Sexmoralism - Compulsory Sex - Sexpositivity - Sexnegativity
The text was published on May 1, 2020 at the Sexolution - Sexpositive Conference Vienna on the topic "What does sex-positive mean?".
"[T]hese days it can certainly be seen as boring not to be sexually experimental.
I'd say that the sex hierarchy remains even though the line is drawn somewhat lower down the pyramid than it used to be. We still have a strong sense of what 'normal' sex should be like in relationships. But we also have the idea that we should be having 'great sex'. This might involve being open to trying some of the 'spicy' activities that used to be strictly in the outer limits. Because sex and love are so bound up together, we feel as though relationships must stay sexually exciting over time to prove they're still loving and still working. "
- Meg John Barker - Rewriting the Rules, 2018
I would like to take up the cudgels for sex negativity.
Why?
1) Despite all the fantastic things that are made possible under the label "sex-positive", it also provides some weak points, stumbling blocks, traps and misunderstandings. These go hand in hand with an uncritical understanding of sex positivity when a one-sided diagnosis of the problem is made: that sex is primarily repressed and taboo.
2) I would like to propose a very specific understanding of sex-negativity that cannot be confused with some kind of ecclesiastical-conservative or political-right sexophobia.
3) In general, I would like to abandon binary divisions and make it clear that sex-negativity and sex-positivity do not have to be two opponents, but could rather be two progressive strategies, both pulling together from opposite directions in order to somehow keep a huge elephant in check. The poor elephant must briefly serve as a representative of the actual opponent, who laughs up his sleeve when, for example, sex-positive and sex-negative feminists are busy tearing each other apart and are thus too distracted to get to the root of the really relevant violent relationships together: patriarchal, capitalist, neoliberal power relations that are not interested in the well-being of equality and a pleasurable life for all. This is precisely where my criticism of sex positivity comes in, because it can easily be hijacked by these powers.
When I look around me, it is by no means the case that sex is only repressively regulated and demonized as dirty, sex is also encouraged in our society and sex is very present in public - and what that means for sex positivity is something I miss in the sex-positive discourse. Sometimes I get the feeling that people assume we're still living in the Middle Ages or the 1950s. Such tendencies still exist (like abstinence-only sex education in many US states), but at the same time it hardly shocks anyone seriously nowadays if, for example, you own sex toys or think onanism is healthy, it's long since become mainstream, or how many sexual innuendos are used in advertising. There is a huge amount of advice literature and sex tips in magazines, with the twist that you are no longer told to only have sex in a missionary position with your spouse to make love, but by no means only in the marital bedroom, but at least on the washing machine, with spray cream, "to spice things up".
Other "you shoulds" and "you have tos" quickly creep in, which don't lead to sexual liberation, but to stress, pressure, expectations and frustration. Then we feel abnormal, for example, because some statistics show that in a healthy relationship, sex has to happen so-and-so many times a week. Or we want to belong to the sex-positive club and therefore do certain things - not out of our own desire and curiosity, but out of fear of being excluded or because we want to please or come across in a certain way, as an interesting lover with special skills...
So you follow the dictates of having to do your sex right and better, becoming your own sex entrepreneur. Not only can this lead to depressing performance anxiety, but it can also make consensus difficult when the reasons for a "yes" can be so different if you don't stay with your own feelings and desires and understand such entanglements and know how complex "authentic" desires can sometimes be.
Because sex is not something pure, pure, untouchable per se, but is shaped by culture, upbringing, socialization and thus by a structural, dominant focus on increasing efficiency, productivity, performance, curating one's own image and managing one's own privileges. All of this can also be observed in sex-positive scenes if they do not take these cunning mechanisms seriously enough.
The problem here is also the strong focus on self-fulfilment and self-improvement, where the collective aspect is lost. That sex is not just an expression of myself, but a dialog with the world and a mirror of this world. If I only make my individual life more pleasurable, climb up a ladder so to speak, but pull up the ladder behind me - that would be a weak concept of sex positivity for me. A radical movement that could really get something exciting rolling would have to aspire to give everyone access to this ladder, especially those who find it particularly difficult to access it.
I often observe that for those who define themselves as "sex positive", there is not much at stake in calling themselves that. For me, too, it's low-threshold and nothing special. Rather, that's exactly what is expected of me, to be sex-positive.
The reasons for this will hopefully become clearer below. I have summarized a few points that are repeatedly mentioned by a few critical voices from the scene.
When it is described as so subversive with a gesture of revolt, when you live your life according to the motto that sex is beautiful and good and, for example, also positively valorize and appropriate the insult "slut". In some contexts, this is a strong gesture, which I also support. In other contexts, however, it only fulfills the status quo. How subversive is it really to say that sex is beautiful? People tend to look at you strangely if you say that you don't want to have sex or don't find it beautiful per se and are then asked "Why not?". It's much rarer to ask people who want to have sex or find it beautiful: "Why?" And how exciting it would be to think about it! Lisa Millbank, a blogger I really appreciate, therefore had the idea that not only the insult "slut", but also "prude" should be used with more pride, i.e. the otherwise common derogatory term frigid and prudish.
The message that sex is good and beautiful excludes people: on the one hand, those for whom sex is complex, difficult, even traumatic. On the other hand, asexual people or people for whom sex is neither particularly good nor bad, but neutral. The emphasis on how sacred and important sex actually is then carries the subliminal message that there is something wrong with these people.
So when we use the word "sex positivity", we should always ask: positive for whom? This also applies to the next point:Privileges are repeatedly pointed out and how homogeneous many sex-positive scenes are, in short: predominantly white middle class with a certain level of education. Likewise, hierarchical ways of interacting are only reproduced when, for example, classic beauty norms go hand in hand with more "fuckablity" or when even the most creative events reveal how heteronormative, youth-normative, slendernormative etc. things are.
Like this. This is where a concept of sex negativity would come in and say: "I'm not up for all these games, there must be another way instead of just having the same thing in green again". And neither simply deify nor condemn sex. Lisa Millbank therefore suggests the four words in the title of my talk, which relate to each other in the following way:
The two hegemonic forces:
Sex moralism (is the more accurate term for what is usually pejoratively described as sex negativity)
Is a historically old concept that prescribes a narrow set of rules for how sex should take place and characterizes anything that goes beyond this as wrong, evil, perverse. It is primarily about control, e.g. a certain availability of the female body so that it fits into a well-behaved mother role and thus maintains a certain system.
Prostitution and desire beyond hetero-couple normativity is demonized or made invisible. Slut-shaming, among other things, is used to stigmatize all those who do not submit to this.Mandatory, compulsory sex
Is a modern variant that makes bodies equally controlled and available. It assumes that everyone should have sex and in which, in short, a principle prevails that Lisa Millbank summarizes as "gotta fuck": if you're a heterosexual woman and you don't let men fuck you, you're doing "woman" wrong; if you're a heterosexual man and you don't fuck women, you're doing "man" wrong. This patriarchal structure is so flexible that it can also nestle into non-heterosexual communities, then it becomes "men gotta fuck men" "women gotta fuck women" "people gotta fuck people". Subject - verb - object.
In this concept, asexuality and people who don't conform to a certain smooth desire norm, e.g. people of advanced age, overweight, dis_ability... to name just a few of the things that bodies can be. People who don't follow the gotta-fuck principle are stigmatized with prude-shaming.
The two counter-movements:
Sex positivity
Is a progressive, resistant grassroots movement that talks openly about sex and whose ostensible opponent is sex moralism because it opposes the shaming of any sexual act as long as it is consensual. The liberal flavor that consensuality is the key to liberated sex is important on an idealistic level, but can overlook the many real-world conditions that individuals are socially entangled in.
The subtle enemy is prescribed sex, which can easily take over sex-positive scenes. Combating sexual moralism works in a direct, if not simple, way. Resisting the subtlety and seductiveness of prescribed sex is more difficult and requires cooperation with sex-negative (trans) feminism, or critical-solidary attitudes towards sex (positivity).Sex-negative (trans) feminism / critical-solidary attitudes towards sex:
These are progressive, resistant bottom-up movements that speak openly and honestly not only about sex, but also about the close link between sex and power.
The goal is both liberation from sexual violence and from patronizing demands to have sex.
Sex is not criticized on moral grounds, but on political grounds. Structures are always problematized, not people. For example, sex-negative strategies do not ask: "Is prostitution bad in itself?" or "Are people who make/watch porn sick?" but rather ask much more pragmatically: "What does it take so that pornography or prostitution do not create violent relationships?" and answers with: "Fair payment and rights".
The ostensible enemy is prescribed sex. Sex moralism tries to dock onto sex negativity. The difference, however, is clearly the sex-moralizing misogynistic, hateful, patronizing approach, which is vehemently resisted by sex negativity.
The relationship between sex positivity and sex negativity is complicated. Some sex positives turn away from sex negatives, especially when they label and confuse this movement as sex moralism. But the two don't have to be enemies - in fact, it would be worth giving sex-negative or sex-critical voices a less paranoid-skeptical hearing and not immediately pigeonholing them with Alice Schwarzer, because there are much more nuanced voices out there (Meg-John Barker, Kitty Stryker, Lisa Downing, Lisa Millbank, Andrea Dworkin...)
And of course this is now very model-like and most people who have a feminist agenda will start somewhere between sex-positive and sex-negative practices and use other terms (e.g. 'sex-reflective'). After all, differentiated language could provide us with a more helpful set of terminology so that we don't fall prey to the perfidious forces around us and cooperate more in a sisterly way.
"Let's revisit the rules of sex, given what we've explored here:
[Common rule] Sex is essential: a defining feature of ourselves and our relationships. → [Rewritten Rule] Sex can be wonderful but it doesn't need to define us or our relationships. It can ebb and flow throughout our lives, or be completely unimportant to us.
[...] We need to communicate openly about what we do and don't want, with ourselves and with the people we're engaged with, recognizing how assumed scripts and power imbalances can restrict consent."
- Meg John Barker - Rewriting the Rules, 2018.
The announcement text for the lecture in the Sexolution Conference program:
Sexpositivity * Sexnegativity * Sexmoralism * Compulsory Sex
I got to know sex positivity as a scene that was committed to finally making the world realize that sex is something good, healthy and normal. That this world is too sex-negative, full of taboos and shame, because it treats sex as something bad, dirty, sinful. That sounded convincing at first and like an important mission to fly the flag here, not just at the Slut Walk.
Over time, however, my questions began to arise. For example, is sex negativity really the enemy? The perfidious forces that surround us are not so sexually repressive after all, but are constantly encouraging us to have sex. Sex positivity as a fighting concept suddenly became an ineffective weapon against these forces, when the stress of creativity, pressure to perform and patriarchal patterns sneak in when we are actually experimenting with another pleasurable life.
I became acquainted with a more helpful set of terminology precisely where ideas such as 'prude walks' and re-evaluations of 'sex negativity' were being played with, which, funnily enough, seemed much more sex-positive to me than unquestioned 'sex positivity'.
In this impulse lecture, references to the transfeminist-radical writings of Lisa Millbank and sex-critical concepts of Kitty Stryker and Lisa Downing will be used to make suggestions for expressions that are more suitable for political analysis than the tiring sex-positive/sex-negative binary, in order to then combine theory with practice and to enter into a frank discussion about our (gratifying and disappointing) experiences in sex-positive scenes.
Personal details
Beate Absalon is a doctoral candidate at the University of Art and Design Linz and currently a Junior Fellow at the International Research Center for Cultural Studies in Vienna. Her research and teaching activities in the field of (audio-)visual culture and cultural studies aesthetics are primarily dedicated to the representation of 'other' states, such as childbirth, mourning, sleep, masking or sadomasochistic practices.
Her doctoral project focuses on the creative processes of sexual education media and asks what it means when sexuality is negotiated as something that can be had, learned and improved - or as a kind of refuge in which to experiment with wayward lifestyles that do not have to exclude uncertainty, vulnerability and contradictions. But what does such sexual didactics look like? ( https://www.aesthetik.hu-berlin.de/de/andere-aufklaerung/ )
In the collective "luhmen d'arc" she leads workshops on playful forms of inventive intimacy and bodywork. Her favorite thing to do is to question 'kinky' practices and scenes for their strange qualities: To what extent are they silly, resistant, creepy, healing, artistic - or not?
