[SSEX BBOX] is an ambitious documentary project, headed by Priscilla Bertucci. Their goal is to explore sex-positive communities in San Francisco, São Paolo, Berlin, & Barcelona (hence, the SS BB in the name) and explore the different ways that people in these locations are examining and discussing sexuality. By looking at how people are using sexuality as a means for social change, [SSEX BBOX] will help connect different movements and offer inspiration for new ideas.

Priscilla Bertucci and Carol Queen at the SSEX BBOX premiere

I’ve spoken with sexologists from around the world and one of the challenges we face is that cultural differences and variations in language make it hard to translate concepts from one country to another. [SSEX BBOX] aims to bridge some of those gaps and show us different approaches to some of the same questions, as well as to demonstrate the various topics of interest in different locations.

Their goal is to post 15 episodes every two weeks, along with subtitles in English, Spanish, Portuguese, and German. Right now, Episode 1 in English has been released, with others in the works. I was honored to be one of the people they interviewed me for this one, along with Jessi Fischer, Dossie Easton, Maymay, Chris White, and others.

You can get more info about the project on their website, and follow them on facebook and twitter @SSEXBBOX. They also have a really great magazine, available online here. And if you want to contribute to the project, they’re looking for funding, art or writing submissions, and volunteers.

Here’s episode 1, for your viewing enjoyment!

For example, W. Bradford Wilcox, the Director of the National Marriage Project, wrote in an opinion piece:

[I]n the United States today, women are significantly more likely to express opposition to infidelity and significantly less likely to engage in it. In the 2000s, only 10 percent of married women, compared with 16 percent of married men, reported that they had been unfaithful to their spouse, according to the General Social Survey.

So a society that came to tolerate open marriage would probably end up with more women than men being put into the kind of uncomfortable position that Marianne Gingrich describes. And that’s unfair to women.

See what he did there? He equated infidelity and open relationships. I don’t know whether he’s simply confused about the differences between the two or whether he’s pursuing an agenda. But whether he’s ill informed or being deliberately misleading, this is the kind of thing that continues to confuse the issue.

In a way, what this really comes down to is whether you believe that there’s one way to define a committed relationship or whether you think it’s possible to design your own. In the more generally accepted model, a committed relationship is demonstrated by following certain rules, most of which are predetermined. And of course, sexual monogamy is usually at the heart of the definition. Sometimes, that’s explicitly discussed, but more often, it’s assumed because it’s part of the overarching cultural model.

What makes us think that there’s only one way to make a commitment to another person? Why can’t we sit down with our partners and decide which rules will work for us?

Some people have argued that some sets of rules are more “natural” than others? But I have to ask: what’s more natural? Only touching the ball with your hands (like in basketball) or touching the ball with everything but your hands (like in soccer)? The rules define the games and there’s nothing to keep us from creating new games by choosing new rules.

That’s the problem with Wilcox’s thinking. (Well, one of them. The fact that he’s pushing monogamy because “it’s better for women” should give anyone with an interest in gender equality pause.) He doesn’t understand that infidelity doesn’t mean that you have other sexual partners. It means that you’re not following the rules. If your rule is monogamy, then yes, having other partners is cheating. On the other hand, if your rule is “other partners are ok, but tell me first,” then as long as you follow the rule, you aren’t cheating. In effect, Wilcox is telling a basketball player that they’re cheating because the aren’t playing by the rules of soccer.

Similarly, Wilcox assumes that open relationships are equivalent to having a revolving door of lovers:

Open marriage is also likely to be a terrible idea for children. A growing body of research suggests that children are harmed when they are exposed to a revolving cast of caregivers and partners. For example, a recent federal report found that children living with one parent and an unrelated romantic partner were about 10 times as likely to be sexually, physically or emotionally abused, compared with children living with their own married, biological parents.

I personally know quite a few parents in various kinds of non-monogamous relationships and none of them are introducing their children to a string of lovers. Some of them are in multiple long-term relationships and their kids know their parent’s other partners. Some of them have casual partners but they keep their home life separate from their sex life. Some of them have friends as well as lovers who might or might not be introduced to their children, while still maintaining a constant family structure. Lots of ways people do it, but one thing they have in common is the desire to take care of their kids by keeping the family life as stable as possible.

And in any case, Wilcox’s example of a parent living with an unrelated romantic partner doesn’t tell us anything about his overall claim that “a revolving cast of caregivers and partners” hurts kids. His shaky logic only makes his confusion worse. But by invoking the safety of women and children, he probably manages to distract readers who are unfamiliar with non-monogamous relationships.

Unfortunately, a lot of people follow Gingrich’s path and only discuss open relationships after having cheated or lied to a partner. In my experience as a sex educator, the best time to bring up the subject is after you realize you want to and before you’ve broken the rules. Not only does that avoid the extra drama created by the deception and revelation, it also makes it much easier to craft new structures. It’s rather like avoiding going grocery shopping when you’re hungry- if you’ve ever done it, you know how the immediate desire affects your decisions. It’s much easier to make good choices when they’re part of planning for the future rather than in response to an immediate urge.

The irony in all of this media discussion is that the people I know or have seen in open relationships (and believe me, I know more people in more kinds of non-monogamous relationships than most folks) is that they’re almost always more upfront than anyone else about their boundaries and more respectful of the rules and structures that they’ve built. The process of discussing what setup will work for them and planning out the rules with their partners usually gives them much more motivation to stick with them. They’re also more likely to put their cards on the table when talking with a potential partner and looking for common ground since they’ve had practice. (“You’re want a fuck buddy and I want a secondary committed relationship? I guess we’re not compatible, but I hope you find what you’re looking for.”)

That might not be the public perception, though that’s largely attributable to the fact that polyamorous people tend to be pretty closeted about it out of fear of discrimination, harassment, or loss of child custody. The more dramatic examples, like the couple that broke up when one of them wanted to open things up, are much more visible. But there are a lot more happy, healthy long-term open relationships than you probably know about.

So say it with me: infidelity and cheating are when you break the rules. If you aren’t breaking the rules, it isn’t cheating, even if your rules are different from mine.

Update: Just to be clear, I don’t think that having multiple sexual partners on a casual basis is inherently problematic. If the consent, pleasure, and well-being of all participants and everyone affected by the situation are cared for, there’s no reason why it can’t be a positive and joyous experience for some people. Children need more stability in their relationships with grown-ups than adults do, and the vast majority of the polyamorous parents I know take steps to foster that. That’s because they value the well-being of their children.

If you’d like to get some excellent advice on creating open relationships, here are some of the best guides:

The Ethical Slut: A Roadmap for Relationship Pioneers

Opening Up: A Guide To Creating and Sustaining Open Relationships

Redefining Our Relationships: Guidelines for Responsible Open Relationships

Love in Abundance: A Counselor's Advice on Open Relationships

Just helping get the word out. See below for details, and please pass it on.

• Are you a female-to-male transsexual age 25-45?
• Have you been on testosterone for five years or more?
• Do you live full time as a man?
• Were you primarily sexually attracted to women before transition, and now have a primary sexual attraction to men (after transition)?

Dylon is a graduate student studying clinical psychology at the California School of Professional Psychology, and he is recruiting participants for a confidential study about their experience of sexual orientation in relation to their transition. It is his hope that this project will increase trans visibility, and consequently increase the availability of resources to our community.

If you would like to participate in this confidential study, or if you have questions, please contact Dylon at ftmresearchstudy@gmail.com or (415) 548-1001. Please provide a name and phone number along with a convenient time to reach you so he can schedule the initial screening phone conversation.

On January 30, the Center for Sex & Culture will host the premiere screening of the first two episodes. It’s a free event, from 7:30-11 at 1349 Mission St. in San Francisco. It’ll be a really wonderful event and I definitely encourage you to come, if you can.

Here’s the Facebook event link, along with the flyer, and one of the youtube preview videos. Enjoy!

The newsfeeds have been all a-buzz today with the story of Leisha Hailey getting kicked off a Southwest Airlines plane when she kissed her girlfriend. According to the airline, some people complained that their kiss was excessive and when flight attendants stepped in, Hailey got upset, so they kicked her off the plane. It’s unlikely that Hailey and her girlfriend were doing anything that heterosexual couples haven’t done. And in fact, according to the conversation on The Talk about the event, it seems that when Bruce Jenner & his wife Kris snuck away to the bathroom when they were feeling frisky (thinking that no one noticed), the flight attendant later announced over the intercom, “American Airlines would like to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Jenner to the mile high club!”

But what I find missing from all of the reports is any discussion of the fact that (according to Hailey), the flight attendant told her this:

I have been discriminated against by @SouthwestAir. Flt. attendant said that it was a “family” airline and kissing was not ok.

September 26, 2011 10:54 am via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@Leisha_Hailey

Leisha Hailey

Hold onto that for a moment, and let’s look at a different situation. It seems that a booth at a farmer’s market in London, Ontario got into some hot water with the market organizers because their employees were transgender. According to the booth owner, the market’s manager said that the event is “a family place, a family market and [having transgender staff] just isn’t right.”

What’s the commonality here? In both situations, “family” is being used as a smokescreen. It’s a great way to shut down dialogue and keep people out, but what it really does is let heterosexual, cisgender people not have to figure out how to talk with their kids about gender and sexual orientation. Rather than engaging in an age-appropriate conversation with children about how the world works, “family” gets used to avoid the whole thing. This isn’t about protecting children from sexuality, even though that’s how it’s framed. It’s about coddling adults’ discomfort with the topic and that needs to change.

Want an easy way to talk with your kids about lesbians? Here’s a script:

Some boys like girls, some boys like boys, some boys like both. Some girls like girls, some girls like boys, some girls like both. Whoever you decide to like, I’ll always love you.

How about talking about gender diversity?

A lot of people are born in  a boy’s or a girl’s body and they feel like the other. Some of them will do things like change the way they look or take medications so they look on the outside more like they feel on the inside. A lot of people treat them differently, but we know to treat them with respect, just like we do with everyone.

And yes, I know that both of these issues are vastly more complex than this, but I’m keeping it simple for the sake of the parents. Older kids are certainly able to understand gender diversity, if it’s explained to them.

If you don’t want to help your child understand the amazing beauty, courage, and love shown by people who have to struggle to be accepted and have fought to carve out a space in the world, what are you really teaching them? How do you think they’ll feel if it turns out that they’re queer or trans, or if someone they love is? In what way does your silence serve them? It’s past time that we stopped letting the word “family” camouflage the real issue here. And it’s time that we finally recognize that queer and gender non-conforming people are also part of someone’s family. Unless, of course, what you mean to teach your children is that if they do turn out queer or transgender, they won’t be part of your family anymore. Is that what you want to tell them?

Whoops… FetLife just went down like a drunk hooker…

August 20, 2011 8:35 pm via EchofonReplyRetweetFavorite

@FetLife

FetLife

Predictably enough, a mini twitter-storm ensued, as various folks called Fetlife out for it. And a few days later, a post by Rayne on Eden Cafe (the blog affiliated with sex toy company Eden Fantasys) defending the tweet as “just a joke” compounded the error. But that post and some of the comments highlight the confusion that a lot of people have about the original tweet.

I’ve been thinking about what it is that bothers me about this joke. What if, for example, it had been “FetLife just went down like a drunk prom date…”? I’d have had a very different response, although I still would have thought it tacky. I think that some of that is because there are a few issues that are interwoven, which makes it hard to tease out what’s going on.

The first thing to look at is the context in which jokes like this are made. All of the slut-shaming that happens to women in general gets leveled at sex workers and magnified. For example, the belief that sex workers can’t be raped because “you can’t rape a whore” means that sexual assault against sex workers is rarely reported and even more rarely prosecuted. There’s also the way in which hoes are described as women who are available on-call for men, who don’t get to say no, and who have no personal or sexual agency. Let’s add to that the stereotype that sex workers don’t have limits and the belief that they don’t get to have boundaries. These are really all facets of the same basic idea and they form a background for this situation, which makes it hard for sex workers to hear jokes about them and not mistrust the people making them.

Next up, since sex workers are often attacked and vilified in the media and have very few allies who are willing to speak up on their behalf, they’re an easy and frequent target. And every sex worker I know is really tired of it, whether it shows up as attacks or jokes. So when the author of the Eden Cafe piece wrote:

Prostitutes, it seems, are “off limits” when it comes to jokes. (As well as LGBT people and minorities. Never mind the fact that most of the prostitutes, LGBT people and minorities I know crack jokes about themselves.)

it really just highlights that they don’t get it. When people on the receiving end of inequality and oppression (whether queers, people of color, women, sex workers, etc.) make jokes about themselves, it’s truly different from when straight folks, white people, men, non-sex workers, etc. say the same things. And frankly, if in 2011, you don’t understand the difference between the two, you’ve been ignoring the last twenty or so years of discussion around it. But here’s the short version:

If you’re an ally to an oppressed group, it is possible to make jokes about that group and have them be received in the way you intend, if and only if you have built up enough of a reputation that they know you’re deeply committed as an ally. Even if you’ve done that with one group within that community, if you make your jokes to people who don’t know you, your social capital doesn’t transfer over. If your best friend is queer or Black or a sex worker and knows that you’re just being funny, that doesn’t mean that anyone else thinks you are. And since the vast majority of such jokes are meant to belittle, hurt, and insult, it’s on you to make sure BEFORE you make them, that your audience will understand your intention.

The Eden Cafe post also demonstrated confusion with this bit:

One of the nicer tweets that made the rounds: Dear FetLife: Please don’t make nasty hooker jokes. A lot of the people who support your site are sex workers. xoxo, Me #FetLife

But FetLife didn’t say anything about anyone being nasty. And since when is going down nasty anyway? So much for sex positiveness, I guess.

I agree that going down isn’t nasty when it comes to sex. And I also know that when a tech person says that a server is down, that’s a bad thing. So given that the original tweet was meant to notify people that there was a tech issue, it was actually Fetlife that linked a sex worker going down to something unpleasant. Granted, that’s the nature of puns- to make a statement about two things that share a term but are in juxtaposition to each other. And yet, with all of the ways in which sex workers are vilified, that attempt failed miserably.

John Scalzi’s post The Failure Mode of Clever offers some insight on this aspect of this:

1. The effectiveness of clever on other people is highly contingent on outside factors, over which you have no control and of which you may not have any knowledge; i.e., just because you intended to be clever doesn’t mean you will be perceived as clever, for all sorts of reasons.

2. The failure mode of clever is “asshole.”

I think that sums it up pretty well.

So when Fetlife tried to apologize with this tweet:

Sorry folks, but it was just a joke. I make equal fun of everyone, most especially myself. To all those who were offended, I am sorry.

August 22, 2011 8:36 am via EchofonReplyRetweetFavorite

@FetLife

FetLife

it just made it worse. Whenever anyone says “I make fun of everyone,” it really just makes them sound like more of an asshole. And it’s almost always said by someone with a hell of a lot of privilege, which makes them sound even more so. That was the message behind this tweet, although Rayne didn’t get that, either.

The thing is, I really do think that the folks at Fetlife had no intention of insulting sex workers. And it’s also clear from both their actions and their words that they simply don’t get it. They don’t get how jokes like that fit into a larger pattern of attacking and dehumanizing sex workers. They don’t get that it isn’t on sex workers to assume that there are good intentions behind the jokes. They don’t get that when you compare people (even people who you think are amazing) with something unpleasant that you’re trying to fix, they might think that you’re saying that there’s something unpleasant about them. Which is too bad since it resulted in a lot of hard feelings, confusion, and defensiveness. All because of a pun that failed miserably.

Some folks are making excuses for doms who assault their subs, some people are asking why people who have been assaulted don’t report it, and a few are trying to find ways to make room for both BDSM and rape awareness. I’m sure that there are other ways that people are responding, but those are the most common ones I’ve seen.

This is an issue that the kink community (if I can use that term to describe such a wide-ranging and diverse crowd) has been avoiding for a long time. And I understand why- if it comes to the surface, it gives a certain weight to the arguments that many anti-BDSM folks make about kinky sex being all about rape. But one thing that few BDSM folks seem willing to acknowledge is that, yes, some people are drawn to BDSM because it gives them an excuse to hurt others. To be 100% clear, I’m not talking about the kinds of intense sensation that some people enjoy, especially in the context of erotic energy (with or without genital stimulation). I’m talking about the people who take advantage of a newbie’s naïveté and tells them that “this is how this works.” I’m talking about the people who push someone past their limits without negotiating that. I’m talking about people who use BDSM as an excuse to violate boundaries under the guise of being Lord Domly Dom^®. I’m talking about people who don’t care about the consent of the other person.

In addition to those folks, there are also situations in which a top is clueless or selfish. Malice isn’t the only reason people cross boundaries, and these other motivations don’t change the impact of the experience on the person who’s been assaulted. I’m certainly not suggesting that “I didn’t mean to” is an excuse. And I do think it can make a difference in how we choose to respond.

Unfortunately, in addition to the tendency of marginalized communities to avoid “airing their dirty laundry in public” (and yes, BDSM folks are marginalized, even with all of the S/M imagery in the media), there are a lot of dynamics that reinforce this setup. I think it’s important to look at them in order to deal with them, although I don’t expect that this is a complete list.

All of the ways in which sexual assault is excused, minimized, and justified within the larger culture exist in the BDSM world, and they operate pretty much the same. It’s unrealistic to claim that somehow, simply by being part of the kinky scene, people don’t do exactly the same things to enable and excuse rape. Having said that, there are some patterns that are specific to the kink community that are worth unpacking.

When we have two conflicting pieces of information, that creates a difficult situation and we usually seek a way to reconcile them. And when one of those piece of information threatens our sense of our ability to assess someone, we often negate the other one. Or to put it less theoretically, believing that someone I like or whom I’ve chosen to trust has assaulted another person threatens my belief in my ability to assess others. It’s often a lot easier to disbelieve or blame the accuser. This is one of the more unfortunate aspects of how people work, and I’m not excusing it. But it is something we need to acknowledge and in my experience, most of us have done something similar at one point or another.

Of course, that’s not limited to the BDSM world, but it does play out a bit differently since the kink community is often very tightly knit. People’s reputations matter and if I’ve vouched for someone or if I’ve been closely affiliated with them, as often happens in both social and play circles, I have a certain emotional investment in their being seen as “good” by my community. So if that gets challenged, that can threaten my social standing and I might very well rush to defend that person reflexively. Similar patterns play out in other close communities like church congregations, but the way that social standing works in the BDSM world makes this especially likely. Again, I’m not excusing it. I’m simply recognizing it as a common scenario. (For more insight on how we manage these kinds of cognitive dissonances, check out the book Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts.)

Another aspect of this is that, as much as some people in the BDSM world honor and value submission and submissives, there’s a lot of dominant-privilege. There’s a tendency to give more weight to what a top says than a bottom. And when the dominant is a cisgender man and the submissive is a cisgender woman, the dynamics of male privilege and heteronormativity often come into play. Sure, these same patterns can show up in any gender combination. But in my observation, the closer people are to the mainstream (in this case, cisgender heterosexuality with the man in charge), the more easily they slip into the same ways of interacting that exist in the mainstream culture. So instead of respecting bottoms, a lot of tops end up devaluing them, which makes it easier to discount their experiences when they come forward and say that they’ve been assaulted. And the community around them is more likely to fall into the same patterns of responding that happen almost everywhere else.

So what can the BDSM world do to change this?

The first step (and often, the hardest) is to acknowledge that assault happens. It happens at play parties. It happens in private homes. It happens at cons and events. Most of us grew up in a culture that didn’t teach us to value, honor, and respect boundaries. Many of us didn’t learn how to both say and hear “no”. So how can anyone expect that putting on some leather would somehow magically change that?

Historically, the BDSM community has had a strong ethic of enculturating newcomers through munches, social events, and such. But in recent years, there have been many more people becoming kink-identified than community groups can work with, partially due to the proliferation of SM imagery online and in the media. While I think it’s great that so many folks are discovering ways to explore their sexual desires, one of the ways in which the expectation of Safe, Sane & Consensual (these days, Risk-Aware Consensual Kink) was transmitted has been weakened. So instead of relying on community groups to do it, maybe it needs to be crowdsourced.

As part of that, it’s important to call out the folks who talk about safewords as if they’re a sign of weakness. Or who act as if a true dominant or a real submissive doesn’t need them. Or who brag about never having used them. Or who say that once you’ve consented to something, you don’t get to change your mind. Or who claim that having no limits makes one a better or more extreme player. Or who do things that haven’t been explicitly negotiated and then argue that “We can’t talk about everything in advance.” I call bullshit on all of that. All of that perpetuates a culture that enables sexual assault. Until and unless people challenge it, it’ll continue. [Hint- if you want to do something that wasn't previously negotiated, press pause on your scene, check in about it, and move from there. It's not rocket science.]

We also get to have our limits and our boundaries. When players talk as if that makes someone less edgy or a less experienced player reinforces rape culture. (I’ve written more on consent and boundaries here, here, and here.) Interestingly, many of the tops I’ve known who are all about pushing someone else’s limits seem to be very firm about their own. In fact, they sometimes seem scared to get anywhere near their edges. In my opinion, if you want to be a guide for someone else to lean into their edges, you also need to be practicing leaning into your own. But then, I wouldn’t eat food cooked by someone who didn’t eat their own cooking and I’ve often wondered why there are so many tops who think it should be any different when it comes to kink.

People in the BDSM world also need to get a better understanding of why someone might not be willing to step forward and talk about being assaulted. Between the effects of rape trauma syndrome, victim-blaming, and being told that they’re harming the community, is it really a surprise that so many people keep silent? If you want people to come forward, then ask yourself what you are doing to create a space for them to do that. And if you’re not doing anything effective, don’t blame anyone else- the responsibility is yours.

I do think it’s valuable to recognize that it’s possible for someone to feel assaulted, even if the other person didn’t intend to violate their consent. For a lot of people, BDSM is about playing on the edge, or about exploring the boundaries of one’s psyche. No matter how graceful you are, sooner or later, you’ll take a misstep and go too far. If you’re not willing to support your bottom and make whatever apologies and amends are needed, I don’t think you’re ready to be a top, no matter how good you are with a flogger or rope. Remember- you don’t have to have any intention of hurting someone to cause them pain or trauma. If you don’t know how to deal with that, you’re not ready to ride this ride.

As far as what we can do to support people who come forward and tell us that they’ve been assaulted by someone in the BDSM world, I think we can do exactly what we can do in any other similar circumstance. We can make a space for them to share their stories with us. We can thank them for trusting us enough to tell us. We can refer them to services like a rape crisis center or a kink-aware therapist (although it’s only realistic to acknowledge that many hotline counselors and therapists may equate kink with abuse). We can let them know that we take them seriously, and we can show it by not blaming them, or shaming them, or attacking them.

People can also take steps to create a safer culture within BDSM. Confront people who reinforce patterns that enable rape. Call people out when they hurt someone. Make room for the fact that edge play will sometimes go too far and instead of creating expectations of perfection, create an expectation of amends and repair. This is how we stop coddling people and practice fierce compassion. And when you discover that someone is deliberately hurting people (as compared to someone who takes a misstep despite the best of intentions), don’t let their standing in the community or their reputation allow you to make excuses or keep silent. Because if you let it keep happening, you shoulder some of the responsibility the next time they do it.

I also like Mission Control’ s PAL system for their parties. They create accountability while maximizing flexibility by having people come to their events with a PAL (pervy activity liaison). If either person breaks the event agreements, both are held responsible. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s the least imperfect one that I’ve heard of and I’d love to see it implemented more widely.

So what can the BDSM world do about this? The same thing that the rest of the world can do. Develop better practices around consent, relationships, and communication. Get educated about sexual assault and the mechanisms that enable it. Support survivors, help people learn how to navigate the edge, and confront the malicious. And stop trying to sweep this under the rug. It’s long past time to be honest and to face this issue.

Clarisse Thorn’s post Thinking More Clearly About BDSM versus Abuse has lots more specific suggestions, and I highly recommend it!

They’re still looking for presenters, especially people who can discuss transgender, androgyne and genderqueer spiritual issues and practices. Check out the info below and pass it on!

CALL FOR PRESENTERS DEADLINE Extended to 8/7/11

To apply please email johanna@thepaganalliance.org for application.

Transgender and genderqueer presenters encouraged to apply. The Pagan Alliance’s first annual on Earth-Based, Nature-Centered, Polytheistic & Indigenous Faiths,cosponsored by Circle of Dionysos & the Earth Medicine Alliance, in 2011 will examine the interrelationship of Earth-based spirituality and gender. Presentations, workshops and panels will address the Construct of Dualism,Transgender Issues, Men’s Mysteries, Queer Mysteries, Womyn’s Mysteries, Gender & Indigenous Beliefs, Gender in the Spiral of Life, Genderqueer Thealogy, Gender & Minority Faith Parenting.

The conference will include presenters who grapple with issues relating to gender in their academic scholarship, as well as those who are leaders within their spiritual communities.

Register Online for the Conference

Location: First Unitarian Universalist Church and Center1187 Franklin Street San Francisco CA 94109

Catering for the Luncheon & Mixer by Melisabees Transformative Meals. There will be vegetarian, gluten-free, soy-free options

Limited Work-Trade Available

For more info please email: JoHanna White, Pagan Alliance President at johanna@thepaganalliance.org

If your organization is interested in being an event co-sponsor please email: arlynne@thepaganalliance.org

To advertise in the conference program visit this page.

To vend at the conference visit this page.

Each year, more and more of my friends share the same observation with me: “There sure are a lot of straight folks at Pride.” Now, unlike a few people, I think that’s a great thing. There was a time when very few straight people, especially men under 30, would attend. I’ve always assumed that some of that was not wanting people to think that they were gay. And I also figure that some of it was being freaked out by the scantily-clad men wandering around. (The scantily-clad women never seemed to bother them as much. Go figure.) The fact that more straight folks feel comfortable around queens, dykes, gayboys, fairies, queers, and homos is a fabulous step forward. And I do mean FABulous!

At the same time, it changes how Pride feels to me. It feels like a celebration of my community, rather than a celebration by my community. Somewhere along the way, the event seemed to drop below a critical threshold and stopped seeming particularly queer to me. Now, I know that gaydar is imperfect. I’ve certainly had enough experience with seeing how incorrect my assumptions can be to know that. So I’ve checked with a few of my queer friends and pretty consistently, they’ve had the same impressions.

If Pride being less queer is part of the price to be paid in order to have more acceptance, less gay bashing, and more legal equality, I think that’s ok. I simply want to honor what was given up because it was a marvelous thing. I remember being surrounded by crowds of people and knowing that the overwhelming majority of them were queer. It was a wonderful experience and it isn’t something that happens in the same way anymore.

I acknowledge that some of this could certainly be the result of my getting older and not having Pride be such a groundbreaking experience for me anymore, especially since I get/choose to be out of the closet in pretty much every aspect of my life. But I also know what it feels like to be surrounded by queers and Pride just doesn’t feel like that these days. It’s still a fun celebration and a great time, and I love having the support of the heterosexual world. It’s just that it’s no longer a queer space and I miss that. As LGBT Pride goes mainstream, it stops being queer.

Of course, everything grows and changes, including the LGBT community. And I definitely don’t want to try to hold onto the past when things have moved on. But it’s also important to acknowledge what we give up in order to have our hands free to take what’s next. I feel a deep ambivalence around Pride, and I know that I’m not the only person who does.

Coincidentally, while I was writing this, an article from SF Gate popped up on my RSS feed with this to say on the topic:

I don’t think that “grown-up” is really the right phrase here. It implies that the divas and daddies are less mature than the less outré celebrants, which I think is condescending and insulting. I agree that Pride seems less sexual than it used to, but with so much of the focus of the LGBT community on gay marriage and gays in the military, the sexuality seems to have been taken out of homosexuality. That may simply be part of the political strategy of assimilation and acceptance, but something wonderful and beautiful has been set aside as part of that bargain. And all of the corporations and companies with their floats can make it seem like Pride has been commodified rather than being grown-up. Unless your definition of “grown-up” means something different than mine does.

Perhaps it’s only to be expected that as LGBT folks have become more accepted among straight & cisgender people, the defining boundaries between the two communities have begun to blur. But it raises the question of what we’re celebrating. In all of the talk about the right to love who we want, we’ve forgotten (or perhaps, encouraged other people to forget) that part of that includes the right to have sex with who we want (consenting adults, please) in the ways that we want without apology or fear of recrimination.

So I’m curious- if you went to Pride this year, what was that like for you? And if you’ve been going to Pride for a while, how do you think it has changed?

At the same time, she said something that I found troubling:

Female orgasm is vital for every single woman on the planet… It roots our fundamental capacity for connection.

This is the kind of sweeping statement that a lot of sex educators and sexologists make. And while I agree that for the majority of folks, orgasm is pretty important, I’m troubled by the way that these sentiments render asexual women invisible.

While we don’t know how many people are asexual, why some people are asexual, or what influences some folks to move in and out of asexuality, the fact is, some people genuinely feel no sexual attraction to other people. Some folks might experience sexual arousal through masturbation, either with or without orgasm, and some people never experience sexual arousal at all. Although some people are quick to assume that this is the result of trauma or other factors, enough asexual people have made it clear that this is simply how they are that I consider it part of human sexual diversity.

Over at the Good Vibrations Magazine, swankivy wrote a few articles on the topic that shed some light on a set of experiences that are often swept under the carpet. Many people who are asexual want and create relationships with a deep connection, without bringing sex into the mix. Others feel no desire for romantic connections, so they create deeply personal and important relationships without that dynamic.

Granted, for most of the women who don’t experience arousal or orgasm, there’s something going on that would benefit from attention and healing. As Ms Daedone points out in her talk, for a lot of people, there is a deep hunger for connection, for passion, for arousal, for pleasure, and for orgasm. Without taking anything away from that, it simply isn’t the case for “every single woman on the planet” and when someone has such a large audience as Ms Daedone has, it becomes even more important to be aware of and mindful of that diversity.

I have a great respect for Ms Daedone and her work. I have spoken with many of the people she and others have helped and supported through OneTaste, and I know that their lives have been transformed. Along with that, I invite her to make room for a group of people that is often ignored and discounted. As a skilled sexuality and relationship educator with a very visible platform, I think she has a responsibility to acknowledge that her very powerful message isn’t relevant for every single person on the planet, and to use language that makes room for that.

Check out her talk- there really is a huge amount of excellent stuff there and she’s a great speaker.