There’s some good discussion over at Ren’s about the term “Sex positive.”
I am with her (and many of her commenters) that the term sucks. It’s limited, it’s vague, it doesn’t describe what it’s meant to. And yes, it implies that those who don’t identify as such are “sex negative.”
Me being the kind of person I am, that’s the least of my concerns. But I don’t know if I’ve ever really called myself “sex positive,” inside my head. If forced to identify my feminism, I’ve done so. My tag cloud testifies to it. But it doesn’t always feel that way, or make a lot of sense.
Ren said:
The One Thing I truly do care about is helping or encouraging other people, especially women, to say what they do and do not want or like, doing what they do like and not doing what they do not like, and being okay with doing that.
Ginmar commented:
Whatever a woman does, I want her to be safe, respected, protected by the law, and happy. How do you sum that up in one economical little phrase?
And Iamcuriousblue said:
That said, I do think “sexual liberal” or “sexual libertarian” is actually a more accurate term for this school of thought. (”Sex radical” often gets used, though I personally don’t like the one-upsmanship implied by “radical”.) Of course, for people want something to get their back up over something, I’m sure the implication of calling the other side “sexually conservative” or “sexually authoritarian” will be brought up. But then again, that’s precisely the critique that many of us are making of restrictive forms of sexual moralism, both from the religious right and secular left.
So: sexual libertarian? Kristin also said it, and I like it. I already consider myself a pretty hardcore civil libertarian, and so this fits right in. It defines a little more practically what we actually believe, without really defining ourselves as against anyone, or defining anyone else as “negative.”
Some of us just want to be left alone, and for others to be left alone. Others find the whole subject fascinating, and like to talk about it–more than we should, maybe. But I think what we all want is for people to be able to explore and enjoy their sexuality in a world where they’re supported and not ostracized for their choices.
I like “sexual libertarian” quite a bit. It’s hard for me to get over the anti-government economic root of the word “libertarian” but I think it is much more effective than sex-positive.
I don’t feel it implies that *individuals* who don’t identify as sex-positive are sex-negative. It implies that our *society* as a whole is sex-negative - which it is. And a big part of that is shaming and pathologizing women’s sexuality. To me, feminism and sex-positivity are so intrinsically linked that it doesn’t make sense to me to try to separate the two. I also think coming up with a new term is counter-productive since there’s apparently so much confusion over the existing one -why not try to clarify the existing one and explain its history and context instead of just changing because someone thinks it means “I like sex”?