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.

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.

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.