Terre Spencer finds an unexpected comparison for the oppressive sex-positives.
It struck me the second time I was called a conservative. Well, after I stopped hysterically laughing, that is. There was something familiar, well trodden, about the accusations. Yet, me, a conservative? About anything? Twice? Seriously?
Me, a conservative? Barry Goldwater, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh would be horrified at the thought of incorporating any of my political ideas into their ideologies. Maybe worse than horrified. Likewise, no religious conservative would welcome one iota of my theology. Wally—my father-in-law, a man who considered me a “communist” and a “pinko”—were he alive, would rail at anyone calling me a conservative of any stripe and then we would laugh over such a preposterous event over an after-dinner scotch. Damn, I miss him.
But the memories of Wally faded into the current circumstances that led me to be called a conservative. What on earth was going on? What was that unidentified, and distantly familiar, sense about this?
For failing to embrace the exact sexual mores of the two accusers, I was practically spat upon as an anachronistic conservative. Yep, that was it. For failing to embrace free love and porn-saturated imagery for myself, I was dismissed as a conservative by two persons who claimed to be sex-positives.
Sex-positives? What? So if I somewhat disagree, I am, by inference, a sex-not-so-positive? And if I really disagree, I am a what? A sex-negative? Tricky devils. That was it—the familiarity—just like the danged Puritans. The sex-positives were behaving just as the Puritans did. Right down to accusing me of being conservative.
♦◊♦
The Puritans—Radical Reformers
In 1534, Henry VIII defected from the Vatican in order to divorce his post-child-bearing age wife, Katherine of Aragon, with the intent of marrying Anne Boleyn for the purpose of having a male heir. The Church of England was created by Henry VIII and established as England’s official state religion.
Although England did revert to Catholicism briefly under the rule of Henry’s eldest—and Catholic—daughter Mary, her early death brought the Protestant Elizabeth I to the throne. Pragmatic and determined to hold the middle ground in religious matters, Elizabeth reveled in resplendent pomp for both court and religious ceremonies at the same time she reinstated the Church of England as the state religion.
Upon Elizabeth’s accession to the throne, a previously exiled group of English Protestants returned to England. This group was determined to enforce very strictly the Calvinist code they believed to be correct. They also believed that the English Reformation had not gone far enough. Elizabeth’s retention of lavish trappings for herself and her court were considered “popish” by these extremist reformers. In reaction, a particular group of reformers dictated black-and-white-only garb for their members, because ornamentation was conservative, a remnant of the Roman Church that they strove diligently to eliminate from all of England.
For their efforts to purify English doctrine along Calvinist dogmatic lines, they were named Puritans by their detractors, although they had another name for themselves. They never gained political power in England and became increasing shrill and separatist. By the mid-1700s, the Puritans were no longer a political consideration in English politics at all—doctrinal infighting and several generations of emigration reduced their effectiveness, their numbers and their ardor.
In the New World, however, they had quite an influence. In the colonies, they practiced their doctrines that were considered radically extreme in England, and as a result, the Puritans’ beliefs shaped the emerging United States’ culture to a much greater degree.
Remember, if you will, that the Puritans believed that the English Protestant Reformation had not gone far enough. They were fighting against both the reforms of other Protestants and the established doctrines of the Roman Church, convinced that their interpretation of Christian scripture the only possible correct one. All others were in error from their viewpoint. An interesting aside: the Puritan declaration of doctrinal infallibility foreshadows the Vatican’s 1870 papal infallibility declaration.
So, in the Puritans we see a group of reformers who insisted that their doctrines must become the social norm with no latitude or questioning/discussion from either practitioners or others.
♦◊♦
The Sex-Positive Movement
Fast-forward to 1999 and the founding of the Seattle Sex Positive Community Center, frequented by a group of reformers who believed that the sexual reformations of the 20th century had not gone far enough. Is this starting to sound familiar? By calling themselves sex-positives, the implication is that if one does not agree 100% with their every doctrine, one is sex-negative.
The Puritans self-referential name? “The godly.” Adopting this moniker certainly was a sly means of condemning those who disagree with their reformations as the presumably ungodly.
Now turning the same techniques (rigid fundamentalism, all-or-nothing insistence upon doctrinal agreement, and judgments delivered to dissenters with rabid contempt), onto Protestant sexual mores, the sex-positive movement is taking a Puritan-like tack in its approach to sexual matters. Could anything be more ironic?
If one chooses monogamy and no porn in one’s relationship, the new “godly” call this conservative with hissing vehemence. Witness: judgment delivered with a Puritanical intolerance with the intention to dismiss entirely or to shame those who disagree into agreement/acceptance of their doctrines.
Shame? From a movement that calls itself sex-positive? How perfectly Puritanical!
Ah, it is still possible to be unbearably self-righteous and quite sly all in the same breath. The sex-positives invite no discussion with the likes of people like me and have no interest in exploring why someone would choose anything but a sexual free-for-all for himself or herself. The message is clear from this camp: “Agree to everything we endorse or we will attack and dismiss you as a sex-negative conservative.”
Somehow, I find this as quaint as the very Puritans against whom the sex-positives claim that they are rebelling. Will the sex-positives soon become marginalized by internal disagreements after they discover that the “yes” to everything sexual is just as ridiculous as the “just say no” approach is to drug use—oversimplified non-discernment?
Surely, someday they will recognize that discernment is necessary, both personally and socially? That both individuals and the culture at large have to make ongoing determinations for sexual behavior? That to naively insist that any and all sexual behavior is good for everyone is as fundamentally puritanical as to insist that only highly proscribed sexuality is utterly necessary?
I would like to hear members of this movement explain their personal and collective discernment process in dealing with sexual matters. At this venture, I cannot see discernment of any sort from the sex-positive movement other than the extollation of safe-sex practices. That is a start, I suppose.
My personal relationship standards for porn-free monogamy have been met with scorn and labels from the sex-positives. How is this threatening to sex-positives? Surely, the sex positives are not in favor of sex slavery that is the result of the flourishing porn industry? Surely, the sex-positives do not want children sexualized and women objectified and dehumanized? Surely there are some grounds for agreement and many more for discussion? Maybe my assumptions are incorrect. At present, I cannot know, as the only contacts I have with sex-positives are the times they call me conservative for my choices. I would really like a discussion with members of the sex-positive movement about a number of issues and hope that one day that is possible.
Are we doomed to 150 years of strife over this essential refusal to discuss our differences without absolutes being thrust upon us all one way or the other? To understand that choices are not always free and simple? My sense of history and the familiar gives me a sobering shudder.
In the meantime, two sex-positives have labeled me a conservative, which provided me hours of entertainment and brought back fond memories of Wally. My only regret is that Wally is no longer alive to guffaw about all this. We would have had a great discussion, probably never agreeing on much of anything other than that the sex-positive movement is as narrowly pinched as the Puritans were. After a belly laugh, we would have moved onto politics and other social issues, disagreeing and questioning each other, and then finally joining the rest of the family in great spirits afterwards.
Wally, what I want is what we had. Affectionate, mostly respectful disagreement. Yes, we volleyed names back and forth and at the same time, the mutual admiration we held for each other was clear to all.
♦◊♦
Is Civil Discussion About Sexual Mores Possible?
Although I am not seeing any indications that there is even a hint of an invitation to have sane public discussions with either the religious right and/or the sex-positives about sexual mores, I still hope against all reason that culturally and individually we can craft a mostly respectful means to have this conversation because so much depends upon us being able to do so.
Call me “conservative”; call me a “pinko” if you must. Although I prefer to call myself “discerning,” rather than “conservative” (or “liberal,” for that matter), I won’t be deterred by labels lobbed at me from any camp. Nor will I surreptitiously eradicate anyone’s porn use or free-love choices, my choices are for myself. Conversely, some assume that I share their religious injunctions against porn. Neither is correct.
My disdain for porn is the degradation and dehumanization of women and the effects those portrayals have upon real relationships. Ditto with monogamy, which is neither a moral nor a political statement for me. It is what works for my psyche.
Reformation of any sort is never a smooth process, and certainly not a painless one. We are undoubtedly undergoing a full-out reformation of relationships. Staying in conversation with all parties is critically important to the culture as a whole—even if various fringes cloak themselves in righteous names and point fingers. It has happened before.
I have determined what works for me, and that has been refined over the years. I am looking at human behavior and the individual humans behind the behavior—what works for them and how that evolves. That is the place from which I would like to have the discussions. That, to me, is the best possible place from which sex and/or relationships can be discussed. But will that be possible?
—Photo sskennel/Flickr
About Terre Spencer
I’ve been commenting very respectfully in the past few posts about Sex Positivism and what it is. Charlie Glickman has as well. I believe there are many smart, thoughtful people out in the world who appreciate the idea of “sex positive” sexuality (creative, boundaried, consensual) but my guess is you’ve not met or conversed with many of them personally. It appears you have met people who felt like taking a hit at you with language. “You aren’t X” cause you don’t agree with me!!!
That’s not a symptom of sex positivity, but a symptom of people being jerks and acting from a position of group norming, not personal self examination or critique. Any group can do that. And do, often. I see it in the improv world, in vegan vs vegetarian, purity wars happen in every aspect of the political world, not just sex.
It’s a way groups police people and norms. I’d ask you to consider that possibility. Personally, I could choose to take this article and say, “Well, all anti porn people are screedy, mean, martyrish and anti-sex.”
I won’t cause you know why? They aren’t. I know that much about how people are, and what I see here in this article is a great deal of frustration and anger and pain. I have compassion for that.
If I went that route, I’d be a jerk and completely un-self-critical.
You say:
“My disdain for porn is the degradation and dehumanization of women and the effects those portrayals have upon real relationships. Ditto with monogamy, which is neither a moral nor a political statement for me. It is what works for my psyche.”
I can’t see how that makes you a conservative per se. I can see that your position and personal history have a huge impact on your life, much as my personal history has upon mine. That I have many friends who have worked in the sex industry and have fared well (all while knowing that there are significant issues in that industry), that I have had personal experiences with poly that have been extremely positive (while also knowing people for whom poly doesn’t work). You have every right to your opinions and I’d love to see more dialogue for you, with you. This article made me wince, frankly.
You also say:
“The sex-positives invite no discussion with the likes of people like me and have no interest in exploring why someone would choose anything but a sexual free-for-all for himself or herself. The message is clear from this camp: “Agree to everything we endorse or we will attack and dismiss you as a sex-negative conservative.”
I’m in that camp, and I’ve said no such thing. Neither has Charlie or Stella from the other thread. And I find this idea that sex positive communities are “free for alls” ridiculous. I’ve been in that world for nearly 8 years and see a lot of “no”, “not this”, “maybe next time” “too tired” and “needing celibacy for a while” going on as much as the let’s kiss/makeout/negotiate a relationship. Good lord, we all have to do laundry. We all have to pay bills. We just want to spend some time enjoying sexuality in a way that’s different than yours. We aren’t fucking 24/7. Good grief.
You clearly have very strong opinions on the matter. You clearly have had some significant push back from people who have differing views. I’d be open to continuing to talk with you, as I suspect Charlie would as well. Stella Omega created a forum just for that opportunity and I’d invite you to email me and join in.
The idea that sex-positive people seem Puritanical to the author really bothers you. Puritanical is a name noone who considers themselves sex-positive is going to want to hear.
But I think you are dismissing the author’s point too quickly. She met some people who called themselves sex-positive who were narrow-minded. She’s not the only one who has had that experience. You may not behave in that way, but I think it’s important to acknowledge that there are people who do and that the behavior should be criticized. Getting upset by the author is getting mad at the messenger.
It’s not just that some individual sex positive people think their way is best. It’s also the language. It makes it impossible to disagree with someone without being accused of being anti-sex.
Black Iris, I’m glad you phrased it “called themselves sex positive,” because narrow mindedness goes against everything I know about sex positivity. It’s unfortunate that so many people have met self proclaimed sex positives who go to an extreme and judge people in ways they have been fighting not to be judged themselves.
Well, I don’t like purity wars. I think most groups do this. “You aren’t really a democrat unless….” “YOu aren’t really a feminist/liberal/etc unless….”
Some of this might be best dealt with on a personal level. If anyone told me I was anti sex because I didn’t like to watch porn, and if they didn’t engage me kindly in a dialogue? I’d simply laugh at them in their face. I know who I am and know what I stand for. I feel pretty certain Terre does as well.
There is, so far as I know, no “organized” movement of Sex Positivity. There are a lot of writers and speakers, there are a lot of books and websites, but it isn’t like the DNC or NOW. No membership fees, political candidates and so forth.
There are a lot of people who are trying to be this new thing, some of whom are afraid even to use their real names in public spaces for fear of backlash, and yeah they get defensive. Some of them are highly intelligent and critical and I bet some of them just like fucking and think this sounds awesome. Just like in any organization.
All, I’m asking for is more actual dialogue. FYI, I’m not a leader in the community. Just a lady who thinks peace and pleasure and cultural change against misogyny is important. I’m sure I’d wind up in none to many arguments with the pro porn camp. I’d welcome the chances to talk though.
If she had said “Some people who call themselves sex-positive sound puritanical to me” I would be very quick to agree with her.
And what made me wince?
“If one chooses monogamy and no porn in one’s relationship, the new “godly” call this conservative with hissing vehemence. Witness: judgment delivered with a Puritanical intolerance with the intention to dismiss entirely or to shame those who disagree into agreement/acceptance of their doctrines.”
I don’t know anyone calling themselves “godly.’” I know lots of people who don’t want to be poly. Some of whom I’d date happily. I’d never shame them! How terrible would that be!
Doctrines? Do “we” have some kind of dogma or “Book of Poly” out there?
Church services? Mostly I see people just trying to have more creative, sensual, pleasurable relationships, making mistakes, figuring things out and trying not to be shamed for doing so.
I think it’s important to listen to people who feel that they’ve been judged by people who call themselves sex positive. You can’t just discount their perception because you’ve never seen it . It’s like telling someone that racism or sexism doesn’t exist or that they’re being too sensitive when they complain.
I am listening to her and I’d be happy to talk with her. That’s why I mentioned I had compassion for her experiences. And I winced because I heard a lot of pain and frustration in her article that seemed very personal (and yes to me some of the article appeared to be hyperbole but I can’t really claim that without talking to her).
There is a spiral all of us get into when we have these discussions, it seems to me. Yes, she’s had negative experiences with people who feel they are sex positive. Perhaps her stance threatens them as much as theirs threatens hers. So each accuses the other of something?
I’d never tell her that that accusation doesn’t exist, but I would ask her to reach out to a variety of people who have been cordial and kind with her to have some kind of longer conversation. Its like if I said, well…all feminists are X because a few of them said X to me. Or, all white people are racist because the ones i’ve met said racist things to me.
The sex positive movement, if indeed it is even organized to be called one, is filled with fallible individuals, all of whom I believe have been deeply influenced by growing up in modern America at a particular time.
That’s all my point is, that she is painting all of us with the same brush when many of us are just trying to figure out how to make our relationships work better for us. I’m guessing there is a division though between “sex positive” meaning pro porn pro sex work pro industry and “sex positive” meaning poly, kinky, individual relationship.
don’t know about that though.
Actually, it’s like hearing someone explain that “black people are racist”, because some black person called them a “honkie.”
Look at her headline; Not “Some sex-positives are puritanical” or “Some puritanical types are calling themselves sex positive” but “Sex Positives are all of them puritanical because someone hurt my feelings.”
Yeah, it’s a title designed to summarize a whole group of people. It’s inflammatory, and it’s very very personal to Ms. Spencer. And she hasn’t contacted me or commented on any of my posts. I’m still open and will stay open to dialogue, but I doubt she will want to speak with me. Just a feeling.
I agree with your earlier comment, Stella; if she’d said “some” or so forth I’d have no real argument with her. Or if she provided more detail around nearly being spat upon, which sounds really far out to me, but I believe she had the experience. If the only people she’s speaking to are in a 180 disagreement with her, then I guess that’s the only baseline she has.
Stella, you are correct. I should have said that SOME sex-positives are as rigid in their reformation attempts as the Puritans were in their reformation efforts. I was wrong to have been so universal. I stand corrected, my apologies.
yes, “sex-positive” is just one of a myriad personality traits that make up anyone person. Some sex-positive people are thoughtful, intelligent, socially ept folk– some of them are not so much, and although some people may have an innate sense that sexuality should not be stigmatised, they can’t necessarily tell you why.
All kinds of people make up a world. it’s always interesting to me, the ways in which people expect that the minority group– and despite your impression, sex-positive is a minority stance– MUST be nice and polite at all times…
A true sex positive person would not demonize who wasn’t comfortable with talking about his/her sexuality, watching porn, preferring vanilla sex, or choosing monogamy. He *would* find it wrong if that person judged him for his own sexual preferences. The same way I wouldn’t judge the gay couple down the street, I wouldn’t judge a couple in an open relationship, the straight man who prefers to wear a dress when having sex, or the woman who works as a dominatrix or enjoys sleeping around. If you have a problem with any sex act, being poly, or sleeping around, then don’t be a part of it, and if your partner can’t deal with that and compromise, it’s not a good relationship. That’s what true sex positivity is. It’s also about pushing for opening the door to allow people to be honest to themselves and others about sex. It’s about getting rid of double standards that hurt both genders, becoming more comfortable with our bodies, raising awareness of lifestyles other than hetero monogamy, and doing away with the notion that there is something wrong with the human body (what does it say about society’s neuroses when violence, murder, bullying are less shocking than a nipple). No one wants to pressure you to become a porn watching s&m loving poly, just to understand that people who don’t fit into the tight confines of hetero monogamy are people too and that the human body is beautiful in all its shapes, sizes, and desires.
And about the porn. Being sex positive does not mean one doesn’t understand that the porn industry is far from perfect. Even though I’m not against porn, I’m willing to admit that there are a LOT of issues that need to be fixed within the genre. The “I forced that fucking whore into my car and made her give me head on camera” and “that dumb slut didn’t know I was videotaping her nasty ass” is not good. If those are the first representations of sex that young boys see, that could lead to serious problems. Same thing goes for guys learning about sex through porn and believing that those are the things women like or that sex is will always be just like that (the best sex of my life definitely didn’t involve screaming like a banshee or getting cum in my hair). I believe prostitution in itself isn’t wrong, but sex trafficking of young girls is. So is the disproportionate amount of abuse, rape, and murder that happens to prostitutes. So is a man promising his wife to be faithful then having unsafe sex with a prostitute in an unregulated environment and bringing home something serious to his wife when they have sex the next night. Yet, paying for sex in a safe and honest environment doesn’t hurt anyone. It’s not all black and white when it comes to sex positivity. I’m not just going to close my eyes to an anti-porn argument because I’m sex positive. There’s a difference between not being comfortable with what’s wrong with it and denouncing altogether and wanting it to just go away.
So what do you think is the solution to the problem of the violent porn out there?
How would you prevent young men from seeing violent porn as their sexuality is developing? Do you think it’s okay for young men to see other porn as they grow up?
What do you think of someone who believes that prostitution is itself wrong and not a postive form of sexuality? Could that person be sex positive?
What if legalizing prostitution doesn’t get rid of sex trafficking?
I think you didn’t direct that to me and I don’t really have good answers for those very good questions, but I’ll give it a shot anyway.
1) I’d say some of the issue has to do with the greater theme in our country that violence is good and sensuality is bad. That masculinity must equal violence. That masculinity must coincide with misogyny? How do you change that? If you do change that would porn follow suit? Has porn always been violent throughout history? Have there been other cultures in past centuries with more egalitarian sexual imagery (China, India etc)? What made them different?
2) I don’t see why that person couldn’t have a nuanced view of what they appreciated personally and disliked culturally. I don’t think, for me anyway, that being sex positive means you have to be like “Sure thing, porn, sex films, strippers!” I do think it means you need to engage a critical view of your personal relationships and broader trends while trying to trust individuals as they make their choices. I think people are complicated and can make complicated choices.
3) I don’t know if legalizing prostitution will eliminate trafficking because I believe that there are people in the world who are sociopaths and who are cruel and who see people/bodies as profit margins. I do think that creating a world where pleasure and choice are paramount will help to identify options for women in general and force all of us to take stronger stands against cruelty in general. Prohibition increased the mafia, repression allows for crime to fill the market in place for whatever is being repressed.
Ultimately I see there needs to be a huge overhaul.
Other questions I think about: Is sexual violence (rape etc) a feature instead of a bug in the human species. There are days when I have little hope, you know? I dont’ think tightening down on sex helps that problem. I’m not sure loosening up will either. I think the issues connect to masculinity and cultural waves that are often hard to see while we are in them.
What do you think of someone who believes that prostitution is itself wrong and not a postive form of sexuality? Could that person be sex positive?
Does that person think that prostitution itself is always and forever wrong, an original sin? NO ifs ands or buts? That sexuality can be so clearly and easily divided into “good” sexuality and “bad?” For everyone all the time?
I think that person has a personal responsibility to never engage in prostitution, then. Or in any of the the practices they think are “bad,” including non-sexual ones.
I am sex positive. I call myself that. And I have never thought that I could feel okay doing prostitution. So, I don’t do it. I have met many prostitutes that I do not like– don’t like them as people, don’t want to be around them. So, I stay away from them. I’ve met a few people, however, whom I found that I really like, respect and even look up to– who do sex for pay. I cannot say that prostitution in itself is wrong and negative. There are a lot of circumstances around prostitution that contribute to the negativity.
I can say the same thing about many other professions as well, although there are far fewer societal negatives surrounding banking,stock-brokering, or running laudromats, for instance.
But my question is, if a person says, prostitution is wrong, can they be sex positive? I’d argue that you can love sex and want a positive culture about it, but also believe that some things are wrong. I don’t think most people would see it as an absolute position (who can blame a starving mom), but can you say, it’s wrong in most circumstances.
This is where I don’t like the terminology. It suggests to me that if you have an opinion like selling/buying sex is a bad thing to do and should be illegal, you are against sex. I don’t think that should be so.
I think sex positive is often used as a way of saying sexual morality based on choice and nothing else.
You have hit upon a real conundrum. Language that implies all-or-nothing agreement. If one is not one of the “godly,” one is _________? Our minds kind of fill in the “ungodly.”
Same with the term “sex-positive.” What is it? I am learning that some use the term “sex-positive” in very different ways so that there is no concrete meaning. Which is all the more confusing.
I have an issue with sex becoming commerce and especially industrialized—because it takes upon a dimension that sex does not seem especially well-adapted to carry. Conflating sex work, porn and positive regard for sexual choices seems too limited a place for discussion to me. I must separate the issues as I cannot drink the Kool-aid for the whole sheebang. Call me limited or whatever. It is just not happening.
As long as we stay in respectful conversations with each other, we can at least see what these issues mean to others. And it is probably best to discuss each issue separately, because insisting that sexual choice, commercial sex and porn remain lumped together discourages nuances in conversation.
I am learning that some use the term “sex-positive” in very different ways so that there is no concrete meaning. Which is all the more confusing.
that’s the best discovery you could make in these circumstances, in my opinon. It ought to clear the confusion right out of your head– there is no one single definition, and there is no Bible, and there is no need to assume one person condemns you in everyone’s eyes, in these conversations you’ve been having.
Try saying “I think prostitution is wrong in most circumstances,” each time you talk about it. That no longer is a single sweeping condemnation. Most everyone would agree with you.
f you have an opinion like selling/buying sex is a bad thing to do and should be illegal, you are against sex.
See, you keep saying things without qualifiers. Why is selling sex a bad thing to do? Why is it bad to buy it?
There is a spectrum of issues I see in this larger discussion of what is sex positive. Some are based more on individual issues and some on cultural or governmental issues.
1) Is there a growing movement of individuals who want to expand the possibilities within what it means to flourish sexually, creatively and consensually? This might include freedom to serve openly in the military while LGBT, it might include the right to marry while LGBT or to have multiple relationships (consensual and of legal age) recognized, it might include more options of sexual expression such as kink, fetish, or otherwise. “Can I have my cake and enjoy it legally?”
1) a Are there people in that movement who are thoughtful, critical, and patient in their analysis and discourse? Are there people who just use terminology to get what they want without discernment?
2) Are there cultural norms in place that currently reward monogamy and heterosexual marriages over LGBT/poly/Kink relationships? Do people lose jobs, kids, friends for alternative lifestyles? “Will my church kick me out for being poly?”
3) Are there legal, ethical and health issues connected to the corporate industry of sex work (stripping, filmmaking, prostitution)? Are there connections from global illegal activities (slavery, rape and assault) to the US porn industry? Can that industry be framed or changed (either through society or governmental regulation) to be less potentially damaging to individuals who work inside it? “Is the porn industry connected to illegal activitiies, drug use, slavery, etc?”
4) Are there intersections where the individual desires can be manifested in ways that don’t create an ethical complicity in the industrial structures that might cause harm to people in sex work? “Can I find ethical porn?”
5) In what ways is our particular culture and history in favor of one or other of these modes of sexualities? What histories and traditions get in our way? Help us? (as an aside I recently read a story in the New Yorker written by a Korean author. In it, there was what appeared to me to be rape, but the story did not frame that encounter as rape at all, but something very very different. (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/backissues/2011/09/yi-mun-yol-and-koreas-divisions.html) It’s made me want to investigate mores and sexual traditions in Korea and the author to determine what that was all about, rather than get irritated. I know next to nothing about the culture written about there and so my reaction was based out of my culture and limited understanding.
6) What are my (or your) personal histories and triggers influencing my position in the debate on sexuality? I’d go so far as to say my Meyers Briggs score influences this-Am I a risk seeker vs a safety seeker? Do I appreciate novelty or consistency? Have I had scarring damaging relationship models or trusting, loving models?
There is a kind of waterline that we can’t see below. I don’t know Terre’s family history, cultural history, relationship history and she doesn’t know mine. We may have differing opinions, triggers, and defenses based on a lot of things under that waterline, all of which might cause us to be limited in our abilities to discuss these topics effectively online.
Online is the worst place.
My takeaway from the article so far is that it is very personally charged and written from a place of frustration with what may feel like an attack on her for her personal feelings and histories. The article doesn’t seem to me, to be journalistic in it’s deconstruction of sex positivity, but a venting of sorts. I’d like to see her interview Carol Queen, or Charlie Glickman or Susie Bright or any other of the leaders and writers in that community. Or me. Or some of my friends.
Finally, if Terre wants to contact me, as she said she wanted a more progressive dialogue, my email is on my website.
As a member of the Center, I want to say that I’m sorry you had that kind of experience there. Some people in ANY group can be lazy thinkers, and it sounds like you got to meet some of ours! In many minority/disenfranchised groups this kind of judging behavior is common. I personally think it comes from being tired of being judged– and so leaping to “protect” themselves by being the one to start name-calling first. A lot of babies get thrown out with bathwater this way!
I also want to say, since this article is the first thing that many people will ever read about the Center– this has NOT been my experience of the culture there. I have always felt warmly welcomed, respected, and valued, by a creative and nonjudgmental community. The library is fabulous, the volunteers are well-trained, and everyone does their best to create a safe and fun environment. No easy task, on a subject as touchy as sex-positivity!
One wonders what in fact actually happened at the Center, since Terre gives a very patchy telling of the story, and provides absolutely no details of the context in which she was called “conservative”. Considering this individuals various rushes to judgement on her own part in various places in the comments section here and the fragmentary nature of the story, I have little reason to buy into Terre’s story of being on the receiving end of harsh judgement for no reason.
It is quite possible to be an anti-porn feminist and be correctly labeled as both arch-conservative and sex-negative. Catherine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin (the only feminist Ed Meese ever loved) spring to mind as two obvious examples.
So no, there’s nothing unfair about calling sexual puritanism ‘conservative.’ It is. It doesn’t mean the person is 100% conservative on all issues, but those who condemn porn, freedom of sexual expression, alternative lifestyles and relationships, etc., are indeed VERY conservative on sexual issues.
Don’t like the conservative label? Good! Then start re-examining why you’re so opposed to freedom of choice and expression when it comes to sex.
Being called conservative is amusing. Being called sex-negative is even more amusing. I choose no porn for myself. To assert that sex-positive HAS to include porn is, well, the same approach the Puritans used—an all-or-nothing platform that allows no discussion.
If you’re truly choosing for yourself only, then you’re embracing the liberal ideal. it’s when you presume to make the choice for others that you become conservative. I’m afraid you’re trying to fob the Puritan label onto others when it really belongs squarely on the shoulders of the anti-porn activists.
Who the hell asserts that you must include porn? Those are people you laugh at, if you want my advice. You don’t want porn, don’t have it. No one can force you to love porn. How dare they even try!
If you don’t want a partner who likes porn, make that part of your criteria for prospective partners, or negotiate the point with your current partner.
Which is an easy thing to say and very difficult to do– But more do-able than controlling the entire world’s porn usage. And you know, there’s a baby in that bathwater you want to throw out. .
Porn is not sex. It is commerce. It is possible to have sex on a commercial airliner, but that does not make aviation sex. Being against porn does not make someone sex-negative or conservative. It makes them porn-negative perhaps.
Please parse the topics.
Well, that’s a perfect way to answer people when they practically spit on you. Of course some people might not completely agree with you, so perhaps you had better reframe it– “ME being against porn only makes me PORN negative, not every-other-sexual-expression-negative.”
But we’ve been discussing porn usage all the way through this whole conversation. The primary point of dissent about porn usage,from re-reading, is about why some of us don’t approve of it, and whether or not those who don’t approve have the right to dictate to those who do.
Also, on porn… Almost every other human activity that is fun and pleasurable has been commodified… Eating, acting/performance, fighting, sport… Even romance! Even marriage! I could go on. I fundamentally fail to see the issue with commercializing sex. The WAY it is sometimes commercialized is not fab, granted, but one could say that about other forms of entertainment as well. The OP is entitled to her opinion, however, just as I’m entitled to mine