As Soon As You Put Me Down I Run Away

When my friend Natasha did Reiki on me a few weeks ago she noted that in my solar plexus chakra there was an intense and deep seated well of shame.  Juxtaposing this, as she worked on this area she got a very clear image of her child running away joyfully with his father chasing him.

Before she was even halfway through describing this image of her child I was welling up with tears.

That child was me.

As soon as I could walk - I was running.  Ironically I detest running now, but as a toddler and child you couldn't stop me.  It was such a common thing that it became a trope of telling childhood stories about me.  In fact while Natasha was recounting this I thought of one image in particular, one that hasn't left me since.

There's a home movie I've seen a few times of my Dad and I in Tahoe, probably in the summer as I don't remember there being snow.  I think he and my Mom are laughing as they film me.  Or maybe they were just laughing when they showed it to me.  Either way, my Dad is holding me and then he puts me down -- and I promptly take off running in the opposite direction of both of them. I'm small, so he is able to keep up with me fairly easily, but it really was remarkable to watch.  If they'd taken their eyes off of me for a second I'd have gone quite a ways before they could have caught me.  But they're clearly used to this.

I was a fearless child.  I gave exactly zero fucks and you couldn't tell me anything.

I don't really remember now what that felt like.

See, remember the other thing that Natasha got from my chakra energy?  Shame. Intense shame.

That child?  Didn't make it past elementary school.

I guess maybe that's normal.  We do a lot of growing in those years.  But by the time I hit junior high school you wouldn't have recognized me in that child.  Hell, you wouldn't have recognized me as that child by the time 4th grade came to an end.

Part of me is glad of this.  That child was starting to grow into someone that was arrogant and self-righteous.  I can still be rather self-righteous, so gods only know what would have happened if I was left unchecked to develop.  Actually, I think I do kind of know -- I probably would have turned out a lot like Jennifer Lawrence.  I have a lot of empathy (and endless critique) for J Law because gods do I see her.  Do I know her.  Us Leos are SO MUCH if we never learn how to be humble.

Another part of me is kinda pissed that things turned out as they did.  Because through bullies and a constantly anxious mother and poor boundaries I turned into someone who takes everything deeply personally, who was shamed repeatedly for who I was, who felt fear of the world around me and closed myself off to so many experiences because of it.  My teenage and adult life have been spent trying to get 1/8th of that fearless confidence back.  And it's only now, in my early 30s, that maybe I'm just starting to get there.

And yeah maybe that kid would have turned into an asshole if left unchecked.  But they weren't one yet.  They were just a little tomboy femme wanting to experience the world, trusting that their parents had their back, that if they fell down they could get back up, that if they bumped their head they'd be ok after a good cry.  She just wanted to express herself fully, to sing, dance, express -- to enjoy life.  And when I think about her I want to cry, for so many reasons but perhaps foremost because I know they were me, but they feel like a stranger.

Can I re-integrate that energy and harness it for good?  Can I experience that fearlessness and joy again?  Can I come to a humility that isn't based in shame and second-guessing my self-knowledge but in compassionate, non-judgmental and honest assessment of my actions?  I hope so.  That's what I'm working on now.

Once More into the Spuffy Breach, Dear Friends, Or; My Evolving and Complicated Relationship with Spike

There was a day when I was a teenager, probably 15 or 16, when I saw the sex scene from "Smashed" (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, if you didn't already know from the post title) on television.  It was completely out of context.  I literally clicked the remote onto the channel right at the moment where Buffy and Spike were making out, tearing down a house, and fucking.  And my jaw dropped.  And I was like, "holy shit, is this seriously on TV right now?"  And then I was simply very aware of how turned on I was by the whole scene.

Cut to... At least seven years later and I still haven't really watched Buffy cuz honestly I didn't care that much about the show, but friends of mine are STILL raving about it so I finally give in and decide to watch it - also there's that sex scene at some point to see again and I'll be honest: I was looking forward to it.  So I watch the series, and I get really invested in Spike as a character.  Yeah, he is really stalkery, but that's ok (it's not really [and I'm over-simplifying my reaction, I wasn't ok with it then either but I also chose to sort of let it go]), and he doesn't know how to take no for an answer (not cute IRL in any way).  BUT WHO CARES LOOK AT HIM OMG (no really though you should care, but I didn't).

But despite this, when I got to that sex scene again... It didn't affect me the way it did that first time.  I suspect because, in part, I knew the story that went along with it.  Truthfully the kiss at the end of "Once More, With Feeling" affected me more (IN MY PANTS) than that sex scene did.  But I still have lots of feelings about that sex scene because of what it meant to me the first time I saw it, and I felt I should continue having those feelings for it.  I certainly was still attracted to Spike, hugely so, so I just accepted that perhaps part of the fun of that first viewing was that it came out of nowhere and caught me by surprise - along with that sense of (in my parents living room sort of late at night) "I should NOT be watching this right now!"  But still, that it didn't affect me the same way bothered me.  And has continued to bother me.

Cut to lots of years later and Mark of Mark Watches getting to season six of Buffy, getting to this episode and his reaction...could not be more different than mine was over ten years ago now and I'm just like "WHAT?" because you see I'm still really invested in this scene and this character.  But along with that "WHAT?" reaction is the same nagging little voice that bothered me the last time I watched this scene, the one that's like, "you're not turned on, why is that?"  The very non-reaction of my body to this scene is in itself a reaction and it's one that I don't know how to process.  Hell it's been processing for years at this point and I still don't know how to express what I feel and why it matters even as I know it does matter to me.

The best I can figure is that this matters to me now because I understand something about the politics of desire - that what we desire is as imbued with political meaning as everything else.  I started exploring that in my posts about how it bothered me when I realized my "hottest guys" list was populated exclusively by white men.  I have over the years consciously forced awareness of these things onto myself, in an effort to decolonize my mind in this arena to the best of my ability (with noticeable positive results).  And it was roughly during this period that I watched Buffy all the way through for the first time.  I was subconsciously already processing these issues when I watched the series, though I wouldn't be able to write about (or articulate) them until much later (obviously).  Although, if you look back, my very first posts on this blog were reposts from livejournal about...what else?  Spuffy. (P.S. those posts have major spoilers so if you're watching for the first time don't go looking for them, also if you do go looking for them please excuse my ableist language. Good gods that is some old writing...)

Quite frankly I don't know if I'm ready to dissect my attraction to Spike.  I am certain that is a very loaded piece of my psyche, maybe that doesn't NEED to be totally unpacked? (I waffle on this).  But here's what I do know.  I do know that what Mark wrote in his reactions to these scenes and this relationship hit me in the gut.  I do know that I had a hot mess of conflicted feelings reacting to what he wrote; some of which are very personal feelings about whether or not I am in fact a fucked up person (in ways I didn't already know about/am not ready/don't want to deal with).  And I do know that I've been putting off going back and rewatching that episode; that I'm wary of what I might find this time around.  I also know that, given the clusterfuck of a reaction the fandom has given Mark as a result of his writing on that episode (now dubbed the Great Spuffy Meltdown of 2012 by Mark himself), I am getting indications that maybe my reactions to these scenes and this relationship are ones I SHOULD analyze more than I have.

And for once I don't really have a conclusion here, I'm just kind of laying out the things I've been thinking about.  I keep thinking about these things off and on as I read Mark's reviews, and revisiting feelings that have lain dormant for YEARS as it goes along.  I know there are Buffy fans who read my stuff, what do you think about all this?  What were/have been your feelings watching this relationship evolve?  Where is consent in their sexual relationship, if it's there at all?  I remember brownfemipower having some interesting thoughts about the sort of BDSM type nature of the Spuffy relationship and its being a rare instance of that sort of relationship being OK on mainstream television and agreeing with her interpretation, but I haven't been able to find those posts again on tumblr.  Does something along those lines ring true for you?  Or am I just way out in left field?

“Who’s the Queer?”

Queer Themes and Neoliberalism in the BBC’s Torchwood

“Entertaining, engaging stories become popular. They become narratives that shape our cultures…embedded in our daily existence…they become our lived reality”  
– Robin Wright [1]

This essay is an exploration of the UK-based television series Torchwood and its unique productions of cultural knowledge.  The central questions of that exploration are: first, how does this show queer science fiction television/the crime procedural, and second, what does that queering produce?  In short, I argue that by utilizing familiar genre tropes (such as the “conflicted hero” and “good versus evil” story lines) Torchwood performs a televisual disidentificatory practice, deploying the familiar in unfamiliar ways and queering an otherwise normative masculine hero (Captain Jack Harkness).  By comforting us with these familiar tropes Torchwood is able to infiltrate our minds with queer ideas about partnership, sex and, importantly the nature of the world around us.  As a useful and productive juxtaposition to illuminate how these ideas work in practice, I demonstrate how Torchwood is effectively the anti-24 (24 being an immensely popular and in some ways thematically similar drama from the United States); using similar tropes and themes to dramatically different outcomes. 

My methodology is one of bridging cultural studies and feminist, queer and critical race theory in an examination of one particular contemporary popular culture item so as to deconstruct and analyze the various messages and ideas propagated by it.  Primarily, I utilize Jose Muñoz’ theory of disidentification as the foundation for my argument.  While Muñoz conceptualized his theory with live performance art in mind, the idea of inhabiting as well as contesting an image thereby producing a different and new image or concept can, in my view, be applied easily to almost any visual medium.  In addition, this theory is instructive and useful to my project because “disidentification is not an apolitical middle ground,” in fact, “its political agenda is clearly indebted to antiassimilationist thought,” although “it departs from antiassimilationist rhetoric for reasons that are both strategic and methodological” (Muñoz 18).  The distinctions Muñoz makes clear here are important to my own argument, which suggests that in embodying common tropes Torchwood is able to create new knowledges through a queer deployment of those tropes.  Just as its plots deploy the uncanny to frighten or discomfort its viewership (Rawcliffe 102), so too its “queer moments” disturb the waters of the desired sexual dichotomy (Sullivan 191).

I choose this path of argument because it seems to me that it is in the uncomfortable borderlands of the cultural productions these disciplines study where knowledge is being produced in the television viewership every week.  In undertaking this particular work, I take seriously Nikki Sullivan’s assertion that “queering popular culture…involves critically engaging with cultural artefacts in order to explore the ways in which meaning and identity is (inter)textually (re)produced” (190).  I understand both the queer themes of Torchwood and my current explorations of themes, both explicitly queer and not, as operating within this ideological construction of “queering popular culture.”  I choose to engage in this project, centered around a popular culture (and for much of its life, subcultural) text, because of a personal and observed belief in the power of stories in shaping the world we live in. 

Indeed, the power of fictional stories in the development of people’s beliefs is shared by Robin Wright, documents in her work the ways in which adult education teachers have been able to use fiction to challenge hegemonic cultural perspectives, as well as the way the television we watch aids in perpetuating hegemonic political discourse (Wright).  This belief is also reinforced by scientific research, for example, one such study “concluded that the use of fiction…to introduce a socio-scientific issue in the classroom stimulates students to develop their opinion-forming skills” (Knippelsab, Severiensa and Klopa).  Although this is hardly an exhaustive list in corroboration of my previously articulated assertion, these texts combined with the way in which we use stories and folk tales in the education of children and in everyday relations with each other suggest to a satisfactory extent the marked significance of stories.  Thus, my stakes in this work is high, as like Wright, I see in the stories we tell the potential for authoring and disseminating “alternative scripts for human interactions the promote liberty, equality, intellectual growth and community” (Wright 50).

TransFeminist Community - Sex Worker Zine Project

Submission Deadline: May 1, 2011:

"The Sex Worker Zine Project seeks to create a zine showcasing the diversity of sex workers’ experiences of all genders, sexualities, ages, abilities, nationalities, immigration statuses, races, and ethnic backgrounds. International submissions encouraged! This yet to be titled zine will be printed in full cover and will be available for sale with profits supporting the work of SWOP-NYC. All accepted contributors will receive a free copy of the completed zine. This zine is intended to be informal, informational, and accessible."

Click the link above for all the details, sounds like a really interesting project!

"Sex" is not an "adult" activity

So here's something that, in discussions online, I have seen come up again and again that really annoys me: the idea that "sex" is "for adults."

In fact, the idea that sex is ONLY for adults is something that is really pervasive in U.S. culture. We often use "adult" as a stand-in for "sexual," and in most states the "age of consent" is 18, which is our arbitrary decision of when people become "adults."

Before that threshold, apparently, we can't legally be trusted to make important decisions for our lives; our parents, in fact, know better than us what we need. (That idea is worthy of a whole other post but if you're interested there's good writing on it going on here, here [of this fame] and here, just to name a few.)

And so we take for granted this idea that "sex" is something that adults, and only adults, do. Or at least, we take that as the *BEST* way. Most people I know are *resigned* to the fact that children do things like masturbate, have sexual fantasies and desires, and have sexual experiences with a partner or partners. But see, even they, most of the time, are resigned to that fact. This is something that happens, though it isn't the *ideal.*  This is why even comprehensive programs of sex ed stress abstinence, because "childhood" abstinence is held up as the ideal.

Even so, I'm now starting to think I lived in the golden age of sex education in USian public school, given the reports coming out of the high schools in my area NOW as compared to when I went to school (a whopping 9 years ago)... And even in my classes, sex was presented as something we should probably avoid, but if we didn't, here, we'll help protect you from the dangers. And of course, dangers they actively protected us (white, suburban, middle class, Californian us, for the most part) from were: pregnancy and STD's.

This approach is what made me want to write my own damn curriculum. Because (among other things) do you know, we never discussed consent?  Weird, huh?

(Again...a whole other post...)

(And did we ever consider or include non cis, non hetero classmates? Um, no.)

But see, we never discussed consent because one of the foundational ideas of the courses was that "well, we're not going to teach kids HOW to have sex!"

(Oh gods how many times I've heard that phrase.)

And therein lies the origin of my problem.

This idea that sex is something that only adults do means that we are consistently resistant to anything that smacks of "teaching our kids HOW to have sex".

What does that mean to the lives of all those who are under 18?

And hell, even 18 and older, because after 18 years of being taught "this is something we don't talk about" we don't suddenly become comfortable talking about it; let's be real on that point.

So what happens is we end up in a situation where, most people, come to this place where we WANT to have sex and we have no idea how to even begin to go about it.  How do we talk to someone about this thing we're not supposed to talk about?  Maybe it's easier just NOT to talk about it, eh?  We can like, just go for it, right?  If they don't want to be kissed or touched they'll slap us or say no, right?  (That's how it goes in the movies.)

Surely you see where this all leads right?

Which is why we have to, HAVE TO, tell kids HOW to have sex, and stop thinking that sex isn't something non-adults are curious about, thinking about, desiring, and, doing.

Because healthy sexual relationships (at whatever age, in whatever form) aren't built in silence.

Because we need a healthy foundation to make good decisions for ourselves.

And because, ironically, if you aren't teaching kids how to communicate honestly, you're also actively working against their ability to articulate boundaries, to "just say no" which is what so many of you want, right?

Sexuality Education Workshop - Any Thoughts Welcome

Yes y'all it's about school again... But hey, that is what I'm doing with most of my time right now, so.

OK so what I've got for you today is this workshop outline I'm doing with a colleague for the zine our senior class will publish at the end of the semester. I'm not exactly sure why I felt called to this project but I really, really, did and the woman I'm working with on it has been a pleasure to work with so it's just been good all around.

It is still, majorly, in a formative state (I'm also compiling a resource list which is not included below). In other words, this is not at all our final draft. I am putting it up here for constructive criticism and feedback, because I want it to be as good as it possibly can be! Also, I know that both my partner and I have similar privileges (for example, both cis, pretty much white and middle class) which we can not really check each other on, AND this is a similar concern for the people I have immediately around me in class.

So anyway, without further ado...

You Will Probably Have Sex Someday

What am I reading?

Following is a brief and tentative outline of our intended layout and key points for a sex-positive sexuality education workshop which would last about 3 hours. This outline/guide is primarily intended for audiences who already have some grasp of gender and sexuality studies, with the understanding that confusing elements for the students involved in the workshop could be addressed and explained during class time. Some aspects of the outline would need to be tailored specifically for each individual audience, for instance, to make the workshop culturally relevant, or to address the specific laws of the state/county the workshop is being held in. Finally, you will find that under some discussion points there will be a number of questions, if these are not addressed directly in the section below it is because we recognized that these may be discussed in more than one section of the workshop, or that the answers might alter slightly depending on the class context, and have left these options open for more flexibility.

Why did we create this workshop?

We think it is very important for people to have non-judgmental access to accurate information about sex and sexuality. We are troubled by the way some organizations have approached this topic and believe a lack of accurate information reproduces oppressive and unequal relationships. We believe that a person’s sexuality and sexual expression are unique and that each individual should feel they are in control of their sexuality/gender expression. We hope that our presentation will contribute to your developing a secure sense of self during a turbulent time.

Who is this workshop for?

We have created an outline for a sex positive sex education workshop catered to sophomores in high school. This is done with an understanding of their developmental location, as well as a cognizance of their likely life experiences and social interactions and relationships. Our intention is to provide and equip 14-16 year olds with the knowledge and tools they need to help develop their own understandings of their bodies, their sexualities, and their gender identities, as well as to facilitate future healthy relationships in their lives.

We want to avoid current and past practices of shaming and silencing issues around sex and sexuality to create a more open, honest, and accurate place for teenagers to acquire, interact with and apply information.

1) Who are we? (10 min)

2) Terms you should know (20 min)

Þ Sex: a category assigned at birth based on your secondary sexual characteristics. People born with an organ recognized by the doctors or midwife as a penis will be assigned “male” and people with an organ recognized as a vulva/vagina will be assigned “female.” People with ambiguous genitalia are considered “intersex” and often doctors will recommend surgery to “correct” that baby’s ambiguous sexual organs so that they may be assigned a “proper” sex. This surgery has sometimes even been done without parental knowledge/consent. Your assigned sex is commonly understood to determine your gender (though this is inaccurate).

Þ Gender: socially accepted/expected behaviors, personal traits, and physical appearance commonly recognized as “male/masculine” or “female/feminine.”

Þ Cisgender: someone who identifies with the sex/ gender they were assigned at birth.

Þ Transgender: someone who does not identify with the sex/gender they were assigned at birth.

Þ Genderqueer: someone who does not identify with or perform one socially accepted gender.

Þ Sexuality: behaviors, attractions and beliefs related to sexual feelings and expression.

3) Relationships (we all have them!) (30 min)

Þ As we’re sure you already know there are many different types of relationships a person will have with others throughout their lifetime; relationships with family, with acquaintances, with friends, and for many people, eventually relationships that involve sexual desire.

Desire is an emotion everyone feels and it is not always sexual in nature. In addition, the form it takes, and specifically what persons or behaviors are desired will vary widely from person to person. It is good to pay attention to your own feelings of desire because they can help tell you what you do and do not want out of a relationship with another person. This is important to know so that you can talk openly with your partner about what you are and are not comfortable with in the relationship (whether that relationship is romantic or not).

What you are or are not comfortable with can be described as the “boundaries” of the relationship. Boundaries can be everything from how often you both spend time just with each other versus separately or together with your other friends, to whether you will practice monogamy, to whether or not you want to be sexually active and what exactly “sexually active” will mean for you.

It is with this last example in mind that we have put together this workshop, to provide you with information so that you might feel comfortable making informed choices about your bodies and what you do with them, and the tools to communicate these desires to your partner(s). We realize that this sort of open communication is often not encouraged by authority figures and peers, that often people who “know too much” about sex are looked down upon, but we believe it is vitally important to understand desire and sexuality so that you can determine and set your own relationship boundaries.

Þ Consent: What is it? What are the laws about consent? What is enthusiastic consent?

o In this context, “consent” means an agreement to engage in a sexual activity. All people have the right to decide whether or not they will engage in sexual activity.

o The only form of valid consent is an enthusiastic “Yes” to each and every activity! “Maybe”, “wait”, “not yet”, “I’m not sure”, silence from your partner, or any other sign of hesitation on their part should all be understood as simply “no”. In addition, consent to one activity should never be taken as consent to any other activities!

Þ Rape and Abuse: What is rape? How is rape legally defined? How do I make sure I never rape someone? Can men be raped? Is it true if I dress “sexy” or flirt with someone that I have to have sex with them? What is date rape? What is sexual harassment? What is “sexual silence”?

o Rape is when someone is physically forced, threatened with physical force, or otherwise coerced into performing a sexual act they do not wish to. This can happen to anyone.

o “When either partner isn't given or allowed to have an equal voice, or when one voice or person is dismissed or silenced, we are usually looking at abuse. When one partner chooses not to treat another with respect and care for their physical, emotional and sexual health, well-being and safety, it is abuse.”[i]

o Resources: www.sexlaws.org contains information on your local laws.

http://www.rainn.org/ Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, 1800-656-HOPE 24/7

http://www.scarleteen.com/article/crisis/dealing_with_rapehttp://www.scarleteen.com/article/crisis/blinders_off_getting_a_good_look_at_abuse_and_assault

____________________

Break (20 min)

_________________

4) STI’s and Birth Control (the stuff EVERYONE covers!) (20 min)

Þ Prevention: condoms/dams/gloves (brief overview)

Þ Birth control: condoms/HBC/natural family planning (brief overview)

o How/where to get testing for STI’s, pap smears, HBC, condoms, abortion (local laws and reference to local clinics with emphasis on sex positive, queer/trans friendly care).

5) Bodies (we all have these!) (30 min)

Þ People’s bodies look differently from each other; there is a lot of normal variety in how people look and function, both in their faces, body types, ability, height, weight and sex organs.

o It’s important to feel comfortable in your own skin, as impossible as that may sound to you right now, during a time when everyone is judging everyone else for the way they look. Try not to judge yourself, that your body keeps you alive is, in of itself, amazing.

Þ Functions: Periods and Emissions (milestones for people with uteruses or penises)

o Period devices (cloth pads, disposable pads, tampons, menstrual cups)

o Discharge: http://www.scarleteen.com/article/body/honorably_discharged_a_guide_to_vaginal_secretions

Þ Gender: Most people feel uncomfortable with some or all of the expectations placed on us by others because of our gender. Maybe you are a girl and hate the dresses your parents want to put you in. Maybe you are a boy and hate sports. That boys love sports and girls love dresses are gender stereotypes and do not fit all cisgender men and women.

o Sometimes, this discomfort goes further than these examples. Maybe your parents tell you that you are a boy, but you know they are wrong and you are in fact a girl, or vice versa. It is possible you are transgender. Sometimes this can be confusing, other times it is not at all. Being transgender is also a normal bodily configuration! It is especially important for all cisgender people to understand this, because often transgender people meet with violence from cisgender people who are afraid of them.

6) Sexuality (the good stuff) (30 min)

Þ Sexual expression

o When engaging in partnered sex some people have a strong preference for certain types of bodies (gay, lesbian, straight) and some people do not (pansexual, bisexual), this is normal.

Þ Sex

o Many people have sex, but some people don’t like to; both are ok!

o Masturbation – A fun, common & healthy activity, though, no, not “everyone” does it.

o Sex toys – Can be used during masturbation or partnered sex as accessories.

§ Rubber vs. Silicone & safety.

o Partnered sex - Many people have varying sexual fantasies and desires, which is why communication is so important.

o Pleasure – Center mutual pleasure in any sexual activities.

o Lube – Important and useful, for instance when using condoms so they feel good and are less likely to break.

o Porn – Some people like it, some people don’t, be aware that this is entertainment and should not necessarily be used as a template for enjoyable sexual activities, communicating with your partner about likes and dislikes is a more effective strategy than copying pornography!

7) Q&A – Answer questions from box and raised hands (30 min)

Þ Questions should be being sorted while other person is speaking in previous sections

---

[i] S.E.X.: The All You-Need-to-Know Progressive Sexuality Guide to Get You Through High School and College)

GV Indie Erotic Film Fest!

via Ess'in Em

Good Vibrations is gearing up for our fourth Independent Erotic Film Festival (IXFF), and we would love your help in getting the word out! For over thirty years Good Vibrations has pioneered a tasteful and inclusive approach to sex toys and sex education for women and couples. For the last four we have been celebrating indie filmmakers making sexy shorts. Please check out our website and see a week of parties and screenings! www.gv-ixff.org

The Irony of Anti-Sex-Positive Feminist's Arguments

It's been a while since I wrote a post from a specifically sex positive perspective. But that all changes tonight because a few days ago I had a run in that sent my mind off in that direction.

In comments at fem.men.ist's place a conversation began about sex positive feminism, with a very angry radical feminist who was hearing about it for the first time and didn't like what she was reading. Needless to say, she and I exchanged words. But since then I've been going over and boiling down my argument and though it's getting to the same point as my very first post about sex positivity, I thought it might be worth going into again.

The radfem's main argument (in the comments conversation, though her argument in her blog post appears similar) consisted of two points 1) certain sexual behaviors are inherently degrading to women (she also threw in there that heterosexual sex can never truly be consented to, which I would take to mean is "always rape" as the famous quote goes, but I never got to follow up on that point) and 2) that by supporting and accepting women who choose to engage in such behaviors for pleasure, sex positive feminists are supporting and enabling the sexual exploitation and degradation of women.

So here's my problem: this line of arguing is utilizing the master's tools.

Here's what I mean by that... Kyriarchy doesn't want women in solidarity with each other. That's the reason we're socialized to dislike each other (which is the essence behind this post on my Tumblr). It's the same tactic used against poor whites and poor Blacks after emancipation and into today, the same tactic used to divide white feminists from womanists and feminists of color, the same tactic used against the middle and the working classes, and on and on and on; divide and conquer. "We" must create divisions and hostility between them or "they" might join forces and overthrow us.

And there's this fine line between critique and condemnation that too many anti-sex positive feminists (as I've experienced them) trample all over. Critique is "there are these things that influence us towards accepting this behavior and eroticising it and we should be conscious of that." Whereas what this and so many others I've seen do is "that behavior is degrading, the end!" And anyone who makes an argument in support of women's sexual agency is cast promptly as the enemy, woefully brainwashed by Patriarchy. Critique leaves room for discussion, the latter just shuts conversation down entirely.

So let's take a step back here...

We're ALL woefully brainwashed by kyriarchy.

Feminism isn't an end to that, its just a lens we can use to liberate ourselves and each other. A lens which helps us figure out and hopefully dismantle our brainwashing. Radfems and SexPos' alike = brainwashed by kyriarchy. And sexual practices, like so many things, are essentially a nature vs nurture debate.

What came first, me liking to be spanked or kyriarchal norms teaching me that sexually fulfilled women should be disciplined?

The fact is? WE WON'T EVER KNOW. We can deconstruct the messages we're indoctrinated with, we can dissect our turn ons, we can even construct elaborate and well thought out theories as to how and why we ended up being turned on by sexual discipline, but we'll still never know what came first; the kinky bdsm chicken or the leather loving egg.

But in their fervor to impart how degrading some sexual practices are, and to point out the sexual horrors women as a whole are subjected to, this particular brand of radfem seems to forget that they are conditioned too.

They also seem to forget that kyriarchy fears few things more than unconstrained female sexuality. I mean, that's a given, yes? If asked, every feminist would agree that the powers that be have spent inordinate amounts of time and effort to "reign in" the terrors of female sexuality right? That's what the whole "virgin whore dichotomy" is all about, that's what rape as a punishment is all about. And yet when these radfems are turning on their sexpos sisters, it never seems to occur to them that perhaps this condemnation and social shaming is just as much a conditioned response as they think the desire for so-called kinky sex is.

And as the history of kyriarchal successes go: women once again turn on each other, disciplining each other's behavior and creating wide rifts across which solidarity really isn't possible.

Is that "radical feminism"? Really?

What is radical about disciplining other women's sexual choices? How does that tear down kyriarchy?

And I know the argument to this; "well their behavior is reinforcing patriarchal norms!" Well, maybe. Maybe it is. I don't know for sure (but neither do you).

What I do know is this:
1) In a woman's search for sexual liberation there will undoubtedly be times when she is not "perfectly feminist". Because none of us are always perfectly feminist, ever.
And 2) there is nothing that kyriarchy fears more than women becoming truly sexually liberated... except for women in solidarity with each other.

Whether one particular sexual practice "does it" for you, or not, if you're throwing up walls against those who practice them, if you're setting yourself up to deny the sexual agency of other women...that's definitely not creating solidarity. It's only creating more divisions. It's only making it easier for you to disregard "those women".

Which is exactly what the Patriarchy wants.

Now, let me end with some ownership because I am not immune to this critique either. I wasn't particularly gentle in my approach with [name redacted at subject's request]. No, I was incredibly irritated by the utter reading failure she demonstrated throughout our conversation. And that dominated my response; not any sort of compassion for the emotions which were stirred up by that reading (false though it was, clearly a nerve was hit and I definitely didn't help delve into that and compare/contrast it with sex positivity).

Was I creating solidarity in that moment?

Hell no.

I was too pissed at seeing yet another feminist tearing down and shaming fellow women, fellow womanists/feminists for their sexual choices, and for basically utterly missing the point behind sex-positivity and at the same time dismissing it entirely out of hand.

Was that really the best way to handle it? Probably not, no.

I can't apologize for defending women's agency and criticizing what I still think was a total misreading, but I could have done so from a very different starting point, and taking my thoughts here to their logical end, I should have.

Teen sex

Originally posted on my tumblr.

14) Imagine this: You’re sixteen and having sex with your boyfriend. You want to be safe so you ask your mom to take you to the doctor for birth control. Most people would call this a sign of maturity and responsibility. The state of Mississippi would call it an incident to be reported to the cops. That’s because a bill that passed in January makes it a crime for parents not to report to the police that their kids are having sex. The Mississippi Child Protection Act of 2009, requires mandatory reporting of sex crimes against children and imposes new abortion restrictions on minors. Though there is much to quibble with in the bill, one section is particularly alarming. This is the clause that prohibits, “the intentional toleration of a parent or caretaker of the child’s sexual involvement with any other person.” Supporters of the law claim that they are trying to protect young people from abuse. But nowhere does the bill distinguish between sexual abuse and consensual sexual encounters between teens. Mississippi already boasts the highest teen pregnancy rate in the country. Maybe they are striving for the number one spot in preventing parent/child communication, as well…

15 Shocking Tales of How Sex Laws Are Screwing the American People | Sex and Relationships | AlterNet (via thecurvature)

Gratuitous Hot Men of Color

Shortly after my post about my concern over my taste for white men, I saw a picture that made me go, "hmmm, there are some MOC I find attractive, maybe I should take stock of them..." I haven't done a post of gratuitous hot men for well over a year. And let me be clear here, this isn't just "guys I intellectually understand to be attractive" there are plenty of those. These are guys that I think are HOT, as in; who have at times made me flat out horny.

So...enjoy.

The original picture in question was posted at Sylvia's tumblr (not usually up for gay male porn as a turn on, but you know, apparently I'll make an exception for this slash fiction):

Yah, Sendhil Ramamurthy (no matter how annoying Mohinder has sadly become) is really fucking hot, from looks to voice to attitude. But since Zachary Quinto takes up the majority of that picture, here's another...

Then we have another long time favorite, Daniel Sunjata, "Franco" on Rescue Me.

In the last season of Heroes, Ando started coming into his own and being his own assertive character. And suddenly I found him increasingly hot. So, James Kyson Lee.

The always classic Zach de la Rocha

Gary Dourdan (last I watched it, he was still playing "Warick" on CSI, but I heard he quit).

This list is pretty short... But it's a start.

They Are So Awesome

The FOXBORO HOTTUBS on Carson Daly. Just a couple days ago.

What I would do to go to one of their shows... SO MANY STAGE DIVES = SO MANY CHANCES TO TOUCH HIM.

I saw women's hands running through Billie Joe's hair and I fucking melted. It felt like a fire lit in my gut.

I think a part of my life would be complete if I ever managed that feat...

Also getting pulled on stage to sing along (oh yes I know all the words) or bang a tambourine (tambourine = win) would be great too, especially if I got to hang around his neck like that one woman... but ohhh to run my hands through his hair...

Wait, what was I posting for? Oh, right, anyway check it out they're awesome...

Attractions and a Kyriarchal Society

In my whiteness studies class last semester sexual attraction was mentioned in passing in discussion of another topic. A student mentioned that they (or maybe it was a friend?) were not terribly attracted to women of a certain race, I forget which one now. And my professor asked us to think about that concept a bit. In a racist, sexist society can our sexual attractions ever be value neutral? Is it REALLY just a "preference" when white people aren't attracted to people of other races?

My conclusion? No, not really.

Knowing what I know now about society, social indoctrination, whiteness, etc. I can no longer think it's a coincidence that white men tend to be the ones I find most sexually attractive (only one you could even try and argue isn't white in that post is Adrien Brody as he is ethnically Jewish), especially "mutts" like U.S., Canadian and Australian white men (exception to the mutt rule being Scottish...yum...*cough* anyway). Mixed race men are the next most common for me to find attractive, and even there it has to be noted that usually part of the mix is WHITE.

A preference for tall men exclude many, also. Especially since I am myself a bit taller than average. Preference for "masculine" men also excludes some (especially Asian). And I can't any longer ignore that these traits also, though not tied to skin color (what most commonly think of as THE racial indicator) are most certainly tied to dominant narratives about "real men" and that those narratives are strongly informed by whiteness.

I also don't think that it's a coincidence that my attractions have shifted over the years. Or that the rules that seem to be in play for which women I find attractive have always been a significantly different than the rules for men. All of this is in line with dominant kyriarchal narratives.

And that brings me to what I have been pondering lately. Is there anything I can do about this? Can attraction be altered through changes in consciousness? Can I undo this cultural training and manipulate my sexual mind to no longer be racist? I have been trying, for quite a few months now, to untrain my mind in what it has become accustomed to as "beautiful" in women. Purposely seeking out beautiful, as well as gender-bending, women of all races in art and photos in an effort to retrain my mind to think of beauty in different terms than those of mainstream U.S. society.

But it's not beauty I am trying to root out here. I have been able to recognize men of many races as beautiful for as long as I can remember. But that doesn't men they turn me on. Just as I find the female form beautiful in it's different shapes but women don't, as a general rule, turn me on either. Such things as attraction, we are led to believe, are primal. Unconscious, innate, and built in. Can those drives be trained? Changed?

I'm really not sure. I've got no answers at this point in my on-going thought process. But this is something I have been pondering.

A Case-study: Part 3

Part Three: The Role of Gender and Sexuality in Whiteness

The perpetuation of whiteness as discussed in regards to heterosexuality and gender is displayed well in the case of the archetypal “gay white male” as well.[1] Whiteness is so invisibly entrenched in the minds of American citizens that it is adaptable enough now to include some of those who before it could not – homosexual/queer identified people. And as entrenched as whiteness is, the movement for gay rights has often replicated its demands in their own organizing. “To gain recognition and credibility, some gay organizations and media began to aggressively promote the so-called positive image of a generic gay community that is an upscale, mostly male, and mostly white consumer market with mainstream, even traditional values.”[2]

While perhaps different on the surface, this appeal to “mainstream, even traditional values” is not very different from the appeal made by Blee’s Klan Women, as both groups are appealing their exclusion from public life by displaying a constructed vision of all that they and the group in power have in common, at the expense of those who do not meet the ideal.[3] Thus, as in the two examples discussed before it, the image of the “gay white male” helps maintain the social structure and understanding of whiteness, as well as perpetuate the ideals which serve as its foundation.

In my view, this appeal is made because of an unconscious understanding of intersectionality on the part of each group making their citizenship claims. Raised to believe in the legitimizing force of the ideals of whiteness, it only seems logical to point out “we’re just like you”. Groups of activists each can identify a part of their identity which overlaps with the ideals of proper American whiteness and use that to bring legitimacy to their whole body. Of course, reciprocally, appealing to whiteness in this way gives whiteness itself more legitimacy and reinforces its power in the cultural imagination. Such is the fundamental mistake of this “we’re just like you” appeal, and appeal too many social justice advocates and groups make (such as the Campaign for Military Service discussed in Berube[4]).

By its very nature as a hierarchal power structure, whiteness thrives on Othering people and defining itself against what it is not. As has been shown in the cases discussed in this paper: white womanhood’s role in the WKKK, “normal” heterosexuality in the marriage manuals, and appeals to whiteness in gay rights organizing; it is possible for groups to use this method to appeal for rights of full citizenship. However, to do so inevitably comes at the expense of someone else. In addition, such an appeal does not in any way dismantle the structure which made the appeal necessary in the first place. No, in fact, to structure a social justice appeal in this way only makes that over-arching oppressive structure of whiteness stronger, more invisible, and harder to tear down. And that is the role that gender and sexuality have played in whiteness.

---

[1] Berube, Making and Unmaking of Whiteness.

[2] Berube, Making and Unmaking of Whiteness, 235.

[3] Berube, Making and Unmaking of Whiteness, 239.

[4] Berube, Making and Unmaking of Whiteness, 239.