Many if not most people who oppose laws against private, consensual, sexual behavior describe themselves as “sex-positive”; I am not among them. You may find this surprising, given that I had an essentially-uncountable number of sex partners even before I started making my living from sex more than 20 years ago. But it isn’t necessary to imagine sex as a positive good in order to oppose its violent suppression by “authorities”, nor to oppose those who consider it an evil to be controlled, nor to make a living from it; in fact, I think the naive and idealistic idea of sex as an actual good is just as harmful, and causes nearly as much societal ill, as the primitive and warped notion that it’s an active evil. Manichean dualities don’t really exist outside of fantasy and religious literature and the guts of computers; in the real world, most natural behaviors are neither good nor evil in and of themselves, and only become so when used to create weal or woe. Lighting a fire is a morally neutral act; it becomes good if done to cook food or protect people from the cold, and evil when it’s done to destroy another person’s property (or even one’s own, if followed by insurance fraud). Similarly, sex is a morally neutral act which becomes good when used to create good feelings, bond people, or make money; it becomes evil when it’s inflicted on a non-consenting partner or used to lure someone to their doom. This should be obvious, but some people are so locked into black and white thinking that they prefer to cling to the ludicrous notion that rape isn’t sex (despite involving exactly the same actions) than admit that “good” sex can be used to harm someone. Similarly, is it really so much of a stretch from “sex is an actual good” to “sex is sacred”? And yet the latter statement has often been used to stigmatize, demonize and even criminalize casual sex, ethical non-monogamy, sex work, kink, homosexuality and a number of other consensual behaviors, and I don’t just mean by traditional religions; feminists and even soi-disant sex positive folk use very similar sentiments to argue that while amateur sex is good, sex work is bad because it contaminates the magical rainbow rays emanating from “mutual” sex. Similar arguments are used to argue for the repugnant and deeply-flawed concept of “enthusiastic consent“, and to pretend that sexual crimes are so uniquely destructive that nobody can ever recover from them, and that those convicted of them should be ostracized from society forever. Moral judgments smeared upon morally-neutral acts help nobody; all they do is set up an arbitrary standard to which self-appointed “authorities” feel justified in comparing other people’s consensual sex, and inflicting penalties upon those they find wanting.
Sex Neutral
February 9, 2018 by Maggie McNeill
8 Responses
Leave a Reply
Visit my bookstore
This Month
Old Posts
Call me
Become a Blog Patron
If you want to donate but don't want a recurring charge, you can send any amount you like via PayPal to my email address (see below). Be sure to include a note so I can thank you!Contact Maggie
Maggie on Twitter
My TweetsBoring but necessary legal stuff
[…] via Sex Neutral — The Honest Courtesan […]
Those last few lines about people recovering and society ostracizing makes this article seem like an actual answer to the idea of people coming to terms with the need to get over the stigma that occurs, as Amy Alkon suggests, when a man *crosses-A-line*.
I thought I answered her question on the issue of recovery and employment but then I woke up and read this and was much more satisfied with this answer then the one I suggested: we could admit in this life, no matter the occupation and degree of offense; it takes two to tango. No man or woman is any less to blame for the claims of private matters. I would like to believe we are all mature enough to know the steps associated with ethical behavior.
But if that was true then we would not be having the discussion; I don’t know it is hard for me because I have been comfortable with my sexuality and identity in this world since I was 12; so when I hear of so many others having troubles I try to come with common sense solutions and It would seem there are some issues people are not willing to relent on: How our actions speak volumes and determine how people view our future responses; and weather or not we are mature enough to hold ourselves accountable.
That take on sex-positivity had never occurred to me, I only saw it as the opposite of sex-negativity. Thanks!
I like that you are taking a stand on the issue of being “sex positive.” I also like that you invoke Manichean dualities because you’re right; they don’t exist outside of things like _Star Wars_ and even there, the “evil” has good inside of it. I have always advocated against that binary thinking implied by this idea of “pure evil” or “pure good.” In fact, I just blogged on this as well, riffing on comments by Erykah Badu that she can see the good in everyone, all people, even Hitler. Maggie, you’re at a sophisticated place in your thinking and development and given that you have a voice and a following, it’s important for you to make a very valid and reasonable point about being “sex neutral” because, yes, the act itself has no moral imperative one way or the other. The issues involving sex revolve around attitudes and actions in regards to sex. And yet, I have to think that many people are not yet at this place in their thinking, which is another good reason to have your voice added to the discussion. Many people need to use the “sex positive” label simply to declare to the world their attitudes in acceptance of others. “Sex positive” as a term does not have to mean only that the sex act itself is a positive action, but it can be used by a person to declare that one has a positive attitude toward sex and is accepting of sex practices criticized by others and/or is comfortable with his/her sexual identity and/or sexual practices.
As for the rape question, I fought the Dworkin “scriptures” for years in class rooms, trying to help students see the complexity and reality in these ideas that get tossed around with such ease, like rape culture and rape as an act of violence and not sex. And yet, it’s complicated, isn’t it? And I often found that students need simple terms and labels to begin to identify ideas that would form their own personal ideologies and do good work before they could progress to more sophisticated constructs. I wish your blog had existed when I was teaching those classes as I would have referred people here with regularity.
I am enjoying following your daily posts. Thank you for all you do.
Allena Gabosh has the following take on the term “sex-positive” and the movement around it:
My personal definition of sex positive is an attitude towards human sexuality that regards all consensual sexual activities as fundamentally healthy and pleasurable, and encourages sexual pleasure and experimentation.
The sex-positive movement is a social and philosophical movement that advocates these attitudes. The sex-positive movement advocates sex education and safer sex as part of its campaign. It does not make moral distinctions between heterosexual or homosexual sex or the type of sexual activities, regarding these choices as matters of personal preference. [emphasis added]
That being said, I understand how use of the term “sex-positive” is rather confusing, especially when people look at the movement and its positions in depth. Yes, some people tend to take a celebratory attitude towards sex, even talking about “sacred sexuality” as its pinnacle. The bulk of us, however, see sex in the same light as food and rest — a natural part of life which, when the individual indulges in it in a healthy manner, is as much a benefit as a healthy diet and getting enough shuteye. It’s from that basis that the sex-positive movement sees the diversity of sexual orientations and expressions as ethically neutral and dependent on the context of consent and harm.
Speaking of context, the very term “sex-positive” was coined in response to how, in light of the AIDS/HIV epidemic, the word positive became a frightening thing to hear. Similarly, those who considered the restrictive laws and customs around marriage to equal slavery coined and embraced the term free love in response. The latter movement is the successor of the former, and the next manifestation to bloom is likely to call itself by some other name.
“Lighting a fire is a morally neutral act; it becomes good if done to cook food or protect people from the cold, and evil when it’s done to destroy another person’s property (or even one’s own, if followed by insurance fraud). ”
AKA, “The ends justifies the means”. A reasonable position provided we remember the caveat: “when the means themselves are morally neutral”.
Dear Maggie, I think that the sacrality that so pertinaciously attaches itself to sex in the human mind goes far beyond some officious “statement” that “sex is sacred”. For after all, one cannot have the sacred without the significant, and truly, vice versa as well!
The two were born together, and while the one is ‘formal’ (moving always towards the generation of fresh language) and the other is ‘institutional’ (trying to preserve the previous context or scene), to say either of these are divorced from ‘reality’ as such just seems ..intellectually counter-productive?
Otherwise I appreciate very much what you are saying (as usual).
I suppose I’m claiming that, insofar as it involves reciprocity at any level, every human interaction is, therefore, a moral one. It’s difficult for me to get my head around what you might ultimately mean by “neutral act”
If I may expand a tad on that last, I mean to say that invariably one party will feel they got more out of the interaction than the other – and if perchance they both realize the pleasure or satisfaction was absolutely mutual, both parties will rejoice in the explosive significance of what just ‘happened’… I’m wondering how ‘neutral’ could be anything other than a judgement ‘external to the intimate scene’ in other words? Just as the one of ‘good’ or ‘evil’ is?