Sex positive VS sex negative feminism

  1. dez
    dez
    Where do you stand, and why?
























    I myself was a sex-positive feminist, and now am sort of undecided.
  2. Pirate turtle the 11th
    Pirate turtle the 11th
    what do these terms mean?
  3. dez
    dez
    from the wiki

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_Sex_Wars

    The Feminist Sex Wars and Lesbian Sex Wars, or simply the Sex Wars or Porn Wars, were the acrimonious debates within the feminist movement and lesbian community in the late 1970s through the 1980s around the issues of feminist strategies regarding sexuality, sexual representation, pornography, sadomasochism, the role of transwomen in the lesbian community, and other sexual issues. The debate pitted anti-pornography feminism against sex-positive feminism, and the feminist movement ended up deeply divided as a result.[1][2][3][4][5]
    The Feminist Sex Wars are sometimes viewed as part of the division that helped end the second-wave feminist era.



    It still divided as of yet, and frankly what I get is that people have a real hard difficulty on separating sex from chauvinism.
  4. Salabra
    Salabra
    Definitely sex positive for several reasons.

    Firstly, from a purely libertarian point of view, because the right to have sex with the person(s) of my choice under circumstances that I choose — rather than having my sexual expression circumscribed by family, “church” or state, much less by “the patriarchy” or “capitalism” — is a necessary part of my freedom not only as a woman, but also as a human being.

    Secondly, as a lesbian, I know that sexual repression and homophobia go hand-in-hand. “The patriarchy” feels threatened enough by straight female sexuality — lesbianism drives it into a positive frenzy.

    Thirdly, as a communist, I recognize that sexual repression is essential to prop up the bourgeois family, the functions of which are to transmit private property to “legitimate” heirs through inheritance (in the higher social classes) and to instil obedience to traditional authority and workplace discipline in the proletariat.

    I am aware of the arguments of the “sex-negative” camp — that sexism and misogyny are pervasive and that the false consciousness inculcated by the bourgeois control of ideology is powerful, making it indeed “hard ... on separating sex from chauvinism” — but to me the “sex-negative” movement is quite Victorian in its outlook (yeah, yeah I know that, even though I shouldn’t need to, I’ll probably have to write on why I see that period as “wrong” — I’m also aware of the sexism and homophobia in much traditional Marxism). I honestly can’t see repression as anything but an overestimation of male power, both deterministic and ahistorical. As such, it inevitably leads to disengagement from the struggle to actually change the situation.
  5. amoureuse
    Sex positive in the sense that I'm an unrepentant slut.
  6. The Essence Of Flame Is The Essence Of Change
    Wait wait wait...I don't understand the sex negative stance correctly..are they puritans who believe sex to be sinful,degrading etc? I'm surely sex positive though, maybe a bit too much for the rest of the people in revleft lol
  7. Salabra
    Salabra
    Wait wait wait...I don't understand the sex negative stance correctly..are they puritans who believe sex to be sinful,degrading etc? I'm surely sex positive though, maybe a bit too much for the rest of the people in revleft lol
    As I understand it, the sex-negative (SN) stance is based on the premise that under both patriarchy and capitalism (I would prefer "under the conditions of women's oppression specific to capitalism"), sexuality is so distorted that freely-chosen sexual expression is impossible, both for gays and for straights. ALL sexual activity is therefore "exploitative," or potentially so. Thus, the SN feminist will be somewhat "puritanical" in both speech and action.

    There are, of course, degrees of sex-negativity - some SNs will simply regard all sexuality as "a private matter," some will regard only straight behaviour as exploitative, some will argue that even lesbian sexuality has been mediated and degraded by "the patriarchy."

    My own personal view is that SN takes women's oppression and turns it into a badge of honour - it makes us into "eternal victims" and inhibits us from struggling for change.

    And sex-positivity is nothing to be reticent about.
  8. Janine Melnitz
    Janine Melnitz
    Pro capitalist VS anti freedom socialism: What's your stance, and why?
  9. Janine Melnitz
    Janine Melnitz
    "Sex negativity" isn't a fucking political position, it's a slur invented by "third wave" feminists who agree with Hugh Hefner that their predecessors were uptight dykes who needed a lay.

    Some ideas that feminist writers have actually called "sex-negative":
    -All straight men benefit from patriarchy
    -Pornography is, at least, no less exploitative than any other capitalist industry; its products are indelibly marked by this exploitation; they thus sexualize exploitation
    --Linda Lovelace wasn't just lying because of an inexplicable turn to stodgy conservatism
    -Not every sex worker is having as much fun as an independently wealthy woman who writes a column about her "exploits" for salon.com; a few may even be having kind of a rough time
    -Any system of oppression has a pervasive ideology; ideologies of sexual oppression are sexual, and thus inform our desires, which are less tractable than racial prejudices or bourgie snobbery
    --Heterosexual relationships are for the most part pretty fucked up for this reason

    I might post more if I think of any
  10. Janine Melnitz
    Janine Melnitz
    Why are so many feminists from the sixties and seventies so sex-negative????? Is it because one of the most radically critical Western movements of the 20th century, even in the midst of a glorious "sexual revolution", was for no reason at all gripped by 19th century Victorian "prudery"? Or is it just because their daddies touched them wrong? (In the latter case we should pity them, but never listen or take them seriously -- the trauma has obviously driven them cRaZy.)
  11. Salabra
    Salabra
    "Sex negativity" isn't a fucking political position, it's a slur invented by "third wave" feminists who agree with Hugh Hefner that their predecessors were uptight dykes who needed a lay.
    So ARE you sex-positive or sex-negative?
    Seriously, (a) I am a sex-positive “dyke.” Where do I fit unto Uncle Hugh’s grand scheme? And (b) sexual repression is not inevitable, comrade, nor is it necessary to the Revolution.

    "Some ideas that feminist writers have actually called "sex-negative":

    -All straight men benefit from patriarchy
    They do, but the nature of their “benefit” depends on the class to which they belong

    -Pornography is, at least, no less exploitative than any other capitalist industry; its products are indelibly marked by this exploitation; they thus sexualize exploitation
    Debatable even under capitalism (See Wendy McElroy’s book XXX: AWoman’s Right to Pornography,St Martin’s Press, 1995). A socialist society would refrain from regulating any sexual behaviour predicated on the effective consent of all parties (and yes, this will require prolonged ideological struggle).

    -Linda Lovelace wasn't just lying because of an inexplicable turn to stodgy conservatism
    I fail to grasp your syntax — are you implying that Ms Lovelace was lying for some other reason? Or should “just” come after “lying.” If the latter is the case, I have no debate with you — Linda’s work was a product of what you rightly call a capitalist industry.

    -Not every sex worker is having as much fun as an independently wealthy woman who writes a column about her "exploits" for salon.com; a few may even be having kind of a rough time
    Once again, definitely no argument. The horrific exploitation of many women and men in the sex industry (including beatings, rape and even murder) goes hand-in-glove with capitalism’s hypocritical “family values.” A socialist government would decriminalize prostitution and treat it as any other profession, giving the term “sex worker” real content.

    -Any system of oppression has a pervasive ideology; ideologies of sexual oppression are sexual, and thus inform our desires, which are less tractable than racial prejudices or bourgie snobbery
    --Heterosexual relationships are for the most part pretty fucked up for this reason
    I’m not sure what you mean by this. Are you simply stating that sexuality is “born not made”? (I would only partially agree here — I have said in many posts that I am not entirely a biological determinist) Are you implying that sexuality is not “political”? (In which case, your “second-wave feminists” would be the first to disagree with you). Or are you saying that, because heterosexuality is normative in capitalist society, few women ever get the chance to find out if they might, in fact, be gay? (This I totally agree with!)

    I might post more if I think of any
    Please do!

    Why are so many feminists from the sixties and seventies so sex-negative????? Is it because one of the most radically critical Western movements of the 20th century, even in the midst of a glorious "sexual revolution", was for no reason at all gripped by 19th century Victorian "prudery"?
    “Second-wave” (radical) feminism was never a homogenous “movement” — it was a whole flurry of diverse currents, akin to Trotskyism, though even more diffuse.

    Still, I can give you several reasons why the many feminists turned to “Victorian prudery” at the time. The primary one is that the men of the “New Left” were arrogant bastards who felt that the “sexual revolution” gave them the opportunity to act like pigs in shite and get “it” on their own terms, whenever, wherever and as often as they wanted with no thought for their partners. After several thousand years of misogynistic repression, it took a while for women to learn to feel comfortable doing the same to their male counterparts.

    However, a deeper reason lay precisely in that repression. Second-wave feminists, like gays at the same period, were seeking liberation, not merely equality. Rejecting both traditional Marxism and Freudian psychology, but searching for a “materialist” explanation of their oppression, they came to the conclusion that its basis was biological — women had always been oppressed and would always be oppressed as long as they remained women; men had always been oppressors and would always be oppressors as long as they remained men. This was later elaborated into a “Marxist-like” schema of base and superstructure, but, since the base was biological, “it could never be changed” — men, and by extension the system which served men’s interests (“the patriarchy”) were the eternal enemy, to be resisted at all costs. Men and their interests were always opposed to women and theirs.

    It is this line of thought that leads to the analogy of heterosexual relationships as colonization and “imperialism” and restricting sexual expression as part of the struggle for liberation. Unlike the repression of the Victorian period, this repression was self-imposed, and therefore “revolutionary” (a similar argument is used by muslims and islamophile “socialists” to argue that the hijab/burqa is a tool of “liberation”).

    In a pattern common to the oppressed, the radical feminists (who initially were mainly white, middle-class, tertiary-educated Americans) took all the “negatives” that were stacked against them in Western culture — women were “irrational,” “passive,” “asexual/non-sexual/anti-sexual” etc etc —and turned them into positives. This was even applied to the biological “base” — instead of “the Curse of God,” for example, menstruation became “the Gift of the Goddess.”

    Second-wave feminism was idealist and static rather than materialist and historical. Moreover, it attempted to unite women ACROSS classes rather than split them along class lines. It was thus wrongheaded, but not wrong — the insights it provided into the nature and causes of women’s oppression were inestimably valuable, even if its solutions were less useful.

    Or is it just because their daddies touched them wrong? (In the latter case we should pity them, but never listen or take them seriously -- the trauma has obviously driven them cRaZy.)
    I’m a Marxist, not a Freudian. I prefer to seek explanations in society, not by mucking about in the heads of individuals.

    One may as well blame the sexual repression of Stalinism on the time Iosef Jugashvili spent studying for the priesthood, or the Holocaust on Hitler’s overprotective but psychologically damaged mother and his mental abuse at the hands of his father.
  12. Janine Melnitz
    Janine Melnitz
    And (b) sexual repression is not inevitable, comrade, nor is it necessary to the Revolution.
    Tell me all about the feminist authors who have sung praises to "repression". Also, are you claiming that "repression" isn't ever necessary? What about the various species of sexual predator, with their near-100% rate of recidivism?
    -All straight men benefit from patriarchy
    They do, but the nature of their “benefit” depends on the class to which they belong
    Yes.
    -Pornography is, at least, no less exploitative than any other capitalist industry; its products are indelibly marked by this exploitation; they thus sexualize exploitation
    Debatable even under capitalism (See Wendy McElroy’s book XXX: AWoman’s Right to Pornography,St Martin’s Press, 1995).
    I might read it; I assume she's not arguing against the first point?
    I fail to grasp your syntax
    No, you didn't, you pointed out that it wasn't so great so you could score smartypants points.
    A socialist government would decriminalize prostitution and treat it as any other profession, giving the term “sex worker” real content.
    I'm not opposed to this "in principle", but I'm unsure as to how a sex industry could exist without the profit motive. Would a publicly-employed hooker have a quota? Would the state pay her more for anal than a blowjob? How would it determine which had gone on? I admit I haven't read much on this topic, if much has been written, but I'm skeptical. As for pornography, I don't think there's a lot of media, sexual or otherwise, that would deserve or require funding under socialism; people would have an easy enough time producing it for reasons other than to make a living.
    I’m not sure what you mean by this. Are you simply stating that sexuality is “born not made”? (I would only partially agree here — I have said in many posts that I am not entirely a biological determinist)
    What?
    Are you implying that sexuality is not “political”? (In which case, your “second-wave feminists” would be the first to disagree with you).
    What???
    Or are you saying that, because heterosexuality is normative in capitalist society, few women ever get the chance to find out if they might, in fact, be gay? (This I totally agree with!)
    No. That's true, but no, what I was saying is that the heterosexual norm, because patriarchal, is sadistic; that the actual, nigh-impossible-to-alter proclivities (nature v. nurture doesn't really have anything to do with it) of genuine heterosexuals are, to an overwhelming degree, informed by normative sadism (not "sadomasochism" -- the norm endorses male subjectivity exclusively, hence the huge number even today of straight girls who don't get much out of fucking); and that the consequences for the majority of straight relationships are much more dire than BDSM "play".
    “Second-wave” (radical) feminism was never a homogenous “movement” — it was a whole flurry of diverse currents, akin to Trotskyism, though even more diffuse.
    Right, and it's even possible that this diversity included positions that could fairly be called anti-sex or whatever; it's silly to pretend, however, that such positions had enough prominence or importance to make "sex-positivity" a meaningful new distinction. Silliness isn't the worst of it though; even if the enjoyment of sex is a brand-new direction for feminists, do the constant battle-cries of "sex-positivity" (as if contemporary Western capitalist ideology were opposed to anyone getting off) and the eagerness to publicly tar other feminists with the opposite term (as far as I can see, its only utility) remind you of anything? Sectarianism and opportunism aren't just for Marxists after all.
    Rejecting both traditional Marxism and Freudian psychology, but searching for a “materialist” explanation of their oppression, they came to the conclusion that its basis was biological —
    This is a respectable family of arguments that don't necessarily imply an essentialist or immutable view of sexed psychology.
    women had always been oppressed and would always be oppressed as long as they remained women; men had always been oppressors and would always be oppressors as long as they remained men.
    Again, a respectable argument and not one that implies essentialism; like you said, "as long as they remained men".
    This was later elaborated into a “Marxist-like” schema of base and superstructure, but, since the base was biological, “it could never be changed”
    Yes, and this can be seen in Gloria Steinem's transphobia. She's a liberal and a bigot, but it would be silly to accuse her of being "repressed" or anti-sex. That's not the problem.
    It is this line of thought that leads to the analogy of heterosexual relationships as colonization and “imperialism”
    An astute one I'd add.
    and restricting sexual expression as part of the struggle for liberation.
    As a strategy, not a terrible one -- even if only for self-preservation's sake. Women for the most part weren't, and aren't, "expressing" themselves in heterosexual relationships. This is not their fault, has nothing to do with them being "repressed" or uptight (the popular word in the 60s-70s was "frigid").
    Unlike the repression of the Victorian period, this repression was self-imposed
    No.
    In a pattern common to the oppressed, the radical feminists (who initially were mainly white, middle-class, tertiary-educated Americans) took all the “negatives” that were stacked against them in Western culture — women were “irrational,” “passive,” “asexual/non-sexual/anti-sexual” etc etc —and turned them into positives.
    A real tendency, and an unfortunate one, and again the problem is essentialism, not "repression" or hostility to orgasms.
    Second-wave feminism was idealist and static rather than materialist and historical. Moreover, it attempted to unite women ACROSS classes rather than split them along class lines.
    C'mon, you're the one who was going on about the movement's diversity. Genuinely materialist feminism is older than either of us I'm sure.
    I’m a Marxist, not a Freudian.
    Then why do you keep talking about "repression"? Can you clarify what you mean by this word you've used so many times?
  13. bromide
    bromide
    I am a sex-positive feminist. I enjoy sex and erotic imagery as long as it's entirely consensual. I know that most arguments by sex-negative feminists are actually arguments against capitalist and patriarchal exploitation of sexuality and I agree with them. I don't feel however that all sex is or must be spoiled by these things, nor that one should have a negative view of human sexuality because of it. Sexuality belongs to all of us, and it's our right as feminists to reclaim it on a personal level.

    In terms of the legality of prostitution, it's an issue I struggle with. I'm writing a thesis on human trafficking in this city and I know that clandestine sex workers, people who enter the profession as untrafficked adults with the economic means to choose other professions and without a history of sexual violence from a young age are an extreme rarity. Despite this, the criminalization of prostitution has had no benefit for trafficked people. It turns them into criminals who are pushed into prison then back out onto the streets to be exploited again. Criminalization denies the fact that trafficked people are victims who often need decades of counseling, a safe place to live, and non-judgmental assistance. Clearly this is not a viable answer.

    Essentially I can understand both sides of this issue, but I choose to be comfortable with my own sexuality.
  14. freedon
    freedon
    Is there such a thing as politically correct erotica and is it really hot enough for you? answer for straight, gay or lesbian. Does good porn ever come from a socialist country?
  15. Crux
    Crux
    In capitalist society sex is too commodified, pornography even more so. But yeah is there really such a thing as "sex-negative" feminism? Sounds like a slur to me.
  16. SammXVX
    SammXVX
    A woman is the owner of her body, therefore she can choose how she treats it.
    To be more open with her body, and partake in more... "racy" things is just as much as a Feminist choice as to be more reserved and keep herself "more together".

    No man should be able to make this choice for us, as we would not force them into making a choice in their lives.
  17. SammXVX
    SammXVX
    I am a sex-positive feminist. I enjoy sex and erotic imagery as long as it's entirely consensual. I know that most arguments by sex-negative feminists are actually arguments against capitalist and patriarchal exploitation of sexuality and I agree with them. I don't feel however that all sex is or must be spoiled by these things, nor that one should have a negative view of human sexuality because of it. Sexuality belongs to all of us, and it's our right as feminists to reclaim it on a personal level.

    In terms of the legality of prostitution, it's an issue I struggle with. I'm writing a thesis on human trafficking in this city and I know that clandestine sex workers, people who enter the profession as untrafficked adults with the economic means to choose other professions and without a history of sexual violence from a young age are an extreme rarity. Despite this, the criminalization of prostitution has had no benefit for trafficked people. It turns them into criminals who are pushed into prison then back out onto the streets to be exploited again. Criminalization denies the fact that trafficked people are victims who often need decades of counseling, a safe place to live, and non-judgmental assistance. Clearly this is not a viable answer.

    Essentially I can understand both sides of this issue, but I choose to be comfortable with my own sexuality.
    I agree with you completely.
    When you say "consensual" you mean, as long as she, made the decision herself, correct?
  18. Queercommie Girl
    Queercommie Girl
    I don't understand why trans-women as a category would feature in this debate. Trans-women as a group do not necessarily subscribe to either sex-positive or sex-negative feminism. It is wrong to think that all trans-women fit into the "ultra-feminine" stereotype. There are many trans-women who are tomboyish, and other trans-women who are very prudish.

    If some in the feminist movement would like to reject trans-women for some reason, it clearly cannot be due to either because trans-women are too sex-positive or too sex-negative.
  19. Salabra
    Salabra
    I don't understand why trans-women as a category would feature in this debate. Trans-women as a group do not necessarily subscribe to either sex-positive or sex-negative feminism. It is wrong to think that all trans-women fit into the "ultra-feminine" stereotype. There are many trans-women who are tomboyish, and other trans-women who are very prudish.

    If some in the feminist movement would like to reject trans-women for some reason, it clearly cannot be due to either because trans-women are too sex-positive or too sex-negative.
    The terms 'positive' and 'negative' in this context refer to one's attitude to sexual activity, not to one's position along an axis of perceived 'masculininity' or 'femininity.'

    *I* certainly don't reject trans-women. Indeed, I regard those who do as poorly as I regard homophobes.
  20. Queercommie Girl
    Queercommie Girl
    The terms 'positive' and 'negative' in this context refer to one's attitude to sexual activity, not to one's position along an axis of perceived 'masculininity' or 'femininity.'

    *I* certainly don't reject trans-women. Indeed, I regard those who do as poorly as I regard homophobes.
    Sorry if I was been unclear.

    I wasn't potentially accusing anyone of transphobia here at all. My point is that some people think the issue of transgenderism is relevant to the debate within feminism regarding "sex-positive" vs. "sex-negative", and while I agree that the issue of "feminism and transgenderism" and the role trans-women can and should play within the feminist movement is an important topic in its own right, it is completely independent of the "sex-positive" vs. "sex-negative" debate.
  21. Salabra
    Salabra
    My point is that some people think the issue of transgenderism is relevant to the debate within feminism regarding "sex-positive" vs. "sex-negative" and while I agree that the issue of "feminism and transgenderism" and the role trans-women can and should play within the feminist movement is an important topic in its own right, it is completely independent of the "sex-positive" vs. "sex-negative" debate.
    Unnderstand ... and agree totally.
  22. Crimson Commissar
    Crimson Commissar
    I'm sort of neutral on this subject. I'm not against pornography itself, but instead the capitalistic nature of pornography. I have no problem with two people fucking eachother and uploading that video to the internet for others to enjoy, as long as it's consensual. I do have a problem with people making money from that and exploiting people with it, however.
  23. Summerspeaker
    Summerspeaker
    A socialist government would decriminalize prostitution and treat it as any other profession, giving the term “sex worker” real content.
    Alternatively, revolutionaries might do something like this. As Concha says, "El amor debe ser libre, no comprado. (Love must be free, not bought.)"
  24. Property Is Robbery
    Property Is Robbery
    Positive

    "It is essential that we realize once and for all that man is much more of a sex creature than a moral creature. The former is inherent, the other is grafted on." - Emma Goldman
  25. mosfeld
    mosfeld
    I subscribe to the slur "sex-negative" -- i.e., Im not a liberal or an apologist/supporter of women's oppression which is enforced by pornography (amongst other means..)

    Take a look at the radical feminist "Against Pornography" website for real information.
  26. mosfeld
    mosfeld
    Radical feminists are also against gay pornography and deem it as harmful and oppressive towards homosexual males. There's a section on it on the link I sent.
  27. Sixiang
    Sixiang
    After research and deep contemplation and debating it, I have became anti pornography. I do not like the phrase "sex-negative" because I do not have a negative view or hatred of sex. I'm not a monk. I have mosfeld to thank for sending me links to help me become aware of this view and way of thinking about pornography.
  28. Monkey Riding Dragon
    Monkey Riding Dragon
    As for me, I consider myself I guess essentially sex-positive, but that does not mean that I support the prevailing expressions of sexuality in culture. Don't get me wrong, I don't think pornography should be outlawed or anything, but I do think that almost all of it is clearly designed for a male target audience and, as such, focuses very lopsidedly on male pleasure. And, with the de-stigmatization of pornography in the era of the Internet, we've started to see real-world results that reflect that, such as the growth of male-centric practices like blow jobs and anal sex here in the U.S. (they're male centric in that they have orgasmic potential only for the male party). If there were a proportionate emphasis on female pleasure, I might not be so disheartened. But frankly, it seems that the particular way in which our culture is being sexualized is, in fact, male chauvinist.

    There was a study concluded recently which found that hook-up culture is largely male chauvinist in that both the male and female participants therein, as an overall (though not absolute) rule, tend to have negative attitudes about most women. That just kind of confirms my suspicions that such was the case.

    I don't think all porn is bad or that there's too much sexuality in culture or anything. It's not a matter of proportions, it's a matter of forms, if that makes sense. I think openness about sex can be a good thing, but it becomes depressing to me when it's all just about men getting whatever they want. Maybe it's because I'm getting older, but the whole male entitlement thing is wearing on my nerves. Whatever position that represents in this sex-positive/negative spectrum is mine.
  29. Sixiang
    Sixiang
    There was a study concluded recently which found that hook-up culture is largely male chauvinist in that both the male and female participants therein, as an overall (though not absolute) rule, tend to have negative attitudes about most women. That just kind of confirms my suspicions that such was the case.

    I think openness about sex can be a good thing, but it becomes depressing to me when it's all just about men getting whatever they want. Maybe it's because I'm getting older, but the whole male entitlement thing is wearing on my nerves.
    I largely feel like that, too.
  30. Bad Grrrl Agro
    Bad Grrrl Agro
    So ARE you sex-positive or sex-negative?
    Seriously, (a) I am a sex-positive “dyke.” Where do I fit unto Uncle Hugh’s grand scheme? And (b) sexual repression is not inevitable, comrade, nor is it necessary to the Revolution.



    They do, but the nature of their “benefit” depends on the class to which they belong


    Debatable even under capitalism (See Wendy McElroy’s book XXX: AWoman’s Right to Pornography,St Martin’s Press, 1995). A socialist society would refrain from regulating any sexual behaviour predicated on the effective consent of all parties (and yes, this will require prolonged ideological struggle).


    I fail to grasp your syntax — are you implying that Ms Lovelace was lying for some other reason? Or should “just” come after “lying.” If the latter is the case, I have no debate with you — Linda’s work was a product of what you rightly call a capitalist industry.



    Once again, definitely no argument. The horrific exploitation of many women and men in the sex industry (including beatings, rape and even murder) goes hand-in-glove with capitalism’s hypocritical “family values.” A socialist government would decriminalize prostitution and treat it as any other profession, giving the term “sex worker” real content.



    I’m not sure what you mean by this. Are you simply stating that sexuality is “born not made”? (I would only partially agree here — I have said in many posts that I am not entirely a biological determinist) Are you implying that sexuality is not “political”? (In which case, your “second-wave feminists” would be the first to disagree with you). Or are you saying that, because heterosexuality is normative in capitalist society, few women ever get the chance to find out if they might, in fact, be gay? (This I totally agree with!)


    Please do!



    “Second-wave” (radical) feminism was never a homogenous “movement” — it was a whole flurry of diverse currents, akin to Trotskyism, though even more diffuse.

    Still, I can give you several reasons why the many feminists turned to “Victorian prudery” at the time. The primary one is that the men of the “New Left” were arrogant bastards who felt that the “sexual revolution” gave them the opportunity to act like pigs in shite and get “it” on their own terms, whenever, wherever and as often as they wanted with no thought for their partners. After several thousand years of misogynistic repression, it took a while for women to learn to feel comfortable doing the same to their male counterparts.

    However, a deeper reason lay precisely in that repression. Second-wave feminists, like gays at the same period, were seeking liberation, not merely equality. Rejecting both traditional Marxism and Freudian psychology, but searching for a “materialist” explanation of their oppression, they came to the conclusion that its basis was biological — women had always been oppressed and would always be oppressed as long as they remained women; men had always been oppressors and would always be oppressors as long as they remained men. This was later elaborated into a “Marxist-like” schema of base and superstructure, but, since the base was biological, “it could never be changed” — men, and by extension the system which served men’s interests (“the patriarchy”) were the eternal enemy, to be resisted at all costs. Men and their interests were always opposed to women and theirs.

    It is this line of thought that leads to the analogy of heterosexual relationships as colonization and “imperialism” and restricting sexual expression as part of the struggle for liberation. Unlike the repression of the Victorian period, this repression was self-imposed, and therefore “revolutionary” (a similar argument is used by muslims and islamophile “socialists” to argue that the hijab/burqa is a tool of “liberation”).

    In a pattern common to the oppressed, the radical feminists (who initially were mainly white, middle-class, tertiary-educated Americans) took all the “negatives” that were stacked against them in Western culture — women were “irrational,” “passive,” “asexual/non-sexual/anti-sexual” etc etc —and turned them into positives. This was even applied to the biological “base” — instead of “the Curse of God,” for example, menstruation became “the Gift of the Goddess.”

    Second-wave feminism was idealist and static rather than materialist and historical. Moreover, it attempted to unite women ACROSS classes rather than split them along class lines. It was thus wrongheaded, but not wrong — the insights it provided into the nature and causes of women’s oppression were inestimably valuable, even if its solutions were less useful.



    I’m a Marxist, not a Freudian. I prefer to seek explanations in society, not by mucking about in the heads of individuals.

    One may as well blame the sexual repression of Stalinism on the time Iosef Jugashvili spent studying for the priesthood, or the Holocaust on Hitler’s overprotective but psychologically damaged mother and his mental abuse at the hands of his father.
    Thank you!
12