Friday, March 30, 2012

What's Your Anti-Fetish?

I had a minor revelation today at Elyse's place. I have anti-fetishes.

I'm going to define fetish (in the sexual/BDSM sense) as something not inherently sexual that gets fixated on in a sexual way. Pretty straight forward, right? Well, most people that are friends with me have been made aware that I have EXTREME aversions to certain mundane things when associated with sex. I get passionately angry and repulsed when they get brought up. In theory, it's the flipside of the same passion that drives fetishes. And for someone that spends a lot (a LOT) of time at BDSM clubs, I'm not a steadfastly fetishy person; I'm open to most things and intrigued by a lot of things, but in terms of passionate conviction, that mostly falls to the negative. I'm not sure what that says about me. In case you have somehow managed to know me in any capacity and not had your ear ranted off about these things, they are as follows:

1) Nudity with socks. And underwear with socks, unless you happen to be Brad Majors, in which case the terrible awkwardness of it is integral to your character. I get so angry about this one, and it comes up often enough that I'm actually sick of discussing it. It truly blows my mind that it actually comes up as much as it does, and that not everyone else is repulsed by it as a default state of being. 99% of the time, it is men who are guilty of socks and nudity, both in movies and TV and apparently in real life, judging by the conversations I've had. TAKE A FUCKING LOOK AT YOURSELF. It is not attractive. Intellectually, I think my problem is that it confirms that men do not need to be sexy, that sexy is a role for women. But sexual politics aside, it just looks fucking stupid no matter who it is. I don't care if you're cold; have sex with boots on. Now that's a fetish I am on board with!

During these conversations, people tend to inquire about my thoughts on knee socks. I feel that knee socks are fine, because there is more aesthetic intention behind them. They fall closer to the category of thigh high stockings, which is clearly hot. I've also been asked about men with sock garters; on one hand, I think it's more acceptable because there is aesthetic intention behind it. One of–

Okay, interruption. I'm writing this in the DJ booth at Sanctuary, as usual. So, I'm ranting about socks, and WHAT THE FUCK DO I SEE ON STAGE? A man in his underwear with socks, and he is most certainly not Brad Majors. He has on rather nice black and red striped boxer briefs and WHITE FUCKING TUBE SOCKS. He's cuffed to a spanking bench with his ass an SOCKS facing toward us; he's not an unattractive guy otherwise, I think. But sir, you are what is wrong with the world. I don't care if you're a sub; have some goddamned aesthetic dignity.

Ehem. As I was saying, one of the reasons I am so offended by socks being left on is that it represents extreme obliviousness. Sock garters contradict that, and that's the thing I appreciate about them. Other than that, I still think they look very silly and unsexy, but so do lots of other things. It's not morally offensive in the same way.

2) Food on skin. Food during sex. Ugh, the very idea of it gives me the gibblies. Whipped cream on the body is probably the most mainstream variation of this, and I find even that utterly repulsive. What's worse is honey, just due to texture. Even if I open a bottle of honey and get a little on my hand, it upsets me a little. Body chocolate, edible underwear-even edible substances that are made to be put on the body disturb me. Come to think of it, I even hate the term "eating out" (not that "cunniligus" is any better). And just to be clear, I don't have "food issues" when it comes to actually eating. I'm not thin because I have food hangups; I'm thin due to a combination of a relatively fast metabolism and healthy cooking. I LOVE FOOD. Making it, thinking about it, weird food, new food, cooking food, unnecessarily fancy restaurants, I even love food shopping. I just don't want any of it touching me unless utterly necessary to its preparation and consumption.

Yet, the whole idea of sushi served on a nude person doesn't really bother me at all. In fact, I would probably be willing to be that person. I have always referred to sushi as the "cleanest" of foods, and that probably had something to do with it. I guess it should be incongruent because it's DEAD FLESH on skin, but frankly that doesn't bother me. It's not sticky, and I think my main problem is sticky food-based textures. Fruit on skin is not terribly offensive either, mostly because it's not cooked. But it is a little sticky, and just because I'm not vehemently offended by it doesn't mean I want it on MY skin.

3) This is less of a sex-related thing and more of a fashion thing, but I think it still falls into this category due to the OUTRAGE it produces: Hanging, flailing, unclipped garters. In fact, it is more than just a fashion faux-pas because it is always bound up with the intention of being sexy. I've seen this a lot: people at Rocky, people at Sanctuary, strippers, a pole dancing instructor I had (yeah, I've been doing that). It clearly doesn't offend everyone like it offends me, and that really blows my mind. I must mention that the woman who was flogging the SOCK MAN on stage tonight had a corset with attached garters, and yet she was wearing pantyhose; BUT she found a way to clip them down to the stockings so that they weren't flailing all over the place. And I appreciate that. See, it's not about their utilitarian purpose; just because they're not serving their purpose and holding up thigh high stockings doesn't make them automatically offensive. It's not ideal, but it's not terrible. The image of loose garter evokes a similar feeling of obliviousness as socks, except that if you're wearing a corset or underwear that has garters attached, you clearly have some intention of putting together an aesthetically appealing look (unlike sock-leaver-on-ers). You just didn't see it through, and the whole thing is lost. It looks unfinished, and not in an interesting way.

I also really, really hate open toed shoes with stockings. I feel this should be common sense, but clearly isn't. I don't think this falls into the category of anti-fetish, because if I catalogue every aesthetic circumstance that doesn't sit well with me, I'll be typing for days. Personally, I avoid open toed shoes under any circumstance. But that's me.

In conclusion, my anti-drug is the anti-fetish. And a ton of wine.

Saturday, March 3, 2012

Priming the Canvas

Body as canvas is old news here. It is the way of my world.

With that established, I really, really want laser hair removal. I have for a long time, but the money it takes is astronomical. Not only that, but the technology seems suspiciously new to me. I figured that if I wait a few years, the price would go down and the efficiency would go up. Well, it has been a few years, and I still find myself saying this. But I found a deal recently that covers a year's worth of sessions on FOUR areas for under $300. And the place isn't even in the boonies. Nevermind the fact that I don't have $300 to shell out up front (that's how these deals work)- it's time to think about this seriously.

Here we go with what could be considered TMI, but then again, that's part of the point of this blog: there isn't really such thing as TMI here. The only reason I really want laser hair removal is for the crotchal region. I used to get bikini waxes somewhat regularly, but I get too frustrated with the need to let it grow back in order to be waxed again. I don't even care about the pain or the so-called awkwardness of having it done. I just hate the limbo period. HATE. And it sneakily sucks up a bunch of money that could, quite frankly, go into laser hair removal later. So I've been shaving like a normal person lately, and my skin isn't reacting as badly as it used to. But I hate it, I hate how fleeting the effect is, how not-quite-100-perfect it is, the time it takes, etc. Basically I hate being a mammal, but then again, being a reptile would probably be worse.

The worst thing about shaving for me is not the actual act, not the time or energy or anything like that. It's the planning. The thinking about how my body relates to my social life, sex life, the relationship of free will to self-confidence. Let's take a second to let that really sink in: pubic hair directly effects my sense of free will. I don't think I'm particularly unusual in this aspect, I just make these things sound disproportionately serious when I discuss them. But, in all disproportionate seriousness, I live a social life that finds me in lingerie in public a lot, especially considering that "swimsuit season" hasn't a damn thing to do with it. The option of not needing to cover myself, even if I don't always act on it, is something that makes me happy.

I feel the need to mention that the fact that I have been in a monogamous relationship for over three years is irrelevant. I am not the kind of person who stops caring about these things because they no longer have to "make an impression" or whatever. I believe that people who stop caring about their appearances when they get into a comfortable relationship never cared in the first place. That is to say, they never cared for their own benefit, only to impress another person. It would be an obscene lie to say that I don't care what other people think, but I care only in addition to satisfying my own sense of self. I am people too. I am both subject and object and all that kind of thing.

The end goal of laser hair removal is to NOT HAVE TO THINK about this stupid minutia in great detail anymore. It is a waste of my gargantuan brain powers, but at this point, a necessity to my psychological wellbeing.

Then there's the part that is probably better not discussed publicly on the internet, but I'm going to disregard that bit of so-called better judgement. The most important question: bikini line or brazilian? With the deal in question, the price isn't effected. I am inclined to say brazilian because, uh, that's how I do. But the permanence of it is...well, permanent. Which is fine and frankly awesome, but there is the issue of speaking for Future Self. I do find it hard to believe that I would really prefer to have full pubes, but that doesn't mean it's out of the question for Future Self. Or what if I wanted to be able to grow it out for an art piece? (Yes, this is a serious consideration.) Also, not doing the full brazilian would not necessarily effect the lingerie-in-puplic aspect of my life. What's left could be managed in a leisurely and not overthought manner, like a normal person. But it'd be so awesome not to have to manage anything at all. Just putting it out there. So to speak.

What I really want to know is: is this a good idea? Is the technology effective? With super pale skin and dark hair, I am the perfect candidate, but I have this fear that they will somehow ruin my skin with evil space lasers. Or something to that effect.

On the subject of body as canvas, I've had an order of operations set in my mind for a while. It is as follows: even though the thought of getting a new tattoo is really exciting (and oh, there are plans), I'm not allowed to do it until I get my Oscar Wilde tattoo fixed (Twenty-Year-Old-Self made an impulsive decision when settling on a tattoo artist). But before I do any of that, I want laser hair removal. When it comes to pricy permanent investments in my body, cleaning the slate should come before drawing on it.

In case I haven't told the whole internet yet, I got into CalArts graduate writing program! All the more reason to free up some brainspace from this maintenance of this rigorous shaving schedule.

For a look into my feelings on gender expression and feminism in relation to body hair, see here if you haven't already.