Yes…I am jumping on the Janelle Monae bandwagon. In a musical landscape that has become frighteningly banal over the last decade, it’s nearly impossible not to get excited by an artist whose musical ingenuity is matched with a James Brown meets Elvis styled pompadour and tuxedo-inspired fashion. James Brown is further referenced in performance with the addition of the exhausted cape act, as seen in the clip below; and her ArchAndroid album’s rich lyrical and visual references to alien and other science fiction imagery feels like a modern-day bow to George Clinton’s PFunk and the Mothership. Check out the live clip below. She’s on the road with Erykah Badu this summer. That’s a show worth checking out if the opportunity presents itself!

If you’re in LA, you should absolutely make a point to go to this show! It’s super funny. For more information and to get tix go here!

“I always thought of losing my virginity as a career move.” – Madonna

A hot topic of conversation among virginally interested feminist and anti-feminist bloggers this week has been the “Rethinking Virginity” conference, which was organized by former sex blogger and recent Harvard graduate Lena Chen and was held at Harvard on May 3rd. The conference was organized in part as a response to the university’s “True Love Revolution” abstinence movement, which is reportedly one of the strongest in the nation.

I did not attend but based on web reports, topics of discussion included the standard feminist sexuality fair…slut-shaming, virginity as it relates to commodification of women and girls, defining virginity when the penis isn’t involved, and lastly aligning abstinence with sex positive language.

Because I collect the women’s stories of virginity loss, I should care about all of this and I’m wondering why I’m not that interested. It’s not that I don’t care at all, I’m just not sure what the conference was aiming to accomplish aside from creating a buzz to counterpoint the message of the True Love Revolution. All of these discussions end in the same conclusion - wouldn’t it be great if girls were taught to identify and trust their own feelings and to behave in accordance with those feelings when it comes to sex? Yes…but this is not possible for people who have not had sex before. The ability to know and trust one’s own feelings about sex comes from having sex – and getting it wrong and then right and then wrong again. Sure, people learn some things fooling around before they have sex. And based on the stories that I receive, most girls feel as ready as they ever will be when they have sex that first time. It’s only afterward that they can identify the aspects of sex they weren’t yet prepared for.

Simply put, no amount of sexual health education prepares anyone for the various ways individuals experience sex…and while trusting one’s feelings should be the goal over time, I’m not sure it’s completely applicable to the “virgin” experience. Perhaps a better message might be that it’s alright to get it completely wrong the first time as mistakes are as common in sexual relationships as they are in math. Furthermore, it’s OK to make twenty mistakes figuring out what feels right emotionally AND physically…personal value is not negated by those mistakes that are inevitable along the road to self-trust.

As for issues surrounding the definition of virginity – some think the term virginity should be done away with altogether because it’s definition is cloudy in many circumstances. But this is never going to happen. Our cultural identity is simply too defined by Judeo-Christian tradition. People will not stop defining their first sexual experience as a loss of virginity. Moreover, most people, straight and lesbian, seem to be able to define their own first times. They may divide their virginity into multiple experiences or believe in multiple virginities, but they can tell a story about losing their virginity…whether it involves classic penal penetration or not. I’m fine with allowing women to define this and I hope that the stories on my site empower young women to define their own virginity story however they see fit.

As for the term slut, and it’s use to induce female shame regarding sexual behavior, the feminist argument usually centers around a presumed cultural resistance to female pleasure. But, I don’t think slut is used solely or even mostly to shame women who enjoy sex. Rather, I think it is used to shame women who use sex for reasons other than pleasure (i.e. power, manipulation, commodity, experimentation). Is this right, NO! But it is a much more complicated issue than simple shaming over pleasure, which is clearly related to the desire to maintain patriarchal control. More of my thoughts on this later. But for now, suffice it to say that nuances in the term’s use need to be addressed for the conversation to become interesting and current to me. Otherwise, it just feels hackneyed.

Perhaps I’m just not as interested in a theoretical discussion about issues of virginity and female sexuality because I believe the personal narrative more successfully challenges the status quo and changes the core views of individuals. For feminism to continue to advance it’s fundamental aims of seamless equality, those core views are what must change. Deconstructing the past and theorizing about what equality would or should look like has it’s place in feminism, and on a different day, I might be excited to engage in such intellectual wonk talk…but today, I’d rather direct my energies elsewhere.

Jessica Bennett’s Feminism or Bust, which appeared in Newsweek in March, 2010 examined female resistance to feminism in the face of discrepancy between the successes of the feminist movement and the reality of the current female experience in the work place. Like Bennett, I grew up enjoying certain successes of feminism. Title IX, which passed just two years before my birth, protected my right to follow my big brother into a variety of sports, where I excelled for many years. My success as a student was second to none and my eventual descent into the very male world of rock ‘n’ roll never seemed odd or impossible to me even with few female role models lighting the way. While I have endured sexist comments and doubt throughout my varying endeavors, I never felt real exclusion until I was in my 20′s and entering the traditional workforce; it was only then that I began to consider more closely the ways that gender expectations and ideas impact and influence not only my life but the lives of all women.

Feminism has most certainly affected the female experience in positive ways. It’s elevated our expectations for girls and elevated their individual ambitions. However, the adult world those girls enter is still marked by antiquated notions about gender and professional opportunity. In short we’ve become very good at setting our daughters up for disappointment in their adult lives…when the “you can do anything you want and be anything you want” rhetoric of their childhood meets the reality of a work force that resists female ambition.

I felt this intimately during my senior year of college, when I worked as a temp in administrative support for the sales team of a major seat-belt manufacturer. The team consisted of a lead manager, 4-6 outside sales managers, who traveled extensively to meet client needs, 3-5 inside sales managers, who supported the outsides sales managers from the central office, and maybe 2-3 administrative support people. The highest paid and most interesting jobs, the lead manager and the outside sales managers, were all men. Men and women worked as inside sales managers. All of the administrative support people were women. At one point, an outside sales position opened up and one of the male and one of the female inside managers wanted the job. The male, just two years out of college, got the job over the woman, also a college graduate, but one who’d worked there longer and had triple the recent grad’s experience in sales. Many women have a similar “welcome to reality – men have the advantage when it comes to work” moment early in their career. This advantage can be attributed to a lot of different things…and almost all of them sit squarely in a fundamental gender bias that continues to inform work relationships and expectations. Clearly, the goals of feminism have not yet been met!

So, why has feminism become a label many women, including myself, resist? This topic is much discussed; and a Google search for ‘feminism and bad word’ yields pages of results – mostly articles arguing for a more nuanced positive application of the word that more accurately depicts the movement’s aims. Such arguments are fair, but I’m not sure they are the best use of energy. At the end of the day, it is just a word…a word with an unfair connotation, but one that nevertheless has become associated not with a desire for gender equality, but with a blanket hatred and distrust of men; that connotation is here to stay and it creates resistance to the important messages of the movement. Moreover, calling oneself a feminist implies support of ALL feminist issues, something that many women have a hard time accepting. Most women can agree that equal pay for equal work should be a given. But not all issues that fall under the feminist umbrella are as easily agreed upon.

I think to best serve the aims of the feminist movement, the individual issues need to be taken out from under the label’s umbrella and disseminated in a more nuanced and effective way – one that allows women AND men to offer support without tacitly agreeing to the connotations carried by the feminist tag? I recognize that those who embrace the label with aplomb are probably bristling with anger right now. Or, some might feel sorry for me and think I just don’t get it. Perhaps they’re right. But I worry that these most vocal proponents of feminism are driven more by a love of controversy and contention than by their desire to improve the state of women; and because the movement is defined as unilaterally female, the contentious energy inevitably feels directed at men, even when it’s not. Moreover, accusing the patriarchal right-wing of single handedly weakening the movement by re-writing the image of the feminist as ugly and unappealing to young women and girls is a simplification of what has happened and potentially insulting to those very girls the movement claims have been alienated. In fact, the real success of that assault, which I believe has occurred, is that many feminists now exert energy and time fighting for the right to be called “feminists” without connotation rather than finding creative ways to subvert the negativity and further advance the movement’s goals. This type of subversion is what I aim for in my work as editor of Deflowered Memoirs, and in the production of our shows Live and Rated R and Ding Dong My Hymen’s Gone. My goal from the start was to create a venue where the stories of women were presented in a way that men could enjoy as well. After all, in order to accomplish the goals of feminism men must see the value in our aims and work with us to accomplish them. As long as those goals are tied to a term that is associated with gender animosity (regardless of the fairness of that association), that cooperation will be more difficult to find than it should be. For this reason, my dance with the “feminist” label will remain uneasy.

Some DoucheBag TV producer (oxymoronic I know) from Australia is planning to shoot a reality show that follows a group of girls as they auction off their virginity. The show is obviously inspired by Natalie Dylan, who supposdedly auctioned her virginity off last year. If a girl wants to auction her virginity off, kudos to her. But a TV Producer shouldn’t be able to exploit and possibly profit off their decision. Luckily, I doubt this show will find distribution.

Betty White killed on SNL this past weekend. She is everything I hope to be at 88…healthy both mentally and physically, fearless, funny, and child-free.

Oklahoma has indicted itself as aggressively hateful and distrustful of women with the passage of strict abortion laws that would require all women seeking abortions, even those who have become pregnant as the result of rape to have an intra-vaginal ultrasound BEFORE they can receive an abortion. Furthermore, the woman must listen to the doctor describe the fetus during this procedure.

I always feel it’s necessary for me to expose the specifics of my bias before ranting. I do not believe any woman should be forced to go through an invasive and medically unnecessary procedure designed to increase her guilt and shame regarding abortion regardless of her motives for seeking one. Women know what abortion is and forcing them to go through such a procedure reeks of a general disrespect, distrust, and dislike of women.

Having said that, I do understand and respect the points of those who oppose abortion in instances of straightforward, unwanted pregnancy (i.e. birth control failure or drunken oversight). I still believe strongly that women should have access to elective abortion in those circumstances; and I think the pro-life movement misrepresents women who seek elective abortions as misinformed, bullied, flippant, immoral, selfish, cold, lost, etc…when in truth, the great majority of women who seek abortions do so with a heavy heart and with understanding and profound consideration of their circumstances. In fact, according to the Guttmacher Institute’s statistics on abortion, 60% of women getting abortions, are moms struggling to take care of the children they already have. They get abortions out of concern for the lives of those existing children, not out of the selfish desire for a childless existence, as the pro-life movement would have you believe. I believe presenting images of women who have abortions without respect to statistics is irresponsible and unfair. Still, I do understand and respect the reasoning behind the counterpoint in instances of straightforward unwanted pregnancy; and I believe that people can disagree with my position on elective abortion and still be sensible, thoughtful human beings.

But I do not understand a point of view that supports legislation that treats pregnancies resulting from rape, incest or abuse, the same as straightforward unwanted pregnancies. Such blanket application of abortion law is not based on concern for the potential lives of the fetus. It is based on misogynistic desire to control the living, breathing, realized lives and bodies of women and girls. And I suspect pro-life supporters who fail to allow any nuance in their opposition to abortion for these circumstances are solely motivated by a quiet disdain for women and girls and not true concern for the unborn.

As this pertains to the new laws in Oklahoma, I assert that forcing someone, who has endured criminal violation of their reproductive system, to first go through an invasive, medically unnecessary procedure before they can receive an abortion, when the sole underlying purpose of that procedure is to elicit shame and guilt about having that abortion, is tantamount to a state sponsored second victimization. Endorsing a second victimization suggests an under-valuation of the severity of the first victimization; and that should frighten all women and the men who value them.

The second part of the law, which prohibits women from suing doctors who lie to them about the details of their pregnancy because truthful information might lead to a choice to terminate the pregnancy, is an even grosser example of an over-handed desire to control women’s lives. That’s right ladies, in Oklahoma, a doctor can lie to you about YOUR body in order to control YOUR decisions…and you will have no right to sue him for misinforming you. This is a serious and sad low in anti-women policy. So take to your streets and your blogs and your classrooms and wherever else and speak the fuck up. Silence in the face of the enactment of such horrifying regressive misogynistic policies is not an option!

Whether it was in the back of a van or your sister’s bed…to your longtime boyfriend or some chick you met in line at the Tasty Freeze, you remember the first time you had sex. And if you are anything like me, your experience would elicit more than a few embarrassing laughs. If you live in LA and if laughing about the virginal experiences of others appeals to you…then the Deflowered production Ding Dong My Hymen’s Gone: More Stories of Virginity Lost LIVE is for you! Go to http://www.DefloweredMemoirs.com for tickets!

I recently started watching Weeds. I’m late to the show I know…and I might never have made it except for a new guy that’s been hanging around who happens to be a big fan. In fact, he’s such a fan that he owns the first four seasons which he happily loaned me. I’ve never met a Showtime series that I didn’t like. Still, I was skeptical at first. But, with the encouragement of new boy, I gave it a shot. Sure enough, I became hooked and obsessively plowed through the first three seasons. But then, somewhere in Season 4…it lost me.

SPOILER ALERT!!! Those of you who aren’t current and who plan to watch the series should not continue reading as the rant that follows includes plot points.

When it comes to TV, I’m a complete sucker for complex female characters and Weeds’ Nancy Botwin was like crack for me at the start of the series. Struggling to provide for her family following her husband’s untimely death, Nancy’s new career as a suburban pot dealer seems both horribly misguided and genius…you root for her even as she falls deeper into the dangerous underbelly of drug dealing. And her character seemed real…all the way up until she started screwing Esteban Reyes, the Mexican drug lord, who also happens to be the Mayor of Tijuana. At that point, the decisions Nancy starts making just didn’t seem consistent with her character. While it’s true she was always flawed, there was a logic to her decisions that made sense and she remained likable. But as her character’s decisions become unfettered and destructive, she loses that likability. And because she never actually seems to be in love with Esteban, her turn toward senselessness marked by the loss of the subtle complexities that made her so appealing in earlier seasons, reads inauthentic to me.

To add insult to injury, while Nancy’s decisions are increasingly out of line with her character’s initial motivations, Andy Botwin, her senseless man-child brother-in-law is redeemed when he becomes engaged to a doctor, and thus becomes relatively stable compared to Nancy. To be fair, I don’t find Andy Botwin’s character arc unbelievable. The fact that a doctor would ever consider marrying him, perhaps…but his slow, steady growth toward maturity is believable. It’s Nancy’s descent into frivolous and unsteady choices that seems off. Her ultimate marriage to Reyes is simply so unbelievable that it is cartoonish. Moreover, the subtle message – that a flawed woman, left without a husband, has no end other than a life of chaos and destruction for themselves and their families – is disappointing to me…especially in the face of Andy’s redemption.

I recognize that from the standpoint of creating entertaining TV, it makes sense for Nancy to get deeper and deeper into shit she can’t handle. I just wish that she had maintained some of the sensible authenticity that made her so likable to begin with along that road to Hades.