If you make it on the Charlie Rose show you know you’re hot, right?  Well last week sex experts Daniel Bergner and Meredith Chivers did—touted as the authorities to know—for groundbreaking research on women’s desire.  

Daniel Bergner’s new book, “The Other Side of Desire: Four Journeys into the Far Realms of Lust and Longing” published this month and with a bang. 

 

Meredith Chivers who’s also becoming a name in the field is a Psychology Professor from Queen’s University who’s said to be all about female desire being considered a legitimate separate research category—(What a concept). 

 

Needless to say both are operating within the context of this notion of a post-feminist world to which Mr. Rose unquestioningly refers to and clearly accepts.

What hopefully will strike you as strange reading about this Charlie Rose show of experts is the omission from the conversation of Betty Dodson: the quintessential sex expert who’s still with us today; and, importantly, the woman who virtually began the study of women’s desire as a distinct and separate subject.  Why the omission, you might be wondering? Do explore:

Betty Dodson is one of the key founders of the Sexual Liberation Movement, which now, apparently, is more frequently referred to as the Sex-Positive Movement (in conglomerate mainstream media). The word, Liberation lost its appeal somewhere along the way (it would appear).  It would wouldn’t it—if we accept this faulty notion of the post-feminist world.  As if feminism itself—is—“been there, done that”.  Or so we’re supposed to accept.  

Well, folks, Liberation isn’t dead and post-feminism isn’t here yet. Bit of a surprise? And, moreover, “Bad Betty”, as she’s come to be known endearingly, hasn’t lost her appeal.  At least not in the queer community where all the best and interesting research happens anyway, right?  You don’t have to answer that.

The point that I’d like to ram home to “these experts of today” and to anyone else who cares is this:  the problematic that I see in mainstream talk such as on the Charlie Show (that we’ve been discussing here)—that—references to the canon literature on women’s desire either tend to willfully exclude Bad Betty’s contribution to the area (And this shouldn’t this way); or, worse, (I’ll say this) it may simply be that the key researchers today are woefully ignorant of the whole of the female-desire canon—for instance Dr. Betty Dodson’s major body of works. When, it’s clear, her life and career literally embodies the nutshell of women’s desire research including as she says herself  “nearly 40 years of liberating masturbation and encouraging women to see the beauty of their vulvas through her art, self-published books, lectures, articles, videos and website”.  

Her book, “Sex for One: The Joy of Selfloving” has passed the one million mark. But has she ever been on the Charlie Rose show? No…ooo. So, why the heck not, we need to be asking.  When her book has been in the market place for 20 years and counting—and it deals specifically with women’s thoughts around their bodies, sexuality, and their struggle to claim their desires, which was the exact subject of Mr. Rose’s recent show.

She’s too radical perhaps for mainstream media is all we can conclude here. Bad Betty’s performed her own version of uber-activism dating back to the 1960’s.  And it is the case that she is touted by anyone that matters, frankly, to be the founder of sex-friendly feminism and desire—female—unapologetically open and exposed for the world to see. Now if that isn’t bona fide research and study-material informants I don’t what is.  The notion “yah, folks, we actually do and can experience desire on a myriad of different and contradictory ways [from men] has been what Betty’s research and investigations have been about all these years.  “Been there, done that”, she might now be saying Meredith Chivers (Wink).

We have to ask—what exactly are the “new experts” bringing to the table? Other than carefully-crafted new co-opting techniques—at best, some could argue. And, Charlie, to be clear, post-feminism isn’t here.  If it will ever be, I don’t know.  I suppose only when every woman feels liberated it might be said to be.  But we’ll decide that.  To use the term, post-feminist, loosey-goosey, is to participate in the erasure of important liberationists who still have relevance today.

Bad Betty will tell you herself.  She’s taken a lot of stick from the vanilla liberal campy feminists (Move over Gloria) when Betty started to be famously known (people who aren’t fans would say notoriously known) for her radical consciousness-raising workshops.  In groups women would experiment exploring their own bodies, some of whom had never been taught and never even known or been shown exactly where their urethra was.  

Can you imagine being a full grown woman and believing that you peed out of your vagina!  (That’d be me).  Well, it’s not so uncommon, you know, even in the West.  For that “education” she’s been nicknamed the Mother of Masturbation—happily so, in fact, she’d say.  
 
These days, Betty’s being celebrated as a legendary artist.   Decades ago she produced a little pamphlet—the first realistic and equally sex-positive pencil drawings of female genitalia—yep, inner and outer labia—galore.  It contained so much enormously accurate detail that it blew away all medical-text diagrams on the subject at the time. 

In addition, Betty’s created dozens of blatantly erotic art pieces of women enjoying their sexuality—and with no shame in it.  In fact, the latest hottest news if you want to know is Jeff Hengst of Seattle’s Little Red Studio is currently chronicling her artwork as a tribute to Betty and this exquisite and artistically-erotic collection of pieces.
 
Now in her seventies Betty’s still feisty, in-your-face and going strong.  Indeed more than willing to share her devilish wit and magnetic personality in any probing sex-politico interview. 

Of note, she appears as a sex educator and liberationist theorist in a controversial film entitled Petals (2008) produced by Beck Peacock and Nick Carras; which just so happens to be all about female desire; and with the “Petals” referring to exquisite vulvas. 


Below is a tasty—excerpt— of that extensive interview conducted with Betty (that, not all of which, was published by Xtra! West in 2007) hence is being included here for your personal enjoyment.

Diane Walsh: What is your definition of sexual liberation?

Betty Dodson: My definition of sexual liberation would begin with the universal acceptance of masturbation across the board. Self-sexuality would be seen as the foundation for all of human sexuality. Sexual liberation is actually available right now to anyone with the courage to claim it.

DW: A certain style of sexual expression (say for example BDSM lifestyle) is mentioned in the cultural mainstream by a person intent on raising some heavy-duty—oppositional—rhetoric, what’s your response to this?  

BD: I ask if they are speaking from experience, or is it some kind of bias that’s been learned. If there’s time, I explain that the most dangerous SM is the unconscious kind that takes place in many romantic love affairs. The jealous lover beats or kills his or her lover in a rage. That’s some dangerous non-consensual shit! Not two people who are negotiating a fantasy role play that determines who’s on top.

DW: Do you think there is still a trend of restrictive thinking on female sexual expression, specifically queer expression which perhaps flows out of this on-going “anti-discourse”?

BD: After many years of teaching sexual skills through the practice of self-sexuality, I’m clear that ALL women are negatively impacted by religious messages and the lack of sex information later on in school. Lesbians have the added burden of “coming out” but straight girls have the burden of unwanted pregnancy.

DW: Do you believe there is/was such a thing as the “Feminist Wars” between the queer “sex-positive” and the not-so-queer “anti-porn” activists (putting the context loosely)?

BD: Oh yes! I lived through the early seventies that was, supposed to be, sex positive but still our poster feminists with names were always concerned about going too far and alienating other women if we embraced lesbians. This conflict broke out in a big way with WAP (women against pornography) that was supported by Ms Magazine and well-known writers that the media gave air time to; but they often silenced those of us with more liberal views.

DW: Is there increasing opposition to self-defined females voluntarily participating in bondage?

BD: I think the image of a dominatrix getting paid to tie up and discipline or punish a man gives a secret thrill to both men and women. However, a woman slave in bondage was too close to reality to be sexy for me until I joined a support group of lesbians who were into SM. Two women changed the dynamic for me. Even a fantasy like The Story of O is too close to reality with men dominating women to get me really hot. And I could never act it out in reality. My lesbian girlfriends who do practice bondage all know I’m the consummate voyeur. They are definitely in the closet because many of them hold important jobs that would be jeopardized if it were known they were into SM. Yet the whole of society is based upon non-consensual domination with God sitting on top of the pyramid of power.
 
DW: Where does bondage and queer women’s freedom of sexual expression feature in feminist debate, in your mind?

BD: When I first embraced SM primarily to overcome my prejudice toward this sexual choice, I learned about the exchange of power that took place in relationships whether they were straight or gay. My hetero past was all about falling in love and then engaging in a power struggle that had no name. The idea of identifying a top and bottom when it came to sex was revolutionary to me. Once any couple agrees to play a role consciously, sex is a lot more playful. I loved the idea that I could be a switch-able. That meant that I could do both. Until women understand the power dynamic in partnersex, we will never be able to claim our pussy power.

DW: Could you compare the public acceptance of [women’s] sexuality today versus the 60's and 70's, in the context of the religious right’s impact on conglomerate media output?
 
BD: I ignore the religious right and they ignore me. While there is a bit more social acceptance of sexual differences today, there’s a lot less sexual activity taking place. In the sixties and seventies, the only thing we had to worry about then was getting the clap which could be cured with an antibiotic. Today the list of sexually transmitted diseases has grown, with AIDS at the top of the list. This makes Big pharma very happy because they have a drug for everything. In the seventies if you didn’t have herpes it meant you weren’t getting laid. Now people are taking a pill every day to avoid an outbreak and it doesn’t even necessarily work. A bottle of Valtrex costs $300. I’d say that’s an expensive drug habit.

DW: Do you believe that achieving (or at least working toward achieving) orgasm is one of the keys to sexual liberation for women (straight, queer, lesbian, trans, or otherwise)?

BD: Yes. I’ve been accused of emphasizing orgasm far too much, even by therapists and educators. But just think about it for a moment. A woman who has never had one can’t help but either worry or wonder or obsess or feel inadequate or be very angry that something that is raved about, exaggerated, over-romanticized and used to sell everything has somehow eluded her.  It’s okay to choose not to have orgasms but only after you know what one is. This business about being happy with just the closeness of cuddling is cute, but that’s after someone has enjoyed a period or a lifetime of orgasms alone and with partners.

DW: Is actually experiencing female pleasure for one’s own personal, wonderful consumption a necessary component of sexual liberation and/or a healthy feminism?

BD: YES!

DW: Is there a distinction, in your mind, between sex-positive erotica and porn, or is this a false divide? 

BD: That debate successfully divided and conquered America’s feminism in the 80’s.  One woman’s erotica is another woman’s porn or the other way around. It’s all sex art. Some of it is good and some of it is stupid, exaggerated or silly. But hey! If an image or an idea gets you off, who am I to pass judgment?

DW: Do you think gay and lesbian porn/erotica has changed the artistic terrain, politically?

BD: The artistic terrain got a jolt of some really good images with Maplethorp’s photos that challenged the censorship of sex art and won after a protracted battle. But I don’t think this had made sex art more available. Maybe less so due to fighting public outrage whenever a big or erect dick appears. And Judy Chicago’s Dinner Party with her pussy plates wasn’t all that well received. My masturbating nudes ended my gallery affiliation but my cunt drawings made it into some sex ed books. I confess I don’t watch porn these days gay or straight. But I did have a phase of getting off on gay male porn. I loved the equal energy of two strong bodies instead of the usual hetero passive female, dominant male with the phony sound track. What was the question again?

DW: What, if any, are the consequences of censoring the free speech of sex radicals? 

BD: It’s taken way too many years for people to find out about me and the importance of selfloving; yet someone like Andrea Dworkin who was called a “radical” was simply pissed off about men and sex in general. But the media saw to it that everyone got to know who she was. Back in the seventies when I was censored consistently, radical meant going to the heart of a problem. Today it means crazy, out of control, nuts.

Diane Walsh can be reached at mediageode@gmail.com