Sexy Times

Though I hate to tread on the toes of the good doctor Hood, it is a movie that led me to this post.

You see, I saw Milk the other day - the story of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay politician in America - and it was excellent. Though it was undoubtedly an overly rose-coloured portrayal of the gay rights movement, it accomplishes what it sets out to do admirably. The story is compelling, and compellingly told, the acting is of extremely high quality (and believe me, I never say that about movies), and all in all, I would highly recommend it.

For one thing, it made me think.

I don't often talk or, for that matter, think, about sexual orientation or sexual freedom. Sure, I'll spend a lot of time on the nature of love, and the importance of sex personally and in society, but honestly, who it is you're having sex with and how many of them there are simply isn't terribly important to me, at least on a philosophical or political level. I have many militant-for-gay-and-polyamorous-rights friends, not to mention several friends who are themselves not of a purely vanilla sexual orientation, and, though it seems a little strange to say this, I've pretty much left the thinking and talking about such things to them.

This is also an awkward discussion to have for me, as one's perspective in the matter is so attendant on one's own sexual desires. Being male, straight, monogamous by strong preference, and without, insofar as I am aware, any interesting fetishes or sexual quirks - though my understanding is that you don't discover that you have these until you've tried them, so I suppose the possibility must always exist - I've always felt, in a way, that my perspective wasn't terribly useful to such a debate.

Then I realized that that was ridiculous. What was I thinking? There is no such thing as a useless perspective.

So I suppose that my opinion on the whole issue of sexual freedom and limitations on sexual desire is simply one of profound puzzlement. If someone enjoys different books than I do I might try to understand why their tastes differ from my own, I might even make fun of them, but I wouldn't try to prevent them from reading it. What possible reason would I have for doing that? Where, to put it bluntly, is the advantage to me?

Now, sex is a little trickier than novels, to be sure. It can be exploitative, violent, dangerous, and cruel. And those kinds of sex should obviously be prevented through law or social norms - but what you're preventing is not the sex, but the exploitation, the violence, the danger, and the cruelty. We have a vested interest in seeing people not hurt one another - it's against any kind of morality, and, on a more self-interested level, it's bad for society. Where is the interest in seeing people not fuck each other? As long as it doesn't infringe on others' ability to function in society, why the hell do we care?

If it does, that's another matter, naturally. I can understand why a church would not want to be forced by legislation to recognize gay marriage. After all, that's an internal matter of religion. I wouldn't ask them to recognize Buddha as their overlord, either. But in the vast, vast majority of cases, people's sexual orientation has nothing to do with anyone else.

Most people would say that gay rights are an issue because the gays have made it one - brought it into the public sphere. Some people would say this with anger, some with admiration, some with pride. But they're wrong. The people who made it an issue are the people who are trying to prevent others from doing what they want.

There are so many things worth caring about, worth fighting for, worth bleeding and hating and dying over. This really isn't one of them. I don't want to have to care about what someone likes in sex, or whether they like sex at all. Really, it's just not worth it. People just want to live their lives. Why should they have to fight for that?

It's Always Comforting

... to know that, no matter how many scandals and failed policy decisions and hopeless wars he has involved us in, our head of state remains the best in the world at dodging shoes. I can't say I'm sorry to see the end of your term approaching, President Bush, but damn, sir, you are a ninja.

Etarran Sums Up the American Federal Election

Actually, unlike the Canadian election, I have some things to say about this one.

Though I am of course tempted to spend this post going "woo Obama yay Obama yay!", and just generally painting a big Fuck You Republicans sign all over the internet, I imagine that will be amply taken care of by those both more numerous and considerably louder than I am. I desperately hope that an Obama presidency can do some things to stem the tide of failure and disaster that seems to be issuing forth neverendingly from the Western world, but that remains to be seen. Though I - surprisingly, given my general cynicism with regards to politicians - find myself able to believe that his ideals are good, I also must make note that, as with any leader, ideals must give way to issues of practicality and popularity. I wish the world would recognize that, in general, at least, ideals of peace and environmental sustainability and diplomatic foreign policy and other hippy nonsense are matters of practicality... but of course it cannot do that until the proponents of these ideals start treating them that way.

So, while my initial feeling about an Obama presidency is a matter of cautious optimism, rather than furious elation, there is something from the 2008 election that I am legitimately ecstatic about, and that is the voter turnout.

Despite the fact that an Obama victory was predictable from early in the election, which necessarily reduces turnout, especially in the West, we managed to get a voter turnout over 65% - higher than it's been since 1908. Now, obviously, this could be better, but I think it is trending in that direction. Unlike the Canadian election (voter turnout 59%), in which lackluster leadership, rampant apathy, and general justifiable political malaise have conspired to render half the population voiceless, American voter turnouts have done nothing but rise over the last twelve years. In a world in which each successive generation has been less politically involved than the last, with my generation plunging to new lows of uselessness (28% youth turnout last election, as opposed to 46% this election), this is highly encouraging.

Maybe, just maybe, we can yet prove ourselves worthy of democracy.

Going to Class

So, here's the story.

I sat down about an hour ago to write a post, because I felt like I should write something. So as I usually do, I began brainstorming ideas for topics. My thought processes when I do this generally run something like this:

"Hmmm.... blog post. Blog post, blog post, blog post.... 'blog' is such a stupid word. It doesn't even mean anything. You know what else doesn't mean anything? Election promises. Those wacky politicians, am I right? Maybe I should write about them, and their election promises, and how McCain's campaign has been going completely batshit insane.

Oh, right. Then I would be pretty much the mainstream media. Only without money or credibility.

Friggin' media. Seriously, what'd they ever do for us, anyways? It's just commercials and exploitation and capitalism and sadism and decadence. There's no real content or intelligent debate or examination of actual issues anywhere in the whole dreary nihilistic morass of it.

Hehehe. Boobies.

Okay, so maybe I could write about feminism and stuff, because the media is basically why modern feminism sucks, but I keep doing that. Then again, isn't that basically the point? You gotta keep saying stuff, gotta let the message free, because if you don't say it loudly and often, how will anyone ever take notice? Do you really expect to change the world by being silent?

Do I really expect to change the world at all?"

It was at this point that I made a realization. I do expect to change the world. I do, against all reason, against all better judgment and all prior experience, expect to be important. Expect to mean something.

So I asked myself the obvious question: why? What possible reason could I have for this ridiculous assumption?

And the answer quickly came to me: it's a class thing.

You see, as long as there have been civilizations, there has been a certain kind of person who knows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they will be important, that the world balances on the tips of their fingers. Kings, aristocrats, oil barons, priests: all of these people have known, many for as long as they have been alive, just how important they are.

But I am none of these things. Though I live a life of shocking and frequently appalling privelege compared to the vast majority of human beings on this terrifying planet, I'm not, by any stretch of the imagination, upper class. I have no power, nor any particular prospect of power. And yet, I believe in it anyways.

Witness, my friends, the triumph of the modern world. Call it the American Dream, if you like, call it the historical dialectic and the principle of Communism, call it the triumph of rationalism and man transcendant... call it what you will, we are achieving it. For the first time in history, ordinary people can legitimately believe themselves to be special. Important. Valuable. Everyone can believe themselves to be the kind of person who is destined for greatness. And belief is the first step on the road to truth.

It won't happen tomorrow, and it may not happen for hundreds or thousands of years - it may not happen at all; after all, far too often we seem to slide backwards, to lose the progress we have made. But on the whole, the road we are travelling is a good one. Someday, I think, we will be free.

Etarran Sums Up the Canadian Federal Election

Meh.