Being Amber Rhea

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.)

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.

Sex 2.0 was last weekend, and I think people are finally starting to come down from the post-orgasmic bliss state that characterized last week’s tweets, blog posts, emails, etc. (On a less pleasant note, I have yet to shake this case of con crud.)

A few days ago, I posted a big round-up of what other people had to say about the conference; but I have yet to post my reactions. So here are a few.

First of all, simply the fact that all of last week seemed like a post-orgasmic bliss-like state - and Twitter was a downright lovefest - is testament to Sex 2.0’s huge success. I had hoped for it to be successful, bring people together, foster community, blah blah blah… but it really did all that and more in a way that exceeded my wildest dreams. I am so pleased!

The only complaint I heard was that there were too many interesting sessions going on at once! I lost count of the number of people who told me they wished it had been two days.

Dacia and I were talking about how one thing that was unique about Sex 2.0 was that people seemed to be more interested in actually talking and interacting face-to-face, rather than obsessively documenting the event via liveblogging, photos, Twitter, etc. Don’t get me wrong, all of those things were going on; but it definitely was a different vibe than any other social media-related conference I’ve been to. People were so interested and engaged in the discussions, that they couldn’t be bothered to stop and pick up their iPhones. And to me that’s what it’s all about! Social media should foster the social, after all.

Also - and this might seem paradoxical to the last point, but it’s really not - instead of just talking about the various social media tools available, people were actually using the tools to create original content and do cool things. Whether it was showing people how social media can help sex workers form an online community for real-world activism, or role-playing the ups and downs of being internet famous (I’m still annoyed with myself for not going to Melissa’s session), this conference was about doing and not just being meta. Several people were inspired to create new blogs or other social media projects last weekend, and I look forward to seeing how they develop.

Overall, I believe it was the combination of strong content, the energy of the people there, and the comfort of being in a judgment-free space that created Sex 2.0’s unique heights of awesomeness. There are already plans in the works for next year; I love to see this excitement! The consensus seems to be that it will be in DC next year. Sounds good to me… I’ll see y’all there!

What is Sex 2.0?

Sex 2.0 will focus on the intersection of social media, feminism, and sexuality. How is social media enabling people to learn, grow, and connect sexually? How is sexual expression tied to social activism? Does the concept of transparency online offer new opportunities or present new roadblocks — or both? These questions, and many more, will be addressed within a safe, welcoming, sex-positive space.

Respecting the confidentiality and protecting the identities of participants who wish to maintain a degree of anonymity will be a top priority at Sex 2.0.

When? April 12, 2008
Where? 1763~A Deviant Place of Decadence, 1763 Montreal Circle, Tucker, Ga., 30084
How much? $50.

REGISTRATION IS MANDATORY. We will not be taking any walk-up registrations at the door.

At Sex 2.0, everyone is a participant rather than a passive attendee. This is YOUR event!

The first edition of the Feminist Carnival of Sexual Freedom and Autonomy is now up at Uncool, and it is amazing! Lina has set the bar very high indeed (and I wouldn’t have it any other way). Check it out!

The next edition will be held at Labyrinth Walk on April 21.

I’ll be hosting the carnival in June… more on that when the time draws nearer.

Here’s something cool: Lina has started the Feminist Carnival of Sexual Freedom and Autonomy. (The official web site says I helped organize it, but really I just provided moral support, which is to say, didn’t do a damn thing.) The first installation will be held March 31 at her place; she’s accepting submissions now, and has some really great suggestions for topics. To submit a post, use the carnival submission form or email uncool.blog@gmail.com. (As someone who has hosted a blog carnival before, I have to say using the submission form is highly preferred and appreciated.)

Here’s a description of the carnival:

This theory of feminism is known more commonly as Sex Positive Feminism, a movement that developed in the 1980s in response to feminists against pornography and prostitution. Sex Positive Feminists (or sex-radical, pro-sex or sexually liberated feminists) believe that women’s sexual freedom is an essential part of women’s autonomy. Any legal or social control or regulation over the sexual self is an attempt to control and regulate women, undermines their freedom and infringes upon their human rights. We are interested in promoting sex workers’ rights, sex education in schools, and we encourage the free expression of sexualities.

Sex Positive Feminists recognise that not all women choose to work within the sex industry and some are grossly exploited, so it is crucial to understand that sex work must be done consensually. Otherwise, it represents another form of control. We understand that the opposite of sex positive is not sex negative. For more information about Sex Positive Feminism, click here.

I’ll be hosting the carnival on June 23, but that’s way in the future, so I’ll remind you about it in a few months. In the meantime, submit a post to Lina!

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.

What Lux said: (yes, I’m quoting the whole damn thing)

We live in a sex-soaked world. Star-studded sex tapes flood the channels of media, mainstream blogs publish pornographic spreads, self-proclaimed whores offer sex commentary on tech gossip sites. So all this sex must mean we live in a sex-positive culture, right? It must mean we have healthy attitudes towards sex, that we’re comfortable discussing sexuality, that sex is viewed as just a normal, every day part of life, right? Right?

Yeah, not so much.

The media is all too happy to cover sex when it’s sensationalistic, when there’s a scandal, when they can cluck their tongues about what this world is coming to while simultaneously showing us Paris Hilton’s goodies for our masturbatory pleasure.

Bring on your sex toy busts, your celebrity sex tapes, your teen sex scandals: the media will eat it up and serve it back to us on a platter.

But try discussing sex in a healthy, rational way: try talking about sexuality in a rational, intelligent matter, giving the topic the sensitivity and insight it deserves. Suddenly you’re perverted, you’re sick, you’re unmarketable.

When the mainstream media shows us the latest celebrity sex tape, when it invites us to check out the latest Lindsay Lohan upskirt shot, it’s not a sign of progress. It’s not a sign that we’ve suddenly become okay with sex, that we can talk about sex — no, it’s just another iteration of the age old madonna/whore complex. It’s just another example of sex as the tempting, tantalizing bait that’s dangled in front of us; only to be snatched away when we try to examine it, try to talk about it, try to treat it as something more than the next cheap thrill.

Oh, and for that matter, what Figleaf said, too:

So yesterday during a brief lecture on what was meant by “sex-negative” culture, our professor presented a very cool statement about food:

Try to imagine the following world: Accurate information about food is freely available and exists for all ages in appropriate ways. Talking about what sorts of food you like and negotiating with a dinner partner is a simple and relaxed experience. Different preferences, whether personal or cultural, are important for the information they provide and are no more or less important than hair color or family history, unless people are trying to figure out what to eat together. Some people prefer to eat with the same person indefinitely, others prefer to eat in a group and still others eat with a variety of partners as the mood suits them and nobody is ever forced to eat anything or with anyone. Each person is an expert in their desires and needs around food and their choices are respected.

Now what was missing from the presentation was the source of that quote. Once I got home and started Googling around I’m pretty sure the source must have been The Language of Sex Positivity, by Charlie Glickman, from Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, Volume 3, July 6, 2000. It contains the preceding paragraph and adds a nice follow-up…

While there are many examples of how our world is different from this food-positive one (as anyone who becomes vegetarian in a family of meat eaters knows,) it isn’t too hard to imagine this place. Now go back through the last paragraph and substitute “sex” for “food” and “have sex” for “eat.” How much more difficult is this world to imagine? How much more work would it take to make this happen?

On the other hand, our professor’s version contained a modified version of the first that didn’t require us to imagine…

Try to imagine the following world: Accurate information about sex is freely available and exists for all ages in appropriate ways. Talking about what sorts of sex you like and negotiating with a sex partner is a simple and relaxed experience. Different preferences, whether personal or cultural, are important for the information they provide and are no more or less important than hair color or family history, unless people are trying to figure out what kind of sex to have together. Some people prefer to have sex with the same person indefinitely, others prefer to have sex in a group and still others have sex with a variety of partners as the mood suits them and nobody is ever forced to be sexual or have sex with anyone. Each person is an expert in their desires and needs around sex and their choices are respected.

Our professor suggested that for all of society’s bragging about this or tisk-tisking about that, the fact that the two versions of the paragraph have highly different implications suggests that we have a sex-negative society. And *I* would add that the simple fact that we’d consider making the comparison in the first place is evidence of the same thing.

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.

I linked to Dacia’s latest post about “feminist porn” in my del.cio.us links yesterday, but I had such a “yes yes YES that’s IT!” reaction to it that I feel compelled to quote liberally here…

To me, making feminist porn is not about what is actually shown on screen and much more about what is happening on the production end of things. This is very clearly an expression of my years working in the sex industry and working for sex workers’ rights, but like Petra says in the beginning of this paragraph, “our tastes on what we find sexy in the bedroom or on film differ.” We can have a whole argument about the nurture and nature of “taste” - but I don’t think liking or not liking specific acts can make or break a feminist.

I don’t care if porn shows a woman masturbating by herself (like in many of the Abby Winters photo sets and videos), a woman fucking a guy with a strap-on (like in The Bi Apple, a woman enthusiastically sucking cock (like in Erika’s films), or a pregnant woman getting fucked up the ass with a baseball bat (like in Belladonna’s Fucking Girls Again). What I do care about is: does that performer want to be there? Is the director/producer respecting her needs and paying her appropriately? Did she get blindsided by requests for acts she doesn’t want to do?

The answers to those questions determine whether or not the porn is feminist, sex-positive, and ethical for me, not what is happening on screen.

Do you get it now, people? Do you? I still do not know why this is a difficult concept, but clearly it is. And so these things must continue to be said, emphatically.

I might write more about this later. I need to crawl into bed now, though, because I got up at 6:00 a.m. on a Saturday.

…that Sex, Wine and Chocolate was a huge success!!

Apparently the emcee took her top off, but Rusty and I had already left by that point.

I loved watching people throw money on stage for the burlesque troupe and the pole dancers. Heh. And it all helped us reach out goal, which meant everyone got the free panties we worked so hard to iron for y’all.

We’ll be doing it again next year!

“I Volunteered at Sex, Wine and Chocolate!”

That’s what you’ll be able to say when the night is done!

We’ll need all kinds of volunteers for this event! From set-up starting at 5pm to clean-up at 11:30pm and everything in between. It doesn’t matter if you love people or would rather work behind the scenes, there’s something for every one.

We’ll need volunteers for 2 hour shifts and you’ll receive free admission (that means more money for prize drawing tickets!) and we will give you all the information you’ll need.

Volunteer Shifts for SWC (Thursday, October 18):

• 5pm - 7pm — Set-Up
• 7pm - 9pm — 1st Shift
• 9pm - 11pm — 2nd Shift
• 11pm - 1am — Clean-Up

If you’re interested, contact Mia at miamingus@gmail.com and we will get you hooked up with a job in no time!

Can’t make it to SWC? Join us for an early Volunteer Night from 3-7pm, Wednesday, October 17.

We will be stuffing goodie bags, assembling programs and more for Sex, Wine and Chocolate the next night. RSVP for food and drinks–walk-ins welcome, too.

Contact Mia at miamingus@gmail.com or 404-532-0022 to RSVP!

Prizes, Prizes, Prizes!

Here is a sampling of some of the prizes you can win at Sex, Wine and Chocolate:

• Grand Prize: three-night stay at Sand Castle on the Beach Hotel & Resort, St. Croix, US Virgin Islands
• ONLY for prize-drawing tickets bought in advance: iPod Video Nano
• Classes from PoleLaTeaz
• Themis Personal Organizing gift certificate
• Smart Glass Jewelry by Kathleen Plate
• One-hour health consultation from Sustainable Wellness
• Jewelry by Shirin Style
• Two tickets to Sex 2.0
• Additional prizes from Dr. Sketchy’s Atlanta, Aphroditie’s Toy Box and more!

Buy your tickets now!

(Fellow ATL bloggers… please re-post!)

If you don’t have plans for Oct. 18, be sure to mark your calendar and come to the Georgians for Choice/Generation Five Sex, Wine and Chocolate fundraiser. Hell, if you do have plans, cancel them and come to this instead, because it’s likely to be a lot more fun than whatever you’ve got scheduled.

There will be burlesque performances, spoken word, a drag show, Dr. Sketchy’s Anti-Art School, all manner of tasty desserts, a chocolate fountain, plenty of booze, awesome prizes such as a trip to St. Croix, and, of course, more.

I’m really excited about this because too often, it seems like nonprofit activist type gatherings are so somber and boring - which always struck me as a terrible way to raise money for a cause. Instead, why not have a big party that says, “This is the good stuff our organization is working for in the world!”

So come to Decatur on Oct. 18 and get yourself some sex, wine, and chocolate - or at least one of the three.

(Major props to Mel for creating the bad-ass logo. It makes me salivate.)

From Susie Bright:

I know that the TV-crowd is supposed to think that women’s sexuality has been revolutionized by rabbit-vibe-buying characters on Sex in the City, but I find that to be light propaganda, an amusement. If as many women used a vibrator, as the number who’ve only laughed at a vibrator punchline, we’d be living in a very different female world.

Be sure to listen to her podcast interview with Laura Kipnis, author of The Female Thing: Dirt, Sex, Envy, Vulnerability.

Pseudo-homelessness status: day 10 with no AC. Staying at Grayson’s next door neighbors’ house. They are out of town all week and very graciously have allowed two complete strangers to stay at their house. We will be gifting them with booze.

Friday evening, I talked with a guy (not using his name at the moment in case he doesn’t want me to) who has coordinated lots of events and is very well-connected in terms of knowing people who would be interested in Sex 2.0. I told him some of the stuff I was stressing out about: how to get sponsors, how to make it look like an attractive venture without compromising what we want to do, what to do if we can’t get enough sponsors to cover the overhead costs, my worries that other people involved weren’t doing their fair share, and so on and so forth.

His advice?

Charge $10 admission rather than relying on sponsors to cover costs. That way, we’re not beholden to sponsors’ wants or squicks, and we can do it our way. As for the $10 admission, he said, if people say they’re not going to come because we’re charging $10, then they weren’t going to come in the first place, because that’s not a valid excuse. And if they really are pissed about such a paltry price, then we don’t want them there anyway. Also, people tend to be more invested in something if they have to pay, even if the price is low. For one thing that’ll make our headcount much more accurate.

Additionally, we can have vendor tables at a low cost. I think this is great, because one of the things I’ve wanted to do with this ever since I came up w/ the Sex 2.0 idea is showcase local sex-positive businesses and organizations. This way, that goal will be accomplished, and I won’t have to beg them for money. I know many of the places I have in mind don’t have the kind of money that we would need from sponsors, but I don’t want them to be excluded from the event, which is what would’ve happened with the old model.

All in all, I feel about 100 times better about Sex 2.0 after that conversation, and I have a renewed feeling of inspiration and vigor! I also decided to ditch the wiki and make a WordPress-based web site instead. There will be a blog component, of course. It’s pretty much complete: http://sex20con.com. The registration page works and everything. Did I mention, Eventbrite rocks my socks?

So, once again, mark your calendars for April 12, 2008. Sex 2.0 is going to be an amazing event!!

[Cross-posted on the Sex 2.0 blog]

Cunning Minx is right on:

Somehow, we’re all supposed to believe that sex is bad and our leader (sic) don’t have any despite the obvious presence of children. Or perhaps we’re supposed to believe they had it two or three times for procreation, but they never enjoyed it. I do live for the day when adults can sit down and talk about sex rationally, without “morals” and religion getting in the way. Fact is, our bodies are built the way they are for a biological reason, and to me it just makes sense to acknowledge that like a grown-up instead of sniggering over the girl with the giant hoo-ha’s walking down the street.

*sigh*
I hope this can change in my lifetime. I choose optimism because the alternative is too damn depressing.

Cassandra wins for this comment on Ren’s blog:

And the idea that feminists as a group should base their idea of what constitutes “proper” and “acceptable” sex on what men think…well, that’s ludicrous. What kind of revolutionary movement does that? It’s as if a bunch of Marxists were saying that we shouldn’t form a union because the boss would think we were bad people. Why do we even care?

The concept is (or should be) rather obvious; and she’s not the first to say it. But that analogy? Love it. I think it really drives the point home better than anything I’ve seen prior.

A commenter at Feministe said:

As a parent of 2 girls, I’m hoping that I can encourage them to feel empowered by being smart, skilled, happy, powerful, knowledgeable, athletic, etc. Getting positive sexual attention seems pleasant enough, but also seems ’second class.’ Mostly because it relies on ANOTHER person’s judgment, and not on your own internal power.

*sigh*

Where to begin?

As Jenny put it a few weeks ago: “You’re a woman. You may have your intelligence or your sexuality. You may not have both.”

This, of course, is nothing new at all. In fact, it’s so not new that part of me wonders if I should even bother blogging about it. But it never fails to throw me for a loop when self-identified progressives spout the same reductive, dichotomous crap as the status quo conservatives they claim to oppose.

And you know, I bet the father who made the above statement has the best of intentions. Of course he does! He wants his daughters to be valued for more than their looks or their sex appeal; he wants them to be valued as whole people, who have minds and hearts as well as bodies.

And yet, somehow, in the earnestness to ensure that women and girls are valued intellectually and not just physically, the physical gets left behind.

-Well, actually, scratch that; the sexual gets left behind. Because if you’ll notice, in the above quote, the commenter included athletic ability among the list of skills for which he would like his daughters to be admired.

There’s nothing wrong with wanting to be valued as a whole person; I don’t think any reasonable person would argue otherwise. But the thing is, people have bodies. People have sexuality. So, part of being a whole person is valuing those aspects of oneself as well as the mental, emotional, and spiritual. It’s not an either/or game. Compartmentalization of a major part of oneself is in no way holistic.

As a child, these are the lessons I learned: It’s more important to be valued for your mind. The mental is superior to the physical.

And in a lot of ways, that was a good lesson. I have always enjoyed a rich inner life, and have excelled intellectually. I wouldn’t trade either of those things. I certainly wouldn’t have wanted to grow up basing my entire worth on my physical appearance or physical abilities. But, at times, I feel like I went too far in the opposite direction. I was out of touch with my body. I felt guilty about my strong sexual desires, because those were “second class,” to use a phrase from above. Smart girls use their minds. Smart girls have more important things with which to concern themselves. Smart girls don’t. We know this to be true.

Except, smart girls do. And I realized that denying this very strong, powerful, essential part of myself in the name of being “smart” was not very smart at all.

My other beef with the above quote is this part in particular: “Getting positive sexual attention seems pleasant enough, but also seems ’second class.’ Mostly because it relies on ANOTHER person’s judgment, and not on your own internal power.”

Let’s leave aside the “second class” business for now, the connotations of which could make for a whole other post.

What bugs me about this is the language, which was probably used without any specific thought given to it: “Getting positive sexual attention.” Certainly, there is nothing wrong with getting positive sexual attention if that’s what you want. However, using that language as the assumed default here once again casts women as passive recipients. Women are portrayed as being desired; but what about desiring? What about acting? What about seeking, learning, growing, self-actualizing, and all that other hippy-dippy stuff? Owning one’s sexuality (”my body belongs to me”) absolutely does rely on one’s “internal power.” It can even be a source of that power. When women take full, unapologetic ownership of our sexuality, we are reclaiming it from the tired old rule of women’s sexuality being defined by others.

So, while I 100% support women feeling empowered by being smart, skilled, happy, powerful, knowledgeable, and athletic, I equally support women feeling empowered by being sexual and by not denying the body. I support women feeling empowered by all these things, because none of them are mutually exclusive.

This is an example of the concerns and critiques I have with the porn industry.

A porn actress Tuesday settled her wrongful termination lawsuit against an adult film production company, which she accused of firing her for complaining about unsanitary work conditions.

This is why it’s so crazy-making to me when anti-porn folks completely dismiss my position as “YAY PORN; IT’S ALL ABOUT THE MEN; I HATE WOMEN.”

Because, this is the kind of thing I am very concerned about, and this is where I think a truly sex-positive, worker-centered approach to change is needed. It’s not about OMG TEH SEKS, which is what many people seem to get hung up on; it’s about safe working conditions, and employment policies that are fair to both employer and employee.

This is the kind of thing that concerns me about the porn industry. It’s a workplace issue, not a “sex is so degrading” issue.

As Anthony said:

[This case] is one more example of how a progressive, sex-positive analysis of both the sex media and the talent responsible for creating it is so badly needed… neither the more libertarian Right “let ‘em do it and damn the consequences as long as they get paid” meme nor the radfem “Poor oppressed women, let us liberate them from their plight, even if against their will” doctrine can do much good to help those like Kira Kener who deserve the right to perform her craft on her terms.

For those who were (snidely) asking a week or so ago on a few other blogs, this is what pro-porn activism is about.

For the longest time (am I the only one singing along to Billy Joel in my head now?), the term “pro-porn” really rankled me. And I mean up until about two days ago. As a matter of fact, on a certain level it still rankles me, because, like Trinity, I see it as a nasty, reactionary label slapped onto those of us who don’t toe the anti-porn hardline, by certain smug internet denizens who do.

But when I saw Ren had started this blog, I decided, “Fuck it. It’s time to take the label that was used to hurt and dismiss, and make it our own.”

Because, really, I am pro-porn - but, again, as Trinity has shown, one of the problems with that term is that it can mean so many different things, and if the people having a conversation are all operating from different definitions, there can be some pretty big misunderstandings. So, when I say I’m pro-porn, here’s exactly what I mean…

I think the free, open, uninhibited, joyful expression of sexuality, in whatever form makes people happy and gets them off, is a good thing. What you like might not be what I like and none of it may be what that person over there likes; but that’s beside the point. We all should feel the freedom from shame (or more severe, tangible punishment) to express whatever it is that gets us off. We should not feel that we have to “rein in” our sexuality because it makes someone uncomfortable, or because it’s seen as dirty, or sinful, or silly, or unimportant, or offensive, or whatever else. As women, we get all of this and more from the society around us, every day. And frankly I am sick of it. I am a highly sexual woman, and I am NOT going to apologize for it, or “tone it down,” or anything else. I am going to be ME.

So where does porn fit into all that? Well, I truly believe that porn can be an expression of these things for women. Note the word can. I shouldn’t even have to say it, but obviously this does not mean all porn is awesome. Most porn, in my opinion, isn’t awesome; but that doesn’t mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater. To go back to my music analogy, if I were to say I’m “pro-music,” I seriously doubt many people would immediately jump to “So, you support all the drug and alcohol abuse in the music industry?? So, you want to run independent artists out of business??”

And, too, there’s the very basic, fundamental concept that many people have already mentioned: consenting adults should be able to do whatever the fuck they want. None of us get to be the morality police for other adults.

I’m pro-porn as part and parcel of being sex-positive. And I’m sex-positive because, well, I just can’t imagine being any other way. It just feels right. This society is sex-negative, no two ways about it. And what’s bizarre is that sex is either dirty, nasty, base, shallow, frivolous, scorn-worthy; or it’s sacred, holy, extraordinary, on a pedestal above the rest of the world.

Neither of those are right. And it saddens me that those are our options (and astounds me at how often the two polar opposites are conflated). So how could I not be sex-positive?

[Cross-posted at Pro-Porn Activism]

I’m very excited, because Sex 2.0 plans are progressing nicely!

We now have a confirmed venue, which means we have an idea of how much money we need to raise; which means we can start contacting sponsors! Sex 2.0 will take place April 12, 2008 at the Spring4th Center.

Rusty is going to write a press release tonight or this weekend, and then we can use that, along with bios and such, to put together a media kit to send to potential sponsors. I already have several local companies/organizations in mind that I’d like to approach. Other people will be in charge of approaching sponsors elsewhere (and with helping me approach them here, because really, this is something I definitely cannot do on my own).

We have four sessions nailed down; and there will be more, many more! The fabulous Audacia Ray is also confirmed as the keynote speaker.

If you have an idea for a session, please add it to the sessions page on the wiki; the password is sex20. I will not be coming up with ideas for any sessions. Like PodCamp, this is an unconference created by YOU the participants!

Two of the confirmed sessions have detailed descriptions… here they are:

Choose Your Own Adventure: How has the escorting business changed with the advent of the Internet? - Kristi Kane

Thanks to the Internet, certain hit-or-miss aspects of the escorting business are going by the wayside.

For men, this includes: Looking up random escort agencies in the Yellow Pages, and not knowing what they’ll get; Calling an agency, asking for a petite redhead and getting a heavy brunette; Or having the right girl show up, but not performing the advertised service.

For women: Working for an old-school agency and not knowing who they’ll be seeing or where they’ll be going; Having to wear a blonde wig to an appointment because the guy asked for a blonde; Placing ads in alternative weeklies and fielding tons of bizarre calls from undesirable clients; Having to give half of their hard-earned money back to the agency; And worst of all, walking the streets or dealing with pimps.

For girls who don’t mind answering their own phones, doing their own client screening, and of course, doing their own advertising online, the Internet offers not only a more lucrative arena for putting their assets to work, but gives both providers and hobbyists a place to “choose their own adventures.”

Erotic Writing 101 - Rachel Kramer Bussel

Do you have fantasies waiting to be set free? Do you long to tell someone your deepest desires - or invent whole new erotic scenarios?

Just how kinky can (and should) you get? Are you looking for a career in dirty words?

Learn the tricks of the trade, including how to create tension, passion, and dirty talk, incorporate real-life elements into your smut as well as write from the POV of other genders/sexual orientations, along with erotic writing for big bucks. Taught by acclaimed author and editor Rachel Kramer Bussel (rachelkramerbussel.com), contributor to over 100 anthologies, including Best American Erotica 2004 and 2006. Workshop will cover basics of erotic writing, pseudonyms, sensual letter writing for lovers, writing for websites, magazines and anthologies, how and where to submit your work, as well as exercises to practice in class and at home. Rachel has edited over a dozen naughty books, including He’s on Top, She’s on Top, Caught Looking, Ultimate Undies, and Naughty Spanking Stories from A to Z 1 and 2, is Senior Editor at Penthouse Variations and a Contributing Editor at Penthouse, and hosts NYC’s monthly In The Flesh Erotic Reading Series.

And please add a Sex 2.0 badge to your blog or web site!

Note to self: Stop being such a cheapskate and order more MOO cards. I couldn’t send nearly as many as I wanted to Dacia, Rachel, and Regina. I need to keep reminding myself that yes, in fact, it is okay to spend money on things that aren’t “essential.” :P

On that note, here’s a note to everyone: Feel free to make your own MOO cards, ’cause the logo is on Flickr for everyone’s Creative Commons-friendly use.

Last night I finished reading Audacia Ray’s Naked on the Internet. I was motivated to read it fast because I’d promised to write this review on the June 10, but once I started reading, I knew I would’ve devoured it the way I did no matter what.

I was totally blown away by this book. I had high expectations anyway, because Dacia is super smart and a kick-ass writer, and because the topic is fascinating and basically uncharted territory as far as books go. (Oh, and because I love to see my name in print, and there’s plenty of it in chapter three.) But the finished product was even more amazing than I’d expected. Just… damn.

Instead of spending the entire post gushing about the book’s awesomeness, I want to focus on a few specific things that really stood out for me.

In chapter one, while talking about the differences and similarities between lifecams and other types of webcam projects, Dacia writes:

The degree to which women who operate lifecams have had to be on the defensive about their choice to keep their cams uncensored (hence the entries in their FAQs and blogs that speak to the issue) is indicative of the fact that many people feel conflicted about seeing sexuality as part and parcel of the scope of a woman’s life.

I had a bit of an “a-ha!” moment when I read that - not because it’s some completely new concept that I’d never considered, but because it’s something I’ve long seen as a fundamental, pervasive societal problem with how we understand sexuality, but I’ve struggled to put it into words.

Society has a need to compartmentalize women’s sexuality, and even though I understand the historical “whys” and “wherefores” behind it, ultimately whenever I pursue this train of thought I’m left with a big WTF. I think this compartmentalization - whether forced onto women by others, or by women feeling that they have to conform to it - is the unifying feature behind countless pieces of the Bullshit Puzzle, and we can’t successfully solve problems on a piece-by-piece basis until we undertake the radical task of addressing this compartmentalization.

A little later in chapter one, while talking about Ana Voog’s pregnancy, Dacia writes:

[B]ring a baby into the picture, and suddenly people are up in arms about whether a woman who’s making homemade porn (even if that’s not what the women themselves choose to call it) is fit to be a parent.

I was talking about this with Figleaf when he was visiting last week. I asked him if he ever worries about being “outed” because he has children. He was pretty confident, almost to the point of seeming dismissive, in his answer that no, he doesn’t worry, and why should he? Of course, this is how it should be - a foregone conclusion. The fact that adults have sex lives - which they experience and express in myriad ways - and raise children should be ridiculously mundane. And yet, unfortunately, in the minds of many, it’s not - and especially when the parents in question are women. For some reason, female sexuality seems to be a much bigger threat - to whom or to what, is the part I can’t figure out.

One other thing that stood out to me was this bit in chapter three:

[T]hough many women have the potential and the drive to be freer, they still feel the sharpness of societal constraints when they’re moving around the world outside the blogosphere.

I can relate to that so, so much. Even though I have a ton of ideals wrt sexuality and I try to live as authentically as possible - because anything else feels destructive - the reality is that I still live in a larger world that, for the most part, is very sex-negative. My personal feelings about sexuality and sexual empowerment don’t negate the power of the double standard, the madonna/whore dichotomy, or a society that has legal buy-in to the idea that (for example) a woman who goes to swinger parties is an unfit parent. And on a smaller scale, sometimes even hanging out with local bloggers, many of whom I’ve come to consider close friends, I feel like I have to “tone down” my interest in and enthusiasm for sexuality. I try to actively fight against these kinds of inner reactions, but old lessons die hard.

I could go on writing about every part of the book I underlined or drew exclamation points next to, but if I did that, we’d be here all night. So in conclusion, I’ll just say, flat-out: READ THIS BOOK. I am in awe of it, and I guarantee you will be, too.