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.

Is Liberalism Really Anti-Authoritarian?

While this post is less explicitly feminist than others, it does deal with egalitarianism, a core theme of this blog. It also relates to the rationalist ideas from the last post.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction

Liberals sometimes use the term “authoritarian” to describe both conservatives as well as non-liberal leftists (including feminists) and to imply that all who oppose their highly permissive ideology want total control over all aspects of peoples’ lives. They view all their opponents as part of the same totalitarian, “sexually repressive” force.

I believe that it is possible to reject liberalism without buying into an authoritarian world view. In fact, this post will argue that the relativistic, liberal viewpoint, that anything goes with regard to behaviour and that no action (or belief) is ever right or wrong, is just another, highly individualistic, brand of authoritarianism. If the idea that extreme permissiveness is authoritarian seems strange to you, please read on. I encourage readers to consider my arguments and leave thoughtful (though not necessarily uncritical) comments, instead of just dismissing me as a dictatorial monster.

What Is Authoritarianism? 

Authoritarianism is the belief that one should rely on authorities to determine what is right or wrong, with regard to claims about both reality and moral goodness. For now, I will focus on the application of authoritarianism to moral claims (authoritarian approaches to understanding material reality may be discussed in another post). 

Authoritarians believe that there is an entity out there whose moral claims should be believed blindly, due to the entity’s supposed infallibility. Any action that the authority figure disapproves of is assumed to be morally wrong, while those which are not disapproved of are deemed morally acceptable and those which the entity commands are deemed obligatory. When authoritarians encounter rational arguments or experience inner intuitions that tell them not to obey a certain order, they will often force themselves obey it anyway. 

Liberals assume that all moral claims (or at least, all that involve labelling behaviours as “immoral”, “anti-feminist” or otherwise objectionable) are authoritarian and that the more moral claims a person puts forward, the more authoritarian they are. However, if one uses the more precise definition of authoritarianism that I provided above, it becomes clear that not all moral statements are authoritarian. A moral statement (whether it encourages or discourages controversial behaviours) is only authoritarian if it is justified purely through references to an authority (e.g. “you should not do this because the authority figure said not to”.)  

Those who attempt to support their moral statements (or claims about the world) through rational arguments, evidence and a concern for the welfare of humanity are not practising authoritarianism. This does not mean their positions are always right, but they cannot be accused of being unthinking sheep or dictators who command blind obedience (unless, of course, they are arguing for such things.) Nor should those who are perceived as making too many moral claims (or labelling too many actions as “immoral) be labelled authoritarians. The authoritarianism of a person or ideology is not determined by how many moral statements are made, but by how those statements are justified. 

It should also be stated that the strictness of a moral claim does not determine how authoritarian it is. I define a strict moral claim or rule as one that does not have many exceptions. For example, the belief that violence should never be used by progressive movements is a strict moral claim. The recognition that violence is generally wrong, but may be morally justified in cases where its use is necessary to achieve worthwhile aims (e.g. repelling a military invasion) is a less strict claim.  

While stern, difficult to follow rules are associated with authoritarian institutions (e.g. conservative churches) there may be valid reasons for making strict moral claims. I cannot think of a realistic circumstance in which the use of pornography will have significant benefits (either for individuals or society as a whole) thus I take a strict stance against it. I also refuse to make exceptions for milder versions of pornography (e.g. sexualised depictions of women in mainstream media). Though I recognise that milder practices are, in general, less harmful than the alternatives, their prevalence may encourage the more extreme practices. In either case, my strict positions are not justified through references to authority figures and thus are not authoritarian. 

Is Permissiveness always Anti-Authoritarian? 

Being permissive means refusing to lay down rules or moral principles and instead allowing people to obey any whim that occurs to them. Liberals believe that permissiveness is the opposite of authoritarianism. In reality, authoritarianism can be used to justify both excessive permissiveness as well as excessive strictness.  

A dramatic example of this is the “just following orders” defence, famously invoked by Nazi officers during the Nuremberg trials. Nazi Germany is often perceived as a strict society and to an extent this claim is accurate. However, the Nazi state also allowed and encouraged things that modern Western society often does not (such as blatant racism in the mainstream culture and unregulated, physical fighting among young males). In any case, the “just following orders” argument attempts to use the commands of an authority figure (in this case, the state) to excuse actions, rather than condemn them. It is thus an example of authoritarianism in the service of permissiveness. 

Fascists are not the only ones who believe that the state determines right from wrong. Anyone who argues that an action is morally acceptable, because it is legal, is guilty of applying authoritarianism. A non-authoritarian understanding of ethics leads one to realise that laws should be determined by moral principles, not the other way around. Liberals rage against the state when it condemns or outlaws behaviours or institutions which they like (such as the sex industry), but in cases where the state approves of or allows a practice, such approval is perceived as proof that the behaviour is ethical. Since liberals have more political influence than their “sex-negative” feminist opponents, liberals who appeal to the law are to some extent appealing to their own power. Thus equating power with moral rightness is a feature of liberal, as well as reactionary, thought. 

Another example of permissiveness coexisting with authoritarianism is liberal Christianity. The term “liberal Christian” is often applied to any Christian who is not conservative. I use it specifically to refer to Christians who believe that gay relationships, pornography consumption, promiscuous sex and other behaviours (wrongly or rightly) condemned by traditional Christianity are in fact morally acceptable, because their supposed god permits them. They say things like “God does not judge” and “God has forgiven me”. Whatever annoying cliché they decide to invoke, their argument can be summed up as “this behaviour is okay, because God thinks it is okay or, at least, will not punish people for it.”  Many argue that liberal Christians are less authoritarian than conservative Christians. I disagree. The belief that an action is permissible, because an authority said so, is no less authoritarian than the belief that it is wrong, because an authority said so. In either case, the words of an authority are viewed as the standard of moral goodness. 

Thus I do not believe that permissiveness is the opposite of authoritarianism, rather it is the opposite of strictness (as defined above). To reject authoritarianism, is to base all moral claims (including claims about the acceptability of a behaviour) on something other than an appeal to the statements of authority figures, such as concerns about the harms caused by allowing or disallowing particular actions. I do not know of an English word that properly conveys the opposite of authoritarianism (if you think of one, tell me in the comments), but I am pretty sure that “liberalism” and “permissiveness” are not it.  

Is Individualism Anti-Authoritarian? 

Not all liberals worship a god and few would admit to worshipping the government. Does this mean they are not authoritarian? No, they still can be. Conservative Christians accuse less religious people of making themselves into gods. I do not believe that this accusation applies to all non-religious people, but it does accurately describe liberals. While most liberals do not literally believe that they have god-like powers, they do view themselves as perfect authorities with regard to “their truth”. They also believe that any action they practice or permit another to practice upon them is acceptable, because they chose it. Thus liberals perceive themselves as infallible authorities (or metaphorical “gods”) with regard to their choices and their personal, so-called "reality".

One problem with this relativistic approach is that it cannot account for changed minds or regret. If everyone were a perfect authority on what was good for them (practically or morally), no one would ever willingly do something and decide afterwards that what they did was unwise. To change one's views or regret an action is to contradict one’s previous beliefs. If infallible beings actually existed, they would never contradict themselves.  

Liberals respond to this problem by claiming that remorse is always (emphasis on “always”) a product of "hateful", "moralistic", "sex-negative" social norms that infect the mind with “shame”. Of course, when other movements claim that “brainwashing” (or rather indoctrination) occurs in our society, they are accused of “denying agency”. Well, the liberal notion that all regret (or “shame”) is caused directly by social forces and never by a rational assessment of one’s actions (in accordance with common values, like equality and kindness) sounds like an appeal to “brainwashing” to me. That said, I do not belief that all "brainwashing" claims are false. In fact the view that society indoctrinates people into rejecting liberalism or feeling shame might make sense were our culture not dominated with pro-sex and generally individualistic messages. 

Furthermore the belief that every individual is an infallible authority with regard to their own actions, forces people to accept contradictory moral propositions. Two people, in the same exact situation, might make conflicting assessments of an action (one might label it as morally acceptable, while the other labels it as unacceptable.) If everyone were an infallible moral authority, both views would be accurate. Such contradictions can be solved only by employing relativism. Liberals claim that behaviours which may not be right “for you”, are nonetheless right "for him" or "for her" and thus we should not attempt to prevent actions undertaken by others (even if such attempt consists of nothing more than publicly expressing your objections to an act). 

Those who make this argument do not truly understand the nature of a moral impulse. Such impulses usually apply to the actions of humans in general. If a person genuinely believes that an action is severely immoral, they will not want others to carry it out. There is nothing virtuous about passively allowing actions which you recognise as wrong and thus refrain from. While liberals blindly praise “tolerance” and “acceptance” (their new buzzword), the reality is that such traits are only as virtuous as that which is being tolerated or accepted. To tolerate (or “accept”) genuine wrongdoing is to compromise one’s own moral character. Of course, one should tolerate behaviours which are not harmful or immoral (or at least, in the case of gay relationships or marriages, not more harmful than the alternative), but tolerating behaviours, while knowing that they are wrong, is nothing more than cowardice.  

Conclusion 

Liberals and conservatives who read this may wonder, “If I cannot trust the government or the god of Christianity (or any religion) or even myself to make perfect moral judgements, then who can I trust?” If so, they have missed my point entirely. There is no being whose moral judgements are infallible. The better question to ask is not “who”, but “how”. How do we determine right from wrong? This is the part that many liberals and conservatives fear, the part where you have to use your own brain, by which I mean the ability to reason and reflect upon what is in the interests of humanity.  

In spite of the “you view yourself as god” accusation (discussed above), I believe it is possible to reason about morality, collectively and independently, without viewing either ourselves or others as infallible. It is important that we critically examine our own thoughts, intuitions and desires along with those of others and devoid dismissing other people’s criticisms of our views and actions as “personal, subjective truths” which are relevant only to them and not to us. As individualistic as relativism and liberalism are, they are no less authoritarian than conservatism. The only true alternative is genuine critical (including self-critical) thought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
While I will continue to write about feminism on this blog, I am considering expanding the focus of this blog to cover topics like rationalism, morality, revolutionary socialism and history. Let me know what you think of this idea.

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.