Sex-Positivity: Beyond the Buzzword
“Sex-negativity” and “sex-positivity” are likely buzzwords that you have heard tossed around lately - let’s break down what they mean.
Traditionally, the term “sex-negative” is used to describe the common repressive societal narrative that deems certain sexual acts as unacceptable such as having sex before marriage or outside of a heterosexual relationship, and decides which expressions of sexuality are considered “normal” and “good”.
In western society, we can thank the Roman Catholic Church and the Victorian era for these longstanding repressive discourses (Rathus et al., 2011). Sex-negativity can be quite (read: very, very, verrrrry) damaging because it involves a lot of secrecy, shame, and exclusion, resulting in people not feeling comfortable with their sexuality, especially if it varies at all from the narrow, restrictive “norm”. Today this looks like many things, from denying the LGBTQ+ community of their rights, to how our doctors don’t address how our ailments or new medication will affect how we express our sexuality.
Sex-negativity shows up far too frequently in our languaging - Charlie Glickman (2000) wrote an amazing article 20 years ago that is still unfortunately quite relevant today discussing how all of our expletives are about sex - demonstrating that on some level we acknowledge that sex and sex parts are “dirty” or “bad”. Calling someone a pussy really shouldn’t be an insult, oh and let’s agree to never ever say one sports team “raped” the other - doing so perpetuates rape culture which is another very serious discussion we will be having another time.
So, sex-positivity has come onto the scene and been defined and utilized as the opposite to sex-negativity, typically meaning it is accepting of all forms and expressions of sexuality as long as it is consensual and safe.
Sex-positivity has brought with it a lot of victories like comprehensive sex ed, normalization of sex toys, and the acceptance of many forms of sexuality which were previously not validated under sex-negativity’s rule. While it is good to work to normalize sexuality (because it is a completely normal part of the human experience) this generalized, sweeping understanding of sex-positivity can be problematic when applied without critical analysis or trauma-informed languaging.
Since “sex-positivity” has become a buzzword, it’s well-intended messaging has become widely simplified to mean that “sex is great!” and has often been minimized to the concept of getting consent and then distributing orgasms. This is a very reductive thought process perhaps only available to the most privileged (white, mid-high socio-economic status, cis-gendered, heterosexual) who have not had more complicated encounters with sex beyond unlearning sex-negative messaging and for whom liberation looks like more frequent orgasms and an end to slut-shaming (Rose, 2014). Yes, sex-positivity has wonderful, noble intentions and I think when applied critically it aims to include everyone, however it is a nuanced concept too often reduced and the impact can be harmful (remember, impact over intent).
For many, sex is more complicated than what the widely distributed definition of sex-positivity is willing to include, we have to consider that there are millions of women worldwide whose freedoms are devastated on a daily basis by state violence, environmental degradation, poverty, racism, in addition to a lack of sexual gratification. Women's sexual empowerment is not an issue which can be separated from broader struggles for gender justice (Rose, 2014).
Additionally, our sexual expression does not exist in a vacuum and although we may think we are coming to certain sexual decisions on our own, we have been socialized from the youngest of ages when we are made to feel ashamed of our perfectly natural bodies to now through media messaging showing how cool it is to be sexually permissive and “open” - coincidentally a word commonly associated with sex-positivity.
Fahs (2014) asks in their article, is our newfound sexual permissiveness and attitude of being “down for whatever” an expression of how free we are, or simply sexism repackaged? Interesting right? Even when we think we have come to a decision completely on our own, I seriously doubt we have not been influenced heavily by the ideas our patriarchal society is shoving down our throats. Strong imagery, but that is essentially what is happening.
I think a good way to discuss sex-positivity or sexual liberation going forward is to consider that yes, we should all have the freedom to express our sexuality however (go ahead, buy that 80 speed vibrator, have relationships with however many people you want with consent) but that true liberation and sex-positivity must fight for the freedom from these oppressive bubbles that we are acting within (Fahs, 2014). Likely you feel a certain pressure around sexuality even when in an entirely consensual encounter to either try something “exciting”, act like you don’t like sex, or to even be somewhat consistent in your desires - wouldn’t you argue that is not exactly freedom? Even the pressure to orgasm is societally dictated. In their article, Fahs (2014) additionally discusses how women were expected to orgasm through vaginal intercourse alone (phallocentrism at it’s finest), and although the movement to normalize cliteral orgasms has brought with it some great progression, it has also resulted in a pressure for women to orgasm. Over 50% of women have faked orgasms for a number of reasons, but all typically stemming from societal messaging, however subtle it’s influence may be. The fight for clitoral freedom resulted in a different form of sexual restraint. Also orgasms should not be the measure or benchmark of sexual pleasure, but again, that is another conversation.
So “sex-positive feminism” goes hand-in-hand with how we defined sex-positivity above - the movement promotes the idea that all sex is good as long as it is consensual, which as discussed, has a wide number of benefits and progress in terms of sexual liberation. However, as discussed above, this uncompromisingly positive, simplistic, and individualistic view of sexuality can come off as frivolous and alienating (Rose, 2014).
“Sex-negative feminism” isn’t actually the opposite of sex-positivity in this case, it isn’t a movement of people arguing that sex should only occur between a married husband and wife in missionary position only as it is often misunderstood to stand for. Rather, people who identify as sex-negative feminists are asking for further critique on the sex-positive movement, mainly focusing on that fact that we don’t make choices in a vacuum, and advocating for that freedom from oppressive structures aspect.
Where sex-positive feminism is often seen as focusing on the individual (sure you can do whatever you want sexually and that can be super empowering for you!), sex-negative feminism focuses on the fact that larger structures are at play. For example, sex-positive feminists may argue that a person can participate in sex-work, especially if it is fully their choice, where sex-negative feminists recognize this, but also acknowledge that the sex-work industry as a whole may not actually serve to forward the feminist agenda and actually feeds those harmful systems.
Perhaps a better definition of sex-negative feminism is sex-critical feminism (Winston et al., 2019) and I think it is important to be critical because true sex-positivity and sexual liberation are not destinations we can arrive at, it is an active, continual (exhausting) journey. Sexuality is a lot more expansive, complex, and nuanced than a specific, often simplified buzzword definition can encompass. Our understanding of sexuality and liberation are dynamic and changing with context!
On my journey, I was taught from a young age a very sex-negative perspective of sexuality through the catholic school system and internalized it. When first presented with the simplified, uncriticized version of sex-positivity I adopted it because it felt so refreshing to have my sexuality validated in whatever form it takes and I agreed that sexuality should not be taboo and that we should be able to scream its praises! I still do think that we should be comfortable to publicly talk about sex, and for example say proper anatomical terms like “penis” and “vagina” (or vulva, but again, another conversation) but I am someone who is privileged and has a relatively simple relationship with sex where normalizing sexuality is one of the largest fights I have to fight. Now, I identify as sex-critical because in screaming about sexuality in attempts to normalize it, we are hurting and marginalizing people who have more complicated relationships with sex via our oversimplification and overt enthusiasm. There are much bigger fights to fight beyond normalization of sexuality.
Fahs (2014) summarizes this by saying:
In order to move toward the ever-elusive ‘‘sexual liberation,’’ [people] need to be able to deny access to their bodies, say no to sex as they choose, and engage in sexual expression free of oppressive homophobic, sexist, and racist intrusions. [People] should have, when they choose, the freedom from unwanted, mediated versions of their sexuality, heterosexist constructions of ‘‘normal sex,’’ and sexist assumptions about what satisfies and pleases them. If [people] cannot have freedom from these things without social penalty, they therefore lack a key ingredient to their own empowerment. Those who avoid sex, choose asexuality, embrace celibacy (either temporary or permanent), or otherwise feel disinclined toward sex (perhaps due to personal choice, histories of sexual violence, health issues, hormonal fluctuations, irritation or emotional distance with a partner, and so on) should be considered healthy and normal individuals who are making healthy and normal choices. (p. 282)
I think that the sex-positive movement has good intentions and that someone who is truly sex-positive makes space for all that sex is (the good, the bad, the oppression) and is open to continual learning and critical analysis.
Carol Queen (2014) defines sex-positivity as a way to acknowledge that human sexuality is diverse and broad, non-judgmental, a term that includes everyone, and as a way to critique our culture which is far from sex-positive. A truly sex-positive encounter leaves room for people to say no (please remember that consent is a basic necessity of sex, not a bonus, without it, “sex” is actually assault), and room to validate others’ complex experiences and if your thoughts aren’t being heard, then who you are talking to is not practicing sex-positivity.
We need trauma-informed languaging (essentially making the assumption that people have complex relationships with sex in order to make everyone feel safe in a discussion), true openness and acceptance, and space for everyone’s feelings around sexuality, because as Carol Queen (2014) says, there are not two or three expressions of sexuality, but rather ~7.5 billion.
I think sex-positivity has the right idea of not judging yourself or others’ sexual choices, but I think the sex-critical movement has it right by saying that we should judge the context in which our sexual selves are placed. “We are here to knock down the entire edifice, not repaint the walls” (Glosswitch, 2014)
We need expansion of our sexual rights AND a breaking down of oppressive systems to be closer to the ever elusive sexual freedom!!
References:
Fahs, B. (2014). ‘Freedom to’ and ‘freedom from’: A new vision for sex-positive politics. Sexualities, 17(3), 267-290.
Glickman, C. (2000). The Language of Sex Positivity. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 3.
Glosswitch (2014). "Sex-positive" feminism is doing the patriarchy's work for it. Retrieved July 22, 2020, from https://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2014/03/sex-positive-feminism-doing-patriarchy%E2%80%99s-work-it
Queen, C. (2014). What Sex-Positivity Is -- And Is Not. by Carol Queen. Retrieved July 22, 2020, from https://goodvibesblog.com/sex-positivity/
Rathus, S. A., McKay, A., Nevid, J. S., Fichner-Rathus, L., & Herold, E. S. (2011). Human sexuality in a world of diversity. Toronto: Pearson.
Rose, K. (2014). Why "Sex-Positive" Feminism Is Negative For Me. Retrieved July 22, 2020, from https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/kelly-rose-pflugback/women-sexual-empowerment-_b_4058018.html?guccounter=1
Winston, D., Lindgren, J., & Matlack, E. (2019). Thinking critically about sex positivity and sex negativity. [Audio Podcast]. https://www.multiamory.com/podcast/211-thinking-critically-about-sex-positivity-and-sex-negativity