Being Amber Rhea

Welcome, all, to the 5th edition of the Feminist Carnival of Sexual Freedom and Autonomy! Thank you to everyone who submitted posts. Now, let’s get crackin’…

Streotypes about gender roles and sexuality - and how to bust ‘em

For Female Desire Week, Sarah of Season of the Bitch challenges the typical role of women’s sexuality being defined by being desired (passive) rather than desiring (active). Feminism empowers women to identify our own desires and pursue them.

In a no-nonsense post, Purtek explains how she became a sex-positive feminist:

Men are allowed to be sexual entities and simultaneously talented, accomplished, successful individuals. Men are presumed to be sexually free to do what they want with their bodies. If I’m focusing on women, it’s because, duh, they’re the ones who still aren’t able to do that. This would be what’s known as “not rocket science”.

On that same note, sunflower_p also writes about why she identifies as a sex-positive feminist:

Anyone who sees female sexuality only in context of how men respond to it, as if it had no existence outside that context, is - intentionally or unintentionally - reinforcing the “women as sex class” paradigm, not subverting it. Seeing any feminist action only in context of its effect on men undermines its feminism by implying that what doesn’t affect men isn’t important.

And, y’know, sex isn’t an invention of Teh Ev0l Patriarchy; it’s just the way human reproduction works. A case can be made, however (historically simplistic, but more logically consistent) , that the stigmatization of sex as dirty, impure, and uncivilized (a stigmatization reinforced by that breed of feminist’s distaste for overt sexuality) is a patriarchal construct.

That’s not a reason to negate sexuality in the name of feminism, it’s a reason to celebrate it.

Ms. Naughty of For the Girls responds to the findings of a University of Toronto study on women’s sexual responses to images of nude men and women (as reported in the New York Times):

What grabs my attention here is that the study hasn’t factored in the way that straight women aren’t trained to appreciate male bodies. Society constantly presents the idea that “sexy” equals “female” and this is drummed into all of us from a young age. Advertising, films, television and magazines reinforce this. We’re taught to see the female body as alluring and erotic, as something to be desired. Men’s bodies were rarely held up as sex objects - at least, not until recently.

Abby Lee of Girl with a One Track Mind was asked to plug a new sex advice column, which wasn’t really “new” at all, just a rehashing of the usual crap. Here’s some real, worthwhile advice from Abby Lee, instead:

Everyone’s got insecurities in bed. Male, female, gay, straight, sexblogger, virgin: all of us. Can we please reject the idea that men should be the confident sexual aggressors who always have prowess between the sheets and embrace the fact that we’re all fucking human - and thus each of us is flawed/insecure/shy - thanks.

Writing at Valleywag, Melissa Gira tackles another tired old trope: the “sex == unprofessional” one, which always gets applied with particular ferocity to women. (Or, as a certain enemy of the blogosphere said to me once, “You’re trouble.” Because I wrote about visiting a sex club. Right.)

So maybe it is impossible to separate selling images of female sexuality from the sexist tech scene, but when it comes to the question of objectification, Banister objects. “I don’t think the opinion that Zivity demeans anybody is one that’s held by the majority,” she told Valleywag. “I’m a tech vet, and I used to be very similar — you want to strip your sexuality and just live in your brain, and be a talented, smart individual so you can compete in a male-dominated space. You become sexless — but why can’t I be both? Why can’t I be beautiful and sexy and be smart?”

And a legitimate executive. Zivity isn’t just another porn site aping MySpace, which is precisely why it’s threatening. Zivity has a Silicon Valley pedigree, which means for the first time, a company that openly embraces female sexuality is rubbing shoulders with Valley oldtimers and chasing Valley money — $8 million in venture capital so far. When female entrepreneurs feel as if they have to fight for equal time as it is, sharing space with Zivity is tantamount to being asked to sleep with the enemy.

Damn, now I feel like I should’ve done an entire section on sexism in the tech sphere! Argh… too late for that now. Moving on…

Holly of The Pervocrachy has more patience than I, as she fisks one of Twisty’s posts which (shocker!) reinforces patriarchal norms about women and sex, even as it hollowly claims to do the opposite. How dare women talk about sex!

If a woman makes a free choice to show her stuff to the world, because she gets off on it or because she wants to be popular or get paid, that is her decision to make. And if you start telling her that she’s not allowed to do that because it might make the patriarchy happy (as a side effect of her happiness), you’re constraining women’s freedom and you end up on the same side as the misogynist puritans.

Listen to Susie Bright and Betty Dodson talk about sex, masturbation, and much more! Seriously, does it get any better than these two amazing sex-positive ladies together?

Renegade Evolution writes about “vanilla privilege:”

You want concrete examples of V.P.?

Look at rape trials. If it is learned that the victim was into BDSM, rough sex, or was “overly promiscuous” or dressed “slutty” there is the assumption that she/he consented, or, in some cases, due to her/his proclivities, cannot be raped.

Look at employment. People have been fired/ passed over for being kinky even if it had no bearing on their jobs or ability to do them. They also face strife in places of higher education.

Look at parenthood. People have lost custody of their children or fear that for being not vanilla, even when there is no evidence whatsoever that anything the parents might do impacted their children at all.

SnowdropExplodes then responds to Ren and offers his own thoughts on “vanilla privilege” in this in-depth analysis.

Which leads into…

“Examining our desires!”

There was a rash of posts recently about the never-ending “examine your desires!” meme, this time spurred by a thread at Feministe that went from interesting to mildly frustrating to outright infuriating to blatantly offensive.

On this subject, Dw3t-Hthr of Letters from Gehenna talks about “examining” and what the hell that’s even supposed to mean:

But the examination, the taking apart of desire in the name of ideology, it mostly just makes people ashamed. It doesn’t go anywhere rewarding; it ponders the unknowable until people get disgusted with themselves or their desires, or blow it off as useless, and if they blow it off as useless they get told that they’re shallow, not thinking things through, saying “Whatever gets me off is okay.”

I got asked the other day whether ‘my feminist beliefs’ had problems with me being submissive.

I just … was too tired to get into how angry I get at that question.

She expounds further on the topic here, here, and here.

Ren also takes on the “examination” meme in her post Patient Zero, it’s time for your Examination…

Trinity spells out what’s wrong with all this talk of “examining:”

[T]here is this meme in feminist circles that says “Think about what you want,” which implies that we have not done so. We’re pointing out that anyone who is sexually deviant (or socially deviant in any way) is generally aware of hir difference from others (or MADE aware of it, through bullying and other violence.) Being aware that you’re different tends to induce introspection: Why am I this way? Why are others not this way? Am I wrong? Are they? Are we just neutrally different? What do different people, groups, and ideologies think of being this way?

Many people think about those questions for years. So what we’re pointing out, Chel, is only that asking us “to examine” is actually rather odd - chances are we’ve done so more than most. Chances are we’re *more* aware, not *less*, that society can and does have sexual expectations of people - including differing expectations of men than of women, and expectations that are often (to understate it tremendously) deeply disrespectful of women’s actual interests.

What all this means, some of us think, is that when we’re being asked to “examine”, what others want is not for us to think more (as we’ve already done that) but to agree with their conclusions.

Jenny Penny wonders which sex acts get the feminist stamp of approval?

GallingGalla explains why she won’t judge sex workers, or any women who have sex in a way she chooses not to, from her perspective as a rape survivor:

I will not judge sex workers, even though I would not choose to do sex work. I will not judge those who make porn or watch it, including straight porn, including gonzo porn, even though I don’t want to watch straight or gonzo porn. I will not judge those who have lots of sex, regardless of with who or how many or what venue, even though I am asexual / autosexual. I will not judge women who have sex with men, even though I never want to even see a man naked anymore. I will not judge women for the clothes they wear or the make-up that they use or do not use, even though I am ambivalent about my own presentation and don’t like facial make-up.

I will not judge, because if I do so, I take away control, or justify taking away control, from other women. Is this not at the very root of what rapists do? Is this not the core of rape - to take away a woman’s control, autonomy, identity, humanity?

Non-monogamy / polyamory / alternaive relationship configurations (yes, I made that up)

Suzanne Portnoy describes the reactions of a variety of people to her happiness with non-monogamy. Apparently many people feel threatened by the fact that she is living a life that brings her joy and contentment.

I do have relationships on my own terms. My main criterion: Fun. I have never been happier, or busier. Yet people obsess over my lack of a steady relationship, including those who haven’t had one of their own in years. “How long are you going to keep playing musical boyfriends?” asked my friend Jane recently. We were discussing her love life, or lack of it, and as usual the conversation turned toward my love life. It is, after all, more interesting because it’s more active, even if it’s not about love. “Wouldn’t you like a boyfriend?”

I told her I have plenty. But of course she meant one man: Monogamy.

…

Most people, particularly those who aren’t in any relationships, don’t want to hear the truth. The truth is: I have many dates. I have lots of sex. I don’t want monogamy. My contentment puzzles and even threatens some people.

Sex Geek writes about how feminism ultimately helped her realize a positive life in a non-monogamous relationship.

Trish Wilson explains why she can’t stand Sex and the City:

I think Samantha needs a copy of “The Ethical Slut”, which is about polyamory. I was surprised myself to learn that non-monogamy didn’t even cross her radar. Or her friends radar. While the man she loves might never take to non-monogamy (I’m thinking specifically of polyamory), they could have at least discussed it. I don’t know how Samantha would feel about the man she loves taking on other partners. Would they be a mono/poly couple? The only possibilities seemed to be either Samantha stifles that essential part of her being, or she would leave the relationship. As if those are her only two options. There are other options, but none of them were even considered. If she was truly a sexual progressive, she would have at least been aware of non-monogamy, in particular polyamory. It might not work for them, but they could have at least discussed it.

And for a counter-point, La Libertine addresses criticisms of SATC:

Even sadder is that far too many feminists hold the same views that males use to devalue and ignore what women do. I’ve had far too many people, male and female, assume that my awesome application of Lancome mascara and lipstick precludes my ability to be intelligent and self-determining and possess genuine self-confidence.

Always Aroused Girl was recently challenged by her parents as to how she would feel if her children were to read her blog when they got a bit older - and if they made some of the same choices. The question was posed as an accusation, with shame being assumed. But on reflection, AAG wonders what would be so awful, exactly?

Would I really be upset if I ended up with budding poly teenagers? If they gently experimented with all forms of sexual expression when they felt ready? If they loved both men and women? If they toyed with the concept of gender?

Would I be upset if they learned to love extravagantly and joyfully? If they began giving their hearts to people with no expectations of permanency? If they loved others from a position of strength instead of need?

Would I be upset if they practiced safe sex? If they consulted with understanding doctors (and, I hope, me) when the almost inevitable slip-ups happened?

Would I be upset if they took responsibility for their actions? If they learned to be neither apologetic nor combative about their sexual choices?

Come to think of it, no. I wouldn’t be upset about these things at all.

Sex work, choice, and agency

Radical Vixen shares some pointers on how to be a superstar client. Be sure to check out the rest of her Reality Check series as well.

Also on the subject of clients, in a recent SFGate column, Violet Blue interviews Giselle Reed about how clients of escorts in San Francisco differ from clients elsewhere.

Ellie draws a cute and highly effective analogy between sex work and food service:

Most people would see this example as ridiculous but they aren’t as quick to say that sex work is the same. I think there is a lot of similarity. Men explore places and things with professionals that they think the can’t get anywhere else or that they don’t want to go to the trouble of getting.

But, you will say this is objectifying, how can you compare yourself to a pizza that can be ordered up and delivered to anyone with a credit card? Here is the important thing to keep in mind. The sex worker isn’t the pizza, he or she is the chef.

A sex worker isn’t “selling herself” or “selling her body” any more than any other human being on the face of the planet is selling themselves for their time or labor. It is an old point but one that needs to be made. I am not the object or the good, I am the artisan or producer.

Emilie Dice addresses reductive thinking (not to mention plain old not listening) inherent in the “it’s all about the men” line often used as a verbal attack against sex workers:

This person didn’t simply take things out of context, but completely ignored the chronology of my story in order to make that statement, because it fits so neatly with the well-worn cliche (you can read my response with the corrections if you’re interested). Apparently it requires just too much flexibility in one’s thinking to conclude that a woman’s psychological reasons for sex work don’t revolve completely around what’s going on in her relationships with men.

In a two-part series (one, two), Miss Leon Symone describes her first time dancing at a strip club in Connecticut called The Cathedral:

Once you’ve rolled around naked on a glass stage in front of people, your perceptions about reality and your body become quite different. At least, that was what happened to me. Suddenly, I didn’t know why I chose stripping as my summer job or why I didn’t mind dancing naked in front of these men. All of those moral lessons about one’s body as a private temple melted into the fabric of recklessness, shame, degradation-all of those notions that aim to tear down a dancer’s dignity. Suddenly, I was dancing for no other purpose other than for pure freedom to do so.

Commenting on the recent case against Dave Elms of The Erotic Review, Figleaf writes eloquently about the ongoing consequences of failing to distinguish between the “scandal” of prostitution and the very substantial problems of rape, sexual harassment, extortion, and robbery:

Mr. Elm seems to have been getting away with straight up sexual harassment of both the hostile-workplace and quid pro quo varieties. But because everyone including the L.A. D.A. seem maximally titillated by the prostitution angle the reality of what happened to that sex worker goes by the wayside. Because, after all, how can a prostitute *ever* be sexually harassed? It’s her *job* to be harassed, her whole *job* is quid pro quo so big whup.

But that’s the same mentality that led people to imagine that a woman who’s said yes to 14 men gives up any right to say no to the 15th, 16th, or 17th. It’s the same lets an asshole judge (Philadelphia Municipal Court Judge Teresa Carr Deni, to be exact) say gang-raping a prostitute is just “theft of services” and dismiss all other charges.

In the real world, however, sex workers (trafficked *and* non-trafficked) get put over the barrel like that all the time. And not to put too fine a point on it but it’s the “being over the barrel” part, not the “being a sex worker” that makes prostitutes unreliable witnesses. If your job is already illegal how much can you afford to disclose before (at least in the witness’s internal deliberations) you put yourself in legal jeopardy?

Debauchette describes her own experiences with The Erotic Review.

At Sex in the Public Square, Gracie Passette writes about myths about sex work and realities about activism:

Sometimes we are just told to sit down and shut up. But why on earth would sex workers seeking change, be it in law & criminal matters or the social stigmas and related issues of media, remain silent on the sex worker myths, inaccurate portrayals & continuing betrayals of sex work and sex workers themselves? If that makes us angry, then let us join the angry abolitionists & the sore suffragists.

The accusations and criticisms will continue until we make the changes needed to afford sex worker basic labor and human rights. Until then, it’s a “no win” situation; one most activists are aware of & exhausted by, but continue to deal with anyway.

Sam Remmer addresses stigmatization of sex work and the UK’s recent ban on “extreme pornography,” and their possible implications for people with disabilities:

For most of us we can explore our sexuality through our partners or through masturbation but for many disabled physically and mentally disabled people they do not have the same opportunities, this is where pornography and visits to sex workers can give them that outlet.

In a post at Feministing, Juhu Thukral, Director of the Sex Workers Project at the Urban Justice Center in New York City, explains why the Mann Act expansion is bad for women.

Debauchette has an amazing, must-read post about representation of sex workers in media and pop culture. Hint: it always falls into a simplistic, black-and-white non-argument, with actual sex workers scoffed at, if considered at all.

Aren’t we past this, yet? Is this even a question? Are journalists so incompetent, so incapable of carrying out the most basic research, that they can only assume that sex, for us, is intolerable? Or are these journalists really just uninterested in sex themselves and can’t resist transferring their sex-is-gross attitudes to the women who do it by choice? And why aren’t they capable of parsing the differences among sex workers, between those who have financial leverage and those who do not, those who are trafficked and those who act out of choice, those who have options and those with none, and so on? This isn’t rocket science. This isn’t even advanced sociology.

At the $pread Blog, Monica writes on the same topic:

I’m sick to death of all of this and I know I’m not alone. By “this” I mean the media’s inexcusable, habitual refusal to acknowledge any sex worker books, blogs, and activism that don’t fit into the dichotomy they’ve promoted and canonized. In the American mind, a prostitute is either a bedraggled street worker starving in a gutter or vapid “high class” whore who occasionally enjoys the sex and always enjoys the designer goods it buys her. (As you know, the jury’s still out on if the later actually exist or if they are the sex work equivalent of Bigfoot. Let’s ignore Veronica Monet and Xaviera Hollander and just focus on the fact that Belle Du Jour is anonymous and therefore must be a fake.)

Language

Being a linguistics nerd, I can’t resist closing with a few posts on language.

On the topic of agency, Alexa of The Real Princess Diaries discusses the disempowering and dehumanizing language used by some feminists when they speak about sex workers. In particular, she deftly calls bullshit on the much-ballyhooed talking point - so often used as a “gotcha!” by anti-sex work propnents - of most sex workers being sexually abused:

Being sexually abused does not, in and of itself, deprive one of the ability to exercise agency, even if those so abused elect to enter sex work. Curiously, you won’t hear the radfems argue that being sexually abused negates one’s choice to enter nursing, or real estate, or even work as a fast food cashier. It only affects your ability to enter sex work. Does that sexual abuse impact how they make their decisions? Hell, yeah, it does. Does it deprive them of their agency? Fuck, no, it doesn’t.

Like Alexa above, Purtek challenges the language used by anti-sex work feminists (and, unfortunately, most people in general), and illustrates its reinforcement of objectification:

The language we use to talk about sex work (and the metaphorical extensions of sex-work related words) emphasizes this point - by charging a fee to have sex with someone, a woman has sold her body and herself. Linguistically speaking, there’s a metonymy there - the “part” (sexuality) has come to substitute for the whole woman.

Sarah of Season of the Bitch talks about use of the word “slut” as a means of controlling women’s sexual behavior:

What I am going to talk about instead is feminist slut-shaming.

See, the anti-porn types love to do this and disguise it as concern for all women. Kind of the way your friends would pull you aside in high school and tell you that “I didn’t say it, but this other girl over there said you were a SLUT so you better watch it.”

That’s just not okay.

Sex workers get it the worst, of course. They’re pornified. They’re penis accessories and will soon be used-up-has-beens. They’re fucked up and in denial and playing Russian Roulette. (thanks to Ren for those links, and if you aren’t reading her yet, why the hell not?)

But it’s not just sex workers. It’s all of us who don’t keep our unruly desires in check. It’s any of us who don’t make excuses for men’s bad behavior and wear what we want to wear. Hell, it’s any of us who don’t hate men, it seems sometimes.

And originator of the Carnival, Caroline of Uncool, analyzes language used by some online radical feminists in “The Language of Feminists,” parts one and two.

—

Well, that’s it! I’ve had a lot of fun putting this together. The next Feminist Carnival of Sexual Freedom and Autonomy will be at Selena Kitt’s blog on July 14. Thanks for reading!