A Brief History and Impact of the Feminist Sex Wars (Revised)

-- By AndreaRuedas - 12 July 2024

Introduction

In the 1960s, sex and violence emerged as popular subjects among feminist activists and scholars that turned into a decades long debate between theorists. This debate became known as the feminist sex wars in which participating parties were unjustly simplified into two sides: anti-porn theorists and sex positive theorists. The sex wars became known for asking the question: is sex liberating or perpetuating oppression? From that point forward, articulations for the equality of women and the end of patriarchal structures were embedded with theory discussing either sex theory - especially in cases that involved gender-based violence or sex trafficking (see Russo & Pirlott, 2006).

What did “Feminism” mean during the sex wars?

With the attainment of the legal right to vote for white women in 1920, second-wave feminism at the beginning of 1960s focused on the slogan “The personal is political” to attract attention to issues of the private domain like reproductive healthcare, economic dependence, and gendered violence. Radical second wave feminists brought forth claims of sex work, pornography, and sexuality being mediums for violence on women’s bodies and psyches due to them being tools of “social construct[s] of male power” (MacKinnon, 1989, 316). Liberal feminists countered with the liberation found in sexual agency from virginity myths, coerced sex, and repression of women’s sexuality. The term sex positivity was created in response (Willis 1981;1993). From this debate emerged the sex wars: a decades long feminist argument about the roots and impact of sex on women.

Radicals Feminists vs. Liberal Feminists

The binary division in the theoretical backgrounds of radical and liberal feminism led to that sex negative or sex positive interpretations of sexuality that permeated the sex wars. Radical feminist theory, a feminism whose focus is to dismantle patriarchal institutions and systems as well as gender roles, argued that sex as it existed in this society could not be liberating (Douglas, 1990). Porn, sex work, and individual heteronormative intercourse only existed through the male gaze, in which the pleasure of women was not and had never been the focus - hence, neither could contribute to the sexual or whole liberation of women (MacKinnon, 1989). Some theorists declared porn and rape as equivalent because women actors did not hold any agency during the filming, scenes were considered violent, and women were objectified and commodified (Dworkin, 2006).

Liberal feminists on the other hand, were preoccupied with the liberation of women through legal and social systems in which women would be able to make truly autonomous decisions (Ferguson, 1984). Agency was a defining aspect of liberal feminism. As such, women’s sexuality was not seen as a hindrance to the movement but as an asset because it symbolized the destruction of patriarchal sexual socialization that was based on slut shaming and misogyny - as long as said sexuality derived from a woman’s agency (Queen, 2001). Sex workers and porn artists emerged to counter the claims made by radical feminists - they argued that sex work and pornography was empowering and liberating to them as women (Glick, 2000).

Where do the camps part ways? Where do they meet?

In “Talking Sex”, a conversation between Deidre English, Amber Hollibaugh, and Gayle Rubin (1982), sex-positivity is discussed in response to the perceived need for women’s allowance in pleasure and sexuality. Gayle Rubin considers it crucial for all women, regardless of sexual orientation, to develop and practice feminist theories that both critically analyze the historical oppressive nature of sex and facilitate the sexual liberation of women from that history. Hollibaugh in collaboration with Cherrie Moraga (1983), encourages the exploration of sexual fantasies and desires, especially those that are seen as playing into male domination and “bad” desires from a sex negative perspective, in order to allow for the development and analysis of women’s pleasure and sexuality. English (1982) resonates with the sentiment that feminist movements have used the historical violence of sex against women who find pleasure in their sexuality and fantasies, but pushes back to Rubin and Hollibaugh’s critiques of the anti-porn movement by reiterating the violence that is indeed found and perpetuated in some pornograghy and heterosexuality.

Although sex positive scholars interpreted radical feminists’ focus on sexuality as a one-dimensional and reductionist view that resulted in restrictionary behavior among feminists, it is important to remember that radical feminism is primarily concerned with sexual violence, not sex itself. Feminist legal theorist, Catherine MacKinnon, and feminist scholar, Andrea Dworkin, created the first feminist anti-pornography legislation in the United States, which was passed in 1983 throughout several cities but was later struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court (1985). As opposed to previous obscenity law that allowed for criminal charges and which was based on moral legal arguments, Mackinnon and Dworkin’ (1985) bill focused on seeking civil legal remedies for those who were impacted by the creation and distribution of pornography and categorized pornography as a women’s civil rights violation which allowed for the law to be used an action tool against the creation of pornography benefitting both participants and recipients.

The collaborations among the authors above demonstrate that feminist theory has always included both liberal and radical theory and that neither exists in isolation. These collaborations acknowledged the violent historical origins and implications of sex for women and the need for feminism to remain critical of power dynamics in a male dominated practice. Simultaneously, it addressed how women are indeed pleasured by sex and theory, along with practice, must allow for this self exploration and sexual understanding if it is to recognize women’s agency.

Where We Stand Now

Despite the bad press, the sex wars should be recognized for their catalytic contribution to the birth and boom of the many feminist fields that exist today, as well as their contributions to new models for sexual agency which emphasized reciprocity and consent. Modern feminism considers everything from intersectionality to environmentalism. This expansion happened when second-wave feminists were pushed to critically consider and include not only their own experiences in relation to sex but also the lives of women across the globe who are impacted daily by politics affecting their agency, mobility, and security.

The edit clarifies the subject, puts the literature in context, and raises the questions you want to think about, all successfully. It also helpfully allows us to see where the thinking should now go. As a work in the history of ideas, this essay says, essentially, "second wave US feminists had a controversy in which thinkers who were critical of heterosexual engagement as a voluntary submission to patriarchy disputed with women who believed that their political and social liberation could be achieved without discarding heterosexuality and even late-20th century forms of abjurable marriage. 'Despite bad press,' this dialogue did not end the intellectual ferment second wave feminism started, which has now moved largely in other directions." This proposition is undoubtedly true, but it does not exhaust, or even largely reach, the possible analytical gains to be made at this distance. One might have said that the dialogue concluded largely in a realistic vein: heterosexuality and even marriage persisted. Lesbian and other sexual alternative lives for women also persisted, as they always had, and the lifting of some degrees of active hostility against such people and their lives turned out to support marriage as an institution more seriously, even as they challenged it. As is often the case in the history of ideas, the ostensible subjects of dispute turned out to be less important to the subsequent pathways of thought than the underlying intellectual dispositions to which the act of dialogue gave rise. The space from MacKinnon to Wendy Brown or Dinnerstein to Judy Butler is as rich as any vein in the history of thought, but "sex wars" turns out—unsurprisingly—to have almost nothing to do with why,

Works Cited

Douglas, Carol Anne. Love and politics: Radical feminist and lesbian theories. San Francisco: ism press, 1990.

Dworkin, Andrea. Intercourse. Basic Books (AZ), 2006.

Dworkin, Andrea, and Catharine A. MacKinnon. The reasons why: Essays on the new civil rights law recognizing pornography as sex discrimination. Women Against Pornography, 1985.

Dworkin, Andrea, and Catharine A. MacKinnon. Pornography and civil rights: A new day for women's equality. Organizing Against Pornography, 1988.

English, Deirdre, et al. “Talking Sex: A Conversation on Sexuality and Feminism.” Feminist Review, no. 11, 1982, pp. 40–52. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1394826.

Ferguson, Ann. "Sex war: The debate between radical and libertarian feminists." Signs: journal of women in culture and society 10.1 (1984): 106-112.

Glick, Elisa. "Sex positive: Feminism, queer theory, and the politics of transgression." Feminist review 64.1 (2000): 19-45.

Hollibaugh, Amber, and Cherrie Moraga. "What we’re rollin’around in bed with: Sexual silences in feminism." Desire: The Politics of Sexuality (1983): 404-414.

MacKinnon, Catherine A. “Sexuality, Pornography, and Method: ‘Pleasure under Patriarchy.” Ethics, vol. 99, no. 2, 1989, pp. 314–346. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2381437.

Queen, Carol. "Sex radical politics, sex-positive feminist thought, and whore stigma." Identity politics in the women’s movement (2001): 92-102.

Willis, Ellen. "Feminism, moralism, and pornography." NYL Sch. L. Rev. 38 (1993): 351.

Willis, Ellen. "Lust Horizons: Is the women’s movement pro-sex." Village Voice 26 (1981): 36-37.