legality of burlesque [May 02, 2008 @ 3:50pm] ladyofannwn [ mood | anxious ] Hi everyone, My college burlesque troupe is putting on our first show tonight, and the local cops have threatened arrest. We're being quite careful already about concealing our naughty bits, but we're in New York State, where as far as I know it's completely legal to walk around topless. As far as I'm concerned this is all BS, though I'm not sure why they're trying to scare us in this uber liberal college town. I'm not in charge, so I'm not directly in the loop of whats going on. Can anyone suggest any resources I can find online as far as the legality of a show that involves stripping, but no nudity? It would be great to have some firm knowledge to back us up should they try to pull something. Thanks!! **Just got word that it was resolved! Our people knew the law better than they did and apparently they were nice about it, too. : ) Read (3) post comment

Australian GLBTI Mardi Gras this Saturday: SEX WORKERS AND SUPPORTERS FLOAT - all the info you need! [February 26, 2008 @ 11:32am] crimsontide [ mood | crazy ] Hi there beautiful cats and kittens!! Here is ALL the information you will need for the sex worker float in this Saturday's triumphant GLBTI QUEER MARDI GRAS MARCH! Yay! Please read through this CAREFULLY as it contains IMPORTANT info!!!! And feel free to distribute it widely throughout your friends and networkers - remember, ALL sex workers and supporters are welcome and encouraged to join us! Ok a couple of FAN FACTS first: * This is the biggest parade EVER. They are at ABSOLUTE CAPACITY with 10,000 people marching! Holy cow! * This is the world's largest nighttime parade * If you lined up all the entrants (150) it would be about 4.6km in length! * Although the parade starts at 8.00pm the floats at the end of the parade won't leave their position in "Start" until 10.00pm! (don't worry we're not at the end!) * The audience will be over 150,000 people. Now, the sex worker float is in Block E. So, not too far from the start at all. Block A departs at 7.45pm so, if all goes to plan we should start marching around 8.30 - 9.00pm. Here is what you MUST KNOW. * Our colour theme is red and we will be carrying red umbrellas which have become an international symbol of sex worker rights. Please bring a red brolley or two (one to share) and carrying red banners. When there is a large collection of umbrellas it's a pretty impressive sight - and the bigger the brolley the more of us there appear to be! Sex worker organisations are welcome to bring their own banners. Touching Base will be marching (and rolling) with us. * We are meeting from 3.00pm at Scarlet Alliance HQ: 349 CROWN STREET, SURRY HILLS, CNR ALBION AND CROWN. This will give you an opportunity to get ready, chat and make friends, and get "in the mood". We have accessible facilities on the ground floor at this premises. * We MUST be in our "Start" position by 5.30PM. We will therefore be leaving Scarlet Alliance HQ between 4.45pm and 5.00pm and walking down to the parade start area. Please arrive at Scarlet Alliance HQ no later than 4.45pm. WHY IS THAT SO IMPORTANT? * Without a wrist band, you WILL NOT be permitted by Mardi Gras officials into the Start area to join us. We will be giving out the wrist bands at Scarlet HQ at 4.30pm. Remember: no wristband, no marching! * We will be in our start position for about four hours. There are toilet facilities, including accessible toilets (but not many of those unfortunately) but please bring plenty of food and drink (including water). We do not have a float, so you will not be able to store anything on the back of it, so please don't bring anything you don't want to carry the 4 or 5 kms the parade runs for. * On the subject of stilettos: twice now I have done a parade march in five-inch stiletto heels and lemme tell ya: it's MOIDER. Make sure your stiletto heels have a platform, or choose more "sensible" (totally subjective term) footwear. Believe me, you WILL remove them at the end of the march and then your fabulous outfit will be ruined by the absence of footwear. I can proudly say I made it to the end of both marches, but collapsed immediately. (Or wear a fabulously decorated backpack to pack your heels to be pulled out 15 mins before departure!) * Compliance checks begin at 5.30pm. Mardi Gras are VERY strict about this and say those who disobey the rules will be KICKED OUT and not permitted to march. Therefore, PLEASE DO NOT BRING: - Flammables and explosives of ANY type (cigarette lighters excepted) - Pets/animals (seriously) - Anything of dubious legality you can't secrete on your person Now, since Scarlet HQ is very close to the parade area, traffic will probably be heavy. It might be better to take a cab, or use public transport, where possible, rather than fight for a parking spot. However, if something terrible happens and you are unable to make it to Scarlet HQ before 4.45pm, you can contact one of the following people: Janelle - 0411 985 135 Elena - 0401 317 102 Elise - 0413 723 205 (that's yours truly) New Mardi Gras are doing the parade a little differently this year. Since it is impossible to see when you are marching, here's a little outline. - The Dykes on Bikes will kick off as usual, but then they will go to the back of the parade and ride through again. - Usually they begin the parade with the biggest float. This year they are kicking it off with the '78ers', those who were there for the first Mardi Gras (in 1978 hence the 78'ers). Then the floats will gradually get bigger and bigger, capping off with an absolute spectacular! - Margaret Cho is the Chief of Parade this year! Please see the attached document for a run down of this info and the privacy notice. Any questions, feel free to call one of the three people listed above! HAPPY MARDI GRAS AND SEE YOU THERE! LOVE AND KISSES, SQUIGGLES AND SNORES ELISE/E THE BEE/PRINCESS BEE Read (2) post comment

"Girls taught to value sex over achievement and intelligence" [December 10, 2007 @ 10:40pm] iwasborntofly [ mood | contemplative ]   Girls taught to value sex over achievement and intelligence MALCOLM LAW TEENAGE girls would rather be sexy than clever, according to a new book which blames celebrities such as Paris Hilton, Christina Aguilera and Britney Spears for the phenomenon. Carol Platt Liebau, a leading political commentator in the US and the first female managing editor of Harvard Law Review, warned young women were being taught to believe "sexy" equates to empowered. The author said "promiscuity and sexual aggression" were now being seen as the only way to achieve admiration. And she suggested girls now competed for attention based on how much they were sexually willing to do for boys. Women's groups last night also warned that the sexualisation of young girls was making them increasingly vulnerable. Ms Liebau's book, Prude: How The Sex- Obsessed Culture Damages Girls, blames the music and videos of Spears, Aguilera and Lil' Kim, as well as films such as Cruel Intentions, for making teenagers value sexuality above all else. She said: "The overwhelming lesson teenagers are now learning from the world around them is that being 'sexy' is the ultimate accolade, trumping intelligence, character and all other accomplishments. In a culture that celebrates Paris Hilton [and] thong underwear, there's scant modesty or achievement that isn't coupled with sex appeal. Girls are being led to believe that they're in control when it comes to sexual relationships. "But they're actually living in a profoundly anti-feminist landscape where girls compete for attention on the basis of how much they are sexually willing to do for the boys. And living in an overly sexualised culture takes a toll on girls." A spokeswoman for Rape Crisis Scotland said the sale of products such as junior pole-dancing kits was particularly concerning. She said: "We are concerned about the over-sexualisation of children and the effect it has on women and girls' self-esteem. Young women do experience a lot of pressure to have sex." A spokeswoman for Scottish Women Against Pornography said: "It's setting young women and girls up as targets. It's a backlash to any sense of women's achievement. The idea that this is sexual liberation is just re-branding the same oppression." Phillip Hodson, a fellow of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy in London, said the influence of TV, the media and Hollywood had made society more focused on personal appearance. But he added: "I think the problem is exaggerated. Nature wishes you to breed, so sexuality has always been there. What's wrong with being intelligent and taking care of yourself? But if you are just trading on your sexuality, the big question is what are you going to do when you lose your looks?" • Prude: How The Sex-Obsessed Culture Damages Girls is released later this month. PARIS HILTON: ONLINE NOTORIETY AND A JAIL TERM PARIS Hilton shot to fame when her home-made sex video appeared on the internet. The hotel dynasty heiress has since fronted various TV shows. She was jailed earlier this year for driving under the influence of alcohol. She has also feuded publicly with the actress Lindsay Lohan. BRITNEY'S CONTROVERSIAL KISS-OFF BRITNEY Spears, whose first taste of the limelight came on the wholesome Mickey Mouse Club, has never been far from controversy in recent years. She locked lips with Madonna at an awards show in 2003 and was snapped without any pants on before losing custody of her two children earlier this year. AGUILERA'S DIRRTY MOVE CHRISTINA Aguilera's "girl next door" image vanished as she was transformed into a raunchy singer in the video for the 2002 hit single Dirrty. She has been hailed for "making pregnancy sexy" after posing with her naked bump for a magazine. LIL' KIM: X-RATED LYRICS, OUTRAGEOUS OUTFITS LIL' Kim is best known in the UK for performing on the Moulin Rouge soundtrack hit Lady Marmalade in 2001 alongside Christina Aguilera. Her songs have achieved notoriety for their X-rated and sexually upfront lyrics and her outrageous outfits have raised eyebrows. How much blame can be placed on the media? Should we also be looking at the home and school environments? Is their value and empowerment in claiming - or reclaiming - your own sexuality if you're a teenage girl as opposed to a "grown" woman?   Read (11) post comment

International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers: Red Umbrella Event [December 06, 2007 @ 5:08pm] crimsontide The official date is 17th December, but since we'll have a bunch of out of town sex workers in Sydney on the 13th, we decided to do it then. Instead of focusing JUST on the old demonising-clients victimising-workers stance that always takes precedence to the detriment of other, equally as important, issues, this year our focus is to be on other forms of violence, e.g.: the violence that comes from discrimination, unfair legislation, denial of basic human rights. It is all these factors that actually create the environment in which physically and sexually violent people target sex workers. SO. PLEASE COME AND SHOW YOUR SUPPORT, OPEN TO SEX WORKERS AND OUR SUPPORTERS. 4.45 for a 5pm start, Thursday 13th December 2006,  Local Council and Shires Association, corner of 28 Margaret Street Sydney,  corner of Margaret and York Street, 50 metres from Wynyard Train Station. THIS IS A HIGHLY PUBLIC, PROMINENT PLACE IN THE CBD and will be taking place at peak hour as people start heading home or out for late night shopping! If identity is a concern to you, please feel free to wear a mask, or other disguisng clothing. Sex workers and supporters in NSW are holding an end of year protest against the unfair brothel closures that local councils have led in NSW, thanks to the laws introduced by the Iemma Government in July this year. Many Local Councils in NSW have discriminatory planning policies that make it impossible for the sex industry premises to be compliant. These Local Councils more recently have taken the extra step of enacting the new brothel closure orders against brothels, on the basis of complaints from larger brothel owners. It gives councils the power to: - shut off water - shut off electricity - evict people with no notice - do all these things based on one complaint and is a violation of basic human rights! To register 'legally' as a brothel, the cost is prohibitive (over $20,000) and illogical planning policies make it difficult for small business to comply. Larger brothels who can afford the fees then target the smaller places. Under NSW legislation, an independent worker is defined as a 'brothel'; meaning large brothels can also eliminate this sort of competition by making complaints against independent workers. MOST INDEPENDENT WORKERS DO NOT WANT A BIG YELLOW SIGN ON THEIR FRONT DOOR STATING THEIR INTENT TO RUN A SEX BUSINESS, AS COUNCIL CURRENTLY REQUIRES! There have already been several cases of council workers demanding bribes or sexual favours in exchange for looking the other way!!!!  The closures are anti-competition, anti-sex worker, and are the worst case of state sanctioned violence against the sex industry in Australia. Stop State Sanctioned Violence Against Sex Workers Carry a red umbrella for the International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers We demand local council policy INCLUDE the sex industry, and stop discriminating against sex workers We demand an end to anti-competition collusion by local councils - stop the corruption erruption! Wear red, bring an umbrella and see ya there!   Read (4) post comment

[November 04, 2007 @ 2:48pm] shemale Hi! What are your thoughts on breastfeeding? I'm asking here because a) I can't imagine that they'd be okay with women using their bodies for anything they want, like erotic lactation, for example, and b) because I tried joining recently, but my membership was declined. I asked why via email, and they responded back telling me that it's because I'm a trans woman. From their email to me: Megan, You'll notice that we outline in the community info who is admitted into the breastfeeding community: nursing mothers, pregnant mothers planning to breastfeed, and mothers experienced in breastfeeding. We've looked at your journal, and we are certainly not questioning your female self-identity. However, since you describe yourself as a trans-woman, it does seem unlikely that you would be physically able to meet the requirements for membership. If there are details of which we are unaware that would be relevant, by all means let us know, and we will take that under consideration. Thanks, the LJ breastfeeding community moderators I wrote them back and told them that I do, in fact, have breast milk and am planning on breastfeeding when I adopt and then tried to join again, but again I was, not surprisingly, denied. I couldn't believe that they were so overtly transphobic! Until I checked out their user info again. D: So I'm totally going to advertise my alternative community here for anyone who's interested in lactation, erotic or otherwise :D breast_milk Read (19) post comment

project [November 03, 2007 @ 3:30pm] ladyofannwn I’m doing a project for my Research Methods in Anthropology class on feminine beauty/attractiveness. Are there any Suicide Girls members here who would be willing to answer a *very* short survey in the near future? (It's not quite finished yet, and there's a one question freelist response we'd like just a couple people to answer first.) Please reply or send me an email if you're interested. raab03(at)newpaltz(dot)edu. If it's easier, I'll post the question on my lj, and then the survey on monday, and you can reply anonymously. *Edit* The complete survey is now up at: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=_2fnHfocb8laGPi2EuuaBspw_3d_3d thanks! Read (5) post comment

Why Yes, I am the Feminist Police [October 29, 2007 @ 9:45pm] oh_annalouise This post on Alas is incredibly well-intentioned and I mostly agree with her overall assertion that feminism is varied and diverse. But it ain't that diverse. And appeals to the idea of "feminism is for everybody" don't really get us much of anywhere in actually addressing the reasons why feminism doesn't reach out to all women. So, Feminism is for anybody who believes in supporting and empowering all women to dismantle the structures of sexist oppression, and in the process dismantle all structures of oppression. Feminism is not for people who talk about "welfare queens" stealing their tax dollars, or who think that people who complain about the WIC program should just take what they can get or who have ever called a woman on 'welfare' lazy or irresponsible. Feminism is not for those who think that only certain women have a right to bodily integrity. Feminism is not for people who think that the struggles and petty concerns of upper middle class women in Connecticut are the only issues that matter. So that means that the New York Times, Naomi Wolff and Betty Friedan are out. Feminism is not for people who gain fame and book deals by causing other women to suffer. That means feminism is not for: Melissa Farley, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Janice Raymond, Robin Morgan, Phylis Chessler, Kate Roiphe Feminism does not exist so that women of privilege can achieve self-actualization while trivializing the life and death struggles of less privileged women. Say Goodbye, Camille Paglia and Elizabeth Wurtzel. Don't let the door hurt your annoying, tit-displaying asses on the way out. Sophia Copola, you can go too. Jessica Valenti can stay, but on probation. Feminism is not for men to tell women what does and does not oppress them, over the loud complaints of those women. STFU Robert Jensen and Peter Singer. Feminism is not a weapon with which to beat on the lives and life choices of other women. ta-ta Linda Hirshman, Ariel Levy, Caitlin Flanagan (oh please please crawl into your meticulously decorated hole and die already would you, Mrs Flanagan?), Sheila Jeffreys, and the La Leche league. Sure, there could be a feminism that welcomed these people. But it'd be a hollow echo of what should be a true idealogy of liberation. And maybe by showing the door to this collection of loud, obnoxious douchebags we'd finally have space in the discours for women too often ignored or downplayed by mainstream feminist discussions. Women like: Rickie Solinger, Chandra Mohanty, Marjane Satrapi, Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha, Dorothy Roberts, and probably a hundred more amazing feminists who I have never heard off because they are so rarely discussed in the media or the blogosphere. (x-posted to feminist_sex and my journal Read (18) post comment

Submit to CineKink!! [October 18, 2007 @ 11:00am] lisavnyc CINEKINK NYC - CALL FOR ENTRIES "The really alternative film festival" February 26 - March 2, 2008 Presented by CineKink, an organization dedicated to the recognition and encouragement of sex-positive and kink-friendly depictions in film and television, CineKink NYC is seeking films and videos, of any length and genre, that celebrate and explore the wide diversity of sexuality. We're looking to blur some boundaries and will be considering offerings drawn from both Hollywood and beyond, explicit or not, with works ranging from documentary to drama, camp comedy to hot porn - and everything in between. Cutting across orientations, topics covered at CineKink have included - but are by no means limited to - BDSM, leather and fetish, swinging, non-monogamy and polyamory, roleplay and gender bending. Or, frankly, given the current moralistic climate, as long as it involves consenting adults, just about anything celebrating sex as a right of self-expression is welcome for consideration. (Far be it from us to define "kink" - if you think your work might make sense in this context, please send it along!) Scheduled for its fifth annual appearance February 26-March 2, 2008, the specially curated CineKink NYC will also feature a short film competition, audience choice awards, presentations, parties and a gala kick-off, with a national screening tour to follow. Film and video submissions have a final deadline of November 15th. For more information and to download an entry form, visit http://www.cinekink.com/entries. --- Please feel free to post, publish or forward this information where appropriate. (x-posted to cinekink and elsewhere) post comment

Also inspired by That Place [October 15, 2007 @ 8:29pm] trinityva particularly the person who asked why people "compartmentalize" and "don't examine" sexual desire. I felt like posting to my LJ and then thought it might also belong here. Sohereyago. There are two "models" I've used to understand SM and SM desire throughout my life. The first I remember most vividly when I called the urgent care line at my university. I'd been having serious trouble coming to terms with my desires, and had seriously self-harmed for the first time. I remember calling the helpline and talking to a young woman, probably a student. I confessed my desires and my shame and the fact that I'd cut myself out of shame. I can't remember if I begged her to help me change. Maybe I did. I remember staring at my half-drunk smoothie on my desk as it melted, feeling like I was in some weird dream. She had no idea how to deal with me. I can't recall if I asked for an actual psychiatrist or if I just called back the next night. But the same thing happened, the crying confession, and suddenly the voice on the other end of the line said words that changed my whole life. "Don't you realize that among people who have gone through serious trauma like you have, sadomasochistic sexual fantasies are common?" Common? It rocked my universe. I wasn't weird at all. (It almost made me sad. Took away this feeling I had that I was one of the few, the marked, the profoundly perverted.) I was just damaged, just responding to things that had happened to me. In a way that was not only understandable, but sensible and perhaps even sane. Those words changed my life. I don't know if I'd be here if they hadn't given me an anchor, a way to believe that I wasn't cursed or doomed or rotten, crazy, fundamentally wrong inside. And that is one model. The trauma model. This model says something like: Sadomasochism is a response to trauma. On this model, it's a coping device, essentially. People develop fixations with pain and with traumatic experiences involving power (say, abuse), perhaps because the experience of it is intense, perhaps because it leaves psychic scars. But people feel compulsions to act out or to re-live their trauma. Sadomasochistic fantasy is an attempt to do this, in order to regain control that we had torn from us. This model is okay, so far as it goes. It offers us a chance to be something other than twisted, insane, incomprehensible. But it still leaves us with something odd and unacceptable, to my mind. That is that if we still have these interests or fantasies many years after the initial event, this indicates that we have not adequately processed the trauma. I was told many times that my fantasies "might" go away, or lessen in intensity, once I had dealt with the underlying issue. It led to many bouts of guilt when my fantasies were particularly strong or particularly violent, and to paralyzing fear that I had backslid on some scale of Survivor's Progress. And it led to people like my parents believing that someday I'd be cured of SM, and asking me why oh why oh why I remained obsessed with the things that had happened to me and telling me of their great hope that someday I would no longer be fascinated with pain. I don't believe the trauma had no effect on me. I actually suspect that the fact that my strongest fantasies involve knives and blood have more than a little to do with being cut open. However, as I'll make clearer in a moment, I don't subscribe to this model, and I don't feel at all sure I wouldn't have developed other sadomasochistic interests if I hadn't been. The second model is an orientational model. This is the theory that, at least for some people, SM desires simply are what they are, a facet of the person, like being straight or being gay. Like those, we don't know quite what causes them. Unlike those, we don't have (at least that I know of) any interesting research suggesting a biological basis or link or influence. This is what we get -- or what I get, really, as I don't want to speak for others, least of all for researchers -- when I look around and see the people who tied themselves up at age 8, and don't really remember any abuse, thanks. The people who would try to finagle their friends into bossing them around, and fuss and fume when the toppy-tots they recruited were too kind. The people who were never spanked, but who would see the family across the street punishing the kids and feel all tingly and wonder when it was their turn. The folks who tied up their teddy bears. I don't think any other model makes sense, really. Even the most committed Freudian who felt sure the trauma model applied to me squirmed when I asked him "Can I change?" and said something about how it depended how firmly rooted my response to those formative experiences were. His answer was the answer I knew perfectly well myself, but he couldn't say out loud, because to him it was a sentence of perpetual brokenness or abnormality: If you have to ask, the answer's "no." It's possible for the two models to be complementary: This is your orientation, and you have it precisely because of past trauma. But the thing is: if orientation is orientation, why care where it comes from? Think of the conservatives scrambling to get people into reparative therapy for homosexuality. It matters where this comes from because if it is a mental health problem, one common mode of talk therapy is to work through past issues. It matters because what they've got is a model like the trauma model: work your issues with Mo or Dad out and the gay will go poof. But if gayness is an orientation, where it comes from is an interesting question, but not a vital one. Humanity is diverse, and that's that. If it's biology, well, so are a lot of things, from eye color to handedness. We stop caring why, because why is not the important question. And that's the thing that many haven't gotten to yet with SM. Even when people do respect us, there's this idea that asking why is appropriate. It's the sort of thing for which a reason is needed, whether it be trauma or being spanked as a child or the influence of patriarchy or any number of other odd theories people come up with. When people ask me why and I say "I neither know nor care," particularly in certain feminist circles, this is taken to be "compartmentalizing" a part of my life and not exposing it to useful or necessary scrutiny. But if I asked these women (as the case may be) "why are you straight?" or "why are you queer?" the answer, I'd bet, would not be a thoughtful discussion of social factors. A truly committed "radical" might admit some of it is socially constructed, but for most people, in the end, the answer is "I am." And that's my answer, too. I am because I am. I don't have to know why, because it's the wrong question in the first place. Read (39) post comment

Seeking Your Writing [September 18, 2007 @ 9:03pm] iconoclass Introduction I am starting work on a book that is basically a celebration and exploration of receptive penetrative sex and looking for submissions. ( more ) Read (8) post comment

"I may just be a prudish old lady, but I don't like the idea of teenage girls having boyfriends" [September 18, 2007 @ 4:33pm] oh_annalouise ...said I to my boss today. The context was this: I work as a mentor to small groups of high school students, helping them gain leadership skills and become more involved in their community. I was talking to my boss about a particular young girl who I thought could benefit from our program and would be willing to commit to it. I was listing her various qualities and describing her situation: she's responsible, hardworking, intellectually curious and seems genuinely interested in doing good things in her community, also she and her (somewhat older) boyfriend are attached at the hip. This worries me because.... (see above) So, in keeping with my style of saying provacative things and then wanting to parse to death every little meaning of that provacative thing: Can we talk about young women, romantic relationships and the heartbreaking tendency for young women to loose themselves into the identify of BlahBlah's Girlfriend. What forces in our culture create this pressure for young women, with so much to offer the world, to define themselves only in their romantic relationships? What's a supportive, empowering way that we can intervene when we see these situations, whether the women involved are our friends or are much younger women? Most importantly, how do we do this without falling into the anti-sex, anti-woman rhetoric of "if you respect yourself you won't let boys touch your naughty bits"? One thing is that I think that telling young people that "nice girls don't", perpetuates this. Girls internalize the messages that only freaks or evil sluts feel sexual desire and so the desire they feel much be True Love. Read (24) post comment

Young radical feminists (35 or younger) [September 17, 2007 @ 11:29pm] demonista I'm going to compile an informal listing of radfems under 35 (born post-1970) because academia (or as Mary Daly would say: academentia) thinks or hopes us folk are going the way of the dinosaur. So if you're a rad fem born 1970 or later, could I get a comment? Just give your username, or a nickname, or your real name. And if you know any authors, singers, activists, etc. who are radfem and under 35, could you give us their name. And maybe a little bio for both categories if you like, or a wee manifesto or whatnot.  And do you/your rad fems you list identify as 2nd or 3rd wave? This is not meant to belittle older radfems in any wany, shape, or form. They're more than welcome to comment too, but please state you're older than 35, so i don't count you as a "young" rad fem. Also, please post this other rad fem/feminist communities, blogs, etc. Let's get this thang going! X-POSTED LIKE I'M DRINKING JUICE Read (63) post comment

From i-D magazine [June 25, 2007 @ 12:26am] cassavetes I'm a newbee and I apologize if I ever argue the obvious here - I'm fresh out of high school so I spent quite a while arguing the obvious there (while not ever daring to touch the views I espouse below, so please bear with me) I sort of dig i-D for exploring both the female and male aesthetic. I wish this happened more often in other magazines, and I wish photoshoots sexualizing males weren't instantly labeled "homoerotic". It's because us women don't care about looks and need a romantic connection to want sex! (ps: Yes, nudity is not out there for only straight people to enjoy. Thing is, I don't think said homoerotic label is product of a preconception benefitting to either straight or gay people. Feel free to argue, honestly.) This is an interview with Lara Clifton, founder of the Whoopee Club, a burlesque troupe, from i-D magazine's tissue issue (on sex). I thought it would be interesting for some reason. ps: I don't necessarily support all of her views What has stripping taught you? I learnt that I liked men more than I though I did. It's hard to be intimidated by men once you've done this job - you realise you have this power. You put high heels on and a short skirt and it floors them. All women have it. It made me see men as a lot more vulnerable. Once I learnt how easy it is to get attention I started not to want it in the same way. A lot of feminists label stripping as exploitative because they claim the women are invariably vulnerable and fucked up. Striptease has always been a way for women from poor backgrounds to make a lot of money for themselves. Obviously there are people who are fucked up and vulnerable but you get that everywhere. But now striptease has gone mainstream. There are articles in the Sunday Times by women who strip for their boyfriends, while Kate Moss is pole dancing for Agent Provocateur. Some of that I find a bit mindless. It seems to me a lot of women want to strip to please men or make a room look at them. It really is just a job and it always has been a job. It really annoys people who've been in the industry in a long time. It used to be very strong-willed people who did it. I don't think it's a glamorous job. It's not necessarily empowering. I don't think Kate Moss on that pole looks empowered. If people are doing it for no reason it becomes tricky. For professional strippers it's a job so it's professional empowerment. Do you think women don't have that instant visual thing with sex, which men have? They need some kind of other narrative or emotional connection to get turned on? My friend, the photographer Julie Cook, believes women are conditioned not to be voyeurs. It's her mission to challenge these things. We want to do burlesque with straight men without it being like the Chippendales. I saw this amazing aeralist in a performance of Angela Carter's Nights at the Cirus at the theatre. He has this blue angel moment where they made him into a clown. All these raucous ladies took his clothes off. He was really beautiful and vulnerable. Would you personally describe youself as sexually liberated? I guess I'm liberated in my own life. But there are still so many things to fight against. You're not allowed to mention that sexism exists. You do face things everyday, comments from people, the way the world of business is set up. Perhaps this entire burlesque thing is women exploring what they want sexually and out in the open. What's your idea of sexy? People who are sexy to me are people who are entirely open and honest. People who aren't following anyone else's idea of what's sexy. Like Leigh Bowery or Annie Sprinkle. People who don't give a shit. You can not give a shit some of the time but it's hard to be like that all of the time. Read (13) post comment

New blog on BDSM and feminism [May 21, 2007 @ 2:34pm] trinityva ...well, technically not new, but finally content-ful, at least: Let Them Eat Pro-SM Feminist Safe Spaces I figured some folks here might want a look. The blog is, as it mentions, a safe space for pro-SM feminists, so debate on whether feminism and BDSM are compatible isn't welcome there. Keep that to places like this instead ;) Read (6) post comment

i came back just to crosspost this... [April 29, 2007 @ 1:48pm] trinityva xposted from my lj by request: Sage, talking about how the word "sex-positive" can seem like an attack or rejection of people who disagree with sex positive feminists, or like an assertion that the speaker is sexually focused, hot, desirous of others' desire: I think I’d be called a sex-positive feminist by rad-fems, but I’m not sure how well I fit that definition. I’ve been reading around and getting different ideas of what it really means. Personally, I prefer the sound of rad-fem. Sex-positive makes me think of HIV-positive. And, as Lauredhel points out, it sets up the opposing team as sex-negative, which, for me, paints a picture of nuns and eunichs, which really doesn’t fit the image of the rad-fems I’ve met on-line at all. What’s the opposite of rad-fem? Moderate feminism? Mod-fem sounds kinda cool, but that doesn’t really make sense either. And isn’t the opposite of the mods, the rockers? ....I like debating with people without my sexiness being a distraction to the conversation. Luckily, that’s not usually an issue for me. I own a little black dress, but rarely have an occasion to wear it. But I’m not going to the staff Christmas party in a flannel shirt and jeans. I think it’s okay to wear the dress and discuss politics at the same time. And my legs are almost as hairy as my face, which is unadorned save for a stainless steel ring in my eyebrow. So if I’m sex-pos, I’m not the hot kind. For me, "sex positive" doesn't mean I'm a leatherperson with a high libido -- though I am that. For me sex-positivity is about more than me and what I want. It means it's important to fight for women whose sexuality doesn't fit the standard "box" and is seen as threatening. it's got nothing to do with my opinion of other people sexual choices. (yes, I do have opinions. While I consider it politically important to fight for everyone's rights to have were not have whatever kinds of sex they want, I'm a human being who occasionally--or more than occasionally--gets annoyed, or observes people's behavior and draws conclusions from that. This is part of the reason conflating the political and personal overmuch is a bad idea in my opinion. ) So what does sex positivity mean, if it's not that some people are liberated and some people are prudes? It's a political stance, one that says that a big part of patriarchal control is limiting how and whether women can express themselves sexually. It's a political stance that says that sexual violence against women is one of the many ways that this happens. For me, the key to sex positivity is the claim that its important to create a world in which women's sexual choices -- whether perverts or monogamous suburban housewives or radical polyamorous separatist dykes or asexuals who want to be left alone, WHATEVER as long as any sexual activity that might happen is consensual and caring -- are respected. But that alone is hardly enough. What I think we must work for is a world where their sexuality is actually valued and appreciated. We live in a world where women's sexuality is devalued and men's sexuality is treated as the norm, if not valorized even more than that . I am sex-positive because I don't believe any kind of liberation for women will be full and complete until our voices are heard not only when we rail against things more "important" than sex, but when our sexualities -- a deep part of who almost everyone is -- are respected as well. To me, when women speak of their sexuality, it's not simply a bit of personal babbling. It's a conversation that many women are too frightened, embarrassed, trained to be sexually silent or defer to the sexual desire of others, to even have in the first place. When I see women talking openly, honestly, and thoughtfully about their sexual desire, I feel hopeful. I feel hopeful that someday the compulsory boxes, whether they're heterosexuality because it's expected, vanilla sex because it's expected, submission to men because it's expected, will begin to dissolve. The only thing that will enable women to choose what it is they want, anything from love and sex with other women, to female domination, to life affirming female submission, to casual sex, to loving monogamy, to saying no thank you without then being faced with instant guilt or pressure, is for women to be safe choosing for themselves. For women to live in a supportive environment that says what they are is beautiful, honorable, and hot. Read (13) post comment

Another Blog [March 20, 2007 @ 1:12am] girl_fawkes I have a sex-positive feminist blog over on blogspot (http://sexpositivefeminist.blogspot.com), and I don't update very often, but seeing as I just have, and am new to this community, I thought I'd make my introduction by saying: This Is Not Marilyn (this particular post is about body image/fat acceptance/beauty myth) Read (14) post comment

[March 16, 2007 @ 3:35pm] lit_melissa [ mood | cheerful ] [ music | the panic channel - said you'd be ] i, personally, think this is relative. if the mod(s) don't, i understand if it is deleted. ... from fatfeistyfemme: Hey all! It's time to belly up! I've just launched: http://www.BelliesAreBeautiful.Com! What's the #1 body part that most folks are the most heavily ashamed of? What does every weight loss commercial focus on? When you see a no-headed fat person on the news with a voiceover talking about the 'obesity epidemic' - what body part are they showing? BELLIES! It's time to show our bellies the love!!! So pull up your shirts, pull down your pants, take a picture and send it in!! All shapes, all sizes, all colors, all genders -- BELLIES ARE BEAUTIFUL!!! (Please repost if you like) :) ... Read (1) post comment

Porn! [March 04, 2007 @ 12:10am] gummybeartheory [ music | rain ] I'm interested in finding woman-friendly (that is, feminist), quality porn for someone (and hey, maybe once I'm exposed to something decent I'll become a fan too!). I am interested, chiefly, in heterosexual porn, or porn with both men and women involved to some extent. Any recommendations? x-posted Read (26) post comment

Brainstorming and Question [February 07, 2007 @ 12:38am] ameliacady As I've mentioned, I'm working on a paper regarding the images of women in music video. As some (both here and in my research) have linked music video with pornography, I'm doing some reading on the subject -- both for and against. So, forgive me while I bounce a few ideas off of all of you. I'm wondering if pornography gets a bad gender rap merely because of the act of penetration. If the cultural assumption about pornography was that the women in these images routinely penetrated the men would some feminists be so diligently anti-porn? The main thought I have with pornography -- and with the images in music video -- is that it reproduces classic, stereotypical, sexist, binary constructions of masculinity and femininity. A woman is thin, big breasted, heavy make-up, long hair with curls, manicured nails, tight fitting, revealing clothing, high heels. Women use these physical features as a commodity to trade sex for money. Women are also emotional, manipulative and controlling. Men are tall, have rock hard muscles (abs, shoulders, arms, thighs), a large penis, have long term sexual stamina, have used their talents (intellect, charm, charisma etc) to earn lots of money which they use to seduce women. Men do not "feel" save for physically and are ALWAYS ready for and in the mood for sex. Those constructions of gender have the potential to harm both men and women by their very nature of being so narrowly defined. That the sex industry has gone mainstream effects us in the way we strive to live up to these expectations of gender. Sex is no longer a shared act of caring between individuals; it is instead a commodity used to gain money and celebrity. The most important thing one can be is sexually attractive because that gains one the attention necessary to transform a personal act of intimacy into a public act of celebrity. Thus, when Fergie wrestles with her back up dancers in cake (or ice cream, I'm still not sure what's in that kiddie pool) or dances in a modified girl-scout uniform or when Gwen appears in lingerie or when Ciara crawls along the floor -- it is an act designed to elicit sexual response because being viewed as "sexy" is the pinnacle of success in the sex industry world we live in. Thoughts? Questions? What am I missing? cross posted to womens_studies Read (2) post comment

Is empowerment possible? [January 27, 2007 @ 10:39am] ameliacady Hello, all. I am new to this community, so first off, thanks for inviting me! Secondly, it was suggested to me that I join this community because of a post I made in womens_studies. So I thought I would ask this group the same questions I posed in that forum. I am a WGS minor (History major) and I'm working on my final paper for WGS. The topic I'm doing is music video. That women are objectified in music video by hip hop artists is a well-covered topic, what my paper focuses on is why women artists (like Christina Aguilera, Gwen Stefani, Pink, Fergie, etc) embrace and project images of themselves that some feminists would consider objectifying and exploitive. Jean Kilbourne, who does the series Killing Us Softly, views advertising as the new pornography. I'm operating off the basis that music videos are a form of advertising and thus, a form also of pornography. Some artists view their use these videos as empowering. Christina Aguilera, for example, is very outspoken about the fact that she feels the wearing of lingerie is empowering. Taking control of her own sexuality is a source of strength and feminist power for her. Yet, do the young girls who watch these images of her on MTV walk away with that same impression of personal power or do those images reinforce the idea of women's bodies as commodities to be objectified? Second question: If you embrace and project images of women (say dancing provokatively in lingerie) that have historically been associated with viewing women as objects, can you in any realistic way truly take possession of those images and claim empowerment? In other words, is it possible to embrace historically sexist images in a sexist society and claim empowerment for yourself and other women? (note: there's no judgement here. I actually don't have a clear definition for myself of what "a sexist or objectifying image" is -- that's part of what attracted me to this topic. So, for now, I'm purely after information and opinions and academic analysis. Thanks.) Read (12) post comment

navigation [ viewing | most recent entries ] [ go | earlier ]