Unbelievable synchronicity -- On Sex Positiveness

[Morgana LaFey]

Within the last 1/2 hour I was pulling up a link to Stan Goff to post on another thread, who had a link to Feminista on his blog, which had this fascinating and spot on article:

On Sex Positiveness
http://www.feminista.com/issues/article.php?type=essay&number=6&v=6&n=1

So naturally I came here to share it, since it's so dynamite, only to find out that there was already a thread on this subject started -- is he trying to recruit or something???? -- but lo and behold, *I* cannot post this to that thread. How funny. (I don't have anyone on MY block list. Do you?? Doesn't that seem a little, uh, CLOSE MINDED -- which is exactly what WE get accused of being all the damn time??)

On to this terrific commentary. IMO, her initial response (3rd par. below) is about the best response I've yet seen to the whole dreadful and manipulative notion of "sex positive feminism" (but the whole thing is a must read):

I decided to hang ten on my keyboard and surf the net to see if I could find any clue as to what was considered the meaning of these words. In doing so, I stumbled upon this interesting one:

"What exactly is this thing called sex positivity? It's a public denial that sex is an ugly thing and should be hidden. It's a movement based on pleasure-as-revolution and radical self-expression. It's also a theory of social justice: the idea is that the experiences of sexual and social freedom will teach us to seek more fundamental kinds of freedom, such as economic equality."

So let me get this straight, women are just going to copulate their way into equality and liberation?! And copulating will promote social and economic freedom? Hmmmm, I wonder why no one has ever thought of this before?!

But that's not what happened. What it did was allow men free and easy access to sex without that real drag of protocol, courtship and responsibility. The same old thing still occurred for women though. Women got pregnant. Women had babies. Women were still expected to take care of the children, do the household chores and wash men's streaked underwear. Women were still expected to take a back seat to men, and were denied leadership and any kind of important roles. Well then, just who exactly did this liberate and free? Well it sure wasn't women!

It didn't take women too long to figure out that they had been conned.

But time and time again, women's history and their lessons learned are erased and forgotten. As a result, each new generation of women is conned into thinking that they are discovering sex as something new. All each generation winds up doing is re-inventing the wheel once again and discovering the same old hard lessons that countless generations of women before them have found out. The benefits of these Sexual Revolutions and Sex Positive movements were never meant to benefit women or to free or liberate them. They were designed to allow men free access to women's bodies while still retaining their male privilege and benefits and positions of power and dominance granted to them under the patriarchy.

Read the whole thing, you'll not be sorry.
http://www.feminista.com/issues/article.php?type=essay&number=6&v=6&n=1

And now (sigh) I guess I have to go counterblock the poor devil mongo (and I guess I should also counterblock my other terribly juvenile anti-admirer in that other thread who I noticed had also blocked me) so I don't have the situation of him polluting this thread and me not being able to respond to HIM.

And so it goes.


Done. And oh, how FUNNY. I'd forgotten that I can't "undo" the option for 1 week. Like who'd WANT to? :rofl:

[Warpy]

1. Free love has never been free for women

who bear many if not most of the serious consequences when it goes all wrong. The worst most men face is a case of the clap followed by a paternity suit. Women have to deal with the STDs plus consider the unattractive alternatives of surgical abortion or risking their lives to produce an unwanted child. Plus there's still a power disparity that makes it difficult for a woman to request (let alone demand) her partner protect her health by wearing a condom.

However, that certainly didn't stop us once the pill became available to us. We were feminists who joyously explored a lower risk, guilt free sexuality. If that's what they meant by sex positive feminism, I'm all for it.

Alas, it isn't. Paglia and others want the bodies of women available without considering that there may be serious consequences of keeping women's primary function a sexual one.

I wish Paglia would stop calling herself a feminist. She most certainly is not.

[Morgana LaFey]

2. Maybe she thinks she's a feminist because

she's a sex-positive lesbian???? Or is she bi? Or simply confused? I can't remember. My point: maybe she's just another sexual predator. Frankly, that makes the most sense of anything I've ever thought about her. It's always amazed me how intelligent women (never mind the status of their mental health for the moment) could be anti-woman.

[Porcupine]

4. No, It's been an interest bearing asset.

Women in the U.S. and Western Europe control sexuality and they know it. My 20ish neighbor has a t-shirt that she wears; it says.."I have the PUSSY so I make the rules." It's soo true.

Multiple sociological studies of men and women in courtship situations make it clear that women choose their sex partners from available men not the other way around. They by and large expect to trade up, gain a mate with social or mating status (health, looks, financial power or political/social power) greater than theirs. That is they gain assets.

Where women are allowed freedom of sexual expression they have more opportunities to evaluate mates for compatibility. The nice guy who's a great dancer and has the great job building windmills; if he's kinky you can keep him or dump him. Or she can give him anal once every three months as a reward mechanism without the expectation of shame or guilt. Greater sexual freedom means she has more choices and more power.

I'm sick of feminist screeds claiming that women are somehow sexual victims in normal (not abusive) relationships. The women I know in hetero relationships direct their husbands and boyfriends. If the men don't like it they know where the door is. This actualy applies to several men I know who remain in loveless marraiges so that they can be close to their kids. Should they get a divorce they know their access to the children will be secondary at best.

The feminists last remaining complaint is that men earn more money. Well that's true and it is a problem. On the other hand women spend more money once it is earned; why don't you complain about that?

:rant:

[John Gauger]

5. Y'know, your post had so many

fewer words than that article, and yet it said so much more. It made so much more sense; it had anecdotal evidence in clear support of an explicitly stated position. I understand what your point it quite easily. I am writing a term paper right now and I can tell you when you see a document with that many vague words and disparate, poorly defined concepts, it's bullshit. Of course, I may just be sore because I don't understand that thing at all.

About your thesis; I remember in high school my brother was always complaining that every day he saw young women with men that treated them like shit. I remember some of that from the cafeteria: I'm not talking about good-natured ribbing, I'm talking about what could reasonably be called abuse. How does that fit into your paradigm?

[Porcupine]

7. Abusive relationships span all gender groups.

I can't say I can understand or explain abusive relationships. I do know that they span all types of pairings and gender groups. There are abusive relationships where women hit thier male spouses; I worked with a guy once whose wife beat him. There are abusive relationships in lesbian relationships. Go figure.

A woman in an abusive relationships stay for complex and poorly understood reasons. Some women leave "normal" relationships in order to pursue abusive relationships. It seems some women will choose to stay in such relationships even while in contact with counselors and with shelter available. I can only say that women should be supported once they choose to leave.

Abusive relationships do not dictate the power exchange in "normal" relationships. In those power exchanges women frequently come out ahead.

[John Gauger]

14. That's a good answer.

While such relationships are all too common, they can't be said to be "normal," I guess. Although, can a relationship where a woman uses her sexuality as a weapon really be said to be normal either? I suppose it can, insofar as it isn't "abusive." I have a book with an essay in it by the man that convinced America that wife-beating was real back in the sixties. He says that just as many men are abused by women as vice versa, but it's even harder to get America to believe that than it was to get America to wrap its head around the fact that men were routinely mistreating their wives. He points out that the day after the Monica story broke, Bill had a visible whelt on the side of his face. While this was treated in the media as a prime bit of juicy gossip, nobody ever accused Hillary of being abusive. (For myself, I don't think she hit him. I think she already knew about it. She must have suspected he was screwing around. He had been doing it for so long, I don't know how she could possibly have been unaware. But I don't believe that their marriage is about love. It's about political power. They're not so much a marriage as a business partnership. I have read that Hillary is visibly distant from Bill and Chelsea.)

I however don't know how any man could mistreat a woman. I always take special care to be as polite and deferential to the women in my dorm as I can. When I knock on a door and they say, "It's open," I ask, "Does that mean I can come in?" I want to be absolutely certain that I have permission to enter the room. I never sit down or touch anything without asking permission. I always try to keep my distance for fear of making my friends uncomfortable. I am always as conscientious as I can possibly be: "Can I help you with that?" "I'll get it," "I have some in my room" or "I think I know somebody that could help you with that, if you'd like," "Really, it's not too much trouble." I make a conscious effort not to look at women passing down the hall on the way to the shower in a towel (It's not easy.) I never have to even think about, I just kind of act that way naturally. But then, I guess I act more or less the same way with my male friends. I could never even think of being mean or violent towards a woman, especially if she were my girlfriend.

Oh, and I don't think you're being bitter.

[Warpy]

6. Upon what planet is all that true?

We're smaller and weaker, buddy, and don't pretend some males don't take advantage of that.

Sorry not to put the stamp of approval on that silly statement, but it's completely out of line.

[Porcupine]

9. Women have greater social leverage.....

Smaller and weaker may apply in some cases but overall women enjoy greater social leverage. I actually used to have a martial arts instructor who was less than half my weight. She more than amply demonstrated that smaller/weaker did not mean helpless by any means.

Judging by the lack of women in most martial arts classes I would say the smaller/weaker problem is not so much a concern that they are willing to invest time and energy to overcome it. The number of women in yoga and aerobics classes suggests that they have other concerns.

[Warpy]

10. Let's see, you're comparing a martial arts instructor

to the average young gal in a relationship?

Good grief.

[Quantess]

12. That physical strength of women is even an issue for you.....

...is scary.

[Porcupine]

13. It wasn't MY issue. See post #6

I merely pointed out that most women who excercise choose not to do so in a way that would enhance their ability to project physical power. It may be that they do not percieve physical threats as a pressing problem.

The "you're not attractive" reponse to posts on issues is straight from the patriarchy playbook. It's right up there with "she's a feminist because she's ugly as a boot." And about as relevent.

Please refrain.

[Atargatis]

17. Interesting you know why "most women who exercise choose not

to do so in a way that would enhance their ability to project physical power". They told you so? Martial arts is the only form of exercise in which women can develop strength?

Maybe some women choose not to learn violent ways of interaction? Maybe they prefer martial arts that emphasize the spiritual/personal growth aspect?
Maybe they just want to be able to feel healthy in their physical bodies rather than learn to punch and kick people?

Oh wait, maybe you have another study with another link?

[Quantess]

22. LOL. Saying someone's attitude is not attractive

"...is straight from the patriarchy playbook":rofl:

I see I've stumbled upon a casualty of unsatisfactory relationships with women. Some people just don't understand how to get along with the opposite sex, so they channel it into hostility and bitterness, which of course only decreases the chances of ever finding your ideal mate.

Sadly, a lot of people are this way.

[Book Lover]

23. It has to do with the fact of how the martial arts are taught

and marketed in this country. You are right insofar as American women as a whole do not look at martial arts training as a viable exercise choice. This is a result of the arts not being taught in high schools or college (and so are unfamiliar), as well as the fact that the atmosphere in dojos (the ones that aren't babysitting services, anyway) are boys clubs. Also, yoga and aerobics are not systems that require learning and practice (uh-oh. I just pissed off all the yoga practitioners here...) in the same way even the simplest martial arts are.

[Porcupine]

29. Martial Arts are about emotional growth....

contrary to what the popular image is. The only person you get to master is yourself; the only person who's action's you get to control are yours. The only way to advance beyond bigger, stronger, faster is to open your awareness to the person facing you and be receptive to their actions.

A woman taught me that.

Here's some links:
http://www.amazon.com/Sharp-Spear-Crystal-Mirror-Martial/dp/0892816627">Sharp Spear, Crystal Mirror: Martial Arts in Women's Lives
http://www.amazon.com/Women-Martial-Arts-Io-No/dp/1556431368">Women in the Martial Arts
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1510/is_n62/ai_7422491/pg_1">online article

Look! even-http://ctct.essortment.com/womenmartialar_rcmc.htm">Problems women face in the Martial arts

But if you want to persist in thinking it's primarily about violence and hitting go ahead. But it is about power, exchange and sensitivity.

The OP derided the concept women controling thier sexuality was empowering. I think women should be empowered WAY BEYOND just controlling their sexuality. After all; who else is going to do it?

[Book Lover]

30. I did not say that and you know it

I wrote about how the arts are precieved by women; we in general are unfamiliar with it because it is not taught in general education {unlike aerobics and yoga} and because dojos are not places where you can just walk in and feel comfortable as a woman. I have visited many in my time. I have good friends who practice and teach. Nowhere did I say that the arts are all about the hitting. Reread my post. I will await your apology.

[Quantess]

11. Get over your bitterness, please. It isn't attractive.

Women are bitter. Men are bitter. You aren't telling us anything new, here, porcupine.

People of both sexes need to become more attuned to who they are, and to develop their own personalities, before expecting to meet the love of their life.

[Atargatis]

16. Hey, I like sociological studies...got any links?

What's the deal around here with men (presumed so by what's listed in their profiles) coming into a Women's Rights forum and attacking feminism or "feminist screeds"?

Isn't there an "I hate all women" forum around here for these guys to go have their circle-jerk in?

[Quantess]

25. Y'know, it might not be such a bad idea

to have a forum where men can get together and complain about women, if it means they won't come here to complain about women.

Obviously, some of the males who post in the women's forum have issues. (Not all of them).
I don't know what happened to them, to foster such bitterness toward all women. Maybe their mom made them wear a dress, or some woman laughed at their small penis 15 years ago, or a cheerleader humiliated you in high school, or even something as common a recent bad breakup. Whatever is the root of their hostility toward women, I wish they would examine it within themselves, and begin the healing process.

[Porcupine]

28. Penis size references........aw c'mon.

Insulting penis size in a women's issues forum is sooo cliche. Surely you can do better. I'll make it easy for you. Here's a picture of me...



except of course with less muscle and a bigger belly. Now does that make you feel better?

I popped into this charade to point out that some women appear to have a sense of empowerment about their sexuality. These same women in conversations unsolicited by men may discuss trading sexual favor for other coin in relationships. My understanding was that this was referred to as "power exchange."

Why does this prompt a load of insults? I do not recall insulting any woman in particular.

[Quantess]

38. Here's an even more apt cliche for you:

Don't dish it out if you can't take it. :)

Get it? Don't expect to get away with making broad brush statements about how women are.

[Atargatis]

32. I don't get it, either.

But I'm pretty sure a message board isn't the best forum for addressing ones issues.

It reminds me of standing around at a party, visiting and debating some topic, when some jerk, unknown to the group, walks right into the middle of the discussion and starts calling names and telling the original participants what is wrong with them and how s/he'll go about "fixing" them. At the least, bad manners, at the worst, it requires some serious "couch time."

If you don't like the discussion and have nothing constructive to contribute, why bother jumping in? Walk past it and go find a group discussing your interests. If you feel the need to call people names and tell them how stupid, bitter or ugly they are, well then, I don't know what to tell you because in most places someone will rearrange your face for doing that in real life. Or maybe join the military. I understand that training new recruits allows one the latitude to verbally abuse "less powerful" people with impunity. Perhaps that's more their style and at least the family dog or cat won't get kicked. Who knows?

Oh well, whatever it is there seem to be a few of them on these boards. I guess the school yard bully has "graduated" to the 'net.

[Quantess]

39. Yes. I like your point of view.

That's a really good description of what's happening here.

I could imagine this scenario happening at a social gathering, and I would be just as nonplussed there as I am here. I'm not easily intimidated by verbal sniping in person, or on an internet discussion. I always like to think about a person's motivations for what causes them to be a certain way.
The most unpleasant, disparaging, people are generally harboring insecurities, or have been wounded. That's the truth. That is not an insult, just a little gem of wisdom.

[Quantess]

41. I have to admit, my weekend has been busy,

and although I read the thread on Thursday night, I have not read all the new responses.

Porcupine's post that has fueled the gist of my responses has apparently been deleted. Deleted posts happen when the writer makes blanket statements and paints with a broad brush.

Now that I've perused Porcupine's subsequent posts, I see that I've been maybe too harsh. ....LOL, then again, maybe not! In any case, it has been an interesting discussion.

Now that I have time, I will proceed to read the entire thread.

[Katherine Brengle]

46. How would you feel if the one thing in your life you had some modicum of

control over, from a sociological vantage point, was when you would put out and for whom?

Yeah, it's great to be us.

Never mind that there are plenty of men out there who simply take when sex is not offered - that's an issue for another conversation.

[John Gauger]

3. Wow, So many parts of that didn't make any sense.

I don't know where to begin. So many of those concepts were totally alien to me that I cannot begin to determine whether or not the author was making a valid point. I guess I'll start with one criticism: in the definition of 'sex positivity' women are said to feel especial shame associated with sexual activity. The author intertpreted that as saying that women are inherently wrong about sex and should give it away without hesitation. But it seems to me that 'especially women' was meant to address the double standard concerning sexual activity. As a girl in my sophomore English class asked once, "Why is it that men are praised for being sexually promiscuous but women that are sexually promiscuous are derided as 'sluts?'" I see that statement as a repudiation of (to frame it is feminist terms) the patriarchal society dictating to women how they must feel about sex. Which, of course, is what the author is warning against.

Nextly; the author puts forth the theory that 'sexual liberation' is just a ploy by men to get some. I'm a man, and I can tell you: yeah, I could see that happening. It's as likely as not.

Then we have the denunciation of penetration. That's what I find must confusing. The author says that this is not a denunciation of sex, but all penetration is supposedly domination. By penetrating a woman, a man is oppressing her. If that's not a denunciation of sex, what is it? If we are not supposed to recognize all sexual activity between a man and woman as deleterious to women, then what are we supposed to learn from that statement? I have heard that feminists say that sex cannot truly be consentual, which is an obvious strawman. But then, there it is. Or at least that's what it looks like to me. Again, I really don't know what to make of this piece because so much of it just doesn't make any sense to me. I can't condemn the author as wrong because I don't know what idea he or she is trying to tell me. I could be totally misunderstanding the message. Could anyone please help me out here? I would appreciate it.

[ismnotwasm]

8. Sex positive feminism

Is among other things patriarchy denial.
Patriarchy? What stinking patriarchy? No doubt women are involved with the manufacture and marketing of "BRATS" dolls. They gots the skills. They know what little girls really want for Christmas. Just like the women who run porn production companies. Or the women who pimp.

Maybe they need walk the dark side for a while. Become a whore. Be a stripper. Do some porn. Some of them have. But the clincher is to Encourage your Mother and your Sisters and your Daughters to do the same. Because it's so goddam Liberating. They'll teach Males to no longer have that sense of entitlement for constant sexual access they have had for centuries. They'll respect the whores and the strippers and the porn stars and the pimps. They'll respect women who are sexually "free." We won't hear the word slut (among many, many other choices between desciptive words and phrases describing women's sexual behavior) anymore So will women They'll see it as an art form or even a sacred rite.

Right.

Hell, they can go big time and Power Pimp out a few girls from the Philippines over to Dubai. What's a little sexual slavery while we're being so positive about sex? And then look in the mirror and say "this is my choice. It's what I want. It fulfills me, and I'm sexually healthy and free" I'm an activist for what's right and righteous.

And stay sane.

In relationships, in or outside of whoredom, or even mating games, who really has the sexual power? If it's women it's news to me. Last I checked we were still being raped, assaulted, and subject to violence, objectification and oppression and subjugation from the day we are born female. It's just that all men aren't "that way" And a big part of the reason for that is feminism. Remeber the bad 'ol days, oh what 20 or 30 years ago when it was legal to rape your wife? I think it still might be in some states.


Sex positive feminist. Like my straight "radical" feminist ass doesn't like sex or find it a very positive experience.

It sounds more like a very simple need a to feel a little(or a lot)dirty to get off. But to do it off the backs of the disenfranchised and the powerless and the damaged and the forgotten. Not very sexual free if you don't call it what it is.

Why is it OK to ignore the sexual/physical/socio-economic status of women, pretending because they have "pussy they have power?" Is whoredom (which is what that implies) the goal for females? Is the entire history of repression of women a mere footnote, no long relevant, because a few women evidently can't or won't --evidently-- think outside an orgasm?

Jesus GOD feminism is so much more than that.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Der Blaue Engel]

18. "What exactly is this thing called sex positivity?"

"It's a public denial that sex is an ugly thing and should be hidden."

So...you think sex IS an ugly thing and should be hidden? I'm a little confused.

[Atargatis]

19. The answer to your question is in the article itself, quoted by the OP

"So let me get this straight, women are just going to copulate their way into equality and liberation?! And copulating will promote social and economic freedom? Hmmmm, I wonder why no one has ever thought of this before?!

But that's not what happened. What it did was allow men free and easy access to sex without that real drag of protocol, courtship and responsibility. The same old thing still occurred for women though. Women got pregnant. Women had babies. Women were still expected to take care of the children, do the household chores and wash men's streaked underwear. Women were still expected to take a back seat to men, and were denied leadership and any kind of important roles. Well then, just who exactly did this liberate and free? Well it sure wasn't women!

It didn't take women too long to figure out that they had been conned."

[Der Blaue Engel]

20. Welcome to DU, Atargatis

I don't agree with the article. I'm one of those evil sex-positive feminists you hear tell about, apparently. :)

[Atargatis]

21. Thank you for the welcome!

I too, am a sex-positive feminist. However, I also know that we do not yet live in that world in which women have access to the same levels of power in which men do. And I have seen, experienced, heard tell of, various instances in which the ideals of sex-positive feminism have been perverted into something which allows men and women to exploit other women and men. We don't yet live in that perfect world in which all things female are as valued and respected as all things male (broad brush used for brevity's sake) and in which our entire society has healthy ideas about sexuality.

Sex-positive feminism is a double-edged sword; I'd prefer to be holding the correct end of the sword with it not pointing at me until we do attain the perfection of a sex-healthy world.

As it stands, it is still too easy to twist and pervert our ideals while we are still so limited in our access to the debate and have so little impact on the definitions and their meanings in the debate.

:hi:

[Der Blaue Engel]

24. I'm just not sure what the "wrong end of the sword" is in this discussion

or where we are going with the concepts at issue. Is the opposite of sex-positive sex-negative? Are you for limiting the rights of women for their own protection? Or is the idea simply condemnation of practices one doesn't believe to be uplifting for women? I'm just not clear on what the positives are, given what the negatives seem to be from the author's point of view.

[Atargatis]

33. Neither am I, therein lies the paradox, the conundrum.

How does one define "sanity" or "healthy" while living in an "insane" and "unhealthy" world.

I would like to be a person who is completely free of capitalism; how do I achieve that living in a capitalistic society? I could perhaps go live somewhere and grow my own food and build my own house using tools I made for myself and sew my own clothes which I've woven myself if I can perhaps find a community in which I can barter with and for those things which each the other needs. Will they let me in for free or do I have to pay admittance thereby requiring capital? How do I get there? Drive? More money for vehicle and gas. Walk? How do I feed myself along the way? More money. Do they own the property outright? Taxes? More money. My point being, it may be doable but how do I get from here to there without, in some small part, participating in the capitalistic society in which I don't want to participate? The same paradoxes apply when discussing sex.

What is healthy sex? What is a healthy sexual self-image? Who decides? Based on what criteria and standards which are in turn defined by who? And of those definitions, how do I know which are truly healthy and which are derived from the definer's, possibly twisted possibly not, view of the world? How do I know my own definitions are healthy? Is BDSM healthy? Those who participate believe it is. As for me, it doesn't do much for me. Does that mean I'm not healthy? Does it mean they're not? There may be great minds out there who have that answer; I'm not one of them. And of the "great minds," are they healthy enough in their own sexuality to decide and define? Is it healthy to constantly look to get laid to the exclusion of any other activity? I've known men and women who go through their lives (or part of their lives) doing exactly that. I have other interests as well as sex. Who's "right"? Me or them? Both? Who decides?

My point being, how does one take information which we've internalized and examine that information without projecting our internalized information on the internalized information we're examining?

As to defining the opposite of sex-positive...why define an opposition to an already conflicted area of discussion? Instead of "either/or" why not discuss things as "both/and" and see where that leads us.

I'm curious as to why you would ask if I'm for "limiting rights" rather asking in what ways I can see expanding or increasing our rights and/or participation in the debate. My post dealt mostly with, what we refer to around here as "the law of unintended consequences" or "be careful what you wish for."

For example, speaking of government ;), women's rights activists wanted a famous woman to appear on U.S. currency; remember the Susan B. Anthony dollar? Well, we got what we wanted. Not quite how we wanted it, but we got it. Women's rights activists wanted the police to more seriously address issues of domestic violence and to protect women from men who abuse them. Now, in many places, when the police arrive at a domestic violence call, both parties are taken in. Women's rights activists wanted women to live safe lives away from their abuser. We now have women's shelters. The abuser stays in the home; the woman hides for her life leaving behind her home, job, friends and family. No-fault divorce so women could leave bad relationships. Say buh-bye to alimony and many forms of financial support for women who, many times, have no other form of financial support. Child custody was historically given to men as their "rights" of property. Women's rights activists fought against this and won the right of women to gain custody of their children. Single-parent households in which the single parent is a woman are traditionally one of the poorest demographics reported in the U.S. Again, unintended consequences. (note: broad brush applied for brevity)

So my point is, let's have all the ducks in a row before be start legislating or limiting or even defining what is or is not "right."

For starters, we live in a world in which we still have to define healthy sex as 'consensual'. Why is that? Why is 'consensual' not just a given, inherent in the definition itself? Perhaps it implies we need to step back and look at "relationships of power;" not just within the context of the sex act, but within our broader view. Why do I see healthy sex frequently defined as between consenting 'adults'? Is sex only healthy if one is an 'adult'? At what age, chronologically or otherwise, do we switch from child to adult? All of us identically? Girls the same as boys?

Oh, hell, for that matter is sex healthy? Some people view sex in any form at any time as unhealthy and/or sinful. (I think Paul's writing is the best/worst example of that.) Do they get a seat at the table? Or do we label them sick and repressed while they label us sick and perverted? Who's right? Who decides? The medical community from whence there once was a missive in which girls were warned their uterus would atrophy if they pursued a higher education? The psychiatric community from whence came the definition of homosexuality as a perversion and who once defined a slave who was unhappy being a slave as one who had a mental disorder (the name of which escapes me at this moment)? The church? Yeah, that's worked well. /sarcasm to the church part.

So let us all talk and debate. That's a big positive as far as I'm concerned. Sex is a topic of conversation that can be discussed in the light of day rather than hidden away while each person wonders if they're weird or stunted or repressed or...or...whatever. Let's have an old-fashioned, 60s type consciousness raising (yikes! I used 60s as old-fashioned! *sigh* Guess what that makes me?) Let's start talking again about what's what for us. You know, you've read them or heard them. "Wow, women can climax multiple times?!" "Wow, women can climax?!" "Is it only a climax when it's vaginal?" "Where is my vagina?" "Vagina, hell! Where's my clitoris?" "My what does what when I climax?!" "Oral?! Ewwwww." "Oral, mmmmm" "Is the 'g' spot real or did some guy make it up?"

So let's talk...again. Let's define, together with each other, for ourselves and for each other, what sexual health is, what healthy sex is. Then, when we've defined the myriad healthy sexual experiences and sexually healthy bodies, let's talk about what's "right" and what's "wrong". Some strippers love the attention and feel powerful using their bodies in that way. For some it's a soul-destroying way to make money. For others it's somewhere in between. Some women enjoy making money for providing sex; they feel powerful, beautiful and they can pay the rent or go on a cruise. Some are coerced or know no other way or feel unworthy of anything but. And others are somewhere in between. It's my job to define what "is" for me and, sometimes, it's my "job" to share what "is" for me with others to see if that's what "is" for them. And sometimes it's my job to listen or help those who are hurting or validate and celebrate those who aren't. And sometimes it's my job to just shut-up. Which I will do right after I note; as you may have noticed, I don't view this as a binary, on/off, black/white, yes/no, good/bad, issue - there's just too much "in-between" in there.

edited for unruly smiley

[lukasahero]

34. Beautiful

What a wonderful, open-minded, caring and gentle post. It's uncommon to find that kind of thought out here on the "internets". Thank you, Atargatis, for joining the conversation.

[Porcupine]

36. Well dang.

That's a lot of questions you've got there. You ask good questions though. Stick around for a while and we'll get to them all eventually.

Welcome to DU

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

26. I'm with you.

Total unabashed sex positive feminist queer perv here. I don't understand the assault against sex-positive feminism. Honestly, I feel that all feminists should be sex-positive. So many "feminists" seem to be practically fundies when it comes to simple human sexuality.

[Der Blaue Engel]

27. If I find myself in agreement with a fundie on anything, I take it as a big danger sign

:D
Here's to pervy queer grrls: :toast:

[LostinVA]

37. I'll toast to that!

Another pervy queer girl.

[lukasahero]

31. "I don't understand the assault against sex-positive feminism."

I'm not sure I see it as an assault. In fact, I find Paglia to be far more venomous about the women who don't buy into her perspective than any one questioning it is.

To me, the suggestion that if someone doesn't totally believe everything these "sex-positive feminists" say, then that, by implication, means one is "sex-negative" (frigid, cold, and all those other lovely things lots of women (and particularly "feminists" get called if they don't simply enjoy, view or perceive sex in the same way men or these "sex-positive feminists" do.)

People are different and women are people. My attitudes about sex may or may not differ from yours. Neither of us should be lesser because of it.

[ismnotwasm]

35. Arrrgh!

To quote Charlie Brown.
"Sex positive" is more of a third wave brand of feminism that stems from libertarian ideology. In other words, sex positiveness stresses individual rights rather than group rights. My question really, is are we ready for that? Are we liberated enough? Are we brave enough? Are we covered legally? Can we make that jump out of (implied) solidarity? What about black feminism? Muslim feminism? Are they on their own?

I don't like the term sex positive, because as others have pointed out, it implies the opposite-- a sex negativity. The Andrea Dworkins and the S.C.U.M manifestos (by no mean the same thing) came from a time when women were fighting, struggling so goddam hard. Paving the way. The pain particularly of the author of SCUM is so heartbreaking. The best speech I've ever read was the one about a "Day without rape" by Dworkin. So I never dismiss the early radicals, even if I don't totally agree.

One of my favorite books is by a "sex positive" Author, Inga Muscio. The title is C***. (I think everyone should have as a coffee table book--kidding, kind of)
She attempts to reclaim the word and does a damn good job. One of my favorite chapters in that book is "Acrimony of C***S. She discusses division between women, and how we can be judgmental, how we can shut each other out. And that's the other thing that bothers me about "Sex positive" feminism.
My feminism has a world view. I live in the US but I'm very aware of the status in other nations. I have friends in other countries who tell me what's going on. The tenuous feminist movements in these countries are about the simplest of rights, and I'll admit it colors my view. I won't feel free until all my sisters are free. Until my brothers reject the bondage of patriarchy. (poetic, wot?)
Until the last few years, I wouldn't have considered myself radical. But now I find I fit the criteria.

On the other hand,sometimes the ONLY way to fight IS being bold, taking risks, saying fuck you to convention and a "unabashed sex positive feminist queer perv" is as bold as you can get.

[femrap]

43. You're a lesbian, right?

So you don't have sexual relations with males, right? Lucky. As a result, you don't have to deal with a lot of the crap that hetero women do.

As a hetero woman, I find this sex-positive crap as one big con job developed by horny, corporate males. They've done a great PR campaign...hell, we even have cute little prostitute outfits in the Girl's Department at Walmart and Target. Wal-mart wants to make sure that little girls grow up to be happy little sex positives. These little girls must grow up and be sexy....after all that is their true purpose.

And now the 'Gentlemen' Clubs have made a comeback...I thought we were done with those when we got all of the Playboy Clubs shuttered. And the boys tells us that stripping is liberating. Right. Breast implants will empower us.

I ain't buying this crap.

[Nikia]

40. Part of the problem is that men and women do differ in sex

Our body parts make it so that traditional heterosexual sex (penetration) takes place inside our bodies while it takes place outside his body. This puts at greater risk for stds and makes them more severe as well as putting us in a more vunerable position during the act. Orgasming women release hormones that make us want to bond with our partner. We are often responsible for birth control, having to put something in our bodies to prevent pregnancy or take hormones which may have side effects. It is the woman who can become pregnant as a result of sex and must make a decision if she becomes pregnant, which she may find difficult. If she decides to abort her pregnancy, she has to go through a surgical procedure which is disapproved by a large portion of society and that she might not really favor either. If she remains preganant, she must go through bodily changes that eventually leads to giving birth which is usually painful. She must make plans about the baby whether or not the father will be in the child's life.
These are only the biological problems. Socially, many men still do not respect the women that they have sex with. This might seem strange since sexy actresses seem to be held up so much by society. Violence against sexual partners, rape, the insults of sexual promiscuity, the double standard, and the fact that naked women/scantily clad are often reduced to bodies suggests otherwise.
I would also suggest that a woman looking only for good orgasms is better off going to the adult novelty store than picking up a one night stand and not for the reasons listed above.
Being sexually promiscous does not help womankind or most individual women.
I don't mean to sound sexually negative or put down women who have had many partners. I am just saying that women need to be aware that there are more risks for women in sex than men and isn't the road to our equality.

[Katherine Brengle]

47. That was the entire point of the article...

I am very confused by your response.

So-called "sex positivity" primarily benefits men and primarily hurts women.

[Nikia]

51. I was agreeing with it

Basically

[Katherine Brengle]

53. Sorry, I misunderstood. nt

[mrreowwr_kittty]

54. "hormones that make us want to bond with our partner"

Really? If that's the case then there must be a lot of women who are in LOVE with their vibrators! :rofl:

Seriously though, this is the problem with crappy, shoddy science being popularized by the media and used to justify stereotypes.

[Nikia]

55. Here's some "shoddy science"

http://members.tripod.com/chlmera/essays/carter.htm
Even if this difference isn't really that strong though, you have to admit that a woman biologically takes more of a risk by having sex than a man does.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

56. That part I can see

But the thing about the "bonding chemicals released during orgasm" is sketchy to me. Since our brain chemistry is profoundly affected by our environments, isn't is possible that many women experience that release during sex because we've had it drilled into us since birth that we must be in luuuuuurve ( :eyes: ) with our partners or else we're dirty sluts? If it's something so innate in us then why are we not experiencing the same thing when orgasming sans partner? Really, why are we able to orgasm at all without a partner, if orgasm and luuuuuuurve are so inextricably linked for us?

My point is not so much to criticize the work of researchers like the one you cited (although I do have some deep reservations what biases and assumptions are influencing their work and who is behind it). I'm just warning against this popular tide of making sweeping generalizations about men and women and defining us and prescribing our behavior based upon them.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

42. I'm worried people are taking this tosh seriously.

To highlight some of the more ridiculous bits of the article:


"One man's sexual freedom is another man's -- or woman's or child's -- sexual thraldom."

"The sexuality that has been freed is male sexuality which is fixated on penetration. Penetration equals domination in the animal world and therefore in the unregenerate human world which is part of it. The penetrated, regardless of sex, cannot rule, OK?."

"Penetration has but little to do with love and even less with esteem."

"It's about hierarchies and the power differentials between those that have power and those that have been disenfranchised of that power by patriarchal construction based on sex and ideas on sexuality and how those ideas naturalize, legitimize, and perpetuate institutionalized sexism and violence against women" - this sentence belongs in "Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity".


His summary of the definition of "sex positive" he quotes is one of the worst pieces of misrepresentation I've seen in a long time. I'm not sure whether he's dishonest or just stupid; I suspect the former. The passage says

"Generally speaking, 'Sex Positive' means rejecting the dominant view of sex as somehow something shameful (especially for women)," (emphasis mine).

He takes this as an excuse to go off on a rant about how the passage is claiming that the attitudes *of* women to sex are inferior to those of men, which it simply isn't doing.



I'm no fan of the "sexual liberation" movement - I think that while it isn't *shameful*, sex outside of a committed monogamous relationship is often an *unwise* habit to get into, for a variety of reasons - but I'm feeling far more positive towards it than I was before I read this.

[Quantess]

44. Perhaps

you should write a naughty British novel, on the heels of "Fanny Hill" or "Lady Chatterley's Lover".

[Katherine Brengle]

48. I think you meant "she" ...

Funny that...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

49. Yes, sorry - I misread the OP as implying that this was by "Stan Goff".

NT.

[Katherine Brengle]

45. Whew, that was a heluva heavy read towards the end there --

and I couldn't be happier I spent the time. She put my thoughts so perfectly into words.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Katherine Brengle]

52. I am wildly curious to know what about my post prompted someone to respond in such a way that

his/her post was deleted...

Eek.