StacyCat’s World of Thought

(I apologize in advance for the sheer number of links in this post. All are valuable resources, including definitions and papers.)

I am a a cisgender, pansexual, white, middle class female. I am able to pass in society without having to deal with my existence being questioned. My gender is apparent to most people, I do not have to deal with race if I choose not to, and I can enjoy privileges based on my ascribed status. I am fat, though I have seen how I am treated change with how my body changes.

I read a blog post by Katie at kataphatic.wordpress.com that discussed Linda Bacon’s paper based on her keynote speech to NAAFA (National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance). In the post, Katie quotes Linda Bacon: “The cultural perception of fat bodies as “wrong” hurts those of us in the “right” bodies too. … Inequity hurts the oppressor as well as the victim.”

This is exactly the reason why I discuss privilege, even while not in a minority groups. Even if my gender is not immediately questioned based on my appearance, it is a simplistic cultural artifact that needs to be questioned. And, it needs to be questioned by those that appear and/or are cisgender, and not just those that live publicly and appearance wise as genderqueer. Those that are living in white bodies should be questioning why those in non white bodies do not share the same privileges and access to resources as we do. Those of us in male bodies should be questioning why they have advantages that are not afforded to those in female bodies. Those of us in thin bodies should question why we have such an obsession with thinness and weight, and how it is to the detriment of all people (especially women) in society.

Because oppression hurts all of us. Rigid roles based on ascribed status and appearance limit everyone. This is not meant to minimize the daily struggles that one goes through as a person who has an appearance that is not the “average” or expected, but as a reminder that the struggle is not limited to those who outwardly express it. We must all question the status quo, even if we firmly fit within it.

(How does this relate to sex? The more comfortable one is with their body and identity, the better their sex lives And, the ability to play with these concepts within sex and a sexual/romantic relationship can be a safer space to learn more about them.)

Ive been pondering many things lately. (Along with a move!)

I remember a while ago when a Livejournal Community attacked a sex blogger over her use of “biocock.” Their reasoning tended to be along the lines of “it is still my cock, even if it is not my flesh and blood.”

And I agree. But I do not think the “general public” does.

I took a Women’s Studies class. We watched a film about a FTM. In the film, he discussed how to disclose his status to his dating partners, and at what point in the relationship to talk about it. After the film, during the discussion, one of my classmates said that if she were dating a guy that was a FTM, who didnt tell her, that the guy would be lying.

I asked her if she would feel the same outrage over a dating partner who previously had a penis, but whose penis was removed during an accident. She did not feel the same outrage about that. Which seems to mean, for her (and, most likely many other people), it is all about the current or former presence of a cock.

It is about the penis. Apparently, to many people, it is the presence of a flesh and blood penis makes a “man.” And, this distinction is typically from one’s childhood, as MTFs are commonly referred to as “she used to have a dick!” The body of a female is not necessarily defined as having a vagina, but rather the absence of a penis. (In discussions about intersexuality, it previously was the size of the penis/clitoris at birth that determines the sex of the child.)

In addition, many people, when faced with a transgender person, want to know the status of their genitals. As if their vagina or penis is the final verdict of their sex, and that we can deal with a masculine looking woman as a woman, rather than as a man (because, after all, it is their lack of a cock that makes them not a man). Because, again, it is reduced to their genitals, rather than their gender.

How to we change gender perceptions from genitals to gender? Sociology classes, and many other social sciences make a firm distinction between biological sex (which is murky enough), and social and individual gender. But, how do we expand this concept into the mainstream? How do we get across the idea assuming the status of another genitals, or that people are entitled to know the state of anothers genitals? As many of my transgender friends have said to idiots asking about it, “Do you go up to a random person on the street and ask about their pussy or dick?”

So, how can we change this?

I attended a lovely tea party this weekend, hosted by Viviane. I finally got to meet the infamous Jefferson, who was famous before I met him.

I had a discussion on sex blogs, and the purpose of them, and having a dedicated sex blog vs a more general life one. Which made me think of the purpose of my blog.

The purpose of my blog is to make you think.

I dont write about all of my sexual escapades. (There would be far too many to write, and I am very happy about that.) But, as sex focused as I am, my life is not all about sex.

However, I do think that one needs to integrate their sexuality into their daily lives. Sex positive thinking permeates all aspects of our lives, because it affects all parts of our lives. If we can be confident in our sexual lives, if we can communicate to partners our likes and dislikes, if we can not be ashamed of our sexual feelings, these factors all translate into better functioning in one’s life. And this is the purpose for the blog. To change the world through sex positive thinking.

So, posts on Racism, cisgender privilege, the funny things in my blackberry (such as, the spell check recognizes “orgies” but not “orgasm,” and what that says about our culture), all of these relate to a better and more positive world view.

And I promise to write more sex stuff

I love statistics.

I loved quantitative methods. My thesis used advanced multi-variable STATA statistics, and I loved it. Figuring out that I can put all these numbers together to get real meaning out of it, ah, that was lovely.

I also make a few decisions in my life based on statistics, and I think it is where I differ from some other people.

One cannot keep themselves completely safe from everything that can kill or harm them. Everyone makes their own choices of what we do to keep ourselves safe.

Some of us choose to take safer sex measures and do not require months of testing from our partners. Some may require some tests but not others, others insist on testing but dont actually know what they are testing for, and some just say “fuck it” and dont take any precautions.

Statistically, some of these choices, on average, may protect the individuals from contracting an STI. Statistically, even if you are doing everything possible, you can get an STI. The real question lies in where on the spectrum you are.

Some take the viewpoint that any STI is going to be a life changing horrifying experience, and thus they do not partake in any sexual play with anyone else. Some say that condoms protect against most, and they are okay with it. Some people care about herpes, some about HPV, some about HIV/AIDS, and these affect the sexual choices that we make.

SarahSloane Wrote a great piece about kink and real life.

I would like to highlight number 2.

2. Negotiation – if you can’t go back to a cash register to have an overcharged item corrected & get the refund, you shouldn’t be negotiating play or sex, either.

Besides the “should” language, the comparison is a good one. I would argue that the ability to negotiate play and sex will lead to more assertiveness in daily life, but perhaps it is the opposite, or a reciprocal effect.

Speaking up for yourself tends to be a virtue that not many people are told. Its not an inconvenience to get what is rightfully yours, it is not a bother to ask for the sex and safer sex that you want.

My main premise behind my campaign for stigma reduction is that stigma affects how individuals act. Typically, a reduction in stigma will result in an increase in positive and healthy behaviors.

I was reading a blog about passive barriers. The author used the idea that women dont carry condoms as a point.

Our safer sex education, while sorely lacking, seems to have done a pretty good job equating condoms with safer sex. However, the society at large also has equated condoms with sex itself, which is still stigmatized and shamed.

http://www.latrobe.edu.au/ssay/assets/downloads/meaning%20safe%20sex.pdf

The Australian teenagers in this study showed that girls had harder times buying condoms and carrying them, because of the social stigma against girls and sex. Boys were more likely to purchase and carry condoms, because they could easily play it off as experimentation, or that they are allowed to have sex without social ruin.

Both genders expressed issues with condom discussions, because it typically meant that intercourse was desired. (I once answered a question about “How did I know my partner consented” with “when he puts on a condom.”) The condom is the last barrier to sex negotiations, and typically is not discussed because it means *gasp* that the people want to have sex.

Interestingly enough, over the entire sample (which 60% did not have intercourse), most believed that the girl was the one to supply the condom.

One of the ways that we can slow the growth of STIs, and reduce unwanted pregnancies, is by sex positive education. If teenagers (especially girls, but everyone needs to know) are able to communicate with their partners without stigma and shame, they can make more empowered decisions about their health.

This was originally posted in my livejournal. You are free to argue with me over any of these points, in fact, I welcome the arguments.

This is a very ethnocentric viewpoint, in that I am specifically speaking about American culture in the United States.

1) All white people are racist.
1a)Racism is not a dichotomous category, its not are you racist or are you not. Racism is a continuum, between more racist and less racist. By giving up the idea that someone can be “not racist,” everyone is able to examine why they might be racist, and where they fall on that spectrum. By continuing to use the “racist/not racist” dichotomy, one does not examine what things they are doing that might be a result of growing up in the institutional racism system.

2) Racism is institutional, and systemic.

3) White people are the racist ones in the American system, because white people have the current, and historical power.

4) Other races may have prejudices against other races, however, without the institutional power, they are not “racist.” Racism= prejudice + power.

5) Class has a lot to do with it. There are some things that I think are the result of socioeconomic. However, minorities are overrepresented in lower classes, and underrepresented in upper classes. This is because of institutional racism.
5a) This was rebutted by using “demographic inertia” as a cause of the educational/income gap among minorities. As such demographic inertia was caused by actual racist practices, I still count this among institutional racism.
5ai)In addition, there are several instances where black people are given worse interest rates in loans, specifically car and home loans, so that even with the same credit and income, they cannot afford as much as a white person with the same credit and income, due to higher interest rates.
5aii)There are also many instances of real estate agents showing black people and white people different homes, even with the same pre-approved mortgage amount. These are examples of how institutional racism perpetuates in society.

6) Insinuating that black people are poor (or, more specifically, poor black people are poor) because they are lazy is insulting. By saying that the reason why poor people are poor is because they do not work hard enough, you are saying that white people do work hard enough, which is not necessarily the same thing. Poor blacks have to work much harder to achieve the same levels of prosperity as whites.

There are barriers that many people have to overcome. Until the same amount of effort produces the same results for all races, there is institutional racism.

7) White privilege is an extension of the institutional racism in society. This might be mediated by other ways you are disadvantaged, and there are other ways in which you are privileged (say, cisgender privilege, educational privilege, shape privilege), it does not negate the fact that if you are white, you carry privilege on the basis of that race.

Girls should say no to sex. Why is this a common theme in sex education, and at the world at large?

Two studies came across my feed reader today, both about the same study. A researcher interviewed 68 girls aged between 14 and 19. Shocker of shocks, the girls said they regretted their first time! The researcher criticized sex educators for not telling girls to say no.

The article at Salon.com takes the viewpoint that girls are pressured into saying yes to sex, to keep their male partners, or because they are coerced, etc. The article says that it can be difficult to see the difference in actual regret vs the societal norms against girls having sex. It ends with a great statement: “Would a girl feel quite as disappointed by her early sexual experience if it was seen as a triumph instead of a moral failure?”

Australian Broadcasting Company also takes an interesting perspective. It says that the teens in the study knew all the risks of sex and how to use safer sex and pregnancy prevention. However, the study author (Dr Rachel Skinner from Sydney University), critisizes sex education for not teaching teenagers the actual skills one would need to say no (or to say yes). Teenagers should be educated on negotiation and communication skills.

Still, the patriarchy comes accross in a quote from the author. She states, “but it’s obvious that many of the teenagers, girls, were not able to make their own decision…They weren’t actively making… following what they wanted to do. They were being influenced from outside, and they regretted their decisions afterwards. ”

I think this is the overlooked part, and the first article hinted at it. Girls are taught to “just say no,” they are filled with scare tactics about having sex too early, they are taught that sex is scary and can kill you or ruin your life. however, girls are never really taught when it is okay to say “yes.” If we can empower girls to think about how and when and what scenario they could say “yes,’ then their ability to say no to the wrong situation (for them) would be greatly increased.

There is an interesting idea that goes along teaching about safer sex.

On one hand, we have the scare tactics. Always use condoms. condoms are the only way to prevent pregnancy, and they prevent STIs, because your partner could be cheating on you and giving you HIV so you should not ever trust them.

On the other is comprehensive education, (which even comprehensive sex education programs miss a good part of the education.) condoms are effective X percent of the time for pregnancy, and some unknown effective rate for STIs. You should get tested because you take responsibility for your own health.

Salon posted a great article based on a new editorial in Contraception. The editorial posits that the withdrawal method has a similar effectiveness rate against Pregnancy as condoms do.

This will almost assuredly not be taught in comprehensive sex education classes. The Harm Reduction model typically only steps in once the harmful behaviors have begun. Just as the idea that condoms are Very highly effective against HIV transmission will not lead to the idea that it is okay to have sex with HIV positive people. Sex education, even among a lot of sex positive individuals, views these ideas in the harm reduction model, in the “You really should not do it, but here is how to do it more safely.”

Becky Knight at Living Sexuality posted a review of the AASECT presentation on how sex education is presented to teenagers. She states: “Even sex-positive sources often refer to sex with words like: “risk,” “threat,” “consequences,” “protect from,” “avoid,” “arm with information,” etc.”

Sex is presented to teenagers as inherently dangerous. That they must protect themselves against sex itself. Sex is risky, you can die, you can get pregnant, you can hurt yourself.

I would be interested to see a Relationships model of sex education. Sex is not just about penis in vagina intercourse, nor is it just about what you do with your genitals/mouths/hands etc. Sex is about the relationship that you have with the other person. Safer sex should be about joint decisions in which each person decides what is best for them, and then negotiates with their partner. Safer sex decisions should be about what is best for themselves, their partner, and the relationship.

If a couple decides that pregnancy would be the worst thing in the world, they can make their safer sex decisions based on that. If the couple thinks that STIs are the most damaging, they can make decisions based on that. If the relationship decides that being able to be open about their desires and sexual relationships with other people is important, they can discuss that.

The point is not just to simply educate accurately the statistics and the prevention strategies of the pregnancy and STI prevention topics. The point should be about the education and the discussions and negotiations and the relationships.

My whole reason for thinking that sex positivity will change the world is in this point: If we can communicate our sexual desires and negotiate with our sexual partners, our non sexual relationships and negotiations will be much easier.

While researching an unrelated shipping question, I came across this:

(Shipping to Ireland):
“Circulars or advertisements relating to the prevention or treatment of venereal disease must be addressed to physicians or pharmacists. ”

I have no idea what purpose this serves. Any clues?