Confessions of a Gay Male Feminist

New Beginnings

2009-07-02T11:02:00.002-04:00

So for months now, I've been promising "exciting news." And, sadly, in preparation for this new beginning, this blog has suffered.

But after months of anticipation, I'm proud to present my official website, www.eric-jost.com.

The Official Eric Jost website (how pretentious sounding) is pretty much going to be a resource for all of my writing -- rather than having it sprawling throughout the internet.

It will also be the location of my new blog. Although it will be a different entity than "Confessions of Gay Male Feminist" -- hopefully allowing my a space to do more varied writings/postings -- I am not throwing my identity as a gay, male feminist to the wayside, and it will still pervade all of my writing in one way or another. I will also keep this blog active as an archive for all of my past writings.

So thank you for sticking with me throughout the past three years (almost to the day), and I hope you will come with me on new adventures.

Peace and Love,
Eric Jost

DOMA Reigns Supreme

2009-06-12T14:23:00.003-04:00

Continuing Obama's policy of ignoring the LGBTQ community -- minus that press release supporting pride -- AMERICAblog has dissected a brief coming out of Obama's Dept of Justice invalidating a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act.

Essentially, the Obama-appointed DOJ says that DOMA is constitutional; same-sex marriage is not the same as interracial marriage and is more closely aligned with a marriage between child and parent; and does NOT discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

WTF?

This is going to be a fun three and a half years for the LGBTQ community!

This is Oz

2009-05-18T21:55:00.002-04:00

In honor of the International Day Against Homophobia (IDAHO) held on May 17, Australian LGBTQ people and their supporters started an online art campaign to speak out against hateful speech. This is Oz features photographs of notable Aussies supporting a diverse and inclusive Australia, and by extension, world.

In (belated) honor of the event, I thought I would post the pics of two of my favorite Australians. The first, Mitzi Macintosh, Sydney's legendary and extraordinary drag queen (whom I sorely miss seeing perform); and the other is Olympic gold medalist, Matthew Mitcham.

Speak out against homophobia.

F*** You

2009-05-06T13:08:00.000-04:00

Cute video. Enjoy!

Sex Ed

2009-04-14T12:21:00.002-04:00

Note: I wrote the following piece for an online magazine that I occasionally work with; but in an ironic twist, they deemed it inappropriate and chose to censor it. So I've posted it here for you all to enjoy.

Also, I know I said I had big news, but its delayed a bit, but I will announce it very soon!

The University of Maryland, College Park, found itself in a bit of hot water recently when word got out that officials planned on screening the hardcore film, Pirates II: Stagnetti’s Revenge, as part of a college-wide discussion on pornography. However, Maryland state senator, Andrew Harris (R-Baltimore County), was not going to stand for this and immediately introduced a bill to the Maryland Senate that would revoke state funding from any public college or university that sponsored the screening of a hardcore pornographic film.

Since Harris’ threat, UMD cancelled the screening, resulting in students organizing a new viewing of the film in defiance of Maryland’s conservative legislators; and a chance to speak out against censorship. Sen. Harris has said that he will push his amendment through if the film is allowed to be shown on College Park’s campus. The film is set to air Monday, April 6.

Sadly, this tactic by state legislators to impose their ideals upon college students seems to be only the latest in a growing number of similar incidents. In February, Georgia’s state legislators threatened to revoke funding from Georgia State University because of several sociology classes that dealt with sexuality, queer theory, and sex work. It seems that conservative statesman have found a new way to impose their ideals on the masses under the guise of eliminating “wasteful spending” and protecting youth.

Regardless of what you feel about pornography, you can’t help but be a little frightened at the prospect of a government strictly controlling what you can or cannot be exposed to at a college that you chose to enroll in and pay for.

I’m surprised that university officials and Sen. Harris’ counterparts didn’t take count of the multitude of events and courses that might very well offer sanctuary to those on campus looking to escape the hedonistic Pirates II. I’m sure that at any given time UMD sponsors several religious meetings of varying denominations, many of which probably preach that pornography is immoral. Certainly the student center has a Young Republicans club in addition to the Young Democrats. And let’s not forget that for every sex positive feminist like Gayle Rubin and Patrick Califia, there are numerous sex negative texts that I’m sure a few of UMD’s women’s studies courses are built on.

Many of the politicians hoping to ban porn from college campuses or eliminate the word “queer” from students’ vocabulary would do best to realize that they are heading down a very slippery slope that could hinder their own ability to indoctrinate young conservatives. After all, how long before a non-Christian legislator demands that all theology is removed from university curriculums on the basis of a separation of church and state?

Just because Pirates II isn’t your bag doesn’t mean you have the right to make everybody watch The Greatest Story Ever Told.

Driftwood

2009-04-07T14:30:00.002-04:00

Nathan Manske recently started the website, I'm From Driftwood, as a means of collecting stories from LGBTQ people around the world. Manske hopes that the site will provide LGBTQ people, specifically teens, an opportunity to feel less alone in the world. That no matter where you are, you are not the only queer person around.

A short story I wrote about living in Kansas City, Kansas recently went up, so if you get a chance, check it out.

Also, I will have some major news to report in the next couple of days.

Women Firefighters

2009-04-02T11:32:00.000-04:00

The international community has been in an uproar over reports of a new Afghanistant law, supported by US-backed President, Hamid Karzai, that severely hinders the civil liberties of Afghan women. However, despite the backlack, the US has remained relatively silent on the issue.

The law panders to Afghanistan's Shi'ite Muslim population (about 10% of the population), making it legal for men to rape their wives, and requiring women to seek their husband's permission before leaving the home. It was signed last month with relatively little fanfare.

Since the law's passing, the UN and human rights agencies have pleaded with President Karzai to overturn the law with no success. Additionally, the text of the law has not been made publicly available, so much of its content is actually unknown or speculative.

Afghanistan MP, Ustad Mohammad Akbari, has actually come out in defense of the law, delivering one of my favorite sound bites on the issue. "Men and women have equal rights under Islam but there are differences in the way men and women are created. Men are stronger and women are a little bit weaker; even in the west you do not see women working as firefighters."

Coupled with these gross human rights violations, I think possibly the most shocking aspect is the near absolute silence on this issue from US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Reports have surfaced saying that while she has privately reprimanded Karzai for the law, neither she nor President Obama have yet to publicly condemn this horrific piece of legislation.

It's interesting because, during my time studying anthropology, we learned about the notion of "cultural relativism." Popular in the middle of the 20th Century, it argues that every culture is unique and should be respected for its individual ideals and values without judgment. As anthropological research methods evolved, however, it was decided that there are certain universal tenets that all cultures must adhere to. Things like murder, incest, and cannibalism are generally frowned upon regardless of context.

And although some may argue that we should respect the Shi'ite's customs this law attempts to "protect," there should never be an instance where the world stands idly by while one group maliciously and vehemently degrades another.

You Wanna Be on Top?

2009-03-30T21:45:00.000-04:00

No one spends more time talking about Tyra Banks than Tyra Banks. However, despite her ego, I have to admit that I love her! Sure she is ridiculous and a bit self-absorbed, but she has worked incredibly hard to get to where she is today.

Plus, America's Next Top Model never gets old no matter how many times I've seen an episode.

Tyra recently accepted the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) award for Excellence in Media, for an individual who has used their position in the media to advance the LGBTQ movement. Past winners have included Billy Crystal, Diane Sawyer, and Julianne Moore.

Below I've posted the clip of her accepting the award (presented by Clay Aiken) which is both incredibly campy and incredibly cute.

The Right to Enter

2009-03-23T15:57:00.001-04:00

I came across a really interesting article in the Chicago Tribune by Dawn Turner Trice describing a recent trend in gay bars to ban bachelorette parties from holding their festivities there. The argument being that because same-sex marriage is such a contentious issue right now (especially post-Prop 8), isn't it a little condescending for a group of heterosexual women to use a gay space to celebrate rights that we are denied?

At the risk of disenfranchising my straight female friends and readers, I must agree with those bar owners who have chosen to ban hen's nights from occurring in what is supposed to be a queer space.

When I worked at the strip club, I would see bachelorette parties there at least once a week, which I found annoying, odd, and somewhat fun. I was glad that these women were comfortable in such an overtly sexual space, even if the sexual imagery was not intended to them. However, it was incredibly annoying, because being a skinny, unmuscular twink at the time, most of the women had no interest in me and would always tip the most heteronormative dancers. And at the end of the night, I wanted my money!

The notion of actually banning bachelorette parties from queer spaces for political reasons is something that never occurred to me, but it does make sense. Even when I go to gay clubs and bars today and see bachelorette parties -- or hear about friends who have them there -- I feel slightly resentful. I know these women generally mean well, but it always makes me feel like they've come to see the freaks. Especially when drag is involved. I just imagine these women recounting the story years later, "Hey, remember the time we went to that gay bar?! Wasn't that just crazy?! We are such fag hags!" These are probably the same women who voted against same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds -- not possibly because they are homophobic or hateful.

I also find it interesting that the women who frequent these bars, as Trice highlights in her article, justify going to them by saying that men at straight clubs are too creepy or gross and they don't want to be objectified.

OK, then just come to our bars so you can objectify us as playthings.

I feel like you can't have it both ways. If I was feeling "too objectified" at a gay bar, I wouldn't pack it up and go to a straight bar -- because I prefer being sexualized to being bashed -- I would just not go to a bar that night. As LGBTQ people, we don't necessarily have an "alternative" space to go to if we're tired of the same old scene. We created queer spaces as a way to feel safe and comfortable in a specific location; and while I sympathize with the desire to go out and not have to worry about prying eyes or grasping hands, no one really has the right to enter another person or group's domain without being invited.

I do want to acknowledge all of my wonderful straight female friends who I would make an exception for. Many of them are out there protesting alongside us. They have stood up and reprimanded people who use anti-gay epithets. And I know more than one of them got me through the very difficult process of coming out.

But ladies, please, before you select a setting for your bachelorette party, consider the implications.

Is Eight Enough?

2009-03-11T11:11:00.000-04:00

For the past couple of weeks, the blogosphere has been captivated with Nadya Suleman, the single mother who gave birth to octuplets on January 26. Since the births, Nadya has been the subject of numerous inquires by the press and the public as to why a single mother, with six children already, would willingly choose to undergo in vitro fertilization and carry eight babies to term. Nadya has blasted reports (some by her own family members) that she will be unable to care for all fourteen of her children, telling NBC’s Ann Curry that she is “loving them unconditionally” and that is all any child needs or could ask for.

Not to jump on the bandwagon, but I find this irreprehensible. This woman, unfortunately, is unemployed, without a partner or caretaker, and already has six other children. Frankly, the Medical Board of California is absolutely correct to investigate the physician who agreed to impregnate her with eight embryos. And I will be interested to see how long it takes before Child & Family Services gets involves as well.

While following this story with great interest, I found it incredibly interesting that the octuplets’ birth was nearly always, unintentionally, juxtaposed with stories about Brad Pitt’s and Angelina Jolie’s brood. It is awards season, after all, and since the happy couple have received their fair share of nominations, the paparazzi has hit overdrive and jumped at the opportunity to see them publicly on an almost daily basis. And this, of course, includes plenty of photos of Brad and Angelina’s children.

In six years, Brad and Angelina have adopted or given birth to six children. But rather than commenting on their ability to take care of their ever-growing family (OK! Magazine reports Angelina wants to get pregnant again very soon), they are universally praised by the press and the public for the mini-UN that follows them from location to location. And few would bat an eye if the couple traveled to South America tomorrow and picked up a few more kids.

I recognize that the financial situations between the Jolie-Pitt family and Nadya Suleman are vastly different. Brangelina are fortunate enough to not have to take care of their children on their own and can hire as much help as is needed. But I can’t help but wonder, adopted or not, is there a point when it is unethical for one or two people to have so many children? We live in an age when overpopulation is the root of so many of our problems that it seems unnecessary and morally questionable for a couple – or single parent – to have more than three or four children, max. Especially those parents fortunate enough to live in Westernized parts of the world and plenty of access to contraception.

I would be more commendable of Brad and Angelina, in particular, if all of their children were adopted (and perhaps if they didn’t parade them out and about in front of the cameras so much). But since they are currently at a 50-50 split between adopted and biological, how are they any nobler than Nadya Suleman?

F-B-Why?

2009-02-24T10:38:00.004-05:00

A recent FBI raid spanning 29-cities resulted in the arrest of over 500 people -- 464 of whom were adult prostitutes. Only 55 customers were arrested during the raids.

Coordinated by the "Innocence Lost National Initiative," the FBI has been conducting raids like this since 2003 under the guise of protecting children and those involved in underage prostitution. This particular sting operation resulted in the recovery of 48 juveniles.

The FBI should be proud of finding these 48 underage individuals involved in prostitution, but the arrest of 464 adult sex workers is absolutely appalling! Coupled with the fact that only 55 johns (and 55 pimps) were arrested only highlights the biases and injustice that currently exists when it comes to prostitutes' rights and civil liberties.

With tough economic times around us, should the FBI really be spending the copious amounts of time and money required to arrest, process, and charge individuals only looking out for themselves? Go ahead and curb child sex trafficking, but leave the adult prostitutes alone.

Got Milk?

2009-02-23T10:01:00.002-05:00

Congratulations to the cast and crew of Milk! Although the film failed to win Best Picture at last night's Academy Awards, it did pick up two of the more prominent awards: Best Original Screenplay (Dustin Lance Black) and the one surprise of the evening, Best Actor (Sean Penn).

Both Penn and Black delivered touching acceptance speeches, so I thought I would post them. And if you haven't seen it already, go see Milk!

Please Vote for Me

2009-02-12T09:07:00.001-05:00

One of my favorite blogs, Queerty, is currently looking for a music reviewer, and as luck should have it, I'm in their final 10 competing for the spot.

So, if you would be so kind, please head on over and vote for me! Thanks!

Australian Bushfires

2009-02-09T10:28:00.002-05:00

My heart and thoughts go out to those affected by the bushfires in the Australian state of Victoria.

Sadly, authorities report that at least 156 people are dead and over 600 homes have been destroyed. Even worse, Australian PM Kevin Rudd has declared that these fires are a result of arson.

To make a donation to the Australian Red Cross, please visit their website.

Wasteful Spending?

2009-02-03T10:33:00.001-05:00

I knew I had one more thing I wanted to address today.

Republican leaders have examined the $900 billion stimulus bill currently sitting in the Senate and identified what they consider to be "wasteful spending."

I just wanted to list a few of the items they consider to be "wasteful:"

$400 million for the CDC to screen and prevent STDs
$125 million for the Washington sewer system
$150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities
$75 million for "smoking cessation activities"
$200 million for public computer centers at community colleges
$25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction
$500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River
$500 million for state and local fire stations
$1.2 billion for "youth activities"
$200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations

Yeah, those are all awful.

Sex & Family

2009-02-03T10:14:00.000-05:00

So two different topics today.

First, the New York-based organization, Sex Worker Awareness, has announced that it is holding a day-long seminar entitled, "Speak Up! Media Skills for the Empowered Sex Worker" on April 18, 2009 in NYC. Current and former sex workers can attend the workshop to gain the necessary skills to speak to the media about the sex industry and sex worker rights. This will be the first workshop of its kind, and as such, is limited to only 10 participants. But they plan on holding similar trainings in other cities in the future. So apply now for this one-of-a-kind opportunity!

Second, take a look at a PSA that Los Angeles station, KNBC, refused to air during the Super Bowl:

Produced by GetToKnowUsFirst.org, KNBC rejected the ad on the basis that the NFL does not air PSAs during the Super Bowl -- despite the fact that at least two other PSAs aired during the broadcast. Visit GetToKnowUsFirst.org to find out what you can do to speak out against this discrimination!

Let's Sacrifice Him to Our God!

2009-02-02T12:11:00.004-05:00

OK, I don't want to spend too much time on this, but I just had two say a couple of things.

First off, Michael, you're famous! Why would you ever let a friend take this picture of you?!?

And second, this is not the end of the world!!! The fact that Michael Phelps was pressured to make a public apology for living the life of a typical 23-year-old is ridiculous! He was smoking pot, not shooting up heroin. Or worse, injecting steroids. Give the kid a break.

P.S. Phelps still has all of his endorsement deals post-scandal, yet openly gay gold-medal winning diver, Matthew Mitcham, still has zero. And he's yet to be charged with drunk driving or had any incriminating photos of him surface.

A Letter to the AFA

2009-01-30T15:25:00.003-05:00

Dear American Family Association,

Look, I get that you hate the gays. I get that you sit on your pedestal and spend all of your time hating. It sucks and makes me sad (not that you hate me, but that you spend all of your time hating). And thankfully, the First Amendment protects your right to hate people as much as you want. And you organize your boycotts and protests, and sometimes they're successful and sometimes they're not, and whatever, life goes on (and it looks like you turned left when everyone else turned right).

But please, I'm begging you, stay within our borders! I don't know if you have failed to realize that your organization is called the American Family Association, so that kind of limits your influence to our 50 states (and those random territories). And, granted, you took your lead from a very imperialistic president who used his power to force his will and beliefs on the international community, but that was wrong and we're in a new era now.

So leave the Pespsi Company alone for marketing to the LGBTQ communities in the UK and Canada! I know Canada is awfully close, but your efforts have successfully kept such "perverted" ads off the airwaves in the states. So stop panicking and just back off a little. In exchange, you can keep your CBN, Hallmark Channel, and ABC Family Channel as gay-free zones (for now). Agreed?

Thanks,
Eric

RIP Kim Manners

2009-01-28T09:29:00.003-05:00

One of The X-Files' most prominent and talented directors, Kim Manners, passed away this week after losing his battle with cancer. He was 58.

Kim directed some of the most beloved episodes of the series, including Humbug, Redux II, and a personal favorite of mine, Home. He ultimately had final say when the show wrapped in 2002, directing and producing the two-part series finale, The Truth (I secretly hoped he would be invited back to direct the third feature film).

After the show ended, Kim moved on to produce the CW series, Supernatural. His television legacy will not be forgotten.

So Long Global Gag Rule - Part I

2009-01-23T17:27:00.002-05:00

Today, President Obama overturned one of Bush's infamous global gag rules, namely, the one that prohibits international agencies that receive US aid from promoting abortion or provide referrals for abortions. This is a momentous moment indeed!

Let's hope he overturns the prostitution global gag rule next.

Anniversaries

2009-01-22T10:12:00.001-05:00

A year ago today, we learned that Heath Ledger died at the all-too-early age of 28. But on the anniversary of his death, Ledger has received an Oscar nomination for his role as the Joker in The Dark Knight -- a role for which he has already won a Golden Globe.

January 22 is also a cause for celebration: 35 years ago today the US Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade, declaring that legal abortion is a fundamental right for all women. And despite setbacks, restrictions, and misguided dogma, American women no longer have to seek out illegal and dangerous methods of terminating an unwanted pregnancy.

With President Obama now in office, we have one of the strongest pro-choice presidents in history -- a man who has repeatedly stood by his belief in a women's right to choose. We can also hope that he'll overturn Bush's "global gag rule," which forbade countries that received funding from the US to support or endorse abortion or prostitution. And with the combination of Obama and an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress, we might finally see the passage of the Prevention First Act (of which Obama was an original co-sponsor), a bill that will endorse and expand comprehensive sex education and make contraception more accessible for all.

Please hold Obama and our elected officials accountable over the next 4 years by making sure they don't abandon these pressing issues. The future has never looked brighter, but we must make sure those in charge don't lose sight of the goal.

NARAL Pro-Choice America
National Abortion Federation
Feminist Majority Foundation
Advocates for Youth
SIECUS

A New Day

2009-01-21T11:55:00.003-05:00

After an impromptou sabbatical, I'm back to begin a new year. I have several projects coming up that I will keep you updated on -- some of which I'm very excited for.

And most importantly, of course, yesterday was the swearing in of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States. I admit that I escaped DC in favor of a warmer climate for the weekend, but the images and stories I have seen and heard are amazing. It's an exciting new time for America and the world, and I remain cautiously optimistic.

A friend of mine sent me a poem by artist, Saul Williams, written especially for the occasion. It reminds us of the progress we made and the distance we have yet to travel.

"We have overcome.

Except those of us now in Gaza. Except those of us whom police kill. Except those of us who are suspects. Except those of us whom the church hate. Except those of us damned to taste good. Except those of us held by fate. We are meeting in the capitol. Word is, freedom will not wait.

All that once was never shall be.
All they could do won’t be done.
All we sang of is now happening.

[note to self:]
Must write
new songs
to become…

...And so it was. Through the collective imagination of the people, the force of will and human potential, and an unflinching ability to hold himself to task, Niggy Tardust was liberated. His ability to see beyond the boundaries and obstacles of 'genre', 'race', and suppression, allowed him to encompass a grace and sound that embodied the all. All that had stood against him, now stood with him. All that had claimed a lesser harmony, now craved voice and resonance. He stood with poets, painters, dancers, students, children of the night who had transformed themselves into a million bright ambassadors of morning, and proclaimed,

'We declare declaratives and deny the official. Based in the landmark of the G-spot, we have overtaken ourselves and overthrown our forefathers. Let there be light within the light and let it answer to the name of Darkness. We are forever risen from the deadly: the anti-virus and the All Stars. Granted power by forces unbeknownst to us. Made in the likeness of kindness. We offer anger to the angry and fear to the fearful. We dance at our own funerals to forsake the mourners…

…This is no time to cry! This is no time at all! Here is the moment of the overlooked and the unforeseeable. We are the elected officials of the people: poets and artists. We are the declarative statement of the inarticulate, the irreparably damaged goods of the bad meaning good. We are the government! We are the government! We are the government!'" - Saul Williams

Here's to a wonderful 2009!

Dear Mr. President-Elect

2008-12-18T13:49:00.001-05:00

Dear President-Elect Obama,

Hi, how are you? I know you're probably busy, what with Christmas approaching and having to prepare for your upcoming presidency. But if you have a moment I just wanted to take this chance to let you know how I'm feeling.

You are the most promising president elected in recent memory -- and certainly in my lifetime. Your fresh ideas, youthfulness, and progressive leanings signal a new era in American politics, and I am excited to see how you handle your new job. And judging by the current state of affairs, you will have a lot on your plate when you assume office on January 20th (incidentally, a day after my birthday).

However, I can't seem to shake this feeling that you are sending mixed messages to the LGBTQ community. Your campaign actively lobbied for our votes. You appointed openly lesbian, Nancy Sutley, to lead the White House Council on Environmental Quality. And your Change.gov website even features this quote prominently displayed in the "Civil Rights" section:

"While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."
-- Barack Obama, June 1, 2007

And then you do something like invite Rick Warren to come and speak at your inauguration.

At first, I did agree with the conservative pundits, and your advisers, arguing that you were reaching across the aisle and attempting to include representatives from every community. It's a noble effort. However, although Pastor Warren has done some positive HIV/AIDS work, at the end of the day, he promotes one thing: hatred towards LGBTQ people.

What I can't help but think is, what would have happened if you had invited Rev. Jeremiah Wright to speak at your inauguration? Although I have no issues with your connection with him, clearly many Americans do, otherwise you wouldn't have distanced yourself when his name came up during your campaign. Surely there would be an uproar! Conservative white-Americans would probably call for your impeachment. Apologies would be issued and he would be uninvited.

Or, if you're trying to represent all communities, why not invite Rev. Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church? Although he leads a small congregation, Phelps does have a voice that is part of the fabric of America. And while many people certainly disagree with him, why hasn't he been invited?

I understand that you can't represent everybody. We don't want this inauguration to last as long as the Oscars. But when you have a limited number of invitations to give out, who receives one of the coveted invites says a lot about your character and your values.

Perhaps I wouldn't be so upset about Rick Warren's invitation if it hadn't come on the heels of your apparent reconsideration of the military's Don't Ask-Don't Tell policy. Again, on Change.gov, you make explicitly clear that you plan to "Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell." However, it was then discovered that -- despite being in two wars -- you probably won't even begin the process of repeal until 2010. And before that, you want to confer with your Joint Chiefs of Staff to make sure it is the right decision. Despite the fact that last year, 28 retired generals and admirals urged Congress to go ahead and repeal the policy. Why would you be so hesitant about such a universally despised policy?

What I am now asking you, sir, is: Can you give us, the LGBTQ community, some genuine assurance that you will work towards equality and not be Bill Clinton redux? Although the economy, Iraq (which Don't Ask-Don't Tell falls under), and climate change should take precedence in your first 100 days, if not your first year, please promise us that you will not stall on issues affecting millions of Americans (more than a simple 2% that Rick Warren believes to be an accurate number).

Right now, I am hesitantly putting my faith in you. I know things, overall, are bound to improve, but I implore you not to forget about those Americans who raised money for you, campaigned for you, ran your campaign for you, and voted for you. We're just as legitimate and patriotic as those Americans, like Rick Warren, who would rather see us creep silently back into the darkness -- and we will still be here when you run for re-election in 2012.

I wish you the best of luck and look forward to the next four years.

Sincerely,
Eric Jost

International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers

2008-12-16T14:21:00.002-05:00

Wednesday, December 17th is the International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers.

The day, created by Dr. Annie Sprinkle in conjunction with the Sex Workers Outreach Project USA (SWOP-USA), highlights the hate crimes and violence committed against sex workers around the world. And although events have been going on all week, December 17th will see a number of marches, protests, and vigils held around the world.

Find an event near you here! As of today, there are events being held in Washington, DC; New York City; San Francisco; Los Angeles; Las Vegas; Chicago, IL; Portland, OR; Tucson, Arizona; Victoria, BC; Vancouver, BC; Calgary, Alberta; Montreal, Quebec; Ottawa, Ontario; Sydney, Australia; Rome, Italy; Copenhagen, Denmark; Paris, France; Geneve, Switzerand; Skopje, Macedonia; London, England; and Manchester, England.

Get out there and raise the alarm around sex worker violence!

Notorious

2008-12-12T09:43:00.003-05:00

On Thursday, Bettie Page passed away at the age of 85.

Bettie was one of America's -- if not the world's -- most famous pin-up models of the 1950s; and one of the first (and only, at the time) mainstream models to play-up S&M sensibilities in an age when sexual expression was severly repressed and frowned upon.

Although she turned to religion later in life and often denounced her infamous images, her impact was unmistakable and she helped to usher in the sexual revolution of the 1960s.

If you need something to do on a cold winter night, please rent the biopic, The Notorious Bettie Page. Starring Gretchen Mol as Bettie, it explores the sexual walls Bettie broke down and reprimand she faced for doing so.

We will never forget you, Bettie.

In the Parade

2008-12-04T11:23:00.001-05:00

Prop 8: The Musical

2008-12-03T10:13:00.001-05:00

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

World AIDS Day

2008-12-01T12:52:00.000-05:00

Today is the 20th annual World AIDS Day. This year's theme is Leadership, calls on world leaders to uphold promises to fight the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

A recent UNAIDS report describes the current state of the pandemic, estimating that 30.9 million adults and 2 million children live with HIV worldwide. The highest rate of infection continues to be found in southern Africa, with 15% to 28% of the region's population infected with the virus.

In the United States, 48% of new infections are born from male-to-male sexual contact; 27% from male-to-female sexual contact and IV drug use; and 16% from solely male-to-female sexual contact. Additionally, African-American men account for 47% of the HIV+ population in the US. And while New York City is the US city with the highest number of HIV+ people, Washington, DC continues to have the highest rate of infection.

While the statistics can be overwhelming and disheartening, we have elected a president who plans on attacking the HIV/AIDS pandemic head on. Barack Obama promises to develop and approve age-appropriate, comprehensive sex education for children; ramp up prevention efforts in our prison population; and increase the distribution of contraceptives and microbicides worldwide. For the first time in nearly a decade, we have a president who understands that half-hearted efforts to combat HIV/AIDS will not do; and Obama's efforts to fight HIV/AIDS will impact the world.

To acknowledge World AIDS Day, I've posted a short music video of Annie Lennox's single, "Sing." Released earlier this year, the song features over two dozen female singers, including Anastacia, Celine Dion, Melissa Ethridge, Fergie, Faith Hill, k.d. lang, Madonna, Sarah MacLachlan, Pink, and Shakira. Proceeds from the single benefit the South African HIV/AIDS organization, Treatment Action Campaign. Enjoy!

A New Day

2008-11-25T11:16:00.001-05:00

After an election season with a mixture of highs and lows, we got a bit of good news on an international scale today.

First, I want to congratulate my Aussie friends on finally receiving federal recognition for same-sex couples. Although Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's Labor Party stopped short from legalizing gay marriage, the Senate passed amendments expanding the definition of "de facto" relationships (equivalent of common law) to include same-sex partners. The rights still have to be passed by the House, but are expected to meet little opposition.

Secondly, a Florida judge has overturned a law banning gay individuals from adopting. The judge stated that there is "no rational basis" for banning gay and lesbians from adopting and raising children. However, the state plans on appealing the decision.

Slowly but surely.

Australian Sex Party

2008-11-21T09:48:00.003-05:00

Sometimes I wonder why I left Australia...

I'll be interested to see how successful the Australian Sex Party is in electing candidates and advocating for its policies. But at least someone out there is pushing for sexual freedom and equality in an organized and political fashion.

The Impact

2008-11-19T00:18:00.000-05:00

Over the weekend, I was able to attend the Prop 8 rally here in DC. The march started in front of the Capitol and then moved onto Lafayette Square; and in spite of the intermitent pouring rain, there was an amazing turn out (organizers estimate around 5,000 participants, but I side with the more conservative estimates that say 1,000). It was great to be part of what some are calling Stonewall 2.0.

As soon as Monday rolled around, the media began reporting on the rallies and the so-called violent actions being taken against Prop 8 supporters. Specifically, there were a couple of reports of protesters entering churches and attacking individuals wearing religious iconography or carrying anti-LGBTQ signs.

Immediately, conservatives jumped at the chance to decry the homosexual agenda and scream religious intolerance. Chuck Norris, Elizabeth Hasselbeck, Sherri Shepherd, Tony Perkins, D.L. Hughley, and Bill O'Reilly have been screaming about the "radical pro-gay activists" who will stop at nothing to see the churches stamped out of existence (Chuck is even fearing for his life, apparently). Likewise, the Mormon church feels unduly singled out for their support of Prop 8 (when people of color, who also voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8, have not received the same retribution). Yet, despite the Mormons' insistence that they're not anti-gay, just pro-marriage, they've yet to support pro-gay bills in the Utah legislature as they promised to do pre-Prop 8's passing.

So, my thoughts on all of this?

First, I love the fact that Prop 8 has reawakened the inner-activist in so many people! The support against Prop 8 and for gay marriage has been amazing to witness and makes me hopeful when I see so many people unwilling to lie down and take it.

That being said, I feel like Arizona and Florida have gotten the shaft. Although amendments to ban gay marriage were also passed in those states this year, the focus has been entirely on California, which admittedly was more of a shock. However, if I lived in Florida or Arizona, I would be screaming, "Wait a minute, what about me?!"

I don't think the Mormons should be singled out as the root of the problem. Yes, the Church of Latter Day Saints raised the most money supporting the passage of Prop 8. And yes, Mormons have been historically hateful towards the LGBTQ community. But it is simply too easy to say, "Had it not been for the Mormons, we would still have marriage in California." Taking violent action or holding protests in front of the Church does indeed draw attention, but it also looks like intolerance. And calling for LDS to lose its tax exempt status is a ridiculous argument, as it will never happen. If we broadened our fight to say "No religious institution should be tax exempt," (which I believe) then we would have a more valid case. But we can't cherry-pick because that is discrimination.

Likewise, I keep hearing scattered voices from inside the Mormon church, mumbling "We aren't all hateful! We disagree with the actions taken in California against the LGBTQ community!" Indeed, Steve Young and his wife, both devout Mormons, did donate to the No on Prop 8 cause. However, if members of LDS are angry with their church's decision to support Prop 8, SPEAK UP! LOUDLY! Don't just grumble about it, show your support! Because by silently disagreeing, you are supporting a homophobic and hateful institution.

I hate how all of these conservative talking heads (like the ones I mentioned above) keep saying, "We aren't homophobic, we just believe in the traditional definition of marriage." If you voted for Prop 8 and don't support gay marriage, YOU ARE HATEFUL! You are homophobic! I don't care if you hide behind your religious doctrines, describing your personal struggle with the issue; if you disagree with gay marriage, you inherently think that your relationships are better than those of your LGBTQ friends and family members, and that makes you elitist and hateful. And I know that harks back to W.'s "if you aren't with us, you are against us" speech, but that is true here. You can't pick and choose on civil rights.

A word of caution to LGBTQ rights activists: although its amazing there has been such strong outpourings of support for gay marriage following prop 8's passage, let's not let California become our sole focus. Although Obama has made a whole bunch of promises to us, he will not carry them out unless we continue to push him. I'm not saying he is dishonest, but he currently has bigger fish to fry and we have to continue to speak up against other inequalities that exist in order to get his attention.

And to echo Obama's sentiments, we have to be continue to push for change everyday, just not one day of the year.

Join the Impact

2008-11-11T09:45:00.003-05:00

This Saturday, November 15, 2008, protests will be held across the country to protest the passage of Prop 8 in California.

Although you all know that I've had mixed feelings with regards to the gay marriage fight, but the Prop 8's passage in a state I love has riled me up -- as it has for millions of others as well. I love that an event has finally occurred that has resulted in millions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and straight Americans standing up and scream, "Enough is enough!"

Change did not occur simply by electing Barack Obama, and the protests against Prop 8 illustrate Americans' commitment to equality, change, and diversity.

Currently, there are protests planned in every single state and in dozens of cities, so check Join the Impact to find the city closest to you. Rallies will begin at 10:30 AM PST/1:30 PM EST.

I will be attending the rally in Washington, DC, held in front of the Capitol.

So call on your friends, family, and co-workers and show your support for equality.

Making it Mainstream

2008-11-10T09:45:00.002-05:00

The article I wrote for $pread Magazine has finally hit the presses!

Making it Mainstream: Sex Workers as Characters appears in the Winter 2008 issue of $pread, which you can purchase here.

$pread is the only national, quarterly magazine published with the purpose of illuminating the sex industry and its workers. Produced by an entirely volunteer staff, $pread's team works to destigmatize sex work in humorous, provocative, and enlightening manner.

To find out how you can get involved with $pread, click here.

To find a store near you that carries $pread, click here.

Culture Voyeur

2008-11-07T15:34:00.002-05:00

One of my latest undertakings is a weekly column for Advocates for Youth's new online community, Amplify.

My column, Culture Voyeur, will expand on themes that you have already seen here -- namely, the media and sexuality -- and hopefully explore brand new ones.

The first article, Oops!... I Didn't Know We Couldn't Talk About Sex, just went live today!

So check it out and be sure to check the site weekly for my latest musings.

Fighting Spirit

2008-11-06T09:59:00.003-05:00

After being in a malaise for a day, I have picked myself up and my excitement over an Obama presidency has taken over. It will take a little while, but we will fight on.

Although it seems that San Francisco's Prop K seems to be sidelined for now, it is impressive that 42% of San Francisco voters (89,833 people so far) voted for recognizing a sex worker's right to work safely and without fear of legal retribution. It is an incredibly promising step in the right direction.

I was incredibly moved by the protests that broke out all over California last night in opposition to Prop 8's passage. It was only passed by a thin margin (52%), and although it is tempting to give up, all is not lost.

Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights have filed a writ petition with the California Supreme Court, arguing that Prop 8 is invalid because it inherently violates the constitution's core value of equality for all.

Non-resident Mormons may have been able to drum up enough support to turn out hate-filled homophobic (which you are if you voted for any of the anti-gay ballots) voters on election day, but the California Supreme Court has recognized discrimination once before, and it will again.

As Obama's election showed us, Tuesday was not at all the end of equality (despite the passage of local measures in California, Arkansas, Florida, and Nebraska), it is the dawning of a new era and we must not give up. Fight or die. Resist or serve.

Bittersweet Victory

2008-11-05T10:59:00.003-05:00

Last night, when Obama was declared victor, I was ecstatic! I was in a cab with my roommate, Amy, heading back home when NPR announced the projected results. Amy screamed in delight. I cheered. And outside of the cab, people danced, cheered, and a wave of joy washed over the citizens of DC (Washingtonians vote overwhelmingly democratic, with 93% of the population voting for Obama).

McCain's concession speech was touching and humble (McCain's supporters, however, failed to follow their candidate's lead). Obama's speech was magnificent. I predicted that he would immediately alter his slogan to, "Yes We Did!" but he realistically described the tasks at hand, hoping to avoid the divisive state America was in after the 2000 and 2004 elections. To say I was excited would be an understatement.

Then I decided to check on the ballot initiatives I had been following, and my sense of joy was immediately put in check.

Every single anti-gay initiative -- in Arizona, Arkansas, and Florida -- passed. Although California has yet to be declared, it is almost certain that Prop 8 will pass and amend California's constiution to ban gay marriage.

Prop K in San Francisco also failed, and sex workers will continue to be punished simply for performing their job (and I love CNN's flippant remarks on the measure).

However, I'm trying to see past the setbacks toward the victories. Obama IS President! We now have a third openly gay Congressman, Jared Polis, after he won his seat in Colorado's 2nd district (although not all of the precincts have reported in yet). And Democrats hold majorities in both the House and the Senate.

Reproductive rights also won on all fronts last night, with initiatives hoping to limit a woman's right to control her body in South Dakota, Colorado, and California all failing.

Terminally ill patients in Washington state now have the right to ask a doctor to help commit suicide.

Although Nebraska chose to end Affirmative Action, Colorado did not.

Michigan will now fund stem cell research and allow medical marijuana. And Massachusetts decriminalized possession of one ounce or less of marijuana.

But California still hurt.

I feel like a friend just confessed to me that, although they have been nice to me to my face, they have been bad-mouthing me behind my back for years.

But this is only the beginning of change, and I hope that the next four years will see some progress like never before....

Countdown

2008-11-03T09:59:00.000-05:00

Tomorrow is the big day....

American Stories, American Solutions

2008-10-30T10:34:00.002-04:00

I must admit, when I first heard about Obama's 30 minute infomercial, I was skeptical. I thought it could either very pretentious or very hokey. I imagined Obama sitting in an armchair in front of a fire reading a book. Suddenly he would look up, a surprised look in his eye, "Oh! I didn't hear you come in. Take a seat, please. Would you like anything to drink?" And he would begin his thirty-minute lecture on why he would be a great president.

Fortunately, that was not the case. On my friends' recommendations, I watched the ad this morning and must admit it is very well done and quite moving.

Don't forget to vote this Tuesday, November 4th!

Down to the Wire

2008-10-29T10:56:00.001-04:00

Obama's Closing Argument:

Don't forget to vote this Tuesday, November 4th!

Vote!

2008-10-28T12:00:00.003-04:00

The Election is just a week away. Regardless of the outcome, the presidential results will be historic. Pollsters are already reporting record numbers of early voters, which is incredibly promising.

Additionally, many states have initiatives on the ballots that may or may not restrict civil liberties to a wide variety of inidividuals.

Regardless of your feelings, please get out and vote!

And just FYI, here some things you might consider:

President/Vice President:
Barack Obama/Joe Biden

California:

No on Prop 4 (Parental notification of abortion)

No on Prop 8 (Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage)

San Francisco:
Yes on Prop K (Decriminalize prostitution)

Arizona:
No on Prop 102 (Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage)

Arkansas:
No on Prop 1 (Bans adoptions by non-married individuals)

Colorado:
No on Amendment 48 (Changes definition of person to include fertilized egg, embryo, and fetus)

Florida:
No on Prop 2 (Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage)

Michigan:
Yes on Prop 2 (Allows donation of embryos for stem cell research)

South Dakota:
No on Measure 11 (Bans all abortions)

Washington:
Yes on I-1000 (Legalize self-administered lethal injections in terminal ill patients)

Environmentalists for Obama

2008-10-23T10:25:00.003-04:00

Don't forget to vote on Tuesday, November 4th (or beforehand if you have the option)!

Yes on Prop K

2008-10-22T10:22:00.004-04:00

With all of the attention being paid to Prop 8 on the California ballot this year, the media, the public, and frankly, myself, completely overlooked the amazing ballot initiative currently going on in San Francisco.

On November 4th, San Francisco voters will have the chance to vote on Prop K, which would effectively decriminalize prostitution within the city limits.

Although prostitution remains illegal in the US, Prop K would effectively remove arresting, interrogating, and prosecuting sex workers from the police's authority. This would save San Francisco taxpayers millions of dollars and give sex workers the opportunity to report violence to the police without fear of arrest or retribution.

So if you live in San Francisco, or know someone who does, spread the word! Vote Yes on Prop K!

Chelsea Handler on Prop 8

2008-10-22T10:04:00.002-04:00

I love Chelsea Handler!

California voters, please vote no on prop 8 on November 4th.

A Message to Sarah Palin

2008-10-21T09:40:00.001-04:00

From the young girls of America.

Women for Obama

2008-10-20T11:37:00.001-04:00

Don't forget to vote on Tuesday, November 4th!

Obama Pride

2008-10-16T10:19:00.000-04:00

Don't forget to vote on Tuesday, November 4!

McCain-Free White House

2008-10-15T12:18:00.001-04:00

Only 20 days left until Election Day. If your parents or someone you know is thinking of voting for McCain-Palin, please talk to them!

$pread Magazine Call for Staff

2008-10-09T11:02:00.002-04:00

Next month I will have an article appearing in the latest issue of $pread Magazine, a national quartely sex worker publication. If you have never seen $pread (it is hard to find), I suggest you check it out online or go to your local feminist, alternative, or queer bookstore and pick up a copy.

Now, $pread needs to replenish its volunteer staff due to several of the magazine's staff leaving for various reasons over the past year. Right now, they are seeking out editors, an art director, financial director, ad director, and new media director. They currently don’t have the resources to coordinate with long distance volunteers so they're looking for people in the NYC area who can attend weekly Sunday meetings and dedicate at least ten hours a week to $pread (although you don’t need to be able to work during regular office hours).

Volunteers MUST be reliable, self-motivated, and willing to jump in at the deep end and pitch in with whatever needs to be done. They are specifically looking for people with design skills, but we need general volunteers too. They also ask that you make a commitment to $pread for at least a year. Although this is a lot to ask of unpaid staff, $pread has always relied on such dedicated volunteers.

So, if you live in New York and care about $pread, please put your life on hold and step up to help us get through the next year. Email info@spreadmagazine.org if you can help.

Vote No!

2008-10-08T11:37:00.003-04:00

The economy is shit. Millions don't have health insurance. And we have troops fighting wars abroad that aren't serving much purpose.

Yet, there are still states out there concerned with gay marriage.

The most prominent ban on same-sex marriage up for a vote is obviously that in California. Celebrities and CEOs have poured money into the "Vote No on Prop 8" campaign in an effort to keep same-sex marriage legal. And while it seemed like Prop 8 was going to be struck down by a wide margin, recent polls have shown a voter shift -- especially among young voters -- in favor of passing Prop 8.

So a call to action to all California voters: Vote No on Prop 8!

And while California has received the most attention, we must not forget that amendements against same-sex marriage are on the ballots in Arizona (Prop 102; this will be the second time Arizona will vote on this issue) and Florida.

Never Forget

2008-10-06T13:24:00.000-04:00

It was 10 years ago today that Matthew Shepard was brutally beaten and left for dead in Laramie, Wyoming.

In 2006, the FBI estimated that 15.5% of all hate crimes were based on sexual orientation.

Despite numerous attempts and widespread support, Congress has yet to successfully add sexual orientation, gender, disability, and gender identity to the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act; which would authorize federal investigations and prosecution into these crimes. No further attempts have been made to add these to the Act since 2007, due to Bush's promise to veto the additions.

John McCain has voted against adding these classifications to the Act repeatedly.

Register to vote (today is the last day).

And never forget: Matthew Shepard (1976-1998).

Gays vs. Republicans

2008-10-03T16:10:00.004-04:00

Before I get started, there a few related-items I want to discuss.

First, I love that the Family Research Council sponsored a protest in my neighboring suburb of Fairfax, Virginia against a local library that refused to carry a number of ex-gay books. Although I don't necessarily agree with the banning of these books, you know that the Family Research Council would be (and probably has been) the first in line to remove any remotely gay-positive literature from that same library.

Secondly, after watching last night's debate, there is just something I have to say to the Log Cabin Republicans out there: Fuck you! Are you fucking kidding me?!? A McCain staff member appears at your gathering at the Republican convention to tell you how "valued" you are, and you all just eat that shit up. I understand fiscal conservatism. My father is fiscally conservative. However, how on earth could you vote for a set of candidates who can only promise not to actively infringe on your rights as an American?!? And McCain's record on LGBTQ issues -- among other social concerns -- is questionable at best. And, as HRC conveniently illustrated in a five minute video (see below), Sarah Palin would rather see us dead. And yet you are still voting for them?!? Really?!?

Anyway, last night was the highly-anticipated vice presidential debate between Sen. Joe Biden and Gov. Sarah Palin. This was the one debate I've thoroughly been looking forward to (Palin jokes have been circulating my office's email leading up to last night's showdown), and like the first McCain/Obama bout, I was disappointed. Both candidates spoke very well, and aside from a few Bush-like mispronunciations and apparent refusal to answer some questions, Palin was not as inherently stupid as we thought her to be (but, as Barbara Walters pointed out, she's been cramming for this all week so I'm sure she won't let us down in the future).

Less than 24 hours after the debate, political pundits and media analysts have already dissected the exchange to no end -- ultimately declaring Biden the winner, but commending Palin for not embarrassing herself.

Despite the lengthy exchanges on the war and the economy, the thing that really struck me was the short discussion on, I'm sure you can guess: gay marriage! Once again, Biden stood by his and Obama's anti-marriage/pro-civil unions stance (one that I'm sure would quickly shift for the positive if Obama reaches the second term of his presidency); and Palin was generous enough to inform the public that she would be more than willing to "tolerate" gay commitments, and that she and McCain would surely not do anything to infringe on visitation rights or the legality of signing contracts (what these contracts are for, I'm not sure). She also referenced her "lesbian friend of thirty years" that she first brought up in her interview with Katie Couric, and who almsot certainly exists.

The Human Rights Campaign released a video today addressing Palin's "tolerance" of the LGBTQ community which is actually incredibly interesting (and faithful readers know my apprehension towards the HRC). It provides a glimpse into what Palin has, in the past, done to make sure LGBTQ people feel welcome in her town and home state.

I must admit, although I am happy when LGBTQ issues are mentioned on a larger political scale, I was again annoyed that the only queer line of question the moderator could come up with during the debate was about same-sex marriage. Although there is a lot of acceptance at this point, its still so divisive that I'm willing (as usual) to let it go for a while. How about a moderator force McCain and Palin why they would or wouldn't pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)? Or why or why not add sexual orientation and gender identity and expression to the list of protected and investigated federal hate crimes? I think the public would have been appalled to hear that Palin thinks LGBTQ people deserve to be fired from their jobs (unless they pray that gay away).

In short, I would love to see Obama and McCain answer some non-marriage-centric questions in their final debates -- it would be incredibly illuminating to hear some of McCain's official stances. Maybe he's not really a bad guy and the Log Cabin Republicans are right. Maybe he would just lock me up in a concentration camp rather than kill me. But with as much time as people expect McCain to actually survive the presidency, it seems like Palin might be a little harsher.

Don't Vote

2008-10-01T16:33:00.002-04:00

AIDS Walk Washington 2008

2008-09-29T11:28:00.002-04:00

This Saturday, October 4, I will be participating in AIDS Walk Washington 2008, benefiting and produced by Whitman-Walker Clinic.

One in twenty DC residents is infected with HIV, so raising awareness and money to benefit prevention and treatment is of the utmost importance.

To register to walk, visit the AIDS Walk's website. The walk begins and ends at Freedom Plaza (14th & Penn Ave) and lasts from approximately 9:00am to 11:00am.

If you're unable to make it on Saturday, please make a donation through my donation page.

I've participated in the Walk three times before and it is always a lot of fun (even if it is very early).

The Great Schlep

2008-09-25T10:50:00.001-04:00

Sarah Silverman has recorded a hilarious video to encourage young Jewish voters -- and their grandparents -- to vote for Obama in the upcoming election. Check it out!

The Great Schlep from The Great Schlep on Vimeo.

Get Stupid

2008-09-16T10:20:00.002-04:00

We all heard the fuss McCain's camp made over the imagery Madonna has been using throughout her Sticky & Sweet Tour (comparing McCain to Hitler, while Obama is likened to Ghandi). Finally, the official, high-quality video from the tour has hit YouTube, so I decided to post it.

As usual, thanks Madge.

Little Britain

2008-09-15T10:03:00.002-04:00

I recently read an article that the West Hollywood Gay and Lesbian Alliance is angry with HBO's decision to produce and air Little Britain USA, starting on Sunday, September 28, at 10:30 PM EST.

Although I do often take note of LGBTQ rights groups complaints against the entertainment media, I must come out in defense of this particular series. Little Britain is one of the funniest shows I have seen in years! Little Britain USA will essentially be the fourth season of the show, and I highly recommend that you locate a rerun on BBC America, or add it to your Netflix queue.

I understand that LGBTQ people might find the show offensive -- as might the differently abled, women, religious, and the Scottish -- but seeing as how the show is written and performed by David Williams and openly gay Matt Lucas, I tend to give them a pass on, especially, gay humor (I have a bit more difficulty not taking offensive when gay jokes are written by straight, white men (i.e. Ricky Gervais).

I am very excited for the US premiere of Little Britain and hope you find a way to catch at least one episode. My favorite characters from the series are Marjorie Dawes and Dame Sally Markham.

(P.S. I first became aware of Little Britain through a drag show at the Imperial Hotel in Sydney (featuring my favorite drag queen, Mitzi Macintosh), which is showcased in the documentary "Little Britain Down Under." Check out a clip of the show here.)

"I Probably Should Have Wanted it More"

2008-09-15T09:43:00.002-04:00

Check out this hilarious sketch from the season premiere of SNL, featuring Tina Fey as Sarah Palin and Amy Poehler as Hillary Clinton.

Ring of Hope

2008-09-08T11:20:00.001-04:00

Last night, MTV held their annual attempt to remain relevant, also known as the Video Music Awards.

I want to offer congratulations to Britney Spears, as she took home three video music awards for her video, Piece of Me (Female of the Year, Pop Video of the Year, and Video of the Year). Although not her best video, it was nice to see her in the spotlight again looking less crazy. It is really depressing, however, to watch the VMAs and realize that Britney is the old lady. When did that happen?!

Although my interest waned and I did not watch the entire awards show (I was most interested in seeing Britney’s appearance, and Pink’s and Christina Aguilera’s performances), something that stood out to me was the new Disney-cultivated, up-and-coming artists who all seem tied together by one single fact: sex is the enemy and should be avoided at all costs.

The host for the evening, British comedian Russell Brand, joked about the Jonas Brothers’ (who are they, and why are they famous, by the way) commitment to remain abstinent until marriage. This, of course, led singer Jordin Sparks to defend the brothers while she presented an award:

Thank you, Jordin, for showing us the light. Without your words of wisdom, legions of teenagers would have descended into the darkness that is unbridled passion and an appreciation of the body. I’m also glad that you are clearly in touch with LGBTQ rights, understanding the conundrum facing same-sex couples who do not have the right to marry everywhere and, by your logic, should remain abstinent for all of their lives. Or long-term heterosexual couples who choose not to get married (remember Jordin and Jonas Brothers, not everyone wishes to get married); I suppose they’re destined to remain celibate forever.

I have no problem with people choosing to remain abstinent – good for them! It takes a lot of willpower and they might be happier with themselves in the end. However, why are these purity-ring wearing celebrities able to judge the rest of us who aren’t so sexphobic? It’s not like I’m forcing the Jonas Brothers to suck my cock; or paying Jordin Sparks and Miley Cyrus to partake in a little girl-on-girl action (although I think none of them would be opposed to those scenarios, if you believe the MySpace photos and tabloid articles). They’ve made a choice and they must be able to deal with the ridicule without being judgmental – the same way other stars whom have used their sexuality to gain attention have been ridiculed.

You know, not to date myself, but in my day, pop stars weren’t afraid to be slutty, and that’s how I likes ‘em. And at least they weren’t as judgmental as these good-Christians seem to be.

Double Standards

2008-09-04T17:59:00.000-04:00

Oh GOP, when will you ever learn?

Thank you Jon Stewart.

Twilight on Independence

2008-09-02T17:27:00.000-04:00

You’ll notice I finally changed my “Current Reading” to feature the new series I have gotten into recently: Twilight.

And, before you let me know, I recognize that I am the millionth person to jump on this bandwagon. I became aware of a movie being based off the first novel several months ago; and coupled with my best friend’s admiration of the series, I decided to give it a shot and have found this teenage vampire romance fairly enjoyable.

For those of you unfamiliar with the books, Twilight is told from the point of view of Bella Swan, a seventeen year old girl who moves to Washington state and falls hopelessly in love with Edward Cullen. Edward, as it turns out, is not seventeen as Bella initially believes, but is actually a 104 year old vampire.

Twilight has presented me with an odd dilemma. Unlike Harry Potter, which I thoroughly enjoyed from beginning to end, I find the Twilight series rather odd. As a writer, Stephenie Meyer has odd pacing. Her books meander along with any semblance of a plot only revealing itself in the last hundred pages. Additionally, I had a moral dilemma towards the end of the first book upon learning that Stephenie Meyer is a Mormon and whether or not I could continue to support her writing (which I decided I could overlook this time around).

However, the most interesting aspect of this series comes from the fact that the main character/narrator, Bella Swan, is the most insufferable, whiny, anti-feminist character in recent memory.

There are moments in the series where Bella becomes almost bearable, but for 90% of the novels, Bella Swan’s very existence and reason for being hinges on her love for this man, Edward. When things take a turn for the worse and it seems like Bella might never see Edward again, what is her reaction? Attempting suicide (which could be interpreted other ways I suppose).

I’ve never before so passionately hated a character in a series that I otherwise enjoy. The vampire lore has been incredibly interesting; and many of the supporting characters are thoroughly enjoyable (my favorite being Jacob Black). And despite wishing her dead page after page, I continue to remain interested in Bella’s fate. Otherwise, why would I continue reading the book?

I suppose I am so frustrated with the character of Bella because I am well aware that Twilight’s targeted audience is teenage girls. Meyer does a comprehensive job of describing the feeling of falling in love for the first time, depicting all of the highs, lows, and frustrations. However, does a teenage audience really need to read about a girl who would rather die than be without her teenage lover? Does Stephenie Meyer understand the message she is sending when a character can no longer function independently of her significant other? Is Twilight actually a gothic love story, or more of a manual to codependency?

I am about 100 pages into the third book of the series, Eclipse, and it is as enjoyable as the first two novels. However, I keep hoping that Bella will awaken from her daze and is able to enjoy her time with Edward without giving up he identity. I still have one more book to go, so don’t disappointment Ms. Meyer.

The Circle is Now Complete

2008-08-29T11:11:00.004-04:00

So, McCain has picked his running mate: Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin.

I personally had never heard of Gov. Palin until about twenty minutes ago, but after a bit of research, I have a question: How can any candidate from Alaska not be an environmentalist?!

Additionally, she is very anti-choice and although she "has gay friends," she is against gay marriage. This leads me to my next question: What self-respecting gay person would be friends with someone who fundamentally thinks they don't deserve the same rights as a heterosexual person?

McCain has clearly picked Palin for only two reasons, neither of which being her experience and her politics: she is a woman and she is young. He's clearly hoping all of the Hillary supporters will jump at the chance to see any woman so close to the presidency -- despite the fact that Palin shares nearly none of Hillary's political beliefs.

But I guess we will just have to wait and see if any of the undecided voters/Hillary supporters are foolish enough to fall for McCain's trickery.

While I am now worried about the outcome (despite an amazing speech by Obama last night), I can't wait to see Biden tear Palin apart during the Vice Presidential debate.

I Want to Believe

2008-08-27T10:16:00.001-04:00

As I'm sure you might have heard, The X-Files: I Want to Believe was released in July.

I've remained fairly silent on the issue (as I've sadly let my blog fall into disarray over the summer), but I thought this was a funny comic strip courtesy of Joe Loves Crappy Movies.

As for my thoughts on the film: I liked it. It was by no means my favorite movie (or episode?) of all time, but it was just fun to see Mulder and Scully back together again! It brought back so many old memories; and especially seeing it with my equally obsessed friend, Emily, was a blast.

P.S. If you do see the movie, stay through the credits. The brief scene following the film is so adorable! Goodbye Mulder and Scully. We'll miss you.

Visibility

2008-08-27T10:05:00.002-04:00

Although I have long been an Obama supporter, it was nice to finally see a Democrat who mentions gay rights in public, rather than leaving his/her significant other to address the issue at LGBT-only events.

Wonderful speech, Hillary! Perhaps your camp will be less inclined to sentence us to another eight years of horribleness. But we'll see...

Matthew Mitcham

2008-08-25T10:53:00.005-04:00

Congratulations to Matthew Mitcham, Australian Gold Medalist in the 10m Platform Dive at the 2008 Beijing Olympics!

Too bad NBC decided not to mention the fact that Matthew was quite possibly the only openly gay male athelete at this year's Olympic games.

Grind the Vote!

2008-07-29T09:51:00.002-04:00

From Sin City to the Big Apple, sex workers are organizing for political and economic justice. It's time to organize our sex worker electorate into a political force and "Grind the Vote"!!!

Join us for politically-inspired performances and a rockin mid-week dance party with:
Strip-tease!
Drag acts!
Raffle!
DJs Bent & Kofi!
Burlesque!
Drink specials!
Learn about sex worker rights struggles in DC, register to vote, and kick it with some of the coolest and sexiest that DC has to offer...

Grind the Vote will be held on Wednesday, July 30 at BeBar from 9:00 PM to 2:00 AM. BeBar is located at 1318 9th St. NW, Washington, DC 20001 (Metro: Convention Center).

Go to www.spreadmagazine.org for more information, and check www.hips.org and www.differentavenues.org to learn more about how to support local sex workers.

The Future of Marriage Equality

2008-05-26T18:40:00.000-04:00

I have had a very busy week. I started a new job and have been doing a lot of additional writing in my spare time. But in the past week I have had plenty of time to contemplate the recent goings on in California, namely the state's Supreme Court's ruling that banning same-sex marriages is unconstitutional.

This is, of course, a momentous occasion. I extend my humblest congratulations to all of those California citizens and couples who now have the opportunity to get married, and I wait with baited breath for the images from Ellen DeGeneres' and Portia de Rossi's wedding, in particular.

In the past week there have been dozens of articles and op-eds written on what this ruling means; not only for California but for America on the whole. The opinions range from exuberantly positive to those who are more hesitant about the Court's decision. Did they go to far? Will there be an injunction to stop the rule's enforcement until the voters get a chance to have their say? Will a proposed amendment banning same-sex marriage be passed in November? Basically, the same speculation and conjecture that has touched every state where gay marriage has become a hot button issue.

California, of course, is a unique state in the marriage equation. It is quite possibly the most liberal state in the Union. And after Arizona defeated such a ban two years ago, most would expect California to follow suit. Additionally, the state has some of the most progressive LGBTQ laws and legislation in existence, so allowing same-sex marriage is the next logical step.

While I am not at all opposed to the progression of marriage in the US (and perhaps will one day even benefit from similar laws, if I choose to), I want to reaffirm my stance that the LGBTQ movement should again take a step back and, in the midst of celebrating, remind ourselves of the other equally as important fights that we face ahead, both nationally and in the state of California.

HIV+ immigrants are still not allowed to enter the US.

LGBTQ youth still make up a significant portion of all homeless population.

LGBTQ youth continue to face bullying and abuse at school, with few states taking initiatives to stamp it out.

Same-sex couples still have difficulty sponsoring foreign partners for green cards and citizenship.

The ex-gay movement continues to gain momentum, with little mainstream opposition or vocal outcry.

As baby boomers age, we also see a large number of LGBTQ elders who will also need adequate and supportive care.

Prostitution remains illegal in all but one state, affecting the health and safety of thousands of sex workers regardless of race, gender, and sexual orientation.

Anti-immigration bills attach further stigma not only to LGBTQ immigrants, but all illegal immigrants in general.

LGBTQ people of color historically face more opposition and discrimination from their own communities for a variety of reasons.

Several states continue to take initiatives to ban adoption, foster care, and second parent adoption by LGBTQ individuals.

Comprehensive sex education continues to be denied to millions of students every year.

LGBTQ service members are denied the the right to serve openly in the military while fighting for our country.

And, of course, federal bills to protect LGBTQ people from employment and housing discrimination, as well as giving them protected status under existing hate crimes legislation, have been consistently voted down or vetoed by Congress and/or the current President (and with Ted Kennedy's health now in question, we may very well lose one of the movement's strongest supporters, with no one in Congress seemingly set to take his place).

Again, California has taken several steps to rectify many of the aforementioned issues; and other states have done the same in light of the federal government's lack of interesting in extending protections to LGBTQ people.

However, perhaps HRC, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, and other queer advocacy organizations -- as well as allies -- should extend as much support and money to fighting for these other issues that affect all LGBTQ people, rather than just those few who have a desire and an ability to get married.

Beyond Masculinity

2008-05-18T18:28:00.003-04:00

I have a bit of good news today.

After a(nother) long absence, I can finally start updating again since I am officially settled in my new house in Washington, DC. So stay tuned.

In the meantime, I am very pleased to announce that I have a piece appearing in the newly published online anthology, Beyond Masculinity: Essays by Queer Men on Gender and Politics.

My piece is entitled "Stripping Towards Equality," and it contains some familiar stories and themes that my regular readers should pick up on.

Please be sure to check out the other authors' work as well, as there are some really amazing and wonderful essays here.

I hope you enjoy!

That's So Raven

2008-05-01T19:21:00.000-04:00

I have a confession....

I love Raven-Symoné.

This past Tuesday I ventured out to Best Buy to purchase Madonna's new album, Hard Candy, but was also secretly anticipating another new release: Raven's self-titled album. And, surprisingly, Raven's CD held it's own when played next to the Queen of Pop's latest creation.

Before I am lambasted for my attraction to this teenage-girl icon (although she is, in fact, 22), I want a chance to explain myself (though I won't hide my appreciation for her new album, and her previous release).

Despite my infatuation with the stereotypical gay icons (Madonna, Kylie, Britney, Christina), I have successfully avoided being sucked into liking these new up-and-coming Disney-harvested singing sensations. I have nothing against Hilary Duff, but would by no means call myself a "fan." But I loathe Miley Cyrus and her alter-ego pop persona, Hannah Montana. I have seen an episode or two of Miley's series, but can frankly see no reason why she is as popular as she is (overlooking those recent Vanity Fair photos). And her outspoken devotion to god as a reason to remain abstinent and "not become the next Britney" further turns me off to the entire Cyrus clan.

I'm taking this time to praise Raven because I feel, despite building a $400 million empire, her efforts have often been overlooked And why is that? Raven herself has been very candid in interviews, attributing the fact that she is a full-figured Black woman as the primary reason the paparazzi has shown little to no interest in highlighting her successes.

This is actually one of the primary reasons I am such a Raven aficionado. Whereas we have witnessed Miley, Hilary -- and even recently, Britney (again) -- struggle to maintain a slender figure in an effort to capture the limelight, Raven has embraced her image wholeheartedly and, unfortunately, she has suffered for it (if you view celebrity suffering as lack of media coverage).

However, even listening to her new album, I am acutely aware that I am not her primary audience. Songs like, "In Your Skin," "Stupid," and "Shorts Like Me," serve as anthems for women (and perhaps men) of all ages to be proud of themselves and their physique. She's also taken a unique path and used her official website, Raven-Symoné Presents, as means not to strictly self-promote, but create and upload free instructional videos for people of all ages, illustrating various household tips.

Additionally, it seems that despite her lack of media coverage, Raven has finally owned this blessing in disguise and now works hard to keep her private life private. Whereas Hilary Duff and Zac Efron are constantly in the news, with reporters speculating on their relationships and personal lives; Raven has taken the opposite approach and adamantly refuses to discuss her own relationships and family issues (as recently seen in her interview on Chelsea Lately).

My only hesitation with Raven, in general, is that because she does not discuss anything other than work, we have absolutely no idea what her political affiliations and personal beliefs are. Why this is not always important for many fans, it is something I am always conscious of -- and, for instance, why I became such a fan of Christina Aguilera. I have this horrible fear that in spite of Raven's work for the Black community and encouraging young women to embrace their differences, she is overall quite conservative. And while this might not be a deal breaker, it would be disappointing.

But until then, I applaud Raven's efforts and hope she will serve as a continual balance to the Miley Cyruses of the world.

OMFG! Sex on TV!

2008-04-29T16:10:00.000-04:00

Let me apologize for my sporadic postings over the last couple of weeks. I mentioned that I was undertaking several new projects this Spring, and they seem to have all come together at one time. Although I don't want to give away many specifics yet (they will come soon), I do want to announce that I will be moving back to Washington, DC at the end of next week. It feels odd to be returning, but I think it will provide me with some new opportunities.

That being said, I came across a news item that caught my attention yesterday.

The Parents Television Council is currently up in arms over a series of ads promoting new episodes of the CW show, Gossip Girl. The ads feature a rapid fire series of images while the acronym, "OMFG," repeatedly flashes over them. The PTC is demanding the ads be pulled because of their suggestive nature and what OMFG stands for.

Might I just say that I nearly fell out of my chair to hear the CW's Head of Marketing defend the campaign by saying that "OMFG" can mean whatever you want it to mean.

Oh my fucking god, is he serious?!?

I am by no means taking the PTC's side, but clearly the CW knew what they were doing when they dreamed up this marketing campaign, and now they must own it. To go onto news channels and declare ignorance is ridiculous, but in light of the PTC's complaints, what else were they really going to say?

In defense of the CW, let's ask ourselves: Who's really watching Gossip Girl? We can take that literally (does anyone watch what's on the CW?) or look more specifically at the show's audience breakdown. Although I've never seen the show myself (although, in all honesty, these sexed-up ads have guaranteed my netflixing it once the DVDs are released), I am familiar enough with the show and the book series it was based on to know that it follows in the vein of Beverly Hills 90210 and the film, Cruel Intentions. That being said, the people -- adults, teenagers, and kids -- tuning into Gossip Girl know what they're getting into when they tune in each week. And the show already has a reputation for being scandalous and voyeuristic that parents who would prefer their children not watch it are able to block it or turn off the TV while it is on (which should be the extent to which censorship is enforced in homes).

Additionally, this protest of the CW's ad campaign is just one of many of the PTC's grievances with TV. Looking through their website, they pretty much keep an up-to-date catalog of shows that do and do not feature sex and violence (and their rating system is easy enough to understand for parents). However, their weekly list of "Best Shows" on TV are nearly all ones that feature no storyline (aka reality shows). Additionally, they are very anti-LGBTQ (based on their previous outcries).

Although I can't flat out condemn the PTC -- they are providing a service that many parents would find useful. However, in addition to highlighting the negative sexual imagery and excessive violence, perhaps they should also be asking: Who on TV is practicing safe sex? Is it portrayed in a positive manner? Are the LGBTQ characters in positive relationships? Is drug and alcohol use shown in a responsible manner? And so on and so forth. Because for every parent out there wanting sex stripped from the television set, there is very likely one who would like to see the characters on their teen's favorite series make responsible choices (whatever you deem those to be).

Crossover

2008-04-18T16:51:00.000-04:00

I have long been a loyal View viewer (as I believe I've mentioned in the past). For many years, I have seen co-hosts come and go and have personally witnessed Barbara Walters' deterioration into senility. Recently, however, I have grown frustrated with the daytime talk show. It seems that the ladies have taken a staunch sex negative attitude with regard to the seemingly never-ending sex scandals involving prostitutes, gay interns, threesomes, and slick politicians. And while I especially love Whoopi and Joy Behar, they seemingly reserve nothing but judgment for the sex workers who find themselves involved in such entanglements.

My final straw came the other day, however, when one of my favorite porn stars, Jenna Jameson, made her first appearance on the show to promote her new (mainstream) film, Zombie Strippers. Take a look:

Just look at the disdain these women hold for Jenna; whom, as she proves here, is an incredibly intelligent and adorable woman, and not at all ashamed of her experience in the porn industry. Barbara and Whoopi barely say one word during their entire interview. Joy looks as though she'd rather be anywhere else than interviewing Jenna. The only one who is remotely jovial towards Jenna is Sherri Shepherd, who usually provides the most conservative voice of the group (often more so than Elizabeth Hasselbeck).

The ladies' contempt for people who don't fit their preconceived ideals is nothing new. Kathy Griffin (who obviously is not a sex worker) has spoken of Barbara's hatred towards her for years. And Rosie O'Donnell was fired simply for doing her job of adding a queer, albeit loud, voice to the show.

What I found most depressing about this interview was that Jenna spends most of the time discussing her desire to cross over to the mainstream and the difficulties she anticipates. The women seem somewhat interested, but seem to represent the mainstream public's and Hollywood's ideals that porn stars can never be anything other than just that: porn stars (an idea I've held for quite some time).

Jenna makes the interesting point that people probably are so hesitant towards her mainstream crossover because, unlike other sex workers who have attempted to make the leap, she has refused to renounce her past (unlike Traci Lords and Linda Lovelace). And didn't we see a similar fate only recently when American Idol contestant, David Hernandez, refused to acknowledge or renounce his time as a stripper, only to be voted off the show soon thereafter.

I suppose that if anyone were to make the successful jump from porn to "mainstream," though, it would be Jenna Jameson. She is already very well-known and has a loyal fan base who might very well follow her wherever she goes (I know I will). What I love about this interview is that she has such a relaxed attitude towards the entire transition. She recognizes that her first film is very camp and tongue-in-cheek and seemed to have a good time making it. And if that is her "mainstream" niche, then that's great! John Waters has made a career of writing and directing bizarre and campy films, and perhaps Jenna Jameson will do the same.

If she is successful, I sure do hope that the ladies of The View are bit nicer to her next time.

What a Feminist Looks Like

2008-04-02T22:05:00.001-04:00

I recently became aware of a great public service video produced by the Feminist Majority Foundation.

If you've ever wondered what it means to be a feminist and why it is important to identify as such, please watch this video. If anything else, it's cute and uplifting.

The Fantastical World of John McCain

2008-04-01T14:49:00.000-04:00

The race to the White House continues to push forward and with each passing day we are reminded that new leadership is on the horizon -- despite the fact that this race seems to have begun long before George W was "elected" in 2000.

And while I am beginning to tire of Clinton's and Obama's ongoing antics, we are privileged to find humor in the most unlikely of places:

Republican nominee, John McCain.

Mr. McCain made two faux pais recently, highlighting the mental fragility that comes from being old enough to recall where you were when the Archduke Ferdinand was shot.

The first fault by our friend John came when, questioned by a student about gay rights, McCain revealed that he did not know what the acronym, LGBT, meant or referred to. He then went on to reaffirm his support for the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

Later on, and possibly more embarrassingly, McCain decided to show off his extensive knowledge of health care and HIV/AIDS while being interviewed by a reporter. When the journalist asked McCain, "Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?" McCain replied, "You've stumped me." And after a few awkward moments, called on an aide to locate some information on the subject and to "find out what [his] position is."

I will forgive McCain for not knowing what LGBT means. Republicans are far too concerned with labeling the LGBT rights movement as the evil "homosexual agenda," that I understand how he'd be caught off guard when asked to address a significant portion of America's population by the appropriate name. And since most news outlets continue to use the phrase, "gay and lesbian rights," rather than LGBT, GLBT or queer, it is expected that many people who are not as connected with the LGBT community don't know all of the buzzwords and acronyms.

However, when a presidential candidate is so ignorant that he does not know how to best prevent (aside of abstinence) the transmission of a virus that has infected at least 40 million people worldwide, I honestly begin to question his mental capacity to lead successfully. Had he simply responded with the typical conservative quote regarding HIV/AIDS and condom use -- "there is still a lot of debate surrounding the effectiveness of condoms" -- he would have saved himself the humiliation of having to ask an aide what his own policy is.

Perhaps McCain is just tired from campaigning so much. Although Hilary and Obama are duking it out to the point of exhaustion, McCain has ten and twenty years on them, respectively; so I'm sure he tires and becomes disorientated quicker than either one of them. Maybe he should take a holiday and tune in to Barbara Walters' special on how to live to be 150 years old. I hear there are some tips on how to prevent memory loss, so perhaps he can learn how to retain all of those news and policy briefs his aides prepare for him everyday.

Or perhaps the next time he gets his Viagra prescription filled, the pharmacist could slip in a simple pamphlet on the effectiveness on condom use against HIV/AIDS and STIs.

You Gotta Have Faith

2008-03-24T22:55:00.001-04:00

It takes a lot of work to enter into and maintain a relationship. The fear of being rejected. The awkwardness of the first date. The nervousness about the first fuck. And then the attention and upkeep that is necessary to maintain the relationship. Ultimately, successfully conquer any of these milestones we must all have a little faith.

Faith, unfortunately, has never been my strong suit.

I recently took an informal survey of my friends and discovered that many of the most optimistic with regards to love and relationships are the ones who not only have faith with regards to relationships, but are also the ones who were raised with or currently have religious faith. Even as a new relationship currently looms on my horizon, I find my potential partner to be quite religious; and in fact, is more confident in our ability to function as a couple than I am (which I'm sure he greatly appreciates hearing).

As someone who wasn't raised religious and isn't particularly so nowadays (if at all), I find myself wondering: Are those people who have be exposed to some kind of structured spiritual faith better fit to enter into a healthy relationship than those of us who haven't?

The question of faith first entered my consciousness as I began wondering why I am so nervous to begin a new relationship. Although I have been dating fairly frequently, I have not been in what I would classify as a relationship in quite some time. So why all of a sudden would I be worried at the prospect of one? The man in question has made it perfectly clear he is interested, going out of his way to express his feelings. Yet, I have remained skeptical.

Suddenly, I find myself questioning my ability to commit and my willingness to enter into a relationship that may or may not last. And while I remind myself that "forever" is not the goal, it is hard to remind myself that even a short-term relationship can result in its own share of happiness, fun, and love. Shouldn't I have faith that no matter what my initial hesitation may be, the resulting relationship will be somehow worthwhile (after all, I've known this man for nearly four years already)?

It is quite possible that my faithful-friends who claim to be laid back about relationships are actually just as hesitant and nervous as I am. For who really wants to admit that idea of someone loving them unconditionally is a rather intimidating prospect? However, are those people who are comfortable entering blindly into religious faith more comfortable doing the same for a relationship?

My inability to do so might actually have less to do with faith and more to do with personal insecurities. But despite my hesitation, I want to try and overcome my fears and perhaps not only end up with a wonderful relationship, but maybe a little faith in myself and others as well.

Decriminalization

2008-03-12T21:00:00.001-04:00

In light of New York Governor Spitzer's recent sex scandal and resignation, George Washington University anthropology professor, Patty Kelly, wrote an article that appeared in the LA Times advocating for the decriminalization of prostitution. I thought it was a wonderful piece and, rather than ranting on my own, decided instead to direct you all to her article. Enjoy!

"Decriminalize prostiution" by Patty Kelly, Los Angeles Times, March 13, 2008

Freedom of (Hate) Speech

2008-03-09T23:50:00.000-04:00

Oklahoma State Representative, Sally Kern, recently delivered a anti-gay speech to a group of conservative constituents who called on her to speak on the issues of homosexuality and GLBT rights. The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund recently released a video putting images to Rep. Kern's speech, which has subsequently gained a significant amount of attention. Here is the video:

Sally Kern's speech has been met with equally divisive and impassioned reactions. While many people have decried Ms. Kern and called on her apology and even resignation, many others have defended her right to free speech (without agreeing with what she said), while some have even applauded her "courage to speak the truth" (read some of the responses to the Victory Fund's video as an example of all the various views).

I hesitated to write about this issue, or even to post the video. I feel that, like much of the media attention given to the Westboro Baptist Church, Sally Kern's rant should not be rewarded with the media and public attention its receiving. Here is an unimpressive Oklahoma state representative who suddenly finds herself being interviewed by CNN, ABC, and MSNBC (and probably glorified by FOX News). And for what? A speech made to a couple of dozen conservative Christians who feel exactly like she does. Let's not give her the pleasure of seeing her name in the newspaper or on TV.

Kern has since come out defending her speech and refuses to apologize. She says, "What I'm saying I believe in. . . There are indisputable facts that show it's a deadly lifestyle." She says as an American she can't deny GLBTQ people rights, but as a Christian she believes the lifestyle is wrong.

Let me say that I feel Kern has the absolute right to say what she said in public. However, as history and current events show us, the right to speak freely does have its limitations -- one of which being public scrutiny. And in the time of camera phones, YouTube, and blogging, we live in an age where everything we say can be cataloged and easily referenced at any given moment. Something I, myself, have faced in my own line of work.

As someone from and currently living in the Midwest, I am happy to hear and read so many comments from Oklahomans saying that not everyone in their state feels the same way. Unfortunately, while a California state representative might be censured or called upon to resign (or even voted out of office), I am curious to see what -- if any -- retribution Sally Kern actually receives for her hateful comments. And while I'm grateful for those Oklahoma residents speaking out against Kern, I fear that a state that is one of thirteen to not include hate crime laws covering sexual orientation and gender identity; has no nondiscrimination laws; and overwhelmingly banned gay marriage and civil unions in 2004 will do little to address Kern's bigotry.

At this point I think it might be a little extreme to call on her resignation. Let the voters throw her out of office; and if they re-elect her, they will be forever known as the community endorsing such hate-centric values. But perhaps this public scrutiny and severe backlash will result in the Oklahoma state legislature turning this negative media attention into something positive. Namely, addressing one of the issues I listed above.

Stripped Away

2008-03-04T21:29:00.000-05:00

Although I have never had an interest in the series or most of its winners, I feel I must address the most recent American Idol scandal: Contestant, David Hernandez, was once a stripper in a gay male strip club.

I must admit that I'm excited to hear that Hernandez has not been eliminated from the contest because of his past involvement in the sex industry (Frenchie Davis was not so lucky when nude pictures of her were found on a pornographic website). And I would absolutely love if Hernandez would come out and confront these allegations (and pictures), proudly stating that he was a stripper and has no regrets about it (if that is indeed the case). Issues surrounding Hernandez's sexual orientation have also arisen but have taken a back sit to speculation about his former career.

Hernandez's past and lack of disclosure actually got me thinking about the current status of sex workers in the US. We are currently in an age where porno chic continues to be the norm for (female) celebrities. Bestselling books have been written by exotic dancers describing their experiences in the industry. A former stripper just won an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay. I have even written an essay appearing in an upcoming anthology describing my own experience as a stripper and my feelings about the current state of sex worker rights.

However, despite the supposed mainstreaming of sex work, we continue to live in a culture where having once worked in the sex industry is still scandalous. And although being a stripper or a phone sex operator can lead to interviews on late night talk shows, there continues to exist a hierarchy whereby prostitutes and escorts are frowned upon and made out to be social pariahs.

Why is this?

I suppose most of it can be reduced to legality. Porn actors and strippers are legally sanctioned in most states to go about their business. However, since prostitution remains illegal in 49 states, admitting to a past that involved prostitution is a one way ticket to condemnation. I would love to know how the American public would feel if Diablo Cody or David Hernandez admitted to not only dancing for clients, but also engaging them in more illicit acts.

The apparent "outing" of Hernandez also indicates that while stripping can enhance a woman's media standing, male and transgender sex workers remain on the fringe of society. Most of the articles and news reports dedicated to discussing Hernandez's career were all laced with a rather sardonic tone. One of my favorite late night talk show hosts, Chelsea Handler (of E!'s Chelsea Lately), flat out said she thought male stripping was a ridiculous profession. And although it is easy for me to simply such statements as being indicative of the lack of respect given to male dancers, it reinforces the mindset that only women can be viewed through a sexually explicit lens -- regardless of who the viewer is.

What we need now is two things to happen. First, we need Hernandez to come out and address the allegations without denying the reports. And secondly, we need a celebrity -- any celebrity -- to stand up and say "Yes! I was a prostitute and I am not ashamed!" And maybe then we can shift America's attitudes slightly in the right direction.

Steinem's Call to Arms

2008-03-04T07:21:00.000-05:00

Gloria Steinem recently got into trouble for comments she made regarding John McCain's war record. Ms. Steinem, while speaking to an audience in Texas, inquired as to whether or not being a POW and being trained to kill opponent soldiers was qualification enough to be elected presented. This closely follows Steinem's comments saying that sexism is more rampant in the US than racism, as evident by Obama's apparent lead in the polls over Hilary Clinton.

I must admit, I first became aware of the supposed Steinem-backlash upon seeing Joy Behar and Elizabeth Hasselbeck argue it out on The View (for those of you who are unfamiliar with The View, Hasselbeck is a staunch conservative and called Steinem "evil").

Let me start by saying that I have enormous respect for Gloria Steinem: She was and is a revolutionary. However, I personally take offense to her ongoing and very public anti-pornography/anti-sex worker stance. However, I must admit that I have mixed feelings towards Steinem's comments.

For years, I have wondered why we put so much emphasis on a military career when electing a president. Now, before I'm inundated with a flurry of insults, I do indeed understand that being President means being Commander in Chief of the military. However, I believe that by serving in Congress or in a previous President's cabinet (say, as Secretary of State) and the experience gained can negate the lack of actual military service. Especially if surrounded by veterans on your staff or in your cabinet.

However, I do think that Steinem's remarks are insensitive towards John McCain's specific situation. Although I don't much care for the man, it is a rather harsh generalization to say McCain's service did not lend him at least some credibility.

What interests me more, actually, is the minor uproar over her racism vs. sexism remark, for several reasons. The fact that Steinem is at the center of so much controversy is evident of how sexist and anti-feminist the country is. Being a woman should by no means give Steinem a pass to say whatever she wants without criticism; but the fact that we have female (and people of all genders, frankly) writers, reporters, and political pundits denouncing sexism as non-existent is ridiculous and ill-informed. Maybe these women should compare salaries with their male counterparts before they're so quick to denounce feminism and declare sexism dead.

However, I don't think this particular election is indicative of America being less racist than it is sexist. Frankly, I believe that Americans are about equally hateful to all people, and the real test will be whether or not a woman or black man is capable of beating yet another billion-year-old, straight, white man.

Only time will tell.

RIP Lawrence King

2008-02-28T20:35:00.000-05:00

Ellen recently used her talk show to address the murder of openly gay student, Lawrence King, who was murdered by a classmate because he was gay.

I'm a little behind the times in addressing this issue, and I apologize. I would have thought that since it has been nearly ten years after the brutal killing of Matthew Shepard we wouldn't be facing tragedies like these, but apparently I was wrong.

Please visit one of the following sites to learn how you can offer support to the family and how we can stop future tragedies.

Stil Hiding in the Commercial Closet

2008-02-25T23:20:00.000-05:00

Since returning to the US, I have spent what little down time I have catching up on the various televisions programs I missed while in Australia. Brothers & Sisters, Desperate Housewives Ugly Betty and Men in Trees have all been on my list and I feel slightly overwhelmed by the amount of episodes I must watch (because god forbid I miss any).

As I have been catching up, I have been exposed to an inordinate amount of ads and commercials. What surprises me is that, despite the fact that all of my shows have GLBTQ supporting or recurring characters, I have yet to see one advertisement to include an obvious queer person or even same-sex couple. However, when I have tuned into Bravo or LOGO, I see several (not a lot, but a significant number) of commercials that appeal directly or indirectly to GLBTQ audiences. So what are advertisers -- or perhaps the networks --so afraid of that queer-themed commercials are banned from network television?

I first began realizing the oversight while watching the gay Super Bowl this past Sunday, namely, the Oscars. As my friend Jessica and I tuned in to the entire three hour event, I became aware of the lack of GLBTQ imagery. This is the awards show that celebrates an industry made up of queer people. Award winners thanked their same-sex partners. A former stripper won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay. And each year, some straight actor seems to get nominated for his or her portrayal of a GLBTQ individual. Yet, at each commercial break, a series of ads showcasing what "American Living" is (I'm not sure if that is the exact title nor do I remember what the product being advertised was) featured images of opposite sex couples getting married or with children, and not once included any type of GLBTQ individual.

I suppose the lack of queer ads might not surprise most, but even Australia had car commercials that would include same-sex couples. So to suddenly go from subtle inclusions to a climate where every commercial is heteronormative has been a bit of a culture shock for me.

The Commercial Closet is a watchdog organization that monitors all advertising for any and all positive portrayals of GLBTQ, as well as all homophobic, transphobic, and sexphobic imagery. And while we have seen the creation of a GLBTQ network and many GLBTQ-themed television shows, why are mainstream marketing teams so afraid to be the slightest bit queer-inclusive? And if the change has been so gradual and only affected a handful of companies, has the Commercial Closet been instrumental in creating that change? (At least such an organization exists)

I guess the severe backlashes faced when companies (like Ford) do create GLBTQ-targeted ads tends to scare off other advertisers from doing the same. However, despite the fact that some organizations refuse to use queer imagery, there have been more and more that have donated money or sponsored GLBTQ events. It is just now time for them to take the next step.

Surprise

2008-02-19T01:56:00.002-05:00

Ages ago, I said I had some plans and projects lined up for 2008 and I can finally reveal a couple of them.

First, I am actually writing to you all from the US. Sadly, I needed to return and leave Sydney indefinitely. However, I have not yet settled on where in the States I'm going to be, but will hopefully know soon and will keep you updated.

Secondly, an essay I have written is being included in the first issue of the online magazine, Storyscape: The Literary Journal of Champions. The authors (and editors) are all incredibly talented and this is a wonderful collection of stories, essays, poems, and artwork. Unfortunately, my procrastination has resulted in my inclusion being slightly delayed, but it should be added any day now, but I will keep you updated; and in the meantime, enjoy viewing all of the other contributions.

I have a few more things to inform you of really soon, but don't want to give too much away. Just keep checking in and I will let you know as soon as possible.

Peace.

Sorry

2008-02-12T09:46:00.000-05:00

Although I am not an Australian citizen, I want to follow Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's, the Labor party's, and millions of Australians' lead and extend my apologies to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who were murdered, kidnapped, brutalised, and generally treated poorly by early white colonial settlers. Additionally, this apology can by no means make up for the brutality carried out by the Australian government throughout the 20th and 21st Centuries, and barely begins to address the ongoing racism present in modern day Australian culture.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Indigenous Australians' plight, the Sydney Morning Herald published an article summarising the point of the apology and why it is so necessary.

Again, my apologies on behalf of all non-Indigenous individuals currently living in Australia, and I hope this is a first step towards reparations and equality.

My Official Endorsement...

2008-02-11T04:41:00.000-05:00

...Not that I have much influence.

Yes We Can.

Evolution of Masculinity

2008-02-02T19:42:00.000-05:00

While on the bus recently, a group of high school boys coming from a rugby game boarded. They sat several rows in front of me and I could overhear bits and pieces of their conversation. Instead of hearing the typical discussion of sports players and plays, I was surprised to overhear a barrage of gossip. The four boys talked over each other excitedly, discussing the latest scandals involving their classmates. Needless to say, this was not at all what I expected.

Several days later, while at a straight bar with my friend Alice, two men, whom we perceived to be straight, shared a bottle of champagne while gossiping about work.

Needless to say, these two conversations left me a little bit baffled.

Since its earliest incarnations, feminism has attempted to deconstruct masculinity and trace its evil origins. Likewise, gender and queer theories further examined masculinity (and femininity) as entirely socially constructed; with academics and activists advocating for a shift in what is meant to be masculine. Unfortunately, after decades, I continued to see an overwhelming indication that few straight-identified (and some queer) men took any notice to masculinity's detrimental effect on society.

As I witnessed these two aforementioned incidents, however, I began to wonder: Are we seeing the lines between appropriate male and female behaviour finally being blurred? And perhaps this will finally be the redefining of gender that many of us have been waiting for?

Several years ago, as we might all remember, the US, in particular, experienced the phenomenon of the metrosexual revolution. Led by Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, this movement claimed to be the next step in cultural consciousness for straight men. We were apparently witnessing the birth of a new order of heterosexual men -- those who buy expensive clothes, watch what they eat, cry at movies, and enjoy manis and pedis.

Ultimately, Queer Eye came and went and many of its victims reverted back to their old ways. Any "true" metrosexuals have gone about their business without being the leaders of any long-lasting cultural revolution (much to the chagrin of many upscale boutiques, I'm sure).

What some failed to realise with the metrosexual phenomenon is that, sure, Queer Eye made straight men interact with gay men, but it wasn't actually doing anything to redefine masculinity in its modern form. It just coated the homophobic, chauvinist tendencies with a fresh coat of lip gloss and hoped for the best. In fact, so-called metrosexuality was more about consumption and consumerism than anything else.

But overhearing those boys on the bus really made me wonder if I was looking at a new breed of up-and-coming straight men (or maybe not-so-straight). Granted, a couple of informal observations does not lend itself to definite proof, but when I'm used to hearing young boys and men shouting and cursing on the bus, this gave me definite hope. Perhaps in this generation, we will see many of the archaic notions of masculinity disappear and a new masculinity will rise from its ashes.

Birthday Wishes

2008-01-19T01:08:00.000-05:00

Today is my 24th birthday.

To help me celebrate this momentous event, I must ask that everyone go out immediately and see the movie, Juno. I saw it last night and it is the best film I have seen in months, if not in the past year.

Not only is it hilarious, poignant, and well-acted, it is written by former stripper and blogger, Diablo Cody.

Do yourself a favour and see this film.

Peace to you all.

Where to Find God

2008-01-16T06:51:00.000-05:00

I was recently have a conversation with two of my best friends here in Sydney, Alice and Tim, and discovered an incredibly interesting fact with regards to their religious views. It seems that both of them -- self-proclaimed agnostics at the very least -- wouldn't be opposed to raising their kids religious if and when the opportunity arises. They both cited they own personal backgrounds of being raised very religious and identifying that aspect of their respective childhoods as being instrumental to their growth and development. Learning the tenants of Christianity, it seems, gave them a jumping off point from which to personally explore the world around them.

Granted, Alice and Tim would not teach their children to follow religious doctrine so, well, religiously; but rather, to give them a perspective of how faith can be used to affect the world around them and encourage them to explore all aspects of faith and religion before settling on one, if any.

It surprised to learn that my partners in crime had such strong views about the importance of religion. Whenever I have thought about having kids (which is usually only a passing fancy), I have found myself adamantly not wanting to raise them religiously. I have seen how organised religion can bring about so much individual pain and suffering and would not one to wish that upon anybody, especially individuals whose lives I would be responsible for. This is not to say I wanted to forgo all aspects of spirituality in their upbringing. No, I have always wanted to raise possible-future kids with a knowledge of spirituality through meditation, yoga, and classes about world religions in general.

However, listening to Alice and Tim talk, I felt like I had missed out on something. I was not raised religious. I probably went to church (Methodist) half a dozen times and wasn't baptised until I was eight-years-old. Most of my religious understanding has come from my own personal exploration. Taking religion and philosophy classes in high school and at uni. Reading the Bible and studying Buddhism, Wicca, Judaism, and the Kabbalah. Going on my own spiritual journey by practising yoga for going on five years and learning about chakras and energy paths and fields. I was entirely satisfied with my own background in religion, faith, and spirituality; but hearing about my friends' experiences did make me somewhat regretful for not having the childhood experience of going to church or temple. In fact, my mom has told me that her biggest regret is not taking me to church more because she's afraid I don't believe in god.

I suppose, however, that I am happy with my own upbringing. Although I respect Alice and Tim's experiences, and perhaps do envy them a bit, I do not wish I could go back and change things. In fact, I often wonder how much more difficult my coming out and sexual exploration would have been had I been devoutly Catholic or Muslim. And while kids may never be in my future, if I do happen to become a parent, I'd like them to have a perspective in what's out there rather that have to undo years of indoctrination later in life.

Decisions Decisions

2008-01-09T06:47:00.000-05:00

As 2008 rolls onward, the world is privy to one of those time-honoured traditions: the election of the American President.

I can hardly contain my excitement.

Despite my being on the other side of the world, I am closely following the primaries currently under way across the States. Part of me is dreading returning to the US and having to be inundated with all of the election campaign coverage; but another part of me is excited at the prospect of having new, revolutionary leadership in the White House.

A year ago (God, has this really been going on that long?!), I spoke about my hesitation over some of the Democratic candidates and how I was not much of a fan of any of them, for various reasons. However, as the candidates have devoted more time and energy into their campaigns, I must admit that I am faced with an internal struggle plaguing many left-leaning individuals: Do I support a woman or a black man?

Yes, I am afraid to admit, that despite my once backing of Bill Richardson. Despite my general feeling of indifference to Democrats in general (as opposed to my general dislike of Republicans), I find myself falling into the trapping of having to choose between Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Fortunately, since I'm not registered with a party, I'm not allowed to vote for the primary in Kansas -- thus, my decision will ultimately be made for me.

For the past few months or so, I had come out as a Hilary supporter. I felt that I had to stick by the girls on this one, and I generally did admire and respect her. However, in recent weeks, I found myself growing more and more frustrated with her campaign. She was seemingly unable to respond to criticisms by her opponents; and we have all witnessed her gradual shift to the middle as the election has drawn closer.

Since 2005, I have been a vocal Obama decrier. After seeing him speak at a conference about sex on television and hearing about his favouring of censorship (more or less), I knew that he was too conservative for my tastes. However, as my interest in Hilary waned, I begin researching Obama a bit more and spending hours on his campaign website reading exactly what his policies are. In fact, he is the only Democratic candidate (well, out of the top four) who spells out explicitly what he will do if he is elected on pretty much every issue you could imagine. To my surprise, I found that although he is pretty moderate, I don't dislike many of his policies (even the compromised ones). I also feel that -- from what I've read -- he has run a really tight campaign and has come off the best of the Democratic candidates. The only aspect of his history/policies that currently hurts Obama -- not so much in my eyes, but in the public's -- is his lack of experience. But after the Iowa results, I thought that I was comfortable with my backing of Obama.

Then the teary, humanistic interview with Hilary Clinton was aired and she proved victorious in New Hampshire, and I remembered why I was initially attracted to her (besides her gender). Unfortunately, I do believe that of the two, Obama is the more electable candidate. He is religious without having it truly influence his policies, something that will attract the more moderate voters who like to see someone with a bit of faith in the White House. And, sadly, I think America is still more comfortable with a black man in Office before a woman.

Frankly, at this point, I will be happy with either candidate, but I do prefer Obama. I was sad to see McCain win New Hampshire as he seems to be the only Republican to pose a real threat (Romney and Huckabee are just too crazy -- and I'll be deep in the cold ground before I see a president elected with such a humourous name as Huckabee).

Whatever the results turn out to be, though, be sure that you are one of the ones making your voice heard, because I won't be able to express myself electorally until November.

The Path to the Dark Side

2008-01-07T07:29:00.000-05:00

Happy 2008!

I recently saw The Golden Compass, based off the first part of Philip Pullman's popular fantasy series, His Dark Materials (the first part of which is known as Northern Lights outside of the US). I read the first book in anticipation of the film and, although I liked it, did not find it as impressive as many of my friends did.

Perhaps it highlights my own intellectual failings (or lack of religious convictions), but I was frankly surprised to hear about all the controversy surrounding the film with regards to its "apparent" anti-Catholicism and atheism. Even more surprising is author Philip Pullman's own admission of the story's atheist undertones, which apparently escaped me entirely. Although I noticed some similarities between the Church and the "Magesterium" -- a sect in Pullman's universe that wields much power over its people -- I never took note of any overt anti-religious sentiments. But, again, not being religious, I rarely pay attention to such subtleties (I had the Chronicles of Narnia's religious themes explained to me).

What surprised me most about the controversy with regards to The Golden Compass is that, upon seeing the movie, I realised that a parallel between the "Magesterium" and the Catholic Church is the Magesterium's attempts to eliminate free thought and ideas counter to those proposed by the Magesterium itself. I was shocked that, although the Church claims that it is nothing like the Magesterium, it has been the most vocal opponent of the books and film. Catholic priests, bishops, and churchgoers have written a multitude of articles condemning the story, the filmmakers, and the author; each one urging audiences to avoid the series at all costs as it will lead to religious upheaval resulting in atheism.

Does anyone else find the Church's reaction a bit melodramatic and a tad ironic? They are spending so much time and money decrying a fictionalised story, urging people not to see it, when in fact, that is exactly the sort of tactic undertaken by the Magesterium in Pullman's fictional universe. And how is there no connection between the real and the fictional entities?

I also find it rather insulting to religious individuals on the whole that the Catholic Church apparently feels that they are too stupid to realise that the themes and undertones in the film and novels are, in fact, fictional. The ideas and metaphors utilised by Pullman might be derived from real life and his own observations, but it is no different than the overt Christian themes utilised by Tolkien, Lewis, and Rowling. In the works by those authors, the imagery can be just as offensive to non-Christians, but we are just supposed to happily go along with it. And I, for one, do enjoy Lord of the Rings, Narnia, and Harry Potter, with or without the Christian subtext. So why can't Christians do the same with a series of books that suggest alternatives to their own beliefs?

Perhaps the Catholic Church is, indeed, afraid of free thinkers. If they didn't tell their followers what and what not to watch, would we see a massive decline in the number of self-identified Catholics? Unfortunately, the Church has rarely evolved in the past millennium, so it might be a while before they trust their followers enough to explore and think on their own.

Resolutions

2007-12-24T07:47:00.000-05:00

Where did the time go? I have spent the past month completing coursework, working on various articles, applying for jobs, and entertaining houseguests. Unfortunately, it seems like CGMF was the first casualty when it came to finding time to do it all. However, I do hope that is about to change.

I have several promising projects lined up for 2008 and I can't wait to share them all with you -- none of which I can reveal at the moment, but I will let you all know as soon as I am able to.

I hope you all have a happy and safe holiday season and expect to hear more from me in the new year.

So-Called Men's Health

2007-11-30T03:12:00.000-05:00

I just finished a two-day workshop for my final class, Gender & Health. Taught by Anna Whelan and Alison Rutherford, it was an amazing experience and truly gave a well-rounded and inclusive view of gender and sexual and reproductive health issues. And since it was a smaller class (around 30 people), there was a lot of interaction and plenty of discussion.

Throughout the two days, there were several guest lecturers who spoke on an array of gender-specific health topics. The final speaker was local professor and health advocate, John MacDonald, who spoke on the importance of the inclusion of Men's Health in the public health arena. He brought up issues such as the current focus on men's health being that of anti-violence campaigns and targeting a redefinition of male identity, rather than specific health issues that affect male-bodied individuals. He also highlighted the feminization of public health, whereby there has been a multifaceted focus on women's issues, but not men's.

I felt that Mr. MacDonald brought up some interesting points. Men's health isn't always addressed and when it is, usually only in relationship to women's issues. However, the issues he highlighted clearly targeted heterosexual males, leaving no room for gay and bisexual men or transgendered men. He also claimed that there was absolutely no research on men's health, when, in fact, most of the HIV/STI research conducted has been focused on -- in Westernised nations -- gay men. Likewise, he said men's suicide was a priority as those in Australia who commit suicide are primarily men. However, his reasons for suicide -- economic, family pressure -- failed to account for the fact that of all people who commit suicide -- especially when talking about under 30s -- GLBTQ people are three times more likely to do it.

I want to stress that I do believe that straight men should have support. There are health issues that might be conditional on their heterosexuality (as it is for women and queer people), but labelling what is actually "heterosexual men's health" under the broad category of "Men's Health" is misleading and deceptive. And while queer men have in many urban areas have created a space for their specific health needs, they are labelled as such. And there are social attributes -- such as sexuality, class, race, etc. -- that specifically affect an individual's health; so reasons for suicide, for instance, will be different for a white gay male than for a straight black male.

My problem with the label and "field" of Men's Health is this lack of inclusion (I also have the exact same criticisms for the so-called "Women's Health" field). When I pick up a Men's Health magazine, never do I see anything on anal sex or transmen, for instance. Yet, here is a periodical -- and entire field, incidentally -- that claims to touch upon all male health issues. However, when sexual orientation and gender nonconformity are noticeably missing, I find the research presented to be misleading and mislabelled.

Although it would be very radical and probably be met with a lot of opposition, if heterosexual, biological males feel they need a space, let them have it. If John MacDonald is correct in saying that they are not trying to overtake the health field with a focus on men's issues, then such an organisation or clinic should be able to exist side-by-side with the many other social group-specific organisations. But to give the false impression that a Men's Health group -- and, subsequently, the Men's Movement -- would be inclusive of all men's issues when in fact it is not might very well be the reason Mr. MacDonald has trouble getting funding.

Looking for Love (aka Call Me Crazy)

2007-11-27T07:10:00.000-05:00

My friend, Will, is always looking for love. He typically has two or three dates a week; has a permanent match.com account; and is the first to pick up people he considers to be attractive or interesting. And when he finally does click with someone, he falls for them. Hard. One good date and Will is already naming the kids and looking for houses near the best schools.

In some ways, I envy him.

Recently, we were discussing his ongoing quest for love and he admitted to be worn down from looking so hard. After hundreds of dates and a handful of failed relationships, he is questioning what is wrong and what he needs to do to find his perfect match. Being the cynic that I am (my failed relationships have sucked quite a bit out of me), I tell him -- repeatedly -- that he shouldn't try so hard or spend so much time worrying. I say that when he is ready to love and be loved, it will just happen naturally. Will, however, would prefer to move to a new city to begin his quest anew, hoping that a new locale might yield better results.

Will's desire to look so diligently for love lead us to a discussion on why it's viewed as so unacceptable to give up everything for love? How come it's alright to move to a new city for a new job (as I am preparing to do) but when someone moves to look for love or to follow a love, they are considered irrational and crazy?

If it hasn't come out in my writing, I am somewhat sceptical towards the whole love thing. I have been in love, but after being hurt (and the victim of unrequited love) on several occasions, I prefer to take a back-seat approach to relationships. The results have, admittedly, been mixed. But rather than focusing on relationships, am I in the right by focusing on my career and what I need to do to make me happy? And if a relationship is part of that equation, then it will present itself in one form or another. However, I must admit that I secretly hoped that I might find the love of my life here in Sydney. A few dates and several one-night-stands later and I have yet to find so-called Mr. Rights. But could I have looked a bit harder?

The reason at times I envy Will is that he has very different priorities than me and I wonder if, in twenty years, he will be more satisfied having looked so hard for love (and perhaps found it) while I -- no matter how successful I might be in my career -- might regret not having spent more time seeking it out (if I, myself, haven't found it)? And really, is it worse to make love the number one priority in life rather than a career? Isn't getting the perfect job just as much of a risk as falling in love (even if it's not forever)?

Despite my lack of effort, there are about two or three men I have very strong relationships with (two I've had prior sexual relationships with, one not) located around the US. And, frankly, if any one of them were to ask me to move away with them, I would probably say yes (because I like to keep my love options open, kind of like Deal or No Deal). However, would it be crazy to do something so radical? But as I apply for jobs in random cities that I've never lived in, isn't that just as crazy?

At this point, I'm still more comfortable with have some sort of job security prior to looking for a relationship. And while Will's quest is admirable and might even end up being more rewarding, it is just something I cannot do. For now.

Ho Ho No

2007-11-20T23:54:00.000-05:00

I have finally finished my final exams and am about 90% complete with MPH -- barring any sudden failures.

To help me celebrate this milestone, I was greeted with a local -- and now international -- news story that caught my eye.

Santa Clauses across Australia's Myer shopping centres have been cautioned to avoid saying, "Ho Ho Ho" to kids because it could be interpreted as being offensive towards women. The phrase has also been deemed as frightening for children, and the actors playing Santa are being encouraged to say, "Ha Ha Ha" instead. As you can imagine, there has been severe outcry against the ban on Ho-ing, with many Santas using the phrase regardless of being warned.

The international attention this story has been receiving is humorous, if not slightly annoying. Granted, Santa's Ho Ho Ho's should have never been an issue in the first place, but by highlighting Myer's policy, both feminism and political correctness are coming under attack.

As I have said in the past, despite not being a Christian, I love the Christmas season. But despite my love, I do my best to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas," so as to make everyone feel included in the season. And what harm does that do? However, with this recent Santa fiasco, we have just given the people fighting to make Christmas universal -- without acknowledging the non-Christian holidays in December -- more ammunition. Here is an example -- a ridiculous example -- of how the War on Christmas is being played out. Aside from reading a few news stories on the subject, I have not watched any television coverage on the event; but I'm guessing that the banning of "Ho Ho Ho" is being shaped as one more method of eradicating Christmas.

Additionally, even though none of the articles I have read have mentioned "feminism," the fact that the ban was undertaken out of fear of being offensive to women also serves to fuel yet another backlash against the feminist movement. And we wonder why feminists are all viewed as bra-burning, man-hating lesbians?! It's because we become associated with bullshit policies like this. Although many of the quotes from Myer-spokespeople have stated that this was not an all out ban, merely a suggestion, I am imagining that this never would have been "suggested" if someone hadn't initially complained over Santa's overt chauvinism.

While I'm not an expert on Santa folklore, I don't remember ever learning that the origin of Santa's signature laugh was borne out of an intense disrespect for women. Perhaps when he and Mrs. Claus are in the privacy of their bedroom he let's a few "Ho's" escape, but if Mrs. Claus is content and empowered, then who are we to judge?

Perhaps it might even be better for kids to hear the word "Ho" coming from Santa, rather than utilized as a pejorative insult that is intentionally directed at women and sex workers.

Emerging Invisibility

2007-11-05T21:13:00.000-05:00

A New York Times story about the disappearance of gay ghettos around the US has been making the rounds recently. The author describes the GLBTQ's current situation in which, as more acceptance and tolerance has been gained, the need for isolated urban areas catering specifically for the community has been reduced. Simultaneously, the number of same-sex couples living in more rural/suburban areas has increased exponentially.

I have mixed feelings about this recent "phenomenon." On one hand, I love the fact that queer people are feeling more comfortable to leave the cities and expand into previously uncharted territory. I've always thought that it was unfair, on some level, that only urban areas were safe havens for the GLBTQ community -- especially since not everyone wants to live in a big city.

However, the systematic and gradual disappearance of the gay districts across the US makes me suspicious. Does their extinction mark a new era in tolerance? Or is it simply a way of heteronormative conservatives lessening community visibility under the guise of acceptance?

The New York Times article was written as Halloween in San Francisco's Castro district was cancelled due to shootings that occurred at the same time last year. And while the mayor's apprehension of indirectly promoting another incident is understandable (despite the unlikelihood of another shooting actually occurring at the same time), even the world's gayest city isn't entirely safe from homogenization and heteronormative values.

What I also find myself wondering is what exactly the loss of the gay ghettos will mean for the GLBTQ community? Will the gay bars and clubs slowly become a thing of the past? Will gay-owned shops now disappear and be replaced by Gaps and Starbucks? And how come their disappearances is seen as natural?

What the Times and no other major newspapers have pointed to is the horrible gentrification that has taken place in almost every major US city; resulting in the forcible removal of non-white communities from their homes. In the place of the projects, we have seen expensive, upper-class condos built. Unfortunately, the (primarily African-American) communities who live there are unable to afford these new condos and are forced to look for cheaper housing outside their former residences. Again, San Francisco has been a site of major gentrification in the past few years (I unfortunately witnessed this process first-hand in Washington, DC).

So how is the the extinction of the gay ghettos any different? Upper-class yuppies are rebuilding those sites that used to be part of the GLBTQ enclave, but now instead of looking like oppressors as we see with racial gentrification, they are commended for being tolerant, brave, and accepting? And the queers who are leaving the city are applauded for their own bravery to step outside their comfort zones and adopt the suburban drag that their heterosexual brothers and sisters wear so well.

I guess we will just have to wait and see how "positive" this geographic shift really is.

JK's Last Revelation: Part II

2007-10-25T22:39:00.000-04:00

I thought my brief post about this subject last week would be my last, but the story seems to have blown up since it was first announced, so I decided that I must write a more detailed follow-up.

So, to recap: Last week during a reading at Carnegie Hall, author JK Rowling revealed that one of the main characters in her Harry Potter series, Professor Dumbledore, is gay. There is no direct reference in any of her books -- other than a few subtlities in the final book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows -- and the revelation is just one of a million other facts that Rowling has revealed about her characters that she never actually wrote down in any of the novels.

And in typical fashion, I had absolutely no idea that Dumbledore was gay, despite the fact that my mother expressed her own suspicions prior to the announcement.

The reaction to the news has been primarily, as I can gather, a combination of two emotions: joy and ambivalence. Members and allies of the GLBTQ community-- including myself -- praised Rowling for making the Harry Potter universe more inclusive, even if it was months after the final book had actually been written.

The other principle reaction seems to be that of ambivalence. Dumbledore is a fictional character who only exists within the confines of these books, and since his sexuality was never an issue before, why would we care now that the series is finished? I must admit that although I am happy, I do have a hint of ambivalence -- it's good to know, but it doesn't really change anything?

Of course, the most vocal outcry -- especially among fans -- has been from those people who view the announcement as detrimental to the series and proof of JK Rowling's backing of the homosexual agenda. These opponents claim that the books are now ruined for them, that being gay is sinful, and that this is just another reason to ban these books from schools.

And as far as I can tell, the only Western country that is truly in an uproar over Dumbledore's sexuality is the US. Congratulations America for yet again being a few steps behind the rest of the world.

Over the past few days, I've been visiting various news sites and Harry Potter fan sites to simply read the reactions to the news. Most comments seem to be broken down into the regimes I described above -- mostly positive, punctuated with the occasional Christian (and I can say that in full confidence, as they seem to begin every comment with "As a Christian. . .") complaint. However, from what I can tell from the fan sites' reactions, most people are in line with Rowling's decision.

On MuggleNet -- a fan site that claims to be the most popular and has also published several books about the Harry Potter series -- a poll asking for people's opinions about Dumbledore's sexual orientation has so far seen over 69,000 respondents. 31.9% of them declared "Jo is courageous and admirable," while 41.9% of them registered their ambivalence. The site's webmasters even posted an opinion piece defending Dumbledore's sexuality and Rowling's decision to reveal it.

Soon, this news will become old hat and Rowling's revelation about Dumbledore's sexuality will be nothing more than a footnote in the Harry Potter lexicon. As one of the adult characters in the series, Dumbledore was and is devoid of sexuality. Fans who now claim that his relationship with Harry was insidious and perverted are horribly misguided and look ridiculous when revealing their ignorance. And at the end of the day, if this revelation does not alter any of the characters' fates, then why should we treat at as anything more than what it is: namely, a minor fact among the thousands of pages of text that Rowling has devoted to her series.

JK's Last Revelation

2007-10-20T08:57:00.000-04:00

My semester is slowly winding down, so I'm finally able to get back into the swing of writing. So I promise, promise, promise some new stuff starting next week.

In the mean time, I just wanted to make sure you all caught this bit of news:

JK Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series, has outed one of her lead characters, Professor Dumbledore, as gay. Revealing the character's sexual orientation during a reading in New York City, Rowling commented that Dumbledore was a victim of unrequited love that nearly destroyed him (which is hinted at in the final book of her series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows). She went on to tell the audience that her books are "a prolonged argument for tolerance."

As a Harry Potter fan, I am ecstatic over this information!

Back Soon

2007-10-08T22:26:00.000-04:00

It seems like I must occasionally apologise for my extended absence, and this again is one of those times. I just got bogged down with schoolwork and writing deadlines so I've been unavailable recently to do any extended amount of blogging. I will, however, be back very soon and get back on track. Thanks to everyone for being so patient!

If you're looking to fill the void temporarily, check out any one of the blogs listed in my "Blogs to Live By" column on the right hand side of the page.

Anti-Sex Worker Hysteria

2007-09-22T02:08:00.000-04:00

September has not been a good month for sex workers.

Liberal safe haven, Amsterdam, is currently undergoing a facelift. The local government is paying brothel owner, Charles "Fats" Geerts, $35 million dollars to shut down 18 of his brothels -- or about one-third of the legalised brothels currently in Amsterdam. Doing so will eliminate many of the infamous shop windows where local sex workers display themselves to attract customers.

Amsterdam's city leaders claim that by closing down these brothels -- as well as several marijuana coffee shops -- the city will undergo a "revitalization," turning these areas into new housing and mainstream retail districts. Additionally, Mayor Job Cohen stresses the importance of curbing the exploitation of women by shutting down these licensed venues.

The news that Amsterdam -- once thought of as the legal sex trade capital of the world -- is reinventing itself to be another upper-class franchised urban area comes on the heels of a report condemning legalised prostitution in Nevada. Written by noted "feminist" and academic, Melissa Farley, the report claims that Nevada is overrun by illegal sex trafficking; and that of the legal sex workers in the state, most would prefer to leave the trade. This report goes hand in hand with other research she's done linking sex work to psychological abuse, as well as a staunch anti-pornography/anti-sex stance.

I would like to point out that Melissa Farley has seemingly overlooked male and transgendered sex workers in most of her research, other than occasionally condemning the gay community for condoning the production of gay pornography.

What bothers me most about these stories is that I have seen major news agencies covering both the closure of Amsterdam's brothels and the "findings" collected by Farley. However, never do we hear of the tireless lobbying for sex worker rights by Melissa Gira or Scarlot Harlot. Ronald Weitzer is a respected sex positive researcher based in Washington, DC -- and a vocal critic of Melissa Farley's research -- yet, his studies rarely (if ever) get international news coverage.

Additionally, I am frightened by the fact that both of these "news stories" occurred so close together. In Amsterdam, we have the mayor blaming legalised prostitution for the city's degradation and vow to clean-up the streets by forcing sex workers out of a job (an easy, and incorrect, way of thinking by many politicians looking to get re-elected). Then, Farley's much touted research condemning the only state in the US to have the courage to create a safe working environment for sex workers, indirectly approves of the closures in Amsterdam. I can't help but fear the start of a domino effect as other cities with regulated prostitution follow Amsterdam's suit under the guidance of Melissa Farley.

Here in Sydney I live near two brothels, and their existence has not curbed shop owners from opening high-end clothing stores and cafes nearby. Yet in my neighbouring suburb of Marrickville, the town council has spent the past few months trying to restrict the operation of local brothels under the guise of urban development. So just how long before all of Sydney is affected by this anti-sex worker hysteria?

An Unconventional Fairy Tale

2007-09-16T22:25:00.000-04:00

Pamela Anderson revealed recently that she used sex to pay off past gambling debts. The individual to whom she owed $250,000 offered her the chance to cut her losses by sleeping with him. The twist in the plot, however, comes when Pam claims that her one night of sex work resulted in her falling in love with said-client.

It's an unconventional fairy tale, but a fairy tale nonetheless.

What surprises me about this story is a number of things. First, this was deemed newsworthy enough to be included in most of the legitimate (and non-legitimate) news sites I visit. Second, despite the fact that any headway made in the sex worker rights movement is scantly covered by the mainstream press, they were quick to snatch up this revelation from notorious softcore sex queen, Pamela Anderson. And not only are many editors running the news item, they are doing so without the heaps of judgement usually strewn upon other individuals who have just "admitted" to indulging in sex work.

So what is different about this story that the woman at the centre of it all escapes rebuke (and imprisonment)? First, she is a [in]famous, beautiful, wealthy, white woman who clearly does not need to work -- let alone in the sex industry -- to maintain her lifestyle. Second, Pam Anderson has written off this experience as a one-time thing, that she is not apologetic about. And lastly, and most importantly, Pam escaped the trauma that most sex work undoubtedly causes by being rescued by her one-and-only (that we know of) client, and swept off her feet into his loving arms.

This is the stuff that films like Pretty Woman are made of.

I can't help but be cynical of the press coverage Pamela Anderson is receiving. Believe it or not, I frankly do admire the woman and have been fascinated with her life for years (I even attempted to read her first novel, a roman a clef by the name of Star). However, I feel that her escapade into the world of sex work reinforces the notion that sex -- let alone sex work -- is OK so long as it is between two loving adults. Yes, she received some monetary gain from her experience, but the fact that she fell in love with her John allows the public to look past the actual exchange of sex for money by being touched by the fact that Pamela has finally found love. Additionally, by refusing to name the new man in her life, she further stigmatizes those who do pay for sex.

Had Pamela gone on the Ellen show and instead said, "You know what, I owed a lot of money and having sex with the man I owed it to was the only way I could pay it back, and I'm not ashamed of it," I think this sexual anecdote making the rounds would have a more positive impact (if any at all). And while I'm happy that she found love (and perhaps can finally escape the two losers who have been following her around for the last decade), Pam's experience has reinforced antiquated notions about sex work and done nothing to remove stigma surrounding those who work so tirelessly in the industry.

Protecting Australian Families

2007-09-09T21:51:00.000-04:00

As I have discussed before, the Australian government seemingly has a much larger overt presence in the lives of its citizens than that of the United States government (believe it or not). From the films we watch to the very strong anti-smoking campaign, the Australian government has taken it upon itself to protect all of its citizens from any hazards that may occur from daily life.

Most recently, the government has introduced a new campaign to "encourage" parents to take a more active role in their kids lives on the internet. The ads, being displayed at bus stops and aired on television, all take on a similar structure: illustrating that the difference between an innocence online activity and plotting to blow up a school is very hard to distinguish. The ads provide parents with a website to go to and download parental blocking software to monitor their children's internet activity and censor what they disapprove of.

I have mixed feelings about this ad campaign. First, I must say that I am much more comfortable with parental censorship than government censorship. Despite some parents objections, if you don't like your kids watching what's on TV, turn it off. The ads also force their parents to reconcile their role in their children's lives. Perhaps they don't know what their kids are doing online -- or even what they're interested in, for that matter.

My critique of the ads is that -- like many of the government-crafted ad campaigns here -- they seem to rely heavily on scare tactics. The ads seemingly lead parents to believe that danger online exists at every turn and if you aren't careful, your children will be abducted, abused, or become prostitutes.

Simultaneously, the ads do seem to be somewhat sex negative, as they imply that viewing pornographic images online is equivalent to being stalked by someone via MySpace. The print ad above even uses the statistic, " almost half of 11 to 14 year old children said they had viewed websites their parents would find alarming." Additionally, the television version of the ad describes images as "distasteful."

What exactly do "alarming" and "distasteful" mean? My first thought is that, what is alarming to a 11 year old may very well be normal for anyone even a few years older. Likewise, would an image of a gay couple getting married be considered "distasteful" by the conservative government that implemented these ads?

Clearly, the solution to internet censorship and control is not as simple as this campaign would like us to believe. It's good that parents take a more active role in their children's lives, but scaring them into doing so will only further sever the relationship, rather then cultivate it.

Besides, I'm still waiting for one of these public awareness campaigns to target all of the violence that pervades our media, rather than simply focusing on the sexuality.

The Madness of King George

2007-09-06T22:37:00.000-04:00

Today is the opening day of the APEC (Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation) summit. The annual meeting, as I think I've mentioned, is being held in Sydney this year; which means one thing: federal holiday for Sydneysiders!

Unfortunately it feels like the APEC conference has been going on all week. The mighty, two meter fence was erected around Sydney Harbour last weekend to keep out ne'er-do-wells and other ruffians from spoiling the conference with their aggressive sight-seeing and picture-taking. 5,000 added police are patrolling downtown Sydney, delighted by their new legal powers given to them by the federal government, permitting them to frisk anyone on the street at random. Additionally, because I live so close to the central business district, my mobile phone's reception has been cutting in and out as cell phone towers will be turned off in an effort to avoid any terrorist attacks via mobile phone.

Sydneysiders witnessed the reason for all of our trouble on Wednesday night when Air Force One touched down at approximately 10:00pm. Bush and his 700-person cavalry accompanying him (including secret service agents, aides, and personal chefs) were escorted from the airport to the InterContinental Hotel via "private" roadways, allowing him to make what should have been a twenty minute car ride in just under 10 minutes.

China's president arrived a day prior but apparently did not require police helicopters circling his motorcade as he toured various Australian locales.

This logistics nightmare that Sydney has undertaken is quite possibly one of the more annoying endeavours I have been associated with. Buses have stopped running. Trains have been rerouted. Rights have been violated (moving protests are illegal while the APEC summit is occurring, and jails have been cleared out in anticipation of arresting as many protesters as police can get their hands on). And while Prime Minister John Howard and other government officials claim that its to protect both these world leaders and the people, we all know that this American-coordinated security scheme has been put into place to make sure no one takes out President Bush while he strolls the Harbourside (I hear he particularly enjoy sunset walks).

I lived in Washington, DC for four years. Foreign dignitaries come and go all the time; and the President even spends the occasional night in the White House. However, the only minor inconvenience ever experienced by Washingtonians was, and is, the closure of Pennsylvania Avenue directly in front of the White House.

Doesn't it make Bush sad to know that he is so hated abroad that such drastic measures must be taken to ensure his safety? If I were in his position, I know I would certainly think to myself, "Hmm, maybe there's a reason nobody likes me."

So far, however, the so-called high security measures have already been breached -- and in a hilarious manner. The Chaser, an Australian group of people who write a satirical newspaper (similar to The Onion) and currently have their own improvisational comedy show, The Chaser's War on Everything, created a fake motorcade that was waved through numerous APEC check points. Upon arriving at their pre-determined location near the APEC gathering, one of the limousine's doors opened and a man dressed as Osama bin Laden stepped out. Eleven members of the group have since been arrested.

I love that! I love that despite all of these drastic and annoying security measures, a group of twenty and thirtysomethings were able to, essentially, walk right in. And judging from the reaction of my fellow Sydneysiders, the joke was more appreciated than reviled.

Fortunately, Bush leaves tomorrow (one day early) and will hopefully take some of this madness with him. I frankly wouldn't mind if he returned one day without all the fanfare. Sydney really is a beautiful city, but I'm sure he didn't get to see much of it from behind that fence and surrounded by secret service agents. He's really missing out.

Golden Oldies

2007-08-26T23:29:00.000-04:00

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine recently reported that people who are 60+ are far more sexually active than previously thought.

Well surprise surprise.

I've noticed that this report has been popping up on news websites over the past week, as though the fact that older people have sex is such a shocking revelation. What does everyone think happens? Once you reach fifty your sex drive disappears? How do you account for the seemingly apparent number of older men with younger partners? Perhaps it's not just money these young women and men find attractive about their older suitors.

While the reaction to the findings has been overwhelmingly that of surprise, I think it's these editorial and opinionated reactions that reflects more on our society, rather than on the findings themselves. If we saw older people as complete human beings, then the fact that their sexuality is alive and kicking wouldn't be surprising. It's as though the only time you are allowed to be a "complete human being" is between the ages of 18 to 49 -- incidentally, the most sought after demographic by advertisers. If you live to be 80, that still leaves a lot of time at the beginning and at the end of your life whereby your actions are socially controlled and limited.

It is also surprising that the sexuality of seniors is still so shocking after following two very influential periods with regards to an older person's sexuality. The 1980s brought us The Golden Girls, featuring four, 50+ women who were all very sexually active and quite vocal about it. And the 1990s brought us Viagra -- and the choice of using Bob Dole as a spokesperson didn't exactly appeal to the younger generations. Hell, there is even pornography targeted at and featuring individuals previously deemed passed the prime of their lives.

For a very long time, I've had a fear of aging -- and I still do to some extent. I viewed being over forty or over fifty as being too late in life to have new experiences or make new relationships. In my mind, forty truly did equal death. And while I continue to silently dread my next birthday, the findings reported in this study do remind me that you don't just reach a point in life where everything falls apart.

In fact, perhaps by the time I reach that age, 80 will be the new 20 and the nightclubs and sex venues will be filled with people of all ages, rather than having a unspoken age restriction applied to those who don't look like they're twelve.