I think all this positive-negative thing is SUCH CRAP you're either a feminist or you're not. You either stand up for women's rights or you don't. And why do we have to choose? Isn't being a feminist about not conforming and standing up for what you believe in? So why do we have to stereotype ourselves? I think it just defeats the purpose of everything that we as feminists want to achieve. Please comment and tell me if you agree. Can't we just agree that we all have different views on what we class as exploitation of women's rights and all that jazz?!
But to clarify it, if I was to totally contradict myself and place myself in one of these categories I'd be sex-negative...oh and also; why do the categories have to be sooo...false...it makes us sex-negatives sound like abstinent prudes (although a virgin, I'm not a prude)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Sex positive vs Sex negative.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/9204
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
I don't think you're a prude just because you're a virgin. But I don't see how one can be a feminist and not support a woman's right to choose what she does with her body. Freedom of choice should apply to a woman's vagina and not just her uterus.
I don't like it either because both sides are absolutely adamant that they're right and the other is wrong. I don't know who's right so I don't know what to think. They can't both be right, because a good deal of their positions are composed of proving the other wrong.
Which was exactly my point in the earlier post: sex and sexuality are complex issues that need more careful thought and analysis than blanket statements and generalizations. It's even more complicated by the way our culture envisions and constructs female sexuality. So I just think that characterizing feminism in general as "sex-negative," which it must be if you need to differentiate your position by calling it "sex-positive," is really counterproductive.
Why don't you articulate a bit more what you think is wrong with the label? I mean, your post is just saying it's dumb--but I don't see what's wrong with having a shorthand way to say "I support a woman's right to do whatever she wants with her body and sexuality". And if you disagree with that, I'm fine with smacking you with the pejorative "Sex-negative" label, because that's not a pretty unfeminist position.
I say I'm sex-positive because my main disagreements with the larger feminist community all come down to sex. Even feminists who identify as sex-positive often say thing I find very sex-negative.
If you want to learn more about sex-positivity, try checking out Violet Blue and Susie Bright. They are my heroes.
Nightingale, the vast, vast majority of feminsts do support a woman's right to do what she wants with her body. Even the more radical "sex-negative" ones are usually only questioning her ability to develop sexual autonomy within a patriarchal society. That doesn't mean they think women shouldn't be allowed to do what they want with their bodies. That's what right-wing wackos think.
But questioning and critiquing the construction of sexual desire within a cultural context is not inherently sex-negative, and it's not an attack on you or your sexual desires. However, labeling anyone who examines the construction of sexual desire as sex-negative, and then associating that with feminism in general is really unhelpful, and harmful to feminist causes in general. So in my view this is what's unhelpful about using the label "sex-positive." If we have to use that label to distance ourselves from the default feminist position, then we're basically capitulating to the sex-negative way that others choose to characterize feminism. Not helpful.
I agree, Rachel.
No radical feminists are trying to round up women and hold them in barracks so they don't participate in BDSM.
Sex-negative/positive is SO unhelpful.
I'm definitely in favor of people having sexual relations. I think 99.9% of pornography is degrading and detrimental to the womens' movement. I think that BDSM is transgressive for equality for all humans, despite the fact that many actively enjoy it. Many people actively enjoy smoking cigarettes and shooting heroin.
I guess the question I continually ask myself, which is why I'm no longer a pro-porn/sex-positive choice-feminist is this:
If you had enough evidence to believe that something that you enjoyed was detrimental to women as a class, would you still enjoy it?
Would you still want to continue doing it?
I approach the sex issue the way I approach the drug issue. I think everyone should be free to experiment and find what they like. But if you're ideologically against laying in bed with the shakes, I suggest you don't start an opium habit.
If you're ideologically against the eroticization of anyone's inequality, then reconsider what it means to be a 'sex-positive' feminist.
I guess for me, part of being a radical feminist has to do with the fact that I don't think women as a class need any help being seen as sexual beings.
We've always been seen as sexual beings, and whether that means hiding us away under fabric or saying we need to feel sexy, or we need to be virgins - it's all the same. It's saying that a good deal of your self-worth should come from either feeling pure or feeling sexy. Virgin/Whore dichotomy.
I try to be outside of that. You don't need to be an exhibitionist in order to be sexual. You don't need to talk openly about sex to be sexual. You don't need to "enjoy a good fucking" in order to like being sexual.
My sexuality means a lot to me because I've worked really hard to make it mine. It wasn't always my own. It used to be heavily influenced if not entirely fabricated by patriarchal false dichotomies.
nattles_thing : I looked up Susie Bright. The cover of the best of american erotica 2008 just seems to underscore my belief that sex-positive feminism is just transgressive patriarchal sexuality packaged in lace and low lighting.
I mean, shit, she actually feels like The Story of O is worth re-writing? Without swearing here, that story ends in the death of a sex-slave who truly believes that because she is female, she deserves to be raped, needs to enjoy it, and finally killed.
Violet Blue seems very knowledgeable, and I don't want to dismiss her.
But aside from helping people figure out how to give oral sex (but seriously do you really need a book to figure out how to do that stuff?) she seems to have a sort of "anything goes" mentality in regards to sex, which I think can be a little dangerous.
What if certain types of sex were detrimental to women as a class?
In particular, I am referencing the sexualisation of inequality. Sex is not something that has to be unequal in order to be orgasmic. There doesn't have to be a power dynamic in order to have an orgasm.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't keep doing what it is that they do, just as I'm not saying that people who smoke cigarettes or drop acid or ecstasy or snort coke on weekends should stop what they're doing either. But if your coke habit was directly funding, say, terrorism, or the murder of bunnies, would that change how you felt about it?
I think that's our main difference right there. I don't believe that BDSM is bad for women as a whole. I think it's definitely caused by the patriarchy, at least to some extent, but I really don't think it's harmful in and of itself.
Particularly since the actual S&M community tends to have better ideas about female sexuality. Female pleasure is equally important. I've heard (but can't confirm) that hardcore BDSM pornography tends to treat models and actresses much better than mainstream pornography.
Also, I don't think you can really criticize SB for the cover of one of her books. Have you seen the cover for Full Frontal Feminism? Bare midriff of a thin white model. Jessica has stated that she doesn't like the cover and didn't have anything to do with it.
SB is the editor of BAE, but she's not the only person involved with it. She probably had even less say than Jessica did.
Also, the cover itself isn't bad at all. It shows a woman pleasuring herself. In an anthology of stories meant to be sexy. How is this unexpected or offensive?
I have to agree with Nattles. BDSM is not equal to smoking cigarettes, and i should hope that anything I do in the bedroom isn't politically affecting women all around me.
But, I do see your point of view, Joyful. Sex and porn would be very different thing if men didn't exist. Wouldn't it be nice to see our sexualities in a vaccuum, without patriarchal influence? But alas, that's impossible. So we work with what we have and do our best to manufacture an identity of our own. It's difficult, but censoring people and saying that their sexuality is wrong isn't the answer. One of the biggest problems with the publication of the Story of O was that, instead of exploring what on earth was going through this woman's head when she wrote it, folks banned it, called it filth, which is denying a very thick reality: This exists, whether you like it or not. And many academics believe (as do I) that complete submission was O's personal means of empowerment.
To put it bluntly, people can't really help what they get off on. Not all gay people want to be gay, not all women want to be submissive in the sack, but they can't help their desires, and it's their business how they want to deal with it, and as long as its consensual than congratulations to the women who know what they want and go for it.
I have to agree with Nattles. BDSM is not equal to smoking cigarettes, and i should hope that anything I do in the bedroom isn't politically affecting women all around me.
But, I do see your point of view, Joyful. Sex and porn would be very different thing if men didn't exist. Wouldn't it be nice to see our sexualities in a vaccuum, without patriarchal influence? But alas, that's impossible. So we work with what we have and do our best to manufacture an identity of our own. It's difficult, but censoring people and saying that their sexuality is wrong isn't the answer. One of the biggest problems with the publication of the Story of O was that, instead of exploring what on earth was going through this woman's head when she wrote it, folks banned it, called it filth, which is denying a very thick reality: This exists, whether you like it or not. And many academics believe (as do I) that complete submission was O's personal means of empowerment.
To put it bluntly, people can't really help what they get off on. Not all gay people want to be gay, not all women want to be submissive in the sack, but they can't help their desires, and it's their business how they want to deal with it, and as long as its consensual then congratulations to the women who know what they want and go for it.