civil multi strong1


We’re all pretty sure that we’re right to think we’re right about certain ways of being right. Especially, lately, regarding Gender (which used to be about the stuff between our legs, essentially, and is now about how we expect others to talk about the stuff between our own, as individuals,  legs, essentially). Beyond my recent comment that Gender Fluidity should, yet doesn’t, have an analogue in Race Fluidity (well, does it? What’s the diff? Our Identity Politics aren’t as Objectively Fair as we’d like to think, I think… some groups are more Fluid than others)… this comment I left, long ago, at a far away blog (owned by someone I used to tangle with at The Valve), covers some relevant territory…


Interesting collision of worldviews here, Joseph! But… (and this is a big etc)… are we invariably “not very tolerant of people who get found out as racists”? The culture itself is powerfully racist (ie, it draws race-based distinctions between people even when race is or should be irrelevant; when a “black” leading man and a “white” leading woman in a blockbuster go to second base on camera, it makes the news; Japanese leading men are “box office poison”, etc). Paula Deen got fired as a corporate precaution, not because she crossed a clear moral line; Harry Belafonte and Petula Clarke risked getting “fired”, not long ago, for being touchy-feely trans-racial anti-Deens on network TV… not because the sponsors gave a shit but because maybe too many customers would. It’s Standards and Practices vs Objective Morality. Standards and Practices tend to shift with the Zeitgeist. Will North American women be wearing some form of Burka in the year 2235? Impossible to tell. If they are, it will certainly *seem* to most of the populace to be an obvious evolution in objective morality.

While a pretty good case can be made for Thou Shalt Not Kill or Thou Shalt Not Rape (curiously, the latter makes a better Absolute than the former) as tenets of an Objective Morality, specific sexual practices (between consenting hominids) take us into the murky waters of the private, the idiosyncratic… the necessarily secret. Would I deserve specific civil-rights-protections as a man who gets off on plush toys (if I were to)? What we all deserve as sexual beings is an extra-judicial, sub-social space where we can’t and won’t be judged for doing whatever it is we like to do with our genitals (alone or with consenting hominids).

Various Het and Homo and Para sex activities will *all*, at some point, with much of the populace, feel “disgusting” or “weird” or “wrong”… one (wo)man’s fetish is another (wo)man’s Ipecac. What we need, essentially, is a “don’t ask don’t tell” for *every* gender… it’s none-of-your-foicken-business… it’s also neither “right” nor “wrong” and it’s ridiculous arguing that no sexual practice should generate queasiness or revulsion in others. They all do… even the mish position!

The mistake is to keep hammering the Queasy Many with a pseudo-moral imperative to accept or even embrace what is, for them, repugnant. What we need to establish is the fact that It’s None of Their Foicken Business, whatever their legitimate feelings are. How have sexual practices divided into a clumsy binary (“perv” and “vanilla”) for public Identification (considering the dozens, if not hundreds, of flavors) and political debate?

Is it really that easy to draw a line between Homo and Het? Why do we seem to think so? Probably because the Judeo-Christian texts underpinning the legal psyches of our various nations don’t really go into much nuanced detail when it comes to sex (unless, eg, tribal revenge-rapists get their own gender, or Noah’s thing for animals merits discussion)… the chief sexual preoccupations of the various bibles seem to be simply sodomy vs reproduction… which, in turn, warps/simplifies (or even infantilizes) our sense of the Right and Wrong of genital monkey business. Without Bibles/ Korans/ Torahs to fuck us up, the convenient collations we call Straight and LGBT probably wouldn’t exist. The idea that a married, father-of-three Cleveland telemarketer who gets off on scat play is more “normal” than a square-dancing neat-freak lesbian is too silly for words.

My suggestion for rational genders: PWF (people who fuck) and PWD. Fluid distinctions, of course.

This discussion is fraught with the absurdity of this false dichotomy of sexual practices, and distorted by the forced public discussion of what should (for *everyone*) be the strictly Private. In fact, how much of this clash is precipitated and amplified by the modern loss of the Private? Like pathogens/predators being forced into “society” by a loss of natural habitat.

In any case, people who are mildly-to-wildly Gay Negative are no more “bigoted” than “we” (from a certain suave demographic) are “bigoted” against *them*. Let them teach their boychildren to avoid cocksucking, just as we encourage ours to consider it as a lifestyle! And let us all keep that shit Private. Let’s stop shoving our gooey bits in each others’ faces. But the “normal” is always a matter that’s settled by the dominant culture. The dominant culture is determined by a numbers game. The numbers never stop shifting. Most of us would probably be horrified to be re-born two or three centuries earlier or later than we actually were.






  1. I feel like practically every word I write these days—fiction-wise—speaks to the perils of let’s call them identitarianisms. Look, I’ve been through the pomo wars: celebrations of difference matter, truly. But identities are merely comfortable, comforting redoubts; restricting yet reinforcing our native (and often artificial) consciousnesses and narcissisms. The resultant fracturings—political, ideological, spiritual alienations—go to the foundations not only of our abstract philosophies but of civilization itself. Humanity encompasses sexualities, races, abilities, et alia. Life itself encompasses…well, everything that’s important to us in this the Anthropocene. The war of all against all is a death trap; it’s a suicide rap; we better get out while we’re young. ‘Cause baby…

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Speaking of which: there’s a ref to BTR (ah, back before the ’80s killed Bruce’s talent for nuanced observation and unbridled imagination) nestling in the script of the original Mad Max. Did BTR actually inspire Mad Max? I’ve always wondered!

      Re: Identitarians: I steer clear of ’em the same as I steer clear of Scientologists and for the same reason: no sense of humor (aka zip sense of the CJE… the Cosmic Joke of Existence) and you just *know* they’re terrible in bed.


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR [letters are vetted for cogency and style]

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s