I Love When Marketing Practicality Lines Up with Busting Up Sexist Social Mores

We Have to Be Idealists

Cary Tennis Advises a Women in an Abusive Marriage

In his latest column, Cary Tennis advises a woman in an abusive marriage. His advice touches on themes of the history of women's subjugation to men, male privilege, and the connection between fear and anger. It's a candid and fresh perspective on these topics that doesn't rely on Public Service Announcement speak to make a point, nor is his point as one-sided as PSAs.

I read this and, though I think about these issues often, learned something new and was reminded of the sort of nuance that can be lost in considering these clearly-wrong topics. Just because we take a singular stand against domestic violence doesn't mean domestic violence is singular in meaning. Tennis' response reminded me of that today.

Jane Austen's Fight Club

I always loved Jane Austen. Now I love her even more. Good Society can piss off.

Another Awesome Quote on Being an Example

“And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same.”

-Marianne Williamson's A Return to Love

PS - Thanks for the correction, A

Kissinger on the Battle of the Sexes

Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There’s too much fraternizing with the enemy.

-Henry Kissinger

Why Rape-aXe Bites

So by now you may have heard of Rape-aXe, which is basically a female condom with piercing hooks in it removable "only by doctors" who, it is assumed, will automatically turn in to police all patients bearing them.

So, an "anti rape" device that literally requires me to be raped in order to exact physical punishment on a rapist? Gee thanks, Ms. Ehlers, I feel "empowered" now.

Of course, this device doesn't guarantee justice, like its inventor suggests. That would assume that:

1- Said rapist actually went to a doctor to have it removed,
2- Said doctor actually reported him, and
3- Said justice system actually arrests, tries, convicts, and properly sentences said rapist.

And we all know that this, in theory, should happen everywhere. But we also know how rarely, in practice, it actually does.

On a related note, it's always extra disappointing when fellow women perpetuate rape culture by putting the onus to prevent rape on the victims.

Best Safeword Ever

To top off our discussion of safewords, we want to know: what's the best safeword you've ever heard?

Other than the old standbys like "safeword" and the stop-light series (i.e., red, yellow, green), give us your Best. Safeword. Ever.

Leave 'em in the comments.

Safewords for Trigger Management and More

Below, Courtny introduced us to safewords and how they are traditionally used in BDSM and sexual situations. Here, I am going to expand the repertoire for safewords beyond their usual scene. Safeword use can be extended to non-sexual situations. Below, I give you the lay of the non-sexual safeword land.

Safewords for Trigger Management

Triggers are things that set off chains of reactions, feelings from, or memories of, often, traumatic or difficult events or experiences.

Trauma Triggers

Safewords can easily be used for managing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or other trauma-related triggers. When a situation, particularly a social situation, starts feeling too much like your traumatic event or if someone makes a triggering remark (I've beared witness to a conversation at another table at a restaurant about how "sexy" rapists are), you can use a safeword to discretely signal to your friends or partner (whoever you choose) that you need to leave (or cope in whatever way you need, but for the purposes of this post and to keep it simple, I'm going to continue to use leaving as the post-trigger action.)

Use the comments section to suggest other applications for safeword use. And remember: they only work if both partners respect their use.

Using a safeword here is more effective than just saying, "Let's go" all of a sudden because the safeword you choose and share with your partner automatically tells your friend why you need to leave and cues the appropriate response on their part so they can be supportive. This way you don't say, "Let's go," and get the response of, "Why? I'm having a good time, aren't you? Why, what happened?" and have to go into an explanation (possibly in public) that you may not want to get into or share with other people in earshot. Doing this makes it so that you can cope on your own time without having to announce your issues to the whole room. This is true of all the non-sexual uses of safewords I'm discussing here.

Drug Triggers

The same use of safewords can be applied to triggers related to drug use. Many people trying to stay away from drugs are triggered not just by the sight of drug use and/or paraphernalia, but sometimes, as is the case with recovering crack addicts, just hearing the word 'crack' can trigger thoughts about drug use and provoke thoughts and behaviors they worked so hard to change. Using a safeword in situations (like going to a party and needing to leave when someone shows up with drugs) makes it so that you can discretely streamline your support system and perhaps arrange to not be alone until you feel calm and stable enough to avoid a potential relapse. (Again, without having to announce your issues to everyone around.)

Would-be Drunk Drivers

I've seen safewords effectively used to prevent drunk party-goers from trying to drive home. The host of the party (who also was the holder of the keys) had a drunk friend start to freak out when he refused to hand him the keys to drive home. Previously, the host had agreed with a sober friend that if this happened (and this drunk friend had a habit of getting wasted and trying to drive home), he would simply say, "Call Matt," so Matt would instantly know what the deal was and that he should intervene and distract the drunk friend until other arrangements could be made to get him home or until he sobered up. (Another great idea that this host came up with was having a Breathalyzer around (thanks to another drunk friend who had been arrested so many times for DUIs that he had to get one) and requiring people to pass the legal blood-alcohol reading in order to safely drive home. This was the most accurate way to gauge whether a person's able to drive and it's impersonal enough and backed by the law for most people not to take it personally.) The only thing worse than sending a drunk friend to drive him- or herself home is a drunk friend who gets all riled up because everyone is in their face about not driving home.

Medical Disorders

Safewords have been used effectively at work for people with seizure disorders. (However, safewords are really only effective for people with seizure disorders who get auras before their seizures.) When you notice your aura you can use a safeword to discretely let a trusted colleague or supervisor know that you need to lay down for a while. This could be a good way to manage a seizure disorder at work (or wherever) without sharing your disorder with the whole office.

Safewords can also be used by people who use wheelchairs who need assistance getting to the bathroom. Perhaps you're disinclined to announce to the person who helps you out with these things that you need to take a piss while in a social situation. In such a case, a safeword could tip off your helper and avoid potential awkwardness or embarrassment.

Anger Management

Psychiatrists have effectively used safewords to tip people with anger management problems off that they are losing control. For one psychiatrist, the word 'cut' was used to signal to their client that s/he has gone over the line and needs to step out of the room and take a few minutes to calm down before re-entering.

Of course the safeword in the above situation was used by a trained professional in a therapeutic situation. It would be an abuse of both the person and the safeword itself to use it to just cut someone off when they're trying to share something unpleasant but not out of line.

Guest Blogger: Safewords: When “No” Means “Yes” and “Banana” Means “Get the Fuck Off Me”

In the glow of the TV, she slides silky black stockings up her legs. He strips off a work shirt and khakis, revealing red tighty-whitey boxers. As they talk about their kids, he pulls on a pair of ass-less chaps, and she takes off her purple bathrobe to reveal a tightly laced black corset. He buckles on spiky wristbands as she pulls on thigh-high black boots. As he zips a black leather hood on, she leans in and says, “The safeword is banana.” “I love you,” he replies tenderly, and she punches him in the face.


Considering that the sequence I described above happened on a prime time cartoon, it’s not going out on a limb to say that safewords have become fairly mainstream.


To clarify for those who've never seen Family Guy or CSI, a safeword is a pre-arranged code word, phrase, or gesture that will allow you and your partners to communicate what you are really feeling without stating it explicitly. They can be useful in many different contexts— when you’re not sure whether a sexy stranger’s ‘no’ really means ‘yes’, if your partner wants to try spanking for the first time, or even manage triggers.


How to Choose a Safeword:


It depends on what you’re doing and what you want to achieve. If something sexy is happening with power dynamics, it’s better to negotiate sooner rather than later. First off, a safeword doesn’t always have to be something silly that will break the mood of whatever you’re doing. Say you and your girlfriend want to wrestle to see who will be on top during a make-out session. Rather than screaming “purple alligator” when she gets you in a headlock, you could use the traffic light system: red for ‘stop everything’ and yellow for ‘ease up’ or ‘stop the action’. The most important thing about choosing your safeword is to make sure that it’s something you’ll remember if you or your partner is freaking out.


When to Use a Safeword:


Tomorrow, Guide Editor Marie Chesaniuk will put up a post about using safewords in non-sexual situations. However, safewords were originally developed by the BDSM community to be used in a variety of sexual situations. Agreeing to use a safeword together, and both respecting that safeword, is an excellent way to build trust--no matter what you're doing. But what’s a good time to use one?


Say you and a hook-up are fooling around. You think your partner wants to say no to you holding them down and having your way with them, but really mean yes. How do you go about making sure that you don’t force your partner into anything they don’t really want to do?

1. If either of you is drunk, use your moral compass and don’t play those games.


2. If you’re both sober(ish) but you still get the feeling that a lot of explicit negotiation will kill the mood, still be sure to establish a safeword. It should be something easy for you both to remember, even if you're scared or nervous. The first and easiest safeword to remember is “safeword” itself.


3. It’s up to each of you to know your own limits and be able to discuss them if necessary. Safewords are also great to use when you’re not sure of your limits ahead of time: use them in the moment when you’re exploring new things if you need to ease up for a bit. Take responsibility for yourself: if you’re getting freaked out, use the safeword.

Once a Safeword Has Been Used (Respecting Safewords):


If either of you uses a safeword, how do you deal with that? Most importantly, do not criticize your partner for using the safeword. Be polite, back off, and ask them what they need from you. Find out why they used the safeword, if you don't know. If it was an ‘ease up’ safeword and you’re not sure what was too intense, ask them. If it was a ‘stop everything’ safeword, stop everything, do a check-in, and ask them what direction they want things to go. This means genuinely asking them what they want, not trying to coerce them into to doing what you want.


Using safewords is a great way to help cut out explicit negotiation if you and your partner find that to be a turn-off. They're also useful for partners who enjoy being playful, pushing each others' limits, and creating power dynamics. Lastly, many of the games that we play in the dating world may involve people, often women, playing coy or hard to get. By establishing a safeword, both you and your partner know exactly where the line is.

Madonna, Glee and Critical Thinking

A big reason a lot of what I talk about here on the Guide involves elements of pop culture is that, as I may have said before, pop culture is far and away the dominant formative paradigm for most Americans under the age of, say, thirty-five. For both the Gen-Yers (me and my friends) and the children of the Gen-Xers, who are now reaching adolescence, popular movies, TV, pop fiction and, most fervently, the internet, which aggregates and ties it all together, effect a level of seminal influence that—again, this is my opinion—outshines ‘traditional’ institutions like school, church and even the family dynamic.

Yes, yes, this is a generalization. Not every person I or you know is a walking-talking cultural compendium. I’m not talking about day-to-day pop culture references. You know, the ‘we’re brainwashed by corporations into feeling a specific kind of emptiness that can only be filled by certain consumer products’ angle. That’s tired, and it’s just not that true. I’m not talking about that, ever.

Early in the life of this blog, I wrote about Sarah Connor and feminist iconicity in action films with strong female leads. What I like most about that piece—and the method of argument in it—is its insistence on critical thinking. Now, before you start the eye rolling, please indulge me by stripping ‘critical thinking’ of its pretentious subtext and take it as a simple descriptive term. I’m not putting anything on a pedestal here. I want to compare the critical thinking done in the Sarah Connor piece against the feminist didacticism oozing throughout in the now famous “The Power of Madonna” episode of Glee that aired last month.*

Glee’s writers have, during the show’s first season, made a habit of tackling a variety of issues facing American teens, pregnancy, divorce, ostracism, homosexuality, etc. So it’s really not all that surprising that the show decided to discuss feminism. Like most forward-thinking viewers, I will admit that it was—at first—nice to hear these choice sound bites on one of today’s most popular hour-long network dramas:

Tina: “We just have to accept that guys don’t like our feelings.”

Quinn: “The fact is a woman earns 70 cents to every dollar a man earns for doing the same job. That attitude starts in high school.”

Will: “What this is really about is teenage girls feeling like they have no power.”

Tina: “And my growing feminism will cut you in half like a righteous blade of equality.”

Nearly thirteen million viewers watched this episode. That’s a hell of a lot of people exposed to progressive feminist language and sentiment. Misogynist, insensitive, objectification, equality—all of these dropped at one point or another, all in the name of empowering young adult women. And the episode was soundtrack’d and inspired by the music of the most popular American feminist icon of the last quarter century, Madonna (sorry, Oprah). There’s really no downside to this, right?

This is where things get tough—this where the whole act of critical thinking becomes vital.

A large portion of Glee’s audience consists of young children and teens. Even in the media, buzzword saturated world we live in, I think it’s safe to assume that “The Power of Madonna” episode was the first time many young females and males heard the word feminism. I’m not implying that this was the first time these young viewers had experienced instances of gender inequality—I know young girls feel the pangs of gender inequality as early as the pre-school playground—but rather that this was the first time these kids heard and understood feminism in a kind of institutionalized sense. Feminism means X (“because that’s what they said on Glee”).

Pop culture is instructive in this way; it always has been. Here, one of the most popular forms of American teenage entertainment introduces and teaches its viewers—and I’ll put all viewers in this pot now, not just the young ones—about the vital and important topic of feminism. If I stop right there, nothing appears wrong. In fact, Glee seems almost noble, like it assumed a great responsibility to make a positive influence on its young audience.

But it’s wrong to stop there. Why? Because there is absolutely no critical thinking involved. Feminism, like all issues that really matter, cannot simply be absorbed. This is not a soapbox statement, this is a fact that too often gets forgotten because of the effectiveness of popular forms of entertainment and reference: TV shows, cable news, Wikipedia, etc. There is a value to all of these forms of media, one of which is ease. The answer is always there for a person to absorb in an almost instantaneous fashion. Consumption and absorption, though, are not the same thing as thinking. The first two are easy, passive; the latter is hard. Feminism is hard.

So what comes next when thinking of “The Power of Madonna”’s depiction of feminism? One simple question, really: In the episode, what is the version of feminism defined by the writers of Glee used in the service of? For the sake of length, I’ll refrain from a full analysis of the episode. Suffice it to say, the one thing feminism does not serve in the episode is credible character development. Feminism is introduced conceptually to the show’s characters and is reduced to sound bites like those mentioned above. And while sound bites can be seductive, they’re empty without a meaningful context. The concept of feminism does not change the show’s characters in any meaningful way. Feminist sentiment directs them to say certain things and act certain ways at various points during the episode, but, again, it in no way changes them. Bluntly put, feminism is a mere plot device used to forward the action, nothing more.

The cynical part of me would go farther and say that feminism in Glee works purely in the service of selling iTunes singles and copies of Madonna’s Celebration record. But even if that is true, I’m not going to damn Glee for doing so. After all, it is not Glee’s—or pop culture’s—responsibility to teach its audience about vital social issues. It is the audience that endows pop culture with this responsibility. In other words, it’s the audience that allows passive consumption to overtake active thinking.

In my Sarah Connor piece, I took a film character that I always admired and asked myself, simply, why is Sarah so goddamn awesome? Why do I think of her when I envision a power feminist icon? And I thought, rigorously and critically, and formed an answer.

This isn’t about patting myself on the back. This is about a method. Am I’m happy that more young people know about the word feminism now than did before “The Power of Madonna” aired? Yes and no—mostly no. I’ll be happy when these same young people begin asking questions about the gender inequities around them and think themselves to an answer.

*Let me go on record by saying that Glee has kind of lost me. I still watch each new episode, but my enthusiasm for the show is gone and, honestly, Glee is just really bad now. This of course is a discussion for another day, but given that I wrote pretty glowingly about the show on this blog last fall, I feel it best to make my current feelings clear.

Guest Blogger: Safecalls

Trigger Warning


I sat in silence at the LGBTQ Center, hands sweating, and listened to a woman named Tami tell her story of survival. Unfortunately, thanks to the rape culture we live in, these stories are far too common--though both the circumstances and the aftermath of this particular woman's rape are highly unusual. The purpose of this article is not to suggest that rape, like a hurricane, is more likely to affect those who live in disaster-prone communities and don't put up shutters--or to imply that it's your job to prevent someone from raping you. Like a self defense class, this article will give you another tool in your arsenal for protecting yourself by explaining what a safecall is, why safecalls are important for the mainstream dating community, and how safecalls can potentially help you detect red flags when interacting with someone.

Several years ago, a man who identified himself as a Dominant raped a woman who identified as a consensual "slave"; they met at a hotel after several months of online and phone conversation. Rather than enact the Dominant/submissive scene they had planned, this man put something in the woman's drink, moved her to an unknown location, tied her up, and beat her so thoroughly that she became convinced that she was not going to get out of his basement alive. She was able to escape after over 24 hours only because the man passed out from drinking, and she was able to slip out of the restraints because they were slick with her own blood. Despite the trauma, this woman, who calls herself Slave Tami, went on to win the Pantheon of Leather “Community Choice Leather Woman 2009” award for her work founding and maintaining the National Safecall Network, a BDSM community service that puts people in touch with pre-vetted "safecall" volunteers. Tami now speaks around the world promoting the NCSN and healthy relationships within the BDSM community.


Safecalls: A Definition


A safecall is an arrangement that you make to check in with a trustworthy person when you're meeting with an acquaintance or someone new with whom you haven't yet developed trust. Your trustworthy person should know where you're going to be (specific addresses), who you're going to be with (real names), and what time(s) you will be checking in. If you don't check in, they'll assume something has gone wrong and will contact the local authorities. While the concept of safecalling has become popular in the BDSM community, in no small part thanks to the efforts of Slave Tami and community educators, I believe that safecalling is just as important for the LGBTQ and straight dating worlds. Predators do not just target kinky people any more than muggers only pick on old ladies. While kinky people, especially submissives or consensual slaves, may seem like a more vulnerable target due to social stigma or predators’ preconceived notions about ‘natural dominance’ and the proper place of women, predators target people who they think they can get away with raping. The system for safecalling is flawed because the justice system is flawed (thanks to various iterations of classism, racism, sexism, and transphobia, people may not get the help they need from the police)--but right now, it's what we have.


The Silent Alarm


There are several ways that a safecall can be executed. If you want to use a "silent alarm", you can set up a code phrase beforehand that will get your person to contact the authorities. For example, you could agree beforehand that "can you please feed the cat" means "'I'm seriously afraid for my safety" and that "yeah, I picked up your mail" means "all clear". This is the most subtle and least confrontational way to use safecalling. The benefits are that your date doesn't know that the safecall is in place, so zie can't try to circumvent it if zie does turn out to be a predator. However, with a silent alarm, you also lose the element of potential deterrence that a safecall can provide.


Safecall as Deterrence


One way to use safecalling to actively deter predators is simply to tell your date that you have a safecall, and that if you don't take (or make) a phone call at a prescribed time during or after the date, the police will be summoned. Also, make sure to mention that your friend is waiting to hear that you got home safely after you leave the date. While this may seem like the most major buzz kill on earth, it's something that can be explained through email before your date--and anyone who cares more about your personal safety than their own feelings will understand that. This type of safecall is a good litmus test to see whether your date is actively on your side--a considerate (or halfway intelligent) date will remind you to make (or take) your safecalls. It also creates a sense of dual accountability: you both have to make sure someone's phone is charged, make sure you're not too drunk to make the call, and keep track of the time on the date—and you may even bond over the shared task. Lastly, anyone who you don't know very well or trust very much who protests against the idea of you keeping yourself safe is raising a big, shiny red flag.

So how do you implement a safecall in the mainstream dating community? If you have a friend that you feel comfortable asking, you can have them be your safecall. If you have an iPhone or use Facebook, you can use Plerts to let a trusted friend know what you're up to. If you feel comfortable using the National Safecall Network's contacts (entirely grassroots and prescreened only by local BDSM and Sex Ed groups) you can do so. However, there are surprisingly few resources for safecalling: there's a real need for a hotline or text service connected to a database where you can sign up for safecalling services. In the meantime, use your friends, use your family members, use the NSN, and if you can, be a nonjudgmental safecall resource to your friends, too. Making safecalls a regular practice in mainstream dating is another way that we can come together to support each other--and work to expose the small percentage of predators who perpetuate most rapes.

Guest Blogger: In Response to 'Learning to Negotiate'

In my previous post for the Guide, I laid out some basic guidelines for beginning negotiation on a date. A fellow friend, artist, and poet, Darryl Ratcliffe, wrote a response which made me realize that I had left out one of the most important aspects of negotiation: emotional well being.

First, a disclaimer: Darryl and I have been artistically and emotionally dancing (with occasional stumbles) for eight years now. He’s a highly insightful poet, writer, and activist—Guide readers should also check out his powerful piece about living in rape culture.

In his response to my piece, Darryl writes:

“Now that has been said - although it is always important to communicate with our potential sexual partners, it is even more important to communicate with ourselves. How we negotiate a physical interaction is far less important than how we negotiate our own emotions.”

And he’s absolutely right. Dating takes a certain modicum of self-knowledge, and you need to know what your own limits are—and what you’re looking for. If you’re looking for a long term partnership and the hottie you took home is only looking for a one night stand, the only way you’ll know that is to discuss your desires honestly. And if someone is dishonest and ‘plays’ you—well, they’re probably not someone you want to see again anyway. If you don’t think you can handle a hook-up emotionally, then don’t hook up. If you learn it the hard way, then don’t repeat your mistake. The way that you can know whether or not your partner just wants to hook up is by negotiating—and by setting limits as to how physical or emotional you’ll get, depending on what you want.

Negotiation isn’t just a strategy for first dates or hook-ups. It’s a way to facilitate your interactions with romantic partners in a mature, calm way—whether they’re someone you just want to make out with for an evening or they’re your potential life partner. The unspoken script that I spoke about for first dates can also become one in marriages or long term partnerships. Once you fall into a routine with a lover, negotiation can be a way to grow as lovers and try new things. Ultimately, negotiation is a way of creating or re-sparking connections in a consensual, respectful, and joyous way.

Introducing Our First Guest Blogger!

So, after a month of dead air, we've decided to return with something special: our first guest blogger.

As an anti-violence blog, we've decided to bring in C's unique perspective on the matter: an anti-violence and sex educator speaking from her vantage point at the intersection of real and theatrical violence. As Florida state's red-belt sparring champion and a competitor in the Junior Olympics in Tae Kwon Do at 16-17. But, when she turned 18, the point at which sparring moves to knock-out rounds, the line between sport and actual violence became too blurry for her comfort. She began thinking about the issues of harm and sanity (the state of mind in which one consents to these acts) and ultimately decided not to continue competing.

Later, she was introduced to the concept of safe, sane, and consensual (SSC) play through sex-ed training, specifically BDSM education. These concepts resonated with C in light of her previous experience as a martial artist. Having an ideology that said it was actually okay to seek out thrills, to explore more dangerous ways of interacting, and do so in a disciplined and safe manner was liberating. In Tai Kwon Do, competitors enter the ring, essentially, to beat the crap out of each other--constrained, of course, by the rules of competition (you can't hit an opponent's face, can't knock them out, or cause a concussion). Years later, when learning about the rules and protocols for interaction in the BDSM scene, the structure built around entering potentially dangerous - but rewarding - activities, be they Tae Kwon Do, BDSM, or dating, seemed all too familiar and clear in a whole new way.

Currently C is a post-bacc student in Psychology at Columbia University where she has presented at Conversio Virium, Columbia's BDSM and sex education group. After spending a year co-running the Journeys of Expression art therapy program in New Orleans, C decided to combine her passions for art and activism by aspiring to become a psychologist and use art as a tool for education. Her latest comic, 10 Things Young People Should Know About, will be published in the anthology Young and Kinky this spring.

So it's Valentine's Day...

Because we, like many of you, are often hopelessly romantic, please enjoy one of our favorite short films, Mad Boy, I'll Blow Your Blues Away. Be Mine.

Slice of Life

I wanted to share a little slice of life with you. This happened last year and it remains an example of how one’s history of living as a woman or man can affect their experience of the same everyday events.

So I was walking in midtown Manhattan with my friend, who happens to be a big ripped Marine guy. We were crossing a street when a car passed by. The driver yelled something indecipherable out the window as he passed. My friend turned to me and asked me if I heard what the screaming driver said.

I raised an eyebrow and said, “I dunno, who cares?”

Friend: What if he was trying to tell us something important?

Me: I’ve had countless things yelled at me from men in car windows and none of it was ever important information. I don’t even listen to them anymore. Have you never had dumb shit yelled at you from a guy in a car window?

Friend: No.

It hadn’t occurred to me until then that I was reacting to a lifetime of street harassment that he had never experienced. He, probably, had generally experienced guys yelling stuff at him in the military, so it was probably important to know what they were saying.

I felt like I could trace years of my life to that exact moment. I wasn’t just reacting to a single episode of street harassment. The reaction I had was the product of years upon years of street harassment. These incidents don’t exist in their own individual vacuums, they exist in one’s life and each incident interacts and relates to those that came before and influence future incidents. Our reactions to incidents like these are the product of our life histories.

I had a similar moment with Tyler when I kept my name after marriage.

Sex and the City and "Relationshipism"

As most of you have probably noticed, the arrival of 2010 has brought with it heaps of obligatory retrospectives on the decade that was. The best of these pieces have offered up insight into specific cultural nuggets or trends that don’t necessarily “define” the 00s but rather crystallize some of the prevalent anxieties or preoccupations of the 00s in a way that looking at a decade’s worth of material can provide (Alessandra Stanley’s “Men with a Message: Help Wanted” in The New York Times is a perfect example). Even in a culture that seems to be moving a mile a minute, we’re in no way far enough removed from the past decade to think we can define it. I think the true benefit of these retrospective projects—and I mean everything from essays to simple “Top 10” lists—is the potential value they add to our own experiences of watching, listening, reading, etc. different forms of contemporary media right now.

So I want to talk about Sex and the City –which you’ve probably seen on many 00s retrospectives—and Lee Siegel’s 2002 essay “Relationshipism” (first published in The New Republic and later in Siegel’s 2006 collection Falling Upwards: Essays in Defense of the Imagination). I stumbled upon the piece while reading Troy Patterson’s decade retrospective in which he characterizes Siegel’s essay as “a hall-of-fame takedown.” And he’s exactly right. Siegel does his best to eviscerate Sex and the City, invoking gay-male conspiracy theories and misogynistic misapprehensions about women’s feelings towards sex in order to do so. Siegel’s main problem revolves around the “Relationshipism” alluded to in the essay’s title:

Just as an attitude toward labor only hardened into an ideology called Marxism when the worker got cut off from the product of his labor, so erotic bonds only hardened into Relationshipism when people started, for a million familiar reasons, getting cut off from each other. A "relationship" is not to be confused with a union. It is an ongoing argument between two stubbornly sovereign selves about the possibility of a union.

I’m not sure what to make about his choice of analogy, but soon thereafter Siegel makes clear his disapproval of Sex and the City’s depiction of Relationshipism:

Instead of plunging into all the strange new present-day configurations of sex and emotion, the series has proceeded to divide sex from emotion. There is an abundance of fucking in Sex and the City, but it is the sort of fucking you did years ago, when you were very young, lying on the bed and cavorting in the head. As the series rolled along, you became aware of a damning artifice, an un-mimetic quality startling in a series that was supposed to be a candid look at urban life: none of these women is hurt by sex.

…

What is startling is that for these smart, canny, emotionally alive women, pretty much every relationship comes down to the quest for sex--for perfect sex--as an end in itself.

It goes without saying that Siegel’s assessment is far from definitive, and I’ll spare you the point-by-point refutation.

What’s great about reading the essay now is that, when examining his conclusions, I think Siegel inadvertently shows just how much Sex and the City got right—and continues to get right—in its depictions of the actions and temperaments of modern American women. As a television series, Sex and the City was (to use critic-speak) charmingly uneven. The show’s dramatic narrative was unmistakably adult, touching on issues as varied as marriage, divorce, money-management and, of course, sex.

Michael Patrick King, the show-runner for almost the entire series (and who remains the brain behind the films), and the writing team used the benefits of HBO and premium television wisely, presenting each story arc in a way they saw as both unfiltered and true as well as properly comedic to sensibilities and concerns of modern American adults. But what is “properly comedic” anyway? For Sex and the City, this meant a mixture of high and low comedy; this meant a group of four adult women enduring and discussing events as mannered as coupling and dating alongside incidents as raunchy as tasting a guy’s “funky spunk.”

For those of you who do or who have attempted to write comedy know, balance is everything: balance not just between high and low but also between the comedy itself and the dramatic arc it supports. Sex and the City, like all television comedies, never managed this balance perfectly. Just take the voice of the show, Carrie Bradshaw. She was not a good writer, and I often find myself laughing at her cheesy, pseudo-profound narration. But this type of writing failure never seemed to dissuade critical or audience opinion. In fact, the narration becomes endearing after awhile, especially when you remember that this is a women using a newspaper column to write about sex and relationships in what I can only describe as a post-liberation way.

I hate to use academic jargon like ‘post-liberation’, but I really can’t think of a better way to describe Carrie’s column writing and what it represents. Carrie Bradshaw is both a product of and an active participant in feminism. She writes about sex and relationships openly, frankly and (this is key) apolitically. The plots and story arcs of Sex and the City follow this same precedent. Samantha, Carrie, Charlotte and Miranda are not women who realize that it’s okay to talk about the size of a guy’s cock or how awful his spunk tastes. They are women who actually do talk about these things and don’t think one way or the other about it.

This is what Lee Siegel just doesn’t get. The gals of Sex and City, like most modern American adults between the ages of 18 and 35, often just want to get laid. Siegel’s view that the women on the show aren’t necessarily hurt by sex is thus misguided because he’s attaching a value to sex that is not necessarily archaic but is most certainly inaccurate. Fucking is an end to itself for many American adults, just as “ending up with the nice guy” is really not the most palatable option for most young adult women. In his “hall of fame takedown,” all Siegel really does is make Sex and the City a scapegoat for what he feels is mass-cultural devaluing of sex and courtship rituals. It appears that Siegel pines for the days when a woman was supposed to feel that having a man (preferably a husband) stick his cock inside of her was a priceless gift. And how dare a show make light of that way of thinking.

So I’ll use my own economic analogy now: I prefer a world where all participants—women and men—set the cultural value on sex. Knowing that Sex and the City is a big ‘fuck you’ to “traditional” forms of Relationshipism only makes me like watching the show more.