Several recent discussions here and on other blogs have gotten me thinking about a certain communication pattern that gets repeated again and again on feminist blogs. I'm curious about it, and a bit discouraged over the way it often serves as a conversation stopper and thread hijacker. The emotions surrounding the topic are often heated, and it touches on very personal experiences, so I'm sure this (understandably) plays a role as well.
So here's the initial problem. On many threads discussing things like porn, BDSM, prostitution, stripping, rape fantasies, etc many commenters will defend one of two different claims. They are:
(A) The choices that a consenting adult makes are valid expressions of their sexuality and we should support them;
(B) Sexual desires and choices do not occur in a cultural vacuum, and it's a worthwhile feminist pursuit to investigate the cultural influences that give rise to our sexual desires/choices.
In my mind A and B are compatible. From a strictly logical perspective, B does not entail the negation of A. In other words, it's not the case that if you affirm B then you are denying A. That doesn't follow logically. And yet, there seems to be a very strong consensus that it does. The claim is made repeatedly that if you believe that our sexual desires are deeply influenced/constructed by our cultural context or would like to investigate the relationship between culture and sexual desire, then that amounts to shaming people, invading their bedrooms, and trying to dictate their behavior. The fact that this is such a compelling position to many people that nonetheless makes no sense to me makes me curious. For those who think that A and B are not compatible, is there some sort of connotation or implied premise connected with B that makes it incompatible with A? Does your response have anything to do with the tone of commenters who argue in support of B that somehow makes you feel that A is under attack? Have you had some negative experience in the past that led you to conclude that in general those who believe B also believe not-A?
The fact that this is almost always such a polarizing issue is interesting and a bit troubling to me. I get the sense that maybe there's some residue leftover from earlier feminist encounters or encounters with sex-negative (or homophobic) abstinence-only types at play here. Does anyone have any textual or experiential support for a historical trend of connecting B with not-A in feminism or the larger cultural context? If so, I'd be really interested to hear about it.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Two Distinct Claims and A Question.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12666
For my part, I think A and B are totally compatible. What's not compatible with them is option C: its wrong and no one should do it and I won't be friends with them if they do (and/or it should be banned).
In that case, I guess my question is why C is so often thought to automatically accompany B.
I think what's been happening recently is someone will start an original post that clearly states C, or there will be a thread where a lot of people comment unambiguously saying C. Then someone else comes in and says A, and in the context of the conversation that's already there, it sounds like they're trying to defend the people who said C. I personally haven't noticed any cases where everyone is only saying A and other people assume they're saying C.
Exactly. The comment that touched off the whole firestorm in the last Professor Foxy thread clearly stated C. People who later joined the conversation and said 'B' acted like it was unreasonable to not want to discuss B while ignoring or dismissing the fact that the outcry was about C.
One thing that amazed me through that whole discussion was the finger shaking about, "You need to think about this."
This assumes that 1) we hadn't, we are such blind silly women! and 2) if we think about it hard enough, we'll decide to agree with you and change our behaviors because that's the only possible conclusion you can come to if you think about it hard enough.
Well, 1) is what we complain about anti-choicers doing, and 2) is highly narcisisstic.
Anytime you ask 'B' and load it with judgment or already formed conclusions that you're requiring the askee to arrive at to make you happy, it's not going to be a thoughtful conversation.
Exactly.
I have often said B, and even put in disclaimers that I was not advocating not-A and that I was not advocating that individual people have some sort of responsibility to examine their own kinks and fetishes, but still gotten the response that would seem more appropriate if I had openly claimed C. In fact, when I've asked people to provide quotes from me showing that I was arguing in favor or C, they admitted that they couldn't, but continued to argue with me as if I was claiming C anyway. It makes me wonder if the history of these kinds of conversations simply make it impossible to explore B without being assumed to believe not-A.
I think that there are profound differences between rational decisions and meaningful choices.
I would revise:
(A1) Many (sexual) decisions come from an uneducated and unenlightened standpoint, but this does not mean that they are irrational or invalid.
(A2) Upon further examination, some womens' (sexual) decisions could be very bad for the womens' movement and then would not deserve our support.
(B1) (Sexual) decisions and choices do not occur in a cultural or biological vacuum, and it's a worthwhile feminist pursuit to investigate anything that could influence our sexual desires/choices.
(B2) The strength of Feminism cannot be contingent upon sexual desires being entirely cultural (and unnatural) forces. We must not commit the Naturalistic or Arousal fallacies. (What's natural is good, and what turns me on is good).
(C1) An expansive consciousness is an intrinsic good, because:
1. Those people with expansive consciousnesses are more aware of the meanings behind the choices they make.
2. Having an expansive consciousness makes you less likely to be controlled and hoodwinked.
3. Having an expansive consciousness is fun and a source of meaningful enjoyment and personal agency.
(C2) An expanding consciousness is necessary if you want to make meaningful choices.
(C3) The socially discriminative Patriarchy limits the development of female consciousness.
(C4) Therefore, the Patriarchy is bad.
All of this should hold true even from a hardline determinist standpoint.
Remember, we shouldn't try to derive 'ought' from 'is'.
I would really like to talk with some of you in person. If there is any way that we could exchange information in a private manner, I would really appreciate it.
Well, I'm not sure exactly what examples you're referring to, but if a LOT of people are constantly misunderstanding you in the same way, then maybe there is something that needs to be stated more clearly in your posts. For instance, if someone says "I hate ice cream, anyone who eats it is evil" and then someone else says "Nuh uh, ice cream is amazing" and then the third person says "Well, I think its important to critique negative aspects of our food" -- it sounds like that third person is agreeing with the first person, in that context. If they actually mean "I love ice cream too but in general I don't mind thinking about food," they should say so, or post their comments about general critiques in a new thread or somewhere where people haven't already been arguing about a very specific and strong critique.
Yeah, I think the dynamic of identifying one commenter's position with another commenter's earlier claims is often the dynamic. But other times this is not the case.
For example, in a thread about outsourcing surrogacy to nations like India I simply said that whenever there's a huge differential between the wealth and education of the clients as compared to the surrogate there's a great potential for exploitation. I suggested that the agency that brings the two together, or some other NGO should provide legal counsil to the surrogate mother in her own language to help prevent this. For this I was called paternalistic and accused of believing that women are little children who are incapable of autonomy or rational decision-making, etc. And this is a pretty common exvhange. I never said they should be prevented from making the transaction, but I doubted the claim of the surrogacy apologist who claimed that women choose to besurrogates because they enjoy the pregnancy and childbirth experience.
But I think maybe the association of B with not-A has become so strong that it's very difficult to uncouple them, even by explicitly stating that you don't believe B entails not-A.
I don't recall reading that thread so I can't really comment. But the recent threads I've seen about sexuality have had at least one person being very very clear that they were arguing position C, and so it seemed to me that was the issue. I guess you're referring to other threads I haven't been paying attention to.
I also think A and B are completely compatible. I do think it's a problem that people claim option B while pursuing option C.
I also think there's an unhealthy tendency to only apply option B to kinky people. I rarely hear vanilla people being told to think really hard about why they find certain things hot, even though that's just as fascinating, if not more so because it tends to be tied in less with personal experiences and more with the culture. Kinky people are also told they absolutely MUST do some serious introspection in order to figure out whether or not their desires could be harmful to them. Vanilla people don't ever get told to do serious self-examination before trying a new position, or crotchless underwear.
I think my main problem is that people treat D/s sexuality so differently from they way they treat mainstream sexuality.
I'm not sure how much very light bondage (like fuzzy handcuffs) really counts as bdsm, but if it makes you feel any better, I think a pretty large majority of couples I've met have tried the fuzzy handcuffs and no one seems to think its weird or unusual at all.
I would hope that people using fuzzy handcuffs are doing light bondage, because most of the ones I've seen are metal and look like police cuffs with a fur jacket. Those are just toys for bachelor parties. They could cut off circulation and cause nerve damage if you used them seriously. 0_o
Just saying.
I meant metal ones covered with fur (but usually cheap metal, and with a safety catch).
You make a good point; there are indeed some people who limit their cultural/social-based critiques to things perceived as outside the mainstream. It's problematic that, for these people, there's no sharing of the cultural critique "love."
In my personal experience, it is helpful to note other of the arguments put forth by the Argument B-maker or corresponding school of thought. For example, if the same person or school of thought has critiqued not only submissive rape fantasies but violent video games and exclusion of women from religious clergy, I believe it is easier to accept their critiques even when they hit home and target my own personal habits and practices. Clearly, the person or school is interested in cultural/social critique full stop, and spreads that analysis around to both cultural elements perceived as more "fringe," and, in the case of video games and clergy, those that are squarely in the mainstream.
Many feminists I have known are equally critical of the social backdrop behind mainstream-endorsed activities and artifacts (e.g. the expectation that hetero couples will engage in and enjoy the Missionary position) as they are of the culturally less-common (e.g. women or historically oppressed minorities being sexually aroused by men or Europeans urinating on them).
But I could see how a person who has NOT been exposed to such wide-ranging critiques coming from the same source might be suspicious when they hear someone make an argument critical of the ***social conditions** underlying women's and minorities' controversial choices.
I also think there's an unhealthy tendency to only apply option B to kinky people
Yeah, I think that is a huge issue, and so ironic, since it would seem that a person is more likely to develop a sexuality that's approved of/in line with cultural norms, so the influence there is easily visible.
Maybe the question is asked more of people with non-mainstream (whatever that is) kinks because they're more likely to be second-guessing their sexuality, given that it's out of line with the norm (as in the Professor Foxy post this week). Whereas those who are more vanilla don't feel prompted to examine their sexuality. But if "vanilla" means "the heterosexual norm" then it seems like feminists should be just as inclined to investigate vanilla desires, since they would entail the dominant-male-passive-female norm.
I noticed that pattern with the BDSM post and also with the post about high heels (empowering? or oppressive?). I thought about mentioning the parallels in the BDSM post but I decided that it would be too much of a hijack and my comment would get lost in the kerfuffle anyways.
I have run into this wall time and time again. I think that defensiveness about B must be due to past encounters with people for whom B really did mean not-A. I have also run into discussions about other things where somebody passionately assumed that I wanted to legislate against something just because I disapprove of it. I remember a very annoying debate that I had with somebody on another blog after I said I found a TV show "deeply offensive."
This person, whose comments I usually appreciate immensely, went straight into saying things like "I don't believe in censorship, I wouldn't want to live in your world, I believe in freedom of expression, blah blah blah." Much time was wasted with me trying to convince him that I had no interest in censoring or banning anything besides extreme hate speech. I was just saying I found it offensive.
It is unfortunate, because it completely derailed the discussion and we never did get anything out of it.
I am sure that person made the jump because people often do mean they want something banned when they say they find it offensive. And when feminists critique something, we're often saying that society would be better off without it and it should not be supported. I can see where the defensiveness comes from, but it is counter productive to assume somebody believes something they have not yet said they believe.
I think that is where a lot of the apologetic tones come from, where people carefully qualify that they are not being judgmental. I think that is probably a good thing to do in most cases, but I do sometimes get tired of having to qualify everything I say, and I wish that it would just be assumed that I have good intentions and do not mean anything I have not yet said.
I agree with Sabriel that often times, when people act as though B implies not-A, it's because there really ARE people out there who will respond to A with "sigh. You ONLY think that because society makes you."
And then some A-supporters get defensive when B is brought up, because they assume that all B-supporters are like those few that they've encountered. So if you bring up B and someone responds as if you've said B -> not-A, they may not really be responding to you, but responding to some other person in their past.
Another thing: I think that the information you might get from B is pretty cool, none of it actually matters.
I mean, it matters in that it gives us a better glimpse into human sexuality, but I don't think it's practical.
Even if you conclude beyond all doubt (impossible) that someone's particular fetish is caused by the patriarchy and their internalized belief that women are inferior to men, then that's pretty cool and it's a worthy thing to spend time thinking about but it doesn't mean that the fetish itself is unhealthy or bad for society or that the person should stop doing it.
Yeah, I think that my interest in looking at the underlying cultural attitudes that give rise to various fetishes is in the prevalence of the attitude itself. And if this kind of fetish or kink is present in a culture in proportion to the strength of the corresponding belief, then it seems like you can at least point to the trend as one cultural indicator. For instance, if some fetishes are tied to something like a belief that women are inferior, then it's at least troubling to think that this belief is being so widely internalized by women.
The thing is, I doubt it really works that way. I think that for some women (according to their own descriptions), being dominated and degraded is only a turn-on when they're feeling shitty about themselves, while for other women, they can only tolerate and enjoy that treatment when they're feeling confident and in control of their lives. Similarly, for some, having rape or submission fantasies is a sign they've recovered from a trauma, while other experience it as fallout from the traumatic experience.
And in some cases, the underlying attitude itself may potentially be very damaging. I wonder at times if there's a connection between rape culture, where rape is so often glamorized in movies and tv shows and given this aura of excitement/fear/mystery, and the prevalence of rape fantasies. And I admit that I feel kind of uncomfortable with the (socially constructed) male obsession with the whole school-girl uniform and pigtails thing. It seems to me like it must be tied up with the sexualization of young girls, and fetishizing innocence, vulnerability, and virginity. So the underlying attitudes that this kind of fetish seems to point to is troubling to me, but I don't think this means that those who have the fetish are bad people or inferior in some way. Being a product of your culture is not a crime - we all are, in various ways.
As a feminist submissive woman, I've gotten this one before. I wasn't involved in the BDSM thread here, but I've run into it in other places. Like you said, I don't believe that Options B and A re mutually exclusive...when they're phrased as you phrased them, as a respectful critique.
The problem is, I've found that sometimes Option B has a tendency to verge from "desires don't happen in a vacuum" to "you only want this because of cultural influences, and therefore you could not possibly have made a real choice about it or really desire it." And I don't know about you, but I get pretty testy when someone says "You don't really enjoy it, you've just been made to think you do." Thanks, but I do know my body's reactions to things and I don't need told that I'm wrong for enjoying what I enjoy. Particularly in radfem discussions, there's a lot of blame-throwing on those of us who engage in BDSM practices, and it is *not* a respectful critique anymore.
So I'm fine with Option B when it's actually done well. It's when it becomes personal condemnation instead of cultural critique that it's a problem.
Yeah, I think in this case I tend to overlook the fact that people have differing motives for asking questions. Some who ask the questions that are motivated by B may honestly be curious about the answer, while others believe they already know the answer and are trying to use the question as a jumping off place for a normative rant. Even though I'll generally be the first to argue that most verbal communication is deeply normative, in this case I'm always taken aback when I ask the question in a curious sense and it's immediately interpreted in the normative sense. But bearing in mind how often people use questions like this in the normative sense would probably help reduce my WTF? reaction.
I tend to get a little defensive when people say B because that implies that, if you analyse your sexuality enough, you'll come to understand the 'cultural influences'. For me, I don't like the thought of over-analysing my sexuality because it's not easily simplified, and sitting around thinking 'why do I feel this way' kind of is non-productive and ... well, ruins the physical pleasure. It's not something I want to do, and I resent the implication that I'm a bad feminist if I don't acknowledge 'oh, I'm submissive because of [insert cultural idea here]".
To acknowledge the other side, if I do give it a second of thought, I can easily say that the reason why I enjoy being submissive in the bedroom is because I feel rather powerful in the rest of my life, ie, I feel intensely in control of my current relationship, and I like volunteering to relinquish that control. I mean, quite often, our sexual fetishes/fantasies can be about something that is the reverse of our actual lives ... think about all the Renaissance men who had intense sexual fantasies about being kidnapped by Amazons.
And, yeah, I think it's easy to resent 'B', because, all too often, it doesn't come with 'A'. I mean, some rape survivors use submission sexual play to regain control, and some are appalled by the very idea, and think that you're a ... bad feminist .. if you enjoy that kind of thing. (I'm thinking of examples from my personal life here..)
You and me both, Raq. It's funny, because I *tried* that navel-gazing back when I was realizing what some of my sexual desires were and, at the same time, growing into my feminism. Yeah, that was an ugly mind-fuck to work through. "I believe in freedom from patriarchal oppression! ...wait. But I also like to be tied up and dominated. Well shit. Now what do I do?" And I have to say, while I came to peace with my desires and my feminism, I never did find a connection between social roles and my sexuality. I can answer "why" about specific desires or acts down to a more general schema of what turns me on, but at no level is there a connection to social roles or anything like that. And sometimes I can kind of resent the insistence that there *must* be *something* there.
But as I said above, so long as it's asked in the curious and not normative sense - great phrasing, thank you Rachel in WY - it's not that big a deal.
"It's funny, because I *tried* that navel-gazing back when I was realizing what some of my sexual desires were and, at the same time, growing into my feminism. Yeah, that was an ugly mind-fuck to work through."
Yeah this. I mean, I think that curiosity and social critiques are fine and all, but when you're at that stage - when you're young and unsure about your desires - if the message that you get is that your sexuality is incompatible with or harmful to feminism, well it's not a fun (or safe) place to be.
Maybe my experience is completely abnormal because I grew up in a very feminist town and area, but it was such a struggle for me to be okay with my sexuality. I tried for years to just act normal in the hopes that if I tried hard enough it I just might change. I didn't. But I did end up in a really horrible abusive vanilla relationship and I think that part of the reason that happened, and a large part of the reason I had so much trouble leaving, was that I struggled so much with being submissive.
I think that to a certain extent I had internalized the idea that my desires justified the way that I was treated, I mean I wanted to be dominated, right? And everyone knows that's weird and dirty and certainly not feminist or self-respecting. If I had had a feminist community saying, "no, these to things can be compatible, you can have and act on those desires and still deserve to be respected as a human being" my life would have been much simpler.
So, I'm not saying don't critique, but just be careful of the ways in which you frame your questions and the messages that you send.
It's funny because, when I was thinking about this, I wasn't thinking about rape fantasies, domination fetishes, and the like; I was thinking about arguments and discussions I had with people about women "opting out" of a career or whatever to be stay-at-home wives and mothers. On the one hand, I think women should be allowed this option if it is what they want. On the other hand, though, I think a lot of women who "want" this only do so because society and their family has told them for a long time that this SHOULD BE what they want, and they've never taken the time to consider whether this is what they ACTUALLY want. It's hard to explain to people how I can support a woman's individual decision to not have a career, while at the same time acknowledging the fact that that decision may not be entirely her own but rather the product of cultural conditioning.
My point is, that I think this permeates a lot of things that we deal with as feminists - whether in the sexual realm or the career-vs-family realm or wherever. In fact, I feel this is a general issue throughout society; everyone from psychologists to historians to musicologists deal with the subject of how much of our interests, abilities, tastes, etc. are really our own or are programmed into us by how we are raised (nature vs. nurture) and how we can respect individual decision while acknowledging that it may not be so individual after all.
I hope this comment doesn't sound unnecessarily condescending toward SAHMs who may be reading it. I understand that a lot of SAHMs are truly stay-at-home by choice and were raised in environments where they were told they could be whomever they want; however, I do think we need to acknowledge the fact that for many women who choose this path, it's not so much of their own choosing as it is the result of a culture telling them that they should value marriage and children above all else.
I didn't think it sounded condescending at all, and have also thought that this applies to discussions of a wide range of women's choices. It always seems to me that if we lived in a world where men were supposed to derive their ultimate fulfillment from their wives and children, and where there was equal pressure on them to stay home with the children, or equal pressure on both husband and wife to be the breadwinner, or no pressure on either parent to be either the breadwinner or the nurturer..., then it would be more likely to be the case that decisions like this were truly individual and made in a purely autonomous way. But given the current pressure put on women, in millions of subtle ways, to be the self-sacrificing nurturers, it seems unlikely that this decision is ever completely uninfluenced by culture.
Something I've noticed is how taboo sexuality is. Interest in movies and television, music, what's funny to a person, those are all okay to question. But preference for sexuality? DUN JUDGE MII.
I just think it's interesting. We have no problem picking apart a joke and saying "I thought it was funny, but after analysis, I've deducted that society made it funny and the joke is only funny if you feel X should be taken lightly. I don't want a part of that. I'll force myself to not find it funny." But sexuality? "Culture may have made me think this way, but it doesn't mean I think X, and it doesn't mean I have to even think about that culture made me think this way."
What is it about sexuality that makes it so untouchable? Is it because sexuality is just that personal? The level of self-worth attached to it? The general taboo surrounding it? What is it about sexuality that makes people so defensive?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anyone needs to rethink their sex life and change it around. I love BDSM (though I'm dom,) and if anyone told me that I'm only really sexual cause I don't want to be what society told me I should be (submissive, pure, asexual, sweetheart) I'd reply "NUH-UH I LUV SECKS!!" But I really am curious. Why do we get so defensive about sex and sexuality, and why do we have trouble questioning it and coming to terms with it being rooted in sexist patriarchal misogyny if a particular aspect of it is?
What is it about sexuality that makes it so untouchable?
Perhaps because, even after analysis and reflection, I cannot find a substantive connection between what turns me on and what society says. I don't get off on being helpless and in pain because women are generally treated as objects and often abused. The two have no relation to me. Part of why I'm so sure of that is because I have literally been having fantasies about bondage and pain since my earliest memories. I'm pretty sure rape culture hadn't permeated my awareness at age 4. And yeah, I get defensive when people (not all who go with Option B do this, but many do) insist that there MUST be some sort of societal impulse behind it no matter my assurances that no, really, I've looked and it's just not there. Maybe for some people it is. For me, it isn't, and I resent being pressured to find it.
In a more general sense, I think it probably is because sexuality is so very personal, and anyone who's self-aware enough to identify as a feminist has probably at least idly pondered why certain things make him or her tick, so there may be an echo of my own resentment at being pushed to find something they've already looked for.
I cannot find a substantive connection between what turns me on and what society says
This touches on an interesting point. I think that one assumption going on here is that an interest in the questions surrounding B involves exhorting people to examine their own kinks and desires and see what the cultural influences are. But I don't think it's necessarily always that personal. I don't think it's your personal responsibility to sort out the cultural influences at play. But I do think that investigating these connections in general is interesting. Asking if a rape culture produces more people with rape fantasies/fetishes doesn't require that each and every person who has rape fantasies/fetishes examine their sexual development for some connection to rape culture, for instance. That kind of anecdotal evidence may be insightful, but it's certainly not necessary.
Another thing it taps into is the assumption that everyone can become aware of all the cultural factors that impacted your sexual development. This seems really optimistic to me. I think many of the things that impact your development are pre-language, but pre-language or not, many of them are not accessible to our consciousness. So this means that expecting anyone to be fully aware of and able to articulate every influence that's ever impacted them is unrealistic.
I don't know if that helps or not.
Asking if a rape culture produces more people with rape fantasies/fetishes doesn't require that each and every person who has rape fantasies/fetishes examine their sexual development for some connection to rape culture, for instance.
How else are you going to back up your conclusions on the subject, though? If you conclude that rape culture=rape fantasies (roughly speaking), then how are you going to handle the many people who tell you, "Hey, I don't feel that's accurate for me"? At the point at which your wide conclusions on social influence on sexuality intersects with the individual's experience of their sexuality, who's right? Are you right, with the wider context in mind? Or will you listen to the individual who says, no, that's not true? And yet you can't avoid that intersection, because without actually connecting the abstract analysis to the concrete sexuality of the individuals being discussed, it's just so much mental masturbation.
So this means that expecting anyone to be fully aware of and able to articulate every influence that's ever impacted them is unrealistic.
Not really. If you're meaning the impact of specific individuals or acts - like a weird power dynamic in one's family or a childhood sexual trauma - then it's true that an individual may not have specific memories to draw a connection to. But I thought we were discussing wider social themes here. And in that case, you don't need to remember if someone had told you what "rape" meant when you were a child. The rational adult mind can seek connections between social themes and individual reactions without requiring specific memories to point to. One may not be able to say, "This aspect of rape culture impacted my life in this way at that time, which led to the development of this sexual kink," but one can certainly say "I do/do not see echoes of these aspect of rape culture in my own desires as an adult."
But then, I also firmly believe that any person who truly seeks self-knowledge will find it, though perhaps not easily or quickly, and that people should be given the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not they know themselves, rather than being told "I know you better than you do." And I think that's another place where your original Option B has the potential to stray into offensiveness when approached in a normative, rather than questioning, way.
Yeah, I don't mean to suggest that people don't know themselves or are not self-reflective at all. But I think that the way our minds work, it's just not the case that even the most self-reflective person will be able to identify every influence that shaped them.
There are some really interesting studies in philosophy of mind on beliefs that parallel this topic. Usually we think of the things a person believes as being things they're conscious of and could articulate. But in fact, only a very small percentage of our beliefs are like this. Each person has millions of unarticulated beliefs that they're generally not aware of that make it possible to function. Think of all the things you have to believe in order to step out your front door in the morning (a meteor is not going to fall out of the sky and kill me; when I step off the curb the drivers who have stopped at the light are not going to randomly start driving and kill me) or all the beliefs it takes to engage in conversation with someone (this person is mentally coherent; this person speaks my language; etc). When you start thinking about this, you realize that there are far more "invisible" beliefs below the surface than the ones we sort of "hold in our consciousness." I would bet that many of the influences on us are so subtle or deeply buried or whatever that this is often the case with the development of sexual desire as well.
I just didn't like the comments I'd been seeing that by engaging or being attracted to certain fetishes, that one inherently cannot comprehend the real-life action being fetishized. That, for example, someone who likes slave/master activities in the bedroom could not possibly understand the horrors of actual sex slavery. As if engaging in private sexual experiences in any way condones such atrocities. That's what I didn't like.
One question that keeps coming up is, "Why is sex off limits for analysis?"
I was accused in the Professor Foxy thread of being "quite overly sensitive" which struck me as being funny, because despite my protests, I didn't exactly have a stake in that specific fight. I'm not what you'd label "submissive" nor am I into BDSM.
But I am so sick of seeing women being told that their sexuality is wrong, needs to be explained, being told that their desires aren't natural or that they should feel bad about them. We get enough of that from the anti-feminist side.
When we have this history about this topic being assaulted with judgment, any questions asked by our side HAVE to be framed in a non-hostile way. Being told by the conservative right that teenage girls only have sex because they're needy and have daddy issues and being told by feminists that kinky women only have kinky sex because of patriarchy are scarily similar accusations.
And furthermore, they're both assuming that female sexuality is the problem, while men don't have to put up with any of that shit.
This isn't saying that we can't have these discussions. But we can NOT have these discussions like the anti-feminists do.
Thank you for bringing this up in such an articulate manner!
Like you, I think we have to take them together, and in light of one another. A without B is naive in the extreme, and, in my opinion, ridiculous when it comes from self-described 'feminists', which word implies political awareness. And a B utterly closed to the discussion implied by a positively-valuated A is unproductive.
Does anyone have any textual or experiential support for a historical trend of connecting B with not-A in feminism or the larger cultural context? If so, I'd be really interested to hear about it.
No (how helpful)! But I want to postulate (and peruse journals when my boss isn't looking), anyway, because this is important. There exist lots of possible reasons why this happens not only in feminism but in public discourse at large. The US, at least, is a culture that loves the idea of intrinsic rights and balks at the idea of accompanying responsibilities. Maybe discussants who say "it's a choice (i.e. not up for discussion)" feel like they're eliding a nagging social responsibility because confronting the issue face-to-face is overwhelming. The political implications of skin bleaching and the realities of the sex industry, for example, are terrifying. To me, at least.
I also suspect a misrepresentation, intentional or not, of second-wave and radical feminisms, particularly of Andrea Dworkin (who, while she may not have been terribly likeable, was important).
Finally, people who aren't totally secure with their choices, for good or ill, may find it problematic to defend them on objective grounds.
... and, as a "B" espouser in the implicit context of A, I realize that B gets or can seem really inflexible because it's really, really hard to uncouple acts from their political context. But like in BDSM, where the female submissive is able to guide the experience and subvert the power dynamic at the heart of, say, rape, the uncoupling can prove transcendent.
I agree with you that B shouldn't mean not A, but I also get sick of people saying A = not B. I don't know-there's lots of room for debate about how much responsibility anyone has to totally disagree with all patriarchial ideas-personally, I think saying so just reinforces those ideas-however, just because it's you're choice doesn't make it feminist, and I hate to bust anyone's bubble, doesn't give you power. I guess I want to say, make your choice, but don't pretend, for example, that just because you enjoy being tied up(heck, I do) or staying at home with your kids that there aren't larger cultural forces being reinforced. also, rape culture known by age 4-actually, totally likely these days. Do not underestimate how much culture is already marketed to even small babies.
I don't think I've heard anyone claim that BDSM in and of itself is feminist, although a lot of the C-types seem to believe that this is what the A-types think. I personally don't believe that any sex act is intrinsically political.
I do think it's a bad thing when anyone suppresses their desires because of what society might think, and I also think that feminism should encourage women to embrace their sexuality.
a sex act isn't intrinsically political but it does inform the politics of those that participate and watch. Which matters. and that's what I'm trying to say.