Archive for Sex+ Freedom/Rights
An Invitation (Perhaps a Plea) to Explore…
I recently read on Blogging Censorship, the blog of the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC), of two recent cases of proposed or fulfilled book banning in (United States) school libraries. The first was at Sequoyah Middle School in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, in response to a complaint from a parent about the book Shooting Star by Fredrick McKissack Jr. The school board faced a decision in August about whether to allow the book to remain on the school library’s shelves, which it ultimately did. The second case was at Stockton High School in Stockton, Missouri, which a few weeks ago held a public forum about its April ban of the novel The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie from classrooms and the school library.
In the Oklahoma case, a parent complained that Shooting Star used the word “fuck” in the text 45 times.
In the Missouri case, one of the dissenting parents had this to say:
So. “Fuck” and masturbation. These are what we collectively feel so afraid of our children being exposed to, from which it is so important to protect them. A word that has been known to refer to sex and a personal act that involves oneself. Huh.Mike Holzknecht, who has two children in Stockton schools, supports the ban. He displayed several large copies of pages in the book, one of which described masturbation.
“I am proud of you guys for saying no. Here’s the limit,” he said to the board, pointing to the pages. “We’re not going to take it.
“It’s an insult to my son and my daughter to say we have to have stuff like this in our schools to make them read,” Holzknecht said.
Listen, parents who initiated and continued action to have these books banned from school: I am not a parent. I do not pretend to know how challenging and intense being one may be. There have been many times when I have observed something related to children or parenting and recognized and acknowledged that I do not know how I would respond or act in that situation.
It seems strongly evident to me, however, that acting like sex doesn’t exist, or that it’s something scary or wrong or bad, is not helpful. It is not going to contribute to kids’ developing aware and whole perspectives about this intrinsic area of life. It’s not going to help children respect their bodies, their instincts, each other more. It very well may interfere with these things.
What it is more likely to result in is things like the adult services section of a popular website being shut down and efforts to put people in jail for selling products designed to invoke sexual stimulation because so many adults seem so skittish about sex that openness or professional services around it seem to scare them enough to try to pretend it doesn’t exist, at least in ways they feel uneasy about, in adults too.
Another way of putting it is that these adults may have been privy to this kind of sex-phobic teaching as children too.
As has occurred to me many times, what I wish or would prefer is that adults not simply project things onto children because it seems easier (which in a way it almost undoubtedly is, though in another way it results in suffering because it is ignorant) instead of examining themselves. I truly don’t blame people for experiencing issues around sexuality. (In some ways, I may relate.) The society in which we live has seemed to me to act rampantly pubescent and/or puritanical about sex, and it does not seem to nurture an open, aware environment or tendency to nurture those characteristics individually around it. It thus does not seem surprising to me that inner distortions, conscious or unconscious, exist in numerous adults around sexuality.
But that is what they are—they are issues in oneself around this complex and inherent-to-life subject and area of life. Projecting them outward thoughtlessly, especially onto youth, is a disservice to all. Doesn’t that make sense? If you are not examining, and indeed sometimes experiencing the discomfort of, working through your own issues, don’t you see how simply projecting outward whatever you are not facing in yourself subconsciously or unconsciously is perpetuating that cycle? It means the kids subjected to this kind of projection may more likely themselves not learn how to self-examine and may even develop some of the same unconscious and subconscious issues around sexuality that have not been worked through in the adults around them.
In this way, examining oneself may truly be a way to break a lot of cycles. This terminology may be familiar in its usage in domestic violence campaigns—”breaking the cycle” of violence has been spoken of in this context. There are many more “cycles,” phenomena of ignorance and unawareness in ourselves, that are similarly perpetuated, albeit seemingly in not as grotesquely obvious ways. This is one of them. When we aren’t aware of our own unconscious motivations because we have not acknowledged or examined things inside us that admittedly feel uncomfortable, we invite and breed the perpetuation of that unconsciousness and suppression.
In my experience, observation, and understanding, individuals who seem to demonstrate extreme self-righteousness, judgment, or dictatorial tendencies do not do so just because it seems fun. Regardless of whether they are aware of or acknowledge motivations for these tendencies, there is likely a lot of unprocessed pain and/or psychological patterning in them that came at a time when they themselves were children and developed these psychic structures in order to survive. I really do understand that attending to these things in ourselves may be extremely uncomfortable, painful, or even traumatic.
But not examining them is painful in an ongoing manner not only for ourselves but also for humanity collectively. Fearing sex as a subject and our children’s eventual exposure to it as a healthy, intrinsic part of life seems indicative to me of a distortion in perspective. It is not sex itself that is problematic but our fears and issues around it of which we are not consciously aware and/or which we have not worked through, and this seems especially relevant in relation to how we are teaching and the messages we are sending young people about this aspect of life. Especially if we feel a fear or resistance around sexuality, I invite us all to take a deep breath and sincerely examine what is truly there and what resistances or inhibitions we encounter in relation to the subject—and to eventually explore the idea of feeling enthusiastic about nurturing the open, individualized, integrated, authentic, eventual sexual selves of all youth and indeed all individuals.
Love,
Emerald
-The Killers “Sam’s Town”
International Sex Worker Rights Day
Today (March 3) is International Sex Worker Rights Day. I would like to observe the occasion here by listing and highlighting some things pertaining to sex work/sex workers’ rights lately that I find cool/uplifting/heartening/lovely. The t-shirt I am wearing in the picture, by the way, was produced by the fabulous and local-to-me organization HIPS (Helping Individual Prostitutes Survive).
“I will, though, share a story.
When I first started my work 14 years ago, I shared with a Tantrika friend about what I was doing [prostitution, I have the impression] and why. I felt safe sharing as, heck..we were assisting at a Tantra workshop, she did “healing massage” and we were both supposedly doing our inner work. She blasted me like no one had before. I just kept breathing, knowing that we had to be together all weekend in this close environment, working together for the participants. Our “stuff” had no place there.
At first she wouldn’t look at me. I simply kept reminding myself that this had nothing to do with me, it was her stuff. I was safe, all was well, etc, etc.
The last day she came up to me and thanked me. During the course of the weekend she realized that her blast had come from her fear about doing the same work. That she had been getting intuitive flashes that it was her next step but she was afraid.”
Oh my. I don’t even know what to say about this except that it may be one of the coolest personal accounts I have ever read in the context of sex work.
And there is my list of beautiful celebrations I specifically honor on this International Sex Worker Rights Day. Best wishes, support, gratitude, and love to all current and former sex workers on this day of celebration of our universal rights amidst our professional vocations. (And of course best wishes, support, gratitude, and love to everyone everywhere as well. We are, after all, all One. :)) Love,Emerald “No more turning away from the coldness inside, just a world that we all must share, it’s not enough just to stand and stare, is it only a dream that there’ll be no more turning away?…”
-Pink Floyd “On the Turning Away”
To the Sex Educators
On Tuesday, one of the first things I saw when I got online was an article about controversy surrounding an anti-smoking ad in France. I read the article’s description of the advertisement before I saw the visual of the ad itself. This description included the following:
The first thing I felt uneasy about reading said description was that it seemed to indicate that being on one’s knees giving someone a blow job, especially if the recipient’s hand is on the giver’s head, was being shown as something obviously ominous and undesirable. Possibly the model on her (or his, as there are also ads with boys in the kneeling position) knees is supposed to be under the age of 18, but to me this frankly doesn’t seem obvious.. . . [P]hotographs of an older man, his torso seen from the side, pushing down on the head of a teenage girl with a cigarette in her mouth. Her eyes are at belt level, glancing upward fearfully.
Then I saw the visual of the ad. The slogan accompanying it translates into, “To smoke is to be a slave to tobacco.” First, no one appears to me to be “pushing down” on anyone’s head. And “fearfully”? To me, the expression on the kneeler’s face in both the male and female versions looks frankly rather neutral.
I thus returned even more pointedly to the unease I felt at what message was being postulated by the ad. It seems to me the ad is supposed to be indicating that being on one’s knees giving a blowjob is not an appropriate place to be, even an indicator somehow of “slavery”—and I find this abhorrent.
The controversy I read about it did not seem to be sharing the concern I had. Rather, the impression I had was that certain organizations were objecting to the ad because it “trivialized” sexual abuse. Okay. Again, perhaps the ad is supposed to be depicting someone underage, in which case the argument for abuse occurring could be made in our no-one-under-18-thinks-of-or-should-in-any-way-be-participating-in-sex culture. However, the age of the kneeler again does not seem obvious to me, so to see controversy that seems to be perceiving that being on one’s knees giving someone a blow job is equivalent to sexual abuse seems frankly alarming to me.
Sigh.
But really, that’s not what this blog post is about (or not entirely, anyway). Later that day, I was perusing Facebook and saw that Good Vibrations had posted a link to an article in its magazine. I clicked on the link and was faced with a page that said, “Sorry: The link you are trying to visit has been reported as abusive by Facebook users.” I went to Good Vibrations Magazine’s home page and found the article in question. Turns out it is an article by Dr. Charlie Glickman talking about the very advertisement I just mentioned. He mentions in his article the same thing that first occurred to me when I saw it as well as discussing sexuality and advertising in relation to it and another ad. As usual with what I have read from Dr. Glickman, I found it an interesting, insightful, thoughtful piece.
When I went back and checked, the link on Facebook worked. I rechecked throughout the day, and sometimes it went through while other times giving the disabled message. So perhaps it is/was a glitch with my computer.
If, however, the link was disabled by Facebook (which means, as I understand it, that someone reported it as inappropriate), I find that disheartening and seriously frustrating. This is not a salacious or X-rated article. It is an article written by a sex educator discussing implications of two particular ads and the use of sexuality in their messaging. How it could be found “abusive” pretty much escapes me.
Unless, of course, it was deemed so solely because it centered on the subject of sex.
Whether or not the link disabling was intentional on Facebook’s part, the possibility itself (and/or of the link being reported as such) reminded me once again of the way sex/sexuality seems to be treated differently from other subjects and areas of life. To much of society this seems to be expected or even appropriate. Since I personally find it arbitrary, that very perception seems to make the situation all the more frustrating to me. And in the case of the disabled link to the article in question, I not only lament the arbitrary bias toward the subject of sex, I find a lack not only of acceptance but of active appreciation seriously regretful.
I feel like we should be thanking Dr. Glickman up and down for offering the attention, insight, caring, and dedication he does to sexual matters and the sexual health of all individuals. To me Dr. Charlie Glickman and his numerous (though still a considerable minority) colleagues such as Dr. Carol Queen, Dr. Richard Wagner, Ms. Violet Blue, Dr. Annie Sprinkle, Dr. Elizabeth Wood, Ms. Megan Andelloux, and Dr. Marty Klein should be positively showered with appreciation, respect, commendation, and accolades. Why? Because they care about sexuality. They find it important. They care about and find sexuality important enough that they study, observe, examine, discuss, share information about, and devote their professional, academic, personal, and/or intellectual time, resources, and attention to the subject of sexuality.
Instead of appreciation, their links on Facebook, metaphorically speaking, are reported and censored. They do what they do in the face of a society that seems not only to entirely not get the incredible service they are offering but also continually seems to condemn, disregard, and disrespect their work and sometimes them themselves. They have been mocked, ignored, dismissed, and judged by the simple virtue of the subject matter to which they have chosen to devote their attention—which is for me exactly why I so revere and appreciate their offerings. I do so not only because of their subject choice of sexuality and the way they have approached it, but also because they have done this despite the as of yet societal lack of understanding of the immeasurable value of their service.
There are all sorts of positions in which this kind of respect for sexuality and education around it occurs. Sex workers of all kinds have the opportunity to contribute in this way, as do erotic artists and sex-focused journalists and media commentators. The particular mention I give here is to the sex educators, to those who have devoted their academic and/or intellectual resources and capabilities to our sexual health and wellness with utmost respect for the pleasure, beauty, and importance of sexuality. I find what seems to be the societal lack of appreciation for them truly astounding, and I personally feel profound gratitude for the work they do in this area that is so dear to my own sensibility as well.
To the sincere, earnest, caring, thoughtful, enthusiastic, hard-working sex educators of the world—thank you.
Love,
Emerald
“Hey you, don’t help them to bury the light, don’t give in without a fight…”
-Pink Floyd “Hey You”
Our Continued Awakening
I have generally not commented much on abortion and reproductive rights on this blog. This is not because I don’t find the topic important (I have been a reproductive rights activist almost my entire adult life and have worked in that area professionally at times when I’ve had a day job) but rather because it is so commonly covered elsewhere (where sex worker rights and the advocacy of open sexual dialogue, understanding, and appreciation seem to me not nearly so much). However, reproductive rights are of course intrinsically linked to sexuality, and in response to two articles I have come across recently, I do feel like I would like to say something about the subject here.
I actually wrote the first part of this post a few weeks ago when I encountered the first article referenced above. An opinion column in the New York Times, it is entitled “Not All Abortions are Equal” and is written by Ross Douthat. (It may be that this article will only be available to NYTimes Select subscribers. I will do my best to quote the things from him to which I am responding directly in case that is the case.) I did not see the second article mentioned above, by Kate Harding on Salon.com, until today when I followed a link from Shanna Germain’s blog. So I will be going over the response in me to Mr. Douthat’s column first and following up with the relatedness I see in Ms. Harding’s.
The argument in Mr. Douthat’s article seems to be (and I did not understand all of it, which I will get to) that just because some abortions are sought and performed due to traumatic circumstances like rape or because a woman’s life or health is in danger if she continues a pregnancy does not mean that abortion should legally be a completely unrestricted procedure.
From the article:
”The argument for unregulated abortion rests on the idea that where there are exceptions, there cannot be a rule. Because rape and incest can lead to pregnancy, because abortion can save women’s lives, because babies can be born into suffering and certain death, there should be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever.
As a matter of moral philosophy, this makes a certain sense. Either a fetus has a claim to life or it doesn’t. The circumstances of its conception and the state of its health shouldn’t enter into the equation.
But the law is a not a philosophy seminar. It’s the place where morality meets custom, and compromise, and common sense. And it can take account of tragic situations without universalizing their lessons.”
This is probably the part of this article where most of the responses I lay out here come from.
Something about the arrangement here doesn’t resonate with me. Not all cases of rape (for example) are “equal,” either, but that doesn’t mean we nuance the law around it and say, “Well, if this person knew her/his assailant, it’s a little different so not quite as illegal,” or “Well, if she was out by herself at night, that’s a little different so the law changes.” (There may be social attitudes surrounding this that encapsulate such unconscionable perspectives, but thankfully they are not apparent in official laws at this time.) Rape is illegal because it appears to violate a basic human right. Abortion is legal because it appears to uphold one.
In neither case does it seem to me appropriate to begin qualifying law based on what we see from the outside as interesting or nuanced. To be sure, there are nuances. Of course there are. But while Mr. Douthat touts law as “place where morality meets custom, and compromise, and common sense,” I would offer that this seems erroneous. To me law seems basically the opposite. Law necessarily calls for guidelines that are not based on compromise (do we say, “Murder is illegal unless, well, it seems like I think it’s justified”? or “The speed limit is this — unless you find yourself justified to drive this particular speed to get where you’re going”?). The legal process does include some degree of recognizing nuance, and it generally takes place in the courts, e.g., juries of peers who consider such things. It is not written into law — if it were, the structure law purports to provide would contain a certain flimsiness that would render it far less credible and useful.
It strikes me that the philosophy surrounding the abortion and reproductive rights issue has sometimes seemed not particularly considerate of the fact that quite real, immediate impacts exist and occur regarding the individuals about whom we so fiercely debate. While we go on and on about rights and life and viability, a woman may be facing a pregnancy which she finds breathtakingly fearful, desolate, joyful, euphoric, crushingly uncertain, or any number of other things that those debating may not — because they are not pregnant or surrounded by the circumstances of that woman’s particular situation.
Regarding fetuses: Some people claim to feel a protectionism toward fetuses. I will admit I feel suspect of this; in some cases they may genuinely believe this is what their focus is on, but it does seem to me that the discussion is so fundamentally about male and female, sexuality, and autonomy that there is likely more at play than a simple concern about fetuses. In many instances, incidentally, I have observed the same people so concerned about fetuses seem rather un-concerned about babies once they are born. To feel concern about fetuses is one thing, but it seems to me it would carry over into a concern about babies as well, and frequently this has seemed to me not to be the case. Not once they are separate units themselves, out from under the protection of a woman’s body.
Which brings me right back to one of the main things it seems to me this controversy is about.
I’ve generally not adhered to comparisons when it comes to abortion. E.g., “It’s murder, taking a human life,” or “She’s just having a medical procedure done.” Pregnancy, abortion, and childbirth seem to me not particularly ripe for comparisons because they concern a unique process. There is simply nothing else like it. Thus to say either of these or related comparative things seems to me to be speaking of something in a way diluting of its inherent and unavoidable uniqueness.
In fact I think this uniqueness may be what has made the process such a target for controversy. On some level I think it is recognized in us that there is nothing else like it. There are also perspectives in us about it that stem from some basic things that may be largely unconscious and thus seemingly unknown to us. Combined, there is a tendency in us is to use things about which we know, about which we already have established conceptions, to fit the subject in question into/around these unconsciously-motivated feelings.
To me, denying a woman the choice to obtain abortion feels viscerally repugnant, eliciting a conscious seething, frothing, fury in me. The unconscious motivators for that may be numerous — a ferocious rebellion against male domination of female, against one person’s control over another person, against external control or oppression of sexuality…all this resonates with me. For others, there may be a similarly unconscious aversion to almost the opposite — female having autonomy, equal control of women with men over something, or perhaps something even further: In the case of pregnancy, something has happened to which both a female and a male contributed. In the case of abortion, the female may make an ultimate decision without the involvement or consent of the male part of it. It is not just equal say — it is a full-blown demonstration of female autonomy that may overrule the male part of the equation, ultimately rendering him without a voice about something with which he was inherently involved. A certain fundamental sexism is so ingrained in us societally that in the unconsiouses of some, this could feel searingly threatening in its unfamiliarity and disruption of a centuries-long collective identity.
In being presented with the argument that if a woman chooses to have sex, she must be willing to face the consequences of having a baby, I have heard statements along the lines of, “It’s just biology. It’s not fair, but biology isn’t fair.” Interesting to me that the above offering could be presented in the exact same language. What makes one more valid than the other?
Historically I have almost never felt oriented toward or resonant with separation on the basis of gender, sex, or biological characteristics in general as far as human potential and certainly rights. Thus I have rarely recognized a distinction in the perspectives or experiences of men and women in general, feeling oriented rather toward recognizing that everyone is an individual and one’s sex does not override basic human potential and uniqueness. The only area in which I can ever remember making any such distinction (barring biological characteristics of the physical body) is regarding pregnancy.
Biologically as far as we understand human life to have existed, it is simply the case that men do not become pregnant. As such, when a man has stated a preference for the disallowance or restriction of abortion, I have felt in me a visceral rebellion that has at times felt almost overwhelming.
It is not that I think men should have no perspective or voice about it. To deny such a thing seems outrageous to me. If a male wants to say he does not feel abortion should be allowed, I have no desire to squelch that voice. I simply recognize that it does not resonate with me.
For that perspective from that source to come to pass, that is, for it to be made a rule affecting females, feels unconscionable to me.
I assure readers I am making no claim whatsoever that all men are anti-choice, which in my experience has been obviously not the case, or that all females are pro-choice, which in my experience has been equally obviously not the case. I simply mention that because it is another nuance surrounding the issue that seems unique to pregnancy and therefore abortion.
To go back to Mr. Douthat’s article, the following are (parts of) the closing paragraphs:
“One reason there’s so much fierce argument about the latest of late-term abortions . . . is that Americans aren’t permitted to debate anything else. . . .
If abortion were returned to the democratic process, this landscape would change dramatically. Arguments about whether and how to restrict abortions in the second trimester — as many advanced democracies already do – would replace protests over the scope of third-trimester medical exemptions.
The result would be laws with more respect for human life, a culture less inflamed by a small number of tragic cases . . . .”
This is really an area where I do not understand what Mr. Douthat is saying.
“Less inflamed by a small number of tragic cases”? I wonder if he thinks that if the “landscape drastically changed” due to “the democratic process” that those of us frankly concerned about not only our personal lives but also the concept of the female population’s bodies being relegated to susceptible to state control as agents to produce babies will just say, “Oh, whew, we have much more to debate now that people aren’t paying attention so much to the ‘small number of tragic cases’ that have occurred in this area. I don’t think we need to worry quite as much about it in general now, do you?” What does this even mean? This is not the only area in which I felt genuine bafflement about what exactly Mr. Douthat was implying, arguing, or presenting. I am not sure exactly what he means by this statement, but I offer that for some abortion is not a philosophical concept to be debated “democratically” but an immediate life-altering issue, and even for those for whom it is not, for those who have the theoretical ability to get pregnant, it carries a more significant implication in that at some point that could be the case.
For men this will simply never (as long as the biological workings continue as they have since our understanding of human beginning) be the same consideration.
The second article I referenced at the beginning of this post is by Kate Harding and entitled “Voluntary Childlessness ‘Unnatural’ and ‘Evil.’”
This article speaks to reproductive rights being fundamentally about female autonomy and presents evidence of social perception on subjects beyond the realm of abortion. The author mentions the similarity she saw between the “vitriol” directed at Polly Vernon, a thirtysomething woman who proclaimed in the Guardian that she was choosing to not have children, and that which Harding has historically observed from the anti-choice faction, such as “‘terrifying’ letters and e-mails calling her ‘selfish … unnatural, evil’” which Vernon received.
It was when I came across and read this article today, which basically echoes much of what I have said above, that I felt drawn again to blog about this. Harding writes the following:
“When you’re talking about abortion, specifically, you can muddle that basic issue with questions about fetuses’ rights. But it becomes crystal clear when you take the fetus out of it: A woman says she doesn’t plan to have children and is thus taking measures to prevent unintended pregnancy indefinitely, and she gets the very same load of crap: She’s unnatural, evil, mentally ill.”
Basically, that offers an anecdotal summary of what I have referenced here that seems clear to me: Reproductive rights is about something much broader than abortion — and the resistance to abortion as a choice is too.
Here’s to our continued awakening, sexually and otherwise.
Love,
Emerald
“Every time I hear people say it’s never gonna change, I think about you, like it’s some kind of joke, some kind of game, girl I think about you…I think about you, eight years old, big blue eyes and a heart of gold, when I look at this world I think about you…”
-Collin Raye “I Think About You”
An Expression of Sorrow
I was jolted and deeply saddened to see the news today that Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed this morning. Having worked professionally in reproductive rights previously and been an activist in the arena for years, I have been familiar with Dr. Tiller’s presence and work. Continuously I felt grateful for his contribution even among the hostility that was sometimes directed at him.
For those not familiar with Dr. Tiller, he was a long-time abortion doctor whose service included performing late-term abortions. It was this service that was often a target of anti-abortion activists and protests. There are very few places in this country (United States) where one may medically obtain an abortion after 21 weeks of pregnancy, and Dr. Tiller’s clinic was one of them. Abortions sought this late in a pregnancy are generally due to severe/life-threatening fetal abnormalities or out of concern for the health or life of the pregnant woman.
This is an expression of deep reverence and sorrow particularly to the family of George Tiller and those close to him. In addition I express again gratitude for Dr. Tiller’s service, especially in the midst of the threats that sometimes surrounded it.
And love to all.
Love,
Emerald
Reverence Where Reverence Is Due
I received a link this week to an editorial published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Sunday that concerns abstinence-only sex education. The article’s author, Stacie Murphy, decided to see what it took to become a Certified Abstinence Educator. Her article describes her experience taking — and passing — the online Certification Exam of the Abstinence Clearinghouse.
Among other things, the article reiterates information to which I have already been exposed as a longtime reproductive rights activist from studies that have concluded that abstinence-only sex education appears not only ineffective but can decrease safer sex practices among young people who have sex because of abstinence-only programs’ propensity to emphasize the failure rates (often inaccurately) of contraceptive methods. As Ms. Murphy writes:
It seems like it would take charts for me to comprehensively explain the things I find dismaying about government-sponsored abstinence-only sex education. Beyond the medical inaccuracies, blatant ideological and/or religious beliefs are also part of some of the curricula as well as gender stereotypes that are presented as casual understanding. And I’m going to stop there for now because I don’t have charts at the moment and want to address another specific aspect of this in this post.
“It makes sense. The assertion that premarital sex will condemn them to a life of poverty, degradation and disease does not align with their experience of a country where more than 95 percent of people have sex before they get married. And condoms? If they don’t work, why use them?”
Because beyond all the (numerous and significant) practical implications I find so disturbing about abstinence-only sex education, philosophically speaking there is a basic premise of the perspective and rhetoric that profoundly doesn’t resonate with me.
Frequently the focus/discussion is on “sex before you get married.” For quite a while I’ve found the “before you get married” part of this rhetoric notable. Before you get married — because, of course, you’re going to get married.
Um…what if you don’t get married (or legally can’t where you choose to live)? What if you don’t want to get married? What if that doesn’t feel like a prominent focus in your life at this time, and you’re not sure it ever will? Does that mean sex is just out of the question for you?
The assertion that these two things are exclusively connected actually makes me feel a bit queasy. The idea of taking something as fundamental, inherent, and personal as sexuality and forcing it into a rigid, in some ways arguably arbitrary as far as sex is concerned, social standard seems appalling to me. I am not arguing against marriage. I am not saying people shouldn’t get married, or that marriage is irrelevant, or aiming to denigrate it in any way. I am lamenting the idea that marriage, the social construct, should or would be the predecessor or controller of sexuality, an inextricable, wholly individualized, absolutely fundamental aspect of life itself.
The idea has long seemed comparable to me to an assertion that we may only eat during mealtimes. Do not pay attention to when you are hungry or develop any kind of intimacy or relationship with your body that attunes you to your appetite and guides you in a way that serves you — these are the mealtimes, and they are when you eat. That is what we have decided, and that is the way everyone is to do it.
I am not speaking snarkily or sarcastically; this conflation truly does disturb me. It feels viscerally inappropriate, intrusive, and misguided to me, and once again it seems to denigrate something that appears to me so obviously beautiful, luminous, awe-inspiring, and unspeakably sacred, which is sexuality. Seeing it undermined by simple virtue of not being recognized and appreciated as such — or only being appreciated within certain social and externally controlling confines — has been known to feel heartbreaking to me, and that is how it feels right now as I type this.
However, it occurs to me that part of “heartbreaking” is “heart,” and I just noticed I am feeling there right now. The joy, beauty, light, glory, love of all of us, that we all are, that is life, that sexuality is purely and luminously within.
…Whew. That all being said, today is a bustling day in erotica blogland — Erobintica is up on the Blow Hard Tour 2009, and today is Donna George Storey’s stop on the Swing! anthology blog tour!
Namaste and love to all.
Love,
Emerald
-Shawn Mullins “Shimmer”
International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers
While I’m a little late in the day with this, I want to post an acknowledgment of the International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers, which is today, December 17. As originally conceived by Annie Sprinkle in 2003, this day has been named so to commemorate sex workers who have experienced violence in their line of work or lost their lives as a result of it, especially amidst society’s woeful historic propensity to misunderstand such violence as either less tragic than violence against those who are not sex workers or something simply “to be expected” in such a line of work — a harshly erroneous conception. Correlatively, it is also a day to support the rights of sex workers as professionals and as people, both of which have historically been denied by various governments (and society).
I offer my support to my fellow professionals who work or have worked in all areas of the sex industry, thanking them for their service, acknowledging their rights, reiterating my advocation for the decriminalization of all areas of the industry, and deeply wishing for their health and safety.
With love and support for all,Emerald “We are outraged that those who provide [professional sexual] services . . . carry the burden of sexual shame and punishment in our society while the very people who use our services are creating and enforcing legislation that violates our human rights. . . . There is a great deal of expertise from our communities defining safe work environments, identifying abusive situations and establishing a culturally appropriate community-based response to these problems.”
-From the list of demands proposed by Sex Workers Outreach Project USA in a letter to President-Elect Obama, 2008
Just Expressing My Perspective
Today I read an op-ed in the New York Times by graduate student in theology Eric Johnston about his political support of Rudy Giuliani and his reasons for optimism concerning Giuliani’s position on abortion rights and his own anti-choice position (“Anti-Roe and Pro-Rudy,” 9/14/07). The response I present here is not actually a rebuttal of the premise of Mr. Johnston’s piece, which I found a rather thoughtful perspective on the subject. Nor is it really even related to reproductive rights, the subject of the most obvious difference between Mr. Johnston’s and my socially philosophical positions. Rather, it is a specific response to a few lines he puts forth (which he actually attributes to Rudy Giuliani) in a paragraph he is using to illustrate what he perceives as Mr. Giuliani’s politically philosophical view. Granted, the example he uses happened back in 1999, so it’s not as though the described example is even currently an issue…but the postulation surrounding it somehow claimed my attention so much that I find myself compelled to address it.
From the article:
“Social conservatives have reason to trust Mr. Giuliani’s instincts, however. In 1999, the Brooklyn Museum of Art exhibited a painting of the Virgin Mary spattered with elephant dung and surrounded by pictures from pornographic magazines. Mayor Giuliani tried to cut the museum’s city subsidies. . . . By all accounts, Mr. Giuliani is not a devout Catholic. His argument over the Virgin Mary painting was not, ‘You’re insulting me,’ but rather, ‘If you’re going to use taxpayers’ dollars, you have to be sensitive to the feelings of the public.’”
…Are you kidding? Seriously—is that a joke? The idea of being “sensitive to the feelings of the public” being a determinant of the use taxpayer dollars leaves me almost stupefied. I wonder if anyone would take seriously the notion that 1) this happens, and 2) that it should.
Here’s the first point of view I would offer: Perhaps the use of taxpayer dollars would suggest an adherence to the Constitution—specifically, say, the First Amendment, which right there at the beginning expressly grants the freedom of speech. (I don’t recall anything about a sensitivity to the feelings of the public anywhere in the text.)
Further, on a list I would denote of the things most impeding to creativity, the prerequisite of being “sensitive to the feelings of the public” is quite near the top. Especially for artists. I can hardly think of a more inhibiting premise to the creative process than postulating a requirement for the outcome to somehow adhere to said sensitivity.
In addition, if anyone could manage to specify just what “the feelings of the public” are so that sensitivity to them could be practiced, I would find that damn impressive. I have yet to discern what the overall feelings of the public are in any way that would seem to allow a universal sensitivity to them.
Lastly, I will discuss something I almost hesitate to even point out because it is so absurdly obvious. But I will do it anyway. Since the matter in question involves art, I really would think it would not need to be pointed out yet again that art is subjective. What some people may receive as offensive, others may not. I have not seen the work in question, but just the description of it elicits this possible response in me: I feel I could view such a piece as a portrayal, with the images of Mary surrounded by pornographic pictures, of the madonna/whore dichotomy (which is really a unity — similar to the yin yang symbol) existent in women, which I personally quite appreciate. The elephant dung could be interpreted to display the shit piled by society on either depiction of the human female (or on the dichotomy itself), which has, in my opinion, been evidenced throughout human history. Were this my interpretation of the piece, I would not find it offensive.*
To Mr. Johnston, of course, I extend all due respect. It simply felt important to me to present what I see as significant deviation from the postulation(s) implied by the statement(s) presented.
Love,Emerald *Of course, I have no idea how I would really interpret it or if I even would, since my historical experience has been that any real response to a work of art is contingent upon actually experiencing it, and since I have not experienced it I cannot really have any way of knowing how a response from me might be stirred. “I know what I have given you. I do not know what you have received.”
-Antonio Porchia, writer (1886-1968)
