Predator Alert Tool for OkCupid now warns of abusive dominants, like Jian Ghomeshi

I am happy to announce that I have just released an update to the Predator Alert Tool for OkCupid, bringing it up to version 0.5.3. This version fixes a few bugs in its auto-update functionality and, importantly, adds new red-flag questions to the default questionnaire in order to help users better protect themselves against predatory sexual dominants.

Screenshot of OkCupid question,

Many thanks to unquietpirate for creating the new OkCupid questions.

I made the choice to introduce these questions about kinky power dynamics and rolequeerness to the default set after learning about yet another example of a man accused of raping three women, twenty years his junior, and claiming that it had been consensual under the guise of sadomasochistic sexual play and dominance and submission role play.

The sad truth of the matter is that there is no such thing as anti-abuse BDSM. In fact, Dominants are rapists. The BDSM community is a clusterfuck of abusers with a staunchly rape-apologetic ideological foundation, most appropriately compared to the way GamerGate is a horde of ravenous misogynistic abusers. Unless, y’know, “actually, it’s about ethics in rough-sex sports clubs.”

All users are encouraged to immediately update to the latest version of Predator Alert Tool for OkCupid by clicking here.

Donate Bitcoin

flattr this!

There’s only one thing you need to know about the anti-rolequeer backlash

Here is the most recent example of how the “anti-rolequeers” talk about abuse:

these [rolequeer] people are dangerous abusers pushing an interpretation of the acceptability of violence that only serves abusers, using rationalizing language that in my experience is exclusive to abusers, and whatdoyouknow they have a history of being accused of being abusers

(Emphasis was in the original, not added by me.)

Here is just one example of how rolequeers talk about it:

The oppressed/oppressor binary, the abuser/survivor binary, the rapist/rape victim binary, the Dominant/submissive binary, and all other binaries whose existence rely on the binary dichotomization of power versus vulnerability are as much lies as the man/woman binary is also a lie. Rolequeerness simply forces us to cope with what that really means.

And here’s another example explicating rolequeer ideas:

Rolequeerness is fundamentally about the recognition that “abuser/survivor,” “abusive/consensual,” “powerful/vulnerable,” and a number of other related binaries are, in fact, false dichotomies. These binaries are lies. There is no such thing as “consensual and not abusive” or “abusive and not consensual” in a pervasively coercive society. There is no such thing as power without vulnerability or vulnerability without power. And this also means that people who are abusers can also be survivors. It means that survivors can also be abusers. And, in fact, it means they often actually are abusers, too.

If that doesn’t scare you, if you think being “afraid of engaging with really important ideas,” to use Crossword’s words, is, as they put it, “the problem,” then you’re not really interested in engaging with this really important idea. That’s why no matter what Crosswords says they’re doing, what they’re actually doing is binarist, and it is dangerous to rolequeers, and it is appropriative, and it reinforces BDSM culture by directly supporting rape culture: BDSM relies on the binary of the powerful exclusive from the vulnerable, on the violent exclusive from the sexual, on the abusive exclusive from the consensual. And so does rape culture.

So, I can’t help but giggle when I see the inevitable backlash.

This may sound strange, especially given that the anti-rolequeer backlash is primarily directed at me, personally, and not actually at “the rolequeers,” but I’m pleased to see the severe and sweeping pushback against it take the incredibly predictable tactic of once again trying to make it all about me.

The reason I’m pleased by this is what I wrote earlier: “Attention Rolequeers: First they ignore us. Then they laugh at us. Then they fight us. Then we win.

We just moved from being laughed at to being fought against. :) This is a step in the right direction. I’ll let @safeword explain:

safeword:

loki-zen:

safeword:

wow i can’t believe what backlash i’m getting already

if i needed any evidence that rolequeering is a relevant and necessary act and that the d/s binary is hierarchical and oppressive, it’s about how hard i had to fight to wrap my head around what’s outside of it and to walk away from the “dom”…

So the fact that lots of people disagree with you is evidence that you are right?

well, that and 3-4 years of engaged thought work with this particular strand of anti-coercive binary-busting critical kink practice, up to and including hiatuses from sex entirely because i was evaluating my ability to practice ethically.

so i have a little oomph behind me when i think i’m right, and thoughts that explain people’s resentment. but basically, in this case, yeah. yep. exactly. i trust myself. incredible!!!

:)

There is no anti-abuse BDSM. Unless, y’know, “actually, it’s about ethics in rough-sex sports club.” #BDSMerGate. (LOL)

Carry on.

Donate Bitcoin

flattr this!

Rolequeerness is not just about “who,” it’s about “how,” too; it is the HOW of effectively criticizing power.

princess-poophead:

The more I read on their blogs, the weirder it seems that the rolequeer people aren’t talking about doms/tops as people with races and genders and like ability and stuff which is so weird because they’re talking about BDSM as “the fetishization of oppressive culture” so like don’t the privileges and lack thereof in individuals actually doing a scene together mean something with that? I really want to ask them about it but I have no idea how to phrase it.

I think you phrased this really well, actually. :)

I don’t know what you have already read and what you have not, so I am going to start from the assumption that you have not read anything even if you have. If that means I point you to things you have already read, please just let me know and we can go forward from there. But in any conversation in which understanding is the goal, I feel it’s important to start by making sure we are on the same page.

So, first, I want to make two possibly obvious statements:

Now, I won’t speak for other rolequeer bloggers, but at least for me, since the word rolequeer is pretty new, the majority of my writing does not use that word directly because, well, it’s a pretty new word and the corpus of my work spans over a decade. Nevertheless, most if not all of that same writing has been explicitly about genders—here’s one notable example from August 2007—in an intersectional, kyriarchical feminist analysis. (I have written more explicitly about gender than I have about race, although I have touched on racial topics often with respect to their relationship to classism.) Look back far enough in my archives and you’ll find a staunchly sex-positive, liberal feminist analysis. Continue reading forward through time and you’ll see the introduction of radical feminist precepts that eventually laid the groundwork for posts like “Consent as a Felt Sense,” and the various post sin the “Dominants are rapists” series.

For example, one of the reasons unquietpirate’s “Rolequeer: Defining our terms” post links to MaleSubmissionArt.com is because the intersectional analysis of gender and power in BDSM that I developed there (i.e., sexism in BDSM’s binarist orthodoxy) is one of several foundational pieces from which our thinking about rolequeerness began. Again, I won’t speak for other rolequeer bloggers, but to say that my writing does not acknowledge the way gender affects doms/tops is to betray ignorance of my writing. And, as I’ve mentioned to you before, ignorance is not some sin. Willful ignorance is another matter.

Male Submission Art (or MSA), for those that don’t know, is entirely about the interplay of gender and power—and contrary to some critiques of rolequeerness I’ve seen about it being TERF-y but that I don’t understand, Male Submission Art was widely praised for being one of the first and most visible intentionally submissive trans-masculine inclusive erotic archives online of its time. Here is an excerpt about MSA from a feature article called “Outsider Porn” in the Overland Journal that I hope gives you a better sense of that seminal project’s scope and origins.

Maymay is 28 years old, a born and bred New Yorker who is currently homeless but seems to live online on multiple platforms. He’s a prolific writer and a passionate advocate for his cause. Maymay is submissive and he’s on a mission to challenge the way we look at men like him – particularly in straight pornography.

‘In a nutshell,’ he says, ‘straight porn does not make room for people who society perceives as male to be objects of a gaze. Male-perceived people in straight porn are disposable and often visually decapitated. Only societally-coded signals of femininity are permitted to be arousing or viewed as desirable. In gay porn, a certain kind of male-perceived body can be lusted-after objects, they can be wanted and their masculinity, itself, is sexualised. This is not what happens in straight porn because the heterosexist stranglehold on desirability dictates that women are lusted after and men are unattractive. That’s busted, it’s bullshit and it’s oppressive; it results in most (straight) male-identified people living a life in which they have never experienced their bodies as attractive, or their selves as something that can be intrinsically desirous to a partner.’

Depictions of submissive men in popular culture largely support maymay’s critique. Think of all the films in which male masochists – usually authority figures caught in comical scenarios with hypsersexualised dominatrixes – are reduced to caricature. Just like fat women, old women and trans people, submissive men are often used as punchlines.

Maymay’s critique illuminates why the media promoted the ‘feminists just want to submit’ narrative used to hype Fifty Shades of Grey while conversely ignoring the millions of men who also have fantasies of submission. This is sexist ideology at work: the normalisation of female submission and the erasure of the male masochist.

(Please note that this article was written before I began publicly using “they/them” pronouns, and so this article refers to me as “he.”)

If you actually spend time reading the MaleSubmissionArt.com archives, you will find many, many posts discussing the gender of bottoms as well as the gender of tops, the context of their interactions, and what that might structurally mean about the world we live in. Here is a partial list with just a few samples:

There are many others. Just spend some time browsing the archive.

But, if you read these semiotic critiques of gender and power, and yet still find yourself asking “where is all the discussion about doms and tops in rolequeerness,” then I don’t think you’re going to find what you’re looking for in rolequeerness. Sorry. This isn’t because I think you’re “not rolequeer” or whatever, it is because critiquing powerful positions—and that is what rolequeerness is about—does not start by centering the positions in power. Male Submission Art could just as easily have been called Female Dominant Art, and in fact it is often categorized under exactly that label in pornographic directories.

And if that discrepancy doesn’t show you something about how to criticize power, then I don’t know what else to tell you.

This is part of what I understand unquietpirate to have meant when she said, “Rolequeerness provides a methodological framework for “downward mobility” inside the power gradient of oppression culture,” in her seminal “Defining our terms” post. Unlike the traditional United Internets of Social Justice Clicktivism you may be used to, rolequeerness isn’t merely a politic of identity of (“who is rolequeer?”). Instead, it is a politic of action (“how do we queer role?”).

Rolequeerness’s goal is the recontextualization of oppressive acts into liberatory ones—even and especially violently if necessary—not the interrogation of an oppressive or oppressed demographic group. You do not have to identify as rolequeer to queer role any more than you have to identify as a woman to feminize yourself. Mistaking demographic groups (“gay people,” for instance) with the acts they take (“doing something gay”) is a trap, one that activists of all stripes constantly fall into and something that rolequeerness actively eschews.

That doesn’t mean queer disabled POC can’t be Dominants. It means that queer disabled POC who are dominating are still dominating and the fact that they have been oppressed does not mean they are not also simultaneously oppressors. The oppressed/oppressor binary, the abuser/survivor binary, the rapist/rape victim binary, the Dominant/submissive binary, and all other binaries whose existence rely on the binary dichotomization of power versus vulnerability are as much lies as the man/woman binary is also a lie. Rolequeerness simply forces us to cope with what that really means.

That should be difficult and scary and I am excited to face it. I hope you are, too.

Donate Bitcoin

flattr this!

rolequeer thoughts – [a reply to princess-poophead’s concerns about current public conflicts]

princess-poophead:

Omg there is so much conflict in the #rolequeer tag and it’s bringing me downn because I don’t super agree with the person who popularized the term (I also really don’t like them because they like threaten violence in a douchey and like kind of over-the-top corny dorky way?) but I also don’t agree with the people who are like omg stay away from rolequeers they are abusive!!!

Like nah maymay just has intense reactions to people other than their like accepted inner sanctum discussing the idea of rolequeerness. I kind of get it because they don’t want it co-opted but the white, het, male-dominated bdsm monolith but as @nibbles-and-licks pointed out there’s a lot of people within the bdsm community who do work against the shit that rolequeerness rejects, like a lack of critical engagement and understanding of what bdsm plays with, doms who abuse, the idea of consent as a contract or consent as a legal thing instead of consent as a felt sense.

Hi.

All the conflict gets me down, too. It won’t last forever, though. I do want to point something out in what you said above that is half-right, so thank you for understanding part of it. I hope I can clarify the rest.

I do have intense reactions to people discussing rolequeerness, but it has nothing to do with whether those people are in my “accepted inner sanctum.” It has to do with how those people engage with the idea, how and if they talk about my personal life, who those people are, what our previous interactions were like, and that, in totality, informs how safe or threatened they make me feel.

For instance, I don’t know anything about whitehorsegirl and have never interacted with that person before, but they have gotten no “intense reactions” from me (which I interpret to mean from you as “too angry” in the form rolequeer wonderfully described here) because they have to this point been only incredibly supportive and kind to everyone involved in the discussion and, to me, seem to be coming from a very genuine place. Nevertheless, note that my polite and kind interactions with whitehorsegirl seems conveniently excluded from the ominous warnings you are probably hearing about me. In other words, it is demonstrably false that I am vicious to everyone and it is also not true that the only people I am not vicious to are already in my “accepted inner sanctum.”

The other thing that’s conveniently omitted by the people who make these warnings is any mention (or even the barest acknowledgement of) why my viciousness is directed only to certain people and not to others. I’m just gonna quote unquietpirate and use her words here:

There are stories here that are not mine to tell, and so I won’t tell them. What I will say is that Crosswords, for whatever other critiques I may have of them, is not stupid. It has always surprised me that for all the flailing BDSMers do about how Maymay’s uncompromising hatred of Dominants and their defenders makes them such a monster, it never occurs to them to turn to any of the people who actually Dominated Maymay and say, “Holy shit. What did you do?”

But of course they don’t. No, they strike up friendly conversations with them on Twitter and invite them to join book groups! Because BDSMers are rape-apologizing, abuse-denying, oppression-loving, victim-blaming pieces of self-deluding shit. And birds of a goddamn feather flock together.

Yes, of course I am vicious to people. But if you think that is the whole story, you are either ignorant or not paying attention. Ignorance is not some sin. Willful ignorance is another matter.

This conflict largely began when, again, to repeat unquietpirate’s words in case you missed them:

On this episode, Crosswords compares Maymay to pedophiles and racists for having the temerity to say mean things on the Internet about people who violated their consent — and to yell at those peoples’ friends and supporters when they try to shoehorn their way into our conversations about consent and identity so they can tell us how wrong we are and then play “trendy rolequeer dress-up” back at the BDSM club.

Crosswords, meanwhile, decided it was a good idea to start a discussion group in which to dissect, discuss, and debate the ideas in work such as Consent as a Felt Sense, which had come directly out of months and months of Maymay and I helping each other process trauma and grief related to past abusive relationships and having our consent violated by people and in communities that told us we weren’t being abused. Crosswords made it very clear that Maymay was not welcome to participate in this academic discussion of their own rape (‘cause, y’know, they’re too angry about it), but DID very publicly invite Maymay’s former Dominant partner to join in the fun!

So again, the point here is not to say that I do not behave viciously to some people. I do. The point is that I behave viciously to some people—and it is your responsibility as readers, not mine as the writer, to do your own work putting my actions in whatever context you wish to draw meaning from them.

I don’t have any objections to being called vicious, or an abuser, or disagreed with. I have an objection to seeing Crosswords and others who have been victim blaming me for my own rapes for years using the work that has come directly out of my own painful, personal healing work with UnquietPirate for ill-informed reformist wedge politics and for armoring their own reputation while at the same time comparing me to pedophiles as they do it. And if that doesn’t seem like a reasonable objection to you, then you are a threat to me and I will be vicious to you. For me, it is that simple.

After all, I am Submissive. And I am rolequeer; I am malevolent when dominanted.

Next, I want to address your very valid concerns about rolequeer discussions and their awareness of racism and intersectionality, but I will do that in its own post so that you do not need to engage with this part of the conflict, which is about me and not rolequeerness and so I would really like if other people stopped using in the #rolequeer tag for that now please thank you (and I will be unsurprised if they don’t, because they are bullies), when you engage with the other ideas.

So anyway, yeah, thanks for listening.

Donate Bitcoin

flattr this!

On Rolequeerness – “blunting the tip”

rolequeer:

unquietpirate:

idlnmclean:

unquietpirate:

beyondthevalleyofthefemdoms:

[snip]

Rolequeerness is valuable because questioning the purpose or even necessity of binary power roles in kink is valuable. I don’t think identifying with rolequeerness is threatening to binary kink roles any more than queerness is threatening to binary sexuality or genderqueerness is threatening to binary gender. All of these types of queerness interrogate the institutions that insist that the world must be a certain way. Some people find that threatening. I find it liberating. Participation is not mandatory.

Wow. If you don’t think that queerness is threatening to binary sexuality, or that genderqueerness is threatening to binary gender…I don’t even. 



But again, I don’t think you’re stupid. I think you have enough political theory and real-world savvy to understand very well that rolequeerness fundamentally threatens BDSM hegemony. Your deferential, diplomatic, assimilationist efforts to soothe BDSMers and encourage them to embrace rolequeerness in the name of “role diversity” or whatever you want to call it are not only transparent, they harm rolequeers.

Rolequeer play is not a way of doing BDSM. We are not waiting for John Baku to add “Rolequeer” to the drop-down on Fetlife. Rolequeerness and BDSM do not mix. If you are trying to persuade BDSMers to adopt “rolequeer” under their umbrella, then you are telling them that rolequeerness is about them, for them, that it exists in their purview, that they are entitled to opine on and define and control it because BDSM supposedly “encompasses all kink.”

If you are “liberating” yourself from oppression in a way that doesn’t threaten the institution that’s oppressing you, if you are playing with power in a way that supposedly disavows domination but doesn’t make Dominants uncomfortable, then I don’t know what you are doing but whatever it is, it sure as hell isn’t rolequeer. And if you are trying to get the BDSM Scene involved in my intimate life, you are not on my side.

But it probably does mean you keep getting invited to play parties. So, that’s good.

[snip]

I want to make a metalogical observation that concerns me in the information given.

beyondthevalleyofthefemdoms:

Rolequeerness is valuable because questioning the purpose or even necessity of binary power roles in kink is valuable. I don’t think identifying with rolequeerness is threatening to binary kink roles any more than queerness is threatening to binary sexuality or genderqueerness is threatening to binary gender. All of these types of queerness interrogate the institutions that insist that the world must be a certain way. Some people find that threatening. I find it liberating. Participation is not mandatory.

Assuming malice in the above analysis—assuming that despite the presentation of Crossword in terms of niceness or politeness politics Crossword is hostile—then this is probably what I would I would describe as “blunting the tip”. There were similar responses of this kind to 19th century anarchist and socialist theory; Marx’s theory or some of its derivatives is arguably manifestations of the same. “Blunting the tip” often precedes a surge of imperialism or fascism in the form of cultural appropriation and assimilation.

What is being proposed in somewhat coded language in the above is that rolequeerness revolves around the invariant poles of the binary—which the binary is presupposed to be true—and serves only to ultimately rile up the dynamics between the binaries. Hence, identifying with rolequeerness isn’t perceived as threatening and the felt threat experienced and expressed by many kinksters and cishetero binary essentialists particularly BDSMers is denied and down played. You’ll note the use of interrogate in reference to the institutions. Not dismantle. Not obliterate. Not deconstruct. Merely question. Crossword’s aims by that brief statement are reformist at best; at worst, this is an analysis which is starting a heuristic for annealing the defense of those institutions against rolequeerness, anarchism, socialism, and similar anti-institutional communities, methods, or activities. Penetration testing in network security comes to mind.

This serves the dual purpose of integrating Crossword with the BDSM ingroup as their resident expert and positions Crossword external to the BDSM ingroups as a potential dissenting expert on rolequeerness. In the developing explicitly rolequeer community, this introduces a seemingly legitimate vector of infection by which the developing community can be corrupted, weakened, and assimilated into the BDSM community.

This isn’t reason in and of itself to despair. What it means is that an immune response needs to be developed or if one exists already deployed in response. The response to “blunting the tip” is sharpening the blade; this post is a good start.

Thank you, Ian. This is what my intuition has been telling me, but I didn’t have the words to articulate it in such clear detail.

Because my political sense about people who behave like Crosswords is so tangled up with my personal feelings towards Crosswords as an individual, it’s hard for me to know whether I’m seeing something of legitimate political concern, or simply tilting at windmills because I feel hurt by one person.

I appreciate this as reassurance that I’m not crazy and am seeing something genuinely problematic, and also that it’s not just about Crosswords personally but a pattern of behaviors that are worth keeping an eye out for elsewhere. (Also, anarcho historical context — awesome!)

Anyway. This was very well put and a nice thing to wake up to. Thanks. :)

I’m going to share this in a shortened version, with the material that is not about “blunting the tip” cut out, because I don’t want to put more fire on a conversation that is already quite an emotional rollercoaster for you and Maymay. So here is all the material about ‘blunting the tip’.

My advice to anyone who thinks rolequeerness isn’t threatening to binary kink roles: If you’re not interested in destroying BDSM culture, you are not rolequeer. Opposition to the D/s binary and BDSM’s toxic lies is at the heart of the concept.You can’t be queer and not oppose homophobia. You can’t be rolequeer and not oppose BDSM culture. It’s that simple. 

If you do like the sexy parts of the concept of rolequeer but hate the politics: please take the words rolediverse or roleflexible and leave. They’re nice liberal unpolitical words that should suit your purposes just fine. We’re using neither so feel free to take them before someone else uses the words for something else entirely. That may sound like exclusion but it’s just common sense: if you don’t agree with what’s being build, don’t involve yourself in conversations about the blueprints. And what we’re building is a revolution against BDSM culture. Make the inevitable seperation between the political movement and unpolitical movement quick, tear the bandaid off.

But do NOT try to shape rolequeer into something other than the justified rage and disruptive force and the queer revolution that it is.  

edit: beyondthevalleyofthefemdoms has made it pretty clear that they do oppose bdsm culture and want to see it destroyed and also that they have no desire to continue participating in the rolequeer tag anyway. I’m leaving the post as it is as it wasn’t directed at them in particular but at anyone who thinks who thinks rolequeerness isn’t threatening to binary kink roles. 

Crosswords’ words are just that: crossed words. Doublespeak. Even if there is intention to dismantle BDSM in those words, they are not actually doing that, and Intent Is Not Fucking Magic. At best, they are an intellectual wanna-be using for themself the ideas coming from work unquietpirate & I are still doing to heal together. I think that would be great if they weren’t also comparing me to pedophiles and racists, for starters, while they did it.

At worst, and this I personally believe likely, Crosswords is a competent embodiment of everything BDSM actually is: sneaky rape apologist victim-blaming pieces of shit who have mastered familiar contractual-consent legalism and are experts at projecting their own fears of being vulnerable onto others in abusive, and personally and systemically harmful ways. Since that kind of manipulative gaslighting is so common, and since BDSM turns it into something of a sport where that skill is intentionally honed and refined, it can be hard to spot. After all, “a fish will never discover water.”

So, yeah. I don’t know where you got the idea that Crosswords “made it pretty clear that they do oppose bdsm culture” because, from where I’m standing, that’s a lie so big it’s visible from space. Just look at the recent posts on Crosswords’ blog. Just look at how often the abusive/consensual binary is invoked and never even questioned.

Crosswords isn’t a competent theorist. They have never had anything substantive to say about Consent as a Felt Sense, or rolequeerness (except a bunch of victim-blaming shit, of course) and they probably never will. But they sometimes provide a useful foil, as they did above, for showcasing sneaky rape apologist appropriative victim-blaming piece of shit gaslighting tactics.

Instead, Crosswords is a competent thief. A thief I’d even be happy to have “steal” from us (because ideas are free), if only they were even remotely capable of questioning the abuser/survivor binary they have been clinging to for years. If only they were successfully doing whatever personal work they need to do to start recognizing and treating “abusers” (*boo scary ghost hands*) like the survivors they often are, instead of only being able to treat those-they-themself-judge-to-be-abusers as abusers and those-they-themself-judge-to-be-survivors as survivors without nary a shred of critical self-reflection about what they are actually doing or why.

Rolequeerness is fundamentally about the recognition that “abuser/survivor,” “abusive/consensual,” “powerful/vulnerable,” and a number of other related binaries are, in fact, false dichotomies. These binaries are lies. There is no such thing as “consensual and not abusive” or “abusive and not consensual” in a pervasively coercive society. There is no such thing as power without vulnerability or vulnerability without power. And this also means that people who are abusers can also be survivors. It means that survivors can also be abusers. And, in fact, it means they often actually are abusers, too.

If that doesn’t scare you, if you think being “afraid of engaging with really important ideas,” to use Crossword’s words, is, as they put it, “the problem,” then you’re not really interested in engaging with this really important idea. That’s why no matter what Crosswords says they’re doing, what they’re actually doing is binarist, and it is dangerous to rolequeers, and it is appropriative, and it reinforces BDSM culture by directly supporting rape culture: BDSM relies on the binary of the powerful exclusive from the vulnerable, on the violent exclusive from the sexual, on the abusive exclusive from the consensual. And so does rape culture.

Also, as unquietpirate mentioned, there is a well-documented history of Crosswords’ victim-blaming, rape apologizing, survivor-auditing word-vomit. For as long as they cling to those beliefs, they have no hope of effectively opposing the BDSM culture, no solid understanding of rolequeerness, and pose a huge threat of exactly the kind idlnmclean outlined, whether they intend malice or not.

rolequeer, I think you might consider re-editing your edit.

Donate Bitcoin

flattr this!

Rolequeer ALL the things

lyricalagony:

rolequeer:

There have been some posts about what rolequeer sex looks like and what rolequeer porn looks like, but what about all the non-sex stuff?

What does a rolequeer friendship look like? And a rolequeer workplace? (I’m tempted to say I’d be an anarchist workplace) Rolequeer parenting? Rolequeer activism?Heck, rolequeer cooking or rolequeer art or rolequeer anything! I’d love to hear your ideas and examples. 

For me, this is a place where you have a lot of movements in different areas but with an ultimately common center. Like, there’s relationship anarchy (which would be relevant to friendship) and the recent nonmonogamist tag, and I’ve run into respectful parenting and gentle parenting.

Would totally be interested in anything anyone else has run into, and thoughts on the other things!

I honestly find this question somewhat confusing in itself, especially given that most of the time I’ve used or intimated the word “rolequeer” I’ve done so in a non-erotic context. Here is a round-up in case you missed some of these references and in so doing were left with an incomplete picture of what I’ve been using the word for.

  1. In “Prologue to Consent Is Not Enough” I use the example of the relationship between a therapist and their client. Excerpt: “[an abusive dynamic in] the overculture [is] where therapists are taught that their job is to help people better integrate themselves in an abusive society by sublimating their own will rather than supporting their clients to do whatever the fuck they need to do to reject participation in said abusive society.”
  2. In one of my “Rolequeerness is not about sex; it’s about power” posts, I explicitly give examples citing workplaces, schools, and parenting. Excerpt: “In a workplace, a rolequeer boss might do everything they can to support an employee’s professional development and then, rather than offer a promotion, that boss would encourage employees who mastered the job to quit. In a school, a rolequeer teacher might jettison the school’s curriculum and start sharing information about how to drop out of school and not be treated “like a drop-out,” covertly if necessary. A rolequeer parent or legal guardian would teach their legal charge about “parental controls” software, not activate any of them, and then explain how to get around any of those controls when they are active.
  3. In the same post, I also quote Kat Whimsy, a dance community blogger, who aptly uses rolequeer to describe a form of partnered dance activity that is neither lead nor follow. Excerpt: “I like Kat’s use of “rolequeer” here because it’s spot-fucking-on and emphasizes the kind of exploration I’m talking about, above. Dance is a great example of a prescribed social interaction with a clearly defined “script.” The interaction is often very rigid: left foot here, right foot there, hands like this. But the ideal outcome of “a good dance” is extremely vague. In that way, it’s not unlike sex. Of course, while heteronormative sex is very scripted (insert tab A in slot B, remove, repeat), sex is actually more like the generic concept of dance than it is like any particular kind of dance. Sex isn’t the foxtrot, or a tango—it’s not necessarily a given activity. But that doesn’t mean you can’t do a given activity (like the foxtrot, or a tango) as sex.”
  4. In my most recent post, “What I mean when I say Submissive,” I gave even more examples of jobplace-related rolequeerness and one more from my own experiences with the Medical-Industrial Complex. Excerpt: “When I was forced to go see psychopharmocologists for my “mental illness,” I became obsessed with learning everything I could possibly know about neurochemistry. (I am still diagnosed mentally ill. No, I do not take medications for it anymore.) […] When I saw secretaries doing painfully repetitive computer “paper work,” I taught them how to automate some parts of their job and then encouraged them to take longer lunch breaks rather than do more work.”
  5. In my post about rolequeer porn, “Multivalent if cornered. Malevolent when dominated,” I was intentionally describing hypothetical erotica using terms from non-erotic, real life examples of embattled anti-authoritarian action. Excerpt, with emphasis added: “So, rolequeer porn, as I understand it, would eroticize disobedience to authority. It would eroticize Submissives taking care of themselves and each other. It would valorize Dominants who are traitors or whistleblowers or turncoats to themselves and other Dominants. It would eroticize Submissives being good *for* themselves and each other, not just good *to* the people with power over them.”

This is just off the top of my head. I’ve been writing about this shit for longer than I had the word “rolequeer” to describe it with. That means there are probably even more examples out there that I just haven’t been able to find links to in the span of one or two clicks.

In another post, you also asked, “What exactly is the relationship between rolequeerness and anarchism?” To me, a short answer to this question is that rolequeerness is queer anarchism; rolequeer sex is anarchism, applied to sex. Compare this with when I say “BDSM is fascism applied to sex.”

I am not rolequeer because I am an anarchist. Rather, insofar as I am an anarchist (instead of someone who is “doing anarchism everywhere in their life”), it is because I am rolequeer. See also this early roundup post, “Continuing Discussion on ‘Dominants are Rapists': Useful Reflections from the Blogosphere,” especially the excerpt by unquietpirate describing me as “one of the most submissively-identified people I know is also one of the most hardcore anti-authoritarians I’ve ever met.”

Does this address your question and clarify my viewpoint?

Donate Bitcoin

flattr this!

© 2010-2014 by maymay under a creative-commons attribution, non-commerical, no-derivative works license. (CC BY-NC-ND)
This blog is my Work, free to the world. If it moves you, please help me keep doing this Work by sharing some of your food, shelter, or money. Thank you!
Wholesale republishing and redistributing any of my work is encouraged.