Perhaps, the problem lies in PLAYBOY’s history of progressive illusion: from its founding in 1953, Hugh Hefner’s bold publication choices quickly garnered public favour for the magazine. He published articles from James Baldwin, Kurt Vonnegut and other political voices, and showcased pieces that argued for access to birth control, gay rights, civil rights, abortion rights, literature, female empowerment, and sex positivity. Unfortunately, while Hefner was praised for raising radical views, few of these ideals were truly enacted for progressive reasons. Rather, as author Andi Zeisler described to The Associated Press, “I think it’s safe to say that anything progressive that Hugh Hefner was for, he was for because it also benefited white men.” Upon his death in 2017, Vice wrote that Hefner “supported [legal abortion and birth control] because it meant there were less excuses for women who said no to men wanting condomless sex – they couldn’t use risk of pregnancy as a reason to reject men.” Hefner, in a 2010 CNN interview, argued this himself, saying “I was never enamored of prophylactics [condoms], so The Pill permitted the sexual act to be more natural and more loving.” 

Very little regarding intercouse with Hefner was “loving” or “natural”. Hefner created a predatory environment for PLAYBOY sex workers, requiring, in addition to other edicts, that those who lived in the Playboy Mansion with him engage in unprotected group sex twice per week. A former girlfriend of Hefner, Holly Madison, touched on life inside the mansion in her book Down the Rabbit Hole: Curious Adventures and Cautionary Tales of a Former Playboy Bunny, explaining that, “when it came to humiliating his girlfriends, the larger the audience, the better.” Among other things, Madison also briefly discusses the lack of consent: living in the mansion meant that having sex was “expected.” 

Madison’s experience is not just one slip up, and Hefner’s contributions to birth control and abortion rights as a selfish cause cannot be pushed aside. Hefner not only dehumanized sex workers, lacked consent, created purposeful power imbalances, and had a disregard for the safety of women around him, but he also maintained loathsome amounts of misogyny and condescension. 

To top it off, Hefner published an anthology of pieces called “The Playboy Philosophy” in which he argues that if women could break away any puritanism and prudishness, the world would become a better, sexier place. Though if his other practices prove anything, Hefner meant it would make his world a better, sexier place. 

Considering that PLAYBOY’s contributions to social justice weren’t practiced and didn’t apply to their founder throughout the late 20th century, now their stance seems even more important at a time when the rights of all people are under question. PLAYBOY should, at the least, decide if they will take a stand or not. 

As a publication with an iconography that is, according to their statistics, recognized by 97% of all people, PLAYBOY’s choices are important. Choosing to push for a “woke-er” ideology has the potential to influence millions. 

The effort started strong. Then-CEO Shane Singh pushed the “woke” rebrand and introduced a few changes which, for once, held PLAYBOY to the standards it was writing about. Models were diversified in skin, ethnicity, size, disability, and sexuality. Photographers were phased in to ensure only women would be shooting the models, and full-on nudity was no longer the goal. This change allowed for the models to be less subject to power dynamics along the lines of sex, and to bring a sense of agency to the models and equality to the shoot. Singh rebranded the pictorials as “art,” changing the purpose of the shoot from heterosexual ideas of the body as a means to an end for sex. Thus, breathing a new life into the pictorials. 

However, Singh explained to The New York Times that, “We talk a lot about when something is objectification versus when it is consensual objectification versus when it is art […] I think objectification removes the agency of the subject. Consensual objectification is the idea of someone feeling good about themselves and wanting someone to look at them. Art means, O.K., we can hang this on a wall. And if it’s both, for us, that’s the major win.”  What Singh fails to mention is that objectification relegates the model to an object representing heteronormative standards of male arousal. Calling it consensual does not remove the objectification, whereas using women photographers brings a non sex-biased perspective to the Playmates they shoot, which can give the Playmates agency in their portrayal, fixing the power imbalance that comes with objectification; consensual objectification, as Singh called it, never will. 

Despite the strange idea of objectification as being integral to PLAYBOY, the changes Singh brought were mostly good, and mostly stayed. Unfortunately, in May 2020, less than one year after Singh said that pictorials would be shot by women, a man shot the pictorial for May Playmate Savannah Smith. Thus, PLAYBOY went back on its own word, on an internal matter – one that could easily have been avoided. 

If this was the only step back for PLAYBOY, it could be understood as a slip up – except it’s not. To look at the way minority groups have been addressed by PLAYBOY would require another article entirely. As would a discussion on the articles that PLAYBOY writes, and even the way their website is set up. All these parts of the brand and its relation to the rest of the world can’t be overlooked. It is easy to focus only on how the magazine has (and continues to) harm women, but it isn’t enough. 

Take, for example, the magazine’s response to the Black Lives Matter movement. Published on Facebook on June 1, 2020, the editors of PLAYBOY wrote in a statement, “We are working to develop a long-term plan to rally our resources to support the radical changes needed to dismantle centuries of racist policies and systems.” Such change at a publication with a history of supporting social justice movements should be simple, especially one that is pushing itself to be more “woke.” 

Instead, PLAYBOY spent its resources creating a new gaming app, redesigning their website, and changing their content to focus more on sex again. PLAYBOY had created a Black Lives Matter Hub for resources in conjunction with the release of their Action Plan on June 6, 2020, but it is difficult to find on the website. Worse, it hasn’t been updated since June 12, 2020, less than two weeks after their statement was released. 

Ironically, PLAYBOY published better articles before the murder of George Floyd. Articles such as “Is Your Dildo Racist?,” “Why We Need to Film Police” and “On Ariana Grande and the Politics of Ambiguity” which all address race as a crucial topic, seek to educate on nuances and culturally ingrained ideas, and push for an unlearning in many ways. These articles were treated by the magazine as important, and not to be glazed over. 

Change comes slowly sometimes, that is true, but to make a promise for continual support of social justice and progressive causes, only to continually break them, is two steps back no matter how you look at it. PLAYBOY’s Facebook and Instagram pages haven’t mentioned Black Lives Matter, or any issues of equality and justice in weeks. Talking about their progressive goals hasn’t surfaced in a while either. 

An easy way for PLAYBOY to make good on some of its promises could be by holding themselves and Hefner accountable for the harm inflicted over the magazine’s 66-year history. However, the brand continually heroizes Hefner as being a social justice legacy, and never acknowledges the harm he caused. Worse, the rest of Hefner’s legacy in the broader PLAYBOY brand, is equally as problematic. 

The wider world of PLAYBOY beyond the magazine includes playmates.com, an archive site dedicated solely to photos of the Playmates, PLAYBOY Plus, a paywall-blocked site which includes pornographic videos, and PlaymateDancers, where women can be booked for events. None of these parts of PLAYBOY were subject to the “woke” rebrand, and still profit off of Hefner’s idea that “[women] are objects!” This legacy is what the magazine created back in 1953 and, enforced by the original tagline “Entertainment for Men,” it is as impossible to untangle objectification and the reduction of women from the identity of the brand as it is to separate Hefner from the magazine he “embodied.” Despite the good that was part of PLAYBOY’s history, HuffPost explained that, “even progressive political bona fides don’t give powerful men a get-out-of-being-a-member-of-the-patriarchy-free card.” Hefner remains a powerful man even in death, as his creation is one of harm – consistently forcing an imbalance between him and women, and performing activism for his own self-serving benefit.

Hefner’s name continually being held above the publication as Editor-In-Chief removes any chance of PLAYBOY committing to being completely progressive. Ironically, this also removes a chance for a woman to be the Editor-in-Chief for a publication that is focused on (mostly) women’s bodies. His name and position further reminds readers of the power dynamics that were once at play, reinforcing them and showing that even in 2020, a major publication is refusing to budge. He still represents misogyny, abuse, harmful objectification, and the ideas of progressivism as being beneficial to men under the guise of helping women. If PLAYBOY reconciled with, or even acknowledged their own problematic and harmful history instead of continually championing Hefner, they might have a chance to genuinely commit to being a progressive platform. That is, if a separation of Hefner from PLAYBOY is even possible.

Notorious brands like PLAYBOY must be held accountable for the change they promise to make, and criticized where they falter. PLAYBOY’s editors and executives need to understand that Hefner’s legacy is one of misogyny and abuse, and remove his name from the magazine. Until then, there doesn’t seem to be any hope for this cultural monolith – consistently promising one step forward, just to take two steps back, isn’t how our world will change. PLAYBOY needs to do better, a lot better.

The post PLAYBOY Isn’t Woke. appeared first on The McGill Daily.

There are nuances to breakups that we are never taught to navigate. Am I supposed to hate him? Can he hang around my friends? Should he stay away? It gets more complicated when the relationship in question was abusive. Should I still have his sweatshirt?

Initially, I thought about burning it, maybe cutting it into a thousand pieces, or simply throwing it in the garbage.

On our first anniversary he took me to the park where we first said “I love you.” There, he gave me his favourite sweatshirt: so big, I was enveloped by the folds of fabric, down to my knees. I cherished that sweatshirt more than anything. When we fought I would wear it to remind myself why I loved him. When I moved away, I wore it every time I missed him. When we broke up, I buried it deep in a box to forget him.

It’s been two and a half years since we broke up; two years since I realized how unhealthy our relationship was, how toxic. In the beginning, we were everything for each other, spent every possible moment together. We rode the highs to the highest point, and our lows brought me farther down than I’ve ever been. But, we were also 17, and didn’t know how much growing can change you. I (want to) hate him for everything he did, for everything that happened, but part of me will always be connected to him.

After I found his sweatshirt, I put it aside for a while, unsure what to do. Ruining it seemed too extreme.

After I found his sweatshirt, I put it aside for a while, unsure what to do. Ruining it seemed too extreme.

He encompassed so much pain for me, but I have moved on. Hate is draining, and exists for the people we can’t move on from. I don’t hate him because, among other things, it takes more energy to hate him than I’m willing to give.

I realized, as I sat there, holding this piece of fabric and crying on my couch, that I would cry at his funeral. I don’t think he would do the same for me. I wish him the best, even if he doesn’t wish me the same. I don’t love him, but I will never be unable to care for him. Some scars never fade, and some cracks are ever-present. I hope one day he will think of me and realize that I wasn’t hurt because of who he is, but because of who he was with me.

Despite the tumultuous nature of that relationship, I am grateful for it. Not because of the good times, but because I was able to learn from it. I gained compassion, self-respect, and insight. We were 17, and neither of us knew what we were doing. I only realized that his actions were not love after I stumbled upon a vocabulary for the feelings I didn’t understand. I hope he learned from it all, too. In order to move forward I need to forgive him for what happened, and I need to forgive myself for not knowing better.

Throughout this journey of healing, I’ve realized that relationships are not over the moment you walk away. Pieces will always remain to be picked up – or, in this case, sweatshirts.

There is part of me that will never recover, a part of my spirit that was broken when I was with him, that is gone. I grieved that broken piece of myself for a long time, but as I moved on, I filled it in with a happiness that came from my motivations, from learning, growing, from my dreams, and from myself, not my significant other.

Relationships are not over the moment you walk away. Pieces will always remain to be picked up – or, in this case, sweatshirts.

I decided to keep the sweatshirt. I will always be connected to him in a way that I can never recreate –he was my first love – even if it hurts. Destroying his sweatshirt wouldn’t erase my years of pain. Rather, I decided to turn this last bit of him into something new, removing him from the folds of fabric. I cut the last bit of him out of his sweatshirt, chopping off the length that would have fit him, finally shaping it as my own. I pinned it, hemmed it, and cut away the extra fabric. I remade it in the image of myself, complete with the ever-present scar in the raised fabric of the hem. The fabric, and every memory held by its threads, no longer weighed me down.

Walking to class in my new sweatshirt, I thought about texting him to wish him the best. I decided against it, and finally let go of the space he occupied in my life for so long.

The post The Weight of Fabric appeared first on The McGill Daily.

According to members of Divest McGill, the purpose of the blockade was to prevent the Committee to Advise on Matters of Social Responsibility (CAMSR) from meeting in the James Administration building. The scheduled meeting was planned to “develop an implementation plan to operationalize the approved recommendations.” The recommendations in question come from CAMSR’s December 3, 2019 recommendation to the Board of Governors, advising decarbonization – not divestment – from the University’s endowment. Although CAMSR was not able to convene in the James Administration building, the meeting occurred as scheduled – albeit after a short delay – in the Macdonald Engineering building.

Students participating in the blockade presented flyers to all staff remaining in the building – including Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Fabrice Labeau and Vice Principal (Administration and Finance) Yves Beauchamp – and posted them on all exterior doors. The notice outlined Divest’s demands, explaining that “Divest McGill will not allow the university to continue its business-as-usual operations while the university funds companies causing immense human and environmental harm […] Given the current violence towards Indigenous peoples and the urgency of the climate crisis, disruption to the university’s operations is necessary.”

Divest’s demands refer to the University’s nearly $6 million investment in TC Energy, the company responsible for attempting to build a pipeline through the Hereditary land of the Wet’suwet’en Nation in British Columbia. An injunction was approved on December 31, 2019 by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, opposing an eviction notice posted to Coastal GasLink employees by Hereditary Chiefs of the five Wet’suwet’en clans. Since the injunction ruling, the RCMP have been illegally invading the Unist’ot’en and Gidimt’en camps, violently arresting Indigenous land defenders and allies, as well as enforcing a media exclusion zone. Divest affirmed that their actions are allied with demonstrations across the country, stating to the Daily that “We are responding to the call for solidarity from Wet’suwet’en by demanding immediate divestment from Coastal GasLink.” McGill’s investment in TC Energy makes up only $6 million of the more than $40 million that was invested in other oil and gas companies as of March 31, 2019.

At approximately 10:00 a.m., McGill security arrived and posted themselves outside each exit. Divest explained to the Daily that “once we communicated the main intention of this blockade [through a security liaison], which is to prevent access, [security] blocked off from outside of the doors.” Press – including student publications – were not allowed in, and the CBC was also blocked from entering.

In the early afternoon, McGill security inquired about the student’s plans in the event of an emergency evacuation, concerns also voiced by Labeau and Beauchamp earlier in the day. Students explained that people were allowed to leave the building, but no one could enter. Staff who remained in the building began leaving at approximately 2:00 p.m. At this time, security was seen near an alarm panel, causing concern among students that McGill Security would purposefully trigger the emergency alarm system to force an evacuation.

The Daily eventually got past security and were able to enter the building. When asked about the significance of the event, blockaders explained that “It’s just not enough to prioritize individual change. We have to target people who are making the major decisions.” According to students at the second checkpoint, despite frustration from many of the building’s staff, “there were also a lot of people who were extremely supportive. For example, one of the employees here was very kind to us, offered to make us hot chocolate, [and] was checking in on us.”

The blockade is part of a history of protests by Divest McGill. On the importance of these protests, Divest explained that “blockades and actions like this are a way to have our voice heard and demand action on issues of injustice. Like the Coastal GasLink pipeline. And we encourage students to get involved with Divest McGill active projects on campus which are taking away the social licence of destructive companies.”

The blockade ended at 4:00 pm; students inside left of their own volition. At the time of publishing, McGill administration and CAMSR have yet to comment on the demonstration. Though the demands of the blockade were to block off the building until McGill agreed to divest, the demonstration ended with the work day, and further steps to meet these demands are unclear.

The post Divest McGill Blockades James Admin appeared first on The McGill Daily.

This decision has been called hypocritical by USAToday: “The truth is, it’s not the mixing of politics and sports that Bach and the IOC don’t like. It’s the mixing of politics they don’t like with sports.” President Bach elaborated in his opening speech at the recent IOC Session that, “Our mission [of unity] requires that we stand against this zeitgeist of division, of nationalism and of discrimination. In fact, it is in these troubled times that we need to stand up for the values that define us.” The hosts of Burn It All Down, a feminist sports podcast, pointed out that the new rules “stifles the very voices of athletes themselves who are using [their platform] to advance human dignity.” Some of these platforms comprise politics opposing different forms of oppression, including police brutality, racism, authoritarianism, and war, as well as promoting LGBTQ+ rights, equal pay, and civil rights.

Bach’s speech makes the assumption that unity can be achieved through ignorance and “stand[ing] above and beyond” politics, a principle that the IOC guidelines hold as well. However, it is impossible to stand for unity without addressing political issues of oppression and inequality.

Bach’s speech makes the assumption that unity can be achieved through ignorance and “stand[ing] above and beyond” politics, a principle that the IOC guidelines hold as well.

Vox News described the decision as producing a “sufficiently sterilized environment” which “may violate the original spirit of the games.” Athletics and professional sports have a deep history of political statements and continue to be a battleground and a stage for political causes to this day. The Olympic playing field is no different. Bach claimed that “today, the Olympic Games are the only event that brings the entire world together in peaceful competition.” This idea of a peaceful coming together combined with a politically sterile environment is dangerous. In 2014, when Russia enacted a law criminalizing homosexuality before the Olympic Games in Sochi, protests erupted around the world, but at the games athletes remained mostly silent and protests did not make it onto the playing field. This silence created a sterile, non-political environment within the games, and as highlighted by former NBA player John Amaechi, “silence in the face of attendance in Sochi is complicity.” In response to global pressure, the IOC banned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Athletics and professional sports have a deep history of political statements and continue to be a battleground and a stage for political causes to this day. The Olympic playing field is no different.

“Our fandom is deeply irrational, […] where those energies take us can’t possibly map neatly onto party affiliation and ideological preference,” The New Yorker’s Hua Hsu explained. Sports create unity through fan communities, often established without consideration for the politics of a team, and at a young age. Mark Leibovich, chief national correspondent at The New York Times elaborated on this saying, “Athletes often constitute our earliest objects of allegiance. Staying starstruck is an indulgence of our arrested developments.” As the role models, stars, and aspirations for young children, athletes are venerated in the mind of society. When an athlete chooses to use the athletic space for protest, it’s because it means something to them, which affects the millions of fans who follow them. The Burn It All Down podcast elaborated on this, saying that, “[sports] has been a platform for people who don’t have voices in many other places.”

Politics in sports do not only apply to the professional playing field, but are influential and integral to university sports as well. Tomas Jirousek, a McGill Varsity athlete on the Men’s Rowing team, started the #ChangeTheName campaign to change the name of McGill Men’s Varsity teams, a name which comes with historical and cultural connotations as an Indigenous slur. Jirousek told the Daily that, “not only did the campaign overlap with the rowing season, but I would take the time during road trips, or while at the basin, to take interviews or consult with my teammates as to how they felt the campaign was unfolding.” The campaign took off quickly. Jirousek had planned to wear “a medallion or other [Indigenous] regalia during medal ceremonies. Unfortunately, McGill’s Men’s crew didn’t win any medals, so I never had the opportunity.”

The fraught history of politics in sports is not to be looked over, and political neutrality and sterilization on the field is not an option.

The fraught history of politics in sports is not to be looked over, and political neutrality and sterilization on the field is not an option. The International Olympic Council’s ban is a slap in the face to athletes and causes worldwide. When an athlete chooses to use their platform for protest, it is because elsewhere they are being silenced.

The post Olympic Politics appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Birth Control

Despite the wide range of birth control methods available to people with gynecological systems, the majority of these still have strong effects on hormones and overall health.

While contraceptive methods in the past were often bulky contraptions, modern science has allowed birth control to be much less invasive, albeit not invisible. The pill, the patch, and the shot (also known as Depo Provera) all rely on hormones that are pushed into the bloodstream to alter the hormonal balance of bodies with uteruses and stop the process of ovulation. The pill is taken daily, the patch is changed weekly, and the shot is typically re-injected every three months. While these forms of birth control seem simple, they wreak havoc on the bodies they inhibit. Weight gain, mood swings, spotting, headaches, and nausea are common side effects of all hormonal methods. Blood clots are also a dangerous long term side effect of the pill. These impacts are not to be taken lightly.

Hormonal Intrauterine Devices (IUDs) release small amounts of the hormone progestin into the uterus. The side effects may be less severe than with other hormonal methods because the hormone is localized. There are also copper IUDs available, which prevent pregnancy because of sperm’s aversion to the metal. IUD strings need to be checked every month, because the device can perforate the uterus if it becomes dislodged. This is a personal self-examination, and assuming nothing goes wrong, the device can be used for 3-12 years. Although the side effects of IUDs are less impactful, certain brands still might cause ovarian cysts which are painful and can result in infertility if left untreated. Additionally, when pregnancies do occur while someone has an IUD, they much more likely to be ectopic pregnancies – a type of pregnancy in the fallopian tubes, which poses a very high risk to the person. These methods of birth control require work to maintain their effectiveness. That work is placed exclusively and unequally on people with uteruses. Additionally, the financial burden that these methods impose is substantial, and often ignored. In the same way that the often prohibitive cost of menstrual hygiene products is ignored, birth control is often looked at as a non-necessity. Why is it that bodies with uteruses are forced to pay for the sexual freedom that sperm-producing bodies are afforded for free?

Why is it that bodies with uteruses are forced to pay for the sexual freedom that sperm-producing bodies are afforded for free?

The larger cost of hormonal birth control methods is their overall emotional toll. The most influential side effect of hormonal birth control is the hormones themselves. Emotional impacts of hormonal birth control have been tested and retested time and time again. In a 2004 study available on the website of the U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information, the abstract blatantly states that “Current contraceptive use was associated with an increase rate in depression, divorce, tranquilizer use, sexual dysfunction, and suicide and other violent and accidental deaths. Despite the advent of more ‘user friendly’ contraceptives, the discontinuation rate secondary to side effects has changed little through the years.”

One type of body has been tasked with an amount of labour that is deeply disproportionate to their role in something that involves two people.

The threat of pregnancy has dictated cisgender female experiences of sex and sexuality for centuries. Partners not looking to conceive a child are both aware of possible outcomes, yet one disproportionately faces the emotional labour of an unwanted pregnancy, not to mention the physical toll. In addition to the pressure that pregnancy places on people with uteruses, using birth control methods effectively and safely requires labour. People with uteruses have been burdened with taking their birth control pills on time, checking their IUD strings regularly, changing their patches every week, and other measures that essentially translate to constant awareness of their own fertility. One type of body has been tasked with an amount of labour that is deeply disproportionate to their role in something that involves two people.

 

Hysterectomies vs. Vasectomies

Hysterectomies are a more permanent solution for those who want it or have health concerns which necessitate it. A hysterectomy is the surgical removal of the uterus, preventing eggs from dropping into the uterus, and therefore putting a complete stop to menses. It is “the most common non-pregnancy-related major surgery performed on women in the United States, with one in three women having a hysterectomy by age 60.” Hysterectomies are still a major surgery, and recovery and side effects are still dangerous.

If we want to share the labour of contraception between more than one type of body, we need to change the conversations we have about safe(r) sex.

A study by the journal Menopause over 22 years found that “overall, a hysterectomy was associated with a 26 per cent increased relative risk for depression and a 22 per cent increased risk for anxiety. Women under 35 who had a hysterectomy were at a 47 per cent increased risk for depression and a 45 per cent increased risk for anxiety.” More specifically, the removal of the ovaries that sometimes accompanies a hysterectomy also means a removal of the place where estrogen is produced. This removal, and the subsequent sharp change in hormones, can be harmful to the body and the mind. A change in estrogen levels is associated with  weakened bones, vaginal dryness, and pain during sex, which can be alleviated using estrogen therapy.

Hysterectomies are gender- affirming services for many people, and their role in allowing people to feel comfortable in their bodies is important to recognize. The societal emphasis on having biological children sometimes leads to people being cautioned by their doctors that they may regret their inability to give birth later. The aim of broadening conversations about contraception and sexuality is to ensure that everyone feels like they have a choice.

The risks associated with hysterectomies are often treated lightly in order for the procedure to be presented as the only option for permanent birth control. It is not; sperm can be controlled as a means of birth control through vasectomies. Vasectomies are a simple procedure to block the vas deferens so that sperm can’t travel out of the body. The procedure is meant to be permanent. The procedure can be either invasive or non-invasive, and patients are discharged the same day.

The stark contrast between hysterectomies and vasectomies is most visible in the side effects and dangers of the procedure. Between vasectomies and hysterectomies, the procedure associated with more danger, recovery time, and side effects is the latter. The dangers of hysterectomies cannot be overlooked in favour of perpetuating the assumption that uteruses must be controlled and not placing that responsibility at the source of fertilization: sperm. When looking for permanent forms of birth control, vasectomies should be considered as an option, as long as the sperm-carrying body can safely undergo the procedure.

Logically, the safest place to stop pregnancy is not in the uterus, but with the sperm; ensuring that sperm cannot reach the egg instead of focusing on inhibiting the egg- producing system. However, while vasectomies present a permanent solution for sperm control, they are not a realistic option for people looking to stay fertile.

 

Sperm Control Options

So, what do we turn to? The currently available options for sharing the responsibility of contraception with bodies with penises are minimal, including condoms and a sperm-control pill.

Condoms are 85 per cent effective in preventing pregnancy, according to Planned Parenthood. This means that 15 out of every 100 couples who use condoms as their only method of birth control will get pregnant each year. These odds are often countered by the use of “the pill,” whose use is accompanied by negative side effects in many women.

Side effects associated with current birth control methods are tolerated because they mirror possible effects and complications of pregnancy, but are typically less severe. For example, birth control pills raise the risk of users developing blood clots, but pregnancy increases that risk ten times more – and so these pills are widely available despite the potential consequences. The tolerance for side effects in bodies without uteruses is much lower because the threat of pregnancy is not present. There are no differences between people with and without uteruses and their ability to tolerate pain or discomfort, but convenience for sperm-producing people has been prioritized above all else.

Results from clinical trials testing the efficacy of a male birth control shot performed published in 2016 show that the shot was an effective method of suppressing sperm release. The most common negative side effects described by the subjects were acne, injection site pain, increased libido, and mood disorders. Interestingly enough, many of these side effects are reported from people taking the birth control pill, and risks associated with IUDs can be even graver. Somehow, these possible consequences were not enough to stall the development and distribution of female contraceptive methods, while sperm control has been all but abandoned by the scientific community.

Since the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has no guidelines about what levels of safety and effectiveness a male sperm control pill would need to be approved, drug companies are unmotivated to back research in this area. If we want to share the labour of contraception between more than one type of body, we need to change the conversations we have about safe(r) sex. Sperm control is not an impossible goal for contraception – we just need to commit to making it happen.

 

Redistribution

The condom is the only form of birth control that doesn’t place the responsibility on people with uteruses. Unlike all other forms of birth control, the condom also helps prevent sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Unfortunately, condoms are frequently foregone to increase pleasure for one or both partners. The term “raw dogging” is used colloquially when referring to penetration during condom-less sex. Urban Dictionary’s uses of the phrase overwhelmingly connote condom- less sex as a triumph – a positive reinforcement of once again placing the responsibility of birth control only on the body with a uterus.

Sperm control is not an impossible goal for contraception – we just need to commit to making it happen.

Common contraceptive methods, apart from condoms, affect the hormones of the body that they’re used in to prevent the uterus from being hospitable to a pregnancy. These uterine birth control methods are uncomfortable and often painful devices that have a lower guarantee of effectiveness than forms of contraception that target sperm count. Sperm control would be a more effective and less invasive way of preventing pregnancy, but the idea that men should shoulder the responsibility of keeping their sperm out of their partner’s body is one that somehow never comes up in conversations about safe(r) sex. Bodies with uteruses are the only ones being tasked with preventing pregnancy, perpetuating a misrepresentation of how pregnancy occurs. Social emphasis on gynecological systems, and stopping fertilization within the uterus, results in forms of contraception that are biased towards one type of body. It’s time to redistribute this labour.

For more information on birth control check out our infographic on options for bodies with uteruses.

This article is a part of our joint issue with Le Délit on Labour, Body, & Care. To read their pieces, visit delitfrancais.com

The post Bias in Birth Control appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Waiting for the orange line metro at Berri- Uqam, there is not a single bench in sight. In fact, the only option is a leaning bar, which patrons can rest against, but not put their weight upon. This is defensive design, also known as hostile architecture, a form of mediating how bodies can use a space and limiting the ways in which public property can be used. Hostile architecture tends to go unquestioned, and frequently unnoticed: sidewalks covered in bumps to provide “traction,” or lampposts which encourage nightlife (and all the economic implications of that) are two rather benign examples. Hostile architecture can also be much more aggressive, with benches that have “armrests” in the middle and short backs, rendering sleeping impossible and sitting for a prolonged period of time uncomfortable; or spikes in alcoves for the sole purpose of keeping homeless people from sleeping there. It also includes sounds. Many businesses play music or strident, high pitched noises overnight for the sole purpose of discouraging people from sleeping nearby.

Hostile architecture can also be much more aggressive, with benches that have “armrests” in the middle and short backs, rendering sleeping impossible and sitting for a prolonged period of time uncomfortable.

Hostile architecture is designed with specific bodies and people in mind. It is by no means a “failed design;” it is a very successful plan to limit certain groups’ access to public spaces. Its negative impacts disproportionately affect people experiencing homelessness who rely on public spaces as refuge, and it makes navigating spaces more difficult for people with disabilities. It is not a new phenomenon, but it has started to garner some attention. As architect James Furzer puts it, “with the rise in homelessness, it becomes more noticeable when you see spikes in areas that people would be sleeping in.”

Defensive design is an overt, systematic, and deliberate decision to push certain groups out of public spaces. By using architectural designs to define who gets to use these spaces, and how, architects are further marginalizing groups who already facing discrimination. “If we’re looking for a solution to people experiencing homelessness, putting up a third railing on a bench so someone can’t take a nap in a park isn’t a solution to that problem,” says Jake Tobin Garrett, manager of policy and planning at Park People. Excluding certain groups from public spheres does nothing to acknowledge or combat structural inadequacies. By focusing on keeping people out of sight, decision-makers get to ignore housing problems and issues of income inequality.

The problem of defensive design is prominent in the city of Toronto, where people are being pushed out of both the housing market and public spaces. The Greater Toronto Area (GTA) is a victim of its success, with fewer housing options than people wanting to live in the region. Over the past decade, this has caused an inflation of the prices of housing – and limited opportunities for social housing to develop.

With limited housing options, a larger population is faced with the possibility of homelessness. Far from acknowledging these structural issues, instances of defensive design have multiplied in Toronto, effectively barring people from public spaces, leaving them more vulnerable to violence.

To bring attention to these issues, researcher and public space advocate Cara Chellew launched #defensiveTO. The project aims at mapping and photographing every instance of hostile architecture in the GTA. In slightly over a week, a dozen volunteers working on the project documented over a hundred instances of hostile design, proving the prevalence of this architecture.

It is by no means a “failed design;” it is a very successful plan to limit certain groups’ access to public spaces.

Unfortunately, Toronto is not the only city employing defensive design. Montreal similarly implements defensive design which is exponentially more harmful considering its harsher winters. The metro stations, much like some of the underground tunnels, are warmer and safer for people experiencing homelessness. During the long winters, these areas are used as a retreat, and are often the only places available for people experiencing homelessness. At the time of this article (mid-November 2019), many shelters are already struggling to provide adequate resources for everyone in need. Another challenge arises when trying to access these services: of the homeless shelters accessible across Montreal, only Open Door allows people who have used drugs and consumed alcohol to enter, and the first wet shelter in Montreal is not expected to open until spring 2020. Faced with this lack of resources, people experiencing homelessness are pushed into the streets, where spaces they could be (relatively) safe in are taken away through hostile architecture.

Unfortunately, defensive design has moved faster through the Montreal metro stations than their trains do.

Metro systems are particularly problematic when it comes to hostile architecture, and the reflection of who can use a public space. They play an important role in connecting various areas of the city, while also reflecting broad societal beliefs concerning what an “average” or “normal” body looks like. The architecture of metro systems around the world continuously marginalize people with disabilities. In Montreal, only 15 of the 73 stations are wheelchair accessible. In New York City, benches are being replaced with leaning bars, so people needing to rest have nowhere to sit. In Paris, benches are replaced with individual seats, which are spread apart, making it impossible for anyone to lie down and sleep. Because most people living in cities use public transportation to get around, these defensive design push “unwanted” bodies out of the public sphere, further alienating and isolating them.

Unfortunately, defensive design has moved faster through the Montreal metro stations than their trains do. An extension of the blue line of the metro was recently approved and is set to open in 2026. This will offer more convenience for commuters to travel safely, but could also bring more defensive design into the metro. Five new stations will be added to the line. These stations will be open to the public, but if defensive design is implemented, it would make these public spaces open only to specific types of people, therefore excluding homeless people and those who are seeking refuge.

Defensive design keeps people out of public transportation. This is unacceptable in a system which is so widely used and should be an inclusive and accessible space.

The first contract to design the stations was signed in November 2019, and preliminary drafts of the project are expected to be

released by Spring 2020. Lemay Architecture, which currently has a contract to design Laval’s migrant detention centers, is among the companies designing these future stations. As the new architects begin planning and designing these new metro stations, they must strive to create inclusive public spaces and not include defensive design. We should be ready to challenge any plan that contributes to the marginalization of vulnerable groups.

Hostile architecture is not a solution to homelessness. It pushes people out of safe spaces, and refuses refuge and warmth for those who rely on public spaces for such. Homelessness is a problem that needs government, and local action to alleviate. It is an issue of systematic housing and income inequality, not of public space. People experiencing homelessness need shelters and places of refuge, they need to be allowed to use public spaces as members of the public, and not be pushed out by design.

City planners and the general public need to question who is invited to use public spaces – and who gets left out.

Defensive design makes spaces inaccessible and difficult to navigate. For many, including people in wheelchairs, or pushing strollers, the lack of elevators keeps them from safely entering the metro. For other people with disabilities, the unavailability of benches, or resting points makes waiting for a metro challenging. Defensive design keeps people out of public transportation. This is unacceptable in a system which is so widely used and should be an inclusive and accessible space.

Defensive design as a strategy keeps vulnerable and marginalized people out of public view but does not address any structural issues. People come before property, and while some new designs offer positive features, they largely aim to “protect public property.” City planners and the general public need to question who is invited to use public spaces – and who gets left out.

Shelters across Montreal are looking for both financial and volunteer support. Several ways in which you can contribute are listed at the bottom of The McGill Daily’s editorial “Sensitive Coverage, Accessible Support.”

This article is a part of our joint issue with Le Délit on Labour, Body, & Care. To read their pieces, visit delitfrancais.com

The post Hostile Architecture appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The McGill Daily (MD): How did “Poll Party” start and where did the name come from?
Ben Boehlert: Most of this is the genius of Grace Gorant, I believe.
Claire Downie: She started it mid-2016, and I have no idea where the name came from, it’s just cute.
Ben Boehlert: It’s a pretty clever name, I think she started it in science class.
Claire Downie: It was like 10 of our friends for a while, and then people just started getting added.
Ben Boehlert: That’s when Claire added me, I was one of the first 20.

MD: And this was started at Montclair High School?
Claire Downie: Yes, in New Jersey, our alma mater.

MD: What does it mean to be a moderator? How are rules such as “No repeat polls” and “No political polls” enforced?
Ben Boehlert: We use a group chat that is active twice a day.
Claire Downie: Sometimes it’s more, sometimes less. There’s a handful of us at McGill.
Ben Boehlert: We also discuss other life things. It’s a pretty supportive group chat, and like, “Poll Party” hasn’t been too much to manage.
Claire Downie: There’s definitely been waves where its been worse to manage than other times, but the flock takes care of itself.
Ben Boehlert: Originally when it was just Montclair, the rules weren’t super particular, like you could make political polls and stuff. The problem is now, since it’s so big, there are no longer social consequences and social enforcement to being ridiculous. So we need a more bureaucratic and law-based system to say what stays and what doesn’t, because it’s too big for us to just socially enforce. I think we’ve grown to take the group less seriously which has made moderating it far easier, or at least I know I have.
Claire Downie: When there were 100 people in the group it was way easier to tell what was a repeat and what wasn’t and now I just have no idea.
Ben Boehlert: Yeah, but like it’s a bit more of a joke now. I don’t know, I used to care more about the rules, but it’s become a much more enjoyable experience and [you get] much better at moderating once you realize it’s all a big joke. It’s one big bit.
Claire Downie: I’ll be in class, I’ll be scrolling through Facebook, I’ll see something that’s not right, and I’ll screenshot it and message the [moderator] chat and say this doesn’t look right.
Ben Boehlert: We used to have a problem where we had too many [moderators] so people would just watch from the sidelines and do nothing. Now it’s just 13 moderators. 

It’s one big bit.

MD: Was the “Survey Soiree” name change a big issue for you guys on the moderator side?
Claire Downie: It was never meant to be long.
Ben Boehlert: [Grace] originally jokingly said “what if I change it for a day?” and then Facebook said you have to keep it for 28 days and she was like “whatever sure,” and then [Facebook] wouldn’t let us change it back.
Claire Downie: We think someone found out that Grace had wanted to change it back for a while, and had some connection at Facebook.
Ben Boehlert: They worked for Facebook, I think? So they said “we’ll see what we can do” then two weeks later it was changed. We don’t know if that’s the causal mechanism for it, but it’s an idea.
Claire Downie: Yeah, Facebook does not reply to any of my other complaints.
Ben Boehlert: I know multiple people in real life asked me about it like “why the name change” and “can you change it back” and then people were upset but honestly my thing is, it was the most exciting thing to happen to the group in months. Nothing was going on, there weren’t that many interesting polls.
Claire Downie: But then I got annoyed with people being annoyed after a while.
Ben Boehlert: I started calling it “Poll Party” as a joke and then I said that to the moderator’s chat and Grace kicked me [out of the chat] for like six hours.

MD: How do you think that this got so popular to currently have 19,000 members and growing?
Claire Downie: I mean it just makes sense when you think about it. Someone adds someone, who adds someone, who adds someone. It’s like a pyramid scheme, or the spread of a disease.

Someone adds someone, who adds someone, who adds someone. It’s like a pyramid scheme, or the spread of a disease.

MD: How do you think your specific friend group opened it up to so many new people?
Ben Boehlert: It’s generally my experience that Montclair people are everywhere.
Claire Downie: There are 10 of us at [McGill], maybe more. The year after it was started everyone went to college. So, I mean, you’re meeting people and you want a way to break the ice with them.
Ben Boehlert: And I think Grace branded it well, the cover photo is pretty spectacular.
Claire Downie: It is, its very “graphic design is my passion,” which she was really into. 

MD: What is the worst offshoot of “Poll Party?”
Claire Downie: “2 Hole 2 Party.”
Ben Boehlert: Easy, no, “Poll Party Uncensored,” absolutely. “Poll Party Uncensored” is the worst place in the world.
Claire Downie: So is “2 Hole 2 Party.”
Ben Boehlert: Yeah, but there’s like, it’s not like filled with white supremacists like “Poll Party Uncensored.” We have no affiliation at all with “Poll Party Uncensored.”
Claire Downie: It’s like watching someone try to get up after slipping on the ice.
Ben Boehlert: “The Goblin-Specific Poll Party for Goblins and Goblin-Enthusiasts” and “Poll Party you only post in while drunk,” are my favorite ones to post in.
Claire Downie: I like the “ur Poll gay lol” one too.

MD: What happened with “Poll Party Uncensored?” How did that split off? Were people just mad about the moderation?
Ben Boehlert: Yes.
Claire Downie: I have to assume.
Ben Boehlert: We used to get called fascists more often. It has largely, as a trend, gone away. I think all the people who wanted to call us fascists left.
Claire Downie: It was probably someone who tried to post a poll “can ‘x’ group say the n-word?”
Ben Boehlert: It’s just sad. Like if they left 4chan up and made it about polls. Slowly but surely normal people have stopped using it and now it’s just…
Claire Downie: Nazis.
Ben Boehlert: That’s why we insist that we are not affiliated. 

MD: What about “McGill University Poll Party?”
Claire Downie: I love “McGill University Poll Party.” It’s one of those McGill community-building things.
Ben Boehlert: SSMU hasn’t taken over yet.
Ben Boehlert: I think the [original “Poll Party”] rules are really conducive for doing dumb things, which is my preferred way of using “Poll Party.”

MD: What has been your favourite poll historically?
Claire Downie: Oh man.
Ben Boehlert: It’s so hard to think because most of the polls I remember are my polls because I look at them more often.
Claire Downie: Most of the polls I remember, I remember because they’re terrible.
Ben Boehlert: That doesn’t mean it’s bad. What’s the dumbest poll? That’s probably my answer but I don’t know.
Claire Downie: I wish I thought of iconic “Poll Party” phases.
Ben Boehlert: What is my favorite? The flat stanley one. Or unlimited copies of Click. It’s a good one.
Claire Downie: I liked that poll “are you a noodle boy?” and the yelling at birds one. 

It’s like watching someone try to get up after slipping on the ice.

MD: Do you have a least favorite “Poll Party” trend?
Ben Boehlert: What is my least favorite trend? There’s like “what of my favorite artists have you also seen?”
Claire Downie: Or “tag yourself as things my professor/sister/dog/son has said.”
Ben Boehlert: Oh and they were almost never good! They did them like 30 times and like two of them were good. Yeah tag yourself and quotes was it.
Claire Downie: Things a stranger has said.

MD: What do you think about “Poll Party “celebrities?
Ben Boehlert: I’m fine with [them] but at a certain point sometimes the poll quality does deteriorate. I’ve posted less and my polls have gotten better. Its harder to keep up the quality. People who call themselves a “Poll Party” celebrity, those are the worst.
Claire Downie: That’s my least favorite phase.
Ben Boehlert: None of the top posters are moderators.

MD: How do you feel about the nuance option in many polls?
Claire Downie: Fuck nuance.
Ben Boehlert: Fuck nuance.
Ben Boehlert: I uploaded a sociological article the other day that said fuck nuance and I largely stand by it. That’s essentially my feelings. It ruins polls. If you don’t want false positives, “Poll Party” is like, the whole point of “Poll Party” is that it gives false positives and false negatives and you could give nuance to anything if you so choose.
Claire Downie: And whenever there’s a nuance option everyone is thinking the same thing.
Ben Boehlert: Just comment and then don’t vote if you really don’t know. If nuance wins a poll I think that means it was poorly phrased because everybody had the same complaint. 

MD: What is your favorite “Poll Party” trend?
Claire Downie: I can’t think of a good trend. Like a trend I haven’t hated.
Ben Boehlert: Yeah, I mean when people were like “what’s your Hogwarts house” and the choices would be like “30 Rock” characters or they would do other characters. I thought that was clever.
Claire Downie: I actively hated that.

Fuck nuance.

MD: When you’re interacting with new people, like people our age, do you feel like you have a big secret? Does “Poll Party” feel like it haunts you?
Claire Downie: I feel like it comes up with people. Like when I meet someone I assume they’re in it, at least if they go to McGill.
Ben Boehlert: It doesn’t come up that often for me.
Claire Downie: Its come up on like multiple first dates for me.
Ben Boehlert: Oh? Really? That’s never happened to me. I am constantly concerned about talking about the same thing too often so I try not to bring it up that often.

MD: Is “Poll Party” a source of pride?
Ben Boehlert: It gives me the sense of importance that all humans crave. For sure. I mean probably to a certain extent yeah.
Claire Downie: It makes me think of the thing we read a paper on how we all want to think we’re unique and how we handle things.
Ben Boehlert: Or how everyone thinks they’re a good driver.
Claire Downie: But there has been some good stuff. Couples have met on “Poll Party.”
Ben Boehlert: Absolutely. I went to prom with someone I met on “Poll Party.”

MD: What’s the one thing you really people to understand about “Poll Party?”
Ben Boehlert: Feel free to post polls, because if its bad, nobody cares.
Claire Downie: And if it’s really bad, we’ll delete it.

To see more, check out The Best (Worst) of Poll Party from our November 18 edition.

The post Poll Party appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The post A History of Colonial Lacrosse appeared first on The McGill Daily.

As it stands, 29 US states do not have explicit legislation to protect LGBTQ+ individuals from workplace discrimination. Beyond this legislation, Wisconsin has existing protections based on sexual orientation, but not gender identity. Despite not having explicit legislation, Michigan and Pennsylvania reinterpret existing sex discrimination laws to apply to sexual orientation and gender identity. However, Michigan is in the process of passing House Bill 4688, which will protect sexual orientation and gender identity as protected under the state’s Civil Rights Act.

Three cases are currently being heard in the Supreme Court. The first, a lawsuit by Gerald Bostock, a former advocate for children in foster care, states that he was fired after joining a recreational LGBTQ+ softball league. This is being reviewed alongside a lawsuit by the late Donald Zarda (represented by his partner and his sister), a New York skydiving instructor who stated he was fired after telling a female client that he was gay to reassure her when they were strapped together for a tandem jump. Pamela Karlan, a Stanford law professor representing the case, is arguing that the discriminatory act was based on sex because Bostock and Zarda would not have been fired if they were women that were in relationships with men.

The third case is that of Aimee Stephens, who was fired in 2013 by Harris Funeral Homes in Michigan, based on what she states was discrimination after she came out as transgender, informing her boss that she would be presenting as female in the workplace. After the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in March 2018 that she was unlawfully fired, her case has moved to the Supreme Court, where she will be represented by the American Civil Liberties Union. Stephens’ case is the first time that the rights of transgender people will directly be dealt with under US law.

Chief Justice John Roberts, a possible swing vote in the cases, feels that, “If we’re going to be expanding the definition of what ‘sex’ covers, what do we do about that issue?” However, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) states that “discrimination against an individual because of gender identity, including transgender status, or because of sexual orientation is discrimination because of sex in violation of Title VII.”

Over 200 businesses have signed a brief in support of their LGBTQ+ employees, as a direct response to these cases. As per the brief: “These businesses are committed to creating workplaces that afford lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (‘LGBT’) employees the opportunity to earn a living, excel in their professions, and provide for their families free from fear of unequal treatment.”

If the Supreme Court does not vote in favour of advancing protections for LBGTQ+ workers, it would be the first legal denial of LGBTQ+ rights following a stream of protections and laws meant to help LGBTQ+ communities. According to CNN, this could suggest “a break with the steady pattern of advancing gay rights.” This break is consistent with the Trump administration’s continued efforts to roll back rights for transgender people. These setbacks are at odds with the resounding support from American citizens, businesses, and current democratic candidates (as discussed at CNN’s LGBT Issues Town Hall) for greater equality.

These cases – Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, Bostock v. Clayton County, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunities Commission – require the support of five justices to pass and cement that Title VII applies to LGBTQ+ workplace discrimination. A decision is expected by early summer 2020.

Though there is no petition regarding these specific cases at this time, individuals can sign the petition in support of the Equality Act, a bill currently being considered by the US Senate that protects LGBTQ+ individuals from discrimination under civil rights law.

LGBTQ+ members of the McGill community who are interested in working in the United States can access more information regarding protections for LGBTQ+ workers on the EEOC website.

American students can also contact their local Senators and urge them to vote to pass the bill.

The post US Debates LGBTQ+ Rights appeared first on The McGill Daily.

“Thank you everyone for being with me here today, killjoys and complainers, misfits and troublemakers,” Ahmed began. “You might have a fight on your hands. […] You might have to fight to find a safe path through life, a way of progressing, of getting through, without having to give up yourself, or your desires.”

Ahmed’s “Complaint as Queer Method” discusses the event of making a complaint, specifically in terms of sexual harassment, in the institutional sphere of a university. She argues that the institutional mechanics of complaint – formal complaint policy, and the subsequent resolution, or lack thereof – are used to give the problem a new form; procedures come into existence without coming to use. The shape of complaints, therefore, become circular where they should be linear. The complaint is lodged, nothing is done, and it has to be reasserted again and again. This exhaustion is an institutional method for discouraging complaints. Ahmed describes this temporality as “queer,” reflecting on the cyclical nature of the queer community in repeatedly having to come out to the world, forever stuck in a correctional cycle.

Ahmed asserts that institutions hide complaints because complaints are stored in a metaphorical filing cabinet and become a record not just of what happened to a person, but also of what happened to an institution. Unfortunately, institutions favour their reputation above all else.

Using over 40 anecdotes from multiple different universities, Ahmed makes her point clear. The institutional decision to push complaints aside means that complaint requires a new understanding, beyond institutional policy and procedure. She considers a quote by Audre Lorde: “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.” The queer methodology that Ahmed applies to complaints reimagines a new mode of resistance to the complainers, one that brings some agency back to the complainer, and takes it away from the oppressive, hidden structure of universities. With each complaint, you leave a piece of yourself behind, like writing on the wall or a leaky pipe – these records are something that universities want to contain. Eventually, though, the pieces left behind add up, and are used to create a new atmosphere, a new shelter. Complaint finally transforms from a reactive resistance, to a productive force that (eventually) cannot be ignored.

Throughout her lecture, Ahmed comes back to a metaphor of a post box occupied by birds nesting, which she uses to visualize what a complaint can feel like; the post box, though it was not created for the birds that nest within, becomes a safe shelter. Yet the nest can also be disturbed by the letters within. “We know so much from trying to transform the worlds that don’t accommodate us. But that fight can also just be so damn hard. When we have to fight for an existence, you can end up feeling that fighting is your existence. And so, we need each other. We need to become each other’s resources.”

She also uses the post box to describe “the queer map of the organization:” “Queer maps, as we know, are useful; because they tell us where to go to find queer places […] places that might provide temporary shelters. Those gay bars can be our nests. Where we want to be.”

“Complaint is writing on the wall, ‘we are here, we did not disappear.’”

The post “Complaint as Queer Method” appeared first on The McGill Daily.

A few weeks ago I was asked for consent. I can’t begin to describe what passed through my mind at that moment. I flashed through my past traumas, all the times I’ve been denied that question. I finally squeaked out an answer, and he asked me one more time, “do you want to do this?” Confused, my only thought was, who is this person asking me for consent? Little did he know the impact that those few words might have on me.

I never explained my past to him. Undeniably, it’s a hard conversation to start, especially with someone new. I just hoped I wouldn’t have to explain that I might suddenly get a panic attack or completely break down. How do you convey years of past history to someone in the heat of the moment? Thankfully, I didn’t have to, because being asked for consent allowed me to question for myself if I was ready to try again.

Three years ago I was in an abusive relationship. The words “undesirable,” “hard to love,” and “you’re too much” became indelibly rooted in my brain. So entrenched were those words that I began to believe them. I was isolated from my friends and it became hard to remember who I was. I was simply an extension of my “partner.” Manipulated into believing that there was no one for me in this world except him, it was all too easy for him to push me into situations that my inner self abhorrently hated. With this subservient mindset, I couldn’t fathom pushing back, thinking that if I lost him I would be truly alone, throwing away the only person who cared for me. That worked to his advantage all too well, and my body became something that was no longer mine.

Can one question really solve years of abuse and trauma? No, but the moment I was asked for consent gave me faith that I could heal.

When I showed up to school with a scar forming on my head, my friend cautiously pointed out that this was possibly an unhealthy situation. She recognized the signs of abuse and thankfully acted upon it. Over the course of several secretive conversations with her, I eventually came to the same conclusion: I could no longer be passive, my relationship was one-sided, and not the mutual partnership it should have been. My master, as he no longer could be considered a partner, resented this new opinion, and told me how I was “too much.” I was too smart, I was too friendly, too optimistic, I cared too greatly, I loved too strongly, and I was too independent. At the culmination of that argument, he threw a fit so violent that someone had to come downstairs to diffuse the tension. I left so afraid and so in shock that I couldn’t drive home. I finally ended that relationship, hating myself, and wracked with guilt, wondering if I would ever be desired again.

A year later, and 10,000 miles away from the locale of my pain, I decided to wander back into the dating pool. Someone reciprocated, and I was thrilled! To me, this was good, this was growth, and I saw it as a step towards being okay again. I was upfront about my abuse, about how I was still healing and how I needed to trust someone before I could be in a situation so vulnerable again. I described, to the best of my ability, my leftover anxieties and extreme disinterest in engaging in anything other than a platonic first meeting. It felt like a good place to begin. Although, in my eagerness to restore my faith in humanity, I ignored my own struggles and led myself to someone who wasn’t worth trusting. My new suitor called me, claiming his friends had abandoned him near my neighborhood. He asked if he could stay with me until he charged his phone and figured out a way home. Unwittingly, I allowed him into my apartment, my safe space. I thought I was doing a good deed, being a caring person, helping him out. His story ended up being a lie. Before there was time to process, I was suddenly squeezed, grabbed, pushed, and told to stay quiet. With the little emotional strength I had left, I ran out of my room as fast as I could. I found shelter in the bathroom, locked the door, had a panic attack, and cried until 4 am. This stranger took over my whole bed and fell asleep the second I left. I didn’t sleep until I washed the sheets and the bed was mine again.

On that night a few weeks ago, I was briefly paralyzed with this history when the question of consent arrived. While I’m still struggling to be comfortable in my own skin, it’s even harder to imagine being comfortable with another person. The dialogue around consent with my momentary partner allowed me to bathe in the warmth of his earnestness. The consent was constant. When I said no, my concerns were addressed, and immediately we stopped. I never realized how much more comfortable I could be with him and myself after experiencing the sincerity behind his words. Our night exponentially grew in trust, in warmth, in pleasure, as check-in after check-in, he was happy because he knew I was okay. I can call him a partner because in that moment we prioritized each other, relishing in the togetherness of that brief “us.”

I am grateful. While it seems silly to thank someone for being a good person, I am incredibly grateful. He had no idea what his question did to me, the context of that situation was completely foreign to him. Could asking for consent have ruined the “mood?” Society frequently seems to think so, but it made me even more attracted to him. I was heard, I was understood, I was listened to, and I was respected. People are not mind readers, but his willingness to have an open dialogue about his own fears and insecurities was exactly what I needed. The concerns he expressed during that conversation are as valid as my traumas are; consent was necessary for both of us. Our conversation was enough for me to feel that, in this most simple way, he cared about me.

Can one question really solve years of abuse and trauma? No, but the moment I was asked for consent gave me faith that I could heal. For once I was an equal partner: I was able to see my body as mine, if only for that night. The choice I was given should be commonplace, I should expect it and not be shocked by its sudden appearance. I should not be going on 22 years of my life without being asked for consent. Although this may never happen between us again, I am thankful for him, not for being a decent human being, but for showing me that decent human beings do exist. For that moment, for that night, it finally was okay. It was okay because for the first time in my life, we both agreed it was.

The post In the Moment appeared first on The McGill Daily.