califia in canada (and some shameless self-promotion)

Tonight I had the pleasure of attending a workshop in Ottawa with Patrick Califia entitled “Getting Hot When You Hurt,” in which he discussed all manner of insightful ideas about sex for people with disabilities or pain. He’s hopping over to Montreal next, as am I – not in that stalker-ish sort of way or anything, but rather, we’re both presenting next week at Queer McGill’s “(re)Doing It!” week, a series of super cool alternative sex education events. Very fun concept indeed! The arrangements were made sufficiently at the last minute that this info didn’t go out with my last newsletter, so for anyone interested, I’m teaching Take Five: The Art of Fisting on Tuesday and the 10 Rules for Happy Non-Monogamy on Wednesday – details below or on my Workshops page. Patrick is giving three talks over the week, and all of them look fucking fantastic, and there’s a whole bunch more going on to boot. So really, you should come check it all out!

While you’re at it, get yourself a copy of the latest edition of Macho Sluts, Patrick’s groundbreaking kinky erotica anthology, first published in 1988 and every bit as sizzling hot today. This is, I believe, its third edition, and definitely the most beautiful, with art by Michael Manning on the cover. The book has been out of print for years, much to the consternation of those of us who enjoy giving copies of it to baby perverts to set them firmly on the path of deviance and debauchery, so I am chuffed indeed that it’s available once again. And – in a fascinating turn of events – this time it’s been published by Vancouver-based Arsenal Pulp Press as part of a collection entitled “Little Sisters Classics,” in reference to the Vancouver bookstore that has repeatedly been targeted by Canada Customs for importing explicit material, including the earlier editions of Macho Sluts. Califia himself testified in the Supreme Court case so I guess it stands to reason they have a relationship. But how lovely that we’re getting it published north of the border so the whole importation silliness will be neatly avoided!

Anyway, that’s the word for the night. Read on for the details of McGill’s week o’ sex. Hope to see you there!

***

Sex. We love to talk about it, think about it, and (maybe) do it. But how much of what we know about sex is taken for granted? What’s hot, or normal, or disgusting and where do these assumptions come from? How do social values of “privileged sex” affect what types of sex we’re having or may want to have? What about our culturally sexed and gendered bodies? How do we challenge and overturn the systems which tell us how to love and how to fuck?

This isn’t your high school sex ed class. Come get (re)educated. (Re)Do it.

For more information: 514-398-2106 or queermcgill@gmail.com

Childcare is available for events, please let us know 48 hours in advance. All venues are wheelchair accessible unless noted.

*****

Monday November 16, 16h
Play Party Planning 101
Shatner Building, (3480 McTavish) McGill University, Room B-29

Description to come.

Presenter:
ATW/CLM Collective Members

Co-presented by Queer McGill and FAKE (Fetish and Kink Enthusiasts) McGill

*****

Monday November 16, 18h
Cameryn Moore, Phone Whore
Interstice, 242 Young, on the corner of Ottawa at metro Bonaventure. (do you love googlemaps? here:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=242+Young%2C+Montreal%2C+QC)

Slip on those long black gloves and join Cameryn Moore, Phone Whore for an evening of comedy and cocktails (with frequent interruptions). Ms. Cameryn comes up from Boston with a performance that began between calls. Drawing
from her work as a phone sex operator and delving into the murk of her own sexual life, she considers how what appears as acting out roles for the gratification of others has in fact stoked her own very real appetite for sexual power. “Phone Whore” is about fantasy and mind control, taboos and fetishes, and the place of “deviant” desires in society today. With martinis before and a talkback session (…more martinis) afterwards.

Cocktails: six et plus (commencement 18h00)
Show: commencement 19h00

We regret to inform you that this venue is not accessible.

Co-presented by Queer McGill, QPIRG McGill and the 2110 Centre for Gender Advocacy

*****

Tuesday November 17, 17h
Life is Complicated: The Abortion Debate on Campus
Shatner Student Centre (3480 McTavish), McGill University, SSMU Clubs Lounge 4th Floor

This workshop will discuss how abortion and choice have been posited and contested on campus, particularly at McGill. From the Birth Control Handbook to Choose Life’s Echoes of the Holocaust, we’ll see how liberal and leftist discourses of civil liberties and anti-oppression are co-opted to argue for the so-called rights of both pregnant and “pre-born” bodies. This language is further twisted as the right wing presence on campuses increases on many fronts, protecting itself from criticism with claims of”free speech”. We’ll call attention to the manipulative new face of pro-life and right-wing organizing while challenging ourselves to address it, and present arguments against it, in creative and effective ways.

Presenter:
M’ar Stine

Co-presented by Queer McGill, the Union for Gender Empowerment and the 2110 Centre for Gender Advocacy

*****

Tuesday November 17, 20h
Take Five: The Pleasures of Fisting
Shatner Student Centre (3480 McTavish), McGill University, Lev Bukhman Room, 2nd Floor

It may seem extreme, but fisting – inserting an entire hand into a welcoming vagina – is in fact one of the most intimate and sensual kinds of penetration two people can enjoy. This workshop covers anatomy, techniques and safety tips, with a focus on maximizing pleasure for all concerned, givers and receivers alike. Anyone who loves vaginas is welcome to come, whether they have one of their own or not.

Presenter:
Andrea Zanin, a.k.a. Sex Geek, pretty much writes and talks about sex all the time unless she’s eating, sleeping or having it. She lives in Toronto and is an organizer, educator and writer within the queer, polyamory and BDSM/leather communities.

Co-presented by Queer McGill and FAKE (Fetish and Kink Enthusiasts) McGill

*****

Wednesday November 18, 17h
10 Rules for Happy Non-Monogamy
Shatner Student Centre (3480 McTavish), McGill University, Room 302

So you’d like to be romantically involved with more than one person at once? Or maybe you’d just like to sleep with someone other than your one-and-only? Whether you’re considering your first steps into non-monogamy or you’re an old hand looking for a fresh perspective, you’ll find valuable tidbits in this common-sense approach to enjoying love and sex in the plural. This is an interactive workshop with lots of room for beginners and experienced poly folk alike to share their questions and experiences.

Presenter:
Andrea Zanin frequently speaks about alternative sexuality for universities, colleges, sex shops, community groups and conferences in Canada, the States and internationally. Andrea also writes alternative-sexuality news and commentary for the Montreal Mirror, the Toronto Xtra! and Outlooks Magazine, as well as blogging at http://sexgeek.wordpress.com.

Co-presented by Queer McGill and FAKE (Fetish and Kink Enthusiasts) McGill

*****

Wednesday November 18, 20h
Keynote: Is it Radical to be a Man?
Stewart Biology Building (1205 Docteur Penfield), McGill University, Room S1/4

How are “personal,” “private” identities/choices, and work for social justice connected? Should queer activists be trying to dismantle the gender binary? Or has this goal actually divided transgendered people and sidelined other, more important issues? In order to examine these questions, this lecture will explore the politics of masculinity and male identity through the cultural feminist analysis of gender in the 1970s, through gay liberation, and into 21st century queer theory.

Presenter:
Patrick Califia is a bisexual transman who has been speaking and writing about queer politics and culture since the late 1970s. An early opponent of anti-porn feminism, he has defended sexual variation and called for a broad critique of sexual repression when it operates to oppose feminism and equal rights for queer people.

Presented by Queer McGill, the Union for Gender Empowerment, the Social Equity and Diversity Education (SEDE) Office.

*****

Thursday November 19, 18h
FTM Body Image and Sexuality
Shatner Student Centre (3480 McTavish), McGill University, SSMU Clubs Lounge 4th Floor

Pleasure and intimacy are areas of human experience that have been dominated by the gender binary. The identities of “men” and “women” are necessary for lovemaking, and it is in the realm of sexuality where these genders are physically defined. How do differently-gendered bodies and their desires create an arena for safe and celebratory passion? This workshop will focus on one group of transgendered people, female-to-male transsexuals or transmen. Califia will discuss the diversity of transmasculine physiology, relationships, fantasies, and issues. Are we creating new definitions of masculinity and manhood, or are we striving to bring our transgendered bodies into as much conformity as possible with the definitions that already exist? Are we ready to move beyond asking for tolerance and assert, instead, that our bodies deserve adoration just as they are? Rather than present the audience with a set of solutions, this workshop will ask questions that apply to all embodied people who long to feel bliss and connection.

Presenter:
Patrick Califia has lectured all over the world and is the author of nearly a dozen books. His non-fiction includes Public Sex, which popularized the term “sex radicalism.” Speaking Sex to Power, and Sex Changes: The Politics of Transgenderism.

Presented by Queer McGill

*****

Thursday November 19. 20h30
Film Screening – Annie Sprinkle’s Herstory of Porn
Shatner Student Centre (3480 McTavish), McGill University, Lev Bukhman Room, 2nd Floor
- suggested donation for the Divergence Movie Night program

The Herstory of Porn is a cult classic porn-art documentary that is both educational and entertaining. It examines important cultural topics including censorship, controversial art, feminism, gender issues and sex education. Based on Annie Sprinkle’s touring show, she takes us through a campy and honest history of her pornographic films in a way that is almost Mystery Porn Theatre 3000.

Presented by Queer McGill and Divergence Movie Nights

*****

Friday November 20, 18h
The Psychology and Spirituality of Erotic Pain
Shatner Building, (3480 McTavish) McGill University, Room B-30

This workshop/demonstration will answer some basic questions about BDSM practice, culture, and politics. Why do some people like to be hurt and get aroused by certain types of pain? Why do other people like to take care of those needs? How and why does pain provide ecstasy? What sort of spiritual value could BDSM techniques possibly have? The bulk of the presentation will be devoted to a live exploration of the top/bottom dynamic. Califia will be working with a brave volunteer. They will negotiate an encounter, he will restrain the subject, and then see if they can create an out-of-body experience of sustained bliss or oneness with the divine. Respect the vulnerability of the presenters, please. Do not attend this workshop if explicit BDSM play offends you; we need positive energy from our spectators to make this work.

Presenter:
Patrick Califia lives in the San Francisco Bay Area with his lover of five years, some kittens, and a plethora of books and erotic weaponry.

*****

Friday November 20, 21h30
A Naughty Pre-Drink
427 rue de Malines, Métro Sherbrooke

Come join QM for a pre-drink and some dirty talk before we head over to the party at L’Alizé

*****

Friday November 20, Midnight
(p)Leather and Lace Dance Party
L’Alizé, 900 Ontario Est, Métro Berri-UQAM
$5 suggested donation for the Sense Project
Gender Neutral Bathrooms are in effect

Whether you’re into (p)leather or lace, or a little of both, everyone is getting sexy as we wrap up the week with a late night dance party…

DJ Noisy Nora and DJ docroot

Hosted by Queer McGill

a disturbing equation, or, musings on masculinity

Tonight, during his workshop at Venus Envy Ottawa entitled “FTM Sexuality,” Patrick Califia said something that gave me a new insight:

“Masculinity is constructed as this thing you can never have. It’s all about striving, competition. If you can lift 50 pounds, you’re supposed to keep working until you can lift 500 pounds. (…) That takes its toll even on cisgendered men, and on women, who have to put up with it.”

Fascinating. Masculinity as something that by its very nature you can’t ever actually attain. That would likely explain a whole lot of the anxiety some people feel around their masculinity – that it’s not enough to be strong, they need to systematically eliminating all traces of vulnerability; it’s not enough to be financially secure, they need to be constantly scrambling for more money; it’s not enough to be successful, they have to be at the top of their field; and it’s certainly not enough to be straight, they have to utterly abhor any sign of gayness, spurn any affection between men, ridicule any possibility of erotic or even aesthetic appreciation of other guys.

The idea certainly brings with it some troubling thoughts about the fear of femininity. And we all know that fear is a very close cousin to hatred, i.e., in this case, misogyny. If this constant striving for masculinity is pursued in some cases with such intensity, it implies a pretty huge fear of what might happen if one were to stop striving. What is so terrifying about femininity? Julia Serano certainly covers a lot of this ground with great eloquence in her book Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity, and I don’t have it handy so I can’t quote her here, but I strongly recommend giving that book a read if you have a chance.

Leo Bersani takes a somewhat different angle on the same question in his essay “Is the Rectum a Grave?” in Douglas Crimp’s 1988 anthology AIDS: Cultural Analysis, Cultural Activism, in which he makes the simple but eloquent statement that, at least in terms of how society tends to view it, “to be penetrated is to abdicate power” (italics his). He places that statement in a much more complex context than I have room to describe here – do read the article if you’re interested, it’s very thought-provoking. And while I do have some pretty pointed critique about his essay, I also recognize that his points ring true – essentially, he’s saying that because penetration is constructed as being a loss of power, men who are invested in their own heterosexuality (and, I would add here, masculinity) are terrified of the idea of being penetrated, and this terror turns to hatred, and that hatred is homophobia.

This terror about the possible instability of masculine or male power would also explain the homophobia of the Religious Right, whose entire concept is built on a top-down structure in which God is at the head of things, men are the next best thing, and women and kids are at the bottom of the heap. If the inherent power of masculinity – expressed most eloquently in the exclusive power to penetrate and the impossibility of being penetrated (i.e. classic heterosexuality) – is shown, in the act of homosexual penetration, to be very easily shattered, then it would make sense that they’d be very invested in suppressing and decrying that act as unnatural and sinful. And they’d also be very invested in promoting and supporting heterosexuality through all sorts of weighty institutions and cultural propaganda. In a big-picture, Freudian sort of way, the existence of homosexuality blatantly challenges the most fundamental tenets of the entire power structure, and shows it to be exactly as flawed as it very much is.

I would argue that in somewhat different form the same concept rears its head in the kink community, particularly in the actions of dominants and tops (of all genders) with fragile egos and in the way the community does not always treat its bottoms and submissives with respect. If dominance = power = penetration = masculinity, and one element of that equation is challenged, then the whole thing falls apart. And the complementary equation is that submission = powerlessness = being penetrated = femininity, then the whole situation does bear an uncomfortable resemblance to the problems with everyday masculinity, the politics of homophobia, society’s tenacity when it comes to the institution of heterosexuality, and the structure of the Religious Right. Yup. Uncomfortable indeed.

I know I’m extending the concept to a rather extreme degree – from individual emotional experience of a trans man to the oppressive politics of a major worldwide institution – but this extension certainly does line up with what Patrick said tonight. If masculinity is something ever-elusive, never quite solidly gained, always up for question, always needing to be re-secured and re-proven both by what one does and what one would never do, and yet that masculinity intensely valuable, even essential, to the most basic forms of social functioning and to retaining power for oneself, then the stretch is not a big one except in terms of numbers. Of course Patrick was making his statement in service of a talk about FTM identity and sexuality, where the elusive character of masculinity as we construct it can be quite poignantly discouraging in a personal sense, and can leave trans guys feeling like they’re never going to quite measure up. But they’re just the latest people to find themselves trapped in a structure – emotional, psychic, societal, religious, and more – that has trapped all of us for millennia.

a sad state of affairs

I’m too tired to post anything thoughtful tonight – so my answers to the remaining two questions will have to wait until tomorrow and the next day.

In the meantime, I give you this article about Noel Biderman, the man who founded the website ashleymadison.com, which caters to married people (presumably heterosexual) who want to hook up with other married people in order to cheat. The interviewer is clearly out to nail the guy as being a jerk; Biderman manages to wiggle out of it most of the time. If nothing else it’s an interesting study in judgmental interviewing techniques.

As for me, I’m left musing. I do agree with Biderman that on some level, blaming a website for an affair is like blaming the hotel room it happened in; and it’s really easy to demonize a guy who’s making a fortune off others’ infidelity, which makes me hesitant to do so without thinking about it some more. If I compare demonizing Biderman to demonizing sex workers because many of their clients are married men, or demonizing bathhouses because married straight guys (not to mention monogamously partnered gay ones) may go there behind their spouse’s back, it starts to stretch the blame game awfully thin. Any product or service that might create the possibility of sexual arousal and/or privacy might conceivably be used by a cheater. Does that mean we should judge them all as ethical travesties?

At the same time, just because such products and services cannot be blamed outright for infidelity – there’s a demand for sex outside of marriage that will exist regardless of any product or service that comes along – does that make cheating spouses an ethically clean market to target? I don’t think it’s quite that simple, either. Sex workers and hotels cater to lots of clients that aren’t cheating spouses, and as far as I’m aware they don’t generally make a point of seeking them out or even asking whether or not the client is cheating before providing their services. But there is something at least somewhat different about setting up cheaters as a specific target market and blatantly offering a service that makes their (generally un)ethical choice easier.

I dunno. I don’t have lots of good things to say about cheating; I do think it’s wrong on many levels. But at the same time I recognize the sheer humanity of it, and I further recognize that our culture is set up to encourage that option as the most available one for people in a dissatisfying partnership. Our culture encourages a strong investment in gender binaries and all sorts of stupid, and supposedly natural or typical, behaviours that are supposed to come with those binaries; and it doesn’t encourage good communication in relationships at all. There’s shame attached to the idea of getting counseling, and it’s hard work. There’s shame around cheating too, but there’s a certain tacit approval too – even an admiration – of people who dare to do something as exciting and titillating as find an erotically satisfying clandestine relationship with some devastatingly sexy “other woman” or “other man.” In some ways it’s as close to excitement, relationship-wise, as most (heterosexual at least) people are likely to get; marriage is widely reputed to be the beginning of the end, the height of boredom, the ball and chain, and nonetheless the situation you’re supposed to seek out at all costs, be ashamed if you can’t find, and be happy with for the rest of your life. It’s no wonder people decide to let off some of the pressure by boinking their office mates.

In short, the institution of heterosexuality doesn’t leave much in the way of choices. Some people stay faithful; some start swinging; a tiny percentage gravitate toward polyamory; and lots have affairs. Until the whole sad institution – marriage, yes, but I’m talking about heterosexuality as a whole – gets revamped, and until the dominant culture’s contradictory values fade and some sort of wholeness really starts to take hold, I can’t really muster up much of an indignant feeling toward Biderman. It seems to me that he’s more of a symptom than a cause, and more of an unfortunate scapegoat than a Pied Piper.

venn diagrams of likelihood, or, the question of gender in play space

Thanks for the questions! I wasn’t online when they came in, so that means I didn’t approve the comments immediately, which means you didn’t see them, which means that you posted additional ones, so now I’ve actually got three questions to answer and not one. Which really isn’t a bad thing! Three days’ worth of posts – much appreciated.

I’ll start with Kim’s question:

I’ve been asked this alot since Harvest, so I’ll throw it out to you to get your take:

What do you think is the difference ‘feel wise’ is the difference between women’s only parties and parties where males and females both attend?

(the question is often asked from/because of bio males and refers to the energy/atmosphere/etc of the event(s) rather than the safe space aspect or obvious 24/7 hot girl on girl Girls Gone Wild type action so many are convinced occur as such events)

Based on what I know about the events that Kim organizes (though I have not yet had the pleasure of attending one), Kim’s events are inclusive of trans people, both male-to-female and female-to-male, as is An Unholy Harvest, the event I co-organize that she’s referring to. So I’m going to assume that’s what she’s asking about.

First I’d like to make a big disclaimer. The first one is that any general statement I make about the feel of a space based on gender balance is not going to be entirely accurate in all cases, or really even most cases. People are people, and gender is only one aspect of who we are. And y’know what? People of all genders can be jerks. And people of all genders can be totally awesome.

I’ve certainly been at lots of events that include non-trans men and that have had a great vibe, where people are considerate, respectful, joyful, with sweet and generous energy, and nary a rude wanker or leering lout in sight. For me personally, this includes two of my favourite regular sex parties in Toronto; the kinky book club I run, the Leather Bindings Society; the vast majority of the private parties and gatherings I host (explicitly sexual or otherwise); and a sizeable number of the larger public leather events I’ve attended all over the continent.

I’ve also been at many women-and-trans events where I felt distinctly uncomfortable – where people were disrespectful, or the vibe was off, or people behaved poorly, or I genuinely felt like I needed to keep my guard up. Some people have argued that even in those cases, the bad stuff is still a specific flavour of bad because of the women-and-trans gender composition, and that they prefer that type of environment regardless. I’m not one of those people. I have avoided certain women-and-trans spaces specifically because the vibe has been so unpleasant, or I’ve made a point of attending only under specific circumstances where my friends and I can create a sort of energy “bubble” to hold our play and keep away the bad vibes while we enjoy ourselves.

That said, I’d be a fool if I tried to tell you that there’s no likelihood of difference based on gender composition. There is. If you fling open the doors of a space and tell people of all genders they can show up and play, you will almost certainly attract a certain percentage – albeit a relatively small one – of ill-behaved non-trans men who really, genuinely feel it’s okay to see the women present as fodder for their own personal fantasies and not as full human beings who deserve consideration and respect in the full sense of the term. Starting from that premise – which rests on and is supported by the existence of a powerful, long-lasting and historically grounded patriarchal power system – their behaviour runs the gamut from basic impolitesse through to misplaced male entitlement, and all the way up to and including outright sexual assault (yes, that is what I said). And while of course the majority of cis-men are great guys who would never do these things, one bad apple really can spoil the whole damn bunch – as in, affect the vibe of an entire play party. This state of affairs is not particular to a given geographical location; I’ve seen and felt it at kink events literally all over the world.

In my experience, the best all-gender-welcome spaces get their good vibe from a few factors.

First, the guys on the organizing team, if any, are feminist-minded people with good listening skills and a highly developed ability to notice power imbalances and the operation of privilege. Even better if the guys who attend are the same.

Second, the guys who are invited to attend are just that: invited. It’s not that an open-door policy is necessarily going to create a bad vibe, but you certainly up your chances of creating a super-healthy vibe by specifically inviting guys who are vouched for by others in a given social circle who share a baseline idea of what acceptable behaviour and the “right energy” are.

Third, the organizers of these spaces are generally queer or queer-friendly and trans or welcoming of trans people. Because, as we say in French, qui se ressemble s’assemble (more or less, “birds of a feather flock together”), this greatly reduces the chances of people showing up who are really invested in a gender binary in which behaviours, appearances and sexual/kink preferences are necessarily (or even just mostly) ascribed on the basis of biology or gender presentation. In other words, these spaces are populated by cis-men who are conscious of diversity issues, privilege and power balances and invested in keeping their play spaces healthy based on those criteria – and unfortunately that does not describe all cis-men.

Yeah, I know, that was a long disclaimer, wasn’t it?

So to actually answer Kim’s question, I can’t really say what the “feel” of a women-and-trans play space is, because they’re all different. What I can say is that on balance, when you play the numbers game, it’s a lot easier to find women and trans people who are feminist-minded, queer or queer-friendly, and conscious of diversity issues, privilege and power balance, and who are invested in keeping their play spaces healthy based on those criteria; and because qui se ressemble s’assemble, the people who are invited to such events are more likely to think in similar terms and behave accordingly. Therefore, a women-and-trans-only play space has a higher chance of being a healthy, happy, joyous kink space in which people behave with consideration and respect. And I think that a lot of us gravitate toward women-and-trans spaces because we see that gender mix as a form of shorthand for “healthy, happy and safe-feeling space to play in.”

Even with all that, it’s crucial to remember there are no guarantees. We’d be foolish to think that a specific gender composition will necessarily result in a specific sort of vibe; there are too many other factors to consider. And unfortunately, because the shorthand exists, we can too easily fall into the trap of thinking in overly simplistic terms – assuming that we have no work to do within women and trans communities to make or keep our play spaces healthy, assuming that all men are disrespectful Neanderthals, assuming that no women or trans people are capable of disrespect or even assault, assuming that any place is actually 100% “safe,” and so forth.

On a slightly different but related note, it is worth mentioning that, again as a very general statement, the average “pansexual” play space is usually populated to a very high degree by heterosexuals and/or heteroflexibles (i.e. straight people who might dally with a same-sex play date on occasion). Though there is surely some overlap, this is not the kind of population I described above that is mixed-gender but with a strong emphasis on queer and trans folks. And, again from my observations at kink events all over the place, there is a high chance that pansexual play spaces will have a certain “feel” or “flavour.” It so happens that this feel is not one I find super-exciting.

I’ll use a friend’s rather stinging words to describe that feel: she calls them “the standard suburban whack’n’smack parties.” I know, it’s definitely a biting comment, but I get what she means. They’re the sort of parties where you might have a few interesting or creative scenes going on, but the bulk of the play involves a male top using one or more implements to hit a female bottom’s butt. Throw in some nipple clamps or maybe some bondage for variety, and maybe flip the gender pairing every once in a while, but you get the idea. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this type of play, but when it makes up the vast majority of what’s going on, it very quickly gets to be the same-old same-old, and thus makes for a pretty flat vibe. Add in the requisite presence of what another friend of mine calls “robo-tops” or “robo-doms” and voilà. I would add that as well, this type of party often features a lot of “tuned-out” submissives or bottoms, often paired with the robo-tops. The robo-doms take out the four toys they always use and go through the motions of using them with correct technique. The tuned-out bottoms close their eyes, bend over, and absorb the impact. And then they wrap up and go get a drink. It’s not uncommon for such people to interrupt their scenes to greet the people nearby, or to look as though they’re doing their grocery lists in time with the flogger. “Milk, one. Bread, two. Apples, three. Ow. Breathe. Mmm, endorphins. Where was I? Yeah, cheese, four.”

The climate this creates is flat and stale; it encourages people to think “this is kink,” and there is a way to do it, and you should do it just like them. I’ve also noticed that in these spaces, people are “raised,” or perhaps taught by omission, to think that there’s no particular headspace involved in play, and therefore that it’s no big deal if they interrupt other people’s scenes to say hi. Even if other people are in a different headspace, nobody notices, because they don’t know what to look for or how to recognize it. I’ll never forget the time I was at a pansexual play party in San Francisco with a totally sweet male submissive who was on the floor pleasuring my boots and feet with his tongue. We were both having a great time, really intensely connected and enjoying the power dynamic and flow. But in a 20-minute scene, we were interrupted no fewer than three times (!) by people – both male and female – who knew him and came over to chat, say hello, or make arrangements to share a taxi later that night. It’s as though they didn’t even notice the energy that was there or realize a scene was happening. In fact I believe they probably didn’t – I think they were disrespectful from a place of total obliviousness, rather than being mean people. I think they just genuinely didn’t know what they were looking at. It kinda boggled my mind.

Okay, so it’ s not like a boring scene never happens between dykes or trans people, and it’s not like all women and trans people know how to give appropriate space to a scene in progress. But I don’t think I’ve ever experienced the vibe I’m talking about in a women-and-trans space. It’s about percentages I guess; if 10% of the scenes at a party are boring or disconnected, no biggie, but when it’s 60%, that really changes the feel of things. If one or two people are oblivious to the energy of play, then okay, but when it’s twenty or thirty or when that’s the culture of the entire gathering, even with a few exceptions, that’s a different story.

I would love to tell you why this flat and oblivious vibe is so common in pansexual spaces, but all I can do is guess. And my guess is that it’s because so many of the people involved live their everyday existence within the institution of heterosexuality – if not necessarily the orientation – and that heterosexuality, as an institution, does not encourage creativity or transcendence in sex or play. It encourages titillation within very specific parameters appropriate to its goals of stable and more-or-less monogamous coupledom, social acceptability and reproduction, and that’s about it. I would further guess that a lot of these people are actually themselves understandably bored with their kink, but they don’t really know how to push it to a different level precisely because nothing in their social milieu has ever shown them they can be creative and think outside the box – and I’m not talking about blue rope instead of white, or a fancy new set of nipple clamps with a new design. I’m talking about relating to each other in a totally different way, not just an extension of everyday heterosexual dynamics, but on a plane of existence within a whole other universe of human connection where gender and biology aren’t even really the point, a place of spiritual transcendence, physical bliss and erotic ecstasy. Instead they’re stuck with standard-issue fetish imagery, a predictable toy bag, and a quest for endorphins by reliable means.

I don’t know how to go about changing that, and to be honest, it’s not really my mission to alter the face of pansexual (heterosexualish) kink. But it certainly means that there’s not often much of a draw for me to attend pansexual events on their own merits. They don’t upset me; I don’t hate heterosexuals, or straight cis-men, or boring play. I just don’t get very excited about participating. And I do have a beef with the institution of heterosexuality, with the misplaced entitlement and privilege, and with disrespect within kink spaces, whether it’s deliberate or oblivious. These things don’t come hand-in-hand with heterosexual individuals, or straight cis-men, or boring play, but they definitely have a Venn-diagram sort of relationship of likelihood.

And I do get very excited at participating in the types of events I talked about earlier. It’s not the gender mix; whether women-and-trans or queer-and-gender-mixed, it’s the vibe I’m after. I want to be in spaces where people are conscious of everyday power dynamics and diversity and privilege. I want to be with people who think about gender and sexual orientation and kink in ways that are about deep connection and creative exploration and openness and respect. And again, while these things don’t come hand-in-hand with women-and-trans or queer-and-gender-mixed play space, they too have a Venn-diagram relationship of likelihood. And while there’s always a real chance that things won’t line up in that Venn diagram, in the places where everything does line up just right, boy, can we ever fly.

Kim, I realize that this answer is long and complex, and that it wouldn’t be the simplest thing to explain if someone says, “Hey, what’s the feel of a women and trans play party?” especially given that it’s all about likelihood and percentages and politics, and not really about bodies and genders per se at all. And I also realize that as soon as you start treading into a critique of the institution of heterosexuality or of male privilege, many people instantly say “You mean you’re all man-hating lesbians! I knew it!” – because it’s so much simpler and easier to think in these terms than it is to address the real complexity of human relations in our society and communities, and because the people who are the most privileged are the ones most poorly equipped to actually see their own privilege or hear a critique of it without feeling personally insulted. So I don’t know if this is really helpful. But there it is.

quickie of the night

(Seriously, folks, where else can you reliably go for one of those every single night?)

I’m kinda wiped out so this’ll be super-short. The fantastic Charlie Glickman, education program manager at Good Vibrations in San Francisco, interviewed me not too long ago about my life as a sex educator. He rocks. Check it out here if you’re curious!

I swear I’m not going to devote these mini-posts exclusively to shameless self-promotion. Promise. Hey, on that note, first person to shoot me a question or topic in the comments section here, that’s what I’ll write about tomorrow!