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.
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.
