DOMA Didn’t End, It Wasn’t Struck Down, and Stop Saying That It Was

Unless you have been living under a rock the last couple of days, you likely know that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recently struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). However, if you have been reading about the decision in many online sources, you may have been misled.

In many of the news outlets that I have been looking at over the last 48 hours, I have seen one HUGE mistake being reported again and again. This mistake is news outlets reporting that DOMA has been repealed or struck down.

 

Sadly, this isn’t what actually happened. The ruling that the SCOTUS handed down did not strike down the entirety of DOMA, but rather, the ruling struck down a specific section within the larger law. Specifically, the ruling by the SCOTUS struck down Section 3.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage’ and `spouse’

`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.’.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item:

`7. Definition of `marriage’ and `spouse’.’.

Assuming that your legalese is up to scratch, you know that Section 3 of DOMA was the section of the law that was being used to stop same-sex couples (i.e. those who have been legally married in a state which allows same-sex marriage) from accessing the same benefits that are given to heterosexual couples. So, by striking down this section, the SCOTUS paved the way for a lot of really positive things… in the states that have legal same-sex marriage.

In these states, the federal government can no longer deny access to the benefits of marriage based on the fact that the marriage is between two members of the same-sex. This means that, unlike the day before the decision, immigration, pension, healthcare, and tax benefits have to be extended to same-sex couples in the same way that they are in heterosexual couples.

Needless to say, this is great news, even if it only truly impacts a select subset of the LGBT subset of the population of the US.

However, what would have been ever greater news would be if the entirety of DOMA was struck down. If this were the case, not only would Section 3 (the federal ban on benefits) be removed from the books, but so would Section 2.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following:

`Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

`No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.’.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item:

`1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof.’.

This section of DOMA is the section that bars the federal government from enacting any legislation that would open the ability to marry up to same-sex couples. Basically, it makes it so that same-sex marriage, as it is at the moment, must be won on a state-by-state basis.

Should this section had fallen to the pen of the SCOTUS as well, the federal government could have, and likely would have, drafted a bill aimed at making same-sex marriage legal nationwide. While this would not have likely been successful (as you could imagine given the Republican controlled House), it would have almost definitely been stalled for the remainder of the Obama presidency, giving the Democrats strong political fire power come election time.

RCMP Harass and Threaten Trans Women… again

RCMP Sign
Image by: waferboard

On Thursday, two Canadian Transgender Artists, Nina Arsenault and Lexi Sanfino, were arrested after their WestJet flight landed in Edmonton, Alberta. During this flight, Lexi Sanfino took off her top and walked topless down the aisle of the plane. When the plane arrived at its destination, Sanfino was taken into custody for causing a disturbance while Arsenault was detained but released without charge.

Here in Canada, laws against women baring their breasts are scantly used. For the most part, police and legislators alike understand that any woman arrested for baring her breasts would likely challenge the law all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada. Given that Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms promises equal protections under the law based on sex, the law in question (and all laws like it in Canada) would most likely be ruled without standing, and thus, be struck down.

Because of this, police officers use other laws to cover their butts. In this case, they used the law against “causing a disturbance,” a catch-all that allows police to arrest anyone who they feel is doing something they don’t like. Usually, when the police resort to catch-all laws to arrest people, the line in the sand between fair policing practices and police abuse of power has already been crossed.

In this case, that is exactly what happened. In further conversations with Nina Arsenault, news sources such as the Huffington Post and The Toronto Star found out that, while in police custody, Nina had her camera confiscated, had pictures and videos (including those of the arrest) deleted, and both women were verbally harassed by police. Given that the arresting officers were members of the RCMP and given the RCMP’s track record of harassment, this isn’t surprising to me. However, the comments (allegedly) made by the officers still warrant examination.

According to the Toronto Star,

Arsenault and Sanfino said they were taken to an RCMP holding cell, where Arsenault claims an officer took her camera and deleted photos and a video of the arrest.

They claim the officers began referring to them as males after seeing their passports.

“They were addressing us by male pronouns,” said Arsenault. “I was like, “OK dude, I understand that legally it says ‘M’ on our passports, but we present as women. . . . Everyone knows I’ve had a lot of surgical procedures to feminize myself.”

“They said, ‘Just so you know, we might have to put you two in the male prison.’ ”

Regarding the alleged comment, Sanfino said, “All I kept thinking is they are threatening me with one hell of a good time.”

Arsenault alleges an officer questioned her about her operations.

“He said, ‘So have you had the final sex change surgery? Do you have the original parts down there? Did you get something new?’ I said, ‘I don’t think that has anything to do with my arrest.’

If the conversation between police, Sanfino, and Arsenault took place the way that Arsenault reported to the Toronto Star, there is a (yet another) major issue with the RCMP. While it is not exactly uncommon for people to ask trans people about what is between their legs, it is still something that is deeply problematic. In this case, however, it wasn’t just that someone was breaching social decorum to ask questions that were transphobic and offensive, but a police officer (someone with training in how to lawfully arrest and detain people) was asking them.

However, this is not the worst part of the conversation, not by a long way. The worst part of the conversation comes when the police officer openly threatens to place these two Trans women in Male prison environments. In doing so, these officers have to have a clear understanding that this would put the women at greatly increased risk of sexual violence, assault, or even murder.

If the police officers in this conversation didn’t know that this were the case, this wouldn’t have been a threat, it wouldn’t have even needed to be mentioned. However, in mentioning that they could well lock these women up in male lock-up, these officers made it extremely clear that they wished to use their power to harass, embarrass, debase, and degrade these women.

This shows, yet again, that police services throughout Canada do not have the training or general knowledge to appropriately handle the transgender population. Further, this shows, yet again, why legislation (such as Bill C-279) is needed to ensure that those in positions of power do not continue to use their power to deny opportunity, harass, degrade, assault, or threaten trans people as a matter of business as usual.

Concealment in an Unlawful Assembly: A New Weapon for Police Officers

Photo by: Dmitri Korobtsov

Yesterday, a new private member’s bill was passed into law in Canada. This bill, C-309, sought to change section 65 and 66 of the Criminal Code to make it illegal to wear a mask at a riot or unlawful assembly. While this may seem like something that could really be in the public good, I am of the opinion that the law is nothing more than a covert attempt by the Harper government to dissuade people from taking part in protests and other demonstrations.

You see, there are two main problems with this law as it exists:

1) The law is defined much too broadly.

I have to admit that part of the reason that the law is defined too broadly is because it relies heavily on other legal terms that are already much too broadly defined. Like most bills, you get into this definitional nightmare where everything is defined in a circle, and as you follow that definition circle, you realize that it could mean just about anything.

For this law, the definition of the situation under which the law can be utilized was defined as any “unlawful assembly.” However, the term unlawful assembly already has a definition in the Criminal Code of Canada, and is defined as:

63. (1) An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they

(a) will disturb the peace tumultuously; or

(b) will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.

This means that any gathering with three or more people could be considered to be an unlawful assembly so long as the neighbourhood around the gathering fear that the gathering will disturb the peace in some shape or form. As these guidelines for determining whether a gathering is lawful or not are not exactly stringent, the vast majority of large protests and peaceful demonstrations can easily be categorized as unlawful. This means that, as far as this law is concerned, it is no longer legal to wear a mask (or paint your face) for a protest or large gathering.

2) The law is redundant

Of the two main problems that I have with the law, this is likely the bigger of them.

As I have already mentioned, the law seeks to make it illegal to wear a mask in an unlawful assembly. However, as the name “unlawful assembly” implies, it is already illegal to take part in an unlawful assembly. So, basically, what the law is asking for is to make it illegal to do something while doing something illegal.

This leads to this odd enforcement problem of: Can you arrest someone for wearing a mask at an unlawful assembly, but not arrest them for being part of an unlawful assembly? If you can, isn’t it the job of the prosecutor in the case to prove, not only that the protester was wearing a mask, but also that the assembly was unlawful? And if the police officer didn’t arrest the person for being part of an unlawful assembly, doesn’t that mean that the officer didn’t have probable cause to assume that the person was part of an unlawful assembly?

So, basically, for you to be arrested under this law, you have to already be breaking the law. However, because being part of an unlawful assembly is a summary offence, and wearing a mask in an unlawful assembly is an indictable offence, what is essentially happening is that the government is imposing harsher sentences on members of unlawful assemblies (again, which includes just about every large protest or peaceful demonstration).

Conclusion:

What this law boils down to is nothing more than a philosophy of “if we make punishments worse, it will stop.” The stated goal of the bill was to make it illegal for one to conceal their identity while rioting. This would make it easier for police officers to identify, charge, and convict protesters for being part of an unlawful assembly or doing something riotous. However, should the law be enforced as it is stated, the concealment of identity will cause the same exact problems for this new law as it did for the last one, expect this time, the punishments are bigger.

However, the idea that police officers are going to wait till after the fact to charge people with wearing a mask in a protest is truly ludicrous. Empowered by this new law, what is more likely to happen is that police officers will start arresting people with masks prior to the protest becoming a riot. This would allow the police officers to bust up protests faster and levy harsher punishments for otherwise peaceful protesters, possibly escalating the conflict to a point where it boils over into something more dangerous than a simple gathering.

In short, what this bill offers the people of Canada is not more protection against those who choose to riot, cause damage, or bodily harm, but instead a legal weapon that police officers can use to goad peaceful protests into something more dangerous, and thus, more arrestable.

Related Links:

• Wearing a mask at a riot is now a crime: Maximum 10-year prison term for conviction of new offence (CBC)
• 3 things to know about the proposed mask law (CBC)

What is Sex? No, Seriously.

Let’s Talk About Sex, Baby
Photo by: Jean KOULEV

A while back, I wrote a post on my personal blog about how my lack of a definition for sex (and, thus, sexuality) caused me issues understanding asexuality as it related to me. So, I thought that I would try to examine the topic a bit more closely.

What is sex?

This is a question that I have been struggling with for years without any formal answer to it. When I was younger, I thought that sex was simply the act of one man penetrating one woman with his penis. But as time went on, my definition grew to include people who identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. When I did this, my definition moved from centering the phallus and the act of penetration to centering sexual touch and orgasm. In this definition, I thought that sex was an act between two people with the goal of one or both of them having an orgasm.

This then shifted again as I started hearing about the possibility that more than two people could be involved in sexual activity at a time, and it shifted again when I found out that consent was an active process that is continuous, shifting, and explicit. At this point, the definition was something to the effect of “sex is an act between two or more actively consenting adults with the goal of one or more of them having an orgasm.” In this definition, the acts themselves aren’t really defined, you could really have a thing for shoes, masturbate looking while licking someone else’s shoes, and that would be considered sex (in this definition). Likewise, sex would also include touching, groping, massaging, or penetrating with the goal of, orgasm.

But then things shifted again. As I started reading more about sex positivity I learned about the move by many to remove orgasm as the center of sex. The reason is that there are many people in the world who enjoy sex but do not have the ability to have an orgasm. This doesn’t necessarily make it so that they are broken people or that they have a sexual dysfunction or something, but instead that they have sex like everyone else, just without orgasm.

This, truthfully, fucked over my definitions of sex. If it isn’t centered around particular parts of the body or particular acts or particular goals. What is left to define sex? It is just a case of “sex is what I call it?” Or, even worse, “I know it when I see it?”

So, hitting a bit of a bump in the road at this point, I did what every 25 year old person would do when faced with this question: I asked my mother!

After my mother stopped laughing at the fact her 25 year old, married daughter asked her this question, the conversation continued much like the development of my personal definition. We went through definition after definition countering each one with an example of sex that didn’t fit. Eventually, she too got stuck. But throughout my discussion with her, the conversation seemed to center around intimacy-which she defined as physical and emotional closeness-and genital manipulation.

Then I went over to my facebook, and I started asking my friends about it. Again, this conversation took much the same form as the last, moving from definitions based solely around penetration towards more broad definitions. For a while, however, there was one definition that stuck (until it was ultimately defeated yet again). This definition is that sex is a consensual act between two or more people which includes penetration and/or orgasm.

While I do still have issues with both of those ideas, somehow the combining of them seemed to make a lot of sense. But shortly after this was posted, someone mentioned that sex is something that you could do by yourself and should be about something pleasurable. I really like this idea that sexual pleasure or sexual arousal is a part of the definition, but this reconstruction of sex as something that you can do alone, without penetration or orgasm, really sent the discussion all the way back to square one.

While these discussions didn’t really get me the definition that I was looking for, I did find some things that seem to be rather important to the definition, should there be one. Placing consent and pleasure at the center of the definition, as the place that all sexual activity originates, is one such idea I found to be extremely important.  Further, the fact that emotional and physical intimacy seem to be recurring themes, while not perfect by any means, suggests that these also play a role in sex in someway, even if it is just a socialized, scripted one. And lastly, the idea that orgasm and penetration, while both very problematic defining attributes of sexual activity, seem to be very culturally linked to the idea of sex as a whole.

Being that I had a long trip of self-discovery prior to asking others for their input, I am sure that I am biasing the analysis in some way. But, more than that, I am not really surprised that the conversations seemed to center around what it did. Rather, I am surprised that, while everyone I asked seemed to treat the question in such a blasé manner, no one had a clear, consistent definition which they stuck to.

But, what are your thoughts on the matter?

Given that I have yet to come up with a consistent definition of what sex is, perhaps you can help me out. Tell me your thoughts or the definitions that you use in the comments below. Perhaps, with your help, we can plug this whole in the English language once and for all!

Why Hating Justin Beiber Means the Failure of Anti-bullying Campaigns

No Bullying Allowed, Unless you are rich, or famous, or old enough to know better or…
Photo by: Working Word

Just about every week, a new campaign comes out with the mission of ending bullying amongst youth. These programs are often praised by parents, teachers, and school administrators alike as they seek to reduce or eliminate the most negative of negative outcomes associated with bullying. Sometimes these programs are even tasked with, or credited with, saving the lives of children and teenagers who have been bullied to an extreme. However, despite this positive press and no lack of funding, these campaigns will ultimately fail in their task and waste thousands or even millions of dollars doing so.

Of course, the reason that these well meaning programs will fail is not for a lack of trying. Rather, these programs will fail because they neglect to address the much larger and more present issue: the culture of bullying that already exists in our society. This culture, which is created through our continued production of media that is negative, attacking, or harshly critical of other people, is sustained through our perpetuation and unquestioned support of this media despite its negative messages. This media then teaches our children, whether we counter it or not, that teasing, taunting, and bullying are acceptable actions with few, if any, negative repercussions.

A perfect example of this culture at work is in the case of celebrities and other television personalities. It is no secret that celebrities are subject to a fair amount of abuse, both inside and outside of media representations. Sometimes these concerns can be chalked up to whether we like or dislike their work, but far more often the discussion steers away from such constructive criticism and opinion and towards attacking them as a person. When this happens we start criticizing the person for gaining or losing too much weight, questioning their sexual orientation or gender identity, calling their fans names for enjoying their work, complaining about the clothing choices they made, or something else to that effect.

We start discussing these topics back and forth amongst our peers, joking and laughing about how gay Justin Beiber is, how Kristen Stewart can’t display emotions, or how stupid Jessica Simpson is. We joke, in full view of our children, about the people from the Jersey Shore. We publish facebook statuses or forum comments that claim hipsters are nothing more than entitled kids who need a bath. We openly air our biases about women, children, trans* people, other races, foreign nationals, or people we just disagree with. And then, when it comes time for these children to go to school, we expect them to know better than to tease, taunt, or bully someone else.

We expect, even though we live and take part in a culture that actively bullies, criticizes, and debases others, that our children shouldn’t do the same. We assume, despite watching television networks that develop and produce shows designed specifically to allow the audience to talk about the misgivings of the characters, that our children will somehow not take this as permission to say the exact same things to their teachers, friends, or peers. This is why these anti-bullying campaigns will ultimately fail: because systemic problems require systemic solutions.

So, until we, as adults, understand that to end bullying amongst youth we must first end bullying amongst ourselves, we are merely telling youth to do as we say, but not as we do. And, that has never worked.

Signal Boost Sunday :: On the Twelfth on of May

Signal Boosted.

Elizabeth Smart contends that part of the reason she didn’t seek escape from her captors was because abstinence only education made her feel worthless for being raped.

You know that guy we placed in charge of preventing rapes in the military? Yeah, probably a rapist.

In case you thought that brutalizing woman was all serious, here is a sexualized, zombified verision of your ex that you can shoot at. Oh? That’s problematic too?

All that sex that teenagers are having, all that sex that adults are decrying as THE WORST THING EVAR!? Apparently, it is a lot safer than we like to assume.

Also, military rapes? Still rising in number.

More military rape bad news: Air Force releases a brochure that tell rape victims to submit to rape and tell rapists… well, nothing.

Still on the military: Rape is just “hookup culture” gone wrong, according to a misinformed top general.

In fashion news: Slut shaming is big this year, especially in the school dress codes.

Once again, false rape reports are extremely rare.

Again, again, rape does happen to men, and it isn’t fucking cool.

Politifact, you are wrong. Gay people can still be fired in 29 US States for being gay. Also, Maddow schooled you.

Good news: Asshat extraordinaire, and founder of “Girls Gone Wild,” is going to jail for general asshattery.

North Carolina seeks to win the prize for worst idea ever by forcing teens to have a notarized letter of parental consent to get an STD test. 

Why trans* rights matter: Graduating student denied use of his chosen name at graduation ceremony, outing him to all his peers, their families, and friends.

Now for the good news, I wish there were more:

California has passed a trans* equality bill!

Delaware has legalized gay marriage, making it the 12th state to do so.

Signal Boost Sunday :: May the Fourth!

Signal Boosted.

Apparently, FoxNews thinks that sex between teenagers is illegal. Hint: it isn’t.

Feminism has a bit of a transphobia problem.

What does affirming verbal consent like? Not this

So, tell me again how men can’t be raped?

A Nova Scotia boy has been blocked from playing soccer because he is trans*

Have you ever wondered what feminist porn looks like? Ask Rachel Rabbit White

What is it like to have a transgender parent? It’s, well, normal.

Maybe you heard that Jason Collins came out as gay. Well here is a history of professional sports women who have been out for years.

Good news:

Rhode Island becomes the 10th US state to legalize gay marriage.

Do it online now!

Awesome kickstarter of the Day: Assigned Sex, a documentary exploring gender roles from a trans* perspective

The Asexuality Visibility and Education Network is holding a T-shirt design contest. Your design could end up at San Francisco Pride.

[Featured Fetish] Degradation

Welcome to the Featured Fetish~!

Last week, I used this post to talk a little about a fetish that I like quite a bit, Financial Domination. However, in doing so, I knew that I was picking a topic that required not only a great deal of trust and communication, but also a 24/7 dynamic. Even in the best of times, these requirements can be hard to satisfy. Because of this, I likely excluded quite a few people last week. So, this week, I decided that I would talk about something a bit more accessible, and another fetish that I enjoy a great deal: Degradation.

As always, if you would like to hear more about my experiences, likes, dislikes, and fantasies around this fetish, hop on over to Verbosity at its Sluttiest for an in-depth look.

Risk Awareness:

Unlike many other fetishes, Verbal Degradation does not necessitate sexual intercourse, sexual touching, or even close personal distance. For this reason, Verbal Degradation is rather safe as far as BDSM fetishes go. However, this isn’t to say that degradation is completely risk free, but instead, that the risks associated with this particular fetish tend to be more of an emotional, rather than physical, nature. These rather emotional risks have been broken down into three categories below: Triggers, Landmines, and Long-Term complications.

Triggers:

The first of these, triggers, refers to an emotion, event, or situation that triggers a strong negative emotional response, such as fear, panic, dread, or depression. Often, triggers are associated with traumatic situations from a person’s past that still hold emotional salience today. Because of this, triggers are often extremely personal in nature. This makes it almost impossible for someone to tell what another person’s triggers are without open, honest communication.

While I would like to be able to say that there is a clear and simple solution to make sure that triggers will never effect you or your partner(s), this is just not the case. I mean, it is possible for a person to work through and deactivate their personal triggers, but usually this takes a great deal of time, personal inner strength, and a good therapist. Because of this, the preferred (short term) solution is just to simply avoid the situations that trigger the negative emotions. Obviously, this isn’t an ideal solution–especially considering the likelihood that others can accidentally trigger these emotional upheavals–for the most part, it manages.

That being said, there are some ways to make this plan of trigger avoidance more likely to be successful:

• First, own your situation, know what your triggers are, and know what emotions your triggers cause. After all, if you don’t know this information, it will be almost impossible to avoid your triggers, let alone pick up after they hit.  
• Second, communicate, communicate, communicate. The people around you cannot read your thoughts; so, if you know that you are triggered by something, let the people that you are involved with (sexually or romantically) know about it. This way, both your partner(s) and yourself can be on the look out for situations that could cause emotional pain.  
• Third, have an exit strategy. Sometimes, no matter how hard you try, your trigger is just going to show up to ruin your fun. Since you know how your emotions are going to respond (first point) and your partner(s) know that it is coming (second point), you can focus on healing. Build a strong comfortable space where you, and possibly your partner(s), can retreat to recover and recuperate.  
• Lastly, respect the triggers of other people. This isn’t so much a path to making sure that your triggers never come up as it is just common decency and goodwill. After all, how much would you like it if someone who knew about your triggers purposefully or carelessly triggered them?

Landmines:

Much like triggers, landmines can completely derail a scene and cause a surprising amount of emotional fallout. Unlike triggers, however, landmines are not issues that one can really be prepared for. This is because landmines, as defined, are just that: unexpected and unintended emotional explosions set off by a trigger that was previously unknown.

Due to the unexpected nature of these emotional reactions, it is just about impossible to disarm these before they happen. Because of this, the best course of action is simply to have practiced safety checks in place. This means that all parties should be comfortable and confident with the check-in process, and all partners should have clear, comforting, and respectful aftercare sessions ready, should the scene need to end.

Long-term complications:

The goal behind degradation, and many other forms of humiliation, is to make the submissive party feel small, embarrassed, and generally squirmy. In scenes which only last as long as the sexual activity does, these feelings often have little to no lasting impact. This is because the aftercare after the scene, and the time between this scene and the next, can be used to build the person back up to feeling like they are amazing, wonderful, awesome, and cared for again.

However, in more long term, 24/7-esque situations, constant degradation and humiliation can slowly undermine the confidence and self-esteem of the degraded partner. This is because in some of these dynamics, aftercare isn’t used unless a scene is particularly intense. So, often, little things, like passing comments, name calling, or even condescension, can be passed without having time or energy put into making the truth explicit or clear. Over time, this can slowly build to the point where it could be detrimental to the emotional well-being of the submissive.

Consensual:

After that surprisingly large section on Risk Awareness, this section is going to be rather short and straight forward: Consent and communication are must-haves.

As with everything else that we do in.. everything.. if you are doing something to another person, consent must be given. And, as usual this consent must be explicit, clear, continuous, and context specific. When it comes to degradation, this means that, before you start trying to degrade or humiliate someone in this way, talk to them and get their permission; This means that, should this permission change, for whatever reason (including because of triggers or landmines), that change is respected and the scene stops; And, lastly, this means that consent to call someone “boy” does not mean that you necessarily have permission to call someone “cunt.”

Enjoyment:

As usual, when it comes to the enjoyment of this fetish, there are no right or wrong answers. The goal is to make this fetish your own and find what works for you and your partner(s). That being said, I know that it is always easier to find what works when you have ideas and options open to you that you may have never thought about. Because of this, I have included a few thoughts below:

• Use tone of voice to your advantage! If you are the Dominant person in a scene that includes degradation, using the right tone of voice can really make things feel more real and more natural. I mean, think about it, if you are telling someone that they are “worthless whore” in the same way that you are telling them that you love them, there may be a problem. Some of my favourite tones in a degradation scene are usually those of condescension, disgust, or anger.

• Include other fetishes! I think that this one is obvious enough. Don’t be afraid to mix fetishes, just because your partner is all tied up doesn’t mean that they won’t enjoy being called a whore (assuming consent for that has been given).

• Include the public! This doesn’t mean that you have to go outing yourself or your partner. In fact, I would argue that wouldn’t be a good idea. But, what you could do on your next trip to the mall is sit down with your submissive partner, lean in so that only they can hear you, and degrade them. (Again, consent first, people) Not only is it a nice juxtaposition to the standard of whispering sweet nothings, but it could also turn into a nice little scene, to which no one is the wiser.

• Combine this with body writing! How much of an added effect could this have if the words were written, right there, on your submissive partner’s body? Watch them squirm and dash off to the shower after the scene is over. Tease them about the outlines of the words still being there.

As always, if you would like to share your experience, pass along some tips and tricks, or simply tell me off for being so verbose, please do so in the comments below. Until next week live long and be kinky. *watches her partner grimace at that

Signal Boost Sunday

Signal Boosted.

Welp.. Apparently, rape culture is still a thing. Steubenville’s Football Coach has been Rehired for Two More Years.

According to Dave Leach shooting abortion providers “will be a blessing to the babies.”

So, Tyler Perry’s most recent movie features a scene that looks and sounds a lot like a rape scene.

In continuing coverage of the protests in India over the rape of a 5-year-old girl.

The Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival is still discriminating against people with trans bodies. We are still boycotting them.

On the positive side:

Trans* people in Pakistan are trying to move into the political arena! Here’s hoping for trans* inclusion!

New Zealand legalized same-sex marriage last week, in style!

France has become the most recent country to legalize same-sex marriage. Way to go France!

In more human rights news: Idaho has revised there requirements for changing your gender marker on your driver’s license! Way to go Idaho!

Have you ever thought or wondered about fisting? Want to make sure that you are doing it in a risk aware, consensual, and enjoyable way? Looking for a guide that isn’t hetero- or cis-normative? Well, you are in luck!

Another study has been published showing that biological determinism is not a thing. You know, like feminists have been saying for about 100 years now.

Ever wonder what intersectionality is? Here’s a guide.

Weird, Wacky, and Awesome:

Think that getting a disability means the end of sexuality? Think again.

Did I miss something? Did you write, make, publish, or upload something you would like everyone to know about? Let us know in the comments below.

[Featured Fetish] Financial Slavery

Photo by: Tax Credits

Continuing on the discussion that I started over at Verbosity at its Sluttiest, I will be talking about some of the finer points of getting the most out of a financial slavery dynamic. While I would usually aim conversations on fetishes and the like at beginner’s and experienced kinksters alike, for this fetish, this is really hard to do. The main reason for this is because of the sheer level of trust, communication, and forethought that is needed to engage in this fetish in a safe, consensual, and enjoyable fashion. However, since I strongly dislike ruling people out of conversations, I will try my very best to make this as open to as many people as possible.

Financial Slavery:

Financial Slavery refers to a number of different activities and dynamics which all revolve around a Dominant’s control, management, and use of their submissive’s funds. Because of this large variability in the possible structure of these relationships, this could take the form of anything from the very simple (having the submissive purchase goods for the Dominant as a sign of subservience) to the seemingly extreme (handing over complete control of financial matters to the Dominant).

As can be imagined, some of these different dynamics can be seen in stereotyped non-kinky relationships. However, in these situations, the financial control isn’t done with any thought being given to the enjoyment of the parties involved; Rather, it is usually done out of some sexist assumption, socialized gender role, or one partner’s inability to care about financial realities. Meanwhile, in the kinky lifestyle, some of these same dynamics can come into play without the invocation of financial slavery. This is because, unless one finds the active and explicit control of their funds (or those of another) arousing, this is not a fetish, but instead merely a financial reality.

Risk Awareness:

As with everything that we do in BDSM, as well as in life in general, there are risks involved with this dynamic. For the most part, however, the risks are relatively minor until the dynamic moves to the more extreme levels of financial servitude. Before that point, the main thing to watch out for is overspending and general carelessness with the financial situation of the submissive party. Should this happen, all hell could break loose, obviously.

At the more extreme levels of financial domination, other, more serious risks can arise, including the damage to one’s credit rating and gaps in employment history. For the first of these, the cause could be something like the carelessness that I mentioned above, but it could also be from chronic under use of credit services. For example, should a slave be forced to live on an allowance for an extended period of time, the slave’s credit cards could go completely unused. Over time this can damage the slave’s credit score and make it harder for them to use credit, should they need to in the future.

In a similar vein to the risk around credit score problems, employment history problems could have a long-term impact on a submissive’s life. In some situations, Dominants who take financial control of their submissive’s life may choose to use their power to make the slave a stay at home submissive. This shift, while sometimes useful or impossible depending on the context pulls the submissive completely out of the workforce, sometimes for a very long time. While this can work out very well for a relationship, this could also end badly should the submissive ever need tor return to the workforce. This is because, while they submissive may have been super busy tending to the family, the home, and the whims of the Dominant, the submissive now has no recent references or employment history to rely on when looking for a job.

Consent:

To me, financial slavery is one of those fetishes that is deep in the wilderness of the “Power Exchange” forest. It is not something that is usually considered to be one’s first steps in the lifestyle or even into control play. Instead, it is usually the more experienced traveler of BDSM who makes it to this remote, and rather extreme, fetish. Because of this, having to say that consent is mandatory seems a bit condescending. However, should it stop one abusive asshole, it will be completely worth it. 

So, above and beyond anything else, having both parties willingly and without pressure agree to this sort of dynamic is a must. Without that free, clear, and changeable consent, this isn’t BDSM, this is abuse. Again, while that may seem really strongly worded given the target audience, I feel that it is needed, especially since so many abusive people use the control of money to control their victims and to stop them from leaving a dangerous, or possibly deadly, situation.

Now that I have that out of the way, I feel that it is important to mention that financial domination involves the exchange of a large amount of control, and for a dynamic such as that to be successful, a great deal of mutual trust is needed. To gain and maintain the level of trust needed for this type of fetish, open and honest communication is a must. Much like consent before it, I can’t stress enough the importance of communication, especially around the most difficult topics and the most challenging times. Without this communication, a dynamic that exchanges as much power as this is, at best, doomed and, at worst, dangerous.

Enjoyment:

As is the case with most fetishes, the enjoyment is really in the eye of the beholder. If control and power exchange are not activities that you would rate highly, it is not likely that you will enjoy financial slavery at all. However, should you enjoy the ideas of power exchange or its realities, there is a good chance that you could find financial domination interesting, erotic, and arousing.

Beyond that, however, the only tip that I have for you is a vague one: Make the dynamic your own. Your dynamic, much like your personality, is something that is unique to you. After all, what this dynamic looks like for someone in the role of the bratty submissive seeking attention or discipline is going to be completely different from what this dynamic looks like for a strict Dominant. There is really no right or wrong way to engage in the lifestyle, nor is there a right or wrong way to engage in this fetish.

And with that, I will leave you and yours to your kinky business~