Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

"Do-Me" Feminism and the Rise of Raunch

By Andi Zeilser, Seal Press. Posted October 16, 2008.


Promoting pleasure for women has been difficult, thanks to a pop culture view of female sexuality riddled with moralism and classic double standards.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Andi Zeilser

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

From the book Feminism and Pop Culture by Andi Zeisler. Excerpted by arrangement with Seal Press, a member of the Perseus Books Group. Copyright © 2008.

Constructing a politics of pleasure has been key to third wave feminism. Thanks to their brave and often unsettling analyses of sexual power structures and the connections between pornography and a larger system of male dominance, feminists of the 1960s and '70s had gotten roundly tarred as being antisex, antiporn, antiheterosexual, and just generally prudish. In part to address this stereotype, the interest in feminist theories of sexuality and the development of a prosex politics became one of the strongest threads of feminism throughout the 1990s and the 2000s. Feminists have debated age-old virgin-whore dichotomies, have called for representations of alternative sexualities and of heterosexuality as experienced by people of all colors and abilities, and have offered controversial-but-compelling perspectives on the power dynamics of everything from butch/femme to S/M. That said, promoting pleasure for women has been as frustrating as it is crucial, thanks in large part to a media and pop culture that still depends on -- and overwhelmingly presents -- a limited view of female sexuality riddled with moralism, judgment, and classic double standards.

Take the phrase "Do-me feminism," coined by journalist Tad Friend in a 1994 Esquire article called "Feminist Women Who Like Sex," which name-checked the likes of Susie Bright, Naomi Wolf, bell hooks, Pat (now Patrick) Califia, and Lisa Palac, writers whose work was concerned with, among other things, creating a broader, more inclusive sexual paradigm. Some of these authors had written previously about feeling that their interest in sex, especially heterosexual sex, made them outsiders in a feminist world that ostensibly believed "Not all rape is intercourse, but all intercourse is rape" (a sentiment falsely but repeatedly attributed to famed antipornography activists Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon). Wolf famously wrote in her book Fire with Fire: The New Female Power and How It Will Change the 21st Century that she finds shelter and solace in the male body, and that "there is an elaborate vocabulary in which to describe sexual harm done by men, but almost no vocabulary in which a woman can celebrate sex with men."

Friend's piece picked up on these quotes to construct a straw- woman argument against the dogmatic, antisex profile of second wave feminists and to subsequently champion the women who were supposedly "beating their swords into bustiers" and expressing their feminism one amazing blow job at time. The article's title said it all -- in identifying "feminist women who like sex," Esquire implied that, as a rule, feminist women don't like sex. And ultimately, the piece was service journalism, not so much intended to open an informed dialogue about sex as to convey via heavy breathing that, Hey guys! Hot feminist women want to have sex with you! And thus, a new feminism entered the mainstream -- leading with its breasts -- and became a key example of why feminism just couldn't be easily translated into mainstream media formulas.

This idea of do-me feminism as the dominant identity of the third wave extended to a rekindled interest in the intersections of feminism and sex work. The idea that sex-based economies could grapple with and engage in feminism was not a new one; it had been limned in the mid-1990s by the likes of On Our Backs magazine and in the thoughtful work of authors such as Bright, Califia, Palac, Carol Queen, and Annie Sprinkle. The 1997 anthology Whores and Other Feminists offered a bracing look at how the worlds of peep shows, stripping, prostitution, domination/submission, and porn professionals interact with feminism in both theory and practice. The book's editor, Jill Nagle, was inspired to collect such stories by a roundtable on the sex industry in a 1994 issue of Ms. magazine that featured only one participant who had actually been involved in sex work -- the notoriously rigid, if impressively impassioned, Dworkin. In an interview with the online literary magazine Beatrice, Nagle clarified why she so badly wanted the book out in the world:


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: feminism, porn, sexuality, sex work

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
No mention of prevalence of abuse survivors in the sex industry
Posted by: beigelights on Oct 17, 2008 2:09 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it's relevant that an overwhelming percentage of women who 'choose' to work in the sex industry are survivors of sexual abuse - I have never heard this fact adequately addressed by 'pro-sex' feminists. (I really don't appreciate the implication that I am 'anti-sex' either)

I believe the intersection between feminism and sex work dates back to Steinem going under cover at the Playboy club, if not something before, but of course the 3rd Wave thinks it's the generation that invented sex.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Here's my response. Posted by: susnow
» That's because... Posted by: AlexaD
» Honestly... I don't buy it. Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Nevermind the second half of that previous comment
Posted by: beigelights on Oct 17, 2008 2:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just realized that the author meant the 3rd Wave was the first to embrace the idea of feminists loving sex. I still don't agree, but Steinem's expose of the Playboy club was definitely not that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sleeping around is not feminism
Posted by: RHad on Oct 18, 2008 3:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But thank you for spelling it out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Actually, It Can Be Posted by: terradea42
» RE: Actually, It Can Be Posted by: Katie Marie
» RE: Actually, It Can Be Posted by: lively56
» RE: Actually, It Can Be Posted by: Symp
Cherry Pie
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Oct 18, 2008 4:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sarah Katherine Lewis' point about money and being lucky is a good one. With the possible exception of sex slavery, I suspect most women who enter sex-related trades like go-go dancers, MTV babes, call girls, etc., do so not because they necessarily have to or want to, but because they can. It's a way to make good, often tax-free money without college, or the drudgery of a 9-5 job.

Any hottie who thinks she's "empowered" is under the same delusion as many sports heroes, singers, actors, Wall St. wiz kids, etc. You're born with looks, special talents, connections, etc. But in the end, you're just like the rest of us, because it's just a job, and you're trying to make the most money or get the most breaks with the least amount of effort. Any "empowerment" comes from the market. One injury, one bad album, one bad movie, getting old, a market crash, etc. can put an abrupt end to any sense of power you thought you had.

The article was a bit clunky and all over the place. But it provides some cool discussion material.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Cherry Pie Posted by: goldmarx
these articles crack me up
Posted by: Mexitli on Oct 18, 2008 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ginger Vs. MaryAnne

LooL!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And still, it's all about women only.
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 18, 2008 5:51 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look. It has always been the case that when women want to show their independence or men want to moderate that society shows its lack of intolerance. Now, maybe women going independent has sort of been resolved but it's not out of the woods yet. However, no attention is ever paid to men who want to moderate yet face societal pressure and persecution for doing so. If I want to back off being the typical "Strong macho man" sterotype even by a little, I get hissed at. Moreover, I come across a guy who's dressed in tights and shorts but he wouldn't wear it outside his home lest he face public persecution. Maybe if the so-called "feminists" would open the doors to these not-so-macho-egotistical people, this do-me feminism wouldn't be so rampant in the first place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pro-Porn Feminists correct on 'Rigid' Dworkin
Posted by: goldmarx on Oct 18, 2008 6:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There was no false attribution to Dworkin or MacKinnon.

They both did indeed disseminate the notion that under patriarchy, any sexual contact bewteen men and women is rape because by definition, the sexes are not equal under patriarchy and sex between unequals is rape of the lesser-powered participant.

It is an accurate summary of their philosophy, not a direct quote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Shape of Sex Always Changes
Posted by: mallowdoggy on Oct 18, 2008 6:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm happy to see that other people are noticing these changes in the society. Women reclaiming their sexual rights has been a big part of feminism for 20 years; anti-feminism is really in retreat as even the political right have to agree that Women should be taken seriously in politics and business, etc.
But the term "feminism" is dated in that it used to mean a bunch of things, and now it means a bunch of other things. In the 70s, the predominant view of feminism was that sex and marriage was the tool of enslavement for women who were brainwashed into being domestic helpers for their sex-obsessed husbands, when they really wanted to be independent, make their own money, and be considered equals in business and society. Free to not be sexual or gender identified.
Now the idea connotes among young women the right to break away from their parents standards of propriety to become supersexual icons, allow themselves the full exercise of their power to mesmerize boys and men, and embrace the imagery of lurid commercial media as a way of self-fulfillment through self-eroticism. Women don't necessarily want to be hos, but they want to know that they could; that they can get things for free by looking hot, car repairs, free drinks, etc.
The prize of marriage for the previous generation holds interest only as the ultimate trick in a cynical view that has incorporated street ethics into all aspects of society, through hip-hop culture, reality tv and easily accessible porn for all through the internet. Any sheltered suburban girl can masturbate to an encyclopedic range of porn for free in her bedroom listening to Britney Spears with toys that she orders online, while chatting with both boys and girls online or on her phone, exchanging phone camera photos with her friends at will.
Girls of today take their sexual independence for granted, so it's more about broadening their power to have experience, in a race with their friends for worldliness. Part of this, expressed or not, is a fear of intimacy as the chink of vulnerability that can undermine all this power when one becomes enslaved by the attraction to someone else.
The other side of this is that men, who in the past were in competition to be protectors and providers, now must come to terms with a female that objectifies them as an object of desire, or risk subservience. One must not only be reliable and hold down a job and fix things around the house, but also hot as well, and perform sexually comparable to the pornstars and viagra ads that their girlfriends now watch as well, along with the cultural acceptance of sexual gymnastics as their parents learned new dance steps.
Of course we must consider how much of the sex trade relies on abuse, and that we must no doubt condemn. But perhaps we are entering a phase where the exploitative relationships of the prostitution and porn business no longer run the show as the full range of lurid eroticism is embraced by individuals themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great Excerpt
Posted by: dumdumboy on Oct 18, 2008 7:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This makes me interested in reading the whole book.

I had wondered what current event prompted the appearance of this article at this time and, most likely, nothing specific did. But then I thought about the GOP vice-presidential nominee. Her husband, as well as the GOP machine, seemingly pull her strings. Her "credentials" are a national joke. Yet there are still some people who claim that her nomination is somehow something feminists should claim as a victory. Well, gaining something without any merit is an empty victory. As Katha Pollitt has so aptly termed it, she comes across as an "Affirmative-action babe." So when I have the misfortune to see her on T.V., I notice the layers of make-up, seemingly put-on with a putty-knife; the trophy-wife hair-do; the gam-revealing skirts and tight blouses; and wonder how someone who lives in Alaska can be so tanned. Her appeal is further explained to me by the conservative co-worker who said that he wants to "do" her (not his exact terminology). Sarah Palin: the virtual sex-worker!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Great Excerpt Posted by: lively56
The more things remain the same
Posted by: anarchris on Oct 18, 2008 7:59 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Propaganda in response to the response to propaganda. the twin sister of all evil is denial, denial, denial...denial.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Proof
Posted by: 8 nontheist on Oct 18, 2008 10:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This blog & the comments upon this blog proves that I don't understand women & I never will understand women. I must remain content that I have learned to respect women & that I had learned to love a very few women. I have reason to think that these a few of these women loved me in return. That's called good luck; I think.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Survivors of sexual abuse in the sex industry
Posted by: beigelights on Oct 18, 2008 11:34 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"High numbers of sex workers do disclose sexual abuse in their past (Jordan, 1992; Phoenix, 1999) the effects of sexual abuse may be linked to subsequent involvement in prostitution, a connection made possible in several ways. Childhood abuse has been linked to low self-esteem and self-injurious behaviour, traits evident in some studies of sex workers (James and Meyerding, 1977). Moreover, since a common response to trauma is psychological dissociation, this may both facilitate entry into prostitution and provide a coping mechanism for prostitution experiences. A New Zealand sex worker commented:

'A lot of working girls have been sexually abused – not all, but a lot.'"

http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2005

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Lot of assumptions there, honey. Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Third Wave Feminism vs. Second Wave Masculinity (Psycho-Androgyny)
Posted by: oneofshibumi on Oct 18, 2008 12:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Within patriarchal societies, where women obtain fewer economic opportunities, sex for economic rewards has always existed. In industrialized societies, women have gained a strong economic foothold, even though their pay is still about ¼ less than for men. The punitive laws applied in the United States, focuses more on women in the sex-industry than men who work or participate in the same field. Moreover, because society does not usually regulate the sex-industry, rampant abuse exists that leads to very negative outcomes for many women. Admittedly, many of these women entered the sex-industry because of previous sexual abuse by family members or friends.

Psycho-androgyny means the ability to access personality traits that we stereotype as female and male. As a male, I applaud women who have adopted a more psycho-androgyny personalities, allowing them to access traits previously classified as male, permitting them to better compete with men in society. Unfortunately, I have not seen a reciprocal process occur with men in the same numbers. While many men believe that psycho-androgyny would equal the “feminization” of males, in reality such a shift would increase their ability to function in society. Unfortunately, fundamentalist Christianity and other cultural forces reinforces disdain toward psycho-androgyny has stunted many males in the United States.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not a good article.
Posted by: oregoncharles on Oct 18, 2008 12:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think this is an editing error. It's a book excerpt, and probably makes sense in that context; but by itself, it defines a problem without coming to any conclusions at all. Nor does it draw a connection with the first line: "Constructing a politics of pleasure has been key to third wave feminism."

That's the important part, and the article never gets to it.

A frustrating read, in several senses.

I actually think that sex is politically important partly because it tends to be paradigmatic for relations between the sexes - all relations, business and politics, too. For one thing, it's definitional: the way we relate AS OUR SEX. For another, it's emotionally loaded. And it starts young, at puberty, long before other adult roles cut in.

So our sexual relationships have a big influence on our attitudes toward each other overall. Of course, they're also just important for their own sake, to most people. But the impact on attitudes and expectations make them politically significant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
Moralistically Speaking: (Yes, Moralistically) Sexual Degradation Of Your Body Is Not Feminism
Posted by: aamer923 on Oct 18, 2008 6:20 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In my view, this article in this feminism is not what most American women and women world wide aspire to. Sex is not feminism.
Whatever happened to self respect? How about the wives and the girlfriends who do not wish to be betrayed by the feminist experimenter and the willing husband or boyfriend.
How about having kids and taking care of them by their male and female parents. How about some responsibility to the lost generation of kids, dropping out of school at 50% rate? Would that be anti feminist?
Yes. This is a moralistic View.
Nothing wrong with morals. Majority of the female kind is also moralistic. The trouble is the arrogance of the few so called neo-Feminists who think they understand the world better. Can we please have respect for women, without sexual exploitation of them by themselves and others? Can we respect children and people dedicated to their children and life partners? Can we respect Pro life feminists and married feminists and all these nice things our country is so deprived off at this point?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"hot feminist women want to have sex with you"
Posted by: blogbooks on Oct 19, 2008 12:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If that were true I don't think I'd be writing this post.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's all just a tease Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: It's all just a tease Posted by: PopRox80
» RE: It's all just a tease Posted by: laoma
BLESS HER DEAR DEPARTED SOUL, BUT MY FIRST WIFE WAS DYNAMITE IN BED. I CAN'T
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Oct 19, 2008 3:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
read anything about any of this without thinking how right she had it. Yes. For all of the fusses some people just go out and do it right. It isn't just about sexuality, but rather it about whether two members of the human race can stand side by side as different but equal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hollaback from a second-waver
Posted by: westomoon on Oct 19, 2008 5:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Friend's piece picked up on these quotes to construct a straw- woman argument against the dogmatic, antisex profile of second wave feminists ...

Girlfriend, what are you thinking? Ever thought you were maybe a bit naive to be basing your understanding of second-wave feminism on the media's interpretation of it, while simultaneously complaining how your third-wave stuff has been sensationalized and oversimplified by the media?

Second-wave feminism had a big emphasis on women regaining ownership of their own sexuality -- in all its aspects. I remember straight and gay women lowering the barriers and talking very frankly about what gave them physical pleasure.

That was the era when the first sex-toy shops owned by and aimed at women, like Eve's Garden, came into existence. Every toy that acknowledges the clitoris or the G-spot owes its existence to those pioneers.

I also remember COYOTE being a valued member of the second wave. If you don't know, that was the first union of sex workers. In fact, the term sex workers was coined in the second wave to provide a value-neutral label for a set of occupations that were understood to be a perfectly rational choice for some women.

And, at the retail level, loving men and their bodies was never devalued in feminism -- so long as it was done honestly and at one's own choosing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is hard...
Posted by: Pirate1 on Oct 19, 2008 5:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To talk about this because too many of us have these unquestioned opinions on sexuality that reject any idea that might get put forth suggesting that things might be otherwise. For instance, above someone wrote something to the effect that "sleeping around" is not feminism. This is someone who won't see that a woman has just as much right to be with whoever she wants as a man, and to decide for herself if this is just a night or two or something she'd like to be long term... the moral judgement that excercising this freedom is sleeping around, which equates to a host of negative strereotypes needs to be examined and dropped. The same people who hurl these condemnations decry the number of women who stay in bad relationships full of abuse of all kinds. I sayit all grows out of feeling that OK, this jerk got into my pants, now I have to stay with him or all the gossips in town will have me down as sleeping around.

Sex is healthy and good for both genders, it can be empowering and confidence building. It has also been where for centuries puritanical church hierarchies have railed the loudest branding sex itself as bad, as a necessary evil we must suffer in order to procreate the species. This has power because we all have a sex drive and are coerced all through childhood to trust the clergy as your guide and friend... then these "friends" tell you that your desires ar of the devil and are an evil that is only sanctioned in marriage or some such crap.
Read your history and realize that mom or your girlfriend or whoever you look to as knowing what to do around this issue is as controlled in her thinking as all the puritan tainted, unquestioning people before her.

Who you have sex with, how many of them and how often is your business and no one elses. As long as you continue to let others tell you what is bad, this absurdity will continue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Angry Memories not so fast
Posted by: Andrew_S on Oct 27, 2008 10:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I see you never saught the complete truth in attempting to find the other half of your family tree, what a very sick and perverse outlook on life. May the misery of your soul be forever damned, but on second thoughts as a product of Malthusianism do what you do best. You typify all that is wrong with feminazm and in time all females will pay the price for your work on behalf of patriarchy. What a way to earn a living, how much do they pay you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]