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.

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.

Ren gave me kudos for engaging on this thread; and frankly, I surprised myself by having the stomach for it.

Quote of the morning goes to Ren, commenting about this particular installation of hand-wringing. (It was hard not to quote her entire post!)

MAYBE for people with kinks or rougher preferences feminist sex includes being aware enough of what they like to ASK for it, do it, enjoy it, explore it WITH other CONSENTING ADULTS! Wow! There’s a fucking thought…

I’ll tell you what, I think the woman who has the spine to tell her partner “I want you to pin me down, choke me, fuck the hell out of me and call me names” is a hell of a lot more empowered sexually than the vanilla woman who lays there and thinks of England rather than telling her partner amid sex what she really wants…no matter what that is. The woman who says “tonight, you’re going to fuck me like an animal, and tomorrow, I’m gonna fuck you like an animal” is light years ahead of the woman too ashamed or afraid to say that. The woman who tells her partner she wants to tie them up, do them with a strap on, and smack them around is better off that the woman who takes what she is given because she is ashamed to mention she’d like to do that.

And I sure as fuck want everyone to examine why they think they can tell other adult consenting people how to fuck or that they are doing it wrong and why they feel they can shame them for it.

I’ll have more to say about this later, when I get a free moment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I heart this post by Debauchette. An excerpt:

Sex with someone changes over time in interesting and beautiful ways. Aggressive sex tends to expand my boundaries; intimate sex tends to deepen the territory within those limits. It allows me to shut off my brain, to be primal, physical, and open, and to experience someone else in an equally primal state. It heightens my empathy. It reminds me to stay in the moment.

And promiscuity was an important part of my development as a woman. Promiscuity made it possible for me to better understand myself, my emotional needs, my kinks, my physical range, my priorities, as well as my relationship to other people. When we accuse women (never men, always women) of having no respect for their bodies when they sleep [with] many men, we’re working from the assumption that sex itself is degrading to women (never men), when the contrary should be true. That nagging, pervasive Judeo-Christian construct of sex as some corruptive force keeps us defensive and nervous when we should be forthright and proud.

My rejection of sex-as-sin morality isn’t new - I think every major artistic movement has fucked out of social, sometime political, defiance, but it never seems to stick, maybe because it’s mostly men who are doing the rejecting, the fighting, and the fucking. Or maybe because history is predictable and repetitive - there’s always a backlash, and then a backlash to the backlash. Whatever it is, I’m just another promiscuous blip in a continuum of irreverent fucking.

In attempting to catch up on some blog reading, I see Ren has declared this to be kink week!

Now, I think there’s a spectrum of kinkiness, and the definition varies from person to person. One person’s kinky is another person’s vanilla. I’ll try to post about my thoughts on this more tomorrow (or at some point this week), and maybe even talk about some personal kinks. So a heads up to my mom, who I know reads this no matter what she might say in protest, that she should either stop reading or deal with the fact that yeah, I’m an adult who has sex.

Stay tuned!

Words of wisdom, from another twenty-something feminist with a degree in linguistics and an eye for bullshit (whose blog I discovered yesterday):

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

That’s objectification, and it’s objectification in the narrow, limited, sex-specific sense of the word - the definition of a woman’s self has been reduced to her sexuality, her value has become inextricably attached to her sex. On the other hand, it’s perfectly acceptable - laudable, even - for me to charge for the use of my brain, or for me to be “valued” for my intelligence. That wouldn’t be considered being “used”, it wouldn’t be thought of as “selling myself”. Paradoxically, that’s like saying that my brain is less valuable, less connected to what I am as a person - it can be partitioned off, the use of it essentially “rented” by my employers, and I can joyfully and proudly accept payment for it while I continue to use my brain outside of the workplace to also attract potentially desirable mates. “Selling” my brain doesn’t take anything from me, doesn’t make me less whole, doesn’t make me damaged goods, and yet somehow, selling my body in a sexual manner (because, of course, if I were selling the use of my body for work in a factory, we again would not be having this conversation) would. If my sexuality is not the sum total of my humanity, if it is not even the primary source of my “value”, then this attitude towards sex work is nonsensical.

Read the whole post.

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

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

• porn law follies (from Open Source Sex)

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

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

• Oh, the irony (from Mistress Maeve)

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

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

• Previous Posts Revisited (from $pread Blog)

  An excerpt will speak for itself for this one:

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Antidepressants don’t work (from Uncool)

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

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

• Teenagers as Sexual Beings (from Miss Nomered)

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

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

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

• Media and a Sex Worker (from After Hours)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  This post, however, gets the WIN stamp.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(emphasis mine)

Read more here.

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

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

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

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

Click To Play

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Originally posted June 30, 2005]

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

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

From Kerry Howley, senior editor at Reason magazine:

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Good Vibrations blog:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*headdesk*

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

I do not understand.

[Via Dacia]

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

[Via Pro-Porn Activism]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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