bisexual and never have a sexual encounter with another woman; a woman can be a bisexual and never have a sexual encounter with a man. Just like a heterosexual person can be attracted to blondes and brunettes, and yet never have a sexual relationship with a blonde.

Charen goes on to postulate:

"If you are a bisexual man married to a woman, don't you need to break the marriage bond to express your bisexuality?"

No more than a person attracted to both blondes and brunettes would need to break his marriage bond to a brunette to express his interest in blondes. Bisexuals can engage in fidelity, just like every other person sublimates their attractions once they are in a committed, monogamous relationship does. And I'd again refer to the first point, that being that one doesn't need to express bisexuality in order to be a bisexual.

I would like to assume that Mona Charen is being sincere in her ignorance of bisexuality; but that ignorance, and questions over how action is necessary for identification - along with the continued idea that bisexuals are somehow just selfish and won't choose one of the two binary positions we have allotted (one, albeit, slowly, begrudgingly, and not yet fully) - are real issues for those marginalized by these assertions.

Bisexuals are oftentimes treated as the hyenas of the sexual orientation crowd. They aren't one thing or the other, and so at times are treated suspiciously by both. There are the "bi-curious", the girls who engage in bisexual behavior for the attention, and those identifying as bisexual as a stepping stone toward fully coming out as homosexual; and those variables help delegitimize the bisexual orientation. And there is consistently present this idea of a binary code existence in almost every area of life, but definitely present in sexual matters. Then there are the obtuse wonderings of people like Charen, people who have no problem accepting and expecting fidelity and monogamous relationships even while accepting that attractions will occur outside of those heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Bisexuality is largely ignored. It gets one of those letters in the LGBTTIQ; and it is used as a ratings gimmick on shows when the gimmick involves a conventionally attractive girl - like Marissa Cooper's couple of episodes-long relationship with Alex Kelly on The O.C. - but it is quickly abandoned or ignored. After all, even Willow on Buffy the Vampire Slayer went from being in heterosexual relationships to declaring, "gay now", and this was after a long time crush on best friend Xander and a long term relationship with werewolf Oz.

But the true answer to the question that Charen asks,

"How does same sex marriage help a bisexual?"

is a simple one. It allows them to have full and legal rights with the partner of their choice. It doesn't help the world understand bisexuality any better, but it does help with some of those practical matters for the bisexuals who have found lasting love among their own gender. We don't make those entering into a heterosexual marriage take sexuality tests to make sure they are indeed heterosexual - and not homosexual, or bisexual. The same can be said for those entering into homosexual unions. And so, access to same sex marriage helps bisexuals in the same way access to marriage helps anyone and any group.

A Frog

It is more than a month past Halloween, but I just couldn't not share this video; and I know that if I wait until next year, I will have forgotten about/lost it. So here it is:
Sums it up quite nicely, don't you think?

"But Not Everyone Is Cleaning As A Substitute For A Healthy And Satisfying Adult Sexual Relationship"

I love Sarah Haskins more than life itself sometimes:

Oddly enough, I never noticed how many of those women were wearing pearls before...

Marriage for None; Civil Unions for All

A June CBS poll about gay marriage found that 30% of Americans favor allowing it, 36% are against it, and 28% percent favor civil unions. This is the highest percentage of people who support recognition of homosexual relationships since the question first appeared in polling questions in 2004, but it still represents a rather firm split with no clear majority. However, Oliver Thomas -a minister, lawyer, and author- has an intriguing answer to this ideological problem; actually, it is the same solution my mother blurted out about 3 years ago in our kitchen, but Oliver Thomas actually has an outlet for these ideas whereas my mother just had the four of us to rant to as she put dishes away. Plus, Oliver Thomas' seems more thought out and -dare I say it- more eloquent than my mother's rant was. I attribute that to the fact that he probably wasn't trying to wrestle with the conundrum of where to put the colander.

What both Oliver Thomas and my mother came up with -separate from each other- is that government should get out of the business of marriage. Government appropriated marriage from religious institutions because it "creates more stable relationships and families, more financial security and a better environment for the rearing of children" -all of which are legitimate concerns, but not religious ones. The thing we call marriage is a civil contract between two parties and the state. Thomas' proposal (and my mother's) is that we merely acknowledge that, call what the state does civil unions, and allow marriages to be overseen by the church. Says Thomas, "Theologically, this puts marriage back were it belongs. Constitutionally, it protects churches from having the government dictate to them which relationships they should or should not sanction."

Thomas has a list of benefits, and -from what I can tell- no real downside. His basis is on the fundamental principle of separation of church and state. It is also about what benefits both the church and state separately. Churches could refuse to perform marriages, couples could find churches that would sanctify their unions, and homosexual civil unions would provide the same stability and financial security to the state that straight unions do. The right of equality under the law would be upheld, as if everyone were getting civil unions there would be no discrimination. He even tackles the "union for procreation" argument, stating that "if procreation were our primary concern, current law wouldn't allow the elderly or the infertile to marry". All in all, I think Thomas has the right idea here. Government shouldn't be in the marriage business; homosexuals should have the same rights and legal protections in their relationships as heterosexuals. Civil unions for all solves those problems; and does so fairly and equitably, if I may say so myself.

Why Katy Perry Sucks

Katy Perry has the #1 song in the nation with "I Kissed a Girl", a video that sees her provocatively dressed and that has such gems of lyrics like:

I kissed a girl and I liked it

The taste of her cherry chapstick

I kissed a girl just to try it

I hope my boyfriend don't mind it.

Come again? You hope your boyfriend "don't mind it"? Issues with grammar aside, that is a horrible sentiment! Look, I'm all for sexual exploration. I'm down with the theory that most people on earth aren't entirely one thing or the other, totally straight or totally gay, and that sexuality is more of a gradient or sliding scale than it is a binary code. I myself have a Gay Island of Celebrities, famous people I would think about putting aside my straight-and-narrow ways for. But seriously now. Katy Perry and her ilk of "bi-curious" girls with high school mentalities make me angry, Incredible Hulk style. If you have a boyfriend, you can't explore your attraction to women -just like you can't explore your attraction to other men. That, unless the situation has been discussed and approved of by BOTH parties (and, for my money, actually applies to both parties), is called "cheating". Just because there are two girls involved doesn't make it a lesser offense.

This song, and this behavior, exemplifies the heteronormative ideals of our society. First, there is the assertion that kissing another girl is "not what good girls do"; I would give her the benefit of the doubt and say that she was referring to the cheating, but she already hopes her boyfriend won't mind it and later describes the event as "innocent", so no dice there. Lesbians, therefore, are "bad". And while this girl may think she's being bad by kissing another girl, her plan to return to her boyfriend only furthers the ideology that lesbian encounters are missing something fundamental and vital to a fun and happy and fulfilling sexual encounter: a penis. Same thing goes, by the way, for the girls who think watching their boyfriend suck face with another guy is "hot". Because they don't feel threatened that their boyfriend may suddenly decide that this vagina thing just isn't for him. Songs like this and the behavior it espouses diminish and denigrate the validity of homosexual relationships and feelings. Katy Perry's boyfriend shouldn't worry; she's not going home with a GIRL. Furthering that line of thought is the idea that this encounter is somehow "innocent", and thereby not threatening to the accepted heterosexual relationship. Had her loss of inhibition led to her kissing a boy, the song would probably be a more angst-ridden tune.

And that is the kind of attitude that is absolute crap, that allows men to find two women engaging in sexual acts "hot" as opposed to "threatening" or "disgusting" when two men are engaging in the exact same behavior. Because as long as "bi-curious" women treat their homosexual liaisons as "cute" and "innocent" and "not threatening", as long as these women get hot and bothered and then return to their boyfriends and insist that there is nothing wrong with it, these girls will be doing a disservice to every gay person who seeks to have their relationship considered on par with a straight one.

So, to Katy Perry and girls like her, just stop it. Stop kissing (and doing other things) with girls and then going home with your boyfriend. What you're doing is just greedy, and engages in a horrible double standard. If you want to explore your sexuality, then break up with your boyfriend and actually explore it. Actually treat the relationship you develop with a woman or the encounters you have with a woman as just as important and viable as you would had these occurred with a guy. Otherwise, you're a cheater. And like every other cheater, you're pretty much just an asshole.