This probably isn’t news to you, but I think it has some really important consequences. One of them, of course, is that there are all sorts of laws regulating things like nudity or topless women in public, even when there’s nothing sexual going on.

I suspect that one reason that a lot of folks freak out about women breastfeeding in public (or in photos on Facebook) is that if you equate uncovered breasts with sex, seeing a mother feeding her child is going to make you think of both infants and sex. If you can’t separate breasts-as-erogenous-zone and breasts-as-food-source, then you can either avoid looking at breastfeeding (hard to do in public), or demand that moms cover up or go away.

But sometimes, it goes the other way. For example, I recently tweeted this picture:

The twitter app I use automatically uses lockerz.com to store photos and adds a link so that my followers could see the image. And within minutes, the photo was removed. If you clicked on the link, this is what you’d see:

You’ll need to click on the picture to see, but the reasons listed are:

1. It was removed by the person who uploaded it
2. The link you clicked was not valid
3. The connection was lost during the file upload
4. The photo contained nudity or SPAM
5. The photo was a copyright violation

I can only assume that their justification for pulling the photo is the idea that it contained nudity. But if you look, you’ll see that a) she’s still got her underwear on (though clearly, not for much longer) and that b) he could be wearing shorts or underwear. You can’t see anyone nipples or genitals, the usual standard for defining nudity. Sure, nudity is implied in this photo, but there’s nothing showing that isn’t showing in plenty of other photos I’ve seen on lockerz.com. In fact, because of the way the photo is cropped, there’s less skin showing than in the average Sports Illustrated swimsuit photo.

What there is more of in this picture is sex, or at least, implied sex. I’m certainly not denying that. But there’s nothing in the list of reasons given that says anything about sexual expression or activity. It says “nudity”.

If these two people were covered in spandex or liquid latex so that no skin was showing, would it have been pulled? It seems to me that if lockerz.com wants to pull photos that are about nudity, they need some clarity around what that means. And if they want to pull photos that are too sexual (whether implicitly or explicitly), they need to make that clear. Nudity doesn’t equal sex and sex doesn’t require nudity.

Just saying.

[SSEX BBOX] is an ambitious documentary project, headed by Priscilla Bertucci. Their goal is to explore sex-positive communities in San Francisco, São Paolo, Berlin, & Barcelona (hence, the SS BB in the name) and explore the different ways that people in these locations are examining and discussing sexuality. By looking at how people are using sexuality as a means for social change, [SSEX BBOX] will help connect different movements and offer inspiration for new ideas.

Priscilla Bertucci and Carol Queen at the SSEX BBOX premiere

I’ve spoken with sexologists from around the world and one of the challenges we face is that cultural differences and variations in language make it hard to translate concepts from one country to another. [SSEX BBOX] aims to bridge some of those gaps and show us different approaches to some of the same questions, as well as to demonstrate the various topics of interest in different locations.

Their goal is to post 15 episodes every two weeks, along with subtitles in English, Spanish, Portuguese, and German. Right now, Episode 1 in English has been released, with others in the works. I was honored to be one of the people they interviewed me for this one, along with Jessi Fischer, Dossie Easton, Maymay, Chris White, and others.

You can get more info about the project on their website, and follow them on facebook and twitter @SSEXBBOX. They also have a really great magazine, available online here. And if you want to contribute to the project, they’re looking for funding, art or writing submissions, and volunteers.

Here’s episode 1, for your viewing enjoyment!

There have been many times that someone has called me a feminist, even though I’ve never used that word to describe myself. Usually when that happens, I ask them to not do it. Since this has occurred a few times recently, I’ve been thinking a lot about why I resist that label and I’ve decided that there are two main reasons why I don’t want to be called a feminist.

First, I really don’t want to be put on a pedestal. I’ve noticed (and I’ve experienced) how appreciative many women are when they discover a man who’s trying to break out of stereotypical gender roles. And while I’ll admit that there have been times that I’ve enjoyed the ego boost that can result, I’ve also seen how little it takes for a man to be ahead of the pack when it comes to treating women fairly and equitably. You know, like they’re people.

I’ve seen how hungry some women are for examples of men who try to challenge sexism within themselves and the world around them. In a world in which the vast majority of men take their privilege for granted, and in which simply being not-abusive makes a guy far better than many of his peers, many women’s expectations of men are understandably low. In that light, I understand what prompts some women to put the men who are trying to change how they act on a pedestal. From what I’ve seen, that’s especially true for women whose relationship and sexual orientations are focused on cisgender, heterosexual men.

That tends to create the categories of “those annoying men over there” and “these good men over here”, which I find artificial at best. As soon as I start thinking that I’m somehow different or better than “those guys,” it becomes easy to take that for granted and stop working on it, which makes it much more likely to backslide. I think that the best way to challenge my internalized privilege is with humility, and that’s hard to do when I start believing that I’m somehow better than someone else. Arrogance is hardly conducive to living with integrity. One way that I try to avoid the temptation to become arrogant is by not using a label that can make me think that I’m somehow better or different from other men. It also helps me find some fierce compassion for them, which I think is an essential part of challenging and changing our ideas about gender roles, because I don’t see them in a separate category from myself.

Secondly, I think it’s appalling how frequently men get praised to the skies for saying things that women have been saying for years, often much more eloquently. I don’t want to distract from the wisdom of those who have said it before. I would much rather be recognized for being a supportive ally than for taking someone else’s words. That’s why I try to cite my sources, though it can be difficult to recall exactly where I heard or read something. And in those moments when I’m reminded that I’m passing on someone else’s teaching instead of offering an original idea, I hope that the fact that I try to give appropriate credit and my resistance to being made into something bigger than I am will give me the credibility I need when I apologize for forgetting to cite someone.

I’ll admit that there’s some practicality to that, as well. There’s a lot of resentment and anger about the fact that men can say things and have an audience, when women who say the same things are ignored. This isn’t limited to gender, of course. George Lucas can talk about the lack of funding for movies featuring Black casts without being seen as radical or scaring white people, but Spike Lee can’t.

resistance

The resulting frustration makes a lot of sense to me and I definitely don’t want to fuel it. Given that one of the hot spots when it comes to feminism is what role men have to play in challenging sexism and whether it’s possible for a man to be feminist, I don’t see any need to add to that fight. I know plenty of men who call themselves feminists and I’m not going to tell them not to. But I’ve also noticed that the ones who do either subscribe to forms of feminism that don’t appeal to me, or they get a lot of pushback. I think it’s totally reasonable to have different expectations of feminists who are men, if only because their experiences of gender are different from those of women. But I don’t find any value in debating whether I’m feminist or not, given my views on sex work, porn, kink, and other hot topics.

There are lots of women feminists who share my perspectives and they also get a certain amount of pushback, but there’s a different flavor to it when a male feminist offers those views because the additional question of whether men can be feminists adds to the complexity. I simply don’t feel the need to argue or justify my right to use a label. I’d rather let my actions speak for themselves than adopt an identity that doesn’t really fit me anyway.

Even with these two general reasons why I don’t call myself a feminist, I’m still flattered when someone says that I’ve written or said something that’s in alignment with the feminist goals of ending gender inequity, sexual shame, rape, abuse, and sexual violence (among others). I do take it as a compliment, assuming that it’s meant as one. However, while I’m pleased when I’m told that my actions or words are aligned with feminism, please don’t call me a feminist. After all, one of the goals of many feminists is to allow people to choose the labels and identities that work for them. That means making room for people to not choose them, too.

Call for Submissions: New Views on Pornography: Sexuality, Politics, and the Law, 2 Volumes
Edited by Lynn Comella, PhD and Shira Tarrant, PhD
Deadline: July 30, 2012

Co-editors Lynn Comella (University of Las Vegas, Nevada) and Shira Tarrant (California State University, Long Beach) are seeking submissions for a two-volume edited collection under contract with Praeger.

Description: New Views on Pornography is a two-volume collection of the most current scholarship on pornography. This edited series presents empirical research on a range of contemporary issues regarding pornography’s politics, psychology, cultural and legal debates, providing a comprehensive and multidisciplinary overview of the field of porn studies in one convenient location for students, researchers, and professors across related fields. Our goal as editors is to showcase new and innovative research that examines the culture and politics of pornography in a global context, including but not limited to, questions of production, audiences, market niches, technological innovations, political debates and controversies, obscenity, free speech, public policy and the law. The editors seek well-researched facts and data in order to provide readers with a comprehensive overview of issues on the subject.

Author Guidelines: For consideration, please submit full chapters (5,000-7,000 words), a brief abstract, bio (75-100 words), and complete contact information. Submissions must include endnotes and bibliography, and adhere to Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition. Send submissions in .doc or .docx format to both contact emails below. Submissions not conforming to these guidelines will not be considered.

The Editors are specifically interested in submissions on the following:

• Foundations and Controversies in Pornography
• Defining Pornography
• The History of Pornography
• Pornography and the Law: Historical Highlights
• Cultural Trends and Changing Ideas about Pornography
• Key Resources in Media and Cultural Studies of Pornography
• Consumption Practices: Who Is Using Porn?
• Global Porn Production: Practices and Revenue
• Sources of Porn: The Marketplace and Changing Supply Patterns
• The Porn Wars in Historical and Contemporary Perspective
• The Politics of Porn Literacy and Social Control
• Issues of Race, Ethnicity, and Pornography
• Impacts of the Industry: Interviews with Porn Actors and Industry Workers
• Studying Pornography: Research Methods and Methodologies
• Impacts and Effects of Pornography
• Defining the Terms: Problems with Content Analysis and Ideological Bias
• Women Watching Porn: Issues in Data Collection and Self-Reporting
• Pornography and Global Sex Trafficking: Separating Myths from the Facts
• Pathologizing Porn: Questions about Addiction
• The Impacts of Pornography on Intimate Relationships
• Technology and Porn
• Obscenity, Surveillance and Free Speech: Current Issues in the Law
• Varieties and Genres of Pornography
• How the Adult Industry is Organized: Issues of Production and Revenue
• Masculinity, Violence, and Pornography: Correcting the Data
• Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Queer Porn
• Porn Studies in Global Context
• Porn Use and Sexual Satisfaction

Deadline: July 30, 2012

Send To: Please send cc’d submissions to Lynn Comella at lynn.comella@unlv.edu and Shira Tarrant at Shira_Tarrant@yahoo.com. Include Praeger NVOP Submission in the subject line. Submission queries should be directed to the above.

Ask our Docs: Prostate Play and Pleasure
January 25, 7-8 pm, Free
Good Vibrations Valencia St., 603 Valencia St. (at 17th), San Francisco
The prostate is one of the most overlooked sexual organs, but it can bring you amazing pleasure. With a little know-how, you can have lots of prostate fun, on your own or with a partner. Charlie Glickman, Ph.D will tell you everything you need to know to get started, what toys work best for prostate play, tips for making it easier, and more. Whether you or your partner are new to prostate fun or you’re looking for some new ideas, come get your questions answered and discover how amazing it can be!

Film Screening & Reception to benefit Advocates for Informed Choice
January 26, 6-9 pm
Suggested donation: $50
Congregation Sha’ar Zahav, 290 Dolores Street, San Francisco
Please join us for a 10th anniversary retrospective of the award-winning documentary, “XXXY”. Q&A will follow with filmmaker Porter Gale and Anne Tamar-Mattis, Executive Director of AIC.

Filmmaker Magazine calls “XXXY” “essential filmmaking” as it “concisely and powerfully conveys horror, injustice and tremendous personal fortitude.” This 13-minute documentary features two adults, Howard and Kristi, who were subjected to extensive nonconsensual cosmetic genital surgery as infants and teenagers because they were born with intersex conditions.

Founded in 2006, Advocates for Informed Choice is the only organization in the U.S. to undertake a coordinated strategy of legal advocacy for the rights of children with intersex conditions or DSDs (differences of sex development).

Garage parking is available at Hoff Street Garage (16th/Mission). Also, MUNI underground and the 16th St. BART station are very good transportation options.

Sex Positive Discussion Panel- Let’s Talk Consent!
January 27, 7-10 pm, $7.50 in advance, $10 at the door
The Mills College Community Health Resource Center is proud to present our second annual Sex Positive Discussion Panel! This year, our speakers are:

Carol Queen
Jiz Lee
Charlie Glickman
Krista Smith
Dossie Easton
Shilo Mccabe
with more to come

This year’s theme is consent. How do we give and get consent? What does this mean in terms of BDSM? How do we enact consent when dealing with sexual assault? How can consent be eroticized?

Mills students get in free, with current ID at the door. Tickets for non-Mills community members are $7.50 if purchased before the date and $10 at the door. Coffee and cookies will be for sale in the lobby afterward.

Good Vibrations New Store Grand Opening Party!
January 28, 6-9 pm, Free
Good Vibrations Oakland, 3219 Lakeshore Ave.
Join us as we celebrate the launch of our 6th store on Lakeshore Avenue in Oakland, California. Plus, meet very special guest Kandi Burruss, Grammy-winning songwriter, singer, producer, and Real Housewife of Atlanta, presenting her new intimate luxury line “Bedroom Kandi!” Enjoy free sexy prizes from the Wheel of Pleasure, including several Burguss’ own Bedroom Kandi line from OhMiBod, along with tasty treats, and keepsake photos from the Good Vibrations custom photo booth.

Prostate Play with Charlie Glickman & Aislinn Emirzian!
The Looking Glass, Oakland, CA
January 29, 2-4 pm, $20 or $35/pair
Purchase tickets and find location info here
The prostate is one of the most overlooked sources of sexual pleasure but with a little know-how, you can tap into its amazing sexual potential. Sex educators Charlie Glickman and Aislinn Emirzian will make sure you have all the tools you need to make your prostate play as fun as it can be. They’ll talk about the three most important ingredients for anal play, the physiology of the prostate and how it affects pleasure, tips for prostate massage, using toys, incorporating prostate play into other sexual activities, and male multiple orgasm. By the end of the workshop, you’ll have all the tools you need to have plenty of prostate fun!

(Note- if you’re wondering what the difference is between this workshop and the free one on 1/25, this one goes much longer, gives you a lot more info, and has plenty of time for Q&A. The 1 hour version at Good Vibrations is a lot faster and has less time for discussion.)

[SSEX BBOX] Premiere!
January 30, 7:30-11 pm, Free
The Center for Sex & Culture, 1349 Mission Street, San Francisco
[SSEX BBOX] is a social justice web series and documentary that aspires to create sexual awareness worldwide. We believe that sex should be discussed, explored, felt and consciously experienced more “outside of the box”.
[SSEX BBOX] expands consciousness by examining and challenging two dimensional, archaic and obsolete understandings of sexuality and gender. Constructing community, education, & dialogue – dismantling ignorance, isolation & shame…

This event will screen the first and second episodes of the [SSEX BBOX] documentary series.

Explore the world outside of your sex box through thought-provoking interviews with nationally recognized sex educators and sex-perts , such as ; Dossie Easton, MFT (Psychotherapist & Writer), Chris White, PhD, Charlie Glickman, PhD (Sex Educator & Sex-Positive Activist) Jessi Fischer, MA (Writer & Sex Educator) and more…
and conversations that matter!

Meet the director and [SSEX BBOX] crew after the film!

For example, W. Bradford Wilcox, the Director of the National Marriage Project, wrote in an opinion piece:

[I]n the United States today, women are significantly more likely to express opposition to infidelity and significantly less likely to engage in it. In the 2000s, only 10 percent of married women, compared with 16 percent of married men, reported that they had been unfaithful to their spouse, according to the General Social Survey.

So a society that came to tolerate open marriage would probably end up with more women than men being put into the kind of uncomfortable position that Marianne Gingrich describes. And that’s unfair to women.

See what he did there? He equated infidelity and open relationships. I don’t know whether he’s simply confused about the differences between the two or whether he’s pursuing an agenda. But whether he’s ill informed or being deliberately misleading, this is the kind of thing that continues to confuse the issue.

In a way, what this really comes down to is whether you believe that there’s one way to define a committed relationship or whether you think it’s possible to design your own. In the more generally accepted model, a committed relationship is demonstrated by following certain rules, most of which are predetermined. And of course, sexual monogamy is usually at the heart of the definition. Sometimes, that’s explicitly discussed, but more often, it’s assumed because it’s part of the overarching cultural model.

What makes us think that there’s only one way to make a commitment to another person? Why can’t we sit down with our partners and decide which rules will work for us?

Some people have argued that some sets of rules are more “natural” than others? But I have to ask: what’s more natural? Only touching the ball with your hands (like in basketball) or touching the ball with everything but your hands (like in soccer)? The rules define the games and there’s nothing to keep us from creating new games by choosing new rules.

That’s the problem with Wilcox’s thinking. (Well, one of them. The fact that he’s pushing monogamy because “it’s better for women” should give anyone with an interest in gender equality pause.) He doesn’t understand that infidelity doesn’t mean that you have other sexual partners. It means that you’re not following the rules. If your rule is monogamy, then yes, having other partners is cheating. On the other hand, if your rule is “other partners are ok, but tell me first,” then as long as you follow the rule, you aren’t cheating. In effect, Wilcox is telling a basketball player that they’re cheating because the aren’t playing by the rules of soccer.

Similarly, Wilcox assumes that open relationships are equivalent to having a revolving door of lovers:

Open marriage is also likely to be a terrible idea for children. A growing body of research suggests that children are harmed when they are exposed to a revolving cast of caregivers and partners. For example, a recent federal report found that children living with one parent and an unrelated romantic partner were about 10 times as likely to be sexually, physically or emotionally abused, compared with children living with their own married, biological parents.

I personally know quite a few parents in various kinds of non-monogamous relationships and none of them are introducing their children to a string of lovers. Some of them are in multiple long-term relationships and their kids know their parent’s other partners. Some of them have casual partners but they keep their home life separate from their sex life. Some of them have friends as well as lovers who might or might not be introduced to their children, while still maintaining a constant family structure. Lots of ways people do it, but one thing they have in common is the desire to take care of their kids by keeping the family life as stable as possible.

And in any case, Wilcox’s example of a parent living with an unrelated romantic partner doesn’t tell us anything about his overall claim that “a revolving cast of caregivers and partners” hurts kids. His shaky logic only makes his confusion worse. But by invoking the safety of women and children, he probably manages to distract readers who are unfamiliar with non-monogamous relationships.

Unfortunately, a lot of people follow Gingrich’s path and only discuss open relationships after having cheated or lied to a partner. In my experience as a sex educator, the best time to bring up the subject is after you realize you want to and before you’ve broken the rules. Not only does that avoid the extra drama created by the deception and revelation, it also makes it much easier to craft new structures. It’s rather like avoiding going grocery shopping when you’re hungry- if you’ve ever done it, you know how the immediate desire affects your decisions. It’s much easier to make good choices when they’re part of planning for the future rather than in response to an immediate urge.

The irony in all of this media discussion is that the people I know or have seen in open relationships (and believe me, I know more people in more kinds of non-monogamous relationships than most folks) is that they’re almost always more upfront than anyone else about their boundaries and more respectful of the rules and structures that they’ve built. The process of discussing what setup will work for them and planning out the rules with their partners usually gives them much more motivation to stick with them. They’re also more likely to put their cards on the table when talking with a potential partner and looking for common ground since they’ve had practice. (“You’re want a fuck buddy and I want a secondary committed relationship? I guess we’re not compatible, but I hope you find what you’re looking for.”)

That might not be the public perception, though that’s largely attributable to the fact that polyamorous people tend to be pretty closeted about it out of fear of discrimination, harassment, or loss of child custody. The more dramatic examples, like the couple that broke up when one of them wanted to open things up, are much more visible. But there are a lot more happy, healthy long-term open relationships than you probably know about.

So say it with me: infidelity and cheating are when you break the rules. If you aren’t breaking the rules, it isn’t cheating, even if your rules are different from mine.

Update: Just to be clear, I don’t think that having multiple sexual partners on a casual basis is inherently problematic. If the consent, pleasure, and well-being of all participants and everyone affected by the situation are cared for, there’s no reason why it can’t be a positive and joyous experience for some people. Children need more stability in their relationships with grown-ups than adults do, and the vast majority of the polyamorous parents I know take steps to foster that. That’s because they value the well-being of their children.

If you’d like to get some excellent advice on creating open relationships, here are some of the best guides:

The Ethical Slut: A Roadmap for Relationship Pioneers

Opening Up: A Guide To Creating and Sustaining Open Relationships

Redefining Our Relationships: Guidelines for Responsible Open Relationships

Love in Abundance: A Counselor's Advice on Open Relationships

See you there!

Sex Positive Discussion Panel
Lisser Theater, Mills College, Oakland, CA
January 27, 7-10 pm, $7.50
Purchase tickets and find location info here
The Mills College Community Health Resource Center is proud to present our second annual Sex Positive Discussion Panel! This year, our speakers are:

Charlie Glickman
Krista Smith
Dossie Easton
Shilo Mccabe
Jiz Lee
with more to come

This year’s theme is consent. How do we give and get consent? What does this mean in terms of BDSM? How do we enact consent when dealing with sexual assault? How can consent be eroticized?

Hugo’s thesis was that, while facials can certainly be an act of degradation, they can also be interpreted as “men’s desire for that same experience of being validated as desirable, as good, as ‘not dirty.’” For some people, male sexual desire and male bodies are seen as dirty, disgusting, or unpleasant and men who have internalized these ideas might seek a variety of paths to redeem them. Those can take a variety of forms.

Some of the responses to that post have argued that US culture glorifies penises and denigrates vulvas and vaginas. They claim that the premise that some people feel disgust towards penises is a falsehood, at best. There are at least two problems with this argument, though.

First, there are many different subcultures within the larger US society and there’s a lot of variation in how they view male sexuality. As a sex educator, I can tell you from years of professional experience that there are plenty of people who see penises and male desire as shameful or gross. Whether that’s due to personal experiences, religious backgrounds, familial influence, or anything else is relevant to the individuals, but the important thing to remember is that these different beliefs exist.

Second, the construction of masculinity that is commonly presented is constantly reinforced precisely because it is so fragile. Without in any way excusing or mitigating the very real harm that this dynamic causes, the fact that it’s effectively omnipresent is a sign of its weakness, not its strength.

But even so, there’s a key point that I think is missing from Hugo’s analysis, though he’s touched on it in some of his other writing. He ends his post with this anecdote, taken from one of his classroom discussions:

A female student turned to the guy who’d brought up the topic of semen and validation and asked him, “So you’re saying that when a man comes on a woman’s face, it’s not about making her dirty — it’s about making him feel clean?” The young man blushed, the class tittered. “Yes,” he said, “that’s it. And that’s what makes it so hot.”

If I were talking with this man, I’d ask him what he’s doing to overcome or change his belief that there’s something wrong about his sexuality. I’d ask him  what messages he’d been told that made him think that his semen or his penis or his body were dirty and that they needed redemption. I’d ask him what makes him think that the way to change that and to get the validation he seeks is to get it from his sex partner.

The notion that it’s women’s job to civilize or redeem men is nothing new. And ironically, there’s a parallel between the idea that women’s virtue is responsible for saving society and the belief that a sexual act between men and women can give men the validation they seek. Both of these are examples of coddling men and absolving them of any responsibility for their own self-determination and ethical conduct. So while I have sympathy for the guy who seeks cleanliness from his female partner, my sense of fierce compassion inspires me to call this out.

Getting validation from someone else makes you dependent on her. It means that you never have to learn the skills of emotional self-regulation and responsibility. It limits you and requires you to seek your value from outside, instead of building up a solid core of self-worth and self-respect. And ultimately, it’s doomed to fail because the only place that validation can truly come from is within.

That doesn’t mean we can’t get support from others. I’ve certainly had times when I was stuck in a shame spiral and needed some validation from a friend to help me out of it. But that process is only effective to the degree that we can explore the reasons we feel shame or self-disgust and process through them. We need to be able to lean into those painful edges and heal those wounds. Otherwise, we’re likely to create a situation that “almost works”. It feels like it should make us feel better and when it doesn’t, we try harder or we escalate. This is one way in which addictive or self-harming cycles form.

I still have no problem with two (or more) people doing facials if their consent, pleasure, and well-being are attended to. There are different reasons that people might enjoy it and I think it’s the height of arrogance to tell them that their desires are wrong. Some people have a kink for body fluids. Some people get a thrill from getting dirty or nasty, without demeaning their partners or disrespecting them either in or out of sexual contexts. Just as some people enjoy the sensation of vaginal fluids on their faces after cunnilingus, some people enjoy the sensation of semen on theirs. There’s never just one reason why people do anything sexually.

I also know that a lot of people do facials because they’re copying things they see in porn. That might be because they don’t realize that porn is terrible sex education. Or they actually do want to demean or degrade the other person. That’s why it’s useful to be able to talk about what our fantasies mean to us and decide if they’re compatible with our partner’s desires.

But in the end, if you’re trying to get validation or you want to overcome your feelings of shame, a sex act isn’t going to do it. Neither, for that matter, is your partner. If you really want to change how you feel, you need to stop dodging and do the work. And you need to stop laying responsibility for your validation on anyone else.

Advocates for Informed Choice, an amazing organization that advocates for the civil rights of children who are born with variations of sex anatomy. It’s estimated that 1 in 2000 children are born with reproductive or sexual anatomy and/or chromosome patterns that don’t fit the usual definitions of male or female. And in most cases, the medical response is to perform surgeries. In fact, many doctors view children born with DSD (differences in sex development) as an emergency that requires an immediate response. This often results in pressuring parents to make quick decisions about things that they might not even have heard of before. Fortunately, AIC is working to change that and there’s been some progress.

On January 26, 2012 in San Francisco, AIC is hosting a benefit and screening of XXXY, a documentary film that takes an “intimate look at the long-term emotional, psychological, and physiological effects of being born “intersex,” or with ambiguous genitalia.” The film focuses on two people who between them have undergone over two dozen surgeries to “correct” their ambiguous sex organs. They speak quite honestly about the ways in which their experiences, including ” a wide array emotional issues, including shame, secrecy, gender identity, depression, intimacy, and the feelings of disempowerment that come from having no role in the decisions made regarding their gender identity.”

Following the screening, there will be Q&A with the filmmakers Porter Gale and Laleh Soomekh, and Anne Tamar-Mattis, Executive Director of AIC. You can purchase tickets here. And here’s the Facebook event page- even if you can’t make it, please help get the word out.

If you’re curious about p-spot pleasure or you just want some new ways to have a great time, come join us!

Prostate Play with Charlie Glickman & Aislinn Emirzian!
The Looking Glass, Oakland, CA
January 29, 2-4 pm, $20 or $35/pair
Purchase tickets and find location info here
The prostate is one of the most overlooked sources of sexual pleasure but with a little know-how, you can tap into its amazing sexual potential. Sex educators Charlie Glickman and Aislinn Emirzian will make sure you have all the tools you need to make your prostate play as fun as it can be. He’ll talk about the three most important ingredients for anal play, the physiology of the prostate and how it affects pleasure, tips for prostate massage, using toys, incorporating prostate play into other sexual activities, and male multiple orgasm. By the end of the workshop, you’ll have all the tools you need to have plenty of prostate fun!