Damn it, I have work to do, but as usual, a discussion over at IBTP got me started on a topic near and dear to my heart and now I gotta process. Which I do, as you know, right here on the old blaugh.
It's about this whole sex-positive feminism thing. Which, I have decided, is a misnomer. In my experience, sex-positive feminism isn't actually SEX-positive, it's performing-femininity-positive. Performing femininity, for those of you who don't know what that means, involves behaving in ways that are culturally coded "feminine," such as (where I live, anyway) wearing dresses and make-up, declining to swear like a sailor in mixed company, and/or removing perfectly serviceable body hair. In the patriarchy, it is composed mainly of refusing to "let oneself go" -- i.e., maintaining, at all costs, compliance with culturally accepted beauty standards.
Now. If you google "sex-positive," 99.9% of the hits you get will be by, or feature, women. There will be pictures of women in their sexpoz outfits, blog posts by women about their sexpoz experiences, videos of women being sexpozitively 'sexy,' et cetera. The accompanying explanations will discuss how these women are exercising their right to choose how they want to be sexual, which is why they think that it's "feminist." It's not. Here's why.
In all of these "sex-positive" performances, it's the women who are central. That is, they are the subjects and objects of attention. However, if "sex-positive" was really about women's sexual interests (I'm speaking from my own unfashionably heterosexual perspective here), there would be some MEN involved. As currently practiced, "sex-positivity" is all about women's sexual performance, and thus, it perpetuates the cultural primacy of the male gaze, which cannot be feminist.
Oddly enough, though, I suspect that this failure points the way to a truly feminist heterosexuality, a female gaze feminism, in which women finally obtain the crap-free privilege to act as viewers rather than performers. As it stands now, a woman may only (publicly) view a man sexually if she agrees, either overtly or covertly, to perform for him sexually. She must be wearing a sexy outfit, or perform femininity adequately enough that her observable interest doesn't compromise his performance of masculinity (yeah, baby, that knife cuts both ways).
When women can, without cultural opprobrium or expectation of reciprocation, lie fully clothed, hairy, and makeupless on the sofa and passively watch attractive men performing to our taste, then we can talk about sex-positive feminism. Until then, it's just sexism in a skirt.
It's about this whole sex-positive feminism thing. Which, I have decided, is a misnomer. In my experience, sex-positive feminism isn't actually SEX-positive, it's performing-femininity-positive. Performing femininity, for those of you who don't know what that means, involves behaving in ways that are culturally coded "feminine," such as (where I live, anyway) wearing dresses and make-up, declining to swear like a sailor in mixed company, and/or removing perfectly serviceable body hair. In the patriarchy, it is composed mainly of refusing to "let oneself go" -- i.e., maintaining, at all costs, compliance with culturally accepted beauty standards.
Now. If you google "sex-positive," 99.9% of the hits you get will be by, or feature, women. There will be pictures of women in their sexpoz outfits, blog posts by women about their sexpoz experiences, videos of women being sexpozitively 'sexy,' et cetera. The accompanying explanations will discuss how these women are exercising their right to choose how they want to be sexual, which is why they think that it's "feminist." It's not. Here's why.
In all of these "sex-positive" performances, it's the women who are central. That is, they are the subjects and objects of attention. However, if "sex-positive" was really about women's sexual interests (I'm speaking from my own unfashionably heterosexual perspective here), there would be some MEN involved. As currently practiced, "sex-positivity" is all about women's sexual performance, and thus, it perpetuates the cultural primacy of the male gaze, which cannot be feminist.
Oddly enough, though, I suspect that this failure points the way to a truly feminist heterosexuality, a female gaze feminism, in which women finally obtain the crap-free privilege to act as viewers rather than performers. As it stands now, a woman may only (publicly) view a man sexually if she agrees, either overtly or covertly, to perform for him sexually. She must be wearing a sexy outfit, or perform femininity adequately enough that her observable interest doesn't compromise his performance of masculinity (yeah, baby, that knife cuts both ways).
When women can, without cultural opprobrium or expectation of reciprocation, lie fully clothed, hairy, and makeupless on the sofa and passively watch attractive men performing to our taste, then we can talk about sex-positive feminism. Until then, it's just sexism in a skirt.
Right on!
ReplyDeleteLet the revolution begin.
DeleteThat last paragraph is an extremely effective argument.
ReplyDeleteThanks, legs!
Delete