communication

On Safe Spaces and "Pseudo-Feminism"

Posted by figleaf | Tags:
Sun, 2011-02-13 14:54

Clarissa says

I thought I heard every pseudo-feminist piece of insanity under the sun but, never fear, there are always new and inventive ways to make feminism sound completely ridiculous. A pseudo-feminist blogger recently announced that her blog will be a male-free zone. Men will not be allowed to post comments if they insist on identifying as male:

Source: Clarissa's Blog

The blogger who's closed her comments to men is Jill, a.k.a. Twisty Faster. She's neither the first nor the last to do so. This is a two part post, first on the idea of my-team-only spaces, the other on the idea of labeling this or that faction as "pseudo-feminists."

First: I think it's fine to create people-where-you-are spaces, even when I'm not one of the people where you are. For instance there are quite a few "pickup-artist" forums that are actually quite closed to outsiders. There are feminist and womanist spaces, obviously. There's some tremendously angry guy in Portland who runs a closed anti-porn site. Glenn Beck types have their spaces. Trans people have theirs. Gay conservatives have theirs. Angry divorced men have theirs. And so on.

In each case, for better or worse, having a space where you can stand down from your belief that you must present your "unified public face" and actually talk about stuff you feel really vulnerable about. (The friend who told me about the PUA sites said, for instance, that it provides a critical space for men who are really worried about masculinity to safely *question* their masculinity.

So the question for me isn't so much that people have themselves-only spaces, or even that they brag about it. What matters is whether they *stay* in it. You sort of get to see what happens in, say, the whole Fox News "epistemic closure" phenomenon, and that sort of echo-chamber/amen-chorus effect shows up in places like IBTP.

But hey, there's a point in almost any consciousness-raising processes where frustration and impatience with the status quo boils up. And while it happens to be, I think, a huge mistake to stay angry, I think it's also problematic if you never get angry at all.

(Case in point that only seems completely off the wall: kid I was in high-school with maybe 40 years ago now still walks with a limp from the injury he got putting his whole heart, soul, and body into not losing the homecoming game in his senior year. Playing with unreported broken bones can evidently do that. At the moment, though, school spirit and winning that game was that important to him. Would he do that today? No, almost certainly not: he's gotten perspective. It's not that community isn't important to him -- I'm sure it is. It's that he, like numerous teammates who weren't crippled by zeal, were, well, so full of zeal they were willing to cripple themselves. And not to put too fine a point on it, if he hadn't felt the future of his team, his school, and his life were about to be lost to an opposing team he might not have hurled himself so thoroughly into harms way. My point is that people experience zealous feelings, and thrive on opposition. Particularly when they feel they're in an easily extinguished minority. When they can find a safe place to spread out their thoughts without opposition nearly all of them are eventually able to move on. Without feeling obliged to virtually set themselves on fire.)

So there. That's my pitch for tolerating and even encouraging safe-space venues for people to air out their demons. First, it's actually good for most people. Second, the more outsiders push, the more zealously they risk irreparably windmill-tilting themselves. When someone's in that space all the reasonable chiding in the world won't help.

Next: About the pseudo-feminist thing. I'd just point out that feminism is a very big tent -- big enough to hold the almost diametrically opposite Twisty Faster and Sarah Palin, not to mention everyone else in between. Where "in between" isn't even a single file but wide field. Considering the breadth of the field almost everyone on it can be branded a pseduo-feminist by one or more others on the field. Nor is it the case that the field slopes upward from, say, a least-feminist Palin to an ultimate-feminist Mary Daly.

sInstead I think the way to look at feminism, as with most other fields, is to look at their impact on the rest of the field rather than their authenticity. By that metric the Palin and the Daly factions are both noisy and noticable, but for all that they're neither terribly influential and thus, for all their visibility, not very significant. (Even though, referencing the "angry" stage, above, many or even most feminists may at one point or another go through a transitional Palin or Daly phase.)

Anyway, that's why I'm less inclined to call one group pseudo-feministst: it reinforces the idea that there's one single "authentic" feminism one could belong to instead; it allows us to imagine that the definition we're using to judge others is, in fact, the most authentic. Both of those require more authority than pretty much anyone has -- not me, not you, not Palin, not Twisty, not bell hooks, not Shulamuth Firestone, not Caitlin Flannagan, etc.

Repost or Like this

Coke Talk on How to React to a Partner Who Suggests Your Pregnancy "Might Not Be His"

Posted by figleaf | Tags:
Thu, 2011-01-27 22:00

A Coke Talk reader asked

I told him I was pregnant. First thing he did was ask if I’m going to get it “taken care of”. When I said yes and asked him to help me pay for half of it, since it is half his, he said why should he if he isn’t even sure it’s his. I have never slept with anyone else during our relationship, or even thought about it. I need some strong words to help me get out of this situation and move on from him.

Source: Dear Coke Talk

You can only imagine what the reply was.

I expect once Coke Talk cooled off her reply would have been... pretty similar.

(Note: I can't find the link but quite a few years ago I echoed someone else's very good post about how even though we think of it as awkward it's critical to begin your conversation about attitudes about choice before you begin having sex. Assuming you're heterosexual, etc., of course.)

Repost or Like this

TWG Disappoints Caitlin Flanagan, Figures Out What She Likes, Doesn't Feel Bad About Herself For Asking

Posted by figleaf | Tags:
Thu, 2011-01-20 01:33

TWG who's been blogging for nine years and who I've been following since I started my blog six years ago (today!) and who is now blogging at yet another new location has some cool insights about disclosing her sexual proclivities instead of just bottling them up.

I used to deny this stuff, just get to it in my head (or alone), but with the last few guys, I just let it fly. And you know what? It's better. First off, I've been older and more confident sexually, which helps A LOT. Second, I know now that if the reaction is, "you're a freak" that's their problem and certainly not mine -- just because your needs don't match up doesn't mean anyone is a freak. Vanillians, enjoy your vanilla. Knot fetishists, tie up your BD-loving friends. Etc.

So the new guy? He's game. And thinks it's cool, and that we have great sex together (I think so, too). He likes how I respond to the stuff I *told him* works for me. I like that he likes to do it. So yeah.

It's so important to figure out what works for you and get to the point where you can own it. You will have so much more fun in every part of your life that way, but especially in the bedroom (or random bar bathroom, wherever floats your particular boat). I'm glad I finally gained that experience and confidence that let me do so.

Source: watergirl down

Not sure what Caitlin Flanagan would have to say.  Except maybe that she's really disappointed that TWG seems to be growing happier, more confident, and more self-expressed with both her hookups and long-term relationships as she grows instead of all dried up and unhappy and, I dunno, all covered in chewing gum with sweater lint in it or something.

It kind of makes you think that happiness has something to do with doing what you want instead of, y'know, doing what you just think you're supposed to.  (Whether that's thinking you're supposed to have fewer partners than you've had, as Flanagan would tell us, or if you think you should have had more, as, say the PUA folks say we all should.)

Repost or Like this

Mia of Sexpertise on Fellatio and Vegetarianism

Posted by figleaf | Tags:
Thu, 2010-03-04 11:21

Mia of the interesting and, I think, fairly new Sexpertise website addresses a fascinating question: should vegetarians swallow semen?

...semen is a product of an animal (like an egg), but not the flesh of an animal (like meat) and not a substance whose production causes cruelty to animals (unlike the miserable dairy cows in PETA commercials, I have a feeling your semen was harvested with your enthusiastic consent). It contains glandular fluid and single cells, also known as sperm. Depending on your girlfriend’s reasons for being vegetarian, it is possible that she could logically conclude that semen is off-limits. Or, maybe she just doesn’t like it.

Read the quote in context here.

The question was asked by a young man who seems to be clear that some people don’t like to swallow, and doesn’t mind that his partner doesn’t swallow his. He’s just intrigued by the reason.

I know I’m hopelessly out of date on the, er, ins and outs of vegetarianism but in addition to the ethical-vegetarian reasons Mia reminds us of there are, among other major schools of though, health-minded vegetarians who are wary of eating animals because, being higher on the food chain, they can carry higher loads of accumulated metals and other toxins plus they can be exposed to artificial hormones, environmental hormone precursors, and anti-biotics.

In other words she could be declining to swallow not so much because she’s a vegetarian per se but because he, like pretty much every other human being on the planet any more, isn’t organic.

Something to think about.

Lest this sound silly or esoteric (ok, worrying that a partner’s semen isn’t vegetarian/organic is least a little silly) there’s considerable concern about metals and other toxins in breast milk.

Also lest the question sound silly Mia wisely closes on a serious note:

Since it doesn’t sound as if the actual act of swallowing is a big deal to you, I would suggest getting yourself out of this semantic black hole. Communicate to your girlfriend that you understand and respect her right to decide what goes into her body, whether you agree with her rationale or not. I don’t know if your girlfriend is making excuses, as you say, but if for some reason she feels that simply saying she doesn’t like swallowing isn’t good enough, then you have a communication problem. You can remedy this by showing her that you appreciate her right to make her own choices in the bedroom, and that you care about her enjoyment and comfort more than you care about this disagreement.

Sound advice in all events.

Repost or Like this

Regina Lynn on the Best Type of Lover

Posted by figleaf | Tags:
Mon, 2009-07-27 12:29

Regina Lynn, writing at Sexier Sex, says here’s how to pick the best kind of lover:

This one’s easy. Find a geek.

Here are 5 reasons geeks make the best lovers…

She said it here.

I’m just going to list her five bullet points. You can follow the link to see if you agree with the reasons she gives.

  • Geeks build it so you will come
  • Geeks interact
  • Geeks don’t shock easily
  • Geeks know kinky people
  • Geeks understand multidimensional relationships

I actually don’t think geeks are automatically the best type of lover, anymore than plumbers, poets, actuaries, stay-at-home parents, gardeners, or nuns** are. But her points about the way life online can enhance rather than detract from someone’s real-life interpersonal skills is actually pretty interesting.

[** Just testing: if you’re a geek that last item wouldn’t easily shock you. :-) —fl]

Repost or Like this

Rough Notes from Cunningminx's "Internet Famous / Conference Shy" Session at Sex 2.0

Posted by figleaf | Tags:
Tue, 2009-05-12 11:43

Here are my rough, non-verbatim notes from Cunningminx’s excellent ice-breaking presentation “Internet Famous / Conference Shy.” The notes are necessarily incomplete during audience-participation sections. Finally, because I arrived a few moments late I missed part of the introduction.

Language note: Minx uses the ominous-sounding term “stalking” in the OKCupid sense of being interested in or curious enough about to want to know more about or to meet someone you know only online. (In real stalking there’s obviously no such thing as “stalking politely.”)

First, here’s the session description from the 2009 Sessions page.

Are you great on a keyboard, but overwhelmed by the time you get to the registration desk? Are you charming on Twitter but glued to the wall at the opening night party? Sometimes internet abundance doesn’t translate well to having a great time at that conference. From wildly famous sexperts to curious wallflowers, from keynoters to first-time guests, conference experiences might not easily translate from the keyboard. Find out how, with just a little preparation, you can have the best possible experience at your next con.

Session leader: Cunning Minx

How do you stalk politely?

  • Check blogs and their other sites
  • Leave comments
  • Follow twitter
  • Google for other social-media connections

Be organized

  • make a list of who you want to see
  • and what you want to talk about with them
    • name/alias
    • organization
    • blog/twitter topics
  • recent events attended

What can I do to be stalkable/open?

  • Write best work before the event (most interesting to/about you)
  • Be yourself, be interesting
  • Reach out via blog, podcast, Twitter
  • Use the event #hashtag for Everything
  • Blog/Twitter about folks you do know
  • Find out/ask who’s going
  • What you’re excited about

Join the conversation

  • Mailing list
  • Listen first — take a week to listen to what others are talking about, so you know what is and isn’t… topical.
  • Answer questions (if you really know)
  • Ask questions
  • Post a pic to Facebook group
  • Post to Facebook wall
  • Continue interesting conversations with individuals off list
  • Be a real person

Mailing list don’t

  • Don’t use as a dating service

As you pack

  • Make sure you’ve got all your equipment with you
  • Including chargers and cables
  • And extra batteries
  • On the other hand, asking to borrow a power cord is a great ice-breaker
  • Bring fresh business cards w/ name/pseudonym, TwitterID, blog, cell-phone or texting
  • Backup your laptop
  • Give current partner some loving

During the conference

  • turn twitter notices on mobile device
  • be stalkable
  • be your “party self”
  • Post about all the fun you’re having
  • If you show faces do a pod/vidcast
  • audioboom.com [Couldn’t find working link. —fl]

Starting a conversation

  • Statement
    • I just went to…
    • This is my first…
    • Disclosure about yourself (“I” statement)
    • I think…
    • Invitation (opportunity for them to say)
  • What do you think about…?

Conversation Starters

  • Which session are you going to?
  • Oh, I missed that, how was it
  • Going anywhere for dinner (be specific
  • What do you do at XXX
  • How did you find out about YYY
  • Did you see the season finale of ZZZ? (Battlestar Galactica, good example — kind of random, good break-out-of-conference-mode question.)

Say what you want

  • I’d like to present/scene with you tonight (Can’t get what you don’t ask for — they’re not telepathic)
  • I’d like to get to know you better
  • I’d love to hear you scream
  • Point being — get it out there out loud so they can respond

Practice believing in yourself

  • If you get emo get yourself out of it by… asking/outreach to pull yourself back into “party” space
  • Say fears out loud
  • “Egging on” exercise — you vent, they agree instead of saying “oh no.” Point is you can end up laughing about it instead of resisting their resistance.

Take care of yourself

  • Adopt a policy of
    • Trying new things
    • meeting new people
    • having new experiences
    • no regrets (you won’t enjoy everything you try, e.g. the 9-star tofu faux chicken-liver appetizer everyone else at dinner said they liked.)
  • Decide you will kick ass
Repost or Like this

Misanthropy, Sociopathology, and Confusing the Personal and the Political

Posted by figleaf | Tags:
Tue, 2009-05-05 10:06

Sometimes it seems to me that if you announce to the world that you’re, say, a “self-admitted sociopath” or a misanthrope or a separatist, and you use the rhetoric of sociopathology or misanthropy or separatism to advance your causes of, say, sex-worker rights or recognition of women as human beings… that you’re going to encounter quite a bit of, um, resistance. Or resentment. Or misunderstanding. Or exclusion.

Which is fine. Sociopaths, misanthropes, and separatists expect and perhaps demand resistance, resentment, misunderstanding, or even exclusion. And so when they get it they’re happy. Indeed one gets the impression sometimes that when such individuals detect acceptance or adoption of their positions they flee extremeward… sometimes further than their own comfort zones… in order to re-establish the adversity their self-identity demands.

And that’s fine too. Just yesterday… somewhere on Twitter or a post or in a PDF or comments to someone else’s post or somewhere else… someone I wish I could identify raised the perfectly valid point that almost by definition change is not initiated by well-adjusted people. So thank goodness for misanthropes, sociopaths, and separatists!

The problem arises, I think, when one confuses rejection of one’s unpleasant or adversarial rhetoric or personality with rejection of one’s cause. Because after a certain point ones audience can begin to entertain the same confusion. With the result that in addition to closing their ears to one’s asshole behavior they close their ears to one’s perfectly legitimate cause.

Update: See also risk identified by Ezra Klein re: Sen. Inhofe as conservative id rather than crazy uncle.

Repost or Like this

Chicken Soup for BDSM Aficionados

Posted by figleaf | Tags:
Mon, 2009-02-02 14:47

Ms. Inconspicuous of The Seduction of Infidelity illustrates the difference between BDSM and abuse.

I wail, the pain of such an abrupt, forceful penetration reverberating with pleasure in my body. He teases me, torments me…tortures me. Going hard and deep, then slowing down and taunting me with his words. Telling me how he’s going to take me with no mercy. Take me how he wants me. Take me screaming. Take me pleading for him to stop. Take me until he can’t stand it any longer.

I shiver and shudder in his words, each one sending a delicious thrill through my body.

Then, in a quiet and intense moment of sexual pleasure coupled with violence, I sniffle.

I am used to him turning from light to dark—unleashing a beast when he has come in lamb’s skin—but I am not used to the quick turn the other way (not until he orgasms, at least).

I sniffle, sick and feverish.

“Oh, honey…”

Something in him clicks and all the tension goes out of his body. He kisses me and kisses me, holding my head in his gentle palms, smoothing back the mussed hair from my forehead. He pushes up my blindfold and takes my tied-together wrists from their secured location above my head; instead placing them around his neck.

Read the quote in context here.

I don’t know why lovers play any of the sexual games with each other that we do. And if you’re not familiar with or comfortable with submission and dominance then the story might make no sense at all.

But there’s a difference is that unlike real cruelty or real abuse a game is only a game, and therefore can be called on account of rain, or sniffles. And that makes a huge difference.

—-

Incidentally it have made more sense for Ms. I to have communicated her illness before her partner came over. The rules of sex safety apply even when the infection is traditionally socially transmitted. Negotiations of BDSM also apply in both directions, meaning that even though she was up for their usual activities he might have preferred negotiating different rules for their encounter. That plus he might have brought some chicken soup.

Update: In comments Ms. Inconspicuous pointed out that she did warn him. My bad. Actually my worse since the aside sort of detracts from my main point and her story. I apologize.

Repost or Like this

Boundaries, Intentions, and Checking In

Posted by figleaf | Tags:
Sun, 2009-01-25 23:52

Somewhat related to Heather and CJ’s chapter on sexual entry, Kink In Exile has a cool post up about personal space and boundaries.

Months ago I had an argument with someone over touching. I am a very physical person. I did not want this person to touch me. Why? Because it felt wrong… I don’t know why. It felt like a violation.

Last night I was getting a massage from someone who warned me that he doesn’t mix massage with sexual touch…“it’s all about intent” I believe were his words. It made sense. I am nude lying on a bed and his touch does not feel intrusive. I am fully clothes in a public space and his hand on my back crosses a line. It isn’t quantitative, I can’t tell him (for that abstract all the men in my life past, present and future value of him) where he can touch and where he can’t. I can’t even tell him when, or in what context it is appropriate. It is about the intent he comes to me with, and about my perception.

She said it here.

Kink in Exile adds that it’s not necessary about lengthy conversations either. Which is one good reason why intent is a handy concept. It implies that while not every single action requires verbal negotiation before proceeding (which sounds a bit too much like process fetishism in kink) it does mean verbal check in is needed at every point where there’s any possibility of ambiguity.

Repost or Like this

User login