In a diary that made the Recommended list yesterday about
a Southern Baptist minister who was arrested for soliciting oral sex from a cop in Oklahoma City, there ensued the expected (and I would say wholly appropriate) responses about the hypocrisy of the man. Unfortunately there were also a few "jokes" of a more troubling nature, and the one that caught my attention which I responded to of course sparked a long and somewhat exhausting tangential thread which reminded some of the
"pie fight" of dKos legend/infamy.
The "joke" was in response to the comment made that the minister was making a "Bitch set me up." comment and consisted of "the difference this time is he wanted to BE the bitch' ". The joke was rooted in both a misogynist and homophobic point of view.
This touches on numerous subjects and topics to explain why I am writing this diary, and why that joke exposed some serious problems in society which actually go beyond just homophobia and sexism, which I will hopefully explain in full below the fold...
First I would like to note that in that diary there also ensued the almost expected jokes of a somewhat lascivious nature and I am certainly not one to be above snickers and jokes of a sexual innuendo nature, and by and large such jokes are nothing to get perturbed about. I am no prude and like bawdy, even wincingly crude and/or satirical jokes, particularly at the expense of a hypocritical moralist gas-bag.
The "this time is he wanted to BE the bitch' " joke elicited a reaction from me that was sharp and consisted of "We can really do without your infantile disgusting attempt at a joke." which in turn sparked the ensuing lengthy thread where the person who made the "joke" and myself (and more than a few others) discussed the matter rather civilly and on the whole without the expected level of vitriol which has alas become all to common in such threads. That said, it did bring up some of the standard "PC police" craptacular comments which in turn has prompted me to explain further why the "joke" in question is more than just a fluff of puerile humor and actually does merit being "picked on", as more than one person decried, for being made. I would also further note that the person who made the "joke" was calm and level-headed in the discussion and there wasn't any hostility towards him personally by myself or by others such as Maryscott O'Connor. Even after myself and Maryscott explicitly made that clear, others still seemed to want to get a little hot under the collar, though as I said it was all around markedly civil all things considered. As I said at the outset here, this diary is to further expand on why that comment or "joke" was based on some very troubling and unfortunately pervasive attitudes in society which are, I posit, at the root of numerous and profound problems within not just our society, but most cultures and a major factor in these seemingly intractable problems of the human condition.
This touches on numerous subjects and topics, but to begin with the nature of language and the basis for the "joke" in question. In short, the "bitch" joke was rooted in gender role presumptions which, whether intended or not by the person telling it (and I sincerely do accept and believe it was not that persons intent), are rooted in a misogynistic view, and those transfer over and also make the "joke" homophobic in nature towards non-heterosexual males, prison rape, and a whole host of other things which make it problematic at best just to casually let go without comment.
As TeresaInPa noted in the ensueing discussion/debate, the term bitch means female breeding dog. It's a derogatory name to call a women, to equate her to a dog suitable for breeding. And yes, even though that term is, like most words in human languages with English being right up in front, words can be intended differently in varying context and situations. But as was correctly noted in that exchange, that is what the word means and it really can mean nothing else. Even in those other derivative sorts of context, when someone is just "bitching" being a "bitch", a sports taunt, etc. it all boils down to and is rooted in the the concept of bitch = a female dog used for breeding, or bad female. Even if the speaker doesn't realize where the term first came from or that it's purpose fell out of the strict original usage of animal husbandry and dog breeding as a derogatory slang used to dehumanize women.
As the term was used in the context outside of actual dog breeding, it is inescapably being used to say that someone who "takes it", who is "weaker" or "victimized", the "passive partner" (all images suggesting of feminization) is inherently misogynistic towards women. Again as TeresaInPa points out in rebuttal to those who object to that inescapable conclusion, one need only look at numerous instances in porn or listened to rap music to see it clearly and plainly used as a derogatory put down. That the target of the term is a bad female, a dehumanized female dog whose only use is sex and breeding.
Now taking that term, and applying it to men in a sexual context, it is clear that the same basic concept and derogatory root is used to apply to the male target. This is to "feminize" in derogatory fashion said male target. This is also inescapably the root basis for the verbal "joke" or smack-down of the intended target. He is a "female dog" who "takes it" is "weak" and who is being "used" or dominated (sexually) and thus not a "real man" and not even a "woman" worthy of respect and dignity, but simply a rutting female dog. This is further illustrated with some other jokes in that diary (and have been seen in countless others) about someone getting their comeuppance being being "feminized" and "taken" sexually in prison. Prison rape being about, and often conflated with and used in stigmatizing (intentional or not) the recipient in male/male sex as being lower than lowly female dogs whose only purpose is to be used for sex (breeding).
So how does that touch on other more sweeping problems in society which I spoke of in the introduction to this diary?
Well as explained above, the term used in the sexual context in particular, are rooted in sexual dominate/submissive or penetrative/receiving sexual/gender roles. Also with the added context of "weakness" and "victimized" this is where it connects to the more destructive aspects of male sexual aggression. Where the male target is dehumanized, made into a non-human, weakened female to be used simply for sexual purposes. This same attitude which comes from male sexual aggression which when expressed in such unhealthy ways is present in a whole host of social gender role biases and phobias (and even assumptions) which are deeply ingrained in the culture and, I posit, the root of a vast amount of societies ills, from spousal abuse, most violent crimes, even war.
Human history is replete with the examples of the connection between male sexual aggression to such things as tribalism, territoriality, patriarchy. That isn't to say that it is inherently evil, or that human males come by it dishonestly or with wicked intent. As is shown in the countless examples within the biological world, sexual aggression and territoriality, etc. is found in our biological lineage. It is however, I posit, in many ways a vestigial trait which in modern human society is also the basis for many many problems, not just in such larger issues about competition for resources and territory to sustain "ones own kind" be it tribe, peoples, nation, etc. but on the personal as well.
What happens when there are not healthy outlets for such sexual desire or wants? What happens when assumptions about gender roles conflict with social custom surrounding sexual congress? In shorter language, what happens when sexual repression occurs? What happens when what society deems "proper" about what thins one must do or feel to be a "real man" do not match with what ones inner sexual make-up or psyche is driving one towards?
Well I posit, and which draws me back to the actual news story which prompted the original diary, people seek out unhealthy outlets for their sexual desires. Now before anyone assume the wrong thing there, I am not saying that finding sexual expression with someone of the same gender is wrong or bad. Just the opposite, I posit that because of social proscription, this mans true sexual constitution was/is being repressed and his homosexual or bisexual nature ended up "living the lie" and secretively seeking out sexual fulfillment in exploitive, dangerous and most likely unprotected sexual outlets (i.e. seeking to give or receive a blow-job from a male prostitute).
Sexual repression/unhealthy aggression and "domination" based on gender/sexual supremacy is however deeply rooted in the human psyche with "natural" and as I noted above somewhat vestigial biologically predisposition. It is however the root of territoriality, greed, hoarding, which in turn are the root cause of tribalism, conflict, war, etc.
This is, believe it or not, the basis for my reaction to the "joke" in question. It is about attaching social stigma, even in though the "joke" was a passing and relatively "harmless" one, and adds to that stigmatization and normalization of such stigmas in society. As George Carlin once said, and which I have noted in previous comments and diaries over the years, we "think" in language. And the basis, consciously or not, of words and the underlying root metaphors which are there, can and in this context express an unhealthy retrograde mode of thinking.
Now all that said, I am not above making a crass, even thoughtless joke myself, and don't hold myself up as a paragon of language virtue. Nor do I put all this forward to be some language or word prude (i.e. the dreaded "PC police" which is a jackass right-wing created term which approaches making me want to do a Linda Blair with a mouthful of split-pea soup imitation). I like a good bawdy joke myself. In addition, I don't think that we are nor should we seek to be genderless or not express our genders or expressions of sexuality, even those aspects which can and often do fall in terms of sexual power exchanges. In fact, I will be so bold to assert that because I am a bisexual male, I have a somewhat unique vantage in that I have delved deeply into exploring and experiencing both sides of those power dynamics and equations as far as sexuality and sexual expression goes. I can't, by an stretch of the imagination claim to know what it is like to be female, though I can appreciate some aspects of opening yourself up in a penetrative way sexually in ways that I am sure are very much a part of female sexuality. Not to be too course, or cross too far over that "too much information" line for some, but I do know what it is like to get fucked by a guy, by a woman, and vice versa too a guy and too a woman. So I can say that I may be a little more empathetic to and perceptive to some aspects of sexual expression which others who do not explore such aspects of human sexuality which my bisexuality afford me, might not be exposed to.
Furthermore, I certainly have no illusions that by simply eliminating such jokes or being the "PC language police" and only using "correct" language will it solve the problems of the human condition. I do think however that discussions about it, and hopefully what I have touched on in this diary are things to digest and ponder and give a new perspective with which to view what has been said before and going forward.
Now as to the more politically tangible aspect of the original story of the minister getting arrested for seeking oral sex form an undercover cop in Oklahoma City, the part which is troubling is that it is becoming more clear that this was not a case where the minister in question offered money for said proposition of oral sex. Now we certainly don't have a thorough or even close to full accounting of what was alleged to have taken place, but according to coigue in that previous diary about the arrest, one of the news outlets reporting the story distinguished the charge from prostitution explicitly by saying that no money was offered or exchanged. If that is indeed the case it is extremely troubling beyond just indictment of our society that this closet-case felt compelled to "live a lie" of heterosexuality and thus his hypocrisy in then railing against homosexuality. That somehow simply asking someone to go back to their hotel room for oral sex is a "crime" is outrageous. As others have stated in that diary, it is indeed a crime to proposition someone to go back to a hotel for oral sex, but is a crime that cops only pursue and charge against non-heterosexual men. If this is the case, it is de-facto discrimination, beyond simply being a stupid fucking law. If they went around arresting heterosexuals for propositioning each other for sex (not prostitution, just plain old we are both horny so lets have sex.. sex) there would be armed insurrection.