the ch!cktionary

Asian American Female Sexuality Panel We went through a whole...

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:20:00 -0500

Asian American Female Sexuality Panel

We went through a whole slew of topics at tonight’s panel on Asian American women and sexuality. Some of the interesting points of discussion:

The origin of sexual stereotypes: I attributed the image of the meek, submissive Asian woman to the history of Western colonization and occupation in the East, where forced and “voluntary” sex trade was rampant. Since the majority of encounters were transactional, women occupied subservient roles. Prostitution aside, interactions between Asian women and male foreigners nonetheless tended to be inherently unequal due to the economic privilege of the latter group.
Campus social scene: The presence of MIT frats in Boston allows for a much more diverse social atmosphere. When I went out to Halloween parties with Christine, we danced alongside students from Emerson, Northeastern, and BU. Harvard is completely insular (a bad thing, in my opinion), and Harvard girls are wary of outsiders, especially if they’re Wellesley students, who are viewed as potential competition. I also pointed out that at Harvard, like at many colleges, people speak of a pervasive hook-up culture, even though the numbers don’t add up. (A 2003 survey by University Health Services found that half of Harvard students had never had vaginal sex.)
Yellow fever and Asian fetishes: The panelists were in agreement that the large Asian populations in schools like Harvard and MIT meant that non-Asian guys would be more likely to come into contact with and date Asian women. We talked about the difference between a fetish and an aesthetic preference and discussed whether Asian women have reverse fetishes on White men. I imagine I’ll be discussing this topic more in-depth on Friday (see below).
Family, parents, and sexual instruction: Christine aside, the rest of the panel and audience commenters indicated that their parents had told them very little about sex beyond saying that they should not have it under any circumstances until marriage. I told everyone that my mother was slow to come around, but once I moved away from home, she had to deal with the inevitable (and I wasn’t about to maintain an illusion for her sanity). Recently, I mentioned to her that the Pill was killing my sex drive and she expressed concern that Patrick would become dissatisfied. So, things change.

There was a great turnout and audience participation (always better than just letting speaker ramble). Since I already knew the other panelists, alum Vivien Wu and MIT’s Christine Yu, I felt a bit less of a super senior out of touch with the rest of Harvard. It also helped that my friends came — all, uh, five of them. At least they’re loyal.

This event was part of Asian American Awareness Week, which culminates with a charity dance on Saturday. There will be events throughout the week, and I’ll also be a panelist for Friday’s Interracial Dating Discussion happening at 4:30pm in Lowell House’s Junior Common Room. I’ve written about my thoughts on intra- and interracial dating in the past, but it’ll be interesting to share these ideas in the context of a conversation. Send me questions if you can’t make it!

Even when discussing semi-serious topics in public forums, I...

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:32:46 -0500

Even when discussing semi-serious topics in public forums, I make faces, like the above, which suggest a craving for key lime pie.

An uncommonly warm Sunday in Boston.

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:08:22 -0500

An uncommonly warm Sunday in Boston.

Asian American Female SexualityA dinner discussion with Lena...

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 11:27:02 -0500

Asian American Female Sexuality
A dinner discussion with Lena Chen ‘10, Christine Yu ‘11, & Vivien Wu ‘08

Monday, November 9th, 5-7pm
Ticknor Lounge
Dinner will be provided

A part of Asian American Awareness Week

If you’ve been curious about my Sex Ed co-writer, here’s your chance to meet MIT’s Christine Yu. We’ll be talking sex, Asian American identity, and feminism tomorrow night at Ticknor Lounge. Email me any questions or topics you’d like us to address!

Hamlet in the mornings

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:44:37 -0500

Hamlet in the mornings

Selective Memory

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:24:51 -0500

Me: I don't know what you guys are talking about. I used to make great dating decisions!
Nan: You may not remember life before Patrick, but your friends do.
Gracye: This is what they call revisionist history.

How I Dumped The Pill & Met The IUD

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:12:00 -0500

How I Dumped The Pill & Met The IUD:

I’m en route to my IUD followup appointment and my piece about why I switched birth control options just went up on SexReally.com. Check it out:

Two weeks ago, I ended my longest and most tumultuous relationship to date. Four years and hundreds of dollars after my first prescription, I decided that I had swallowed my final birth control pill. I tossed out my last packet, lay back in stir-ups, and got an IUD… [continued]

Is marriage a right?

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:26:00 -0500

heresthething:

Frankly, I find this argument offensive. Homosexuals and others in same sex couples aren’t fighting TO get married. We fight for the RIGHT to get married. If you don’t want to get married, nobody’s forcing you! But just imagine someone was telling you that you COULD NOT get married if you chose to. So, I’m sorry, but I absolutely cannot feel bad for you based on the idea that when everyone can get married (and someday we will acheive equality), you’ll be somehow forced to “join.”

How exactly is this argument “offensive”? I’m an ardent and out supporter of LGBT rights, have attended the requisite rallies, written angry letters, you name it. (I don’t typically feel the need to brandish my queer street cred, but given that I don’t belong to the group, I do think I should justify my ability to comment on this issue.)

Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that marriage is a “right” in the traditional sense. It’s not. It’s a privilege, meaning that those who choose not to get married will not get the privileges associated with marriage. Rights, on the other hand, don’t require sign-ups. So no, nobody is forcing anyone to join the club, but if joining the club is the only way to access the same set of legal benefits, then yes, you effectively have no choice but to opt in.

(Perhaps a more helpful way to look at the debate would be to examine “the right to get married” and “the rights associated with marriage” as separate issues. The latter should be granted to all people, not just “married” couples.)

Maine: Yes On Pot, No On Gay Marriage?

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:36:00 -0500

As I’ve become increasingly disenchanted with marriage, I have become more inclined to believe that the entire marriage equality movement is a misguided effort. Sure, same-sex couples and feminist weddings might be mildly transgressive affairs, but they are ultimately reaffirmations of an institution too steeped in patriarchal values to ever change. I grant that civil unions — as they exist in the U.S. today — are an inadequate, “separate but equal” solution. Legalizing same-sex marriage is not merely a legal victory but a symbolic one. But given that the State has no place in granting marriages, is it simply too radical to propose that the government do away with any and all mentions of marriage and only grant civil unions to straight and gay couples alike? Will anti-marriage equality folks be willing to accept such a compromise?

If marriage equality is ever fully realized in America, it will effectively spell the end of the fight for civil unions and domestic partnerships. The latter will not seem relevant to anyone but a very small minority (including me), because marriage is apparently the type of thing everyone naturally just wants to sign up for. So where does that leave those who don’t want to get married or want to have husbands and wives? Marriage has always been an exclusive institution in that not everyone can join. But when everyone can join, what happens to those who don’t want to?

(On the bright side, Maine is taking a cue from my home state on the weed issue.)

Banana Coconut Milk Soup (The Elephant Walk Version) Every since...

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:09:00 -0500

Banana Coconut Milk Soup (The Elephant Walk Version)

Every since I visited The Elephant Walk a couple weeks ago, I’ve been smitten with their rendition of the Vietnamese dessert soup Che Chuoi. (They call it Chaek K’tih since they’re also technically a French/Cambodian place.) I knew that the recipe would be simple but I didn’t expect to find the exact one used by the restaurant. Turns out that The Elephant Walk has a cookbook accessible on Google Books. I tweaked their recipe because I lacked some ingredients (most importantly, tapioca balls) but here is the original version:

Ingredients:

2 cups unsweetened coconut milk, plus more for serving
l/2 cup water
2 tablespoons small Asian tapioca pearls, rinsed
12 small Asian bananas or 3-4 regular bananas
1/2 cup sugar
1/2 teaspoon salt
2 tablespoons dried split mung beans or sesame seeds

Directions:

Put the 2 cups coconut milk and the water in a large saucepan and bring to a boil. Stir in the tapioca and bring back to a boil, then reduce the heat to low and simmer, stirring, until the tapioca becomes translucent and soft, 10 to 15 minutes for tiny pearls, longer for larger tapioca pearls.

Meanwhile, slice the bananas lengthwise in half, then cut crosswise in half; if using regular bananas, cut each half into thirds or quarters. Gently stirring, add the bananas, sugar, and salt tot he tapioca and cook for 10 minutes more. Remove from the heat.

While the bananas are cooking, put the dried mung beans or sesame seeds in a small heavy skillet and dry-roast over medium-high heat, shaking constantly, until light brown and crisp, about 2 minutes. Remove from the heat. If using sesame seeds, pound briefly with a mortar and pestle or pulse in a mini-chop two or three times to release their flavor.

Ladle the warm bananas and tapioca into shallow bowls, sprinkle with the toasted mung beans or sesame seeds and serve with extra coconut milk on the side. Serves four.

Lindsey Stull: Me, Myself, and my IUD

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:23:05 -0500

Lindsey Stull: Me, Myself, and my IUD:

Lena Chen, Harvard senior and author of the popular blog “Sex and the Ivy,” knows she will be baby-free til 2014. Is she psychic? Celibate? Nope. She has a brand new baby-fighting friend in her uterus…

Penn senior Lindsey Stull discusses the benefits of the IUD in an informative and witty piece for The Daily Pennsylvanian.

Anatomy of a Halloween Costume: Victoria’s Secret...

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:55:00 -0500

Anatomy of a Halloween Costume:

Victoria’s Secret babydoll (gift from Nan)
Leather collar and cuffs (my own)
Pigtails

In case it wasn’t clear, I decided to be a BDSM submissive for Halloween. This was very last-minute and thrown together two hours before we went out. I don’t think a single person, besides my friends, had any idea what I was supposed to be. Oh, well. At least the costume was free and comfy.

(And not much of a costume given that I have no qualms about wearing this around the house just for kicks.)

Jason, Kennedy (above), and Christine came over to my place to...

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:45:00 -0500

Jason, Kennedy (above), and Christine came over to my place to pre-game Halloween festivities. After dinner, drinks, and copious amounts of cuddling with Hamlet, we headed out to a series of MIT frat parties with … mixed results.

This picture sums up what the entire night was like: Jason was...

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:36:00 -0500

This picture sums up what the entire night was like: Jason was sweaty, Christine was jaded, and Kennedy was drunk. In other words, not a complete success.

I also didn’t realize that some of the parties would be guest-listed. I guess I just assumed that fraternities were unlike final clubs in that respect. However, the frats at MIT are definitely more diverse and egalitarian than Harvard final clubs. No contest there.

I don’t think anyone in my group was feeling the music either, predominantly heavy rap. We were in the mood for music from the likes of Lady Gaga, Britney, and other shiny white women adored by the gays. Great company, but totally WRONG scene. I can’t do massive college parties anymore.

Salvaging Dinner (With The Help of Leftovers)

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:36:00 -0500

Another adventure in saving time and money in the kitchen …

Yesterday, I was slightly concerned about what I was going to do with a fridge full of leftover/spoiling food and an out-of-town boyfriend. I loathe throwing things away (I am the type of person who carefully opens to presents to preserve the wrapping paper for art projects), but there was just way too much for me to go through on my own. Luckily, I had planned a small Halloween gathering, the perfect occasion at which to feed my besties, Kennedy and Jason.

On Thursday, Patrick had picked up potatoes, onions, carrots, and lettuce at Copley Square, because it was the last day the farmer’s market would be open until next season. I chopped up everything except the lettuce, put half in a pot roast that night, and refrigerated the rest in a container with water to keep it fresh. The pot roast lasted us two nights (yay for efficiency) and a cup’s worth was all that remained yesterday. It was substantial enough to not be worth throwing away, but what could I do with it?

First, I still had the lettuce so I turned it into a quick salad with apple slices, a sprinkling of goat cheese, and a balsamic vinaigrette. Appetizer: DONE.

We also had some acorn squash, which would’ve been perfect for soup had my blender not broken earlier this week. I decided to turn it into a side dish by cutting it in half, scooping out the guts, scoring the inside, seasoning with salt and maple syrup, and roasting at 350 degrees for a little over an hour. (I roasted the seeds too but forgot about them and didn’t want to consume the blackened results.) Side dish: DONE.

Finally, I decided to incorporate the leftover pot roast into a Japanese curry. I tossed in the veggies from the fridge, half a can of corn left over from the last time I made curry, and several cubes of instant Japanese curry mix (available at most Asian supermarkets). I also made some rice to go with it. Main dish: DONE.

For dessert, I made a sweet coconut milk soup with cubes of honeydew melon (something else I wanted to get rid of). Recipe to come!

Results: Apple & Goat Cheese Salad (starter), Japanese Curry With Vegetables Over Rice (main), Roasted Acorn Squash (side), Coconut Soup With Honeydew Melon (dessert).

Prep time (time on my feet): 45 minutes
Total cooking time (time from start to finish): 1.5 hours

Fridge Cleaning

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:23:00 -0400

Currently, I have to get rid of the following before it goes bad:

Leftover pot roast from last night’s dinner
Two heads of lettuce from the Copley Square farmer’s market
Half a can of corn
Two acorn squashes (um … still not really sure why Patrick bought these)
A honeydew melon (or this …)

The household dynamics are a little weird at our place. Patrick goes grocery shopping more than I do, but I’m the only one who cooks. Sometimes, this leads to the accumulation of weird things I never intend on cooking … like the aforementioned squash.

I planned a small Halloween gathering/pre-game, so I DO have people coming over to help consume all these things. Time to whip something (or several things) up!

Amsterdam (Taken on my 22nd birthday by Patrick with his Leica)

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:41:00 -0400

Amsterdam

(Taken on my 22nd birthday by Patrick with his Leica)

Hamlet as a pig in a blanket. Should he be a little piggie for...

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:17:00 -0400

Hamlet as a pig in a blanket. Should he be a little piggie for Halloween?

Uhhh ... Halloween?!

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:12:00 -0400

So in the midst of midterms, I somehow forgot that this Saturday is the biggest party night of the year. Or so it’s being made out to be. Has Halloween always been such a big deal or is it only a big deal now because most of my friends (unlike me) have graduated and have grown-up plans for the holiday?

Hm. In any case, I currently have no costume, no dogsitter, no pre-game plan, no post-game plan, and no, uh, game plan. I should probably get on this. I do have an inbox full of Boston-area Halloween events, so there’s some hope, but I kind of feel like I should try to party this one last time on a college campus, since I will soon no longer have the excuse to do so. I will, however, shoot myself if I have to do Heaven & Hell at Harvard again. It just isn’t going to happen.

So … MIT? Grad school parties? Someone, help! The German will also be out of town so I can’t even coerce the one coerce-able person in my life into matching costumes.

What’s something last-minute and scary that I can be for Halloween? A feminist?

True Love Revolution's Contradictory Claim To "True Feminism"

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:47:00 -0400

True Love Revolution’s co-president, Rachel Wagley, responded to my op-ed in The Harvard Crimson with an entry on the club’s blog today. To expand on some of my original arguments, I address her points in the following post. (I recommend reading the original op-ed and her response for context.)

In her response to my op-ed, Wagley claims that I misconstrue TLR’s beliefs about feminism and implies I didn’t do adequate research on the club’s views before writing about them. Though I apparently didn’t make much of an impression on her, I did, in fact, attend the RUS meeting where she was present and asked her several times about her views on gender construction and performance. I was not present at any TLR dinner discussions this semester, but I have attended past functions and debated a former TLR president at an event sponsored by the club. I felt that these experiences offered a sufficient understanding of the club’s stance on feminism.

Though Wagley claims I went on Google to “dig up dirt” on her, I’m not particularly interested in making ad hominem arguments, given that I actually have far more substantial grievances to address with TLR. Rather, someone forwarded me the Q&A in which Wagley names TLR, among other clubs, as a “social policy initiative”. I found it pertinent to mention this in my op-ed since the organization has repeatedly described itself as merely a group for like-minded students and has consistently denied allegations that they have any intention of legally restricting how others live. Perhaps the Q&A was a mischaracterization, but “social policy initiative” are Wagley’s words, not mine, and they certainly carry some modicum of political intent. Further, my op-ed mentioned that the club reposted a request on their blog from the organization Massachusetts Citizens For Life , which asks for written testimony against sex ed courses that teach “behaviors for pregnancy prevention” and “acceptance of consensual premarital sex”. Wagley claims that they were merely “informing interested group members about an abstinence education event”, which glosses over the political significance of the event. This was the blurb on the TLR blog:

IMPORTANT PUBLIC HEARING!
COMMITTEE: Joint Education Committee
HEARING LOCATION: Hearing Room A1
DATE: Tuesday, October 13, 2009
TIME: 1:00 p.m.
On October 13, 2009, the Joint Committee on Education will hold a public hearing on legislation that will affect MA children. Please know when bills contain the term “health education” fully translated it means “sex education.” Most of the bills requiring health education attempt to make Health a core curriculum subject, thereby making implementation of the Frameworks mandatory in all school districts. Under the Frameworks, students would be taught (numbers indicate learning standards or interdisciplinary objectives):
•    how to get an abortion without parental knowledge (4.20 and 4.a, parental notification / judicial bypass);
•    how to get contraceptives (4.7, whom to consult and 4.9, students report on state policy);
•    behaviors for pregnancy prevention (4.8);
•    acceptance of consensual premarital sex (4.b); and,
•    acceptance of homosexual behavior (4.3, 4.4, 4.14 and 4.b).
[…]

Please bring a written copy of your testimony to leave with the committee.
If you cannot attend, please send your testimony to the Joint Committee on Education, Room 473G (House), Room 511B (Senate) State House, Boston, MA, 02133.
For further information contact Massachusetts Citizens for Life 617-242-4199 or visit  http://masscitizensforlife.org/frameworks.html#agenda
Marie Sturgis, Executive Director and Lobbyist, Mass Citizens for Life

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that disseminating this information demonstrates TLR must have, at least to some extent, a political agenda and an opinion on public policy. In other words, they are not merely a support group and social network. Even if they are, Wagley makes a huge stretch when she claims that Harvard’s student body “agrees” with TLR’s views. She cites is a student publication’s sex survey as proof of this claim, since the majority of respondents said they were not sexually active. Sampling methods and scientific validity aside, just because our peers are not having sex does not mean that they intend to wait for marriage or that they, like TLR, attribute “harmful consequences” to premarital sexual activity.

The central argument in my op-ed is that TLR is misguided in targeting feminism as the scapegoat for “sexual mania”. Wagley responds by giving a “non-biased historical” perspective of feminism. She claims that the movement “had nothing to do with erasing gender roles” and was merely interested in “greater quality of life” and legal equality for women. In that case, she should probably inform Simone de Beauvoir, Wikipedia, and the entire second half of the 20th century that they need to revise their understanding of feminism. The fight for political and economic rights cannot be divorced from resistance against gender norms, a major reason for inequality in the first place. Though there were indeed early feminists who would probably support TLR’s notion of the traditional family, feminism as a movement and a body of scholarship is significantly defined by the progress made in the 1960s and 70s.

Wagley further states, “Society might expect (though hardly endorse) this vulgar behavior from men, but once women adopt vulgarity in attempts to achieve equality, we must question if equality means erasing natural differences.” First, what are our “natural” differences? There isn’t even scientific consensus on whether men are cognitively better suited for math. Unless she can point to empirical proof, Wagley should refrain from making broad generalizations about whether “vulgarity” is more natural to one sex. Second, feminism has not and does not force women “surrender special characteristics” (whatever those are) or “become exactly like men”. Feminism fights to give women the option to live without gender-related rules governing their conduct, but women are free to be mothers, professionals, wives, lesbians, virgins, or whatever else they like. Wagley argues that feminism is “demeaning” because it “lower sexual standards”. If lowering sexual standards means that society no longer ostracizes women for having sex, then I’d consider that progress. I find it far more insulting when TLR informs me that my decisions are not “the best choice”.

Finally, Wagley never addresses my point that she has misread Ariel Levy’s Female Chauvinist Pigs. She cites the book as an indictment against “the societal dangers of second-wave feminism”, but fails to realize that Levy doesn’t level criticism at feminism itself. Instead, Levy is critical of acts that are falsely empowering and dismayed that feminism’s message has been hijacked for profit. Wagley claims to recognize that a profit agenda drives the porn industry, but this is the first time I’ve heard her blame something other than feminism for the existence of raunch culture. Feminists, radical or otherwise, do not argue that making “any choice” should be considered empowerment, nor do they presume to know what every woman should or shouldn’t do. Any organization informing women that there is only one “best choice” to make in regard to sexuality (or anything else for that matter) is not only anti-feminist but oppressive.