Sexuality and disprivilege: Queer, kinky and non-existant

Sexuality is complicated as fuck. It has everything to do with your gender, your body, your race, your ethnicity, who you’re attracted to, how you fuck, if you have enough or too much sex, your age… the list goes on forever.

 It cannot be simplified into “you do/don’t experience any oppression around your sexuality because you’re not queer”, or “you do/don’t experience oppression around your asexuality”.

Let me make this very clear:  there is no systematic privileging of people who experience sexual feelings over those who do not.

‘Sexual privilege’ is an idea that comes from a misunderstanding and an abuse of the critiques of the actual power structures in place. It is an idea that can be incredibly fucked up considering the continual oppression of people of colour, trans people, women (and specifically trans women) and queer people because of their having sexuality and their expressing sexuality.

Sexual supremacy is a systematic, institutionalized and normalized model that demands certain people fit into certain moulds or else suffer sanctions- but it’s victims are not exclusively asexuals. The victims of sexual supremacy are everyone who does not fit into the tightly defined boxes of acceptable sexuality and sexual expression.

Although asexual people may still experience oppression and margenelisation due to their asexuality, this is because of other systems of oppression and not because of a whole special oppression just for us.

Sexual supremacy is a thing that is intimately and incredibly connected with intersectionality; sexual supremacy affects EVERYONE who doesn’t fall in love with the right people and fuck the right people in the right way.

A black lady domme is perceived in a very different way to a white lady domme; the fact she is exotified and vilified for her sexuality and treated as a sexual object in a totally different way to ladies of other races means that the way that society sees her kinkiness is completely different to the way it sees white women’s kinkiness.

Sexual supremacy is rape culture’s sister. Closely related, but not the same thing.

[TRIGGER WARNING: examples of racism, heterosexism, cissexism, sexism, rape apologism, abuse]

Sexual supremacy says that unless you are sexual in the right way- being white (everyone knows people of colour are sexed-up whores and perverts), have one monogamous partner(anything other than monogamy is greedy, a perversion, repulsive), neither of you are sex workers, (don’t be fucking ridiculous everyone knows that people who work in the sex industry are inherently worthless scum)  in a nice heterosexual relationship, (no fucking homo here you creeps and yes I mean heterosexual, everyone knows bisexuals are either bent all the way if they’re men or just pleasing their boyfriends if they’re girls; trying to be exciting. Dirty fucking sluts.) neither of you is trans (trans people are fucking freaks, only good for a fetish; trans women are dirty tricksters) don’t fuck them (because you have ‘self respect’ enough to keep your fucking legs closed you piece of shit- unless you are a man in which case why aren’t you fucking them, are you queer or something you fucking pansy?)- but know that you will one day fuck them (and enjoy it, you fucking prude, but nothing too kinky you disgusting, creepy, perverted whore) when you are prepared to deal with the ‘consequences’ of your actions and bring up a child (because abortions are reprehensible and the actions of dirty whores who should have kept their fucking legs closed)- and so, so, so SO many more things, if you are just one of the no-nos in sexual supremacy then you most likely weren’t really raped; you probably enjoyed it; you were asking for it; you deserved it. You shouldn’t have children; you shouldn’t be around children. You’re worthless and disgusting and should be ashamed.

[/end trigger warning]

The problems with the way society treats sexuality are wide, and complicated, and cannot cannot cannot be separated into a dichotomy, or even a whole slew of them. There are no neat boxes here of ‘oppressed/ not oppressed’.

Nobody is doing anyone any favours by pretending otherwise.

Bigotry comes with many faces, and not all of them are unrepentant asshole

Guest post up on Orange The Brave!

There’s this idea people have of what a bigot is.

Bigots; they’re the people who spit out slurs to the exclusion of any other language to describe oppressed groups of people; they’re the violent ones who well, maybe not all of them will kick your head in… but they will certainly cheer on those who would. They’re the people who mutter darkly about ‘all sorts’ being let into the country these days, and their position on immigration runs to ‘no-one with skin darker than a Milkybar or people who worship god(s) other than the big man spoken of in the New Testament’. They’re nationalists; they might not be Nazi supporters but they think Hitler had some good ideas about segregation. They’re the cross-burners, the Westboro Baptist Church, the English Defence League.

Or, less extremely, they’re your Granddad; a product of an older time, when the n-word was just how you described black people and whilst they might not hate LGBQ and trans folks, they still don’t really hold with that sort of thing, feel that marriage equality is not really appropriate and that adoption should be out of the question for queer couples because well, it’s just not right you know, children need a father and a mother.

People don’t think of themselves.

Read More ->

Funny Haha: What I Do When Your Joke Isn’t Funny Because of Bigotry.

Transcript below the cut.

Do the riots surprise you?

We in Britain live in a country where the richest 10% are now 100 times better off than the poorest.

We live in a country where brutal cuts and enforced austerity measures are being put in place by our government- cuts and measures that hit the poorest, most vulnerable sections of society hardest.

We live in a country where there have been 333 deaths in police custody since 1998- and not a single conviction of any police officer has been had for any of them.

We live in a country where social mobility is worse than any other developed country.

Look at the context of the country we live in, at the way our entitled treat the dispossessed, the culture of institutionalised and government-supported classism, racism, heterosexism, cissexism, sexism and ableism.

If you’re surprised that in the last year we’ve erupted- the student protests, the university occupations, the strikes, the marches, the unrest on the streets- then you haven’t been paying attention.

Pay attention, beyond the burning cars and the sensationalist headlines of the riots, to the rot that surrounds them and lays dry kindling for each spark to set aflame.

Crossposted from my tumblr, Aug 8th, 2011 10:57pm.

A note: when I first wrote this, a great many people misunderstood me. I do not at all condone the actions of the rioters. Understanding the context is not the same as justifying the actions taken. I am not a person who believes that violence, vandalism and looting are acceptable ways of expressing anger. I do however think they’re understandable, though horrific.

If you hate being called [insult/slur] then why do you keep calling me a [-ist/privilege denier]!!?? You hypocrite!

Pointing out people who are doing -ist things is not, by itself, throwing an insult. It’s only insulting if you acknowledge that being ableist/racist/cissexist/etc is a disgusting thing to be.

Ditto for privilege denying.

The aim in calling out -ist and privilege denying behaviour where we see it is not to upset the person, but rather to highlight oppressive or privilege denying behaviour. Usually this is to get them to understand and acknowledge how whatever it is is oppressive and to get them to not repeat the behaviour.

If I’m ever being an oppressive, privilege denying fuckbag then I absolutely want to be told. I want to be called out. I want to acknowledge what I’ve said and done, how horrifying it is and then never do that again.

That’s the difference between being called oppressive/privilege denying and ‘a freak’. One is a description of unacceptable, harmful and oppressive behaviour. The other is just an insult.

UK Health and Social Care bill amendments: Nadine Dorries and Frank Field, fearlessly fighting for our right to be lied to, patronised and mislead

So, on the 16th April I sent an email to my MP- Norman Lamb- about the amendments to the Health and Social care bill that Nadine Dorries and Frank Field have tabled that propose that people seeking abortion should receive ‘counselling’ about the ‘real risks’ involved in abortion.

Sadly for Dorries and Field, those ‘risks’ they keep talking about? Those ones that she claims the evil obstetricians and evil gynaecologists’ don’t tell you about because they are a part of the ‘abortion industry’? Yeah, they don’t actually exist.

In the UK informed consent from the patient is required before any medical procedure, including abortion, can be carried out. Practitioners are required to discuss all potential risks and complications, both physical and psychological, with the patient. Abortion in the UK is already thoroughly and stringently regulated; it’s the only medical procedure in the UK that requires two doctors to give the ok before it can occur.

When carried out clinically and legally abortion is, for many women, safer than actually having the baby at full term. In the UK the risks of haemorrhaging during an abortion is about 0.01%  and damage to the cervix and womb occurs in less than 1% and 0.04% of abortions respectively. Less than 0.01% of medical abortions carried out between 12 and 24 weeks causes damage to the womb. These risks are, evidently, incredibly low. Abortion is one of the safest procedures a person can have. And yet, despite Dorries’s claims, these tiny risks are still made plain to the patient, because that’s what informed consent is. Giving all relevant information to a person so they can make their decision with the possession of the all facts at their disposal.

Worse still for Dorries’ and Field’s case is the evidence that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists cites in its new draft guidelines that “The great majority of women who have abortions do not experience adverse psychological [consequences].”

A systematic review of the evidence from 21 studies of abortion and adverse mental health outcomes did not support higher rates of a range of mental health outcomes in those who undergo abortion compared with their respective comparison groups, either women who delivered or women who had never been pregnant.

Although the evidence in this area is conflicting, there are significant design flaws in many of the studies, and those studies that do support a relationship between abortion and adverse mental health outcomes tend to be weaker methodologically. The evidence review by Major et al. (2009) which updates the report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion, 2008 confirms that the most rigorous studies support the view that any observed associations between abortion and mental health problems do not appear to be related to abortion itself but to pre-existing conditions and co-occurring risk factors.

Although abortion can be associated with a range of feelings, long term feelings of sadness, guilt and regret appear to linger in only a minority of women.

Dorries and Field are trying to use the same tactics employed (sadly successfully) in the US to strangle abortion access for pregnant people. Anti-choicers know that by couching their hardline anti-choice views in moderate language they become far more reasonable sounding, especially when the change they’re gunning for is seen as not all that big. Want to ban later term abortions (several procedures including the safest and most commonly used abortion technique in the second trimester)? Rename it ‘partial birth abortion‘ to give the misleading impression it will only ban access to abortions of viable foetuses, and watch the ban get passed!

Their aim is to eventually get abortion banned altogether. Both Dorries and Field have already tried to restrict access to abortion, but much more blatantly, in 2008 where Dorries tried to lower the time limit from 24 down to 22 weeks and Field tried to bring in a third doctor for pregnancy that has exceeded 24 weeks.

They failed then, but the worrying thing is that only 27 out of 162 Tory MPs and just over half of the Lib Dems voted against those amendments. The make up of Parliament has shifted significantly since then and now; a victory is not by any means certain.

I urge anyone from the UK to contact your MP and highlight these proposals and how not okay they are.

Here is a website that lets you quickly and easily email your MP. They do not allow form letters (they cross-check each one and delete any that seem to be the same) so I’m afraid you’re going to have to write your own.

We need to let the MPs of our country know that we will not let them erode our rights away.

Hey, privilege denying person!

If I (or anyone else) has seen fit to link you to this page, you are ignorant.

EDUCATE YOUR DAMN SELF.

Privilege means that you are part of the majority, that you’re considered normal, that people don’t make sweeping generalizations about you, that you don’t have to explain yourself, your life, your love, your identity, that you don’t have to work harder than other people in order to gain the same income, same respect, same rights, etcetera.

Being privileged doesn’t mean that you have all of those things however. Each one of those things is a privilege.

Here’s the thing. Sometimes, you just are ignorant. Own your ignorance. Maybe try and become unignorant, if you care enough to. I am ignorant when it comes to music. We couldn’t therefore have a proper talk about music because my opinions would be skewed by a lack of knowledge, and I would be very often just plain wrong about things.

So look: either educate yourselves and continue the conversation, or acknowledge you are ignorant as all fuck and remove yourselves.

TL;DR?

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS CRAWLING ON THIS PLANET READ UP ON PRIVILEGE.

___

ALL the underlined text are links.

If your urge after reading this is to tell me how privilege doesn’t exist, or doesn’t effect you because yeah you’re a white/straight/cis/able bodied/man, but you’re poor/some other marginalised group, then stop. Think. Go back and read one of the links.

Being privileged doesn’t mean that you have all of those things however. Each one of those things is a privilege.

If you still want to deny your privilege, go ahead. I’ll just re-link you back here.