When he was a candidate I mused upon Barack’s sexual flirtation with the country. After America’s eight years of being tied-up and ball-gagged by W. what kind of a lover was Obama promising to be?

At the time I noted it was as though he had found us weeping in the corner. He put his arm around us, placed delicate kisses on our necks and asked us to tell him about it. He told us he understood.

He promised to close Guantanamo and other secret prisons, to restore transparency and the principles of the Constitution.

He promised to make slow, sweet love to us.

Bay Area types imagined a President who would hold their moonstone in his hand and embrace them while humming to the frequency of their second chakra.

Now comes word that President Obama’s Justice Department has every intention of invoking the State Secrets Privilege.

The State Secrets Privilege is a legal rule of evidence from the depths of the Cold War allowing the Executive Branch to keep things secret if it feels National Security is threatened.

Sometimes it is used to keep vital things secret. Sometimes it is used to keep the government from embarrassment.

In either event many people on the left feel it doesn’t groove with Obama’s original rhetoric.

“You’re going to keep things secret?!!! That’s not what you said last night!”

“You’re going to tell the CIA not to worry about their past transgressions?!!! You’re not the man I thought you were. Get out of my bed. I can’t bear to touch you.”

We now know what kind of a lover President Obama is – he’s a lover with throw down.

He might not always ask first. He might invoke the State Secrets Privilege. He might just throw you down on the bed, lock your wrists in his hand and take you. And I’ll bet that makes Michelle very happy.

People of a liberal persuasion have a very hard time with the throw down. Those of us raised by well-meaning liberal mothers came to view any type of male empowerment over women as a kind of sin. Many of those men moved to the Bay Area.

But the throw down, like international diplomacy, is a nuanced thing.

Many women in the Bay Area search, often in vain, for a man who will toss them on the bed, courtesy be damned: the throw down.

Gay men complain that all the men in San Francisco are bottoms. As my friend Augustine says, “It’s like the city is an open-faced sandwich, lots of bottoms and lots of meat but no tops.”

And there are certainly many men who like to be thrown down and many women who like to do it, think Margaret Thatcher pinning Ronald Reagan beneath her telling him to engage with this Gorbachev fellow.

Of course, we didn’t like it very much when Hillary showed us her throw down.

The men and women seeking a good throw down know that the throw down does not denote a lack of respect. When done right the throw down is an important piece in the complicated game of exercising power.

What people are searching for is an enlightened top.

An enlightened top knows the  throw down is about the restrained use of power, the use of your own power for the benefit of another. That is why enlightened tops not only make good lovers but good leaders.

To never do anything but stare beatifically at your partner and tell her she’s an angel is fine if you are a sexual spiritual prophet.

Barack Obama is not a spiritual prophet. He is not here to bring peace and unity to the world.

Barack Obama is a political leader dealing with the political realities of the world. And that means sometimes he’s going to need to keep things secret. Sometimes he’s going to need to let the CIA do some unsavory things.

Just like the real life of it is sometimes your partner wants to be thrown down and told she’s a whore. That’s what gets her off.

In either event it is essential for the leader as enlightened top to declare his right to the throw down.

How can I denounce him for this? Ours is not a perfect world. In fact it’s a rather ugly one.

If you don’t believe President Obama has a right to his throw down I suggest you get in a Prius with a college sticker in the back window and a box of sustainably, locally grown organic vegetables and drive into Gaza, or Pyongyang, or East Oakland, and flash a peace sign, see how it goes.

In the play “A Few Good Men” there is a General on trial. He was in charge of Guantanamo Bay, funnily enough. And when defending himself from creating a culture of excessive force he famously declares, “You need me on that wall!”

It’s true. We need people on that wall to protect us. Those inventors of democracy, the Athenians, grappled with democracy’s inherent problem: how do you use a closed military culture to protect the open culture of a democracy?

One of the ways America does it is by putting a rotating civilian in charge of the military, the president. And the president needs the right to throw down. We need him on that wall.

I don’t know why the whole world can’t just live in harmony (Scarcity of resources). But then I don’t know why some women need to be thrown down and told their a whore (Daddy issues.)

It’s a crazy world. So long as it is crazy I reserve the right to throw down my woman and I reserve the right to elect Barack Obama.

Because I am glad it is Barack Obama on that wall.

It seems that during the 1970’s, child porn was legally produced and the National Library has a mandate to archive a copy of everything published in the country. And it turns out that anyone could request these magazines with nothing more than a letter stating why they want to see them, despite the fact that it’s illegal to possess, distribute, or show child pornography in Sweden.

Of course, the library is already working on figuring what to do. On the one hand, the legal requirement to preserve everything printed in Sweden doesn’t seem to make an exception for child porn. On the other hand, the laws against child porn are pretty clear. So they seem to be in a bind at the moment.

As a sexologist, I can understand why some people would argue that there’s a value in preserving the magazines, as long as appropriate measures are taken. First, if anyone ever wants to conduct scientific research on child porn, the only way that can happen is if it exists somewhere. I know that a lot of people are skeptical (to say the least) about what research could be done and I don’t have an answer for that. But then, I’m not interested in doing the research. I’m just saying that I can understand why some people would argue that. But more importantly, the existence of these magazines is a part of the country’s history and unless a record of it is kept somewhere, it’s easy for that to slip out of the historical record. Even the ugly parts of our past need to be preserved- it’s too easy for history to get edited.

At the same time, the fact that these magazines have been available to the public recreates the original violation that started with their production (and most certainly earlier). I have difficulty understanding how it took this long for someone to raise this issue. All it would have taken is a “do not distribute” policy, perhaps with a locked room? It doesn’t seem that hard to me. It also doesn’t seem that hard to create a policy for qualified researchers, either. A letter from a university or other institution, a CV showing one’s experience as a scientist, letters of recommendation to verify someone’s credentials- none of this is all that hard to do and it would create a useful paper trail.

I bet they’re wishing that they’d done that before all this came to light.

I’m especially intrigued by this statement:

“The universities in this state are to provide the opportunities for a higher education, not studies on controversial behaviors.”

Funny, I thought that one of the purposes of college was to help people explore controversial topics and develop the critical thinking and self-reflection skills they need to find their own perspectives. But then, if you want everyone to agree with you, critical thinking isn’t going to be your cup of tea.

There’s also this one:

“I am sure many of you share my disgust and outrage at how taxpayer’s dollars are being spent by universities. We need to protect the taxpayers’ dollars from such a gross misuse and stop universities from offering such offensive classes on taxpaer’s dollar.”

Notice how she took her disgust and outrage about sex and turned it into an economic moral high ground. I’m also impressed with how she talked about “protecting” the dollar. Because we all know how our bank accounts get scared when we talk about sex.

Whoever wrote this is really good at twisting the truth. They managed to conflate queer theory (a well-recognized theoretical approach to gender studies), male prostitution and oral sex. Not to mention that they make it sound like the professors are teaching people how to become prostitutes or have oral sex, rather than studying behaviors that people engage in from, say, a sociological perspective.

The National Sexuality Resource Center has created an online petition to save sexuality studies. Here’s a snip from it:

We need to act now to protect the integrity of scientific research and the importance of sexuality and gender studies–including those who do sexuality work in complementary programs like anthropology, gerontology, sociology and ethnic studies.The work of these researchers and academics contributes greatly to a healthier sexuality for all of us, preventing disease, addressing stigma and promoting lifelong sexual literacy with accurate, science-based evidence.

Science and research must trump opinion. We must defend the pursuit of knowledge and scholarly inquiry–the purpose of which is to have a better understanding of humanity and our world in order to work for change for the betterment of humankind. Controversial and innovative research topics are at the very heart of academic and philosophical debate that drive the classrooms and laboratories of faculty, staff, and students to finding solutions to society’s biggest problems.

Pass the link along, go to the petition and sign it (you can do it anonymously, if you want). Do what you can to keep this valuable piece of academic work and scientific research alive.

Yet the joy for many of us is tempered by the passing of Proposition 8. The country has come so far in electing an African-American president and at the same time the blue state of California has voted to ban gay marriage. One prejudice was torn asunder while another erected a rampart.

It’s been that kind of election cycle. Our African-American president got here by telling us we should not vote for the woman candidate.

Meanwhile, the Republicans did nominate a woman to be vice-president. But her reliance on her charm, good looks and cutesy attitude rather than her intellect made her a giant step backwards for feminism.

Then there is the possibility that the reason prop 8 passed was because the African-American candidate brought too many African-Americans to the polls. The theory is that Black Churches were preaching against the abomination of gay marriage.

Of course Barack Obama never said he was in favor of gay marriage, either. It’s like our fiancé is so sweet to us when we’re alone but is a different person when his friends are around. If Obama had come out in favor of same-sex marriage he probably never would have gotten elected. Politics is a funny game that way.

In the spirit of that game I have a proposal, a new proposition to go up in a special referendum: Proposition 8 ½.

Proposition 8 ½ states that marriage shall be defined as the union of two people who love each other. Said unions shall be recognized by the State regardless of all manner of craziness and lunacy that may ensue.

Proposition 8 ½ has been carefully worded to encompass as much of the human comedy as possible. Rather than target the institution of marriage and ask specifically that same-sex couples be allowed in I am proposing we swing the doors wide. With some of the relationships that pass as marriages already this broader approach is n everyone’s interest.

Let us look at what this proposition means.

“Two people who love each other.” That seems pretty straight forward, or gay forward, which is just like straight forward only better dressed and it leans slightly to the left.

It is the second sentence that needs a little unpacking. “Said unions shall be recognized by the State regardless of all manner of craziness and lunacy that may ensue.” What does this mean?

Put most simply, marriage already encompasses a wide swath of relationships, many of them crazy and lunatic. By stating that the State must recognize all manner of craziness we are throwing the doors wide open for gay relationships. When you look at marriage today two men or two women being married just isn’t that odd.

Let’s look at some relationships that already exist and qualify as marriage.

You can live in separate houses, you can live in separate states, and so long as you are straight be considered married under the law.

You can claim to be staying late at work while carrying on an affair that your spouse knows about but doesn’t want to admit and so she punishes you with cutting remarks in front of friends, your marriage bed a cold, desolate wilderness, and, so long as you are straight, still be considered married under the law.

You can be polyamorous sex gods, at least in your own minds, sleeping with every living, breathing soul within 25 miles of San Francisco and so long as you’re straight still be considered married under the law.

You could have gotten married because you thought it was the right time, you know, because you were tired of going out every Saturday night looking, and because all your friends were getting married and you wanted someone to go with to their weddings, and now you realize you don’t really know who he is but as you’re starting to learn you realize you don’t like him and so lately every time he comes through the front door you are seized by a desire to punch him in the face. That could be your situation, and so long as you’re straight you are considered married under the law.

You can be in it for the money and so long as you are straight be considered married under the law.

You can lie to your spouse about everything except your name and so long as you’re straight…

But you can be in a committed relationship for 10 years, own property together, raise children, love one another in the face of strong societal resistance, and if you are the same sex not be considered married under the law.

Unless of course that law is Proposition 8 ½. Then the State has to recognize all manner of craziness and lunacy.

Proposition 8 ½ holds a mirror up to straight people and their marriages. Let’s not let the churches promulgate the myth that marriage between a man and a woman is considered holy simply by being. Let’s not let them control the image.

Let’s put it into law, marriage is all kinds of crazy.

You can hate your husband and still be married. You can love watching your wife have sex with large Turkish men and still be married. You can also be two men or two women and still be married. If you’re in love, that’s enough for us.

There is a flip side to Proposition 8 ½. By defining marriage as something that exists between two people who love each other we would be effectively annulling, well, more marriages than I care to name here.

(To all my friends who think I might mean you, I don’t mean you. I mean our other friends who we’re always talking about. You know who I mean.)

There you have it, Proposition 8 ½, subversive and loony but perhaps just what we need.

Proposition 8 ½: If you’re in love, that’s enough for us.

What can I say, it’s a good bumpersticker.

Last night was a dream come true — we toasted with champagne, cried tears over Obama’s speech, went out to the streets to celebrate (in the Castro, SF [video]) crossed our fingers for a pretty close Prop K (decriminalizing prostitution), and held our breath — All Night Long — and are still waiting for results about Prop 8’s ban on Same-Sex marriage. At this moment it’s 96% reporting and papers are calling it passed.

Personally, I have hopes that the courts won’t let the constitution be re-written. There’s still a lot of work to do to help educate the state of California about what same-sex marriage means, and there’s a lot of lies and fear out there from people wanting to protect ‘traditional’ marriage. (It’s not “Yes we did”… it’s “Yes we will” — there’s much work to do.)

It’s a bittersweet victory for civil rights. With love, here’s a song for the new day.

Tee Corinne e-mailed me news that her book The Cunt Coloring Book, which has been a steady seller at Good Vibrations for close to 20 years, is being used by the Traditional Values Coalition in an attempt to smear James Hormel, the gay San Francisco philanthropist who is up for the ambassadorship to Luxembourg. No, they’re not alleging Hormel likes to relax with a box of crayons (though I can imagine a really funny skit based on that premise): Corinne’s art book can be found in the Gay and Lesbian Center of the San Francisco Public Library, which Hormel helped to fund. The TVC sent someone with a library card in to look for dirt, and the right-wing group then sent Corinne’s book, along with a packet containing photocopies of other book excerpts, to all 100 US senators. They thoughtfully included packages of crayons, as the Washington Post put it on September 2, “for lawmakers who are feeling artistic.”

Some of Susie Bright’s work is also included in the packet, including the introduction to Susie Sexpert’s Lesbian Sex World and Nothing But the Girl, the volume of erotic lesbian photography edited by Bright and Jill Posener.

This incident represents a different wrinkle in the history of book-banning — but it’s part of that history all the same. Using books to discredit a political enemy is a first step towards attacking the books themselves, and in some ways it’s even more insidious than the extreme right’s usual tactics, which more often than not involve banning books the old-fashioned way: getting them removed from libraries (and, once in a while, throwing them on a nice traditional bonfire).

Corinne’s book is an interactive relative of our own book Femalia — a non-threatening tool to help women and the people who love them get familiar and comfortable with “cunts” (that is, clits, vulvas, labia, vaginas, and all the rest). I suppose many of the senators can actually use the information — and, unless the TVC got the 100 copies by hook or crook, Corinne will get a few bucks in royalties out of the deal. But the notion that books have been used in this sort of dirty political game is chilling. And if the strategy works — if Hormel loses the ambassadorship because of the books he helped make publicly available — the forces of sexual literacy and sanity lose even more decidedly than we will if Clinton’s president is shot down over Monicagate. It’s a worse defeat because lying about sex can’t be spun as a good thing — understandable, sure; forgivable, maybe; but not good. But it’s terrifying to see someone under attack for putting information into people’s hands. And if this tactic works, you know we’ll see a newly inspired extreme right wing — inspired in their anti-gay venom, and inspired to ban books. (Wait ’til they read Vox, the wonderful Nicholson Baker phone sex novella allegedly given to Clinton by Lewinsky.)

If you feel like talking sense to your senators, this would be a good time. If you just want to know what the fuss is about, we have plenty of copies of The Cunt Coloring Book on hand. It’s also a nice balance if you’ve been reading Ken Starr’s overpriced report — all that focus on the presidential penis! But you’ll have to get your own crayons.