Let's Eat Cake!

The other night I called the police on my upstairs neighbors, because I was tired of them blasting their music at 1 am.  When the cops arrived, we stood in the lobby of my building and I explained the situation.  The cop (white male in his 50’s, for context), was asking questions, nodding, being very friendly. 

At one point in our conversation, his eyes flashed to my chest, almost imperceptibly.  I silently registered the action, and instinctively looked down as well, taking no more than a second to do so.  I lifted my eyes back up, right back into his, and the conversation continued as though nothing had happened, except I quickly and casually adjusted my shirt, feeling exposed. 

It was like a silent agreement, as though he’d said, “I’m going to check out your rack now,” and I said, “Ok, let’s get it over with so we can get back to the topic.”   

This is an every day experience for women, and I hardly notice it anymore.  It’s not that we don’t SEE it - every woman knows when a man’s eyes have focused on her chest, even for that one second the guy hopes is unnoticeable.  It’s not.  It’s like there are motion detectors on a woman’s nipples, and every time a man’s gaze triggers them, a mental alarm screams, “OGLER - 3 o’clock!” 

It bothers me that we take it for granted that men will ogle us, but the truth is, I’ve forgiven men for it, because I really believe they just can’t help themselves. 

Now before some radical feminists come bashing my door down, I’m not making excuses for assholes.  I’m not excusing things like rape, by saying “Oh, the poor guy just couldn’t help himself.”  That would be ridiculous.  I’m saying that men’s eyes are drawn to boobs like a raver to a glitter factory.  It’s science.  I don’t feel they are trying to objectify us or belittle us when they ogle us, it’s just their natural reaction.         

Can you blame them?  We live in a sexually repressed society.  Boobies are interesting, because we aren’t exposed to them enough in real life.  For fuck’s sake, women are thrown out of establishments for exposing their breasts to feed their children.  The law allows a man to walk around with his boy boobs hanging out, but women have to cover up.  It’s no wonder men are so fascinated with boobs - they don’t get to see enough of them. 

And the truth is, I do the same damn thing.  I can’t even say I try to make it subtle.  Part of me realizes that as a woman, I can get away with it.  Women are more forgiving of each other, probably because we don’t openly hit on each other nearly as much as we should.  When a woman checks me out, I think, “Wow, she’s noticeably attracted to me, that’s so hot.”  If a guy openly eyeballs me I think, “God, pull yourself together, man.” 

I recognize the double standard.  Just because women are more forgiving of other women, doesn’t mean men are more perverted.

So really, guys, I feel obligated to forgive you, too. 

As Hollywood starts to embrace polyamory, more couples are “coming out” publicly.  Actress and comedienne Mo’Nique interviewed with Barbara Walters after the Oscars, and opened up about her open marriage.  Aside from the cheap shots taken by this article’s author, (“last night’s special took an unusual turn when actress Mo’Nique endorsed and spoke about her open marriage, leaving many wishing for Less’Nique“), Mo’Nique did a wonderful job representing polyamory, and had some great things to say. 

Walters questioned a previous statement by Mo’Nique and asked if, “cheating is when you lie and are deceitful, not when you have sex outside of the marriage?” Monique responded with a “yes.”

Walters then asked, “Do you and Sid have sex outside of the marriage?”

Mo’Nique responded, “Do we have sex outside of the marriage? Let me say this. I have not had sex outside of my marriage with Sidney. Could I have sex outside of my marriage with Sidney? Yes. Could Sid have sex outside of his marriage with me? Yes. That’s not a deal breaker. That’s not something that we would say, ‘Oh my God because you were attracted to another person and because you happened to have sex let’s end the marriage.’”

“And if it happened multiple times,” Walters questioned, “You wouldn’t care?”

Mo’Nique continued to cheerlead for open marriage and stated, “That’s not something that would make us say, ‘pack your things and let’s end the marriage’ because we’ve been best friends for- is it over 25 years? And we truly know who we are. Truly. Often times people get into marriages and they don’t know who they’re laying next to. I’m very comfortable and secure with my husband.”

While Mo’Nique may be secure, she never discussed how her children would handle their parents having an open marriage or how it would impact them.

Perhaps just to clarify, Walters questioned, “You are in an open marriage?” When Mo’Nique responded that she was Walters asked for a definition of “open marriage.”

 “No secrets. Open means, you know what, let me tell you my every secret, my fantasies, my thoughts so that way there are no surprises.”

Maybe the reason Mo’Nique has endorsed open marriage is because she’s been paying attention to the mainstream media. In December Newsweek alleged that open marriages were a way to stop all the ‘cheating scandals.” A Nightline episode in September featured Jenny Block, an author (and participant) who has pushed for open marriages.

Even as early as 2007 Oprah featured a couple that participated in an open marriage, while having experts who advocated for having friends with benefits.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sarah-knoploh/2010/03/08/mo-nique-open-marriage-not-deal-breaker#ixzz0hcOe4Vt2

Today is War on Drugs Day on Let’s Eat Cake.

This was brought up by a conversation I had the other night about the US Government intentionally poisoning alcohol during the Prohibition Era, knowing the shipments were being stolen by bootleggers. In all the articles I read about this, they always cite the same reason: Frustration that people continued to consume alcohol even after it was banned. Like they were concerned for our health. I think the more appropriate verbiage would be that people continued to sell the government’s alcohol, because like the bumper sticker says, “”Don’t Steal, the Government Hates Competition.”

This would be equivalent to today’s government intentionally distributed laced cocaine to kill off the drug dealers. Doesn’t sound like a bad plan. If all the coke users are afraid that the next line could be their last, would it deter them from using it? Probably not, as the power of addiction would override that fear.

But it would at least put a kink in their system, right? So why doesn’t the government do this? Since we can be pretty sure it’s not a MORAL issue, perhaps it’s because they’d be killing off their best clients.

Now, here’s what I’m confused about. If the drug war is about money or control or power, how is it not beneficial for the government to legalize marijuana? Not only would it allow them to tax and control marijuana sales, it would make more room in our prison system for people who deserve to be there. It would create jobs, it would decrease families being torn apart, and lower drug-related crimes in general.

So what’s the hold up? Is it because they’re afraid to admit they were wrong, that marijuana is NOT a gateway drug? That it’s NOT the beginning of a life of crime (except maybe for displaced children whose parents have been incarcerated for drug charges)? That is has NO negative health effects? How can they promote the use of tobacco (435,000 annual deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths) and alcohol (related deaths total 85,000 annually; 3.5% of total US deaths) but say marijuana is morally wrong (because this is really a moral argument)?

Do you know how many deaths are attributed to marijuana, not just annually, but in its entire history of use?

Zero.

It doesn’t make sense. Where the government could be making money, they are losing significantly (you can now watch these numbers climb on the bottom right hand corner of this blog). I’m not a pot smoker. I could really care less, personally – but on a rational, sane level, I’d kind of like some answers.

I know I’m preaching to the choir, and this isn’t stuff you haven’t heard before. So can anyone tell me how it’s all tied in? This is where my knowledge is limited. For example, what does this mean?

*Source: US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, “In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition” (Docket #86-22), September 6, 1988, p. 56-57.
http://druglibrary.net/olsen/MEDICAL/YOUNG/young4.html

**source: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/53

When I was getting ready for work this morning, I had to run my outfit by Luke a few times, to make sure it wasn’t too “mom-ish.”  I’m not talking about my status as a parent, I’m talking about the nagging reminder that we will all be old someday, and the determination with which we try to slow this process down.  I’ve been torn lately over how old I dress.

Apparently, there is a pre-midlife stage where a woman is trapped between clothing departments.  I am in that stage.  At 31, I am too old to be wearing ANYTHING my 13-year-old daughter would wear.  This is according to her, and I disagree*, but what if I’m one of those women who dresses like they’re 16 and doesn’t even realize it?  To risk that happening, there are boundaries one must follow: I long ago accepted that I’m not allowed to shop in the Juniors Department.

*This magical dress, from Express, is one that my daughter and I share.  It fits us quite differently, but definitely works for both of us:

On the flip side, I am entirely too cool to be browsing the Women’s department in just about any department store, which is filled with mock turtlenecks and khaki pants.  Who decided that as soon as you turn 30, you instantly gain 10 pounds around the midsection and enjoy wearing black loafers?  They act as though the word “blazer” had always been a part of our vocabulary.  If thirty is the new twenty, department stores sure haven’t caught on yet. 

The slightest cut of your jeans can make the difference between a sexy, hip woman and a 70’s flashback.  Jessica Simpson is living proof of this potential for disaster, where she instantly transforms from sex kitten to cougar-in-waiting.

Fortunately there are store like Express, which are directed at women my age, but you can only shop at one store for so long before you become a walking advertisement.  After that, you’re stuck with Old Navy or the Gap, and I’m still left with agonizing indecision as I try to determine whether or not I look like my mother. 

I realize this is only going to get worse.  

Are there any stores you swear by? 

My interview on Liberating Porn.

Let’s Eat Cake with Erin (Primer in Polyamory)

Today I received an email from a guy on Ok Cupid that said, simply, “Not real.”  When I asked what he meant, he told me my profile was a fake, and was written by a man pretending to be “the girl with the HUGE boobs.”  Shocked, I asked him why he thought that, and he said my profile is too straight-forward and manly to have been written by a girl, especially one with big boobs.  When I told him to check out my blog as proof that I’m a woman, he said the name “Let’s Eat Cake” proves even more that I’m a man.

Hey, it’s not the first time I’ve been told I act like a man.  Evidently, men are sexualized, drama-free and straight to the point (see: not crazy).  I’m ok with this.  Obviously, not all men are this way, and really, it’s not that women aren’t allowed to be this way either, it’s just that men don’t believe them when they are. 

I have to admit, I’m guilty of this myself.  When Luke finds the rare woman who is truly happy to have a strictly sexual relationship with him, I keep waiting for the other shoe to fall, for the moment when she professes that she wants more from him.  I’m torn between fighting for a woman’s right to be as bold, salacious, trampy and casual as she wants to be. . .and trying to find the women who actually want to be that way.  It’s the rare female that actually owns her sexuality, pursues men or women confidently, doesn’t fall into drama or neediness when the lines between sex and love are blurred and can stay level-headed and logical through it all (if that’s what they choose – some women choose to fall head over heels, and that’s ok, too). 

The point this guy was making, however, isn’t that women can’t be all of these things - but that pretty women can’t be all of these things.  My profile was obviously too far off his mental scope for comprehension (so much that he thought I was a fraud), but the truth is, this guy represents the masses.  It seems like such an uphill battle:  first having to prove that I’m not an emotional wreck waiting to happen, and now having to prove I’m not a male in disguise.  

Part of the problem is, in many ways he is right.  Why is the handful of attractive and intelligent and sex-positive women so small?  Remember, folks, we’re in a bubble.  Let’s Eat Cake is a tiny bubble that is visited by probably half of the handful, already.  If you’re a woman and you’re my friend, it’s pretty likely you are part of a minority of women in America.  For all intents and purposes, you don’t count. 

I think God did this, I really do.  I think he took all the perfectly slutty women and put the fear of hell into them, taught them words like “guilt” and “shame,” and ruined it for the rest of us.  Now there are all these sexually free women running around in prude’s bodies, and when they do ask for what they want and take it, they apologize for it and make excuses (I was drunk).

Then we wonder why men are so shocked when women say what they mean and make no apologies for it.  I don’t feel this situation is improving much – I fear my bubble of dynamic women is getting smaller, as one by one they jump on the drama train.  The few that are left, I’m holding onto for dear life.  Same goes for the sexy, smart, emotionally in-tune men who appreciate women like us.

                          (the largest House of Prostitution in the World, constructed in a public street, under the sanction and approval of H.C. Gill, when Mayor, and now ready for occupancy)

Found an interesting article in Seattle Metropolitan magazine, detailing how the Emerald City has a history of prostitution that runs as deep as our historic underground, including being home to the largest brothel in the world.  Where a lot of people would be ashamed of this fact and try to sweep it under the rug, I am proud to be native to a city with such a rich sexual history.   

1853Young Mary Conklin washes up in Seattle after her whaling-captain husband maroons her at Port Townsend. She manages the Felker House at First and Main, the infant town’s first inn and, when required, courthouse. Her lavish profanity in six languages earns her the sobriquet “Mother Damnable.” By some accounts she later adds a brothel upstairs and becomes “Madame Damnable.”  (I can’t suggest a more awesome Stage name – any takers?)

February 1888 Madame Lou Graham arrives on the steamer Pacific Pride. She proceeds to build a lavish, genteel bordello above the line, opposite Father Prefontaine’s Church of Our Lady of Good Help at Third and Washington. To entice customers, she and other “parlor house” proprietors parade new girls around town by carriage.

May 13, 1909 After Mayor John F. Miller orders the “disorderly houses” in Seattle’s vice districts closed, police raid five houses, confiscate their liquor, and arrest those found within. Miller endorses “the purpose of segregating vice and the establishing of a thoroughly regulated district as the best practicable means at hand of dealing with the social evil.”  (What do you want to bet he was one of the most frequent clients?)

Seattle is also known for being haunted, and every time I’m walking along the Pier (which I happened to do last night), I am fully aware of this.  I can feel the history and my imagination always takes off, and I swear I can see old Seattle the way it used to be.  There is a subtle backdrop of the past that is practically visible to the naked eye, along the city skyline.  All histories are rich, but it’s exciting to know that Seattle’s comes with a little debauchery.

More interesting facts. . .

Billy Mac replies to my letter:

> Dear Erin
>
> Thank you for your thoughtful and heartfelt communique. I couldn’t agree with you more and I appreciate your sentiments. i also agree that the remarks in question have the potential to hurt.
>
> There is, however, one extremely important point on which you must be made clear so, because I’m on your, side let me put this in capital letters:
>
> I WAS NOT THE ONE WHO MADE THOSE REMARKS !
>
> A rather salient point to be missed by one whose recollections are otherwise correct.
>
> Those remarks were spoken by my piano partner — I would appreciate it if you would take the time to inform ANYONE to whom you have relayed this story that you misidentified the culprit. As a matter of fact, when those words were spoken I said (over the mic) “Did you say all the straight guys?” because I, too, was incredulous.
>
> I have had a longstanding difference of opinion regarding this particular intro to this bit because I was raised in New Orleans by good parents who taught me that what was eventually to be known as “Gay bashing” was wrong. And while I wouldn’t call this gay bashing I understand your sentiments.
>
> I have personally led the fight at Chopstix against the use of gay-bashing material and you should know that we have twice fired entertainers for doing so. Chopstix was the first dueling piano bar in the country to feature a weekly gay and lesbian night. (Was that demeaning to heterosexuals?)
>
> It is a delicate line that entertainers walk on this matter and I wholly reject the notion that straight men are real men and gay men are not. Just as I wholly reject the notion that men are the only ones who cheat on their partners or smack their kids. Are we wrong to have ladies’ night?
>
> You’re right, Erin. It is a Pandora’s box BUT it is precisely these discussions that move us forward as a society and as a species.
>
> As for what makes a man? I don’t know that the question has any meaning in a role-reversed, evolving world where men and women can change their sex and more importantly a world in which women are finally being given credit for doing what “men” do — both at home and in the workplace. (Is a stay-at-home Dad whose wife works not a man? Is his spouse not a woman?)
>
> I think at this point the terms man and woman exist primarily to differentiate them from boys and girls.
>
> I know that we are all creatures who emanate from the same source and are deserving of the same love and respect.
>
> I know that I am hurt by this but, in the maelstrom that is Chopstix the confusion is understandable and I forgive you. And I assure you that your letter will be forwarded to all our players so that they know about the subject and about the fact that their partner can sometimes be held accountable for their sins. And I must again insist that you not lay this transgression at my feet.
>
> And I ask one more thing of you: I ask that you return to Chopstix and introduce yourself to me so that we may enjoy the mutual pleasure of understanding, communication and forgiveness.
>
> What matters to me, Erin, is what makes a gentleman.
>
> Thank you again for your letter and for this opportunity to write back.
>
> All the best
>
> Billy Mac


And my response::

Mr. Billy Mac~

Thank you very much for your response. I am so certain it was you who said the comment, and neither my awareness, nor my memory have been vastly incorrect in the past – but since you are adamant, I will have to concede.

I will correct my readers on my site, and print your letter as well.

It is at least nice to hear that we share similar thoughts on gender, sexuality and masculinity. It is also reassuring to hear that Chopstix takes anti-gay sentiment very seriously. I do view these trials as learning experiences, and hope that the entertainers who were fired gained some understanding before being shown the door.

I would like to address your question about gay and lesbian night being demeaning to heterosexuals, or ladies night being demeaning toward men. I am torn over this issue, as I think it depends on the intent. For example, I think that women fight for equality – then tolerate an insulting thing like “Ladies night,” where we are essentially used as bait. It’s known that ladies night is really to get the men to come out, and I think if women are going to fight to make the same amount of money as men, they should be willing to PAY the same amount to get in.

However. I do not believe the “power groups,” need any more support than they already have. I feel, based on our current economic structure, that every day is “Man’s Day,” (as it is “Straight” day and “White” day), and showing support for minorities isn’t demeaning, nor does it remove any of the power group’s privilege. As a woman, I do not derive meaning by demeaning others.

> I know that we are all creatures who emanate from the same source and are deserving of the same love and respect. < I am glad to hear you say this, and I appreciate that you would forward my letter to anyone involved. And I will most certainly return to Chopstix and introduce myself when I do.

Regards,

Erin

Last Saturday I went to Chopsticks, a dueling piano bar in Everett, for a friend’s birthday.  This is always a great time, where two pianists banter back and forth, singing almost every song the audience requests, joking, making fun of each other and providing a very entertaining show.  They are high-energy and big on audience participation. 

It is customary to bring people who are celebrating their birthday up on stage to jokingly humiliate them, and the victim this particular night was an adorable girl who was celebrating her 21st birthday.  The lead pianist, Mr. Billy Mac, decided it would be clever to have all the men in the audience sing “You’ve Lost that Lovin’ Feelin” to the girl, ”just like in Top Gun.” 

So what does Billy Mac do?  He silences the audience, and asks for, “All the real men.  All the real, straight heterosexual men in the audience to please stand up.”  There was a strange hush in the audience, as everyone got the buzz that something wasn’t right about this question.  I was so embarrassed for any gay men (out or not) in the audience, and I sank down so low in my seat you’d think he’d called me out by name.  Unsurprisingly, many men who hadn’t participated much during the rest of the show suddenly shot out of their seats, just to be SURE there was no confusion about their sexuality, and they were all just standing there, looking so. . . smug and manly. . .and I was too ashamed to look and see if any men were still seated.

As I’m looking around the room at all these supposed real men, I can’t help but wonder how many of them go home and smack their kids around or cheat on their wives.  In contrast, images of gay men gardening keep popping into my head.  I realize the world is not black or white – not all straight men are assholes and not all gay men are loving and devoted.  But I still can’t figure how being straight automatically makes you a real man.

Perhaps I’m giving Billy Mac too much credit, but what I believe he was trying to say (though failing miserably), was that he wanted all the men who are attracted to women to stand up.  But what he did was help strengthen a long-standing stereotype that gay men aren’t real men. 

I’m sorry, but choosing to put your penis into a vagina does not make you a man.  Hell, even owning a penis doesn’t make you a man. . .does it? 

Some will argue that unless you were born a man, you are not a man.  I guess I can support that claim on a technicality, but frankly, I consider it mean and pointless.  I know a couple of men (masculine, attracted to women) who were not born men, and it would seem downright silly to look at them and say, “you are not a man.”  Or to tell the big teddy bear, leather daddies that they aren’t real men, because they’re attracted to other big, hairy lumberjack-type men (isn’t this how the mainstream defines masculinity?).

What do you think makes a man?  Is it having a penis?  Is it to act according to manliness, and who defines that?  Whose standards are we measuring against?  Is it how each person identifies?  Is that realistic?  Is it based on what gender you find attractive?

One person said “being a real man means taking care of your business (aka bills, children, being a responsible human being, etc.).”  Based on that logic, I could be considered a man.

Another person said, “It’s what letter you have under ’sex’ on your driver’s license.”  By that logic, transsexuals who live as women are more manly than gay men?  Does this also mean that just because you can’t afford, or choose not to have the gender reassigment surgery that you don’t count?

While I believe Billy Mac at Chopsticks was just trying to be entertaining, I believe a lot of people had the potential of being hurt by his thoughtless remark, and he sure opened up Pandora’s Box for me.

One of those OK Cupid questions got me thinking. The question is posed as:

In terms of relationships, commitment is…

a)…wonderful!
b)…okay, but right now I want to be open.
c)…something I both fear and desire.
d)…a dish best served cold.

It’s interesting to me that commitment equals fidelity in so many people’s minds.  It’s harmless, I know, but I enjoy the debate surrounding it.  

For example, I am 100% committed to my partner. We live together, raise a child together, we are committed to making our relationship work, to being honest with each other, (even when lying would be so much easier), to being responsible to and for each other, to making sure our relationship gets the time and effort it deserves, and everything else that defines commitment to me.

We are also committed to the idea of real honesty with each other, and ourselves, and the thought that desiring others isn’t a crime (or something that disappears just because we’ve found each other), so we are in an open relationship.  We date and sleep with other people. Does that mean we aren’t committed to each other?

In contrast, what does that mean for someone who never cheats, but is a shitty partner otherwise (doesn’t communicate, doesn’t care about their partner’s needs, is emotionally closed off)?  They practice fidelity – but would you say they’re committed to their relationship?

I just like to challenge the words we use so loosely, without maybe realizing exactly what it is we’re saying.  Thoughts?