First of all, I should apologize for the delay in getting this posted--I spent the whole weekend with an awful sickness and actually ended up having to go the emergency room, so I'm just getting back into shape with things now.
For this week, we had to read Ferguson's "Sex Wars" and that, along with the "Sex Positivity" attachment that came with it, had a very interesting central argument that I'd really like to take a look at in detail.
Essentially, Ferguson paints two sides of a story, radical feminists, and libertarian feminists. If I'm understanding it correctly, the idea here is that radical feminists are basically "extremists" or by the book. They believe that women should not partake in any type of sexual activity (whether its to their liking or not) that puts the man in any display of power, simulated or not. In simpler terms, the idea is that men are dominant and men use sex as a means of power, and radical feminists want to remove that power. Now do I agree with the premise? Sure.
Women should not be viewed as any less than men when it comes to sex or anything else. However, the idea that a woman not be allowed or able to partake in a sexual act or activity that she may enjoy and consent to seems completely counterproductive to what the goal is.
This is where libertarian feminists come into play. Libertarian feminists have the belief that women should be able to do what they want and whatever they find pleasurable, as long as it's not something illegal, obviously. I find it a bit difficult to draw a fair line here because one side seems quite rational while the other seems way out of left field. However, I can respect that others may have a differing opinion on the matter.
I think the main idea here, and it's a good one, is that sex should be an equal thing that both parties consent to, and really focuses on the emotional connection between the two. Both men and women should not have to feel as though they can't freely express themselves however they see fit, as long as their respective partner is okay with it. There are definitely valid points to both sides of this, but as I noticed Matt point out in his blog and Kyle mentioned it as well, it's a bit confusing.
I'm not sure what I was supposed to feel after reading this. I gained some information, but there's nothing that explicitly swayed me to feel one way or another, or to agree with one side over the other, aside from thinking that both men and women should be free to choose what makes them happy as long as it isn't harming anyone else.
Had a bit of trouble coming up with a picture that related to the way I feel about this, so I suppose this one will do. It does make sense that it should be about choice above all else.
Question: So, after reading the article, and this I guess, do you find yourself agreeing more with one side or another? Personally, I'm indifferent, and I believe people should be able to make their own choices, but I'd like to hear what others think about it.