So, the context has been set. Young roughseas ie early to mid twenties, was in favour of porn and prostitution. A woman’s right to choose. Empowerment and all that. As I said on the previous post, a sex pos feminist, no less.
Caution: do not look up sex pos on the internet or you will get a lot of information about suggested sexual positions.
Instead, look up sex-positive feminism.
Now. Let’s do the theory.
Surely feminism is about a woman’s right to choose? Yes? Who can argue with that?
A woman gets to have sex with whom and whenever and wherever she wants?
OK so far.
So, what is wrong about prostitution and porn?
Nothing per se.
Women have the right to express their sexuality and use their bodies as a means of employment, whether being photographed or filmed in sexual acts, or just accepting money for sex, and that can be any or all of masturbation, oral, vaginal, anal. It may include BDSM.
The vocality for sex pos came out of the second wave feminist movement, think Dworkin, Greer, MacKinnon, (70s and early 80s), all strongly anti porn and prostitution, and was supported by the likes of Camille Paglia (who I personally always loathed) and numerous others.
There is a subtext to the sex pos movement and that is rebelling against religious theories of purity, chastity, virgin madonnas and the like.
Finally sex pos feminists see the anti porn/prostitution proponents as being in favour of censorship, regulation, and the establishment, whereas feminism, by its very definition, should oppose all those.
Powerful arguments I think. No wonder I bought into it, and others still do.
Sex pos feminism tends to be associated with third wave feminism, and also the more recent fourth wave which tends to favour sex work ie basically younger people. Remember how young roughseas was also in favour of these principles?
Next: the other point of view, ie why porn and prostitution might not be such a good idea for women.