I am not a “sex positive” feminist. It is hard to admit that, not because I am embarrassed about my stance, but because the language that has been used to legitimize the “sex positive” movement makes it deliberately difficult for us to assert ourselves against it. No one wants to be “sex negative” – this evokes images of Victorian repression, prudishness, and the boring kind of woman who will “never find a man”.
Sex positivity began as an anti-shaming movement. It asserted that women should not be shamed for being sexual beings. So far, so good. However, as tends to happen, post-modernists, liberal elites, and the usual naval-gazers took it a step further…and then another…and another… until we are now being told that critiquing violence in sex or furries or grown men in diapers is “kink-shaming” and inherently anti-feminist. After all, how can we be feminists if we are “policing women’s sexuality”? According to choice feminism, if a woman wants to be choked and beaten during sex, then choking and beating during sex is feminist. What this neglects to acknowledge is that it is overwhelmingly men dressing up as animals or in diapers. It is men who commit vile acts of violence against women and call it “rough sex”; it is their sexuality we are really being told not to “shame”.