If you’re looking for this to be an instructional manual, I suggest you invest in some erotica or learn more about the position and function of the “clitoris”. As a queer female-bodied person, I get a lot of interesting questions – both on Smith campus and off. For instance, last summer while partying at a friend’s house in Virginia I had a long conversation with a boy (he may have been over 18, but this was certainly no man) who drunkenly persisted his view that “lesbians don’t exist”. Oh yeah? Look deeply into my queer fucking face and tell me so.
It has been a common misconception I’ve come up against that women just can’t do sex without a man. In fact, from my personal experience, women have lots of incredible sex together, and very often. For arguments like this, I am not wholly against The L Word because, hell, at least we see some women with sexual agency! (The L Word does have a lot of problematic things about it –that conversation is a whole other post).
A gay male friend in high school used to infuriate me with his invalidations, saying that all lesbian sex could ever amount to was “really good foreplay”. His assumption roots pretty directly out of phallocentrism, or the idea that without a penis, it can’t be sex. This might seem silly, but think about it – most socially accepted concepts of sex involve some form of penetration. Even despite the orgasmic possibilities (and frankly, pleasure based function) of the clitoris, if you walk into a sex shop – even a woman-friendly sex shop – you are most likely going to see a predominance of dildos and other phallic toys.
Yet women can, and often do, have sex often without the participation of some phallic or penetrative object. This is not to say that penetration is something unheard of in queer community, it is just that it is certainly not the only form that stimulation can take. Oral sex, nipple play, and fingering are just a few of the alternatives to penetrative sex. As a female bodied (but not entirely woman-identified) queer person, penetration is more emotionally charged for me than other forms of sex – it is good to know that in order to get off, get close to another body or have a nice relaxing moment with myself, I don’t have to always delve into significantly deeper realms of gender and trust than I might feel comfortable doing at the time.
With this blog post, I just want to make the point that sex is sex. When you look into sexual communities and sexual activities less regulated by popular media, you’ll find that the definition of sex is blurred and less obvious than if you are discussing heterosexual penetrative sex. This might be an issue of value systems being created around the procreative act, but whatever it is, I think it is important to note that any sexual interaction can be seen as sex. As it is usually defined in lesbian community, if you think you are having sex with someone, you are. This means that communication is something that absolutely cannot be overlooked.
I believe that communication is essential no matter what when it comes to sex, so let this post act as a reminder. Whoever your partner is, whatever you happen to be doing together, make sure it is an action of mutual respect and communication, so that they’ll know what you want, when you want it, and what you want from the experience. This mutual respect means accepting what sex is to different people and making sure that both you and your partner are comfortable with the sex you’re having, while also enjoying that sex.
Over and out,
General Lee
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
It takes two: Birth Control Bullshit
I'm back PA for a few weeks before I start my summer internship (which is thankfully back at Smith), and as usual, have a shit ton of doctors' appointments crammed into my time here. Weighing most on my mind is my gyno appointment tomorrow.Don't get me wrong: I love my gyno. She's hilarious, chill, and very professional. Pelvic exams don't bother me, and STD test don't make me bat an eye. But I am getting my Implanon removed tomorrow, and a new one inserted.
Implanon is a fabulous, long-term, and effective form of birth control. It's a matchstick size rod inserted into your upper arm just under the skin; it's hormonal (prevents the release of an egg/thickens your cervical mucus to prevent pregnancy); it lasts three years; and for me at least, was WAY cheaper than the Pill (also had the benefit of not having to remember to take a pill daily at the same time, and saved me the embarrassment of getting my prescription for birth control filled at the pharmacy by an old woman I'd known since the beginning of Girl Scouts). But I'm not here to plug my personal form of birth control (although their website has a nifty chart showing the effectiveness of various forms of birth control: http://www.implanon-usa.com/Consumer/index.asp?C=56846403179342708333).
This fear (cutting open my arm! needles! novacain!) has all got my little brain thinking: why is the onus for preventing unwanted pregnancy on the females? Why is this not something men have to consider, beyond perhaps carrying a condom, or pulling out (NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL YOU FUCKTARDS)? A male birth control pill is in the works, but they haven't figured out how to make it effective without also causing prostate cancer (although the heightened risk for stroke and blood clots for women on the Pill doesn't seem to alarm the pharmaceutical companies as much). Why have I never been asked by a man before copulating if I was protecting myself from pregnancy somehow? Why is birth control often not covered or only partially funded, even by decent private insurance, but Viagra is covered under Medicaid? (my tax dollars are paying for poor old men to have boners? I'm sorry, I'd rather use that money to prevent an unwanted child from coming into this world).
The short answer: the patriarchy and sexism.
The more nuanced answer: We have built a culture around sex that inspires fear in women over pregnancy. While the Pill and other forms of birth control have given women incredible freedom to wait for financial solvency/pursuing their career or dreams before having kids, to space out their children better, or to be sexually active in a hetero way without ever worrying about an unwanted pregnancy, the medical establishment and our culture has also placed the sole responsibility for preventing unwanted pregnancy on females.
I don't think is entirely a bad thing: I don't mind being in control of my body. I do mind that no man I have ever had a relationship with has contributed to my birth control costs; why is this a burden I have to bear? I'm saving your ass from either abortion clinic anxiety or eighteen years of child support payments, not to mention sleepless nights with a crying infant and dealing with my fat pregnant ass, so why am I the only one to front the (sometimes considerable) money to prevent conception?
I reach the same conclusion: Patriarchy. Sexism. Boys will be boys, but that girl best be responsible. I myself have said of young mothers: "she got herself pregnant." But it takes two, fellas, and I'd love to see you step up to the plate, act like men, and split the costs until the male Pill is perfected.
Much love,
The Albright Sheriff
Implanon is a fabulous, long-term, and effective form of birth control. It's a matchstick size rod inserted into your upper arm just under the skin; it's hormonal (prevents the release of an egg/thickens your cervical mucus to prevent pregnancy); it lasts three years; and for me at least, was WAY cheaper than the Pill (also had the benefit of not having to remember to take a pill daily at the same time, and saved me the embarrassment of getting my prescription for birth control filled at the pharmacy by an old woman I'd known since the beginning of Girl Scouts). But I'm not here to plug my personal form of birth control (although their website has a nifty chart showing the effectiveness of various forms of birth control: http://www.implanon-usa.com/Consumer/index.asp?C=56846403179342708333).
This fear (cutting open my arm! needles! novacain!) has all got my little brain thinking: why is the onus for preventing unwanted pregnancy on the females? Why is this not something men have to consider, beyond perhaps carrying a condom, or pulling out (NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL YOU FUCKTARDS)? A male birth control pill is in the works, but they haven't figured out how to make it effective without also causing prostate cancer (although the heightened risk for stroke and blood clots for women on the Pill doesn't seem to alarm the pharmaceutical companies as much). Why have I never been asked by a man before copulating if I was protecting myself from pregnancy somehow? Why is birth control often not covered or only partially funded, even by decent private insurance, but Viagra is covered under Medicaid? (my tax dollars are paying for poor old men to have boners? I'm sorry, I'd rather use that money to prevent an unwanted child from coming into this world).
The short answer: the patriarchy and sexism.
The more nuanced answer: We have built a culture around sex that inspires fear in women over pregnancy. While the Pill and other forms of birth control have given women incredible freedom to wait for financial solvency/pursuing their career or dreams before having kids, to space out their children better, or to be sexually active in a hetero way without ever worrying about an unwanted pregnancy, the medical establishment and our culture has also placed the sole responsibility for preventing unwanted pregnancy on females.
I don't think is entirely a bad thing: I don't mind being in control of my body. I do mind that no man I have ever had a relationship with has contributed to my birth control costs; why is this a burden I have to bear? I'm saving your ass from either abortion clinic anxiety or eighteen years of child support payments, not to mention sleepless nights with a crying infant and dealing with my fat pregnant ass, so why am I the only one to front the (sometimes considerable) money to prevent conception?
I reach the same conclusion: Patriarchy. Sexism. Boys will be boys, but that girl best be responsible. I myself have said of young mothers: "she got herself pregnant." But it takes two, fellas, and I'd love to see you step up to the plate, act like men, and split the costs until the male Pill is perfected.
Much love,
The Albright Sheriff
Who ARE these Albright Sex Fairies?: Lady Lola
Hey everybody! Now that I have posted a few times, I thought that I should introduce myself and my motives for writing on this blog.
Real name: Katie Davis
Smith College Class of 2011
Personal Philosophy about gender: Equal Opportunity Objectifier (as I've mentioned before). The patriarchy exists and yes, we live in a male-dominated society. To change this, I'm aiming for equality which dismantles the patriarchy without replacing it with a matriarchy. Therefore, I don't think that women should run the world while men live underground, used only for purposes of reproduction. Men and women need to mutually acknowledge each other's humanity and not accept situations in which that humanity is denied. I do not ask everyone to embrace my understanding of gender relations, but I do ask people (especially my peers) to think about their surroundings from a gendered perspective. Ask yourself: Why is this girl not wearing pants at a party? Does this wardrobe choice give her empowerment? Or is a tool that she uses to attract male attention that she needs to validate her own self worth?
Why Fornicating Feminists? I decided to write on this blog because I am a fornicating feminist. This semester, I experienced a variety of sexual encounters including a fling, one stands, dates etc. (All of this after ending a two-year relationship). Throughout all of these encounters, I struggled with labeling this sexual behavior. Am I a slut? Whore? Tease? Baller? "The Man?" I thought that people would look at me and think slut, but I don't think of myself as a slut, so why should I let society define me? What tools of society force me into this definition and how? So, I write to share my thoughts and frustrations. I hope that this blog with elicit some discussion and ask people to think.
Lots of Love,
Lady Lola
Real name: Katie Davis
Smith College Class of 2011
Personal Philosophy about gender: Equal Opportunity Objectifier (as I've mentioned before). The patriarchy exists and yes, we live in a male-dominated society. To change this, I'm aiming for equality which dismantles the patriarchy without replacing it with a matriarchy. Therefore, I don't think that women should run the world while men live underground, used only for purposes of reproduction. Men and women need to mutually acknowledge each other's humanity and not accept situations in which that humanity is denied. I do not ask everyone to embrace my understanding of gender relations, but I do ask people (especially my peers) to think about their surroundings from a gendered perspective. Ask yourself: Why is this girl not wearing pants at a party? Does this wardrobe choice give her empowerment? Or is a tool that she uses to attract male attention that she needs to validate her own self worth?
Why Fornicating Feminists? I decided to write on this blog because I am a fornicating feminist. This semester, I experienced a variety of sexual encounters including a fling, one stands, dates etc. (All of this after ending a two-year relationship). Throughout all of these encounters, I struggled with labeling this sexual behavior. Am I a slut? Whore? Tease? Baller? "The Man?" I thought that people would look at me and think slut, but I don't think of myself as a slut, so why should I let society define me? What tools of society force me into this definition and how? So, I write to share my thoughts and frustrations. I hope that this blog with elicit some discussion and ask people to think.
Lots of Love,
Lady Lola
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Let's Talk About Abortion!
I was reading a book last summer called May You Be the Mother of a Hundred Sons: A Journey Among the Women of India by Elisabeth Bumiller (yes, I know I'm an enormous nerd for reading this shit for fun) which was based on her journeys and research in India in the late 1980s. I don't know how much India has changed in recent years and haven't found a plethora of info on the subject on the Interwebz, but I found her discussions and findings on abortion in India particularly interesting.
Abortion in India was legalized in August 1971, a year and half before the U.S. got around to it, and passed with only two hours of debate in Parliament. A woman's right to safe, legal abortion hasn't really come under fire in India as it has in the U.S., and likely passed so easily because of the government's desperate need for another form of family planning in a country whose population was exploding.
Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling, prenatal tests used in the U.S. primarily to screen for possible genetic abnormalities, were commonly used in India in the 1980s only to determine the sex of an unborn child. It's estimated that between the years 1978-1982, approximately 78,000 female fetuses were aborted after the "sex test" was administered (the process has now been formally banned for the use of sex determination).
Some working-class Indians sought out the test because they feared that they would never be able to afford another daughter's dowry (disgustingly, some clinics took advanatage of this fear by offering amniocentesis at low prices and using slogans like "Better 500 rupees now than 500,000 later!"). Some mothers even said they did it because they didn't want to raise a daughter who would face the same hard life they did. Other couples who might've been able to afford another daughter cited the shame that mothers feel for not having a son, for the cultural push to produce that boy. As Bumiller points out, between the years of 1978-1982, a study of a hospital in Bombay by a women's group found that of 8000 women who came in for the sex test, 7999 wanted a son.
Let that sink in for a second.
While I won't impose my Western cultural views on a country I know admittedly little about, I want to address the intellectual mind fuck that this brings up for me.
On the one hand, I deeply believe that all women should be able to end a pregnancy they do not want for whatever reasons they may hold. On the other hand, I am disgusted as a feminist and as a woman and potential mother that doctors allow(ed) and even encourage(d) this practice of elimnating female fetuses based on gender alone. I think it's very telling that this first time I wrote that sentence, I wrote "this practice of killing off female fetuses." I do not usually conceive of abortion (especially in the early stages of pregnancy) as murder, but when it's done for the express reasons of wanting a son based on patriarchal demands, my knee-jerk reaction is that it's almost a slaughter.
Cognitive dissonance much?
A doctor Bumiller interviewed notes that it is better to abort a female fetus than for a couple to abandon their day-old baby girl, and I absolutely agree. But I still have trouble reconciling my feminist ideals of every woman's right to legal, safe abortion with the disturbing sexism in sex-based abortion.
Anyone out there having better luck reconciling these two opposing ideas?
Much love,
The Albright Sheriff
Abortion in India was legalized in August 1971, a year and half before the U.S. got around to it, and passed with only two hours of debate in Parliament. A woman's right to safe, legal abortion hasn't really come under fire in India as it has in the U.S., and likely passed so easily because of the government's desperate need for another form of family planning in a country whose population was exploding.
Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling, prenatal tests used in the U.S. primarily to screen for possible genetic abnormalities, were commonly used in India in the 1980s only to determine the sex of an unborn child. It's estimated that between the years 1978-1982, approximately 78,000 female fetuses were aborted after the "sex test" was administered (the process has now been formally banned for the use of sex determination).
Some working-class Indians sought out the test because they feared that they would never be able to afford another daughter's dowry (disgustingly, some clinics took advanatage of this fear by offering amniocentesis at low prices and using slogans like "Better 500 rupees now than 500,000 later!"). Some mothers even said they did it because they didn't want to raise a daughter who would face the same hard life they did. Other couples who might've been able to afford another daughter cited the shame that mothers feel for not having a son, for the cultural push to produce that boy. As Bumiller points out, between the years of 1978-1982, a study of a hospital in Bombay by a women's group found that of 8000 women who came in for the sex test, 7999 wanted a son.
Let that sink in for a second.
While I won't impose my Western cultural views on a country I know admittedly little about, I want to address the intellectual mind fuck that this brings up for me.
On the one hand, I deeply believe that all women should be able to end a pregnancy they do not want for whatever reasons they may hold. On the other hand, I am disgusted as a feminist and as a woman and potential mother that doctors allow(ed) and even encourage(d) this practice of elimnating female fetuses based on gender alone. I think it's very telling that this first time I wrote that sentence, I wrote "this practice of killing off female fetuses." I do not usually conceive of abortion (especially in the early stages of pregnancy) as murder, but when it's done for the express reasons of wanting a son based on patriarchal demands, my knee-jerk reaction is that it's almost a slaughter.
Cognitive dissonance much?
A doctor Bumiller interviewed notes that it is better to abort a female fetus than for a couple to abandon their day-old baby girl, and I absolutely agree. But I still have trouble reconciling my feminist ideals of every woman's right to legal, safe abortion with the disturbing sexism in sex-based abortion.
Anyone out there having better luck reconciling these two opposing ideas?
Much love,
The Albright Sheriff
The Media.
This title has a scary, ultimate Dark Lord kind of connotation when talking about women’s sexuality and body image, but I’ve been thinking about it a lot in the context of our discussions on things like hip hop/rap lyrics and porn. How bad is it really, and how far-reaching its influences?
I’ve been babysitting an 8 year old girl a lot lately and receiving quite the education in pre-teen pop culture. And I’ve made some disturbing discoveries.
Pre-teen culture is often just teen/early 20s culture. The 8 year old knows the words to Carry Out by Timbaland feat. JT, Rude Boy by Rhianna, and who knows what else. Rude Boy was sung at the Nickelodeon Kid’s Choice Awards this year. I say “sung,” but it was mostly just the beat, since none of the words could actually be spoken in front of the target audience. (Rhianna and Justin Bieber were the featured artists… I leave you with that information.)
Still, this girl sings along to lyrics like “Is it full of myself to want you full of me” or “Come on rude boy, can you get it up .... is you big enough.” The grammar is not the biggest problem with this influence.
Maybe this is hilarious more than harmful, although it’s certainly not desirable. She probably doesn’t actually understand the thinly veiled entendre. The most illicit lyrics I can remember singing along to as a child were “I’m a bitch, I’m a lover,” which has the ultimate message that "you wouldn't want me any other way." Excellent. But perhaps I’m idealizing the influences of my childhood. This isn’t meant to be a “those kids today and their rap music” type of post.
What disturbs me more than the influence of hip hop lyrics produced for an older crowd is the stuff that’s actually supposed to be appropriate for children. For example, the show The Fairly Odd Parents. Anyone who has spent any time with a child in the last 6 years or so has probably seen this; a little boy has fairy god parents, partially to make up for his hilariously stupid biological parents, and wackiness and high jinks ensue.
In one episode we watched, his parents were behaving with their usual obliviousness; his father was distracted by winning a hunk of cheese, while his mother was totally absorbed by the impractical purchasing of beauty items from a home shopping tv show…. On her husband’s company credit card.
Yes, the dad is dumb, but no really dangerous stereotypes are enforced, aside from maybe him being distant and unaware. Smelly cheese is funny. The end. Of course, the mother’s brand of comic folly is based on the obvious fact that women live only to make frivolous purchases with the hard-earned money of their spouses, often to buy products to make them more physically attractive, to have even greater powers of wheedling cash out of men.
We’re an equal or greater presence in the work force but still paid less…. Maybe that’s why we’re supposedly always after your money? I repeat: WE DO NOT ALL WANT YOU TO PUT A RING ON IT. Let’s go back to JLo… her love don’t cost a thing. Let’s run with that message.
This is one case, out of many to choose from (there are moments like this in almost every show she watches) which provides a striking example of the work feminists still have to do (despite the claims by some that the fight is over…. Yeah, just like there’s no more racism in the United States). Very little has changed about the idea that men just have to be rich to feed the material appetites of women, and they can have whomever they want, while women’s value lies entirely in their resemblance to the male ideal of physical femininity, exemplified by everyone from porn stars to “video hos” to actresses to the stars on the Disney Channel. This type of comedy, based on gender stereotypes (the ONLY representations of homosexuality in children’s programs are overly flamboyant gay men who groom dogs or work at the mall) composes one of the main focuses in children’s entertainment today. How are we going to progress if the foundations for misogyny are being fed to the next generation in their Saturday morning cartoons?
Much love,
The Librarian
I’ve been babysitting an 8 year old girl a lot lately and receiving quite the education in pre-teen pop culture. And I’ve made some disturbing discoveries.
Pre-teen culture is often just teen/early 20s culture. The 8 year old knows the words to Carry Out by Timbaland feat. JT, Rude Boy by Rhianna, and who knows what else. Rude Boy was sung at the Nickelodeon Kid’s Choice Awards this year. I say “sung,” but it was mostly just the beat, since none of the words could actually be spoken in front of the target audience. (Rhianna and Justin Bieber were the featured artists… I leave you with that information.)
Still, this girl sings along to lyrics like “Is it full of myself to want you full of me” or “Come on rude boy, can you get it up .... is you big enough.” The grammar is not the biggest problem with this influence.
Maybe this is hilarious more than harmful, although it’s certainly not desirable. She probably doesn’t actually understand the thinly veiled entendre. The most illicit lyrics I can remember singing along to as a child were “I’m a bitch, I’m a lover,” which has the ultimate message that "you wouldn't want me any other way." Excellent. But perhaps I’m idealizing the influences of my childhood. This isn’t meant to be a “those kids today and their rap music” type of post.
What disturbs me more than the influence of hip hop lyrics produced for an older crowd is the stuff that’s actually supposed to be appropriate for children. For example, the show The Fairly Odd Parents. Anyone who has spent any time with a child in the last 6 years or so has probably seen this; a little boy has fairy god parents, partially to make up for his hilariously stupid biological parents, and wackiness and high jinks ensue.
In one episode we watched, his parents were behaving with their usual obliviousness; his father was distracted by winning a hunk of cheese, while his mother was totally absorbed by the impractical purchasing of beauty items from a home shopping tv show…. On her husband’s company credit card.
Yes, the dad is dumb, but no really dangerous stereotypes are enforced, aside from maybe him being distant and unaware. Smelly cheese is funny. The end. Of course, the mother’s brand of comic folly is based on the obvious fact that women live only to make frivolous purchases with the hard-earned money of their spouses, often to buy products to make them more physically attractive, to have even greater powers of wheedling cash out of men.
We’re an equal or greater presence in the work force but still paid less…. Maybe that’s why we’re supposedly always after your money? I repeat: WE DO NOT ALL WANT YOU TO PUT A RING ON IT. Let’s go back to JLo… her love don’t cost a thing. Let’s run with that message.
This is one case, out of many to choose from (there are moments like this in almost every show she watches) which provides a striking example of the work feminists still have to do (despite the claims by some that the fight is over…. Yeah, just like there’s no more racism in the United States). Very little has changed about the idea that men just have to be rich to feed the material appetites of women, and they can have whomever they want, while women’s value lies entirely in their resemblance to the male ideal of physical femininity, exemplified by everyone from porn stars to “video hos” to actresses to the stars on the Disney Channel. This type of comedy, based on gender stereotypes (the ONLY representations of homosexuality in children’s programs are overly flamboyant gay men who groom dogs or work at the mall) composes one of the main focuses in children’s entertainment today. How are we going to progress if the foundations for misogyny are being fed to the next generation in their Saturday morning cartoons?
Much love,
The Librarian
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Miss America?
So, I turned on the tv tonight to Donald Trump annoucing the beginning of the 2010 Miss America Pagent. Like watching a car accident (when you just can't look away), I sat for a few minutes glued to the tv, slightly digusted by what I saw. I have multiple problems with the beauty pagents, but what stuck out tonight was the fact that these women are supposed to represent all American women. Miss America is supposed to all American women and clearly, she does not. All of the women competing were tall, skinny, and looked the same even if they had different skin tones. I was not expecting anything else, but really, Miss America??? Most of my friends are not 5'10" and 120 pounds. Most American women are not that either. In fact, most of my friends are under 5' (which makes sharing clothes super easy!). But could any of us even be Miss America? Also, these women are completely judged on their looks. I bet that most of them are smart with intelligent things to say, but that is not the main focus of the pagent. They introduce each women like a head shot, would it be too much to say her major or some sort of information about her? Maybe they could wear dresses (or pants) that actually covered their ass if they needed to bend over.
I always tell people that I am an equal opportunity objectifier meaning that whatever women are judged on, so should men. There is no MR. AMERICA contest or any major equivalent to the Miss America beauty pagent. People will try and say that this does not affect society but it does. Not only do little girls see "Miss America" and think that they need to be like her but so do little BOYS. Men grow up expecting certain things from women that have been shown to them their entire lives (like sex in porn) and the reality is far from it. All of the various influences (songs, Miss America, magazines, movies, tv shows, school, parents, everything) create a society in which women are valued for their bodies and told that they need to look a certain way to fit in.
Of course, I am oversimplifying. I don't think that women must give up wearing makeup or dressing nice in order to destroy our patriarchal society. Nor are women who do wear makeup or compete in beauty pagents are necessarily ruining our chances to destroy the patriarchy. But as in everything (including my post about hip-hop), I want all of us to think about what these cultural practices are doing to our society; not necessarily to stop the practices, but just to think about them, and acknowledge that these things (hip-hop, beauty pagents, etc) have an effect on everyone.
Lots of love,
Lady Lola
I always tell people that I am an equal opportunity objectifier meaning that whatever women are judged on, so should men. There is no MR. AMERICA contest or any major equivalent to the Miss America beauty pagent. People will try and say that this does not affect society but it does. Not only do little girls see "Miss America" and think that they need to be like her but so do little BOYS. Men grow up expecting certain things from women that have been shown to them their entire lives (like sex in porn) and the reality is far from it. All of the various influences (songs, Miss America, magazines, movies, tv shows, school, parents, everything) create a society in which women are valued for their bodies and told that they need to look a certain way to fit in.
Of course, I am oversimplifying. I don't think that women must give up wearing makeup or dressing nice in order to destroy our patriarchal society. Nor are women who do wear makeup or compete in beauty pagents are necessarily ruining our chances to destroy the patriarchy. But as in everything (including my post about hip-hop), I want all of us to think about what these cultural practices are doing to our society; not necessarily to stop the practices, but just to think about them, and acknowledge that these things (hip-hop, beauty pagents, etc) have an effect on everyone.
Lots of love,
Lady Lola
Even More Porn
I had originally planned on just responding to The Librarian’s post on porn, but found that, as is my wont, I was getting a little long-winded and thought why not do a real post?
I watch porn, not a lot and not terribly often, but I’d wager more than most Smithies, and maybe even most women. I think the reason for this is that porn has for so long been relegated as being something for men, and it is obviously produced for men, and with their pleasure and desires in mind, but I think it’s important to realize that the kind of porn that most people are (first) exposed to: featuring overly-enhanced and made-up women who start to “orgasm” the minute a penis comes anywhere near them, and doing it in positions that not even a contortionist would have sex in, is not the only kind of porn out there. There are other kinds of porn that are readily available and cut very much against this mainstream porn ideal.
Amateur porn, for example, often features couples having real sex and real (or at least less fake) orgasms, in feasible positions, and features a much wider spectrum of people than other porn. For me, personally, it is way hotter to watch a video of two people who are real, with realistic proportions, having sex and enjoying it, or at the very least making me believe they’re enjoying it, than to watch some mainstream porn flick that makes me roll my eyes at the cheesy dialogue and the fact that the sex is mechanical and passionless. Unfortunately, finding this kind of porn takes some poking around on websites, which can be off-putting if you feel clueless as to where to look, or feel awkward about looking at porn at all.
I don’t think that anyone should feel as though they have to watch porn, and it’s certainly not the only way, or even the best way necessarily, to get off. But, by the same token, if women don’t watch or seek out porn that truly appeals to them because they are afraid of a stigma that might be attached to them for doing so, or because they don’t realize that there is more to porn than the mainstream stuff we’re often exposed to, how will porn ever change? Women need to become more vocal consumers if they want porn that is made with them in mind. Some studios have already started to do this, The Albright Sheriff mentioned Femme Productions, but until women are seeking out and promoting the kinds of porn and erotica that appeal to them, which for me, and many others, means not fake (the sex or the people), with real (or better acted) emotions and passions, and that are empowering and not degrading to the female performers, or any of the performers for that matter, this kind of porn will continue to be pushed to the side as the budgets are given to those movies made for a male audience. I don’t think the solution is in condemning mainstream porn completely, or saying that it should be banned entirely. I think the far better approach is to work to change the face of mainstream porn: to make women informed and vocal consumers of porn and erotica, and to demand the kind of porn that they like, whatever that may be, rather than simply take what is out there and think of it as unchangeable.
None of this is to say that I have no love for actual porn stars: I think Sasha Grey is awesome, and have a massive thing for Faye Reagan, both because I wish I were as gorgeous as her and because I seriously want to do her, but, again, neither of these women look at all like the bleach blond, DD-cup, orange-fake-tan porn stars that most people picture. I think the fact that both of these performers are becoming big names in the porn industry (well Sasha Grey has been for a while) shows that the face of mainstream porn is already changing, and that even if you don't like the first film you see, if you look around a bit you can find something that does appeal to you.
Anyway, that’s just my two cents on this topic. Other thoughts?
Love,
Molly St. Marks
I watch porn, not a lot and not terribly often, but I’d wager more than most Smithies, and maybe even most women. I think the reason for this is that porn has for so long been relegated as being something for men, and it is obviously produced for men, and with their pleasure and desires in mind, but I think it’s important to realize that the kind of porn that most people are (first) exposed to: featuring overly-enhanced and made-up women who start to “orgasm” the minute a penis comes anywhere near them, and doing it in positions that not even a contortionist would have sex in, is not the only kind of porn out there. There are other kinds of porn that are readily available and cut very much against this mainstream porn ideal.
Amateur porn, for example, often features couples having real sex and real (or at least less fake) orgasms, in feasible positions, and features a much wider spectrum of people than other porn. For me, personally, it is way hotter to watch a video of two people who are real, with realistic proportions, having sex and enjoying it, or at the very least making me believe they’re enjoying it, than to watch some mainstream porn flick that makes me roll my eyes at the cheesy dialogue and the fact that the sex is mechanical and passionless. Unfortunately, finding this kind of porn takes some poking around on websites, which can be off-putting if you feel clueless as to where to look, or feel awkward about looking at porn at all.
I don’t think that anyone should feel as though they have to watch porn, and it’s certainly not the only way, or even the best way necessarily, to get off. But, by the same token, if women don’t watch or seek out porn that truly appeals to them because they are afraid of a stigma that might be attached to them for doing so, or because they don’t realize that there is more to porn than the mainstream stuff we’re often exposed to, how will porn ever change? Women need to become more vocal consumers if they want porn that is made with them in mind. Some studios have already started to do this, The Albright Sheriff mentioned Femme Productions, but until women are seeking out and promoting the kinds of porn and erotica that appeal to them, which for me, and many others, means not fake (the sex or the people), with real (or better acted) emotions and passions, and that are empowering and not degrading to the female performers, or any of the performers for that matter, this kind of porn will continue to be pushed to the side as the budgets are given to those movies made for a male audience. I don’t think the solution is in condemning mainstream porn completely, or saying that it should be banned entirely. I think the far better approach is to work to change the face of mainstream porn: to make women informed and vocal consumers of porn and erotica, and to demand the kind of porn that they like, whatever that may be, rather than simply take what is out there and think of it as unchangeable.
None of this is to say that I have no love for actual porn stars: I think Sasha Grey is awesome, and have a massive thing for Faye Reagan, both because I wish I were as gorgeous as her and because I seriously want to do her, but, again, neither of these women look at all like the bleach blond, DD-cup, orange-fake-tan porn stars that most people picture. I think the fact that both of these performers are becoming big names in the porn industry (well Sasha Grey has been for a while) shows that the face of mainstream porn is already changing, and that even if you don't like the first film you see, if you look around a bit you can find something that does appeal to you.
Anyway, that’s just my two cents on this topic. Other thoughts?
Love,
Molly St. Marks
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)