1984 Los Angeles to NYC / 2010 Northampton, MA to NYC



12/25/10

WritingSexTrauma

I’m writing a memoir. It’s a slow, arduous, lonely process. I stop often to replay the same passage in various ways to make sure I have it right. I spend a lot of time finding a way to narrate my experience – first person? Third person? Dialogue? Collapse time? Embellish for literary sake? And once I figure it out I might change my mind and rewrite it all.

My book writing group told me to just keep going. Get it all down. This is a first draft. Edit later. I have never written like that. When telling a story, I ramble; but in writing I measure my words too closely.

I had a friend, a butch, who told the same funny anecdote over and over about how when you tell a femme she looks good, she says.... (and then the butch would launch into a hilarious monologue about makeup and beauty techniques). The punch line was, “Tell a butch she looks good, she says ‘haircut.’”

I talk like a femme and write like a butch. A professor once told me my writing was “breathless.” This was not a compliment. I’m too succinct; I don’t add enough details, or “flesh it out,” or “unpack,” or any of those literary things you’re supposed to do. Basically, I’m not a storyteller. I don’t read or write for the story but because I get a visceral reaction to certain kinds of writing and that’s what I aim for.

So I’m trying to loosen up. Stretch the ideas, feel what it is I’m writing about and not try so hard to be a good writer – at least in the first draft. This is a memoir I’m writing; it’s storytelling. I want to write a poignant story but I can’t do that by just narrating without feeling what it is to have lived my life.

I’m an emotions chicken. I’m a pain avoider. Making emotional pain a temporary inconvenience has been my survival strategy in life. I’ve never thrown myself on a bed crying. I used to never even cry. It took a lifetime to realize that feeling does not equal weakness. And when you run from pain instead of feeling it, understanding it, dealing with it -- pain reaches out her bony claw and pulls you back so you repeat the same idiotically painful things your whole life.

When I started writing a book, I narrated my life events as if they were someone else’s life. I explained things like I was sitting across from myself in the analyst’s chair. Then it wasn’t working. I was getting bored of myself. So I decided to go to people who knew me and ask them questions; maybe learn something unexpected.

My first experiences of seeking out sources were interesting. I’ve spoken to family members, found people from 30, 40 years ago -- but nothing really changed the way I was writing and I was frustrated.

Then through connections on Facebook I happened upon a photograph. It’s a black and white photo from 1971 in the San Fernando Valley of two musicians with shag haircuts. Both are 16. The one on the left is my old friend Danny and sitting with him is Guy. My blood ran cold.

That summer, 1971, Guy asked me out to the drive-in. It was officially my first date. I had just turned 14. Guy knew of me through friends but I didn’t know him at all when he approached me. He was quiet, sullen, dark-skinned, with a prominent nose and an interesting face. I was excited to be going out with an older boy from a different high school.

He pulled up to my house and honked the horn. I strutted down the driveway in platform shoes, a tube top and miniskirt, big hoop earrings, and lots of makeup. I got in the car, and without a word, Guy picked up a napkin off the floor and wiped my lipstick off – harshly, violently, scrubbing at my mouth. He said he didn’t like lipstick. I sat there, stunned, as we drove to the drive-in with the radio on, not talking. Once there, he paid, pulled into a space off to the side, didn’t bother to put the speaker in the car, and then he raped me.

I clicked on the name beneath the Facebook photo and saw what he looks like now: A middle-aged, shifty, salesman type – dark glasses, too-slick hair, jowly, puffy face, not smiling.

A couple weeks went by. On impulse, and because I needed to know something, though I wasn’t sure what, I went to Facebook and sent him a message: “just curious, Guy, do you remember me -- formerly Robin Modiano?” I left my apartment and didn’t think about it until the next morning. He responded with six messages. He told me he thought about me, was on his 3rd wife, worked at a Hollywood color lab, was the lead singer in an 80s heavy metal band (he sent me a link to the dreadfully stupid video). The last message said, “I remember the drive-in...I remember how wild you were and I loved it!!!!!!!”

I felt like I was punched in the chest. I paced. I gnawed at my nails. I doubted myself. Maybe he was right. Maybe I was willing and he never raped me and I’m just telling myself that all these years.

I waited a couple days, in a troubled state between self-doubt, and feminist awareness that self-doubt is a condition of my upbringing.

Then I wrote back. I asked, “Did we have sex other than at the drive-in?” We did. He described two other times in eight messages. His (grammatically stupid, misspelled) messages became increasingly more sexually graphic. He sent them over two days with hours in between as if he thought of nothing else for those two days. He described what I did to him, where we were, what I did afterward -- with such clarity you’d think no time had passed between 1971 and now. His final messages were about what he wanted to do to me if I came to LA. They were a rapist’s fantasies.

I knew what he wrote was true because I remembered it all. I remembered the settings and people and my provocative attitude. I don’t remember the sex, though I’m sure what he said was true because they were the same sex acts I was forced to do to men in my family when I was a child. Blow jobs and hand jobs were my specialty at 14.

I wanted to scream. I sent his messages to a couple confidantes. I asked if they were a turn on. “Yes,” was the reluctant response. I understand that. That’s what makes a sexual trauma narrative so complicated. There’s no way to tell the story without it being titillating. Sex, in general, is complex. It is riddled with insecurities, histories, cultural standards, religious decrees, repression, perversities, trauma, fetishes, displacements, wish fulfillment, identification, desire, self-hatred, self-delusion, desperation, need.

When incest is one’s first sexual experience it gets really murky. There’s no prior sexual self to get back to. It’s formative. That’s why I didn’t even have to ask myself why I had sex with him after he raped me. It’s what I knew. It was compelling.

I tried to turn the messages into a positive. I told myself that this is not new information, but grist for my writing. When I was a teenager, men thought I was a willing participant, why wouldn’t a teenaged boy?

Pacing, fretting, clutching my hands, standing in my pantry eating potato chips and staring mindlessly at the shelf of light bulbs and batteries, staring at myself in the mirror … these are the things I do, and I couldn’t write for days. I stared at the words on my laptop and none of it seemed to matter. I wrote and it was not good. I tried again. I didn’t care about what I was writing. I was really bothered.

Then my old friend Mark sent me an email asking when we could get together. Oh my god … Mark! Why hadn’t I called Mark! Mark is an author and a writing teacher. He is one of the people I trust most in the world. I’ve written about him in this blog. I told him I couldn’t write and I had to see him immediately. He asked me to send him what I wrote thus far.

He made me tea; I sat like the non-emoting emotional wreck I was on his white couch. He had read my book thus far. He told me I have to re-write it and not distract myself. He set a deadline for me of June 2011. I agreed. He said I have to stop writing my blog because it takes time away from writing my book. He’s right. I have to not be afraid. So Mark is going to be my writing coach and we’re meeting weekly. And until I have a first draft of my book I can no longer write my blog.

12/12/10

Censorship and my queer identity

Eleven days ago, John Boehner, incoming Republican House speaker, succumbing to a bully from the faux-pulpit, William Donohue, threatened the Smithsonian into removing a David Wojnarowicz video from a queer-themed, privately funded show at the National Portrait Gallery in Washington DC. Boehner told Secretary Clough of the Smithsonian that the institution “be prepared to face tough scrutiny” by the new Republican majority if they did not remove the piece.

This makes me spitting mad and I take it personally.

Wojnarowicz created “A Fire in My Belly” in 1987 after the death from AIDS of his lover, the photographer Peter Hujar, and after learning he was HIV+ (d. 1992). It is a fierce, pain-filled montage. The images are layered with Diamanda Galas’ bone-jarring composition. Galas wrote the piece in 1986 after her brother’s death from AIDS.

I am a fan of both Wojnarowicz and Galas. Wojnarowicz’s art was intimate, revealing, vulnerable, beautiful, pictorial memoir. His paintings told stories about his life, literally and symbolically, always with poignancy no matter how disturbing the image. But that is beside the point.

Or maybe it is the point.

I came out as a femme queer in 1995. I had a life I might have dreamed of if I were heterosexual: married to a wonderful man, an artist, whom I loved; living in a loft in Soho; two young children, a boy and girl; straight couple friends, all creative, edgy, interesting people. When I became aware that I was a dysfunctional heterosexual, my plan was to come out when I was 50 so my children would be grown and I didn’t have to ruin my family so badly. I didn’t make it past 37. I would have imploded if I waited any longer. Living a double consciousness is painful.

Two things helped me understand my identity and gave me the courage to come out – education and art. Let me back up: I am not a lesbian in the usual sense, meaning my desire is not sisterly or woman-centric. I am the woman. I want a female husband. My first revelation was finding the identities of “femme” and “butch” in books. Even though I fit squarely in the standard definitions of “femme,” I didn’t feel a politic around it. The myth of femme identity is that it’s about as antifeminist as you can get with its focus on the feminine trappings of makeup and frilly frocks, sexual submission, desire for the masculine, gendered division of domestic labor, and eroticizing old-fashioned masculine chivalry. My “The Personal is Political” politic was to say that, yes, all that is true but butch/ femme is a constructed, consensual dynamic between two females with no inherent State-sanctioned power imbalance…and it’s subversive, mirroring the dominant paradigm queerly, exposing it as unstable, blah blah blah. That’s where the education part came in.

When I was younger, looking at the 19th c. Turkish bath paintings of Ingres and Gerome filled my loins with lust and my heart with shame. I thought it irreverent to look at these exquisite paintings and feel turned-on as if they were porn. But as I learned later, art has multiple interpretations and one can look at Robert Mapplethorpe’s well-hung men or Sally Mann’s children or Catherine Opie’s queers or the weirdness of Lisa Yuskavage or John Currin and be aroused by both the image and the craft. Art can evoke anguish, curiosity, identification, yearning, anger, etc. Art is commentary. It is related to time, history, geography, and technique. And that is what makes art so relevant to a society. When it’s not commentary, it’s not art; it’s decoration.

I’ll give it to Boehner and Donohue for recognizing art and its purpose, assuming they saw the piece. Their feelings were aroused, they understood it was a commentary on religion, and they knew it was important enough or they wouldn’t find it worthy of condemnation. However, they did not censor the piece because of its content. As Frank Rich wrote (following Blake Gopnik of the Washington Post), “Those [grisly] images are staples of all museums – even in Washington, where gory 17th-century sculptures of Christ were featured in a recent show of Spanish sacred art at the National Gallery.” They bullied the Smithsonian into removing it because the artist is a queer. This is not about imagery but about religious zealots and conservative lawmakers condemning queers and making AIDS their private penance.

Now this is where I come in again. I am a queer. David Wojnarovich is meaningful to my sense of who I am. Queer art did not tell me that I am a queer-- that was in the butch/femme books of Joan Nestle – rather it helped me understand, with beauty and pain and poignancy, that my queer world and my identity are multi-faceted, sometimes conflicting, and complex. And frankly, I feel fortunate to be who I am. If I believed in God I would believe I was blessed to be born a queer and to have lived the life I have. Being queer has made me a political person.

It took me a long time to figure this out. I spent the 70s not paying attention to lesbian feminism, and the 80s not paying enough attention to the AIDS epidemic. I feel badly about that now considering I was young and healthy and those were my queer people who died and I did nothing. I dropped deeply into my unstable heterosexuality, trying so hard to be a good wife and mother.

I came out of my stupor in the early 90s when I was a graduate student in Performance Studies at NYU studying performance and politics during the Bush administration. The Corcoran had recently cancelled Robert Mapplethorpe’s show; Senators Alphonse D’Amato and Jesse Helms condemned Andres Serrano’s photograph, “Piss Christ”; the NEA rescinded grants given to performance artists Karen Finley, Holly Hughes, Tim Miller and John Fleck; and Representative Rohrabacher told the House to end NEA support for David Wojnarowicz. I became an activist, a member of the Women's Action Coalition, a mighty group started by women artists, writers, and art dealers. We staged protests that were fabulous as performance pieces and always made me cry because of the spirit and strength behind what we did.

***

When I first read of the censorship on December 1 (World AIDS Day) I felt sick. Not again. No no no … not the Christian right again; not homophobic Republican idiots condemning without any comprehension about the meaning and purpose of art – or without even seeing it. I thought we had come further than this.

AIDS is part of United States history. Curators, archivists, historians and the general public should be humbled and awed by the volume of brilliant creativity in all mediums that came out of this epidemic. AIDS is in the U.S. legacy of not caring what happens to citizens who are deemed marginal. The great tragedies – slavery, internment camps, AIDS -- in which the United States is at fault for human rights violations, are greatly underplayed in the retelling of U.S. history. Censorship is obscene and dangerous.

This time I can’t be silent. I refuse to let MY right to bear witness to the pain and fury of AIDS, and to view queer art, be censored by Republicans and the Christian right. We – everyone with a conscience -- have a responsibility to manage the creative legacy of AIDS victims. These works are of historical importance and a testament to the incredible talent that died with an underfunded epidemic.

I'm going to Washington to protest.

******

A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things, which in truth are but one, constitute this soul or spiritual principle. One lies in the past, one in the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present-day consent, the desire to live together, the will to perpetuate the value of the heritage that one has received in an undivided form. Man, Gentlemen, does not improvise. The nation, like the individual, is the culmination of a long past of endeavours, sacrifice, and devotion.” ~ Ernest Renan “What Is A Nation?” 1882 (trans. French)