1. Kinky Sex Makes College Go 'Round
2. 'Censored version' for W & M sex show
3. British Government's Welfare Decision Benefits Polygamists
4. An Open and Shut Marriage
5. Charges dropped against dominatrix
1. Kinky Sex Makes College Go 'Round
2. 'Censored version' for W & M sex show
3. British Government's Welfare Decision Benefits Polygamists
4. An Open and Shut Marriage
5. Charges dropped against dominatrix
NCSF Media Updates represent a sampling of recent stories printed in US
newspapers, magazines, and selected websites containing significant
mention of SM-leather-fetish, polyamory, or swing issues and topics.
These stories may be positive, negative, accurate, inaccurate – or
anywhere in between.
NCSF publishes the Updates to provide readers a comprehensive look at what
media outlets are writing about these topics. NCSF permits and encourages
readers to forward these Updates where appropriate.
Kinky Sex Makes College Go 'Round
by Beth Walton
Minneapolis City Pages (MN)
February 5, 2008
Mike Lent hugs everyone who walks though the door of the Queer Student
Cultural Center, a grape-and-lime painted office tucked away on the second
floor of the University of Minnesota's Coffman Memorial Union.
"Welcome to Kinky U," Lent says eagerly, tucking strands of his blond
highlighted hair behind his ear. "We're playing 'Don't Break the Ice,' you
know, to break the ice."
It's the last night of January, and Kinky U's first meeting since being
lambasted by Star Tribune columnist Katherine Kersten, who portrayed the
student group as a latter-day Sodom and Gomorrah.
Bryan, age 25 and the group's comedian, jokes about "rocking someone's
cock off." Someone else makes small talk about the weather.
Suddenly, two members of QSCC's governing board interrupt the meeting.
"We need a statement," one says.
"It is in your best interest to answer the questions, 'How does Kinky U as
a group serve the community?' and, 'How is the $100 it receives every
semester from student fees justified?'" the other continues. "We need
something to tell people when they call."
Every year a board of students decides which of some 600 student groups
will receive student fees, and how much. The groups that get money are not
supposed to be political, religious, or partisan, says Jerry Rinehart,
University of Minnesota's vice provost of student affairs. The idea is to
encourage a "marketplace of ideas."
"There should be lots of different perspectives represented and we should
not allow any one group to censor or drown out another," Rinehart says.
The QSCC received $37,500 this year in student funds and gave $100 to
Kinky U for programming, as it did its other 14 member groups. While it
doesn't sound like much money, it was enough to rouse the ire of
conservatives.
"It's not like we're engaging in BDSM with each other," Bryan adds, using
the acronym for Bondage, Discipline, Sadism, and Masochism. "We're talking
about it and being explicit about what practices there are and how to be
safe."
"Talking about it doesn't promote it," continues Ben. "It's removing the
stigma. It's allowing people to accept themselves. It's being realistic
about what is actually going on."
"Well, why not just change the group's name, then?" asks a girl who plays
devil's advocate. "If you didn't have the word kink in it, you wouldn't be
getting all this attention."
"The point is not to be ashamed, to have found other people like you, and
to recognize that it's just part of who you are and something that you are
interested in and to not have to continually hide it," says Emily, a
20-year-old submissive who plans to one day be a neurosurgeon. "To change
our name is to admit defeat."
[continued]
To read this entire article, go to:
http://articles.citypages.com/2008-02-06/news/sex-ed/
To respond, write to: letters@citypages.com
'Censored version' for W & M sex show:
The show sold out despite protests from the community and politicians
by Shawn Day
Daily Press (Virginia)
February 5, 2008
WILLIAMSBURG – Performers stripped down to G-strings and pasties during
segments of the Sex Workers' Art Show on Monday during what was described
as a "censored version" ordered by administrators at the College of
William and Mary.
Show director Annie Oakley complained about the college's order and said
the struggle to bring the show back to Williamsburg for a third
consecutive year was "a more arduous and degrading experience" than any
she'd had as a sex worker.
Oakley also ridiculed Attorney General Bob McDonnell, whom she said called
shortly before the 7 p.m. show and forbade the selling of show memorabilia
on William and Mary property. His office had been involved in crafting the
contract between the university and show organizers.
"He's inviting us all to join him at the library for the book burning next
week," she joked. Later, she engaged the crowd of about 450 people in
shouting "Bob McDonnell loves naked ladies."
The show included strippers and a porn actress talking about their work.
An Asian woman dressed in a black leather dominatrix outfit and held a
leash around a young man's neck during a performance intended to break
stereotypes of the Asian sex worker.
Three middle-aged people walked out during Read's performance and did not
return. For the most part, however, few people left the auditorium during
the show.
Both performances of the Sex Workers' Art Show b 7 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. b
sold out.
As audience members poured out of University Center's Commonwealth
Auditorium after the first showing, they filed past a line of people
waiting for the next show that stretched out of the building and down the
front steps.
The show was brought to the campus by students and was funded by
donations, ticket sales and about $2,200 in student fees. Supporters
billed it as a way to learn about the multibillion-dollar sex industry and
the people who work in it. Opponents described it as lewd and promoting
pornography and sex work.
University officials, show performers and student groups that sponsored
the show agreed to a contract Monday afternoon that banned photography and
minors during the performance. A stipulation that made it possible for the
college to withhold payment for the show if cameras were sneaked into the
auditorium, however, was dropped, an organizer said.
Despite objections to the show by some students and alumni, university
President Gene Nichol said it was protected by the First Amendment.
[continued]
To read this entire article, go to:
http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/williamsburg/dp-news_wmsexshow_0205feb05,0,7680739.story
To respond, write to: the author at sday@dailypress.com or the editors at
http://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/dp-public-letters2,0,1914532.customform
British Government's Welfare Decision Benefits Polygamists
Associated Press report
Fox News
February 3, 2008
LONDON – British men who marry several women in a country where polygamy
is allowed can legally claim welfare benefits for all of them, a
government review has concluded.
Polygamy is illegal in Britain, but the Department for Work and Pensions
said Saturday that its yearlong review of welfare regulations dating back
to 1987 found that men who marry several women legally in other countries
can maintain those relationships here and claim welfare benefits for each
one.
The ministry estimates that up to 1,000 polygamous relationships exist in
Britain, and the ruling is expected to primarily benefit members of the
Muslim minority who married elsewhere under Islamic law.
But the Department for Work and Pensions said few of Britain's polygamous
families claimed welfare benefits.
Concerns were raised in 2006 that a loophole in the income support system
might give a financial advantage to people with more than one spouse. But
the review found that this was not the case.
Currently, a successful welfare claimant with one spouse is paid around
$183 a week, while each additional spouse receives a payment of
approximately $67.
[continued]
To read this entire article, go to:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327944,00.html
To respond, write to: yourcomments@foxnews.com
An Open and Shut Marriage
by Colette DeDonato
The New York Times
February 2, 2008
At an upscale pub in our small Northwestern town, one of the mothers
seated around our table made an indissoluble confession: she told us she
had been having a very serious crush on a man who was not her husband. She
said the crush bothered her. Besides making her feel guilty, it also made
her unsure of the status of her marriage. As she spoke, red blotches
formed around her neck.
"It doesn't seem very realistic to be attracted to only one person for the
rest of your life, does it?" I said, hoping to put her at ease.
"It doesn't", she said. "But the fact that I keep making excuses to go see
this man makes me question my motives."
"What are your motives?" I asked.
My question was met by silence. She either didn't know or couldn't form a
response. So the rest of us quickly filled the void by musing about the
different people we've had crushes on: the guy who makes our soy latte
every morning, the local celebrity politician, the obviously gay tailor,
the friend of a college-bound nephew.
Nearly all of us agreed it was O.K. to "crush out" on someone, and even to
tell our partner or husband (or our couples therapist) about it in an
effort to be honest, and thus mature, in our relationships. The unspoken
assumption was that it was not O.K. to act on it.
Despite my general attitude of acceptance when it comes to people
questioning their most troubling emotions, I've learned to tread carefully
on the conjoined subjects of fidelity and monogamy. My experience tells me
that it's a minefield and that no one except Dr. Phil-inspired talk-show
exhibitionists and the admittedly polyamorous are ready to talk openly
about it.
I don't belong to either of those groups. But, to be fair, I've given
polyamory my best shot.
In graduate school, when my boyfriend then – a touchy-feely, anarchist
performance artist type – announced he wanted to see other people because
monogamy was "a bourgeois construct", I reluctantly went along with him
for about a year, thinking that dismantling the dominant paradigm was the
right, countercultural thing to do.
Mostly what it did, however, was make me paranoid about getting a sexually
transmitted disease, despite our practice of safe sex. I began to imagine
every woman I encountered in his circle of friends as the one who might
have had sex with him just hours before.
My respect for him dwindled as I viewed his need to see other women less
as a political stance than simply his sexual overdrive combined with a
lack of impulse control. We eventually split up, and I looked for someone
who wanted to have an old-fashioned relationship. The emotional
trafficking that being "poly" required was just too exhausting, using up
energy I needed for school and two jobs. I saw no benefit, anyway: the men
I broached the idea with were just freaked out by it.
I've known many people who have had successful open marriages, and I
admire their intentions – some of them, anyway. You have to want to go the
distance on that emotional seesaw, and it takes great courage. You have to
commit to spelling out every rule and consideration clearly and with great
enunciation. You can't just glide over the syllables.
[continued]
To read this entire article, go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/fashion/03love.html?em&ex=1202101200&en=7259a263f90cf78e&ei=5087%0A
To respond, write to: letters@nytimes.com
Charges dropped against dominatrix
by Abby Luby
New York Daily News
January 29, 2008
Prostitution charges were dropped Monday against the so-called Bedford
Dominatrix.
Sandra Chemero, 47, was arrested last February after a Westchester County
undercover cop secretly taped a conversation with her at her Bedford Hills
home.
A police raid at the home shocked the tony town, which is home to Martha
Stewart, Chevy Chase, Glenn Close, Ralph Lauren and other celebrities.
"We heard nothing on those tapes that indicated Sandra was offering sexual
services," said her lawyer George Galgano after Chemero's hearing Monday.
"She is not a prostitute."
Chemero agreed to plead guilty to disorderly conduct for operating a
business out of her home without a permit. She was charged with a
violation and fined $350. She was also ordered to spend 30 days of
community service working at a local hospital.
[continued]
To read this entire article, go to:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2008/01/29/2008-01-29_charges_dropped_against_dominatrix.html
To respond, write to: voicers@edit.nydailynew.com or comment
at the bottom of the article
HOW TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Feedback letters are an effective way to convey a positive image of
alternate sexual practices such as SM, swinging, or polyamory. You can
help to correct negative social myths and misconceptions about these types
of practices. These letters help achieve the advocacy goals of the NCSF.
Generally, for a letter to be published, it's important to include your
name (or first initial, last name), city and daytime phone (for
verification only). For more information, see:
https://ncsfreedom.org/media/writelettertoeditor.htm
Please alert us to positive, negative or neutral stories about SM,
swinging and polyamory at media@ncsfreedom.org. Comments to the editor of
this Update may be sent to keith@ncsfreedom.org.
###
A project of NCSF and ITCR: The Foundation of NCSF
National Coalition for Sexual Freedom (NCSF) is a national organization
committed to altering the political, legal, and social environment in the
U.S. in order to guarantee equal rights for consenting adults who practice
forms of alternative sexual expression. NCSF is primarily focused on the
rights of consenting adults in the SM-leather-fetish, swing, and polyamory
communities, who often face discrimination because of their sexual
expression.
National Coalition for Sexual Freedom
822 Guilford Avenue, Box 127
Baltimore, MD 21202-3707
410-539-4824
media@ncsfreedom.org
www.ncsfreedom.org