SexPosFemme Journal

Saturday, August 20, 2005

Response to "White Sex"

"White Sex" by Susie Bright reprinted: http://susiebright.blogs.com/susie_brights_journal_/2005/08/white_sex.html#comments

"everyone deserves the chance to be a White Bitch in Heat"...

There are black bitches in heat too. I guess people wonder how, when our counterparts are the Big Black Cocks in question, but that's because around us they get square and big brotherish. And yes the conservative branch of the community or Black Religious Reich is a millstone around the neck of sexual liberation, gay rights, and AIDS awareness. They do all of the same things twofold. So instead using rape to scare people, they'll use rape AND racial guilt (yes they actually racially guilt trip other black people if you can believe that one), sometimes putting the two guilt trip together with this glib anachronistic theory about slave rape (if you can believe that people actually still do stuff like this), to explain their sex-negative mentality. So if you don't share this same fear then you're being naive in thinking it's "your thing" instead of "their thing". But the result is the same as in the White Sex viniettes. Sexual discovery from coming out to grooving back means breaking away from a whole community pattern that is preferably Christian and middle class or aspiring to it.

Because the American Dream is so "clean" and "swell" it's funny that foreigners use America to define most social evils including debauchery. In the third world nontraditional sexual behavior or even bringing it up is an "American thing". It's as if conservative branches in every community have managed to make their views seem like the community identity instead of merely the picket fence, mask, or veil that distorts and corrupts the community within.

Saturday, August 06, 2005

Image vs. Reality

Don't try to talk to me about “Desperate Housewives.” If I had the slightest interest in other people’s sex lives, I’d be a Republican.-Bill Maher


In a recent web journal entry, Susie Bright, one of America's leading sex-positive feminists and sex expert said that when it comes sex, image and reality are inversely related: " the American hype and consumer-driven hysteria about SEX! SEX! SEX! is in inverse proportion to the actual sex in our personal lives." On the one hand it seems that America is becoming more sex crazed and people are just being more hedonistic now than ever. But in fact it's the opposite. She says, "we have less sex than ever." Less than 50 years ago when married couples slept in twin beds and you couldn't mention "indecent" ideas in mixed company? Less than during 200 years ago when there were gender/race specific social/legal spheres? How could this be? The internet, sex therapy, sexy clothes, declining stigma surrounding pre-marital sex and prejudiced towards the existence of sexual minorities. Seems impossible. But when you look at the facts, it makes perfect sense:

1. TV- The more sex on TV, the more there must be some demand for it, because it's not present in real life. Instead of being a supplementary form of entertainment amidst socialization, it often takes precedence and shapers the viewers daily realities. With the influx of reality docudramas replacing the sitcom genre, it's easier confuse fantasy that is the reality show with actual reality, leading some to set much higher standards--for themselves and partners-- and feel less like a part of the "real world" that they feel is represented on screen.

2. Isolation- You can check out/buy books, shop for clothes and groceries, and manage your bank account(s) without interacting a single person or even leaving the house. Add the "Bowling Alone" phenomenon http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/assoc/bowling.html, which means less community leagues, civic groups, neighborhood functions where people see other human faces. Meanwhile, we complain about or outright reject the idea of the 9-5 cubicle working world, but with cell phones, i-pods, and other portable gadgets in near constant use, people are just walking cubicles anyway, perhaps even more insulated than they would be/are in such a work environment.

3. Internet- Those meet-and-greet/dating/hook-up sites such as www.craiglist.com or www.gay.com are in some cases hindering more than helping, in the cases where they're not a supplement or offshoot of organic socialization. Because the exchanges are never in real time, there's a delay, where it can take a week to figure out things about someone that normally take all of 5 minutes, like what they look like or where they live. You have to confirm that the person is who they say they are and if you can feel safe meeting them, when normally the environment would dictate that for the very beginning.

4. Looks obsession- Diet crazes, sex and diet/cosmetic advice juxtaposed on the same magazine cover, and the promises of quick fixes make people confuse sexual satisfaction with packaged images. Sexual liberation threatens to become a brand, like Coke, bottled up and produced by people who may care little about the fruits of it. Image obsession actually makes people more and more sexually deprived. As Bright states, "Those girls in short skirts are anorexic prudes. Those boys with the James Dean sneer are stoned and scared shitless. " Not political, not empowering to real viewers, not positive, therefore not EVEN CLOSE.

The Janus-faced conflation of prefab images/mandates and sexual liberation/choices is ever more self-defeating. What's the point of lowering social barriers if we don't make use of them and put them back up one by one? 50 years ago, with all the odds, people had to know their surroundings, travel, be well rounded citizens much more than today (as evidenced by all the above links). And they didn't have personalized frames of reference, the Kinsey/Klein scales (sexuality as a continuum), post-modernism (race/gender/sexuality as a social construct), the likes of what we have today. But as the factors unfold, we don't have a strong enough grasp on self and true life now that we know what we want out of it.

Movie Review "Sky High"



Don't let the PG rating or that trite poster with the red superhero cape fool you. "Sky High" is one of the more entertaining, intriguing children's movies I've seen. The special effects alone are dazzling but there's also neatly crafted plot, with some surprisingly deep social underpinnings. "Sky High" is about a high school where teens with special powers can be trained to become different types of heroes and sidekicks. On their first day, all of the new members of the freshman class are classified as either "hero" or "sidekick" based on what their special supertalents. Those with obviously strong powers or legacies are heroes and those with weaker powers are sidekicks. All the popular kids, the usual suspects, cheerleaders, jocks, prom queens, are heroes, and the sidekicks are the underlings. One girl, the earthy, green, granola type refuses to be participate in the labeling system. One boy, the dark, gothic, brooding type is a classified hero but remains an antagonistic outcast with a sordid family history. The metaphors were all too familiar as a mirror for the American high school system down below. True to the form, the binary system turned all the heroes, and their sidekicks, into zeroes, the code turned all the figures into ones and zeroes. I don't know how, but the movie managed not to trickle down into another high school drama about the pitfalls of popularity. It wasn't about being popular, belonging to a certain clique, or high school at all. It was about larger power dynamics that incidentally can realize themselves in a high school setting. So that came out of the movie, without it getting overbearing. After all, they were kids, kids with fun hidden talents, kids that could do really cool tricks, and kids on a mission, and that's what I went to see in the first place. But like the kids and their secret powers, and the location of their schools in relationship to their normal neighborhoods, "Sky High", is on two different levels, in every sense.