sexual politics

Disgraceful vs Graceless vs Acceptable: On the Degrees of Outing Public Figures You Disagree With

Fri, 2010-04-23 10:39

Three recent and/or current events provide a nice platform for examining if and when outing someone over their sexual orientation or inclination would be appropriate.

Disgraceful Outing

I’m pretty tolerant of outing figures who take stands against their own closeted situations. I’m not at all tolerant of outing people for one thing simply because they support or oppose an unrelated issue. So it’s particularly annoying to hear from Gabriel Arana of TAPPED that…

Looks like the nativist group Americans for Legal Immigration (ALIPAC) is getting desperate. William Gheen’s rant at a rally “outing” Sen. Lindsey Graham, who supports comprehensive immigration reform, has gone viral. Though Graham has said repeatedly that he is not gay (just single), ALIPAC insists on pushing this line. The organization sent out a press release praising Gheen for correcting the “information imbalance”:

When you have a U.S. Senator from such a conservative state like South Carolina working hand in hand with Obama and New York liberals like Senator Chuck Schumer to pass an Amnesty bill for illegal aliens, there is something very wrong.

So ALIPAC thinks the only possible reason Graham could support immigration reform is because liberals are holding his “alternative lifestyle” over his head? The logic here is so bizarre I have trouble seeing how Gheen could believe it himself.

Arana points out that Gheen’s using the exact intimidation tactic he’s accusing pro-immigration activists of using. (No surprise there since projection backed up by self-loathing is central to conservative character.)

Graceless Outing

If Mr. Gheen’s behavior is disgraceful, Babette Josephs’ insinuations about her primary candidate Gregg Kravitz was merely graceless. Talking Points Memo’s Rachel Slajda says longtime state legislator Babette Josephs is backing away from her prior accusation that the young man challenging her in the upcoming primary in her heavily LGBT Philadelphia district is straight!

Kravitz, who says he’s bisexual, is currently partners with a woman. Josephs considered that enough of a “gotcha” to call him a liar and brag that “I outed him as a straight person.” According to TPM’s Slajda she now says “I don’t even care, because a person’s sexuality has nothing to do with any of this.”

Which, of course, is perfectly true! Josephs herself appears to be the most actively pro-LGBT legislator in Pennsylvania even though she also appears to be 100% heterosexual. And meanwhile Kravitz might not end up being as effective a legislator even if he’s not 100% hetero.

Still, it’s approximately as graceless to assume that having, or having had, an opposite-sex partner makes one heterosexual as it would be to assume that a former or current partner of the same sex makes one homosexual.

Barely Regrettable Outing

On the other hand, when it comes to cases where a legislator or other public figure is aggressively and actively antagonistic to their own orientation or inclination, as with the closeted sex-purchasing of anti-prostitution activists David Vitter’s or Randall Tobias, or as with aggressive anti-homosexual activist legislator Roy Ashburn’s homosexuality, or family-values stalwart John Ensign’s affair? I feel pretty comfortable saying that when you make it your business it becomes everybody’s business what your business really is.

Bringing a Whole New Meaning To Sexual Politics

Fri, 2008-02-01 11:49

Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon posted a real eye-opener the other day. Bottom line: It looks a lot like Republican strategists are trying to drop their long-standing anti-sex rhetoric in an attempt to stanch the bleeding

Frank Luntz—you know, the conservative genius of focus group testing of language, and therefore the architect of so many nasty, divisive terms the Republicans have put into circulation—is talking a lot about how this survey was conducted in the interest of unity. This tells me a few things, not the least of which is that save-the-party-by-talking-unity is something Luntz is pushing really hard.

But what’s additionally interest is that Luntz thinks we can find the common ground in the bedroom. Actually, if you watch the video, his ideas aren’t all that offensive. He’s basically arguing that while Republicans might be slightly more conservative on average than Democrats about their personal sexual behavior, the gap between the two is small enough to be inconsequential. But where I found myself agreeing with him is that he argues that the gap is small because people across the political parties are pretty liberal in their sexual behavior. The prevailing Republican attitudes under the Bush administration about sex—that it’s dirty and wrong and you should only do it when you’re married and birth control and abortion and changing partners are terrible and experimentation is wrong, etc.—are not actually shared in any significant way by workaday voting Republicans. Colmes has the survey up; you can check out for yourself.

Read the quote in context here.

Marcotte closes with a point that I think will probably always distinguish the New Red Menace from True Blue Americans

Personally, I feel a bit outside of all this. The Republicans might be willing to embrace condoms, porn, and blow jobs, but I’m working on a more radical project, to move people towards not just a freer view of sex, but a more egalitarian one, a world where women aren’t just holes to be fucked, but real people whose humanity counts. Sex positivity is part of that, but we need more than that.

I think that’s about right. Goodness knows there are enough progressives who can’t quite grasp the notion that women are more than U-Store-It managers for their own pussies, but the dirty Reds are just never going to get a handle egalitarianism in bed because they think about everything too much in terms of land tenure to ever give up the idea of pussy as property, or men as lease-holders, or sex as resource extraction.

User login