You’ll probably note that in my disclaimer, I talked about consent violation, not about rape. There was an interesting survey done a while back that showed that rapists, or gray rapists, or sexually pushy characters, or whatever you’d like to call them will admit to what they do as long as it’s not called rape. They understand that they violated consent, as long as it’s not called rape. Because rape is wrong, and what they did wasn’t wrong… right?

I think (in my court of opinion) that if Julian Assange is actually guilty of the accusations against him, this is what he’s likely guilty of, him and pretty much most of Western culture: a disconnect between understanding that ignoring an ”I don’t want this” is violating consent, and understanding that technically, yes, violating, ignoring, or assuming consent where it’s not given is more often than not either rape or riding the line real close.

I don’t think that what’s being done to him is right, far from it. I’m actually one of his supporters. However, I think we need to look good and hard at these “not really rape” accusations that so many of us are okaying.

I’ve violated consent before. Did I call it rape? Of course not. Was it? Possibly not. After all, the victim stayed with me for years afterward. That’s not how a rape victim acts, right?

But did I keep going after being asked to stop? Yes. Did my partner have a safeword? Yes. Did they use it? No. But. Did I suspect something was wrong? Yes. And while like many sadists I like to flirt with that line, after that night I’m a lot better about making very clear that there is a line, and that I will respect it, especially when I’m playing games with someone who also likes to play games with consent. It’s tricky for even experienced BDSM practicioners; no wonder we as a culture are completely lost trying to sort this out.

Here’s some of what Assange is accused of:

According to press reports, Assange held one of the women down in a sexual manner.  Yes, and many women like that.  Assange started having sex while one woman was sleeping.  Yes, that too some women like.  Because people like all sorts of things- clothes being ripped off, dirty threats whispered in their ears, even somewhat violent sexual encounters.
(“Sex is dirty; geopolitics are even dirtier,” The Chronicle)

And this is where, and why, things get complicated.

As a culture we’re terrible with consent. We have shame around consent. We eroticize breaking it, or having it broken, and in the bedroom, the vast majority of us are such terrible negotiators that unfortunately often, we spend a lot of time guessing whether or not we even have consent. But even within this morass, there are guidelines.

“No means no” is simplistic, and partnersex is complicated. How do we tell a partner “No,” to one activity, during that activity, while still expressing interest in being sexual with them? Nuanced nos are tricky, but they usually work: “Please stop doing that,” “Not right now,” “Not without a condom,” etc.

Partners who like to treat consent as irrelevant love to ignore nuanced nos, by the way. How do I know this? Because I’ve been there. I’ve said “not right now” to a blowjob only to have my head pushed down. I’ve said “not without a condom” only to reach down and discover him playing “just the tip” bare. I’ve been woken up over and over having to fight off a partner because I was still too sleepy and incoherent to articulate a no.

That’s a very scary way to wake up, by the way. Sleep paralysis occurrs when the sleeper is woken out of REM. In that state, you can’t move or speak, but you’re aware. It takes time to come out of this state.

Did I stay with that partner? Yes. I didn’t believe these incidents were malicious in nature. I had made progress, believe it or not, in getting that partner to understand that yes, overriding a no is date rape, and after that, that there are some areas you do not play consent games/consent ignoring games with. Condoms, for one.

These moments of consent overriding were few and far between – but they happened, and this is something we need to be aware of, that consent violations occur within relationships all the time, and that since they’re not rape to our culture, we don’t know how to react or deal with them. When consent is violated but it’s not “rape,” we don’t often act like “typical victims;” we act confused.

It’s when you think about what happened in retrospect that you realize, “Wait, that’s why I feel so off about this… I did express that I didn’t consent, and they did keep going after having heard me, and I don’t know if it was rape, but it wasn’t right.”

(It’s completely possible that Julian Assange’s lady friends experienced something similar. It’s also completely possible that what’s occurred in his case is considerably more tangled, given the ties involved. )

I’m a fairly clear communicator, and experienced in negotiating consent before, during, and after sexual play, and I’ve still had mine overridden or ignored. If you feel your sex partner isn’t communicating clearly, or isn’t able to communicate, that’s not a green light, that’s not license to do what you want to do. Too often we act like anything short of a scream and a punch in the face “doesn’t count” as a real, unambiguous no.

Besides - speaking as a sadistic top, and as a masochistic switch: in the heat of the moment, a simple “Do you want this?” can be very erotic.

We need to expect, and demand, more enthusiastic yes-es, as well as recognize as a culture that there are gray areas of consent, and consent violations that happen in gray areas of sexuality. They’re still wrong, but there are degrees of wrong.

Maybe it’s not “rape” rape. Maybe it’s a consent violation. Maybe it was a case of taking advantage of unclear consent, or a lack of ability to deny or withdraw consent. Most of us have done this at least once. Many of us also know what it feels like to have this done to us. These types of boundary breaching can all be treated differently – and to reduce them, I think they should be.

People like all sorts of things, and for a lot of kinky people*, having to get or give consent for their freaky activities spoils their fun. That said – if you’re not sure, consent the person you’re with. Ask before you share a bed with a partner, “How do you feel about sleepy sex?” (As an insomniac, sleep is hard to come by; I have a long-standing decline policy on this.) Ask them three times before unprotected sex, “Are you sure? Do you want this?”

Watch them closely. Watch for that change from forbidden pleasure to fear – watch for freezing up, watch for a lack of responsiveness, because there is a danger zone, and we are indeed responsible for making sure that we are within the bounds of consent. And for fuck’s sake, watch for those nuanced nos.

Yes means yes.

* Particularly kinky mostly-vanilla types. Pretty much I’ve found that kinky sex-positive people will negotiate up-front, kinky people will negotiate during, and kinky mostly-vanilla people feel strange negotiating. This is why nowadays, as a responsible top, I consent the ever living crap out of people – or if I’m flirting kinky and not consenting them, I make sure they know that while I’m happy pushing their unexpressed boundaries, that if they want me to stop, all they have to do is express that, and I’ll stop. After all, I learned the hard way.

“The ability to distinguish between fiction and reality is, I think, an important indicator of sanity, perhaps the most important. And it looks like the Australian legal system has failed on that score.”

-Neil Gaiman (“The word ‘person’ included fictional or imaginary characters…”)

The world is becoming more dangerous for fiction. No, scratch that–more dangerous for ideas.

Australia, I’m talking about you. While those in adult industry production, and those involved in protecting sexual free speech, know Australia has never been a porn haven (although they do produce an awful lot of the best), this one made even my jaded activist jaw drop:

An Australian Supreme Court judge convicted a man of possessing child pornography. The images in question were stored on his hard drive: explicit cartoon images modeled after Bart, Lisa, and Maggie, child characters from long-running cartoon The Simpsons, apparently having sex with their parents (also cartoon characters). Google “free hentai” a few times and I’m sure you’ll come across the same type of image–I know I have.

This type of image–a parody–is actually considered protected fair use under U.S. copyright law. In this case it would probably also be at risk of being found obscene.

“If the persons were real, such depictions could never be permitted,” Justice Adams said in his judgment. “Their creation would constitute crimes at the very highest end of the criminal calendar.” Let’s back that one up. “If the persons were real.” I’d say that’s an important distinction.

If the persons were real, every episode of South Park would be considered a snuff film. If the persons were real, Homer Simpson would be guilty of child abuse. If the persons were real…

“But Justice Adams agreed with the magistrate, finding that while The Simpsons characters had hands with four fingers and their faces were ‘markedly and deliberately different to those of any possible human being,’ the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people.”

(Did you catch that one? Everyone gets to be considered people nowadays; zygotes, Republicans, even cartoon characters. Everyone but those gosh darn sex workers.)

“Justice Adams said the purpose of the legislation was to stop sexual exploitation and child abuse where images are depicted of ‘real’ children.

However it was also to deter the production of other material, including cartoons, that could ‘fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children.’”

(“Simpsons rip-off is child porn: judge”)

Okay. Let’s put our niche porn marketing hats on here and shine the red light of reason upon this logic. Someone who is looking for cartoon photos of The Simpsons characters is probably not fueling the demand for genuine child porn that does involve the abuse of children. Shock-value cartoon porn simply doesn’t tend to cross over to the screams and pain of gory reality. Many–most I’ve talked to–viewers of cartoon porn and hentai prefer it because they’re trying to get away from the gray areas of gory reality. Let’s ignore, for a moment, the obvious slippery-slope leap of logic used here and assume, for a moment, that it’s possible for fiction to inspire its viewers to enact crimes portrayed therein.

“Wow, Bart is having sex with Marge! Hm, maybe I should coerce my nine-year-old son into sex. Or talk some guy or gal on the internet into sending me some pictures of their kid in the same situation.”

Let’s ignore the patently ridiculous nature of this idea…

“Carrie set a school on fire with her brain! That must mean it’s okay for me to use pyromania as a valid way to express my righteous rage against bullying and alienation.”

Let’s ignore the fact that repeat viewings of tentacle rape pornography have left me strangely unlikely to force an octopus into a nubile, big-eyed young woman’s hoo-hah. Or, to be more realistic: that repeat viewings of fictional depictions of cartoon violence and force–including sexual violence and force–still have not caused me to molest schoolgirls on the train, rape extremely tan blonde women at gunpoint, attempt to coerce my male friends into reluctant yet strangely arousing “forced” bisexuality… Okay, that last one I have attempted, but in all fairness I was buying the drinks.

As the good Mr. Gaiman says, sane people can distinguish between fiction and reality. They know what is appropriate in real life and what is only a thoroughly twisted fantasy.

“Dreaming permits each and every one of us to be quietly and safely insane every night of our lives.”

-Charles William Dement

I’m very lucky. I get paid to spin tales of my twisted fantasies. (Much like authors and artists, but with slightly more pay and slightly less social acceptability. It’s a tradeoff. Which begs the question–are all our attempts toward sex worker rights contributing to flooding of the market and erosion of stigma-inflated wages? I digress…) My id is healthy and well-exercised. It makes a difference. A properly (and safely) “fed” sadist is much nicer to be around.

Ideas and their fictional expression must never become illegal. We all need a place to be quietly and safely insane.

More on this censorship case (and related):

• “Put down that pencil, you’re under arrest…” (Renegade Evolution)
• “Can comics be pornography?” (Daisy’s Dead Air)
• “Why defend freedom of icky speech?” (Neil Gaiman’s Journal)

Randy covers a remote sex worker’s bad night at work in a way that makes you wonder how many of his good friends have worked the lines. He deals with the whore-shaming double standard, the lovesick client, the long hours—and he shows it for what it is: a bad night at work. Anyone who’s ever worked customer service or done freelance work for clients can relate to the sentiments, if not the particulars.

Kudos to you again Randy. I’ve said it before privately and I’ll say it publicly: you’re damn good at what you do. Thank you.

(Of course, as a webcomic creator who bathes in caustic sarcasm, he’s turned the poison pen on sex workers a time or two. It wouldn’t be Something Positive if he didn’t insult everyone at some point. But I’ve been reading for years, and the overall thread is one that’s very sex-positive, and—and this heartens me—sex worker supportive. Sharp-eyed readers will also have caught his recent Isobel Wren Easter egg.)

Anyone else have any unexpected shows of sex worker support? I’d love to link to them here. Just shoot me an email at sabrina morgan at gmail dot com and I’ll give you credit or anonymity, your choice. Thanks!

$pread Magazine Produces Sex Industry Art Exhibit

NEW YORK, NY – $pread, a quarterly magazine by and for sex workers and their allies, presents Sex Worker Visions, an exhibition featuring art by sex workers and about the sex industry, at the LGBT Community Center David Bohnett Cyber Center at 208 West 13th Street, New York City, from March 29 – May 20. Visions kicks off with an opening reception on March 29 from 6 to 9 pm.

Visions is curated by Audacia Ray, Executive Editor of $pread and former Assistant Curator at the Museum of Sex. Artists include sex activist and educator Heather Corinna, former SuicideGirl and illustrator Molly Crabapple, exotic dancer and photographer Charise Isis, and former prostitute and filmmaker Anne Hanavan, as well as Paul Sarkis and George Pitts’ intimate portraits of porn stars. Photographs by Erin Siegal and illustrations by Fly and Cristy Road originally appearing in $pread will also be on display. Sales will benefit the non-profit magazine.

The March 29 event is also the opening night of the Sex Work Matters conference, a joint venture of CUNY and the New School (www.sexworkmatters.net). For $pread, the evening will also mark the start of its second year of publication. In its first year, $pread won Best New Title from the Utne Indepenent Press Awards. The Spring issue of $pread will be available for sale at the reception.

For opening night only, the exhibit will be completely interactive with a webcam video project, “30 Second Sex,” masterminded by multimedia artist and erotic professional Melissa Gira and featuring webcam pioneers Ana Voog and Echo Transgression camming from remote locations. Computer monitors around the Cyber Center will display the websites of sex worker rights advocacy groups for the public to peruse. Former call girl Tracy Quan along with sex worker activist Carol Leigh (aka Scarlot Harlot) will be signing copies of their respective books, Diary of a Married Call Girl and Unrepentant Whore.

Get a sneak peek of the exhibition at http://sexworkervisions.blogspot.com

WHAT: Sex Worker Visions opening reception

WHERE: LGBT Community Center’s David Bohnett Cyber Center, 208 W. 13 St., NYC

WHEN: 6–9 PM

—

And if you want to know a little more about the babe behind the scenes, Audacia’s brand new interview with Gothamist gets into her thoughts about modelling, sex work, the Sex Worker Visions exhibit, the Perverts’ Saloon, and where the hell this sex-positive activism movement is going. Very cool stuff.

The “Pornification of America” eh…

This argument is sounding erily familiar to the anti-porn arguments from the Regan era.

Sex sells…everything. So unless you think you can stop advertising agencies from using sexuality to sell thier products, which is not likely, get over it.

There are many different types of pornography for many different types of people regardless of gender or sexual orientation. We’ve been fighting over this same issue for 30 years and were no closer to resolving it.

The United States is a young country by comparison to the European nations, we are at best pre-pubecent, and like a young person on the cusp of adulthood we’re painfully uncomfortable with our own sexuality. On the one hand we flaunt ourselves sexually and on the other we bury our heads in the sand with shame and try to place the blame on the media or the press or our parents. It’s pathetic.
Posted by hex on 11:57 AM

The thread was commentary for the recent Boston Globe feature, “The Pornification of America.” (Registration required; go see BugMeNot for a workaround.)

One thing I noticed, both in the article and in the thread, was that a woman’s worth is still being defined by whether she “does” or “doesn’t;” whether she’s a lady or a whore. As we all know, any female who (by society’s standards) goes too far sexually is supposed to regret and repent. Willingly crossing sexual boundaries is about consequences and punishment.

The article was very heavy on the idea that if a woman acts brazenly sexual, it’s not because she wants to but because she feels obligated to please and entertain men. (The idea that some of us get off on pleasing and entertaining men would, obviously, not exist in Pamela Paul’s world.) As fantasy objects, women have no right to fantasies of our own; if you want to get into pretentious subject-object theory, we’re always the viewed and never the viewer.

(My blogs are going to put a different spin on that, as does the growing niche of CFNM porn.)

Human lemmings are incapable of doing anything because they want to, or not doing something because they don’t; if they think they’re supposed to behave a certain way, they will. If the current look is big-breasted, tan, and lean, then it’s not okay to be okay with milky skin and a little belly, or to like whatever it is that you like anyway. If you don’t look like everyone else thinks everyone else thinks you should look, then you’re supposed to at least be worried about it…

This especially goes for behavior. I’m a big fan of exploring to find out where your boundaries are, rather than relying on a map someone else gave you, and this goes whether yours are farther out or farther in. Mine are pretty far out there in some areas (okay, a lot) and in some ways I’m as innocent as a schoolgirl.

A Catholic schoolgirl whose socks have wear-marks on the knees, but still.

It seems like there are a lot of femmes out there eagerly claiming their place at or under the pervert’s table (it’s about damn time), and a lot of girls (that aren’t exhibitionists doing it for their own thrills) who think if they look, act, speak, and think sex, they’ll get attention – as if it was the only way.

The way I see it, if you’re doing it to put on a show anyway, and you’re not doing it for yourself, you might as well get paid for it. Scabs!