Category: Sex, sexuality, and sexual politics

To my fellow sisters-in-arms:

tekanji

Stop it. Stop invalidating me because of my reproductive choices. Stop telling me what is and is not worthy of discussion. Stop calling me names because I have a different sexual expression than you. Stop discriminating against our sisters just because they don’t have the same naughty bits as you. Stop telling women that they should not be allowed to choose their life’s path. And, for the love of little green apples, stop trying to make the only valid path in life the one you want to take.

That’s what the patriarchy does, not us. Get it?

So, stop it. Just fucking STOP IT.

Ban? I don't think that means what you think it means.

tekanji

Gamestop has done an excellent job of setting up a strawprostitute in its recent article, Prostitutes call for ban on GTA. Tim Surette, the author, is pissed off that SWOP, the Sex Workers Outreach Project, has spoken out against Grand Theft Auto [GTA]. Pissed off enough, it seems to conflate the words ‘ban’ and ‘boycott’.

From the first paragraph of the article, he says [emphasis mine]:

The Grand Theft Auto franchise is getting attacked from all angles. Joining the ranks of politicians, policemen, and attorneys in their crusade to see the game lifted from shelves are the nation’s sex workers. On its Web site, the Sex Workers Outreach Project USA is asking parents to assist them in calling for a ban of Take-Two Interactive’s controversial game.

The two parts I have highlighted give the mistaken impression that SWOP is out to enact legislation that would bar GTA, and games like it, from being made and sold. He later on dismisses the repeated assertion from SWOP that it is “adamantly opposed to any and all forms of censorship” because they express the wish to speak out to parents. Given the tone of the article, this only serves to further conflate boycotting (and, dare I say, criticism) with censorship and banning.

So what, exactly, does SWOP say on this matter? Well, here’s the first paragraph from SWOP-USA Statement Regarding the Video Game Grand Theft Auto created by Take-Two Interactive:

Although SWOP-USA will always be adamantly opposed to any and all forms of censorship, as concerned parents ourselves, we wish to inform other parents of the potential danger extremely violent video games pose to children. And in the interest of furthering sex worker’s human and civil rights to life and personal safety, we object to any media which represents sex workers as legitimate targets of violence, rape and murder. Censorship is a blight on the freedoms we hold dear but we wholeheartedly encourage citizens to vote with their dollars by refusing to purchase products which encourage the denigration and destruction of prostitutes. Since the video game Grand Theft Auto accrues points to players for the depiction of the rape and murder of prostitutes, SWOP-USA calls on all parents and all gamers to boycott Grand Theft Auto.

Notice the word ‘boycott’ and the conspicious absence of ‘ban’ or any call to legal action. This is a very, very important distinction that Surette (intentionally?) glosses over in his post.

I share the concern about the sensationalist backlash to video games, and other popular culture, but, and this is a big but, that’s not what SWOP seems to be aiming for. Do I necessarily agree with their cited research? Well, no. I haven’t read it, but I don’t need to because my agreement with their premise or not is immaterial. They aren’t advocating a ban, or anything like it; they’re advocating an informed boycott based on what they perceive to be a tangible threat to themselves. They have, and should have, that right.

Via feminist.

What's in a character, anyway? [Gender in Indigo Prophecy, Part 2]

tekanji

This post contains potentially game ruining spoilers. READ AT YOUR OWN RISK! You have been warned.

The first thing you notice in Indigo Prophecy is that there are three playable characters: Lucas Kane, unwilling murderer and first person you play as; Carla Valenti, the only woman you control; and Tyler Miles, Carla’s (junior) partner. A ratio of 2 to 1 favouring males isn’t exactly equal, but with the way games run these days I should probably be thankful that there’s a woman at all, much less one who wears weather appropriate clothing and has realistic sized breasts.

The Heroes

Lucas Kane

Lucas, Lucas, Lucas… You begin and end with his character, and the conclusion to the story is told from his perspective. With the most screen time and the most prominent position in the story, he is undeniably the main protagonist.

If one was expecting him to be the paragon of masculinity, that idea is shattered within the first few minutes of the opening. While he doesn’t break down and cry after killing a man, he certainly does his share of freaking out here and there throughout the next couple chapters. He is not afraid to admit emotion to himself; indeed, a couple of ways you can depress him is by having him look at pictures of his parents or of Tiffany, his ex. Nor does he seem to have qualms in to sharing it, as he is always frank with his brother Markus. He even owns and plays a guitar, and you know how girly the sensitive artist types are (I kid, I kid, but the stereotype of the sensitive artist type is definitely invoked).

Throughout the game, though, you find that his virility is beyond reproach. Once he gets over the worst of his angsty woe-as-me depression, he gets not one but two women. The first is Tiffany, his ex. If you give the right answers when she comes to get her boxes, Lucas ends up sleeping with her and she stays the night. Later on, regardless of what happened at the apartment, she hides him from the cops and tells him that she still loves him. Right after Tiffany meets her untimely demise, Lucas starts macking on Carla. This leads to sex, Carla’s admission of love, and eventually them getting married.

The ability to get laid is but one way his manliness is assured. Once his wrists have healed, you can have him beat the crap out of his punching bag. And, when I say, “beat the crap out of it,” what I mean is, “kick it clear across the room.” It’s not long before Lucas graduates from punching bags to Matrix-esque martial arts and acrobatics. By the time the game is over, he has done a full-blown Dragon Ball Z transformation, fully equipped with the ability to charge his power to throw a death-dealing ball of energy at the Oracle. No one’s gonna challenge the masculinity of a guy that powerful.

Do Lucas’ traits merely make him a well-rounded character, or does the need to establish his physical and sexual virility say something deeper about gender relations in Western society? I recently criticized conflation of female sexuality with female power in my last instalment of Girls & Game Ads, and I can’t help but feel that Lucas’ situation is the male side of things. In contrast to the women (who are seen first and foremost as sexual and secondly as powerful), his physical prowess is focused on with his sexual exploits are minor asides in his storyline. Given the nature of gender roles, I don’t find this difference very surprising. Men, after all, have a history of being valued for their physical and mental abilities, while women are lauded for their beauty.

None of this is to say that I find Lucas’ character as unduly problematic, or so stereotypical that I found him hard to relate to. I enjoyed his blend of weakness and strength. For all the flaws, I enjoyed his relationships with Markus, Tiffany, and Carla. I did think that, overall, he was a well-rounded, three-dimensional character. It’s just that, taking his character in the context of Western culture, a closer examination of his traits and relationships reveals some interesting assumptions about masculinity.

Lt. Carla Valenti

I’m sure this will come as a shock – shock! – to all of you, but Carla was my favourite character. When I first rented the game with my friend, we would always choose her character to follow first. She was strong, independent, and a natural leader. Things I like to imagine myself being, I suppose. As the game progressed, though, I saw her being caught in more stereotypical traps and I despaired. In the end, I still loved her. She may have brought some T&A to the party, but she was still Carla.

Always the one with a good head on her shoulders, Carla sidesteps the “annoying emotional sidekick” stereotype and falls squarely in the “obsessive work-oriented cop” one. To me, it was refreshing to not have to think about who she was attracted to. I breathed a sigh of relief when it was made clear that any relationship with her partner was thankfully out because of his long-term girlfriend. For the first half of the game, nary a mention was made of Carla having any romantic attachments or inclinations, save for a mysterious e-mail from Tommy.

Oh, Tommy, how can a gay man be the harbinger of doom for Carla’s love life? It was through the non-threatening, homosexual friend that the player learns that Carla is yearning for a man. To be fair, Tommy (like most of the characters), is also attached – he talks about his new boyfriend. It was during that conversation that I knew a part of independent, “I don’t need a man to be complete,” Carla was gone forever. Having Lucas call her to talk sealed the deal; I didn’t even have to see that “moment of affection” in her apartment with him to know that she was going to get with him.

Aside from the final scenes, which are told almost exclusively from Lucas’ point-of-view, the balancing factor is that Carla retains her distinct personality. Throughout the game, she gets a lot of airtime to show off her strengths. I felt the creators took pains to give her an equal part in discovering of clues, in putting them together, and solving the case. There seemed to be a conscious balance of physical strength/dexterity with her intellectual pursuits, as well. I’ll get into a few more specifics with Part 4 of the series, but I noticed that she was the one who was associated with the shooting mini-game. Near the end, she also finds pieces to jury-rig a radio with – a technical task that is traditionally allocated to a man.

Like Lucas, I found Carla to be an overall well-rounded character. Despite relying on a few stereotypes for her characterization, she was more often than not portrayed as an independent woman who was important for what she did, rather than who she did.

Sgt. Tyler Miles

Thinking back on my runs through the game, it strikes me that some of the most vivid memories of Tyler as a character I have are in relation to either Carla or Sam, his girlfriend. Indigo Prophecy does its share of defining women through their relationships with men, which I’ll get to later, but it does its share of defining men through their relationships with women, as well. While I’d argue that Tyler is characterized primarily through his race, taking a close second for defining who he is would be his interactions with the women in his life. I suppose that, if anything, is telling.

In many ways, Tyler is a masculine character: he played basketball in college, he likes video games, he wants to protect his woman, and he, not Carla, drives when they go together to a crime scene. But he is also the empathetic one: on the crime scene, he’s the one who chats with the forensic guys; he’s the one who gets the composite from Kate; and in the end he is supposed to follow his heart and go with his girlfriend to Miami (even if you choose not to do that, his plot is over at that moment).

I liked Tyler. He was a funny guy. He was a people-person who wasn’t afraid to do a little grunt work. Ultimately, though, at least in terms of gender, he wasn’t very memorable as a stand-alone. Most of what I have to say about him will come in Part 3 of the series, because I believe that he is best defined through his relationship with Carla and Sam.

Supporting Cast

Though not as important as the playable characters, the supporting cast still a large part of what a player gets out of the game. They are more likely to fit into stereotypes, as the writers don’t have as much screen time to develop them in, and which paradigms are chosen can reveal much about gender interactions.

Markus Kane
Markus is Lucas’ brother, and his confidant throughout the game. His association to Lucas puts his life in jeopardy, which recalls a lot of the “love interest as target” stereotypes, and in the end he makes an appearance in the underground camp to show the player that he made it through okay. Though I would argue that he is less important to the plot than, say, Tiffany, he is the only non-playable character given a blurb in the manual.

Tiffany
Tiffany is Lucas’ ex girlfriend. I don’t recall if the reason for their break-up is ever really explained, but, like Markus, Lucas’ enemies target her. Unlike him, though, she dies while Lucas tries to rescue her. She lives and dies attached to Lucas, a typical feature for the supporting females of childbearing age.

Sam
Sam is Tyler’s girlfriend. They are exclusive, live together, and plan on having a family. Like Tiffany, her role is defined solely by her relationship with Tyler. She constantly worries about his work, and in the end is the deciding factor in the wrap up for his story.

Agatha
Agatha is too old to be defined as someone’s lover, so she is safely put into another category: wise woman/spiritual advisor. She, too, dies because of her association with Lucas. Later on, her visage is used by the Purple Clan in an attempt to get Lucas to do what they want him to.

Jade (chosen child)
The opposite of Agatha, Jade is too young to be defined as someone’s lover. Instead of that, however, she becomes the paragon of female virtue: she is a lifeless conduit for male power. She is the keeper of the secrets of the universe and “he” (language used in the game, also all those after her are male-bodied) who possesses her secret is given unlimited power. She has no personality, and is constantly referred to as a “pure soul.” Once her task is over, she dies. It is highly disturbing that a girl-child with no agency of her own is used to consolidate male power and then is discarded once her role is finished.

Tommy
Tommy is Carla’s gay friend/hallmate. He has a bit of a political purpose – his relationship with his boyfriend is used to illustrate continued homophobia in Western culture – but ultimately I see him as a non-threatening way to reveal Carla’s single status and set her up for her relationship with Lucas.

Drive-by Characters

Most stories have people who appear only in cameos to emphasize a point, or drive the story on. These characters are generally only important because they represent the breakdown of the world at large. Indigo Prophecy is no exception, but I’ve broken the characters into two groups: people in power, and incidental characters. The gender makeup of these two groups sets up the backdrop and can often last a lasting, if not conscious, impression on the player.

People in power:
Though the world of the game is set up to reflect ours, I was somewhat shocked to find that there was only one person in power that I could find that was female. It was one of the voices of the Orange Clan (one of five or six total). The Oracle is male, the Purple Clan AI is male-bodied, the police chief is male, Sgt. Robert Mitchell (worked on a ritual killing case prior to Carla and Tyler) is male, and Bogart (bum and head of an underground organization that helps Lucas and Carla at the end) is male. Where are all the women? Male-dominated or not, this is the 21st century and women do hold positions of authority. By not showing any women in these important positions, it sends the message that it is normal to see men in power, but not women.

Incidental chars:
Even in the memorable but incidental characters, the split is obvious: Kate the waitress versus four guys. Martin Mc Carthy, the cop from the diner, shows up more than once. As do Garret & Frank, the forensic guys, and Jeffery, the basketball guy. The person working at the morgue was also male, come to think of it. As were most known perpetrators and victims of the ritual killings: Lucas/male victim, both were male in the Kirsten case, and it was only the Laundromat with a female victim that bucked the trend.

Conclusion

In the end, I guess I have to say that I find the characterization in the game problematic but not irredeemable. I would hazard a guess to say that the script writers thought that they were being all equal by having a main female character who was strong, intelligent, and non-hypersexualized, as well as a supporting cast that had a decent amount of women on it. And I recognize that, and appreciate it. It’s a better representation than most games I’ve played. But it’s no Beyond Good and Evil, where it had all that and didn’t define women mostly by their relationships, and had a visible representation of women in power. For Indigo Prophecy, I have to say: it’s a start, but you have a long way to go, baby.

Feminism through Fandom

lake-desire

Via Fanthropology, LJ user Schemingreader has written a great two-parter on Something Good About Fandom and Women Writing Slash: An Idiosyncratically Feminist Meditation.

In her first essay, Schemingreader discusses “challenging mass media hegemonic discourse” and passive viewing through fandom. She also talks about fandom celebrating women’s creativity. My favorite part of her essay:

Though we don’t all agree about what it should look like, fandom provides a model for pro-sex feminism, for women reclaiming control over their sexuality, minds first. I really love the model of having people post warnings at the tops of their stories. It shows we have figured out, at least to some small degree, that we don’t all feel sexuality the same way. We get that everyone is different, and can encourage more than one view of sexuality. Our whole vocabulary of kinks and squicks is a sophisticated acknowledgement of the varieties of human sexual experience.

Fandom is one area where women’s sexualities are embraced and explored as positives and valued for their diversity. (Even asexuality is welcomed, something I’d like to see portrayed more positively across the board, especially in pro-sex paradigms.) I hope the multifariousness Schemingreader describes will spiral beyond fandom.

The Sexism of Transphobia

tekanji

First off, I’d like to give a fangirl squee to Feministe’s newest blogger, piny. I have loved piny ever since I came across him in comments on Alas and Feministe, and I considered asking him to blog here more than once (if I had gotten to know him better, I may have snapped him up before Feministe did). I still may see if I can convince him to guest blog on occasion. So, from one of your fans, congrats on the new position, piny!

Today I found an article where he fisks a transphobic letter to the editor from a San Fran magazine. He said to read the article, so I did. Then I read the letter responding to it. Between my hacking and sputtering, I found myself making connections between one issue addressed in the article and the subtext of the letter: the link between transphobia and sexism.

I. What’s the connection?

Marcus Arana, a discrimination investigator with San Francisco’s Human Rights Commission, said he finds many assumptions about transgenders to be based in sexism, regardless of whether those assumptions are coming from men or women.

“There is this funny idea that an FTM is somehow a frog to a butch lesbian pollywog. But we hardly ever hear that an MTF is on ‘the gay male spectrum.’ Once she cuts off her penis she is considered a woman,” said Arana, who agreed that transmale exclusion is “an anomaly in the inclusive San Francisco leather community.”

In a culture where men are Normal and women are Other, it seems obvious that issues that interact with an idea of gender caste will, on some level, include sexism. An unwillingness to look beyond the essentialist view of gender = sex one was born as, I think, is inseperable from the traditions that enforce rigid gender roles.

They are both part of the same continuum: men are men, women are women. Men are the masters, the public half, the strong, smart, and the rational. Women are the servants, the private half, the weak, the childlike, and the emotional. A union is one man, one woman. Any deviation from this norm is an abberation in need of being stamped out.

So, it would make sense for someone who fights one of these rigid roles to fight them all, right? Unfortunately not. Sometimes we can’t see the forest for the trees. Just as feminism is often seen as by and for middle-class white women (says the upper-class white woman), so too do other groups have the potential to hyper-focus on one issue while ignoring an other. In the case of this article, it is the gay leather scene (combining two non-normative practices: homosexuality and BDSM) that is in danger of adopting the same exclusionary tactics as are used on them. What about? The presence of a natural penis. Men need to be men, you see, and it’s only discrimination if that conception of manliness includes fucking women and only women.

II. Sexism: I don’t think it means what you think it means

The article in question is a well written plea for the San Fransico scenes to remain/become inclusionary. It shows the better side of the gay male kink scene, I think. But, as a wise blogger once said, “People who are not the problem…are not the problem.” So, let’s look at a person who is the problem.

Enter Mr. Anderson, a transphobic, misogynistic, possibly bi-phobic, gay male from California. He wrote that letter that had me sputtering. On the surface, what Mr. Anderson is asking for is reasonable: to be able to say “thanks, but no thanks” to romantic/sexual relationships with transmen without facing ridicule. No one sane would argue with that (we all get to define what kind of people we want to let into our pants… I mean lives), but that’s just it. If his argument has any merit, he does his darndest to destroy it with his evidence.

Exhibit A:

I once had an insulting encounter with a transgender pretending to be a man. I did not go psycho – I just got dressed and left. But get it clear: This was a sexual assault.

So, the whole “pretending to be a man” lets us know right off the bat that Mr. Anderson is, indeed, transphobic. Can someone answer me why a woman would “pretend” to be a man, just to get into bed with a gay man? Because, really, I don’t see the appeal. His non-trans privilege may allow him to pick and choose who is “man” enough for him and who’s just “pretending,” but it is his male privilege that sparked the next bit.

“I did not go psycho,” he said. Let me repeat that. I did not go psycho. As if going psycho would be a natural/acceptable reaction to the situation instead of, you know, actually being sexual assault. Which, it appears, Mr. Anderson doesn’t know the definition of. Doing physical violence to someone in an intimate situation (which is what would have occured if Mr. Anderson had “gone psycho” – does he want a cookie for not being an abuser or something?) definitely counts as “sexual assault.” Not disclosing one’s history prior to sexual intimacy, I’m sorry to say, does not. But, I suppose, Mr. Anderson doesn’t care a whit about the women, and men, who have actually been victims of assault.

Exhibit B:

And I do completely support anyone’s right to alter their appearance in any way, shape, or form – but when you begin to try and force me to have sex with you and you are the wrong gender, that’s way out of line. That is sexism.

Holy co-opting of feminist terminology, Batman! As if his misuse of “sexual assault” hadn’t been misogynist enough, we have not one but two plays for sympathy here by stealing from the language of real victims.

Let’s go backwards on this one, however. “That is sexism,” he says, referring to having sex “forced” on him. Sir, I do not think that the word means what you think it means. Sexism – and we’re talking about the personal kind because, as a man, you have not and will not experience the institutionalized kind – is discrimination based on gender. Unless you’re trying to make a (rather silly) case that homosexuality or heterosexuality are sexism because they discriminate against one gender in terms of having sex, you are using the wrong word. The word for forcing sex on someone against their will is “rape.” By misusing the word “sexism,” and indeed claiming something akin to “reverse sexism” – although in this case it’s more “sexism” = “reverse transphobia” – you are using your male privilege to cheapen a very real, and very harmful phenomenon. In fact, one might even say (corectly), that such a assertion is, in itself, sexist!

Speaking of rape and cheapening harmful phenomenons, Mr. Anderson’s claim that, “when you begin to try and force me to have sex with you and you are the wrong gender, that’s way out of line,” is sexist in two ways. 1) He is dismissing and deriding actual cases of rape, and near rape, by claiming that a sexual encounter that he calmly declined and then walked away from without any problem is tantamount to being “forced” to have sex with someone; and 2) He makes the implict connection between rape and “being the wrong gender.” Again, he has the privilege to decide when gender is a dependent factor in deciding whether or not an action qualifies as “sexual assault.”

Exhibit C:

We are unanimous in our being tired of hearing the tranny BS about male genitals and “what a man really is” – that’s such girl talk.

Just in case he hadn’t made the fact that he hates women, and people he percieves as women, clear enough, he turns his attention away from “pretend men” and gives actual women a smack in the face, too. If he thinks discussion of what constitutes a man is too feminine, I would guess this blog is so much “girl talk” that the very thought of it would shrivel up his male genitals. Oh, wait, then he wouldn’t be a real man either. Maybe Mr. Anderson would benefit from a little “girl talk,” it might help him overcome his masculinity issues and realize that accepting transmen as men won’t emasculate him in any way.

Exhibit Stupid:

Basically, what Peter Fiske is asking the community to do is ostracize the men in the leather community that won’t have sex with Fiske or other women who are surgically disguising themselves. In other words, kill the faggots. Imprison the faggots for being “bad.” Make them social outcasts for being sinners against the community.

Witness! The Amazing! Leaps! Of logic!? Inspired by a reason-hating patriarchy! Mr. Anderson goes from accusing Fiske (who preaches inclusion of transmen into men’s spaces, not unwilling men’s backsides) of shaming men who aren’t interested in transmen – excuse me, “women who are surgically disguising themselves,” since, you know, the first thing I think of when I think of plastic surgery is my urge to get a dick so I can have sex with gay men – to… killing faggots.

Wait for it, wait for it…

No. Still don’t get how he got from A to B. Near I can figure, he’s playing the poor whiddle oppressed gay man-born-man who is sooooooooo downtrodden by those transmen because of all the power that vaginas give people in this society. Excuse me if I don’t have sympathy for your plight, Mr. Anderson. I’m too busy dealing with things like domestic violence, grappling with my own privilege, and trying to understand how my oppression intersects with that of others. Others being, you know, groups like transpeople.

Sex-positive does not mean misogyny-friendly!

tekanji

I can’t speak for any other ‘sex-positive’ feminist (versus ‘anti-porn’ feminists, who are in no way required to be ‘sex-negative’), but I can speak for myself and my values. Vociferate’s Andrea wrote what I consider to be a very disappointing rant on sex-positive feminism. I don’t know who she’s reading, but categorizing all of us as (basically) patriarchy-apologists is as bad as if I decided to label all radical feminists as transphobes based on commenters like funnie. I don’t have a chance to reply to her post on her blog, as she only allows blogger members to comment, but it probably would have been a case of Attack of the 50-line Comment anyway.

What I got from her post is that, in a nutshell, Andrea believes that (all?) sex-positive feminists:

  1. Dismiss the potential harm of porn.
  2. Perpetuate the ‘myth’ of rape fantasies because it’s what men want to hear.
  3. Believe that radical feminists, or any non-‘sex-positive’ feminists, are anti-sex.
  4. Use the label to be a constant reminder that they like sex.
  5. Are defined solely by their one label as ‘sex-positive’.
  6. Must, by nature, be seeking a ‘compromise’ with male sexual entitelment.

Please, Andrea, don’t speak for me; you have neither the knowledge, nor the right. Engage with the argument, engage with the issues, but do not label us all by what you have seen in your limited research. That is no better than the kind of stereotyping all feminsits get from anti/non-feminists. Like the feminist movement as a whole, sex-positive feminists are not one trick ponies. We have different takes, and different interpretations, on pornography and sexuality. Taking the main points from Andrea’s post that I outlined above, I will present a different, but most assuredly sex-positive, take on that branch of feminism.

I. The potential harm of porn

Andrea accuses us of ‘dismiss[ing] the idea that porn causes men to view women as objects for their use,’ and I won’t deny that I have seen some sex-positive feminists do just that. It is hard, for both sides, to draw the line between embracing one’s sexuality (and sexual desires) and objectifying (or being objectified). And, you know what? It’s not an easy distinction. It’s not always as easy as Playboy or Hustler. I don’t agree with flat out saying, ‘yay porn!’ but I can understand the mentality. Of course, just as I don’t agree with flat out saying, ‘boo porn!’ I can understand that mentality, too.

In simplest terms, my stance on porn is that I am pro in its most basic form (material that arouses), but anti-mainstream (and not-so-mainstream like Suicide Girls), anti-industry, and anti-porn culture. There is nothing wrong with me wanting to get off on sexually explicit pictures, stories, videos, scenarios, etc. And, for the record, I don’t think anti-porn feminists are saying that there is. The difference between me and anti-porn feminists is that I believe that, while hard, it is not impossible to have pornography in this culture that doesn’t objectify/degrade the participants (not always women, as with the case in male gay porn).

My mom is anti-porn, and with good reason. She has been tangibly harmed by American porn culture. She has been held up to those impossibly high standards and has been found wanting. She has, in essence, been a victim of pornography. I get that. My sex-positive stance does not and should not preclude me from acknowledging and criticizing harm pornography has done, and will continue to do for as long as it remains unchecked. Just as Andrea’s feminist stance does not, and should not, preclude her from engaging in a critique of another feminist stance she doesn’t agree with (however regrettable I think her chosen way of addressing it was).

II. Rape: Fantasy versus Reality

I dislike Andrea’s insinuation that rape fantasies are a ‘myth.’ She is not omniscient (nor do I think she would claim to be), and therefore she cannot have definitive evidence of what does, and does not, turn a person on. I do think, though, that her concern that it’s “dangerous for women for this idea to be around,” is a valid one, and one that should be considered before bringing up rape fantasies in any conversation.

Consideration, however, is not the same thing as blanket denial based on what seem to be misattributed sentiments. I would like to point out that what she blames on sex-positive feminists arguing for people’s rights to have rape fantasies is, in fact, better attributable to the patriarchy’s rape culture. I, personally, have never heard a feminist (of any stripe) tell a survivor that she’s “making a fuss over nothing,” or that “the biggest turn-on for a woman is rape.” I have, however, heard misogynists who wouldn’t listen to a feminist argument even if it came out of Rush Limbaugh’s mouth espouse that BS. And, personally, I think victim blaming is one of the few things that would merit someone’s “feminist club card” (so to speak) being revoked. I don’t think it’s fair to malign all sex-positive feminists based on misogynist crap that may or may not have actually been advocated by someone claiming to be a “sex-positive feminist.”

Part of the problem, I think, is that what she thinks of as a ‘rape fantasy’ is vastly different than the explanations for it that I’ve seen. Her claim that these fantasies are tantamount to women “getting moist about people raping them” is based on the reality of rape, rather than the idealized power play that the fantasizers wish to interact with. After all, a fantasy is, by definition, something not real. I have never encountered, met, or heard of a person who wants to actually be raped. Which is not to say that such a person cannot exist, but rather that when people (sex-positive feminists or otherwise) talk about ‘rape fantasies’ they are talking about role playing between consenting adults. That, right off the bat, removes the core of what makes rape a disgusting and heinous act: violating a person against their will.

What’s left is the eroticization of power, which is a double-edged sword. One argument is that the eroticization of power is a vestige of influence left over from the centuries of patriarchal oppression and therefore it cannot exist in a truly egalitarian society, and furthermore hampers the formation of such. The other argument is that, regardless of its origins (taught or innate), people do eroticize power, and it is more productive to do so in an informed, consenting way than to let it manifest itself in harmful ways (hiding under ‘romance’ and leading to anything from unequal relationships to domestic violence and even rape). I can understand the first argument, but I must confess that I lean more towards the second.

III. Sex-positive’s opposite is not ‘sex-negative’

No matter what the unfortunate name may imply, “sex-positive” isn’t an accusation that anyone not agreeing with us must hate sex. The two basic camps I’ve seen are ‘sex-positive’ and ‘anti-porn,’ with the dividing line between the two being their stance on whether or not pornography has the potential to be non-exploitative. I sparked a long, but productive, conversation on the terms and ideals over in the comments on a post at Mind the Gap. The entire thing is worth a read, but I’ll just pull the relevant parts to illustrate my point.

I don’t know why the group chose “sex-positive” for their label. Although thinking about it, I can’t come up with another term that isn’t equally problematic.

I’ve taken up the term because that group, in general, typifies my understanding of feminism and pornography. The sort of “opposite” camp is the anti-porn feminists (again, their terms).

I argued that all feminists object to exploitation of female sexuality. Personally, I think exploitation and equality are mutually exclusive. Anti-porn feminists, I said, believe that the product (pornography, sex work, etc) cannot be separted from the industry (and I’d like to add, the culture) and therefore is unacceptable in all forms. Sex-positive feminists, on the other hand, believe that it is not that the product needs to be removed, but rather that the industry and the culture need to be changed. As I’ve mentioned before, both positions are deserving of respect no matter where you stand on them.

IV. Like, omigawd, I like sex so I must be a sex-positive feminist!

I am not some green virgin who goes around talking about how much she likes sex. I will talk about sex, sure, and liking it – when appropriate. Sometimes when not appropriate, but that has nothing to do with being a sex-positive feminist and everything to do with me having a habit of saying inappropriate things. I’m not sex-positive because I’m horny, I’m sex-positive because that is the school of thought that best meshes with my stance on sexual culture.

As part of her argument, Andrea says:

Sex positive feminists defend their position by stating sex is only one of their areas of interest, which is what other feminists do day in, day out, and receive no special recognition for. My suggestion is that if you do not wish to be indentified by the characteristic of your ‘position’ on sex, do not choose such a characteristic to define yourselves by.

When I saw that, my reaction was, excuse me? If I’m reading it right (which, I confess, I may not be as the paragraph is confusing to me), she’s saying that sex-positive feminists should be defined solely by that characteristic. As should be obvious from my blog, sex is only one of my areas of interest. One that I don’t blog about often, and when I do I probably come across more as anti-porn (or even anti-sex) than sex-positive. At least to those who conflate correlation with causation, or believe that attacking a product/industry/company that perpetuates the exploitation of women is the same as claiming men are sexual beasts who are slaves to their hormones.

And, anyway, why should my sex-positive feminist aspect be any more important than my feminist gamer one? Or my geeky feminist one? Or my angry feminist one? I am not a single issue kind of girl. I am the sum of all my parts, and my sex-positive stance is but one of many. To say I’m a sex-positive feminst (full stop) would be to cheat me of my unique humanity. I’m a sex-positive feminst, yes, but I am also a fantasy-reading, game-playing, people-loving (and hating), green-haired freak and so much more.

V. Sexuality != sexual entitlement

And here I find myself in a ‘damned if I do, damned if I don’t, so I may as well go with what works for me,’ scenario. Some anti-porn feminists (as I wouldn’t say that anti-porn feminists are necessarily anti-sex-positive feminists, just not in agreement with us) believe that our stance is taken for the express purpose of becoming ‘acceptable’ to the patriarchy. Non-feminist pro-porn people I’ve talked to seem to think quite the opposite about me. Who’s right? Both and neither.

Both because 1) I do use my stance as a way to reach out to those who would never give the time of day to an anti-porn argument, however rationally it is presented. I suffer no delusions that my words will give them an ephiphany and they’ll say, “You’re right! I promise to stop supporting the industry and the objectification of women.” However, I do hope that by showing them a different side of the sexual culture, it may cause them to be more critical of what practices they support and why. And 2) Because I am uncompromising on issues like the treatment of sex-workers (who are, surprise!, overwhelmingly female) and that puts my ‘grey’ a little too dark for many avid porn advocates to stomach. One side effect of being a sex-positive feminist, I suppose. I care about women as if we were people. Oh, wait, we are.

Neither because, when it comes down to it, it isn’t about being ‘acceptable’ to menfolk, or viewing the world in a black and white frame. For me, it’s about finding an egalitarian sexual atmosphere that welcomes all consentual adult expressions of sexuality, whether I personally like them or not. After all, how can I preach gender democracy and then turn around and form a sexual dictatorship? No one should have a right to tell a woman what to do with her life, whether it be becoming a stay-at-home-mom or being tied up because she likes it.

VI. Conclusion

I’m not asking Andrea (or any other person who feels the same as she does) to agree with, or like, sex-positive feminism in any of its incarnations. I’m not asking her to refrain from examining the rationale behind it, or thinking about how it affects society. Critical thinking is good. Constructive criticism is good. Ranting, even, is good. But, I don’t think that it’s helpful to write off an entire school of thought as “immature,” especially not when you’ve only seen the most extreme elements. Deconstruct the arguments, sure, but don’t alienate those of us who respect you and your opinions (even if sometimes they differ from ours).

Choosing for Choice in Canada

tekanji

Artemis of the new (or, at the very least, new to me) blog One Woman Army has an excellent post on A woman’s right to choose in Canada.

Highlights include [emphasis mine]:

Today is the 33rd anniversary of Roe vs. Wade in the U.S. In Canada abortion is decriminalized – ie. not legal but not illegal.

As a woman, I walk around every day of my life knowing that I am a second-class citizen. I feel it when my brother talks to me, when I go to work, when I go to school. I feel it when my opportunities are limited because of my sex. I feel it when my right to choice may be limited.

Right now it’s not. In Canada there is access to abortion (although sometimes limited). If you live in a rural area, your access to abortion might be limited. You might not have the money or transportation to drive eight hours to a clinic where a doctor will perform an abortion. In some provinces, healthcare will not cover abortion. Thanksfully, in Newfoundland and Labrador, the province covers all abortion costs, but if you live in a remote area of the province, such as Goosebay or Nain, you probably won’t be able to get an abortion.

[…]

My access to abortion depends on where I live in Canada – but despite that, I know that if I need or want one, I have the choice.

That choice is essential to my right as a woman, as a person – to making me more than just a second-class citizen. It’s essential to my equality in this world.

Tomorrow is Election Day. If the Conservative party forms government, I’m terrified of what will happen to that choice.

To all my Canadian readers of voting age, I hope you’ll pay heed to her call to arms:

If you care at all about women – about your sisters, aunts, friends, cousins, mothers, grandmothers – for all the women in Canada – about women’s equality – then do not mark an x next to the Conservative party on Monday January 23rd.

Our rights depend on it.

Understanding isn't the same as excusing

tekanji

Andrea of Vociferate has written a post, Bring on the trolls, on the harm that ignoring male participation in the patriarchy can bring. I don’t agree with everything she says (I think there is, and needs to be, a place for men/men’s issues in feminism, and that sometimes it’s okay to step off a point in order to speak on a level that others can understand), but I’m 100% there with her underlying point. We can’t ignore, or downplay, male responsibility for hurtful acts just because we’ll be labelled “man-haters” or “offensive.” Guess, what? As long as we continue to fight for equal rights, we’ll be labelled that no matter what we say.

She said a lot of good things in her post, but these two paragraphs resonated deeply with me [emphasis mine]:

Sure, they live in a society which tells them it’s acceptable, good, fun, what they’re supposed to do, but the choice to do it is still their own. If we excuse the men who do these things, we must excuse anyone who commits an atrocity in a society which tells them it’s OK. Nazism must be OK, slavery must be OK, since nobody can resist what society tells them, can they?

But they can, every man who looks at porn and laughs at the retching girl deepthroating someone, every man who raises his hand to a woman, every man who rapes, every man who is disrespectful towards women and regards them as less than himself has chosen himself to do so.

So I do blame men, I blame men for what they are responsible for, and I blame them for what they allow other men to get away with.

I think that it’s useful to understand why the men in question do what they do. I think it’s useful not ony for feminists, because understanding the principles of oppression is the first step to finding ways to fight it, but also for all men – whether or not they subscribe to whatever action is under question – because ignorance is one of the most effective tools of privilege. If they can’t see the harm they do, then they can continue beliving that they do no harm.

However, understanding and excusing are different things. Yes, the reasons behind an unacceptable action should be taken under consideration. But that in no way, shape, or form gives a person a “get out of jail free” card for their continued bad behaviour. At some point we become adults and take responsibility for our own lives. And, furthermore, as Andrea said: if we refuse to call people on bad behaviour because society has condoned that behaviour, then we are condoning it as well. I don’t know about you, but I’m a feminist because I’m sick of the unnacceptable being packaged as acceptable. And if that makes me a man-hater, well so be it, because I don’t want to love anyone who doesn’t see and treat me, and my gender, as a worthy equal.

Hat tip: Mind the Gap

Tragically Funny

tekanji

I don’t know what it is about tragic things that make them such fodder for sarcastic humour. A defense mechanism, maybe? A way to deal with the horrors of the world without killing oneself? Regardless, it is undoubtedly the form of humour I use the most, probably because I’m awful with jokes (the only set that I can ever remember starts with, “What do you call a cow with two legs?”). I feel like my brand of dark, sarcastic humour gives me a way to purge the taint left on me by the injustices of the world; by speaking it in a humourous context, it can be exposed for the sheer idiocy it is. It becomes something to laugh at, not to be taken seriously. I also like that it turns something that normally brings pain into something that, even briefly, can bring the pleasure of laughter.

In that vein, I was having a totally serious (well, serious except for the interruptions of pictures from Cute Overload) with darth sidhe on Trillian. And she, sharing this brand of humour with me, took my totally innocent comment about not giving away things, and spawned the following sludge-filled bit of humour. Be warned, however, for it’s the traditionalist notion of sexuality that’s under fire and there’s talk of rape in it.

tekanji: and it’s not like I’m giving *away* something most cases
darth sidhe: yeah.
darth sidhe: like OMG UR VIRGINITY
tekanji: OMG I AM A LOLIPOP BUT I GOT LICKED SO MANY TIMES I HAVE NOTHING TO OFFER MY FUTURE HUSBAND
darth sidhe: ;_;
tekanji: waaaaaaaaah
tekanji: no man will ever want to touch me now
tekanji: wait
tekanji: that might not be a bad thing
tekanji: 😛
darth sidhe: “So you’re saying a woman is only worth her virginity?” “No, I’m saying it’s her honor.” “Wait, a woman’s virginity is her honor? So she lie, cheat and steal and it’s okay as long as she still has her hymen?”
tekanji: haha
darth sidhe: a man’s word is his honor, but a woman’s honor is between her legs.
darth sidhe: yeah, fuck that.
tekanji: but we hold aaaaaaaaall the poewr because men want to fuck us
tekanji: don’t you see how that makes us more powerful than men?
darth sidhe: especially when men just can’t help themselves and go around raping every woman they see. It just shows that we have the power to withhold! Or not.
tekanji: well, those women were asking for it. I mean, if they hadn’t worn clothes or lived in their house or had male relatives then they wouldn’t have been raped!
darth sidhe: the only way to solve that problem is to kill all the men and save their sperm for the propagation of the race.
darth sidhe: and when boys become of age, collect from them and kill them off. for ever and ever amen.