Queerness, to me, is about far more than homosexual attraction. It’s about a willingness to see all other taboos broken down. Sure, many of us start on this path when we first feel “same sex” or “same gender” attraction (though what is sex? And what is gender? And does anyone really have the same sex or gender as anyone else?). But queerness doesn’t stop there.
This is a somewhat controversial stance, but to me queer means something completely different than “gay” or “lesbian” or “bisexual.” A queer person is usually someone who has come to a non-binary view of gender, who recognizes the validity of all trans identities, and who, given this understanding of infinite gender possibilities, finds it hard to define their sexuality any longer in a gender-based way. Queer people understand and support non-monogamy even if they do not engage in it themselves. They can grok being asexual or aromantic. (What does sex have to do with love, or love with sex, necessarily?) A queer can view promiscuous (protected) public bathhouse sex with strangers and complete abstinence as equally healthy.
Queers understand that people have different relationships to their bodies. We get what it means to be stone. We know what body dysphoria is about. We understand that not everyone likes to get touched the same way or to get touched at all. We realize that people with disabilities may have different sexual needs, and that people with survivor histories often have sexual triggers. We can negotiate safe and creative ways to be intimate with people with HIV/AIDs and other STIs.
Queers understand the range of power and sensation and the diversity of sexual dynamics. We are tops and bottoms, doms and subs, sadists and masochists and sadomasochists, versatiles and switches. We know what we like and don’t like in bed.
We embrace a wide range of relationship types. We can be partners, lovers, friends with benefits, platonic sweethearts, chosen family. We can have very different dynamics with different people, often all at once. We don’t expect one person to be able to fulfill all our diverse needs, fantasies and ideals indefinitely.
Because our views on relationships, sex, gender, love, bodies, and family are so unconventional, we are of necessity anti-assimilationist. Because under the kyriarchy we suffer, and watch the people we love suffering, we are political. Because we want to survive, we fight. We only want the freedom to be ourselves, love ourselves, love each other, and live together. Because we are routinely denied that, we are pissed.
Queer doesn’t mean “don’t label me,” it means “I am naming myself.” It means “ask me more questions if you’re curious” and in the same breath means “fuck off.”
At least, that is what it means to me.
" -http://tranarchism.com/2011/07/07/what-queerness-means-to-me (via saint-feral)
so much yes to this
(via sexstainability)
Considering the popularity of this book, this kind of discution is not only relevant, but also essential
I’m not really sure if this is the best place to voice these opinions and concerns. And I’m not really sure if it’s my place to be voicing them at all. This whole topic isn’t easy for me to discuss (it’s very personal) but I’ve never been very good at keeping my mouth shut when I think I have a point to make.
So - I’ve found over recent weeks two different hot topics that I’ve been paying attention to have apparently dovetailed.
I’m talking about the Fifty Shades of Grey series, an adapted Twilight- fan fiction which has been published and hit the New York Times Bestsellers list, and what people in the BDSM community have been calling the “Philadelphia Incident”.
To briefly bring those not familiar with either topic up to date; Fifty Shades of Grey is a story that deals with a young, naive virgin who enters into a domination and submission relationship with an older, powerful, controlling man. Eventually she manages to bring out his softer side and the two fall in love.
The “Philadelphia Incident” concerns a younger, inexperienced female submissive who entered into a domination and submission relationship with an older dominant man. Her limits were violated and she was forced to enter into oral sex with the man against her will. Some people in the BDSM community are calling this rape. Some people have suggested that the submissive woman consented. Others have criticised the submissive woman for not fully understanding what she was getting herself into. The young woman has now been run out of her home due to the criticism, publicity and notoriety she has faced.
Hopefully my point is already becoming clear.
In her novels E L James romanticizes the BDSM community, takes elements of ‘play’ out of context and dramatises what many would consider to be extremely unsafe D/s practice. The female in the story enters into ‘scenes’ which she is unsure about, where limits have not been pre-discussed or agreed, and where she is abandoned post-scene on more than one occasion with no after care or conversation about what had happened during the session.
The novel completely ignores elements of safe play that those familiar with the BDSM community would immediately recognise. RACK stands for Risk Aware Consensual Kink. SSC stands for Safe, Sane and Consensual. (Note the repeated word in both anagrams). This topic is completely ignored or glossed over in James’ novels and, considering the reaction they have amassed, this is a concern.
Safe BDSM play can be amazing. I can say this as someone who has both dominated others and submitted to others in a range of situations. It is something that I rarely discuss other than with those in the community for fear of repercussions - BDSM is fairly misunderstood by the wider public. In the right circumstances, with the right forethought, planning, and discussion then there are still hundreds of ways a session can go wrong. I have been mid-session with someone who I love very much, in a safe place, when we were both fully aware of each other’s limits. And I panicked. And ended up vomiting into the toilet and crying into his chest. This was an isolated incident, and we weren’t doing anything particularly risky at the time. But I still panicked. Fortunately my partner was fantastic at releasing me quickly and soothing me afterwards. Even with the best of intentions things can still go very wrong.
Although I have not followed reaction to James’ novel closely, one article I recently read criticising the BDSM elements in the story was met with comments from a reader expressing that the story is fantasy, not unlike the Harry Potter stories or Twilight, and not as a how-to guide of BDSM.
Firstly, thank God this isn’t a how-to guide of BDSM because James clearly has little, if any experience of D/s relationships. Secondly, this point in particular scared me more than any other I read.
If one was to dress in a cloak and wand and pretend to be a wizard, short of poking an eye out there is a limited amount of danger that could occur.
If a young woman with no experience of BDSM was to make her way into the community and play with an older man when she herself was unaware of her own limits, very terrible things can happen, as demonstrated recently in Philadelphia. Comparing Fifty Shades to Harry Potter is simply ludicrous, on many levels. There are many different layers and elements to BDSM, starting at fluffy handcuffs and ending in blood, tears and rape. Someone pretending to be a wizard will not experience these things.
The second point made by the same commenter was that James never intended for the novel to be so popular, it was released for a very small audience only and she was surprised at the reaction it has received. I don’t think this argument holds much weight either. I’m writing this article for the consumption of a very small audience too. I do not expect many people to read or react to it. Does that excuse me from factual accuracy? Not at all. If my article goes viral and thousands of people read it then I am still responsible for the words that I have put out there.
Finally, I want to reiterate that a huge majority of people in the BDSM community recognise our vulnerability (BDSM is actually illegal in the United States - yes, illegal - I’m fortunate to live in the UK) and as such, instances such as the “Philadelphia Incident” are rare. Most people play by the rules of RACK. Most people are responsible for themselves, for their partners, and there is a strong sense of ‘mentoring’ to ensure that newbies to the community are watched and are able to learn from those with more experience. Despite all this, it’s too easy for things to be taken just that one step too far with disastrous results.
I feel like it is my responsibility as one of the people who bridges the gap between the BDSM community and the Fifty Shades readership to speak out against the practices shown in the series. Please, please - if you are a single woman who has read these stories and wants to explore the topics contained therein, do everything you can to not follow in the footsteps of both E L James’ characters and the young girl in Philadelphia. Take your time. Find someone you can trust. Be safe.
(Please feel free to re-blog, re-post, re-tweet, link, copy, plagiarize, do whatever the hell you want with the above. It would be nice if you credited it back to me but in truth, if you want to stick this somewhere else where it might be seen by more people, please, do it. I’m not precious. Spread the word.)
I would like to emphasize this: EVERYONE who is interested in BDSM needs to be safe and responsible and careful. EVERYONE needs to do their research and learn about kink and the kink community before playing. EVERYONE, top or bottom, dominant or submissive, sadist or masochist, AMAB or AFAB needs to do everything they can to ensure both their own safety and the safety of those they play with.
I’m starting a zine about feminism, being body positive, sex positive, and all the shit that comes along with it (i.e. shame and stigma, experiences with misogyny, your own story on how you got to be either a feminist, body, and/or sex positive, etc. etc.) I’m accepting stories, submissions on answering why feminism or being posi is needed and what it means to them, all forms of art, comics, poetry, all forms of creative writing, and so forth. Submissions do not have to include feminism AND being body+sex posi, just one will work if that’s what you want. If you’re interested shoot me an email at rudegennie@yahoo.com or message me on tumblr!
Please spread the word around and reblog!Thanks!!
UPDATE:
I have set the ultimate deadline for August 25th!
I will begin putting the zine together on the afternoon of the 26th and begin to make copies!!!!!
Rushing to lose your virginity is some stupid shit
Do you really just want to fuck some random bitch at a party?
Or some girl you don’t give a fuck about, just so you could say you got your dick wet?
THANK YOU
VIRGINITY IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT AND HIGHLY INTERPRETABLE AND REALLY SHOULD NOT ACTUALLY BE A QUALITY ON WHICH YOU JUDGE SOMEONE’S WORTH SO WHY DON’T YOU GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE AND STOP WORRYING ABOUT ANYONE ELSE’S SEX LIFE OR LACK THEREOF AND DO NOT JUDGE THEM FOR IT PLEASE AND THANK YOU.
That is all.
Great article. It’s a must read.
that’s what bothers me the most about Ariel Levy’s “Female Chauvinist Pigs” - I’m tired of the “how dare we perpetuate the idea that women should dress provocative & seductive.” Fine, I’m all about not forcing people to feel obligated to do anything when it comes to gender expression. But how about instead of throwing a fit that people are becoming sexualized and blaming women who work as sex workers/dress certain ways for oppression - why don’t we focus on the rhetoric that says what someone wears entitles anyone to assume that they deserve to be objectified, harmed and treated as less than human.
Somewhere down the line in our critique of playboy models and video vixens is focusing on shaking out fists at working women and NOT at the fact that people are being told that it is okay to treat someone as less than human for how they are dressed. All we’re doing is buying into the misogynist idea that dressing seductively means you are INVITING someone to assault/mistreat you. No matter what anyone looks like, lets not forget the realities of individual autonomy and personal responsibility - k, thanks?
Yes, I too need to be reminded to check my privilege sometimes. This was a good reminder.
An Asexual Map for Sex Positive Feminism (via fivetail)
This.
I am almost certain that I would not have been sexually abused if I hadn’t been asexual. I wouldn’t have been blindsided by the reality of sexual desire like I was, because I would have experienced it myself. I wouldn’t have been told I was a bad person for not wanting it ever, because I would have been able to say I did want it someday. I wouldn’t have felt abandoned by the people who expected me to have sexual desires when I didn’t, because I would have had them.
The way that asexuality fits into rape culture is incredibly damaging, and no one wants to talk about it because it makes the sexuals angry. If we talk about our experiences, then we’re “belittling” theirs. If we use our words, saying that what happened to us was essentially rape despite being pushed into say ‘yes’, we’re unfair to our partners.
And I am sick of it.
I am sick of sitting here and knowing that people like me are being abused because it’s okay to abuse them, and being told not to talk about their experiences because they’re too freaky to matter.
I don’t fucking care if asexuality is an “invisible” oppression, the invisibility is exactly what hurts us.
(via scar-lip)
Can we just talk about the virgin-whore dichotomy being enacted here? Actually, first we can note the fact that my initial reaction had quite a bit of assumption in it, i.e. that not wearing underwear is an indicator of being a more promiscuous person. Then we can talk about the virgin-whore dichotomy.
I thought it was just a clever spin on an old saying in a vodka advertisement. lol.
So because it’s a clever spin on an old saying in a vodka advertisement, it can’t also be an example of the virgin-whore dichotomy being promoted in our society? Adverts, entertainment, and other forms of media are not created in a vacuum. They reflect the ideas prevalent in society at the time they are made.
Can we just talk about the virgin-whore dichotomy being enacted here? Actually, first we can note the fact that my initial reaction had quite a bit of assumption in it, i.e. that not wearing underwear is an indicator of being a more promiscuous person. Then we can talk about the virgin-whore dichotomy.
Oh look, someone improved the submissions from this slightly creepy blog.
I really shouldn’t have to worry that being sexually fulfilled and open and comfortable about it could cost me my job in the future, and no partner of mine should have to stifle hir words on the subject on my behalf either.
