I’m doing research for a new writing gig*, and I have a question for the masses: Do most people shower before and/or after they have sex?
Because if so, I have really failed to follow this convention.
Answer and see the results of my survey on Urtak! Have more to say? Leave a comment under this post.
* I’ll be editing the sex and relationship section for gURL.com in a couple weeks! More updates to come :)
Is this racist? Is that racist? -
Chances are, if you’re asking, it’s probably racist.
Another interesting discussion that I’d been following the past few days on robot-heart-politics’ blog: how White people feel unfairly called “racist” when they have racial preferences in dating or express a seemingly benign curiosity about others’ background.
Look, you can defend your dating preferences all you want; you can call them “preferences” instead of a fetish. If you “tend” to be attracted to a specific race to the point where you’re largely dating only people of a specific race, you are likely fetishizing something. I say this as an Asian woman who knows firsthand the irresistable allure of my “delicate” feet, my “olive” complexion, and my “mysterious” eyes. These are phrases taken verbatim from my personal dating experiences. And you know, there’s definitely a difference when I’m dating White people who don’t fetishize me. When I’ve dated or hooked up with guys who don’t have any discernible dating patterns, they don’t make remarks about me that are specific to things that have to do with my race. They don’t tell me that Eastern religion is so “peaceful”, expecting to me to understand their New Agey sentimentality, or offer compliments that could very well apply to any random Asian chick on the street.
Yes, non-White people may also prefer to date those of their own background, but their reasons for doing so are often related to wanting shared life experiences with their partners. This, too, is a limiting way of looking at relationships, but it’s not racist to date on the basis of compatibility. It is racist, however, to think that Asian features are more attractive and to assume that this is a natural preference that you just can’t help. It’s just the way you were born! Well, maybe it feels “natural” to you, but you weren’t born into a vacuum. We’ve all grown up in a world where we are fed messages all the time about what’s beautiful and what’s not. We’re influenced by sexualized portrayals of minorities in mass media. No one just is or just isn’t attracted to XYZ racial group. Even the most enlightened of us out there make assumptions about others on the basis of cues like race, gender, class, etc. And no one is immune to that.
Along the same lines, why is it that non-Whites take so much offense to being asked about their ethnic or national origin? Because it would never occur to me to ask a White person where they’re from. Me the Living, the blogger with whom robot-heart-politics was having this discussion, presented this dilemma: while speaking with a stranger at a parking garage, she detected that he had an African accent. Yet even after she gave him cash for his parking because he had only a credit card on him, she “was still nervous to ask if he was from Africa for fear of insulting him”. She writes that “we should be able to ask questions about other people without it seeming malicious/with ill-intent”. Which is fair if you’re talking with a social acquaintance, but a stranger who you’ve only known for a few minutes? No, I don’t think it’s really appropriate to ask someone where they’re from just because you’d like to satisfy your curiosity about their accent. I am asked where I’m from all the time by strangers, and you know how that conversation goes down?
Me: I’m from California.
Stranger: But where are you originally from?
Me: San Francisco.
Stranger: But what about your family?
Me: They live in Los Angeles.
Stranger: But where do YOUR PARENTS come from?
It’s annoying, it’s unnecessary, and it’s not something that I owe a stranger. I know that it might seem really natural to ask a non-White person about their background, but I can attest from personal experience that this will not haunt you for the rest of time if you don’t find out. How do I know this? Because I’ve gone through countless social interactions with White people who never feel the need to ask me where I’m from or where my family is from! And as far as I know, they aren’t squirming inside with unquelched curiosity.
You can claim all you want that you don’t judge people on the basis of race, that race is inconsequential to you, that you are friends with plenty of minorities. Even if all these things are true, it doesn’t mean that you’re not being racist when you feel the need to “place” a person on the basis of how they look or sound. I don’t ever wonder whether my White friends are mostly Irish or German or French or whatever. This never, ever crosses my mind. But people wonder all the time where I’m from and even if they’re perfectly nice about it, it still makes me feel as if there is something that will always separate me from those who are White and allowed to walk around without being treated as objects of curiosity.
I’ve spent the better part of the morning following along in a debate between robot-heart-politics (a favorite blogger of mine) and a white, male reader of hers who “has trouble believing someone was oppressed just because they said so”. robot-heart-politics provided a bunch of studies demonstrating institutional biases against women in the maths and sciences, which the reader deemed “insufficient” and lacking in scientific rigor. What the reader wants is “a quantifiable model for white male oppression”. Not only is this impossible to produce (for reasons I’ll go into below) but it’s also highly unreasonable to expect an oppressed class to school a privileged class on what constitutes discrimination. I mean, really? I don’t expect gay people to prove to me, a straight person, that there’s actually homophobia. I don’t expect poor people to prove to me, a Harvard grad, that hunger and poverty are widespread problems. And if someone asked me, as an Asian person, to “prove” to them that racism exists, I would laugh all the way back to Chinatown. Marginalized groups are not responsible for explaining their marginalization to you. If you are actually concerned, you would take the initiative to do some research yourself instead of showing up at some oppressed group’s door step demanding a list of citations for things (racism, sexism, etc.) that are proven time and time again in the real world.
But back to why a “quantifiable” model doesn’t work:
1. No perfect model exists to measure this kind of thing and if a model like that did exist, a grad student would be the one inputting variables and determining which are important enough to include and which aren’t. And humans — especially overworked grad students — are prone to making errors, using their personal judgment, and being biased by the agendas of the lead researcher, etc. I don’t know what the White Male Reader’s academic background is, but a lot of social science is murky and vague and inconclusive and doesn’t purport to offer definite, hard answers. This is not chem lab. But as he’s already said, “But to me, if it can’t be quantified using rigorous analysis it doesn’t exist. Sorry!” Um, okay, so then a lot of things don’t exist in your mind. Can someone quantify my love for my dog versus my love for my partner? If they can’t do that, does this mean that I don’t actually have these feelings? Not everything in the world can be quantified. And even if it can and even if it bears the name of some academic journal, it doesn’t mean that it’s the Absolute Truth. (You think the editors of academic journals aren’t prone to personal biases when it comes to which papers they accept?) What you’re asking for is impossible to produce, even if the world’s leading academics work on it.
2. The “epistemological rigor” demanded by robot-heart-politics’ reader is a much higher standard than what is asked by even the criminal justice system. If a bunch of children claim abuse, say at the hands of a religious institution, do we ask them to offer airtight proof? Even if no one was around to witness said abuse? Even if they only have their memories and personal experiences? And when they come back with others who had shared experiences, do we write off all their stories as “anecdotes” that don’t prove a greater trend — that trend being that institutionally, there is a problem that needs to be addressed? At the point where hordes of people start coming forward with their own horror stories, it’s time to shut up and listen, no? You have here a bunch of folks who, yes, are citing their own anecdotes of discrimination, but who constitute such a large group that I find it hard to believe anyone could ignore that these are institutional problems. By demanding undeniable proof and refusing to listen until you receive said proof, you’re essentially telling oppressed people to spend time proving their oppression or else be taken for liars and/or crybabies.
For more on privilege, read this fantastic post by robot-heart-politics.
I try to keep my cold German on his toes.
(Yes, my iPhone is in German. Getting in practice where I can!)
A Sexpert's Advice: Don't Listen To The Advice | Sex Really -
Ugh, dating manuals are the bane of my existence. Every so often, someone will email me saying, “I read this and this in a book. Is it true? Should I follow these rules?” And then I have to launch into a whole lecture about how no one has any 100% Success Guaranteed formula for romantic relationships. And that most people who claim that they do are quacks or just as bad at relationships as we are. I talk about The Rules, He’s Just Not That Into You, and other dating guide nonsense in the following article for Sex Really:
When it comes to a divisive topic like first-date etiquette, there are so many divergent viewpoints that a girl needs to get some perspective before she dives headfirst into the self-help section at her local bookstore.
So step one: Let’s take it back to the old school. What were the love gurus of yore telling young women? According to one 1938 dating guide, women are advised to avoid getting drunk, sitting in awkward positions, chewing gum with their mouths open, or talking while dancing. That last one aside, all the other tips actually sound quite reasonable to me. If anything, dating rules have gotten wonkier in the post-war era.
Take, for example, the book-turned-movie He’s Just Not That Into You, in which Greg Behrendt tells women, “We like not knowing if we can catch you. We feel rewarded when we do.” So in other words, guys are just like dogs and women are just like squeaky toys…
Outside Knightsbridge Station in London this summer
Photo credit: Patrick Hamm
Anonymous asked: As a feminist, what is your view on children?
My totally kneejerk, purely personal, non-feminist opinion: I do not like kids. Nothing personal, babies, but I do not find you or your bodily excretions at all adorable. I don’t like the time, commitment, or money you require. I don’t like your lack of boundaries and failure to comprehend rules. I’m also not fond of listening to high-pitched squeals or forcibly removing sharp objects from mouths. If I become a mother, I will probably require frequent sedation.
That said, I’m totally capable of playing and hanging out with children for short periods of time. Kids like me, and I like them, as long as I don’t have to take them home with me at the end of the day! I can understand — intellectually, if not personally — the biological urge to have children, though I don’t think there’s a single non-selfish reason to do so. But hell, if having children makes you happy, go ahead and do it. There are plenty of things we do that are out of self-interest.
My feminist opinion on children, however, is this: women, especially poor women, totally get the shitty end of the bargain. If you are a woman in a heterosexual relationship, you will likely be stuck with the brunt of the child-rearing duties. Of course, this isn’t always the case, but on average, women spend more time on childcare and domestic duties than men, even when both partners work outside the home. Some women — those who are very, very lucky — can opt out of work to stay at home with their kids, but this is not a choice that most families have the luxury of making. And on the other side of the feminist coin, some high-powered female executives do manage to balance career and family, but it’s not as if they’re doing it single-handedly. For every child who has a nanny, there’s another child (the nanny’s) who doesn’t have a mother. One of the contradictions of modern feminism is that women can’t actually “have it all”. Not as long as we still have to survive in a market economy like everyone else.
I don’t have the time to get into Marxism & Mommyhood 101 on this blog, but for a primer on the state of women’s equality and modern motherhood, I’d recommend Arlie Hochschild’s The Second Shift. As a side note, despite my lack of patience for those wriggling little beasts known as kids, I’m very interested in pregnancy and motherhood from an academic standpoint. So if you’ve got more burning questions: Ask them here.
At the Tate Modern in London.
Photo Credit: Patrick Hamm
Exiting one of the exhibitions, Exposed: Voyeurism, Surveillance, & the Camera (which is running until October 3rd)
Photo Credit: Patrick Hamm