Usually my posts can be
read on their own, even when part of a series, but in this case, the previous
post provides important background information, so read it if you have not already.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
Defenders of
pornography and BDSM sometimes wonder just how strictly their opponents want
them to apply the principle that sex should be an egalitarian activity, free
from dominance and submission. In the comment section of this Feminist Current article, a defender of BDSM,
who calls herself “Strongly Submissive” (an Orwellian name, if ever I heard
one) raises this topic, by asking “If you are drawing the line at “violence”,
what is violence?”. She then lists a number of behaviours and asks whether they
count as “violent/aggressive”. Simply put, she is asking “how anti-egalitarian
is too anti-egalitarian?”
In my
previous post I argued that egalitarianism is one of the key features that distinguish
non-pornographic sex from pornographic sex. In this post I will be focussing on
this criterion, since I believe it is the most important one, but the general
argument I put forward can be applied to my other criteria too. Thus this post is
a response to the broader question that is posed in the title.
Despite what
the title may suggest, this post is not about how much sexual content should be
allowed in the mainstream media. Rather it about the character of sexual
activities, including those featured in the media.
The
Black Jack Metaphor
The game of
Black Jack begins with the players receiving two cards each, which always have a
combined value of twenty-one or less. The players must then decide whether or
not to accept an additional (unknown) card from the dealer. The players’ aim
(as well as that of the dealer) is to obtain a set of cards which have a total
value of twenty-one (or as close to twenty-one as possible.) The closer one’s
score is to twenty-one, the more likely one is to win, so long as one’s score does not go over twenty-one. If your score goes above twenty-one (which is referred to as "going bust") you lose the round.
Liberal,
sex-positive feminists treat sex as if it were a game of Black Jack. In their
view the more aggressive, degrading and generally anti-egalitarian a sex act is,
the more “subversive”, “liberating” and praiseworthy it is. Sexual acts that
lack such elements are deemed “boring”, “conventional” and “vanilla” (as if
that were a bad thing.) At the same time, liberal self-proclaimed feminists
claim that rape is wrong. Committing rape is the sex-positive equivalent of getting
a value above twenty-one in Black Jack. Liberals aim to make their sexual
activities as anti-egalitarian as possible, and therefore as rape-like as
possible, without actually committing rape.
If the goal
of Black Jack were to get as low a score as possible, no player would ever
accept a card from the dealer and thus no player would ever “go bust”, making
the game far less interesting. It is the attempt to get as close to a certain
“line” as possible without crossing it that makes the game exciting. However,
the real life rapes of women are no game. Sex liberalism praises men for
approaching the “rape line” (for lack of a better term) by introducing brutal
and aggressive power dynamics into their sex acts. Thus liberals create a
scenario in which some men will end up crossing the line and committing acts of
rape or sexual assault.
The
Elusive “Rape-Line”
Liberals
spend a great deal of time debating the exact location of the “rape line” (they
made an entire documentary devoted to it.) They ask questions like “exactly how drunk does a woman have to
be before a man who has sex with her can be deemed guilty of rape?” or “how
enthusiastic should her consent sound before it can really be considered
consent?”. They fail to recognise that such questions would not even come up if
our culture did not push the view that sex is an act of conquest and encourage
men to mix drunkenness with sex or pursue sex acts which their female “targets”
were likely to find horrific and degrading.
Instead of
trying to locate the elusive rape line, a far better approach to combating rape
would be to insist that men stay as far away from the line as possible, by
ensuring that their sex lives have as little resemblance to acts of rape as
possible. This means ensuring that their sexual behaviours do not express a
desire to dominate others or have them submit to such domination, for dominance
and (unwilling) submission are the defining characteristics of rape. Thus those who ask “how pornographic is too
pornographic?”, “how anti-egalitarian is too anti-egalitarian?” or “how
rape-like is too rape-like?” are asking the wrong question.
Reframing
the Question
I have to
admit that my response to the “how pornographic is too pornographic” issue
comes from a Christian fundamentalist video series that I used to watch when I was
really bored, in order to poke fun at their absurd and reactionary beliefs. It
seems I have a strange interest in discussing views I find ridiculous (as
evidenced by the current title and contents of this blog.) The episode that (kind of)
inspired my answer discussed the question "how far is too far?”, with regard to pre-marital, sexual behaviour (after a long boring segment denouncing the supposed evils of abortion.)The
Christians responded to the question by arguing that instead of trying to get as close to
committing a sexual sin as possible (without actually committing it), one should try
to stay as far away from sin as possible.
I do not
believe that there is such a thing as God or sin, nor I do believe that pre-marital sex is inherent immoral, but there
are ways of behaving that are immoral. Instead of asking how many morally
questionable elements (such as dominance, submission, conquest, superficiality,
etc.) one can introduce into their relationships or sexual acts (before these acts become deserving of criticism), we should be aiming to rid our
sexual activities of such elements and make them as egalitarian and loving as
possible. Applying this principle will mean different things to different
people. For some, it will mean rejecting outright sadomasochism. For others, it
will mean practising conventional sexual activities (which include kissing,
hugging and other forms of “outer course”) more gently. Anything that increases
safety and reduces physical pain (particularly if it does so without reducing sexual
arousal) is a step forward.
Liberals
will no doubt be outraged that I took an idea from a conservative source and
think that I must therefore be a conservative myself. I guess the idea that one
should be “open-minded” and try to learn from others does not extend to
liberalism’s political opponents. I, however, think that any movement, no matter
how vile or right-wing it is, can make claims that are true and useful. Thus
we should consider what our opponents say, but that does not mean we
have to blindly agree with them or acknowledge that they have “their own truths”.
The line between actual critical thinking and mindless relativism can be a
tricky one to pinpoint, but at least being on the wrong side of it is not
nearly as dangerous as being on the wrong side of the rape line.
-
Conclusion -
To reiterate, I think the best way to approach the question of “how pornographic is too pornographic” when it comes to sexual activities, is to rephrase the question and instead ask “how can we make our sexual activities as loving, egalitarian and non-pornographic as possible?”. Unfortunately, many people (both men and women) have had their sexualities influenced by a thoroughly hierarchical political order (which consists not only of male dominance, but also of capitalism, white supremacy and other hierarchical systems) and resisting these harmful desires while attempting to form new ones will require effort. Some people will need to put in more effort than others, but that should not stop them from trying.
I think the most effective way to create a world in which egalitarian sexual
relationships can flourish, is to create a whole different political, economic
and social order (one that rewards those who treat others like equal human
beings, rather than resources to be conquered and used), but we should
none-the-less attempt to free our sexualities from the short-sighted values of capitalist
society, even while we are trapped within it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stay tuned for the final article in my series on egalitarian sex and relationships, in which I address some of the harmful views regarding romance and love that are promoted by mainstream culture.
