News on Sadly, No!

06/09/2014

So, as those of you who are regular readers of my main blog (Sadly, No!) know, the site has been down for about a week now.

Apparently the reason is one of the hard drives of the site crashed and so the site owner is trying to fix that as soon as he can so we can get back up and running.

I figured I should note that here as I know some of the people who followed at Sadly, No! periodically check this blog as well, so I figure this is a good way to get out the information about what’s going on at the site.

So, yeah, in the immortal words of the Creator: “We’re Sorry for the Inconvenience”.

I remember when I first stumbled onto the forums at the Asexuality Visibility and Education Network (AVEN). I remember reading the stories of other asexuals who were in romantic relationships with sexuals. Many of the stories were tragic, detailing stories of asexuals trying to make mixed relationships work with standard monogamous models. For some that worked just fine, but for many, there existed a tension and a social pressure to perform, to make one’s partner happy, to fit the model that society quietly sets out for those who seek to date.

Sometimes the notion of polyamory would come up. Maybe as a suggestion from someone seeking to help, sometimes as a question from an asexual seeking advice. “What about polyamory? Does it work?”

Flash forward a handful of years later, I’m bringing my partner and her girlfriend to an AVEN barbeque. I’m not the only one who has. Conversations about dating spring up, the question is more common. The panel on relationship structures devotes a section to polyamory as a relationship model.

A little bit later now. Dan Savage is saying that asexuals shouldn’t date, that they do violence to their partners by denying them their core sexual needs. But at the AVEN conference, there are more happy romantic asexuals than ever before. No longer a whisper, polyamory has become the main relationship model for romantic asexuals. Every panel and discussion on relationship models includes a token part on monogamy because it’s assumed that everyone already knows about polyamory at this point. David Jay has a slide at the beginning of the conference showing his flowchart-like poly web of partners. The romantic partners of asexuals are happy and supporting their loved ones. They have been denied nothing.

I stated in the title that this is my asexual polyamorous manifesto. The emphasis is intentional, because it’s based on my musings and my thoughts in seeing how polyamory and the asexual community have danced together like salt on caramel and I would not presume to have the authority to speak for anyone else.

And I felt the need to create this, largely because there isn’t one yet. There simply isn’t a decent ace poly manifesto, which seems ludicrous seeing as how the asexual community has so quickly adopted polyamorous relationship models as their dominant dating models.

And that simple fact, that there are more polyamorous relationships by percentage in the asexual community than in general society begs a critical question.

What is it that polyamory gives asexuals that monogamy on average does not?

But before I answer that question, I must begin with some defining of terms.

Giving Words to Experiences

There is a trend sometimes in queer circles (which includes asexuals) for shying away from labels and terms because of their potential to wound or be used to exclude. But inclusive and accurate terms also have a power to define our experiences and relate just who we are in a world that seeks to ignore us.

Asexual: The definition on the front of the Asexuality Visibility Education Network website is “an asexual person is a person who does not experience sexual attraction.” Which is a perfectly serviceable definition for our experiences. But it’s not the whole story, for our gentle community also includes demisexuals (those who only experience sexual attraction with trusted partners after a long period of time and familiarity) and grey-asexuals (an umbrella term for those who experience very low levels of sexual attraction or intermittent levels of sexual attraction).

While diverse, all the people in the asexual spectrum face similar issues in general society, largely because, though our society claims it is a prudish and sexphobic one, expectations of sex and sexual performance are still paramount. Romantic relationships are still expected to have a sexual component, regardless if that is communicated ahead of time or not. Knowledge of sexual mechanics and a usual expectation of sharing in heterosexual attraction is assumed by a certain age. And unfortunately for too many, assholes feel entitled to “acquire” sex by force or coercion by those they feel have denied them their “right”.

Some of this will come up again, but for the specific benefits of polyamory, we must cover another important aspect, known as romantic orientation.

Romantic orientation: Romantic orientation is much like sexual orientation. It is the people one is romantically attracted to. In common parlance, these are the people you fall in love with or want to seek a relationship with, though you may not find them sexually attractive. Anyone who has met someone they’ve wanted desperately to fuck, but know they’d make a terrible relationship or met someone they’ve really liked and wanted to start something with, but there was no spark, has seen the way that romantic orientation and sexual orientation can differ.

In the asexual community, there are two major categories that dominate the majority of conversations about romantic orientation. They are romantic (those who do desire romantic relationships with other people, with orientations of heteroromantic (those who are romantically attracted to a different gender), homoromantic (those who are romantically attracted to the same gender), biromantic (those who are romantically attracted to men and women), panromantic (those who are romantically attracted to people all along the gender spectrum), and so on) and aromantic (those who do not desire romantic relationships).

While our conversation going forward will largely focus on romantic asexuals, it is worth noting that aromantic asexuals do not lack anything for not feeling that romantic attraction, anymore than romantic asexuals lack anything for not feeling lust or sexual attraction or a heterosexual person for lacking sexual attraction to those of the same gender. It is simply a way of being in this great wonderful spectrum of biodiversity that makes up our beautiful species.

Which brings us to the last important terms:

Monogamy or Monoamory: This is the dominant relationship model we inherit from society. We could all recite it by heart. Two people get in a relationship. They meet all their needs within the relationship: sexual, romantic, and intimate and if a compatible match, form a long-term and exclusive relationship. For many people growing up, this was sold as the only way a relationship could be. If a need couldn’t be met or if one person wanted more, you split up or dealt with the fallout in terms of cheating (one person having sexual interactions that are unknown to the partner and not approved of) or resentment.

While clearly, I and many other asexual people have found polyamory as a model that works well for us, it’s worth noting here that there is nothing inherently wrong with monogamy… for those it works for.

Much like with romantic or sexual orientation, some have theorized that some relationship structures are more suited to different people. For some, a monogamous relationship is not only the popular method of having a relationship, but is something they couldn’t do without. It’s a structure that fits them best.

And some of those people include asexuals, who despite the protestations of people like Dan Savage, are perfectly capable of forming long-term, stable, and certainly not abusive loving monogamous relationships with other people.

But as a model, it hardly fits everyone cleanly. And much of the problems in dating for a lot of people, asexual and sexual and everything in between, is when everyone is expected to fit into the monogamous relationship model as if it was the best fit for everyone.

Which brings us to the final word of our definitions.

Polyamory: Polyamory simply means many loves. And much like every other term, that covers a broad spectrum of relationship models. For one couple, that might mean a model where both are falling in love with multiple people who are themselves in love with multiple people, with each forming multiple relationships to encompass that love. Others may have a model much like a tribe, where multiple people love each other and live together, building shared lives. For still others, it may involve a single core, two people together who get other sexual, romantic, or kink (as in BDSM desires) needs or desires met outside of the core (and yes, that can even mean structures where the two are sexually exclusive to each other and have multiple non-sexual relationships to meet other romantic needs).

Some may have a relationship where it looks like a monogamous couple, but the one gets their sexual needs met outside the relationship.

But whatever the model, the real core remains the same, non-exclusivity.

Whatever the model, what makes it differ from monogamy is that those within it have an avenue that is non-exclusive. That avenue may be other romantic attractions that are acted on in additional relationships. That avenue might be other sexual attractions that are acted on in sexual encounters. That avenue might be both or mixtures.

The real point, and the real point for all relationships is a model that best meets the needs of those within it. That doesn’t put the structure of the relationship above those human beings within it and their needs and desires.

And that’s an important, critical point, because it’s something that gets lost in the expectation that everyone have a monogamous relationship that looks the same as everyone else’s, with the same “path” and the same “end goal”.

Which raises the big question: What needs is polyamory fulfilling for asexuals that monogamy isn’t?

The Global Appeal of Polyamory

Some of the appeal is the same appeal polyamory has for everybody.

Like noted before with monogamy, some people just naturally fit with a polyamorous model. They fall in love or lust with multiple people or find forced commitment destructive to their interaction with people.

And what polyamory can bring is a great deal of flexibility that a forced model of monogamy cannot. An ability to form a method of having a relationship that allows people multiple avenues to have needs met, whether sexual, romantic, or other.

And it’s important to note that, because I think polyamory often gets a reputation for simply being about sex and while there would be nothing wrong with it if it was (I mean, for the 99% of the population of the planet who are sexual, sex is often fun, exciting, and meets what feels like, to them, a basic human need), it doesn’t tell the whole story.

Cause at its most basic, polyamory is about communication. Its about talking with your partner(s) about everything, figuring out models that work best for everyone’s needs, making sure issues like jealousy are dealt with out in the open. It’s about talking with sexual partners about STD risks and preferred methods of sex. It’s about talking with romantic partners about ideal relationship models and what everyone is seeking from the arrangements.

Most polyamorous relationships involve a huge amount of conversation and focus because frankly they often need to to be successful. Unlike with monogamy, there is no “expected frame” or “one way” to do things. There isn’t a pattern one can fall into and become trapped by. Everything is out in the open, so everything must be figured out together and the effort of expanding things out can involve a lot of work and requires a lot of talking to successfully maintain and ensure that people aren’t being shut out or forced into roles they resent.

And while that may seem like a lot of work, that amount of communication also allows a lot of freedom that monogamy just doesn’t have.

If someone has a sexual attraction to someone, they can talk it out with their partner(s) and even pursue it and experience it without channeling that attraction into resentment or frustration. If someone develops a crush or falls in love with another person, they don’t have to leave their existing relationship or face a moral conundrum, they can simply date both and communicate freely.

My partner and I began being polyamorous a little less than a year into our relationship. It began with a story that would easily end most relationships and nearly ended ours at the time. My partner who is panssexual fell in love with another person, a female best friend of hers. At the time I thought I was a boy (I have since discovered otherwise) and I sort of drifted along with it. Eventually, the feeling was intense enough that that my partner decided that our monogamous relationship needed a break so she could pursue this intense romantic and sexual attraction.

I want to note here that my partner was not seeking to be cruel and in fact, in many ways, the issue highlighted here is a problem with the monogamous frame that dictates that the strongest feelings on a sexual and romantic level often take precedence.

Anyways, the story unfortunately took a turn for the tragic. Her female best friend, though she flirted constantly and had clear visible interest, was unfortunately deep in the closet and rejected the confession of feelings citing worry over negative reaction by her very religious parents.

My partner returned sheepish, approaching as friend. At the time, I thought little of the whole affair, other than I felt it was time to talk about being poly. I don’t know where I first got the thought. Somewhere online, possibly in the queer blogs I read, possibly even on the AVEN website. I don’t know, but I do know that I felt the recent events revealed that the monogamous structure just wasn’t fitting us.

We gave it a shot. And now 8 and a half years now, total, we are still polyamorous and still together.

While my story is unique and in the eyes of some, I would be considered unwise, it was what fit best for us and best alleviated the false dichotomies presented us. That I was owed exclusivity by my partner (when I had little interest in that type of ownership and have little jealousy of her external attractions) or that my partner had to sacrifice her attractions until they reached breaking points in our relationship (which was a situation I didn’t feel comfortable putting her in).

And what poly gave me in that moment was something that it gives a lot of couples, and that is a great deal of flexibility and customization to our relationship, able to patch up weak points or diverse interactions without it threatening the whole strong, committed, loving framework it was built around.

But the question still remains: Why do asexuals MORE often seek out polyamorous relationships?

And to understand that special extra bit that asexuals get, we must first explain one more thing about relationships.

Mixed Relationships and Polyamory

Man, are mixed relationships vilified in our society. Whether they be mixed racial relationships, mixed cultural relationships, or mixed orientation relationships, there is often an initial negative reaction by most people.

While things have improved in terms of public acceptance of mixed race and mixed culture couples, the same can’t be said for mixed orientation couples.

A gay man in a loving relationship with a straight woman. An asexual genderqueer person in love with a panssexual man. A monogamous person in love with someone more polyamorous.

In all cases, the societal view is one of sacrifice. One partner is going to go without a need or otherwise be taken advantage of.

Dan Savage, noted internet sex advice columnist, has often earned a large amount of deserved flak for his insistence that those of an orientation should only date those who share that orientation. That straight people should only date straight people. That gay people should only date gay people. And most infuriatingly, that bi people should only date bi people and asexual people should only date other asexuals. And more infuriatingly, that to do otherwise is to do an act of violence against one’s partner.

And as loathsome as that opinion is, it is unfortunately not an uncommon one. And a large reason for the why lies in this social perception of a relationship as a monogamous one and that monogamous relationship being one in which all needs (sexual, romantic, etc…) are met within the relationship itself. So if one person has sexual needs and the other doesn’t, then where will that person meet those needs? And what is being asked of a person to go “without”?

Which says more of the expectation than the relationships themselves. After all, we are what we are, humans in a diverse society and we have the ability to fall in love and lust with a variety of people, even one’s that seem outside one layer of our orientations. A lesbian woman and a gay man can find themselves genuinely in love with themselves. A heteroromantic individual can find themselves feeling intense sexual attraction for someone of the same gender.

And yes, most specifically to the asexual community, asexual people can fall in love with sexual people. In fact, that tends to be rather common. After all, the world is 99% made of those who are sexual and just by law of averages, those of us who are romantic asexuals are going to find ourselves forming intense intimate connections with those who have sexual desires and attractions to people.

Under the dominant models of a relationship as monogamous, all of these pairings are viewed as “doomed” or “unhealthy” or “prone to damage”. And perhaps in a way, they can be and often are.

But that’s only in a dominant form of forced monogamy.

In polyamory, mixed orientation couples can thrive.

A gay man and a straight woman can have alternate avenues to explore each others’ sexual needs without pressures being put on partners to perform or do without.

And it doesn’t just extend to those specific cases. Overall, couples with differences in libido or who like different types of sex than their partners or just happen to fall in love with multiple people, can explore those aspects without conflict and abrasion that can happen by trying to follow a model that stresses “every need met or break up”.

If you desperately want to get tied up and spanked and your partner is deeply ambivalent about rope, you can go out and get that need met. If you are bisexual and happen to want a model where you can explore sexual interactions with men and women, you can do that, even sharing those experiences with a partner. If you simply fall in love with multiple people, you can explore that with other people.

Whatever the circumstance, under polyamory, issues that would have been heart-rending and soul-confusing under monogamy can be as simple as simply giving one’s partner a good luck kiss before their big date.

And the best part about the structure of polyamory is that there is no required structure. If one is of the mindset that their partner is enough, but want to make sure they can explore their desires, one can do that without it being about “sacrifice” or “being taken advantage of”. If what fits your relationship is one person with a more monogamous focus and another with a more polyamorous model, then that can exist harmoniously without one person being robbed of intimacy or connection. In some ways, it can actually strengthen connection as you know that your partner is not suffering “on your behalf” out of a misguided obligation and you know that when they come home and spend time with you, it is with full love and understanding and communication of your needs as well.

When we started to be polyamorous, most of my partner’s dating habits were about exploring her attraction to women (yeah, looking back, it’s kind of funny to consider as a trans* woman). It felt strongly intimate, helping her uncover and feel more comfortable in her queer identity and who she was and what she wanted.

At the time, we had a model where I was pretty much monogamous and she was the one exploring other attractions. Which wasn’t to say I wasn’t allowed to explore, if I wanted to, but I was the type to very rarely fall in love with someone and as an asexual, I wasn’t all that interested in just going out and being sexual with a complete stranger out of a misguided sense of equality.

Having that split, therefore, was something that worked naturally for us and fit our relationship best. With the freedom to explore, we grew closer and were able to talk more freely about who we were by sexual orientation and in talking about her crushes or attractions, we were able to bond stronger than we ever had.

Being something of a massive tease, my favorite activity was to ramp her up before big dates, getting her a little turned on to help with nerves before sending her out the door to try meeting up with a new date. Her forays at the time weren’t often successful, but the freedom to explore and learn about what we both wanted was invaluable and still seems halcyon to consider.

Other Benefits from Polyamory

There are some who claim that polyamory necessitates a lowering of intimacy and connection. That there is only so much one can devote to a partner when one has multiple partners they are giving their energy to.

Which sort of ignores how people work. After all, outside really co-dependent relationships where every moment must be spent together, there are already moments where couples need time apart to explore other needs or simply recharge their batteries.

A couple where one partner is more extroverted while the other is more introverted may have a structure where the introverted partner has space to quietly do their own thing while their partner goes out with friends or other romantic partners.

Similarly, structures where there is a conflict in busyness. Where one partner needs romantic intimacy of a certain level, but their partner is swamped with work and other tasks and simply cannot provide that. Under a monogamous frame, this leads inevitably to conflict, where under polyamory, those needs can be met with a second partner, making those special moments less fraught with argument and more warm and connecting.

I remember myself the time I got a full-ride scholarship for a Master’s level program… in Denmark. Halfway around the world from where my partner and I had built our life. It was an opportunity I couldn’t let pass by, that I had no desire to let pass me by.

For many people, that sort of sustained absence is the moment a relationship ends. Two years apart with time zone differences that ensured that we only overlapped very early in the morning or very late at night, while I was going to be extremely busy working on grad school work and possibly even disappearing for months at a time during the thesis year.

Sustaining such a relationship might have been impossible under a model of enforced monogamy. But luckily we didn’t have to test that theory. My partner found multiple new partners during that time apart, closer in distance and willing to aid in the loneliness of the long nights. Once a week, at the least, we talked in early morning or late night, sharing our fond feelings for each other, how we missed each other, and how we looked forward to being together. I sometimes met her partners through the Skype. I sometimes only heard them described and talked about in our weekly dates.

With a lack of frustration, the loneliness was present but bearable, and our physical reunions were more sweet than bitter for not having the taste of denial and confusion poisoning them. I didn’t have to compete against fresher attractions that were closer at hand and she didn’t have to do without in order to prove her fealty to me. And thus, we were able to ride it through and reunite, stronger than ever.

Another important aspect of polyamory is something called compersion. Compersion is a feeling of joy one feels in seeing one’s partner experience joy from a source that is not you. And it’s not just a joy that is exclusive to polyamorous people.

Monogamous people feel it all the time in the form of the soft smile you feel when a partner comes back from spending a long day with friends and is smiling and laughing. It can also be the glow inside when seeing your partner geek out about a hobby or interest that they have and you don’t share.

In poly, it can occur in all those places and also in seeing one’s partner having fun and enjoying themselves with another romantic or sexual partner.

Because seeing one’s partner happy and giggling and having fun can be, well, FUN and that’s an important thing to note in a society where the only depictions of seeing one’s partner with another person are depictions of dread and sadness.

Having an open and openly communicated polyamorous relationship where your partner is having multiple romantic or sexual partners can also be thrilling for yourself, simply because seeing one’s partner in joy, no matter the source, can often feel good. As such, that can be an additional pleasure that polyamory can bring and help bring two or more people even more together than they would otherwise be.

Some of my strongest bonding moments with my partner has been seeing her coming off a date or introducing a new boyfriend or girlfriend to me. Seeing the glow on her face as she is in the throes of NRE (new relationship energy or the way new relationships can make one feel on top of the world and giddy), is something that makes me involuntarily smile as well. Not out of sacrifice but out of sharing.

Another thing that polyamory can provide is the thrush of NRE (new relationship energy). Have you ever seen a romantic comedy or any depiction of love in a romantic movie? If so, you probably have seen NRE depicted as the beginning and end of love.

NRE is the rush at the beginning of a relationship when everything is new and your partner can do no wrong. Where you are giddy and enjoying being in love or being in lust and everything being fresh before things settle more into routine and comfortable familiarity.

Everything is intense and you feel like one’s partner is perfect and you could be with them forever and that you should make some grand gesture to celebrate this intense wonderful feeling.

In short, NRE is the drug-like high of dating and it feels awesome. But in the classical monogamous frame, NRE is something that only happens once, at the beginning of a relationship. And oftentimes, media depictions of love state that once you find someone who rekindles all that NRE passion, one is supposed to run from their current partner into this new fling so that one can feel the rejuvenating feeling of new love.

Because in a monogamous relationship, that’s the only way to experience that feeling.

In a poly relationship there are no such limitations. If one wanted to have at least one relationship always in a NRE phase at all times, one can. One can feel that refreshment and invigoration by simply going out and dating, while still enjoying the stability and comfort of a more long-term and settled relationship.

In fact, that long-term relationship is often healthier for it because that reinvigoration and freshness can often spill back into that longer relationship and make it feel fresher and newer. New knowledge from handling the structure of a new person can help make an established structure stronger and can help bring new focus to the things that have gone unsaid or been taken for granted.

And that can be the difference between a long-term relationship that slowly fizzles out and one that can consistently sustain itself and actually grow stronger over time.

But again, this doesn’t answer the question of What specifically do asexuals get out of polyamory that makes it so universal?

What asexuals get out of polyamory

As noted, a lot of what asexuals get out of polyamory is the same thing everyone can get out polyamory. It allows a greater freedom of relationship design. It promotes healthy communication and a better handling of issues that might threaten monogamous relationships. Just like the general population, some asexuals are just naturally more inclined to polyamory and find it a superior model for their needs.

And for mixed orientation relationships between asexuals and sexuals, where one is asexual and the other is sexual, it can greatly reduce sources of conflict and situations where one partner is either expected to perform sexually out of obligation more than desire or where a partner needs to do without sex because to do otherwise would be to put their partner in a dreadful spot.

And that leads me to what I think might not be the reason (as there’s probably not just one reason), but is most certainly a reason that so many asexual people are finding polyamory to be the relationship model for them.

Polyamory removes the pressure to perform sexually for one’s partner.

Cause, see, by the traditional model of monogamy, it is generally expected that a partner, a “good” partner is one that meets all one’s needs. It’s someone you get along with as friends. It’s someone who is a good fit in romantic interactions and intimacy.

And it’s someone sexually compatible. Who’s into the same stuff in bed and who is into you as you are into them.

And because we are a messed up society that doesn’t like to talk about our sexual interactions, relationships are just sort of expected to have a sexual component, one that is jumped into without much discussion.

And honestly, that’s a crappy model for a lot of people. Not everyone views sex as the same thing or wants to have it at the same time as their partner wants it. The model ignores that someone might have specific wants that are not generally expected or have different erogenous zones or turn-ons than what is seen in dominant depictions of sex.

And worse, it ignores issues of consent and triggers. It ignores the fact that people may be survivors of sexual assault or rape or domestic abuse or simply may be unready for particular forms of sex. And while people do their best to do right by their partners for the most part, it leaves even the best intentioned people following the “social guidelines” for relationships in a position where they often have to trip over the landmines to notice them.

But for asexuals, it goes beyond that. Because a big social expectation, one that is reinforced in countless media depictions of love and relationships, is that in a relationship, you have sex.

And not only do you have sex, but that sexual attraction and chemistry should be taken as a given or else there is something “wrong” with the relationship. The less sexual partner is presumed to have something wrong with them or forcing their loved ones to “sacrifice” because of their “hangups”.

In the old days, I used to weep to read other asexuals write of their romantic relationships. So many people felt the intense pressure from society that they “owed” their romantic partner sex, that that is what someone had to do if they loved their partner.

And polyamory cuts through the heart of that social bullshit.

Cause even if you have the most loving and respectful partner of your boundaries and your orientation, the pressure is constantly there in a monogamous relationship. Even if your partner is sitting there telling you that this is all they need or they are fine with the fact that whatever intimacy you feel comfortable with will lack the potency of mutual chemistry, there’s a little voice of society telling you that you are robbing them of a crucial aspect of being human. That you are providing them an incomplete romantic experience. One in which you can only fully meet their romantic and intimate needs, but never their sexual ones, not really.

And even if you can cut through that little voice, you’ll be suffering a veritable gauntlet of public assholes who will repeat the same loudly and clearly. A lot of the reason that Dan Savage is a name that is hated in the asexual community is because he insists that sexual performance is something critical to a relationship and that by denying that, asexuals are denying relationships themselves. That an asexual should be ready and game for a mutual chemistry sexual relationship or they should do without powerful romantic relationships with people they love.

And that’s bullshit, yes. Clearly that is just the accumulated junk that society throws at asexuals because it is unaware of how they are affected by this “model relationship” it sells.

But by being polyamorous, one can silence that little voice and those public critics. Or at the very least eliminate their power to wound and ruin one’s relationship.

Because, by being open in one’s relationship, allowing one’s partner to explore other people and meet needs outside one’s relationship, one can be reminded everyday that one doesn’t need to “meet every need” in order to have strong, real connections that matter.

And that is something that seems odd, but can’t be overlooked, because it’s so important for real intimacy.

One can’t access the trust and connection critical for intimacy when one is worried about performing a “role” successfully or worried their partner needs a very specific set of behaviors to be happy.

And having that whole business just swept off the table? Becoming an “option” instead of a “demand” socially speaking is an incredibly liberating feeling that is so critical I can’t even describe it.

Knowing that my partner could explore her sexuality, all of her sexuality and that I didn’t even need to be involved if I didn’t want to be, that despite the protestations of those such as Dan Savage that I was “holding her back”, means knowing that I am enough.

I’ve been reading a webcomic lately titled Shades of A, and there’s an asexual character in it, very similar to those old stories on AVEN, who constantly feels like a freak and that he needs to be sexual in order to make his partners happy even though that is not at all what his partners want.

And unfortunately that’s a moment that a lot of romantic asexuals have struggled with because of all those who have said that that’s what a relationship is. That’s just how they work.

And polyamory, fiddly, tinkering polyamory rips apart that engine of pain and self-critique and reveals it as the bullshit it is.

One can have a relationship where they get cuddles and intimacy from a partner, but the partner goes elsewhere for sex. Or one where there is a form of sex, but it is not viewed as less than for lacking mutual chemistry or intense passion. Or one where one has multiple partners to connect with with love and intimacy and have different dynamics with that meets different needs.

One can make a relationship serve them, can respond to their needs and their limitations, instead of one that proscribes a “correct way of being” and that freedom with regards to sex removes a lot of the judgement and fear that relationships (especially mixed relationships between sexuals and asexuals) can carry for asexuals.

Knowing that my partner can go off and get her rocks off at any time may seem odd from an outside perspective, but it was something that made it possible to feel comfortable exploring myself and being honest to how I express intimacy.

And the funny thing is, that knowledge and that freedom actually allowed me to find aspects of sex that were interesting to me (though I would stress here that these experiences are unique to me and are by no means universal to all asexuals. If you are hoping polyamory will make an asexual person suddenly sexual, then you are an asshole and you should fuck right away from us).

Cause, see, sex without social pressure, for me, can be like the ultimate puzzle game. I mean, here’s this body and I have absolutely no personal experience with how any of this feels, but by having the right complicated hand, mouth, and spoken actions, I can make that body feel amazing and have such a powerful physical action as orgasm and that is something that is just intellectually and emotionally amazing!

I mean, it’s like Professor Layton on Speed and makes my nerd circuits go woo.

And that’s not true for every asexual. Hell, I’ll go further and say it won’t be true for most asexuals. But I know for me and for those demisexuals, grey-asexuals, and romantic asexuals who do engage in some sexual activity, having an environment of zero pressure, where there is no consequence for fucking up or suddenly deciding that I don’t want to do it anymore, is the only way I can access that curious scientific joy of discovery in that way.

And knowing that that there is that safety net means that while assholes like Dan Savage would scream that I’m doing it all wrong, treating sex like a DS game, only being comfortable with giving rather than receiving, lacking chemistry and only gaining joy through the intellectual and emotional aspects of making my partner happy, it can’t drag me down.

My relationship model is made to work for me.

To meet my needs and respond to the aspects of myself that are immutable and which may very well be arbitrary. It means that if I just drift off from doing things that are sexual with my partner, there is no pressure for me to “pick up the slack” from society. It means that if I want a relationship that is all cuddles and kisses and nothing else, I can have that and I can have that with all levels of fulfillment.

I’m in every interpretation of the word, free.

And that liberation from those chains of expectation, that what a relationship is is one in which sexual and romantic needs are one and the same, is probably the only way I could ever have had such long-term relationships or felt such joy and fulfillment in them as I do instead of sinking into self-doubt and despair like the main character in the Shades of A webcomic.

In fact, in my story, I am now in a relationship with two women, having fallen in love with another woman who is now my girlfriend, while my partner is still with me and is still dating two other people herself (her boyfriend and girlfriend). I’m not always sexual with either and when they enter dry spells, I have happily gone about my business, just enjoying the cuddling and general intimacy.

I’m free to enjoy what I want out of a relationship, because I know my partners are free to explore all of themselves and still be with me. That I don’t have to meet every need all the time.

And that freedom is something not I, nor many other asexuals would trade for the world.

Addendum to the Manifesto

While clearly this manifesto is pro-poly (after all, poly has been very useful for me and many other asexuals for a variety of reasons), it is worth noting that polyamory is not a magic elixir that fixes all ills.

Polyamory isn’t for everyone.

As noted earlier, some people are more naturally monogamous or feel more comfortable in monogamous style relationships. If you are the type of person who needs one’s romantic partner to be romantically and sexually exclusive to you, then polyamory isn’t going to serve you well at all and is just going to force another form of sacrifice. Similarly, if you are a person who gets repeatedly intensely jealous at the thought of sharing your partner with other people in a romantic or sexual manner, even when they are out of your sight or find yourself sabotaging your partner’s other relationships, then polyamory is probably not a natural fit for you and that needs to be communicated with your partner.

I’m a firm believer that the relationship model that works best is the one that works for the people inside it and if what you need in a relationship is something that looks more like the dominant version of monogamy, then you should hold out for that kind of relationship and meet those needs for yourself instead of trying to force yourself for your partner.

And on that note…

Polyamory will not fix a bad relationship

Polyamory can remove a lot of social pressure to perform sexually. But if your romantic partner is actually pressuring you to have sex, saying that you owe them out of “love” or “duty”, then that is abuse and polyamory will not fix that.

A partner who does not respect your boundaries or seeks to minimize them or use social pressure to get their way will not magically become a better, more respectful, less rapey partner if you switch to a polyamorous model.

It will not save those types of relationships, nor will it save relationships with domestic violence or emotional or sexual abuse or neglectful partners who do not want to communicate.

It will also not save relationships with partners who cheat on you without talking about it. The act of cheating is about a heck of a lot more than just getting needs met and a partner who is cheating on you regularly will probably still cheat or fail to disclose crucial information as much in a polyamorous relationship as in a monogamous one.

If you find yourself in such relationships, especially one in which your partner is explicitly stating you owe them sex, you should get out of them as soon as you safely can, enlisting aid as needed in the cases of domestic abuse.

And I know it can feel like abandoning these relationships feels like it’ll mean never finding love again, but please believe me when I say there are a huge number of genuinely respectful partners out there who will not seek to violate your boundaries or ignore your orientation. And you will find one of them, a LOT sooner than you think you will.

Poly relationships will not fix a lack of communication.

The thing about polyamory (to the point where the internal joke in polyamory circles is that polyamory is defined by this) is it is about communication.

Polyamory needs strong healthy communication to thrive and be responsive to the needs of those within the relationship. That means that both parties need to be willing to do the work to regularly communicate their needs with each other and at least be willing to highlight problem areas.

It does not require one to be an extrovert or to feel to need to share every aspect of every day with every partner, but if you don’t feel comfortable at least communicating the basics with your partner on a pretty consistent basis, then polyamory is probably not right for you.

Similarly, if your partner is closed off and uncommunicative with poly, then that system is probably not going to work well for them and will likely cause problems down the line. If open communication seems like too hard or too scary a concept and a part of monogamous relationships that’s too intense, then poly will not fix that and it might be better to take a break from relationships altogether until you can feel more comfortable sharing that sort of thing. It may even be worth introspecting if you want relationships at all as not everybody does.

There’s not just ONE right way to do poly.

Additionally, polyamory’s strength is how it can be customized to meet the needs of the people using it. There is no “one right way to do poly” and what works for one person in terms of rules and regimented forms of communication will not work for another.

As such, if you let someone tell you that there is one way to do poly or just try and copy someone else’s relationship model without thinking about or talking about what you and your partner(s) need out of a relationship, then you’re probably going to find polyamory to be as poor of a fit as a force monogamous relationship.

It can be scary to pick and choose what you need or make edits on the fly as new issues come up, but it’ll help immensely in making sure that your relationship is healthier and has more of a chance to survive and thrive.

But for those that polyamory fits, it fits well, or at least much better than monogamy.

And I think for many asexuals, the model removes a lot of the issues and conflicts that the dominant monogamous model inflicts. For many of us, polyamory gives us freedom to make our own relationship models and allow us to form our own conclusions in how we want to participate in a relationship.

These days, I regularly have my girlfriend over to my partner and I’s house. Nearly once a week, we share our queen bed, cuddling in a little row. Sometimes my partner brings her girlfriend as well. All together in a little tribe.

Sometimes I can hear my partner and her girlfriend having sex. It is wholly different than how I do it. It’s passionate and intense and her noises fill our little apartment up.

And I smile, proud and happy to hear my partner in such joy. I have been robbed of nothing. This orgasm takes nothing from me and I know that this evening, we’ll be spooning in our little row, with smiles on all our little faces.

And I sleep soundly and content, fulfilled with a relationship that works for us.

And I wouldn’t trade that feeling for the world.

This is my ace poly manifesto.

And for those who this system works, I hear yours as well, in the soft smile as a partner cuddles with you, in the soft glow of seeing them come home from a hot date, and in the strong commitments free of fear and societal intrusion.

And I no longer weep to read the stories of my fellow asexuals who are in romantic relationships.

Because we all know a way to be free.

I Read Things

01/26/2014

(FOREWARD: This is a rambling mess of a post. I wrote it raw and will probably not edit it before I hit publish. I may from time to time put up raw reactions like this simply to let things out that would have no place on my regular blog at Sadly, No! But that means I will not spend the amount of time or care on these works that I would something I was putting there.

So don’t say I didn’t warn you if it turns out to be a half-coherent slog.)

In the course of my day, I read things, usually a few silly things, like webcomics or a few snark sites in order to begin my day. And in the course of reading such things, I sometimes encounter things that just sort of needle under my skin.

I mean, they aren’t badto be exact. I mean, the authors who write them are sometimes people whose work I usually respect (as is the case this time) and let’s be frank, in my usual blog I frequently encounter way worse.

But it’s annoying in its own respect, because these small little annoyances. These things that aren’t so bad, nonetheless can be as illustrative as the great big examples the modern right gives us on the socio-political landscape that we call home.

So I dust off the musty covers of this old journal and allow it some small use in covering something that I would never in a million years use for a post on the main site.

And it’s quite probable that this won’t be the last post to revive this dead journal.

Today’s post is about a tumblr post. This tumblr post, to be exact,, which is part of a tumblr blog I like called Shittiest Editorial Cartoon of the Moment that usually rips into hacktacular editorial cartoons. Which yeah, small target, easily glossed over, completely forgettable.

But it needles and so we are here.
Read the rest of this entry »


What has TV Science wrought?!?

We tried to warn you.

Way back in the very first Mangotime!, we tried to warn you all about the scourge of the Canadian teen soap opera Degrassi: The Next Generation. How its depiction of a handful of LGBT characters have erased all non-LGBT characters from all other programming.

Well, you didn’t listen!

Now, Degrassi has committed an action so heinous and unconscionable, that a devoted mother was forced, forced I say, to catalogue it for all posterity as a warning to others.

That’s right. It…I can hardly find the courage…

It brought up the acknowledgment of bisexuals to her and her son (despite the fact that Degrassi doesn’t currently have any out-as-such bisexual characters). Thus forcing them to have to discuss the existence of people he will encounter in real life.

If you don’t understand the horror of this, you’ve never been a mother…while certifiably insane.

As such, this week, we must take you deep into this woman’s personal hell caused by the unending rampage of… Degrassi!

Latest Tween Fad… Bisexuality is Hip by the blog Education Knowledge

So Im watching spongebob on Nickelodeon final week with my thirteen yoa son

Your 13 year-old watches Spongebob? I mean, no judgement, people enjoy entertainment meant for a different age group all the time, but seems a bit…

Wait, this is about a 13 year old? I.e. starting high school or a year before starting high school? I.e. you really should have had the fucking birds and the bees conversation by now? I.e. your son probably already personally knows at least one out LGBT person by now?

A point? No, I wasn’t making a point, please go on.

and I see a business promo spot for Degrassi as I see two girls professing their deep need and adore for every single other in breathless, very grown up ways followed by a super slow camera shot of a romantic kiss of sizzling intensity and I must saymagnificient cinematography.

My neck felt hot as I instinctively moved to rub it, my other hand, slipping across my chest as I found my legs suddenly warm and chafing together. I’m not sure what caused this, but I’m guessing Satanism.

And in shock, Im thinking to myself undoubtedly that wasnt what I thought it was ? Not an openly lesbian lead storyline in one of the most significant pre-teen television displays on Tv ?

Queers? On my TV? And they allow this? My pearls have never been clutched as tightly as now. My word, don’t we have people to prevent this sort of thing from happening? Some sort of closet arrangement so we can keep our children in some sort of LGBT-free bubble so that they don’t think our bigoted responses to the concept are “sad” and “archaic”?

I mean, what do good christian women pay their taxes for?!?

10 minutes later on I see it once again and once again the promo runs of a romantic lesbian scene with the newest awesome new music packaged as quite as can be no accident, no mistake now.

Girls kissing other girls chastely on the mouth is only a big deal if you’re so repressed you force your 8th grade child to only watch Nickelodeon cartoons intended for children half his age?

Sorry, forgot my manners there. I meant, “my word no, obviously Nickelodeon is peddling in smut”.

Teen Nick has moved from their role of empty entertainers to sexual education and learning.

Okay, that was sarcasm, but we’re going to need several responses to encapsulate all the wrong packed into this one sentence.

1) Yes, how dare Teen Nick cover issues teenagers might be dealing with. What’s next? Shows with kids in high school?

2) Sex education has a definition and unless Degrassi has moved away from its soap opera style and started doing informational displays on proper condom use, it’s definitely not meeting that definition.

3) Yes, everyone knows that acknowledgement of lesbian romantic connections is the same exact thing as sex, because… well, it’s all she can think of when she thinks of lesbians. Hot sweaty lesbians, pawing at her pants buttons and… clutch the pearls, this too will pass. Pray away the Gay wouldn’t have lied to you (hint: they did).

4) It’s fucking Degrassi! Degrassi has covered abuse, rape, sexual harassment, assault, violent bullying, suicide, cheating, open and frank depictions of sex and sexuality, and so on. And that’s usually in one season. It’s a soap opera for teenagers. Complaining like it showing a girl-girl kiss is “crossing a line” demonstrates that this “watching Nickelodeon with my kid” “ritual” isn’t one that happens very often, because otherwise you should be VERY aware of what Degrassi is.

No longer are they just focused on making shareholders much more cash, or launching the worthwhile careers of its tween and teen heart-throbs.

Um, I think your mixing Nickelodeon with the Disney channel and its unholy factory of pre-packaged pre-teen virginal stars who magically start selling themselves as sluts around legal age.

And Degrassi is part of the “making money” thing. Its relatively popular for a teen show because its relatively good for a teen show. And that’s despite all the various wingnuts who’ve blown a gasket over how it doesn’t hide away the issues teens face for the sensibility of professional “moral guardians” crying to high heaven about “Teh Children”.

Teen Nick has moved well beyond just making mindless candy pop kids shows that outline the well-known and stunning. Their reveals have extended been the rabid fare of pre-teens, desperate to grow up faster and watchful to emulate the ideal hair designs, whitest teeth and latest fad fashions of their stars

Again, Disney. Not saying Teen Nick is free and clear of that trend. Hell, most teen programming probably isn’t free of it, but you are complaining a common argument against the pre-teen-marketed Disney shows.

But, no, continue. I’m sure your arguments will retain gravitas and seem to be coming from a position deeper than “ew gays, make them go away”, despite failing to understand Degrassi’s regular programming or teen programming in general.

Or really much of anything.

Well, that shouldn’t be a problem, it’s not like your blog title consists of two words relating to knowing…

Oh.

now it seems they are actively advertising bi-sexuality as being a far better way of encountering teen really like and coming of age life lessons for todays kid.

SUNDAY! SUNDAY! SUNDAY! THIS WEEKEND ONLY, SEE THE AMAZING BISEXUAL JUMP THROUGH THE FLAMING HOOP OF FIRE! RIGHT AFTER TRUCKOSAURUS!

Also did you know that acknowledging that bisexuals (well, actually a single lesbian kiss by a character who’s an out lesbian, so don’t no where all the rants about evil bisexuals are coming from) exist, means forcing their superiority on others?

Those of us who dig through the muck of homophobes are often accused of being overly willing to attribute closeted attractions to such people (making jokes that all homophobes are gay and so on).

Well, it’s because of shit like this. Because we are constantly ripping through a post where a writer is saying the only thing keeping us from a world of endless bisexual orgies is the fact that people are kept ignorant about the existence of bisexuals.

When the leap is “I saw a lesbian kiss” to “Going bi is the superior lifestyle”, it’s hard not to assume that her bookmarks tabs are filled with sites she is “researching” for a “new article on girl-on-girl pornographies effect on declining moral values”.

But I digress!

Fellow parents out there, you need to know the scene I noticed is just a sampling of the adult media that has now moved into the mainstream teen tv planet

And you thought I was kidding when I said Degrassi’s single trans character has erased all cisgendered characters from all entertainment every where. Silly fool, the LGBT takeover is nearly complete. There are token characters on literally dozens of shows and occasionally a long-running series will devote whole ones of episodes to talking about LGBT issues.

If we don’t stop the creeping homofascism, the chance of a wingnut having to acknowledge that LGBT people exist and aren’t actually demonic phantasms that exist only to taunt them with their smoking hot bodies may approach double digits.

And then where will we be?

and they are becoming amazingly good at glamorizing bi-sexuality as the newest wave of pop culture to our most vulnerable age group tweens. (little ones among the age of seven-thirteen)

Evidence of this glamorization?

Hell, evidence of bisexuality (seeing as her one example so far is a lesbian character she just assumed must be attracted to guys as well)?

Fuck, evidence that these shows are being marketed to tweens (shows like Glee and Degrassi are marketed to teenagers with themes chosen to match those realities)?

Why would we need that?

Think of the children, oogedy boogedy. I had to talk to my near-high-school level child about the existence of gay people! Think what could happen to your seven year old? Why looking at two ladies sharing a chaste kiss is far more traumatizing that sending them to a Catholic Church or anything run by Jerry Sandusky.

And no, we’re not even going to get into the massive fail of assuming that one can “catch” bisexuality simply because it is “trendy” or that it’s “trendy” simply because it is occasionally acknowledged in media.

We will briefly get heavy serious for a moment to knock the idea that it is inherently wrong to talk about bisexuality or queerness to high schoolers and middle schoolers. A good number of kids are going to grow up in the hell-hole of hormones that is middle school with attractions that don’t match up with the “normal” of their classmates. Kids who have been violently bullied for those attractions, necessitating projects like It Gets Better to try and address and reduce the number of kids who kill themselves over it.

The precious artifact children of people like this lady do not need to be “protected” from the knowledge that gay kids exist, but those bullied queer youth sure as damn well need a positive role model in their media. A fellow young queer kid on their programs to remind them that they are not alone, that it’s worth holding on through the pressure hell of middle school and high school.

They fucking need that all-too-rare token character on shows like Degrassi because that’s all they fucking have.

No one else wants to acknowledge that people like them exist, because of disingenuous parents like this who hide behind their children to try and legitimize their own desires to erase certain people from being acknowledged in our culture. To keep all of our entertainment white, straight, able-bodied, cisgendered, and centered entirely on frivolous middle class issues, because they don’t want to be exposed to the realities that the rest of us experience. Because they don’t want to be educated and think that they can get the whole world to get behind helping them keep their children as ignorant as them, simply because they raise a ruckus “for the children” at the drop of a hat.

And I’m sorry for the seriousness of that in a post that has already veered serious quite a few times, but it’s something that really needs to be addressed more in our culture.

Now, let’s return to the mangos.

This latest episode of Degrassi should serve as a warning for all of us who are seeking to preserve any semblance of a biblical entire world view for our people of faith.

Damn you real world with your insidious facts and their unbearable liberal biases! Why must you mock the poor people of faith, just trying to retain a biblical world view where the world was 6000 years old and unicorns and dragons totally did exist.

It’s just like those fascist cops who tried to infringe on my “deep personal beliefs” with all their blather about “how I wasn’t allowed to drive my car through crowds of people” just because I wanted a closer spot in the movie theatre. I mean, my 13 year old son needed to see the new Alvin and the Chipmunks movie. You didn’t expect us to have to walk to our seats where poor people and anti-Christian folk might assault him at any minute, did you?

We can no more time assume the stuff on mainstream Tv is secure.

Me speak english good.

The shows my little ones used to observe on Nick or Teen Nick at least respected the balance of getting a moral neutral value for usage those days are gone.

Little ones? The earliest kid you’ve mentioned was a 13 year old and no offense lady, but you don’t seem the type to show restraint when it comes to hiding your bigotry behind a child.

How old is the other “little one”? 29?

We cannot presume any more time that the stuff on Nick or Teen Nick can be watched un-supervised or at all.
Thats a frightening issue when you quit to feel about how effectively Nick Jr. and Nickelodeon have educated and entertained this very same era for a long time, starting out with the innocence of these reveals as Dora the Explorer and Spongebob Squarepants and then as our kids expand older, they begin to insert the tremendous awesome teen show Degrassi with all of its rot.

And comic books. Sure, you get them started on Donald Duck books and then all of a sudden there’s Watchmen and Preacher.

Or movies. You start them on Disney princesses having perfectly innocent adventures giving up their entire identity for a man and squelching any individual ambition and then all of a sudden they face movies with actual plots and maybe even an acknowledgment that people fuck.

Or life. You start them out on the bottle and yelling Bible verses at them about how much God hates their sinful naked body and then they go to school with people who aren’t like them and learn tolerance and respect and don’t view Harold as a sinner just because he’s gay or Ahmed as a terrorist just because he’s a muslim.

And even if you can prevent that, they still grow older and start having nasty mean teenage problems like sex and drugs and dealing with suicide and can’t we just preserve them for all time, unblinking statues of childhood preserved.

Come here children, mommy’s going to fix everything now. The Taxidermy book will make it all better. Now children will be with mommy forever and ever.

Like God intended.

It would seem on newest episode of Degrassi the producers decided the greatest storyline possible for our pre-teens and teens would be to highlight the newest in point for our youngsters, exact same-sex connection for tweens and teenagers.

It’s almost like they were trying to address teens who have same-sex attractions and euphemistic “connections” with them. With one single lesbian character on the main rota amidst a sea of heterosexual characters dealing with their various heterosexual relationships, having or deciding not to have heterosexual sex and that’s on the “daring” show Degrassi that’s got all the wingnuts in a tizzy.

Cause once that’s in, bam, nothing on TV but endless reruns of L Word and Xena Warrior Princess. It’s not so much a slippery slope as a wormhole in space-time.

Soon after observing the episode on the internet I felt the core concept of this show appears to sayfor you to be as great as the youngsters on Degrassi, its time to acknowledge you want to be openly gay with your girl good friend.

It must of said that. It said that to me. I recorded it on the Tivo, pushing away that spoiled brat who complained about things like “I was watching that”, “when are you making dinner” or “Mom, you’ve been watching that same clip for 24 hours straight now”. I could think of nothing but Michelle’s perky breasts poking out of her tank top as she collected her kid from a play date. Our kids actually hate each other, but I don’t care. Her smell intoxicates me, drawing me ever closer into her web.

And that’s why we need to stop Degrassi. It puts these wrong naughty thoughts into the heads of me our most impressionable young people.

They dont skimp on the guys becoming into men on this show possibly, but for now this is adequate. Ive copied the storyline summary from the episode in question for any parents who treatment to go through it. Its not even delicate its sick.

Just thinking about it has drained what little writing ability she has left. To be fair, it must be hard to write a post semi-intelligibly when one hand is jammed so far down your pants it is legally in another county.

She then quotes the Degrassi episode synopsis in its entirety. Because I apparently hate you all, I’ve reproduced it in its entirety. Please feel free to skip over it.

Degrassi: In As well Deep Recap: Season 10, Episode 42 “Chasing Pavements, Component Two” (04/09/2011)
A lot more Degrassi: Recaps | News and Forged Interviews | All Tv Recaps
Fiona arrives out. Fiona has effectively finished rehab, but up next on her plate is going through the vicious Bobby, her physically abusive ex-boyfriend. But Bobby delivers the family $a hundred,000 to not go to trial. Fiona is completely in opposition to taking the settlement, but her mother is concerned about how the trial may emotionally affect her, and thinks she should consider the cash. But with Holly J’s support, Fiona convinces her mother to allow her push ahead. Fiona surprisingly retains her individual on trial, but can not take again the simple fact that she embellished the bruise in the photo she took of her scar, and after Bobby’s testimony, she commences to doubt her determination, and considers turning to alcohol, until her coping methods arrive in excellent handy. But when an additional girlfriend of Bobby’s arrives ahead and confesses that Bobby has abused her as well, Fiona’s circumstance is manufactured. She wins $250,000! In her happiness, she kisses Holly J on the lips!
Fiona has a romantic dream about Holly J and realizes her emotions for her greatest good friend. Holly J and Fiona strategy a sleepover collectively, although Fiona reconciles with Adam about their previous and sets up a movie date with him. She confesses that he wasn’t a issue in her life, and she nevertheless likes him. But while they are hooking up, Fiona tries to compliment him for becoming “the greatest of the two worlds”, and Adam storms out, telling Fiona that she just wishes a woman. The next day, she confesses to Holly J that she does not like Adam any more. In turn, on their sleepover, Holly J realizes she loves Declan in a way that she does not feel for Sav. When her mother comes property, Fiona confesses to her that she’s gay, and she’s in really like with Holly J. Her mother completely supports her, and tells her that it won’t be straightforward, but she can get through it. She comes clear to Holly J that she’s gay, who also isn’t the least bit bothered by it.

You didn’t need to read it all. But if you did, you probably noticed one big thing. “Gosh, that sounds like a soap opera aimed at teenagers”. And you’d be demonstrating your ability to prevent lesbian kisses from melting your ability to process information.

Thus proving you are part of the Dyke Cylon Force hellbent on enslaving America. We’re on to you vile Robotic Wenches! You will not get our children with your hypno-rays!

Seriously if you have taken the time to study this far you are recognizing what I did, the culture our little ones are residing in and around has been teaching them to abandon the standard views of faith and family and sexuality for some thing a lot cooler bi-sexuality is the way to go if youre as hip as they are.

Again, where is all the “bisexuality is hip” coming from?

Especially seeing as how she messed up the cardinal wingnut rule and actually quoted the original source of the thing she was complaining about, thus demonstrating that she’s freaking out over a lesbian coming out story.

Apparently it goes:

Step One: Tell a story of a fictional lesbian.
Step Two: REDACTED for reasons of sexy
Step Three: Everyone’s a bisexual!

How a lot of thousands and thousands of teen and tweens living in the chaos of their individual confusing and un-glamorous lives are currently being swept into this deception ? I imply this display is openly suggesting that if you care for a good friend, and they are the identical-sex it extremely properly could be that your attracted to them because your gay or bi-sexual. And not only is that o.k, but its really very awesome to do.

And it’s not ok. You should rot forever in the closet, holding that secret shame deep inside as you force yourself to ride the cock of a man you don’t love and stay in a loveless sham marriage always dreaming of that person as you cry into the pillow and violently shrug off your partner’s attempts to hold you.

Because that’s Jesus’s plan for you.

Also, she’s totally not gay, why would you think that. It’s just that bisexuality is so very seductive and trendy and other kids, female kids could get sucked into those obviously fictional media-induced attractions that could never exist in reality.

What are you staring at?

Mothers and fathers, Im begging you WE ALL Want TO WAKE UP!

Our planet is changing the principles and its happening on our watch. Our little ones are getting fed a developing diet regime of sexual storylines, pictures and role modeling that is influencing an entire era of little ones with a various gospel and a various fact than the one they listen to from us.

The world was filled with black people who refused to quietly suffer in the background and insisted on living full real respected lives, so we packed up our things and moved to the suburbs. The world was filled with women refusing to suffer silent as homemakers and spoke up about sexual consent, female sexual desire, desire to work from home and other things so we spent decades trying to dismantle the sex education programs they created and block almost all depictions of real female empowerment from media because it was “a higher rating level”. But now the walls are crumbling. “Those kids” are in the suburbs, going to the schools that were meant to keep them out. Bullying is not keeping the queers and the weirdos quiet, people are having to talk. And the internet, that demon-spawned device connects them to everyone, anyone.

There is no where else to hide. No where else to retreat to to raise them ignorant and contained in insular little communities.

They are looking at us with eyes mixed with hate and pity, wondering why they were denied life because of their parents’ hate.

Liberals will pay for that.

Make sure you take the time to talk with your little ones, block the teen nick channel if you dare on your house cable or satellite tvs and make clear your beliefs and values with your little ones These days. tomorrow may possibly nicely be also late.

Sorry for the lengthy and ominous blog nowadays, but it frightened the crap out of me when I began to study this a bit.

Yes, I totally believe you’ve “studied it”. Your writing demonstrates that thoroughly.

God, help us lead this generation back into the fact and hope of our faith as Christians. Heres to people who are determined to keeping their people on the road and in among the lines of daily life Im encouraging you to discover out far more, evaluation what your little ones are watching from the Pc, to the iPod to the televisions in your property. Consider an Energetic Part and Presume nothing. Its a scary time to be a father or mother, but I feel God has a method and a plan for people of us who take the time and pay attention for it.
Consider the time right now.

Holy Bob, Guardian of Stuff, forgive me for laughing my ass off over pleas like this. It’s just it is so damn funny when someone is literally begging God to try and make history and reality stop so they don’t have to grow and acknowledge reality.

Peace out
brad.

Wait.

Well that’s some egg on my face. From the entire pearl-clutching freak-out and overproductive nature, I totally assumed a mother and you know what? That’s bad on me.

I fight hard for the right for people to be themselves regardless of gender norms and I cheer this man’s brave stance even as a hyper-repressed Christian to live the gender stereotypes of a hyper-repressed Christian of the opposite sex.

Strike a brave blow, Peace Out brad, for all of us*.

This concludes another Mangotime!

*Which also changes the interpretation immensely. Sure, he’s assuming that a lesbian kiss will make all the girls bi because it’s personally irresistible to him. But that’s because he’s a giant egotist and assumes that just because he finds two young “Hollywood lesbians” locking lips the hottest thing ever, any woman watching will do the same and be unable to resist the brain-washing. I think I preferred the version where he was just a repressed lesbian.


They’re like the Musketeers if instead of famous swordsmen they were guys with douchebeards who thought Austin Powers was a How-to guide on how to pick up women.

*In the Sadly, No! commentariat, there is a long standing meme that when dealing with wingnut articles, it is always best to stay on the boat of the site instead of venturing out for the rotten mangos of the original posts of the nutjobs and psychotics. We here go into that depth of that insanity and bring it all back. Welcome to Mangotime!

Today’s example is shameless nutpicking and so should be read as such. It is an old post by a person on a Pick-up Artist Forum and it received absolutely no attention from the other bottom feeders and that’s since it was originally posted in March of this year.

So why pick it for a complete ripping apart? Because Pick-up Artistry is a really sad and abusive system. Not so much for the women. I mean, it sucks dealing with douchebags who are intentionally douchebags playing off social niceties in order to trap you like a rapist, but it’s more a crime against the men who get sucked up into the world.

Pick-up Artistry is all about selling men a “manly” means of getting “pussy” that sells to lonely or insecure men the fantasy of a suave “player” persona that once they master the art of making themselves a worse person, that they will be getting laid every which way.

When it doesn’t work (because the techniques make you the type of douchebag that many women have learned to stay far away from), you double down on more techniques, being trained to blame it on “cockblockers” (i.e. non-targets who tell you you’re being a douchebag and need to lay off) or “stuck-up bitches” (i.e. targets who refuse to be wowed by the “guaranteed tactics” of being a giant douchebag to her face), because you’re lonely and you are even in more need of a “technique” to have faith in to end the loneliness. When it does work (i.e. when a woman would have slept with the person based on mutual chemistry or appearance), it’s used to justify the “Game” and the techniques and erase all the times it failed, even though the assholic and inherently disingenuous methods make impossible any transition from “prey” to long-term sex or relationship partner and limit what could have been the start of something before you revealed yourself to be an asshole. Not to mention that sex with a partner you’ve inherently trained yourself to view as lesser than you will always feel worse than with someone you view as a mutual partner you are exploring with together.

And since what attracted them to the program is often harder loneliness than “I want to get laid”, they end up getting more and more committed to being worse and worse people because they’re always still lonely even if the techniques occassionally don’t fuck up a hook-up that was already going to happen.

What the programs do offer is homosocial support, and that’s the carrot of the situation. That you will have “bros” who will support you when you make yourself emotionally vulnerable, by demanding you give up any emotional vulnerability thus making relationships and most good sex impossible but getting in return assurances from other men that you are “manlier” than “beta males” as long as you keep fronting your successes as if they were real.

In short, it’s entirely a high school comedy made real where a circle of virgins brag about the earliest and most porntastic way they lost their virginity in order to score points with the other virgins in the circle, each feeling shamed for not being as “successful” and thus more desperate for a “guaranteed technique” to get laid.

But I’ve given enough intro. Let’s jump into our mango:

Gaming a so called Asexual! by a random sucker of the PUA racket

“How would you game an Asexual?”

Is that like one of those zen riddles? What is the sound of one hand clapping? What is the sound of a handless man fapping?

This thought was born after a friend of mine told me her best friend was asexual and I shouldn’t even try anything.

Respecting orientations is for fags. If he was manly enough then lesbians and asexuals would just be all up on his cock.

Haha fuck that! I’m doing this in the name of Gaming Research! xD

How would the game work on a HB with a low sexual drive?

That’s what I wanna find out.

He has this annoying habit of making every
single
sentence
another
paragraph.

I’m quoting it here to demonstrate it and will condense them back down in future paragraphs. Also, I’d like to see the Experiment Notes.

Day 25, Balls still blue. Apparently sexual orientations don’t mean should be ignored suggestions.

Though I personally don’t believe I’m experienced enough yet to make this 100 % fair to the Game.

Ah see here the way that the suckers who get sucked into the PUA world learn to self-justify the failures. It’s okay if they didn’t work, it’s not the programs fault, I’m just not good enough yet. After all, Douchey McNeckBeard says it’s guaranteed and if I can’t trust random douchebags who can I trust?

Women?

Don’t make me laugh.

But you guys will help me with that So a lil back story: It all really started last year. I had a gig with my band. And when we were backstage I loudly talked about The Game as I had recently discovered it.

Some circles of male friends are douchey enough to be impressed by it. Others smirk at you and laugh at how many more women the bassist is dating by being a strong feminist and being active in the kink scene. Sadly without self-awareness on the part of this man, we’ll never know what this Schroedinger’s Band contains.

I said a pretty stupid thing on my way out to soundcheck, and she heard it. I said “It’s basicly how you fuck a chick in 7 hours” That’s not at all what the game is, I know. But my slow friends didn’t get it so I dumbed it down a lot.

Ah, so it’s the latter. Yes, “not get it”, openly disagree, note the inherent flaws of, notice that this is the person who already isn’t getting laid, such similar concepts. And yeah, I have a lesbian friend who somehow fell into this pit of vipers and she also complains about how we “don’t get it” when we note what a giant bag of fail PUA is and has been for her.

But HB9 was sitting outside when I walked out of the door and said it pretty load and I think she heard. And I thought to myself: “haha fuck, I guess I wont be gaming her anytime soon”

HB9 stands for Hot Blonde 9. See, in the PUA world, the way to get women to like you is to reduce them to numbers and objects. As such, women are ranked from 1-10 in terms of attractiveness (would the man rank himself honestly or be okay with a woman creating a similar ranking system and seeing himself fall crater like to the bottom? Oh hell no, but that’s patriarchy for you) and also reduced to things like hair color. Because if you want to get together with someone, all that really matters is the color of the hair you plan on pulling and how hot the tits you plan on slapping are. And since you apparently get all of your sex advice from pornography and douchebags who think women are numbers and have been trained never to listen to what a woman says she actually wants, I imagine that even if you got a woman into bed, you’d find out damn quick how quickly that was cancelled.

Didn’t really talk to her. But I did find out that she was friends with the person who got us the gig. This person is now a friend of mine and the manager of my band. So through her lately I’ve been spending more time with HB9.

Pissing off the manager of your band and the only person to have pity on your talentless cover band to try to prove that the game can overcome sexuality in pursuing her best friend?

Brilliant business decision.

But no seriously, Pick-up Artistry fucks up people’s lives like this.

We met 2 times after that first gig, where I barely spoke to her at all. But now these 2 last times I started talking to her more. First one was before/after another gig I had. But it was on our way home where I tried to make her open up. Was quite hard actually. I went home with 2 other friends from my class who came to see the gig so I talked with them also. I tried to get her to comment on stuff, and I asked her a few things and I said that she would do something random when she got home

She seems completely not interested in my presence and only tolerating my douche ass because her best friend is directly connected to your less douchey band and this is a way to see her and support her.

Of course, she hasn’t learned to hate all men yet, so can we fix that?

And she said “no i wont do that” and it made her laugh. During the way home I noticed her laugh at what I said and my friends but she was very reserved.

Nervous laughter, feeling less safe, hoping that the man will get the hint?

Bah, why would he notice any of that, he got a laugh reaction, now it was time to bring the hammer down.

She didn’t know us so well so I can understand that. But I wanted to chagne that so I talked to her more and got her to talk and eventually she was talking as much as we were.

Woman not into you? Stalking solves everything. They will truly now what you are about if you keep trying to dominate her space and reveal every nasty mole of your character until she starts researching how restraining orders work. It’s a PUA guaranteed technique.

Seriously though, this is one of the biggies on how PUA techniques make you a worse person. A lot of it is about exploiting social niceties (i.e. when you are talking to someone or they are talking to you it is rude to simply tell them off or call them a dickbag, especially if you are a woman). So when someone tries not to be rude to you and gives you a pity laugh and starts looking for their friends or tries to move away from the person or show disinterest in the conversation, the PUA is urged to dominate the conversation or the space or try and loudly make themselves a constant presence around the woman so that they do not feel they have an escape route. So the woman either is forced to be rude (and thus be a bitch proving the inferiority of the female sex) or politely tolerate the douchebag until she can be rescued by friends that pick up on the subconscious distress (and thus prove that she was totally in his power and that PUA techniques work).

Worst of all, the techniques often stress pressing hard on consent until it becomes non-consent, asking men to ignore deliberate statements and look for “subconscious signs she wants you” that are more based in social niceties and to otherwise try and isolate a woman where she feels less safe to say no and more pressured to just go along with things to make the person go away. This naturally leads to both rape by manipulation and rape by opportunity when things like “she didn’t say no” or “she implied consent when she got drunk at the party after flirting with me” come into play.

And any system that makes anybody less respectful of consent and more exploitative of other people’s good natures is a system designed to make one a particularly vile type of sociopath. And that’s the big problem. How it takes people who are simply privileged and turns them into sociopathic dangers women actually have to develop a self-defense system to and that’s no fun for anyone trying to have a dating scene/hook-up scene that’s actually worth a damn (and why bars with a PUA infestation tend to become guy bars pretty damn fast).

And I hugged her goodbye when her train came and went home with ma buddy. The first thing he said to me when she got on the train was “Man she was hot! I had difficulties not staring!” and we laughed.

This is who PUA is for. Not for the ladies, not even for the man who is lonely. It’s so the PUA can bond with that one douchey friend and be raised in their esteem. And we all know who that one douchey friend is. They’re the ones who every time someone in the friend circle gets into a long-term relationship makes constant jokes about the person being “whipped” and “was being made her bitch”. The ones who constantly ask creepy questions about what it is like to be fucking their girlfriends. The ones who call anyone who is in a relationship a fag pansy who’s lost their balls and constantly berate their fellow members for not being enough of a man.

You know, the eternal virgin who is going to come out as gay in 10 years? Yeah, well, thanks to male social conditioning, that one guy has a lot of power in any friend circle and can be a strong incentive for a man to start really upping the douchery around their main partner so that they won’t lose the respect of a douchebag.

Ah well, at least they’ll have each other to cuddle next to and yell “no homo” at.

The second time was yesterday at this other gig I had. I noticed her in the crowd when I was getting ready on stage and I made a little nod with my head to say hello and continued with what I was doing. It was a fun gig and I think being on stage with my band served as a DHV and that I help with the screams this time might have added some DHV as well.

DHV is a PUA term meaning “Demonstration of Higher Value”. You may know it better as “that thing a douchebag shows off to demonstrate they have a small penis and are over-compensating. Such as an SUV, fast sports car, or in this case a band who is actively planning to replace a certain member as soon as they find a replacement.

Remember, PUA is an equal-opportunity program. It dehumanizes men and women alike.

After the gig she walked past me to go up to the second floor and gave me thumbs up. I went up later and spent some time with the band and our friends She was sitting at this table with our manager and drinking some beer and

She showed basic courtesy and hung out with her best friend who is probably the only person she really knows at the bar? Why doesn’t she just drop her panties like the slut she is?

I stood there a little behind her.

Not at all creepy.

Hello, little girl, your hair smells nice.

Not creepy at all.

I was just relaxing and not really talking to anyone when she opened me with “You look happy and lively”

Polite small talk? My words, if there wasn’t a stronger sign that she wanted to suck your cock, I have never heard of it. Go man! Fly like a proud eagle cock first down her throat!

I take that as an IOI. I answered. Don’t remember what I said though. But not much time after that I decided to start Gaming.

Oh my fucking Bob in Himmel, I was joking!

And for those of you not fluent in douchebag, IOI means indicator of interest. If you turn everything into a TLA then everything is 5 by 5 and official sounding as if there was some actual science and gravitas to the proceeding rather than a bunch of douchebags trying to make stalker/rapist tactics seem legitimate.

There was a girl standing next to me aswell. So I started talking to her and slightly turning my back on HB9. I made her laugh and I DHV’D quite well. I noticed HB9 laughing also, I was talking pretty loud. It was my intent for her to hear what I said. I then suddenly remembered a trick with a pen I had learned from something the other girl said, so I asked if she had a pen. She did, I then showed her the trick and asked if she could do it from only seeing me do it. It looks easy when you observe, but when you try it yourself it’s really hard!

She was laughing in my presence, possibly at my obvious lameness and the fact that I was talking to a chick really loudly while occassionally pointedly looking back at her like some 9 year old throwing a passive-aggressive tantrum.

And yes, why would you throw this douche away, he’s part of a band and he knows a single magic trick. Why he’s shown absolutely no negatives other than being a massive tool who thinks he’s god’s gift to women now that he’s mastered the art of being a dick (with acronyms!).

I decided to turn around and make HB9 try I aswell.

Do it! Or else you get the hose again!

Oh, PUAs, how you wonder why “uppity women” look on you with the same fondness they would have for serial killers.

After that I ran the ESP gambit(other girl), 5 Lies game (HB9), “How many 9′s between 1-100″ (both) Kino Gambit (both)

This is just sad. This is how deep in the hole he is. He’s not getting laid, but he’s learned so much of the Douche Lingo, that he’s rattling it off like a pro. This is a man slipping down in the spiral and unaware of what’s going on. By the reactions of those around him, his band, his manager friend, the asexual woman, and a number of others around him are aware of the self-destructive system but haven’t felt like wrestling with the beast to really try and get him to wake up.

This is a man who is being trained to be bitter as his “cool factor” fades and the women become less and less willing to give him social niceties because of the few non-douchey connections he hasn’t scared away yet. And I doubt any of his friends could save him out of it, because only PUA techniques will give him what he needs, at least that’s what he’s convinced himself.

But this is a humor deconstruction, so let’s consult the douche to human dictionary to see what he said.

ESP Gambit- A party trick where you “guess a number” in someone’s head between 1-10 and it being either 3 or 7. This will usually give you polite laughter especially if the person has been drinking and to the PUA, laughter might as well be a request for the PUA to rape you the next time you need to go pee.

5 lies game- Oh boy, how to explain the dumbassery in this one. You bet a girl a drink to play a “5 lies game” where everything they respond needs to be a lie. So you ask some questions and then ask “how many questions did I ask” or “have you played this before”. Basically, the less interested the person is, the less likely to put up with it and thus the more likely you can claim you “won the bet” asking them to buy you a drink and thus demand more of their time as they wait for the bartender to give them their drink or as they argue with the douchebag that they never agreed to the bet. So it sets up a debate in the woman over if it’s worth it to try and argue with a dangerous idiot and risk them turning violent, obsessive, or just dominating your time arguing about a stupid thing and thus blocking your ability to enjoy your night out or to just give in, give him the drink and hope he’ll go away but thus giving him an “in” to monopolize more of your time, because “you showed interest”.

If you think these “techniques” seem to be arguing that a woman should never speak to a man at a bar they don’t want to talk to just in case they decide they want to monopolize and ruin their entire evening. Well, then ding ding ding, you’ve won our grand prize.

This naturally sets up rants about the “stuck-up bitches at the clubs” “who think they’re better than men” and “need to be taught a lesson”.

This is how PUAs simultaneously make nights-out less fun for everyone while also turning the PUA into a worse person who blames women for all their problems.

But we’re not done with the dictionary.

How many 9′s between 1-100- I bet you never knew that puzzle book trick-questions could be weaponized did you? Yeah, same deal as before. Make a stupid bet, make them decide if it’s worth debating with a moron instead of getting back to their evening. Ask a question designed to lead to a 10 answer rather than a 20 answer especially if it’s loud and you’ve been drinking. Pout if they get it right, but turn that into a sign of interest because they cared enough to pay attention to you. If you think these are the tactics of a 5 year old demanding the family pay attention to them more and threatening to cry if the answer is “mommy’s busy trying to keep your daddy from bleeding out”, then congratulations, you’re smarter than any of the people who got sucked into this system. And yeah, all of them are designed as “win-wins” if the “win-win” is they are forced to spend more time in your presence absorbing just how much of a collosal tool you are.

Kino Gambit- And here’s where we move from dumb party tricks to the actual rape level stuff. Basically, kino gambit and kino in general means unwanted touching. It’s where you touch a woman without them giving consent and if they don’t fight back, you escalate until you are pawing their breasts in public. If they do react and fight back, then publicly chide them for being a crazy bitch and go back to publicly molesting them at a later time. There’s no getting around this one. It’s a fucking rape technique at best, and public molestation at worst. I’m sure the person who publicly molested me (I froze at the time) was just Kino gambiting to the point where he was rubbing himself against my leg (I had no idea what was going on at the time, but my friends seemed to think it was okay, so…yeah, I was an idiot, but I didn’t receive the same training most women go through at adolescence to passively escape and signal escape and so was mostly left confused).

And no, it’s not designed to do jack shit other than freeze a woman who isn’t used to being publicly molested in front of her friends. Like think about the logic of this man here. How was touching her, hell, touching this random woman he wasn’t even interested in, going to make this asexual want him. Ooh, the way you put your hand on her thigh even though she’s trying to slide away and she never gave you consent is making me panties melt with the sheer power of how wet I am?

Fuck no, it’s about establishing dominance and the unstated threat that shit can escalate in a nasty direction if she puts up a fight.

And sadly, there’s nothing funny about that.

But since he luckily struck out as most PUAs do, let us laugh at the blue-balled wanna-be-rapist.

They laughed so much and it all went really smoothly. I felt good and the vibe was nice.

Yes, their nervous laughter and on guard body language told me I was in like flint.

Note to douchebags, this:

is not interest. Nor a “good vibe”. And that warm feeling in your gut is just booze, not top secret “she wants me” rays.

I continued talking to both but giving HB9 a little more attention now. I had kino’d her from the start, but escalated further. I remember when I first started kino was when I reached my hand over to take something. My hand brushed over her and she quickly withdrew her hand. But later on when I had continued with the kino touching her hand wasn’t a problem. She had something written on her wrist, so I took her wrist and asked her what it was. I noticed she wasn’t “giving” her wrist away 100 % but enough atleast. I negged her a few times. Had her friend sit in my lap while talking to her and making her laugh and being playful with small negs.

I’m trying to imagine this scenario and having it look anything like a combination of a molestation and the worst date of most people’s lives (this one’s still worse though).

So he starts molesting her from behind, touching and leaning all over her. Bitching at her constantly about not letting him paw all over her like a drunken buffoon and demanding to see the notes written on her wrist. Forcing his manager to sit on his lap and negging her (real world definition insulting, specifically in calculated ways to undermine self-esteem often with deniability of “I was only kidding” so that she’s the “bitch” if she raises a fuss).

I really don’t see how this wouldn’t end in her practically draping her panties over his head. Why for it not to work, women would have to be actual people rather than malfunctioning sexbots who feed on douchebaggery and the Neckbeard Quartet assured me that could never be the case.

That is… (duh duh DUH!!!) Unless we let the feminazis win!

NEVAR FORGET!

After a few hours we were getting hungry so we left to find some food (not only HB9 and me, but about 5 others). On the way I was walking a bit from the group with her by my side. And we talked and the conversation was quite smooth. I noticed she was quite the talker after all. I was thinking about if I had recieved anymore IOI’s because I caught myself not even being aware if I got any.

Yes, the terrified woman planning to never again see her friend anywhere near the band she’s promoting did indeed “talk”, well around him, with the 5 others and while he’s been looking for any sign of laughter or anything he can interpret as an excuse to molest her further he can’t “remember any”. It’s almost like he’s terrified the soul right out of her and she’s quickly forgetting what joy even felt like.

I remembered that her pupils were dilated when she spoke to me. But that could easily be because of the dim light. I felt stupid for not watching out for IOI’s, I easily forget to do that. But I remembered her holding eye contact with me for long times. Even if we weren’t talking.

Oh my god, this is so horrible and I am so horrible for laughing at it.

I mean, it’s godawful. This is the most obvious visual sign for straight up, balls to the wall terror and he’s reporting it verbatim like “hey, maybe this was a sign she was interested in me, she was looking at me with wide fright-filled eyes to make sure I wasn’t going to try and sneak up behind her and molest her again, maybe that means she’ll fuck me.”

But I can’t stop laughing. He’s been so trained in this world of complete douchery that he can’t even recognize the most obvious of body language anymore. Even human concepts like fear pass him by, but no he’s going to prove that the Game can breach the sexuality barrier. Puh-leez.

I decided to stop talking to see if she would start the conversation again. She didn’t. But it felt more like she had already said everything on her mind and were struggling to come up with something to say.

She felt “please God let me go” would be too rude and she had long since learned that any small talk would just make the creepy guy more interested in her. So she’s been trained to respond to nothing. To sit there in utter fear, not responding to anything and giving as little possible human interaction as possible in the hopes that that would stop the asshole.

Geez, why must these bitches be all frigid and coy with their feelings, amirite douchebros? Hi-oh!

I asked a friend infront of us where we were heading. He answered and then looked back and said “Haha look at those two. They look so great together. You’d think they were a couple!” And the others agreed.

And then we all high-fived and they said I had a giant penis and get laid like 50 million times every night and then I rode off on a rocket ship to Mars, but it wasn’t a rocket ship it was Optimus Prime and he was giving me a blowjob, but not in a gay way and it was awesome! And totally happened.

I said “I doubt that” (was this the right response? Maybe I should’ve laughed while I said it.)

Is this a human moment?

Some last vestige of humanity struggling against the PUA brainwashing?

But then I grabbed her and pulled her towards me and held her a bit while we were walking like we were couple and made some silly sounds that made her laugh. Then I released.

O.O

Nope.

And no points for guessing that both her hands were pushing hard against him as he was doing this.

Almost everything was closed. But we found one place, but only 2 in the group bought anything. So while we waited for their food I chatted with her and the others. And man, did I make them laugh. Watching a beautiful woman laugh so hard and you know it’s thanks to you sure does feel nice.

Then you’ve learned to take pleasure in the only pleasure you’ll ever bring women.

The joy of laughing at your immense and unsubtle douchebaggery.

Also, has any PUA anywhere acknowledged that getting drunk people to laugh has to be one of the 3 easiest things in the world to do. I’ve made a drunk person laugh simply by looking at them with a blank face. Ain’t fucking difficult.

After a while all of us went home, she and I took the same train, but only one station. And this time I said something like

She actually lived 10 stations away, but that one station was the longest station of her life and didn’t want to risk re-enacting a Japanese hentai.

Wait, he said something, didn’t he. Well, how bad could it b-

“I know what you’re going to when you get home! You’re going straight for your computer, then 4chan, then you’re going to search for nasty shit all night”

O.O

Also remember this is an asexual woman.

Words cannot even begin to sum up the douchery inherent in this sentence. So I’ll leave it up to the commenters. I’m counting on you people!

She laughed and said she would go straight for bed. Then I said something and hugged her goodbye. I barely had the time to finish my sentence before the train had arrived at the station.

Her night of horror thus complete, she retired to her bed, thankful to have escaped intact.

Immediately after I thought “Ah man! I should have given her a kiss on the cheek”

Keep it classy, douchebro.

Which I earlier that night had touched gently with the back of my hand, It was when we were “fightning”. It was very playful. I also flicked her off at some point. Flicking chicks off never fail to give me the reaction I want. It opens up for kino a lot!

Flicking off chicks is an opening for publicly groping them and otherwise unwantedly touching them?

What is the atmosphere like on your planet? Is it green? I’ve always wondered what a green sky would be like.

Also, I said keep it classy.

I’ve never tried flicking off someone i’ve never spoken to though. But I just flick them off with this kinda “Oh! did i just flick you off? I think i just did” expression on my face.

Well, that sold me. I’d fuck him. Flick me off my Romeo! Flick me off so well!

They usually respond like “You messing? Huh? come on I can take you” And then we “fight” and I can kino a lot.

And then she begged me to let her suck my cock, but I was “bitch, please, you’re only an 8″ and then she said, “well what if I got my hot friend and we double teamed you” and I swear it was a true story Penthouse!

But about that kiss on her cheek. Should I give her one the next time we meet? Or will it maybe show to much interest of be bad in some way? I’ll continue with how it goes with HB9 in this thread in the future! Cya later!

Why wait, let’s look now!

Okay update time! I talked with my friend yesterday about HB9 and got to know some interesting things. One thing was that he thought that if i’d kiss her on the cheek she would never talk to me again and cut off all connections with the band.

Well, seeing as she was being razzed the entire evening to treat her light molestation as joshing between drunk acquaintances, yeah, I can see that. What with that continued escalation into “no shit he was trying to rape you” that being the only way she’d be able to call the dick off. Fuck, she’s being pretty well natured not doing that already after that metric fuckton of douchery.

I felt like that was to drastic. Even though I also learned that she has never been in a relationship or even kissed someone it would still be to drastic.

Shyeah! Drastic buzzkill dude! I mean just because I knew she was an asexual, monopolized her time with her best friend like a creepy stalker and have shown a strong willingness to escalate is no reason to try and escape my presence, brah! I bet she’s like a dyke or something!

He said we looked great together in the name of game btw. He didn’t really think so, but he’s natural gamer so I guess he knew that would be a good thing to say. He also told me that the best friend of HB9 was really surprised over the fact that HB9 was walking alone with me a few meters away from the group and that she took the subway alone with me. Apparently she has never done something like that except for one time with the friend I just spoke of (the guy not the best friend) and he told me that he heard that HB9 did find it extremely awkward.

And like he slapped me on the back and called me a real man for believing in the Game and becoming a douchebag…even though everything he said was about how his creepy douchery had made the woman in question whether or not she still wanted to hang out with her busy friend and a band presumably made of people who didn’t suck.

Self-awareness. Do you has it?

He told me that she trys to avoid being alone with guys she doesn’t know, but she didn’t avoid me. Wich suprised her best friend alot. I take these things as great IOI’s!

Of course you did.

She took out a restraining order. This means I’m even closer to getting her panties!

Also, why do women treat guys who approach all creepy like like potentially dangerous stalkers/rapists. That’s really unfair. Women should be more trusting of guys good intentions and treat them kindly and with good cheer! (/elevatorgate)

But that she would cut me off if I had given her the kiss of the cheek worries me. Seems to drastic, but he made it sound like he was so sure that was how she was going to react. But I will not think about that. I’ll label that under cockblock.

If others warn you you are a creepy douchebag who’s scaring the ladies and risking your non-romantic connections, label it under cockblock and devote yourself more fully to the PUA. People trying to save you from the spiral are just trying to push you out of the Game, brah! Don’t let them, only by becoming Master Sociopath will you finally reach the pinnacle of the man-heap and thus be allowed to touch the breasts of the hottest women which will totally make worth it all the blue-balled nights alone and becoming the type of person that women have to warn their friends about.

Brah.

But now that I know that she never even have kissed a guy I will try to build up alot, I mean alot of comfort before I do anything. If I even do anything. I know that building to much comfort and then not escalating might put me in the friends zone, but with this girl I don’t care. Apparently she’s going to start working for the band so if her relationship with me is weird the whole band suffers.

Oh I don’t think you have to worry about being put in the “Friends Zone”. I’m pretty sure, you’re never going to be in the “Friends Zone” with that woman ever in your life. But if you’re lucky, your lame cover band won’t lose it’s manager and maybe if you can keep from perving over the ASEXUAL then they might not throw you out of the band immediately rather than right after they find anyone else to replace you.

And yeah, given this guy’s (and all PUA’s) ideas of subtle, I’m looking at a train collision in the near future of that post between what he had important in his life and his douchery.

So i’ll be careful. What do you guys think?

Besides “trainwreck”?

I don’t know. He didn’t post much on the forums and he had no more “updates” on his plan to change a person’s sexual orientation through molestation/stalking, so maybe we can dream of a better world.

A world where his non-douchey friends staged an intervention, where they really hit him hard with how much his douchery nearly ruined it for everyone and cost him good friends. Or maybe he lost that band position and everything with it and it humbled him into questioning the Game and actually being a decent person instead.

I like to imagine that maybe he escaped the self-destructive spiral and began rebuilding his potentially Asperger’s level of empathy into something resembling a human. That maybe absent the reinforcing habits of other PUA true-believers, he learned how to see women as people and respect their orientations and bodies as something other than a possession to perv over.

I like to imagine this more than the more likely contrary. That he simply sunk deeper into his behavior and blaming his alienation or likely rejection from his band on “vindictive women” and has merely graduated to more bitter PUA or MRA threads to vent himself on. Or that he has sadly been kept on and the band, the asexual woman, and the manager simply are having less enjoyable and more guarded lives for having to deal with the douchebag. Or Bob forbid, some poor woman decided to take pity on him and tried to “fix him”, thus being dragged down and emotionally abused and drained for being in a relationship with them (my partner learned that lesson the hard way).

Let us instead imagine that he escaped. Is less douchey now, is no longer being encouraged to become an even worse person, to let women be themselves rather than trying to find a way to take shocked silence and small talk as an invitation to molest.

Perhaps it’s even true.

See, not every Mangotime! has a sad ending*.

*There’s a cute kitten somewhere in the world who has cancer. Damn it! I was so close!


If you can’t trust a supposedly straight man with a gay porn stache, who can you trust?

*In the Sadly, No! commentariat, there is a long standing meme that when dealing with wingnut articles, it is always best to stay on the boat of the site instead of venturing out for the rotten mangos of the original posts of the nutjobs and psychotics. We here go into that depth of that insanity and bring it all back. Welcome to Mangotime!

Today’s example is h/t Substance McGravitas and is perfectly tailored for me.

Transanity by Michael Brown

Let’s dive in shall we?

I have the utmost sympathy for men and women who feel they are trapped in the wrong body.

Nuh uh, I’m not a bigot.

At the same time, Western society is heading in the direction of what can only be called transgender insanity, or transanity for short.

I just play one on TV.

Consider these recent examples.

Oh goodie, an idiot who doesn’t fully want to seem like a bigot grossed out by the very notion of transgender people is going to show us what he considers to be “bridges too far” and examples of transgendered insanity. Be afraid, people, be very afraid.

1) In England, two married men (and fathers) divorced their wives and began living together as a gay couple, after which they decided to identify as a transsexual “lesbian” couple (yes, male “lesbians”), after which one of the men had sex-change surgery, which makes them eligible to be married as husband and wife, even though the husband still identifies as a woman

You’ll notice first off that wingnuts hate citing the things they reference or if they must, they’ll cite other wingnuts’ reactions. Likely because they fear that exposing their readers might accidentally make their arguments look like the complete idiocy that they are.

Luckily for us, he is a talented enough moron to do the job for us. Yeah, two people divorce the partners they weren’t actually sexually or romantically attracted to and went with themselves, escaping the bigotry keeping them from acknowledging themselves until kids had already gotten into the equation. Most people would see this as a strong reason for greater acceptance so people could acknowledge who they are earlier and start living that sooner instead of dragging people into a lie of a life.

But not Brown, he’s down with Medieval-era Catholic Church. Once you marry, you’re married for life, and he doesn’t care if it isn’t what you really want, that’s what stableboys are for!

Also, Michael, Michael, Michael, talk about screwing up your initial front of “understanding the transsexual” and not being a bigot, when in the first example, you show yourself completely unable to understand transsexuality 101 (hint: they aren’t male lesbians, they are lesbians and transwomen).

And yeah, trans people end up exploiting all sorts of loopholes in the desperate attempt to keep the queers from marrying, loopholes that make a mockery of your “no queers” allowed stances on gay marriage.

No sense getting mad at the queers for that. Don’t want to be made to look like an idiot supporting stupid laws? Don’t support stupid laws.

2) Chaz Bono recently received criticism from the transgender daughter/son of Warren Beatty and Annette Bening, born Kaitlyn but now, at age 19, known as Stephen.

Your second example is something a 19 year old said?

Also, why is this so shocking it needs to be the lead? My word, did you know that the transgender community is not monolithic like the bigoted community?!? And that liberals have internal debates and criticize each other?!? Have you heard of anything so unseemly?

(Remember that Chaz, who remains female from the waist down, danced as a male on Dancing with the Stars, raising the legitimate question: What constitutes male or female?)

It’s almost like the state of your genitals has nothing to do with what sex you are inside or what your mental sex says you are. Hey, if you didn’t want to be mocked for not understanding Trans 101, you shouldn’t have opened like you were some friendly old pal to the trans community just shocked into gobsmackitude by these kids today, donchaknow.

After Chaz had explained that being transgender could be likened to having a “mismatched” brain and body, similar to a “birth defect like a cleft palate,” Stephen wrote on his blog that, “Chaz is a misogynist. He is a trans man who seems to believe that his female-assignedness and his female socialisation makes him immune from being a misogynist, and he is manifestly wrong.”

Yeah, that’s the amazing thing about quoting two disparate statements with no links, you can make it seem like someone is just leaping down someone else’s throat with no reason.

So what went down?

Okay, not going into it fully, here’s the link to Steven’s actual long post explaining his views on Chaz Bono.

Overall, despite it’s inflammatory title, it’s basically about the nature of conflict about having imperfect “spokespeople” be the “public face” of a little known group. A) That it’s good that they’re out there and how we want to defend them against the bigotry that gets hurled at them for being who they are and support what they get right, but B)that they can be imperfect and unfortunately reinforce other horseshit.

Steven’s main trigger is that Chaz called being trans a birth defect to explain it which maybe wasn’t the best word, but hey, different people take it differently and unlike the right, when you say something potentially offensive, people will comment on it. But the reason he calls Chaz a misogynist is related to other comments of Chaz’s where he basically argues that all men are hornier than all women, and that women are talkative gossipy stereotypes that the T! (duh duhduh!) has made him unable to deal with now that he’s all manified.

Basically, I’m losing the comedy flow here, because it’s all about holding our spokespeople to a higher standard on the left and trying to improve them out of wallowing in whatever privileges they do have and supporting the full community. Each person has their own tolerance for that in what they forgive or focus on. I won’t say that Steven is wrong, he’s actually correct, though I would argue that it’s more an issue of privilege fail (i.e. unconscious absorption of cultural narratives).

Anyways, so one transman criticized another transman for some unconscious misogyny and this is insane because…?

And how does Stephen describe “himself”? He is “a gay trans man for whom both identities are equally important, a white anti-racist, a feminist, and a poet.”

Because…

That’s not really saying anything-Oh, right, wingnut land, sorry. I’m sure, he just saw the words gay, anti-racist, and feminist and his mind clouded pink with random rage. Grr, my readers have been trained to hate these things and forget they have actual meanings, this will make a great example.

So, rather than remain Kaitlyn and be a young woman attracted to men, Stephen (who is still female) identifies as a gay man

Yeah, that’s how it works, trans 101. It’s almost like it’s about what people are internally and being true to that, rather than what would make your life experientially easier. A man with a brain might suspect that this might argue in favor of transsexuality being a real thing rather than something trans people invented to piss of wingnuts, but Michael Brain is not that man.

as well as a feminist.

I love this little end to the line. “As well as a feminist”. He identifies as a gay man AND a feminist, but how can this be? You can see his mind reeling in horror as he has to confront that the real world has nothing to do with the straw-man of feminists as man-hating women just trying to be bitches and that feminism might actually really be about the treatment of women as full human beings. No! That can’t be! His identification must be a contradiction for not following our straw-men! Also, he’s a girl, he’s got girl parts!

Keep it classy, Browny!

3) Dan Savage is a gay sex columnist and a vocal critic of traditional Judeo-Christian morals, best known today for spearheading the “It Gets Better” campaign.

Oh, oh, no, you really didn’t want to combine your slam against Dan Savage with acknowledging his role in one of the most inoffensive anti-bullying campaigns out there right now. Yeah, he’s against judeo-christian values like telling gay kids to kill themselves now, because it’ll never get better!

Juxtaposition, how does it work?

Recently, he became the target of trans activists who glitter bombed him twice in November. He was branded a “transphobe” for using terms like “shemale” and referring to “freak tranny porn” (although Savage, on his part, claims that he was simply repeating words used by a questioner in his audience).

So, two of his examples are basically his shock that liberals don’t march in lockstep with each other like conservatives? Really doing your case proud there Browny when you show yourself more out of touch with reality than Marie Antoinette. Yes, liberals argue with each other and strive to improve their heroes rather than fetishizing them and hailing their fuckups as the standard we all must aspire to. It’s almost like we aren’t authoritarian tools just looking for a Leader.

Oh, right, the Dan Savage thing. Dan Savage is a great activist for a number of issues, his “It Gets Better” Project is fantastic. He also frequently fails on issues of sexism, asexuality, transsexuality, transgender issues, ableism, and so on. He’s imperfect and he fucks up, people call him on that, some people have written him off entirely because of that and have demonstrated directly.

Scandalous.

One of his critics, writing on the Bilerico Project, is Tobi Hill-Meyer, whose bio states, “Tobi Hill-Meyer is just about your average multiracial, pansexual, transracially inseminated queerspawn, genderqueer, transdyke, colonized mestiza, pornographer, activist, writer.”

(Whistling softly while I look at my own header).

Also love the wingnut consistent shock at people having long descriptions. Yeah, that’s part of explaining where you come from. If we didn’t assume that everyone was a white straight man from default, Browny would have to regularly identify himself as a “caucasian, monoamorous (with regular non-negotiated trips to the truck stop), transracially inseminated (and how), but with hardworking repressed parents, cissexual, cisgendered, transvestite (only at parties), publicly heterosexual, American supporter of colonialism, pornography customer, “activist” for cash, and proud recipient of wingnut welfare for “writing” often with a big black dildo up his butt”.

But he doesn’t, because unless you say otherwise, you are assumed, straight white male family man, no matter how many bathroom dicks you suck.

And yeah, all those words mean something, you could look them up and learn, or you can pretend long descriptions make someone an unperson.

Ah, I see you’ve chosen the latter.

Does this qualify as transanity?

Two internal community critiques and a transsexual lesbian community who had to stagger their sex changes so they could marry by British law, yes, truly the height of the horrors that could happen with transsexuality.

All that rampant child molestation, regular molestation, murder, and insanity we regularly argue would happen if we gave trans people any rights? Um, well, look at that long list of self-descriptors in that one girl’s blog! Isn’t that silly?

(And yeah, I swear half of the reason for conservative resistance to minority rights is based around having to learn and respect that everyone isn’t just a white male default. How dare other people than me exist, this must not stand!)

Before you dismiss all this as totally fringe, remember that Chastity/Chaz Bono is a very public figure

Yeah, but Chaz Bono was the subject of that one article, or are you arguing that one person noting that he wasn’t a perfect spokesman somehow just cancel him because we are apparently working by Calvinball logic.

that in 2006, New York City’s Metropolitan Transit Authority ruled that men who identified as women could use the ladies bathrooms at all subway stations

Women can use women’s bathrooms? In certain limited areas, depending on state or specific institution law and how willing they are to risk potential harassment from bigots?

Will this violence against straight, white, cisgendered people, never end?!?

Also, yeah, the argument against is always that said women are somehow a threat to the “regular” women, yet it turns out that transpeople just want to shit and the signs on the doors don’t really keep out people who plan on raping or assaulting someone in a bathroom and so most bathroom pervs tend to just dress normally rather than risking being beat up as a tranny. But hey, why let reality ruin a great scare tactic?

that more and more TV shows are normalizing (and even celebrating) transgenderism

DEGRASSI! Where will fans of cisgender characters go now that this show and the handful of others with trans characters have apparently eliminated all non-trasn characters from all television and movies? Where?!? Tell me!

(Sob)

and that, in one high school, a male teen was voted class queen while in another school, a female teen was voted class king.

MASS HYSTERIA! Why it’s almost like people are starting to notice that some of the strict enforced gender horseshit is kinda stupid and it’s almost like your real issue with transgender people is how they make a mockery of your view of gender essentialism. Where women are women BY NATURE and men are men BY NATURE and both follow 1950s gender stereotypes BY NATURE and only are attracted to each other BY NATURE.

Also, seriously, why do you care about what one high school does and… fuck you’re probably talking about two transpeople being elected queen and king and are doing that annoying little “if I refuse to believe they are their correct gender, then they aren’t and thus are silly for thinking they aren’t what I think they are and acting the way I think they should act” thing again, aren’t you?

Keep it classy, Browny. Keep it classy.

And let’s not forget that Massachusetts just passed a radical transgender bill

DING DING DING.

We have the source of butthurt, people. This here is the reason for the entire article.

So what’s this “radical” bill that is so nefarious he can only really talk about how radical and wrong it is?

It’s a Non-Discrimination Bill. Pretty standard too. Can’t fire a trans person for being trans, can’t throw them out of their lodging for being trans, can’t deny them public education they would have otherwise qualified for for being trans, etc…And yeah, it’s all about public spaces and public law.

So yeah, the evil insanity of transpeople thinking they can be out as transpeople without being fired and discriminated against.

The bastards!

according to which, “’Gender identity’ shall mean a person’s gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person’s physiology or assigned sex at birth.” (Yes, this is now the legal definition in Massachusetts.)

And you know, the accepted legal definition of a transgender person. You know, how to legally define an umbrella term for all those who fall outside the gender binary or present themselves as a sex other than their birth whether or not they identify as such or not.

It’s also about gender identity in general so it protects cisgendered people from being harassed for being cisgendered by roving bands of genderqueer thugs or fired from their jobs for their filthy cisgendered habits by their bigoted transgendered bosses.

Huh, why don’t these staunch defenders against “minority overreach” never cheer those much needed protections from the “attacks” against them.

Is it all just bullshit to try and make their desire to see “weird” people punished for not being “standard” sound like a principled self-defense rather than naked bigotry?

That’d be unpossible! No conservative would ever stoop that low!

The MassResistance website

SPLC recognized hate group says what?

explains that that the bill, “Forces charter schools to allow cross-dressing and other transgender behavior by students, and to include that in their published non-discrimination statement.”

And you sent them to charter school to be away from filthy poor, non-white, non-straight, or non-cisgendered people!

And yeah, shock of shocks, the recognized hate group with the long history of lies is lying (I know!). Like with every non-discrimination bill known to man, “charter schools” are “forced” to comply if they accept government money. The deal is simply, want to be a bigoted private institution? Then don’t demand government money or government preferential treatment for it! But of course, they are protesting for their god-given right to take government money while giving a hearty fuck you to state and federal law.

Fly proud brave segregation supporters! Fly proud!

MassResistance also warns, “You could soon see your day-care provider, second-grade teacher, waiter, school bus driver, store clerk, etc. be a man wearing a skirt and lipstick, possibly with hormone-enhanced breasts” (their emphasis).

Be scared. Be scared. Be scared.

Yes, if we don’t bury all transpeople far out of sight and prevent them from getting any jobs and surviving in the world, ideally until they die of suicide, hate crime, or starvation, then we might not have to acknowledge that they are normal people, capable of doing the same jobs as anyone else and may even be people you end up knowing and respect.

Also, love how the hate group lead off with “we are so dogwhistling ‘transpeople are child molestors’ and then backed off into looking like an idiot”.

My word, they could be a store clerk or a waiter? Why those could be occupations I have momentary interactions with and should have no damn concern if they are employed there other than a desire to have knowledge of real people hidden from me at all times!

I especially like the “waiter” one. Yes, they could infect YOUR FOOD with their transgendered waves, causing you to become inherently queerer by the second. Why you might even start wondering if your ultra-macho front isn’t just a sad attempt to hide your flaming homosexuality or the fact that you don’t think feminine pursuits makes your balls fall off.

And then where will we be, people?

WHERE WILL WE BE?

But why this should surprise us? After all, the mayor of Silverton, Oregon, Stu Rasmussen, was first elected as a fairly typical, heterosexual male, but then, after “acquiring cleavage,” he was reelected as a heterosexual, cross-dressing, cleavage-flaunting man (who has a girlfriend too).

My word, it’s like people don’t inherently fit in the neat little boxes we proscribe for them and such people refuse to hide themselves away from polite society.

And there’s not enough bigots around to keep them hidden and denied! They’re even getting political offices, what’s next? Forced sex changes for conservative pundits? It would be irresponsible not to wildly conjecture like a paranoid crazy person!

No seriously, it’s not his argument, but a lot of wingnuts seem to be unable to grasp that something not being “banned and unacknowledged” doesn’t make it “mandatory for everyone”.

He did come under criticism for one specific incident, though, and in August 3, 2009, he was censured by the city council after making an appearance at a children’s meeting in an inappropriate outfit, specifically, an open-backed bathing suit, a mini-skirt, and high-heels. Yet those criticizing Mayor Stu were careful to point out that they had no problem with him dressing as a woman at this children’s meeting. They only had a problem with him dressing immodestly as a woman.

Yeah! They should have censured him for being a freak! In front of children no less! Won’t someone think of the children!

What you say? Spending over 30 years using children as a thinly veiled tool to argue that most of human experience be hidden from the entire public because “children might find out” but really because you want certain people and things hidden has made people less sympathetic to that argument?

Well fuck, conservatives sure are fucked now. That’s pretty much all they’ve got.

Oh and Stu’s “scandalous miniskirt”?


Tame. As. Fuck.

And not actually complained about by the children, but rather a single parent who probably was already freaking out that her child was learning that transpeople don’t have horns and the smell of sulfur like her mommy told her.

This is nothing less than transanity.

Okay, so now we have more definitions of this word. It now refers to two accounts of internal liberal arguments trying to improve our spokesmen, a couple working through the stupid ban on gay marriage so they can get married and thus reveal the attempts to block it as the dumb bigoted nonsense they are, a transgendered mayor getting hassled by a skirt that wouldn’t be looked twice at if he was a cisgendered female teacher (my eighth grade teacher wore shorter miniskirts), and of course, trans people thinking they are allowed to exist in public without being denied jobs and housing and otherwise being discriminated to death.

I do not think this word means what you think it does.

In fact, it seems to be suggesting a definition of:

“The act of reducing a wingnut to babbled half-thought out objections to the very notion of transpeople living lives without official state-level rebuke for daring to exist and thus demonstrate the fiction of their views of gender essentialism”.

Okay, Mikey McBrownington, you’ve aligned yourself with one of the top anti-gay hate groups in America, one which has been listed as an official hate group and you’ve basically bitched about trans people not acting like authoritarians and daring to exist.

Let’s have a huge finale. Drum roll.

When the MTA made its 2006 transgender bathroom ruling, Gloria David, a retiree from Connecticut, remarked, “I would not like that. I have nothing against gay men or drag queens, but they can use the men’s room. I just don’t want to go to the bathroom next to a man.”

Nice. Good strong start. We’ve got a random quote likely fisked from a newspaper article from the time you’ve got stored on your desktop to remind you of when the anti-gay racket was booming strong and bringing in the sweet sweet lucre and using it like the random nutjob they brought in to “show both sides of the debate” was an actual authoritative voice. This is the pure wingnut insanity we crave.

Today, Ms. David’s perfectly understandable comments would be labeled transphobic.

Yes, keep it up! Beautiful demonstration of complete lack of self-awareness. Why yes, the bigoted ramblings of an old woman from another state whose confused and scared reactions to things she’s been trained by people like you to fear would be labeled transphobic. In fact, that’s kind of why she was quoted, because newspapers aren’t allowed to say, “trans people want the right to pee, but some random assholes are preventing it because they want to dick with them and make money promoting fear of The Other”. Instead, every article nowadays must be “X says X, but Y says Y, this issue is hotly debated, who is right? Who knows? We’re not here to step on toes by figuring out the answer”. If the modern press tried to tackle lynching it would be:

“Mother of the victim said it was a travesty of a crime and the perpetrators brought to justice, but a local spokesman for the KKK said that uppity negro boys need to know their place, surely this is a hot issue that will not be resolved any time soon”.

Should we have compassion on those who feel there is a “mismatch” between their body and their brain? Absolutely.

But should that extend to letting them have jobs, places to stay, basic tools so they can survive, or really be allowed to exist anywhere where others may become aware of their existence?

God no, that’d be crazy talk.

Also, love the attempt to try and play “friend of the transsexual” again. I know I just spent an entire post failing Trans 101, deliberately getting the genders of everyone mentioned wrong, mocking the very notion of people not identifying as white, straight, and cisgendered, and arguing that a standard non-discrimination bill was an affront to good decent people, and the only citation on my page is a link to an official hate group committed to eliminating all rights for transgender and otherwise queer individuals, but I’m not a bigot, I swear.

I have compassion for you.

Hell, I may even step over you as you’re freezing to death outside after you’ve been kicked out of your housing and denied employment rather than kicking you in the chest.

Because I care.

But we should devote our energies to understanding the causes of their mental and emotional conflict with the goal of helping them from the inside out.

A divergence between their mental sex and their biological sex and/or inherently not fitting within cultural models of masculinity or femininity or cultural or sexual designations of man or woman, because like much of biology, things exist on a spectrum rather than a clear cut binary.

Oh. You were dogwhistling “send them to an ex-gay facility to scare them back into the closet ideally with the threat of open discrimination and public bigotry”. Sorry, didn’t mean to step on your toes there with my mean old reality and its vile liberal bias.

Otherwise, if we craft laws and embrace social categories based on how people identify themselves, we had better get ready for more and more “feminist gay trans men” along with “pansexual genderqueer transdykes” – and that’s just the beginning.

Yeah, if we acknowledge that not everyone is a straight white male, why that will totally “create” these demonic beings out of the Aether to suck upon our life essences and force us to acknowledge the existence of people who are not us… and that is scary…somehow…and somehow a threat to people.

Listen, the reason is long descriptions are scary, because you have to do reading to understand what they mean and some of the words don’t even have scare tactics in place to tell you the strawman reason you should hate them beyond “it ain’t nat’ral”. So just shut up and hate on queue and send me some money to hate on the trans people because the gay hating racket is looking dry as bone these days.

And yeah, love that “feminist gay transman” made a comeback. I know you want to believe in the strawman of the man-hating lesbian, but men can be feminists too, even the men not trying to sleep with women. Because it actually has a definition and isn’t just a scare tactic for the right to trick conservative women into thinking basic dignity is synonymous with Satan.

Also “pansexual genderqueer transdyke” means a transsexual woman who is part of the lesbian and queer communities, but identifies personally as bisexual. If you spent time learning who the people you hate were rather than just trying to self-justify why it’s okay to hate them, you might not look like a complete tool.

In a word, get ready for transanity.

I heard repetition is good for creating a new meme. So I repeat the repetition of the term that is repeated so you know its repeated over and over so that you go out there and don’t even have to think when some trans person is like “blah, blah, blah, you’re a goddamn idiot”, you just go “well, that sounds like transanity to me” and laugh to yourself and don’t listen to the trans person going “um, do you realize that you just sounded like you were calling my arguments sane and reasonable and thus your own the unprocessed horse feces that they are” and you don’t even have to process that because your brain is safely on vacation.

Take that, transfolk! Conservatives win again!

Oh, Michael Brown, your insipid failure has given us much to work with, but it is time to say goodbye.

Yeah, so after my last post, I had planned to roll out some big projects. Well, that didn’t quite work out as I then spent over a month having to screw around with iTunes just to get the first thing I had planned semi-functional.

Well, I’m not going to promise revolutionary yet, but I’m going to try and have more content.

First up:

I am proud to announce a new podcast created by me featuring all original Lesbian Pulp stories called Lesbian Pulp Theatre Podcast.

The first two episodes are up on iTunes for subscription, or you can be old-fashioned and check out each episode as it’s uploaded to the archives. The first arc will be 4 episodes long and the last two episodes of the arc should be out and uploaded by end of December.

If you’ve got ideas for future arcs, please leave them in the comment thread.

Second up:

If you know me on Sadly, No!, you’ll know I do this thing in the comments there sometimes where I go in and takedown an article ripping it apart and occasionally even approaching funny.

Well, a random recommendation by Substance McGravitas on the last post made me think, hell, why not do a weekly thing here where I find a piece of wingnut drivel and rip it apart?

So expect to see the first example of that in a couple of hours.

Third up:

This is still in the future as I want to create a buffer first, but part of this last month has been brushing up my video editing skills for a new project where I will be ripping into bad movies with transgender characters, mocking both the terribleness of the movies as well as the offensive wrongness of the characters.

It will be called Transgender Media Fail and I hope to start releasing it early next year.

There may be more, but hopefully this will give you all something to enjoy in the meantime.

So some of you may have noticed that I update at the same glacial pace that tortoises fuck. Well, I thought to myself, “Self, surely my readers deserve more than that” and so it was. Starting soon there will be a few additional regular projects that will be popping up to give regular content.

First up on that list will be a regularly updating podcast called Lesbian Pulp Theatre that will present all original radio plays done in the Lesbian Pulp aesthetic.

Why am I as an asexual doing this?

Because I like writing plays of all types and because like many minorities, I can’t help but become intimately familiar with more dominant cultures (even if they are not the dominant culture).

So if that sounds fun to you, please check it out in the link above and I’ll let you know when it’s been approved by iTunes so that you can subscribe there.

If you have at all paid attention to the Right during this economic downturn, you have noticed their firm disbelief in the idea of a social safety net.

“Entitlement programs”, “wasted money”, and so on. In their eyes, welfare and other safety net programs in place to take care of the unemployed, the unable to work, and those who are down and out merely breeds laziness in those who partake in it and actually does harm to the employment rate.

In their eyes, the unemployment rate is the way it is because of the laziness of “moochers” stealing the hard-earned money of the “productive class”.

Now, all of this is patent bullshit. Hell, at this point of political debate, the fact that it comes from a right-winger at all is already a giant clue that the argument has no connection with reality or sound policy.

We could talk about how UI and other aid to the poor have some of the highest impacts per dollar spent of any stimulative expenditure. UI has a $1.64 economic impact for each dollar spent, meaning the government is actually gaining money in expanded economic activity and thus taxes paid back when they “waste money” on the poor.

We could point out that countries with a strong social safety net have some of the more robust economies. Countries like Denmark, Sweden, and Norway were able to much easily ride out the global economic collapse than countries with less robust safety nets. Scandanavia in general has one of the highest rates of entrepeneurship and has actual class mobility, where the ability to form a start-up and succeed is much easier than in the states. This fantastic article from Inc Magazine points out that the presence of a robust safety net allows those with ideas for businesses to take a risk and start a business for they know that if they fail, they won’t be ruined. Shockingly, seeing as how most new business ventures do fail, having that not mean potential death encourages people to take a risk and be innovative. Robust welfare systems instead of breeding cultures of waste and laziness show the highest rates of innovation and some of the robuster economies in the world.

We could even point out that in the type of capitalist system we have that there is a minimum unemployment rate that the economy is not allowed to dip below. Thus, there must always be at minimum at least 5% of the working population out of work at any time and that’s not counting those who are unable to work or those who have taken themselves out of the workforce entirely (retirees, full-time homemakers, people unable to work for physical or mental reasons). This is necessary for the economy that there always be people out of work, looking for work that isn’t yet there. Raw empathy alone would argue that if we are always going to have less work than people looking for work that two things would be true.

1) That such people should be given a basic ability to pay rent, food, and other necessities.
2) That the image of the jobless as lazy and unwilling to grab the plentiful jobs that must exist is fundamentally untrue.

Furthermore, we could point out that our current economy does not have a problem of companies seeking to hire and being unable to find takers, but rather companies refusing to hire and using the downturn as a reason to become even more selective in hiring, looking to hire the recently laid off of rival companies and seeking those with 20 years experience for entry-level jobs, thus making it nearly impossible for even the hard-working to break into even basic level employment.

And indeed, I have pointed all this out, but it’s not what I want to focus on in this post.

Sure, they are wrong at nearly every level, but let us look just at the most basic assumption.

That fear, fear of unemployment, is the greatest motivator for looking for work. And furthermore, that motivation of lacking a safety net is the only thing preventing complete surrender and slacking off

Let us address the second of those points first.

The thing is, people want to work. They want to feel useful and like they are contributing rather than feeling devalued, a drain on society, or worthless. People want to work to feel external validation for their worthiness and will seek it out even when the pay isn’t dramatically different. Those who don’t do so tend to find their validation in the self and for the most part they will try and find worth in activities they choose themselves such as personal projects.

In many ways, the fact that the “poor people are lazy and won’t get work unless forced” meme is so seductive to so many is proof that a critical American text has gone unread by too large a section of the population. That text is The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan.

The titular “Feminine Mystique” is the longing of the housewife to engage in activities that are valued. Since housework and childcare were devalued both by men and society, a stay-at-home homemaker felt infantilized, devalued, massively depressed, and almost manic at the repetitive chores and lack of purpose. Even today, someone stuck at home often has a mental weight on them and is in need of clear delineators of when their “work day” begins and ends, frequent release to the outside world, and important hobbies to retain sanity.

There may be a few who take advantage of a generous system, but for the most part, people who are able to work in any system will do so, because the mental weight of being an unemployed layabout is often emotionally crippling as the Feminine Mystique painfully points out in harrowing story after harrowing story. Such experiences are not gendered.

And now let’s address that first part. Are people more motivated by fear than other methods to search for work?

Well, no, not really. We can look to countless psychological reports that fear actually shuts down the ability of the brain to think at its peak ability. Furthermore, fear and dire potential consequences often induce strong boats of depression and despair and as anyone who has suffered depression can tell you, depression means immensely lowered energy reserves, longer sleep schedules, and so on. This means less time available and less energy available to send out applications and continue job searches. Add this with businesses’ desire to hire happy workers and the fact that job searching is an emotionally tumultuous and unpleasant activity and one can see that making it even more harrowing and difficult is about the same level of good idea as beating an abuse victim to try and stop them from flashing back.

I can definitely attest to this personally. I have kept putting out applications and chasing leads, because I genuinely wish to work, but such work has been immensely difficult emotionally because the complete lack of available of safety net that means a damn makes search incredibly difficult.

For the last year, I have been gripped by the fear, dread, and panic that conservatives argue make one a better job searcher. As such, I have drifted into deep depressions. Each job search and each failure feels more like a personal evaluation on my worthiness of life (a deliberate desire of the conservative model, the unemployed’s ability to survive is directly related to their ability to get someone to hire them and hire them for living wage). So after the thousands upon thousands of applications I have turned in in the last year and two months, the evaluation has become one of absolute meaningless. My mind has often betrayed me. I have become unable to do anything but search for jobs and weep for months at a time, feeling guilty even for simple self-care procedures or taking any time in the pursuit of projects that could even make me some small income if I were to finish them. I have repeatedly over the course of this campaign been reduced to complete breakdown, unable to do anything but cry and hold myself tight. And I am ashamed to admit that thoughts of suicide have certainly been making their attacks on my psyche.

Cause the thing about high consequences is that it doesn’t motivate one to grab hard on the tightrope and battle the angry horde back onto some semblance of balance. It motivates one to surrender, to give up to the hopelessness of a cause and accept the seemingly inescapable fate.

I don’t say these things out of desire for pity, but to point out that it has only been through my will, my desire to do this for myself that I have been able to send out any applications, despite all the rejections, because the mental torture of having no safety net makes each action so much harder than it needs to be.

Indeed, very recently, I have been at my most productive in the long year I have been unemployed. I had been receiving aid from a relative and I had just begun to believe in it as a makeshift safety net. The pressure finally lessened and I was able to put forth applications and simultaneously work on two side projects that I have been very excited about pursuing and which could make me some small bit of money if I am able to complete them to my standards.

For the first time in a long time, I didn’t feel like a zombie, barely shambling forward on nothing but momentum, but someone genuinely excited and full of spirit. The mental energy wasted on raw fear of the future had been alleviated and allowed to actually work on productive acts for my improvement.

With a safety net, I was able to truly be motivated.

Not just doing it because I had to, fighting every mental scar, and relying on my personal will, but with full emotional and mental batteries actually working on real and important problems rather than simply focusing on base survival.

Things were easier and I had an easier time doing the activities for my future good when I didn’t have to worry where next month’s groceries or rent was going to come from.

This is a lesson that Scandanavia and most first-world nations have already realized. That a safety net doesn’t make tightrope walkers jump and instead makes it easier for the walkers to perform their maneuvers instead of being unbalanced by the fear of death if they should fall.

Fear doesn’t motivate, it only cripples.

And I feel that again.

My relative will be unable to continue helping me in future months. Don’t worry about me, I think we should be able to survive fine and I’ve got a few more months of aid to turn into desperate minimal savings.

I’m not saying this to request aid or pity, but rather to note that with that news, all the comfortable motivation I felt has fled and I’m back to the same scrap and scrape feeling I had been for a year, relying on will to continue forward and fighting mental and emotional betrayal by my mind to cloud my ability to work on both applications and my own projects.

Having the feeling however illusionary of a reliable safety net and now having the feeling of a complete lack of safety net again, I can understand viscerally how such “motivation” doesn’t motivate. How it demotivates, breaks, and destroys.

The right, as they always are in their arguments about society and human motivation, are full of shit.

You didn’t need me to say this, but I hope this further illustrates how every petty, mean assumption they bring to bullshit like the Debt Crisis and the so-called “Spending Crisis” are woefully lacking in veracity.

These are people’s lives, who are being asked to die, who are suffering until eventual bankruptcy and death, because a bunch of sociopaths think that a lack of a safety net will make people search harder for non-existant jobs.

This. Should. Not. Be.

I don’t care what else should be true, but that at least, is the minimum our empathy should expect. That such a system should not exist and no one should have to go without food or shelter because someone thinks they’ll be “more motivated” without them.

The double-bind

07/06/2011

I just recently finished writing a long post on the recent atheist community’s privilege fail with regards to Rebecca Watson doing that most vile of female actions, talking about a problem related to the treatment of women.

I’d recommend reading that first, because what I’m going to talk about is a lot of the double-talk that got invoked in that whole rigmarole.

Specifically a lot of dudes were very upset with Rebecca Watson that she or any other woman would ever feel threatened by being cornered in an elevator in the middle of the night, having consent ignored, and being asked for sex at 4 am from someone you’ve never met.

Yet at the same time, whenever a woman is assaulted, the refrain from many men, including many of the same men is that the woman should have done more to prevent that occurrence. The woman brought it on herself. She should have been more forceful with her refusal, never have gone to that location, been in an isolated location with them, should have resisted, carried mace or a taser, and so on.

That would be the first double-bind.

Women are asked to be on guard against rape, to expect it at every action, and engage in refusals far and above the normal standards for refusal. And yet even minor actions like being skeeved out and feeling disrespected by skeevy and disrespectful behavior is treated like a Grand Crime against all men.

Men want women to be perfectly on guard against rapists, but perfectly trusting with them or anyone else they may remotely identify with including in some respects actual rapists. Perhaps in a world where rapists are kind enough to wear identification tags and introduce themselves as such, that could be close to a sane and non-contradictory state of “damned if you do and damned if you don’t”, but in this world?

Yeah.

I’ll also note that some of the people terribly upset at the gall and rudeness and disrespect (to the man of course) of Rebecca Watson to be talking about this and refusing because she was tired, uninterested, disrespected to, and he was skeevy and didn’t seem to pay attention to consent or context also recommended that she and other women should “carry tasers or mace if they were so worried”.

This double bind is not worth counting, but worth noting for the sheer chutzpah in arguing that they would totally have a woman’s back if she tazed a guy for being skeevy and creepy while exonerating her for being polite to the person and merely reporting the behavior as unfortunate. Yeah, we believe you, because there is no evidence that that wouldn’t be seen as equivalent to a woman chopping off every penis in the Greater Chicago Area.

Another double-bind, labeled number two, is one brought to light by the issue. Related to the previous one about trust, many minority groups are asked to trust dominant group allies and are often raked over the coals when they dare be suspicious of the support, suspect it to be fair-weather or read into actions patterns used in the dismissal of said minority group or other groups in the past.

And yet, incidents like this reveal the fragility of that support when it brings up issues outside of the duh level. Sure, there was support when it was foreign cultures doing FGM, sexism in religious societies, and even ideas like rape and abuse in general are bad things, but then an incident like this rolls around and suddenly leaders in the community can’t wait to tell the uppity women to shut up.

This was sadly demonstrated in posts by Dawkins and Mehmet I quoted in my last post where after they tell Rebecca to shut up about this basic feminism issue (by claiming it’s minor and not important as other issues and yes the irony of atheist leaders who are unlikely to win the “Oppression Olympics” any time soon claiming the “All issues must wait until more important issues are solved” is not lost on me) about objectification, they both try to shame her about another feminist issue as if they had any right to. I mean, when one has pretty staunchly refused to engage on a basic feminist argument and has stated its worthless and the dropping of their support, it’s hard to immediately believe they are the diviner of everything feminist and they get to determine what the “real” feminist issue is like they were still proven allies.

But still women run into this a lot, often with men who are very much fair-weathered allies, but grow incredibly incensed if you react as if that was the case or even acknowledge the existence of privilege and toxic cultural baggage. A double-bind for those who don’t just accept that they’re “bitches” for “not trusting” “obvious allies”.

And the last double-bind is this.

The article I noted earlier this blog talks about a study that did conversational analysis to determine how people refuse things including sex.

And what they found was that people don’t tend to do a direct no, but rely on softening the statement, because a direct statement is considered rude. They found that people understand the refusal fine and this is true for pretty much everyone tested, demonstrating that it is the cultural norm and that the “just say no forcefully” advice regarding sexual assault places an additional burden and ignores the fact that men don’t really need that to know when someone has said no.

In fact, direct “no”s tend to make subjects angry and make them feel justified in escalating to violence and assault.

Now, that’s not the third double-bind, but it’s certainly a doozy of a double-bind in and of itself.

No, the third double-bind is that the reason for this perception of a direct refusal as rude is simply cultural inertia and social convention.

It has always been, and thus violating that is a violation of social norms and thus inherently off-putting and thus “rude”.

Which brings us up to the real doozy and the reason why this entire backlash existed in the first place.

People are also culturally trained not to talk about the behaviors we’ve learned with regards to minorities. Specifically with regards to feminism, essentially, we don’t talk about feminism. Women being silenced, being disrespected, being treated like sex objects, or being threatened or skeeved out. These are not discussed and certainly not in a way that places male behavior under scrutiny.

Women are judged for their behavior. Men get to do what they want. That is the social norm. That is the way it has always been done.

As such, someone pointing this out and asking to talk about it will be seen as rude.

Period.

That’s the double-bind.

Any speech, no matter how nice, how softly, how qualified, or how brief will be seen as a violation of norms and will cause the dominant group to freak out, to trip over the privilege, to find themselves angry and not knowing why, and feeling justified asking for silencing or viewing the person who dared bring things up as the real person who did wrong.

And that’s really what is the story of this incident. Rebecca Watson brought up things that have always gone unexamined and asked to examine them. This was inherently a violation of social norms of silence around those issues and a lot of men responded with the cultural training to view that as the real problem (after all, the behavior wasn’t really violating any cultural norms in the sense that they are sadly too common in our societies).

But the double-bind continues in that any attempt to fix this will necessarily be seen as rude, be derided and be met with anger and a sense of “division for the sake of division”.

Mere acknowledgment is seen as the real problem and people speaking on behalf of themselves are seen as the rude thing that’s going to scare everyone off with their rudeness.

And yet it’s necessary. To fight, to struggle, to be rude and crude, and resisted with much frantic flailing. All of this must occur because otherwise, all we get is the same status quo affairs and the horrible prison that is for everyone for whom that doesn’t benefit.

And so, the struggle is inherently rude in the eyes of those who are struggled against or in the eyes of fair-weathered allies. Off-putting, not helping, distracting, and rude.

But in that final double-bind comes freedom.

If anything is rude. If what is requested is naught but no-win situations and impossible requests, then there is simply no reason to care.

When anything is rude, there is no need to carefully tailor one’s arguments or even act like these predictable patterns of whiny flailing are at all good faith or must be heeded.

Why not speak loud and clear? Why not call a bigot a bigot or call out a self-claimed ally on their blind-spots? Why not ignore the tone trolls and those who yell “distraction”?

In creating no ability to win, there are many sad injustices, but there is also complete freedom.

We don’t need to answer to anyone, least of all those more privileged than us with regards to tactics or life experiences or speaking out.

All we need to do is to keeping doing it, in all the myriad of tactics and styles we can until it is the bigoted positions, the old “social norms” that become the things seen as rude.

It’s what’s worked for every other rights struggle in at least the last 100 years.

So thank you atheist community backlash for perfectly illustrating how the supposed double-bind is simply a bundle of untied rope.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.