"The women of Bikini Kill let guitarist Billy Karren be in their feminist punk band, but only if he's willing to just "do some shit." Being a feminist dude is like that. We may ask you to "do some shit" for the band, but you don't get to be Kathleen Hannah."--@heatherurehere


Showing posts with label sexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexuality. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Listening to Jiz Lee

I’m wearing a bright pastel blue suit I hand-dyed myself to match the suit worn by David Bowie in his music video for “Life on Mars.” I’m a dapper version of Bowie, standing for photos with a golden glammed-up Adrianna Nicole in one of the biggest and most outlandishly decorated homes I’ve ever seen. Adrianna has handpicked her co-stars, creating scenes from her personal fantasies. She reclines on a white chaise lounge, gold lamé legs wrapped around me, wide eyes hungry. My large, flesh-colored strap-on cock juts out from the fly of my David Bowie blue pants and my hand pushes forcefully into her mouth. It all feels so good. Warm, wet, incredibly intimate. My fingers probe her wide mouth. I could do this for hours.--Jiz Lee, The Feminist Porn Book
Reading the opening of Jiz Lee's article in The Feminist Porn Book makes me wonder:  How is it that anti-porn feminists can so easily disregard the experiences of a person like Lee, who has consciously taken on porn as part of their exploration of self, utilizing their body as a "canvas for art"?  Sure, Lee's experiences in porn (and in life!) may not be run-of-the-mill, but they are the result of conscious choices that have led to, according to Lee themself, a set of positive growth experiences, along with being part of simply making art. 

I often hear anti-porn feminists declaring that positive experiences by performers in porn are not only few-and-far between, but irrelevant--it's the general masses of porn performers who are being harmed, they say, and happy, successful porn performers are the exception that proves the rule. I know there are issues, serious issues, with sex work in porn--similarly there are serious issues with work in nursing, in sweatshops, in teaching. I also understand that sex work is different (for some!) than other kinds of work, in important ways. But I would rather listen to the sex workers themselves.  I'd rather listen to them tell me how it can be different, how the negatives and positives of porn play out for them, than assume that I know, or should judge whether folks should do porn for work. 

Consent is sometimes complex (can women who have a dearth of options for employment be consenting to do porn in the same way that men, who have more options, consent?), but Lee's experiences opens our eyes to the cases where the consent is not only fairly obvious, but fundamental to what they are doing--specifically, in queer porn. Lee says: 
For example, the decision to shave my legs for queer films, like Superfreak, was my own. The key is that it is a choice, not an ultimatum...[c]hoice, or performers’ sexual agency, is one of the main differences between queer porn and mainstream genres...[I]f there’s one thing that makes queer porn different, it’s respecting a performers’ choice—the choice to safely fuck how they want and to look how they believe is sexy.
Lee's article is a perfect example of what listening to folks who do porn can do to one's ideas about working porn--I was always aboard with queer porn's politics (among other things!), but Lee solidifies things for me, because Lee is taking "the personal is the political" very seriously, as I think all feminists ought to do:  Where sexual identity and gender identity (among other identities) intersect with porn performing, there is much to be learned, Lee thinks, and I take them at their word:

My mixed identities have led me to conclude that there’s no right or wrong, no definitive experience, no one way of looking at the world. Nothing is black or white, and that fact is even clearer when you’re gray.
I think their article alone is worth the price of The Feminist Porn Book. 
 
Links:
Lee's site.
The Feminist Porn Book.

Thursday, July 07, 2011

Pro-Porn AND Pro-Reality: Cindy Gallop

I appreciate the nuanced take that Cindy Gallop has on how the ubiquity of porn may be affecting our sex lives, especially for those folks who have grown up with the internet.


I do have a couple of problems with her take on things: One, she seems to have ignored, at least for purposes of her presentation, that it's not only young boys who have easy access to porn, but folks of all genders. Secondly, I'd like to see some science done around what folks of all genders and ages really think sex should be like--I suspect many more of them understand that porn represents a few kinds of sex, most of which are pure fantasy. From Gallop's point of view, I'm overly optimistic about how easily people distinguish fantasy from reality.

I'd also love it if the myriad kinds of porn were at least recognized--there is queer porn, gay male porn, bdsm porn, fetish porn, etc. (and I do mean ETC.!)--so, while distinguishing between what happens on screen and what happens in folks' day-to-day sex lives is important, it's also important to recognize that what happens in all of those places has near-infinite variations, for those who want them!

Bonus video: Robin Williams responding directly to Cindy Gallop's talk:

Thursday, March 03, 2011

Sex-Negativity in Porn Criticism

Whenever folks talk or blog about porn, there are always strong reactions (and lots of hits!), often overstated or oversimplified. I noted a long time ago that I agree with Lisa Jervis when she asks: Can't we talk about porn without having the same conversations over and over again? Human sexuality is complex, and our relationship to porn is complex--the conversations we may want to have about porn should necessarily be kinda intricate.

That said, why is it that most porn criticism I read tends to have an undertone of sex negativity? I like criticizing porn--there are so many reasons to do so, and I think it's important to not just take so-called "porn culture" as a given. We should criticize the industry for its sexism, racism and transphobia (of course, such criticisms should also be dealt out for most industries!). We can examine the ways in which porn and easy access to it can, has and will change our sex lives. But I wish that we were having such conversations within a larger conversation about positive sexuality, rather than framing the conversations within mostly heteronormative, not-kink-friendly frameworks.

Take Marina Robinson's article about the ways in which porn viewing may be changing the structures in the brains of young men. There's some interesting stuff in there. In particular, it's interesting to read her take on how the so-called "reward circuitry" of the brain may reinforce sexual habits in a way that we may want to pay close attention to. I'd say that the science still seems "iffy" to me, but it definitely worth lots of more study, and, like I said, it's interesting.

And yet, she has to throw in subtle moralizing that, for me, undermines her persuasiveness. For instance, she says:
"Masturbation based on imagining affectionate contact with a real potential mate is stimulating enough, especially for a teenager. But masturbation based on shocking stimuli, by gradually numbing the brain, can shift the user’s priorities away from real potential mates."


There is a lot of loaded language here, and it seems to me that she must know that the language is loaded--she was a lawyer before going into the porn-criticizing business with her husband, so I imagine she chooses her words very carefully! And yet, she is above saying quite clearly that one's priorities when having sexual fantasies should be on one's "real potential mates".

To which I ask: Why? And who gets to decide that? I mean, if one's sexual fantasy life is larger than one wants it to be, that's one thing--but the idea that, somehow, the goal of fantasizing is to only imagine "affectionate contact with a real potential mate" seems (if you'll pardon me) perverse.

And this betrays her view of masturbation in general, a view which has rung out through the ages: Masturbation is practice for the real thing. And this is a limited (and limiting) viewpoint. Masturbation can be practice, for sure. But it can also be having fun with oneself. Sometimes we may want to simply be alone and jerk off. Of course we might want to take care that we don't over-isolate by doing so, and we will need to navigate our other sexual relationships (if I jack off too much when I'm alone, and don't feel like having sex with a partner, that does mean something). But starting from a place where we only masturbate as practice is limiting ourselves unnecessarily.

And the sex-negativity comes out in other ways. I mean, she argues against the use of "sex toys" (though she doesn't define what a sex toy is--are buttplugs sex toys? are feathers? how about a bed?) as another "overstimulator". These are toys! You play with them! Of course they shouldn't be the only thing you use to get off--unless, of course, that's what you're into.

It's stuff like the above that makes me question whether the science is being made to fit very limited views of sexuality, rather than coming in to explain what's going on.

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Sleeping with the Enemy: From the Other Side Part Two)

Continuing with some thoughts inspired by some posts at Feministe. See Part one of the series here.

Jaclyn, a guest-blogger last week over at Feministe, has some great posts up over there. Among them is a series titled Sleeping with the Enemy, parts one, two and three.

Note: There seems to be something weird going on over at Feministe as regards links to these posts. I'll try to fix the links as things over there settle down. Sorry!

Becoming the Enemy
In fact, I have some personal experience in this regard. My central romantic relationship from when I was 17 until I was 21 or so (way back before email when dinosaurs roamed the earth with Adam and Eve) was with a woman I'll call B. At the time, B and I were both straight-identified, but we were so sort of 'by default', not having thought about it much (say hello to hetero-privilege!). During the later part of our relationship, we were separated by a few hours drive, and during that time she made a new friend, a woman who identified as a lesbian. Queue "The L Word" soundtrack, let some time pass, and see that a few months later the three of us were embroiled in some of the most drama-inducing stuff of my (then) young life. Eventually, B realized that she wasn't straight, and that she really wanted to be in a monogamous relationship with her new love. We parted ways, to become friends again later on in ways too complicated to go into here, but one thing that always stuck with me was a conversation B and I had in the middle of it all, in which she tried to explain how her feelings changed, her feelings for me and her feelings for her new love. Keep in mind this is an 18-year old woman whose sexual identity was to shift and change considerably for as long as I knew her--I have no doubt she would cringe today at remembering the oversimplifying that we were all doing back then. She explained to me that her new love just "got" her in a way that I never could. Her new love had, she explained, grown up as a woman, faced with all of the obstacles that women face--and as such had insight into B's own being that I could only come close to, and never attain.

Simply Bitter
It was, as one might imagine, hard to hear. Decades later, my feelings about it are a bit more nuanced, but at the time, I was simply defensive and hurt. I wasn't blind to the reality that B's feelings were valid, yet I found myself pretty darn bitter anyway. Instead of seeing the breakup as a breakup, I saw it as some sort of attack on my identity. (I suppose lots of breakups feel like attacks on identity, now that I think about it.) She was (I thought/she explained) breaking up with me mostly because I wasn't a woman. And of course, that was an oversimplification--but the fact that she felt that way a the time, the way that she explained to me that not only did I not "get" her as a woman could, but that I never could have, began to make me feel a wee little bit (sometimes a lot) like the enemy.

Age, Nuance and Complexity
Years and years later, when i was dating she-who-will-be-known-as-Z, things were a lot more complex. Z identified as bi, and had been in long-term romantic relationships with both men and women. Being older and a little bit wiser than I was when I was 21, I found myself in a relationship where we openly talked about hetero privilege, bi-phobia, bi-invisibility and the like; it felt initially like a whole different ballgame. Sure, we were read by strangers as like a couple-of-straight-people, as a hetero-normative couple, but we were very aware of the privilege that such readings created. But of course simply being aware of it doesn't get one out of the problems wrapped up in having the privilege, and, like all privilege, we ended up benefiting from it nonetheless. Z felt a lot of guilt about that, and something else--anger at having to deal with all of it. She also sometimes felt like she was letting herself down. I felt guilty at times at what I might call 'queer privilege'--that is, one of the things that seemed to set me apart from other straight-identified-white-middle-class-men was that I was in a relationship with somebody who was bi-identified. I was embarrassed that I felt that way (it makes me cringe to even write about it now, years later), but I had to admit to myself that sometimes I did. Our emotions around the socio-political stuff put some stress on our relationship, no doubt.

Thing is, all the socio-political-sexual stuff aside, Z really liked women. When she tried to get close to other women while in the relationship with me, she really had no luck--the bi-invisibility and bi-phobia stuff kicked in (even in a nonmonogamous context), but also, lots of lesbian-identified dykes just didn't want to be with somebody who was with a guy, or, in some cases, didn't want to be with a woman who had ever been with a guy. It was more than frustrating for her--it was hurtful and agonizing and, combined with the socio-political-sexual pressure (some examples of which can be seen in the comments of Jaclyn's posts) was, I think, part of what made our relationship perhaps too much work to be worth it. (Which is not at all to say that "she left me for a woman" is the main thread of our breakup. It was complex and involved and...resists oversimplification.)

The feeling of becoming the enemy was more pronounced with this breakup for me, in part because I did understand some of the complexities involved. I could totally empathize with what Z was going through, even if I couldn't understand it from my own experience fully. When she quickly found some true love-ish-ness from a woman after our breakup, in some ways my role was already cast: The Ex-Boyfriend, and all that such a label entails within this context. And in some ways, that role, even if it's not thought of as The Enemy outright, is thought of as The Outsider. The Problem. The Sordid Past.

Feelin' and Dealin'
And, whatever the truth of Z's heart, I felt like the enemy--I felt that now Z was on the 'right' side of things, fighting the good fight,not having to deal with all of the bs that comes from being in a relationship with a guy, not having to worry about hetero privilege--in a lot of ways it seemed to me that Z was better off, not just for having found love, but for having found love outside of hetero privilege.

And to some extent I still think that's true. As tough as it can be for not-straight-identified people in not-straight relationships, even in the SF Bay Area where I live, one advantage for Z is that she doesn't have to deal with all of the stuff I've been talking about. She still may have to deal with bi-phobia (actually, I'm not sure she identifies as bi any longer) and the like, and of course there will be homophobia to deal with, but one thing she won't have to worry about is being labeled as sleeping with the enemy.

And yet, in whatever ways, I will always be the enemy, which is, y'know, pretty sad for me a good deal of the time. But then along come people who understand that this is complex stuff; along come women who think relationships with (some) men are worth it; along come women who understand that even if we sometimes feel like we're either sleeping with the enemy or that we are the enemy, it's much more complex than that, and that, in general, we don't have to be enemies. We have to deal with the realities of the culture we live in, which include struggling with traditional gender roles and the like, but we can struggle against them, and together, if that's what we decide to do. Which, y'know, makes me happy.

Next: In part three, some notes on that sort of struggle, and what it's been like for me lately.

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Sleeping with the Enemy: From the Other Side, Part One

Jaclyn, a guest-blogger last week over at Feministe, has some great posts up over there. Among them is a series titled Sleeping with the Enemy, parts one, two and three.
Note: There seems to be something weird going on over at Feministe as regards links to these posts. I'll try to fix the links as things over there settle down. Sorry!
They're all great reads, infused with insight that comes with non-self-conscious analysis of one's own experiences, and I think kudos are in order for Jaclyn for speaking on this topic, one that there is a lot of silence about.

Silence About Intimacy
In fact, I think none of us talk enough about what it means for men and women to find some intimacy with each other while doing the work of feminism, whether that intimacy be framed as friendship, love, sex or various combinations of all of these. Once you jettison hetero norms and the like, and you've got an even more complex situation that a lot of people seem to want to oversimplify to fit their world views (i.e. people who stereotype bi-identified people as all in the closet or 'confused'). In some ways it is understandable that this stuff doesn't get talked about as much as I would like it to be--personal intimacy issues seem to pale in comparison with, say, the glass ceiling or violence against women, as far as things that need to change go.

And yet, intimacy is one of the great joys of life--an for those of us who identify as hetero or bi (and for some of us who identify as queer), intimacy with those of the opposite sex, of various forms, can be a kind of joy that we may think is worth all of the trouble. Certainly, when Jaclyn talks about hoping for long-term-ish-ness in her current relationship with a guy, we hear (in part) that she thinks the joy she's getting from this intimacy is worth the crap that has to be waded through involving people's reactions to her "sleeping with the enemy".

But I didn't mean this post to be about intimacy in general. What I intend is to paint a bit of a picture of what it's like to be the 'enemy' in a similar situation. In particular, I'm going to talk a bit about the complexities that have revolved around dating feminists, dating bi- and queer-identified women, and the ways in which I've attempted to deal with, from time to time in important ways, being intimate while being construed as the enemy.

On Avoiding the Bullshit Altogether
Jaclyn points out that being a woman who is only intimate with other women can give one the option of opting out of a lot of the bs that comes along with being a woman who is intimate with men:
I had dropped out of the world of men for complicated reasons. You can read more here if you like, or else suffice it to say that once I discovered that I was attracted to women, I immediately realized that I had no reason to deal with male bullshit at all anymore.

It's important to not play down how freeing this can feel for people. I've talked with bi- and gay-identified women in my life who feel pretty deeply the ways in which not being intimate with men (to the point of cutting off family ties with a parent or siblings, even) can be liberating to the extreme. Which is not to say that intimacy between women is without baggage of its own, of course--but arguments have been made to me that, given a choice, finding love and friendship without having to deal with "male bullshit at all" could be the way to go.

But what does the "male bullshit" mean to men, who sometimes are the enemy, who sometimes become the enemy?

Next: Part Two: Becoming the Enemy

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Pleasure for Women During Sex Is All About Style

There was an interesting article in the SF Chronicle this past Sunday detailing some claims by Kristen O'Hara that uncircumcised penises help create more pleasure for women during Penis-In-Vagina sex, in part because the foreskin helps to cushion the ridge on the glans of the penis, which can be 'like a harpoon'. Apparently, O'Hara is likely full of crap (according to people like Susie Bright), and her methods aren't (yet?) scientific at all, but anecdotal. I've got no problem with anecdotal evidence, actually, as long as it's not the only evidence one is offering up. It can buttress science or sometimes act as counterexamples to method. But standalone, it often ain't enough.

The most interesting thing about this article, however, is that it was in the Sunday Chronicle, in the Style section, with the headline: "A CUT BELOW: Uncovering the truth about women's pleasure". So, um, if we're really uncovering the truth about women's pleasure here, why is this in Style? Well, clothes are pleasurable, aren't they?

Ack.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Feminists <3 Trannies

[cross-posted to my blog]

So for some reason my friend Jen decided to randomly ask me a question about the intersection of feminism and queer visibility. I know I didn't cover all the bases here, but given that I hacked this together in a few minutes while at work I think it's a pretty good basis for further examination. What do you think? What would you add? What would you change?

Reposted with permission (unabridged), from a chat with a friend:

[2007-07-10 11:20] jen: jen has started a chat with you
[2007-07-10 11:20] da5id: oh hai
[2007-07-10 11:20] jen: why is women's empowerment/strength associated with sexually ambivalent behaviour (drag, androgyny, bisexuality) ?
[2007-07-10 11:20] jen: hello :)
[2007-07-10 11:22] da5id: Because all of those things challenge people to consider the meaning of gender. If one denies the socially constructed nature of gender one cannot work to break down its socially rooted injustices.
[2007-07-10 11:23] da5id: And, um... "ambivalent"?
[2007-07-10 11:23] jen: my professor's phrasing
[2007-07-10 11:23] jen: not mine
[2007-07-10 11:23] jen: what do you mean, by the way
[2007-07-10 11:24] jen: if you're busy, it's cool
[2007-07-10 11:24] da5id: Give your professor this link:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ambivalent
[2007-07-10 11:24] jen: will do
[2007-07-10 11:38] da5id: In order to address women's equality issues (which drive the empowerment/strength stuff), one must first accept that such issues exist. In order to do so, one must ditch essentialism and recognize that gender is a social construct. A great way to do so is to break out of the man/woman binary and show that lines, if they exist at all, are blurry as all hell.
So: person X is bisexual, and this is accepted rather than treated as aberrant. Ergo, bisexuality is an acceptable and natural state. Ergo, there is no strict duality of MSW/WSM, nor is there even a duality of hetero/homo. Things are fluid, and it becomes a whole lot more difficult to pigeon-hole people based on sex and gender.
Also: person Y is a transvestite, and this is accepted rather than treated as aberrant. Ergo, clothing that is commonly seen as either feminine or masculine cannot be strictly associated with one sex. Gender constraints are eroded, forcing observers to relax or even abandon their notion of gender. This means gender is not an absolute. Ergo, it is a social construction. Ergo, it can be changed. Then we are drawn to examine it and ask how it can be changed for the better, leading us back to issues of female empowerment.
[2007-07-10 12:07] jen: sorry i was in a meeting - also, i am in love with you
[2007-07-10 12:07] jen: thank-you for the help
[2007-07-10 12:10] : jen has left the chat.
[2007-07-10 12:16] da5id: No problem.
[2007-07-10 12:17] da5id: Hey, is it okay for me to post this conversation on my blog?
[2007-07-10 12:17] jen: sure
[2007-07-10 12:17] jen: thanks for asking
[2007-07-10 12:17] jen: permission
[2007-07-10 12:18] jen: off to lunch and take care
[2007-07-10 12:19] : jen has left the chat.