Sex-Positive Feminism

[Sunstone]

[I'm cross posting this from another thread]

It seems that patriarchal bias might extend even to some feminists. I'll go out on a limb here (mainly for the purposes of having my butt kicked so that I might have a chance of better understanding her position) and state that Andrea Dworkin might be an example of a feminist whose views of human sexuality never entirely escape the patriarchal box.

It seems to me at least, that Dworkin believed some physiological aspects of common, human sexual positions (missionary, perhaps doggie, perhaps, etc.) intrinsically lent themselves to having a patriarchal spin placed on them. The key word there is "intrinsically". I think it indicates that Dworkin swallowed too much of the patriarchal waters, because I find it exceptionally difficult to believe that much of anything about the human sex act intrinsically lends itself to a patriarchal spin.

Not even such things as "thrusting, pushing, invasion, penetration" -- words I seem to recall Dworkin using to characterize the sex act. To me, there is only a cultural basis for perceiving those and other things Dworkin mentions as intrinsically lending themselves to a patriarchal spin, to being viewed as male dominance.

But, as I said, I'm prepared to have my butt kicked. It could easily be that Dworkin didn't really mean those things had some properties whereby they were naturally more inclined to support interpreting the sex act as evidence that men are and should be dominant in male/female relationships.

 

[Sunstone]

And now I'm thinking it would be interesting to create a poll in the sexuality section to see what percentage of guys say they would be willing to enter a long-term relationship with a woman who says up front that she's interested in sex but not intercourse, possibly ever. It would be interesting to know.

I might do it. But I might not be a very representative male in that regard because I have for a very long time been more or less comfortably celibate. So perhaps I have an usually low psychological desire or need for intercourse.

And I would be a bad subject of study in another way too. I would not enter into a committed relationship with anyone without it being an open relationship for both of us.

 

[Sunstone]

Intercourse is universal, because without modern technology, that's the only way to reproduce. Animal studies prove it too; if infant animals are isolated from other animals and put together, they still know how to reproduce when they're olden enough. It's instinctual rather than taught. Males typically have a mounting instinct.

Hell, Lyn, the instinct is so strong that a female friend of mine recalls wanting to receive a boy inside of her when she was five years old. And I, for my part, can still recall the vivid yearnings I had age 8 or so to penetrate my favorite girls -- even though I was totally ignorant of the existence of the vagina at that time, I just knew there had to be a way of doing that!

Consent is the most important thing, otherwise it's rape. If a woman doesn't want to have intercourse, she shouldn't. That might make her sexually incompatible with some people, but so be it. I was with someone for a very long time before doing that; we did other things instead. The next most important thing would be that the consent is actually intelligent. In your example where the woman regularly had painful intercourse, she was apparently giving consent, probably unfortunately out of a feeling of obligation, but that wasn't any sort of healthy consent. Her health and well-being is more important than his desire to have intercourse, and it doesn't make sense for them to consider it so important that they would keep doing it despite the existence of a problem. He may not be 100% sexually satisfied with out it, but that's life, and he should have given it up unless or until she corrected the problem and was able to enjoy it.

The dream of unlimited access to intercourse is vastly over-rated, methinks. At least in my experience, if in the experience of no one else. My first wife always gave consent. Probably not because she'd been told it was her duty, but because of her personality, which tended towards compliance with others in so many ways. She always gave consent, but this resulted in the "chocolate factory phenomenon" where you have so much of a desired thing that you no longer desire it. I never totally gave up my sexual desire for her, but it was certainly reduced as our sexual familiarity increased. So, I think limited consent might actually be a blessing.

Any good guy should care about his partner's enjoyment as much as his own, and both partners have to figure out what they want sexually so that they can be happy and comfortable.

I think it's highly likely that good guys have always done this, though-out history, and even during ages in which the predominant ideology was that women either didn't enjoy sex or even were repulsed by sex.

My reasoning is that there are strong emotional incentives to sex with someone who enjoys it. In the first place, it tends to be an order of magnitude more physically pleasurable than sex with someone who does not enjoy it. Perhaps that's because there is likely to be increased give and take of pleasure. In the second place, and perhaps more importantly, sex with someone who enjoys it seems to positively effect one's self-esteem, while sex with someone who is not enjoying seems to negatively effect one''s self-esteem. The former experience is rewarding, the latter is the biggest sexual turn off I've had personal experience of.

I think those and other rewards to having sex with someone who enjoys it are likely to be ubiquitous to every culture on earth. So, I think good guys through the ages may have discovered those rewards and then tried to maximize the enjoyment of their partners. But here's the caveat -- ideologies tend to blind people to realities. So during ages in which the predominant ideology was that women didn't take pleasure in sex, there might have been relatively few people who stumbled across the fact that women can take pleasure in sex.

At least, the above are my conclusions based on my own very limited experiences. Other people's mileage may vary.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

[I'm cross posting this from another thread]

It seems that patriarchal bias might extend even to some feminists. I'll go out on a limb here (mainly for the purposes of having my butt kicked so that I might have a chance of better understanding her position) and state that Andrea Dworkin might be an example of a feminist whose views of human sexuality never entirely escape the patriarchal box.

It seems to me at least, that Dworkin believed some physiological aspects of common, human sexual positions (missionary, perhaps doggie, perhaps, etc.) intrinsically lent themselves to having a patriarchal spin placed on them. The key word there is "intrinsically". I think it indicates that Dworkin swallowed too much of the patriarchal waters, because I find it exceptionally difficult to believe that much of anything about the human sex act intrinsically lends itself to a patriarchal spin.

Not even such things as "thrusting, pushing, invasion, penetration" -- words I seem to recall Dworkin using to characterize the sex act. To me, there is only a cultural basis for perceiving those and other things Dworkin mentions as intrinsically lending themselves to a patriarchal spin, to being viewed as male dominance.

But, as I said, I'm prepared to have my butt kicked. It could easily be that Dworkin didn't really mean those things had some properties whereby they were naturally more inclined to support interpreting the sex act as evidence that men are and should be dominant in male/female relationships.

Don't worry I won't kick your butt. I believe a lot of women have bad experiences of penetration the first time they have it, I know this can be prevented but we aren't really caught how, I personally discovered how.
Because of this I think she was saying that is one reason and possibility that has influenced how penetration has been viewed as a form of punishment, violation by male writers, because of the nature of penetration.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

When I was 5 I thought the genitals rubbed together which must be pleasurable and thought people had sex for pleasure only not for reproduction. I had no idea that the penis went inside, I was shocked when I found that out, I had no instinct for it at all.

 

[Sunstone]

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."

I think the above quote illustrates where Dworkin so often looses me. It's most likely because I haven't read enough of her writings to really understand her terminology, but so far I've found Dworkin's usage of key terms irritating. I find the same style in other authors -- both male and female -- to max out my irritation, too. So, it's not just Dworkin.

When Dworkin says, "Penetrative intercourse is, by its nature, violent", she gives me the appearance, at least, of not understanding her own terms. I use the above quote only to illustrate my point, but I get this same sense of her from longer quotes in this thread, too.

What does Dworkin mean by "violent". If I take her to mean what is commonly meant by "violent", then her statement sounds to me like a gross exaggeration, or even like a statement that has little or no bearing in reality. Consequently, I wonder how she herself is defining the term. But she gives only one qualification ("I'm not saying sex must be rape"), and that qualification doesn't help me much to make heads or tails of what she means by "violent". i.e. her qualification is not properly about violence, but about consent.

Now, I realize all of this is largely personal to me, and perhaps even to me alone. I am someone likely to be irritated by the use of terms that cannot ultimately be defined empirically. So far as I know, I was born that way. So, I'm probably being grossly unfair to Dworkin. I'm probably jumping all over her case far too soon, without knowing much about her, and without granting her my normal practice of suspending judgement of an author until I am more familiar with them.

But wow! It does irritate me! I probably should run away and not even bother to read her, it so irritates me. But then, I think she has something important to say, something I can learn from.

[/rant]

 

[Sunstone]

When I was 5 I thought the genitals rubbed together which must be pleasurable and thought people had sex for pleasure only not for reproduction. I had no idea that the penis went inside, I was shocked when I found that out, I had no instinct for it at all.

That strikes me as an important qualification (to my view of things, at least). Thanks!

 

[Sunstone]

Don't worry I won't kick your butt. I believe a lot of women have bad experiences of penetration the first time they have it, I know this can be prevented but we aren't really caught how, I personally discovered how.

If it isn't too personal, nor too explicit for this thread, would you tell me what you did to prevent a bad experience?

The most charming technique I ever heard tell of to distract someone from the pain normally associated with first intercourse was to bite the ear of your lover. What made it charming to me, however, was when an experienced woman once bit the ear of her lover the first time around for him! She knew it was unnecessary in that instance, but she did it anyway because she thought it would be funny.

Because of this I think she was saying that is one reason and possibility that has influenced how penetration has been viewed as a form of punishment, violation by male writers, because of the nature of penetration.

Thanks! That's helpful. I'm almost embarrassed to say that I've never read such male writers. I've heard of them. Or, at least, I think I have. Henry Miller was one, wasn't he? But I've spent so much of my life with a strong preference for non-fiction, that my literary education sucks.

So, Dworkin might not be actually saying that sex acts intrinsically lead us to view penetration as a form of violation or punishment? But that they are merely suggestive of those things, and that some male writers have taken that suggestiveness and run with it?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

How do you define-sex positive feminism?

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

I'm a sex-positive feminist for obvious benefits, along with the basic beliefs that people should be free to make their own decisions and that sexual expression is one of the best perks of being a human being.

Specifically in regards to feminism, I see sex-positive feminism as more valid feminism than some schools from early waves of feminism, which tended to take a defensive and protective stance on women's sexuality and viewed men's sexuality as predatory or violent in nature. To me, this paints men and women as adversaries, is psychologically and socially negative, and results in limiting women's choices through fear, shame, or disgust - none of which seem to be consistent with feminism as an ideology or practice.

 

[Sunstone]

I think the reason I feel an affinity for sex positive feminism (apart from the simple fact I sooooo enjoy sex, that is), is because I see sex as a crucial and important way in which we humans reconcile ourselves to our lives.

Life, in my understanding of it has many generally positive things about it -- things like beauty, love, companionship, natural environments, etc -- but it is also inseparably comprised of negative things -- things ranging from the merely painful to the horrifying. So I don't think it's at all easy for most of us to deeply reconcile ourselves to life -- or, at the least, deeply reconcile ourselves to all of life. We tend, rather, to cherry pick what we will affirm, and to deny the rest.

Sex is one of the few things the average person can do that brings him or her close to affirming all of his or her life. And I think fully affirming life is ultimately all but necessary to fully living.

Of course, one might seek out the bliss of nirvana, but that's a pretty hit or miss thing. Sex is much more easily realized.

Because of all that, I tend to see sex positive feminism as not merely about sex, but about living fully.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think the reason I feel an affinity for sex positive feminism (apart from the simple fact I sooooo enjoy sex, that is), is because I see sex as a crucial and important way in which we humans reconcile ourselves to our lives.

Life, in my understanding of it has many generally positive things about it -- things like beauty, love, companionship, natural environments, etc -- but it is also inseparably comprised of negative things -- things ranging from the merely painful to the horrifying. So I don't think it's at all easy for most of us to deeply reconcile ourselves to life -- or, at the least, deeply reconcile ourselves to all of life. We tend, rather, to cherry pick what we will affirm, and to deny the rest.

Sex is one of the few things the average person can do that brings him or her close to affirming all of his or her life. And I think fully affirming life is ultimately all but necessary to fully living.

Of course, one might seek out the bliss of nirvana, but that's a pretty hit or miss thing. Sex is much more easily realized.

Because of all that, I tend to see sex positive feminism as not merely about sex, but about living fully.

An excellent and important point.

 

[Sunstone]

An excellent and important point.

WTF? I just moments ago fruballed you because I thought your point was excellent and important.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

WTF? I just moments ago fruballed you because I thought your point was excellent and important.

LOL - yeah, I just saw that after posting my response.

 

[Sunstone]

LOL - yeah, I just saw that after posting my response.

I win! I fruballed you first, so I win. Score! *spikes keyboard, needs new keyboard now -- for the twelfth time in three weeks*

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

If it isn't too personal, nor too explicit for this thread , would you tell me what you did to prevent a bad experience?
I think it would be inappropriate for this thread yeah, are you planning on bonding with many "innocents?"
The most charming technique I ever heard tell of to distract someone from the pain normally associated with first intercourse was to bite the ear of your lover. What made it charming to me, however, was when an experienced woman once bit the ear of her lover the first time around for him! She knew it was unnecessary in that instance, but she did it anyway because she thought it would be funny.
I would say there is no need for any pain, if you feel pain, stop and try again another rainy day-patience is the key

Thanks! That's helpful. I'm almost embarrassed to say that I've never read such male writers. I've heard of them. Or, at least, I think I have. Henry Miller was one, wasn't he? But I've spent so much of my life with a strong preference for non-fiction, that my literary education sucks.

So, Dworkin might not be actually saying that sex acts intrinsically lead us to view penetration as a form of violation or punishment? But that they are merely suggestive of those things, and that some male writers have taken that suggestiveness and run with it?

Yes this is how I interpret the occupation chapter. Dworkin's writing is always very passionate and emotive and full on, apart from Heartbreak which was much more easy going. I will tell you the other male writers when I get home.

 

[Sunstone]

...are you planning on bonding with many "innocents?"

Yikes! I have an aversion to having sex with virgins. I know I'm a bad person because of that -- if only because everyone is a virgin at sometime in their lives, and they cannot be blamed for it. But my aversion is set, anyways. I've only in my whole life been with two or three virgins and the experiences were unpleasant -- probably for both of us. I seem to have no understanding of how to make initial sex pleasant to people.

 

[Sunstone]

...called surrender in the male lexicon.

When I first read that, it provoked yet another instance of my being annoyed by Dworkin's use of language. "Surrender", I thought, "Male lexicon? Male? Really?"

You see, so far as I'm concerned, "surrender" in a sexual sense has nothing necessarily to do with inferiority, subjugation, or submission. In fact, I would distinguish it from, say, "submission" in that to me, submission implies a lack of consent, while surrender is consensual.

Moreover, surrender is a positive thing. Not only because it's consensual, which might imply it's done to enhance or increase one's pleasure, but also because it implies, to me at least, that a person is giving up any sexual baggage they might have which would prevent them from enjoying sex.

They are surrendering themselves in the psychological meaning of self, along with any other way in which they are surrendering themselves. And to surrender your psychological self necessities that you give up your baggage, that it diminishes in importance to you.

Thinking of it that way, I was inclined to criticize Dworkin for being dense about all the possible ways in which surrender would benefit a woman. But then, I realized she might mean something else by "called surrender in the male lexicon".

She might mean that some men (specifically male authors) are using that word in the context of sex being punitive, etc.

"Well, damn me!", I thought, "It seems I'm really having a very hard time picking up on her possible meanings. A very hard time, indeed!"

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Tolstoy, Leo Steinberg, Kobo Abe, Tennessee Williams, James Baldwin, Theodore H. Van De Velde, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Sigmund Freud, Gustave Flaubert, Bram Stoker, D. H. Lawrence, Andre Brink, Italo Calvino, Don DeLillo, Norman O Brown, Augustine, Norman Mailer, Marcel Proust, Maimonides, William Graham Cole, Konrad Lorenz, Ronald Taylor, Bryon, Peter Gray, Adolf Hilter, W. Somerset Maugham, Jacob Timerman, Jean-Paul Sartre, Piri Thomas, Graham Greene, Raphael Patai, C. A. Tripp, William Butler Yeats, Mario, Vargas Llosa, Jean-Francois Steiner, Emile Zola, George Bataille, Primo Levi, Joseph Conrad, Thomas Mann, Leo Steinberg.
These are the men she quotes, I may have missed some out.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

When I first read that, it provoked yet another instance of my being annoyed by Dworkin's use of language. "Surrender", I thought, "Male lexicon? Male? Really?"

You see, so far as I'm concerned, "surrender" in a sexual sense has nothing necessarily to do with inferiority, subjugation, or submission. In fact, I would distinguish it from, say, "submission" in that to me, submission implies a lack of consent, while surrender is consensual.

Moreover, surrender is a positive thing. Not only because it's consensual, which might imply it's done to enhance or increase one's pleasure, but also because it implies, to me at least, that a person is giving up any sexual baggage they might have which would prevent them from enjoying sex.

They are surrendering themselves in the psychological meaning of self, along with any other way in which they are surrendering themselves. And to surrender your psychological self necessities that you give up your baggage, that it diminishes in importance to you.

Thinking of it that way, I was inclined to criticize Dworkin for being dense about all the possible ways in which surrender would benefit a woman. But then, I realized she might mean something else by "called surrender in the male lexicon".

She might mean that some men (specifically male authors) are using that word in the context of sex being punitive, etc.

"Well, damn me!", I thought, "It seems I'm really having a very hard time picking up on her possible meanings. A very hard time, indeed!"

From google: sur·ren·der
/səˈrendər/
Verb
Cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority

 

[Sunstone]

Tolstoy, Leo Steinberg, Kobo Abe, Tennessee Williams, James Baldwin, Theodore H. Van De Velde, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Sigmund Freud, Gustave Flaubert, Bram Stoker, D. H. Lawrence, Andre Brink, Italo Calvino, Don DeLillo, Norman O Brown, Augustine, Norman Mailer, Marcel Proust, Maimonides, William Graham Cole, Konrad Lorenz, Ronald Taylor, Bryon, Peter Gray, Adolf Hilter, W. Somerset Maugham, Jacob Timerman, Jean-Paul Sartre, Piri Thomas, Graham Greene, Raphael Patai, C. A. Tripp, William Butler Yeats, Mario, Vargas Llosa, Jean-Francois Steiner, Emile Zola, George Bataille, Primo Levi, Joseph Conrad, Thomas Mann, Leo Steinberg.
These are the men she quotes, I may have missed some out.

Assuming she's right, it's a shame so many of those men are fine authors. Tragic, in a way.