Talking about the Future of Relationships at Occupy Wall St. Pt 2. Monogamy

1st
Dec. × ’11

photo cred (note, not the interviewed couple in the photo.)

The couple met in L.A. Sebastian, a music producer with long hair and a beard, was immediately taken with Catherine, a brunette musician with and blunt bangs. When Sebastian lost a record deal and needed a fresh start, he invited her to England to make music together. A romance ensued and led to marriage.

The couple describe the moment they decided to camp out at Occupy as pretty amorous. “How many people can turn to their partners and say, ‘You know, I think we should go live in a park for the good of humanity, for months on end’? The entire thing is a wholly romantic exercise,” says Sebastian.

Here, I talk with Sebastian and Catherine about the future of marriage and monogamy. They are monogamous and want children, but have some radical ideas about how marriage might change.

So why marriage instead of just living together?

Sebastian: For me, the two felt very different. The day after I was married I felt totally different.  Marriage completely changed my heart.

That’s very sweet and… traditional. But how are you doing marriage differently than your parents generation?

Catherine: They care about having nice stuff. We don’t care about collecting nice stuff,  for the sake of having it. I mean we like nice stuff, but its not a goal of ours to have the nicest rug or dining room set. We probably are not going to buy a house.

For some people it seems like that is what makes you a real couple or a real adult—having the fine the china, the real furniture or at least matching items from Ikea. I like the idea of shunning that, because really it is not so important!

Catherine:  My real hope for the the future of marriage is that we will move towards a more communal model for living, and the nuclear family would become less of the normal model.

There is this quote by Kurt Vonnegut, it goes something like: every fight you have with your partner could be summed up by saying– you are not enough people! No one can get everything that they need from one person, and I think that  nuclear families can be really isolating and really damaging to the people in them.

It is so interesting to hear you say  ’you can’t get everything you need from one person’, seeing as you guys are monogamous.

Sebastian: I think village life, where everyone has support for each other is a really important thing that has been killed by our society. One or two people working like slaves because you have to have one car per family, one TV per family, one mealtime per family almost feels like a conspiracy of our culture. It is so isolating.

And even if you do believe in nuclear families it is not totally sustainable anymore, not everyone can survive that way.

Marriage  historians like Stephanie Coontz have noted that modern couples are reaching out less to friends and family, and instead expecting their partner to be their best friend, to be their everything. But that this is detrimental to relationships.

Sebastian: I don’t think a man should get into his 60′s and not have a single friend outside the relationship. That is so sad, and yet I’ve seen that happen in my own family.

So then you guys live with other people– other couples as well. It is almost as though you are getting the benefits of being in a poly family while still being monogamous.

Catherine: I am interested, especially after this experience, in an even more communal way of living. Because though we share our house, we don’t share our food supplies or go grocery shopping together. I am interested in having more ground to grow things on–doing more things in the  home that we go to outside people for. Having more people, more space makes that easier.

So tell me about being monogamous. I’ve talked to a lot of couples here and monogamy doesn’t necessarily seem to be as much of a norm at Occupy.

Sebastian: Monogamy is a desire in your heart. It is not a law or a rule. We have discussions around what would we do if infidelity occurred? So, if Catherine came to me one day and said she did not want to be monogamous, that would be totally acceptable because  whatever decision she makes for herself, if it is a considered decision, it is a good one.

However, we are in a monogamous relationship because that is what we desire. I definitely don’t think that having rules in a relationship is a good idea. A relationship is a living thing that should evolve with feelings.

So do you fully believe in the institution of marriage?

Sebastian: Marriage is a religious institution, it is a civil institution but it is also a religious one. And if you look at who the church is working against now, it is homosexuals. But if Jesus were to come back, which some people believe he will, the people he would be most supportive of would be the homosexual people. He was trying to end the persecution of people who were most persecuted by the church!

For me marriage has been essential to personal, spiritual growth. If a person does not feel that way that is totally fine, everyone is on their own spiritual path. But if there is a homosexual person who wants to get married but can’t– that is appalling . If marriage is going to improve, and if I am going to fully support it, it has to be available for all.

Have you guys had many romantic moments, while camping here?

Sebastian: The moment we looked at each other and decided we were going to do this was romantic.  I couldn’t do it without Catherine and I wouldn’t want to. You know, we haven’t had many dinners over wine and candlelight, but this is harder and stronger romance.

We are here, because we think we should fight against a society that makes it impossible for you to live financially unless both partners are working 6 days a week or whatever. We don’t want to disappear into our communes so the top can keep making more money, this is the time to fight back.

For a faster read, check out Catherine and Sebastian in my profile on Occupy dating at Time Out New York!

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments closed (2)

Talking about the Future of Relationships at Occupy Wall Street Pt. 1 Polyamory

1st
Dec. × ’11

photo cred

Caitlin, Robert, Yelle, Leandra, Alex and Kyle sleep together in the same tent at Zuccotti Park. “Everyone is romantically, intimately and sexually involved,” says Robert. They are a polyamorous family (a relationship style meaning, literally, “many loves”). The group share food, finances and plans post-protest: one pair are traveling to Portugal, others will be tree-sitting in Oregon.

Cuddled up in the tent, Robert and Caitlin reminisce. “You totally initiated the first orgy,” says Robert. “No,” Caitlin argues, “wine initiated it!”

Here I talk with Robert and Caitlin about their poly family and the future of relationships as these protesters see it.

So you guys have been here since the beginning?

Robert: We met day two of the protest.

Caitlin: I was talking to someone about hitchiking. And Robert literally turns around and goes, ‘do you wanna hitch-hike to California with me after this is all over?’ Because that is  how he had planned on getting home. And from there we starting hanging out and sharing a sleeping space.

Robert: We were the seed that started this family. We have been arrested together. We are gonna go tree sitting together. And now we have 5 or 6 people that sleep here. The guys don’t have sex with each other and the girls do, but there is still an intimacy among everyone.

So all of you guys are young (18-24) what is your generation doing differently in terms of dating?

Robert: Traditional courtship rituals are not financially possible– both for people here and for our generation. I’ve had more girlfriends in the past where we moved in together early on because it was the only thing that was economically feasible.

And here at Occupy there is a general distaste for that entire courtship ritual. When you look at the cultural structuring of how relationships are supposed to be established, you know Disney movies, it is really sexist. It doesn’t breed a great relationship, it breeds a relationship built for  specific purpose. *Laughs at my original question* Our generation, we are so much cooler than the other generations.

It is cold out. You guys have tents, you are working on crafty ways of being warm. But how were you having sex for that month before the tents were allowed?

Robert:  Sex is easier with the tent, you feel a lot less like a fucking hippie. Before it was: ‘fuck it, cover with a tarp’. When you sleep in one place for a month with multiple partners of course you end up having sex wherever you can.

So are you guys managing to pull off group sex– orgies– in the little tent? (Ed. note this tent is not very big!)

Robert: We usually take turns, but we have.  The best was when we went to Leandras moms house with all of our group. We all got in a gigantic, california king size bed with soft sheets, banisters and had sex together, oh my god it was epic. But, yeah, sometimes we go off with one person at a time.

Do you all say “I love you”?

Caitlin: Yeah! I noticed it started happening more after that big evening of group sex. There are a lot of tender moments, taking care of each other when someone is sick. There is an aspect of more than just being intimate with each other. We are each others grounding forces.  The kind of love that I have for the people in this family is a combination of so many types of love, familial, romantic, sexual.

Robert: It means something. We have a bank set up, we share our finances, we share food, supplies…

Caitlin:  No two relationships in the group are the same, I obviously relate differently to a partner who is 18 and a partner who is more experienced than me. I have individual relationships with each person in the group, you have to or the sense of family gets lost.

How has Occupy Wall Street been a part of coming to polyamory?

Caitlin: I’ve heard people say: ‘I’ve been waiting for something to happen and I didn’t know what it would be… but this is it! I belong’. There are so many relational aspects of protest, there is community, friendship…

Robert:  If this is something you are passionate about you are going to find people here who have a lot in common with you. Out in everyday life, you don’t run into as many anarchists, or  people who have spent 4 months in a tree in Oregon, you don’t run into people who have been arrested 30 times and every time they’ve gotten out of jail, people have been there cheering.  So if you are one of those people you are more likely to find someone here, rather than out at a bar or on e-harmony.

When you engage in something you care about with someone, that builds a deeper connection. And sometimes that blossoms into other ways of connecting.

Do you think we are going to see more relationship styles like polyamory in the future?

Robert: Polyamory does seem to be more common in our generation, in certain areas.

Relationships are changing. Gay marriage speaks to how marriage is shifting in the larger population. Now, we are seeing that marriage is for two people who are in love and dedicated, but we couldn’t we just as easily see that marriage can be for more than two people who are in love with each other? That more than two people can have a relationship that is loving and dedicated?

Currently in the US–and most all over the world–people in group relationships cannot get domestic benefits— much less marriage rights. I find this sad. But for people who might be curious about poly, what would you recommend?

Caitlin: There isn’t just one way to have a relationship. Try things, reflect on those experiences on decide if it works.

Robert: It is a very organic process, adopting something that you read in a book or something that you hear from this interview isn’t necessarily better than figuring out what works for you and your partner or partners. And it is something that takes work. But it works for us.

Caitlin:  Since we pretty much have everything we need, we can go days without interacting with other people!

Read Part Two, with surprising insights on Monogamy here!

For a faster read, check out Caitlin and Robert in my profile on Occupy dating at Time Out New York!
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments closed (15)

Feature for New York Observer: Abortion Doulas and the Future of Abortion

1st
Dec. × ’11
Observer Doulas Clip
Click picture for large (readable) version

Hey, did you catch that feature story  I wrote for the New York Observer? The one about the future of abortion rights and abortion rights activism in the U.S.? The one about abortion doulas, and other hands-on activism? No? Oh, well I uploaded the clip. Click & click to enlarge and read.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments closed

Answering Reader Questions: 32 year old Virgins, Bi Dramas & “Your Number”

18th
Nov. × ’11

Dear Rabbit, I am dating a 32 year old virgin, but I dunno about being “his first”.

Dear Rabbit, what do you think of the “whats your number” conversation. Is asking how many people someone has slept with rude?

Dear Rabbit, I am a bisexual girl…and I think some of my lady friends are hot, but how do I hit on them?

Dear Rabbit, bisexual women are everywhere, but how do I know if I am one?

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments closed (4)

Getting over PiV [Or how Lesbian Sex Changed my Str8 Sex]

18th
Nov. × ’11

photo by Giulia Agostini

When I was a kid, I thought “sex” was two people peeing on each other. Like, I imagined you got in a bed naked and cuddled  for so long that inevitably you would have to pee. But instead of getting up to pee, you just “let go” and peed together, in the bed. This romantic notion just made sense in my eight-year-old brain.

By the time I hit middle school, I totally knew what sex was. Or at least I acted that way, ready to jump on my more naive peers with a “You mean you don’t know?!”

I thought I had gathered the correct information about the genitals, for the most part. I stared at the instructions that came with boxes of tampons, and tried to understand how one went about inserting them … or anything at all down there. I prayed no one would give me a pop quiz about how the logistics of it all worked.

So when I was 15, and my 14-year-old boyfriend and I decided to have sex, it won’t shock you to know that we couldn’t figure it out. We knew sex meant this one act, this penetration thing, but it just didn’t work for us. Later, when we broke up, I wrote, heartbroken in my diary, that I’d “practically had sex with him.”

I remember writing that diary entry, and feeling like I had lost a layer of my virginity, and a significant one; it wasn’t sex per se, but it was still something important. Later, I crossed out the entry, because I hadn’t gone all the way. The big question amongst my friends was, “Did you, or didn’t you?”

Later, of course, I did. At 16, I had a serious boyfriend, who was a few years older than me, meaning he had his own place. Every time we saw each other, our clothes just jumped off our bodies and we went through a montage of sex positions and role play games. There were schoolgirl costumes and anime porn (both my ideas, which I feel baffled about to this day, these tastes haven’t followed me to adulthood.) But, I was into this at the time. I liked the sex we were having. Yet, sometimes I felt pressure for it to end in penetration, like I owed it to him, like that is what counted and made it sex.

As we settled, a few years into our relationship, the role play stopped, the intensity began to disappear– but we were still having a lot of sex. Every-time we hung out, it was a lot of laying on the couch watching movies, waiting inevitably, for the kiss on my neck and poke in my backside. And, always, I would oblige. But I would find myself trying to hurry the sex along, faking turned on, wondering if he would go home in time for me to catch re-runs of “The Golden Girls” on Lifetime.

I guess I felt like, that is what you did as a couple, or like, I wanted to be physically intimate, so sex was what I should do.

Looking back, I wonder how would it have been different, if I had known what I know now about sex. Could I have offered a different sex act instead that I might have enjoyed more?

In college, single and going to house-parties, I started keeping close tabs on my number. Not because I was terribly worried about sleeping with too many people, but because I liked tallying, and keeping things neat and clean. On nights when I couldn’t sleep, I liked re-counting my sex partners, imagining some strange reality show where someone locked all of the men I had slept with in a room together and made them interact. Would they guess what they had in common? Who would get along?

But inevitably, as I tried to tally my sex partners, I found myself wondering, the same thing my friends did about the first guy: Did that one count? Did I or didn’t I have sex with him? Was there actual penis-in-vagina? Should I add him to the list?

Then I started dating a girl and came out as bisexual. Maybe I should have mentioned, even my eight-year-old-self thought “pee sex” could happen between ANY two people!

Read the rest at TheFrisky for my Aha! moment

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments closed

Do you Believe in Marriage? Pt. 1: Some History on the Wife

11th
Nov. × ’11

According to EJ Graff, scholar and author of the book What is Marriage For, there are five static reasons people have married throughout time: 1. property, 2. kin 3. money 4. order 5. heart.

When I got married it was with the idea that we  could have a sort of liberated wedding. Sure, marriage is a troubled institution, but we could pick and choose between sexist traditions, and keep the ones we felt some sort of connection with. But, of course, it is not just the wedding that has troublesome roots (how often we fiance’d  forget: a marriage is not a wedding!)

So, what is the baggage that comes with “wife”? Here, I’ve talked to a handful of marriage researches, trying to dig into the roots of the institution I am in.

According to marriage historian, Stephanie Coontz, virtually all societies marry. The only culture Coontz found that didn’t marry was the Na or Mosuo, a small matriarchal society near Tibet. Because they don’t marry or live with partners, children are raised by their mother’s family. It reminds me of when I was a little kid and my Mom asked me who I wanted to marry when I grew up. “You” I said, bewildered. Wouldn’t I be with her forever?

Coontz says marriage has spread to, essentially, all cultures because marriage does one important thing  in every society: it creates in-laws. (I’ll abstain from mother-in-law jokes.) Coontz says, “Marriage arose as a way of extending social cooperation between groups: acquiring allies, trading partners and making peace. The Anglo-Saxon word for wife is peace maker.”

But for the peace-maker, historically, there wasn’t a lot of choice. One can say women were once chattel, in Ancient Greece ‘gifted’ from their fathers to husbands.

Wife selling was once popular. In England in the 17th century, during a time when only the very rich could divorce, the wife would be announced in a newspaper. During the event, the woman would be led around by a rope or ribbon, shown off to the crowd and then sold to the highest bidder. How is that for a reality show?

According to E.P. Thompson who has done a great deal of research on wife-selling, the wife might already be living with her new partner, who would surely be her highest bidder — though she might be subject to bids from complete strangers. Thompson also tells of one bargaining where the woman didn’t like the highest bidder, so she and the former husband opted for a lesser bidder.

But wives had major roles in family business.  So say, in the 17th century, you were a lady who married a shopkeeper. You were just as vital to the business, you might keep the books and deal with customers. The wife was as a business partner, but legally, the husband owned all wages.

“That situation began to change in the mid-1800s, as judges and legislators began to allow wives to keep the wages they earned. Women also succeeded in getting some states to offer grounds for divorce. Back then (and still today) women initiated divorce proceedings more often than men did” says Coontz.

Then Industrial Revolution made a big shift: “Work left home. Men were kicked out of the house and into offices, while upper and middle class wives were locked inside. Instead of being a shared economic bond, marriage became an emotional haven,” says Graff.

Instead of marrying to start a business together, marrying for love was the shocking new idea. Which kind of marriage, again, is the one with sanctity?

Until the 18th century, families had the biggest say over marriage. In this way, young men were just as much prisoners to marriage, having not much more choice than women. Read this way, the institution can be seen as less about men controlling women and more about families controlling their offspring.

Marrying for love came from the radical new notion that humans had a right to happiness. “Social conservatives of the day were horrified. They predicted that once marriage was based on love, some people might refuse to marry without love, while others might demand the right to divorce if there was no love. They worried that men might stop exerting their authority over their wives and start giving in to them. It took a while for these things to play out, but they were quite right,” says Coontz.

And today, social conservatives are just as outraged about where marriage is now headed — to equality, for the right of all couples to marry.  I wear a gold band on my left ring finger, symbolizing the relationship but my husband, but sometimes I find myself hiding that hand, unsure of my status as someone who “believes in marriage”.

There area  lot of reasons to not believe in the institution. For us, being married works, and I can accept the troubled history of the institution…. but I would feel a lot better about my ring finger if all consenting adults were able to marry.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments closed (23)

Guest Post | Unpopular Men: Representations of Men & Masculinity in Pop Culture

4th
Nov. × ’11

This is a guest post by the notorious Quiet Riot Girl.

Remember that review by Lindy West last year, of Sex In The City II? Where she inquired:

“What is the lubrication level of Samantha Jones’s 52-year-old vagina? Has the change of life dulled its sparkle? Do its aged and withered depths finally chafe from the endless pounding, pounding, pounding—cruel phallic penance demanded by the emotionally barren sexual compulsive from which it hangs?”

Apart from the fact the young Seattle journalist was able to employ misogyny in order to criticise the misogyny of a Hollywood film and get away with it, I was struck by how her article was one of so many. Not just one of so many that criticised Sex In The City II, but also one of so many articles that focus on representations of women in popular culture.

Lindy West became a symbol for me, a symbol of feminist media and cultural criticism that completely ignores men, or belittles and demonises them whilst going on and on about “sexist” portrayals of women in film and television. Lindy West and other feminists caused me to ask a question I am now known for asking: no, seriously, what about the men?

A feminist who has actually turned her attention to men and masculinity in popular culture, is Hannah Rosin. But I’m particularly unhappy with her treatment of the subject. Rosin recently wrote in The Atlantic, that the many of examples of ‘loser’ men characters on current TV shows represent her theory that we are now witnessing The End Of Men.

Rosin cites TV comedies such as: Man Up!, Last Man Standing, How to Be a Gentlemanand observes:

“They all feature men who are unemployed or underemployed, love to play video games, and are desperately in need of a makeover. ‘Life is a big jerk and punches you in the face over and over again,’ complains Bert Lansing, a lughead personal trainer in ABC’s How to Be a Gentleman, played by Kevin Dillon from Entourage. Now that I have actually seen them… I worry that maybe I have helped to unleash a race of genetic mutants onto the population–diseased and dysfunctional men ranging from placid to sad to furious, fumbling around in the office, the supermarket, or the bedroom while the rest of America laughs.”

I could add to the list of programmes featuring ‘loser’ male characters, The King Of Queens, Two And A Half Men, Everybody Loves Raymond and Family Guy.

If Rosin was a feminist woman commenting on negative representations of women in TV programmes you can be sure that, like Lindy West did in her SATC review, she’d be crying ‘stereotypes’! and ‘sexism’! and ‘misogyny!’ But no, comparing these shows to some others, she writes: ‘The loser-men sitcoms, by contrast, are fairly heavy on the realism’.

So Rosin is saying programmes like Two and A Half Men, featuring an alcoholic, workshy womaniser, are ‘realistic’ depictions of how men are in general. Misandry much?

Read More »

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments closed (30)

Praising Monogamy

4th
Nov. × ’11

Recently my husband and I went on a double date. We met my friend Kate and her husband Bear, at a German Beer Hall. I hadn’t met Bear, and I always find meeting a friend’s partner interesting. Kate seemed to come to life in Bear’s presence. He is upbeat but sensible, she is witty and wildly imaginative. She is small and brunette, he is big and blond. They are a physical yin and yang. And even though there was plenty of room on the bench, they sat close, Kate in the nook of his arm.

Maybe it was the crowded hall or the oversized stein of beer, but I suddenly felt warm watching Kate pluck pommes frites from Bear’s plate. They are proof that monogamy is a valid option, and one that can be mindfully chosen with integrity.

I fully endorse monogamy, but my husband, Edmund, and I are not monogamous. And among the polyamorous, non-monogamous set, monogamy isn’t often talked about as a valid option. Maybe it’s because most people just fall into monogamy as a relationship default. But monogamy can be chosen, and in the beer hall, I remembered the days when Edmund and I chose it.

When we were first dating, we slept in a small twin bed. No matter which way one of us turned, there was the other’s body: face-to-face, head-to-chest, butt-to-butt (the latter of which is apparently called “zen style,” the more tasteful way to describe it).

One weekend morning, I woke up to a surprise: a new queen size bed had been delivered with fresh bedding and pillows.

“You know I ordered that bed for you,” Edmund likes to remind me.

This was when we were getting serious. We were becoming exclusive. He wanted to nurture our bond and he did so by making space for us to fall in love, a private space.

In those early days, I couldn’t have imagined fitting another person into our life. There wasn’t time for it. It seemed like days were lost in our new bed. Every moment was spent staring at each other, or when apart on the phone, saying “I love you” before we hung up (which is great until you accidentally say it to the boss, then you spend all non-boyfriend  phone calls, half listening, half mentally reminding yourself don’t say “I love you”!)

The eye-gazing adds up. It takes time to get to know another person, and by being monogamous we had  a lot of time to devote to one and other, to understand how we fit together, to understand what kind of relationship  would work for us.

When I asked Kate why she and Bear chose monogamy (this was big choice for her as well) here’s what she said:

“When you’re secure, you have all of this time. Time to get to know your partner really well. Time to get really, really good at having sex with them. Time to think about plenty of other stuff. When I was single, I was always looking. Like, a tenth of my brain would be looking for a potential partner while the rest of it was doing something else.”

In mine and Edmund’s relationship, building a foundation with monogamy made me secure. Being monogamous at first was a way to get a handle on jealousy, it was showing each other that we were committed. It was understanding how we both handled jealousy. It was building trust, so that later, we could shake the foundation up a little and still be okay. I don’t think being non-monogamous from the start would have worked, for us. Read the rest at The Frisky.

Photo by Rita Lino

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments closed

Trans Masculinities; Exploring Trans Issues

28th
Oct. × ’11

Last weekend I attended the Masculinity, Complex conference at City University of New York, my favorite panel was on Trans Masculinities. Someone that day said “it is funny we talk about trans people as both totally normal and angels, doing so much for the discussion on sex and gender”. I laughed, because I too feel in awe of trans people and the way their visibility opens up discussions on sex and gender. Here is what the panel got me thinking about:

Buck Angel and a Dead Trans Teen: Sometimes it is easy to forget, living in a progressive LGBTQ bubble how dangerous and pervasive transphobia is.

One speaker gives a talk about Buck Angel, the infamous trans male porn star or “man with a pussy”. He begins with a clip of Buck on the Howard Stern show, in which Howard is made to guess Buck’s “secret”, also in which Buck rides the simian– a fucking machine with a dildo’d apparatus.The speaker points to the look on Howard’s face when he realizes Buck is not a “real man”. The joke is on Howard– but the focus on transphobia here feels especially important.

We had heard earlier from Ken Corbett, who recently sat on trial for the Oxnard California middle school shooting. Corbett describes Brandon, a blonde and blue eyed popular boy who killed Larry, a brown boy who was out as gay. Though Corbett suggests that from what we can gather, Larry was probably trans.

During the trial, Brandon, the blonde one, the alive one, said he was doing the school a favor–everyone knew Larry was a problem. There defense argued that Brandon wasn’t bullying the trans boy, Larry. But that Larry was bulling everyone by “causing a distraction”.  That he was being a menace just by being himself.  Teachers from the school testified about how feminine Larry was, how he wore high heeled boots. Corbett recalls a moment in court, where the teachers and defense lawyer mime how Larry walked.

During the Buck Angel presentation, an interview is shown in which Buck reminisces about his own adolescence, how as a child his parents accepted him as a boy and he was mostly treated like a boy, allowed to go by a boy name. But when Buck hit puberty, his family urged him to dress feminine, act like a young woman.

I was transported, momentarily, to a memory. I am home from college and a family member is asking an old highschool friend whether or not her little sister is still dressing like a boy, now that she is a teenager and all. Still a tomboy. “Is she still acting like a boy?” asked this family member. “Who cares” I spat out, angry at this — to which both my friend and family member frowned and said, “don’t you care about this little sister?”

Gay TransMen: Lou Sullivan and the fact that Gender and Sex are Separate

The next speaker read from the diaries of Lou Sullivan. Lou was a transman living in San Francisco in the 70’s and 80’s. A young Lou writes about going out dressed up in cowboy garb and enjoying lingering looks from men. Later, still living as a woman, Lou has a long term relationship with feminine a man, whom he encourages to have gay encounters.

Lou was F-M trans and he was also a gay man.  Because of this, psychologists refused him hormones  (surely if he liked men, he must not be a man!) Later in the 80’s, Lou would die of AIDS, leaving us with the knowledge that gender identity and sexual orientation are separate concepts.

from Sean Dorsey’s suite of dances choreographed to the diaries of Lou Sullivan; this one is the AIDS sequence

I took special interest in Lou’s diaries. I had just written about gay trans men.

From that story: “Passing in the world as a man, the transman’s relationship to other men changes completely. ‘I remember when I began passing fully, and I started getting checked out on the street by men…that was interesting,’ says Amos Mac, editor in chief of Original Plumbing, a quarterly magazine about the trans male experience. ‘You become invisible to the queer girls who checked you out before. Suddenly everyone is ignoring you, except for gay men. I remember really liking their attention, I always wanted that attention. Before, when I would work the door at gay clubs and hang out with gay men, all I wanted was to be accepted by them, I hated being seen as a girl by gay men.’”

I’m starting to feel a little Gender Queer myself or Who actually identifies with their Gender role?

The closing speaker of the panel was the gender queer cabaret star, Justin Vivian Bond. On Bond’s website is a list of preferred pronouns. It reads: Prefix: mx | (pronounced “mix”) | Pronoun: V  | Gender: trans or T | Full Name: Mx Justin Vivian Bond.

Bond read from V’s memoir. In closing, Bond told a story from the night before. A group of teenage girls got on the train, giggling before falling on the seat like a “pile of kittens”. One braided the others hair, and when they arrived at their stop, the girls trotted off together, hands still in each other’s hair. Bond said “I just wanted to share that . I guess I feel lucky that I’ve been able to experience that kind of intimacy.” Then, later: “The gender police are erasing so many possibilities by enforcing these two roles”.

Images all from Original Plumbing, shot by Amos Mac

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments closed (13)

What I learned at a Sugar Daddy/ Sugar Baby Party

20th
Oct. × ’11

The last guy bought Tia a car. He also paid rent, bought clothes and gave her thousands of dollars here and there. She was 19 and in school; he was 45 and owned a construction company. “He told me, ‘You got what it takes to take what I got.’ And I took him for all he had!” says Tia. She is here to try to find someone to replace this ex. I’m here undercover for Time Out New York, posing as someone like Tia, to figure out how the world of sugar daddies works.

This sugar daddy/sugar baby ball is hosted by SeekingArrangement.com, a dating site for those looking for “mutually beneficial relationships.” The party is at the Copacabana, a Times Square bar that might look glamorous to tourists. Tonight, women who sparkle under the club’s neon lights fawn over men who are drab in comparison.

Tia smooths her hair, which is swept to the side, prom-style, revealing one glittery earring. She asks what kind of guys I’ve talked with. “Two hedge-fund managers,” I reply. She’s talked with a lawyer and a business owner. The men in the crowd range in age from their thirties to eighties.

Mel, the first hedge-fund manager, is on the younger side, with a baby face and a briefcase. When I ask if the nature of the sugar relationship is freeing, he sneers. “I don’t like it when the girls get really transactional. I’m busy, and it’s a low-key way to meet women. But it can be trashy,” he says. I ask him to clarify. “Here—” he gives me his phone and tells me to put my number in. “You ask too many questions, but I’ll talk to you about it later. Somewhere not so loud.” I lift his arm from my shoulder and politely move on.

Among the women, there were lots of tall heels, hair extensions and accents—local ones from Queens, Long Island and Jersey, and more newly local, from the Caribbean, Eastern Europe and Latin America. The women were friendly to one and other—we were in this together, after all. I chat with Christina, a J-Woww lookalike who’s planning to leave the sugar-baby lifestyle; she’s starting her own business and has great investors. She didn’t go to college but has learned a lot through her older friends. Later, I bond with Arielle, an artist with auburn hair and tattooed arms. She lives in Bushwick with her artist boyfriend. “What does he think?” I ask. “If I can get a second stream of income out of this dating site, why not?” she says.

Thanks to several websites like SeekingArrangement, recession-trend stories have been sparked about college girls using the site to help with tuition. In New York, there is now an entire “sugar culture.” According to researchers from the Sugar Project, a study on sugar-daddy culture funded by George Washington University, there is always a negotiation moment in these relationships where each party names their price. “Say, she only wants to see him once a month and she wants $5,000. He counters, fine, but he wants to be able to call her to come to events,” says researcher Elizabeth Nistico. If this agreement isn’t made in the first few dates, it often takes a more passive route. For instance, perhaps every time she meets him, the woman will find $500 in her purse afterward. Without that money, she would stop seeing him.

My new sugar-baby friends offer me tips on how to set this up. Candy, a 22-year-old with bubbly cleavage and a gap between her front teeth, advises that I negotiate before the men so much as touch. The first time she did this, a guy gave her $2,000—all she had to do in return was go to a nice dinner and give him a hand job: “A hand job! How easy is that?” As we talk, Tia comes over. She’s upset because the guy flirting with her asked, point blank, how much? While Nistico says many women negotiate up-front—by e-mail or phone before meeting– Tia, like Mel, prefers a little more illusion. “He was an investment banker,” Tia tells us. “You should have asked for $5,000!” Candy replies.

According to employees of SeekingArrangement, there are seven women for every man on the site. At the party, there seem to be two to three women for every guy. The men seem happily dazed, sitting back as women in mini dresses form lines to sit at bottle service with them. As the night wears on, the women arriving seem to grow more beautiful and more aggressive. “Listen to his problems, let him talk about his family or work,” I’m advised by my new friends. I watch as brazen Arielle and Candy suddenly become coy and demure around men.

When I ask Nistico what findings are the most surprising, she says it’s how much the men can be hurt by the sugar relationship, “The role reversal is what is so interesting to me. The women are manipulating the men, and if the relationship takes a turn for the worse, the man often ends up being victimized—not the woman,” she says.

In the ladies’ room, Christina is giving a speech from the stall. “Get yours! Ask up-front. Don’t date if they don’t own that business. Network! Is that cocaine on the floor? Someone sniff it up!” It is another illusion unraveling: While the girls play submissive in the club, here in the greenish light of the bathroom, it is clear that it is the guys who are betas.

Toward the end of the night, I see one man slip a wedding band back on as he leaves the club. Some men and women leave together, but many depart alone. The sugar babies want money for a date, not a one-night stand, and the competition is tough. “I’ve got a date for every night this week!” a blond guy in his forties exclaims.

The next day, I receive a text from Mel. He wants to know if I’d like to “rendezvous to see if we are in sync” [wink face]. I consider forwarding the text to Arielle or Candy, but I don’t have their numbers, and I’m certain they’ll get what they need eventually. Given all the girls last night, surely, Mel will find what he’s searching for as well.

In Part Two a male writer, posing as a Sugar Daddy, hilariously tries his luck at the same party. Read the rest here! I recommend it.

What do you think of “Sugar Culture”? Do you support people who sign up for these sites?

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments closed (21)