The Jspot is moving...

After nearly two months of blogging as "The J Spot", my blog has been picked up by another website. I will now be writing for "The Kosmopolitan Online", with a blog entitled, "The Ford-1-1", which can be found at http://www.thekosmo.com/justin-ford/

I am kind of sad to be leaving "The J Spot" behind because it was my first attempt at blogging and I really enjoyed having created my own space for my thoughts. I am also, however, very excited to be writing for The Kosmo, as it is a wonderful website. Thanks to all those who followed J Spot, I really appreciate everyone who took the time to read and ponder my ideas and I hope you all continue to follow me on "The Ford-1-1".

<3 <3 <3

Best,
-Justin

Leaving Comments

If you wish to leave a comment but do not have a blogspot account, you can still post. When you finish your comment and it asks for an ID, open the "Select Profile" box below the comment box, click "Open ID" at the bottom and write in your name or however you want to sign it. Thanks and I hope you all are enjoying the entries.
-J. Ford

Let's Talk About Sex

After reading the title of my blog post, it is logical to proceed with an expectation of a discussion about the act of intercourse. If you were, indeed, looking forward to some racy discourse about that kind of sex, you will be disappointed to know that I was referring to "sex" as in the biological classification. The conversation about sexism is one that is on-going, we talk about breaking down gender roles, equal wages for women, sexual harassment, and unfair media biasing, (which is all legitimate), but we totally ignore another type of sexism that occurs everyday. The sexism I'm speaking of happens to those who identify as "transgender". They don't quite meet the criteria to fit into the male/female binary and, because we can't understand anything outside of a binary system, we label them "weirdos", "freaks", "chicks with dicks" and all sorts of other rude, hurtful slurs. The key to understanding one who is transgender, and ending the societal taboo, is to be able to to distinguish between sex and gender - which many are unable to do.

This inability is largely due to society's need to fit everything into nice, neat little categories in order to understand them. You have to be gay or straight, male or female, either "a" or "b" but it must fit into a one "box" or another. The problem with this is that very often we encounter information that doesn't fit nicely into our "boxes" and instead of expanding them to accommodate the new information, we just try to cram everything in - much like fitting a square peg into a round hole. This is certainly the case with sex and gender. We attempt to force transgender peopled into a male/female "box", instead of entertaining the possibility of a "third gender" - an idea impossible to grasp without first properly defining sex and gender.

Everyone understands the idea of sex, the biological classification of either a male or female based upon their reproductive organs. It gets a bit murkier when the discourse on gender, or gender identity, begins. It is often assumed that sex defines gender identity, and this is not necessarily true. Gender identity has to do with ones internal sense of "self", how one feels, thinks, behaves and feels comfortable. It does not necessarily have to align with the sex assigned at birth. Ones sex and gender identity then are two very separate entities. A person could be born a male genetically, but identify and feel more like oneself as a woman or vice versa. This person could want to be called a "he", a "she" or maybe use gender neutral pronouns like "hir" (HEER) - that is to say, one can be a man, a woman or otherwise but that identity is not defined by anatomy. Gender identity, then, is not a static reality but is, in fact, a fluid aspect of ones life that is defined only by oneself.

I write a lot about "escaping the binary", and may sound like a "broken record" to some, but I often attack the binary because I find it problematic. Binaries limit our schemas and abilities to understand new information and possibilities. The male/female binary is the one of the oldest of them all, and while I'm not suggesting that we do away with it (because I know how unrealistic this is), I am suggesting that we, as a society, attempt to widen our "boxes" to include an option "c". To allow a "third gender" to exist in our world without being subjected to ridicule and malice. Everyone deserves the opportunity to express their gender identity safely, and in a way that makes them happy and fulfilled. Perhaps we'd all be better off if we allowed sex to be defined by the doctors but left gender up to the individual.

Theocratic Nation?

As several states have approved same sex marriages in the last year and same sex marriage is undeniably making its way to be one of the largest social debates in our country, it seemed only right that I should discuss the issue. As a recently engaged man, I have experienced, first-hand, people's reactions to and rationalizations of same-sex marriage - and I must say I have been a bit surprised. While the overwhelming majority of those I have informed have been happy for my fiance and I, a good portion of that majority also voiced some reservations. Well, the same reservation, I should say. The idea that "marriage is a union between a man and a woman" acted as the recurring snag. Of course, realistically, some reservations were expected but upon processing the phrase I continued to hear, I began to wonder where this definition of "marriage" actually comes from.

In my curiosity about this definition's origins, I decided to look to the United States Constitution. It is so often said that the U.S.A. needs to get back to its "family values" and that marriage is a fundamental institution upon which this country has been built, so of course there has to be some documentation about it in the document upon which this country was built. Funny thing, but there is actually no mention of marriage in the U.S. Constitution whatsoever. None. Which begs the question, how can something be unconstitutional if it's not in the Constitution? There is mention of all men being created equal, but, I digress. I then decided to continue my search in the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps Great Britain was secretly full of fairies and there would be mention of such vile behavior in the list of grievances. Yet again, I struck out.

Well if it wasn't in any of our historical documents, where else might there be a largely followed text with language against homosexuality? Oo Oo, I got it! The Bible! So I decided to check there and I hit the jackpot. There is indeed mention of homosexuality as a "sin" not just once but several times! Well, I thought, if the Bible says that a man lying with a man is detestable, I guess I should stop doing it but I thought I'd continue reading a bit more just for good measure. While flipping through Leviticus, where the Bible first mentions homosexuality as "detestable", I stumbled across several other admonitions in addition to the ones against homosexuality.

For starters, if you have a skin disease or infection that causes white spots or lightened pigment, you are to be put in isolation for seven days. If you have any clothing or material made of linen, wool or leather and it is, or may be, contaminated with mildew, it should also be taken to a priest for a seven day isolation. Men should also not have sex with a woman while she's menstruating because she's unclean and then the man would also become unclean, and then they both have to be "cut off from their people" which, I guess, means put in isolation? If you farm, you should not pick up the fallen fruits or vegetables but rather leave them for the poor. Also, you are not to plant your field with two kinds of seed, I think a lot of farmers may be in violation of the law of God here. It is also forbidden to wear clothing woven of two kinds of material, eat any meat with blood still in it (goodbye rare meat), cut your hair at the sides of your head, clip off the edges of your beard or get tattoos. Crap, that kinda sounds like a lot of stuff we all do, yeah? Oh and I did I mention that if you do any of these things, knowingly or unknowingly, you will be put to death by beheading, burning or stoning unless you sacrifice a ram or goat in order to be forgiven? I don't think PETA would be too happy about that.

Isn't this book just full of fun facts?

So here's my question, since our historical documents say nothing about marriage and we still justify being able to vote on it, should we perhaps vote on more things not found in our Constitution? Perhaps we should vote on which one crop farmers are allowed to grow. Maybe we can vote on whether or not people can get tattoos or how beards are allowed to be shaven. Perhaps we should vote on whether or not people are allowed to wear clothing made of two or more fabrics, or if women should be able to have sexual relations while menstruating - they are, after all, unclean during that period. According to the Bible, where people get the idea that my fiance and I shouldn't be married, we should be put to death for our behavior and the rest of you should be wearing 100% one fabric clothing, not getting tattoos and putting people with skin diseases in isolation. Don't worry though, these wouldn't have to be federal laws, we could just let the states decide.

But alas, we live in a democracy, not a theocracy. A place where there is a separation of church and state and we vote based upon legal documents, not a book written by "Anonymous". (We don't even pick up the phone for anonymous callers.) But wait, if we vote based upon a book that dictates our religious beliefs, that makes us more of a theocracy, and if that's the case, we should be putting far more of the aforementioned regulations on the table for a vote. If you can wear a cotton blend, what the hell gives you the right to tell me I can't marry my fiance? Pick one U.S., either we are a theocracy with seven day isolations or a democracy that upholds that all men (and women) deserve the same "unalienable rights".

If you are against gay marriage, shut up and don't get one but don't tell me I can't marry who I want based upon a book that tells you that you can't even wear a polyblend.

The Proverbial "Closet": An Ally's Guide to Coming Out

The "coming out" experience for an LGBT identified person can be a vital one. It is a process of admitting to oneself and others that your are indeed a lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, but more than that, it is taking ownership of your own sexuality and learning to be comfortable with it. One of the most important aspects of a successful coming out experience is the validation one receives from their heterosexual friends and family. Since it is often the fear of social rejection that is so crippling, it is paramount that those to whom one comes out are sensitive to this fact and are careful to respond appropriately. As a gay man who has come out to many people, I thought it might be a good idea to share a few "Do"s and "Don't"s for heterosexuals who are dealing or will deal with this issue.

1. WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU. Just because you belong to the gender to which we are attracted, doesn't mean we want to have sex with you. Coming out to you is NOT synonymous with coming on to you. Just like heterosexuals don't want to screw everything they see, neither do we (although there are those in either community who are a bit less choosy). It's really offensive to hear from your friend, "You aren't going to try to touch me or anything, right?" Do you really think that after I've watched you fart, burp, scratch your beer gut and talking about "plowing bitches" for 3 years, I'm all of a sudden going want to have sex with you? DISAGREE. Now, it's possible that your friend DOES want to have sex with you, in which case, stay calm and tread lightly.
   
   
2. DON'T FREAK OUT. The person coming out to you more than likely had to work up a hell of a lot of courage to tell you and reacting poorly to that will only make it exponentially more difficult to come out to the next person. The best thing to do when at a loss for what to do or say is to remain calm, shut the hell up and nod in agreement. You are better off not saying anything than saying something that could be possibly be offensive or insensitive, although, if possible, it is a good idea to respond with some sort of positive statement of affirmation.
   
   
3. Two people being gay is not a good enough reason to set them up on a date. When you think to set up two straight people, you think of qualities and interests that they share, not that they are just a single guy and girl. The same rules apply to gay people, we won't, "just love this guy/girl" because they are gay. Next time you think about setting your gay friend up with someone completely arbitrary, STOP IT!
   
   
4. It's okay to not know the answer. If someone comes out to you and expresses uncertainty about where to find resources, getting tested, etc., and you have no idea where to start, the best thing to do is offer your support in finding those things. Don't start pulling answers out of your ass. Just knowing that there is someone there to help navigate this "uncharted territory" is often more than enough.
   
   
5. Don't treat someones sexuality as a novelty. It's very frustrating when you come out to someone and they respond with, "OMG, now you can totally come shopping with me and help me pick out outfits!" We are NOT your personal shoppers, some of us don't even LIKE shopping. It's also usually a bad call to introduce someone as your "gay" friend. We generally don't like feeling like we are filling a quota of some sort or that the friendship is based upon our sexuality. It's important not to treat someone as your "gay" friend but rather your friend that happens to be gay. Gay people aren't commodities, so don't treat them as such.
   
   
6. Don't feel pressured to warp speed through dealing with someone coming out to you. The person who came out likely had several months or years to come to terms with their sexuality, so you should be allowed the same amount of time to adjust as well.
   
   
7. Be proud of yourself. You are doing something that many people are too afraid to. The fear of being labeled as gay, and therefore social rejection, is crippling to some, preventing them from acting as an ally (a straight person who supports the LGBT community) even if they have the desire. Validation from allies is one of the most important things to an LGBT person, so don't ever think that the role of an ally isn't a significant one.
   

We very often neglect the "A" in LGBTA but the role of an ally is an integral one. Allies help us feel encouraged and valued in a very often homophobic world, and they most certainly deserve our gratitude. If you are LGBT and have already come out, are in the process of coming out, or haven't yet, make sure that you express your appreciation to the allies in your life and do so often. It can take just as much courage to be an ally as it can to be LGBT and proper respect should be given.

Monogamy, Schmonogamy

Too often it is said that gay men are "so promiscuous" and that we are seemingly incapable of maintaining a monogamous relationship. To that I say, monogamy, schmonogamy! Monogamy isn't just difficult for gay people, it's difficult for everyone. I would venture to say that most, if not all, of us have seen someone to whom we have been attracted and had an inappropriate thought or two. It is also very likely that the majority of us have been unfaithful to a significant other, be it emotionally or physically (yes, there is emotional cheating). The problem here, isn't that society is chocked full of salacious skank-bags, it's that we have bought into this social construct that monogamy is more than a possible attribute of a relationship, but it is THE standard to which all relationships are to be held. Why is it that we can't view monogamy the same way we do most other qualities and traits? Some people are good at sports, for others maybe crosswords or Sudoku, still others enjoy bungee jumping, things that rush the adrenaline and traveling the world, while another may be perfectly content never having left the state of Michigan. All of these things are fine, to each his or her own we say, but when it comes to monogamy, everyone should want and aspire to have a monogamous relationship - why is this?

Let's unpack this a bit, shall we? Monogamy is ingrained into the very fabric of our society. Marriage vows, for instance, are filled with conditions (sickness, financial ruin, until death, etc.) under which one will remain with their partner, reinforcing the notion that one should be bound to one partner for the rest of his/her life. Of course there is always the option of divorce but that isn't a subversion of monogamy, it just becomes serial monogamy. It's also more convenient to be monogamous in this country. Marriage and partner benefits, such as creating certain life estate trusts, joint insurance and health care, and filing joint income taxes, add incentive and essentially reward people for entering into a monogamous unions. These benefits don't allow for the possibility of more than one partner or any alternative to a traditionally monogamous relationship, but rather discourage them.

The idea of casual dating has also fallen victim to the monogamy epidemic. Instead of being able to comfortably get to know two or three, or more, people at once, people are labeled as "players" and "sluts" for such behavior. Instead of appreciating that people are taking the time to carefully select a mate, we brand them as having "commitment issues" or being "promiscuous" because they aren't adhering to society's definition of "proper monogamy". I understand that some people abuse this privilege, dating several people at once, all the while being deceitful and hurting others in the process - that's not what I am suggesting. What I am suggesting however, is that we no longer consider monogamy the goal toward which all relationships should work, and stop classifying other approaches to dating as "second rate" or "dysfunctional".

If we look at the divorce rate and the amount of adultery that occurs, it's evident that people just aren't too great at this whole monogamy business. Just like bungee jumping, Sudoku, living in a big city or having children aren't for everyone, perhaps monogamy isn't either - at least in the traditional sense. I am not proposing that everyone go out and be polyamorous, but rather entertain the possibility that traditional monogamy isn't the only way to love someone. We all have urges so what's wrong with communicating those to our partners and, should our partners approve, acting on them? Is one still "cheating" if there is no deceit and both partners agree to the supplementary tryst? Does that make two people love each other less or de-legitimize their relationship? Instead of having a secret affair, (which can be destructive to relationships and the emotional well-being of those in them), could being honest about those desires and creating a shared meaning of monogamy between two people be a better option?

Perhaps we're too insecure with ourselves and our relationships to entertain the possibility that our partner finds someone else attractive, or maybe monogamy works well for you, both of which are valid. I understand that, for some, this kind of "progressive thinking" may not be possible or desirable. However, what if it is possible that "traditional monogamy" may be, in fact, holding us back from new and more realistic ways of loving one another? Whether monogamy is your "thing" or not, make sure that your love is an honest, functional and positive one - isn't that what we all really want anyway?

More to Come

For those who are checking out my blog, this is the first of many to come and thanks so much for taking the time to read it. I hope to update every two to three days so check back every now and then and if you have an issue you'd like me to post about, feel free to leave a comment. Thanks again!
-J. Ford

Who You Callin' Queer?

Recently in the LGBTIQQA (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender, Intersex, Queer, Questioning and Allies) community, there has been yet another revision to the community's title. In my opinion, the previous shift from being called, "The Gay Community" to the aforementioned acronym was a positive and progressive one. Everyone who identifies as not heterosexual, doesn't necessarily identify as "gay"and the acronym also avoids the gender binary. Even though this acronym is now commonly known as "alphabet soup" and is steadily amassing more members of said alphabet, it still manages to represent each of the community's branches.

Now, however, many members of the community have steered away from the mouthful of letters and have chosen the far more ambiguous, "Queer". When I first heard this used as the umbrella term for the community, I was a bit offended. Webster defines "Queer" as, "strange or odd from a conventional viewpoint, unusually different or of a questionable nature or character." I'll be the first to admit that homosexuality isn't exactly conventional but I wasn't quite sold on the having questionable character section. I have been verbally accosted enough by straight douche-bags with the word "Queer" (in addition to other colorful insults like "fudge-packer", "butt-pirate" and "sausage jockey") and I really didn't want to hear it from my own community. It also just seemed to undermine all of my efforts to prove that gay and straight men really aren't that different and are all still men at the end of the day, by then identifying myself as "strange, odd, and unusually different".

The word "Queer" does have its benefits however. It does a nice job of saving people from having to fumble over several letters of the alphabet, followed by an explanation of what the hell they all stand for, which usually makes you sound like a chatch-bag. "Queer"also evades the gender binary, not forcing you to be locked in to liking men or women. With "Queer", you are simply indicating that you are not heterosexual without any implications about or limitations on whom you date. Most importantly, it affords those in the community a label that isn't defined by straight society. If I'm questioning, bi-sexual, two-spirited, same-gender loving or just a good old-fashioned queen, "Queer" allows me some ambiguity and the flexibility to define my sexuality however the hell I please.

I completely see the validity of adopting the word "Queer" for all of the reasons I've already mentioned but for me, personally, it doesn't quite apply. I am a gay man and I identify as such. I only date men and therefore have no problem aligning my sexuality with the gender binary. I choose to wear the label of "gay" proudly because I enjoy redefining something that has already been defined. I don't read Cosmopolitan magazine because I am gay, I read it because I find it entertaining - the same reason I watch College Basketball and play Ultimate Frisbee. I don't need to find a new, more ambiguous term but rather I choose to be the definition of my label, it doesn't define me. So I implore everyone to think about the labels they choose, why they claim them, what implications those labels might have, and most importantly, make sure that you are not letting a label dictate how you live your life. Label is not synonymous with limit - so don't allow it to be.