Just because it made me cry

I haven't seen Milk, or any of the other films that were nominated for Oscars. But everyone should watch the speech that Dustin Lance Black gave when he won the best original screenplay for Milk:



via Yes Means Yes

Sexy?

It's a very loaded word 'sexy'. And I've been thinking about it since reading a post on Yes Means Yes, about striptease aerobics (admittedly a topic I know nothing about). Jacinda, who wrote the post, enjoys the classes, they make her feel sexy, and she's trying to unpack that.

To be seen as sexy by someone else is something that can happen regardless of gender. And any one can feel sexy as in horny. But it is women's role that means that being desired (or desireable) is something that you feel. Women's sexuality or our own desiring, is deliberately muddled with being desired.

Which isn't to say that I think it's anti-feminist to go to a pole dancing class. Because my politics are not about individual's actions, and if people enjoy pole dancing classes they enjoy pole dancing classes. But I think feminists should be extremely critical of institutions that reinforce this dynamic of women as desired rather than desiring. It underpins so much of our ideas about sex and rape.

But that's not what motivated me to post (for the second time in a week). What I wanted to respond to was her conclusion:

What I do struggle with, though, is the idea of sexiness. When we say these classes make women feel sexy how exactly are we defining that word? Does sexy simply mean men want me or does sexy mean I love my body because it’s healthy and strong and because I can have fun with it doing things like these over-the-top dances.

I find the first option much much less problematic than the second. Because in attempt to re-frame 'sexy' she's actually reinforcing really narrow views of acceptable (let alone sexy) bodies. Because not everyone's body is healthy and strong, and not everyone can do any particular dance move.

That's not a better way of understanding the meaning of 'sexy', it's a worse one. Firstly because it's dishonest, as it hides the actual dynamic of the way women are framed as sex. And secondly because society has already slammed the door on many sorts of bodies being sexy, and this idea sits with the back to the door and tries to keep it shut.

There is no shame in feeling good because you feel desired, and there's no shame in loving your body for what it can do. But the second is no more a liberatory political position than the first.

All Our Rights

I attended the launch of All Our Rights - a campaign to repeal the "Homosexual Panic" defence. This defence is used by straight men who murder gay men. The argument is basically that for some straight men, the mere existence of a gay man causes the straight man to panic and beat the gay man to death. Therefore there was no intent to kill, therefore the killer deserves a lesser sentence (No Right Turn has a good post on the campaign).

It is less than a week since Judge Michael Lance imposed no penalty on Craig Busch for assaulting his partner. The judge said that Craig Busch's violence was the 'human and inevitable' response to seeing his partner in bed with another couple.

I don't believe jail does anyone any good. I don't support the judicial system. I'm not even really arguing for tougher sentences. If Craig Busch's sentence was the standard sentence for assault, I wouldn't complain.

What I am arguing against is a judicial system that openly states that some of us are not fully human and deserve violence.

We don't like to make our passions other people's concern

Audra Williams has a really great question":

I said at a Mediawatch board meeting this weekend that I feel like it's impossible to get upset with young girls dressing in revealing clothing without also signing onto the notion that it's possible to dress as if you are sexually available. I would like to talk about this, because I feel like most people disagree with me but I can't find a way to separate those two streams of thought.

What I mean is, I feel like people around the table believed that girls were dressing as if they are sexually available, and I don't think it's POSSIBLE to dress as if you are sexually available.

I don't understand how the same feminist women who fought for the idea that the way someone dresses is NEVER a green light for sex can now say that teenage girls are "dressing like skanks" or use terms like "prosti-tots"?

I think the point she's making is a really good one. It's one thing to talk about the range of clothing available to girls, it is quite another to make any sort of comment about the girls that wear them.

But I actually want to take this off in a slightly different direction. One of the comments on my recent post about the Buffy comic books talked about the artist 'sexualising' Willow. I really object to that language. The character of Willow was sexual - she once spent an entire episode in bed (and not in a bad way like Buffy and Riley). Giving someone larger breasts and an impractical garment doesn't sexualise them - it objectifies them, and being sexual and being an object of desire are not the same thing.

Of course this conflation is hardly rare. There are many, many different ways women are taught that for us being sexual is being desired, rather than desiring. It is very hard to shake this idea off entirely. Women who do not fit the conventional idea of what is desirable have no way to be sexual.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to be wanted, and I imagine most people find being found sexually attractive a turn on. The problem is that women's sexuality is reduced to our desirability, and the extent to which we conform to a code of desireability, defines whether or not we're seuxal.

Women can't fight this by changing what we look like and particularly not by criticising what other women look like. Instead we need to reject any analysis which buys into the idea that women's sexuality and appearance are one and the same and to talk about women's desires and sexual agency, so that the next generation of girls knows that what they want matters.

Review: Shortbus

I went to see Short Bus tonight. There are a lot of good things you could say about this movie. It's got lots of lovely and real moments, humour and wit, and, most importantly, it shows people having sex. Not just soft lighting and fading to black, but people having sex in a way that an actual person might actually have sex.

I'm not going to say any of these things, instead I'm going to explore why, despite these features, the movie left me cold.

The most obvious reason was that there was just too much non-consensual sexual activity for me. A professional dominatrix has sexual contact with a man who repeatedly steps over her boundaries, and she can't afford to enforce those boundaries. A stalker stalks a couple for two years, and culminates this in touching one member of the couple sexually when he is passed out. The climax of both the major plots involve scenes with sexual contact that is clearly non-consensual.

I don't have a problem with movies depicting non-consesual sex. What I need is for a movie that depicts non-consensual sex to take that seriously. To give the viewer space to be creeped out. I need to know that the director also believes that non-consensual sex is a problem, or else I can't play in his world. I can't switch from creepy non-consensual sex scene to happy orgy party scene, where one woman's orgasm restores power to a city.

Shortbus sold itself, both during the movie itself and through publicity, as a broad view of life and sex. I think if I hadn't thought of the movie like that I would have enjoyed it a lot more, becuase my other problem was what a limited world the movie showed.

Partly it was limited in the way films set in Manhattan are so often limited. Ridiculously rich people are meant to stand for us all. I realised while watching that I'm prejudiced against Manhattan movies, or at least that subset of Manhattan movies that believe that by showing us Manhattan they are showing us the world. If what I've been told is true, then if you can afford an apartment that looks spacious in Manhattan, then you have a reasonably to very high income.

But it was more than that, the extras in the scenes set in the club were remarkably similar for a movie that was supposed to show us a broad section of human experience. They were almost all young, conventionally attractive and white. The exceptions were tokenised to an extent that felt insulting. The old man wasn't just an old man who might enjoy sex like everyone else, he was also the only old person in the building (and as a side-note I don't think he deserved any forgiveness or absolution). The non-white characters were given pointed roles (one of the main characters or one of the few lesbians who was shown twice), which presumably was meant to make us forget how few of them there were. There were two fat people in there, but both were meant to show how weird and freakish this club was, and didn't actually do anything (because that would be too much).

I discussed all this, as we were walking home afterwards. We agreed on the points I mentioned above, But my friends felt they had gained something from this movie, and many people gave it rave reviews. I understand why. We're so deprived of anything resembling real images of sex and sexuality, that for so many of us a step in the right direction is really important.

I'm not sure that any movie can take the weight that the director and marketers tried to give this one. If films acknowledge sex as a part of our life then this could be a movie about a sex therapist, a depressed man, and the people they meet. But they don't, and it's not. I'm not saying you shouldn't see it, because movies like it are rare - but we deserve better.

Dude you kissed a girl

The first episode of Ugly Betty aired in New Zealand a couple of days ago. My short review is that it looks awesome (although the ending was way too pat, and if the point is supposed to be that if you're smart you can succeed I will stop watching).*

One aspect bothered me, and that was the part of Betty's presumed to be gay cousin - Justin. He wanted to watch fashion TV, and was slightly effiminate, and I suspect that from this the audience was supposed to deduce the sexuality of a 10 year old.**

It probably didn't help that immediately after watching Ugly Betty I watched a few episodes of Arrested Development.*** In this show there is also a character that the audience is supposed to believe is gay, based on a general sexual awkwardness and a feeling of oddness. I've been bothered by this particular trope ever since Andrew in Buffy.

I find the idea that we can deduce someone's sexuality from their gender conformity, or anything else besides their sexual desires, is completely regressive.

I don't think it's a coincidence that these characters are always men. A woman who acted and dressed butch, and whose sexuality was uncertain wouldn't be amusing, she'd be pathetic. The joke (such as it is) is dependent on a society that views feminine traits as inferior in general and inexplicable in men.

For all the fancy dressing (and all these shows are in some ways progressive or alternative) these characters are basically more gender policing.

I would actually like to see a male character who gave off all sorts of effeminate vibes was sexually attracted to women, or reveal that a character who behaved in typically masculine ways was in fact in the closet.****

* I also saw America Ferrar's golden globe acceptance speech, where she said "It's such an honor to play a role that I hear from young girls on a daily basis how it makes them feel worthy and lovable and they have more to offer the world than they thought." I believe her, but do want to pont out what a sad inditement on the world that is.

** I've only seen the first episode so I could be wrong and I'm sure people will let me know in the comments if I am.

** Also awesome, don't get me wrong. I keep on having a new favourite joke, for a long time it was the fact that none of the family could tell any Latino people apart, then there was the Atkins diet episode, but my new favourite is "they won't do anything to me, it's shoplifting and I'm white."

**** Of course on Buffy this happened with the Larry character, and it was great. Except the actor was a Christian homophobe and they killed him off.

Strong and warm and wild and free

Jody at Raising WEG has triplet four year olds, and her blog is probably favourite blog that mostly uses the author's experience as a starting point (which is generally the type of blog I like to read the most, which is funny, because it's not what I write). She just wrote a great post about the ways in which she hopes her girls will experience their sexuality. You should go read it, because I don't have one baby, let alone triplets, so this post is going to vear rapidly off into my own tangent. Jody prefaced her discussion with a referance to other ideas about sexuality for girls:

Right around here, I wanted to link to a long discussion I read (possibly on Feministe) in which many commentators defended today's fashion choices by teenage girls, and rebuffed those who would criticize girls' clothing as anti-feminist folks who want to deny girls their sexual freedom. But I can't find it. You'll just have to trust me that it's there. Somewhere. The main argument: girls are sexual beings, their clothing choices reflect their awakening sexual selves, and anyone who critiques their choices is anti-feminist.

What I find so deeply disturbing about that argument is that it reduces women's sexuality to a performance art. We express our sexuality not through our desires, words or actions, but our appearance.

This explains why it's only women who express 'sexuality' through clothing. Men express sexuality through what they do - they have sexual agency. Women aren't supposed to have sexual agency - they're objects for male desire - so the only way to express sexuality is passively.

The idea that women express their sexuality through what they look like is a pretty deeply ingrained idea in our culture. To the extent that I think many (most? fucked if I know) women do experience at least part of their sexuality through their appearance and their ability to attract male attention. Covering ourselves up isn't really a solution. When I was a teenager I didn't dress to attract attention, because I didn't believe anyone could ever be attracted to me. I did experience a form of power when I realised that I could dress sexy (I still own, and treasure, the first top that I ever thought looked good on me). The problem is that no matter how women and girls dress they're still dressing in a world that sees their appearance as their main way of expressing themselves sexually.

I don't think any good comes of telling a woman that they're experiencing their sexuality 'wrong' or upholding the patriarchy with their cleavage. But I do think that we have to be careful not to reinforce the idea that women's main outlet for sexuality is through their appearance. In fact we need to go further and fight that idea, until women and girls experience their sexuality as something that is first and foremost for them.

At night we walk into our houses and burn

Recently there's been an on-going discussions about sex among feminist bloggers. It started with a debate on blow-jobs, and kind of continued through various different permutations, the most stark of which was tekanji's post calling for a truce in the 'sex wars' ending up in a heated argument about prostitution.

There's a lot I could say, a lot of different things I may respond to, in a round about kind of way, over the next few weeks. It all feels a bit strange to me. I don't think there are enough New Zealand feminists to have sex wars. Even when people disagree (and there were feminists who opposed prostitution law reform) we don't have enough troops for two seperate armies, and we couldn't afford the casulties.

But we do have discussions about sexuality, and I see the same idea among feminists I know as I have seen on blogs. I think Punk Ass Marc expressed one such idea most clearly

The same is true for guys. I can say “men suck” all day, and I can’t possibly add to the oppression of men, because such a thing as oppressing “men” isn’t really possible. Once it is, then that language ceases to attack the power stranglehold of a ruling class and starts to be trouble.

[....]

And while it isn’t a perfect analogy, I think there’s a strong argument to be made that submissive feminine acts and qualities are every bit as protected as the rich/white/males out there — and that’s because those men are the ones protecting them.

He was quickly critiqued on many different fronts by feminists who had more of a clue than he did. I understand why he wrote this, and I think I understand what he was trying to say. But I think he's completely, utterly wrong.

I think the idea that some forms of female sexuality match what men want, and are therefore more acceptable - even protected, is one that makes sense, on the face of it. But I think it completely misses the point of the way female sexuality is framed in our society. It's not particular sexual acts that are protected, but women meeting men's needs. A sex act that is protected when done to meet men's needs, is not the same act when it comes from women's genuine desire.

When I talk about genuine desire I'm not trying to imagine what our sexuality would be like in a free and equal society, I think that's impossible to know. I mean something much more simple - knowing, and being able to communicate, what you want for yourself.*

I think that's actually the problem with this whole discourse - there's a pretty effective version of divide and rule being played. Many women feel that their sexuality, their desires, are not OK, and they have to fight for them. But just because your desires are unacceptable, doesn't mean that other women's desires are acceptable. Having virgin and whore as your two options is supposed to make women who have no sex feel shit, women who have lots of sex feel like shit, and women who fall somewhere in between also feel like shit.

During these supposedly feminist discussions about sex you do frequently see women telling other women 'your sexuality isn't under attack'. I don't think this is true, I don't think any women's sexuality is free from attack, because I don't think it's OK for women to have seuxality independent of men's needs. I know that the way I feel about sex, and experience my sexuality and my desires, is not OK in this society. But I try to fight the feeling that other women have it easier, because I don't really know what it's like to walk in their shoes. I certainly don't think it's OK to tell another woman that her sexuality isn't under attack - particularly not if she feels that she needs to fight for it.

I feel like this post needs to end with a disclaimer. I've no idea if anything I've said is right. All I know about is me, my friends, and what other women have chosen to share in writing. Maybe there are women who find everything about their sexuality accepted and easy to navigate. I certainly don't want to imply that it isn't harder for some women than others. But I think if we started from the position that any sexuality a woman feels, experiences and communicates that is based on genuine desires, as opposed to male needs, challenges our socitey's views of women, then the divide and rule tactics would be less likely to work.

* I'm not trying to say that hetrosexual women's desires aren't or can't be partly about mutuality and pleasing their partners. For many women there is over-lap between your own desires and meeting other people's needs. But I think my point, that women's own desires aren't acceptable, still stands.

More on Homosexual Law Reform

My friend tells a story about her grandmother who we'll call Judith. Every time the Sallies came around Judith would empty her purse into their collection bucket, she'd grown up in a religious household and respected the work they did. In 1985 she stopped - she no longer gave them a cent - and told them that the reason was because of the homosexual law reform petition.

I feel the same way, when I was on diversion I wouldn't do volunteer work for the Salvation Army. I'd never donate anything to them - although I do occasionally buy stuff from their stores if it's cheap. You lead an organised hate campaign and I'm prepared to judge you for that for far more than 20 years.

But I'm prepared to give them credit for this: apologising:

On the eve of the 20th anniversary of Homosexual Law Reform, the head of the Salvation Army has apologised to the gay and lesbian communities for the Sallies' decision to administer the petition opposing law reform.

“We regret any hurt caused to people by the process of the petition and desire to build bridges to all sections of the community,” said Commissioner Garth McKenzie, Territorial Commander for the Salvation Army in New Zealand.

I'm not going to start giving the Sallies anything, but I might feel better about buying stuff from them.

There are a few good articles about that time.

I'd also storngly recommend listening to the Radio New Zealand documentary about the law reform debate (I can't link to it, because the site is down at the moment, but it was on at 4pm today so it shouldn't be hard to find). It was a truly excellent documentary - it let voices from the past speak for themselves.

It was upsetting and disturbing though. While I've heard about the Jerry Falwell's of the world who blame everything on homosexuality - they seem a little bit unreal and elsewhere - it's unnerving to hear them talking here (even in the past). There was one man who talked about hoping that terminal AIDS patients died soon, because he believed that the more people who died of AIDS the less likely parliament was to pass the bill. I just can't understand that there are people who think like that.

Just 20?

The Homosexual Law Reform Act became law 20 years ago today:

An Act to amend the Crimes Act 1961 by removing criminal sanctions against consensual homosexual conduct between males, and by consequentially amending the law relating to consensual anal intercourse

Reading the list of people who voted against the bill makes me angry as if it wasn't 20 years ago. I'm angry at the closet cases; I'm angry at Don McKinnon (his brother has played a huge part in establishing the gay and lesbian archives); I'm angry at the supposed liberals in the National government (Ruth Richardson I'm looking at you); I'm also angry at God for finding Whetu Tiritakane Sullivan, because she was so cool and staunch during the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act debate, but then had a car crash, was found by God and changed her mind.

I don't even know who's on the team

Trevor Loundon has new 'joke':

Heard about the new "Doggie Style" for married couples?

Hubby kneels and begs. Wife rolls over and plays dead.

Reminds me of a 'joke' David Farrar posted a few months back:

Q: Why did the man have sex with a mannequin?

A: He just thought she was British :-)

Aren't they just hilarious? Aren't you rolling on the floor splitting your sides with laughter? Isn't the idea that sex is something men do to women just that funny? Don't you find the idea of women having sex they don't want just the most amusing thing ever?

We're told that our bodies are disgusting; we're told to shave, pluck and starve if we're have any hope of anyone ever desiring us; we're told that our desirability is the most important quality we posessess; we're told that having sex makes us a 'slut'; we're told the things we must do to avoid rape; we're told we asked for it; we're told that contraception is our responsibility; we're told it doesn't matter if the pill kills our libido; we're told 1,500 different ways to make sure he enjoys himself; we're told to ignore our desires; and we're told what sex positions will stop us from looking fat.

Then we're laughed at for not wanting sex enough.

In his speech to Equality Now Joss Whedon said that the misogyny of our culture was sucking something from the soul of every man and woman on the planet. I certainly feel like that today. I'm glad the women involved in the fascinating discussion of sex at Bitch Phd are collectively demonstrating that women are people, even during sex, but unfortunately those discussions don't have the same impact as the 'jokes'.