Jenseits von ’sexpositiv‘ und ’sexnegativ‘

[for English version please scroll down]

Words of nuance, words of skill
And words of romance are a thrill
Words are stupid, words are fun
Words can put you on the run*

Wie stehst du zu „Sex-Positivität“? Also nur zum Wort jetzt!

Als ich ihn zum ersten Mal hörte, bekam ich das nicht zusammen, dass ein so sinnlicher und schillernder Raum mit einem so kühlen und mathematischen Ausdruck gekennzeichnet wurde, dessen Klang mich an die Formulierung unerfreulicher ärztlicher Diagnosen erinnern ließ. Oder ich musste an die abwertend gemeinten Positivismusvorwürfe denken, die ich aus wissenschaftlichen Kontexten kenne, wenn die blinden Flecken aufgezeigt werden, die damit einhergehen, wenn bei der Erarbeitung eines Themas sich nur eindimensional auf das Ansammeln und Anhäufen von Fakten beschränkt wird, wo es doch auch einen Überschuss an Wissen gibt, welches nicht-positivierbar ist, sich nicht klar mit „ja“ oder „nein“ antworten lässt.

Bei diesen ersten Assoziationen zu ‚Positivität‘ ist der Term erstmal nicht wertend, sondern bezeichnet nur ein faktisches „etwas ist da“ „etwas ist über Null“. Freilich möchte ‚Sexpositivität‘ aber nicht nur betonen, dass da einfach Sex auch vor Ort stattfindet, sondern ist auch wertend gemeint, dass die Positivität sich auf eine bejahende, gastfreundschaftliche Einstellung bezieht: dass alle sexuellen Orientierungen willkommen sind, Sexualität ein wichtiger und schöner Teil des Lebens ist, dass ein offener und schamfreier Umgang eine Bereicherung und Befreiung bedeutet (wobei sexpositive Räume auch schampositive Räume sein und gastfreundschaftlich mit Scham umgehen sollten).

Das finde ich alles auch. Gleichzeitig bin ich skeptisch. Weil das überwuchernde Aufploppen von „sexpositiv“ „sexpositiv“ „sexpositiv“ bei mir irgendwann eine Art Immunsystem hochfahren lässt und sich Stress und Genervtsein einstellt. Weil es sich so eingliedert in den sonstigen belästigenden, einseitigen Positivitätsterror von Smileys und Likes und Happy happy und „Just do it!“. Weil es den Raum eng macht und in eine, vorgeblich „richtige“ Richtung lenkt: „Hier entlang! Ins Sexpositive!“, statt die mehrschichtigen Verdrehungen und Windungen des Wollknäuels „Sex“ zu betonen, der viele Richtungen hat, nicht nur die Weggabelung „Positiv ⇔ Negativ“. Weil es Druck aufbaut, dass Sex dann auch gefälligst zu sein und stattzufinden habe – was sich schon etwas auffangen ließe, wenn sich das „A“ mehr in die Bezeichnungen einschmuggeln würde, a la: „… wir sind (A-)Sexualität positiv gegenübergestellt“.

Vor allem aber frage ich mich, ob Sex (auch und vielleicht gerade auf sexpositiven Events) denn überhaupt immer positiv ist oder nicht auch ganz viel mit negativ Konnotiertem — wie Verdrängung, Ablenkung, Bestätigungssuche, Vakuumfüllung — zu tun hat? Es macht „sex-positiv“ zu einem ungünstig gewählten Wort, wenn es als Leugnen oder Abwerten dieser Aspekte verstanden werden könnte. Natürlich können sex-positive Räume so klug und warm sein, auch diese menschlichen Aspekte erstmal willkommen zu heißen. Vielleicht es also einfach das gehypte Szenegebärden das mich so nervt, weil das Warme und Kluge da übetönt wird vom lauten Sich-selber-abfeiern-und-als-sexpositiv-in-Pose-werfen.

Auch ist Sex nicht für alle eine positive Erfahrung, und „sex-positiv“ könnte wie eine Ohrfeige für sie sein. Überhaupt: wer bestimmt, was positiv ist? Woher wissen wir, dass etwas positiv sei? Ist das Positive, wie Fröhlichkeit, immer erstrebenswert, ist es automatisch gut? Der Begriff tut dann so, als könnte man das so gut beschreiben. Mir fällt das gar nicht leicht in Worte zu fassen, was da in diesen Räumen passiert; nicht nur, weil das etwas anderes ist als Positives im Sinne von „etwas Nettes“, sondern eh sich einfachen Beschreibungen entzieht, wenn es da um etwas Vielschichtiges, Rohes und Unvorhersehbares geht. Das macht diese Räume ja so kraftvoll. Oder werden sie durch im Vorhinein bestimmte Zuschreibung „Was da passiert ist positiv“ bereits kraftlos?
Ist es erlaubt etwas zu tun oder zu wollen, was nicht gleich als etwas Positives/etwas Gutes verwertbar ist?
Will ‚Sexpositivität‘ alle Praktizierenden vor allem rasch auf eine sichere Seite bringen und vor kritischen Blicken abschirmen und erregte Gemüter beruhigen: „Keine Sorge! Das sieht auf den ersten Blick zwar aus wie Sodom und Gomorra, aber das ist alles ganz positiv!“?

„But now you begin to see the problem with desire: we rarely want the things we should.“ (Andrea Long Chu)

Und inwiefern bewegt sich Sex nicht eh jenseits von binären positiv/negativ-Einordnungen? Irgendwas macht mich an – keine Ahnung ob das positiv ist! Vielleicht ist es das, um ehrlich zu sein, nicht! Aber genau deswegen macht es mich an! Also inwiefern zähmt der Begriff ‚Sexpositiv‘ den Sex? So dass uns droht, dass am Ende vor allem der Sex aus diesen sexpositiven Räumen verschwindet. Ist das Sexpositive also am Ende gar das Sexnegative?
Inwiefern ist das Sexnegative auch förderlich für das Sexpositive?

„O du traurige, viereckige alkoholfreie moderne Zeit, du schnödes Zeitalter der Fliegerei und Weltreisen, du siehst es jetzt, wie sehr unter dir die abenteuerlechzenden Liebespaare zu leiden haben. Oskar und Emma’s Liebe starb allmählich dahin, und weshalb? Ja, aus Mangel an Gefahr. (…) Wo Tätigkeiten so ohne weiteres und ganz blind gestattet sind, werden sie bald langweilig und erlahmen endlich. Das ist der entsetzliche Witz der Zeit (…) wo alles so schuftig erlaubt ist. (…) Oskar und Emma wollten eine Novelle machen, aber sie geriet nicht, sie brach auseinander. (…) Gefahr ist ja die Ader, und das Hindernis ist ja das Leben einer Novelle. Und Hindernisse gibt es nicht mehr in dieser charakterlosen, unstolzen Welt, die keines edlen Vorurteiles fähig ist. (…) Oskar und Emma wussten das, und es bemächtiget sich ihrer jungen Herzen eine unsagbare Beklemmnis. Ihre Eltern waren vorurteilsfreie Menschen, o Jammer.“
(Robert Walser, 1913).

Dann wirkt die programmatische Verkündung von Sexpositivität manchmal vor allem wie Selbstlegitimierung, die nur von der Annahme leben kann, dass Sexpositivität so wichtig und dringlich sei, weil um die Sexpositivität herum vor allem böse Sexnegativität herrsche. Argumentativ beschwört der Begriff immer wieder umfassende Repressionszusammenhänge, wobei ich mich frage, ob diese gesellschaftliche Zwangsjacke denn tatsächlich so einschnürend sei wie diagnostiziert? Nicht, dass es nicht (immer noch) Unterdrückung und Missinformation gäbe, ganz klar! Aber wer und was genau ist der Feind, wenn manchmal so luftleer die Flagge der Sexpositivität gehisst wird?** Was genau die Missstände, die wie genau angefochten werden (müssen)? Inwiefern wirkt der Begriff dann verkürzend was eine genaue Zustandsbeschreibung angeht? Und inwiefern ist er manipulativ, weil mit ‚Sexpositivität‘ auch immer ein Erlösungsversprechen geradezu religiös mitschwingt – und damit die Bedingung, dass der Rest immer schön als sexnegativ behauptet und damit aufrechterhalten werden muss, weil man sonst ja die eigene Power als das Andere/das Widerständige verliert (-> Gefahr der self-fulfilling prophecy, bei der man gar nicht mehr sieht, was tatsächlich so abgeht und ob die Angeklagten es nicht schon längst besser machen). Was voll passt, wenn so viele Vorreiter*innen dieser Bewegung sich als Gurus und „Priestesses“ inszenieren.

Welche wichtigen und interessanten unterschiedlichen feministischen Standpunkte werden übersehen, wenn die Diskurse auf eine simplifizierte Spaltung zwischen „Pro-Sex“ und „Anti-Sex“ reduziert werden? Ist der Feind der Sexpositivität tatsächlich Sexnegativität? Denn wenn Sexnegativität sich gegen schlechten Sex wendet, dann ist Sexnegativität viel positiver als Sexpositivität 😀 Für mich beginnt schlechter Sex mit Sex, der mir vorgeschrieben oder verordnet wird. Und das kann „Nur Mann und Frau in Missionarstellung“ genauso sein, wie das ins Positive gekehrte: „Studien belegen: Sex macht glücklich! Also habt gefälligst viel Sex, sonst stimmt was nicht mit euch!“ Sex unterdrücken und Sex verbessern, beides wirkt auf mich stressig und bevormundend. Manchmal erkenne ich dieses „Sex verbessern und verordnen“ aber eben auch in sich selber zu wenig kritisch befragenden und nur affirmativ selbstbejahenden sexpostiven Szenen. Sie knüpfen betimmte Erwartungen an den Sex. Dann ist gerade Sexnegativität als politischer Term lustigerweise doch exakter und als feministisches Tool brauchbarer, weil es die enge Verknotung von Sex und Macht bedenkt. Wieso sollte unser Sex rein sein von der Umgebung in der er entstanden ist? Frei von kapitalisitschen, patriarchalen, neoliberalen Kräften? Kennt ihr das, wenn Leute meditieren um ihr Ego zu verlieren, aber genau damit in die Falle tappen und sie eigentlich nur ihr Ego damit vergrößern? In so eine Dialektik scheint mir auch Sexpositivität zu geraten, wenn Sex zwar nicht mehr etwas Verbotenes, aber nunmehr Gebotenes ist. In seiner affirmativ-weichgespülten oder verpflichtenden Form bildet Sexpositivität Allianzen mit dem, was eben gar nicht befreiend wirkt. „Heiße Tipps die ihn verrückt machen!“ in der Cosmopolitan sind nicht sexrepressiv, sind nicht verstaubt moralisch, im Gegenteil. Und diese Form von Sexpositivität herrscht doch überall.

Auch ist diese kritisch-programmatische und normative Zielvorgabe, dass wir endlich sexpositiver werden müssen, uralt. Kommen wir sprachlich nach dem (teilweise grandios gescheitertem) Befreiungsprojekt der 68er und den Schriften Wilhelm Reichs nicht weiter und müssen die immer gleichen Wörter wiederkäuen und dabei so tun als handle es sich um eine brandneue Revolution? Wie viel historisches Bewusstsein zeigt die gegenwärtige sex-positive Bewegung?

Letztlich lässt sich manches mal beim Bewerben mit Sexpositivität das Schulterklopfen raushören, wenn Sexpositivität als eine Art Identität und Zugehörigkeit verstanden wird, statt als politische Positionierung: „Wir sind die Sexpositiven in einer sexnegativen Welt. Wir sind die, mit dem besseren Sex. Die anderen sind Idioten.“ Welche prestigeträchtige Klasse der Sexpositiven entsteht da? Welcher Habitus herrscht in den Räumen und welche Vertreter*innen welcher sozialer Milieus sind in ihnen vertreten? Wer ist auffällig abwesend?
Wobei ich es eigentlich sympathisch fände, wenn man sich so geradeheraus tatsächlich als Sex-Elite definieren würde.

„Us polyamorous folk can get a little bit… evangelical, sometimes.
We’re so enlightened, you know.  So evolved.  We deal with our jealousy like rational beings, we don’t attempt to impose control on our partners, we base everything in open communication and trust–we’re so goddamn more advanced than the average human, we ought to glow blue or something.  Right?“

Nungut, aber es braucht ja Begriffe und die müssen irgendwie knackig sein. Was wäre noch möglich? ‚(A-)Sexfreundlich‚ mag ich, weil das ganze Klinische des ‚Positiven‘ erstmal wegfällt und stattdessen das Wohlgesinnte betont wird — auch dem Gegenüber, was nicht nur positiv bewertbar/sagbar sein muss. Dann gibt es aber noch das Problem mit dem Wörtchen ‚Sex‘, darüber haben wir noch gar nicht gesprochen. Es geht in den Räumen ja nicht nur um Sex, oder? Also, was versteht sich unter ‚Sex‘? Es ist ein umkämpftes Wort, das gerne ersetzt wird durch den eher auf Selbstzweck ausgelegten Begriff ‚Erotik‘ oder einfach ‚Intimität‘, um es von der Festschreibung auf Reproduktion und Penetration wegzubringen. Aber ‚erotikpositive Räume‘ trägt etwas zu schwülstig-schwitziges, wie ein 80er-Jahre-Musikvideo.
‚Intimacy-welcoming spaces‘?
‚Menschenrechträume‘? (→ „Ein Leben kommender Menschen, das diesen Namen verdient, hängt […] daran, dass die Präambeln der Menschenrechtsverordnungen ( und das zugehörige Verhalten ) sich abkoppeln von Luftblasen-Formeln wie »Würde« und »Respekt« und dem schrecklichen Adjektiv »unantastbar« – wo doch permanent und ohne jede Rücksicht »angetastet« wird. Wäre es nicht schöner, etwas tatsächlich Existierendes an ihre Stelle zu setzen, nämlich »die Haut«, eine wirkliche Grenze. »Menschenrecht« solle sein das Recht auf Unversehrtheit der Haut gegenüber unerwünschten Eingriffen. Haut, die aber berührbar ist, wo gewünscht, gegenseitig.“ Klaus Theweleit, Nachwort „Männerphantasien“, 2019)
‚Taboo-tackling-movement‘?
Vorschlag meiner Freundin Anna Mense: „Sexy time, sexy space, Sexveranstaltung, sinnliche Räume, Veranstaltung zur sexuellen Kultur.“
‚Quality Time?‘
‚Sexundogmatische Räume‘?
‚Sexreflektierende Räume‘?
‚Sexrespektierende Räume‘?
Sex-critical‚?
‚Sex-neutral‘?
Einfach „feministische Räume“? Weil egal ob sexpositiv oder sexkritisch, am Ende eint uns doch der Kampf um weniger Leiden und Gleichberechtigung für alle? (bell hooks: „Feminism: A Movement to End Sexist Oppression“)
Confidence-and-Joy-Positive Space„?
„Sexundogmatische Räume“?
„Solidarisch-kritische Haltung zu Sex(positivität)“? (via Katharina Debus)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Und wahrscheinlich müsste ich auch definiertere Begriffe für die unterkomplexen Seiten des Sexpositiven finden, damit die Kritik nicht die Falschen trifft – vielleicht problematisierte ich eher sowas wie unhinterfragten Sex-Enthusiasmus oder Sex-Optimismus? Im Sinne eines „Cruel Optimism„, wie Lauren Berlant es beschreibt: „cruel optimism exists when something you desire is actually an obstacle to your flourishing.“ Vielleicht könnte ich auch präzisieren, dass ich gegensexuelles Entrepreneurwesen bin.

 


Vielleicht ist das eine Frage für unseren Workshop „Trial & Eros“ vom 14.-16. Februar in Berlin, weil es ums Navigieren durch sexfreundliche Spaces geht und alle Fragen, die mitgebracht werden.


*

** »I do think as feminists we’re fighting for too many things right now. Like, there’s some feminists that are like, “We wanna be in charge of stuff and we wanna get paid the same.” And then there’s other feminists that are like, “We wanna free the nipple on Instagram.” It’s like, “Hey, can we focus? I know she’s more fun, but can we focus?” It’s like if during the Revolutionary War, if some soldiers were like, “We wanna be independent!” and then other soldiers were like, “We wanna free the nipple on Instagram!” You’d be like, “Yeah, maybe England should stay in charge of you. You sound like you’d be fairly irresponsible.”
Also just logically, we focus our attention and power on one thing. We’re much more likely to get it accomplished. So, personally, I think we should go after equal pay. But if all the women voted, and we got on the same page, and we wanted to go after nipple, fine, I’ll fight nipple, I’m a team player. It’s just hard for me to even believe that that was a woman’s idea. Sounds like a man infiltrated a meeting and he was like, “We gotta get these nipples on Instagram! Did you hear we can’t? It’s not fair… for the women. You know me, my main concern is the women.” [exhales] “It’s why I call ’em ‘the women.’” And the whole debate is men are allowed to have their nipples on Instagram; women aren’t. Well, here’s an easier solution. Just get male nipples off of Instagram. I’ve never seen a man’s nipple and been like, “Oh, now my day’s better. Boy, do I love looking at those useless skin tags.”
We gotta focus! We gotta focus on what we’re fighting for.« (Michelle Wolf)


Foto: Hannes Wiedemann


Ich habe ein paar artverwandte Texte gefunden!

  • https://megjohnandjustin.com/sex/sex-positivity-2/?fbclid=IwAR0SfAE2mFSlNPl1uDXOOpmTVCBCM6qjr90CMMUb3zFfFLEYO2oMmqxcgIU
    „In sex negativity, and mainstream sex positivity, people try to fit in the ‘charmed circle’ of sex (monogamous, coupled, in private, penis in vagina, etc.). In the sex positive moment people embrace the ‘outer limits’ of sex (non-monogamous, in public, kinky, etc.) But this easily replaces one sex hierarchy with another […] As soon as we have any kind of hierarchy – with one kind of sex as the ideal – some people are going to be excluded and stigmatised, and some people are going to feel pressured to have that kind of sex.
    The brilliant zines Fucked, and 2 Fucked 2 Furious explain how various groups are excluded from sex positive spaces, such as people who struggle with sex, who’ve experienced sexual trauma, who’re on the asexual spectrum, who don’t fit the body ideals in sex positive spaces, or enjoy the kinds of environments they’re often in (e.g. social, noisy, often with drink and/or drugs). There’s often an expectation in sex positive spaces that people will find sex simple, will easily experience pleasure, will know what they’re into, and will be up for trying new things, for example.
    Also as Elizabeth Sheff and Cory Hammers point out, sex positive spaces are often overwhelmingly white and middle-class because many sex positive organisers have questioned norms around sex, gender, and relationships – which apply to them – but often not issues around race, class and disability – which don’t. This means that people of colour, working class people, and disabled people may well not feel welcome in these spaces. […]
    So instead of being sex negative or sex positive, we aim to be sex critical. This is an idea from eminent sexologist Lisa Downing which she explains nicely on her blog. Basically it’s about moving away from the negative/positive binary, and instead taking a critical lens on all forms of sex and representations of sex. So we’d be just as critical of sex advice as we were of porn, for example, or just as critical of heteronormative sex as we were of kink.
    Being sex critical means that we can ask who is being included and excluded in any form of sex, or event, or piece of writing. For us it also means being really aware of power dynamics which mean people might feel pressured, or struggle to give informed consent.“
  • https://resonanceaudiodistro.org/2017/07/24/undoing-sex-audiozine/
    „That is, sex here is not as an enemy to be polemically confronted, but an overwhelming relation demanding examination, where the pain and weight of gender are more immediate. My project: to long for the good and feel its absence, picking apart, historicizing, drowning in the weight of phenomena, “tripping on content” as Chris Kraus puts it.
    So then to clarify: I do not set out to reject an entire wave of feminism. Under the banner of ’sex positivity,‘ even sexual optimism, are gestures that would be absurd to reject—the historicizing of sexuality, demystifying sexuality, giving information surrounding STDs and contraception to women and queers, disrupting reactionary forms of shame. What is necessary is far from a sectarian return to “second wave” theorists, but rather tracing the thread that gave rise to our present situation—the ways in which sex has been exalted, its relationship to senses of the Self, and the ideologies of the whole and natural. Sex positivity as a supposedly coherent social movement would be only a paper tiger; rather, the object of this essay is to disrupt the attachment to sex as it has lived in feminism and popular imagination, and it is a relation that lives well beyond the past 30 years of ’sex positive feminism.'“
  • https://radtransfem.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/the-ethical-prude-imagining-an-authentic-sex-negative-feminism/
    „It is vital that the phrase “sex-negative” stops being an insult, or at least that more feminists develop an understanding that sex is not above criticism. Not bad sex, not sex gone wrong, not the sex that other people have. Our sex, real sex, what we call sex – it must be criticised“
    „Sex-Positive Feminism, as I frame it, is a marginalised, progressive force which is present-day. It is a feminist tendency which aims to fight the shaming of women and a woman’s right to independence as a sexual actor. As such, its obvious enemy is sex-moralism, which it directly opposes. And its subtle enemy is compulsory sexuality, which may easily coopt it. The job of fighting sex-moralism is straightforward if not easy. The job of resisting cooption by compulsory sexuality is extremely challenging and requires sisterhood and cooperation with sex-negative feminists. Unfortunately, many sex-positive feminists conflate sex moralism with sex-negative feminism and fight them both, leaving them wide open to being coopted into the service of compulsory sexuality.
    Sex-Negative Feminism is a marginalised, progressive force which dates from the Women’s Liberation Movement of the 60s and continues to the present day. It is a feminist tendency which speaks honestly about the hard knot of sex, power and violence formed by male supremacy and which aims to liberate women from sexual violence and compulsory sex. As such, its obvious enemy is compulsory sexuality, which it opposes openly. Sex moralism appropriates some sex-negative feminist language in its abstinence and anti-sexualisation advocacy but sex-negative feminists do not support the way it uses the language to make antifeminist arguments. Sex-negative feminism’s most complex struggle is with sex-positive feminism, which does not need to be an enemy. As sex-negative feminism does not advocate shaming or controlling women, sex-positive feminism does not need to oppose it on these grounds. But when sex-positive feminism is coopted by and advocates for compulsory sexuality, sex-negative feminism must resist, as compulsory sexuality under male supremacy is compulsory violence against women.
    As I have outlined them here, neither sex-positive or sex-negative feminisms are totalising systems. Many women’s feminisms embrace elements from both categories, in that many feminists know that women must neither be shamed for sex or forced into it.“
  • https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/05/sex-positivity-critical-analysis/?fbclid=IwAR2WgJNZmqa81airb1xo7l862sFFGuaKfwg18v0V0tp1IJg2lJU77ceaDWE
    „I want people to lead healthy, satisfying sex lives. If extensions, high heels, and an air of vapidness do that for you, rock on. But on the other hand, I think it’s fair to go a step beyond that. Because I am curious about understanding why certain preferences exist: What messages are we receiving from society at large that are telling us that this is sexy? Is it coming from somewhere? And I think that matters if we want to understand sexuality as a field. At the end of the day, I’m always going to be all for people doing what makes them happy, so long as it’s consensual. But my problem with sex-positivity without critical analysis is that it always ends there without engaging people in a conversation around how socialization affects the choices that we make. And asking why doesn’t have to be judgmental. It can be curious. And I think that curiosity is (largely) missing from the mainstream movement.“
  • https://miracharlotte.com/2015/07/20/in-search-of-sexually-empowering-feminism/
    „The sexual revolution was this proclaimed attempt to free our sexualities. But what it did for heterosexual women is primarily create a set of rules to maximize our bodies’ availability to men. While the sexual revolution seemed appealing to many women at the time, in the long term, it was deeply problematic for us, and it leaves us a legacy yet today. Look at online dating and “hookup culture” – Tindr was created by two guys (and from the looks of it, not nice guys). The idea that women can either be sidelined by some other woman who is more willing than they are, or they can play the man’s game on the man’s rulebook, is a fool’s choice. Even for women who do legitimately find value or meaning in hookup culture, it’s vital that we understand that we are participating in a game that plays by rules that are deeply patriarchal in their design.“
  • http://kittystryker.com/blog/posts/what-i-mean-when-i-say-im-sex-critical/
    „I mean, in a lot of ways, I think I probably am actually sex positive, and would actually argue that many people who identify as sex positive but aren’t critiquing the oppressive systems they’re perpetuating within their communities are actually not. But that’s really exhausting, and that’s fighting a giant movement of happy hippies who get really ugly and mean when you tell them they can’t have their „pimps and hos“ parties without hurting people or that it’s not inclusive to only ever show one standard of beauty- slender, white, cis, feminine, young- on all their event flyers. I’m pretty sure my critique could go on and on, but here’s a start to what i mean, at least, when I say „sex critical“.“
  • https://www.feministcurrent.com/2014/04/11/the-divide-isnt-between-sex-negative-and-sex-positive-feminists-its-between-liberals-and-radicals/
    „To clarify — ’sex negative‘ and ’sex positive‘ are relatively useless terms with regard to discussing feminist approaches to issues of sex and sexuality. The terms convey the message that ’sex positivity‘ equals support for a vision of sex and sexuality that is defined by patriarchy and one that is primarily libertarian. What’s defined as ’sex positive feminism‘ tends to translate to: non-critical of the sex industry, BDSM, burlesque, and generally, anything that can be related to ’sex.‘ ‚Non-judgement‘ is the mantra espoused by so-called ’sex-positive feminists‘, which is troubling because it ends up framing critical thought and discourse as ‚judgement‘ and therefore negative. Since I tend to see critical thinking as a good thing, the ‚don’t judge me’/’don’t say anything critical about sex because it’s sex and therefore anything goes‘ thing doesn’t sit well with me.‘
    ‚Sex negative,‘ on the other hand, tends to be ascribed to feminists who are critical of prostitution, pornography, strip clubs, burlesque, BDSM and, really, sex and sexuality as defined by patriarchy and men. The reason that feminists are critical of these things is because they want to work towards a real, liberated, feminist understanding of sex and sexuality, rather than one that sexualizes inequality, domination and subordination, is male-centered, and is harmful and exploitative of women. To me, that sounds far more ’sex positive‘ (from a feminist perspective, anyway), than blind support for anything sex-related, because sex.“
    „I know for certain that many have used these labels in order to intentionally misrepresent and discredit radical feminist theory (and, actually, feminists in general — see: ye old “man-hating prude” trope) and scare women away from forming critiques of the sex industry, lest they be labelled “anti-sex;” and I also know that, as a result of this intentional misrepresentation, many women have legitimately bought into these ideas.“
  • https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/kelly-rose-pflugback/women-sexual-empowerment-_b_4058018.html?_guc_consent_skip=1588957666&guccounter=1
    For people who face more obstacles in the path towards reclaiming and realizing their sexuality, this sort of uncompromisingly positive and monolithic view of sex can come off as anywhere from frivolous to brutally alienating. During the long period of my life in which I felt that I was completely incapable of having any kind of healthy manifestation of a sex life, I often felt wracked by the guilt of not being a „good“ feminist.
    […]
    If we wish to construct a feminism that is truly „sex positive,“ it must address the myriad forms of oppression that violate women’s lives and bodies on a global scale. „Freedom in society can be measured by distribution of orgasms,“ reads another slogan of Wallace’s Cliteracy project — a statement that seems almost painfully ludicrous when we consider the millions of women worldwide whose freedoms, sexual and otherwise, are devastated on a daily basis by state violence, environmental degradation, poverty, racism, and the wide variety of other hardships women must tackle in the contemporary world, in addition to a lack of sexual gratification. Women’s sexual empowerment is not an issue which can be separated from broader struggles for gender justice, and in order to support its realization, we must fight collectively for serious social and political change with the same passion and uncompromising desire we bring to our bedrooms.“
  • https://www.theaproject.org/content/problem-sex-positivity
    „Just as queering and cripping are processes – not identities – that challenge compulsory heterosexuality and ablebodiedness, as well as homonormativity and normalized disability movements, is it possible to challenge sex positivity without eliminating it? It is then important to stop viewing sex negativity as insulting and take into account that these feminists criticize sex on political and not moral grounds. There is a difference between positivity while addressing sex/sexuality and in claiming that all consensual, harm-free sex is positive. I am for the former.“


 

ENGLISH VERSION

Words of nuance, words of skill
And words of romance are a thrill
Words are stupid, words are fun
Words can put you on the run*

How do you feel about „sex-positivity“? Just the word now!

When I heard it for the first time, I couldn’t quite wrap my head around the fact that such a sensual and vibrant space was marked with such a cool and mathematical expression, the sound of which reminded me of the formulation of unpleasant medical diagnoses. Or I had to think of the criticism of positivism in scientific contexts, when the elaboration of a topic is limited to the accumulation of facts, while there is also an excess of knowledge which cannot be positivized, cannot be answered clearly with „yes“ or „no“.

With these first associations to ‚positivity‘, the term is not judgmental, but only describes a factual „something is there“ „something is above zero“. Of course, ’sex positivity‘ does not only want to emphasize that sex simply is present, but it is also meant to be valuing, appreciative, that positivity refers to an affirmative, welcoming attitude: that all sexual orientations are accepted, that sexuality is an important and beautiful part of life, that open and shameless contact means enrichment and liberation (whereby sexpositive spaces should also be shame-positive spaces and deal with shame in a hospitable way).

I agree with all that. At the same time, I’m sceptical. Because the overgrowing pop-up of „sexpositive“ „sexpositive“ „sexpositive“ everywhere will eventually boost my immune system and cause stress and nervousness. Because it integrates itself into the other annoying, one-sided positivity terror of smileys and Likes and happy happy and „Just do it!“ Because it narrows down the space and directs you towards certain objects when it gives one (and supposedly right) direction: „This way! Into the sex-positive!“, instead of taking seriously the multi-layered twists and turns of „sex“, which has many directions, not only the junction „positive ⇔ negative“. Because it builds up pressure for sex to be pleasing and to take place — which could be compensated for if the„A“ could be smuggled more into the terms, like: „… we are (a-)sex-positive“.

But above all I wonder whether sex (also and perhaps especially on sex-positive events) is always positive or has to be positive. Doesn’t sex also have a lot to do with negatively connotated elements — like suppression, distraction, filling a vacuum, the search for confirmation? It makes „sex-positive“ a disadvantageously chosen word when it could be understood as in denial of or judgy with these aspects. Of course, some sex-positive spaces can be smart and warm enough to welcome these more troublesome human aspects, too. That would be their strength for me. So maybe it’s just those hyped scene gestures that annoy me so much, because the warm and smart is drowned out by the loud self-affirmation.

After all, sex is not a positive experience for everyone and the term „sex-positive“ can be like a slap in their face. Either way: who defines what is positive? How do we know that something is positive? Is the positive, like happiness, always desirable, is it automatically good? The term then acts as if it could be so well described. It’s not easy for me to put into words what’s happening in these sexy spaces, not only because it’s something other than positive in the sense of „something nice“, but because it’s not easy to describe something complex, raw and unpredictable. That’s what makes these rooms so powerful, not their positivity. Aren’t they already becoming lifeless and domesticated through a previously determined attribution of „what happens there is positive“?
Is it allowed to do or want something that is not immediately usable as something positive/good?
Does ’sex-positivity‘ want to bring all practitioners quickly to a safe side and shield them from critical looks and calm agitated minds: „Don’t worry! At first glance this may seem filthy and obscene, but it is all very positive!“?

„But now you begin to see the problem with desire: we rarely want the things we should.“ (Andrea Long Chu)

And to what extent does sex not move beyond binary positive/negative classifications anyway? Something turns me on — I don’t know if it’s positive! Maybe, to be honest, it’s not! But that’s exactly why it turns me on! So to what extent does the term ’sex positive‘ tame sex? So that we are threatened that in the end it is mainly sex that disappears from these sex-positive spaces. So in the end, is the sex positive even the sex negative?
To what extent is the sex negative also beneficial for the sex positive?

„O you sad, square, alcohol-free modern age, you disdainful age of flying and world travel, you see now how much the adventurous lovers suffer under you. Oskar and Emma’s love gradually died away, and why? Yes, for lack of danger. (…) Where activities are so easily and blindly allowed, they soon become boring and finally flag. This is the terrible joke of the time (…) where everything is so grudgingly allowed. (…) Oskar and Emma wanted to make a novel, but it didn’t work out, it broke apart. (…) Danger is the vein, and the obstacle is the blood of a novel. And obstacles no longer exist in this characterless, unproud world, which is incapable of any noble prejudice. (…) Oskar and Emma knew this, and an unspeakable anxiety takes possession of their young hearts. Their parents were unprejudiced people, O misery.
(Robert Walser, 1913, transl. by BA).

The programmatic proclamation of sex-positivity sometimes appears as self-legitimation, which can only live on the assumption that sex-positivity is so important and urgent because around sex-positivity there is above all evil sex-negativity. Argumentatively, the term repeatedly evokes comprehensive repressive contexts, whereby I ask myself whether this social straightjacket is really as constricting as diagnosed? Not that there is not (still) repression and misinformation, of course! But who and what exactly is the enemy, when sometimes the flag of sex positivity is hoisted so airlessly?** What exactly are the defects that (must) be challenged and how exactly? To what extent does the term then have a reductive effect in terms of a precise description of the state of affairs? And to what extent is it manipulative, because with ’sex-positivity‘ a promise of salvation always resonates almost religiously – and with it the condition that the rest must always be maintained as sex-negative, because otherwise one loses one’s own power as the other/the resistant (-> danger of self-fulfilling prophecy, in which one no longer sees what is actually going on and whether the accused are not already doing better). Which fits perfectly, when so many pioneers of this movement stage themselves as gurus and priestesses.

What kind of important and interesting different feminist viewpoints are overseen when discourses are reduced to a simplistic divide between “pro-sex” and “anti-sex”? Is the enemy of sex-positivity really sex-negativity? Because if sex-negativity is opposed to bad sex, then sex-negativity is much more positive than sex-positivity 😀 By bad sex I mean simply: compulsory or instrumental sex. And that can be „only man and woman in missionary“ as well as the positive version: „Studies prove: sex makes you happy! So have a lot of sex, otherwise something is wrong with you!“ Suppressing sex and improving sex — both have a stressful and patronizing logic for me. „Being able to enter into sexual relations with confidence and joy became as common an expectation for the modern era as feeling trepidation and guilt had been for previous ages.“ (Alain de Botton)
Then sex-negativity as a political position is funnily enough more exact and as a feminist tool more useful, because it considers the close knot between sex and power. Why should our sex be pure from the environment in which it grew in? Free from capitalist, patriarchal, neoliberal forces?
You know when people meditate to lose their ego, but by this actually only inflate their ego? It seems to me that sex-positivity also gets into such a dialectic when it threatens to fall into a self-made trap and form alliances with exactly such forces in its watered down, uncritical form. „Hot tips that drive him crazy“ in Cosmopolitan are not sex-repressive, don’t follow dusty religious morals, on the contrary. And this type of sex-positivity is everywhere, it’s ruling.

This critical-programmatic and normative objective that we must finally become more sex-positive is also ancient. After the ( partly grandiosely failed) liberation project of the 1968s and the writings of Wilhelm Reich, are we not making any progress in terms of language, and do we have to chew on the same words over and over again and pretend that this is a brand new revolution? How much historical awareness does the current sex-positive movement show?

Ultimately, you can sometimes hear the approving back-pats when announcing one’s identity as „sex positive“, using it for identity politics and fixed affiliation: „We are the sex positive in a sex negative world. We are the ones with the better sex. The others are idiots.“ What prestigious class of the sex-positive is emerging here? What kind of habitus prevails in their spaces and which representatives of which social milieus are present in them? Who is noticeably absent?
Although I would actually find it charming if one were to define oneself so straightforwardly as a sex elite.

„Us polyamorous folk can get a little bit… evangelical, sometimes.
We’re so enlightened, you know.  So evolved.  We deal with our jealousy like rational beings, we don’t attempt to impose control on our partners, we base everything in open communication and trust–we’re so goddamn more advanced than the average human, we ought to glow blue or something.  Right?“

Well, nevertheless it needs terms, and they have to be kind of crisp. What else is possible? I like ‚( a-)sex-friendly‘, because the whole clinical aspect of the ‚positive‘ is missing and instead the well-meaning is emphasized – also for that, which doesn’t have to be only positively evaluable and sayable. But then there is still the problem with the word ’sex‘, we haven’t talked about that yet. What is meant by ’sex‘? It’s a contested word that is often replaced by the term ‚eroticism‘ or simply ‚intimacy‘, which is more of an end in itself, in order to get it away from its fixation on reproduction and penetration. And BDSM and so on don’t need to be sexual. But ‚erotic-positive spaces‘ carries something too swollen and sweaty, like an 80s music video.
„Intimacy-welcoming spaces“?
„Human Rights Spaces“? ( → „A life of coming people, which is worthy of this name, depends […] on the fact that the preambles of the human rights regulations (and its associated behaviour) are uncoupled from bubble formulas like ‚dignity‘ and ‚respect‘ and the terrible adjective ‚untouchable‘ – when they are permanently and without any consideration ‚touched‘. Wouldn’t it be nicer to put something actually existing in their place, namely ‚the skin‘, a real border. ‚Human right‘ should be the right to the integrity of the skin against unwanted interventions. Skin that is, however, touchable, where desired, mutually.“ Klaus Theweleit, 2019, transl. by BA)
„Taboo-tackling-movement“?
Suggestion of my friend Anna Mense: „Sexy time, sexy space, sex event, sensual space, event on sexual culture.“
„Quality Time“?
„Sex-undogmatic spaces“?
„Sex-reflective spaces“?
„Sex-respecting rooms“?
Sex-critical‚?
„Sex-neutral“?
Just „feminist spaces“? Because no matter whether sex-positive or sex-critical, in the end we are united in the fight for less suffering and equality for all? (bell hooks: „Feminism: A Movement to End Sexist Oppression“)
Confidence-and-Joy-Positive Space„?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And probably I would also have to use more defined terms for the under-complex sides of the sex-positive, so that the criticism doesn’t hit the wrong people — maybe I problematize something more like unquestioned sex-enthusiasm or sex-optimism? In the sense of a „cruel optimism„, as Lauren Berlant describes it: „Cruel optimism exists when something you desire is actually an obstacle to your flourishing.“ Maybe I could also specify to be against sexual entrepreneurship.

 


I found some related texts!

„In sex negativity, and mainstream sex positivity, people try to fit in the ‘charmed circle’ of sex (monogamous, coupled, in private, penis in vagina, etc.). In the sex positive moment people embrace the ‘outer limits’ of sex (non-monogamous, in public, kinky, etc.) But this easily replaces one sex hierarchy with another […] As soon as we have any kind of hierarchy – with one kind of sex as the ideal – some people are going to be excluded and stigmatised, and some people are going to feel pressured to have that kind of sex.

The brilliant zines Fucked, and 2 Fucked 2 Furious explain how various groups are excluded from sex positive spaces, such as people who struggle with sex, who’ve experienced sexual trauma, who’re on the asexual spectrum, who don’t fit the body ideals in sex positive spaces, or enjoy the kinds of environments they’re often in (e.g. social, noisy, often with drink and/or drugs). There’s often an expectation in sex positive spaces that people will find sex simple, will easily experience pleasure, will know what they’re into, and will be up for trying new things, for example.

Also as Elizabeth Sheff and Cory Hammers point out, sex positive spaces are often overwhelmingly white and middle-class because many sex positive organisers have questioned norms around sex, gender, and relationships – which apply to them – but often not issues around race, class and disability – which don’t. This means that people of colour, working class people, and disabled people may well not feel welcome in these spaces. […]

So instead of being sex negative or sex positive, we aim to be sex critical. This is an idea from eminent sexologist Lisa Downing which she explains nicely on her blog. Basically it’s about moving away from the negative/positive binary, and instead taking a critical lens on all forms of sex and representations of sex. So we’d be just as critical of sex advice as we were of porn, for example, or just as critical of heteronormative sex as we were of kink.

Being sex critical means that we can ask who is being included and excluded in any form of sex, or event, or piece of writing. For us it also means being really aware of power dynamics which mean people might feel pressured, or struggle to give informed consent.“

„Sex-Positive Feminism, as I frame it, is a marginalised, progressive force which is present-day. It is a feminist tendency which aims to fight the shaming of women and a woman’s right to independence as a sexual actor. As such, its obvious enemy is sex-moralism, which it directly opposes. And its subtle enemy is compulsory sexuality, which may easily coopt it. The job of fighting sex-moralism is straightforward if not easy. The job of resisting cooption by compulsory sexuality is extremely challenging and requires sisterhood and cooperation with sex-negative feminists. Unfortunately, many sex-positive feminists conflate sex moralism with sex-negative feminism and fight them both, leaving them wide open to being coopted into the service of compulsory sexuality.

Sex-Negative Feminism is a marginalised, progressive force which dates from the Women’s Liberation Movement of the 60s and continues to the present day. It is a feminist tendency which speaks honestly about the hard knot of sex, power and violence formed by male supremacy and which aims to liberate women from sexual violence and compulsory sex. As such, its obvious enemy is compulsory sexuality, which it opposes openly. Sex moralism appropriates some sex-negative feminist language in its abstinence and anti-sexualisation advocacy but sex-negative feminists do not support the way it uses the language to make antifeminist arguments. Sex-negative feminism’s most complex struggle is with sex-positive feminism, which does not need to be an enemy. As sex-negative feminism does not advocate shaming or controlling women, sex-positive feminism does not need to oppose it on these grounds. But when sex-positive feminism is coopted by and advocates for compulsory sexuality, sex-negative feminism must resist, as compulsory sexuality under male supremacy is compulsory violence against women.

As I have outlined them here, neither sex-positive or sex-negative feminisms are totalising systems. Many women’s feminisms embrace elements from both categories, in that many feminists know that women must neither be shamed for sex or forced into it.“

 

„That is, sex here is not as an enemy to be polemically confronted, but an overwhelming relation demanding examination, where the pain and weight of gender are more immediate. My project: to long for the good and feel its absence, picking apart, historicizing, drowning in the weight of phenomena, “tripping on content” as Chris Kraus puts it.
So then to clarify: I do not set out to reject an entire wave of feminism. Under the banner of ’sex positivity,‘ even sexual optimism, are gestures that would be absurd to reject—the historicizing of sexuality, demystifying sexuality, giving information surrounding STDs and contraception to women and queers, disrupting reactionary forms of shame. What is necessary is far from a sectarian return to “second wave” theorists, but rather tracing the thread that gave rise to our present situation—the ways in which sex has been exalted, its relationship to senses of the Self, and the ideologies of the whole and natural. Sex positivity as a supposedly coherent social movement would be only a paper tiger; rather, the object of this essay is to disrupt the attachment to sex as it has lived in feminism and popular imagination, and it is a relation that lives well beyond the past 30 years of ’sex positive feminism.'“

  • https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/05/sex-positivity-critical-analysis/?fbclid=IwAR2WgJNZmqa81airb1xo7l862sFFGuaKfwg18v0V0tp1IJg2lJU77ceaDWE
    „I want people to lead healthy, satisfying sex lives. If extensions, high heels, and an air of vapidness do that for you, rock on. But on the other hand, I think it’s fair to go a step beyond that. Because I am curious about understanding why certain preferences exist: What messages are we receiving from society at large that are telling us that this is sexy? Is it coming from somewhere? And I think that matters if we want to understand sexuality as a field. At the end of the day, I’m always going to be all for people doing what makes them happy, so long as it’s consensual. But my problem with sex-positivity without critical analysis is that it always ends there without engaging people in a conversation around how socialization affects the choices that we make. And asking why doesn’t have to be judgmental. It can be curious. And I think that curiosity is (largely) missing from the mainstream movement.“
  • https://miracharlotte.com/2015/07/20/in-search-of-sexually-empowering-feminism/
    The sexual revolution was this proclaimed attempt to free our sexualities. But what it did for heterosexual women is primarily create a set of rules to maximize our bodies’ availability to men. While the sexual revolution seemed appealing to many women at the time, in the long term, it was deeply problematic for us, and it leaves us a legacy yet today. Look at online dating and “hookup culture” – Tindr was created by two guys (and from the looks of it, not nice guys). The idea that women can either be sidelined by some other woman who is more willing than they are, or they can play the man’s game on the man’s rulebook, is a fool’s choice. Even for women who do legitimately find value or meaning in hookup culture, it’s vital that we understand that we are participating in a game that plays by rules that are deeply patriarchal in their design.
  • http://kittystryker.com/blog/posts/what-i-mean-when-i-say-im-sex-critical/
    „I mean, in a lot of ways, I think I probably am actually sex positive, and would actually argue that many people who identify as sex positive but aren’t critiquing the oppressive systems they’re perpetuating within their communities are actually not. But that’s really exhausting, and that’s fighting a giant movement of happy hippies who get really ugly and mean when you tell them they can’t have their „pimps and hos“ parties without hurting people or that it’s not inclusive to only ever show one standard of beauty- slender, white, cis, feminine, young- on all their event flyers. I’m pretty sure my critique could go on and on, but here’s a start to what i mean, at least, when I say „sex critical“.“
  • https://www.feministcurrent.com/2014/04/11/the-divide-isnt-between-sex-negative-and-sex-positive-feminists-its-between-liberals-and-radicals/
    „To clarify — ’sex negative‘ and ’sex positive‘ are relatively useless terms with regard to discussing feminist approaches to issues of sex and sexuality. The terms convey the message that ’sex positivity‘ equals support for a vision of sex and sexuality that is defined by patriarchy and one that is primarily libertarian. What’s defined as ’sex positive feminism‘ tends to translate to: non-critical of the sex industry, BDSM, burlesque, and generally, anything that can be related to ’sex.‘ ‚Non-judgement‘ is the mantra espoused by so-called ’sex-positive feminists‘, which is troubling because it ends up framing critical thought and discourse as ‚judgement‘ and therefore negative. Since I tend to see critical thinking as a good thing, the ‚don’t judge me’/’don’t say anything critical about sex because it’s sex and therefore anything goes‘ thing doesn’t sit well with me.'“
    „I know for certain that many have used these labels in order to intentionally misrepresent and discredit radical feminist theory (and, actually, feminists in general — see: ye old “man-hating prude” trope) and scare women away from forming critiques of the sex industry, lest they be labelled “anti-sex;” and I also know that, as a result of this intentional misrepresentation, many women have legitimately bought into these ideas.“
  • https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/kelly-rose-pflugback/women-sexual-empowerment-_b_4058018.html?_guc_consent_skip=1588957666&guccounter=1
    For people who face more obstacles in the path towards reclaiming and realizing their sexuality, this sort of uncompromisingly positive and monolithic view of sex can come off as anywhere from frivolous to brutally alienating. During the long period of my life in which I felt that I was completely incapable of having any kind of healthy manifestation of a sex life, I often felt wracked by the guilt of not being a „good“ feminist.
    […]
    If we wish to construct a feminism that is truly „sex positive,“ it must address the myriad forms of oppression that violate women’s lives and bodies on a global scale. „Freedom in society can be measured by distribution of orgasms,“ reads another slogan of Wallace’s Cliteracy project — a statement that seems almost painfully ludicrous when we consider the millions of women worldwide whose freedoms, sexual and otherwise, are devastated on a daily basis by state violence, environmental degradation, poverty, racism, and the wide variety of other hardships women must tackle in the contemporary world, in addition to a lack of sexual gratification. Women’s sexual empowerment is not an issue which can be separated from broader struggles for gender justice, and in order to support its realization, we must fight collectively for serious social and political change with the same passion and uncompromising desire we bring to our bedrooms.“
  • https://www.theaproject.org/content/problem-sex-positivity
    „Just as queering and cripping are processes – not identities – that challenge compulsory heterosexuality and ablebodiedness, as well as homonormativity and normalized disability movements, is it possible to challenge sex positivity without eliminating it? It is then important to stop viewing sex negativity as insulting and take into account that these feminists criticize sex on political and not moral grounds. There is a difference between positivity while addressing sex/sexuality and in claiming that all consensual, harm-free sex is positive. I am for the former.“

*


** »I do think as feminists we’re fighting for too many things right now. Like, there’s some feminists that are like, “We wanna be in charge of stuff and we wanna get paid the same.” And then there’s other feminists that are like, “We wanna free the nipple on Instagram.” It’s like, “Hey, can we focus? I know she’s more fun, but can we focus?” It’s like if during the Revolutionary War, if some soldiers were like, “We wanna be independent!” and then other soldiers were like, “We wanna free the nipple on Instagram!” You’d be like, “Yeah, maybe England should stay in charge of you. You sound like you’d be fairly irresponsible.”
Also just logically, we focus our attention and power on one thing. We’re much more likely to get it accomplished. So, personally, I think we should go after equal pay. But if all the women voted, and we got on the same page, and we wanted to go after nipple, fine, I’ll fight nipple, I’m a team player. It’s just hard for me to even believe that that was a woman’s idea. Sounds like a man infiltrated a meeting and he was like, “We gotta get these nipples on Instagram! Did you hear we can’t? It’s not fair… for the women. You know me, my main concern is the women.” [exhales] “It’s why I call ’em ‘the women.’” And the whole debate is men are allowed to have their nipples on Instagram; women aren’t. Well, here’s an easier solution. Just get male nipples off of Instagram. I’ve never seen a man’s nipple and been like, “Oh, now my day’s better. Boy, do I love looking at those useless skin tags.”
We gotta focus! We gotta focus on what we’re fighting for.« (Michelle Wolf)

2 Kommentare zu „Jenseits von ’sexpositiv‘ und ’sexnegativ‘

  1. Ja sicher.. ist ein blöder Begriff…habe leider aber auch keine Alterantive parat…und er ist zumindest verständlich, weit genug gefasst und gut damit zu argumentieren im Gespräch mit Aussenstehenden, da es erstmal wissenschaftlich und ungefährlich klingt…

    Liken

    1. Huch, auf so lauwarme Kompromisse eingehend kennt man dich ja gar nicht 😉

      Was ist der Mehrwert an „klingt wissenschaftlich“ und „ungefährlich“? Warum sollte das erstrebenswert sein? Im Prinzip problematisiere ich ja ganz genau das, dass der Klang nach Wissenschaftlichkeit legitimierend wirken soll und sich damit artig in die Tradition einer ’scientia sexualisis‘ statt ‚ars erotica‘ eingliedert. Und die Betonung der Ungefährlichkeit entzieht den Praktiken doch ihren Stachel, domestiziert sie – wo du doch ebenso betonst wie gefährlich es erst wird, wenn wir behaupten, es handle sich dabei um „sichere“ Räume. „Positiv“ finde ich gar nicht verständlich, weil es eben ein so ein vager Begriff ist und damit nahrhafter Boden für Missverständnisse (in den 90ern treffend in einer Seinfeld-Folge auf den Punkt gebracht 😀 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv26dLnbi9g )

      Das Tolle an der ganzen Szene ist doch ihre Freude am Kreativen und Unerhörten und das Wissen darum, wie kraftvoll Sprache sein kann. Glaube darin liegt auch das Potential, Sprech- und Redeweisen zu erfinden, von denen wir bisher noch nichts geahnt haben, „Playspaces“ also auch als Ort zu verstehen, mit Sprache zu spielen. Das macht „Sex-positiv“ so vollkommen unsexy. Wie „DVD-Abend“.

      Liken

Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

WordPress.com-Logo

Du kommentierst mit Deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Google Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Twitter-Bild

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Facebook-Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s