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
Related.. Trackback…
[…]the time to read or visit the content or sites we have linked to below the[…]…
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 😉
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
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.
Finally, if Terre wants to contact me, as she said she wanted a more progressive dialogue, my email is on my website.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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)?… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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?
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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…
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
If she had said “Some people who call themselves sex-positive sound puritanical to me” I would be very quick to agree with her.
Hi Kendall- Here’s a National Report on Sex Slavery. I hope it helps….
http://www.sharedhope.org/Portals/0/Documents/SHI_National_Report_on_DMST_2009.pdf
That report doesn’t provide any evidence that sex slavery is “the result of the flourishing porn industry”. In addition, just a quick glance through that report reveals some statistics and claims that have been thoroughly refuted. For example, like many other anti-prostitution groups they make the claim that: “Research has shown that the average age of entry into prostitution and pornography is 12 to 14 years old in the United States.” This comes from a study that only included minors, and therefore those statistics can’t be applied across the board. See this site for a more thorough explanation of the… Read more »
Kendall, Scorn is as much about the person delivering it as it is the person receiving it. Fret not, I am wholly unfazed, but thank you for your concern. I have been an activist for a long, long time. Sex slavery/trafficking is an area of particular interest as it is interwoven with pornography production and by association, pornography consumption. From the State Depatment’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons: http://www.afajournal.org/2004/april/404culture.asp From the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/magazine/25SEXTRAFFIC.html?ei=5007&en=43dbe6ef76e45af8&ex=1390366800&partner=USERLAND&pagewanted=all&position= From CNN: http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/04/sex-slavery-a-family-business/ The message is clear: the demand for porn is creating a demand for performers and that is being met… Read more »
Oh, please Terre! You trot out a couple of documents from organizations with a strong anti-sex work ideology (and, in the case of Shared Hope, very much part of the Religious Right*) making claims that have been thoroughly debunked elsewhere and claim this as “evidence”? And furthermore, claims that even if they were accurate, are talking mainly about street massage parlor prostitution not commercial pornography. (Small clue, Terre, these are very different areas of sex work.) Your claims that mainstream commercial pornography is filled with “sex trafficking” is groundless. Something I wrote about in depth a couple of years ago,… Read more »
You trot out a couple of documents from organizations with a strong anti-sex work ideology (and, in the case of Shared Hope, very much part of the Religious Right)”
I didn’t even need to look as far as Shared Hope. I also see that you cite the American Family Association as well. Nice set of sources you have there, Terre. Says everything about where you’re coming from.
“Iamcuriousblue” You remain on a fatalistic crusade that is redundant and irrelevant to productive ideologies. Will you ever accept that arguing Critical Theory is useless and without merit? Your aimless hostility belittles and insults our ideals of true activism. You speak for no other than your own version of arrogant, self-imposed, self-endorsed righteousness.
What in the hell are you talking about? What I’m saying has nothing to do with “Critical Theory”. Why don’t you go and call me a “Cultural Marxist” for good measure, since you’re pulling labels out of thin air. And, once again, I point out that there’s a serious reversal of reality going on here. It is people like Robert Jensen who are very much on a crusade, and the fact of that is abundantly clear if you’ve ever read his work. People like me are simply playing defense. And if there’s “hostility” coming from me, that’s very much a… Read more »
The message isn’t clear at all. You haven’t provided any evidence to back up this claim. Where are the cases of porn performers who’ve been trafficked into the industry?
If you regularly throw out wildly claims like this, then fail miserably to back them up when someone asks for evidence, I’ve no doubt at all that the scorn you’ve received is richly deserved.
Are you sure the scorn you’ve received isn’t due to you making ridiculous and hyperbolic statements like that, without bothering to back them up?
I really liked the piece and can identify with what the author is saying. Sometimes people who want to change the world can be very narrow-minded about how we should all live. That’s why we end up with absurd phrases like “politically correct.” It is similar to what the Puritans did. It may be that a truly sex positive person wouldn’t attack and condemn others, but sometimes people who call themselves sex positive do exactly that. Attacking the author for complaining doesn’t help anything. The language of the debate is in itself unfair. Why vanilla sex if you don’t want… Read more »
Pay attention y’all. Terre pretty clearly states why she was called conservative: “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.”
For such an amiable bunch, the majority of commenters sure are coming across as abusive. Hmmm.. Maybe they’re looking at their own projections of disowned stuff. I know it’s easier to condemn than to look honestly if there’s some truth in what another is saying, even when it stings in the places they ‘d rather not look at. Last week I wanted to read something whilst at the dentist, and there were literally 4 headliner stories on GMP dealing with what I’d call phallocentric obsessions…..size, etc……OK well I didn’t notice any single person getting abusive because they didn’t like the… Read more »
funny that, what part of MEN in the name GoodMENProject dont you understand? That you find the reading material uninteresting is probably a good thing. Means the site is appealing less to women and more to men
Pete S, I read this comment from Terre Spencer on another thread that may relate to your comment, “I had the misfortune of being involved with a sex addict who claimed to be a sex-positive”, so the issue that I suspect was that there was a lot of damage in Terre Spencer’s relationship, and to Terre Spencer. If you knew anything about sex addiction then you would likely retract your comment, but you made your point, that this info was not presented in the article. I know quite a bit about sex and porn addiction and know that they can… Read more »
You have just written an essay comprised of over 1700 words to complain that you were called a name in reaction to something you said, but fail to mention what you said to make someone feel that you deserved to be labeled that way. The fact that you are leaving this out, and not allowing your readers to decide for themselves whether what you said was oppressive to someones sexuality leads me to believe that it probably was. Implying that Sex Positive people are a threat to your non-porn using monogamous relationship is no different than saying that Gay Marriage… Read more »
@Budmin: You said “That can only happen when you’ve unnailed yourself from the cross and used the wood as a bridge to get over your martyrdom complex.”
That sounds like shaming people as religious conservatives to me. You’re kinda proving the point of the article.
..But this isn’t about religious shamming is it?
This article is a microscopic subset of the greater issue of Sexual Morality between consenting adults. Last time I checked Monogamy was still legal in the U.S.
But why shame the author at all? Isn’t the point that we should be able to talk about the issues without attacking each other?
I might also add that the idea of a sex positive movement is rather baffling. I guess pollies come close. I don’t hang out with them because I’m living monogamously now, but I think the main reason is that pollies are typically extremely rule-oriented and spend far too much time constructing codes of conduct, and chewing over their relationships verbally in ways I think are secretly destructive. I believe sex-positivity is our natural state that’s perverted by shame-attacks on the self as he/she develops. Read Sex at Dawn. Sex is no longer simple, of course. But sex-positivity is not a… Read more »
I’m what I would call sex-positive, and I have absolutely no-judgement about what people do or don’t do. I’m extremely picky sexually, and always have been. I think the menace from porn (although it can be a problem) has been overstated, especially here. I think we live in extremely sex-negative times, where a critique of patriarchy (merited)) has been conjoined to extreme sex-negativity. The overboardness of porn, bar pick-ups, “hotness,” and Jersey Shore culture is just a reaction to sexual repression, which is back, beleive me. We had it right in the late sixties and seventies, where it was casual,… Read more »
I don’t agree with all or even most of this article. but there is something in it that does ring true to me. I find some ‘sex positive’ people incredibly prescriptive about what is ‘good’ sexual behaviour and values, and what is ‘bad’. I know that in many ‘sex positive’ people’s eyes, especially ‘sex positive feminists’ I am a bad sex person. And they do use ‘shaming’ tactics as well. Especially towards men I find.
Ah crap! And there’s no new continents to migrate to anymore either! Dang!
It sounds a little narrow-minded (“puritanical,” perhaps?) to use broad brush strokes condemning all pornography because it is connected in some ways to horrible crimes. If that is the standard, then you should also stop paying all taxes to your government, eat only the food you grow yourself, and withdraw from society. Come to think of it, that’s what the Pilgrims did….
As a historian, I’d say this was a very good brief summary of Puritanism. On the other hand, by calling sex-positives puritanical, there may be a little perpetuation of a stereotype going on here. The Puritans were not especially “puritanical” about sex. What has developed over the centuries is the myth that the Puritans were especially repressive about sexuality, they never smiled, never allowed themselves to enjoy anything, always wore black, punished all forms of pleasure, etc. In reality, when it came to sex they were pretty much the same as everyone else in England and the English colonies. They… Read more »
A) “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?” -It’s not…. B) “Surely, the sex positives are not in favor of sex slavery that is the result of the flourishing porn industry?” -citation please.. It’s completely irrational to make such an outlandish assertion with out statistical information to back it up. C) Surely, the sex-positives do not want children sexualized and women objectified and dehumanized? – One issue could only be addressed by the child & that child’s parents the other is nonsensical feminist… Read more »