the black love crisis*

we came across this gem on single black male via twitter**.

first, we'd like to applaud "veronica" and "bahama" for their comments. right on for illustrating the possibilities of a partnership model!

but the main question the blog raises is this: with all the things black folks have to work through in their intimate relationships - from within and without - is operating within these rigid gender roles really the ultimate way to repair our hearts and homes, particularly when those roles are not necessarily reflective of our original culture, values and history?

in this 21st century world where women are {blessedly} able to educate themselves to their heart's delight and pursue their ambitions while single or partnered, is it a bad thing that we need more in a partner/mate than the ability to bring home the bacon and "wear the pants"?  why aren't men doing more questioning around who they were taught to be? 

furthermore, when entering what we hope is meant to be an egalitarian, intimate relationship between two consenting adults, why are we ever concerned with who's leading who instead of discerning who has the necessary skills, gifts and life experience in a particular area, and working out their lives around that?

in case you missed the memo, sexism hurts us all.

when we subscribe to these sorts of rules, standards, and assumptions without question - and, even accounting for humor, the level of assumption here is simply astounding - followed by disdain for those who question that acceptance, we turn women into barefoot, pregnant portraits of intellectual and emotional frustration destined to couple with  preening, self-important peacocks of men convinced they have the right to the big piece of chicken {we kid} and to rule with an iron fist {not so funny}.

wouldn't it be a joy to couple with a focus on aligning minds, hearts and destinies? what would happen if we were allowed to be our whole selves, regardless of gender?

why not a world with nurturing, intellectually brilliant working mothers who will raise equally brilliant babies?  and there's certainly nothing wrong with a man who can routinely cook, clean, change a diaper and still put a righteous cap in someone's ass for stepping to his fam.

now, we are not denying that men and women are different. however, we do question the way these differences have been upheld and reinforced in societal contexts to the detriment of women and children, the unearned privilege inherent in maleness and masculine identification, and the artificial imposition of these {largely western european} norms on people of african descent.

beloveds: do what works for you. know what you need. learn to be the best partner you can be.  how much of a "woman" or "man" you are in the eyes of a culture with a dysfunctional lens in such matters should be the least of your worries.

if we can let the arbitrary notions go, maybe we'll all get a little closer to the love we deserve and make the world a little better in the process.


*considering all the recent lamentations around the state of black womanhood and the dismal prospects for {a particular definition of} black love in general, this may will become a series. every friday, we'll be posting "alternative" viewpoints on black love.  follow us on twitter to get the latest & greatest.

**this is not a blog we frequent, so this commentary isn't meant to be a damning indictment of all their content.  e.g., a quick search yielded this, so obviously the brothas have a sense of humor about themselves, too {questionable criteria for the "simp" and the "effeminate" notwithstanding...}.

the insanity of rape culture

although we mentioned it very briefly, we didn't want this gem to get lost in the shuffle.

the insanity report practically drips testosterone on a normal day {not that there's anything wrong with that}, but this analysis of jason whitlock's dangerously inept defense of a football player accused of sexual assualt is spot on.

the sugar shack gives props to brothas who get it, especially knowing that sometimes they're the only voices folks like whitlock listen to.

thanks, y'all.

for more on rape culture, see here, here and here

twinkle, twinkle

so remember when we mentioned the linger mint? well, now there's vajazzling!

{yes, you read that right. as in bedazzling.}

for a hilariously critical take on this whole debacle, check out the washington post's sexist beatdown.

to be clear, we support adornment of all kinds. but we have to agree with amanda and sady when they say if this is what it takes for your partner to fearlessly look your honeypot in the face, there might be a problem...

quickie!

now we can add the linger mint to the list of things that are wrong with your vagina!

you know, besides the fact that you have one of those icky things in the first place.

and, here comes a collective sigh in 3...2...1...

blaming the victim in dubai

disclaimer: we understand the sun is essentially britain's equivalent to the new york post, and that the reporting here is filled with almost as many "-isms" as the story itself.

but this incident is so indicative of the ways in which kyriarchy and the repression of full and healthy sexuality hurts everyone while simultaneously empowering dangerous, pathological behavior that we had to share.

A British [cis] woman on a break in Dubai went to police after being raped - but SHE was arrested for having illegal sex.

The 23-year-old Londoner was attacked by a waiter in a hotel toilet after celebrating her engagement to her boyfriend with drinks.

But after she admitted boozing and sharing a hotel room with her fiancé, cops in the strict Islamic state arrested her for "illegal drinking" outside licensed premises and having sex outside marriage.

Her 44-year-old fiancé, also from London, was charged with the same offences. And both were thrown in police cells by officers who paid little heed to the rape. [note added - presumed due to noted fear of pregnancy]

plus, you'd think people of faith would be more compassionate to the suffering of others, not to mention fully devoted to the overall uplift of those who carry the future of the culture, i.e., the feminine principle.

but that's a whole other conversation.

what would sheela na gig do?

{if you're not familiar with sheela na gig, here ya go. in addition, the link directly below features a prominent shot of jewelry depicting anatomically correct labia.  click consciously.}

at first glance, this is comical.

on the other hand, it's yet another example of how nearly any statement of female beauty beyond "lips, hips and tits" can be made light of, or even backhandedly insulted. 

particularly intriguing were the comments by women who seemed all too ready to throw their own vulvas under the bus, but that's probably a whole other entry.

consider this passage:

Ladies..baby girls.. precious dolls. Please understand that what the Vagina IS, what it SYMBOLIZES, and what it DOES, is what’s truly beautiful! It is factually amazing from both an engineering, psychological and physiological stance! Women, your inner working are absolutely awe inspiring and never let a mufugga tell you otherwise...

And yes I know, Boo-Boo, many of you are going to step up and say some shyt like: “My man isn’t complaining so fugg you, you fat, milk-dud head, Mr. PoPo looking ass bitch!” Dammit girl, only thing your man is thinking of his how it feels when HIS OWN ugly ass genitals are up in yours. Be honest with yourself, baby, do you really think your man is going to be like:”Hey baby… your pussy looks like a roadside bomb.” NO… he isn’t. This is the same fool who lovingly lies to your ass when you ask him if you look fat in that new skirt, and ladies..if you’ve got to ASK, then yes you DO look fat in that new skirt. Shiiit, your man aint trying to lose pussy privileges even if it does look like your ovaries set off a low-grade nuke in your shyt.

If your vagina DOES look like one of these shyts here, STOP lying to yourself, baby-doll. Your shyt is not pretty, and it should NEVER be made into a piece of Jewelry. [emphasis added]

so...other than the fact that you did just tell us otherwise, you're saying you can respect a woman's inner workings as long as you don't have to deal with the outside ones? in that case, how are you pleasuring us--nay, do you really even know us--if you're unwilling to truly see our most intimate areas?

i would ask everyone calling genitals "ugly" to consider this question: what are the consequences of an aesthetic that does not recognize the inherent beauty of the parts which join to create us, bring us into the world, and through which we express love and affection?*
 

in the wake of the violent gang rape of a 15 year old richmond, california girl, these attitudes speak to so much more than bumping uglies {pun intended}.

during a lively twitter discussion, honey_shun rightly noted, "[these attitudes are] a thread in the fiber of the clothes worn by those who can stand by and watch the torment, rape and torture of a young girl..." a torment that has not just scarred her life, but the lives of at least four other youth as well.

obviously, we are not suggesting a direct connection between a fundamentally humorous blog entry and the richmond high school insanity, but it must be noted that he didn't choose to rant about the necklaces' horrible workmanship.

when women are not held up as beautiful and worthy, they can be knocked down as ugly and worthless--as the sum of their parts or for their parts.

when we can determine that the physical manifestation of the gateway to life is something that "should never be made into a piece of jewelry" {even as personal charm for the wearer, under her clothes; even if it is only worn during bleeding time; even if it is to rest on a personal, sacred space.  these options were never even considered or discussed...} we have lost sight of something precious and important.   

yonis are as varied and unique as the multitude of women who carry them.  every woman has a right to find herself beautiful and not have her uniqueness challenged by an immature lover. 

seems that anyone as old as slaus and 'nem ought to know better.    


*in whatever configuration, gender expression/sexuality notwithstanding.  although the reference to the biological process of conception obviously suggests hetero activity.

giving up...is hard to do...

over the weekend, a friend told your author that he was "giving up" on black women. 

you've heard the reasons why--too many issues, too much pain.

the most interesting part of the conversation was when he referenced a conversation with a white woman.  apparently, she assumed he already only dated white women because, in her view, it would be difficult for him to find a black woman who shared his interests, tastes in music, aesthetic, etc.  

which got the wheels turning.  where do all the "different" black women go to find love?

in the hierarchy of difference, men of all races are hailed as trailblazers and mavericks when they flout convention and do their own thing. brothas can certainly be chastised for doing things outside of "real man" parameters or for not being "black enough", but that probably won't deplete their dating pool, only shift the demographic.

right underneath men on the dare-to-be-different scale are white women.  yes, there are the effects of sexism and the pressure of embodying (or not) the epitome of beauty in a culture founded on the notion of white supremacy.  white women are indeed asked to fit into many boxes.

but, because of their whiteness, they are also allowed to break free from--or are not as heavily penalized for ignoring--those boxes in a way that colored women have to seriously think about.  again, being seen as different, weird, or a glowstick carrier does not impact a white woman's dating choices.  just shifts the demographic.

and then we have the quirky black ladies: uniquely minded black women who, typically, do not have asian and white men knocking down their doors, nor do we go looking for them. 

all too often, open minded sistas can become exhibits, fascinations; lofty empresses solely responsible for the evolution (or failure) of their kingmen.  in other words, this is the realm where having locs and enjoying bacon is not allowed.

does the goddess-loving black woman have a fully present, reflective partner who shares her interests and dreams?  does the long-loc'ed empress have a mate who doesn't hide his affections behind some palatable, pretty form of patriarchy?  are there men she doesn't need to minister to, but who can fall in step and meet her where she is?

...and if she does, has he already "given up" on finding her?

does any of it even matter?

the essence of a jump off

recently, essence magazine had a brotha by the name of jozen cummings blog on their it's a man's world site.

a greek 9.com forum post thankfully retained the original text before it was removed from essence's site:

The Truth About Jump Offs
[original url: http://blog.essence.com/itsamansworld/2009/09/the-truth-about-jump-offs.html]

Welcome to ESSENCE.com's new blog where real men sound off on dating and relationships. Writer and editor Jozen Cummings kicks things off.

It may seem like there is no easier arrangement than the one between a man and his jump-off. Friends with benefits always have to be friends first. Ex-lovers we sleep with from time to time, always come with the drama of a relationship past. But jump-off is the burden free title; there are no ex-jump-offs, no friends-as-jump-offs. Just the jump-off, a woman we sleep with until we’re tired of sleeping with them, or, God forbid, they’re tired of sleeping with us.

Yet, here’s the truth: A jump-off situation takes as much maintenance as any other relationship we have with women. There are things men must do to keep our jump-off happy, and though it may seem like we don’t care about a jump-off, ladies, we care. You’re our jump-off and we wouldn’t want to do anything to mess that up, now would we? In order to ensure this doesn’t happen, I’ve written a list of things men must do to keep a jump-off, well, a jump-off and though it may seem short, it’s no less difficult.

Put It Down: In order to have the privilege of being able to just have sex with a woman — to not have to take her out to eat, or even in public for that matter — we must, at all times, fulfill all her sexual desires. A woman doesn’t want to be a jump-off, even when she knows she is, so how do we change her attitude? We make love to her so good she feels like she’s in an R&B video.

No Favors: Even if a man has a flat tire and a dead cell phone right in front of his jump-off’s residence, he knows he cannot, under any circumstances, ask his jump-off to use her phone. If she notices we’re stranded and asks if we need help, we must lie and say we don’t. It should be said, I hate this rule.

I’m On Her Time: Sex with a jump-off is never scheduled in advance, that’s what dates are for. So when a jump-off says she can’t do it at say the reasonable hour of 10 p.m., but she can do it later, at the unreasonable hour of 2 a.m., oh well. Two o’clock am it is, which makes the next and last rule so difficult.

No Spending the Night at the Jump-off’s Place: If we do decide to roll in at 2 am, we must also be willing to roll out at 4 am (or in some cases, 2:30 am), which is hard because it’s late, and we’re tired too.

So you see, ladies? We care very much about those of you we call our jump-off. I know it may not seem like it, given the title, but trust, we know when a jump-off feels good, we feel good too.

now, while the term "jump off" is pretty lame in and of itself, where does he get off making the rules for everyone?  is this a college primer, or is this for grown folks?

the whole tone of the post implies that the woman is cluelessly getting off, while the man is jumping through all sorts of hoops to maintain the air of casual sex--since everyone knows we're wholly incapable of initiating, maintaining, or controlling that sort of relationship on our own terms, right?  right.

one of the strengths of the ethical slut is its near-mantra that productive, healthy sexual freedom is all about everyone being on the same page. that involves real communication and understanding, no matter how basic the interaction. invite someone to bed more than once, and some conversation's gonna have to come in there somewhere.

put another way, there's nothing wrong with jump offs, friends with benefits, and the like. but no one needs or deserves the sort of blatantly patronizing mess jozen is upholding here.

...and that's just the sex part.

how about the fact that this is essence magazine, which is supposed to provide inspiring, loving messages and images to sistas who rarely get them anywhere else.*  to have this posted in a space where it is presumed that our men would be speaking to us as loving, conscious partners, lovers and brothers makes it all the more unforgivable. 

if these are the "unfiltered perspectives on dating and relationships" of 20-30something black men, then i see why they're single.

i'm not angry at jozen, per se.  i am not aware of any of his other work and never heard of him until now.  but if he could write this with a straight face, then he's clearly doing what he's been taught to do when it concerns women who are perceived as being less valuable sexually. conversely, he's also keeping the fellas dancing around all the intimacy and emotional issues they are already forced to deny and suppress in so many ways.

it's an upholding of the status quo.

still, i would love for him to learn a little more about womanist/feminist theory and the fullness of deeply actualized, total womanhood before he deigns to comment on such matters.


addendum: jo nubian has chimed in on this as well...


*although it's worth mentioning that the heterosexist, euro-aesthetized {where are the clearly nappy headed sistas vs. the straw set/good hair "naturals"??} and judeo-christianized environment leaves out a lot of sistas, too. many of us have either never expected essence to speak for us or left that mold long ago.

sexy spicy love magic

racialicious is one of our favorite spots to hang out, but this post is one after our own heart.

from ms plaid's razor sharp analysis to her brief but poignant observation on using "voodoo" in vain, we couldn't agree more. 

here's a sample:

Comparatively speaking, race play has an unvarnished honesty about it; this particular organization and its programs work with some racial disingenuousness under the guise of integration, of wanting to “make everyone ”comfortable” so they can fulfill their “wildest fantasies.” I’m not sure about who exactly is supposed to be “everyone” because, even though the site may be open to different sexual and gender identities, the majority of photos on the site are of white people or very, very light-skinned PoCs. And just saying you want PoCs to join doesn’t make the wish so, especially when the pictures and texts say a thousand contradictory and uncomfortable things.

go on and read the rest here.

stay woke, y'all.

pause police

do we really need more reason to fear different expressions of sexuality and human beingness?

apparently the pause police think so.

while some stuff is just hilarious, the low level homophobia is tired.

be different, black people, and you could get called out!

{sigh}

for two sugar-approved treatments of the "no homo" issue, please enjoy the videos below.

playing with fire

porn is one thing. and just about everyone loves a good parody.

but this {link not work safe} not the cosbys thing seems to be crossing a line...

the least they could have done was consider a parody of a show where all the characters are grown folks, e.g. sanford and son or roc.

aren't there already enough "teen" porn sites out there?

do we really need to play with the idea of pedophilia when childhood sexual abuse is rampant?

is this dangerous in a culture where, even in the 21st century, no one wants to talk about effective, comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education?

we're all for grown folks having grown folks fun, but this feels like something very, very different.

quickie!

yet another way internalized oppression rears its ugly head.

thank you, dr. klein.

sexism hurts us all.

at first, your dear proprietress was quite skeptical about the delights of twitter, but she's discovered that people are always posting the most thought provoking things...

tonight, there was this list.

now, while there were some cringe-worthy moments {see: #9's quote and most of #10} it's not too bad. much of this list details the basics of just about any healthy relationship between two people.

that said, *unsheathes claws*...

it's understood that the blog is geared towards women, but targeting this list solely at the wife raises an eyebrow. why not just "how to superglue a marriage", period?

it also would have been nice to find something in the introductory paragraph like, "...and, husbands, don't forget to do this with your wives!" vs. the straight-outta-cosmo, "Below are 20 ways to help you superglue your marriage, and to stay your man’s number one choice." hell, if more men learned to do those same 20 things, more marriages would indeed be superglued, right?

this whole thing put us in mind of this list, which some of you may have seen floating around the internet. there are glimmers of it within the "20 ways", but let's give the author the benefit of the doubt and assume that even she would find the postwar do's and don'ts a bit extreme.

however, both raise similar issues.

at worst, making women the primary scapegoats for what happens in their marriages and other intimate relationships--covertly or overtly--is one of the most salient ways sexism/sexist ideology harms those relationships. it can also serve as a justification for intimate violence.

given the social and cultural cues that most men are raised with and/or absorb in this culture, adding the idea that men are infallible pillars of authority and dominance is dangerous. and for anyone who knows what anti-oppression work looks like, the whole shebang is full of questionable power dynamics {refusing sex "works both ways", but this list doesn't??}.

at best--which, in this case, basically amounts to the non-abusive manifestation--men act out a false sense of superiority and wind up alone, wondering why they can't find a "good woman". women that tire of being single can often shut down and stifle significant parts of themselves to "make it work".

no one is always right.
no one is always wrong.

if the "20 ways" work for you and yours, great! goodness knows we've used a tactic or five. plus, the whole site is obviously targeted towards a demographic a bit dissimilar {ok. probably on the other side of the street...} from the one we cater to here at the shack. we can agree to disagree.

but, ultimately, love's gotta be a 2-way street, and any relationship lacking reciprocity is an unnecessary drain of energy, light and bliss.

don't believe the hype

what have you bought into?
how much will it cost to buy you out?
~saul williams

almost lumped this article in with the last installment of sexy news, but it seemed necessary to delve a little deeper.

admittedly, the article is from britain, so there's a cultural difference. but judging from the results when searching google news for "love and relationships", we're probably not far off.

it's intriguing how one can reach adulthood without encountering enough differences in body types/standards of beauty to shatter any thoughts of an "ideal body" image.

granted, this could be a blessing of growing up black. while there is evidence that the body image gap is narrowing, your proprietress learned early on that there was no point in trying to achieve the "ideal" because that wasn't what {my} boys/men liked anyway. the first time her desirability was challenged was in college.

is this a consequence of always being "plugged in"? if so, it is a shame that along with the influx of information and increased connectivity that our media outlets provide, we've been transformed into lemmings who believe that whatever is on the tv/movie screen is representative of a high ideal we all need to achieve--even when we know the image is a result of surgery and photoshop magic.

what happened to the days when tv was just tv
movies were movies
and life was life?

we implore you: please step away from the porn and the retouched king and playboy mags. go out and love some real people with some body hair whose only makeup in the morning is the sunlight streaking across their face.

thanks.

mixed blessing?

just ran across this article about the one taste urban retreat center.

first thought was: a retreat center focused on the female orgasm? right up our alley!

but the whole commune thing was a bit daunting...

i don't doubt that there could be good information being disseminated, and closing such a practice to transient participants is understandable.

then again, there are several ways to establish confidentiality and other norms within temporary groups that would make such a meditation possible over a few hours or a weekend.

visit one taste's site and decide for yourself.

thoughts?

props to cruel secretary for twittering this.

a hairy subject

while perusing one of her guilty pleasure sites, your devoted proprietress came across this critique of comedienne/actress mo'nique's unshaven legs.

i won't even assault you with some of the commentary around this vintage madonna nude.

now, while we are always ready to promote good health and hygiene here at the shack, the hysterics around these womens' choices speaks to a much larger issue about what's acceptable, why, and how it came to be that way.

maybe it comes from growing up in the semi-south, but a black woman with hairy legs is not anathema. on the contrary, some men were quite vocal about the fact that they enjoyed "natural" women, and it was not unusual to see an attractive woman in a short skirt or shorts with unshaven legs and/or armpits. still isn't.

so...why so squeamish?

because we {read: black/colored women} ought to present a particular way once we've "made it"? because men--the men we're told we should desire, anyway--don't approve of it? because we live in a post-modern, affluent, overly-sanitized western nation?

sorry to break the news, but, ultimately, we're animals. primates. mammals, even. primates have hair. mammals have hair. hair is simply one sign of a functioning body. whether or not you choose to remove that hair is your choice, no one else's.*

secondly, how do we presume to know that "most women" shave? probably through television, movies, and pornography.

while we are not categorically anti-porn, just about any relatively conscious human being who's had sex in real life and real time would have to admit that images of the female body and sexuality itself are often distorted in all media, not just porn.

looking back, many of the sex kittens, bombshells, and pinups of the early to mid 20th century probably would have been lipo'ed, rhinoplasty-ed and breast enhanced beyond recognition today.

maybe leg hair and rounded tummies disgust us because we haven't seen a real woman in 20-30 years or more.

too bad we'd rather nix the body hair and keep the women fake.



*for another good hair rant, visit goddess glory. also, it's really interesting to see women from vintage porn/erotica. baby sinead has some good examples. additionally, dove's campaign for real beauty is brilliant--although greenpeace takes issue with their parent company.

mark your calendars! steak & bj day!

now that valentine's day is over, we have steak and blow job day to look forward to...

*record scratch*

hey, look, we're just the messengers.

there's all kinds of analysis going on there, but occasionally it's nice to let the readers do the work. so if you blog about it, let us know!

repression, the t-shirt

take a look at this.

the shirts are also mentioned on gawker, but your loving proprietress isn't too fond of the tone over there. try feministing for a better take.

so here's what initially comes to mind:

what happens when you choose to not teach your kids about sex/sexuality in a comprehensive way and they go around saddlebacking instead?

if god is love and god loves us and wants us to love ourselves, what's wrong with enjoying pleasurable feelings on one's own in the absence of marriage and/or a committed partner?

the spiritual nitpicking around what is acceptable and what isn't, which parts of scripture to uphold and which to ignore becomes more telling by the hour.*

on that note, hell, what's wrong with feeling good, period? there are far more pros to masturbation and orgasm--both scientifically and spiritually speaking--than cons.

the sexual force is what spurs creativity, life, and all forms of loving. even a mother's love begins with the sexual act she performed in order to conceive her child.

...don't cringe. it's true. obviously none of us feels the need to envision our parents in that position {and you don't have to!} but one cannot, on the most basic of levels, separate the two. doing so forces a sort of schizophrenia that produces, well, shirts like this.

it is worrisome when a culture or religion relegates masturbation to furtive petting in front of a computer during a late night porn binge. there are volumes of literature from the corners of the world outlining how sexual energy can be used for healing, instruction and enlightenment, making threats of hairy palms and blindness all the more ludicrous.

we're sure that you beloveds will continue your scheduled pleasure sessions without a second thought, but we weep for the children who are being told to keep their hands to--or is it away from?--themselves.



*that link further proves the problems inherent in trying to use a plagiarized, politically edited and deliberately incomplete text as the infallible word of the divine. also problematic is the absence in said text of an initiation system or other specific means of working with said divinity--within or without oneself--beyond the bare minimums of prayer and unexplained endless rules and regulations. but that's another post.

why don't they just give her a scarlet letter?

sigh.

this speaks to so many levels of sexism, dominance, oppression, spiritual fraud and misogyny that it's difficult to even know where to begin.

if she'd committed murder, or stolen from the children's hospital, or abused an elder...ok.

but exercising her right as a grown woman in her bed and her house?

nah. you coulda handled that in the pastor's office.

michael k probably got it right: somebody's mad they got turned down...