sex-negative vs. sex-positive

[Rosa Partizan]

so it's another thread by the most annoying feminazi here :wub: tell me about what YOU personally associate with the terms in the thread title. It's not (only) about what those terms used to mean in those feminist sex wars, just tell me in what context do you use them and how you would explain them to someone asking you about them. Really very interested in that, so go ahead.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Sex negative - think that sexual contact between men and women is tainted by the patriarchy.

Sex positive - think that it's possible and desirable for women to approach sexuality on their own terms.

That's how I understand it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Sent from my C6522N using Tapatalk

[Rosa Partizan]

Sex negative - think that sexual contact between men and women is tainted by the patriarchy.

Sex positive - think that it's possible and desirable for women to approach sexuality on their own terms.

That's how I understand it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Sent from my C6522N using Tapatalk

must these two definitions necessarily be a contradiction?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

^those are the definitions.

as for me, i identify as sex-positive but i can appreciate some of the concerns that sex-negativism has.

as a hetero male this can cause a sense of guilt at times so i try as best as i can to be a feminist whilst also being a kinky bastard.

[Rosa Partizan]

^those are the definitions.

as for me, i identify as sex-positive but i can appreciate some of the concerns that sex-negativism has.

as a hetero male this can cause a sense of guilt at times so i try as best as i can to be a feminist whilst also being a kinky bastard.

you could elaborate on that, preferably in a PM (if you know what I mean, giggle giggle).

[Rugged Collectivist]

Must these two definitions necessarily be a contradiction?I can't say with any certainty. If you accept the premise that women will always have the lower hand in sexual negotiations, how could engaging in such be liberating? I don't accept this because if we follow it to it's logical conclusion everything a woman does would be bad because it would be done in a patriarchal framework. You can't just opt out of patriarchy. If we applied this reasoning to any other issue it would seem absurd. It's like saying women shouldn't work because they get paid less than men.

Sent from my C6522N using Tapatalk

[Red Economist]

Sex-Negative; The psychological repression of sexual impulses to fit within the constraint of compulsive monogamy (i.e. 'death do us part' morality of marriage as legal-moral requirement of property rights) as opposed to natural monogamy based on sexual gratification and mutual satisfaction. Sex-negativism as enforced by the Family as the authoritarian structure for sexual-repression and educational institution for capitalism and fascism.

Sex-positive; basically Free love couched in psychological terms, based on consensual sexual relations between adults (in open relationship/open marriage/free union), with the qualification that promiscuity represents a denial of and inability to fully gratify sexual desires and is harmful to both parties as an attack on the natural human tendency towards monogamous attachments.

i.e. I've read way too much Wilhelm Reich and need to get out more.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

I can't say with any certainty. If you accept the premise that women will always have the lower hand in sexual negotiations, how could engaging in such be liberating? I don't accept this because if we follow it to it's logical conclusion everything a woman does would be bad because it would be done in a patriarchal framework. You can't just opt out of patriarchy. If we applied this reasoning to any other issue it would seem absurd. It's like saying women shouldn't work because they get paid less than men.

Sent from my C6522N using Tapatalk

I think there is a difference between woman working for a less-than-men's wage and asserting her sexuality in a sex-positive way. In the former case it seems to me rather obvious that it helps the woman to liberate herself, i.e. although the wage is lower, she still gets her income, becomes less dependent on men in her relationships etc.

While I am not necessarily saying that asserting her sexuality is necessarily oppressive or bad, I think it would be reasonable to have a discussion as to whether such behaviour liberates women or not, because I think here's where the true question lies.

In other words, sex-positive behaviour might perpetuate patriarchy, while getting a lower-than-men's wage might do the opposite, even though both of them are done under the conditions of patriarchy. What do you think?

[Rosa Partizan]

here are some very interesting thoughts, go ahead folks! Love ya all :wub::wub::wub:

[Rosa Partizan]

my 2 cents on it:

There are certain feminist circles that have perverted the term of feminism into something totally random, pseudo-liberal. To them, pornography is empowering, working in a strip club or being a prostitute is empowering, Miley Cyrus twerking around is empowering. They call this sex-positive. The premise is that everything that a woman chooses to do is her own choice, so it must be empowering. I can't express with words how fucked up and annoying I find this. We got some feminist (or let me say "feminist") print magazine here. Their editor-in-chief was like "maybe prostitution can be liberating for a gipsy woman who comes to Germany from a poorer country". Puked just all over the magazine and decided never to buy it again. If this is sex-positive, I'm glad when I'm called sex-negative.

There are always decisions that are better than others, it's stupid to assume that any decision is equally good just because a women makes it. And yeah, I think that there is problematic stuff when it comes to your own sexuality. Being submissive in some BDSM-stuff CAN be problematic when lived out as in Shades of Grey i.e. (you know, when there is no equality between the partners and one depends on the other). Otherwise it's most important to question yourself. Your sexual preferences do not develop "just like that". I had to come to terms with my own preferences and thought a lot about it. And I would never ever be like "yeah girls, being submissive is so great and empowering, just try it". I find it still somehow problematic, because I know where it comes from and I know that pornography had a part in that, but I accepted it. As I said some time before, don't allow a laisser faire-attitude towards yourself. Reflect everything you do in the context of society and patriarchy.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

my 2 cents on it:

There are certain feminist circles that have perverted the term of feminism into something totally random, pseudo-liberal. To them, pornography is empowering, working in a strip club or being a prostitute is empowering, Miley Cyrus twerking around is empowering. They call this sex-positive. The premise is that everything that a woman chooses to do is her own choice, so it must be empowering. I can't express with words how fucked up and annoying I find this. We got some feminist (or let me say "feminist") print magazine here. Their editor-in-chief was like "maybe prostitution can be liberating for a gipsy woman who comes to Germany from a poorer country". Puked just all over the magazine and decided never to buy it again. If this is sex-positive, I'm glad when I'm called sex-negative.

There are always decisions that are better than others, it's stupid to assume that any decision is equally good just because a women makes it. And yeah, I think that there is problematic stuff when it comes to your own sexuality. Being submissive in some BDSM-stuff CAN be problematic when lived out as in Shades of Grey i.e. (you know, when there is no equality between the partners and one depends on the other). Otherwise it's most important to question yourself. Your sexual preferences do not develop "just like that". I had to come to terms with my own preferences and thought a lot about it. And I would never ever be like "yeah girls, being submissive is so great and empowering, just try it". I find it still somehow problematic, because I know where it comes from and I know that pornography had a part in that, but I accepted it. As I said some time before, don't allow a laisser faire-attitude towards yourself. Reflect everything you do in the context of society and patriarchy.

But how is denouncing Miley Cyprus behaviour or prostitution any more empowering? Like, why prostitution isn't empowering in a certain sense considering the circumstances that women happen to live under, i.e. patriarchy?

The thing is that whatever choice a woman makes, whether it's asserting your sexuality or being submissive, that choice will be made under patriarchy. It somehow seems to me that sex-positive view developed in response to women's submissiveness or rather women's sexuality being a taboo, hence, women asserting their sexuality was a progressive step, seems to me progressive like capitalism was progressive after feudalism, he he.

[Rosa Partizan]

because prostitution is strengthening patriarchy. Women's sexuality is marginalized for money, they get involved in something where it's not allowed to express their desires and preferences, but have to submit to the person that has the money. What could be more patriarchal than having to serve a guy sexually without being allowed to tell him what YOU would find satisfying?

I guess 60-70% percent of my "serious" posts here are about prostitution, so I'm not into writing it all for the 50th time, excuse me.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

because prostitution is strengthening patriarchy. Women's sexuality is marginalized for money, they get involved in something where it's not allowed to express their desires and preferences, but have to submit to the person that has the money. What could be more patriarchal than having to serve a guy sexually without being allowed to tell him what YOU would find satisfying?

I guess 60-70% percent of my "serious" posts here are about prostitution, so I'm not into writing it all for the 50th time, excuse me.

Sorry, I am not following your posts on patriarchy so I didn't really know your position, but I get the basic premise now.

For one thing, you ignored other points of my post, i.e. sexual assertiveness without prostitution. But to be quite frank, I don't necessarily see how not allowing or not supporting women's choice to prostitute herself is any less oppressive. Because without income from prostitution some/many women would find themselves dependent on other parts of the institutions of capitalism and patriarchy.

To put it into silly extremes, dying out of hunger might not be a consequence of patriarchy, but it is a consequence capitalism. I don't think it makes sense to talk about patriarchy and women's oppression in these terms without talking about universal capitalist oppression and exploitation.

But I imagine you have had these conversations many times before so feel free to ignore these comments. :)

[Rosa Partizan]

Sorry, I am not following your posts on patriarchy so I didn't really know your position, but I get the basic premise now.

For one thing, you ignored other points of my post, i.e. sexual assertiveness without prostitution. But to be quite frank, I don't necessarily see how not allowing or not supporting women's choice to prostitute herself is any less oppressive. Because without income from prostitution some/many women would find themselves dependent on other parts of the institutions of capitalism and patriarchy.

To put it into silly extremes, dying out of hunger might not be a consequence of patriarchy, but it is a consequence capitalism. I don't think it makes sense to talk about patriarchy and women's oppression in these terms without talking about universal capitalist oppression and exploitation.

But I imagine you have had these conversations many times before so feel free to ignore these comments. :)

no no, I see your point, but keep in mind please that sex work is still different from other work, because it stems so obviously from patriarchy like no other work --> Keep in mind that the vast majority of sex workers is female and that even more johns are male (male johns are also the main customers of male sex workers). Guess there must be a reason behind it, huh? (no sarcasm). I'll come back to that as soon as I've satisfied my capitalist shopping needs :wub: (I allow you to do different stuff in the meanwhile, but don't go away for too long!)

[consuming negativity]

You already sorta nailed it, Rosa. Sex negative to me is the idea that being more open about sexuality does not change the nature of sexuality. That is, that sexual liberation and the liberation of women are different issues, and so therefore the ability for us to talk more freely about sex does not necessarily also mean that the sex we talk about openly is not dominated by ideas pertaining to the marginalization of female enjoyment of sex and the commodification of the female body. As opposed to sex positivity, which is seemingly more about the open expression of sexuality. Neither idea is bad but I just feel like people who say they're sex positive often kinda ignore that GGW and Playboy are like sorta the opposite of feminist because "omg sexual liberation". In that sense, sex positivity has gone from the promotion of women's sexuality as healthy to the tacit acceptance of its marginalization in favor of patriarchal norms.

[Rosa Partizan]

You already sorta nailed it, Rosa. Sex negative to me is the idea that being more open about sexuality does not change the nature of sexuality. That is, that sexual liberation and the liberation of women are different issues, and so therefore the ability for us to talk more freely about sex does not necessarily also mean that the sex we talk about openly is not dominated by ideas pertaining to the marginalization of female enjoyment of sex and the commodification of the female body. As opposed to sex positivity, which is seemingly more about the open expression of sexuality. Neither idea is bad but I just feel like people who say they're sex positive often kinda ignore that GGW and Playboy are like sorta the opposite of feminist because "omg sexual liberation". In that sense, sex positivity has gone from the promotion of women's sexuality as healthy to the tacit acceptance of its marginalization in favor of patriarchal norms.

total premium posting.

You mention some important things. The idea of sexual female liberation is IN GENERAL a good one. Let's talk about our needs, masturbation, satisfaction and stuff, this is awesome. However, patriarchy wouldn't be patriarchy if it hadn't found some way of perverting this generally good idea into something serving its purposes of submitting female sexuality to the male one, present it to the pleasure of the male gaze and so on, and all of this in the name of female empowerment. No wonder that every representation of female sexuality in the media looks the same, presented by the same type of woman. So goddamn sick of it when the presentation of sexuality and the real sexual reality diverge so hard and everyone gets insecure it they're doing it right, if they look good and stuff.

[Rugged Collectivist]

I think there is a difference between woman working for a less-than-men's wage and asserting her sexuality in a sex-positive way. In the former case it seems to me rather obvious that it helps the woman to liberate herself, i.e. although the wage is lower, she still gets her income, becomes less dependent on men in her relationships etc.

I think the comparison is still good. Sex-positivity, while still constrained by patriarchal social relations, seems more liberating than the total negation of women's sexuality.


While I am not necessarily saying that asserting her sexuality is necessarily oppressive or bad, I think it would be reasonable to have a discussion as to whether such behaviour liberates women or not, because I think here's where the true question lies.

I agree. Maybe I'm not understanding the nuances of sex-negativity.

[TC]

Of course if people who are invested in and rewarded by patriarchal sexual norms, practices and expectations of a male dominated society will identify as "sex negative" people who aim to challenge them.

Of course the patriarchy has *multiple* and seemingly contradictory sets of sexual norms as male domination has a duality with respect to women and sex. As the socially subordinated sex, patriarchal ideology both requires sexual repression of women, but also sexual access and availability to women. Both impulses are ultimately sex on men's terms and two sides of the same power dynamic. It is about male control both ways.

In contemporary usage, sex negative is a derogatory term for feminists who reject male sexual entitlements and the the social conditioning and expectations arranged to meet them.

In contemporary usage, sex positive is a term for those who embrace male sexual entitlements for women's availability while sharing with other feminists hostility towards the *overtly* (but not covertly) sexually repressive elements of traditional patriarchal ideology.

But sex is not a fixed monolithic or indivisible thing.

There is no coherent "sex positive" or "sex negative" position except in relation to certain kinds of sex.


Real women's liberation and sex equality is not sex positive or sex negative. It recognizes that sex as a social practice is socially conditioned, that sex is an arena of politics and power and not simply a politically neutral activity to be uncritically promoted or ignored.

[synthesis]

Has anyone seen the documentary on Deep Throat? (The porn movie, not the whistleblower.) I thought it was interesting that Hugh Hefner really did not seem to understand why the second-wave feminists with whom he was on a talk show (in the 70's, I think, and one of them was Susan Brownmiller) were condemning him for sexism. He was really under the impression that what he was doing was "liberating" for women insofar as it attacked conservative social mores.

(There's a funny moment where he tries to say, "You know, I actually agree with the girls here more than - " "I'm not a girl, I'm 35." "Oh, I use girls to refer to women of all ages." "...well, you shouldn't.")

It's interesting because I think it illuminates two sides of the issue. One side of male dominance demonizes women's sexuality, whereas the other exploits it for profit and power. I don't think those two sides are necessarily separable, for various reasons. I think the problem with both the "sex-positive" and "sex-negative" trains of thought is when they make generalizations about sexuality under male dominance, because they're each responding to the aspect of it that they feel is the most pressing, and sometimes people don't see any middle ground.

[bropasaran]

I have a totally sex-negative view of sexuality, I'm a sort of Kantian here, being that I see basically all sex as something like masturbation where one uses the body of another human instead of his/ her own hand, something that almost intrinsically objectifies and degrades the person with which one engages in sex.

When people tell me that's a fucked up view (i guess with pun intended) I suppose it just reflect the fact that I really am fucked up, having in mind that I was a far-right, nazi, anti-lgbt prick who started to discover his own bisexuality, then got clinically depressed, ended up being a monk in a seminary and is celibate up to today, but meh, whatcha gonna do..

[Sea]

Honestly, I'm confused as to how there has to be a "lower hand" in the first place. If it is inherent to the position assumed in conventional heterosexual contact, the same should apply to submissive males. If it is an external structural thing (ie, imparted from without by patriarchal society) then sexual intercourse is merely the means through which the contradiction is revealed, and not the source of the contradiction itself. This "lower hand" must originate from something else entirely; if it originates from either of these propositions or a mere combination of the two, the very basis for the sex-negative outlook would be absurd.

The secret to the fundamental disadvantage at which women are placed in conventional heterosexual contact must, therefore, originate from something that is inherent both to the type of contact in question and the gender of the disadvantaged - this rules out both possibilities above.

So.. what is the origin of this disadvantage?
It's interesting because I think it illuminates two sides of the issue. One side of male dominance demonizes women's sexuality, whereas the other exploits it for profit and power. I don't think those two sides are necessarily separable, for various reasons. I think the problem with both the "sex-positive" and "sex-negative" trains of thought is when they make generalizations about sexuality under male dominance, because they're each responding to the aspect of it that they feel is the most pressing, and sometimes people don't see any middle ground.It should be added here that pornography does not just exploit women, it exploits women specifically for the purpose of profiteering off the twisted, fucked up view of sex held by heterosexual males. This clarification brings up a critical point that is key to understanding, in the context of capital, what makes such industries especially sinister - it is in the direct financial interest of their proprietors to see that certain social norms (hint hint) be allowed to develop unabated. Liberation becomes not only an ideological, and in the case of many pornographers and pimps, a psychological threat, but a financial threat as well.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

If someone has some kind of sex negative outlook on life, that's fine with me. Just don't go around shoving that shit down other peoples' throats because it's extremely offensive to tell two consenting adults that they cannot have sex because it somehow is abuse. Sex-negativity is something you need to keep to yourself. Let other people do whatever the fuck they want. Telling women they shouldn't have sex is no different than slut shaming.

I say we call it what it is: social conservatism.

[TC]

Just don't go around shoving that shit down other peoples' throats...Sex-negativity is something you need to keep to yourself.

So you would identify as a speech-negative feminist then?

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

So you would identify as a speech-negative feminist then?

No, but I do see why you'd think that from my post. No, I just think it's offensive for anyone to tell consenting adults that sex is a form of abuse. It's a personal issue. That's just as bad as saying being gay is wrong to be honest because it's an issue they have with other peoples' private sex lives.

Although, if that definition makes me "speech-negative", then sure, that's fine and I'll say it proudly I guess :) I admit I really don't know the actual definition of "speech-negative" nor did I know that that was a thing.

[Rosa Partizan]

Ace, this is a bit short of a definition of sex-negativity. Hardly anyone is like "heterosexual sex is abuse", it's more like being critical of certain mechanisms in relationships and heterosexual norms as they are presented in media and often transferred to those relationships. As always, patriarchy did find a way to have a negative sounding term for something that is questioning it. (don't know if this sentence makes sense, you know what I mean) In this context, there is no privacy, because everything we do reflects and reproduces society at the same time. You can't just go like "yeah this is my stuff I do here, nothing to do with other people". In fact, yeah, you can do as you please, but reflect your actions in this societal context for God's sake. All you do, you do for a reason. By those ordinary definitions, I'd be someone to be categorized as sex-negative, but at the same time, you'd have a hard time finding a woman that is sexually more open minded than me, so where's the sense in it?

[Comrade Jacob]

As someone else said I can sympathize with sex-negatives, but that's just not me, I'm into too many things to be a sex-negative.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Sex negative and sex positive feminists say interesting things, but they both retreat into silly, easily caricatured extremes.

Take the sex negative types - it is true that porn and prostitution exploit women, but many sex negative feminists ignore the fact that banning porn or prostitution is probably much more harmful to the women in that line of work. They lose sight of ending the economic exploitation of models and prostitutes because the cultural significance of certain ideals of sexuality become the main issue which gets taken up. Women themselves who happen to work in the field of sex become unintentional victims.

Or take the sex-positive types - it is true that women who are behaving free from conservative norms regarding sexuality are challenging forms of patriarchy. Take this to its extreme though, and you can miss the fact that many of these "sexually liberated women" are no more "empowered" than a housewife from the 50s, but instead of being exploited for domestic labor they are now exploited as an object of male pleasure. You see this with women who reduce their worth to their ability to be sexually attractive to men.


I don't think feminists should be either "sex-positive" or "sex-negative". I think there are things to be learned from both positions though, as both have picked up on important facts about sex in our society, despite being fairly myopic.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Ace, this is a bit short of a definition of sex-negativity. Hardly anyone is like "heterosexual sex is abuse", it's more like being critical of certain mechanisms in relationships and heterosexual norms as they are presented in media and often transferred to those relationships. As always, patriarchy did find a way to have a negative sounding term for something that is questioning it. (don't know if this sentence makes sense, you know what I mean) In this context, there is no privacy, because everything we do reflects and reproduces society at the same time. You can't just go like "yeah this is my stuff I do here, nothing to do with other people". In fact, yeah, you can do as you please, but reflect your actions in this societal context for God's sake. All you do, you do for a reason. By those ordinary definitions, I'd be someone to be categorized as sex-negative, but at the same time, you'd have a hard time finding a woman that is sexually more open minded than me, so where's the sense in it?

Sorry, I think I perhaps had the wrong definition then. Like I said, I really am kind of ignorant about the term "sex negative" because the only place I've ever heard it is on this website.

But the reason I thought it had the definition that I thought was because a user on these forums was ranting about how they couldn't stand sex positive people, and then they literally went on to say the words, "all sex is abuse." So from that person's post, I had thought that sex negativity was the view that all sex is abuse and I never appreciate social conservatism.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Sorry, I think I perhaps had the wrong definition then. Like I said, I really am kind of ignorant about the term "sex negative" because the only place I've ever heard it is on this website.

But the reason I thought it had the definition that I thought was because a user on these forums was ranting about how they couldn't stand sex positive people, and then they literally went on to say the words, "all sex is abuse." So from that person's post, I had thought that sex negativity was the view that all sex is abuse and I never appreciate social conservatism.

Oh, little Stalinkiddie's going to moan about conservatism! Why, I never expected to hear such folly! "Sex-positive" being the mistaken assumption that anything you do as your own choice is somehow divorced from context and your choices are totally not connected to something beyond your individuality; "I want to have sex therefore I am free." But sex-negative is not the belief that all sex is abuse, though this is my view, that there can be no sex that is free of some sort of coercion or force that replicates on some level inherent social or cultural inequalities, and my belief that all natural sexual reproduction and child-bearing and birth must come to an end for the sake of total human liberation.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Oh, little Stalinkiddie's going to moan about conservatism! Why, I never expected to hear such folly! "Sex-positive" being the mistaken assumption that anything you do as your own choice is somehow divorced from context and your choices are totally not connected to something beyond your individuality; "I want to have sex therefore I am free." But sex-negative is not the belief that all sex is abuse, though this is my view, that there can be no sex that is free of some sort of coercion or force that replicates on some level inherent social or cultural inequalities, and my belief that all natural sexual reproduction and child-bearing and birth must come to an end for the sake of total human liberation.

This is THE most extreme view I have ever heard regarding sex. I mean this is just embarrassing and I'm not sure why this kind of view isn't seen as totally bat shit insane by any rational-thinking person.

Please explain to me how all sex is coercion. Who the fuck are you to impose your conservative viewpoints on other people, wagging your finger in the faces of those who simply want to do one of the most natural acts a human being can ever take part in? Please explain to me your bizarre viewpoint. Are you saying that women have no ability to have consensual sex? Please tell me that's not what you're saying….

Your quarrel is with the universe unfortunately. Go tell the billions of people who have sex every single day that what they're doing is abuse and coercion and see if they don't think you're completely insane.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

No, but I do see why you'd think that from my post. No, I just think it's offensive for anyone to tell consenting adults that sex is a form of abuse. It's a personal issue. That's just as bad as saying being gay is wrong to be honest because it's an issue they have with other peoples' private sex lives.

Although, if that definition makes me "speech-negative", then sure, that's fine and I'll say it proudly I guess :) I admit I really don't know the actual definition of "speech-negative" nor did I know that that was a thing.

what you fail to understand is that consenting adults are actually social subjects, being socially conditioned into whatever form their sexuality takes. in this sense, we look beyond the notion of consent itself and analyze the conditions out of which this consensual activity emerges.

there is a danger of taking sex "for granted" because in reality, sexual relations are social relations and social relations are symptoms of social (socioeconomic) conditions. sex is probably the most intimate social relationship and, while the issue of consent is important, it is certainly not where sex begins and ends and consent can even be distorted or influenced by the social environment in which it exists. in the case of this discussion, the social environment is patriarchal and, as such, consent in patriarchy is problematic in itself.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Please explain to me how all sex is coercion. Who the fuck are you to impose your conservative viewpoints on other people, wagging your finger in the faces of those who simply want to do one of the most natural acts a human being can ever take part in? Please explain to me your bizarre viewpoint. Are you saying that women have no ability to have consensual sex? Please tell me that's not what you're saying….
I'm not imposing my views on anyone. Am I in charge of some global anti-sex pogrom? Now that is far too much credit than is due, verily!

I'm saying that no one, male, female or whatever, is capable of any abstractly meaningful consent. Such things are judged on situation only and one can be very unsure of ones own feelings of it, wrong even, and then what? The very act itself a disgrace, the revolting genitals that flop, the sweat that drips, the fluids that squirt, the animal moans of it all. But how in the fuck am I imposing my view on anyone? I think sex is abuse. Not all abuse is alike and comparable, no, but nevertheless. But so what? Does it make your cracker arse feel guilty if I think so? Why do you care? Is it just because you are a young horny male who cannot keep your bloody cock in between your palms but have to go put in someone else?


Your quarrel is with the universe unfortunately. Go tell the billions of people who have sex every single day that what they're doing is abuse and coercion and see if they don't think you're completely insane.

And I don't care in the slightest what they think of that position nor whether they are fucking or not. They can fuck all they like, it's still abuse as far as I see it, and if they don't agree, then, so what? I don't hold positions because I think anyone will agree with them or not or because I think someone will think me rational or deranged.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

what you fail to understand is that consenting adults are actually social subjects, being socially conditioned into whatever form their sexuality takes. in this sense, we look beyond the notion of consent itself and analyze the conditions out of which this consensual activity emerges.

there is a danger of taking sex "for granted" because in reality, sexual relations are social relations and social relations are symptoms of social (socioeconomic) conditions. sex is probably the most intimate social relationship and, while the issue of consent is important, it is certainly not where sex begins and ends and consent can even be distorted or influenced by the social environment in which it exists. in the case of this discussion, the social environment is patriarchal and, as such, consent in patriarchy is problematic in itself.

Elaborate though. I mean if you're talking about the ambiguity of consent, I understand. For instance, if one party is drunk, and the other is sober, obviously the drunk person cannot give consent. If the person is in a position of power over the other, that is also coercion. But can you elaborate beyond this? To me, it seems simple.


I'm not imposing my views on anyone. Am I in charge of some global anti-sex pogrom? Now that is far too much credit than is due, verily!

I'm saying that no one, male, female or whatever, is capable of any abstractly meaningful consent. Such things are judged on situation only and one can be very unsure of ones own feelings of it, wrong even, and then what? The very act itself a disgrace, the revolting genitals that flop, the sweat that drips, the fluids that squirt, the animal moans of it all. But how in the fuck am I imposing my view on anyone? I think sex is abuse. Not all abuse is alike and comparable, no, but nevertheless. But so what? Does it make your cracker arse feel guilty if I think so? Why do you care? Is it just because you are a young horny male who cannot keep your bloody cock in between your palms but have to go put in someone else?



And I don't care in the slightest what they think of that position nor whether they are fucking or not. They can fuck all they like, it's still abuse as far as I see it, and if they don't agree, then, so what? I don't hold positions because I think anyone will agree with them or not or because I think someone will think me rational or deranged.

Seek help. Seriously, this is fucked up. I don't know who made you a mod, but this immature and bizarre language you're using obviously comes from some kind of deep-seated hatred. Also, I'm gay, so thank you for the heteronormative assumption. Is gay sex abuse too?

Instead of explaining a single point of your view, you just went on some freakish tirade against white males. I apologize that my existence offends you, but you seriously seem like you have some fucked up deep-seated issues that are best sorted out away from public internet forums.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Seek help. Seriously, this is fucked up. I don't know who made you a mod, but this immature and bizarre language you're using obviously comes from some kind of deep-seated hatred. Also, I'm gay, so thank you for the heteronormative assumption. Is gay sex abuse too?

Of course it is.


Instead of explaining a single point of your view, you just went on some freakish tirade against white males. I apologize that my existence offends you, but you seriously seem like you have some fucked up deep-seated issues that are best sorted out away from public internet forums

You obviously are attacking this issue for personal reasons; you do not discuss it from any standpoint save that you believe in consent and find anything other than that assertion worthy of dismissal and ridicule. You simply feel.

Well, cracker - which I use because I remember once in a blue moon your bottom was made so very sore from someone else calling you that, and you rambled on about racism like oh-so typical white whine - I tried then to stoop to your level of personal discussion, but it seems that was equally fruitless. I don't give a shit what you think I need to do either, you worm. Lest you have more coherent things to say that don't relate to calling me a psycho wackjob, you can kindly sod off.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Of course it is.



You obviously are attacking this issue for personal reasons; you do not discuss it from any standpoint save that you believe in consent and find anything other than that assertion worthy of dismissal and ridicule. You simply feel.

Well, cracker - which I use because I remember once in a blue moon your bottom was made so very sore from someone else calling you that, and you rambled on about racism like oh-so typical white whine - I tried then to stoop to your level of personal discussion, but it seems that was equally fruitless. I don't give a shit what you think I need to do either, you worm. Lest you have more coherent things to say that don't relate to calling me a psycho wackjob, you can kindly sod off.

Lol. This is like a parody of a tumblr post that you'd find on social media for people to laugh at. I honestly am debating whether you are a parody account, doing a very good job to make leftists look like nut jobs. I've never been called a worm before though, that's pretty original. Very Victorian-era insult, I like it. Again, I am amazed at whoever made you a moderator. They must have been wasted out of their mind.

So, do you think you could answer my question in a calm rational manner instead of using these bizarre personal attacks? I understand you have a problem with me being white but that's not what this discussion is about. My question was how is sex abuse? If you can't answer that question, then I guess this debate is over because I am begging for you to just tell me HOW sex is abuse. Explain in a calm manner please, if that's possible. I wonder if the mods would tolerate you if you weren't a global moderator and were a normal user instead.

[Rosa Partizan]

let's maybe start with definitions of what abuse actually means, I guess that would be the root of your conflict.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Elaborate though. I mean if you're talking about the ambiguity of consent, I understand. For instance, if one party is drunk, and the other is sober, obviously the drunk person cannot give consent. If the person is in a position of power over the other, that is also coercion. But can you elaborate beyond this? To me, it seems simple.

yeah the ambiguity of consent is a part of it but, despite the fact you think that my point is simple, its actually true that you're simplifying the argument by reducing it down to the notion of consent itself.

my point is that consent arises from the conditions that produce it, so a consensual decision made between two different people who represent two different social groups that have an unequal power-balance will be unequal. this is perhaps simple but if you understand what i mean, you'll be able to see that even seemingly consensual decisions made between two people under patriarchy actually have the weight of patriarchal social norms above them. as such, a woman's agreement to sexual activity with a man is made in the realm of patriarchy and, as such, may be naturally oppressive.

being drunk is an extreme example - what i'd say to you is that people, as social subjects, can in fact be "intoxicated" as a result of their social conditioning. a woman may internalize certain gender roles as a result of her conditioning and this may inform her consent, and its the same with many men who are conditioned on the "winning" side of the heteronormative gender binary.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

yeah the ambiguity of consent is a part of it but, despite the fact you think that my point is simple, its actually true that you're simplifying the argument by reducing it down to the notion of consent itself.

my point is that consent arises from the conditions that produce it, so a consensual decision made between two different people who represent two different social groups that have an unequal power-balance will be unequal. this is perhaps simple but if you understand what i mean, you'll be able to see that even seemingly consensual decisions made between two people under patriarchy actually have the weight of patriarchal social norms above them. as such, a woman's agreement to sexual activity with a man is made in the realm of patriarchy and, as such, may be naturally oppressive.

being drunk is an extreme example - what i'd say to you is that people, as social subjects, can in fact be "intoxicated" as a result of their social conditioning. a woman may internalize certain gender roles as a result of her conditioning and this may inform her consent, and its the same with many men who are conditioned on the "winning" side of the heteronormative gender binary.

I understand, this makes sense. I mean I get it, but doesn't this also sort of demean women by painting them as nothing but victims who can't make their own decisions about sex? From the way you describe it, it seems that coercion is so rampant, that heterosexual relationships themselves are inherently coercive, but surely you don't think that…?

Could you perhaps give some real-life examples that can sort of demonstrate your point? Because in certain scenarios, I can agree with you, but I think this is too generalized.

[Rosa Partizan]

yeah the ambiguity of consent is a part of it but, despite the fact you think that my point is simple, its actually true that you're simplifying the argument by reducing it down to the notion of consent itself.

my point is that consent arises from the conditions that produce it, so a consensual decision made between two different people who represent two different social groups that have an unequal power-balance will be unequal. this is perhaps simple but if you understand what i mean, you'll be able to see that even seemingly consensual decisions made between two people under patriarchy actually have the weight of patriarchal social norms above them. as such, a woman's agreement to sexual activity with a man is made in the realm of patriarchy and, as such, may be naturally oppressive.

being drunk is an extreme example - what i'd say to you is that people, as social subjects, can in fact be "intoxicated" as a result of their social conditioning. a woman may internalize certain gender roles as a result of her conditioning and this may inform her consent, and its the same with many men who are conditioned on the "winning" side of the heteronormative gender binary.

While I understand your point of what giving consent under the premise of patriarchy means, I would like to know if this necessarily leads to abuse? Sorry to be very subjective about that, given the fact that I also internalized patriarchy to a great amount, but whenever I feel attracted to some guy, I'm usually the one making the first move and I never felt abused or as if my consent wasn't true.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

@ace:

I don't want to demean women and I understand that this is a difficult train of thought to follow but the way to see it in the most rational manner is to understand that it is not just women's decisions that are affected by the socioeconomic structure but also men's. it isn't that males or females aren't able to make decisions but that their decisions are largely informed by patriarchy, as it is the prevailing structure. The oppression inherent under patriarchy isn't the fault of any single subject but is a systemic problem. Its like watching television and engaging with, for example, sitcoms with inherently sexist narratives (I was watching one earlier) and then laughing at it (as I did earlier) - I didn't laugh because I was being malicious, I laughed because the patriarchal structure surrounding the humour permitted it. I have a girlfriend and we both fall into the heteronormative stereotype and, whilst I don't want to go into too much detail out of a respect for privacy, we both engage in behaviours that result from our conditioning as subjects within the patriarchal realm. Thankfully we are both conscious of this and can analyze it as such but the reality remains that our gender roles and identities were cultivated in patriarchy. This doesn't limit our attraction or whatever but we are aware that some of our behaviours may (at least) result from this. This doesn't stop us from engaging sexually but of course it had to largely inform it and, as a cis-hetero-male, this puts the power balance in my favour. An uncomfortable truth but a truth nonetheless I'd say. I could give real-life examples but not today. If you follow what I'm saying then you can probably place some of your interpersonal relationships in the context I've described.

@Rosa
I don't think that it always leads to abuse as such - it mostly reduces down to the power-dynamics. This isn't always the case and sexual interactions vary greatly. My only point is that, in the realm of patriarchal heteronormativity, subjects operate based on internalized gender roles. Its not abuse but the power-dynamics of the situation and, perhaps most crucially, the sexual politics behind sexual interactions. I would say that no sexual interaction is free from the social conditions that produced it and this is my only point.

It is not a moral point, merely a sociological one.

[Rosa Partizan]

@ace:

I don't want to demean women and I understand that this is a difficult train of thought to follow but the way to see it in the most rational manner is to understand that it is not just women's decisions that are affected by the socioeconomic structure but also men's. it isn't that males or females aren't able to make decisions but that their decisions are largely informed by patriarchy, as it is the prevailing structure. The oppression inherent under patriarchy isn't the fault of any single subject but is a systemic problem. Its like watching television and engaging with, for example, sitcoms with inherently sexist narratives (I was watching one earlier) and then laughing at it (as I did earlier) - I didn't laugh because I was being malicious, I laughed because the patriarchal structure surrounding the humour permitted it. I have a girlfriend and we both fall into the heteronormative stereotype and, whilst I don't want to go into too much detail out of a respect for privacy, we both engage in behaviours that result from our conditioning as subjects within the patriarchal realm. Thankfully we are both conscious of this and can analyze it as such but the reality remains that our gender roles and identities were cultivated in patriarchy. This doesn't limit our attraction or whatever but we are aware that some of our behaviours may (at least) result from this. This doesn't stop us from engaging sexually but of course it had to largely inform it and, as a cis-hetero-male, this puts the power balance in my favour. An uncomfortable truth but a truth nonetheless I'd say. I could give real-life examples but not today. If you follow what I'm saying then you can probably place some of your interpersonal relationships in the context I've described.

@Rosa
I don't think that it always leads to abuse as such - it mostly reduces down to the power-dynamics. This isn't always the case and sexual interactions vary greatly. My only point is that, in the realm of patriarchal heteronormativity, subjects operate based on internalized gender roles. Its not abuse but the power-dynamics of the situation and, perhaps most crucially, the sexual politics behind sexual interactions. I would say that no sexual interaction is free from the social conditions that produced it and this is my only point.

It is not a moral point, merely a sociological one.

that ruined my day.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

and really to qualify is to say that sexuality is a social realm, just as class is and it should be treated as such. how much does a working class person 'consent' to being a working class person? i know, as a working class person, that i didn't 'consent' to being as such, yet here i am engaging with the socioeconomic position i was born and cultivated into.

my class position is a systemic issue, as is my sexuality, as class and sexuality are systemic structures, mostly.

[Rosa Partizan]

you're totally right. I engage in the same type of behavior, and even after having reflected all of it, considering patriarchy and inherent positions of power, I continue doing it, because it feels right. And it feels right because I learned it IS right, and it has to be. I notice this influence in everything that is connected to guys, to sex and so on. It would be plain bullshit to be like, all of these preferences I chose by myself, when they rather were chosen for me by what I learned was right to like, to enjoy and stuff.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

i would say that being conscious of it is necessary in this regard. then we can start to take sexuality to a new realm in which we engage whilst critical. generally, my points are regarding people who fulfill sexual roles as 'nature', without the knowledge required to understand sex sociologically. if you're critical, you can enjoy sexual activities whilst understanding them in a socioeconomic context.

at least this is what i think post-sex whilst having a cigarette haha.

foucault's history of sexuality is necessary in understanding the mechanics of sexuality or at least understanding the mechanics of sexual discourse (and sex is essentially a form of discourse).

[Quail]

I will respond to this properly tomorrow, but I have been following the thread. I'm a little tired/drunk at the moment so sorry if this is a little incoherent.

I don't dispute that sex is tainted by patriarchy. Fucking everything is and it's shit. But from my personal experience I think there are a lot of factors at play when it comes to heterosexual sex. When I started having sex with guys I was essentially taught by my experiences this fucked up mindset where it was all about doing what I was expected to do to please the dude and that was what healthy relationships were like. So in a lot of ways most of the sex I've had with men was quite unequal and I felt really bad about myself for doing it. Because I was treated like a sex object, I played that role because that was what I knew. Now I have a much better understanding of the dynamics of relationships and sex within a patriarchal society I feel as though I can avoid the abusive dynamics of some of my past experiences.

But on the other hand, having sex with other women is different to me, and I don't think there is the same power dynamic present. That's not to say that gay sex is never abusive because that's obviously not true, but for me gay sex feels much more equal and there's no passively lying there until the other person climaxes or anything like that because society doesn't promote the idea that you exist for the pleasure of other women as it promotes the idea that you exist for the pleasure of men.

I don't know if that really makes sense or whatever but it's late and I'm going to bed.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

^ made me think of some excerpts of a book i saw online about gay sex in pornography. obviously pornography is only a simulation of sexuality but this talked about how gay sex is often represented in a traditionally heteronormative way, with submissive males degraded as "whores" and "*****es" etc. in lesbian porn, this kind of power dynamic was seen too, with submissive women at the mercy of the phallus, or even with phallic imagery in scenes which weren't in physical use.

i know its not what you were talking about as such but still interesting to me and may try and talk about it more coherently when i'm more awake lol

[Rosa Partizan]

I liked this blog entry a lot.

http://theroguefeminist.tumblr.com/post/51867660077/are-you-sex-negative-what-is-wrong-with-sex-positive

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

I'm not sure how related this is, but what are your views on women's clothing? I suppose this can have an effect on sexual contact being desired by men.

[Rosa Partizan]

In how far? Do you mean a woman with little clothing on has higher chances of being hit on?

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

In how far? Do you mean a woman with little clothing on has higher chances of being hit on?

How would you, for example, consider a person who wears clothing that is quite unrestricted?

Firstly as a standalone question and secondly as a possible link to the OP.

[QueerVanguard]

I think both sides make valid points but I lean to the sex positive side just because the negatives just seem to go a little overboard when it comes to censuring how we live. I lived as a sex worker for a few years when I was down and out which was pretty dangerous as a transwoman but no more dangerous than working at McDonald's around here and having some of the redneck co-workers or customers learn that I'm not "really" (meaning what they consider) a woman. If anything I appreciated the more autonomy I had over my work life which was WAY more than I could get as a low wage worker at some business. Now, a lot of these sex negative types want to keep that kind of work illegal while turning a blind eye to capitalism.

I'm also BIG into porno :wub: and I can't really think of how someone could criticize it logically without being some sort of religious fanatic, but the sex neagtives sure try. The way I see it, the only consistent point of view for a Communist to take on sex matters is full liberation and in practice I guess that would amount to polyamory and a hands off approach on porn and strip clubs and all that. Sex work won't exist in Communism, but no work really would any way so that's not like a point in favor of the sex negative feminists.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

must these two definitions necessarily be a contradiction?

Absolutely not!

[Remus Bleys]

Absolutely not!
Care to elaborate, like at all?

Anyway, I think Sea brought up a really good point. Its not so much that sex is the cause of any inequality, but rather sex under capitalism is an expression (in sexual terms) of relations under capitalism. I think the same could be said about communism: sex under communism isn't inherently one thing or another, but rather an expression, in sexual terms, of societal relations under communism. Sex is gross, sex is nasty, sex can lead to diseases, etc but sex is also an evolutionary thing, something that makes one "feel good" or something - sex is inherently neutral. It doesn't take place in a vacuum though. For instance, rape isn't done because it feels good, rape is a result of treating someone else as an object, a commodity to be used, a piece of property that someone owns - its a lot more complicated than this of course (and not to mention capital hasn't fully gotten rid of all forms of previous modes of production and as such sex also expresses those). I can't predict what exactly communism will bring but if one can guess at what communist relations look like one can guess what the sex under communism will look like - rather equal, seeking to both pleasure oneself and others, and is just another aspect of life, no mystification, no exploitation of sexuality and no suppression of one's sexuality (this of course would probably take many generations and an extreme act of will to accomplish, so no one should hold their nose high and state that this will automatically follow and communism is this perfect utopia). Not everyone wants to fuck and not everyone would want to be an ascetic - there is a contradiction in bourgeoisie society in both attacking virgins and non-virgins for different reasons (usually non virgin females and virgin males are the people that get shit about it).
Sex positivity and sex negativity both have revolutionary and reactionary currents, they both have deep insight and they both have profound implications. Ultimately though, its wrong to be looking at sex as a cause instead of a symptom. In the context of capitalism (or even any mode of production) consent is simply an individuals idea that something is okay to do to them - and the ideas individuals have are expressions of broader social relations, not their own perfect and unique snowflake thoughts. Obviously rape is something to be condemned. But communists shouldn't be looking for consent as being this great big thing because its fundamentally an incorrect view of it. If I sign a contract I am "consenting" but that shouldn't be an indication that I am completely fine with capitalism nor that the relations of capitalism are "okay" - its an individualist and incorrect analysis.
I'm not saying don't have sex. Sex is only "bad" insofar that its an expression of capital's dominance - and virtually everything, even to a certain extent proletarian revolution - is an expression of capital's dominance. All of our actions are expressions of capital's dominance. Buying one product over another is an expression of capital's dominance, watching tv, playing games, being on the internet, youtube videos, all of these things are expressions of capital's dominance - even revleft is. Do you give up these things? Of course not. One's analysis of sex (excepting several things such as rape, out-and-out abse, etc) shouldn't really affect one's view of sex, and if it does, then one must likewise change all relations with other people, resulting in being a simple hermit with no connection to anyone or anything. Marx had a wife - yet he was for the abolition of the family.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Well, cracker - which I use because I remember once in a blue moon your bottom was made so very sore from someone else calling you that, and you rambled on about racism like oh-so typical white whine -

that was actually kind of awesome. lol

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Sex negative - think that sexual contact between men and women is tainted by the patriarchy.

Sex positive - think that it's possible and desirable for women to approach sexuality on their own terms.

Sex is tainted by patriarchy, hell, damn near every aspect of society and life in society is tainted by patriarchy. This does not mean that womyn can't choose to take control of their own sex life on their own terms and if they do it doesn't mean that it isn't still in someways tainted by patriarchy. You know, there is some realistic middle ground between being sex-positive and being sex-negative. Even from the sex-positive direction toward which I lean, I must admit the sex-negative side has some good points. Just because some of us approach sex on our own terms doesn't make us free, it means we are trying to change the dynamics in that direction. ***train of thought crashed, sorry***

[Thirsty Crow]

So is there any coherent definition of positive and negative reached around here?

[Sea]

So is there any coherent definition of positive and negative reached around here?Uh, don't be naive. We can't even on what capitalism is.

[Thirsty Crow]

Uh, don't be naive. We can't even on what capitalism is.
I'm honestly asking this.

But I know what capitalism is PM me okay

[Sea]

I'm honestly asking this.

But I know what capitalism is PM me okayActually that's supposed to say "we can't even agree..". My bad.

[SmirkerOfTheWorld]

I think when it comes to being sex-positive - I doubt there's many who would argue against women being able to pursue their sexual desires to their fullest extent. (Ok maybe there are, but anyway...)

The difficulty is that I think it's very hard to label as "feminist" something which is not in some discomforting to the majority of men. Afterall, we do live in a patriarchy, therefore the vast majority of men are not feminists - so if making porn, Mily Cyrus twerking or whatever is something which men seem to find not only acceptable but actually enjoy and benefit from, then I think it's fair to say it's not feminism...

Conversely, female sexual aggressiveness and promiscuity and female sexual self-gratification are not subjects which are palatable to most men - hence there's a lot to go on there...

[Rosa Partizan]

I think when it comes to being sex-positive - I doubt there's many who would argue against women being able to pursue their sexual desires to their fullest extent. (Ok maybe there are, but anyway...)

The difficulty is that I think it's very hard to label as "feminist" something which is not in some discomforting to the majority of men. Afterall, we do live in a patriarchy, therefore the vast majority of men are not feminists - so if making porn, Mily Cyrus twerking or whatever is something which men seem to find not only acceptable but actually enjoy and benefit from, then I think it's fair to say it's not feminism...

Conversely, female sexual aggressiveness and promiscuity and female sexual self-gratification are not subjects which are palatable to most men - hence there's a lot to go on there...

that's exactly what I was saying in my "when women say no and mean yes"-thread, but my discussion partner thinks otherwise. I think, women are then considered attractive when they appear as available objects, serving male pleasure and the male gaze. A sexually experienced woman with an explicit vocabulary who claims her own satisfaction by all means is nothing that patriarchy would embrace.

[Rosa Partizan]

To clarify — “sex negative” and “sex positive” are relatively useless terms with regard to discussing feminist approaches to issues of sex and sexuality. The terms convey the message that “sex positivity” equals support for a vision of sex and sexuality that is defined by patriarchy and one that is primarily libertarian. What’s defined as “sex positive feminism” tends to translate to: non-critical of the sex industry, BDSM, burlesque, and generally, anything that can be related to “sex.” “Non-judgement” is the mantra espoused by so-called “sex-positive feminists,” which is troubling because it ends up framing critical thought and discourse as “judgement” and therefore negative. Since I tend to see critical thinking as a good thing, the “don’t judge me”/”don’t say anything critical about sex because it’s sex and therefore anything goes” thing doesn’t sit well with me.


“Sex negative,” on the other hand, tends to be ascribed to feminists who are critical of prostitution, pornography, strip clubs, burlesque, BDSM and, really, sex and sexuality as defined by patriarchy and men. The reason that feminists are critical of these things is because they want to work towards a real, liberated, feminist understanding of sex and sexuality, rather than one that sexualizes inequality, domination and subordination, is male-centered, and is harmful and exploitative of women. To me, that sounds far more “sex positive” (from a feminist perspective, anyway), than blind support for anything sex-related, because sex.
http://feministcurrent.com/8879/the-divide-isnt-between-sex-negative-and-sex-positive-feminists-its-between-liberals-and-radicals/

best blog entry I've read in a long time.

[Lily Briscoe]

The difficulty is that I think it's very hard to label as "feminist" something which is not in some discomforting to the majority of men. Afterall, we do live in a patriarchy, therefore the vast majority of men are not feminists - so if making porn, Mily Cyrus twerking or whatever is something which men seem to find not only acceptable but actually enjoy and benefit from, then I think it's fair to say it's not feminism...

Conversely, female sexual aggressiveness and promiscuity and female sexual self-gratification are not subjects which are palatable to most men - hence there's a lot to go on there...

that's exactly what I was saying in my "when women say no and mean yes"-thread, but my discussion partner thinks otherwise. I think, women are then considered attractive when they appear as available objects, serving male pleasure and the male gaze. A sexually experienced woman with an explicit vocabulary who claims her own satisfaction by all means is nothing that patriarchy would embrace.

I don't really think this dichotomy between "female sexual assertiveness and promiscuity" on the one hand, versus "appearing as available objects, serving male pleasure and the male gaze" on the other hand actually exists in the real world. In reality, women who are sexually assertive/promiscuous tend to be perceived as doing exactly that: "appearing as available objects, serving male pleasure and the male gaze" simply because of a general denial/downplaying of female sexual agency. So a woman who is promiscuous must be promiscuous because she's insecure/eager to please men/trying to appease "the male gaze"/whatever. It doesn't matter if that isn't actually the motivation at all, that is the way people will perceive it.

[human strike]

I don't use either of these terms because I view it as a false and unhelpful dichotomy that obscures the reality of attitudes of feminists towards sex.

[exeexe]

I never used the terms sex-negative and sex-positiv. So they mean nothing to me. To me sex is always something good and i dont understand why so many woman (according to what i have observed) are so afraid of sex.

[Five Year Plan]

i dont understand why so many woman (according to what i have observed) are so afraid of sex.

Uh, what?

[Rosa Partizan]

I never used the terms sex-negative and sex-positiv. So they mean nothing to me. To me sex is always something good and i dont understand why so many woman (according to what i have observed) are so afraid of sex.

afraid is maybe a too big word. Let's say preoccupied or so. It's because of that societal double-bind that on the one hand we live in a pornofied society, with sex being available everywhere, women presented as sexually available objects all the time and on the other hand shaming women for their bodies/vaginas, desires, preferences. You really can't win. Either you're prude or a slut. It starts with that thing that penises are somehow more "accepted" than vaginas. Vaginas are "dirty holes", many women don't even know how they look like there, some feel even bad when they touch themselves. Sexual liberation, and I mean REAL liberation, not that Miley Cyrus-porn-let's look available for guys-one, is still a big thing nowadays.

[exeexe]

women presented as sexually available objects
Well the women who does that are paid to do that. Women out there in society just need to know that when sex and money are separate there is nothing to be ashamed of :laugh:

[Monkey Queen]

I'm actually personally in the so-called sex-negative camp (a more accurate term for which might be sex-neutral actually), which is really just a term not for feminists who oppose sex, but for feminists who favor embracing a critical view of sexual trends; a willingness to talk about sex and sexual practices in a way that's not always supportive; in a way that doesn't see sex itself or particular sexual practices as intrinsically good or bad, but rather examines particulars in a critical way. This can be contrasted with the prevailing cultural view that sex is always good and cannot be criticized even though it's taking place within the framework of cultural patriarchy. I feel that this represents the most advanced view, where the sex-positives basically just concentrate a kind of compromise with patriarchy: the idea of "making feminism sexy" so men will get on board with it.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I never used the terms sex-negative and sex-positiv. So they mean nothing to me. To me sex is always something good and i dont understand why so many woman (according to what i have observed) are so afraid of sex.

Why are so many womyn so afraid of sex. I enjoy sex sometimes and I'm still afraid of it. For me, it has to do with sexual trauma (which is disproportionately experienced by womyn) yes, I get nervous and anxious and sometimes have to stop it due to flashbacks and panic attacks. so yes, it is perfectly understandable for womyn who either have sexual trauma from rape or have been socialized to have fear of the threat of rape which is quite real.

[Lily Briscoe]

This can be contrasted with the prevailing cultural view that sex is always good and cannot be criticized
Unless we live on different planets, I don't think this is "the prevailing cultural view" at all...

I have more to say about the topic of this thread in general, but am at work atm, so will try to come back to this sometime tonight.

[TheFox]

sex negative: Women should not have sex with men because men just want sex to control the female. (Not true BTW I like sex but I don't want to control.)
Sex positive: Women should enjoy sex on their own terms. (I agree with this, only I believe EVERYONE should have sex on their own terms)
That's at least my understanding. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Thirsty Crow]

This can be contrasted with the prevailing cultural view that sex is always good and cannot be criticized even though it's taking place within the framework of cultural patriarchy.
You should really specify the conditions of this prevailing cultural view; where is it the prevailing view?

I'm asking this because of the seemingly quite different conditions in the region where I live, where not only sexual practices can be criticized, but even sex before marriage is under fire by the Catholic conservative camp, not to mention other kinds of sexual practices. That isn't to say that actual sexual behavior is predominantly conservative; it is not. But this public arena of ideas is saturated with criticism of sex.

[Sea]

why can't we just ban exeexe

[Rosa Partizan]

You should really specify the conditions of this prevailing cultural view; where is it the prevailing view?

I'm asking this because of the seemingly quite different conditions in the region where I live, where not only sexual practices can be criticized, but even sex before marriage is under fire by the Catholic conservative camp, not to mention other kinds of sexual practices. That isn't to say that actual sexual behavior is predominantly conservative; it is not. But this public arena of ideas is saturated with criticism of sex.

You do have that conservative approach, but here in Western Europe it's somehow like, you have to be tolerant of everything and find it all unproblematic and cool, like, porn is cool, women watching porn is sooo super cool and open minded, women dancing in their panties on the MTV music awards is cool and empowering and sign of an open sexuality, shades of grey is cool and it's so edgy to read such books, blah blah. Anyone putting that in a patriarchal context and critisizing it is prude and conservative and wants to cut people's freedom and so on. I've heard that a million times, like "you're so uptight, do you ever have fun with all that talk about patriarchy?" Yeah, I'm a prude...oh the irony.

[Lily Briscoe]

You should really specify the conditions of this prevailing cultural view; where is it the prevailing view?

I'm asking this because of the seemingly quite different conditions in the region where I live, where not only sexual practices can be criticized, but even sex before marriage is under fire by the Catholic conservative camp, not to mention other kinds of sexual practices.

That poster has their location set as the United States, so presumably that is their 'cultural' point of reference. Which is, by the way, a country in which sex 'education' programs become eligible for federal funding specifically on the basis that they teach complete opposition to sex outside of marriage...

Incidentally, I went through the public school system in one of the more liberal parts of the country, and I distinctly remember there being mandatory 'abstinence only' assemblies in high school (which typically consisted of some middle aged male motivational speaker spending an hour and a half or so telling stories about all the girls he's supposedly talked to over the years who 'gave it away' before marriage and then grew up to be incapable of forming healthy, committed relationships and - if and when they finally did meet "Mr. Right" - he ended up rejecting them because they had nothing of value to give him, seeing as they'd already 'given it away' to some random guy).

At the end of these assemblies, students were encouraged to sign a pledge promising to abstain from sexual activity until marriage, and those who refused to sign or who had already 'violated the conditions for abstinence', were made to line up on the opposite side of the gym and stand there and wait, in full view of the entire thousands-strong student body and faculty. Which is only a completely negligible part of the overall trend of harassment, shaming, and violence unleashed on girls and women who are perceived as being too "sexually available" by their peers... Which makes this idea that "the prevailing cultural view" on sex here is that all things sex-related are automatically good and no one is allowed to utter a critical word about other people's sexual activities seriously feel like something out of The Twilight Zone.

--

Maybe it is true that in Western Europe, female promiscuity is now not only accepted but expected, and all the shaming and harassment once reserved for women perceived as being too promiscuous has now been redirected toward women perceived as being prudes. I tend to seriously doubt that this is actually the case, though.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I had a similar experience, they brought in a former pageant winner (miss USA i think) who went on a rant about how condoms were incapable of preventing pregnancy or HIV and then they did the line up stuff at the end.

[exeexe]

why can't we just ban Sea

[BIXX]

why can't we just ban Sea


Stfu n00b

Despite this whole thread I'm not really clear on what the two terms mean.

What does it mean if I think women should do what they want when they want?

[exeexe]

Stfu n00b

Take your medicine and stop asking questions if you think you are so smart

[Monkey Queen]

LinksRadikal wrote:
You should really specify the conditions of this prevailing cultural view; where is it the prevailing view?

I'm asking this because of the seemingly quite different conditions in the region where I live, where not only sexual practices can be criticized, but even sex before marriage is under fire by the Catholic conservative camp, not to mention other kinds of sexual practices. That isn't to say that actual sexual behavior is predominantly conservative; it is not. But this public arena of ideas is saturated with criticism of sex

I live in Vermont. The culture here is pretty similar to Western Europe. It's a pretty liberal place.

Anyway, to clarify further, it's not a revival of the old, conservative attitude toward sexuality that I'm proposing. The conservative view of sex is that it's something best kept concealed and not discussed in public. Think stork myths. Far from that, what I'm proposing is more openness about sex. I'm proposing that we should not only be able to discuss sexuality in public venues, but that we should be able to discuss it in a two-sided way instead of in an uncritical way.

[Lily Briscoe]

I live in Vermont. The culture here is pretty similar to Western Europe. It's a pretty liberal place.

Anyway, to clarify further, it's not a revival of the old, conservative attitude toward sexuality that I'm proposing. The conservative view of sex is that it's something best kept concealed and not discussed in public. Think stork myths. Far from that, what I'm proposing is more openness about sex. I'm proposing that we should not only be able to discuss sexuality in public venues, but that we should be able to discuss it in a two-sided way instead of in an uncritical way.

But no one says you have to be uncritical of sex, and contrary to what people here are claiming, public criticism of sex is certainly in no short supply.

Obviously sexual behavior in a sexist society occurs in the context of... a sexist society, and will tend to reflect that. I think the point of contention isn't whether or not people should be able to be critical of any form of sexual behavior; it's the content of the criticism and the political conclusions that are drawn from it (or are bound up in it) that are the issue.

So for example, I don't have any objection, in the abstract, to criticism of e.g. depictions of female sexuality in popular culture (although I do think that these kinds of popculture critiques tend to be a dime a dozen and almost never say anything new or even remotely interesting). But simply insisting that you want to 'take a critical view' conveys absolutely nothing; 'a critical view' could encompass anything from highlighting the way that female sexual desire and agency is often marginalized/denied and situating this in the context of the subservient/dependent economic position that women disproportionately occupy in relation to men, to highlighting various instances of sexually-suggestive performances by female popstars and concluding that women need to stop acting like whores and/or the state needs to crack down on this or that.

Similarly, I definitely don't think there is anything inherently wrong with criticism of the sex industry (there is certainly no shortage of seriously fucked up practices that go on). But is this criticism being approached from the perspective of the workers in the industry or is it being approached from the perspective of respectable, 'self-determined' female professionals who are concerned that their lives are being made more difficult by all these 'available objects' 'serving the patriarchy' to make ends meet.

The political conclusions are the issue; not being 'critical' in some abstract sense.

[Monkey Queen]

Strix wrote:
Similarly, I definitely don't think there is anything inherently wrong with criticism of the sex industry (there is certainly no shortage of seriously fucked up practices that go on). But is this criticism being approached from the perspective of the workers in the industry or is it being approached from the perspective of respectable, 'self-determined' female professionals who are concerned that their lives are being made more difficult by all these 'available objects' 'serving the patriarchy' to make ends meet.

Well I was simply describing the sex-negative position in the abstract, as to encompass the views of all. There are different views of the sex industry amongst sex-negative feminists for example: some are reformers, others opponents of the industry. As for me, I fit into the latter category. I don't think the sex industry can be reformed. In reference to this example we're using of the sex industry, my own view is that, while the perspectives of the workers therein are surely important, it is more important to consider the interests and well-being of women as a sex, not just this or that section thereof. The overall interests of women as a sex come first and the perceived interests of sex workers come second. I say 'perceived' because I've been one before and my perspective is a lot different now than it was then. I would say more enlightened. Most workers in the sex industry are mentally ill. This does influence their judgment. I know it did mine.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Could someone explain to me this "prude" business? I'm slightly out of touch with the context of this thread.

[Rosa Partizan]

Well I was simply describing the sex-negative position in the abstract, as to encompass the views of all. There are different views of the sex industry amongst sex-negative feminists for example: some are reformers, others opponents of the industry. As for me, I fit into the latter category. I don't think the sex industry can be reformed. In reference to this example we're using of the sex industry, my own view is that, while the perspectives of the workers therein are surely important, it is more important to consider the interests and well-being of women as a sex, not just this or that section thereof. The overall interests of women as a sex come first and the perceived interests of sex workers come second. I say 'perceived' because I've been one before and my perspective is a lot different now than it was then. I would say more enlightened. Most workers in the sex industry are mentally ill. This does influence their judgment. I know it did mine.

I think this is oversimplified. While I know there are studies showing that a significantly overproportionate amount of prostitutes has experienced some form of abuse even before they started this work, it does not necessarily come down to "mental illness", especially when considering how many women do this job because they were trafficked and/or have no other (economic) choice. But I appreciate this normative approach and I've been writing that a million times. If you want to smash patriarchy, you gotta smash what constitutes it, and buying sex is a huge part of it that makes billions, most of which goes to pimps and traffickers and brothel owners. You can't fix an inherently wrong, sick system if you just paint it with some nice color, the inside will remain rotten, and this is what's wrong with Liberal feminism, or as some radfem put it: Libfems want a big part of the cake while we reject that poisoned thing completely.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Ok I haven't gotten a chance to read all the responses in this thread and I'm not sure if I've posted in this thread before, but here we go.

I think it's incredibly offensive to try and "examine" and criticize peoples' sex lives. As long as it is consensual… as long as it is consensual, who the hell is anyone to try and put on their sociology hat and try to bring patriarchy into someone else's sex life? That is just bizarre and borders on social conservatism. "Sex is bad m'kay" is not going to get you a lot of respect.

Also, why is there hate for sex workers? Prostitutes are generally victims. I'm pretty sure pimps are the ones who should be condemned. Monkey Queen calling them mentally ill is unbelievably offensive.

[Rosa Partizan]

Ok I haven't gotten a chance to read all the responses in this thread and I'm not sure if I've posted in this thread before, but here we go.

I think it's incredibly offensive to try and "examine" and criticize peoples' sex lives. As long as it is consensual… as long as it is consensual, who the hell is anyone to try and put on their sociology hat and try to bring patriarchy into someone else's sex life? That is just bizarre and borders on social conservatism. "Sex is bad m'kay" is not going to get you a lot of respect.

Also, why is there hate for sex workers? Prostitutes are generally victims. I'm pretty sure pimps are the ones who should be condemned. Monkey Queen calling them mentally ill is unbelievably offensive.

no one tries that, because patriarchy is already in our sex lives, if we want it or not. Almost everyone of us grew up with images of female availabilty, male sexual satisfaction and dominance, porn etc. So no one has to bring it in there, it is there even if we don't notice it. In patriarchy, you can't escape patriarchy and it will conquer the most intimate aspects of your life. No one is critizing anyone for this matter of fact. The question is, how do we change that? How do we change a society in which porn based on female humiliation gets some guys billions of dollars? How do we change a system in which female bodies get commodified and used and trafficked? How do we have real, informed consent in a society that is rotten to its grounds? I'm most def not playing sex police and telling people which positions to like in the bedroom, and you already know it's not about that. It's about challenging your own views of sexuality, of the way sexuality and femalehood are presented in movies and media and this is not gonna work out with an attitude like "I don't care as long as if it's consensual". Would you say the same about people who sell their kidney or who beat each other up for money? I mean it's their bodies and if they really wanna do it....

I don't think this has anything to do with conservatism at all. I've had these discussions a million times. Some guy some time ago was like "wow, do you ever have fun? Do you ever find guys that are attracted to your attitude? Do you ever have sex?" We ended up in bed and he totally took back everything he said, thinking I was just conservative, until I somehow managed to explain to him it's not something I do because of morals or "decency" or anything, cause I don't give a flying fuck about such bullshit, but I do give a fuck about female bodies and the way they het marginalized and abused every day for male pleasure. Of course, you can have conservatism disguised as "criticism of patriarchy", but you will most def be able to tell the difference, namely if it's about liberating female desires and sexuality, apart from patriachal images, or if it's about just telling them to "keep their legs closed".

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

no one tries that, because patriarchy is already in our sex lives, if we want it or not. Almost everyone of us grew up with images of female availabilty, male sexual satisfaction and dominance, porn etc. So no one has to bring it in there, it is there even if we don't notice it. In patriarchy, you can't escape patriarchy and it will conquer the most intimate aspects of your life. No one is critizing anyone for this matter of fact. The question is, how do we change that? How do we change a society in which porn based on female humiliation gets some guys billions of dollars? How do we change a system in which female bodies get commodified and used and trafficked? How do we have real, informed consent in a society that is rotten to its grounds? I'm most def not playing sex police and telling people which positions to like in the bedroom, and you already know it's not about that. It's about challenging your own views of sexuality, of the way sexuality and femalehood are presented in movies and media and this is not gonna work out with an attitude like "I don't care as long as if it's consensual". Would you say the same about people who sell their kidney or who beat each other up for money? I mean it's their bodies and if they really wanna do it....

I don't think this has anything to do with conservatism at all. I've had these discussions a million times. Some guy some time ago was like "wow, do you ever have fun? Do you ever find guys that are attracted to your attitude? Do you ever have sex?" We ended up in bed and he totally took back everything he said, thinking I was just conservative, until I somehow managed to explain to him it's not something I do because of morals or "decency" or anything, cause I don't give a flying fuck about such bullshit, but I do give a fuck about female bodies and the way they het marginalized and abused every day for male pleasure. Of course, you can have conservatism disguised as "criticism of patriarchy", but you will most def be able to tell the difference, namely if it's about liberating female desires and sexuality, apart from patriachal images, or if it's about just telling them to "keep their legs closed".

Well I can definitely agree with nearly all of what you said. But I feel like that's a separate issue though. Sexualization of women in the media to the point of perpetuating them as objects and glorifying rape culture doesn't seem to have any link to what two people actually do in the bedroom.

I feel like it's a separate issue entirely. Fighting patriarchy isn't about examining bedroom dynamics in my opinion. Sexualization of women in the media along with rape culture is something that influences male chauvinist, sexist attitudes and female slut shaming. But it's not like a man and woman playing dominant and submissive roles in the bedroom is something that necessarily needs to be criticized. Unless of course the woman is FORCED or coerced to do that, but in that case it is rape.

But you could certainly make the argument that patriarchal society might make men feel like it's "gay" to be submissive in the bedroom, which is certainly a good discussion to talk about. So if that's what you're referring to by saying that patriarchal values leak into the bedroom, I'd agree. But then again, wouldn't that be more of a societal issue dealing with patriarchy itself?

My basic point is that yes, patriarchal values might have some effect in the bedroom, but it manifests itself in society. And critiquing patriarchy from the point of the act of sex itself seems like it's addressing a symptom, and not an illness.

Sorry if my post was convoluted and rambling :lol:

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Hey! I'd like an answer to my question!

[Rosa Partizan]

Well I can definitely agree with nearly all of what you said. But I feel like that's a separate issue though. Sexualization of women in the media to the point of perpetuating them as objects and glorifying rape culture doesn't seem to have any link to what two people actually do in the bedroom.

I feel like it's a separate issue entirely. Fighting patriarchy isn't about examining bedroom dynamics in my opinion. Sexualization of women in the media along with rape culture is something that influences male chauvinist, sexist attitudes and female slut shaming. But it's not like a man and woman playing dominant and submissive roles in the bedroom is something that necessarily needs to be criticized. Unless of course the woman is FORCED or coerced to do that, but in that case it is rape.

But you could certainly make the argument that patriarchal society might make men feel like it's "gay" to be submissive in the bedroom, which is certainly a good discussion to talk about. So if that's what you're referring to by saying that patriarchal values leak into the bedroom, I'd agree. But then again, wouldn't that be more of a societal issue dealing with patriarchy itself?

My basic point is that yes, patriarchal values might have some effect in the bedroom, but it manifests itself in society. And critiquing patriarchy from the point of the act of sex itself seems like it's addressing a symptom, and not an illness.

Sorry if my post was convoluted and rambling :lol:

Well, look, I'm no gender scientist and it's really hard to tell for me about the power dynamics in other people's bedrooms. But I can tell you one thing for sure: Male expectations have changed, or let's say, start changing as more and more younger people watch porn, especially less experienced ones that internalize the sexual images they see. When I was a bit younger (cause I'm old now :lol:) I used to work in another "department" of that aids centre I told ya about, I was at schools and informing the students about aids, prevention, also sexuality in general and blah, and let me tell you, they had some real weird images of sex, like, they would want to film themselves when doing it, some of them had porn on their smartphones, they would think that anal sex is obligatory and that women with pubic hair are disgusting. And this is something that I got told by friends of mine that are teachers (I happen to know a lot of teachers, because I study popular subjects).

Especially when you're young, you tend to take it at face value. What you see is what you (should) get. And it's not even restricted to younger guys. There are guys in their end 20ies that think it's a compliment to tell you "this was as it is in porn". Yeah, cause I aim to be a porn actress, okay. But you see, I talk about it, I criticize it and I still do it! I can't get rid off it because that's the way I've been taught sexuality all my life. How would I know what I really want, in a non-patriarchal context? Of course, you're right, I wouldn't want anyone to tell me "stop doing what you do", but I'm very content with myself that I reflected on it and that I'm aware of the structure I grew up in and that it's nonsense to say "that's what I want, patriarchy played no part in it". That bold marked sentence is something I agree on, though. If you wanna be radical, you gotta find the root, and this is not a woman that likes rough sex.

[Rosa Partizan]

Hey! I'd like an answer to my question!

your question is not that precisely :laugh: could you elaborate on it, pls?

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Well, look, I'm no gender scientist and it's really hard to tell for me about the power dynamics in other people's bedrooms. But I can tell you one thing for sure: Male expectations have changed, or let's say, start changing as more and more younger people watch porn, especially less experienced ones that internalize the sexual images they see. When I was a bit younger (cause I'm old now :lol:) I used to work in another "department" of that aids centre I told ya about, I was at schools and informing the students about aids, prevention, also sexuality in general and blah, and let me tell you, they had some real weird images of sex, like, they would want to film themselves when doing it, some of them had porn on their smartphones, they would think that anal sex is obligatory and that women with pubic hair are disgusting. And this is something that I got told by friends of mine that are teachers (I happen to know a lot of teachers, because I study popular subjects).

Especially when you're young, you tend to take it at face value. What you see is what you (should) get. And it's not even restricted to younger guys. There are guys in their end 20ies that think it's a compliment to tell you "this was as it is in porn". Yeah, cause I aim to be a porn actress, okay. But you see, I talk about it, I criticize it and I still do it! I can't get rid off it because that's the way I've been taught sexuality all my life. How would I know what I really want, in a non-patriarchal context? Of course, you're right, I wouldn't want anyone to tell me "stop doing what you do", but I'm very content with myself that I reflected on it and that I'm aware of the structure I grew up in and that it's nonsense to say "that's what I want, patriarchy played no part in it". That bold marked sentence is something I agree on, though. If you wanna be radical, you gotta find the root, and this is not a woman that likes rough sex.

Ah, I see what you're saying. You're saying that patriarchal structures in society are influencing mens' perceptions of women and give them completely bizarre expectations and perceptions about sex. Yeah, that makes sense.

It's interesting you brought up porn because I've been reading about that same subject recently. Porn does seem to be made completely for men. Even lesbian porn is generally made for men. And straight porn basically shows it from the man's point of views and the woman as completely shaved and just loves doing oral sex, and all that.

Ok well, I do see your point. That is true that a lot of guys who are virgins are extremely ignorant about sex because of porn. My temporary solution (other than capitalism not being a thing anymore) would be to maybe get more women in production and directors' positions in the porn industry. Although I am strongly against labeling porn as a bad thing. I think it's actually very positive. In countries where the porn is uhh… more freaky and more available… there are actually less sex crimes. Plus, it's actually very healthy for people in relationships to fantasize to keep their sex lives interesting. By the way, not saying you think porn is bad or anything, I was just going off on a tangent.

Ok so basically my post turned into a rant about porn lol. But yeah basically I agree.

[Rosa Partizan]

Okay, quote's not working...again :rolleyes:

look, this is very difficult. I like what you say in the beginning, but I'm not sure about that female director thing. Females are influenced by patriarchy, too, and there already exists "female porn", but it does nothing to change this inherently fucked up system. Porn becomes problematic as soon as it gets commercialized and industrialized. There's nothing wrong with making sex tapes by yourself or being a swinger and show it to your swinger friends at parties or anything, this already exists and I think it's cool when people are able to enjoy themselves this way. As a RadFem however, I know you won't change this system by doing "female friendly" stuff, it still legitimizes commercialized porn by saying, hey, we still need porn, let's just change it a bit. Let's ask why do we need it? Is our imagination so impoverished? (the imagination of many porn viewers is, actually) I don't claim to have a super duper solution, and I'm not like, let's ban everything that shows sex and that makes money of it. I'm just very sceptic about that "let's get female directors" thing. I just write this for discussion, I haven't found the best solution on it, so...the other thing is your point of view on societies with freaky porn...look: I read some time ago that where access to child porn was legal, there were less molestations of children. Does this sound wrong and fucked up to you? I guess so. So why would it be okay to exploit women for some "higher goal"? especially when you say that the porn is more freaky and stuff. You know that groping porn from Japan, in trams and metros and stuff? Did you know that this is actually really a HUGE problem in Japan? So huge that they have subways for women only. The reporting statistics in Japan is also incredibly lousy, but I don't have exact figures anymore, I just happened to read something about that "japan is so women-friendy cause of porn"-thing.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

your question is not that precisely :laugh: could you elaborate on it, pls?

One of your last posts was about being a "prude". What was the whole discussion behind that?

[Rosa Partizan]

One of your last posts was about being a "prude". What was the whole discussion behind that?

So sorry, I really don't get it. You mean that I was often called a prude? It was because I was so critical about stuff like shades of grey, porn, prostitution and stuff.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

So sorry, I really don't get it. You mean that I was often called a prude? It was because I was so critical about stuff like shades of grey, porn, prostitution and stuff.

Can you explain that further? You know, the relationship between that and the opposite perspective (being critical of "progress" i.e. conservative view)?

[Rosa Partizan]

Can you explain that further? You know, the relationship between that and the opposite perspective (being critical of "progress" i.e. conservative view)?

oh okay, well, I'm not the best writer, but I don't want to put you off with just some blog link. Let's start with the difference between Liberal Feminists and Radical ones. LibFem is like, if we just change some laws and if we get women in high positions with wealth and stuff, everything will be better. They focus on individualism, which means that every choice can be an empowering one, no matter what it is. To RadFems, just passing laws is not enough, cause we live in a faulty, structurally fucked up system that won't change just because some women hold powerful positions or dance in a string on MTV, cause they find it empowering. RadFems recognize that the problem are not laws or individualist lack of freedom, but this inherently oppressive system that values men and their social and sexual satisfaction more than that of females. So what do they do? They question it. And from questioning patriarchal phenomena like porn, prostitution, sexualization in media arises a certain question...what does it have to do with conservative values, because, you know, the church wouldn't approve of that stuff, either. The difference is the angle. Church and other conservative institutions are not interested in sexual female liberation. They don't go like "let's smash patriarchy so that you can find out by yourself what you like". They say "let's smash all this stuff so that it's easier to wait until marriage, to keep you pure and decent", while for a feminist, it doesn't matter if you sleep with 1 guy or 100, as long as you're able to find out about your own preferences (which is actually hard enough in this system). So the "result" may somehow sound very similar, but the reasons are quite different and sometimes I find it different to tell if a feminist is really a feminist or just...conservative...there are feminists that go like "prostitution fucks everything up, you can't have sex just like that, sex and love belong together, body and soul blahblah". To me, this is conservative bullshit.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

oh okay, well, I'm not the best writer, but I don't want to put you off with just some blog link. Let's start with the difference between Liberal Feminists and Radical ones. LibFem is like, if we just change some laws and if we get women in high positions with wealth and stuff, everything will be better. They focus on individualism, which means that every choice can be an empowering one, no matter what it is. To RadFems, just passing laws is not enough, cause we live in a faulty, structurally fucked up system that won't change just because some women hold powerful positions or dance in a string on MTV, cause they find it empowering. RadFems recognize that the problem are not laws or individualist lack of freedom, but this inherently oppressive system that values men and their social and sexual satisfaction more than that of females. So what do they do? They question it. And from questioning patriarchal phenomena like porn, prostitution, sexualization in media arises a certain question...what does it have to do with conservative values, because, you know, the church wouldn't approve of that stuff, either. The difference is the angle. Church and other conservative institutions are not interested in sexual female liberation. They don't go like "let's smash patriarchy so that you can find out by yourself what you like". They say "let's smash all this stuff so that it's easier to wait until marriage, to keep you pure and decent", while for a feminist, it doesn't matter if you sleep with 1 guy or 100, as long as you're able to find out about your own preferences (which is actually hard enough in this system). So the "result" may somehow sound very similar, but the reasons are quite different and sometimes I find it different to tell if a feminist is really a feminist or just...conservative...there are feminists that go like "prostitution fucks everything up, you can't have sex just like that, sex and love belong together, body and soul blahblah". To me, this is conservative bullshit.

The first half I already knew (Liberal Feminists and Radical Feminists), the second half was useful (the bit I wanted about the Church etc.). Also, political lesbianism is really weird.

Thanks by the way, Rosa.

[Rosa Partizan]

you're welcome. maybe tenka or quail would want to add something, I'm no authority at all when it comes to such questions.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Huh, yeah don't see the quote button either.

Anyway, good point about Japan. I did forget that they have horrible problems with public molestation in subways.

Also, yeah it wouldn't solve the problem but the only other solution is to well…. do away with capitalism. Which would be preaching to the choir. The issue is, they cater to males more because that's where the money is. If they thought they'd make more money off of women watching it, they'd do it. Companies don't care about societal values, they just want profits, and they feel that they will get more profit by catering to men I guess. Fucked up, yes. But taking away capitalism is one of the few ways to actually solve it because nobody will have that profit motive.

[Monkey Queen]

Well I'm sure there are plenty of threads on prostitution already. I didn't mean to derail the topic by using prostitution as a way of trying to make a point. I apologize for that, all! All I really aimed to do here was clarify the difference between sex-positives and sex-negatives, as I'm in the latter group, which is a fringe group within the overall feminist movement and one that's not very well understood precisely because it's a fringe group. Maybe I can make the difference clearer though:

Sex-positivity means that you consider sex a positive, good thing. The implication of that belief is that sexuality should be promoted. Many sex-positive feminists insist that it be promoted in an ostensibly egalitarian way (e.g. that women should 'own their sexuality'), but sex-positivity and feminism are also separable. So again, the fundamental, defining quality of sex-positivity is the view that sex is a positive, good thing that society should promote.

Sex-negativity means that you consider sex a neutral thing: something that's neither good nor bad by nature. Unlike sex-positivity, this orientation doesn't stigmatize those not interested in sex as "prudes" or "boring" or in some other way abnormal and unnatural. Sex-negative feminism instead recognizes that an individual's lack of interest in sex isn't a kind of mental illness or freakishness, but often a rational sentiment developed in response to the patriarchal conditions under which sex takes place and gets promoted in society.

Does that make things any clearer?

[Rosa Partizan]

It's stupid anyway that a critical attitude like sex-negativity has this, yeah, negative term! Patriarchy did it again and shut down useful, important discussions by implying that sex-negative feminists think that sex is something bad.

[Monkey Queen]

Well the term was invented by the rather self-congratulatory sex-positive feminists. However, it's appropriation by other feminists is only a recent development in my observation, driven precisely by a desire to get people's attention. ;) It's a sensational-sounding term, even though the corresponding politics are hardly anything but rational.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

So sorry, I really don't get it. You mean that I was often called a prude? It was because I was so critical about stuff like shades of grey, porn, prostitution and stuff.

If you are a prude, I'm in a convent. :tt2:

I say that endearingly.

[Lily Briscoe]

In reference to this example we're using of the sex industry, my own view is that, while the perspectives of the workers therein are surely important, it is more important to consider the interests and well-being of women as a sex, not just this or that section thereof. The overall interests of women as a sex come first and the perceived interests of sex workers come second.

Women don't have common interests 'as a sex' any more than e.g. Mexicans have common interests as a nationality or East Asians have common interests as a race. Women are as divided by class as anyone else, and talking of the common interest is always a way of sidelining the interests of workers in favor of the interests of bosses or whatever privileged subsection. Which seems to be exactly what you're doing here.

Also, in response to your pretty gross claim that virtually all sex workers are mentally ill* (complete with Mary Magdelene story), my comment could just as well have been taken as saying criticism of the sex industry needs to be approached from the perspective of the interests of the workers in the industry (as opposed to saying it needs to be approached from the perspective of the subjective opinions of random individual workers, which will tend to be as diverse as the subjective opinions of any other group of people).


*In addition to being mentally ill, it has also been previously established on revleft that 100% of sex workers are homeless, trafficked crack fiends held captive at gun point by cartel boss pimps, having begun their lives by being abused in the womb and then abandoned for dead in a gutter by their junkie mothers after a failed attempt at a back-alley late term abortion, at which point they were raised by sewer rats and became feral children. These are scientific facts.

[Depardieu]

my 2 cents on it:

There are certain feminist circles that have perverted the term of feminism into something totally random, pseudo-liberal. To them, pornography is empowering, working in a strip club or being a prostitute is empowering, Miley Cyrus twerking around is empowering. They call this sex-positive. The premise is that everything that a woman chooses to do is her own choice, so it must be empowering. I can't express with words how fucked up and annoying I find this. We got some feminist (or let me say "feminist") print magazine here. Their editor-in-chief was like "maybe prostitution can be liberating for a gipsy woman who comes to Germany from a poorer country". Puked just all over the magazine and decided never to buy it again. If this is sex-positive, I'm glad when I'm called sex-negative.

There are always decisions that are better than others, it's stupid to assume that any decision is equally good just because a women makes it. And yeah, I think that there is problematic stuff when it comes to your own sexuality. Being submissive in some BDSM-stuff CAN be problematic when lived out as in Shades of Grey i.e. (you know, when there is no equality between the partners and one depends on the other). Otherwise it's most important to question yourself. Your sexual preferences do not develop "just like that". I had to come to terms with my own preferences and thought a lot about it. And I would never ever be like "yeah girls, being submissive is so great and empowering, just try it". I find it still somehow problematic, because I know where it comes from and I know that pornography had a part in that, but I accepted it. As I said some time before, don't allow a laisser faire-attitude towards yourself. Reflect everything you do in the context of society and patriarchy.

i emphatically agree with all of this. and find it to be closely aligned with materialism and socialist outlooks in general. i would expand on this topic, but i think youve convered it well