Being Amber Rhea

Insert sophomoric joke here about “commentary on briefs.” Hey, I can’t help it; Dacia’s excellent Naked City interview with Sadie Lune reminded me that I once had my photo taken on Ho Plaza:

Anyway, somehow I’ve ended up with 7 items pinned in Bloglines again. Oh, bother. So here’s some stuff I wanted to talk about at greater length:

• porn law follies (from Open Source Sex)

  Violet Blue explains some of the profuse idiocy that is Section 2257. If you don’t know much about 2257, don’t care, or (especially) if you think it’s a good idea because who would want to repeal it except sickos who dig child porn, you should definitely read this post. Money quote, emphasis original:

  You know, I’m really in favor of laws that make sense when it comes to kids, adults and porn. Too bad we don’t have any.

• Oh, the irony (from Mistress Maeve)

  I could really relate to Maeve here. I’ve experienced that feeling of revealing something to a sex partner (a fantasy, desire, preference, etc.) and having them not respond positively, and feeling utterly crushed and embarrassed - and of course, with my annoying idiosyncrasy of crying at inopportune times, having the tears sting my eyes. And I don’t think there’s any shame in that - it shows that we’re human, and when we open ourselves up and make ourselves vulnerable, as you have to do with sex (even casual, no-strings-attached hook-ups require a certain level of vulnerability; all sex does), deeply-felt emotions are on the line. Especially living as we do in a sex-negative society that has told us all along that our desires are wrong and bad and shouldn’t be discussed in “polite company.”

  So, really I think it’s good for those of us who advocate for sex-positivity and open, healthy communication in relationships to have experienced that kind of thing, because it helps us remember that this stuff is hard - but so worthwhile.

• Previous Posts Revisited (from $pread Blog)

  An excerpt will speak for itself for this one:

  For instance, when Lyderson claims “the vast majority of young women in prostitution are controlled by pimps and suffer worse conditions in terms of violence, number of clients and lack of autonomy the longer they stay in the trade”, what is actually meant is that the vast majority of prostitutes in the DePaul study fit that description, and this is a study of only 100 women. Similarly, when she goes on to talk about percentages (”58 percent of women were transported to different locations for prostitution”) it would be equally true to say simply “58 of the respondents were transported”….but “percentage” sounds more dramatic and substantial than providing the actual number.

• Booty 911: Butt Pimples B-Gone! (from Naked City)

  I pinned this post as a reminder to myself. I am so ordering this product.

…okay, there are others I want to mention, but I’m too damn sleepy to write anymore. Bed beckons.

I don’t overuse the “pin” feature in Bloglines Beta; I use it strictly to keep track of stuff I want to read later, re-read in while paying closer attention, or blog about. So whenever I have more than 3 or 4 pinned items, I start to get antsy.

Currently I have 7, and they’re all posts that I’m brimming with Strong Opinions about, but at this rate I don’t think I’ll have time to write in-depth responses to each of them. So, link round-up cop-out it is!

• Antidepressants don’t work (from Uncool)

  Yes, once again, some Very Important Organization or other has released a results of a study that supposedly proves that anti-depressants are worthless. Hmm, if that’s true, then why are there so many people (myself included) who, whenever this shit happens, stand up and say very loudly that anti-depressants most certainly do work?

  I don’t understand why anti-depressants’ effectiveness needs to be proved or disproved. Tons of people are living proof that they do work. (Sure, we can study how or why - but if? That’s not a question.) I can say with 100% assurance of no hyperbole on my part, that if it weren’t for anti-depressant meds, I would not be alive today.

• Teenagers as Sexual Beings (from Miss Nomered)

  I found this blog a few weeks ago, I think via Ren’s, and reading it makes me feel hopeful about the future and the up-and-coming generation. When I was in high school, blogs didn’t exist, but I did keep a journal (I even kept it on my computer for a while, in SimpleText!) and I wrote about all kinds of stuff. I like to think that if I’d had a blog, it would’ve been similar to this.

  Anyway, the post about teenagers being sexual beings reminded me of my fourth year at TIP. There was a girl in my class who just seemed to exude sexuality. I think she was a year younger than me, which would’ve made her 15. I remember her talking in class one day about being frustrated with how adults don’t want to admit that teenagers are sexual beings and are not children. The rest of us in the class were nodding in agreement.

  I don’t know why adults tend to get so weirded out at the idea of teenagers having sexual feelings. Do they not remember being a teenager themselves? And ya know, admitting that teenagers are sexual beings doesn’t mean you’re saying you want to have sex with them! Get over it!

• Media and a Sex Worker (from After Hours)

  My heart goes out to Amanda, with everything she’s been through lately. And this post, just… well, at the moment I can’t really put my feelings about it into words. But it really struck me, maybe because I feel like I can relate to Amanda after reading a lot of her writing and identifying with some of her experiences and feelings? You should just read it. Here’s an excerpt:

  A definite downside is that I’ve attracted the attention of every shock-jock in the country, it seems. I’m a chance for them to use as many dirty words on the air as possible and a chance to score points off me. Seems women are only fodder for men’s lame sex jokes. I’m done with these shows. No more. ‘Course, it’s actually easier to screen clients than screen radio stations (they tend to be misleading about the nature of their show, of course).

  Or there’s an accusatory tone that would not be there if I were a client. Men get a “wink wink nudge nudge” thing when paid companionship is discussed. Women are branded and I bring out the self-righteous prig in everyone. The only explanation is that there must be something wrong with me. Being female and openly sexual means I’m off my rocker; something to be either pitied or reviled.

  More infuriating, they think they know everything about sex work (escort work in particular) because they believe every stereotype they’ve ever come across. This makes them an “expert.” Which makes me wonder why they bother to have me on. None of my interviewers have yet to actually admit to having experience as a sex worker — only me. Yet apparently I’m not to be believed.

• 5 Tips for Hot Menstrual Sex (from Naked City)

  I’m so glad Dacia wrote about menstrual sex! And I have immense respect for Furry Girl and Trixie for their menstrual sites (well, and for their general awesomeness). This post is informative, sex-positive, body-positive, menstrual-positive… all-around positive! Which is really something, since menstrual sex is typically either not talked about at all, or talked about with “OMG ewwww!!!” histrionics that you would expect maybe out of middle schoolers but certainly not adults, and yet here are adults acting as if getting your period is the most disgusting thing that could ever happen to you. FAIL.

  This post, however, gets the WIN stamp.

• “Please, anyone can do what you do…” (from Renegade Evolution)

  I hate when people act like sex work isn’t real work. Especially when they use snark quotes - “sex work.” Here’s what I said in a comment on Ren’s post:

  I think this whole “anyone can do it” thing is totally reactionary and full of projection. Because the same people who say that are usually the ones who are talking about how awful and degrading it is… so, therefore, NOT anyone can do it, right? It’s a contradiction, which leads me to believe they don’t have an actual argument.

Okay, there are two others I have pinned, but they both deserve longer write-ups… especially Caroline’s post about the new UK porn law. Holy crap.

Via Melissa (I would never read Gawker Media blogs if it weren’t for her!), powerful words from someone called Slut Machine, on Jezebel:

I’m pissed. It’s an anger that’s been on a slow boil that’s beginning to bubble over, and at this point, there’s no putting a lid on it. I’ve been writing about sex on a pretty public platform for some time now, at first anonymously, and then under my real name. I’ve had to endure ignorant assumptions and cheap shots made about my looks, my weight, my vagina, my tits, my sexual health, my mental health, my morality, my character — and all for what? Being honest? For liking sex? I’ve poured my guts out all over my keyboard, and I’m well aware that that invites criticism, particularly on the internet, where people think they can say whatever the fuck they please — in the most offensive manner possible that they would never employ in real life — with impunity because they’re protected behind a shroud of anonymity. It’s frustrating. And lemme tell you, I am so sick of people telling me, “You write about sex and personal issues. You have to accept that people will sling insults.” Fuck. That. Shit. I don’t have to accept it. I refuse to accept it. Mostly because I know that this wouldn’t happen if I were a man.

Rock on, lady! I can relate. (Today’s understatement.)

And yeah, this is related to the last post because it’s yet another manifestation of the sexual double standard and bullshit sexism in our society. (I kind of hate whenever I type “in our society,” because it reminds me of freshman year of college when my friend Kira and I used to hang out in Washington Square Park between classes with this very disaffected emo guy who was in a punk band, and one time Kira and I went to see them play and their music was all screaming commentary, and one song was just repeating “society” and “brutality” over and over, and Kira said, “I can’t listen to songs with the word ’society’ in them.” But really, there’s no other way to put it that I can think of.)

Rachel signed my copy of Dirty Girls, “from one dirty girl to another.” How apt. Little did she know that one of Rusty’s nicknames for me is “dirty girl.”

When I first heard about the book, I had a personal “heh” moment re: the title, and at the same time I wondered if Rachel would take any flack about it. I’ve read, in various places both online and off, criticisms of terminology used to describe women who enjoy and pursue sex unapologetically, as dirty, slutty, nasty, etc. ad nauseum. Hell, I’ve even made such criticisms myself, especially wrt mainstream porn copy. So to the simple-minded, it might seem like a contradiction that I like being called names while fucking and being called Dirty Girl pretty much whenever (only by Rusty, though).

But like my personal penchant here, I see the title of this book as a reclaiming of words that have been used against openly sexual women.

Enough about that, though; get me started and I’ll pontificate all night instead of actually talking about the book. I’m not very good at writing book reviews, so I’ll just jump right in…

I received it yesterday, so I’ve only had time to read a few stories so far. Of course among the first I read were those written by people I know - Rachel’s “Icy Hot” and Melissa’s “A Prayer to be Made Cocksure” (love that title, btw). I also read the first story in the book, Marie Lyn Bernard’s “Fucking Around.”

“Icy Hot” is straightforward erotic fiction, but it’s not cheesy. That’s my problem with a lot of erotic fiction I’ve read; it just seems too silly. I can’t take it seriously, much less get turned on. Fortunately Rachel doesn’t do things like use the word “sex” as a euphemism for vulva. Personally, the idea of fucking in 105-degree weather makes me feel ill, but really that just shows that it’s good writing - because I could also really get a sense of how good an ice cube would feel on my skin in that situation.

Melissa’s story “A Prayer to be Made Cocksure” is written in a prose/poetry style that I used to try to achieve but always failed at. She pulls it off. It’s really a thing of beauty, and doesn’t feel forced or overly emo. It has a feel of timelessness, which I think was the point. I loved it, and I just have to say again that I LOVE that title!

And, I just loved “Fucking Around.” Basically she describes fucking different cities, or people that personify different cities. It might sound weird or corny, but you just have to read it. It was an excellent choice to kick off the book.

Thanks, Rachel, for sending me a copy of Dirty Girls, and I look forward to reading the rest as soon as possible!

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.

Here’s a helpful tutorial regarding the nifty Sex 2.0 condoms:

Click To Play

I’ll spare you an angst-ridden paragraph about how I hate seeing myself on video. I’m trying to get over that.

And feel free to repost! Grab the embed code here.

Today Rusty and I went to Frolicon… for about an hour.

Last year I was really annoyed that Frolicon was the same weekend as PodCamp NYC, which meant we’d miss it because we already had plans to go to New York. I interviewed Beth, one of the organizers, and she was a total sweetheart. I vowed that we wouldn’t miss Frolicon 2008! (And yet I wrote about it on Radlanta as if I knew what I was talking about.)

But as the day got closer, I was less and less excited about it. I guess after going to more events along similar themes, I had more of an expectation that this wouldn’t be my cup of tea. Really I only went in order to put a stack of Sex 2.0 postcards and condoms on the swag* table. Then I got mad at myself because I didn’t think ahead enough to include that stuff in the swag bags everyone gets at registration; there were postcards in there for Whippersnappers, Swinging Atlanta, SELF, and other groups/events like that. Why didn’t I think of that? I was so pissed.

Still, hopefully some new registrants will come out of the stack on the table. As we were leaving I saw a few people stopping by and looking at stuff. One guy started talking to me about Camille Paglia as I was putting the postcards on the table. That was kind of weird.

So yeah, we only stayed for about an hour, and most of that time was spent paying way too much money for a mediocre buffet lunch. What can I say, fetish/kink/BDSM stuff just doesn’t do it for me. In fact, it kind of irritates me. More power to people who are into it - some of my best friends, etc. This isn’t a slam or judgment on folks who like that stuff. I’m just not one of ‘em. I like fucking. I can’t be bothered with all the costumes and role-playing and master/slave this and foot-worship that and yadda yadda yadda.

Speaking of fucking, we briefly considered going to Trapeze tonight, because a couple who’d commented on our Trapeze review podcast said they were going, and we’re interested in meeting them at some point. But I’m still on the tail-end of the haze while my body chemistry adjusts to Lexapro, plus I’m on my period, so we figured it’s not the best night to go. I wouldn’t be feeling up to it because of the meds, but also that period thing… it’s like one of the last taboos. In Best Sex Writing 2008, Trixie Fontaine writes about her problems with getting credit card billing companies for her period porn site… it’s considered “extreme,” and even though they’ll deal with pretty much anything else you can imagine (and plenty of stuff you can’t), somehow a woman’s period is THE GROSSEST THING EVER. What the hell! Why is it such a big fucking deal?? (That’s a rhetorical question, so don’t bother trying to come up with an answer. THERE ISN’T ONE.) Seriously. If you can’t handle the fact that yes, most women get their period every month, and no, your dick won’t shrivel up and fall off if you fuck her during that time… then just turn in your Sex Card right now, because you don’t deserve it.

Well, I was going to write about how I got a manicure the other day, but I can’t think of a clever transition and this is long enough already. So I’ll write about the manicure thing tomorrow, because it’s likely to spiral off into a tangent about class and expectations and social stratification. Betcha can’t wait!

* I’ve recently learned that the spelling “schwag” refers to marijuana. “Swag” is actually an acronym… “stuff we all get!”

I keep quoting people who say the stuff I struggle to put into words, but can’t get quite right. So, here we go… Melissa nails it again:

On the abuse issue, I try to reframe it around either:

1) 1 in 6 women in their lifetimes are survivors of sexual abuse or assault, and clearly not all of them become sex workers.

2) We never ask how often women in other helping/service professions do that work as part of their being survivors. The number of rape crisis counselors and educators I have worked with who are survivors is HUGE, for example. In a way, that makes sense. In another, it can be very damaging.

As a culture right now everyone’s so quick to pin adult sexual behavior (and sex work as part of that) on some childhood trauma. “What MADE you that way?” is one of the only questions people who don’t understand human sexual variation and the sex industry ask. It’s part of the discourse of sex right now, and it’s infuriating as a sex worker *and* a survivor . It’s about context, though. When it comes to something like The View, I don’t know how I’d talk about sex work and sexual abuse and not have everything I said manipulated. There can be solid reasons to be strategic about discussing abuse, but I hate feeling like we “can’t” because we’d somehow damage the movement.

So far both the posts from the “secret” pseudonymous blog involve car sex (or truck sex, really). It’s a coincidence, I swear.

[Originally posted June 30, 2005]

It was like I was back in high school last night… Rusty and I fucked in the cab of his big redneck truck, parked in a church parking lot. Not for very long mind you… it was hot but it was also HOT. As in, humid late-June Deep South hot. And we had to turn the engine off to avoid knocking the gearshift around and whatnot, so that meant no AC.

I think I had more balls (figuratively, of course) in high school; exciting as this was, I was way, way paranoid and kept looking around outside (when I was on top and could actually see outside). Then Rusty kept saying he would run from the parking deck into my apartment without any pants on, and I about had a heart attack. Who knew I was such a prude? We compromised; he ended up putting boxers on. You know, to keep up appearances.

From Kerry Howley, senior editor at Reason magazine:

Everyone seems to assume that legalizing sex work will reinforce all sorts of ugly cultural phenomena women struggle against all the time. Writes one commenter at Feministing, “I’m politically liberal, openly feminist, and opposed to sex work precisely” because of “patriarchy” and “heterosexuality issues.”

I find this incoherent precisely because I share all the poster’s intuitions about problematic cultural norms. Of course sexism restricts autonomy in all sorts of ways that deserve consideration when discussing the prevalence of prostitution or the choice to enter sex work. Of course it’s deplorable that sexually adventurous young women are constantly told they are “degrading themselves” by seeking out various experiences, that every bit of enjoyment eats away at some secret store of purity. This whole tradition–the idea that women need be preserved in glass so as not to “ruin” themselves, lest they diminish their sexual value by “giving it away”–restricts the lived autonomy of women in ways I can’t even begin to articulate. None of the slut-shaming makes sense unless you assume women live to give themselves to men in their purest possible form.

If you find all of these cultural pathologies unfortunate, what is the public policy you should prefer? It seems to me that it is not the policy that deems it a crime against the American people to open your legs. Anti-prostitution laws add a layer of legal sanction to all of our worst intuitions about the treatment of sexually independent women; they strengthen and validate the idea that women who bed men with any frequency are sick, marginal, pariahs.

I used to keep a “secret blog,” whose existence was revealed to only a handful of people, wherein I gave everyone pseudonyms and wrote about exciting things like the gory details of my sex life, and boring things like the gory details of job interviews.

The last time I posted to that blog was November 2006. It served its purpose when I needed it. I haven’t deleted it, because who knows, maybe sometime in the future I’ll need it again. But I was going back and looking at some of the old posts, and realizing that they do chronicle a very significant time in my life. This one in particular, I just thought was so sweet that I wanted to post it here.

Fair warning: if you’re going to be weirded out by X-rated language explicitly describing acts of fornication by people you know (read: me and Rusty), and/or if you’re my mom, don’t read below the cut. If either of those descriptions apply to you and you choose to read anyway, well, your reaction is your responsibility, not mine. Don’t act weird.
Read the full post »

From the Good Vibrations blog:

Book burning is wrong and much of the time I feel like that’s what our culture does with written works that confront our anxieties and inadequacies as a society. If folks just read or listened to the words written on the pages they feel so desperately need to be destroyed, they might not feel such a desperate angst towards them in the first place. Catch 22, huh?

But seriously folks, I just peaked at CJ’s post on the Sex Worker’s Art Show and it really upset me. People can be very ignorant, which in and of itself is not wrong, but when people refuse to own that ignorance and then crusade it against others they don’t understand, we end up with epic tragedies like the Witch Trials, the Jim Crow laws, the Holocaust, and the Christian Right. Are those results worth saving our children from a little diversity?

So at last, your sex tip of the day… Speak up. Whenever you get the chance, talk to people about sex politics, sexuality, and sex-positivity. Attend art shows, performances, lectures, and films that promote open dialogue about sexuality. Support politicians who seek to decriminalize the sex industry. Watch porn, read erotica. Have sex, and talk to someone about it. Support your local sex shop and demand higher standards.

Doing just one or two of these things during your lifetime will help make this world a better one for your children, trust me. The more comfortable, open, and safe people feel about sex, the less danger there will be for you or your children to come up against in this world.

Annie Oakley really did handle herself with amazing grace on Fox News. Btw, the Midwest Teen Sex Show people will be on Fox tomorrow. Kudos to them for being way braver than I would be.

Scratch that; submitted with the only comment being, “Are you fucking kidding me??”

DEAR ABBY: There seems to be an awful lot of women exposing themselves on the Internet in graphic sexual fashion. My wife says that men degrade themselves by looking at them.

My question to you is, what is more degrading? Looking at them, or women exposing themselves? — WONDERING IN PUYALLUP, WASH.

DEAR WONDERING: For a woman to post graphic sexual images for people she doesn’t know to view strikes me as more degrading because it indicates that she thinks she has little else to offer.

However, for a married man to view those images could also be considered degrading — and threatening — to his wife. Many women have written to me because their husbands spend more time looking at porn on the Internet than having a sex life in their own bedroom. In other words, the practice became an addiction.

*headdesk*

Again, I ask, “Why oh WHY do so many people persist in the idiotic belief that taking nude photos of yourself means you have no self-respect??”

I do not understand.

[Via Dacia]

This is an updated video, a follow-up to the one I posted yesterday. Watch it!

[Via Pro-Porn Activism]

I don’t have time for much of anything other than work today, but I do want to post something real quick in response to a discussion at Ren’s place. Over there, I said:

Octo,
As I said before, I agree w/ a lot of what you are saying re: the gendered tilt to “sex week” being problematic. In fact, we agree on much more than we disagree on here, so I don’t want it to seem like I’m nit-picking. But this did irritate me a little:

And “age is just a number” notwithstanding, college girls and guys aren’t that savvy about longer term issues.

Now I realize I have this thing where I personalize everything. I’m not sure how to stop doing that, or even if I *should* stop - but what it boils down to is, when I see a general statement made that doesn’t apply to me, a little red flag goes up, because that means the general statement isn’t so general. And sure, I could be an outlier, and there is value in speaking in generalities if they apply to a large majority - I certainly understand that. And yet, that statement rankles. When I was in college, I absolutely was savvy about longer-term issues, and I was very annoyed and insulted by people assuming I wasn’t, simply because of my age or because I was in college.

I really like and respect Octogalore and so I didn’t snap at her or anything. I want to understand where she’s coming from. But it might end up being a fundamental difference in perspective, and I do take umbrage at the suggestion of college girls being “impressionable” and, basically, infantilized.

This is something that always bugged the shit out of me in college, the way some people insisted on treating college students like high school students in slightly bigger bodies. (I saw more of this at UGA than at NYU, but I have no doubt it happens to a degree at every college.) I was always like, goddammit, college students are adults! We are over 18. Hence, ADULTS. So fucking treat us like adults!! If you continually treat college students as NOT adults, what good does that do? It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. And yeah, some people come from sheltered backgrounds. But you know what? They’ve gotta grow up and learn how to deal in the real world at some point. So quit with the coddling, because it’s fucking offensive!

I may have even blogged this sentiment when I was in college, because I’ve had my blog that long.

As for this Yale Sex Week business, hey, Gail Dines, did you even bother to look at the schedule? The “Who Looks Most Like a Vivid Girl” contest contest is one part of a full week of diverse programming. As in many situations, parts of the programming might not be nearly as “progressive” as they are marketed to be. Color me skeptical. And yeah, if I were at Yale, that contest would likely stick in my craw. But as far as the actual women involved, it all boils back down to a pretty simple concept for me. I don’t have to like or endorse or sing the praises of every woman’s choice. DUH. But see the thing is, other women don’t NEED my approval to do whatever it is they want to do, and vice versa.

I already posted a quote of the day, so this one will have to be for tomorrow (let’s just pretend I do these on a regular basis). Susan Mernit has written a seriously kick-ass BlogHer post, and really I should just say this is the post of the day instead of the quote of the day, because it’s hard to choose an excerpt.

I was going to write a post, at my friend Viviane’s urging, about women sex bloggers who are persecuted and their blogs shut down because their frankness offends members of their extended real world community, but I think the real issue we need to talk about is the high price women are made to pay, again and again, both for being sexual and for speaking their mind.

It’s not about the blogs, you see, it’s about the right for complete self expression. In other words, it’s about being silenced.

In my view, as much as we have strong women coming forth to share their experiences and beliefs, the culture at large is still making those who don’t fit the standard models—whether because of their sexual practices or their social mores—pay a price, and this is particularly true for women.

This kinda coincides with my latest Download Squad post (note the warning label is still intact, with irony apparently lost), but Susan is more eloquent. Read the whole thing. Oh, and she mentions Dacia and Paris Hilton one right after the other. Ha!

(But Susan, one question… Dave Winer is your friend? Really? Glad you guys get along, but geez, personally I cannot be friends with guys who say shit like, “Women are always accusing men of being sexist!” Cue tiny violin, take 5,676,372.)

Generally, I’m not real big on New Year’s resolutions (although Rusty and I do have a joint resolution [har] this year to recycle more, and in fact I’m about to go to Target to buy some recycling container thingies), but Figleaf has a resolution I can definitely get behind:

Oh yeah, and *especially* for those of us who are heterosexual, as long as we’re exploring, let’s explore some new ways to be healthy, happy, and horny-together human beings without dragging quite so many misery-inducing stereotypes into bed with us.

As mentioned in the year-end episode of Mostly ITP, I recently lost a potential consulting client because the person was too uncomfortable with the fact that I blog and podcast about sex. Oh, heavens!! Anyway, it spurred a conversation between Rusty and me about which of our podcasts has been the most X-rated. We concluded without a conclusion, since it’s all so arbitrary anyway and everyone will have their own definition of “obscene” and other bullshit words. I am, however, curious to know what people think, so here’s a poll!

This is my first time trying PollMonkey, and I only have a free account, so hopefully this will work.

As a precursor to my eventual full book review of Robert Jensen’s Getting Off, I wanted to post an excerpt from the chapter entitled “Pornography as a Mirror,” in which Jensen colorfully describes scenes from several porn movies in order to drive home the point of how awful and misogynistic all porn is.

With all the porn Jensen has watched (for research purposes, you understand), one can only assume that he summarized these particular movies because they’re the most effective at validating his thesis - and the most likely to garner a reaction of shock from readers. So what’s the deal with this…?

A scene from Delusional, a 2000 release from Vivid:

Lindsay, the film’s main character, is a woman slow to return to dating after she caught her husband cheating on her. She says she is waiting for the right man - a sensitive man - to come along. Her male coworker, Randy, clearly would like to be that man but must wait as Lindsay explores other sexual experiences, first with a woman named Alex, whom she meets online and assumes is a man. Later, after Alex and Lindsay have sex with a man in the kitchen of a restaurant, Lindsay is finally ready to accept Randy’s affection. He takes her home and tells her, “I’ll always be there for your no matter what. I just want to look out for you.” Lindsay lets down her defenses, and they embrace.

After kissing and removing their clothes, Lindsay begins oral sex on Randy while on her knees on the couch, and he then performs oral sex on her while she lies on the couch. They then have intercourse, with Lindsay saying, “Fuck me, fuck me, please” and “I have two fingers in my ass - do you like that?” This leads to the usual progression of positions: She is on top of him while he sits on the couch, and then he enters her vaginally from behind before he asks, “Do you want me to fuck you in the ass?” She answers in the affirmative. “Stick it in my ass,” she says. “I love the way you slide into my asshole. … Deep in my ass. … I’m coming on your cock in my ass.” After two minutes of anal intercourse, the scene ends with him masturbating and ejaculating on her breasts.

So, wait. Where’s the degrading part in that scene?

It just sounds like sex. And by some people’s standards, pretty vanilla sex. Even for people who would consider it at the kinky end of their personal spectrum, due to the dirty talk and assplay, I really can’t imagine anyone finding it degrading who didn’t have bigger hang-ups about sex in general. In fact, the only part of that excerpt that I see as degrading to women in any way is this:

Lindsay lets down her defenses

Note, that’s not a line from the movie. Those are Jensen’s chosen words to describe the onscreen events. I find it very telling that he uses language which casts the woman in the passive role, and the man in an active, even conquering role, with the implication of sex being a conquest and women having “defenses” which must be “broken down” by men.

This is, of course, the sexual script that’s reinforced by the dominant culture day in and day out, to the detriment of everyone. This skewed view of gender roles (as Figleaf would say, women as the “no-sex” class) is exactly what Jensen claims to be opposing. Yet with a few words, he’s revealed volumes about how entrenched he still is in sex-negative cultural norms.

Nationally known journalists and sex-positive advocates to judge “Sexies”

Contact: Susan Wright, 917-848-6544 or Miriam Axel-Lute

To hear some people tell it, all of “the media” is a degenerate, sex-drenched affair. But although there’s plenty of talk about the sex lives of celebrities and a willingness to use a scandal to sell a paper, when you get into the content of actual news stories, things often take a turn for the Puritanical: Soccer moms’ fabricated allegations about kids being exposed to nudity in a hotel hosting a swingers conference get printed as fact and never retracted. Religious minorities are assumed to speak for all religious Americans, or even all Americans, when it comes to whether “abstinence” should be the teen sex-ed gold standard. Usual standards of fairness and objectivity fall prey to reporters and editors’ squeamishness.

In response to this state of affairs, the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, the Center for Sex and Culture, Babeland, and journalist Miriam Axel-Lute are launching the 2008 Sex-Positive Journalism Awards (the “Sexies”) to promote fair, accurate, and non-sensationalized coverage of sexual topics. The awards are currently accepting entries that meet both high journalistic standards and the Sexies award criteria.

“For the past decade, the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom has dealt with media reports that include sensationalized and false information about sexual issues,” says Susan Wright, NCSF spokesperson. “These articles cause harm by encouraging discrimination and persecution of adults who engage in consensual sexual expression. NCSF is proud to support the Sexies and sex-positive journalism in America.”

“The media’s frequent failure to apply balanced journalistic standards to sex-related topics affects real people’s lives,” says Carol Queen, PhD, co-founder of the Center for Sex and Culture. “A sensationalistic perspective can turn neighbors against each other or make it hard for someone accused of a sex-related offense to get a fair trial. It also means that too many of us worry about whether we’re ‘normal,’ and don’t realize there are sex-positive communities, sources of information, and professionals out there. Just as in the political arena, when the press does not do its job, there is real fallout.”

The winners of the Sex-Positive Journalism Awards will be chosen by an outstanding panel of judges, who have expertise in both journalism and sex-positive advocacy: Dan Savage, author of the popular sex-advice column “Savage Love”; Carol Queen, PhD, writer, speaker, educator, and activist with a doctorate in sexology; Liza Featherstone, journalist and author of “Sex, Lies, and Women’s Magazines” (Columbia Journalism Review); Jack Hafferkamp, a former journalist and journalism professor and co-editor/publisher of LIBIDO: The Journal of Sex and Sensibility; Judith Levine, journalist and author of the award-winning Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex; Doug Henwood, contributing editor to The Nation; Marty Klein, PhD, certified sex therapist, therapist trainer, and author of America’s War on Sex; and Claire Cavanah, an activist, writer, speaker, and educator in the field of human sexuality and a founder of babeland.com.

“All but the most confident and self-assured among us are affected by the messages we receive about sex,” says Claire Cavanah, co-founder of Babeland.com, a founding sponsor of the Sexies. “It’s freeing to read an article that assumes that most people want a pleasurable, vibrant sex life. Sex-positive media creates space for readers to think about sex in a way that goes against some of the damaging messages that our culture perpetuates.”

“There are journalism awards rewarding good coverage of everything from private aviation to colon cancer,” says Axel-Lute, “but there was nothing out there to reward writers who went the extra mile to be fair and accurate about something as essential to human identity as sexual expression. The Sexies fill that gap.”

The Sexies will be given in four categories: news, feature, opinion, and “unsexy” (the most egregious violation of the Sexies’ criteria). The first three categories have three divisions each: daily general-audience newspaper, weekly or biweekly general-audience newspaper, and online general-audience news publication. [Divisions updated Nov. 7. See press release or criteria page.] The Unsexy award has no divisions. Articles must have been published in 2007. Article series must have started or ended in 2007. Submissions are due by March 23, 2008. Both writers and readers can submit articles for consideration. For full guidelines and a submissions form are available on the website. Winners will receive a cash prize and a plaque. The Sexies are seeking corporate sponsors and individual donations to support our mission. Donations can be made at www.sexies.org/support.html.

There’s been some discussion going on about sex bloggers within the larger social media community. See Graydancer’s post about his experience at the BlogWorld Expo, and Melissa Gira’s Sexerati post from today. (Why yes, they are both session leaders at Sex 2.0, why do you ask?)

In a perfect world, none of it would make a damn bit of difference. This would all be a non-issue. We wouldn’t even be able to conceive of it as an issue.

On one hand I feel stupid writing about this at all… like I shouldn’t be writing about it because what do I know, and it’ll just look like I’m co-opting other people’s experiences. I’m not a current or former sex worker, I’m not a sexuality educator, I’m not a “big name” in social media or sex… so what am I even talking about? But, I do have my experiences to draw from, so that is what I’m talking about. And I need to push through these feelings about not being good enough, because otherwise I’d be contradicting one of my fundamental beliefs about blogging: that we’ve all got a story to tell, and yes, it’s important.

In comments on her post, Melissa says:

[T]he way sex is being changed by the internet, and how it effects people outside the sexblogosphere, is so much bigger and more important than how any of us is treated at a conference. Yes, it’s a drag to be looked down on, but look who’s doing the looking-down-on. Compare that treatment with the stigma we face outside the web scene. How does it, as a million guys in striped shirts have said before me, scale?

Bigger and more important?

I don’t think so, because I don’t think the two realms - sexblogosphere and offline “everything else” world - can be so easily separated. As any of us who are at all involved in social media can attest, social media is contributing in a major way to the breaking down arbitrary barriers. And on a more fundamental level, I don’t think sexuality and the rest of one’s life can or should be easily separated.

I do understand that, in the offline world, being unashamed about your sexuality can have more immediate consequences, and the world in general can be much more cruel. It depends on where you live, too; I bet offline sex culture in San Francisco is different from in Atlanta. But little by little, we’ve got to keep chipping away at this stuff, otherwise no changes will ever be realized offline.

Okay, I feel like I got off on a Theory Tangent there. Ugh, sorry about that. Here’s what I originally meant to say about Melissa’s comment/question…

The purpose of my blog is for me to write about what I want, simple as that. Of course, I’d be lying if I said I don’t impose any filters on it; I’m writing in public about real people, after all, and the intersection of my life with the lives of everyone else I know is always something I’m trying to negotiate properly. But the main thing is, I don’t have a blog so that I can get a message out, or serve some “greater purpose,” or fill the gaps left by old media, or anything like that. Some people do have blogs for those reasons and more, and that’s great; that’s their choice. It’s just not my reason for blogging.

As such, to me, it doesn’t make sense to pose the question of “how does this compare to how other people are treated in other settings?” It’s a non-sequitur. Yes, lots of people are treated poorly in lots of situations. And that sucks. But, what are you* going to do about it? You can’t fix all of it. You can’t even focus on all of it. So why not focus on where you can have a real impact and make a difference? I know it might sound trite, but I really do believe that you start changing the world by making small changes in your own life and in the lives of those around you.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable of me to be offended if someone blows me off the instant they find out I write about sex. That’s not okay, and I certainly should call them out on their bullshit. Look what happened with that BlogNetNews guy. He wanted to build a nice ghetto I mean “special aggregator” for me and mine, ’cause we weren’t fit to mingle with all the serious bloggers. (But even the serious bloggers could get away with writing about sex, as long as the blogger in question was a man.)

-I just realized this post has gotten long, and I haven’t said much. I feel jumbled. I don’t know where I’m going with this. In my head, it was all nice and coherent. Melissa said I “always nail issues of community & sex blogging so well” - guess I didn’t live up to that expectation this time! But, just… I’ve experienced what Graydancer talks about, and at this point I’m starting to lose count of how many times it’s happened. And it’s part of why I’m wondering if I’ll lead the PodCamp Atlanta effort again next year (although that warrants a separate post). I’m just not willing to do the compartmentalization thing, and I’m not okay with being typecast and/or labeled as less relevant because of it.

Sorry for this hodge-podge of a post.

* generic “you”

Sometimes, the best way to make a point stick is to turn it around on the people who are being obnoxious with their “concern” and their entreaties to “examine” (but never to judge, no, never!).

Via Trinity:

WHAT CAUSES VANILLA?

How long have you been vanilla?

Are you sure that you’re not simply too nervous to submit or dominate because past traumas make you too nervous to relate to others on a truly intimate level?

Have you ever really examined your vanilla desires?

The vast majority of sexuality depicted in the media is vanilla. Are you sure your desires now don’t stem from not seeing alternate models much in the media?

How can you experience true intimacy with someone if you’re afraid to share erotic pain with them? Aren’t you missing something?

It’s really a shame that our screwed up vanilla-normative society ruined you like that.

Oh, I’m not telling you what to DO. I’d never do that. But it’s such a shame that you HAVE to.

Oh, I’ve been involved in some vanilla things myself, but I’m better than the rest because I realize that when the SMers say we should question, they’re right! I try not to get too involved.

I’m not trying to diss those who want to create egalitarian relationships for themselves, but it’s so played out and socially normative. I’m going to go create my own communities wherein we strive to create truly hierarchical relationships. It really saddens me to see people stuck invested in the same old eroticization of sameness.

When people tell me that I’m just saying all of this because my own proclivities are sadomasochistic it makes me so SAD. Don’t they see that this is BIGGER THAN THE PERSONAL?

Even I have vanilla fantasies now and then. It’s impossible not to in a society like this one. I’m not the enemy!

Not so much fun when it’s turned around, is it? In fact, it’s pretty annoying!