Are Some Sex Acts "More Equal" Than Others?

A previous post of mine titled “How Pornographic is too Pornographic” was added to a feminism-related page on the website, Reddit. One version of it received ten comments. Unfortunately I cannot find that version now, but in this post I will respond to the arguments put forward in the comments, as best as I can.

As always, I invite my readers, including those opposed to my views, to comment on my blog directly so that I can respond more easily. Do try to respond with actual arguments rather than just dismissals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction

Liberals often say that they view all consensual sex acts as equal. However, in this post I stated that liberals view aggressive, degrading or otherwise anti-egalitarian sexual activities, such as sadomasochism (or BDSM as it is often labelled), as more subversive, liberating and praiseworthy than so-called “vanilla” sex. These two viewpoints contradict each other, yet they are clearly both held by liberals.

Conflicts within the ideology of liberal feminists are their problem, not mine. This post will instead focus on the claim that anti-egalitarian sexuality is superior to egalitarian sexuality and attempt to demonstrate that liberals, on some level, adhere to this claim (or at least talk and act as though they do), regardless of whatever else they say or believe.

Insulting Language

I am generally not that picky with regard to language use. I despise the way liberals use perceived errors in speech or writing (e.g. stating that Christopher Columbus discovered Latin America or listing multiple categories without listing every combination of those categories, as Patricia Arquette did) as an excuse to vilify their political opponents.

However, in this situation, I am not referring to the spontaneous word choices of an individual, but to terms regularly used by movements. I also will not be referring to instances when someone failed to mention a particular group. Is literally denying the existence of Native Americans or non-white women a common position among activists that we should be worried about? I will let my readers decide. Personally, I am more concerned with what people do say than what they do not say, particularly when their words convey value judgements.

Firstly, there is the term “vanilla”, which is used by practitioners of sadomasochist sex to describe those who do not practice it. Liberals in general are also expected to employ this term (e.g. by acknowledging their “vanilla-privilege”). They may argue that the term means “conventional” sex, but in practice it is used to refer to practices which do not involve any anti-egalitarian (or otherwise pornographic, according to the criteria I lay out in the first section of this post) elements.

According to Google, “vanilla” (when not used to describe food) means “having no special or extra features; ordinary or standard”.  By using the word, liberals imply that people who do not practice sadomasochism have boring, conformist sexualities. It is thus logically inconsistent for liberals to state that there is “nothing wrong with vanilla sex”, unless they believe that dullness and ordinariness are positive or neutral traits. They recognise that egalitarian sex is not immoral (a position which means little, coming from liberals), but they do imply that it is the inferior sexuality.

Not everyone who has “vanilla” sex views it as conventional and uninteresting. Thus it is insulting for liberals to insinuate that it is. In fact, domination and submission is the sexual convention within our highly hierarchical society. Radical feminists (particularly lesbian feminists) often reject such practices out of a desire to defy sexual norms. 

However, I have seen people use the term vanilla to proudly express their preference for egalitarian sex. I am not sure how I feel about such uses of the term, but I do acknowledge that it did not start out as an insult. Originally it described tasty desserts, which are favoured by a somewhat select group of people (chocolate was the favourite when I was a kid, not vanilla). Nonetheless, the condescending intentions of the term “vanilla”, as used by sadomasochists, are clear.


Meanwhile, liberals use terms like “subversive” and “liberating”, along with gushing euphemisms like “spice-up your sex life” to refer to sadomasochistic sex acts. To “subvert” is to “undermine the power and authority” of a social system. Thus those who label sadomasochism as “subversive” are claiming that it will contribute to the destruction of patriarchy (or some other oppressive system). This is grand praise indeed.

While liberals do not explicitly condemn egalitarian sex, complimenting one behaviour and not another is also discriminatory. Until liberals start saying that loving, egalitarian sex liberates women and subverts patriarchy, with the same frequency that they heaps such praise upon sadomasochism, pornography, casual sex, etc., I think it is reasonable to claim that they view the former as inferior, yet acceptable for those weak, boring people who cannot handle “spiced-up” sex. 

Sadomasochist, “Feminist” Pornography

Pornography that features sadomasochism is more likely to win an award for its supposed “feminism”. In case you think I am speculating, based on the contents of previous recipients of the “feminist” pornography award, I am not. I neither know, nor care, which videos got the “award”. This information comes from the website of the award. Its creators say they “like to include films that contain kink, BDSM, and consensual non-consent” when choosing films for the award. It seems they favour pornographic videos (which are not “films”, in my view) that feature (outright) sadomasochism over those that do not.

By pointing out that the sex industry and its liberal allies reward sadomasochistic pornography over “vanilla” pornography, I am not suggesting that non-sadomasochist pornography should be given awards or endorsements, nor am I suggesting that such videos feature genuinely loving, egalitarian sex. If I had my way, there would be no pornography awards to begin with. However, by excluding a video from receiving a “feminist” pornography award (or at least lowering the probability that it will receive it), due to its lack of sadomasochism, they are implying that some sexual activities (“vanilla” ones) are less feminist or less worthy of celebration, thus contradicting their belief that all consensual sex acts are equal.

An even more frightening aspect of the aforementioned site is its claim that the pornography selected for the award is “for everyone”. You read that right, everyone. They do not even have the decency to limit it to adults. They do however admit that “not all films are for all audiences” and that no one film can “include everyone”. I find the latter phrase disturbing. I do not know what the intended meaning is, but the phrasing makes it sound like they want audiences to be directly involved in pornography. Whether they do or not, their position seems to be that while it is okay to dislike some pornography, everyone will like at least one kind.

If someone claimed that romantic comedies or egalitarian, loving relationships were for everybody, liberals would be outraged. They think it is perfectly fine to completely reject non-pornographic depictions of sex (I myself take issue with some of the messages promoted by romance films, but I do not believe that they are inherently a bad thing), but cannot conceive of somebody rejecting pornography in all its forms. This is further evidence of a double standard within liberalism, one which favours pornography and the kind of loveless, aggressive sex that it features over alternatives.

So What If All Sex Acts Are Equal?

While I have provided evidence that liberals perceive sadomasochism as more subversive, rebellious, exciting and “spiced up” than the egalitarian alternatives, the “all (consensual) sex acts are equal” idea is nonetheless part of official liberal dogma. The view is one I am familiar with, but not one which I think can be rationally defended. I addressed it briefly in this post (leave a comment or send a message if you want to know where) and in an often re-blogged section of this one, dealing with the liberal understanding of equality.

Simply put, I do not believe that all consensual sex acts are equal and I do not equate human equality with granting equal approval to all behaviours. I think there are many standards, besides consent and pleasure, by which sex acts can be evaluated. These include egalitarianism, gentleness, respect and genuine, personality-based love (all of which have been discussed countless times on this blog). Then there is my oh-so-oppressive belief that sex acts should not cause death (discussed here) and that those which do are inferior, what a crazy thing to think, right?

As for the Black Jack analogy (put forward in this post), I think it still stands, whether liberals think sadomasochism is better than egalitarian sex or not. If instead of being told to aim for a score of twenty-one, Black Jack players were instead allowed to pick their own target score and players chose twenty-one as their score (because they personally liked it) many of those players would likely end up going over twenty-one. If you aim to make your sex acts more rape-like (i.e. more violent, dominating and degrading) without actually committing rape, you might just end up crossing the line. You are far less likely to cross the line if you stay far away from it by aiming for gentleness, equality, respect and love instead.

One premise that is essential to my Black Jack analogy is the claim that “sadomasochism is rape-like”. This statement is difficult to refute (though I nonetheless challenge my readers to try), given the existence of consensual non-consent (mentioned in the “feminist” pornography award quote above), which sounds a lot like “consensual rape” to me (Orwell must be rolling over in his grave). From what I understand, consensual non-consent involves a submissive agreeing to be forced into a sex act at some future point (and not being allowed to withdraw from it). The practice is a subject for another post. All I will say for now is that those who reward pornographers who practice and promote such acts (instead of distancing themselves from them) have little regard for logic and even less regard for human rights.

Another possible weakness in the analogy is that Black Jacks involves an element of chance, while committing rape is a decision (made mostly by males). With enough willpower, a man can always decide not to commit rape, but increasing the incentive to commit rape and decreasing the internal incentive against it, will make the decision harder. Sadomasochist simulations of rape result in both of these things. They convince the pretend rapists (that is, after all, what the dominants in such situations are) that committing rape would be a pleasurable experience for both them and their victim (masochistic pretend victims often do end up enjoying it). Few men make it their life ambition to become rapists. It is something they move towards over time. While they always have the option of refusing to rape, they would be wise not to give themselves sexual incentives in favour of it. Why would any decent person want to encourage oneself to commit rape? 

Conclusion 

So how do liberal feminists explain the fact that they constantly make the “all sex acts are equal” claim, while also saying and doing things (such as giving out awards) which suggest that violent, degrading (or as they put it “subversive”) sex is the best kind?  I do not like to accuse people of lying, unless I have strong evidence that they are, but I do not understand how liberals can simultaneously adhere to these two views, nor am I, as an opponent of liberal feminism, required to understand this contradiction. Perhaps these claims are preached by different sections of the movement.

It is also possible that the “all sex acts are equal” position is their conscious view, which they defend with (attempts at) rational arguments, while the view that sadomasochism is superior is more subconscious. They have even made non-sadomasochists feel that their image as a "modern" (and presumably "feminist") woman may be compromised by their “failure” to participate in such practices (as evidenced by this entertaining article). The fact that the author felt the need to reclaim "vanilla sex" suggests that the dominant belief in our culture is that all “empowered”, “sexually liberated” women should be able to enjoy sadomasochism. It seems that while liberals have, on an intellectual level, accepted the view that all sex acts are equal, they cannot help but make value judgements, as all humans do. The problem is that they favour dangerous and hierarchical forms of sex, over those which are more consistant with egalitarian ideals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the title is a reference to the famous Animal Farm quote. I would not dare suggest that I came up with something so brilliant on my own.

Inside Out versus Liberalism

I have recently viewed the new Pixar film, “Inside Out” and this post is partially a response to it. This is not a movie review and will focus not on the aesthetics of the film, but on its themes. It will contain minor spoilers and (as always) criticisms of liberalism, so read at your own discretion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction

When I saw the trailers (especially this one) for “Inside Out”, I was worried it would preach an annoying “positive-thinking” message. It turns out I was wrong, the film presents a refreshing critique of that message and is overall very enjoyable. I laughed and cried throughout the whole thing, including at the end.
 

While some liberals may disregard the film as one that is “for children” due to its relative lack of so-called “adult content” (sexual imagery and graphic violence), they would be wise to listen to its messages. The film explores how memories and situations impact emotions. It also highlights the importance of negative emotions. This latter theme is especially challenging to liberalism. Read on to find out how.

External Situations as Causes of Emotions 

The film features five emotion characters, Joy, Sadness, Anger, Fear and Disgust, who live in the mind of Riley, an eleven year old girl. The emotion characters manipulate a set of buttons and switches, dubbed “the Console”, in order to make Riley feel the emotions associated with their characters. This in term influences her behaviour.

To my relief, the film did not promote an individualistic understanding of emotion that revolved around biology. References to hormones and other biological causes of emotion were completely absent. A “puberty” button appears but, since its effects are unknown, I will not discuss its implications.

The idea that emotions are chosen is also challenged. The actions of the emotion characters and thus the feelings Riley experiences are responses to external situations. The emotion characters observe the real world through a window in “Headquarters” (the conscious part of the mind world) and respond to what they see happening. Thus the emotion characters are the means through which Riley reacts to the real world.

An important example of this occurs when the Sadness character touches a golden orb, containing a memory of Riley skating on a frozen lake. The orb turns blue once Sadness touches it and cannot be changed back. According to the Joy character, this had never occurred before. It likely occurred because Riley was no longer able to skate that way, due to the move to San Francisco (though we later see her skating in an ice rink). Thus the lake memory becomes a reminder of what Riley has lost and Sadness reacts to the changed situation.

Initially, Joy attempts to ensure that Riley remains happy, regardless of what happens to her. The parents (I would rather use their names, since people are more than their roles, but according to IMDB they do not have any), especially the father, want the same thing. In the end, Joy learns that she cannot force a positive emotional state onto Riley and that Sadness can be useful (see the next section for more information). Even Joy herself experiences sadness when placed in a depressing situation. So while the film portrays emotions as characters inside a mind, it shows how external factors produce emotional reactions, instead of implying that a “strong” person can “handle” anything.

Grace Randolph, from “Beyond the Trailer”, criticised the film for not featuring a character that represented “logic” (or rather reasoning). She claims, in this review that “emotions are governed by logic”. I more or less agree and prefer her view over the common belief that women experience random, hormone-driven bursts of emotion, which are unrelated to their actual circumstances or cognition. This latter approach, while rarely applied to men, is often employed by opponents of feminism. It discredits the feelings of women, by implying that they have no external or rational cause. The complaints women make regarding society are then dismissed as a cover for their internal “issues”, “prejudices” or (when this reasoning is used by liberals) “sexual repression”.

It is indeed important to recognise that emotions are usually supported by some kind of reasoning. Rather than “destroying emotion” (like that is even possible), this rationalist approach grants emotions (particularly those of oppressed groups) validity, as indicators of real world problems. However, I do not believe that Inside Out was missing a “logic” character. If logic were a separate entity, the emotion characters would not have been able to present arguments or propose solutions to problems, (since these are applications of logic) and would thus be useless. Ironically, logic cannot exist as a separate character, specifically because it is so important. While many people (including perhaps the creators of the film) undervalue logic, we all use it regularly, often automatically. Therefore, logic and reason cannot truly be absent from a film, though they may be poorly applied.

The Purpose of Negative Emotions 

Several of the preview clips for Inside Out discussed the usefulness of negative emotions. The Fear character keeps Riley safe, by making her take caution in dangerous situations. The Anger character ensures that Riley is treated fairly, by enabling her to express opposition to perceived injustices (including minor ones, like being denied desert). The Disgust character prevents Riley from interacting with things that are “poisonous” (i.e. harmful to her health), such as broccoli (or in this clip, a dirty grape).

Disgust also prevents Riley from being “socially poisoned”, (i.e. humiliated or excluded). I think the more appropriate term for this emotion is “embarrassment” or “self-consciousness”. To my mild annoyance, Disgust is sometimes portrayed as highly feminine (though this is somewhat fitting for a character obsessed with social conformity). Nevertheless I enjoyed seeing all three of these characters carrying out their functions.

Though I am not a fan of evolutionary psychology (due to its speculative nature and reactionary applications), the basic capacity for these emotions predates the creation of complex, class-divided societies. Thus the claim that they evolved in order to enable human survival is plausible (though not testable). People who experience fear, anger and disgust (as opposed to hypothetical people who find everything pleasurable) are more likely to protect themselves from physical dangers, mistreatment and threats to their health. They are thus more likely to survive and produce children with the same emotional capacities.

Much of the film is devoted to discovering the function of Sadness in the mind of Riley. While Joy and Sadness travel through the exciting, imaginative, but often dangerous world, which represents the human mind, Sadness regularly points out potential negative outcomes that Joy ignores. Therefore Sadness plays a useful role, similar to that of Fear.

However, Joy does not discover the value of Sadness until she examines a memory orb, which portrays a sad Riley being comforted by her parents, who turn the sad memory into a happy one through their caring actions. Though I often criticise the nuclear family, I do believe in the general principle that people should provide emotional support to those they care about, such as children. It was also refreshing to see a father portrayed in a nurturing role, which is less pleasant than the role that fathers are often praised for (the oh-so-difficult role of playing with happy kids). Thus Joy learns that the function of Sadness is to enable Riley to request help from others.

This aspect of the character combined with the cautionary function suggests that the overall role of Sadness is to reveal problems so that they can be addressed. Once Riley acknowledges that moving to San Francisco and being isolation at school upsets her, she can share this with her parents who presumably help her address these issues (though we never see how).  While Joy attempts to ignore problems and encourages Riley to focus on more pleasant things, Sadness does not. She allows characters to recognise the reality and severity of their problems, an important first step towards solving or seeking help for them. Thus Sadness earns her place at the Console.

Liberal Opposition to Negative Emotions 

Liberals and postmodernists often claim that they defend human emotion from those nasty “rational” people who seek to suppress it.  This characterisation misrepresents rationality.  Once again, I recommend this talk by Julia Galef to those who wish to examine the relationship between reason and emotion.

While claiming to support the creative, spontaneous, emotional side of humans (which is not, in my view, truly separate from the rational, mathematical side), liberals despise negative emotions, particularly anger and disgust. According to liberalism, hate and anger are always bad (unless of course the person or organisation being hated is opposed to liberalism from a leftist or feminist perspective), while disgust (particularly when directed towards sexual acts) is attributed to arbitrary social norms. While the Anger and Disgust characters respond to situations which may pose a genuine threat (e.g. the dead rat), liberals believe that such reactions are never justified.

Liberals may argue that they have no problem with individuals rejecting sex acts out of anger or disgust, so long as they do not attempt to “control” other people. It should be noted that liberals often perceive mere statements of opinion as oppressive and controlling, especially if such statements contains the slightest trace of anger or disgust.

Those rejecting a sex act are supposed to employ either an emotionless or joyful tone and use highly polite language. While violating a gentle “no” is no more ethical than violating a loud, bold “no”, filled with anger and disgust, I cannot help but feel that the latter is a more effective for combating rape and sexual assault. Furthermore, anger and disgust can be aroused by things which impact other people. This is called “empathy”. It seems that liberals either have not heard of it or perceive it as just another oppressive tool for controlling others. In any case, liberals are the ones (metaphorically) policing emotions.

Lastly, liberals believe that people who desire sexual activities which make them feel anger and disgust should overcome these sex-negative, society-inspired feelings and practice the acts anyway. Those who do so are praised for achieving “sexual liberation” and posing a radical challenge to patriarchy or capitalism (even while they spend hundreds of dollars on sex-related products). It seems that in the eyes of liberals, the only valid reason for not performing a sex act is lack of desire. Anger and Disgust might as well be thrown in the Memory Dump and forgotten.

If liberals had the Fear character in their brain they would probably dislike him too and would attempt to bring about what psychologists call “desensitisation”. This process is depicted (and unfortunately, celebrated) in this promotional clip. In real life, many liberal-approved practices (e.g. violent media consumption) overstimulate the nervous system to the point where its ability to respond to danger is reduced. While this process enables us to enjoy scary movies, it can be harmful. Desensitisation causes us to become bored by “tamer” horror films, contributing to increased violence in the media.

Desensitisation may also encourage people to participate in physically dangerous activities, such as BDSM. Liberals sometimes defend BDSM by claimed that its practitioners experience less fear-related disorders (officially referred to as “anxiety disorders”.) This does not surprise me at all. If you constantly expose yourself to whips, knives and (in extreme cases) strangulation, your capacity for fear will be weakened (or in Inside Out terms, Fear will spend a lot time unconscious). This results in less anxiety disorders, but more risk-taking (so-called “hard limits” often shift over the course of a BDSM relationship).

As stated above, fear, like other negative emotions is essential for our survival. Such emotions should only be seen as problems if they are excessive. Until the absence of fear, anger, disgust and sadness are treated as mental disorders, just as their excessive presence is, I cannot help but feel that our understanding of mental illness favours liberalism. If this ever changes, claims about the supposed mental health benefits of violent media and BDSM will lose the appearance of scientific credibility (though this may not stop liberals form making such claims).  

Conclusion 

While I believe that the messages of Inside Out contradict liberalism, I am not arguing that the creators deliberately aimed to critique liberals and are secretly radicals (as great as that would be). 

The film is not perfect, politically speaking. It features some gender norm reinforcing elements, but most are brief and have little relevance to the plot. The portrayal of gender in this trailer may cause concern, but having watched the film, I feel the trailer exaggerates the degree to which the mother and father characters conform to femininity and masculinity, respectively. Of course, readers are free to make up your own minds. Overall I recommend Inside Out for its insightful, non-liberal messages, creative story and world-building.

------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Have you seen "Inside Out"? Let me know what you think of my analysis and wish me luck on my trip to Darwin.

How to Spot “Love Myths”

Welcome to the final part of my series on egalitarian sexual relationships, in which I finally get around to discussing the “relationship” part of sexual relationships. Feel free to check out the first and second parts of this series, for a discussion of how to apply leftist and feminist principles to sexual acts themselves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Introduction

Our culture is full of what I term “love myths”, claims about romantic relationships that I view as incorrect or unhealthy. This post will be addressing five common love myths.

While I am a bitter, single person, what I say is not intended as an argument against romantic relationships, in fact I favour loving egalitarian relationships over promiscuity and other loveless sexual activities (which apparently makes me a horrible prude). However, if criticisms of ideas and behaviours offend you, feel free to not read this post (or anything I write).

Myth 1: You Should Not Think Too Much About Love

Mainstream culture often tells us that we should not (or cannot) apply rational thinking (or any kind of thinking) to love, because “love is irrational”. The idea is an appealing one, because many people think that being “rational” and “scientific”, means being cold-hearted and uncaring.

I think of myself as a rationalist. I aim to use rational arguments and evidence to gain an accurate understanding of real world. I then use this knowledge to come up with ways to improve the world. Other people (e.g. capitalists) use reason to figure out the best way to exploit others for the sake of gaining money and power. I do not view these people as “too rational”, rather they are too selfish. The culture has some funny ideas about rationality. These misconceptions are addressed in this brilliant speech by Julia Galef, so I recommend watching it if you have any concerns regarding rationality or its application in our daily lives.

The issue of applying rationality to love may be discussed further in another post. For now I will point out that though people preach against applying rational thinking to love, they nonetheless do so. Debates regarding “shipping” are an example of this. These debates involve evaluating fictional couples to determine whether they should be endorsed instead of alternative romantic pairings. Such debates are common in fan communities and while they sometimes inspire anger, they usually involve the use of rational arguments. If love were immune to rational thinking, people would not be debating it to the degree that they do.

In a post responding to pro-BDSM arguments, I claimed that the things we are told not to think about (such as love) are the things we, as radicals, should think about the most. This is because the notion that it is wrong to think critically about a particular concept or institution protects it from criticism and conceals any broader social trends behind it. If an idea or institution can only survive by closing itself off from rational criticism, then it is unlikely to be worthy of respect. This is true of our culture’s notion of “love”, which brings me to the next myth.

Myth 2: "True Love" Means Being Obsessed With Someone

There are many books, films and television shows in which a character declares that they “cannot live without him/her” and this is seen as the epitome of “true love”. Characters usually make these statements after knowing their romantic partner for a few days at most and learning nothing about them except how pretty and superficially charming they are. This myth is related to the first one, for it implies that if someone is thinking clearly and making sound (non-suicidal) decisions, then they cannot really be “in love.” This myth has obvious dangers. It encourages people to neglect all aspects of their lives that do not revolve around their “true love”, including their jobs, education, friends, families, hobbies and communities.

However, my main concern regarding this myth is that is encourages power inequalities within relationships. The more dependent one person is on another, the more power the latter has over the former. This clearly occurs in workplaces, where employees consent to exploitative conditions, because they depend upon their bosses for their incomes.

I would argue that obsessive “love” (or rather infatuation) creates emotional dependence, which has a similar, weakening effect. All other things being equal, those who believe that they will experience depression, craziness, “emptiness” or suicidal tendencies without their “true love” will have more difficultly leaving the relationship than those who simply enjoy spending time with their partner. This makes those who mistake obsessive infatuation for love vulnerable to abuse, though perhaps not quite as vulnerable as those who depend on their partners for things they literally need to survive, like food and housing. Nonetheless, the obsessive love “ideal” is clearly contrary to the formation of genuinely loving, egalitarian relationships.

Myth 3: Love Is All about Trust (or “Good Women Trust Men”)

In the previously mentioned post on BDSM, I stated that women are expected to love and trust men blindly and this trust is believed to be essential for relationships. The message that trust is inherently praiseworthy (whether there is good reason to exercise it or not) and that people (particularly women) are obligated to trust others is so common that some might wonder how I could possibly disagree with it. Allow me to explain.

I have previously argued that instead of shoving “trust” down women’s throats, we should encourage men to earn women’s trust. This requires men to be honest, fulfil their commitments whenever possible and avoiding activities which suggest that one is obsessed with sex or dissatisfied with their current partner (e.g. sexually harassing random women). People (including men) who behave this way will naturally receive trust from their partners and thus do not need to demand it. Our culture encourages women to trust their male partners even when they know little about them or have reasons to believe that they are not worthy of trust (e.g. when a man has a history of behaving aggressively towards women). I am not anti-trust, but I do criticise those who demand blind (non-evidence supported) trust.

The demand is similar to the religious notion that faith (believing in the existence and moral goodness of a god or similar being, no matter what) is vitreous. In fact there is a Bible passage (Ephesians 5:22-24) that compares a wife’s relationship to her husband with the relationship which is said to exist between religious believers and their god. The passage claims that both should involve submission (no surprises there). I do not think it is a coincidence that blind trust is preached alongside subservience, in both religious and romantic contexts.  After all, if you believe that a particular being is always right and always has your best interests in mind, even when there is reason to think otherwise, you are more likely to mindlessly obey their orders, or in other words, submit to them.

I do not believe that this kind of unthinking trust is an expression of good character, nor is it ever merited. While there are people whom I regard as generally intelligent and morally good, I do not automatically believe everything they say and obey their every instruction. Belief and trust should be earned, not demanded, and such trust should not lead one to believe that others are infallible. 

Myth 4: Women Have "Unrealistic Expectations"

Unlike the other myths discussed so far, this one is blatantly conservative and does not sound particularly romantic. It is often employed by supposedly rebellious people (usually men) who chide romantic comedies, along with the infamous Twilight series, for raising women’s expectations of men to “unrealistically high” standards. While this myth may seem to counter the idea that women should view men as perfect gods (which was discussed in the previous section) the end result is the same. Women who buy into it subordinate themselves to abusive or otherwise unpleasant men.

According to those who make this argument, the problem with Edward Cullen and similar characters is not that their appearance, wealth, physical strength and superficial charm are emphasised over any admirable personality traits they (may) have. Nor are their aggressive, dominating behaviours considered a problem. Those who make the “unrealistic standards” argument actually think that such characters are “unrealistic”, because they are not as sex-crazed, emotionless or uncaring as a “real man” is encouraged to be in our culture (see this brief video by Anita Sarkeesian for an explanation of the difference between feminist and anti-feminist critiques of Edward’s character).

It is indeed unrealistic for a non-royal woman to believe that her future partner will be a prince (or the modern day version of that, a capitalist) or that he will be physically flawless, speak in perfect, poetic prose and have zero annoying traits. However, what women need are not lower standards, but better standards. Our culture needs to stop focussing on surface level traits and discuss what really matters in a relationship. Those who wish to be in romantic relationships (with men or women) should be encouraged to seek out partners who will treat them like equals, avoid the use of physical aggression and develop emotional attachments, which are based on inner human characteristics (i.e. their thoughts, feelings, personality traits, etc.) Whatever anti-feminists may say, these are reasonable standards to measure men against.

Myth 5: Love Is All About Sacrifice

This myth is also somewhat conservative. It may seem like a healthy, realistic alternative to the belief that love is always wonderful and will magically solve every problem a woman has, but in reality it is just another way of getting women to shut up and submit. In fact, it further inflates the importance of romantic love in the lives of women, by implying that love is so inherently valuable that any suffering associated with it is worthwhile.

No relationship is perfect and minor sacrifices, such as having to sit through a boring (yet non-traumatising) film or television show may be justified, but often the sacrifices expected from women are more substantial. Women who accept this myth often give up their jobs, have more children than they want to, leave homes they prefer to stay in (or, alternatively, remain at home when they would rather be travelling) and abandon any ambitions they had prior to entering into the marriage or relationship. Thus the outcome of this myth is similar to that of the (rather liberal) obsessive love ideal discussed above. 

I think the amount of sacrifice required for love can be minimised if men and women decide, before they enter into a serious relationship, what they want from that relationship and choose their partners accordingly. For example, those with a strong desire to travel should avoid dating those who prefer to stay in one place. Furthermore, some of the sacrifices which are supposedly an inherent part of love are in fact a result of capitalists wanting more control over their workers. Fewer workers would be sacrificing their jobs for the sack of love if capitalists did not demand actions which are known to harm romantic relationships, such as working longer hours or moving to another town. Though it is clear that men are not expected to make nearly as many love-related sacrifices as women are, it seems that the group which is least willing to make sacrifices for the sake of love is the capitalist class.

Like several of the other myths I have discussed, this myth may encourage women to tolerate abuse. The idea that love consists of, or is caused by, experiences of pain and sacrifice is promoted in many fictional works (I may one day write about the presence of this idea in the Hunger Games series) and by conservative Christianity (through the Jesus narrative, which focuses on a bloody human sacrifice) and by liberal practices, including BDSM. Call me crazy, but I think loving someone means wanting to limit the amount of sacrifices they must make in order to be with you. If you truly loved someone, you would not deliberately put them in danger of pain or injury, nor would you try to take things from them. 

Conclusion

I hope this post and the previous two have helped readers understand what it means to have egalitarian sex lives and relationships. Now that I have pointed out these love myths, you will probably see them everywhere you go. I encourage readers to critique them whenever they occur in media, books or conversations. Who knows, we might just be able to raise people’s conscious and perhaps even make them think.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wanted to post this third part of the series last month, but it ended up being a lot longer than I had expected. I had to cut many parts from it, which may be used in further posts. I hope you enjoyed this post anyway. Let me know what I should write next.