A response to a critique of sex-positive feminism

[ Author's name withheld by request ]

I saw this post on a friend's blog, and the original post it was in response to made me flap my arms like a big, angry bird and dash off a couple of annoyed comments. I then sat back and cooled down a bit and re-read Vociferate's Andrea's post again, and...nope, still pissed off. Here's what I ended up with. It's long. Bear with me, and please point out where I've made horrible glaring generalizations, errors of logic and just plain offensive statements that aren't rhetorical devices -- I was still fuming when I put this together.

It would seem the main purpose of labelling something 'sex positive' is to differentiate it from whatever is 'sex negative'. In this case, usually radical feminism. Sex positive feminists have taken on board the accusations of anti-feminists and tried to counteract them, not by stating how ridiculous, tiresome and pathetic such accusations were, but by actively trying to become sexually acceptable.

I don't claim to know anything worth a damn about the "sex-positive feminists" Vociferate's Andrea talks about, but then I realize that the views I espouse are probably best described as both sex-positive and feminist. So holy shit, I must be One Of Them, and so I have taken on anti-feminist accusations and am trying to become sexually acceptable, apparently. Because really, all I have ever concerned myself about was how fuckable I am.

Sex positive feminists not only dismiss the idea that porn causes men to view women as objects for their use, and encourages sexual objectification and violence, even when ex-porn-using men tell them it does, but are also quite happy to perpetuate the myth that woman have rape fantasies. This seems to be mainly because men like to hear these things, and somehow 'sex positive' always ends up being positive towards a male definition of female sexuality.

"...'sex positive' always always ends up being positive towards a male definition of female sexuality." Always? Last I checked, the extensive discussion about queer women's sexuality (female-born women and others) in sex-positive matters didn't include chapters on How To Please Men. The availablility of women-only discussion spaces for sexuality-related matters also weakens that statement. And yes, said discussion groups can be and are put on by self-identified "sex-positive" people, though since the word "feminist" isn't in the identification, they probably don't count. Right?

Second: rape fantasies are not a "myth" -- people of all genders have them, and I have heard people of all genders speak of them, with varying degrees of shame. The key distinctions between a rape fantasy and real rape are desire and consent. Nobody wants to really be raped, and you cannot rape the willing. Nobody wants to have their physical and psychological autonomy ripped away from them. Nobody wants to suffer the lasting physical and psychological aftereffects of an attack on their body and psyche. Rape fantasies ultimately depend on the visualization of the "victim," who has the ultimate control over whether a scene plays out; this knowledge is the safety line used to protect the "victim."

I will not generalize about the various ways one must go about negotiating and planning such a scene, because everyone does it differently. The crucial parts are communication, communication and communication with one's partner -- oh, and trust, of course. Discuss exactly what is okay and what is not okay. Discuss what to do once it stops being okay. Then go from there.

Radical feminists oppose pornography because porn is not sex. It is in no way an accurate simulation of what sex is really like. Pornography lies about the realities of sex as much as it lies about the realities of women.

I agree. I cannot stand most mainstream porn because it very rarely depicts anything accurately, from the physical capabilities of two average people to what actually turns the individuals on-screen on to the actual emotion they experience. It is all fake, and I dislike it not only because of that, but because porn is frequently the first exposure to sex one has. That's what makes porn more damaging than your average movie: unless you are incredibly young, with your average movie, you usually have a lot of life experience to tell you how much of it is bullshit and how much of it is more or less on the mark -- I don't have much of an objection to the way that you never see someone going to take a whizz unless it's central to the story. With porn, unless you're in the Netherlands, where pragmatic sex ed begins early in elementary school and manages to dispel the illusions before they start, a good lot of adolescents are satisfying their sexual curiosity with misinformation.

The vast majority of women would not like anal sex, just as the vast majority do not have fake melon-tits.

The logic in this bit is astounding. Anal sex is to natural female desire as breast implants are to natural female bodies? Something injected into women to make them more appealing to men? I call bullshit. Has she even asked "the vast majority of women" whether they like buttsex or the idea of it? Or is she just extrapolating from the fact that women in most porn flicks have whatever shoved up their rear ends with spit as lube and act as if it's the best thing ever? (Note to whoever out there is interested in buttsex: if you think you’re using too much lube, it's probably not enough. If you think you're going too slowly, you're probably not going slowly enough.)

And "the vast majority of women" would not like buttsex ever? At all? Or just if their SO just started banging them in the butt without any warm-up? Or if they just did it to make their SO quit whining about how they never have buttsex? Even if their SO took some time to discuss it with them, present it as something no-pressure and interesting to try, and take it slow and easy if/when they decide they want to give it a try? You must qualify a statement like that, otherwise you are dead wrong. And I am not qualifying that statement.

Radical feminists try and dispell the idea that women all walk around getting moist about people raping them because it's fucking dangerous for women for this idea to be around, and fucking insulting for women who have been raped to be told they're making a fuss over nothing, since we all know the biggest turn-on for a woman is rape anyway. It's a disgusting thing to claim to fantasise over, when so many women are raped and suffer. It's also logically impossible, you can't want a thing that is by definition unwanted.

Yes, it is disgusting for other people to believe that women want to be raped. It is also disgusting to see someone unable to make the distinction between real rape and rape fantasy, especially when she is making that a large part of her discussion. As I said before, nobody wants to really be raped; rape fantasies and real rape are hugely different things separated by continuous consent and desire. Rape fantasies also take place on the very boundaries of one's comfort zone, which is why they tend to remain fantasies. Paradoxically, it takes knowing that who you are with will never actually rape you to be able to trust them to fulfill your fantasy without harming you physically or psychologically.

Sex positive feminism is also incredibly immature. Most people by adulthood have accepted sex to be a normal part of some adult relationships. They feel no need to constantly remind everyone they enjoy sex like some teenager attempting to convince his friends he's not a virgin.

Barring the indirect ad hominem attacks (though I have to say the vocally sex-positive people I've met have shown no need to "constantly remind everyone they enjoy sex" -- I wouldn't mind meeting one of these overgrown teenagers Vociferate's Andrea talks about), I would have to say that most people consider sex to be an essential part of all significant, romantic adult relationships, not a normal part of some. Asexuality is still seen as immaturity or an illness. Many say that the difference between a friend and a girl/boyfriend is that you don't fuck your friends. Sex, whether it exists or not in one's relationship, needs to be discussed precisely because one generally does not, and by keeping silent one allows misconceptions to gestate, if you'll pardon the pun.

The point of sex-positive activism is to dispel the shame that surrounds any mention of sex as a part of a rational adult discussion, and not as a gimmick to manipulate people into doing what you want. Sex-positive culture is about discussing the intricacies and varieties of sex maturely and openly, and not in the hushed, "giggling" whispers characteristic of immaturity. I find it somewhat heartening that Vociferate's Andrea is so secure in her sexuality, but I find it reveals her blind spots that she assumes that everyone else is. I hold to the belief that most other people do not have the luxury of security with their sexual identities or curiosity, and without the chance to talk about it with people willing to listen and discuss, they will remain controlled by the shame surrounding sex.

Sex positive feminism giggles its sexual willingness and prowess, whilst sneering at all the ugly prude feminists. It has long been a tool of the patriarchy to seperate women from alliance withother by treating them as rivals, sex positive feminism ascribes to this wholeheartedly. The rivals are radical feminists, and they assert themselves over them by describing themselves as sexually open, whilst naively imagining they're the only ones who ever get any.

I'm tempted to reply to this with, "Wow. Bitter much?" Only it really wouldn't solve much except for relieving the pressure of not saying that -- so I'll avoid being the better person because this is, after all, my journal, and I can be snippy if I like. That aside, I would really like to see where Vociferate's Andrea collects her observations in this case; I cannot help but feel she is creating a straw [wo]man. Ironically, by spouting vitriol at the maligned sex-positive feminists, she accomplishes the exact same thing she accuses them of doing: she takes on the "tool of the patriarchy" by deliberately attacking and alienating a subsection of feminism, dividing so that others may conquer. Congratulations -- you're doing the enemy's work for it.

If radical feminists had such a problem with the openness of female sexuality, there would not be so many of them trying to ensure women have reproductive choice. Or has sex positive feminism forgotten reproduction happens because of sex through its pre-occupation with defending BDSM and pictures of boobs?

Reproductive choice does not equal sexual openness. Women must have knowledge and control of their bodies, and this is where reproductive choice and sexual openness are linked. Sexual openness means promoting communication and knowledge, as well as dispelling misinformation and shame; the oft-repeated cliché that knowledge is power is a cliché precisely because it is true. To be afraid or ashamed to discuss such matters is to allow others to have a weapon over you, to allow jurors to continue acquitting men who have raped prostitutes, to continue allowing women to believe that since he bought dinner they owe him use of their bodies.

Reproduction is only an inevitable consequence of sex when reproductive choice is removed. Sex does not equal reproduction. The myriad of acts and concepts surrounding sexuality is what concerns the sex-positive -- this includes "BDSM and pictures of boobs," which Vociferate's Andrea clearly dismisses by her use of the word "preoccupation" (because if it was something important to be concerned about, the word would have been "concern").

Sex positive feminists defend their position by stating sex is only one of their areas of interest, which is what other feminists do day in, day out, and receive no special recognition for. My suggestion is that if you do not wish to be indentified by the characteristic of your 'position' on sex, do not choose such a characteristic to define yourselves by.

Just like I would suggest that if you do not want to be seen as an "ugly prude feminist" who lacks a sense of humour and whose patchouli-reeking unshaven legs could house three needy families each (and one per armpit), you would do well not to define yourself as a feminist, for that is the stereotype. And if you do not want to be seen as an effeminate, promiscuous (but extremely well-dressed!) lisper, I would advise you avoid identifying yourself as gay. And so on. Is it me, or is this paragraph reminiscent of victim-blaming? "Well, I think your position means this, so I'll attack you based on what I believe it means, and if you don't want me to attack you based on what I think your position is, you better start calling yourself something new. Change your life to make me feel better so I don't attack you."

The compromise of sex positive is really the compromise on male sexual entitlement, and the recognition of gendered power relationships. No real equality for women can be achieved when tired old, male-oriented ideas of sex and the sexuality of women are espoused by feminists.

And women can never truly be free when the people who are supposed to be on their side -- the feminists promoting freedom and equality -- are attacking said women because said women do not happen to conform to the ideas those particular feminists hold. It is also a patriarchal tool to dismiss women's opinions as being invalid unless they agree with you.

Radical feminism does not make you popular, but it's still the most honest and uncompromising look at the world, and in my opinion, the right thing to do.

And it must not discount and dismiss the importance of sexual openness to feminism's ultimate goals.

Goddammit, goddammit, goddammit!