Non-Pornographic Sexuality (Yes, it exists)

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

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

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

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

Criterion 1: Equality vs. Power Dynamics 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criterion 2: Personality-based Love versus Shallow Attraction 

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

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

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

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

Criterion 3: Genuine Desire vs. Economics/Conformity 

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion 

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

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

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

Refuting The Five Most Common Pro-BDSM Arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. BDSM is Sexually Arousing (or otherwise pleasurable)

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

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

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

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

3. BDSM does not always involve Men dominating Women 

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

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

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

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

4. Opposing BDSM is like opposing Gay Rights 

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

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

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

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

5. BDSM is about Love and Trust 

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

What Type of Feminist (or Pro-Feminist) Are You? - Part 1

Most of you have probably seen my comments on Feminist Current and know that I sort self-proclaimed "feminists" into three types, "liberal", "moderate" and "radical". You probably have some idea of how I assign those labels. This post will give you a more detailed understanding of my feminist sorting method and hopefully provide some entertainment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction

If one were to ask a typical “sex-positive”, “feminist” academic to explain the difference between liberal feminism and radical feminism, the academic would probably state that radical feminists have a more “systemic analysis” and want to overthrow “the system”, while liberal seek to work within it. This definition amounts to little more than claiming that radical feminists are radical. Such statements are utterly meaningless, unless one explains what “the system” is and how a world without the “system” would be different from the world we currently live in. Simply calling the system “patriarchy” and complaining about men being “judgmental” (i.e. non-liberal) does not cut it.  

As an alternative to such vagueness, I have invented my own method of sorting self-proclaimed feminists into categories. I promised I would create such a quiz in the comment section of this post, it took me a while given all the other things I wanted to complete, but here it is.

Quiz Instructions 

My method for sorting feminists (and supporters of feminism) consists of two quizzes. This post features the first of these two quizzes. This quiz distinguishes liberal feminists from actual feminists (i.e. people who care about something other than orgasms and prettiness.) You can read the questions that the quiz consists of and calculate your score down below or you can click here to take a more automated version of the quiz. The questions in the automated quiz are exactly the same as the ones here, but the automated quiz will not give you a numerical score (only a categorical result.)  

If you prefer to take this quiz the old fashioned way, simply write down your responses to the statements below. Your responses should be either “agree” or “disagree”. I think neutral options promote intellectual cowardice. You can then check the answer key to calculate how many “points” they have (do this after responding to all the statements.) Some of the statements are extreme, others are more moderate and they are weighted accordingly. Be aware that not all statements deemed to be “liberal” represent all liberal feminists.

Quiz Questions (Statements) 

1. The use of prostitutes is morally unacceptable in all or most cases. 

2. When ambitious women are able to achieve economic success through their own efforts, without encountering discrimination, feminism will have done its job. 

3. To question a woman’s decision to have her healthy genitalia surgically altered in ways that make them look more like the genitalia in pornography is to deprive the woman of bodily autonomy. 

4. Most of the problems experienced by women who work in the sex industry would disappear if the stigma imposed upon pornography, prostitution and stripping did not exist and if the women involved were recognised as having agency and empowerment. 

5. Sex can be a pleasurable experience, but it is not a human right. Males can remain physically and psychologically healthy, even if they do not get as much sex as they want.   

6. A key factor that distinguishes a healthy sexual activity from an unhealthy one is the absence of power dynamics (meaning that neither partner can be described as the “dominant” or the “submissive”.) 

7. Young girls (seven years old or younger) who express a desire to become prostitutes or pornography performers should be praised for their sexual empowerment. 

8. Protests, strikes and occupations of corporate spaces are more effective, more democratic forms of activism than actions typically undertaken by individuals, such as writing to politicians or attempting to rise to power within mainstream politics in order to generate change.  

9. Women who are suffering from body image issues should not view sexualised compliments from men (e.g. “you look hot, babe”) as a solution to such problems, for such compliments are not a healthy or lasting source of self worth. 

10. Some white people have a sexual desire to play the role of “master” within the context of sex and sexual relationships and want a black partner to play the role of “slave”. The public expression of these desires (e.g. by advertisements that ask for “black slaves”) promotes racism.  

11. One of the main aims of progressive political activism should be to make people feel empowered in all that they do. Progressives should aim to combat all feelings of shame and hatred, as well as the belief that one is a “victim”. 

12. Female performers who represent their bodies in a way that is aimed at evoking sexual arousal in viewers, such as Beyoncé and Lady Gaga, are empowering themselves. They are good role models for young girls. 

13. Overall, the production and consumption of pornography is harmful to society. 

14. If a woman is being bullied for a particular facial feature, it is empowering for her to modify her appearance through cosmetic surgery in an attempt to stop such bullying from occurring in the future. 

15. Every woman can achieve her own liberation through making empowering personal choices. 

16. Sexual acts should be free from aggressive, pain-causing actions (e.g. hitting people, tying them up, whipping them, etc.) 

17. Leg extension (a process in which a woman’s leg bones are broken and stretched apart so that they will be longer when they regrow*) is a beauty practice which has recently emerged in China. It is clearly harmful and is likely to have come about as a result of sexism and white supremacy. 

18. The supposed “power” that women get from provoking sexual arousal in men, is merely a fleeting self-esteem boost. It does not constitute a genuine form of political empowerment for women. 

19. Sexual activities which put people in danger of dying (such as suffocating people or placing knives near their throats) are morally acceptable if the people in danger consent. 

20. Women can benefit greatly from getting breast implants, making any economic costs and medical risks involved worthwhile. 

* Yes, leg extension is a real thing. See this video for more information. The discussion of leg extension starts at around ten minutes, I recommend watching the full video to learn about the political and cultural context of the practice.

Answer Key

1. Agree: +5 ------- Disagree: -5

2. Agree: -3 -------- Disagree: +6

3. Agree: -5 -------- Disagree: +5

4. Agree: -5 -------- Disagree: +5

5. Agree: +6 ------- Disagree: -4

6. Agree: +6 ------- Disagree: -3

7. Agree: -8 -------- Disagree: +3

8. Agree: +6 -------- Disagree: -4

9. Agree: +5 -------- Disagree: -5

10. Agree: +4 ------ Disagree: -6

11. Agree: -3 ------- Disagree: +6

12. Agree: -4 ------- Disagree: +6

13. Agree: +5 ------- Disagree: -5

14. Agree: -6 -------- Disagree: +4

15. Agree: -3 -------- Disagree: +6

16. Agree: +6 ------- Disagree: -4

17. Agree: +3 ------- Disagree: -7

18. Agree: +5 ------- Disagree: -5

19. Agree: -6 -------- Disagree: +4

20. Agree: -6 -------- Disagree: +4 

From -100 to -21: Liberal Feminist

Notable Theorists / Representatives: Michael Foucault, Laci Green, Naomi Wolf

Related Concepts: Post-Modernism, Moral/Cultural Relativism, Sex-positivity, Agency/Empowerment.

You are a liberal. Liberals believe in the principle that "anything goes" and think that this principle should apply to women as well as men (along with people of all ethnic backgrounds, economic classes, body types, etc.) They call this belief “feminism”. They think all criticisms of behaviours (or “choices” as they call them) are oppressive, but are usually most eager to endorse highly feminine behaviours (e.g. beauty practices) and sexual activities which they deem to be "subversive".

You would fit in very well at a typical, modern day university, since your viewpoint is the dominant one within that context. I, on the other hand, find liberalism intellectually cowardly and very much in line with the status quo. However, these days many great feminist thinkers start out as liberals. If you were previously unaware of the conflicts within feminism and the fact that most universities in the West teach liberal feminism (if they teach feminism at all), while ignoring or attacking other kinds, then I would encourage you to look into alternative forms of feminism. The works of Gail Dines, Robert Jensen, Anita Sarkeesian and Ariel Levy are a good place to start.

From -20 to +20: Borderline 

This category does not appear on the automated quiz. It appears here because I would rather not assign people to categories if their scores are too close to zero. Contrary to what liberals may suggest, I do not insist that all people accept “binary” identities. If you get this score, take some time to think about your views, then come back and do the quiz again. Once you have thought about your beliefs, it may be clearer which category you belong in.

From +21 to +100: Moderate or Radical Feminist

  

You are not a liberal feminist and neither am I. I cannot tell whether you are a moderate or radical yet, but you are at least willing to criticise some of the dominant ideas within the mainstream feminist movement and probably have a genuine concern for the liberation of women and not just your own sexual arousal or “empowerment” (whatever that means.) You criticise at least some masculine and feminine behaviours. You are probably more critical of capitalism than your liberal counterparts.

Note that a high score (closer to +100) on this first quiz does not necessarily indicate that one is radical rather than moderate. It just indicates that one is very non-liberal. Take my second quiz (once it is available) to find out whether you are a moderate or a radical.

Conclusion  

I hope you enjoyed the first step in my “feminist sorting” process. In case you are interested, I scored +100% on this quiz, meaning that I am clearly not liberal (at least by my criteria.)

The second quiz will be featured in my next blog post, along with my results for that quiz. If you have been labelled a “liberal feminist” by this quiz, you do not need to take the second one, but I hope you enjoyed this one. 

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

My next post should be up a few days after the release of this one. If it is not, feel free to remind me to post it (through comments or messages.) Feedback on this quiz is welcome. If you think any of the statements were phrased in a biased manner or are otherwise incorrect, let me know.