A.M. Leibowitz

queer slice-of-life stories

AM Leibowitz

“I’m not [fill in the blank] but…”

Social Justice

By Bob Peterson from North Palm Beach, Florida, Planet Earth! [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Yesterday, I tweeted this:

Just so we’re clear, there is never a good time to open a comment with “I’m not homophobic, but…”

and got this agreement in reply:

the same applies to ‘I’m not racist/sexist but…’ and ‘I’m not being funny/rude but…’ #badsentencestarters

Right.  Exactly.

There really isn’t a good excuse for starting a sentence that way.  It is invariably followed by something that ranges from merely ignorant to blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.  If you feel you need to justify your words by trying to explain them away, then please, for the love of all things holy, just keep your mouth shut.

I tend to push back when I see the above.  My reactions depend on both how the person phrased it and on whether the sentiment is expressed unthinkingly or deliberately.  The response I get is usually immediate and defensive.  I’ve heard everything from “you’re a complete idiot” to “you misread my [anti-whatever] remark!  I actually meant this [anti-whatever] sentiment instead!”  It absolutely never seems to make any difference whether I call out privilege and/or hate speech nicely or whether I do it in ALL CAPITALS LIKE I’M SHOUTING.

I hear all the freakin’ time that the only way to change anyone’s mind on an issue is to be polite, nice, grace-filled, understanding, and kind.  I’ve heard the phrase “you’ll catch more flies with honey than vinegar” more times than I care to count.  You know what I say to that?

Who the hell wants to catch flies?

What I mean by that is that I don’t want to merely make people stop saying hateful things.  Extending grace and being polite might momentarily make a person reconsider their words or their joke or the picture they put on Facebook (though not usually, in my experience).  It does nothing to change the underlying attitude that caused the person’s initial action.  If a person is unwilling to step aside and acknowledge their own privilege, fear, ignorance, or distrust, then it doesn’t matter at all how I phrase things.

There’s a genuine belief that if we are just gracious enough, eventually people will see the error of their ways and come around.  I’m putting this here for all to see: That is a lie.  I don’t think it’s a deliberate misleading.  I think that people with naturally “nice” personalities tell themselves (and often others) that in order to justify their approach.  The truth is, it doesn’t work any better than yelling and being angry.

But yelling and being angry don’t really work either.

Because the problem is not in our approach to confronting privilege, ignorance, and hate.  The problem lies exclusively with those who are intolerant.  It isn’t my job–or yours–to change someone else’s heart.  That change must come from the inside.  But if we want to see any genuine progress, we need to stop tolerating intolerance, particularly in the name of “friendship.”

There’s an attitude on both more liberal and more conservative sides that says if we liberals/progressives don’t put up with hate speech, then we are guilty of “intolerance” ourselves.  It’s the same stupidity behind “reverse racism,” “misandry,” “and “heterophobia.”  There are no such institutions, but the minute we call someone out on their words we get an earful of how we’re hypocrites.

I’m done with that.  I’m done listening to white, straight, cisgender people (particularly men, but lots of women, too) moan about how they are somehow losing out and how they’re not allowed to have their “opinions” anymore.  Because you know what?  If your opinion includes believing that someone else is in any way less than you, you are absolutely not entitled to your opinion.  If your opinion includes ignorance of basic facts, you are absolutely not entitled to your opinion.  If your opinion includes the attitude that you are marginalized despite your obvious privilege, you are absolutely not entitled to your opinion.  There are still some things that are wrong at their core.

What I’d like to see is real, deep change in the fabric of our society as a whole.  I want more than figuring out what approach to take when confronting privilege.  I want to stop putting out both the honey and the vinegar.

I want to stop catching flies.

 

Facebooktwitterpinteresttumblrmail

Trust in me

Sexual Morality, Sexuality and Gender

© Chrisharvey | Stock Free Images & Dreamstime Stock Photos

As I mentioned yesterday in my Fifty Shades post, I want to explore this idea of trust a bit further.  It’s important, because I’m seeing something huge happening among people who call themselves both feminists and Christians.  We are standing at the threshold of a new (and hopefully healthier) sexual ethic that reflects both our faith and the letting go of patriarchal norms.  This is a marvelous thing that is unfolding, and I am beyond thrilled to be part of it.

Last week, fellow blogger Dianna Anderson posted this fantastic piece titled No Touching: Consent as the First Step.  I absolutely agree wholeheartedly that consent must be a foundational element of our sexual ethic, because otherwise, little else that we say matters.  As important as consent is, however, it cannot by itself be our ethic.  We need other elements–without them, we end up with the potential for “whatever makes you happy.”  That’s not truly healthy either.

The next thing we must talk about is trust.  Consent is good, but it must go hand-in-hand with trust.  What made me think of it was not the lack of trust I see in Fifty Shades (though that did help clarify it).  I was actually inspired by this quote from the aforementioned post by Dianna:

Consent is asking at every step “Is this okay? Does this feel good? Can I touch you here?” and getting a unequivocally positive response before proceeding.

With all due respect, I disagree with this statement.  There are times and situations in which it is certainly true, but it is not universally applicable.  When my husband and I are physically intimate with each other, we don’t ask permission and require an enthusiastic “yes” before every single activity.  To my recollection, we have never done this.  In fact, it would be rather strange if we started.  At this point, the expectation is that if one of us does not want to do something or is not enjoying it, we will speak up; if one of us speaks up, the other is expected to listen.  We communicate if we want to try something we’ve never done, but otherwise, we simply do what feels right in the moment.

That got me thinking: Why is that?

Why don’t we have to ask permission for every kiss, every touch?  And why didn’t we need to even when we began a physically intimate relationship?

The answer is that we trust each other.  We have always had the kind of open, honest relationship that made such trust possible.  This is why we don’t need to ask permission.  It isn’t because permission is merely assumed; it’s because we understand each other well enough that we don’t need words to communicate.

It just so happens that I think that the level of trust one has for a partner and the level of physical intimacy should match.  That means that the “are you married, check yes or no” question is the wrong one to ask.  It also means that “do you have permission” might also be the wrong question to ask if it’s asked in isolation.

I’m not comfortable affixing labels to relationships in such a way that the only equation is consent + trust = married couple.  And for those who do not share my religious sensibilities, it’s not my job to police your ethics or tell you that you shouldn’t have a sexual encounter that requires asking permission for every act.  But as for people calling themselves Christians, I absolutely believe that we should not be sexually linked with people we do not fully trust.

There are a number of other factors that come into play when developing a healthy ethic, but both consent and trust are foundational.  I would like to see us build on these two things as we seek to discern how we can have relationships that honor others and reflect our faith.

Facebooktwitterpinteresttumblrmail

50 Shades of Email Correspondence

Books

Warnings: The Fifty Shades series is extremely sexually explicit and involves BDSM. Because of that, and because they are not exactly well-researched or high-quality literature, I will mention things such as abuse, rape, rape culture, male dominance, sexism, relationship violence, and consensual BDSM. Also, the books began as Twilight fanfic, so I will be mentioning Twilight (which is a major squick for a lot of people just by itself).

I suppose now is the moment when I have to grudgingly acknowledge that E. L. James at least manages to keep some consistency in her characters.  (Though I don’t think that’s hard to do, given that she essentially stole them from Twilight.)  Ana and Christian are pretty much the same people in their emails as they are the rest of the time.

And there ends any compliment I can give to this chapter.

A large amount of space is given to Ana and Christian’s email correspondence.  I suppose that makes sense, since he just told her she should communicate about their relationship that way; he thinks she’s more honest than in person.  At first, I found myself amused by their email banter.  I would have continued to be entertained by it if not for two things:

  1. They already don’t have a healthy relationship; it’s hard not to see that in every interaction they share.
  2. There were more disturbing things in the emails that reflect the disturbing aspects of their relationship.

I don’t think I need to say more on the first issue.  I’ve just spent many weeks outlining the problems between these two people.  As for the second, let me illustrate (italics are my responses):

Ana: You wanted to know why I felt confused after you–which euphemism should we apply–spanked, punished, beat, assaulted me. [Not so much a problem if you like that sort of thing, but super bad writing; do we need a class on how “words mean things” and Ana didn’t use a single euphemism there?]

Ana: What worried me was how I felt afterwards. And that’s more difficult to articulate. [Yes, that worried all of us reading this, too.]

Ana: I was happy that you were happy. I felt relieved that it wasn’t as painful as I thought it would be. And when I was lying in your arms, I felt–sated. But I feel very uncomfortable, guilty even, feeling that way. It doesn’t sit well and I’m confused as a result. [So, not happy herself, and feeling guilty, uncomfortable, and confused.  That doesn’t sound mutually enjoyable to me.]

Christian: So you felt demeaned, debased, abused, & assaulted…Do you really feel like this or do you think you ought to feel like this? [Way to care so much about how she’s feeling, you jerk.]

Christian: If this is how you feel, do you think you could just try and embrace these feelings, deal with them, for me? That’s what a submissive would do. [I wouldn’t know myself, but I wouldn’t doubt that’s what an experienced submissive would do. Ana, however, is not experienced. And he’s being a dick again.]

Christian: I am grateful for your inexperience…it means that you are mine in every way. [And speaking of her lack of experience…creepily possessive much?]

Christian: My hand was very sore. But I like that. [Wah, wah.  Sorry smacking her butt injured you.]

Christian: We are consenting adults… [Yes, but you are a coercing adult.]

Christian: You need to free your mind and listen to your body. [Actually, that’s the problem here.  Damn inner goddess.  She should try listening to her brain now and again.]

Ana: And if I listened to my body I’d be in Alaska by now. [Er, no. See above.]

Christian: You are an adult–you have choices. [Yes, when she’s not being manipulated by you.]

Christian: Alaska is very cold and no place to run. I would find you.I can track your cell phone–remember? [Stalker.]

Ana (thinking to herself): Is he serious about coming to find me, should I decide to escape for a while? [Yes, you twit. He is STALKING YOU.]

After which follows a series of emails about stalking, therapy, words that don’t appear in the dictionary, and Ana getting to work on time.  They’re not terribly well-written, but if it weren’t for the rest of the emails they would be at least mildly amusing.

I think what worries me most about their exchange is that the night before, Christian has asked Ana to be honest with him.  He even suggested that she communicate via email so that she could be more open.  But the minute she is, all he does is chastise her for how she’s feeling and tell her to get over it.

Speaking of honesty, I have to admit that the idea of a D/s relationship is borderline squicky for me as it is, but I can accept that there are plenty of people who enjoy that sort of thing.  I would never tell them they shouldn’t.  On the other hand, I am not convinced that this is the best or healthiest way for a person (particularly a woman in the role of sub, given western rape culture) to make her sexual debut.  She has had no time to find out what she’s actually interested in exploring–she’s been plunged directly into a relationship with someone who has established preferences while she has none.

Not only that, I sense that a really big thing is missing from this “relationship” that is not only necessary for D/s play but is also vital for any intimate relationship: trust.  Sure, there’s consent here, but Christian keeps insisting that Ana should trust him.  You can’t force trust; it’s built on time and trustworthy actions.  He has neither of these things on his side, so asking for her trust is questionable at this stage.  In their email exchanges, he does not do one thing that would build her trust in him.  He shoots her down, he mocks her, he claims ownership of her, and he threatens her.  This would make sense in the fantasy world of two people who love, care for, and trust each other; it is suspect in a pseudo-relationship between a naive young woman and an experienced, psychologically damaged man.

I’m addressing the issue of trust in other ways this week, so I hope you’ll stay with me as the ever-expanding multi-blog conversation on human sexuality continues.

Facebooktwitterpinteresttumblrmail

Notable News: Week of February 9-15, 2013

Cool Stuff, Links, News

Apparently, the theme of sexual ethics has carried over from last week.  There have been a lot of great responses.  These are some of my favorites.

1. On virginity

Joy Bennett has three great pieces on the subject, and it looks like there’s more forthcoming:

2. On “Biblical clarity”

Preston Yancey gives a great summary of the problems that arise from reducing sexual ethics to a list of Bible verses we can commit to memory.

3. On what’s missing

Slacktivist offers the perspective that the purity movement has failed to produce anything like a sexual ethic, only a sexual rule (“NO!”).

Evangelical purity culture and its attendant cult of “modesty” enthrones male lust, inverting what Jesus taught us. “If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away,” Jesus said. But purity culture says male eyes are inviolable, so if a man’s eye causes him to sin, then women’s bodies must be torn out and thrown away — or at least covered up and shut away. Modesty somehow always means women in burkas,* never men in blindfolds.

4. On sin and consent

Two more great pieces by Dianna Anderson:

We spend so much effort and energy telling people to say “no” that we’ve not equipped them with how to say “yes.”

A healthy sexual relationship has much more room to happen when everyone involved is doing so enthusiastically and with full knowledge and agreement about boundaries.

In unrelated news, here are two more posts this week you may enjoy:

5. On seasonal depression

Registered Runaway offers some good ideas for how to cope with winter depression.  If, like many of us, you are suffering, you don’t have to do it alone.

6. On Valentine’s Day

In case you don’t follow my other blog, here’s this weeks short story.

Have a great weekend, everyone.  See you back here on Monday!

 

 

Facebooktwitterpinteresttumblrmail

You are loved

Christianese, Life, Love, Sin

In case anyone missed it, many of us have been participating in an ongoing conversation about sexuality and sexual ethics.  There have been so many brave people sharing their stories with honesty and dignity.  Collectively, we all seem to need to move away from the shame and fear that have permeated conservative evangelical teaching.  This is an incredibly beautiful, brave venture and I’m proud to be part of it.

But.

After one of the first posts went up, Sarah Bessey’s wonderful I am damaged goods, I began to notice something that disturbed me.  Rather than understanding Sarah’s use of the phrase “damaged goods” for what it was in the context of her post, others were appropriating the term and using it to mean something very different.  I lost count of the number of times I saw someone post or tweet something like this:

We are all damaged goods.

I understand what they meant.  I, too, am a product of the doctrine of total depravity (that we are born without any goodness in us and our only worth comes from God).  While I no longer hold that view, I certainly respect those who do.  I also understand the sentiment to be a paraphrase of “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”  That isn’t my primary concern here.

The phrase “damaged goods” breaks my heart not only for women like Sarah Bessey who have been told that their sexual histories have ruined them but for all of us.  We are not “damaged goods.”  Not one of us.

Words mean things.  “Damaged goods” is something we should use to describe a bruised banana or a dented can of tomatoes or a package of frozen peas that split open.  Damaged goods are unsaleable throw-aways.

Call us sinners, if you believe we are.  Say we make mistakes or that we sometimes hurt each other or that we need forgiveness (from people or God).

But don’t call us damaged goods.  Human beings are not ever damaged goods.

We are not spoiled, ruined, useless, or worthless.

We are beautiful.

We are precious.

We are valuable.

We are loved.

You are loved.  I am loved.  Let us reflect that love that no one will ever again believe he or she is damaged goods.

Facebooktwitterpinteresttumblrmail

More Content

Let's Be Friends

Facebooktwitterpinterestrssinstagram

Sharing

Facebooktwitterpinteresttumblrmail

Tip Jar

Shopping Cart

Your Shopping Cart

Your cart is empty

Supposed Crimes Publishing

Beaten Track Publishing