skinster wrote:I believe it was second-wave feminists that fought/fight against the objectification of women, the beauty and porn industries, prostitution etc. The "sex-positive" feminists are of the third-wave.
I think sex-positive and sex-negative are stupid terms.
Third Wave feminism is said to have begun in the 1990s; the sex-positive versus sex-negative schism occurred in the late 70s and early 80s as the porn-industry was actually becoming a legit industry and cultural phenomena. Thus, like I said, this schism was a split within the second-wave feminist movement; though, I would argue that sex-positivism was actually the orthodox position of the second-wave. Simple proof of this can be seen in that most of the prominent feminist literature of the 1950s and 1960s attacked the focus of society on strict monogamy , female modesty, female chastity, and traditional roles. The promotion of no-fault divorce, the legalization of pornographic material with its expansion, the restricting deductible child-expenses to two-income families, and supplanting traditional alimony for child-support also clearly show that this was the case. Second-wave was sex-positive.
That third-wave was 1990s:Third-wave feminism is an iteration of the Feminist Movement that began in the early 1990s United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminismSecond Wave was Sex Positive:Authors such as Gayle Rubin and Wendy McElroy see the roots of sex-positive feminism stemming from the work of sex reformers and workers for sex education and access to contraception, such as Havelock Ellis, Margaret Sanger, Mary Dennett and, later, Alfred Kinsey and Shere Hite.[3][1] However, the contemporary incarnation of sex-positive feminism appeared more recently, following an increasing feminist focus on pornography as a source of women's oppression in the 1970s. The rise of second-wave feminism was concurrent with the sexual revolution and rulings that loosened legal restrictions on access to pornography. In the 1970s, radical feminists became increasingly focused on issues around sexuality in a patriarchal society. Some feminist groups began to concern themselves with prescribing what proper feminist sexuality should look like. This was especially characteristic of lesbian separatist groups, but some heterosexual women's groups, such as Redstockings, became engaged with this issue as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-posit ... ical_rootsThe use of the terms sex-positive v. sex-negative are important as there is a clear distinction between the heterosexual feminist woman who thinks women are empowered by getting aggressively gang-banged on camera as it is a clear rebellion against the Christian norms of monogamy and that women should embrace "free-love" and "scanty-dress" as part of this revolution on the one hand......and on the other hand, those feminists that believe pornography appeals to the toxic nature of masculinity and their objectification of, and desire to, subjugate women, and who also would argue that women should dress in non-sexual ways as to not draw the "male-gaze" and should avoid heterosexual relations if possible because human reproduction is inconsistent with environmentalism (eco-feminism and anti-natalism).
These are distinct groups that tend to not like each other very much. To say there is a united front in generational feminism between the first and second-waves is like saying such would be true of the first and second waves, which is also absurd. Indeed, some first-wave feminists who only wanted suffrage so they could "aid their husbands in the vote" would have had Betty Friedan shot in the streets for her disparaging remarks that housewives were "parasites."
I agree that porn is bad for young men, but I don't think we can call this a "feminist" position per se. The Christian tradition has been trying to deal with this epidemic amongst its young people for years, as everyone is affected by it. I also agree that there is no easy solution to the problem. Men are drawn to pornography because it fulfills their masculine desires (due to porno marketing itself based on what they know men secretly want) and it gives instant gratification with just a click.
Want to know how to make Porn difficult for mass consumption?
Require it to be pay-per-view by LAW. No free videos, no free sharing, no discrete credit statements, and no amateur uploads unless you join a vetted sex-workers union. Morally I think all pornography and sexual immorality is heinous, but if these requirements were put in place it would prevent 90% of the teenagers who don't have debit cards and would never use their parents from being able to access porn and it would prevent "hidden cams" and shit like that which even libs find morally dubious.
I'd become RIIIIIIIIIIIICH!!!
- By skinster
- By paeng