A critique of sex positivity.
A critique of sex positivity.
“It’s as if “sex-positivity” has come to mean “you must instantly and without criticism accept others’ sexual preferences and choices.” When exactly did sex become the one topic that’s above reproach among feminists?”
There’s a canonical answer - 1992, the election of Bill Clinton. The realization that while the radfem-cultural conservative alliance that followed from the political logic of the anti-sex side of the Sex Wars had produced some sound and fury but no lasting impact, the further realization in the wake of the Anita Hill hearings that the alliance had always been purely instrumental, and if a campaign that was sorta branded around “culture war” couldn’t win there wasn’t even any point to that.
Meanwhile the pro-sex side and its alliance with cultural liberalism, the residue of midcentury civil libertarianism, liberal capitalist media, and gay men (AIDS patients for the sympathy, rich suits for the power - Clinton was the HRC’s first endorsement) could claim a victory - keep in mind that after 12 years of a Republican executive, electing a Democrat - any Democrat - as president was considered a major upset.
I mean, “claim a victory” in the same sense that Boston barstoolers claim a victory when the Pats win, and “for feminism” in the sense of… feministicish promises, most explicitly of (intentionally) appointing justices who would uphold Roe v. Wade.
I mean it’s not like the anti-sex radfems went away after this, but that at this point they were no longer any threat to matter and could be safely ignored, tossed down the memory hole just in time for third-wave funfeminism to be incorporated into the civic catechism.