A recent New York Times interview with Sex In The City star Cynthia Nixon, has caused a bit of a furore amongst mainly American gays. I first read about the story in Queerty, which is itself a VERY gay website. But I appreciated them running  it, and quoting Nixon at length and opening up the discussion to the commenters below the line.

Other publications/individuals have not been so generous, and have railed at Ms Nixon for what? For having the audacity to suggest she has some agency in her sex life and her love life? How very dare she!

One of the main criticisms from Teh Gays about Nixon’s statement is that she is playing into the hands of the religious right in America who claim homosexuality is unnatural, against God, and a sinful ‘choice’. One supergay article suggests:

‘she needs to learn how to choose her words better, because she just fell into a right-wing trap, willingly.  When the religious right says it’s a choice, they mean you quite literally choose your sexual orientation, you can change it at will, and that’s bull.’

http://gay.americablog.com/2012/01/dear-cynthix-nixon-hurting-your-own.html

Another gayist piece states quite baldly:

‘ the issue here is not the legitimacy or source of an individual’s sexuality. It’s a question of strategy. ‘

http://www.readability.com/articles/lfxvzpqn

This concept of ‘strategy’ relates to a theoretical term called strategic essentialism.

‘The term was coined by the Indian literary critic and theorist Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. It refers to a strategy that nationalities, ethnic groups or minority groups can use to present themselves. While strong differences may exist between members of these groups, and amongst themselves they engage in continuous debates, it is sometimes advantageous for them to temporarily ‘essentialize’ themselves and bring forward their group identity in a simplified way to achieve certain goals.’

I oppose ‘strategic essentialism’ because I think it fails in its own goal of uniting ‘oppressed’ groups who have a common ‘enemy’ or oppressor. It serves to privilege (yes I can use that word too) one group’s identity and needs over other, less powerful ones.

In the case of the backlash against Cynthia Nixon, it is clear to me that (usually white middle class and often male) gays are outraged that their worldview and their sense of self, and how they were born this way is not being prioritised. If sexuality is, to some degree, a choice, as Cynthia says it is for her, (note she is not generalising about other people), then gays lose some of their ‘victim status’ as these poor, beleagured people who are forced to live under the shadow of the heterosexual dominant group.

One of the comments that I found most troubling was this one:

A bisexual choosing to be in a gay relationship is not the same thing as a gay person who has no choice. Shame on her. p.ink.cx/zhVzww—
Darren (@mowbrad) January 24, 2012

It seems to be suggesting that bisexual people ‘choose’ their sexuality but gay people don’t! Apart from this not even beginning to make sense at a ‘scientific’ level – how are bisexual people ‘made’ so that they have the ability to make choices and gays are not? – it is politically quite worrying. I think what it is really saying is that bisexual people are ‘liars’. If sexuality is innate then people who ‘choose’ to go against their ‘natural’ sexual orientation, be it straight or gay, are a)lying and b) oppressing the people who stay in their ‘natural’ boxes by making sexuality look like less of a destiny.

One of the comments by Nixon that stood out for me was this:

‘I also feel like people think I was walking around in a cloud and didn’t realize I was gay, which I find really offensive. I find it offensive to me, but I also find it offensive to all the men I’ve been out with.’

http://www.readability.com/articles/lfxvzpqn

My ex was/is bisexual. Though he rarely used that word to describe himself. Sometimes he took the Freudian label and called himself ‘polymorphously perverse’. And sometimes I have worried, since we broke up, that he might have ‘gone gay’. This has filled me with a sense of loss and rejection, because if he is now ‘gay’ then what does that say about our relationship that occurred (with some hiccups) over a period of over ten years?

I expect my ex doesn’t identify as gay, now. He was more Anti Gay than even the author of the book of that title. He taught me, long before I had heard of Steven Zeeland, that ‘sexual identity is a joke’.

But it’s not a very funny one. And I think people’s reactions to Cynthia’s open discussion about her own sexuality, are a sign of how we still haven’t reached ‘the end of sexuality’. Maybe one day, eh?

_______________________

This and probably all my writing is influenced by the work of Mark Simpson.

Remember the LMFAO ‘Sexy and I Know It?’ hit of 2011? I have seen a few amateur videos of metrosexy young lads re-enacting it. So it was only a matter of time before the armed forces got in on the act. Why should they miss out on all the fun?

Actually this rather bitter Guardian article explains that soldiers should not be allowed to take part in Metrosexy culture with us civvies but I disagree strongly:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/23/military-love-affair-dangerous

And so do these metrotastic navy cadets:

However I don’t think any of the videos I have seen quite reach the Metrosexy heights of the original so here it is one more time:

via Mark Simpson: http://www.marksimpson.com/blog/2012/01/25/sexy-and-i-show-it-parading-cadets/

h/t @lawrencejgreen for the original LMFAO video

http://www.towleroad.com/2011/12/afasexy.html

http://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/4758/

Write Less, Listen More is a piece of advice given by Megan Morgenson, to people who write about sex work without having much or any experience of actually doing it. Her post here is really worth a read:

http://meganmorgenson.blogspot.com/2012/01/frustration-of-non-sex-workers-wanting.html?spref=tw

It was in response to a piece at Freedom In A Puritan Age here:

http://www.freedominapuritanage.co.uk/?p=281&cpage=1#comment-560

The ‘twitter friend’ Megan mentions in her post, who had her comments deleted at FIPA Journal is me!

I find it interesting that there is quite  a heated debate in the comments section, and yet my comments were deemed ‘inappropriate’ for their publication.

In a recent interview for an Italian magazine, Mark Simpson mentioned some old friends of his – ‘hummersexuals’. He said:

‘Hummersexuals are guys who over-emphasise their masculinity with ‘manly’ accessories in a way that makes you wonder what they’re covering up. Retrosexuals are merely pre-metrosexual.’

This is consistent with what he wrote about Hummersexuals, back in 2006:

‘Despite his best efforts to convince you, the hummersexual is not retrosexual. Since when did “regular guys” need several tons of military hardware, or “new macho” lifestyle magazines such as Best Life, or books such as the bestselling Alphabet of Manliness and Men Don’t Apologise, to be “regular”? The hummersexual is clearly, hilariously, faux-retrosexual. He’s an off-the-peg, drag-king idea of “real” masculinity: stuffed crotch and joke beard included at no extra charge.’

And in a recent piece about some ‘macho’ fashion bloggers he reiterated his old idea that ‘retrosexual’ means ‘pre-metrosexual’: ‘This kind of guff isn’t ‘post-metrosexual’ at all. It’s so pre-metrosexual it’s positively pre-Stonewall.’

Now I’d not paid much attention to these weird, ‘faux-retrosexual’ hummersexuals before. Partly because Mr Simpson has not written anything about them for years, and partly because, more importantly, neither has anyone else.

The thing about ‘neologisms’ is they are only really useful if they capture a concept that a large number of people can relate to and utilise in everyday life. metrosexual and ‘retrosexual’ are both part of regular conversations. Simpson has come up with terms that are meaningful in the contemporary world.

But ‘hummersexual’ to me, is as pointless as a man driving a big petrol-guzzling truck just to prove he is a ‘real man’! To illustrate my point I’ll tell you that the picture at the top is the cover of a retrosexual manual from 2008. There are no ‘hummersexual manuals’ I can find. And last year, Mr Simpson did a reading at a club night with a ‘retrosexual’ (not ‘hummersexual’) theme.

At the ‘retrosexual’ club, Simpson read from the introduction to Metrosexy, where he  discusses the ongoing march of metrosexuality:

‘Not everyone is happy with this state of affairs. Some gays, understandably, don’t appreciate being upstaged. Or being confused. And of course quite a few traditionalist heteros also hate metrosexuality along with the sexual uncertainty that it represents, and wish it would just go away, or have a terrible accident on the sunbed. Or they want to pretend that it never happened, that it was all just a bad, over-plucked dream. Such nostalgic determination not to see what should be as plain as the bronzer on your face is, in its way, quite endearing. But when media types start cooing as they have done lately about ‘retrosexuals’ that are just metrosexuals with shaped chest hair, I can’t help but roll my eyes like the girlfriends of the lads flashing me their shaved balls.

I never thought I’d be saying this, but I want to defend Johann Hari today. Not for his confessed plagiarism, or for the fact he is terrible at writing. His prose gives me what I can only describe as abjection, which I suppose is a sort of achievement. Not for his politics, especially his gayism, which I have criticised for example at Graunwatch.

No, I want to defend Hari based on the way he has been described by a detractor as a suspected pornographer. Suspected pornographer? It sounds like ‘suspected murderer’ put like that. For all his crimes against ethics, morals and well crafted sentences, Hari’s dabblings in written porn are to me his one saving grace!

I write pornography. I watch pornography. I think porn is a healthy aspect of our sexual culture, or at least a widespread ’normal’ one. To try and link porn to Hari’s supposed ‘bad character’ which as far as I am concerned is nothing more than bad, very bad, journalism, seems like a cheap shot to me.

The person  ( @nero on twitter) who did this assured me he is ‘gay’ and so therefore I presume qualified to shame his brothers for their sexual proclivities?

I dislike the behaviour of Johann The Librarian* as much as anyone and I am glad I won’t be forced to read his drivel in the national press anymore. But I won’t stand by idle while he is ‘brought down’ as a ‘pervert’ and suspected pornographer, when those are things I hold dear.

So there.

* cf @marksimpsonist Mark Simpson

I watched this great video recently, by two performance poets, about being short men.

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/01/16/some-spoken-word-on-heightism/

I am a relatively tall woman, and I have to admit to having a prejudice, not against short men per se, but against dating them. And that is enough of a prejudice to count.

In his brilliant satirical way, Randy Newman wrote a song, ostensibly about ‘short people’, that is actually a very clever comment on prejudice in general.

It reminded me of a conversation I had over at Heresy Corner blog, about a bunch of students winning a case where their imagery for their society was being threatened with censorship by Muslim groups.

The discussion made me think. Which is still, even in this facebook age, a good thing!

http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2012/01/ucl-atheists-face-down-censorship.html

Update: the president of the (atheist) society in question has just resigned!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2088811/University-atheist-society-president-forced-resign-cartoon-Muhammad-having-drink-Jesus-posted-Facebook.html

Suzanne Moore has a column in The Guardian this week advocating for ‘freedom of speech’:

http://graunwatch.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/does-suzanne-moore-practise-what-she-preaches/

I critiqued her article at Graunwatch here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/18/outrage-culture-limits-free-speech?INTCMP=SRCH

In my piece I wrote:
In an early paragraph Moore writes:

‘If one’s default setting is now to be part of some anonymous but offended mob, somehow the hierarchy of outrage implodes into meaninglessness. ‘

I have had a few conversations with Suzanne, about anonymity and pseudonymity online. Basically she is against both. Or at least she is against both if they are used to criticise her and her writing. She has accused me on more than one occasion, of ‘hiding’ behind my Quiet Riot Girl moniker, and being a ‘coward’ that is afraid to face the world as my ‘real’ self. I suggested that was odd since she is friendly with people (women) such as Girl with a One Track Mind, Fleet Street Fox and Belle de Jour. All of whom have been or are using pseudonyms online. But Suzanne says they are ok because she knows their names. So anonymity is all right, so long as you disclose everything to Suzanne Moore?

Also Moore has joined with other journalists, in the call for an end to anonymous commenting ‘below the line’ at newspaper forums such as cif. I think, though she has since made statements to the contrary, that she largely agrees with this statement on the subject by Julia Hobsbawm:

http://www.iaindale.com/posts/time-to-stop-anonymous-commenting

So, when she says ‘anonymous but offended mob’  Moore is picking out a large group of people online that if she had her way, would not exist at all, let alone be having the freedom to be ‘outraged’. I see a problem there.

The next aspect of Moore’s piece I have a problem with is her insistence that she thinks ‘self censorship’ is a bad idea. In relation to Nick Cohen’s latest book on freedom of speech she says:

‘pre-publication self-censorship “is the most suffocating form there is”. This self-censorship is all around us’

Well yes. And Suzanne Moore positively encourages self-censorship. In me! A few times now she has written to me or tweeted me or left a comment on blogs, basically telling me to stop writing articles about her work. She has also emailed Mark Simpson more than once, asking him to tell me to ‘stop it’.  She has commented here at Graunwatch:

‘ I’d hate if you had to engage in any world beyond your ‘oh -so -clever I am a woman who hates feminism doesnt that make me interesting stance’ If you are a woman? I’d hate to be so essentialist? Goodbye . Dont bother to ever speak to or about me again.’

http://graunwatch.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/playing-the-rape-card/

‘Don’t bother to ever speak to or about me again’ is asking me to censor myself.

Thankfully, I am a bit stronger than that. And when I received a rather nasty email last summer from Ms Moore, telling me to ‘watch my back’ I ignored it.

But it’s not just a personal issue I have here. I think the brand of feminism that Suzanne espouses actually actively encourages men to censor themselves on a daily basis. With her kind of feminism it is my way or the highway, and the discourses of ‘pornification’, of ‘rape culture’, of ‘online misogyny’ all inhibit men from speaking out. As Simpson has put it, misandry (that Suzanne Moore often employs) is the acceptable prejudice, and so challenging it is almost impossible.’

Suzanne responded in the comments in a rather nasty and personal way I think.

Also, when I went back to her article at The Guardian I noticed that some of the comments ‘below the line’ had been deleted. I commented on twitter:

'This comment has been removed by a moderator' under Suzanne Moore 's cif piece on freedom of speech. Haha. #censorship—
Quiet Riot Girl (@Notorious_QRG) January 19, 2012

I know it is ‘cool’ to claim you are in favour of free speech. But to really actually be in favour of it takes a bit more than a couple of glib Guardian articles.

I find, in the contemporary social-media dominated world, that when people discuss politics they never explain what is going on! Rather they tend to just demand that you support their cause. Sign this petition! Save the children! Come to this important meeting! Occupy Wall Street! Stop the killings!

Well. I like to understand an issue before I support a campaign.

So, when I saw the calls for people to ‘blackout’ their websites today in protest against #SOPA, I thought rather than blindly follow instructions, I’d use the  day to learn about what SOPA actually is. And to decide if I am opposed to it, and if so, what I can contribute in the campaign.

Wikipedia is one of the websites being blacked out in protest against SOPA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Which is a bit of a bummer considering they are a major source of information. But, luckily, they have kindly left a page up explaining SOPA and PIPA. It reads:

‘SOPA and PIPA represent two bills in the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate respectively. SOPA is short for the “Stop Online Piracy Act,” and PIPA is an acronym for the “Protect IP Act.” (“IP” stands for “intellectual property.”) In short, these bills are efforts to stop copyright infringement committed by foreign web sites, but, in our opinion, they do so in a way that actually infringes free expression while harming the Internet. Detailed information about these bills can be found in the Stop Online Piracy Actand PROTECT IP Act articles on Wikipedia, which are available during the blackout. You can also follow them through the legislative process here and here. The EFF has summarized why these bills are simply unacceptable in a world that values an open, secure, and free Internet.’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Learn_more

And here, Anonymous have collated some information about SOPA: http://youranonnews.tumblr.com/post/15783460213/stop-sopa-the-essentials-summary-and-bill-text

I am going to spend some of today reading up on this subject. Because freedom of expression and an open internet is important to me!

And if you get bored, here are some lovely photos of gorgeous men to keep you entertained:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/diogioscuro/5945099677/in/pool-65879846@N00/

UPDATE: I will add some links about #SOPA as I get them. Any info welcome!

This one asks if the ‘problem’ SOPA is trying to solve even exists:
https://plus.google.com/107033731246200681024/posts/BEDukdz2B1r /via @warrenpearson

Here wordpress join the protest against SOPA: http://wordpress.org/ /via @sesshabatto and others

Mashable’s take: http://mashable.com/2012/01/17/sopa-dangerous-opinion/ /via @scribbles78

This is a creative way of doing a ‘blackout’ of a website for the protest: http://theoatmeal.com/sopa /via @AbiePB and others

Here is stoner with a boner, regular commenter at QRGHQ’s take on SOPA: http://stonerwithaboner.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/what-is-sopa/

And this just in at the Nervous Breakdown literature/writing site: http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/jgingerich/2012/01/all-quiet-on-the-western-front-media-reacts-to-sopa-debate-with-resounding-silence/

Mic Wright debates with someone on MSN about SOPA and PIPA: http://tech.uk.msn.com/features/does-the-internet-need-regulating /via @brokenbottleboy

Why In Mala Fide is not participating in today’s blackout: http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2012/01/18/why-in-mala-fide-is-not-participating-in-the-sopapipa-blackout/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed /via @FBardamu

How Copyright Industries Con Congress: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/how-copyright-industries-con-congress/ /via @mattlodder

https://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/sopa-soaps/ SOPA Soaps, via stoner with a boner

Guardian CIF on SOPA: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/17/stop-sopa-or-web-will-go-dark?INTCMP=SRCH

@How_Upsetting on SOPA and PIPA: http://howupsetting.tumblr.com/post/16132415365/sopa-and-pipa-would-create-a-consumption-only-internet

A post-blackout analysis from wikipedia watchers: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/wikipedia_so_how_do_you_like_censorship.php /via @quarridors

QRG

I love the new metrosexy Superman costume, designed for the forthcoming film. I grew up with Superman films and it is interesting to see how the ‘look’ of our favourite superhero has developed over the years.

There is a good analysis of the costume here:

http://www.buzzfocus.com/2011/09/01/henry-cavill-superman-man-of-steel-costume-52-redesign-comparison/

In his book Male Impersonators Mark Simpson talks about Superheros in comparison to bodybuilders, saying that the super heroes wear their muscle ‘suits’ on the outside of their bodies. It’s an interesting idea that bends your head a bit if you think about it too much!

http://www.marksimpson.com/blog/2011/12/15/male-impersonators-now-available-as-a-kindle-ebook/

Oh, Superman:

Male Impersonators is FREE today on kindle! Maybe tomorrow too:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B006K5ZMNE/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=103612307&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0415909910&pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_r=1HS6MHBNXJ0GRM0G8W24

Mr Simpson on Superman’s sexuality: http://www.marksimpson.com/blog/2006/06/14/superman-and-his-supersexuality/

On superhero beefcakes: http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/01/19/superhero-beefcake-sexy-comics/ /via @ThermobaricTom

h/t @jenjenrobot

I get called a lot of names. Some of them are in relation to the work I do advocating the ideas of Mark Simpson.

One of the names that stuck with me the most, was Mark Simpson’s Pitbull.

When I was first given that moniker, by an uptight supergay gay American man, I was annoyed. It seemed slightly ‘dehumanising’. It also irked me a little that people were suggesting I ‘belong’ to Mark, when in fact, over the last few months our friendship has slowly deteriorated.

But after a while I saw the funny side. I quite liked the ‘aggressive’ element in the name. At least I was not being called ‘Mark Simpson’s chihuahua’. I also did a bit of research and found that a man by the name of Thomas Henry Huxley, who promoted Charles Darwin’s theories, back in the day, called himself ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’.  Suddenly I felt able to wear the badge with pride.

I may be a pitbull, and I may be able to deal, on a daily basis, with all the teasing and sometimes hostility that comes my way in relation to my love of Mr Simpson’s work.  I have even dealt with the breakdown in relations between Mark and myself and continued my project undaunted.

However in the last couple of weeks things between me and Metrodaddy have gone particularly sour. And I have lost my bark, as well as my bite as a result. The things he has done, in the context of our ‘break up’ that have really hurt me include:

Blocking me on facebook causing me to leave the social networking site

Deleting my blogs from the blogroll on his blog

Attempting to restrict me from viewing his site properly

Continuing to use my work and information  I send him, but not crediting me or referencing me adequately.

It is the last point that has got to me the most. Partly because I know Mark Simpson is himself very precious about crediting others, and being credited himself. Why do you think I am so diligent about referencing him? So I know this is not an oversight but a deliberate gesture showing me he no longer respects me or values the work I do.

I get the message.

I have thought of a number of ways of responding to this situation. Some have been nasty – deleting my glowing reviews of his books on amazon. Some have been self-destructive- giving up my project altogether and hiding under a rock. Some have been sly – I’m not telling you them, just in case…

But after much agonising I’ve come up with what I think is a hopefully sensible ‘solution’ to the problem.

As some of you know I have a couple of other blogs: Death At The Mall and Metrosexy. Death at The Mall is also the title of a book I am writing, based on Simpson’s theories. Metrosexy is a homage to Simpson’s book of that title, that I encouraged him to write, helped him publish, and continue to promote to this day. But I think one of the problems Mark has with me, is there is too much of me. Once when we were still friends he said in a jokey tone: ‘your’e everywhere!’

Simpson has been blocking and deleting me on parts of the internet so that I am not quite so ‘everywhere’ in his eyes. And, rather than rail against this and fight him, I am going to go with the flow. I am going to ‘hide’ my other two blogs shortly, and only update them privately. I may actually turn Death at The Mall into the ‘book’ itself and organise it in chapters to mark my progress.

This gives Simpson some space, and a chance to be ‘The Daddy’ of metrosexual theory, at least in public on the internet. I am bound to continue using the ‘m’ word, and the ‘M’ word here at QRGHQ, but less than before. I expect this will come as a relief to some of my long suffering readers too! I don’t think I can stop completely talking about Simpson’s work online. I am too enthused by it. If someone says something that reminds me of metrosexuality I am always inspired to mention Mark and his ideas. But I will try and keep this measured. Incidentally if any of you want to see any of my posts from the other two blogs let me know and it can easily be arranged!

So I am turning over a new leaf. The only thing that will make me start up the pitbull’s fight with its ‘master’ again, is:

1) If Mark continues to use my work and not credit me

2) If Mark restricts my ability to view and use his blog for my research

Otherwise everything will be much calmer round here. No More Drama.