Straight men are the vegans of human sexuality.
They decline to partake of any meat, any meat-related product, or anything vaguely associated with meat in any way. At the slightest whiff of meat in the kitchen, straight men will have a fit and run for the door.
Although there are exceptions, many vegans tend to be quite intolerant of creatures who do consume meat and have trouble understanding the viewpoints and proclivities of other types of eaters. Also, although there are many dietary vegans whose bodies are structured for a strictly herbivorous diet, there are also still a good many ethical vegans whose bodies can metabolize meat but who refuse to for belief-related reasons.
Gay men are the carnivores of sexuality. They eat only meat (and lots of it).
Just the thought of vegetables makes these carnivores heave. These carnivores are hunters not gatherers. They have high protein requirements and low tolerance for anything but animal flesh and organs.
Many ‘obligate’ carnivores have evolved characteristics specifically designed for the capture and infiltration of prey, including speed, muscularity, and directness. Some gay men hunt solo, exhibiting lone wolf characteristics, and some hunt in packs. Some carnivores are committed to the consumption of only one animal for their entire lifespan, while others have very diverse diets that include many species of animal.
While vegans and carnivores both like to assume the appearance of dominance in their particular habitats, when it comes to sexuality, bisexuals are beyond doubt the omnivorous apex predators.
With the ability to consume both plant and animal matter, bisexuals are at the top of the food chain. They can eat carnivores and vegans as well as fruits and vegetables and even carnivorous plants.
But just because they can, that’s not to say that if it moves (or doesn’t move), these apex predators will eat it. Just because the bisexual’s palate is diverse enough to include all types of nutrients doesn’t mean that the well-fed omnivore is purloined of the privilege of being picky.
In fact, with so many options on the menu, bisexuals often find themselves able to enjoy the luxury of being finicky, gourmet eaters to a greater extent than any of the other ‘-vores.’ After all, if you enjoy Bacon as much as Taco, you have many more options and much greater ‘choosing power’ than those who just eat one or the other.
Unfortunately, this greater power also puts these omnivores in a position of greater disdain and disapproval by jealous vegans and carnivores, both of which may feel their nutritional orientations and identities destabilized and even threatened by acknowledging the existence of an apex predator. Just as carnivores are often excluded from herbivorous communities, omnivores are often excluded from both herbivorous and carnivorous communities. Such is the price of being a predator.
Bisexuals tend to take little notice of their own erasure, however, and simply tuck in their napkins and keep eating.
or Free the Bacon/Nipple
or Funny, but Not Helpful
‘Free the Nipple’ is a movie/movement (movie-ment) campaigning to decriminalize female public toplessness and to highlight the hypocrisy of society’s tendency to sexualize the female upper body to a vastly greater degree than the male upper body. This issue is seen by the sex positive and women’s rights communities as a fundamental global gender equality issue.
Underscoring the deepset double standard about this issue by both conservative and misinformed men and women, this week actor Kevin Bacon released a parody of the Free the Nipple movie-ment entitled ‘Free the Bacon.’ This short film campaigned tongue-in-cheek-edly to portray more male nudity in movies (in the film’s words, the ‘Bacon’ represents the male cock and balls).
What was funniest about this parody, however, was the fundamental misunderstanding of the issue it was parodying. Taking Free the Nipple’s de-stigmatization of female upper body nudity and attempting to transfer it to the male arena by promoting male lower body nudity essentially attempts to nullify the former’s campaign by reinforcing the exact thing the movie-ment is campaigning against.
Let me put it a few more ways.
Equating male genitalia (lower body) with female nipples (upper body) is exactly what Free the Nipple is trying to get away from. Equating women’s chests with men’s groins is saying that man bodies are more important than lady bodies. Because equating tits with cock sexually objectifies women’s bodies to a greater degree than men’s and reinforces the mindset that men are real people and women are for sex.
Nipples, whether male or female, are nipples: they are not genitals. And although, true, there are very few male cocks in movies and very many female breasts, there are also very few female pussies in movies (the female equivalent of ‘Bacon’) and very many male chests (the male equivalent of ‘Nipple,’ given that nipples are located on chests).
Nudity is awesome, and there should be more of it in all its forms. I just don’t like the underlying assumption that women’s chests are genitals and men’s chests aren’t. There are way more shirtless guys in movies than there are topless girls, and there are very few actual genitalia, whether Bacon or Taco. If you consider male/female bodies to have equal rights, that conclusion will make sense to you.
If you want more Bacon, let’s, in the same breath, also campaign for more Taco. I’m all for it. But we can do that after we’ve succeeded in bringing female toplessness on par with male toplessness – socially, legally, and in your, yes your, mind as well.
Men are already way ahead of women in the movie-nudity department; no reason to push them even further ahead. Let’s start with chests (male and female), then we’ll do thighs (male and female). One body part at a time, please.
(Or, fuck it, let’s just free the whole body at once: Free the Nipples, the Bacons, and the Tacos all together! Let it all hang out! I would watch that.)
The Free the Nipple movie-ment is a step in the right direction. And lapses like Free the Bacon are a stumble backwards in the opposite direction.
So……….. very funny, Kevin Bacon, but not helpful.
or A Different Kind of Disgusting
A gentleman refers to women as the weaker sex. A feminist refers to women as equals.
Gentlemen pay for women’s drinks. Feminists pay women a fair and equal wage for equal work.
Gentlemen give women a hand so they don’t slip in their heels. Feminists don’t shoehorn women into wardrobe choices that are objectifying and damaging in the first place.
Gentlemen open doors for women. Feminists open their own doors and shatter glass ceilings.
A gentleman loans a woman his coat to keep her covered. A feminist frees the nipple.
A gentleman always tries to keep a smile on a woman’s face. A feminist understands that women (like men) are creatures of vast emotional depth, a wide and colorful spectrum of feelings, and that they have the judgment-free right to not always be your idea of chipper (or ladylike or attentive or accommodating or upbeat or sexy) at all times.
Gentlemen treat women right. Feminists don’t keep women as pets.
A gentleman tries to protect and shelter his woman. A feminist tries not to use personal possessive pronouns with human beings.
A gentleman believes in defending a woman’s purity and honor. A feminist believes a woman’s body is her property.
A gentleman will fight FOR a woman. A feminist will fight ALONGSIDE a woman.
Gentlemen let women go first. Feminists don’t feel entitled to the right to ‘let’ women do things.
Gentlemen graciously bestow each of these thinly-sugarcoated demeaning kindnesses on women because, whether they realize it or not:
Gentlemen objectify women.
Feminists see through these possibly-well-intentioned-yet-condescending-and-belittling poisons and patronize the patriarchy right back.
Feminists objectify gentlemen.
A gentleman’s every act is designed as a small, subtle reminder to women that they are weaker, less capable, and inferior to men.
A feminist doesn’t try to hold women back or push them ahead or swallow them up in your own definition of what ‘woman’ is.
A gentleman is not a well-bred, honorable man who treats women with good graces. A gentleman is a sexist stereotype in disguise. ‘Gentleman’ is the opposite of ‘Feminist.’
or Blaming Her, Insulting Him
or The Knee-Jerk
She was asking for it.
If you don’t wanna get raped don’t dress provocatively.
Blaming the victims of sexual aggression/assault misconstrues the crime and damages and re-traumatizes the woman. … …But it is also quite offensive to the man, and to men in general.
Let’s talk about that.
I have a friend who keeps a pet snake, a 5-foot western whip, for all you snake nerds out there. One day, her pet snake bit her. It was hungry or angry about some snakey little annoyance, and it struck out of nowhere and locked its jaws around her hand.
When they finally pried its cold, barbed fangs from her bloody flesh, however, she laughed it off and said it was her fault anyway.
According to my friend, it was her fault because, of the two of them, she was the intellectually-superior-and-therefore-culpable party. She should have known better than to handle a snake in that condition. The snake was just a simple beast of a creature and could not be blamed for his soulless, instinctual impulse to assault her.
So the party with the greater intellectual capacity gets the blame.
Which is what us men have inadvertently been saying all along by blaming women for our brutish misconduct:
I interpreted her actions as asking for it, and because I am a feeble-minded, insentient, savage, bipedal lower organism, I could not help but assault her.
She was dressed provocatively, and as a witless, irrational, feral, subhuman, knee-jerk buffoon, not assaulting her was beyond the scope of my mental capacity.
If we as men can’t stop victim-blaming simply because of its logical inaccuracies and devastating effects on women, maybe we can at least stop because it’s insulting to our intelligence as men.
or The Physiological Benefits of Hitting Other People
I think it’s funny that the more illegal and socially unacceptable spankings become as a child’s punishment, the more mainstream and typical they become as an erotic accessory.
Spankings used to be something every parent did to every child and maybe three men did to their wives during sexual congress before being burned at the stake as heretics.
Then they became something that only strict parents did to their children and perverts did to their wives.
Soon after, they became something that only terrible parents did to their traumatized children, and that some very liberal men did to some very permissive women.
Now, spankings are something for which in many countries you can get thrown in jail for doing to your children, and something that practically everyone does to everyone else when they’re having sex and feeling a little extra kinky that night.
In the future, perhaps, child spanking will only be remembered in the history books akin to child sacrifice, and erotic spanking will be a systematic part of The Human Dating Ritual (aw look there’s a picture of our first spanking, and there’s one at our wedding when the Unitarian Universalist Priest said, “You may now spank the bride”).
Perhaps human beings have an inherent physiological need to spank other human beings, and if they can’t take it out on their helpless children, by the gods, they’ll take it out on their consenting life partners.
Which is at least progress.
The moral arc of the universe and all that.