DISCLAIMER: I do not expect that everyone will agree with this interpretation of Mollena’s work. I however, really enjoyed this well thought out, thought provoking analysis.
* * * * * * * * * *
In my previous post of Mollena’s fantasy I stated that I thought art was meant to provoke thought and discussion…or something to that effect. Shortly after I made my post a friend (Sarah W.) popped on IM to discuss Mollena’s piece. Here is her analysis of Mollena’s performance from that IM conversation posted below (with her permission of course!)
For those of you who didn’t quite get what I meant by “discuss”, pull up a chair and pay attention because this shit is deep.
“I think it was brilliant and addresses the “ownership” aspect of D/s and M/s in a way that is so politically and socially aware, and yet personally expressive and empowered… (and I now want to sit down with a pen and paper and draft an academic paper about it)
I think it’s particularly significant to note the symmetry in the organization of the performance — a palindrome in which slavery and bondage act as the bookends of an overtly sexual striptease
It’s all taboo; socially, emotionally her performance is as captivating as the unique history that provides it context. It is about oppression, yes, but serves (if it’s appropriate to bring up service in this context) to illuminate the role of oppression in the leather community — in which slaves are as oppressed as the masters, because each has consented to live freely and thus they are scorned by the masses who drink from the (often self) righteous goblet of the dominant paradigm
What I find even more interesting is the distinct American culture that resonates from her piece — at a time when the political powers that be fight a war for oil, Mollena’s piece illuminates various political movements, from colonialism to the civil war, and then to leather, an outgrowth of post-WWII and a rejection of normative culture.
Perhaps a closer examination of marginalization should follow, or a deep yet broad discussion about “what this means” will follow, and yet I’m disappointed by this. While these conversations should happen, and they are the outgrowth of her creative process, there’s so much to deconstruct, to study, appreciate, that the broad discussions will probably veer away from what happened on the stage
Again, I view her performance as text; I don’t necessarily want to interview her, I want to look at what it is, in a culturally loaded, socially progressive, taboo way, and with a beautiful, simple, distinctly historical physical manifestation of gender, race, and power. The sexuality of the piece in both her physical performance and the context in which it was presented (as a fantasy) complicates and queers it.
The actual fantasy is notable; what does it “mean” to fantasize? Is it having a dream, or is it purely libidinal? Her fantasy seems more politically loaded and socially taboo than most, which is difficult to achieve in a community that embraces various types of age play and consensual genitorture (please note the multitude of non-profit organizations working to end something by the same name throughout Africa and the middle east).
Her fantasy is a day dream that twists historical images into those of sexual freedom and bondage. Perhaps also notable is the lack of overt sexuality in the beginning of the piece, yet her strip tease involves the items of clothing used to give a distinct image of antebellum slavery; it leaves the viewer, the one possessing the gaze, and the voyeur wondering if she also ties sexual freedom to social emancipation through the shedding of oppressive garb with unapologetic sexuality and pride in her (completely gorgeous) body.
And again, I’ve been looking at this through the lens of a kinky dyke who attended a college with a White Privilege Awareness Project and a support group for queer women of color. There’s still racism in this country, there’s still sexism too, and discrimination based on size, and discrimination based on queer identities, and leather affiliations, and anything outside of the norm. Mollena, in her life outside of this performance, has witnessed this. She’s a larger woman, a woman of color, a queer woman, running for a position of power within the leather community. It seems outlandish to think about criticizing her performance when the performer, while historically aware, currently lives in a society whose shackles are in the form of a glass ceiling, a raided bar, or a back alley.
Mollena’s performance is an embodiment of dialogue and social change, of sexual power, and of the complexities of dominance and submission, of bondage, and of mastery and service. Good Lord, I fucking love it.”
Whether you agree with this analysis or not, whether she’s right or not isn’t the point. The point is to THINK! Think beyond the emotional attachments we have to the song used, the clothes worn, the period of time these things bring to mind. Think about the bigger picture and TALK about it!
The people in my sphere of influence are the bomb (in my not so humble opinion) because they do this. We play in dungeons in ways that make society at large scowl with disapproval, we fuck who we want to fuck the way we want to fuck without apology and then go out for pancakes and discuss the rise of western civilization or the pros and cons of various types of birth control available in modern times or any number of random things. We discuss things…things that we love, things that anger us, things that make us laugh, cry, scream…we share with each other so that we grow and learn. How can art in our community, of this caliber, that inspires such deep and profound thought be seen as anything other than amazing?
