Where I talk about workshops because I haven't done that in a while :)

[greenie_breizh]

I'm attempting to upgrade to the next version of Ubuntu, Karmic Koala, without yodah holding my hand! Let's hope I don't make my computer implode (lol) and also that does not take the 6 hours that it's currently saying it'll need, because I'm going to be way sooner than that.

And you should all watch this music video by The Twang. I love the song but I find the music video itself really cool, there's something about it that makes me happy. :)

I haven't been doing a lot (aka any) anti-homophobia workshops this term because it's been so busy with trying to get interviews done and school and applications and work and everything, but since things have eased up a little bit in the past couple of weeks so I signed myself up for a few. It's funny because I still remember when I was running the program at the MAG, I would get grumpy about having to go to schools far away and all, and then I would get there and do the workshop and LOVE it and feel stupid for having been grumpy about it. I sort of do the same here - when I have to wake up super early to get to a school, I'm all >.> but I have yet to do a workshop that doesn't leave me all :D and energetic. Even when the kids say a lot of bullshit (and sometimes they really do), there's just something about getting to talk about it with them, about opening up that conversation and be the first one (or one of the first) to explain to them without getting angry or uncomfortable, that you don't choose to be gay/what bisexual is/why 'that's so gay' is hurtful/what transgender means. I just get so much happy energy from doing that.

- My first workshop "back", I did in an all-boy grade 10 class, where one boy very bluntly asked, "why would anyone want to have something up their ass?" I was like, score! Because him bringing up very explicit sexual stuff gives me license to talk about it, so we had a whole conversation about sexual practices and how different people like different things and it's about what you and your partner like, regardless of your identity. A+. I loved these boys because some of them were not super allies, but they asked questions and (mostly) listened and talked and I much, much prefer that to the classes that go all quiet.

- The next week I did a very small grade 9 class, but they were wonderful. I never got past the original brainstorm exercise because they had so many questions, I just rolled with them and what they were curious about (that's how I used to do it with the MAG and it's still my favorite style). The one slightly awkward moment was when the teacher asked me to address pedophilia (and the myth that gay guys are pedophiles), which... I don't know that kids are very aware of that stereotype, it tends to be more adults, and I think the students were more confused than anything. But that aside, it was a wonderful conversation with kids who were amazingly curious and thoughtful and open, especially considering one of the girls in the class had recently passed away. :(

- Then this morning I headed back to an elementary school where I've done a few interviews for a workshop with Taylor in a grade 5 class. Very different atmosphere, partly because they were younger, and partly because there were like, 3 adults in the room including their teacher and the principal, lol. Because they were SUCH an amazing bunch. Seriously, so many insightful comments, from so many different students. We were defining "gay", and not only did the kids differentiate between love and attraction, but this one boy, he raises his hand and goes "it's when you like someone of the same gender as you". THESE KIDS WERE LIKE 9, GUYS. ♥ ♥ They had wonderful comments about how gay is only a bad word if you say it in a mean way, and how it would make people feel left out if you use it in a bad way, and how there are no boy colors and girl colors and and and. They were so receptive to the transgender stuff, too. It was so unlike most of the workshops I've done because it was so much more bullying-oriented, but it was wonderful in so many ways, I heart these grade 5s so so much. The interesting thing is 1) the reason why we were called in for this workshop is that the boys have been calling the girls lesbians (and yet so many boys said amazing things) and 2) a parent apparently got pretty angry at the principal for having us come in (condoning a lifestyle, talking about sex, blah blah blah). The principal is super supportive but not 100% comfortable yet so he was pretty flustered (in a calm way, whatever, it makes sense in my head) and pretty excited that he'd stood up to this parent and pretty much showed her the door because he wasn't going to tolerate homophobic language in his school and too bad for her if she had a problem with that. So we ended up talking with him a bit before and after the workshop, he took notes during the workshop so that he had more ammo for when the mom comes back to him about this. He was pretty happy because he'd noticed the mom's boy started out by refusing to look at us, and then after 15 minutes, he changed positions and started looking towards the front of the class, so he was hoping that the body language meant the boy had opened up to our message. But that kid is probably hearing a lot of shit at home. :( It makes me even happier than his classmates were so insightful, so he heard a lot of great things not just from us, but from other kids in the class.

Anyway, wow that was long! I just like to write a few things about these workshops go, and leave a trace of how much I loved talking with these kids. It's moments like these that I know whatever I end up doing, it will probably have to be related to some kind of classroom, because this makes me too happy to dismiss. Which is a nice reminder since I'm less than 24h away from getting like 40 exams to mark and soon I will be bitching about how much I hate being a TA.

Comments

[nicoli-dominn.livejournal.com]

That story about the grade 5 workshop is heartwarming...regarding the kids, anyway. ;-)

I wonder if it's an example of a generational difference or an example of the tolerance of children before they reach their teen years, but it would be interesting to test. I remember back when I was in fifth grade, that was our sex ed year. I went to a private school that, like PA, was very concerned about students embracing diversity, including those of varying sexualities. However, no one really taught us about what it was like to be non-heterosexual, or even what homophobia was beyond a dictionary definition. Sex ed was all about the mechanics of reproduction, rather than a discussion of what sex meant to people and how people experienced sex in different ways. I know that the omission of those topics and discussions negatively affected how I viewed my own sexuality, and I seriously hope that my school has changed its approach such that they've become more involved.

Maybe they're afraid--like the principal in your entry--that some parents would be angry and withdraw their children from school if they thought the school was "advocating [something] lifestyles" or some bullshit. But in my opinion, a teacher either takes the plunge and educates h/her students, or s/he runs the risk of becoming another nihilist who wishes s/he could make a difference but doesn't think it possible.

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

Ugh, I have major, major issues with reproduction-oriented sex ed now. Unfortunately that's still the approach favored by almost everyone :/ (the school where we did the workshop with the grade 5, the principal mentioned the grade 7 had discussed oral sex a few weeks ago, which I thought was neat, but the mom in question was apparently not thrilled, lol)

[menyhapyreturns.livejournal.com]

Out of curiosity were you guys actually talking about sex to a class of nine-year olds, or were you just clueing them in that some folks are gay and its uncool to be dick about that? b/c if its the former, I don't get why the mom wouldn't have just exercised her option to withdraw her kid from the workshop, instead of being a jerk about it. Or do they do things differently in canada...?

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

Out of curiosity were you guys actually talking about sex to a class of nine-year olds, or were you just clueing them in that some folks are gay and its uncool to be dick about that?

We weren't talking directly about sex at all, no. Like I said it was much more bullying-oriented with that class, and why it's problematic to use gay as a bad word, etc. The most direct reference to sex we made I think was when talking about asexuality, and how some people aren't interested in sex and that's OK, too.

Legislation changes from province to province, so I can't speak to the whole of Canada, but in B.C. parents can only pull their kids out of a class if it's health-oriented, and they need to provide a plan to the school about how they're going to themselves teach their kids. Official documentation on diversity education also makes it very clear that teachers should strive to include LGBT folks and issues into their teaching, but none of these documents are binding.

So the mom couldn't have pulled her kid out, which I think is the way it should be.

[menyhapyreturns.livejournal.com]

Well sounds like what you were doing was perfectly age-appropriate. Sounds like the mom thought her kid was entitled to be a bully!

OTOH, we may have to agree to disagree on the last part. Provided no harm is being done to the child (and the child is taught not to harm or interfere with others) I think its a fundamental right of parents to choose what values to teach their children, whether we like them or not, so I'm incredibly wary of legislation allowing any government or outside body to interfere in such a personal matter. Keeping in mind there is a difference btwn teaching facts and teaching values, of course ;) (And also keeping in mind that the "value" of not being a dick is necessary to the social contract of any functioning civilization.)

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

I would argue broaching the topic of sex with grade 5s would still be age-appropriate in a lot of ways, but I do realize most people would disagree. :)

I think its a fundamental right of parents to choose what values to teach their children, whether we like them or not.

I think parents can teach whatever the hell they want to their kids, although I am going to rant and feel morally superior to all the parents out there who are teaching their kids to hate rather than respect.

What I have a problem with is parents being allowed to pull their kids out of a class because the topic of homosexuality is broached, when we would never allow that for a class where the topic of race is broached. I think parents having the rights to teach their values to their kids is in no way contradictory with the kid being exposed to different points of view.

I think it's extremely harmful to let parents take their children away from these classes under the pretense that that class, that workshop where homosexuality is discussed, is the only time where kids are learning about these things. The truth is that kids are learning about it on the playground, they're learning about it in all the other classes and activities where heterosexuality is celebrated and sexual diversity absent. Letting parents take their kids away from what is often the one space where they're going to hear that gay is OK, that homophobia is NOT OK, is not only potentially harmful to the child (should that poor kid turn out not to be 100% hetero), it is extrenely harmful to the queer kids that inhabit our schools, and it is extremely harmful to all non-heterosexuals who then have to deal with - pardon my language - homophobic jackasses who will occasionally go as far as leave them to die on a fence, or more often will force them to leave in constant fear of being found out at work, at church, at their kids' school. It's also harmful to everyone, regardless of their sexuality, who does gender differently, because homophobia is extremely closely tied to traditional ideas of gender, and especially at school, the kids and teens who are most likely to have their lives be made miserable are not actually gay, but people perceive them as such.

I think the right of parents to be bigoted about this (and they do have the right to be, don't get me wrong) should really not be prioritized over the well-being of thousand of kids, teens and adults across the country. And if schools can't try to provide safe spaces for everyone, I don't know who can. (And that education is absolutely fundamental to creating safe spaces.)

There's this quote from this court case here that I really like, by Justice Beverley McLachlin:

"When we ask people to be tolerant of others, we do not ask them to abandon their personal convictions.  We merely ask them to respect the rights, values and ways of being of those who may not share those convictions.  […]  Learning about tolerance is therefore learning that other people’s entitlement to respect from us does not depend on whether their views accord with our own.  Children cannot learn this unless they are exposed to views that differ from those they are taught at home."
(Chamberlain v. Surrey District School Board No. 36)

(I would change the language from tolerance to respect, but apart from that, I think he's right on.)

[menyhapyreturns.livejournal.com]

You know, I mostly agree with this (you make a great point particularly here: "the well-being of thousand of kids, teens and adults across the country" and, incidentally, its always been my personal theory that a lot of homophobia is rooted in sexism and "femiphobia", if you will).

That said, you made a comparison with race which I think falls flat in a way - race is a more public matter, whereas sexual behavior (notice I didn't say sexuality, since I think there is a decent comparison there - what you are born as) is a private matter. I think that's where a difference comes in. Teaching people to be kind and respectful of everyone is necessary, again for a functioning society. Going into detail about sexual acts, which is the realm of the private, the intimate - that's something I think needs to be handled with a great deal more delicacy, and that's where I think the rights of the parents take priority (especially if their taxes are being used to keep those schools in existence). Not saying that sex ed and sex acts should be eliminated (for public health concerns if nothing else - STD's are just farking rampant these days), but I definitely think this falls into a gray area. And not to get too off topic, but it seems like the aspect of intimacy is being all but stripped from sex anymore, and I wonder how that can or should be dealt with from an educational standpoint. Also, from your standpoint as an educator, how necessary are explicit discussions of sex acts, when in the context of teaching tolerance for alternate sexualities? That's an outright question, not a rhetorical one :) I've never taught a class before so i don't know how much you've found you needed to get into to make a point clear.

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

That said, you made a comparison with race which I think falls flat in a way - race is a more public matter, whereas sexual behavior (notice I didn't say sexuality, since I think there is a decent comparison there - what you are born as) is a private matter.

But it is sexuality - or rather sexual orientation/identity that we're talking about here, not sexual behavior? People don't get bullied, queer folks don't get marginalized, because of their sexual practices, at least not directly, because there is no such thing as a gay sexual practice (any pairing can practice oral sex, anal sex, etc.). They get stigmatized because of their sexual identity and/or their gender performance. So I do think the parallel with race works, at least in some ways.

Going into detail about sexual acts, which is the realm of the private, the intimate - that's something I think needs to be handled with a great deal more delicacy

But who said anything about going into detail about sexual acts? Anti-homophobia education has very little to do with talking about sexual practices.
I'm with you on the fact that sexual acts are more of a private matter, and I can see how some people may feel uncomfortable with that being brought up in class. I do understand why they might feel they should be able to pull kids out of the class. At the same time, in light of what you mention yourself - STIs, but also high teen pregnancy rates - I wonder if a parent's discomfort with the fact that their kids are being told about sex should matter all that much against the importance of teaching said kids how to be safe, for their own health and that of others? For sex ed to be effective, it needs to be comprehensive, it needs to approach sex without shame or hesitation, but we do a terrible job of that.

Also, from your standpoint as an educator, how necessary are explicit discussions of sex acts, when in the context of teaching tolerance for alternate sexualities?

Like I said, absolutely none. And just because it's kind of important to me, I'm teaching / trying to teach respect/acceptance, not tolerance. :) (There's a fairly significant difference, tolerance is actually a pretty negative word when you think about it - when you tolerate something, you often have little respect for it, you put up with it because you have to. The power is in your hand to judge and disdain, which is problematic. Respect on the other hand implies much more reciprocity and equality between the parties concerned.) Back to the topic...

That said, it becomes tricky because we - as a society - tend to have preconceptions about the sexual practices of queer people. Aka gay guys have anal sex, lesbians don't really have sex, that sort of stuff. When we brainstorm with the kids, they often come up with insults that point to that - carpet-muncher, fudge-packer, buttpirate (a personal favorite)... so when that sort of thing comes up, or like in my post when one student explicitly asks about sex, I go there with them - I explain that sexual acts are unrelated to sexual identity. That different people like different things in bed, that what people like in bed isn't related to who they like, that not all gay men enjoy/practice anal sex, that heterosexual couples do enjoy/practice anal sex sometimes. It's about what you and your partner enjoy doing together, regardless of how you define your sexual identity.

[menyhapyreturns.livejournal.com]

Sorry for the delay in response to all this, I had to dig myself out of a snowbank to make it to the computer;) On to the discussion (whee!):
But it is sexuality - or rather sexual orientation/identity that we're talking about here, not sexual behavior? People don't get bullied, queer folks don't get marginalized,…..They get stigmatized because of their sexual identity and/or their gender performance. So I do think the parallel with race works, at least in some ways.
I don’t really think we are disagreeing on any particular point here.

I wonder if a parent's discomfort with the fact that their kids are being told about sex should matter all that much against the importance of teaching said kids how to be safe, for their own health and that of others? For sex ed to be effective, it needs to be comprehensive, it needs to approach sex without shame or hesitation, but we do a terrible job of that.
I appreciate that you made a point of saying shame OR hesitation, because the two are often (incorrectly) conflated with each other. But maybe this is more a point of disagreement – I think hesitation in approaching discussion of sexual activity is a GOOD thing, particularly when dealing with young minds. I think there is a point at which sex ed can be too casual with teaching about various sexual practices as it tends to…well, ”casualize” it, for lack of a better way of putting it. And maybe its just what I’ve seen with how friends, and younger siblings of friends, are educated, but sex is approached both mechanically and with focus on “experimentation” or even mere recreation, but from what I’ve seen the emotional/psychological implications of sexual activity aren’t as forthrightly addressed. So on to a question – in your opinion, what’s an effective way of handling that, that you’ve seen or done? Obv. That should be the realm of the parents, but if you are doing sex ed in the classroom as part of health reasons, I don’t think the rest of it can be ignored in that context (and haha, I realize we are getting offtrack from the original topic of the tolerance “More You Know” workshop;)

Like I said, absolutely none. And just because it's kind of important to me, I'm teaching / trying to teach respect/acceptance, not tolerance. :) (There's a fairly significant difference, tolerance is actually a pretty negative word when you think about it - when you tolerate something, you often have little respect for it, you put up with it because you have to. The power is in your hand to judge and disdain, which is problematic. Respect on the other hand implies much more reciprocity and equality between the parties concerned.) Back to the topic...
There is definitely a difference btwn tolerance and acceptance, but while tolerance is something you have every right to demand, acceptance is not. (negative vs positive freedoms and all that). Not saying you shouldn’t try, but people have a right to get pissed off when they feel acceptance is being “forced” on them – that’s probably at the root of a lot of the anti-gay pushback you tend to see. Not sure how to apply that to government run schools though…

That said, it becomes tricky because we - as a society - tend to have preconceptions about the sexual practices of queer people. Aka gay guys have anal sex, lesbians don't really have sex, that sort of stuff.
First off, I think you are dead right about this, but again, a little off topic – are there like survey’s or statistics anywhere that map out just what it is people (not just queer folk) do on average? I’ve never seen one, and it might be useful to have since I actually do know people who think pretty much all gay (male) sex takes place in public parks or restrooms with anonymous partners. Other than directing them to gay forums (which they wouldn’t read if I paid them) I’m never sure what to do about that. And it may amuse you to know that lesbians are a complete bafflement to them;)
When we brainstorm with the kids, they often come up with insults that point to that - carpet-muncher, fudge-packer, buttpirate (a personal favorite)
I prefer “ass-master”. Just rolls off the tongue.

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

Sorry for the delay in response to all this, I had to dig myself out of a snowbank to make it to the computer;)

loL! No worries, I'm glad you're out of the snow ;) I'm pretty irregular about responses sometimes too :)

I think hesitation in approaching discussion of sexual activity is a GOOD thing, particularly when dealing with young minds. I think there is a point at which sex ed can be too casual with teaching about various sexual practices as it tends to…well, ”casualize” it, for lack of a better way of putting it. [...] in your opinion, what’s an effective way of handling that, that you’ve seen or done?

This is more theory than practice, but based on cursory knowledge of what's being done in northern European countries, it's certainly more effective than the shameful approach we tend to take.

I think we need to open about sex, and open about the fact that sex is not just one act (intercourse). I think being open about sex does not mean trivializing it, on the contrary. The problem is that when we hesitate on the topic, when we talk about it through veiled language, etc, we often end up recentering the act of intercourse, and I think a lot of the problems that we have around sex (and the discrimination that results sometimes, as for queer folks) comes from the fact that we understand sex as this one, HUGE thing: intercourse. By decentering intercourse, by starting to talk early about the fact that most people have sexual desires and that there are lots of ways to explore that - starting with lots of ways to explore that on your own, we empower people by giving them a range of options, instead of the having sex/staying abstinent dichotomy. By being open about sex and sexual desires and all the shapes that sex can take for different people, I don't think we make it casual - I think it frames it as something that's important, but it can be important to different people in different ways. Being more open about sex also allows you, as an educator (whatever that means, aka a parent is also an educator), can also be more open about intimacy. You can be more open about the fact that it's OK to say yes to something but no to the next because it makes you uncomfortable. You can be more open about the fact that saying yes to oral sex doesn't mean you have to say yes to intercourse. You can explain clearly that anal sex should be practice with care, with LOTS of lube. You can be more open about the fact that sharing these moments with someone means putting a lot of trust in their hand, and that you should make sure that you trust them before you go there. Unlike what you seem to be saying, I think being as open as possible about sex in all its shapes and forms doesn't mean not talking about its possible emotional implications, I think it opens up a space where it's OK to talk about these implications. I think you can say, "sex can be great and it can be fun" while still saying, "sex can be awful, and it's OK to talk about that". I also like to bring up asexuality whenever I can, because sex ed tends to assume that everyone has sexual desire, whereas there might be teens/adults in the audience that don't really feel that. So I like to remind my audience that sex is not something everybody wants. (But we have to be REALLY careful about not perpetuating the stereotype that boys want sex all the time/girls are the ones saying no, because that's super problematic.)

I don't know if that answers your question? Basically I think being open about sex doesn't mean to have to diminish the fact that it can be a pretty big step to take. But I also want us to make space for a much wider definition of sex, not just as intercourse, but as wide variety of intimate practices.

(Damn you, LJ, and your comment character limit.)

[menyhapyreturns.livejournal.com]

ROTFL – you just wrote me a thesis!
I think we need to open about sex…[] I don't know if that answers your question? Basically I think being open about sex doesn't mean to have to diminish the fact that it can be a pretty big step to take. But I also want us to make space for a much wider definition of sex, not just as intercourse, but as wide variety of intimate practices.
I don’t have a response to make in particular about this, because I think what you said was very well written and it’s given me a different paradigm to work from– so thank you 
(Damn you, LJ, and your comment character limit.)
It’s a biatch, ain’t it?

part 2

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

In the end, I worry that being hesitant limits communication. It sends the message that sex and sexual activity is something that cannot be discussed openly, and that means that teens in particular are likely to turn to their peers, who may have very skewed knowledge, rather than an adult who has the knowledge or the resources to direct the teen to someone who has the knowledge. Hesitating around kids I don't really helps making the point that sex can have emotional/psychological implications, it makes the point that you can't really talk about sex and if something goes wrong, teens won't know how to broach the topic.


At the same time, I don't think the message should/has to be "you should have sex, all the time, it's awesome!" because you shouldn't, not if you don't feel like it. It's kind of like how I think of monogamy vs. non-monogamy, in a way - I don't think suggesting that monogamy is not the One and Only Way should mean that you belittle people who are monogamous for not being able to handle monogamy. Being open about sex and all forms of sexual activity doesn't have to mean you treat it like you would treat going to the movies. There's more intimacy and more risks involved, and you can be vocal about that - and you can be vocal about the fact that fun sex is safe sex.

Also, just to make that point again, I think one of the problems that we currently have with being hesitant about sex is that we're much more hesitant about sex with girls than with boys, and that reinforces gendered stereotypes that are pretty harmful, especially for girls.

Re: part 2

[menyhapyreturns.livejournal.com]

In the end, I worry that being hesitant limits communication. It sends the message that sex and sexual activity is something that cannot be discussed openly, and that means that teens in particular are likely to turn to their peers, who may have very skewed knowledge, rather than an adult who has the knowledge or the resources to direct the teen to someone who has the knowledge.
This is an excellent point also, so I guess you need to make sure you find adults for teaching that aren’t just as clueless and delusional as your average teen – and boy they are out there!

At the same time, I don't think the message should/has to be "you should have sex, all the time, it's awesome!" …..There's more intimacy and more risks involved, and you can be vocal about that - and you can be vocal about the fact that fun sex is safe sex.
That’s still going to fall flat with folks that see sex not as a fun thing you do with someone you love or like, but rather as that and as the physical expression of a covenant that two people have made. I do tend to think that people who hold to that belief tend to home school or put their kids in private schools, but there may be a few floating around in the public educational system for financial reasons that wish to “protect” their kids from that.

Also, just to make that point again, I think one of the problems that we currently have with being hesitant about sex is that we're much more hesitant about sex with girls than with boys, and that reinforces gendered stereotypes that are pretty harmful, especially for girls.
So much THIS. Purity balls FTW (gag)

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

There is definitely a difference btwn tolerance and acceptance, but while tolerance is something you have every right to demand, acceptance is not.

That's why I coupled it with respect, which I think is a more helpful way to think about it. I think I deserve respect.

I stand by my point that I'm not looking for tolerance, because honestly, people who are only willing to "tolerate" me (because it's not just my opinions or my practices that they "tolerate" but my very being) can, to put it bluntly, go fuck themselves. I don't want their tolerance, I certainly don't want them to pat themselves on the back because they're tolerant. If tolerance (without respect) is all they can give, I would much rather they be honest with themselves and the world and admit that they can't really tolerate me - the only reason they do is they don't have a choice, because I exist and they can't obliterate my existence. (Which otherwise they would gladly do, even just metaphorically, by denying that queer people do exist.)

It may seem harsh but I think it's true, people who call themselves tolerant are the first ones to qualify it with a "but" that tries to take away my rights or that puts me/queer people down. I have no interest in fostering that attitude. The minimum I want is respect. After all, I don't go around saying I "tolerate" close-minded people - and I would have more reasons to tolerate rather than respect them, because they think I'm inferior to them for being gay.

[menyhapyreturns.livejournal.com]

That's why I coupled it with respect, which I think is a more helpful way to think about it. I think I deserve respect.
Ah, see I was saying tolerance, implying outward respect. That and the whole separation of church and state stuff. Everyone is obligated to treat others with respect due to our innate human dignity. But I see what you are saying here.

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

First off, I think you are dead right about this, but again, a little off topic – are there like survey’s or statistics anywhere that map out just what it is people (not just queer folk) do on average?

The only thing I can think of is the Kinsey report. It's pretty old but if in the 50's people were already not as hetero and monogamous and vanilla as we thought they were, now that these stigmas has somewhat diminished (or at least shifted), I can't imagine we're more hetero and monogamous and vanilla.

But ultimately the numbers don't matter. It's not about what people do do, it's about what people can do if they want to. Aka there is nothing about being gay that means you have to enjoy anal sex. The two are completely unrelated - one has to do with sexual identity, with your object of desire (male, female or something else) and one has to do with sexual practice. The fact that you're straight doesn't mean you have to enjoy bondage - the two are independent. Some straight people do, some straight people don't.

If your friends can't take your word for it that you know gay people and they have sex at home with a single partner, then there is little that will change their minds, and they will always find an excuse to not believe any data you present them with. If they can't understand that sexual identity is unrelated to sexual practice, I don't know that there's much you can do, except repeat yourself over and over again whenever it comes up, until enough people have done so around them that it finally computes.

Anecdotally, you can show them a box for some dildos/butt plugs, they often feature a heterosexual couple, and since these things sell, clearly someone who's not a gay man is enjoying a little ass stimulation.

And it may amuse you to know that lesbians are a complete bafflement to them. ;)

Oh, penis-centrism, what would I do without you.

As long as they're just baffled, though, I don't mind, I'll be over there having good sex (possibly better than them, since clearly their idea of it is pretty limited) and feeling a little bit bad for the women who are baffled/have partners who are baffled.

I love ass-master, btw. LOL. It's never come up in a school but now I'm hoping it will. ;)

(This discussion is ridiculously long, lol. But in a good way!)

[menyhapyreturns.livejournal.com]

The only thing I can think of is the Kinsey report…If your friends can't take your word for it that you know gay people and they have sex at home with a single partner, then there is little that will change their minds, and they will always find an excuse to not believe any data you present them with. If they can't understand that sexual identity is unrelated to sexual practice, I don't know that there's much you can do, except repeat yourself over and over again whenever it comes up, until enough people have done so around them that it finally computes.

Anecdotally, you can show them a box for some dildos/butt plugs, they often feature a heterosexual couple, and since these things sell, clearly someone who's not a gay man is enjoying a little ass stimulation.
LOL I do send some of them over to Dan Savage but he get so many “odd” questions and people calling in I think that may have actually made things worse! Plus he really is on a “monogamy not for everyone train” lately, which I understand since he’s doing it as a reaction to the overwhelming expectations of monogamy in our culture, but since he goes on about it SO MUCH it’s caused one friend to make a comment about you “typical fark everything in sight even when supposedly in a relationship gay dude”. Kinsey’s not usually the best person to recommend in these situations, IMO (definitely not for my crowd, and even I am not thrilled with him due to the flaws in his methodology, which are significant). I was hoping there had been something more recent, but ultimately, you are correct that it doesn’t matter and the root of it anyway. Even if most gay men are non-monogamous and into watersports (just as an example) it still doesn’t justify denying civil rights or basic human respect to anyone, regardless of orientation. And that’s usually the point I get my friends to agree with me, but I thought if there was a way to clear up misconceptions through dry statistical data that would have been helpful.


Oh, penis-centrism, what would I do without you.

As long as they're just baffled, though, I don't mind, I'll be over there having good sex (possibly better than them, since clearly their idea of it is pretty limited) and feeling a little bit bad for the women who are baffled/have partners who are baffled.
Lesbians seem to fly under the radar a lot (I wonder is that prevalent in the gay community as well?) I think it’s a combination of “straight male fantasy” coupled with “well they aren’t really having sex-sex”. Like a perceived harmlessness. That’s just what I’ve noticed. But if its two gay dudes, you “know” at least one of them must be a guy betraying his dudliness and we can’t have that, no no no. I feel the worst for transsexuals though.

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<i.(this>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

<i>The only thing I can think of is the Kinsey report…If your friends can't take your word for it that you know gay people and they have sex at home with a single partner, then there is little that will change their minds, and they will always find an excuse to not believe any data you present them with. If they can't understand that sexual identity is unrelated to sexual practice, I don't know that there's much you can do, except repeat yourself over and over again whenever it comes up, until enough people have done so around them that it finally computes.

Anecdotally, you can show them a box for some dildos/butt plugs, they often feature a heterosexual couple, and since these things sell, clearly someone who's not a gay man is enjoying a little ass stimulation.</i>
LOL I do send some of them over to Dan Savage but he get so many “odd” questions and people calling in I think that may have actually made things worse! Plus he really is on a “monogamy not for everyone train” lately, which I understand since he’s doing it as a reaction to the overwhelming expectations of monogamy in our culture, but since he goes on about it SO MUCH it’s caused one friend to make a comment about you “typical fark everything in sight even when supposedly in a relationship gay dude”. Kinsey’s not usually the best person to recommend in these situations, IMO (definitely not for my crowd, and even I am not thrilled with him due to the flaws in his methodology, which are significant). I was hoping there had been something more recent, but ultimately, you are correct that it doesn’t matter and the root of it anyway. Even if most gay men are non-monogamous and into watersports (just as an example) it still doesn’t justify denying civil rights or basic human respect to anyone, regardless of orientation. And that’s usually the point I get my friends to agree with me, but I thought if there was a way to clear up misconceptions through dry statistical data that would have been helpful.


<i>Oh, penis-centrism, what would I do without you.

As long as they're just baffled, though, I don't mind, I'll be over there having good sex (possibly better than them, since clearly their idea of it is pretty limited) and feeling a little bit bad for the women who are baffled/have partners who are baffled.</i>
Lesbians seem to fly under the radar a lot (I wonder is that prevalent in the gay community as well?) I think it’s a combination of “straight male fantasy” coupled with “well they aren’t really having sex-sex”. Like a perceived harmlessness. That’s just what I’ve noticed. But if its two gay dudes, you “know” at least one of them must be a guy betraying his dudliness and we can’t have that, no no no. I feel the worst for transsexuals though.

<i.(This discussion is ridiculously long, lol. But in a good way!)</i>
This discussion has provided an excellent procrastination opportunity for me 

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

I think it's important to talk about that if it comes up with the kids, not only because it's a problematic stereotype that gay men only enjoy one practice, but also because I think that type of thinking is very hurtful for everyone. It tends to trap heterosexuals in particular in a conception of sex that is limited to intercourse. It sucks because if we were a little more open about other sexual acts, if we didn't limit our understanding of sex to intercourse (with anything else "leading up" to this one thing, everything else being a lesser form of sex, if sex at all), I think our teens could learn to explore their own sexual desires in much safer and healthier ways (and not just teens, actually!). But anyway! I don't actually get into that stuff during the anti-homophobia workshops, because while it's related, it's a little further away from the original topic. :) I simply make the point about sexual practices being a different thing about sexual identity.

I'm not sure you might think that we would need to have explicit discussions of sexual acts at all to do an anti-homophobia workshop? Also a real question, not a rhetorical one. :) I've been doing this so long that I kind of forget what it looks like from the outside, if that makes any sense. :)

[menyhapyreturns.livejournal.com]

It sucks because if we were a little more open about other sexual acts, if we didn't limit our understanding of sex to intercourse (with anything else "leading up" to this one thing, everything else being a lesser form of sex, if sex at all), I think our teens could learn to explore their own sexual desires in much safer and healthier ways (and not just teens, actually!).
If this gets rid of the “technical” virgins I’m all for it. Way to miss the point, ladies.

I'm not sure you might think that we would need to have explicit discussions of sexual acts at all to do an anti-homophobia workshop? Also a real question, not a rhetorical one. :) I've been doing this so long that I kind of forget what it looks like from the outside, if that makes any sense. :)
So I wasn’t sure one way or the other (I’ve never witnessed an anti-homophobia workshop, or known anyone who has IRL), and you just answered my question! Thanks for that 

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

Way to miss the point, ladies.

Pretty sure the boys are quite happy to have them miss the point, too. ;)

So I wasn’t sure one way or the other (I’ve never witnessed an anti-homophobia workshop, or known anyone who has IRL), and you just answered my question!

You're welcome! And I get that, I think it's just that it just baffles me that you (and many other people, this is nothing against you per se :) make the assumption that explicit discussion of sex would have to be involved. Why would it? Why do we think that by default?

(I actually do have answers to these questions, but sometimes it frustrates me that people who do make that assumption don't have any answer. Of course it makes sense, because it's an assumption, shaped partly unconsciously, but that doesn't mean people couldn't think about it. Anyway. I won't get into that rant. ;))

[menyhapyreturns.livejournal.com]

I think it's just that it just baffles me that you (and many other people, this is nothing against you per se :) make the assumption that explicit discussion of sex would have to be involved. Why would it? Why do we think that by default?
Presumably b/c when people thing “homosexual” they think gay dude, so they think butt-sex, so from there one would assume it comes up in the workshop. Just my guess 

(I actually do have answers to these questions, but sometimes it frustrates me that people who do make that assumption don't have any answer. Of course it makes sense, because it's an assumption, shaped partly unconsciously, but that doesn't mean people couldn't think about it. Anyway. I won't get into that rant. ;))
Well, we all work in different paradigms and ultimately we each live not so much in the world around us as the world that exists in our own, special, unique snowflake minds.

[semisweetsoul.livejournal.com]

I was going to ask how old the kids were because the Canadian terminology doesn't make much sense to me, but wow! Do children grow faster these days? I never learned anything about sex in school, I just remember in 4ème when we studied reproduction, the teacher making things clear right away, no laughter, no jokes or all week in detention. It worked. Then, I pretty much learned everything on my own, and there was no one to ask, not even wiki! Though, seeing the pictures would have traumatized me for good.

[menyhapyreturns.livejournal.com]

hahaha we weren't even allowed to have a sex ed class in my school. I had to steal my mom's medical books.

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

Do children grow faster these days? I never learned anything about sex in school

The workshop we did with the grade 5s (CM2) was not at all about sex, it was about homophobia. That said when I was doing fieldwork in France in June, I was observing a CM2 class one day and it was the day they were doing sex ed, so I do think it's something that's starting to be talked about at a younger age, at least in some places. Unfortunately, like your own experience, it's often framed solely in terms of reproduction.

Also I'm not sure I understand how the stories I've told are a sign that the kids are growing up faster?

[semisweetsoul.livejournal.com]

I was referring to
this one boy, he raises his hand and goes "it's when you like someone of the same gender as you".

I just have the impression, and correct me if I'm wrong, (I'm not around children) that they know a lot, a lot younger than we did. I don't remember the day I first heard the words homosexuality or homophobia, and their meaning but I was much older. Then, it might just be a question of education.

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

Ah, right. I was a little unsure because "growing up faster" made it sound like they knew things that weren't age-appropriate. Thanks for clarifying! :)

And keep in mind this is not the standard I usually encounter when I go to schools - that's why I raved about it a little and was so impressed with this class. :) That little boy in particular knew far more than average, which I'm assuming is because his parent(s) have done a great job of talking to him.

I do think that kids know about gay people in particular earlier now, partly because homosexuality has in some respects become more visible. (I say that but I've been in a grade 10 or 11 class where the kids couldn't even say if gay people could get married in Canada.) Which doesn't automatically make them respectful and open-minded, but they do tend to know at least the "boy likes boy, girl likes girl" definition, or as some of them put it, "the unnatural stuff".