Two Kinds of Sex-Positivity

I've always had mixed feelings about sex-positivity as an institution, originating from the rather sex-critical perspective of feminism. Call it my bias, but sex-positive spaces seem so often to be littered with what I perceive as rather sex-negative messages - for example, /r/SexPositive contains in its own sidebar two links labeled "I'm A Sex-Negative Feminist" and "Why 'Sex-Positive' Feminism Is Sex-Negative For Me." (I agree with most of their listed ideals, although "the destruction of patriarchy" seems awkwardly shoed-in from the feminist theory, and I find it interesting that "radical consent" is defined elsewhere as "affirmative and enthusiastic" consent, rather than a radical view of who and in what circumstances somebody is capable of giving consent - rather than more liberal, it actually seems more constrictive of sexual behavior). I suppose I've just come at the position from a different angle. And if I had a different name, I'd call it that, but it really is all about having a positive attitude toward sex. If anything, the feminists should call themselves "sex-critical". But what bothers me about "establishment" sex-positivity is just that - the critical attitude.

I'm going to generalize here (fair warning), but it seems as though the establishment sex-positive position holds positive sexual experiences for all (to the degree that they want them) as the primary goal, with less negative sexual experiences as the necessary corollary. And the most obvious vector for this level of satisfaction is consent (although education is also of critical importance). But, seeing the myriad complications that arise in many people's sexual experiences, one is then compelled to view sex critically - especially alternative and fringe sexual passions. On the one hand, whatever desires one may have, as long as they can be fulfilled safely and sanely, involving only informed and consenting participants, positively impacting all those involved, then it's all gravy. But in a way, this can act as a straitjacket, restricting one's conception of what healthy sexuality may entail - like a far looser version of the Catholic church's emphasis on the missionary position. Certain sexualities outside of the normal may be considered problematic, and viewed heavily with suspicion, due to their latent potential to cause others (if not also oneself) distress of a sexual nature, which would serve to reduce the positive impact that sex ought to have on everyone's lives.

Consider, for example, someone who delights in getting a surreptitious peek up a stranger's skirt in public - an act that is currently heavily disparaged by the progressive camp. I've even encountered growing sentiment that the innocuous act of pleasuring oneself behind closed doors to images of individuals of unconfirmed origin shared on the internet ought to be considered non-kosher, on account of the fact that the individuals in question may not have "consented" to their images being used in this way. I consider this a casualty of valuing safety over liberty, raising the possibility for offense at something that mankind should take for granted (that a sexual organism will fantasize about what it sees, and may masturbate to such fantasies in private) over the freedom of individuals to exert agency over their own sexual thoughts. Your agency over your own body stops where my agency over my own mind begins.

Now, I will concede that picture trading is a grey area, because it can be an avenue for the violation of trust and privacy. And this is a case where ignorance (and not just directed malice) - a don't ask, don't tell policy, if you will - can contribute to the propagation of these transgressions. But, say what you will, I think anyone who shares a picture on the internet, or even allows an image of them to be created, should understand that the possibility exists that at some point, somebody may masturbate to it. But rather than frightening people away from taking and sharing images, I think this is a fact of life we should learn to take for granted, because I see no reason why it should be cause for any alarm. It's just part of existing in a society comprised of sexual organisms. And unlike harassment, which is antisocial at its core, this isn't a toxic behavior that needs to be eliminated.

So rather than being concerned with making sure all sex acts that occur are kosher, with no mind to those who may go frustrated and unfulfilled, I prefer to look at it from the perspective of working towards sexual satisfaction for all, regardless of the nature of one's desires, even if some of those desires are more challenging to fulfill ethically than others, and at the fundamental level, that as long as one knows how to behave oneself, one should not feel ashamed for the feelings one has that leads to sexual stimulation, no matter what anyone else who does not share them might think about those feelings.

Let me state clearly that my own brand of sex-positivity does not conflict with the ideology outlined above - it does not condone any kind of behaviors that victimize innocents and cause distress of a sexual nature to anyone (outside of mutually consensual BDSM-type arrangements). I merely approach it from a different perspective - not one that is overly critical, but rather one that is more forgiving, and willing to hand out the benefit of the doubt. The foundational principle of sex-positivity, in my mind, isn't necessarily the ideal that everyone should be having only positive sexual experiences (although that would be a good thing), but that the sexual energy that permeates our lives is viewed, not with suspicion, but as a positive thing. Even though it may sometimes be misdirected (often devoid of ill intention - a result of ignorance, and not maleficence - the solution then being education, and not public shaming, as mistakes ought to more readily be considered reparable setbacks than life-altering traumas). Obviously, when this energy is twisted to violent ends, this is a travesty. But alone, in and of itself, removed from context, the desire to seek sexual satisfaction, and the myriad ways the human organism pursues it, is a wondrous curiosity, and not a blade waiting to be sharpened. In a sense, it's coming at sex-positivity from a position of innocence rather than cynicism.

Certainly, it could be argued that innocence is synonymous with naivety (and I admit it is unusual for me to pass over the cynical stance), but I see more beauty in innocence, more pleasure, and my own personal experience of sexual desire reflects an innocent attitude - again, in the sense I've described before, not as a lack of experience, but an approach, an attitude that rejects the Pandora's box of evils that much of society associates with sex. It is a purer approach. Not reflective of virginity, but freedom from corruption. Not defining carnal knowledge as corruption - this is the sex-negative strategy. Sex-positivity is stating that one can have carnal knowledge and still be without sin. To refuse to associate such knowledge with pollution, either of the body or mind.