Let’s End The War Between Abstinence And Sex Positive Feminism
Posted by: Wendy Atterberry
Filed in:
news
1:30PM, Wednesday June 24th 2009
In a disturbing post yesterday called, “Why Do Feminists Find Abstinence Intolerable?” Susan Walsh, a blogger for the site Hooking Up Smart, uses our current “hookup culture” as undeniable proof that all feminists hate abstinence. Say what? “Feminists are dismissive of hookup culture,” she writes, “frequently claiming that it doesn’t exist, that it’s just the overreactive imagining of old fogies and right wing nuts who don’t want young people having sex before marriage.” I’m not sure who all these feminists are who dismiss the existence of our hookup culture or what any of it has to do with the idiotic claim that feminists loathe abstinence, but throughout her troubling piece, Walsh awkwardly tries to link the two ideas. She quotes Salon’s Tracy Clark-Flory who wrote last August, in reference to some new books exploring the hookup culture:
“These books are just the latest result of the mounting abstinence movement, which, despite its religious roots, has recast its attack on “hookup” culture as secular, even feminist. Perhaps young women are putting feminist ideals of equality into sex by refusing shame and claiming the traditionally male side of the stud/slut double standard.”
Clark-Flory is hardly “dismissing” the hookup culture. What she’s dismissing is the idea that hooking up must be a feminist movement simply because young women won’t subscribe to the archaic tradition that if they enjoy sex — casual or otherwise — they’re sluts. Walsh naively translates this to mean: “The new population of feminists has little tolerance for abstinence as a choice. If you’re not into a whole extensive menu of sexual practices, you’ve been oppressed by the patriarchy. You’re not legit.” Well, no, not exactly. You’re “oppressed by the patriarchy” only when you let the patriarchy affect your sexual choices, whether that means abstaining completely or screwing every guy you meet.
On one hand, I think I can understand some of Walsh’s intention in her post. She’s frustrated by what she sees in response to second wave feminists’ denouncement of “pornography and the sexual objectification of women” as glorification of casual sex by third wave feminists. I’ve experienced similar frustration myself in what seems like overt sexuality as a political statement. I’m turned off by women who are so calculating in their dismissal of sexual double-standards, they openly flaunt their sexual adventures, thumbing their noses at the patriarchy all the way. But that’s just me. I would no more want to shame them into silence than let them shame me for my personal choices. But shame is exactly what Walsh argues the sex-positive movement has created in its effort to de-stigmatize women who enjoy sex.
“It’s ironic, then, that young women today feel shame for NOT having casual sex,” she writes, adding: “They’ve tried on the male side of sex, and have found it a poor fit.” But, wait — what’s the “male side of sex”? Does she mean casual sex? Is casual sex strictly “male sex”? This is exactly the kind of sexist double standard that those big, bad, scary sex-positive feminists are fighting in their overt sexuality. But Walsh wants to keep them — us, women — sexually oppressed, ashamed of any behavior that might be “deviate from the mean.” She explains that many sex-positive feminists engage in sex that “flirts with violence, domination and subjugation,” which makes these women “several standard deviations from the mean.” In fact, she says: “They are so far outside the mainstream as to render their views interesting perhaps, but largely irrelevant to most of us.” So irrelevant, it seems, that she deems it necessary to write a long, rambling article warning others of their danger…in a website devoted to hooking up, no less. How’s that for irony?
It’s not abstinence that feminists find so intolerable, Ms. Walsh, it’s the narrow-minded idea that there’s a “normal” way to be and anyone that deviates from that is irrelevant.
- Today’s Lady News: Polanski’s Lawyer Says He’s Been Punished Enough For Drugging, Raping Teen
- Today’s Lady News: Conan O’Brien’s Fat Jokes Get Him In, Uh, Big Trouble
- Today’s Lady News: Jaycee Dugard’s Family Speaks Out Against Proposed Porn
- A History: Sex Tapes We Weren't Suppossed to See (Maxim)
- Celebrities Who Look Way Older Than They Are (Starpulse)
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
snap
wrote on June 24 2009 @ 01:55 pm: [report]
um… i think hooking up, no strings attached, no feelings, just pure sex IS the male side of sex. i’m a feminist, but i’m still a woman. i still have emotions and deeper connections to sex. that doesn’t make me any less of a feminist. you don’t have to deny your emotions to be a feminist.
Sonic
wrote on June 24 2009 @ 02:10 pm: [report]
We’ve had a few articles now, trying to poorly define what a feminist is. I don’t really think I understand her line of reasoning. To me, deciding to hook up or having “male sex” (what the hell does that even really mean?) is not in itself, feminist. But neither does choosing abstinence. Why is there this necessity to polarize things? Why must you be all or nothing, this or that, have one thing exclude the other? Her wording is poor (by assuming casual sex is “male sex”) and her arguments are silly.
tabby
wrote on June 24 2009 @ 02:11 pm: [report]
“It’s not abstinence that feminists find so intolerable, Ms. Walsh, it’s the narrow-minded idea that there’s a “normal” way to be and anyone that deviates from that is irrelevant. “—Amen.
joyy
wrote on June 24 2009 @ 02:18 pm: [report]
What’s with this notion that the male experience of sex = emotionless, detatched, and meaningless? You don’t need a specific set of genitals to go for that angle, and I know a fair amount of guys who have described themselves as “not hardwired for casual sex” or who just don’t like NSA-style hook-ups. How cliched.
Raugiel
wrote on June 24 2009 @ 02:56 pm: [report]
Agreed! There is no “male” and “female” version of sex. Some men and some women like casual sex. Some men and some women do not like casual sex. One person may like casual sex at one point in his/her life, and not like it at another point.
The problem with “abstinence culture” is exactly what the author says - it purports to be the ONLY option. We’ve seen time and time again that a “one option solution” is no solution for anyone, male or female.
jimnist10
wrote on June 24 2009 @ 03:44 pm: [report]
“It’s ironic, then, that young women today feel shame for NOT having casual sex,”
WTF is that supposed to mean? I don’t know anyone who ever felt shame for not going out and F*@king anyone and everything they could get their hands on. If I didn’t have a bf, I wouldn’t feel obligated to go out and get off whenever I felt like it. AND if I did, why is that such a bad thing? As long as everyone is SAFE, then sex, the “male” kind or “female” kind (how absurd, btw), should be fun and enjoyable. She’s completely missing the point.
Susan
wrote on June 24 2009 @ 06:00 pm: [report]
Hey guys, Susan Walsh here. Thanks for the conversation - interesting as always. A few points:
1. Jessica Valenti of feministing.com is the feminist who explicitly states that hookup culture is a myth.
2. Hooking up is not a feminist movement, though the women’s movement and the sexual revolution, along with other factors, certainly created circumstances that allow the hookup culture to flourish, to the absolute delight of young men everywhere.
3. The “male side” of casual sex, referring to the double standard around promiscuity, was a phrase coined by Tracy Clark-Flory of Salon.
4. No woman is irrelevant. But sex-positive feminism is irrelevant to most young women in America today. Every year the number of women identifying themselves as feminist declines. Indeed, as illustrated by a quote in my post, Betty Friedan has got to be turning in her grave about now. Speak for yourselves, but understand that sex-positive (4th wave) feminism is truly irrelevant to most women, and it’s elitist as well.
5. I specifically define “normal” in my article as falling within the bell curve. That is a standard scientific definition for the word normal.
6. Never said guys are emotionless - what? Nah, I have lots of male readers, as equally frustrated with the peer pressure to have casual, random hookups as women are. Honestly, though, I’d say women make up 80% of my readership.
7. Carmel de Amicis, who wrote the article excerpted in my post, raised some very interesting points about feeling pressured to have casual sex, and participate fully in the hookup culture. She found herself feeling like she had to defend her decision to abstain from sex for awhile. She was, in essence, ashamed of not wanting to hook up with strangers. She found those sexual experiences unfulfilling and disappointing, but figured that as a sex columnist, she would be expected to have a lot of casual sex.
8. Hooking Up Smart is about the intersection of hooking up and relationships. I blog to support women and men who want to relate to one another on an emotional level. Physical intimacy is great, but I can tell you first hand that many, many young people feel the lack of emotional intimacy that they wish was part of the deal.
9. I believe that women should have sex whenever and with whomever they please. I believe that what a woman does in her private life is no one’s business but hers. I do not support abstinence-only sex ed. And I believe that many women feel regretful and disappointed after hooking up. In fact, I know they do. I hear from them every day.
Hope this clarifies a few things. Do come by and read more, we’ve got a pretty interesting community of regulars. I welcome dissent and constructive criticism at all times. I’m 52, more of a 3rd wave feminist, and I have a 20 year old daughter navigating these waters. She makes her own choices, and I hope I support her in every possible way.
emflow
wrote on June 24 2009 @ 06:44 pm: [report]
Having read this article and Ms. Walsh’s article I think the points in both are remarkably similar: One-size-fits-all feminism and sexual ideals are ultimately anti-feminist. Any time one way of living becomes the only acceptable way of living (abstinence, hooking-up, heterosexuality, etc) that’s oppressive to people who don’t fit that mold.
The problems I have with Ms. Walsh’s article are in the some of the assumptions about feminism and the tone. (note: I’m using the term 4th wave feminism as Ms. Walsh has defined it - a viewpoint where hooking up is the acceptable way of expressing sexual liberation)
The title and content seem to assume, or give the impression, that 4th wave feminism is irrelevant to all women and is the only active form of feminism. Saying 4th wave feminism is wrong for every woman is as misguided as saying any one way of being is right. And while 4th wave, sex-positive feminism may be a dominant form of feminism at the moment, the history of the feminist movement shows a number of varied and sometimes oppositional viewpoints (just look at Vox & Feminists for Life or the many debates about pornography that have appeared over the decades). Many of these viewpoints persist, and I would suggest that this splintering of feminist viewpoints may be a major reason fewer women are identifying as feminists - given that the term “feminist” no longer has a clear meaning or unified movement.
My other issue is with the tone, which comes across as angry and distinctly hostile toward 4th wave feminism. Clearly 4th wave feminism does not work for all women. However, I think the hostility of the article is counterproductive in terms of creating an inclusive and accepting mode of modern feminism.
emflow
wrote on June 24 2009 @ 06:53 pm: [report]
Also I think referring to the “male side” of sex in those terms was a poor choice. Particularly given that many of Ms. Walsh’s male readers are “equally frustrated with the peer pressure to have casual, random hookups.”
Erin G
wrote on June 25 2009 @ 10:03 am: [report]
“She was, in essence, ashamed of not wanting to hook up with strangers. She found those sexual experiences unfulfilling and disappointing, but figured that as a sex columnist, she would be expected to have a lot of casual sex.”
Is this the fault of feminism? Or is this merely due to WHO she is, as a single person unit, and not as a member of a whole (ie, gender)?
Any woman AND any man can suffer guilt from casual sex. That is often a *psychological* issue, not a sociological or anthropological issue.
emflow
wrote on June 25 2009 @ 11:49 am: [report]
Well it becomes a sociological and anthropological issue when it’s a matter of peer pressure groups. Which is what the articles deal with - trends in feminists as a group. Also you can’t really extract a person from their surrounds.
brandyalexander
wrote on June 26 2009 @ 08:51 am: [report]
I think that what this blog is attempting to do is to help young women deal with the emotional baggage that sometimes comes with having casual sex. Casual sex is not a good idea for people (not men, not women, but people) who seek sex only as an expression of love.
I have found myself to be one of those people. I like (oh god do i like) sex, but after trying on a casual-sex relationship this fall, I found that it left me feeling unfulfilled and even used.
However, if you can have casual sex and NOT feel that way, then more power to you. I wish that I could do this. I just can’t. I’m not wired that way, chemically, and it has nothing to do with the fact that I am a woman or a feminist.
That’s my defense of the blog. I was even kind of into it as I read along. However, I feel the author extrapolates quite a bit in associating casual sex with feminism. Not all feminists are into casual hookups. Not all of them are into open relationships, homosexuality, bisexuality, or abstinance. Some are. Some are not. Whatever. I think we are throwing labels around thoughtlessly.
I also have a problem with her judgmental tone towards the end of the post regarding kinkier sex acts like group sex, bondage, “rape” fantasies, bukkake, whatever. I do think that some women can enjoy these things, just like some can enjoy casual sex, or life-ling monogamy, without that being an indication that they want to be subjugated in any way inside or outside the bedroom.
brandyalexander
wrote on June 26 2009 @ 10:37 am: [report]
life-long, not life-ling, haha
Happycrow
wrote on June 26 2009 @ 02:16 pm: [report]
As a teacher/college professor I have bumped into scores of young women who felt exactly as Ms. Walsh (Prof. Walsh? Don’t know you, pardon if slighted) portrays in point #9, and felt pressured into it by their female peers—and as a GUY those numbers are pretty darned ridiculous (aka, how many 19-y.o. women wind up saying something about their sex lives with a late-30s male instructor right in earshot?)
The fact that I encounter the issue at all suggests that the actual numbers have got to be pretty dramatic.
alphabete
wrote on June 26 2009 @ 03:35 pm: [report]
Someday everyone’s sex life will be his or her own business. I’ve heard some opinions on both sides of this fence but correlation is not the same as causality and it would be super-nice if someday someone just said “What if we just didn’t worry any more whether someone else is having sex if they’re not paying our bills or affecting our lives?”