Being Amber Rhea

melissa:

rkb:

You lose a lot by not being anonymous, and maybe the only thing you gain is the freedom from worrying about being outed. I’m with Melissa in that I’m not sure what Emily wrote is something I necessarily want to avoid. I’m still figuring all this out, and probably always will be. I don’t know that you can ever fully manage your online persona (or offline), because at the end of the day, whether you say everything or nothing or opt for somewhere in between, there will always be haters, there will always be misinterpretations, there will always be someone who’s uncomfortable with what you’ve said.

Also with Rachel here: I want to talk less about “oversharing” and more about the gutter. “Oversharing” has jumped the theoretical shark. In academia, we’d say the term and the way its deployed is overdetermined, but this is the Internet, and so, sharks it is. Chomp. We need better tools to take this thing apart. Using “oversharing” as our analytic lens is like using Gawker commenters to issue a Human Rights Declaration. And what I mean by the “gutter” is what Scott McCloud nailed in Understanding Comics — that we have been trained as readers to fill in the gaps between images (read also: blog posts, Twitter updates, News Feed items). This is where we as readers/users engage a text as authors (little “a,” Barthes bear with me). This is where the people formerly known as the audience get a front seat in our own lives, as writers, producers, creatives, insert overplayed word you’re too scared to apply to yourself and your work here. Plus all the connotations of the gutter are perfect for what we’re really pointing at here: body/bawdy talk, cum and tears, love and loss. Look at the examples Susan and Viviane pulled for their talk: girl, sex, blog.

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.

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 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.

Ren has yet another spot-on post, from which I will quote at length, because it is very appropriate given that Monday is the 5th annual International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers. (You ATL folks will be at Charis at 7:00 that night, right?)

And god, goddess and all the happy other deities, we can’t have that. We can’t have sex work being a profession. We can’t have sex workers being seen as workers, with rights and legal protections and safer working conditions and representation and recourse. We can’t have them having unions and power and voices. We can’t have them being human. FFS, they sell their bodies, those dirty, dirty whores! We can’t have them being treated with the same humanity and legal status as a steelworker or a miner or a factory worker on an assembly line. Giving their “jobs” any legitimacy, well, that will just cause so many people to rush right into their sleazy trade, just like people are lining up to be steelworkers, ect. Yes, we can say how awful when they are raped, or murdered, or harassed, or beat up, but actually work to give them legal rights, legal recourse, and legal status possessed by so many other humans? Well now, no, we can’t do that. We can’t have them being normalized or anything like that…

You say no woman, no person deserves to be treated like “…..”, but when you say no to sex workers rights, you enable it.

And my precious little deities, what about the men? Giving sex workers these things will just tell the men that they have the right to buy sex! We can’t have them thinking that, even if the woman, or man, or transperson, is selling it willingly! So no, we can’t let sex workers have these things. Bad for the cause you know.

Bad for the cause and our great future one day world. Damn the sex workers in the here and now. After all, to make an omelet, you need to splatter a few eggs. And it’s not like they’re contributing anything worthwhile to society anyway.

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?

…from a commenter at the Pro-Porn Activism Blog. This was in response to the ubiquitous but ridiculous (it rhymes!) platitude, “Porn is a threat to relationships.”

It’s a threat to the relationships that base themselves on the idea of sexuality being taboo. Many religions push this view because they use [it] to invoke shame, and through shame they have control.

As long as sex is something dirty that should be locked away in the bedroom, relationships will remain entwined with shame.

Well said.

Btw, did I mention that I’m loving the Pro-Porn Activism blog? I feel very inspired.

How did I not see this post earlier? Oh, probably because I don’t often read Pandagon, since in general I don’t like that blog due to some shit that went down mostly last summer, and… well, never mind. I came across this post today and I’m glad I did. Filed under “reference.” Would’ve shown up in daily del.icio.us posting but that was broken again due to a 500 server not found error. :P Guess my blog was down for a while this afternoon.

Anyhow…

Let’s assume just for the sake of argument that you’re right. You aren’t. But just as a gedankenexperiment, let’s pretend you are, and that the women who are talking about the massive deadweight silence from men about the harassment they experience, and who are getting all upset and speaking in terms of “war zones” and “hate crimes” and such are just being emotional, hysterical even, and — like the people who forward that bogus email about the guy with the ropes and duct tape in his trunk in the mall parking lot — just need to be set straight with a calm, measured dose of logic and fact-checking.

In most situations, that’s a fine impulse. There really is no reason to get upset about LSD in blue star tattoos, and Bill Gates really isn’t paying people who forward a chain email.

But this situation is qualitatively different. When the topic at hand is men not taking an issue seriously, suggesting that the issue might not really be all that serious is not being dispassionate. It is, in fact, taking a side. And the people on the side you’re taking, incidentally, include the gropers, the rapists, the sexual-favor-demanding bosses.

In short, if you’re interested in quibbling with the data or suggesting alternate interpretations of what Kos really meant when he called Kathy Sierra a lying “crying blogger,” and your goal is not to be a flaming asshole, shut the fuck up.

It took serious restraint not to quote the entire post. So go read it. Seriously.

Molly Holzschlag posted an excerpt from Marianne Willamson. It’s very timely that she posts this, because just a few days ago I was thinking of this passage and trying to locate it. I couldn’t remember who it was by, but I remembered that Belledame had posted it a few times. I wasn’t able to find it, though. And now, how serendipitous! So I figure I’ll repost it here, for reference and inspiration.

Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate,
but that we are powerful beyond measure.
It is our light, not our darkness, that frightens us.

We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant,
gorgeous, handsome, talented and fabulous?
Actually, who are you not to be?
You are a child of God.

Your playing small does not serve the world.
There is nothing enlightened about shrinking
so that other people won’t feel insecure around you.

We were born to make manifest the glory of God within us.
It is not just in some; it is in everyone.
And, as we let our own light shine,
we consciously give other people permission to do the same.

As we are liberated from our fear,
our presence automatically liberates others.

Interestingly, I seem to remember “child of God” being “child of the universe.” Which I guess just goes to show that Marianne Willamson, like me, doesn’t insist you hang your hat on the Judeo-Christian idea of God in order to be fully self-actualized.

I think I need to remind myself of these words on a daily basis. I really do.