Comments on: Rethinking Sex Bloggers and Slut-Shaming

By: BeckySharper

BeckySharper — Wed, 19 May 2010 18:05:59 +0000

Thanks, Lena!

By: Lindsay Beyerstein

Lindsay Beyerstein — Tue, 18 May 2010 06:45:30 +0000

Grose’s article was either journalistically incompetent or blatantly dishonest. Her lead was that Lena Chen, former sex blogger, helped organize a conference about reconsidering virginity–which Grose further implied to be a conference advocating voluntary celibacy. The conference, which featured Sady Doyle and other well-known feminist bloggers, was actually about debunking the whole concept of virginity. (I.e., is it even a coherent idea and even if it is, why should we care about it?).

None of this had anything to do with Chen’s sex blog. She decided to stop blogging about her sex life because she was stigmatized and shamed. She later found a boyfriend and settled into a more private, monogamous existence. She never embraced chastity or expressed regret for her sex life as such. She eventually gave up on the blog, but that’s hardly the same thing.

By: Rachel @ Musings of An Inappropriate Woman

Rachel @ Musings of An Inappropriate Woman — Tue, 18 May 2010 00:22:45 +0000

@Tall-in-Heels Regarding the Eagan/Tkacik brand of “sex-positive” writing, it always struck me as using the master’s tools to dismantle his house kind of stuff. Like, traditionally, purity is the measuring stick: virgins are better and worthier. It seemed to me like Eagan-esque writers simply inverted that: the more you fuck and the more provocatively you fuck, the cooler, more progressive, and more worthy of admiration you are.

Beautifully put. I 100% agree.

By: Lena Chen

Lena Chen — Mon, 17 May 2010 20:52:54 +0000

Hi guys! Glad that the Slate piece got people discussing the content of the conference, especially on a blog I really admire. As other commenters have already pointed out, the Jessica Grose piece was a complete mischaracterization of the conference and of my personal life. I am not and have not ever encouraged people to become abstinent. What the conference did do was interrogate notions of sexual purity and critique the heteronormative sexual standards that lead to the shaming of queer and female sexuality. None of that is made clear in the above piece, which heavily implies that conference attendees were “shamed”, when in fact, the only sexual act (of the many discussed) that panelists ever explicitly disapproved of was unprotected, non-monogamous intercourse (because of the public health risks).

For a more accurate take, please refer to the conference website: http://bit.ly/d5LbB5

And if any of you are interested in discussing this topic further, my contact info. is on my blog at http://thechicktionary.com

By: bluebears

bluebears — Mon, 17 May 2010 20:00:24 +0000

@beckysharper: Agreed.

By: BeckySharper

BeckySharper — Mon, 17 May 2010 18:41:22 +0000

@Tall in Heels: the more you fuck and the more provocatively you fuck, the cooler, more progressive, and more worthy of admiration you are.

Exactly. And also the more feminist you are. I have a huge problem with that.

I also think the whole “I just don’t give a fuck because I’m so fucking fabulous with all my unbridled wild sexxxy fucking/drinking/drugging!!” bravado is deployed to cover up much darker, unhappier emotions. That’s usually how it goes, in my experience.

By: JetGirl

JetGirl — Mon, 17 May 2010 18:37:54 +0000

It’s funny, but when I used to read Tracie Egan’s various oversharing blog entries, the sex stuff wasn’t that outrageous. TMI? Sure, but nothing that out there, or at least not in my experience. What bugged me was the rampant substance abuse, and how open she was about snorting coke and smoking pot and passing out from various drugs. All I could think was, how the heck was this woman getting jobs? Don’t most employers drug screen?
And yes, the whole “I have an STD but I’m not telling guys because herpes is so whatevs” was appalling. Full disclosure is the only ethical option. If the guy still wants to have protected sex, cool. If not, well, that’s his informed choice.

By: Tall-in-Heels

Tall-in-Heels — Mon, 17 May 2010 18:34:11 +0000

@PhDork: Yes!

Regarding the Eagan/Tkacik brand of “sex-positive” writing, it always struck me as using the master’s tools to dismantle his house kind of stuff. Like, traditionally, purity is the measuring stick: virgins are better and worthier. It seemed to me like Eagan-esque writers simply inverted that: the more you fuck and the more provocatively you fuck, the cooler, more progressive, and more worthy of admiration you are. There is often a lot of direct and indirect…prude-shaming (?) in that type of writing. I have a lot of problems with pure choice feminism, but even if that’s your cup of tea, simply inverting the female sexual totem pole is not really embracing all choices; it’s just reconfiguring the hierarchy in a way that still leaves many women out.

By: bluebears

bluebears — Mon, 17 May 2010 18:23:12 +0000

Very interesting to know, LSG and funnyface.

By: Spark

Spark — Mon, 17 May 2010 18:17:18 +0000

Also, isn’t the ultimate solution to slut-shaming changing the shamers, not the sluts?