• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Sex-Positive Feminism

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I consider myself a sex positive feminist pretty much along the lines that Alceste laid out. I think the most obvious reason is I like sex. But maybe there's a less obvious reason too. I've long been distrustful of any ideology that denies the legitimacy of consensual sexual expression. Sex seems to me such a vital part of life that I think denying it is suspect. Almost on a par with denying or failing to affirm life.

At the moment, I would like to address one of the things you mention, stripping, because I've spoken about it on this forum so extensively elsewhere. I think that, to me at least, it can sometimes be a beautiful thing, even an emotionally liberating thing, but I have more qualms about it than I usually mention. Those qualms are focused on how it is typically practiced. All to often, I think, the environment, performances, and audience are not conducive to much of anything that is to me beautiful, that helps reconcile me to my sexuality, or that helps liberate my emotions and sexual feelings. To the extent that's the case, I don't see much value in it for me. Nevertheless, I would be opposed to banning it. I think stripping can be consider a form of "speech", in something like legal terms, and ought to be "protected".

Now, I don't wish to engage, in this thread, in a debate over whether or not stripping should be banned. But solely in this case to illuminate my thoughts about that I will mention two arguments in favor of banning stripping that I've often enough heard.

The first argument is along these lines: It's wrong to buy or sell sex, stripping is the sale and purchase of sex, therefore stripping is wrong, and thus should be banned. I don't buy into that argument because I don't believe it's wrong to buy or sell sex.

The second argument is along these lines: Stripping encourages people to sexually objectify women, sexually objectifying women is harmful to women, stripping is therefore harmful to women, and thus should be banned. I find this second argument more cogent than the first, but here my objection is with the final conclusion itself -- "thus stripping should be banned." In a nutshell, I suspect stripping no more nor less encourages people to sexually objectify women that do many other things we tolerate as a society. For instance, some of the book industry, much of the entertainment industry, and perhaps most of the fashion industry seem to me at least to encourage people to sexually objectify women more or less to the extent that stripping might. So, I believe if we were to be consistent, and if we were to ban stripping, we should ban those things too. There might be a reason to single out stripping, but if there is one I am as yet unaware of it.
You have previously described some stripping as being artistic, and therefore of value, and other (most) stripping as not being artistic, not of much value. You've further elaborated, as far as I recall, that artistic stripping is when the stripper is expressing her (or his) own sexuality and enjoying the process, while non-artistic (most) stripping is when the stripper is expressing sexuality that she believes that the audience wants to see, rather than her own.

Is that an accurate representation?

If so, what types of mindsets or enjoyment are different between the artistic sort and the non-artistic sort, for both the stripper and the viewer? What does a viewer experience from watching artistic stripping compared to non-artistic stripping?
 

Wherenextcolumbus

Well-Known Member
But I guess the question is, if dominance/submission seems to go either way with the genders, what relation does it have with gender roles at all?

You're right it can go either way, like anything. But most sexual depictions are centered around the fetishisation and subordination and male entitlement of the female, which does not have to depict obvious acts of violence, like in BDSM.
Remember the quote is about socially constructed sexuality, it is possible for a boy child to like colour pink but that doesn't mean it is socially acceptable for his parents to dress him in pink, or is socially the norm.
The point is Dworkin did not want to turn the tables, even it out and have more female doms to make up for all those males doms, she wanted to eradicate social sexual hierarchy.
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You're right it can go either way, like anything. But most sexual depictions are centered around the fetishisation and subordination and male entitlement of the female, which does not have to depict obvious acts of violence, like in BDSM.
Remember the quote is about socially constructed sexuality, it is possible for a boy child to like colour pink but that doesn't mean it is socially acceptable for his parents to dress him in pink, or is socially the norm.
The point is Dworkin did not want to turn the tables, even it out and have more female doms to make up for all those males doms, she wanted to eradicate social sexual hierarchy.
I'll expand my question. At what point does something shift from being innate sexuality to socially constructed sexuality? How can we tell the difference between innate sexuality (good?), and socially constructed sexuality (bad?), if the participants are enjoying it either way?

And follow-up question would be like my old one- how would sex without gender be different than sex with gender, or to put it a similar way, how would sex that only consists of innate sexuality be different than sex that consists of innate sexuality plus socially constructed sexuality?
 

Wherenextcolumbus

Well-Known Member
I'll expand my question. At what point does something shift from being innate sexuality to socially constructed sexuality? How can we tell the difference between innate sexuality (good?), and socially constructed sexuality (bad?), if the participants are enjoying it either way?

And follow-up question would be like my old one- how would sex without gender be different than sex with gender, or to put it a similar way, how would sex that only consists of innate sexuality be different than sex that consists of innate sexuality plus socially constructed sexuality?

We can see the difference by how it is acted out in the sex industry, how sexuality is marketed based on gender. We know sexual orientation is innate, but maybe you would like to show me how sadomasochism for example is innate and how it somehow affects a fetus in the womb? And the same for domination and submission in general.

Rad fems don't care who gets off on what, we don't agree with sexual hierarchy.

I already answered the second question, freely given, consensual without submission and domination. The fact is we don't really know what sexuality would exactly be like not under patriarchy, but we hope it wouldn't include the fetishisation or objectification of the female.
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
We can see the difference by how it is acted out in the sex industry, how sexuality is marketed based on gender. We know sexual orientation is innate, but maybe you would like to show me how sadomasochism for example is innate and how it somehow affects a fetus in the womb? And the same for domination and submission in general.
I'm not sure the relevance of the womb in this. I don't think a fetus or infant has any real sexual feelings at all, let alone any kinky ones. But we wouldn't say that the enjoyment of all sex is socially constructed based on the observation that sexual desire and enjoyment develop later in life rather than being clearly expressed from infancy.

For example, if you grant that sexual orientation is innate, yet not expressed in that early stage, then you're granting the existence of aspects of every human's nature that can exist innately and that are only displayed and experienced as they age. Couldn't the same possibly be true for some types of sexual preferences in some people, like a desire to take the lead in bed or a desire to be led in bed?

Also, I'm not sure that looking at the sex industry is an accurate proxy for what people like to do in their own bedrooms. I don't think vanilla and heterosexual porn is an accurate depiction of what vanilla and heterosexual sex is like. So for kinky porn, I'd imagine that it's also not a particularly accurate depiction of what kinky sex is like.

Rad fems don't care who gets off on what, we don't agree with sexual hierarchy.

I already answered the second question, freely given, consensual without submission and domination. The fact is we don't really know what sexuality would exactly be like not under patriarchy, but we hope it wouldn't include the fetishisation or objectification of the female.
Maybe an aspect of where we're not looking at this the same way is that I don't think dominant or submissive sexual tendencies necessarily mean fetishization or objectification of either the female or male.

I appreciate your participation in the thread, by the way. Without a contribution of rad fem views or non-sex-positive views to the discussion, I don't think there would be much to discuss in this thread between what appears to otherwise be mostly sex-positive feminists.
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
How do you define-sex positive feminism?

I see it starting as a response to the movements from anti-pornography activists, and that it began largely as an anti-censorship movement. From there, the anti-censorship crowd began to include in their understanding sex radicals and erotica writers and film. That is where the label began being applied as sex became understood as being a part of a cultures economy and artistic expression. Not so much as simply that one enjoys sex, because that is a given with anything consensual. But the sex-positive feminist movement supports women entering economic, financial, and relationship contracts that allow sex to be a mitigating factor in negotiating.

Do you consider yourself a sex-positive feminist, or do you not?

Absolutely. Sexuality and bedroom "skills" (so to speak) are IMO a part of life however they are expressed or explored. An autonomous person can and should have the freedom to negotiate terms and conditions through their sexuality as much as through any other cognitive or physical skill sets they may possess or master. That's my stance in a nutshell.
 

Wherenextcolumbus

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure the relevance of the womb in this. I don't think a fetus or infant has any real sexual feelings at all, let alone any kinky ones. But we wouldn't say that the enjoyment of all sex is socially constructed based on the observation that sexual desire and enjoyment develop later in life rather than being clearly expressed from infancy.

For example, if you grant that sexual orientation is innate, yet not expressed in that early stage, then you're granting the existence of aspects of every human's nature that can exist innately and that are only displayed and experienced as they age. Couldn't the same possibly be true for some types of sexual preferences in some people, like a desire to take the lead in bed or a desire to be led in bed?

I would not say it is a sexual orientation to be a sub or a dom unless proved otherwise.

Also, I'm not sure that looking at the sex industry is an accurate proxy for what people like to do in their own bedrooms. I don't think vanilla and heterosexual porn is an accurate depiction of what vanilla and heterosexual sex is like. So for kinky porn, I'd imagine that it's also not a particularly accurate depiction of what kinky sex is like.

Vanilla sex in pornography also depicts male over female domination and the fetishisation of the female even if there are no obvious acts of violence.
I would say it is not an accurate proxy but I would also say it is an example of sexual gender constructs and socialisation, just like other forms of media are.


Maybe an aspect of where we're not looking at this the same way is that I don't think dominant or submissive sexual tendencies necessarily mean fetishization or objectification of either the female or male.

You are probably right I believe subordination/domination require some form of fetishisation or objectification. But I'm trying not to turn this into a debate.

I appreciate your participation in the thread, by the way. Without a contribution of rad fem views or non-sex-positive views to the discussion, I don't think there would be much to discuss in this thread between what appears to otherwise be mostly sex-positive feminists.

Thanks
Here is another reason why I am not sex positive
I should add a trigger warning and graphic language to this link
http://the-invisible-men.tumblr.com/
 

Wherenextcolumbus

Well-Known Member
Oh sorry the reference to the womb was because of how the hormones of the female during pregnancy can determine if a male foetus is gay or not, or something like that. So how would the development of the foetus determine if someone is a sub or dom, is what I meant.
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I see it starting as a response to the movements from anti-pornography activists, and that it began largely as an anti-censorship movement.
Do you think it was also a response to some statements or works about intercourse by some feminists, in addition to a response to anti-pornography activists?

For example, there was the falsely-attributed "all sex is rape" comment to Catharine MacKinnon, who didn't actually say that, but it nonetheless became well-known.

Then there was Andrea Dworkin, who said, "Penetrative intercourse is, by its nature, violent. But I'm not saying sex must be rape. What I think is that sex must not put women in a subordinate position. It must be reciprocal and not an act of aggression from a man looking to satisfy only himself. That's my point." The first sentence there totally loses me, but I agree with what she said at the end.

There were other quotes or works from feminists about all men being rapists, men being predatory, penetrative intercourse being inherently problematic, and things of that nature. My history on the matter is not too strong, but it seems to me that both feminist positions on porn, and positions on penetrative intercourse, were things that were responded to by other feminists. What are your thoughts on that? Is that accurate?

From there, the anti-censorship crowd began to include in their understanding sex radicals and erotica writers and film. That is where the label began being applied as sex became understood as being a part of a cultures economy and artistic expression. Not so much as simply that one enjoys sex, because that is a given with anything consensual. But the sex-positive feminist movement supports women entering economic, financial, and relationship contracts that allow sex to be a mitigating factor in negotiating.
In your view, is there a certain boundary as to where one is a sex-positive feminist and one is not? Like, if someone approves of stripping but not prostitution, where would that place them?

Also, would you say that being sex-positive means approving of certain activities in a legal sense, or approving of them in a personal sense? For example, if someone doesn't agree with the practices of prostitution, pornography, and/or stripping, but believes they should be legal, would that be a sex-positive position or not, in your view?

Absolutely. Sexuality and bedroom "skills" (so to speak) are IMO a part of life however they are expressed or explored. An autonomous person can and should have the freedom to negotiate terms and conditions through their sexuality as much as through any other cognitive or physical skill sets they may possess or master. That's my stance in a nutshell.
In your view, are there some consensual acts between a couple that may be harmful to women or society as a whole, even if they enjoy them?

Also, as someone who has a dominatrix as an avatar, I can't help but ask your thoughts on the nature of dominance/submission in a sexual relationship. Do those sorts of relationships or practices contrast with the principles of feminism, in your view? Does the gender of the more dominant or submissive person factor into your view?
 
Last edited:

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I would not say it is a sexual orientation to be a sub or a dom unless proved otherwise.
I tend to look at it the other way, and think that if people are enjoying their version of lovemaking, unless it's something really extreme or physically harmful, I don't really have any proof that what they're doing is something that is bad, or something that society influenced them to do that they wouldn't have enjoyed otherwise. If someone enjoys something, I'm kind of agnostic towards the cause of their enjoyment, and don't view any particular proposal as being the default assumption.

For empirical studies on the innateness of sexual preferences like that, they'd probably have to do twin studies like they have with homosexual people, or studies linking behavior with some biological observations, which they have also done with homosexual people, but that would require people to put money towards that kind of sex research which I wouldn't really expect to happen. They're kind of stuck with cheaper surveys and stuff, it seems.

For a piece of evidence that I found interesting, there was a study, in the 90's, where they analyzed sexual bondage activities of heterosexual women, heterosexual men, and homosexual men. It was limited to people that were already interested in that sort of thing, which may skew results. What they found was that heterosexual men statistically had a 71/29 preference ratio for dominance/submission respectively (favoring dominance), heterosexual women had an 11/89 preference ratio (favoring submission), and homosexual men had an 12/88 preference ratio (favoring submission at a nearly identical rate to heterosexual women). If it is proposed that society convinces women to take a more submissive role, either literally like in this case or in a more subtle way in many other cases, then I'm not sure how that accounts for the observation that, at least in this limited study, homosexual men had a near-identical preference as heterosexual women, despite presumably having substantially different social pressures throughout their young and adult lives. It's possible that in a more general sense, a desire for leading or being led in sexual activities may be statistically correlated with whether a person is sexually attracted to men or women. I'm also not sure how social views would account for women that enjoy being dominant, or men that enjoy being submissive, if it runs counter to social pressures.

Vanilla sex in pornography also depicts male over female domination and the fetishisation of the female even if there are no obvious acts of violence.
I would say it is not an accurate proxy but I would also say it is an example of sexual gender constructs and socialisation, just like other forms of media are.
I agree with all of that.

You are probably right I believe subordination/domination require some form of fetishisation or objectification. But I'm trying not to turn this into a debate.
I think it's more of a discussion than a debate; I'm very interested in your views on this, and exploring different opinions on the contrast of principles between feminism and some forms of sexuality.

In my view, just about any sex act can include objectification and fetishization, and that most sex acts can be done without objectification and fetishization.

Objectification refers to treating a person as a thing, not recognizing their humanity. Fetishization is when someone is fixated on one particular body part, or one particular activity.

If a couple does things that are viewed as dominant/submissive, but they both enjoy it, and importantly, they both know that they both enjoy it, and if both parties do things to make sure the other person is enjoying it, then in my view that by definition makes it not objectifying. Fetishism is less clear, but generally I think a lot of couples choose to spice their activities up in various ways without being particularly attached to those activities.

Thanks
Here is another reason why I am not sex positive
I should add a trigger warning and graphic language to this link
http://the-invisible-men.tumblr.com/
I saw that before when you linked to it in another thread, and I agree that it is a terrible, terrible thing. I generally am not personally supportive of prostitution, though I am concerned with ways to improve the safety of the workers, and also tend to a default socially liberal/legalize stance, unless I can form an argument against it.

where did she say this "Penetrative sex is, by its nature, violent"
Actually the quote is "penetrative intercourse" not "penetrative sex" (I corrected it in my post), and the source I was reading it from was Snopes, which has references at the bottom. The context of the statement was a response to a question about her views, I assume after her book Intercourse was published. After the book, due to some of her views expressed in the book, there were some false quotes attributed to her, and this was apparently a response from her towards those false statements.

She had previously given a more detailed view of penetrative intercourse in her book, Intercourse, which you're probably more familiar with than me, and maybe have some thoughts to share about the work as a whole?

This is nihilism, or this is truth. He has to push in past boundaries. There is the outline of a body, distinct, separate, its integrity an illusion, a tragic deception, because unseen there is a slit between the legs, and he has to push into it. There is never a real privacy of the body that can coexist with intercourse: with being entered. The vagina itself is muscled and the muscles have to be pushed apart. The thrusting is persistent invasion. She is opened up, split down the center. She is occupied--physically, internally, in her privacy. ... There is no analogue anywhere among subordinated groups of people to this experience of being made for intercourse: for penetration, entry, occupation. There is no analogue in occupied countries or in dominated races or in imprisoned dissidents or in colonialized cultures or in the submission of children to adults or in the atrocities that have marked the twentieth century ranging from Auschwitz to the Gulag. There is nothing exactly the same, and this is not because the political invasion and significance of intercourse is banal up against these other hierarchies and brutalities. Intercourse is a particular reality for women as an inferior class; and it has, in it, as part of it, violation of boundaries, taking over, occupation, destruction of privacy, all of which are construed to be normal and also fundamental to continuing human existence. There is nothing that happens to any other civilly inferior people that is the same in its meaning and in its effect even when those people are forced into sexual availability, heterosexual or homosexual; while the subject people, for instance, may be forced to have intercourse with those who dominate them, the God who does not exist did not make human existence, broadly speaking, dependent on their compliance. The political meaning of intercourse for women is the fundamental question of feminism and freedom: can an occupied people--physically occupied inside, internally invaded--be free; can those with a metaphysically compromised privacy have self-determination; can those without a biologically based physical integrity have self-respect?
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
You have previously described some stripping as being artistic, and therefore of value, and other (most) stripping as not being artistic, not of much value. You've further elaborated, as far as I recall, that artistic stripping is when the stripper is expressing her (or his) own sexuality and enjoying the process, while non-artistic (most) stripping is when the stripper is expressing sexuality that she believes that the audience wants to see, rather than her own.

Is that an accurate representation?

If so, what types of mindsets or enjoyment are different between the artistic sort and the non-artistic sort, for both the stripper and the viewer? What does a viewer experience from watching artistic stripping compared to non-artistic stripping?

Lyn, perhaps I should caution you this post will largely be an experiment to see if I can adequately express something as potentially subtle as the psychology of aesthetics while short on sleep and easily distracted by the beautiful day outside my cottage. :)

Did you accurately represent my position? I think you did an impressive job representing it while working from memory. I only have three quibbles. The first is truly trivial: I don't believe we need to enjoy creating art for it to be art. So, a stripper could be creating art without necessarily enjoying the process.

You must think me an idiot by now to have mentioned something so trivial, but my next quibble is somewhat more substantial: I harbor within my beating breast a broad sense of what is art. Consequently, it doesn't matter whether a stripper is expressing herself (I will use "her" in this context, but I mean both women and men) authentically (such as when being true to herself) or inauthentically (such as when pandering to the audience without being true to herself). I either case, I view the expression as "art". The latter, however, might not have the same consequences for the audience as the former.

My third quibble is more of an elaboration. I believe stripping can be an art even if it expresses more than a person's (or an audience's) sexuality. For instance, it is conceivable to me that a stripper might wish to express her contempt for the audience (I think I've seen that done a few times). Such expression is to me just as much of an art as it would be if she were expressing her sexuality.

By the way, for the sake of avoiding the likelihood of a much, much longer post, I am avoiding any attempt to formally define what I mean by "art". I hope you fully appreciate how much dull boredom I am saving you from.

I will now attempt to address your second question, Lyn, which, if you don't mind, I will reformulate in two sentences as, "What, if anything, can a viewer experience from watching an authentic act of stripping as compared to watching an inauthentic act of stripping? And what, if anything, can a stripper experience while performing authentically as compared to inauthentically?"

I think your question pleasantly requires us to get into the psychology of aesthetics, a subject in which I by no means consider myself competent. But I'll give it a shot anyways because my incompetence is fortunately matched by my sense of adventure.

Perhaps we can begin by briefly noting an effect that authenticity (in other people) can have on us in general. I think, among other less relevant effects of our experiencing authenticity in another person, their authenticity has the potential to inspire and encourage us to be more authentic ourselves. And we might even subjectively experience that as liberating. "Liberating" as an emotional response: We feel freer, less restricted, more likely to achieve our potentials, etc.

Once again, I will spare you the details of why I think experiencing authenticity in another person can both inspire us to greater authenticity in ourselves, and induce in us feelings of liberation. But I will mention that what I've laid out here has been my own experience, as well as the experience of a very few other people that I've managed to discuss this subject with (Yet, my experience is fairly compelling evidence to me, but I wouldn't expect it to be necessarily compelling to anyone else).

Now, if the above is more or less the case, then I think we can apply it to the specific case of what an audience might experience while watching a stripper perform authentically. Briefly, the audience can then experience inspiration and encouragement to be more authentic themselves, as well as experience feelings of liberation. And, assuming the theme of the stripper's authentic performance is her sexuality, I would expect the audience can experience inspiration and encouragement to be more sexually authentic, and feelings of sexual liberation.

Please note that I've been saying "can" rather than "will". I have only guesses to go on when estimating the proportion of people in a given audience who will experience these things. My hunch is it's generally low, that few people typically come away from a strip club feeling liberated and encouraged to be more sexually authentic. In part, that's because I think most of the audience is there simply to be sexually titillated. But if that happens to be true, I don't think it invalidates the experience of some people, such as myself and a few of my friends, in finding in the experience the things we've been discussing. Would a great painting be any less a painting if only one in a hundred people could appreciate it as such? I myself think not. Other people's mileage may vary.

To me, the things we've discussed cannot be -- or at the very least, are unlikely to be -- experienced when watching a stripper perform inauthentically. I don't recall ever having experienced them myself in those circumstances.

As an aside, I do not believe the above entirely exhausts what an audience can get out of stripping. Among other things, I think they can experience the beauty of the stripper herself, and all the emotions of pleasure and well-being that we typically experience when confronted with beauty; I they can find themselves in the end more greatly reconciled, if only for a while to themselves and to living in this world; and other things. If there's a difference between these things and the things derived form experiencing authenticity, it's that these things we seem able to experience even if the stripper's performance is not notably authentic.

Last, what does the stripper herself get out of performing authentically versus performing inauthentically? I'm largely going to plead ignorance here. I have myself never been a stripper. In the past, I've had strippers who were causal friends of mine, and there's even a former stripper in my "adopted" family, but I recall discussing stripping in this light with only one stripper, and she was someone who so greatly impressed me with her general authenticity (I never saw her strip, I am referring to her authenticity in all my experiences of her) that I'm almost inclined to think she could even run for high political office without betraying herself! To her, being as authentic as one reasonably can seems to come natural, and her attitude towards being authentic while performing can more or less be summed up as, "Well, of course!".

Of course, I would fully expect any general benefits that come from living authentically to extend extend to performing authentically as a stripper.

It just occurred to me that you might be interested to know I myself cannot recall anything else I've experienced in my life from which I can derive the same mix of benefits as from watching the rare stripper deliver not a merely authentic performance, but deliver an authentic performance that is good art. There are a few experiences like it, but nothing entirely like it. Consequently, I think -- and maybe no one else would agree with me -- that stripping has the potential not only to be good art, but also to be an unique art, as opposed to a merely distinct art.

Lyn, my apologies for being so long winded. I've thought so long on this subject that it is easy for me to go on and on without thinking I've exhausted all that could be said about it. But I've really bent your ear here and I apologize for that.
 
Last edited:

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
Do you think it was also a response to some statements or works about intercourse by some feminists, in addition to a response to anti-pornography activists?

For example, there was the falsely-attributed "all sex is rape" comment to Catharine MacKinnon, who didn't actually say that, but it nonetheless became well-known.

Possibly, but I think the response was more distinct to the political movement to ban pornography and to shut down strip clubs. The writings and subsequent misquotes only fueled the fire, I think.

Then there was Andrea Dworkin, who said, "Penetrative intercourse is, by its nature, violent. But I'm not saying sex must be rape. What I think is that sex must not put women in a subordinate position. It must be reciprocal and not an act of aggression from a man looking to satisfy only himself. That's my point." The first sentence there totally loses me, but I agree with what she said at the end.

I agree with the end of that quote too.

There were other quotes or works from feminists about all men being rapists, men being predatory, penetrative intercourse being inherently problematic, and things of that nature. My history on the matter is not too strong, but it seems to me that both feminist positions on porn, and positions on penetrative intercourse, were things that were responded to by other feminists. What are your thoughts on that? Is that accurate?

It might be simplistic, but I can see the parallels there. The sexual revolution, the pill, and Roe vs. Wade ushered in the new idea...a very new idea in U.S. culture....that women have reproductive and sexual autonomy. I think there's many more nuances of how the porn industry began to gain mainstream acceptance, how advancements of technology allowed greater access to sexual resources/information/art/erotica, and how women's changing roles from strictly homemaker to entering the boardroom, helped to shape the overall views on how women see their reproductive organs. Are they sacred? Are they a means to maintain marital fidelity? Are they toys? Are they nothing more than highly sensitive parts of an overall woman's body? Women are still alive today who rarely ever asked these questions, but now with the Information Age and the internet being as ubiquitous as it is, the converations has suddenly opened up a Pandoras Box, so to speak.

IOW, we're still trying to sort this out within a couple of generations where it was extremely simple before: "The uterus is a vessel for childbearing, use it as such." and "Your thoughts are not as important as your husbands, so give him what he wants and listen to his needs first and foremost."

Heaven forbid a female orgasm was thought of as a good and normal part of the equation of sexual experience back then. ;)

In your view, is there a certain boundary as to where one is a sex-positive feminist and one is not? Like, if someone approves of stripping but not prostitution, where would that place them?

As with the very name of "feminist", I personally let the person decide whether or not he or she is sex-positive. For me, I define the boundary as supporting whether or not women utilizing their sexuality in economic decisions is in their best interest.

Also, would you say that being sex-positive means approving of certain activities in a legal sense, or approving of them in a personal sense? For example, if someone doesn't agree with the practices of prostitution, pornography, and/or stripping, but believes they should be legal, would that be a sex-positive position or not, in your view?

I think so. Safe and legal access is the deciding factor, not whether or not one would engage in it personally. Like abortion, one can be personally against ever making a decision to terminate a pregnancy for herself, but can be politically pro-choice for keeping abortion rights intact. I see the same thing for businesses based off of sex.

In your view, are there some consensual acts between a couple that may be harmful to women or society as a whole, even if they enjoy them?

Depending on the risk factor, specifically kinky/risky/dangerous sexual acts might if a level of responsibility isn't matched with the risk. For instance, a couple might wish to engage in polyamory or to enter into making amateur porn with other people, and to allow as part of their contracts (whether verbal or written), unprotected sex. If they don't have regular blood testing done to verify whether or not they carry any STD's with them, I think such activities pose a greater risk to society.

Also, as someone who has a dominatrix as an avatar, I can't help but ask your thoughts on the nature of dominance/submission in a sexual relationship. Do those sorts of relationships or practices contrast with the principles of feminism, in your view? Does the gender of the more dominant or submissive person factor into your view?

Dominance and submission, IMO, has been insisted on by entire religious and political institutions in abusive ways. The very nature of the dom/sub relationship as this subculture has become more mainstream is that the sub has all the power to define boundaries for the activities of the couple or group. In the past, when a culture has demanded that an entire gender dominate another entire gender, and when that dominant gender has the decision-making power to make the boundaries, it de-humanizes the submissive gender entirely. The sub has no say whatsoever in this abusive system (which is what the current patriarchal system demands).

In consensual dom/sub relationships, I see it as the dom who gets to push, prod, tickle, and basically take the lead in anything and everything possible, but the sub has the power to say, "stop"...never the dom. This dynamic re-defines what people tend to think of as what domination actually means and what submission actually means. In a patriarchal paradigm, men (the dominant gender) not only takes the lead in all household, business, and political activities, but also decides how women (the submissive gender) place their own personal boundaries...and men have no accountability to their actions to the women since they decide what personal boundaries the women have. They could always move the goalposts however and whenever it is convenient for them to do so.

Consensual dom/sub sexual and personal relationships give the sub all the power for setting boundaries, while giving the dom all the power for making things happen. Gender means nothing in these consensual power-shifting in relationships.

Personally, for me, I see dom/sub contract negotiations as ultimately liberating, authentic, and empowering for all involved.
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What is the chapter or page number for the intercourse quote?
I believe those words are towards the beginning of chapter 7, Occupation/Collaboration.

Chapter 7 is a short chapter that is basically all about how intercourse is harmful, how the physical aspects of one sex entering the other sex renders one sex inferior, and how counter-arguments can't really salvage that view. I'll put the rest of what I'm saying here in quotes so that ideally this thread won't be something that has to be moved out of the Feminist Only area:

She describes intercourse as fundamentally invasive for the woman, links it to power in men and vulnerability in women, points out that most women won't orgasm from intercourse, and then points out that science has made it so that intercourse isn't necessary for reproduction anymore.

In that chapter, Dworkin also links intercourse with dominance and submission for men and women, and says that objectification of the woman is necessary for intercourse. We were talking before about whether tendencies for submissiveness or dominance could be innate or social- Dworkin proposes that it is the act of intercourse that leads the woman toward developing submissive tendencies:

Male-dominant gender hierarchy, however, seems immune to reform by reasoned or visionary argument or by changes in sexual styles, either personal or social. This may be because intercourse itself is immune to reform. In it, female is bottom, stigmatized. Intercourse remains a means or the means of physiologically making a woman inferior: communicating to her cell by cell her own inferior status, impressing it on her, burning it into her by shoving it into her, over and over, pushing and thrusting until she gives up and gives in-- which is called surrender in the male lexicon. In the experience of intercourse, she loses the capacity for integrity because her body--the basis of privacy and freedom in the material world for all human beings--is entered and occupied; the boundaries of her physical body are--neutrally speaking-- violated. What is taken from her in that act is not recoverable, and she spends her life--wanting, after all, to have something--pretending that pleasure is in being reduced through intercourse to insignificance. She will not have an orgasm--maybe because she has human pride and she resents captivity; but also she will not or cannot rebel--not enough for it to matter, to end male dominance over her. She learns to eroticize powerlessness and self- annihilation. The very boundaries of her own body become meaningless to her, and even worse, useless to her. The transgression of those boundaries comes to signify a sexually charged degradation into which she throws herself, having been told, convinced, that identity, for a female, is there-- somewhere beyond privacy and self-respect.
 

Wherenextcolumbus

Well-Known Member
I disagree that she is saying that is how intercourse naturally is, but that is how men have written about intercourse as we see from the next paragraph:
"The discourse of male truth-literature, science, philosophy, pornogrpahy-calls that penetration violation. This it does with some consistency and some confidence.
And further we read:
"A man has an anus that can be entered, but his anus is not synonymous with entry A woman has an anus that can be entered, but her anus is not synonymous with entry,
Why would she be anti- penis in vagina but not anti- penis in anus?
The book is a criticism of how men have written about intercourse in literature and pornography.
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I disagree that she is saying that is how intercourse naturally is, but that is how men have written about intercourse as we see from the next paragraph:
"The discourse of male truth-literature, science, philosophy, pornogrpahy-calls that penetration violation. This it does with some consistency and some confidence.
And further we read:
"A man has an anus that can be entered, but his anus is not synonymous with entry A woman has an anus that can be entered, but her anus is not synonymous with entry,
Why would she be anti- penis in vagina but not anti- penis in anus?
The book is a criticism of how men have written about intercourse in literature and pornography.
In the context of that part, the paragraph is saying that only the female genitals are pretty much exclusively designed for entry. It's saying that a woman is in a position where her very body is made to be penetrated, and she points out as contrast that the anus of a male or female may indeed be penetrated, but is not really meant to be penetrated, that they have another purpose and any use for sex would only be secondary:

There is a deep recognition in culture and in experience that intercourse is both the normal use of a woman, her human potentiality affirmed by it, and a violative abuse, her privacy irredeemably compromised, her selfhood changed in a way that is irrevocable, unrecoverable. And it is recognized that the use and abuse are not distinct phenomena but somehow a synthesized reality: both are true at the same time as if they were one harmonious truth instead of mutually exclusive contradictions. Intercourse in reality is a use and an abuse simultaneously, experienced and described as such, the act parlayed into the illuminated heights of religious duty and the dark recesses of morbid and dirty brutality. She, a human being, is supposed to have a privacy that is absolute; except that she, a woman, has a hole between her legs that men can, must, do enter. This hole, her hole, is synonymous with entry. A man has an anus that can be entered, but his anus is not synonymous with entry. A woman has an anus that can be entered, but her anus is not synonymous with entry. The slit between her legs, so simple, so hidden-- frankly, so innocent-- for instance, to the child who looks with a mirror to see if it could be true--is there an entrance to her body down there? and something big comes into it? (how?) and something as big as a baby comes out of it? (how?) and doesn't that hurt?--that slit which means entry into her-- intercourse--appears to be the key to women's lower human status. By definition, as the God who does not exist made her, she is intended to have a lesser privacy, a lesser integrity of the body, a lesser sense of self, since her body can be physically occupied and in the occupation taken over. By definition, as the God who does not exist made her, this lesser privacy, this lesser integrity, this lesser self, establishes her lesser significance: not just in the world of social policy but in the world of bare, true, real existence. She is defined by how she is made, that hole, which is synonymous with entry; and intercourse, the act fundamental to existence, has consequences to her being that may be intrinsic, not socially imposed.

There is no analogue anywhere among subordinated groups of people to this experience of being made for intercourse: for penetration, entry, occupation. There is no analogue in occupied countries or in dominated races or in imprisoned dissidents or in colonialized cultures or in the submission of children to adults or in the atrocities that have marked the twentieth century ranging from Auschwitz to the Gulag. There is nothing exactly the same, and this is not because the political invasion and significance of intercourse is banal up against these other hierarchies and brutalities. Intercourse is a particular reality for women as an inferior class; and it has in it, as part of it, violation of boundaries, taking over, occupation, destruction of privacy, all of which are construed to be normal and also fundamental to continuing human existence. There is nothing that happens to any other civilly inferior people that is the same in its meaning and in its effect even when those people are forced into sexual availability, heterosexual or homosexual; while subject people, for instance, may be forced to have intercourse with those who dominate them, the God who does not exist did not make human existence, broadly speaking, dependent on their compliance. The political meaning of intercourse for women is the fundamental question of feminism and freedom: can an occupied people--physically occupied inside, internally invaded--be free; can those with a metaphysically compromised privacy have self-determination; can those without a biologically based physical integrity have self-respect?

Do you have a direct link to the article where she says "penetrative intercourse is by it's nature violent" ?
I previously linked to the Snopes article that I used as a reference- it lists its references too. Due to its age, I believe the original quote was in physical print rather than on an internet article.
 

Wherenextcolumbus

Well-Known Member
I disagree because she write here
"By definition, as the God who does not exist made her she is intended to have lesser privacy, a lesser integrity of the body, a lesser sense of self, since her body can be physically occupied and in occupation taken over."
And then she goes on to talk about how women dream of an intercourse in which they are equal and then goes back to discussing how men have written about intercourse:
"They also do not amount to much in real life with real men. There is, instead, the cold *******, duty-bound or promiscuous; the romantic obsession in which eventual abandonment turns the vagina into the wound Freud claimed it was; intimacy with men who dread women, coital dread-as Kafka wrote in his diary "coitus as punishment for the happiness of being together."
Basically what she is saying is that men have said that that is the natural use of a woman's body, that that is how "the God that does not exist made her."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Wherenextcolumbus

Well-Known Member
I saw the snopes article but I would have to see the original to believe it I'm afraid and assess if it is a credible newspaper article. This is because too much BS has been said about her.
 
Top