There's an ooold, oold ani difranco song (before she had dreds or even green extensions, I think her hair was an even 2" all around at this point) with a lyric that's stuck in my head:
"You can talk of great philosophy/But if you can't be kind to people every day it doesn't mean that much to me/It's the little things you do, the little things you say/It's the love you give along the way"
Well, not exactly, but close, far as I'm concerned. Actually, it's being able to BOTH think strategically AND be kind to people every day. And by 'kind', in this case, I define that as whatever the recipient of the kindness identifies as 'kind', which can take a hell of a lot of paying attention to what the recipient thinks, says and does. I wrote a lengthy piece about how I'd like to operate in the world that's consistent with my politics, attempting to include the incredibly subtle stuff about ways I interact and understand the world, limited though it may be. This piece was part of an exercise from (*shudder* - am I about to publicly admit this? I suppose so...) The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, which has people go through a process of distilling their core beliefs and principles. Not a bad idea, especially for a person like me, who thinks about principles all the time in a broad stroke.
I may put that up here. I'm debating. Goad me into it if you want to see them...meester1_toth2@lycos3.com4 (remove the numbers from the address to use it, this is to prevent spammers. I've been blissfully spam-free thusfar)
Thursday, November 20, 2003
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
my political self-identification in three easy paragraphs
So I'm on this Anarchist soccer team, Kronstadt, the one that had a three-game series with the Left Wing soccer team (a.k.a. the Communist soccer team). Here are some pictures of game one if you're curious...but it takes a while to download, be warned.
Often, when I describe the series and the teams, people are amused that I'm on the anarchist team. I then launch into an explanation that in fact, I'm neither here nor there, and that the team recruited me first, etc., etc. not to apologize for the fact that I'm on the team, but to explain why some people find my affiliation an incongruity.
The team requested that people write up why we joined and how we politically self-identify, so I'm reposting it here (cuz why not). I can also point people to the schpiel here rather than running through it ad nauseum.
I joined [Kronstadt] team because Chris Crass recruited me at the May 19th Day of Racial Justice action that I'd been working on in the affinity group Global Intifada. He said, "Do you want to be a part of an anarchist soccer team?" and I replied, "Chris, I don't necessarily identify as an anarchist!" He said that was OK, that I supported anarchist organizing (which I do).
He also said that it was an effort to build community with members of Left Wing, which I would like to believe is both possible and happening at some level. At the time I questioned the use of competitive sports as a community building tool, given that competition is rife with issues when people are socialized in a capitalist society...invoking the very mechanisms of divide-and-conquer we're trying to overcome. I'm still not convinced, but gosh, I do like playing soccer, and it feels like a useful metaphor to air issues between the groups that otherwise may never have come up. It's safer to critique someone's soccer strategy than their organizing strategy....So if this is a way to build understanding and dialogue between revolutionary-minded anti-imperialists in the Bay Area, we're the better for it.
As far as my political self-identification, it's a bit hazy (except for the anti-racist anti-imperialist who strongly believes in the self-determination of oppressed peoples part). I've read a lot more Marx, Gramsci and Luxembourg than Kropotkin, Goldman and Burkman but anarchist critiques of Marx and of the implementation of Communist systems appeal to me; I found Marx's theories useful but elitist in places (and Leninist practice not so hot) and I appreciate anarchist ideas of decentralization. My being on an anarchist soccer team has led me to want to do more of my academic homework as far as anarchism has concerned, and it's been a great opportunity for me to engage around theory. My practice looks about the same as it did when I began, and I have a vested interest in maintaining a working relationship with quite a few members of Left Wing...I think it would be ridiculous to have the net outcome of this project be *less* unity among anti-imperialists in the Bay. In my opinion, Anarchists and Communists have done both crappy and brilliant things in the name of Anarchism and Communism...let's take what useful and good from both and unite around it, because there aren't enough of us to be picky. But, for the record, it makes me nervous to put all this out there. I'd appreciate the opportunity to continue to learn and grow with the team politically, as well as personally.
A friend of mine, upon hearing a recap of my political label, called it "cafeteria-style" - take what looks good and leave the rest. I was amused so I thought I'd share.
Often, when I describe the series and the teams, people are amused that I'm on the anarchist team. I then launch into an explanation that in fact, I'm neither here nor there, and that the team recruited me first, etc., etc. not to apologize for the fact that I'm on the team, but to explain why some people find my affiliation an incongruity.
The team requested that people write up why we joined and how we politically self-identify, so I'm reposting it here (cuz why not). I can also point people to the schpiel here rather than running through it ad nauseum.
I joined [Kronstadt] team because Chris Crass recruited me at the May 19th Day of Racial Justice action that I'd been working on in the affinity group Global Intifada. He said, "Do you want to be a part of an anarchist soccer team?" and I replied, "Chris, I don't necessarily identify as an anarchist!" He said that was OK, that I supported anarchist organizing (which I do).
He also said that it was an effort to build community with members of Left Wing, which I would like to believe is both possible and happening at some level. At the time I questioned the use of competitive sports as a community building tool, given that competition is rife with issues when people are socialized in a capitalist society...invoking the very mechanisms of divide-and-conquer we're trying to overcome. I'm still not convinced, but gosh, I do like playing soccer, and it feels like a useful metaphor to air issues between the groups that otherwise may never have come up. It's safer to critique someone's soccer strategy than their organizing strategy....So if this is a way to build understanding and dialogue between revolutionary-minded anti-imperialists in the Bay Area, we're the better for it.
As far as my political self-identification, it's a bit hazy (except for the anti-racist anti-imperialist who strongly believes in the self-determination of oppressed peoples part). I've read a lot more Marx, Gramsci and Luxembourg than Kropotkin, Goldman and Burkman but anarchist critiques of Marx and of the implementation of Communist systems appeal to me; I found Marx's theories useful but elitist in places (and Leninist practice not so hot) and I appreciate anarchist ideas of decentralization. My being on an anarchist soccer team has led me to want to do more of my academic homework as far as anarchism has concerned, and it's been a great opportunity for me to engage around theory. My practice looks about the same as it did when I began, and I have a vested interest in maintaining a working relationship with quite a few members of Left Wing...I think it would be ridiculous to have the net outcome of this project be *less* unity among anti-imperialists in the Bay. In my opinion, Anarchists and Communists have done both crappy and brilliant things in the name of Anarchism and Communism...let's take what useful and good from both and unite around it, because there aren't enough of us to be picky. But, for the record, it makes me nervous to put all this out there. I'd appreciate the opportunity to continue to learn and grow with the team politically, as well as personally.
A friend of mine, upon hearing a recap of my political label, called it "cafeteria-style" - take what looks good and leave the rest. I was amused so I thought I'd share.
fits and starts
Sheesh, I have an audience. Well, then it behooves me to mention that I'll be posting sporadically, especially since I'm having a somewhat major surgery in the next, oh, 7 days or so.
My first piece of feedback to attend to:
I'm in a radical Childcare Collective, and here's some information about them...thanks Melisa for pointing out that I had left this out of my bio. Bad Max!
The Childcare Collective was formed both in response to the very real need for childcare among social justice organizations and as part of a long-term effort to build a multi-generational movement with parents, women and children at its center. The Childcare Collective hopes to play a part in building a movement that recognizes and prioritizes the voices and political agendas of women and mothers, especially women of color, low-income women, and immigrants. The needs of parents have traditionally
not been recognized, and parents’ access to quality childcare is sporadic at best.
We are committed to provide grassroots organizations and movements composed of and led by immigrant women, low-income women, and women of color with trained, competent, patient and politicized childcare providers for one-time events or ongoing meetings. We are committed to taking leadership from the organizations we partner with, and we aim to help organizations take steps to organize self-sufficient, sustainable childcare if they identify that as an institutional need. We see childcare as a political act. To that end, we put the utmost emphasis on accountability, both to the organizations we partner with, and to the children and parents we work with.
In order for any movement to succeed, its ideas must be passed on from generation to generation. The Childcare Collective works to make sure that children are enjoying themselves and are informed about the work that the parents are doing. We hope to help children situate themselves as valuable and important members of a community and a movement.
For more info or to get added to our listserv, e-mail childcarecollective - @ - lycos.com (remove the spaces and dashes...spam prevention)
My first piece of feedback to attend to:
I'm in a radical Childcare Collective, and here's some information about them...thanks Melisa for pointing out that I had left this out of my bio. Bad Max!
The Childcare Collective was formed both in response to the very real need for childcare among social justice organizations and as part of a long-term effort to build a multi-generational movement with parents, women and children at its center. The Childcare Collective hopes to play a part in building a movement that recognizes and prioritizes the voices and political agendas of women and mothers, especially women of color, low-income women, and immigrants. The needs of parents have traditionally
not been recognized, and parents’ access to quality childcare is sporadic at best.
We are committed to provide grassroots organizations and movements composed of and led by immigrant women, low-income women, and women of color with trained, competent, patient and politicized childcare providers for one-time events or ongoing meetings. We are committed to taking leadership from the organizations we partner with, and we aim to help organizations take steps to organize self-sufficient, sustainable childcare if they identify that as an institutional need. We see childcare as a political act. To that end, we put the utmost emphasis on accountability, both to the organizations we partner with, and to the children and parents we work with.
In order for any movement to succeed, its ideas must be passed on from generation to generation. The Childcare Collective works to make sure that children are enjoying themselves and are informed about the work that the parents are doing. We hope to help children situate themselves as valuable and important members of a community and a movement.
For more info or to get added to our listserv, e-mail childcarecollective - @ - lycos.com (remove the spaces and dashes...spam prevention)
Saturday, November 15, 2003
a little more about me
Since many blogs are about people's soul-baring observations and assorted flotsam, and since I strongly believe the personal is, in fact, political, here are more things about me. Not things I would put in a bio, you've gotten most of the important demographic/work/orientation bidness.
Arbitrary Facts about Max:
Signing off my first blog venture,
-Max
Arbitrary Facts about Max:
- I think that guinea pigs, while being an important food source for a portion of the world, are completely adorable. When I do network testing, I use the "Guinea Pig TeleVision" site (which refreshes every two minutes).
- I ran away from home when I was two weeks past 17, and never went back. As a consequence, I now have a meaningful and deep relationship to my parents instead of a headstone. Yay for doing things the hard way!
- I should be asleep right now. Right, you knew that.
- My friends tease me for not reading fiction. Does it show? I suppose. But there are authors whom I read when I'm not in the middle of 6 non-fiction treatises...like Sherman Alexie, Ntozake Shange, Leslie Marmon Silko and Toni Morrison.
- I habitually spoof song lyrics (some of which I may post) and like drawing cartoons. I've been a little uninspired (and way overcommitted) lately, but if I have free time (hah!) and a scanner, I may grace these pages with something.I did an inspired ad for a 24-hour white-guilt hotline that I was particularly proud of...
- I'm a big fan of Kermit the Frog.
- I'm fond of run-on sentences, parentheticals, and elipses. I will try my darndest to spare you, gracious reader.
Signing off my first blog venture,
-Max
sex nerds?
A looong time ago, a pal of mine forwarded a call for submissions by a 'zine (print) intriguingly entitled 'sex nerds'. I sent forth my piece after much hand-wringing, heard praise from the editors, and nothing hence. So here, dear audience, is that piece for you today. May there be fellow political sex nerds in the blogosphere to witness this. NOTE: This is the final version, I dredged it up from my work...the first version was a little rough.
Talking the Walk: Toward a Politics of Consent
"Recognizing the power of the erotic within our lives can give us the energy to pursue genuine change within our world, rather than merely settling for a shift of characters in the same weary drama."
-Audre Lorde, "Uses of the Erotic: the Erotic as Power" Sister Outsider: The Crossing Press, 1984, p59.
I take consent seriously. Incredibly seriously. As someone who has experienced a range of non-consenting sexual and emotional encounters, I've had a fair amount to ponder over my somewhat short 26 years, and I'm by no means on the short end of the lack-of-consent stick. Also, as someone who was politicized firstly through my mother's second wave 'white feminism', and then through predominantly white queer youth organizing in a suburban town, politics and sexuality cannot be separated for me. Nor can it be simplified, as I am simultaneously privileged by my white skin and male presentation while oppressed for my queer sexuality and gender.
Broadly, I define consent as the conscious and informed undertaking of an activity. It sounds really simple, but I know that I, as a person who thinks excessively about consent, have had to do years of work to develop my own consciousness (which I see as a lifelong process, but that's another article entirely) and to educate myself about situations that I might get involved in. I'm also real particular in that I see a lack of action as an action - for example, if I know there's white male supremacy in the world that I benefit from, but claim not to agree with, I can't sit around and read about how bad it is all the time (although that's part of the work - the reading, not the sitting) but don't do anything to challenge it in terms of both my personal behavior and challenging institutions of white male supremacy, then my lack of action is clearly speaking volumes about what I'm really committed to. Ya know?
But we're here to talk sexual consent, also. The way I developed thoughts about sexual consent was more based in my life and experiences, and the lives and experiences of my friends and lovers over time. During the course of my sexual history (neither the most extensive nor the least) I came upon a jarring trend that may come as a surprise to some (and certainly not to others). The trend was exemplified by remarks from my partners (all of whom but two directly experience(d) sexism in their lives), like "Gee, I've never been asked to articulate my sexual desires verbally in that way before. That was really helpful..." or "nobody's ever asked me if I wanted to do that." Something about that smacks me as really, really not OK, but in no way a critique of my partners. Far from it! They were courageous enough to be vulnerable about their desires in a world that has proscribed such vulnerability to be gender treachery. I bring this experience to your attention, dear reader, to level a charge to all people in relative positions of power, particularly male-identified people: What exactly are y'all doing out there that my questions, my insistence of verbal consent, come as a shock to people in radical/progressive political communities? As far as I'm concerned, that means it's far past due to raise the standards around what constitutes consent, and I hope I'm not the only person who has ideas about how to raise those standards. I've just yet to meet anybody who has expressed it to me. The sad fact of the matter is, no matter how developed some of mine and my partners' analysis is vis à vis countering male hegemony, the lived experience of my female-socialized partners is still one where they aren't being explicitly asked about consent, or even what pleasures them, by their other partners. As a point of reference here, my partners' former partners are a mixed group of folks. It's not like they'd only been dating macho straight guys; most are queer women who've dated a variety of folks.
Based on my earlier definition of consent, I specifically define sexual consent as a whole sexuality that simultaneously counters male supremacy while allowing all parties, to have (lots of?) hot sex, and engage in whatever conscious power play that gets them (us?) off. I actually can't imagine participating in, much less enjoying, sex that I knew was re-entrenching male supremacy. I think sex with me requires a whole lot more talking than most people are used to, but oh well. Not any complaints about that, so far. Getting to knoooow you, getting to know all abooooouuut you... . For me, it also means always, always, always erring on the side of caution. I can't think of a single example of someone complaining to me that a partner was too cautious...except prior to sex. Compared to the number of people who've complained of a "pushy" partner, well, it's not rocket science to me what I should do.
On that tip, here are some of the things I do. I initiate conversations, even if I feel terribly nervous doing so. Believe me, I have as many rejection issues as the rest of us, but practice does help considerably. I put myself out on the line. Much of it for me is about delivery-I can't say what I want in a way that implies to my date that I'll leave if they're not into whatever it is. But, it does help to be vulnerable and let my date know that I'm not asking something of them I wouldn't answer myself (and, that I'm nervous, too!). If I do get a response about how the person hasn't answered a question such as, "Well, what do you like to do? What don't you like?", I ask them to think about past experiences (while letting the person know they don't have to share) and see if something comes to mind.
Back to cautiousness - a large part of erring on the side of caution means that I require verbal consent. I've experienced and heard accounts of far too many gray areas, often where the partner with the most institutional power thought everything was A-OK, while the partner with less institutional power had not given explicit consent, nor would they have. My political principles mandate that to be accountable (willing to receive challenges about my beliefs and behavior, and change accordingly), I must be transparent, and to be transparent, I must be explicit (often in more ways than one - !), forthcoming, and conscious of power dynamics which may be at play in the interaction.
Contrary to popular belief, often the experience of negotiating sex, a scene, and even the terms of a relationship is very hot. Seeing someone articulate what they are pleasured by, as occasionally squirmy and embarrassing as that can be for all parties more often ends in unparalleled giddiness and excitement to get started than uncomfortable silence or an unwillingness to commence. Frankly, if it isn't going to work for either of us, I'd rather know before we get our clothes off. I have yet to have been rejected for asking someone what they like to do in bed (or in alleyways, or on kitchen tables, etc., etc.). While I've had many intellectual conversations with people about my approach and the principles about it, most of peoples' hesitancy is around "the mood being spoiled" or other things indicating rejection or a missed opportunity. In a lot of ways, I have to thank being socialize in an era of safe sex, and having worked at an HIV prevention agency for several years - but let's face it, folks, we have plenty to talk about beforehand these days with the potential bugs floating around, so conversations about consent and what gets us off sound almost relaxing by comparison. Like I said, I've yet to miss an "opportunity" that wasn't made into a far hotter event by slowing down and understanding what my lover(s) want from sex in advance.
More importantly, when I think about consent for any length of time, I can't stay in the realm of the sexual. As much as I was raised in sexual identity politics (and later in trans and gender-variant politics), I also see a real danger in staying in an identity politic as an end unto itself. I don't want to use my identity as a queer person to try and exempt myself from the institutional privilege I gain as a white and male-presenting person in the U.S. Along similar lines, I am cautious about leaving an entire conceptual framework (consent) in the realm of one aspect of my life (sexuality).
When I apply my definition of consent to the world around me, I get real mad. There is a whole lot in this world that I don't consent to, and that the vast majority people on this earth do not consent to, some of which I even purportedly benefit from. I say "purportedly" because I don't see a system of white male privilege as ultimately a benefit to white male-presenting people, including myself. While I am very aware of how my lived experience is obscenely comfortable compared to almost anyone else in the world, I would really rather work and live in standards that everyone could share and die honest than live knowing that the support of my mere existence is the cause of massive suffering worldwide.
Therefore, I do not consent that by virtue of my arbitrary birth, 95% of the world's population is terrorized, impoverished, abused, and poisoned to maintain the standard of living I "enjoy". I do not consent to the below-poverty wages set for the (likely) Woman of Color who sewed my shoes, even if I bought them from a used clothing store. I do not consent to the exposure of the workers who picked the food I ate in a restaurant last night to large quantities of pesticides, to the likelihood that they have no electricity or running water, I know it's cold comfort to the people whose lives are in the process of being considered forfeit by the institutional structures of hegemony. So I do whatever, whenever I can, to stand up and say a huge "NO!" to the folks at the top who would put me as interlocutor, buffer, enforcer and beneficiary of that system. If anything, I would rather be engaged in reparative social action, but that's another topic altogether. What I can and currently do is to actively resist and publicly challenge dynamics of racism, sexism, economic injustice when I see them; develop accountable political relationships with organizers of color (especially women) from whom I can take direction and develop analysis, and most simply, do what I say I'm going to do, again, and again, and again. And when I falter, which I will invariably do, I try to learn from the experience, change my behavior, and continue in the struggle.
So what does this have to do with sexual consent? Well, a world that was based on consent, to me, would be about equitable relationships. In order to have anything approaching an equitable relationship in today's world (which, for the record, I'm not all that sure can be obtained), there's a whole lot of work to be done. For me, that work involves asking a lot of questions, letting the persons most affected by the institutional systems of oppression in this world define for me what consent looks like to them, letting them know what it looks like for me (because I still get to define the terms of what happens to my body and my sexuality) and following their terms as best I know how. To my mind, these thoughts begin to form a politics of sexual self-determination. I approach every sexual situation as a new opportunity to learn from my past and work toward the most equitable, consenting one that my lovers and I can muster. Revolutionary sexuality is hot!
Max Toth is a white queer transguy activist-type in San Francisco, California. By day the office manager of a nonprofit, by night a member of HeadsUp - SF, an anti-racist anti-war group; a hitherto unnamed-if-committed group of white guys trying to challenge racism and partiarchy. As part of being a self-identified sex nerd, he strongly believes that constructive criticism is an act of love, so you can send him that love (and other comments). He also owes a huge debt to Audre Lorde's writings, foremost the book Sister Outsider for laying the foundation of his first politically conscious thought about sexuality and consent. He thinks everyone should read it, but he's not the boss of you.
Talking the Walk: Toward a Politics of Consent
"Recognizing the power of the erotic within our lives can give us the energy to pursue genuine change within our world, rather than merely settling for a shift of characters in the same weary drama."
-Audre Lorde, "Uses of the Erotic: the Erotic as Power" Sister Outsider: The Crossing Press, 1984, p59.
I take consent seriously. Incredibly seriously. As someone who has experienced a range of non-consenting sexual and emotional encounters, I've had a fair amount to ponder over my somewhat short 26 years, and I'm by no means on the short end of the lack-of-consent stick. Also, as someone who was politicized firstly through my mother's second wave 'white feminism', and then through predominantly white queer youth organizing in a suburban town, politics and sexuality cannot be separated for me. Nor can it be simplified, as I am simultaneously privileged by my white skin and male presentation while oppressed for my queer sexuality and gender.
Broadly, I define consent as the conscious and informed undertaking of an activity. It sounds really simple, but I know that I, as a person who thinks excessively about consent, have had to do years of work to develop my own consciousness (which I see as a lifelong process, but that's another article entirely) and to educate myself about situations that I might get involved in. I'm also real particular in that I see a lack of action as an action - for example, if I know there's white male supremacy in the world that I benefit from, but claim not to agree with, I can't sit around and read about how bad it is all the time (although that's part of the work - the reading, not the sitting) but don't do anything to challenge it in terms of both my personal behavior and challenging institutions of white male supremacy, then my lack of action is clearly speaking volumes about what I'm really committed to. Ya know?
But we're here to talk sexual consent, also. The way I developed thoughts about sexual consent was more based in my life and experiences, and the lives and experiences of my friends and lovers over time. During the course of my sexual history (neither the most extensive nor the least) I came upon a jarring trend that may come as a surprise to some (and certainly not to others). The trend was exemplified by remarks from my partners (all of whom but two directly experience(d) sexism in their lives), like "Gee, I've never been asked to articulate my sexual desires verbally in that way before. That was really helpful..." or "nobody's ever asked me if I wanted to do that." Something about that smacks me as really, really not OK, but in no way a critique of my partners. Far from it! They were courageous enough to be vulnerable about their desires in a world that has proscribed such vulnerability to be gender treachery. I bring this experience to your attention, dear reader, to level a charge to all people in relative positions of power, particularly male-identified people: What exactly are y'all doing out there that my questions, my insistence of verbal consent, come as a shock to people in radical/progressive political communities? As far as I'm concerned, that means it's far past due to raise the standards around what constitutes consent, and I hope I'm not the only person who has ideas about how to raise those standards. I've just yet to meet anybody who has expressed it to me. The sad fact of the matter is, no matter how developed some of mine and my partners' analysis is vis à vis countering male hegemony, the lived experience of my female-socialized partners is still one where they aren't being explicitly asked about consent, or even what pleasures them, by their other partners. As a point of reference here, my partners' former partners are a mixed group of folks. It's not like they'd only been dating macho straight guys; most are queer women who've dated a variety of folks.
Based on my earlier definition of consent, I specifically define sexual consent as a whole sexuality that simultaneously counters male supremacy while allowing all parties, to have (lots of?) hot sex, and engage in whatever conscious power play that gets them (us?) off. I actually can't imagine participating in, much less enjoying, sex that I knew was re-entrenching male supremacy. I think sex with me requires a whole lot more talking than most people are used to, but oh well. Not any complaints about that, so far.
On that tip, here are some of the things I do. I initiate conversations, even if I feel terribly nervous doing so. Believe me, I have as many rejection issues as the rest of us, but practice does help considerably. I put myself out on the line. Much of it for me is about delivery-I can't say what I want in a way that implies to my date that I'll leave if they're not into whatever it is. But, it does help to be vulnerable and let my date know that I'm not asking something of them I wouldn't answer myself (and, that I'm nervous, too!). If I do get a response about how the person hasn't answered a question such as, "Well, what do you like to do? What don't you like?", I ask them to think about past experiences (while letting the person know they don't have to share) and see if something comes to mind.
Back to cautiousness - a large part of erring on the side of caution means that I require verbal consent. I've experienced and heard accounts of far too many gray areas, often where the partner with the most institutional power thought everything was A-OK, while the partner with less institutional power had not given explicit consent, nor would they have. My political principles mandate that to be accountable (willing to receive challenges about my beliefs and behavior, and change accordingly), I must be transparent, and to be transparent, I must be explicit (often in more ways than one - !), forthcoming, and conscious of power dynamics which may be at play in the interaction.
Contrary to popular belief, often the experience of negotiating sex, a scene, and even the terms of a relationship is very hot. Seeing someone articulate what they are pleasured by, as occasionally squirmy and embarrassing as that can be for all parties more often ends in unparalleled giddiness and excitement to get started than uncomfortable silence or an unwillingness to commence. Frankly, if it isn't going to work for either of us, I'd rather know before we get our clothes off. I have yet to have been rejected for asking someone what they like to do in bed (or in alleyways, or on kitchen tables, etc., etc.). While I've had many intellectual conversations with people about my approach and the principles about it, most of peoples' hesitancy is around "the mood being spoiled" or other things indicating rejection or a missed opportunity. In a lot of ways, I have to thank being socialize in an era of safe sex, and having worked at an HIV prevention agency for several years - but let's face it, folks, we have plenty to talk about beforehand these days with the potential bugs floating around, so conversations about consent and what gets us off sound almost relaxing by comparison. Like I said, I've yet to miss an "opportunity" that wasn't made into a far hotter event by slowing down and understanding what my lover(s) want from sex in advance.
More importantly, when I think about consent for any length of time, I can't stay in the realm of the sexual. As much as I was raised in sexual identity politics (and later in trans and gender-variant politics), I also see a real danger in staying in an identity politic as an end unto itself. I don't want to use my identity as a queer person to try and exempt myself from the institutional privilege I gain as a white and male-presenting person in the U.S. Along similar lines, I am cautious about leaving an entire conceptual framework (consent) in the realm of one aspect of my life (sexuality).
When I apply my definition of consent to the world around me, I get real mad. There is a whole lot in this world that I don't consent to, and that the vast majority people on this earth do not consent to, some of which I even purportedly benefit from. I say "purportedly" because I don't see a system of white male privilege as ultimately a benefit to white male-presenting people, including myself. While I am very aware of how my lived experience is obscenely comfortable compared to almost anyone else in the world, I would really rather work and live in standards that everyone could share and die honest than live knowing that the support of my mere existence is the cause of massive suffering worldwide.
Therefore, I do not consent that by virtue of my arbitrary birth, 95% of the world's population is terrorized, impoverished, abused, and poisoned to maintain the standard of living I "enjoy". I do not consent to the below-poverty wages set for the (likely) Woman of Color who sewed my shoes, even if I bought them from a used clothing store. I do not consent to the exposure of the workers who picked the food I ate in a restaurant last night to large quantities of pesticides, to the likelihood that they have no electricity or running water, I know it's cold comfort to the people whose lives are in the process of being considered forfeit by the institutional structures of hegemony. So I do whatever, whenever I can, to stand up and say a huge "NO!" to the folks at the top who would put me as interlocutor, buffer, enforcer and beneficiary of that system. If anything, I would rather be engaged in reparative social action, but that's another topic altogether. What I can and currently do is to actively resist and publicly challenge dynamics of racism, sexism, economic injustice when I see them; develop accountable political relationships with organizers of color (especially women) from whom I can take direction and develop analysis, and most simply, do what I say I'm going to do, again, and again, and again. And when I falter, which I will invariably do, I try to learn from the experience, change my behavior, and continue in the struggle.
So what does this have to do with sexual consent? Well, a world that was based on consent, to me, would be about equitable relationships. In order to have anything approaching an equitable relationship in today's world (which, for the record, I'm not all that sure can be obtained), there's a whole lot of work to be done. For me, that work involves asking a lot of questions, letting the persons most affected by the institutional systems of oppression in this world define for me what consent looks like to them, letting them know what it looks like for me (because I still get to define the terms of what happens to my body and my sexuality) and following their terms as best I know how. To my mind, these thoughts begin to form a politics of sexual self-determination. I approach every sexual situation as a new opportunity to learn from my past and work toward the most equitable, consenting one that my lovers and I can muster. Revolutionary sexuality is hot!
Max Toth is a white queer transguy activist-type in San Francisco, California. By day the office manager of a nonprofit, by night a member of HeadsUp - SF, an anti-racist anti-war group; a hitherto unnamed-if-committed group of white guys trying to challenge racism and partiarchy. As part of being a self-identified sex nerd, he strongly believes that constructive criticism is an act of love, so you can send him that love (and other comments). He also owes a huge debt to Audre Lorde's writings, foremost the book Sister Outsider for laying the foundation of his first politically conscious thought about sexuality and consent. He thinks everyone should read it, but he's not the boss of you.
a poem in progress
So I write poetry! Anyone who comes across this and knows me in real life may be fairly shocked at this fact. I try not to subject anyone to it. But, if you've made it this far, you've seen my complicated feelings about consent, and I consider you to be consenting henceforth. Here goes.
To white people with dreds.
I have to love you
It’s my job, you see
Because it sure isn’t the job
Of the people
Whose cultures of resistance
You conveniently
Consume
The consequences of which
Are the occasional look
Of disdain
But not down the barrel
Of a gun.
Nope.
It’s my job because
As much as there is
Scarce evidence
That my faith will be realized
I must have faith in white people
To resist racism
Respectfully
To challenge the system of
500 years
of our supremacist upbringing
teaching us nothing
but propriety and self-righteousness
To have faith in myself.
So because I love you
And because I believe
That constructive criticism
Is an act of love
I ask you
The white girl who told me that sugar wasn’t vegan
The white boy at the rally standing in front of me
Even you, ani difranco
Stop trying to be someone
You’re not, and spend
That time
Listening to the people
Whose legacies you are
Presently disrespecting.
To white people with dreds.
I have to love you
It’s my job, you see
Because it sure isn’t the job
Of the people
Whose cultures of resistance
You conveniently
Consume
The consequences of which
Are the occasional look
Of disdain
But not down the barrel
Of a gun.
Nope.
It’s my job because
As much as there is
Scarce evidence
That my faith will be realized
I must have faith in white people
To resist racism
Respectfully
To challenge the system of
500 years
of our supremacist upbringing
teaching us nothing
but propriety and self-righteousness
To have faith in myself.
So because I love you
And because I believe
That constructive criticism
Is an act of love
I ask you
The white girl who told me that sugar wasn’t vegan
The white boy at the rally standing in front of me
Even you, ani difranco
Stop trying to be someone
You’re not, and spend
That time
Listening to the people
Whose legacies you are
Presently disrespecting.
Now that you're here...
Howdy, folks!
Not that you will be an extensive audience, but perhaps. A boy can hope.
I establish this page with the goal of throwing some of my writing into public space, mostly to test-market it (to use a horribly capitalist concept) to see whether I should produce a print 'zine. And hey, it's free, why not.
Flame me and I'll ignore you. Otherwise, I care what people think and want to hear from you. No, really.
Why you should bother reading any of this:
1. I'm funny
2. I'm weird*
3. It builds character, like so much eating of Wheaties.
No really, #3 is: I really love to engage with people about politics and the difficult business of changing the ways power is distributed in the world. I am a flaming and unapologetic Leftist.
*OK, well. I'm weird by most people's standards, I'm a 27-y-o white transgendered/genderqueer of the f-t-m variety who is in two long-term relationships at once; yes, they know about each other and everything, it's called "polyamory". Yes, I live in San Francisco. No, I do not strive to be a cliché, it just happens that way sometimes.
Yours,
-Max
Not that you will be an extensive audience, but perhaps. A boy can hope.
I establish this page with the goal of throwing some of my writing into public space, mostly to test-market it (to use a horribly capitalist concept) to see whether I should produce a print 'zine. And hey, it's free, why not.
Flame me and I'll ignore you. Otherwise, I care what people think and want to hear from you. No, really.
Why you should bother reading any of this:
1. I'm funny
2. I'm weird*
3. It builds character, like so much eating of Wheaties.
No really, #3 is: I really love to engage with people about politics and the difficult business of changing the ways power is distributed in the world. I am a flaming and unapologetic Leftist.
*OK, well. I'm weird by most people's standards, I'm a 27-y-o white transgendered/genderqueer of the f-t-m variety who is in two long-term relationships at once; yes, they know about each other and everything, it's called "polyamory". Yes, I live in San Francisco. No, I do not strive to be a cliché, it just happens that way sometimes.
Yours,
-Max
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)