Mame's House

Chutah took me to a small town hippie artist commune last week. She takes me to the best places. It was very interesting; a group of artists living together and sharing a house. Then they vote someone off. Just kidding. They saw a lack in their community, and decided to bridge the gap by hosting a get-together every week.

Their description of the night’s upcoming events reminded me of the zaniness of Auntie Mame. They do art related stuff when they get together, but usually nothing structured. If someone wants to play music they do so (and I think they had enough guitars to cover everyone if it was a sing-a-long), or they might paint, or do a craft, or even cook if the mood takes them. Mame would have fit in well. They were incredibly gracious and welcoming people, sharing their work with us, and inviting us to participate in everything from the projects to the drinking and making of quesadillas.

I didn’t feel my usual nervousness with them; I was there for business, so business mode was on. But there were actors there. Talking to them was like getting to speak your native language in a foreign country. Oddly, not many women talked to me. I don’t know what that means.

Everyone was excited about one guy coming to the gathering, and it seemed everyone made a point to tell us about him and how they didn’t think he could make it. He did make it. This may not seem especially crucial, but the thing was, when he came in the door, I could tell why he was so important to the group. After talking to him for about 30 seconds, I felt a connection. I wanted to talk to him more. It was so strange. I can’t remember the last time I was that interested in someone upon the first meeting. He wasn’t really remarkable in any way, but somehow, he was the most interesting person there.

We were invited back, and with our new project, we’re probably going to be spending some time with them over the next few months. I think I need to go back for art night at the hippie commune; I need to speak my native language.

This Kid: Totally Not Being Forced Into the Child Pageant Circuit

You have to go to the link to see the whole thing with pictures....excruciating, hilarious. My stomach actually lurched at the part about the "DIY fake tan."

***************************

On last night's episode of Toddlers & Tiaras, we got to learn the difference between "glitz" and "natural," and were once again assured that pageant kids participate because they want to.

This particular pageant was "conservative," and more about "natural" girls than "glitz" girls. There was still a swimwear portion, and an evening gown portion. The only real difference seemed to be the absence of false eyelashes. The episode focused on three contestants:

Kayleigh, 6


Story, 5


And Marleigh, 2


Kayleigh is a "natural" pageant girl, and she doesn't wear any makeup. She has two moms.

She kept referring to her as "our" kid. Case in point, "Because we didn't do pageants, I didn't think any of our kids would."

Story is a pro. She was born for this, since that's the only explanation as to why her mother gave her such a name. She's "glitz," and she knows what she's doing, even though she admits that she doesn't "like smiling too much." She's won tons of crowns, sashes and trophies, the latter of which she plays with like they're Barbies. This scene showed her in the act, saying, "Hey sister, do you wanna have some cookies?"

Story's older brother is involved in her training, and scores her rehearsals in his poetically titled, "Story Report."

Unlike his attitude toward correct spelling, he takes these sessions very seriously. "She looked like she was actually real mad. That's what I wrote down on 'beauty.' And she was looking at the board. I know that. She was looking at the board."

Marleigh is a different story. (Ha, "story.")

Her mother, though eternally optimistic, is in complete denial about her daughter's enthusiasm for this.

Still, she puts a lot of effort into her 2-year-old's success, and even gives her DIY fake tans.

She also involves the family pet in her torture methods primping, in a desperate attempt to normalize the process for Marleigh. Like, "See, don't you want to be pretty like a dog, Marleigh?"

This method of conditioning is flawed, though, as it appears that Marleigh doesn't just want to look like a glitz dog, she wants to behave like one, too.

Her mom kept saying things during Marleigh's perpetual tantrum like, "She really turns it on when she gets on the stage." Which just seemed ridiculous as the child was sobbing as her name was being called.

But it turns out her mom was totally right. The minute she stepped into the light she started laughing and charming the crowd.

Story, on the other hand, moves like an android who was programmed to swing her arms while walking just like humans do.

I think they sell her in Japan.

If you get two, you can make them have some cookies.

So the main thing here was Glitz vs. Natural. There were no specific rules for the pageant, so there were examples of both. As ethically superior as Kayleigh's two moms felt they were by not putting makeup on their daughter, they still strong-armed her into wearing uncomfortable, expensive gowns like any other Glitz family, despite her protests.

See, moms, this is what you get when you raise your 6-year-old to trade in makeup for sensible shoes. She starts valuing function and thinking for herself, attitudes that are detrimental in the pageant world.

In the end, 2-year-old Marleigh only got 2nd runner up. There were only three contestants in her age group.

And Story beat out Kayleigh for the crown in their age division.

OR DID SHE?


There was a mistake with the scoring, so they actually bothered to dethrone a 5-year-old, and hold a re-crowning ceremony that only Kayleigh's family attended.

There was frost on the ground, but a jacket would've covered up her "natural" look.

awesome art program online

fun to play with, I made this. I should put it on the fridge

http://bomomo.com/

Wil Rocks the World

He loves his wife, he loves his kids, he owns his geekiness, and he rocks Bon Jovi at Sci Fi Cons. My hero:



The joy to be found here is truly a thing of beauty

Cold Fish, Part 3

There is a discussion going as a result of the article about women being attracted to other women. Even hetero women, it seems, have a touch of the gay. These bloggers are discussing the possibility that patriarchal depictions of women are leading other women to be attracted to their own. One blogger states that women have become a symbol of sex. In research, such as our cold fish survey in part 1, women have described being attracted to the female form in pornography, but finding the male form has no impact. In advertising, the sexualized woman is to be found more often than the sexualized male. This is making people wonder—is the fact that media is hetero male-oriented making women entertain sexual thoughts about other women?

Dan Savage, our favorite sex advice columnist describes female sexuality as very fluid. Despite the bitching of his critics, he claims that a large portion of females that claim a “bisexual” designation go on to have long term heterosexual relationships or eventually get married--to a man.

General levels of acceptance for homosexuality are rising, so it stands to reason that women feeling some Sapphic urges would be more comfortable expressing those urges. In a time when “I Kissed a Girl” is a top 40 hit, the idea of being just a little gay is trendy. There’s also the consideration that men find the idea of two women being together to be sexy. This all gives a woman, albeit a shallow one, a lot of reasons to consider short-term bisexuality. Not only does it give a thrill because of the taboo nature of the activity, but it also gives a thrill to the object of such women’s desires—men.

This is not to say that bisexuality in women is a myth. Described above is say, bisexuality light, the “just a phase” kind of bisexuality. There are plenty of women who are truly bisexual and enjoy the benefits of having both men and women in their beds and hearts. But true bisexuality doesn’t explain the phenomenon of straight-identified women who are reportedly finding images of women to be more sexually arousing than those of men.

It seems pretty simple, really. Women are marketed. We are the sexy but (usually ineffectual) part of the superhero team, the sexy purveyors of products, the sexy focus of pornography. Very rarely are men sexualized in this way in mainstream media. Some beautiful men sell cologne, but most of the time we see an average male surrounded by beautiful women as a result of his amazing smell. (Thanks, Axe). The men in ads are complete idiots who can’t do anything, relying on the woman of the house to make everything work. I can see why this isn’t turning the women on.

Pornography is a whole issue of its own—the male participants are chosen by certain body parts, with the misguided thinking that if it’s big enough, that’s all that matters. In straight porn, the female audience is expected to be as impressed with the equipment as the men are, and completely ignore the fact that the actor is either completely unattractive or just a prop to fulfill a male fantasy of going through the same old tired motions with an attractive woman. Men are strange creatures, desiring to live vicariously through men chosen to make them feel inferior and give them hope at the same time. I’m not surprised that the token men in these films aren’t grabbing a woman’s attention.

Once women grab creative control of some of these situations, then we’ll start to rediscover the male as a sex object.

Cold Fish, Part 2

My own response to the idea that women don’t enjoy/want/desire sex: it is unfathomable how this idea perpetuates. This idea was stated as fact--women want less sex than men--in multiple sources, including this NYT article. It is stated that 30% of women suffer from a lack of sexual desire or levels of sexual desire lower than the norm. Most times, the discussion then moves directly to a description of hopes on the horizon of drugs that will be the female equivalent of Viagra; never mind the fact that Viagra works to create and maintain an erection only, not bolster a flagging desire.

Women are seen as asexual creatures and men are seen as hypersexual creatures. In my limited experience, and that of my circle of friends, this does not bear out. I know many women who want sex, and seem to want it more than their male counterparts. The idea itself is nonsensical on a biological level. How does that help the continuation of the species? Surely the female experiences the same level of desire.

In my opinion, it is the continuation of the Madonna/whore complex and the focus on male desire that leads to a lack of sexual response in women. Women still feel pressured to deny their sexuality. I’ve discovered a group of Vixens who I can be frank about sexuality with, but in other situations, and other groups of women, to admit to being highly sexual is still a bit scandalous and embarrassing. So I’m not at all sure that groups of women, when confronted with a poll regarding their sexual desire will be answering honestly. Sorry, girls.

Secondly, Cosmo tells these women that they should be focused on “blowing his mind” or a little further south. Discussions of improving the female experience of sex are few and far between. I’m sure a lot of women are experiencing the backlash from this kind of focus. Men are expecting to have their minds blown, while women are experiencing sex for pleasure, but not expected to experience the kind of pleasure their partners are experiencing.

The symptoms of this kind of behavior is easy to see. Increasingly, women are relying on sex toys in the bedroom to get theirs. I’ve heard the statistics, something like 70% of women cannot reach orgasm without a little technological assistance or direct stimulation of the clitoris. It could be expected that with this information readily available, that men would be incorporating direct clitoral stimulation to make sure that their bedmates get theirs. I’m sure there are some, but it seems to be far from common. It seems the male fantasy of bringing a woman through the power of the penis alone is dominating the bedroom, leaving large portions of the female population to either fake it, or reassure the men in their lives that they just enjoy the physical sensations and that release isn’t that important.

And true, female sexuality can be a tricky thing. It’s ever-changing, and there is never going to be the strategy that works for every woman, or even the same woman every time. Also true, the physical sensation and intimacy is enough, even when an orgasm isn’t a part of sex. But instead of jumping to these conclusions about cold women and how they need medication, had they considered foreplay? I mean, honestly.

Cold Fish, Part I

This is going to be a blog on a blog on a blog, but I found on The Stranger’s blog, Slog, and entry referring to a blog regarding the article on the cover of the New York Times’ Magazine. Follow?
The original article covered female sexuality. The same ideas are covered in the responding blogs: women don’t enjoy sex and that it is a feminist ideal to reject sex. Also, they explore the idea of women being attracted to other women as sexual objects. This will be a three part response, because I’ve got a little bit to say as the resident nympho.

Early feminist thinking cast women as the unwilling commodity. The woman was an object desired for sex, for comfort, and for the propagation of the species. She, as well as her wants and desires, were unimportant. The initial feminist response was a rejection of men, which led many women to reject sex or turn to lesbian relationships for an outlet. Later, revolutionary new feminists reclaimed heterosexual relationships, focusing on their own desires and needs, making sure that their sexuality was expressed. Now, it seems that we are in a back slide, with women’s magazine covers proclaiming that their magazines hold the secrets to how to catch a man, how to keep him, and how to perform insanely sexual acts to blow his mind. In the same way as the description of modern Japanese sexuality in the love hotels post, it seems that once again as women we have been suckered into this idea that male sexuality is dominant.

In Sex in Crisis (by Dagmar Herzog), the author states that the basic female and male fantasies are complimentary. The female fantasizes of being pleasured and the man fantasizes about giving pleasure. But even in this, on the basic level, the psychology of the female leads her to be passive. In the blog responses that inspired this post, there is an argument that it is a situation of nature vs. nurture. And it makes sense. In a patriarchal society, there is a fundamental flaw. While a woman always knows that a child is her offspring, a man has no guarantee. In order to make sure that the wealth of a man is correctly passed on to his biological children, restrictions must be placed on female sexuality.

This is where the hymen and concept of virginity get it’s special place in the male imagination. If a woman comes to you with a guarantee that she couldn’t be carrying someone else’s child. If you carefully regulate her sexuality afterward, your chances of fathering the children in your household are much improved. This is the beginnings of the male shaping of female sexuality--the Madonna/whore complex. A man wants to experience pleasure with a openly sexual woman, but at the same time, can’t trust that woman to have only his children. So you have sex with the whore, but you marry a Madonna, a woman who exhibits much less sexuality. Therefore, you can be mostly sure she won’t run around on you, because her interest is less anyway.

Because the desired situation in most cultures is marriage, then that shapes the way that females are treated and taught about their sexuality from birth. If you want your daughter to grow into the kind of woman that can be married, then you must teach that daughter to be the Madonna. This is becoming a less important idea in modern American society now that women are capable of building their own lives as adults, but in the past, and in other cultures, it is tantamount. Be virginal and pure minded, and you survive. Otherwise, it is a life of expressing your sexuality at the whim of men looking for whores (and the set of behavioral rules that goes along with that).

I know as a woman from the Midwest, I have struggled with this set of cultural rules. I was raised in the Madonna tradition. As an adult, after a marriage that failed in large part to my being unable to fit the Madonna role, I struggle to fit into the dichotomy. At times, being the whore is divine, but I can’t support the image completely. I’ve proved that I’m not the Madonna. I’m stuck with the curiosity and knowledge that has led me to discover what I want, but the old-fashioned upbringing that inhibits me from being fully confident and able to explore the things that I want. I question my sexuality, from my drive to my desires, and fear that from a societal standpoint, I’d be found deviant.