As far as we’re concerned, the most annoying element of the past few days of Hillary-mania: The ignorant, shaming “I’d Bottom For Hillary” campaign.
“With bottoming, there’s a lot that goes into it,” the campaign’s pseudonymous creator Ryan said in a phone interview late Sunday with Fusion. “A lot of homosexuals understand the concept. Bottoming for someone takes a lot of trust and understanding.”
But Zach Stafford has thankfully nailed what exactly is wrong with that statement and the campaign in general in this article for The Guardian:
…Ryan doesn’t understand that his campaign simply perpetuates bottom-shaming – the cultural tendency to see the receptive (bottom) sex partner as less than to the penetrative one – or that bottom-shaming stems from ingrained sexism if not outright misogyny. It’s directly connected to the ways in which we view heterosexual sex (men as conquerors and women as submitters) and thus perpetuates two dumb ideas: that there are inherently masculine and feminine acts; and that by engaging in them, you take on the supposed gender identity of the act in some way. That is why, too often in the gay community, effeminate gay men are thought to always be bottoms, and more stereotypically masculine gay men are seen as tops – which is not the case. (Trust me.)
Please read the whole article here, and consider it when contemplating sharing anything “I’d Bottom For Hillary”-related on your social media.