Being Amber Rhea

I wrote this as a comment on Deb’s blog (on this post; comment currently in moderation) but wanted to repost it here as well.

I haven’t heard the term “anti-sex” very often. I *have* heard “sex-negative” fairly frequently (and I use it myself on a regular basis) and when I *have* heard “anti-sex,” it seems that the meaning is intended to be the same as “sex-negative.” That is, it’s not about whether a particular individual does or does not like sex. That’s not even part of the argument. Instead, it’s about the way sexuality is regulated in our society, so that only certain expressions of sexuality are considered acceptable. And who most often suffers because of these constraints? You got it: women, queer folks, trans folks, people with disabilities. If we “stray from the path” - to use your very appropriate blog title! - we are punished. We are suddenly outside the scope of what is acceptable, and therefore *wrong* or even seen as inhuman in some cases (e.g., sex workers). Sex-positivity is about embracing *all* expressions of sexuality and decentering the male-centric, heteronormative stereotypes of sexuality. I’ve collected some good reference links on the matter here, that explain it much better than my fumbling attempt!

Occasionally I like to just go back and re-read some of those posts I’ve collected on my Sex-Positive Reference page. And when I do, I always come away with the question hanging heavily in the air: how could anyone who identifies as feminist not be sex-positive?

Look at this bit from Amanda Holloway, for example:

I believe that being in control of one’s sexual self involves having access to information that allows for informed decision making. I also believe that it involves access to the medical treatments and technology –from condoms to regular Pap smears to Gardasil to abortion procedures – that put women in charge of their bodies. I believe in sexual self-determination, that each person has a right to determine who she will be intimate with, and in what context, without being judged for her choices or forced into others. I believe that being in control of one’s sexual self is an integral part of autonomous adulthood, and until women are given the right to control our sexual selves we will continue to be treated like children in this paternalistic society.

How could any feminist not support these goals? (And as I’ve said before, I think the idea of being sex-positive and not being feminist is a contradiction in terms. To be sex-positive is to be feminist. To two are so inherently wed that to try to separate them makes no sense to me.) And, really: how could ANYONE not support these goals?

Renee is right on with this:

I am sure that for most women this is an experience that we all communally share. The silencing can come in many forms, direct interruption, or criticism of our tone. How many times has a powerful woman been told that her voice has a nagging or whining quality to it? This reduces us to our biology and renders our opinions irrelevant.

Many women have become jaded and simply accepted this silencing without further thought. This is a mistake. When we allow men to control the conversation we are granting them power to control our social discourse. If men can always decide what is and isn’t relevant conversation our issues will never be significantly addressed.

Fear of being disciplined is not an excuse to become subservient. It takes courage to speak truth to power, but when we consider what is at stake, it is an act of gender annihilation to remain silent. Men will not engage about the harms of domestic violence, rape, pay inequity, childcare, femicide, and sexual harassment; these are womens issues. Even when we are speaking about benign subjects their interruption is a co option of our space and an expression of male privilege. It has far reaching implications because it infers (sic) that womens needs and concerns are secondary to their thought processes. The man that does not value your mind, views you as a fuckable object, or a mother replacement.

The next time you are interrupted look at the man who had the temerity to think that his words somehow were more important than yours and let him know that you were speaking. What you have to say matters and no amount of chest thumping testosterone should ever make you feel small.

Something I find interesting and disturbing is how freely people of my generation give out their social security numbers. (I do it myself all the time!) Think about it, how often when you call customer service for somewhere like a bank, or a cable company, or any other place where you have an account do they ask to “verify your social security number?” Some people even use it as their driver’s license number. When I was in grad school, I remember our awesome CS professor, Dr. Dan, telling us that an important rule of designing good web apps was that under no circumstances should a person’s social security number be used as a username, password, or any other type of identity verification. This is what leads to the ease of identity theft, and anyway, social security numbers were never meant to be personal identification numbers, although that’s basically what they’ve come to be. (And I can understand the rationale - it’s easy, everyone has a unique SSN, it’s assigned by the Federal government, so why not use it as an ID?)

One thing that really struck me and made me realize that this cavalier attitude toward SSNs is a phenomenon among younger people was back in December/January, when I was dealing with all that AT&T bullshit for my grandmother. (Not sure if I ever wrote about it here; I think I Twittered about it, at least; but mad props to Darcey’s boyfriend for finally getting that shit sorted out, as it took absurdity to new depths of cartoonishness.) When I would call AT&T they would constantly be asking for her social security number. It didn’t matter that I gave them her name, address, account numbers, phone number, explained that I was her granddaughter and she’s in her 80s and doesn’t have the time or energy to deal with this fucking bullshit which even I could barely make heads nor tails of… no, they wanted that magic, golden social security number! So I called Gran and asked her if she’d give it to me. She refused. She even refused to give me just the last four digits. She said she’d never associated her SSN w/ her account anyway, because it’s not something she gives out.

I found that to be really interesting and important to think about, how protective she is of it, not even revealing it to me, her granddaughter, whom she pretty much thinks can do no wrong. Also, on a somewhat related note, she had been getting phone calls from people trying to scam her out of her MasterCard number, saying they were from magazine companies and such; she saw right through it. I think sometimes we don’t give older folks enough credit - we assume they’re stupid or naïve in matters like this. But in many ways they can be more responsible than people our age!

What do y’all think about the social security number thing? (And of course, if you don’t live in the US, I’m sure you DGAS!)

Just a couple other things, then I should get ready for bed. When I think about all the day-to-day, deeply entrenched, utterly unquestioned sexism in our society,* I get really sad. It’s another reason I just can’t participate in all the drama of various blogs, and certainly not in most political events of any sort. (Sex, Wine and Chocolate being an exception… gotta buy my tickets for this year, and you should too!) When I hear people being so dismissive about sexism, using oppressed people as punchlines for their unfunny jokes, refusing to listen to someone else’s lived experience, immediately dismissing anything associated w/ the name “feminism,” and just generally being jackasses, sure, on one level it makes me angry; but mostly it makes me profoundly sad. And I don’t know what to do with that. I have a history of internalizing my anger and sadness in self-destructive ways, so I have to resist my old patterns; and yet still I’m left wondering, mouth agape and arms wide open, what do I do with… this massive, overwhelming THIS?

Here are two posts from my archives as examples of what makes me feel so sad and dragged down:

• September 22, 2006: Cruel and Unusual
• November 17, 2006: More hell yes

On some level I have that doe-eyed idealistic hippie thing going on: I want to make the world a better place. I truly do. I want the world to be a place where people respect each other, listen to each other, and learn and grow from that listening. But too often people are just shouting over each other trying to see who will be the loudest, with the same voices always “winning.”

Lastly, I’ve been unhappy with the way a lot of people have reacted to my news of my BlogHer Atlanta panel. It’s really bizarre, actually: when I first announced it, immediately the responses came in of why people can’t go. The justifications, almost being too quick to say they can’t come and here are all the reasons why. Not a simple “congratulations” or “that sounds cool” or “I’m happy for you”; no, it was all, “I can’t come.” To me this defies basic decency and common sense. That is not how you act to a friend. More on this later though, I’m too tired to write anymore of it for now… I’m all drained after writing about the sexism stuff.

* I’m sick of using the phrase “in our society” - but I can’t think of a better one. Ideas?

Both from Laura Kipnis, via Aspasia:

“[F]or the sake of the children” is rather a selective enterprise, holding sway far more frequently when it comes to guilty matters like divorce than when it comes to pocketbook issues like education spending.

and

Sentimentality about children’s welfare comes and goes apparently: highest when there’s the chance to moralize about adult behavior, lowest when it comes to resource allocation.

Words of wisdom from Caroline:

Thirteen years ago, a firefighter referred to Tyra as an “it”. A month ago, Angie’s killer referred to her also as an “it”. Both young women (in the case of Angie very young, only 18) lay dying in front of those people that uttered those words. There is so much further to go. It is crucial for cis people to be educated and clued up about these issues to end the ignorance and the fear and hatred that can spawn from that. The deaths of these women and the violence other transwomen face at the hands of cis people must be acknowledged and not swept under the carpet.

1) On racism

Racist is an adjective, not a noun. A person is not “a racist” or not; but certain actions or words are racist. I agree w/ Courtney:

I’ve long felt like calling people “racist” was the most pointless shit ever. It allows those who are doing the labeling to pretend they’re not–even though we’re all socialized in a racist society, and therefore, a little bit racist (in the words of Avenue Q). And it allows those who are the people being labeled to grow irate and not have a real conversation about race.

2) On “feminist acts”

You can’t determine whether something is “a feminist act” based simply on the act itself. The act alone gives you no basis on which to make such a determination, because you are lacking contextual information. It’s pointless to argue over whether [X] is a feminist act; what makes it a feminist act or not is all the other stuff around it - motivation, context, etc. But, I’m repeating myself.

I fully support Ren declaring herself the god-emperor of Rome for the day.

Common sense, people. Let me show you it.

I do not understand that while there is no question that sexism affects everyone, there is such a refusal to see that there is a great difference between “slut” and “stud”. Or that cat-calling, honking, or otherwise making loud overtures towards a woman will, often, annoy the shit out of that woman and it is, generally, not something men have to deal with as often, if at all. I give a thumbs up to the idea that attraction is natural, but a thumbs down to “society expects/forces this behavior on us, thus I must”…the God Emperor of Rome believes in free will. And that both men and women are capable of employing it and using it to not do what society tells them to do all the time.

And seriously, I do not understand why more men are not, apparently, offended at the idea that they’re basically mindless automatons doing whatever society or “biology” (to which they often nebulously appeal) tells them to do. ‘Cause I’d be pretty offended if people were suggesting I’m incapable of making my own decisions. Oh wait, people are suggesting that, and yeah, I’m offended!

Sometimes my mind just boggles at the, well, mind-boggling stupidity of it all.

Which reminds me of the title of a post I need to write: “I am not a patient person.”

Ren has yet another anonymous commenter (a.k.a. troll) on her blog. He exhibits many of the characteristics on the Anti-Feminist BINGO card, as well as the follow-up version 2 of said card.

I don’t bother to engage w/ such people, and I recommend against anyone else doing so. But if you want a synopsis, here’s shorter (longer?) Anony:

“Yeah, I mean it sucks that a woman’s sexual history will be put on trial in a rape case and could determine whether or not the rapist is convicted, and if she has ever dared to admit to liking sex that must mean she likes it all the time, with anyone, anywhere, under any circumstances, so how could she be raped; and never mind if she’s a sex worker, and yeah it sucks that sex workers are often abused by law enforcement. I mean sure it sucks that men are congratulated for sexual ‘conquests’ while women are called sluts and their emotional wellbeing, physical health, mental health, competence as parents, competence in their jobs, etc. are called into question all because they dare to have sex on their terms; yeah it’s pretty crappy that women have had their children taken away from them and deemed to be unfit parents, or lost their jobs over sexual activity between consenting adults; yeah I guess it’s a pain in the butt that a woman’s entire self-worth is judged based on the state of her hymen; and it must be kinda annoying dealing with sexual harassment and having it written off as ‘just a joke’ or her being ‘too sensitive,’ and anyway didn’t she ask for it if she’s dressed that way, why doesn’t she want a little attention? Yeah it could suck not being able to walk around by yourself without people yelling comments, not to mention groped and having your physical space disrespected and having no recourse, that must be a minor inconvenience sometimes. ….

But men get made fun of if they can’t find sexual partners! So stop being sexist and talk about THAT! Why can’t you be rational and logical, just like ME!”

I meant to post this a few days ago. After furiously typing these notes, I managed to call and leave a mostly-coherent voice mail.

I am now posting the rough-cut version as a total cop-out of a blog post. And I see now that there’s some ambiguity, but I’m not going to “correct” any of it. Fortunately it made sense to me at the time.

• Anti-sex work bias affects clients, too
• Letters From Johns shows they don’t have a vocabulary to talk about sex work outside of the stereotypes
• Stigma and shame around being a client when it comes to the individual, even though in general it’s accepted that it’s ok for men to be clients as long as they don’t talk about it - or as long as they don’t talk about it *seriously* or by invoking a power dynamic
• Review boards result in competition among escorts and gossiping and bad-mouthing - generally not a good thing
• I don’t think sex work thrives because of shame. I think it thrives in spite of shame. It shows just how powerful sexuality is. I think one thing that might change is there might be more male sex workers and female clients.
• Illegality of some types of sex work reinforces the lack of discourse about sex work by the people actually involved (workers and clients) and leads to the continuing trope of people talking ABOUT and FOR sex workers and clients.

Listen to Bedroom Radio episode 16.5 here, and call in with your own thoughts! (As a fellow podcaster I know how important voice mail is.)

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

It was a real “a-ha!” moment for me.

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

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

For example, Caroline says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excellent video:

Please repost!

(Via Derek.)

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 cannot even tell you how much I relate to this post.

This part, in particular, struck a chord with me:

I’m pretty sure I have no real concept of the scale of the sexism I’ve experienced in my life. Women are, let’s face it, used to being victims of sexism - we rationalise it away, shrug it off, don’t dwell on it. Which is all very well for short-term personal happiness, but not for revolutionising society. We go out of our way to avoid sexism, which is often self-defeating when our long-practised skills at avoiding abuse result in a lack of convincing examples to persuade anyone that there is, in fact, a problem.

Writing down all the various instances of sexism I experience on a daily or near-daily basis is something that I’ve thought about before. But I’ve never done it, because I think it would end up being too depressing/infuriating to me. I know I tend to internalize my anger, so that would end up being toxic to me. But the flip side is, it just means there are more ignorant men still out there. And of course the flip side of that is, it is so not my job to educate men - they need to do their own homework.

And this comment…

This post is enlightening. I’d not actually realized these things actually happened, and on such a regular basis. Not you’re not overreacting, those are all squicky and nasty things to happen and make me shudder. Presumably because I’m male, I guess, they don’t happen to me, so I don’t see them. And I really can’t fathom the mindset of any man who would behave like that. I should just learn to appreciate how lucky I am that these things don’t happen to me, I guess.

(And immediately after that one, there’s a comment where some pleased-with-himself dude shows up to tell her other [more important?] reasons why accepting random Bluetooth messages is “a bad idea” - namely viruses, which I guess she never thought of because she’s a girl, or maybe because it’s totally irrelevant to the topic of the post, but I digress…)

I mean I’m glad there are men who are actually willing to listen and learn. (Isn’t it sad that I’m glad about that? I mean, that should really be the default, expected behavior. Ugh…) But I always feel like rolling my eyes when I see comments like that. I got one on Twitter today when I posted the link, from some dude who follows me but I don’t follow him and I have no idea who he is… he said he was appalled. Well, yes, of course he is - because he doesn’t have to deal with this shit. Whenever women explain the (unfortunately) mundane details of day-to-day sexism to men, they are always shocked, shocked!, I tell you. (Well, assuming they’re not calling us lying over-sensitive feminazi bitches, of course.)

My reaction to that can best be represented by this emoticon: :|

Well, yes, that is the definition of privilege: the luxury of ignorance. Not having to know something happens, because it doesn’t affect you. And the first step in pulling one’s head out of one’s ass, of course, is acknowledging the rather simple fact that just because it doesn’t happen to you, doesn’t mean it never happens.

“Someone give me a penis so that I don’t sound like a Feminazi.” - Sassywho

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.

From Chris Hall at Sex in the Public Square (be sure to read the full post). Chris is a wonderful writer.

The real tragedy of [Palfrey's] death, from where I’m standing, is not anything extraordinary about her story, but how common and familiar it is, to the point of being cliché. If the story of Deborah Jean Palfrey had been laid out in a novel or play or screenplay, I would be angry at having my time wasted by a writer who was unable or unwilling to rise above cheap hackery that was old and worn out in the days of the Victorian penny dreadfuls. But Palfrey was a real person, and it makes me sick and angry to think how often the lives of people who should live peaceful, untroubled lives are forced into old patterns.

When I heard that Palfrey had hung herself, one of the first things that I thought of was the story of Ida Craddock. Craddock was a freethinker and feminist who wrote several sexual education manuals and pamphlets in the late 19th century. She was hounded and pursued for over a decade by the moralists of the day, in particular the infamous Anthony Comstock. In 1902, she was finally convicted for sending obscene materials through the mail and sentenced to five years in prison. Craddock was 45 years old at the time of her conviction and didn’t think that she could survive her sentence; the night before she was supposed to report for incarceration, she slit her wrists. Comstock showed no signs of regretting her suicide; in fact, he commonly bragged that he had driven as many as 15 people to suicide in his crusade for public morality.

One hundred and six years later, I want Ida Craddock’s story to seem quaint and old-fashioned, like an aged relic of less enlightened times. But Deborah Jean Palfrey is dead, hung from the neck by a nylon rope; her former employee, Brandy Britton, went the same way. David Vitter is still in the Senate. So it goes.

In the eye of the media, Palfrey’s death was regarded almost without a blasé fascination, as if the urge for a woman who transgressed to hang herself in her mother’s shed was as natural and unavoidable as birds migrating. And it seems unbelievable that one hundred and six years after Ida Craddock, we have to work so hard to justify not only the course that she chose to make for her life, but that we also have to fight to make others see that her death was a stupid waste, and not the inevitable end to a badly-written melodrama.

What we do, all the blogging and writing and organizing sometimes can seem futile, especially with stories like Palfrey’s. The one thing that we can be grateful for, in a somewhat grim way, is that Palfrey had to do more than merely write about sex before she was hounded and shamed into her grave. That, at least, is something that we’ve accomplished in the one hundred years since Ida Craddock opened her veins with a straight razor. But it’s not enough.

And I’m crying, again.

Yeah, I’ve mentioned before that I can be pretty emotional, and cry at inopportune times. But this week, I think it’s appropriate.

Straight privilege… this is it.

Very moving post up at Shakesville, written by Portly Dyke:

I doubt that most straight, cisgendered people think about, or notice, how frequently they touch their partner in public in ways that are not necessarily “sexual” (in addition to kissing, cuddling, and the odd bum-squeeze) — ie. holding hands, walking with an arm around the waist, smoothing the other’s hair back out of their eyes — nor do I think that most straight, cisgendered people are probably aware of the fact that when I touch my partner in public, it’s nearly always a considered act.

I don’t obsess about this — as in — it doesn’t eat up my days and nights — and I’m probably about as “out” as a queer can be in this country — but every single time I take my partner’s hand on the street, or toss my arm over her shoulder or around her waist, hug her goodbye or hello, I do a little, tiny “security sweep”.

I notice who is around, and where I am, and what the energy feels like — before I touch her in public. It’s a tiny amount of attention, most often, but it’s there.

I just noticed recently that in an unknown situation that seems “sort of” safe, (like walking in a crowded mall) I’m more likely to curl her arm through mine than to hold her hand — which may seem counter-intuitive, since arm-in-arm actually affords much closer body contact — but after I thought about this, I realized that walking “arm-in-arm” is something that I see straight girl-friends do more often than holding hands (after they’re 12, anyway). In considering this choice, I also realized that in many situations, I’m happy to give any possible bigots in an uncertain setting the option of assuming that we’re just a couple of straight girls.

Which sorta sucks.

I recognize this as the internalized homophobia that it is, but I can’t deny that it’s present in me. The fact is, that I stop, look, and listen before I demonstrate physical affection toward my beloved in nearly every public setting that is not clearly “queer safe”.

A must-read.

(Yes, I’m aware I’m speaking in sentence fragments today.)

Last night, after spending several hours watching TV (My Name Is Earl, The Office, and several Daily Shows from last week), Rusty and I got in bed and talked for a little while about Deborah Jeane Palfrey’s death, and the whole situation, and what to do when things make us lose faith in humanity. There were no answers to be found, but at least talking about it can do some personal good.

After Rusty went to sleep, I quietly cried myself to sleep.

Some of what I said last night was…
Read the full post »

Via Melissa on Twitter, I just found out that Deborah Jeane Palfrey (a.k.a. the “DC Madam”) has committed suicide.

Fuck. Fuck. Shit.

I am sitting here at my desk at work, fighting back tears.

No, I didn’t know her. But I’m grieving, because I have some humanity in me, unlike the media and judicial system and court of public opinion that tore her life apart.

Earlier today I was contemplating finishing a long-stored-in-draft-mode post about my fear/issues surrounding death. I think I’ll put it off for a while longer now, but this just shows… I mean… I don’t even know how to say it, but just, she’s gone now.

What will it take, people? How many more women have to die before sex workers are actually considered human? How much longer will we excuse - or, more accurately, applaud - exploitation by the media of women who “step out of line” in some way? How much longer will we keep denying that the sexual double standard isn’t just an annoyance, it actually kills?

People’s - oh who am I kidding, women’s; it’s not like any of the men involved have experienced anything even remotely comparable - lives have been ruined because of this case. And now the woman at the forefront of it is dead.

Her blood is on the hands of lawmakers and the media, and no I don’t even care if I sound like the religious guy (Pat Robertson?) who was blaming 9/11 on teh ghey… IT IS TRUE in this situation.

Fuck you. Fuck all of you who want to pick apart sex workers’ lives, dehumanize them, get the juicy details for a good story, then throw them out like yesterday’s trash when the story goes stale.

Deborah Jeane Palfrey is dead, and I think I’m just going to have to ignore all MSM (and a lot of new media as well) because if I see any salacious “tell-all” stories in light of this, I am going to go ballistic.

Bound, Not Gagged was started in the wake of the original breaking of the “DC Madam scandal”… and that is where I will be turning for information and updates. And I think now is a fitting time to revisit the words on their page, “Why a Blog for Sex Workers?”

When sex work is in the press, the coverage most always brings to the surface more issues than a single organization’s statement can address. As advocates, it would be impossible to make a statement that truly reflects the voices of this dynamic and diverse community.

BoundnotGagged is a space for these voices to be heard. It is a place for sex workers to respond to the way that they’re portrayed in the media, the way that sexist laws are used to undermine women’s rights and their feelings about the ethical dilemma of exposing a client list. The issues are deep and broad. The stories are powerful and frustrating.

BoundnotGagged is our way of responding to the injustice and hypocrisy that keeps sex workers’ voices muted and faces hidden. Sex workers may be in hiding, but they refuse to be silent.

Also, here are some excellent interviews with which to remember Palfrey:

• Interview With Deborah Jeane Palfrey, AKA The DC Madam - Radical Vixen’s podcast interview w/ Palfrey
• The D.C. Madam Speaks! - Susie Bright’s interview w/ Palfrey

And now I have to continue going on about my day as if everything is okay.

Rest in peace, Ms. Palfrey.

ETA: Noteworthy excerpt from Radical Vixen’s interview with Palfrey (as printed in $pread magazine):

Some of the attorneys that I have had and that are no longer in my life or will not be soon have said things to me like, “Jeane, don’t you just go to prison for 8 months? You’ll be out in 8 months. It’s going to take at least 8 months to fight it. I thought this person was the biggest buffoon- and he’s an attorney. Only a buffoon would say [to] give up your liberty for 8 months. I wouldn’t give up my liberty for 8 minutes. I’ve had people say, “Don’t say anything, don’t give any press conferences, don’t speak up, just be quiet, don’t aggravate the situation.” Don’t aggravate the situation? You’ve got to be kidding me. These people can come after me, destroy me, take every shot they possibly can at me, and I’m supposed to just sit back and be quiet and dutiful and well mannered?

That’s why I’m doing this interview with you. These people who are telling me, “Just take it,” these people scare me to death. I just don’t understand them.

ETA, pt. 2: What Dacia said:

These men spent a few weeks being raked across hot coals and being the targets of gentle ribbing from colleagues. There were cries of “hypocrite!” echoing all across the American media, but just beneath that is a resigned shrug: boys will be boys.

But if boys will be boys, whores will be punished. Deborah Jean Palfrey went to trial. And now she’s dead.

It saddens and angers me that this is Palfrey’s end, that she saw no easy way out other than suicide, and that women have to pay such a high price for their sexual and economic sins (especially when the two are combined), when men get slaps on the wrist.

ETA, pt. 3: See also, Anthony:

I would like to say that I’m surprised…but I’m not…because this is the ultimate (if to the extreme) means to which our sex-negative society deals with women who challenge the status quo when it comes to our hypocritical sexual mores. It’s much easier to drive the woman to suicide or simply murder her than it is to take a realistic look at how our laws and social mores against consensual adult sex (for free or for pay) do far more destruction and degradation than the actual sex acts and services that are bought and sold.

(That’s right, GenderBorgians, I said “acts” and “services”. not “bodies”; women who do sex work are not comparable to slaves, and they still own their own bodies, regardless of whether you like what they do with them.)

Like the Duke University rape accuser who gets slimed and virtually raped over and over again in the media because she dared to even make the claim that she was raped (and NO, MRA jackals and all other “White pity” fools, this is NOT permission to send me your half-baked comments on that case, either).

Like the rape crisis center owner who decided that a woman like Renegade Evolution should be denied the right to even counsel women who have suffered from abuse….merely because she might defile the center with her clients.

Like the cops in LA who mocked and laughed at and dehumanized an arrested street hooker into wetting her pants because they could only see her as an “object” to be used and manipulated for their benefit. (But I guess that since they were trying to get prostitution off the streets, that makes it OK for some so-called radicalfeminists, right???)

Like every Goddess-damn porn starlet, sex worker, adult model, and merely overtly sexual woman who has to face the full stigma of “slut-baiting” for simply not being as “pure” or “chaste” or “decent” for the public taste. Not even a young adolescent like Hannah Montana is immune from the anti-sex gaze; lest even sweet virginhood is defiled by her actress character flashing a bra for her boyfriend.

And all this done in the name of “protecting women and children”, no less.

…and the inimitable Susie:

I know how pissed you were. This was an act of revenge, and I know who you’re determined to haunt.

You were righteously furious at all the men who “walked away.”

That included the esteemed gents on your client list: Louisiana fundamentalist, Senator David Vitter. Abstinence Ambassador Randall Tobias, who squashed AIDS funds all over the world. “Shock and Awe” war profiteer, Harlan Ullman.

And that was just the expendable layer. None of them were charged with anything; all are living quite comfortably, in particular because they have no conscience whatsoever.

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.

Perfect example of male privilege, from a commenter on Jenny’s blog:

I said something about how it’s evident to me that sexism still exists in our society because women get cat-called and belittled and judged on their looks by strangers, and he said…

“Can’t you just yell back at them? There’s nothing stopping you from yelling back at them! You can do it too!”

:|

I cannot tell you how many times I have had a similar exchange with some dude. My reaction has gone from flustered to outraged to nonplussed and now to a feeling I can describe only as, “Would you prefer to be kicked in the pants, or the head? Here, just sign on the dotted line.”

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.

The media (and hell, society in general) just doesn’t get it.

Audacia Ray, former sex worker and editor of the sex worker magazine $pread, has pointed out that the public doesn’t even seem to understand what exploitation really means. The woman who did sex work for Spitzer has had her picture and personal history splattered all over the media in an incredibly insulting way. Nobody seems to realize she’s being degraded far more now than she ever was when Spitzer was her client. And she’s not getting any retirement savings out of it, either.

And, funnily enough, I haven’t noticed a whole lot of “media critics” talking about this point. It’s been mostly… *crickets*.

Guess what, the definition of exploitation is not “a type of sex that makes me uncomfortable.”

I have more to say about the Alternet article (which, interestingly, had its title changed sometime between last night and this morning) because there are a few points where I disagree with Annalee, and a few points I just want to expand on. But I’ll get to that later.