\n\n\n\n\nA critique of sex positivity.
\n“It\u2019s as if \u201csex-positivity\u201d has come to mean \u201cyou must instantly and without criticism accept others\u2019 sexual preferences and choices.\u201d When exactly did sex become the one topic that\u2019s above reproach among feminists?”
\n
There\u2019s 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 \u201cculture war\u201d couldn\u2019t win there wasn\u2019t 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\u2019s 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, \u201cclaim a victory\u201d in the same sense that Boston barstoolers claim a victory when the Pats win, and \u201cfor feminism\u201d in the sense of\u2026 feministicish promises, most explicitly of (intentionally) appointing justices who would uphold Roe v. Wade.
I mean it\u2019s 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.