By Christopher Lucas, on 23 January 2012 - 18:16 |

I don’t doubt that pro-porn types - feminist or otherwise - would try to appropriate the term. However, I don’t see “sex positive” being used exclusively in that way - it isn’t entirely a product of “pro-porn” feminism, rather it’s a position against the wider problem of sex-negative representations in mass culture, men’s-rights circles, pick-up culture, fashion, certain religious sects, etc. It’s about creating a safe space for sexually explicit talk that is constructive, humanist, and dedicated to equality.

By Alex, on 23 January 2012 - 18:23 |

Thanks for your comment Christopher - can you give an example of the term being used in this way? 

By Christopher Lucas, on 23 January 2012 - 18:39 |

Two quick links to look into:
http://sexpositive.tumblr.com/
and
http://thebeautifulkind.com/articles/bedpost-confessions-salacious-stories-enticing-entertainment

I think there is actually a struggle over the meaning of sex positivity that is worth engaging. Many folks who identify as sex-positive are pro-pornography - or tolerant, at least - although I think it’s a bit too easy to demonize all sexually explicit content as pornography. Like the writer of the tumblr above, I wish those that use sex positive as a label were more willing to be critical of some practices in the porn industry and actively pushing on issues of social justice and exclusion. I think the term has value, though.

By Alex, on 23 January 2012 - 18:53 |

Thanks for the links - I’ll take a look. I do find it hard to imagine the term being used in a useful way given the meaning pro-porn feminists have attached to it and the term itself raises the notion of a category of feminists who are opposed to sex (I have no idea who these people might be). As for demonizing all sexually explicit content - I can’t think of many critics of porn whom that could apply to. I wrote more on this topic here: http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/blog_comments/accepting_porn

By Steve, on 24 January 2012 - 15:28 |

Quite a bit of the controversy over porn in the late seventies/early eighties was not over porn in general, but rather sado-masochism.  The ‘anti-porn’ position, which attempted, unsuccesfully,  to create an aura around practitioners of s&m analogous to that around child molesters, also became implicated in tensions about lesbianism, since those who come to same sex love because of feelings they’ve had since childhood in practice often seemed a lot more interested in s&m than those who were interested in same sex relationships for political reasons.

By Alex, on 24 January 2012 - 15:44 |

Sado-masochism differs from conventional pornography more in degree than in kind - in both S & M and mainstream porn sex is typified by relations of dominance and subordination. That some gay and lesbian people find S & M arousing does not indicate the liberating potential of the genre but rather that being homosexual does not insulate one from the inequities of the hetero world.

By ultrahedonist, on 25 January 2012 - 12:19 |

I think you should read Charlie Glickman’s blog (www.charlieglickman.com) for a better understanding of what (intelligent) self-described sex-positive people are actually referring to when they use the terms sex-positive and sex-negative, because it’s not a simplistic claim that we like  sex, or that sex is good, and that they don’t or that they think (all) sex is bad.
I use it myself - not because I think it’s the most perfect term ever, not in an attempt to silence anyone - but as short hand. That is, a quick way of referencing a set of ideas and a basic philosophical approach. And if I describe someone’s position as sex-negative (which I rarely do, I’d rather simply examine/critique their arguments) it is not because I am alleging they are opposed to all sex, everywhere, but that they have specific ideas about the kinds of sex that is acceptable that are irrational (e.g. ruling out activities that don’t cause harm & are desired and consented to by all parties), needlessly narrow and exclusionary, and/or generalised based on an individual aesthestic/emotional response (ie. that disgusts me personally hence it’s wrong). They are negative about a *lot* of sex that they needn’t be negative about.
 

By Gregory A. Butler, on 25 January 2012 - 13:00 |

Those two analogies you gave (people who don’t like premiere league football and fast food) are good matches for anti porn feminism. The same sort of elitist snobs who disdain football and Mc Donalds because they are beloved by the great unwashed proletarian masses are the same type of folks who don’t like porn because ordinary working class men enjoy it so much.

Do you REALLY want to be in the same boat with bourgeois elitists like that?

By Luna, on 25 January 2012 - 14:59 |

“Sex positive” doesn’t necessarily equate entirely to the narrow position of “supporting the sex industry;” for instance, most folks consider Scarleteen.com “sex positive” because it presents sex as a multi-faceted thing that can represent (or be used as) a lot of different things to a lot of different people, opening up innumerable possibilities for expressions of love, explorations of pleasure and fantasy, and (I know I know, as much as y’all dislike this) economic opportunities (scarleteen doesn’t talk about this last one obviously because it’s a site for underage people).  For instance, I would not consider folks “sex positive” who condemn, shame, or outlaw consenting adults practicing BDSM with one another, polyamory, group sex, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, and other shit that’s really none of their business.  I would also lump in moralistic “feminists” who contend that sex ought to exist only within loving, caring relationships, or whose primary objection to pornography is that porn doesn’t show expressions of love or romance between the people fucking.  Sorta reinforces this essentialist idea that women are inherently more emotional when it comes to sex, that we need to link the two to get off, & that representations of sex devoid of love or connection are somehow contrary to feminism. I’ve never used “sex positive” to describe myself, but I guess I’d fit the sorta text-book definition of it.  Though I am not (regardless of whatever strawmen some people create of those on my “side”) uncritical of the sex industry, as someone who works in it and sees all the best and worst of it, but who experiences attacks on all sides- jealous women, sexist men, bosses, and sadly, from other feminists (who sometimes overlap with the “jealous women” category).  We need more sex workers and industry-apologists who are willing to recognize and work together to fight for better working conditions and turn a critical eye towards the industry and capitalism itself, and more militantly anti-sex-work folks from outside the industry willing get some real statistics from someone besides goddam Melissa Farley (and other researchers who simply cite her work without doing any real research themselves), willing to listen to actual sex workers and not discount us as “among the privileged few” or “not representative” whenever we reveal that we’re not drug addicted 14 year old streetwalkers, and to stop drawing this fucked-up “direct connection” between supposed high rates of childhood sexual assault and the work we do as adults without acknowledging the economic situations we find ourselves in in the interim.  (Shall we do a study to see how many child sex abuse victims become social workers or feminists too?  Or is it only ok to dig into and exploit the past abuse history of a group of people if they’re already stigmatized or disregarded by our culture and one is trying to push an agenda?)

By Alex Doherty, on 25 January 2012 - 15:28 |

Hi Luna,

Thank you for your comments. I’m sick today so I’m going to keep my comments brief. You say:

“I would not consider folks “sex positive” who condemn, shame, or outlaw consenting adults practicing BDSM with one another, polyamory, group sex, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, and other shit that’s really none of their business.”

It doesn’t follow that if one critiques a certain practice one therefore wants to legislate against it. BDSM between consenting partners (outside of the porn industry - which is a different matter) is I think a bit of a grey area. What I would say is that in a society in which gender, race and economic relations are still often typified by relationships of dominance, subordination and control we ought to be at least sceptical about practices that laud such dynamics. It may well be that there is nothing problematic about BDSM but for the time being I remain sceptical. However even if I was completely certain that BDSM were harmful for the participants I would not advocate banning those practices - I would simply advise against them. Much as I wouldn’t want to ban people from drinking to dangerous excess if they so choose. 

Regarding sex-work I tend to think the Swedish model is appropriate - whereby the purchase of sex is criminalised but the sale of sex is not, (though any such program ought to be accompanied by anti-poverty programs - since the vast majority of sex-workers are not engaged in such work because of its “liberatory” qualities, but because they have limited alternative options). 

Regarding whether sex ought to be loving or not - Robert Jensen says it much better than I can: http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/gaysex.htm

thanks

By Alex, on 25 January 2012 - 16:00 |

@ Gregory - As a lifelong fan of Everton FC and an occasional amateur (actually very very amateur) player of the game I guess my apparent hatred of the “great unwashed proletarian masses” is a subconscious thing - thank you for enlightening me about my problem….

Please swap football for professional tennis or ice dancing if you prefer a more typically bourgeois example. The point remains the same.

By Gregory A. Butler, on 25 January 2012 - 16:10 |

@ Alex - I’m American. In my country, there is a certain type of intellectual snob who has strong disdain for the cultural practices of the working class. Folks like that hate pro sports (in our case, American football, basketball, baseball, hockey, boxing, mixed martial arts and auto racing - soccer is a minor league sport here) because sports fan culture here is strongly identified with the working class.

The same sort of people brag about not ever watching TV and not eating fast food, for the same anti working class reasons.

Is there a bit of snobbishness in anti porn feminism? Do some folks in that ideological community look down on porn because it’s crass and proletarian? Do they prefer the more sophisticated, upper class, Ivy League respectable “erotica” instead?

I would say yes.

Also, in response to your earlier comment praising the “Swedish model”, you should know that Swedish sex workers oppose the police persecution of their customers. That model, like all forms of persecution of sex work and sex workers, only makes sex workers lives harder because it drives their work underground.

the only appropriate socialist approach to sex work is DECRIMINALIZATION.

The state should not criminalize consensual sex.

Period.

That includes financially compensated consensual sex.

By Alex, on 25 January 2012 - 16:58 |

@ Gregory You write:  “In my country, there is a certain type of intellectual snob who has strong disdain for the cultural practices of the working class.”

That’s not a problem peculiar to American culture - such snobbery regarding working class culture is as bad, perhaps even worse in the UK. However I know of no evidence that anti-porn feminists are more hostile to working class culture than pro-porn feminists. All I can for myself is that my opposition to porn is not based on its supposed vulgarity. I will try and respond on the swedish approach to prostitution another day. thanks

By Gregory A. Butler, on 25 January 2012 - 17:51 |

@ Alex - Why ARE you opposed to porn?

I have my own particular tastes when it comes to sexual entertainment, others may share them, others may not. On the flip side, there are types of pornography that I really DON’T like, and I’m sure others feel the same way about certain types of porn. I’m sure somebody out there doesn’t like the type of porn I’m into, and I might not like what they enjoy.

That’s the glory of freedom of speech - everybody can publish what they like and we the public are free to take in what we want and reject what we don’t want.

Would you censor movies you don’t like? Or literature, or plays?

Why not apply the same consideration to porn?

If you don’t like it DON’T LOOK AT IT!

In any case, don’t you dare tell me what I can’t masturbate to, just as I’d apply you the same courtesy.

I like my socialism with a side order of freedom of speech, perhaps you don’t feel the same way.

As for “the Swedish model” here’s some links from folks who know more about the topic than you or I:

http://www.glow-boell.de/media/de/txt_rubrik_2/160305LLVortrag_Eriksson.pdf

http://www.globalrights.org/site/DocServer/Don_Kulick_on_the_Swedish_Model.pdf

Obviously, the Swedish model harms sex workers, as well as their clients

Also, there is at least one Swede who is EXEMPT from “the Swedish model” - the King of Sweden himself!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1326783/How-King-Carl-Gustaf-Sweden-enjoyed-wild-sex-parties-strippers.html

So much for “Nordic Social Democracy”!

By Alex, on 25 January 2012 - 18:12 |

Hi Gregory, as I weary of saying to advocates of porn it does not follow that if someone opposes porn they therefore are arguing for its legal repression. 

As for why I object to porn I’ve written on that topic here: 

http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/blog_comments/accepting_porn

PS If you wish to contribute further to this discussion please refrain from being aggressive - we have a pretty strict comments policy - which you can read here: http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/about/ 

By Gregory A. Butler, on 25 January 2012 - 18:21 |

@ Alex - You still didn’t answer my question as to why you embrace the “Swedish model” of police persecution of adults who have consensual sex with sex workers. I thought socialists were supposed to support freedom, including the freedom of adults to have consensual sex with other adults.

By Alex, on 25 January 2012 - 18:24 |

As I said above I will try to address this topic another day Gregory. Sadly my time is not limitless.

By No Sugarcoating, on 26 January 2012 - 05:48 |

Love this article, have nothing to add.  Don’t let the usual suspects shell you for speaking out. As for the comments…...Disappointing as usual.

@Gregory

Nobody is stopping you from masturbating. Just don’t pretend that porn isn’t promoting and reinforcing the degradation and brutalization of women. Don’t pretend that porn hasn’t had an overwhelming impact on our culture’s views of sexuality. Maybe it served you for the better, but for most women? Not an improvement. Here’s hoping the new left is filled with more guys like Alex.

By Gregory A. Butler, on 26 January 2012 - 12:42 |

@ No Sugarcoating - Since most American men (myself included) use porn as a masturbation aide, telling us not to use porn is, de facto, telling us not to masturbate.

Kind of intrusive, no?

As for porn “promoting and reinforcing the degradation and brutalization of women” I would have to say NO.

If a woman makes a video of herself and either posts it for free or charges the public to view it, is she “degrading and brutalizing” herself?

If a model is paid $ 2,000 to do a day’s work on a porn shoot, is she “degraded and brutalized” or is she just another wage worker, selling her labor power to a capitalist just like a steamfitter or a waitress does?

If a porn actress takes some of her savings, rents a truck, some equipment and a set and hires a crew of actresses, actors, stagehands and technicians to produce a porn video, is she being “degraded and brutalized?

The answer to all those questions is, of course, NO.

Look, if you and Alex don’t like porn, that’s your business.

However, don’t project your dislike of porn onto the workers employed in that industry, or the consumers who buy their product.

By Trish , on 27 January 2012 - 11:08 |

“A secondary advantage to using the term for porn-advocates is that it helps to conflate the feminist anti-porn critique with a group who genuinely are anti-sex (not to mention anti-feminist), namely politically conservative (often religiously inspired) opponents of porn. Ever since Andrea Dworkin it’s been a favoured tactic of the porn industry to portray anti-porn feminists and political conservatives as sisters and brothers in arms.”

In spite of good intentions, the rhetoric used by Mackinnon and Dworkin in the development of the Minneapolis ordinance played into the hands of the conservative political right. The aims of such feminists (for more recent examples, see someone like Sheila Jeffries) gave new ground for later attacks on so-called obscene art (see Helms and the NEA controversy).

(While I don’t want to give the porn industry any credit for rhetoric) it is a misrepresentation to say that the term ‘sex positive feminist’ ‘conflates’ anti porn feminists with the anti-sex brigade. It highlights a pre-existing, albeit uneasy, alliance between these two factions.

While I quite agree that mainstream pornography present major problems for female identity and sexuality, the shrill voices of radical feminists never managed to address the following problem: how are we, women - and men! - to have sex? If all heterosexual relations are tainted by the history of sexual inequality, then, short of never engaging in penetrative sex, how are we supposed to, um, do it?

Dworkin and others like her never addressed the idea that women may have a right to see their sexualities represented (assuming that representation involves consenting adults).

The term ‘sex positive feminist’ can be quite clunky, as the corollary of sex-positive is not simply sex-negative…the situation is much more complex. It would be wrong to say that Dworkin hated sex; however, we do need to take account of the fact that her work implies a policing of sexual activity. A whiff of unequal power relations in the bedroom (enter the penis) and we are all doing it wrong.

‘Sex positive feminist’ is another set of terms in a latticework of such terms that indicate a growing sense of sexual agency among women - I don’t mean that working in Hooters becomes a great, empowering, career choice. And I certainly don’t think that this sexual agency emerges from Hollywood porn studios. However there is a fascinating, internet-driven movement toward pornographies that attempt to represent some of the complexities (and queerness) of human sexuality (i.e. not all porn is equal) This term may, as you say, run its course, however, if it is currently functioning to give young women ownership (I use the term deliberately) over their sexuality, then it is still salient to our discussions of pornography and sexuality.

Finally, I’m afraid this statement:

‘Still, as criticism of porn by feminists becomes increasingly respectable once again’

is quite inaccurate. I’ve done considerable research in this area. Even the so-called ‘sex positive feminist’ responses to pornography are deeply critical and have always been so! Just perhaps not as shrill. See for example Linda Williams, whose central claim is that leaving porn on the top shelf is deeply damaging. We need to take porn out of the seedy corner and examine it, critically, as mode of representation, as a cultural product.

Judith Butler comments in Excitable Speech (and I paraphrase) in response to Dworkin and Mackinnon’s arguments that you can censor pornography but this will not remove inequality between genders. What we need perhaps, in this case, are new terms, new discourses and new modes of representation for dealing with the complexities of human sexuality. Dismissing one of those terms, without at least addressing it’s positive functions, adds little to this project.

By Alex, on 27 January 2012 - 15:08 |

Hi Trish,

Thank you for your comments. The Minneapolis ordinance was grounded not in considerations of porns supposedly obscene qualities but rather in a civil rights approach. In order for a case to be successful in a court of law it would need to be shown that porn had caused harm to a specific individual or group. This is quite distinct from the conservative obscenity approach. What do you think Dworkin, Mackinnon and their allies and supporters ought to have done to distance themselves from religious conservatives? Clearly you don’t believe that critiquing them was enough - as Dworkin and Mackinnon surely did. 

You write:  “If all heterosexual relations are tainted by the history of sexual inequality, then, short of never engaging in penetrative sex, how are we supposed to, um, do it?”

Just as heterosexual relations (actually it’s true of homosexual relations too) are as you say shaped by the long history of sexual inequality, so also race relations continue to be shaped by the history (and present realities) of race based inequalities. In the latter case there are several options: 1. decide that because relations between people of different ethnic background are tainted by the history of inequality we ought to forego interaction with people from different backgrounds. 2. Pretend that this history does not matter and continue to interact with people of different ethnicities but without interrogating one’s own privilege and privilege-informed behaviour (or conversely one’s lack of privilege in a racist society)  3. Recognise the importance of historical inequality and continue to engage with people from different backgrounds but to remain conscious of the way past and present inequalties effect our preferences and behaviour.

It’s pretty clear to me that option 3 is the way to go - and the same is true I think in the sexual arena. So in my case - male sexual dominance maintains it’s allure but given historic inequalities I remain deeply sceptical about practices that seem to laud inequality and imbalances of power. And this, in part, is what informs my discomfort with mainstream pornography.

Regarding pro-feminist porn you say:

“However there is a fascinating, internet-driven movement toward pornographies that attempt to represent some of the complexities (and queerness) of human sexuality (i.e. not all porn is equal)”

It’s certainly true that such material exists although it’s a marginal presence (and apparently of very little interest to men). I think the production of feminist porn is a reasonable tactic to pursue in order undercut the power of the mass of deeply misogynistic porn. And I also think radical feminist ought to recognise that this is a legitimate tactic. However I think radical feminists have in part been sceptical because groups claiming to support the production of “feminist porn” often also downplay the misogyny of the industry as a whole (the group “ourporn ourselves” is a good example of this). I personally don’t think this tactic is likely to achieve much, I find myself in agreement with Robert Jensen when he argues that in a mass mediated culture we shouldn’t fall into the mistake of believing that we must respond to mediated misogyny through mediated feminism - like him I’m not convinced that feminist porn is the best way to construct a more healthy sexual culture. Like I say though, I think it’s a legitimate tactic and I would be happy to be proved wrong. 

thanks

By Casha R, on 31 January 2012 - 20:10 |

It’s not the term “sex positive feminism” that bothers me but the term “pro-porn feminism” that rattles my chains as I was married to a man who was a porn addict and I have never come across pornography that made a positive impact in the lives of women (save the very few that are well-paid porn stars).

By Luna, on 01 February 2012 - 02:31 |

What’s your definition of “well-paid”?

By jpine, on 22 February 2012 - 13:06 |

what i have found is the women that are sex positive feminist will align themselves with sexist/misogynist men to promote their beliefs.  the men can pretend at being progressive feminist while having the support of a particular feminist community all the while degrade and demean, objectify and dehumanize women.  it is very interesting.