Category Archives: Relationships/Sexuality
Thoughts as per my book, “UnLearn Vanilla Marriage”
When patriarchy collides with feminism, the collateral sociological damage can be significant. The power struggle –as it concerns sexual perception and reality– has created certain colloquialistic compromises, if not sexual concessions. Indeed, these are lasciviously confusing, if not sex-o-phobic times in which we live. The result of which is often a politically correct –albeit incorrect– presumption of one’s libidinous inclinations.
And as with any other form of political correctness, it comes at the expense of honesty.
As such, the travails of boob-men are many. Denounced by the estrogenic body politic as lecherous and insensitive, those among the Y-Chromosome masses who find themselves inexorably drawn to a disproportionate female facade are often painted with the same broad brush stroke as public masturbators. Depicted as social pariahs –incapable of emoting beyond an awkward grope or an insincere motivation– men who are wired to erect at the sight of a significant mammalian cantilever have had to deny the nature of their genetic predisposition, and pretend that a woman possessing a sensationally superfluous stack is of no more carnal interest than a can of tuna fish.
But we all know that is bullshit.
For in a purely social setting, the American male is permitted by the gynecological elite to acknowledge a beautiful pair of eyes, but not a formidable pair of projectile intumescences. It is socially acceptable for a man to approach a woman and comment on the way the moonlight glistens off of her hair, but not suggest an equal affection for the pleasant aesthetics of her preposterously prolific pontoons. What makes eyes or hair a more compliment-friendly body part than her squeezies? Does this strike no other as hypocritical, when everyone involved in this perfidiously interactive fiasco is painfully aware that it takes every ounce of self restraint a boob aficionado can summon to maintain eye contact?
In a world committed to truth, and sexual equality, the conversation should go more like this:
“Excuse me, I couldn’t help but notice the gravity defying slope of that majestic rack you’re so proudly displaying via the textile limitations of your sweater. I’d like to buy you a drink, and if the evening progresses thusly, it is my sincerest wish to have my face buried therein sometime in the near future. Although I would not be so bold as to suggest a proper time-table, I do so find your copious silhouette extraordinarily attractive. And should you be so inclined to not view me as a less than suitable candidate for your affections due to my candor, and would have preferred that I pretend not to have noticed the gigantic jumblies jostling under that woefully inadequate –albeit extremely revealing– top your wearing, I’d truly appreciate it. You see, it’s not that gargantuan gazongas are the one and only qualification I’m seeking in a potential mate, however they are no less important than any other feature that one might find attractive in order to make initial contact. So if you’d rather acquiesce to the truth about the nature of my libido, as opposed to the pre-existing nonsense that says that I must pretend to not be who I am, well then what’ll ya have”????
Yet for some inexplicable reason, the over sensitive sexualizing of the female breast has become ground zero for striking back at years of patriarchal subjugation. It’s almost as if the gynic matriarchy has decided that “boobs as a no-ogle-zone” are proper retribution for centuries of male domination. Verboten mastoids as a means to strike back at men. And all it really accomplishes it to perpetuate the patriarchal, sexual double standard that most women hope to escape from in the first place.
But to make matters worse, women are often their own worst enemies where it concerns preserving the sexual double standard. Insofar as women “slut-shame” one another for having the audacity to indulge their sexual inclinations –as opposed to the bronze-age perception of chastity as a function of gender– many do the same with gals who posses overly endowed orbs. In what I can only assume to be sexual repression expressing itself as petty jealousy, a significant amount of women “boob-shame” their glandularly gifted sisters.
Even more hypocritical is when women make the distinction between nature and cosmetics. For when it comes to superficiality, it is only surgically enhanced spheroids that women denounce as something lewd. “Look at those fake tits on that bimbo, mine are natural” … as if one had to accomplish anything to grow them. Call me crazy, but I think that there is something to be said for a gal who plunks down a few grand and says “Gimme the big round ones from the top shelf.” As opposed to someone whose heredity makes them D-cup predisposed.
But still, boob shaming –especially where it concerns an augmented anterior– is all too common. Where it applies to cosmetic enhancements, the pseudo- feminist boob-hypocrisy is staggering. Is that perfume? or are we to believe that you actually smell like flowers blooming in Spring? Is that make-up? Or are we under the mistaken impression that your eyelids are naturally blue? Is that a perm? Or are we to believe that your hair began to curl on its own last week? Oh, and nice roots, Morticia.
So truth be told, I love tits. The bigger the better. In particular, I enjoy a globular pair of cartoon proportioned volleyballs acquired in an afternoon of cosmetic surgery. And although mams of extraordinary magnitude are neither a deal breaker, or a singular qualification for a woman to posses for me to be sexually attracted to them… it sure as hell helps. A great ass, and the cognitive ability to form a valid opinion are important too. But for an afternoon of frolic, the funbags’ll do.
Sorry, that’s what turns me on. I have no control over it. And if feminists don’t want to be viewed as “sexual objects”, well that’s just tough. We are all sexual beings. Perhaps we should stop telling one another what we are and are not allowed to find appealing. Maybe then the sexual double standard might begin to disappear.
Today the Republican party finds themselves in a difficult circumstance. The GOP has left themselves in a position where they can either try to defend the indefensible, or dissent from party-line bigotry. It is an unenviable choice, but nevertheless, it is what the evangelical influence on the party has left them.
The “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) more accurately should have been titled the “Attack on same-sex Marriage Act” since it wasn’t actually defending any heterosexuals rights, or who and how they can marry. It was designed specifically to deny gay Americans the same rights and privileges that heterosexuals have. But more specifically, Section 3 of DOMA codified the non-recognition of same sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors benefits, immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns. It was written into legislation that same sex couples had different rules applied to them. In case anyone is wondering what applying a different set of standards to selected segments of society is more commonly referred to, it’s called discrimination.
Hence, the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Section 3 of DOMA.
Since then, the evangelical wing of the GOP has come out in force to denounce the SCOTUS decision, allowing for no pretence of Church/State separation while renouncing marriage equality as defying the will of the Judeo/Christian God. Sadly predictable, the evangelical right is forcing the party’s discourse towards rationalizing medieval predispositions, and reciting bigoted platitudes. Congresswoman Michele Bachman, and former Governor of Arkansas and now FOX News pundit Mike Huckabee to name just two were both defiant, and adamant about their disapproval of marriage equality… the former erroneously asserting that “Marriage was created by the hand of God”, while the latter offered the supposition that “Jesus wept.” Ugh.
This is the sociological quandary that the GOP finds themselves in. Do they capitulate to the evangelical base and their less-than-rational assertions, or acknowledge that every American citizen is entitled to equal rights under the constitution? Is it possible for some within the GOP to articulate that denying equal rights is not a right unto itself? Do they allow the bigoted predispositions of their lunatic fringe to dictate policy to the party’s detriment? Or does this become a wedge issue within the Republican party?
Ironically, before it became law in 1996, DOMA was a bi-partisan bill engineered by House Republicans led by then speaker (R) Newt Gingrich, and signed into legislation by none other than (D) President Bill Clinton. Hilariously, the thrice married Gingrich and the convicted marital vow breaker Clinton were the key figures in protecting the cherished institution of matrimony…
An institution, which by all statistical accounts has long ago had its reverence forsaken by heterosexuals like Clinton and Gingrich.
The truth is that despite the rhetoric about the sanctity of marriage needing to be persevered, traditional marriage was always based upon patriarchy . Of course, by “traditional”, the evangelical right means that in biblical terms, a wife is to be obedient to her husband. In a “traditional” marriage, women have a subservient role to play as defined by the scriptures, which is what’s implicated when the Christian right harkens back to “better days”. Cooking, cleaning, and baby making … ” Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church” – Ephesians 5:22
The reality is that the Christian right’s assault on same sex marriage has a collaterally negative effect on women as well.
But the hypocrisy from “Traditional Marriage Purists” runs deeper than their bias against women and gays. The denial of how traditional marriage has failed in the post “women should be barefoot and pregnant” world is matched only by the ignorance it takes to defend an institution that boasts a dismal 50% divorce rate as something “wholesome.” An even more alarming fact is that like Gingrich’s and Clinton’s poor excuses for traditional marriages, many hetero-couplings that survive a litigious end are wrought with extra-marital indiscretions. For a more detailed analysis of how and why traditional marriage is obsolescent and an exposition of secular relationship viability, see my book
However since the signing of DOMA into legislation, the Democratic Party has wisely modified its position on same sex unions to coincide with the Zeitgeist , which is what a Govt. by the people and for the people is supposed to do. While their motives may be politically feckless, Democrats have nevertheless acquiesced to reason regarding the lack of constitutionality regarding marital discrimination. Likewise, today Republican voters are faced with a choice. To side with bigots and homophobes, or to defy their party.
As for the acerbic rhetoric that the evangelical right uses to mask their bigotry, none of the anti-equality assertions appeal to anyone with the slightest sense of logic . Each rationalization for wanting to deny same sex couples equal rights under the law is as unconstitutionally lame as the next. For instance, the “change the definition of marriage” argument is utterly inane, as the simple fact that a woman would not be required to marry her rapist, or that a man cannot sell his daughter for a milk cow means that we’ve already changed the “definition” of marriage, and for the better. Just as we have “changed the definition” of “freedom” as it applies to person ownership.
Neither does the “morality” argument make sense to anyone who has the slightest grasp of what actually constitutes morals. By attaching a “moral” implication to the manner in which consenting adults fornicate, let alone who they love, it not only masks one’s bigotry by bastardizing what morals actually are, but changes the premise of the discussion from one that is based on civil rights as it applies to the Constitution, to one that must tether to ethereal, third party oversight. Indeed, if one’s “morals” are dependent upon an intrusion into people’s bedrooms in order to establish that procreation be in accordance with the Judeo/Christian God’s carnal idealism, then their morals are at best questionable.
Yet bigots rarely recognize themselves as such, and thus these rationalizations make sense to them. By comparing consensual adults engaging in same sex marriage to pedophilia and bestiality, religious bigots expose themselves as such. But they don’t see it that way. For if one has to be explained why those comparisons are not only invalid, but hateful, then they are beyond reason. Yet these are the types of arguments continually made by members of the Republican Party.
Sadly these were the same retrospectively ignorant arguments made against interracial marriage in 1967. When the Supreme Court ended all race based marital restrictions in the now famous Loving V. the State of Virginia case where Richard Loving, a white man was sentenced to a year in prison for marrying Mildred Loving, a black woman. These same arguments were made by those who hoped to deny interracial marriage. Today we mock those ignorant, racist assertions, just as we will those making the case against same sex marriage years from now.
Still, the GOP is defending the Defense of Marriage Act the way that racists in 1967 defended the Racial Integrity Act. Both sets of arguments against equality operate from the premise that who and how we love is not germane to the precepts of liberty, and moreover, are subject to Christian doctrine. Thankfully, the Supreme Court disagreed on both accounts. Regardless of whatever excuse one uses for wanting to deny certain Americans equal marital rights and privileges due to their sexual orientation, the American consensus no longer allows for such rationalizations constituting a “different opinion”. In 2013, it is generally understood that making such assertions defines one as a bigoted asshole.
But despite everything leading up to, and including the striking down of Section 3 of DOMA, there is a much more important issue, and one that should never have allowed it to get this far.
If we –as a nation– are to operate from the premise that All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, then the self evident truth is that the state can neither determine, nor define any definition of love. The striking down of Section 3 of DOMA is important because how we treat one another is what defines us as a nation. It’s what separates us from the backwards, twelfth century xenophobes we’re at war with. Just as America improved itself when we abolished slavery, gave women the vote, and allowed Richard and Mildred Loving to marry, so we did on June 26th, 2013 when the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of DOMA.
However it is inherent within the nature of humanity to forget the travails from eras past –those who suffered, sacrificed and even died so that their children’s children might lead a better life– and give back to their former oppressors that which they fought so hard to gain. Today is not the end of the struggle for Gay rights just as Loving V. Virginia did not mark the end of the struggle to achieve racial parity. This is still the beginning.
The endeavor for equality is enduring. Bigotry and ignorance are vigilant to their tasks, and we must remain ever steadfast to keep the darker parts of human nature from seeking their expression. However it is a battle worth fighting. For if history can teach us anything, it’s that equality is the hallmark of civilization.