What Sex Positive Really Means

I've run into a few blog posts and articles in the last week or so that use the term 'sex-positive' in a way I haven't heard before. This article in the New Statesman is an example. They use the term to refer to people who thinks that absolutely any expression or representation of sexuality, regardless of what is portrays or how it was produced, is a good thing. They use the term to describe a philosophy or a a type of person who attempts to negate or shut down any discussion of or concern about equality, feminism, or exploitation, saying that such concerns are actually anti-feminist and anti-woman because they negate women's choices around their sexuality. This hurts my heart.

I get it. There is a fundamental problem in the way that we talk about sexuality that these blogs and articles are trying to address. But the problem is not sex-positivity. The sex-positive movement is actually the answer and the problem they are identifying has little or nothing to do with it. This is a tough issue to unpack. So tough that it took me well over a week to decide to try to take it on. But I'm going to try because my heart is hurting and I think it's important. To make this attempt, I'm going to go back to what the term 'sex-positive' actually means and how it started.

That term has actually been around for quite some time. It started as a way to describe an attitude about sex and sexuality that was in complete opposition to prevailing cultural attitudes which viewed sex as sinful, harmful, dangerous, and uncontrollable. This attitude teaches that there are only certain acceptable ways and reasons to have sex and that it is only for certain people at certain times (ie. mainly be heterosexual people who are married to each other and having sex for the purpose of procreation). The sex positive philosophy, on the other hand, views sex as natural, normal, and healthy. Those who espouse a sex-positive view of sexuality believe that individuals have the ability, and even the right, to make responsible decisions about sexual expression and activity. They believe that the negative view of sexuality does harm because it contradicts people's natural inclinations. This leads to shame, self-harm, and broader social problems. A sex positive attitude holds that sexual activity is not and cannot be, by its very nature, harmful and dangerous, as long as everyone involved freely and knowingly consents. It is dangerous, harmful and wrong, only because our society has decided it is so.

Sex positive feminism has a lot of roots but really took shape during the feminist porn wars in the 1980's. Some people who identified as feminists during that time tended to equate the sexual exploitation of women with sex in general. Some even stated openly that they felt that all sex with men (and sometimes any kind of sex) was by definition abusive and exploitive - that there was no way it could not be. These were generally the ones who were very involved in anti-porn campaigns.

In response to this, many other women, who also considered themselves feminists, pointed out that sex and exploitation are no synonymous and that by demonizing all forms of sexual expression, we actually shame and hurt women rather than help them. They felt that the sex negative view vilified female sexuality just as patriarchy does. They wanted to help women love and accept their bodies and their sexuality. These women were often involved in the production of various types of porn in which women freely chose to participate, were given total control over how they participated and were treated fairly. Carol Queen, a sexual health educator, teacher, writer, activist, speaker, film-maker and all around amazing woman, was the first of this group to use the term 'sex-positive' in this way. She continues to advocate for women's sexual rights to this day and is joined by a lot of other amazing people who do the same.

This movement is actually the exact opposite of what these blogs and articles refer to as 'sex-positive'. They are talking about people who are trying to take the message of 'sex-positive' feminism and use it for their own gain. They tell women that their bodies are beautiful and sex is natural and wonderful.......so here, let me use yours to get something for myself. This is a use of sexuality and of a supposed positive message mainly for financial gain. And this is where the difference lies for me. If there is money involved, a fair share of it must go to the person who's image is used to make it. In the case of actual sex-positive feminist porn, this is the case. Everyone involved in the production of that material, including and especially the actors and actresses, are paid fairly and equitably. This is why I do not consider the 'girls gone wild' industry to be sex-positive in any way. The women in those films are not paid anything. Not anything! They are given nothing but a thank you and t-shirt for baring their bodies on film. The producers of those films have made millions. They use the message to make women feel okay about participating but then they turn around and use them for their own profit. That is not sex-positive, it's exploitive.

The key here is agency. A sex-positive philosophy holds that every person must make their own decisions about what is right and not right for them when it comes to sex. In any sex-positive porn, actors and actresses are given complete control over what they do. Scenes are usually played out in a less scripted way, based on what the actors have said they would like to do and do pressure is placed to do things that were not originally agreed upon. That is not the case with some other types of porn. Sex-positive feminists have actually been major advocates for changes to the production of porn that does not represent or treat women fairly.

The people who are claiming that sex-positive feminism hurts us because it shuts down conversations about the ethics sex work. This could not be further from the truth. The sex positive feminists have been on the forefront of pushing for open discussion on all forms of sex work. They simply want us to include the voices of the women who actually do it. They want us to look at the issue from a broad and inclusive perspective. They want us to not to vilify something and call for its abolition simply because sex is involved. They want us to advocate for the rights, protection and fair treatment of the women who engage in sex work. They want women to have the choice to do sex work safely if they wish, and to express themselves sexually in any way they chose. Isn't that what feminism is all about?

We need sex positive feminism because we need to recognize that women are sexual beings. Women's sexuality is diverse. The sexual likes and interests of some women might even make us uncomfortable. But we have to allow for all expressions. Our criticism belongs with those who would use another person's sexuality for their own profit without regard to fair treatment of that person - not with women themselves. This is what sex positive feminism ask for. We desperately need it to help guide us in these discussions.

- dedicated to all those sex-positive women who have changed my attitude, and my life - but especially to Carol Queen

New Method for Preventing Pregnancy, HIV and Herpes Looks Promising

This morning, I read about a new idea for contraception that looks pretty amazing. It's a ring that delivers levonorgestrel, a hormone that is used in many birth control pills, and tenofovir, an anti-viral drug. It is placed in the vagina in the same way that a diaphragm or female condom is, and can be left in place for up to 90 days. During that time, it delivers a steady dose of the two drugs. Researchers have just developed what they believe will be a workable delivery system. The ring now needs to go through clinical trials.

This gives me so much hope. For more than 20 years, small groups - mostly not-for-profits, have been working hard to fund research into developing an effective microbicide, some sort of device or compound that can be used relatively inconspicuously that can help reduce the risk of HIV transmission. Many different ideas have come forward but none of them have made it to market, mainly because there is just not enough money to take them all the way from development to trial and approval. You see, the drug companies aren't interested in microbicides because they would benefit mainly poor women in developing countries. If this new ring is approved, it would be the first effective option for STI prevention that doesn't involve condoms. I am all for condoms but the simple fact is that many women are in situations where they are just not able to use them. Condoms also cannot completely prevent the transmission of herpes. This would be an amazing step forward.

My cynical side won't let me get too excited about it though. There are still far too many hurdles. First, there is a long way to go. This device hasn't even made it to the first round of trials. As it goes through trials, there are a lot of concerns to be addressed such as whether the doses are correct, if there are unexpected side effects, and if it is truly effective. Once those things have been addressed, there is the major issue of getting it produced and onto market. The article from Science Daily does not mention the involvement of a drug company. If there is no pharmaceutical to take it on, there will have to be government involvement to fund the large amount of money it takes to mass produce such a product. That is highly unlikely. If a drug company does take it on, they will want to get their investment back. That means that the ring will be costly. That could potentially put it out of reach of the women who need it most.

There is a long way to go, but I take comfort in the fact that at least someone is working on this and has put enough effort into it to get this far. Perhaps one day we will see an effective alternative to condoms.

Silly Stats for V-Day

Happy V-Day everyone!

One of my distributors send us all this infographic on Valentine's Day stats. I have no idea where these were gleaned from and what survey it's quoting, so I cannot verify how accurate any of these things are. However, it's Valentine's Day and I'm happy and I think it's appropriate to share something silly and fun.

Can Underwear Prevent Rape?

I just ran across this little article today about a woman who has started a kickstarter campaign to produce a line of 'consent panties'. The panties are in various styles and they bear pro-consent message like 'ask me first', 'talk to me', and 'consent is bootyful'. Her line was inspired by a on-line prank last year that led people to believe that Victoria's Secret had put out a line of consent panties. Amulya Sanagavarapu thought it should be real.

Will consent panties actually do anything to prevent sexual assault? Probably not directly, no. But it can't hurt to have these kinds of messages around to encourage people to think about and talk about what consent really means. I'd wear them.

Contrast this idea with an indiegogo campaign that was in the news a few months ago. This group wants money to produce a line of anti-rape jogging shorts and pants. They claim that the material is impossible to tear or cut, even with a knife. The short and pants are form-fitting and outfitted with a mechanism that locks them so they cannot be pulled down or taken off, except by the person wearing them. There are numerous videos that show how they work and even show someone trying to cut them with a knife. These pants are indestructible! It's brilliant, right? Not! This idea just feeds off of all the myths we carry about sexual assault - that it's perpetrated mostly be strangers, that rape is almost always violent, that sexual assault is just about whether a penis goes into a vagina. It completely ignores the other ways assaults can happen and the terror that someone who is being assaulted goes through. My partner made an excellent point after viewing the video with the knife. He said 'If someone is trying to tear your pants apart with a knife, you've got a very serious situation going on there and you're going to get hurt, whether or not they can get those pants off.' He's right. The pants will do absolutely nothing to prevent an assault like that. It's already happening. And I think most people when threatened with a knife would take the pants off themselves rather than risk getting seriously injured or killed. I know I would.

So no, I don't think either of these is a solution to actually prevent rape but the first one has a far better chance of doing some actual good. Those panties at least will get people talking about the realities of consent and sexual assault rather than keep them bogged down in myths.

No, There is No Anti-Freeze in Your Lube

The other day, the lovely Koko let me know that she'd had a customer in who had told her she had thrown out her lube because she saw on 'The Doctors', that there is anti-freeze in the lube she was using. Aaarrrrggghhh! It drives me crazy when people who have a platform on TV use it to spread misinformation that freaks people out. This is not true. There are no lubes that are made with anti-freeze in them because anti-freeze itself is actually toxic.

Here's how this idea got started. The ingredient used in anti-freeze is ethylene glycol. It is fairly toxic and not really something humans should consume or put in their bodies. The ingredient that is commonly used in lubes is propylene glycol. This is used in many types of foods and consumer products. It is toxic, but, as with almost anything, only in high concentrations and large amounts. Propylene glycol has been studied quite extensively and there has never been any proven link to any serious adverse side effects when consumed in small doses.

But Brenda, you might say, propylene glycol IS used in anti-freeze. That's true, it is used in a number of industrial applications. But there are three important things to note about that. First, propylene glycol has replaced ethylene glycol in a lot of industrial products exactly because it is not toxic like ethylene glycol is. Second, the amount used in these products are much higher concentrations than in lubes and other consumer products so the effect of its presence is not the same. Three, just because propylene glycol is used in anti-freeze does not mean it IS anti-freeze. It can also be made in a variety of ways from a variety of different materials so not all forms of it are alike.

All that being said, I'm not saying that propylene glycol is necessarily your friend. It is not toxic in the levels in which it is present in consumer products and it is concerned safe to use inside the body. However, although there's not a lot of research on this, anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that propylene glycol is one of the ingredients in lubes that tends to change the ph level in the vagina. This can lead to yeast infections in women who are quite prone and it can also interfere with the health and motility of sperm. This is not to say that you should use it as a contraceptive, it just might be a problem for women who want to get pregnant. Some women seem to find that because of that ph thing, lubes with propylene glycol leave them feeling itchy and dry, which can itself lead to other problems like bacterial infections.

So no, it is definitely not anti-freeze, but it's also not necessarily the best thing in the world. Some women seem to have a lot of trouble with it. The good news is, there are many lubricants that don't contain propylene glycol. It's not present in any 100% silicone lube. Sliquid H20, Sliquid Organics, Slippery Stuff and Wet Naturals do not contain propylene glycol.

I found this nice little youtube video that clearly and simply explains the whole anti-freeze issue.