Feminaissance and Wack

So I did get a little taste of Feminaissance on Saturday. It took us forever to leave the house so we only made the last panel, but it was a very interesting one. I wish that I had been less caffeine deprived...but this is what happens when you stay up until 4 am every night!

As I mentioned earlier, Eileen Myles is AMAZING. I'm still organizing my thoughts about the other presentations, but here are some of the notes I took during E.M.'s presentation from the "categories" panel:

- the world determines your gender before you do
- one can be caught in the midst of two [gendered] performances: one true and one false
- hormones are writing (!!!)
- gender is a public thought
- gender and "things." In inflected languages (i.e. Latin) nouns are given masculine or feminine endings. In English, some things are gendered. For example, ships are "she." Also discussed gender and hurricanes. After the panel I did some research. As it turns out, the gender of hurricanes alternates through the alphabet, which seems sort of conceptually elegant to me -- this idea of alternating gender as something controlled/contained by letters and "names." You can see this list of names here. Also, why don't we name earthquakes or volcanic eruptions? Does a hurricane seem somehow more "live"; or perhaps a storm seems more distinct from the planet itself?

We also made what felt like a very cursory tour of the WACK show, which is electric and dense and mesmerizing. The concentration of feminist art creates a very palpable sense of urgency and power. It also highlights a desire to "get out" of the museums, which is to say that it draws attention to/makes clear the limits of the museum. Forms are used and simultaneously undermined. Museum spaces are productive and necessary and often feel like sanctuaries, but the underlying imperative -- the quicksilver vein of the WACK show -- is that we must change the world outside the museum. This may seem like a banal point, but trust me -- it has a sharpened tip in the context of this exhibit.

Anyway, the MOCA is one of my favorite places in Los Angeles. Besides the WACK show, there are some very interesting pieces there. Among them are some texty pieces by Alexandra Grant, including a glinting silver wire mesh sphere which seemed like something out of one of my dreams. Another piece I *loved* was by chilean artist Livia Marin. This piece involved over 2k tubes of lipstick (!!!) aranged on a curved base; the tips of the lipstick were sculpted into all sort of shapes and reminded me of chess pieces in drag. Thrilling.

x-posted to WOMB and FluffyDollar$$$

Text Messages for your Vagina?

Awhile ago, there was a post over on Jenny's world about a recent Cosmo (an evil, vile publication) feature on saucy text messages. According to Jenny (text-message extraordinaire), the messages Cosmo provided as examples of "sexy" were along the lines of: "Don't do much @ the gym...save energy for L8R" and "Ur ass looks gr8 in those jeans" and (my personal favorite) "Was in such a rush! 4got2 wear a bra." Jenny astutely called these examples of sexy messages "uninspired," and I had to agree. I commented thusly:

Text has really become a sort of fashion accessory, and that seems interesting. The sidekick, for example, is a sort of notebook meets telephone meets bauble. I also like how the short hand is reminiscent of a rebus abacus, you know those messages where symbols (like a picture of an eye for "I") stand in for words.

As to "dirty" text messages, do any of them use a sort of gestural approach -- you know, where the LOOK of a letter or symbol is used as opposed to the sound?

For example, do thess messages seem dirty:

Are you ^?

My ^^s are ready to be ().

When are we going to ><

Let me ! your ;

And then will you VV my q?

I still think those messages are pretty flirty. Letters are so sexy! And those bedazzled sidekicks are still everywhere. But I just read about a new "mobile accessory" that literally takes the idea of sexy text to the next level. It's called the Toy.

The Toy is a hi-tech vibrating bullet. Connected to a mobile phone with Bluetooth it becomes an intimate, silent connection between two lovers, regardless of distance. Custom designed for your pleasure, it is intelligent, sophisticated and invented for bliss.

The Toy is worn internally, linked to a mobile phone and controlled by sms text messages sent to the phone. Once read, the message is transported automatically to The Toy, which turns it into vibrations - with a huge range of movements, depending on what you have written. Just say what you feel, The Toy will do the rest.

So it's basically a remote-controlled vibrator. Not so interesting really except that this vibrator claims to be controlled by words. It literally claims to translate written language into physical sensation, an innovation that suggests that the texter can actually "reach out and touch someone."

So it's a dissapointment that a device like this has such idiotic text on its website. Here was a golden opportunity for adult toys to escape the cheesey, sexist, boilerplate language of most "erotic" product packaging. But no. Under the description of this "bullet -like" product, there are two colums-- one in blue text, for "gentlemen" of course, and one in pink text, for the "ladies."

Blue: " Imagine a connection with your lover... You command her arousal from afar. Monday morning - she leaves with The Toy inside... She's given you the power - You alone control The Toy , Teasing her with single word messages, Frustrating her with smouldering long fantasies. No matter how many text messages she gets today, Yours are the ones she really, really WANTS! Imagine the power, the control."

Pink: Imagine a connection with your lover... A sexy physical connection that stretches across the planet . . .Imagine a dreary Monday morning - Work as usual, then you remember The Toy... we have The Toy! Imagine the thrill of receiving a message Imagine the hunger for that first one...oh, the antici...pation! Beep beep! - there it is, a new message... Your heart races as you read his sexy words. You know he is thinking only of you. The toy bursts into action, sensation ripples through your body. Flushed, you look around, has anyone noticed? No, no-one knows your secret...Then The Toy stops...Imagine wanting more... NOW! Imagine waiting for his next text.

Yuck. I've gone ahead and bolded the language that seems the creepiest and to most insistently reiterate the missionary-position psychology behind this predictable, boring, and offensive exchange. The blue "you commands" and "you have the power" and the pink "waiting" and "wanting" and "we" (the sole "we" on the page) seem far from fun or sexy. So even though this device claims to be pretty, y'know, "racy," the text on the website itself is pretty "uninspired." And I hate how the copy of the website basically dictates how 1 man and 1 woman should use the toy.

It wouldn't have been that hard for the marketers of the toy to use "your partner" or "your lover" instead of "Gentlemen" and "Ladies." And it strikes me as strange that they didn't play up that fact that "ladies" and "wearers of the toy," don't have to wait for that next message -- s/he can fire that puppy up whenever s/he likes. The Toy can be used sans partner as a simple vibrator, or controlled remotely with one's own phone. And the Toy only responds to the messages one chooses to read, so all the "power" and "control" is actually in the "hands" of the wearer. That's way sexier if you ask me.