Although fewer people would say that “I think anal sex is amazing” is a sex-negative statement, I consider it to be just as problematic as “I think anal sex is gross.” What makes something like this sex-negative isn’t whether one uses a positive or negative adjective. It’s that saying these sorts of things neglects the diversity of sexual experiences and pleasures.

Simply put, these sorts of things aren’t true. Anal sex is gross for some people and amazing for some people and boring for some people and exciting for some people. No matter what word you use to finish the sentence, you’re leaving out many people’s experiences and that is what makes it sex-negative.

On the other hand, when you say something like “I enjoy/dislike/fill-in-the-blank anal sex,” you’re practicing mindful speech. You’re explicitly recognizing that your experience is your own. You’re not making a sweeping statement and you’re not claiming that anyone else should have the same response that you have. It doesn’t matter whether the word you use is positive or negative in this example, either.

Sex-positivity isn’t about enjoying every possible way to have sex. Sex-positivity isn’t about only using positive words when talking about sex.

Sex-positivity is about making room for different people to have wildly different experiences. And in order to do so, we can practice using language that makes room for that. One of the best (and most difficult) ways to do that is to own our experiences and try to not make sweeping statements. It’s simultaneously quite simple and incredibly difficult, which is why so many people seem to not understand it. Well, that and the fact that there aren’t a lot of examples of mindful speech in the media- it doesn’t make for good soundbites. [emphasis mine]

This is from a post by Charlie Glickman on Good Vibrations Magazine called Owning Your Words: Sex-Positivity, Mindful Speech, and Why Some People Don’t Get It. I highly encourage you to read the entire article to get all of it in context, though what I quoted above is the crux of it. He has other awesome points that are just as important, however, so go read. I’ll be here when you get back.

Why does this matter? I’ve considered myself sex-positive for quite some time and this distinction is an important one. I’ve heard people saying that “sex-positivity” is some sort of trend word, which in some ways I think is true. There seems to be a big trend in those who write about sex and sexuality⁰¹ to adopt the term “sex-positive” even when it’s clear they know nothing about what it means.

Of course, being sex-positive and confronting your own internalized sex-negativity⁰² is a continual process, it’s not something you earn like a merit badge that you can then flash at people to prove that you are sex-positive. Saying you’re sex-positive only gets you so far if you don’t walk the walk. I love his point that it’s not about always saying something positive either, despite “positive” being right in the term itself. I think this is something people get hung up on and a very important point to make.

It may be some sort of trendy word to some, but for others of us it is something we strive for.

1. as opposed to “sex bloggers” since I don’t really like that term
2. let’s face it, we all have some

I’ve been out for quite a while. Unless this is your first time here and/or you haven’t read the about page yet you should already know that I have a long string of labels I like to use in order to describe my identities. I am a genderqueer fat femme drag queen fagette and pomo queer intellisexual polyamorous switch. I am also an occultist, sacred whore, astrologer, and all manner of other things. Specifically NCOD refers to coming out of the proverbial closet, or LGBT(QQIA) people coming out, so I focused on my identity string.

I’ve talked about this before, but the main reason why I use so many identity words strung together like I do is so that it is nearly impossible to pigeonhole me into one identity or another. Instead, it forces people to acknowledge the way the identities blend and interchange between them, and how my identities are fluid. At least, that’s my theory.

I don’t really have a story of coming out to my parents. I remember being a teenager telling my mother I was bisexual. Her response? “Oh. I thought you were a lesbian.” And that was it. During the triad with Marla I told both of my parents about her and our relationship configuration and they both responded without judgment, just asked practical questions about the situation.

Coming out, ultimately, is an ongoing process both for me and, really, for everyone. While there are people who fit into the stereotypical way that a certain identity or another looks there are just as many if not more people who are not so easy to categorize with a look. For those of us who are not blatantly obvious we have to come out over and over again, to just about everyone we choose. This is compounded by the fact that I present femme most of the time and have a cisgendered male partner so we are often mistaken for a straight couple even though neither of us is straight.

This isn’t to say I walk up to new people and give them the string of identity words I used above, but it does mean that there are times I have to come out, sometimes coming out multiple times to the same person.

It can be exhausting, but I appreciate the ability to live stealth as well, so I can be privy to those possibly bigoted conversations and attempt to put in my own two cents, and as a result maybe change some minds.

One thing that continues to amaze me is the ability someone has to be an inspiration for others simply by being themselves. By doing what is right and good for you others can be inspired to do the same for themselves, and I love this. Every time you come out is an act of courage. Feel free to come out in the comments.

Audrey Hepburn in Funny Face

I have a secret (or not so secret?) love of old 50s and 60s movies with Audrey Hepburn, Marilyn Monroe, Cary Grant, Fred Astaire, and so on. As much as I adore genderfucky practice there is something so lovely about watching Audrey Hepburn and Fred Astaire sing and dance in fabulous clothing (which happens to be what is on the television as I write this), or any of the various other very hetero very gender normative pairings that are mainstream movies from that era.

Why are some of my ‘comfort movies’ classics like Gentlemen Prefer Blondes? With winning exchanges like “I can be smart when I want to, but most men don’t like it, except Gus.” “No, that much of a fool he isn’t.”

Granted, there are a few gender bending movies like Some Like It Hot and strong female characters in other movies as well, though inevitably they always end up wrong somehow and the men end up right. In Some Like It Hot there are some wonderfully amusing and genderfucking moments, though they happen on the part of Daphne/Gerald who is willing to dress up as a woman from the beginning, unlike Joe/sephine who only agrees to it after they witness a mob mass-murder.

Though I didn’t used to when I was younger, I now recognize the inherent sexism within most of these films, and instead of being upset about it I shrug and think “that’s the way it was.” I think that is necessary in some ways, however, since there’s no use getting mad over something that happened 50 years ago, and if the same themes or lines were in movies today I would definitely be upset about it. However, my complacency about the sexism and stereotypes portrayed is a little disturbing to me all the same.

Is my recognizing the inherent sexism the most important part of the equation? I can’t help but love movies from that era, partially because they have been my comfort movies for over ten years. It’s always nice to watch a movie with a happy ending, and these usually have them. While as I mentioned above there are usually some strong characters in the movies they are often somehow wrong or proved wrong throughout the course of the movie or they are not seen as sexual or love objects, such as the magazine owner in Funny Face who is obsessed with her career and says that she has no room for love.

I think part of my love of these movies, aside from the happy endings, is the fabulous clothes, hair, and make-up all the female leads always have. Even when they are “broke” as in How to Marry a Millionare or Some Like It Hot they are still femmed up to the nines with elegant dresses, furs, sequens, gorgeous shoes, perfect hair, etc. The men, as well, are elegantly dressed: suits and ties, fedoras, sleek and gorgeous clothing. The femme in me revels in the wonderful hair and makeup.

I’ve always loved the style of these movies, the classicly glamorous look that the starlets represent, the pin-up look that never seems to go completely out of style. I love that the women in the films are actually women-sized, as opposed to the stick figures we mostly see today. Lately I have been wanting to cut my hair, get some rollers, and start wearing it like a redheaded Marilyn Monroe.

In the end, I think what is really important is that we recobnize the sexism in these films when we watch them now, since they were made in times that were trying to portray heterosexist and gender normative ideas as the norm (not to say we don’t still have that now). We all know that the 50s and 60s were trying to portray an image of perfection and normalcy that is basically unattainable, and wasn’t attained even then, although people strived for it. The movies of that era are equally unattainable, like fairy tales or romance novels (minus the smut), but they sure are fun to watch.

Marilyn Monroe and Jane Russell in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes

Marilyn Monroe in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes

I saw this last night, as I have become an avid watcher of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow (conveniently on right after another) in the last few months, originally because of the election but now I seem to have become a bit of a liberal political media junkie (not hugely, but a little). This has been popping up all over today, and it’s something that touched me strongly enough that I would like to share with you. He makes some of the best, strongest, and most organized points against Prop 8 that I’ve seen on TV, because it is a personal rights issue and a love issue not a religious issue.

Transcript of his thoughts below found here.

Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.

Some parameters, as preface. This isn’t about yelling, and this isn’t about politics, and this isn’t really just about Prop-8. And I don’t have a personal investment in this: I’m not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.

And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn’t about yelling, and this isn’t about politics. This is about the human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don’t want to deny you yours. They don’t want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them—no. You can’t have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don’t cause too much trouble. You’ll even give them all the same legal rights—even as you’re taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can’t marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn’t marry?

I keep hearing this term “re-defining” marriage. If this country hadn’t re-defined marriage, black people still couldn’t marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn’t have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it’s worse than that. If this country had not “re-defined” marriage, some black people still couldn’t marry black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not “Until Death, Do You Part,” but “Until Death or Distance, Do You Part.” Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.

And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing, centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children, all because we said a man couldn’t marry another man, or a woman couldn’t marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage.

How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the “sanctity” of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?

What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don’t you, as human beings, have to embrace… that love? The world is barren enough.

It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate… this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness—this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness—share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate.

You don’t have to help it, you don’t have it applaud it, you don’t have to fight for it. Just don’t put it out. Just don’t extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don’t know and you don’t understand and maybe you don’t even want to know. It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow person just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.

This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.

But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:

“I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam,” he told the judge. It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all: So I be written in the Book of Love; I do not care about that Book above. Erase my name, or write it as you will, So I be written in the Book of Love.

Just 75 days and some odd hours until the current administration and the last eight years become a memory, and Barack Obama becomes the 44th President of the United States. I am overwhelmed.

I’m saddened that Proposition 8 does not seem to be doing too well in California. While not all of the results are in yet there is quite a gap. The good news is we know that they’ll end up doing something else in CA to legalize same sex marriages at some point in the near-to-distant future, another loophole to jump through, etc.

I’ve heard a few people who opposed Prop 8 say that they think it wasn’t right for the courts to overrule something the people had put in place, to which I replied that is the job of the courts and our leaders to look out for the minority that the majority is oppressing. If they weren’t looking out for the minority we would probably not have as many civil rights . The most extreme and obvious examples are slavery and segregation. If we had let the people decide those may never have ended (and probably wouldn’t have).

On a lighter note, from my election party tonight (for those of you who didn’t already see them on twitter):

Obama cupcakes (from scratch, yes, I made them myself including the icing. It was all vegan and sugar-free, though you wouldn’t know it if I didn’t tell you).

Red, white, and blue martini – Mango or Pomegranate Vodka (we had both, it called for cranberry but the only cranberry vodka at the liquor store was smirnoff), blue curacao, and red pop rocks on the rim of the glass (like fireworks!). The vodka and curacao were layered, the vodka on top of the curacao, though it’s kinda hard to tell in the photo.

Be sure you know where you’re voting and who and what you’re voting for.

If you’re in California: No on Prop. 8, please!
If you’re in San Fran: Yes on Prop K

If you’re in the USA:

I hear Starbucks is giving away a free coffee to anyone who votes, Baskin Robbins is giving away free ice cream to those who vote, and the wonderful Babeland is giving away Maverick sleeves and silver bullets.

Personally, Onyx and I are throwing an election day party at our house, complete with red, white, and blue martinis called Boston Pops Martini (heavy on the blue), I’m highly considering making Obama cupcakes tomorrow as well (vegan, most likely), and I also bought champagne for the event hoping that the outcome is good!

In addition to the national presidential election, the other two I’ll be watching closely are the two mentioned above, though there are many other ballot measures in other states that are just as important. See Sinclair’s list over here.

What are you doing for election day?

I remember reading my mom’s copies Bitch magazine years ago while I was still living at home. I began reading it at a point in my life where my feminist nature was already deeply ingrained in me, although I wasn’t consciously aware of it. I don’t remember the year, but I do remember reading issue after issue, each one wonderful and eye-opening. I have never been subscribed to Bitch, although I don’t really know why, but there is usually an issue or two lying around mom’s house when I go back to visit (which I shall be doing this time next week).

Bitch needs to raise $40,000 by October 15th in order to produce the next issue of Bitch. As I’m sure many of you know, the economy is dramatically declining, and print magazines are no longer as popular as they once were anyway, so the combination is not a good one. They are a “nonprofit, reader-funded media organization” so they heavily rely on donations to produce the magazine.

You can read more about their plight and watch a video about it on their website. Every little bit helps, even $5 or $10, hell even $1 is one dollar closer to $40,000. I’m planning on donating what I can, and I encourage you all to do the same!

I thought this was worth sharing because not only do I love Jon Stewart but while this hypocrisy is easy to witness it’s much more powerful when you see the clips back-to-back like they are. Also, Wasilla is tiny and so not the second largest city in Alaska. I should know, I grew up in the third largest city in Alaska, and Wasilla at 9,000 does not have a higher population than Juneau. Not that it’s really important, but come on! Alaska is small population-wise, but it’s not that small!

Alaska soapbox aside, I hope you are as amused by this video as I am.

At this point in my life I really should not have been surprised at the definitions which were posted, which basically call all feminists sexist, hypocritical, mean, man-haters, etc. all those wonderful negative stereotypes. I really should not have been saddened or surprised, or have thought that it might be any different.

At least the #2 entry reads:

someone who believes the radical notion that women are people.
if you believe that women and men should have equal rights, you are a feminist. there’s nothing “extreme” about it.

That’s something, right? I urge you all to go to the definition of feminist in the Urban Dictionary and vote for that entry and vote down all the other entries which perpetuate negative stereotypes. While, yes, there are those feminists out there, they are not the majority (at least, not in my experience), they are just the ones which get the most coverage.

*Sigh* So, look for my definitions of femmeinist and fucktoy on the new masthead, should be coming within the hour. Also, I may add femmeinist to the Urban Dictionary, but I wonder if people would bash it as well? I definitely will add my definition of fucktoy (on UD as both fucktoy and fuck toy) however, since the definitions there are all degrading. I’m definitely not using it in a degrading manner.

Also, as a note since I’m mentioning site changes as well, I recently added a weekly poll to the top left sidebar, as well as links to my various wishlists (Amazon, VibeReview, Eden Fantasys, JT’s Stockroom, and Extreme Restraints) on the right sidebar under the buttons to my various profiles on other sites. I also added a list of affiliate links on the left sidebar (such as VibeReview, Eden Fantasys, Babeland, JT’s Stockroom, Extreme Restraints, and Amazon) which look rather similar to the wishlist links, of course, as these are the sites I often frequent and also highly recommend. I will shortly add a paypal donate link, just in case anyone feels generous.

As Julia Serano said in Whipping Girl “Even many feminists buy into traditionally sexist notions about femininity–that it is artificial, contrived, and frivolous; that it is a ruse that only serves the purpose of attracting and appeasing the desires of men… After all, as a concept, feminism is much like the ideas of “democracy” or “Christianity.” Each has a major tenet at its core, yet there are a seemingly infinite number of ways in which those beliefs are practiced. And just as some forms of democracy and Christianity are corrupt and hypocritical while others are more just and righteous we… must… forge a new type of feminism, one that understands that the only way for us to achieve true gender equity is to abolish both oppositional sexism* and traditional sexism.**”

Femmeinist thought, however, embraces femininity and femmeininity, and is working toward that new type of feminism (or, femmeinism). While currently gender politics is still working on abolishing oppositional sexism*, traditional sexism** still abounds. It is in the fact that in order to be “gender neutral” one must look masculine, there is nearly no way to be gender neutral while really taking on feminine characteristics. Femininity must be strong, otherwise it wouldn’t be that if someone is wearing make up or a skirt that seems to automatically negate any other masculine gendered performance.

Something I came across here via The Femme Show was a definition of what femme is, or can be: “[the femme is] a betrayer of legibility itself. Seemingly “normal,” she responds to “normal” expectations with a sucker punch– she occupies normality abnormally.” – Lisa Duan and Kathleen McHugh from “A Fem(me)inist Manifesto” This is why part of my idea of who can be femme or not does not have to do only with sexuality. Femme is not about who you sleep with, though it can be, but there are plenty of feminine lesbians who are not femme. Femme is about consciousness: a conscious genderfuck in the rouse of traditional femininity. Anyone who consciously takes on the role of femininity as a deviant identity can be femme. Though, I believe it is easier for those who are already outside of social norms, such as lesbians and bisexual women, to come to a queer femininity and embrace it.

Femme is not something that sneaks up on you (though, it can sneak up on you in some ways, but there must be a conscious awareness to it as well), there is a definite change that happens from feminine to femme, or butch to femme or butch to genderqueer to femme (as was, in some ways, my transition). There is a transition, as with any trans identity: female to femme, perhaps. There is a wonderful movie which I am dying to see (I’ve only seen the trailer for it) which is called FtF: Female to Femme (you can view the trailer here). It seems like a step in the right direction.

I have so much more to say about femme, so many more ideas, and I will have more posts on it in the near future. This is kind of a rough-draft. Expect more and deeper investigation.

* oppositional sexism – “The belief that female and male are rigid, mutually exclusive categories, each posessing a unique and nonoverlapping set of attributes, aptitudes, abilities, and desires.”
** traditional sexism – “The belief that maleness and masculinity are superior to femaleness and femininity.”

Found here via Feministing

Time for me to go fight injustice. Do they make underoos in my size?

A man and woman go out to dinner at a restaurant. The woman opens the door for the man to enter the establishment, she pulls out the chair for him before he sits down, and when the waiter comes to take their orders, she orders for the both of them. In this situation, who is submissive? Is it the man, is he being lead and treated as a subordinate by his mistress? Or is it the woman, is she an adept submissive who is serving her owner by taking care of his needs?
A man and woman are in their bedroom, the woman is on her knees and receives a slap to her cheek, then a hand in her hair, gripping it and pulling it back tight. She is spit on as her face is made to look upward, and then slapped again. The man sits on the bed and drags her with him, tugging her across his knee to give her a spanking, not satisfied until her ass is a bright shade of red. She is screaming and struggling, but despite being physically capable of freeing herself, she does not for fear of repercussions. Is this scenario depicting abuse, or simply play?
Both of these scenarios show potential ambiguity within power exchange relationships, but in very different ways. The first demonstrates the diversity of what power exchange relationships can look like, the second is a more shocking representation of what play can look like, and how to an outside observer, it could appear to be abuse. The point of both of these is to show the diversity and fragility of what could or could not be consensual power play activities. There is not just one way to experience or practice relationships of this type.
Often when subjects such as sadomasochism, or BDSM (Bondage/Discipline, Dominance/submission, and Sadism/masochism), are explored relationships which break social norms are analyzed, such as gay or lesbian BDSM relationships, or heterosexual relationships in which the normative power structure is reversed: the female is dominant, the male is submissive. The paring which on the surface goes along with societal norms is sometimes dismissed as patriarchal because the male partner is dominant while the female partner is submissive. Despite what seems like a patriarchal situation, male-dominant/female-submissive relationships are built on both parties having equal power over the relationship, though unequal roles in power exchange scenarios.

The Use of Sex Categories
Male-dom female-sub (M/f) relationships are often viewed as conforming to patriarchal expectations of gender and power. The differences between relationships are often not taken into view. The activities often engaged in run a wide gamut and don’t have to include pain, what sadism and masochism are usually linked with. The addition of other terms to sadomasochism in order to create “BDSM” has broadened the ideas and activities which are included, since generally when sadism or masochism is thought of the only images that come to mind are those of painful beatings, cruelty, and torture. While these are certainly part of the activities which are included within the realm of BDSM, there is quite a bit more which is included.
The point of distinguishing M/f relationships from other types of relationships is a separation due to social perceptions rather than actual practices. While some have argued that since females are socialized by our patriarchal culture to embrace the ideas of submission to males, female subs are essentially just buying into that patriarchy, into that system which subordinates them, and into that perpetuation of gender stereotypes and roles. This is perpetuated by the small group of BDSM participants which believe in gender supremacy. That is, belief that males naturally rule over females and are naturally dominant to females natural submissiveness. Gender supremacists make up for a portion of BDSM participants, just as they make up a portion of non-BDSM participants, but should not be considered the voice of the entire subculture.
While there are some trends that many M/f couples follow and many female-dominant/male-submissive (F/m) couples follow, there are also vast differences between couples of similar gender configurations. While there are similarities, they are not necessarily due completely to gender either. Terms such as M/f, F/m, M/m (male dominant/male submissive), and F/f (female dominant/female submissive) can be useful, just as any labels can be useful. That is: as long as we don’t stick too rigidly to them, and understand that not one person or idea can be encompassed by one label. In this paper, the point of using labels such as these described above is to distinguish between societal perceptions of M/f vs. F/m relationships, as opposed to making a general argument regarding the practices of individuals within these relationships.

Power Exchange
BDSM is all about power: playing with power and what it means to have power. Through playing with power we are able to recognize that there is no innate or natural power which one person has. If power was innate, we would not be able to play with it or change it from moment to moment. All power is constructed, all power is socially given, and none of it is inherent to the person. Through play with and the recognition of constructedness of power the realization that there is great power and strength in taking on the submissive role is able to be reached.
Individualistic societies devalue vulnerability and weakness, and promote independence and assertiveness to gain value and prestige. Any delving into vulnerability or powerlessness is a sign of weakness and associated with character as opposed to a temporary state. Because of this, those who take the submissive role within power play encounters, especially if they are female, are often thought of as having the same characteristics which they play with as their core personality characteristics. While this is the case for some participants, it is not for everyone. Characteristics such as caring, attentiveness, and support are often overlapping between power play and life, passivity may not be. In fact, many submissives are leaders or otherwise powerful outside of the bedroom.
There is no power play or power exchange without the submissive giving over that power and the dominant taking that power. If there is a failure on one or both sides play cannot occur, and there is the possibility of slipping into abuse. The dominant has no power except for that which the submissive gives him. It is through the understanding of this that the beginning of the realization of the value of the submissive partner is able to occur. While in any relationship all partners should be valued and respected, it is easy for someone outside of BDSM to fail to see the value in the submissive role, for reasons already mentioned. The realization that there is no power exchange without the submissive actively and willingly giving up her power is truly important for this.
Another part of the submissive’s power is in passive aims. Passive aims can be described as “being active through being passive,” and in this case the passive aims are often getting what is desired through the guise of passivity. Through giving over power, submissives put themselves into the passive role, into the subordinate role, but in doing that they are able to achieve their aim, if that be simply to feel dominated, to be treated in a certain way, or whatever the personal goal may be. If needs and desires of the submissive were not being met, there would be no submissive as she would not desire to continue the exchange.
Dominance and submission, to be effective, must be willed acts and that the submissive is making a choice to put herself into the power of the dominant. The submissive gives the dominant her submission in order for each of them to be fulfilled in different ways, and in order for each of them to explore, learn and grow through the experience. By doing so, she creates the illusion of helplessness that gives her permission to be more vulnerable and open than she could normally allow herself to be. The dominant is then compelled by the submissive, to explore and push against her emotional blockages, and explore his own emotions, desires, and self through this interaction.
Both parties are, in a way, submissive to each other’s needs and desires, or these explorations would not be effective. The dominant must continually be aware of the submissive’s reactions, desires, and needs in order for him to lead the interaction. Both parties are also equal in their mutual, albeit different, needs, desires, and approaches to the relationship. The only inequality happens through the submissive’s conscious decision to give her power over to the dominant, in the hope that they both will learn and grow as people, with and towards each other from the experiences shared from this choice. In this way, the relationship is built on egalitarianism. Even though it seems as if the dominant has all the power in the relationship, there is, in fact an exchange of power and a mutual respect of both roles.
All power play includes ways for the submissive to veto actions by the dominant, even that which is commonly referred to as Master/slave, an extreme form of power play where the slave has no power, no rights, and has little ways to get out of the situation short of leaving it all together. Even in Venus in Furs, which is an example of a Master/slave relationship (master, in this case being gender neutral, though often the word mistress is substituted for female masters), we are shown that Severin is able to leave, and he does so when it goes too far. The reason why he says that he does not want to leave is because he is a man of his word, and he does not want to go back on it. The real reason is that he also has some hope that it has all been her playing out his fantasy, and that not everything said is true, as we see when she professes such and though he is shocked he is easily accepting of it.
Leaving the situation completely is an extreme example of the submissive’s power over the scene. In most instances there are previously agreed upon limits and safewords. Limits are activities or scenarios which either party will not take part in. There may be soft limits which may be delved into on a rare basis if deemed necessary, or hard limits, which are never to be participated in. A safeword is a codeword or series of codewords usually chosen by the dominant which can be used by either party to indicate a limit is being reached or a scene is going too fast. The codeword usually may indicate either slow down or stop, depending on the codeword used. If either the dominant or submissive is about to be in a position where the safeword cannot be communicated verbally, usually a nonverbal method of calling safeword will be agreed upon as well.
Because the submissive always has the choice of setting her own limits, safewording, or simply leaving, the question comes to: who really runs the show? Is it the dominant, even though the submissive has continuous veto power over activities practiced or scenarios acted out? Wouldn’t that be like saying that the President has no part in passing bills, even though s/he has the power to veto them? However, that’s not to say that the submissive has all the power, but it is a power exchange, as it is often referred to, not just power giving and taking. There is power given up on both sides, otherwise the Dominants of today would look much more like the sadists of DeSade.
Sade’s sadists “Sade-ists” are remarkably different from the contemporary use of the term sadist. Sade-ists do not desire consent, and, even, desire no consent. Their play is completely one-sided. Contemporary sadists, however, are generally part of this greater term BDSM, they are not rapists or mutilators, but partners. Sade-ists as depicted are rapists, mutilators, and humiliators, and ones which do not desire consent. The term sadist is used as someone who enjoys inflicting pain on another, but generally someone who submits to one of two philosophies of BDSM: RACK (Risk Aware Consensual Kink) or SSC (Safe, Sane, and Consensual). RACK is exactly as it sounds, the recognition that there are risks to many types of activities which may be engaged in, and continuing to practice and play with those activities as well, while keeping the risks in mind, and only engaging in activities which are consensual and desired by both parties. SSC is an alternative to RACK, basically acknowledging the same ideas, that all play should be kept as safe and sane as possible, as well as completely consensual.
While respect, trusts, and consent should be components in any relationship, not just a BDSM relationship, they are especially important regarding any play, and they are also examples of both the potential for empowerment and egalitarianism within power exchange relationships. All three are tied together. If there is not consent, it is abuse. In order to get consent, there must be trust on both sides. Without trust, consent is impossible. Without consent, BDSM and RACK or SSC are not possible. In order to trust someone, you must respect them, and in order for someone to trust you, you must respect them. When there is a breach in respect, it is difficult to have trust or consent, and respect must then be worked on and remade. BDSM hinges upon these three interactions, and is unable to be played out and especially is unable to be empowering without the mutual exchange of respect, trust, and consent.

Through the acknowledgement of constructedness of power dynamics, the power which the submissive holds within power exchange relationships, and the acknowledgment of dominant and submissive roles as equally important it can be said that BDSM practices encourage egalitarian thinking instead of discouraging it. Far from blindly accepting patriarchal thinking, there is a lot of thought that goes into accepting the desired roles of dominant or submissive, and especially for any feminist participants—of which there are many—a confrontation of internalization of both patriarchal and feminist ideas has to be made before being able to play with power exchange without guilt.
While there are as many desires to enact BDSM play as there are people who do, there are many misconceptions about what motivates someone to become involved in this type of sexual play. Though those who embrace gender supremacy must not be ignored within the BDSM culture, there are plenty more people who approach BDSM through egalitarian ways, even if they would not term it as such. The simple recognizing and accepting of all participants in BDSM as equals despite the status they choose to inhabit is more widespread than gender supremacy.

What are your thoughts and associations to the word “cunt”?
I’ve had an affinity for the word cunt since I read Cunt by Inga Muscio when I was 14ish, I think? Something like that. Not much after that I heard the reclaiming of the word cunt in The Vagina Monologues as well, and I have loved it ever since.

I’ve always liked it better than pussy or vagina or twat or any of the other terms for the female genitals, I think it holds a power that is primal and strong and something that can’t be taken away. Since it is such as strong word of female power it has been, of course, twisted to be the worst word to call a woman in our society, worse than bitch or slut or any of the other typical female slurs.

When referring to my own vulva I use the word cunt. I enjoy being called a cunt as well, should it be intended with desire as opposed to hurt. I identify with the word cunt more and more, and have considered it as a potential better word than “slave” as I feel that the connotations of cunt are far better than the connotations of slave, however, it is not a perfect match either.

I find it to be a wonderful word, rich in meaning, power, and association. It can be humiliating and shameful when used in the right contexts, it can be empowering and strong when used in other contexts, and it can be hurtful and painful when used in other (not so fun) contexts, but that is the adaptability and flexibility of meanings of words.

I love my cunt, and I love being a cunt, and I love other cunts too. I love saying cunt and seeing the reactions that I get. I love saying cunt to feel the silky smoothness roll off my tongue. I just love cunt in its entirety.

Reclaiming Cunt
From The Vagina Monologues

I call it cunt. I’ve reclaimed it, “cunt.” I really like it. “Cunt.” Listen to it. “Cunt.” C C, Ca Ca. Cavern, cackle, clit, cute, come–closed c–closed inside, inside ca–then u–then cu–then curvy, inviting sharkskin u–uniform, under, up, urge, ugh, ugh, u–then n then cun–snug letters fitting perfectly together–n–nest, now, nexus, nice nice, always depth, always round in uppercase, cun, cun–n a jagged wicked electrical pulse–n [high-pitched noise] then soft, n–warm n–cun, cun, then t–then sharp certain tangy t–texture, take, tent, tight, tantalizing, tensing, taste, tendrils, time, tactile, tell me, tell me. “Cunt, cunt,” say it, tell me “Cunt.” “Cunt.”

Cunt Cuntry
By Alex Olson

I’ve decided to start
Cunt Cuntry!
Write our own Cunstitution
Let our liberated clit bells ring out:
The Cunts are coming: It’s the Cunt Revolution!
I’d cut through my panties, I’d shake my pube hair loose,
I’d sign my Jane HanCunt in cursive with Cunt juice.
I’d declare the Independence of Clitoris to Shining Clitoris,
Proclaim the Emancipation of all Cunts–
and tell Dicks this:
You’re being drafted for the Big Solution:

Stand Erect, Be Proud,
You’re part of the Cunt Revolution!
Defending our slick, silky, vaginal turf
For all cunted creatures, created or by birth.
And they’d wear buttons with fists raised, that say:
Patriarchy! I survived! Now this Dick’s fighting the Good Fight for
Vaginal Pride!
And kids in school would learn the Her-story
Of the Boston Tea-ch Party,
When Cunt-Liberators tossed Cunt-Traitors into the sea,
Finally felt what it meant to be free.
And they’d learn how color complicated the win,
How White Cunted Creatures had to sacrifice Privilege,
Re-focus Vision for a Real Revolution to happen.
And kids would have weekly field trips
To the Museum of Un-Natural His-Story
With display glass jars of rapist dicks in all their shriveled glory.
And Behind velvet rope, ancient relics of the past, like:
Female Guilt, Circumcision knives, Certificates turning whole people into Wives.

And there’d be torture chamber exhibits
with tall, skinny heels
Inviting little girls to:
Try this, and see how this feels—
Cunted Creatures wore these to work or to anywhere formal:
This Pain was called Sexy. This process was called Normal!

And there’d be old collections of posters like:
Keep Abortion Legal- with a plaque:
Not much is known. But these come from an era when
Insecure Ruling Dickheads thought of
Bodies as something to own.
We’d pledge allegiance to P-Flag
With stars like you– and crooked stripes!
We’d carry passports made from a giant Cunt Mold
In all pubic colors: Gray, Auburn, Ebony, Gold.
We’d ban all commercials of:
Are you not so fresh?
Is your vag repulsive? Do you stink like fish?
And instead, we’d conduct a Cunt Taste-Testing Session,
Get used to the smells of Blood, Yeast, and the Ocean.
And Hothead Paison would lead Alison Bechdel’s Dykes:
Watch out for the Cunt Cuntry Army on Bikes!
There’d be an Esteemed Office called “National Astrologist”
And Cunt Commander in Chief would be… a Gynecologist.
And Michael Moore would be Vice-Pres…
Cause the Cunt Cuntry Court of Legality says:
Possessing a Cunt matters less than possessing
the Cunt Mentality.
And daughters would laugh at old-fashioned terms like
Virgin and Bitch and Whore
As they checked out the newest inventory of vibrators Sold at the corner store.
Because daughters would be freer and dykes would be Freer and dicks would be freer
If we stood up and sang:
My Cunt tis of Thee
My Cunt tis of Thee
Because Cunt is the latin root of Kin and Country
But see, somehow some of our countrymen forgot they had
Sisters, decided to treat us as unwelcome visitors,
Made it hard to have a cunt in this country.
Made it hard to have a cunt in this country.
So, we are starting Cunt Cuntry.
Not out of rebellion,
Or unexamined sisterhood,
Or some sort of Seventies Separatist Revival.
We are starting Cunt Land
For that which it will stand:
One Nation
Under Survival.