Anyway now that I’ve sort of aired out what it does and doesn’t mean, let’s look at a specific example SugarMag raised in the comment that prompted me to write this post:
[W]hat about the whole Christian husband spanking wife thing that has web sites that say “yeah ok it is kind of sexy but also biblical and good for the marriage, women really need to be spanked blah blah blah” and they say they are anti feminist (which seems pretty obvious).
This is one of those places where you can’t just pick up a “sex-positive” stick and start whacking way.
On the one hand there’s no question that receiving tapotement (as neutral a word for percussive stroking of the buttocks as I can find) turns on a lot of people, male and female. And for quite a few others, adding emotional, psychological, or historical/cultural/traditional elements adds to their and their partner’s appreciation. So even if tapotement (ok, spanking) isn’t your cup of tea there’s broad but not universal agreement that if it’s between adults who consent for mutual erotic gratification then it’s consistent with sex positivity.
On the other hand there are a couple of other sort of warning signs. Using tradition and, especially, gendered power/hierarchy traditions to cover up the “ok it is kind of sexy” suggests that it would be wrong to instead request to spank or to be spanked for plain old sexual arousal. That crosses the shame boundary and therefore isn’t consistent with sex-positivity.
Furthermore, making a universal judgment that all women “need to be spanked” for “biblical” purposes (yeah, like the Bible’s clear about that) is inconsistent.
Two other principles (no controlling another’s sexuality, gender-free perspective) with the idea that it’s a gender necessity for all male partners to control all female partners. That pretty much all such groups forbid women from spanking men is another inconsistency with the sex-positive tenet of gender-free perspectives.
And finally, there’s the huge point that claiming religious, moral, or traditional authority for the practice of husbands spanking their wives in order to “control” them collides massively with the sex-positive principle that everyone has the freedom to decline.
So while it’s not a clear-cut as “nope, it’s always wrong” or “it’s always right,” SugarMag provides a great example of how easy it can be to be “pro sex” without being “sex positive.”
Submitted by 2055 (not verified) on Thu, 2008-04-10 12:21.
Now that I know what sex positive means (not just pro sex) I'm a little embarrassed that I thought that Christian domestic discipline is an example of anti feminist sex positivism. Clearly there are lots of reasons why it's not sex positive. What really bugs me about it is that those who promote it (both men and women) claim that it is traditional and even a husband's duty to "lovingly correct his wife," all it really is is a form of kink, and I wish they would be honest about that. For example, on Amazon.com, those who bought books about it also bought fiction with erotic spanking. Oh, and one of the links on one of the sites is a place where you can buy crotchless pantaloons. Which actually is pretty funny.
I also object to the claim that husbands spanking their wives was ever all that common. It is hard to say what really happened in individual families, but when I think about what I know of my own great grandmothers, I don't think they would have tolerated it. Also, I wonder if those who practice it have children because it would be pretty hard to hide from them (they'd hear it) and it would be weird for them if they knew their dad was spanking their mom like she was a child (not that I think children should be spanked, ever). And then someone in a blog somewhere pointed out that the consensual nature is unclear because if this is something that gawd hisself said is the duty of a married couple, then is it truly consensual? I think that whatever a person's beliefs or attitudes toward sex are, consent is pretty important. I try to avoid using the word "should" or "must" but consent is essential and with Christian Domestic Discipline, consent is unclear. The whole thing just seems really dishonest. It is clearly not the moral high ground it pretends to be.
I did go back and read the link to your earlier post (tapotement) and that is completely different. I liked your analogy to spicy food, it made me think of a friend in real life who is into pain. She once told me that she is into hot chili pepper sex, not boring vanilla sex. She always sneers when she says, "vanilla sex." Oh, and the thing about spicy food and why it's such a good analogy is that the best spicy food is hot, but what makes it good is all of the other flavors with the heat, not just the heat, if that makes sense. But the Christian flavor is really distasteful.
[Oh glad you liked my tapotement post, Mag. Because yeah, it's exactly like some people just like the heat of chili peppers without ever associating it with anything like submission, degradation, or church heirarchy. That's not to say one can't enjoy other elements, just none of those other elements are necessary to enjoying the sensation either. Also yes, I'm pretty darn sure you see a lot of traditional/conservatives who'd never consider laying a hand on their partners, and others who just smack them around because they can, but very, very few who do so because "Teh Biah-bul" says to. (Not least because, of course, the Bible says no such thing.) Thanks. --fl]