PBS: Profiles in sexiness

Published by Twisty on February 7, 2012. 10 Comments

Longtime readers are aware that hot flashes at 2 AM often oblige spinster aunts to engage in feverish channel-flipping. Last night, in the grip this plague, I encountered on PBS a riveting episode of “American Experience,” which series documentarizes and dramatizes the lives of iconic figures in American history. The subject of last night’s re-run was that Gay Nineties sweetheart of the Wild West, sharpshooter Annie Oakley.

The talking heads interviewed for “American Experience” were unanimous: Annie Oakley was awesome because even though she performed — shooting cigars out of people’s mouths and splitting playing cards in half at 30 paces — covered head to toe in buckskin, she was still one sexay laday!

Annie Oakley managed to combine both demureness and voluptuousness in her costume… She never showed any skin. Her ankles were never bare. But her costumes were form-fitting. She wore leggings under short skirts, so people could see the shape of her legs as she ran out into the arena… She was, in that sense, appealing to the best instincts in the men in her audience, men who were attracted to her sexuality while still not having to feel guilty about being attracted, because at the same time she was ladylike and she was demure… ” –[Joy Kasson, American Experience website]

It’s a good thing “American Experience” is on the case, guarding against the chance that sweaty midnight spinster aunts might accidentally think of Annie Oakley in terms other than that of dudely boners.

Posted in Femininity and Movies and TV. Bite me, Chad.

BeeDeeEssEm insiders have unpopular revelation

Published by Twisty on February 7, 2012. 39 Comments

I hope you’re sitting down, because I am about to reveal the shock of a lifetime.

Abuse is rampant in the BDSM ‘community’.

But don’t take my word for it. Here is BDSM “activist and sex worker” Kitty Stryker:

“When I start to think of the number of times I have been cajoled, pressured, or forced into sex that I did not want when I came into ‘the BDSM community’, I can’t actually count them,” Stryker wrote in Good Vibrations’ magazine. “As I reflected on the number of times I’ve … been pressured into a situation where saying ‘no’ was either not respected or not an option, or said that I did not want a certain kind of toy used on me which was then used, I’m kind of horrified.”

According to Stryker, ignoring safe words, torturing women submissives with “toys,” and raping them is de rigueur around the dungeon, but nobody in the scene will admit it or cop to it. When a member of the ‘community’ does speak out, she is ignored or accused of being a whiner. Or of being drunk. A cloak of secrecy envelops our enlightened fetishists, which fetishists, I might add, are constantly defending their corny lifestyle as liberating, empowerful, and awesome.

You know it always works out super great for women in environments that are enveloped by cloaks of secrecy.

So, as is revealed in the afore-linked article, a couple of BDSM activist ladies are trying to get the word out about the abuse. But uh-oh. Surprise. They are being met with resistance from upholders of the BDSM status quo. One of these grumpy gusses suggests that women who get themselves assaulted are basically asking for it. She avers that the activists’ position has “some of the flavor of the kind of victimhood that we see from some second wave feminists.” And I hate to have to tell you, she doesn’t consider “second wave feminist” a compliment!

The scene is at least tacitly acknowledged by its adherents to be inherently dangerous, spawning a victim-blaming protocol of safeguards reminiscent of those rape-avoidance email forwards. Cautions one avid participant:

A bottom/sub MUST investigate who they are seeking to play with. They MUST insist that their safe words are honored. They should, when playing with someone new or unfamiliar, have someone they trust be present to look out for their safety. A bottom/sub should never play with someone the first time in a private location (someone’s home, hotel, etc.). If public play spaces are not available, try to set an arrangement where there will be someone to look after their best interests.

As in, “Yo, dude, I insist that you not rape me when I say the safe word.” Telling a rapist not to rape me, now why didn’t I think of that? That always works!

Since time began, the argument here on Savage Death Island has been that the fetishization of oppression culture is pretty profoundly antifeminist. Arguments from BDSM fans about its awesomeness have always had the whiff of denial and delusion about them. The notion that the BDSM community is a kinky little oasis of trust and respect in a world that in every other respect is governed by misogynist patriarchal mores has never rung true. Of course men rape women in the BDSM scene, because men rape women, period. You don’t have to be a world-class spinster aunt specializing in No. 1 Science Information to conclude that enactment of abuse scenarios for sexual gratification is unlikely to result in an abuse-free outcome. Or to recognize all the usual trappings of rape culture, from victim-silencing to ineffectual rape-prevention advice to circling the wagons to protect the abusers. Far from “pushing the boundaries” and being “transgressive,” BDSM is nothing but the same tired old status quo in a corny rubber slave mask.

And it’s stupid.

[Note: Using the acronym "BDSM" in your comment will send it straight to moderation; that's just how the spamulator works.]

Thanks Matty

Posted in Rape Culture and Sexploitation. Bite me, Chad.

Komen caves

Published by Twisty on February 3, 2012. 48 Comments

“We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.” — Komen press release

Crap, now they’ll be forgiven and everyone will go back to pinkness and plucky survivorship and mistaking shopping for philanthropy and looking the other way on the whole carcinogenic corporate partners thing.

UPDATE: Komen has in fact used the old Fake Cave Gambit, which I would have realized if I’d spent two more minutes thinking about that press release. Check this out.

Thanks @janeenlee.

Posted in Announcements. Bite me, Chad.

Women aren’t funny

Published by Twisty on February 2, 2012. 215 Comments

Based on a true story.

Posted in Art is my LIFE and Men Hate You. Bite me, Chad.

Komen sucks, Part 47

Published by Twisty on February 2, 2012. 44 Comments

Nothing could heartwarm the spinster aunt–cum–plucky breast cancer survivor more than to see the vile Komen Foundation getting raked over the coals and scrutinized and vilified in the mainstream. It’s about fucking time.

So it is fair to ask: Just what are the scientific and medical standards to which the Susan G. Komen Foundation adheres, if any? Why would a breast cancer organization hire staff and elect board members that misrepresent science and facts?  Can you trust them to give you sound information about breast cancer?  And can you trust them with investing your money in the best possible efforts to end breast cancer? — Jodi Jackson, RH Reality Check.

The answer:

No. Duh.

If you missed it, the story so far:

1. Komen withdraws $600,000 in funding from Planned Parenthood, citing a policy that prohibits Komen’s support of any organization that is the subject of an investigation (Planned Parenthood is currently being harassed by House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), who has launched a politically-motivated, trumped-up “inquiry” into whether PP has used federal funds for abortion services).

2. Komen’s Senior Vice President for Policy turns out to be ultraconservative antifeminist Georgia gubernatorial washout Karen Handel, who thinks shocked Planned Parenthood supporters should “cry me a river” (click the thumbnail for a screencap of the offending retweet via @JessicaValenti). Handel is an anti-choice right-winger of the first water. In her gubernatorial campaign she pledged to “eliminate” grants to Planned Parenthood.

3. Outcry is substantial. I just wish it went a little deeper.

Deeper than what, you ask? Well, right now the principle criticism of Komen is that Planned Parenthood used the Komen cash to administer breast cancer screenings, about 170,000 in all, to mostly low-income and marginalized women. Now, nobody is against breast cancer screenings for the poor. But once an indigent or uninsured woman gets the free mammogram, and it comes up positive, what then? Who is going to pay for her treatment? Cute teddy bears? Volunterrorists in pink baseball caps? Consumer philanthropists eating “Crunch for the Cure” junk food? “Early detection” doesn’t mean shit if the early detectee is just left flapping in the breeze.

Listen everyone, Komen doesn’t prevent cancer, and Komen doesn’t pay for breast cancer treatment. It “raises awareness” through “early detection” and funds “research” focused on pharmaceutical cures for cancers that many of Komen’s corporate sponsors might likely have a hand in causing in the first place. Of the 11 Austin-area Komen grant recipients, for example, only one, WINGS, lists “comprehensive no-cost breast cancer treatment” in its list of services. The other 10 focus almost exclusively on diagnostics, “education,” and “patient navigation” (“patient navigation”? What the heck is that, they throw indigent patients in a boat and make’m row for the cure?).

I hasten to point out that WINGS received only $218,000 from Komen-Austin in 2011. That might sound like a lot, and it is, but in terms of cancer treatment it’s a drop in the bucket (for example, my own little foray into the cutthroat world of breast cancer patienthood has cost well over $100,000 so far. Although I have insurance, about $50,000 of that amount was out-of-pocket for designer drugs and genetic testing that insurance wouldn’t cover). So, out of all the women in the Austin area who have breast cancer — a lot, since 1 out of 7 women get it at some point — there’s only enough Komen loot to pay for the treatment of — I’ll be generous — 2.5 of them. And that’s if WINGS doesn’t spend any money on anything else, and that’s if the women go to San Antonio for their free treatment, because WINGS has no affiliation with any health care providers in Austin.

In other words, Komen doesn’t give a shit about poor women, so the hell with those who look to Planned Parenthood for a free breast exam.* With politics clearly a greater priority than women’s health, it’s no surprise that Komen is, quoth Jackson, “allied with those who misrepresent medical and public health evidence, including about causes of breast cancer.”

Nefarious Komen VP Karen Handel is not alone in her misogynist agenda. Board member Jane Abraham is also affiliated with some very nasty groups. You know those crisis pregnancy centers where lying liar godbags lie to pregnant ladies about abortions causing breast cancer and other spurious shit? Jane Abraham is, like, the queen of those things. Meanwhile, says Jackson,

you don’t see too many folks working with the Komen Foundation who are out there pounding the pavement on, say, the possible links between environmental toxins and breast cancer, causal links between which make the corporate partners of Komen very, very nervous.

Komen is the most visible brand in the whole cancer industrial complex. It disguises itself as some big altruistic community effort for women’s health, but it’s really just another conservative, honky organization with a misogynist political agenda. A marketing juggernaut instrumental in raking in piles of cash for and cleansing the tarnished images of its evil corporate sponsors, Komen has successfully brainwashed millions to believe that the “problem” of women’s health can be solved by licking yogurt lids.

_________________
* In fact, the whole Komen-driven breast cancer “movement” is centered around middle-class white women. Drop by any pinkathon on race day if you need corroboration.

Posted in Crazy sexy cancer and The megatheocorporatocracy. Bite me, Chad.

Blamer exhibits devilish cunning

Published by Twisty on February 1, 2012. 50 Comments

You may have followed a link I recently posted, wherein it was revealed that in the State of Texas it is now considered perfectly awesome to force women seeking abortions to undergo a repellent, rape-like pronging with a vaginal ultrasound probe during which the state-controlled doctor forces them to listen to irrelevant, non-medical blather about the cute baby-like features of the fetus. Well, a similar bill recently turned up in the Virginia State Senate, but with a surprisingly heartwarming amendment.

To protest a bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound before having an abortion, State Sen. Janet Howell (D-Fairfax)on Monday attached an amendment that would require men to have a rectal exam and a cardiac stress test before obtaining a prescription for erectile dysfunction medication. [HuffPo]

Ha-ho! Janet Howell! You go girl! Honorary Blamer of the Week!

Tragically, Howell’s amendment was rejected by 3 votes, and the senate went on to give the nod to the fucking misogynist mandatory ultrasound bill. It’s always the way.

But anyway, inspired by Howell’s Do-It-To-The-Men-Instead initiative, blamer Incognotter sent Spinster HQ a nice email expanding on the Do-It-To-The-Men-Instead theme (one of my favorite themes). She says:

I am beginning to think we are fighting for reproductive rights in the wrong way. If the point is to have big-government interventionism that negates bodily sovereignty as a “solution” to a perceived moral problem, then we should neuter all men at puberty and bank their sperm. It could be used consensually for the purpose of reproduction. No more abortion issues, no more birth control issues, much less war on women. If they had to face that they might suddenly reconsider this big invasive bullshit. Can you imagine the reaction to the realization that a woman had to sign her consent to get knocked up?

The caliber of blaming exhibited here is impressive. Neuter all the dudes! It hits the blaming trifecta: elegant, just, and diabolical! Unwanted pregnancies? Gone, daddy, gone! Abortion? Obsolete! Ghastly “Teen Mom” reality shows on the Aberrant Human Behavior Channel? Cancelled! Babies in trash cans? A thing of the past! Compulsory pregnancy as punishment for slutty behavior? Over! Stuck having to make do with the inferior sperm of your partner? Done!

Imagine the shitstorm if one were to take this — merely as a thought experiment — to the Internet for dude review. Ludicrous! Inhuman! Man-hating! Unnatural! Sacreligious! You castrating bitch! I hope you die in a rape fire, feminazi!

All the while women are in actuality expected to endure much higher and more toxic levels of state intervention simply as a consequence of being female.

This glaring double standard should be all the proof you need that men hate you. If you want to know whether Virginia State Senator Jill Vogel hates you, well, she’s the original sponsor of her state’s rape-the-abortion-seekers bill, so you decide.

On a final note, I must point out that Spinster HQ is fundamentally opposed to human reproduction of any kind. But it is a frustrating reality that reproduction is widely regarded as a “right,” or at least some sort of godly duty, despite the undisputed fact that current human population levels are unsustainable. So as long as they’re gonna do it anyway, and as long as the state is gonna interfere with it wherever it can, it might as well place as much of the burden on men as possible, if for no other reason than an elegant poetic justice/reparations for past abuses combo.

Posted in Men Hate You, Politics, The Argument Against Human Reproduction and The megatheocorporatocracy. Bite me, Chad.

A few lite thoughts on rape and prostitution

Published by Twisty on January 31, 2012. 96 Comments

Note: After writing this post, I was obliged to jettison the vaunted Facebook experiment. Still on Twitter, though, @IBlame.

Since announcing the Facebook experiment I’ve done practically nothing but approve friend requests and wince my way through a bunch of untamed emoticons and lolz, but one patriarchy-blaming discussion did happen to catch my jaundiced eye. Through the haze of jacknut gas — I believe there is no way to contain jacknuts on Facebook, so this experiment may be coming to a swifter-than-expected close — I detected an argument worth making. This argument erupted when I asserted, as I so often do, that prostitution is a system under the auspices of which rape is legitimized by introducing the element of monetary compensation as a mitigating factor. I said, in other words, that prostitution is pay-per-rape.

You can probably guess what happened next. That’s right, it was the old sex-workers-(and clueless dudes)-vs-woman-hating-radfems type-deal. The scenario goes something like this (I excerpt from the [now-defunct] Facebook thread):

Sex Worker: I’m a professional dominatrix. Sex work is not equal to rape. It isn’t that sex workers don’t get raped, but rape is certainly not the norm. In fact, just the experience of being a sex worker, just as the experience of being an extremely active, healthy sexual person, has the unfortunate consequence of increasing the chances of encountering a sexually abusive person.

Sex worker supporter: In rape advocacy, the woman defines and names her experience because to behave otherwise is to insist that her experiences are less valid than an advocates’ interpretation. Calling sex work “rape” implies that sex workers are too ignorant to define their own reality. How is that respectful?

Some clueless dude: What do you mean it’s rape? In legal prostitution (like Amsterdam) the worker always has the right to say no. Prostitution is a service, like therapy or a massage. If our puritan society would quit demonizing it, it could be regulated and the stigma removed.

[Normally it isn't useful to accommodate clueless dude commentary in any discussion of prostitution, but I include this one for comic relief. Women have the right to say "no"? Ha! Good one! Our "puritan society"? Wha? Has this guy turned on a TV in the last 15 years? "Like Amsterdam"? Dude, if Dutch prostitution is so awesome, how come so few Dutch women heed its siren call? 75% of sex workers in the Netherlands, many of them children, many of them trafficked, are migrants from Thailand, China, Nigeria, and Eastern Europe. Legalizing prostitution in the Netherlands has merely given criminal gangs a leg up and created an invisible underclass of abused, marginalized, undocumented immigrants with no access to social services and no protections under the legal system.]

But I digress.

Savage Death Island recognizes that the word “rape” rankles those with a heavy investment in the status quo. It rankles the married ladies when I aver that marriage is institutionalized rape, because their Nigels are special guys. It rankles victim’s advocates who believe I’m making light of “real” rape. Likewise it rankles the prostituted ladies because they are sex professionals, not victims.

According to sex professionals with internet access, they don’t need a bunch of do-goody theorizers telling them what their experience is or isn’t. They don’t want any radical feminists all up in their shit telling them what they can and can’t do with their lives. They are empowered to make their own choices. They are themselves feminists, so shut up already with the paternalistic jibba-jabba.

I get it. It’s like when some dude shows up to explain feminism to me. So I’d better clarify a couple of things.

If a prostituted woman wishes to describe her experience as that of a trained professional working a trade, she will get no argument from me. I am not interested in telling her how to feel about herself or her work. I don’t deny that there may well exist a cohort of contented, fairly-compensated sex workers who freely choose to find personal fulfillment in providing what they believe is a valuable service. I don’t blame sex workers for choosing to do sex work. I don’t hate sex workers. I don’t even hate women. I advocate fully human status for women in the sex industry, as I do for all female persons in any sex-class industry (including the motherhood industry, the childhood industry, and the spinster industry). I don’t believe prostitution should be illegal. Like many sex worker advocates, I’m for decriminalization.

Oh, and while I’m at it, it should be understood that when I employ such colorful phrases as “men use women as toilets,” I am not describing my personal feelings toward women; I’m describing the institutionalized, enpornulated male contempt of the sex class, which contempt has been documented ad nauseam on this here blog by many professional patriarchy blamers. I do not regard prostituted women as toilets, but it is my contention that men who use them do.

To rephrase, if you are an empowerful sex worker and you don’t feel that your respectful clients and considerate bosses are raping/pimping you, congratulations! The contingency to which I allude — that prostitution is pay-per-rape — doesn’t apply to you.

It does apply, however, to the unknowable legions of women and girls who have been coerced into the life by thugs and drugs and who remain abused and marginalized by misogynist cultural mores and antediluvian jurisprudence. It applies to all exploited women and girls for whom the bitter, grinding reality of misogyny as a human rights crisis cannot be glossed over with fantasies about women’s empowerment and delusions about agency and choice. Here’s my gist:

The patriarchal set-up has it fixed so that the practice of commodifying women’s bodies necessarily creates a rich and fetid growth medium for violence and exploitation. The persistent condition of women as an underclass of rape-receptacles (as per the Global Accords Governing Fair Use of Women) relies on this concept of bod-commodification. Abuses are not limited to prostituted women, but extend to the entirety of the sex class. Just the other day, for example, my own great state of Texas ruled that women seeking abortions must be forcibly pronged by doctors wielding vaginal ultrasound probes. That’s right, it’s state rape!*

Sex worker advocacy groups seeking to change this set-up to women’s advantage will not succeed, because patriarchy will never allow the liberation of the sex class.

Which brings us to the unfortunate disconnect between Savage Death Islandism and sex work advocacy. Though both yearn for an end to human rights abuses suffered by prostituted women, ultimately we are at cross-purposes. The Savage Death Island idea is to smash patriarchy entirely via revolution, thereby liberating women from the tyranny of the sex class, eliminating the vast power imbalance that lies at the root of fetishized and eroticized dominance, and obviating the demand for prostitution altogether. The sex workers, on the other hand, desire to make a living from patriarchal oppression. So there’s the rub: the feminist revolt scheme would ultimately put them all out of work, because, post-revolution, sex would cease to be a commodity.

Unless patriarchy is smashed, prostituted women will always be oppressed, because all women will always be oppressed.

_____________________
* The abortion sonogram law, which lawmakers passed last legislative session, requires doctors to perform sonograms and describe what they see, including the size of the fetus and the length of its limbs. The measure has been in court almost since it passed, with opponents arguing it violates doctors’ First Amendment rights by forcing them to disclose information that isn’t medically necessary and that the woman may not want to hear. [...] Gov. Rick Perry also praised today’s ruling, calling it “a victory for all who stand in defense of life.” — Texas Tribune

Posted in Rape Culture and Sexploitation. Bite me, Chad.

Abandon ship!

Published by Twisty on January 31, 2012. 45 Comments

You know how I was gonna do this big Facebook experiment? Well, my account got suspended because — here’s a shocker — Facebook is under the impression that Twisty Faster isn’t my real name. Evidently using a nom de bloggue is a capital offense. Unlike the captain of the Costa Concordia, the IBTP page went down with the ship. I’m afraid I was unwilling to administrate the page with my Earth name.

I suppose one of the jacknuts I banned ratted me out. I’ve had that account for over a year, but they only just now got around to kicking me out. Funny how they let that hilarious guy “Joe Ker” — obviously his real name — jizz all over my wall with his funny rape threats.

Apologies to everyone who took the time to friend me, and particularly to the We Blame the Patriarchy group blamers for their generous consideration.

I have to admit, though, I’d be lying if I said my obstreberal lobe wasn’t pulsating with relief. That lobe never did think Facebook was such a hot idea.

Well, I’ll be back later with a gripping post on why radical feminism and sex work advocacy are doomed to catfight in hell forever, but first I’m off to delete my Earthling Facebook account. Best to make a clean break.

Posted in Announcements. Bite me, Chad.

Savage Death Spring

Published by Twisty on January 29, 2012. 52 Comments

Some mental floss relating to blaming on Facebook:

1. Over the weekend members of the “I blame the patriarchy” Facebook group were kind enough to humor me by dismantling their group and remantling under the new moniker “We Blame the Patriarchy” (all of this mantling was made necessary by the inability to perform a simple name change on the FB platform). I requested this change to avoid confusion, since I kind of use the “I Blame the Patriarchy”/ Odd Lady avatar combo as my personal professional internet feminist online identity.

To join We Blame the Patriarchy, you have to have a Facebook identity. Then you just go to the group page and request to join. One of the several thousand admins will welcome you with open arms. I am told that this is a “closed” group, which if I understand correctly means that whatever you post there will not also show up all over the rest of Facebook.

Would that I could be more involved with this worthy group of blamers, but as you have undoubtedly perceived, I barely manage to post here once in a blue moon, and, as I’ll get to in a minute, I’ve got another little project on. Even so, I’ll look in whenever I can. I’ll be looking forward with particular interest to the results of their delightfully anarchic “everybody’s an admin” experiment.

2. All the above-mentioned activity reminded me that I am in charge of 2 other (abandoned) Facebook projects: the “official” I Blame the Patriarchy page, and the Twisty Faster entity.

In the beginning there was to be just the one patriarchy-blaming page, but FB wouldn’t let me do this without also signing up as a human. Not being particularly adept at this social media crap, I haven’t quite worked out how to streamline my process, but as it stands, anyone may post on the IBTP page, making a sort of perpetual open thread, and whatever I post will appear both there and on the Twisty Wall. And possibly on Twitter. I think. Who the hell knows, really.

Twisty-on-Facebook is a Savage Death Island No. 1 Science experiment. I mostly cast a jaundiced eye at the whole set-up, since being made into a product nauseates me, and the idea that Facebook is essentially a giant spy network nauseates me even more, and I am still further nauseated by the fact that everybody knows it’s a giant spy network yet they use the thing anyway.

Still, though I suspect it is pretty unlikely, it is possible that the pros might outweigh the cons. You know, the Arab Spring and a that. So the goal is to foment a Savage Death Spring in protest of global misogynist human rights violations. To that end I’ll be friending blamers left and right, and posting over there quasi-frequently for a while, while I collect the data and, in my spare time, ignite feminist revolt. I invite everyone who can bear Facebook to join me in friending Twisty and “liking” I Blame the Patriarchy.

Meanwhile, I look forward to hearing about the evils of Facebook in the comments.

Posted in Announcements. Bite me, Chad.

Spinster aunt has a past

Published by Twisty on January 27, 2012. 90 Comments

A propos of asexuality, which, devoted readers will recall, was discussed on this blog as recently as 2005, is the revelation — currently taking the nation by storm! — that Tim Gunn hasn’t had sex in 29 years.

Who the hell is Tim Gunn, you ask?

To answer that question, I must reveal something horrible about myself. But I want you to know that I have navel-gazed my way down the noble path of self-help, and of 12-step platitudes, and have graciously decided to forgive myself for it. Besides, my lawyers have advised me that it’s unlikely I’ll have to do hard time. So what is it already?

I used to watch “Project Runway.”

“Project Runway” is a horrible reality show hosted by supermodel Heidi Klum wherein aspiring fashion designers compete for the opportunity to pimp their line at New York Fashion Week. They all live together, sewing ugly clothes and backstabbing each other as they present a new look for the judges each week. Of course everything about the show endorses femininity, so watching it is like little knives shooting out of the TV into my eyes.

Tim Gunn is the “style guru” who mentors the designers. His prim but lovable ass is the reason I watched this stupid show.

Aside from virginal 40’s film star Loretta Young, Tim Gunn has possibly the most correct posture I have ever seen on a human being. I marvel at his relaxed yet anal-retentive bearing. His internal organs must be marvelously well aligned. His suit is meticulously tailored, his skin cells buffed and radiant, his albino hair just so. When he lovingly enunciates every syllable — “holler at your boy” — a tear springs to my eye. He is truly a freak of nature, the whitest dude on the planet. I’m only human, dammit! I can’t look away!

Anyway, Tim Gunn says he hasn’t done it in 29 years because he hasn’t felt like it, but don’t worry about him, his life is perfectly fine and he feels perfectly fine. He’s fine. Despite his fineness, today there appear in major newspapers pieces on whether or not it is “weird” to feel fine about not fucking everything that moves.

USA Today plays it for laughs — that zany homo! I suspect this is because there isn’t any real data to support the view that Tim Gunn is crazy. USA Today’s expert hasn’t ever heard of anything like his decades-long “dry spell” but agrees that if Gunn is happy, what’s the big whoop? Lack of data, however, doesn’t stop the LA Times from trying to pump up anxiety over some anti-American sexual deviance requiring the intervention of experts. Their shrink diagnoses Gunn as mentally ill because

“It’s not a natural sort of decision, nor is it biological or physiological — we are not wired that way,”

If she were treating him for this “illness,” she says, she would get to the bottom of his debilitating trust issues, for Man Must Boink!

But naturally the burning question is, what does all this mean for straight people?

Good news, heteros!

Gunn’s refreshing honesty nonetheless might come as a relief to many, especially for the 15% to 20% of American couples who are reportedly in “no-sex relationships.”

So I guess one out of five straight people is mentally ill, wired wrong, and unnatural. Or maybe it just dawned on them, as their pubescent hormones began to evaporate into the aether, that sex is overrated, has nothing to do with good health, is annoying or sort of ludicrous, and they’d rather read a book about mushrooms.

In closing, I’d like to thank my supporters for supporting me as I self-accept myself and courageously salute my bravery in fessing up to my “Project Runway” past. I rock.

Posted in Keep your bias off my gender, Mass Media and Movies and TV. Bite me, Chad.