I think it might be decidedly so. And Ellen Friedrichs at Nerve agrees and backs it up with a bunch of evidence.
It's not that I envision the President endorsing the "Head O State" dildo, or promoting the benefits of masturbation for prostate health, but I'd like to think that in addition to having the occasional cocktail or staying up past nine, Obama will also be looser on matters regarding the sexual behaviors of the public.To be sure, people were still getting it on during the Bush era. But that era also saw a rise in unwanted pregnancies and infections, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was an associated rise in the numbers of folks walking around with psychological or emotional hang-ups regarding sex. Apparently, Bush initiatives like pushing welfare moms into marriage and promoting abstinence until the age of twenty-nine didn't quite succeed the way he probably hoped.
You can read the rest at Nerve. Now while I support what Friedrichs discusses in this article, the discussion of Michele and Barack Obama's sex life, while explored tastefully, reminds me of this NYT opinion piece about having sex with Obama, which is not as tasteful.
Let me know what you think. It is not that I want to suppress fantasy, or deny that it is probably normal for Americans to be having sexual fantasies about Obama. I am just more interested in what policies he supports to uphold the sexuality rights of our communities. Furthermore, It is hard for me to write about or discuss Michele and Barack Obama's sexuality, without a criticism of the racism embedded in deciding that Obama is "fuckable," given the historical embellishment and manipulation of what is considered black men's sexual potency. It just doesn't sit well with me.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Will the Obama years be more sex-positive?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11894
The discussion about the Obama's sex life is also wrought with race and gender stereotypes about black women's sexuality.
Feminist Review really kind of said it all, because mostly what bothers me about the "sex-positive" brigade is that they are unwilling/unable to discuss the implications of their fantasies. (And damn how I hate people who anoint themselves as "sex-positives" - I think of them as "sex-unreflectives.") I want people to feel comfortable discussing their sexuality in public, but laying out there that you find Obama oh-so-fuckable - which is tinged not only with what Samhita so rightly highlights but also with the inherent "masculinity" of prowess in bed -well, it isn't really what I have in mind.
What do you mean by "sex unreflectives"?
I don't know. I've grown increasingly uncomfortable with the term "sex-positive" which started out in the 80s and 90s saying, "yes, porn is anti-woman, but we can do better" and somehow morphed into a taboo against saying anything critical because that might imply that some kinks are not equal to others.
But which, I don't know how the Obama administration will turn out, and I fear that comprehensive sex ed will laid on the altar of bipartisanship to avoid the cries of "culture war."
might i be so bold as to say "i called it"?
http://community.feministing.com/2008/10/sacred-sex.html
It might have something to do with race, but also Obama is the first president we've had in awhile who's attractive and in shape. I think there were lots of crushes on Kennedy too, back in the day. Its just that usually our presidents are quite a bit older.
biden is also very easy on the eyes.
i think obama also has confidence ("dude, chicks dig confidence") and it shows. unlike bush's constant worried look like he was going to be outed for the dolt he was.
I thought "really?" but then I did an image search for Biden, and I guess I can kind of see what you mean. He's far too old for me though. He kind of looks like a TV doctor.
Clearly there were woman attracted to Clinton, but I was too young... How did it compare to the clear attraction to Obama? Anyway, I don't think Clinton was as good looking. Kennedy may have been, although I never saw a shirtless photo of him.
And who would want to see Bush shirtless?
Bush was definitely an object of lust for many early this decade. If I liked men, I'd like smart men, so I can't pretend to get it.
As for Biden, he had a strong personal connection with middle aged white women. During the primary and general campaigns he had the nickname "Mom's boyfriend." I can't speak to his looks, but I would certainly want someone to treat me the way Biden's treated the women in his life. Obama is a terrific family man as well, but Biden's proven his personal qualities under circumstances most people will never be tried by.
Given that Feministing thought a black man playing a villainous robot doctor put Battlestar Galactica on par with the rapist animals blacks were depicted as in Birth of a Nation, I guess I'm not surprised that lusting over a lanky intellectual professor/president reminds you of the jungle fever animal magnetism stereotype for black males. I'd love to hear what roles, real or fictional, a black man could possibly play that would "sit well."
Unfortunately, as much as I love feministing and as quick as I am to point out subtle racism in the media, I have to agree with you, alecks. The article never connotes that people dream about Obama because he is a "fuckable" Black man. It's about Obama being personable, and human, and pedestrian. I'd really like a follow up post explaining the alleged racism in the article.
*aleks
sorry about that
It's also simply bad analysis. Stereotypes of black male sexuality usually revolves around black men being a threat, especially in regards to sexual violence. I have not seen a single reference to Obama's sexuality being threatening, even coming from out-and-out racists.
Absolutely. The McCain campaign tried to set up that dynamic ("He's picking on our white girl") with Sarah Palin with the How Disrespectful ad and it flopped, everyone knew Palin was more likely to attack Obama than the other way around.
I shouldn't have put that in quotation marks, as it's my interpretation of their message not something they actually said.
Let me just preface this by saying i love feministing. BUT-i have noticed that things are being spelled wrong lately. First "Terry Schiavo" instead of "Terri"--twice--and now "Michele" instead of Michelle"--also twice. I can see the value in immediacy, but sometimes it becomes obvious that the editors are posting too impulsively. Mainly this is just detrimental to you guys, because it makes it less likely for the post to be linked to media outlets. It just cuts on professionalism.
Again, I love this site and just want it to be taken as seriously as possible!
I'm going to go way out on a limb here and say something that might be offensive or controversial...
I think that black male potency (read largess:) is a BIG part of the reason why white males really needed to oppress blacks.
I always found it rather odd that men have justified oppressing women because most men are physically stronger than most women, however, *white* men have justified oppressing *black* men because most black men are stronger than most white men (and somehow, therefore, closer to animals).
It does not compute.
Not offensive or controversial, just silly.
White males oppressed blacks for the same reason white females did. They had the power to do it, and wanted the obvious material and prestige benefits of slaves. Surely you don't think white women enslaved and abused blacks for centuries out of penis envy? Did the Carthaginians, Spaniards, Greeks and Gauls all have penises larger than the Romans could stand? Was the Rwanda genocide, after centuries of Tutsi ruling Hutu instead, caused by Tutsi men suddenly surpassing Hutu men? I don't think penis size is nearly as important to history as it is to you.
Deva, if you look carefully at black men, you will find that they largely have the same distribution of body types that white men do. Black male potency and greater physical strength were *invented* as an excuse to oppress them.
without a criticism of the racism embedded in deciding that Obama is "fuckable," given the historical embellishment and manipulation of what is considered black men's sexual potency. It just doesn't sit well with me.
I'm not saying Obama's perceived attractiveness should not be up for criticism, b/c it certainly is*. It's just that Obama is the antithesis of the embellishment and manipulation of black men's sexuality. He's not the dark-skinned, muscular, physical stud who usually represents black, male sexuality. He's skinny, middle-aged, intellectual, a family man, and portrayed as quite the nerd. On the one hand, what a relief to finally have a different model for black male sexuality. On the other hand, why is it necessary to sexualize him at all? I've run out hands, but on another limb, he is very attractive, and it's not like you can tell people not to notice that.
*note: perceived attractiveness. Nobody should be criticized for how they look, but an examination of how someone's looks affect how they are perceived and accepted or not accepted is frequently enlightening.
What do you mean, no "Head O State" dildo?!? I thought it was going to be included in the stimulus package.