Why I'm Pro-Choice, and My Boyfriend Is, Too

by Shaker BrianWS, who may or may not become a full-time contributor someday based on a swirling purple vortex of glittery keys only one of which fits into two crumbling locks, one of which opens a door to Shakesville, and the other of which opens a door to a rip in the time-space continuum beyond which is either a parallel universe or a Malkovichian hole into Rick Santorum's brainpan.

[Content Note: Anti-choice views on reproductive rights; disrespect for autonomy and consent.]

I will never need an abortion. It's a fact of my life as a cis gay man in a relationship with another cis gay man, but being fervently pro-choice is very important to me, and it's also very important to me that I found a partner who shares that belief.

I'm pro-choice not only for the women in my life who have had abortions or who one day may need to terminate a pregnancy, but because I've found that a person's view on abortion rights is a really great test to determine how someone feels about bodily autonomy as a whole—and, to that end, what kind of autonomy over my own body I can expect when dealing with that person.

When I was single last summer before meeting my current boyfriend, I had a profile on OkCupid, and one day received a message from a guy who quickly identified himself as a conservative supporter of Ron Paul.

I don't like Ron Paul one bit, so I was hesitant but curious. Knowing what I know now, I have no problem saying that if that happened to me today, there never would've been drinks or dinner or anything. But it didn't happen today.

We often hear, even from people presumed to be liberal allies, about how "both sides are just as bad," and we're trained by the media to think that every opinion is equally worth being heard, and even this progressive feminist was not immune to having internalized those messages.

"If I don't go out with him just because of his politics, then I'd be an asshole," I thought, and I decided to go out and meet him.

I figured that we could have a good time just hanging out and letting it be casual regardless of political affiliation. That worked for a few dates. We didn't much discuss politics, including abortion, although I knew his position, and I found myself actually enjoying his company.

"I'm the next James Carville!" I excitedly told myself, feeling a slight, and now embarrassing, sense of smugness for having been "big enough" to enjoy his company without agreeing with his political views. In doing so, however, I was hiding a huge part of who I am, and a huge part of what I believe to be true and important in this world, just to be able to say I managed to navigate that political divide.

We did that dance for about a month, sharing drinks, movies, dinners, and games about every other day, all while both trying our best to ignore the giant whirring abortion machine in the room.

That's when the wheels came flying off. We were invited to a Pride party at his ex's apartment overlooking the parade route, and we were excited to go to that together. There were plenty of drinks, plenty of amazing new friends to meet, and I was having a great day. We were both worried initially that his ex might be weird about me being there, but it turned out that his ex and I hit it off immediately.

He and I were, in fact, on the back deck, chatting, laughing, and generally having a great day, when another one of the party's hosts came up to me and said, "You might want to go talk to your date; he's really upset right now."

"Why?!" I asked. It was a great day with great company, and nothing seemed like it could go wrong. I went to look for him, to find that he had angrily stormed out of the party. I texted him to find out what was wrong, and it was then that his adherence to a strict conservative ideology became the problem that, deep inside, I always knew it was going to be someday, sooner than later.

He was angry that I was socializing with his ex, and told me that I had humiliated him by being friendly with his ex. Naturally, this made no sense to me—after all, we had accepted an invitation to a party at his ex's house, and learned that our earlier worries about it being uncomfortable were completely unfounded. So unfounded, in fact, that his ex and I were able to act like adults who had never met one another, treat each other with respect, and find out that we actually had a lot in common and enjoyed talking to one another.

The only one who found the situation uncomfortable was the guy I was seeing—the guy who had put us into this position in the first place. I felt a ton of pressure going over to his ex's house that day; it's not easy to be the "new guy" in a tight-knit group of friends when an ex is included. The fact that it wasn't the weirdest day my date and I had ever spent together should have been a huge victory.

Instead, it turned ugly.

He had wanted me to go to this party with him at a place that could have been very uncomfortable for me, and I had made the best of it. He didn't want me to make the best of it for me, though—he wanted me to make the best of it for him. And I had failed to behave as he had desired for me to behave.

As the night wore on, he continued to berate me via text messages and phone calls. He policed my behavior in exacting detail, slut-shamed me for being friendly with his ex, belligerently screamed at me, plainly and simply commanding me to be something more like what he wanted, rather than who I actually am, and to make the choices he wanted me to make, rather than the choices that were right for me.

So clueless, he then demanded that I spend the night at his apartment. I felt afraid, and I felt unsafe. I left and never saw him again.

In the end, it should have come as little surprise to me that he would show his hand like that at some point. But it wasn't until he actually tried to claim what he thought was his right to control my body and my actions that I actually let it all sink in.

And when it was done sinking in, I was left with this: Fuck. That.

Sure, this could have been the jerk behavior of anyone with any political ideology, but I am left with the thought that true belief in rigid conservative anti-choice ideology presents a fundamental problem for those desirous of an egalitarian relationship. The anti-choice position is rooted in a desire to control women's bodies, restrict their ability to act as individuals, and to police their behavior. If my date thinks that control over a woman's body is his right, what guarantee do I have that he would ever think any differently about MY body?

There's an undeniable connection between views on abortion rights and views on bodily autonomy as a whole, and that's why gay men need to care about abortion rights. The same people who will work tirelessly to restrict women's autonomy over their own bodies and choices won't hesitate for a moment to tear mine away, too.

The only body that an anti-choice conservative thinks shouldn't be controlled is his (or her) own.

Being pro-choice means respecting the autonomy of women and other people with uteri over their own bodies, full-stop. There is no halfway. There are no, "...but" qualifiers. You either do—or you don't.

It's not about babies, or whatever other bullshit anti-choicers say to try to pretend that it's about anything other than controlling and policing women's bodies—experience tells me that assholes with rigid anti-choice ideologies based around controlling other people's bodies aren't likely to ever consider exceptions to that rule for me and my body just because I don't have a uterus.

Something Something Ron Paul

[Content Note: Rape culture; encroachments on reproductive rights; violence.]

Yesterday, I wrote about Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul's recent interview with CNN host Piers Morgan in which Paul said he would give a family member who had survived a rape "a shot of estrogen," but only "if it's an honest rape."

scatx has been following up on reactions to this story and its coverage at the tumblr she created expressly for that purpose, Honest Rape. If you'd like to submit your translations of what Ron Paul meant by "honest rape," you can do so here.


My contribution.
Also, as per usual, the violent trolls are coming out in droves in response to scatx's feminist anti-rape activism, threatening and harassing her, thus proving the goddamn point again, and in the interest of balancing that scale a bit, I just want to take a moment to note that scatx is brave and strong and clever and awesome, a total fucking champion, and I am glad to have her on my side.

Primarily Horrendo

[Content Note: This post contains discussion of disablism and of the Mormon practice of nonconsensual posthumous baptism.]


"I will keel you!"
So, the Republicans had ANOTHER DEBATE! last night, because, little known fact, standing in front of cameras with 6,000 CNN logos behind you has been found to extend life. Each of these men will live to be at least 200 years old.

Anyway! Mitt Romney went after Newt Gingrich like a full-tilt miffed machine, and delivered the world-class snippiness that only a wealthy white dude who's ordered chocolate chip cookies (effortlessly winning the Republican Primary) but gets served oatmeal raisin cookies (having to work for it) can produce. My favorite line of the evening was: "I spent 25 years in business. If I had a business executive come to me and say they wanted to spend a few hundred billion dollars to put a colony on the moon, I'd say, 'You're fired.' The idea that corporate America wants to go off to the moon and build a colony there, it may be a big idea but it's not a good idea." BURN!

He has a point, though. Corporate America doesn't even want to maintain the colonies here, so it doesn't seem very likely they'll want to build one on the moon.

"Inconceivably, we have even less interest in the moon than in Detroit."—Big Business.

If you want more Funtime Debate Action, Richard Adams' live coverage can be read here. It is, as usual, very enjoyable!

Back on the campaign trail, the Republican Establishment, who's decided Mitt Romney looks pretty good after all if Newt Gingrich is the only other viable option, has decided on its "Fuck Newt" strategy, and it's a doozy: Newt Gingrich is crazy.

The Romney campaign is sending out a print ad that seeks to "rais[e] doubts about Newt Gingrich's 'emotional stability'," and dog whistles cuckoo by calling him, in big block letters, ERRATIC and RECKLESS.

(The main picture of Gingrich, viewable at the link, is also cropped to make maximum hay of the fact that he is fat: "Look at the double chin on this guy!")

Elder GOP statesman and Viagra spokesboner, Bob Dole, who endorsed Romney, is doubling-down with the implications that Gingrich isn't of sound mind, releasing one of the most scathing statements against a member of one's own party I can recall. In the statement, Dole says that Gingrich's ideas as Speaker were "off the wall," and suggests Gingrich himself doesn't even understand why he does things. The statement is brutally honest about Gingrich's ethics problems, ego, and poisonous unpopularity, but there's definitely a troubling undercurrent of "bro be crazy!" running through it.

Meanwhile, on the "Fuck Romney" train, there's more natter about one of the more curious aspects of Mormonism—the practice of posthumous baptism, which is something Romney has said he's done. It's a controversial practice for several legitimate reasons, not just because it's "weird." It's an anti-Semitic practice for one, in habit if not design, as Jewish cemeteries are frequent targets for posthumous baptism, despite repeated requests by Jewish leaders to cease and desist.

I also find it really objectionable that Mitt Romney doesn't consider deeply problematic what is ultimately an issue of consent. Look, I don't believe that performing some ritual over a grave makes a blinking bit of difference in determining where some allegedly sentient soul that vacated the buried body spends its eternal retirement. But Mitt Romney does. He believes that person went into the ground with one belief, and he can change their infinite destiny for them. And he believes he has the right to do that. Which is pretty fucked up.

And it doesn't leave me with a whole lot of confidence that a President Mitt Romney would be very sensitive to other issues of consent that matter in the here and now.

That's something worth asking about. But won't be, because we live in a rape culture, where hostility to consent is the norm.

Also because how could they possibly make room for a question on such a SILLY TOPIC, ha ha, when there are only like 3,000 debates left?!

Moving on...

Something something Ron Paul.

Rick Santorum is still hanging in there, I guess because he believes he actually has a shot at becoming either the nominee and/or the nominee's veep choice? Oof, Rick Santorum. You do not have a shot at either of these things.

In totally unrelated news, ahem, a new study has found that "there is reason to believe that strict right-wing ideology might appeal to those who have trouble grasping the complexity of the world." Huh. Shocking.

In all seriousness, the study was examining correlation between IQ and prejudice, suggesting conservatism and prejudice is an innate intelligence issue. But we should all know by now that IQ tests don't meaningfully measure any kind of comprehensive intelligence. The issue underlying the appeal of right-wing ideology is intellectual curiosity, or the lack thereof, which is really not contingent on what's measured with IQ tests.

There are subcultures that actively discourage intellectual curiosity, by demonizing science, by romanticizing segregationist small-town life, by sneering at people perceived to be elite or over-educated, by framing education as the enemy of faith, by embracing isolationism. Even rape culture narratives are embedded with disincentives against adventure: Don't leave the safety of your home, neighborhood, town, county, state, nation because there are nefarious strangers waiting to get you! And for god's sake don't use the internet!

All of these things conspire to create a mind seized with fear, afraid to be curious. Curiosity is necessary for empathy, and empathy necessary for progressive positions.

Conservatives are not unintelligent by nature; they're incurious by design.

That's an important distinction.

Talk about these things! Or don't. Whatever makes you happy. Life is short.

[Photo via.]

There Is No Such Thing As Second-Hand Consent

[Content Note: This post contains reference to a sexual assault and discussion of intimate partner violence.]

In July 2010, I wrote a piece called "Your Underdog Lovelorn Romantic May Be My Rapist," about public romantic gestures in which strangers' participation is elicited, and the potential for people's good judgment to be undermined by the belief they're helping facilitate a grand romantic moment. Relatedly, male predators often get access to female victims by claiming to already be romantically involved with them.

Today, Shaker Courtney forwarded me this terrible story (which is rife with rape apologia right down the headline and its use of the loaded word "claim" vs. a less dubious word like "allege") about a woman who "is suing Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, [alleging] staff at one of their hotels gave her room key to a drunken man who allegedly sexually assaulted her in her bed."

This guy had, according to Alison Fournier, hit on her earlier that night, and, after she'd made it clear she was not interested in having sex with him, she "retreated to her room to get away." So why did a hotel employee just hand out her room key to this guy?

That same man, according to the suit, later went to the front desk, said that he was Fournier's husband, and obtained a key from hotel staff to her room.

The staff did not ask him for any identification or proof that he was in fact Fournier's husband, according to the lawsuit.

Nor, evidently, did they even bother to pick up the phone and ring Fournier's room to get her permission to hand out a key to her room—which is something they should have done even if this guy had been her husband.

There is no such thing as second-hand consent. A husband cannot consent on his wife's behalf to give himself access to her room. There are husbands in this world who hit their wives, who rape their wives, who murder their wives. There are reasons that a wife could be in a hotel room to which she doesn't want her husband to have a key.

"In a statement given to ABC News by Starwoods Hotels and Resorts, Worldwide, the company said it is investigating the incident." Ya think? Fuck.