History of Feminism
Related: About this forumRethinking Sex-Positivity
BOO-yah
On a personal level, however, I have always felt that sex-positivity was inadequate. For one thing, it universalizes a narrative of sexual liberation. The more sex you have, the more liberated you are. The less sex you have, the more repressed you are (and perhaps, in dire need of some liberal feminist saviors to save you from this state of being). This is the dominant and overarching theme of sex-positive rhetoric.
So, whats wrong with the generalization that more sex = liberation? It locates sexual liberation in an experience of white heterosexual femininity. It does not take into the account the different experiences of racialization and sexualization of women, queer and trans people of color. For example, while, straight, middle-class women have been stereotyped as pure, asexual virgins, while women of color have been hypersexualized as exotic, erotic beings (see: Hottentot, harem girl, lotus blossom, fiery Latina, squaw, etc.) For racialized people, adopting a sex-positive attitude does not liberate them of such stereotypes, in fact, it fuels them further. In addition, the framework of sex-positivity does not offer a critique of capitalism and the way our sexualities are commodified and exploited, preventing the free expression of sex, in the favorite words of sex-positive feminists. Sex-positivity is also ahistorical; it does not take into account the ways attitudes about sex are related to histories of colonialism, especially the colonial imposition of gender and sexual norms. None of this is a particularly new way of thinking by the way, many feminists of color have critiqued sex-positivity for similar reasons.
What if its hard to discern the difference between your desire/attractionality and your oppression? In fact, what if our desires are enablers, through which such oppression takes place? Sex-positivity ideology tells us to blindly submit ourselves to such constructs, rather than interrogating and critically exploring them, seeking out our own unique paths toward true sexual liberation. After all, sexual liberation does not exist in a vacuum; it is entangled with the ongoing project of liberation from coloniality. I dont even want to call it sexual liberation, because that word suggests that there is a magical point when we will be free. There is not such a point; if coloniality is ongoing, then liberation is ongoing as well.
- See more at: http://cornellsun.com/section/opinion/content/2013/09/04/john-rethinking-sex-positivity#sthash.qvKDr6dm.dpuf
Arcanetrance
(2,670 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)"Hottentot" is the name originally used by Europeans for the Khoikhoi people of southwest Africa. Although there's been a general tendency in Western culture toward the kind of sexualization of women of color that the writer of the linked article cites, she probably used the Hottentots as her example because of the case of Sarah Baartman, who was put on exhibit as the "Hottentot Venus" in nineteenth-century England.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)when the only control men have left of women is owning their sexuality.... jsut does not make sense for women to enthusiastically and willing walk into that use to be oppressed.
sex positive was always a real fuckin duh... in failure and clearly showed every step of the way why it was a failure. but we kept being told to PRETEND that it was not being used AGAINST us, really, it isnt.
how stupid can we be as a people.
when every creepy man is telling us they are feminists ONLY when it is about sexualizing and controlling the women with her sexuality, then it is a clue in that it is not a good plan.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)But I never thought of it outside the white and straight experience, I must admit. It's good to learn new things.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)This so-called "sex positive" crap has been a transparent crock of shit from the start.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)it has
redqueen
(115,103 posts)And it was through being open with my extraordinarily high sex drive that I learned how far we are as women from being liberated from the patriarchy. We are not. We are very far from it, and until we are free ALL OF THAT SHIT is going to be problematic at the very least. In the worst cases women end up dead as a result of making the mistake of thinking we are actually free to do as we like sexually.
And it was liberal dudebros who kindly enlightened me to that fact, and I will never respect them but I am grateful to them for showing me the reality of "sex positivity".
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)what du3 allows now that makes it so clear. how they demand, insist they are feminist, yet in all ways use sexism and misogynist to shut women up when going against their principle of slutifying women.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)it was all about young women that were just beginning to play with their sexuality in all its glory adopting the same young attitude that they like.... had it all over those old fashion, prudish older women. the thing is, it was my generation that walked into sex probably in its purity. when it really was women OWNING their OWN fuckin sexuality. instead of church and fathers with virginity. or liek men today owning womens sexuality pornifying all women and we are here to hand our sexuality over to men to be used.
my time was the very small window of MY sexuality being about ME, for ME, me me me.
and the young women actually thought they had come up with something that old women know nothing about. the reality. our generation.... we have all been there, done that. none of it is new.
but, the young like to think that they are that much more hip. and that is not the reality today.
i listen to my boys, and giggle. i tell them, you THINK you can come up with ANYTHING i do not already know about.
well,... (listening to jenkins tape). the gonzo porn. you know, sticking dick in an ass and then a womans mouth to make her eat shit.... literally, so he can get off for no other reason but degrading the woman. ya. a man need degradation to get off. that one was kinda new. not surprising. but new.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)it is what i see on du. not to mention just the blatant insult to other women with the title. everything about it would be wrong. i guess if i went around using "lipstick" feminism, then we might understand how a title alone can be insulting to a group, or a counter group. as women, why would we play that game.
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)One of my biggest problems with "sex positive" feminism has always been the sense that it is only "liberation" for a very tiny subset of women -- but yet it feels like all women are pressured by many so-called "liberals" to climb onto that particular bandwagon or be subject to mocking and ridicule.
This article makes it more clear to me that subset is the Venn diagram between "highly privileged white women" and "women with high sex drives".
From where I sit, all this "sex positive" horseshit seems to drag more women down than it empowers.
Dear sex-positive assholes of the world: "Sexual freedom" must also include the freedom to NOT have sex, or it is just another fucked up tool of oppression.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i forget this part. and really really appreciate your reminders every now and again. that is an important part of the other side. need both sides to have balance. thank you. and keep reminding me. lol