x-posted from my blog: The Jaded Hippy
It's been a while since I wrote a post from a specifically sex positive perspective. But that all changes tonight because a few days ago I had a run in that sent my mind off in that direction.
In comments at fem.men.ist's place a conversation began about sex positive feminism, with a very angry radical feminist who was hearing about it for the first time and didn't like what she was reading. Needless to say, she and I exchanged words. But since then I've been going over and boiling down my argument and though it's getting to the same point as my very first post about sex positivity, I thought it might be worth going into again.
The radfem's main argument (in the comments conversation, though her argument in her blog post appears similar) consisted of two points 1) certain sexual behaviors are inherently degrading to women (she also threw in there that heterosexual sex can never truly be consented to, which I would take to mean is "always rape" as the famous quote goes, but I never got to follow up on that point) and 2) that by supporting and accepting women who choose to engage in such behaviors for pleasure, sex positive feminists are supporting and enabling the sexual exploitation and degradation of women.
So here's my problem: this line of arguing is utilizing the master's tools.
Here's what I mean by that... Kyriarchy doesn't want women in solidarity with each other. That's the reason we're socialized to dislike each other (which is the essence behind this post on my Tumblr ). It's the same tactic used against poor whites and poor Blacks after emancipation and into today, the same tactic used to divide white feminists from womanists and feminists of color, the same tactic used against the middle and the working classes, and on and on and on; divide and conquer . "We" must create divisions and hostility between them or "they" might join forces and overthrow us.
And there's this fine line between critique and condemnation that too many anti-sex positive feminists (as I've experienced them) trample all over. Critique is "there are these things that influence us towards accepting this behavior and eroticising it and we should be conscious of that." Whereas what this and so many others I've seen do is "that behavior is degrading, the end!" And anyone who makes an argument in support of women's sexual agency is cast promptly as the enemy, woefully brainwashed by Patriarchy. Critique leaves room for discussion, the latter just shuts conversation down entirely.
So let's take a step back here...
We're ALL woefully brainwashed by kyriarchy.
Feminism isn't an end to that, its just a lens we can use to liberate ourselves and each other. A lens which helps us figure out and hopefully dismantle our brainwashing. Radfems and SexPos' alike = brainwashed by kyriarchy. And sexual practices, like so many things, are essentially a nature vs nurture debate.
What came first, me liking to be spanked or kyriarchal norms teaching me that sexually fulfilled women should be disciplined?
The fact is? WE WON'T EVER KNOW. We can deconstruct the messages we're indoctrinated with, we can dissect our turn ons, we can even construct elaborate and well thought out theories as to how and why we ended up being turned on by sexual discipline, but we'll still never know what came first; the kinky bdsm chicken or the leather loving egg.
But in their fervor to impart how degrading some sexual practices are, and to point out the sexual horrors women as a whole are subjected to, this particular brand of radfem seems to forget that they are conditioned too.
They also seem to forget that kyriarchy fears few things more than unconstrained female sexuality. I mean, that's a given, yes? If asked, every feminist would agree that the powers that be have spent inordinate amounts of time and effort to "reign in" the terrors of female sexuality right? That's what the whole "virgin whore dichotomy" is all about, that's what rape as a punishment is all about. And yet when these radfems are turning on their sexpos sisters, it never seems to occur to them that perhaps this condemnation and social shaming is just as much a conditioned response as they think the desire for so-called kinky sex is.
And as the history of kyriarchal successes go: women once again turn on each other, disciplining each other's behavior and creating wide rifts across which solidarity really isn't possible.
Is that "radical feminism"? Really?
What is radical about disciplining other women's sexual choices? How does that tear down kyriarchy?
And I know the argument to this; "well their behavior is reinforcing patriarchal norms!" Well, maybe. Maybe it is. I don't know for sure (but neither do you).
What I do know is this:
1) In a woman's search for sexual liberation there will undoubtedly be times when she is not "perfectly feminist". Because none of us are always perfectly feminist, ever.
And 2) there is nothing that kyriarchy fears more than women becoming truly sexually liberated... except for women in solidarity with each other.
Whether one particular sexual practice "does it" for you, or not, if you're throwing up walls against those who practice them, if you're setting yourself up to deny the sexual agency of other women...that's definitely not creating solidarity. It's only creating more divisions. It's only making it easier for you to disregard "those women".
Which is exactly what the Patriarchy wants .
Now, let me end with some ownership because I am not immune to this critique either. I wasn't particularly gentle in my approach with [name redacted at subject's request]. No, I was incredibly irritated by the utter reading failure she demonstrated throughout our conversation. And that dominated my response; not any sort of compassion for the emotions which were stirred up by that reading (false though it was, clearly a nerve was hit and I definitely didn't help delve into that and compare/contrast it with sex positivity).
Was I creating solidarity in that moment?
Hell no.
I was too pissed at seeing yet another feminist tearing down and shaming fellow women, fellow womanists/feminists for their sexual choices, and for basically utterly missing the point behind sex-positivity and at the same time dismissing it entirely out of hand.
Was that really the best way to handle it? Probably not, no.
I can't apologize for defending women's agency and criticizing what I still think was a total misreading, but I could have done so from a very different starting point, and taking my thoughts here to their logical end, I should have.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Irony of Anti-Sex-Positive Feminist's Arguments.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15668
Interesting post, thanks for writing it. It comes up here every now and then, but I think it's worth emphasizing that demanding that someone analyze their desires can cause a lot of shields to come up - not because no one wants to think about it, but because that demand often comes with a heavy dose of judgment and a pre-determined answer. It's pretty easy to tell when a demand to explore the reasons you like something is accompanied by a, "And if you think about it enough, you'll arrive at the same conclusion I did and then stop liking it. And if you don't, that means you're not done thinking about it."
I've often thought that this conversation about the patriarchy conditioning our sexual desires mirrors the puritymongers' arguments pretty well - no matter which side it's coming from, it's SOMETHING else causing us to have sex (or the kind of sex we have), it's never something we truly have agency in. Puritymongers will say girls have sex because they feel pressured, because they have a bad relationship with daddy, because they want love and acceptance, etc. etc. The condemning vanilla types (I'm not using 'vanilla' here in a BAD way - I'm more vanilla than not - but I've never seen a kinky person condemn other kinky people) point to patriarchial forces and say that those are the reasons women have the sort of sex they have.
No matter what, we're never out from under this sort of beady-eyed focus, we're never seen as doing things because we have the agency to choose them. And I don't think that the latter sort of condemnation is any better than the former, even if it's coming from feminists instead of stuffy conservative types - if anything, it's worse, since in the name of tearing one system down, they're just putting up another one that's just as demanding and oppressive and calling it a victory.
It's interesting for me to think of sex as generally a consent argument, and rather illuminating to analyze kink/BDSM as rather lengthy, upfront negotiations that generally lead to an experience that satisfies all its participants; while in the general population there is often far less negotiation for consent, which can lead to grave misunderstandings & dissatisfaction for all participants.
On the other hand, I also find it helpful to reflect upon why certain aspects or practices are more pleasurable than others. A personal example is that I enjoy a level of roughness that others find surprising. Upon reflection, I recognized that my worse experiences sexually were not physically traumatic, they were comparatively "gentle," and the roughness I enjoy makes me feel safer than more gentle sex, especially when I'm having difficulty emotionally for whatever reason.
Rather than using a framework for thinking about sex that sifts through various practices & seeing them as more oppressive than others, recognizing that any practice can be warped into an oppressive one or held as a truly consensual and pleasurable experience depending upon the context of the act itself seems much more useful in overcoming patriarchal conditioning.
Very thought-provoking. Thanks!
I've debated a fair amount about "questioning" kinky desires. I see two major problems with the concept, or with how the concept tends to play out.
First, people do tend to see kinky desires as way more open to criticism than vanilla desires:
Why do I like being spanked? Well, I dunno, that's a thing to be discussed - but why do you like the sexual positions you like? Have you QUESTIONED your attraction to men/women enough? Are you SURE you aren't having sex with lights off because you're ashamed of your sexuality?
See how the latter ones don't seem too appropriate as questions to ask adults? A bit intrusive, a bit patronizing? Well, it seems like asking these sorts of personal questions of BDSM lovers is considered A-okay.
The second problem is one alixana pointed out: if people don't like your desires, they'll assume you haven't questioned, or haven't questioned enough, no matter how many years of agonizing soul-searching you've gone through (and, believe me, most kinky folks have done more than their share, precisely because their desires are still taboo to a degree). Questioning stops when you have honestly examined your desires and dealt with them - not when you've seen the inevitable error of your ways, and repented.
It reminds me of the "pray the [insert gay/lesbian/bisexual/etc.] away" folks: society doesn't like it and I don't like it, so if you question it for long enough I'm sure you won't like it either.
The idea being that if kinky folks question their desires enough perhaps one day they'll change and be more like those pressuring them.
And it's a silly viewpoint to act like kinky folks haven't questioned their desires. We live in a society that forces them to examine their desires because of the shaming involved in accepting those desires. If anything they have to question them far more than other folks.
First, people do tend to see kinky desires as way more open to criticism than vanilla desires
That's a really good point. How often is a woman's affinity for the missionary position questioned? Usually it's simply assumed she likes it because it feels good. Why aren't so-called kinky desires held to the same standard?
Right on sister! Thank you for writing this. It frustrates me to no end when radical feminists and various other anti sex-positive feminists use that line of reasoning against "kinky" sex or sex work or whatever else. Yes, it's problematic. We live in a fatally flawed system. But denying another woman's sexual agency and denying her the ability to define and seek out her desires does nothing but tear us apart. Critiquing and shaming are two different things, and people seems to forget that when the topic is say, BDSM or porn.
Hells yeah! Yep, strange to see how few people see this distinction.
If you agree it's problematic then isn't there a problem with putting it on film and selling it to the general public?
I don't hink kinky sex is for me, but I have no problem with two (or more) consenting adults partaking in such activities if that is what they want to do. I do have a problem with what is perceived as exploitative sex portrayed on film and being sold in the community as erotica.
In other words it is the pornography I have a problem with because it spreads an exploitative message, and shapes the perceptions of men and women.
"If you agree it's problematic then isn't there a problem with putting it on film and selling it to the general public?"
Personally, I don't have a problem with pornography if the people partaking in it are consenting adults and are all having their needs met. I don't see how one can say, "I have no problem with kinky behavior but if it's on tape, then it's a problem." (just quoting in general- not that those were your exact words). Either something is exploitative, or it's not. It being on tape doesn't make it more so, IMO. Of course people can use porn and kinky behavior to exploit others, but to generalize all of it into that category is unfair. I think that is what femme meant by saying our system is flawed- not the acts themselves.
Just to clarify: Do you have a problem with all pornography or just kinky pornography? (Or what exactly do you mean when you say "exploitive sex?")
It is the way the sex is portrayed on film that is the distinctive factor. While someone might enjoy sadomasochistic sex in real life, the complex issues culminating in this discovery are not going to be displayed in a piece of pornography. All the audience will see is (fore example) the man dominating the woman and inflicting physical harm for sexual fulfilment. This is the type of thing I would regard as exploitative and damaging for women in general.
If sadomasochism were dealt with appropriately, in context, it would probably be ok. However, this is not the business that the pornography industry is involved in. Perhaps it isn't even feasible to display this type of interaction in a responsible way in a short format?
If you agree it's problematic then isn't there a problem with putting it on film and selling it to the general public?
...I do have a problem with what is perceived as exploitative sex portrayed on film and being sold in the community as erotica.
When I agree that "it's problematic," it is our social system, not commercial sex. Commercial sex is problematic because it operates within our sexist and heteronormative society, not because porn depicts adults having non-vanilla sex. If porn is depicting two or more enthusiastically consenting adults having non-vanilla sex, I have no problem with it. Hell, I'll watch it.
And I don't understand how anyone can be okay with kinky sex in private but not on film. If I filmed myself having kinky sex with my partner, does it suddenly become demeaning because it's on a DVD?
If someone has a rape fantasy, they like to simulate rape scenarios for their sexual pleasure, would that be ok to sell to others?
If you accept that this isn't ok, then perhaps you can see my point. There is a difference between how the participants will perceive something and how others will. And there is a difference in the impact it will have on the two groups as a result.
I mean '...sell on film to others...'
You're missing something. Kinky-identifying porn (NOT mainstream porn, which I actually think is a lot more irresponsible socially) almost always takes care to show that the participants are acting out a fantasy scene, that they want to do it. For example, the photoshoots on kink.com, one of the main sources of BDSM porn on the internet, always end with an after-scene photo of the participants smiling happily. It's a small details, but it makes a world of difference. It signals that this isn't real, it's fantasy, meant to be enjoyed as such.
Furthermore, BDSM porn is a lot better at representing all kinds of S&M relationships - women as tops, men as bottoms are well-represented. This is something regular porn is very bad at.
So yeah, I'm confused as to what you are referring to as exploitative. Mainstream porn? I largely agree. BDSM porn? Nope - at least, not the type I've seen. And take a look at woman-positive, trans/queer-friendly, woman-directed porn nowadays, which I think is reasonable to say is less exploitative than almost any other kind of porn: a lot of it is kinky!
"Furthermore, BDSM porn is a lot better at representing all kinds of S&M relationships - women as tops, men as bottoms are well-represented. This is something regular porn is very bad at."
The % of female doms and male subs in the porn might be good, but from what I've seen and heard, that doesn't mean the quality of the representation is good. In female-dom porn, the focus is usually on the female dom, and in male-dom porn, the focus is usually on the female sub -- the "viewer" is assumed to be male subs and male doms, never women. For example, the costumes of female doms are more reminiscent of those worn by female subs than male doms, who tend not to have much of a "costume" at all. When clothed, the women are dressed up 'sexy' in latex and leather and lace, regardless of their roles, whereas the men are wearing stuff like ... baseball caps, t-shirts, flannel shirts and jeans, again, regardless of their roles. These are examples I found just now on kink.com. The only men I could find wearing costumes were in the gay sections of the site.
Female-dom porn tends to have a *lot* of strap-on sex, but I've *never* seen or heard of a male dom who fucked himself on his sub's strap-on. Doesn't this imply that penetration itself is a form of domination? I would consider this really problematic, considering that penetrating is the default role for a man, and being penetrated is the default role for a woman.
It's also fairly common to see male subs being 'sissified' or forced to dress up as women to humiliate them. I don't think I've ever heard of a male dom who dressed up his female sub as a man to humiliate her, which you think you'd see just as often if it was the gender role transgression itself, and not just being treated like a woman, that was humiliating.
I agree that mainstream porn also tends to be pretty exploitative, but I'm not willing to give kinky porn a pass either. I don't think it has to be this way, and some of it (a very small slice) *isn't* this way. I don't think porn is inherently bad. But right now, most of it is pretty bad, kinky or not.
I like to be submissive & spanked in bed. But honestly, I've never encountered judgement from radical feminists about my predilections. Most radfems I've come across online and IRL respect my privacy when it comes to my sexual behavior. I've never been accused of collaborating with the patriarchy, being brainwashed, etc.
I guess the critique mentioned in this post is more familiar to me than the shaming. From my observations, in feminist discussions of sexuality, the ire is often directed at social forces that act upon female sexuality, rather than at actual women who like certain types of sex. I certainly have never felt like my desires were policed or that I couldn't identify as a feminist if I liked x,y, and z.
I don't read radfem discourse on sexuality as an attack on my personal kinks, but instead as a criticism of the broader culture that influences expectations of what women should want and do, and of what men should demand or feel entitled to.
I don't feel guilty about liking rough sex and being dominated, and I'm not sure anybody could make me feel that way. I DO worry that, for many reasons, lots of women are pressured to try these things, whether they enjoy them or not.
"I don't read radfem discourse on sexuality as an attack on my personal kinks, but instead as a criticism of the broader culture that influences expectations of what women should want and do, and of what men should demand or feel entitled to."
So how exactly does such criticism of this broader culture require one to argue, that "heterosexual sex can never truly be consented to", or even allow one to include the word "never" in such a sentence? Does the elevated status of criticism excuse these kinds of statements from being seen as just unfalsifiable or poorly formulated? At least you conveniently failed to note any error in her way of discourse.
I have a real problem with the way you take "radical feminism" and anti-sex positive idealogies to be the same. At one point you say "this particular brand of rad feminism", but other than that you seem to use them synonymously. How is this not creating more of a rift between feminists? I consider myself very radical, and also sex-positive, but at the same time I am very sympathetic to views crtiquing normative heterosexual sex. I think hostility towards anti-sex positive feminists will only lead them to be more defensive. Many times these views come from personal expereinces and cannot be changed just because some other feminist can theorize better.
Speaking from my own experiences I know that sexual agency is not something you just decide to have one day. It's something you must, unfortunately, constantly work toward, and hopefully you have lots of other supportive people, like a great partner/partners, in your life. In regards to consent, there have been times in my life when I said "Yes", but was thinking "Not really, but I can't back out now". I fully believe this to be due to patriarchal conditioning and that is why I am sympathetic to what you're apparently railing against, and to be perectly honest, I was deeply upset by your post. I think that your approach is very dangerous, and when, as feminists who strive for solidarity, we are approached with another feminist perspective we should engage in a dialogue of understanding rather than try to prove someone wrong.
I rarely comment on here because I think most of the posts are right on, but I couldn't help but feel slightly attacked because I'm a "radfem". I agree with what you're saying for the most part, just not how you chose to say it.
Valid point Zaharat.
I think the word "radical" attached to any concept means different things to different people. When I first read the post it didn't strike me as odd that the OP had associated so-called "radical" feminism with non sex-positive feminism because in college I encountered professors who I considered to be radical for their view that any form of hetero sex was rape. (Can we at least agree that that's a somewhat radical view?) After reading your comment I realized I was just misappropriating the word.
Oops, sorry. This comment was @ Sarah SK but also applies to Zaharat's comment.
"I think that your approach is very dangerous, and when, as feminists who strive for solidarity, we are approached with another feminist perspective we should engage in a dialogue of understanding rather than try to prove someone wrong."
It is important to have dialogue on differing perspectives. However, saying things like: heterosexual sex is never consensual, all hetero sex is rape, BDSM is always bad and unfeminist,etc. completely shuts down the possibility of conversation. That's not some feminists simply expressing their views, it is them condemning the choices some women make regarding their sexuality as inherently non-feminist and completely a result of societal programming. It denies women sexual agency, denies the possibility that women could actually enjoy sex with men/BDSM/giving oral,etc. and labels them victims/tools of the patriarchy while demonizing certain sexual behaviors some women engage in.
I just don't see how that's conversation. "Your sexual choices are inherently wrong and there is no way you can really consent to or enjoy them and if you think you do you are simply brainwashed and need me to enlighten you" is simply not a means of starting productive dialogue between people of differing views. I am open to listening to why some feminists choose not to engage in such acts or think women shouldn't, but I have very little tolerance for anyone telling women that they have no sexual agency (unless it fits a certain model of what "good" female sexuality should look like) or that their desires are dirty and detrimental at a fundamental level.
And I do not think it is helpful to just shut our mouths or try to respond demurely when people attack our sexual agency and desires regardless of whether they call themselves feminists or the Moral Majority. Encouraging examination and critique of our sexual choices is a far cry from coming right out and saying that all hetero/kinky sex is bad/rape/non-consensual/victimization. One encourages dialogue the other is nothing more than shaming.
For example, bell hooks recounts an incident in which her dedication to feminism was challenged b/c she did not ID as a lesbian and was open about her attraction to men. How does attacking women for not being lesbians that swear off penetrative sex advance dialogue or promote sexual liberation? What's more, how is it any different from trying to change LGBQ individuals and convince them they aren't "really that way"?
I have a real problem with the way you take "radical feminism" and anti-sex positive idealogies to be the same. At one point you say "this particular brand of rad feminism", but other than that you seem to use them synonymously. How is this not creating more of a rift between feminists? I consider myself very radical, and also sex-positive, but at the same time I am very sympathetic to views crtiquing normative heterosexual sex. I think hostility towards anti-sex positive feminists will only lead them to be more defensive. Many times these views come from personal expereinces and cannot be changed just because some other feminist can theorize better.
Speaking from my own experiences I know that sexual agency is not something you just decide to have one day. It's something you must, unfortunately, constantly work toward, and hopefully you have lots of other supportive people, like a great partner/partners, in your life. In regards to consent, there have been times in my life when I said "Yes", but was thinking "Not really, but I can't back out now". I fully believe this to be due to patriarchal conditioning and that is why I am sympathetic to what you're apparently railing against, and to be perectly honest, I was deeply upset by your post. I think that your approach is very dangerous, and when, as feminists who strive for solidarity, we are approached with another feminist perspective we should engage in a dialogue of understanding rather than try to prove someone wrong.
I rarely comment on here because I think most of the posts are right on, but I couldn't help but feel slightly attacked because I'm a "radfem". I agree with what you're saying for the most part, just not how you chose to say it.
I re-read my post and I have to say I don't see where I'm doing that. I use the word "radfem" to discuss one specific radical feminist who I was talking with, in the quote you point out, and then one other time I use it as "Radfem's and SexPos'" to indicate we are all in the same boat when it comes to social conditioning, because of the point I was making I felt no need to qualify that further.
It's probably also worth mentioning that radical feminism is one with which I identify as well. So I certainly don't think radical and sex positive feminism are in opposition in theory, or in my own practice.
Is it possible you misread and thought I was talking about radical feminism in general and not one individual (used as an exemplar of sadly quite a few others who I've seen make the same arguments)?
I did not "misread" you.
"these radfems are turning on their sexpos sisters"
How can you not see that this just fuels feminist fission? I already told you I think you're mostly right, and I support feminists in all of their sexual choices. I just think you're doing exactly what you're railing against and should be more mindful of where "anti-sex" feminists might be coming from. Not a personal attack, just some constructive criticism.
But that is what those radfems are doing. Not all radical feminists. But this particular strain of thought I've run into with women who identify both as "anti-sex positive feminism" and "radical feminist".
In this context of "these radfems," I believe "these" refers to those specific feminists whatshername has encountered. It doesn't refer to radical feminists (of which I'm pretty sure whatshername has said she identifies with/as) as a whole.
Why should she have to capitulate her opinions to the other side in the interest of avoiding conflict? Why should she be obligated to allow someone denigrate her ability to consent solely because the other side claims that they're a feminist? She was never given the task of single handedly creating feminist harmony. It has not even been established that such a thing is desirable and if it comes at the cost of simply silencing all debate it would appear that the cost would be too high. It seems to me that she is absolutely in the right to stand up for herself.
In turn she benefits feminism as a whole by demonstrating that there are other viewpoints besides the radicals. If you were successful in shutting down the dissent from the radical viewpoints, or at least quieting it, you contribute to the perception that these radical viewpoints constitute the majority of feminist thought. This would only further perpetuate all of the alleged myths about feminism which are so heartily railed against.
It's interesting that anti-sex positive was connoted with radical feminism, since in my own experience the most radical feminists I know are very sex-positive and are very aware of the importance of not presuming to understand another woman's sexual experience. I can understand that some peoples' feminist perspective necessitates a harsher critique of hetero sex than my own, but to me making blanket statements about how we ought to view this or that in order to be a good feminist is not as much radical as it is the opposite.
I enjoyed this post- since it's a conversation I end up having often with women, as my partner currenly works in the BDSM industry. I know that, because many other women don't view BDSM as the empowering sexual vehicle that I do, I will always have to agree to disagree. Those arguments always come down to a frustration of me questioning how they could possibly be more able to regulate what is appropriate for my sexual choices than I am.
I had a really vile reaction to the statement that no hetero sex can be consensual-- it's really belittling to the sexual journeys of women who are regularly negotiating hetero sex with their partners (and those who are not!). One word regularly used for that sort of condescention is "paternalizing" and this is really, truly apt in the vein of using the tools of patriarchy to attack it. When you begin to regulate for women what *is* and *is not* appropriate for us to bodily experience, how is that radical? How is that any different than other discourses in which my body and sexuality are being policed? Great post, and sometimes you need to be harsh when standing up for these things.
It's interesting that anti-sex positive was connoted with radical feminism, since in my own experience the most radical feminists I know are very sex-positive and are very aware of the importance of not presuming to understand another woman's sexual experience.
Sadly it's been my experience that the most vehemently anti-sex-positive people I've run into identify themselves as radical feminists. I can tell you, being that I identify as a radical feminist myself, that has really blown me away over the years. But I definitely don't think the two "theories" are in opposition to each other (seeing as I practice them both myself) and here I was talking specifically about a specific subset of radfems who I have interacted with.
I would definitely associate "radical feminism" with being sex positive, too. When I think radical feminism, I think Emma Goldman, criticized for supporting the idea of "free love" and sex/love outside marriage.
But in this case "radical" doesn't just mean "extreme" or "revolutionary". Radical feminism is a specific branch of feminist thought associated with a specific group of theorists which arose in the 1960s. Goldman is not one of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism
Yeah, I see that. It's just that the very term 'radical feminism' is rather vague and loaded if one doesn't explicitly define what s/he means. Like another respondent mentioned, 'radical' means 'to get to the root' of a problem. So, in fact, one could argue Emma Goldman was a radical feminist. But if you speak of 'radical feminism' as the movement, as cited in your Wikipedia link, of course she wasn't a member. She wasn't alive. Still others use 'radical feminism' pejoratively. Anyway. You get the picture.
"What is radical about disciplining other women's sexual choices? How does that tear down kyriarchy?"
While I would substitute "feminist" for "radical" in order to draw attention back to what feminism is really about, this is my favourite quote. I like what I like, and I'm not going to police my sexual desires because it upsets someone else. That, to me, is contrary to feminism, which is supposed to liberate me from a society that attempts to determine my sexuality for me.
That said, I'm not a very kinky person. I don't like dirty talk or facials, but thank goodness I have a feminist boyfriend who cares more about what I want than getting it his way all the time.
Yah it occurred to me that I could use just "feminist" as well, but "radical" to me carries a lot of positive, social justice meaning (radical doulas, radical mamis, and yes, radical feminism). Which is why I ended up going with that. :)
Do these anti-sex positive feminists ever think about the kinky women who desire to play a DOMINANT role? Do they not realize that such women exist, and would they still claim that a woman who wants to dominate men are influenced by the patriarchy? Imitating men, maybe?
And what about kinky lesbians? There are plenty of them! Will they also claim that a woman spanking another women is only doing it because she is being influenced by heterosexual normative sex?
It's actually rather insulting, isn't it?
And talk about over-analyzing things- I am quite sure I'm a kinky dominant bisexual simply because it feels freaking good to me. :)
Very true and I agree completely.
Something that's bothered me in the past, though, is that some feminists are fine with kinky sex that does not seem to fit heteronormative paradigms, but not with activities that seem to fall under them. This is something I've noticed in myself, too: I am a bisexual switch, but tend to focus on femdom and lesbian fantasies, even though I'm pretty sure I'm just as turned on by male doms - because I'm a lot more comfortable with these scenarios from a feminist point of view.
I think this attitude - in myself and in others - is bullshit. Domination is domination is domination, and excluding kinky activities because they don't fit someone's conceptions of feminism is wack.
This is in no way to undermine your point. Dommes totally exist, and are totally underrepresented in these types of discussions, probably because feminists who are queasy about women subs find women dommes less problematic. I just wanted to point out that some people find dommes more legitimate, from a feminist point of view, than women subs, which should not be the case.
In any case, rock on! Up with the kink! =)
Sadly, there has been criticism of women in same-sex relationships who engage in penetrative sex or BDSM b/c they are supposedly aping the behavior of patriarchy. Someone has a wonderful essay about it and recounted in a lecture how she was in a relationship where her female partner refused to penetrate her b/c it would only reinforce patriarchy. Some people apparently believe that the only sex appropriate for feminists is same sex, non-penetrative, non-kinky, non-BDSM.
Agreed. People telling women their behaviors are too heteronormative ("Penetration reinforces patriarchy, don't do it") are not that far off from people telling women their behaviors are not heteronormative enough ("Trans people are weird, sleep only with cis people"). Same old bullshit.
Yeah. Exactly. I'm with you on that.
This is yet another lob between carefully drawn battle lines in a debate over terms which mean nothing at all.
Listen, when you're talking about "sex positive" feminists ("sex positive"? what does that even MEAN?) and labeling others as "anti sex positive" (again, which means what?) and refusing to define what is meant by "rape" or what is included in "sex work" or what constitutes "pornography" or what constitutes "radical", is it really any wonder that you're getting dragged into asinine arguments about this stuff?
There are plenty of issues on which most people can agree.
I think we can all agree that we have a society which pressures women to have sex in certain contexts so strongly that any "consent" in those contexts cannot be said to be freely given.
I think we can all agree that we don't want to be seen as purely sexual objects, and that we want a society which recognizes our sexual agency rather than simply sexual availability.
I think we can all agree that most sex workers are in terrible conditions and accept that most women in sex work did not choose to enter into that profession.
I think we can all agree that there is something very bizarre about a society norm which states that sex is like an object which women "have" and want to "keep" and which men must somehow "get" from women (either through coercion, "seduction", or a quid pro quo).
I think we can all agree that there is some pornography out there which is filmed unlawfully and that sometimes it's difficult to tell what is what.
I think we can all agree that it hurts the development of healthy male sexuality when so many boys are encouraged to view certain types of pornography as part of their adolescent sexual development.
I think we can all agree that good sex is fun.
I think we can all agree that a healthy sexuality is part of a healthy lifestyle.
Now, instead of spending so much time pontificating about how you think other people are wrong because they think you're wrong, how about we all actually focus on fixing some of the problems?
If you don't know what "radical" means in the context of social justice, if you don't know what "sex positive/anti-sex positive", "rape", "sex work", and "pornography" mean...honestly, you need to do some serious 101 Googling for yourself. That's mostly pretty basic stuff.
And the conversation that was happening and the larger issues I'm addressing here are pretty far from "asinine". In addition, berating my "pontificating" while practicing the same yourself seems, at best, hypocritical. I certainly have ideas about how we can fix these problems; this post simply wasn't on that topic.
No, these terms vary depending on who is using them.
THAT is "pretty basic stuff".
I'm not familiar with any terms that don't differ somewhat depending on who is using them. That's why we use context to figure out what is meant, which is really superdoubleplus basic.
What she said plus a lol for superdoubleplus basic.
Yes, terms vary by context, and defining terms is often useful, however, sex positive feminism as a school of thought is easily researched and as that is the only term this post is terribly dependent on, I can't agree that my not defining the term makes conversation impossible.
In addition, there is a link in the post to another post more generally on sex positivity, as well as a link to a post that has a link in it to the same. So it's not as though some 101 wasn't readily available.
My larger point here is about the way we argue and use the master's tools against each other in this particular debate, surely that's not lost because of some terms in the background which are debatable in definition?
"I think we can all agree that good sex is fun."
Well, apparently not, Kessei - at least, people's definition of "good sex" still differs quite a bit. Lots of people think the good, kinky sex I enjoy is bad, and I want to take them up on it, because I don't enjoy being judged for it.
"I think we can all agree that it hurts the development of healthy male sexuality when so many boys are encouraged to view certain types of pornography as part of their adolescent sexual development."
Very true - but people disagree which "certain types" of pornography are hurtful, and which aren't. Is BDSM porn OK? Is hentai? This is still quite an issue.
"I think we can all agree that we have a society which pressures women to have sex in certain contexts so strongly that any "consent" in those contexts cannot be said to be freely given."
Again, true - but which "certain contexts"? We can agree, for example, that a woman threatened with losing her job cannot really "consent" to having sex with her boss. But what about, say, a young 20-year-old woman having sex with a 50-year-old? What if he's 40? 30? What if he's rich and gives her money and she's supporting a child? Can a woman consent to sexual submission? What if she's been raised with images of submissive women? Again, complexities arise.
These are not the self-evident things I think you're making them out to be, Kassei, because when you get down to examples, it gets damn complicated. So no, I don't think we're wasting our time debating them - I think there's a lot we still have to learn.
As to "sex-positive". Yeah, I agree the term is vague. So what? It's an umbrella term, useful insofar as umbrella terms are useful. I happen to like it, others don't; the same is true for ANY term. I know feminists who hate the umbrella terms feminism, patriarchy, cisgender, kyriarchy, radicalism - basically any broad term. I know feminists who hate labels of any sort. I sympathize and agree, to a point; they're still useful terms. If you think "sex-positive" is vague or useless, do you have a better term? Or do you dislike the concept?
My point is that it doesn't help these discussions to start from a position that there's one "side" which will define all things in one way and one "side" which will define them all in another way.
Has anybody demonized ALL sex? No. Just as nobody has stated that all sex is "positive".
The pornography wars set things up as if there are two opposing sides when there aren't. Instead of having honest discussions about how some pornography may be harmful or may not, or how that could be improved on, we end up with the same old groups drawing the same old battle-lines, and spending far more time defeating straw men about the "other side" than about actually discussing the issue.
As for the term "sex positive", I dislike the term in particular because of the same reason I hate the term "pro life." Nobody's "anti life" and nobody's "anti sex". It sets up a bullshit frame: "are you sex positive, or don't you like sex?" It lends itself to ad hominem attacks. Similarly, what does "anti-sex-positive" mean? Etymologically it sounds as if it's people who are opposed to the "sex positive" movement, but since the "sex positive" movement was essentially set up to be "anything the anti-pornography feminists aren't", then we're talking about the anti-anti-s to something that itself isn't well defined.
I actually do agree, completely, that battles between sex-positive-identifying feminists and people who oppose them ("anti-sex" is a bad term, I agree) are often polarizing and turn us away from actual discussion. (I also don't think they're inherently bad - I just don't want them to be the main way we discuss things). But look at this forum, Kessei. Although the initial post was a "battle" type of post, the comments section has been pretty interesting, I think. Not two sides flinging mud at each other - rather a bunch of feminists discussing specifics. That seems like a good thing, no?
I do agree that "sex-positive" can be misleading. But that's how terms work. Abortion advocates call themselves "pro-life" because it sounds good; Democrats call themselves Democrats because it invokes images of voting/citizen participation/whatever; womanists call themselves womanists because it sounds good. Ideological groups have the right to give themselves cool-sounding titles, as long as they aren't completely misleading. To me, "sex-positive" sounds good, so I will use it. If people who don't like sex-positivism want to call themselves something cool-sounding, more power to them; it's just that I haven't come across such a term.
My point is that it doesn't help these discussions to start from a position that there's one "side" which will define all things in one way and one "side" which will define them all in another way.
But this post is about a discussion wherein people self identified as one and the other. The radfem I was in discussion with, and the others I had in mind from over the years, specifically identified both as radical feminists and as staunchly anti-sex-positive-feminism.
Then, my conclusion was specifically about the flaw in the anti-sex positive feminism, anti-bdsm specifically, strain of thought because of the way it utilizes the same hegemonic tools that it's criticizing people for using. And in that conclusion I very specifically talked about the way both sides can fall into those hegemonic roles. Which seems to me to be basically the whole point you're making: that we need to come together and really discuss this and stop allowing ourselves to fall into traps that continue to separate us.
So I'm having a hard time what you're critical about within my post. Is it that I bring up the fatal flaw I have observed in the self-described anti-sex positive feminism folks? Do you think I shouldn't use terms even when they were originally used by the people I'm talking about? Or do you think I should have simply skipped to the end without going into the details of how and why this argument gets so fucked up so often (from all sides/participants)?
"Has anybody demonized ALL sex?"
Two words: Sheila Jeffreys
"There are plenty of issues on which most people can agree.
I think we can all agree that most sex workers are in terrible conditions and accept that most women in sex work did not choose to enter into that profession."
No, I would not agree. Where is the proof beyond anecdotal evidence? This is something that is throw out like absolute fact without proof and consideration for what you are actually saying.
"I think we can all agree that it hurts the development of healthy male sexuality when so many boys are encouraged to view certain types of pornography as part of their adolescent sexual development."
No, I think it hurts children's sexual development that real sex ed is not being taught. It's damaging that all porn is view in a negative and secret light.
"I think we can all agree that good sex is fun."
Yes, but good sex to you is not always good sex to me.
"I think we can all agree that a healthy sexuality is part of a healthy lifestyle."
What about those who are asexual? Does that mean they are unhealthy? Of course Im sure you don't think so, but it goes to the fallacy of absolutes.
I think we can all agree that good sex is fun.
I think we can all agree that a healthy sexuality is part of a healthy lifestyle.
Um. Actually, not really.
Number one is certainly not true for me, and as for number two, it depends on what you mean by "healthy sexuality". I think my sexuality is perfectly healthy, but I'm quite aware very many people wouldn't agree and instead believe that a healthy sexuality entails some kind of desire for sexual activity.
The reason I hate these kinds of arguments: I get so very sick of having my sexuality be casually erased.
Sex-positive feminism and radical feminism *are* two specific schools of feminist thought with specific meaning and positions, and several self-identified radical feminists have indeed stated that all heterosexual sex is rape because a woman raised in the patriarchy cannot give meaningful consent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_feminism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism
Next.
I agree that it is silly for feminists to turn on each other over the argument of sex... but it is a problematic area.
People were talking about this earlier over the "facials" thing and it got me wondering: is it really possible to completely remove politics from the bedroom?
Let's say someone loves nothing better than to be bound up and forcibly taken by their boyfriend. Can that D/s relationship in the bedroom not have any effect whatsoever in their relationship outside the bedroom? Or get a "facial" (which we all agree is a degrading expression of D/s, and that's what makes it fun I guess) and then deliver a speech on feminine empowerment the next day?
I don't know. But I do hope it is something we can discuss without letting them divide us over it.
is it really possible to completely remove politics from the bedroom?
And I would say no. By their very nature politics will always effect us in all aspects of our lives. That's the whole point behind "the personal is political" right?
Well, I've been stuck on the facials thread all day and quite frankly I never really cared much about them either way. But after seeing how quickly that devolved, I hope that politics can be removed from the bedroom at least part of the time.
I'm going to use that thread as an example because I think it demonstrates how imposing one person's ideas about feminism onto something as broad and all-encompassing as sexual turn-ons is problematic. To begin with, most everyone on the "pro-facial" side of the argument seemed to be pretty in touch with their sexuality and had (I think) clearly devoted some thought to how their sex life affected their life as a feminist. So why does anyone have any business declaring all forms of a sex act to be anti-feminist even when thoughtful, sexually empowered women say they don't think it has to be?
So yeah, I think there are situations where politics really needs to be removed from the bedroom.
I agree with what you're saying insomuch as by "politics" you mean "other people imposing their own standards onto me". But "politics" to me is a bit more expansive - meaning they range from the sexual politics of the interactions between yourself and your partner(s) (or lack of partners, or lack of sex entirely!) to your own personal politics and how they influence your desires. In that sense, I don't think politics can ever be removed from, well, anything.
Agreed. Fair point.
I should have been more clear. I was responding specifically to this portion of the OP:
Or get a "facial" (which we all agree is a degrading expression of D/s, and that's what makes it fun I guess) and then deliver a speech on feminine empowerment the next day?
Of course she can.
Ah! Yes, I totally agree with you!
I guess one other thing I dislike about the "some sex acts are inherently degrading" argument is that nothing on this earth related to human social interaction is inherently anything (I may make an exception to this rule for something like torture, which I think could arguably be inherently wrong). But sex is not really comparable to coercive, nonconsensual torture here.
And going back to "the master's tools," an awful lot of anti-feminists, and non-feminists in general, and people ignorant of or disinterested in feminism in general, express this same "disgust" at certain sexual practices (and sexual orientations) based on sexist justifications, like "that's not polite/normal/ladylike." Like you said, women already get shamed just for having SEX, not even KINKY sex, all the time by like 80% of the dominant culture - at the same time that they're made to be sex objects, made out to be nymphos or freaks in the bed, for hetero males' enjoyment.
I think sex is one unusual part of the feminist movement where it's easier than with other issues for individual women to take control and make change (in spite of how slowly sexual norms might change in the wider culture). In my opinion, if there's an area where you CAN take control and make change, you should. And I think (and hope) many women are doing that, hopefully in a socially conscious manner.
So. Great post.
Awesome. You speak my thoughts. Accepting my sexuality has changed my life; I am much happier, and have much more strength to fight battles elsewhere!
Yeah, I guess I don't mean to make it sound like sexual self-actualization is easy; it takes a lot of time and effort and meeting the right partners. But once you know what you want and are in touch with yourself and your body and feel empowered with your own sexuality, empowered in your own boundaries and ability to consent, and are conscious of the sorts of questions being asked on this thread, sex can be an empowering and energizing experience. I feel in my life that it's one area I've been able to "set right" for myself in a feminist manner; I know my boundaries and some, if not all, of my desires (though one of my desires is to explore).
What I'm finding more difficult at this point is meeting somebody I actually want to date.
God, I hate the word "empower". Empowerment is what you have when you have no real power. I was empowered too, in touch with my sexuality and my body and having such a fun time. And then I realized that all that empower was bullshit and I had nothing that couldn't be taken away by some assweasel on a whim, because I am a woman and sex embodied. Besides, I had asked him to hold me down, because I'm into that sort of thing, so why wouldn't it be okay this time too.
Like, great, I'm glad you're happy. But did you not notice the huge drooling monster of patriarchy staring you down? How can you possibly set a boundary that could ever be respected or defended in this world?
How can you possibly set a boundary that could ever be respected or defended in this world?
Uh? People do it all the time, actually. I'd say it's integral to most healthy relationships. In fact, our law does it for you sometimes, which is why, say, murder is illegal.
The fact is, you're never going to have a relationship or have sex "outside" patriarchy. But people can and do make sort of pockets for themselves within the dominant culture, whether yours is your own home or your Women's Center or your political-action group or your university; they always have. If they didn't, progressive change would be impossible; dissenting ideas would die.
So, I guess, what is the point of feeling crushed and paralyzed by some totalizing patriarchy? This isn't really a useful or even realistic worldview; dissent ALWAYS exists, sometimes in rather large pockets or communities, even in the face of gross injustice and inequality. We need anger and we need to make critique, but being paralyzed in the face of some all-encompassing, indestructible "monster" doesn't seem especially productive.
Anyway. I know where you're coming from. I'm generally not such an optimist, though I think it is important to keep the fights for social justice in perspective. I must just feel especially upbeat tonight or something.
I have no problems with people having kinky fantasies, or with people acting out S&M in consenting situations (although I think consent is often a problematic issue in commercial sex situations). I absolutely do have a problem with the ubiquitousness of representations of sadomasochistic or otherwise violent depictions of sex within literature, film, television, pornography and other cultural texts. This is hard to say and I don't mean to condemn anyone with it - I think I just mean that, while everyone should be free to do what they want in consensual sex situations, while there's a demand for sexual texts involving violence against women, there will be a supply. At the moment, if you even so much as glance at a mainstream porn website (for an obvious example) the supply is overwhelming.
I find it hard to deny a link (not necessarily directly causal, but a link) between this multitude of representations and real-life sexual violence against women.
Uh, the comment below is replying to yours. Oops.
I think the problem is the use of BDSM images/concepts in non-kinky-identifying porn/films/TV/books. When BDSM porn displays images of submissive women, for example, it takes care, generally, to show that the woman is sexually submissive, that she does want it, that it is her choice, etc. Plus, kinky-identifying porn tends to have a lot more non-submissive-woman content to balance things, showing dominant women and submissive men alongside women subs.
When non-kinky-identifying porn uses the same images, it tends not to care about putting disclaimers on its product. This is dangerous, because it creates the conception that ALL women - not just sexually submissive ones - enjoy kinky, violent, degrading sex. This is obviously bad. Also, since non-kinky-identifying porn tends not to show before and after shots or any kind of negotiation, it enforces the concept that women enjoy being forced into sexual things - again, awful.
So I think you have to distinguish between BDSM-influenced porn, which in my experience tends to be irresponsible about any social impact it might be having, and legit BDSM porn, which tends to be pretty mindful of it.
And the feminist, woman-positive kinky porn that is now springing up is just wonderful.
Ummm sorry but I don't agree with your "radfem" and "sexpos" dichotomy. The dichotomy does not exist. I consider myself an ultra-radical feminist and used to have a raging sex drive. I still go to nude beaches and go topless when possible. Where I get annoyed with hypersexualization is, logically enough, when it departs from the agency of women as those who choose and control how to express their sexuality (my beaver stays hairy\you're not going to tell me how to be sexy and beautiful, 'cause I'm gonna show you how I choose to do it\no I don't blow if I don't want to, etc). That's the difference between so-called sexual exploitation and total and absolute liberation. Ultimately, being truly "sex-positive" means embracing what gets us naturally turned on, on *our* terms, not those of the menz. Period.
I don't really think she's making it a dichotomy - rather arguing with a particular trend of anti-sexpos thinking that seems to be (in her experience, and in my own as well) shared mainly by radfem-identifying feminists. I identify as radfem and sexpos myself, and so does whatsername, as I have gathered; that doesn't mean we can't argue against certain trends in radfem-identifying feminists' thinking that seem to go against sex-positivism.
Ummm sorry but I don't agree with your "radfem" and "sexpos" dichotomy.
What radfem/sexpos dichotomy?
I discussed specific conversations I have been a part of over the years. In those, those women who self-identified as anti-sex-positive feminism also self-identified as radical feminists.
However, I also identify as a radical feminist, as well as a sex-positive feminist. So... I simply can't agree that I'm creating any generalized dichotomy here.
See my other comments for the actual definition of radical feminist. It does not mean what you think it means.
wow, my blog got 800 hits, i had to come on over and see what was goin on!!
Thank you so much for this great post whatsername. Of course i am a little biased, as you literally spoke for me, so powerfully when i felt like i was in a very delicate situation as a feminist-identified man connecting with a feminist woman who was very re-traumatized by my post on sex-positive feminism. As opposed to continuing to explain my stances, I felt like i really had to listen, express compassion, and try to understand her... which was super challenging because we were clearly of VERY different ideologies. It was really really rough, as i'm sure people have seen. This work ain't supposed to be a comfy cruise though, i have no disillusions....
in short, i am pro-women's sexual agency. and pro- this post! thanks again!
The part where I get confused is the idea that politics stops at the bedroom door. It seems self-evident to me that lots of radical feminists would be concerned about sexual behavior, because radical approaches to society are about getting to the roots of things, and overturning basic assumptions and hierarchies. What is a more basic assumption in our society than the one that sexuality (or any human social practice) is or can be apolitical?
The revolutionary potential of feminism does come from examining things we think of as "private" for their political significance.
It's really counterproductive to say that there is no politics in the bedroom or that we shouldn't examine what happens in bed from a political standpoint.
It used to be there was no discussion of politics in the home, that was the private space, and whatever happened there was considered by mainstream society to have no relevance to the world. But luckily, some people decided it was worth looking at violence, labor, creativity, communication, power, and other interpersonal issues and start pointing out how those things may happen in the home but have a wider impact.
This doesn't mean that I want to condemn people's sexual practices out of hand. But really it seems like most of the comments are stuck in this "choice" version of feminism that ignores the context - power relations in society. The ability to make choices, and the choices that we see before us are not entirely our own creations. And in fact, sexual practices are not entirely choices anyway, in that many folks can't actually change them at will. This also means it's important not to attack people (for something they can't exactly help, i.e. what turns them on).
Taking account of how individual choices fit into larger power relations is super super hard, and again, I don't want to make quick or easy leaps between personal choices and larger social inequalities.
What is missing, for me, from a lot of the sex-positive feminism I have encountered, is a serious engagement with the politics of choice. What I come across, that I really wish I saw less of, is people arguing that sex occurs in a vacuum - that it has no social relevance or implication. This denies I think one of the most basic contributions of feminism to progressive social change - its challenge to the public-private dichotomy, and the gendered (and kyriarchal) power-relations that dichotomy serves to reinforce and mask.
I definitely agree that politics enters into sex, the same way it enters into everything. It's important to examine sexual choices and desires, the same way everything else should be examined. And yes, I agree that some brands of sexpos gloss over this and tend to be obsessed with choice, to the point of ignoring critical thinking.
But the thing is, in the end, people should do what they want and what feels good to them. My constant examination of my own desires has indeed turned up some things I realized were societal constructs, rather than my own desires, and I stopped doing them. But I am continuing to do other things. Whether they are there because of nature (I believe this is largely true for a lot of kinksters) or nurture (this plays a large part too, I am sure), they are there to stay, and I'm not about to go back to sexual shame and denial to fit a political concept.
Besides, I don't think kinky sex, viewed as a political act, is an unfeminist political act. If it is done with consent/respect/communication/etc., it becomes a feminist act, and, in fact, undermines a lot of rape culture, which relies on the lack of consent/respect/communication. So, even if a woman is sexually submissive, she may engage in these behaviors in a feminist way through demanding all the things included in healthy sex.
The type of sexpos I support holds as its main idea that, in the end, after critical thinking, after examination of social context and societal influence, if a woman still wants to do weird things sexually, she has the right to do them without anyone else telling her she is unfeminist. This does not dispose of critical thought - but, in the end, once a woman has examined, sexpos considers it less important than the woman's choice.
The type of sexpos I support holds as its main idea that, in the end, after critical thinking, after examination of social context and societal influence, if a woman still wants to do weird things sexually, she has the right to do them without anyone else telling her she is unfeminist.
Because it needed to be repeated.
This is a point I use a lot in many discussions, not just sex oriented. (For instance, it recently came up with regard to women changing their names to their husband's when they marry.)
The importance lies in the critical thinking and examination of actions/traditions/etc.
But at the end of the day: you have to live with yourself and you should do what makes you happy/satisfied.
but see, two things.
1) does everything you do have to be feminist, all the time? and 2) this is back to the thing about BEING a feminist or doing things that advance the cause of feminism, i.e. working towards gender equality and/or fighting kyriarchy.
How people interact, how they treat each other has repercussions EVERYWHERE, and those repercussions may help, hinder, or have no effect on kyriarchy. Whether you choose it or not doesn't actually tell you what relationship it has to kyriarchy.
Also, I'm not convinced that anything done between two individuals "undermines rape culture" unless you can show how that interaction actually affects the *culture* of rape, which is something that occurs outside and beyond the relationship of two people. and that's where I would like to see more discussion. culture and society, isn't just a collection of individuals, it is institutions, tropes, narratives, and images, and all of those things affect how we live in the world, how police, authority figures, family members treat us... Intent doesn't matter as much as effect matters.
this is why, for example, PETA's reuse of racist imagery applied to animals fails. you can't simply take the cultural context out of images of the KKK or the holocaust or whatever.. Similarly I don't think you can easily take the cultural context and repercussions out of personal sexual interaction...
But back to point 1) -- like someone in the PETA thread said, feminism is not about being free from criticism. Isn't the goal something bigger? ending kyriarchy? I think it's a pity that people are so invested in everything they do being accepted as a feminist act. The patriarchy is everywhere, it permeates every aspect of life. Sometimes it's hard to fight every battle, the more so, maybe, on day-to-day emotional things.
So, I wear lipstick, I like wearing it. But I don't think it's particularly feminist of me to wear it, in fact it's probably antifeminist to wear it because when I do, I am reinforcing traditional images of femininity. I leave the house, people see me, they respond in ways that have to do with their understanding of femininity, and I am not challenging it necessarily, as I walk down the street with my lipstick on. You know? I'm not going to kill myself over it or kick myself out of feminist discussions but neither am I going to try to recast my lipstick-wearing, or my every move, as automatically blow for feminism.
not to say wearing lipstick could never be a blow for feminism, perhaps depending on who's wearing it and how..,but i think when I wear it i'd be hard pressed to say it's particularly feminist choice.
Excellent post. Should be a blog post on it's own!
Preach it, sister.
Similarly I don't think you can easily take the cultural context and repercussions out of personal sexual interaction...
I think it's easier for some than others. But then, maybe it's just that some people are better at cognitive dissonance or compartmentalizing.
What I do and enjoy in the bedroom I recognize as likely being influenced by a kyriarchal patriarchal society. (That is, I may find something hot because I've internalized the message from a variety of sources or I may find something hot because society says it's subversive...and I enjoy thumbing my nose at society and being subversive...). I recognize certain sexual acts come with a lot of baggage (thank you porn culture).
I realize that a larger context may look into my bedroom and see acts completely different than I see them and define them. (That goes for any partner I may share my space with, as well.)
I think it comes back to the idea that you can control your actions, but you can't control how they'll be interpreted.
1) does everything you do have to be feminist, all the time? and 2) this is back to the thing about BEING a feminist or doing things that advance the cause of feminism, i.e. working towards gender equality and/or fighting kyriarchy.
I don't think anyone is saying that a certain act is feminist just because a feminist does it.
But a feminist doing an act either influenced or demanded by patriarchy (say, wearing makeup) doesn't mean she's no longer a feminist in the overall scheme of things.
That's the point I (and, I believe, the comment I quoted) was driving at.
I've seen a lot of conversations in places that subtly imply you should burn your feminist card if you _____.
Everything we do, as you say, is colored by patriarchy.
My view is that it's important to realize this. To take into account that your actions in your personal life are colored by patriarchal norms. To question why you do and enjoy certain things and how certain private and personal experiences may have an effect on the larger picture.
And then realize you have a decision to make. And that not all decisions are going to come out as actively feminist. Some may even be anti-feminist in a broader context.
But if you're aware of the (patriarchal) influence, the possible larger repercussions and you're satisfied/happy doing what you're doing, then I say more power to you.
Own what you do. And work harder, if you can, in another area of advancing equality.
I'm not going to try and kill myself being "more feminist than thou." Sometimes it's just too much.
And I'm not going to (or rather I'm going to try hard not to) resort to shaming someone who makes different choices than I would under the press of patriarchy.
I think, in part, that you are correct and some people who identify with sex positivity deal with sex as though it is in a vacuum.
However, the majority that I have interacted with, deal in "choice" simply because they trust other women to make their own decisions. And in that way, I have a lot of respect for the choice argument. I think it's arrogant to think that if I stumble across a post I find troubling that the person writing it has never critically examined their own turn ons.
I think most of us are socially conditioned to want to be "right" and that this extends to our default position being that if we have a problem with something, the person supporting it just must not have thought about it enough. You know?
So, I am with you, and I also think we need to consider this aspect.
People tend to be pretty protective of their preferences in sexual behavior, as they do of their tastes in food and pop culture consumption. This attitude seems particularly understandable in a society that operates on so many levels to constrict the attention we can give to how we feel about our relationships and lifestyles, a society that offers us little by way of practical freedom to refashion them in accord with our desires.
It's better in general to understand people as having at least some good reasons for their current commitments, and to seek a sympathetic understanding of the particular array of pressures that they face, than to immediately express, or even form, definite judgments about the idiosyncratic pleasures they use to cope. For we inhabit a society that in many ways treads roughly over everyone's dignity and needs; it runs on an economic logic that implicitly encourages us to define our sense of community narrowly, and to compete and judge each other in all sorts of ways, including ideologically, so that we never identify common complaints and form a critical mass to protest the conditions that foster sexism and other unjust hierarchical structures more than individual offensive sexual practices or media products ever could.
Connection and respect are actually more politically useful, in general, than judgment of personal lifestyle choices. To echo and perhaps amend whatsername's point, it's also true that critique at this intimate level, when not embedded in norms of respectful dialogue--i.e. thoughful and circumspect, not merely "polite"-- tends to exacerbate patterns of mistrustful, alienated relating similar to the very issue that evokes complaint in the first place. Critique rooted in a model of respectful dialogue may actually change perspectives more often, and more deeply, than the shaming and judgment of critiques seen as ends in themselves could manage to do. Dialogue that can accommodate conflict but that is at the same time more fundamentally committed to connection and mutual learning may be the most effective political agent of change we can employ.
Thank you for writing this.
The thing I take issue with the most is the anti-sex-positive view that it's somehow unfeminist to derive pleasure from pleasing someone else. For me, that's the whole point of sex: most of the pleasure I get from it is in knowing that I please my partner. No matter what your gender or identity, if you're going into it with your own pleasure as the top priority, you're not being feminist. Just selfish. That's what masturbation is for.
The thing I take issue with the most is the anti-sex-positive view that it's somehow unfeminist to derive pleasure from pleasing someone else.
Yes. I've seen some conversations that have people constructing that view--particularly woman taking pleasure out of pleasing a male partner--as though it's somehow servile.
Perhaps a greater societal context might see it that way, but that's a more nuanced conversation than just saying "it's not feminist."