Friday, 9 May 2008
| 12:00 am
| Culture
I wasn’t going to comment on the Texas polygamy case at first. At first I didn’t have anything to say about it other than, “Oh, my god, that is so awful.” But someone asked me an interesting question the other day, and it made me realize I have something to say about this after all.
The question: Do you think multiple marriage should be legal?
Here’s why this is relevant. One of the main objections to legalizing multiple marriage is that, in the world as it is today, multiple marriages tend to be abusive. Groovy polyamorous triads aren’t the norm, the argument goes. The norm for multiple marriage, in this country and around the world, is coercive and abusive religious cults that effectively imprison women and children. And if we don’t have laws against multiple marriage, these abusive cults will be legitimized, and there will no protection for their victims.
I’m not sure whether that’s true or not. I don’t know if anyone has ever done a good, careful study on the frequency of multiple relationships, either in this country or around the world, to see if the coerced cult variety really does outnumber the consensual free-adult variety. If there has been such a study, I haven’t seen it.
But here’s the point I want to make.
When the Texas polygamy compound got raided and arrests were made, nobody was charged with bigamy.
The charges so far have all been related to child abuse. And the case seems to be largely in the hands of Child Protective Services.
So how does the illegality of multiple marriage help the victims of these situations?
Why should consenting adult polyamorists be denied the right to codify their relationships in law, simply because some religious cults use polygamy as a form of abuse?
You could argue a slippery slope argument. You could argue that legalizing multiple marriages would confer an acceptance and legitimacy on the polygamy cults, thus making it that much harder to go after them for the child abuse. I have, in fact, seen that argument made. (Sort of like the argument that the drinking age should be 21, because if it’s set at 18 then it’ll be easier for 16- and 17-year-olds to get booze. The idea being that you have to set the line further than you really think is reasonable, because some people will always cross it.)
But I’m always suspicious of slippery slope arguments. I’m suspicious of them because you can always make one. You can always argue, “We can’t have X, because X will lead to Y!” Most of the time it’s a cheap rhetorical stunt: if you can’t actually come up with a convincing argument that X is bad, instead you scare people into thinking that X will lead to Y. I’m not saying slippery slope arguments are never valid; but unless you can make a case that X actually is likely to lead to Y, you really should restrict your arguments to X itself.
Especially when X is a consenting choice of adults, and restricting it means placing an unreasonable restriction on people’s freedom.
And in fact, the “potential harm” argument could easily go the other way. It could be argued that the anti-bigamy laws actually make things worse for the victims of the polygamy cults, since they drive the culture underground and alienate its members from the law. (Much the way that anti-prostitution laws make things worse for prostitutes — even in the cases when they are being genuinely victimized.)
I’m not sure if I think multiple marriage is a good idea. It never seemed like a realistic possibility, so I honestly haven’t thought about it that much. My instinctive reaction is to say, “Sure, why not.” I’m generally in favor of consenting adults making whatever domestic arrangements they like, and unless I can see a compelling argument against it, I don’t see any reason why those arrangements shouldn’t be recognized by law. (On the other hand, I can see it being a horrible legal tangle. All the legal questions that are complicated enough with just two spouses — divorce, custody, inheritance, property ownership, tax law, etc. — could turn into a chaotic mess with three or more spouses in the mix.)
It’s an interesting question, and it’s one I’d like to see discussed. But I don’t see the abusive polygamy cults as being a good argument against it. The bigamy laws aren’t even being used against the cults. If that’s our big weapon against the cults, then it’s not a very good one.
To argue that multiple marriage shouldn’t be legal because some polygamists are abusive is like arguing that gay sex shouldn’t be legal because some priests molest altar boys. Or, to broaden it even more, that no marriage should be legal because some husbands beat up their wives. We shouldn’t be blocking people from a consenting and harmless arrangement just because some people will abuse it.
Greta Christina, copyright © 2008. Be sure to check out Greta’s blog.
Share This
Wednesday, 7 May 2008
| 12:20 pm
| News
We are looking for real-life triads (three people who regularly have sex together) for our next movie. If you are in such a relationship, and are interested, drop a note to us at casting@blowfish.com for details!
Share This
I remember, in my middle-school youth, considering some cache of mildewed Playboys discovered in the crawlspace of an abandoned house (yes, I played in the crawlspaces of abandoned houses; I couldn’t play Nintendo all the time) and having the sudden realization that most of the women in said nudie magazine were in reality much older, in real time, than the frozen images of themselves that appeared in those smelly pages. I spent some time struggling with the psychological ramifications of that fact. I wonder, did the businessman who reputedly purchased a hardcore Marilyn Monroe blowjob film for $1.5 million have any similar moments of cognitive dissonance as he watched it for the first time? Did he think, “Dude, this woman I’m currently spanking it to is this very moment dead?”
Perhaps not. Sadly, those of us lacking the right combination of Marilyn Monroe obsession and deep pockets may never see the sex film (unless it gets digitized and put up on YouTube at some point). We can, however, see another sex movie that may or may not star Marilyn Monroe, the infamous “blue movie” of uncertain provenance. I remember seeing stills from that in some ancient issue of Playboy during my misspent youth, too, now that you mention it. No double anal piledriver reverse cowgirl there though. Ah, porn from a simpler time.
If you want vintage rock star celebrity fucking, you might consider the Jimi Hendrix Sex Tape, obtained and released on DVD by Vivid. You gotta shell out some cash if you want to see grainy footage of the man’s famous wang, which I have not bothered to do, but I’m sure it’s quite an experience. (Get it? Jimi Hendrix? Experience? No?)
Less explicit, but no less fabulous, is this Flickr set dubbed Hammer’s House of Hotness, featuring the gorgeous ladies of the old Hammer horror films. So many women who were fictionally murdered by fictional monsters!
And, continuing the slide from iconic to anonymous (though equally vintage), another Flickr set — this one of strippers posing for Polaroids. Some are explicit, some are not, some are cute, some are sad, all are a slice of forgotten and seedy Americana.
And kids today think they invented sex . . .
Share This
Tuesday, 6 May 2008
| 12:00 am
| Industry
Prostitution scandals have been in the news a lot lately. This past week the scandalscape took an even more tragic turn than usual with the apparent suicide of Deborah Jeanne Palfrey, the alleged D.C. Madam, who published her client list in 20 compressed files of phone records on deborahjeanpalfrey.com, which now returns a 404 error, as if in an unintentionally eerie comment.
Sex worker advocacy group Sex Workers Action New York (SWANK) drew a broader societal message from Ms. Palfrey’s death, publishing a press statement that said “We—prostitutes, strippers, pro-dommes, porn stars, sex experts, and allies—extend our sympathies to all of those hurt by this most recent chapter of the ‘Pink Scare,’ in which oppressive legislation and social stigma partner to generate hysteria around what, for us, can prove to be simply a decent way to make a living.”
But the “Pink Scare” that SWANK refers to is part of a larger paranoia about sex, especially the commerce in sex, that is nothing new. To hear SWANK tell it, “From New York to California, daily reports of Pink Scare-fueled police busts, e-stings and raids, even at legal venues like strip clubs and dungeons, have reached a fever pitch.” Whether or not that’s true, the comments are a look into the kind of legal and social paranoia that sex workers have to operate under every day. With the exception of porn actors—who just about never get busted, though they have other troubles—all sex workers have to worry about the law on some level. Strippers can and do get busted for doing a little too much during a private dance; professional dominants sometimes get arrested for running a house of ill repute even if they don’t provide, or might not provide, “sex” by most peoples’ definition. What’s more, video and novelty stores in many jurisdictions could get cited for zoning violations, obscenity and more. Then there are the street prostitutes, who account for the vast majority of sex work busts—they’re pretty nervous about the cops, I understand.
The number of busts is relatively small compared to the number of transactions. However many sex workers get busted, thousands more feel that nervous anxiety that goes with doing something legal and popular—or not so legal, or maybe borderline illegal, or definitely illegal—and potentially prosecutable and definitely embarrassing. And I would submit that almost none of them feels the anxiety as acutely as the callgirl, because the callgirl by her very nature must walk in the middle and upper classes. She’s the sex worker who engages in the most clearly illegal activity, but must appear not to be doing so, or she loses her ability to work. She’s usually not full-time; she has another job, making it even more important that she maintains her middle-class status—to lose it by getting busted means a fine and jail time, but it also means exposure in an even more destructive way. Rebecca Dickinson, one of Palfrey’s employees who testified against her, is a perfect example—a Lieutenant Commander in the US Navy, she faces administrative punishment up to and including dishonorable discharge because of her work for Palfrey. Many thousands of other callgirls face similar repercussions of varying extremity if they’re busted—or even if they’re not busted. Blogger and sex worker Debauchette, interviewed about the Eliot Spitzer scandal in silhouette on TV, was recognized by her Mom—bad news. It’s a rare sex worker who wants to have that conversation with her or his mother.
In short, it’s no wonder sex workers tend to worry about their social and physical well-being. That might be why, as observed by Patrick J. Lyons blogging at The Lede in The New York Times:
All over the Internet, from reader comments on The Lede to the far misty corners of conspiracy-theory land, hardly anyone seems inclined to accept the initial police judgment that Ms. Palfrey simply committed suicide. A quick search turns up scores of variations on the same theme: She knew too much about too many powerful men, so it must have been murder.
According to infowars.com, as far back as 1991 Palfrey was sure her suicide would be faked:
“If taken into custody, my physical safety and most probably my very life would be jeopardized,” she wrote in August 1991 following an attempt to bring her to trial, “Rape, beating, maiming, disfigurement and more than likely murder disguised in the form of just another jailhouse accident or suicide would await me,” said Palfrey in a handwritten letter to the judge accusing the San Diego police vice squad of having a vendetta against her.
Does that mean Palfrey didn’t kill herself? I have no idea, but the prospect of prison doesn’t sit well with anyone. The callgirl keeps the secrets of the rich and middle-class, and scandal of varying proportions awaits every callgirl who is busted and almost every callgirl who is outed. If Palfrey was murdered because she “knew too much,” it’s a shocking crime. But if she killed herself, it’s still a crime—albeit a crime of a system that outlaws, persecutes and prosecutes sex workers while the same men that make those laws patronize them. It speaks to a wider culture in which sex is so shameful that it must be outlawed—and wanting sex is so shameful that it must be sequestered, so it doesn’t matter if it’s illegal, because otherwise law-abiding citizens will break that law.
The whole thing shows not only contempt for sex and therefore a contempt for sex workers, but also tragic disrespect for human nature and for the function of law.
It builds a society that’s crazymaking—but I guess that’s not news to anyone.
Thomas Roche is the PR Manager at Kink.com, an educator at San Francisco Sex Information and has written or edited ten books under his own name plus a bunch more under pseudonym. He can be found at thomasroche.com.
Share This
Saturday, 3 May 2008
| 12:00 pm
| Videos
Dana DeArmond helps a few of her MySpace fans make the leap from watching porn to performing in porn, with Dana as their mentor, helping prepare them for their first onscreen fucks. After an intro acquainting us with the performers, who are young and pierced and/or tattooed and/or with straight-cut bangs — you know, the typical Vivid Alt types — we get to see Dana’s coaching. After ten or twelve minutes of chat (and Dana complaining bitterly about a would-be performer who dropped out at the last minute), we get the first sex scene . . . after which we get a lot more talking-head stuff in between the sex scenes. Some of it is interesting, but the fucking-on-camera density of this film is actually fairly low.
Casper Vice has the best name of the lot . . . but judging from the razor bumps, I’d guess this wasn’t only her first time shagging on camera, but possibly her first time fully shaving her pubes — it doesn’t look comfortable. With her knee socks pulled up to mid-thigh, her septum and forehead piercing, and her tattoos, she could be a poster girl for the Vivid Alt aesthetic, though. After a bad experience with a boyfriend, she has a morbid aversion to getting come on her face, which could maybe limit her career prospects.
The hottest scene is the first one, with adorable cutie Rory Tonic in a three-way with Sascha and Alec Knight. I hope Rory keeps up her new career, because I’d love to see her again, preferably getting the double-penetration that I kept waiting for, in vain, during this scene. Dana initiates her lone male discovery Johnny Utah, which makes me think he by far got the best of this deal. He’s no match for her — one rather gets the impression that she eats guys like him for breakfast, figuratively speaking — but it’s a good scene, especially when Daniel joins in to make it a three-way, and bangs her ass while she chokes on Johnny’s cock. All Johnny really has to do at any point is sit there looking stoned, and that’s within his capabilities. Having Dana burning up the screen does rather point out how inexperienced the other performers are, though.
A few random observations: Dana DeArmond sure does like licking jizz off the faces of her proteges — she does it at least twice. She also claims that she’s the next Jesus (joking, of course — she’s no Sun Myung Moon — but it does properly reflect her endearing megalomania). There’s a whole lot of talking in this movie; probably about a third of the running time is spent on interviews with the newbies. There’s a whole disc of extras, too, including Dana’s video blog entries, and there’s also a CD of indie rock, mostly by OK Fox, with a few other bands tossed in for variety. It’s a pretty good package, if a bit talky, and the emphasis on fresh faces is appreciated — at least it’s new.
Share This
Friday, 2 May 2008
| 12:00 pm
| Books
If the words “sex writing” conjure up images of a politician in a bathroom, it’s time for the Best Sex Writing 2008 to come in and redeem its good name. And it is good. This collection of essays and personal accounts touch on, examine, pick at or mock today’s sex culture in a really fun to read, intelligent way. From hilarious essays on whether Jewish women really give the best blowjobs, to inspiring essays on sex rehab for spinal cord injuries, to truly disturbing (of the “I cannot look away” type) about menstrual blood (porn’s last taboo!), this is an eclectic, but fascinating, book. Don’t miss the provocative essay “Sex in Iran” by Pari Esfandiari and Richard Buskin, which examines how a celebrity sex tape released in that culture is changing the way that fundamentalist Islamic society views female pleasure. With offerings from Greta Christina, Violet Blue, Tristan Taormino, Lux Nightmare, Trixie Fontaine, and many more, this is book is fun to read and stimulating for your mind.
Share This
Friday, 2 May 2008
| 12:00 am
| Culture
Well, “theoretical” is probably not the right word.
Here’s the thing. I write a lot about non-monogamy. And I write it from the point of view of someone in a successful non-monogamous relationship. But there are times when I feel a bit hypocritical, or at least not 100% honest, about the writing I do about non-monogamy.
Because — how shall I put this? — our non-monogamy is largely theoretical.
Well, again, “theoretical” may not be the right word. Maybe “potential” would be more accurate.
Here’s what I mean. My wife and I are non-monogamous. We’re both free to have sex outside the relationship, with the other’s permission and blessing. We have limitations, of course, agreements we’ve made about sex outside the relationship: what kinds of sex are okay, under what conditions, when to tell each other, how much to tell each other, etc. But the option to have sex outside the marriage is there, and has been since we first got together.
But neither of us does very much about it. And haven’t, for a long time.
For me, the issue has pretty much been time and energy. Between my day job and my writing, which I am now pursuing to the point of obsessive- compulsion, I’m already working six days a week, sometimes seven. I barely have time and energy for friends, for reading, for dancing, for all the things other than work and marriage that give my life meaning. I don’t even spend as much time with my wife as I’d like. And despite the fact that I’m spending almost every spare waking moment on it, I still don’t have enough time to do all the writing that I want to. Where the hell am I going to find time to squeeze a fuckbuddy into all of that?
And I definitely don’t have the time and energy — not to mention the patience — to actually seek out a potential fuckbuddy. If I happened to meet someone in the course of my life who seemed attractive and available and interested, I’d consider it. But to go on a dozen personal-ad first dates? To kiss a dozen frogs in hopes of meeting a princess or prince? I’ve been there, I’ve done that. And to be fair, I actually had a lot of fun with it in my twenties and thirties, when I had world enough and time. But now . . . well, I’m not saying, “Never.” But I am saying, “Not this week.” And I’ve been saying, “Not this week,” for I don’t know how long. You know how couples who want kids say that it’s never a good week to have a kid? It’s never a good week to look for a fuckbuddy.
And yet, if my wife came to me tomorrow and said, “I don’t want to be non-monogamous anymore,” I’d have a serious problem with it.
Which is the point I want to make. I realize it’s taken me an absurdly long time to get to the point: but this is definitely it, coming up right now.
I have found that non-monogamy is a tremendously valuable asset to our relationship . . . even when neither of us does much of anything about it. The main advantage of non-monogamy isn’t necessarily all the wild monkey sex you get to have with all the hot babes. For me, the main advantage of non-monogamy is that it makes the issue of Other People pretty much a non-issue.
When I was in monogamous relationships (or theoretically monogamous ones), Other People were always an issue. Is my partner having sex with someone else? Are they flirting with someone else? Do they think that other person is more attractive than me? Should I be worried about what they’re doing? Am I worrying over nothing? Am I deluding myself into believing there’s nothing to worry about when really there is?
And it wasn’t just my partners’ attractions and involvements that were an issue, either. My own were, too. Much more so, in fact. When you’ve promised that you won’t have sex with other people, then every single time that you have the serious hots for someone else turns into a Big Fucking Deal: an unbearable yearning that turns you into a character from a Gothic novel or a bad soap opera. It did for me, anyway. And from what I’ve observed in other monogamous relationships, it does for a whole lot of other people, too.
But when you’re not monogamous, the Gothic soap opera vanishes like a bad dream in daylight. The basic unavoidable fact that you and your partner are living animals with normal libidos doesn’t turn into a crisis. The fact that your partner is flirting with someone else at a party, the fact that you yourself are flirting with someone else at a party, all those little flickers of attraction and curiosity that human animals are subject to: not a crisis. Non-monogamy takes the lid off of the pressure cooker. It turns the brooding melodrama into a sophisticated romantic comedy. It makes it No Big Deal.
Non-monogamy relieves relationship pressure in another way, too. If there’s a particular kind of sex you like (or want to try) and your partner isn’t into it, you aren’t forced to choose between deprivation and infidelity. You have a third option: Go Do That Thing With Someone Else. And when Doing That Thing With Someone Else is an option, you sometimes find that That Thing no longer has that bewitching glow of irresistibly tempting eroticism. There have definitely been times when I’ve had some fantasy that my partner wasn’t crazy about; have considered pursuing it outside the relationship; and decided that it really wasn’t worth the bother.
Which brings me to the best thing about non-monogamy. For me, anyway. When you’re not monogamous, you realize that not every single person you’re attracted to is someone you’d seriously like to fuck if given the opportunity.
This is probably the single most important lesson that non-monogamy taught me. When you’re monogamous, every single person you’re even moderately attracted to seems like Shangri-La, a lost city of infinite erotic promise, with genitals made of divine light and chocolate ice cream that would transform your life if only you could have a taste. (It did for me, anyway.) The allure of the forbidden, and all that.
But when you’re non-monogamous, you remember that you don’t actually want to go to bed with every attractive person who crosses your path. Some attractive people become much less attractive on closer acquaintance. Some attractive people are crazy; some attractive people are dull; some attractive people have appalling political opinions. And some attractive people you just don’t connect with. Especially if you have a busy, reasonably fulfilling life, the reality of non-monogamy may well turn out to be that most people who you’re passingly attracted to are not, in fact, people you actually want to fuck. They may be perfectly lovely, but they’re just not worth the effort.
I’m not saying non-monogamy is right for everybody. If even the thought of your partner having sex with someone else gives you anxious fits, the reality probably isn’t going to be so swell. And it’d be irresponsible to get into a non-monogamous relationship on the understanding that neither of you is actually going to do anything about it. I can’t even get my mind around the contorted logic that that would involve.
But I think a lot of people avoid non-monogamy because they think it means “constantly running around with other people.” And I’m here to tell you that it doesn’t necessarily mean that. If you’re a normal urban couple with the usual insanely- overbooked urban life, then it very likely isn’t going to mean that. (You can even make that one of your agreed-upon limitations if you like. I had an affair once with a guy whose agreement with his partner was, “No more than once a month” . . . an agreement that worked out amazingly well, for a good long time.)
For me at least, the main joy of non-monogamy isn’t all the different hot babes I get to boink. The joy of non-monogamy is knowing that different hot babes are an option. And it’s the pressure that this option takes off of our relationship. The joy of non-monogamy isn’t all the Other People. It’s the transformation of Other People from tantalizingly forbidden fruit into just another choice, one more potentially fun thing that I could theoretically be doing with my ever-vanishing spare time. It’s the transformation of Other People from high drama into no big deal.
Greta Christina, copyright © 2008. Be sure to check out Greta’s blog.
Share This
Thursday, 1 May 2008
| 12:00 pm
| Toys
A few weeks ago I introduced you to the Driver Leather Harness, a two-strap harness with D-rings to adjust the hip/ waist strap. Well, this week we’ve got the Hipster Harness which is basically the buckling version. Buckles have an advantage over D-rings in that they don’t slip, so the Hipster Harness is good for those of you who really go at it like the wild things you are and need a little extra insurance that your harness isn’t going to get flung from your loins (ok, so that’s probably unlikely to happen, but buckles will help keep it snug to it won’t slip down). This one fits nice and low around your hips so the cock can be positioned to put pressure right on the clitoris, making strap-on sex extra fun for her, and it has no O-ring holding the dildo on, just the supple leather of the harness crotch piece, which lets you get that much closer to the person you’re strapping it on for in the first place. The only downside is that this limits you to dildos ranging from 1-1/2″ to about 2″ wide, but if your favorite is within that range, this is an excellent harness choice. Fits hips 28″ to 44″. Dildo not included.
Share This