Being Amber Rhea

Busy today, and if I’m going to be blogging, I want to get back to writing personal stuff; but I made the mistake of going back to that thread (which has exploded), and I saw this comment from Emilie Dice and it irritated me:

Because men are already “sex positive” by cultural default. It’s not an issue for them. Of course they want women making the right choice to cater to their sexist demands. It’s a given.

That really annoys me because it is so NOT what being sex-positive is about. It reminds me of non-sex-positive feminists who say, “I like sex! So how can I be sex-negative?” Because it’s not about whether you personally like sex. It’s about so much more than that. And the traditional patriarchal construct of how male and female heteronormative sexuality is played out is NOT sex-positive. So a guy not being afraid to say he likes to fuck isn’t necessarily sex-positive, either. Does he subscribe to the virgin/whore dichotomy? How does he view women who are openly, actively, unabashedly sexual? Does he speak in denigrating terms about some women and/or some types of consensual sex? Does he think “gay” is an insult? Does he use gendered insults? On and on and on. And of course, anything that is sexist (see Emilie’s comment) is by definition NOT sex-positive.

A few weeks ago I collected some sex-positive links to serve as reference for explaining what I mean, since I seem to be so often repeating myself.

Briefly, because I have to wrap a few things up before I leave the office and head home to get ready for pole dancing class… which is particularly timely given some of the links I’m about to provide.

Yes, no surprise, shit like this and this (check the comment from “L”) downright enrages me. And even that word, I think, does not do justice to the pure RAGE I feel when I see people DENYING MY AGENCY AS A HUMAN BEING, denying my very existence, denying that I am an intelligent, capable, self-aware woman who is CONSTANTLY examining and reflecting on my own life and the choices I make. It hurts the most when it comes from other women, in particular other feminists.

I don’t know how or what to write about this shit anymore. Ren has written rounds and rounds of sense on her blog, as have many others; but Ren has been particularly prolific (and repetitive, because apparently it’s just NOT GETTING THROUGH to some people). Frankly I don’t know how she has the energy anymore. It drains me, to constantly try so hard to get people to understand the simple fact of, “This is my life, this is my truth, this is WHO I AM, and you don’t have to like it but you DO have to accept it, and accept that I have done enough ‘examining’ for the both of us, thankyouverymuch.”

It enrages me, and it makes me feel sick, and sad, and just awful about humanity, actually. Because why is it such a difficult concept to convey, that my life is mine, my choices are mine, and just because they differ from yours that does not mean I’m damaged or stupid? Why is it so hard to see that accepting the same old stereotypes of women who are openly sexual (not to mention women who work in the sex industry!) as stupid or damaged or victims or villains is nothing more than some seriously OLD-SCHOOL PATRIARCHAL BULLSHIT? It HURTS to have that same old double standard inflicted on me by other women, by other FEMINISTS.

This post gets the “hypocrisy” tag because, as I said to Elisa the other night, that’s what it is, plain and simple.

Pole dancing, for example? The smug characterizations of it as “empowerful” or “degrading” and whatever other bullshit so-called feminist bloggers (not to even mention non-feminists, especially anti-feminist men; holy shit, I can’t even go there, I would get damn near suicidal) say about it, talking OUT OF THEIR ASSES, assuming I must be doing it for my boyfriend (!!!!!!) or whatever else… holy fucking shit I cannot take it anymore. But guess what I DO know, assholes? That when I’m pole dancing, I feel joyful and whole, I feel a happiness that I rarely feel at any other time that permeates my entire being, I feel ALIVE - and the last thing on my mind is what “Teh Menz” might be thinking (especially because nine times out of ten, there AREN’T ANY MEN PRESENT anyway).

I don’t know how many times I can say this before it will get across. And maybe it never will - which is the part that hurts the most.

Repost of two comments I left at Season of the Bitch.

I have longer posts in the works about each of these sentiments, but for now this will have to suffice until I flesh out my thoughts a bit more.

—
First comment:

I have a big problem w/ people who dismissively cast concern about sexual equality as “bourgeois.” To me, this says, yet again: “Oh, it’s sex, it’s not REALLY important, silly little girl.” And it doesn’t acknowledge the truth of MY experience, growing up in a working-class family and being VERY interested and concerned with sexuality.

I think Queer Dewd a.k.a. Bitch | Lab said it best here.

Major quotage:

Because, lord knows “my” issues aren’t also anyone’s who doesn’t share them. Because lord knows “my” issues are white mainstream middle class feminist fluff. So, heaven help me if I dare speak to something that has profoundly fucking shaped my life and the lives of men and women I love: being sexually marginalized, being erased, having to hide who I am or watch others do so, having to listen to all manner of bullshit.

So, when I dare talk about anything that matters to me, why, I’m a fucking pro-pornstitution feminist and/or white mainstream feminist - if I’m lucky to be called a feminist at all. If I’m even lucky to not be called a man. Because, after all, what it is really all about as I learned a year ago is that I’m all about my moist pussy and my vast, vast, vast, vast porn collection. (oops sorry. Channeling Heart)

Erased. Deleted. Evaporated. My identity, my past, who I am, who my friends are - it doesn’t matter - because I am immediately assumed to be engaged in the issues of concern only to white middle class women or, conversely, a male-identified, patriarchy-fucking, freelancer provacateuring for the right wing. (Damn. Wish I knew who the rest were. I need to do some benchmarking on my competition.)

Because lord knows there are no poor, white, queer women. And it often seems that the only way to have anyone take us seriously on this issue is to focus on extreme marginalization or the fact of poverty, rather than examining the everyday acts of silencing and erasing. If it involves bodily harm or extreme psychic harm, that’s important. But if it’s the harm done to women like RenEv by the way they are treated in this society, then it is *piffle*. If it’s the harm from having your sexual identity erased and you are bisexual: big fucking whoopee. And for christ’s sake don’t you even dare talk about taking pole dancing classes and how that’s personally empowering for you given your working class, Southern, conservative, Christian upbringing. There are more important things in the world and obviously poverty supercedes that.

Except. It. Doesn’t.

Because I (or Amber, or any other woman) can’t be pulled apart into those baby block beads that are discrete from one another, that can be snapped back together after examining each one: one bead poor, one bead queer, one bead woman, one bead white.

I am sex positive because I don’t know what else to call a feminist who fights against the instantiation of elitism and classism in mainstream society and among feminismS, an elitism and a classism that is so subtle virtually no one sees it, and who rails against the way this normalization of class warfare revolves around, among other things, sexuality and sexual representation. I don’t know what to call a feminist who cares about the way these same issues are racialized, who cares about the way sex and sexuality are subject to the same normalizing hegemonic institutions as any other oppressive system we are all supposed to struggle against and dismantle.

—
Second comment:

And also?

My feminism is critical of power relations based on a linear hierarchy. (This translates into me feeling guilty being ‘the boss’ at work).

Fuck guilt. First of all, sometimes hierarchy is necessary - and as long as you’re not being an asshole, there’s no problem. Secondly, we get enough guilt heaped onto us as women, without burdening ourselves with MORE guilt for achieving a modicum of success.

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

Reminder: I’m hosting the Feminist Carnival of Sexual Freedom and Autonomy on Monday, so get your submissions in by Saturday night! I’ll be putting the carnival together on Sunday.

(This will show up again in my Twitter auto-post tonight.)

As mentioned earlier, on June 23 (next Monday) I’ll be hosting the fifth Feminist Carnival of Sexual Freedom and Autonomy.

If you have written or plan to write something pertaining to sexuality, sexual freedom, feminism, gender, etc., send your submission to amberlr [at] gmail [dot] com, or mark the post for me in del.cio.us. You can (and should!) also submit posts by your favorite bloggers.

The carnival’s mission statement, once again:

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.

Get those submissions in!

Inspired by this post, I decided that I wanted to try writing for a larger audience. Eek! I’ve always felt very stressed out writing under any kind of pressure, even self-imposed pressure, but I want to challenge myself and see what happens. So last night I did a bunch of free-writing/brain-dumping. The result of that exercise has now graduated to rough draft numero uno, which means I had to cut a bunch of stuff so I could stick w/ a central theme. Here’s all the stuff I took out - I think it’s all important stuff and highly relevant, but I just couldn’t make it “fit.” Solution? Blog it!

—

You often hear feminists saying that just using “choice” as an excuse or justification or way of avoiding dealing w/ complex issues is BS. And it is. They will often say, “The context in which that choice is made matters.” And it does!! So why does that concept fly out the window when the issue is sex, and in particular sex that squicks some people out?

Look, if you’ve got a woman telling you, “This is what I like, I’ve examined it and yes this is really what I want to do, and doing it makes me happy, and trying to force myself NOT to do it made me feel awful, and will people just get off my back about it already?” - what the fuck is so hard to understand about that?? A core tenet of feminism is the importance of listening to women, providing women with space to speak the truths of their lives, to speak honestly and openly without the restraints put in place by a society that tries to dictate what is acceptable and what is not. We often say when it comes to issues of rape: “Listen to the woman. Take her at her word. Believe her.” We often say when it comes to issues of abortion: “Trust women. They are capable of making their own decisions.”

Why do these sentiments not apply when a woman says she likes a certain kind of sex?

Recent editions of Our Bodies, Ourselves have removed some of the sex fantasies that were in the original 1972 version, because they were deemed too controversial or uncomfortable. Wait a minute. Wasn’t the point that women need space to talk about these things openly, even if (especially if!) they are “controversial” or “out of the norm” or make other people squirm a little?

Do you think I haven’t been told that, as a woman, actively wanting and pursuing sex, enjoying it for its own sake and not as a way to “get” something or as a reward, not necessarily tying it up with love or a relationship, etc., is bad and that there’s something wrong with me? You think the social script of sluts vs. good girls doesn’t play on an endless loop in the back of my mind, even now? You think I haven’t been hearing this shit since before I was old enough to really understand what “sexuality” even meant?

You think that’s not patriarchy??

The patriarchy is SEX-NEGATIVE. I am personally not a fan of the term “The Patriarchy” (capital P!) but I often refer to the sex-negative society in which we live. Guess what, folks? Same thing, different name.

I am tired of my arguments being reduced to black-and-white, simplistic, non-nuanced cartoons of themselves. And the funny thing is, often the people who are doing this reducing are, nearly in the same breath, complaining about arguments about sex being so black-and-white and over-simplified! It would be laughable if it weren’t so crazy-making. Uh, well maybe part of that is that you’re the one simplifying things. You are not hearing what people are saying. There’s a filter in place, filtering out the nuance.

Don’t tell me it’s not worth pushing back against the status quo. To do anything else feels like death to me, and yeah that might sound melodramatic, but I don’t know how else to convey it.

—

Other responses to the Feministe thread:

• Bookworm: Feminist-positive sex: some initial thoughts
• let them eat pro-sm feminist safe spaces: Getting off on power exchange is BadWrong, let me tell you it.
• Letters from Gehenna: Examining Desire
• Renegade Evolution: You know, I think the feminist thing to do would be to stop telling people how to fuck…. and Patient Zero, it’s time for your Examination…
• season of the bitch: Female Desire Week (plus): Sex and Art

As mentioned earlier, on June 23 I’ll be hosting the fifth Feminist Carnival of Sexual Freedom and Autonomy. Because that’s a mouthful (but a good one, because it describes the carnival accurately!), from here on out I’ll be calling it the feminist sex carnival.

I said in my previous post on the matter that I would try to think of some specific themes I’d like to address in the carnival. Well, I’ve tried, and I can’t think of any. And anyway, I think there are so many important issues to talk about that I don’t want my call for submissions to feel limiting in any way. So, if you have written or plan to write something pertaining to sexuality, feminism, gender, etc., send in your submission to amberlr [at] gmail [dot] com, or mark the post for me in del.cio.us. You can (and should) also submit posts by your favorite bloggers.

The carnival’s mission statement, again:

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.

I wonder, should I upgrade my blog to Wordpress 2.5.1 before the carnival, or after? Hmm…
(That’s a rhetorical question. I don’t actually want input about what I should or shouldn’t do w/ my Wordpress installation.)

Interesting post up at Uncool. This idea of a woman’s body as a signifier for sex is something I first discussed back in college, in my awesome Biology and Politics of Women’s Reproduction class. The professor had asked us to bring in magazine clippings of ads that use sex to sell their product. A lot of people brought in ads featuring scantily clad women. As we went around and each showed the ads we’d brought, the professor called these out and asked, “Why does this signify sex? This is a picture of a woman. Why do we understand the picture to represent sex?”

It was a real “a-ha!” moment for me.

I don’t think this is something nearly enough people consider, or that it even ever enters their mind as something that needs to be considered. There’s nothing to think about there, right? Sex sells… and we understand that even an image of a woman’s face or lips [can't find the photo I was looking for] means “sex.”

But, why? Talk about your deeply embedded cultural assumptions. We’ve got some unpacking to do. Because until we do that, there are a lot of other problems that will remained only partially dealt with at best, instead of getting to the root of the problem.

For example, Caroline says:

Now, to me, it seems reasonable to make a connection with street harassment (I’ve got a post in the drafts, will do very soon). Because naked women = sex, so to do ‘revealing’ clothes. Take, for example, the lady pictured (right, taken from Tom Paine’s blog). Sexy? Certainly this image would equate with sex in this society because 1) the jeans show clearly her figure and 2) there’s a lot of skin on display. Therefore, some men believe that sex is being ‘offered’ to them and whistling, leery looks, comments etc ensues. So, if women say, “No, I’m wearing these jeans because I like the way I look in them and they make me feel more confident and therefore happier, and it is not about attracting the attention of all the men on the street,” many will laugh and dismiss that as utter nonsense.

Why? Because, like we said, naked women = sex, and that attitude permits, in part, that sort of behaviour (obviously it’s by no means solely responsible). Blokes don’t want to wear their shirts in the summer because they’re too hot, whatever. Women want to wear short shorts or, say, cropped tops because…. what? They’re sexy? They’re trying to be sexy? Cos they’re after attention? Please. Some do, some don’t. Depends on the lass just as it depends on the lad.

I think the other thing at work in this example is entitlement, which as we know, is a big part of male privilege. Obviously it must be about the men, what else could it possibly be about? Surely she couldn’t have her own reasons for dressing a certain way, that’s inconceivable!

It’s really, really stupid. I mean when I really think about it, the utter stupidity just knocks me on my ass.

Unfortunately I see similar arguments coming from some feminists, and the fact that I know they’re not stupid at all points to just how entrenched this idea is. For example, in Caroline’s post she points to another incarnation of the ever-present hand-wringing discussion over why some women post naked photos online. It simply must have something to do with wanting male approval, right?

My reaction, again, can be summed up with this emoticon: :|

I think there is a discussion to be had over the relative lack of male bodies portrayed on some self-identified sex-positive sites; but getting hung up on the “women only do it for male attention” / “those sites are replicating existing power structures” argument will simply lead to a stalemate, preventing discussion of whatever the real issues are.

ETA: Also be sure to see Laura’s original post which Caroline was referencing. Meant to link it when I first wrote this post, sorry!

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.)