These remarks from reader Liz conveniently summarize, more or less, my own views on sexy feminism. She begins with quoted text from another commenter.
“Sexy feminism (aka sex-positivism) isn’t about appealing to men and thus perpetuation [sic] the patriarchy through internalized sexism. It’s about claiming our own sexual pleasure and our own bodies. It’s about doing what we want despite the patriarchy. It’s about using our bodies for our own pleasure or to express our own thoughts, despite how you or anyone else interprets our bodies. We’re saying, ‘It’s my body and I get to decide how to use it.’” [Context]
It’s interesting that [Twisty] mention[s] Clinton and fun feminism in the same post, because people criticize Clinton as “more of the same,” and that’s exactly how I feel whenever a feminist tries to convince me that “sexy feminism” is about having control over your own sexuality. You know what would make me feel like I had control over my own sexuality? Having the same rights as guys to walk around topless on the beach without feeling afraid or ogled as some kind of sex object, or being able to breast feed my baby in public without that being offensive or risque or any kind of issue at all, or being able to walk home at night alone without being groped by some drunk asshole.
Instead, “sex positive” feminists focus on is the ability to accept themselves as sexual, which they only attain by presenting a version of themselves that others readily find acceptable and have since way before I was born. Would you feel so empowered by your sexuality if you didn’t have a receptive audience? Nothing new here. Nothing challenging.
I think our desire to gain control over our own sexuality is important (and hopefully possible), but this whole “sexy feminist” movement completely misunderstands what that means. I’m “sex positive,” (stupid term) by the way, and I think that this label is completely misused by practically everyone as a way of insinuating that those who disagree with their self-exploitation are somehow anti-sex.
We already have the ability to use our bodies to turn ourselves on and others on. What we don’t have is the control over showing our bodies in a non-sexual way, because whenever the clothes come off, we’re sexualized. Being able to control that distinction is central to having true control over your body, yet “sexy feminists” never talk about that, and they just present us with more lame burlesque acts and sad porn sites.
As long as Liz brought it up, let me just say this one last thing about sexy feminism. It’s a too-too-tool of the patriarkay. It’s an expedient justification, a way to rebrand what everybody does when they’re in their twenties, which is to drink too much and screw a lot, as a cool 21st-century-activist political activity.
This would just be kind of funny, you know, youthful hi-jinx and whatnot, except that, since it is entirely devoid of philosophic value, sexy feminism has sort of caught on. It’s had the untoward effect of diluting the message of actual feminism. And the even more untoward effect of vilifying radical feminism. And the even more untoward effect of strengthening patriarchal oppression.
What do I mean by “sexy feminism”? Suicide Girls. Bust magazine. BDSM. The “position” that women should be free to “choose” femininity if that’s what bangs their box. The idea that embracing sexploitation is “empowering.” The notion that women “can do what we want despite patriarchy.”
What I don’t mean is: the effort to liberate women’s sexuality from the clutches of its traditional, misogynist, male-defined constraints, i.e. the effort to define women’s sexuality in terms of women, as opposed to men defining women in terms of sex. These are issues of ongoing concern to serious feminists and committed spinster aunts, but, as it turns out, have nothing to do with the preservation of feminine submission as a lifestyle choice.
Let’s face it, girls. We’re living in a war zone and orgasms are a dime a dozen. The performance of pornulated, dude-appeasing sex moves just isn’t important enough to form the basis of an entire political ideology. Particularly when that ideology presumes to co opt and dilute a movement which was formerly of some use to women. Seeing as how feminism was originally founded on sound philosophical principles thought up by thinkers, and had the potential to liberate millions of women from an endless cycle of violence, persecution, and poverty.
Sexy feminism creates two groups of women, but, oddly enough, neither group is for women. I allude to the “sex-positive” group and the “anti-sex” group. The first benefits the status quo. It reassures women who fear the burden of true liberation that femininity is a legitimate identity. The second is the fictitious enemy of the first — a stand-in for the real oppressor — and functions as the dark, hairy background against which the glowing orgasmic accomplishments of the sexy feminists may glitter in the light of life’s dudely disco ball. Of course there is no real group of anti-sexites; this is a fabrication that allows sexy feminists to indulge in patriarchy-appeasing misogyny on feminist blogs.
I propose third, easy-breezy alternative to the suffocating conformity demanded by this tiresome positive vs. negative binary thought system: sex-neutralism. Get busy, don’t get busy, whatever! While recognizing that penis placement has enormous political, social, and economic ramifications, particularly for members of the sex caste, the sex-neutral feminist — and I may be the only one alive — puts the act itself on a par with sneezing. Pleasant enough when it happens, but hardly worth elevating to the pinnacle of human acheivement, or devoting 98% of an internet to.
“Thoughts,” as our first commenter suggests, may well be “expressed” through boinking, but whether such thoughts differ substantially in philosophic value from sneezal effluents is dubitable.
By the way, you can’t “do what you want despite patriarchy.” Patriarchy declines to offer you full agency, even if — particularly if — you try to take it. That’s why patriarchy is bad.
I mostly always sneeze at least two times. I don’t know what this means in terms of ranking various things. Implied ellipseronis.
Also, meant to add that this is a really good post and Liz’ comments are great.
If only there were a big, metaphysical brick that could be slung about to knock some sense into these “feminists”: they are both the victims and perpetrators of antifeminism.
I’d suggest pointing out the superior satisfaction in a sneeze when compared to the ol’ penis-in-vagina intercourse, but for some reason I think if that was accomplished, the patriarchy would somehow make it violent and oppressive, and right now I enjoy it so.
Amen. Awesome post.
I’m not a “sex-positive” feminist, inasmuch as that term is used to refer to the kinds of people who believe that women, by adapting themselves the piggish sexual attitudes of men and becoming complicit in their own objectification, can fuck their way to being treated like human beings. In fact, I say piss on that misleading term altogether. It’s just another guise by which women are tricked into believing that the road to equality is paved with thongs and used jimmy hats. Using your sexuality to manipulate men does not equality make, nor does it even amount to controlling your own sexual destiny, because in order to manipulate men through sex you have to fulfill their pornographic fantasies, very few of which revolve around anything but a one-dimensional and completely fictional conception of female sexuality and nearly all of which completely ignore actual female pleasure. Fulfilling male fantasies is not feminism; no matter how many times you show them your tits, they’ll still run the government and all the corporations and institutions that make sure your life revolves around obsessing over your appearance and making 75 cents on the dollar for what they make.
I think the new definition of “sex-positive” feminism ought to revolve around women demanding that their sexuality be acknowledged to be independent of male sexuality and that their sexual needs be met. That would truly be revolutionary (although it would still form only one tiny sliver of the pie chart of feminist issues). Instead we’ve got people like Diablo Cody calling themselves feminists and derailing the discussion of feminism, giving the general public the idea that the only problem left to be hammered out is whether porn and prostitution are feminist by nature.
I wonder how the sex-neutral thing will play out; it’s a genius move if it works because the rub of having to choose between being “sex-positive” or be labeled “sex-negative” (whatever that is) is that it makes the FIRST question you have to answer before you get to play in the discussion (of whatever issue that is otherwise vitally important on its own merits) one that tags you with “sex”. And of course it is always only women who have to get the “sex” tag staple-gunned to their ear on before they are allowed to proceed to talk about ANYTHING ELSE. the better, of course, to remind everyone lest they’d let it slip their minds about the sex class and who is in it.
But I can’t imagine that trying the “sex-neutral” move won’t just get relentlessly hounded at by dudely bucketheads to get the “real” — that is to say, not sex neutral cause you can’t be sex neutral in the sex class! — answer. It’s like the 1970s Mr vs. Mrs. and Miss. While Ms has been pretty successful overall, if people know you for more than 5 minutes they want to know which is your “real” title behind what they take as nothing more than a delaying tactic.
Of orgasms are a dime a dozen,
I have a shiny statehood quarter.
Feminism is about having options. The right to do what we want to do. It’s freedom. It’s opportunity.
I found another 65 cents in my desk drawer…
Twisty, thank you for this. As a new feminist I’ve been wading in lots of stagnant pools that claim to be feminisms and it’s helpful to have a guide. I’ve always found “sexy-feminism” repulsive on an instinctual level but I’ve never been able to articulate it this well.
I forgot one thing. Thank you for mentioning the Suicide Girls in your post, Twisty. The Suicide Girls phenomenon is all about superficial and cliched rebelliousness masking a tired rehashing of the pornographic exploitation of women. The idea that the women involved are empowering themselves is revolting; the company is owned and operated by a man, the women are paid nearly zilch for the honor of degrading themselves for an audience of perverts who listen to Reverend Horton Heat, and the company locks its “models” into contracts that forbid them to “model” for any other sites and rob them of any rights to their own images. Where’s the empowerment? Is it in the fact that they don’t adhere to the mainstream blond porn prostitute ideal? Then I guess that means that women who participate in any kind of non-mainstream porn are empowering themselves. If that’s so, then what’s the criterion by which to judge how empowering a particular kind of porn is? The less mainstream, the more empowered the women are? Snuff films must be empowering as fuck, then.
Dressing up everyday sexual exploitation and patriarchal gender roles in flaming cherry tattoos isn’t punk. It’s fucking nonsense. What Suicide Girls are doing is meeting a market demand created by dudes who want porn that matches their “alternative” hairdos and love for the Misfits, not representing an alternative kind of sexuality in which women are seen as sexually autonomous human beings, which is where the real sexual revolution is at. The mere fact that a large proportion of the Suicide Girls are Bettie Paige impersonators should tip even the most brainwashed of “sex-positive” “feminists” off to the fact that the company is selling little more than the idea that women exist to be used by men.
What you and the commenter you quote have so eloquently pointed out is a species of a very general analytical principle that goes like this: It is highly unlikely to just be a totally innocent fucking coincidence when people who are supposedly making “free choices” that are “serving their own interests” happen to choose things that benefit extremely powerful agents with discordant interests of their own. As a corollary, it requires some seriously fucking persuasive evidence to overcome this presumption.
Hahaha, indeed.
The notion that you can do what you want despite patriarchy…well, it’s necessary to embrace it just so you don’t go nuts. But I think it’s far more intellectually honest to admit when you’re capitulating (and I do capitulate, all the damn time) than to pretend that you are ideologically and politically pure and anyone who suggests otherwise is oppressing you.
Actually, you know what “sexy feminism” reminds me of? Mom politics. Moms for this, moms for that. The notion that you can get the powers that be to listen to you if you invoke neo-Victorian mommy myth wherein all “moms” (but especially stay-at-home moms) are tremendously noble, tenderhearted people who care for nothing but the well-being of their children and (by extension) children everywhere, and who are never wrong about what that requires.
If you point out that mothers generally get a shit deal in the patriarchy, that stay-at-home mothers are in a precarious financial position (albeit less so since family law reform), that having children should not be a necessary (or sufficient, for that matter) condition for a woman to be taken seriously, that expecting a woman to be totally fulfilled by child care is uber-patriarchal bullshit — you “hate mothers,” or you “hate housewives.”
And you can’t blame women for wanting to parlay whatever patriarchal capital they have — sexiness, motherhood — into political power. It makes sense. But it isn’t a solution.
Yes, all that pole dancing is s-o-o-o empowerfullating!
Just cut out a few pictures of these fun, pornalicious poses and ask your enpenised friends to duplicate them. They don’t even have to wear silly costumes; just pose like that and duplicate the facial expression. Do you feel powerful? Well, do ya ?
Twisty, I’ve been sex-neutral all my life! It’s not just you.
BTW Twisty, you might be interested to know that orgasms and sneezing are controlled by the same part of the brain. So your ‘on par with sneezing’ comment is more spot on than you might have realized.
Loving me some Twisty so much right now.
Deeply unnerved by my cat’s sneezing right now.
By the way, you can’t “do what you want despite patriarchy.” Patriarchy declines to offer you full agency, even if — particularly if — you try to take it. That’s why patriarchy is bad.
Rinse, repeat. Right now.
Whoa. First time poster here, because I read this post and finally realized that I’m not a sex-pos feminist. At all. I thought I was but now I know better, and I can articulate why to everyone I know. Thanks Twisty!
THANK YOU!!! Being of the twenties age I’m surround by the fun feminists and the sexy feminists and any feminist fireside chat derails into me crying ‘but you’re objectifying yourself!!’ and them stubbornly retorting ‘duh, it’s empowering!!’ - cue hair pulling. i will now immediately forward this onto all of them… or maybe sneak a few key sentences into my back pocket for later use.
p.s. i love your final note on the nature of patriarchy. it makes me feel nuts when people talk of the patriarchy as though it is that thing over there which we can opt out of and is really just a crazy construct from the minds of mad feminists. uh, no.
I have mixed feelings about the Suicide Girls site. I used to love it and be all about it and I loved that it was about not conforming to the stereotypical norm of female attractiveness, and then I learned that Suicide Girls are a product of PlayBoy and a way for them to make more money off of the alt-lifestyle folks.
In defense of Bust magazine, it does have a crossword puzzle now. A friend of mine creates it. I had to avert my eyes from the fashion section, but the mini book reviews were engrossing.
I wouldn’t at all mind wearing deeper V-neck tops that show off my boobs nicely, but the second a gross, hairy man opts to ogle, the fun is ruined. Perhaps the patriarchy and sex-positive feminism could coincide more happily (and not work against mainline and radical feminism) if the men of the patriarchy would voluntarily put out their eyes, Oedipus-style. Is this feasible?
You know, I always thought that feminism was about getting what I deserve, namely respect, without opening the use of my vagina to every piggish frat boy that would have me.
The way the media likes to portray feminists is a double-edged sword: we’re either a bunch of pro-bono prostitutes a la Tia Tequila or a shrill gaggle of Femi-Nazis out to castrate men and crush their puny brains between our hairy thighs. We can’t win. Feminism, I fear, was considered dead the moment that the average person thought of anyone that gave themselves that name as a STD-positive swinger or a burly dyke.
Is it too much to ask that I be able to say that I’m a feminist without being propositioned for a threesome?
If I may: i.e., a straw woman?
Hey Twisty,
I’m a 20-year-old blamer in the most cat-call-filled city in the country, I think. The New York construction workers will shout at you from 25 stories up, where they can’t even tell if you’re 8 or 80 so long as they can tell that you’re female. So I’m all about my right to be left the fuck alone like anyone with full-personhood while I’m walking down the street and generally being treated as a person, not a potential fuck.
I consider myself a pretty damn good feminist. And I’m in love with this concept of being sex-neutral (just to note, because I think it’s kinda relevant I’m happy about the huge amounts of sex I’ve been having with the most feminist boy I’ve ever met) (Ok that was half information and half boasting. What was that you were saying about what people do in their 20s?).
All that said, I was wondering if you would define for me what you mean when you throw around the word “feminine.” It’s a word that I worry about a lot. Sometimes I feel like I am working out some kind of algorithm of my own femininity–I like to feel pretty in pretty dresses and I bake cupcakes like nobody’s business, but I eschew many, many, many more feminine things and capitulations to patriarchy. Help!
Hey, I got one comment for the sexyfeminists: if it was really feminism, we’d be seeing some progress for women, no?
Sign me up for the sex-neutral program. It’d be a nice change of pace to take the focus *off* my body for once. I love that you used the word “dubitable,” which IMHO is not used often enough!
Seraphine says:
“Feminism is about having options. The right to do what we want to do. It’s freedom. It’s opportunity.”
You know, I detest the notion of “choice feminism” for this exact reason. Yes, you’ve got the right to do whatever the fuck you want to do with your own body, but don’t, for the love of Christ, try to pass every choice that you make off as a feminist act simply because you made that choice. If I decided to go out tomorrow and ‘act’ in some Internet torture porn, that would be “my choice!”, yes - a virulently misogynist choice and one that would, I dare say, have pretty dire consequences for women as a class.
Damn, I love you, Twisty. You’re like the foghorn of light in a sea of “nipple tassels = equality!” bullshit.
Fuck, scratch that last sentence. Not the part about you being a beacon of light (although why I thought that the phrase ‘foghorn of light’ made any sense is beyond me), but about the “nipple tassels = equality!” mindset of these sexyfeminists. I don’t think the notion of ‘equality’ even enters into it for them, as evidenced by the mating call of “feminism is about CHOICE!” Oh, really? Coz I thought it was about smashing a system that places women on a lower level than men. You’ll just take the nipple tassels instead? All righty then.
Hey Merry. Check out the Femininity archive, or do a search over there on the right. This post compliles many of the highlights, and as an added bonus contains the outline for the novel I’m writing.
Sorry, but sex is way more fun than sneezing. It’s just that until sex is more fun than dignity, I won’t be down with pretending I like catering to the menz more than I like being treated like a human.
I think you’re being too hard on a genuine sex-positive position. If indeed the patriarchy declines to grant full agency to women, then that lack of agency must apply to all sectors of life - not just the bedroom. Women can’t freely choose their career, their clothing, etc etc. Accordingly there have been various movements within feminism to try to defy the patriarchy by trying to claim agency over one or more of these sectors. In the socialist feminism of someone like Kathi Weeks we see an attempt to defy the patriarchal definitions of labor by valorizing women’s behaviors that have traditionally been devalued by the patriarchy. There are movements to fight the body-image imposed upon women by the patriarchy, to fight eating disorders and such. There are movements to allow women to wear whatever they want, work whereever they want, and generally do whatever they want, and all of these are commonly viewed as valid ways to fight the patriarchy.
However, when a movement tries to allow women to fuck whoever and however and whenever and whyever they want, this movement is supposed to actually play back into the patriarchy’s hands. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the patriarchy has a vested interest in controlling and defining the sexuality of women. Anything that feminists can do to fight this control should be considered a valid feminist project. That’s why some feminists (and queer theorists, like Judith Halberstam) make the point that categories like gay, lesbian, transsexual, etc themselves constitute feminist projects - because these lifestyle choices provide alternatives to the patriarchal order they have the power to subvert it. They don’t necessarily always succeed - you could call it six of one, half a dozen of the other in many cases, for example, does homosexual male intercourse subvert the heterosexist patriarchal paradigm, or does one partner simply assume the role of “woman” or “fuckee” thus reifying the traditional gender roles? Does a woman who dominates a man in a BDSM relationship invert the patriarchal order destructively or does she simply replay the destructive nature of that very order?
I think these are important questions, though, and not to be taken for granted. If it is possible, for example, for feminist separatists to form communities of women where sexuality is defined by women in terms of women, isn’t it also possible for other communities to form new definitions of sexuality that aren’t based on a traditional gender binary system at all? I would argue that just because sub/dom and sadist/masochist have traditionally in our culture mapped onto the male/female and man/woman binaries in one way, that doesn’t mean they are inextricably linked to those binaries. I think that looking at any relationship with an evaluative tool other than the gender roles (man, woman) that were invented by the patriarchy has a powerful potential to overcome the patriarchal order.
I understand that you are not criticizing people who are genuinely trying to leverage their alternative sexual identities into defiance of the patriarchy, but I think that you are in danger of erasing them if you don’t see at least the potential for a sex-positive feminist project. After all, maybe we can’t do what we want despite the patriarchy, but where would we be without the women who tried?
Dear Twisty Faster: although I am the propertay of the patriarchay, I totally respect your authoritay.
I also like “sexwhateverism.” I mean, I like sex. So what? I still think public displays of it are gross and tasteless. And I think the fact that I can’t go see a bunch of women play a punk show without also sitting through sexy girl-on-girl Jello wrestling or women stripping sucks, and I hate that these acts always draw the larger crowds. I hate that when Bust first came out it was all about “no beauty tips or guilt trips,” and wrote about feminist issues (at least that’s what I remember but it’s been so long), and it has since deteriorated into a magazine defending your right to live like it’s the 50s only now you can be both a domestic goddess AND a burlesque diva. And why do all the crafts look like they’re made by 12-year olds?
But feminism is all about giving women choices, right, and not about questioning the choices we make or thinking about how these “personal” choices affect women’s status in general.
I really, really love your blog, by the way, and have agreed with you on basically everything.
This post seems to be entirely about telling women what not to do. Don’t be too sexy. Don’t talk about liking sex. Don’t worry about people who want to take away sexual freedoms. Telling women that they must hide their sexuality is no better than telling them they must flaunt it–if freedom of choice isn’t at the root of women’s liberation, then I don’t know what the word “liberation” means.
(By the way, calling sex-positivism the refuge of slutty young women ignores sex-positive advocates like Carol Queen, Annie Sprinkle, Betty Dodson, and Susie Bright who are hardly silly young kids.)
And “sex-neutral feminism” seems to be a moderate-sounding way of saying “shut up” to people who think that sexual liberation benefits feminism. “Fine, live your little lifestyle, but don’t throw it in our faces.”
I would never claim that sexual freedom is the most important component of feminism–clearly issues like personal safety and wage equity matter more than the right to be sexual without shame or punishment–but that doesn’t mean sexuality doesn’t matter at all and should never be discussed.
Holly, isn’t that a mischaracterization of what Twisty is arguing? No one is telling anyone not to do anything, but rather asking them to be honest with themselves and the rest of us about what’s really going on. No one is asking women not to be sexy, no one is asking women to ignore those who would limit women’s sexual freedom. But don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining; adhering to the Suicide Girl ideal isn’t liberation (and it certainly isn’t feminism), it’s joining them because you can’t beat them. Sexual liberation *is* a part of feminism, but sex-positivism isn’t sexual liberation, it’s capitulation to pornografied patriarchal gender roles.
Meh. A series of don’ts: you could say the same for the more vulgar sex-pozzers. I don’t really like “The Vagina Monologues,” for example, but Betty Dodson’s article about it is basically nothing BUT “shut up, rape victims, you’re killing my buzz.” Don’t criticize “sexual entertainment,” no matter what it involves. Don’t mention that another generation of women tried the “sexy feminist that even men like” tack before and it didn’t work out so well. Don’t talk about abuses within those progressive, alternative sexual cultures. Don’t ask why people like Larry Flynt and Dov Charney are signing on for this particular feminist revolution or what they might be getting out of it.
panoptical: I actually agree with you, and that’s why I don’t identify as closely with radical feminism as I once did. All I can say is that Pussycat Doll feminism isn’t the feminism you are looking for. There are thoughtful sex-positive writers out there, but they aren’t the ones writing screeds about how they love men, aren’t oppressed, and anyone who sees patriarchy at work in your life must be a big lame-o who can’t take responsibility for herself.
Correction: “at work in HER life.” gah.
Aside from the part where Twisty, unlike, for example, the patriarchy, has no actual power to “tell women what not to do,” I missed the part where she actually told women what not to do. When one reads radical feminist writing rather than pretending it says what you think radical feminist writing says, you don’t actually find a lot of telling women to hide their sexuality. You find more of an examination of how what we call “women’s sexuality” is a load of bull made up by men for the benefit of men. If your authentic sexuality is, somehow, expressed by performing fellatio for a camera, we radical feminists are really not getting in your way, but it would be nice if you’d consider what that does for the rest of us trying not to be defined by that paradigm in our sex lives or out of it.
As for Annie Sprinkle, Carol Queen, Susie Bright, get real. They’re silly young kids who never grew up. They’re making good money doing what they do - like thirty pieces of silver good - and they don’t need my praise along with it.
Please, please, sign me up for sex-neutral feminism. I just want to get this sign saying “SEX!! GET YOUR SEX!!” off my back and go for a bloody walk or something.
Nine - Okay, I’ll be honest; what’s really going on is that some women are being sexually exploited and some women are voluntarily using their sexuality for fun and profit. And telling the “fun and profit” contingent of publicly sexual women to admit that they’re capitulating to the patriarchy is:
a) Precious close to just telling them to knock it off and put on something modest, ladies. Even if it’s not a direct order it’s certainly a harsh judgement.
b) Just not true. Even in an atmosphere of patriarchy, a smart and independent woman is capable of making the decision that she’d like to act all slutty. Telling her that this wasn’t really her decision is patronizing and wrong.
The more influence gender-conscious, voluntarily-participating women have over the media and sex industry, the less influence the bosses of sexually exploited women have. Being slutty isn’t exploitation; being forced to be slutty is exploitation. Being willingly, happily, proudly slutty is freedom.
(As is being willingly, happily, proudly unslutty. There’s nothing in sex-positivism that says everyone should be publicly sexual; it’s about consent, about respecting both “yes” and “no” as valid choices. Maybe perfect ideal consent can’t exist in a patriarchy, but I still think that a woman’s word on whether she consents ought to have some weight.)
Holly - I’m not using the word “slut” here. Women who have a lot of sex are women who have a lot of sex. The portrayal of a male-fantasy-defined role isn’t sluttiness either. I’m not calling anyone a slut or telling anyone to cover up and stop being sexual. In fact, I think I hate that word more than anything as it’s a tool used by men to keep women’s sexuality in check. I’m all for women having the freedom to express their sexuality in any way they choose to, but I don’t believe that the way most of the sex-pos crowd choose to do so is free of the taint of pornographic exploitation or of patriarchy. Therefore, it can’t be a feminist choice.
As for the idea of being forced to be sexualized, how can you argue that women who decide to conform their own sexuality to male fantasies in order to gain male approval aren’t being coerced into something? Sexual manipulation does not amount to real power. When the manipulating is over, the men still hold all the cards. Women have two choices when it comes to sex: conform to men’s idea of what female sexuality ought to be and reap the benefits that flow therefrom, or resist that bullshit and be shunned. How is that a free choice? Don’t you see the element of force there, or at least coercion?
Again, I don’t care how much sex women want to have, who they want to have it with, or how they choose to do it. All I want is for women who have decided to capitulate to patriarchal sex roles to be honest about it and stop calling it feminism, and especially to stop reducing feminism to the question of “to strip or not to strip.”
What I got most out of what Twisty is saying, and I have struggled with this whole notion of sex positive feminism, is this:
We can’t legitimately proclaim our rights to say “YES!” to sexyfunpornyslutism, or whatever it is that you are into sexually, until we can say NO to men who can only see us as sexyfunpornysluts.
Since rape, well, really really sucks and is really, really dangerous–and since milder forms of it such as cat calls, ogling, being grab-y on the subway or whatever also really, really suck and are demeaning…this is by far a more important issue to start with in the whole expressing our sexuality thing. How can you say yes when you can’t really say no?
If we can get to the point where we do really have the agency to say no to all of that crap, then I’m all on board the sexyfun boinking train. That is when we can say we are truly controlling our sexuality.
What I hear in this post isn’t don’t fuck, don’t show your tits, whatever, or you are a bad feminist. I’m hearing smoke ‘em if you got ‘em, but don’t act like it’s not poisoning your lungs. In the meantime, lets work first on the more pressing issues. Namely our rights to say NO safely at any and all times.
What Lisa said.
I’m with Nine Deuce and Lisa on this one. Putting tassels on my nipples and stripping at a frat party isn’t sexually empowering myself. Neither is letting all those who would like to fuck me actually fuck me.
There’s a power differential in sex. Where the man is in power, on top, and in charge. When you differ from this, it suddenly becomes “role play” or BDSM. Women in charge during sex? Well, it’s weird.
Besides, how many websites do you see with naked men posing in all sorts of lewd positions for their female viewers? Not many. I, personally, find myself surfing gay porn if I want to see that stuff. Which goes to show you that porn is made for men, no matter what gender it features. This is also all the more clear when you compare the amount of porn featuring the male orgasm to the amount of porn featuring a genuine female orgasm.
So, if you’re not in the group of people who label themselves “sex-positive feminists” (who we’ve characterized as Suicide Girls, Betty Page, and Tia Tequilas) why are you defending them? I generally like having sex with people who think of me first as a person, then maybe notice that I have tits and a vagina. At the end of the day, what are you going to do when the sexual manipulation is over? When you aren’t paying in pro-bono blow jobs, they aren’t going to give you what you want. I have an idea: take that respect and liberty from them by the balls without objectifying yourself to just a pair of legs, tits, and holes to fuck.
Because that’s what feminism is about. Feminism without the respect and equality? Why, that’s not feminism at all.
…since it is entirely devoid of philosophic value, sexy feminism has sort of caught on.
Yes, and it has caught on precisely because it gives the patriarchy what it wants. Dudes are happy to accept funsexyfeminism because they can girls to sleep with them easier but look at how they react to the less popular demands such as he pay gap or washing their own dishes. There’s a reason they’re unpopular. I agree with panoptical that there are geniunely good bits of funsexy feminism. The problem is that 90 percent of the time, funsexy feminism is reduced to promote idiotic movies like Charlie’s Angels.
But as a 20 year old (first time) blamer I’m only now beginning to realize that the message of sex-positive feminism has been skewed by the media into almost unrecognizable forms. And it’s been fed to me all my life, so trying to unlearn the “capitulation = empowerful” part to get to the genuine message turns out to be harder than I thought.
Oh, I like that metaphor.
Which is why your standard nipple-tassel vulgar sex-positive theorist would never, ever, ever snark that radical feminists “will never get laid.”
Fish. Barrel.
Elinor - I think you’re quoting from the complete sentence that read “And if you don’t have sex until we reach perfect equality, well, buddy, you’re never gonna get laid.”
That’s not really the same thing, is it? Living as we are (and, in my opinion, always will be) in the pre-revolution world, we can’t make our decisions in an atmosphere of perfect fairness, but we can still make them. Unless you refuse to do so under the claim that consent is impossible, in which case, well, you won’t be having sex, will you?
(I’m not saying that radical feminists do this. But it’s hard for me to understand how you reconcile statements like “consent is impossible under the patriarchy” with having a sex life–obviously you don’t think of your male partners as rapists?)
Jen - I’ve had sex where I was dominant without it being kinky or roleplay. (Also sex where I was submissive but enjoyed it, and I fail to see the harm in that; if I enjoy it just as much as the man does, it’s not exploitation no matter who’s wearing the handcuffs.) Sex is too private to have an inherent power structure; it takes place between two people, not an archetypal man and an archetypal woman.
As for objectification and sexual manipulation, about all I can say is that sex-positivism is about the right to choose nipple tassels and respect the women who wear them, not about tasseling everyone up. I’m not saying “porn is the answer!”, I’m saying “porn is an option!” If you try to relate to people entirely with sex of course you’re going to mess yourself up, but I’m not recommending that.
And a general comment - I’m disturbed that female desire hasn’t been brought up much. Women can have submissive or exhibitionistic desires of their own, and fulfilling those desires is not done for the benefit of men, it’s done for themselves.
some women are voluntarily using their sexuality for fun and profit.
In the world we live in the very notion of “using sexuality” is rooted, not in freedom, but in patriarchal definitions and control.
“Sex is too private to have an inherent power structure; it takes place between two people”
Also, housework and motherhood and domestic labor are “too private” to have inherent power structures; they take place between family members within a home.
Or not. Feminists have already established that domestic, intimate behavior is highly politicized. If what goes on in the kitchen and in the home in general is fair game for analysis, then the same can be said for what happens inside the bedroom. It isn’t a magical, insulated place immune from the patriarchy just because it is personal and private. We don’t get to pick and choose how social systems affect us, and in what situations.
That being said, I’m a sex pozzie, I like BDSM, I’ve done the sex work, I don’t feel guilty about it, etc. BUT, I certainly don’t think this makes me feminist or subversive. I’m not going to pretend that I’m some sort of maverick posing some sort of challenge to the status quo. Cause, you know, I’m not.
Being submissive in bed = exactly what women are expected to do/enjoy. Taking off clothes to be sexy = same old power structure. You can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear. I do what turns me on, but have no delusions that I’m being rebellious or powerful.
I have been assaulted, harassed, groped, hit, and threatened with serious bodily harm for resisting a guy’s advances. You’d think I’d be all for this.
And yet, I still see Twisty’s position as fundamentalism wrapped up in feminist rhetoric. In fact, I see it as fundamentalism with a generous sprinkling of Soviet youth-culture on top. This whole “you must benefit the collective, you silly young things - but as long as you believe in the bright future when the masses will be liberated, all will be OK. Trust Big Sister [as a stand-in for Big Brother, of course].”
Not something I’d sign up for.
Great post. My only niggle would be the statement that women become sex objects after the clothes come off. Never been my experience. I’ve been ogled in a tee shirt and jeans — because I’m a member of the sex class and it doesn’t matter a damn what I’m wearing, what I’m doing, or what I want. And it’s the same situation for every woman posting here, no matter how much they’d like to think otherwise.
Bottom line. No matter what you want, no matter what you do, if you’re female you’re either a sex object or an object that is failing in its sexual duties. You’re never a person. The women who agree to be sex objects get a few toys and pats on their heads until they age or otherwise fail to live up to their patriarchal purpose in life, and the others receive ridicule and scorn, all of which is designed to scare the majority of women into accepting their duties as sexual objects.
And I know that some women will instantly cry that it’s different for them. Well, maybe. Frankly, I don’t care. It’s not different for the vast majority of women on the planet, so how about thinking about the problem on a global scale instead of being content with your own private kingdom?
Oh, and by the way, if it’s a kingdom, you’re not the one in charge there either.
It does get very old to be constantly defining yourself as a woman in terms of sexuality, period. Sex is great, but hardly the only thing women do. But it gets all the press, so if you want to get attention as a woman, you talk about it, thus contributing to the problem.
The only other inroad seems to be pop culture, which is where Bitch has gained its foothold, and where a surprising amount of feminist commentary is located. Partly because pop culture is so, well, popular, but also because (I think) many women feel safer discussing, say, Buffy, than history or politics–unless they get discussed through the filter of Buffy.
We feel safe talking about sex and trivialities, because those have been our only realm for so long. And some of that is “reclaiming” but it’s also incredibly limiting. Every dude with a 12th grade education feels empowered to discuss why we’re in Iraq, no matter how stupid he sounds: I think lots of women don’t because war doesn’t “belong” to women in the same way. Even if a woman has a PhD in military history, she’s going to get more criticism for whatever she says than a guy who couldn’t find Iraq on a globe if you paid him.
Did it say that you are writing a book? Has that been mentioned before? Please give us more details. And since I’ve never posted before, I’ll get my adoration out of the way now - I love you Twisty!
In fact, I see it as fundamentalism with a generous sprinkling of Soviet youth-culture on top.
I fail to see the problem.
Jen said: “When you aren’t paying in pro-bono blow jobs, they aren’t going to give you what you want.”
This is a serious discussion and I shouldn’t make light of it, but this made me laugh out loud. I wonder if I can list “pro-bono blow jobs” under the volunteer work section of my resume.
I went by Lizzie on your blog, and can I just say that Holly, you really suck. But more importantly, you are invading the only real space that sane feminists have for discussion on the internet because you can’t stand the fact that a place exists where people who disagree with you are allowed to talk to each other free of your inane nonarguments. You sexy empowerfullated voluntary bimbos have the rest of the internet in which to discuss how radfems are evil and you’re so grateful for the right to your brazilian. From now on, I personally vow to let you have your forums if you stay out of mine. We can chalk this all up to a misunderstanding, and you can fuck off. Kthxbyebye.
PS. Thanks for being the type of complete fucking hypocrite who felt the need to yell at radfems for “telling other women how to feel” and then turning around to inform me that I’m not allowed to refer to myself as a former sex worker despite the fact that I fucking am one. Apparently, for the sake of your ideological convenience, it’s okay to label others’ experiences for them, starting with telling everybody who didn’t like being empowerfullated according to your personal model that it’s because they were slaves when they actually weren’t.
PPS. I’m sure that women in actual slavery really appreciate your total inability to recognize any sort of distinction between the experience of a twelve year old servicing twenty men a day without condoms while living in a cage and the experience of an expensive American escort.
Oh, and Natalia, you’re being ridiculous. Basically, your argument boils down to “Twisty is far too adamant about the fact that she’s right and I identify that with fundamentalism wah.” I don’t really even get what your problem is except that she didn’t giggle and apologize before she started writing.
I think the crank on “sex positivism” is best cartoonized by the Full Frontal Feminism book, where on the book you have a nakid lady. See feminism is funz, see, you can put your body up for a product and it’s a self-referential joke and empowerfulizing. You know, like Obama put a nakid picture of himself on the cover of his important political book. Guyz do that all the time, because it is empowerful and shows yourz fancy thinkin’ and people don’t call men who write books without the nakid pictures of them to be on talk shows and a spokesperson for a generation.
See, the author points out, feminists can be hairfree and have adoring gazes at your abs (just like the previous generation could do that and be cleaning their oven at the same time). See, you can be asked to be on the guyz shows to represent feminism because you getz that the price of admission to attention to whatever you argue is that you are pleasant to look at and the sexy. What a force for the changz.
Natalia: why all this farting about with Soviet/Big Sister allusions? If you mean “feminazis”, say “feminazis”. It’s not like we’re not going to notice.
Twisty’s post has me cackling with delight. I am not surprised that some people are reading it as anti-sex or anti-freedom, because I’ve hung around this parish for long enough to realise how many people are bad at reading comprehension.
There is nothing in Twisty’s post that says you have to stop having sex in whatever way you choose. All that she seems to be arguing is that sexyfun alone isn’t much of a basis for a political ideology. Though genuine liberation of female sexuality is an important concern of feminism, it is neither the only concern of feminism, nor even the most important.
I urge you all to consider the Truth and Beauty of this point:
“The second is the fictitious enemy of the first — a stand-in for the real oppressor — and functions as the dark, hairy background against which the glowing orgasmic accomplishments of the sexy feminists may glitter in the light of life’s dudely disco ball. Of course there is no real group of anti-sexites; this is a fabrication that allows sexy feminists to indulge in patriarchy-appeasing misogyny on feminist blogs.”
Uh-huh uh-huh.
“The second is the fictitious enemy of the first — a stand-in for the real oppressor — and functions as the dark, hairy background against which the glowing orgasmic accomplishments of the sexy feminists may glitter in the light of life’s dudely disco ball.”
I think I just came! That was exquisite!
(oops)
(backs offstage)
Flip that around and you have the position of most radical feminists of my acquaintance. We can make our decisions, but we can’t make them in an atmosphere of perfect fairness (or even close).