I just ran across this blog post from The Sexist blog at the Washington City Paper on why sex positivity is bad for feminism. I’m getting to it a few days late but it sparked my interest since I’m planning a whole series of events focused on the topic right now. I found the author’s perspective interesting, but I’m pretty sure I disagree and I’ll try to articulate my views. First, here’s a snippet of the article

I’m not an anti-porn feminist, and even I have to say—No. Just, no. It’s fine, but it’s not “totally interesting,” and talking about it is even less interesting. Of course, there are a lot of feminist issues involved in the porn industry, sex work, and in human sexuality; I just don’t think “sex positivity” is one of them. So you’re a feminist, and you like sex—well, that’s normal. So do a lot of people, including a lot of non- and anti-feminists. So what does that have to do with feminist identity?

…

But there’s another reason, too: If people who like sex see sex-positivity as a part of the feminist movement, maybe they’ll see feminism as less prude and scary and icky and straight-laced and serious and anti-man. And I think it’s condescending to the feminist movement that we have to bring orgasms in to be taken seriously.

So, what does sex positivity have to do with a feminist identity? For me, it starts with the idea that for most of history, women were used sexually by men, unable to take control of their own bodies, experience pleasure, explore themselves or their partners, or feel good about their sexuality. Hell, women were burned at the stake for being sexual. Female sexual pleasure is threatening to patriarchy. I’m not sure why, but it is. How else do we explain female genital cutting or the abstinence movement? Fighting back at this doesn’t have to mean bad workshops (every conference has a few) or events with no purpose but sex, it can be so much more creative (and transformative) than that.

(more…)

New York State is working on passing a “millionaires” tax. For all New Yorkers making more than $500,000 per year, taxes are going to go up 32%. There are tons of people in New York that are richer than any human being should ever be, so I’m feeling alright about this tax.

Apparently Rush Limbaugh is not. He has announced that when/if this legislation goes through, he’s leaving town. He’ll find another studio, sell his penthouse apartment (boy, he really gets the common man, huh?) and get out of New York City. All I have to say to that is, good riddance – we didn’t want you here in the first place. There is no place in New York for Limbaugh’s malicious bigotry. Apparently upon hearing the news, Governor Patterson said “If I had known this would be the result, I would have thought about the taxes earlier”. Yes!!

I didn’t even realize that Rush lived here. After all, New York City is, next to San Francisco, perhaps the most “sinful” city in the country according to types like Rush. I would have thought he’d be in Kansas City or somewhere else more “wholesome”.

Apparently Jon Stewart thought so too – he did a great bit last week on The Daily Show implying that in fact, New York City has been waging a campaign to get rid of Rush for years; gay pride parades, cleaning the drugs out of Times Square… it’s inspired.