Refuting The Five Most Common Pro-BDSM Arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. BDSM is Sexually Arousing (or otherwise pleasurable)

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

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

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

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

3. BDSM does not always involve Men dominating Women 

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

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

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

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

4. Opposing BDSM is like opposing Gay Rights 

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

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

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

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

5. BDSM is about Love and Trust 

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

"All Sex is Rape" Says Sex-Positive Academic

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

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

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

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

The "Sex-Positive" Academic

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

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

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

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

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

A Dishonest Discussion of Sexual Choice

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

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

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

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

The Implications of this Viewpoint

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

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

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

An Alternative View of Sexuality

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

What Type of Feminist (or Pro-Feminist) Are You? - Part 2

My blog has been linked to by another blog called "feminist resources", but I cannot access it. If you are the creator of "feminist resources", please give my access to your blog, so I can see how people are responding to my posts. I am glad to see that my blog is getting more attention (even if some of it comes from people who hate it).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction 

This second quiz determines whether somebody is a moderate feminist or a radical feminist. Some of you may be wondering why I did not include “black feminism”, “socialist feminism” and “anarchist feminism” in my feminism sorting system. I will explain why in the conclusion of this post. I assure you that by leaving them out, I am not attempting to suggest that these types of feminism are invalid.

I think most revolutionary leftists and anti-racism activists know what they are without needing to be told by a quiz, but if you really want a quiz to tell you such things, you will find plenty. I know of no quiz that adequately addresses the divisions in which exist within modern feminism. If you think you have encountered such a quiz, let me know. 

Quiz Instructions

Only take this quiz if you have already taken the first quiz and were not deemed to be a liberal feminist. This second quiz works the same way as the first one. Write down whether you agree or disagree with the statements below, then use the answer key to calculate your score. Once again, some of the statements are more extreme than others. Not all statements deemed to be “radical” represent all radical feminists, nor do all of them represent my views. An automated version of this quiz is available here.

Quiz Questions (Statements)

1. Violent masculinity is the problem, not masculinity itself. Thus the solution is to promote a new, healthier kind of masculinity to men. This approach to masculinity enables us to challenge male dominance without threatening men’s sense of identity. 

2. The use of high heels and restrictive clothing may not be as harmful as breast implants and other forms of cosmetic surgery, but they can still cause pain and damage to women’s bodies. Thus such practices are not consistent with feminist ideals and we should aim to abolish them. 

3. When promoting our political viewpoints to the public, it is acceptable to phrase our beliefs using language that our political opponents may be sympathetic to (e.g. by claiming that allowing gay couples to adopt children promotes “family values” or that opposing pornography is a form of “sex positivity”).

4. Not everyone is obligated to get married or be part of nuclear family, but equality between men and women can be achieved without challenging these institutions. 

5. Labelling toys as “boy toys” or “girl toys” promotes discrimination. This needs to end, but re-labelling alone will not stop the promotion of harmful traits such as aggression and violence (which are currently promoted through “boy toys”, such as toy guns) or shallowness and a need to please others (which are promoted through “girl toys”.) We need to create different kinds of toys altogether. 

6. The feminist movement should only change its positions when given good reason to believe that its positions are incorrect or inconsistent with feminist principles. Positions should not be changed in order to make the movement more popular, socially acceptable or appealing to men. 

7. Modern day western society is patriarchal (male dominated), as are most other societies around the world. A truly non-patriarchal society would need to have an economic and political system which is totally different to that which currently exists in the West. It would also need a vastly different culture.

8. Mild beauty practices (e.g. putting on make-up, wearing fancy clothing) are not necessarily oppressive or deserving of political/feminist critique. So long as the women performing them feel good about their natural bodies and do not feel pressured into performing them, such beauty practices are consistent with feminist ideals.

9. Men can support feminism, but since they are the dominant group within patriarchy they cannot be considered part of the feminist movement any more than capitalists can belong to union.

10. Our notions of what a “man” or “woman” is should not be based on genitalia or what society says. People have the power to decide for themselves whether they are men, women or something else.

11. Western medicine is a patriarchal establishment that causes more harm than good and cannot be reformed, but should be abolished in favour of more traditional, female-centred healthcare. 

12. The only problem with society’s current beauty standards is that they are too rigid. A broader definition of beauty (one which includes non-white women and women who are not super thin and busty) is the solution to female body image issues. 

13. Gender identity is an innate aspect of all human beings. Attempts at abolishing categories such as “man”, “woman”, “masculine” and “feminine” will either not work or will cause great harm (e.g. it will create a dull, grey world in which there is no individuality.) 

14. The general public should not be intimidated by feminism, for its ideals match the dominant ideals of western society. Negative feelings towards feminism are a result of misunderstandings and poor communication on the part of the movement (e.g. excessive anger, incorrect use of language, etc).

15. In order for women to be fully liberated they should abandon traditional patriarchal religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam (and adopt either an outlook which is free of superstitious/supernatural beliefs or adhere to spiritual belief systems which are more pro-female.) 

16. Feminists should oppose any practice that promotes the belief that a woman’s physical appearance is more important than her inner qualities, including beauty pageants, fashion shows, the use of make-up and the promotion of dolls that stress the importance of looking pretty (e.g. Barbie dolls and Bratz dolls.) 

17. It is natural for there to be variations in human genitalia, but the sex roles which are imposed onto people, based on the kind of genitalia they have, are not natural. It is possible and desirable to create a world in which such roles, which are sometimes referred to as “gender roles”, do not exist. 

18. The abortion rights movement should acknowledge that most abortions are morally complex or potentially harmful. Failure to make this acknowledgement will result in women becoming alienated from pro-choice activism. 

19. Feminists are under no obligation to be respectful towards dominant institutions and ideas. All beliefs, traditions and art (no matter how revered they may be within a particular culture) should be open to political critique.

20. Criticising extreme beauty practices (such as breast implants and face lifts) is okay, but women who reject beauty practices altogether (e.g. by going out in public without putting on makeup or shaving their legs) and encourage other women to do the same, are going too far. 

Answer Key

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

2. Agree: +5 ------- Disagree: -5

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

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

5. Agree: +7 ------- Disagree: -4

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

7. Agree: +5 ------- Disagree: -5

8. Agree: -5 -------- Disagree: +5

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

10. Agree: -5 ------- Disagree: +5

11. Agree: +5 ------- Disagree: -5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19. Agree: +5 ------- Disagree: -5

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

From -100 to -21: Moderate Feminist

Notable Theorists / Representatives: Anita Sarkeesian, Jackson Katz, Ariel Levy
Related Concepts: Social Democracy, Media Criticism, Opposition to Sexual Objectification.

You are a moderate feminist. I came up with the term "moderate feminist" myself, so you probably do not know of anyone who uses the label. I use the term to describe feminists who are neither liberal nor radical. Moderate feminists are not liberal feminists because they oppose pornography, prostitution, extreme beauty practices (such as breast implants and genital surgery) and the spread of soft core pornographic images throughout the culture. They cannot be considered radical feminists, because they promote "healthy" masculinity and femininity, instead of calling for gender to be abolished. While they are usually critical of capitalism, they believe that it should be reformed, rather than abolished and would prefer to avoid angering those with power.

Your moderate feminist ideas do pose a challenge to the status quo. Thus, I consider them to be a genuine form of feminism. In universities, liberal academics sometimes denounce moderate feminists as "sex-negative" and "prudish", but your ideas are not viciously despised in the way that radical feminist ideas are and students are at least allowed to consider them. If students are lucky, a moderate feminist text may even appear on their reading lists.

From -20 to +20: Borderline

This borderline category works the same way as the one in the first quiz. If you get this score, take some time to think about your views, then come back and do the quiz again. After you have done this, it may be clearer whether you are a moderate or a radical feminist or it may not be. It is okay to not be certain.
-

From +21 to +100: Radical (or Pro-Radical) Feminist

Notable Theorists / Representatives: Lierre Keith, Gail Dines, Robert Jensen
Related Concepts: Gender Abolition, Sex Criticism, Radical Anti-Capitalism, Radical Environmentalism.

You are a radical feminist (or a supporter of radical feminism). Like moderate feminists, radical feminists oppose pornography, prostitution, sadomasochism (often euphemistically referred to as "BDSM"), extreme beauty practices and highly sexualised depictions of women within the culture. Unlike moderate feminists, radical feminists are gender abolitionists. They recognise that the concepts of "masculinity' and "femininity" do not have to exist and that they encourage men to behave in a dominate manner, while encouraging women to submit to such dominance. They often oppose other systems which are considered foundational to modern society, such as capitalism and traditional religion.

Your beliefs pose a serious threat to those with power (especially those who run the sex industry and the beauty industry) and are likely to get you in trouble at university. Radical feminists are rarely mentioned by academics. When they are it is only so that they can be attacked as "sex-negative", man-hating lunatics. The good news is that I am on your side. I got a 70 on this quiz. Feel free to get in touch with me (via comments or messages.)
-

Conclusion

The reason I did not include “black feminism” or “socialist feminism” in my quizzes is because such labels do not actually reveal whether somebody is a liberal, radical or moderate feminist. For example, one can believe that a socialist revolution should be brought about partially so that women can be liberated through “feminist pornography” which is produced by “empowered sex workers” in a democratically managed sex industry (yeah, right), in which case that person would be a socialist who supports liberal feminism. One may also believe that a socialist revolution should put an end to the sex industry and create a world in which sexual acts are never motivated by a need for money or a sense that one has some of kind of duty to provide others with sexual pleasure. Such a person would be a socialist who promoted moderate or radical feminism. In a previous post, I argued that liberalism is not truly compatible with opposition to racism and capitalism. Nevertheless, I recognise that some non-white women and socialists do in fact embrace liberal feminism.

I am a socialist myself. I also support anti-racism activism, both for its own sake and because I recognise that, in most of the world, the participation of non-whites is needed to carry out a popular socialist revolution. According to this second quiz, I am more radical than moderate. I believe that gender has to be abolished in order for women to be liberated and I think a socialist revolution could enable this. My score was not 100%, so my ideas are not completely in line with radical feminism, but they are more radical than moderate. I guess you could call me a revolutionary socialist who supports radical feminism or you can call a totalitarian, prudish, hateful monster. It is up to you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope you enjoyed my quizzes. Let me know what result you get and whether it was what you expected. Feel free to try and guess which “radical” statements I disagreed with. As always, constructive criticism is welcome.