Sex Positive

WHat does one do on a Sunday night in Amsterdam? Why, attend feminist porn star Madison Young's "Sultry Soiree" of course, hosted by King Betty, a transgender/queer organisation whose tagline is "any gender is a drag".

Madison Young is perhaps best known for her bondage porn, much of which is considered mainstream. But she has also taken a platform within the porn industry to promote the sex positive movement, and to assert a feminist celebration of what it is to be submissive. Her website tells the story of a kinky girl next door who insists she is changing the world one orgasm at a time. She features in and makes films in which "you will find women and men having real orgasms and something that is a rarity in porn – connection. For me art and porn are closely intertwined and I like to see the two come together here on my web site and in my art work."


Given that various feminist ideologies started to split in the 1980's over such questions as whether all porn is offensive to women, all sex is rape, and the normative disagreements between "difference" versus "equality" politics, to assert one is a "feminist porn star" is to move beyond third wave post-modern feminism and into a new wave. A young goddess friend pulled a confused look when I told her Madison promotes female friendly porn. "But I am into porn anyway! What's not friendly about it?" I realised she was never exposed to the debate on porn and the commodification of women, and she is part of a generation in which pole dancing has become a sport and the use of sex to sell everything from cars to mobile phones has truly become the norm. There is something to this young goddess' dismissiveness of the "porn is exploitation" stance, but it requires women like Madison to keep pushing the boundaries and ensuring that there is some authenticity to what's being displayed about women's bodies and sex.

So what is Madison's stance all about? The Soiree began with an afternoon discussion in which Madison explained that porn for her is both educational and political. Rather than directors telling the performers what to do and how to do it, she starts from what fantasies the performers have and creates authentic erotic scenes from there. It's about what the women (in particular) want, rather than producing what the director thinks the male viewer wants. It is a celebration rather than a commodification of sex.

The evening session of the Soiree featured the world premier of Madison's new film "Femmetastic", in which femme lesbians - in the 1990's referred to as lipstick lesbians - created the scenes from their fantasies. The most intimate and erotic scene was of one woman alone in a laundromat who cheekily, sneakily sits on top of a washing machine and, looking to see if someone will come in, starts to play with herself as she is rocked and hummed by the vibrations of the machine. The orgasm she brings herself to is humble but beautiful. And the slightly see-through white singlet and skinny jeans she wears teases mean and women, gay, straight, bi-, trannie, alike.

After a short discussion on her film, during which I asked her whether sex is always political for her (to which she answered "yes, every time I f**k it's political!") we were treated to some impressive bondage performances involving women being tied with complex Japanese-style ropes and hung from the beams of the Amsterdam home we were in. The women who were tied enjoyed the attention but most of all the surrender and the trust of giving over to their master artists.

Finally Madision gave us a performance dedicated to Annie Sprinkle (prostitute and porn star turned sex educator and artist) and her wife Beth Stevens, who were celebrating their wedding anniversary with a 7-year performance series. Madison washed her naked body with grapes and grapejuice and offered purple bubble gum to audience members which she then stuck to her body, all the while exuding eroticism and creativity. The most subversive element to her perfomance, however, was the fact that she is 5 months pregnant, her swollen, fertile belly a part of her seductive movement and tantalising ease with being naked and spread open to viewers.

Sex positive? You bet. The fluidity of gender identity, gay and bi-sexuality, the beauty of the female form, the talk of poly-amory, the images of various women's sex toys and the notion that porn has moved beyond the need to be "female freindly" and is now "femmetastic".... The evening was aimed at women with some men invited to join, but the point was that anything goes when gender and sexuality boundaries are on the discussion table. It was the first time I've sat through a porn film in a room of about 50 people whose attention was as much on the art and political comment as on the hot orgasms we were viewing.

Changing the world one orgasm at a time...that's a pretty sex positive mission statement!

The dating game

My sister goddess in training, who is American, is familiar with the "dating game". I am convinced it's a cultural thing. I'm Australian and we don't really date. We meet up for drinks or go out to dinner, but we're pretty quick to decide if it's going somewhere or not, or if we just want a casual fling. There's not a lot of the giggly "what's it mean and should I call him or should I wait for him to text me and how flirtatious should I be???" I mean, we did some of that as teenagers, discovering what the game was about, but there doesn't seem to be the same extended etiquette and rules of the game as there seem to be among my American friends.

And the Dutch certianly don't date! They spend time together in groups and if you like someone enough you basically end up kissing and/or going to bed with them. And if a relationship develops it's usually with the proviso that they're just seeing each other, but even after half a year there's no way they would refer to each other as girlfriend, boyfriend, partner, whatever. It's just someone they're seeing. And who makes them giddy with happiness. But nothing serious.

And then if they move in together they will inevitably both keep their own apartments as a safety net, a back door option should things get too serious or not serious enough. It will be years before they give up their ticket to singledom.

And so when I was asked out for drinks by an American the other day I was flattered, and ensured he had my number, and hoped he would contact me, but when he did I found myself entering a new world. The dating game! I had to ask my American goddess in training how to go about this - we have only had sms contact and I have been cautious about sending texts which are too flirtatious. But I find myself wanting to send funny responses to his playful remarks. And should I rspond straight away or leave it a few hours or a day? And is he doing the same thing - deliberately waiting a day to respond? Or is he just busy at work?

And why am I even asking these questions? It seems so adolescent to me. I am entering a phase of life that is all about delving in to the shadow, discovering what lies beneath, waking the goddess who sleeps within, going to places which are emotionally and spiritually unfamilair territory in order to grow and fulfil who I am. It is a delicate and profound journey. Is this a time in which to play the dating game? Is it not a time to be focused on the inner woman and just reject sexual attention all together?

My sister goddess in training suggested this is another opportunity to give up knowing and get out of my head. I don't have to know that this person is NOT the one I will have something meaningful and special with. I don't have to know this is not the time. I don't have to know what it is to be in the presence of others who are attractive and attracted to me. I can explore, be vulnerable, discover some new territory. And maybe even just have some fun.

It feels so strange. I thought my journey of being vulnerable was only to be in sacred areas of my life. Going out for drinks and laughing and flirting and maybe even "making out", as she suggested, feels like it's superficial and not sacred and not a place to be vulnerable. But she also suggested it's like a playing field. What is it to be vulnerable in different contexts?

And then another thing comes up - what about mixing my professional world with my personal? Having had the revelation that I can be an Amazon warrior in the world of my career and the world of international law, and then take off my armour and lay down my sword as I enter my home space when I can be the nurturing, gentle women within, and be vulnerable and alllow myself to be taken care of, it seems dangerous to mix the two. This "date" (if that's what it is!!) is with a man I met through a professional contact, and is working on a project I would love to be involved in professionally. It's an important new networking arena and a potential to move my expertise into the practitioners world. Should I expose my personal self and my vulnerable self to a person who works in the world I want to be a warrior in?

I think my sister goddess in training is right. If nothing else this is a time to get out of my head, let go of analysing, let go of needing to know, come back to my intution and even there, let go of looking for answers. That's what being vulnerable is about too...being vulnerable towards myself and just embarking on the journey.

So should I text him or not...? ;-)

Sex and the City - One of the guys???

For those of us who are fans of Sex and the City, we are willing to admit it has an overtone of consumerism, a focus on fashion labels, a presentation that some feminist commentators will criticise as being misrepresentative of the notion of choice (how free are we really if we are still spending energy primarily on choosing which shoes go with which outfit) and reinforces stereotypes of body image and values which we should question.

But we fans will also tell you SATC is a commentary on so many issues which women in the 21st century face. We strive to have fulfilling careers, find meaning outside our fashion, find support in our circle of female friends and sisters, try to combine children and mothering instincts with our need for independence, and the juggling act of all of this with finding a partner who will support us in our career and still fulfil us as women. And it is a commentary on the kind of men we are looking for (for those of us who are het. There is an interesting heterosexism which is never addressed in this show, especially given the fact there are various gay male characters in SATC, fun-loving companions who share the women's view on the world, inclduing love and fashion, but no mention is made of the fact that actress Cynthia Nixon, who plays working mother Miranda, happens to be a lesbian).

There are so many issues dealt with in a way so many of us can relate to - single motherhood, unfulfilled wish for children and fertility issues, breast cancer, sexual identity, career choices, balancing between career and love, where we seek our sense of fulfilment and sense of self, what is success, what is age, what is beauty. And the formula of Carrie Bradshaw's question-asking columns works every time to get us nodding or looking in the mirror and wondering.

It's just a pity, then, that when I read a short interview with Sarah Jessica parker about the first SATC film (which even to die-hard fans was a "light" and therefore highly unsatisfying version of the real thing) she twisted this identification women have with the characters into a gender conversation that totally misses the point. She rightly commented that the fact that the characters talk so openly about work and sex and what they do and don't like or want is a move forward for female characters in popular media. She unfortunately said this meant we are finally "one of the guys".

Why can't this be about what we are all looking for? What it is to be a woman in the 21st century. Why does this have to be about being in a man's world, and qualifying sexual and career emancipation and the open discourse as "being one of the guys"? Sorry, Sarah Jessica, you lost me on that one.