From: djnawtboyy@y...
Date: Sun Apr 4, 2004 10:15 am
Subject: Invitation 2 hear the controversial, new Tori Fixx single

Hey every1. I wanna invite you to come and listen to the first single
from BLACK.OUT CD:2. It's called MARRY ME! I had written the song
recently as a "special dedication" and a response to all of the
controversy in the news lately. I was just gonna wit til' the album
dropped but I was talked into putting the unedited version up on the
site. This is also a preview as to what's to come from T. Fixx on CD
2. There will be a radio (aka FCC version) available. Here's the

Njoy....and tell a friend if ya think its HOT,



From: jaqua williams
Date: Sun Apr 4, 2004 10:41 am
Subject: Re: [GHH] Invitation 2 hear the controversial, new Tori Fixx single

I really liked it, it made me wanna go get the new cd by tori, I just wish there was a sgl artists who sang slow r&b love songs for us.

From: naptitude@a...
Date: Sun Apr 4, 2004 12:07 pm
Subject: Re: [GHH] Invitation 2 hear the controversial, new Tori Fixx single

What a timely cut!!! Beyond being a dope track, it's gutsy without trying to be. I hope it brings the attention you've so long deserved. I have a song "Analytics" about having a crush on a boy as a kid, on my album.... so we're definately representin some new perspectives. It'll be available for purchase on line as sometime this week. I'll let ya''ll know.

Good shit Tori. Keep it up!

25 AKA Tim'm

From: "that_negative_gay_boy_g_minus"
Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 9:32 am
Subject: Re: [GHH] Invitation 2 hear the controversial, new Tori Fixx single

is there no place for critical insight anywhere in the
"homohop" movement?
i had no idea that "marriage" was such a sought after thing
for so many of you homohoppers...
it's cuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuute..
im fascinated but not shocked...


p.s. the "fuck the constitution" part is kind of cute,
once you forget that what's going on is
one form of resistance is being traded for
another form of compliance...

From: naptitude@a...
Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 12:12 pm
Subject: Re: The Marriage Machine
Marriage ain't for everybody. Frankly I probably wouldn't mind 3 husbands and 2 wives... or to extend certain rights to the friends who best take care of me.... but the people who want to do the damn thing should have the right. I suppose interracial couples shouldn't have wanted these rights either? huh? Inevitably, those rights that come along with marriage should also be extended to people who define their families differently (grandmas or uncles raising other folks kids, single moms, whatever....). The people who will most benefit from "gay marriage" or gay whites anyhow.

But It's not an all or nothing conversation, Ralowe. And people can be in favor of gays (who want it) having the rights to marry and still be critical of the systemic problems with an institution that defines partnership in terms of property. You're not the only one whose read some critical theory or Afri-Anti-Capitilist-Feminist critiques of the Monyham Report. There was a marriage forum at SMAAC on Saturday where some black dykes from Cal let the panel have it about the whole "marriage" thing. It was really exciting for me to see these challenges. Practically everyone appreciated it.


Dear MC Foucaldian Negritude:

these "rights"
in theory
are intended to only exist if one
chooses to be part of said system...
what "rights" does the legalization of gay marriage provide for
those who cannot live within it?
i take it as a given
that people will probably fuck whoever they
want and live with whoever they want
however they want:
that doesn't really
cause any problems for me personally
...but it seems that legitimizing
in the eyes of the state
non-standard ways of impossible...
if people seek real freedom in how they want to live
and really mean it
it pretty much requires rejecting the
fatherly support
and understanding
of the state...
...what you see as a harmless "right",
is pretty much the same
recipe for disaster
that happens whenever
a member of the oppressed
gets a little bit of some privilege...
if you can't see married gays wanting to oppress single queers who want to
fuck in bushes...
you must not see the parallels
between upscale gays with houses calling the cops on homeless queers...
the two go hand and hand, and is
a serious issue...
because all people
blindly clamor for...with some vaguely allusive delusion of a mlk jr-esque
struggle for "rights" "rights" "rights"
almost always means:
"when do i get to
play bully for once?"
the logic is pretty obviously homophobic and one can even see how
despite early protests by conservatives...who will have to finally cope
that sure
"if faggots get married, at least they'll just be fucking one at a time, and
stop spreading diseases around..."
which may, and i'm getting a little spec fi, culminate in mandatory marriage
registration for same-sex couples to stop the spread of contagion blah blah
...your reasoning strikes me as
authentically liberal,
for even supposing
for a second
that dealing with
the state on any level
is okay...
or cool...
or devoid of harrowing consequences somewhere down the line (condoleeza)
and if you weren't paying attention mr west,
that was neither
it was Common Sense.
no, i don't see anyone in homohop
offering any of the above critiques, or Common Sense
so far;
just the
duh-george ultra-liberal p.o.v. you've demonstrated for us...



and here's where you are short-sighted. There is no direct and necessarily relationship between wanting to get married and thinking your better or more wholesome or whatever than single queers. I met a married black lesbian couple at the forum who are really cool folks ... really down for people and sensitized to a variety of black concerns... marrying each other wasn't so much about politics as it was about securing, in the only flawed system we have available, the bond they have with one another. Now perhaps you don't know any gay black men who, after losing their partner of 10 or 15 years to AIDS, had families come through and wreck shop...and leave them with nothing and nothing... and perhaps they were misguided for loving each other in the first place... but they did... and what they build together deserves to be protected and honored as they would have it. Naw shit ain't perfect... but people want the ability, within the system created for us, to live as best they see fit for themselves and their families. And that ain't for me or nobody to judge.

again... you have no ability to see people as complex beings, even as you iterate "complex" theorems. Some of the people who helped Harriet in the undergroud railroad were likely racist (on some level)...still they helped. There are homophobes who will protect a "queen" from being bashed or assualted. And there are masculinist queer rappers, despite all you do to demean them, who insist on trying to love your crazy ass... in spite of your reluctance and inability to accept it. that's human.

mushy as fuck,


tim'm aka willie lynch's graduate school apologist:

let's try a race example:
(since you think im making things
up or something)
(i thought i was pretty clear last time):
the emancipation
really free black people?
the majority of the advantage will
always go to
whichever institution
is granting the privilege...
what's been created (some examples) is 1. an "urban threat"
justifying force and totalitarian rule and surveillance
2. a nearly permanent prison labor force
3. cannon fodder, etc...
...concessions, that, well, to borrow your phrase "short-sighted" liberals
clamor for
allows power to become more sophisticated
while technically we are not being whipped in fields
the standing economic disempowerment has created
generations upon generations
consumed by an inexorable nihilism...through
a system that
bombards and shackles our psyches
from within as well as outside...
freedom is an illusion
it would defy the purpose of power as it has been designed to preserve
itself to provide any
real privilege
and your apologetic credo of "needing to get anything we can"
is a text-book example of internalized oppression
the notion of need
and the very idea that it can be attained
through any systematic means
is precisely the lock in the shackles the oppressed collectively wear:
please read reginald's lyrics, please:
(inspired by hegel, btw):

The lord as self-consciousness exists for himself
But only in as much as their dependence to will
The bondsman as consciousness exists for the lord
This interdependence breeds resentment

The truth of the independent consciousness
Is accordingly the servile consciousness of the bondsman

It must supercede to proceed

Lordship and bondage

Super-cession of the other to return to self

Lordship and bondage

Subjugation is the practice recognition kept away

Lordship and bondage

The bondsman as consciousness exists for the lord
Yet through this existence he achieves independence
The lord as self-consciousness exists for himself
But only in as much as their dependence to will

The truth of the independent consciousness
Is in fact the dependent dominance of the lord

It must supercede to proceed

Lordship and bondage

Super-cession of the other to return to self

Lordship and bondage

Subjugation is the practice recognition kept away

Lordship and bondage

Subjugation is the practice
Subjugation is the practice

your whimpering all favors a bleat of dependency dependency dependency
and your insistence of ties
i strongly reject
wherever they may be
claiming that anyone is "family"
is a very shady way
of not directly
a choice
to relate to someone suggesting "family"
bonds are intrinsic and not intentional...
i reject your bonding with me
because we may both be black, or gay, or whatever trip you're going through
we have nothing in common
i reject your "love"
because of the bond it enforces upon me to accept your bullshit without any
so stop saying that
you're playing yourself...
(dialogue from tim'm's feel-good all-american movie):
"see he's not a bad skinhead...he stood up for that queen on the factory
that was 8 mile
or so i heard
i couldn't sit in the theatre pass the scene where eminem was on the bus,
picked up his pen and started to...


you'll continue to reject everything beyond yourself.

the breakdown of feudal lordship bondage relationality was explained to me 13 years ago (intro political philosophy...before the existentialist surge and later poststructuralist disillusionment). I'm really over it. When you've made enemies of potential allies who are in process of becoming something other than they are... you'll realize that you've alienated the only people who have your back. There are a lot of people out here who really believe you have talent... but you've proved yourself to be more of a jerk than talented... so people are over it.

I didn't say a skinhead racist was a great person, I did suggest that people have the ability to get beyond themselves and self-imposed or socially imposed predeterminations... and that it was possible for even a skinhead racist to do something good. Just as it's possible for an anarchist, self-righteous asshole like yourself to purchase a CD from a store or take a BART train or even rhyte dope rhymes every once and again. You are the funky underbelly fart of Bush and his compatriots. You are the fundamentalist snobbish asswipe of people who think everyone who doesn't think like them does not think.

As for my love being rejected. It won't be the first time. I love a lot of people who hate me.



...i don't see how
anyone can
continue to deal
with you: where's
this i "reject everything" garbage you're projecting coming from...
to be perfectly
i was rejecting
the patronizing, abusive and specious declaration of
your "love"
...whatever on earth that was supposed to signify, in reality

A Tim'm T. West Quote: "I'm really over it."
...nobody asked if you were
over "it":
(stay on subject)
(the concept of oppressive power structures...)
(as if it isn't everywhere around you)...that's not
the question, really, at all...
are you stating
that you believe that they don't exist
even so...
you're not answering the question...
can you answer the question?
do you recall what this discussion was about, originally?
let's segue back on topic (see subject field, above):
(who cares about where you
became introduced to the
topics and when...that's not the discussion at the moment, tim'm...):
"gay marriage" ...okay
(presumably) "the political significance of":

your assertion: positive

my assertion: negative

your assertion: (fragments, abridgements) "...yeah, marriage is cool...i
don't wanna
get married...but i think it's cool if people want won't's a step forward in the...right...duh...direction...yeah!
see: emancipation, dogooder neonazi skinheads, et al..."

my assertion: "Gay Marriage is a political ploy first of all. All state-sanctioned marriage dilutes whatever meaning the relationship between persons really constitutes; the nature of the state is to maintain its authority and control at any costs, this includes but is not limited to sabotaging the context of the marriage through the meaning it holds in the relationship between persons. Marriage is one of the primary units of oppressive power structures (see: family/nation/state). For the state to sanction and promote marriage between homosexuals would sanitize any radical potential inherent to a possible homosexual identity."

that's my refutation. or the question.
not whatever you're over.

(power structures don't exist in society?)
(is that liberation theology?)
...i mean is it TOO BAD to suggest that they do exist,
because it's not keepin' the faith
not positive thinking'
or am i "blockin the blessins?"
(or your moodswing)
...and you also made an allusion to transcendence
sure...i guess i can say
that people are more than their social-political constructs...but sometimes
a skinhead is a skinhead is a skinhead...
(more theology...)
Another Tim'm T. West Quote: "I love a lot of
>people who hate me."
...did you go see the new christ movie or something?
i'm only going here because...well...
Ralowe's Theory:
"Psst! Tim'm's a liberal. Ergo, a trendy one (see the subject heading he created) and this season, liberals are bringing out The Gay Marriage as the most advanced fake rainbows in cyberspace. No fuss, no muss point of contention that one may rally, lobby, pray for with nooooo real risks at all. (see guaranteed non-issue status of all Neo-Liberal Apparel) Read Rosie O'Donnell as cause celebre (awww, they're so cuuuuute....why can't they jump the broom, too?) because, it can't hurt...everything's's just Fashion. (Next month, National Leashless Negro Ordinance.)"
...and it's impairing his ability to
take a real stand on
something of consquence...
(like a gay neighborhood in oakland at E. 18th and Parkway)
(3rd Street Light Rail in San Francisco)
...and it makes a snazzy icebreaker for awkward silences when earning one's
Anarchist Book Festival paycheck
:o) DEAR MR WEST: yOU aRE a cLOWN!! :o) :o)
ha ha ha

best regards,
ralowe t. ampu, DDS
(graduate-school-tested and condoleeza-approved)