Simon Copland

Over the weekend I went to Sydney with my partners James and Martyn for The Sydney Festival of Really Good Sex. I went to this festival for the first time last year, writing a review for the Guardian. This year I went as a presenter — hosting the workshop (with James and Martyn) ‘how the manage a non-traditional relationship’.

This was the first time I’ve ever done this workshop and I wanted to do some short reflections. The workshop ran in the following way: 

1. We gave some brief introductions, outlining the aims and telling our story of living in a non-traditional relationship.
2. We discussed as a big group what a non-traditional relationship is, working to expand it beyond narrow definitions which are often largely focused on polyamory or open relationships.
3. We split people into small ‘home groups’. Within these groups people introduced themselves and answered questions about what excited them about non-traditional relationships, and what made them nervous.
4. We then split people up again into bigger ‘discussion groups’. People could decide whichever group they wanted to go to, answering one question per group about non-traditional relationships. Topics included jealousy and anxiety, managing logistics and time, writing relationship agreements, coming out to family and friends and having and looking after children.
5. Finally, we brought people back into their ‘home groups’ in order to share their learnings. Ideally each home group would have had one person in each discussion group, meaning people would be able to hear and reflect on the main points from each group.

Doing this for the first time ever I was quite nervous but we had some pretty amazing feedback. We ran the session two times (one on Saturday and one on Sunday) and had a number of people return for a second time. In particular I think the following things worked pretty well.

First, we worked actively to make an open space that allowed for a broad definition of a ‘non-traditional relationship’, in turn giving everyone space to feel comfortable within the group. I think this is important given the depth of relationship models in our society, ones you often can’t put labels on. These relationships need to be recognised as well and we didn’t want to limit experiences to just polyamory or open relationships. 

Secondly, the ‘home group’ model gave people a safer space to discuss their questions/concerns, rather than putting them in front of a large group (our first session had 45 people in it!). Over the session people could get to know those in their home group, giving them a safer space to discuss the questions presented.

Finally, we made the section for our ‘discussion groups’ quite long (1/2 hour), which I think was great. What this meant was that instead of everyone getting a small bit of information (if we had tried to get them to answer all the questions) people got an in depth view of one issue. They could then take this in depth view to their friends and colleagues, sharing with their home group and with others after the workshop.

Overall this session was designed to be one that focused on the idea of group knowledge. We didn’t want to present ourselves as the ‘experts’ — ones who would stand up and deliver all the answers. We simply don’t have those answers! So instead we were able to use the knowledge and power of the room to get the solutions and answers out. This was really great for us too — we sat in on the discussion sections, I think each of us learning a great deal as we did.

It was a great session and I really really enjoyed running it.

I am now also making it available to anyone who wants a session themselves. If you’re interested in the session please email me at simon_copland@hotmail.com I am in the process of working out fees and charges and will soon have details available on the site. But in the meantime get in touch and we can talk.

We’re back! And this time for real.

After some false starts last year last week Benjamin Riley and myself got going (again) on our new podcast — queers. Following the awful news of his death earlier in the year, we had to start the year by talking about all things David Bowie.

You can check out episode three in the link below or follow the feed on Podomatic. The new episode is available here.

Enjoy!

Coinciding with the release of his new album Blackstar I wrote a reflection on the impact of David Bowie’s sexual politics for SBS News. You can check out the interactive reflection here.

The “born this way” gay gene argument is not just unhelpful to the cause of gay rights, but it is actually extremely negative.

Originally published in SBS Sexuality, 17 December, 2015

Research published in the journal Psychological Medicine has apparently provided the “strongest evidence yet” that people are born gay. In researcher Alan Sanders’ study, in which he and his team conducted a genetic analysis of 409 pairs of gay brothers, he argued that his data “clearly links sexual orientation in men with two regions of the human genome that have been implicated before, one on the X chromosome and one on chromosome 8”.

Sanders’ paper is likely to strengthen the public case that homosexuality is not a choice and that we are all “born this way”. Look past the headlines though and the study should once again open up questions about our obsession with finding a gay gene.

Despite Sanders’ research, a firm biological and specifically genetic basis for sexuality has still yet to be found. Virtually all of the research conducted on the issue over the past twenty years has had significant problems, primarily that we are searching for a biological cause for what is essentially a social construct. In reality we still have little idea as to the impact of nature, nurture nor choice on our sexual desires.

Does proving that homosexuality is “natural” actually do us any good? Many will say that finding a biological cause for sexual desires helps in our ongoing quest for gay rights. If we are born this way then it is much harder for people to discriminate against us.

Look at the history of social oppression however and this falls a little flat. The fact that race is genetic, for example, has not stopped people for being racist. The fact that sexual differences are physical traits has not stopped people from being sexist. People who discriminate against gays and lesbian because they believe we choose to be gay are simply using it as an excuse for their already prejudiced beliefs. If the choice argument was taken off the table then they would probably express their homophobia in some other way.

The born this way argument is not just unhelpful to the cause of gay rights, but it is actually extremely negative.  The debate about the gay gene reinforces a system of compulsory heterosexuality.

Our sexuality is not just about physical desires. Key modern sexual identifiers (heterosexuality, homosexuality etc.) are relatively new constructions — ones developed largely for political reasons. These terms have been used to define what is “normal” and what is “abnormal” and in turn to maintain heterosexuality, and in particular procreative sex, as a social norm. Through recent history the enforcement of these norms occurred most specifically through state bans on homosexuality, which were and remain implemented primarily through medical intervention.

Despite progress this system of compulsory heterosexuality remains in force today. Instead of overt physical intervention this occurs primarily through economic and social means, but still often pushed by the state. The best recent example of this was the banning of the movie Gayby Baby in New South Wales Schools by the Liberal Education Minister Adrian Piccoli. This ban was implemented in the context of a broader debate about the normality of heterosexuality. Conservative columnist Piers Ackerman wrote for example:

“Children in same-sex couple families are one in a thousand of all children in couple families (0.1 per cent). Statistically, you are not in a “normal” family, no matter how many  LGBTIQ-friendly docos you may be forced to watch by politically-driven school principals.

 The drive to create the fantasy that homosexual families are the norm has come from the   politically left-leaning Teachers Federation which is also pushing the Safe Schools   Coalition, another political front group, which claims that anyone not involved in promoting  safety for the “same-sex attracted, intersex and gender diverse young people, staff, families and communities” are bigots.”

The search for a gay gene inadvertently reinforces this debate. It maintains the idea that homosexuality is abnormal, or at least a variation of the norm. The very fact we’re searching for a ‘gay gene’ and not a ‘straight gene’ is an indication of this, as does the fact that all the research in the area describes the gay gene as some form of ‘variation’ from normal genetic structures. This variation is often blamed on gay childrens’ mothers, something which has been used to reinforce gay stereotypes.

The gay gene debate sets up two very clear definitions of sexual identity (heterosexual and homosexual), and does not allow anyone to veer from these definitions.

But more worryingly, the gay gene debate sets up two very clear definitions of sexual identity (heterosexual and homosexual), and does not allow anyone to veer from these definitions. We see this regularly even within gay circles, whether it is attacks on Cynthia Nixon for saying that she chose to be a lesbian, to the common assumption that bisexuals just ‘haven’t made up their mind yet’.

This is likely to get worse in the future. Recent data from the United Kingdom for example found that 49 per cent of 18-24-year-olds no longer identify themselves as exclusively heterosexual. These numbers differed greatly from older generations, with the pollsters at YouGov noting that “with each generation, people see their sexuality as less fixed in stone.”

This is something that should be cause for celebration in gay and lesbian communities. It represents an explosion of sexual expression that could inevitably lead to the greater embrace of non-heterosexual activity.

The search for a gay gene may seem like an easy and convenient way to assure gay rights are ensured for a generation. But in taking the easy way out, we’re reinforcing the idea that homosexuality is abnormal and condemning those who break from our standard sexual identifiers to discrimination.

This article was originally published on SBS News. Click here to view the original. © All rights reserved.

Complaints about ‘Christmas consumerism’ are just attacks on the working class. Why don’t we demand the rich stop buying yachts instead?

Originally published in The Guardian, 16 December 2015

It’s a tradition now as strong as the trees, snowmen, carols, and dare I say it, the presents. Each year, bolstered by a growing anti-consumerist movement, people are using the holiday season to call on us all to shop less.

“Try buying almost nothing for Christmas and you might experience the most joyous holiday season you’ve ever had,” the anti-commercial magazine Adbusters says. “Bake them a cake, write them a poem, give them a kiss, tell them a joke, but for God’s sake stop trashing the planet to tell someone you care. All it shows is that you don’t,” argues George Monbiot.

Don’t shop this Christmas, for the sake of the planet.

Driven by concerns about resource depletion, over recent years environmentalists have increasingly turned their sights on our “consumer culture”. Groups such as The Story of Stuff and Buy Nothing New Day are flourishing as a movement that increasingly blames all our ills on our desire to shop.

But will a “buy nothing Christmas” actually help the environment?

We clearly have a growing resource problem. The products we make, buy, and use are often linked to the destruction of our waterways, biodiversity, climate and the land on which millions of people live. But to blame these issues on Christmas shoppers is misguided, and lands us in the old trap of blaming individuals for what is a systematic problem.

How can we attack people for buying a new car for example, when lack of investment in public transport makes it almost impossible to get around by any other means? How can we blame individual shoppers for the impact of Coltan mining in Africa when it’s now virtually impossible to buy a phone or computer without the important metal? This is particularly true given evidence that phone companies design their products to slow down or die after a couple of years, forcing people to buy new models. In a world increasingly based on mobile technology, are we now expecting people to go without a phone? Who gets to keep their phones, and who doesn’t?

The same can be said for so much of our consumption patterns. We can’t blame individuals for buying clothes made with sweatshop labour when stagnating wages make them the most, if not only, affordable option. We can’t blame people for buying more kitchen appliances when increasing work hours make every minute at home increasingly valuable.

Environmental problems go much deeper than how much we buy, and when. Talking endlessly about a “consumer culture” does nothing to solve this, blaming individuals for problems that actually lie at the level of government, big business and the wealthy.

In ignoring these issues, campaigns for a “buy nothing Christmas” amount to nothing more than an attack on the working class.

While we rant about environmental destruction over Christmas, environmentalists often forget what the holiday season actually means for many people. For most, Christmas isn’t an add-on to an already heavy shopping year. In fact, it is likely the only time of year many have the opportunity to spend on friends and family, or even just to buy the necessities needed for modern life.

This is particularly true for Boxing Day, often the target of the strongest derision by anti-consumerists. While we may scorn on the queues in front of the shops, for many, those sales provide the one chance to buy items they’ve needed all year. As Leigh Phillips argues, “this is one of the few times of the year that people can even hope to afford such ‘luxuries’, the Christmas presents their kids are asking for, or just an appliance that works.”

Who can blame people for wanting to take advantage of these deals when it means the difference between having a much needed item, and not?

The richest 7% of people are responsible for 50% of greenhouse gas emissions.
This becomes particularly pernicious when you take into account that those shopping on Boxing Day are only a fraction of our consumption “problem” anyway. Why are environmentalists attacking these individuals, while ignoring the likes of Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich, who has his own £1.5bn yacht, which is equipped with a missile defence system?

Or what about Jamie Packer, who recently sold his Vaucluse mansion for a whopping $70m? This year stories appeared about Packer’s new life in Israel, including information about his “relatively small” mansion in the town of Caesarea that he has revamped with a new swimming pool and entertainment area.

Even our favourite anti-poverty billionaires engage in this sort of conspicuous consumption. In 2014, for example, it was reported that Bill Gates had taken his family on a holiday aboard the “Serene”, a US$330m yacht that he was renting for $5m a week. Gates recently finished building his new mansion in the United States. Worth US $123m, Gates’ new home includes an underwater sound system in the pool and an $80,000 feature that allows you to change the artwork on the walls with a touch of a button. It was reportedly built with 500-year-old Douglas fir trees.

When it comes to needless consumption, the rich far outweigh the working class. Data out of the United States shows that the bottom 10% of Americans spend 60% of their money on the basics of housing and food. The wealthiest 10%, however, only spend 40% of their money on these items. This leaves a lot of money available for consumption on private jets, expensive holidays and missile defence systems.

This has an impact. Research from 2009 showed that the richest 7% of people are responsible for 50% of carbon dioxide emissions. The gifts bought by the working class over Christmas have little impact compared to the fuel needed for a private jet trip around the world for the rich, yet somehow they miss out on the criticism.

This is the problem for the anti-consumerist movement. While our overly productionist society may be at the root of many of our environmental problems, we are targeting the wrong people. Instead of campaigning against the companies cutting corners, governments that aren’t funding other options, or the wealthy who are buying multi-million dollar yachts while many others can’t afford the basics of life, we’re attacking working class people who simply want to enjoy the holiday season.

In doing so, anti-consumerism has become a movement of wealthy leftists talking down to the working class about their life choices, while ignoring the real cause of our environmental problems. It is no wonder no one is changing their behaviours – or that environmental destruction continues unabated.

I’m starting a new newsletter to keep you all up to date on my work, writing and activism. The newsletter will be coming out once a month with updates on everything I’m doing. You can subscribe here, or just out my first one below!

Dear friends,

Wow! What a year! 

Firstly, apologies for taking so long to get this newsletter out. Just to confirm, you are on this list as you donated to my campaign to write Sexy Capitalism. As you probably all remember one of my promises was a monthly update on my work, and so far I have been extremely slack. But here we are with newsletter #1. The end of the year seems like no better time than to get started! 

Lots of travel

Let’s start with some excuses. The Sexy Capitalism crowd funder finished in September, meaning it has been almost three months since it was done (I can’t believe it was that long ago!). So why the silence? 

Well, some of you may remember I have spent the last year living in Edinburgh, and the last few months have been crazy. I spent all October living in Berlin and studying German, followed by two more weeks in the UK before I headed on holiday to the United States. I am now back home though, settling back into Canberra and getting back into a good working schedule. 

But what about the book? 

Don’t worry! This doesn’t mean I’ve been spending all your money on traveling while not doing anywork. Since the fundraiser I have made significant progress on Sexy Capitalism and am feeling confident about the next steps. 

Here is where I’m at so far: 

1. Doing some base research.  

This book is going to require a lot of research and I am diving head first into a lot of reading. So far I’ve done the fun things like setting up a research tracking system and developing lists of things I need to read and people I want to contact. Now I’m starting with the research proper. 

As I write I am also reading Michèle Barrett’s Women’s Oppression Today, a classic marxist-feminist text, which is in particular important for establishing the idea of the “family-household system”, a structure: 

 in which a number of people, usually biologically related, depend on the wages of a few adult members, primarily those of the husband/father, and in which all depend primarily on the unpaid labour of the wife/ mother for cleaning, food preparation, child care, and so forth. The ideology of the “family” is one that defines family life as “ ‘naturally’ based on close kinship, as properly organized through a male bread- winner with a financially dependent wife and children, and as a haven of privacy beyond the public realm of commerce and industry.”

Barrett is one of the key writers in describing the family not just as natural but a political structure, one shaped for the needs of our economic system. She is key in fusing modern feminism with Marxist thought. I will be writing a review of Barrett once I’ve finished, which I will include in my next newsletter. 

2.   Developing a structure and working on the first two chapters

My key project for the moment is working on proposals for potential publishers. This requires a book structure and outline, as well as a completed first 2 – 3 chapters. I now have a draft outline developed on a spreadsheet and am working on chapter summaries. This outline works largely through a historical prism, tracking the nature of families, sex and sexual oppression through the period from the rise of industrial capitalism to the modern day. I will be overlaying this historical analysis with an materialist and ideological framework, infusing the key thinkers in these areas.  

On top of this I am working on the first two chapters of the book. Chapter one will be a summary of sexual relations as they exist today. Here I describe what I call the “sexual paradox”; a description of our social system in which both family values and sexual freedom are co-existing in a fundamentally awkward, yet necessary (for capitalism) alliance. This paradox, or contradiction, I believe is inherent in capitalism and at the same time one of the major weaknesses of the system. 

Chapter two will start our history lesson. It will start by looking at sexual relations in the periods prior to capitalism, starting briefly with early sexual activity (and the theories of Friedrich Engels) and then to look and sexual life prior to the rise of industrial capitalism (around the 1700 and 1800s). This will give us our base from where to launch into our analysis. 

Both of these chapters are on their way and I will look to have them finished some time in the early new year!

Other work

On top of all of this I am still working on other projects, and in particular my first novel,Forgiveness. I am in the middle of my second draft of Forgiveness and am planning to have this done by April next year. Keep your eye out as I send more information on this in the future! 

Also, If you’ve missed them so far, you can check out some of my latest published pieces: 

• 3 Dec 2015, Green Agenda: Queer Liberation: An Interview with Dennis Altman
• 27 Nov 2015, SBS: On the verge of the post-antibiotic world? 
• 30 Oct 2015, SBS: If love is love, then why exclude the polyamorous? 

Get in touch!

Got any questions or thoughts, then get in touch. You can email me at simon_copland@hotmail.com and make sure you also check me out on Facebook andTwitter! 

Have a great holidays and see you all next year. 

In the lead up to the 2016 vote I published a ‘queer guide to the US Election’ with the team at SBS Sexuality.

You can check out the interactive guide here.