Talkback: Call For A Good Time - or - Sex Positivity and Feminism
Posted on | April 7, 2009 |
This post is part of a new series “Talkback” which allows MarilynJean and I to let everyone in on our conversations on a given topic. Contrary to popular belief, we don’t agree on everything. And sometimes the things we don’t agree on provide the most food for thought. We invite you to share your own beliefs and develop the conversation.
Sam Grace: One of the touchiest subjects in human history is sex. Some people want to talk about it, others want to just do it, still others want nothing to do with it. In the same vein, sex’s role in feminism has played a storied role. That’s bound to happen when the whole thing about power and gender exists because of sex (or at least in relation to it).
So this new sex positivity movement starts. And like any movement it soon gets disturbed. People like Annie Sprinkles start sticking in people’s craw, somewhat rightfully so, by using a porn-star past to pledge a positive future. That’s where Amanda Hess picked up last week, denouncing sex positivity.
One has to wonder where the true sex positivity movement stands and where false goddesses like Sprinkles stand. Will we ever achieve true equality if we don’t deal with sex in a positive and open manner? Or are we just playing right into the hands of the powerful by claiming our power?
Marilyn Jean: I guess my first question is, what does what we do in the bedroom have to do with our rightful place in commerce, government and everyday life? My right to fair wages has nothing to do with who I’m boinking. My orgasm has nothing to do with girls in Afghanistan gaining access to basic education.
Doesn’t putting sex in the center of your ideology sorta reflect some privilege that other women can’t afford to have? My orgasm…or food on the table? The feminism that addresses the latter is the feminism I can get behind.
Sam Grace: I appreciate that there are different types of programs, yet while still not latching on to sex positivity with any zeal, I have to wonder what we do by denying our bedroom roles. The bedroom/boardroom dichotomy (and I’m using the term “boardroom” loosely to mean anything not bedroom related) has dominated women’s lives from the beginning. Hiding sexuality was what was the norm and the sex positivity movement seems to at least exploit some of those views and turn them on their heads.
In other words, by defining the feminine as hidden and the masculine as open (she’s a slut, he’s a stud) we’ve already got those issues engrained in what we do. Though you coming to orgasm doesn’t give an Afghan woman an education, you have to at least admit that the gender roles were created on the basis of sex, right? So by talking about them in the open and giving them positive nomenclature, don’t we dispel some myths that lead to the power imbalance?
Marilyn Jean: Feminists like myself who do not subscribe to funfeminism aka sex positivity, aren’t denying anything. What we are saying is that women, by condition of the patriarchy, are in a constant state of consent. When one has to prove rape, she has to prove that she said, “no”, thus inferring that consent was always on the table to begin with. That’s bullshit.
I say this because women are the sex class - there is no hiding of our sexuality. Everything about is is viewed through the lens that covers that sacred hole between our legs. Women have been called “sluts” regardless of their sexual proclivities. So being able to have as much sex as I want with whomever I want doesn’t empower me. I understand the efforts to make sure that women “get off” in bed and can understand where their clitorises are, but in the end, there is that tricky little problem called a man and his penis. In either situation: me with an orgasm, or not, he still comes out on top (no pun intended, but then again that depends on the position).
Besides, what the fuck is sex positive? The polar opposite of sex negative….left of sex neutral? I understand some feminist scholars argue that sex with men is a horrible, nasty thing and I partially see their point. However, sex positivity can’t exist because no such thing as sex negativity exists. On that plane alone, I can’t get behind the movement.
Though you coming to orgasm doesn’t give an Afghan woman an education, you have to at least admit that the gender roles were created on the basis of sex, right? So by talking about them in the open and giving them positive nomenclature, don’t we dispel some myths that lead to the power imbalance?
The sex positive “movement”, to me, does nothing but reinforce stereotypes, gender roles and patriarchal standards. They’re not just saying my vagina is a magnificent flower. They are also saying porn can be empowering and sex work is a great vocation. Sex pozzies try to make feminism look fun and cute and sexay. Most of them try to distance their brand of feminism from the radical, hairy-legged feminism that paved the way for Dr. Sprinkles to get her PhD. They try to wrap up an ideology in pink plastic so that it appeals to a wider audience. “Look at me: I can suck dick, like taking it up the ass and I just wrote my senator asking him to pass a law supporting fair wages for women and I feel great about it!”
I have issues with that.
Women don’t come into this world thinking that their sexuality is negative, we are taught that. Why should we have to design a discourse in which we talk about how awesome heterosex is so that we can feel better about ourselves, when our energies are better spent deconstructing a rape culture?
Pussy power is great, but why can’t Dr. Sprinkles talk to an audience about the paradigms that exist that support female sexual, social, political, economical and cultural subordination?
Sam Grace: I’m not married to the sex-positivity idea, but I do find it an interesting way to express a certain method of dispelling patriarchy. I think that it is an easy way to call yourself a feminist while still playing into patriarchy–but that’s just one brand of it.
There is no sex-negativity movement because there’s never had to be. It’s engrained in us from birth. Consider this:
Some people link being comfortable with sex with being comfortable with other bodily processes, especially menstruation, urination and defecation. (All things that happen “down there.”) These are all things that our bodies do that have been labeled as impolite to mention, if not downright bad, in part because of their proximity to our sex organs. As a result, a comfort level with one depends on being comfortable with the others. This does not mean that there are no rules of politeness in conversation; being comfortable with food does not mean there aren’t times when eating or talking about eating is inappropriate. Similarly, being comfortable with menstruation does not mean it’s always an acceptable topic of conversation; it means that there are some occasions when it is. Historically, much of our sex-negativity comes from the same places as our body-negativity, so overcoming one often involves overcoming the other.
As woman’s body is political, the body-negativity and the sex-negativity is necessarily a political element that can be addressed through a movement.
Whether that movement is sex positivity or something else, I’m not sure. I’m just saying it’s easy to dismiss these ideas as fanciful without giving them the credit that they deserve. At some point the most basic of human functions has to be either seen as positive or negative. By keeping sex negative, we ignore the history behind it. I’m not advocating for pornographic feminism, because that is playing into the patriarchy. But I am advocating for a deeper thought process around sex and our attitudes towards it that create some of the historical restraints we find ourselves bound by at this point in time.
You’re right–women don’t come into this world thinking that their sexuality is negative, but are taught as such. We don’t have to design a discourse in which we talk about how awesome heterosex is so we can feel better about ourselves. We have to design a discourse in which we talk about how awesome our bodies and sex are in general so we can prevent future generations from the same we’re taught throughout our lives. That’s one thing with which I can agree with sex positivtists.
Marilyn Jean: The problem is that sex positivity is being masqueraded as feminism, which it is not.
What do you think? What is sex positivity’s role, if any, in feminism? Does it hinder or help the feminist agenda? What are your personal opinions?
Related posts:
- Admitting Feminism: The Dalai Lama After being introduced at an event by Speaker of...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Comments
2 Responses to “Talkback: Call For A Good Time - or - Sex Positivity and Feminism”
Leave a Reply
Social Links
April 8th, 2009 @ 10:41 pm
It’s nice to know that orgasm and body shame aren’t issues any more for many of today’s young women. That’s so great. “Sex positive” was something I worked on in the 70’s and 80’s (as it said in the conference promotion materials) when such a concept didn't exist. I showed my cervix for four years as one scene in a full theater piece decades ago. I shared a taste of that history, and other history, at the conference. Believe me, I’ve moved on. Since the mid 90’s I’ve been doing work about aging female bodies, being chubby, breast cancer, menopause, queer relationships, monogamy, gay weddings, ecology… and other feminist issues. (See http://www.loveartlab.org)Love is the new sex! Where have you been? Some of what I read here, and in the Sexist article is simply inaccurate. Visions of feminism was a wonderful conference with wonderful people who are trying to do good work. It was diverse, and from the heart, as well as the clit. Annie Sprinkle–
Its amazing to me that people think they know what a keynote speech is about when they weren't there.
May 14th, 2009 @ 5:54 am
It’s nice to know that orgasm and body shame aren’t issues any more for many of today’s young women. That’s so great. “Sex positive” was something I worked on in the 70’s and 80’s (as it said in the conference promotion materials) when such a concept didn't exist. I showed my cervix for four years as one scene in a full theater piece decades ago. I shared a taste of that history, and other history, at the conference. Believe me, I’ve moved on. Since the mid 90’s I’ve been doing work about aging female bodies, being chubby, breast cancer, menopause, queer relationships, monogamy, gay weddings, ecology… and other feminist issues. (See http://www.loveartlab.org)Love is the new sex! Where have you been? Some of what I read here, and in the Sexist article is simply inaccurate. Visions of feminism was a wonderful conference with wonderful people who are trying to do good work. It was diverse, and from the heart, as well as the clit. Annie Sprinkle