Because controversy and conscience don’t always make compatible partners — and my conscience wasn’t sitting right with the reaction my piece received - I’m grateful to the editors of SexIs for giving me the opportunity to right a few wrongs from my article “Sex Positivity and Parenting: Should Moms Still be Sexy?”
I envy Glen Beck. For years, he had a show on Fox News in which he threw out slanderous lies and mistruths that smeared the name of hundreds of decent people — and then he’d retire to his luxury home in Connecticut to sleep like a baby; absolutely unfazed by the damage he’d wrought.
Sadly, I haven’t quite reached that level of journalistic devilry (yet). I still attempt to maintain a modicum of journalistic integrity; so when somebody points out factual inaccuracies in something I write, I have a duty to at least try and set the record straight.
In this instance, it’s the facts surrounding two art pieces produced by adult performer Madison Young. In gathering my facts from various blogs and sites, I’d ended up misrepresenting the details of these art pieces and that, in turn, undermined the validity of the point I was trying to make. For Madison’s sake and my own, I need to set that record straight.
First off, I referred to one of her art projects, Becoming MILF as “performance art.” This wasn’t accurate. It was actually an art exhibit which featured photographs; including one which portrayed Madison as a sexy Marilyn Monroe figure, while simultaneously breastfeeding her infant.
Her second art piece was a performance at Sizzle!, in which she and two other mothers breastfed in front of an audience while discussing the realities and challenges of breastfeeding. I said that this was performed at her gallery, Femina Potens, when it was in fact presented by Femina Potens, which Madison clarifies hasn’t had a physical performance space since last November (the event actually took place at Viracocha, in the adjacent Mission district of San Francisco.)
Okay, so to the casual observer these corrections might not seem like a big deal — but they were big enough for Madison herself to correct in the comments section of my article; and she deserves me admitting I got things wrong, and correcting my fluffed facts appropriately.
After all, what these details don’t change is the crux of the issue; and the situation that sent Furrygirl off on her rant in the first place: Was it appropriate for Madison to use her infant as a prop in her art exhibit and Sizzle! performance?
I’ll accept responsibility for what I wrote, but admit that the comments and conversations I’ve had since my article went to print have definitely opened my eyes as to why I reacted the way I did.
I accused Madison of using her child in performances that took place in a sexualized environment. Her art exhibit, Becoming MILF, involved photos of her as a sexualized icon (Marilyn Monroe) laying claim to the title of a “Mother I’d Like to Fuck.” To me, that is objectively sexual, so I feel it’s valid to question how appropriate it was to include her child in it.
At Sizzle!, her breastfeeding on stage and the simultaneous discussion and debate were not eroticized in any way; and were presented as being in solidarity with World Breast Feeding Week (which is, incidentally, something I support and applaud]. However, the performances which followed had sexual elements to them; and it’s fair to argue that the public perception of Sizzle! — whether accurate or not — is that it has an ostensibly sexual element to it.
And perhaps that’s the real issue here — that the public perception (myself included) of Madison Young is as an exclusively sexual figure. Google her name and the results are almost entirely NSFW. Even her Wikipedia entry identifies her primarily as “an American pornographic actress.”
To many people, the “brand” of Madison Young is exclusively sexual; which means there’s the expectation that any art exhibit or performance art she’s a part of will be sexual in nature too. Pair that to the knowledge that her infant child will be used as a prop and bingo! you’ve instantly manufactured enough controversy to send Furrygirl off on a rant accusing Madison of “knowingly creating masturbation material for pedophiles.”
But the fact is, Madison’s performance at Sizzle! was not sexual in nature (even if it was framed by performances that arguably might have been). I only perceived it as such because I observed it though my own filters — filters that perceived Madison as an exclusively sexual figure, when in fact she is much more than that.
This realization has certainly softened my original stance; but not erased it entirely. I still think that because of most people’s public perception of Madison Young, it does raise red flags when her performance art includes her child. The Fox News contingent isn’t interested much in “context,” and the headline “porn performer breastfeeds at public event" would not do the aims of sex positivity much good.
But the fact is, Madison has every right to live beyond the limitations the public have set for her. “Madison Young” might be a brand; but she’s also an individual; and she has the right to expand her horizons in whichever direction she so pleases.
My article started off examining the challenge of how a mother can step beyond erotic neutrality to be perceived as a sexual figure. Perhaps this debate has raised the question of how a sexual figure like Madison can step beyond erotic infamy and be perceived as a loving, attentive and responsible mother; which she inarguably is.
I envy Glen Beck. For years, he had a show on Fox News in which he threw out slanderous lies and mistruths that smeared the name of hundreds of decent people — and then he’d retire to his luxury home in Connecticut to sleep like a baby; absolutely unfazed by the damage he’d wrought.
Sadly, I haven’t quite reached that level of journalistic devilry (yet). I still attempt to maintain a modicum of journalistic integrity; so when somebody points out factual inaccuracies in something I write, I have a duty to at least try and set the record straight.
In this instance, it’s the facts surrounding two art pieces produced by adult performer Madison Young. In gathering my facts from various blogs and sites, I’d ended up misrepresenting the details of these art pieces and that, in turn, undermined the validity of the point I was trying to make. For Madison’s sake and my own, I need to set that record straight.
First off, I referred to one of her art projects, Becoming MILF as “performance art.” This wasn’t accurate. It was actually an art exhibit which featured photographs; including one which portrayed Madison as a sexy Marilyn Monroe figure, while simultaneously breastfeeding her infant.
Her second art piece was a performance at Sizzle!, in which she and two other mothers breastfed in front of an audience while discussing the realities and challenges of breastfeeding. I said that this was performed at her gallery, Femina Potens, when it was in fact presented by Femina Potens, which Madison clarifies hasn’t had a physical performance space since last November (the event actually took place at Viracocha, in the adjacent Mission district of San Francisco.)
Okay, so to the casual observer these corrections might not seem like a big deal — but they were big enough for Madison herself to correct in the comments section of my article; and she deserves me admitting I got things wrong, and correcting my fluffed facts appropriately.
After all, what these details don’t change is the crux of the issue; and the situation that sent Furrygirl off on her rant in the first place: Was it appropriate for Madison to use her infant as a prop in her art exhibit and Sizzle! performance?
I’ll accept responsibility for what I wrote, but admit that the comments and conversations I’ve had since my article went to print have definitely opened my eyes as to why I reacted the way I did.
I accused Madison of using her child in performances that took place in a sexualized environment. Her art exhibit, Becoming MILF, involved photos of her as a sexualized icon (Marilyn Monroe) laying claim to the title of a “Mother I’d Like to Fuck.” To me, that is objectively sexual, so I feel it’s valid to question how appropriate it was to include her child in it.
At Sizzle!, her breastfeeding on stage and the simultaneous discussion and debate were not eroticized in any way; and were presented as being in solidarity with World Breast Feeding Week (which is, incidentally, something I support and applaud]. However, the performances which followed had sexual elements to them; and it’s fair to argue that the public perception of Sizzle! — whether accurate or not — is that it has an ostensibly sexual element to it.
And perhaps that’s the real issue here — that the public perception (myself included) of Madison Young is as an exclusively sexual figure. Google her name and the results are almost entirely NSFW. Even her Wikipedia entry identifies her primarily as “an American pornographic actress.”
To many people, the “brand” of Madison Young is exclusively sexual; which means there’s the expectation that any art exhibit or performance art she’s a part of will be sexual in nature too. Pair that to the knowledge that her infant child will be used as a prop and bingo! you’ve instantly manufactured enough controversy to send Furrygirl off on a rant accusing Madison of “knowingly creating masturbation material for pedophiles.”
But the fact is, Madison’s performance at Sizzle! was not sexual in nature (even if it was framed by performances that arguably might have been). I only perceived it as such because I observed it though my own filters — filters that perceived Madison as an exclusively sexual figure, when in fact she is much more than that.
This realization has certainly softened my original stance; but not erased it entirely. I still think that because of most people’s public perception of Madison Young, it does raise red flags when her performance art includes her child. The Fox News contingent isn’t interested much in “context,” and the headline “porn performer breastfeeds at public event" would not do the aims of sex positivity much good.
But the fact is, Madison has every right to live beyond the limitations the public have set for her. “Madison Young” might be a brand; but she’s also an individual; and she has the right to expand her horizons in whichever direction she so pleases.
My article started off examining the challenge of how a mother can step beyond erotic neutrality to be perceived as a sexual figure. Perhaps this debate has raised the question of how a sexual figure like Madison can step beyond erotic infamy and be perceived as a loving, attentive and responsible mother; which she inarguably is.
