The Cloud People and the Valley People: a tale of political privilege and structural location

image is from here

Once upon a time there were two groups of people who lived by a very tall and massive mountain. One group lived on it—atop it, and they lived so high up that clouds formed down from their view, filling the sky completely and blocking their sight to the world below the cloud-cover. So regular was this barrier of white moisture in the air that the mountaintop people had no idea anyone else lived in the region and thought the sky was what surrounded them.

But far below them, and below the clouds, and below the mountain's mass, at the base, in a valley, lived another people who only looked up and saw only clouds. Unlike their neighbors to the sky's north, they knew there were people living above the whiteness, but were usually struggling to endure conditions that the “Cloud People” couldn't imagine. They couldn't know because it required knowing what happened to things that disappeared below the cloud-line. Things like their trash, garbage, and human waste. You see, when the cloud people urinated or defecated, it all flowed down the mountainside into the area where the Valley People lived.

The land of the valley was historically naturally rich in life and nutrition, but as the Cloud People's population grew, so too did the amount of waste that went to the base of the mountain. This meant that while the mountaintop's life was not naturally as rich, it became healthier environment simply due to the fact that the waste generated there, that wasn't collected and composted by its producers, spoiled the quality of life for the Valley People, leaving life above healthier by comparison.

The Valley People knew how to compost; they had done this with their own waste products for decades. But the natural resources to do this sustainably were overwhelmed by the waste pouring in from the mountaintop. Quality of life was determined by delicate balance of things naturally generated and those produced by humans. The Cloud People weren't as practiced at maintaining this balance because they never saw what their own waste did to the land, and people, below them. This ignorance was a crucial determinant of their social ethics and environmental practices.

Over the years, ignorance was fueled as the stench and toxicity from above was kept out of the nostrils of the Cloud People by the moisture barrier in the sky. To them, the world was perfect. To the people below, it got increasingly unhealthy.

Out of desperation, it was decided that a representative from the valley would be sent up to negotiate peace with the people above. A middle-aged woman who was known for her physical endurance and wise negotiating skills, was sent with provisions to last her for the days it would take her to rise above the clouds. No one from below had ever done this before, and they couldn't be certain how long the journey would take, so before she left she spend a whole year studying the plant and animal life closer to the clouds, to know what she might eat if she ran out of food. One thing she knew to be wary of: the polluted water running down the mountainside into the rivers and lakes supplying the water to her people. She was hopeful that by the time of her return to the valley, the pollution stream would be a thing of the past.

What she found when she reached the top was something she didn't expect: the Cloud people regarded her as an alien invader. So ignorant were they about life below the cloud line that it never occurred to them people—human beings—lived anywhere else other than where they were. Their language was different from hers but it didn't take long for her to learn it and be conversational. Eventually she got them to accept that she was as much as part of the world as they were. And she welcomed them to send representatives back with her so they could verify what she was telling them about the negative impact of their waste on her people's lives.

They found someone they trusted to report back exactly what was found. A young man was chosen. Before they left together, she got the Cloud people's council to agree that if their own representative reported that their lives were doing the damage that the Valley woman described, they would be more responsible about where their own waste went.

She led the young man down below the cloud line. He was amazed as the valley came into view, growing larger and more detailed as they descended the mountain. But once he'd arrived he was repulsed by the stench in the areas where the Cloud people's waste flowed and pooled. She told him, “If you would recommend to your people that you compost your own waste before sending it down the hill, we'd appreciate it.” He said, “It never occurred to me that anyone was being impacted by our waste!” She said, “I know. And now you do. So please do the responsible, loving thing.”

As he walked among the Valley People, observing their ways, he noted how they were much more aware of all the Life around them, including above the cloud line, and how it effected everything else. He reflected on how the worldview of his people, the Cloud People, only included their own experience—their surroundings, but only as far as their eyes could see. Most of reality, in fact, was hidden from them beyond the clouds. But that didn't mean there was nothing there. He feared he would have a hard time convincing some of his people of this. He worried more that his people wouldn't understand or appreciate that the Valley People's well-being should matter exactly as much as their own.

White Patriarchal Illiteracy and White Radical Feminist Writing: Exposing the Inability to Comprehend and Contextually Analyse Excerpted or Made Up Quotes

image is from here

I have no idea what the tiny writing under the term "Anti-feminism" is referring to, nor why there are badly photoshopped bracelets on the wrist above. I also have little to no idea how Tumblr works or even what it is. Yes, I'm old-school; I just do facebook, twitter, blogger, and email.

Not knowing something is one thing. Making CRAP up as if you believe you know something is quite another. In my direct, interpersonal experience, human adult males are notorious for doing this. We'll answer questions we know nothing about, just because we feel like we should know. And, often enough, we feel like we should know the answers because we feel entitled to act as if we know everything.

I've written a fair amount about the ridicu-list (credit to Anderson Cooper for that term) of quotes being passed around online as if doing so proves a point. The point it proves to me is that white "Educated" men can't read or intelligently analyse text, if the text is written by a white radical feminist. And, apparently, these same white men cannot read anything at all by radical feminists of color.

Below is the content of a Tumblr page I came across. If someone can make sense of who wrote what, please clue me in!! This concerns the list of white feminist quotes making the rounds among white anti-feminists online. Please click on "A Copy Of" just below to link back to the original post... or whatever it's called on Tumblr! I have only a couple of things to add, in brackets and bold.

A Copy Of

I am:
25. Male. Veteran.
interested in:
Guns. Politics. Violence. Civil rights. Compost.

My other blogs:
imperfetk
Hipsters With Guns

Trigger warning for some mention of rape in my commentary -Conquering the Bad Press

stfufauxminists:

feminismfreedomfighters:

Feminism Is a Hate Group

When some of the most prominent feminists and famous women make openly hateful anti-male statements, and the mainstream feminist organizations say and do nothing to distance themselves from such public statements, then it’s clear that the hatred of men has an accepted place in mainstream feminism.

 Does this seem like a harsh assessment of feminism? Perhaps.
Is it true? Absolutely.

One of the main problems with “feminism” is that it exploits the legitimate claims of equal rights as a cloak to usher in its devisive, hateful and neurotic interests. Interests that are plainly anti-male and not at all about equal rights.
For example, here are some quotes from famous feminists.

• “I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” – Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor

• “To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.”  -– Valerie Solanas

• “I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkin

• “Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” — Susan Brownmiller

• “The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men.” — Sharon Stone

• “In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” — Catherine MacKinnon

• “The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart

• “Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” – Catherine Comins

• “All men are rapists and that’s all they are” — Marilyn French

• “Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release.” — Germaine Greer.

The quotations above are from Kelly Mac’s blog. Kelly is ‘a woman against feminism’ because of its anti-male agenda. You can read more of Kelly Mac’s blog at http://awomanagainstfeminism.blogspot.com/

Kelly sums it up nicely:
“If you’re going to say feminism is not a man-hating movement, I’m going to have to insist that you provide links either to sites showing feminists condemning the statements listed above, or feminists telling women to respect men as men.“
http://www.womenagainstmen.com/media/feminism-is-a-hate-group.html
-
While my knee-jerk reaction would be to provide several links (and a free asskicking,) I think this is foremost problem Feminism faces today. Not only does every misandrist with a chip on their shoulder don the mantle of Feminism, but they state such things very publicly without retribution. As much as I dislike this article, I do have to agree with some things. In order to reclaim the term Feminism, I personally think it’s important to start policing these elements within our ranks—or at least actively disassociating ourselves from those that would use Feminism as the hammer and social justice as the anvil to pummel people into a new era of inequality. 

Thoughts? Questions? Comments? Gifs? I’ll start because it’s Tumblr and a necessity.

Let’s make Feminism awesome again.

[There was a video image here that was deleted by me, Julian. And, I'm not sure who wrote what comes next, but aside from not noticing that the C. A. MacKinnon "quote" is not something she ever said or wrote, and that her first name is misspelled, I agree with it.]

Ok I have a problem with this.

By no means do I think that you can conquer anything - be it an oppressive social system or “bad press” - by succumbing to it.

First of all, the post gives ten examples of supposedly man-hating comments coming from ten different supposed feminists. If ten is all that can be dredged up out of about 100 years of a movements existence - hell, even 40 years since they didn’t mention anything about suffragists and the first wave, I’d say that’s a pretty good ratio. 

Let’s take that number and put it up against the amount of woman-hating comments made by the same media that is giving feminists “bad press”. I think that’s something interesting to do. The same media that openly shames victims of rape, that is more interested in reporting on what women politicians wear or what “catfight” they might get into, that body polices women regularly. 

Golly, I’d hate to get “bad press” from an entity like that.

Now, I think that first statement is actually onto something. Really think about it. Why do feminists have to play so much nicer than patriarchy plays with us? Men, who have historically been the group with the most power - at least on the level of gender - cannot handle women hating them? Really? I wonder why that is? Women have handled the brunt of massive societal hatred for years - institutionalized oppression at the hands of men who were in power. And hey, that still continues today, right anti-choice politicians? 

So I guess that every time a woman who calls herself a feminist - or just so happens to be a celebrity! - gets fucking sick of it and makes a statement about men not being wonderful fucking human beings - well they get kicked out of the feminist club, because I mean, I wouldn’t want the patriarchal mass media to get the wrong idea, right? 

Oh and also will people stop holding up Valerie Solanas as some kind of feminist icon? When the fuck did that get started? Oh, right, when people needed a way to discredit feminism - again. 

Oh, and Brownmiller’s statement? Spot-fucking-on. What she said is the truth. She said it was a conscious process. She didn’t say all men were consciously participating in it. However, it is a systematic means of oppression. If it wasn’t, there wouldn’t be massive victim-blaming campaigns that attempt to limit the actions and freedoms of women (don’t go here, don’t drink, don’t walk alone, don’t wear that, don’t leave your house, etc. etc.).

Rape is a tool of oppression, and when men don’t actively fight against its use as that kind of oppressive mechanism they are complicit in it - and indeed, they benefit from it. If they didn’t, there would be no need for its existence in the first place. The benefit is from the continued lack of accountability on the part of men who do rape. Women are constantly in a state of fear, because when a rape culture persists there is no one to trust - and that is oppression. Spot-fucking-on there was nothing man-hating about that and to say otherwise is bullshittery.

Also, Sharon fucking Stone? Really? And did she say that she wanted to hurt men? Fucking christ, context much? I mean really, men have the power to hurt women as it stands - some revel in it (rape jokes, domestic violence jokes, etc. etc.). Oh, but one celebrity who also happens to be a woman makes a statement about simply having the power to hurt men - not even saying she wants to - and that is obvious misandry. Who the fuck are we kidding here? So now it’s bad for women to have power - and that’s feminism?

And Catherine Mackinnon’s quote isn’t man-hating either. It might be anti-sex [Julian's note: it's not anti-sex either; she never said it: see *here* for more], which is a legitimate criticism, but man-hating? Pointing out that women as a class lack power to consent - which is true, our culture has fucked up definitions of consent - is not hating men. 

Oh, and the Marilyn French one I had to look up, because I’ve read her work and it’s not outlandish. Oh look, here’s some context. I’ve not read the entirety of this work, but the entire context of the statement casts doubt on the notion that this statement is outright “man-hating”. Seems to me like more a comment on lived experience.

Also, uh, Germaine Greer’s statement? Definitely need more context there. 

So let’s see…that’s 7 out of 10 that really aren’t that man-hating at all or arguably taken out of context. So now we have 3 statements from 3 people…in a 40 year span. I’ll say again: I’d like to compare that to actions, to laws that were enacted that allowed men to rape their wives. To being barred from voting on the laws one must obey. To being forced into pregnancy due to a combination of un-addressed rape culture and cis men making decisions for uterus bearers. To years of barred access to controlling fertility and reproduction - whether by choosing when you had sex or by choosing what method of birth control you could use. Constant infantalization, objectification. Violence. Continued under representation of women and other marginalized people in media and legitimate positions of power that goes un-addressed - or if someone like Justice Sotomayor gets nominated a culture that wonders whether or not there will ever be more men nominated the highest court which has been 99.99% male for over a century. 

So I wonder why, as feminists, we have to divert our energy to denouncing the few statements of man-hating that might occur within our movement when there is still so much more work to be done to combat the hatred that our culture - and men who support the continued cultural status quo - have for women. 

Fuck the bad press. I don’t want them singing the praises of a lobotomized feminism in between sexist yogurt commercials and The Bachelor.

Fuck. that. I’ll start denouncing man-hating in this movement when men start denouncing woman-hating in this culture.

*          *          *

Julian here. I recommend reading this passage from Marilyn French's book, The Women's Room:

“I asked him how he felt about her now. He thought of her as ultimately desirable, but his memory of her was singed with anger. He had loved her, he had wanted her, and he had done nothing. He was angry with her but angrier with himself. ‘What could you have done?’ ‘I could have raped her.’

“I wasn’t even surprised. This guy was unbearably stiff and boring, impossible correct, Christian, mild, meek all that. But at heart, a rapist.”

“I know all this, I’ve known it always,” Mira said faintly.

“That story – and God knows how many others, how many pieces of history, laws, traditions, customs – everything congealed for me while I walked the streets of Chicago with Chris, watching the men looking at her. And it became an absolute truth for me. Whatever they may be in public life, whatever their relationships with men, in their relations with women, all men are rapists, and that’s all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes.”

Mira’s head lay in her hand. “I have two sons,” she said softly.

“Yes. That’s one way they keep their power. We love our sons. Thank God I don’t have one. It would hold me back.” [Val's] face was fierce.

Mira sat up. “Hold you back?”

“Everything came together. That guy – the minister – and the way Tad treated Chris, the kid who raped her, the lawyers who raped her soul, the courts and the way they treated her, the cops with their guns hanging down and the way they looked at her, and the men on the streets, one after another, looking at her, making remarks. There was no way I could protect her from it, and he way she’s feeling now, no way I can help her to bear it.
“And my mind was wandering, I wasn’t able to control it. I thought about marriage and its laws, about fear of going out at night, fear of traveling, about the conspiracy among men to treat women as inconsequential – there are more ways to rape than one. Women are invisible, trivial, or demons, castrators; they are servants or cunt, and sometimes both at once. … All these years, these centuries, these millennia, and all that hate – look at the books – and under it all, the same threat, the same act: rape.

Marilyn French, The Women’s Room, 1977.

I also recommend reading all of Sister Outsider by Audre Lorde. And anything by Alice Walker, bell hooks, Andrea Smith, Yanar Mohammed, Vandana Shiva, Yanar Mohammed, and Patricia Hill Collins. And then, maybe, we can begin a conversation about what radical feminists, who aren't only white, believe about men. Start with "Man-Child" in Sister Outsider.

Yahoo!!! An example of taking on the anti-feminists at Yahoo Answers: "Why do certain people here pick on Andrea Dworkin?"

image of logo is from here

With thanks to Toto. Please click on the title to link to the website where the question and answers appear.

Open Question

Why do certain people here pick on Andrea Dworkin?

She was an amazing pioneer, and a personal hero of mine. Why do so many people here, women especially, seem to have such a problem with her? How is that not like hating Susan B. Anthony, or Valerie Solanas?

• - 3 days left to answer.

Answers (9)

• by Thomas
  

  Member since:

  March 23, 2011

  Total points:

  883 (Level 2)

  To be honest with you, I didn't mind her in her earlier years, but then she turned into a psychotic sounding radical feminist. She honestly thought men were beneath her and she is PART of the reason why so many people have disrespect for the movement. Not all feminists agreed with her.

  Source(s):

  Male feminist and equalist.

  • 2 people rated this as good

• by ksnake10
  

  Member since:

  March 07, 2008

  Total points:

  13,078 (Level 6)

  The biggest mistake Andrea Dworkin made was her assertion that every time a woman has sex, she is actually being raped. This is such an erroneous statement, that it's hard to believe that Dworkin wasn't laughed out of academia. If all sex is rape, then why do so many women demand that a man thrust harder during sex? Only a maniac would yell "Harder! Harder!" if she was being raped. Dworkin really screwed up with that assertion, and it's a miracle that anyone took her seriously after that incredibly invalid observation.

  • 4 people rated this as good

• by Paradox
  

  Member since:

  April 03, 2011

  Total points:

  1,343 (Level 3)

  @ Thomas - feminists cut her WAY more slack than you are led to believe.
  
  She's easy to pick on because i'm almost positive (but not exactly sure) she was the person who actually invented the "all men are rapist" theme.
  
  People who agree with her and nod their heads in approval are in realty, frightening.

  • 3 people rated this as good

• by Jade196 4.0
  

  Member since:

  April 22, 2011

  Total points:

  1,615 (Level 3)

  Andrea Dworkin Quotes
  
  1 - 2
  
  A commitment to sexual equality with males is a commitment to becoming the rich instead of the poor, the rapist instead of the raped, the murderer instead of the murdered.
  Andrea Dworkin
  
  As long as there is rape... there is not going to be any peace or justice or equality or freedom. You are not going to become what you want to become or who you want to become. You are not going to live in the world you want to live in.
  Andrea Dworkin
  
  Being a Jew, one learns to believe in the reality of cruelty and one learns to recognize indifference to human suffering as a fact.
  Andrea Dworkin
  
  Childbearing is glorified in part because women die from it.
  Andrea Dworkin
  
  Erotica is simply high-class pornography; better produced, better conceived, better executed, better packaged, designed for a better class of consumer.
  Andrea Dworkin
  
  Feminism is hated because women are hated. Anti-feminism is a direct expression of misogyny; it is the political defense of women hating.
  Andrea Dworkin
  
  Genocide begins, however improbably, in the conviction that classes of biological distinction indisputably sanction social and political discrimination.
  Andrea Dworkin
  
  Male supremacy is fused into the language, so that every sentence both heralds and affirms it.
  Andrea Dworkin
  
  Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership.
  Andrea Dworkin
  
  Men are distinguished from women by their commitment to do violence rather than to be victimized by it.
  Andrea Dworkin
  
  Men have defined the parameters of every subject. All feminist arguments, however radical in intent or consequence, are with or against assertions or premises implicit in the male system, which is made credible or authentic by the power of men to name.
  Andrea Dworkin
  
  Men know everything - all of them - all the time - no matter how stupid or inexperienced or arrogant or ignorant they are.
  Andrea Dworkin
  
  Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/author…

  Source(s):

  • Just read what she says. She's a man hater.

    • 4 people rated this as good
  • by Seven
    

    Member since:

    September 20, 2010

    Total points:

    12,584 (Level 6)

    I think she was great. I mean, look at her and what she had to say. She helped prove that the stereotypes about feminists are actually true.

    • 3 people rated this as good
  
  
  
  • by Tom
    

    Member since:

    August 25, 2010

    Total points:

    727 (Level 2)

    Because she is a crazy, sexist and twisted person?

    • 2 people rated this as good
  
  
  
  • by Gaye Penguin
    

    Member since:

    April 20, 2011

    Total points:

    489 (Level 2)

    Tom Leykis says stuff about women that is far worse, yet nobody has anything to say about him.

    • 19 hours ago

    • 1 person rated this as good
  
  
  
  • by M-Just M
    

    

    Member since:

    January 01, 2008

    Total points:

    19,713 (Level 6)

    Badge Image:

    

    Contributing In:

    Gender Studies

    Because of her attitudes toward men.
    Because of her prudishness toward sexual expression.
    Because she does not write logically or coherently.
  
  

Toto's Answer:

I appreciate you asking the question, Geri - Feminist Pride!!

Criticizing men for being woman-haters isn't any more "hateful" than people of color pointing out how racist white people have been historically. Critique doesn't equal hate. It's the critique men want to avoid dealing with, so they charge her, and many other feminists, with being a hater or crazy instead.

To Thomas:
She wasn't psychotic. She was sane. She wrote without apology about things men do to women that men like to deny doing. She lived with a man for thirty years. She loved her father, brother, nephew, and life partner. Your remarks are not accurate or responsible.

To ksnake10:
She wasn't laughed out for one reason--she never said what you're claiming she said. She didn't screw up: you did. She was taken seriously. You should not be. Your response contains probably the most famous classic lie about Dworkin and her work that has been conclusively shown, beyond contradiction, to be a lie--an intentional lie spread around the web by trolls to discredit her, with no evidence she ever said or wrote it.

See Snopes.com, a trusted, responsible website which exists to refute lies or prove questionable statements truthful. (Link below.) Summary: the "all sex is rape" lie was started in Playboy magazine to discredit feminists like Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon

See also the Lie Detector on an official Andrea Dworkin website. (Link below.) For example, her work discusses sex affirmatively and passionately many times.

To Paradox:
You put forth the same lie, but at least you write you are not sure it is the truth. It isn't the truth. Believing a writer who spoke out against rape and other violence against women is more scary than a rapist and the men who deny rape is a serious social problem is truly frightening. What's so scary about being anti-rape and anti-misogyny? She wasn't anti-man, and this is evidenced in the facts of her life--her whole life--and the facts in her books, her essays, and her speeches. You want proof? She these two speeches:

"Biological Superiority: The World's Most Dangerous and Deadly Idea" (Link below.)
"I Want A Twenty-Four Hour Truce During Which There is No Rape" (Link below.)

To Jade196 4.0: listing quotes is one of the least meaningful and laziest ways to try and represent someone's viewpoints that are discussed in full-length books that it appears you haven't bothered to read at all. That's intellectually sloppy, isn't it?

We continue to see no sophisticated, detailed, intelligent understanding of her work at all.

To Seven and Tom:
These comments are mean-spirited and anti-feminist. You offer nothing substantive or intelligent on the subject at all.

To Gaye Penguin:
Thank you. You note something far too common on Yahoo Answers and beyond: Tom and many other men on this website write all kinds of hateful, insulting, degrading things about feminists, but these very same commenters won't speak out about that. This shows they are here just to trash feminism. Cross them off the list of responsible commenters.

To M-Just M:
This person has clearly never read a single book of hers. A prude? Read either of her novels or just "First Love" (link below): hardly prudish! Funny how some of her critics accuse her both of being a prude and a pornographer! She was a brilliant and talented writer--whether or not you agree with her. 

A suggestion to all future commenters: it might be a good idea to read her work--several of her books--and learn to analyze fiction and non-fiction literature before making such irresponsible comments. Finally, see a blogger's response to a related question, for much more on what these trolls are doing here to discredit feminists and feminism. (Link below.)

Source(s):

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinnon.asp
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/LieDetect.html
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIIID.html
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIIIE.html
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/FirstLoveI.html
http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2010/06/those-mratrolls-and-their-list-of.html

Andrea Dworkin said All Heterosexual Intercourse is Rape, or All Sex is Rape? Not so fast.

image of book cover with inscription (right) is from here

I have posted several times on the myth--promoted especially by men who love to rape women and call it "just sex", that Andrea Dworkin once wrote or said that "All heterosexual sex is rape" of women by men. She never said it or wrote it. She did speak on the subject quite clearly, however, in ways which make it clear--or, well, ought to make it clear--that she could conceive of sex being 'not rape' of women at all, even when the 'sex' was heterosexual intercourse. Proof follows. If you see this lie about her work being promoted online by men, please post a link to this blogpost here, to refute the lie. It's about time for it to die, as well as for rape (not "just sex") to stop. Let just sex continue; let unjust sex end, whether or not it is rape.

In case you are confused--and if you're a man, you're likely to be: I don't believe that all sex is any one thing at all. I don't think all sex is good, bad, moral, immoral, fun, painful, terrifying, pleasurable, or any other "one thing". I think sex, like life, is complicated and is many things at once, often enough. For those of us who are survivors of child sexual abuse, "sex" is rarely only one kind of experience.

For me, personally, it has been sometimes okay, sometimes triggering, sometimes pleasant, sometimes exciting, sometimes abusive, and sometimes a compulsory chore. Generally, it's not all that and a bag of chips. If I could do my life over again, I'd rather just have the chips, most of the time. That doesn't make me anti-sex. It makes me not interested in sex that isn't mutually enjoyable, intimate, and healthy. It you think being not that into sex that isn't mutually enjoyable, intimate, and healthy makes someone anti-sex, I'm sure glad I don't ever have to have sex with you.

One of the things sex is far too often is violating and oppressive to women when men "have" it. Because often enough--far too often--men who have sex think that entitles them to dominate, control, oppress, hurt, injure, physically violate, and emotionally terrify women and girls. Often enough, that's what men do when men think all they are doing is "having sex". I know this because I know there are millions of husbands of women who think it is their "fucking right" to rape women. And there are millions of fathers who think it is their fucking right to rape girls: often their own daughters. And there are millions of men who think it is their fucking right to rape women and girls in systems of prostitution, trafficking, and sexual slavery. That means there are lots of millions of men who do, in fact, not in theory, make sex into "rape". There's nothing anti-sex about noticing that and naming it. I'd say it's rather pro-sex to want rape to not be confused with sex in the minds and actions of men and boys.

It was not Andrea Dworkin, or any other radical feminist, who promoted the idea that all sex must be oppressive to women, or must make women into inferior creatures. In fact--SURPRISE--it is masculinist men, such as *ol' Kevin here*, who have promoted a truly absurd idea that because men often poke their penises into women's bodies, with or without permission, that means that heterosexual intercourse "naturally" and inevitably makes it an act that turns women into inferior creatures, while it simultaneously places men into a superior position, sexually and socially. I say to Kevin and all those who think (and behave) as he does: You are oppressive, ignorant pricks and I hope you stop having the kind of sex you think is natural.

Moving along to what Andrea Dworkin did, in fact, in text, write, we have this from the second edition of Intercourse, pages 80-82, by  Andrea Dworkin--the only edition I recommend getting*, other than the first.

[According to a typically male supremacist rationale] "men possess women when men fuck women because both experience the man being male. This is the stunning logic of male supremacy. In this view, which is the predominant one, maleness is aggressive and violent; and so fucking, in which both the man and the woman experience maleness essentially demands the disappearance of the woman as an individual; thus, in being fucked, she is possessed: ceases to exist as a discrete individual: is taken over.

"Remarkably, it is not the man who is considered possessed in intercourse, even though he (his penis) is buried inside another human being; and his penis is surrounded by strong muscles that contract like a fist shutting tight and release with a force that pushes hard on the tender thing, always so vulnerable no matter how hard. He is not possessed even though his penis is gone--disappeared inside someone else, enveloped, smothered, in the muscled lining of flesh that he never sees, only feels, gripping, releasing, gripping, tighter, harder, firmer, then pushing out: and can he get out alive? seems a fundamental anxiety that fuels male sexual compulsiveness and the whole discipline of depth psychology. The man is not possessed in fucking even though he is terrified of castration; even though he sometimes thinks--singly or collectively in a culture--that the vagina has teeth; but he goes inside anyway, out of compulsion, obsession: not obsessed with her, a particular woman; but with it, getting inside. He is not possessed even though he is terrified of never getting his cock back because she has it engulfed inside her, and it is small compared with the vagina around it pulling it in and pushing it out: clenching it, choking it, increasing the friction and the frisson as he tries to pull out. He is not possessed even though he rolls over dead and useless by virtue of the nature of the act; he has not been taken and conquered by her, to whom he finally surrenders, beat, defeated in endurance and strength both. And for him, this small annihilation, this little powerlessness, is not eroticized as sexual possession of him by her, intrinsic to the act; proof of an elemental reality, an unchanging relation between male and female. He experiences coitus as death; and he is sad; but he is not possessed.

"Men have admitted some form of sexual possessing of themselves by women in the fuck when they can characterize the women as witches, evil and carnal, and when the fuck occurs in their sleep at night. The witches have sex with men while they sleep; they use a man against his will, especially at night, when he is asleep and helpless. He ejaculates: proof that, by magic, a woman came to him in the night and did something to or with his penis."

(*See here for why that is.)

What follows shortly was written by a great reader and literary critic. Her name is Giney Villar. If only men, collectively, could read as well as she does singularly. But, alas, as a group, men do not and cannot--unless to analyse the work of men, and even then they often fail at it miserably. To all academically trained men: please learn how to read and analyse literature intelligently or shut the fuck up and keep your fingers off your keypads.

Villar asks an important question below: Why didn't Dworkin write about the politics of lesbian sexual intercourse?

I can only posit an answer: because in virtually all of Dworkin's work, she rarely took the focus off of what men do to women in male supremacist societies. The reality of how lesbians have sex is not the topic of this book--how men use their penises and social power to subjugate others, or to obtain something most het men mistakenly call "sex" (I mean as opposed to, say, what these het men actually mean, which is "heterosexual intercourse", or "heterosexual genital sex") is the focus of this book.

While, for decades, lesbian wimmin have been discussing how and to what degrees many forms of sexual contact between wimmin replicate or reinforce heteropatriarchal dynamics and oppressive values and practices, this inquiry was, in my view, beyond the scope of Dworkin's book. Her book is about what men do and with women that men call normal sex (as if het men were unable to imagine things otherwise): a good time for all. The book is about heterosexual genital intercourse as a male supremacist act as the act exists normally, in lived, felt reality, not in fantasy or theory alone, in male supremacist societies, protected and enforced by patriarchal law and custom.

There is one section on sexual intercourse between men and between women and men, in the chapter where she analyses (brilliantly) the work of James Baldwin. I see the purpose of this inclusion as necessary to note how it is men can conceive of sexual intercourse as many things--not just love and not just war--but that tends to happen if women are taken out of the picture altogether. When men include women, men tend to see "sex" as either love or war, or some strange and often intentional intermingling of the two.

The website which is the online home for what follows, which closes this post, is *here at Isis International*.

INTERCOURSE by Andrea Dworkin

by Giney Villar
Monday, 07 May 2007

Intercourse, Dworkin's monumental book on the complexities of sex, now on its tenth anniversary edition, remains as forceful today as when it first appeared in 1987. In her new preface (1997) Dworkin describes her book as "…a book that moves through the sexed world of dominance and submission…" and rightly so.

In this book, the author questions and challenges the value and meaning that men and women attach to Intercourse. While it is "easy" to read having been written in a lucid, scholarly manner without being highbrow, the book is difficult to comprehend. Intercourse compels its readers to rip open their bodies and minds and examine them under the stark illumination Dworkin beams. It is disturbing light, and she makes no excuse for casting it. Dworkin stops being female in this book and suggests that all women must begin to stop being women as constructed by men, for their integrity and survival.

Intercourse opens possibilities. It can be interpreted in many ways. This is what the book exactly aims to do. To pose questions, spur action and in the author's own words, "Intercourse is search and assertion, passion and fury; and its form—no less that its content—deserves critical scrutiny and respect."

The book is divided into three parts. The first part, "Intercourse in a Man-made World" illustrates the way men perceive women and themselves, as they sexually relate to women. In the section "Repulsion," Dworkin tells of the repulsion men have against women's bodies, sexual intercourse and their unbridled desires, as exemplified by Tolstoy's life and works. In Tolstoy's The Kreutzer Sonata, a man kills his wife to end his own torment and pain about the possibility of losing control over her. The man reasons that with her death, his wife could no longer be capable of defying him, and he did not have to bear the responsibility of subjugating her and desiring her.

Dworkin asserts that men are obsessed with protecting their own vulnerability and they use women to draw attention away from this "nakedness." Men resort to violence against women for it is a way of getting what they want without exposing their own vulnerability. Sexual intercourse is likened to being "Skinless" where men and women merge and lose boundaries to become one flesh- male flesh.

Intercourse has also been understood as a form of possession. Women are being penetrated and thus conquered and dominated as objects. In so doing, men possess women but both experience the man being male. In the process, women essentially lose themselves when they are taken over by men. This is necessary for intercourse to be successful. Amazingly, men are not possessed even if they are literally enveloped by women during the sexual act. Women have been constructed by this type of sexuality. As the author puts it, "This being marked by sexuality requires a cold capacity to use and a pitiful vulnerability that comes from having been used." And because of the social context, women have learned to equate sex with love and desire. Thus, male possession has become an affirmation of desirability, womanhood and existence.

In part two, "The Female Condition," Dworkin talks about the situation of women and the way men maintain female subordination.

In her first example, Dworkin is the relationship between virginity and power as illustrated in the life of Joan of Arc. Joan of Arc, champion of France against the English, repudiated the way women were constructed and fought against the English until her capture by the Burgundians. For Joan of Arc, virginity was "a passage, not a permanent condition," an act of integrity and not a retreat from life. Her virginity and military prowess challenged patriarchal powers and for a time succeeded. She was accused of more than seventy crimes foremost of which was wearing male clothes.

The Inquisitors went out of their way to break her and make her female. To make her submit. Believing that her power emanated from her virginity, she was stripped of her male clothes, returned to prison and was possibly sexually violated by soldiers to put her in her place – a woman therefore an inferior being. Joan of Arc was burned for being inaccessible, for refusing to be female. It was a condition unacceptable to men.

Dworkin goes on to discuss another virginity in the manner the tragic fictional character Madame Bovary experienced it. Her virginity was "listless, dissatisfied ennui until awakened by the adventure of male sexual domination…" Virginity was equated with ignorance, until awakened by man. This is an idea that has prevented many women from enjoying satisfaction and wholeness within themselves. Men have made it impossible for these women to be happy without their approval and participation.

Finally, in Bram Stoker's Dracula, the author reveals a redefinition of virginity. In this classic tale, women remained virgins no matter how many times they had sex, as long as their blood was not spilled. For sex to be valid, one had to "die"—an idea akin to modern sado-masochist ideology.

Dworkin draws her readers attention about the fact that among subordinated groups of people, women's experience of being made for sexual intercourse has no parallel. She asserts that this is not because intercourse is not any less violative than other brutalities. She says that it has no equal because the realities attached with intercourse—the violation of boundaries, the physical occupation and the destruction of privacy—are considered normal and essential for the propagation of human existence. For Dworkin the question to problematise is the possibility or impossibility for a physically occupied people to be free.

She presents contending answers to this question. First, she says that some explanations contend that there is nothing implicit in sexual intercourse that mandates male domination of women. This view derives from a belief that intercourse is not an occupation or a violation of integrity because it is natural. It is a position that refuses to make a connection between intercourse and women's oppression.

Dworkin also talks about actions that have been taken to tilt the balance in favor of women. These efforts are directed to change the circumstances around intercourse ranging from raising the economic and political power of women, to more private recommendations such as more sensitivity and female choice in lovemaking. Dworkin recognizes that while such reforms may possibly provide incremental changes in the way intercourse is experienced—making it more "equal" between the sexes, they have so far not addressed the question of whether intercourse can be an expression of sexual equality in the current social context. A context, according to Dworkin, "in which the act takes place, whatever the meaning of the act in and of itself, is one in which men have social, economic, political and physical power over men."

Women, Dworkin suggests, are literally occupied in intercourse and perceive intercourse in the way men want women to perceive the act. By instilling fear among women, men have succeeded in alienating women from one another and consequently subordinating them. Fear has also assured women's complicity in their own domination and objectification—a requisite condition for intercourse.

This collaboration strips women of their self-esteem so women expend their energies preparing themselves for intercourse rather than for their own liberation. Dworkin believes that intercourse, for as long as it is "experienced under force, fear and inequality, destroys in women the will to political freedom…. We become female; occupied…The pleasure of submission does not and cannot change…the fact, the cost, the indignity, of inferiority."

Interestingly, while there was some discussion regarding male-to-male relations, no explicit mention of female-to-female relations—and its potential for transformation – can be found in the book. The reader might "read" the subtext, but one might be accused of over reading. It becomes more of a puzzle that this did not make it to the book given that the first edition was written in 1987, a time when the lesbian movement has already been around for a little less than twenty years in the USA.

I dare raise some questions spawned by my reading of this book. Is male-to-female penetration qualitatively different from female-to-female penetration, or is penetration, penetration every time with all its corresponding "ills"? Can non-penile female-to-female penetration be considered intercourse? Can two women fuck? If they can, is that a continuation of an oppressive cycle of domination and subordination or can it be liberative? Is it the act of penetration itself, as some feminists assert, that oppresses and thus breeds inequality, OR is it the penis, OR as with male/female intercourse is it all in the context?

In the last part of the book, "Power, Status and Hate," Dworkin further reinforces this belief. She outlines how laws have defined intercourse to ensure systemic male-domination and women's subordination. Sexual intercourse, the book claims, has never been a private matter. Laws have regulated it and thus society has participated in ensuring its power to continue to possess women.

According to Dworkin, laws emphasize gender polarity to avoid confusion of roles. This is especially evident in laws governing intercourse that is the most vital in maintaining gender as a "social absolute." Gender polarity in intercourse and the corresponding meanings and values attached to such differences also protects men from being treated as women—a detestable fate. For if men like women could be violated, their power and status would be seriously breached and thus be dealt a deathblow on the male dignity.

In drawing her discourse to a close, Dworkin expounds on misogyny and shows how women are equated with dirt. In the section "Dirt/Death," Dworkin explains how everything about a woman, from her body parts to her actions is reviled in a world that despises her. Men manifest their hate for women by genital mutilation and intercourse. Men punish themselves for feeling what they do and punish women for making them feel that way. In the end, whatever action men take against women, it still is and always will be women's fault.

Finally, Dworkin posits that for change to happen, a redistribution of power has to occur. A change in power relations and an equality of worth that is socially true. In this struggle, the power of language can only be potent in changing the status of women if its context is changed.

Intercourse evokes strong emotions in its readers with its choice of words, its imagery, and its controversial content. It is necessary to be passionate because Dworkin argues against the denial of women's existence. There is no other way to attack the subject matter.

The book consistently paints an antagonistic scenario between men and women, constantly at war with the odds stacked against women from the very start. Despite the occasional window that Dworkin opens for the readers to breathe some air and get some respite from her multi-faceted onslaught, readers will still come out of the experience, distressed. Dworkin refuses to write from the feminine posture of one knee bent in deference to the powers that be. Rightly so, for readers would need Dworkin's feet strongly planted in the ground to serve as anchor as she hurls her challenges to both men and women.

Unlike the celebratory feminist books that seem to be in vogue, Intercourse will appear to be the raving, uninvited gatecrasher to the polite little feminist discussions we have in the safety of our man-made edifices. It froths in the mouth, shocks and offends, but deep inside us we know that it speaks Truth.


Giney Villar is the Coordinator of the Women Supporting Women Committee, a lesbian organization in the Philippines. Giney is also an organizer of the Asian Lesbian Network.

This article originally appeared in Women in Action (3:1998)

Dear Sebastian. A letter of loss and love.

image is from here

Dear Sebastian,

I know this should never see the light of day. It, like much of what should be barely whispered between us, is meant only for the night. This letter, like anything uttered close to the ear, is also only for eyes that see beyond life as it is cast wretchedly into the harsh glare of whiteness.

You are a seeker of night vision. This is what drew me to you, in part. Also your beauty, if I may be so shallow as to say so. But beauty is always more than skin deep. Your skin, pale as melting snow--and nearly as cold, nonetheless pulsed warm blood as red as any other.

Your aesthetics and your values are what set you apart. Also your intellect which cloaked a heart as tender as it was reclusive. Your artistic soul--I'd say 'brilliant' if it weren't so overused to describe white men--combined with your physical beauty made you irresistible to me. Or, rather, made wanting you irresistible. The wanting was the thing I seemed to have fallen in love with, as you left me before I could really know whether or not I was in love with you. You were off in a hurry, a mad flurry of panic, flying into the arms of a woman to whom you will likely tell nothing at all that is barely spoken, broken by volume and torn apart only by the softest touch.

We could not be truly honest face to face--at least not about our deepest feelings for one another. And so we did not touch. For, in touch, all would have been known in a rush of trembling apprehension, a torrent of feeling fused to knowledge neither one of us was willing to bear or birth.

So our love was and remains still born, from womb to tomb with no passage through life. And it lay between us like a lost letter, yellowed envelope, never delivered, but sent with every intention of being received.

Reception requires a lot, I realise now. To attempt, in good faith, to take in the wholeness of a person is to admit another can never be possessed. And so the act of loving is, perpetually, perennially, the act of letting go. You and I spoke to each other all those days most vulnerably in the silences between our words. I read your face like one of your poems, with about as little comprehension. But I knew at least one poem was to me. That gave me reason enough to keep trying to discern meaning. But I tend to want too much from meaning. I want certainty like a rich man wants gold or a stage actor seeks applause: enough is never enough and inevitably the greedy and the desperate are left broke and alone.

To receive you was always to open my hand and welcome your flight. And you've flown. Away. Yet despite knowing you are no personal homing pigeon nor dove of peace you came back, but not to me.

Sebastian, I want you here--my lips murmuring in your ear, our bodies within reach--for a moment or a lifetime I cannot say. I want to touch you to know if our love is real and to see if, against all men's laws of nature, it can be brought presently to life.

An Intergender-Transgender Sit-down Discussion

image is from here

Tonight two people sit together, talking about things that are pressing in their lives, while one makes dinner.

I: Thanks for making it tonight. What can I get you to nibble on before dinner?
T: [takes off coat and checks short, mussed up hair in the mirror] It's windy out there. No wonder they call this city what they do. Anything is good. 

I: [at the fridge] I've got some corn some chips and I've got some salsa somewhere in here.
T: That works for me.

I: [sets out the chips and salsa on the found-on-side-of-the-street coffee table that just needed some glue around one leg] I'm just feeling kind of pissed about so much. The struggles don't feel like they're getting easier. The country seems to be headed towards real crisis on a lot of levels, which it needs to be, probably, for anything to happen of substance.
T: What's getting you down? What's going on?

I: Do you get how much self-hatred there is in our community? I mean we're kind of all ready to yell at each other or curse each other out, at every turn.
T: I know. I know. Es una locura. That's why I'm steering clear of most stuff these days--events, clubs. Too much aggravation. I don't need more reasons to get upset.

I: What's the biggest thing for you right now?
T: Immigration issues on top of my mother being sick and me not being able to get back to her. And I get scared about the hormones sometimes.

I: Did you call that immigration attorney I gave you the name of? And what's the latest on your mom?
T: I haven't called yet. I'm just kind of overwhelmed. She's having some more trouble with her balance. No one seems to know what's going on and my father's not any help. He needs her for everything. He'd be lost within one day without her around.

I: I'm sorry. I can't imagine the stress of not being able to get back to see them and be there for your mom.
T: Thanks. [silence]

I: Call the lawyer, okay?
T: I will. I promise.

[T and I. hug on the couch and I. caresses T's back.]

I: What's going on with the hormones?
T: Things were going well. I was feeling pretty good about things--I got a good connection for the T and then my contact disappeared for a few days and I ran out and things got really shaky. Emotional rollercoaster time.

I: Yikes. What's going on with this person? Why aren't they available?
T: I'm afraid [name] is getting in trouble at work--I knew he was going to. He had a fake name and script to use to take stuff I need. But the head doctor is getting suspicious. And I'm just not sure if he's going to get fired.

I: He's too good a nurse--they can't afford to lose him.
T: They can't afford to keep him if he's caught.

I: So are you out? You ran out??
T: Yeah. And I'm feeling like shit. Moody. Weepy. Scared. The fucking roller coaster I hate and swore I'd never experience again.

I: What can I do?
T: Feed me a good meal and get me some T. [laughs]

I: I'm all over the first part. Can't help with the other. Wish I could. Have you called [name] to find out about their supplier?
T: No, I haven't even thought about it. It feels like I'm sinking and I don't want to bring everyone down with me.

I: [hands T the phone]. Call him. He'll help.
T: [dials Ts ex's number:] Hey [name]. I'm with I. who suggested I call you--I'm probably the last person you want to hear from but I'm out of T. I'm kind of freaking out. My connection might be gone. Not sure yet. [name] responds. T. listens. They hang up.

I: What?
T: He's going to make some calls and get back to me.

I: When did you know?
T: Know? About running out?

I: No. I mean know that taking T was right.
T: I just decided it would be worth it to try and see--I knew I could stop if things weren't getting better. The anti-depressants weren't really doing the trick. It is kind of a last straw. And it's been helping a lot. I've been a whole lot more stable. I like my voice lowering. I'm beginning to think I might pass... someday.

I: Does everyone at work still think you're a lesbian just because your hair is short and because of your clothes?
T: Kind of. But now with my voice lowering, I think they think I've just hit puberty and am some kind of freak who is changing sexes in the process.

I: I am glad I didn't go that route. But that's not really been my path--I'm just too damned distrustful of doctors.
T: Well, notice I'm dealing with a nurse! [laughs, then looks sad]

[I. leans over and gives T another hug]
T: Thanks.

I: I haven't really found much out there about what I'm experiencing. It seems like the medical world is convinced there's only one way to be transgender and that's about switching, crossing over, going from here to there.
T: No one gets it, really. That's the truth of it. We're all just making our way. Did you seriously ever consider taking hormones? I'm not sure I've asked you that before.

I: I just used to fantasize about waking up and being different--a total androgyne, intersex and intergender both. Not woman, not man. Just something that feels more like what I am inside.
T: Yeah, well, it's not so different for me, but I can't afford to not pass as something. I'm too vulnerable already. And besides, you have the luxury of passing as a man in social spaces.

I: Immigration, you mean? Is that the particular vulnerability you're getting at?
T: Damn right.

I: This country is so fucked up. Really. And getting more so every day.
T: [switches gears, mentally, to block out the stress of immigration bullshit] So you never wanted to do hormones, to maybe get more physically androgynous, or just to see what you'd feel like emotionally and mentally?

I: I just don't think what's going on with me is biological. I think it's social. It used to play out in my mind strongly as biological. Before I had any other way to understand my feelings. Truth is, I think I just don't fit in and nothing I do--hormones or not--is going to make me fit in any better; transitioning in some physical way will only add to my alienation from this world. And it's not exactly like my struggle is with being a woman or being a man. I'm kind of resigned to just feeling out of place. That's my thing--not fitting in anywhere.
T: Try adding on a constant fear of being caught and deported--or arrested.

I: No, I'll leave that to you. [smiles wryly]
T: [laughs] Thanks. You're a true friend.

I: Hey, I'm a better friend if we're both not in exactly the same level of stress, right?
T: Yeah, I suppose so. I need someone to call if I get arrested! [laughs]

 I: You can't get arrested. You've got enough to deal with.
T: Tell that to the government and let me know what they say.

I: I'll get right on that. Actually, no: I'll get right on dinner. Rice and beans good? Onions, peppers?
T: Sure. Sounds great. You got hot stuff?

I: You know it, baby.
T: [laughs] Only once. But we were drunk.

I: You were drunk. I was stoned.
T: Right. Sorry--you're "sober".

I: Two years next month.
T: And what do they say about that weed?

I: Depends on which meeting I go to. So I go to the ones where they don't ask.
T: You really have always known how to work a system.

I: [goes to kitchen off living room, puts water on to boil for rice. Begins opening cans of beans and chopping veggies.] So get this: after yesterday evening's meeting--the one where they only care if you're drinking--practically anything else goes--that guy I told you about--cute, sweet face, kind eyes...
T: Yeah? What happened??

I: He asked me if I'd take his phone number. He had it on a piece of paper, all ready to hand to me. His hand was kind of shaking when he asked. It was kind of adorable.
T: What'd you say??

I: I said I'll take your number, but only if it doesn't come with lots of expectations attached.
T: What did he say?

I: He put the paper in my hand and said, "Call me--I'll keep my expectations in check."
T: Can he? Do you think he can?

I: I don't know. I think he's kind of a serial monogamist. He hasn't been alone that long since leaving his abusive-drunk-for-a-boyfriend.
T: Well, his taste is getting better--you've never been abusive.

I: No, I just let my negligence and distance and dissociation do their thing. [laughs]
T: How do we get through this? I mean how is it done? How do people get through each day with so much weighing them down?

I: [mimes taking a hit off a joint] By smoking weed?
T: [laughs] Yeah, well, that's your way. I'm going to go with T and hope that helps enough to make life seem worth living.

I: You have seemed better since starting it--since getting over the fears about starting it, especially.
T: I think it's been good for me. Except it's not so good for me when I'm not sure of when I'll get more. If I get sent back, or even somehow can get back to visit mom, how will I be able to bring enough with me--I don't even know how long I'll need to be there? Or if I'll be able to come back?

I: Let's wait until you know more about how your mom is doing. She might be okay. Don't play every scenario out at once. You've got enough to deal with in the present.
T: That's for damn sure.

[T's phone rings]

T answers, listens, seems to relax, and hangs up.

I: What??
T: He's getting me some. He's going to drop it off here. [pause] Why did I dump him?

I: Because he's a drunken cheating bastard?
T: Oh, that. Well, you know. Nobody's perfect.

I: Especially him.
T: You're just jealous.

I: No. But I do love you.
T: I know you do. And I'd come over and hug you but those onions will kill my eyes.

I: This should be ready pretty soon. The rice is on, I'm getting ready to cook up the veggies and add in the beans. Another fifteen minutes maybe.
T: I'll live till then.

I: Damn straight you will. I'm not burdening your sick mother with the news of your sudden death.
T: Yeah--it's kind of sick when you have reasons like that to stay alive, though, isn't it?

I: Those are sometimes the only things to keep us going--not making life harder on everyone else. That's why you came here, remember?
T: I just couldn't come out to them about this stuff. It wouldn't make any sense. Mom doesn't even know I'm a lesbian.

I: Won't she be thrilled in a year or two when you're not?!
T: Cute. Very cute. I don't know what I'll be then. I don't think I'll ever be heterosexual. I never have been--I don't know how to do it.

I: I hear you. I don't get heterosexuality either.
T: You don't get sexuality, period.

I: Well... that too.
T: You always been asexual?

I: I did the compulsory sexuality thing. But I think honestly a lot of that has to do with the abuse.
T: Childhood?

I: Yeah. I honestly wonder how many kids and adolescents are sexual because they are acting out being abused.
T: But you weren't acting out much, were you? You had a boyfriend--that wasn't acting out was it?

I: No. I loved him. But there's always been a weird line for me. Like doing what adults do isn't really what I want, but if I'm with someone, I'm so used to trying to please them that if I'm in a sexual situation, I kind of just go on autopilot. I disappear, please them, and then come back into my body.
T: That's not very loving of them or especially of you if Mr. Serial Monogamy wants to kiss or fool around?

I: My goal is to tell him pretty up front, if he's actually interested in me that way...
T: He is. Trust me. He is.

I: How do you know, Mr. Smartypants??
T: Because his hand was shaking. Please. Don't be so naive.

I: Okay. He's probably interested. [pause] I just have to tell him I'm asexual.
T: And what will you say when he asks what the hell that means? Will you come out to him as intergender too?

I: I can't seem to come out as intergender to anyone who doesn't get something about being transgender. And I don't know--he could just be a gay boy who is clueless about all this. I'll let "asexual" sink in and see where it goes, because in some ways if he respects that, there's no need to get into the intergender stuff.
T: A convenient way to stay in the closet. Aren't we done with closets?

I: Right, Mr. I Can't Come Out To My Mother.
T: That's low. She's ill.

I: [snidely, but only the kind that comes with a loving challenge, like between siblings] She wasn't ill last year. Or the year before.
T: I wasn't on T then. I didn't know what I was going to do and didn't want to come out and then have her ask what that meant and not have an answer for her. I'm going to see how far I go on T before telling her.

I: You don't think she'll know just from your voice that something's going on?
T: I can kind of disguise that, sort of. Or just say I've got this cold thing that's going around.

I: Are you really happy with the T? What is it doing for you, exactly? I mean what besides mood stabilisation and lowering your voice? What else are you noticing?
T: I think my body is shifting its shape a bit. I'm getting a bit more muscular in my arms. Less "soft". Can't you tell?

I: I see you too often to notice changes like that. I can hear it in your voice though, when I get a message from you on voicemail. Then I notice it especially.
T: Yeah, when I hear my voice recorded it is kind of shocking to me.

I: How's it going at work? What do the guys say you work with?
T: They don't really get it. And they're too straight to get it. I'm just going to let them be confused. I think that's their permanent condition anyway. [laughs]

I: Yeah, them and my family!
T: You haven't come out to anyone yet?

I: We agreed to come out to the people who matter most. That wouldn't be my family. That'd be my friends.
T: I kind of wish you were closer with them.

[I. stirs the veggies, adds the beans. Checks the rice. Put's the lid down to let the rice finish.]

I: Why? So I could feel invisible? So I could feel misunderstood? So I could feel neglected by people telling me how much they love and miss me but don't ever really want to know anything that's going on within me?
T: They weren't raised to want to know that--they don't want to anything significant about themselves either. It's kind of the same with my family. You get through life, you don't examine it. That's their way. Sometimes the burden of knowing is too much.

I: I get the appeal of "not knowing". I just never could be like that. I was always questioning everything--all my feelings, the feelings of others, their rules, why society is what it is. Since childhood, really. I think being intergender put me on this course of feeling so outside everything that was being told to me about how the world is. And not being heterosexual too.
T: I know. Same here. You can't be a lesbian girl and a trans teen and not be burdened with questions that don't have easy answers.

I: How is your roommate dealing with this. Is she still separatist?
T: Yeah. She's not a happy camper. I get it. She's had enough with the boys for one life. She doesn't need her lesbian roommate turning into one.

I: But you're not really turning into a boy. You're turning into a more whole version of you. You're becoming you.
T: Still, the pronoun thing is hard for her. I get it. She's been a separatist for a long time. Her generation didn't deal with this stuff. Back when she came out, you had two choices if lesbian: separatist or not separatist. And that decision often got made based on who you were going out with.

I: All of this really is a lot more social than we want to admit some times, I think.
T: I think it is too. But knowing it's social doesn't make taking T a wrong move for me.

I: No, I wasn't meaning to imply that. I just meant that it's all kind of unknowable--what causes what. Why we make the decisions we do.
T: If I was a twentysomething back when my roommate was, I'd probably be a lesbian separatist.

I: Really??
T: Yeah. Well, if I was around separatists I would be. I mean it's really cool just being with women. It's soooo different than being around guys who are into putting on their guy acts.

I: Do I do that?
T: You're intergender. Believe me--it shows. How everyone doesn't just know automatically when meeting you is beyond me, except that they don't know there is such a thing.

I: Yeah, it's like when new white people meet me and want to know my race--with that questioning face that is scanning for tell-tale signs of Blackness or whiteness or being Latino or American Indian. It's like the way strangers look anxiously at new babies who aren't wearing pink or blue. And they're kind of freaking out that they might guess wrong.
T: Well, they'd be right on all counts.

I: But you know that's not how race works here. It's primarily white or nonwhite. Black, or something that tips you into being close enough to Black to not be seen as white.
T: So what do most white people assume?

I: They kind of are willing to accept me as white except that I talk about the problem of white people too much. So they know I'm not. But I'm light enough. Not as white as them, but not dark enough to be clearly and unequivocally "nonwhite".
T: This country is crazy. It can't deal with anything "in between".

I: Well, I don't really think getting to that place would even be sufficient.
T: What do you mean?

I: I mean that unless we end male and white supremacy, "in between" is just a few more options in an oppressive system that's still killing people in a whole lot of ways. We don't need more choices as much as we need an end to oppression by the social dominants. Because no matter how many genders there are in CRAP, it will remain male supremacist, and that means it'll remain misogynistic, and that means anyone deemed "not man enough" is targeted for a certain kind of violence. Same with race. Even though dominant society is learning to get it that there are more races than just white and Black, white supremacy is still the problem when it comes to race. That's why everyone else hates themselves so much. Male supremacy is why so many women hate themselves so much.
T: Well, why does it have to be either/or? Isn't that the same old thinking--that we only have one route? That we can't both work to expand the categories AND end male and white supremacy?

I: That's what we are doing, T. That's what our community has been doing for over a decade now, thanks to post-structuralism. We're making more and more and more categories.
T: Like "intergender" you mean?

I: Well, kind of. I mean me being intergender, really, what does that mean? It's a subjecting thing. I mean it's real, as real as anything else that's subjective. But it's not medically recognised so it doesn't really exist in the dominant society. And even if it were, it'll just be used to reinforce the binary, the hierarchy. I'll just slip a bit lower on the "real man" scale.
T: Honey, you're already kind of low on that scale! You think calling out men all the time makes you "one of them?"

I: I know. But I have male privilege, and some strange kinds of white privilege because depending on where I am and what I'm doing, whites won't interrogate me or wonder why I'm hanging out with them.
T: You mean like if you're not with me.

I: Sadly, yes. If I'm with anyone else of color, then somehow to whites, that means I'm of color too because then I'm not acting as white. I have only being around white people. It's really oppressive. It's just like only being around men. It's suffocating.
T: Don't worry--I'll never really be a man. I have no interest in "being A MAN".

I: I'm not worried about you. You'll always be "you" to me. No matter how deep your voice gets.
T: Even Barry White deep?

I: If I hear a voicemail from you and I think Barry White was calling from beyond, we can talk about it then. And if your voice goes that deep, you've got one helluva singing career in front of you.

[they both laugh out loud and fix plates of food and sit at the kitchen table eat, talking more about T's mom's balance problem.]

What does "pro-sex" mean? And what can one read for GREAT SEX education?

image is from here

or 

 sexism+racism 
 +heterosexism  

    +capitalism    
          ???          

I just saw the second part of a program on television in which an audience of men spoke out, who were sexually abused as children. What was clear from listening to them and their partners--male and female--was that they had few words and a very limited vocabulary to discuss what had happened or why they couldn't lead healthy, fulfilling lives. These were mostly middle-class people and they were predominantly if not only white. These were the people who were once said to be living The American Dream. And they were crying, sad, lonely, and distant from one another and torn up within themselves.

The rate of sexual abuse of female children by all official estimates is twice the rate of sexual abuse of boys.   Girls are molested or incested at a rate of one in three. With boys it is one in six. At any rate, it is appalling. Some say the stats are too low because they are determined based only by what is reported. And most children don't speak out about having been sexually abused--whether female, intersex, or male.

The stats for women I know is about 80% were sexually abused as children. (Most of the rest were sexually abused when adults, as were most of those abused as children.) And I'd say about 20% of men I know were. That would be one in five boys. And that would be at least four out of five girls.

But even assuming "half of all girls" and "half of all boys" were abused this way, let's consider for a moment what that means: how half of all children learn to not be in their own bodies, to be detached, to become compulsive and addictive and depressed and withdrawn. And, of course, there's also physical and emotional abuse without sexual components. And there's plenty of neglect to go around too. This paints a picture of a lot of people who are hurting. And yet pro-sex websites tend to ignore this very stark reality, let alone factor in how that might shape the kind of sex we are able to have, or the kind of people we are able to be.

I'm going to attempt to demonstrate that what gets passed off as "good, sound, safe" sexual advice just might not be any of the above. And how completely shallow our own understandings of ourselves and our bodies have become. The loss of our own imaginations ought to concern us. Are we unilaterally handing over our sexual selves, or is our humanity being bought wholesale by corporations, fed back to us cut up and devalued, like taking whole food and producing McDonalds? Are we pretending that being offered a "Happy Meal" (with a prize toy inside) or taking whole people, individuals with complex histories bound up in social systems, and feeding that back to us as over-simplified and highly fetishised, dehumanised bodies and parts of bodies is "good"? Or is it just "good enough" given our own expectations and conditioned needs? This is what we have: mass produced sex. This is the time in which we are living: unsustainable lives. Deeper questions are needed. Deeper explorations of who we are and what we can be are required if we are to move beyond the status quo's version of our sex lives and ourselves.

Let's have a look at what a typical "pro-sex" website (it was top of the list when I googled "pro-sex") offers us for wise counsel on how to have good sex. What follows are recommendations from the Just Say Yes "pro-sex" website. What's in bold and in brackets was added by me, Julian. You should know, if you've read enough posts here, that "bold and in brackets" means "Julian's not going to let this text go unchallenged and unanalysed." Not when it comes to sex, I won't. Because unexamined sex is one of the silliest and most dangerous concepts around.

So this is how this post works. You're going to read the contents of a page from a "pro-sex" website. Just as it is presented. You can click on the link in the last paragraph to see it as it is presented there. THEN I'm going to take us through the exact same material, but with some editorialising by you-know-who. And please tell me how much you noticed that gets pointed out there. Or what you noticed that I didn't.

First up, the uninterrupted text:

Sex is everywhere -- on beer commercials, billboards, and in music lyrics. But most messages we get tell us that sex is something dirty that we shouldn't talk about or an act of violence. Most of us learn that our bodies, and our sex, are things to be ashamed of. Most of us learn that sex means a man on top of a woman, and that the only other choice is abstinence. But sex can be lots of things ...

Women have sex with women, men have sex with men, women have sex with men -- and sometimes the best sex is with yourself!

There are lots of safe and fun ways to get off, which you probably won't learn in school. You can do many of these things all by yourself as well as with others, and you can talk about them even if you don't want to do them. Don't feel like you have to do everything on this page, but don't feel like anything is automatically off limits either. The important thing is that everyone involved clearly says what they want and can make it stop when they want.

Just remember, sex is only fun if everyone agrees on what they're going to do.

you could ...

• suck, kiss, touch, bite, fondle, nibble, squeeze, and lick someone's body, nipples, calves, toes, neck, ass, dick or vulva ...
• jerk yourself or each other off, dry or using lots of lubricant ...
• kiss for a long time, using lots of tongue ...
• have sex in front of mirrors, or watch each other jerking off ...
• get into role play (for instance, tie someone up and pleasure them) ...
• look at sexy pictures and videos ...
• make up or act out fantasies, talk dirty, dress up, strip down, or cross-dress (dressing in the clothes of the other gender) ...
• call your friend and tell him or her your hottest fantasies ...
• use cock rings, nipple clamps (or clothespins), or vibrators on your own or someone else's body ...
• shower together, or grind against each other with your clothes on (dry humping) ...
• cum on someone's belly, back, feet, chest -- instead of in them ...
• play with your own or someone else's ass or vagina, put your fingers, dildoes, vegetables, or buttplugs into them.

If you're putting something into a butthole, make sure it has a flared base and looks something like the picture. That way it can't go all the way in and get stuck.
It's important to play safe. Use condoms and plastic wrap. Don't get blood or cum in a wound. See Safe Sex for more information.

Next, the same text with some questions and commentary.

Sex is everywhere -- on beer commercials, billboards, and in music lyrics. But most messages we get tell us that sex is something dirty that we shouldn't talk about or an act of violence. [Hold on. So would "talking dirty" to one another a way to have HOT SEX be considered something that makes sex dirty or not dirty? Is sex-made-dirty healthy and good or not? And, "the messages we get tell us sex is an act of violence"? Where? When? When I was being assaulted at twelve? When my female family members were being incested? No one talked to them about how "sex can be violent". No one talked to me, ever, about that. So this opening remark from the website posits a universe in which there is no dangerous sex, no threatening sex, and in which those who speak of it as possibly dangerous, or violent---pssst: "radical feminists!"--are the ones who are distorting what sex is, not the incest perpetrators, child molesters, rapists, pimps, and corporate ad execs who fuse "sex" to "violence" and violation constantly. And isn't it often suggested that causing our bodies pain, or hurting them, can be "good HOT sex"?]

Most of us learn that our bodies, and our sex, are things to be ashamed of. [And who teaches us that, and how? Through what means, practices, institutions? Religion. Check. Child molesting priests. Check. Incesting fathers. Wait--the "pro-sex" website's writer doesn't mention them? Child molesting neighbors and friends of the family? No mention. Abusive and neglectful parents? Not a word. Emotionally abusive systems in society, that embed racism and misogyny into children? No mention of that, because really, all there is in the social world are props and roles and people who have no personal histories at all; people who do not live inside political systems of exploitation and abuse and neglect. 

This isn't a specific critique of this one website. According to most "good sex" advice sites, this awareness is usually missing. Which makes those of us who DO have "issues" with our bodies and with "sex" feel even MORE ashamed, not less.]

Most of us learn that sex means a man on top of a woman, and that the only other choice is abstinence. But sex can be lots of things ...  [First, that's not "sex" that's everywhere. That's corporate, manipulative, propagandistic racist, heterosexist, misogynistic sexism. To call that "sex" is to not really grasp what's being sold to us. If it is only described on that website as "sex"--if people "come to believe" that what corporations sell us is "sex", then this alone perpetuates the idea that we need to buy stuff (packaged fantasies, ideas about domination and submission, pencil thin body-hating models, plastic toys, etc., in order to have "sex". We don't need any of that to have great sex. Believe it or not.]

Women have sex with women, men have sex with men, women have sex with men -- and sometimes the best sex is with yourself! [And trans, intergender, and intersex folks too: you all can have sex too! Not according to this list, but you can.]

There are lots of safe and fun ways to get off, which you probably won't learn in school. [There's a lot you won't learn in school, period. Like how many American Indians were slaughtered by butchering, thieving white men. Like how the enslavement of Blacks in the U.S. and elsewhere, like the Caribbean, still manifests in people's psyches and actions. Like how much slavery there is right now. Like how frequently incest and child sexual abuse happens. Like how being emotionally neglected shapes how you act out sexually.] 

You can do many of these things all by yourself  [How about "It would be wise to do ANYTHING first when alone, by yourself, to see how you feel about it before, during, and after, emotionally and physically. And how about reminding people that one in three girls and one in six boys--not sure about the stats on intersex children--are sexually abused? So what we do alone by the time we reach puberty might well incorporate what we were taught by those we love who violated us, betrayed us, caused us pain, and called it love.]

and the as well as with others, and you can talk about them even if you don't want to do them. [Does this mean "phone sex" or "sexting"? Or is this the only place so far when honest self-aware communication and the ability to know what we feel and think and want gets recognised as a centrally important feature of "good sex"? And does this mean that the porn-addicted boyfriend can keep asking about the anal sex, when the partner has already said no?]

Don't feel like you have to do everything on this page, but don't feel like anything is automatically off limits either. [Anything? Sex with pigeons isn't off limits?? Sex with babies isn't off-limits? Rapist seduction tactics aren't off limits? Mixing sex and inebriation isn't off limits?] 

The important thing is that everyone involved clearly says what they want and can make it stop when they want. [Would it have been too much of a not-hot thing to put that at the very top of the page, instead of father down here? The sites states: "everyone involved clearly says what they want and can make it stop when they want". That is about as ludicrous a concept as I've ever heard. In what universe does that happen? In what social space does "everyone involved" get the same levels of permission and entitlements to speak, let alone know WHAT they feel about something that may be happening at too fast a rate to proces? What about those of us with triggers, dissociation, and old patterns of "letting things happen" because once upon a time, when we were very, very young, to not let things happen might have meant we'd be dead--or at least our body-minds feared it could happen? What about those of us whose bodies register terror in an instant, when nothing terrifying is happening? What about those of us who feel "nothing" and "numb" when something scary or dangerous IS happening? How are we supposed to be able to communicate then?]

Just remember, sex is only fun if everyone agrees on what they're going to do. [Bullshit. That's one big load of CRAP. Because if you haven't done something yet, agreeing to do it is agreeing to possibly be able to consent to what's about to occur--because you don't know what's about to occur. Consent is relatively weak and unstable as an ethic, isn't it, if what you're agreeing to do is something you don't understand or know how your body and mind will experience? Like, say, if I agree to take crack cocaine for the first time. Or to try a new kind of alcoholic drink before having "sex". Or if I agree to be tied up because I've learned to do what is asked of me as soon as I enter a bedroom, but don't recall that my uncle did that to me when I was seven. What, exactly, am I agreeing to do when something new is asked of me?]
you could ...

• suck, kiss, touch, bite, fondle, nibble, squeeze, and lick someone's body, nipples, calves, toes, neck, ass, dick or vulva ... [The very first recommendation is for us to think of people as body parts--and sexual pleasure as figuring out which parts feel what, rather than understanding what a person feels about sex is more complicated than what happens when you lick a nipple. This is a very mechanistic, non-holistic view of sex. So far, we don't need capitalism, however. Whew.]
• jerk yourself or each other off, dry or using lots of lubricant ...[Uh oh. We need capitalism already to get that lubricant at a store. And no mention of what sorts of ingredients are in those store-bought or online-ordered lubricants. If petroleum based, then we're talking about something that isn't healthy to put into the body.]
• kiss for a long time, using lots of tongue ... [or not using lots of tongue; spreading around saliva and/or deep penetration doesn't equal "a good time". The best sex I've had, when I was sexual, involved virtually no penetration at all and a very moderate amount of saliva--never leaving the mouth, either.]
• have sex in front of mirrors, or watch each other jerking off ... [now we're kind of into class and capitalism. Lots of homes don't have lots of mirrors in which to pose oneself while being sexual with someone else. Besides that, we've arrived at sex being voyeurism and exhibitionism, small scale. See, with this simple list, we're going to ease our way deeper into the realities and "necessities" of white supremacy, patriarchy, and capitalism. Stay tuned...]
• get into role play (for instance, tie someone up and pleasure them) ... [Ah, yes. "Role play". Curious that the example involves bondage. Because right there we're led to think that "role play" means someone has less movement, capacity to escape an unwanted situation, or even to participate equally. And the doors to white supremacy have now been opened. Also to patriarchy. Why isn't "role play" ever: "you be the person I adore and enjoy being with, and I'll be the person you adore and enjoy being with". Not sexy enough? Not "pro-sex" enough?]
• look at sexy pictures and videos ... ["sexy" meaning what? Objectifying? Exploitive? Mechanistic? Images and videos of people who are trafficked? How are we supposed to know which people in which videos and images were there "consensually"? No mention or regard for that. Just find pix and vids that get you hot. No worries. Except, well, we've now combined capitalism, white supremacy, and patriarchy all into something that is allegedly and unambiguously "good sex".]
• make up or act out fantasies, talk dirty, dress up, strip down, or cross-dress (dressing in the clothes of the other gender) ... [From roles, to videos, to fantasies. If you've been acting out roles and watching the videos, what might the content of those fantasies be? The same as what you've been consuming and acting out? Talking dirty?? I thought we were supposed to be promoting sex-as-not-dirty???? Dressing up--capitalism. Strip down--well, that tends to go with having sex, often. "Cross-dress"? Hmmm. So we're supposed to be buying into a hetero/sexist dress code, a set of roles that rigidly define gendered sex as happening between people who dress differently? If I wear my boyfriend's t-shirt and jeans and he wears mine, are we "cross-dressing" yet? Or does one of us need to put on garments that pimps require prostitutes to wear? I'm guessing not so much with the t-shirt and jeans, and a lot more of the stuff pimps and procurers want women to wear. I could be wrong.]
• call your friend and tell him or her your hottest fantasies ... ["hottest" fantasies? What about most emotional, deepest, most liberating fantasies? What about the fantasies of liberation from capitalism, white supremacy, and patriarchy? What? That isn't "hot"?? Oh, you mean "hot" refers to superficial, buying what corporate racist patriarchy sells us as "hot"? Gotcha.]
• use cock rings, nipple clamps (or clothespins), or vibrators on your own or someone else's body ... [now we're not only dealing with capitalism, but we're dealing with things that can harm our bodies. But it's all "good" and "pro-sex" right? Why isn't sexual practice that can't harm our bodies not "hot" or "good"? How about non-penetrative sex between full human beings, not people-with-toys as "hot" and "good"? Does corporate-produced plastic and corporate-produced electricity need to be present for us to have sex? Really? Was what everyone was doing prior to the advent of electricity and plastic not having enjoyable sex? Why just because products exist, sold to us for a profit, are we required to buy them in order to learn how to have enjoyable sex?]
• shower together, or grind against each other with your clothes on (dry humping) ... [no complaints here. Well, except for one: we are always thinking, in this list, about ourselves as having to do shit to feel a certain way. There's truly no mention at all of "get to know who the person is" or "be together".]
• cum on someone's belly, back, feet, chest -- instead of in them ... [Is this being addressed to women? How exactly might a woman enjoy cumming on someone else's chest? Oh, right, sex is androcentric and phallocentric, so "cum" means "male ejaculate" or "semen". The dead give-away is "instead of in them". Because while women can ejaculate fluid, it's not likely she's choosing between doing that "in" someone else, or outside of someone else. It's not like her partner is saying, "Hey, hon, just for kicks, why don't you ejaculate OUTSIDE my body this time!" So fun sex means heterosexist males who regard penetration using their penis as "normal", and shooting their semen onto people's bodies as "something different to try". Not for me. No thanks.]
• play with your own or someone else's ass or vagina, put your fingers, dildoes, vegetables, or buttplugs into them. [The whole pre-occupation in this list with penetration as "necessary" or "normal" is truly invalidating of a lot of us who don't/can't/won't penetrate someone with parts of our bodies in order to have sex. It's able-ist, in some ways ageist. It's also terribly phallocentric and androcentric. Playing with someone else's body kind of goes without say, doesn't it? Oh, wait. Skype and webcams. Maybe not.So we're talking about solo masturbation as a way to find sexual intimacy and pleasure, then? Or are we just "performing" for someone who is looking at us? This notion of "sex" as "performance" is one of the most capitalistic ideas yet. As opposed, say, to "sex as intimacy" or "sex as sharing" or "sex as communication" or "sex as finding out who one is and who the other person is: "sex as discovery". What? Not "hot", huh? Oh, and you should wash any vegetables and probably wrap a condom on them if they are phallic shaped. And very hard vegetables aren't so good and can puncture or bruise soft internal flesh.]

If you're putting something into a butthole, make sure it has a flared base and looks something like the picture. That way it can't go all the way in and get stuck. [Into "a butthole"--it doesn't belong to anyone? Do buttholes just walk around? Well... kind of, yes. "Politicians" is what they're called in English. And again with the purchasing of objects to use in body parts also written about as if they are objects. More classism here; and more "penetration" AS "sex".]

It's important to play safe. Use condoms and plastic wrap. Don't get blood or cum in a wound. See Safe Sex for more information. [This is one of my pet peeves, I'll be honest. Because none of these sites discuss what "safe" sex is for those of us who were incested, molested, assaulted, raped, exploited, trafficked, and enslaved sexually. The assumption is that no one has traumas; difficulties being present; triggers. The assumptions, in fact, about the people having sex are not "normal" at all. Most people have challenges, whether due to traumas or dysfunctional childhoods, depression or substance misuse, other mental illness or physical disability. So we have to wonder whether this imaginary person even exists in actual life. How do we have emotionally safe sex? How about psychologically safe? Politically safe? Mentally safe? Why is the only "safety" caveat about using rubber and more plastic? Do you get what's so fucked up here? And, yes, we ought to be fully informed about STDs and STIs, but also about emotional coercion and physical manipulation that may be a normal part of a teenager's life and relationships. Oh, and PLASTIC WRAP ISN'T SAFE. It has holes in it that can pass disease and illness. So that's not even something that should be promoted even if we are going to pretend no one has "issues" and society isn't deeply fucked up in oppressive ways, not just "repressive" ones.]

See also *this post* on being anti-sexy vs. anti-sex. I will leave you with two pieces of writing, and I welcome you to compare the depth of feeling, the breadth of insight, in each, compared to the material you read above.

Here are the links, and this is what is being linked to:

Uses of the Erotic: The Erotic as Power, by Audre Lorde, in her book Sister Outsider. I know of no other single essay that so completely tears away what the status quo expects of us, to get down to the possibilities that lie beneath--for our sexual lives, which is also to say, for our lives. This essay, delivered first as a speech, if taken seriously, could radically transform how we experience sex, and what we come to understand is "good" about it.

"Communion" by Andrea Dworkin, a chapter in her book, Intercourse, analysing and discussing the work of James Baldwin--a gay author of amazing depth. The analysis really gets brilliant, for me, about a page and a half into the chapter, when she begins talking about what sex is that the dominant society won't tell you about, leading into Baldwin's work, which also discusses those exact same themes usually kept hidden and secret, unspoken about by the adherents of and apologists for dominant racist, capitalist patriarchal societies' core values.

A snippet, from each:

As women, we have come to distrust that power which rises from our deepest and nonrational knowledge. We have been warned against it all our lives by the male world, which values this depth of feeling enough to keep women around in order to exercise it in the service of men, but which fears this same depth too much to examine the possibilities of it within themselves. -- Audre Lorde, Uses of the Erotic (in Sister Outsider)

There is no imagination in fetishlike sexual conformity; and no questions are being asked in political discourse on sex about hope and sorrow, intimacy and anguish, communion and loss. [...] 
There is an awful poverty here, in this time and place: of questions; of meaning; of emotional empathy; of imagination. And so we are inarticulate about sex, even though we talk about it all the time to say how much we like it [...].  -- Andrea Dworkin, Communion (in Intercourse)