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 Pornographic is too Pornographic?

In my last post I explained the difference between pornographic and non-pornographic sex. In this post I will be continuing that theme by discussing how and to what extent the standards I put forward should be applied. 

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.

Non-Pornographic Sexuality (Yes, it exists)

Last year I wrote a three part series (begining with this popular post), which discussed the relationships between feminism and issues related to race and economic class. This new series of posts will discuss the need for equality within sexual relationships. 

If you know of any decent (non-liberal) Latin American feminists, please let me know. I need to practice my Spanish and cleanse from my brain the fake, sadomasochistic “feminism” that one of my lecturers tried to shove down my throat today.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction

Any pornography defenders who came across this article, would scoff at its title and tell me that all sex is pornographic, since pornography is just “videos of people having sex”. Meanwhile, those outside the sex industry may argue that they cannot possibly be having pornographic sex. Both views are wrong. The pornography industry claims to represent human sexuality, but it only represents one kind, the worst kind. There are better ways to experience sex, ones that promote positive values, like freedom, equality and compassion.

However, many people still imitate the sexuality promoted by pornography.This post will put forward criteria for determining how pornographic a sexual behaviour is, which can be applied to visual and textual depictions of sex, as well as to real life acts. It is thus relevant to those both inside and outside the sex industry. 

Criterion 1: Equality vs. Power Dynamics 

Sex acts involving dominance and submission are less egalitarian and therefore more pornographic. Those who are into BDSM openly brag about being either a “dominant” or a “submissive” (some even call themselves “masters” and “slaves”), but one can take on hierarchical roles during sex, without using such titles. Physical aggression, verbal aggression and degradation are all methods of dominance that are common throughout pornography and add to the pornographic character of a sex act.

I label acts as “physically aggressive” or “violent” if they involve deliberately inflicting pain or bodily damage upon a human (or sufficiently human-like) being. Restricting a person’s ability to move their body is also a form of physical aggression. All other things being equal, a person who is injured, in pain or restricted from moving is less powerful than an otherwise identical person who is not experiencing such things. Thus violence almost always produces or maintains power inequalities.

Definitions are never perfect, but my definition of “violence” is more in line with the way the general public uses the term than the definition used by pornography defenders. Self-proclaimed “sex-positives” argue that “violence is subjective”. They believe that consent alone determines whether behaviours should be seen as “real violence” or “kinky sex”. Thus they make no moral distinction between touching someone gently on the shoulder and whipping someone until they are covered in cuts and bruises. In their view, both acts are equally “violent” (and ethically objectionable) if the people on the receiving end do not give their explicit verbal consent and equally acceptable if everyone involved does consent. 

I find this viewpoint absurd. Why label shoulder-touching as “violent” when it does not involve any of the things people associate with violence? I am not necessarily endorsing non-consensual shoulder-touching (such behaviour can create awkwardness), but I do not view it as violent. On the other hand, propelling a hard or shape object (such as a whip or knife) towards a sensitive body part at a rapid speed is always violent, because such actions do cause pain and injury. These are real physical phenomenon that can (at least in theory) be examined through empirical studies.

Defenders of pornography and pornographic sex also apply a relativistic approach to verbal aggression (another common feature of pornography.) While no set of syllables is inherently aggressive, words do have social meanings that cannot be changed by individuals. Just because a person has their own non-insulting definitions for words like “cunt”, “fag” or “nigger” does not mean they should use these words to refer to people they encounter. While the meanings of words can change, such changes require time and occur alongside larger cultural changes. 

Like physical aggression, verbal aggression creates power inequalities. It diminishes a person’s sense of self worth and discourages them from resisting their oppressor. Some people are more sensitive to verbal aggression than others, but one cannot simply chose to not be harmed by it. The way in which words are repeatedly used gives them emotional power, thus the liberal tactic of attempting to feel empowered by words like “slut” and “whore”, has done nothing to solve the self esteem issues often experienced by women.

As for the degrading sex acts within pornography, sex liberals defend them by (you guessed it) claiming that degradation is a matter of subjective opinion. They argue that there is nothing inherently degrading about exposing sensitive body parts (such as the face and mouth) to urine and faeces or making a person vomit, but in what other context would such arguments be considered acceptable? 

Those who wish to highlight the horrors of slavery often point out that African slaves were brought to the Americas in overcrowded, unsanitary boats. According to this article, the slaves "would basically be lying in their own and others' waste, blood and vomit". Modern reactionaries may argue that such descriptions are exaggerated, but would they dare suggest that such treatment may not be degrading and that some Africans naturally like it? Any person who invoked relativism in such a situation would be branded a racist and rightly so. Even if one sets aside feelings of disgust, frequent exposure to faeces, urine and vomit causes diseases to spread (this is probably why most humans are disgusted by such things). Whether such exposure is inherently degrading or not, it is bad for human health and that is enough of a reason to oppose it, within both sexual and non-sexual contexts.

I do not wish to suggest that the violence and degradation experienced by those who play a subordinate role within what I call “pornographic sex” is more or less severe than what happened to African slaves. My intention is to show that pornography defenders are inconsistent in their promotion of aggressive and degrading activities. It is not anti-pornography activists who are biased against sex. Rather pro-pornography activists are biased in favour of sex. They view sex as an excuse to endorse things they would not otherwise endorse.  I believe that sexual acts should be evaluated by the same standards as other behaviours. The bedroom, like all other areas of society, should be as free from power dynamics as possible, since power dynamics are the very opposite of love, equality and liberty. 

Criterion 2: Personality-based Love versus Shallow Attraction 

By featuring frequent shots of their butts, breasts, genitals and abdomens, both soft and hard-core pornography place a great deal of emphasis on how people (particularly women) look. Such images imply that these features are more important than any inner trait a woman has. The only personality traits that are celebrated in pornography are dominance and submissiveness, which are not traits that those who favour equality between males and females should admire (see criterion 1).

To love a person is to celebrate the aspects of them that make them human. Inanimate objects can be pretty and even sexy (meaning that they are capable of causing sexual arousal), but only humans (and some animals) have thoughts, feelings and beliefs. Thus, all other things being equal, sex acts that result from genuine feelings of love (developed in response to the participants’ human qualities) are less pornographic than sex acts inspired by either person’s prettiness or ability to cause arousal.

Real love develops when people interact (in a non-sexual manner) and thus get to know one another.  Since this usually takes time, most sex acts which occur on the day that the two people involved meet or interact extensively for the first time will fail this criterion (making them more pornographic.) Yes casual sex enthusiasts, I am talking about you. My opposition to casual sex will probably be controversial, even among “sex-negatives”. Note that I place far less emphasis on this criterion than I do on the first one. The pro-casual sex position is one I recognise as a legitimate radical feminist viewpoint. It just isn’t one I agree with. 

Bear in mind that this list relates to depictions of sex as well as actual sexual activities. Part of the reason I included this criterion is because I want to see more films that show people learning about one another’s human traits, before they fall in love and have sex. Far too many films feature romantic and sexual encounters that occur between people who have done nothing but acknowledge each other’s prettiness/sexiness. Such superficial relationships are hardly better than casual sex. I am concerned that our culture’s obsession with physical appearance harms women’s self esteem and makes it harder for both men and women to form long-lasting, egalitarian relationships. 

Criterion 3: Genuine Desire vs. Economics/Conformity 

For a sex act to be healthy and non-pornographic, participants must enter into it with the intention of enjoying the act itself. In case this is not already clear, this enjoyment does not need to be purely physical. Those who have sex with people they love can experience emotional and, in some cases, intellectual enjoyment from their sexual activities. If one does not have affection for their partner, they should at least have positive feelings towards the sexual act. To pursue sex as a means to some other aim (e.g. economic resources, popularity, approval, self-esteem), like women in the sex industry do, is to increase the pornographic character of one’s sex life.

Opponents of the sex industry recognise that women who enter it often do so out of poverty and desperation, but economic concerns also influence sexual activities which occur outside the industry. Conservative men brag about how they provide money and other resources to their wives (who in turn provide them with sexual and domestic services), while mainstream culture promotes the gold-digger stereotype, as well as the belief that men who buy things for women are entitled to sex.Thus the view that women should trade sex for economic resources is not limited to the sex industry. 

Since liberals believe that society hates sex, they will object to the idea that social norms can motivate a sexual act. However, there are definitely sections of society, such as colleges/universities, the sex industry and the sex-positive movement itself, in which those who are willing to have sex receive more praise than the unwilling. Those involved in these subcultures may engage in sexual acts in order to prove that they are “sexually liberated”, rather than prudish or conventional. Not all sex-positives intentionally insult people who favour monogamous, egalitarian, “vanilla” sex, but being excluded from praise can feel almost as bad as being insulted. Relationship partners can also use praise (or the lack thereof) to obtain sexual favours.

Then there are people who seek self-esteem boosts from sex. Their motivations are largely internal, but have social origins.  Males in this category often wish to prove that they are “real men”, by “conquering” females, while women sometimes have sex in order to prove to themselves that they are sexually desirable. Women who do this often claim to be “doing it for [themselves]”. While they are indeed acting out of self interest (which is not necessarily a virtuous motive), they have blindly accepted the cultural notion that a women’s value is determined by her prettiness/sexiness. Thus their actions are in fact conformist. 

Of course, there are people who participate in sexual acts that I object too, without having such unhealthy motivations. Though genuine desire makes a sexual activity less pornographic, desire and consent are just one of the criteria that I use when evaluating behaviours. A genuinely desired sex act that involves physical violence, degradation or an obsession with physical appearance is still highly pornographic. However, engaging in such sexual activities with those who do not truly desire them is even worse. Thus consent matters, but not in the way liberals think it does. 

Conclusion 

While I acknowledge that sexual behaviours cannot be easily divided into two boxes, they can nonetheless be evaluated according to the criteria I have presented. In summary, dominance, submission, aggression, degradation, superficiality, economic concerns and conformity increase the pornographic character of sexual activities. Those who want a less pornographic sex life should omit these elements and replace them with egalitarianism, respect, love, genuine romantic desire and an emphasis on personality over prettiness. Those who call me a totalitarian monster for making claims about how people should behave are free to have a pornographic sex life. It’s not like I can stop them or anything.

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

 While this post, which is the first in a series of three, is somewhat sex-centred, a later post will focus more on the relationship part of “sexual relationship”. So stay tuned.

Refuting The Five Most Common Pro-BDSM Arguments

The Chinese New Year is approaching so Happy New Year to those who celebrate it. I hope my Australian readers have enjoyed their summers. I have and I am not looking forward to returning to university. Wish me luck.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction

With the-film-that-must-not-be-named coming out next weekend, I feel the need to once again write about BDSM. While I hope that the general public is not thrilled at the thought of women being beaten, whipped or having knives held against their throats (the BDSM community calls this "knife play"), mainstream culture tends to be biased in favour of BDSM.

For example, in the United States, the aforementioned "film" (or rather, pornographic video) received an R-rating (the rough equivalent of an Australian MA15+ rating), not for depictions of extreme violence, but for “unusual sexual activity”. This description matches the BDSM community’s claim that their behaviours are “strange” and “subversive”, rather than violent or aggressive. The word “violence” is also missing from the Australian classification. Meanwhile films (even PG-rated ones) that feature people being whipped or beaten in other contexts are always labelled as featuring “violence”. So why make an exception for physical aggression that is considered sexual?

In any case, the less that is said about the film the better. So here are my responses to the five most common arguments put forward by defenders of BDSM.
-
1. BDSM is Consensual (and therefore acceptable)

This is the most common argument made by defenders of BDSM (hence it appears first on this list). Some proponents even admit that consent is the only thing which distinguishes BDSM from abuse.

In reality, BDSM is not always completely consensual. Sometimes people are pressured into such activities by their partners, other times there are economic incentives involved. This is clearly the case within the sex industry, but economics can also play a role within relationships, especially in cases where women are dependent on their partners’ incomes. There are also situations in which outright force is used to make people participate or continue participating in BDSM (e.g. a dominant may ignore the safe words used by a submissive and continue to inflict violence upon them).

I recognise that some people do consent to being sexually submissive, but even then I do not view BDSM as morally acceptable. While many people apply the “anything-goes-if-you-have-consent” viewpoint to sex, few apply it to other topics, like economics. Only the most hard-core, economic libertarians believe that it is acceptable for bosses to order workers to labour for more than 12 hours a day, while receiving far less than the minimum wage and being in danger of severe injury or death. Some workers, especially in the third world, agree to such conditions, but no decent leftist endorses such exploitation and neither do I.

By rejecting the BDSM community’s consent argument, I am not being biased against sex. I am being consistent. So if my moral standard or “litmus test” (to borrow a term from an email I recently received) for sexual activities is not consent alone, then what is it? Read on to find out. 

2. BDSM is Sexually Arousing (or otherwise pleasurable)

This second pro-BDSM argument is often used in conjunction with the first one. Since one cannot know for sure whether their partner is experiencing sexual arousal (women, in particular, often fake orgasms in order to please their partners), such arousal cannot be a reliable standard for evaluating sexual behaviours. 

However, it is unlikely that every person who claims to be aroused by their partner’s sexual dominance is lying. Some people do experience pleasurable sensations in response to aggressive acts committed against them, but does this justify such aggression? In spite of what liberals and hedonists may insist, I am not against sexual pleasure or physical pleasure generally. I do, however, recognise that some things are more important than physical pleasure and therefore should not be compromised to obtain it.

This brings me back to the “litmus test” I mentioned earlier. The test I use when discussing sexual activities is the same one I use to make ethical judgements in other situations. I believe that we should aim for a world in which humans treat one another like equals. Relations marked by inequalities in power ( those that involve dominance and submission) should be avoided whenever possible, within the realms of politics, economics, culture and personal interactions. 

While getting consent and aiming to provide pleasure, rather than pain, are part of treating someone like an equal, such things are generally not viewed by radical leftists as an excuse to maintain power inequalities. An apparently benevolent dictator, who is adored by the populace, is still a dictator. A boss, who is polite and understanding towards their workers, is still a boss. Leftists (especially radical leftists) do not trust such people when they claim that they are exercising their dominance for the benefit of those being dominated, even if the latter experience pleasure, or some other reward (e.g. wealth), as a result of being dominated. So why should those who regularly exercise sexual dominance get a free pass? If power corrupts, then it probably corrupts BDSM dominants too. 

3. BDSM does not always involve Men dominating Women 

For these last three arguments, there may be some debate over which is the most common, so feel free to disagree with the order I have put the arguments in. I hear this argument very often, but that may be because I often read blog posts that oppose BDSM from a feminist perspective (like this one.)

The mere existence of female dominants is not proof that gender indoctrination has no influence on the roles that males and females play within BDSM. Unless the BDSM community can show that male and females are equally represented in both dominant and submissive roles, I am not impressed. I believe that the practice of BDSM and its growing prevalence within mainstream culture are the result several hierarchical systems, including male dominance over females, capitalism and white supremacy. 

However, even if BDSM were not related to any political, economic or social hierarchy, it still would not be consistent with my belief in equality. True egalitarianism is not about fighting for a world in which everyone has an equal chance to be dominant. It is about creating a world in which there is no such thing as a dominant group or person. Feminist opponents of BDSM do not want to make the role of the sexual dominant more accessible to women or any other group. They want the role to be abolished, the same way communists  want the capitalist and worker roles abolished.

The existence of “switches” (people who “switch” between dominant and submissive roles) is also used to defend BDSM, but two people taking turns to play anti-egalitarian roles is not the same thing as an egalitarian relationship. The fact that a person has previously behaved in a sexually dominant manner does not change the fact that the person is being submissive in the present and vice versa, nor does an act of dominance somehow counteract an act of submission. If a man rapes a woman, should she rape him in return? Would that somehow make up for him raping her? It may result in some twisted form of “equality”, but this is not the kind of equality that we should aim for. 

4. Opposing BDSM is like opposing Gay Rights 

As a leftist, I am expected to be opposed to prejudice against gays and lesbians, thus I probably encounter this argument more often than conservatives opponents of BDSM do. Since this blog is aimed at leftists and feminists, I think the target audiences encounters this argument often enough for it to be included in this list. 

I oppose homophobia, but not for “sex liberal” reasons. Simply put, my support for gay rights is not based on the assumption that all sexualities are equally acceptable. I support gay rights because, unlike BDSM activities, sexual encounters and relationships between two people of the same biological sex do not necessarily involve power inequalities. This does not mean that people in gay and lesbian relationships always treat one another like equals. Unfortunately, gays and lesbians often take on the same dominant and submissive roles that heterosexuals are encouraged to adhere to. It is however possible to participate in straight, gay or lesbian sexual activities without taking on such roles.

The same is not true for BDSM, since dominance and submission are part of its very definition. Since dominance and submission are the very opposite of equality, it is not logically possible for BDSM to be practiced in an egalitarian manner. People who are into BDSM may treat each other like equals in other situations (though full time BDSM practitioners do not even do that), but the practice itself can never be egalitarian, any more than a triangle can be a circle. 

Liberal support for BDSM is probably a result of liberals adhering to a definition of “equality” which is different from that usually used by political radicals. Liberals believe that equality means granting all behaviours (and thus all people) an equal amount of social approval. Money and other sources of power (e.g. political office) are significant in the eyes of liberals only because they indicate social approval. Radical feminists, however, care less about approval and more about preventing people (particularly men) from exercising power over others (particularly women). The liberal notion of equality seems rather cowardly and conformist (i.e. overly concerned with the opinions of others) and thus is not the kind of “equality” I fight for. 

5. BDSM is about Love and Trust 

This is the last and least common (though still pretty common) argument that I will address in this article. If there are any others you want me to take on, please let me know in the comment section.
-
The idea that people in BDSM relationships love each other sounds sweet, until you remember that those who make this argument are attempting to justify brutal and often physically dangerous acts of aggression. I guess the idea is that the submissive must really love and trust the dominant, otherwise they would not be allowing the dominant to do potentially dangerous things to their body, but is that really the kind of “love and trust” we want to promote? The kind where you perceive someone as faultless and blindly do whatever they say? Is that not the kind of “love” that dictators and cult leaders promote among their followers? You can call it “love” and “trust” all you want, but that does not make it healthy. 

Abusive men sometimes claim that their violent acts are done out of “love” and tell their partners that if they really loved them they would not leave the relationship. BDSM dominants (whether they are actually guilty of abuse or not) reinforce these claims by labelling their aggressive and dominating acts, as well as their partner’s willingness to submit to them, as “love”. 

Our society demands that women be ever-loving and self-sacrificing, while men are permitted to be sex-crazed and self-interested, even within relationships. Both “ideals” are harmful (whether they are embraced by males or by females) and BDSM takes the first, rather conservative, ideal to its extreme. Instead of focussing on how a “good” romantic partner should be full of love and trust, we should be encouraging people, especially men, to demonstrate to their partners that they are worthy of trust. Healthy trust is a response to trustworthy behaviour, but I will have more to say about this in a future post. 

For now I will leave you with a warning. Though genuine love can be a beautiful thing, we live in a society that celebrates dominance, submission and a distorted version of love, marked by such dynamics. Our culture tells us not to think too hard about love. Radicals recognise that the things we are told not to think about are the things we should think about the most. It is important for feminists and other progressives to encourage discussion about what love is and is not. Healthy, egalitarian love should be promoted in place of blind infatuation, for the latter leads to blind obedience and thus reinforces hierarchical power relations. 

Conclusion

While I have not addressed every argument made to defend BDSM, I suspect that most other pro-BDSM arguments are variations of the ones listed here. In fact, many are based on the same, sex liberal assumptions (e.g. “all consensual sexual activities are acceptable”, “all moral judgements regarding sex are oppressive”, etc.)

The ethical standards I have discussed in this article can be used to critique conservative views regarding sexual relationships, as well as other practices promoted by “sex-positive”, liberal feminists such as prostitution, pornography use and extreme beauty practices. So readers can expect to see these standards invoked again and again in future articles. 

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

My plan for my next three articles is to write a mini-series discussing egalitarian sex and relationships. The world needs it, given the influence of you-know-what franchise.

"All Sex is Rape" Says Sex-Positive Academic

Happy New Year! I hope you all enjoyed the holiday season, regardless of what celebrations you did or did not participate in. I also hope that those who appreciated my posts in 2014, will continue to read my blog in 2015. We may not get flying cars in every household, but hopefully we will see more innovative feminist and radical leftist thought in the coming year. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction

Andrea Dworkin (an influential feminist and anti-pornography activist, notable for her attempt to pass the Anti-Pornography Civil Rights Ordinance in the 1980s) is often accused of stating that “all sex is rape”, but she never actually wrote or said those words. Her accomplice Catherine McKinnon did not say such a thing either (liberals cannot seem to agree on who should be demonised as the anti-sex fanatic).  According to snopes (a website devoted to debunking urban legends), this misinterpretation originated with an article in “Playboy”. No surprises there. What might surprise some people is that mainstream feminists trust the words of the soft-core pornographic magazine (which, for obvious reasons, was biased against Dworkin) and frequently repeat the “all sex is rape” misquote.

Opponents of Andrea Dworkin claim that the statement “all sex is rape”, adequately summarises her writing, particularly “Intercourse” ( published in 1987).  In a preface to the book, Dworkin rejected this interpretation, but liberal academics still attribute it to her and other prominent anti-pornography feminists.

This post will give liberals a taste of their own medicine, by showing that the words of a sex-positive lecturer (that I had for four weeks during my first year of university) can be interpreted as “all sex is rape”. I hope to show what would happen if sexual liberalism, were subjected to the same level of criticism as anti-pornography feminism. I think the former would crumble in a second, but I will let my readers be the judge.

The "Sex-Positive" Academic

I realised that my lecturer was highly sex-positive during her second lecture, when she criticised a documentary called "Dreamworlds 3" (which came out in 2007) for supposedly being moralistic and prudish. I have seen Dreamworlds 3 and actually found it to be pretty liberal, compared to other documentaries made by the Media Education Foundation. It presents an interesting examination of the sexual objectification of women in music videos, but ends up capitulating to the pro-sex viewpoint by declaring that there is nothing inherently wrong with objectifying women, so long as this objectification is balanced by discussions of women’s thoughts, feelings, personalities, etc. I may discuss this wimpy approach to sexual objectification in another post. 

For now, the important thing to note is that even this highly qualified critique of the sexualisation of women was too much for my lecturer. In addition to stating that the documentary was too sex-negative, she denounced the Media Education Foundation, for having a “political agenda” as if that were inherently a bad thing. I guess even moderate, leftist critiques of mainstream culture are too “political” for modern universities.

Things went downhill from there. The liberal academic spent half of her fourth and final lecture discussing Adrienne Rich’s critique of compulsory heterosexuality or rather ranting about how she as a heterosexual found it offensive. She then spent the other half of the lecture describing age of consent laws as an example of the “regulation” of sexuality, which was the stated topic of the lecture. I guess age of consent laws were the only example of sex-related government regulation that she could come up with, so much for the liberal notion that “Big Government” is repressing sexuality. 

Of course, “regulation” is not a synonym for “totalitarian repression”, but she went on to say that Victoria’s age of consent laws were the most “progressive” (that was the very word she used) laws in Australia, because they were looser than laws used in other states. So while I cannot be sure that the lecturer in question endorses paedophilia, I would not trust her when it comes to creating policies related to child safety or sexual health.

In spite of all my objections to this academic’s viewpoints, I do not wish to promote a personal hatred of her, so I have not included her name in this article. However, if the lecturer in question reads this post and recognises that it is about her, then I invite her to inform me of her actual views regarding the objectification of women and paedophilia. That way I can correct any mistakes I have made. Unfortunately, past experience suggests that I am more likely to end up becoming the topic of her next rant against “sex-negative” feminism.

A Dishonest Discussion of Sexual Choice

Since this academic was clearly sex positive, how could she make the claim that all sex is rape? Allow me to explain. During her third lecture, the liberal academic stated that there was not enough evidence to conclude that homosexuality had a biological origin, nor could it be proven that it was the product of one’s social environment. She then went on to say that it was none-the-less acceptable for the gay rights movement to push the “born that way” slogan, because the slogan was successful in getting people to endorse the cause of gay rights. I, myself, believe that gays and lesbian sexual desires are just as legitimate as heterosexual one, but the issue of whether people are born with such desires does not really matter to me. 

There are no inherent inequalities of power involved in sexual relationships between two men or between two women, nor do such relationships necessary involve causing physical pain/harm. Therefore there is no need to abolish homosexuality and thus no need to uncover its cause, but I refuse to lie for the sake of the “sexual liberation” gospel. If academics openly admit that they do not care about honesty and present the whole notion of truth as oppressive and totalitarian, how can I believe a word they say?

Despite her acknowledgment that the genetic explanation of homosexuality has not been proven, the lecturer endorsed the claim that being gay is not a choice and spent a good deal of time trying to convince some conservative in her head to agree with her. The lecturer began this internal argument by stating that people do not choose their sexual desires. I think this is true in the short term, individual sense, but not necessary true in the broader sense. I will address this issue more in the next section of this post.

The lecturer discussed the “conservative” claim that it is possible for people to decide whether or not to act on their sexual desires, even if they cannot control the desires themselves. She argued that if a person felt a preference for gay/lesbian sexual activities over heterosexual activities or vice versa, then they could not make a “real choice” between those two options. While this claim was made in relation to gay rights, sex-positives often argue that other “subversive” sexualities, such as BDSM, are morally interchangeable with gay/lesbian sexuality. In any case, my lecturer’s approach to sexual choice implied that few, if any, sexual activities are genuinely chosen (since few people are equally attracted to all sexual options presented to them) or to put it another way, “all sex is rape”.

The Implications of this Viewpoint

In fact any denial of the claim that people can choose whether or not to initiate or participate in sexual acts implies that all sex is forced upon people. Ironically, this way of thinking is often used to justify rape. The view that men are incapable of controlling their desire for sex is prominent throughout the culture. We are encouraged to believe that once a man is aroused, he will either have sex with the person who caused this arousal (whether the person wants to have sex with him or not) or go crazy. 

Self-proclaimed “sex-positives” reinforce this view by arguing that men and women must “express” (which I assume means “act on”) every sexual urge they get and never let their brains get in the way. According to sex liberals, people who fail to blindly obey their genitals will go insane, become depressed, go on a savage raping spree, commits acts of violence or die from suicide, due to their lack of “sexual health/acceptance”. It all sounds pretty coercive to me. I dare liberals to prove that humans have some innate tendency to go insane if they do not act on every sexual desire they experience and that such craziness (when it does occur) is not the fault of a society obsessed with sex.

Liberals talk about sex as if it were some god-like force that exists independent of human society. They say it has been “repressed” by human society for thousands of years and must be satiated in order to prevent destruction from being inflicted upon the human race. Being ruled by a “sex spirit” (real or figurative) does not sound at all liberating to me. Real liberty means being encouraged to think rationally about the ways in which people have sex. Real liberty means having sex in ways that are consistent with one’s moral and political values. Real liberty means being able to say no, without being told that horrible suffering will inevitably result from such a no. 

An Alternative View of Sexuality

In reality, sexuality is not an eternal spirit. It is a product of human society and it has the potential to be far more egalitarian, loving and pro-human than it is now. Individuals cannot instantly turn sexual desires on or off, but I believe it is possible for humanity as a whole to choose a better sexuality by changing the society. 

Capitalism, patriarchy, white supremacy, religion, the school system and the traditional family all encourage some people to be dominant while others submit to them. Thus it should not be surprising to radicals that dominance and submission dynamics have crept into sex (in the form of BDSM, rape fantasies, paedophilia, etc.) If capitalism were overthrown, a socialist society, in which industries were managed democratically by those who worked in them, could create a new culture, one that glamorised equality, love, assertiveness and kindness, instead of dominance, submission, violence and mindless hedonism. Of course the masses would have to be convinced of the need for this cultural transformation, which is part of the reason why this blog exists.

In the meantime, we have to hold people accountable for sexual behaviours that hurt people or involve power inequalities. If free will is real (I might share my thoughts on this issue in another post), then people do make choices regarding sex, the same way they make choices about what to eat, drink and watch. Public education campaigns and changes to the cultural environment can help people make the right choices in these areas, in spite of any unhealthy desires they may have (e.g. desires for cigarettes and junk food). The idea that sexuality is beyond human control is false and dangerous. It also creates a contradiction while liberal feminist dogma, since the very people who preach it also love to brag about their “sexual choices”, especially when such choices involve danger or degradation.

Conclusion

While my lecturer did not really believe that "all sex is rape", I hope I have convinced you that her approach to sex does not hold up to intellectual scrutiny. I assume that it survives within academia only because it has the power of the sex industry and other highly sexualised, capitalist enterprises (e.g. the media and the beauty industry) behind it. These industries have the power to keep opposing progressive views out of mainstream culture and most Western universities. No idea that can only sustain itself via such means deserves to be seen as legitimate. 

As for the “all sex is rape” quote, I do not want to hear any more liberals attributing it to radical feminists. It is unfair to do so when radical feminists rarely have the chance to respond. Furthermore, I have demonstrated that, with the right spin, this sentiment could just as easily be attached to them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In case you are wondering, the academic in question never ran any of my tutorials or marked any of my papers or at least if she did, I do not know about it. My problems with her are strictly political, not personal.