Being Amber Rhea

Renee is right on with this:

I am sure that for most women this is an experience that we all communally share. The silencing can come in many forms, direct interruption, or criticism of our tone. How many times has a powerful woman been told that her voice has a nagging or whining quality to it? This reduces us to our biology and renders our opinions irrelevant.

Many women have become jaded and simply accepted this silencing without further thought. This is a mistake. When we allow men to control the conversation we are granting them power to control our social discourse. If men can always decide what is and isn’t relevant conversation our issues will never be significantly addressed.

Fear of being disciplined is not an excuse to become subservient. It takes courage to speak truth to power, but when we consider what is at stake, it is an act of gender annihilation to remain silent. Men will not engage about the harms of domestic violence, rape, pay inequity, childcare, femicide, and sexual harassment; these are womens issues. Even when we are speaking about benign subjects their interruption is a co option of our space and an expression of male privilege. It has far reaching implications because it infers (sic) that womens needs and concerns are secondary to their thought processes. The man that does not value your mind, views you as a fuckable object, or a mother replacement.

The next time you are interrupted look at the man who had the temerity to think that his words somehow were more important than yours and let him know that you were speaking. What you have to say matters and no amount of chest thumping testosterone should ever make you feel small.

It’s been very interesting reading people’s definitions of kinky. (Keep ‘em coming!) The definitions are varied, but most of the commenters so far at least seem to agree that “kinky” is subjective.

What fascinates me, though, is that there does seem to be some concept of a generally-accepted meaning of the word, nebulous though it may be when you actually try to pin it down. But when people make your garden-variety stupid “oh, so-and-so is into the kinky stuff!” joke, there seems to be at least a general understanding of what that refers to. (Or not? Am I totally off base here? This is the impression I get.)

Maybe it’s pointless to try to reconcile individual’s personal definitions of/ruminations on the word with a larger cultural meaning, but this stuff fascinates me. I guess it’s the linguistics nerd in me.

I feel like in general, “kinky” is taken to mean “weird,” but “weird” includes stuff that actually isn’t weird by a lot of people’s standards, when you actually ask them. Which is why I think this general definition comes from a cultural level, which can be slower to change than the minds of individuals.

Am I making any sense here? I’m making sense to myself, but I feel like I’m probably making no sense whatsoever to anyone else.

Anyway, I’ll move right along and talk about what kinky means to me. Honestly, when I hear the word “kinky” or that someone is “into kink” or that a place is “kink-friendly” or whatever, I think of BDSM. I wonder how many other people equate kink and BDSM to some degree? I think I do it because I know quite a few people who are into BDSM to some degree and they do tend to use the terms interchangeably - or at least that’s how it appears to me, as a non-BDSMer looking in.

So to my mind, “kinky” tends to involve some or all of the following: leather, corsets, elaborate costumes, various props, bondage, domination/submission, safe words, not necessarily any actual fucking, most likely the term “scene,” and possibly the term “aftercare.”

It seems like in the thread where people were offering definitions, a lot of people were defining kinky the way I’d define sex-positive. I have to admit when I hear about kink this or kink-friendly that, sometimes a little red flag goes up, and I wonder if this is going to be my scene (ha!) or not. Look, I have nothing against BDSM and all that stuff; some of my best friends, an’ all. I’m just not into it. As a friend who shall remain nameless (unless s/he chooses to self-identify!) said about first learning about BDSM: “When’s the part where you have sex?” That’s basically how I feel about it. The whole dom/sub thing, and the props and the costumes and whatnot, does absolutely nothing for me. Now, I certainly like handcuffs from time to time, or being smacked on the ass with a belt, and other assorted fun stuff. But there’s usually fucking going on at the same time… I guess that’s the kicker for me.

Now before any of my BDSM-loving blog associates read this and get all worked up because I’m attacking your preferences - hey, you don’t have to. ‘Cause I’m not. Whatever anyone is into is awesome, for them! To my mind, the most important thing is for people to have the kind of sex they enjoy, and - I’ll borrow a phrase from the BDSM crowd here - to always be safe, sane, and consensual.

Sex in the Public Square has put out the call for a sex-positive wiki.

One of the things that made this seem like such a good idea to me was the surge of media coverage in the wake of the Spitzer scandal, and especially the Diane Sawyer 20/20 special, which repeatedly seemed to make a deliberate effort to snatch bullshit from the maw of truth.

We really do have an incredible collection of fiercely intelligent, independent people in what can loosely (VERY loosely) be called the sex-positive community. We have everything from dedicated activists working at clubs and agencies to scholars like Elizabeth, and I think that putting all those brains together to build a resource devoted to providing information about the intersections of sex and culture could produce a helluva powerful and valuable site.

The question I usually get when pitching this idea at people is, “What about Wikipedia?” Wikipedia is a great resource. If the rest of the web was as useful as Wikipedia, I’d probably spend the other 10% of my life plugged into the internet as well. The Sexology and Sexuality Project on Wikipedia, among others, deserves praise for their work. But Wikipedia itself isn’t specifically focused on sexuality, and a focus can be invaluable in attaining depth of insight into a topic. Also, Wikipedia is, by definition, open to just about any damn fool with a computer and an attitude. Most of the truly obvious lunatics get combed out by the collective efforts of the saner majority, but in working on volatile subjects like sex work or pornography, there are often polarized factions trying to get their viewpoint into the article. The Talk section of the Wikipedia pornography article has a lot of long arguments over the nature and appropriateness of various approaches to the subject. In short, it takes an effort just to be able to get to the starting line for sex-poz people. One of the benefits of having our own wiki would be that we’re already at a comfortable starting point, where we can begin with the assumption, for instance, that sex work can be a legitimate occupation. Then from that point, we can move on to our our own internecine battles. We don’t have to waste time explaining why prostitution and trafficking aren’t necessarily the same thing.

(emphasis mine)

Read more here.

It is definitely time for this. Please contact Elizabeth and Chris if you would like to get involved! The more people/ideas/perspectives/knowledge, the better!

In addition to all its other benefits, think this is a wonderful opportunity to foster more of a sense of cohesion among what is and has been a very loosely-defined community.

And I agree that Wikipedia is not the place for this project. Unfortunately until sex-positivity makes more inroads into mainstream society (which is what projects like this can help accomplish!) we really do need a space where we know we won’t be inundated with BS.

David already did a post about this article. So, I’m late to the party. I was going to do a post about it anyway, but now I can’t think of what I want to say. There’s just so much, and I am not in any mood to stop and collect my thoughts into anything coherent. However, I do suggest you read it yourself. They talk about “masturbands” (I bet you want to know what those are!), the crippling effects of blowjobs on teenage girls, and the “purity army” envisioned by the authors of Every Young Man’s Battle (btw, I’ll take that back whenever you’re done with it, Garrett; hope you learned a lot).

This is one of the best parts of the article:

Not having sex means talking about it constantly; the topic of sex and why to wait for it comes up in nearly every sermon, under titles such as “Desperate Sex Lives,” “Sex and the City” and “What a Girl Wants.”

Ha!

The article also points out that Every Young Man’s Battle would not meet its own censor (or is it ‘censure’ in this case?) - way too much talk of low-cut blouses, tight shorts, and nubile female bodies glistening with sweat.

More later, perhaps. I haven’t decided yet.