Talk:Sex-positive feminism

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Giselle grande (article contribs). Peer reviewers: NovaSun8.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 21 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wendychou.neu. Peer reviewers: Nancylii.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"sex positive movement" and "sexually liberal feminism"

The "sex positive movement" and "sexually liberal feminism" are not identical, are they? —Ashley Y 04:42, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC) - I would say no. I would identify libertarian feminists like Dr. Paglia with sexually liberal "Feminists." She is in a VERY different category than most of the women discussed here. What do others think?

Most Sex-positive feminists do not set men as the gold standard of sexual freedom

This page has gotten so much better over these last few months! The one edit I would make is to the sentence that reads, sex-positive feminists "argue in favor of giving women the same sexual opportunities as men, rather than restricting male sexual expression in the form of pornography." Most of the sex positive feminists quoted here would argue that men have also experienced sexual oppressions based in the patriarchy-- men are not the golden standard. You see some of this critique in Pat Califia's book "Public Sex" and in much of Suzy Bright's work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emaildeva (talk • contribs)

Sure, feel free to make those edit! Be bold! Catamorphism 23:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

also, don't forget how the same reactionary anti-sex feminists often willfully ignore the fact that men get raped too.Saffo.dido (talk) 09:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In relation with more known authors where does it stand?

Where would Simone de Beauvoir stand in this theory? Could she be enlisted "for" or "against" Sex-positive feminism?

General Edit, What is not sex-positive feminism

I have done a general edit to try and clarify this article. I hope i haven't gone off the rails,

Three statements in the article were worrisome:

1. Radical feminism is seen as a potential cause of female-centric problems such as eating disorders, and the inability to experience orgasms. And attempts to censor consensually-produced pornography are looked upon as being patriarchal in nature.

It is a big claim that radical feminism causes anorexia, and anorgasmia. The rejection of heterosexuality by radical lesbians is (I have been assured) accompanied by increased sexual response and affection. No doubt this is caused by a lover who understands the female body, and invests time into the sexual act. Increased feelings of self-worth would doubtless lessen the need to starve oneself to death for affection. This may be a criticism launched by "sex-positive feminists" at radical feminists, but in its current unsubstantiated form, it looks fairly offensive.

Anorexia and anorgasmia are also not female-only problems. This claim should be fleshed out more and substantiated.

1. In recent years, members of this movement have leveled criticism at The Vagina Monologues, which they see as having a negative and restrictive view of sexuality and an anti-male bias. (See article on VM by Betty Dodson.

Again, this should be fleshed out and substantiated. When I saw the vagina monologues, it was explained that they were produced from oral accounts directly from womens experience, not theortically conceived and forced upon women. This also seems a little anachronistic ("in recent years") and out of character for the article as a whole.

1. There may be some confusion as to what exactly constitutes "pro-sex feminism". People with widely differing views on the pornography issue which spawned the movement, have adopted the "pro-sex feminist" label. Many feminists are "pro-sex", at least if the forms of sex are ones that they approve of.

I think this is an interesting point, but it would be nice if it were fleshed out more. I'm not an American feminist theorist, so it would be good if someone else could provide info. An An 05:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

AnnaAniston's reversion of this page

AnAn, next time, please bring up any issues you may have in the disscussion here before you delete other people's contributions. As far as your allegations that it's "dubious" that pro-sex feminist leaders oppose the vagina monologues, I would encourage you to actually read the article that I linked to and read what Betty Dodson and other P.S. feminists had to say there:

http://bettydodson.com/vaginano.htm

I can cite more sources on this same issue if anyone deems that neccesary.

If you can get a copy of it, I'd also encourage you to read Ms. Dodson's "Sex For One," where she goes on at length about how pissed off she was when she and others started having to call themselvs "pro-sex feminists" in direct response to censorship campaigns, not "in response to the question of pornography censorship."

As for the radical feminism causing eating disorders part, I didn't write that, so I don't know where that came from. You can put up a "dubious" tag on the article there if you like - but please at least give the author or someone there a chance to defend and cite that before you go and delete it.

Thanks so much!

--Blackcats 08:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Blackcats, I didn't mean any offence. I didn't just delete, I moved to the talk page and opened discussion on what I thought had a dubious connection to the article, or needed to be fleshed out to make it more obvious. I gave my reasons for the content which I felt needed more substantiation. I really don't think I've done the wrong thing.

I was genuinely trying fore more readability in the page. The wikipedia motto is "be bold", and I was being bold. I checked to see who was here, what discussion had been made, and the history of the page before editing. I can appreciate that you might want to be asked about your work in particular, however, you reverted my work just as mercilessly. Several hours which I spent trying to make the article flow, and read a little more homogenously are now wasted. At the bottom of each page is a disclaimer that if you don't want your work edited, don't add it.

The reason I gave for moving the Vagina Monolgues comment to this page was that it seemed anachronistic, and that in its present state it seemed to be unsubstantiated/POV. Maybe some more detail from the article would help.

Blackcats, I ask you to let me revert to my latest version of the article because I did give a general edit which I feel improved the readability of the article. If you want your comment about the Vagina Monologies left in, then please add it back in.

I have moved your criticisms of me to the end of this page, which is where new material should be added.

An An 07:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sex-radical feminism is an off shoot of radical feminism NOT sex positive feminism. Sex positive feminism has historically been linked to libertarian feminism while sex radical feminism recognizes the patriarchy as real and offensive. Bell hooks is a sex radical feminist while Nina Hartley is not.

I don't think that's an entirely accurate account. Susie Bright, a sex-positive feminist, certainly recognizes the patriarchy as real; many sex-positive feminists wouldn't align themselves with "libertarian feminism" (to the extent that that isn't a contradiction in terms!) Catamorphism 04:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit 6 Mar 05

The article was full of weasel statements "some people may think this possibly causes that sometimes" which says nothing. The main practicioners are still undescribed here (Xavieria, Sprinkle). The only citation is Dodson, and there in a self-published forum. Does Dodson actually practice, why isn't this mentioned here.

Sentences were far too long (four to five concepts per sentence). Additionally, scientific terms were used liberally "females" instead of "women". Apart from the obvious critique of sciences' gender and sexual politics, humans generally experience sexuality and engage with ideology, lets humanise the subjects of this article.

Finally, remember "be bold" and the GPL. Nobody owns this article, and playing ownership games over it (reverting new contributions) is an excellent way to defeat the wikipedia.

I agree with AnAn. I require cites that pro-sex feminists believe that rad fems cause anorgasmia and anorexia. Claiming that they're in Dodson generally is insufficient. "Dodson (1995) claims..." is adequate.

I'm off to read the Dodson, Xavieria and Sprinkle articles to expand this.Fifelfoo 08:10, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Needs Work

I can't say I agree with all of An An's criticisms, she raises a couple of good points. This article really does need a lot of work, in terms of readability, organization, and content. This sentence is problematic:

"Radical feminism is seen as a cause of problems for women such as eating disorders, and anorgasmia (the pathological inability to experience orgasm."

Is there a source for this? Certainly, pro-sex feminists have criticized anti-porn feminists for their puritanism and have accused them of narrowing women's choices and fostering sexual guilt, and hold that this has very negative effects on the sexuality of women who internalize this ideology. Outside of this article, I've never heard radical feminists accused of causing eating disorders, however.

The term "radical feminist" is a contested term, anyway. It was not always that case that "radical feminism" was a synonym for "anti-porn feminism" and many of the early sex-positive feminists (such as Ellen Willis) came out of the radical feminist milieu.

The article as it stands fails to put sex-positive feminism in its historic context, which grew out of the dominance of anti-porn feminism in the 1970s and the "feminist sex wars" of the 1980s. Some important figures, groups, and publications that are neglected include Ellen Willis, Pat/Patrick Califia, Lisa Palac, Candida Royalle, Nina Hartley, Feminist Anti-Censorship Taskforce, Feminists for Free Expression, and On Our Backs. OTOH, some of the individuals listed as being "pro-sex feminists" are rather dubious. Xaviera Hollander may have been "pro-sex", but was never particularly feminist. Camille Paglia has kind of a peripheral relationship with sex-positive feminism, but really isn't closely aligned with that movement - Paglia is phenomenon unto herself, really.

Also, to be truly NPOV, this article also needs to discuss anti-pornography feminist criticisms of pro-sex feminism.

--Peter G Werner 09:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey Peter G Werner, it sounds to me like you're already on the way to cleaning up this article. I agree with the criticisms you've raised. This article seems to have gone through several major revisions over the period of its life (from highly sexological to more political). I think its headed in the right direction, but you're right. It needs lots of copyediting. Good luck, and I'll help where I can. An An 10:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

New revision

I've done a major rewrite of this page, reorganizing it, removing some of the dubious claims about radical feminists, adding some important authors and removing others who importance to the topic is questionable. Some sections could use expansion (especially the section on critiques of sex-positive feminism -- I basically threw in a few references in lieu of giving a detailed explanation of any of the critiques), but I hope I've improved the page by giving it a better structure and adding some external references. Any feedback would be welcome. Catamorphism 03:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Terminology

It strikes me that "sex-positive" and "pro-sex" are weird NPOV terms. Who is going to describe themselves as sex-negative or anti-sex? There should be a section in the article discussing this; surely there are people (anti-prostitution-legalization people, etc) who object to the deck being stacked against them with this terminology. Tempshill 22:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

There are pages on pro-choice and pro-life, which I think are much more loaded terms. It's generally clear what "sex-positive" means, because there's agreement on who it describes: people may not call themselves "sex-negative", but those who would be designated that way by sex-positive people certainly wouldn't call themselves "sex-positive", since they don't believe that all consensual sex is necessarily a good thing. Catamorphism 23:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Adding info re. pleasure activist group?

i'm the founder and co-ordinator of a pro-feminist, sex-positive group called Pleasure Activism Australia, which i feel could appropriately be mentioned in the 'Further resources' section of this article. But of course i would say that :-), and i certainly don't want to spam . . . . . what do other people think?

aka Individualist feminism?

I'm a bit concerned by the leading sentence "Sex-positive feminism, sometimes known as pro-sex feminism, sex-radical feminism, sexually liberal feminism, or individualist feminism" (my emphasis). There seems to be a wave of individualist feminism supporters who are trying to lay claim to other brands of feminism whether or not they're compatible. This seems to consist of (1) long discussions of Wendy McElroy (2) writing long individualist feminist critiques on the [other kind of feminsim] page (3) purporting that the [other type of feminism] is synonymous with individualist feminism.

Is sex-positive feminism actually known as "individualist feminism"? Can the person who added that provide a cite? AnAn 00:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks like I originally added that in my overhaul of the article in September. I can't remember why, nor did I really know what "individualist feminism" was at the time (and I still don't, really). So, I'm just going to remove it. Catamorphism 00:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh cool, I thought it was part of the larger "iFeminist" program to diss all other feminisms on wikipedia. No worries. AnAn 01:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"Individualist feminism" is feminism with a strong influence of libertarianism or individualist anarchism. As such, its analogous to other "feminisms with modifiers", such as anarchist feminism (which it may or may not overlap with) or Marxist feminism. Wendy McElroy is probably the leading current exponent of this ideology. In any event, even though individualist feminists are largely sex-positive or sexually liberal, not all (or even most) sex-positive/liberal feminists are individualist feminists, the two categories should not be treated as synonyms. Peter G Werner 07:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"Queer" as loaded/specialized term?

I notice that somebody just changed a reference to "queer activists" to "LGBT activists"; is everybody comfortable with that? I understand that to those who self-identify as "queer" the term has very different connotations, especially as it relates to "queer theory" in academia. Not an academic; just asking.--Orange Mike 15:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"LBGT" is broader than "queer" and since opposition to anti-porn feminism often came from gay-rights activists who had nothing to do with "queer theory", I suppose the change is good. Its also slightly problematic for two reasons. One, "LBGT" is a neologism that wasn't even used during the hight of the porn wars. Also, there's historically been a very small minority of LBGT activists who are anti-porn, and some strong advocates of gay monogamy like Larry Kramer are arguably not sex-positive. Peter G Werner 16:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think either "LGBT activists" or "queer activists" is really accurate. I'm not sure there is a term with the exact right connotations. Maybe more research is in order. Catamorphism 19:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ariel Levy

I added some material on Ariel Levy's book "Female Chauvinist Pigs" and reactions to it among sex-positive feminists. I wasn't sure whether to place it under "Critiques..." or "Debates...", since Ariel Levy doesn't fall neatly into either the anti-porn or sex-positive camp, and reactions among the latter are divided. I chose the former, since the book is more of a critique than anything.

Suggestions for cleanup and additions

I've been contributing material to this article, but the article still needs cleanup and addition of some important material. I've put together a to-do list, which can be take up as either I or others have time.

Feel free to add to the list. Peter G Werner 00:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I would add that some of the content should be slightly reworded to be more geared towards an encyclopedia audience interested in the ideas and people, rather than primarily towards an academic audience interested in the citations. There currently seems to be a lot of treating books and essays as the topic of the article, rather than the ideas in those books or the people who wrote them as the topic—it'd be nice to be able to ignore all citations and still have coherent sentences. --Delirium 04:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Camille Paglia

The burden of responsibility is on the editor who would like Camille Paglia to be named as a sex-positive feminist here to provide a reliable source that she identifies as one. Catamorphism 15:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Camille Paglia: sex-positive feminist

Here are the "reliable sources" you asked for, Catamorphism, you stupid arrogant twit!

http://www.lotl.com/content/paglia.htm

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Sex-positive_feminism

If you are too lazy and full of yourself to read them in their entirety then I will just post the relevant sections here:

Camille Paglia: "On the other hand I’ve been saying in public for five years ago, as someone who’s endorsed prostitutes and strippers and that whole extreme of sex-positive experience, that I’m concerned about the effect on young people – people growing up from 8, 10, 14 in a climate where it’s gone to the opposite direction. I’m already out there concerned about this so I’m really outraged to be stereotyped in that way by her because I am a career teacher and yes, when you have a situation where commercialised sex is being pushed without a true eroticism…I’ve been saying this for years, that we have got to a point of meaningless exhibitionism without real eroticism. I’m for eroticism."

Camille Paglia is a major American social critic. Paglia's academic writing focuses on the role of vibrant dangerous sexuality in human history. Paglia's key importance to sex-positive feminism is not only her writings on sex, but her advocacy of "traditional" values like canon texts. Paglia is somewhat of an intellectual enigma, a conservative and academic feminist, who revels in low and high culture alike and celebrates sexualities disapproved of by mainstream Western culture. Paglia has, in many ways, presented a "respectable" face for pro-sex feminism to the world at large. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaiwills (talk • contribs) 02:59, 18 July 2006

The second link you posted is to a previous version of this article, which does not count as a reliable source. In the first link, Paglia is saying that she endorses "that whole extreme of sex-positive experience" but it's not at all clear that she is identifying with the movement of sex-positive feminism, per se. Sorry, but that just doesn't fly. In addition, I would request that you refrain from making personal attacks. Catamorphism 03:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree on no personal attacks, disagree on Catamorphism's second argument above: that Paglia is a feminist who endorses sex-positive experience YET not clearly a sex-positive feminist. This distinction seems unproductive. By analogy, saying that a politician may have endorsed the full range of pro-choice views, but isn't clearly a pro-choice politician if not directly quoted identifying as such in so many words, and anything less "just doesn't fly" is too high a standard for people who consider position statements to be more important than explicit declarations of group membership. 23:56, 2 Sept 2006 (UTC)

The problem with calling Camille Paglia a "sex-positive feminist" is that she really doesn't identify as a feminist at all. In other words, she identifies with the first part (sex-positive), but not the second (feminist). If I'm not mistaken, by the early-90s, she was pretty dismissive of the whole sex-positive feminist movement, seeing it as too feminist. Look, if anybody can find a source where Camille Paglia herself refers to herself as a "sex-positive feminist" or something like that, then by all means let us know. I've read Paglia, and I've never come across her saying anything like this.

The other problem with Jaiwallis' argument (besides the shear nastiness of his approach) is that he sees Paglia as a central figure in the sex-positive feminist movement, perhaps more important in that movement than Susie Bright, Pat Califia, and Betty Dodson. This is simply not the case. Peter G Werner 03:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This petty argument is pure and utter crap! I can't believe I have to explain these things to you people! In a 1995 Playboy interview, Paglia unequivocally declared "I am absolutely a feminist!" In fact, she has said as much quite emphatically in several publications. What Catamorphism refuses to acknowledge is the fact the Paglia is opposed to the kind of whiny, neurotic, resentful, sex-phobic, manipulative, man-hating, whitebread, opportunistic, money-grubbing, morally bankrupt and academically fraudulant "victim feminism" which is shamefully personified by the likes of Gloria Steinem, Kate Millet, Robin Morgan, Dworkin and McKinnon, Naomi Wolf, Susan Faludi, Eve Ensler, et al. Paglia claims that these victim-obsessed, anti-male "paleofeminists" have "have betrayed women and have alienated men and women from each other", and she seeks to cut the bullshit and redress the balance with hard facts and a comprehensive and rigorous examination of sex and "Sexual personae" in Western culture rooted in plain language and classical scholarship, and not abstract, speculative, logocentric and self-referential postmodern theory.

I know that it is only an elite cadre of snooty debutantes at the National Organization for Women who get to say who is a feminist and who isn't. Paglia endorses a bawdy, streetwise, boldly individualistic and open-minded kind of feminism that embraces the whole spectrum of human sexuality and respects sexual differances and which is pro-sex, pro-beauty, pro-art, pro-porn, pro-prostitute, pro-gay, pro-masculinity, pro-abortion, pro-responsibility. She doesn't advocate for some kind of grotesque androgynous, pseudofeminist sexual "utopia" where masculinity is outcast and everybody is a hermaphrodite who lactates and menstruates in unison.

Paglia has stated her position on these matters over and over. Read her piece "No Law in the Arena" for heaven's sake! Just because she defends men and masculinity against hateful, scurrilous, demeaning attacks by misandrist whack-jobs doesn't diminish her commitment to the social advancement of women on equal terms. She has written about this at length and has supported her arguments with citations from great art and literature as well as psychology and endocrinology (the last of which most so-called "feminists" totally ignore!)

The type of "feminism" that Paglia opposes is the kind that sanctimoniously claims women's innate moral superiority and suppresses recognition of male achievements throughout history. She also disdains the politically correct "womynists" and "queer theory" types who like to analyze and speculate on sexuality by applying the logocentric methods of theoreticians like Lacan and Foucault, and their followers such as Julia Kristeva and Judith Butler, to name only two. Paglia rejects the preposterous notion that all the physiologic processes of hormones and body and brain chemistry have no influence at all on human sexual behavior, and that sex differences (i.e., masculinity and femininity, heterosexuality and homosexuality, and everything in between on the continuum) are simply and strictly a matter of external environmental influences and socialization.

Indeed, this flawed premise is what has led to all of the smug, preening, self-righteous, pseudointellectual baloney about such ridiculous concepts as "patriarchal oppression" and "phallocracy" which are have absolutely no basis in the material reality of human interaction and are merely solipsistic, self-referential, language-based contrivances. Hence, Catamorphism is just playing idle word-games here and is not applying any common sense to address these matters directly and honestly. Jaiwills

"reqphoto" tag

"It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality."

I'm not against having some photos with this article, but I wouldn't even know where to begin. What kind of images help describe sex-positive feminism? I can't think of anything offhand. (And there's the problem of finding copyright-free images, even if someone does have a good suggestion.) Peter G Werner 20:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What about Shere Hite?

Is Shere Hite considered a sex-positive feminist? She isn't mentioned in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.173.227.133 (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Pandagon

I am not sure why Pandagon's sex tag is listed under advocates of Advocacy of sex-positive feminism, blogs. If you examine what they list at that page, it seems to fail most of the definitions here of sex-positive feminism.

For instance, in a recent post, they advocated that married women should not give men blow-jobs -- it is subservient to do so. They also referred to a penis as a funk-filled bologna and gave it other derogatory terms. This hardly seems to be a case of non-judgmental welcoming of sex.

This article says: Sex-positive feminists reject the vilification of male sexuality that they attribute to many radical feminists, and instead embrace the entire range of human sexuality. They argue that the patriarchy limits sexual expression and are in favor of giving people of all genders more sexual opportunities, yet Pandagon is clearly seeking to limit and judge the acceptable practices of human sexuality.

This article says: n the 1970s, radical feminists became increasingly focused on issues around sexuality in a patriarchal society. Some feminist groups began to concern themselves with proscribing what proper feminist sexuality should look like. This was especially characteristic of lesbian separatist groups, but some heterosexual women's groups, such as Redstockings, became caught up with this issue as well. Many feminists began to see sexual pleasure itself as problematic. And so it is clear that Pandagon is espousing the views of radical feminism and not the views of sex-positive feminism.

This article says: Many feminists have criticized sadomasochism (S/M) for eroticizing power and violence, and for reinforcing misogyny (Rubin, 1984). They argue that women who choose to engage in S/M are making a choice that is ultimately bad for women. Sex-positive feminists argue that consensual S/M activities are enjoyed by some women and validate the sexual inclinations of these women. They argue that feminists should not attack other women's sexual desires as being "anti-feminist", and that there is no connection between consensual sexually kinky activities and sex crimes. While some radical feminists suggest connections between consensual S/M scenes and non-consensual rape and sexual assault, sex-positive feminists find this to be insulting to women. Yet, Pandagon is taking precisely rad fem and not the sex-pos line of argument when discussing fellatio.

I believe that Pandagon should be moved from the advocacy of sex-positive feminism section of the Wikipedia to the radical feminism section of the Wikipedia.

What are your thoughts? 71.39.78.68 22:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide some links? I don't read Pandagon regularly, but I don't recall it having a radical feminist perspective. Flicking through the archives linked to from the article, there are broadly approving posts about anal sex and fellatio and a number of attacks on anti-sex conservatives, while a search for "funk filled bologna" doesn't turn anything up. Looks reasonably sex positive to me. VoluntarySlave 23:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It was actually funk filled bratwurst, a reference to a blog post from Twisty Faster at blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com who identifies herself NOT as a sex positive feminist, but explicitly as a radical feminist [1] The very title of that post identifies itself as sex-negative. The top google hit for funk filled bratwurst goes to a blog post that explicitly describes how that funk filled bratwurst thing is sex negative. But this is about Pandagon. My point is that the content of posts I see there, along with her allying herself with the twisty faster blog also indicates that she (Amanda Marcotte and Pandagon) is a rad fem blog and not a sex positive blog, Here is the very sex-negative post at pandagon: [2]. Contrast that blog post with how Nina Hartley describes sex pos feminism: [3] I agree that the links you put in are pretty much sex positive. I think we can go through and find a lot of sex negative ones in addition to the one I posted. So let me change my suggestion. Instead of referencing pandagon as a sex positive advocacy site, we just recognize it is a blog with a lot of posts about sex and remove it from saying it advocates sex positive feminism and do not add it as an example of radical feminism. It's just a blog.... ?71.39.78.68 23:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I originally this link along with several other blogs. Pandagon was once more sex-positive, but now is not a good example of sex-positive feminism and probably shouldn't be on that list. (The blog takes a position that's somewhere in between anti-porn and sex-positive feminism, maybe even leaning radfem.) I'm not even sure if you're supposed to provide links to blogs in Wikipedia, but, at least as of six months ago, there was such an active and lively debate between sex-positive and anti-porn feminists in the feminist blogosphere that I thought such links were worth including. Iamcuriousblue 00:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Camille Paglia

Shouldn't Camille Paglia be included in this article??? Carlon (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Church Fathers

In order to verfiy whether sex-negativity is the traditional Western view of sex, a good idea would be to find appropriate quotes from the Church Fathers on the issue of sex, and compare them to contemporary views expressed by radical feminists like Andrea Dworkin. I would argue that there is a case to be made that the two are similar, and that in a some ways, the Church has always been radically feminist in her opposition to the illicit sexual exploitation of women. This could in fact be helpful for eventual attempts to reconcile the Church with the modern feminist movement. ADM (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are seeing the things from the wrong direction. It's not that church fathers were feminist. The church (not only the church fathers) saw sex as sin, and therefore any activity linked with it (exception: sex between husband and wife for procreation only) was seen as harmful without any connection to "illicit sexual exploitation of women". The strange resemblance between the position of the church (puritanism) and the sex-negative feminism on the sex issue lies in the deep subconsciously rooted concept of sex as sin. Even for a secular individual who has grown in the american society the concept of sex as sin is culturally so strong that it automatically links sex with concepts like bad, dirty, shamefull ! which serve as a secular cover for the religions concept of sin. "Sex-negativism" is as old as the church and only managed to found a brand new 'modern' look by manifesting itself under the mask of feminism. In the period of the 'sexual revolution' "Sex-negativism" from a traditional (puritanic, religious) standpoint would have make you look 'outdated', 'unable to keep up with the changes in society', so finding a young modern movement to carry the battle for it was crucial and some feminist took the bite probably without even realizing what exactly happened here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.114.161.230 (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Conflicts w/in sex positive feminism

this article looks great! however, i think it might paint an overly rosy picture of sex-positive feminism. in particular i take issue with this statement:

"Sex-positive feminists support the right of all individuals to determine their own gender, and promote gender fluidity as one means for achieving gender equality. "

while i would like to believe this is true, i am not convinced that sex-positive feminism is, on a whole, any less transphobic or any less ignorant of trans-issues than the anti-sex feminism of people like MacKinnnon. with that said, there are plenty of anti-sex feminists who ARE transpositive, it is important not to gloss over conflicts and contradictions within sex positive feminism. Saffo.dido (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be pointed out that, as always, that Wikipedia is not a space for original research nor a soapbox for one's personal opinions or analysis. If you have a verifiable source you can cite that critiques sex-positive feminism or specific sex positive feminists as "transphobic" or "ignorant of trans issues", then by all means, add this content, adhering, of course, to WP:NPOV in the presentation of this critique. Similarly, if you can find a verifiable published source of trans-positive radical feminism, then by all means, that should be noted. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Saffo.dido pointed out a statement in the article that is not adequately supported. It's a rather strong assertion to imply that all sex-positive feminists support self-determination of gender or gender fluidity, and it's that assertion that needs to be verifiable. (I'd also like to believe it, but I don't.) --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on radical feminism?

I don't normally edit wikipedia so please excuse any mistakes, but it seems to me when reading this article that there is an awful lot of emphasis on the racial feminist perspective and that sex-positive opinions are buried toward the end of paragraphs. For example, the pornography, BDSM, sexual orientation, and gender identity sections all start by giving the anti-porn or radical feminist perspective first, then explaining how sex-positive feminism contrasts with it. While I understand that there's a historical aspect to the sex-positive movement, this format makes skimming the article awfully confusing for those unfamiliar with the content. Is there a way to put more emphasis on the actual beliefs of sex-positive feminism and move the radical feminism bits to the end? Suzicurran (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This is still somewhat the case a decade later. Compare the criticism/critiques sections and this page has twice as long a criticism section as the so-called "Radical" feminism page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.93.254.193 (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Premarital?

I see no Section on premarital intercourse. This Article should clarify the stance of sex-positive feminism toward premarital intercourse, especially since it violates a precept of Christianity and is therefore controversial in the USA and other mostly-Christian parts of the world. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I would imagine they're OK with it. A philosophy/faction/whatever that is accepting of sexual practices like pornography and BDSM is not likely to have any moral objections to merely having sex outside of marriage. I agree that it would be worth mentioning that in the article, if you can find a source that specifically states it. Robofish (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Please define the topic

The sole content of the current WP:LEDE is historical info about who was involved and why (something like "what it's not" that led to this as a response). I see no actual definition of what it is though...what does this movement or philosophy advocate or have as its basic premises? DMacks (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Feminist stripper for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Feminist stripper is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminist stripper until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Lightbreather (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Allegedly Irrelevant Source

If the article talks about "the feminist Council on Women’s Status of Quebec" then is it not discussing feminism? I'll also cite www.simonmay.net/LFEP.pdf - surely you'd agree that article is relevant. 24.252.141.175 (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I already Dis-counted your new-york times source, as its talks about forced polygamy and about polygamy mostly in the east. Its makes a passing comment about Quebec. But the source you are using shows nothing what you have written. Now, just adding another source does not mean you stopped edit warring. So stop NathanWubs (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean you did? You never said anything to me about it. It looks like you're sockpuppeting and following me around. You haven't edited this page at all - yet suddenly you're here agreeing with an IP and saying you've told me things about a discussion here? Further, before you toss out the second source, give it a read. You always try and get rid of things without reading them first. If this stalking - and your convenient agreement with an IP like this - continues I'll request a sockpuppet investigation. 24.252.141.175 (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It does not address sex positive feminism which is a specific branch of feminism. (just like say radical feminism, socialist feminism, liberal feminism, ecofeminism, separatist feminism etc). Do you even have an understanding what this article is about? It's got nothing to do with polygamy and monogamy and the like. And the second source that you added is Liberal Feminism and the Ethics of Polygamy, by Simon May, Department of Philosophy, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, US (that you took from the polygamy article i guess... did you even read it?) It is about liberal feminism and polygamy in third world countries (ethical issues related to these). It's got nothing to do with this article: sex positive feminism is not the same with liberal feminism! Please understand that the subject of this article is not in any way connected with polygamy, polyamory and monogamy. And see WP:SOAP, WP:OR and WP:NPOV.2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:567B:22E8 (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I was talking about the http://www.nytimes.com/, which talks about Polygamy in the east and why its bad there. And has nothing in common even with the text that was written. Unless the IP can point directly to the statement that say the same or the similar thing to the text that was written. Also please drop you accusations about sockpuppeting and stalking you. That is not assuming good faith. I am in the same area as you as you are editing in an are that has my interest. Not only that, this whole thing is not resolved. And you keep adding the same information on all these related articles. Like I said this afternoon with a wide brush. Like the other ip adress said. What you added here is not appropriate to begin with. NathanWubs (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Another source was added so there is no reason to revert it based on a supposed lack of sources. You can remove a source you believe is irrelevant if you wish. If you feel something is unsupported, we have citation needed. If you feel something is not actually in a source, there is a tag for that as well. Constantly reverting the edit isn't how this is done. Further, if you weren't following me around or suckpuppeting, how did you come to this page at all? And why were you saying you'd said something you had never mentioned, but the IP had? 24.252.141.175 (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

PS: Can't you see that several editors are reverting you at the several articles that you're editing? Maybe it's time for you to reconsider your attitude.2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:567B:22E8 (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Another source was added so there is no reason to revert it based on a supposed lack of sources. You can remove a source you believe is irrelevant if you wish. If you feel something is unsupported, we have citation needed. If you feel something is not actually in a source, there is a tag for that as well. Constantly reverting the edit isn't how this is done. 24.252.141.175 (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The content that you are adding is not related to the subject of this article, which is sex positive feminism. If you want to add something to an article it has to be on-topic. If it is off-topic, it will be reverted. You've been explained this several times, but you seem to refuse to acknowledge it.2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:567B:22E8 (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted you again and I am determined to report you.

• You wrote that "Some opponents of sex-positive feminism argue that behaviors it approves of such as sexual nonexclusivity actually lead to decreased happiness and sexual pleasure for women in the long run". Please provide a citation which says exactly this. Not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, but a source which says exactly this. Provide an exact quote from a source here, on talk, so we can see it - and stop using the blog source, it's not reliable; and casual sex is not the same as non-monogamy/sexual nonexclusivity; and source must explicitly criticize sex positive feminism (not 'feminism' in general, not liberal feminism, not libertarian feminism, not individualist feminism but sex positive feminism) for approving of this.
• You are continually using several articles to advance a specific POV about polygamy, polyamory and monogamy. This is not acceptable and you need to stop.
• most severe issue: you linked your statement to Liberal Feminism and the Ethics of Polygamy, by Simon May, Department of Philosophy, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, US. Did you even read that source? Or have you even opened it? Or is it that when you were challenged for not using sources adequately you immediately added this source because you found it in the polygamy article in the External links section? Because that source certainly does not say that! It is a source discussing polygamy in third world countries. Do you think it is acceptable to severely misrepresent an author of a reliable source in this way? 86.123.34.232 (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sex-positive feminism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://dodsonandross.com/sexfeature/bettys-response-vagina-monologues
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfbg.com/36/32/news_womenvscensorship.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060426235109/http://www.ffeusa.org/ to http://www.ffeusa.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Blue hazel-wood (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Navaz33.

— Assignment last updated by WGST320 (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Critiques: Undue weight

I added a WP:UNDUEWEIGHT tag to the "Critique" section. I didn't add this because I don't think the critique section doesn't belong in this article, but because that section is becoming so lengthy that this article is becoming more about perspectives opposed to sex-positive feminism than about sex-positive feminism itself. And I can't help but feel that there might be a certain degreee of editorializing here by editors who are personally opposed to sex-positive feminism who want to use this article as a forum to bash it. It's very important that WP:NPOV be maintained in this and any other article on a controversial topic, and creating articles that are essentially nothing but a "criticism section" flies in the face of that. (So would articles that are stripped of critical perspectives.) Peter G Werner (talk) 06:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Peter G Werner: thanks for adding the tag. I understand you did this some time ago, but I completely agree with your assessment. I've just gone through the section and removed some clear original research and biased wording, but the section still has has UNDUEWEIGHT, and in my opinion, additional original research. The article should indeed contain criticism, but it seems like there's been a lot of creative licence here about what constitutes that. The section should only contain explicit criticism of sex-positive feminism. Criticism of sexual liberation and sexual revolution belong at those respective articles; while there is a degree of overlap in general themes, if the source doesn't mention sex-positive feminism, anyone making the connection themselves is also generating original research. For example, the quotes from Catharine A. MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin are not directly about sex-positive feminism, nor is what's attributed to Sheila Jeffreys, so I propose removing them entirely. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160A

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2022 and 15 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hanyao Xu (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Hanyao Xu (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Attitudes toward sex work

Why is this section's neutrality now being disputed? Jarble (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The tag was added by an IP user who didn't even use the edit summary, and obviously didn't initiate a conversation on the talk page about why they dispute the neutrality. Accordingly, I've just reverted this. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)