Being Amber Rhea

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.)

Talk about your Bingo card of arguments! Seriously, if I see “selling their bodies” one more time - and from a feminist, at that! - I am going to lose my damn mind.

Other Bingo-worthy words and phrases in this comment:

• empowering
• collection of holes and body parts Ed. note: ick! Bonus point for use of unnecessarily porny language.
• cash in on it
• post-feminist
• sex-as-a-commodity
• Sorry, but…
• early sexualization

As I said on the Feministe thread from whence this comment came:

And I guess I’m one of those old-fashioned feminists that doesn’t think a woman’s entire self-worth is wrapped up in what she does sexually. The phrase “selling her body” is *extremely* patriarchal and reduces sex workers to one aspect of their being: their sexual behavior. Sex workers are *not* selling their bodies - they are offering a service. Sorry but I thought that feminism didn’t subscribe to the belief that a woman engaging in sex with a man constitutes a transfer of ownership.

I do, however, need a “Stamp of Approval” or “OK!” stamp, because the last three sentences of that comment do not fail. I have no Photoshop skills to speak of, though (aside from putting one layer on top of another to make the above image, and the like) so that’ll have to wait until Rusty feels motivated to create more graphics for my amusement.

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.

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.

You’re probably thinking, “But Amber, you had just started there!” Yeah, I did - in January. And two months later, I’m quitting. All my posts are here, but there won’t be any more coming.

The comments in my last post spiraled out of control, quickly. Right now it’s up to 92 comments (but for the past twenty or so it’s been the same two guys beating their chests at each other). From the beginning, I probably should’ve created a Gmail filter to automatically delete comment notifications (which I did later), but I didn’t want to miss any good comments.

Then the attacks started pouring in.

I didn’t want to comment, because I knew it would be pointless. But then I left one snarky comment, and then a few more. Even as I was doing it I was feeling the emotional toll, and yet it was like the car accident phenomenon of not being able to look away.

And then I got some emails from fellow Download Squad bloggers who said they found my comments “reprehensible,” “close-minded,” and “mean-spirited.” They characterized the trolls, slut-baiters, and anti-feminists* as “disagreeing” and “addressing [me] civilly and, for the most part, maturely.”

So.

After lots and lots of thought on the matter, I’ve decided that I’m not going to continue writing at Download Squad. The kind of thing that happened on that last thread is just not a healthy environment for me to be in. I know how those kinds of situations affect me, and it would be extremely detrimental for me to continue putting myself in such a position.

It’s not that I’m all that surprised, really. I mean I’m not stupid or naïve. I guess I just… thought? hoped? wanted to believe? it would be different this time. But I’ve gotten that kind of reaction so many times, in so many different places, that at this point I can’t even try to enumerate them. That’s why I made the commenter Bingo card; it really is like marking squares off a board. They say the same shit every time. And some people have a thick skin, and that stuff doesn’t get to them, and they stand tall in the face of it and shout their message out to people who are determined not to hear it, in the hope that maybe 1 person out of 1,000 will listen and really think about what they’ve said…

But I’m not one of those people.

I’ve mentioned before that this is why I don’t consider myself a hardcore activist. I’m not cut out for it. I can say with reasonable certainty that being on the front lines of this kind of stuff would turn me suicidal.

I do very well in face-to-face one-on-one interactions where I know the other person sees me as a fully equal human being and is willing to listen respectfully and thoughtfully to what I’m saying. I enjoy those interactions; I enjoy respectful, intelligent debate. I do not enjoy or do well in verbal onslaughts where people are telling me I need to shut up, go away, show ‘em my tits, get laid, change who I am if I want to be taken seriously, and by the way why am I so ugly, why am I such a whore, etc. etc. etc.

For the sake of my own health (not to mention self-respect!), I won’t allow myself to be spoken to that way. And as I learned a long time ago, the “just ignore them” adage does not work.

As I said in the fateful Download Squad post, it’s important to keep hacking away at these bullshit barriers. And I completely believe and agree with the sentiments expressed here. But, I can’t do it on a large scale. This is something I know about myself; I can fight this fight with individuals and very small groups, but not with large groups or (god forbid) “the public.”

It’s an important fight. But it’s one we all have to do our own way, and that is not my way.

Maybe Download Squad can find someone with a thicker skin to write what was my column.

* Funny thing… I was called a radical feminist on that thread. That’s one thing that does make me laugh. Inevitably, in discussions (and I use that word loosely) with people like the lovely DLS commenters, I will eventually be called a radical feminist. Usually I’ll be called a lesbian as well, or the question will be raised of when I last had a good deep-dicking. Oh, if only they knew… actual radical feminists can’t stand me! And they accuse me of being some kind of girly-girl embodiment of the common man’s wet dream, which also cracks me up. Little do they know, the common man is calling me one of them!

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.

From the Good Vibrations blog:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*headdesk*

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

I do not understand.

[Via Dacia]

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

[Via Pro-Porn Activism]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most of the activism I am really passionate about is related to sexuality. That’s because I am simply unable to divorce sexuality from the rest of my being; it’s such a fundamental part of who I am, that I can’t imagine just taking it on and off like a jacket. I’m not good at compartmentalizing, and I don’t think it should be a requirement for social justice activism. “Yes, work for social justice - as long as you keep this part of you that kind of makes us uncomfortable out of it.”

I can’t do that. To be human is to be sexual; even people who identify as asexual are claiming an identity regarding their sexuality. One of the quotes in my header quote rotation is from Kochanie, and it sums up my feeling on the matter: “I am sex, I am my body, and my sex, my mind and my body have never been separate.”

There’s been a lot of talk here lately about sex work, and I know some people are wondering why I am so passionate about sex workers’ rights activism, in particular. I’ll list a few reasons:*
Read the full post »

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

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

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

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

A scene from Delusional, a 2000 release from Vivid:

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

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

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

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

Lindsay lets down her defenses

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

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

So, Robert Jensen has a new book out, called Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity. If you’ve been paying attention to this sort of thing, you already know my feelings about Mr. Jensen. But now, with the release of his book, plenty of people who call themselves progressive or liberal are falling all over themselves to praise him. And it makes me sick.

I don’t know if I want to read the book or not. On the one hand, I feel like I should, because of the “understand your enemies” thing (which is why I suffered through Female Chauvinist Pigs and Pornified), and also because I think if you talk about a book without having read it, you’re talking out of your ass (this was one of my main gripes about the Full Frontal Feminism fallout).

On the other hand, I don’t know how much head-desking I can take. I’ve read enough of his articles to know what Jensen’s M.O. is. And would a fisking of his book really accomplish anything? If it would, then I might be convinced to read it. But also, Chris Hall has already posted an excellent, thorough review at Sex In the Public Square. Here are a few key excerpts:

I can go on for hours and hours about what irredeemable psychic flotsam the great mass of porn is, and could probably fill several volumes thicker than Jensen’s on the mediocrity, body fascism, poor production values, labor abuses and sexism that dominate mainstream porn. These are all things that people of good conscience should find troubling about porn as it exists today. And yet, even as I calculate all the sins of pornography to the nth degree, and catalog the ways that I find it disappointing and trivial in taxonomies so detailed that the Library of Congress would have to invent a whole new indexing system, there’s something else: I think that in porn lies our salvation. For those of us who hate the ugly gordian knot of fear and loathing that our society ties our sexualities into, porn is essential. We need a genre of literature and art devoted to sexual arousal just as much as we need those that make us laugh, cry, or cringe in fear. And at the same time, we need to develop a critical language that we can use to think and speak about pornography. Without these things, we’ve resigned ourselves to remaining forever mute about our sexual desires.

[…]

By using this thin sliver of pornography to talk about the whole, Robert Jensen has eliminated alternative genders and sexualities entirely. He doesn’t have to wonder what it means to have a transgendered man like Buck Angel making a good living billing himself as a “man with a pussy.” Dykes who make porn for other women, like the Cyber-Dyke network, are not even acknowledged. There is not even a whisper of the thousands of web pages and videos and magazines that focus on women dominating men, or cock-and-ball torture, or any other of a million practices. These sexualities do not even exist in Robert Jensen’s cosmology; he has written them out of existence as neatly as a respectable family who resolutely doesn’t speak the name of the cousin living as a “confirmed bachelor.” But all of these identities and practices come with legal and social consequences. To simply discard so many lives in a book that claims to honestly explore the nature of desire in our society is not only intellectually dishonest, but hateful.

[…]

Robert Jensen’s passion is reserved for visualizing women’s sexual pain. Never once does he turn that passion the other direction to look at the possibilities for women’s sexual pleasure. There is not, in the end, so much difference between Jensen and the most misogynist, exploitative porn director; neither can imagine the sexual role of men as being anything other than to fuck, nor can they imagine women’s roles as being anything other than to be fucked. And that’s why, regardless of my doubts about mainstream porn, I can never, never imagine aligning myself with Jensen and his ilk. Because at the heart of his arguments, I see the same misogynist bullshit that I want to excise from pornography.

[…]

One of the things that keeps misogyny a thriving monster in our society is sexual shame and guilt. Violence against women and gays comes not from people who are comfortable being open about their desires, but by those who feel that their desires are somehow wrong. People have a limited capacity for accusing themselves. There are only so many times that a man will look at women and feel guilty about his lust before those thoughts whip around like a serpent devouring its tail. Then, the problem isn’t him. It’s that bitch in the short skirt, the whore who’s tempting him and who deserves whatever she gets. And then, we know the rest of the story. We’ve heard it too many times to forget. November 19 was the Transgender Day of Remembrance, and December 17 will be 5th Annual International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers precisely because we know how the story of people driven by sexual self-hatred turned inside-out ends.

So what do you think? Should I bother reading this book and posting a review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In comments on her post, Melissa says:

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

Bigger and more important?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry for this hodge-podge of a post.

* generic “you”

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

Via Trinity:

WHAT CAUSES VANILLA?

How long have you been vanilla?

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

Have you ever really examined your vanilla desires?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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