Sex Geek

I’m back from Cuba safe, sound, salsa-ed to kingdom come, and only mildly sunburned. I will post about my Cuban adventures when I have a little more time - right now I’ve got a ton of cool announcements to share, and about, oh, five minutes between work contracts. So this will be a quickie.

For starters, this weekend is the April Fool’s Fetish Ball weekend - specifically, there’s a Fetish 4Play event tonight featuring a corsetry fashion show, a massive fetish ball at Bain Mathieu tomorrow night (it’s held quarterly and usually attracts upwards of 500 people!), and CinéKink on Sunday night (see my last post for details). Plus, the lovely and brilliant Midori is in town giving a bunch of crazy hot workshops all weekend long too. I highly recommend the Sex Bondage one on Sunday - it’s got nothing to do with complicated knots and everything to do with getting all hot and bothered. Plus, you get to see some sexy thing nearly naked and bent into all sorts of interesting positions. Sweet! Needless to say I’ve got a busy weekend ahead of me!

If your tastes run to queer human rights activism rather than kink - or if you’re really a sucker for education and want to catch a dose of both in the same day - there’s a free workshop this coming Sunday, April 1 (heavy day!), at 1 p.m. on Helem’s work defending the rights of LGBT people in Lebanon and the Arab world. Check out the press release below.

And last but not least, beyond this weekend, there’s a stellar event taking place this coming Thursday, April 5th: Mangos with Chili, a travelling cabaret show featuring queer and trans people of colour. I’m really looking forward to this one! Info below as well.

So… lots to keep your mind bent and your body entertained. Hope to see you out there. I promise I’ll post something more thoughtful soon. Among other things, I’ve finished four books in the past two weeks, so you’ll be treated (?) to a few reviews. Plus, I’ve got my dirty little hands on an advance screening copy of a new lesbo-porno-mockumentary - so you’ll get a review of that, too.

Ain’t life grand?

***

Sunday, April 1st, 2007, 1pm – UQAM – Room DR-200

Workshop "Helem International"

In partnership with the Regroupement Étudiant dans la Diversité Sexuelle of UQAM, Helem invites you to take part to the 3rd edition of "Helem International", an annual workshop that sheds the light on our organization, on the local and world level. Wether you are gay or straight, Arab or not, you are welcome!

Helem, the Arabic acronym for "Lebanese Protection for LGBT", is the first and sole international advocacy organization for gays, lesbians, bisexuals & transgendered (LGBT) individuals in the Arabic society. Taking advantage of the relatively liberal atmosphere in Lebanon with regards to the rest of the Arab countries, Helem established itself with the goal of eliminating all sorts of discrimination towards the LGBT community in the country and abroad.

The most explicit form of discrimination against which Helem struggles is the law 534 of the Lebanese penal code that punishes "unnatural sexual intercourse" and is used primarily to target homosexuals.

How did Helem’s adventure start? What have we accomplished since? What are we working on now? … All these questions and many more will be answered during this presentation which will be followed by a period of questions.

WHEN : Sunday, April 1st, 2007

WHERE : UQAM – Pavillon des Sciences de la Gestion

315 Ste-Catherine East, Room DR-200

TIME : 1pm in english (3pm in french)

FREE ENTRANCE (donations are always welcome)

www.helem.net

***
Mangos with Chili: Sweat, Sweets and Nightmares
A Queer and Trans People of Colour Cabaret

Mangos with Chili: the floating cabaret of QTPOC bliss, dreams, sweat, sweets and nightmares, is coming to Montreal.  On Thursday, April 5th at 8 p.m. at Le Studio, 2109 St. Laurent Blvd., the multi-cultural, multi-gendered and multi-genre traveling cabaret of queer and trans of colour performance artists will be making a stop here during their Northeast tour.

Using theater, spoken word, drag, dance and performance art to tell stories of class, survival, sex, dreams, magic, colour, and trans, femme and genderqueer identities that span Sri Lanka to Aztland to Morocco to the Philippines to the Caribbean to Brooklyn to migrant small town Washington state, Mangos With Chili is a groundbreaking performance cabaret, taking This Bridge Called My Back into the 21st century. Inspired by similar traveling roadshows such as the Tranny Roadshow and the Sex Workers Art Show, in 2006 sister femme vixen writers and performance artists Maria Cristina Rangel and Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha decided to start a similar tour featuring the most brilliant queer and trans artists of colour they knew. Using their experience creating events in Toronto, Boston, New York and the West Coast, the first Mangos With Chili tour hit the Northeast in April 2006.

This year’s Mangos with Chili will be another two weeks of history-making performance, in celebration of their lives, stories, survival, and the legacies they are creating for future generations of queer and trans people of colour. The spring lineup consists of Thomas Andre Bardwell, Kay Barrett, Ching-In Chen, Dulani, Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha, Maria Cristina Rangel (aka Miss Cherry Galette), Suhayl Ramirez, Ignacio Rivera, and Victor Tobar.  The show contains both collaborative and individual work, bringing a wide spectrum of breathtaking queer and trans artists of color to universities, community colleges and community art spaces.

The event will be held at 8 p.m. at Le Studio, 2109 St. Laurent Blvd. The venue is wheelchair accessible.  ASL interpretation is available upon request with 48 hours notice, by contacting the 2110 Centre (centre2110@gmail.com or 514-848-2424 ext. 7431).

The cost is 5$, with no one turned away. The event is all-ages.

Mangos with Chili is being co-presented by Queer McGill, the 2110 Centre for Gender Advocacy, Q-team, the South-West MTL Community Skill Share, CKUT Radio 90.3 and the Union for Gender Empowerment.

Contact:
Media Interview - Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha, co-Artistic Director (416) 533-2697, mangos.with.chilli@gmail.com, myspace.com/mangoswithchili

Information - nora butler-burke, the 2110 Centre for Gender Advocacy 514-848-2424 ext. 7431, centre2110@gmail.com

And with this, I’m off to pack for my vacation, which will involve sun and sand and Spanish and the Substitute Date and a whole lotta laziness. I’ll be posting if I have Internet access, but I’m not sure how reliable/expensive it’ll be, so I may be off the radar for a week. Yaay!

Okay, just a quick gripe: anyone notice there’s a three-tiered non-consensual masochism involved in bathing-suit shopping?

1- General body image yuckiness even for those of us who don’t have too many body issues;

2- price tags that almost induce apoplexy;

3- the challenge of finding gender-appropriate swimwear when you’re gender-flexible. Yes, it gets stupidly expensive.

But I digress.

***

Welcome to the April edition of CinéKink, Montreal’s kinky film and discussion series!

***Please note the temporary location change and minor time change—read on for more info!***

What? “The Blue Angel”
Directed by Josef Von Sternberg, 1930
Starring Marlene Deitrich

Film synopsis: For director Josef von Sternberg and Marlene Dietrich it all began with “The Blue Angel,” one of the masterpieces of Germany’s Weimar cinema. This landmark film, based on Heinrich Mann’s novel “Professor Unrat,” thrust the sultry and unrestrained Dietrich on an unsuspecting international film audience. She plays the prototypical role of Lola, the singer who tempts repressed professor Dr. Immanuel Rath (Emil Jannings, the king of expressionist actors) a provincial prep school teacher who becomes incensed when he learns his boys have become infatuated with Lola Lola (Dietrich), a cabaret singer. Heading to the Blue Angel, a nightclub, to catch his pupils, Rath instead becomes bewitched by the sensuous Lola himself, beginning an obsession that drives him to the depths of despair and complete submission night after night. The film perfectly captures the masochism and degradation of the Weimar Republic, just before the rise of Adolf Hitler. And yet the moral confusion exhibited by Jannings is really due to his own torment. Dietrich is merely an instrument of his innermost desires, standing on stage in top hat, stockings, and bare thighs singing "Falling in Love Again." Visionary, haunting, and emotionally unrelenting, “The Blue Angel” stands as Sternberg’s crowning achievement.

When? Sunday, April 1. Doors open at 7:00 p.m., screening starts at 7:30.* There will be a short break followed by a discussion for up to 90 minutes.

*Our usual time is doors 6:30 / film 7:00, but we’re pushing it back a bit in case anyone’s planning to take in Midori’s Sex Bondage workshop that same evening from 5 to 7… check http://www.attitudes.cc/Eng/Workshops.htm#s1 for more info!

Where? The 2110 Centre, at 2110 McKay (between De Maisonneuve and Sherbrooke, a 2-minute walk from Guy-Concordia metro). No food is provided, but feel free to bring your own; there are numerous restaurants and cafés nearby.

How much? We ask for a $5 contribution to cover the costs of space rental, equipment and movie acquisition. This is a not-for-profit event.

About CinéKink: The CinéKink film and discussion series aims to be challenging and stimulating to all - from staunchly vanilla to total SM newbie to seasoned kinkster! Every first Sunday of the month, we screen an SM-related film. Each screening is followed by a one-hour discussion facilitated by local kinky sex geeks Andrea Zanin and Mylène St Pierre. People of all backgrounds, genders and persuasions are welcome. Come for the cheap flicks, stay for the quality conversation!

I have now seen it all. Someone finally invented a prosthetic vagina. Basically the female-genitalia equivalent of a packer or strap-on. It’s really rather ingenious, and pretty realistic, all things considered. You can even choose from a variety of hairstyles (!) and colours (!!). Fascinating.

I’d be really interested in hearing from someone who wears one, and finding out what kind of sexual pleasure they can get while wearing it - considering the fully fuckable vaginal canal is completely unrelated to any physical nerve endings, so penetration is unlikely to tweak any happy spots, and the design doesn’t seem too hard-on-friendly for the wearer. I totally get that psychology is 90% of arousal, but nonetheless, a little physical stimulation surely helps. So if there are any curious dudes out there willing to spend a small fortune to obtain their very own latex vagina, please, drop me a line once you’ve given her a test run, OK?

In a funny way, this kind of ties into a little thingie I’ve been meaning to write about for a week or more now. For International Women’s Day, Vanier College puts together a panel on women’s sexual diversity every year. They asked me to come as the Voice of Bisexuality for the second year in a row, and it was just as fun this time as it was last time. I was partnered up with a lesbian and a transwoman, and we each took 10 or 15 minutes to talk about our life stories for an auditorium full of 17- to 21-year-olds. Like last year, I was impressed by the diversity in the audience, and by the quality of what my fellow panelists had to say.

For the first time this year, the organizers passed around slips of paper to the audience following the presentation, and invited them to write their questions down if they were too shy to raise a hand and ask them. Of course, there were a number of good ones of the out-loud variety, but the written ones were also really thought-provoking.

One in particular definitely grabbed my attention, so I called dibs on answering it. The question was, "What do two girls do in bed?"

Okay, so I know that a lot of heterosexual guys are both titillated at the idea of watching girls getting it on together, and confused as to how such an experience could possibly be satisfying given the absence of the Almighty Penis. Like most dykes, I’ve fielded this question more times than I can count, and done a fair bit of eye-rolling along the way. I mean, come on, guys. It’s usually asked without much sincerity, and even when it is, the answer’s not that hard to figure out on your own.

But somehow, the written form being devoid of potentially lecherous tone, when I read the question it just sounded sincere. So I gave it a sincere answer, which went something like this:

"You know, when most people think of sex, they think about it as a penis going into a vagina. If this is how you define sex, than everything you do before that moment is foreplay, i.e. not-sex, and everything you do after that is irrelevant. Tab A into Slot B is all that counts. And within that stereotypical Tab-A-into-Slot-B paradigm, the stereotypical sequence of events is that the guy gets a hard-on, has "sex" with the girl, comes, and falls asleep, and the girl lies back and pretends to enjoy it. But if you don’t have a Tab A to put in Slot B, you can’t possibly be having sex, right?

"Clearly there are a few flaws with this model, not the first of which is that it doesn’t really work all that well even for heterosexuals. (Insert audience laughter.) So what I would ask you to do today is redefine your idea of what sex is. Instead of Tab A into Slot B, let’s think about sex as giving and receiving pleasure, with pleasure being the purpose of the experience. With that in mind, regardless of the people’s genders, you might use your hands, your mouth, sex toys or other body parts to achieve the goal of enjoying pleasure together - the possibilities are limitless."

It was definitely a fun question to answer. Who knew I’d be handed a golden opportunity to queer 200 young people’s idea of what sex is? Whee!

But back to the latex vagina issue. The unfortunate thing about this creation is that it’s basically a full re-creation of the Tab-A-into-Slot-B model for male-bodied people to buy right into… and I feel like that’s really pretty unfortunate. I’m not a sex toy designer, so I’m not entirely sure how it could have been done differently, if that’s even possible. But it seems awfully reductive somehow.

Especially since the reverse concept isn’t.

Here’s where the latex vagina differs from a strap-on. Even at its most basic, the base of a strap-on cock presses right into the clitoral area (assuming they’re wearing a harness that’s well-fitted to their body), so whoever’s wearing it can get some direct stimulation. And there’s a proliferation of strap-on designs that feature "innies" - spaces on the inner lining of the harness that can accommodate penetrative toys (front and/or back) for the wearer. Some of them also include spaces where you can slip in a vibrating egg for a bit of added excitement. And some dildos are designed with extra ribbing on the base end so that the wearer gets a little tickle with her pickle.

In other words: psychology or no psychology, strap-ons provide all kinds of opportunities for the phallus-wearing hottie to physically get off. Whereas a latex tube that rests somewhere under your scrotum doesn’t really provide much rub-a-dub for the wearer.

I’m totally open to being contradicted here… in fact I’d really like that. In the meantime, I’ll maintain my stance that if I’m going to boink a vagina-sporting boy, I’d rather he actually get off on the experience in some way that’s a little more concrete than conceptual.

Of course, I don’t know how many boys of my acquaintance are likely to have both the interest and the cash to acquire a latex vagina. So it looks like I may not have to consider the possibility anytime soon.

That said… now that I think of it… there is something more than a little absurd about the idea of strapping on a silicone cock to fuck a latex cunt. Something happily genderfucky and… well, kinda hot.

Maybe Tab A into Slot B isn’t such a bad idea after all. If you’re the proud owner of Tab A, that is.

Today, I spent the afternoon at a sugar shack packed to the rafters with queer parents and their little ones, many of whom were high as kites on maple syrup and its numerous derivatives. I had the pleasure of dancing a jig or two with the Spawn, who was exhibiting his most excellent fashion sense in sporting a lovely pair of glitter overalls. If ever there were such thing as a two-year-old flamer, he’s it. Which makes me absurdly happy, of course.

You know, it’s not every time that I hang out with the Spawn that I come out spouting new philosophies of life. Just most of them. Today, I think, was a bit of an exception, in that there were no amazing moments of insight instantly incurred by proximity to a queer toddler. Oh, of course, the Lesbian Moms and I got into some wonderful conversations about the nature of family, gender, the politics of sperm donation, and all sorts of other great stuff - but that’s par for the course. They’re always brilliant. But it’s usually the Spawn himself who inspires little tiny eurekas in my brain. This time, though, we just had a lot of fun. Sign me up for more of that.

I did, however, get my dose of queer insight for the day - I watched all the way up to episode 10 of The L Word, season 4, with my friend J. She has been shamelessly bootlegging them off the Internet and I’ve been shamelessly borrowing and enjoying them au fur et à mesure. No, I’m not going to provide any big spoilers here; suffice it to say that the fourth season is definitely the best yet.

I do, however, have a problem with all the cheating.

I mean really. Every single time a character on this show has the opportunity to cheat on their partner, they take it. Every. Single. Time. What’s up with that? Are people in real life really that weak, desperate, careless, whatever? I mean some of them, sure, but all of them? Come on, already. It’s getting old. The plot device has worn out. Enough. Come up with a new way of creating relationship drama, puh-leeze. Here are a few ideas, just for starters.

- Show a person wanting to cheat, and deciding not to, and feeling good about that decision. Novel concept.

- Show a person wanting to cheat, and struggling not to, and coming home to their partner and bringing it up and talking about it, and make that the source of the relationship drama. What does a monogamous couple do when one half wants to get some extra-curricular nookie?

- Show a person not interested in cheating, and being kinda disgusted when someone keeps trying to tempt them. There’s at least some drama potential there, no?

- Show a person not having the opportunity to cheat, but bringing up the option of non-monogamy that’s ethical and negotiated. I mean really show a couple dealing with the idea of it, and making a few mistakes along the way, but being at least somewhat successful at it.

- Show someone wanting to cheat, and choosing not to, and then going home and breaking up with their partner, and not going after the object of their desire. Show them dealing with the reality of being single for a while, and figuring out what they really want.

- Show a couple inviting a person in for a threesome, and having it not go horribly wrong in the end.

I could go on… and on. I dunno, is my life really that far off the beaten track that I can think of these options? Is it really that terribly unrealistic for people to make different choices than consistently opting for instant gratification? It seems like there’s potential for a lot of interesting plots here, with a bit more variety than the current "oops, I did it again" motif.

Please note that only one of the above options involves successful non-monogamy. Why? Because I truly believe that non-monogamy is not for everyone. Having a whole show full of happy, ethically non-monogamous glamour dykes would be quite a stretch. Just because I happen to be one (minus the glamour part, except maybe on special occasions) doesn’t in the least imply I think that everyone should do things my way. I just think there are more than two ways of dealing with the natural human tendency to experience attractions to other human beings. There have to be more options than "be single and go for it" and "be monogamously involved with someone and go for it anyway." Argh.

I guess I just think there’s more room for variety in a queer setting. The queer sugar shack vs The L Word: if we can come up with dozens of ways to make families, surely we can come up with dozens of ways to organize our romantic relationships too. I ran into several dykes today who probably now think I’m a parent (that’s what you get for chasing a toddler around a crowded room), when in fact I’m actually a spaunt to a little guy who’s the product (in part) of a sperm donation from my ex-boyfriend, the Spuncle, who was introduced to the Lesbian Moms by his ex-boyfriend. Said spuncle once uttered the following: "It’s funny that I’m trying to impregnate a lesbian I’m not having sex with, and having sex with a lesbian I’m not trying to impregnate."

The Spuncle’s ex-boyfriend’s new boyfriend ended up becoming roommates with the Spuncle, just to close the loop and all. Meanwhile, I was enjoying the occasional SM play date with the Spuncle’s other girlfriend (at the time), and… well, you get the idea. And now, the Spuncle and his other girlfriend have split up, the Spuncle and I have split up, the Spuncle’s ex-boyfriend moved to another city with his current boyfriend, I still enjoy the occasional play date with the Spuncle’s ex-gal, and I have the privilege of entertaining a fabulous tyke every once in a while and hanging out with his moms.

Now, everyone I’ve mentioned? We’re all still friends. Many different relationship configurations; many different kinds of connection; lots of caring, friendship and love.

And guess what? No cheating.

Not that I’m trying to make a point or anything.

Of course, maybe I’m just crabby since I’m crashing off my own maple-syrup high. That shit is hardcore.

There’s this discussion that crops up on a pretty regular basis among BDSMers. It usually involves someone ranting about how pissed they were when they saw somebody wearing a leather cuff, or a collar, or something of the sort that gave the mistaken impression they were a fellow kinkster. Sometimes this leads to uncomfortable come-ons or embarrassingly misfired conversation-starts; sometimes it’s just a question of seeing someone and thinking of them as a big ol’ poser.

Now, when you’re a member of a BDSM subculture, there’s a whole complex set of symbolism behind a lot of the jewellery and clothing that kinksters often sport. A leather vest with a crest of some sort will often indicate a title (Mr. Leather Montreal, for example) or membership in a leather group of some sort. (This, if I’m not mistaken, hearkens back to the symbols of biker groups.) A cuff, armband or ring worn on the left indicates the person is a top/dominant, and on the right, a bottom/submissive; worn on both, it either indicates switchiness or is totally meaningless except to say “hey, I’m kinky and I like armbands/cuffs/rings.”

A collar generally indicates a propensity for slavehood or submission; some people will hang an open lock on their collar to indicate their availability or a closed one to indicate they’re spoken for, but this is getting into fairly obscure detail. A hanky worn on the left back pocket or tied around the left arm indicates top/dominant status, and on the right, bottom/submissive—and the colours of a hanky are very specifically indicative of preferred activities. (My faves: black and red. By all means, go figure that out if you’re interested.)

But how the hell are ya supposed to know all that if you’re a happy vanilla person who just walked into the local Le Château and saw a cute leather cuff that matches your outfit? Really, you’ll only ever be exposed to the meanings of this stuff if you’re already kinky and active in the community, with its listservs and bulletin boards and dungeon dress codes.

So when people start getting all mad about it—"Hey, these are OUR symbols, and they’re being culturally appropriated by clueless idiots who wear them in ways that both confuse us REAL kinksters and are disrespectful to our subculture"—I can’t help but want to say, “Oh, get over it.”

Oh, okay, it’s not quite that simple. I will admit that it always bugs me when I see people who’ve gone out of their way to construct some sort of "hard-core" image via their style of dress in ways that, to me, come off as imitative and costume-ish. In high school, we used to call them "weekend warriors" - rich white kids who’d dress all gangsta to go downtown on Saturday night, and get back into the prep-school uniforms their mamas pressed for them on Monday morning. But that’s more silly than offensive. And clearly this sort of thing is pretty subjective and open to interpretation - what looks "false" to me may in fact be perfectly legit, or may be seen as totally credible by someone else. Nonetheless, it just kinda makes me roll my eyes when I see someone attempting to be something they’re not (or I perceive them not to be), whether it’s kinky or something else entirely.

Of course, there’s always the odd instance like this one, where the mainstream appropriates something kinky and gets it way, way wrong. But to me that’s more funny than upsetting.

On the other hand, I think people should be free to dress as they please; I don’t think kinksters have some sort of god-given right to the wearing of leather accessories and symbols. So even if sometimes I chuckle to myself at someone’s inappropriate or unaware signals, I can’t find it in myself to get all huffy about it. We don’t own our symbols in the first place; people have been wearing leather (think Aboriginal tribes), collars and cuffs (Roman torques or Victorian chokers, anyone?), triskeles (Pagan symbol), lock-and-key pendants (they were selling ‘em to teenagers in the Consumers Distributing catalogue when I was knee-high to a grasshopper) and all sorts of other symbols for centuries. Even Tony DeBlase, the creator of the leather pride flag, deliberately left its symbolism open for interpretation. I mean really - nobody’s culturally appropriating anything we haven’t already appropriated ourselves and adapted to our uses.

Now here’s where the huffiness really does bother me. I think it’s more than a bit of a stretch to identify the mis(?)use of leather symbolism as cultural appropriation similar in scope to the kinds of appropriation people carry out with actual ethnic groups. I think that to make that equation indicates a lack of recognition of what true cultural appropriation really is, with all its racist, colonialist, imperialist and consumerist elements. They really don’t compare except perhaps in the most basic and de-contextualized ways. And it bugs me when I see a community made up, in the majority (though certainly not exclusively), of white middle-class people getting all bent out of shape and self-righteous about cultural appropriation. It just does. Same way it bugs me to see gay people get all pissy about the appropriation of gay culture - as though queers had some right to our self-expression that transcends the rights of straight people to wear a fucking rainbow or use a strap-on.

I’ve got no clue whether the degree of anti-racist awareness among the leather community (particularly the white folks) is higher, lower or exactly equal to the average, but it always makes me want to raise an eyebrow when I see a largely white subculture cry "cultural appropriation."

Certainly, the BDSM/leather/fetish world is a legitimate subculture, and certainly we are stigmatized, pathologized and sometimes even criminalized. The NCSF exists for a reason - they’re working their asses off in our defense (south of the border, of course, but still). In no way do I think this cause is illegitimate or undeserving of resources. I simply think we should put our energy into fighting those battles, not policing who gets to wear leather and debating what sort of sexual behaviour qualifies people to sport the symbols common to our community.

For me, I see this as an example of white folks appropriating cultural appropriation itself. And I want no part of it.

And here I thought this bullshit was over sometime back in my childhood. (Not to mention - can they not just fucking leave Jaggi Singh alone, already?!)

I received the following press release through the Raging Trannies, who in turn seem to have received it from WSSA (the Women’s Studies Students Association, Concordia University), though I’m not sure if they’re the ones who wrote it or not. Anyway, read on and be appalled.

***

PLEASE FORWARD FAR AND WIDE

For Immediate Release
Montreal, 9 March 2007

Police brutality mars Women’s Day Celebration in Montreal
Police Assault women at International Women’s Day March

Yesterday, as Montrealers, along with many around the world celebrated International Women’s Day – the event was marred by police brutality in which three young women were assaulted, injured and traumatized. Among the issues that were brought up during the speeches at Montreal’s women’s day march was that in Iran women were prevented from celebrating international women’s day. And women in Pakistan were also attacked yesterday in a women’s day event. Yesterday’s events ensure Montreal shares this distinction!
                         
Marchers celebrating International Women’s Day had walked from Place Emilie Gamelin (Berri Square) to Phillips Square, along Ste-Catherine Street. After speeches they made their way back to Berri Square. The police made an announcement asking people to walk on the sidewalk.  Jaggi Singh, who had been one of many male supporters among the 200 strong celebrating international women’s day moved onto the sidewalk. The others continued marching in the street. Police officers began to rush towards Singh, still walking on the sidewalk. They grabbed him and threw him against a nearby police car.   

Other marchers gathered around the car out of concern for the violent way in which police were intervening. Police began hitting and pushing people indiscriminately. Several people were knocked to the ground with batons and night sticks. Emma Strople, a 17-year-old marcher, was hit in the chest with the end of a night stick and thrown to the ground, by an officer later identified as Doyon. Her ribs were bruised, she was winded, trembling from shock and her knee was cut open enough that the blood seeped through her jeans. Two other women were also injured - one woman’s lips and mouth were swollen and bleeding, from being punched in the face by a police officer; another left with cuts on her knee and stomach. The police showed a total disregard for the injuries mounting around them. They placed Jaggi Singh in the police car and began to leave. The marchers that remained left by Berri Metro.

The 8th March Committee of Women of Diverse Origins, one of the key groups involved in the march strongly denounces last night’s police brutality yesterday and the arrest of Jaggi Singh. Are we to go back to the time when women in Canada were not considered ‘persons’? When women were to be seen and not heard? In Quebec today on the eve of an election we have seen how violence against women is still something that is trivialized, including by those that seek to represent us in the democratic system. Yesterday’s police attack on women and their allies proves that even those who are supposed to be the guardians of the law and ensure gender equality, see women as people to be controlled with the threat and the use of violence. Women, as we struggle for equality are facing a backlash. How can we feel safe when the police themselves exhibit the violence that is endemic to patriarchy?

More than ever the police brutality of yesterday demonstrates that we have a long way to go; that women’s struggles for equality that have always linked to improving the lives of our families and communities, ensuring democratic processes of equality and participation of ALL in the political process are constantly BLOCKADED by the state and its representatives. How can women seek assistance against the violence in their lives when those entrusted with their safekeeping are perpetrators of brutality and violence?

Last night’s police violence is shameful and fearful. We demand that the City of Montreal and the government of Quebec immediately investigate the assaults and arrest of yesterday and that women, our allies and supporters feel safe and free to work in support of equality and justice.

Info: Dolores Chew 514-885-5976 dolchew@hotmail.com

-30-

I was on the metro the other day, heading to a speaking gig at Vanier, when the most deliciously androgynous young thing stepped onto the car. At first I thought she was a bit nuts - I heard her singing under her breath in the way people usually do when they’re conversing with the voices in their head. But boy, oh boy… she was very cute indeed. Which was enough to attract my attention, but what she did next certainly served to hold it.

With speed and purpose, she reached into a backpack, pulled out what looked like a sheaf of papers, and proceeded to peel one back - a sticker, a large one. A few moments later, the sticker was cheerfully plastered right on top of the metro map across the car from me. It read: "Towanda declares wrinkles to be sexually desirable. And cracked lips." It came complete with charming hand-drawn illustrations.

Then, at the next stop, she stepped off the metro. As she walked by me, she kept up the soft little singing, and passed close enough that I made out the word "Towanda," over and over again.

Nuts? Well, I’m not so sure anymore. People might have called Evelyn nuts in the following scene from the film Fried Green Tomatoes (based on Fannie Flagg’s novel Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Café, which my book club read a couple of years back):

***

Evelyn (in her car): Excuse me. I was waiting for that space.
Girl #1 (who just stole said space): Yeah, tough!
Girl #2: Face it, lady, we’re younger and faster.
Evelyn: … Towanda. (screams and smashes her car into the girl’s car) Towanda!! Yes ma’am!
Girl #2: What are you doing? Are you crazy?
Evelyn: Face it, girls. I’m older and I have more insurance.

***

So… was she crazy? Well, not really. The film’s Evelyn/Towanda subplot was all about that character gaining empowerment, having started out as a frumpy, wimpy sort of gal… not about her becoming a nutcase. If anything, it was about a woman finding ways to assert herself in a world that was pretty consistently focused on keeping her meek and quiet and guilty.

So in a world where people spend billions of dollars a year on skin care products to fight wrinkles, is it really insane for someone to do their small part in changing the perception that this is a worthy place to funnel our money? As someone who has in the past stuck little stickers reading FEED ME on ads featuring scary-skinny models and who is nonetheless widely believed to be perfectly sane, I gotta say, this is not grounds for declaring someone mentally unfit in my books.

On the other hand, I’m not much a fan of cracked lips - and it’s not really about the aesthetics - much more about the generalized physical discomfort of having split skin. Especially, though by no means exclusively, if I’m kissing someone. Or eating grapefruits, which I have a tendency to do fairly regularly. Yowch. So… maybe I’d take issue with that part of the sticker. But that still doesn’t mean the androgynous cutie is crazy.

Will a sticker make any major impact on a culture of rabidly pro-smooth-skin and anti-aging (which translates as anti-aged!) people who prefer Botoxed brows to faces etched with the traces of their personalities? I don’t know. Probably not. But in combination with growing numbers of people who refuse to look like plastic, perhaps it will. It certainly put a smile on my face, and if that makes my own early wrinkles a touch deeper, it’s all good with me. And if that makes me crazy right along with the singing androgynous culture-jammer, well, surely Towanda would approve.

We are a diverse group of individuals united in anger and committed to direct action to end the AIDS crisis.

- Opening statement for each ACT UP meeting (AIDS Coalition To Unleash Power)

***

Have I mentioned there’s a ton of stuff going on right now in this amazing city? This is the eternal problem of the culture-hound blogger: when there’s so much cool stuff to check out, there’s much less time for writing about it, but if you wait until there’s time to write it down, you might forget the best parts.

My solution: obsessive note-taking during events. People sometimes look at me funny, but whatev. I stand by my geekiness.

Anyway, so I’m going to be skipping back all the way to March 1st for this post - and crossing my fingers that at various times during the coming busy week (possibly today), I will have the time to write up the various things that have happened in the days between. It’s not so much an effort at cataloguing my geeky pursuits as it is that these events - lectures, social events, random occurrences on the street - have been inspiring a lot of thought, and that, my friends, makes me intensely happy in a way that’s hard to describe.

All righty. Moving along.

So on March 1st, Sarah Schulman came to speak at Concordia as part of the HIV/AIDS Lecture Series. Her talk was entitled "United In Anger: the ACT UP Oral History Project."

Now, the reason I know who Sarah Schulman is goes back a few years to a book we read for my book club - her novel Shimmer. Unfortunately I didn’t like the novel much. It wasn’t awful or anything, it just didn’t grab me. But in the intervening years I’d heard she was a big activist (which you wouldn’t have guessed from the book), so I wasn’t sure what to expect of her talk.

That said, I’d most definitely heard of ACT UP - the legendary direct-action AIDS activist group that was active in the ’80s and ’90s. Their work got incredible amounts of media coverage. If you’re a queer-documentary-film-loving person, like yours truly, you’ve surely seen reams of footage of the various huge public actions staged by ACT UP to draw attention to the plight of people with AIDS who, at the time, didn’t have access to treatment, privacy, health insurance or basic human rights. (Of course, these problems are far from fully solved, but there have been major strides - for white folks in North America, at least.) The group was  particularly active in the USA but also in Canada, or at least specifically in Montreal. In addition, the culture-jamming, posters, fliers and other visual materials produced by ACT UP activists quite profoundly changed the face of modern advertising - not that this is necessarily a laudable thing, but it certainly goes to show what kind of impact they’ve had.

So Sarah Schulman came to talk about her project to create a publicly accessible oral history of ACT UP’s work, jointly with Jim Hubbard, so that as the members move on or age or die or otherwise become unable to share their experiences with the next generation, we won’t end up forgetting the amazing things they did. As she said: "Change gets made in counterculture." And countercultures don’t always have libraries and slick Hollywood movies to tell their stories.

I’ve got a soft spot for queer history - to me, no matter how accepted queers become by the mainstream, we’ll always have our roots in our outsider status, in a place of struggle and challenge. As Sarah explained during her talk, the mainstream has a way of integrating outsiders as though they’d never been outsiders in the first place, rather than acknowledging its own complicity in keeping them out. She talked about hearing a radio program that talked about how AIDS used to be a problem for mainstream America, but we’ve gotten over that by now… without ever saying anything about the struggle (quite literally to the death in some cases) to make that change. As Ann Northrop, one of the oral history interviewees, said: "Our job was not to be liked. We were doing what we were doing to accomplish things. We weren’t liked, but we forced change much quicker than it might otherwise have happened."

It’s as though the Acceptable People are having a party, and they shut the door and lock it, and throw eggs at the Unacceptable People from the windows, and maybe aim a few bullets your way. Then, when the Unacceptables have been loud enough for long enough, and made enough irrefutable political points and forced enough people to look long and hard their own arrogance and abusiveness until they cracked, and public pressure gets to be strong enough, the Acceptables unlock the door and offer you a drink and say, "Hello, old chum. Nice to see you again. What kept you?" Never mind that you’re standing there bleeding and covered in egg and exhausted from your work. And maybe, just maybe, you don’t want to be their friend. Especially if you’re pretty sure they’re going to take credit for being all kinds of open-minded for having you at their party.

Of course there are some people - many, really - who are so relieved to finally be among the Acceptables that they shrug off the pain, take a quick shower, and emerge in a silk tie to sit at the table with the rest of ‘em, never again saying a word about their experience. And you know, while we think of that as selling out and decry it as such, there’s an element in there that I can understand - the sheer relief of being Acceptable can be a powerful drug indeed.

But there are others who don’t forget what happened. It’s a funny thing - I don’t know what the perfect solution is, really. Selling out sucks, but the whole Unacceptable thing pretty much sucks too; we are social creatures and we want to connect, not be rejected. I am, however, quite sure the answer isn’t an either/or, black/white solution. There must surely be ways to take up space among the Acceptables while not sacrificing the knowledge that comes with the experience of being an Unacceptable.

I think the answer must have something to do with stretching the boundaries of what Acceptable means in the first place - and causing the Acceptables to think about how there’s some piece of every one of us that’s Unacceptable so it just isn’t fucking cool to throw eggs at the people who have a few more pieces than those who’ve been invited to the party. It’s about throwing the door open and declaring a block party - rather than stepping inside and locking it behind you.

Then again - another very valid point Sarah made was that nobody gives up power voluntarily. It’s always a struggle. The Unacceptables are no different from the Acceptables in that regard. So I guess that might explain the power of selling out - when someone offers you power, it’s very hard to say "no thanks" when that’s what you’ve wanted all along. It’s also very hard to say "I’ll take this part, and that part, but really guys, the rest kind of sucks and I’m not interested." It takes a lot of strength to see the nuances instead of buying into the package - and sometimes a fighter gets exhausted.

Anyway, that’s just one of the many tangents my little mind went on while Sarah was talking. Jeezis, but she’s an articulate speaker, and she made so many good points that at times I thought my head would explode.

Not to mention, there’s this interesting phenomenon that happens for me when I see footage of things like AIDS protests. I discovered, in talking with my friends J and M, that I’m not the only one. Let’s see if I can describe it…

Have you ever been part of a protest march? Not just a few people with signs - I’m talking about a big one, like the World March of Women in 2000, or the FTAA protest in Quebec City in 2001, or the huge street demonstrations against the war in Iraq a couple of years ago that saw 150,000 Montrealers braving the bitter cold all through downtown. It’s not that smaller marches are any less powerful necessarily, but there is a certain groundswell of emotion that you just can’t possibly fucking miss if you’re in the middle of thousands upon thousands of people united in some kind of protest. It’s sort of like riding the emotional edge of sobbing and screaming all at once, only magnified by the sheer number of people to the point where it’s a greater force than the sum of its parts could ever explain.

Well, I’ve experienced the real thing at all three of the marches I just mentioned, among many others. And when I see footage of that sort of thing - public protest, that is, relating to a cause I believe in - I feel a sort of instant shot of that energy. It doesn’t take much; seeing a few moments of footage, or a compelling image, catapults me right into that emotional space. And when the footage disappears, it might remain in my conscious mind, but the urge to cry evaporates fairly quickly.

So you can imagine a talk like Sarah’s - there were at least a dozen moments at which I was sure, in hearing her speak and seeing the imagery from the Oral History Project website that she projected, that I would break down crying. And then she’d shift topics or someone would make a comment or my foot would itch, and it would dissipate. It’s like a little puff of intense emotion, a tiny explosion, a flare.

To me, this is part of the experience of connecting with the history of my community. This is how it feels to learn about my roots, about the people who came before me and did work that has benefited me, sometimes in ways I would never have guessed. Here’s a great example: Michael Hendricks, local and national queer activist extraordinaire, took the mic for a few moments to recount his experiences with ACT UP Montreal. As part of his little summary, he mentioned the following: "The reason we have public prescription insurance in Quebec is because of ACT UP. It took us from 1990 to 1995 to get it, and it exists nowhere else in Canada or the USA."

I had no fucking clue. Public prescription insurance saved my fucking ass when I was a dirt-poor 19-year-old student and couldn’t afford my birth control pills, among other things. Now that I’m a freelancer with no health insurance, public prescription coverage is still saving my ass now - and all things considered, I have minor needs compared to what some people have to deal with. But I never would have guessed that in this way, among many others, I am indebted to my ancestors, some of them very much still alive today. (Michael may be creaky - or was that cranky? - but he’s far from done living yet.)

I also learned, at the beginning of Sarah’s talk, that she was called in as an expert witness to defend free speech in the form of John Preston’s book I Once Had a Master - a leather/SM classic - at the Little Sisters bookstore trial in Vancouver, B.C. Which is enough to make her a hero in my books even if she hadn’t done any AIDS activism. Again: we fucking owe our ancestors big time!

I don’t know if I can really do justice to much else in Sarah’s talk. I think the best way to learn more about what she had to say would be to check out the ACT UP Oral History Project website, read the history there, and listen to the interviews - there are dozens of five-minute clips available. I’ve never seen a site quite like it, honestly - it’s a treasure trove of historical riches. I think Sarah and Jim are doing work right now that’s in some ways at least as important as the work they did when they were doing direct action as ACT UP members. After all, if we don’t learn from our history, we’re doomed to repeat it.

I will sign off with a few quotes from the talk.

"It’s very easy to pathologize oppressed people. Oppression has emotional consequences. We treat people like shit and tell them they’re worth nothing, and then we criminalize them for not behaving in the same ways as people who are valued and privileged." - Sarah Schulman, regarding the criminalization of people who transmit HIV

"If you can tap into a forbidden emotion, you can unleash enormous power." - Dudley Saunders, ACT UP Oral History Project interviewee

"When you get into theoretical conversations, that’s the end of your movement, in many ways. Everything we did [in ACT UP] was focused on action - propose an action and we’ll debate the action." - Sarah Schulman

"Violence in political action is a double-edged sword. I think violence is the only time we take things seriously in America." - Patrick Moore, ACT UP Oral History Project interviewee

"Homophobia wastes people’s potential, because it prevents them from making the contributions they need to make." - Sarah Schulman

"The more left your left is, the more credibility your centre has." - Sarah Schulman

"I’m not here to be silent! I’ll be silent for centuries! I need to make noise now!" - regular participant in Montreal ACT UP meetings, as quoted by Michael Hendricks

This afternoon, I attended a panel presentation at McGill entitled "Trans People and the Law: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Case Studies," chaired by Sam Singer (general sweet FTM-about-town and ASTTEQ worker) and featuring Viviane Namaste and Micheline Montreuil - respectively, a professor at Concordia’s Simone de Beauvoir Institute and founder of ASTTEQ, and Quebec’s most experienced lawyer in the realm of trans advocacy, both of them transwomen themselves. Phew. Heavy hitters!

Of course, Viviane and Micheline are both incredibly knowledgeable and both are very engaging speakers, each with their own style. The problem is, when people try to tackle such a huge subject in panel format with a very limited amount of time - like, twenty minutes per panelist plus a half-hour of questions or so - I never end up feeling satisfied in the end. You could teach at least a full semester-long undergrad-level course in this - how the heck can you do the topic justice when packing it into the equivalent of a short dinner date?

Nonetheless, they did an admirable job of raising a number of issues.

Viviane gave a fair bit of information on Montreal’s history of using municipal by-laws in discriminatory ways to enforce the oppression of trans people and other marginal folks such as sex workers, injection drug users, squeegee punks, homeless people and so forth. She insisted that if trans people want to move forward in fighting discrimination through legal channels, it will be key to adopt a broad and inclusive strategy that covers issues common to many marginalized groups.

Her history of Montreal’s by-laws included the following little timeline:

1963: A by-law is enacted against fraternizing between artists and patrons in clubs - in other words, trans performers and strippers can no longer encourage men to buy them drinks in return for a commission from the establishment.

1972: A by-law against "vagrancy" (that was only applicable to women) was changed to one against solicitation (i.e. sex workers cruising for clients), which technically could cover men as well as women… but according to Viviane’s research, 86% of the "men" who have since been charged under the by-law have actually been transvestites and transsexual women.

1980: Prostitution was banned in Montreal. This was later struck down as unconstitutional, since prostitution is under federal jurisdiction; instead, a by-law was enacted against the "operating of services without a permit." But of course there is no specific permit for sex work, and the likelihood of a generalized service permit being granted for prostitution is minimal.

Fascinating glimpses into what has historically made this city tick!

Viviane also made the point that often, trans legal strategies have centred on the gay and lesbian model in which discrimination suits are pursued. She pointed out that other models have also been effective - for example, in France, a case was won for trans people to be allowed to change their ID to match their gender of choice, and it was won based on the argument that incongruous ID papers violate a trans person’s right to privacy by de facto disclosing their trans status.

Micheline then explained that a lot of the progress that trans people have made in terms of having their rights respected within major Quebec government institutions has come from the fortunate circumstances of who happens to be in key positions and how they choose to interpret statutes, laws and policies - such as name-change bureaucrats who have been bending the rules for out-of-province transfolks and allowing them to change their ID without following the set Civil Code rule of needing to return to live in Quebec post-surgery for at least one year before a name change is acceptable. She in turn insisted that we need to actually focus on getting the laws changed, rather than relying on friendly administrators and jurisprudence, because otherwise our gains may be quite simply killed if ever the situation changes.

I guess what I got out of the panel was a sense of history and a few interesting examples - both of those valuable things. But I found myself hankering for greater depth, for a cohesive sense of what exactly the legal situation is for transfolk. Where are we at, really? What issues fall under whose jurisdictions? What challenges are currently underway, if any? And more than anything - how the heck can people get involved in supporting those challenges? I’m not a lawyer and I already find the minutiae of the system to be immensely incomprehensible - but I can still get behind the politics of change, and offer my support. If only I know where to channel it.

I’m not bitching about the quality of the work that Viviane and Micheline are doing, nor about the quality of their presentations. I just feel like they barely scratched the surface, so while my academic curiosity was piqued and semi-satisfied, my activist side most definitely went hungry.

(The wine, cheese and fruit, however, satisfied the hunger I worked up while hiking up the stupidly steep hill to get to Thomson House where the panel was held. Who the hell had the brilliant idea to stick a university on a mountainside? Those McGill kids must have killer quads and great stamina…)

In the end, good cheese aside - I’m way interested in supporting legal challenges on behalf of trans folk, but I’m not even sure where to turn for further information. I will most definitely post again if I should find any!

On an international BDSM discussion list that I’m part of, a thread came up recently about how some people feel that BDSMers are more polite than the average person – the idea being that we’re grounded in a subculture that places great value on etiquette and consideration.

I like the idea, really I do. I’d be more than happy to imagine that kinky folks are all the cream of the crop in that department. Unfortunately I really don’t think it’s the case.

In my personal experience, the vast majority of public-event-participating kinksters at the various events I’ve attended in Montreal, San Francisco, New York, Toronto, Ottawa, and Black Rock City (Burning Man) are more polite and respectful than the vast majority of the people I’d find at a regular bar in those same cities (BRC possibly being an exception, but Burning Man is its own strongly consideration-oriented subculture in the first place). However, there’s also usually at least one or two people in those same BDSM settings who predictably do things I find incredibly rude, that surpass the sorts of things rude people do in regular bars.

At Peel Pub, someone might get wasted and spill beer on me, try to grope me on the dance floor, speak loudly in my ear, or whatever. At a dungeon, 98% of the people wouldn’t dream of doing any of those things; I’ve been appalled at the rare occasion when someone has even gone so far as to run their hand down my arm without asking, because we’re so sensitized to consensual touch that anything other than that feels invasive.

On the other hand, if someone’s going to be rude in a dungeon setting, it’s usually someone who’s clueless (deliberately?) about how to operate in a sexualized space. The typical profile is that of a man who thinks “Hey! Check this out! I’m in a hedonistic paradise with all kinds of hot women! They must be here for my entertainment and pleasure, and look at their outfits… they must have no sexual boundaries at all! So of course I should feel free to whip out my cock and masturbate near them / throw myself at their feet and start licking their boots without introducing myself because surely they all want to help me live out my personal fantasy of shoe worship / comment loudly and explicitly on what I think of their looks because of course they’re dressing like that for my approval / assume it’s OK to order them around with no preamble because if they’re here they must like that sort of thing.”

The other piece of the courtesy question is the assumption that BDSMers only exist as part of a dungeon-rule-respecting subculture. It makes sense that in theory subcultural membership works as at least a mild predictor of similar behaviour and norms, but people are kidding themselves if they believe that a) BDSM is just one subculture and b) everyone who practices some form of BDSM is part of that/those subculture/s.

Fact is, the BDSM/fetish world is in fact a far-flung and wide-ranging array of overlapping subcultures, and each of those is in turn broken down by region and a number of other factors. The subcultural norms of politeness in, say, a tight-knit group of twenty leatherdykes in Edmonton would likely be very different from what you’d find at a 2,000-attendee latex ball in London or a 200-member high-protocol Gorean group in Washington or a 75-registrant looner (balloon fetishist) conference in Florida or a 12-man leather contingent in an Australian gay pride parade.

Which would also be quite different from the many, many GDIs (God-Damned Independents – an unfortunately resentful-sounding term for a very legitimate reality) out there who might like to torture each other but who’d never set foot in a dungeon or find themselves on a kinky mailing list. And I personally believe the vast majority of kinky activities that take place in the world happen in the privacy of people’s bedrooms with no connection to community of any kind, and hence no exposure to any subcultural norms, no matter how varied.

So while the idea might hold true in certain contexts, I still don’t think it’s fair to extrapolate from that to "all" or even "most" kinksters being more courteous than average.

We are cuter, though.