Tag Archives: gender and sexuality

it’s not just about marriage law

16 Saturday Mar 2013

Posted by in think pieces

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

cross-posted from the family scholars blog.


April DeBoer (second from left) sits with her adopted daughter Ryanne, 3,
and Jayne Rowse and her adopted sons Jacob, 3, and Nolan, 4,
at their home in Hazel Park, Mich., on Tuesday.

We’ve been talking a lot lately, at the Family Scholars Blog, about the upcoming DOMA/Prop 8 cases before the Supreme Court and debating the cases for and against marriage equality. Sometimes “gay marriage” can seem like the only or most important issue for LGBT folks. In fact, many of us have had the experience of talking with someone who assumes that once gay marriage is legal then anti-gay prejudice and marginalization will — poof! — be a thing of the past. We’ll be able to put down our “activist” hats and embrace our mainstream status.

But the marginalization of LGBT individuals and families goes a lot deeper than marriage law. One such example comes from my home state of Michigan, which has some of the most restrictive laws in the nation regarding recognition of same-sex relationships — including a ban on same-sex partners adopting together. While heterosexual couples and single people are welcomed as prospective adoptive parents, gay and lesbian couples are explicitly denied the ability to provide their children with two legal parents.

 A lesbian couple who are parenting three adopted children have sued the state for the right to co-adopt. From the NPR story on their case:

As foster parents, Rowse and DeBoer shared legal guardianship of Jacob. When they decided to adopt the boy, they faced the same decision they’d faced with the two other children: which of them would be the legal parent. They chose Rowse, who is also Nolan’s legal mother. That meant DeBoer actually lost legal rights she had as a foster parent.

“I lose the right to make medical decisions for my boys,” DeBoer says. “I can’t enroll my boys in school. I am on an emergency card at school — I am listed as just an emergency contact person. I am not a parent. I am nothing.”

You can read the whole story over at NPR.

There have been a number of people at the Family Scholars Blog who have expressed varying degrees of concern about the sanctioning of same-sex relationships through marriage because they feel this legitimizes gay and lesbian parents as procreative partners in some way.

What I think gets lost in such abstract discussions — about same-sex couples somehow, in future, creating new life together — is the fact that LGBT parents are already parenting without the full legal recognition that, in hundreds of little ways, ties parents to their children and ensures kids will have their parents or guardians present for them — advocating and decision-making as necessary — throughout their childhood. Statistically speaking, LGBT parents are also generally caring for their own biological children or adopting children who would otherwise spend their lives in the foster system. Parents (straight, gay, lesbian, or otherwise) who have used assisted reproductive strategies, too, are parenting children who — regardless of their origins — deserve the security of knowing they will have access to their parent-carers when they need them.

The argument that legalizing same-sex marriage gives social approval to all manner of assisted reproductive practices glosses over the fact that by supporting restrictive adoption laws, marriage laws, and other legal restrictions on the recognition of same-sex families, those who oppose recognition of same-sex relationships  are actively marginalizing existing children and their parents.  You aren’t stopping future families from being created; people of all sexual orientations have, and will continue, to create families irrespective of the law. Instead, you’re stopping already-established families from accessing the full range of social supports that, as a nation, we’ve decided interdependent couples and parents with dependent children need to thrive.

Maybe your concerns regarding reproductive ethics are strong enough that such a cost is worth it to you. But I don’t think it’s honest or responsible to simply ignore the human cost of such discriminatory practices.

booknotes: the end of sex

14 Thursday Mar 2013

Posted by in book reviews

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , ,

It’s always slightly embarrassing to admit you’ve requested an advance review copy of a book mostly to make fun of it and/or get angry at it — even more so when the book in question actually turns out to be much better than you suspected it was going to be at first glance. Sometimes you really can’t judge a book by its cover. Or, in this case, its title.

The book in question, this time, was Donna Freitas’ The End of Sex: How Hookup Culture is Leaving a Generation Unhappy, Sexually Unfulfilled, and Confused About Intimacy (Basic Books, 2013). Oh, god, no, I thought. Another hand-wringing book about how Kids These Days Are Doing It Wrong. Another book blaming feminism or men or pornography or youth or [insert favorite moral panic here]. Another book where an adult spends an inordinate amount of time focused on the sex lives of teenagers: how much they’re having sex, how they’re having it, with whom they’re having it, and how they are (or should) feel about it when they do.

Yet I was pleasantly surprised. Donna Freitas is a skillful critic who manages to avoid many of the standard pitfalls of such journalistic studies. A professor of religion and gender studies, who also has a background in student life, Freitas’ previous work, Sex and the Soul (2008), examined the role of religion and spirituality in adolescent sexual decision-making. This new work centers the voices of undergraduates themselves, letting them describe in their own words how they navigate the sexual culture(s) of residential college life. Although Freitas does not discuss her research methods in detail, it sounds from the text itself that she collected written surveys, conducted face-to-face individual interviews, and asked study participants to keep a written journal documenting their reflections about sexuality and selfhood. These primary sources inform Freitas’ narrative throughout and serve to make her argument stronger — though not unassailable. I’ll get to my outstanding questions and irritations below, but first let’s talk about what I appreciated about The End of Sex:

  • An insistence on both female and male voices. Too often, books and articles on so-called “hook up culture” (i.e. Sessions Stepp’s Unhooked) focus on women almost exclusively. They take for granted that the hook up is a situation designed by and for men (who, our narrative of masculinity goes, are always ready for no-strings-attached sexual encounters) while women are losing out. Freitas actually admits that this was a narrative she herself bought into before she began her research. But in listening to actual young men, she discovered what sociologists like Amy Schalet have pointed out to us: that young men, like young women, yearn for emotional connection and meaningful sex. Yet they have learned to bury those desires under the shell of masculine bravado.
  • Calling out the gender binary. Freitas does a good job of pointing out how the cultural expectations around male and female sexuality constrain students’ ability to act on their authentic desires. Men, straight and gay, feel pressured to want sex all the time and bury their emotional-relational desires deep; to the extent they acknowledge those feelings, they’re likely to feel isolated without anyone to discuss them with (because all the other men around them are similarly self-protective and silent on the subject). Women, meanwhile, are walking the tightrope of that old no-win situation, the virgin/slut double bind. They’re expected to be willing (but not too willing); sexually ” pure” (but not too pure). Much like the high school “slut” — who may or may not have ever had sex — female college students struggle to manage their reputations in a world where too much and too little are equally derided.
  • Listening to students thoughtfully, and encouraging sexual agency. Too often, books on young peoples’ sexual habits end up caught in a rescue narrative, calling on us to “save the children (from themselves).” Otherwise known as concern trolling. Freitas resists condescension, writing with confidence in young peoples’ ability to change hook up culture from within into something that better suits their needs. Freitas also tries, with middling success, to resist a one-size-fits-all solution to young peoples’ dissatisfaction with hook up culture. While I think she could have gone further with this, that she acknowledged difference at all (including the fact that some students might thrive on casual sexual interactions) deserves a nod.
  • Distinguishing between the cultural narrative and personal reality. She points out that her study participants consistently report that “everyone else” is engaging in casual sex, while they themselves are dissatisfied with the scene and are seeking alternatives. Freitas could have interrogated this dissonance a little more closely, but, again, points for acknowledging that not all (or even most?) students are throwing themselves into a life of no-strings-attached sexual experimentation.
  • Human sexual variety. Unlike many of the writers who have looked critically at the practice of hooking up, Freitas intentionally brings queer students and queer relationships into the picture. One of the students she profiles at length — as someone who successfully resisted engaging in sexual activities he didn’t feel ready for or comfortable with — is a young gay man now happily in a serious, sexually-active relationship. She also notes the way young people report moving in and out of the hook up scene, rather than imagining once they’ve fallen off the deep end there’s no going back.
  • Encourages us to help young people learn good sex. And by “good sex” she doesn’t mean “sex only within marriage” or simply “safer sex” practices — but sexual intimacy that is wanted and enjoyable. Too many of the students Freitas spoke with seemed to feel caught in a cycle of sexual behavior they hadn’t actively chosen to engage in, yet didn’t feel able to say no to. The landscape of sex appears, in their view, to be one of “on” or “off,” where once you’ve said yes one time you might as well keep saying yes again and again — whether you really desire to or not. If this is an accurate depiction, it’s heartbreaking — and points toward the need sexuality relationship education that refuses to reduce the message to “abstinence only,” or public health messages about STI prevention.
  • The problem of alcohol replacing communication. While I question the extent to which all students everywhere depend on alcohol to grease the sexual relationship wheels, where it does happen, I agree with Freitas that it’s a worrying trend. Not only for the usual alcohol-consumption reasons but also because it isn’t serving users’ sexual pleasure and sexual agency well. Students report using the “I was trashed” and/or “my partner was trashed” line to explain away all manner of sexual activities in which consent was dubious at best, and mutual pleasure a distant ideal rather than a lived reality. 

So those are the good parts: This is a thoughtful, evidence-based study that centers the voices of the population Freitas is studying (male and female students of all orientations in four-year residential colleges). It resists gender stereotyping and heterocentrism. It also, for the most part, resists reactionary solutions such as calling on students to “wait until marriage,” or suggesting a (female) “return to modesty.” Instead, Freitas encourages educators and adult mentors to give students the cognitive and emotional tools to critically engage with their own sexual cultures, evaluate their sexual values, resist sexual activities that make them unhappy, and create sexual relationships (whether fleeting or long-term) that will bring them physical and emotional pleasure and satisfaction. There is little in this agenda that I would argue with.

Still, there are some outstanding questions I have about the way Freitas frames the problem of hook up sex and some of the solutions she has offered. In brief:

  • Blaming the usual suspects. In trying to identify where “hook up culture” comes from, Freitas relies in part on a number of usual suspects: pornography (for teaching poor sexual scripts), online social networking (for supposedly robbing young people of interpersonal skills), the pervasive use of alcohol by college students (see above), and the changing “rules” of relationship formation (without a “dating” template, and without clear gender roles, how and when to make the first move?). I find all of these unsatisfying in their explanatory power, though I’d agree that some of them are concerning in their own right. 
  • If hook up culture is a story about other students, how many young people are actually participating? I was confused by the fact that Freitas repeatedly pointed toward the way the majority of her interviewees were unhappy with the dominant campus cultural narrative of hook up sex, yet a) pointed toward everyone but themselves engaging in it, and b) even when they did report participating it, were doing so to a limited and unhappy extent. I kept wondering: if hooking-up-as-a-way-of-life is always something that someone else does, how much of a reality is it, really? To what extent is it a story we tell ourselves about college culture because we fear/envy college students and — since at least the turn of the twentieth century — have continually imagined their lives were sexually hedonistic? If students themselves have inherited this cultural narrative of college promiscuity — and thus imagine everyone around them is leading a much more sexually wild life than they are themselves — that’s definitely a cause for concern. But not equivalent to students actually engaging in said behaviors.
  • If students are so unhappy, why don’t they get off the merry-go-round? I admit my blind spot here: I attended college between 1998-2005 as a part-time undergraduate who only spent three semesters in on-campus housing (when studying on, paradoxically, off-campus programs). I was never steeped in student culture, generally interacting with peers in class and limited extracurricular activities. So perhaps I had greater social independence than most undergraduates to pick and choose the aspects of college culture to engage in. Living in my hometown, I still had the social networks of long-term friendships, extended family, church, and workplace to fall back on when it came to “opting out” of aspects of student culture I didn’t like — whether it was opting out of conservative evangelical chapel services or drink-fueled parties! Still, if students are truly expressing unhappiness with the college scene in such great numbers as Freitas suggests, why oh why are they not revising it? Students are, after all, the primary creators and perpetuators of student culture. 
  • The “her hands caressed” problem. I was having a conversation with a couple of fellow erotica writers recently in which we were joking about the problem of limbs with volition. You’re proofing a piece and you realize you’ve got someone’s hands or lips acting independently of the person who, in fact, controls the action. I felt like Freitas often fell into this trap with regards to hook up culture, writing about it as of this culture were an entity with independent agency. Cultural discourses, it is true, can exert powerful pressure on individuals and populations … but, usually, they only exist because someone benefits, or thinks they benefit, from maintaining that particular cultural narrative. The discourse of gender difference, for example, has vocal proponents who believe that men and women are essentially different. They have something at stake (religiously, relationally, or otherwise) in a vision of gender difference. Who are the defenders of hook up culture? By Freitas’ account, not the students themselves! And school administrators, faculty, and parents seem shocked by accounts of its existence. So what accounts for the rise of “the hook up” as something which young people feel they must engage in or at least contend with? This question went unanswered in The End of Sex.
  • What about young people not living in dorms on four-year residential college campuses? This is not really a criticism, since any research investigation has its limitations, but I found myself wondering throughout this discussion of hook up culture how generalizable it might be. I pointed out above that my own non-residential status as an undergraduate insulated me somewhat from campus culture. Surely this is true for others as well. Is the hegemony of hook up culture, as reported by Freitas’ subjects, isolated to certain types of undergraduate campuses? (She acknowledges, for example, that it is not so present on evangelical Christian colleges.) What is it like at community colleges? In trade schools? Art schools? Not in college at all? Are there certain populations within large campuses more immune or resistant to hook up culture than others? (i.e. commuter students, international students, students involved in sports? drama? politically engaged? religious students? students who have previously experienced a serious relationship?) I feel like the differences among students is often lost in Freitas’ narrative, subsumed under her urgent sense that all students experience the relentless pressure of hook up culture’s (disembodied) demands.
  • She blames (in part) technology for young peoples’ bewilderment about how to get to know potential romantic partners outside of drunken make-out session. I feel this is a simplistic cop-out. I am, admittedly, biased: my wife and I were introduced via email and spent a lot of our get-to-know-you time via chat and email. We both hate the telephone; for the six months before we moved in together (initially as roommates), I would get up extra early on workdays to catch her online before she had to leave for work; I did my homework after she went to bed, so we could talk online until she shut her computer down for the night. All of this internet connectivity supplemented and facilitated the things we did together in person: walks, movies, lunch at the campus cafeteria, sitting next to one another in class, theater and concerts, shopping excursions. In non-romantic life, I have sustained key relationships, from childhood through into adulthood, by “virtual” means: through postal correspondence, email, blogging, and other social networking tools. Thus, it is difficult for me to take seriously the argument that virtual communication somehow impedes… communication.
  • Why is “dating” the main solution offered to the problems of “hooking up”? Toward the end of The End of Sex, Freitas suggests that students might benefit from relationship education (yes! I agree!) and points toward a professor at Boston College (a Catholic university) who teaches a popular 1-credit class on relationships in which one required assignment for all students (regardless of gender and sexual orientation) is to take a romantic interest out on a date during the semester. The date assignment was, according to the professor, a terrifying and bewildering one for her students — although they also expressed appreciation that they were forced outside their comfort zone in order to pass the class. Freitas’ suggestion is that the structure of the date, however terrifying it is to initiate, provides a safe framework for getting to know a potential sexual partner without being wasted and without the pressure for instant sexual contact. I appreciate her point, but I also wonder why she overlooks the fact that more informal friendships can evolve into sexual relationships in healthy ways — and the more problematic aspects of dating culture that we don’t necessarily want to resuscitate? When I ran a draft of this blog post by my writing group, several members recoiled at the date assignment, not only because it felt intrusive to them, but also because their experience with dating wasn’t so hot either. As one member observed, “My son just graduated a small residential college where going on a date was extremely normative. This not only did not stop hooking-up and/or drunken sex, it also didn’t seem to improve relationships. It also really strengthened rather restrictive gender norms (who asked who, who paid, etc).” Another concurred, pointing out that her “dating” relationships had suffered from many of the same problems as more casual encounters. Perhaps, we mused together, the problem is not the hook up, per se, but rather misogyny?
  • What about “hanging out”? My wife and I were friends and roommates first, an intense relationship that evolved into courtship over a two-year period, and eventually into a sexually-active, committed partnership. We never formally “dated,” yet we weren’t hooking up either. Instead, we were good friends who eventually acted on the sexual possibility we both felt in our relationship. A third member of my writing group suggested that between “the date” and “the hook up” there’s this thing called “hanging out” — where you connect in the student lounge over pizza and a Walking Dead marathon and discover you fit together really well, in more ways than one.  “Hanging out,” at least in my experience, also carries a lot less baggage in terms of gender-based expectations for behavior. In my informal friend survey, “hanging out” seems to be an option for straight as well as queer couples, so I wonder why it’s invisible in Freitas’ narrative. Particularly when it has the potential to offer the best of both worlds: getting-to-know-you time without excessive alcohol or the pressure for immediate sexual activity.

In the end, Freitas’ The End of Sex is an addition to the literature on hook up culture that is better than many, despite its limitations. I devoutly hope it signals the beginning of a (dare I hope?) sea-change in the way we talk about relationship culture in the twenty-first century. As I finished this review, Tracy Clark-Flory of Salon.com offered up a lengthy interview with author Leslie Bell, who has recently published (yet another!) book on hook up culture, Hard to Get: Twenty-Something Women and the Paradox of Sexual Freedom. Clark-Flory enthuses that Hard to Get is “a nuanced look at hook up culture” that refuses to either downplay its pitfalls or deny its pleasures. That one’s on order at my local public library, and I’m looking forward to reading (and reviewing) it soon.

cross-posted at the family scholars blog.

fun with amicus briefs! [doma & the supremes]

11 Monday Mar 2013

Posted by in think pieces

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

cross-posted from the family scholars blog.

http://lesbianweddings.tumblr.com/post/12741646344
(via)

Thanks to Amy’s recent post that linked to John Culhane’s piece on the importance of amicus briefs, I spent a nerdy afternoon this past weekend browsing through some of the many briefs submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court in relation to the two same-sex marriage cases that will be reviewed by the court this session. They are all available to read in PDF at the American Bar Association’s website; you can also find a list at the SCOTUSblog. I thought I’d share a few highlights with you. Of particular interest to the folks at Family Scholars might be the brief submitted jointly by the Family Equality Council, Colage, Our Family Coalition, Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, the Center on Children and Families,  the Child Rights Project, and Sarah Gogin. Together, they seek to represent the children raised by same-sex parents as well as young people who experience same-sex desire as they look toward a future forming adult relationships. They begin:

The voices of children raised by same-sex parents — those who live every day within the family structure at the heart of these lawsuits — are too often unheard in debates about same-sex couples and marriage. Their stories are too often missing from discussions of “traditional” families or “family values,” and their personal experience too often discounted as irrelegant. Although those who oppose marriage for same-sex couples frequently make assumptions about the quality of the children’s family lives, the children themselves are rarely asked to explain what they actually experience.

Throughout the brief, they foreground the voices of young people who are growing up with LGBT parents, and their list of “authorities” (the brief equivalent of a bibliography) offers a valuable starting point for thosee interested in learning more about the experience of people who have grown up within LGBT households. As the brief asserts,

Although the Proponents [of Proposition 8] claim an interest in stabilizing the American family structure, the elimination of marriage for same-sex couples in California and the refusal to recognize valid married couples on the federal level have the exact opposite effect. Placing an official stamp of governmental opprobrium on the relationships of same-sex parents instead serves to stigmatize and de-legitimize the relationships, and, as a result, the children themselves.

Not to mention, the children of our nation who will grow into adult same-sex desires and relationships:

By officially sanctioning their exclusion from marriage and placing existing marriages of same-sex couples in the singular position of being “not marriages” for federal law, these measures exacerbate feelings of hopelessness about the future and perpetual “different-ness” that many LGBT youth already feel and discourage them from aspiring to full participation in civic life.

As an historian, I was also pleased to see both the Organization of American Historians (OAH) and the American Historical Association  (AHA) had filed briefs discussing the history of marriage law in the United States. The AHA draws on the scholarship of its professional membership to make several key arguments: that the federal government has historically deferred to state law when determining marital status; that the meaning of marriage is not limited to procreation; that marriage practices have changed over time, and that this is a strength not a weakness of marriage as a social institution. From their summary of the arguments:

Control of marital status is reserved to the states in our federal system. Marriage has always been understood as a civil contract embodying a couple’s free consent to join in long-lasting intimate and economic union. In authorizing marriage, states turn a couple’s vows into a legal status, thus protecting the couple’s bond and aiming moreover to advance general social and economic welfare. Throughout U.S. history, states have valued marriage as a means to benefit society. Seeing multiple purposes in marriage, states have encouraged maritally-based households as advantages to public good, whether or not minor children are present, and without regard to biological relationships of descent. …For two centuries before 1996, state marital diversity reigned, along with serious inter-state contestation, without Congress stepping in to create marital “uniformity” for federal purposes. Congress never took a position on a marital eligibility question pre-emptively so as to discredit a policy choice that a state might make. Before DOMA, federal agencies assessed marriage validity by consulting the relevant state laws. In historical perspective, DOMA appears as an attempt by Congress to single out particular state-licensed marriages for disfavored treatment.

The OHA, in a brief filed with the American Studies Association, takes up a slightly different aspect of the case.  They outline the history of discrimination towards sexual minorities in the United States, and pointing toward legal precedent for taking history into account when assessing the full weight of discriminatory practice:

As professional organizations devoted to the study of American history and culture, amici are not before the Court to advocate a particular legal doctrine or standard. But they wish to advise the court that the historical record is clear. Gay men and lesbians in America have been subjected to generations of intense, irrational, and often violent discrimination, commencing as soon as they emerged as a group into American public consciousness and continuing today.

The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund reminds the court of its historic role in guaranteeing equal protection rights to all citizens, asserting that “The role of the courts is to safeguard the rights of historically subordinated groups by applying heightened scrutiny to laws like DOMA, that disadvantage them as a class.”

And finally, it was also heartening to see a number of briefs from religious organizations supporting marriage equality, including one filed on behalf of a truly heartwarming number of faith traditions: the Bishops Of The Episcopal Church In The States Of California, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington and The District Of Columbia; The Jewish Theological Seminary Of America; Manhattan Conference Of The Metropolitan New York Synod Of The Evangelical Lutheran Church In America; The Rabbinical Assembly; The Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association; Reconstructionist Rabbinical College; Rabbi Akiva Herzfeld Of Shaarey Tphiloh; The Union For Reform Judaism; Unitarian Universalist Association; United Church Of Christ; The United Synagogue Of Conservative Judaism; Affirmation; Covenant Network Of Presbyterians; Friends For Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, And Queer Concerns; Methodist Federation For Social Action; More Light Presbyterians; Presbyterian Welcome; Reconciling Ministries Network; Reconciling Works: Lutherans For Full Participation; and Religious Institute, Inc. (yes really!). Their premise is:

Americans are a religious people, but diversely so. Religious adherents differ on contentious issues, and religious bodies have themselves evolved and disagreed over time — on marriage as well as other civil rights and social issues. In view of that history and the wide range of modern religious thought on same-sex unions, it would be a mistake to elevate any one view on marriage above all others as the “Christian” or “religious” view. Indeed, it would be constitutionally inappropriate, because civil marriage is a secular institution … and the Constitution bars the government from favoring certain religious views over others … Religious freedom means that all voices may contribute to our national conversation, but particular religious perspectives on marriage cannot be permitted to control civil recognition of marriage for all.

These highlights represent just a handful of the perspectives filed with the court, and I encourage all of you to go explore on your own — and share what briefs spoke to you, and why, in comments.

quick hit: american sociological association on same-sex parenting and child outcomes

01 Friday Mar 2013

Posted by in linkspam

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

cross-posted at the family scholars blog.

via Religion Dispatches.

The American Sociological Association has filed an amicus brief in the Proposition 8 case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court strongly supporting marriage equality as a positive step for child well-being. They also offer an extensive critique of the Regnerus study used in other amicus briefs as support for upholding the ban on same-sex marriage.

You can read the entire 32-page brief here (PDF) and Peter Montgomery at Religion Dispatches, above, discusses the critique of the Regnerus study specifically, with lengthy excerpts.

Here, I thought I would share the succinct conclusion from the brief itself:

The social science consensus is both conclusive and clear: children fare just as well when they are raised by same-sex parents as when they are raised by opposite sex parents. This consensus holds true across a wide range of child outcome indicators and is supported by numerous nationally representative studies. Accordingly, assuming that either DOMA or Proposition 8 has any effect on whether children are raised by opposite-sex or same-sex parents, there is no basis to prefer opposite-sex parents over same-sex parents and neither DOMA nor Proposition 8 is justified. The research supports the conclusion that extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples has the potential to improve child wellbeing insofar as the institution of marriage may provide social and legal support to families and enhances family stability, key drivers of positive child outcomes. The Regnerus study and other studies relied on by BLAG, the Proposition 8 Proponents, and their amici provide no basis for their arguments, because they do not directly examine the wellbeing of children raised by same-sex parents These studies therefore do not undermine the consensus from the social science research and do not establish a “common sense” basis for DOMA or Proposition 8.

While I would be the first to agree that just because something is said by a professional organization that doesn’t make it true (exhibit A: the classification of homosexuality as a pathological disorder), it is true that professional consensus backed up by a body of literature that consistently demonstrates a set of outcomes requires an equally strong body of evidence to refute. And the anti-equality spokespeople are not offering up that body of evidence.

I encourage those interested to at least skim through the ASA brief.

the feminist librarian’s bookshelf: five adolescent love stories

01 Friday Mar 2013

Posted by in book reviews

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

cross-posted at the family scholars blog.

As I promised in Tuesday’s introductory post, this month’s Bookshelf contains five novels about young adult love that shaped my understanding of romantic possibilities as a teenager. I’m sharing them here in the order in which I encountered them.

[warning: basic plot points will be discussed herein, for those who care about spoilers.]

Magorian, Michelle. Not a Swan (1991). Author Michelle Magorian is perhaps best known for Goodnight, Mr. Tom, a story about a boy abused by his mother who finds safety and love as a wartime evacuee placed with a widowed curmudgeon in rural England. I discovered Magorian’s other work thanks to my childhood public library, and my far-and-away favorite was Not a Swan (also known by its English title A Little Love Song). Swan tells the story of Rose, a WWII evacuee on the cusp of adulthood who dreams of becoming an author, and the mysterious woman who once lived in the house Rose and her sisters are sent to for safety on the English coast.

The novel packs in out-of-wedlock sex, class tensions, the prejudice against — and even incarceration of — unwed mothers, pregnancy, and childbirth. It also tackles the issues of sexual coercion and sexual awakening: our heroine is first pressured into sex by a young man about to go off to war — and then later enthusiastically chooses to become sexually active with another young veteran who supports her literary aspirations and social rebellion.

I read this novel for the first time at age twelve, and was electrified by the (relatively) explicit sex scenes, and Rose’s struggle to determine what kind of sexual intimacy she wanted, on her own terms, regardless of social approbation. My own takeaway from this novel was that sexual experiences are deeply shaped by the quality of relationship in which they happen, and that positive, joyful sexual intimacy is best forged by people who recognize one anothers’ full humanity and independent aspirations.

Garden, Nancy. Annie on My Mind (1982)In the early 1990s, when I was entering teenagerdom, this was the only novel in my public library’s Young Adult section featuring a lesbian love story. To this day I’m grateful to the librarian who purchased the tattered paperback copy for their collection, because — while dated in many ways — Annie was an incredibly positive introduction to queer fiction. It was, famously, one of the first gay YA novels to feature a hopeful, romantic ending. Liza and Annie, the star-crossed lovers, meet at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and develop a passionate friendship that deepens into a sexually-intimate romance when Liza agrees to house-sit for a beloved teacher. The teacher and her partner are themselves a (closeted) lesbian couple. When an anti-gay school administrator at Liza’s private school discovers the girls nearly in flagrante delicto at the teacher’s home (unbeknownst to the older lesbian couple, who are still away traveling) drama ensues.

While Liza and Annie face moral dilemmas around truth-telling and deception, their feelings for one another are never figured by the novel as perverse or wrong; instead, it is clearly the prejudice of others that precipitates the negative effects rippling outward from their involuntary uncloseting. Though the anti-gay prejudice depicted in Annie is, at times, easy to dismiss as outdated, the moral panic surrounding the girls’ relationship is still a live possibility for many queer teenagers (and adults!) today: teenage girls! sexual feelings! homosexuality! For that reason, Annie was a bittersweet read for me, serving as both a positive example of lesbian desire and a reminder of the discrimination that often constrains the lives of same-sex couples, even today.

Forester, E.M. A Room With a View (1908 ). I have often wondered if it was because of his life as a gay man — at a time when male homosexuality was still illegal in Britain — that E. M. Forester was able to write with such compassion and understanding about the circumscribed lives of women in middle- and upper-middle class Edwardian England. Room With a View is one of the earliest “adult” romance  novels I read, and remains in my top ten of the genre. Hardly sexually explicit, it still insists on a vision of marriage which involves the whole of both people: emotionally, intellectually, and physically. One reason for Lucy’s ultimate rejection of Cecil, the suitor to whom she is initially engaged, is that he sees her as a work of art (an object) — not a living, breathing, human being (a subject). George, the young man Lucy ends up choosing, gives every indication of appreciating her as a subject, a person in her own right — alive to the world, ready to encounter it alongside him, rather than decorate a drawing room. Particularly paired with Forester’s later work, A Passage to India, Room With a View has some very insightful things to say about both the possibilities of women’s agency, and the violence done to all concerned when women’s right to tell their own stories and make their own decisions are wrested from them by the machinery of Society.


Jordon, Sherryl. The Raging Quiet (1999). A quasi-historical fantasy novel set in Medieval Britain, The Raging Quiet revolves around questions of familial responsibility, marital fidelity, women’s self-determination, physical disability, and the potentially fatal cost of intolerance. Marnie is our headstrong heroine, coerced into marriage in order to save her family from eviction. Shortly after her marriage (and traumatic sexual initiation), her husband falls to his death and Marnie finds herself under a cloud of suspicion. Her friendship with the village “madman” does nothing to protect her reputation, and when that friendship deepens into love (and eventual sexual intimacy), Marnie finds herself on “trial” for witchcraft. I particularly loved (and still love) the village priest who — rather than being cast as a judgmental, doctrine-bound villain — finds himself befriending both Marnie and Raven (the “madman”), and ultimately blessing their union. Like Not a Swan, The Raging Quiet explores the journey of a young woman through coerced sexual activity through to self-understanding and subjective, chosen desire.

Waters, Sarah. Tipping the Velvet (1998) & Fingersmith (2002). While technically, I believe I read Sarah Waters’ novels the year I turned twenty-two, I was only midway through my undergraduate career and still floundering around trying to understand my sexual desires and possible identities. Tipping and Fingersmith are Victorian-esque thrillers with lesbian love stories at their core. They’re melodrama at its best, full to the brim with intrigue, double-crossing, mystery, cross-dressing, kink, revolutionary politics, pornography, wrongful incarceration, last-minute reveals — I could go on. Not necessarily my favorite lesbian romances today, I share Waters’ novels here because they were the first adult novels featuring same-sex romance that I dared to check out of the library and read — because they were mainstream enough that I didn’t feel that by reading them, I was declaring my own sexual identity one way or another. They were, paradoxically, safe novels to read. They helped me become aware of my own openness to same-sex desires by depicting explicit relational sex between women.

Fiction often encourages us to expand the realm of possibility, and for queer folks it is particularly powerful to have same-sex desires centered and normalized within fiction, when for so many years we’ve been pushed to the periphery as the “gay best friend,” or pathologized as doomed lovers, forced to pay for our “sins.” Tipping the Velvet encouraged me to ask myself where my desires yearned — a question that, in all honesty, it took nearly a decade of self-examination for me to meaningfully answer.

All five of these novels offered me the chance to reflect on the relationship between love and romance, love and sex, friendship and sex, sexuality and society, gender and sexual experience. While all of them could be derided as adolescent “love songs,” simplistic and idealistic marriage plots, I nevertheless believe all these authors have important things to say about the interaction of self and society within sexually-intimate relationships. As a teenager, I took away from all of these novels strong messages about the importance of paying attention to one’s internal moral compass, being attentive to one’s embodied desires, insisting on honesty and love over and above social custom — and even in the face of social persecution. I took away from these novels an openness to human sexual variety, and a belief in the right (and ability) of all people to form loving, consensual, and enthusiastically sexual relationships, and to stand by those relationships even when society said, “that’s wrong.”

I’d love to hear in comments if a) you’ve encountered any of these novels before, and if so what your experience with them was, and b) what novels helped shape your own youthful perceptions of sexually-intimate relationships. How do you feel you were served by the depiction of romance, love and sexuality in the literature of your youth?

so, that happened [a new guest blogging gig]

26 Tuesday Feb 2013

Posted by in admin

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

Ah, the strange and wondrous things that happen when you go traipsing around The Internet.

As you know, I’ve been hanging around the comment threads at Family Scholars Blog for awhile now. In part because I’m interested in how the other half lives thinks.  In part because I like to argue.

And in part because, in the very selfish, immature corner of my brain-heart-body it irks me that there are people out there who really think that I’m “depraved on account I’m deprived” (or some variation thereof). I’m fascinated and appalled that people feel so threatened by my existence as a (gay) married, sexually-active bisexual that they try to pass laws to erase my (gay) married existence, and — when that fails — simply say that my marriage isn’t real.

It’s fascinating, as I say, and appalling.

And not a little frightening. To know that my life excites such fear, angst, anger, and loathing.

I like to keep all that in sight, watchfully.

Well, then a couple of weeks ago they invited me to blog with them, as a regular guest blogger. 

And my first reaction was absolutely not, no. But I said I’d think about the offer. Talk to some people. Sleep on it.

What could I possibly bring to that site, as a guest blogger, that I wasn’t already bringing in comments? And, more importantly, why did they want me? I admitted to myself fears that I might simply be being recruited as a Poster Lesbian: “See? She plays well with others!” they might say, and when accused of anti-gay bias the group could point to my guest blogger bio: “See?! We even have a Queer Feminist Gay-Married Bisexual writing for us!”

Wouldn’t I be risking, on some level, being their Queer Cover? The sexual-identity equivalent of the Black Friend?

But then I started to think about what I might be able to offer in such a space, to those who were truly open to listening (and, yes, though I complain about those who revile and erase me more, the more contemplative conservatives exist).

And this is what I thought. That much of the conversation about queerness, feminism, and other lefty-liberal modes of being at the Family Scholars Blog (FSB) takes place without reference to — let alone centering of — actual queer / feminist / lefty-liberal voices or experiences. Even when those voices are referenced, it’s generally in the form of a sound bite we’re all supposed to know is ridiculous or wrong-headed (“pfft, look at those hysterical feminists with their foolish notions about gender equality — what do they know”).

Well, I’d like to talk about what it is we do know, and what life looks like from where we stand.

So I’ve accepted the FSB offer, and I’m going to start a monthly series there (cross-posted here), “The Feminist Librarian’s Bookshelf,” with 3-to-5 titles per post as suggested reading on a theme (“gender and neuroscience,” “teenagers and sexuality,” “queer families”). My hope is that I can offer a glimpse into the literature that informs those of us who take a quite different view than many, if not most, at the FSB, with regards to family life. I’m not particularly aiming to convert, although obviously it would be nice if some of my favorite authors resonated with readers here and there. My goal is to encourage people to “walk a mile in someone else’s shoes,” and think about what it might be like if you were to look at the world through the eyes of a lefty lesbian teenage, a liberal Latina mama, a feminist trans* woman, an asexual anarchist, a socialist living in poverty, or hippie home-educators.

There’s talk over at the FSB about civility of discourse, about meeting people halfway and compromising, about being willing to doubt (one’s own truths) and being open to having one’s mind changed.

I’m not sure how I feel about these values. I sometimes feel there is a type of privilege at work here, in which  unexamined certitude is disproportionately a problem of those whose worldviews and values are reflected back at them from mainstream culture. Those on the margins not only have the value of self-doubt shoved in their faces 24/7, they must learn to see the world through the eyes of the privileged and powerful in order to survive. Indeed: part of my fascination with the religious right comes from growing up a liberal-progressive (dare I say radical!) minority within a conservative Christian culture. I had to learn how Christian conservatives understood the world in order to survive. They didn’t have to learn anything about me, if they didn’t care to.

So I’ll be walking a mindful line over there, at FSB, between recognizing the true values of civil conversation, of lovingkindness and compassion, of being open to new experiences and viewpoints, of being open to the change those experiences and viewpoints will wreak within me — and at the same time holding my own, in part by example demonstrating that it is possible for a diversity of individuals with very different lives to co-exist in a democracy without the world imploding. We don’t all have to be alike, and that’s okay. We don’t all have to fear others who are different from us and/or those who choose a different way of life. Their different choices don’t, for the most part, constrain our own freedom of choice unduly.

You can read my self-introduction over a FSB and I’ll be cross-posting Thursday’s bookshelf post (five novels that influenced my adolescent perspective on love and romance) here.

"the immediate problem … of how to represent women’s desire visually" [more questions about porn]

21 Thursday Feb 2013

Posted by in think pieces

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

,

So I’m working my way through some of the classics of scholarly treatments of film pornography, most recently Linda Williams’ Hard Core: Power, Pleasure, and the ‘Frenzy of the Visible’ (University of California Press, 1989). It’s a book that in many respects has aged well, despite its heavy reliance on both Marxist and Freudian frameworks for discussing “fetishism,” commodification, sexual pleasure, and power dynamics. Williams pushes back fairly forcefully against anti-porn feminism, and — while at times too quick to concede that such-and-such plot or scene is misogynist — insists on complicating the assumption that mainstream, heterosexual “hard core” porn is de facto male-centric and anti-female pleasure.

However. 

(You knew there was one.)

However, she keeps circling around this notion that one of the traps of cinematic pornography is that they have to depict pleasure on the screen (no argument there), and that male pleasure is easy to depict — via penetration (“the meat shot”) and/or ejaculation (“the money shot”) — while female pleasure is difficult (impossible even?) to successfully show on film. At one point toward the end of the book she writes that feminist pornographers, however much they may desire to revise the genre, are still confronted with “the immediate problem … of how to represent women’s desire visually.”

I guess I just don’t get the problem here.

Like … turn on the camera. Train said camera on a masturbating woman who, let’s imagine, gets off on the idea of the camera’s “gaze” as she’s climbing toward orgasm. Maybe, if you wanna get fancy you could use multiple cameras so as to ensure you get some close-ups of her face, or the curve of her spine as she arches, or the cant of her hips as she pushes her fingers into herself…

It’s just … not. That. Difficult.

I read my wife’s desire and pleasure visually on a fairly regular basis and — while, granted, we augment the visual with verbal cues and shared history — my visual processing in this regard has a pretty damn high success rate in that my visual perceptions of her enjoyment has a high degree of correlation with her own reports of what gets her off, when.

You read a body in ecstasy just like you read a body in anger or pain: through minute facial expressions, gestures, the set of the shoulders, the angle of limbs. You read a person’s willingness for partnered sex through all of the ways they physically express connectedness (or lack thereof) to the other person(s) en scene.

We don’t panic (film people, correct me if I’m wrong here!) over OMG how are we ever going to represent anger visually in this film!?

Why oh why is sex supposedly so freakin’ different — women’s sexuality specifically in this instance — that it’s a “problem” to capture on film?

(via, very nsfw)

(I’d argue male sexuality, also, is far from “simple” to represent through the visual tropes of erection, penetration, and ejaculation, but that’s maybe a post in its own right.)

What I suspect is that this assumption that women’s desire and sexual pleasure is a problem, cinematically speaking, comes from the pervasive belief in contemporary culture that women’s sexuality is mysterious and difficult to understand (while men’s is basically self-evident; again, an assumption that deserves unpacking). If women’s sexuality is this crazy mysterious thing that we don’t understand and that men find epically confusing, how are we ever supposed to imagine it visually on screen? A mystery is, by definition, something which can never be fully revealed unless it is solved.

Which is why, as Williams suggests, women’s sexuality in modern hard core porn, is often “solved” through gimmicks that render it somehow more visible, or displace it by letting male pleasure cues stand in for everyone’s sexual satisfaction in the scene.

I’m not as convinced as Williams is that all mainstream pornography is stymied by visualizing women’s pleasure. I think, at times, that Williams is too quick to assume — at least in this early work — that proof of desire requires, for example, genitals which can demonstrate arousal and climax on-screen.

And I’m pretty sure there are a lot of pornographers, feminist, female, and otherwise, who’d be surprised to learn that women were such difficult creatures to capture on screen. I wonder: would that make us some sort of weird supernatural being of sex? Try to capture visual evidence of our pleasure and we’d vanish from the silver nitrate on the film (or the binary of the pixels on the image card)?

call for participants: collecting sex materials for libraries: an opinion survey

19 Tuesday Feb 2013

Posted by in linkspam

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

I’ve shared this on Twitter and Tumblr, but figured I might catch some folks here as well, so what the hell. This call for participants came across my dash via the H-Net: HistSex listserv. I took the survey last week and it does take a good 45 minutes if you want to be thoughtful about it an include commentary. I was frustrated with some of the multiple-choice options and the framing of some of the questions, but I also hope that the researchers will be able to get some useful information out of the data they collect — so if you’re a library and/or archives professional and interested in the question of sexuality in the archives, I encourage you to help ’em out!

Here is their call for participants in full:

In an attempt to understand librarian and library staff attitudes towards collecting sexual materials for libraries, librarians Scott Vieira and Michelle Martinez, assistant professors at Sam Houston State University, are asking for survey participants and offering the chance to win one of four available $25 gift certificates to Amazon.com.
 All librarians and library staff from any type of library are encouraged to participate.
 The survey, “Collecting Sex Materials for Libraries: An Opinion Survey,”
takes anywhere from between 25-40 minutes depending on reading speed, and consists of 49 questions. We’re looking for opinions on how librarians and library staff members feel about things such as 50 Shades of Gray, Hustler, gay erotica, and other items that are often considered contentious.
 Participants’ privacy will be kept and personal information is not required unless the participant wants to register for the drawing. Any personal information will be deleted once the drawing has been held within one week at the closing of the survey. Participants will be emailed the gift certificate.
 Participation in the survey is strictly voluntary. Participants can exit the survey at any time without penalty.
 By consenting to participate through accessing and submitting the survey, you authorize the use of your data to be compiled for possible articles, without any personally identifying information as may have been submitted for the prize drawing.
 http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NZT9P79 If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Scott Vieira at
936-294-3743 or svieira@shsu.edu<mailto:svieira@shsu.edu> or Michelle Martinez at 936-294-1629 or mmartinez@shsu.edu<mailto:mmartinez@shsu.edu>.
 Or by mail: Attn: Scott Vieira or Michelle Martinez, SHSU Box 2179, Huntsville, TX 77341
 Scott Vieira
Assistant Professor &
Electronic Resources Librarian

Have fun!

to want them, to be them, or both? [perspectives in porn]

12 Tuesday Feb 2013

Posted by in think pieces

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

So last week I reviewed an anthology of essays on pornography, and kind of in passing I asked why we generally assume that people watch porn because they want to fantasize about having sex with the people the camera’s gaze is trained on. That is, in porn marketed to men who like having sex with women, female actors take center stage and male performers are assumed to be exchangeable stand-ins for the Everyman Viewer. Women are cast with an eye toward what body types producers imagine their Everymen want to fantasize about exchanging bodily fluids with.

I don’t understand where this narrative assumption comes from.

Is that actually how the majority of people watch porn?

Because that’s certainly one perspective to take when consuming erotic material: the “would I wantonly ravish this person?” perspective. However the viewer/reader assesses the sexual attractiveness of a given performer/character (visual presentation, sexual style, aspects of character, voice, etc.), that question certainly informs how you enter into the fantasy of the pornographic scenario. If the answer to the above question is yes! it becomes easier to understand the motivations of the ravishers as depicted in said piece of smut. It’s easier to get drawn into the story, just as it’s easier to get drawn into any work of fiction when you care about the character’s well-being, or want to know what happens next.

I get that. There’s a reason I’m drawn to some relationships in fan fiction and not others; some character dynamics just don’t do it for me. Others do.

But I find this an unsatisfying and incomplete assessment of how people (read: “men” in most discussions about pornographic film) interact with porn. Why? Because it’s not the only way I — as a consumer/creator — interact with sexually-explicit material. And it’s not the only way people interact with fiction generally. We know this. And yet, somehow, when the question of sexually-explicit material is on the table all of our wisdom about the viewer/reader and their complex interactions with what they watch and read flies right out the window.

To whit, when it comes to porn, despite the fact I’m a voyeur by definition (reading/watching the characters/performers interact in sexual ways without literally being involved with them) my pleasure is often less contingent on the question “would I wantonly ravish this person?” than it is on the question “if someone ravished me in this fashion, how might it feel?” Or, “is this dynamic between them an arousing one? how is it making the actors/characters feel? why is it making them feel that way? The sexual activity depicted doesn’t have to be something I’d definitely find pleasurable in real life, but a successful pornographic or erotic narrative will encourage an imaginative connection, prompting me to explore how such an activity could be pleasurable to the performers/characters in question.

Like any good work of fiction, pornography and erotica asks us to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes (or, you know, lacey knickers). And learn something meaningful or moving while we’re there.

So all of this leads me back to the question: Rather than assuming people sexually objectify the performers in porn, why don’t we wonder to what extent they’re identifying with them? After all, we’re human beings watching (or reading about) human bodies experiencing sexual pleasure. Doesn’t it make sense that we’d — at least to some extent — imagine ourselves into their situation as much as we might imagine being the person sexually stimulating them?

I look at this image and I feel the water washing across my skin (via)

I haven’t watched much moving-image porn, so perhaps the descriptions I’ve read of pornographic films are giving me the wrong impression here? But when I read synopses of films, I’m definitely aroused most often by imagining myself in the role of the performers whose pleasure is visible on screen. Like, if the film is going to show me a woman giving a man (or woman) a blow job, and it’s the giver’s body and facial expressions and responses we’re seeing, isn’t that the person we’d be likely to identify with — not the disembodied dick (or clit) that appears as a prop on the screen?

And no, I don’t think the answer can be as simple as “but dudes can’t/won’t imagine themselves into the position of a female performer because their bodies are different!” because I read plenty of erotic material in which the only bodies involved are male bodies and I definitely successfully identify with those characters. So I think we’re too quick to assume that anatomical body difference is a barrier to imaginative involvement.

Maybe it’s partly a (socialized or innate) gender thing? Recent studies have suggested that men and women generally interact with porn in different ways, with men being less flexible in what types of erotic imagery arouse them (women appear to be catholic in their tastes: it doesn’t generally matter whose bodies are depicted, or even that they be human bodies — if sexytimes be happening, our pleasure centers light up). But I’m tired of the simplistic assumption, without research to back it up, that men only interact with porn in a way that interprets the (female) actors depicted on screen as objects rather than subjects. At the very least, I’d imagine it’s likely viewers of pornography — just like readers of fiction or viewers of any other genre of film — switch imaginative perspectives, so that response to a question about who is being observed and who is being identified with would change over the course of the viewing/reading experience in complicated, unstable ways.

I’m continuing to think about this question while reading Laura Kipnis’ Bound and Gagged (1997) and Linda Williams Hard Core (1989) this month. They’re both fascinating studies which have much to recommended them, though some of the debates they engage with are certainly dated. Still, on the watch for questions of perspective both authors seem only to nod in passing to the idea that male viewers might be watching the bodies in screen in less-than-straightforward ways. Williams, for example, seems to assume that heterosexual male arousal in reaction to viewing an aroused male body would be an experience of homosexual desire, rather than, you know, a response to the arousal of a body the viewer could imagine being. So it’s clear that even the leading thinkers in this field have taken this question somewhat as read.

What are your experiences with sexually-explicit material? To what extent do you find yourself wanting to be and/or wanting to have the individuals depicted or described? How does the voyeurism of engaging with other peoples’ (fictional or performed) sexual intimacy pull you in as an observer-participant? Do you tend to identify with all of the characters in a scene, or specific characters? To what extent does body type and physical sex contribute to your choice of character with whom to identify?

I’d love to hear your thoughts; if you want to share anonymously the form should allow for that — and I’ll try to monitor the thread carefully so that anon comments don’t end up in the trash if they are actually legitimate contributions (95% of my “anon” comments are just straightforward spam).

comment post: unfinished thoughts on non-consensual sexualization

07 Thursday Feb 2013

Posted by in think pieces

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

Regular readers of this blog may remember that over the past year or so I’ve been haunting the conservative Family Scholars Blog hosted by the Institute for American Values (IAV) think tank founded by David Blankenhorn, sometime high-profile opponent of same-sex marriage. In part, I follow the blog because my smart and funny friend Fannie is one of their guest bloggers. I am also deeply interested in the worldview of people whose understanding of how the world works, and what values will increase the well-being of humanity, are so different from my own.

Last week, I found myself sucked into a comment thread at the FSB wrestling with the subject of what I’ll call “non-consensual sexualization.” My working definition of non-consensual sexualization is public expressions which frame another person’s appearance, presence, or actions in a sexual light without their participation or consent. You might also call this plain old “sexual objectification.” I’m using my phrase here because I think it’s important to highlight the non-consensual part of what’s going on here. Continue reading →