Beyond DC

Why Sex Positivity is Bad for Feminism

Posted by Amanda Hess on Apr. 1, 2009, at 10:25 am

The Visions in Feminism conference, an annual feminist symposium held at American University, has chosen its 2009 keynote speaker: Annie Sprinkle (right) a porn-star-cum-academic who claims to be “the first porn star to get a Ph.D.” She is also the creator of such titles as “Hardcore from the Heart: The Pleasures, Profits and Politics of Sex in Performance” (book) and “Annie Sprinkle’s Amazing World of Orgasm” (DVD).

The theme of the 2009 VIF conference is “Pushing Boundaries: Queering Feminism & Queer-ying our Communities”; its goal is to “explore ways of queering ourselves and our communities; that is, unfixing definitions of feminism while pushing our boundaries to re-examine our relationships to feminist praxis.”

While we’re “unfixing definitions of feminism,” may I humbly submit that we unfix this “sex-positivity” shit from the entire praxis? Because if I have to endure another essay on the mysteries of the female orgasm in the name of feminism, I may never have an orgasm again.

Let’s take a look at the rest of the VIF conference: It includes workshops on the “Asian Pacific Islander Domestic Violence Resource Project,” “Transsexual Women’s Experiences and Queer Feminism,” and “Dork as Third Gender.” Sounds good to me.

Then, things get sex-positive-y. The conference ends with a workshop (complete with “live demonstration with rope restraints“) run by “a sex positive polyamorous pansexual bi-gendered individual who enjoys nothing more than talking about and/or having sex,” then Sprinkle’s keynote address.

Meh. Yes: Sex is great! Talking about sex is great (except when it’s not)! It’s no surprise to anyone that tons of people really like having sex, including—ooooh—feminists!

This is the worst part of sex-positivity role in feminism: It pretends to be totally outrageous, but it’s actually very, very boring. Take Sprinkle’s “Interview with an Anti-Porn Feminist,” in which she argues for porn’s place in the feminist movement. Sprinkle kicks off the questions by asking her subject, “Don’t you think it’s so totally interesting to see people naked, or to watch them having sex?”

I’m not an anti-porn feminist, and even I have to say—No. Just, no. It’s fine, but it’s not “totally interesting,” and talking about it is even less interesting. Of course, there are a lot of feminist issues involved in the porn industry, sex work, and in human sexuality; I just don’t think “sex positivity” is one of them. So you’re a feminist, and you like sex—well, that’s normal. So do a lot of people, including a lot of non- and anti-feminists. So what does that have to do with feminist identity?

And yet, sex-positivity has wormed its way into the feminist movement. Why? One reason, of course, is that for a long time, women weren’t allowed to want or like to have sex. And sure, I’ve been lucky to grow up in a time and place where I haven’t needed a porn star PhD mentor to tell me it’s okay to like doin’ it.

But there’s another reason, too: If people who like sex see sex-positivity as a part of the feminist movement, maybe they’ll see feminism as less prude and scary and icky and straight-laced and serious and anti-man. And I think it’s condescending to the feminist movement that we have to bring orgasms in to be taken seriously.

Tags: annie sprinkle, domestic violence, female orgasm, feminism, GLBT, queer, sex, sex positivity, transgender, visions in feminism

Comments

mdesus April 1st, 2009
11:18 am

#1

well that’s certainly one perspective. There is the whole many woman struggle with orgasms thing, and there are not many forums, certainly no academic forums (that I know of), in which this can be addressed. Sure you grew up in an age were liking sex is ok, but how many girls do you know (I know several) who are mystified by an inability to have an orgasm during intercourse? Feminism should be taken seriously, but I’m not sure how embracing female sexuality works as its ticket to being taken seriously. In my mind, it simply demonstrates how feminism can be a conduit for little talked about information on femininity.
Amanda Hess April 1st, 2009
12:25 pm

#2

Little-talked about? It’s on the cover of Cosmo every week. I just think it’s not the most interesting aspect of sex to talk about from a feminist perspective.
Natalie Harris April 1st, 2009
12:35 pm

#3

“Of course, there are a lot of feminist issues involved in the porn industry, sex work, and in human sexuality”

Dr. Sprinkle has been involved in all of the issues listed above and her keynote address will surely involve all these issues as well. Her PhD is in fact in “Human Sexuality”. She’s been involved in the movement for sex workers rights for many years, and obviously she is involved in the porn industry and has tried to challenge the mainstream porn industry’s notions of what is deemed beautiful.

It seems in many ways what you deem as interesting and relevant to the feminist movement would make Annie Sprinkle an excellent person to speak at a conference about feminism.
Amanda Hess April 1st, 2009
12:43 pm

#4

Wait, Cosmo’s a monthly, I think. I don’t know. I don’t read that shit.
Amanda Hess April 1st, 2009
12:53 pm

#5

Natalie, you’re totally right! And just because someone identifies with the “sex-positive” movement does NOT mean they don’t have other interesting things to say about feminism. I’m just ranting on my personal annoyance with what I personally see as a sexualization of the feminist movement.
Rob Bettmann April 1st, 2009
1:26 pm

#6

I totally agree. Sex positivity seems to have crossed a line when it becomes ’sex-work’ positivity. There’s an article on bourgeon by Dr. Judith Hanna explaining why sex work is empowering/feminist (http://bourgeononline.com/?p=108), and I don’t buy it. My response, which is on my site, reminds the reader that the fantasy of the happy hooker is just that – a fantasy.

Academia has every right to explore whatever nook and cranny of interest it wants, and I don’t object to the conference details. It is unfortunate though, that less sexy views aren’t feature prominently. Sex sells; do we have to be selling it in our academics conferences? What’s up with that?
match April 1st, 2009
1:31 pm

#7

yea!
Raul April 1st, 2009
1:36 pm

#8

There’s a spectrum to sex-positivity like anything else. This porn star intellectual gains traction because its the opposite extreme to ‘all sex is rape’ at the other end. There is a lot of value i think to opening the discussion, and finding somewhere in between where people can talk about sexuality in a way that respects everyone’s place at the table. And not least of which, promoting a safe place for people to have these discussions. But I generally agree with you Amanda that there is the potential for an oversexualization of feminism which can be problematic, because on the flip side, “sex-positive as feminism” also gives fuel to the dudebro who would take the “porn is good” argument angle to justify their misogynist tendencies.
Amanda Hess April 1st, 2009
2:09 pm

#9

Rob, can you link to your piece? I’d love to read it.
jeri hughes April 1st, 2009
4:01 pm

#10

frankly, i don’t see how antone can take annie sprinkle sreiously. i remember going back 15 years or so and seeing her do some “performance art” which amounted to shining a flashlight up her vagina and inviting the audience to have a look. duh! yes, i was not overly entertained. maybe it was just me, but one of the guys from penn and teller was there…and i don’t think he looked, either. so is the conference supposed to be a joke, or what? bring flashlights and nose plugs…
mdesus April 1st, 2009
6:34 pm

#11

flashlight up vagina>all sex as rape.
Gayle April 2nd, 2009
5:49 am

#12

The title of that conference makes me embarrassed to call myself feminist. What does any of that have to do with Women’s liberation?

Another reason why the sex-positive title is stupid– there is no such thing as sex negative feminism. I know people in the media have twisted the anti-porn argument into an anti-sex argument, but porn does not equal sex.
Amanda Hess April 2nd, 2009
8:12 am

#13

@mdesus. Yes. As these are our only two options.
Matilde April 2nd, 2009
10:54 am

#14

“All sex is rape”? Are you kidding me? There are still people who believe that someone actually said that…?

*goes back to bed*
Peridot April 2nd, 2009
11:57 am

#15

I’m a “sex worker” and I can’t stand the term “sex positive” either. It’s unnecessary and silly and implies that feminists who don’t tack this term in front of their label are a bunch of uptight prudes who don’t know how to have any fun. As for “sex work” being “positive” and feminist and empowering, I don’t buy it either. Even though I’ve *chosen* to be a prostitute (although I do not enjoy it), I don’t find it empowering in the least catering to a sexist demand for female sexual submission. Oh, and it’s boring too.
Ilana Greenberg April 2nd, 2009
12:17 pm

#16

I think you’re missing the whole point here. Sex positivity is about ending the taboos toward sex, which I think is definitely a feminist goal. How many times has a man been commended for an active sex life, and a woman called a slut for acting the exact same way? To me, at lease, the feminist movement is about gender equality in every part of life, whether it’s the workplace or the home or whatever. And sex is definitely part of life.
marcus April 2nd, 2009
12:27 pm

#17

i’m an escort who DOES love his work. i’ve chosen this work, i’m well educated, its not the only thing i can do, i work on men and women, i find it exciting and eye opening, and in fact, for the last 3 years, i’ve taught a class on getting into escorting as a profession. oh shit, i’m a guy – is that going to discount my opinion? i hope not – in the thread of equal rights for all…
i’m a person who DOES embrace the term “sex positive.” it’s not an unnecessary term, when you realize just how many people are living a sex NEGATIVE lifestyle. and yeah, that includes women. perhaps what bothers some of you about the term is that you feel it takes away from another part of feminism – the political/economic /sociocultural – which you perceive to be of greater importance to the movement?
Amanda Hess April 2nd, 2009
1:24 pm

#18

To marcus: Yes, of course I think those things are more important. They’re also less “sexy,” and it’s annoying when feminist issues have to be “sexy” to get attention.
Charlie April 2nd, 2009
6:05 pm

#19

You seem to have missed out on the fact that for many people, liking sex or believing that they deserve to have the sex that they want or getting to experience sexual pleasure or being able to ask for the sex they want isn’t “normal.”

Lots of people of all genders and sexual orientations, including lots of women, have been shamed for their sexual desires and practices. That’s what happens in a sex-negative world. The fact that our culture is obsessed with sex doesn’t make it sex-positive. If anything, our obsession with sex is a sign of our sex-negativity, in the same way that people with eating disorders often obsess about food and people with self-image issues often obsess about how they look. In many ways, the obsession fuels the problem, rather than being a sign that there is no problem.

I think that the reason that sex-positivity is important for feminism is that sex-positivity is about making room for the range of sexualities that exist among human beings. It’s about honoring the diversity of experience and ensuring that we each have the space to be the sexual beings that we are, without submitting our desires to a socially-constructed role. It’s about honoring each of our personal experiences and not trying to force someone into a particular image.

Sex-positivity is important for feminism because it invites feminism to make space for our entire experiences as sexual, human beings. If you can’t do that, then you risk falling into the trap of trying to fit people in a different box. It may seem different simply because it’s new, but it’s just as limiting as the box you just left.
Ms Naughty April 2nd, 2009
7:03 pm

#20

I guess we’ve come a long way with feminism if it’s OK to declare sex positivity boring.

And yet out there in the meatworld, the general public still thinks that feminism = Dworkinesque man hating. The Feminist Porn Awards are in their fourth year this year and, come April 26, you will see a bunch of media articles saying “Feminist porn awards? Isn’t that a contradiction in terms?”

I think sex positive thinking does have a place in feminism. To hear people say “there’s no such thing as a happy hooker” or to read about how women who take up pole dancing have been duped by the patriarchy proves to me that it still has a place.
Evo April 3rd, 2009
10:00 am

#21

THANK YOU for this. I have been to the Visions in Feminism conference once. I think it was 2007 and it was great. I will make a point to miss it this year, however, if Sprinkle is going to be there. She’s a joke. No group in the history of the world has ever fucked their way to freedom, ffs.
Marcella Chester April 3rd, 2009
10:25 am

#22

Marcus wrote: “perhaps what bothers some of you about the term is that you feel it takes away from another part of feminism – the political/economic /sociocultural – which you perceive to be of greater importance to the movement?”

For me, it isn’t being positive about consensual sex that takes away from other parts of feminism, it is the frequent denial — often through ommission or attacks against feminists who don’t us this label — of violence that involves sex. Too often what is put forth as sex positive feminism is rape denial feminism and the bashing of feminists who are actively fighting sexual violence.

Once sexual violence is erased then the sexual problems that come from enduring childhood sex abuse, sexual harassment and/or rape become nothing more than irrational hang ups that girls are women are just supposed to toss aside as if their lingering trauma was a choice they made. When they can’t do this they are too often sneared at and mocked.

When women are raped because a rapist viewed them as likely to consent and when invistigators, prosecutors and jurors dismiss rape for this same reason that undermines positivity toward consensual sex.

There can be no genuine cultural sex positivity as long as sexual assaults are occurring every few minutes and as long as most of those committing those sexual assaults know their chance of getting away with a felony is staggeringly high.
wiggles April 3rd, 2009
10:48 pm

#23

Matilde Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:54 am

“All sex is rape”? Are you kidding me? There are still people who believe that someone actually said that…?

Well, she did say that. It’s just that the context in which she said it so often ignored, which is frustrating. It’s not that ‘all sex is rape,’ it’s that ‘in the sexist world in which we live, where penetration is equated with conquest and domination, honest, enthusiastic, mutual consent isn’t really the norm,’ or something.

It’s like taking one part of one sentence out of Paul McCartney’s interview on The Colbert Report, “the Dali Lama might eat me,” and insisting that Macca thinks the Dali Lama is a cannibal.
wiggles April 3rd, 2009
10:59 pm

#24

“is so often ignored,” rather.
Matilde April 4th, 2009
3:51 am

#25

“‘in the sexist world in which we live, where penetration is equated with conquest and domination, honest, enthusiastic, mutual consent isn’t really the norm’”

Well, yeah, in a nutshell. But I don’t get ‘all sex is rape’ from this. ‘isn’t really the norm’ does not mean ‘is impossible and cannot exist, at all, ever’. Besides, when accused of that infamous ‘all sex is rape’ declaration, she denied it. Several times.

So no, she didn’t say that.
Snarky SexPoz April 4th, 2009
11:28 am

#26

“”All sex is rape’? Are you kidding me? There are still people who believe that someone actually said that…?’

Well, she did say that. It’s just that the context in which she said it so often ignored, which is frustrating. It’s not that ‘all sex is rape,’ it’s that ‘in the sexist world in which we live, where penetration is equated with conquest and domination, honest, enthusiastic, mutual consent isn’t really the norm,’ or something.”

So, in context, Dworkin pretty much said that all hetero sex that exists in the real world (as opposed to Feminist Utopia, Come the Revolution) is more or less rape. That may not be exactly the same as “all heterosexual sex is rape”, but in effect, its damn close. And, sorry, no matter how Dworkin spun it, to say that in the majority of cases of heterosexual intercourse, women are being raped, only they’re too damn brainwashed to know any better, is an extremist and off-the-wall idea no matter what context you put it in.

I’ll also point out that Sex-Positive Feminism itself arose as a backlash against the ideas and retrograde legal strategies of Dworkin, MacKinnon, Jeffreys, and the like. Now, ironically, there’s a backlash against Sex-Positive Feminism. These things go in cycles, I guess.

But speaking of context, I think people like Amanda Hess ought to study a little history and learn why the whole idea of a “sex-positive” feminism arose, and, arguably, why it is still needed.
Annie Sprinkle April 8th, 2009
3:51 am

#27

Its nice to know that orgasm and body shame aren’t issues any more for many of today’s young women. That’s so great. “Sex positivity” was something I worked on in the 70’s and 80’s (as it said in the conference promotion materials.) I shared some of that history at the conference. I’ve moved on. Since the early 90’s I’ve been doing work about breast cancer, love, aging female bodies, being fat, menopause, queer relationships, gay weddings… and other feminist issues. Love is the new sex! Where have you been? (See http://www.loveartlab.org) It was a wonderful conference with wonderful people who are trying to do good work.
Annie
Trinity April 11th, 2009
8:46 pm

#28

Hey, uh, can you tell me who it was who actually said “We’ll just all fuck our way to freedom?”

Because honestly, the first time I came across that phrase, it wasn’t a Sex Positive Ooh Sparkly Laughing Porno Chick (because of course, women in porn are just airheads, such says Real Feminism) giggling.

It was Patrick Califia saying “I don’t believe we can fuck our way to freedom. But this is not what the discourse of sexual repression tells us. In that discourse, unbridled sexuality has enormous disruptive potential.”

In other words, it’s not us who said sex is liberation. It’s those who dislike sex-positivity who read “Fuck For Freedom” into what was being said.
Trinity April 11th, 2009
9:10 pm

#29

Also, I think intersectionality is very important here. I don’t find sex-positivity outmoded, because, well, I talk to other people with disabilities every day, and it’s very, VERY frequent that we are considered not to be sexual beings at all. The idea of us having, or acting on, desires, is seen as revolting, a violation of the (ableist, of course) natural order. If you really want to say “sex-positivity is bad,” I think you should at least think about something like this first, and hopefully address it with serious thought:

http://trinityva.livejournal.com/916135.html
Trinity April 11th, 2009
11:45 pm

#30

(meant to link this one too: http://trinityva.livejournal.com/853273.html )
Amanda Hess April 12th, 2009
9:55 am

#31

Trinity, your assertion that my position is not serious or thoughtful aside, I’m well aware of these issues and I do find them worthy of attention, discussion, and action. As I said in my post, sex-positivity addresses a lot of issues that feminism addresses, too—rape, sex work, marginalized sexualities, etc. What I object to is the effect of the “positivity” thing.

I know a lot of groups think that if we only talk about sex in negative ways—i.e., rape is bad—we won’t ever allow women to be seen as having normal, enjoyable sex lives. I don’t think that’s true, and I personally don’t see having a normal, enjoyable sex life as part of my feminist identity. When it comes down to outlining my feminist agenda, I’d much rather focus on the problems we’re facing—marginalized sexualities included—than talk about how positive we feel about doing it, how we do it, how other people do it, whatever.

Sex-positivity has its contributions to add to feminism, but it is also, I think, tries to sex up the movement in ways I don’t care for. Discussing the problems is great, but when it gets down to our sex lives and orgasms and celebrating our vaginas, it loses me—I’m not interested. I see why some people might want to go to a feminist conference that ends with a BDSM demonstration. BDSM is fine, but I find it confusing and condescending as a feminist that I have to get technique thrown in there with the theory. In short: I feel like sex-positivity is always trying to sell me a new sex toy, and I’m just not buying.
Trinity April 12th, 2009
10:58 am

#32

Amanda,

I don’t think “more fun sex lives” is the big thing feminisms should strive for, either… but I do find the whole dismissal of women who want to talk about, think about, and explore sexuality openly really worrisome. I think that if we don’t create a culture where more women can talk about it if they want to, we’re thereby refusing to challenge the double standard that says men talking about, thinking about, and expressing sexuality publicly is fine but women doing so is slutty, silly, attention-grabbing, dirty, etc.

While I can definitely see why some feminists feel “Wait, what about the wage gap? Shouldn’t we fix that first?” I don’t see how acting like those sexual double standards are *gone* and women should ignore them on pain of being “faux-feminists” or “empowerfulized” makes any sense.

“Sex-positivity has its contributions to add to feminism, but it is also, I think, tries to sex up the movement in ways I don’t care for. Discussing the problems is great, but when it gets down to our sex lives and orgasms and celebrating our vaginas, it loses me—I’m not interested.”

The thing with that is… I’ve never understood why that’s so important. Some people are very sexually private; some people are very sexually open. The point isn’t “everyone is supposed to be into BDSM” or something. It’s “women haven’t been allowed this, and some of us want this.” Why exactly is it a problem to go to a conference, visit the presentations that deal with theory, and skip the BDSM demos? Is there some way that other people doing something you don’t want to do magically reflects on you?

That’s the thing I don’t get, the way that “the BDSMer feminists” are somehow ruining everything by having our own conversations somewhere too near to the rest of y’all. Especially when “I don’t get why these people won’t accept that they’re not TWOO FEMINISTS!” shows up, like, once a month in blogland.

Especially from people (I’m not including you here) who seem to talk more about how offensive it is that we remain breathing than they talk about lobbying Congress, or marching, or volunteering at shelters or hotlines, or…
Rob Bettmann April 14th, 2009
8:42 am

#33

Hi – thanks for inquiring about it. Here is the piece that I referred to in my comment, #6 in this stream.

http://dcblog43.com/?p=117 on the pain of various professions, and the need not to over-defend stripping.
Al April 14th, 2009
3:44 pm

#34

This article and thread was “very,very boring” and I regret spending so much time reading it on my tiny little iPhone screen. The fact of the matter is there are clearly different opinions on this matter and I think we’d all be better off agreeing to disagree. “Don’t believe everything you read” especially when it is a blog laden with opinion and laced with tiny bits of fact.
lunamorgan April 21st, 2009
7:21 am

#35

I have to agree with Trinity here. I fully believe you have the right to not participate or be interested in the demonstrative aspects of sex-positive feminism; I also think that you are representing your own experience as the norm.

I am a college senior. I assume I am slightly younger than you. But at a single sex university with a strong Gender and Women’s Studies program I still meet women who have no idea about sex and sexuality. I am regularly asked how sex, both hetero and homosexual sex, works. I am asked how lesbians have sex and how women obtain orgasm. I am asked if it is okay to be bisexual and if a certain amount of sex makes a woman a prude or a slut. You may have grown up during a period where it was okay for women to have sex, but we seem to have reverted because plenty of women are immensely uncomfortable and unknowledgeable about sex. Remember, sex education in the school system has been immensely cut back in the 2000s and the women entering adulthood now are taught about sexuality from abstinence only sex ed classes and music lyrics that tell them they’re either promiscuous or uptight.

In my Women’s Studies courses I have run into both professors and students who are what I would call sex-negative. Andrea Dworkin, whether her intent or not, is still being TAUGHT and INTERPRETED by some as though all heterosexual sex within the current patriarchal system is inherently rape because the experience of that system makes consent impossible. Porn and sex work is still generally taught as being a BIG EVIL BAD without any gray area. Things are still being kept, in my opinion, too simple, too black and white, and without access to other feminist perspectives, people may come out of college thinking that sex is evil and bad and with the belief that enjoying sex is equal to enjoying your own rape. That is an enormous problem.

As Trinity said above me, you don’t have to come to the demonstrations. You don’t need to participate in anything you don’t find compelling, that’s why there are feminisms rather than a single viewpoint. But currently, there is still a lot of need for sex education and demonstration. There is a desire out there for frank and open discussion about human sexuality, both theoretically and in practice. Women ARE still ashamed of their bodies, women ARE still embarrassed to talk about sex and masturbation, and women ARE still uncomfortable with their sexual desires/orientations/practices. You have the advantage of having experience and access to the same sex-positive information you’re currently disparaging. Not everyone has gotten to that point.
Ashley May 22nd, 2009
11:51 am

#36

I think it’s important to note that sex positive feminism, like feminism in general, doesn’t really exist as a cohesive movement. It’s individuals and small organizations who aren’t particularly coordinated or even in agreement on most major issues. From what I’ve seen, some sex positive feminists are doing wonderful work that challenges some of the most basic building blocks of gender oppression, and some are narcissistic exhibitionists who don’t much give a crap about gender oppression, but are happy to have found an audience–any audience.

From my perspective, sex positivism is useful when it genuinely challenges the devaluation of authentic sexuality and real bodies, but becomes a problem when it plays into the cultural pressure to diminish women and non-gender normative people’s power by constantly portraying them only in sexual terms, or when it tries to mold us into a kyriarchal model of sexuality under the guise of “liberation.” Sex is one area where gaining access to what the dominant class has (the ability to exploit others’ bodies) does not equal liberation.
Anonymous July 2nd, 2009
12:44 am

#37

“Little-talked about? It’s on the cover of Cosmo every week. ”

Uh, yeah. On Cosmo. Cosmo isn’t the most reliable source of information, and I find that shit to be sexist most of the time.
lindsey August 31st, 2009
6:45 am

#38

I think a lot of you feminists these days have lost the plot, the whole sex positive thing was not about saying if you like sex or not, it was about saying that you like sex with men. It was how men broke down the feminist movement, as when the whole lets dress feminine came back into the picture women then started to compete against each other for male attention, so sistership broke down.

Most women were too scared of men to carry on the movement and were all sucked in to thinking that a woman has to dress a certin way to be seen as a woman. What all todays middle class feminists need to do it go out and meet female impersonators, then you will see that all these codes of femininity have nothing to do with been female, they are learned by force by many women. Wearing heels does more then show off the calf muscle, they do more then make the legs look longer, the reason why men are attracted to them is because they fource women to adopt a submissive posture, heels raised off the floor while sitting shown lack of confidence, look it up. They also stop women moving in certin ways, makes her think about every step instead of being able to get lost in her thoughts as she walks along like men do. All femininity related drag tells men something, a lot of womens clothes pull in at the waist and have few pockets, it shows she is not pregnant. Long nails say that she cannot be much of a lesbian, skirts say that the zone is easy to get to, and men like make up as they hate the fact women do not have to shave, they envy womens hair free faces so expect them to cover them with make up, that way there envy is not as bad.

Men are not attracted to womens bodys no matter what you look like, weather tall slim, tall fat, short fat or short slim or average. There is no point in women having envy for tall and slim women, as if these women do not do the drag and instead use there long legs to stride in the way men do in well constructed shoes the man would run from her to the short and fat girl in the pink dress. If she did not do drag and the tall slim woman did then he would want her.

Drag can make even some men (who are not transgender) look like an attractive woman in the eyes of straight men, if sexual attraction is about finding the best dna for reproduction then something must be wrong. What if there is no best dna, nature decides what functions and there is no indication that women who look the way that men want are any more advantaged then anyone else as far as health goes.

Because femininity and masculinity can be done by anyone as the things needed are behaviours anyone can learn and objects like clothing and shoes, i think heterosexuality and all sexuality is constructed, in some monkeys sex is also used as a form of social bonding and those who take the dominant position are higher up in the social hiarachy. I think femininity is a form of submission, hetersosexality that ensures men are dominant is a way of ensuring women stay submissive and adopt femininity as a marker of submission.

If you do not buy it and think femininity is something you like to do and is not forced on anyone, then have a look at what happens when a woman refuses to do it, or does it in a way that is not centred around men. Go out with no make up, in jeans a t shirt and trainers, versions that are a similar style to ones men wear without passing for a man and see how different things are. Other women will be the first to notice and will be more bothered then men are, strange isnt it, if femininity was something women liked to do why would they bother when someone else did not do it, when you are afriad to remove your uniform and someone alse is not wearing theres its a pain isnt it.

The whole sex thing is not about women enjoying sex its about them looking sexy! And how do we do this, by femininity. This is how they backed women back into submission.
lindsey August 31st, 2009
7:08 am

#39

The whole sex thing is not about women enjoying sex its about them looking sexy in the eyes of men! And how do we do this by femininity. This is how they backed women into submission.

For those who do not care and want to compete with women for male attention anyway, take it from me, it does not matter what you look like to start with, just put on the drag. Men like blonde hair, only because less then 6% of women have it, when they meet a natural blonde they are not that bothered, just like they are not bothered or attracted to the slim person who can eat what she wants. They want women to sculpt themselves just for them, they think they are entitled to it. They also like the way it divides women up.

Man says to woman, you look like a man, woman says: its shame i cannot say the same about you!

Man is walking along and is over taken by a woman in flat shoes, so he yells, you walk a man luv, she turns around and says: what would you know.

You can follow any responses to this entry through its comments RSS feed.

Blogs Linking to this Article

Linked From: April 2nd, 2009
6:07 pm
Good Vibrations Magazine » Blog » why sex-positivity is good for feminism

[...] just ran across a blog about “Why Sex-Positivity is Bad for Feminism” and I’m astounded. Here’s my favorite snippet: Of course, there are a lot of [...]
Linked From: April 3rd, 2009
9:01 am
Sexist Beatdown: Sex Positive Negativity Edition! - The Sexist - Washington City Paper

[...] this week, I explained, ever-so-respectfully, why I thought sex-positive feminism was boring and dumb. In this edition of Sexist Beatdown, a chatty-thing, Tiger Beatdown’s Sady kindly explains [...]
Linked From: April 3rd, 2009
3:58 pm
Last Week’s Most Popular Blog Posts - The Sexist - Washington City Paper

[...] to Sorority, in which sorority members insult fraternity members, and vice-versa, ad nauseum 2. Why Sex Positivity is Bad for Feminism, in which the sex-positivists descend upon me (pictured) 3. Indiana Bestiality Law Cracks Down on [...]
Linked From: April 6th, 2009
8:56 pm
Is Sex Positivity Bad for Feminism? | Babeland's Blog

[...] just ran across this blog post from The Sexist blog at the Washington City Paper on why sex positivity is bad for feminism. I’m getting to it a [...]
Linked From: April 7th, 2009
2:27 pm
A Very Political Woman » Blog Archive » Talkback: Call For A Good Time - or - Sex Positivity and Feminism

[...] So this new sex positivity movement starts. And like any movement it soon gets disturbed. People like Annie Sprinkles start sticking in people’s craw, somewhat rightfully so, by using a porn-star past to pledge a positive future. That’s where Amanda Hess picked up last week, denouncing sex positivity. [...]
Linked From: April 8th, 2009
11:31 am
My So-Called Limbo

[...] Hess’s absolutely awesome post on the “sex-positivity” aspect of feminism is a must read! The thing that set her off [...]
Linked From: April 10th, 2009
4:35 pm
Porn For Women, By Women » Blog Archive » Late Week Link Love

[...] Sex positivity is bad for feminism. Hmm… something about that makes no sense to me. (via Jamye [...]
Linked From: April 13th, 2009
6:58 am
Being Amber Rhea » Blog Archive » Quote of the day

[...] …precisely who actually said “We’ll just all fuck our way to freedom?” [...]
Linked From: June 24th, 2009
10:08 am
Sasha Grey Condescension Video Corner - The Sexist - Washington City Paper

[...] appeared on Tyra at age 18, after having spent eight months working in the porn industry. While I generally don’t find porn all that interesting, Tyra is so out-of-control in this clip that I thought it was worthwhile to [...]
Linked From: October 17th, 2009
12:00 pm
Lillian Bixler » Getting negative on sex positivity

[...] the over-sexualization of the feminist movement. At least, that’s according to a blog post on the Sexist by Amanda Hess. She declares that, if forced to suffer through one more boring essay on the [...]

Why Sex Positivity is Bad for Feminism

Comments

Leave a Reply

Blogs Linking to this Article

Search The Sexist

City Paper Blogs

Recent Comments

Advocacy

More Sexist

Required Reading

Sexy