Lili Bee interviews Dr. Robert Jensen about what’s at stake when talking about our sexual differences.
Recently me and one of my best male friends, Lance, who happens to be gay, were talking about our love lives and then about work, when I detected a shift between us. As I spoke about my work with people who found themselves partnered with sexual compulsives, he grew quiet.
It was hard not to notice that the room seemed suddenly darker, lifeless; the air wasn’t charged any more with the sparkle that Lance always delightfully brings in with him. When I finally asked if he was ok, he replied, “I just hope you’re not going to turn into Anita Bryant on us.”
After getting over the shock of hearing my work with sexual compulsion being conflated with a fundamentalist, conservative, religious, homophobic political leader of yesteryear, I asked why he’d even make such a comment. His response was that Anita Bryant and Co. seemed terrified of their own sexuality and needed to control everyone else’s as a result.
Lance and I always trusted one another with details about our intimate histories. I suspected he trusted me with his sexual details because he could tell from mine that I neither blush easily nor do I condemn others easily. He knew I had a secular education site specializing in often badly-needed resources when there is sexual compulsion/ addiction present and he knew we work with all sexual orientations. Anita Bryant?!
He went on to say,“I’m only talking about how the anti-porn groups always lobby to get politicians into office who are totally right-wing assholes, who hate gays and anyone who doesn’t fit their picture of mainstream, and that’s a no-win situation for us.”
My center doesn’t advocate for legislation against pornography and we certainly don’t shill for any religious groups. I created my business precisely because I could barely find resources that weren’t religiously-based, when I desperately needed help myself years ago and searched everywhere. How ironic Lance might find it, then, that when people call us who require religious reinforcement for their beliefs that what their husband (or wife) is doing is morally wrong, we send them to another site that is overtly religious in their approach.
“Google ‘sex positive’ and read everything you possibly can,” Lance said, “it’ll help offset anything puritanical out there while you’re doing your work on helping people who are freaking about sexual practices they don’t approve of. And remember, Lili, you might be cool, but just be careful because all this anti-sex stuff just ends up damaging people. Those conservative movements would be happy to get gays back into the closet and besides creating otherwise restrictive environments. Everybody’s sex life should be their own business.”
“So…what, Lance, if someone doesn’t want the stigma of being called “anti-sex”, does that mean they have to condone porn use in their relationships, just as one example?”
“I don’t know, but…”, Lance offered, getting more frustrated by the minute, “I moved to New York because I want to live in a sexually free environment. I just feel that sexual conservatism is so, I don’t know….backwards, so puritanical. “
“Ok! But then, who gets to decide what sexual “conservatism” even is? Your ‘sex-positive’ peeps?”
“Yeah! Why not? I’ll take Anthony Weiner over Anita Bryant any day!”
“Do you really think there’s nothing in between?”
But Lance wasn’t interested in any further questions; he was firmly entrenched in a belief system, one I’d like to know more about.
♦◊♦
Why couldn’t we work our way towards anything even resembling a constructive talk? Why was our conversation breaking down reliably into overly-simplistic categories of bad/ good? All the myriad distinctions worth discussing were being lumped into polarized categories: black and white, right and wrong. This was as bad as my childhood religion, and that was not a good thing in any way.
Whenever I tried to zoom out to discuss the big-picture implications of pull-out-all-the-stops, in-your-face, commercialized sexuality that many didn’t want questioned, he’d drop into using personal anecdote to shore up his point of view. I’d no sooner join him there in the personal realm, when he’d swoop back up into the higher strata of how my views would hurt the politics of the country. It seemed to me that trying to collect spilled mercury off the floor with a spoon would be easier than having this conversation.
I laid awake that night and wondered just how many educated, aware people like Lance linked anyone who had an opinion that didn’t conform to the “sex positive” ideology with that person being anti-sex, or sex-negative? What forces were at work, I wondered, that had all but obliterated any nuance, or even interest in all of us having an authentic, expansive, respectful conversation about sex, rather than frequently resorting to vitriolic put-downs of those with differing views?
I decided to include “Sex positive as a term” on my list of topics to bring up with one of my mentors, an educator and activist I most respect for his passionate, unapologetic and committed stance on politics, feminism, racism, patriarchy, classism and the military industrial complex, Dr. Robert Jensen. As Hurricane Irene barreled her way up the eastern seaboard, Dr. Jensen and I Skyped: me hunkered down at my storm-proofed lair in Manhattan, him out in Austin under a clear, blue Texas sky at the beginning of the fall semester where he’s a professor at University of Texas, Austin Journalism School.
We talked about a lot of things besides the sex positive issue. We talked about masculinity, humanism, erotica vs. porn, power dynamics between the genders, and some of the more profound and personal insights into the heart of intimacy I’ve had the privilege of hearing a man share with me. I’ll post those other portions of our talk next week.
♦◊♦
Lili’s talk with Dr. Robert Jensen Part I
Lili: So, Bob, let’s talk about sex. In particular, let’s talk about what I’ll call a movement with a cheery sounding name, the Sex Positive movement.
First, let me just say I find the term challenging. For all it’s implied positivism, there are problems with it, such as who dictates which activities are accepted, or not accepted within that movement’s sanctioned forms of sexual expression? To me, it comes across as a movement that just grants carte blanche to any and all sex acts/ sexual lifestyles and the only real issue seems to be, well, if you have an issue with any of it.
Premised on that, then, if one is ok with many or even most sexual activities, but expresses objections to, let’s say, one activity in particular, there are those within the Sex Positive movement who are very quick to dismiss that person, to call them a conservative, a rabid feminist or a religious fundamentalist.
Can you speak to the term “Sex Positive” because I’m more aware of the divisiveness of the term?
Bob: I think the whole notion of it is absurd. The notion of a “Sex Positive” category or a sex-positive feminism is truly ridiculous since no one I know of in these arenas is sex negative. The only people who might be truly sex-negative are extreme religious fundamentalists who believe that sexual conduct is somehow inherently shameful.
Within feminism I know of nothing that one would call sex-negative; in fact, the term sex negative isn’t a meaningful category, it’s an insult and an attempt to undermine a critique of the underlying power dynamics in sex.
I come out of a tradition called “radical feminism” and anti-porn feminism, feminism that’s critical of the sexual exploitation industries, critical of the oppression inherent in men’s buying and selling women’s bodies. That movement is sometimes called “sex negative” and I’ve never understood what that means. I’ve met literally hundreds of people in that movement and I’ve never met anyone who’s against sex or who thinks sex is a bad thing.
Lili: I live in sexually progressive New York City and everywhere I look, I see so many varied forms of sexuality being openly expressed. I also grant that New York is not an accurate litmus test of how sexual mores are received elsewhere in the country. Let me say that up front.
The people who call themselves “sex positive” seem to be advocating a sexual freedom that’s a response or even a rebellion against any kind of sexual repression. Where do you see us at this point in time with regard to repression?
Bob: Well certainly there are elements of contemporary culture that are repressive sexual arenas, especially conservative, religious trends for instance which have problems with all sorts of sexual expression. To me, the question isn’t about sexual liberation versus sexual freedom, the question is:
How do we construct a healthy sexual culture that understands sex in the context of fostering healthy human relationships?
The so-called sexual liberation of the 1960′s did many positive things: it broke down some of those old, repressive mechanisms. Much of that had to do with feminists critiquing the sexual control, the domination/ subordination dynamic in patriarchy. But that period of time also reinforced patriarchy in certain ways, especially in the way in which the sexual exploitation industries became more normalized and more mainstream. And by sexual exploitation industries I mean prostitution, pornography, stripping—the primary ways in this culture that men buy and sell women’s bodies for the sexual pleasure of men.
So, you have to look at how this played out. Some of it was positive, from my point of view, some of it was extremely negative. Some of it challenged patriarchy: the claim of legitimacy for lesbian and gay people was a challenge to the patriarchy, and it’s constricting gender norms and sexual rules. The assertion that women are fully autonomous sexual beings and not simply objects or vehicles for male pleasure – that challenge to the patriarchy was extremely healthy and positive. But there was also a flip side to it that reinforced some of that patriarchal ideology.
So the question now is: How does one fashion a healthy, sexual culture and the question I use to frame that is to ask: “What is sex for?” Sex has a role in human life. Obviously it has a basic role in procreation but it’s much more than that. The question is, and at any given point in time, sex can mean many different things and what do we want it to mean?
|
We have to fashion a sexual ethic, and by sexual ethic I don’t mean the assertion of rules that are imposed on people, but a sexual ethic that emerges from honest conversation.
|
To ask that question is not to impose a single answer, it’s to recognize that not all forms of sex are consistent with healthy, human relationships. The most obvious example is sexual assault- that’s a form of sex but no one would argue it’s consistent with healthy human relationships. And so those are the kinds of things we have to ask.
How do you build a culture in which human beings flourish? is the fundamental question – part of that question has to do with sex: How do you build a culture in which human beings flourish sexually? There’s no one answer to that, but that’s the conversation we have to have.
The sex positive or so-called sexual liberation perspective tends to assume that anything sexual is consistent with human flourishing but I think the evidence is quite clear that that’s not true. So, we have to fashion a sexual ethic, and by sexual ethic I don’t mean the assertion of rules that are imposed on people, but a sexual ethic that emerges from honest conversation. And as you’re pointing out, when especially women in contemporary culture resist the pornographic nature of this culture, by saying, “I don’t want to replicate pornographic sexual scenes in my personal life”, those women are often the targets of insults or pejorative labels like “sex negative” and that’s what we have to overcome.
Lili: When one looks at the tone of many of the comments following articles about porn use, one can really get a sense of the contention and hostility. So it leaves me wondering: Whom does it really serve to create distinctions like “sex positive”? Why even create the distinction?
Bob: Well, it serves the people who want to undermine critique by labeling any critique as being “sex negative”. That’s the only function it serves as far as I can tell, which is why I don’t use the terms and don’t accept the terms in conversations or debates I might be in.
♦◊♦
Lili: So let’s talk about what I call the language of “shaming.” One of the questions recently posed to the Advice Columnist at GMP centered on a man who felt uncomfortable with the vast amount of attention his new girlfriend attracted by insisting on wearing very little on the beach—“three half-dollar sized pieces of cloth”, was how he put it. He was looking for advice on how he might share his request that she wear even a small bikini, vs. almost nothing.
And one of the female commenters told him, quite aggressively in my opinion, that he should stop “slut shaming” her and basically, to get over it. This kind of exchange appears frequently enough that I wonder if we’re using the “shaming” term as a way to shut people up who have a different view of sexuality than our own. What are your thoughts on this?
♦◊♦
Bob: I think there are two separate questions about shame: one that has to do with men and one that has to do with women. So the question isn’t about shaming or not shaming in the context that you raise, the question is:
What leads people in an oppressed category to behavior that seems to intensify or deepen those oppressive forces?
So let’s say you have a society in which women are routinely treated as objects for male sexual pleasure, that is you have contemporary patriarchy in which women are routinely bought and sold for male sexual pleasure and in which women even outside the sexual exploitation industries are encouraged to present themselves as sexual objects.
The question when a woman engages in self-presentation like that is: “What is the motive force behind that choice of hers? Is she doing it because it’s some expression of her authentic sense of her own body? Is it an authentic style of hers? Or is she simply buying into the cultural pressure to present herself as a sexual object?” Because there are certain kinds of rewards for that.
I don’t know the answer to that in the case of any specific woman. If one is going to engage a specific person in that conversation, one would do it as you would engage people in any kind of difficult conversation: with respect, and with a sense of true openness, wanting to understand. But when you step back from any individual case and you look at the patterns, I don’t think there’s any doubt that women, especially younger women, increasingly engage in that kind of self-presentation routinely. And I don’t think there’s any doubt that one of the serious factors in that is the cultural pressure for women to present themselves that way. That has nothing to do with shaming, that has to do with inquiry into the nature of the society in which you live and how people shape their own sense of their own bodies, their own desires, and their own value in the world. Ok, well that’s what a decent society would do, to step back and look at those patterns, and ask: “What are the power dynamics in which those patterns are rooted?” and ask again,
“Are they consistent with human flourishing?
There is nothing new about this. Feminists have been critiquing the way women are pressured into self-presentation that objectifies themselves for male viewing—that critique’s been around for a long time, there’s nothing new about it. It’s just that, as you point out, in this particular moment, this fundamental feminist critique has been so marginalized, so beaten back, so buried, that it’s not part of the cultural conversation and that’s unfortunate from my point of view.
♦◊♦
Lili: Yes, and when I do raise the question in conversation, it’s not uncommon to get a considerable amount of pushback from women, who’ll say, “No, I do love walking around in a see-through dress with no underwear on in public”, or “I love when I know my man is out enjoying himself at strip clubs” or any of these statements which I have to admit, sound bizarre to me.
And with the colossal amounts of money being made in what you call the sexual exploitation industries, I can’t help but wonder if as women, we’re being hoodwinked into adopting these stances that prove that we’re cool, we’re the fun girls that are down with whatever, with the unspoken threat being that if we resist or question it, we risk marginalization or worse.
I believe in everyone dressing to please themselves, yes, but I also can’t help think many of us would be much happier if we didn’t feel this tremendous pressure to conform to the cultural standards of beauty which can be pretty fascist and plenty sexist. I really believe we would stop stressing about those extra five or ten pounds we carry around but which render us not “porn-worthy” as one man characterized the cultural ideal in conversation with me.
Bob: Well, that’s right, and body size is another thing—it’s very difficult to have a sensible conversation in this culture because on the one hand, there are cultural pressures on women to be thin, cultural pressures on women to look a certain way, to have a certain body type and those are unhealthy. They lead to eating disorders and all sorts of things.
|
These are difficult conversations to have in a society that’s essentially gone mad, from my point of view.
|
It’s also true however, that the celebration of non-traditional body types in a culture that has serious obesity problems and health problems is also difficult. The goal isn’t to impose a single body type on everybody. The goal is to ask, “What kind of nutrition and physical activity is consistent with a long-term healthy body?” It’s pretty clear that starving yourself to be model-thin isn’t consistent with that. It’s pretty clear that eating lots of high-fat, high-calorie, processed foods is inconsistent with that. The question is: “How do we shape lives that are sensible, sane and consistent with both physical, emotional and mental, long-term health?”
These are difficult conversations to have in a society that’s essentially gone mad, from my point of view.
People present themselves to other people in ways that have lots of different objectives, including the desire to be sexually attractive. There’s nothing psychologically pathological about wanting to be sexually attractive. The question is, “How much of our time are we spending on those activities around presentation, and how are those gendered?” “How are the pressures different on women than on men, for instance?”
The other question is, “How much of that comes from authentic desire?” and ‘authenticity’ is a difficult word in this context because all of our desires are in some sense, conditioned by society. I’m not sure anybody has individual, authentic desires. What I come to desire is always going to be, in part, shaped by the society around me. But we have to be able to ask, “How are those social pressures sometimes healthy, or unhealthy? How are they sometimes connected to domination/ subordination dynamics in oppressive systems like patriarchy? That also ties in not just to clothing and weight, but the growing prevalence of cosmetic surgery where people engage not only in dieting and such, to shape their bodies, but literally, to go so far as to mutilate healthy tissue to shape a body into some, what they think is socially desirable form. All of these questions, are, I think, profound indications of how disturbed this culture is.
♦◊♦
Lili: And it’s not just women. I’m hearing more frequently now from men who feel pressured to conform to some often difficult-to attain ideal of male beauty. I’m not really seeing much of that, though, not even an iota of what I see we, as women, put ourselves through. Especially disturbing to me is how young it starts, too….
Bob: Well, there’s two points about the assertion that men are now under the same kind of pressure.
Number one, to some degree it’s true. There are certainly more intense pressures on men to present themselves in ways to be sexually desirable. But, number one, as you’re pointing out, are those equal to the pressures on women, especially girls…and the answer is obviously no.
And the range of presentation that men can engage in and be in the category of attractive is far wider than the range for women. So these aren’t equivalent. But, even if there are more pressures on men to look a certain way, that’s not a sign that we’ve reached equality. It’s just a sign that the culture’s degraded even further.
So then in patriarchy now, even though male dominance is still the defining dynamic, men have internalized some of the insanity themselves. I don’t see that as something to celebrate; it’s just another indication of the corrosive nature of this culture.
Here, we’re not just talking about patriarchy—of course, we’re also talking about capitalism. These are trends fueled not only by the dynamic of male domination / female subordination—they’re also trends fueled by the relentless, pathological quest for profit, especially in late-consumerism capitalism when we’ve been sold virtually everything we can be sold, so the market consistently tries to find new ways to generate profit, no matter how psychologically damaging they are to people. That’s the cosmetic industry, much of the fashion industry, and the non-medically necessary plastic surgery industry. They’re all a sign, from my point of view, of a culture in collapse, a culture in which human flourishing is subordinated to, in this case, the desire for profit.
♦◊♦
Read Part 2 of the interview: Erotica, Patriarchy, and Pornography
♦◊♦
About Robert Jensen, Ph.D
Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin and author of “All My Bones Shake: Seeking a Progressive Path to the Prophetic Voice” (Soft Skull Press, 2009); “Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity” (South End Press, 2007); and several other books. Jensen is also co-producer of the documentary film “Abe Osheroff: One Foot in the Grave, the Other Still Dancing,” which chronicles the life and philosophy of the longtime radical activist.
Jensen can be reached via Email rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu and his articles can be found online.
–
photo: (main) djnavv (inset) toestubber on Flickr
About Lili Bee
Lil Bee, you ask:
“Why couldn’t we work our way towards anything even resembling a constructive talk? Why was our conversation breaking down reliably into overly-simplistic categories of bad/ good? All the myriad distinctions worth discussing were being lumped into polarized categories: black and white, right and wrong.”
I suspect that it was because your friend is gay. Now, I fully admit that I may be entirely wrong and I fully acknowledge that you know him and I simply don’t. However, I am fairly aware of the polical struggle for gay rights in North America (I’ve been following it with interest for many years) and anything that threatens the advances that have been made are a big threat to gays. Anything that smacks of Anita Bryant as your friend said, in whatever area, if it is a threat to gays political achievements is not to be supported. That probably results in a few unintended casualties (like your discussion with him).
Anyways, just throwing that out there as a possible answer to your questions.
Just a question, what about male stripping for women, Playgirl and gay porn?
Also, what about the all sex = rape line of feminism? I seem to recall that statement being taken out of context, but at the same time, some women when considering male enjoyment of sex seem to pretty much agree agree with the sentiment of “all sex = rape.” They take a rather dim view of male sexuality as it presently expressed in the culture. I say this because I know that if I said “as it actually is” there would be all kinds of pushback against the very concept of “male sexuality as it actually is,” even though I’m a guy who has a certain sexuality and it is very much as it actually is and I’ve enjoyed porn, prositutes and the kind of woman I like for most of the last 5 years (porn for a lot longer) after finally throwing off the yoke of what feminists thought I should act like. I must say, it was a damn good time too! Met more women and learned more about people than I ever did before.
I think Robert touched on your question actually The Wet One.
“Bob: Well, there’s two points about the assertion that men are now under the same kind of pressure.
Number one, to some degree it’s true. There are certainly more intense pressures on men to present themselves in ways to be sexually desirable. But, number one, as you’re pointing out, are those equal to the pressures on women, especially girls…and the answer is obviously no.
And the range of presentation that men can engage in and be in the category of attractive is far wider than the range for women. So these aren’t equivalent. But, even if there are more pressures on men to look a certain way, that’s not a sign that we’ve reached equality. It’s just a sign that the culture’s degraded even further.”
I don’t think Robert is advocating that strip clubs for women are any better. However, they are no where near as popular for strip clubs for men. You’ll find 10 more strip clubs for men to every 1 strip club for women. Women are not turned on the same way men are and porn is a further example about how men want women to be turned on just like they are. And some women do fall into that and begin to objectfying themselves and other women under more of the same “sex positive” talk.
Interesting discussion for sure. Should be plenty of head scratchers, outrageous hilarity, inanity and idiocy coming up in the next little while (re: the upcoming posts). I look forward to it with relish!
Really quickly, I have to say that recently, feminists say sex absolutely does not equal rape. Sex is a CONSENSUAL, usually fun, sometimes awkward act that can be done for love, pleasure, to cure boredom, make the most of a relationship, alleviate boredom, make a baby, etc… Rape, on the other hand, is a violent act about power and humiliation. I’ve written it somewhere else, but that’s why soldiers in Bosnia and Libya were ORDERED to rape their enemies, why women in the Middle East are raped so that someone can get back at the victim’s fathers or brothers, why people brag about coercing their victim into sex (date rape) in conversations with friends, and why powerless people like young kids and people in nursing homes get raped…
Rape is assault. It’s a violent act that sometimes uses the penis as a weapon (not always, as women rape too, and people rape with objects). Sex is a (hopefully!) awesome act, and if the man isn’t supposed to enjoy it, there’s something wrong there… There’s also nothing wrong with enjoying porn and prostitutes, as long as you treat sex workers with respect, avoid places that exploit underage women who have no choice, and don’t let it get in the way of your relationships with your actual partners. I know all of my partners have enjoyed porn. But if, during our relationship, he chose porn over me, took sex lessons from girls who moan because they’re paid to do so, or showed a very disproportionate affection for large, 15 year old black women (something I could never be), I’d be bothered. If I wasn’t getting laid because my partner was spending it all on prostitutes, I might have to look elsewhere since there’s only a limited amount of porn and strip clubs that cater to women’s needs. I guess that wasn’t as quick as I thought it would be…
You’re also right, Wet One, that this should be an interesting discussion. I predict myself getting pissed off a lot and agreeing with radicals occasionally just to get a word of agreement in. The article really did bring to my attention that the sex-positive movement also brings with it the implication that people who don’t completely agree are “negative.” I’m not actually sure how to deal with that yet.
This quote particularly makes me wonder:
“And as you’re pointing out, when especially women in contemporary culture resist the pornographic nature of this culture, by saying, “I don’t want to replicate pornographic sexual scenes in my personal life”, those women are often the targets of insults or pejorative labels like “sex negative” and that’s what we have to overcome.”—I always thought that part of sex-positivity was accepting of all sexual preferences. I’m referring not just to orientations, but levels of monogamy, kinks, backgrounds, etc. If you chose to wait until marriage, that’s great (whether it’s religion based or looking at sex as something very personal). If you’re a serial monogamist who has sex on the 5th date, that’s your thing. If you want to have as many partners as possible and party it up, good luck! The whole point is to not let anyone tell you what you should want or not want, as long as you don’t judge others for wanting/not wanting it. Just understand what you want and need, let your partners know at the proper time, and make sure to look into yourself and recognize what you actually want and what society makes you think you want. I don’t think any sex positive person wants every woman to copy Jenna Jameson, but they also don’t want anyone to feel like a bad person for expressing what they want sexually.
Lili – when you believe and say things like the following just below, it makes it very difficult to take you seriously. Your bias is overwhelming. If you truly want to foster open conversation, then I would suggest you tone down the extreme rhetoric.
“To me, it comes across as a movement that just grants carte blanche to any and all sex acts/ sexual lifestyles and the only real issue seems to be, well, if you have an issue with any of it.”
The current media (including porn) treatment of sex is what Marcuse called repressive desublimation. You sell the surface, but repress in essence. Still, I think we’re currently in an intensely sex negative time. I’m reading Sex at Dawn, which says that women’s repression of their natural eroticism is quite understandable due to the non-support and non-safety coming from patriarchy. We’ve 8,000 years of evolved institutions that have developed to do just that. I disagree with radical feminism, however, because the approach to male sexuality is often very sexist.
Hi Elissa- Am I presenting a particular bias? We all are and obviously writers take a position from which they write. Is someone going to take exception with my views? Probably! And that’s ok and the point of opening up a hopefully expansive discussion.
The whole point of my article was to wonder why we couldn’t have more conversation that’s inclusive of differing sexual views from our own, so perhaps your comment illustrates exactly what I meant. You see me as biased and practicing “extreme rhetoric” and therefore, not someone to be taken seriously. That’s the kind of put-down that I mention in my article that is polarizing all of us since it shuts the door on discussing issues further.
Just as I did with Lance, I am partial to asking questions about why/how we arrive at the perspectives we do. So I’ll ask you: Can you give some examples of how you see these issues differently? I am interested.
Lili – to have a fruitful conversation I need to understand your base assumptions and beliefs. If you believe that sex positivism is a movement that grants “carte blanche” to “any and all sex acts / sexual lifestyles” – these are your words, no? – then I don’t think you are qualified to be having this conversation – want to be very frank with you. You can certainly hold those beliefs, but I cannot oblige them in a discussion.
If an analogy helps – I would not have a geology discussion with someone who believed the earth is 2000 years old.
Elissa, please explain what sex-positivism to me if not carte blanche approval of any/all sexual acts. Please tell me where the discernment exists both on an individual level and as a culture.
This is a genuine request so that I can understand.
Thank you.
Thank you Terre and Lili! I too would like to know what Elissa means by sex-positive. I think its fascinating that people take a writer’s article so personally when they are clearly not addressing one reader.
If Elissa had followed any of Lili’s other articles on GMP she’d know that there were quite a few readers/commenters who did have an “everything but the kitchen sink…Wait! Throw the sink in too, what the hey” attitude about sexual conduct and outside of anyone actually admitting pedophilia or bestiality (no bestiality might have been been on the ok list as well for some readers) there were no rules of engagement.
So, just so you don’t feel like you’re being singled out and for the sake of discussion, open up your commentary by expressing your definition of the term “sex-positive” before you summarily dismiss the writer or this article.
I can’t answer for Elissa but I know a lot of women and men in the sex positive community and boundaries and consent and ethics play a HUGE role. At least in the communities I run with. Things like….don’t be drunk and high if you are trying to negotiate a scene, things like if you are poly then everyone meets each other, things like group policing of people who behave in date-rapey ways. I’ve rarely seen a “fuck all the rules” POV, though I have seen a lot of questioning of rules. In the sex pos system you’ll have people with the highest levels of thoughtfulness on a topic “Is BDSM just an excuse to play with oppressive power dynamics and gender roles.” And you’ll also have people who think, “That’s hot.” and there will be no further discussion.
But you’ll find that in any political system. I don’t see people behaving in a carte blanche manner at the events I’ve gone to. I see a lot of communicating, open-ness, disagreement,establishment of group norms and behaviors and heavy duty negotiating. FWIW, YMMV.
What is this text speak? FWIW – For What Its Worth, YMMV – what does that stand for “Your Monkey May Vote?”
All the acronyms aside, that’s great to hear that the various communities you belong to actually adhere to boundaries and are somewhat cerebral about their proclivities.
As long as no stones are thrown at those who don’t embrace the same style of intimate physical relationships.
Just as those who consider themselves “sex positive” don’t want to be labeled as freaks, nymphos, sluts, sex addicts, etc., monogamous people who prefer to only have one long-term partner or spouse without the laundry list of third party stimuli whether artificial (porn) or organic (polyamory) don’t want to be called “sex negative.”
YMMV means (I think) Your Mileage May Vary. At least that’s what it means in the circles I’ve travelled in.
I haven’t called you Sex Negative, Maia. And most of the folks I know who consider themselves Sex Positive have boundaries. It isn’t some kind of thoughtless ravening all day all night orgy
Do people really think that’s what sex positive communities are like? Got the porn going 24/7 and predating on hot bi babes every chance we get? Cause it isn’t, in my experience. It’s people wanting to design better relationships for themselves, and yes, have more pleasure in general after being brought up in a world that tells them pleasure is suspect.
Many of my friends are monogamous as well. For what it’s worth
Are there people who don’t know some of the academic levels of detail around oppression and patriarchy that Jensen references (with respect to sex work, stripping, porn)? Sure, of course there are. Hell, I barely know enough to keep up with him and I have a masters and think about this stuff all the time. I work in social justice.
Are there people who know McDonald’s isn’t a really good healthy place to eat (on physical and moral planes both) but still grab something to go on occasion? Yes.
I think the issue is less with visual representations of sex (porn) and more the industrial and corporate models within which they are meat-ground out. Just like there isn’t much wrong (to me) with fried chicken, but I’d rather have organic hens and have a good chef prepare it. Bad combo there and I am in no way comparing women to animals ok? I’m comparing corporate industry to artisinal preparation.
It’s a process, yes? the learning of how many levels of oppression are out there? And I think there should be dialogue and education to clean up some of the misconceptions.
Wish I could talk more, but I’m on my way to San Fran for a, ha! Sex positive reading event!
Well I’m relieved to see that there are those in the sex positive community who are mindful and have thought out their decisions. That’s great and really good to know!
It’s when people are not aware of collateral damage that it becomes an issue to review more closely. As long as there are no hard feelings; that no one gets hurt at the end of the day and everyone who enters into the “arrangement” knows what the score is then there’s little to discuss.
Again, and if this doesn’t apply to you, you need not feel pressured to respond- there ARE those who feel that if you’re not championing an “anything goes” attitude then you’re “sex negative.” I repeat, if this does not apply to you, you do not need to respond.
There was one commenter on another article of Lili’s who felt it was totally appropriate to have her young children be exposed to her many and varied partners. She espoused polyamory after her monogamous marriage of many years had failed. Totally fine for her but I must say that I’m not sure how that would affect her young children. She was quite hostile in her comments and dismissed every other person who commented as “sex negative.” There were a few others who felt the same. I’m not saying its any of my business how anybody raises their kids either, I just know that young minds are fertile ground so you need to take great care when choosing which seeds to plant. It’s your responsibility as a parent. End of story.
As I’d stated in a previous response, there are a lot of people who are taking what they’re reading quite personally. No one is sleeping under your bed (I hope,) no one is spying into your sex life (if they are you have more important issues than reading or writing here) and if people are judging you on an online forum, you don’t know them so why do you even care?
These forums should be for open, healthy discourse on topics that should inform and educate us all.
We need to realize that even if we take different stances on issues, we need not resort to name-calling or labeling. It’s simply juvenile and I’m sure that even those without advanced degrees would agree that churlish, childish behavior in adults would be a red flag for any number of emotional challenges that are best handled somewhere else.
“As I’d stated in a previous response, there are a lot of people who are taking what they’re reading quite personally. No one is sleeping under your bed (I hope,) no one is spying into your sex life (if they are you have more important issues than reading or writing here) and if people are judging you on an online forum, you don’t know them so why do you even care? ”
It’s funny that you say that. Are you aware of the many laws against things like homosexuality, oral sex, fornication (sex between unmarried people) and sex toys? Are you aware that they are ACTUALLY ENFORCED?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!
As ridiculous as that all sounds, such laws exists and are enforced (not on a regular basis, but they are enforced). In a sense, yes, there are people interested in your sex life and its the police. How’s that for sex negative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fornication
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6620768/ns/health-sexual_health/t/legislating-your-sex-life/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071203092407AAzAq2x
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-12/justice/adultery.vote_1_adultery-law-new-hampshire-house-repealing?_s=PM:CRIME
Crikey, I could go on, but I think you get the point. And yes, people do actually get charged with this nonsense and face real criminal problems because of them notwithstanding the fact that these laws are so, ummmm, what’s the word? Anti sex? Archaic? Victorian? (I don’t know, put in your own terms).
Beware what you do in your bedrooms in the U.S. You’re probably breaking the law. Especially you sex positive types. Maybe the sex positives ought to get the laws changed (or at least get enough “sex negatives” on board) to moderate some of the retarded horse dung that passes for criminal law in your respective necks of the woods.
Clearly Lili’s friend Lance was afraid that Lili’s stance on porn that agreed with even a tiny fraction of the far right would endanger the few gains that the gay community has garnered. I want to know about that. That matters to me even if I am not engaged with the all-or-nothing platform approach. That fear is clearly fueling the high-octane fury around the issue of sexual mores.
My fear is that discouraging individuals (especially women) from setting clear sexual boundaries and developing their personal relationship discernment, other women will experience the eighth-ring-of-hell that my own lack of discernment and weak boundaries brought me. I nearly committed suicide from the nightmare. If I could prevent that trauma for even one other soul, my work is all worth it.
We really are going to have to discuss things that we disagree about. And honestly state where we currently stand. Lili’s observation is that the sex-positive movement is rather rigid in its insistence that all things sexual are to be declared acceptable without discernment on a personal and/or social level is her observation. I honor that stance and certainly take her seriously. As I take her friend Lance seriously. His concerns diserve discussion also.
The point is: the discussion about sexual mores is about levels of discernment, not a cavalier tossing aside of all discernment. Each voice deserves to be heard and taken seriously.
Truly beautifully said Terre…along with Lilii’s comments as well. I see this issue the same exact way you and her both expressed and couldn’t have put it better.
Especially this: “My fear is that discouraging individuals (especially women) from setting clear sexual boundaries and developing their personal relationship discernment, other women will experience the eighth-ring-of-hell that my own lack of discernment and weak boundaries brought me.”
Terre – I think the point you miss is “approval of all CONSENSUAL sexual acts”. That’s a big one, and if you knew the first thing about about sex-positivity, you’d know the concept of consent is pretty damn central. And that non-consensual violations of other’s sexuality is very frowned upon. The flip side is that non-consensual *restrictions* on other people’s sexuality is likewise frowned upon. You might dismiss this as “lack of discernment on a social level”, which to my mind puts you on the same level as conservatives who use the specter of legalized pedophilia as an argument against gay rights. This “surely there must be SOME standards” as an argument against consensual behavior truly is prudery and sexual conservatism in it’s purest form.
And, BTW, I find your invocation of your own personal problems with sex addiction very telling. You seem to be in that self-righteous phase of recovery where you see anybody who hasn’t chosen your particular brand of straight-and-narrow as being on the road to ruin. Much like the recovering alcoholic who sees every non-teetotaler as as a drunk in the making. I do hope you reach the point in your recovery where you manage to move past this.
You misread, iamcuriousblue. I had the misfortune of being involved with a sex addictwho claimed to be a sex-positive . Once it was diagnosed, I was out. Therefore, no recovery needed
Pardon my getting that detail wrong. However, I’ve looked at your website (http://www.posarc.com/) and it seems you’re coming from the “codependency” or “partners of” side of the recovery equation. I still see that as part of the recovery movement, with the same problematic pseudoscientific “spiritualist” excess and prohibitionist views. Very much like the hard-line pro-”War on Drugs” politics that too many in the drug recovery movement are prone to.
The only way I can explain my thoughts on the sex positive movement is with an anecdote. I’ll try to keep it as short as possible.
A while ago, I was living in a different country from my boyfriend for about three months. We were going to be seeing each other for a weekend once a month or so in that time. It was a fairly new relationship (6 months). We both had pretty high sex drives, so we decided to have an open relationship for that time, so we could each get our sexual needs (well, wants) met. And I told my friends about it, so they wouldn’t get freaked out if they saw me hitting on other guys.
I was astounded – and terrified – by the reaction I got. My friends, men and women in their early twenties who would all have described themselves as feminists, were up in arms. They assumed my boyfriend had somehow forced me into the agreement. They called me a nymphomaniac to my face and a slut behind my back. They suggested that if I couldn’t “go without” for a month at a time, I must be some kind of sex addict.
They didn’t understand that while I could “go without” for however long, I didn’t see the point in doing it for the sake of a monogamous ideal that neither myself nor my boyfriend subscribed to. And, fundamentally, they didn’t understand that I could desire sex for the sake of sex.
This is why we need a sex positive movement. Their reaction represents a great example of modern sex negativity. Sure, it’s not an example of massive oppression, but it was pretty hurtful. It represented the belief that women can’t just want to have sex, that there must be something wrong with them (or they must be being manipulated) if they think they do. It’s a horrible, patronising assumption to make, and I would hope that I wouldn’t have to explain all the reasons why it’s wrong and all the negative consequences of it on a website like this one.
Do certain regular commentators (commenters?) here reflect the same attitudes and reactions of your friends described in your personal annecdote? I certainly seem to sense some sex negativity amongst certain folks on GMP. Just a feelling of course, but the Force is passingly strong with me so…
I keep seeing this assertion that sex-positive feminism advocates against the setting of personal boundaries when it comes to sex, and this puzzles me, as everything I’ve encountered suggests the opposite. (The closest thing that comes to mind is Dan Savage’s sketchy “good, giving and game” formulation, but he’s hardly a sex-positive feminist.) Where is this coming from?
I’m not saying prude-shaming doesn’t exist. We live in a culture that simultaneously slut-shames and prude-shames; one just can’t win. But I just don’t see it being expressed within the framework of sex-positive feminism, and in fact I quite often see the idea that one has the right to set whatever boundaries one wants, no matter whether someone else thinks they’re appropriate/rational/a good idea, expressed as an integral part of sex-positive feminism.
Dan Savage may not be a feminist, but he sure as heck is a sex positive gay man! I think he is a feminist though (more so than not, he’s no male chauvanist that’s for sure). How is GGG sketchy? Do tell? That is extremely odd to me…. Should we all try to meet each other halfway or forget having a relationship with that person? Seems totally reasonable to me, or am I on crack and not know it????
That one is a real headscratcher their friendo. A real headscratcher… Hmmm….
Note that’s “there” not “their.” Ei Carumba! That’s a brutal typo!
Just like there’s a difference between religious/cultural based anti-porn activism and feminist anti-porn activism, I think there’s a difference between a “pro-sex” outlook and sex-positive feminism. Dan Savage is most definitely pro-sex, but has never struck me as all that feminist, and to my knowledge he doesn’t claim to be.
If I were making the world’s shortest feminism/sexuality quiz, it’d probably have the following categories:
Mainstream/patriarchy: non-sex-positive (*not* necessarily sex-negative!), non-feminist (also *not* necessarily sexist/misogynist!)
Anti-porn feminist: non-sex-positive, feminist
Pro-sex: sex-positive, non-feminist
Sex-positive feminist: sex-positive, feminist
(Obviously, this is biased as hell.)
GGG is sketchy to me because it comes across as saying that one should not stick to one’s boundaries in a relationship, and that not being “game” = not being good.
That’s why Savage says you shouldn’t be in a relationship with that person if they don’t suit your needs. He’s pretty big on dumping people who don’t work for you. I think it’s part of his belief in personal agency and personal responsibility. Could be wrong though…
Emma, I’m sorry your friends treated you badly. I think that’s a very good example of people having a culturally determined view of sex and the ethics around that sex that only fit one “right way” to do relationships. In your case, non-monogamy might have helped your relationship flourish and grow (or not) but you felt it was a healthy and positive place for you to be and you came up against a great deal of shaming connected to group norms. “We don’t do this!”
We come up against this all the time in our society. I recently have been following a case of an an artist who produces and directs sexually based films, works in the industry, and has recently also become a mother and is now also promoting breastfeeding (there is more to the issue but in the interest of the post I’ll be brief). Her work has come under some serious attack, much due to hearsay rather than actual journalism because people find it appalling that she can have two identities (porn/erotica producer and mother/artist) that she wants to blend and integrate. I find that to be a very negative reaction to her. Shaming in the highest degree (you should have seen the tweets!).
What I found fascinating about the situation was that her art was provoking a response and boy did it get it. People were clutching their GD pearls over the idea she could, in her life, art and activism, blend motherhood and her life as a “brand” in the industry.
No where in the debate on twitter or blogs were the questions Jensen was raising except in the most moralistic and judgemental ways. “Mothers SHOULDN”T DO THAT!” What if she’s got flourishing amazing relationships? What if she’s intelligent enough to read academic articles and decide these things for herself (she is, and how).
There is a level of negativity around a lot of things sexual/sensual in this culture. I’m not always sure sex positive as a framework is the answer, but it’s a hell of a lot better than what I personally grew up with.
As I understand it, sex positivism actually is applying to same rules to sexual behavior as exists for non-sexual behavior. Basically, anyone can make a suggestion, but one must have the consent of all parties involved before actually acting. Forcing someone to play scrabble would be immoral and bizarre, thus rape is like that but much much worse. In my experience, and others seem to agree, sex positive discussions spend just as much time emphasizing the importance of consent as they do the importance of sexual freedom and non-repression. Actually a lot of sex positive feminist discussion can get into the same things mentioned in the article. However it’s merely problematic rather than immoral.
The thing that makes sex positives angry at “sex-negatives” is the perception that these feminists have used a variation of feminist theory to label a narrow set of sexual behaviors as the best kind, the few that are most consistent with human flourishing, and that everything else is in fact not only not as good, but downright EVIILLL!!!!!!!!
Also non-sex-positive feminists seem to make broad generalizations. Claiming that since most porn is exploitative or misogynistic, that porn is exploitative and misogynistic by definition (Catherine Mackinnon), or worse that because many men are rapists, that essentially all men are. Sex positive feminists assert than feminist porn is possible and encourage it’s creation. It is typically very different from mainstream porn. Also typically they try to help sex workers by making their lives easier rather than ‘rescuing’ them from their profession (unless they really are forced, which again is an issue of consent). Male sexuality is only bad when it ignores consent (which often it does, especially when sex is thought of as an achievement on the part of the man).
I think sex positive feminists assume that because people are unique, the sexuality that is most consistent with human flourishing really depends on the specific human, and that it is best to rely on each person to figure that out on their own. Sex positives generally trust people to know what kind of sex is healthy for them. Though there is plenty of room to educate them are gender issues and sexuality, which helps them come to the right decision. If do the wrong thing you could say there is a problem for that person and even for society if you explain why, but that’s different from shaming them for their chosen act or calling their act evil (unless it transgresses against consent).
So yeah as long as it is between consenting adults, it might be problematic but not immoral.
Generally a good comment.
However, I completely disagree for my own part that my sexuality is often about ignoring consent when sex is thought of as an achievement (not even sure what that means in fact, but I loudly disagree all the same). I suggest all the men stand up and call bullshit on that one too, because it sounds like man bashing to me. You seem to suggest that men seeking to acheive orgasm through sex are rapists. Ummm… NO!
Please clarify or retract that ridiculous idea.
There seems to be a way of looking at sex where sex occurs because the guy is (for lack of a better word) awesome. Not because two people wanted to do that thing, but because the guy is awesome and got his just rewards in the form of pussy. Men who are obsessed with ‘getting laid’ seem to see things this way. The woman’s desires and actions are rarely mentioned in such narratives, only the man’s actions. I guess the woman friendly version of this is the Dreamboat who “wins her heart” and “sweeps her off her feet”. Either way the focus is on what the man is doing. He chases her. She can resist or give in to him. Though is he is masculine/awesome enough and makes enough effort, even the world’s most chaste woman can be his!
i.e. a view of sex that focuses exclusively on what the man does to get the girl, and never what the woman wanted or did seems to invite rape. Of course a view that ignores the woman’s agency like that is by definition sexual objectification too (even if couched in romantic terms).
Ummm… What?
I can’t connect a thing you’ve just said to my criticism above. I’m pretty sure you were trying to respond to me, but I’m honestly not sure. Could you run that by me again, a bit less jargon laden for me. I missed that class at the U, so I’m not following your language too well.
Sorry to be so dumb, but I want to be sure what I should reply to you before I reply to you lest I err in my comprehension.
Thanks!
That’s a beautiful comment, Quantuminc.
Susie Bright, Patrick Califia, Carol Queen, Tristan Taormino
These are some self identified sex positive types. Though I’m sure there are some disagreements within the group, I can assure you that none would support a “carte blanche anything goes” philosophy. A healthy discussion on the politics of sexuality cannot sustain a premise that non-consensual, illegal, unethical activities may be part of the “carte blanche” category. Anal sex is not a gateway entry to cultish divinity sexual sects in Montana. The Bible might be though, but I’m not totally sure about that either…these slippery slope, highly polarized attack argument are akin to religious conservatives’ worry about homosexual teachers trying to convert students to gay.
So – the list of proponents above both reflects my personal views (not perfectly mind you) as well as being highly representative of the movement. Lili can peruse all their websites and show their support for “anything goes” philosophy. She may find that the BDSM community, for example, is so heavily laden with rules and lines of negotiations that it may be hard to differentiate it from a government organization –
There should be a ton of nuance within discussions that attempt to knit individual and societal sexual ethics. That it’s so often missing, is so often telling.
this is an important conversation worth thinking about.
however, i find it painful that some of the most insightful and critical minds on the issue have to ask questions like, “How do we shape lives that are sensible, sane and consistent with both physical, emotional and mental, long-term health? … How do you build a culture in which human beings flourish? is the fundamental question – part of that question has to do with sex: How do you build a culture in which human beings flourish sexually?”
i know it’s easy to vilify the church, but there is a God who created us, and who has a solution for those questions not just on an individual and arbitrary level, but as part of a structure that is inclusive, fulfilling and healthy for all of humanity.
There’s so much to unpack about this interview and so much that’s problematic about it that I decided it would be better to write a post instead of just a comment. Here’s my take on why Robert Jensen Doesn’t Understand Sex-Positivity.
While I’m here, I’d also like to offer some thoughts on how sex-positivity can help people learn how to set boundaries and offer some clarity on the topic of sexualization, both of which seem relevant to this discussion.
That’s a really good article there Charlie! Gotta give you some props for that. That was a thorough, well thought out reply to the article here.
I would suggest that the editors link the reply to this article in some fashion, but may cross some line or another….
Hi Julie- Thanks for writing and explaining the inner workings of the poly community. Two things:
I don’t think the issue being taken is with how those of like mind in those communities play together. If I understand Lili right, the issue is that though those in the sex positive communities want to be respected for their rights to live the way they want, more and more, many in that movement are taking on the characteristics of fundamentalist religions by “shaming” those not into the sexual activities they’re into.
For ex: porn use. Like Terre wrote, if you’re not into porn, you just need to read comments on these threads to get a big dose of shaming that you’re not sex-positive, that you’re conservative, prude, etc.
There’s no thoughtful discourse, it’s just “you’re prude” or “you’re conservative”. Oh really? I think the point the writer here was making, is that just like religions do, the sex-positive community seems to have made the rules and is now judging others by them which is the very thing they’re fighting against having others do to them. Ironic, isn’t it?
Second point: You write about the negotiations inside the communities you hang in:
“Things like….don’t be drunk and high if you are trying to negotiate a scene, things like if you are poly then everyone meets each other, things like group policing of people who behave in date-rapey ways.”
In the communities I hang in, behaving in “date-rapey” ways is cause for either getting arrested, the crap beat out of you, and/or any other number of responses to having your NO not being heard. Am i the only one who finds the casual mention of this behavior, as almost an aside, alarming?
Also wanted to add as an aside, that Dr. Jensen aptly said: “…it’s very difficult to have a sensible conversation in this culture….” He’s right, we are so polarized about the issues of sex. There is no grey in our society or culture these days. Right wingers lean all the way to the puritanical and old ways, and the leftists say everything should be allowed. No! I don’t abide by either of these two extremes. Quite frankly, I find them frightening and supremely unhealthy.
That’s why this article is so great because at least we are having a dialogue. So many men and women define their “hip-ness” with being soooo ultra sex positive ie: Sexy clothing that leaves nothing to the imagination, plastic surgery, cool cars, posting your ass on u-tube, porn, orgies, erotica….u name it. The more sex you have the cooler and more loved you must be! Ugh!
I’m no prude, nor do I consider myself “Sex Negative”, but I don’t define myself by my “sex” and hate being defined or labelled by others as to where I supposedly fit in on the spectrum of opposites. I’m somewhere in the middle. I think there should be a dignity about sex and one’s sexuality. That’s what I find missing. All the objectification for someone else’s projection, sexual lack or benefit. I define myself by my mind and my loving, respectful relationships with others. That’s the bottom line. Lili’s site at PoSARC was created for those who have partner’s who have become addicted to too much exposure to all of this crap, and as a result, can’t have a healthy, intimate relationship.
It’s not much of a dialogue, given that both Bee & Jensen share a lot of the same perspectives. Real dialogue emerges when we have room for different points of view.
Charlie, Good point and hopefully you can follow this up with expressing your opinion. This is the chance to have and participate in this dialog. My POV is that there should be no fences, no sides, no labels. That everyone has a deep respect for eachother’s humanity through dignity and kindness. I can quickly say that this will never happen in my lifetime.. but if I truly believe and follow my intention then this will be achieved in my lifetime, in my life, and that is where it matters.
I must say it is a struggle to stay in conversation with those who refuse to believe that sex trafficking, sex slavery, porn addiction/compulsivity exist in statistically meaningful numbers. I will because we simply must keep talking until we hear each other.
I have worked with partners/spouses of sex addicts/NPDs for over four years and the numbers here in Atlanta are NOT small or insignificant. I am also an activist for the abolition of sex slavery and sex/human trafficking. That is happening here also. Sadly, just last week the two causes intersected. One of the sex addicts (whose spouse I have worked with) was arrested at a strip club for attempting to solicit a sex slave for a two-month overseas trip he had planned. Tragic for the spouse and children.
Actually, I want—with every fiber of my being—those who choose alternative sexual arrangements to be quite frank about their inclinations and associate with each other. I read Charlie’s blog about his take on the sex-positive motions. That was helpful. I want all those whose shame is high enough that they are not up to being truthful to align themselves with like-minded persons and become entirely whatever it is they want to become and/or do.
Here’s a surprise: I have participated in a pretty wide variety of sex play that involves “consenting adults.” And it was coerced or at best coming from a compromised ability to stand up for myself. I sold out over and over again until I reached a low that I would not wish upon anyone. I cannot help but wonder how much of that same selling out (especially on the part of women) is going on in sex-positive communities.
Robert Jensen speaks powerfully on the notion of choice in his book “Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity”—in short, that the degree of power one has in a relationship and community determines the that person’s ability to actually make a truly free choice. Women in a patriarchy do NOT have the same choices men do. Especially sexually.
Making rebellious sexual choices is as enslaving as obeying the rules without questions. Discovering one’s most genuine preferences is a very subtle inward process for women.
Before I get toasted for being sex-negative, let me re-state that I actually want those who refer to themselves as sex-positives to continue to strive for honesty and introspection and to NOT be shamed for their activities. I also want trauma counseling available for those like me who had weak boundaries. Some of my experiences were deeply traumatizing.
Conversely, those whose sexuality is being shamed from religious dogmatists deserve trauma therapy also. We are walking a thin line and sniping at each other must eventually become conversation. I remind myself over and over again that this current era of contention is just the part where pent-up frustration and anger is spewed before all sides are spent and we join together to honor all as humans who are exactly where they are right now.