Clarisse Thorn

January 28, 2009

Sex-positive documentary report #1: “Kinsey”

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — Clarisse @ 6:40 pm

Before I report on “Kinsey”, first things first: two of my blog posts have been listed in the most recent Feminist Carnival of Sexual Freedom and Autonomy. This Carnival was hosted by Sugarbutch Chronicles — check it out for at least a day’s worth of awesome sex-positive reading!

Now, let’s get down to brass tacks ….

The Sex+++ documentary film series premiere was last night! We showed the documentary “Kinsey” (2005), courtesy of The American Experience. I was completely thrilled by how well it went. We were reduced to standing room only during the film, and about 30 people stuck around for the discussion. Awesome!

Firstly, I am so lucky to be working with such great people. Sponsors Early to Bed, Women and Children First and Jane Addams Hull-House Museum all deserve yet another thank-you. Also, radical arts educator Lisa has been the best partner I could have imagined in this endeavor — and our unexpected amazing volunteer, Kim, deserves a big round of applause for all her help!

Secondly, I am so pleased that we were able to screen such a great documentary! Alfred Kinsey was a remarkable figure, and I felt both moved and inspired. I’ve read a lot of reviews that said that the documentary gave a nuanced portrait of Kinsey’s life — one that described his accomplishments fairly and also didn’t miss his flaws — and having seen the film, I totally agree.

And thirdly, the discussion was great. It was a bit loose, and we skipped around a lot of generally sex-positive topics without delving too deeply — I thought it was just what we needed to set the tone for the series. I was happy to talk with people I knew personally, as well as people I’ve previously encountered only through the blogosphere (Aspasia, I’m looking at you), but there were so many people I’ve never met — and that’s so cool!

There were a lot of BDSMers in attendance, at least at the discussion. It wasn’t all kinksters by any means, but there were a lot of us, and I worry that the discussion slanted a bit towards BDSM as a result. This partly has to do with my own resources — as someone who is involved in the BDSM community, I obviously have a better idea of how to promote it there than elsewhere. Additionally, members of the BDSM scene are more likely to know me personally and are therefore more likely to attend at my invitation.

I really did my best to contact non-BDSM people; for instance, I called every Unitarian church, gender studies professor, and AIDS nonprofit I could find in Chicago, and I invited them all. I sought out women’s centers and free speech groups. I had coffee with Serpent of the Sex Workers Outreach Project, and got her advice on contacting sex workers. I also contacted a number of LGBTQ organizations, polyamory folks, swingers, and one furry listhost. And we posted fliers advertising the series all over Chicago. I will continue to try reaching out to everyone — I sincerely hope that the next groups are more diverse, and I ask that everyone invite all their friends, no matter how they might identify sexually! (They’re even welcome if they’re :gasp: straight, monogamous, vanilla, and “mainstream”. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again — there ain’t nothing wrong with vanilla, it’s delicious!)

There were some great critiques of the documentary that came up in the discussion. My favorite was this: this documentary about Alfred Kinsey himself treated alternative sexuality in some pretty weird ways. Why is this film, of all films, still marginalizing some kinds of sex?

I introduced this subject by mentioning how the film described masochism (as a BDSMer, this was the first issue to leap out at me). The film implied that Kinsey’s masochistic experiences were fueled largely by depression, an idea that is at best problematic and at worst outright wrong. (If you’re interested in reading something by my favorite blogger ever, I recommend Trinity’s post on BDSM and self-harm.) The film also used an extremely harsh image of a straight razor during the voice-over describing Kinsey’s masochistic experiences. Yes, there are tons of people in the BDSM scene who play with razors, and that’s fine — but I personally would not choose a scary, gleaming, sterile razor to represent BDSM to a wide audience.

After I pointed that out, there were a couple of smart comments about the way the film dealt with other sexualities. One woman noted that the movie didn’t deal very well with consensual non-monogamy. Kinsey had a non-monogamous relationship with his wife, and although there was nothing overt, I think the documentary still managed to imply that there was something unequal and unhealthy about the couple’s relationship without going into it very deeply. On the bright side, though, Kinsey’s love for his wife — and her love for him — were both strongly emphasized.

Although the film was pretty good about homosexuality, there were a few weird moments nonetheless. This may partly be because of Kinsey’s own ideas about that, though. For instance, Kinsey was remembered as saying in his early sexuality lectures that homosexual women were “like men”. Obviously, not all gay women are like men. It’s unclear whether Kinsey continued to believe this throughout his life. It’s also unclear whether the documentary makers believed it.

Another topic I’m glad we covered in the discussion group was how issues of race and feminism, especially sex-positive feminism, intersect. The sex-positive movement is undeniably dominated by whites; I think it’s important to acknowledge that, and to talk about ways we can try to deal with it. I’ve made a definite effort to obtain films that incorporate race. Since the film list is not 100% finalized, I can’t guarantee how many of those documentaries we’ll actually screen, but here’s hoping! “The Aggressives”, for instance, has been confirmed — it’s a 2005 movie about a particular idea of butch lesbianism, and I understand that all the women covered in the film are women of color. (As a side note, I’ve also tried to incorporate other groups you wouldn’t “normally” find in the sex-positive movement. For instance, I’m hoping that we’ll be able to screen “Equality U”, which is about gay Christians and their activism at Christian colleges.)

For those who want to read more about sex-positivism and race, I recommend this blog post by Mighty Quare Dewd (it’s long, and complicated, and some points take a while to be made — but it deals with a lot of issues and it’s worth the effort). Thanks for the reference to Amber Rhea’s Sex-Positive Reference List.

There’s a lot more I could say, but let’s cut me off here for now. I’d love to hear from other attendees — feel free to leave a comment on this post or email me!

Our February 10th documentary will be Daryl Wein’s “Sex Positive”! Starting in the 1970s, “Sex Positive” “unflinchingly tracks the progress of gay activist Richard Berkowitz as he went from cocky S&M hustler, to angry AIDS activist, to broken but proud harbinger of a message too volatile, scary and true to be heard” (Frameline). The screening is courtesy of Regent Releasing. See you there!

January 26, 2009

Storytime with Clarisse, slash Communication Screwup Post #1: isn’t tickling cuuute?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — Clarisse @ 7:26 pm

I had a conversation over the weekend that reminded me of an incident with one of my exes — a communication screwup that really highlights how strangely our culture thinks about consent, and how BDSM ideas of negotiation can work against that.

Wow, I’m realizing that I’m about to write a totally serious post about tickling. I hope I don’t sound too pompous.

Anyway, story!

So, I was lying around having a casual conversation with this particular ex, and he started tickling me. I really wanted him to stop, so I asked him to. He didn’t. I safeworded, and he still didn’t stop. Furious, I lashed out and scratched him badly enough to bleed. I do believe I left a scar.

He got upset because he was bleeding, and I got upset because he hadn’t listened to me. I can’t remember how exactly we talked it out; it was a pretty tense moment. I think I might have apologized, but I also might not have. I was really angry, and my stance was, “So I drew blood — how else was I supposed to get you to stop? You should have respected how much I don’t like that, and it is totally not okay that you ignored my safeword!” He snapped back that it simply never occurred to him that I would actually safeword, for real, against being tickled. Tickling just seemed like such a mild, unimportant thing to him ….

If we’d been in the middle of doing BDSM stuff, then he would have stopped instantly. Indeed, I did safeword with him a couple of times in the middle of BDSM stuff, and at those times, he did everything exactly right — he stopped immediately, he calmed me down, he reassured me, and so on.

I think one of the hardest parts about relationships is learning that your partner really doesn’t work entirely the way you do. That there are things that absolutely drive your partner crazy, that literally don’t matter in the slightest to you … and vice versa. That sensitivity is so hard to build.

I also think that when people engage in careful, consenting BDSM relationships, they learn that kind of sensitivity more quickly — and, more importantly, they learn how to communicate about those boundaries. If I hadn’t had a safeword at all — if I’d been in a “normal, vanilla” relationship with my ex — I’m not sure how I would have even tried to communicate about the tickling problem. What would I have said, if I hadn’t been able to draw on BDSM experience? “No, really. I didn’t like that. No, really,” — over and over, until he got the point? Thank God I had words for how I felt: words better than, “I wasn’t trying to be cute, I really meant it.” I had these words: “You ignored my safeword. You know what a betrayal that is. You know that’s never okay.”

There’s this stereotypical image we have — of the cute couple where one person is tickling the other, and the second person is protesting but secretly enjoys it. I’m sure everyone reading this has encountered that image; you see it in romantic comedies all the time. And that situation is totally fine … if the second person really does secretly enjoy it.

But I don’t think most people have considered what happens if the second person, who “secretly enjoys” being tickled, doesn’t actually enjoy it. How does that person show that they really hate it? Protesting won’t necessarily work, because people are expected to protest against tickling even when they like it.

There’s a limit to how much we can expect “No, really, I don’t like that … no, really,” to work in such a situation. This is part of what feminists are talking about when they discuss a “rape culture”. We have a culture where certain acts are considered acceptable, simply because they’re “not that bad”, or they’re “unimportant”; and sometimes people are expected to protest those things at first. So, (a) it becomes hard to tell when the protests are real, and (b) people are trained to ignore protests. Almost nobody is actually trying to be insensitive, but the culture in which we find ourselves encourages us to be.

BDSM is unusual in its approach to specific sex acts: the rest of the world is far less likely to think about consent in terms of “I consent to this act, but not that one.” (Instead, it is fairly common for people to assume that the existence of a sexual relationship or sexual agreement implies consent to all manner of acts. As a random example, if two adults are dating, then frequently there is an assumption of consent to oral sex.) And the BDSM community often emphasizes that members must consent to each specific sex act. But this is something we must teach everyone — not just kinksters — to communicate effectively, because that’s what all good relationships are built on: trying to make sure that we mostly do things we like together, and avoiding asking our partners to do things they dislike.

It is so telling that my ex violated my boundaries with a vanilla act, but never violated them with a BDSM act. To me, it indicates that — for all that I talk about how BDSM ideas of consent can influence us into being more respectful about our relationships — sometimes, our ingrained assumptions about “normal” consent can be so powerful that they overwhelm what we’ve learned from BDSM.

January 25, 2009

A break in your regular programming

Filed under: Uncategorized — Clarisse @ 3:03 pm

Apologies for the week of silence. The film series is starting next week, and that’s crazy! Also, my laptop was stolen on the Red Line.

Let my experience be a lesson to you: it happened as I was sitting on the El, working on my laptop, absorbed in what I was typing. I wouldn’t have done it on the platform, but I figured I was safe on the train. Not so! A gentleman passed me casually as we approached a station, then — as the doors opened — he seized my laptop right out of my lap and fled. I chased him out the doors, across the platform, up the stairs, and out of the station, but the miscreant escaped down Wentworth. The police thought I was so naïve for thinking a valuable object might be safe just because I was in actively using it on a moving train.

On the bright side, the Apple store people were super nice and helpful when I went to buy a new one. I love Apple! I told them all about the film series.

In the unlikely event that any of you folks encounter a 2004 white Mac laptop in any used computer dealings you may have …. It’s missing the tab key (and the little keyholder-things are broken, so that would be hard to replace); the top is covered in gold paint (though that might have been stripped by the thief). I am offering a reward for the laptop’s return, no questions asked, as long as it has my files on it. I hope whoever took it is easily shocked. Ha. Or maybe they’ll come away from my files with more understanding and tolerance of alternative sexuality … well, a girl can dream.

January 19, 2009

Liberal, sex-positive sex education: what’s missing

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , — Clarisse @ 12:30 am

It’s been a while since I posted something substantive; I’m so busy with my awesome upcoming sex-positive film series and discussion group (please attend!), it’s hard to find time! So, I’ll make up for that with a really long post.

I am fortunate. I was born in the eighties and I received a great sex-positive upbringing. The public school I attended taught students how to use condoms; middle school health education included a section on sexually transmitted diseases. My parents didn’t throw their sexuality in my face — but they were almost always matter-of-fact, understanding and accepting when they talked about sex. (I’ll never forget how, at age 12 or so, Mom sat me down and gave me a long speech about how it would be totally okay if I were gay.) I was raised Unitarian, and the Unitarian Sunday School teen program included a wonderful sex education curriculum called About Your Sexuality. (I understand that the sex-ed curriculum has been changed and updated, and is now called Our Whole Lives. I haven’t delved deeply into the Our Whole Lives program — maybe it addresses some of the issues I’m about to describe.)

So I think I’m in a good position to describe the problematic signals we face in liberal sexual education. Yes, I’ve experienced the overall sex-negative messages that drench America, and they’re terrible — but so much is already being said about those. I also received lots of sex-positive messages that are incomplete, or problematic, or don’t quite go the distance in helping us navigate sexuality — and I think the sex-positive movement must focus on fixing them.

I’m so grateful for my relatively liberal, relatively sex-positive upbringing. I think it did me a world of good. But here are my five biggest problems with the way I learned about sexuality:

1. I wish that I hadn’t gotten this message: “Sex is easy, light-hearted — and if it’s not, you’re doing it wrong.”

Do I believe sex can be easy? Sure. Do I think it can be light-hearted? Absolutely! But do I think it’s always those things? No, and I don’t think it “ought to” be.

I think we need to teach that sex can be incredibly difficult. It can be hard to communicate with your partner. It can be hard to learn and come to terms with your own sexual desires. It can be hard to understand or accept all your partner’s sexual desires. And just because it’s hard, doesn’t mean that you’re with the wrong partner — or that you’re missing some vital piece of information that everyone else has — or that you’re doing it wrong.

And as for light-hearted, well — sure, sex can be “happy rainbows joy joy!”, but it can also be serious … or dark. And there’s nothing wrong with that!

I recently talked to a friend, who also identifies as a BDSMer, about our stories of coming into BDSM. Both of us had sadomasochistic fantasies from a very early age (mine, for instance, started in grade school — seriously, I actually did tie up my Barbie dolls). I told my friend about how I’d always had these intense, dark, violent feelings — but when I made it to middle school, I remember a change. I had a series of vivid BDSM-ish dreams, and I freaked out. I closed it all away, I stopped thinking about it, I repressed it all as savagely as I could.

Before that, I had also started thinking about sex. I imagined sex at great length; I read about sex. I had long since filched my parents’ copy of The Joy of Sex and examined it, cover to cover — not to mention many other fine sexuality works, like Nancy Friday’s compilation of female sexual fantasies My Secret Garden. I was totally fascinated by sex. I talked about it so much that one of my friends specifically searched out a vibrator as a birthday present for me. I actually pressured my first major boyfriend into any number of sexual acts before he was ready, which I suppose is an interesting reversal of stereotype. As I started having sex, I found that I liked it okay, but knew a lot was missing — and couldn’t figure out what.

It took me years and years to connect sex to BDSM — to figure out that the biggest thing I was missing, was BDSM. Why? Because BDSM was horrible and wrong, and I’d shut it away; BDSM (I thought) couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the bright, shiny, happy horizon of sex! Coming into BDSM was a crisis for me partly because — although I knew other people practiced it, and had never thought much about that — my own need for those dark feelings totally shocked me. This wasn’t me. This wasn’t healthy sex. Sex was light-hearted, happy rainbows joy joy! … wasn’t it?

In contrast, my friend — who had an extremely sexually repressed upbringing — never had any trouble integrating BDSM into his sex life. Sex, for him, was already wrong and bad … so as he got in touch with his sexuality and began having sex, BDSM was involved from the start. After all, there was no reason for it not to be.

As glad as I am that my upbringing was not stereotypically sexually repressed, I have to say that I envy my friend his easy personal integration of BDSM.

2. I wish this point had been made, over and over: “You might consider being careful with sex.”

Edit: 1/20/09 — A really great comment from PAS led me to pull back and rethink a few of the things I said here. I edited this point a bit, to reflect that I’ve been trying to think through the biases he called me out on.

I recently read an excellent “New Yorker” article that reviews the new version of The Joy of Sex. It talks about the time when The Joy of Sex came out, as well as a similar contemporary feminist book, Our Bodies, Ourselves, and it points out that “both books espoused the (distinctly seventies) notion that sex could be a value-neutral experience, as natural as eating”.

“Value-neutral”: that’s a great way to describe the overall attitude about sex that I absorbed. As if sex were something I could do as an amusing diversion, with anyone, at any time, and it would always be fun fun fun! As if there was no need to be overly careful or sensitive — sex was just a game I could play, like a sport — where the worst that would happen if I screwed up might be a skinned knee.

I wish that there had been an emphasis on how emotions can really matter, when it comes to sex. I wish that there had been acknowledgment of the fact that we can really hurt ourselves, and others, when we’re cavalier about sex. (Not that we always do — but we can.) I wish I had understood sooner that sex is not always value-neutral; that everyone has all manner of different sexual needs and hangups, anxieties and strong emotions. I think maybe there are people out there who can have “value-neutral” sex — where it’s totally about physicality and nothing more — but I am not like that, and I suspect that most people are not.

Which isn’t to say that I think there’s anything wrong with people who can have sex that’s “value-neutral”. (And maybe “value-neutral” is not a great term for it; I worry that I sound like I’m judging, when I use that term.) I just don’t think it’s a good model for everyone, and yet I think that it has somewhat been promoted as if everyone “ought to” be that way.

I think that there are lots of people out there who feel as though the sexual liberation movement “failed” or “betrayed them”, because they convinced themselves that sex is value-neutral and then got hurt. You see a lot of assertions along these lines in the conservative media — for instance, here’s a quotation from a synopsis of the book Modern Sex:

::::::::::
The 1960s sexual revolution made a big promise: if we just let go of our inhibitions, we’ll be happy and fulfilled. Yet sexual liberation has made us no happier and, if anything, less fulfilled. Why? … sex today is increasingly mechanical and without commitment—a department of plumbing, hygiene, or athletics rather than a private sphere for the creation of human meaning. The result: legions of unhappy adults and confused teenagers deprived of their innocence, on their way not to maturity but to disillusionment. … These beautifully written essays — on subjects ranging from the TV show Sex and the City to teen sex to the eclipse of the manly ideal to the benefits of marriage — add up to the deepest, most informative appraisal we have of how and why the sexual revolution has failed.
::::::::::

I disagree with most of their attitude. We don’t need innocence. We don’t need sexual mystery. We don’t need to eliminate teen sex. We don’t need to re-establish some limiting, patriarchal “manly ideal”. But they’ve got one thing right: we do need to start talking about sex as something that is not mostly mechanical — as something that, yes, can be “a private sphere for the creation of human meaning”.

3. I wish I’d learned this: “Good sex doesn’t just require two (or more) people who like sex. It requires desire — and desire simply doesn’t work the same way for everyone.”

I’ve said before that I went through a period — back when I was first becoming sexually active — where I simply could not figure out why sexual acts with people I didn’t care about, didn’t seem to turn me on. Or rather — they turned me on a little, but not … much. It took me a while to understand that sex requires more than just two eager people. It requires attraction and desire.

When I was fifteen or so, and at summer camp, I remember making out with a boy. I didn’t really want to make out with him, but I wasn’t sure how to reject him (more on this under point 5). And I figured: he seems nice enough, so I might as well make out with him. Afterwards, I felt angry at myself, and I felt like I’d wasted my time — and I felt confused. I’d been bored at best and repulsed at worst, and I wasn’t sure why I felt that way, or why I’d done something that made me feel that way.

So why had I done it? Because I’d thought: “Sex is value-neutral.” Because I’d thought: “Making out is fun, right? — that means I ought to do it when I get the chance!” Because I’d thought: “My preference not to make out with him is probably just some silly repression that I need to get over.” Because I didn’t understand that desire is complicated, that you can’t just make yourself feel desire when it’s convenient, and that you don’t need a reason for your attractions — or lack of attraction. This situation was to reprise itself in various forms over the next years, until I finally learned that sometimes you simply want or don’t want things, and that you aren’t required to justify your desires.

4. I wish I’d gotten a list of suggestions: “Here are some places you might go to start figuring out what turns you on.”

I was told that sex was fun. I was even told to explore! But I still spent years with very little actual idea of what I wanted. No one ever told me how or where I might be able to learn more about my needs, or what exploring my needs might look like. And no one ever explained that people are turned on by different things, that some people like some sex acts and don’t like others, and that’s okay.

I went into sex with a buffet-style attitude, thinking that I must naturally enjoy sex equally in all ways. I was so surprised when I found out that I like some positions better than others! I remember how confused I was when I dated a guy who didn’t like fellatio, and how hurt I felt — like his lack of enjoyment meant that I must be doing it wrong, because everyone likes oral sex, right?

And of course, while I had a pretty comprehensive idea of the vanilla sex acts I could experiment with, I had very little idea of what else was out there. In retrospect I find this hilarious, but I remember — back in my vanilla days — I had two boyfriends who tied me up. They tied me up and were nice to me, and I suppose it was amusing enough, but didn’t drive me crazy with lust or anything. And — this is the kicker — because I did not understand that there’s a lot more to BDSM than light bondage, because I did not understand that there are many separate BDSM acts that people can enjoy and many ways to flavor them, I assumed from this experience that I didn’t like BDSM. I went through my old journal entries the other day and uncovered one in which I, confused, am speculating about what’s missing from my sex life: I write, “I’ve tried S&M, so it can’t be that.”

What a learning curve I had ahead of me, eh?

I wish someone had showed me Katherine Gates’ fetish map (though, as I understand it, the map was first created in the early 2000s, so it didn’t exist when I was getting my sex education — anyway, I wish someone had tried to explain to me the vast cornucopia of human fetishes out there!). I wish someone had explained that erotica and pornography are both actually really good ways to learn about your turn-ons, and — more importantly — had told me that not all erotica and pornography are the same, so the fact that I wasn’t into mainstream stuff didn’t mean I automatically wasn’t interested in all erotica or porn. I’ve mentioned that I had lots of conversations with friends about sex, but — until recent years — those conversations were never framed as “This is what I like,” or “I’ve found something new that turns me on,” and I wish I’d realized sooner what a great resource conversations like that might be.

5. And I wish I’d gotten a list of ideas: “Here are some ways you can try communicating with your partner about sex.”

Lastly, but certainly not least — I was never taught how to communicate about sex. No one ever gave me even the first idea. In all my sex-positive, liberal sexual upbringing, I was told over and over that “relationships require communication”, but no one ever said: “And here’s some ways in which you might communicate sexually with your partner.”

One big benefit of teaching sexual communication strategies will be that it will help people learn to say “no” when they don’t want to do something. Teaching people how to set boundaries is massively important, and I think a lot about ways to do it. I saw this adorable video about cuddle parties recently that really struck me — these people create parties where everyone basically just cuddles, but everyone also specifically has the power to say “no” to any given person or act. The reporter who made the video talks at the end about how she found the whole experience to be empowering — how she felt like it gave her space to say “no” that she hadn’t had before. Perhaps these could be used to teach people to set boundaries?

But you can’t really use cuddle parties in a school or workshop setting, more’s the pity. If I ever create a sex education curriculum, I want to describe a bunch of good communication strategies. I’ll list questions that all sex partners should ask each other, including “What do you like?” and “What do you fantasize about?” and “Is there anything you really don’t want me to do?”

And I’ll talk about ways that you can make communication easier, if the two partners are uncomfortable having this conversation. I’ll take a page from the BDSM community by creating checklists of all kinds of sexual acts and weird fetishes and gender-bending craziness, and I’ll put it all on a 1-5 scale (with 1 being “not at all interested” and 5 being “I’d love to try this”), and I’ll tell people that they should fill out those checklists and give them to their partners. I’ll suggest that partners write out their fantasies and email them to each other, if they feel uncomfortable talking. I’ll suggest that partners write out descriptions of their mutual sexual experiences — long accounts, describing how they felt about everything and what sticks out in their minds — and send those to each other, too, so they can get each others’ perspectives on what they’ve done.

God, it’s so hard to talk about what we want. It’s even hard to talk about talking about what we want. I mean, it’s hard enough to figure out what we want in the first place — but communicating it … eeek! And it’s worth noting that this is not just a problem of having good sex. As was pointed out recently on the blog for the book Yes Means Yes! (a book of sex-positive essays that I still haven’t read, but really really want to):

::::::::::
[There is a] need to demystify and destigmatize communication about sex. If we can’t talk about what we like and what we want, we will always have problems making clear what it is we’re consenting to. If we can’t be frank about what we do want, we put a lot of weight on the need to communicate what we don’t.
::::::::::

Giving everyone great sexual communication skills doesn’t just give us all better sex — it fights rape. There’s a noble cause for you!

… So, that’s my five-pointed analysis. And that’s what I’m pushing for. My goals are not just to get people thinking that sex is awesome and sexual freedom is important. It’s going to be hard, and it’s going to be an uphill battle, but I’m hoping that I can not only help out with sexual liberation — I’m hoping to improve it.

January 17, 2009

Happy belated International Fetish Day!

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — Clarisse @ 2:00 am

Via Sex, Art and Politics, I have belatedly learned that today (well, yesterday now) — that is, Friday January 16 — was International Fetish Day!

I wish I’d come up with some clever celebration, but I didn’t know! — and now I’m all tired out from a long day that included, awesomely enough, Threat Level Queer Shorts. (The next Threat Level screening will be in March, and they’re super fun — don’t miss it!)

But here’s something I can offer you, gentle readers. One of the first files I organized when I started volunteering up at the Leather Archives was a file full of old Torture Garden fliers. The Torture Garden is one of the premier fetish clubs in the world — if not the premier fetish club — and I found some really incredible images in that box.

I’ve uploaded five flier scans to my Flickr account. Below are displayed small versions of two fliers I kinda like, but that aren’t much shocking. Below that, I link to larger versions, and also to the other three fliers — which are both prettier and far more scandalous! Be warned that the last two (“Milk Sex” and “Eyeball”) are particularly transgressive, and are probably not appropriate for all or even most audiences. So, seriously, don’t look at them unless you definitely like fetish imagery. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

I was going to save these for a special occasion, but really, what could be more special than International Fetish Day?

.

.

.

Flier scans

January 15, 2009

For Immediate Release: New Sex-Positive Documentary Film Series

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — Clarisse @ 1:52 pm

[ANOTHER new edit!] Thrillingly, Sex+++ is now slated to continue past the last film I chose! It’s now on second Tuesdays, still at Hull-House and still at 7PM. Attend it! Love it! Keep the faith! [end of edit]

.

[BRAND NEW edit!] There is now a Sex+++ FAQ! It will hopefully answer any questions you might have. Also, it will help you start your own sex-positive film series, should you be so inclined! [end of edit]

.

[edit for unexpected film series popularity] YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO RSVP BY PHONE TO HULL-HOUSE MUSEUM FOR EACH FILM: 312.413.5353. If you RSVP, we’ll save you a seat — and if the venue fills up, you’ll definitely be able to attend! In other words, RSVPs are not required, but they’re in your interest. Please note that we unsave seats at 7PM. [end of edit]

.

.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE FAR AND WIDE!

SEX POSITIVE
pro-SEX, pro-QUEER, pro-KINK

a free documentary film series for people who like sex
curated by Clarisse Thorn

+ Q. “What is being sex-positive?”
+ A. “Defining sex on my terms.”
+ A. “Understanding my sexual needs.”
+ A. “Being in charge of my sexual experiences.”

Explore sexuality in a new way by joining us for a series of films about positive sexuality and sexual identity. This free documentary series will create a new space to discuss sex, culture, and sexual fun! Each film will be accompanied by delicious snacks and followed by relevant conversation. The Jane Addams Hull-House Museum is pleased to host this series as a new expression of the Hull-House Settlement’s historic advocacy for sex education.

We spice up every second and fourth Tuesday by screening another documentary with a positive, informative spin on human sexuality. The series will showcase diverse experiences, orientations, and choices. Planned films cover:

+ bisexuality,
+ S&M,
+ polyamory,
+ swinging,
+ transpeople,
+ homosexuality,
+ heterosexuality,
+ the history of sex,
+ and so much more!

(You can read the full proposed film list here: Sex Positive Documentary Film List!)

We want you to come to these screenings — whether you’re

+ a free speech advocate,
+ an AIDS worker,
+ a progressive pastor,
+ a sexuality activist,
+ a radical feminist,
+ a sex worker,
+ a pornographer,
+ a student,
+ not at all studious,
+ skeptical about our politics and aims,
+ or just someone who likes talking about sex!

All are welcome. Sexy prizes will be given for regular attendance!

Please note that cameras and other recording devices are not allowed at these screenings.

This series is supported by …

CHICAGO SPONSORS:
+ Early to Bed Feminist Sex Toys
+ Women and Children First Feminist Bookstore
+ Galleria Domain Two: The Center for Expressive Roleplay
+ Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health
+ Polyamory Weekly Podcast
+ Comstock Films: Real People, Real Life, Real Sex
+ EdenFantasys SexIs Online Magazine
+ We’re seeking more Chicago sponsors — please get in touch if you’re interested!

CHICAGO PARTNERS:
+ Center on Halsted: Chicago’s LGBT Community Center
+ Sex Workers Outreach Project, Chicago Chapter
+ SexGenderBody.com
+ Creativefilth.com

FILMMAKERS AND FILM RESOURCES:
+ Picture This Productions
+ Erin Palmquist, filmmaker
+ Seventh Art Releasing
+ Sensory Image Pty, Ltd.
+ Cinema Libre Studio
+ Women Make Movies
+ Sam Feder, filmmaker
+ Beyondmedia Education
+ Regent Releasing
+ Indie Pictures
+ Marianna Beck, filmmaker
+ Comstock Films
+ Becky Goldberg, filmmaker
+ Frameline Distribution
+ Accord Alliance

SEX +++ FILM SERIES
2nd & 4th Tuesdays at 7PM

beginning January 27, 2009

Jane Addams Hull-House Museum
800 South Halsted
312.413.5353
FREE
All are welcome!
Hull-House Museum is wheelchair accessible. To request accessibility accommodations, please call the museum two weeks prior to the event.

+ Join our Google Groups mailing list to receive updates!
+ Join our Facebook group, and invite all your friends!
+ Want to volunteer to help out? Join our volunteer mailing list!

For more information, contact Clarisse Thorn: clarisse dot thorn at gmail dot com.

The Sex-Positive Documentary Film List … finally here!

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — Clarisse @ 1:43 pm

[BRAND NEW edit!] There is now a Sex+++ FAQ! It will hopefully answer any questions you might have. Also, it will help you start your own sex-positive film series, should you be so inclined! [end of edit]

.

.

SEX POSITIVE
pro-SEX, pro-QUEER, pro-KINK

a free documentary film series for people who like sex
curated by Clarisse Thorn

+ Read the Press Release for a description of the film series and discussion group!
+ Join our Google Groups mailing list to receive updates!
+ Join our Facebook group, and invite all your friends!
+ Want to volunteer to help out? Join our volunteer mailing list!

June 2009: Okay, I said I had confirmed the film list before, but I had to make one last change — the September 8th night is now a movie about an intersex activist! The list is definitely final now, though, for real. Because I am going to Africa very soon, the discussion facilitation will be done by some of our stalwart regular attendees — you can see their names under the films — and regular Sex+++ blogging will be taken over by Arvan over at SexGenderBody.com. And even though I’m going, the film series could still use sponsors! Go ahead and email Lisa Junkin at the Hull-House Museum if you can offer any support.
~ Clarisse

.

OFFICIAL FILM LIST

YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO RSVP BY PHONE TO HULL-HOUSE MUSEUM FOR EACH FILM: 312.413.5353. If you RSVP, we’ll save you a seat — and if the venue fills up, you’ll definitely be able to attend! In other words, RSVPs are not required, but they’re in your interest. Please note that we unsave seats at 7PM.

.

JANUARY 27: “Kinsey” (2005)
Assesses famous sexologist Alfred Kinsey’s remarkable achievements, while examining how his personal life shaped his career.
+ Read the followup blog post!

FEBRUARY 10: “Sex Positive” (2008)
Starting in the 1970s, unflinchingly tracks the progress of gay activist Richard Berkowitz as he went from cocky S&M hustler, to angry AIDS activist, to broken but proud harbinger of a message too volatile, scary and true to be heard.
+ Read the followup blog post — including a comment from Berkowitz himself!
+ Read my interview with Richard Berkowitz!

FEBRUARY 24: “When Two Won’t Do” (2002)
Made by a polyamorous filmmaker, this film explores the alternatives — illicit affairs, swinging and polyamory — to a traditional monogamous relationship.
+ Read the followup blog post!

MARCH 10: “BDSM: It’s Not What You Think!” (2008) + “Leather” (1995) + “Cut & Paste” (2007)
#1: Confronts the stigma and stereotypes surrounding kink and fetish play through leading voices within the BDSM community.
#2: Members of the leather community discuss the freedom that surrender can provide, the trust implicit in the activity, and the quasi-religious ritual it can attain.
#3: Personal documentary that explores the historical contexts of race, gender identity and sexual agency.
+ Read the followup blog post!

MARCH 24: “Doin’ It: Sex, Disability & Videotape” (2008) + “Orgasmic Women: 13 Selfloving Divas” (2005)
#1: Tags along on a date between a woman with a disability and her able-bodied boyfriend, exploring their relationship issues over a candle-lit dinner.
#2: A rare gift of intimacy, a spirited sharing of erotic practices and a document of women’s authentic orgasms.
+ Read the followup blog post!

APRIL 14: “Bi The Way” (2008)
Attacks bisexuality from several angles: wondering if anyone is actually equally attracted to both sexes, if bisexuality even means that you’re equally attracted to both sexes, and asking ourselves … is everyone bi?
+ Read the followup blog post!

APRIL 28: “It’s Still Elementary” (2008)
Examines the incredible impact of the 1996 film “It’s Elementary”, which aimed to teach kids about LGBTQ issues. Follows up with teachers and students featured in the first film to see how those lessons changed their lives.
+ Read the followup blog post!

MAY 12: “Private Dicks: Men Exposed” (1999) + “Forever Bottom” (1999)
#1: Interspersed with clips from vintage sex education films and humorous cartoons, men — young and old, gay and straight, large and small, virgin and porn star — offer personal revelations that are honest, humorous and often poignant. Discussion ranges over puberty, power, impotence, circumcision, sexuality, myths and perceptions, growing old, and, of course, size.
#2: A clever look at the stigma attached to being on the receiving end in gay male relationships.
+ Read the followup blog post!

MAY 26: “The Aggressives” (2005)
Butcher than butch, these dykes of color have coined a new term to define their identity: Aggressive. Identifying as women, but looking and acting like men, from their haircuts to their suits to their swaggering behavior, the Aggressives have powerful personalities that buck traditional societal restrictions on women’s roles.
+ Read the followup blog post!

JUNE 9: “Boy I Am” (2006)
A look at the experiences of three young Female-to-Male transpeople addresses the way conversations about trans issues can run into resistance from the many queer women who view transitioning as a “trend” or as an anti-feminist act that taps into male privilege.
+ Read the followup blog post!

JUNE 23: “On The Downlow” (2007)
Creates a portrait of Cleveland’s underground black gay scene including coming out to one’s parents; black homophobia; and the persisting rumor that only gay people spread AIDS.
+ Guest facilitator: Lisa Junkin, Education Coordinator at Hull-House Museum

JULY 14: “Filming Desire” (2000)
Female directors talk about the reality of an explicit women’s point of view, the desire in their films to “fantasize and dream a new image of themselves”, and how their depictions of sexuality and relationships are correctives.
+ Guest facilitator: Aspasia Bonasera, blogger at La Libertine’s Salon

JULY 28: “Hot & Bothered: Feminist Pornography” (2003) + “Bill and Desiree: Love is Timeless” (2008)
#1: A rare and empowering look into the pornography industry and feminist community to see how they intertwine within the politics and poetics of female sexuality.
#2: One of Comstock Films’ award-winning erotic documentary films about real couples having real sex. Bill and Desiree’s story starts in the second half of life: a chance meeting, a powerful attraction, a carnal connection, and a deep, sensual love. Pleasure is ageless, and love is indeed timeless!
+ Guest facilitator: Serpent Libertine, vlogger at Red Light District: Chicago

AUGUST 11: “Liberty In Restraint” (2005)
Profiling the life of fetish photographer Noel Graydon, this film gives Graydon’s perspective on the BDSM community, describes some BDSM practices, and shows how he creates his photographs.
+ Guest facilitator: Balthasaar

AUGUST 25: “Equality U” (2008)
Follows a group of 33 young activists on the Soulforce Equality Ride, a first of its kind, two-month, cross-country tour to confront antigay discrimination policies at 19 conservative religious and military colleges. While most of the young Riders identify as Christian, not all of them do so in the same way, if at all.
+ Guest facilitator: David M.

SEPTEMBER 8: “Yellow for Hermaphrodites: Mani’s Story” (2003)
Intersex activist Mani Bruce Mitchell tells her poignant story of growing up in rural New Zealand. Subjected to genital surgeries at an early age, Mani takes viewers through her life, discussing both the difficult times she considered suicide and her path to healing, reconciliations, and service.
+ Guest facilitator: Ben Graham

SEPTEMBER 22: “Queens of Heart” (2006) + “All Women Are Equal” (1971)
#1: The first psychological study of drag performance, set in the oldest surviving female impersonation club in the United States, shows how the work of drag requires a deep understanding of human psychology.
#2: We see Paula, an early 1970s transperson, fixing her make-up and discussing the difficulty of living as a woman and meeting other transpeople. Offers incredible insights into both the time and Paula’s individual psyche.
+ Guest facilitator: Rae Wright, from the Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health

OCTOBER 13: “We Are Dad” (2005)
Two white HIV-negative gay men have a family of five kids. Four of the kids have AIDS, three are black, two come from a backwater cult in Oregon, and one of the children has been in the middle of one of the most hotly debated issues in this country: gay adoption.
+ Guest facilitator: Steve C.

SEX +++ FILM SERIES
2nd & 4th Tuesdays at 7PM

beginning January 27, 2009

Jane Addams Hull-House Museum
800 South Halsted
312.413.5353
FREE
All are welcome!
Hull-House Museum is wheelchair accessible. To request accessibility accommodations, please call the museum two weeks prior to the event.

This series is supported by …

CHICAGO SPONSORS:
+ Early to Bed Feminist Sex Toys
+ Women and Children First Feminist Bookstore
+ Galleria Domain Two: The Center for Expressive Roleplay
+ Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health
+ Polyamory Weekly Podcast
+ Comstock Films: Real People, Real Life, Real Sex
+ EdenFantasys SexIs Online Magazine
+ We’re seeking more Chicago sponsors — please get in touch if you’re interested!

CHICAGO PARTNERS:
+ Center on Halsted: Chicago’s LGBT Community Center
+ Sex Workers Outreach Project, Chicago Chapter
+ SexGenderBody.com
+ Creativefilth.com

FILMMAKERS AND FILM RESOURCES:
+ Picture This Productions
+ Erin Palmquist, filmmaker
+ Seventh Art Releasing
+ Sensory Image Pty, Ltd.
+ Cinema Libre Studio
+ Women Make Movies
+ Sam Feder, filmmaker
+ Beyondmedia Education
+ Regent Releasing
+ Indie Pictures
+ Marianna Beck, filmmaker
+ Comstock Films
+ Becky Goldberg, filmmaker
+ Frameline Distribution
+ Accord Alliance

For more information, contact Clarisse Thorn: clarisse dot thorn at gmail dot com.

January 11, 2009

Lawrence of Arabia: heavy masochist

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — Clarisse @ 11:12 pm

During a recent volunteer day up at the Leather Archives, I organized the file on T. E. Lawrence (a.k.a. Lawrence of Arabia). Did you know that Lawrence — a famous early 1900s British war hero — was deeply, unmistakably, provably a sexual masochist? Now you do.

There were a couple of in-depth magazine articles included in the file. One, authored by Jack Ricardo, was published in the July 1990 issue of “Stallion”. The other, by Joseph W. Bean, was printed in “The Advocate” on April 11, 1989.

Excerpt from Bean’s article:

In his years at Oxford (1907-1911), Lawrence may have had no actual sex life. Vyvyan Richards, a Welsh undergraduate who was very much in love with Lawrence and shared a great deal with him in other ways, believed “that he was sexless”. His sexuality was either so covert as to go unnoticed or consisted entirely of the vicarious satisfactions found in homoerotic literature.

… Anyone rash enough to accuse Lawrence of heterosexuality does so without the slightest trace of evidence. By the same token, anyone who denies that Lawrence was homosexual and a masochist does so by ignoring not only evidence but Lawrence himself.

… [Apparently a bunch of documents related to Lawrence's sexuality became widely available in 1968, including some personal stuff that had been held by his family.] There was, as it turns out, an actual conspiracy of silence about the parts of Lawrence’s life that, if they became known … “only … would benefit … the owners of the juicy Sunday papers” [in the words of old friend Mrs. Shaw]. … The new pieces of the Lawrence puzzle primarily filled in the years back in England, after his Arabian adventures. This final period turned out to be the strangest and suddenly the best-documented phase of Lawrence’s sex life. For a time he was attending flagellation parties — sexual but not strictly homosexual — arranged by a man called Bluebeard. When these parties came to the attention of the authorities, Lawrence risked his reputation by attempting to defend Bluebeard. He was unable to help.

Then, from the early 1920s until his death in 1935, Lawrence had at least four (and very likely other) younger men employed to beat him with birches, canes made of twisted twigs. [John] Bruce performed in this capacity for Lawrence for more than ten years, always under the impression that an older relative of Lawrence’s was ordering the beatings and requiring written descriptions of them. Bruce wrote out the descriptions and gave them to Lawrence, supposedly to be delivered to the “Old Man”. It isn’t hard to guess what purpose the detailed letters actually served, since Lawrence had no relative to deliver them to. [Bruce went to the "London Sunday Times" with this story in 1968, and the physical letters were found later by a researcher named Desmond Stewart.]

… [Dr. John E. Mack notes in some psychoanalytic essays about Lawrence that] Lawrence “required the beatings to be severe enough to produce a seminal emission.”

… [in a later account, the writer Maugham met] a sergeant who, when he was a lance corporal, had been invited to drink with Lawrence. The sergeant gave a detailed description of his night with Lawrence in an attempt to seduce Maugham. In Maugham’s Escape, the retelling ends by saying that Lawrence “then persuaded the lance corporal to whip him and then to penetrate him.”

… With his experiences at Bluebeard’s parties, Lawrence knew that his sexual tastes were not unique. For him, though, sex — even the most brutal SM scenes — was never just sex. Sex and masochism were both parts of a spiritual quest with Lawrence, parts of an endless straining toward balance, which he called “my way”.

“I long for people to look down on me and despise me,” he explains to Mrs. Shaw, probably never aware of the ancient tradition of truth-seeking masochism he had entered. “I’m too shy,” Lawrence explains, “to take the filthy steps which would publicly shame me.” … Less than 18 months before his death, Lawrence wrote to Mrs. Shaw, saying that he was ready to write Confessions of Faith. It was to be a complete account of his degradation “beginning at the cloaca [public lavatory] at Covent Garden” and including his last military experiences. In what is a very uncharacteristic burst of optimism, he explains that the book will take a long time to write but that it will encompass human “entry into the reserved element, ‘as lords are expected, yet with a silent joy in our arrival.’”

But before Confessions could be written, Lawrence died … the unfinished manuscript of Confessions is permanently lost.

At Lawrence’s funeral, Winston Churchill cried openly and said of him, “He was one of the greatest beings of our time … whatever our need, we shall never see his likes again.”

January 8, 2009

“Vanilla”: dissection of a term

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — Clarisse @ 11:58 pm

One of my favorite people, who happens to be relatively vanilla, asked me to write a post on the term. Who am I to refuse?

On the most basic level, “vanilla” is just a word the BDSM community uses to designate “people who are not into BDSM”, or “sex acts that are not BDSM-related”. For me, when I use the term “vanilla”, I don’t feel like I’m insulting “vanilla people”. They’re vanilla; I’m not. Some people are gay; I’m not. We’re all friends here. … Which makes me feel a little puzzled, when some vanilla people feel bothered by the designation “vanilla”.

It gets a little more complicated when we consider the cultural connotations of “vanilla”, though. (Not to mention what happens when we start thinking about whether “vanilla vs. non” is a black-and-white thing, or whether there’s more of a continuum there.)

Let’s start with something most of us agree on: vanilla is delicious! It is a layered, complex and interesting flavor that can be used in many exciting ways. But, while there are lots of awesome things about vanilla, most people also agree that it’s not as awesome as richer/more exotic flavors (particularly the perennial favorite: chocolate!). Think about the way we talk about “plain vanilla” … it wouldn’t be “plain” if vanilla weren’t considered boring, expected, dull. The major cultural connotation of “vanilla” is “not as good as chocolate”.

So … if BDSMers refer to non-BDSMers as “vanilla” … does that mean we’re looking down on their sexuality? That we’re saying it’s “not as good”?

I’ve tried thinking about this from the vantages of other alternative sexualities. For instance, if “straight” weren’t such an established term — if it weren’t a word that I’d grown up using — I think I might feel slightly miffed that it’s the word for non-LGBTQ folks. I mean, I may primarily be interested in having sex with men, but must the word for that be “straight”? Am I “straight”? Is all of my beautiful unique snowflake personality a “straight” one? … How boring!

Obviously “straight” is only a descriptor of my sexual preferences and not my entire personality. But that’s not necessarily how it feels when I hear it. And from that perspective, it’s somewhat understandable that some vanilla people feel insulted when called “vanilla”. No one wants to be “not as good as chocolate”!

I don’t think vanilla people would find it insulting when I call them “vanilla”, if they perceived the term to be an expression of neutral preferences. Vanilla people who feel insulted by the term must feel insulted, not because they think I’m describing an unimportant difference, but because they feel that I’m saying something about them. Perhaps this points to an issue about how we think about sexual preference: perhaps we consider sexual preference as defining a lot about a given person. We probably shouldn’t. I don’t think that most people’s in-bed preferences actually correlate highly to other specific personality traits.

This also points to some larger issues. Specifically: this highlights the way that non-”alternative” sex — sex that isn’t BDSM, queer, multiple partners, etc. — is perceived by some as being boring and limited and “plain” by default. That sucks, because there are lots of fun things you can do with straight, vanilla, one-on-one monogamous sex! Straight, vanilla, one-on-one monogamous sex should not be seen as boring and limited by default!

Part of the problem is that non-alternative sex has not been forced to develop the same kind of self-consciousness, ingenuity, negotiation techniques, etc. that other types of sex require and facilitate. We all know that American culture too often shames its members into being unwilling to discuss or acknowledge their sexual needs. But even the liberal subcultures that teach kids to think that sex is a beautiful thing still don’t teach them how to talk to their partner or determine their needs — which means that even kids raised in sex-positive households often find themselves floundering and confused once they actually start having sex.

The only places that provide guidelines for those things are the sexual outlaw subcultures — because we’ve had to develop them. BDSM, for example, has been forced to invent very specific sexual negotiation tactics because if we don’t carefully work out our interactions, we end up violently assaulting our partners. That is, we’ve developed very careful communication practices because if we fail at sexually communicating, the consequences are arguably more serious than they would be for other sexualities. The BDSM community has an entire vocabulary — words like “kink”* and “squick”**, for instance — developed to help us parse our sexual experiences. Within the BDSM subculture, you can frequently find actual workshops or lectures to teach negotiating sexual preferences. You don’t find words or workshops like that in the “normal world”.

I’ve been reading a really great anthology called Pomosexuals; it’s a little old by now (1997), but so much of the commentary in there remains smart and important. It includes Pat Califia’s essay “Identity Sedition and Pornography”, and writing this post brought the following quotation to mind:

::::::::::
Straight people blithely assume it’s their prerogative to write about us [queer people]; but we know a lot more about them than they know about us. We came out of them. Most of us made a rather extensive study of heterosexuality before leaving it behind. Even after we come out, we have to be experts in straight presumption, ignorance, and frailty in order to survive.

… We are not the only group of people dealing with a heritage of sexual shame and repression. Heterosexuals really need our help and inspiration, and I wish they’d admit it.
::::::::::

Moral of the story: No one should look down on vanilla people for being vanilla. Nor should anyone think vanilla sex is automatically “plain” or “boring”. Conversely, vanilla people would do well to understand that they have a lot to learn from BDSM ideas about sexual communication (and from other sexual subcultures, on other relationship topics).

We’re stuck with the word “vanilla” now, along with all its connotations. It would be annoying and probably impossible to invent a different word for “people who aren’t into BDSM”. But, hey — we’ve reclaimed so many other terms in this modern era … why not reclaim “vanilla”? Let’s make “vanilla” mean “delicious, complex, layered and interesting”, rather than “plain”!

(As a side note, one interesting thing that my vanilla friend pointed out is this: “I feel like we should have learned by now that all these things occur on a spectrum. Maybe I’m not gay but I am queer. Maybe I’m into handcuffs and blindfolds but nothing else. Maybe there needs to be language to describe that spectrum rather than trying to draw a line in the sand. My sense is that the grey area is vast. Embracing it could be a useful strategy.”

There’s a term, “french vanilla”, that BDSMers sometimes use to indicate people who are “kind of into BDSM, but not heavily into it”. It’s cute, but I don’t ultimately find this term very helpful, and here’s why: as soon as you start talking to BDSMers about their BDSM preferences, you quickly find that they are more into some things than others — and that there are many BDSM acts they just aren’t interested in.

Usually, I think about this in terms of “sliders”. On the most basic level, I envision several BDSM sliders: a Bondage slider, a Dominance slider, a Submission slider, a Sadism slider, and a Masochism slider. Frequently, these sliders overlap — for instance, many people with a high Masochism slider have a high Submission slider. You can get even more complicated and talk about the specific acts that people enjoy or dislike, but I tend to find that those sliders are a good place to start.

So basically, if we’re going to complexify the conversation by talking about the BDSM spectrum, then I think we might as well go straight for the sliders, and skip vague terms like “french vanilla”.

… I just had a startling thought. Arguably … what we’re actually describing, when we talk about “vanilla people” vs. “BDSM people”, is more about the way people think about these acts — how formally people articulate these acts — and less about how much, or how heavily, people actually do them. But this post has already gotten quite long, so I’ll have to explore that idea another day.)

* “Kink” = “a specific sexual preference”. For instance, if I like whipping people, then you could say that I have a kink for whipping people.
** “Squick” = “a non-judgmental dislike of a certain sexual act”. For instance, if I feel really bothered by the idea of someone whipping someone else, then you could say that I am squicked by whipping.

January 5, 2009

Upcoming kink events and publications

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — Clarisse @ 12:33 am

I’ll post more about these as the specific times approach –
Awesome upcoming kink events:

Ongoing: Threat Level Queer Shorts, Chicago
A sex-positive series of queer shorts — explicitly kink-friendly. I heard about these folks while researching the Chicago queer film scene, since I’m curating a new sex-positive documentary film series myself (more on that soon!). I hope to share audience with them and promote each other’s work!

February: CineKink, New York City
“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 moral climate, as long as it involves consenting adults, just about anything celebrating sex as a right of self expression is fair game. (Far be it from us to define “kink” — if you think your work might make sense in this context, please send it along!)” With luck, I’ll be able to catch the tail end of CineKink on my next New York visit.

March: KinkForAll, New York City
Based on the quasi-anarchist, user-generated, very flexible BarCamp conference model, KinkForAlls are intended to be — well — quasi-anarchist, user-generated, very flexible sex-positive conferences. The idea is that they’ll hopefully start popping up all over the country … and be open to all orientations and kinks, not just BDSMers! I heard about this from BDSM blogger Maymay while emailing around the New York scene, last time I was in that fine city; I’ll most likely present on a variety of topics at the event in March.

May: Bash Back! Radical Queer Convergence, Chicago
A weekend of debauchery, mischief, workshops, games and more! I met a member of Bash Back through my friend Sex, Art and Politics, and they’ve got a lot of interesting things to say. There’s a chance that I won’t be around in May, but I really hope to be here to attend Convergence! If I am, I’ll probably run a BDSM Outreach workshop and sit on a BDSM discussion panel.

And I’ll post more about these as I read them –
Awesome upcoming kink publications:

Ongoing: Bound to Struggle Zine — Where Kink and Radical Politics Meet
“Does radical politics inform how you do kink? Has kink taught you ways to be a better activist or political thinker? Can the non-physical mechanics of kink (notions of consent, etc.) effect the nitty-gritty mechanics of an action bloc or campaign fight? Do conscientious ideas of environmentalism, anti-sexism, racism, able-ism, classism, gender-ism, etc. figure into the negotiating process of your scenes or relationships? How do you talk about power? Where do these ideas meet action and how do they affect our lives?” Editor Simon Strikeback is one of the great people who run Threat Level Queer Shorts! I’m hoping to contribute to future issues.

Available Now: Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape
I just found out that my new friend Hazel/Cedar has an essay in this anthology, and I’m a little starstruck — the book just looks so fantastic! Just one example of the coolness therein was recently linked by Sex, Art and Politics: a wonderful (very basic, very clear) essay on feminism and BDSM, which will probably feature heavily in one or two of my own later blog entries.

Older Posts »

Blog at WordPress.com.