Laurie Essig

Do you wear your sexuality on your sleeve?

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="240" caption="Image by 2Tales via Flickr"][/caption]

According to Iowa Representative Steve King, queers wear their sexuality on their sleeves while heteros keep it under wraps.  King appeared on a radio show with Tony Perkins, of the Family Research Council (who most recently threw fellow homophobe activist George Rekers over the cliff when Rekers' homoerotic sexual practices were outed by a male prostitute).  During a discussion about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), King stated there is no need for legislation to end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or  gender expression because queers create the discrimination themselves by being so freakin' flamboyant.

if you don’t advertise it, how would anyone know to discriminate against you?' And that’s at the basis of this. So if people wear their sexuality on their sleeve and then they want to bring litigation against someone that they would point their finger at and say, 'You discriminate.' …This is the homosexual lobby taking it out on the rest of society and they are demanding affirmation for their lifestyle, that’s at the bottom of this."

See, now I'm confused.  Because far-right homophobes tell me that everyone should just keep their sexuality (and, I suppose gender expression?) PRIVATE, but then they themselves are so freakin' flamboyant in their straightness.  What's that on your hand?  A wedding ring? What's that with your gender presentation- it's completely as it ought to be, with not a single sartorial signifier out of place?  But still, you're not "announcing" your straightness to the world, you're just embodying it; unlike pesky queers who have to shove their gender presentation and sexual identity in everyone's face. And if I don't wear my sexuality on my sleeve, how can I ever get any where in this world?   Look at poor Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, whom I myself suggested was anything but straight in my previous post.  Now she's gotta go and prove herself to be 100% hetero or the right wing nuts are going to pray her nomination away. The entire thing reminds me of a variety of political asylum cases I have been involved in as an "expert witness."  These asylum seekers are in some way queer- trans, gay, lesbian- and live in Russia, a country where they have no legal protection from being fired from their jobs or kicked out of school, but also where there is rampant and perhaps even state-sponsored violence against them.  The lawyers representing the United States will usually ask me the following:

If no one knew they were gay, then they wouldn't get beat up, would they?

This argument that a better closet would protect us all from discrimination and violence is not exactly the brightest bulb of hope we have for a better future.  Imagine applying the closet elsewhere to issues of discrimination.

If only Latinos could pass as Anglos in Arizona, then they'd never get arrested for looking illegal. If only women could pass as men at work, then there would be no unequal pay for equal work.

Forcing people to pass as if they were part of dominant culture is not really a great plan for ending employer discrimination.  We need a piece of legislation, like ENDA, that would protect people whose sexual or gender expression is other than normative.  Sadly, ENDA's not likely to pass again, both because of right wing idiots like King who think queers should pass as straights and because of cowardly Dems who fear the legislation's protection of "gender expression" (i.e. transgendered individuals) will make them vulnerable in the next elections. But I suppose if ENDA does pass, it will just make those heteros more flamboyant about wearing their sexuality on their sleeves and knowing that no one can fire them because of it.

Family Research Council co-founder a big fag

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="225" caption="Image via Wikipedia"][/caption]

According to news reports, Family Research Council co-founder George Alan Rekers, hired a male escort from Rentboy.com (warning: hot, but graphic site).  That's right, Dr. George,as he is known,  is a big fag! It is so gay to call yourself Dr. George, but I suppose he is a professor of psychology at USC.  Dr. George is also a Baptist minister and has pioneered the "science" to cure people of their homosexuality. Perhaps that's what Dr. George was doing with the Rentboy, experimenting on a new cure?  He certainly denies being a big fag.  According to a statement:

A recent article in an alternative newspaper cleverly gave false impressions of inappropriate behavior because of its misleading innuendo, incorrectly implying that Professor George Rekers used the Rentboy website to hire a prostitute to accompany him on a recent trip.  Contrary to Internet stories based on this slanderous article, following medical advice Professor George Rekers requires an assistant to lift his luggage in his travels because of an ongoing condition following surgery. ... Professor Rekers was not involved in any illegal or sexual behavior with his travel assistant."

It's funny because Rentboy.com has images of men having sex and men masturbating and lines like "get rubbed the right way."  There is no way this is where you would get a baggage handler unless what your really need is a package handler.  It's also funny because Dr. George is such a homophobe.  And because Tony Perkins, president of  the Family Research Council immediately threw him over the cliff by saying:

Reports have been circulating regarding Dr. Rekers relationship with a male prostitute. FRC has had no contact with Dr. Rekers or knowledge of his activities in over a decade so FRC can provide no further insight into these allegations... While we are extremely disappointed... it is not surprising. The Scriptures clearly teach the fallen nature of all people. We each have a choice to act upon that nature or accept the forgiveness offered by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and do our best to ensure our actions, both public and private match our professed positions."

But it's so NOT funny because this feeds the stereotype that all homophobes are actually closet cases.  This actually happened recently at a local college when homophobic incidents were attributed to someone who is probably actually gay. But let's set the record straight (that was funny because it was a pun). The vast majority of homophobes are straight people. But they are never outed for being straight.  Just like most racists are not passing as whites but secretly of color and most anti-Semites are not actually Jewish. When a famous homophobe gets outed for being a big fag, a lot of straight people will say, "See, homophobes are always closet cases."  And then heave a huge sigh of relief that they themselves are straight and therefore not homophobic.   And as funny as it is that Dr. George is a big fag, blaming homophobia on queers is just not funny.

Should merry (ultra right) pranksters go to jail?

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="282" caption="Image by AFP/Getty Images via Daylife"][/caption]

Remember James O'Keefe, III, the ultra-right "merry prankster" who dressed as a "pimp" and brought along a friend to be his "ho" and went into an Acorn office and asked for help starting a brothel? Ah, the most fun I've ever had writing on True/Slant was calling O'Keefe's piece "fantasy" not "news."  Calling him the "Borat of the Right," I pointed out that Mr. O'Keefe's video of Acorn employees supposedly supporting prostitution rings was no more "true" than a Sacha Baron Cohen piece. Sadly, most of the media and nearly all our national politicians saw Mr. O'Keefe's highly-edited clip of Acorn employees trying to respond to his "pimp and ho" routine as an actual indictment of the organization. The website Big Government, who gave Mr. O'Keefe support and a national platform for his "reporting," linked my piece so that I received a lot of hate mail and more than a few death threats.  Less amusing  were the people who called my employer and insisted I be fired. Now Mr. O'Keefe is in deep doo doo and I find myself both wanting to defend his right to be a pain in the ass that is power AND thinking he needs to learn the difference between a prank and journalism. It seems that O'Keefe and a merry band of pranksters went to New Orleans and dressed up like telephone repairman to get "gottcha" footage of Senator Mary Landrieu's staff.

Mr. O’Keefe, 25, ...and three other men... were arrested and charged with a federal felony, accused of seeking to tamper with the office telephone system of Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana. Two of them were impersonating repairmen in the senator’s New Orleans office and were caught after being asked for identification. Mr. O’Keefe said Friday that the four men had been trying to determine whether Ms. Landrieu was avoiding constituent complaints about the Senate health care bill after her phone system was jammed in December. (Her office said no calls had been intentionally avoided.) On reflection, he said in a statement, “I could have used a different approach to this investigation.”

It's funny, right?  I mean, you're suspicious that a Senator is lying about "phone problems" and so you dress up as phone repairmen and ask the staff what problems they're having with the phones.  If you're lucky, you catch them saying "we're not having problems."  Hilarious. But it's not journalism, is it?  It's protest and activism and possibly even a joke and this is where O'Keefe steps over the line of "funny" and "right on" into "stupid" and "send him to jail." There is very little that I would be willing to die for, but our right to protest power while getting a laugh is worth dying for.  We have an obligation to point out the abuse of power.  We have a sacred duty as citizens to do so in the most entertaining manner possible. I myself have staged drag queen bake sales for peace or dressed up like an ultra conservative housewife who believes all our rights should be based on our marital status, including our right to vote. But I have never pretended as if this is "true" or "journalism."  It's protest.  That's the point.  It's clearly absurd.  Even the people who are the butt of my jokes--like Family Research Council representatives responding to my "Heterosexuals for Mandatory Marriage Manifesto"-- know that it's a joke and that the joke's on them. O'Keefe's protests cross the line between staged absurdity and absurd entrapment.  They are less a question of First Amendment rights and more "Boy, do you know there is such a thing as ETHICS, even with your enemies?" So although I support O'Keefe's right to stage as many absurd protests as possible, to throw metaphorical and even actual pies in the faces of his enemies, I must draw the line at presenting these protests as journalism.  I must also draw the line at breaking and entering under false pretenses. There is nothing wrong with standing up in public space and screaming "look the Emperor has no clothes."  There is something sleazy about sneaking into the Emperor's closet with a hidden camera. So although I hope O'Keefe and his merry band of ultra-right pranksters get off with a slap on the wrist, I also hope they learn that there is a difference between protest and journalism, staged absurdity and truthful reporting. And that they learn the lesson that even our worst enemies deserve to be let in on the joke, especially because the joke is on them.

How porn turned me straight

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Image via Wikipedia"][/caption]

So in case you haven't heard, this past weekend at the Family Research Council's Values Voters Summit,  Michael Schwartz, the chief of staff for Sen. Tom Coburn, said porn can turn young boys gay. But because young boys  hate fags more than any other group, this fact could be used to get them to not to look at porn.

SCHWARTZ: But it is my observation that boys at that age have less tolerance for homosexuality than just about any other class of people. They speak badly about homosexuality. And that’s because they don’t want to be that way. They don’t want to fall into it. And that’s a good instinct. After all, homosexuality, we know, studies have been done by the National Institute of Health to try to prove that its genetic and all those studies have proved its not genetic. Homosexuality is inflicted on people.

Schwartz then went on to quote a formerly gay friend who said:

'all pornography is homosexual pornography because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards.' Now think about that.

Think Progress » Coburn’s Chief Of Staff On Keeping Kids Away From Porn: ‘All Pornography Is Homosexual Pornography’. Pornography, as we all know, is a difficult thing for Americans to wrap their heads (although not their hands) around.  On the one hand, we watch more and more of it.  On the other, we are increasingly puritanical about sex outside of marriage. In part, we watch more porn because it's soooooooo easy. The VCR brought the consumption of pornography into the the home. Before VCRs, and later the Internet, pornography was almost exclusively consumed by men (straight and gay in darkened but still very public theaters or through magazines aimed almost exclusively at men).  With the widespread use of video pornography and followed by pornography on the Web, large numbers of women began to consume pornography as well.  Today, according to the Nielsen/Net Ratings, women make up about one third of the audience for the $10 billion porn industry.  The average time spent on an adult site in May, 2008 was five minutes and twenty-two seconds, indicating that Internet consumption of pornography is both everyday and definitely not accidental.    In June, 2008 Insight Express conducted an online survey of more than 200 consumers about their perceived usage of online porn. The majority of the respondents, 67 percent, acknowledged visiting adult websites.  Not surprisingly, more men (85 percent) than women (50 percent) admitted to watching pornography. In addition to the porn we consume, we are also all—women, men and children—increasingly subjected to everyday porn.  Everyday porn— the highly sexualized and commercialized images of mostly female bodies that are meant to incite consumption more than desire- saturates American culture.  Porn stars appear on tee shirts and in music videos. Children's toys, like Bratz, look like porn stars. And celebrities increasingly looking like Playmates even as Playmates are celebrities.   Many commentators have called the ubiquitous presence of commercialized erotic images the  “pornification” of popular culture All of this porn has created a variety of "sex wars" over the dangers of porn.  Some porn scholars and political activists have claimed that porn is in and of itself a form of sex discrimination since it doesn't just represent men committing acts of violent sex against women, it encourages them to do so.  Legal scholar Catherine MacKinnon once went so far as to suggest porn doesn't just cause individual rape, but the systemic sort of rape committed by nation states like that committed by the Serbs in the former Yugoslavia.  Other porn scholars have pooh poohed the idea that porn has real world effects or at least no more than any other form of representation, like advertising. After years of watching, teaching, and writing about porn I am convinced of only one thing: porn can turn you straight.   The truth is that the vast majority of porn is straight.  This porn is generally told as one of excess desire to fuck by the possessor of the penis and to be fucked by a receptive partner.  This partner may possess a vagina, a penis, some combination there of, and most certainly an anus.  One can only imagine oneself, within the limits of easily available and therefore mainstream porn, as either the insertive or receptive partner, but never both or neither. In other words, heteronormative desire is the cultural script that commercial porn gives us over and over again.  And eventually it sinks in: this is what sex looks like, this is how desire works.  It's like advertising that way: this is what is fashionable and beautiful, this is what is ugly.  The more you consume, the straighter you get.  And that's how porn turned me straight.  I watched too much, fantasized myself into it once too often and poof, all desires outside of the heterosexual matrix disappeared. So parents beware: letting your kids watch porn might just turn them straight.

How porn turned me straight

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Image via Wikipedia"][/caption]

So in case you haven't heard, this past weekend at the Family Research Council's Values Voters Summit,  Michael Schwartz, the chief of staff for Sen. Tom Coburn, said porn can turn young boys gay. But because young boys  hate fags more than any other group, this fact could be used to get them to not to look at porn.

SCHWARTZ: But it is my observation that boys at that age have less tolerance for homosexuality than just about any other class of people. They speak badly about homosexuality. And that’s because they don’t want to be that way. They don’t want to fall into it. And that’s a good instinct. After all, homosexuality, we know, studies have been done by the National Institute of Health to try to prove that its genetic and all those studies have proved its not genetic. Homosexuality is inflicted on people.

Schwartz then went on to quote a formerly gay friend who said:

'all pornography is homosexual pornography because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards.' Now think about that.

Think Progress » Coburn’s Chief Of Staff On Keeping Kids Away From Porn: ‘All Pornography Is Homosexual Pornography’. Pornography, as we all know, is a difficult thing for Americans to wrap their heads (although not their hands) around.  On the one hand, we watch more and more of it.  On the other, we are increasingly puritanical about sex outside of marriage. In part, we watch more porn because it's soooooooo easy. The VCR brought the consumption of pornography into the the home. Before VCRs, and later the Internet, pornography was almost exclusively consumed by men (straight and gay in darkened but still very public theaters or through magazines aimed almost exclusively at men).  With the widespread use of video pornography and followed by pornography on the Web, large numbers of women began to consume pornography as well.  Today, according to the Nielsen/Net Ratings, women make up about one third of the audience for the $10 billion porn industry.  The average time spent on an adult site in May, 2008 was five minutes and twenty-two seconds, indicating that Internet consumption of pornography is both everyday and definitely not accidental.    In June, 2008 Insight Express conducted an online survey of more than 200 consumers about their perceived usage of online porn. The majority of the respondents, 67 percent, acknowledged visiting adult websites.  Not surprisingly, more men (85 percent) than women (50 percent) admitted to watching pornography. In addition to the porn we consume, we are also all—women, men and children—increasingly subjected to everyday porn.  Everyday porn— the highly sexualized and commercialized images of mostly female bodies that are meant to incite consumption more than desire- saturates American culture.  Porn stars appear on tee shirts and in music videos. Children's toys, like Bratz, look like porn stars. And celebrities increasingly looking like Playmates even as Playmates are celebrities.   Many commentators have called the ubiquitous presence of commercialized erotic images the  “pornification” of popular culture All of this porn has created a variety of "sex wars" over the dangers of porn.  Some porn scholars and political activists have claimed that porn is in and of itself a form of sex discrimination since it doesn't just represent men committing acts of violent sex against women, it encourages them to do so.  Legal scholar Catherine MacKinnon once went so far as to suggest porn doesn't just cause individual rape, but the systemic sort of rape committed by nation states like that committed by the Serbs in the former Yugoslavia.  Other porn scholars have pooh poohed the idea that porn has real world effects or at least no more than any other form of representation, like advertising. After years of watching, teaching, and writing about porn I am convinced of only one thing: porn can turn you straight.   The truth is that the vast majority of porn is straight.  This porn is generally told as one of excess desire to fuck by the possessor of the penis and to be fucked by a receptive partner.  This partner may possess a vagina, a penis, some combination there of, and most certainly an anus.  One can only imagine oneself, within the limits of easily available and therefore mainstream porn, as either the insertive or receptive partner, but never both or neither. In other words, heteronormative desire is the cultural script that commercial porn gives us over and over again.  And eventually it sinks in: this is what sex looks like, this is how desire works.  It's like advertising that way: this is what is fashionable and beautiful, this is what is ugly.  The more you consume, the straighter you get.  And that's how porn turned me straight.  I watched too much, fantasized myself into it once too often and poof, all desires outside of the heterosexual matrix disappeared. So parents beware: letting your kids watch porn might just turn them straight.