Sex-Positive Feminism Is Being Misunderstood

I was surprised recently to see at least a few people condemning sex positive feminism as being in line with the kind of “feminism” that focuses on a raunchy form of girl power based in a sexualized culture that tends to degrade and abuse women.  This “feminism” is the “you go girl!” hookup culture that so many parenting articles are freaking out about, and it does have some basis in truth.  However, that’s not sex-positive feminism.

The difference is that sex-positive feminism is involves thinking about sexuality, talking about sexuality, and not apologizing for bringing up sexuality as a part of feminism.  It’s the idea that sex is value-neutral, not a shameful thing to be giggled about hidden under the covers.  Sex is a valid topic for feminist discussion, and part of feminism is looking into the shame and blame our culture attributes to sex and challenging those attitudes.  This is getting confused with sexuality according to scripts set by the mainstream, without any actual thought about it, disguised as “feminism” but really just another form of marketing.

Sex-positive feminists are critiquing a culture that uses sexual repression and shame to make space for women who seem to have no idea what they’re talking about and may be having bad sex, but aren’t really thinking about it.  This culture encourages girls to grow up enthusiastic about sex, but actually asking detailed questions is extraordinarily taboo.  We encourage girls to “just know” when they reach puberty, and assume the same of boys. Of course, we don’t provide any education into queerness, trans* identities, polyamory, or kink, so kids just have to fumble into those things on their own.  On the surface, this permissiveness about sex in a general sense may look like sex-positivity, but it’s really just as Puritan as condemning sex wholesale.

I am a proud sex-positive feminist, and I’m committed to changing this culture for the better.

Children and Adult Sexuality in an Activist Context

When sex positivity comes up, I think one argument that is often made by those who don’t want a culture where sex is positive, natural, okay, and moral is the “what about the children?” argument.  I’ve been thinking about that argument for the past few days and trying to understand its purpose.  I came up with three reasons that you might make that argument, after the hemming and the hawing and the “well talking about sex around children is just wrong” response.

First, there’s the argument that talking openly about sexuality and allowing children to be exposed to sex will bring adults and children too close sexually, running a risk of higher rates of child molestation and abuse.  Second, there’s the argument that children might start having sex with each other too early, leading to unintended consequences like pregnancy, STIs, rape, and emotional trauma.  And third is an argument that children should be allowed to grow up in a sex-free, child-centered, “family friendly” safe space.

I’d like to address each of these arguments in turn, because I think that all of these things make sense (discouraging child abuse, avoiding unintended consequences of sex, encouraging safe spaces), and I think that all of these things are best served by a sex positive society and sex positive activism.

1. The child abuse argument.  I don’t think that being open and honest about sex encourages child abuse.  In fact, I think it does the opposite.  When kids grow up in secretive environments where sex is something shameful that you Don’t Talk About, it’s hard for a kid to know what to do when abuse occurs.  Education can’t prevent abuse entirely, but it can arm kids with some strategies that will help, including a sense of bodily autonomy, knowledge about what sex is and why sexual touch between kids and adults is not okay, and the understanding that it’s okay for something to feel good even if you really don’t want it–that’s natural, and no still means no.  A sex positive culture also can be helpful in situations where a family uses the silence and shame around sex to molest children without anyone finding out (because the family, after all, is supposed to teach the kids about sex, and no one else has the right to interfere) and in situations where one family member being unable to educate a child because of hir own discomfort and shame surrounding sex perpetuates abuse by another family member or adult.  The more sources of information, the better, I think.
2. The unintended consequences argument.  Kind of like making abortion illegal doesn’t prevent abortions, not talking to kids about sex doesn’t mean they don’t have any.  It does mean, however, that kids go into sex blind–not having factual information about contraception, not feeling positive about their bodies, not knowing how to communicate or consent, and getting their information about sex from sexist, homophobic, racist media sources and textbooks.  It’s important to teach kids early on that sex is okay and natural, that sexual desires will come up, and that it’s important to learn yourself and your body so that you can authentically say not just “yes” and “no” but when, where, how much, with whom, etc.  When we’re so freaked out about kids having sex, we encourage it to happen quietly, in unsafe places, without support.
3. The safe spaces argument.  I strongly believe that children should have safe spaces to exercise autonomy, learn, and grow.  This is why I don’t think that adults should actually engage in sex in the presence of children.  Children and adults all have a right not to see things that they don’t want to see–of course, this can’t always be avoided, but when it comes to sex, I do think there should be boundaries.  (I also think there should be boundaries for other things, like violence, by the way.)  But I don’t think that talking about sex destroys a safe space.  Kids will ignore things that they don’t care about and things that don’t interest them.  The same goes for nudity–if we behaved sanely about things like half-dressed men in leather at Pride parades, for example, then kids wouldn’t blink an eye.  Kids would just think that the guys were dressed kind of funny.  It’s because adults freak out, moralize, and present the image as a shameful, sexual, taboo thing that kids feel embarrassed when comforted with such an image.  The same is true of what parents do in the bedroom.  It’s just not relevant to children.  People shouldn’t lose their kids because they’re out among adults as kinky, for example.  There’s simply no connection.

Coming Out Kinky

Recently on Fearless Press, Viola wrote a post called Pissing on the Oyster about the idea that kinky people should come out as kinky to increase acceptance of kinky sexualities.  Viola does a great job in that post of covering the legal and lifestyle ramifications of coming out as kinky, and I wanted to add a voice to the chorus and talk a little bit about why I have a problem with the idea of “coming out” in the first place.

Coming out can be an empowering experience.  I know many queer people for whom coming out was a blessing, a way to find community, and a way to feel more comfortable in their own skin.  Throughout my own teenage years and early twenties, I found coming out (as bisexual, then as lesbian, as feminist, as queer) to be important because my gender and sexuality were huge parts of how I identified as well as huge parts of my activism.

Does Sexual Identity Make Physical Attractiveness Less Important?

I’ve been asking myself this question, because I’ve been thinking about the difference in how I’ve seen people relate, and go about dating, in the “vanilla” world versus those who claim a queer or alternative sexuality.  My theory is limited at best, I know, but I think that the more of those badges you put on yourself, and the more corresponding requirements you ascribe to a future relationship or sexual partner, the less of a role physical attractiveness plays (at least, some of the time and for some people).

The thing is, belonging to a subculture does limit your dating pool quite a bit.  When I look for a partner, sexual or otherwise, I’m looking for someone who is queer, interested in genderqueer folk and those who have the vulva-and-breasts combination of body parts, kinky and dominant, poly or open to someone who is non-monogamous, and willing to practice safe sex even in the absence of a penis.  I very rarely meet anyone fitting this description in my day-to-day encounters, and it does mean that a certain amount of talk is required before any sex–but also that I can pretty clearly enumerate at least the basics of what I’m looking for in a sexual partner.

If I contrast this to my experience in the heterosexual, vanilla dating world, I’m struck by how much more physical attraction seemed to enter into the picture there.  Currently, it’s low on the totem pole because the people I’m most physically attracted to are unlikely to line up with the above list of essentials.  Before I had this list in hand, physical attraction was a big part of narrowing down the dating field.  If 50% or so of the population is theoretically available to you (narrowed somewhat due to who’s available for dating/sex, but you’re still probably looking at 5-10% of the population, which is a lot of people), then you need something other than labels or identities to go by.  Of course, you can easily end up with a very attractive person that you’re not compatible with in bed, and this is why I actually kind of like my list, even though I’m not a huge fan of labels.  I’ve had enough sex where I was just mentally hoping and praying to have my hands held above my head, my queerness accepted, any little fragment of sexual desire met.  I think it would be helpful if “vanilla” and “straight” people interrogated their sexual desires and then figured out frank, shorthand ways to find sexual partners based on whatever desires are most important to them.  Maybe if this was the norm–if sex positivity and frank discussion about sex were also the norm–physical attractiveness would be phased out as the assumed method of identifying a potential partner in our society.  And I think that would be a step in the right direction.

Poly Holidays and the Difficulty of Telling Half-Truths

Around the holidays, you tend to get a spike of interest in your family, spurred by that oh-so-popular “what are you doing for Christmas?” question (regardless of your actual religion, I’m guessing the question gets asked).  I find this frustrating because in choosing to only be selectively out about my polyamorous status, it means that I necessarily get stuck telling some lies, and I’m a big truth-teller.  In fact, just being in two relationships has put me very out of synch with my values in some areas, which is uncomfortable.  But the alternative is, of course, being completely open and risking losing job, friends, family, and livelihood.  So I’ll deal with the forced dishonesty.

My coworkers know about Miss H because I told them about “my girlfriend” before Miss A and I were dating.  Most of them know about Miss A as a friend, though it seems like every semester I end up confiding in one intern (the chosen poly truth hearer, ha!)  Telling them about Miss H ends up being a little bit complicated, though, because she has kids, and as was bound to happen eventually, I got hit with the divorce question.  And I stuttered for a moment, since I hadn’t come up with a response to that one in advance, and ended up saying yes.  And it felt awful. Miss H’s husband is awesome, for one thing, and for two, I just don’t like lying. And now, around the holidays, it gets even more complicated, because everyone views Miss H as a single mom and can’t figure out why we wouldn’t be seeing each other, blah blah blah. And when I do get to see Miss A, I can’t be publicly excited about it.  And thus end up feeling, basically, like a rotten person.

So if you’re poly and not fully out, how do you deal with questions like these?  Lie?  Try to tell the truth without telling the truth?  Use the whole “I’m a private person” line?

Polyamory, Marriage Rights, and Social Control II

So, part two.  Part two is about socialism, among other things.

But let’s start with capitalism.  What are capitalist values?  Well, capitalism encourages things like individual achievement and responsibility.  It also encourages competition and jealousy as byproducts of the achievement value–your goal should be to outperform your peer, and if your peer is doing better than you, you should want his stuff, because wanting his stuff means you’re going to strive to do better (ie, make more money) so that you can have more property.  For capitalists, this is good.

There’s a condition of this individual achievement thing, though, and that’s regulated relationships.  Marriage.  Our capitalist system says okay, we want you to go out and do well for yourself, but we only want you to do well for yourself.  We want to discourage people making big, messy group bonds because then maybe they’ll start caring more about group welfare than themselves, and then they won’t support the system of individual achievement–a system, incidentally, that strongly benefits most of the law-makers out there, who aren’t doing too badly for themselves under capitalism.

Capitalism discourages creativity when it comes to family structures, and that includes polyamory.

The irony, though, is that communal, socialist forms of relating actually give the individual more freedom to use his own talents by providing resources and choices to everyone in the community and by protecting creativity and safe spaces to develop one’s individual self.  I was struck by a mention in A People’s History of the United States of how American Indians, with the tribal system, don’t consider communal arrangements a form of individual self sacrifice, but actually give the individual the ultimate freedom.  Every individual in the tribe has the right to leave.  Capitalism, on the other hand, gives you very strong legal and financial incentives not to leave.  Alternate family structures to marriage and the nuclear family are not given many of the benefits of living in a capitalist society, because capitalism is very jealous of its members.

“No, don’t go!” benevolent Father Capitalist says.  ”I have mooooney for youuu…”

“No thanks.  I don’t want your money.  I’d actually rather be free to choose my own romantic relationships and family structure, and to live in an environment that nurtures my individual creativity.”

“But, but… here in Capitalist America, you can be all you can be.”

“Thanks… but no thanks.”

Polyamory, Marriage Rights, and Social Control I

So as same-sex marriage and same-sex partnership rights spread, there has been a lot of talk about benefits.  People in queer relationships, like those in heterosexual ones, now have the dubious privilege of being able to marry for health insurance.  And of course, there’s a big valid point here about equality.

But I’ve been thinking about polyamory and marriage equality.  First gut instinct reaction: hey guys, quit talking so much about how “don’t worry, the slippery slope of same-sex marriage won’t lead to polygamy or anything,” because that’s not very nice.  Second reaction: but wait… were I to buy into marriage in the first place, would I really want the government to confer benefits on me based on the status of my intimate relationships?

Of course, poly people aren’t completely excluded from the legal and employer-based benefits of marriage.  Many poly people are married, to somebody.  But the question is, should the law allow marriage to more than one person, and thus benefits?

From a legal perspective, it gets very sticky of course, because who “counts,” how many marriages can you actually have, etc.?  From a social perspective, people are going to throw Mormon polygamy and sexism in your face.  And then I have to ask, well, are government benefits really what I want in the first place?

Southern Women and Sexual Communication

It’s difficult for many women to communicate about sex.  No big surprise there.  But is it more difficult for Southern women?

I wouldn’t be surprised if the answer were yes.

Of course, you have the obvious reasons.  Little or no sex education means that people are just assumed to know how to have sex, without talking about it.  Women in particular are taught that talking about sex is shameful and inappropriate.  Southern law discourages any interference in the silent space of the marriage bed–it’s no coincidence that North Carolina was the last state in the country to make marital rape illegal, in the mid 1990s.

But I would posit that Southern manners, good old Southern hospitality, are also to blame for this phenomenon.

Southerners, and especially Southern women, are taught that it is better to be seen and not heard, that one should always defer to a guest, that when something desireable is offered it is polite to say “no, thank you” twice and only accept on the third offering.  I find myself wondering, when thinking about communication and sex, if these general rules on manners might bleed over into how Southern women behave in bed.  If a partner is not insistent on finding out how to please a Southern woman, will she have the courage to ask outright, rather than deferring to the partner’s desires in an instinctual show of politesse?  I think that many of us who were raised as little girls in the South probably inherited this difficulty, whether we have overcome it or not.