What’s “sex volunteering” when it’s at home?

arghmybabydaddy:

I participated in a thing called “Doing It Again" (CN: explicit images), which has been variously described as a serious documentary with sex, an erotic documentary, and a porn. My role involved having sex with lucypaw while the talented tobitastic filmed us. Lucy is so sexy I pretty much forgot to be self-conscious for most of it.

This looks a lot like sex work, because I had to verify that I was a legal adult to be involved, and my naked body is going to appear on a thing that actual members of the public can buy and watch. The thing that stops it being sex work is that I didn’t make any money out of it, apart from my travel expenses being covered.

So maybe it technically is sex work and maybe it technically isn’t, and I’m not about to call myself a sex worker when I don’t face any of the stigma that makes sex workers so marginalised. But sometimes I want a word for getting naked on camera for a good cause, and sex volunteering seemed to fit.

It certainly didn’t feel like work.  ;)

Things I learned from tumblr trans/jendaqueers

tonidorsay:

never-obey:

  1. Male and female are social constructs and don’t exist in reality. Sexual dimorphism is made up.
  2. Male and female are feelings
  3. You don’t need an uterus to have period cramps
  4. Gender is innate but exists in different forms in different cultures
  5. The sex is in the brain and not in the body.
  6. Identities can change your body immediately
  7. It’s bigoted when lesbians are not attracted to people with dicks (‘Cause feelings!1!)
  8. Don’t dare to exclude [insert genders] from your sexual attraction. It’s hateful, bigoted and erases [insert identities]
  9. You can be not attracted to [insert genders] but you have to examine why. Especially if you are a lesbian woman.
  10. There is no escape from the awesome glittery gender “spectrum”. Even is you say you abolish it  you are still stuck in the jendah prison.
  11. sex = gender

My followers can add moar wisdom

Well you certainly didn’t learn well if any of those lessons were from me.

  • 1. Male and female exist. They are, however, still social constructions. Sexual dimorphism is also a social construction.
  • 2. Male and female are constructs.
  • 3. You don’t need a uterus to have cramps that are caused by hormones.
  • 4. Gender, as a whole, is several parts combined. And does exist in different forms in different cultures, and that includes the different parts of it. 
  • 5. The brain is part of the body.
  • 6. Identity is a zero sum game.
  • 7. Bigotry is the stubborn refusal to adapt knowledge to new facts. So it can’t be bigoted to do this. It can be prejudiced, if the people with dicks are women.
  • 8. I wouldn’t say that.
  • 9. Excluding the second clause, this is about right. After all, if you are a racist and you find yourself attracted to a peson of color, it likely wouldn’t be healthy for either of you.
  • 10. I say if you think you can abolish gender, go for it. Human social systems indicate it is a lost cause, but you know, people said we wouldn’t ever walk on the moon once, so who knows. I can tell you that Trans people would still exist, though.
  • 11. This is actually more true than not in colloquial terms (look at most paperwork). More strictly speaking, though, gender is the social manifestation of sex. That is, gender iw what you are dealing with whenever two or more people are involved.

you are slow to learn, grasshoppa, but you’ll get it eventually.

I’d love to see any plan on how to abolish gender.  I’m fascinated by the concept (No, seriously, I am).  Unfortunately, even after reading all the major (and many minor) feminist gender abolitionists, I’m no closer to understanding how this is ever going to happen.  They seem to be saying that getting rid of gender roles will somehow end gender except they also seem to think gender roles *are* gender.  Which is clearly not the case.  Gender roles may (or may not) be part of gender but they’re not all there is to it.  Certainly, given the primacy they place on sex, they will not be ending gender as sex is gender inscribed on the body.

kittensandscience:

shickalenia:

“”Marriage should only be considered in those relationships in which the members have sex while facing each other… A marriage should only be considered amongst people that can look at each other in the eye while having sexual intercourse, something that doesn’t happen in homosexual couples.””

Mexican Congresswoman Ana María Jiménez Ortiz on why same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to get married. Not the Onion. (via Gay.net)

In other news, Ana María Jiménez Ortiz is against marriage for couples who have a more than 4” height disparity.

(via consultingpiskies)

In other news, I now know way more about Ana Maria Jimenez Ortiz’s sex life than I care to. 

(via shickalenia)

Wow she hasn’t watched a lot of m/m porn, has she?

(via fritokal)

Or f/f porn, for that matter.

This has to be the most bizarre argument I’ve ever heard O_O

So… basically, I can marry anyone I’ve shagged even though most of those times have not been anywhere near straight?  Cos we were facing each other (at least at some point)?  …Weird.

(Source: gaywrites)

gcvsa:

Human culture has taught us for as long as it has existed that reproduction is a right, rather than a privilege. This is, of course, utter nonsense, because nothing that depends upon the participation of more than one person can possibly be properly considered a right. While one certainly has the…

This is odd for me.  I agree with the conclusion of the writing but not how it is arrived at.  Here are my main objections:

It’s always interesting to see a classical Liberal position on this sort of thing.  Not good, mind you, but interesting.  I mean, if you think Property or the concept of Liberty is more of a right than your right to control and use your own body, I really don’t know what to say to you.  Congrats on your Liberalism/libertarianism?  Seriously, though, if Liberty does not include reproductive rights then what exactly is Liberty and why is it a foundational right?  If you think that because it takes more than one person to reproduce then reproduction is not a right, your analysis is shallow at best.  Rights don’t have to be able to be realised by an individual to exist (unless, I suppose, you’re a classical Liberal or libertarian, although where does that leave the right to assemble?).  Furthermore, the idea that the existence of reproductive rights is why people think they have the right to demand other people’s sex/gender is just utterly bizarre to me.

Okay, I get it to an extent, the author has conflated reproductive rights with the power that privileged people have aggregated to themselves in their sexist, egotistical belief that they have the right to fuck (not necessarily reproduce with, mind you) everyone.  But they are not the same.  Me claiming I have reproductive rights, that I have the right to use my body to reproduce, is not the same thing as someone claiming they have the ‘right’ to reproduce with me without my consent, knowledge, etc.  I suppose if we lived in a world without involuntary sterilisation, forced births (aka, anti-abortion laws and actions), and so on, I could understand such a conflation.  But to look at the issue of reproductive rights as what the privileged think reproductive rights are is wrong.  Rights are to protect the oppressed.

In any event, I don’t buy this story that privileged people thinking they have the right to mate with whoever they want (but only if they have the right bits!) is why people try to figure out other people’s sex/gender.  Which brings me to my other objection:

The part about how identifying other people’s sex/gender as natural is nonsense.  People are pretty terrible at doing that which is why children have to be taught (and, almost all trans people I know, including myself, have had the experience of children asking them if they are a boy or a girl).  Also, I’m going to be honest, I’m not loving the sex-negative, heterosexism vibe to that section, either.  People are bad at telling sex/gender which is why misgendering happens to cis people as well as trans, and humans are more complicated in uses of sex/gender than reproducing the species.  Overall, this part reminds me of evopsych “just so” stories in that it ignores inconvenient facts that don’t agree with the idea being put forth as well as being entirely too pat.  Sex/gender is a social construct and a complicated one as all social constructs are.

Overall, even as the piece says that we should afford people equal dignity and respect who they are, it also mistakenly gives cis people the excuse of being “born this way” when they deny that equal dignity and respect to trans people.  Plus, there’s that whole reproductive rights thing that kicks the piece off and feels like it arrived from Planet Pro-Life.  Appreciate the conclusion, but hate what’s said to get us there.

(via amydentata)

(Source: sexgenderbody)

"I stopped counting how many people I’ve fucked because it got too hard to figure out what “sex” meant."

ethicalslut, fetlife user

My sex life in a nutshell.  Queer sex is a lot of things.  It can be hard to figure out.

Assuming casab [coercively assigned sex at birth]

ozyreads:

genderpunk:

lucypumpkin:

As I have repeatedly said, this really pisses me off.  But people, especially trans fundamentalists, seem unable to do otherwise.  Why is this?  What is so bloody vital about a cissexist, binarist system that is enforced to the detriment of all trans* and non-binary people that we absolutely need to obey it even as we seek to overthrow it?  The fact that trans* people are assuming my casab based on what I say means that they’ve become kapos for enforcing the systemic oppression of trans* people, that they assume trans* people are a monolith (or should be), and that casab determines everything about us, including our thoughts.  It’s bullshit.  CASAB IS BULLSHIT.  It was forced upon us, but as trans* and non-binary people, we determined that it wasn’t going to define us, that we know ourselves better than that.  And yet…

And yet here we are with trans* and non-binary people deciding our casab defines us.  What the hell.  I am trans* and non-binary and I call bullshit.

It’s like they don’t even realize that by validating the coercive birth assignment system, they are inadvertently saying “actually trans & non-binary people don’t exist” because if birth assignment was valid, it would actually work for everyone. 

Which is not to say our experiences can’t be heavily influenced by people’s treatment of us based on our birth sex assignment, but a lot of other things play into it too, and not everyone of the same birth sex assignment is going to experience the same things the same way. 

I think the biggest reason people like to cling to [C]ASAB/DSAB language is because it gives us a shorthand for discussing otherwise tricky things like childhood, gendered socialization, medical/anatomy-related bullshit, and how people treat us based on our perceived birth sex assignment. Which… I get the temptation, but we really need to develop better ways of discussing these things without painting people with such a broad brush that we erase people’s experiences that don’t fit.

And personally, I think our ways of discussing this may need to differ based on being trans & binary-ID vs. non-binary (regardless of whether these folks are also trans-identified or not.) I just think it works really different for binary trans folks than non-binary (trans) folks because if you actually identify with a gender that is seen as legitimate (regardless of whether you are actually treated as or accepted as that gender) you are going to actually have a compass. Non-binary folks in general aren’t going to see representations of their genders (or similar genders) that are universally validated, so we have a lot more to figure out when we’re piecing together who and what we are. It’s just a different process. 

Edit: I meant to mention something in here about how a lot of this stuff can affect intersex folks differently than trans and non-binary folks, so that might need to be an additional conversation. I don’t want to speak for intersex folks as a dyadic person, but I did want to mention that universally lumping their experiences in with dyadic folks of their same birth sex assignment is also fucked up. 

thiiiiiiiiis

At this point my casab is basically a bit of interesting trivia. What matters in my everyday life is mostly the gender I’m read as (usually gender-non-conforming female or occasionally teen boy offline, usually male online, androgyne to some wonderful people I love), and secondarily my primary and secondary sexual characteristics (I have a vag and tits and a uterus).

Also issues of gender socialization are very different for a lot of nonbinary people. I’ve picked up bits of male and female socialization, because my brain was like “oooh, yes, this is directed at guys, therefore it is meant for me.” Lumping me in with other members of my casab to talk about socialization is not just misgendering, it’s inaccurate.   

[Bolding added]

That’s exactly what I’ve been on about and what so many people seem to be willfully ignoring.

(Source: lucypaw, via ozyreads-deactivated20130608)

genderpunk:

thiscuntsays:

“pegging” does not need to be a thing

it’s anal sex

hetero men can’t handle just calling it “anal sex” because we associate butt sex with gay men (homophobia!) and straight women (sexism!)

so instead we need a “special term” for it because straight dudes getting it up the ass are “different” than the gay men and straight women that culturally are supposed to LOVE it up the butt

it’s anal sex, straight men are on the receiving end of anal sex, and that’s okay. and you don’t need a special word for it.

This!

Yeah, let’s drop the homophobia and misogyny.  Anal sex is anal sex.

(Source: landmerbabe, via glitterunicorntitties-deactivat)

deathbycurls:

derrierencriss:

i’d let the british invade me if you know what i mean

brings a whole new meaning to “the british are coming”

image

My British fiancé and I play this sort of thing all the time.  He really likes eating out my substance*.  >_>

* From the American Declaration of Independence: “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers out to harass our people and eat out their substance.”

(Source: asstheticallypleasing, via write-on-red)

"Let me reiterate that to you: If facials or any other sex act makes you feel bad, gross uncomfortable or degraded, then you should not do it ever. That is wrong. But men aren’t the only ones who like things they see in porn. In my case, there’s nothing degrading about receiving a desired sex act I’ve asked for as a consenting adult. Sex acts are degrading when they make you feel degraded — and nobody gets to decide that but you, not even feminism."

-Emily McCombs, Do Women Like Facials? (via catarangs)

“Sex acts are degrading when they make you feel degraded — and nobody gets to decide that but you, not even feminism.” YES THANK YOU.

—BB

(via fuckyeahsexpositivity)

Sometimes people change their minds about what feels degrading to them, and that’s ok too. People need room to explore in order to figure out how they feel about sexual acts. When a sex act is pre-judged as “bad” (or “good” for that matter), it introduces external pressure to the situation and makes it harder for people to figure out what they really like. There is already enough pressure to perform in ways we don’t like–not just with sex but with gender and every other aspect of our lives. Applying pressure in the opposite direction doesn’t fix the problem, it just increases the tension. Rather than pressuring people to behave the “right” way, it is more effective to give them the room to explore and decide for themselves without judgment.

(via amydentata)

(via amydentata)

"Anytime we equate fewer sex partners or monogamy or any “vanilla” sexual practice with being more respectable, we reinforce the idea that the people whose sexual desires are outside those boundaries have to trade their sexual authenticity in order to be accepted. I would much rather choose who to respect based on how they treat themselves and other people, which certainly doesn’t have to correlate with the kinds of sex or how many partners they have."

If You Don’t Respect Sluts, You Don’t Respect Women | Charlie Glickman (via grrrlstudies)

Respect and sexuality are two different things.

(via my-wanton-self)
some people need to read this over and over and over

(via la6reina02)

(via dirtyxygirl-deactivated20130502)

theslowpokewell:

Lesbian Sex Hotline - The Big Gay Sketch Show

I want “The L Word” to be written better.

Yeah, that would have been a good start…

(via wolfe-bites)

A Totally Fictional Chat Between Two Lovers

  • L: (referring to how exhausting multiple orgasms are) It really doesn't help that right before I orgasm, I stop breathing.
  • M: You should use your CPAP machine.
  • L: [grins at M]
  • M: It's a shame I don't have a Darth Vader fetish.

Tags: sex humour

amydentata:

lebanesepoppyseed:

fuckyeahlgbtqlatinxs:

[TRIGGER WARNING: Transmisogynist Murder] Buck Angel Thinks It’s the Fault of Trans Women When Cis Men Beat and Murder Them for Existing

seraseatscissers:

tal9000:

For example, trans women who might hook up with a cis-gendered guy and then he goes home with her and finds out she has a penis and flips out and beats her up or kills her. That’s horrible, and I really believe by not disclosing it’s very disrespectful to the other person because they might not be into it and it makes them feel very freaked out about themselves.

He is literally saying that if a man takes a woman home and then finds he isn’t interested in fucking her, killing her is a natural reaction.

This is literally what he is defending.

Male entitlement in the extreme.

Waaaaaaaat

Whoaaaaaaaaaaaaa whoaa that is not OK. WOW.

Like all “if you do x instead of y you won’t get raped/murdered/whatever” victim-blaming of women, this is also completely detached from reality. Many cis men have murdered their sexual partners even though they already knew their partner was trans before having sex with her. Afterward, however, they may suddenly feel insecure. Maybe they weren’t as cool with it as they thought. Maybe their cis scum friends start spreading rumors and making him into a joke. And then male entitlement sets in and makes them think, “it’s all her fault I feel insecure, maybe I should kill her. Everyone will empathize with me, the murderer, anyway, so why not?”

So what then? If a trans woman is murdered post-coitus by a cis dude, what are you going to say then? “Murder is bad, but you should have known cis men can be dangerous”? When does this stop being the woman’s fault?

If you’re ever about to say “murder is bad, but…” and then blame the victim, do everyone a favor and stop.

As I said elsewhere, cis people are able to not beat and murder trans people.  They choose to beat and murder.  The idea that trans people are so abhorrent that we have to be destroyed, or at least warned about so that cis people can maybe control their urge to destroy us, is transphobia at its worst.  That it comes from a trans man makes it sad as well as horribly transphobic and transmisogynist.

(Source: celebritiessaythetslur)

On Radical Feminist Bathrooms

freedominwickedness:

When radical feminists insist that women’s bathrooms should be exclusively for “biological females”, they invariably fail to actually explain how the hell this is supposed to work.

As a purely political term coined by radical feminists, “biological female” is both scientifically and legally meaningless — even radical feminists themselves argue incessantly about which biological features define “biological femaleness”. And then what? Are feminists going to station a nurse with a blood sampling kit at the door of every women’s bathroom, or are they simply going to endorse the ongoing practice of attacking any person who is suspected of being a trans woman based solely on appearance?

For those who say that intersex women are ok but not trans women, which intersex conditions are allowed, what kind of medical documentation is required, and who is allowed to demand papers? For those who insist that trans men should be allowed to use women’s bathrooms, how exactly are trans men to be distinguished from cis men? How precisely do radical feminists propose that the law enforce legal sex/gender segregation by means other than legal sex/gender, especially considering the status quo is that men’s and women’s bathrooms are a social convention without formal standing in the law?

Keep in mind that gender policing against trans women has repeatedly proven itself to also target cis women who are not conventionally feminine, especially (but not exclusively) butch lesbians. Do radical feminists who support policing have any answers there, or are “unfeminine” women acceptable collateral damage in the holy crusade to purge the bathrooms of trans women?

(via telegantmess)