Sex Positivity Interview

A reader of this blog recently emailed me a request for an interview of my opinions on sex positivity. I was ecstatic to oblige and I got permission to post the interview here:  

A.B.: How do you define sex positivity?

Me: Sex positivity is harmonious with enthusiastic consent. Both involve a strong sense of self, awareness, communication, and respect for other consenting adults. A positive attitude about sex, both what one is having (or not having) and in general, educates and opens minds. Sex is more enjoyable when it is enthusiastic and positive - not fluffy bunny happy-face positive, but positive in the sense that the participating consenting adults are aware, respectful and pleased. This is not to say that asexuals and virgins can't be sex positive. The actual act of sex is only a part of sex positivity. Body positivity, respect for identity, intersectionality and inter/intrapersonal literacy are all other parts as well.

A.B.: When you lived in Edgewater, did you feel it was a sex positive place? Why or why not?

Me: It's difficult for me to say whether or not Edgewater was sex positive, except in comparison to Jefferson Park, where I grew up. Sex shops such as Tulip (would that count as Edgewater or Andersonville?) and Early 2 Bed never would have made it into Jefferson Park, nor would gender-aware businesses such as Kitchen Sink and Graham Cracker Comics - shout out to Shanna, who's a guru of comic books and feminism. In this sense, Edgewater is sex positive. I also had an art show as part of the Edgewater Art Walk in October 2011, which was technically PG-13 but with more racy ideological themes. Aside from these individual places and experiences, particularly in comparison to other more conservative/Victorian neighborhoods, Edgewater didn't seem to have much of a centralised community awareness. I have friends in Edgewater who don't tend to participate in in the community, and I know outsiders who make a special effort to participate.

A.B.: Where do you think the expression and enjoyment of a healthy sexuality tie into the grand picture of women’s health?*

Me: One can better enjoy sex with education, which involves sexual health. Many women don't have comprehensive sexual education about their own bodies, which is a health issue. When a woman doesn't comprehend her own body, how can she decipher her cycle, understand what angle of penetration is most pleasing to her (or penetration at all), or love her body at all? For example, many clinics and gynecologists will not give IUDs to women who are not already married with children. This practice declares that pleasurable sex is allowable only after one has reproduced sufficiently and in legally recognised monogamy. Firstly, very few women know about IUDs in the first place; secondly, how many women in that situation would continue to search? Or would know where to look? Or know that their states might provide financial coverage for both the IUD itself and its insertion procedure? Or whether she should get a Mirena IUD, Paragard IUD, or use another method? Reproductive health is a branch of sexual health, though the emphasis is stronger for women. The difference between vaginal and clitoral orgasms isn't valued as much as how an egg gets fertilised in our society (and even education on that is poor). The emphasis is on reproduction, not pleasure. While it's true that this information is important and protection from unwanted pregnancy is necessary, awareness should continue beyond that. A woman can take a birth control pill - regardless of her knowledge of how it affects her body - to keep from getting pregnant but still might not orgasm during sex and not know why. Resources for that understanding are fewer than for birth control, which is still too little.

A.B.: On your blog, you talk about sex positivity as a prevention technique. Can you expand on this?

Me: To better understand "prevention technique," I'll elaborate on exactly what is being prevented. There are many layers of sexual assault/harassment, none of them "better" or "worse" than another. There is the commonly perceived scene of a masculine stranger forcing a woman into something sexual; to be certain, this does occur and it is horrifying. There are also respected authority figures or seemingly-platonic intimates who use their relationships, sometimes unknowingly, to manipulate the trust of one for sexual ends. And then there is sexual coercion, given into in order to avoid a fight or to maintain a relationship. Sex positivity is not a shield against sexual harassment/assault, but it can both enhance one's awareness of a situation - particularly one's role, responsibility, options, lack of responsibility - and be a healing agent. Through sexual enthusiasm (again, not necessarily pertaining to the actual sex act), one can transcend from victim to survivor. Many people use this as a way to take back control in sex, whether as a dominant or a submissive or vanilla or asexual or "born-again virgin." For a survivor, sex positivity erases the taint on sexuality brought about by an assaulter. A "sex negative" mindset relates sex to shame and guilt (not in a consensual, bdsm way). When this connection is made, coercion and manipulation tend to be more effective. This isn't to say that a survivor in this kind of a situation is to blame: chances are that the survivor doesn't know that "no" or "yes" could be said and respected. Sex positivity as a cultural awareness opens communication and makes sex a discussion between consenting adults, personal sex positivity involves a consciousness of options and what one actually wants.

* I'm defining women's health as any health issues (mostly sexual health) that are of concern to anyone who identifies as female. I suppose an issue I'm also grappling with in the article is how typical discussion of women's health is kept narrowly to reproductive rights and resources, and I want to explore past that.

Hairy

I just read this: http://fuckyeahgenderstudies.tumblr.com/post/23608368667/more-on-leg-hair-tw-rape "I was just googling to try and find some perspectives on women going to work with hairy legs. I couldn’t find much. I found an article from a woman who used not to shave her legs but now does; she believes it’s unprofessional, slobbish and ugly not to. And then I found an article, apparently trying to be “satirical”, from some bloke Yahoo contributor stating that women who don’t shave their legs don’t get raped. I.e. “rape can be prevented IF you are prepared”; “what guy is going to rape you if you have hairier legs than he does?”, etc. etc. ugh. So I’ve abandoned the google search now. This whole thing is so depressing." I haven't shaved my legs or pits in 18 months and that isn't going to change anytime soon. I don't wear pants or tights to hide it, I shouldn't have to. Nobody at work has ever said anything, they don't care about how anyone looks so long as you don't reek. My lovers either love my hair or don't care - generally, they appreciate most that I use my time and energy for more productive things. It's HAIR! It doesn't do anything other than grow and keep you warm, which I need since I'm cold all the time. What people do with their hair, whether on their legs or heads or crotches or pits, is nobody's business but their own. No amount of hair is gross. Self-love, whether one's personal comfort is hairless, trimmed or free-flowing, is more important.

Women's Politics...again...???

I recently watched the Penn & Teller's Bullshit episodes about abstinence, teen sex and family values. They pointed out something poignant about the conservatives involved in these topics: they're not accustomed to having people disagree with them. There are, in fact, subgroups in this country that are so cloistered that any foreign lifestyle is completely unknown. The higher-ups who oppose abortion, for example, may very well be unfamiliar with anyone who's open about a beneficial abortion (or who's life was made unbearable by not being able to get one).

And then this happened: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/07/wisconsin-s-repeal-of-equal-pay-rights-adds-to-battles-for-women.html
Scott Walker signed bills that:
- Block insurance companies from covering abortion
- Remove contraception from the sex education curriculum
- Overrule the objections of the Wisconsin Medical Association to interfere with doctors on counseling women on abortion
- Eliminate the states key protection for women trying to get equal pay for equal work.

These are symptoms of a large national shift which had most visibly arisen when the House nearly removed government funding from Planned Parenthood (which gave me a free pap smear and IUD thankyouverymuch).

Don't get me wrong, Scott Walker is a fucking idiot. No argument there. But I wonder if other politicians have really just been sheltered from people who benefit from Planned Parenthood, from comprehensive sex ed, from access to legal and healthy abortions (and who talk openly about it), etc. Where are the loud feminists? Who's upfront and vocal about what our lives need when a "traditional marriage" isn't an option or even wanted? Ask a few people who don't relate to feminism to name five things Hillary Clinton supports, if they know who Jessica Valenti is, why so many Women of Color refused the SlutWalk, etc.

Spreading Books

Up until the middle of college, I was an avid television watcher. On average, 5 hours of my day were spent watching tv. I also read happily - whenever I was in a place where tv wasn't. I thought that my love of tv was normal, and even took pride amongst my classmates that I was "allowed" to watch so much.
It was only after graduating college and getting rid of tv that I realised how damaging this addiction was. I wasn't "allowed" to spend the majority of my waking hours outside of school watching tv, I was put in front of the screen because it was a convenient way of getting rid of me. Other people were considered threats to the authority of my guardians and tv kept me from realising just how few people were in my life.

In high school, my obsession with tv had finally become clear to my mother as a destructive force. She told me, especially when I began thinking about college, that her friends in college read and discussed books as entertainment. It didn't seem to occur to her that it wasn't the motivation for literature debate that I lacked, but the fellows. My friends and I in high school were Wiccan and we exchanged many books on that, but any socialising outside of school was forbidden to me. People will leave tv on to "make their pets feel less alone" while they're at work, it was used the same way for me.
Still, whenever I wasn't at home, I took every opportunity to read. And exchanging books with my friends, however small the genre, delighted me. This continued in college, though I was irked by how many people in this supposedly advanced academic atmosphere loathed reading. More often than not, recommendations were never taken nor followed up with discussion. My poor professors, who couldn't get most of their students to read the material, let alone ENJOY it.

Only within the past year (graduated college 05/09), have I found a social circle in which books are passed around and enthusiastically discussed. Middlesex by Eugenides, Lolita by Nabokov, The Bell Jar by Plath, Where Good Ideas Come From by Johnson, Sex at Dawn by Ryan & Jetha, The Morning After by Roiphe, The Hunger Games by Collins, Good Omens by Gaiman & Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment by Pratchett, Sacred Clowns by Hillerman, Siddartha by Hesse, John Green, The Secret Garden by Burnett, Anne of Green Gables by Montgomery, Karen Armstrong, Jessica Valenti, The Ethical Slut by Easton & Hardy, etc.

Wisconsin Women's Health

Illinois Healthy Women provides medical insurance coverage for my reproductive/sexual health - they paid for my Paragard IUD in full.

Minnesota has a similar program. Unfortunately, I’ve lost the contact information for the person I knew who had gotten her free IUD through that.

I have many friends in Wisconsin who want similar coverage for IUDs. Wisconsin Women’s Health Foundation doesn’t provide this, Wisconsin Well Woman Program works only with menopausal women, and all my searching keep leading back to Planned Parenthood.

Any information regarding birth control coverage in Wisconsin would be very helpful. Or any state for that matter, we could make a map of states’ coverage!

"Satan You Can't Have My Marriage/Children" by Iris Delgado

These two instructional books, "Satan You Can't Have My Marriage" and "Satan You Can't Have My Marriage" by Iris Delgado, are carried in the bookstore where I work. People are free to believe whatever they want to believe and pray whatever they want to pray, but both of these books blame rape and incest on the wife/mother not consenting to her husband's sexual demands.

"Satan You Can't Have My Marriage" explicitly states that a good wife never says no to sex with her husband, no matter how she feels (page 50).

"Satan You Can't Have My Children" tells the wife/mother that it is her responsibility to teach her daughters modesty. If the wife/mother doesn't consent to her husband's desires, it's her fault for driving him to molesting their daughter(s). Also, no matter the daughter's age, she should never be allowed to sit in daddy's lap because it will drive him past the brink. (page 31)

http://www.amazon.com/Satan-You-Cant-Have-Children/dp/1616383690/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1329754442&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Satan-You-Cant-Have-Marriage/dp/1616386738/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1329754442&sr=8-3

Again, I respect a person's belief in whatever - this is where I draw the line. It would be nice if customers had the critical thinking skills to resist the messages in these books but, considering their fascination with Kim Kardashian, they don't seem to be functioning on that level. Also, having been raised by Catholic extremists, I've been there: when this is the only reality known, one doesn't question following it.

Egalitarian Catholic Spirituality

The Virgin Mary is worshipped throughout Catholicism almost as much as, if not more than, Jesus. A few years ago, a large group of Catholics actually petitioned the Vatican to elevate Mary to Jesus' level - they were turned down because that's not how theology works.

The hierarchy and doctrine of the Church have a long history of misogyny, heterosexism, and mistreatment of women. Women must be subservient, silent, obedient, and serene breeders (if not chaste virgins for life).

In practice, however, particularly among the lower classes, the spirituality of Catholics is more woman-centric. Check how many shrines to Mary are in your neighborhood, how many rosaries hang from rearview mirrors (or that people wear, which a good Catholic isn't technically supposed to do), how many Mary/rosary tattoos you see. Then all the Catholic woman saints and leaders: St. Joan of Arc, Dorothy Day, St. Barbara, Mother Theresa, St. Ursula, Princess Diana (I'm aware that she was Anglican, but that didn't stop my childhood parish from praying to her), etc. In spiritual practice, Catholicism gets rather egalitarian.

The hierarchy may topple from the scandals in a largely secular world, but people will continue the rituals, symbols, traditions, etc. of Catholicism. Which means the worship of a female icon isn't going away anytime soon.