Archive for Sex+ Society
Love
Understandably, what has been referred to as bullying has seemed a prominent topic right now. I have seen a number of what I have found heartening responses and outreach in relation to the subject, one of which was today by Rick R. Reed. As I have reflected on what seems this bullying phenomenon I have experienced as prevalent in the media right now, some things have occurred to me.
Seeing children and adolescents act needlessly mean or cruel to each other feels like it rips my heart open. It has for as long as I can remember—even to some degree when I was one. During my pre-teen and early teenage years I felt a target of what has now been dubbed the “mean girls” phenomenon among my peers. I attended a very small school (there were about 21 students in my class), which looking back seems to me very relevant to the situation. I experienced the five girls who were my closest “friends” as arbitrarily and frequently ostracizing me, and given the tiny size of my peer group in the school and the relatively established groups of friends within it, when this happened I felt really all alone at times in the school atmosphere.
Even then, I didn’t like to see other kids being picked on because I felt like I knew how it felt. But I will say that at that age I still halfheartedly participated in it sometimes in a desperate attempt to “fit in” with those who at least as frequently scathingly isolated, verbally attacked, maliciously gossiped about, and appeared to take pleasure in ignoring me. It seemed a vicious cycle in a way, and while I say with all sincerity that kids bullying other kids breaks my heart, I must acknowledge too that that may seem easier for me to say and recognize as an adult than it was to act nobly when I was that age, because I remember sometimes (again, halfheartedly) participating in it too.
I did this because I felt desperately left out, unwanted, unloved, and like it seemed there was no place in the world I could go where I would experience the opposite and feel safe. I do remember sitting by myself one day on the playground and the thought occurring to me, “It won’t always be like this. I won’t always be at this school, with only this group of people. Someday I won’t be trapped in this environment. Someday it will be different. Something will be different.” I really do remember thinking that. I also remember thinking though that at the time, that seemed almost inconceivably far away, and I did not know what I was going to do in the meantime.
I, of course, did not have the additional confusion, possible fear, and seeming target for bullying of feeling any question or (generally, it seemed) external perceptions about the sexual orientation, gender identity, etc., in me. I am only saying that I remember feeling desperately ostracized and manipulated by my peers (mostly female) and utterly powerless to do anything at all to change it. Thus, sometimes, if for a fleeting moment it felt like I was being included, that I wasn’t suffering that horrific loneliness and searing humiliation of what seemed a complete rejection by the people my age with whom I went to school, I might do something I felt less than excited about in order to “hold on” to that feeling—like participate in picking on someone else that my group of “friends” was presently targeting.
The adolescent of a species, including human of course, is by definition not fully developed, but not completely helpless like the infant or child of the species either. It seems to me this could contribute to what makes this seem such a tumultuous time. Human adolescents generally observe some degree of autonomy but are not fully developed yet, and they may feel a sense of overwhelm in the face of the power they do have juxtaposed with that they don’t. I for one feel that they tend to take their cues from those of the species who are fully developed (which is not the same as evolved or aware—just physically fully developed as an adult).
Given what has seemed to me collective humanity’s prominent issues around sexuality (including gender) at this time, it does not seem surprising to me that this area/subject is one around which intense vitriol, ignorance, and aggression has been displayed by youth.
I have literally cried as I have read recent accounts of adolescents exhibiting horrific cruelty and ignorance toward one another. It feels like my heart breaks open—which I let it do, and do my very best to be with. But I look around at how adults treat each other, and even as my heart breaks more—I feel chillingly not surprised.
—If we want to make a lot of money via the media, we follow people who are famous and try to find things out about them that they have not shared with the public, and that we probably wouldn’t want the public finding out about us, and broadcast it indiscriminately. More of us then go on to state our perceptions about that, some of which may seem personally directed and/or even malicious. How frequently do we consider the feelings of the subjects of this kind of scrutiny and/or exploitation?
—If we want to hold political office in America, we leverage as many resources as we can against whomever is running “against” us and then attack that person/people either verbally or through forms of what seem frequently overt manipulation.
—When we don’t like the way another country/culture/society is doing something in the world (however justified we may find that disapproval to be), we go to war with them.
To me, all of these things look in some way like bullying—implicitly, overtly, collectively, and/or via manipulation.
I was at Dave & Buster’s the other night, and for the most part I had a delightful time. As I walked around, however, I saw numerous games that included all sorts of aggression and violence toward both people and animals. I do not feel any aspiration to fall back on a “blame video games for all violence and issues among children” stance. I do, however, simply wonder why we find violence so entertaining. Why are games designed to be fun and compelling replete with violence that sometimes includes literally killing people in them? What is it we find so compelling about violence? Is it a way to deal with underlying fear in us that for the most part is not even conscious but that may largely direct our behavior and experience? Some part of us knows/senses such fear is there (in some this may seem more conscious than others), and in seeking desperately to not let it come to consciousness, we act out in ways that seem “safe” but still touch that darker part of us that is unconsciously there?
I don’t know. What I do feel is that the above have often been engaged in by adults. Yes, the way(s) some adolescents in question in recent news stories have acted seems horrifying—but where might they be getting this kind of example?
We don’t know what the home lives of the kids who are initiating and/or participating in bullying look or looked like, how their parents interact/interacted with them, how they are and have been treated away from their peers. I feel very clear that I am in no way intending to excuse or underestimate the behavior they have displayed by saying that. What I am rather aspiring to is remembering that there are motivations for everyone’s behavior, even kids’, and very frequently it is unconscious. In children, this may especially be the case if they are treated unconsciously by adults, particularly their parents.
To return to the “breaking the cycle” framework I invoked in a recent post, this does not seem to me helped by seeking simply to punish or counter-ostracize kids who act in a bullying way. I understand feeling the urge to do that. I do. I experience the anguish, fury, painful and indescribable frustration in response to horrendous treatment of human beings by another/others. But it seems to me reactive punishment and aggression simply breed more of the same behavior, coming out somewhere else or in some other way. It is where the motivation for the behavior may have come from in the first place.
This is not simple stuff. It is not an easy answer or certainly an easy process to say, “Okay. I’ll just change all the habits in me and get rid of all my unconscious motivations and love everybody.” First, in my experience, none of that can be “done” by way of the mind that is able to conceive of them. The shift is beyond that kind of conception and certainly beyond “trying.” It seems to me, however, that it begins with openly (and lovingly) observing ourselves, and especially on this subject the kind of example we are setting—larger than just what we do in front of kids. How are we living our lives? How do we view people? How do we treat people? How do we view and treat ourselves?
In that light, all I have is an invitation, which I offer wholly to myself as well:
Take a deep breath. Do it all the time. Focus on the breath. Hold yourself (again I am saying this to me too) in love. Touch yourself lovingly (yeah, yeah—I don’t mean just that way—though I certainly don’t mean not that way either). Seriously. Place your hand on some part of your body with love. Do you feel it? Does it feel different? Unusual? If you feel like it, even give yourself a physical hug.
Return to these things, over and over again. They may help more than we have any idea.
Love,
Emerald
“We got teenagers walking around in a culture of darkness, living together alone…don’t you know that love’s the only house big enough for all the pain in the world?…”
-Martina McBride “Love’s the Only House”
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”
At the Risk of Repeating Myself…
I feel like I’ve said this all before. Yet I seem to continue to encounter some of the same assertions, postulations, perspectives about sex work, specifically the decriminalization of prostitution, to which I still feel, and have felt in the past, compelled to respond.
In this case, as I mentioned in my recent post about human trafficking, there was more to which I wanted to respond in the two articles I referenced. That post of mine focused on the (erroneous) conflation of sex work and sex trafficking, and as I said then, in the interest of post length I didn’t want to get into as well the things in both articles with which I disagreed about the principles of prostitution and its decriminalization in general.
That I saved for this post.
Philosophically, in addition the fallacious perspective that equates prostitution and sex trafficking, the perspective offered in these two articles seems to find the current and continued criminalization of prostitution advisable and desirable. Michelle Brock, the author of both articles, asks in the second one,
“If you were a trafficker, would you be drawn to a country where men were criminalized for giving you business, or to a country where they felt free to roam?”
And that seems to me an interesting question. The first answer that occurs to me is that since trafficking of human beings is (appropriately) illegal, I don’t know whether the legal status of the places traffickers are going would seem of particular importance to them. If what they’re doing is illegal anyway, it doesn’t seem obvious to me that they would be seeking out legal enterprises or environments in which to operate. Dealers of illegal drugs in the United States, for example, don’t seem to have avoided bringing said products to the country despite their illegal status. If such drugs were decriminalized, I don’t feel sure that the same covert mechanisms and tactics for provision would still be necessary and that current dealers of illegal drugs would suddenly flock to the United States where they were “free to roam.”
And actually, it seems to me that the traffickers referred to in the question may prefer the former—being somewhere where the demand was criminalized. If they are doing something illegal to provide a service, why would they go somewhere to provide it where the practice is not criminalized? Essentially it seems this would eliminate or at least decrease the demand for their services. If the service were freely or easily accessible and legal, why would illegal means be necessary to further provide it? Such may in fact create an environment in which traffickers might not feel so comfortable operating.
The same article states,
” … I have read in most other government and NGO documents that many victims are afraid of telling police the truth, since they are threatened and by traffickers.”
That strikes me as truly ironic. I don’t doubt that it’s true (and find it tragic). I wonder why it doesn’t seem to occur within this context that when prostitution is criminalized, virtually ALL working whores, trafficked or not, feel exactly this way by the very law in regard to reporting crimes and telling the truth? If they do experience some kind of assault, especially on the job, the exact description cited above fits that which every sex worker (in an environment in which said work is criminalized) may face—sometimes afraid not of traffickers, but of the law and officials employed to uphold it. Incidentally, since decriminalizing prostitution certainly doesn’t mean decriminalizing human trafficking, nothing about the above would presumably change in the face of the decriminalization of prostitution. What would change, rather, is that the many working in the sex industry by choice would legally hold more recourse in reporting abusive or unlawful acts without (so much) fear for their own freedom or safety. In addition, law enforcement would be in a position to devote more attention to actual situations of abuse and coercion since the law would not call on them to identically pursue incidents of consensual sex work.
Going back to the first article,
“Paying to have sex with a prostituted woman/sex worker is inherently dehumanizing because it takes the wholeness out of the woman’s humanity.” [Emphasis theirs]
…What in the hell does that mean? I’m really not being a smart-ass here—I truly do not understand this. What exactly is the part that’s “dehumanizing”? The having sex? That would seem to be quite the assertion (though not unheard of, I guess). The being paid for it? Um, is most gainful employment dehumanizing, then? What about, for example, writing, which is something I have loved to do since I was seven and that I feel has been a significant part of my existence—and for which I have also been paid. Is that dehumanizing? How about professional psychologists? Are they “dehumanized” by being seen for their training and education when one buys their services, taking the “wholeness” out of their “humanity”? Feel free to insert virtually any profession you’d like to in the above statements, as I don’t see exactly what is differentiating one from another. Why is this profession somehow more “dehumanizing” than the other services we perform for money in a capitalistic social and economic system?
Moving on to practical matters (still in the first article):
“If you throw in some drugs, second-hand clothing, and the watchful eye of a pimp, you’ve got yourself a more realistic picture of what the majority have for a work environment.”
First, I really wonder how one claims to know that this represents a “majority.” But second, why, why, why does it not seem to occur to us that this may be in huge part because the industry is forced underground due to its illegal status? I really don’t understand why this does not seem more commonly recognized. Does it really seem like the above would need to or likely be the case in a non-criminalized industry?
Maybe an example would help this seem clearer. Let’s pretend that we decided to criminalize, say, soccer for some reason. Do you think soccer would remain just as it is now, with the same audiences, environments, and performing conditions? Does it seem that perhaps the aforementioned factors may be affected by its suddenly having lawfully punishable status? That viewing it, following it, participating in it would suddenly need to be done covertly, so that the methodology(ies) arranged to employ this may shift, take on a different feeling, be exploited in different ways? Seriously, ponder that. And if this were the case, does it seem obvious that this would be not because of soccer itself but because of its illegal status?
Then there is the line at which I just sigh:
“This means she [Pye Jakobsson] cannot speak on behalf of the sex trade industry, specifically when it comes to trafficking victims.”
I wonder why, then, Ms. Brock feels that she can? I wonder who exactly can speak for sex workers if not sex workers themselves? This is not the first time I’ve seen or heard such an assertion—you’re “an exception”; “most” sex workers are like this. How do the people purporting this know this (even more pointedly, know this better than sex workers themselves)? Why does it seem so commonplace and cavalier to blatantly disregard, particularly as “atypical,” sharings from sex workers who have chosen to work in the industry and who express their perspectives? At what point is it appropriate for those perspectives to be taken into consideration? Why have they seemed so consistently ignored? What constitutes a “valid” sex worker perspective worthy of attention? Perhaps most pointedly, why would someone who has not worked as a sex worker seem to feel so strongly about wanting to speak for them while ignoring expressions from those who have or do work as sex workers as they speak for themselves?
For the record, I don’t claim to speak for all sex workers, nor do I feel I have some magical understanding and knowledge of the majority of sex workers’ experiences or working environments or contexts. I frankly don’t know how virtually anyone feels like s/he knows this, especially in an area of work that tends, contemporarily, to be so covert. What I do feel is that, as I have said before, in a capitalistic environment, I see no justification for the arbitrary disallowance of sexual services to be recognized as among the myriad services legitimately offered and sold within the structures of that system. In addition, to purport to speak for the workers comprising an entire industry without necessarily even speaking personally to any of them, much less what may be construed a representative sample, seems inappropriate, or at the very least, subject to scrutiny, to me.
Love,
Emerald
“Everybody’s talking all this stuff about me, why don’t they just let me live?, I don’t need permission, make my own decisions, that’s my prerogative…”
-Britney Spears (originally by Bobby Brown) “My Prerogative”
Fallacy and Distinction
Recently on AKIMBO, the blog of the International Women’s Health Coalition, Audacia Ray posted about the June release of the 10th Annual Trafficking in Persons Report by the United States Department of State. I have not read completely the 373-page report but rather browsed it a bit, spot reading a few paragraphs on different pages. What I read I (not surprisingly) found heartbreaking.
There is no intention in me whatsoever to undermine, dismiss, or observe with any lack of appropriate reverence the horrific phenomenon of human trafficking. I do feel concern, however, about a conflation of human trafficking or sex trafficking specifically with sex work in general. As Audacia pointed out when she provided the link, the ugly phenomenon of human trafficking encompasses far more areas of industry than just sex work, and indeed, in my brief perusing of the report, much of what I saw related to other forms of industry. And yet, sex trafficking seems to be the area most associated with human trafficking to the public, and in some cases this emphasis seems to be used to argue for continued (or increased) criminalization of prostitution.
This is not to necessarily accuse the perspective that proposes this conflation of exploiting the tragedy of human trafficking, but it does seem important to me to provide another perspective(s). The current phenomenon of human trafficking seems to me related to a number of economic, social, psychological, evolutionary, and consciousness-related factors beyond the scope of this post, and a consideration of human trafficking or sex trafficking as synonymous with sex work seems to me severely misguided. I see no intrinsic connection, much less interchangeability, between the two.
I read two online articles recently that I interpreted as presenting fallacious assertions about sex work and human trafficking.* Both were at an anti-sex-trafficking website called Hope for the Sold. The first was published June 8 of this year and is a response to a video of Pye Jakobsson discussing sex worker rights and the Swedish model of criminalizing the patronization of sexual services. The second is a follow-up article in response to comments received on the first.
In the second referenced article, Michelle Brock of Hope for the Sold states,
This seems to me a possible subtle fallacy. The legalization of alcohol at the time of Prohibition did not seem to increase the demand for it. The demand was already there. Maxim claims prostitution as the world’s oldest profession. In this country and much of the world, capitalism is an official and strongly ingrained social system. Sexuality is intrinsic in us. Combined, the demand for sexual services does not seem to need much help.“Legalization grows the size of the sex industry, which includes a rise in demand for paid sex.”
Does it seem likely that an increase in the demand for manual labor has occurred because it is legal to work in that industry? For domestic work? Is that why we think human beings are trafficked for these purposes? Because domestic work and manual labor being legal are increasing the demand for it? To me that makes little sense. As with sex work, the demand seems to be already there and not to need any help. I see no basis for a supposition that sex work being legal increases a demand for it, or really that demand is or would be affected very much by legal status at all. Human trafficking seems to encompass numerous factors, contributors, and circumstances not exclusive to or even necessarily directly related to sex work or any of the particular industries in which it is occurring.
In the first article, Ms. Brock asserts,
“[Ms. Jakobsson] fails to see that prostitution and sex trafficking cannot be separated.”
Really? So does that mean manual labor and manual labor trafficking cannot be separated, and domestic work and domestic work trafficking cannot be separated? What will we do about that? Try to abolish a demand for manual labor and domestic work? Criminalize them? Criminalize the purchase of such services? I fail to see how “prostitution and sex trafficking” any more “cannot be separated” than other kinds of work from their respective trafficking occurrences.
Which brings me back to the heartbreaking point that there are many other areas and cases in which human beings are currently being trafficked besides sex work. The fixation on sex trafficking to the exclusion of other areas of trafficking is one of the things that signals that a bias against sex work itself may be in operation.
It does not seem productive to me to perceive an “us against them” circumstance between those who support decriminalization of prostitution and those who seek to eradicate human trafficking. There is nothing mutually exclusive about these positions; on the contrary, I don’t recall ever encountering or hearing of anyone who supports the decriminalization of prostitution not also unquestionably desiring the elimination of human trafficking.
What seems important to me is to present an alternative perspective(s) to any which may be focused on a hostility toward sex work itself and thus draw superficial, ignorant, or arbitrary connections between decriminalization and sex trafficking that may be more related to ingrained cultural perspectives than what is actually occurring. (I do not use “ignorant” there derogatorily but rather advisedly—ignorant of an understanding of consensual sex work, a category into which much of the population may fall—and not necessarily by fault of their own: there is little in mainstream society to illuminate this understanding for the general public.)
As I ponder how to close this post right now, what feels forthcoming is a sincere reiteration of respect and love for everyone, encompassing the heartbreak for the tragedy of human trafficking and the holding of unconditional love in this deep wish for the Awakening of all humanity.
Love,
Emerald
“Hey you, don’t tell me there’s no hope at all, together we stand, divided we fall…”
-Pink Floyd “Hey You”
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”
Speaking for Myself…
As I mentioned in my last post, on Tuesday of last week Ms. Violet Blue appeared on The Oprah Winfrey Show, the topic of which was women and pornography and erotica. A few days ago Alison Tyler linked to the comments on the episode at the show’s website. I read said comments, and while there are many things that could be commented on (there was much talk about “porn addiction,” pornography “destroying families,” its being the “leading cause divorce in America,” etc., etc., etc….sigh), I am commenting here on one particular theme that I noticed not for the first time.
A lot of people seem to want to talk about “most women’s experience” working in porn (apparently men’s experience is not relevant). In this specific instance, featured guest Jenna Jameson’s experience, for example, was hailed as an “exception” to “most women’s experience” in porn. Well, indeed, Ms. Jameson is an “exception” in that she’s arguably the most famous porn star in the world. Just as Michael Jordan is an “exception” in his profession as one of the most famous basketball players in the world. That’s great. But the reason people seem to be pointing this out in Ms. Jameson’s case is to claim the generalization that most women’s experience working in porn is degrading, exploitative, harrowing, etc.
I wonder how many people (women, presumably) these individuals know who have worked in porn? Or how else it is that they think they know this? Sometimes there have been exposes or stories told via the media about people working in it or who used to work in porn, but it has seemed to me that what is reported by the media in general (on all sorts of topics) may not be representative of the majority of experience. Why is it that some people seem so certain about the experience of the majority of women who have worked in porn — have they met most of the people about whom they are speaking? Are they familiar personally with a vast number of porn performers?
Incidentally, this type of widespread assumption seems to extend to people (usually women) working in almost any facet of the sex industry. I recall having a conversation with a former co-worker of mine at my last full-time day job a few years ago. I was explaining that I supported the decriminalization of prostitution, and he said he didn’t understand why and/or whom that would benefit since “no one does that job voluntarily.” I asked him how he knew that. He stated that it was “obvious.” I asked him how many whores he had known from whom he had apparently gleaned this understanding.
Guess what his answer was.
Anyway, back to porn, it’s not even that I am out and out disagreeing with these naysaying individuals, because I don’t know a whole lot of porn performers either, especially professional ones (in my time working in porn I only met one). But I have been a porn performer myself (amateur porn rather than professional — a loose description of the difference may be found here), and when I read or hear generalizing comments like this I have experienced the odd feeling of someone seeming to speak for me to whom I have never spoken about this aspect of my experience — as well as that of my experience being virtually unacknowledged or, if it is, dismissed.
Working as a pornographic performer did not seem to me like some big scandalous/radical/shocking embarkation. It seemed like something interesting and appealing to me to do in line with the interest I felt in working in the sex industry. I appreciated the opportunity and in general enjoyed the work I have done therein. It doesn’t seem strange to me to imagine that I wasn’t some major exception in feeling this way and that a number of people may similarly have freely chosen/choose to and enjoy working in porn. What does seem mystifying to me is how many people seem to think they know what “most” women’s experience working in porn is or that this experience somehow tends to be homogenous for women in general. How exactly is it that they think they know that?
I would like to digress here for a moment and say that on the referenced episode of Oprah’s show, I did find the comments from Steve Hirsch (CEO of Vivid Entertainment Group) about condom usage — that they weren’t part of people’s “fantasy” and that porn featuring condoms just didn’t sell as well — considerably disheartening. For me condom usage was unquestioned. I respectfully insisted on condoms for all vaginal and anal penetration, and it was simply not a point of negotiation. In my experience working in amateur porn, I very rarely encountered resistance to this. On the occasions I did, there was no hesitation in me to simply decline that job.
There are things I myself personally don’t appreciate about the way some pornography is made and (especially) marketed, sure. The things I have not liked about pornography, however, for the most part have seemed to me reflective of societal propensities and not the inherent fault of pornography — the graphic depiction of sex with the intent to arouse — as a genre. Incidentally, it also seems to me that to say that pornography is inherently “degrading to women” is to say that sex is inherently degrading to women and that when they partake in it they are being intrinsically objectified (whereas men are not). I not only find no merit in that position but moreover see that contention itself as what is degrading and oppressive to women.
I do not at all purport to speak for everyone in the pornography industry here any more than I assent to other people speaking for me in that context. I know what my own experience working in porn has been, and I am happy to share/discuss it. That which I have discussed in this post simply brought to my attention once again what seem to be some automatic/unquestioned assumptions prevalently applied to working in and workers of the sex industry. Those assumptions seem to me indicators of underlying societal attitudes and conceptions we may do well to examine.
Love,
Emerald
“How dare you say that my behavior is unacceptable, so condescending unnecessarily critical…”
-Maroon 5 “Harder to Breathe”
And I Am a Former Sex Worker
I don’t know how I missed this when it first came out (in April), but I was checking out the website for the 2010 New York Sex Bloggers calendar (featuring such bloggers as Audacia Ray, Urban Gypsy, and Rachel Kramer Bussel, all of whom are also featured in the inaugural 2009 calendar hanging on my entry way wall) and clicked over to Sex Work Awareness, which sales of the calendar benefits. It was there I found this spectacular video, which of course I want to share here:
Beautiful. Huge kudos and thanks to the Sex Work Awareness Speak Up media training workshop for this magnificent public service announcement.Love,
Emerald
-Kim Carnes “Bette Davis Eyes”
