Slut Day

Today is the first Saturday of August - that means it's Slut Day! So be sure to don your sluttiest outfit, and walk the streets! Or, if you don't have the courage, you can still celebrate by throwing a Slutty Party and inviting all your friends to dress in their sluttiest clothes (tip: private homes can have more lax dress codes than public locations!).

Not a slut? That's okay! You don't have to be a slut to enjoy Slut Day, and participating in Slut Day does not mean you are a slut. Slut Day is an opportunity for everyone to get in touch with their inner slut. And the more people that participate, the better we can stand up and fight the culture of slut-shaming!

Slut Day is not officially affiliated with SlutWalk, but it does share with it a common ethos: namely, to raise awareness of the fact that a person's manner of dress does not dictate their sexual behaviors, and also that a person does not give up their dignity, respect, and humanity by choosing to express their sexual agency.

So this is it! Whether you just want to wear that slutty outfit you never had the guts to leave the house in before, or you're looking for an excuse to flirt up a storm, this is your day. But please remember, if you do engage in any promiscuous behaviors - like every other day of the year - be safe! And if you bump into some-sexy-body, remember to treat them like a human being and honor their consent (or lack thereof)!

Echo Chamber

I'm still reading lots of more and less fascinating articles at The Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality. Here is a quote from one such paper about fidelity and sexual ethics. Some of the author's conclusions are a bit conservative for my tastes, but it is otherwise a good read. And he argues masterfully the absurdity of the dominant view of sex as an activity whose primary purpose is procreation. Allow me to paraphrase for impact and clarity:

"The sex life of a typical person involves thousands of erotic episodes (including masturbation), frequently leading to orgasm. Of these, it would be very unusual if more than half a dozen of these events were reproductive. Thus, the notion that human sexuality is to be explained by its reproductive function is simply based on an ignorance of human sexuality."

I really liked this review of the book America's War on Sex, which clearly articulates the problems America has with sex, and exactly the reason I am so frustrated with the American view of sexuality. We are positively obsessed with sex (as is the human condition), but as an erotophile, this doesn't comfort me, because our attitudes toward sex are so poisoned by shame and hypocrisy. You're not actually allowed to enjoy sex, you just indulge in it (because you can't help yourself), and are then supposed to feel bad about it afterward.

On that note, here's a brief discussion of sex-positivity, by Charlie Glickman. Also, in Glickman's dissertation on Sex and Shame: Authenticity in Adult Education (which is very long, and has more to say about adult education than sexual shame), he touches on Rubin's five ideas that feed into the social construct of sexual shame, that are so exciting, I have to introduce you to them here:

(These are discussed, with citations, in Chapter 5 of Glickman's dissertation).

1. "Sex-negativity is the assumption that sex is inherently degrading and sinful. While it may be redeemed through procreation, ideally without pleasure, sex is still damaging. This concept rests in part on the belief that the sexual organs are less holy than the heart and mind, much less the soul, and in part on the belief that anything that involves them is guilty until proven innocent. As Rubin points out, 'such notions have by now acquired a life of their own and no longer depend solely on religion for their perseverance.'"

Simply put, the pursuit of sexual pleasure is either viewed as a sin (if you're religious), or a vice (if you're not). It's not socially acceptable to view it as a virtue, much less an activity with divine significance.

2. "The fallacy of misplaced scale is a corollary of sex-negativity. When transgressions of sex 'standards' and laws are considered as deserving particularly harsh punishments, sexual acts become burdened with an excess of significance. Not only are many consensual sexual acts punishable as felonies in the United States, but outside legal contexts, differences in sexuality frequently provoke anxiety, fear and rage to a degree that differences in diet, hobbies or clothing do not."

This is quite vividly expressed by the attitude that sex is "different", not to be treated like other aspects of human experience, and specifically to be considered more grave and serious than other activities. It's the reason sex offenses carry more stigma than murder, and why gay people get disowned by their parents more frequently than vegetarians.

3. "The hierarchical system of sexual value refers to the pyramid of possible sexual acts in which married, reproductive heterosexuals are given erotic privilege. People who engage in non-reproductive sex, are unmarried, or deviate from this standard in any other way occupy lower positions. The closer one is to the apex, the more one is rewarded as mentally healthy, and given respectability, legality, physical and social mobility, material benefits and institutional support."

Inevitably, when you mention sex-negativity, you'll get some people claiming to view sex in a positive light, but with the caveat that only certain kinds of sex are good (like, straight, married sex). This absolutely feeds into a system of discrimination against sexual minorities and those who practice alternative sexual lifestyles.

4. "As a result of these tenets, United States society also believes in a domino theory of sexual peril. Only through constant vigilance can one climb up the pyramid of sexual value, much less remain at the peak. Any deviation from allowable sex can cause one to slide down to the unregenerate depths."

On the topic of the "slippery slope" argument, have you heard the one about the man who starts watching porn on the internet, only to become utterly addicted to the point of completely ignoring his wife, resulting in their divorce, who then seeks out more and more extreme erotic stimuli to satisfy his perverse hunger, until he finally gets arrested for soliciting a minor for sexual activities involving handcuffs, a leather whip, and a dog?

5. "The last facet of United States sexual beliefs that Rubin traces is the lack of a concept of benign sexual variation. As she describes, 'most people find it difficult to grasp that whatever they like to do sexually will be thoroughly repulsive to someone else, and that whatever repels them sexually will be the most treasured delight of someone, somewhere.' Further, United States society 'discriminates against diversity' in general and with respect to sexual diversity in particular."

Along with sex-negativity, I think this is the most important of the five concepts. We insist upon this model of sexual normality, to the point that any variation is viewed as an undesirable aberration, and frequently a mental illness. Seriously, why can't we just accept that different people have different tastes in sex and leave it at that?

Fantasy vs. Desire

I was having a bit of a daydream that turned into an erotic fantasy - one that I'd just as soon not relate - and, due to the nature of the fantasy, I got to thinking about the implications of a person being turned on by really naughty thoughts. And when I say "naughty", I do not simply mean sexual in nature - I mean bad, even downright evil.

Surely, the kink community is familiar with this subject, as the realm of BDSM is more or less characterized by people who get turned on by rather nasty things - like, just as one example, tying someone up and whipping them to the point of bleeding, all the while delighting in their screams. I mean, this is an act that is generally considered atrocious (outside the realm of sexual fantasy and roleplay), and all the more so if the perpetrator is perceived to derive a sexual pleasure from such an act of sadism.

I'm not so much concerned, as the conservative majority is, about the ethical implications of having these sexual turn-ons, as I have enough experience and intelligence to understand that a sexual desire to hurt someone, for example, does not automatically equate to a pattern of antisocial behavior towards others; and that there are, to employ an over-used phrase, safe, sane, and consensual ways to satisfy those kinds of sexual desires.

Personally, I'm not that kinky in my actual sex life. Hurting someone is about the quickest way for me to lose my boner (even if they asked for it). But fantasies are a different story. There are certain things - certain subjects - that are so delinquent and debauched, that I can't help perceiving in them a strong erotic impulse. They are not things I would ever do or condone in reality, and yet, the concept of them is erotically captivating. I liken it to the pure Sadean philosophy of being turned on by something because it's just so wrong. And that is a feeling I can relate to.

But that's also why I think it's important to make a distinction between fantasies and desires. A desire is something you want to do. A fantasy is something that turns you on. I think in mainstream culture, most people are familiar with the sort of innocuous sexual fantasies like "having sex with twins". In reality, I don't think that every guy with that fantasy would go through with it, presented with the opportunity (like how Jerry turned down a threesome in that one episode of Seinfeld).

Nevertheless, there are probably a lot of guys who would - and that's the kind of sexual fantasy that can be easily translated into a real world desire (even though for most people I think it is more of a "wouldn't that be nice" fantasy than a really strong desire, much less one that's required for arousal, as it may be in the case of those in the kink community).

But then there are those other fantasies, that are so twisted that you know they wouldn't be half as enticing if enacted in reality - precisely because of those real-world considerations (read: consequences) that often get glossed over in the idealized world of fantasy. And I think that's nowhere as true as it is in the case of these despotic fantasies that are so exciting precisely because they're so terribly wrong.

And, maybe, ultimately, that's what the appeal of the Marquis de Sade's writings largely is. It's not that I think that locking someone up in chains and feeding them human waste is the least bit appealing, nor would I ever be able to live with myself if I actually did something so terrible. But that's the thing, it's just so terribly bad, that taking some kind of perverted pleasure in it is like a great big cognitive "fuck you" to the entire structure of civilization that tries to dictate how you're supposed to act and what you're supposed to believe in. It's a cathartic release. It's equivalent to the Marquis de Sade fucking a whore with a crucifix, in order to try to establish a dialogue with a seemingly non-existent God.

But I've gone off on a bit of a tangent. I worry sometimes what other people would think if they knew that I took some kind of sexual pleasure out of something that most people (myself included) would consider atrocious - outside the context of sexual fantasy (and roleplay). But that's the thing. I understand the difference between fantasies - being turned on by ideas - and desires - wanting to actually do things in real life. I'm not sure that everyone else does, though.

I Am A Perv, Not A Slut

Are you sexually liberated? Sexual liberation does not mean doing things you don't like to do, just to prove that you're "willing" to do them. But it does involve keeping an open mind about sex, and being tolerant of other people's sexual practices, even when they differ from your own.

As a sexually liberated individual, you can imagine that I am very frustrated living in the current, sexually repressive climate. But contrary to what some would assume, even in my ideal fantasy world, promiscuity would not be particularly rampant. Most people would (still?) have most (though not necessarily all) of their sex within the context of committed relationships (or, potentially, committed friendships). But, people would be a lot more open about sex. There would be no stigma about others seeing you naked, and couples (or larger groups - committed relationships needn't be monogamous) would regularly have sex within public view*, or unselfconsciously share their intimate moments in a voyeuristic/exhibitionist capacity through pictures and videos.

*Keeping in line with the theme of non-promiscuity, others would respect the personal space of the "performers", for lack of a better term, instead of trying to insinuate themselves into the sex act. (I just have this image in my head of the stereotypical "cruiser", who thinks that if a person is liberated enough to have sex in public, then they must not care who joins in - which I don't understand, beyond a blind self-serving desire to get what one wants, disregarding the others' comfort and wishes. It's a lot like the victim-blaming mentality, that insists that if a girl puts our for some guys, or flirts and wears sexy clothes in public, then she's open game for your sexual advances).

Obviously, this all reflects my own personal interests, and would not be an ideal world for others not like me. But, I think it brings up an interesting point. I consider myself to be perverted, and sexually liberated beyond the norm that is expected of people. Yet, I have less sex, and probably safer sex than many who are labeled average.

For example, a guy can have unprotected sex and "knock up" his teenage girlfriend, and while he may indeed be chastised by his peers (or at least elders), he's still pretty much viewed as being normal, with a normal sexual appetite (just, perhaps, a lack of responsibility). Meanwhile, if I engage in "weird" sexual practices, like allowing anonymous strangers to watch me masturbate on the internet, I am viewed as a deviant, in spite of how responsibly I may engage in those practices.

This situation is illustrated perfectly by a scene I viewed on an episode of Girls Gone Wild. The cameraman follows a party girl back to her hotel room where she expresses mild jealousy about the guys the two girls she's staying with have been hooking up with. Then she permits herself to be coaxed (with very little pressure required) to strip naked and masturbate to orgasm, on camera.

It would not be a stretch for me to imagine the ridicule she might have received from her two promiscuous friends, if they found out (despite masturbation being an intrinsically less risky act than having sex with another person). I could also easily imagine them being the type who might, at most (and only with adequate pressure), flash the camera, but would otherwise scoff at the suggestion of getting naked and masturbating in front of it, so that countless strangers could watch it later.

It seems to me that breaking the 'privacy' taboo is more serious than being promiscuous. That is to say that whatever shit gets tossed around about sluts, pervs get it even worse. Personally, I'd rather value the responsible pursuit of sexual pleasure over the perceived 'normalness' of others' sexual practices. But I guess not everybody thinks that way.

Feminism's Response to Pornography

(This post, like the last one, is in response to another article linked in The Electric Journal of Human Sexuality).

For Goddess' sake, please explain to me how this image promotes violence against women.

Here's the problem with the feminist argument against pornography. Feminists complain that pornography is misogynistic. I think we can agree that misogyny is a bad thing. But in attacking pornography, they are essentially stating that all pornography is misogynistic - that pornography is in some way intrinsically linked to violence against women.

Certainly, some - possibly even a majority - of pornography is misogynistic. And fighting to reduce misogyny in porn is a noble cause. But you'll notice that this isn't a stance against pornography - it's a stance against misogyny in pornography. If misogyny were the problem, then anti-porn feminists would actually support pornography - provided it's of the non-misogynistic variety.

But no, you don't see that among the anti-porn crusade (which is not the same group as the sex-positive feminists who argue for better porn), they're too busy telling you why pornography - the entire form of speech which involves graphical depictions of sexual activity - is harmful to society (and women especially) and should be banned and censored.

That's like saying comedy should be criminalized because some of it is racist. Certainly, some comedy is racist - and there are arguments to be had about whether or not such comedy deserves to be protected under the freedom of speech. Regardless, labeling all comedy on the whole as racist and calling for its elimination could quite rightly be called insane.

And it's such an ingrained cultural idea that it's to the point where even non-"radical feminists" support this view. There is at least one art photographer whom I otherwise respect and admire, who takes nude portraits of women, who has publicly defined "pornography" as a form of "violence".

Quite frankly, I have taken photographs that most people - myself included - would describe as pornographic, and for you to suggest to me that those shots indicate a representation and defense of violence is extremely offensive to me, on the same level of offense Olympia Nelson rightly expressed when Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd described a nude photo of her as being "revolting".

I understand that nudity and sexuality are separate issues; I'm asking you to respect the fact that sexuality and violence are separate issues as well. And although - like nudity and sexuality - they can be combined, they are not equivalent. A graphical depiction of sexuality is no more intrinsically violent than a graphical depiction of nudity is intrinsically sexual (and I might even argue less so).

Let me make it simple: I will not concede any ground to anyone who's stance is in opposition to pornography on the whole, as an entire genre of speech. We can argue about types of pornography and things that are depicted within pornography, but if you're against pornography altogether, then your position will receive very little sympathy from me.

And, whatever you might say about semantics, there are actually a lot of people who seem to be of this position in the world. If it's a matter of poor phrasing, and using the term "pornography" when you really mean a specific kind of pornography, then it's really not unreasonable for me to ask you to redefine your stance to the point that you're actually saying what you mean, and really meaning what you say, before we can come to any kind of a common ground. That's not only fair, but extremely important in debates.

I am a pornographer. I am also a feminist (although I don't advertise it so much because the term has become so muddied and watered down as to become worse than meaningless). I am sensitive and I care about the tolerance of minorities (minorities that do not make up 50% of the human population).

And that is exactly why I will not concede any ground to anyone who is so insensitive as to criticize anyone who considers themself a pornographer or a defender of pornography, that is NOT part of the grand misogynist patriarchy these feminists rail against.

(For more on this topic, do check out my list of 5 Myths About Porn).

A Brief Guide to Slut-Shaming

Following is an example of the proper application of slut-shaming, in its purest sense:

Girl 1: I got so drunk last night, I don't even remember how many guys banged me!
Girl 2: Is that really something to be proud of?

Now, here's an example of an improper application of slut-shaming:

Girl 1: So last night, my boyfriend and I finally decided we were ready to go all the way.
Girl 2: He hasn't even proposed to you yet. You're such a filthy slut. You disgust me.

Note that Girl 1 is not actually a slut, but she is shamed as one, just because her sexual morals do not live up to an illogical and unreasonable ideal.

Here's an example of an even more inappropriate application:

Girl 1: I accepted a modeling gig for Playboy.
Girl 2: Oh gee, now the entire male half of the world's population can objectify you. Slut.

As in the last example, Girl 1 is being shamed as a slut for not living up to unreasonable standards of modesty. But in this case, she is not even having sex. She's being shamed for letting people look at her body.

This is an example of an absolutely gross misuse of slut-shaming:

Girl 1: I think these shorts will be much cooler in these hot summer temps.
Girl 2: You might as well flash your pussy to every guy that walks past. God, you're such a whore.

Now, Girl 1 is being shamed as a slut for her choice in fashion. But I'm very sorry to report, that it gets even worse.

Here is an example of the worst case scenario of slut-shaming, which is also referred to as victim-blaming:

Girl: I was raped!
Guy: Yeah, well it's your fault. You were asking for it, putting makeup on before you left your house, wearing that dress, being all sexually attractive, having two X chromosomes... I heard what you did with your boyfriend. You had no right refusing to fuck anyone else who wanted it, you big tease. You got what you deserve.

Sexology, Perversion, and Asocial Sexuality

I was browsing the blogs on XTube today - but only briefly, because they consist entirely of uninteresting hookup personals - and I became frustrated, as I so frequently do, that despite so many people having an interest in sex, there are very few people willing to talk intelligently about it. The extent of most people's desire is to find what gets them hot so that they can get off. And then it occurred to me, that you do hear a lot about sex from the anti-sex crowd - the people who don't like to indulge in sex but like instead to talk about how horrible sex is ("the moral decay of modern society", etc.). And there just isn't enough of a voice from the sex-positive crowd - which I attribute at least as much to the sex-indulgers being ashamed of their indulgence than the proud ones being too busy getting off.

Anyway, a thought came to my mind which has come in the past - that I should be a sexologist of some sort. How awesome would it be to have some kind of official degree declaring my interest in sex beyond the obvious, to the level of intellectualism? I'm not really interested in couples therapy or the biology of sexual activity, but sex from a more philosophical and political/sociological perspective. I'm interested in how people think and feel about sex (more so than the actual sex that they have). I'm interested in how we as a society define sex, and how little that conforms to real human sexuality, and the enormous societal problems that causes in terms of how we deal with sexual issues (personally and culturally), as well as what solutions there might be to ameliorate that damage, and help improve the health of our sexual attitudes in the future.

But there's two problems. One, which is not dissimilar to the phenomenon I described above, being that 'sex' is not as frequently treated as a serious issue for study as, say, medicine, or engineering, or what have you. There is what looks to be an awesome school in San Francisco (of course) - the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality - but that brings me to my other problem. I do not live in (or anywhere remotely near) San Francisco, and I don't have the money to go back to school even if I did. Nevertheless, I began digging into their online journal of research, reviews, and such, and I came across this paper titled Constructing Perversions, which deals with the topic of classification of paraphilias in the DSM (a subject of particular interest to me, as it highlights the dysfunction in our current view of what constitutes normative - or, as the author designates it, "normophilic" - sexuality).

I have long been of the suspicion that our understanding of "perversity", particularly in the context of diagnosing mental disorders of a sexual variety (i.e., "paraphilia"), is a symptom of our grossly negligent misunderstanding of human sexuality in the first place. And the paper linked above does an excellent job of arguing that. The author explains how the religious model of non-procreative sex acts as sin has been redefined in our modern, secular world by designating the "purpose" of sex not as procreation but as being for "reciprocal affection". In other words, the point of sexual desire is to bring people together, to facilitate interpersonal bonding. Any sex acts that do not accomplish this goal are deemed non-normative and thus perverse.

This is actually, exactly the topic of an essay I tried to write once before, but never posted because I ended up going off on a massive tangent. It was titled "asocial sexuality". The dominant paradigm of sexual activity is that it serves a social function - to bring people together. Therefore, sex acts that are viewed as being "asocial" (which I do not consider to be the same thing as outright antisocial) are labeled perverse, and viewed in a negative light. Among these are included such popular pastimes as solo masturbation and private porn use. But, I would argue, these activities are not only a healthy part of normal sexuality, but are also invaluable resources for those who struggle with social interaction (as I do), and that stigmatizing such acts only further marginalizes those minorities who are unable to seek out sex in its accepted form - that is, the form of reciprocal affection.

Wow, I just summarized this long, meandering essay I had written in a single paragraph! Anyway, the paper I linked above is a very good read (for better or worse, the middle section goes on about Big Pharma's monopoly and selfish manipulation of our modern understanding of proper mental functioning), that also touches (albeit very briefly) on the possibility that "exhibitionism" may include a wide swath of behaviors beyond the caricature of the indiscriminate flasher (which itself is just one example of the importance of differentiating between people with truly problematic and antisocial sexual hangups, and other people who just have peculiar, but otherwise healthy, sexual appetites) - which I have approached before (here, and here).

God, the things we think we know about human sexuality are so tragically wrong. It truly is an appalling vista. And every time a lone voice of reason chimes out, cutting through all the din of ignorance and dogma, it is shouted down mercilessly. Oh no, you don't dare suggest that maybe pornography could be good for society. Or that prostitution might be seen as a legitimate vocation. And don't even think about re-evaluating what we teach kids about sex. Because we're absolutely addicted to our sexual dysfunction, and we want it to persist through the generations!

You know, it's true what Jim Morrison said. People are attached to their chains. ;-)