I had some letters lately about the whole women-only sex party discussion. So I chose this one as an example to use in addressing them.

(edited for length) "I was struck by Kate's assertion that "there is nothing morally or ethically wrong with being gender-exclusionary for the purpose of self-perceived safety," as long as the exclusion is not executed in a "mean" way.

The first thing I notice here is the use of "self-perceived" as a modifier for safety. I think if someone's safety truly was at stake, then all possible and reasonable precautions should be taken. While perception of safety is also important, I don't find it as compelling of a notion on which to be exclusionary.

Taken one step farther, I could very easily imagine this statement with some substitutions:
1. "There is nothing morally or ethically wrong with being race/ethnicity-exclusionary for the purpose of self-perceived safety."
2. "There is nothing morally or ethically wrong with being sexuality-exclusionary for the purpose of self-perceived safety."

In all of these cases, all of the "excluders" have an extremely real perception of their risk; that is, they were not just excluding other groups "for the fun of it," but because they truly believed themselves or something very important to be at risk in the presence of the excluded group. This perception makes the exclusion justifiable, perhaps, but does it make it right?

Just the same, as some women have the perception of risk around individuals with male genitalia (or around all subgroups of transgendered peoples), does this make it OK to exclude them? And is exclusion OK as long as it is delivered in a nice way?

I know that these subjects are very amorphous, which makes it hard to define boundaries. And I know that "slippery slope" arguments are often very slippery.... and yet, I still DO think that it is a slippery slope from saying that "there's nothing morally or ethically wrong with being gender-exclusionary for the purpose of self-perceived safety," to saying that "there is nothing morally or ethically wrong with being X-exclusionary for the purpose of self-perceived Y."

I got several letters with the same basic type of argument: because it’s wrong to exclude a certain kind of person in a certain kind of situation, then it’s always wrong to exclude anyone, ever.

Now just let me say: I think this reader, and the other readers who wrote to me, mean well and are good people who want to be kind and fair. Okay? I acknowledge that. I also support safety, respect, and acceptance for all trans people, however they wish to express their gender.

But let’s just deconstruct this argument, because it’s intellectually lazy, and I cannot abide that. It is a popular one, I’ll give it that. I have certainly heard this line before – oh, so many times - about any sort of “blank-only” space.

And Kate Bornstein has certainly heard it too. There is probably damn little that Kate hasn’t heard of or thought of about gender issues, so even if I didn’t viscerally understand something Kate said, I myself would be inclined just to take it on faith.

That aside, this argument just makes me snort and roll my eyes. To me, this does not even rise to the dubious level of a slippery-slope argument. (Which are by definition, wrong.)

This is just nursery-school thinking. The rationale for this type of argument is: all identities are the same. Race = gender = age = sexuality = nationality = religion. In this worldview, all those statuses are precisely the same weight, the same importance, and they all have exactly the same effect on both the individual who wears them.

And that’s clearly not true. Those identities all have different histories, and they are all different in how they affect us. For one thing, some of those social groups confer certain types of power upon people within them. Others don’t. It is not wrong for a socially less-powerful group to create space for itself and specifically bar the presence of a socially more-dominant group. Especially when in doing so it in no way robs the dominant group of something it has both a need and a basic human right to equally access: education, housing, transportation, medical care, jobs, ect.

Men, as social group, have historically been dominant over women. Obviously there are individual exceptions, and the level of dominance has changed gradually through the course of recorded history, but that’s mostly been true and to some degree still is. Thus, we do not need to protect men from the injustice of not being able to access a certain social gathering.

Here’s what I would ask anyone who thinks that any exclusion of anyone, anytime, is wrong: how come you’re not all upset about public restrooms? Because those are gender-segregated. You ask any trans person, and I predict they will tell you that public restrooms are a difficult issue, and much more pivotal to their day-to-day life than an annual sex party.

So how about it, ladies - are you going to use the men’s room at the mall, or the airport, or the movies? If you’re really opposed to women-only spaces, you would. And you wouldn’t be the least upset about having a man come into a women’s restroom, or a women’s dressing room in a clothing store, or a women’s locker room at a gym. I am willing to bet that some of you would say “But that’s different!” I don’t think it is.

It is true that some people would like to unfairly discriminate against less-powerful social groups. That’s wrong. But that’s not what’s happening here. The fact that women-only sex parties occasionally happen actually does not mean the terrorists have won.

Extended Remix On Women-Only Parties

Oh, I was bad, I did not post this follow-up material to my column on Friday as I said I would. Here’s the rest of what gender activist and completely fabulous person Kate Bornstein had to say about woman-only spaces…

Kate: The notion of women-only events is horribly knotted-up. I think there should be events for women only if that's what makes the women who attend feel safe enough to play. But the wording is critical. The folks holding the party can no longer expect to say "women only" and expect trans women to accept the party-holders' notion that trans women are not women. That might have worked 20 years ago, but it doesn't fly today. And the wording can no longer be "No transgender women allowed." Because there are many trans women who don't consider themselves trans women and who would be within their rights to attend; not to mention the trans men who could attend based on that warning.

Matisse: What is your opinion of women-only sexually-oriented events?
Kate: There's nothing morally or ethically wrong with being gender-exclusionary for the purpose of self-perceived safety.

Matisse: How do you think they should handle the issue of who is permitted to attend them?
Kate: The guideline on handling exclusion boils down to DON'T BE MEAN. It's inexcusable to be cruel in the wording of any exclusion. You can't say "women only" or even "trans women excluded" because then you'd be defining another person's gender for them and expecting them to accept your definition. These days, that doesn't fly. The only wording that might work would be "Cisgender Women Only." That's clear, and not mean at all. Personally, I wouldn't want to attend any sort of party who wouldn't want to include me because of my identity. I don't think I'd like the people there any more than they'd like me.

Matisse: How would one throw a sex party and include transwomen while excluding opportunistic/unethical cismen?
Kate: Back in PowerSurge days*, there was the dick-in-the-drawer rule. The event was for women only. If a woman had a dick, she could attend if she could take her dick out of her pants, put it in a bureau drawer, and then slam the drawer. That's practical, but it's still cruel to pre-op and non-op trans women, so even the dick-in-a-drawer rule won't work any more. How to handle opportunistic cismen? I haven't got a clue.


*A women-only BDSM conference held in Seattle in the 90's.

Wow, This One Got Long

I’m in a letter-answering mood this week, let’s see what else we can pull out of the mailbag…

Mistress Matisse…
I have a question. I remember you mentioning in a column that your clients tend to be conservative. I have this idea that many guys with sex-negative, homophobic views are secretly seeing sex-workers. Maybe you even recognize some conservative politicians amongst your clients. Do you ever feel like you're betraying your fellow sex-workers or the queer/poly-community? Because you're supporting, in a way, the hypocricy of those conservatives? i realize my question isn't exactly fully thought out, but do you understand what I'm trying to say, or am I way off?

Maybe it helps to clarify my question when I explain how I came up with it. I (male and gay) recently met a gay guy who is a musician recording for a christian label (which forces him to stay closeted). I understand that he is religious and that recording under that label is his way of expressing his believe and supporting the good things his church does (like helping street children) but I still feel like he is betraying the queer community somehow, by working for that homophobic institution. Isn't your situation somehow comparable?

Goodness, how very Lysistrata-ish of you. Short answer: No, I don’t. No, it’s not. And no, I do not have any prominent conservative politicians (that I know of) among the people who come to see me.

You can find people in the queer community, and the poly community, that are sex work positive, but you can also find lots of people there who are strongly opposed to sex work. I do not feel that I need to consult their wishes - or anyone else's - in making my career choices. And I can assure you that other sex workers do not feel betrayed by me having conservative clients, given that they all do too.

If you want to get into long-winded political philosophy, then read on…

My dear earnest young man, your assumption here is that "liberal" equates with “sex-positive, non-homophobic, supports sex workers.” You are correct: this reasoning is not fully thought-out. It’s superficial and unexamined at best, and mainly just wrong.

(You also assume that I would define myself as a liberal. I don’t. I’m not a conservative, either. I am a complex blend of leave-me-alone libertarianism, it-takes-a-village progressive, and free-market conservative.)

Now, I will grant you that someone who calls himself a liberal is more likely to say he supports gay rights than someone who calls himself a conservative. However, I have known liberals who paid lip service to the party line, but carried around a lot of unspoken homophobic assumptions. And I have known secular conservatives who honestly didn’t care who slept with who. Or who married who, or who adopted children, or whatever, as long as they didn’t frighten the horses.

However, liberals as a political group are no more likely to be supportive of sex work than conservatives. I have seen just as much dismissal, condescension, and vitriol towards sex workers from the far left as the far right. In the view of many liberals, sex workers are simply victims. And if they refuse to be victims, then they are just bad, evil people. They’re like – oh my god – capitalists! (To be pronounced in same tone that a fundy-christian would use when crying “whores!”)

I'm curious what exactly you think liberals do that’s so supportive of sex work as a job choice? Because I am not aware of any legislation introduced by a mainstream liberal politician to decriminalize my career. I don’t mean citizen’s initiatives like Proposition K, I mean a sitting elected official making a clear effort to repeal laws prohibiting sex work. I don’t know of any. If you find me some, I’d be pleased to hear about it, but my experience and observation is that liberal and conservative politicians may phrase it differently, but they both get to the same conclusion: keep sex work mostly illegal and heavily stigmatized.

On the other hand, my experience and observation has also shown me that thinking individuals of either side can often be educated. Both liberal and conservative people have told me that knowing me changed their opinion of sex work and sex workers, because I was happy and smart and had my shit together.

But only if they're open-minded. I’m remembering one extremely liberal man, who I knew for several years back when I was an escort, who simply could not let himself believe that no, I wasn’t a drug addict, and no, I didn’t have a pimp, and no, I wasn’t abused as a child, et cetera. He was a very nice man, but his continual anxious hand-wringing about whether this was really, really something I was okay with doing got on my nerves. It certainly was not conducive to a good fuck.

No, if I was going to screen for political affiliation, I might very well choose secular moderate-to-conservatives, if for no other reason than they generally sympathize with my work-ethic and entrepreneurial bent, and my desire to be mostly left alone by my government. They see that I am not a victim, and that no one is forcing me to do anything.

And that guy you’re sprung on, the closeted one? He isn’t being forced, either, unless his christian employer is holding a gun to his head. He is choosing it. He may not like everything about the choice he’s made – I can tell you don’t - but he’s a grown-up, and he gets the responsibility for his decisions.

Approaching sexuality with this "never give aid and comfort to the enemy" mindset disregards the power of body and soul. And if you’re going to say that no one from a less-powerful social group should be sexual with someone of a more-powerful social group, then you’d have to say women should not be sexual with men, period. Nor any person of color with a white person, nor any working-class person with a middle- or upper-class one. Not a realistic premise.

So think about it: Are you really saying we should put pressure on people to keep their sexuality strictly in line with, and segregated by, their political affiliations? I don't think that's the way to make the world a more sexually progressive place.

Am I Or Not?

Cool reader Trix recently alerted me to the fact that I was quoted in this book: Yes Means Yes! Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape. Sexy blogger/author/editor Rachel Kramer Bussell wrote an essay entitled: "Beyond Yes or No: Consent as Sexual Process" in which she talks about consent as an ongoing activity.

The quote is from a Stranger column I wrote called "The A Word", which can be read in all it's ranty glory here.

This is what RKB said...

"It benefits both halves of a couple (or coupling) to know what the other is into.... As dominatrix and sex columnist Mistress Matisse wrote in The Stranger, "Some of the pleasure I take in kink is the continual seduction of consent. I love the fact that I can get my partners to let me to do things to them that they never thought they'd let anyone do--and better yet, I can make them like it. That's hot."

So I bought a copy, naturally, and yep, there I am. I'm flattered and pleased, of course. But it's sort of strange to see myself referenced in a feminist anthology. Not bad, just... strange.

People ask me, "Are you a feminist?" And I usually say something like, "Do you think I am?"

Sometimes they say, "Oh yes, definitely!"

And I smile and say "All right then, I am."

Sometimes they say "No! Women like you are antithetical to feminism."

And I shrug and say, "Then we don't have anything else to talk about, do we?"

Because I'm just not going to play that game. When I was a very young woman, I did a lot of college-based political activism. Mainly pro-choice stuff, and some GLBT issues, and then later, AIDS activism. I called myself a feminist, and I encountered other women who also called themselves feminists.

Now, no one woman - or any group of women - have sole ownership of that word. I know that. But at that time in my life, when the Feminist Sex Wars were still being fought in many circles, I met a lot of feminist-identified women who acted as if they did. And the very clear message I got from them was that I was wrong. The way I looked was wrong, the books I read, the kind of music I listened to - but most of all, the kind of sex I liked. My whole sex life was wrong, wrong, wrong.

I spent some time trying to reconcile who I felt I was with the message I was getting from those women. But I wasn't able to do that, so I walked away from the movement.

I still support the same values and causes I always did: equal pay, the right to an abortion, ect. But I decided not to devote time, money and energy to advancing the broader political philosophies of people who didn't accept me and my choices. You might say that I fight in some battles, but I decline to re-enlist in the army.

Yes, I know about the sex-positive feminist movement. I think the women who identify themselves as such are great people. But to me, if I have to qualify myself to say I belong to your club, then I don't want in. Take me as I am, or not at all.

I am not saying that I don't support feminists. I do. If you think I'm a feminist and wish to call me so, I'm fine with that. If you are a feminist, I'm happy to be quoted in support of whatever you're saying.

But if you're someone who thinks a woman like me - kinky, sex-working, high-heel-wearing me - can't possibly be part of your feminist movement... Then you're right. I'm not.

I don't usually re-post these sorts of things.... But this is so beautiful. The music is great, the photos are moving. It's such a perfect expression of this very important human rights issue.

"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

So I feel like I should write about something other than politics, just because that's all we've been talking and thinking about for days now. But I can't. Because I actually walked around yesterday being sort of emotional and a little teary and feeling like, "Oh my god, the world is a better place than I thought it was, and there's still a lot of problems, but it's going to get even better." I felt really proud and happy to be an American.

Now, don't get me wrong, I've always been pleased that I was American, in a calm and rational way. But it was a passive sort of feeling. I don't recall ever feeling quite so actively happy about it.

I would not say I was a cynical person. But I do tend to be, shall we say, skeptical and analytical. I'm suspicious of anything that looks like a cult of personality, and I am not prone to going along with the crowd just for the sake of it.

But he's really gotten to me, Mr Obama, because I feel hopeful, in a way I haven't felt for a while. And while a tiny, stubborn part of me still says "Don't get your hopes up, don't drink the Kool-Aid, that way you won't be disappointed if it fails..." the rest of me says "No, I'm going to trust this feeling." So I am.

It's interesting to me, too, that I don't recall feeling this way when Bill Clinton got elected. And you know how much I like Bill. I like him a lot. Bill is on the very short list of men who could booty-call me, and I'd go. He wouldn't have to buy me dinner or anything. I think Bill is that hot.

(Who else is on the list? Christopher Walken, John Stewart, and Jason Statham. If any of those guys ever call me, I'm there, no questions asked, boom. I have already cleared this with Monk. Just in case.)

Obama does not turn me on sexually, although I suppose you could say he excites me intellectually. Frankly, in spite of the fact that I once made up some stuff about what he would be like in bed, I do not get a sexy vibe from him at all. Maybe it's different in person. Then too, I'm guessing he has not been feeling all that sexy the last little while here, on account of being under just a teensy bit of stress.

But Obama is an iconic figure in a way that Clinton, for all his skill and charm and accomplishments, is not. I suppose as we get used to an Obama presidency, and his inevitable flaws and shortcomings begin to show, that may wear off some. But until then, I doubt I'm going to be able to think of him sexually. To me, it's the little flaws that make someone feel three-dimensional and thus, human. Icons aren't sexual to me because they're one-dimensional.

However, I'm guessing Mr. President-Elect can get along just fine without me being sexually attracted to him. And if he's just as good a president as we need him to be, I'm fine with that too. I hope he will be.

Wow. Wow. What an amazing and historic night. Monk and I sat watching the returns, shrieking and clutching each other and saying "Omigod, omigod, he's really going to do it!"

What a big change is coming - really coming - in our world. I'm not someone who thinks Barack Obama walks on water, heals the sick and raises the dead. He's just a man. But he's a good man, and he's a smart man, and I think he's honest and has integrity, and I think he really wants to lead us well, and make the country a better place than it currently is. I haven't felt that way about my president for eight years, so it makes me very happy that I now do.

Amazing to live through history being made.

I'm voting today! No, I didn't do mail-in like most people, I get a weird pleasure out of going to the actual polling place. We're going to all-mail voting in Washington soon, so this may be the last time I ever do this. And I've never had to wait in line more than a few minutes, possibly because I go in the middle of the day. But I will, if I have to.

So off I go, to happily vote for Obama, and somewhat resignedly for Gregoire. She's not that great of a governor, but at least she's better than the anti-choice, Christian-fundy Dino Rossi.

The Death With Dignity measure? I'm voting for it, we should have the right to die when we're terminally ill.

And then I'll be watching the returns tonight, although... it seems like curtains for McCain. It's not over, of course. But Nate Silver assures me that a McCain win is quite unlikely.

I've been highly amused by this site - I bet they have something fun in store for the finale!

Now I'm just wondering what should I do with the very large chunk of time and brainpower I have been devoting to reading and processing tons of political information. (And ranting about it.) Wait, never mind, I seem to have a very dusty "To-Do" list here. I think I wrote it six months ago. Perhaps I'll get started on it!

Good lord, I'd have run for Vice-President myself if I'd known I'd get $150 thousand dollars worth of new clothes. Wow. I mean, I spend more on clothes than the average woman, and I am also fortunate enough to have people who are very, very generous to me in that way. I get clothes from Saks and Neiman Marcus, I know how much designer stuff costs, and still, that's a lot of money.

Especially right now. I myself have an unusual opportunity today: I've got a couple of hours to kill in Atlanta, where there is - drumroll, please - a Neiman Marcus store. I like NM, and we don't have one in Seattle, you see. So when I first booked this trip, I had thought I'd take the opportunity to do a little post-parental retail therapy. I was quite looking forward to it.

But you know, I have a feeling I'm not going to be able to bring myself to spend any money. I'm just that uneasy. It's disappointing, but I just don't think I can justify it to myself. I do feel that in the long term, the economy will recover itself, and my personal financial life will be okay. But today, even though I am not experiencing any let-up whatsoever in my business, I don't think I'm going to be comfortable buying any expensive clothes.

Which is a shame, because I would like to. Is it too late to declare myself a candidate for VP?

The visit with my Mom is going fine. Guess what? She is just as obsessed as I am with the election. Must be something genetic, huh? We're talking about it incessantly, and we pretty much agree on everything. My sweet little Southern-lady, deeply-Catholic mother absolutely foams at the mouth when she talks about Bush and Cheney. She loathes them. And like me, she's also disappointed in McCain and enraged by Palin. She's already cast her vote for Obama.

Her husband hasn't said as much, but I think he's considering voting for Obama, too. For him even to be on the fence about it is significant. This is an affluent, conservative, older white man, former military, pillar of the business community, born and raised right here in Atlanta. He's been quietly but steadily Republican all his life. If this type of man is doubting McCain, that's a bad sign for that campaign. Anything could happen, but...

***

Also, as promised: pictures!

The new column, in which I reveal a secret and somewhat taboo fantasy. Don't judge me.

In other political gossip, I did get a nice email from Bill Whittle, the guy who wrote the National Review Online article I blogged about last week. Someone told him I'd written about his piece, and we had a pleasant exchange about it. It's safe to say he and I don't agree about the overall health care issue. He says that having free health care would makes us slaves. I think that Mr. Whittle has no idea how difficult it is to make even one person a really good slave, let alone a nation of them. Sure, we'd all be in chat rooms and on personals sites, saying we were slaves, but in reality we'd be whining, demanding, manipulative do-me queens, who expected our government overlords to fall out of bed every morning in full fetish attire and spank our butts before they even had a cup of coffee. Trust me on this, Mr. Whittle - in six months our liberal Masters and Mistresses would be running for the exits. It's not for wimps, this slave-making business.

But he disagreed with something I said in that post. I represented him as having his mind firmly made up on the matter, but he says that's not so. Mr. Whittle says, "I will be the first person to admit when I am wrong, if I can be convinced I was wrong by a sound argument supported by facts and logic. To say I changed my mind is a badge of honor for me."

Well, all right then, I stand corrected. Let the record show his statement. Let the record also show that he complimented the picture of me in the white dress. Always nice to find some points of agreement with everyone you meet...

Well, I had a busy weekend. For one thing, I taught a class at a writer's convention, which I was excited but somewhat stressed about. It's one thing to teach how-to classes to kinky people. I know, generally, how to teach stuff like that.

But teaching a class full of authors how to write about kink, or sex work, or polyamory in fiction? That's different. And I just never know how people outside the love bubble - especially women - are going to respond to the full-on "Mistress Matisse" experience. But the attendees were cool, and it turned out to be a lot of fun. I also got to hang out with Hannah and Sparkle, which was great.

Another cause for happiness: I have six whole days before I have to fly anywhere! I'm going to Atlanta on the 19th, to visit my family, and I'm coming back the 23rd. (Special thanks go out to the man appropriately nicknamed Jet, for scoring me a first class ticket. That's a really nice thing to have on any flight, but if I'm traveling coast to coast, it's absolutely mandatory.)

So if you're wanting to get time with me, contact me soon. I have some time available this week, and I'd love to see some of the friends I've had to regretfully decline due to my recently-insane schedule.

***

In reference to Friday's post: I got some really interesting and thoughtful responses to the question of whether or not health care is "a right", and I choose some to post here. I must say, it's such a pleasure and an honor to have such smart readers. Thanks for your thoughts!

Just For Some Political Balance…

This is why I don’t think I’m ever going to be a really gold-star liberal. I sorta kinda agree a little bit with this article in the National Review.

I know, the National freakin’ Review, bastion of hard-right-wingers everywhere. Don’t ask how I got to the link, I read way too much political stuff, and I’m not sure it’s entirely good for me. I was ranting about the general idiocy of Lou Dobbs to a friend yesterday. He stared at me thoughtfully and said, “You should really not be allowed to watch TV or read the newspapers until after the election.” I think he feared for my blood pressure or something.

(Hah, like you could keep me from reading. Good luck with that. So, anyway, I somehow clicked through some link or other and wound up reading the article. This post will make no sense to you unless you do, too, but the article is pretty short, so you can click over there and then come back.)

It’s about health care, and the question author Bill Whittle poses is: is health care a right? He’s springboarding off the answer Obama gave in the last debate – which was “Yes.” Mr. Whittle, you will not be astonished to learn, disagrees.

Now understand, I have not spent any more time studying the problem of health care than the average healthy person. That means: not much. But it’s true that when people say “health care is a right”, I think to myself, really?

I mean, a right. Seriously? I don’t understand that. I can see, as any reasonable person can, that everyone having all the health care they need is by far the most desirable state of affairs, and that it’s a worthy goal for us to strive for as compassionate human beings. I can understand the idea that we should all make some contribution to the world and be kind to people who are less fortunate than ourselves. I have no argument with that.

But a right? I think of rights as pretty basic things: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, the right to free speech and free association – those are examples of rights, in my mind. I don’t know if having health care, as needful as it is, is in that category to me. I generally dislike “slippery slope” arguments, because they don’t really address the issue. But Whittle’s extension of the idea to food and shelter has a certain punch: you will die without food, so why is food not “a right”?

Of course, many people would say that being fed and housed is a right. I’m not saying that it’s wrong to want to care for other people, and to work towards that goal, I’m simply saying I don’t understand how those things are rights. Those types of statements feel to me like they’re watering down the idea of what a right really is. When I think of rights, I think of things that I have, inside me, which should not be taken away from me by any outside force. They are things that are integral to me being a human being. I don’t inherently have health care, or food or shelter. I must create some situation in which I get them. Or someone else must create it. But it doesn't just happen.

It may well be that I just have a blind spot about this. I’ve almost never been legally employed by anyone, and I have definitely never been employed anywhere that had health care benefits. Thus, I’ve always had to provide my own health care insurance. That’s just…what you do, in my head. In fact, I’ve never even entertained the idea of getting any form of government assistance, like unemployment, welfare, food stamps, student loans/grants, or anything like that. I don’t think those programs are bad, I just haven’t participated in them. The whole concept of anyone else being involved in providing my health care is foreign to me. I suppose when I’m old I’ll make use of Medicare, if it’s still there. And if I try, I can certainly construct a scenario in my head – an extremely unpleasant one- which would end with me applying for government aid. So I'm not saying "oh, I'm too good for that, I'd never do it."

I can see that there’s some disconnect between my ideas that “It’s okay that taxes fund some food/shelter/medical care for people who need it” and “But it’s not a right”. If it’s not a right, then why is it acceptable for the government to pay for it? I don’t know. That’s a gap in my reasoning that I can’t explain. But my point is not that the government shouldn’t help people. It’s just that the idea of my having a right to some external thing I didn’t work for/pay for is puzzling to me. Unlike the author, I’m not unwilling to be persuaded to another point of view. If someone makes a clear and cogent argument to me about how health care really qualifies as a right, then I’ll change my mind. I haven’t heard that yet, though.

A few observations as I get ready to jet off to Las Vegas...

My cat and I have spent more time in the vet's office lately that either one of us cared to - a rare instance in which we are in complete agreement on something - but a couple rounds of medication later, we seem to be on the right track. I am vastly amused to find that many years of sticking needles into adult humans as a form of recreation does seem to help when getting the hang of injecting meds into a disapproving feline. I don't need to be told how to not stick myself in the thumb, for example. Nor need I be told how to properly dispose of used needles.
So once again, thank you for the well-wishes.

Veering from the home front to the national: I am not a serious Maureen Dowd fan. However, I was very entertained by this column, and I agree with what she's saying . These kinds of feelings are the root of my negative response to Sarah Palin and others of her "Just Folks" political brand. "Frontier Baroque", indeed. In fact, some of my pre-campaign willingness to consider voting for McCain was based on the fact that he never, ever talked like that.

Thoughts on "Religulous": I am not a serious Bill Maher fan, either. He's clever and funny, of course, but too often his cynicism comes off, to me, as bitterness. Now, there are plenty of things in the world one might reasonably be bitter about. But that's not something I seek out as entertainment. Jon Stewart, for example, manages to rant and rail hilariously, and yet maintain a certain sweetness and charm that makes me think he'd be pleasant to be around in person.

Still, I wanted to see this documentary just because it's been so talked-about. And Bill does pretty much just what you'd think he would do - goes around with a camera and a microphone and skewers strongly religious people with the illogic of their beliefs. It is funny, although it's so heavily edited that one wonders what was cut out. And some of the people he interviews - well, when you are not accustomed to talking to the media, it's easy to get lured into saying things that make you look like a fool. There were moments when I did think, "Oh come on Bill, pick on someone your own size."

Many of them are worthy targets, though, and the segments with the evangelical Senator from Arkansas are hilarious. Overall, I think it's well worth seeing. Also worthy of note: the movie audience clapped at the end. Loudly. They also clapped and cheered for trailer of the upcoming Oliver Stone movie about G. W. Bush. As I said to Monk, "It is nice to be living in a liberal city."

Preface: I had originally planned to not post this call for opinions on this blog, because I wanted to solicit answers from more narrowly-focused groups of BDSM-identified people. But frankly, I'm not getting any takers! Everyone seems to be voting for for Obama. It would be interesting to think that all the kinky people in the world are Democrats, but I happen to know that ain't so. I am personally acquainted with some very kinky Republicans who are smart people and who have thoughtful views on the issues. So perhaps they'll offer me their opinion.

***

"Why I’m Voting For John McCain..."

That’s what I’d like to know from you – if you are. I’m interested in doing a column about people for whom BDSM/kink/whatever-you-prefer-to-call-it is an active/daily part of their lives, and who intend to vote Republican in the Presidential election.

I know that a lot of people who are not all that kinky read me. I'm pleased to have those folks here. But the people I want to hear from around this issue are the serious, but serious BDSM people. So let me channel Joe Biden in the debates last night and say it again: what I’m looking for is Republican voters who are sincerely wedded to their identity as a BDSM person, and for whom that is a defining feature of their life.

(Or their identity as a D/s person, or a kinky person, or a fetish person, or whatever term you prefer to employ. Master/slave, female-led relationships, domestic discipline households - insert whatever term you like into that sentence. )

I would like to hear from people from whom what-it-is-we-do is a daily or constant feature of their life. While I loathe and despise the term “lifestyle” in any context, I suppose that’s one way of expressing what I mean here: lifestyle BDSM people.

If you’d like to be quoted, send me an email telling me why you’re choosing McCain, and how that fits in with your identity as a BDSM person. (Or whatever you call yourself, please tell me how you'd like to be described.)

Now, some guidelines: I have very limited space and I want to offer a lot of people’s responses, so I’m looking for answers that are short and snappy, about fifty words or so, max. Equally, your identity label needs to be short, three or four words.

And answers that are just about how much you don’t like Obama probably won’t make it in – I want to hear about why you do like McCain and think he’s the right choice, not about why you don’t like the other guy.

Tell me what name you'd like to be called, and what state you live in, please. And thanks in advance for your participation.

Mistress Matisse @ aol.com

My 736th Rant About How Words Are Important!

Or maybe it’s not that many. But sweet Jesus Christ, you’d think if you were going to use a word on national television, you’d make sure it was the right word! Unless of course you were an empty sock-puppet of a VP candidate, the political equivalent of a pin-up girl on a Rigid Tool calendar, who’s been spoon-fed sound bites by party handlers and who regurgitates them on command. Like, say, Sarah Palin.

I’m really trying not to bore everyone with my obsession (and subsequent ranting) with the political/economic situation right now. I just bore my close friends with it. The rest of ya’ll don’t come here for that and I know it.

But. This is a farce. This a travesty. I have never felt so insulted in all my life as I do by the campaign the Republicans are running. I've done lap-dances for drunken frat boys who were more respectful of my intelligence than this.

Look, I liked John McCain all right two years ago. And while I do like Obama, I don’t consider him the Second Coming or anything. (Biden’s all right, too – even his habit of putting his foot in his mouth on a regular basis I find oddly endearing somehow. He cops to it, he’s humble about it, so, okay.)

And as I have said before, I take a fairly moderate, centrist position on most political issues. So when it became clear that it would be Obama vs. McCain, I thought, “Okay, well, there’s upsides and downsides there whichever way it goes, but I can live with either one of those options.”

I was wrong.

McCain sold his soul to devil – that’s the only way I can account for his complete metamorphosis from reasonable-if-conservative-guy to the mendacious, quavering, hollow-eyed maître d' to Dick Cheney’s hunting buddies. And having, I suspect, bought and paid for McCain, those king-makers now shake him like a Magic Eight-Ball that’s loaded with meaningless platitudes, sleazy insinuations, and outright lies. The McCain/Palin campaign thinks we are idiots, and that’s how they are treating us.

Now, there are a lot of idiots in the world, I’ll grant you. But I am not one, and I know a number of other non-idiotic people. So the arrogance and the hubris of this enrages me. It’s like they think they can just say anything they like, truth or lies, or not answer questions at all, and it won’t really matter, because “the voters don’t care about petty details like that.”

I care. I care very much. And I’m watching.

Other writers are covering the campaign far better than I can, because I’m not a political journalist. So I’m not going to go on about all the things the McCain and Palin have said that make me crazy. I swear I'm not. But here’s one thing that makes me literally howl with outrage: Sarah Palin can’t even say her lines properly.

Take the interview about foreign policy she did with Charlie Gibson. Now, there was a lot wrong with that interview. (Including Charlie Gibson. Long ago, I used to have a client who’d adopt that professorial, looking-over-the-glasses manner with me, and I hated it. Mr. Gibson should have taken a different tack.)

Anyway – she said “nuclear” just like George Bush says it. The word is pronounced noo-clee-ar. Not nu-cue-lur. That’s wrong. And if you’re campaigning for a position with your finger on the button, you should at least be able to say the fucking word.

And then yesterday, she’s defending McCain’s “the fundamentals of the economy are strong” flub by saying people were picking on his “verbage”.

There is no such word. So, not content to merely continue GWB’s political policies, she is now also carrying on his well-documented assault on the English language. I’m sorry, was it too much trouble to learn how to properly express the sentiments your Martian leaders taught you, Ms. Palin? Let me help. There is no such word as “verbage”. And you did not say “Thanks but no thanks” to Congress, either. Stop saying both those things.

Oh, there’s the word "verbiage"- verb-bi-age. But that’s not what she said. She said "verbage". And she clearly doesn't even know what that word means, because to call someone’s speech verbiage is not a flattering or even neutral choice of words. The first definition of verbiage is: a profusion of words usually of little or obscure content.

Huh. Well, when I think about applying that word to the McCain campaign – maybe I’m being too rough on Sarah. I think that’s about the truest thing either one of them has said so far.

***

Edit: Yes, I know there’s a slang term, but it’s not widely used and accepted, much less in the dictionary, and I don’t think Ms. Palin was trying to show her hipster street cred in the interview with Faux News. Plus, it means "garbage." So, same difference. She fails.

***

One More Edit: Oh, yeah, I wrote a column. It's not about politics, but I hope you like it anyway. Congratulations again, Lochai, I'm sure you'll do a great job. Now pardon me while I go fume some more.

A call to action, from The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom...

***

Kinky is NOT a Diagnosis! The DSM Revision Petition

The DSM Revision Petition is gathering signatures from individuals and organizations calling on the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to adhere to empirical research when revising the diagnoses in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

Statements currently within the DSM Paraphilias criteria are contradicted by scientific evidence therefore NCSF must conclude that the interpretation of the Paraphilias criteria has been politically – not scientifically – based. This politically motivated interpretation subjects BDSM practitioners, fetishists and cross-dressers to bias, discrimination and social sanctions without any scientific basis.

Petition:
"We, the undersigned, support the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) own goal of making its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) a scientific document, based on empirical research and devoid of cultural bias. A diagnosis of a mental disorder can have a severe adverse impact on employment opportunities, child custody determinations, an individual's well-being, and other areas of functioning. Therefore we urge the APA to remove all diagnoses that are not based upon peer-reviewed, empirical research, demonstrating distress or dysfunction, from the DSM. The APA specifically should not promote current social norms or values as a basis for clinical judgments."


To sign, go to: www.thepetitionsite.com/1/DSMrevisionpetition (You can make your signature anonymous on this secure petition site so it doesn't appear on the Internet)

To find out more about the DSM and the Paraphilias section, read the NCSF & ITCR: The
Foundation for NCSF's "White Paper on the DSM Revision" at www.ncsfreedom.org (Mistress's note: At the moment, I am unable to access the White Paper. I hope that gets fixed soon.)

For more information, email: DSMrevisionpetition@yahoo.com

Politics: Huh. Apparently the two qualifications for being vice-president of the United States are a) boobs and b) a snarky turn of phrase and willingness to mock people. Nice to know I have another career option open to me. Since, you know, I myself possess both those traits.

As an aside: I bet Sarah Palin really pisses Dick Cheney off. I mean, the Republicans picking such a seriously under-qualified candidate - it kinda makes him look like a First Lady with a jockstrap, doesn't it?

Now, I'm certainly going to be talking some about politics until the election. Just so you know, I am actually not a hard-left kind of girl. I think of myself a political moderate, a centrist. I vote Democrat because the Republicans won’t stay out of my panties. Not that I haven’t thoroughly enjoyed that on some private occasions. But you know what I mean: the sex/reproductive rights issues.

However, the kind of Republicanism being displayed at the RNC makes me feel like Michael Moore. Only with boobs.

Pop Culture: I saw Tropic Thunder, and I know there’s some unhappiness about their use of the word “retard”, etc. However, I thought it was quite funny, and some of my best friends… Okay, not really. But as far as I know, the gay community is not upset by Jack Black’s passionate soliloquy about the blow-job he’d give to Brandon Jackson. (I know I may never recover from it.) If that speech didn’t send the gay boys shrieking out of the theater, well, surely everyone else can get a sense of humor, too.

Media: I have said in the past that a man looking to sell sex work services to women will starve to death. Well, I still don’t think you should quit your day job. But I think there’s a tiny bit more opportunity there than there used to be. I know someone personally - one might even say biblically - who’s doing all right. Here's a story from a UK paper on the subject – just fluff, really. But a small cultural indicator just the same.

Also from the Times: people who don’t think divorces should be easy to get should read this: professional seducers in Japan give unhappy spouses a way out. An interesting niche of sex work - and certainly one with room for the guys. But even if the “Family Values” party – ahem, excuse me, something seems to be sticking in my craw here, cough cough - gets elected, I can’t believe Mr. Second-Marriage McCain would take the country this way.

There’s also a lot of fuss in certain circles about this piece. Hipster Hookers, in Radar. I don’t know why, because I have read about a million jillion articles just like it. Hell, I know people who've written entire books on the topic. Elevator pitch: “Sweet young thing is titillated by sex work, but realizes at the last minute that she’s not that kind of girl”. Fresh and edgy, huh? NOT.

She may not be cut out to be an escort, however I think the author would make a great stripper, because this article is all tease and no delivery. Also, I can’t believe she gave the madame money. "Naïve and Gullible, party of one!"

Okay, I think I'm done demonstrating what a good Vice-President I'd be. Did I mention that I have boobs?