Weekend Onesie: Cancel Culture

 

Weekend Onesie:

Cancel Culture

This week, one of the repercussions dealt in light of the insurrection the previous week has been the banning of the orange ogre and those of his ilk on a number of social media platforms including Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and YouTube. 

In addition, Parler, a social networking service favored by the evil one's minions was removed for download by a number of providers before ultimately losing its service provider. 

The extreme right decry these moves as censorship and evidence of what they term 'cancel culture', both of which impede their first amendment rights; their freedom of speech.

But their argument is as faulty as their continued beliefs that the election was stolen from them (they lost fair and square) and that Hillary Clinton and a bunch of Satan worshippers are operating a child sex trafficking operation in the basement of a pizza parlor (a building with no basement).

Pointing out the idiocy of such beliefs has proven futile. Facts don't faze this group. You might as well talk into the wind. 

And as for those, like Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who had the audacity (and poor taste) to whine about losing massive amounts of followers (in Sarah's case 50K) once Twitter gave the boot to some 70,000 violent, threatening, racist, extremist, QAnon-related accounts... one can't help but wonder if that is something they should be calling attention to and why they would want those type of followers in the first place.

To those folks, I would like to say: If this is cancel culture in action? 

Then I'm all for it. 

Just as you can't yell 'fire' in a movie theatre, you can't incite violence against elected officials, organize to storm our government buildings or conspire to interfere with our democracy. You engage in that type of atrocious behavior, you need to be silenced. 

The internet does not exist to promote hate. Hate is not free speech. Hate is ugly and violent and needs to be put in its place. 

So, tough noogies, Sarah Huckabee (#MommaTellsLies4ALiving) Sanders and all you other deplorables.

Those of us who believe in truth, facts, science, logic, empathy, diversity and that the basic needs and safety of all individuals need to be guaranteed?

We've spent the last four years at the mercy of your unending stream of lies, falsehoods, and faulty thinking. We've had to bear witness to your selfishness, your greed, your hunger for power. 

But this is not The Thunderdome. 

We do not battle one another like some post-apocalyptic warriors. The Wild West was tamed a long time ago. So holster your pea-shooters, kids, or your toys will be taken away.

We've been traumatized, not unlike the rest of the world, by your fascist, insidious, hideous ways. 

And we have had enough!

That's right, bitches...

You've been canceled!

Now.. 

Be best. Be gone.

--- ---

Special shout out to Sixpence over at (LO) IMPRESCINDIBLE

for today's photo. I found it while digging into the deep recesses of his legacy. 

(P.S. Don't worry... I cleaned up after myself.)

Have a lovely weekend, all.

Stay Strong. Stay Safe. Stay Healthy

- uptonking from Wonderland Burlesque.

DJ Culture - The Pet Shop Boys

Acquired Tastes, XXXII: Monogamy

Introduction:

The topic of monogamy popped up recently in the comments section, after I had written a piece that included a bit about my sexual appetite slowing down and how massive amounts of anonymous cock no longer held the appeal it once did.  The writer suggested that maybe I was ready for a nice monogamous relationship.  The notion caught me by surprise because if there is one thing I am not cut out for, that would be monogamy and it would seem that my past posts here would bear that out.  Still, I find the subject worthy of exploration.  It definitely qualifies as an Acquired Taste – or is it something you’re born into?  Personally, I don’t believe it’s natural (where have we heard that before?), but an agenda conventional society has been pushing for eons for its own preservation.  And while it makes sense for heterosexuals due to the ever-present possibility of breeding, I can’t think of why homosexuals, and in particular gay men, have felt the need to adopt this subjective construct. 

And then there’s the whole marriage thing – another reason I don’t see why gays feel the need to comply; it’s a sacrament we are not privy to.  I frequently wonder if, beyond the tax, financial, and legal benefits to be derived, this is simply an attempt on the part of gay people to try to ‘pass’ and be ‘accepted’  - both of which are code words for: desperately feeling the need to fit in.  Isn’t the whole point of being gay to live ‘outside the box’?  Why can’t we fly in the face of convention and define our own terms?  Why do we desire to be…. like them?

So, let’s now join hands, two by two, limit our options by defining our scope, and make a commitment to explore and examine the constraints, advantages, and validity of…  

Monogamy

Scope of Activity:

Social monogamy refers to two partners living together, having sex with each other, and cooperating in acquiring basic resources such as shelter, food, and money.

Sexual monogamy refers to two partners remaining sexually exclusive with each other and having no outside sex partners.

Genetic monogamy refers to two partners only having offspring with each other.

Marital monogamy refers to marriages of only two people.

For this discussion I will limit most of my examination to sexual monogamy: those relationships between two gay men where there is a commitment made to have sex only with each other.

The Official Line:

From Wikipedia

Monogamy is a form of marriage in which an individual has only one spouse during their lifetime or at any one time (serial monogamy), as compared to polygamy or polyamory.  In current usage, monogamy often refers to having one sexual partner irrespective of marriage or reproduction. The term is also applied to the social behavior of some animals, referring to the state of having only one mate at any one time.

Psychological Aspects:

What are the psychological benefits of monogamy?  The potential for intimacy, the potential to develop a deep bond, a reliable outlet for sexual expression; all really worthy, desirable things. 

Lots of stuff has been written about this type of relationship.  We are led to believe, thanks to the media and society as a whole, that this is the way things ought to be and that MONOGAMY IS IMPORTANT.  Because if you can’t be in a committed, exclusive, monogamous relationship, then there is something wrong with you, you are a damaged human being, you are immature, you are… unworthy of love (okay, that last one is not true, but, hey, that message is out there).

Take your typical romantic comedy (which is ALL romantic comedies).  They all turn on the same theme: that a committed, sexually exclusive relationship is not only the ‘correct’ and acceptable kind of relationship to pursue – it is the ONLY kind of relationship to be considered.  We never see Jennifer Anniston contemplate the validity of her open relationship with Paul Rudd while Ryan Gosling is knocking at her door.  No, that would be a serious adult drama or indie flick.  My point is – as a society we really never give consideration to any other relationship model.  And, as I’ve said, that makes sense for the heteros, because otherwise life would be just one big Maury Povich  ‘Who’s My Baby’s Daddy?’ segment.   And I will even go so far as to say that it works for lesbians because of the whole nesting instinct thing (and, yes, maybe dudes have it, too, but based on the condition of many of the apartments and homes I have been fucked in, I’m going to say ‘no’).  But it makes no sense for gay men (unless moving in together and marriage is part of that package; the former having to do with financial streamlining and the latter having to do with a desire to conform to heterosexual convention). 

That said, when trying to come up with the emotional benefits of having a monogamous relationship, I immediately wanted to say: security, partnership, support and reliability.  Why?  Because I think most of us have it locked in our brains that monogamy = marriage; in other words, that commitment to limit sexual activity to within the confines of a defined one-on-one relationship brings with it a sort of all-encompassing pact that guarantees company, companionship, and an end to loneliness.   

What are the potential disadvantages of monogamy?   Boredom.  Unnecessary drama.  Jealousy.  A lack of sex.  Monotony. 

You like meatloaf?  Imagine eating it every night for the rest of your life.  It’s that, or go hungry.  Welcome to your monogamous relationship.

What?  Yes, my view is a bit jaded.  Read on and find out why. 

It’s not like I’m some 19 year old homo talking about something I know nothing about.  No, I’m a much, much older homo with a giant chip on his shoulder talking about something he knows nothing about.

Precautions, Misconceptions, Fallacies, and Encouraged Practices

If monogamy is something that you feel you want to pursue, here are some suggestions:

Don’t try to define a relationship as monogamous until the relationship has ample time and opportunity to develop.  Trust me, relationships are not one-size-fits-all.  That trick you dragged home last night may indeed be the man of your dreams, or he may just be the man of the moment.  Also: trying to define a relationship based on one night of hot, sloppy sex?  Not a good idea.

Be sure to let your freek flag fly early.  If you are thinking that this is ‘the one’ and you want to be sexually exclusive, make sure all your sexual deviation cards are on the table.  Dan Savage’s column is filled with letters from folks who are in a committed, monogamous relationship where one half has failed to disclose that what really gets them off is having their partner wear panties and a George W. Bush mask while choking them and referring to them as ‘Mr. Rove’.

Communication is key to not only a healthy monogamous relationship, but to good sex as well.  Good sex is key to a healthy monogamous relationship.  Unless it’s not.  Does a non-sexual relationship between two a-sexuals qualify as a monogamous relationship?  Hmmm.

If you are cheating on your partner?  Don’t kid yourself.  You are not in a monogamous relationship.

You don’t have to live together, share a bank account, or adopt a Hello Kitty baby in order to be in a monogamous relationship.  You can each maintain your own condos, never need to meet each other’s parents, and still agree to only fuck each other.  It sounds like a bloodless affair, but hey, Log Cabin Republicans have to get off, too.

My Experience:

To quote the character of Martha from Edward Albee’s ‘Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?’ (My personal go-to-manual on building healthy relationships), “I tried.  God knows I tried!” 

I grew up convinced that monogamy was the only option, mainly because it was the only model I was aware of at the time.  If you live in a town where all they sell is Pinto station wagons, guess what?  You’ll be driving a Pinto station wagon.  It wasn’t until many, many years later (and some would say many, many years too late) that I discovered how much fun it was to be a slut, fucking around without any need to define any of it as ‘a relationship’.  While on occasion I may find myself less-than-happy, I can assure you: I am a lot happier now than I ever was in the midst of trying to maintain a monogamous relationship.

Bottom line:  I love sex.  Lots and lots of sex.  With many people.  One person is never going to be able to bring to the table everything that I desire.

I’ve had six serious relationships, all of which were monogamous (supposedly). 

The first was when I was 17 going on 18.  He was a 36 year old actor on tour.  I was a theatre student.  It lasted six months.  He wanted me to move to New York.  The end.

It takes me years and years to recover.

At the age of 26, I attempt Relationship #2.  He’s a 24 year old art student.  There are issues from the get go and the situation dissolves into a confusing mess.  Years later I learn that his primary relationship during this time was actually with a bottle of Jim Beam.  Which, of course, explains everything, except how could I have been so clueless?

Three years later, out of the closet, I give it a go, again.  He’s short dude ten years my senior with control issues.  After a year of what I can only term ‘sexual extortion’ (he puts out if I put up), I come to realize that I am not in a relationship so much as a hostage situation.  I negotiate my own release and hop right into…

Relationship #3.  He’s 6’6”, handsome, huge dick, sexually adventurous, sweet as the day is long, great temperament, puts up with all my drama and bullshit.  He is a saint.  And a recovering alcoholic who is doing really well remaining sober. 

We have a lot of the same interests, my parents like him, we have a successful business together.  But I’m still doing theater.  I have the worst theatre experience ever.  I decide I have to get out of the Twin Cities and choose to move to Iowa for a year, to work for a newspaper.  I tell him we’ll rent a farm and live there.  He helps me move there, but never joins me.  We remain friends.  A year later, after I have sold all my stuff, he drives me to the airport as I go to live in Los Angeles to be with Relationship #4.  He falls off the wagon, moves to Seattle (where I visit him twice a year), contracts HIV, and his liver fails.  He dies.  No one bothers to let me know.  In retrospect, I have come to realize – HE WAS THE ONE.  If only I had been more forthcoming about my sexual needs and desires and not insisted on a monogamous relationship.  If only I had not been involved in theater or at least not allowed it to dictate my life.  If only I had not been so selfish, myopic, self-involved, angry, stupid, short-sighted, immature, irresponsible, etc.  He was a wonderful man.  And I was not.

I move to L.A. to live with a short, ten years older than me, author/guru/artist with control issues.  We have nothing in common.  The sex is not good.  I get to travel a lot during this time period, but in the end, I come to realize that while we keep changing the scenery, the players remain the same.  In a nut shell (apt), it was a play with a limited run which closed early.

#6.  I… don’t…. know… what… I….. was… thinking.  It works on some levels.  It does not work on many levels.  I should have known better.  I grow up.  I evolve.  I come to realize who I am: which is not the bill of goods I sold the dude in order to seal the deal. Now?  I feel sorry for him.  I feel obligated.  Obligation does not a healthy relationship make…

Score: Bullshit 6, Monogamy 0

Who do I blame?  The Catholic Church, Heterosexual Society, The Media (particularly those rom-coms), My Parents, My Teachers, The Boys Scouts of America, Theatre.

Who is to blame?  Well, duh.  I spent a good deal of my life as a “selfish, myopic, self-involved, angry, stupid, short-sighted, immature, irresponsible”, self-hating, bitter, frightened homo.  Small wonder none of that worked out, huh? 

Well, give me credit for trying.  And I did. 

“God knows I tried!”

My Conclusion:

Monogamous relationships are not for everyone.  Your experience may vary.

I would love for you to use the comment section and tell me all about your wonderful, healthy, long-term, monogamous relationship. 

Share your stories, your experiences, and advice.  Almost anything you have to offer (like hope for the rest of us), will be a vast improvement over the bile-soaked mess I have managed to cough up in this post. 

I know it’s not all a bed of roses, but monogamy can work for two healthy adults. 

It must.

I’ve seen it. 

At the movies…

Savage Word: The Rebranding of ‘The F-Bomb’

Can you rehabilitate a word?  Can you reclaim something if it wasn’t yours to begin with?  I don’t think so. 

For me, it began when I read yet another article about sex columnist/gay activist/MTV talking head Dan Savage spouting off about something in a manner that got him lots of negative attention.  Dan is cool.  But Dan still thinks he’s twenty-four years old.  He, born October 7, 1964, doesn’t buy into the notion that what is perfectly excusable out of the mouth of someone under the age of 25 is no longer acceptable when you are an established 40-something, self-appointed role model.   But that is his choice (to behave that way), and while I don’t think he needs to conduct himself like Anderson Cooper, I also feel his message would be taken more to heart and be more readily received by a wider audience if it were delivered utilizing civil, less-bombastic language.  He is a writer, after all, and one would think, clever and talented as he is, that he has an arsenal of words at his disposal and would therefore resist the temptation of resorting to hurling ugly, sophomoric epitaphs (a final judgment on a person or thing) at his intended targets. 

Case in point, and the whole reason I’m writing about this, Dan’s recent tweets re: GoProud – that horribly misguided group of gay Republicans who insist on being part of a party they were not invited to attend.  And yes, it’s a little like the NAACP joining forces with the KKK to hold a bake sale.  They (GoProud) are a ridiculous group, apparently only interested in whatever power they can glom onto in an arena (gay Republicans) where there can’t be all that much competition (like a bunch church ladies), or only concerned about how much of their money those damn Dems are going to suck out of their collective teat. Or maybe the tea room sex at the Republican Convention is simply too irresistible and the only way they can get in is to be official party members – given the many, many so-called ‘gay scandals’ involving Republicans and conservatives, perhaps it really is worth all that well gestated self-loathing.

The tweet in question: “The GOP’s house faggots grab their ankles right on cue.” – Dan’s response to GOProud's official endorsement of Mitt Romney for president back in late June 2012 (yeah, I know – where the hell have I been, huh?). 

Here is the letter I wrote Mr. Savage:

Dan,

I have to take issue with your recent tweets re: those stupid gay Republicans.

First off, let’s look at your use of the word faggot.  I know, I know… the current understanding is that by using the F-Bomb we are reclaiming it and it therefore loses its power.  Now, where have I heard this before?  Let me think.  Oh, yeah!  That other culture and that equally offensive N-Word.  Dan, sorry, but an offensive word used to demean others is... wait for it... still an offensive word. Plus – if I remember right, and I do… IT WAS NEVER OUR WORD.  It was theirs.  To hurl at us and make us feel awful.  Suggestion:  grow up and play like a grown-up –deliver your message without coming off as a total ass wipe.  There are tons of wonderful words out there to use.  I realize that GoProud has used the F-bomb in the past as well, but… hey, like we expect anything different from those idiots?  See - self-hate is still hate, Dan.   Word to your muthah!

Second issue: you demean bottoms when you liken the activities and choices of the self-serving, ridiculously un-evolved, status and money hungry, gay Republicans to certain God-given sexual acts.  Those Log Cabin boys at GoProud?  What they do is disgusting.  Where as butt sex is just a damn good time (if you’re doing it right and have enough lube)… whether you are a top or a bottom.  To cast a bad light on the act of bending over and taking it sends a message of ‘shame on you’ to all bottoms, and I know that was not your intention.  Because I’m pretty sure you appreciate a good bottom.  Please choose your metaphors more carefully in the future.

Thanks, Dan.  I’m warming up to the idea of you being an activist and the voice of our people (well, at least those not so fucked in the head that they align themselves with the Republican party – not that I mean to demean those who like getting fucked in the head: for maximum pleasure use plenty of lube).  Like Mary Tyler Moore before you – you’re gonna make it after all!

Kisses.

-       Uptonking 

I am not holding my breath waiting for a response.  I have written Mr. Savage a number of times over the years, about all sorts of things.  Sometimes I compliment him or congratulate him.  Sometimes I am critical of something he has stated, done, or is related to his ‘Savage Love’ column (the illustrations he used to use were sometimes not very PC).  I have always been surprised (and pleased) when he had the time to respond.  I know he’s super busy now, as his career is on a whole ‘nother level (hate that phrase).  What I have learned from those emails is that he does not take criticism well (who does?).  Still, I remain a big fan and continue to read his column faithfully.  Would he agree that my stance on the word ‘faggot’ is legitimate?  I doubt it.  Because those who don’t get it only see their side of the issue, and, hey – free speech is free speech, right?

Back to the question at hand – can you rehabilitate a word?

I know that the African-American community, or at least those involved in the parts of the music industry (rap/hip-hop), have made it their mission to reclaim what those of us not allowed to use it refer to as ‘the N-Word’.  Personally, I’m glad ‘we’re’ not allowed to use it, because I despise it.  It conjures up one of the very worst parts of American history.  The people that uttered it then were ugly, repugnant souls – whom one could argue (if you dared – but don’t, please) were simply ignorant and born into a culture of hate.  But hate is hate, and America has had a hell of a lot to answer for before and after the antebellum days of yore.  The fact that the KKK and other such groups exist in this day and age at all is a testament to the power of hate and the inexplicable need for one person to declare themselves superior to another.  That a good number of Caucasians don’t understand why they can’t use the ‘N-Word’ also demonstrates a sort of willful ignorance on their part.

David Bowie wrote: “Blacks got respect, and whites got his soul train”.  For the sake of this argument I would say that blacks got the N-Word and the gays got the F-Bomb.   

And based on their former uses and users – I think it is an apt comparison.

That said – I don’t think the F-Bomb is a word anybody should be using either, unless they are referring to a bundle of sticks.

I very much doubt if there is a gay guy out there who did not, at some point in their life, have this word either hurled at them in a hateful manner, or uttered in a negative manner in their presence.   In most of those cases I just bet that we – to reference Mr. Savage’s tweet – grabbed our ankles and took it without protesting at all.   Why – because it was meant to scare us.  It was uttered in hate, and hate, by its very nature, is frightening.  It is meant to silence us.  It is uttered so that we will disappear.  So why would anyone think this is a word that we can now throw about as if it is cuddly as a Care Bear?

Have I ever used this word?  Yes.  For a time period, when it was first deemed acceptable use by the gay community, I would refer to a gay guy who had earned an eye roll from me for something that they had done as ‘oh, that faggot, blah blah’.  But I stopped rather quickly.  It just never felt right coming out of my mouth.  It felt like overkill.  After a point, I just couldn’t come up with an instance where it was appropriate – what would someone have to do where I could justify calling them that?  So I stopped using it.  And now, I really advocate that others stop using it as well.  It’s juvenile.  It’s beneath us.  We don’t need it. 

And at the heart of this reasoning is the fact that the word never belonged to us.  It belonged to them.  They (those that hate gay people) shouldn’t use it anymore and we have no reason to use it either. 

The same could be said of the ‘N-Word’, but that’s not mine to argue.  The ‘N-Word’ has gone under a kind of cultural metamorphosis. The ‘N-Word’ when uttered by an African-American incites, in Caucasians with a conscious, a kind of sick fear – white-guilt, if you will.  And, as I understand it, the ‘N-Word’ is now used by members of the black community as a common identifier (inclusive), much in the way ‘homey’ is used.   I very much doubt that the F-Bomb will ever gain that kind of rebranding.  For when gay guys use the term faggot, we are not being inclusive  in our use, we are hurling it as a negative – which is exactly what the word was originally intended to do – to be hurtful to a gay person. 

We all know that language is a powerful tool.  That is why people like Dan Savage, who write for a living and serve as role models– self-appointed or not – for a given community need to choose their tools wisely. To do otherwise muddies the water and dilutes whatever impact their voice may have in the world.  Dan Savage has a rare opportunity to create social change, and yes, social change has never been pretty – it has always been accompanied by ugly words being hurled back and forth.  I just think it would be prudent for those on the frontlines to make sure that the ugly words that must be said are not only the right words, but also aimed at the correct targets.