Dude, fuck sex positivity

I’m staying at a collective house in Palo Alto, California. I love the whole DIY thing, but a.) people were going to Stanford’s “war on Wikileaks” talk where I suspect it is presumed that ASSange is innocent (hint, he’s not), and b.) there is a flyer about sex positivity in the downstairs bathroom that made me so angry, I’m going to write a rageful blog post about it later.

Ironically, for the whole “sex positivity = no judgment and everything goes!!” language, I woke up this morning to overhear a male in the house talking about how much he hates giving cunnilingus. He apparently won’t use his fingers either, because “it takes the same amount of time.”

There’s a word that people use for males who find female genitalia repulsive, you know. Here’s a hint, the first part of this word is “homo”. I bet you can all guess the second part!

Sex positivism = women should be available for any sex practice, with any man, at any time. That’s all it means.

Advertisements

About @trees

Thrillseeking female. Indie music shaman. Will almost certainly Like your cat pix.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Dude, fuck sex positivity

  1. Lazy, ungreatful, womon hating bastards.

    Sex positivity is a fucking joke. I once saw a tweet from a sex poz now ex friend (who blocked and deleted me because of a comment I made about the trannies) when I first read Dworkin,

    “Andrea Dworkin is an insult to sex-positive feminism and the concept of empowered choice. I hate that woman so much.”

    =\

    seriously?

  2. ball buster says:

    Sex positivism = women should be available for any sex practice, with any man, at any time. That’s all it means.

    Yes – except they throw in stuff like the pill to control our fertility, too. Everything is on their terms or none at all, which makes the whole idea of “consent” such a fucking joke. Women may acquiesce, but often it’s because they know the aftermath of saying “no” is worse than just getting the dude over with. Even if the dude doesn’t rape her, he makes her feel guilty and prudeshames her. Men are such assholes.

    • joy says:

      The Pill just means we can’t say “no” for the reason of avoiding pregnancy.

      The fuckers have really covered all their bases, haven’t they.

      My “first time” was one of those “I said yes because I knew he’d just do it anyway and he told me I was a prude” time, and so were about 100 times (with 15 other people) after that.

      I was doing a rape tally in my head while walking to the store. The times I’ve said “no” and the man did it anyway: 3. The times I was passed out, sleeping, and/or heavily disoriented and the man fucked me anyway: add 2 more times (that I know of). The times I didn’t say no but the man hurt me so badly I should have seen a doctor: add 2 more times. The times I wouldn’t have done it except I was getting paid: add 5-10 more times. The times I either didn’t say no but didn’t want to say yes either, or the times I wouldn’t have said yes if I’d known things that I know now: add about 100 more times.
      And these rapist men were all “sex-positive”.

      • ball buster says:

        Gosh, Joy, is it any wonder some of us come to the conclusion that all sex is rape? It really is, though, especially since men have such a fucked up definition of consent. Men feel that they are owed sexual favors, which does not translate to a very “positive” viewpoint of sex at all. It also does not translate to knowing what consent actually is, either, which destroys the whole concept of choosy choiceness that is only propaganda to recruit more women into their idiotic politics. Women DO want choice, but often the choice to say NO is dismissed or eliminated all together.

        The Pill just means we can’t say “no” for the reason of avoiding pregnancy.

        This is so true too!

      • joy says:

        My sound bite for sex positivism is:

        I could give less than two flying fucks if “yes means yes” for as long as “no” still doesn’t mean “no.”

        And an ideology that basically holds “no would mean yes if you weren’t such a stuck-up judgmental prude” is not helping that situation at all.

  3. Sargasso Sea says:

    Ewww. Palo Alto. Two thumbs down!

    (((hugs))) 😉

    • joy says:

      I knew nothing of the town before I came here on my way to San Francisco. I’ve definitely been thinking, “Hmm, I am certainly not of this class of people,” but I often feel like that regardless of where I am.

      My feelings so far can be summed up as: “Is there some kind of raised-liberal, Californian quality that I, as a New Yorker, am not privy to and am unable to understand? Or is this just the money that I hear talking that doesn’t make any damned sense?”

      Class differences are a big damned deal. So is presence or absence of a radical feminist consciousness, but I’m already pretty used to being around people who don’t have that.

      Glad to hear it’s not just me, is what I mean to say.

  4. Araghast says:

    “Sex positivism = women should be available for any sex practice, with any man, at any time. That’s all it means.”

    may i enquire how one makes the jump from the idea of relaxing restrictions on expressing sexuality to the statement above? (for curiousity’s sake)

    also, “sex positivity = no judgment and everything goes!!” strawman.

    finally i would personally like to have umbrella’s and walking sticks have integrated tazers or cattle prods. nothing gets through a guys argument like a couple thousand volts.

    • joy says:

      Unfortunately, the part you claim is a “straw man” is the language I quoted directly from the poster, just with exclamation points added for effect.

      “Sex positivity means no judgment. Everything goes.”

      Right, like … pedophilia? Rape? Before you say that’s a straw man too, I’ve met communities of “sex-positive” thinkers who insist that pedophilia is only taboo because “society limits children’s sexual self-expression” and that “rape would happen less if women weren’t so inhibited as to say ‘no’ and were awakened to their sexual desires.”

      As for the first: yeah, that was helpful for a childhood incest survivor to hear. That’s great. I’m sure NAMBLA is also happy this thought has become mainstream. It sounds like a classic sex-therapy line out of the 1960s and 70s, and Ginsberg, Burroughs, Cassady, and the other noted “countercultural intellectuals” of the day are probably quite happy in their graves.

      As for the second, even a dude friend (and as we know, dudes are incapable of understanding anything) blinked hard when he heard it, and said, “Right. Because the only reason a woman could say ‘no’ … is that she’s ‘inhibited.'” Then he literally facepalmed.

      So may I ask you wtf you even mean by “relaxing restrictions on expressing sexuality”? Authentic female sexuality is not expressed anywhere in sex positivity, either. It’s all penetration, penetration, penetration (even for lesbians), being “hot” and “putting on a show” (even for lesbians), and little to nothing about exploring what it would actually be like to have an actual independent or creative thought. Sex positivity is a commodity sold to you, the consumer, and you’re buying it.

      Also, may I remind anyone interested that radical feminists have never “restricted” “expressions” of “sexuality.” Just offered the thought, “Gee, maybe you’re just buying a product, and you might want to STOP DOING THAT for your own mental health if nothing else.”

      • FAB Libber aka Dave the Squirrel says:

        “sex-positive” thinkers who insist that pedophilia is only taboo because “society limits children’s sexual self-expression” and that “rape would happen less if women weren’t so inhibited as to say ‘no’ and were awakened to their sexual desires.”

        Yes indeed, I have heard the same things – particularly from pro-paedophiliacs.

        Also, “sex-positivism” always includes BDSM, which is bad from many points, but particularly because it ensnares a lot of vulnerable people (women) who were victims of prior abuse.

        Porn is about penetration-penetration-penetration for sure. Just look at the way it has gone: DPs and TPs etc etc. Clearly that is a penetration agenda.

      • joy says:

        I’m glad you went there, re BDSM, because I didn’t want to even touch it. Yeah, beating one’s partner, that’s super transgressive and “positive.” Pretending one’s partner is either one’s rapist/molester/master/wtfever or one’s victim, yeah, nothing unhealthy about that either.

        There is nothing “positive” about “sex-positivity”, if you use the word “positive” to mean “promoting actual mental health” or “encouraging real emotional flourishing.” All “positive” seems to mean is “makes you feel totes A-OK and assuages your uneasy feelings about eating the shit, knowing it’s shit, and still being told to believe it’s chocolate.”

        I know because of direct experience. Another blog post for another time.

      • FAB Libber aka Dave the Squirrel says:

        Most of the pro-porn peeps you will encounter online are also right into BDSM (including those who make their money from BDSM paraphernalia or porn/stripping etc).

        Most anti-pornstitution bloggers/activists do not make a penny from the anti-porn views. Always follow the money. Of course, most pro-porners will not disclose their financial interests. And the amateurs, just want to retain their sexual/bdsm access to females. The pro-porners always have something to gain.

  5. Jess says:

    I’m not disagreeing with anything you say, but. . . where does this leave us women who DO enjoy sex. . . lots of sex. . . with both women AND men? I was deluded for a long time into thinking that “sex positive” = healthy, mature attitude towards sex. I was deluded for two reason: a.) the majority of sex partners I have had, coincidentally, happened to be awesome people; and b.) I am not a rape/incest survivor, so I was insensitive to the triggering that a lot of sexual imagery/situations could have towards survivors. Now I’m stuck in this weird spot where I consider *myself* to have a “positive” sexual attitude, but. . . I’m not into the idea of normalizing pedophilia or degradation or dangerous shit because, uh, yeah. . . it doesn’t appear to be very “positive.”

    Not to mention, that whole “women wouldn’t get raped if they weren’t so inhibited. . .blah blah blah” ideology is MAJOR BULLSHIT. I am sexually open, honest, and in touch with what I am–and am NO–willing to do, yet I have had situations (with women, actually) where I have had to literally physically force them off of me to end the encounter. I feel like the whole “sex-positive” ideology has skewed the entire concept of people making sexual decisions for themselves, because if someone doesn’t like your’re decision to say “no,” they just think your “inhibited” or being a bitch. Like when a drunk girl at a party finds out I’m bisexual and therefor automatically down for being aggressively pushed against the wall in a bathroom to have sex, and then ARGUED with and persuaded into fucking them. NOPE. And as if just because I don LIKE to have sex means that I am automatically OBLIGED to have sex anytime someone is wanting to have sex with me. NOPE. (This has happened quite a few times over the years in my local punk rock scene.)

    Life sux. (jk)

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s