Welcome to Discovering the Male Mysteries with Mel Mystery. This blog is a supplement to my podcast is for and about gay and bi pagan men. My podcasts are about what it is to be gay, what it is to be pagan, what it is to be men — sometimes as separate topics and sometimes all meshed together as one. I started this endeavor after seeing that there were few, if any, podcasts out there on this topic. The podcasts are informative, and present topics that challenge conventional thinking.

Latest

How Gentrification and Mainstreaming Hurt the LGBTQ Community, Part 2

Mainstreaming is the act of incorporating a social or cultural group into the mainstream society, but it is also the adopting of mainstream values and sensibilities by that same social or cultural group.

The modern LGBTQ movement is said to have begun with the Stonewall Riot that started on June 27, 1969. At the time, it was common for gay bars to be raided by police and it was also common for those who frequented those bars to have their lives destroyed when their names were printed in the newspapers the following day.  On that particular night at the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village, New York, a handful of Drag Queens, Transgender people, sex workers, and other folks resisted the police and a movement was born.

While they may have been overly idealistic and utopian in their ideas, the early LGBTQ movement was not just about freeing the world from homophobia, it was also about making the world a better place for everyone. They challenged sexual puritanism and sex-shaming; the concepts of marriage and enforced monogamy; patriarchal institutions that held back women; classism and racism; and a host of other concerns.   Their aim was never to be “normal” or status quo, but to remake society in such a way as to end the oppression of all communities and so that people could be who or what they were without shame or censure.

Over the decades these ideals were sidelined by folks in the movement who just wanted to be seen as normal and who wanted to be accepted in polite society. Additional factors, too, have had an impact on the mainstreaming of the LGBTQ movement and culture. These include more positive portrayals of LGBTQ folks on television and in the movies and the embrace of LGBTQ employees and customers by large corporations.  While this mainstreaming has helped us make gains in such things as the right to serve in the military, same-sex marriage, and a growing acceptance of LGBTQ folks by society at large, these gains have only really been extended to the “right” type of people – those who can pass in polite mainstream,  heterosexual, white, cisgender, monogamous society.  The mainstreaming of LGBTQ culture helps those who are white, cisgender, male, affluent, and vanilla, but it does little to address rights and privileges denied to the more marginalized parts of our community – LGBTQ People of Color, Lesbians and Bisexual Women, Transgender folks, Drag Queens and Kings, the LGBTQ working class, folks in open and polyamorous relationships, fetish communities, and sex workers. The mainstreaming of LGBTQ people only perpetuates the inequalities, assumptions, and sexual prudery of the larger society and incorporates these into our own.

Another downside to this mainstreaming is the diluting and “de-gaying” of LGBTQ identity and culture. Our community used to have a fire in its belly and a strong idealism.  We had many things that held us together as a community – shared experiences (like coming out), a need for safe and secure alternative spaces (like LGBTQ bars, bookstores, and community centers), common causes (fighting homophobia, discrimination, and harassment), empathy and solidarity with other marginalized communities, and even an appreciation of divas and campiness.  As LGBTQ people and institutions are becoming more mainstream, we are losing those institutions that have helped us and defined us.  LGBTQ folks are getting more of their LGBTQ news from mainstream media, so we are losing LGBTQ papers and publications.  Along with those, we also lose an LGBTQ-centered perspective.  LGBTQ folks are meeting people and finding dates and hookups online and through apps like Grinder.  As we do so, LGBTQ bars, community centers, and social organizations are getting less patronage.  The combined effects of mainstreaming and gentrification are pushing many LGBTQ institutions out of business.   Many of these LGBTQ institutions were once strong and thriving in our community.  They provided safe secure places for us to be ourselves.  They especially provided shelter and safety to those of us who are less likely to pass in mainstream society. Institutions such as LGBTQ Bars, community centers, and papers also provided us places to share our unique history, culture, sensibilities, and values and norms that sometimes diverge from those of mainstream heterosexual society.

Gentrification and mainstreaming are complex issues. They have both their positives and their negatives.  Ultimately, they end up benefiting only certain privileged demographics within the LGBTQ community at the expense of the poor and the marginalized.  For better or for worse, gentrification and mainstreaming are also decimating longstanding LGBTQ community institutions and sensibilities.

Advertisements

Newest podcast is now online — Episode 16: The Superhero Show

This episode includes segments on Pagan and magickal superhero archetypes, LGBT superheroes including characters and actors, “research” into naughty superhero sites, and why do villains so often have gay voices and mannerisms.

Songs and sound clips include: Holding Out for a Hero, the Smallville theme, and clips from Spiderman, Batman, and others.

To listen you can visit my website (www.melmystery.com) or look for the episode on iTunes.

How Gentrification and Mainstreaming Hurt the LGBTQ Community, Part 1

Gentrification is the process where upper and upper-middle income individuals, organizations, and businesses assert upper and upper-middle class values, standards, and expenses on a neighborhood or community, often displacing low income and marginalized individuals, organizations, and businesses.

LGBTQ gentrification benefits from and perpetuates the myth that all LGBTQ people are affluent, cultured in the arts, and unhampered by the costs and responsibilities of raising children. This myth worked well to garner support from corporate America looking for untapped markets of potential customers. While this myth may be true for some, the privilege doesn’t extend to a large number in our community.

This myth mostly focuses on gay, white, cisgender men, often in monogamous dual income relationships. The myth discounts the experiences of Lesbians, People of Color, Transgender folks, and other marginalized people in the LGBTQ community.  While there are a disproportionate number of gay men working in higher income arts and culture careers, gay men are also more likely than straight men to work in traditionally female dominated jobs such as teacher, nurse, secretary, administrative assistant, and so on.  Female dominated jobs typically pay lower wages than jobs in male dominated fields.  Lesbians and other women already know this.  Some Lesbians are also single mothers or raise their children with the help and support of another female significant other.  LGBTQ people are more likely to experience discrimination in jobs and housing than straight people. Even now, after the legalization of same-sex marriage, discriminating against LGBTQ people isn’t necessarily illegal – depending on where you live and where you work.  This discrimination can impact one’s job opportunities and earning potential. LGBTQ People of Color, Transgender people, and others in our community face double and even triple forms of discrimination and inequality.  We also have a disproportionate number of homeless in our community including LGBTQ youth who ran away or who were kicked out by their parents, and transgender individuals who are more likely to experience discrimination in jobs, housing, and from mainstream social services and homeless programs.

Despite these realities, LGBTQ folks, businesses, and organizations are often on the leading edge of gentrification. We are often the initial perpetrators of gentrification, but we can also become later victims of this process. LGBTQ folks move to cities because we can find better opportunities including jobs, community, and a concentrated dating pool.  There’s also safety and security in numbers. In the city, one is more likely to find LGBTQ bars, community centers, businesses, and organizations.  Initially, many LGBTQ neighborhoods started in marginalized and neglected urban areas where LGBTQ folks could find homes and start businesses with little money or opposition to being there.   These communities improved and grew.  Often the non-LGBTQ and non-white lower income and marginalized communities who were there before us are pushed out.  Affluent LGBTQ folks often bring new stores, bars, businesses, coffee shops, and cultural institutions into areas that were previously cheap and run down.  They make improvements to their neighborhoods and make them more appealing for real estate developers, larger businesses, and corporate franchises to move in.

In some places, LGBTQ folks are gentrifying themselves out of their own gayborhoods. While many initially moved into a neighborhood because of lower costs, gentrification raises rents and other prices.  LGBTQ people, bars, organizations, and businesses can’t always keep up with the rising prices and are eventually pushed out by even more affluent or influential individuals, businesses, and developers.  Additionally, less affluent LGBTQ people may never have been able to keep up with rent and other costs in the first place.

The positive side of gentrification is that it beautifies neighborhoods, brings in business, and makes these neighborhoods safer (at least for white, cisgender people).

On the negative side, low income and marginalized straight and LGBTQ people, organizations, and businesses are forced out because of rising prices and the stigma of being other. For example, in one community expensive condos built up around the site of a longstanding LGBTQ bar. The condo community had issues with having an LGBTQ bar in their neighborhood so they eventually closed it down in the name of progress. Gentrified prices also limit the opportunities of individuals, groups, and businesses that have less money or resources to work with.  This especially affects the working class and lower middle-class.  It prices people, businesses, and organizations out of the market.

While gentrification is often used to talk about physical neighborhoods, its effect can also be experienced in other ways that put profits and an affluent lifestyle over the common community. LGBTQ gentrification can include excessively high ad prices in LGBTQ papers and publications.  It also can also include the content some of these publications focus on – such as articles that pertain to the affluent and trendy while excluding topics and issues of interest to the average LGBTQ person or those within our marginalized sub-communities.   Gentrification can be seen in high prices for spaces and other representation at Pride events.  While it might be fair to charge corporations and businesses higher prices since they would presumably be making money and gaining customers, the same can’t be said of charging high prices to community groups who are only trying to gain new members.   Small mom and pop businesses may also have difficulty paying the price for inclusion. Gentrified prices limit the options for these small community groups, small organizations, and small businesses to be represented, to be visible, and to build grassroots community.  Gentrification can also be expressed in the types of events that are held and the admission costs involved.  Events focusing on affluent sensibilities may appeal to certain segments of the LGBTQ population, but not all.  High priced events marginalize those of lower incomes.

To be continued…

What is Paganism?

In its broadest sense, Paganism refers to any religious or spiritual belief system outside of the three Abrahamic religions – Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. When referring to Paganism though, we generally exclude Hinduism, Buddhism, and other such large non-Christian religions because they are major religions in their own right.  New Age beliefs, while similar and sometimes overlapping with Pagan beliefs, are also usually considered separate. Some Pagans, particularly those who follow Norse practices, prefer to be called “Heathen.” The term “pagan” itself is comes from the Latin “paganus” which means “rustic” or “country dweller.” “Pagan” and “Heathen” have been used as derogatory terms by Christians from the early times of the Christian Roman Empire. This is probably because rural, country folk were more likely to hold onto their older religions and folk practices and less likely to be Christian than the urban, city dwellers of the time. Pagan religions tend to be polytheistic and nature based.  They also typically celebrate the cycles of the year including the solar solstices and equinoxes, four holidays between these solar observances, and the lunar cycles (usually full and new moons).

Modern Pagans focus on continuing and oftentimes reconstructing ancient polytheistic religions. These include Northern, European, Germanic, Celtic, Greek, Roman, and even African religions.  Many of these religions are older than many of the mainstream religions of today. For example, Christianity has only been around about 2000 years, whereas the Greek and Roman religions that we now consider mythology had been around for several millennia before Christ was even born.  Often in history when a new religion takes hold, the older religions are integrated, demonized, or slip away into mythology. If you look closely enough, you can see that all three have happened to Pagan religions.  Christianity integrated the old Pagan holy days (holidays) into their newer Christian holy days and masses.  That’s why Christmas is celebrated so close to the winter solstice and why Easter features fertility symbols like rabbits and eggs.  Pagan deities have also been demonized by the newer religions.  There is no Satan in Paganism, but the Christian Satan is often depicted with horns and cloven hoofs, much like the Greek god and satyr Pan.  Since Satan is described in the Bible as a fallen angel, shouldn’t he look like an angel – with wings for example?  The Bible never describes Satan as looking like a satyr, but many Christian’s do. And the scriptures, gods, and goddesses that were once part of ancient Greek religion and the deities of other ancient cultures have been relegated to the realm of just being good stories, myths, and characters rather than an actual religion that anyone can adopt, study, and worship.

Unfortunately, many Pagan beliefs and practices have been lost to antiquity. In some cases, such as the Druids, their beliefs weren’t written down, but instead were part of an oral tradition.  In other cases, the people who practiced these religions were killed and anything written about their religions and practices were destroyed. The early Christian church was especially vigilant about converting other religions to their own and destroying any competition to their monopoly on religion.  They did this through crusades and later through witch hunts. It’s interesting to note that sexual “deviants” were also victims of the witch hunts.  This may be why the term “faggot” is associated with homosexuals.  Faggots were bundles of burning sticks and many alleged witches and other “deviants” were burned at the stake.

With few exceptions, modern Pagans have a much broader and accepting attitude toward sexuality, including alternative sexualities, than the mainstream religions. Abrahamic religions especially tend to be puritanical – focusing on sexuality as a means to populate the earth, rather than an act of love or pleasure.  In contrast, the Wiccan Charge of the Goddess states that all “All acts of love and pleasure are my worship.”  Wicca makes up one of the larger branches of Paganism.  Other large branches include Druidry and Norse Heathenism.

Making Sense of #MeToo, Part 3

This is a continuation of my last post: Making Sense of #MeToo, Part 2

The other problem I see with #MeToo, at least as it currently stands in the media, is that it’s divisive – whether or not it is intended that way.  It’s largely pitting women and men against each other.  Instead of being everyone against rape and sexual assault, it’s coming across as women against men who have or show any kind of sexual interest.  I know… I know… patriarchy has put women in that position for years… correction… centuries.  I get that, but two wrongs don’t make a right and two extremes don’t make for a fair, balanced, and equal society. It also raises everyone’s fears and anxieties over sexuality.  For women this might mean raising fears that there are predators and pedophiles around every corner. For men it raises fears that any outward expressions of interest or sexuality could lead to public shaming, even job loss.

When the movement starts ousting men for the slightest expressions of sexuality because they don’t hold up to the highest ideals of sexual purity or for past incidents that maybe they’ve grown from, eventually you’ve got a lot of men on the outside. When it gets to that point it really does become a battle between women’s sexuality and men’s sexuality – rival sexualities and possibly rival moralities. Keeping on task and showing forgiveness for minor or unintended transgressions (especially if the accused makes a public apology) would mitigate some of this and ensure that the movement doesn’t lose its male allies. Right now, even seemingly sincere apologies are being met with hostility.  A total zero-tolerance, zero-forgiveness stance will only lead to ongoing backlash against the movement.

While women are less likely to hold positions of power over men in our society, the #MeToo movement should also hold women accountable for sexual abuses against men in the workplace.  It may not be as common, but it still happens.  And just look at all the female high school teachers accused of sex with underage male students in the news. By shining the spotlight on women, not just men, such an action would show that the movement isn’t just a witch hunt against men. Right now almost all of those accused in #MeToo stories are men.  They might be straight or gay, but they’re almost exclusively men.

Perhaps a problem too with the movement is that #MeToo isn’t really a proper movement per se, it’s really a large number of people telling their stories.  Those stories are mainly about abuses and alleged abuses by celebrities and public figures. There is value in that because it raises awareness of the challenges that women endure in our society.  It might also provide many with relief that their story is finally being told and heard. Seeing all these cases also raises awareness that men, even the “woke” guy next door, might not be immune to the impulses of their sexuality or to the institutionalized differences of sex and power between men and women in our society.

If #MeToo is to become a real movement and not just a means of revenge and shaming, I feel like the #MeToo folks should come up with some kind of unified platform or policy.  Such a policy could keep the media from fully dominating the dialogue on these issues where the media currently interviews people and picks stories that are likely to provoke controversy and increase their ratings.  Such a policy could outline levels of sexual abuse from the severe to the trivial and decide what actions are appropriate for each.  The movement should also have a designated spokeswoman to weigh in on the issues.  That would also help alleviate many of the mixed messages about the movement coming from media interviews with random women. Even prominent female celebrities and public figures might have different views on the movement and each case brought forward. Perhaps the movement could start a legal fund to help women who are currently or recently victims of abuse; and perhaps too the movement could work toward helping mitigate counseling costs for those who have been traumatized by sexual abuses.  Perhaps the movement could host workshops on better communication about dating and sex for both men and women. Hopefully, the movement would distinguish between positive sexual expression and negative sexual abuse.  Hopefully too, the movement would extend forgiveness to well-meaning men who have made trivial offenses or who made larger offenses in their past, but have since learned and grown from them.

Making Sense of #MeToo, Part 2

This is a continuation of my last post: Making Sense of #MeToo, Part 1

Another thing that has been thrown around a lot by #MeToo advocates is that victims of sexual assault, harassment, and even those less heinous sexual infractions are traumatized by their experiences.  There’s no doubt that some things are inherently traumatizing – rape, assault of any kind, being the victim of violence.  On the other side of things, being publically shamed, or losing one’s job or career can also be traumatizing, though perhaps some people deserve that trauma.  There have been others who have argued that that you can’t really put a degree on trauma and that all trauma for victims of sexism is equal.  In this view, it doesn’t really matter whether someone was raped or traumatized because another person got a little handsy or flashed out his privates.

I can’t buy that for a number of reasons.  The main thing is that trauma is subjective and individual.  What traumatizes one person might not phase another.  I think emotional trauma is often caused by the crossing of one’s own individual issues and boundaries by another person.  It can’t always be predicted, and sometimes the offender is an external mirror of one’s own shadow and subconscious fears.  I had a co-worker once who was traumatized by the thought that the folks mowing grass outside on riding mowers were chasing her.  I suppose they could have been, but they were likely just a little reckless and going the same direction.  If our legal system saw all traumas to victims of crime as the same, someone might get the death penalty for jaywalking.  Our courts of law weigh the trauma of the victims along with the rights of the accused and the severity of the crime.

I’m not a woman so I can’t weigh in on women’s experiences of sexism in our society, but I am a gay man and I can draw some parallels with my own experiences of homophobia.  I don’t weigh all instances of homophobia as the same, nor can I say that all instances of homophobia were inherently traumatizing.  Ironically, “innocent” uninformed homophobia from family, friends, and loved ones might have been more traumatizing for me than incidents that involved threats of violence.  I once had my life threatened for being gay by a group of men standing outside my car with tire irons.  That’s been far less traumatic for me than some friends I’ve lost because of their anti-gay religious beliefs.  That doesn’t mean I believe these former friends should be publically shamed for being party to a homophobic religion, though perhaps the religion itself should be.  I’m not even sure the guys with the tire irons should be shamed 30 or so years later.  After all these years, I’d like to hope that both the guys with tire irons and the former friends have evolved on these issues and become more tolerant.  I guess if they were still chasing LGBT folks with tire irons or if they were running for public office on a platform of hate that might be different.

This might be a good time to bring up my own story of being on the wrong side of a harassment claim.  I’ve told this story before in my podcast in an episode on ageism in the gay community.  I had just turned 30 and had been working for only two, maybe three, years as a staff person for the university where I graduated.  I’d also been heavily involved in the gay student group on campus as a student and upon returning as a staff person I’d gotten back involved in the LGBT community on campus including showing my support for the student group.  There was this guy in the group that I developed a sincere attraction toward.  I’ll call this guy John. I made the mistake of mentioning my interest to another guy (I’ll call him Mike) who was involved with the group, and asking if he’d help set me up on a date with John.  Mike was a graduate student and he was appalled because there was an age gap between me and John.  Apparently all older gay men who are interested in younger ones are predators or so seemed to go the narrative going around at the time.  This narrative was also used to shut down talks of an LGBT mentoring program. All the younger gay men needed to be protected from the older ones. To put this into perspective, I was 30 and John was in his early 20s.  John was of legal age and at worst a decade younger than I was. When I was his age, I dated men in their late 20s and early 30s. The ironic thing was that Mike was dating a faculty member who was probably 20 or 30 years his senior, though I’m under the impression they started dating before coming to the University.  After I let Mike know I was interested in John, I started feeling less and less welcome at events, some things I was doing for the group like updating their web page were pulled from me, and John’s friends seemed to block any efforts I made to just try to get to know him better.

Things got even more complicated when I wanted to go to an LGBT conference with the student group that was taking place in a faraway city.  I was denied transportation with the group in the bus they were taking so I ended up driving the entire 700 mile trip on my own to attend the conference.  I’d see John here and there and usually I got a smile and a friendly hello. At one event he even sat down across from me and we had a friendly conversation.  I knew that he knew that I was interested.  I had sent him a few e-mails enquiring about going out sometime.  As someone kind of shy and awkward, e-mail was my preferred method of communication. I know I didn’t say anything lewd or make any kind of sexual references.  That’s always seemed a bit crude to me, and I was interested in dating and not just sex.  The e-mails and other messages were never answered so I didn’t know whether he was being coy, not interested, or if he was just a person who didn’t check e-mail.  Looking back, I can see that I was somewhat persistent, but I don’t believe I did anything inherently wrong.  I felt like his friends might have been pressuring him not to interact with me, but I don’t know whether or not he was actually interested.  He never said he wasn’t and never himself implied that I was bothering him.  I totally admit that I’m terrible about reading people.

The crashing culmination to this story was when I was called in to talk with someone at the Human Resources Department at the college.  The resource officer repeatedly talked down at me for having an interest in a student, despite the fact that I was literally only a few years from being a student myself.  At the same time, despite the harsh condemnation, she affirmed a number of times that I’d done nothing wrong.  I wasn’t in a supervisory position over the student.  I hadn’t forced myself on him.  I hadn’t said or done anything inappropriate sexually. She justified her condemnation by saying that the college looks down on relationships between staff and students.  Things might be different at an isolated rural college, but at an urban institution where there is so much overlap between the university and the community that doesn’t even seem a reasonable thing to say.  It’s very common for staff to have spouses, family, and friends who attend as students.  Our college has a number of older and non-traditional and returning students. There are also plenty of opportunities for folks to meet in the outside community and then discover that one person is staff and another person a student.  Such condemnation would be different if one party was a professor or supervisor and the other party was a student in their class or an employee under their supervision.  None of this applied to me.

The thing about this situation is, if John had simply been upfront and direct, if he had told me in no uncertain terms that he wasn’t interested, I would have moved on.  Perhaps I was expected to be a mind reader or to pick up on unspoken signals.  Aside from not being good at that in the first place, this situation was complex and I do feel at times I got mixed signals from John, even if his circle of friends seemed hostile toward me.

This experience was extremely traumatic for me.  I felt humiliated and shamed.  After all these years, I have the maturity to understand that ultimately it was miscommunication between me and John that led to the event, and I have enough respect for him (and even his close circle of friends) to change their names for this post.

It was after this that I dropped out of all my involvements with the LGBT community on campus and even off campus.  It was over a decade before I’d even went back to a gay bar or gay event.  Even now, I probably err too far on the side of caution by rarely asking anyone out at all.  I have a friend who frequently suggests “what’s the worse” that could happen if I ask someone out that I’m interested in, that maybe they’d say “no.”  I know it can get far worse than that.

As someone who’s introverted, socially awkward, and a little geeky, I also know the toll it takes on one’s self-esteem to be rejected on a regular basis by people I’ve taken a romantic interest in.  For many this could lead to desperate attempts to get their emotional and sexual needs met.  While I’ve never forced myself on anyone sexually, I do admit that in my past (especially in my 20s) there were many awkward attempts to win someone over that I’m not especially proud of.   Mostly I was just overly persistent because I bought into those movies about the socially awkward guy winning his love interest in the end.  Sometimes I let my imagination run loose when trying to impress someone (Justin, I’m not really a Timelord… or am I?).  And because of my shyness, there were lots of notes and e-mails expressing my interest, often before I’d developed a real connection with the person I was interested in.

I guess what I’m really trying to suggest in this post is that people are human on all sides of this issue.  We all have potential for trauma, and it’s not always rational.  And sometimes the real issue is miscommunication and differences in expectations.

To be continued…

Making Sense of #MeToo, Part 1

I’ve been watching the #MeToo news over the past few months, and I have to confess that I have mixed feelings about the movement.  While I tend to consider myself very liberal on social issues and a supporter of women’s rights, I also believe in finding a fair, rational, and balanced view of things.  I’m also a strong supporter of sexual freedom so long as one’s sexual expression is consensual and everyone involved is of legal age. Where my views tend to differ from a number of feminists (but not all feminists) is that I don’t believe sexuality and expressions of sexuality are inherently negative or to be repressed or closeted.  I don’t believe that appreciation of naked bodies is necessarily objectification. And I also believe that it’s okay for men and women to have separate groups and events (as well as coed groups and events) so long as these groups aren’t about bashing the other gender and so long as we live in a free and pluralistic society.

On the positive side of the #MeToo movement, a number of really sleazy and predatory men (and possibly even a few women) have been called out for some pretty heinous things like rape, sexual assault, predatory behavior, and using positions of power to force women (and some men) into having sex with them.  On the negative side, there has been the public shaming of men for minor (and sometimes unintended infractions) and for just being having an interest in sex and beautiful women (and again in some cases – men).  I’ve seen a number of denials that #MeToo is about shaming men for such minor transgressions and declarations that it’s only about going after the big and monstrous cases.  But for every denial, there’s also a news story shaming a male celebrity or public figure for something like putting his hand on a coworkers leg during an television interview, being a little touchy feely, being overly insistent about going on a date or sex, or not picking up on signals that a woman (or man) isn’t interested in more.  And, of course, what happens when you have someone who generally supports women’s issues, but then gets called out for something that wasn’t rape or assault, but still involves following their sexual impulses?  Is it unfathomable to believe that a man can support women’s rights and still be interested in sex, not to mention fallibly human?

The good thing about the #MeToo movement is that it’s opening up dialogues between men and women about what’s appropriate behavior, except I’m not sure it really is.  Any disagreement with aspects of the #MeToo movement is seen (and shamed) as defending sexism and sexual assault, preserving a sexist patriarchal system, or as being on the same level as our conservative and not so enlightened social and political adversaries.

I’m not so quick to turn every man accused of something into a monster, nor am I quick to discount the stories and experiences of women as nothing more than overreaction and hysterics.  At the same time, some of these men are monsters, and some women are jumping on board #MeToo over seemingly trivial offenses.  Reality often falls somewhere between the extremes.

One of the criticisms I have of #MeToo is that it comes across as a mob mentality.  The politically incorrect comedian, Bill Maher, even dubbed it #MeCarthyism. We live in a country where people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but #MeToo shames alleged perpetrators, even destroying their reputations and careers, based on accusations and hearsay.  Admittedly in some cases, patterns of abuse come out, but in others only a few accusations stand.  There’s also the point brought out in my recent “Trouble with Normal” post that there are differing attitudes about sexual morality and even rival moralities.  Not all views of sexuality involve puritanical and heterocentric ideas involving monogamy, family units, or the idea that sexual expression in and of itself is negative. While we might all agree that rape and assault are bad (not to mention illegal), we might not all agree that patting someone on the leg, appreciating someone’s beauty, being a little persistent, or being attracted to someone in a different age group (so long as they are past the legal age of consent) is necessarily predatory behavior.

As a gay man (and as someone who hangs out with poly folks and fetish people), I’m very sensitive to the public shaming of people for their sexual inclinations.  There was a time when LGBT folks were shamed.  Many poly and fetish folks still worry about being shamed. Such shaming was part of mid-20th century McCarthyism that sought to root out not just communists, but homosexuals and sexual “deviants.”  This included crusades against a number of Hollywood celebrities at the time.  Often an accusation, regardless of hard evidence, was enough to cost someone their reputation and career.  Back in the day, LGBT folks were also shamed in lists in the newspapers as criminals and sexual deviants after police raids of gay establishments.  Many lost their jobs, families, and reputations. Compare this to some #MeToo lists of alleged predators that have sprung up on the internet. As a Pagan, I’m also aware that many folks had their reputations and lives destroyed during the Witch Trials, often based on flimsy or unsubstantiated accusations.  Often these rumors included accusations of sexual deviance. Some of these folks even paid the price with their lives.

One of the big questions I have about #MeToo is: Are we really that surprised that men like sex and will go to great lengths to get it?  Or that men like looking at naked women (and sometimes men)? Likewise, are we really surprised that women have different expectations about sexuality than men?  Back in the 90’s there was that book claiming “Men are from Mars, and Women are from Venus.”  And of course, there are differences in expectations and socialization for men and women.  Men have been traditionally socialized to be the initiators in dating and sexual relations; while women have traditionally been socialized to be on the receiving end of date requests and so forth.  Men have traditionally been given greater freedom and encouragement to have more sex and more partners, while women have traditionally been expected to save their virginity for the one special man they marry.  Of course, women with multiple sex partners are shamed as “sluts”, while men who have multiple partners before marriage are seen as “virile” and to have a positive sexual prowess. Popular culture – including television, movies, and music – often even reflects these expectations.  How many romantic comedies show the unlikely, but persistent, guy winning over his reluctant female love interest?  How many songs talk about winning someone’s love?  How many romance novels (even those written by women) portray women swooning over the strong, masculine, aggressive, virile, and possibly even dangerous male?

What is at issue too is that men and women have never really learned to communicate with each other, especially over issues of sexuality.  Some have, and they probably have great relationships, but many others have not.  There are a great many men out there who have no clue when it comes to communicating with or attracting women.  There are a great number of women out there who never learned to set boundaries or to assertively say “no” when needed.  Then, of course, there are even more folks who never learned to read body language and subtle signals.  If they had, perhaps there would be fewer women who find themselves in compromising situations and more men who could pick up that a woman just isn’t interested.

I’ve often thought that maybe there should be a class in high school where folks learn appropriate behavior for dating and interacting.  I remember getting the sex education part describing all the biology and mechanics, but don’t remember learning the ins and outs of dating behavior.  Maybe some folks had these kinds of classes.  Some folks might argue that teenagers get this through extracurricular activities like dances and formals, or just learning to date each other.  Perhaps early dating is an indicator of being better able to date and interact as adults, but not everyone gets this experience.  As a gay person, I really didn’t have the opportunity to start dating until college and by then dating was even more complex.  I was also the nerdy and socially awkward bookworm in high school, so even if I’d been straight, that’s not a guarantee I would have been dating.

That brings me to another point in this conversation about the #MeToo movement and sexuality.  Sexism has largely come to the forefront in this movement, but what about other –isms related to sexuality. Some have argued that things like ageism and lookism have come into play in the accusations. I’m not sure there’s a word for it, but there’s also a prejudice against the nerdy, geeky, and socially and sexually awkward. While things like sexual assault and predatory behavior might be more cut and dry, there’s also this idea of “unwanted advances.”  Aside from the fact that one cannot truly know if an advance is unwanted until one makes it and the other party clearly indicates they aren’t interested, “unwanted advances” can also indicate general undesirability on the part of the person making the advance.  One can be undesirable if he is too old, not fit enough, differently abled, another race, socially or sexually awkward, or any other number of other subtle and not so subtle factors.  I’m not at all indicating that someone should accept the advances of someone they are not attracted to or interested in, only that certain portions of the population are more likely than others to receive harsh contempt for simply making an advance or being assertive about dating or sex in the first place.

Too be continued…