REVIEW: Sex Ed Show vs Porn (part 1)

As promised last night, here is the start of my review of the Channel 4 show "The Sex Education Show vs Pornography", which is linked to the website Sexperience on Channel 4. I'm going to break it down into segments because there's a huge amount that I have to say on this.

(For another review of the show, see The F-Word Blog)

I said last night that I was angry because it isn't about me, and I promised to explain further what I meant by that. There's more than one level of meaning to it, in fact. Obviously, I'm 30 and therefore no longer a teen, so on that level I shouldn't expect it to be about me, but I don't remember my experience of encountering porn to be all that different from what's being talked about here - it just happened a couple of years later in my lifetime than it has for the teens that Anna Richardson interviews on the show. Certainly the sorts of statistics they were throwing around about what ages sexual activity starts at, what percentage have looked for porn, etc all sounded very familiar when compared to the surveys I read about my own generation of teens when I was a teen. And I remember also what we were taught about those statistics, which was that people LIE. Peer pressure makes people want to seem more experienced and knowledgeable than they actually are, so they are not honest even on secret surveys, because they know someone will read it and they don't want to seem stupid. The kids bragging about how often they've done it are usually talking a load of crap to make themselves seem clever.

So I think I can relate my experiences as a teen surrounding porn and sexuality to what's going on in this show. And they don't relate. This show is talking about someone completely unlike me: a teenager who is already sexually active (my first sexual encounter with another human being took place when I was 26!) A teenager whose ideas about anatomy are shaped by porn. A teenager who is comfortable talking about sex with his peers. That may be the majority, but there is nothing at all for those who just aren't as confident as others.

Also, there is this thesis that porn creates negative impressions of oneself against the "ideal". But my experience of porn is that, when I finally encountered "extreme" BDSM porn, I finally managed to see myself in a positive light. The Sexperience website doesn't have any mention of anything to do with BDSM, and once again my sexuality is invisible or disgusting to these people, which is exactly the problem I had with sex when I was growing up.

I want to list in brief here the things about the show that have shocked, disguested or enraged me, and also mention that there is one thing (the central thing, in fact) that is good: that good thing is that tthey are actually providing some good sex ed to the teens.

The first enraging and shocking thing is just how much these teens seem to need it! Both boys and girls seem woefully ignorant of both their own and the opposite sex's anatomy.

I was also shocked and dismayed by the number of girls whom they interviewed who focussed everything about their (sexual) bodies on "it's what boys want, that's why it's important to (shave your pubes/have big breasts/whatever)". If anyone thinks that "girl power" and feminism have succeeded and there's no need for feminism any more - this one thing proves how wrong you are.

Also on the theme of how much feminism has yet to achieve in the area of sexual freedom and autonomy, I noticed that the labia minora were called by the boys interviewed, "flaps". Maybe I am reacting out of turn here, and if women out there wish to correct me, please do, but it struck me as an appallingly disrespectful way of referring to them, and certainly likely to make a girl or woman feel disgusted with her own body.

I am angry about the thesis of the show of porn being necessarily harmful, and of having to "protect" teens from it. I am also angry at the blatant shock tactics and judgemental attitude used to further this thesis.

In short, I am angry at the show's thesis but also (and much more) at the shocking state of sex education in this country, and the magnitude of feminism's failure so far.

On to look at the show itself.

Show 1 addressed teens' views of the female anatomy, and starts with perhaps the most disgusting and rage-inducing comment of the whole series so far:

"We want to replace 'porntastic' images of women with positive versions".

Renegade Evolution represents that "porntastic" image, and you know what? She was born like it. Admittedly, she's had breast implants and all, but as I understand it she was fairly well-endowed beforehand. She works to maintain her body, of course, but it's pretty much natural. She has written angrily (and justifiably) about the way people dismiss her body as "real" (Unfortunately, I can't find quickly the links to those posts; I am sure Ren will be able to fill people in soon). Now the Sex Education Show has by implication labelled her body "negative"!

The show started with breasts, discussing briefly just how sexualised the mainstream media's treatment of breasts is, and observing that the MSM portrayal of breasts was different from the reality of the 5 models who were showing their bodies for the teen audience (1/3 of whom, the captions said, were already sexually active). The captions also revealed that 45% of the girls in the survey were unhappy with their breasts, and 1/5 would consider surgery. I want readers to note that this is MSM images, NOT porn images at work here...

After a lesson on the functions and appearance of breasts outside of the sexualised media representation, the teenagers were asked to pick out from a line-up of 10 bosoms which one they found most attractive. Both the boys' group and the girls' group went for the obviously enhanced breasts - the ones that had implants (there was only one "enhanced" pair in the line-up). And this is another way in which this show completely passed me by as far as my sexuality is concerned: I found a different pair to be far more attractive (the TV camera never gave us a decent view of all the images, I think there were two or three that I would have preferred to the implants).

The boys commented that they had been taught that "no woman's boobs are perfect", which I think is NOT the message I would want them to take away. Surely the point should be to get rid of these ideas of perfection anyway! By which I mean that the idea that there is an objective "perfect bosom" is harmful, and that each woman's breasts should be seen as perfect for her.

Later in the show, they dealt with vaginas and pubic hair. I was again shocked at the ignorance of the teens in the show: not even the girls knew about the clitoris or where it is! I guess it reveals how accustomed I have become to sexual knowledge that I was surprised that none of the teens knew that the clitoris expands during sex, or that it extends much deeper into the body, wrapped around the vagina. All of these things seem like basic points of information, but they're lacking from sex education it seems.

According to the show's survey, 2/3 of girls shave or wax (see the point above about "doing it for the boys"). Conversely, and this probably is related to viewing porn, only one boy in the audience didn't raise his hand when they were asked who preferred shaved or trimmed pubic hair. (My preference is directly related to being a sadist - I like pubes because they're such a good way to torture a woman by tugging on them!)

An0other caption revealed that in the past 5 years there has been a 300% increase in labioplasty surgery appointments (and again, that's where the comment about boys calling labia minora "flaps" comes in).

In Part 2 I will write about the male anatomy parts. Part 3 will probably concern the anti-porn messages being spouted by the presenter, and depending on how I go, maybe address attitudes towards alternative sexuality in the show that were unhelpful. There will also be other subjects raised by later shows in the week, so this is likely to become an epic series.

Rest assured, at the end of it all I will sum up with my own manifesto for how to deal with the issues raised.

Sex Education Show vs Pornography - initial reaction

I'll post a more full report on this show tomorrow after the "male anatomy" episode has been shown, but I really just want to flag up that I'm deeply disgusted and troubled by it so far, on several levels. One of which I'll touch on briefly: when the presenters talked about what's normal for women's bodies, they didn't put it like that; they talked about "replacing 'porntastic' images of women with positive ones". Ren, if you're reading - I felt your rage at that phrasing as powerfully as if you'd seen that clip yourself!

The other thing I want to mention briefly about why it made me angry: the show had nothing to do with me. I'll explain what that means when I do my write-up tomorrow.

ETA: Here are the five instalments of the review of the whole series:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

It doesn't get much better than this...

...for anti-censorship ("pro-porn") activists:

Home secretary Jacqui Smith embarrassed by new expenses row

The expenses she claimed were for her husband's pay-per-view porn:

The home secretary, Jacqui Smith, apologised today for an expenses claim which included adult films watched by her husband Richard Timney.

Smith said she mistakenly submitted an expenses claim which included five pay-per-view films, including two adult movies which were viewed at her family home in her Redditch constituency.

Heh. It would only be better if she'd admitted that it was she who had ordered the films!

Now, to be fair to Ms Smith, the mistake of claiming them as expenses sounds from the article like an easy one to make (although claiming for the internet connection in the first place seems a bit dodgy to me anyway).

However, I am distinctly troubled by the tenor in the article that makes the fact that there were adult films there even relevant - they were 2 films out of 5, and surely the important fact isn't the type of films that were viewed, but that any films at all were claimed on the public purse.

Also troubling is the quote given by "a friend" that, "To say she's angry with her husband is an understatement. Jacqui was not there when these films were watched. She's furious and mortified." While I would like to believe that this is just about being put in the embarrassing position of having to apologise for making the claim (which really, is her own fault for not checking the bill properly), I suspect that there is a moralistic anti-porn sentiment wrapped up in that response that has nothing to do with the finances of it, but is purely judgemental of her husband even wanting to watch it (hence the comment about her not being there when the films were watched).

For Ren

Following some posts by Ren Ev at her LJ blog (that I won't link because my feeling is that to do so would not be appropriate, and might not be welcome on these issues), I was listening to this song and thought it was incredibly suitable for her, both for the specific issues she's having right now, and also in general (and in her wars against the radfems - lines like "they've got a file on me a mile thick" and so on!)

Also, this anime video for the song strikes me as very appropiately themed.



(Heck, that penis-shaped spaceship that annihilates everything in sight @ about 1:34 in the video - I think that's actually how some radfems see Mz Evolution!)

Rock on, Ren, you are "Everything Louder Than Everything Else", and I like that. Even if it is non-neurotypical to be that way.

Fighting gender by policing gender - epic FAIL

A week or two ago I read Little Light's post about the violence experienced by a trans girl growing up with male gender policing. At the time, the comments that I read were all supportive. It seems, however, that since I read that post, gender police masquerading as radical feminists turned up (I was alerted to this by Questioning Transphobia, via TrinityVA.

Little Light writes of the way in which violence is used to police masculine gender, and how if you are not of the masculine gender but are born with male body parts then you're the ultimate and perfect target of that violence.

A particularly vile commenter calling herself Margie turns up and uses verbal violence in exactly the same way as those boys used physical violence, and completely fails to see the irony in it when talking about opposing gender.

Extracting here the post that Margie used to define her "argument" - as opposed to the vileness, insults, deliberate use of the male pronouns to refer to Little Light, etc - I have some things to say about that argument. (I hope that my disgust and fury at Margie's behaviour can be taken as read! But here, I want to take a step back from that and deal with the substantive argument)

Margie writes:

EITHER

both males and females are socialized under gendered expectations, due to a patriarchal system designed to benefit MALES, whether they feel like males or not. That's what I'm arguing.

OR

males who feel like females are OPPRESSED and moreso than actual females even BECAUSE they didn't get the oppressive socialization reserved for females, and instead got the privileging socialization that's reserved for males. When I say that masculinity is a privileged socialization, I'm not talking about intra-sex privilege (ie, males over other males, or females over other females); I'm talking about sexism - the fact that masculinity is privileged over femininity, which is used to privilege males over females. You seem to be arguing, however, that males who wish they were female being socialized to be masculine actually makes them MORE oppressed than females being socialized into that second-class status by birth-injustice. That's what I disagree with.

There are problems with both the EITHER and the OR part here (NB formatting altered slightly from the original comment by Margie, to make the structure of the argument clearer).

First, the "EITHER" remark: "both males and females are socialized under gendered expectations, due to a patriarchal system designed to benefit MALES, whether they feel like males or not." Taken as a purely theoretical argument, we have to agree that it is a true statement. Margie thinks that it is exclusively true (that is, she has used "or" in the exclusive sense, "Either A is true, or B is true, but not both A and B are true"), which is far from proven. I am concerned about the use of the word "designed", because that implies that somebody somewhere sat down and worked out how Patriarchy was going to work, and then put it into place (which is absurd). The inclusion of "whether they feel like males or not" is a complete statement of faith and not proven.

However, given that Little Light's post was exclusively about playground dynamics and the ways in which children play a part in gender socialisation, it seems clear to me that childhood socialisation specifically of gender, comes very much from one's own assigned gender at birth peers (so, Little Light having been told by the doctors and her parents that she was male, was thrown to the lions of her male peers instead of her female peers). I do not believe that at that age, children are very aware of the adult kind of gender privilege: boys look down on girls, but girls look down on boys as well; but there is a definite trope of "No Girls Allowed" that boys use, and I am not particularly aware of any similar trope used by girls to exclude boys - but that might be because I didn't grow up wanting to be a girl, and I didn't grow up as a girl, and I didn't really investigate the areas that were traditionally girls-only, so I was never aware of being denied access. All of which is to say that at some point, privileging one's own gender over the other does start to happen among children, and as far as I know, girls are more often on the non-privileged side of that. We'll return to this in the "OR" part of Margie's thesis, but I mention it now just to show that I recognise that some gender privilege does occur amongst children, even though it doesn't have the same level as the gender privilege and gender policing that adults bring to their children.

Margie's "OR" clause does not have any value at all - while her "EITHER" clause had the benefit of having some kernel of truth (albeit one possibly derived more from the adult world than from the world of child-child interactions), the second part is a tangled mishmash of supposition and downright falsehood.

males who feel like females are OPPRESSED and moreso than actual females even BECAUSE they didn't get the oppressive socialization reserved for females, and instead got the privileging socialization that's reserved for males.

The reality is that a trans girl thrown to the lions of cis male children is never going to receive a privileging socialisation. That was the whole point of Little Light's piece. As the second piece of Margie's comment reveals (see below) that privileging socialisation is reserved for males, but specifically for masculine-presenting males. This is the thing that Margie's argument completely fails to understand (even though it contains that truth within it).

But because, as Little Light pointed out, "little boys [shape] each others' masculinity, according to the rules they're taught by older boys and by grown men, with violence", the physical violence that boys generally don't use to police girls' gender roles (other forms of violence are used against girls - verbal and emotional) does get used against the trans girl in their midst, or indeed, anyone whose gender presentation falls short of the acceptable norm (and here I count myself as a victim of that, purely because I chose to grow my hair long when I was a little boy - for no other transgression of gender than that, I was de-privileged by my peers).

So we see a situation where girls are generally not acceptable targets for physical violence and abuse. Trans girls are. If that's not being more oppressed, show me why not?

When I say that masculinity is a privileged socialization, I'm not talking about intra-sex privilege (ie, males over other males, or females over other females); I'm talking about sexism - the fact that masculinity is privileged over femininity, which is used to privilege males over females.

This is multiple fails all rolled into one. While it is true that masculinity is privileged over femininity, and that this is used to privilege males over females, not all males are masculine, so it is inescapable that by talking about masculinity as a privileged socialisation, you are talking about intra-sex privilege, and what is more, you cannot begin to understand how patriarchal systems work and sustain themselves until you understand how it is that males who deviate from the accepted forms of masculinity are sanctioned, policed and either readmitted or else expelled and destroyed.

There is a second fail wrapped up in this, which is the suggestion that trans girls are really males. If we say that male means having a Y chromosome, then it's probably a fair distinction, but nobody in society classifies anyone based on their chromosomes - it just doesn't happen, because the vast majority of us are not equipped with the means to find out someone's chromosomal structure. We could stretch it a bit and allow male as "having male primary sexual characteristics" (i.e. a penis and testicles), but as soon as we do that then we equate masculinity with maleness, which is supposedly the gender enforcement that radical feminism is supposed to be against! But if we can say "this is a woman with a penis, that is a man with a vagina" and suchlike, then we have to accept that Little Light was a girl being forced to be a boy, by the same violent means that boys are forced to be boys.

You seem to be arguing, however, that males who wish they were female being socialized to be masculine actually makes them MORE oppressed than females being socialized into that second-class status by birth-injustice.

This is a fail because no amount of socialisation makes a trans person masculine in the acceptable form - they are not socialised to be masculine, but punished for failing to socialise as masculine. Just as lesbians, tomboys etc are punished for failing to socialise as feminine. Except that trans girls and gay boys are punished physically, with brutal violence and harsh words, disgust, and hatred. A trans girl does not become socialised to privilege (although she can access certain elements of male privilege if she is willing to drag up as a man and go through life denying her sex identity); she is socialised to a second-class status as well - just not the same one as cis women are. Masculinity is not an inclusive status whereby "all people who have quality Y are admitted, and all people who have quality Z are admitted", but an exclusive status whereby "all people who do not have quality Y are banned, and all people who do not have quality Z are banned". Membership has to be earned by demonstrating all the exclusive qualities, and moreover membership status will be curtailed if one fails to show those qualities in future. In other words, being born with a penis is not sufficient to be admitted to all the privileges of masculinity.

It is also a fail because comparing oppressions is rarely useful, and not something that I saw Little Light doing in that post or any other; it's soemthing that Margie brought with her, and something that unfortunately seems to be written into the radical feminist claim that sexism is at the root of all other forms of oppression - a claim that leads the unwary to reason that, "therefore, all other forms of oppression are less oppressive than sexism". Isn't enough to say that a little girl whom others thought was a boy suffered brutality as a result? Does it matter whether that is "more" or "less" oppressive than some other form of oppression?

Music blog: The Bottom Line/3am Blues

A song and an instrumental. The Bottom Line was written by Lynn Watts, who if I remember rightly, was my sister's riding instructor as well as being a folk singer/songwriter. 3am Blues was improvised by yours truly at 3am one night when i couldn't get to sleep. Enjoy!

Download Rebel Snowdrop - The Bottom Line

Download Rebel Snowdrop - 3am Blues

Anti-Gay, Anti-Sex and over here - US "Christians"...

It appears that US hate-crime perpetrator Fred Phelps wants to come to Britain to spread his hate crimes here.

His target? Waltham Forest's George Tomlinson primary school. The reason? They teach kids not to hate gay folks. In particular, the school and the local education authority have declared that parents keeping children out of the classes in which tolerance for LGBT folks is taught is being treated as truancy by the children concerned.

I don't have a problem with the school and the authority taking this line, because truancy is more and more being seen as the responsibility of parents anyway, so this is less likely to impact on the children themselves as it might once have done. I certainly think that there should be a policy of zero-tolerance towards bigotry of this nature, and there should be no exemption on religious grounds for the parents - if you want to teach religious beliefs about whether homosexuality is acceptable or a sin, you can do that in your own home. It's odd how when Muslim families want to take such an approach, they're told they have to integrate and accept the values of British society, but when (nominal) Christians do the same, it's a different story! If our schools are to teach inclusive values for our society, then they have to be taught to everyone, or what's the point? As I said a couple of sentences ago, if you want to teach bigotry to your kids, do it yourself and then you can let your kids decide which attitudes they find more appropriate!

But more than this, I can't halp but demand of Fred Phelps:

What the FUCK does it have to do with YOU what WE get up to in OUR schools in OUR democratic country?

You just don't belong here, and your violent, offensive, mindless hatred doesn't belong here either. Didn't you get the message when we banned you from entering our country before!?

Its not okay that you say this shit in your own country but to demand to come here, and demand that we be subject to your vile outpourings too? If I could have my way, I would have you arrested under the Obscene Publications Act as soon as you set foot in the UK, because you peddle material that I definitely think is "likely to deprave and corrupt those likely to see it". I just think it's a shame that not enough other people don't see that law the same way I do.

PS that sign he's holding in the picture on the Guardian article? I think a lot of LGBT folks would love it if there were no special laws for them, because that would mean that the law treated them equally as citizens, and would mean that marriage was no longer defined in the USA as specifically between a man and a woman, but that it's an institution between any two people who love one another and commit to one another for life. Not to mention the fact that the law (e.g. through its enforcement agencies) treats trans folks and gay folks differently from the rest, so having the same law for everyone would be a great improvement.

The One Show

Following an article about a student at Goldsmiths University (a renowned hotbed of radicalism and student activism) setting up a branch of the Women's Institute, The One Show asks "Do we need feminism?"

Looks like there's a good mix of views (for which read, for every sensible response there's a MRA-loving, status-quo-loving asshat comment...)

Let's shift the balance in our favour!

To anyone googling Kyle Payne

Check this out.

No, seriously, check that out. It tells you what you need to know about him, and what feminists think of him.

The shorter version:

Kyle Payne is a sexual predator who developed a guise as a male feminist, and then was responsible for sexually assaulting (I've heard suggestions that it may even have been rape, but those are unsubstantiated) at least one woman, who was unconscious and of whom he took lewd photographs while she was unconscious. Mr Payne now is trying to resume where he left off with his supposed pro-feminist identity. And it seems that he is trying to do so by claiming that "society made me do it". Not even taking responsibility for his own perverted behaviour.

The point of this post, and of Renegade Evolution's post (the link I gave at the top) is to say that, no, Mr Payne is never going to be allowed to leave it behind, he is never going to be allowed to chuck his responsibility for his own actions into the dustbin, he is never going to be accepted again. The general feeling is that he should still be in jail, and since he is quite clearly unrepentant, I am wholly supportive of that feeling.

Interview Me'me

(That's supposed to be parsed as "Interview Meme" but it's also "interview me")

This via Ren Ev:

"I answer the questions the last person asked, and then if you want me to interview you, ask me in the comments and we'll go, then you answer in your blog"

These are Ren's questions for me, and my answers:

What is the weirdest place you've ever been?

That's a tricky one, because who decides what's "weird"? And then again, what sort of weird? When I visited Dartmoor, a lot of the rock formations were strange and twisted shapes that could be called weird. If we're talking about the people I found in a place, then for sheer freak-out-inducing factor, it's probably the "Scope" charity shop in Tonbridge. In a sense of a whole place just feeling spooky and strange, then it's a toss-up between Milton Keynes and the new town where my parents live, while they still had the strange speed signs up (they weren't allowed to put regular ones up until the roads were properly registered with the Highways Agency, so instead of 20mph they had 19 instead, which gave everything a really spooky "The Prisoner" kind of feel to the place)

You can switch bodies with any human on the face of the earth for 24 hours, who do you switch with?

Honestly, Ren, I'm struggling to think of anyone I'd find more fascinating to that with than yourself. I would certainly want to swap with a woman; I would want to swap with someone sexually active in a brutal way (either BDSM or the rough sex you go for would do!) and I would want to experience that sex at least once; I would want to feel beautiful and confident in whoever's body I was in (that actually leaves a lot of scope for me). All-in-all of all the people I know, you probably fit the bill best!

Although, being Jacqui Smith for a day and undoing all the anti-prostitution crap that she's introduced, might be nice, too.

Someone puts you in a comic book, are you a hero or a villain?

That's a toughy. When I was growing up I always thought the James Bond baddies were the coolest and wanted to be like them - still do, really: evil megalomaniacs have a great job until some well-meaning jerk like 00-sodding-7 turns up and spoils the party. So I would really want to be a comic book supervillain. But on the other hand, when people look at me and interact with me, I suspect they have a hard job casting me in that role, and ultimately I have too many principles and such to be a truly villainous character: I guess I would be much more an "anti-hero", the hero you love because he's a villain too. (Any comic book character me would HAVE to be a sadist, so there's no way I'd be the pure and light type of hero!)

You're designing a piece of jewelry for yourself, what does it look like?

Definitely a pendant. Almost certainly gold, with rubies and/or diamonds. It would have to go on a thin gold chain, and be suitable to be worn next to my skin. It would be have to look elegant: small and delicate in style, no "bling" or any of that stuff going on! No straight edges, all curves, but it still is longer than it is wide. I think the design would probably subtly bring to mind the curves of the female form, maybe a ruby would then be situated in the crotch, another in the centre of the chest (so not directly over the heart, but suggestive of the heart - the jewels form a single straight line down the middle of the piece) At the "head" and "feet" would be diamonds, and if it were possible (considering the size I imagine this piece would be, it might not be do-able) then the letters "S" and "M" worked into the design (either for Sadist/Masochist, or for Master/Slave) would complete the design.

One thing you cannot make it through the day without?

The usual blasé answers would be "oxygen" or "water". When in financial difficulties I have said that as long as I have in the flat a supply of food and a supply of loo paper, then everything else I can figure out somehow. There's really not much now that I would say I couldn't make it through the day without it, just because there have been so many days where I have had to make it through the day without things I once considered essential. But I think I would really struggle to go many days in a row without reading something, so I guess "reading" is the best answer I can give.

***

So, now it's your turn - if you want me to ask you some questions, say so in the comments!

Progress...

Events have been transpiring in this Snowdrop's life!

It appears that I may have found a way to earn a little bit of my living, although I am not yet certain that I want to take it, and I'm currently doing a lot of "due diligence" to make sure everything is above board with the company and such. It would be working on the basis of a "contract for services", so I would not be an employee as such of the company but officially "self-employed".

The job:

Premium-rate telephone tarot reader.

If I do it, then I am going to approach this as being very much me providing a counselling service, and not a fortune-telling service; the former means that I am taking their money to provide help and assistance. The latter would be to take advantage of other people's credulity.

As I've mentioned before, I take the Tarot seriously, because as far as I can tell, it does actually work. I just refuse to make any claims as to how it works. So for me, to take people's money because they expect me to see the future or communicate with spirits or whatever, is dishonest and wrong. However, if I can offer practical help and support by using the medium of Tarot as a counselling technique (even if they believe something more about what is going on) then I feel that I have done right by them and used the talents I have to the greater good.

So that may or may not be what I am doing by this time next week.

***

In other news, I have had a regular check-up with my GP over my depression and he has decided that it looks like it's time that I can start to phase out the citalopram! This feels like a real lift for me, because it's been just over 18 months since I started on the drug and, while it has definitely helped, and while you are always grateful for your crutch while you're in need of it, it also feels a lot better to be able to walk on your own two feet again, too. Things have seemed a lot more positive the last couple of months, and one way or another, it looks like the worst of the depression is passing for the time being.

"That name is life"

Trinity has posted at SM-Feminists, an awesome post about what pain can mean.

She concludes:

Pain and pleasure together have a name.

It's not a difficult name. It's not a strange name. It's not even a multisyllabic name. It's a nice and short little name that feels good in the mouth and on the lips and tongue.

That name is life.

Without a doubt, this captures the essence for me of why I love pain.

I would almost say that the people whom Trinity quotes, who claim pain is a sign that something is wrong, haven't felt pain in action, the way it's meant to be.

Pain for me is associated with living life, because when I live life, when I dare to go out there and give my all to something - sometimes, I aim for more than I can manage. Sometimes I crash and burn (figuratively speaking - Ren knows about burning literally). Sometimes it hurts (literally, physically, truly). Pain is a consequence of living, rather than just being alive. Pain is a consequence of staying alive, of fighting to stay alive. Pain is a consequence of every time that you stretch yourself to the limit, and it being a limit you can't see, sometimes you step over it. You can't live life without pain. A life without pain is a life that hasn't been lived.

I am proud to say that I have very few allergies (the only one I know for sure is penicillin and related antibiotics). Considering I do not take much notice of healthy eating or healthy lifestyles, I get sick very very rarely.

I put this down in large part to the fact that I "ate a lot of dirt" when I was young. by which I mean, I ran around a lot and fell over while doing so; I rode my bike like a maniac and more often than not fell off (not a summer went by without several grazed knees, and some of those involving blood, and sticking plasters, and then scabs, and picking the scabs, and eventually the wound healing...); I did dumb things and got burned (literally), got cut, got sprained ankles, got winded, got bruised... In short, growing up, I learned that when you live your life, you get hurt, and that's okay. It's a part of the deal, it doesn't mean something's wrong. Something's wrong is something like a broken leg, or worse. Which, sure, that's pain, too, but not all pain is bad. And then, again, when I was a teenager I was hit by a car; I have no recollection of pain (or indeed anything) from that; not even afterwards when I woke up in hospital. So "no pain" doesn't mean everything's okay either.

On top of that, of course, there is my experience with depression. Depression is the antithesis of pain, it really is. Everything is heavy, dulled, senseless, dead. It isn't pain, it's the pain of being without sensation, the pain of having no pain.

I wrote about this before, in "My Relationship with Pain".

Pain is not always bad. Pain doesn't always mean something's wrong. Sometimes, pain is how you know that something is right, and that things are working properly. And sometimes, pain is how you communicate.

"Abusive Partners Register" proposed

Via the Observer newspaper comes news that Jacqui Smith is planning to inform women that their boyfriends have a history of violence against women. The information about these abusive partners would be stored on a register similar to the Sex Offenders' Register (which already stores the details of rapists as well as paedophiles).

In some ways it is difficult to be against this idea. Particularly as a man, I feel conscious that any objection I might make will be spun as "men defending the privilege of other men to abuse women". Also, domestic violence is hideous and any measure that can realistically address the issue should be considered.

If it weren't for the fact that this government has already introduced so many measures giving the police access to our private lives, then I would probably be willing to let this one slide. But, as the Observer article highlights, allowing them to monitor (and police!) the romantic (and sex) lives of adults is very disconcerting indeed.

The article also highlights some other areas of concern:

The idea of the state interfering in adults' love lives will be highly sensitive, raising new questions over privacy and over whether any genuinely repentant offenders would be able to leave their pasts behind. After a series of errors by the Criminal Records Bureau, where job applicants were wrongly accused of having a criminal past, there will also be concerns over the potentially devastating consequences of mistaken identity.

...

Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, questioned whether police had the resources to monitor the relationships of serial perpetrators.

Another point besides these that worries me is that ultimately this is of a kind with the fallacy of "Why didn't she just leave him?" As if human beings are rational about the emotional decisions they make! Ms Smith told the Observer, "Arguably there is a duty of care, if you know that this guy has already beaten up women, to consider whether you should warn the next woman." As though that information will automatically make someone reconsider their emotional responses, or necessarily stop them making a mistake. Lord knows, I have seen what I was getting into with bad situations (not violent, but certainly not healthy either) and still gone right ahead and done it. Why should we expect that knowing it in advance would have any good effect? Indeed, there is a danger that instead of giving a victim the tools to escape when she needs to, she may end up blaming herself (after all, it must be her fault, because they warned her and she didn't listen...) and on an emotional level feel she deserves the punishment as a result. And heck, I imagine we're all familiar of the script of a person falling in love, hir friends all warning hir against the new partner, and the warnings all being rejected (I suppose at least the usual "you're just jealous" line wouldn't work with the State) - until suddenly the awful truth (that hir friends were right all along) becomes painfully clear to the victim.

Incidentally, how would it work to warn someone that the person with whom they're just beginning a relationship happens to have had previous convictions for domestic violence? Do a pair of police officers just turn up at the door/your workplace and say, "We have some information for you"? Is it in the form of an official letter? A telephone call? (I imagine that an email might conceivably end up being labelled as spam and go unread!) What sort of an impact would any of those things have on someone - someone who is potentially vulnerable emotionally? Considering that there is some evidence that certain people repeat patterns in their emotional lives, it is at least possible that some of the women who are warned about violent partners may have had abusive partners in the past as well. On the one hand, such women probably need advising more than most about their partner's violent history, but equally, unless that advice was delivered incredibly sensitively, I can imagine it being an immense blow to a person's self-esteem. If she has, for example, just got back onto the dating scene after recovering from a previous abusive relationship, what would such a warning do to how she sees herself, and her ability to find a decent partner?

Then there's the question of how this sort of law would be treating women in general. There is a sense of an overbearing parental presence to this law, that makes it seem like all women, no matter how old or young, are seen as children who aren't able to deal with the world alone but need Mummy or Daddy looking over everything to make sure they don't get hurt. It is notable that, although Ms Smith mostly uses non-gender-specific terms like "partner", "offender" or "perpetrator" to refer to the violent one, the victim is always referred to as being a woman. Now, I know that there is not equivalence, and that men are MUCH less likely to be victims of spousal/partner abuse than women are. That's not really my point, but rather, the idea that women are victims in the eyes of this government. It seems to me that, although women often are victims of the crimes that Ms Smith has sought to address with her anti-prostitution legislation, and now with this new scheme, what this government, and Ms Smith in particular, are doing, is fetishising women's victim status - her victim status is, to the people making these laws, the only thing about a woman that makes her valuable.

Finally, there is the fact that this govenment has actually cut funding to those organisations who try to give practical help to women escaping from abusive relationships, or indeed, wanting to get out of prostitution. It's like they don't want to spend money on the hard work that actually helps, but want to find a short-cut through legislation to make it all magically disappear. There are some fine words in the article about plans to "study new ways of preventing sexual assaults, including changing male attitudes to consent" (clue here - women have similarly fucked-up ideas about consent at the moment - those surveys showing that a third of people think a woman is partly to blame for her rape don't show much difference between women and men on the issues of consent. We need to change attitudes across society!) However, the suggested methods don't inspire me with much confidence (and this government really does not seem to understand much about changing attitudes for the better on any subject).

So all-in-all, I do oppose the suggestion.

As a final word - on a BDSM forum I read, there is some debate as to whetehr this will affect BDSMers. A lot of commenters think that, as BDSM is completely distinct from abuse, that it won't have any effect. I wish I could be so confident, but since this government (and many radical feminists whose ideas they seem keen to adopt) don't seem to see the difference, I think it is at least possible that some kinky folks' lives could be fucked up by this too. However, I don't think it's likely.

true boobs for you

NB In this post, I may at times drift off into male fem-objectifying fantasies and lose my train of thought briefly. This may be terribly un-feminist of me, and I apologise in advance if anyone takes offence. I am, however, remaining true to myself.

(Via Coffee Shop Philosophy, which I found via the Feministe self-promotion Sunday thread this week)

This is a link to a gallery of normal breasts, the images unaltered in any way. The aim of the page is to show women that they do not have to look like the airbrushed models' tits, nor the artificially sculpted cleavages of porn performers or (in this day and age) singers and movie actresses. This, needless to say, is Very Important.

Now we get to the bit where I (alas!) temporarily objectify - because the point I want to make is that women are socialised to feel incredibly insecure about their appearance (those models/actresses etc are a key part of that process). So here, just in case anyone would be remotely interested, is a man's view on those bosoms displayed:

They are all beautiful. Breasts are great fun, no matter what the size or shape, and I think most men feel the same way, even when they're going along with, and repeating to each other, the media presentation of what we're supposed to want (i.e. those artificially-enhanced cleavages). It's just it's not "manly" to tell the truth about it (and, lest we forget, being "manly" is very important to preserve one's status as "a man" - with attendant loss of privilege if you don't preserve it).

In this world, I believe that the site showing these images is invaluable - it ought to be on everyone's sex education curriculum, in fact! It should not be the case that the vast majority of women don't realise they are normal. It should not be the case that a beautiful woman should feel so ashamed of her magnificent bosom that she couldn't bear the thought of her partner seeing it (as happened to me with an ex).

And of course, it's not exactly doing men (or at least, men who like ogling/fondling breasts!) any favours to perpetuate this false image of what breasts "should" look like - after all, if the majority of women are ashamed of theirs, then we're not going to get to see them! If men were more familiar with normal breasts, maybe we'd have a better chance of getting our hands on a real pair! (mmmmm hands on breasts! ... errrr, sorry, where was I? Oh, yes...) It has been demonstrated the feminists (including feminist men) enjoy better sex. This here is one reason why that might be the case.

Sasha Grey speaks out

And Aspasia @ La Libertine's Salon has a very insightful comment on that, and the responses it got.

Sasha's piece deserves linking directly, because it's great stuff - here's an extract:

Sex on camera is performance. While I enjoy the same pleasures at home, I’m not attempting to “keep the train moving” in a sex scene; I am there for myself and for my audience…not to stroke the egos of my male counterparts. At home, I am there strictly for my partner and myself.

...

Entertainment often makes satirical references to dirty talk, and as we all know satire/comedy is derived from real life experiences-people enjoy it but are afraid to talk about it without making a joke, as are most sexual exploits. As human beings we often make fun of what we don’t understand, personally I refuse to live a fear-based life. Like insensitive gay jokes of bygone and present generations, bdsm and rough sex are the new black.

Go read the rest, it's all good, and go read Aspasia's comments on it at her place, too.

Total Wipeout - a shameful pleasure?

Regular Saturday night viewing for me over the past month or so has been a TV gameshow called Total Wipeout.

The BBC website describes it thus:

Richard Hammond presents an extraordinary, brand new game show.

Crashes, smashes and hilarious mud splashes are on the cards as 20 contestants take on one of television's largest and most extreme obstacle courses. They journey across the globe to the purpose-built Total Wipeout course in Argentina to put their strength, balance and bravery to the test in the hope of winning the 10,000 pound cash prize and being crowned Total Wipeout champion.

Amanda Byram assists Richard from the sidelines as contestants take on challenges like the Big Balls, the Sweeper and the awesome Wipeout Zone.

As the description hints, although apparently about physical fitness and agility, what the show is really about is laughing at people falling into the water or mud. And Richard Hammond, who also presents Top Gear (along with the greatest arsehole on television - Jeremy Clarkson **shudder**) is an inspired choice as presenter of this show.

I would feel more guilty about watching this show if it weren't for the fact that Hammond takes the piss out of everybody. Women, men, fat, thin, tall, short, progressive, misogynist, long hair, short hair, old, young... there is no stereotyping except in the way that all comedy relies on stereotypes in some way or another. And, I'm sorry to say, seeing people fall over and get all muddy or wet, with complete loss of dignity (not that most of the contestants seem to bring much dignity to the show anyway, but anyway) is something I find incredibly funny.

For all I pride myself on my intellect, my greatest pleasures sometimes seem to be the most childish and/or simple. And, in many ways, I think that's good.

Democracy, Dosh, and Deliberations

This is more or less a round-up post of recent happenings.

Democracy and Deliberations

For the past two days I have been attending a local Public Inquiry in which an Inspector from the Planning Inspectorate has been commissioned by the Department for the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs to conduct an inquiry into the plans by a local golf club to sell off part of its land for development.

The legal situation (this is the technical bit, skip it if you have to!):

The land that the golf club owns is actually common land (The ____ Common), over which certain local people have "commoner's rights" - involving the grazing of cattle and suchlike.

The 1925 Law of Property Act means that there is a right of access to the public, which was laid out in a declaration of 1936 that placed certain restrictions on that right of access, but granted it explicitly to the public (where before it had been implicit and not recognised) over the whole of the Common. If the Common loses its status as a Common, then it is possible that the 1925 act would not apply, and a later Act of 2000 would apply instead, that would mean that the golf club could bar members of the public from using any part of its amenities.

In order to sell the land for development, the golf club needs to have the area of land it wishes to sell "de-registered" so that it is no longer common land.

This process is governed by an Act of 2006 (apparently, only 3 other applications like it have been made so far since that law came into force). This act says that if any common land is de-registered, the owner of the land must offer a suitable area of land as replacement land that will be registered as common land instead.

The area is also part of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which means that it has some other legal protections.

The Public Inquiry is for the Inspector to gather evidence about whether or not he should allow this transfer of land, and looks at things like the interests of the local community, the environment (especially as it concerns an AONB), owners of commoner's rights, and such like matters.

This is an example of the law as a democratic instrument. Although there's no voting going to take place on this (the Inspector's job is to decide the case on the basis of its merits with respect to the requirements of the 2006 Act, not to decide it based on how many people vote against the proposal!) the inquiry itself is open to everyone, anyone can choose to give evidence as a witness, technically only "statutory objectors" (those who wrote letters of objection to DEFRA) are allowed to cross-examine a witness for the applicants (the golf club) but the Inspector allowed questions from those who weren't, as long as they were relevant (mine were).

I have also decided that I will give evidence today, because I have walked many times on the Common, and have noticed some parts of the evidence upon which I think I can expand and add my own observations and thoughts.

One other observation - articularly on the first morning, but pretty much ever since, there ave been an awful lot of what can only be described as "busybodies" of various shapes, sizes and age groups attending the inquiry. I leave it to the reader to determine for hirself whether I belong in that category too...

Dosh

Unfortunately, I lost my wallet yesterday on the bus (I had to return some library books before going to the second day of the Inquiry, and on the way home, my wallet must have fallen out of my pocket on the bus!) It had all my money in it, I've had to cancel all my cards, and I am now utterly skint until the replacement cards arrive. I have begged a small amount of money from my parents (my mother was very cross with me about my carelessness!) so I shouldn't die, but al the same, sit happens and it's only funny when it happens to other people (and sometimes not even then).

Speaking of which, the Internet is always good for morale because it's a great way to discover that there's always someone worse off than you. This week it is the incomparable Renegade Evolution, whose house has just decided to die, her husband has fallen nastily ill, she herself needs repair surgery on her neck after it was toasted last year (and lives in the USA where there's no socialised medicine to help out). In short, I may be without cash for a week or two; Ren is a lot worse off for money. She has a "donate" button, and my advice is "use it!" Her blog is one of the most valuable on the internet, she's up there in the Top 30 in the Feminist Blogosphere, despite renouncing the label "feminist", and her voice has been a reguar feature of many debates. (Even if you hate her and everything she stands for, be honest - if she vanished, you'd miss having a go at her!)

So yeah, as the inimitable Right Said Fred sang, "Half the world blows and the other half sucks"

Fucked up business of fucking

Livvy @ The English Courtesan writes about a 15 year old girl who was working as an escort. According to the news article she links, the girl's work was discovered when a teacher searched her school bag and found condoms, lube and the card of the escort agency.

So far the only person to have faced charges in court is... the schoolgirl herself. Not the escort agency, and not the clients (both of whom have actually broken the law, whereas the schoolgirl herself, as far as I can see, hasn't - unless she was liable to tax on her earnings).

Livvy's discussion of what's fucked up about the case in terms of how the police and the law handled it is pretty good, so I won't bother to add much more here, except to say that, since £8,000 of the girl's earnings were confiscated by the court as "proceeds of criminal activity", to me that makes the government her pimp. Which is a lovely relationship for sex workers to have with the people supposed to be protecting them! As Livvy says, no one seems to have asked what she was saving £8,000 for in the first place, and Livvy also points out that's something like 60-70 "tricks" she's turned, and no one seems to wonder why she would have been so desperate for it (or, alternatively, whether she enjoyed it enough to go back to the business afterwards).

However, the passage in Livvy's post that stood out to me was this one, which is background provided by Livvy herself:

It’s also practically unheard-of for escort agencies to ask for proof of age, residency or anything else when a new girl joins. Clients who ask an agency escort girl anything remotely personal are the ones who find themselves labelled ‘weirdos’ and unable to book a girl from that agency again.

And that's fucked up. Livvy does say she thinks anyone who does employ underage or trafficked women should face the full weight of the law, and that goes for the customers too. But the fact that there are actually disincentives for customers to check seems to me to be shocking.

The fact that sex work occurs at the fringes of society also proves to be a problem. If prostitution were completely decriminalised and made subject to just the same laws as govern any other business, it simply wouldn't be possible to avoid questions of proof of age or residency: as a properly conducted business, those issues would be served by the fact that you need a National Insurance number (which you only get when you're 16, and allowed to work in the UK) to handle the tax returns.

The other thing that occurs to me that could be done to change this toxic culture of "don't ask, don't tell" that Livvy sayas exists in the field of escort work and customers, is that once the whole field of sex work is decriminalised, then it will be a lot easier to work to educate would-be customers in more responsible use of escort services. Such as what to do if you suspect an escort might be underage. If it became normal for clients to "card" their service provider, then simple business economics would mean that blackballing people who ask that question would be an unworkable policy. And if clients refused to accept the services of a provider whom they believed to be underage, then again, pure economics would drive escort agencies to provide proof of age.

Now, some would say that this was the point of Jacqui Smith's plans that were criticised heavily a couple of months ago. However, as was repeatedly pointed out back then, those proposals gave no succour to the escorts themselves, and because it was set up as a "strict liability", a customer could not be confident of not breaking the law even if he did try to be responsible (since no amount of proof that he had been shown would be enough if it turned out that everybody lied to him, the records were forged, etc). As opponents explained back then, the intent was clearly to "freeze out" all prostitution and escort work by making clients too afraid to use any services.

One of the anti-prostitution feminists suggested "build a better john" as a guiding principle for policy. I actually agree with this. But for that to work, we need laws that reward good behaviour rather than laws that seek to lock people up. We need to work to destigmatise the whole idea of sex work, and make it clearer how a responsible client operates. We need a culture where it is as acceptable to show on television a public information ad about responsible "sex clienting" as it is about responsible alcohol consumption or responsible car driving. And one with the same message: "It's okay in general, but here's things that are not okay, and things to keep in mind".

The only way you're going to get there is by decriminalising sex work in general, and applying non-sexwork laws that have an impact (like employment laws, the age of consent, etc).

The only reason that it was possible for this underage girl to end up turning 60+ "tricks" without anyone batting an eyelid or saying anything about it, is because there are laws against sex work and the law itself stigmatises sex work.

BDSM and "Not In Front of the Kids"

Trinity has a post at Let The Eat Pro-SM Feminist Safe Spaces considering the question of how much it's appropriate to let kids see of a D/s or M/s dynamic. Obviously, the sexual and SM acts themselves cannot possibly be appropriate, so it comes down to how much of the power-exchange dynamic the kids get to see.

For those who have a clearly scene-delineated relationship, where the kink happens only in the bedroom, this is much less of a problem, but for those where the relationship is broader and plays a role in everyday life (e.g. "24/7" D/s, M/s etc) there's much more of a question. If it's what you're used to, even what is natural to you, then to me it seems like it's a pressing matter, and one that needs some thought.

The first observation I have is that children are very accutely aware of power relationships in their lives. They live with them for most of their lives: whether it's Mummy and Daddy's power over them, or Teacher's power over them, or the intricate power-struggles in the playground and after school among their friends. Power is their constant companion one way or another, and because many of those who are more powerful than they are have actions that can seem random, unexplained or just strange, being aware of what's going on is important to know.

For a while, I was a big fan of the television show Supernanny, in each episode of which Essex nanny Jo Frost would go into the home of a family with "problem" children, and over a few days observe their behavioural patterns, then make recommendations for how to handle the problems in a more constructive way. As an aside, Jo Frost is the physical model I use in my mind for Lady Rosenthyme; but kinky Governess Lady R. obviously has much different methods for dealing with her charges, and that's a game between consenting adults. Even so, I think that some of Jo Frost's approach works well in terms of D/s (apparently, she has had approaches from men wishing her to play a Domme role for them - but she doesn't do kink).

Back to the point: while I have heard one or two stories that not everything ends up as rosy as the television programme suggests for all the families featured, which in turn suggests that maybe not every technique Ms Frost recommends is necessarily a good one, the one aspect of the show that always struck me was the initial "observation" phase. Every time, I saw a child who understood very clearly how power was distributed in the family, and was taking advantage of any situation in which power was ambiguous, or simply not exercised. It is from observing this that I say children in general understand power, and are very sensitive to who has it and who doesn't.

(I say "in general", because I hold my childhood to be a counter-example in many respects)

Because children are this sensitive to power relationships, and because I feel that there's no realistic way to hide a power-exchange relationship completely, I am sure that there are always going to be subtle hints that a child will detect and interpret.

Trinity writes:

I do feel uneasy about the people who seem to think that not having sex in front of the kids but keeping the power dynamic really obvious is enough. I've heard people say "As long as we also tell little Julia that some households are woman-run or egalitarian, it's all good" and... I'm not convinced.

I mean, I do think some people have naturally dominant or submissive temperaments, and I think kids can pick up on that. So I'm not saying "Don't act like yourselves." But I do think "Daddy is Sir, but Mommy's not Ma'am" sends a message, and I think that's not appropriate.

My response to this is that I think you need to do something to explain the power dynamic, otherwise that inappropriate message is still going to be sent.

In comments, Livetta writes:

just telling "little Julia that some households are woman-run or egalitarian " doesn't bring it home, illustrate the point, or normalize the variety of healthy ways relationships and sexuality can be approached, and that seems the implied underlying heart of the issue. How does one give kids the information and the tools to think critically about this stuff (whether the relationships are kinky or vanilla, gay or straight), with an eye to the fact that they will one day be, but are not yet, independent beings

And my feeling is that this is a problem that has to be addressed head-on.

Given that children are likely to be aware that there's something going on power-structure-wise, whether we talk about it or not, it stands to reason that if we don't address it, then they will draw their own conclusions about what power structures in a family "should" be like. How often do we hear people who talk about growing up in abusive homes say things like, "I never knew it wasn't supposed to be like that. I thought everyone's family worked the same"? Indeed, isn't it reasonable to suggest that such subtle power distinctions are often a child's first introduction to Patriarchy?

I think there are actually two answers to this question (bear in mind, I do not have children, and do not have anything like an extensive study background on child psychology or anything, when I make these suggestions). The first deals with handling the clear power-dynamic, and also to some extent is a cover for any accidental lapses in language around the child.

Scorn is poured (and rightly, I think), on the notion that just saying "As long as we also tell little Julia that some households are woman-run or egalitarian, it's all good" is enough. Clearly it isn't. Livetta in the quote above talks about this "not bringing it home" or showing how those families work. So I think the first step in this part of the answer is a good social life for one's kids, so they go to other kids' families and see how things are done there. Step two involves discussion of how Mummy (or Daddy) made and makes a free choice to be obedient and give power to the other.

Points I would probably include in such a talk might be:

• It's chosen and it's only one way that a couple can excpress their love for each other
• NOBODY else gets to be in charge of Mummy (or Daddy) - and that includes little Julia. It's special between Mummy and Daddy.
• Words like "slave", "Master", "Sir", etc. have bad meanings for most people, but they are Mummy and Daddy's special words for each other (like some people call each other "sweetheart", "hunnybun", and say also like any pet names that they have for little Julia - it's not okay for anyone else to use those names about anyone).
• Different people choose different ways of being together, so sometimes Mummy (or Daddy) is in charge instead; and sometimes they both are.

The second answer I have is to display a constructive power-exchange relationship. While I obviously think that children are very sensitive to power relationships, the most important thing is always how those relationships impact upon them, and how they play out in front of them. Returning to Supernanny, one common theme that came up was where one parent was clearly the one "in charge", and the other parent always deferred to hir (examples of both genders being dominant were shown at one time or another). This dynamic can in one form be summed up by "You wait until your father gets home!" The other frequent component of it was that a punishment or telling-off would be given by the subservient partner, only to be countermanded or overruled by the dominant one.

Naturally, in these circumstances, the child knows exactly where zie stands with the subservient partner: they can pretty much get away with anything, because they won't get in trouble from that quarter - she (he) has no power.

One thing I've talked about in terms of how a full-time D/s relationship works is that responsibility is delegated so that when the Submissive partner has talents in one area, zie is given responsibility and autonomy to make sure things work smoothly there. The Dominant partner trusts and backs hir partner in any decisions in that area. Indeed, Jo Frost advocated soemthing like this: the "dominant" partner in these hierarchical families she encountered was always told that zie had to back up and reinforce hir partner's say-so, instead of undermining it.

If the D/s partners present a united front in decisions regarding their child, then this will to some extent mask the underlying D/s dynamic, because the power as far as it concerns the child will be more evenly spread.

Other ways in which this "delegation" technique can have a positive effect is if there are areas in which the Submissive partner is given ultimate responsibility, and the Dominant partner abides by hir say-so (as long as the direction for what has to be done comes from the Dominant partner, the means of getting it done is determined by the Submissive partner). What this presents iss a situation in which the overt power is reversed. Now, obviously, there are other issues here (for example, if the Submissive is given control only over traditionally "women's" roles, it could still send the wrong message), but it can help to present more than one way of seeing the world.

I think that any D/s or M/s relationship where a child is present in the family needs to be on a very low protocol basis, and very understated. But I don't think the issue can be avoided altogether, and I don't think it can just be hidden, and hope that little Julia doesn't pick up on it. All that is left is to deal with the questions that Julia might need answering, and deal with them in a way that is appropriate to her age.