smut & sensibility

THIS BLOG HAS MOVED!

noreply@blogger.com (mz. aida) — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 04:31:00 +0000

Hey everyone. Please click HERE to visit my new blog location and follow me over there!

All's mostly the same, except the layout and the fact that I'm now with Wordpress instead of Blogger. The limited templates were just finally getting to me, though Blogger is so easy to deal with otherwise.

#Sandy

noreply@blogger.com (mz. aida) — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:15:00 +0000

If you're cozy in bed or in your house right now, please think of the folks who are homeless in areas that are getting worse winds and flooding. Think about the inmates in prisons that ARE NOT GETTING EVACUATED. Think about the scope of the storm and how even if it's a Category 1, it's fucking HUGE (the largest hurricane in Atlantic history), and its damages are way beyond a few showers and some wimpy gusts of wind.

Then think twice about making jokes about it.

Though a crazy-ass intense storm might be interesting hypothetically (and trust me, I've been there), it's not so interesting when you're navel-deep in water or have your home destroyed, so let's get real and stop wishing for "more of a real storm." This is as real as it gets, people. Lives are on the line.

P.S. it's DISGUSTING how some people are saying "this storm is the gays' fault."

Some links to check out:

So Where Do We Go From Here?: Talking and Writing When Trust Is Gone

noreply@blogger.com (mz. aida) — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 15:12:00 +0000

Some people talk to themselves, but I prefer to write to myself. Whether it be on stray sticky notes, in paper journals, online, whatever--the medium doesn't matter too much as long as it's written down and I can process my thoughts that way.

My second partner and first "big" relationship (read: we're primaries and going on 3 years now!) wanted me to share my thought processes with them as the thoughts were happening. As an introspective only-child who's obsessed with documentation, this was REALLY HARD. I wasn't used to talking my feelings out as they were happening, but instead spewing them out in writing and doodles, organizing them, and then presenting people with a neatly packaged finished product that made sense and was easy to understand. Alas, my partner wanted to be part of my process, not just someone who got handed a nice little package at the end...so I started to talk things out more, though I was still writing a lot. He also made himself vulnerable with me and shared his feelings/thought processes, so it made it easier for me to do the same.

Fast forward a bit under a year, and I've embarked upon my second "big" relationship (simultaneously with the other one because helloooooo non-monogamy). This new partner also wanted me to share my thought processes as they were happening. Since I'd been practicing, it was easier, and by then, not only was I so wrapped up in that new relationship that I didn't have much time to write anyway, but we were talking so much that the thought processes had no other choice but to come out.

...and then there was a breach of trust.

Won't go into too much detail, since this is not just my story to tell, but he violated the boundaries we had negotiated in regards to his ex-partner. When he told me, I felt like my chest was caving in, like the flood-boards had turned into quicksand and I was going to sink down down down beyond all the floors in the building and into the earth. After the shock and some words, I started sobbing--ragged sobs that seemed to be pulling my insides out with every one. And though we talked, it felt like my brain was a mess and that talking through things was no longer going to work. There were too many feelings, too many thoughts, and to speak to him would mean censoring myself in order to not be hurtful. It would also mean coherence, a linear thought pattern, and I needed something else.

So when I went home, I started writing and drawing again. I wrote and cried and wrote and cried and diagrammed and organized myself into something sensical. We had many conversations afterwards, and the following is part of a larger text file I wrote for myself (soon after finding out what happened) that outlined many of my thoughts, including what I was bothered by/why I thought what they did was messed up (which I'm not sharing because...well, that's shit's private.) While this doesn't say WHAT my boundaries were (since that was a previous discussion), it lays out part of the "what happens next," which I think can be one of the biggest hurdles in dealing with a boundary violation within a romantic relationship. This is what my brain came up with:

you didn't want to hurt me, but because you were thoughtless, you did.

so where do we go from here? to be with you, i need you to seriously reevaluate your relationship to X and, most of all, respect my boundaries. i need her to respect my boundaries too. i need you to stand up for those boundaries if someone else is disrespecting them, or getting really close to the line. i need you to respect me, and them, in spirit, not just by following the letter of the law and trying to find loopholes. this is why it's so important to me that you understand my thought process regarding my boundaries; so that if anything is shady, you either stop, err on the side of caution, and talk to me about it, OR you make a truly informed decision that tries its best to be aligned with our joint comfort zones.

i'm not asking that you stop hanging out with X, but in my ideal world, you WOULD be willing to do so if hanging out with her meant that our relationship was eroding, either because she didn't respect me, or you guys couldn't be around each other without high degrees of sexual tension and discomfort, but that's not something i'm going to demand of you. it's something i'm going to put out there...and my decisions as to how we should proceed will be influenced by that.

if that's not something you can do, or not something you are willing to do, then i am not comfortable being in any sort of relationship with you. this is an issue of trust and safety and comfort at its core. if i can't feel any trust, safety, or comfort with you, i am not willing to be with you. and i want you to understand that you have already fucked with my trust. and that this is only made scarier by the fact that now i'm more worried about how alcohol/weed would affect your interactions. i'm not sure you wouldn't have made the same decisions if you hadn't been sober.

i don't want you to begrudgingly not be romantic/sexual with her.

you said "I can't promise that this won't happen again," but if this is inevitable, why continue?

I understand why you're saying this, because you thought you'd try hard to not make it happen this first time and it DID anyway and now you're feeling shitty and insecure, but if you can't give me at least an ALMOST-guarantee, why should i stay involved here?

what type of relationship do you want to have with me? what type of relationship do you want to have with X? based on what you told me that night in my frat's basement, you want me, and you want to be friends with X and have shit not be complicated. but if you can't have that, what will you try to have instead? what does that look like to you?

basically, i need you to make a decision so i can make mine. are you willing to do what it takes to move our relationship forward in a good, respectful, healthy manner? are you willing to respect me?

Latino Blog Challenge Day 6: Crossing Borders

noreply@blogger.com (mz. aida) — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 01:00:00 +0000

Prompt: "Immigration: For or Against?"

I'm for people moving when they want and/or need to, and I'm pro immigrant/migrant rights. I'm pro youth getting an easier path to citizenship when they didn't make the decision to migrate without papers, but were under the care of a guardian who made that decision for them.

Not a fan of conditions that make it so people HAVE to migrate against their will, so that families are separated, so that people work in subhuman conditions to send money home or feed their families. Not a fan of heavily controlled borders and the dehumanizing language around undocumented people (e.g. "illegals" and "aliens"). Not a fan of super difficult processes to become a citizen of a country where someone is working and/or fleeing and/or trying to provide for themselves/their family and/or be part of the community.

Latino Blog Challenge Day 5: Paging Dr. Obvious

noreply@blogger.com (mz. aida) — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 23:00:00 +0000

Prompt: "Romney or Obama?"

IS THIS EVEN A SERIOUS QUESTION?

NO.

Because no one in their right fucking mind would vote for Romney.

As a queer Puerto Rican, NO. I AM NOT VOTING FOR ROMNEY.

I'm voting for Obama, but Jill Stein is in close second.

The end.

Latino Blog Challenge Day 4: Rollcall of Awesomeness

noreply@blogger.com (mz. aida) — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 19:00:00 +0000

Prompt: "What Latino blog I recommend"

Well I can't just pick ONE, obviously! So here are a few!

I want to focus a bit on the intersection of queerness and Latin@ identity because my induction into my queerness was not through a lens of queer Latinidad. My queerness was part of my conscious identity before my ethnicity, and it was hella whitewashed in terms of theory because that's what was mainstream and available. Now I'm doing my work to deconstruct that and try to live my sexuality in ways that feel authentic but also connected to my ethnic history and homeland of Puerto Rico.

To that end, I'd love to highlight some awesome queer Latin@ blogs, and I gotta start with Tumblr: Fuck Yeah Queer Latin@s and Fuck Yeah Jot@s. I also had the lovely experience of connecting with Max during a webinar and simultaneously finding their blog, but not making the connection until a bit later. Finally, the Latinidad section of QWOC Media Wire is another awesome collection of articles. An honorary mention in this section, because it's not solely Latin@ but pretty awesome and QPOC-y, is QueerBrownXX.

Now, not solely a queer latin@ blog, but instead a general one that does touch upon sexuality is the Latinegr@s Project. I gotta give mad appreciation to them because as someone who benefits from light-skinned privilege, I like seeing spaces that actively cultivate strength, pride, and power in being afro-latin@ and visibly so; that post art and music and jobs and resources; that critique white-washing and frequent negative media portrayals of dark-skinned characters; and highlight the marginalization even within already oppressed communities. In the same vein of fabulousness, check out Latino Sexuality and Vivir Latino (the latter is geared primarily towards folks that are part of the Latin@ diaspora in the U.S.).

Latino Blog Challenge Day 3: Feed Me, Seymour!

noreply@blogger.com (mz. aida) — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 16:30:00 +0000

Prompt: "Favorite Latin Cuisine"

HARD QUESTIONS! I'm a total foodie and just spent a weekend in Puerto Rico having amazing Latin-American food. At Tierra de Fuego, we ate Argentinian food; at Perurrican, we ate Peruvian and Peru/PR fusion food; and at home we ate comida criolla.

I think the defining feature of my favorite Latin-American cuisine, though, is the lack of heat and the blast of flavors. Having grown up in Puerto Rico to a boricua mom and a Cuban dad, those cuisines are definitely my favorite, though I do have soft spots for Argentine and Dominican food.

But let's just get our mouths watering now, and I can share some food memories:

Milanesa (a breaded cutlet dish) a la napolitana (with ham, cheese, and marinara sauce) or a caballo (with a fried egg on top) from El Deli in Puerto Rico, an Argentine place where I drank the mushroom & wine sauce like a soup, where we could draw/sign on the walls with big markers.

Moist tres leches with ornate meringue on top, either in little to-go containers from Pollo Tropical or home-made by relatives.

Abuela making short-grained white rice with tocino as I sat on a small, white wicker chair and watched cartoons.

Picking out the black rice grains from the big measuring cup full of white rice as I stood on a chair helping a neighbor when we visited Mayaguez.

Picking parcha (passionfruit) and sugar cane and guineos (bananas) and carambolas (starfruit) and little medicinal herbs and recao from our backyard.

Mallorcas in the morning (which are apparently called ensaïmadas in non-PR Spanish?), stuffed with cheese and ham or butter, and dusted with confectioner's sugar, plus queso fresco (fresh farmer's cheese) fried to perfection until the outside was crispy and the inside was gooey.

Christmases with arroz con gandules, home-made pasteles wrapped in twine and banana leaves, arroz con dulce with that little cinnamon stick. A roast pig on the spit and Christmas songs about going to see Jesus, about the jibaritos on the mountains.

Ropa vieja and mofongo and mangú!

Croquetas de jamón (ham croquettes) and sorullitos as appetizers.

Limbers made in plastic cups and eaten after school, bright yellow corn ice-cream with cinnamon on top (or guava sherbet with creamed cheese balls), and shaved ice piraguas in Old San Juan.

Latino Blog Challenge Day 2: Visitando la patria

noreply@blogger.com (mz. aida) — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:00:00 +0000

Prompt: "What Latin American Country/Island have I been to"

Well, I've lived in a Latin-American country most of my life--18 years to be exact--though some debate if Puerto Rico is even a country at all. It's actually an archipelago, for starters--a collection of islands in the Caribbean, part of the Greater Antilles--that's still not sovereign. PR is a commonwealth of the U.S., a strange love-child of the Caribbean waters and the U.S. empire.

Aside from that and perhaps touching the shores of some other islands when I was too young to remember more than a few snippets, I've never been anywhere else in Latin-America.

Hopefully one day I'll visit other places, but here are some at the top of the list:

Cuba--my father's homeland. He and his family fled Fidel Castro's regime and thus hopped over to Mexico, Florida, and eventually Puerto Rico while my dad was just a small child. They all said they'd never step foot back there until communism fell and/or Fidel and his line died out.
Argentina--we had online friends there in the late 90's due to my dad's love of Argentine Dogos and my mom's tech savvy, friendly nature.
Costa Rica--pretty pretty!

Latino Blog Challenge Day 1: Latin@ in America

noreply@blogger.com (mz. aida) — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 12:00:00 +0000

Starting late, I know. This was supposed to start on the 15th, but I'm starting today because I was traveling (to Puerto Rico, coincidentally).

Prompt: "What I love most about being Latino in America"

First of all, I'm assuming "America" here means the United States of America? Which is a pet peeve of mine because the USA is NOT the entirety of America and I think it's strange how US folks call themselves just "Americans."

But anyway.

I love that we're a presence that complicates notions of race and belonging--that in a black/white country we come in too many colors to easily pinpoint and identify as Latin@, and that while all our Latin-American countries have their own histories, we as people have histories with living in the U.S. too.

I like that our mere presence can turn racialized notions on their head. Here in the U.S. we organize more based around country of origin and/or language rather than the color of our skin because skin does not dictate our full cultural landscape (though it does affect it). Our origins, overall, are mixed and complicated so that questions of race can throw many of us for a loop. How much of our blood is black or native or various flavors of colonizer? Is it even a question of blood anymore for those folks who have immigrated into Latin-America from other countries and been there for years, decades, or even centuries?

I love that even in the face of antipathy and harsh immigration laws and racism and xenophobia and stereotypes, we are still overall a proud set of people, that we congregate joyously and there's always food and conversation and community.

The Pointy, Thuddy, and Zappy: How Legal Are They?

noreply@blogger.com (mz. aida) — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 16:00:00 +0000

So remember that one time I got stopped at TSA for accidentally bringing a throwing knife (like the image below) in my purse? (They confiscated the beautiful thing and I might get a fine in the mail...? Speaking of which, if you bring in dangerous items in your carry-ons through TSA the fines range from $250 or so up to $1,500 depending on mitigating/aggravating factors). You better bet I spent the rest of my time at the gate before my flight looking up the legality of various items/kink toys on my iPhone because I didn't want that to happen again. I encourage y'all to check your local laws as well, so you don't get screwed over due to ignorance.

As a primer, here's the info for 3 types of toys for the 3 states I most frequent:

Knives:

Generally: switchblades, bowie knives, spring-loaded knives, gravity knives, butterfly knives, double edged knives = illegal. These are the "worrisome" knives because they're easy to pull out one-handed and cause mayhem with (so the issue is drawing capability). Also on this list? Ballistic knives--ones where the blade can be thrown/ejected from the knife and onto/into a thing/person.

In MA: You can own any, but the type of blade you carry (read: carry on your person, or carry under your control in a vehicle) is the one they care about. In certain areas, there's a particular blade length max., too, but there's no MA-wide one. For example, as per the ordinances in Boston (specifically, Chapter 16, Section 45), people can't carry knives with blades longer than 2.5 inches except when hunting, fishing, or "any employment, trade or lawful recreational or culinary activity which customarily involves the carrying or use of any type of knife" and subsequently, when going to/from those activities. Also it's okay to carry a bigger knife "[if it is] being transported directly to or from a place of purchase, sharpening, or repair, and if packaged in such a manner as not to allow easy access to the knife while it is being transported." The fines are no more than $300 per offense.

Here's the text from the penal code: "(b) Whoever, except as provided by law, carries on his person, or carries on his person or under his control in a vehicle, any stiletto, dagger or a device or case which enables a knife with a locking blade to be drawn at a locked position, any ballistic knife, or any knife with a detachable blade capable of being propelled by any mechanism, dirk knife, any knife having a double-edged blade, or a switch knife, or any knife having an automatic spring release device by which the blade is released from the handle, having a blade of over one and one-half inches [...] shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two and one-half years nor more than five years in the state prison, or for not less than six months nor more than two and one-half years in a jail or house of correction, except that, if the court finds that the defendant has not been previously convicted of a felony, he may be punished by a fine of not more than fifty dollars or by imprisonment for not more than two and one-half years in a jail or house of correction."

In NY: The state itself doesn't have max. length, and you can pretty much possess any knife that's not one of those "generally bad/illegal knives" I mentioned earlier (e.g. switchblades). Possession of other knives is only illegal if you have a "lawful blade" with intent to harm, but law officials COULD presume the latter just based on possession, so it's messy. In NYC, specifically, (Chapter 10, Section 33), "it shall be unlawful for any person to carry on his or her person or have in such person's possession, in any public place, street, or park any knife which has a blade length of four inches or more," though they do have provisions for recreational/employment-related knife use and stuff.

Here's the text from the NY penal code: (1) He or she possesses any [...] gravity knife, switchblade knife, pilum ballistic knife, metal knuckle knife, [...]; or (2) He possesses any dagger, dangerous knife, dirk, razor, stiletto, imitation pistol, or any other dangerous or deadly instrument or weapon with intent to use the same unlawfully against another"

In RI: The maximum blade length for wearing or carrying any knife concealed is 3 inches (measuring from the end of the handle where the blade is attached to the end of the blade). The "no-no" knives CAN be owned if there's no intent to use them unlawfully against another, but it could get messy trying to prove that (in either direction) in a court of law.

Here's the text from the RI law (Section 11-47-42): "(a) No person shall [...] with intent to use unlawfully against another, carry or possess a dagger, dirk, stiletto, sword-in-cane, bowie knife, or other similar weapon designed to cut and stab another, nor shall any person wear or carry concealed upon his person, any of the above-mentioned instruments or weapons, or any razor, or knife of any description having a blade of more than three (3) inches in length measuring from the end of the handle where the blade is attached to the end of the blade, or other weapon of like kind or description. Any person violating the provisions of this subsection shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, and the weapon so found shall be confiscated."

Sap gloves/weighted knuckle gloves:

In MA: It seems you can own them, but not carry them anywhere. They don't mention sap gloves by that specific name, but they talk about it being illegal to carry "metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles" and "any similar device made from any other substance or a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand."

In NY: Sap gloves aren't specifically mentioned as "unlawful weapons" by state law, though they do mention the illegal nature of [possessing] plastic knuckles and metal knuckles, so...? Maybe illegal?

In RI: Possessing and carrying are both illegal, as is the "attempt to use against another."

Stun guns:

In MA: Possession is illegal (source).

Whoever violates this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1,000 or by imprisonment in the house of correction for not less than 6 months nor more than 21/2 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. A law enforcement officer may arrest without a warrant any person whom he has probable cause to believe has violated this section.

In NY: In the penal code, possession of an "electronic dart gun" (the ones with a bit that shoots out to stun) or "electronic stun gun" (the ones you need to press against the person) is illegal and would be classified as possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, a class A misdemeanor.

In RI: Possessing and carrying are both illegal, as is the "attempt to use against another." Same penalties as with the knives. The one I had (but lost!) looks like the image above, but it was gold on the outside and black on the inside.

When "Going East" Is Code for "CHERRY BLOSSOM RACISM"

noreply@blogger.com (mz. aida) — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 03:01:00 +0000

A friend posted this article about the recent launch of the "Go East" Victoria's Secret line on their Facebook page, and a comment exchange ensued between some folks, myself included. I thought some points that were raised deserved a response (and a public one at that, not caught up in the FB privacy settings). I've paraphrased and bolded them here + added some responses.

How is this racist? A geisha is a sexual figure in East Asia already.

This line isn't just sexualizing the geisha---the entire LINE is all about "sexy exotic Asian-ness," and it's all predicated on a commodified, simplified, and inauthentic view of "exotic asian culture." For the purposes of Victoria's Secret, "going east" means "let's put some cherry blossoms and red on some lingerie and make our models wear chopsticks in their hair and OH OH don't forget the kimono!" Of course it brings in the geisha as one of the lingerie styles because that's one of the easiest things to sexualize here in the U.S., since so many people are familiar with the concept. Speaking of which, most of us have a pretty simplified and misinformed idea about what being a geisha entails anyway, and the level of education and training geishas got/get as well as the diversity of their actions/professions is not something a lot of people know about. Most folks just think "yeah, a geisha, a Japanese prostitute with the white face and stuff, like in Mulan or something."

Sexual fantasy doesn't indicate personally racist/bigoted beliefs. Wanting to dress like a geisha doesn't make someone a racist.

Sexual attitudes and desires don't happen inside of a magic bubble. We all have the responsibility to ask ourselves why we like what we do instead of just saying "AH WELL I JUST LIKE STUFF WHO KNOWS WHY." Just as we adopt racist, sexist, etc.-ist beliefs in other areas of our lives, we adopt them in our sexual life and sexuality too. It's our responsibility to interrogate what we want and how that intersects with the world around us. It's like saying "yeah I only date white people, I dunno, I just find them more attractive." Beauty is not this magically 100% objective thing--it's very conditioned by our upbringing and cultural surroundings, and if those have racism embedded into them, you betcha your ideas of beauty will also have racism embedded unless you actively work to fight that and deconstruct it as much as possible.

And even if someone doesn't want to dress like a geisha due to "explicitly racist" reasons, it involves a degree of subconscious entitlement to do so--that "yes, I can wear this, because I can do whatever I want, I have access to these pieces of this culture and I don't have to think about the context or the impact of this choice." It's that dismissiveness, that disregard, that idea that all things are possible/accessible and OK because "I'm not actually a racist." Racism isn't just lynchings and cross-burning and denying people jobs; it's way more complicated and pervasive than that.

Taking this line down and not carrying foreign-oriented lines of lingerie = just as offensive as carrying them.

There's a difference between carrying a line catered to a particular community and appropriating that community's culture. There's also a difference between actually trying to provide positive and accurate representation of a culture for that culture (or even for society) and doing something simplified to purely make profit and create the newest fashion collection. Here, the intent as well as the outcome are important. Furthermore, no, these things are not "equally offensive."

Of course, product advertising and these sexy lingerie things are never going to fully capture the entire history of whatever they're symbolizing/hinting at, but when it's done along already tense axes, where there have been lots of struggles between those who are creating the products and those who they are "depicting," it's a problem. Why? Because it's once again a reiteration of the same power dynamics. In a climate where there are still a lot of anti-Asian feelings (check out this website for example!), it's just one more way in which U.S. culture, especially non-asian/specifically-white U.S. culture, asserts that it can take whatever it wants from these cultures for its own purposes, demonize the fuck out of those same cultures, and not be held accountable.

When Sex-Positive Icons Fuck Up

noreply@blogger.com (mz. aida) — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 14:51:00 +0000

On the heels of a discussion I was having during the training for our CSPH interns yesterday (all about radical feminism, sex-positivity, liberal feminism, and the hot mess among all those camps), I thought it'd be appropriate to finally post this. This is a good example of what some folks critique about sex-positive icons, or even just liberal feminist people--that many ignore the intersections, that they advocate for the rights of some but ignore others, that they are so caught up in all the radical possibilities of pleasure, that they ignore when sexuality can be painful and problematic and perpetuating oppression on other axes.

So, the following excerpt comes from the blog of Ms. Bianca (here). Apparently Annie Sprinkle, a big sex-positive icon who's done a lot around sex-work especially, said the following:

Annie Sprinkle Thanks for reviving this ‘ancient’ image! When I made this image, for me it was about HONORING the art of India. I have always adored everything from India. Especially the music and art. When I began to study and practice Tantra, is when I made this image. I was so enthusiastic! I think i had past life in India, so really, maybe I’m not even appropriating as I might have been Indian. That said, I do agree that this is “appropriation.” In retrospect, I didn’t know a thing about “appropriation.” Now I am educated about it and am more sensitive. Thankfully I had some nice people explain it to me in ways I could hear it, after being attacked and judged on a college campus about 18 years ago! This image was made in 1989 or 90. It is not a new image. I think when we see people being “inappropriate” we need to be nice about it, and educate. Not attack. In most cases. Not all. Still, in the end, I do love the image, and think that when looked at with SEX POSITIVE EYES it is a beautiful image. An honoring image. xxx
I also feel that nothing is really new. That we are all appropriating all the time, and borrowing from many cultures. Especially in the multicultural mix of the new millennium. I like the idea of utilizing all kinds of culture and adding to it. Like collage. Taking things and making them over again in new ways. That appeals to me. When art is good, it provokes responses, and is controversial. At least my favorite art is. That’s why I love Phillip Huang. He gets a rise out of people! Love you Phillip. Love you Counterpulse! Love you everyone! Saturday at 11:42am

Gosh, this conversation is really turning me on! I haven’t been this controversial in a while. I’m really taking pleasure from it. Thanks everyone. Although I do apologize if something I did in 1989 offended anyone. But then… there was 1973, 1974, 1975… Oy vey. Saturday at 9:28pm

Thanks Cx Tiara Transience. Live and learn. You are right that that the anger against racism is totally justified. However, I was saying that I learn better when people explain things nicely to me rather than put me on the defensive. Then I just want to fight or flight and not listen. And Beth Stephens, i LOVE YOU. Yesterday at 1:54pm

(Also, why is appropriation in quotations...? Appropriation is appropriation, no need to air quote it. Anyway.) Of course--a lot of white people appropriate things of other cultures in hopes of "honoring them" or "showing how awesome they are and how much they like it," but it's still appropriation and it's still a big problem (and some are just ignorant or flat-out racist fucks that aren't trying to honor ANYONE but themselves). It ignores the legacies of inequality and the ways in which white people consumed, regulated, and spat out people of color's cultures. It perpetuates the idea that white people get to be the arbiters of culture and arbiters of what's important and valued, and that what POC have to offer is merely for consumption. There's a difference between appreciation and appropriation.

(This is the picture in question)

Of course, not all people of color will react in the same ways. A lot of us don't see eye to eye on racism issues, and a lot of folks are actually pretty convinced racism isn't such a problem anymore (especially in the age of Obama), just like many women think sexism isn't a thing anymore...y'know, 'cause now we can vote and go work and stuff. This is often due to other identities/privileges people hold (read: it's easier to think racism's gone if you're a POC with a lot of money), and/or due to internalized issues around race and privilege. For an example of this, and how even POC can trivialize POC concerns, check out Philip Huang's video doing an "interpretive/dramatic reading" of the issues some POC raised around this. Yeeeeeeeeeeah.

But onto the actual Annie Sprinkle comments (which have now been deleted).

I'm glad she sees that her work was appropriative, but the rest of her post kind of messes it up for me. The part about how she might not even be appropriating because she may have been Indian in a past life is a huge copout and pretty perturbing. When she says "Thankfully I had some nice people explain it to me in ways I could hear it, after being attacked and judged on a college campus about 18 years ago!" puts the blame on "those mean people who judged and attacked" 18 years ago. Of course people will generally listen more when folks approach things nicely, but not everyone can and/or should speak nicely about these issues, and the onus is on the folks who have transgressed to listen and see what they are being confronted with. That doesn't mean being a doormat, for sure, but it means centralizing the issue and the concerns, NOT the feelings about being called out. Too many critical conversations get shut down because the people being called out prioritize their feelings over the issues and the fucked up things they did.

Furthermore, the part about "Still, in the end, I do love the image, and think that when looked at with SEX POSITIVE EYES it is a beautiful image. An honoring image. xxx" really negates a lot of what is said earlier. It's like saying "yes, this is fucked up, BUT REALLY if you look at it in the end with ~*SEX POSITIVE EYES*~ you can appreciate it." Well no, we can't all appreciate it even if we're sex-positive because we don't have the luxury or privilege of "taking off" the lenses that look at racism and appropriation...and we shouldn't, because what we need to be doing is calling people out for doing racist and appropriative things, not just staying silent about it.

The comments about how "nothing is really new" and we are all "appropriating all the time, and borrowing from many cultures," especially in this climate of multiculturalism, really once again shows a disregard (and/or ignorance) to the histories of appropriation. And no, it's not like cultures aren't mixing and should never mix, but that we need to acknowledge the power dynamics that keep getting recycled over and over and how those show up in our society. On the art note, too, art can be avant-garde and controversial and provocative without needing to be racist. Art can depict and critique and discuss racism WITHOUT HAVING TO FALL INTO RACISM AND APPROPRIATION. (Cross-reference the Diana Joy blackface debacle in RI and my creation of the Keep It Checked Tumblr).

So why is this such a big deal?

Because it's one of those big "sex-poz" icons who a lot of people look up to. Because this stuff happens at all levels, and pretty constantly. Because even the fact that Annie Sprinkle is taking this somewhat in stride and like "wow, this is getting controversial, that's awesome" when POC are mostly just feeling shitty and upset speaks volumes. Because we need to remind people that just because someone is an amazing activist in one sphere, it doesn't make them immune to doing other messed up stuff, or marginalizing other communities. Because for those of us who DO identify as sex-positive and feminists *AND* people of color, we need to speak up and elevate the field when we can. We need to hold the icons and each other accountable for our actions, even if they took place years ago, and we need to all keep learning and growing.

For those of us who are comfortable calling people out (even if not all the time), I encourage us to keep doing it. For those of us who get called out, we need to keep listening. And we ALL need to remember that activism and work in social spheres is complex and should be nuanced, not oversimplified. We need many lenses and many voices to make some radical change.

Doing something that gets a call-out doesn't negate other good work people have done (as in Annie's case), as if retroactively this entire person's career were tainted by a problematic image/statement. What it DOES mean, though, is that a critical light must be shed on their past/present/future work, and that we need to understand how their views may have affected (and may continue to affect) their work. Also, so I can leave y'all with some action items and actual tools, check out this awesome PDF that talks about common racist attitudes and behaviors that indicate a detour or wrong turn into white guilt, denial, or defensiveness. "Each is followed by a statement that is a reality check and consequence for harboring such attitudes." Super useful. Please share widely! :)

Unpacking the Invisible Toybag (or, Scene Specific White Privilege)

noreply@blogger.com (mz. aida) — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 17:06:00 +0000

So M (who goes by _Spiral_ on Fetlife)--a black genderqueer person from Baltimore--wrote a great list of white privilege in the BDSM/kink/leather scene inspired by the famous Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack, by Peggy McIntosh:

By and large, white people in our society have been and continue to be taught about racism as something that puts others at a disadvantage, but taught not to see one of its corollary aspects, White Privilege, which puts white people at an advantage... taught to view themselves as individuals whose moral state depended on their individual moral will... to think of their lives as morally neutral, normative, and average, and also ideal, so that when they work to benefit others, this is seen as work that will allow POCs to be more like them.

There are numerous unearned advantages to being white in the BDSM community. The thing is, as stated above, these are not seen as advantages, they are seen as normative, ie. that's just the way things are. These advantages include but are not limited to the following:

A white person can go to an event or party and very likely not be the only white person (or one of a few) at said event.

A white person can be fairly sure to see their race represented in event literature (ads, program books, videos, etc), and BDSM artwork and literature at large (BDSM based fiction, books, magazines)

A white person will very likely be able to find Dungeon Monitors, and others in charge in scene space who will be of their own race.

A white person will very likely be able to find event presenters and educators who will be of their own race.

A white person can be fairly certain that event organizers and venue owners are people of their own race.

Barring known nationality in some cases (cuz i bet BoundBlackDragon could tell us a story or two) a white person can be fairly certain that the type of play they like, and/or the role they'd like to play in a scene will not be assumed based on their race or stereotypes about their race.

Barring known nationality in some cases, when undressed, a white person can safely expect not to have their body or an area of their body or bodypart be considered a "credit to their race."

Barring known nationality in some cases, when showing particular skill, force, technique, intensity, or even gentleness, a white person can safely expect that these aspects will not be attributed to stereotypes about their race.

Barring known nationality in some cases, when a mistake is made in a scene, a white person can safely expect that it will not be attributed to a stereotype about incompetence or clumsiness via their race.

If the people in attendance at an event are paying NO attention to a white person, that person can be fairly certain that it's not because of their race.

If the people in attendance at an event are paying a LOT of attention to a white person, that person can be fairly sure that it's not because of their race.

And then someone derailed the hell out of it, so obviously I commented. Can I also mention this derailer is a white, 35 y.o. male dominant who is part of a "Black Women/White Men" group, a "White Doms/Tops and Black subs/bottoms" group, a "young black women who love older white men" group, AND a "Gorean" group? I'll just leave that there for y'all to digest.

By and large I think what you are missing is that white people generally don't look for their own race in those situations and have no issue with other races filling those parts. As for sexual expectations you are too narrow in your scope because skinny girls are expected to be a certain way as well as large girls, blonds, upper class, lower class etc etc etc. I'm not going to go into detail because I am very tired but I think you are showing a large amount of ignorance and short sightedness yourself. By and large people are much less hated then they believe they are. Social interactions being the most complicated thing in human nature you cannot simply chalk things up so simply.

Of course, because so many spaces ARE white, and it's not just a byproduct of "oh well there are just lots of white people in the U.S."---it's directly tied to how the scene operates, what's valued in it, how cost-prohibitive some parties/accessories/etc. are, the locations where BDSM/kink activities are able to happen, and a lot more, and THOSE systems and situations are inextricably tied to racism.

White people rarely, if ever, "look for their own race" because they're constantly surrounded by them, and people of color are the minorities that are either used to having to find community or because of circumstance, are mistrustful/uncomfortable/whatever when in a white-dominated space.

Plus, I'd sincerely hope white people "didn't have an issue" with "other races filling those parts." (But the thing is, some of them do. Which is fucked.)

Also, I have been told I am a credit to my race and sex as well. If there are other races in the audiences then that is very possible.

How have you been told "you're a credit to your race and sex"? I'm curious about the context and intent there...

Oh and for the last few if you get a lot or no attention why do you assume off the top it is because of your race? Could be body type, newness, attitude or a multitude of other things. As I said above social interactions is the most complicated part of human nature and to assume you understand completely all of the intricacies only shows how little you really know and would rather remain in what feels comfortable rather then challenge yourself and your own ASSUMPTIONS(PREJUDICE).

Of course--there are a lot of means of oppressing people, a lot of different types of privileges, and the OP is not saying that racism trumps all other oppressions and that if you are a person of color you are ALWAYS OPPRESSED IN EVERY WAY. They're trying to highlight the way RACE specifically operates in terms of privileges. Just because there are other fucked up assumptions we make based on other identities (such as body shape/size) doesn't mean the ones based on race are "not as bad or important."

Re: the attention issue---Jesus H. Christ. AGAIN, the OP is not saying it IS ALWAYS ABOUT RACE. They are saying that one of the privileges of being a white person in the scene is that race is USUALLY NOT AN ISSUE FOR WHITE PEOPLE. While a person of color moves around the world dealing with their race and probably having to think about it every damn day, white people don't have that, and at the very least if they do for some outside reason, they don't have it in the same, systemic way that POC do.

Once again, if you reread the post, it says a white person can be fairly certain their level of attention, regardless of if it's high or low, is NOT RELATED to their race, while--again, based on experience--a POC CANNOT be fairly certain that that's the case.

Social interactions are indeed complicated, but to try to veil them with "oh, it's complicated, you can't break them down like this" is ridiculous.

Notes on Fetishizing People

noreply@blogger.com (mz. aida) — Sat, 11 Aug 2012 16:04:00 +0000

I've recently been part of some conversations about attraction where the following questions/ideas have come up--"am I a chaser? am I fetishizing a community if I'm attracted to its members? is this terrible? is this something I need to think further about? can't I just say I like XYZ and have it be that, with no ulterior motive? we all have fetishes [here on Fetlife] and some of those things are actions or body parts or people, or IDs..."

There's a difference between
(a) liking a person's appearance/body and appreciating it sexually/aesthetically
and (b) placing value solely or primarily on that person's body/appearance/identity category.
In (b), the person's story, their life, their individuality is not of primary concern. It is less important than the "hot" identity that makes a person want them. This is also tied to someone having particular ideas about that identity (enter stereotypes!), which increase the desire and do not depend on reality, but on a fictional set of ideas and narratives about a person's identity.

There are things we might find hot, but we should still interrogate those desires a bit more closely because so often they're deeply entwined with racist, misogynistic, [insert ID]-st shit and they deserve a closer look. Really analyzing our desires, I think, can also serve to clarify them better for ourselves as well as for potential partners. For example, liking transwomen can be a thing for many reasons--it could be something about the history of transness, or the presumed/assumed anatomy, or it can be about finding someone similar/likewise trans*, or it's an assumed attitude, the list goes on. What are you attracted to within the demographics you say you like? Are you attracted to women? To masculinity? To femininity? To genderqueerness? To men? To people with lots of hair regardless of what's in their pants? The list can go on...

Personally, it can be tough for me to interact with people that I know fetishize some aspect of me. Random example--people who love "BBW" (Big Beautiful Women)! Personally, if I were approached by a self-identified "BBW fetishist" I'd probably give them some major side-eye because my experiences seeing that community deal with its attraction to fat bodies has been pretty sketchy in parts, and pretty objectifying. Ditto to someone who loves "Latin@s." I'd question their motives, their interests, and their desires. I'd ask myself what about me are they stereotyping? Why is my Latinidad important to them? Is it something they wanna celebrate with me or is it something they want to keep out of sight and out of mind (and thus is easy to do because I don't have an accent and am light-skinned)?

I think stuff like this can happen with any ID "category" (even things like..."gamer"), but it's just exceptionally complicated and potentially hurtful to people when it's around identity categories that put that person through shit and other people use to oppress them. Being a person of color or being queer or being fat are not "neutral identities"--they are loaded one that have been previously (and currently!) deployed to control people.

Finally, this conversation this also relates to (but is not the same as) being attracted to someone for how they are perceived and not how they actually identify, or ignoring a piece of someone's ID because they can "pass" as something else that's less "problematic." For example, someone only/primarily being attracted to folks who appear/"act" white, regardless of actual cultural/racial/ethnic background, or someone being attracted to trans* folks that can pass as cis for whatever reason.

Re: The White Elephant in the Room

noreply@blogger.com (mz. aida) — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 04:42:00 +0000

This is my response (edited from my Tumblr version of it) to Black Girl Dangerous/Mia McKenzie's post about The White Elephant in the Room. (Please go read that first!)

When “woman of color” includes Latin@s of all stripes, then yes, I am a woman of color.

When “woman of color” is just shorthand for “African or African American,” then no, I am not a woman of color and would never claim to be. (And I mention this because many spaces I found, especially initially, were for WOC and QWOC but only had African American folks in them—no other groups were represented/part of those spaces).

When “woman of color” includes people born in the Caribbean and Latin-America, whose culture and upbringing and politics were not those of white U.S. Americans, whose heritage includes slaves and indigenous folks and colonizers all wrapped up in one, whose native tongue isn’t English, who don’t have the privilege of NOT thinking about their race/ethnicity/culture, then yes, I am a woman of color.

When “woman of color” means that I’m oppressed based on my skin color, then no, I am not a woman of color and would never claim to be. (The kind of shit I get for my skin color is not oppression, and now that I’m living in the U.S., is even less of a talking point.)

Though it’s not the same thing (obviously), I feel there are important parallels to sexuality and gender here, the feelings from folks who are “visibly” queer in one or both of those arenas vis-a-vis those who can “pass.” The important thing is for those who can “pass” as a dominant group to ACKNOWLEDGE their (our!) privilege, use it for the best (cross-reference that video I posted a while ago about using white-privilege), and help speak for our communities, but be aware that we should also help to centralize folks of the most marginalized positions instead of just repeatedly highlighting the same voices who are “most palatable” to dominant groups. It means being aware of WHY we have privilege and HOW we have privilege, and striving to do something about it instead of going “oh well, I can’t help my privilege!” or “it’s so HARD to be privileged!” It means not being content when something that claims to represent queer folks really is just "cisgender/normatively-gendered white-looking queer people" or feeling all self-satisfied when we work for the inclusion of POC in white spaces and all the POC are suspiciously white-looking. It means we need to try harder and step back more sometimes, and it means our identities are never at rest.

At the same time, for ALL of us, it also means knowing that there are people within and behind all those long laundry lists of identities, and that identities can be painful and joyful and help us build communities but also keep us out of communities that once felt or should have felt like home. It means knowing there will be rage and sadness and hope and laughter and that we need to have at least a little understanding and compassion in our hearts, but that our feelings are valid and don’t need to be 24/7 crafted into tasteful, polite little snippets.

For someone who can pass as white (though I am usually on a mission to make it clear who and what I am), I don’t get harassed on the basis of my skin color on the street. For someone who can pass as heterosexual (if I try/when I have male partners/etc.), I can go without getting harassed for my choice of partner. These are things that make my life easier. A lot of POC and a lot of queer folks and a lot of people at those intersections don’t have those privileges, and so I need to own them very clearly. Heck, on a more "superficial level," I can purchase makeup and not wonder about how it will look on my skin because the models on the ads have the same skin-tone as I do. I can listen to love songs and not have to *always* switch pronouns and genders around. I can watch movies and see people that look like me on the surface. On both life-or-death as well as day-to-day levels, I have a ton of privileges that make my interactions with the world similar to those of a white, cis, hetero person. Still--that doesn't suddenly make me a white, cis, hetero person, and it doesn't erase all the ways in which my identities as a Latin@, queer, genderqueer/fluid/hotmess do affect my day-to-day experiences in ways that clearly align with those/my communities.

If we’re building community based on our culture and background and queerness, it’s not okay to be told “oh wait, you’re not queer enough, please leave” or “you’re not enough of a minority, this isn’t for you” or “whatever, even though your heritage is X you look like Y so let me erase your entire experience.” It DOES mean people can tell me to shut the fuck up if I’m speaking about an experience that’s not mine though, for sure, and it means that we might all be POC/queer/whatever, but that our intersecting identities make it so that all our experiences aren’t the same, and that we can’t hold hands and pretend that we all experience the same level of oppression. We need to learn to build our communities, as complex as they may be, and also learn to stand in solidarity with those that are different from us, be they part of certain spaces we inhabit or be they complete outsiders.

---
And re: the OP, relating to that last point about light-skinned privilege vs. white privilege—what would “visibly POC” mean? Very curly hair? Slanted eyes? A wider nose…? Or…? I also ask because the idea of separating “white skin” from “light skin”doesn’t make sense to me unless we’re saying that using the language of “light” vs. “dark” poses dark skin as its “default” and so you can have a “dark black/brown” skin tone or a “light black/brown” skin tone and beyond that, it’s just “white skin.”

Fight Against Fraud (Message from ONA)

noreply@blogger.com (mz. aida) — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 02:58:00 +0000

**En Español abajo**

¡¡Take action with ONA this Saturday!!

The struggle against theft and fraud at Paraiso Multiservices continues...

José Silverio, the man who presents himself as the owner of a remittance agency on Chalkstone Avenue called Paraiso Multiservices, has been stealing money from his customers for over a year. Most of these customers are Latino immigrants who use his service to send their hard-earned dollars home to support their families in Guatemala, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, and elsewhere. Last month, a small group of Pariso Multiservices customers came forward to denounce this theft. Since then, they have organized over 30 customers, who together have lost over $50,000, to demand justice. They filed a criminal complaint, and last Saturday they staged a successful picket outside of the business attended by dozens of victims and their allies. (Check out the pictures, attached, and thank you to all who came out!)

This week, while the state police continue to investigate this theft,
these customers are taking their fight back to the streets!
Join them this Saturday, July 28th for a picket outside of José Silverio's house to say ENOUGH is ENOUGH-
stop stealing from our community!

Picket to Demand Justice!
Saturday, July 28th
5pm

532 Plainfield St, Providence

Have questions? Want more information? Call ONA at 401.228.8996

************

¡¡Toma acción con ONA este sábado!!

La lucha contra robo y fraude en Paraiso Multiservices continua...

José Silverio, el hombre representándose como el dueño de Paraiso Multiservices, una agencia de remesas en la Chalkstone, ha estado robando a sus clientes por más de un año. La mayoría de estos clientes son inmigrantes Latinos que usan el servicio para mandar su dinero ganado con sudor a sus países de origen para sostener a sus familias en Guatemala, Mexico, la República Domincana, entre otros lugares. En junio, un grupo de clientes de Pariso Multiservice se levantaron para denuniciar el robo. Desde entonces, ellos han organizado más de 30 clientes que han perdido más de $50,000 para demandar justicia. Ellos hicieron una denuncia formal, y el sábado pasado ellos organizaron un piquete exitoso con 40 victimas y aliados afuera del negocio. (Mira las fotos anexadas, y gracias a tod@s que vinieron!)

Esta semana, mientras que la policia estatal continua con su investigación,
estos clientes van a llevar su lucha a las calles otra vez!
Venga este sábado, 28 de julio para un piquete afuera de la casa de José Silverio para decir YA BASTA-
¡deja de robar de nuestra comunidad!

¡Piquete para demandar justicia!
sábado, 28 de julio
5pm
532 Plainfield St, Providence

Tienes preguntas? Quieres más información? Llama a ONA: 401.228.8996

What Not To Do When Housemate-Hunting

noreply@blogger.com (mz. aida) — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:16:00 +0000

Intro: This is from an email exchange in which I participated in response to my Craiglist ad. I’ve highlighted the most relevant bits. See, while humor is awesome, using feminism-related humor when you’re a cis-dude and we don’t know each other at all = not the best choice.

—-

Hey girls!

In response to your CL listing, here I am. Your listing and requirements are almost exactly what im looking for!

- Im LGBT-friendly (Im currently traveling Europe with a gay friend and a couple straight ones).

- I like to share household utilities (down to groceries, netflix, bar tabs)

- I throw occasional extravagant parties (maybe twice a year). Dinner parties are great too.

Im a 28 y/o male engineer going in for a masters in entrepreneurship at Brown this fall.

So a little about me. To sum it up, im a social, spontaneous, sporty, clean(ish) and nerdy guy. I was born in Oregon, lived all over the US, but living in Boston for the last 5 years working at a tech startup managing the manufacturing and various engineering aspects of our products. When im not working I enjoy cycling, hiking, snowboarding, ultimate frisbee, inventing/building random things, traveling, meeting new people, and going out with friends.

Now that you know a little about me, id love to hear a little more about you guys. The only concern that I have at the moment is… living with THREE girls? But you guys sound pretty awesome.

Best, XXX

—-

Hi XXXX!

What does an “occasional extravagant party” mean to you? That sounds fancy! :D Is it more on the “fancy fabulous party” or “beer pong rager” end of things?

And yes—three girls. Have you been primarily living by yourself or with guys…? We’re pretty awesome if I do say so myself. The question is—are we all compatible? That’s what we have to find out! Do you think you could Skype with us for a chat tomorrow or in the coming days?

On our end, we’re all sociable folks with Venn-diagramming lives. We have our own things going on (and it seems like all fervently love our jobs and doing good for society), but do like to spend time together. For example, we hosted a couchsurfer these past two nights, all of us had dinner together yesterday and then watched a movie about an evil Santa Claus in Finland. Then, today, one of the housemates (Jenna) and I got home from work, chatted over some pineapple-y wine, and watched an “offbeat romantic ghost story” about a married fisherman who has to reconcile his love for a man with his life and society’s social mores. Sometime in August we’ll be hosting a monthly (or so?) feminist book club, and there are plans to go down to Newport sometime because I’ve never been and that’s quite a tragedy.

If that sounds at all interesting, let’s set up a time to chat!

—-

Hey Aida,

The occasional extravagant party means I like to throw epic memorable parties which i invest fairly heavily in. These are no ordinary beer pong ragers, I dont even allow it. These are epic themed parties where massive props are made, fog machines, disco balls, candles, blacklights, meticulously created playlists, dance floors, etc. and funded by the young professionals who like to show appreciation to their good friends a couple times a year. Youve never been to a party like this before. (Note from Aida: I am simultaneously intrigued and put off.)

Ive been living with 3 boys and 1 girl in boston for the last 5 years. A few people have cycled, but the ratio always remains the same. I like to live with at least one girl to keep the place in check.

Im daunted by your “feminist book club” and three “social justice minded” women. Im pretty sure you guys will want to kill me by the first night if you take my asinine crass humor seriously. Im pretty over-the-top. While I appreciate your time, I think im going to have to respectfully decline.

Good luck finding someone!

---

The problem is, while this guy sounded kind of interesting in a way, he can't expect me to trust his intent once I've already been slammed with sexist bullshit over and over. And even if I WERE to think "well he's just being ironic/funny," this kind of shit is not funny to me anymore 99% of the time, especially coming from men, and cis, straight men at that.

If we do not have a relationship, do not have a rapport, and do not have ANY remote smidgen of comfort with each other and knowledge about where we're coming from, this kind of humor doesn't make sense and doesn't make me feel good about our interactions. A lot of what he said just sounds like regurgitations from shitty conversations I've had with people who have been clueless, sexist, and/or disrespectful. Does anyone think that's cool or comforting? That it's funny or cool to make people feel like they might have another person in their life who devalues them, even if only just for a moment, for the sake of humor, and reenacts the daily sexist bullshit they face?

People can't expect folks from an oppressed/marginalized group to trust the intent of people from a majority/oppressive class when the latter are going down the same path of shittiness. "Oh oh oh, but I was being FUNNY/IRONIC" is not an excuse. Still shitty. When experience has told me and my communities that this kind of behavior is indicative of sexist and misogynist beliefs, WHY in the world would I just "hope" that this person would be different? Why would I even TRY to excuse them and give them the benefit of the doubt, especially if it's about living together? Come on. Doesn't make sense.

Does finding this problematic make me humorless? No. It makes me someone who prefers a more sophisticated and less oppressive brand of humor. I used to be one of those "you can joke about anything! bring on the dark humor and horribly offensive shit!" kind of person, especially before I hit college... but once one's been exposed to how this kind of thing actually plays out and is the lived reality of people, it's hard to find that shit funny anymore. That shit is REAL and EVERY DAY and EXHAUSTING. The harm these jokes and cracks make is far higher than their funniness, and from a purely utilitarian perspective (as well as one that focuses on kindness and respect more so than momentary wittiness), IT'S BETTER TO REFRAIN FROM SUCH "JOKES."

And before someone says "well that's censorship," welcome to the world. We all have to censor ourselves sometimes. We should HAVE the freedom to be shitty people to some extent and say whatever we want, but consciously CHOOSE to not be shitty to others. We need to strive to be better, and create a world that's a safer place to be. Just because we "can" do something doesn't mean we SHOULD do it.

Humor that relies on oppression and marginalization, no matter how small, is LAZY HUMOR. It's EASY to use the pre-existing power dynamics to "make a funny," and it pretty much requires no thought or wit or spin--just a pretty straightforward mimicry of what's going on in the day-to-day. Let's strive for more instead of just rolling around in the muck.

Racist + Sexist "Adult Novelties"

noreply@blogger.com (mz. aida) — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 02:49:00 +0000

Trigger-warning for gross sexist, racist language and glorification of non-consent.

Those of you who know me know I *love* talking about sex toys. Not only do I find them personally stimulating (har har har), I'm also just fascinated by how they have evolved, how technological developments have impacted their growth/design, and the ways in which people and the media conceptualize them. I'm fortunate enough to have attended some "novelty expos" in the past for work and I've seen a wide array of products. Some have blown my mind with their stylish marketing and innovative designs, but I've also had the misfortune of encountering some REALLY horrible toys (read: unsafe materials, terrible packaging, offensive marketing, and more). I wanted to highlight 2 particular companies producing some pretty egregious toys.

Why?

Because I want to hold toys and companies to higher standards and share what I know with the people who read this blog
Because consumers deserve to find good resources for their sex toys and know which companies are fucked up
Because there are some damaging and oppressive stereotypes and ideas being bandied about, and the sex toy industry usually gets a "free pass" because people think sexuality is some magical arena where politics and kindness don't apply
Because we need to acknowledge the pervasive sexism and racism in our fields and see how these things connect to our daily lives

BUT FIRST: some background. Pipedreams and Nasstoys (the ones I discuss here) are part of what's known in the industry as "The Big Five" (Doc Johnson, Cal Exotics, and Topco being the other three in the club). These are the companies that churn out toys like nobody's business--the "giants" in the industry. There's no real sense of "coherent" brand identity to the average consumer because these huge companies have a lot of toys under their belt and a wide array of different lines. Unlike smaller independent stores and companies, these organizations are faceless and commercial (not inherently a bad thing, but it's not a positive thing for me personally). They also put their profits before their consumers, as evidenced by their practices and the stuff I mention in this post.

Disclaimer: I own a glass Pipedreams toy because I was asked to review it years ago. While the line has a TON of products, and some of them are actually nice, I don't support them as a brand.

Pipedreams

When I went to the ANME Founders Show, I was introduced to the Pipedreams Extreme Toyz line. My immediate thought was a big WTF. They have toys like Flip a Sista Over and Junk in Tha Trunk. If the names and the "cum in her ghetto booty" slogan slapped across the package of the latter aren't enough to get you riled up, here's the copy that goes along with these ridiculously offensive toys:

Fuck her first in her tight mocha twat, then Flip A Sista Over and bust a nut in her booty! This handheld honey is the answer to every man’s chocolate fantasies...a sweet black pussy on one end and a big ol’ bubble butt on the other, with nothing getting in the way of you filling her with cum!

If you love thick black asses, this sista's got enough Junk in tha Trunk to satisfy your cravings! Fuck her first in her phat booty, then stick it in her snatch and bust a nut in her tight mocha twat! This bubble butt beauty is the answer to every man's chocolate fantasies…two big round ass cheeks to slap and pound on top, with a sweet black pussy spread eagle underneath!

Flip her over, insert the vibrating bullet underneath, and enjoy thrilling vibrations in her coochie and ass. When you're finished, cum inside either hole and never worry about knocking her up!

Where...would I even begin criticizing this? Jesus.

This one also creeps me out due to the way it fetishizes virginity, and while I'm down with most fetishes and fantasies, the problematic thing about this toy and its accompanying text/ideology is that for many people this "virgin ideal" leads to a lot of slut-shaming (among other things). Similarly, there's the misogyny and idealization of youth in this other toy, which bears the lovely slogan "I'm young, dumb, and want your CUM!" And while I'm actually a fan of consensual face-fucking, the images for this toy are just downright creepy. They hit super close to home re: the dehumanization of women in day-to-day experiences, and the copy is also atrocious and reeking of rape culture:

She's all yours to enjoy and there are no rules! Best of all, she never says no to a good time because she always has her mouth full!

Watch her eyes roll back into her head, then gag her with a taste of your man meat! If your girl never deep throated you before, now is your chance to enjoy the thrill! (...) She won't gag or choke, and there's no annoying teeth to get in the way or bite. When you're about to cum, don't worry about pulling out--blow a fat load right in her mouth and let her swallow!

At the expo I attended, they also had a "shemale" torso (Note: this was their offensive language, not mine--or it was something else but along these lines, like tranny or hermaphrodite)--headless with a huge penis and huge breasts, though I haven't seen that one being sold...

Nasstoys

They have an entire "Latin" section. Don't even get me started on the packaging. The fact that they have "se habla español" on their company page makes me think that perhaps these folks are in part, men of color? I'm not sure, though! Either way, it's fucked up.

Their "Isabella Pussy" is described as "super realista pussy" that's "siempre lista / always ready," so we once again see gendered language and the idea of constant sexual availability, but this time with racialized connotations to boot. The other model is "Maria," and I could see that stupid name coming from ten miles away.

The one that is most unnerving to me, though, is the one called "My First Pregnant Latina 'Knocked Up' Pussy." With the history of seeing women, especially women of color, as baby-making machines; with the history of colonial rape; with the widely-held racist notions/images that Latin@s are "welfare queens" and "promiscuous" and all have a billion babies and get pregnant at 12...this kind of shit does not sit well with me.

BUT WAIT, they also have a racially unmarket one (read: a white one). The difference is that the "Latina" toy is slightly darker and the model on the front has dark hair and a more "Latina-looking" face (which...is another post entirely) vs. the white model who is pale and blonde. *facepalm*

I'm focusing on the things that strike me the hardest as a Latin@ female, but never fear, they also have some delightfully racist dolls that target other groups, like the Mai Li Asian Love Doll, the Geisha masturbating sleeve, and the Asian Geisha Love Doll.

Men aren't left behind entirely in this racist circus, though, since when it comes to the "lifelike dongs," there's a section just for those, and there are Latin, Black, and ones without an adjective which are, you guessed it, the white ones. Because white is normal, once more. Anyway. The "super realistic dongs" are all faux-clever (read: actually just racist and lazy) plays on words that insidiously dehumanize actual Latin men (little pistol, top stud, big bull, wild bull, little bull, and more). And this banner below I think can just speak for itself (especially the "ALL American" part):

Again, I know these toys are selling a fantasy and a product, but we need to see how our daily lives connect to this, and how the daily lives of women and people of color are affected and mirrored by these toys and the attitudes toward them. It's not "just a toy" or "just a fantasy." These are all created and reflected by the society in which we live, and we can't afford to just ignore sex (and art, too, for that matter) because it's some special snowflake (which it's not).We need to think about what messages these toys send and why people buy them. We need to be critical consumers and media-viewers/makers.

Wanna see more screwy sex toys? (click the link!)

If you want to buy fabulous toys from reputable sources, though, check out the stores in the Progressive Pleasure Club.

I asked a friend “Do you think I’m just slowly turning into a pissed off lesbian separatist stereotype?”

noreply@blogger.com (mz. aida) — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 06:45:00 +0000

Our conclusion was that no, I wasn’t, but I think I’ve more recently come to fullyunderstand those “angry, humorless feminist/woman of color/queer” stereotypes ‘cause I feel that shit right down to my bones. Things that maybe I didn’t care about before, or just let slide by, are no longer okay. Once you start seeing inequality and start realizing how pervasive racism and sexism and homo/trans/biphobia and all these things are, it’s hard to ignore.

Of course I’m angry, after cis-men feel entitled to my body/time and don’t ask for consent, after my queer community is denied rights, after people feel like they have the right to tell me how I can or can’t have sex.

Of course I’m angry when women, especially women of color, make less than men in the same positions; when people of color are vilified in the media and whiteness is insidiously and subtly upheld as the standard; when companies produce skin-lightening creams that reap the benefits of colonialism and ideas about how precious pale skin is.

Of course you’ll think I’m “humorless” when I don’t laugh at the jokes that come at the expense of women/queers/POC, that trivialize inequalities and the fucked up shit some of us have to deal with on a daily basis.

Sorry, but my definition of “funny” no longer encompasses things that rely on oppressive stereotypes and judgments, and yours shouldn’t either. It’s not just being lazy with comedy; it’s outright being a privileged piece of shit who cares more about making a joke than about the harm that joke can cause to people.

Dear White Friends, Lovers, Strangers (in/from the U.S.)

noreply@blogger.com (mz. aida) — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:33:00 +0000

No, I don't hate you as a person because you're white.

I hate the structural inequalities that put white people at an advantage. I hate the legacy of racism in the U.S. and in Puerto Rico. I hate that people of color can't try to create a safe space for themselves without some white people commenting on how that's "reverse racism" and "discrimination." I hate that when people of color talk about race and inequality, many white people respond defensively, negatively, and/or with guilt that then makes them focus on their "feeling bad" and impairs them from seeing the realities we're bringing up. I hate that many respond with "well, we're not ALL like that" because I already know you're not all "like that"--"like that" being overtly discriminatory and horribly racist, but most of you to some degree still perpetuate racism even if in small ways.

I don't need your guilt or anger; I need your support and your allyship in action.

I don't need you to hate other white people, but to call them (and yourself) out when something racist happens. I need you to stand up for people of color even when there are none in the room. I need you to examine your privilege and see how it affords you certain things that are not accessible (or easily accessible) to people of color. I need you to look at the history of how racial difference was constructed in the United States and understand the context of race.

I need you to LISTEN.

I do NOT need you to feel guilty, but I understand if you do. I can understand if you feel bad, uncomfortable, awkward, or anything in that realm, but those feelings are a byproduct of examining privilege and usually they can even be part of the process of becoming an ally.

No one said this would be easy, and we must not confuse safety with comfort.

Transgender Hate Crimes Monitoring Bill- S2488 becomes law

noreply@blogger.com (mz. aida) — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 16:35:00 +0000

Announcement from Youth Pride Inc.:

Last week, Governor Chafee signed the Transgender Hate Crimes Monitoring Bill into law.
Youth Pride Inc. wants to thank the General Assembly and the Governor for their support of this legislation.

Rhode Island law will now contain the words “gender identity or expression” in the definition of a bias motivated crime for monitoring purposes. It will require that statistics on crimes motivated by gender identity/expression related bias to be kept by the State Police along with other bias motivated crimes. It will also include gender identity or expression in “mandatory training standards to provide instruction for police officers in identifying, responding to and reporting all incidents of ‘hate crimes’,” in accordance with RI General Law 42-28.2-8.1.

In 2001, Rhode Island became the second state in the country to add “gender identity and expression” into its non-discrimination laws, there are now 16 states plus Washington DC with such laws. Today, we celebrate as Rhode Island becomes the 16^th state plus Washington DC to recognize crimes motivated by prejudice and bias due to “gender identity or expression.”

Youth Pride wishes to thank bill sponsors Sen. Perry, Nesselbush, Miller, DeVall, and Crowley, as well as Reps. Ajello, Handy, Blazejewski, Cimini, Walsh and Ferri for their support in this effort. Youth Pride also wishes to thank our community partners in this effort including the RI Commission on Prejudice and Bias, Marriage Equality Rhode Island, Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, TGI-Network, the RI Chapter of the ACLU, RINASW as well as Rhode Island’s Transgender community and their allies.

Jayeson Watts, MSW, MT-BC
Direct Services Coordinator

Youth Pride Inc.
743 Westminster St.
Providence, RI 02903
Phone (401) 421-5626 Fax (401) 274-1990
www.youthprideri.org

Connect with Youth Pride Inc. on Facebook and find out what is happening this week at YPI!

My 7th Grade Class Helped Me Define My Relationships

noreply@blogger.com (mz. aida) — Wed, 23 May 2012 04:47:00 +0000

I remember learning about elements and electron-shell diagrams in my 7th grade science class. Who would've thought that that same model I saw on the whiteboard would be the key to explaining what the heck I was doing with my relationships years later?

Fluorine has 2 electrons on
the first shell and 7 on the
second shell.

Unless you count a torrid online romance with a guy from Canada when I was 14, at the age of 19 I'd never been in a relationship. All my knowledge of the mechanics of sex and intimacy were purely theoretical, and then I suddenly launched into something with a married polyamorous man with a Ph.D who was almost 10 years my senior. Oh, and did I mention he also had another girlfriend in addition to his wife? Though precocious and definitely interested in alternative sexuality since before high-school, nothing had prepared me for this relationship model.

So I did what any self-respecting nerd would do: I researched! I devoured everything I could find online about non-monogamy (and polyamory especially), spending hours upon hours reading personal accounts, advice columns, informational websites, and research papers. I had to unlearn a lot of things and reprogram my brain to understand this new model of relationship. In that process, I had to interrogate the metaphors I used to describe my love-life, what visual representations I used to talk about significant others, and what kind of language in general I used to describe my intimacy and the people involved.

Enter: SCIENCE!

If "Lithium" actually just meant
"Aida," this diagram would say that
I have 2 primaries and 1 secondary!

With increased hands-on experience (wink wink, nudge nudge) in non-monogamous living came more "opportunities" to describe my situation, both to potential partners and the general public.

One of the hurdles in explaining my relationship configuration was discussing how I could have two super important partners at the same time. I'm a pretty visual person, and non-monogamy sometimes necessitates a lot of diagramming, so I needed something I could draw for people. At some point along the way, my brain cycled back to my 7th grade science class and the electron-shell diagrams seemed to resonate.

So how does this work for me (and how might it work for you)? Read on, look at the Lithium diagram to the right, and keep the following in mind:

The big, red circle is the nucleus (made up of protons and neutrons), and that is the self (me!)
The little gray circles are electrons, and those are other people
The shells/rings are levels of commitment/closeness

1: There can be more than one electron/person on each shell (which goes against the ideas of "only one soulmate" in the monogamy model and against the "only one primary" notion in some poly communities). The electrons don't occupy the same exact space on the shell (read: the electrons are not on top of each other, ), but they ARE on the same shell, so it embodies how multiple primary partners are on the same general level of importance but are still fulfilling in different aspects.

2: Up to a certain point, the further a shell is from the nucleus, the higher the maximum number of electrons allowed on it. (For example: the first shell can hold a max. of 2 electrons, the second shell can hold a max. of 8, and the third shell can hold a max. of 18.) In relationship-talk, that means that I have a maximum number of people that I can pay attention to at a given time on a given rung, and I could have bigger numbers of lower-investment relationships than higher-investment relationships*. The maximum of two on the innermost shell is also probably accurate; I don't think I could ever handle more than 2 primaries!

3 (not tied to the shell diagram, but just general atomic knowledge I wanted to include): While the electrons affect the charge of an atom, an element is identified by the number of protons in the nucleus. This jives well with the idea that while relationships might change me (and, heh, make me more positive or negative), I'm my own person and I have a recognizable identity outside of whomever I am partners with at a particular time.

4: Finally, just because a shell has a maximum number of electron spots available, it doesn't mean I HAVE to try to get that shell full of electrons or that bed full of people just because I can.

*Still, the model isn't perfect. Number of partners on each "commitment rung" don't have to follow the "filling" patterns of atoms. For example, in Real Science, each shell can only hold a particular maximum number of electrons (2, 8, 18, 32 for the first four shells) and shells get filled from the inside out, so I wouldn't have an element/relationship with 2 electrons/people on the first shell, 4 in the second, and then 9 in the third. In my love life, however, I could totally have 5 casual partners and no primary, or perhaps I could have 2 primaries, 1 secondary, and 12 tertiaries. And actually, according to the Madelung Energy Ordering Rule, there are certain atoms who have "partially-filled" outer rings, so straying from the 2, 8, 18, 32 pattern is possible, but not the rule by any means.

[UPDATED] Debating on Ultra-Conservative Radio

noreply@blogger.com (mz. aida) — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 23:34:00 +0000

So...I'm apparently debating Laura Ingraham and Isabel Marin (from Yale's "Choose Life" and "Undergraduates for a Better Yale College") on the place of Sex Weeks on college campuses. This will be happening FRIDAY (April 20th) at 11:15 AM EST on The Laura Ingraham Show.

You can listen to it by clicking here.

Long story short, Harvard's Sex Week got profiled in the New York Times and I was quoted in the article. I'm assuming this is what caught folks' attention and led them to email me this morning asking if a representative from SHEEC wanted to go on air to speak about Sex Week. They were asking if we could do it "today" (read: within less than 30 minutes of the show having sent that email, which is horrible protocol) or tomorrow. Talk about short notice! But still, I said yes. It's an interesting opportunity and I feel I can hold my own on the air (or at least I hope I can!). (NOTE: the appearance was originally scheduled for April 18th, but they decided to reschedule for the 20th to give us more on-air time. The first paragraph of this post has been changed to reflect that update).

Wish me luck!

For a bit of background on Laura and her show, let's look at some of the topics she addresses and the stances she takes (via Wikipedia):

Illegal immigration: Ingraham frequently advocates "securing the borders" by putting more resources into stopping illegal immigration. She has a segment called "The Illegal Immigration Sob Story" alert, in which she highlights media articles that she believes are gathering emotional sympathy for illegal immigrants who, she states, are simply breaking the law.

Pro-life issues: Ingraham is opposed to abortion on demand, and often talks about human cloning, embryonic stem-cell research and abortion, taking a pro-life stance against all three. She was an outspoken advocate against Missouri Constitutional Amendment 2 (2006), a ballot measure that she felt was deceptive and that legalized human cloning. Every January 22, Ingraham promotes and lauds the marchers participating in the March for Life, which calls for outlawing abortion, and takes place on the same day as the anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision, which legalized abortion in the United States.

"Pornification" of the culture: Ingraham frequently highlights sex and pornography on her show. She has criticized people such as Howard Stern, Hugh Hefner, and others who she claims have pervaded the culture with what she describes as "filth" at the expense of "traditional American values."

I think we can safely say Laura and I are not going to end up BFFs. As for Isabel (who's part of an organization that recommends fake clinics or "crisis pregnancy centers" to pregnant women), the same applies.

Presidential Memorandum -- Establishing a Working Group on the Intersection of HIV/AIDS, Violence Against Women and Girls, and Gender-related Health Disparities

noreply@blogger.com (mz. aida) — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 04:38:00 +0000

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

March 30, 2012

Presidential Memorandum -- Establishing a Working Group on the Intersection of HIV/AIDS, Violence Against Women and Girls, and Gender-related Health Disparities

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

SUBJECT: Establishing a Working Group on the Intersection of HIV/AIDS, Violence Against Women and Girls, and Gender-related Health Disparities

Throughout our country, the spread of HIV/AIDS has had a devastating impact on many communities. In the United States, there are approximately 1.2 million people living with HIV/AIDS, including more than 290,000 women. Women and girls now account for 24 percent of all diagnoses of HIV infection among United States adults and adolescents. The domestic epidemic disproportionately affects women of color, with African Americans and Latinas constituting over 70 percent of new HIV cases in women. The spread of HIV/AIDS is, in and of itself, a primary concern to my Administration. However, gender based violence and gender related health disparities cannot be ignored when addressing the domestic public health threat of HIV/AIDS. HIV/AIDS programs often ignore the biological differences and the social, economic, and cultural inequities that make women and girls more vulnerable to HIV/AIDS. In our country, women and girls are all too frequently victimized by domestic violence and sexual assault, which can lead to greater risk for acquiring this disease. Teenage girls and young women ages 16 24 face the highest rates of dating violence and sexual assault. In addition, challenges in accessing proper health care can present obstacles to addressing HIV/AIDS. Gender based violence continues to be an underreported, common problem that, if ignored, increases risks for HIV and may prevent women and girls from seeking prevention, treatment, and health services.

My Administration is committed to improving efforts to understand and address the intersection of HIV/AIDS, violence against women and girls, and gender-related health disparities. To do so, executive departments and agencies (agencies) must build on their current work addressing the intersection of these issues by improving data collection, research, intervention strategies, and training. In order to develop a comprehensive Government wide approach to these issues that is data-driven, uses effective prevention and care interventions, engages families and communities, supports research and data collection, and mobilizes both public and private sector resources, I direct the following:

Section 1. Working Group on the Intersection of HIV/AIDS, Violence Against Women and Girls, and Gender-related Health Disparities. There is established within the Executive Office of the President a Working Group on the Intersection of HIV/AIDS,

Violence Against Women and Girls, and Gender related Health Disparities (Working Group), to be co chaired by the White House Advisor on Violence Against Women and the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy (Co Chairs). Within 60 days of the date of this memorandum, the Co Chairs shall convene the first meeting of the Working Group.

(a) In addition to the Co Chairs, the Working Group shall consist of representatives from:

(i)the Department of Justice;

(ii) the Department of the Interior;

(iii) the Department of Health and Human Services;

(iv) the Department of Education;

(v) the Department of Homeland Security;

(vi) the Department of Veterans Affairs;

(vii) the Department of Housing and Urban Development; and

(viii) the Office of Management and Budget.

(b) The Working Group shall consult with the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, as appropriate.

(c) The Department of State, the United States Agency for International Development, and the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Gender Technical Working Group shall act in an advisory capacity to the Working Group, providing information on lessons learned and evidence based best practices based on their global experience addressing issues involving the intersection between HIV/AIDS and violence against women.

Sec. 2. Mission and Functions of the Working Group. (a) The Working Group shall coordinate agency efforts to address issues involving the intersection of HIV/AIDS, violence against women and girls, and gender related health disparities. Such efforts shall include, but not be limited to:

(i) increasing government and public awareness of the need to address the intersection of HIV/AIDS, violence against women and girls, and gender related health disparities, including sexual and reproductive health and access to health care;

(ii) sharing best practices, including demonstration projects and international work by agencies, as well as successful gender specific strategies aimed at addressing risks that influence women's and girls' vulnerability to HIV infection and violence;

(iii) integrating sexual and reproductive health services, gender-based violence services, and HIV/AIDS services, where research demonstrates that doing so will result in improved and sustained health outcomes;

(iv) emphasizing evidence based prevention activities that engage men and boys and highlight their role in the prevention of violence against women and HIV/AIDS infection;

(v) facilitating opportunities for partnerships among diverse organizations from the violence against women and girls, HIV/AIDS, and women's health communities to address the intersection of these issues;

(vi) ensuring that the needs of vulnerable and underserved groups are considered in any efforts to address issues involving the intersection of HIV/AIDS, violence against women and girls, and gender related health disparities;

(vii) promoting research to better understand the intersection of the biological, behavioral, and social sciences bases for the relationship between increased HIV/AIDS risk, domestic violence, and gender related health disparities; and

(viii) prioritizing, as appropriate, the efforts described in paragraphs (a)(i) (vii) of this section with respect to women and girls of color, who represent the majority of females living with and at risk for HIV infection in the United States.

(b) The Working Group shall annually provide the President recommendations for updating the National HIV/AIDS Strategy. In addition, the Working Group shall provide information on:

(i) coordinated actions taken by the Working Group to meet its objectives and identify areas where the Federal Government has achieved integration and coordination in addressing the intersection of HIV/AIDS, violence against women and girls, and gender related health disparities;

(ii) alternative means of making available gender sensitive health care for women and girls through the integration of HIV/AIDS prevention and care services with intimate partner violence prevention and counseling as well as mental health and trauma services;

(iii) specific, evidence based goals for addressing HIV among women, including HIV related disparities among women of color, to inform the National HIV/AIDS Strategy Implementation Plan (for its biannual review);

(iv) research and data collection needs regarding HIV/AIDS, violence against women and girls, and gender related health disparities to help develop more comprehensive data and targeted research (disaggregated by sex, gender, and gender identity, where practicable); and

(v) existing partnerships and potential areas of collaboration with other public or nongovernmental actors, taking into consideration the types of implementation or research objectives that other public or nongovernmental actors may be particularly well situated to accomplish.

Sec. 3. Outreach. Consistent with the objectives of this memorandum and applicable law, the Working Group, in addition to regular meetings, shall conduct outreach with representatives of private and nonprofit organizations, State, tribal, and local government agencies, elected officials, and other interested persons to assist the Working Group in developing a detailed set of recommendations.

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) The heads of agencies shall assist and provide information to the Working Group, consistent with applicable law, as may be necessary to carry out the functions of the Working Group. Each agency and office shall bear its own expense for carrying out activities related to the Working Group.

(b) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(c) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(d) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(e) The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

Testimony Around Reproductive Health and Abortion Bills in RI

noreply@blogger.com (mz. aida) — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 09:24:00 +0000

On Wednesday, I went to the RI Statehouse to testify because there was a hearing for a group of bills around reproductive health. I'd gone last year and found it important to go once again and have my voice heard. Being part of the political process in a room with passionate people (even if they're not all in my camp) is invigorating and bizarre, especially stuck up in a balcony...but anyway. More on my feelings, thoughts, and observations about the process later. I wanted to capture my testimony (which I wrote as I waited to speak) and share it with y'all.

(BEFORE PROCEEDING: Look at the bills and their text! Check them out here.)

The following is my testimony:

My name is Aida Manduley and I'm here in support of bills 7754 and 7041, and in opposition to the rest of the ones on the docket.

Before I discuss my support of those 2 bills, I want to address what previous speakers have mentioned around intent <Note: For context, this was directed at the legislator who proposed the bill around mandatory ultrasounds and "informed consent." She kept talking about her intent this and her intent that, how we were "misinterpreting" her intent and blah blah blah>. In making major political decisions, we need to look at context, intent, AND effect…and ultimately, effect trumps intent. Even "well-meaning" legislation can have unintended effects, and THESE effects are what can create barriers to care, misinformation, and unnecessary political interference with personal, medical decisions.

As someone who works at a domestic violence agency, as someone trained in dealing with sexual assault and crisis assistance, as a sexuality educator, and as a woman, I have personal as well as professional experience in what these bills would mean to women across Rhode Island.

In regards to bill 7754, this is a bill to keep our youth SAFE. This isn't a bill to take parents out of the equation, but to give pregnant teens bodily autonomy--to give them the option to, through contact with trained professionals and authorities, make personal decisions about their future and care.

In my work, I educate, and encourage parent-child conversations around these issues, but must admit that these conversations are NOT always possible, and not always safe. I've encountered minors who are NOT supported by their families, who regardless of their own wishes, would be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term if this bill did not pass. I've encountered young women abused by their own families (emotionally, physically, and sexually), for whom it is not safe to require parental consent for an abortion, for whom it is even re-traumatizing to event attempt to do so.

I've served and counseled young women, scared and pregnant, some already with children, who are in abusive relationships where condom negotiation isn't possible, whose families don't know about their relationships or who are even buddy-buddy with the abusers--women who are already experiencing health disparities and barriers to care…am I supposed to tell them I must repeat the patterns of their abusers? Am I supposed to tell them our legislators have decided that they ultimately have NO choice about what happens to their bodies? Please consider what I have said, as someone who has both personal and professional experience with these issues, and support bills 7754 and 7041.