This is awesome.

Sometimes it’s difficult, even impossible, to talk about negative sexual experiences. About the times when our boundaries were violated, but we didn’t say anything. About times when we violated others without realizing it. About times when we violated ourselves. Initiating an honest conversation about sex and consent is scary. Reactions can be cold or even hostile towards those who try. Because of this, many people hold their tongue and put a lid on their thoughts – but that doesn’t make the thoughts go away.

In connection to a conversation regarding the media coverage of the Assange case, Swedish journalist Johanna Koljonen started to tweet, openly and intimately, about her own experiences of drawing lines and negotiating gray areas in sexual situations. Hundreds followed Koljonen’s example on Twitter under the hashtag #prataomdet (“#talkaboutit“). As a result of this, several Swedish magazines, newspapers and other media outlets are publishing pieces on the subject. In a matter of days international media, such as The Guardian, Die Welt, BBC World Service, Norway’s Dagbladet, Finland’s Helsingin Sanomat, and others have followed.

We need a language for sex that isn’t stifled by shame, we need to think about our boundaries as well as others’. Something is going to change. We are going to dare to #talkaboutit.

Thanks, Jessica, for spreading the word.

{ 1 comment }

Monday Reads

by Jill on 12.20.2010 · 4 comments

in Feminism

Jon Hamm in a white tank top

A few things to get your week started right:

150 Years of Vassar: A photo spread. Thanks, Lauren, for the link.

I know a lot of us are WikiLeaks-ed out, but there are two more pieces worth checking out: This one from the New Statesman that discusses the liberal values that are in conflict in the WikiLeaks document drops, and this one from Amnesty International breaking down the freedom of expression issues that WikiLeaks raises. Both are worth reading to gain a more complete understanding of all the factors at play here.

Kangaroo care, where a mother’s body is used as a source of warmth for premature babies, has saved countless lives all over the world.

The Supreme Court is going to decide if the largest sex discrimination case in U.S. history will be allowed to proceed. The Court here isn’t deciding whether Wal-Mart discriminated or didn’t; it’s looking at whether the 1.5 million(!) female employees claiming discrimination have similar enough claims to be considered a class for purposes of class action litigation. This matters not just for gender/sex discrimination issues, but for all class actions going forward. How to define a “class” for the purposes of class action suits is key in allowing workers or others claiming harm, whose individual claims may be too small to reasonably pursue, to band together as a single class of people and pool their resources to assert a large, collective claim against an entity.

Tony Porter issues a call to men at the TED conference, urging them to break free of the “man box” and emphasizing how stereotypes of masculinity hurt all of us.

The always-fantastic Lori Adelman puts together a slideshow of the 10 least misogynistic rap lyrics of 2010.

Conservatives in the House kill a bill that would protect against child marriage – because groups that oppose child marriage may also be pro-choice, and because the bill calls for supporting the rights of girls and making sure that they have access to health care.

Peter King, a House Republican, is planning to use the U.S. Congress as Ground Zero for his anti-Muslim inquisition. He’s calling for Congress to open an inquiry into the “radicalization” of Muslim communities in the United States

Anti-abortion positions are gaining momentum in the House, and anti-choice Congressmen are expecting 2011 to be a big year. They’re focusing on three goals: (1) Banning late-term abortion based on bogus fetal pain claims; (2) Requiring women seeking abortions to obtain unnecessary and costly ultra-sounds; and (3) Barring any insurance coverage of abortion — even coverage by private insurance companies.

And on that note, check out Frances Kissling’s article about all the things you can do this holiday season to support pro-choice and rights-affirming positions. Go a step further and make sure you write and call your Congressperson, and urge him or her to support abortion rights and push back against the anti-choice rush in the House.

{ 4 comments }

Way to go.

The Colombian Government recently passed a law which guarantees access to free contraceptives, including surgical procedures such as vasectomy and tubal ligation. The law was proposed several years ago, but received the push into legislation from new President Juan Manuel Santos.

Under the constitution, Colombian citizens have access to universal health care which has incidentally driven up government costs—especially for maternity and newborn health care. The new law encourages Colombians to access free contraceptives in an effort to contain costs and expand the sexual and reproductive rights of men and women.

The law comes at a critical point in Colombia’s health history as teenage pregnancy rates have reached new heights. Currently 21% of girls under the age of 20 are having children, an increase from 13% in 1990. These pregnancy rates are almost 3 times as high as the current teen pregnancy rates of adolescents in the US. This law will allow young women to better access contraception and prevent unintended pregnancy.

{ 3 comments }

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which is the American law barring openly gay men and women from serving in the military, was repealed by the Senate this weekend. Once Obama signs the bill, the military will no longer be able to discriminate against gays and lesbians. It’s ridiculous that it took this long, but good news nonetheless.

{ 5 comments }

You know what to do.

{ 45 comments }

This is a guest post by Clarisse Thorn, who blogs at Pro-Sex Outreach, Open-Minded Feminism.

(The above image is a slide from a presentation by Marlise Richter, a researcher at the AIDS Law Project, Centre for Applied Legal Studies, University of Witwatersrand, South Africa. It is described at the bottom of this post.)

Stigma is an interesting beastie. Whore stigma is particularly interesting, in part because it makes no sense and falls apart the minute it’s exposed to any rational analysis whatsoever. Yet somehow, even though it makes no sense, it is a constant and often overwhelming social force that shapes the lives of all women.

There’s an old joke about a man who walks up to a woman at a bar and asks, “Would you have sex with me for a million dollars?” She says, “Yes.” He says, “What about fifty dollars?” and she snaps, “What the hell do you think I am — a whore?” He replies, “We’ve already established that you’re a whore; now we’re just negotiating the price.”

Inherent in this joke, and in the slide I showcase at the top of this post, is the tension and confusion that happens pretty much automatically whenever anyone tries to point out the difference between a “nice girl” and a “whore”. It’s one of the best ways to show that whore stigma makes no sense: the difference is impossible to pin down.

What’s weird about these conversations, though, is that everyone almost always gets caught up in the question of who’s a whore and who’s not a whore — and in the confusion, very few people think to question whether whore stigma itself is insane and divisive and harmful. This even happens during conversations that start with the intent of questioning the very concept of whore stigma, such as this post by sex work researcher Laura Agustín; the post’s whole point is that the concept of whore stigma makes no sense — but commenters on the post immediately start trying to define what a whore is.

Indeed, this even happens among sex workers. My friends at the Sex Workers Outreach Project have told me how very complicated it can be to try to pull different sex workers together in order to have a conversation about banding together for legal rights and societal recognition. One recurring issue is how some sex workers will refuse to associate with other sex workers: for example, professional dominatrixes or strippers may refuse to associate with escorts because “You’re whores, and we’re not whores, and we’re not like you.” This is one more factor making it hard for sex workers’ rights advocates to achieve social momentum. Which may mean that when — for example — the law randomly decides that dominatrixes are actually whores (surprise!), those non-whore sex workers may find themselves without resources.

But of course it happens among non-sex workers, too. Because being an “actual” sex worker is in no way a requirement for being called a whore, or for having whore stigma slammed in your face. Any woman who carries condoms might as well be a whore, right? Not even thirteen-year-old girls are exempt from whore stigma or its twin, slut-shaming, as we learned from Hope Witsell’s suicide last year. Hope sexted a boy who betrayed her and sent her message all over the school — at which point she was punished severely, was socially ostracized, and killed herself.

Examples of whore stigma abound, and none of us are innocent from reinforcing it. I’ll cop to it: before I had a grip on how problematic whore stigma is, I myself called one or two women whores because I felt threatened by them. I hadn’t thought through how easily I myself might be harmed by the label; I hadn’t yet identified my fears of being labeled one myself. I was insensitive — and I was also stupid, because whore stigma could come get me as easily as it could get an “actual” whore. Contributing to it wasn’t just hurting other women, it was also shooting myself in the foot.

Plus, the more effort women put into distinguishing ourselves from whores, the less effort we put into actually working on the issues that harm women. Or making common cause with, say, sex workers who aren’t women and therefore get completely disappeared during all this anxious finger-pointing.

When we will acknowledge that whore stigma makes no sense, that it’s insane and divisive and harmful? What does it take? All women’s appearance and activities — especially our sexuality — are attacked, limited, and kept in line by the threat of “sluthood” and “whoredom”. In that sense, we all pay. We all have a stake in taking down these social structures.

And we can start by honoring and acknowledging sex work as an honorable job that deserves both legal and social recognition. Today is a fantastic day to do just that. December 17th is the International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers, and there may just be an event in your area. It’s also worth considering reading up on how to be an ally to sex workers and passing that information on to your friends.

Please note that The Wisdom of Whores, the awesome book by Elizabeth Pisani that I encouraged y’all to read for free on World AIDS Day at the beginning of this month, is still available for free download — all the way through the end of December. Pisani’s book is one of my favorites, ever — there are some valid critiques to be made, but even with those in mind, I just love it. It’s free! What are you waiting for?

(The slide at the beginning of this post shows a straight horizontal line with an arrow at each end. At the top, the graphic is labeled “Sex-for-reward continuum”. The right end of the arrow is labeled “Illegitimate”, and the left end is labeled “Legitimate”. From right to left there are five points, labeled as follows:

* “Self-identified sex worker on a street corner?”

* “Woman who has sex at the back of a taxi in exchange for a ride into town?”

* “School girl has sex with her ex-boyfriend for cell phone airtime?” [Note: in Africa, cell phone airtime is a somewhat expensive commodity. A school girl having sex in exchange for airtime is somewhat analogous to having sex in exchange for a nice piece of clothing.]

* “Student sleeps with her lecturer in order to pass?”

* “Wife has sex with her husband as she knows they are going to the mall tomorrow?”

At the bottom of the slide is a triangle pointing up to the line. It is labeled: “Who do we put in jail?”)

{ 82 comments }

Today is International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers. There are 21 events happening in the U.S. alone; more are listed on the site. Too many sex workers are killed, raped, assaulted and abused because, to paraphrase Oregon serial killer Gary Ridgeway, they’re easy targets. Their work is often done clandestinely, and they typically can’t go to the police to report abuse since their work is largely illegal.

But it’s not just violent clients who do harm to sex workers. As Audacia Ray explains in this great piece, human rights abuses from the state, denial of HIV and other heath services, crackdowns by police and limitations on organizing also do real, tangible and sometimes life-threatening harm to sex workers. She concludes, “But violence doesn’t just come in the form of bad clients – more often, it is delivered by the institutions that are supposed to protect and improve the lives of citizens.”

Today, support the rights of sex workers — the rights to organize, to work without abuse, and to seek help when they need it.

A great big thanks RD for spreading the word and keeping us informed.

{ 3 comments }

So this article by Nick Kristof isn’t actually as bad as it could be. He honors Dr. Hawa Abdi, who is a pretty amazing woman. He points out that it’s totally fucked up that there are going to be Congressional hearings on American Muslims, led by the Republican party (although Kristof’s contention that it’s “the extremist side of Islam that drives Islamophobia in the United States,” which leads to these kinds of hearings, is… naive, to be generous). Anyway, for the most part, good story. Great woman. Wonderful to give her and her work more publicity.

But really, New York Times headline writer, “Heroic, Female and Muslim”? Am I the only person who thought of the “But… he’s gay!” YouTube video that circulated a while back? (For those who haven’t seen it — spoiler — it’s a news segment where the newscaster is discussing a man who bravely climbed Mt. Everest and, with a great dramatic pause says, “BUT… he’s gay.” Aaaand then immediately corrects herself to say, “I mean, he’s gay, excuse me, he’s blind.” The whole thing is just yikes.

The Kristof article is kind of like that. It basically goes, “Islamic fundamentalists do terrible things to women, and so American Christian fundamentalists hate them, but look here’s this woman who did something awesome… but she’s Muslim. Bet you didn’t see that coming!” Yuck.

{ 20 comments }

File under “You know you’re an asshole when…”:

A Catholic hospital saved the life of a young mother of four. The woman was pregnant and suffered from life-threatening pulmonary hypertension, which caused her heart to begin to fail. Doctors determined that she would almost definitely die if she did not end the pregnancy immediately, and the woman agreed to terminate. Surgeons and physicians acted quickly and saved her life.

Soon after, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix started squawking — it would have been appropriately “pro-life,” they said, to stand by while the woman died. It was wrong, in their view, to terminate the pregnancy even though that was the only way to prevent the woman’s death. The nun who acted as a liaison between the hospital and the ethics committee was demoted for her role in saving the woman’s life.

That was a year ago. Now, Bishop Thomas Olmstead of the Diocese has written a letter to the hospital in which he doesn’t deny that the procedure saved the woman’s life, but nevertheless deems it morally wrong and asks the hospital to promise that a life-saving abortion “will never occur again at St. Joseph’s Hospital.”

That’s right: A religious leader wants a hospital to promise that it will not take measures to save the life of a patient if those measures conflict with what this religious leader believes is morally correct. Patients have a right to care — and especially to life-saving emergency care. The fact that a Catholic hospital is the closest one to your home, or the one that the ambulance drops you at, shouldn’t mean that you receive sub-par care and that your life is deemed unworthy of saving simply because you’re a woman or because you’re pregnant. Doctors who refuse to save lives should have their licenses revoked. And hospitals that refuse to save patients should lose all recognition and funding, and should absolutely be legally liable for the harm they cause.

{ 58 comments }

Man-Repelling

by Jill on 12.16.2010 · 35 comments

in Beauty, Fashion, Gender

Maybe I will have something more intelligent to say about this later, but: I appreciate women who are able to have a sense of humor about fashion, and who recognize that for a lot of us, clothing is wearable art and not just a way of making ourselves look attractive (or covering our butts). Maybe I’m just biased because I really like a good jumpsuit (although I’m not such a fan of how hard they are to get off when you have to pee).

{ 35 comments }

Anyone who’s seen The Wire knows the drill here: There’s political pressure to have lower crime rates, and so crimes are downgraded and not fully pursued. Which, in New York, has let serial rapists go free.

An investigative report by the Village Voice uncovered nothing short of a scandal. A series of articles exposed the New York Police Department’s practice of consistently “undercharging” crimes in an effort to meet “performance measurements” (quotas are illegal) and make crime statistics appear more palatable. The manipulation of statistics was caught on tapes in which NYPD higher-ups can be heard telling street cops to downgrade crimes or simply not to report particular crimes at all.

Numerous courageous police officers have come forward to tell their tales of questionable police policies, such as retired detective Harry Hernandez, who details a harrowing account of police misconduct related to serial rapist Daryl Thomas. While NYC sexual assault prevention groups say that the issue of under-reporting and undercharging of crimes has been a “growing problem” over the last two years, these “shady police policies,” writes Alex DiBranco on the Women’s Rights blog, had particularly devastating consequences when Thomas was able to sexually assault six different women in a single neighborhood over a period of two months. He was on his way to a seventh when a “lucky break” fueled his capture by police. The brutal spree should have triggered alarm bells, but went unnoticed for so long because the NYPD kept downgrading the assaults to “criminal trespassing.”

Read the details here, and in the Village Voice.

{ 8 comments }

This is a guest post by Rachel Hills. Rachel Hills is a London-based freelance writer on gender issues. She blogs at Musings of an Inappropriate Woman, and is currently writing a book on young people, sex and identity.

Recently I wrote an article for a ladymag on gay marriage. The article in question being Proper Journalism rather than a blog post in which I can opine at will, I was briefed to cover both sides of the argument accurately and fairly.

As a twentysomething leftie for whom same-sex marriage is a clear cut matter of equality and human rights, this at first left me feeling kind of stumped. I understood that a lot of people didn’t support gay marriage for religious reasons, but there were also plenty of religious people who did support it – or who at least didn’t feel the need to push their beliefs onto other, non-religious people.

Like many who share my views, my instinct was to automatically dismiss those who actively oppose gay marriage as fearful, bigoted and homophobia.

But even fear and bigotry exist for a reason, so I looked at their arguments a little more closely. And I amused to discover that, beneath the surface, the view that marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-and-a-man-and-a-woman-only can probably be made sense of by the work of a famously gay, leftie French philosopher. Michel Foucault.

In fact, when it came to the political logic underlying their arguments, Foucault and gay marriage opponents had a fair bit in common.

Don’t believe me? Consider the below.

1. They both believe that sexuality is a social construct.

That is, that our sexual preferences and practices aren’t inbuilt, but can change according to the norms and ideals of the day.

Sure, the anti-gay marriage lobby say that married, heterosexual love is only “natural”, but if it was so natural, same-sex marriage wouldn’t be such a threat, would it?

To you and me, it probably seems kind of crazy to suggest that allowing same sex marriage would turn people gay in droves. But maybe we’re just not taking a long enough view.
If you agree that despite all the progress of the last 30 years, we still live in a society that makes it easier to be heterosexual than homosexual, it’s not that great a leap to say that there might be a portion of the population who currently identify as straight who might get a little bit more flexible with their sexual preferences if we lived in a society that was truly free of homophobia.

Marriage equality wouldn’t eradicate homophobia entirely, nor would it undo years of romantic conditioning from Disney films and rom-coms. But it would be a significant stamp of social approval that we currently lack, not to mention visible and culturally viable family model.

This is what anti-gay marriage advocates are really talking about when they worry that allowing same-sex marriage will “encourage” people to “turn gay”. Not that it will automatically flip a switch in every straight person, but that by decreasing homophobia, it might make future generations of young people more comfortable with coming out as gay or bi.

I don’t think they’re entirely wrong on that front, and Foucault probably wouldn’t have thought so either. The difference between them and Foucault, is that they think this is a bad thing.

2. They both believe that sex is a site of power and politics.

Foucault argued that the everyday sexual norms we take for granted actually served a deeper regulatory purpose: to incentivize married, straight reproductive sex amongst the bourgeois set, and boost the number of bourgeois babies in the process.

The anti-gay marriage lobby also believes that marriage-between-a-man-and-a-woman-and-between-a-man-a-woman-only serves a deeper regulatory purpose: to incentivise heterosexual unions formed with the intent of producing children. And how do they incentivise these unions? By endowing them with unique social and economic rewards that people who aren’t in said unions are unable to access.

One point that is often glossed in debates around same-sex marriage is that supporters and opponents are working with different definitions of marriage. And not just in the religious sense, either. There is a fundamental mismatch in how and why the two groups value the institution.

While liberal, secular types view marriage as the coming together of two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their life together, anti-gay marriage lobbyists view it as a union for the production of families and children (never mind that a growing number of same-sex couples are building families and having children of their own).

In their view, heterosexual couples with kids genuinely are superior to deliberately childless heterosexual couples and to gay couples, and genuinely deserve to be awarded privileges other couples aren’t.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying these views don’t constitute homophobia. They absolutely do. And like all homophobia, they’re grounded in fear and prejudice. They’re just not grounded in mindless fear and prejudice.

To the contrary, they have a pretty clear political logic to them, even if we disagree with their conclusions. And understanding isn’t just the first step towards empathy and engagement: it’s also the first step to having a useful debate.

{ 46 comments }