Where Da White Women At? Details Magazine Plays Up on Racial Stereotypes

by Racialicious special correspondent Latoya Peterson

Oh, hell no.

I am staring at the editor’s page of the April 2007 issue of Details magazine. Staring up at me from the page are seven black men in various stages of undress, and one white woman, in the process of being groped, her face hidden from view.

The editor starts his letter by narrating his lack of experience with orgies, leading into the description of the feature article: “Meet the Mandingos.”

The sample quote provided?

“The women get to fuck our guys while their husbands watch, and we get to fuck rich white women, really mutt ‘em out.”

This quote was made by Art Hammer, apparent leader of the Mandingo tribe.

I read the rest of the article feeling like I was falling down a rabbit hole. Racial stereotypes from history has resurrected themselves, and were apparently alive and well in swinger’s clubs across America.

You can read the article for yourself here.

Now, it is not a secret that most human beings are fascinated by sex. Vanilla sex is seen as passé, and orgies are no longer relegated to the farthest reaches of the porn universe. The Sexual Life of Catherine M rocked literary circles in 2002, and the last few Eric Jerome Dickey novels have featured sex parties, or some variation on sex with multiple partners. Hell, even Lynn on “Girlfriends” referenced multiple partner sex on prime-time TV.

What makes this particular article gag-inducing is the tired pandering of racial stereotypes to shock their audience.

Let’s start with the cover. The article tag line reads: “America’s Disturbing New Sexual Fetish.”

Uhhh…not quite new. As Carmen said, try googling the term “Interracial” and see what pops up.

The Details blog takes the stereotypes a step further, baiting readers with the following tag line:

“Do you know your wife’s secret sexual fantasy? An orgy with the mandingos: well-read, well-endowed black men.”

*gasp!* Oh dear god, not well-read, well-endowed black men!

The article’s summary statement reads “They’re gentlemen in the street, thugs in the bedroom, and your wife’s steamiest fantasy.”

Ok, so now we have a domesticated negro, ready to pound your white wife into orgasm induced oblivion. Even better.

All this, and we haven’t even got to the article yet.

Underneath yet another provocative black-on-white photo, the article begins.

Jeff didn’t always like black guys. He was prejudiced—he admits it. As one of the few white kids at his school in the southeast of Washington, D.C., he fought a lot with black kids and was occasionally beaten up. When he later ran a string of gas stations, he was robbed: A black guy held a gun to his head and pulled the trigger—but the gun didn’t go off.

“Honestly, that experience helped me a lot,” he says. “I used to be very conservative. I didn’t spend much money. Now I enjoy life. I’m much more open. Especially sexually.”

It’s a measure of how far he’s come that Jeff (not his real name), now 40, is telling me this while we’re watching a black guy have sex with his wife, Amber (not her real name), 37, at an interracial orgy. In Jeff’s house. On his bed. The man screwing Jeff’s wife is Branford (not his real name), a 30-year-old massage therapist who’s not holding back—this isn’t lovemaking, this is a proper pounding. Forget Amber—that’s just how Jeff likes it.

Nice to see that Jeff’s prejudice was cured by watching his wife receive “a proper pounding.”

Jeff continues to advertise his new prejudice free lifestyle by explaining his motivations for allowing his wife to get into this compromising position:

Jeff and Amber have been married for three years and in “the lifestyle”—as swingers like to call it—for two. At one point Amber started talking about black guys. “I wasn’t thrilled,” says Jeff. “Nope, wasn’t a fan.” But she persisted, and he decided to go along. “I like seeing Amber get off,” he says with a shrug. “It excites the hell out of me. And it’s better if they’re black. All Amber wants is sex. Black guys get that. And I know that Amber would never date a black man.”

And after all, what are black men for, if not sex? Obviously, they are still unsuitable for dating so there’s nothing to fear, right?

[Side note: Nice reference to “casual bigotry” in the next paragraph.]

The organizer, a black man named Art Hammer, doesn’t fare much better when talking about his contributions to the swinger scene.

“The fantasy goes both ways,” he explains. “The women get to fuck our guys while their husbands watch, and we get to fuck rich white women, really mutt ‘em out. It works! But people in this lifestyle are affluent—I’m talking judges, CEOs, FBI agents, important people—so before they invite a bunch of black men into their homes, they want to know they’re safe, they’re not going to get robbed, and everyone is discreet. So that’s what I provide—a gentleman in the street and a thug in the bedroom.”

Hmm…so inviting other white strangers into their homes to swing is fine - just have to watch out for those black bandits. They may be after more than one kind of booty!

Hammer continues, explaining why his thoroughbreds are the best in show:

“They have to have at least eight inches, and most have a college degree. They have to be able to role-play, and most important of all, they have to be gentlemen. It’s the difference between Notre Dame, where you’re a student-athlete, and the University of Oklahoma, where you’re an athlete-student. We don’t just take jocks.”

When the “A-team” (the mandingo men, if you will) are polled, they all explain different reasons for participating, from being able to “sling dick without any responsibility” to an affinity for the “yin and yang of two colors mixing.” They even throw in the old fucking-our-way-to-a-cuter mixed-race-tomorrow shtick:

“I believe the world is looking beyond color now more than ever. And people are getting more attractive. Sexier people are having more babies. Look around!”

I bet Kristie Alley would love this article, particularly as the writer makes the following observation:

Watching the Mandingos in action, one immediately notices two things: that most of them are packing more than eight inches, and that they’re better-looking than the women they’re pleasuring. Jared, for instance, is a chiseled and muscular six feet, probably the best-looking of the men. His first encounter is a ménage à trois with Maryam (not her real name), a pudding of cellulite, and her chiropractor husband, Rick (not his real name), who’s all back fuzz and belly. Rick adopts a lavatorial squat near Maryam’s face and thrusts his penis at her. Jared’s presence seems like an act of charity, not that he’d say so himself. “No, no, there was attraction,” he insists. “They’re very nice, polite people. It’s an inner attraction.”

An inner attraction? To people who you know for sexual purposes only? Riiiiight….

The author then poses a question about why the interracial dynamic is so popular. One of the Mandingos gives the following answer:

Jared believes that, the stereotype of black male potency notwithstanding, the fundamental dynamic in the interracial swing scene—that of black men dominating white women—is fueled by a combination of white guilt and female sympathy. But Hammer, who is an impresario of these fantasies, sees another potent element at play: the humiliation of the white husband.

As I continue persuing the article, I have to pause for a second. I come across a line saying, “What all this means for race relations in the age of Obama is difficult to say.”

Huh? Did I miss something? By running for President, Barak Obama has single-handedly reversed racism? Damn, maybe he is a magic negro!

Or not. The article closes with our friend Jeff, talking about the rude people leaving condom wrappers under his kid’s beds (yes, you read that right) using the phrase “some people.”

I sigh out loud. My boyfriend looks up from the Esquire he is flipping through and asks what I am reading. I push the magazine over to him. He glances down at the page, and opens his mouth to speak.

“Oh, hell no.”

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Internalizing Stereotypes, Part 1 - From the Outside In at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 15 Jun 2007 at 8:11 am

    […] an earlier Racialicious post, I wrote about Details magazine and their coverage of the Mandingos - a subset of swingers who […]

  2. Mandingo party on Nip/Tuck at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 29 Nov 2007 at 10:34 am

    […] a faithful reproduction of the “Mandingo party” that was the topic of a much-discussed Details magazine article in April 2007. I swear, they even recreated this exact photo, with two actors who looked exactly […]

Comments

  1. berrybrowne wrote:

    Latoya - Talk about starting off with a bang.! Great job deconstructing the almost endless number of stereotypes, code language, and just downright lack of self-respect exploited in this article and practice. As depressed as I feel right now, I look forward to more…

  2. Christopher wrote:

    Wait a minute, isn’t this the same magazine that did the “Gay Or Asian” schtick a few months ago?

    Good lord…

  3. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Thanks Berry!

    And yes Christopher, it is the same mag. Details is so weird…I hate their little “Gay or ____” section at the back of every issue, and a lot of the articles are crap mascurading as journalism.

    Yet, they also have some really good, thought provoking articles - last year they published one on the New American Class system which I think should be required reading for everyone, and in this issue they have an interesting feature on white color crime. They even have an interesting piece by Augusten Burroughs about that fallen preacher who was supposedly cured of his homosexuality. So, it’s a mixed bag with that mag…

  4. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Oops - “white color” should be “white collar” - still not awake yet.

  5. FabChoice wrote:

    How ridiculous! I’m kind of shocked right now. I just read the whole article over on the Details website and it’s just disgusting. I understand it’s supposed to be “provocative”, but it’s just stupid and poorly written. Good analysis of this hot garbage masquerading as journalism.

  6. Cynical wrote:

    good ol’ Details… never forgets to offend at least one group of people per issue.

  7. Rob wrote:

    What’s sad is that most black men will high five each other and think that this article is a good thing.

    Stick it to the man! Hump away racism!

  8. Sewere wrote:

    I was going to just say that the story was grade “F” for foul, when I spotted dear old Rob’s usual attempt of stoking the fires of racial animosity,

    What’s sad is that most black men will high five each other and think that this article is a good thing.

    Stick it to the man! Hump away racism!

    Once again your foolishness and anti-black racism knows no bounds, because you know most black men are incapable of seeing themselves as nothing but sexual things for racist consumption and derision.

  9. Nina wrote:

    So besides the obvious offensiveness, bigotry and straight up crazy of this piece of “journalism”, isn’t it interesting that Mandingos pay almost twice the price for membership as compared to couples. Ah that must be a direct correlation to the “benefits” they get? And what about sex in the children’s bedrooms? Lovely. Wasn’t there a little girl murdered by her parent’s swinger friend a few years back.

  10. Ekachai wrote:

    Rob says:
    What’s sad is that most black men will high five each other and think that this article is a good thing.

    Stick it to the man! Hump away racism!

    Rob,
    What is sad is that your statement pretty much pertpetuates the stereotype that black men have white women fetish, and that they are not intelligent enough to see through this shit in this article.

  11. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Rob -

    Most black men? I don’t know where you got that impression.

    I’ll agree that men in general have a “high five” attitude when it comes to detailing each other’s sexual conquests, but this article paints a picture that is way too grim to celebrate.

    Also, Nina - good observations. I’m not sure why the price difference is so high - maybe because single men don’t host the party, but couples do? Who knows. The comments by Details readers were interesting, and discussed your impressions a bit more in detail…

  12. Katie wrote:

    Hi Nina - other than this part, I’m totally on board with your comments. I just don’t want us to fall into the trap of thinking that swingers/people with alt. sexualities are bad people. There’s no indication that the children were IN the room at the time, nor that they were at all aware of their mom’s decision to have sex in their room. Perhaps tasteless, but certainly not child abuse or endangerment.

  13. Katie wrote:

    Whoops - I meant to pull this part out of your post, Nina -

    And what about sex in the children’s bedrooms? Lovely. Wasn’t there a little girl murdered by her parent’s swinger friend a few years back.

  14. Kenny wrote:

    NO Rob ! Most Black men will not high five this crap. Black men are portrayed as being Mandigoes or asexual. Two extremes. I remember when people were saying the Bodyguard movie didn’t consider race when making that film. The movie would not have been done with all the races reversed.

  15. Rob wrote:

    Yes, once again, deride anything that appears to put blacks in a negative light and automatically categorize them as racist.

    Good one.

    Just because some people, such as yourself, realize that this article is chock full of racism, doesn’t mean the rest thinks like you and views the situation objectively.

    I know so many Asian Americans that are ignorant of stereotypes that believe the model minority stereotype is a good thing. Just like how many Latino men think it’s a good thing to be stereotyped as the Latin Lover.

  16. eric daniels wrote:

    Rob is not being racist, is he being what I call a racial pragmatist (most white men or other minorites are when it comes to attitudes on black men), someone who believes that Black Men are inferior and should be used as sport for their own screwed -up desires and racial entertainment. Norman Podhorhetz wrote an article nearly 45 years ago called “Your Negro problem and mine” in which he writes of the same racial loathing but it was on the question of intergration while in the details article these white men are practicing the same set of siginifers “allowing their wives” to have sex with the Mangdingos. Rob is the typical white american/non- black minority male whether people on this blog want to admit that or no,. To deny that is to deny 388 years of racial reality in this country.

    These people love and hate black men at the same, like the slave master and bystander that admired the black althlete as stud and noble savage, this society (black, white and otherwise would have it no other way) And the greatest tragedy are the Mandingos and their supporters who like the leader of the sex club who shoves that rhetoric of the noble savage

    (quote) “They have to have at least eight inches, and most have a college degree. They have to be able to role-play, and most important of all, they have to be gentlemen. It’s the difference between Notre Dame, where you’re a student-athlete, and the University of Oklahoma, where you’re an athlete-student. We don’t just take jocks.”

    To quote Queensryche “Black Man trapped again holds his chains in his hands,Brother killing Brother for the profit of another game point nobody wins”

    Some Black Men want white acceptance so bad they will degrade The Black Male’s humanity for a few a few dollars more and the sexual pleasure of the white woman however brief. There is no love or affection in this exchange, just perverted sexual deviancy as old as the construct of race itself itself. Black Men will always be a deviant to of the white/minority man. Only the Black Man can release those chains , DEMANDING he not be a party to that dehumanization
    ‘flipping the strip’ like justifying the word nigga or being a particpant in these parties only keeps those ideas alive.

    Rob is a bigot like every other American male and female who lives in this country, deep down inside they hate and admire black men for his so-called physcial and sexual projections, this country can not conceieve of Black Men being human except on that level. Remember folks , The Black Man is a creation of white suprmacy going back nearly 400 years and it’s the same fear and desire when the British created a scientific excuse for racial classifications in the 16th century and Details writing an article about racial swing parties in 2007.

  17. nunya wrote:

    “Racial stereotypes from history has resurrected themselves, and were apparently alive and well in swinger’s clubs across America.”

    Nope, they never went away to begin with. Some would argue this is all white women who date black men are after anyway–”Mandigo.” It’s sad to say, but the magazine’s depictions are not surprising (to me) and are far from the first in the world of “fantasy” sex stories and even porn videos.

    And the thing about Obama…I believe a lot of people do want to use Obama’s chances at the Presidency to say that racism is over. I think this even plays a role in why he has so many non-black supporters.

  18. wendi wrote:

    what is interesting about this “phenomenon,” if you will, is that the men have college degrees…yet still must fulfill a role that renders them animalistic, uneducated, and oversexed. odd how even in an age when black americans can reach higher goals that ever anticipated, they are still stuck in the same antebellum positions.

  19. Rachel wrote:

    I actually agree with both Eric and Rob to an extent. I personally know several black men who believe in sexual stereotypes of black men (as well as the athletic stereotype) because they are so brainwashed by white supremacy that they buy into their own oppression.

    I do no think this is a majority of black men by any means and this is where Rob’s comment goes overboard. However, it is obviously the case here.

    However, if you read this carefully. You realize these types of encounters about about many white men’s sexual fantasies–not anyone else.

  20. Nina wrote:

    Katie I agree that consenting adults are consenting adults. I just cannot get down with allowing strangers to have sex in your children’s beds. And re: child endangerment, there have been children removed from the homes of low income people of color for lesser offenses than used condom wrappers after a sex party while the kids are at Grandma’s. Obviously that is a discussion for an entirely different thread.

  21. Rob wrote:

    Nice.

    Your pseudo-intelligential evaluation of me leaves much to be desired, Eric.

    I’m simply stating that just because you and I know something is wrong or right, doesn’t mean that the rest of the world thinks the same away. It’s safe to say that *most* people, not only blacks, are extremely ignorant about racial issues. After all, if most people were as enlightened as this site, it would cease to exist.

    Take solace in the fact that most people are stupid and can’t grasp the whole situation because they don’t need to or they don’t want to. Therefore, they take the situation at face value such as Asian people saying that they’re smarter or black men saying that they’re more studly.

  22. Rob wrote:

    And wendi,

    College degrees are no indication of being more enlightened than the man next to them.

  23. mr guy wrote:

    When it comes to “positive” stereotypes, MANY people of different races male or female, from whites, to asians, blacks, latinos(well, that’s not really a “race”) can and do believe in them.

    I disagree with Rachel however.The people that I know who believe in these stereotypes are not brainwashed by white supremacy.They seriously believe they are better then others in cetain areas such as intelligence, physical activity, etc,etc.

  24. mr guy wrote:

    Oh, and Rob I get what you are saying and agree, but you could of been more clearer in your original post and avoided all of this…….

  25. kim wrote:

    mr guy: “They seriously believe they are better then others in cetain areas such as intelligence, physical activity, etc,etc.”

    Those are your commonplace egotists, if not your deluded egoists.

    I think it shortsighted to dismiss Rachel’s assertions of the widespread internalized “positive” stereotype, and its sway upon the psyche of a people, who could be shown to examine, dissect and dismantle the dehumanizing and less than positive overall effect of having such ideas in place.

    That requires redirecting people’s attentions, and even asking people to step outside of their normative social interactions, where such stereotypes weild real power , for the better or worse, and step into possessing and benefitting (or not) from stereotypes associated with another group. It is role-play, and changing perspective often helps to more clearly see ‘how’ one has been operating, even if unconsciously.

  26. Ekachai wrote:

    Rob,
    despite all your excuses you’ve provide afterwards, WHAT IS YOUR POINT IN YOUR ORGINAL POST? Why do you feel the need to bring up that black men are not intelligent enough to recognize false sense of empowerment?

    I don’t care whether there is a percentage of people that fits your description. The fact that you readily paint a picture that “most black men” is ignorant (read: not as smart as you) is absolutely offensive.

    As an Asian American man also, I would’ve thought you have known better than to spew dumba$$ stereotypes about a group of people. Considering you got all worked up about how Asian men are portrayed in a previous episode, I would’ve thought you would apply the same sensitivity to other minority groups.

  27. eric daniels wrote:

    At least the sistas were humanized in ‘Something New’ and that’s a good thing. My agrument is not against what 2 consenting adults (in this case many) do in the privacy of their own homes, when they justify that arrogance and put a politcal spin to justify and hard penis and wet vagina can change the dynamics of what is a politcal, economic, and moral system designed to create winners and loser via racial groups that’s when people should get angry.

    I have dated across racial lines (believe it or not) but I would never date a woman of another race because of some percieved sexual sterotype or that I am ‘breaking down barriers’. IR couples have enough to worry about, being some saviour to end 388 years of racial conflict between black and white is paternalistic at best. Details never pretended to be a journalistic magazine, it may move copies and that what it was desinged to do.

    If society wants to humanize Black Women with movies and t.v. shows and show them in postive romantic situations to counteract the sterotypes of black men I say let them, If Details wants to write an article saying that Black Men are sexual deviants who are obessed with white house wives I say let them also. Black American Men must free themselves from MENTAL SLAVERY like Bob Marley said in Redemption Song.

  28. Eun-jung wrote:

    Way to go Latoya! I really enjoy your writing and your awesome wit. Can’t wait to read more of your stuff (I am checking out the Frog Princess as we speak)

    Interesting, Details is. As much thought-provoking that they think they are achieving, it seems as though their writing quality is dimming by the issue.

    Even worse, do I spy the white dude in that one picture with his belly out and his hand down his pants while watching the “Mandingo” and his (I’m assuming) wife in the kitchen? …oh my, just tasted a little throw up in my mouth.

  29. eric daniels wrote:

    They are having in the kitchen around food man, how civilized they can be

  30. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Great discussion.

    And thanks for the compliment Eun-Jung.

    Some thoughts:

    Rob/Eric/Rachel/ Kim / Mr. Guy -

    Point taken. One of my next blogs will revolve around the internalizing or stereotypes. Or really, the internalizing of selected stereotypes…we tend to try to reject the negative ones and keep the others that are perceived as positive. I may tie it in to my discussion of Hung, not sure yet…

    Also -

    This is a personal pet peeve of mine, but please be extremely cautious when discussing or referencing the intelligence of others.

    One of the reasons I started blogging was because I hated the “intellectual gap” that exists in hip-hop culture. So-called progressives and academics would use their knowledge to make people less knowledgeable feel inferior. That quickly and effectively silenced a lot of decent hip-hop debates. People I knew, who had excellent opinions on certain subjects, no longer felt like they had a place in the debates - they felt that they were “not smart enough” to be a part of a discussion that impacts a huge group of people.

    I really do not want to see that happen on this blog.

    Everyone has a right to say what they want to say - but please be mindful of people who are learning to see things in a different light. Challenging a paradigm is a hard thing to do, so I hope that we keep this blog accessible to anyone who wants to explore their understanding about race.

  31. kim wrote:

    Oh please, please, please don’t make me defend Rob.

    The first comment already being ripped to shreds, the second didn’t actually call Black men ignorant, and his judicious use of ‘ignorance’ was probably intentional and aimed at clearing up any misconceptions as to why he thought the high fives might be passed around.

    *deep sigh here*

    LaToya - did we say something that seemed to dismiss, or potentially deter, someone who might just be developing a language for critique and analysis? I hadn’t thought that appeared here, though I hear you.

    I’m not sure you’re going to find that ‘other’ audience here on the whole, though that may have to do more with the general desire to consume and parse, versus consume and move on, that draws many of those who frequent this site to pull a chair by the pool. (Did I transpose those ideas?)

    On the whole, I just didn’t feel the thread went to extremes in its terminology or lean.

    By the way, welcome aboard.

  32. merq wrote:

    Rob:

    I’m going to try to explain two things to you.

    1. “Many” is often a far wiser choice than the word “most.” Especially when discussiong populations you cannot even pretend to fully understand.

    2. I must share with you a truth I learned many years ago, and which I pass along whenever I can.

    You’re not special.

    I find that we’re far-too-often willing to assume we’re some magical anomaly, nothing like the plebes surrounding us. It’s my personal belief that this is the combined result of the adolescent search for individual identity and the “star of this movie” outlook with which we almost always view life.

    When it comes to race matters, I often find myself having to explain to people how they aren’t the genius-philosophers they thimk themselves to be. No, your taste in music isn’t revolutionary in its eclecticism and “indieness.” No, cursing “Fanistons” under your breath doesn’t reveal to the world just how witty and awesomely anti-establishment you are. And for shit’s sake, just because you picked up on how woefully demeaning the Mandingo stereotype is, doesn’t mean “most black men” don’t.

    Stay golden, Robbie.

  33. eric daniels wrote:

    These people are having sex around food like this was Rome and Egypt in the picture. And the white dude (and the brotha) in the pic needs to go on the Nutrasystem diet. Great article La Toya, but people (particularly americans)are going are always going to sterotype groups based on sexual desires, fantasies or deviant perversions.

  34. James wrote:

    Ahem. Details Magazine again displays their tin ear regarding racial offense. Ms. Peterson, I commend you on an enlightening deconstruction of their depraved racism-as-journalism. A few thoughts…

    1) Can someone explain why prostitutes always offer weak justifications for their activities? If Art Hammer and the rest simply stated, “We like to have sex for money, no matter how physically or emotionally dehumanizing,” I’d at least believe they were looking at their chosen situation with eyes wide open. The varied excuses for sexualized racial fetishism here proved really daunting. There’s nothing aesthetically pleasing about the so-called “yin and yang of two colors mixing”. (Ugh, I feel sick….) There’s certainly nothing beautiful about pasty, middle-aged, cottage-cheese cellulite ass.

    2) Whenever people sell their melanin for profit, they devolve themselves. Period. The saddest vibe I noticed from this article was the “Mandingos” hope that on some level, they could gain some respect for themselves by providing sexual services to rich White people. No one networks with their dildo.

    Further, no one gains any phantom racial enlightenment from their dildo, and the most useful element of the Details article highlighted that trend when it discussed the end of the night with the sated participants essentially retreated to their separate corners to reminisce and/or depart. That scene utterly negated Jared’s earlier “the world is looking beyond color now more than ever” perception. Interracial coupling will not forge an anti-racist future, especially if your sexual partners don’t talk to you afterwards, or can’t say hello when they see you buying bread at the local grocery.

    3) Black male sexuality never divorces itself from the depraved stereotypes about potency and virility that have plagued Black men throughout history, and it’s never surprising that some individual Black men disrespect themselves and their community by profiting from these stereotypes in servant capacities. 50 Cent certainly offers his oiled-up melanin in similar fashion. However, it’s a huge stretch to go from a handful of Black male prostitutes who “profit” from undisguised White racism to Rob’s “What’s sad is that most black men will high five each other and think that this article is a good thing.” That’s simply not accurate.

    Black people, in my opinion alone, recognize racism directed towards them pretty well. Of course, everyone differs on what a measured and reasonable response to a racist stimulus may resemble, but when it comes to viewing anti-Black racism for what it is there are surprisingly few African Americans who express difficulty. So no, I think most Black people could not possibly respond positively to an article that revels in the reduction of human beings to blackfaced sex toys. People internalize all sorts of oppressions all the time, but it can be argued that the Supermasculine Menial stereotype, to use the old Eldridge Cleaver Soul on Ice terminology, offers a commentary about Blackness that can only be described as heinous and disgusting. Seriously Rob, as screwed up and wrong as the model minority stereotype is, being known as an well-read intellectual student by genetic design is quite different than being known as a hypersexed muscular orgasm provider by genetic design. The two should never be compared.

  35. TheBends wrote:

    Tch, its a shame Robs opinion on white men being so preoccupied the well-endowed-black-man stereotype wasnt met with the same type of response, because its a pretty similar argument if you ask me. So not only do “most white men” believe this black stereotype, “most black men” just take it as a compliment and give eachother five.

    I cant really see the logic in answering stereotypes with more stereotypes.

  36. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Kim -

    Thanks for the welcome. To answer your question, in so many words, no. But I got the feeling from the tone of some of the posts things were heading that way. (Remember, I did term it a pet peeve - it’s just something I am hypersensitive about.)

    I think merq completely picked up on what I was feeling. I wholeheartedly agree with his assertion that “When it comes to race matters, I often find myself having to explain to people how they aren’t the genius-philosophers they thimk themselves to be. ”

    Just from my work, especially in talking to teenagers, they really want to participate in discussions on race (and hip-hop culture). However, they are intimidated by older people who have a better way with words, or who make dismissive statements. They haven’t learned to counter that yet.

    So, I do not to pick on Rob or Eric - they are making good points. I am just sensitive about the way things are stated. (And yes, a lot of things are misinterpreted on message boards - damn our lack of inflection!)

    James - I like the way you think. Interesting posts here.

    As Katie said above, we should be careful of labeling people with a more alternative view of sexuality. If pasty cellulite pudding is your thing, more power to you. But I agree that some of the explanations for why they decided to do this are a bit off.

    My new favorite phrase is:

    No one networks with their dildo.

    And Carmen - what do you think about James’s assertion above? That the two stereotypes should not be compared?

    Provocative posts, all.

    I must say, I enjoy blogging here. Great dialouge, great opinions, great positions…

  37. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Sorry - up there should be “do not want” to pick on Rob and Eric.

  38. eric daniels wrote:

    Rob, I wasn’t on some pusedointellectal BS, I was calling you a good old fashioned bigot. The cool detached Asian guy only works in Sonny Chiba movies, in your zeal to be “anti-pc” you come off like Kenneth Eng but without his obvious facist, special education class charm.

  39. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

    From James: “Seriously Rob, as screwed up and wrong as the model minority stereotype is, being known as an well-read intellectual student by genetic design is quite different than being known as a hypersexed muscular orgasm provider by genetic design. The two should never be compared.”

    Just a quick note: I agree with James that they should not be compared, but that’s because I don’t think that one positive stereotype is inherently more harmful than the other. They’re just different. The “well-read intellectual” stereotype is limiting and dehumanizing too.

  40. FEB wrote:

    In America, much of the racial-gender stereotypes about Asian and Black males serve one basic purpose: to discourage relations with white women.

    Stereotype of Black Males:
    Emphasizes brawn and sexual prowess and simultaneously diminishes intellect and civility.

    Stereotype of Asian Males:
    Emphasizes intellect and civility but diminishes physical and behavioral attributes of “manliness.”

    The bottom line is that Asian and black males are depicted as unsuitable partners for loving relations with white women. Black men are portrayed as too “sex-crazed,” while Asian men are depicted as too effeminate, or lacking the “anthropological minimum” for romance.

    More often than not, the media depicts interracial relations as deviant; based on sexual gluttony, rebelliousness, or emotional trauma.

  41. Ananse wrote:

    *sigh* “Love American Style”

    Thanks much and belated welcomes Latoya.

    I can’t help but wonder if Details took a page from Dan Savage’s “Savage Love” column from this past January?:

    http://www.villagevoice.com/people/0702,savage,75506,24.html

    Between DS’s “seen/heard it all” libertarianism and Latoya’s pragmatism, that’s where I’d place my opinion, rather than judgement. Only additions:

    – Calculated, cheap, cynical exploitation of white liberal guilt *and* racial to racist stereotypes to what end before sexual revenge is in play against whom?

    – Remove the skin color, and whether it’s one or many men, they’re only going to be an object, not a driver, of the cuckold fantasy at best. So who’s calling the shots, the woman or man? Whoever that object’s going to be, walking into any arrangement in that minefield better come (!) prepared for SFUS regardless…

    – I’d love a new stereotype for our changing demographics– how about Mandaringo? Mangringo Manamigo? Mannydingo? Ma’mundingo? Manojdingo?– or simply discontinued use once and for all together please.

    After thinking more about the article, comments, and discussing with others, and perusing the newstand this morning, I’m remind that we’re a society that just doesn’t like sex all that much.

    For as much of it on display, we just tend to make it progressively less enjoyable (a) the kinkier and/or more risque it supposedly becomes, (b) the more people involved, (c) because American society brings more hangups and baggage into it?

    It all continues to bemuse me, to the point I still can’t decide whether the nation is actually more vanilla, chocolate, neopolitan, calvinist, puritanical, juvenile, infantile, puerile, etc.

    No matter what’s done, the ultimate act in this neck of the woods just ripe for commodification, overaanalysis, and subsequent guilt to the point of reveling in punishment. That’s because the kinkiest can’t communicate in an honest fashion. Then the rub: when they do, chances are, we don’t want to hear/see what’s going on inside/underneath those robes.

    If those folks in Details have their attitudes in this area, they’ll have them, however wacky/misinformed/problematic they may be. I’m just not sure which saddened me more, but ultimately it’s nothing to get hung about because you don’t want to play with them anyway. I honestly don’t know the cure for it– more exposure to different types of things?– but I’ve heard and seen stranger (no elaboration…).

    It’s fetishism, and when it’s shared with other consenting adults, outside that scope, I’m not sure what can be done by pooh-poohers who probably have their own “habits” that could draw mixed reactions from still others.

    We’d probably worry more because of how the objects of their performance choose to engage in all this. Are they telling the truth about what they do to their partners and those to whom consent and trust is actually given?

    I just consider myself lucky that I have the freedom to choose not to, um, “network” and “transact” with such parties in a greater marketplace of options (using euphemism from above in the name of moderation…)

    I do have to sneak this in correction to Comment #36, based upon a joke overheard in an unnamed bar, loosely translated from fractured Dutch: “People network with their dildos. They just don’t shake hands upon introductions.”

  42. yousername wrote:

    The guy who wrote the article is Indian, according to his last name.

  43. kim wrote:

    Feb: oooh. love that. gotta print it out.

  44. FEB wrote:

    Post # 43 - “Feb:oooh.love that.gotta print it out.”

    Kim,
    What’s going on here? First say that meddling in your rivalry with Rob by tossing incendiary grenades (metaphorically speaking); now you say that you like my opinion.

    ??????????????

    The point is: racialized gender stereotype took away the intellectual from the black and gave it to the Asian man; and then it took the physical from the Asian man and gave it to the black man.

  45. Paul wrote:

    Let’s keep things in perspective.

    This whole “swinging” thing is a marginal lifestyle, a perversion shared by a negligibly small portion of our population.

    What’s the real danger is when a lay observer, such as the author, presents this whole depraved “scene” as something pervasive. This is the exact sort of encouragement morally loose folks need to feel emboldened enough to begin indulging their every dishonorable passion.

    To all those people that subscribe to the “people have the right to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own home” line of thinking, let me ask you this: If a vice is committed behind closed doors, does it all of sudden morph into acceptable phenomena? For example, if a child molester is good enough to close the door behind him before plying his “trade”, is society really the better for it?

    Like I said, let’s keep things in perspective.

  46. Natalie wrote:

    I go to college in SC- We talked about this article today in one of my classes- I realize the value of the whole “let them do what they will in their bedrooms” mentality- However, the fact that this Jeff person “prepares” his CHILDREN’S beds for sex by strangers is more than OVER the line of acceptable, much less “private” bedroom behavior- Sure, if he and his wife want to have “the lifestyle,” let them, but why do the kids get left out of the equation here? As healthy as may be to pursue some level of “sexual liberation,” doesn’t the fact that he is a PARENT move his children to number one on his list of responsibilities? Shouldn’t sex then be knocked down to at least number two? What I want to know is how in the hell no one has reported this “lifestyle party” to social services. How is he allowed to prance around the pages of this magazine, under an alias, while his children are forced to be exposed to their parents raucous sexual climbs, and then “dust them under the bed?” (condom wrapper) It’s wrong. there’s no better word for it. ok, maybe “backward.” irresponsible. so, yeah, there are plenty of words for it. negligent. shitty. crap. How have we moved to this? yay for political correctness, but is doesn’t apply to everything. I love that the fact that while this stuff has literally been invited into his children’s bedrooms, the “nice thing to do” is to sit back and shake our heads, rather than saying anything to him about it.

  47. janan wrote:

    There are so many things I am appalled by in the comments here. First off I am a “white woman” even though I am native american, I look white and am dating a black man. We swing and do so with all types and colors and sizes. First off let me say that not every “white” american hates and love black men deep down. If I dont’ know you, no matter what color you are, I have no feelings about you whatsoever, not even in general based on your color or ethnicity. I personally take people for their face value when I actually interact with them.
    Now on another level, this whole “mandingo” persona is just that. It is a need and desire to be fulfilled on both sides. No strings attached for anyone. Thats it, plain and simple. Is it something I am into, no. I like to get to know people and then my man and I might decide we find them stimulating enough to swing with.
    As far as the price of the parties and membership, ALL men no matter what color, if they are single and allowed to attend have to pay a premium price. We have not been to a swingers club yet that allows single men to attend that didn’t charge them more. So before you start spouting off at the mouth about things you have not done research on just because you feel high and mighty and want to shout bigotry and racism to the world on another subject that probably has nothing to do with you, stop and think before you look like an ass.

  48. janan wrote:

    Paul - the fact that you compare child molesting behind doors to consenting adults having sex with other consenting adults at a party is the perversion here. The two are not even close so when you take something out of context, like the phrase “people have the right to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own home” please use a real comparison that doesn’t involve victims of violent crimes with sexual fantasies being fulfilled by consenting adults.

  49. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Hey Janan -

    Good comments. Some notes for clarity:

    1. Thank you for clairfying the cost issue. I remember seeing an ad for a local swing party that I thought advertised different rates for singles vs. couples, but I couldn’t find it by the time we posted.

    2. I agree that the mandingo persona is a persona - however, what piqued my interest most about this article is the real world impact. I found it interesting that some of the swingers quoted in the article compared swinging to golf as a way of networking - and yet the end of the article talked about how swingers do not interact with each other outside of the scene. Is there a swinger ettiquette for interactions post-encounter? The tone of the article implied that there may have been racist motivations as to why the interview subject and the mandingos wouldn’t be sharing a beer after work.

    3. I hope you didn’t get the impression we “want[ed] to shout bigotry and racism to the world on another subject that probably has nothing to do with you.” My intention in the article was to call out Details mag for blatant race baiting, both in the article and how they positioned the piece online and in print. Sex politics are way to personal and complicated to try to cover in this kind of forum.

  50. janan wrote:

    LaToya - you out of all who have commented have the most grounded opinions I read. I appreciate you responding to my comments in the manner that you did as taking them for face value and not an attack.

    To help you out with your additional questions as far as swinger etiquette goes it becomes a question of the involved parties and how they want their experience to be. Take for instance my man and I love the lifestyle but not just because of the sex but we come in contact with some very fun, open minded, no drama, culturally diverse people. I have to say I have had the most interesting and intelligent conversations with people who swing. These people have become our closest friends and sex aside I am so glad we met them. We also know people who only want the sex and then move on. They don’t want the email exchanges or phone conversations or Saturday night movies. Its kind of like dating for couples, if you will. Some are just looking for the next conquest or to fill up their black book, while others are looking for relationships that go beyond the bed. We also have friendships with people in the lifestyle that we will never have sex with because we do not on that level find them attractive or our taste for sex but as friends we enjoy their company very much. So like anything in life there isn’t a real etiquette with swinging except these rules: 1) No means no 2) No drama 3) have fun. We as a lifestyle community have dating sites just for this and there are some very popular ones just like yahoo dating, or adultfriendfinder would be for singles, there are sites just for swinging where you create profiles detailing exactly what you are looking for and what you will not stand for that sort of stuff.

    Now as far as the persona in the real world impact, honestly people do use their swinger friends as contacts if they can. We have used some of our swinger friend’s expertise on certain things and I have had some contact me for certain things. Some look at it as another way to network, sort of a secret handshake club type thing but once again I am going to go back to my personal experience and it is friendship. Does this go on a lot? I couldn’t really respond on that but we have had offers from many folks around the nation to come stay with them if we are ever in their area, which on our travels will save us money and we offer the same if they are ever in our area. That is just one example of networking. Professionally we have helped people or had them help us. But we don’t do it all the time. We have never had an issue interacting with anyone in public if that is the question. But to be honest we didn’t get into this for networking, not like the article implied. I also believe there are racial issues with people not interacting with each other post swinging and that is something that definitely is negative to me.

    I don’t believe in your postings you were shouting racism and bigotry, those were directed at some of the other comments left here. I actually believe that you pointed out very valid questions and points to ponder or explain very accurately. I very much agree with you that the writer was very slanted on his viewpoint in this article and definitely baiting. To me this article was fluff to fill a spot with a very inaccurate and sensationalized look at a lifestyle he obviously had no comprehension of and could only see the color of it. Of course the subject of the article, Jeff didn’t help matters with his unintelligent quips but you can’t account for everyone who shares an interest in something as you. So please in all this do not think I defend someone who can look down his nose at someone and at the same time allow that same someone to share something as intimate as sex with his wife and use it to get off himself.

    Well I believe I have rambled on quite enough. As you can see I have very strong feelings about this and can run off at the mouth.

  51. kim wrote:

    FEB wrote:
    Post # 43 - “Feb:oooh.love that.gotta print it out.”
    Kim,
    What’s going on here?

    *******

    FEB, I do hope you were off your meds when you wrote this.

    This is the arena of ideas, man. If I disagree with you, and stridently, one thousand times in a year, and then you post something that I find on cue, I will tell you so.

    Get out more often.

  52. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Janan -

    Thanks for all the clarification! It was really helpful to hear from someone in the community, especially since the level of journalism in this one was questionable.

    (I also have a sneaking suspicion that the actual article might have been a lot different than what we finally saw printed - I would love to talk to the author and see what he says.)

    I hope you start to frequent the blog a bit - I think we are going to open the can of worms about sex and race, and I would love to see your comments in the discussion.

    _Toya

  53. janan wrote:

    My boyfriend sent this site to me and I will definitely be checking back for more thought provoking subjects because sex and race are definitely subjects I have to attend to in my personal life quite often. I am quite opionated on those subjects, lol. Glad you are out here.

  54. charxchar wrote:

    a haiku:
    mandingo party
    does she want an eight inch c**k?
    he won`t rob your house

  55. lola gets wrote:

    I have to come back to this blog to read the comments - I dont have the time now though. I do want to say that the Black men at these Mandingo parties are being objectified for their ethnicity, and that disturbs me the most.

    Charxchars Haiku is HILARIOUS!
    LOL

    L

  56. EyeLash wrote:

    I wrote this to Details Magazine. Write them too!
    Dear Sanjiv Bhattacharya and Details Magazine,

    Let me start off by saying that I simply adore your magazine. I find that the articles are inspiring, informative and clever. Albeit, when I read Meet the Mandingos I literally almost threw up. Being a subscription holder for almost two years, I have never read anything in Details that even resembled poor writing or subject matter until I read that article. You rarely represent African American men and when you do, this is the subject matter you choose to exploit. And then you had the audacity to mention Obama’s name in the article. Shame on you. It is obviously a sad day in the field in journalism. This article was not on par with the magazine’s usual exemplary work and did not have the ease and finesse of a skilled and dedicated writer. Sanjiv has lived in England and India and went to great schools. Is this the best he could come up with? Is the magazine running out of ideas? One more abysmal mistake from this magazine and I am definitely canceling my subscription. I should not have to tell men and women but T H I N K before you send an article to press. You hit way below the bar on this one.

  57. Bob Monroe wrote:

    Sex is complicated. Race is complicated. Sex and race together are, more often than not, complicated. What two (or three, four, five, etc.) consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is none of my business. Why is it yours? And, why the need to call a sex act perverse simply because it’s not something you would do? Remember, one persons kink is another person’s idea of perversion. Are you ready to start casting stones?

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.