SexPosFemme Journal

Friday, December 30, 2005

Seven Deadly Sins Test

More or less accurate, I need to get it in gear if my gluttony outweighs by pride, haha let them at least match up. You can obviously tell by this blog why the sloth and lust are in the same (pretty high) amounts.

Greed:Medium
 
Gluttony:Medium
 
Wrath:Low
 
Sloth:High
 
Envy:Low
 
Lust:High
 
Pride:Medium
 


Discover Your Sins - Click Here

Thursday, December 29, 2005

Image Versus Reality Part Two

Here's The Day That Sex Died from Susie Bright and Image Versus Reality from SexPosFemme

http://sexposfemme.blogspot.com/
http://susiebright.blogs.com/susie_brights_journal_/2005/07/

Even though most of us could have full rich sex lives, we compare ourselves to characters. Kim Catrall just got a divorce but we still compare ourselves to Samantha Jones who was her character. Carrie Bradshaw had three boyfriends, but the real Sarah Jessica Parker was married to the producer. (Sex and the City). So we think we're not libertines or attractive even if we are. Married people fight over sex, hello you're married you're supposed to be having sex but also that's not why you got married! Young people probably don't have as much sex as really old people at resorts but it's seen as a young thing. Black women carry the brunt of AIDS but sex is seen as a white thing.

The sad thing is the more people focus on those images and try to live up to them, the less of a full rich sex live they'll have because if they're watching TV they're not having sex! I think internet/TV has decreased sex even though there's more sex there because then people aren't doing organic sexual things or socializing. That's why people get so defensive too. They think Sex-Positive Feminists or Bisexuals are all Samantha Joneses, when in reality we could be just like them. I just had intercouse with a man this year at 22. Or they think that we expect them to be like some TV character. Then they say oh this country is so immoral, when people are having less sex or being out and proud than they were in the 50s! Or that black women in videos make black girls look like whores when something like 75% of the black female AIDS cases are heterosexual married women! It just goes to show things aren't always what they seem. I don't even watch that much TV anymore.

Reality shows are more contrived than sitcoms ever could be. If someone says Sex in the City or Rap Videos I just say "oh I don't watch that much TV" and act like I barely know what they're talking about because if they want to compare organic sexual freedom, agency, or theory to some 5 minute Corporate Shill clip or some show made by four gay hairstylists who don't know the first thing about women's bodies, then they're much of nothing.

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Bullshit from Black Women's Health



An article from Black Women's Health entitled Sex or Intimacy: Which Do You Desire? reads: "Unlike their male partners, women are emotional beings who show their affection by touching and also by verbal expression, and they like those same kinds of feelings affirmed and reciprocated. The media recognizes that women are visual and need reaffirmation, so as a result, they capitalize on their need and deceive many of them with shows that view women as being content and satisfied by fulfilling their need for intimacy with sexual intercourse. This depiction is far from the truth. Women want to feel connected to their partners emotionally and spiritually. Once they have established the oneness, the intimate act of sexual intercourse then becomes fulfilling, but without the intimacy, sex then becomes an act that brings both parties close physically, but not mentally. Which do you really desire?"

These types of mythical views in society is probably the reason why black women are being infected with AIDS more than any other demographic bracket of American women. The Down Low hysteria isn't baffling enough and the austere churchy image isn't spurious enough. Now we have to reaffirm sexual double standards, stereotype women and men, alienate the lesbigay community, and erase the identities of the transgendered. Do these images of women run parallel to the statistics about sexual transmitted disease? Or do these images merely run parallel to social standards and taboos that make awareness, concern, safety, prevention, and treatment that much more arduous?

AIDS: 1 Black Women: Zip

Thursday, December 08, 2005

SFPD Suspended for Making Scandalous Videos

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?o=0&f=/c/a/2005/12/08/SFCOPS.TMP
http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_341213127.html

Did you really find those videos racist, sexist, or transphobic? They seemed like innocent jokes to me. The one with the homeless black women getting run over was poking fun at the police officer for pondering, being spaced out, and not getting involved. The one with the arrest of the homeless guy was poking fun at plain clothes officers for being dressed exactly like him and fancying themselves champions for ganging up on someone who's minding his own business. The one with the Asian music was poking fun at them for doing Tai Chi while on duty and missing important calls. They could have been doing yoga or playing hopscotch. It was just supposed to seem random. The one with the girl getting stopped was poking fun at that police officer who thinks he's God's gift to women. He's probably someone who within that social group has that quirk. The one with the officers oogling the captain was poking fun at him because he was imagining the whole thing, and another officer walks in and tells him to get his head out of the clouds. The fact that they were officers and random homeless people shows that he thinks everyone likes him. The only parts I could see as mildly shady were the fact that the female officer was doing her makeup and the fact that one black guy was dressed in drag. It made homeless and trans look unattractive. So they should have found some attractive trans and homeless people. But when I heard racist, sexist, etc, I seriously expected some major shuck and jive or gang rape.

Saturday, December 03, 2005

On Whites Wearing Dreadlocks

I'm black and I don't see a problem with whites getting dreads. We don't know if the white people in question are actually white. They may even be black, or part black, which in America is black. And obviously if they happen to have dreadlocks they might be assumed black. I don't think it's "appropriation", I think the PC police has stooped to a new low by attacking well meaning, at worst naive, at best they suspect they have souls, the nerve.

The only time I would call something appropriation or co-opting is if it involves marketing, perpetuating lies about that culture, and erasing of that culture for profit: for example, Orisha paths or Afro-Diasporan paths such as Vodun being marketed as Voodoo for films and scam artists, depicted as evil, and causing the erasure of any understanding of authetic Vodun. Not someone who's been on earth for all of two decades, may even be black, who decides to do something inspired and respectful like become a Vodun initiate or completely out of the scope of attack like attend Mardi Gras.

The Vodun Mambos et al could sit around whining about white youth sporting Mardi Gras beads, which has nothing to do with the problem of ignorance surrouding Voodoo vs. Vodun, or they can do what they've been doing which is to educate people. If you're upset that white dreadwearers might not know the meaning of what they do, then do something about it. Get the word out. Tell people what the vow of purity and the 77 commandments are, at least so they can know what the discussion is about. Then, you can even take advantage of white middle American interest, not in a deceitful way that embarasses that culture, but in a way that benefits both of you. Look how Eastern religions spread like wildfire from the time Western Humanists took a liking to Swami Vivekenanda. You can't talk about the gym now without Yoga crossing your mind. Buddhist monks themselves benefit from teaching those classes, even to all white audiences. They are secure in the fact that all can be exposed to their spiritual gifts. Look at Holiness Pentecostalism, which is a black and now white mixed tradition, if you want a black example. African dance is another. Historical durges need not apply.

Granted, I can understand if there's a strong religious significance and people find it sacreligious. But everyone who wears dreadlocks uses the term spiritual for starters. Secondly, dreadlocks have secular political meanings so they're not in a completely ethereal or sacred realm that is striving purely to guard against the profane. Third, dreads aren't always limited to blacks who are Rastafarians.

As for white privelege, these individuals are visibly paying their dues by being seen in public. Unless they have a penchant for feeling maligned or condescended, they've done some homework. One can only say "I just think it's cool" for so long, even in one's own head pun intended). They face alienation from both white middle America and members of the counterculture they hope to embrace. If they're not written off they're second-guessed. They're either being obsequious and fawning towards black people or they're part of an inadvertent racist conspiracy to undermine us. The only people who are being obsequious now are extremists who will split every kinky hair until lay Americans feel foolish for wearing sarongs to the beach and using black ink pens.

One last thing, all the arguments about black people who have straight hair being brainwashed, please save it. Although I'm not one of them, I'm sure not all black people with straightened hair are agency-less saps. They wear the hair in some instances because it looks interesting or suits their identities, for example as middle American conservatives. Inversely some blacks who wear dreads know nothing of the history, and are camping out in a chic, artistic Bohemian zest that they'll abandon as soon as there's an opening on the Hill. Meanwhile some whites will keep their dreads. Others may abandon them and feel like they're selling out on themselves and the cultures they have embraced. Others may accept change but never forget what they learned in the past. The lists go on. Anyone liberal between the ages of 18-35 seems to be going through a pitiful phase, and everyone 35 and over who's conservative seems to be a hypocrite who has already sown wild oats. There's no way of psychically channeling someone's hidden motives for doing whatever they're doing any point in time.