rabble blogs are the personal pages of some of Canada's most insightful progressive activists and commentators. All opinions belong to the writer; however, writers are expected to adhere to our guidelines. We welcome new bloggers -- contact us for details.

Talking about sex on Twitter and why it's bad for you

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support rabble.ca for as little as $5 per month!

So here we are in 2015 and progressives still haven't figured out sexual relations. Monogamous, bounded, closed? Or polyamorous and open? Or points in between (since this of all things shouldn't be reduced to a binary)? Spoiler: I think whatever works is good. But…even with that general understanding, questions arise.

How did this come up? Why, it was my last hurrah on Twitter. A very bright PhD candidate who has made herself an expert on decolonization, and with whom I have had friendly dealings for some time, was Tweeting about things she didn't like in dudebros. ("Dudebros" is shorthand for unreconstructed young sexist males. I can't recall if she actually used the term or not.) "Mansplaining" was there, of course. Also "cheating."

That last brought me up short. I asked her what she meant. Yup, the traditional term for a monogamous partner stepping out. So I allowed as how I thought this was a little old-fashioned, but OK, then.

And, as so often happens in that wretched medium, dung pellets immediately hit the mini-fans. I was instantly blocked. Then the pile-on began. Screamers rushed in, some thinking I was talking about the student's own partnership (God forbid). I discovered that I am judgemental, faux-superior, patronizing and smug, something I really should have been told a long time ago. No wonder I don't have any friends.

For once I lost my presence of mind, and responded badly. And I'm sorry I did. I have enormous respect for this student. She can tell you every micro-nuance of how colonization works, whether of land or of the mind. To use the lingo, I thought Twitter was a safe space to discuss the social mores that she had indirectly brought up.

Nuh-uh. That's not how taboos work. They're discursive black holes.

So here's what I meant to say, and the floor is open for comment.

When it comes to human relations, I don't privilege one kind of consensual arrangement over another. I will, however, admit to some strong prejudices when it comes to the language used to talk about them. For example, the word "relationship," hard as it is to avoid, gets my back up. I find it cold, impersonal, alienating and reifying. I received a card once that sums up my feelings on this score: a woman is addressing a man, saying: "That sounds great, but would it be good for the relationship?" At the next fold we see a monster in the living room, chained to a stake.

Precisely. My soul-mate and I preferred the word "partnership." It seemed to be more person-focussed and egalitarian, at least to us.

And another word that makes me react is "cheating."

Make no mistake: I think that lying to one's partner(s) is fundamentally wrong and destructive. Transparency and honesty are essential in a lasting partnership, however that partnership is constructed. These are essential elements of trust. It's the privileging of sex in the hierarchy of no-noes that has me scratching my head a bit.

Here’s the standard definition of "cheat": "act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage." Of course, we all know the more colloquial meaning, which—to be blunt—sounds way over the top when juxtaposed with the dictionary one. The last place I would look for 1950s vocabulary like that is within progressive ranks. We're supposed to be cultural critics, for crying out loud, reflecting on everything in society that's taken for granted. The question of "gender" is under examination 24/7, and people consciously confront various oppressive assumptions and behaviours that had remained unquestioned until recently. Ditto, "race."

And yet…here be tygers.

I haven't, I admit, heard the word "unfaithful" come up so far, but it must be lurking there somewhere. The two words, if not synonymous, obviously overlap. Both imply that a grave injury is being inflicted on someone simply by performing a sexual act outside the confines of the partnership. Both suggest, then, that the very basis of fidelity to another is sexual restraint.

I know that in some partnerships there is agreement on precisely that restraint. And I don't judge this in the slightest way, because people are complex and form a variety of arrangements for mutual comfort, and that's the way it should be. But I can't begin to understand the frequent enormity of the reaction to breaking that agreement, other than to the objectionable sneaking around and lying that can go with it—also very conventional and 1950s, by the way.

Contrast and compare. What if a spouse drains the other spouse's bank account to spend on booze? Pawns his valuables? Assaults her? Lies about him to his boss? Disrespects her in public? Emotionally abuses her? We find suitably disapproving terms for all of these oppressive behaviours. But somehow, "unfaithfulness" and "cheating" aren't among them. Isn’t that…a little odd?

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable.

rabble.ca has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.