So the big news explosion last week was over the John Edwards affair, complete with photographs of The Other Woman looking shifty and Mr. Edwards looking contrite. Cynics pointed out that the timing of the news release sure was convenient, since it was quickly overshadowed by the impending conflict in Georgia and the Olympics. Despite this, the media sure managed to wring a lot of miles out of it, and they’re still hard at work.

My gut reaction to the Edwards affair was “who cares,” and then I started genuinely wondering about who cares, and why it is that extramarital affairs among politicians continue to get so much press. It’s sort of like reporting that the sky is blue, or that cats like milk. It’s just sort of a given fact. Yet people eat this schlock up every time it comes out.

I find it interesting that many people are willing to pass judgement on Mr. Edwards without knowing the particulars of the case, and that they are willing to assume that a little dallying outside the officially sanctioned marriage bed somehow makes him unfit to serve as a politician.

Do I think it’s sort of shitty that he abandoned his cancerous wife for an affair? Well, I might, if she hadn’t been in remission at the time. And, for all we know, the couple had an understanding which they have chosen not to share with the media, in an attempt to keep some part of their personal lives personal. Without knowing the negotiated specifics of their relationship, I feel hesistant to cast aspersions upon Edwards.

And I am really disappointed in formerly ardent Edwards supporters, who have turned viciously on him in the wake of the announcement, terming him irresponsible for running when he knew that the affair might hit the news. Rather than admitting that people make mistakes, sometimes big ones, and that these mistakes don’t necessarily shape people. Sure, we learn from our mistakes, and contrition is appropriate, but one mistake shouldn’t terminate a career or destroy a relationship. It’s a learning experience, and I believe that what we learn makes us stronger.

I see people criticizing his wife for staying with him, while others praise her for sticking with him. It seems like the poor woman can’t win, depending on which media source she feels like reading this morning. And, of course, all sorts of salacious speculation about The Other Woman’s child is flying around, with The Other Woman feeding the flames by decisively announcing that she doesn’t want a paternity test.

I’m always interested to see how the media copes with sexuality, and I’m pretty much never surprised, at this point. If depths can be plumbed, they will be, and who cares about the damage it causes. It continually amazes me to see the details of the private lives of public figures paraded out for our consumption, as though we should care. I suppose one could argue that by living a public life, these figures are exposed to the potential for public interest, but it does seem like a line needs to be drawn somewhere. The whole thing reminds me of watching seagulls fight for scraps of bread. It’s vile.

Especially since the politicians who are most vocal about morals and “family values” are often the ones schtupping people in airport bathrooms. In those cases, where politicians actively preach about morals and family values, I am interested in their private lives, to see if they practice what they preach, and stand behind what they believe in.

But Edwards didn’t campaign on an “affairs are bad” platform. He campaigned on a fighting poverty platform, and I’m sorry, but I just don’t see who he was sexing has to do with poverty. I seem to be in the minority, however, because even in places where I expect more indifference and progressive ideas, Edwards is still being condemned as a liar and a cheat.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, my friends.

Many years ago, I had to apply for a new passport, because my old passport was about to expire, and I am in the habit of keeping these things current. Because I was still a minor at the time, I was forced to trek all the way to Ukiah to file my passport application in person, and I duly filled out the forms, attached atrocious pictures of myself, and slid the paper across the counter to the clerk, who quickly reviewed it to make sure that everything was in order.

“I believe you made a mistake,” the clerk said, looking at me and then looking at the form.

“Oh?”

“Yes,” she said, “you checked the wrong box for ’sex,’ here,” and she stabbed her finger at the form.

I followed the line of her finger to see that the “F” box was checked, and I replied:

“Oh. No, I don’t think I made a mistake.”

She started at me for a moment, and then said “but you checked the box for female!”

“Yes,” I said, “that’s because I am a girl.”

And, in point of fact, I pretty much am, under the gender dichotomy which holds sway in this world we live in. I have female secondary sex characteristics, which is pretty much the defining feature in a casual sense, and I have been raised as a girl. I act (more or less) like a girl, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see that genetic testing revealed a nice, tidy XX.

In point of fact, I don’t identify as a girl: I identify as genderqueer. But we don’t have a box on forms, so when I’m asked to slot myself into the dichotomy, I go with “girl,” because that’s kind of what conventional knowledge defines me as. While frustrating, the way to change that is not to throw a hissy fit in the passport office. And I was actually rather flattered that the clerk mistook me for a boy, honestly.

My little battle in the passport office is being repeated and played out all over the world, every day, with varying levels of importance, but what’s going on at the Olympics this year is especially sinister, so I wanted to take a moment to talk about it. For those of you who missed the story last week, “suspect” female athletes (as in not all of them) are going to be “gender tested” before being allowed to compete in Beijing.

In strict point of fact, gender testing at the Olympics has been going on since the 1960s, mainly in response to fears that the Soviets would dress men up as female competitors. And I understand the rationale behind it, because events are separated by gender for some very sound reasons. However, there are a number of problems with the gender testing, and people are starting to point these problems out, which is excellent.

The first problem is that gender is not a dichotomy, it’s a continuum. Setting aside people like me, there are lots of people in the world who have genetic material from both genders; women with Y chromosomes, XXY men, and so forth. This is called “genetic diversity,” and it’s what makes the human race so varied and interesting. Many of these people are totally unaware of their conditions, and they strongly identify as either “male” or “female.” Others have more serious health problems which lead to an eventual diagnosis of the issue, sometimes leading them to be asked to pick a gender. Or, more commonly, for parents to be asked to pick a gender for an infant or young child.

The fact that they are using genetic testing in Beijing means that some women may be excluded from competition on the basis of their sex when they identify strongly as members of the female gender, and this thought makes me very sad. Especially because many of those athletes may be totally unaware of the fact that they have a secret in their genes. Athletes of all genders work extremely hard to get to the Olympics, to be recognized as the top performers in their sports; to be thrown out because your genes don’t fit in a box would be tragic.

Only testing selected atheletes is also extremely problematic. If you’re going to use arbitrary gender testing as a basis for exclusion, you should be testing all athletes. I love the assumption that women wouldn’t be concealing themselves to compete as men. And the assumption that only women who look strange need to be tested. Singling out athletes for discrimination is, in my opinion, rather offensive.

I think that there are very few examples in Olympic history of men concealing themselves as women to compete. I can think of at least one from 1936, but that was a messed-up sham of a “let’s promote the Aryan race” Olympics, not a real Olympics. I believe that the gender testing policy harms everyone at the Olympics, and it sends a very negative message to the people around the word who defy the gender dichotomy, either through biology or psychology. That message is: you don’t exist, and you don’t count, even if you did exist.

Beijing, I’ve got a newsflash for you: we exist, and we are pissed.

This weekend, Nicholas Kristof wrote a searing editorial in the New York Times discussing an issue which is dear to my heart: rape as a military tool. For centuries, invading armies have been using rape as an extremely effective weapon to terrorize the populace as they sweep across new territory, splintering societies in the hopes of weakening resistance. Rape is fact such a commonplace tool that, historically, women have thrown themselves from cliffs along with their children rather than face the inevitable consequences of invasion.

Mass-rape isn’t out of style for the world’s militaries, although you might think it is, since, as Kristof points out, it gets less media coverage than pirated DVDs. Sadly, rape is just as widespread as it ever was, and perhaps even more brutal now, thanks to a plethora of weapons which can be used to abuse victims of war, and courtesy of refugee camps which conveniently pen up victims for the choosing.

In Serbia, women were raped, held for several months, and bussed back home with pregnant bellies to demoralize the “enemy”. In Africa, child soldiers are raped and in turn taught to rape. In Southeast Asia in the Second World War, attractive local women were herded together and made available to the Japanese military as “comfort women.” In Iraq, several isolated cases of rape have emerged, including rapes of American servicewomen, and these are undoubtedly scratching the surface of an endemic problem.

Rape as a “strategy of war” is not a “new twist,” as one of Kristof’s interviewees said, it’s an ancient practice, but that doesn’t make it any less foul and barbaric. I’m glad to see greater attention being drawn to the issue, because the apathy of the international community has really been a source of frustration for me. Because rape is often a silent, hidden crime, it’s sometimes hard to realize how systemic it has become, but we do have the testimony of numerous doctors, nurses, aid workers, and journalists to suggest that rape is as common as it ever was in military operations. Many brave individuals have stepped forward to speak about mass rape, and their voices have been largely ignored, which is a great tragedy.

I’ve always been a big fan of Nicholas Kristof and his discussions of women’s issues, but he’s been elevated to a personal hero now, thanks to his unflinching look at a very serious global problem. I hope that the fact that this issue is appearing on the front page of the Times will mark a sea-change in our indifferent attitudes about mass rape as a weapon. And, indeed, the prevalence of rape in general. As individual citizens, we may be powerless, but as a collective, we have a mighty voice: why not use it?

So, apparently, there’s an organization in the United States called the National Abstinence Education Association, and they’re so riled up about sex ed in schools that they’re starting a nation-wide campaign to try and enlist parents in their goal of converting American sex education to an abstinence-only approach. Now, I thought this was pretty ludicrous, until I learned that a similar campaign in Georgia in the early 1990s actually worked, so the organization isn’t just going out on a wild hare here, they actually believe that their little scheme will be effective.

I think that the constant battles over issues of sexuality and gender in this country really illustrate a fundamental, gaping divide, and it’s a pity, because in this case, it’s kids who are going to suffer. I’m a pretty big advocate of giving children the information they need to make their own decisions, and it makes me hopping mad to hear of a national campaign which is basically designed to keep America’s youth in a state of ignorance.

This coming from the same people who will refuse to deal with the inevitable consequences of unprotected teen sex: unwanted children, for example, and rising STD rates. It’s not just AIDS that’s experiencing a resurgence in this country, it’s gonorrhea, syphilis, and everything else, and a lot of these diseases are fully preventable with the use of adequate barrier methods. And teens in particular among the fastest growing group of those infected with STDs. I suspect that this is in no small part due to crappy sex ed programs, where instructors are crippled by ridiculous moral stipulations. It boggles my mind that people who claim to profess “Christian values” would condemn people to a state of ignorance which could potentially put them at serious risk, all for the sake of promoting their own moral stance on sexuality.

I’ve always subscribed to the harm reduction approach to public health, which involves an acceptance of the fact that people are dumb, and that people are also going to make choices which are different from my own, but I might as well help make those choices less dangerous. Not just for the benefit of the people making those choices, but for myself; rising rates of STDs doesn’t benefit anybody, and I’m not a big fan of paying for unwanted brats with my tax dollars, either. It is to the advantage of all of us to accept that people are very diverse and stubborn creatures, and rather than trying to pretend these things don’t happen, or trying to ban them, we should be offering people a chance to  make safer choices.

To say that we should only offer abstinence-only education is to say that we should disenfranchise our children. I understand that some parents are extremely, deeply opposed to sex education, and perhaps they should be given the ability to opt-out, but why penalize everyone? In my hazy memories of sex ed, our teachers weren’t saying “hey kids, go out and have yourselves some SEX!” They were simply providing us with information we could use, including information about the consequences of sexual activity. I think that people would be hard-pressed to find a sex education program which is actually advocating sexual activity for children and teens, so it’s ludicrous to say that sex ed offers “explicit how-to information that gives teens a green light for activities that put them at risk.”

I can only hope that this plan fails, but I fear that, given the polarized state of this country, it might actually end up being successful, creating yet another thing for Europeans to mock us for. Honestly, sometimes I wonder if political organizations in the United States are being secretly paid by European comedians to generate new material for them to lampoon.

According to the Washington Post, in Britain, where people apparently are willing to tolerate millions of CCTV cameras because they are “good for safety,” the rape conviction is shockingly low. I’d say a decline from roughly 30% in the 1970s to just over 5% today is pretty depressing, and also pretty telling. (Compare that with rates in the United States, which hover around 15% of reported cases resulting in conviction.) I would be be really interested to see an estimate on the number of rape cases which are actually reported in Britain, although I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that it’s low, just like it is here.

The Washington Post article raised a couple of issues of interest for me, as a reader.

The first was to wonder what in the heck is being done with all of the miles of CCTV footage being collected in Britain. I mean, the presence of CCTV is justified by arguing that it makes it easier to track down criminals, and that it enables the prosecution and successful conviction of crimes in Britain. CCTVs are everywhere, and they are mute, all-seeing witnesses which happen to be much more reliable than people, thanks to the fact that they record information immutably and without judgment.

Now, obviously, every single rape in Britain isn’t caught on CCTV, but it does seem like actually using that footage might have some positive benefit on the conviction rate. This seems to be a common trend with security footage; the cameras are put in place to intimidate people, and so forth, but the footage is never actually used, which makes me wonder what the point is. It also gives me further fuel for opposition to the use of CCTV and other camera security systems.

Also, I was really interested in the cultural issues discussed in the article, like the results of a survey which found that “as many as one in two young men believe there are some circumstances when it’s okay to force a woman to have sex,” which was pretty mindboggling to me. Or an account of a recent case in which a 28 year old man raped a 10 year old girl and got two years in prison for it…because she dressed suggestively. Please, if you could, tell me how a 10 year old girl can dress suggestively, how a 10 year old girl can be “asking for it.”

But I’m not so sure that Britons have different attitudes about rape than we do. The article was obviously meant to be an analysis of British culture, not American culture, so there were no convenient compare and contrast sidebars, but it would be interesting to compare and contrast results of surveys and other methods of data collection in the two countries. I mean, I read this article and think “good lord, how I do not want to be a woman in Britain,” but I wonder how much better things are here.

After all, date rape is probably the biggest issue in both countries. Now, California happens to have pretty specific laws about forced sexuality, including a law which pretty much explicitly states that no means no, whereas the article didn’t delve that deeply into the law, leaving me with kind of an incomplete picture. I think that California’s laws have made it much easier to prosecute date and acquaintance rape, whereas it may well be that while British law enforcement would like to see more convictions, their hands may be tied by the law. As the article informed me, prosecutors can’t even meet with rape victims in Britain before the case comes to trial, which seems like a pretty big obstacle to getting a solid case in place.

Also, sexism and a double standard around sexuality is obviously present in both nations. I know plenty of Americans who think that there are circumstances in which a woman is “asking for it,” so that attitude is hardly restricted to Britain, especially when it comes to drunk young women trying to have a good time at parties or out on the town. In Britain’s case, it seems like sexism may have paralyzed the legal system, but I would argue that our own legal system’s approach to rape isn’t perfect, either. Depending on where you are and who you are, it can be very difficult to get someone to even take a report, let alone bring the case to trial.

I don’t think there’s an easy solution to fixing low conviction rates for rapes, but this article certainly gave me some food for thought, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see that it spurs some reforms in the British legal system’s approach to rape cases. I sure hope so.

Ok, can I just say how awesome it is that the Republican dominated California supreme court gave the thumbs up to gay marriage? Sure, it was four to three, but still, I am excited beyond words that the court affirmed the constitutional right to marry for California gays and lesbians. It is not every day that the stodgy halls of the legal community strike a blow for civil rights, after all.

I was going to write about it yesterday, but I was too hot to move, let alone use the keyboard. I don’t know what the deal was, but it was seriously, seriously hot yesterday. I had all these grand plans of doing the laundry and going to the library, but instead I lay around the house in a desperate torpor, pushing cats away when they got too close because they were like little furry furnaces. And even the cats seemed to lack the will to move; Loki stayed in one position for nine hours, which may be a Loki world record.

One thing in the 172 page decision that I was really pleased about was the comparison of same-sex marriage to interracial marriage. The fact of the matter is that interracial marriage was one illegal in California, not that long ago, and as the decision rightly pointed out, history is not always the best measurement to use when considering whether or not something is constitutional. Overturning the ban on interracial marriage was a good thing for California to do, and I believe that overturning the ban on same-sex marriage is also a very good thing for us to do.

I also loved the repeated mentions in the decision about the right to have one’s relationship recognized and respected, and I especially enjoyed the little gibe which suggested that we should ban all marriage in the interests of equality. Perhaps I’m just a California hippie, but I seriously do believe that families come in a wide variety of configurations, and I would never presume to dictate which configuration is acceptable and which isn’t.

There was also a nice little bit about the fact that same-sex marriage in no way detracts from opposite-sex marriage, and that no religious organizations or officials are going to be forced to adjust their beliefs; if you don’t want to officiate at a gay marriage, then don’t, basically. The goal is not to cheapen opposite-sex marriage, and I’m sorry that some people feel that way, because the goal is to recognize and respect partnerships between couples of the same sex.

Of course, this means that there is now going to be a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage on the November ballot; and good on the governor for coming out strongly in opposition to any such thing. I’m hoping that this ends up backfiring on the conservatives, because I suspect we’re going to see record liberal turnout at this election, with voters fired up by the prolonged popularity contest and pissed at the conservatives. I swear to Pete, if that amendment gets on the ballot and passes, I am going to be seriously disappointed in my fellow Californians.

Apparently, the 2004 weddings in San Francisco were a major factor in the decision to support same-sex marriage in California, which is awesome. I think that as an act of protest, the decision to offer marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples in San Francisco was brilliant, and I hope to see a lot more of the same happening in the near future. Nice of them to overturn the ban just in time for a stack of June weddings.

As Andrew Sullivan pointed out in The Daily Dish, if thousands of same-sex couples marry in California between 15 June (when the decision takes effect) and November, any proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage would result in the simultaneous annulment of thousands of marriages. For those who claim to value the sanctity of marriage, I hope this creates room for pause; I imagine that straights would be pretty infuriated if their marriages were annulled at the polls, don’t you think?

I was talking with a friend recently, and somehow the topic of fantasies came up. This person expressed a sense of deep personal discomfort with certain fantasies, and I got a sense of shame and misery from this individual about having those fantasies, and we had an exchange that went something like this:

Me: Ok, I get that you feel like such and such a fantasy is “wrong,” because the behaviour involved is morally questionable, but I don’t think you should beat yourself up over it.

Person: But, its wrong, I shouldn’t feel that way, and it makes me feel like a bad person.

Me: Right, but here’s the thing. Unlike an actual bad person, you would never do the thing that you are fantasizing about. Because you recognize that it is a bad thing, and you understand the difference between fantasy and reality.

Our whole exchange was very interesting, and obviously I’m not going to delve into it, but it got me thinking about one of the reasons I really love Savage Love, Dan Savage’s advice column. (Dan Savage himself, alas, is extremely fat-phobic, but I can separate one dislikable aspect of a person from their more redeeming traits.) Savage explicitly and frequently expounds on the difference between fantasy and reality, and I think it’s a good difference to underline.

There’s a huge difference between doing something and thinking about doing something. For example, I occasionally fantasize about ruthlessly slaughtering my neighbors, but obviously that’s not something I would ever do, because I recognize that it is, you know, not very nice. But I don’t think that imagining the act is necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I would argue that working out elaborate schemes in my mind while I seethe in bed trying to sleep allows me to express my irritation and anger, thereby defusing it.

America is all about repression, and the mind is a dangerous thing to repress. People in this country wig out about fantasies like the citizens of 1984 fret about thoughtcrime. I just don’t think that the world of the imagination is or should be subject to the same rules which govern actual, physical behavior. Imagination is a wonderful thing, after all.

And, in some cases, I think that there are ways to realize certain fantasies with consenting people in a healthy, safe, and sane way. There are whole communities of people out there who love to do just that, and many of the people in those communities are gentle, loving, caring people who simply have a few unusual extracurricular pursuits.

It makes me sad that we live in a society where people are taught to feel ashamed of themselves when they think in ways which are nonconventional. Obviously, I am not condoning actual atrocities, but I don’t think that trying to repress fantasies is very productive, or healthy. I also certainly wouldn’t condone any acts which were nonconsensual, but I am not opposed to the illusion of nonconsensuality in a carefully negotiated and controlled scene with mentally capable adults.

The boundaries of what we consider to be sexual deviance seem to be constantly changing, but there’s a common thread of treating people who are perceived as deviants like animals. I find this attitude extremely counterproductive, because it suggests that there is no sane, healthy, safe way to express desires and fantasies.

In a world where people were more open about their fantasies, maybe they would understand the difference between fantasy and reality more clearly. If you’ve ever looked at Japanese comic books within the larger context of Japanese society, you can see that people are perfectly capable of expressing some pretty astounding fantasies without actually acting on them. And for those who do want, in some small way, to act out such fantasies, there are healthy outlets for doing so, because it’s a culture where the concept of fantasy is accepted, allowing people to negotiate their own boundaries and to seek out like-minded individuals.

Personally, I’d rather see that than the inevitably explosive results of repression.

Not that I was really, seriously considering voting for McCain before, but I’m definitely not voting for him now. Cristina Page has written a damning article on McCain’s positions about sexuality and reproductive health, and I think that anyone with functioning genitalia should go read it. I noticed this article featured on Feministing, but I felt a deep and compelling need to expand on my views, rather than just commenting briefly, because this sort of thing drives me absolutely batty: reproductive health is a really important election issue, and I am tired to seeing it ignored.

Basically, I think that a candidate’s stance on sexuality and reproductive health is crucial, because it tells me whether the candidate will lead with the head, or the heart. A politician who leads with the head makes and promotes sensible policy, even on issues that politician may be morally opposed to. A politician who leads with the heart, on the other hand, refuses to be sensible about moral issues outside of his or her control. Banning abortion doesn’t mean it won’t happen anymore. It just means that it will be harder and more dangerous to get. Promoting abstinence-only education doesn’t mean all Americans will stay virgins until marriage; it just means that people won’t understand the risks of STDs and pregnancy. Trying to run sex toy purveyors out of town doesn’t make people less kinky; it just means that there will be a run on back massagers at the drug store. You can’t legislate morality, and to assume that such a thing is possible is not only insane, but foolish.

I don’t think that candidates need to be all crazy and sexually liberated, with insanely progressive ideas on sexuality, but I do think that they need to have a tolerant attitude about sexuality and alternative lifestyles, because whether they like it or not, people are going to engage in a wide variety of sexual activities. An oft-misattributed quote says “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” and I believe that politicians would do well to keep this in mind. America’s supposed to be all about diversity and the land of the free, right? And I think that intolerance is not a good trait to have in someone who will be making major decisions which will have an impact on the health and lives of millions of Americans. Candidates who oppose funding for contraceptives and women’s health programs, for example, have a direct impact on my life, and on the lives of a lot of you, dear readers.

And the fact that a woman has sex before she gets married doesn’t mean that she should be deprived of healthcare. A teen’s decision to be sexually active doesn’t mean that he or she should be exposed to sexually transmitted diseases. A man’s choice to love another man shouldn’t deprive him of the rights of marriage, to be able to make health decisions for his partner in the event of incapacitation, to adopt children. You don’t have to be into these things to give the people who engage in them some basic respect, as fellow human beings. I, for example, am not really a fan of scat play, but I wouldn’t necessarily vote for a ban on it, or refuse to offer medical treatment (if I was a doctor) to someone with a scat play-related infection because of my personal dislike for this activity, because I accept the fact that people are incredibly diverse, and as long as all parties are consenting and of sound mind, what people do in their private lives is not my affair.

Making judgments on the basis of morality is a very tricky endeavor, and I’m not certain that I am qualified to do it. I don’t think that anyone else is, either, and because morality is so personalized and individual, I certainly wouldn’t want to see legislation based in moral values.

A candidate who supports abstinence-only education is not a candidate who is thinking with clear eyes about the health of all Americans. A candidate who wants to revoke sexual education funding in Africa because condoms are given out in addition to advice about abstinence is a heartless, cold individual. A candidate who thinks that teenaged girls who made a mistake should be forced to have children is insane. This is a selfish, short-sighted view which is also costly.

It’s fine to promote abstinence until marriage, but I think you need to accept that this doesn’t work for everyone. And once you’re married, surely you should have access to family planning tools and to a responsible doctor who cares about your health, right? It’s fine to be personally opposed to homosexuality, but you must realize that gay couples are propping up the economy in many communities, while actively contributing to the places they live in with generous donations of time, skills, and funds. I could up with countless other illustrations of why morality-based legislation bothers me, but I’ll stop. Suffice it to say that I don’t think this sort of legislation looks at the big picture.

The issue of reproductive freedoms is part of a larger framework. Personally, I think that the sex lives of the candidates are private, and of no interest to me. If such and such a candidate is into BDSM, good for him or her. If another frequents brothels, whatever. I don’t care. And I would appreciate the same respect from the candidates; I strongly dislike the idea of the government meddling in my bedroom, and you should too. If it’s ok to legislate who people love, and when, and how, when will we move on to legislating what people are allowed to eat? What kinds of professions they have? How they raise their children?

By judging some practices as morally acceptable and others as reprehensible, the candidates are crossing a bit of a dangerous line. Under the crazy morality of much of the religious right, most Americans are people of questionable morality, and I’m not a big fan of that idea. By making judgment calls like this, politicians are splitting Americans into two classes, right and wrong, and things are rarely that black and white. I’m fine with voting for a candidate who thinks that certain personal activities are in poor taste, or even reprehensible; everyone has a right to his or her own opinions. But I don’t want to vote for a candidate who is going to impose his or her views about right and wrong onto my own life, and onto the lives of others, with far-reaching legislation which could potentially have a severe impact on people’s lives. Today, sexuality, tomorrow, who knows?

How can you be opposed to funding sexual education which includes discussions about contraception and abortion when you agitate to cut welfare, the program that pays for knocked-up teens who are victims of poor sex ed programs? How can you demand that a fetus has basic rights when you deny those rights to the child as soon as it is born? How dare a politician impose personal values and morals onto the American people?

Don’t fool yourself. The issue of sexuality and reproductive health is far more wide-reaching than it appears, and you should oppose candidates with unclear stances on the issue, let alone candidates who actively support insane morality-based legislation about sexual education programs, health funding, and so forth. Because if they want to legislate your sex life, there are probably other aspects of your existence that they want to control as well.

So, the Chronicle has a section for weird news that they call “Bondage.” And every time I see it, I kind of cringe. I’ve been debating whether or not to talk about my dislike of the “Bondage” column for various reasons, but today I decided why not, what the hell, might as well go for it.

So, the thing that really bothers me is the implication that bondage is weird, aberrant, or amusing. Especially in a city like San Francisco, which has a huge progressive and leather community, the idea of using the term in this way kind of surprises me. When I first saw it, I actually thought that the Chronicle was starting a kinky news service, and I thought that would be pretty awesome. Well, they do have a kinky columnist now, but the “Bondage” column has been around a lot longer than Violet Blue’s column has, and Ms. Blue has had some problems with her content, like the Chronicle refusing to link to naughty websites in the context of her column.

So, why does it bother me that “Bondage” is belittled by the Chronicle in the form of an amusing news column? Surely there are far more important things for me to worry about, right? Well, first of all, let’s talk about what bondage is, because it means a lot of things to a lot of different people. For me, bondage is part of a larger alt-sex and, yes, kinky community, to which I belong. I’m not sure that I have explicitly stated that anywhere on this website, because I hesitate dragging personal details about my life into this site (ruminative “reflections” columns aside). I’m not going to go into the gory details of my sex life, and I suggest that if you are really clueless in matters of kink, you read through some of my “further readings in sexuality” which can be found on my links page. In the strictest sense, bondage, to me, is about confinement, sensation, and pushing limits in a safe, sane, and consensual environment. It’s also about satiny rope on bare skin, the play of leather on flesh, and many other things. But for the sake of my squeamish readers, I’ll pick this up in another post.

I have hesitated to come out about my membership in the kink community for many of the same reasons I dislike the “Bondage” column. The moment that I admit my alliance with alternative sexuality, you, dear reader, are jumping to conclusions about me. Perhaps it’s merely an “aha! I suspected it all along,” but it might unfortunately be something much darker as well.

I know that kinksters read this blog, because contrary to popular belief we don’t actually spend all of our time tying each other up and leading each other around fetish parties like dogs. Indeed, many kinksters have wide and varied interests, and we all live very different lifestyles. Some of us might look decidedly vanilla at casual glance, while others among us have obviously embraced their roles in the fetish community.

Unfortunately, many people have very…interesting views about alternative sexuality and lifestyles. Sadly, this makes for a lot of prejudice against us. I know people who have been outed at work and fired, been rudely turned down when they ask people on dates, and others who have struggled with a variety of issues relating to their sexuality. In a way, I liken kinksters to gays and lesbians.

Straight vanilla people can generally fearlessly walk up to someone in a coffeehouse and say “hey, that looks like an interesting book, would you like to go out for coffee?”

Gays and lesbians can’t do that, for fear of being greeted with hate speech and rejection. And kinksters, likewise, struggle, because we have to struggle with when, exactly, we bring up our own sexuality. It would hardly be fair for me to ask a vanilla boy out on a date, go through an extended courtship, and then discover that we aren’t compatible at all. On the other hand, that innocuous looking cutie in Headlands leaning over a laptop might be into the same kinds of things I am, but I can’t peer over his shoulder to check and see if Twisted Monk is on his RSS feeds.

Heterosexuals with mundane tastes can live in confidence that they will be accepted by society. Kinksters struggle through their teenage years, with most of us thrashing around until we realize that there is a community and a place for us. And then we have to find medical professionals who won’t chastise us for the way we live, employers who won’t be seized with panic at the thought of what we might have been doing over the weekend, and come out to our friends. Have my experiences been mirrored by all members of the kink community? Of course not, but I would imagine that my words strike chords with many.

Just like I cringe when I hear a gay joke and people laugh at it, I twitch when I hear bondage reduced to humor. Can bondage be funny? Oh, yes, beautifully yes, and humor is very much a part of my sexuality. But it should not, in my mind, be used as a header for a weird news column, because that implies that bondage is weird. Which, certainly, it can be, but it perpetuates a stereotype, like “all tattooed people are scary aberrant freaks of nature bent on the destruction of society” or “all vanilla people only know one sex position.” Why not call the “Bondage” column “Monogamy,” because I have a feeling that monogamy is far more rare and weird than bondage.

It is only through outreach and education that we will find common ground with all people, and distancing ourselves out of discomfort and fear is not the way. Just as I encourage people to treat modified individuals with respect, curiosity, and love, I invite my readers to do the same with the kinksters in their lives. Instead of greeting revelations like “I really enjoy dressing up as a pony and being whipped around a racetrack” with horror, why not talk about the broader cultural world of pony play? Or ask about what it’s like? People don’t come up with personal revelations just to have them sink heavily to the bottom of a conversation like stones, after all.

“Write about ‘the gays,’” Brendan says, so I will write about the gays.

It came to me while I was sitting on the toilet today that all this talk of a “great homosexual conspiracy” which will destroy the fabric of our society is, in fact, complete hogwash. Indeed, I realized, as I rummaged for the toilet paper, which had fallen behind the hot water heater again, “the gays” (and lesbians) may in fact SAVE AMERICA. And possibly the world. Or at least the economy, and the children. Most of this applies to wealthier members of the “gay conspiracy,” not “the gays” in general, but I think you get my drift.

See, here’s the thing about many gay couples, especially in my former base of San Francisco. Many of them tend to be upwardly mobile, well heeled people who want to live in nice neighborhoods. Nice neighborhoods have high property taxes. High property taxes pay for schools along with other cool things like fire trucks. These couples also want to have safe, pleasant places to live with clean streets. And they want to be able to visit safe, pleasant places as well, meaning that they invest time and energy in making their cities clean and awesome to be in.

Some couples also have a lot of disposable income, since they aren’t, you know, raising children. While sensible people save and invest, it is possible to have one’s cake and eat it, too, pumping money into a tired economy. Numerous luxury companies make products which are aimed at the gay community with this very thought in mind. Since many couples also embrace liberal ideals like “buy local,” they spend this money in local stores, rejuvenating the local economy and paying hefty sales tax. This is good for the community in general, not just a single well heeled neighborhood.

Indeed, these aforementioned liberal ideals are important. All that disposable income often goes to support progressive causes, and gay couples don’t spend all their time lobbying for gay marriage and gloryholes on every street corner. They also write their representatives about issues like global warming, lobby for the abolishment of child labor, and participate in community cleanup days. Environmental stewardship isn’t limited to heteros, and neither is caring about children, animals, and the evils of capitalism. They also do things like becoming lawyers, senators, chefs, artists, and everything else in between.

They also adopt unwanted children! When our facist state lets them. This sort of dismisses the Christian idea that being gay is not ok because you don’t have children. After all, I know plenty of het couples without kids, and I don’t see them being picketed when they try to live their lives. Sometimes they also adopt pets, which is a pretty excellent thing in a country which kills millions of cats and dogs every year because no one wants them. And, of course, a lot of those children are the unwanted castings of good Christian girls who couldn’t bear the thought of destroying a precious little fetus.

Also, everyone knows that the gays design the best sex toys, which I think would argue for general societal improvement.

I am constantly amazed by the fact that I live in a society where people seriously think that the sexuality of other people is their business. Many of the same points above apply, of course, to heterosexual couples, which suggests that sexual orientation has less to do with how you behave in society than other things, like personal ethics and values. I’m not quite sure why people get so worked up about “the gays” and their dastardly doings, when they could be doing more important things like volunteering at the library, watering the garden, and soliciting gay prostitutes while they lead major churches. Live and let live, I say!