If you got a curable STD from a trick/sex partner, and you knew that both you and they had been to the doc and had it "dealt with," is it ok to sleep with them again?I'll say this: I thought I was going to LOL a lot more than I did. Two central themes: 1) NO, and 2) did he cheat on me? That's no fun. This is a serious concern, folks. Well, not for me, for a "friend."
Ring, ring.STD Guy (S): "Hey."Friend (F): "Hey."S: "What's up?"F: "I think you should get yourself checked out."S: "For what?"F: "I'm dripping."S: "Oh."*PAUSE*S: "So, you wanna fuck around once I get it done?"F: "Sure."
If you got a curable STD from a trick/sex partner, and you knew that both you and they had been to the doc and had it "dealt with," is it ok to sleep with them again?I eagerly wait your responses. :-)
We all have those lists -- you know, for couples it's "who I can sleep with and it not be considered cheating," for gay men it's "women I would still sleep with," (for straight men, it might be "men I would sleep with") etc. -- what's your list and who's on it?
Who is the sexiest man alive (besides me, duh)?
YEA QUESTION FOR FRIDAY! It makes me very happy to come home from school, open a beer, do some laundry, and put together this post. It makes a great end to my week. Much love to all the contributors to this week's question:
Under the rule of Emperor Claudius II Rome was involved in many bloody and unpopular campaigns. Claudius the Cruel was having a difficult time getting soldiers to join his military leagues. He believed that the reason was that roman men did not want to leave their loves or families. As a result, Claudius cancelled all marriages and engagements in Rome. The good Saint Valentine was a priest at Rome in the days of Claudius II. He and Saint Marius aided the Christian martyrs and secretly married couples, and for this kind deed Saint Valentine was apprehended and dragged before the Prefect of Rome, who condemned him to be beaten to death with clubs and to have his head cut off. He suffered martyrdom on the 14th day of February, about the year 270. At that time it was the custom in Rome, a very ancient custom, indeed, to celebrate in the month of February the Lupercalia, feasts in honour of a heathen god. On these occasions, amidst a variety of pagan ceremonies, the names of young women were placed in a box, from which they were drawn by the men as chance directed.So, like all great holidays, it's all about people getting killed. And wife swapping. That would explain all the hearts. And the VD.
(from here)
Valentine's Day, eh?Hope everyone is having a FABULOUS week!
There is one more piece after this one -- a guest blogger that I am so happy to be writing for QueerCincinnati.com.
Update (8 hours later): Perhaps I am not the most lucid on this subject; perhaps I am not as clear as many of my commentators. In reality, I am still struggling with it. Lately, I've felt someone numb to a lot of the rhetoric around semantics. My good friend called me a pragmatic feminist when I chose to support Hillary Clinton in the primary; this friend, as with others of that group, often comment that my response to most things is: "Yea, it's nice to talk about it, but what are you going to do about it?"
I am, at my heart, a pragmatist, and the ongoing debate even in risk behavior of identification seems a little much. After all, does it matter if someone identifies as gay if they take it up the ass in the bathhouse? No. In the same way, does it matter if someone identifies as transgender or tranny or metrosexual or androgynous if they still lack the same rights as other people, or are treated as less than human based on their gender expression or identity? No.
Like with my feelings on the queer theorists -- there are still very practical things that need to happen within the gender movement (public education, basic rights, insurance coverage of SRS, etc. etc. etc.) before we can really move truly into the semantic debates that this whole issue over tranny can matter, ultimately.
At the same time, there is something to be said for reclamation and power. I have taken on the term "queer," as a way of empowering it on my terms, rather than allowing homophobic individuals to claim it as their word of power.
An anecdote: at Miami, two of my dear male friends were walking down the street, hand in hand, and a car full of boys drove by and started screaming "FAGGOTS." I still remember, in a moment of wonderment, both of them screaming back: "YES WE ARE." And, thus, the potential hurt and shame that word implies is taken away and the two boys were allowed to identify and empower themselves despite the discrimination.
"Tranny." Hrm.
No, you don't have to identify as such, and you don't have to like it. But, I think, if you allow the hate that people can infuse into the word to define it, then you've all ready lost, haven't you?
I think there's a lot that's been said over the last week and a half on this blog and others on the word "tranny," and I'm not quite sure I yet understand what the problem is. You are going to have to walk with me through this, and understand that I am processing the information rather than making a definitive statement.
As always, I'm learning, and I'm not always the best on trans-issues, but I've always been open to learning.
Is there anything wrong with the word "tranny" -- no, I don't think so -- in much the way that the words "fag" or "queer" or "dyke" have absolutely nothing wrong with them, by their very nature. It's all in how they are used. And, though I have a thing against moral relativism, I think it's valid in this situation.
Working in the Emergency Department gives me an interesting perspective: there are people out there that identify, or, at least, refer to themselves as trannies. It's their identity. Unfortunately for the dominant hegemonistic rhetoric that seems to be developing over the terminology, they lack the proper education and access to Judith Butler to truly understand what awfulness their identification enacts upon the movement as a whole. Sure, if pressed, they will tell you that they are one of the "big three T's" -- transvestite, transsexual, or transgender. On a daily basis, though, they are simply tranny.
It's certainly what their john's refer to them as.
In a way I just posited that to rail against the term is both racist and classist. In the porn industry, too, "tranny is used about as much as as "chicks with dicks." So, there's that...
I used to be really, really against the word FAG. In fact, I ran a whole series on it -- well, sort of, it was a brief series. But I use the word too, affectionately. Now, granted, I use FAG as the basest of the queer insults, but it's never actually hateful in its use. It's just the lowest denominator, in a way. I grew out of my displeasure with the term because I was more upset with how it was being used rather than that it was being used at all.
I think tranny is, or should be, much the same way.
If I'm a raging transphobic asshole, I can understand why someone would take great offense to my using 'tranny' to describe anything. But I'm part of the community, and I'm supportive generally of trans-issues, and I have my own trans-expression issues, so is it fair for me to use the term lovingly?
Of course it is, in much the same way Christian Soriano (or whatever) used it. (Guess what? He's sort of a tranny too... go ahead, challenge me that he's never run into discrimination based on his expression.)
This has become a bit on the rambling side, so I'll just close it up by saying this: there's really nothing wrong with the term tranny, IMHO. However, if someone is offended by it, then the appropriate response is to inform me and then I'll stop using it in reference to them. I think, too often, we confuse what is offensive to me personally and what is genuinely offensive to human dignity. If something is offensive, then say so. If something is genuinely hateful and expressed in a hateful way, then it should be stopped.
I think that most people in the community don't use tranny hatefully, or, at least, not with the intent of being hateful.
On the other side, it's not a term that should be used in journalism. It's not even a real word, in this context. "Tranny," then, should be eschewed in favor of the proper terminology. But, as I have said before, I am not a journalist.
Rereading this, I don't know if I like what I wrote... I'm not sure I got my point across. So watch for updates.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with referring to your car's transmission by it's shortened and endearing nickname.
It will also earn you the respect of your mechanic, as he'll think you are comfortable with the inner workings of the drivetrain and he'll be less likely to attempt to overcharge you.
Sorry, I couldn't resist the little joke.
But the most interesting response comes from us by Facebook, where Trevor Hoppe (honestly I am always surprised when Trevor references me -- he's SO COOL :-) -- JK) and BadEvan (the celebrity, no less!) went back and forth for a bit on it in my comments section:
TH: Well just like "gay" has become used in pop culture to describe something lame or stupid, "tranny" has popped up (thanks to Christian on PR) as a way to say messy / ugly / sloppy. But that doesn't stop my transgender friends from using it to describe themselves / their friends / others. So as Daniel says, context is crucial.
BE: I don't see a problem with it. I, as a big MO, use the term Faggot all the time. Words only have negative powers if you let them.
I think it's just a bunch of PC BS. I know many transgender folks who use the term. I think the real issue is the tone you use. If you say faggot or tranny but mean freak or disgusting evil sodomite...then well You're a douche bag... and who cares what you say/think?
BE: Really people use tranny to mean sloppy/messy and ugly? I've never heard that anywhere... I would probably have to get in some ones face if I heard them say something like that in that manner...
TH: See Christian Siriano on Project Runway. After he coined "Hot Tranny Mess," that phrase was everywhere (talk shows, magazines, blogs, etc). The tranny in that phrase is key -- it points to a gendered failure.
BE: I've heard the phrase "hot tranny mess" used before... but it's been in ref to a Transgender person who looks like their affirmed sexuality, but has many many issues that are very apparent when you meet.
I don't like the phrase...but I don't think it was/is used to describe trans people as ugly/messy/or sloppy. I think that's how some people may want to spin it.
It to me is the same as saying "he's a flaming fag"...while I don't like it... it's a way for people to say... "he's a very effeminate homosexual male who embodies many of the homosexual stereotypes that society has noticed or relegated to gay men."
TH: Errr... it wasn't used to describe trans people at all. In pop culture, it's typically used to describe women who are messy / sloppy / etc.
BE: Ok...well that's just fraking wrong! I would have to cut a MoFo for saying something like that in ear shot of me.
Then we have the one-line answers:
And then we have an amazing set of responses on this blog from people who had some great things to say about the subject.
From JereKeys:
There is nothing inherently wrong with the word. Just as there is nothing inherently wrong with the words "nigger" "faggot" "cunt" "kike" "jap" "wetback" or "retard."From the editor of the F6 blog, who commentates occasionally on this blog:
Members of the groups for whom these words are directed, however, associate them with oppression (sometimes even violence) and hate. Because of the negative associations, people to whom these words are directed have asked that those of us who do not belong to the group stop using them. Our willingness to consider the feelings of those oppressed groups ultimately says more about us than anything else.
"But when I say @$%&#!, I don't mean it offensively, everyone knows that!" No. They don't. All they know is that you don't appear to be terribly educated on the history of oppression and abuse from people who use that word with genuine hate in their heart.
It doesn't hurt me to remove words like "tranny" and "retard" and "nigger" from my language. I'm not harmed in any way. I don't understand why common courtesy and empathy result in so many anguished cries of "Aarrgh, you're limiting my free speech!! Stop being so sensitive!! Damned political correctness is killing me!! It's kiiiiillllllliiiiinnnnnngggggg mmmmeeeeeeeeeeee!"
My frustration comes into play when you have 20 descriptors for five groups of people, depending on what stage, identity, social role, etc. they are in at the moment. There is no one consistent that even applies to one individual member of the TransGendered and or InterSexed Community.From dear dear friend Jeffery (who tweets at @Jeff_Dalton):
This is why the press and even OUR COMMUNITY's entertainment "elite (such as Johnny McGovern & Co.)" still refer to them as "a hot trannie mess". The Bible just called them all Eunuchs when translated into English.
There is no one label that applies even tranny is a misnomer when you are dealing with straight bois wearing dresses as a prank or to show support for their gay friends, (like being a "bridesmaid" in a gay wedding, and yes we wore dresses) in that case cross dresser doesnt even apply, nor should it.
As someone who prides himself in being crass or lewd in my commentary, and at the same time socially and politically astute, I freely use the word fag, queer, and tranny at will, because sometimes this boi just aint happy or gay about something. But that is because I am a ghetto redneck queen with some pretty large balls so my testosterone levels are still up there with the jocks and frat bois ...having a moment....
This is an issue that will not be settled overnight or without a lot of heartache either way but it is a conversation that OUR COMMUNITY needs to keep having across the board not just on the T/I issues but also race and relationships etc.
Before this week I never gave much thought to the word “tranny.” I know I am showing my small town ignorance, but the images I had to go on were poorly put together drag queens, guys putting on a dress for Halloween, or Dr. Frank-N-Furter. I just didn’t associate the word with the trans-community. I even looked up the word tranny on the web to see what definition was out there. If you Google the word you get a big list of porn sites. The word isn’t even listed any on dictionary.com. Webster listed the word with the definition “an assembly of parts including the speed-changing gears.” I know for a fact that isn’t the topic at hand.And, finally, from David W. who, btw, I met in college and whose gender expression was always a question I had for him. But that's neither here nor there. In short: totally had a crush on him, and then, once I read his writing, was head over heels with him. Duh. This is his response:
This week I have had the opportunity to read post from trans-bloggers and watch youtube videos on the topic. From what little I’ve gathered even the trans-community isn’t agreed on if the word is wrong or not. Hell, I don’t even know if, as a gay man, is it alright to use the phrase “trans.” I believe as several other posters have stated it is a matter of context. Any time a word such as tranny or faggot is used in a hateful manner it’s just wrong. But even when used with love or in a joking manner those words have a slimy feel to them. Of course, this doesn’t mean I won’t ever use those words again just that I may put a little forethought into it.
As an independent entity outside the moral community in this instance, that is to say I have no value in matters pertaining to LGBT issues, perhaps my musings are not worthy of print. However, I find myself inexplicably drawn to the plight of others and the question at hand poses an interesting view of the status quo.
No one has ever called me a tranny. The single most offensive word anyone could call me would be "amateur". My blood pressure would rise, my eyes would fill with rage, and I would most certainly lash out with ill will. I would feel personally attacked. The fundamental of personal defense that I prescribe to reads "He who attacks others without cause deserves no consideration."
If words like "tranny", "fag", "queer", "homo", or "fruit" elicit such a response in a person, then question is no longer "what is wrong with the word tranny?", but rather, "what is wrong with the person from which the word originates?" The words are merely the vehicle of the speaker's intent. The speaker has initiated a personal attack with the aim to degrade the target. The target is now a victim.
To dismiss the intrinsic worth of a person is blatantly unethical, but maybe I'm going overboard. However, the status quo seems to dictate that lesbians are chic, but that men who dress in female clothing are somehow doing something wrong? Assaulting American values?
Gents, do what you want to do. You are still men, and how you dress should not be read as an invitation to deprive you of your dignity or your right to pursue your interests. You have done nothing wrong, you are equal to all other men.
WHEW! That was a lot of responses! This is a really long post! In the future, I will most definitely, definitely keep my questions simple and easy and light hearted. No, seriously, I appreciate all the indepth and intelligent responses you guys have posted. I think it does say something, though, that all of the above responses come from white guys.
Seriously.
And, for the most part, white gay guys. That's probably just my readership base, though.
I think, for now, I'm going to take a little break while I consider everything said and written, and so I can get some work done, and then I'll come back to my thoughts later tonight.
1000th Post -- Wow.
Anyways, so this week's question was fun, and got a shit ton of responses. Simply put, it was: Can you meet the love of your life in a bar? Though I had expected more responses last week with the STD question, this one got a lot of people answering, which is fantastic.
First, I have to give a shout out to what I think is the BEST answer over all, from Jackie S., via Facebook (I totally LOL'd):
WHEW!!! You guys sure had a lot to say about this.
My response is actually a lot closer to @veganjacob's than to anyone else's. My thinking is this: if I'm in the bar, and I am (genuinely) looking for love, then there has to be someone else there doing the same right? In the end, I suppose, we are all looking for love in one way or another; it just depends on how it plays out.
If we define love as a quick roll in the sack, then, no doubt, that's the love we get. If we define love as a relationship that lasts a couple of years, then that's what we get.
In the end, we get the love we think we deserve.
My sister doesn't believe this, and often retorts my excitement over new boys with the response: did you meet him in the bar? (What she doesn't realize is that I've been nice -- CF, if you read this, and you won't -- my response should have always been: does he challenge you or is just or arm candy? Is he smart enough or is he just buying you things? Blah. That's another story) I think she's wrong.
I think it is possible to find love wherever you go, but I want to add an addendum. And, I think, this is where I make mistakes.
I truly believe that we find love when we are least expecting it. Dixie and I had this conversation over the weekend, as she recently entered a relationship and suddenly the boys are begging her for a piece. We agreed that it has nothing to do with unattainability, and we agreed it has nothing to do with suddenly noticing it more. Rather, we lose that hunting look. When we stop looking and start experiencing, I think, we abandon that predatory sense where our eyes wander and our excitement grows at the next cute boy in the room.
As a way of explaining, my friend Michelle S. explained to me that people respond to you, in the ways of a relationship, when you absorb yourself in your own life. When your life becomes completely about other people, or wanting to be around other people, and you have nothing in your own life to show for the time it takes to pass one day to the next... well, what interest is there? What enthusiasm? Who wants to date someone whose life will be consumed by you?
To put the points together: when you go out to the bars with friends, and you absorb yourself in your friends and your time with them, you become more attractive. Because people see you as a social person with lots of people that want to be around you.
When you have that hunting look, when your predatory senses are high, then... well, then people only see the hunter and the absolute desire of another person for whatever purpose works for that evening.
Which is terribly unattractive.
In short, it's a rare case that love flourishes over blow jobs in the Serpent. More than likely, you didn't go there for that.
Stick around. This is turning out to be a popular feature here at QueerCincinnati.com. Next question will be posted Wednesday-ish.
Can you meet the love of your life in a bar?Answers, again, on Friday :-).
Question: would you date someone with a long term, incurable, non-HIV STD like herpes and/or genital warts?
And, a corollary, would you have sex with someone (let's assume short term -- maybe really short term relationship) with a long term, incurable, non-HIV STD like herpes and/or genital warts?
So, how do you think people answered?
From the depths of our sickness here at my job comes my new question...
I'll respond with my thoughts in the next day or two.Question: would you date someone with a long term, incurable, non-HIV STD like
herpes and/or genital warts?And, a corollary, would you have sex with someone (let's assume short term -- maybe really short term relationship) with a long term, incurable, non-HIV STD like herpes and/or genital warts?
Should we be targeting the pro-Prop 8 donors by sending letters/emails/phone calls/etc.? Is this the right way to do things? And, if you think it is, how do you do it without it coming off as hateful?I think it's an important question. Pro-Prop 8'ers are trying to change the law, now, so that their donations are sealed (won't happen). But we've gone so far as to publish their addresses in a convenient map form (found here, thanks to 5chw4r7z).
