"I hesitate to give blanket approval to things like porn, female sexuality as portrayed in the media, careers in the sex-industry, and Girls Gone Wild."

I identify as sex-positive, and I don't do that. Girls Gone Wild is absolutely hideous and, if anything, sex-negative, and porn and the media are often deeply sexist themselves.

Being sex-positive is about supporting women's sexuality and our right to use our sexuality as we want. Not about blanket approval, but refusing slut-shaming, fetishizing virginity, and all the things that act to tell women that we're not supposed to be sexual. And that includes the types of "feminism" that claim that female sexuality, or many forms of it, is a result of patriarchy, such as Andrea Dworkin, which shame women for having natural desires.

But for the most part, sex-negative applies to non-feminists. IE the people who go around saying sex is just for procreation, that most women only have sex to please their male partners, etc. Not feminists who have problems with the porn industry and its exploitation of women.

Right, so when did Andrea Dworkin and other radical feminists come to represent all of us? And if they don't, then why do we need to tack on the "sex-positive" title? It seems to me to imply that feminism in general is not sex-positive. It seems to go without saying that feminists aren't into slut-shaming, virginity-worshipping, or advocating sex for procreation only.

I always thought about "sex-possitive" in contrast to the really old school Simone de Beauvoir feminism that says female sexuality is inherently passive. Or in contrast to the idea that all heterosexual sex in some way replicates the patriarchy. Being rather sex-possitive myself, I never really researched a lot of this, but I think there were a lot of feminists who equated heterosexual sex to sleeping with the enemy.

Rachel, I didn't mean to suggest that Dworkin represented "all of us", just that being feminist doesn't mean that you are sex-positive. Unfortunately, there are a lot of feminists who are not sex-positive, who even though they believe women and men are equals still hold men's sexuality over ours, and I cannot imagine why you are so insulted that we are admitting this. No one is saying that you are sex-negative, or even that feminists are, just that people, in general, are. It's rather like assuming people are feminists--in theory everyone should be a feminist, only bigots and morons are going to say that men are superior, but we still, even we as women, have to say that we're feminists, and many of us like to add that we're sex positive.

I see the OP's point. It seems an unfortunate enabling of misguided ideas about "feminism" to constantly add "sex-positive." As long as this is being added, non-feminist listeners will continue to understand colelctive "feminism" [unqualified] as sex-averse.

I think it might be better for us in the long run to subtract the "sex" qualifiers and focus on educating the public about the various schools of feminist thought. In my opinion, most feminists today--whether they self-i.d. as "radical," or "cultural-realtional," or what have you, are all pro-sex.

Hm. I guess I haven't run into many feminists (unless women like Sarah Palin are lumped in here) who "still hold men's sexuality over ours." I'm not sure what you mean by that. They think male sexuality is more important than female? More aggressive? Something to be deferred to? Who takes this position? I could see a feminist noting that this is the prevailing attitude in our culture, but I'm not sure why a feminist would take this position for her/himself.

And I agree with Okra about educating the public about feminist schools of thought, since the view that a lot of people have is pretty selective and skewed.

And I don't think that it is like assuming that people are feminists, because nobody's walking around identifying themselves as non- or anti-feminist. In other words, the fact that you have to specify that you're sex-positive implies that this is not the norm among feminists. Otherwise the label would be superfluous - like writing A.D. after the year every time you write the date.

I regularly identify myself as a sex-positive feminist. I don't see a problem with it.

The fact is that there are feminists who I think are sex-negative. I've stumbled across blog posts about how heterosexual sex is just supporting the patriarchy, and anal sex is even worse. I've seen a lot of sex-related products and advertisements dubbed horribly sexist when really their only crime was that having anything to do with sex in the first place. I've also seen feminists who are completely against any kind of porn, and I think that's a shame.

I've also seen a complete failure to understand sex. I've read posts on Feministing and on various other blogs that looked at harmless sexual preferences and fetishes (rape fantasies, chastity belts, Nazi rollplay, real dolls) and made judgments about the people who enjoy them. That creates an atmosphere in which people are judged for sexual proclivities that don't hurt anyone, and that is sex-negative.

OK, so again, there are some feminists who take a sex-negative approach on some issues. I still think it's detrimental to portray feminism as sex-negative because of the attitudes of a few feminists. And I'm not sure why it has to be all or nothing. It simply isn't the case that you either have to take an "everything goes" attitude or be completely sex-averse and judgmental. That's just a reflection of the same old virgin/slut binary that the abstinence movement plays off all the time. In this view, if I object to the highly sexualized identity that's pushed on very young girls by the media then suddenly I must be one of those prudes who thinks her daughters should remain "pure" (whatever that means) until marriage (if in fact they turn out to be straight...). What if I find the version of female sexuality that's prevalent in the media disempowering and geared entirely toward the male gaze and toward making them into mindless consumers who will never, ever feel good enough about themselves? Can't I just wish that they could have some space to explore and develop their own sexuality as they grow without at the same time wanting them to be asexual? I guess it seems to me that feminists should reject this kind of binary thinking and explore the shades of gray in the middle in order to find a more productive approach. After all, everything, even sexuality, occurs on a continuum.

Damn first I defend Jordin now this but I'm being honest. I do understand why the term "sex positive" is used. I understand not wanting to be identified with a certain form of feminism.

I guess I thought Jordin was sex-negative, what with all the slut-shaming rhetoric.

I am speaking for myeslf here. One of the places where I have seen the chasm of class, race and privilege open wide is with this idea of sex-positive sexuality.

To me sex positive has become code for a very privileged, middle-to-upper class, escaped-from-religion outlook so entrenched in mainstream capitalism, most folks don't even know to question it anymore.

There is a lot more common ground in feminism than most people think with regard to sexuality. But when materialism and privilege become so pervasive it's ceases to be about female sexuality. It simply becomes about people pushing their brand of sexuality in the same way the traditionalists push theirs.

@ nattles thing: I'm sorry, but I think rape fantasies and Nazi roll play can be very harmful by glorifying/fetishizing very dangerous attitudes. That said, I can understand how Real Dolls are only sexist if the people who use them are. And I don't have a problem with chastity belts. I guess I consider myself sex-positive, but that doesn't mean certain sexual behaviors don't have way more potential to be sexist, degrading or dangerous than others.

@ Yoshimi: Attitudes like yours are the reason I feel the need to label myself as sex-positive.

You can't control what turns you on. You can try to figure out why it turns you on, but it won't stop you from getting wet whenever you think about Nazis. In a lot of cases, if something weren't taboo it probably wouldn't be fetishized. I've said before that I'm pretty sure my feminism is as least partly responsible for my rape fantasies.

The problem seems to be that a lot of feminists tend to overthink certain sexual acts. You do it because it turns you on, not because you hate Jews or hate yourself or think rape is just fine. As long as you're not hurting anyone or turning into a Nazi, it's harmless and should be respected. I don't believe in making people feel bad about whatever it is that happens to crank their engine.

I have to say, I have always felt excluded when the feminists I knew started using the term "sex-positive"...

I consider myself to have a healthy view of sexuality. I enjoy sex with myself, with my partners, in a variety of ways. However, I do not like pornography (as it stands now... a more egalitarian "feminist" pornography would be enjoyable I think). Sometimes, I agree with the likes of Dwarkin and MacKinnon...but I don't think that makes me "sex-negative". I think it means I examine things critically.

I choose not to identify as sex-positive, because I see it as exclusionary, and problematic. But thats just me I guess.....

I'm with Rachel here. Since the minority of feminists, even if they are vocal, actually come out as "against" heterosexual sex, it would be far more appropriate to call them "sex negative," "anti-porn," or even just "sex-skeptic" if they have problems with just some of the things consenting adults do together.

Let the rest of us have our varying attitudes about sex, and like it whatever way we want it, without a "sex-positive" quantifier. I agree that it implies that anyone who isn't "sex-positive" is sex negative and that can be damaging.

However, I'm not into telling other feminists what to do. So call yourself sex-positive if you like.

I guess I don't know what to think about things like rape fantasies and Nazi role play. On the one hand they probably turn you on because of the power dynamic, which is directly fed by the sexist ideas that are so ingrained in our cultural categories. And the fact that scenarios where there's an extreme power differential between participants is such a turn-on to a lot of women reflects these deeply ingrained gender conceptions, I think. So that makes it seem kind of intrinically sexist. On the other hand, engaging in this kind of play is quite possibly just a way of exploring, in a safe environment, something that's scary to you - the whole Aristotelian idea of catharsis. But this is just my point - it's OK to have mixed feelings about this kind of stuff, and to reserve the right to analyze and critique it more at a later date. If you have to identify as sex-positive and give your blanket approval or remain silent and be identified as sex-negative by default, then that's pretty fucked up. And it gives ammo to opponents of feminism, who want the mainstream view of us to be that of extemist, man-hating, irrational bitches. No thanks.

I don't think it's a matter of "approval" or "disapproval" of certain activities. What consenting adults do with each other (or themselves) is not open to outside interference.

You may question the reasons why someone may want to do something, but not her right to do it..

If sex-positive means that discussion of the psychology behind sexual proclivities is taboo, then that's misleading. I can't talk about something interesting, that's related to sexual power dynamics, without being "sex-negative?"

Hardly fair.

I think you totally hit on it, Zoray. I can understand that to some people it might be threatening to have female sexuality and sexual power dynamics examined, because that feels like they're being judged. But that's totally not the point here. I want to know why so many women in our culture have rape fantasies, or choose to engage in non-reciprocal sexual relations, or view female sexuality as a sort of spectator sport. What's behind these dynamics? These questions are not really about the individuals themselves. But it seems that asking these kind of questions either gets a response that is defensive of personal kinks or earns one the label of sex-negative. I'm an awfully sexually active and adventurous person to be labeled "sex-negative," but apparently that's the reality here.

I identify myself as a sex-positive feminist, but all that means to me is not that I like to do the deed more often or that the rest of feminism consists of prudes, just that I pay more attention to more sexuality-based concepts within feminism. Yes feminism is important to me, but it's especially the sexual issues that matter the most to me. Damned if I know why. Granted 'sex-positive' isn't the best word to use to describe it, but I haven't heard an alternative yet.

I used to identify as 'sex-positive'.

It used to be that I was only turned on by power dynamics.

I decided that I did have control over my sexual fantasies, that being into bondage wasn't like being gay. It was something I could change if I wanted to. But I didn't want to. I used to think that I'd never give up BDSM. I was even afraid, of becoming a sex-hating Dworkin type.
I didn't see how what I did in the bedroom could possibly effect anything in the 'real world' - I saw sex and real life as being these two totally separate things. Who I was in the bedroom had nothing to do with my 'real personality'.

I guess I felt that caving in to the culture I was brought up in was only legitimizing the power/sex dichotomy. It was like admitting defeat to the patriarchy. I could just imagine a bunch of sexist frat guys I used to know sitting around, mocking feminists for failing to come up with any alternative to the existing power dynamic. If feminism is so good, they'd say, then why aren't these feminists living their egalitarianism, in the bedroom and out?

I'm just going to say:

Do what you want to do. Honestly. Don't get the impression that I'm telling you what to do. I'm not. I might be judging you for legitimizing what I consider to be the core of the patriarchy - sexualized dominance and submission, but I'm NOT telling you what to do.

I'm just saying that you _can_ be into bondage one month, and then be just as satisfied sexually without it the next.
I actually feel more satisfied now that we've removed all power dynamic from our sex. I feel more closely connected with my partner, more intensely emotionally bonded.

Culture-switching works for everyone. Read up some studies by Lera Boroditsky which examine the effect that cultural images have on peoples' performance in various non-verbal and verbal tasks.
Our psyches are extremely malleable. You can decide whether your sexist, patriarchal culture or the culture of equality you create with your partner is the one that molds your sexual desires.