Image of xtra cool 5733 tee available here.
This week’s SF Chron column got me the following ZOMFG email:
Thank you Violet…really
Your “Don’t Marry Me Bro” column was far and away the best piece I have read on the entire subject.
Want to see a real shit storm? Place gay and lesbian marriage separately on next year’s ballot and see how far those alleged 52/48 approval numbers skew to 2/98 against for men and 98/2 for women. NOBODY talks about this, except for Bill Maher in 2004.
(…) Keep it up.
SF Gate even used my instant-uploaded image via my Nokia N95 8G — furthering another one of my agendas, indie liveblogging merging with mainstream reportage. Here’s the start of Don’t Marry Me, Bro – Violet Blue: To Wreck the Gay Agenda, Marry Them:
Gay men have more in common with red-state Southern teen girls than the straight dudes who simultaneously fear and obsess about them might consider. For one, young closeted gay men, like their teen purity pledge counterparts practice abstinence like the best of ’em: take the high school pledge, then lie and have a lot of anal and oral in the back seat of a car. Yay virginity! Lesbians similarly parrot American conservative sexual values better than the hets with so-called “lesbian bed death,” where a couple becomes sexless after cohabitation is established.
Why would a homo bother getting straight-married when you know that even unwed, you can already outclass the hetmos with their own sexual hang-ups?
Set aside the glaring human rights issues about the gay marriage ruling this week for a second — let’s talk about sex. Sex in marriage, specifically, and how this controversy might play out. Because sex is what your friendly neighborhood (and hopefully sex-aware) MFT will tell you is often the central theme, or catalyst, for a married couple’s visit to their office. Sexual orientation in that scenario: does it make a difference?
Okay, so maybe there’s a fetish I’ve overlooked here: making sex less dirty. Under the sanctity of marriage, it’s like totally permitted to have sex with the person you’ve been unsanctimoniously banging up until the “I dos.” Then it is “okay” to have sex, thereby taking the taboo nature of forbidden fantasy out of the exchange, and making it just that much less hot. Which, in an alternate universe (like the one where the “just say no” campaign totally made the United States a completely drug-free nation) really gets someone off.
Or not. (…read more, sfgate.com)
Excellent article.
There’s no question that marriage can be a container for discontentment more often than not, from time to time, until someone has to end it or lose.
If this wasn’t the case almost fifty percent of them wouldn’t fail.
Marriage does require liberty to be ‘endured’ as Bertrand Russell recommended. But, of course, liberty is anathema to commitment as any good traditionally-minded married couple will happily crow even in the midst of marital hardship.
Interesting note here: the existence of commitment-fever containing and squelching marital exploration or liberty is not only fostered by the religious/conservative mindset.
In the last few years I have been quite surprised at the large amount of liberal-styled folk who cling to the traditional model of the ‘sanctified’ and austere marriage in the robust fashion styled by fundamentalist Christianity.
You can find these types jockeying for position on Salon and a myriad of other considerably liberal online locales.
I am 100% behind gay folk marrying and I support their lifestyle in the same fashion I support any other responsible adult sexual activity. But I have to wonder why gay folks would submit themselves to the constrictive, spouse-ownership model of traditional American marriage. BUT, I support their right to do so- don’t get me wrong.
you missed “hetmo”
First time I’d seen the word “hets”.
So out of touch.