The problem with gender assigned qualities and Tantra

Dear readers, it's a balmy summer afternoon, August springs upon us and time flashes by so quickly I sometimes fear I cannot keep up! Since returning from the U.S where I attended the very awesome Desiree Alliance conference 2 weeks ago, I find I'm given to serious consideration of gender, both in general but perhaps even more specifically within my tantra practice and my personal awareness.

Now before I went to the conference, I'd already expressed concerns in various tantra chat threads on Facebook and elsewhere about assigning qualities to gender within healing practice. Of course this doesn't only apply to our work practices, but to life in general. One thing that really impressed me, amongst many, at the conference was the very keen awareness of allowing people to self identify their preferred gender pronouns, and to keep out of assumption about what that then meant to those individuals. Some make choices for political reasons, some for personal reasons, some for social reasons and many to challenge to status quo. So, on getting back to the U.K (where in my view we are still pretty behind on this), once again I find the issue of not only gender pronouns but gender meaning is up in my face.

Even as I try to find images to suit my blog today, I am still besieged by pink for girls blue for boys and pinky-blue for transgender, half dress half trousers. How woefully inadequate is that?!

One thing I've found in my tantra practice that has consistently troubled me is that within tantra there is an idea mooted that women, as 'shakti' or the 'divine feminine' need to bring men, or shiva 'the strong masculine' into healing and into their hearts. Well now, for me as someone working with sexuality and healing for over 25 years now, I don't personally want that job! I don't think it's up to women to bring men into healing, I think it's up to MEN to bring themselves into healing. You see the problem in assigning this quality of the nurturing feminine into gender roles is that for me, we can get so easily stuck there. My personal inner Goddess is way more Kali than Tara. That's not to say I am all fire and no frill, or all rage and no receptive, but I most certainly am more than this soft 'feminine' I hear about a whole lot in tantra practice.

My Kali is powerful and strong in her sense of self autonomy. She has clear boundaries and knows her own mind. She can breathe fire when necessary and can heal and transmute with equal potency. For me, her depiction atop a male figure is not about destroying the masculine, more the quashing of the rigid and unyielding elements of either the self or the other. In other words as easily applicable to slaying the internal demons as externalising a negative image of the masculine. I do not wish to be perceived as woman responsible for healing all ills in the world if it means I can only get there from my soft heart space, my womblike womanhood. Sometimes my passion comes from my sex, from my core of the wild woman, like those Women Who Run With The Wolves in Clarissa Pinkola Estes's seminal book. The archetype of the Wild Woman and the Witch suit and serve me better than those of the Virgin (not literal) and the Mother (again not a literal interpretation). I quite like Crone as it seems she too holds the capacity to be more akin to the Medicine Woman or Shaman of the tribe.

For me, some of these wilder gender assignments hold a distinct element of the 'other' within them. Genderless, wild and free. For men, I imagine you too get tired of having to uphold the strong masculine, the Warrior? What if those archetypes don't speak to you. In retrieving our sexuality, we MUST reject gender based stereotypes in my view and move beyond the 'soft feminine' and the 'strong masculine', or at the very least remain super conscious of how, why and where we assign those qualities.

Men are more than capable of stepping into their own healing, their own vulnerability, of finding their own courage. Women too. Let's challenge this assumption that all women are nurturers, and all men active proponents. And for all genders, however we may choose to self-determine, let's free up the range of possibility.

My tantra has teeth, and it has balls. Where do you stand?

Sacred Whoring

What does the word 'whore' conjure up for you? Have you experienced it as a derogatory label being hurled at you as some justification for another person's anger? Have you been judged for your sexual expression, or your dress sense? I'm asking as it's a word I quite like these days, like 'cunt' and 'bitch', words I once feared, perhaps as I too was locked in what it felt to be on the receiving end of their judgment rather than their potential for liberation.

These days, I am less and less apologetic about who I am in the world and how I choose to express myself, and my activism has taken on new perspectives as a result. When I was younger, it was fair to say that I hated much of my experience of sex and my personal circumstances were very different back then. Now however, I have much more in common with many of the tantra clients I see (the age gap has narrowed!) and my awareness of just how much healing is needed around sexuality has grown enormously and it is my conclusion that "Houston...we have a problem"!!

The first thing I notice is how nervous many men are around women. Granted I'm there in a certain capacity and some nerves are to be expected, however, it's more than that and I'm suspecting that many men aren't at all sure of us women. Secondly, when new clients first arrive it's fair to say the majority seriously do not know how to touch, be touched or communicate with a woman. I don't say this to judge, more to raise awareness of how much work there is that can be done by conscious sexuality educators - healing work that can ripple out into the world which can only improve the relationship between the sexes as far as I'm concerned. How ironic then that so many anti-sexwork lobbyists assert the opposite and hold us accountable for buying into the damage that's done in the name of gender differentials; simplistic reductionist arguments that fall at the first hurdle.

One of my all time heroines, Annie Sprinkle, pictured below, has consistently worked from this premise.

Annie knows that we need more love and more sex in the world and uses her unique point of view and skill to bring this out in her own inimitable style. Her sexuality knows more variety in its expression than almost anyone I can think of and I adore her! As sex workers, Annie and another of my heroines Scarlet Harlot, inspire me to bring the same gifts through my own work, so when I meet a man who is clearly awkward and inexperienced around women, I see it as my challenge and a labor of love to reduce his anxiety and with kindness and compassion teach him about how to communicate sexually. Not all men ask or need to know but many benefit for sure.

Some clients approach making love as if fixing the broken mechanics of an industrial drill - with as much sensitivity as an ox at work and as much awareness as a bull in the proverbial china shop. It takes guts and discretion to gently coax a man into a softer way of being without at the same time making him feel emasculated; that's not the point after all. My clients get my respect from the outset and I expect the same, and that includes every part of the contact whether verbal or physical. I simply expect respect. These are not fixed states. I'm more than happy to be called a whore by a lover unless the word is being used with underlying violence of one sort or another.

Sex workers can teach men a great deal about love, pleasure and intimacy. We can earn a good living, get some kicks along the way and besides all of that, let's not forget.... 

A BLOW JOB IS BETTER THAN MOST JOBS!

What happened to our Balls?

I've been watching one of my fave programmes on TV at the moment on catch up today, The Crimson Petal and The White, a drama series set in Victorian London based on the 2002 book by Michael Faber. The programme caught my eye as its main character 'Sugar' is a prostitute working out of a well known East End brothel and is quite frankly, totally hypnotic to watch.

For those who don't know or have access to this programme, the series outline is as follows (quote verbatim from BBC website):

"Sugar is a sexually adept prostitute whose reputation for sensuality precedes her; alluring and highly sought after she ‘never disappoints’. Her intelligence and wit sets her apart - self-educated and ambitious, she’s able to engage in heated discussion whilst satisfying her clients.

Having spent years at the mercy of men, Sugar yearns for a better life and craves the freedom to make a living using her brain rather than her body. When not at work Sugar pens a dark, gothic novel in which a prostitute enacts revenge on all the men who have wronged her - a theme that has threatened to seep into reality.
Mourning the recent death of her friend Elizabeth, beaten by two punters, Sugar is determined to flee the hell that is St. Giles. With the arrival of William Rackham, this escape becomes a tangible prospect - and one that Sugar is keen to exploit."

The programme also features actors of the calibre of Richard E Grant, Gillian Anderson and many more and is incredibly well cast in my view. Mrs Emmeline Fox, played by Shirley Henderson has a mission in life to 'rescue fallen women' - and my word don't sexworkers know that there are many still keen to do this even today. In doing so, and in ignoring the reasons perhaps more evident in Victorian times (poverty and lack of opportunity for the working classes etc), they then choose to ignore the personal advocacy of sexworkers, when most of us it's fair to say are more than able to speak for ourselves.

Now what intrigues me about this programme is its timeless topical focus on what makes a woman lose her mind, her virtues, or most sadly for me, her very essence, intelligence and strength. The woman playing Rackham's (the man who takes Sugar from the brothel by paying for exclusive 'rights' to her) wife is portrayed as slowly losing her mind in a way that is utterly comprehensible I'm certain to most women watching. Exploited and patronised by both her husband and her (extremely repellent) doctor who is systematically abusing her in private, separated from her child as being an 'unsuitable' influence, denied her feelings and her 'uncooperative' points of view (i.e one step up from a placid doormat) she begins an extremely well acted  descent into a living hell.  Sugar, originally cast as a spirited, alluring and intelligent prostitute is seen slowly losing her 'fire' as she becomes further and further enmeshed into the 'normal' lifestyle of her patron. It's almost agonising to watch; a bird of prey tethered and controlled until the role of the wife and the prostitute begin to become indistinguishable.

As stated above though, it's not only men who separate us into the Freudian categories of virgin/whore, oh no...as women we have become most adept ourselves. We make women responsible over and over again for the destructive consequences of the male gaze, in fact, so good have we become at labelling ourselves I fear, that the cost is undoubtedly very high in the loss of our fire, our chutzpah, our very balls! 

Virginie Despentes writes a whole book on the subject in her title King Kong Theory, lamenting the loss of female 'masculinity' and the corresponding loss of the male expression of femininity, both so apparently threatening even in today's society that people are beaten so severely they are left traumatised for daring to express those parts of themselves in public: see Maryland attack of this week in Macdonalds store where staff and public not only ignored this vicious beating but saw fit to film it instead!! (WARNING: This video is very ugly and could trigger - please be aware and accept no less than a public outcry - already the 'victim' is being reported a 'prostitute with previous criminal damage convictions' and what a disgusting and thinly disguised attempt at justification that is....).

I can almost not bear to watch the inevitable decline of Sugar in the Crimson Petal, it leaves me feeling so sad to bear witness to this all too familiar 'taming of the shrew', ironically the woman playing Ms Fox in this series, the 'saviour' of the 'fallen women' is also playing the role of Kate in the current theatrical version of the Taming of The Shrew!

My call - Ladies of Ill Repute, guard against the loss of your 'ill reputations' for fear that you become some hideous version of the Stepford Wife, our ambitions are surely far loftier than that!

Fetish or Fantasy?

This is an old post, however having recently revived my blog page after a long haitus during which I destroyed most of my internet presence and writing/photos (folly I know but broken hearts do strange things to rationale), I'm so glad to have found a few bits and bobs that I'd like you to indulge me in re-writing and posting some of those lost pieces.

When does a fantasy become a fetish? Do men fetishise sex more than women? Are the sexes really programmed that differently or is this just another common myth? We have most certainly struggled to express our masculinity which in turn has a massive impact on men's true ability to comfortably express their femininity.

We hear told that women want hearts, flowers and romance and are often happier with a cuddle than a really good fuck, whilst at the same time we’re told that men are simple creatures, easily pleased and able to separate sex from love, but is this the truth? Are the genders really so different in the expression of our deepest desires and urges? I know that there is a huge part of me able to separate the two but it is rarely given free rein; subconscious fear of judgement?

When in bed with a lover a while back, I began to complain that I didn’t want to talk dirty but wanted to just “make love” for a change....you know…just you and me, simple, without all of the fantasy. I was pouting and complaining in a lighthearted kind of a way, but underlying this comment was a bit of a weekend ‘whinge’;

“Our sex life has become too pornified! Can we just make love please, never mind all of this fantasy?!”
His reply: “so are you suggesting you don’t enjoy our ‘play’ as much as I do?”

My first response was to state that yes, I thought perhaps he was more into it than I, at which point he called me on it. “But you have all kinds of fetishes in relation to sex, just as many as I do”. “No I don’t!” I responded a little too quickly. Simple. I denied it! And he called me again, this time giving examples of some of his ‘fetishes’ and offering me examples of what he considered to be some of mine. I began to contemplate whether this felt true, were these examples he was offering me really fetishes?

I asked for his thoughts on why men (most of the men I’ve known at least) seemingly enjoy a different kind of sex to women (as in fucking over love making). Don’t get me wrong, I’m not painting everything with a generalised brush here and I know there are cross-overs, however there also seem to be certain patterns I’ve noticed. Are men really so much more straightforward about it and able to separate sex and love? Why do they seem to shy away from what women refer to more as ‘love making’? Why do so many women seem uncomfortable getting the sex they may want and simply demanding a good fuck without being labelled a 'slut' or a 'whore' (both of which are labels I'm happy to embrace unless they're being delivered with physical threat).

His theory was that men are generally very task and object driven in life, and that this makes them feel very grounded. In sex they are no different. There is a ‘task’ at hand, an objective and a goal as outcome; to orgasm and ejaculate. He suggested that the more ‘touchy-feely’ approach often favored by women makes men feel uncomfortable as it’s too intangible, too much weighted in feelings and the subjective as opposed to actions and the objective. I found this fascinating.

We continued to talk - when does a fantasy become a fetish? He mentioned several of what he thought of as my ‘fetishes’. No, I disagreed; I fantasise about that but it’s not a fetish. There’s no obsession there (in the first example or two he offered at least). Then he mentioned two more, one not even sexually motivated, and it was here that he finally found an admission. Yes, I admit to having a fetish…about shoes, and one for the smell of my own panties after a long day at work, which I find totally erotic. There may well be more.

We discovered that for both of us, a fetish usually creates a physical trigger and is inherently related to the body, whereas a fantasy often remains happily placed within the realms of the imagination, or the mind. So for example (using shoes as it’s more convenient to illustrate my point), when I’m shopping and see gorgeous shoes I have to seriously battle not to stop, touch them, sniff them, try them on and admire them, and then fight even harder not to buy them when I cannot afford them or don’t actually need them. I become physically stimulated and this stimulus is directly connected to my sensory awareness and the erotic drive in me. I lust after them and feel driven to fulfill this fetished urge. When I’m wearing certain shoes, I become the fetish object and I feel powerful in good heels. By contrast I have a big doctor fantasy yet I can happily enter a GP’s surgery and not get triggered into physical response (inappropriate to begin touching the doctor!), therefore I consider this a fantasy rather than a fetish. Were I to get a Pavlovian response to the examination table for example, or to the stirrups, then I would call it a fetish.

Men, it would seem, have many more fetishes than women, or at least my man has many more than I do! He offered examples of all of his male friends and the things he/they fetishise about; panties, hosiery, air hostesses, cheerleaders, white knee-high, socks, cunnilingus, spanking, and so much more, yet for me, though I may enjoy playing with some of these things, for the most part they remain ‘fantasy’ and do not invoke a physical response or any kind of mildly obsessive behaviour.

Does this difference (if you agree there is one) between the sexes hold true for others? Is it bound to cause problems? Can it be understood and accepted thus creating a more peaceful way of being in relationship? What would it take for couples for whom there is a vast chasm between their mutual understanding and desires to feel comfortable with each others sexuality? So far I have found about 4 things I’d consider having a fetish for whereas my lover hadn’t stopped formulating his list before it was time to get up!

Do you have a fetish? Are you able to express it/indulge it? Do you have to keep your fetishes secret? What do you consider to be the main difference between fantasy and fetish and do you believe there is a gender distinction in evidence with this?

I've re-considered some of this since separating from the lover in question, and talking recently with a male friend, we discovered we were both equally desiring of balance in our sex life; a bit of 'sensuality. coupled with a bit of lustful hard fucking seems to be the perfect balance, regardless of gender. I'm also more inclined to think that the line between fantasy and fetish is far less clear than that given in my examples above. I could quite happily feel a physical trigger to my doctor fantasy and were social norms different, indulge in it following the response of my clearly wet pussy!

Now that's undeniably physical.....so perhaps ultimately it's all just a matter of self control?