The Lady Garden

Tea and Strumpets

Towards a Sex-Positive Utopia

Cross-posted from Public Address.

Back when I first started reading feminist bloggage, there was a question I used to see pretty often: the Feminist Utopia Question. Would there be pornography in your feminist utopia? Prostitution?

As a dirty filthy incrementalist, it always kind of annoyed me. What use was it, without considering the steps along the way? Didn’t the very question prioritise ideology over the effects on real people? Wasn’t it just, basically, a big pile of intellectual wank?

Now, though, having been in the game for a while, I’m tempted to give intellectual wankery a try. What would an ideal sex-positive society look like? What would be different, that perhaps is not so obvious? What would have changed along the way?

Before we begin, a word about what sex positivity is, and ridiculously more to the point, what it isn’t. This is my personal interpretation: everyone’s will be slightly different. See herehere, and of course the Chocolate Manifesto.

Sex positivity is not the belief that all people everywhere should have as much dirty dirty sex as possible. The essence of sex positivity is embracing the diversity of human sexuality and gender identity. It’s about actively seeking to remove both shame and privilege from particular kinds of sexual activity – or a lack of sexual activity. It’s about everyone being able to make the sexual choices that are right for them, free of stigma: having the knowledge and the social freedom to do so. It’s about being positive about all sexual choices and the biological bases we make those choices from. And, of course, celebrating the joy of dirty dirty sex.

For a start, in a Sex-Positive Utopia, the Period Planner app on my phone wouldn’t say “love connection”. It would say “sex”. With no stigma around sex, there’d be no need for euphemism. We wouldn’t have to pretend sex was love, or sleep. That wouldn’t mean the loss of magnificent figurative language around sex: rather the opposite. We’d have so many more sexual ideas to explore and discuss.

With the loss of its taboo, sex would actually become less important on a social level. You’d no more use sex to sell a car than you would golf. There’d be no point in policing people’s clothing choices, because no-one would care if you were trying to get laid or not. Worried about losing the specialness? Individuals would still be able to create circumstances that made their sexual experiences sacred, or sordid.

We’d talk openly about sex a lot more, but with less significance. Sexual mores in other times and places would be a simple, matter-of-fact part of History and Social Studies, just like customs of dress and diet. If you were studying Roman History, you’d actually know about this. (Link mildly NSFW – an acronym I wouldn’t need in this future.) Sex education would be about sex, not puberty, and focus on the reason most people have most of their sex: pleasure.

Speaking of school, you know what you wouldn’t find there? Gender-based toilets. Having done away with the assumption that absolutely everyone is either male or female and everyone is straight, there is no fucking point in having Girls’ Toilets and Boys’ Toilets. Ditto changing rooms. And good riddance too, to our earliest introduction to the idea that males and females are mutually-incomprehensible aliens.

Depending on the survey, somewhere between 5 and 15% of people report having experienced same-sex attraction now. Removing the stigma from non-heterosexual sex is hardly going to push that number down. Segregation by gender simply makes no sense at all.

We are never going to stop passing judgement on each other’s relationships. But after the Sexy Revolution, the gender and number of participants and the nature of their sexual practices will be irrelevant. We’ll have to stick to judging relationships by the content of their members’ character.

And yes, there would still be prostitution. Good sex is awesome, and not everyone can get as much as they would like, for many reasons. Some people are good at sex and want to make a living from it. In Sex-Pos Wonderland, we could treat those people with the respect they deserve.

There would still be sexually-explicit imagery. There always has been and there always should be. I just don’t know if you still call it “pornography” when it’s not stigmatised.

We would also have a completely different idea of ‘masculinity’. Our concept of what it means to be male would bear some resemblance to the men we actually know. We’d finally be free of the Masculinity Box. That doesn’t mean automatically rejecting traditionally masculine values. It means including the behaviour and values of all men, until the concept basically becomes meaningless. Having a cock would no longer require or excuse being a cock.

As a result of all of this, of living in a world free of sexual shame and repression, perhaps the two most significant benefits. One: teenage girls would be allowed to direct their sexual energy into sex, rather than One Direction concerts. There goes the screaming and fainting and incoherent babbling. Two: more people would be having more and better sex. Possibly with screaming and fainting and incoherent babbling.


13 responses to “Towards a Sex-Positive Utopia

  1. Tamara April 17, 2012 at 12:22 pm

    Can’t argue with any of that!

  2. brooke no-nonsense April 18, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    loved it. i did want for discussion of consent though. i’m into celebrating the diversity of our sexual choices, but not if someone’s sexual choice is to rape and sexually abuse.

    • Emma April 18, 2012 at 5:08 pm

      Brooke: that’s another, really big topic, which I’ve touched on a bit here. I’d see rape and sexual assault as “violence choices” rather than sexual choices.

      • BNN April 22, 2012 at 4:06 pm

        yep, i agree, rape and sexual assault are definitely violence choices. but they are sexual choices too. i’m of the view that they are forms of *sexualised violence*. i struggle somewhat with the idea that ‘rape is about power not sex’ – it oversimplifies. if rape and sexual abuse are just violence choices then why make that particular violence choice and not another? if we are going to divorce rape and sexual abuse from sex completely then we might lose what makes them different from other kinds of violence. do you see what i mean?

        but i hear you that consent is a really big topic and one that needs its own post – and thanks for the link.

    • Hugh April 18, 2012 at 6:58 pm

      Yeah, what Emma said – the desire to rape is generally rooted in patriarchy, not personal sexual preference.

      Some people’s personal sexual preferences might include the -appearance- of rape, but that is an entirely different matter.

      • BNN April 22, 2012 at 4:13 pm

        yes, i agree hugh, that’s why it is fitting to refer to rape and sexual assault as *choices* rather than as a sexual orientation. but they are still a sexual choice – unless you think that rape is equivalent to other forms of violence with no distinguishing features. it is, after all, because of *patriarchy* that rape exists, that it is often a form of gender violence, and that it is a form of *sexualised* violence.

  3. Lucy Stewart April 18, 2012 at 1:02 pm

    It always astonishes me how outraged people get over the gender-neutral toilets concept. I worked at a place with one set of toilets – in the locker room – for six months. Shared locker space/mirror and sink, individual floor-to-ceiling-walled stalls.

    Guess what? It was *totally not an issue*, because seeing an opposite-gender person when you go to wash your hands? Weirdly enough, not the end of the world.

    • hungrymamanz April 18, 2012 at 4:40 pm

      I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again- people who get outraged or confused about gender-neutral loos have never been out with an opposite gender kid at that awkward stage where they’re not quite comfortable using public toilets alone but too big to appropriately take into an opposite sex facility.

      • Moz April 19, 2012 at 11:20 am

        oh god yes. One of the more difficult experience of kids-in-public. Well, for uncle moz anyway (does that make me extremely fortunate?) Dealing with “I wanna go NOOOWW!” and “I’m not going in the BOYS toilet!!!”. Sure, uncle moz will just wander into the ladies with you, no-one will even bat an eyelid. Actually, the woman in there was very understanding so it worked out ok.

        Unlike when I changed a nappy on the counter of one of the clothing shops next to the “baby change room” in Riccarton Mall. According to the very emphatic owner of that shop the change room was for mothers only. To the point of physically manhandling me out of the change room. So I followed her back to her shop and…

        • Lucy Stewart April 20, 2012 at 11:26 pm

          I hope she displayed a change of heart after that, ah, teaching moment. (I actually cannot fathom what was going through her head there.)

          • hungrymamanz April 21, 2012 at 9:49 pm

            The family rooms at riccarton mall do now sport signs saying “dad’s welcome” which, ambiguous punctuation aside, is an improvement. When our kids were in nappies (between 5&10 years ago) my partner changed a lot of bottoms in there without any sideways looks.

  4. Draco T Bastard (@DracoTBastard) April 21, 2012 at 10:00 pm

    One: teenage girls would be allowed to direct their sexual energy into sex, rather than One Direction concerts.

    And that’s got to be a benefit that everyone can agree on 😈

  5. Pingback: The Myth of Male Attraction « The Lady Garden

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: