SCOTUS Prop 8 Liveblog

On Tuesday, SCOTUS heard oral arguments on the California Prop 8 case.  Along the way, justices and counsel made some amusing points, but also made some gross misstatements of historical reality or the availability of evidence about gay marriage in practice.  Here I’ve debunked those points…

Once the justices made their way to the merits of the case (Prop 8 proponent’s standing to sue was heavily questioned), the liberals had at Cooper, the attorney defending Prop 8.

Kagan dug early into the “harms” of same-sex marriage:

KAGAN: Is -- is there -- so you have sort of a reason for not including same-sex  couples. Is there any reason that you have for excluding them? In other words, you're saying, well, if we allow same-sex couples to marry, it doesn't serve the State's interest. But do you go further and say that it harms any State interest?

Cooper’s answer was that “normal” procreation is harmed and noted that he feared some ethereal eventual harm to the “traditional” institution of marriage.

Let’s talk about “traditional” marriage, or lack thereof, for a moment.  In Ancient Persia thousands of years ago, rich men had a harem and multiple wives. (In case you hadn’t noticed, polygamy is now illegal in the US).  In Ancient Greece and Rome, marriages were arranged to solidify patronage relationships or family alliances, not loving procreation.  Romans regularly had sexual exploits outside of marriage with same-sex partners, and there was no inherent stigma in having a same-sex partner.  Romans could also divorce relatively easily, an aspect of marriage that disappeared for the next 1900 years before we led the charge on bringing divorce back.  In medieval Christian households, a married man was entitled to order his wife to do basically anything and have a court enforce it; he could also permissibly beat her with a stick up to the width of his thumb and rape her at will.  Most of the time, it was not love, but a gift from the bride's father of several cows, bushels of grain, or wads of cash (remember a "dowry") that sealed the marriage.  Meanwhile, in North America, native American cultures were permitting spiritual unions between same-sex couples (I've blogged on his before).  So, Mr. Cooper, unless your idea of marriage includes obligatory extramatrial affairs to achieve sexual satisfaction, payment by the bride's father, domestic abuse, intra-marriage rape, and grossly uneven gender rights, there’s no kind of “traditional” marriage of the last 2000 years that is actually legal in the United States.

The justices eventually moved on to the idea of kids in gay households.  Not shockingly, Scalia set this ball rolling:

SCALIA: Mr. Cooper, let me -- let me give you one -- one concrete thing. I don't know why you don't mention some concrete things. If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you must -- you must permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there's -­there's considerable disagreement among -- among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a -- in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not. Some States do not -- do not permit adoption by same-sex couples for that reason.

[Ginsburg lays hammer down and points out that gay couples can adopt in CA so it doesn’t matter...]

JUSTICE KENNEDY: I -- I think there's -­there's substantial -- that there's substance to the point that sociological information is new. We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more. On the other hand, there is an immediate legal injury or legal -- what could be a legal injury, and that's the voice of these children. There are some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?

MR. COOPER: Yes, Your Honor. The concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreative purposes, and it will refocus, refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults, of adult couples.

Oops.  The definition of marriage is not, and has never been, limited to those raising children.  It’s unclear how “the emotional needs and desires of adults” are not satisfied by gay marriage.  But let’s talk about the kids.  Are the kids alright?  Despite consistent citation by the justices and counsel that there was not much evidence to answer the question (Julianne Moore movies notwithstanding), there are numerous studies that have been published showing that kids of gay couples benefit when parents marry, kids of gay couples have equal academic performance metrics and equal health metrics as those of straight couples.  In fact, there’s a study out there suggesting kids of lesbian couples are actually BETTER OFF than those of straight couples.  I suppose we’re just going to ignore these.

So, Cooper is off on his rant about how marriage is an institution traditionally tied to procreation.  Kagan immediately began to tear this ridiculous over-simplification apart by pointing out that an old straight couple can’t procreate either:

KAGAN: No, really, because if the couple -- I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.

[LOL]  This question became a debate about the importance of fertility in marriage, which resulted in a Scalia zinger:

JUSTICE SCALIA: I suppose we could have a questionnaire at the marriage desk when people come in to get the marriage -- you know, Are you fertile or are you not fertile?... I suspect this Court would hold that to be an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, don't you think?

Coopers response was like a flashback to 1918: “[But sir, one partner must always be fertile in an opposite-sex because men never go infertile!  Go men!  So, straight marriage is never totally non-procreative.]”  Cooper did not explain how procreating with someone when your wife was infertile was a “traditional marriage,” though frankly that’s closer to the historical nature of marriage than anything else he said about “traditional” marriages.

Finally, the opponents of Prop 8 stood up, and the conservative justices fired away…

ROBERTS: I'm not sure, counsel, that it makes -- I'm not sure that it's right to view [prohibiting gay marriage] as excluding a particular group. When the institution of marriage developed historically, people didn't get around and say let's have this institution, but let's keep out homosexuals. The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn't include homosexual couples.

Touché, Justice Roberts.  But, smart as you may be, no one had the chance to explicitly exclude homosexuals from marriage 200 years ago, or even 200 years ago.  Why?  There was no such thing as “gay” or “homosexual” then.   As I've discussed in No Church in the Wild, the very word "homosexual" only came to exist after an 1869 German pamphlet AGAINST sodomy laws. You can’t exclude a group that doesn’t exist.  There was definitely same-sex sex, though – I’ve researched this at length. The other problem, of course, is that Roberts implicitly equates marriage and a union of love – marriage was rarely related to love over the last several millennial.

Scalia asks, when did prohibiting gay marriage become unconstitutional?

Oh, Scalia, you trickster.  You’d probably argue that interracial marriage prohibitions aren’t unconstitutional because they were left intact when the 14^th amendment passed (oh, you kinda did).  My lawyer answer: as soon as a person identified himself or herself as “gay” in America.  At that point, a minority category was created and discrimination could exist, which is prohibited by the 14th Amendment in the 1860s at the absolute latest.

KENNEDY: The problem -- the problem with the case is that you're really asking, particularly because of the sociological evidence you cite, for us to go into uncharted waters, and you can play with that metaphor, there's a wonderful destination, it is a cliff. Whatever that was.

This is after excessive discussion about how there’s no evidence of how kids fare in gay households.  Kennedy thinks kids in gay households are still a mystery, and this is bad for our community, cause he’s our swing vote.  Send him all the studies you find about how well kids in gay households are doing, please.

Alito: Traditional marriage has been around for thousands of years. Same-sex marriage is very new. I think it was first adopted in The Netherlands in 2000. So there isn't a lot of data about its effect. And it may turn out to be a -- a good thing; it may turn out not to be a good thing, as the supporters of Proposition 8 apparently believe. But you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the Internet? I mean we -- we are not -- we do not have the ability to see the future. On a question like that, of such fundamental importance, why should it not be left for the people, either acting through initiatives and referendums or through their elected public officials?

Well, now there is one thing gay love equivocally is not, and that is newer than the Internet.  As Oscar Wilde, Eleanor Roosevelt, Dinah Shore, or Harvey Milk.  They all probably wished to spend their life with someone of the same sex at one time or another.  Society at large just didn't recognize their love.  So, Alito, you, as you sit on the Supreme Court, really subscribe to the logic that gay love started when gay marriage was legalized in the Netherlands?  Really?  In the meantime, could you assess the institution of child marriages?  I’m pretty sure a 14 year old can still marry in Alabama.  That’s not new either.  Also, I think the Internet was partly invented in order to distribute gay porn, so that works against you too…

VERRILLI: And the fourth point I would make, and I do think this is significant, is that the principal argument in 1967 with respect to Loving and that the Commonwealth of Virginia advanced was: Well, the social science is still uncertain about how biracial children will fare in this world, and so you ought to apply rational basis scrutiny and wait. And I think the Court recognized that there is a cost to waiting and that that has got to be part of the equal protection calculus. And so -- so I do think that's quite fundamental.

Ah, thank you, Mr. Verrilli for the government.  Remember when we as a country seriously asked whether interracial children would be okay?  How are Josh Freeman and Russel Wilson doing with it?  Yeah, that was always a stupid question to ask, and now the conservative justices are asking the same questions about kids in gay families.

COOPER: If, in fact, it is true, as the people of California believe that it still is true, that the natural procreative capacity of opposite-sex couples continues to pose vitally important benefits and risks to society, and that's why marriage itself is the institution that society has always used to regulate those heterosexual, procreative -- procreative relationships.

Oh shit, I didn’t realize marriage certificates were regulating procreation!!!  Does this mean we can stop sending welfare checks to single mothers?  Are teenage pregnant girls actually married without knowing it? I mean, under this logic, they must have been because marriage is absolutely proportional and germane to the birthing of babies.

Are You Really Gayer than Anyone Else?

A friend aware of my endless quest to teach the world that things are not so simple as "gay" and "straight" alerted me to this blog post by OKCupid. Several of its findings support the ideas of flexible sexuality in No Church in the Wild, so naturally I must write excitedly about them.

Image from OKCupid

This is the breakdown of answers across all OKCupid users.  About 30% of users answer openly that that have or would like to engage in a sexual encounter with someone of the same sex.  When separated by biological gender, we find that about HALF of women on the site have or would like to try women. That the number is about 25% for male users utterly supports the position taken by the narrator in No Church in the Wild - women are more likely to talk about this desire if they have it than men are.

I'll pause for a moment to consider this sample set.  OKCupid users are characteristically younger than those of, say, Match.com.  It may simply be that people who are more open to experimentation tend to do their online dating on OKCupid in disproportionate numbers.  But, given the geographic distribution of this graphic:

Image from OKCupid

it seems that OKCupid isn't seeing a real difference between Miami, Austin, and San Francisco - not to mention that rural Texas and the state next to big, gay DC appear about the same color - so it's not just (young) Californians saying they'd like to try both - it's users located virtually everywhere.  In this map, as you get redder, people identify as "more gay curious," and blue is "less gay curious."  Oh, Canada.  I also love how they have so effectively show the correlation of policital environment to expressed sexual desires.




But, folks, that's not all.  Take a look at these data points:

1. Only .1% or less of people who identify as gay even look for "straight" matches, debunking the notion that queers are always trying to recruit (clearly I am the exception to this statistic).
2. People who identify as gay have the same median number of sexual partners as those who identify as straight.
3. 1 in 3 "straight" women have hooked up with another woman and another 1 in 4 say they'd like to.
4. Of "straight"-identifying men, 13% have had a same-sex experience, and another 5% haven't yet but would like to.

There are lots of other interesting data points on gender and sexuality difference, so check out the whole OKCupid post for more.  There's certainly a lot to take away.  For my purposes, there's key insight into the updated Kinsey scale I have been trying to produce.

Kinsey had only one axis on his scale: same sex attraction to opposite-sex attraction.  OKCupid also tried to map "personality traits by orientation," and that graphic speaks to the need for two more axes:  Active/Top and Passive/Bottom, plus Hypersexual to Asexual (anecdotally, 2% of the gay men in OKCupid's study seemed to have 25% of all gay male sex).  Note that none of my axes is tagged to gender.  Gender is a concept divorced from biological sex (ask Cassandra Gorgeous) that varies, like the other items, over time.  But gender isn't relevant to where a person lands on this scale at any given time.

Once we build these X, Y, and Z axes, and identify a point in the cube that correlates to all three, we have an accurate picture of a sexual being.  The shape of the composite graph for all of humanity may look something like a sphere with six tiny points at each corner - the result of a standard bell curve extended over each axis and then cross-referenced. Alternately, there could be an equal distribution of the population along each axis.  Based on the OKCupid stats, however, the idea that the population is mostly at the edges of the axis is totally debunked.  Please feel free to comment with your spot on the map so we can see...

To demonstrate, the first image shows my spot on this graph; the second image shows the position of Jackson (co-conspirator of No Church in the Wild):


Me (4.5/6 active, 5 of 6 hypersexual, 3 of 6 same-sex attracted):

Jackson (3/6 active, 3.5 of 6 hypersexual, 5.5 of 6 same-sex attracted):

This graphical difference is more illustrative of the difference between my personality and Jackson's than the words "gay" and "bisexual" could ever convey.  I am always after it, happy with both sexes as partners, somewhat active.  He is not predominately active or passive, after it an average amount, and pretty much happy only with same sex partners. 

With the two additional axes of information we can get a clearer picture of the sexual compatibility of any two people.  Along the hypersexuality axis, I likely need someone mapped in about the same spot so we want to get down a comparable amount of the time.  Along the same-sex attraction scale, I'll likely be suited to someone (intellectually) who falls between my spot and the reciprocal spot on the other side of the axis (they have to be attracted to me, too, but might not like my flexible attractions as much in everyday conversation).  The ideal match with respect to the active scale, however, is precisely on the mirrored point on the other edge of the graph (if I am ideally active /on top 70% of the time, my ideal mate wants to be active only about 30% of the time).

Perhaps I should submit this graph to OKCupid to help them improve their algorithm :)

Two Gay Cocks in a Box

When I got a text message around 2pm on Saturday from a (hot) friend looking to barhop in Chinatown, I was intrigued.  After all, it doesn't seem like a spot with much non-stripper nightlife.

Well, I'll be damned, we hit all seven dive bars along the border of Chinatown and North Beach in three hours.  By 1:30 AM, I had only half of our original group still at it, all of us several drinks in, hot girl looking hotter all the time.  That meant it was time for the obligatory visit to a North Beach strip club.

Say what you will about strip clubs, strippers.  The ones I've met have been nice folks.  But we can certainly say that they do the sort of performance one thinks it will be a good idea to observe around 1:30 AM, drunk.  It was in this manner that my group of two gay men, my hypersexual self, a "straight girl" and two ladies purportedly of flexible sexuality made our way into this unionized 24-hour peep show at The Lusty Lady.  We'd resolved to make a night of it, having traveled so far from home for Chinatown exploits...

I paid a five dollar cover.  I take issue with covers from women at strip clubs - we're merely bringing more male customers in to spend money.  Still, I paid it, and walked into decor reminiscent of a Tenderloin motel to find that there were no strippers at all.  At least, there was no open stage, and at this moment the only entertainment available was a $1 peep show, which one could access by occupying any of the ten port-a-pottie sized booths.  Hot girl and the other women packed into the first available show, squealing all the way.  I waited with the gay boys for another to open up.

And yet, as we packed in, sardine-esque, and paid our dollar, we were permitted the vision of a Eastern European waif with pockets of cellulite and a repellent, sparsly-haired pussy for but a moment before she stopped and pointed at our window.

"Oh no, not two you!  Only one cock!  One cock only at a time!"

We looked at each other in the dark, then back at her.  "But we already paid," my friend said innocently.

"NO TWO COCKS IN THE BOX!"

I looked at her, falling into laughter, as she covered herself with some sort of green flowery scarf. "No, don't worry," I said, "They're both gay..."  I flailed my wrists to accentuate the point.

"NO TWO COCKS IN THE BOX!  NO TWO COCKS IN THE BOX!"

And out we went.  Thank you, San Francisco.

Could We "Stop Acting in a Gay Way"?

The National Organization for Marriage’s Jennifer Roback Morse has been talking her little Christian lips off about the difference between immutable race and "mutable" homosexuality in a truly infuriating manner.

I too have said that "gay" references a behavior rather than a personality, and a result some of my readers have asked how I am any better than this Morse bitch. So, I want to reply to them and to Mrs. Morse, being as intimately familiar as I am with one's capacity to switch between sexual behaviors.

I think "gay" is a word that helps Morse because it labels a personality based on a behavior - it assumes that homosexual attraction is perfectly correlated with homosexual activity.  I can attest from personal experience that it is not.  Mrs. Morse assumes, however, that because one can "switch off" the activity, one can also switch of the attraction and consequently be perfectly happy in this new, "switched" state.  Whether we act on our attractions is always a choice, whether we'd identify as queer or straight.  Ask the two wanks convicted last this week of raping an unconscious drunk girl - they made a choice to act on their attraction to her, and they paid the price they deserved to pay.

But, while I must make a conscious choice to have sex with a man or a woman, there is one thing I cannot choose: who I find myself naturally attracted to.  I can't help that I am attracted to women.  I also can't help whether that attraction is so strong that I cannot be fulfilled as a person without expressing it through sexual activity and lifetime companionship with women.  This is where Morse and the whole "gay is a choice" camp and I part ways.  You can turn off your attractions such that you don't act on them, true, but you can't necessarily be truly happy after you do.  This is why I instead advocate a new definition for "queer" that contemplates the majority of the population having SOME attraction going both ways.  At that point, we'd be talking about denying 80% of the population the right to marry as they choose rather than the 10% or so that fall into the "totally homosexual" category, and our fight gets much easier.

By the way, Morse, have you ever tasted a pussy?

Your Wednesday Dolores Park Circus Report

I'm relatively recently unemployed.  This has many downsides, but missing the opportunity to sit in Dolores Park on a random Wednesday afternoon is not one of them.  So, on a day like yesterday, when it's sunny and seventy degrees in early March, I can head out to join the unemployed/collegiate masses in the park at 3PM to take the proverbial sun and people-watch.  I was fully anticipating this would include shirtless men, especially at the Gay Beach.  I was NOT anticipating I'd see an all-out circus, complete with soundtrack.

This was only the beginning.  Two dudes in the foreground here showed up with long baton and started spinning them without hands and cartwheeling while the batons looped around their chests.  Next to them, a hot blonde chick in a long, lacy black dress hula-hooped for a solid hour, like a belly dancer handcuffed to the hoop.  Then a wiry young Asian man approached them and began to backflip and breakdance on the grass.  This caused the baton twirlers to seek his counsel, and for the next hour or so he attempted to show the Batonmen how to flip and twist right.

All over the green, there were handstands and flips and impromptu dancing.

Then, in the distance, between the four big palms just in front of the Christian Scientist Church (oh, the irony), some folks attached what I'm told is called a "slack line," and began some tightrope-style gymnastics.  This particular dude rocking the slack line had, for the record, a rockin' body - do keep an eye out for him next time you're in the park.  Do I know how they live in this town if they're as unemployed as they seem?  I do not.

I eventually tried joining some companions in a few yoga balances, just, you know, so I wouldn't feel out of place, but I've resolved I better get my own circus trick ready for the next visit lest someone realize I'm there observing without sweetening the weirdness pot at all.

I love you, San Francisco.

What My Vagina Can Do

In response to this Minnesota man's recent "testimony" to the Minnesota legislature in light of their consideration of a same-sex marriage bill, I wanted to clear up a few things about vaginas.  Clearly, there is some confusion.

You see, this "concerned father" and asshole, Mark Fry, argues against same-sex marriage on the premise that if same-sex persons are able to marry they will be able to (finally) have sex, and in the case of homosexuals this sex would be "sodomy," which he recalls as illegal in Minnesota, and notes the particular sensitivity of the colon to disease, particularly AIDS.

Wait, it gets better.  Apparently, same-sex marital coitus doesn't pose the same risk of a "health risk for society at large" and "a financial burden on the state paying for all the resulting disease." This is because  the vagina has a “barrier of cellular tissue that doesn’t allow the sperm… to penetrate the blood flow.”

This is disturbingly reminiscent of the recent Todd Akin (a congressman!) comments that the vagina has the capacity to repel the sperm of rapists by some miraculous natural mechanism.

Well boys, I have a vagina.  I'm a big fan of my vagina.  Let me tell you what it can do.  It can receive sexual overtures from another human, male or female, and it will accept my autostimulatory efforts in lieu of such overtures if I ask.  It can talk, hug, pulse.  It can become engorged.  It can lubricate itself.  It can shoot out babies from my uterus.  It could probably smoke a cigarette if I asked.  It can look pretty (though probably not when shooting out the aforementioned babies).

What my vagina, sadly, lacks, along with every other human vagina in the universe, is the capacity to repel sperm, viruses, bacteria, John Tesh, ill-advised musical numbers, tampons, badgers, Minnesota assholes, or rapist sperm.  You would know this, Todd Akin and Minnesota asshole, if you had a vagina.  But you do not.  So, for the love of god, stop talking about them like you know how they work.  Frankly, I'm shocked either of you knew enough about them to plant your own idiotic sperm in one.  And, man, do I pity that poor vagina.

Cassandra Gorgeous Speaks

At a pre-party for the Peaches Christ screening of Paris is Burning, I had the good fortune to be introduced to another SF writer, Drag personality Cassandra Gorgeous.  Cassandra told me about her novel, presently titled "The Accidental Rapist," which she's shopping to agents as I write.



Not surprisingly, Cassandra finds the mainstream publishing racket is not receptive to her provocative title.  I told her about the "you'd need to mainstream this up" kind of comments I got shopping No Church in the Wild. (I refused).  We bonded.  She was awesome, smart, loved writing as much as I.

So, what could a book called The Accidental Rapist be about that I, being as decidedly anti-rape as I am, could be dying to read?  She tells me it's a memoir about her experiences courting in Drag.  Specifically, her discovery that so many of the "straight"men she picked up in drag eventually asked her, over the course of their evening, to act out their common fantasy that she use the dick still hanging between her legs to mock-rape them.  You heard me, straight dudes (several of them) have made the same request for anal pounding after picking Cassandra up as Cassandra.

So, I submit to you, my dear two readers, this latest bit of evidence to support my theory that the word "straight" is as meaningless for all the personalities it purports to include as that problematic little word, "gay."

Peaches Christ!

The diva, the inspiration, the person herself.  Last night, she hosted a pre-mini-ball in honor of the screening of Paris is Burning at the Castro theater, with special guest judge Latrice Royale.  Watch the following video of Latrice's entrance while I regale you with the story of the rest of the evening.

A Ball, for those who don't know (I didn't), is an old institution formed when Drag Queens and Queers couldn't express themselves on the streets comfortably.  They would therefore meet at clandestine locations to perform as themselves among a welcoming community.  A ball involves several rounds of queer competition, from a Drag Queen runway-style walk through, then a queer boy vogue-off, to, in this case, a segment of men dressed as men but wearing heels otherwise (last night's victor was a burly gentleman in a football uniform and Dorothy-style red sequined heels).  The Drag Queen victor[ix] had papier mache-d herself a whole Roccoco-style queen of hearts outfit, headdress and all - very impressive.  To ensure that it was dramatic, the judges would occasionally bemoan that the contestants were showing for the audience and not for them, a screaming match would break out, and then Peaches would settle everyone down with her gravitas.  Peaches, it appears, can make anything a good time.

Latrice's entrance was particularly compelling given her attire - a full dress and bodysuit comprised of spandex silver and orange sequins - but the real treat came as her music began, when she stripped off her outer layer to reveal her bodysuit (she looked like a gargantuan lollipop, ball on stick, fantastic) and proceeded to do the drop splits.  Well done, lady. 

So, after the show I walked upstairs to where she and Latrice were, picked up a now-vintage poster of Silence of the Trans, and told Peaches I'd named a chapter after her sexy ass.  She smiled, and told me that was cool, and for this I am thankful (starstruck).

A Convergence of Swinging Circumstances

I recently happened upon a couple of pieces of press, one old and one new, that speak volumes for the "bi issues" I generally deal with.

First, there's this abundantly homophobic rap by some misguided Christian girl, who is clearly trying to explain to herself why she should not bury her face in a pussy.  Not only does she claim homosexuality is "counterfeit" heterosexuality, she constantly bemoans the fact that gay people spread AIDS.  Gross.

Next, there's this post by UK bisexual blogger Sue George arguing for more bisexual social commentary on the web (as opposed to bi cruising sites).  In particular, she askswhy there aren't more bi blogs from the US.

Well, Sue, this little bitch is why.  It's because the gay rights movement in the US is constantly forced to argue with people who think like her, and consequently they must argue that "homosexuality" is an immutable characteristic and that "homosexuals" have a right to the only attraction they have.  As you can imagine, this argument pretty purposefully excludes bisexual issues - it has to to be responsive.

Little Christian rapper girl would flip the fuck out if she heard me say (as I've said repeatedly), that "homosexuals" are really better described as one end of a spectrum that we all inhabit, and that almost everyone harbors some same-sex attraction.  Just because I CAN be happy with and attracted to a man doesn't mean that I should be or ultimately will be.  So, the US gay rights movement screws bisexuals, though I'm sure it doesn't intend to.  Of course, No Church in the Wild is my attempt to tell a "bisexual" story in a way that displays that our attractions are not simply polar, and that just because an opposite-sex partner is, in theory, acceptable doesn't mean I won't find more happiness with a same-sex partner.  Even more, the couching of the debate in terms of "homosexual" and "heterosexual"makes it impossible to win because it gives the false impression that there is a difference from the masses inherit in having some gay attraction to be recognized.  Except we're all working off the same brain structures...

I hope Sue keeps fighting the good fight, and others do, but we can't beat little Christian rapper girl until everyone recognizes that we're framing these arguments all wrong.

Interview this, bitch

Once I got canned, I decided to chat with local SOMA blog LiveSOMA about why...after the author caught me arguing with a transgender hater at the Marlena's closing last Friday.  If you're interested, check it out here.