JHUS Staging

Tag: sexuality

  • Tebow, Dobson, and God

    Curated post from 2010, using the controversial anti-abortion ad aired during that year’s superbowl featuring Tim Tebow as a frame to discuss the larger abortion issue.

    (See original article: ‘Miracle’ Tim Tebow Super Bowl ad puts hit on critics – Faith & Reason [archive link verified working, Oct 2023])

    The debate over abortion in this country, and around the world, has raged since the first miscarriage.  In the main, the debate has been characterized by an overabundance of emotive outbursts, handwringing, ad hominem attacks, and a paucity of facts, balance, and clear, rational thought.

    One of the manifest expressions of the former list of attributes is the rise of hard-right “Christian” groups such as the American Family Association and Focus on the Family.  As a part of their overall fundamentalist diet of exhortations to donate money, condemnation of everyone who “ain’t like us,” and rampant, cynical fear-mongering for profit, these “faith-based” organizations routinely seek out hot-button issues like gay marriage, free expression, and abortion with which to stir up their marks and generate donations. 

    The Super Bowl 2009 advertisement featuring football star Tim Tebow and his mom making vague statements about family has stirred up some debate, but for me it’s not about the abortion issue.  The abortion issue is settled as far as I’m concerned; I don’t like them – and I know from the closest experience a man can that they’re not exactly a trip to the fun park – I wish they weren’t necessary, but until steps are taken to ensure that there is never a valid reason to terminate a pregnancy (steps that are currently well beyond the capability of our technology and our social evolution), they are.  Since they are necessary, the solution is to reduce their necessity while also providing a safe and reliable means of abortion for women who need it.  As need decreases, so will incidence.  Period.  There is no other logical solution to the “problem of abortion.”  So that argument’s done.

    My issues with the Tebow ad are not with his, his mother’s, or anyone else’s opinion about abortion.  I want that made clear. Everyone’s entitled to hold an opinion, regardless of how ludicrous I think it is.

    My issue is, first and foremost, with a group like FotF insinuating themselves into national discourse in the first place and secondarily with the stealthy way they’ve gone about it.  Frankly, I’d have had less problem with the ad if Tebow and his mom just walked onscreen and said “This man almost didn’t exist because I seriously considered terminating my pregnancy with him.  I’m glad I didn’t, and I believe you will feel the same way if you make the same choice.  Thank you.”  This heartwarming and light-hearted little diversion leads you to FotF’s website…where the indoctrination process begins.  “Oh, look honey, they don’t like abortion!  We don’t like abortion either!  We should sign up for their mailing list!”  And next thing you know FotF has a few hundred thousand more “members” that they can use to bully the media into covering them, and you as a member are suddenly being regaled with tales of doom and woe in which a vote for Barack Obama is a vote for mandatory gay marriage, mandatory gender education in first grade, the end of adoption agencies, nuclear war in the middle east, terrorist attacks in the US, a new Russian imperialism unchecked by a weakened and apathetic US military, [2023: and boy oh boy is that an entertaining read here in 2023, give that its premise is to predict the horrible, broken future of 2012 under the Obama presidency! It’s long and dull and enraging when you remember people actually think like that, but beyond that it’s hilarious. -jh] and all manner of other Terrible Things including a massive series of job openings when every good-thinking Christian quits their jobs and shuts down their business because they’re now being “forced” to act “against their morals” by (for instance) helping a gay couple adopt a child.

    Focus’ tactics and methods are execrable and well-known.  Any reasonably sentient mind can read the letter I linked to in the above paragraph and quickly note how often subtexts of pedophilia and homosexuality are both invoked and conflated.  In paragraph after paragraph we are told that the evil liberals, “the gays,” the ACLU, and of course that old standby the Commies, are just waiting for President Barry to welcome them in the door and transform America into a nation of roving homosexual pedophiles, anti-religious violence, and a new pot-smoking effete bourgeoisie that revels in the sight of Evul. 

    Organizations like Focus on the Family are brutal and terrorizing manipulators of public ignorance.  They rely on our inability to separate emotions from objective facts in order to push their dream of theocratic totalitarianism on the rest of us.  “Dr.” James Dobson and his ilk, each and every one of them, wants to be Nehemiah Scudder when they grow up.  This is the method behind their madness of the seemingly silly and naive attempts to influence education in this country; if we get ‘em while they’re young, they’re WAY easier to keep when they grow up. [2023: this isn’t just flowery prose; even as a firm atheist of some dozen years following decades of agnosticism, I still can’t – and never will – shake the brain-image of ‘God’ as an old white guy with a big white beard and flowing white hair. It was programmed into me before I could read, and I started reading when I was two. -jh]

    I appreciate anyone standing up for what they believe in [2023: given what I’ve seen people standing up for since writing this article, I can no longer stand behind the statement. -jh], but I think anyone who chooses to do so has the duty to ensure that they are fully aware of the implications of who they’re standing with.  I’m sorry, but if an organization like Focus on the Family came out hard in favor of anything I agreed with, I’d have to take a hard look at what I’m agreeing with.

    I’d respectfully suggest that those of you who are applauding Tebow here, or who think that your “support” for this advertisement or for Focus on the Family is going to prevent ONE abortion in the world today, tomorrow, or ever, may want to reconsider who you’re hanging out with.  Those groups are sick, endlessly focused on sexuality (and that often with a specific focus on children – EVERYTHING is a “threat” to “innocence” WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?! gimme money…[2023 and this con is also working better than ever, 13 years later. -jh]) and ultimately existing for the sole purpose of enriching themselves at the expense of the credulous, the frightened, the ignorant, the superstitious, and the confused…every one of whom are good people with kind hearts and the best of intentions, just like you.

  • Real Talk About No Means No

    Wishing Doesn’t Make It No

    [Disclaimer: most of this article is framed with male-female pronouns and cis-het identity assumptions for simplicity of prose.  To be clear: yes, it is true that abuse and consent violations are perpetrated by and against people of all genders, and any given dynamic or example can have any gender role changed and still be valid.  With that said, the great crisis of abuse and disrespecting consent still appears to be centered in the straight community, with the perpetrators usually being male and the targets female, so I’ve chosen to write the discussion in that frame.]

    It’s okay, read it again and think about it.  Take as long as you like, it’s text, it’ll still be here.

    I’m not having a problem with no meaning no here.

    I’m not saying “no never means no.”

    I’m not saying “no shouldn’t mean no,” nor that we should ever, ever assume that any given “no” is insincere.

    I’m saying that “no” manifestly does not mean “no,” a significant enough percentage of the time with consistency over a long enough period that we’ve developed entire social infrastructures and an entire subset of the language around the clear, present, and ongoing reality that not every “no” means “no.”  We say that and we pretend to believe it both as a matter of seeking social approval and a matter of expressing a core normative believe, that is a belief in how things should be, rather than how they are.

    The problem is, the full implied assertion – “no always means no and every time you hear no it means no now, no forever, don’t even think about asking again” – simply isn’t true.

    A significant if not majority portion of the time “no” might mean “no,” or it might mean “no right now but later hell yeah” or “maybe” or “I don’t know” or “I’m not even thinking about sex right now and your proposition barely registered, try meeting me for the first time again in a week” or “that depends on if you act like an asshole when I say no” or “not right this minute because I don’t owe you a because, but if you hit me up in a week I’ll eat you alive.”

    Sometimes it means “try harder,” sometimes it means “I want to say yes but I’m afraid of the negative reaction of family or friends who may be present” and sometimes it means “I want to say yes but I’m deeply concerned by the social stigmas and judgements attached to female sexuality, so I’m going to pretend to be less turned on by you than I really am because I don’t want you or anyone else who may be observing to think I’m a ‘slut’ or ‘easy.’”  Sometimes it means “I just got laid this afternoon and like to keep at least a couple of days between different partners to let myself feel like I’m exercising some discretion, but get with me the day after tomorrow.”

    And lest we get too #notallmen here, it ALSO means “you’ve got to be out of your mind” and “I’m trying really hard to hold back spontaneous laughter because I’m afraid it’ll hurt your feelings and not only am I not an asshole but it’s been my experience that men with hurt feelings have an increased tendency toward aggression” and “I wouldn’t want you to touch me if I was dying and you were E.T.”

    It means “I’m f***ing terrified of you and I want to go home,” and it means “I’m absolutely repulsed by your attempts to touch me but see above re: hurt feelings” and “this is the most inappropriate damned thing I’ve ever heard but if I say anything other than the single word no it could cost me my career, my family, everything.” It means “if I get your creepy ass in a dark alleyway I’m going to kick you in the balls as hard as I can and run like hell.” It means “I am currently having ongoing fantasies of violating your dying body because I think you’re an absolute disgrace to the concepts of humanity and romance.”

    Because it’s TERRIFYING to be female, everywhere on this planet, pretty much all the time. And a lot of men are seriously jerks.

    Maybe The Problem Is You?

    Not a day goes by that I don’t see a female friend on social media post a picture of *any* female, and immediately you see a response like “OMG Your so BEAUTIFUL dear!” attached to a profile showing a middle aged guy with an unironic porn ‘stache.  I’m sure the PM’s are even more ridiculous – and I mean I’m sure because I’ve seen plenty of them. Not sincere compliments, but obvious half-blind troll accounts shotgunning for the most easily manipulated and vulnerable rubes they can find to con with badly phrased “compliments” that sound a lot like the kinds of “compliments” from the early-mid 20th century that’d get you arrested for sexual harassment in 2021 and rightfully so.

    The first time my daughter got sent an unsolicited picture of a grown man’s genitals she was 11 or 12, through one of the like three websites she could access (NeoPets). She wasn’t doing anything, she just made herself obviously enough female online that someone targeted her.

    I am telling you right now clearly and plainly to your face in as unambiguous a manner as I can:

    If you are a man and you think you don’t know a woman who’s been sexually harassed and/or at least verbally assaulted by a man, the women around you don’t trust you, and it’s almost certainly because you are one of the men who is sexually harassing and/or at least verbally assaulting them.

    “No” ALSO means “Due to the ridiculous social structures created by patriarchy I don’t really feel safe saying anything BUT plainly and simply ‘no’ to any man unless I’m at least somewhat prepared for and ready to accept an immediate high-pressure ‘seduction’ attempt that may include anything from wheedling and cajoling to offers of payment in cash or goods to threat and perpetration of extreme violence to include death, disfigurement, and or permanent disability. So I’m going to say no, and I’m going to stick around, and maybe if I feel comfortable enough with you later after getting to know you better I’ll let you ask again.”

    I’m not pointing all this out because I have some basic problem with the idea of no meaning no, or with respecting a woman’s wishes to not be accosted by me just because she’s outside and I think that means I’ve got the right to ask (I don’t, really).

    I’m pointing it out because this is another example of how we have built up these dishonest structures and public lies in some cases throughout human history, and the necessary reality that simply sloganeering the problem, and dishonestly at that, isn’t going to solve anything.

    What is going to solve everything is taking the time and making the effort – which we’re doing right now, believe it or not, even this post is part of it – to fix our thinking at the root, which means getting honest with ourselves about some things we really, really seem to hate being honest about.

    I’m pointing it out because it’s a lie, and it’s a lie we need to get honest about – radically, without flinching, and right now – if we ever expect to put an end to all the hangups and dysfunction and ignorance and arrogance that supports and energizes rape culture.

    Fixing The Problem

    We don’t need to move into a paradigm where we all keep pretending to prop up a lie that’s used to gently avoid telling someone we don’t think they’re attractive.  We need to move into a paradigm where we’re taught, explicitly, how to deal with the fact that someone we’re attracted to doesn’t think we’re attractive, and we need to stop acting like the very suggestion that such things need to be explicitly taught reflects weakness and particular lack of masculinity.  (Caught you.)

    We need to move into a paradigm where women are able to openly discuss the honest reality that they like sex, and some of them like sex a lot, and some of them like kinky sex, and some of them even like being dominated or controlled or even spanked and more in the bedroom, without attracting the unwanted aggressive attention of every 45 year old virgin within a 500 mile radius.

    We need to move into a paradigm where women can admit that some of them are just as perverted as any man and maybe then some, but they’re afraid to talk about that openly because when they do, every man in hearing range thinks she’s giving them permission to sexually assault her.

    We need to move into a paradigm where it’s perfectly unremarkable for some variant of the following conversation to occur:

    Person 1: Say, Person 2, even though we’re in entirely the wrong social context to get into it deeply right now, I think you’re really attractive and I’d love to maybe get some food and get to know each other better sometime if you’re interested!  I apologize for the improper context, but one must take one’s opportunities where one finds them, no?

    Person 2: I understand completely.  I’m not interested, but I appreciate the offer!

    Person 1: Okay, back to this thing we were working on just as if the last conversation was no more strange or remarkable than asking about the weather.

    We need to move into a paradigm where we stop assuming all men want sex and all women don’t.  We need to move into a paradigm where someone besides the knuckle-dragging men’s rights activists is pointing out that men are very much subject to sexual aggression, harassment, and assault every day too, and that there’s a definite connection between our refusal to deal with that reality, and the ongoing persistence of all this ugliness and interpersonal disrespect.

    We need to move into a paradigm where that conversation above doesn’t “make things weird,” because there’s not a single reason that it should except that women are rightfully afraid of men they’ve said no to, because men tend to not take no for an answer.  One of the reasons men tend not to take no for an answer is that the social norm is and has been for centuries that “no” means “you’re doing something wrong, try harder.”  There are entire mythologies that rely on this dynamic.  Even in the midst of being programmed with ‘no means no’ we are told every day in a thousand ways that no definitely does not mean no, that’s just a story we tell for gatekeeping purposes to keep us safe on the rare occasion when it really does.

    What I’m saying is that this is an old, destructive, hurtful lie, and this is a great time, right now while we’re in the middle of taking this huge evolutionary step, to face that and admit it and let’s start constructing new linguistics and new paradigms that accurately reflect reality instead of perpetuating these old, stupid games.

    Not because “what about me,” but because the social mechanisms which keep that reality under cover are the exact same social mechanisms that perpetuate the things that people broken and evil enough to deliberately engage in sexual assault use to rationalize and excuse their behavior or act as though it’s something other than what it is.

    Making It Matter

    See, that’s the problem with “no means no.”  It’s not merely that it’s inaccurate or that I have some personal feeling of threat or discomfort caused by that idea and am thus motivated to “mansplain” it.

    It’s that the fact it’s inaccurate, itself, both reflects and helps to perpetuate the root causes of very violence that it seeks to solve.

    In reality, if “no means no” then sentences like this need to be normalized immediately:

    Not now, I have to maintain the social appearance of chastity to avoid unpleasant and invasive discussions with family and friends.  But I want you, so let’s make some arrangements to build on.

    No. [You don’t need a reason.  While a general-principle “thanks” does no harm and helps take the sting out of rejection, it’s not required.]

    Not yet, I’d like to see how you act when you’re not on your best behavior and trying to impress me first.

    Well, I think you’re super attractive, but on principle I don’t get sexual until I reach a certain level of comfort with my partner.  Usually the level of comfort I feel is directly related to how much pressure I’m not under to have sex with you.

    I’m really not the right space for this now, but get hold of me maybe next weekend or something?  I’d like to talk about it later, but right now I can’t even think about sex and attraction.  Nothing to do with you.

    Hell yes, let’s get naked.

    Let’s normalize saying out loud that just because a woman likes sex doesn’t mean she’s even remotely interested in knowing whether she’d like it with you, and even if she would like it with you that doesn’t mean she would like it with you right now or all the time.

    Let’s normalize it being okay to simply not be sexually attracted to someone without accusing them of “shaming” some attribute the person they’re attracted to feels self-conscious about.

    Let’s stop sneering at people in age-disparate adult relationships and calling the older member a “pedophile” – nevermind that it’s insulting to the older member, it’s outrageously insulting to the younger member that the default assumption is they’re too damned ignorant to know when they’re being used and exploited.

    Let’s normalize saying out loud that while it was a long, hard, and worthwhile fight to create a world in which no woman is ever forced into a subservient, servile, or dependent relationship with a man, she also has every right to take that role that if she wants to.

    Let’s normalize saying what we mean and having honest and forthright conversations about consent, including saying firmly and repeatedly that the simple fact of someone expressing that they are sexually arousable does not mean they are or want to be aroused by you.

    Let’s make sure no means no.

  • Drugs, Sex, and Rock & Roll

    [embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jNt7ZGCW-o[/embedyt]

    The Problem

    Sweet’s “Fox On The Run.”  Perhaps the distilled essence of what we now call variously “glitter rock” or “glam rock” or “power pop.”

    Another great song that’s gonna get canceled as soon as the “woke” folk read the lyrics.  You can find ’em yourself if you want, but allow me to summarize:

    “[verse 1 & 2]Hi, I’m a rock star.  Yes, you’re a female indicating you want to have sex with me, or at least you’re a female in my general vicinity and that’s close enough because it’s 1974 and we still think “leaving the house” constitutes consent.  From a distance in the dark, you appeared to be a female of legal age to have sex (note well:  that’s not 18, this is a UK band from the 70’s; “underage” is 15 and under, not 17), but now that you’re up close you’re clearly too young and [chorus] you have to go.  [Verse 3 & 4]  Hi, it’s years later and I’m still a rock star.  You’re still a female and you are again indicating you want to have sex with me.  I remember you from when you were too young, but now you’re old enough and you’ve clearly been around a bit and had some fun…and I liked you better the other way, that is to say ‘innocent,’ that is to say ‘underage.’  [Chorus] Bye, Felicia.”

    So let’s take this one thing at a time.  First, I think it’s about time we had a clear, open, and straightforward conversation about sex in popular culture.  That conversation goes like this:

    FFS, people. POPULAR MUSIC IS ABOUT SEX. GETTING LAID. DOING NAUGHTY THINGS. BREAKING RULES. DOING THE NASTY. ROCKING. AND. ROLLING.  Even when it’s not, it is.

    I’m so, so, so, SOOOOOOOOOOO sick of living in a culture where we all pretend very loudly to hate sex on social media and in public, where we all act like nobody’s got any kinks or hangups, and absolutely every single person waited until they were a happily married adult before engaging in sexual congress for the purposes of procreation only, when we all know better and just don’t admit it.

    THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU LET MRS. GRUNDY MAKE THE RULES.

    Everybody lies about sex.

    It’s bullshit. Just another facet of that same old big picture where some old white guy goes ‘NO’ and we all go “hhhokay” and from now on that’s the rule and we all have to cooperate with it (or pretend to) on pain of shunning. BULLSHIT.

    You know what else? If you DON’T like sex THAT’S FINE TOO. You don’t HAVE to. Those of us who do might feel like maybe you’re missing out, but in the end it’s your business and nobody else’s.  There are WAY more than enough folks who are into it procreationally to cheerfully accommodate and fully staff a population of those who are into it more recreationally, or not at all!

    And guess what? As long as we’re not putting our hands on anyone who can’t give or hasn’t given informed consent for our hands to be on them, it’s FINE. It’s all FINE. And we nearly all do it. The very fact of something being forbidden or taboo or socially risky is commonly what tends to turn people on about it; I’m telling you, we’re not as different as we think we are and you’re probably not nearly as big a pervert as you think, relatively speaking.

    Feathers vs. Chickens

    With that in mind it’s not unreasonable to say every damned single one of us has SOME kind of kink. All a kink is, is something that you find sexually pleasurable that, generally speaking, falls outside the range of “strictly one man, one woman, missionary position, no funny talk or spank and tickle.”  Your kink might be oral once a year, that guy over there’s kink might be the only way he can really enjoy himself is with six Armenian jugglers.  Long as he can find six Armenian jugglers who consent, I fail to see any problem with that at all.

    That’s where the term “vanilla” as used in communities related to kink comes from – because some folks like vanilla ice cream, and some folks like rocky road or black cherry or mint chocolate chip.  Some folks might like them all on alternating days, or at the same time, and as long as the ice cream is cool with it, it’s all good.

    And some folks might not like ice cream at all and that’s cool too.

    Heck, your kink might be simply the wonderful feeling you get from being intimate with someone you love.  Destigmatize that word “kink” in your head a bit, it’ll do you good.

    We have seen incredible growth in our understanding of human dignity and interpersonal respect, in my lifetime.  Things I did in my twenties I wouldn’t do if I was twenty now, because back then we didn’t really know the less egregious stuff was as bad as it manifestly proved to be.  That’s good change – that’s GREAT if you are (or present as) female.

    But it sucks if you really are just a person who was part of the context of groupies and nobody’s checking ID’s at the afterparty and all that stuff, never set out to hurt anyone, never got pushy or shitty with someone when you got told no, didn’t take advantage of anyone when they were passed out or otherwise so incapacitated as to be unable to give meaningful consent, did your best to be respectful and decent, and twenty, thirty, thirty-five years later you’re supposed to feel like an asshole because you *should have* known in 1991 that when a woman walks up to you and offers you free drugs and sex after a gig, she’s probably got serious issues and may need immediate help.

    No, in 1991 the expected and entirely common response to that situation was “let’s party,” and frankly I think it’s well worth discussing it with the participants of the time on the “female side” of that conversation before we go assuming all or even most of them feel or in fact were abused, exploited, or assaulted.

    Kill Your Idols

    The simple reality is that not all our heroes are all we wish they were, and we’re coming to grips with that.  We haven’t yet developed a clear and consistent standard to retroactively apply – what Kevin Spacey did was a million miles away from what Al Franken did…but they both paid the same price, didn’t they?  Because Spacey was an active predator whose behavior wasn’t even acceptable under the morals of the time and place it happened, whereas Franken is guilty of incredibly tangential and minor involvement in a bit of ribald humor typical of its time and place, and has expressed regret and even self-loathing at the idea that he participated in anything that genuinely hurt anyone.  It was “all in fun,” and in that time and place there wasn’t anything abnormal or really even mildly offensive about it, as evidenced by the clear and unmitigated enthusiasm and fun being had by the woman Franken’s accused of sexually assaulting visible in the tape of the incident.

    I think these errors of scope and scale, the refined discernment that truly must become a part of this process of recursively examining our past in the every-increasing light of new knowledge and wisdom, will sort themselves out in time.

    I just hope we can remember how to enjoy an old pop song with a good hook – and this one’s on the same heap as “You’re Sixteen” and “Only Sixteen” and all of the other work, in many cases full of beauty and talent, that stands as an uncomfortable and inconvenient reminder of the reality that as recently as thirty years ago it was still socially acceptable enough for a thirty year man to write a song about having the hots for a minor to have it become a hit.

    There’s nothing wrong with taking a critical look, just like there’s nothing wrong with taking a critical look at Twain’s use of the n-word in his writing.

    Unintended Consequences

    There is something wrong with pretending that stuff never happened or even that it doesn’t still constitute aesthetically pleasing art of its type.  Not only all of the sort of liberal and sex-positive things I’ve already outlined, but there’s one more much more ominous facet to all of this sweeping under rugs of dirty little secrets:

    It gives cover to predators.

    It drives people who engage in “non-vanilla” but still entirely legal behavior further into the shadows, where it becomes harder for communities to self-police and social stigma makes it much more difficult to prosecute active sexual predators.  Victims of abuse are already afraid to come forward because they’re like to be kink shamed and maybe even arrested by police, especially in same-sex situations because bigotry.

    Making everyone who’s a little kinky feel like Ted Bundy doesn’t solve any problem and makes it much easier for the real Ted Bundys of the world to do their damage, and that’s the end result of all this pearl-clutching.  Making it impossible to talk about sex doesn’t protect anyone, or at least not from much or for long.

    So definitely, hold people responsible.  Let’s not have Gary Glitter raking in millions in royalties from US sports broadcasts after being convicted multiple times of active and predatory pedophilia.  Let’s not just keep on with the “boys will be boys” crap.

    But let’s also make sure we’re keeping a fair and reasoned perspective.  No matter how many enlightened individuals there are, there simply is no reason to fault a person in 1955 for accepting as normal that his wife wasn’t allowed to get credit without his permission, because it was normal back then.  Many of those present at the time fought and even died to help secure the rights and privileges we’re now trying to retroactively condemn them for not supporting.

    Credit Where It’s Due

    It is in fact the very considerations of that guy in 1955, Mr. Joe Slightly-More-Progressive-Than-Average, asking himself whether that normality was really fair that advanced the conversation far enough that you can look back at him in condescension now.  The same’s true of the stuff I’m talking about above; those of us who were “on the ground” so to speak were the ones who by and large explored and defined and brought to life these new ways of understanding, new boundaries, new rules of respectful communication.

    We fought, hard, not just in public rhetoric but in our own heads to resolve that cognitive dissonance between our norms and our values, and to adjust our behavior and make it acceptable.  Sure, not all of us were on board, and not everyone who’s 21 is free from bigotry and sexual aggression now, either, but we – particularly “us” as in people now called “generation X” as well as the hippie segment of the Boomers who preceded us – had to actually *discover* this stuff through trial and error, and genuinely wrestle with the dawning realization that some of our behavior wasn’t acceptable even if she DID say yes, and we needed to make some changes.

    So I don’t want to get into some dumb inter-generational argument, but try to keep all this in mind when you’re standing there, immersed since birth in the values that we made norms, and thinking about getting sanctimonious because we didn’t adhere perfectly to those values before they were even fully developed.  Trust me, your kids are gonna do the same to you, and in retrospect they’ll have just as much cause.

  • Stop Shaming Teenagers Because You Think They’re Hot

     
    Screencap of Yahoo! Article describing outrage over Millie Bobby Brown's outfit
    Courtesy Yahoo! News

    Trigger Warning:  sex, sexuality, adolescent and teen sexuality, brief mention/discussion of sexual violence and rape.

    Generally speaking, I avoid anything related to “celebrity news,” but this needs saying loud and clear, so I’m gonna say it:

    I’m glad I don’t live in a world – or in a mind – where I feel the need to body-shame a fifteen year old because I’m terrified that if I admit (out loud or even to myself) that I can see her cleavage and it makes me think vaguely about the concept of sex for second and a half, I’ll be socially outcast as a pervert even though that thought-line is entirely normal for a heterosexual adult man catching a glance of a decolletage developed enough to be called that.

    We are sexually reproducing life forms; as long as we think we’re capable, we instinctively judge everyone we see, before nearly anything else, on their fitness as a reproductive partner.  If you want to be embarrassed about that you can, although in my opinion that’s totally unnecessary and maybe even not super healthy.  But please stop trying to pretend it doesn’t happen.  It happens automatically, at the gut level, with little to no conscious thought, but it happens, and it happens to you.

    Humans are made to find human bodies attractive, and I find that most of them are, of any age, if you just look at them, and that includes all the bits that some of us don’t like to talk about.  That doesn’t mean I am attracted to all of them, but I can see they are attractive without feeling perverted or creepy about it, because I have zero perverted or creepy intent.

    “Let The Men Stay Home”

    Let me drop that bomb again in case you missed it:  it is entirely possible and entirely normal to find someone sexually attractive and not be sexually attracted to them.

    Well-adjusted adults with healthy sexual outlooks are capable of that (and most who aren’t well-adjusted – I’m not, and I’m capable of it).

    If you find that hard to believe, maybe you’re not as well-adjusted as you’d prefer to think.

    Human beings become sexually mature before they become emotionally or psychologically prepared for parenthood and relationships. That is a reality.

    We have a whole system of social conventions and laws built up to both protect young adults from predation and also to keep adults reminded that there are moral and ethical reasons why young adults shouldn’t be sexually active outside their age group until they grow in to the psychological and emotional maturity required to deal with the potential results of sexual activity, from love and babies to sti’s and domestic violence.  Indeed, almost by definition when they have reached that level of psychological and emotional maturity, they are no longer “young adults” but simply “adults.”  (Obligatory dad lecture:  anyone who is sexually active should always engage in safe sex practices including the use of condoms, birth control, and how to understand, respect, give, refuse, and withdraw consent.)

    I’m really tired of people – mostly men but also many women, and mostly female targets but it happens to young men too – trying to shame and bully women and young people about their bodies because they, the adults/men, are apparently so lacking confidence in their own self-control they’re afraid if they admit that someone too young for a grown adult to have sex with can still be sexy, they’ll be helpless to stop themselves from trying to have sex with teenagers.

    It’s exactly the perverts who can’t rip their eyes away who make all this noise, and it’s exactly them who turn out to be the predators and exploiters (no problem making billions on preteen beauty pageants, right?) themselves. They always make it about what they’re worried someone else will do, but it’s really about what they’re afraid *they’d* do if they had the chance and thought they could get away with it, and how guilty and ashamed that makes them feel.

    They see it as temptation because they find it tempting.

    “Inappropriate and Disturbing”

    Nothing is inappropriate or disturbing about Millie Bobby Brown or her outfit, and it wouldn’t be even if she was completely naked. I think she looks great, and no I don’t think it’s inappropriate to say that out loud nor should it give her or me the slightest pause for concern, shame, discomfort, or embarrassment.

    What is inappropriate and disturbing is that we continue to allow people who have no self control, who are themselves the primary sources of prurient interest and hide behind grand public expressions of outrage as a smoke screen, to bully women and children into being uncomfortable with or ashamed of their bodies and sex.

    More importantly I think she’s a really talented young actor with a bright future and I think it’s obnoxious as hell we do this to teen actors, as soon as they start showing signs of sexual maturity the conversation immediately becomes totally about their bodies and how they look, and nothing at all about their work and what they do and what makes them good at it.  It’s insulting to them and it’s insulting to me as their fan, especially because it’s always done with euphemism and double-talk so if anyone calls you out on it you can just go ‘OMG I TOTALLY WASN’T EVEN THINKING THAT YOU PERV.”

    Bullshit, and to hell with you for even trying to run that bad lie past anyone.  I don’t want to think about people’s genitals, I want to watch a movie and enjoy a good performance.  Stop trying to make everyone else think about what YOU want think about.  YOU’RE the ones reducing the poor kid to a set of boobs, I just want to watch my show and see a great young actor rewarded with fame, respect, and recognition.

    Stop worrying about controlling OTHER people and worry about controlling yourselves, perverts. If you’re that worried about someone else’s body, you probably ought to sort that out in therapy instead of trying to bully women and children.

    Stop demanding the innocent and decent of all ages and genders cover themselves in fear and shame, and start demanding the prurient, indecent, and rapacious keep their damned hands – and their black bars – to themselves.

    Matthew 5:29.