Yo, it's been a while since I've posted. Big changes around these parts, and I've been busy moving house (twice, don't ask), restructuring my relationship, sending my novel to agents, and vanilla blogging for pay. Life happens!
However, today I have rants. Yes I do.
Fetlife, for the uninitiated is like Facebook for perverts. It's facebook with no fucking superego. You think Facebook status updates are TMI? Wait until you find out that someone you once hooked up with is in the Bestiality forums looking for a Great Dane for fun times. And for all the hawt 'n sexy gonzo porn people post, there's also castration pics and various stuff that you wish you NEVER FUCKING SAW and will never get out of your mind again.
Kinky people are by nature, drama queens. Hence there is a lot of wank on Fetlife, and I try to keep my presence on there to a minimum so I don't claw my eyes out. Hence, I share with you some of my biggest fucking pet peeves:
1. Trophy pics
I used to take/distribute nude photos in my early twenties. A lot of this had to do with losing a bunch of weight, buying my first digital camera, being young and sort of naive, and living in a place where I didn't have a lot of dating options, so I got a lot of my jollies by swapping dirty pics with strangers. I've also been in several relationships with "artists" where creative nude or semi nude pics and video were taken with artistic intent- and in one case, used to try slut shame me by a mentally disturbed ex, who posted them to facebook.
Here's the thing- I am comfortable with my body, being nude, and being seen nude. I am not comfortable with third parties exploiting that for their own ends.
A lot of wannabe playboys on Fetlifes post scores of pictures of their conquests- explicit and often humiliating (and potentially life destroying, considering that Fetlife has extremely lax privacy settings) pictures of women they've fucked. If these women have given their explicit consent to post these pictures, that's they're business. I suspect, a lot of the time, they haven't, and that's just creepy and gross, and a violation.
Hence, I don't share my nude pics anymore, and I don't post nude pics to Fetlife. Not worth the risk.
2. The castigation of young male dominants
The BDSM scene has a disturbing amount in common with Fundamentalist Mormonism in a particular regard- many older male dominants feel entitled to a stable of young, nubile subs, and make a practice of alienating and humiliating younger male dominants, rather than mentoring and supporting them. It's classic jockeying for alpha male status- the younger men present a threat to their privilege, so they virtually stomp on them in forums, or spread rumors about them in the scene instead of presenting direct feedback.
The usual arguments given are that young (typically anyone under the age of 30) Doms are never experienced enough, they lack introspection, they're only looking to get laid, they don't understand the rules of the scene, yadda yadda etc. and therefore do not have the right to call themselves dominants. You know what? I've met plenty of men in their 30s, 40s and 50s who also have these problems. And for some reason, these arguments don't apply to the 18 year old subs these older dominants favor, or the young female pro-dommes who frequently trade on their youth and looks as much as their topping skills to attract clients.
One of the hands-down best Doms I've ever played with, and whom I am still friends with to this day, is only 24 years old. He was twenty one (and I was twenty seven) when we were dating. His play was hot, inventive, safe, sane, and not bogged down by a lot of protocol and bullshit. The idea that it is automatically "safer" to play with an older Dom needs to be called out for the bullshit that it is, and people should evaluate who they play with on a case-by-case basis.
3. The stigmatization of monogamy
For some reason, it seems that within the kinky and queer scenes, monogamy has fallen out of fashion. I suspect a lot of folks spent their formative years in dysfunctional monogamous relationships and have idealized polyamory beyond what is necessarily realistic. Being raised in a progressive city, I had the inverse experience of having many early dysfunctional poly experiences and coming to the conclusion that it's no longer a style that works for me. I am hardly a traditional monogamist- I have no problem with my partner viewing porn or flirting, playing publicly with a partner, or even playing with others within clearly defined boundaries after a relationship has been deeply established, but the idea of dating free-for-all and multiple emotional entanglements does not appeal to me at this point. And for that, I am told I am somehow not emotionally evolved, despite the fact that I have been through all kinds of experiences. That my desire to form a deep bond with one individual instead of hopping from honeymoon period to honeymoon period and spreading myself across several people makes me somehow jealous and possessive. I know myself well enough to understand that a monogamous relationship with a vanilla person would never in a million years wouldn't work for me, and there is something of an assumption that if you want monogamy in a kinky context, you want to be in some sort of codependent 24/7 power exchange situation. Is it possible to desire a monogamous relationship with a man, as a woman, but still be kinky and queer identified? It's amazing how narrow minded unconventional people can be.
And if I have to hear one more argument about evolutionary biology that monogamy is inherently doomed, I will cut a bitch.
4. Vultures
Ok, I will say up front- I am sure there are male vultures as well, but as I am a mostly straight female, I wouldn't know. The vultures I have dealt with have been by and large young, insecure women.
The Vulture's express purpose in life is to try to sabotage your budding monogamous relationship with someone new, and to come around and scavenge your relationship carrion post-breakup. Sometimes they're your partners ex, sometimes they're a person who wasn't interested in dating your partner until competition presented itself, sometimes it's a "friend" that your partner isn't interested in dating and feels bitter as a result. It's icky and I don't know why these individuals choose to prey on other people's relationships instead of ya know, finding their own. The vulture existed prior to social networking sites, but Facebook has made their shady M.O. a whole lot easier.
Classic vulture tactics? Posting old pictures of themselves with your partner and tagging them to make it look like they have "something going on." Constant, thinly veiled "harmless" but creepy flirtatious comments left on your partner's wall. In a recent relationship I basically stopped looking at my partner's wall altogether because the vulture infestation was so bad, and he was unwilling to acknowledge why this creepy shit made me uncomfortable, dismissing it as jealousy (and to be fair, a lot of people like this attention and are unwilling to set clear boundaries). The only problem is, sometimes the exact same shit happens when you're been legitimately cheated on and lied to, and being told it's "jealousy" is a diversion tactic.
One girl in particular felt the need to personally comment on anything I wrote on my partner's wall, as if we were involved in some non-consensual facebook threeway. The vulture's goal is to plant seeds of doubt in the hopes of breaking you up. It's shitty and unethical. Would you walk up to someone in a monogamous relationship and openly hit on them in front of their partner?
Facebook is basically poison for relationships and it's entirely likely that I will choose NOT to be facebook friends with future partners for this very reason. Who needs this drama?
The moral of this story? I should spend less time on the internet.
8/5/10
Prop 8 - Finally Some Good News
As most have no doubt heard, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker has ruled against California's Proposition 8 in a move that no doubt had Rachel Maddow stirring up more than a few cocktails. For anyone who has not read his decision, it's interesting, but long. For those short on time, Slate's Dahlia Lithwick has an excellent write-up.
From here, it's on to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Given the reputation of the 9th, Judge Walker's carefully crafted ruling, and the complete clusterfuck that was the pro-Prop 8 team's case, its hard to imagine that the 9th Circuit won't uphold Walker's ruling, opening the door for the case to head to the Supreme Court.
While the 9th is notoriously unpredictable, at least they'll have to base their judgment on Walker's 80 findings of fact, which he painstakingly laid out.
Some conservatives have openly kvetched that it was unfair to have a openly gay judge rule on the case, but none has taken the time to point out that it has been unfair for closeted lawmakers to legislate on queer issues. If a gay judge should have recused himself, what about a married straight judge, or a divorced one? What about a judge who has chosen not to marry? This case is likely going to be in front of Justice Scalia, and while he's not gay, he has one common trait with many of the pro-Prop 8 people: he's a gaping asshole.
Luckily for them, there's no one saying assholes can't marry. Newt Gingrich has has done it three times.
From here, it's on to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Given the reputation of the 9th, Judge Walker's carefully crafted ruling, and the complete clusterfuck that was the pro-Prop 8 team's case, its hard to imagine that the 9th Circuit won't uphold Walker's ruling, opening the door for the case to head to the Supreme Court.
While the 9th is notoriously unpredictable, at least they'll have to base their judgment on Walker's 80 findings of fact, which he painstakingly laid out.
Some conservatives have openly kvetched that it was unfair to have a openly gay judge rule on the case, but none has taken the time to point out that it has been unfair for closeted lawmakers to legislate on queer issues. If a gay judge should have recused himself, what about a married straight judge, or a divorced one? What about a judge who has chosen not to marry? This case is likely going to be in front of Justice Scalia, and while he's not gay, he has one common trait with many of the pro-Prop 8 people: he's a gaping asshole.
Luckily for them, there's no one saying assholes can't marry. Newt Gingrich has has done it three times.
8/3/10
We're Coming Back
Yes, we've been largely absent for the the last two months. Our ISP has gone from providing really spotty service to providing none at all. Things are apparently fixed, so we can start posting again.
7/15/10
The Low-Down Dirty Truth
ColorLines reports on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researcher Greg Millet's White House statement on Black men and HIV transmission. Turns out that according to the data, the myth about Black men "on the down-low" (i.e. men who identify as straight but have sex with men secretly) spreading HIV to Black women is largely untrue. Black bisexual men are more likely to have protected sex with male and female partners and less likely to test positive for HIV, which explodes the myth of bisexual men as disease vectors. Also interesting is the finding that most gay and bisexual Black men identify as gay or bisexual and are not closeted as the cultural myth seems to suggest.
There's a lot going on here in the intersection of race and sexual identity, of course largely filtered through White social constructs of Black masculinity (and white fear of Black masculinity). White people "hear" that Black people are homophobic without learning anything about Black GLTBQ culture, and the myth of the down-low as a widespread phenomenon in the media further stigmatizes queer Black men as disease carriers and Black culture as homophobic. The findings of these studies are important, so kudos for ColorLines for its great reporting on this issue.
There's a lot going on here in the intersection of race and sexual identity, of course largely filtered through White social constructs of Black masculinity (and white fear of Black masculinity). White people "hear" that Black people are homophobic without learning anything about Black GLTBQ culture, and the myth of the down-low as a widespread phenomenon in the media further stigmatizes queer Black men as disease carriers and Black culture as homophobic. The findings of these studies are important, so kudos for ColorLines for its great reporting on this issue.
7/8/10
Weekly Savaging: Evolutionary Psychology!
I am not one of those feminists - I understand that there are some basic, general sex differences between the rough, confusing categories we attempt to delineate as "male" and "female". That said, I still have some major problems with evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology as disciplines. Scientists in these fields often completely disregard the influence of culture, worshiping instead at the altar of evolution and theorizing that literally everything we do has some root in caveman behavior. Interestingly enough these theories often tend to back up existing social norms with regards to gendered roles.
But I understand there are some interesting questions raised by studying human evolution, when the research is done properly, by scientists working under respected institutions, transmitting their findings via articles published in peer-reviewed journals.
But what happens when less intellectually rigorous types get a hold of some of the basic tenets of evolutionary psychology/biology? Well, all you have to do is pick up a New York Times or a Psychology Today to find out. The results of one study (often of questionable methodology) are presented as "proof" for why men are likely to cheat and women just need to shop and so forth.
And as if that wasn't bad enough, what happens when an advice columnist with a particular viewpoint gets a hold of some evo psych? Well, you get Dan Savage's latest column and podcast, both of which he devotes entirely to Christopher Ryan, co-author of the book "Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality." Oh, and not one but two blog posts as well. It's fairly unprecedented for Savage to devote so much time to one person's theories, but when he said that Ryan's book, "...is the single most important book about human sexuality since Alfred Kinsey unleashed Sexual Behavior In The Human Male on the American public in 1948," I just had to know who this guy is.
The results of my Internet sleuthing were interesting, but I'm refraining from that discussion until I read the book and even hopefully get a chance to pick Christopher Ryan's brain a bit, if he's amenable. He blogs regularly for Psychology Today as well as The Huffington Post. Based on Savage's references, as well as the other material available, Ryan believes that he has significant evidence that monogamy is unnatural in humans, and particularly for men. This is also something I believe, although I don't yet really think there is scientific evidence to prove it. I'm also not sure if it really matters. Sure, the question of how our sexual culture evolved is interesting, but given that we still live in a world where womens' sexuality is so highly stigmatized, I'd rather spend my energy fighting misogynistic cultural notions about sexuality rather than quibbling over whether we're more like chimpanzees or bonobos.
That aside, I am looking forward to reading the book. His central premise seems largely similar to that of Robert S. McElvaine's in "Eve's Seed: Biology, The Sexes, and the Course of History," in which he argues that the advent of agriculture was responsible for the desire to commodify and control female sexuality, leading to the patriarchal way of life we're all so familiar with.
Yet I'm still a bit skeptical over Savage's gushing praise. While I'm sure the book is interesting, the idea that monogamy isn't natural to men and women isn't a new idea, and I'm curious as to what in particular about this book lead Savage to get so excited while he tends to pass over a lot of other equally worthy books along the same subject matter - like Mary Roach's excellent "Bonk" which gave this jaded Human Sexuality minor some new info to stew on (did you know that vaginal lubrication is just blood plasma? I bet you didn't!).
More to come on this subject soon!
But I understand there are some interesting questions raised by studying human evolution, when the research is done properly, by scientists working under respected institutions, transmitting their findings via articles published in peer-reviewed journals.
But what happens when less intellectually rigorous types get a hold of some of the basic tenets of evolutionary psychology/biology? Well, all you have to do is pick up a New York Times or a Psychology Today to find out. The results of one study (often of questionable methodology) are presented as "proof" for why men are likely to cheat and women just need to shop and so forth.
And as if that wasn't bad enough, what happens when an advice columnist with a particular viewpoint gets a hold of some evo psych? Well, you get Dan Savage's latest column and podcast, both of which he devotes entirely to Christopher Ryan, co-author of the book "Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality." Oh, and not one but two blog posts as well. It's fairly unprecedented for Savage to devote so much time to one person's theories, but when he said that Ryan's book, "...is the single most important book about human sexuality since Alfred Kinsey unleashed Sexual Behavior In The Human Male on the American public in 1948," I just had to know who this guy is.
The results of my Internet sleuthing were interesting, but I'm refraining from that discussion until I read the book and even hopefully get a chance to pick Christopher Ryan's brain a bit, if he's amenable. He blogs regularly for Psychology Today as well as The Huffington Post. Based on Savage's references, as well as the other material available, Ryan believes that he has significant evidence that monogamy is unnatural in humans, and particularly for men. This is also something I believe, although I don't yet really think there is scientific evidence to prove it. I'm also not sure if it really matters. Sure, the question of how our sexual culture evolved is interesting, but given that we still live in a world where womens' sexuality is so highly stigmatized, I'd rather spend my energy fighting misogynistic cultural notions about sexuality rather than quibbling over whether we're more like chimpanzees or bonobos.
That aside, I am looking forward to reading the book. His central premise seems largely similar to that of Robert S. McElvaine's in "Eve's Seed: Biology, The Sexes, and the Course of History," in which he argues that the advent of agriculture was responsible for the desire to commodify and control female sexuality, leading to the patriarchal way of life we're all so familiar with.
Yet I'm still a bit skeptical over Savage's gushing praise. While I'm sure the book is interesting, the idea that monogamy isn't natural to men and women isn't a new idea, and I'm curious as to what in particular about this book lead Savage to get so excited while he tends to pass over a lot of other equally worthy books along the same subject matter - like Mary Roach's excellent "Bonk" which gave this jaded Human Sexuality minor some new info to stew on (did you know that vaginal lubrication is just blood plasma? I bet you didn't!).
More to come on this subject soon!
7/6/10
San Francisco Pride: As Queer As A Five Dollar Bill
So this is what the same-sex marriage has wrought. The homonormative white moneyed gay male collective has worked very hard to put up images of gay life as a series of set pieces depicting happy wealthy white men pedaling bicycles and smiling benignly. Pride, once a radical public casting-off of fear and shame, it is now street party in which vendors hock astroturf and pricey Smirnoff coolers.
The Saturday before the Pride Parade is focussed around Dyke March. This one day may contain the vast majority of true Pride spirit, and well, pride. People congregate in Dolores Park, drinking beer and mingling, looking for old friends striking up conversations with strangers. And queuing up for the Port-a-potties. Later in the day, people take to the streets, marching, dancing, and celebrating queer pride.
Saturday's vibe is much more community and queer focused. It's truly celebratory and that's what is really missing from the big show on Sunday. While Sunday has the parade, stages and booths, it feels out of sync with the grass-roots nature of the communities represented and their struggle for representation. It feels straight. It's a rainbow flag painted on any generic street festival. The parade feels like a presentation for straight people. “Hey folks, marvel at the queer zoo, and when you're done, go grab some brochures about vinyl siding!” Dyke March works because it is their march, not a function of the local tourism board or straight out-of-town gawkers looking to stare at crazy SF queers.
Maybe it's time to take the whole Pride festival back to its roots. Replace the show with more focus on issues and the people fighting for recognition. The big issues should not be reduced to bumper sticker political messages held up on floats. What I'm saying is, call the dykes, we need their help.
6/11/10
A few of my favorite things
Ok, so here's the thing- I've had all these meaningful ideas for half-written posts in the hopper for a while- discussing my personal beef with the philosophies of polyamory (not to be confused with non-monogamy in this case), calling out the bullshit and hypocrisy that is the pandemic stigmatization of people carrying the pandemic herpes and hpv viruses, and a report from both International Ms. Leather 2010 and International Mr. Leather 2010, since I attended both. (Well the last one isn't super polarizing in theory, but it *might* be in practice.)
However, I've had a stressful few weeks, aggravated by a couple of impressive flamewars regarding some comments I made on (redacted) feminist pop culture website that were taken completely out of context, and a blog post that a friend wrote about butchflight and the relationship between economic privilege and transitioning that resulting in a shitstorm where both said genderqueer friend and none other than Kate Bornstein hirself were accused of being transphobic, amongst other things.
The bottom line is I had no stomach for the oppression olympics today. It's Friday, and fighting on the internet stresses me out, y'all (and GAOT is so much better at it than I am!) It actually makes me more upset than fighting in real life because it's not a real fight, it's a flagrant display of the baser elements of human nature. So I'm going to take a mini-break from controversy and OH NOES OFFENDING THE DELICATE SENSIBILITIES OF SELF RIGHTEOUS ASSHOLES ON THE INTERNET and write some insipid shit about my sexual fantasies and weird products I enjoy using.
1. I love Axe Deodorant, that doesn't make me a frat boy in a girl's body
I have some axe deoderant at home. I don't use it everyday, but I do like the way it smells, and if I'm in a particularly boyish mood (or even when I'm high femme and feel like genderphreaking), I'll wear it.
The fun
ny thing is, this stick of deoderant freaks dudes the fuck out. Seriously, it's almost as bad as having a giant Justin Bieber poster hanging above your bed. I think, on a subconcious level, dudes see this and think not "hot genderfuck" but "omigod this girl is banging a broseph, who leaves his bro-y toiletries lying around to mark his territory."
Ok, I realize that Axe has a really bad reputation, like, Ed Hardy level bad. But, like the ever-controversial patchouli oil, I like the smell because I think I associate it with different memories than most people do (smell and memory goes together like whoah, I get it.)
The first person I met who wore Axe was a lover I had for six months when I was 26. He was a nubile and talented beyond his years 21 year old college boy. He's a cool enough person that I'm still friends with him four years later. He's devastastingly handsome, a snappy dresser, a sublimely dominant libertine , mensa-caliber intellectual, and a fantastic cook, to boot. And he wears Axe. (Or wore Axe, I don't know what he wears now, that's for his current girlfriend to know.) I believe it was Axe Phoenix spray, specifically. It smelled soooo good on him, spicy and pheremonal and delicious. I used to sneak sprays of it after sleeping over at his house and sniff my own armpits in a kind of blissed out sexual haze throughout the day.
This positive association has led me to continue buying Axe on occasion because I like the way it smells. Too bad it's become branded as frat boy deoderant, because it's actually quite lovely in the right context.
2. Jillian Michaels is Gay.
Well, bi, actually.
I never liked J.M. do to her association with the whole Biggest Loser franchise that encourages participants to pull crazy dangerous stunts like losing 12 pounds in one week in the name of fatphobia. She seemed sadistic and horrible.
However, this morning while sitting on the toilet reading from my stack of Out and Advocates (an ex-friend got me a subscription last year) I stumbled across this quote from her buffness: "If I fall in love with a woman, that's awesome. If I fall in love with a man, that's awesome. As long as you fall in love. It's like organic food. I only eat healthy food, and I only want healthy love!"
I can only des
cribe my response as being similar to how I felt when I learned Suze Orman is a gold star lesbian- this person who had formerly represented all I hate about mainstream pop culture somehow became sexier and more subversive and interesting by being out about being queer. (Ok, maybe "queer" is an overstatement here, but still- being an icon for housewives that's out is totally hot to me.)
Suddenly my feelings towards Jillian Michaels shifted from resenting her as a taskmaster assmaster who says shit like she wants to adopt instead of getting pregnant so she won't get fat, to a HOT S/M DYKE WORKOUT FANTASY. Specifically one where JM sadistically personally trains me until I pass out from fatigue than rough fucks me with a strap on on the gym floor, ala Kink.com's Ultimate Surrender website (google it, it's fucking HOT.) This has been exacerbated by watching this clip from her show "Losing it with Jillian Michaels." I know this is probably not supposed to turn me on, but oh god, it does! I hope Jillian Michael's definition of "healthy love" includes breaking me down and making me be her bitch.
3. Boy Butter is the bomb
What looks/smells like vanilla frosting and makes ass sex amazing? BOY BUTTER! I actually bought a small tub of this at IML after GAOT recommended it YEARS ago. My BF and I are basically both gay men trapped in the body of heteroflexibles, and we were very excited to try this out, especially after an unfortunate mishap involving warming lube and ass sex (NEVER AGAIN.) Seriously, this is the only lube I've ever used that didn't irritate my ass at all, and it works like a DREAM. I'm still steering clear of their desensitizing lubes and "BONERZ" (yes it's really called that!) brand herbal viagra, though.
4. C-IN2 undies
My gym ha
d these on sale, so I had to buy a pair for my boyfriend. They are delightfully slutty underwear made from super-thin bamboo fiber fabric with a built-in junk shelf. Seriously, you can tell whether or not your playboy is circumcised when he wears them (see diagram) and they are hot hot hot. My addiction to slutty gay man underwear is quickly becoming expensive, but so worth it!
However, I've had a stressful few weeks, aggravated by a couple of impressive flamewars regarding some comments I made on (redacted) feminist pop culture website that were taken completely out of context, and a blog post that a friend wrote about butchflight and the relationship between economic privilege and transitioning that resulting in a shitstorm where both said genderqueer friend and none other than Kate Bornstein hirself were accused of being transphobic, amongst other things.
The bottom line is I had no stomach for the oppression olympics today. It's Friday, and fighting on the internet stresses me out, y'all (and GAOT is so much better at it than I am!) It actually makes me more upset than fighting in real life because it's not a real fight, it's a flagrant display of the baser elements of human nature. So I'm going to take a mini-break from controversy and OH NOES OFFENDING THE DELICATE SENSIBILITIES OF SELF RIGHTEOUS ASSHOLES ON THE INTERNET and write some insipid shit about my sexual fantasies and weird products I enjoy using.
1. I love Axe Deodorant, that doesn't make me a frat boy in a girl's body
I have some axe deoderant at home. I don't use it everyday, but I do like the way it smells, and if I'm in a particularly boyish mood (or even when I'm high femme and feel like genderphreaking), I'll wear it.
The fun
ny thing is, this stick of deoderant freaks dudes the fuck out. Seriously, it's almost as bad as having a giant Justin Bieber poster hanging above your bed. I think, on a subconcious level, dudes see this and think not "hot genderfuck" but "omigod this girl is banging a broseph, who leaves his bro-y toiletries lying around to mark his territory."Ok, I realize that Axe has a really bad reputation, like, Ed Hardy level bad. But, like the ever-controversial patchouli oil, I like the smell because I think I associate it with different memories than most people do (smell and memory goes together like whoah, I get it.)
The first person I met who wore Axe was a lover I had for six months when I was 26. He was a nubile and talented beyond his years 21 year old college boy. He's a cool enough person that I'm still friends with him four years later. He's devastastingly handsome, a snappy dresser, a sublimely dominant libertine , mensa-caliber intellectual, and a fantastic cook, to boot. And he wears Axe. (Or wore Axe, I don't know what he wears now, that's for his current girlfriend to know.) I believe it was Axe Phoenix spray, specifically. It smelled soooo good on him, spicy and pheremonal and delicious. I used to sneak sprays of it after sleeping over at his house and sniff my own armpits in a kind of blissed out sexual haze throughout the day.
This positive association has led me to continue buying Axe on occasion because I like the way it smells. Too bad it's become branded as frat boy deoderant, because it's actually quite lovely in the right context.
2. Jillian Michaels is Gay.
Well, bi, actually.
I never liked J.M. do to her association with the whole Biggest Loser franchise that encourages participants to pull crazy dangerous stunts like losing 12 pounds in one week in the name of fatphobia. She seemed sadistic and horrible.
However, this morning while sitting on the toilet reading from my stack of Out and Advocates (an ex-friend got me a subscription last year) I stumbled across this quote from her buffness: "If I fall in love with a woman, that's awesome. If I fall in love with a man, that's awesome. As long as you fall in love. It's like organic food. I only eat healthy food, and I only want healthy love!"
I can only des
cribe my response as being similar to how I felt when I learned Suze Orman is a gold star lesbian- this person who had formerly represented all I hate about mainstream pop culture somehow became sexier and more subversive and interesting by being out about being queer. (Ok, maybe "queer" is an overstatement here, but still- being an icon for housewives that's out is totally hot to me.)Suddenly my feelings towards Jillian Michaels shifted from resenting her as a taskmaster assmaster who says shit like she wants to adopt instead of getting pregnant so she won't get fat, to a HOT S/M DYKE WORKOUT FANTASY. Specifically one where JM sadistically personally trains me until I pass out from fatigue than rough fucks me with a strap on on the gym floor, ala Kink.com's Ultimate Surrender website (google it, it's fucking HOT.) This has been exacerbated by watching this clip from her show "Losing it with Jillian Michaels." I know this is probably not supposed to turn me on, but oh god, it does! I hope Jillian Michael's definition of "healthy love" includes breaking me down and making me be her bitch.
3. Boy Butter is the bomb
What looks/smells like vanilla frosting and makes ass sex amazing? BOY BUTTER! I actually bought a small tub of this at IML after GAOT recommended it YEARS ago. My BF and I are basically both gay men trapped in the body of heteroflexibles, and we were very excited to try this out, especially after an unfortunate mishap involving warming lube and ass sex (NEVER AGAIN.) Seriously, this is the only lube I've ever used that didn't irritate my ass at all, and it works like a DREAM. I'm still steering clear of their desensitizing lubes and "BONERZ" (yes it's really called that!) brand herbal viagra, though.
4. C-IN2 undies
My gym ha
d these on sale, so I had to buy a pair for my boyfriend. They are delightfully slutty underwear made from super-thin bamboo fiber fabric with a built-in junk shelf. Seriously, you can tell whether or not your playboy is circumcised when he wears them (see diagram) and they are hot hot hot. My addiction to slutty gay man underwear is quickly becoming expensive, but so worth it!
Weekly Savaging: Goodbye, Dan
Dear Dan Savage,
It would not be hyperbole to say that you are one of the most influential figures I've had in my life. I discovered you as a teenager, when I'd snag copies of SF Weekly paper on excursions to the glamorous, gay city from the Central Valley cow town where I grew up. I'd immediately flip to the back of the paper to find your advice column, nestled between escort ads. Hilarious and scandalous, yet practical and strangely heartfelt, your writing deeply affected my understanding of my own sexuality and how I approached relationships.
I became more of a fangirl as I entered my 20's. Testament to this is that I own a copy of every book you've written, including one signed by you at reading you gave in the Haight (I was that stammering girl with her gay friend who embarrassed you by going on a bit too long about how awesome you are - I'm sure you remember me clearly). I still recommend "The Kid" to anyone who will listen. You were my Gay Best Friend when I was stuck in conservative small towns and flyover states. Plus, I had an not-entirely platonic crush on you.
During the years, as I've become more politically aware, being a fan of yours has cause some problems. Quite a few people in the circles I run in, both online and off, have a problem with you. The first complaint I heard was that you're a misogynist. This was easily brushed aside for me - sure, you might have compared female genitalia to a canned ham being dropped from a tall building, but so what? You're a gay man, and your vulvaphobia wasn't a problem for me, particularly since you were also so quick to call out straight boys on theirs, as well as to tell them that they don't deserve to be in sexual relationships if they weren't willing to give women the orgasms they deserve. To me, the benefit you did as an advocate of female sexual pleasure far outweighed some crass humor.
But the problems didn't stop there. Your take on fat people has consistently been simplistic, hurtful, and unnecessary. Comparing people with race-based sexual preferences to preferring one hair color over another ignores ingrained societal racism. After Prop. 8 passed here in California, you had a horrible blog post blaming Black Californians for the end of gay marriage in California, while whining that Obama couldn't have been elected if not for gay people, which conveniently erased the existence of Black queer people. And as anyone who has paid attention to you, like, ever knows, you have consistently said fucked-up shit about bisexual men and women, as well as about trans people.
For starters, you're one of the biggest advocates of the obnoxious "female sexuality is fluid (so male sexuality must not be)" meme, which helps negate womens' queer identities in one sense (we're not really ever straight or queer, just "fluid") and completely makes bisexual men invisible, which isn't surprising because you basically don't really believe they exist. You've also stated that there are no male-to-female transgendered people who ever perceived themselves as gay men, and make jokes about how every butch lesbian will eventually transition to male, both of which display a ginormous lack of understanding about trans experiences. Oh, and is this an appropriate time to bring up your pro-war stance in Iraq? No? Too bad.
But to top all this shit off, you go and pull shit like this, in which you make a "joke" claiming a bigoted cis male politician is actually a female-to-male transsexual. Then you get an employee of yours to publish a ridiculous defense of a blatantly transphobic act (and not mention, bafflingly unfunny "joke") which is almost as stupid as the original offending post.
I'm sorry, but this whole, "It's funny to say that bigoted figures are really what they hate," is an old, boring, and pointless meme. Yes, some homophobic politicians have in fact been outed as queer (unlike you, I hesitate to assume that men who have sex with men but have been married to women are automatically gay). Most homophobic politicians are still just plain ol' bigoted straight folks, and frankly, I care less about their orientation than I do about the actual harm they are doing to GTLBQ people. Then you take that one step further and make a running joke about Rob McKenna being a trans man - presumably, because you think he "looks" like one. Setting aside the problematic idea that trans men look a certain way, he doesn't even fit the stereotype of what trans guys are supposed to look like! What he does have is delicate facial features, so I guess that makes him "feminized" in your eyes - so he must be a trans man, i.e. not a REAL man, right, Dan? I see no other way of interpreting this.
But now, you're claiming can't be transphobic because you've raised money for trans causes. Is that kind of like how fundamentalist Christian Zionists must not be anti-Semitic because they support Israel (as far as it relates to their own ends)? And unable to resist pouring salt on a gaping wound, Queerty (don't read the comments - never read the comments) reports you saying this in your "defense":
"I am not biphobic or transphobic. One my best friends is trans. People accuse me of being biphobic when all I am doing is articulating that a lot of bisexuality has certain issues and problems. Many people did identify as bisexual when they were coming out and it was a lie. That is just true. It is not crazy when you meet a bi person to wonder if they are really bi. It isn't disrespectful. It is rational. Many bi people end up in an opposite-sex relationship so they are not in the same boat with us as gays and lesbians. … I joke about trans stuff. We are not allowed to say tranny anymore. There's the T word and the F word, there is every letter of the alphabet word. … I still use the word "faggot" all the time in my column. Every time that I am on chat shows on cable I make a point of using fag in reference to myself because I don't think it is a dirty word. I don't think we should be stupid about it."
While your wit is well-known, you've never been accused of a being a particularly deep thinker, Dan, as this quote makes clear. Are you really so self-focused that you cannot conceive of how it's a little bit different for you, as a gay man, to reclaim "faggot" than it is for as a cis person to insist that "tranny" is OK? Would you really be comfortable being called a "faggot" by someone you know to be an anti-gay bigot? If words didn't have power, you wouldn't have tried to reclaim and de-legitimize "faggot" as a slur, and you do not get to decide what is or is not a slur for groups you are not a part of. I mean seriously, sit the fuck down and think on this a while. Do white people get to use racial slurs if they "have *insert ethnicity here* friends?" And are you seriously not aware of how incredibly fucking stupid it is to use "I have *insert whatever here* friends as an excuse for any sort of bullshit?
As far as your biphobia goes, for fuck's sake dude, this isn't 1992. Male bisexual chic has fallen far since the time you were coming out, whereas hey, guess what? Being a gay dude has become far more accepted. While yes, every single gay man on earth has a story about a guy who used to call himself bi and is now gay, this idea that men are actively taking on the stigma of male bisexuality in droves as a temporary measure to avoid the stigma of male homosexuality is kind of ludicrous.
And while it's true, based on the simple numbers game, that most bisexual people will "find themselves in an opposite-sex relationship" - what you mean here, obviously, is "will settle down with an opposite sex person." What you did here is basically declaring a bisexual identity not relevant to queer politics because of a bisexual person's relationships. An out bisexual person, Dan, can still be on the receiving end of homophobia simply by virtue of being honest about who they are, regardless of who they're dating. They can still lose their jobs, custody of their kids, or get kicked out of the military. I know it seems scary, but I promise you that acknowledging that bisexual people face oppression similar to what gays and lesbians face does not actually reduce your claim to the oppression you suffer as a gay man. This isn't a zero sum game.
Here's the thing. Unlike, it seems sometimes, a lot of rhetoric that gets thrown around in anti-oppression circles, I get that in the real world, most of us are not generally interacting amongst people who say, know what "cisgender" means or is terribly invested in radical queer critique or anti-racist analysis. And especially for someone who came of age in a much different gay culture that a lot of this talk you deride as "alphabet soup" and such can seem like politically-correct women's-study-majors buzzkill bullshit. And if you were just some random gay guy who had some less-than-cool opinions about what words you are supposed to say or what you think about bisexuals, I wouldn't give a shit.
But you're not some anonymous, increasingly irrelevant negative queen with no power.You're a public figure. Not just any public figure, but one of the U.S.'s most famous advice columnists. The "Savage Lovecast" is one of the top 10 most popular podcasts on the entire Internet. Like it or not - and I suspect you rather like it- you are in a position of authority, particularly to queer youth, but also for straights and how they perceive queerness. For fuck's sake, Dan, you are Stephen Colbert's "Spokesgay"! You are a representative for sex, liberty, and gayness to the rest of this fucked-up country. So you have a real responsibility as someone who claims to care about young freaks everywhere to not be a huge fucking dick about people you don't like or understand. Because it affects people.
It would be great if you bothered to educate yourself and learn why your views on appropriate language and transgendered people and bisexual people are ignorant and wrong. Or if you can't be bothered to do that, to at least learn to shut the fuck up about your bigotry in the public sphere. But we both know that isn't going to happen. So you can continue to increasingly sound like a throwback to some regretful primeval era of gay politics, the "glory days" before you had to worry about the "T" or the "B", because we're breaking up. It's been a long time coming, but I'm fresh out of excuses for you, and you're embarrassing us all.
It would not be hyperbole to say that you are one of the most influential figures I've had in my life. I discovered you as a teenager, when I'd snag copies of SF Weekly paper on excursions to the glamorous, gay city from the Central Valley cow town where I grew up. I'd immediately flip to the back of the paper to find your advice column, nestled between escort ads. Hilarious and scandalous, yet practical and strangely heartfelt, your writing deeply affected my understanding of my own sexuality and how I approached relationships.
I became more of a fangirl as I entered my 20's. Testament to this is that I own a copy of every book you've written, including one signed by you at reading you gave in the Haight (I was that stammering girl with her gay friend who embarrassed you by going on a bit too long about how awesome you are - I'm sure you remember me clearly). I still recommend "The Kid" to anyone who will listen. You were my Gay Best Friend when I was stuck in conservative small towns and flyover states. Plus, I had an not-entirely platonic crush on you.
During the years, as I've become more politically aware, being a fan of yours has cause some problems. Quite a few people in the circles I run in, both online and off, have a problem with you. The first complaint I heard was that you're a misogynist. This was easily brushed aside for me - sure, you might have compared female genitalia to a canned ham being dropped from a tall building, but so what? You're a gay man, and your vulvaphobia wasn't a problem for me, particularly since you were also so quick to call out straight boys on theirs, as well as to tell them that they don't deserve to be in sexual relationships if they weren't willing to give women the orgasms they deserve. To me, the benefit you did as an advocate of female sexual pleasure far outweighed some crass humor.
But the problems didn't stop there. Your take on fat people has consistently been simplistic, hurtful, and unnecessary. Comparing people with race-based sexual preferences to preferring one hair color over another ignores ingrained societal racism. After Prop. 8 passed here in California, you had a horrible blog post blaming Black Californians for the end of gay marriage in California, while whining that Obama couldn't have been elected if not for gay people, which conveniently erased the existence of Black queer people. And as anyone who has paid attention to you, like, ever knows, you have consistently said fucked-up shit about bisexual men and women, as well as about trans people.
For starters, you're one of the biggest advocates of the obnoxious "female sexuality is fluid (so male sexuality must not be)" meme, which helps negate womens' queer identities in one sense (we're not really ever straight or queer, just "fluid") and completely makes bisexual men invisible, which isn't surprising because you basically don't really believe they exist. You've also stated that there are no male-to-female transgendered people who ever perceived themselves as gay men, and make jokes about how every butch lesbian will eventually transition to male, both of which display a ginormous lack of understanding about trans experiences. Oh, and is this an appropriate time to bring up your pro-war stance in Iraq? No? Too bad.
But to top all this shit off, you go and pull shit like this, in which you make a "joke" claiming a bigoted cis male politician is actually a female-to-male transsexual. Then you get an employee of yours to publish a ridiculous defense of a blatantly transphobic act (and not mention, bafflingly unfunny "joke") which is almost as stupid as the original offending post.
I'm sorry, but this whole, "It's funny to say that bigoted figures are really what they hate," is an old, boring, and pointless meme. Yes, some homophobic politicians have in fact been outed as queer (unlike you, I hesitate to assume that men who have sex with men but have been married to women are automatically gay). Most homophobic politicians are still just plain ol' bigoted straight folks, and frankly, I care less about their orientation than I do about the actual harm they are doing to GTLBQ people. Then you take that one step further and make a running joke about Rob McKenna being a trans man - presumably, because you think he "looks" like one. Setting aside the problematic idea that trans men look a certain way, he doesn't even fit the stereotype of what trans guys are supposed to look like! What he does have is delicate facial features, so I guess that makes him "feminized" in your eyes - so he must be a trans man, i.e. not a REAL man, right, Dan? I see no other way of interpreting this.
But now, you're claiming can't be transphobic because you've raised money for trans causes. Is that kind of like how fundamentalist Christian Zionists must not be anti-Semitic because they support Israel (as far as it relates to their own ends)? And unable to resist pouring salt on a gaping wound, Queerty (don't read the comments - never read the comments) reports you saying this in your "defense":
"I am not biphobic or transphobic. One my best friends is trans. People accuse me of being biphobic when all I am doing is articulating that a lot of bisexuality has certain issues and problems. Many people did identify as bisexual when they were coming out and it was a lie. That is just true. It is not crazy when you meet a bi person to wonder if they are really bi. It isn't disrespectful. It is rational. Many bi people end up in an opposite-sex relationship so they are not in the same boat with us as gays and lesbians. … I joke about trans stuff. We are not allowed to say tranny anymore. There's the T word and the F word, there is every letter of the alphabet word. … I still use the word "faggot" all the time in my column. Every time that I am on chat shows on cable I make a point of using fag in reference to myself because I don't think it is a dirty word. I don't think we should be stupid about it."
While your wit is well-known, you've never been accused of a being a particularly deep thinker, Dan, as this quote makes clear. Are you really so self-focused that you cannot conceive of how it's a little bit different for you, as a gay man, to reclaim "faggot" than it is for as a cis person to insist that "tranny" is OK? Would you really be comfortable being called a "faggot" by someone you know to be an anti-gay bigot? If words didn't have power, you wouldn't have tried to reclaim and de-legitimize "faggot" as a slur, and you do not get to decide what is or is not a slur for groups you are not a part of. I mean seriously, sit the fuck down and think on this a while. Do white people get to use racial slurs if they "have *insert ethnicity here* friends?" And are you seriously not aware of how incredibly fucking stupid it is to use "I have *insert whatever here* friends as an excuse for any sort of bullshit?
As far as your biphobia goes, for fuck's sake dude, this isn't 1992. Male bisexual chic has fallen far since the time you were coming out, whereas hey, guess what? Being a gay dude has become far more accepted. While yes, every single gay man on earth has a story about a guy who used to call himself bi and is now gay, this idea that men are actively taking on the stigma of male bisexuality in droves as a temporary measure to avoid the stigma of male homosexuality is kind of ludicrous.
And while it's true, based on the simple numbers game, that most bisexual people will "find themselves in an opposite-sex relationship" - what you mean here, obviously, is "will settle down with an opposite sex person." What you did here is basically declaring a bisexual identity not relevant to queer politics because of a bisexual person's relationships. An out bisexual person, Dan, can still be on the receiving end of homophobia simply by virtue of being honest about who they are, regardless of who they're dating. They can still lose their jobs, custody of their kids, or get kicked out of the military. I know it seems scary, but I promise you that acknowledging that bisexual people face oppression similar to what gays and lesbians face does not actually reduce your claim to the oppression you suffer as a gay man. This isn't a zero sum game.
Here's the thing. Unlike, it seems sometimes, a lot of rhetoric that gets thrown around in anti-oppression circles, I get that in the real world, most of us are not generally interacting amongst people who say, know what "cisgender" means or is terribly invested in radical queer critique or anti-racist analysis. And especially for someone who came of age in a much different gay culture that a lot of this talk you deride as "alphabet soup" and such can seem like politically-correct women's-study-majors buzzkill bullshit. And if you were just some random gay guy who had some less-than-cool opinions about what words you are supposed to say or what you think about bisexuals, I wouldn't give a shit.
But you're not some anonymous, increasingly irrelevant negative queen with no power.You're a public figure. Not just any public figure, but one of the U.S.'s most famous advice columnists. The "Savage Lovecast" is one of the top 10 most popular podcasts on the entire Internet. Like it or not - and I suspect you rather like it- you are in a position of authority, particularly to queer youth, but also for straights and how they perceive queerness. For fuck's sake, Dan, you are Stephen Colbert's "Spokesgay"! You are a representative for sex, liberty, and gayness to the rest of this fucked-up country. So you have a real responsibility as someone who claims to care about young freaks everywhere to not be a huge fucking dick about people you don't like or understand. Because it affects people.
It would be great if you bothered to educate yourself and learn why your views on appropriate language and transgendered people and bisexual people are ignorant and wrong. Or if you can't be bothered to do that, to at least learn to shut the fuck up about your bigotry in the public sphere. But we both know that isn't going to happen. So you can continue to increasingly sound like a throwback to some regretful primeval era of gay politics, the "glory days" before you had to worry about the "T" or the "B", because we're breaking up. It's been a long time coming, but I'm fresh out of excuses for you, and you're embarrassing us all.
5/29/10
A movie that's good
Ben Tanaka and his girlfriend Miko Hayashi exit a movie theater. There is a sign by the entrance saying "Asian American Digi-Fest." They walk to their car.Miko: Well, I know that probably wasn't your cup of tea, but thanks for coming.Ben: Did you really like that?M: I guess it was kind of corny, but... yeah.B: I can't believe that was supposed to be the best of the festival. Talk about a big fish in a small pond.M: Well we had more submissions than ever before this year.B: Yeah... of digital videos made by Asian-Americans who happen to live around here. Didn't they also have to be left-handed or something?They get in the car, and keep talking.M: We worked really hard to put this festival together.B: I know! I'm not criticizing you. I'm criticizing the shitty movie. Am I allowed to voice my opinion?M: You don't have to. You made it perfectly clear with all your fidgeting and groaning. I'm sure that Ling could hear you snickering throughout her film.B: It's good for her! You can't control an audience's reaction.M: Well it's a little embarrassing for me. And really, who are you to criticize?B: Hey... I know a lot more about movies than she does. I'm in the industry...M: "The Industry"? You manage a theater!B: That's right... a real movie theater. Where none of those movies are good enough to play at.M: Look, if you didn't like the movie, that's fine. I don't understand why you have to get so angry.B: Because everyone knows it's garbage, but they clap for it anyway because it was made by some Chinese girl from Oakland! I mean, why does everything have to be some big "statement" about race? Don't any of these people just want to make a movie that's good?
- from Shortcomings by Adrian Tomine
I'm really looking forward to the Frameline San Francisco International LGBT film festival. There is something very exciting about being in a room of largely queer people watching films depicting queer lives, perhaps because so much of the oppression of queers is enacted through invisibility and shame. Of those films I am especially drawn to films set in Southeast Asia or made by Southeast Asian queer directors or starring Southeast Asian actors (the photo above is from the publicity page for the short film "Swing" set in Singapore)
On the one hand it's a little embarrassing. I worry that I'm falling into some kind of trap of just liking a film "because it was made by some Chinese girl from Oakland" (which would somehow destroy my discerning-cinema-goer-cred). On the other hand, I think that there's something particular about the filmmaking process too that resists shame in a powerful way which in turn makes the film good just by nature of its usually devalued subject matter. In order for a film to be made and shown, generally a whole mess of people has to be involved, not least of which is the audience. Queer film for queer audiences, but screened for the public is liberating because it says "we will spend time and resources to document our lives and make those documents public, and we will do so in a way that engages us as a community, but invites any who care to see it to do so." That's pretty wow to me.
And the other thing is... there's some kind of affinity for me between my queerness and the medium of film. It's been a long cultural trope that gay men, especially, are more creative, or that we have special talent at the arts. I don't want to give too much credence to this, but there has, at least academically, been a connection between queer theory and film. For myself, and for many others, our first exposure to "queering" was through film - learning to re-read ostensibly "straight" movies made during the time of the Hollywood "code" through a queer lens (even some of the central metaphors of queer theory invoke film. We speak of 'lenses' and 'performativity').
At the same time, of course, I must admit I've sat through many terrible movies and even sort of liked them just because they had gay or bi male central characters. Sadly I can't say I had the same indulgence for films just because they depicted queer women or transgender characters (this was made abundantly clear to me when, after a back-to-back screening of "Beautiful Thing" and "Better Than Chocolate" my lesbian friend and I expressed diametrically opposed views about which film was 'the sweetest thing ever' and which film was trite and boring).
Ok so this post was mainly an excuse to publicize the festival as well as Tomine's excellent book, and to use the word "affinity."
5/28/10
The Skong Song
So it's Friday afternoon and I haven't posted anything in a few days, so you get FLUFF. Lacy genital fluff. That's right, I'm writing about underwear.
I got a Fredericks of Hollywood catalog in the mail the other day, which is always a treat, since it's got the trashiest underwear you can buy outside of the hooker wig stores in Logan Square and East Wicker Park, and I am a huge fan of such things. However, I was a little disturbed by a new trend unfortunately named lingerie: the skong. (see exhibit a)
At first I assumed it was a typo, but then I realized it's a reference to a ridonculous skirt/thong combo, not someone's soiled drawers (ie, skanky thong). It kind of reminds me of those skirted bikini bottoms small children wear, but I'm not going to run a google image search for "toddler bikini pic
s" to illustrate as that would probably set off a pedophilia sting operation. At any rate, the skong is almost as terrible as the amazing "sexy apron lingerie" teddy thing (with pockets!) I spotted at Pay Half a while back. (exhibit b) At least they didn't try calling that a "slapron" or something equally terrible. (Remember the slanket?)
I am also kind of ashamed to admit I considered buying crotchless gartered undies from the Frederick's catalog. Historically I always thought crotchless underwear were really dumb and pointless, but now I think they could *maybe* be slutty in a hot way. I like boning while wearing a garter belt and/or my panties pulled to one side, so in a weird way maybe crotchless panties would be hot. Or just skanky. Or both?
I've also gotten really addicted to window shopping for undies for my BF. I think the majority of men's underwear is really boring/unhot, except for the stuff that's made for gay men (and even then, a gold
lame thong with a zip front is just taking it too far). My BF is straight but gets away with dressing like a gay man, so I bought him a three pack of black briefs from PAPI at a gay clothing shop in the Castro while vacationing in San Francisco, and they are SO HOT! At first I wasn't sure if his white ass could get away with wearing twink briefs with a vaguely incestuous homoerotic Spanish term of endearment emblazoned across the waistband, but fuck it, because they make his junk look amazing, and less cliche than Ralph Lauren or Calvin Klein! (and you can also buy them at Macy's in Chicago, woot!) Their website is almost as fun as the Frederick's catalog, especially the purple undies that have a fucking SAMURAI silk screened over the dick (exhibit C)!!! And no, they didn't pay me to say any of this, though they should, even if I am not their target demographic.
Um, did this post have a point? FUCK NO! Enjoy your weekend!!!
I got a Fredericks of Hollywood catalog in the mail the other day, which is always a treat, since it's got the trashiest underwear you can buy outside of the hooker wig stores in Logan Square and East Wicker Park, and I am a huge fan of such things. However, I was a little disturbed by a new trend unfortunately named lingerie: the skong. (see exhibit a)
At first I assumed it was a typo, but then I realized it's a reference to a ridonculous skirt/thong combo, not someone's soiled drawers (ie, skanky thong). It kind of reminds me of those skirted bikini bottoms small children wear, but I'm not going to run a google image search for "toddler bikini pic
s" to illustrate as that would probably set off a pedophilia sting operation. At any rate, the skong is almost as terrible as the amazing "sexy apron lingerie" teddy thing (with pockets!) I spotted at Pay Half a while back. (exhibit b) At least they didn't try calling that a "slapron" or something equally terrible. (Remember the slanket?)I am also kind of ashamed to admit I considered buying crotchless gartered undies from the Frederick's catalog. Historically I always thought crotchless underwear were really dumb and pointless, but now I think they could *maybe* be slutty in a hot way. I like boning while wearing a garter belt and/or my panties pulled to one side, so in a weird way maybe crotchless panties would be hot. Or just skanky. Or both?
I've also gotten really addicted to window shopping for undies for my BF. I think the majority of men's underwear is really boring/unhot, except for the stuff that's made for gay men (and even then, a gold
lame thong with a zip front is just taking it too far). My BF is straight but gets away with dressing like a gay man, so I bought him a three pack of black briefs from PAPI at a gay clothing shop in the Castro while vacationing in San Francisco, and they are SO HOT! At first I wasn't sure if his white ass could get away with wearing twink briefs with a vaguely incestuous homoerotic Spanish term of endearment emblazoned across the waistband, but fuck it, because they make his junk look amazing, and less cliche than Ralph Lauren or Calvin Klein! (and you can also buy them at Macy's in Chicago, woot!) Their website is almost as fun as the Frederick's catalog, especially the purple undies that have a fucking SAMURAI silk screened over the dick (exhibit C)!!! And no, they didn't pay me to say any of this, though they should, even if I am not their target demographic.Um, did this post have a point? FUCK NO! Enjoy your weekend!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
