Editorial Note: This post was written by Wes Fenza, long before the falling out of our previous quint household and the subsequent illumination of his abusive behavior, sexual assault of several women, and removal from the Polyamory Leadership Network and banning from at least one conference. I have left Wes’ posts  here because I don’t believe it’s meaningful to simply remove them. You cannot remove the truth by hiding it; Wes and I used to collaborate, and his thoughts will remain here, with this notice attached.

—–

Deborah Anapol is one of the founders of the polyamory movement. Her contributions to the movement cannot be overstated. She is the cofounder of Loving More magazine, and the author of Polyamory: The New Love Without Limits. She works tirelessly to promote acceptance of my lifestyle, and she is a truly valuable ally to have.

That said, I need to express my disagreement with her recent article in Psychology Today, where she argues that the sexual revolution has, after tallying up a remarkable number of achievements, stalled:

The architects of the Sexual Revolution intended to unleash the evolutionary energies of sex and love in service of human liberation. Instead, attempts at sexual r/evolution have been repeatedly sidetracked, hijacked, and eventually derailed by a combination of greed, lust, and immaturity. Sex and love are potent forces which can easily spiral out of control. While change always stirs fear in those who cling to the security of the familiar, the absence of a strong spiritual foundation at the heart of the sexual revolution aroused legitimate concerns for many. Ultimately, the lack of integrity in the movement for sexual freedom has prevented the unfolding of its full potential for transforming society. Furthermore, its failure to focus on the ecological consequences of colonizing our planet in the same way we have colonized our own bodies and genitals, has drastically curtailed its relevance.

She seems to be tracing the problems with our sexuality to two causes: (1) the lack of spirituality in the movement, and (2) the failure to merge the sexual revolution movement with the environmental movement.

The nicest term I can come up with for this is “bullshit.” Anapol does not define what she means by “spirituality,” so she may mean something different, but she’s writing in Psychology Today, which is a mainstream publication. The mainstream understanding of spirituality refers to religion. Religion, as will be obvious to most readers of this blog, is the main force holding back further progression of the sexual revolution. The fear of sex in our society is intrinsically linked to Christian values, which completely saturate American society. Furthermore, holding sex as “sacred,” as Anapol suggests, only encourages people to be as irrational about sex as they are about prayer. The way to move the sexual revolution forward is to encourage sober-minded rationalism about sex. That means more thinking rationally, less holding things sacred.

Secondly, I don’t see what sexual issues and environmental issues have to do with each other, except that right-wingers hate them both. Anapol seems to be arguing that respect for women’s bodies and respect for the Earth come from the same place. That idea has no rational basis. “Mother Earth” is not a real person. The rational basis for environmentalism is selfish. We need the environment. Destroying the environment is bad for us. Respecting women’s bodies is not about selfish goals. It’s about recognizing that all people deserve a minimum amount of respect and decency. There are selfish reasons to respect women’s bodies as well, but that doesn’t seem to be Anapol’s connection.

Also, I don’t really agree that the sexual revolution has stalled. Our society is becoming more comfortable about sex every day. Gay marriage is legal in six states, with many more expected in the near future, and polls show that it’s supported by a majority of Americans. Every major city has a kink scene. High-profile people are standing up for non-monogamy. No-fault divorce has largely put an end to the legal consequences of adultery. Comprehensive sex education is now available with a few clicks of a mouse. Pornography is now available for almost any sexual interest imaginable. Websites like Fetlife has created communities where nobody is shamed for their sexual desires. We still have a long way to go, but I think we’re on the right track. Change is happening. But, like all big changes, it’s happening slowly. I don’t know what Anapol thinks has gone so wrong.

I remember sitting in a movie theater years and years ago watching Star Wars: The Phantom Menace and being wildly amused by all the racial stereotyping being used as “character development”.  Clearly Lucas thought he could get away with it because they were aliens, people…but you can’t really get away with it when it’s so freaking obvious.  Just ask Michael Bay about his ridiculous ice cream truck Transformers.

It started with the Trade Federation representatives who were clearly Asian.  I mean, they looked like fish, but they didn’t look like Admiral Ackbar…instead, they were oddly reminiscent of catfish or coy.  And then they spoke with a bad Asian accent.

Then there were the Jamaicans…I mean, whatever the fuck Jar Jar was.

And then there was the hook nosed blue flying trader/slave owning alien Jew.  Obviously.

I admit fully that I laughed a lot about this, as I generally do when anyone says anything or does anything anti-Semitic these days.  It’s generally how I feel when anyone says anything against Russians or Communists.  I find it absurd that anyone still has anything to say about Jews or Communists.  It seems out of place in the world today, so I can’t help but assume that people are saying these things ironically/sarcastically as an homage to shit-tacular times past.  So when the Blue Jew appeared on screen and bartered for Ani’s freedom I said, “Holy crap…they made the shady business monster Jewish…FOR REAL? AMAZING.”

Obviously, racism and other -isms never go away.  People are raised with idiocy and it prevails through generations.  So, of course there is still rampant antisemitism.  And even when it’s not necessarily antisemitism, the stereotypes prevail.

Take Mitt Romney.  Please.

Rim shot.

Anyway, take Mitt Romney.  He goes to Palestine and pisses off all the Palestinians (like only a great Presidential hopeful should do) by saying,

“And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things,” Romney said, citing an innovative business climate, the Jewish history of thriving in difficult circumstances and the “hand of providence.”

The Palestinians were outraged because these were thinly shrouded racist remarks about them.  I would agree with that assessment, but what struck me so much about this story was how Mitt got up in front of a bunch of Jews and said, “You’re successful because you’re good with money” and that they were God’s chosen people or something.

I admit that laughed out loud at this whole thing.  I got this image of Mitt preparing for his trip and choosing to read “How to be a Jewish Mother” as his primary source of research.  I will always find this hilarious because I can’t believe that these stereotypes are still relevant.

Several years ago the owners of a company I was working for were Jewish.  It was a father and son duo and I suppose I would characterize the father as someone who would have fit right in with my Jewish relatives.  I will point out that Wes’ Uncle Bob also would have fit right in and he was quite Catholic.  I think the stereotype is more generational rather than religiously cultural.  Anyway, this guy I worked with came into my office and said the following to my office mate, “Did you hear what the Jew did?”  Neither of us knew he was talking about.  “Who?” my office mate asked.  “The Jew…” We both looked puzzled.  Then he clarified that he was talking about our president and I looked at him, cracked up for a second and then said, “The Jew? Really?  What is this, 1945?  You’re kidding, right?  Are you about to make a penny pincher joke?  Because that would be classic.”  He left without another word.  I still find this funnier than I find it offensive because it just seemed so archaic!

Anyway, back to Romney.  After he insulted Palestine by saying that they were culturally inferior to Jews, he then went on to say something about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel, which is true according to Isrealis, but not according to the rest of the world…especially not to the Palestinians.  No matter what you think about this particular conflict, it should be obvious that a dude trying to become President of the United States should probably know things about international affairs.

I think this is going to be a hysterical election…during the times in between when it’s terrifying I guess.  Romney is a jackass, but I haven’t repressed the memory of Bush yet.

A friend of mine has recently gotten herself into a bit of an internet kerfuffle by stating that when you eat Chick-Fil-A, not because of their delicious fried goodness, but because they hate the gays and you support that and then subsequently post on your favorite social networking site that you feel this way, you are being hurtful to those who do not adhere to Chick-Fil-A’s vision of proper family values.  She asked not that people stop eating their chicken.  She didn’t even ask them to stop spewing bigoted shit on their page.  She just asked that she be blocked from seeing such messages because it makes her want to puke and cleaning that up several times a day is just too much of a burden (paraphrase).

Because it’s the internet and people love to miss the point and subsequently get pissed off and (unfortunately) vocal about their misplaced pissed-offedness, a bunch of people read her statements as “You are an asshole for eating Chick-Fil-A, you bigoted sons of beetches.”

She’s being pretty nice about it, repeating over and over again that this is not what she’s saying.  She has repeated over and over that these people can feel free to go gorge themselves on  all the chicken they want, but that if you support their politics and blab about it online where she can see it (and you KNOW she can see it), that’s hurtful.  The response has generally been, “So what if I like chicken?  You can’t tell me what to eat! What am I supposed to do, not eat Chick-Fil-A just because they’re a bunch of douchebags?”  Her response has been to repeat herself and likely bang her head against a wall.

I have a different answer to all of this though.  Look, people, you are being assholes if you say that you support gay marriage and equal rights for the LGBTQ community but don’t support it enough to stop giving money to a company that is openly working against these things.  Sure, you can eat whatever you want.  No one is saying that you’re not allowed to eat Chick-Fil-A.  But, as with all controversial decisions and actions, you don’t get to eat it guilt-free.  I mean, you can not feel guilty about it, but if you DO feel guilt about it because someone points out what giving money to a particular company means, that’s not really the pointer-outer’s fault.  It is because you have a conscience and it is at odds with the deliciousness of the fried chicken.

This is a central theme to life on Planet Earth.

No, not being at odds with fried chicken.  Having to negotiate between getting what you want and the effects on everything else when you get it.

I am an omnivore.  I eat meat.  I eat meat because I really like it.  Chicken and beef are delicious to me.  I am also too cheap/often too broke to buy cage-free chicken or grass-fed beef.  Do I feel superior because I eat animals?  No, not particularly.  I just acknowledge that I am prioritizing my love of meat over the politics/moral realities of eating it.  Yes, by purchasing and consuming standard animal products, I am supporting factory farming. I am part of the demand.  It all comes down to how important this is to me.  Like I said, priorities.  At present the guilt over the plight that these animals have does not outweigh my desire to eat them.  And yeah, that pushes me a little more towards the asshole side of the spectrum.

Every day we prioritize our “wants” and “shoulds”.  When we reward ourselves with the food we want, with saving money, with taking part in all the conveniences of modern American life, you make choices.  Some people deny themselves these things to take the “moral high ground”.  They are also often full of shit, so just because they do something that appears to be “good” doesn’t necessarily mean that their motivations are “good” or “well informed”.  Other people don’t deny themselves any of these things because the issues connected to these choices don’t really matter to them.  Not every cause is important to every person.  The rest of us are somewhere in between.  A lot of people, I think, are aware of the social/political/moral effect that their choices may have and they weigh their desires against those implications and decide which is more important to them.

What strikes me as kind of hilarious about this entire Chick-Fil-A debacle is that it’s a bunch of people screaming that they will NOT BE DETERRED FROM THEIR CHICKEN, DAGNABBIT!  I guess we should add “Denial of Delicious Chicken to the General Public” to the “Gay Agenda”, right?  I just don’t understand why it has to be Chick-Fil-A.  There are lots of places to get fried chicken that have not (yet) made their anti-gay stance plain.  Then again, none of them are paragons of Moral Awesomeness either.  I mean, look at KFC.  The rumors about that place alone are hilarious.  “They changed their name to KFC because it would be a lie to have ‘Chicken’ in the name…because they’re not selling chicken ZOMG!” or “They genetically engineer chickens to be beakless”.  But their advertising campaigns often seem a little racist to me (that might be white guilt saying that, I don’t know…but the advertisements always seemed off to me).  As for Crown, who knows.  Maybe they have a sordid origin story where the first things fried at Crown were a pair of royal testicles or something. (Note: There is no evidence to support this outlandish claim, though as an American I am forced to assume its founders are terrorists).  Clearly the answer is that we should all invest in our own deep fryers.  That’s American independence right there.

*Shudder* This just reminds me of how I used to visit friends at their apartment and one of the housemates was frying something every time I went over there.  The kitchen seemed to be bathed in a thin film of grease and the dude was always shirtless, standing in front of the fryer.  “Do you want some wings?” “No, thanks…”

In the end, this is all fast food.  None of it is good for you and it would probably make the most sense to cut it all out of your diet for health reasons before political ones, but again, these are choices we make.  This is how vices work.  Indulging one here and there isn’t inherently terrible, but recall that we are not isolated.  Our actions have consequences, both positive and negative.  When you eat a Chick-Fil-A sandwich you are satisfying a vice (fatty, bad for you food) and it also has political batshittery attached to it too.  You’re consuming something that’s not only bad for your body but something that helps support a company with ideas that are bad for society as a whole.

So, yes, eat it if you really want to, but don’t be surprised if someone thinks that this pushes you more to the asshole side of the spectrum, especially if your response is something like, “I just want to eat my chicken in peace.  I don’t want to care about what it MEANS!”  No one is telling you that you MUST CARE, but if you care enough to get mad about being called out on it, then that’s on you.

As for the reading comprehension failure here and on the internet in general, well, that’s a whole other post. Oy.