Written by Carly Rabie, Edited by Tala MacDonald

In recent years, the idea of “sex-positivity” has increasingly gained traction within the mainstream. Sex-positivity is a growing trend—especially among younger, more progressive, left-leaning people—that works to dismantle dominant and often repressive sociocultural norms regarding sex through promoting the recognition of sex and sexuality as natural and healthy. While sex-positivity is widely understood in terms of acceptance and positivity towards all forms of sexual expression, the concept remains loosely defined and largely open to interpretation. People who identify as sex-positive interpret and understand sex-positivity in various ways. Drawing from both my own experiences as a  cisgendered straight woman in university as well as the experiences of my peers, I have observed some themes regarding different popular conceptions of sex-positivity.  Although promoting a culture of acceptance surrounding sex is essential, I will argue that certain conceptions of sex-positivity that have gained considerable support and become popularized in the mainstream are not without their shortcomings. In fact, these interpretations of sex-positivity, namely sex-positivity with limits, sex-positivity as hook-up culture, and sex-positivity that excludes sexuality, have the potential to be incredibly dangerous. Because these interpretations are often informed by internalized sexism and misogyny, they effectively work to uphold the very heteropatriarchal power structures and harmful social stigmas that they claim to be challenging.

One form of sex-positivity is sex-positivity with limits. In this conception, sex is accepted and celebrated; however, there is a “line” that represents where sex is still judged and is not extended the same acceptance. This notion of a “line” of acceptable sex is theorized by Gayle Rubin in her text “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory” (“Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory”,1984). Rubin explains how different forms of sex are assigned moral value, with higher value being attributed to marital, heterosexual, monogamous, and reproductive sex (Rubin 1984). Further, lower moral value is attributed to commercial, homosexual, promiscuous, and masturbatory sex as well as sex involving sex toys, fetish objects, and unusual roles, among other things (Rubin 1984). Although where the “line” of acceptable sex exists has shifted to include more forms of sex since Rubin published her article in 1984, the concept of this “line of acceptability” still exists today. People who identify as being sex-positive will likely accept promiscuity, homosexuality, and other forms of sex that previously would have fallen under categories of “bad” or “immoral.” However, that does not mean that their sex-positivity knows no limits. Forms of sex including fetish sex, BDSM, masturbation, polygamy, and sex with multiple partners, among other things, remain highly stigmatized, even among those who identify as being sex-positive. Even if people may not outrightly condemn these forms of sex, the silence surrounding them, as well as their relegation to the private sphere, reinforces a social culture of stigma, prejudice and exclusion.

Another problematic form of sex-positivity is sex-positivity as hook-up culture and hypersexuality. Positivity towards all forms of sex has been misinterpreted by many to mean praise for having sex. This is heavily related to and influenced by hook-up culture, where casual sex is both normalized and expected. This is not to say that there is anything wrong with casual sex—the normalization and destigmatization of casual hook-ups is overwhelmingly a step in the right direction. The issue with hook-up culture is the expectation to partake in it. With any form of sex, whether monogamous or promiscuous, it is a problem when it becomes expected, held to a higher value, or made to be the norm. This form of sex-positivity is highly influenced by media which promotes hypersexuality. Platforms like Tik Tok and influential people like Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion promote promiscuity and “freakiness.” While this is not inherently negative, hypersexual media can overpower other messages of sexual liberation by placing hypersexuality on a pedestal. This promotes casual sex, promiscuity, and “freaky” sex in a way that praises it as being cooler. This can lead to a lot of pressure for people to engage in hook-up culture and casual sex, even if it is not their preferred type of sex and makes them uncomfortable. People who adopt and promote this form of sex-positivity feed into hook-up culture and the promotion of hypersexuality, which can lead to pressuring others into having sex they do not want to have. In this way, hook-up culture creates an often dangerous environment in which people are praised and applauded for having frequent sex with many partners, and not necessarily for having sex that reflects their preferences and boundaries. Everyone enjoys different types of sexual experiences and an inclusive notion of sex-positivity should celebrate all forms of sex rather than placing increased value on one set of preferences over another. sex-positivity in the context of hook-up culture equates sexual liberation to frequent sex, and largely neglects to consider sexual freedom in terms of one’s ability to consensually engage in and enjoy whatever type of sex they prefer. This model excludes those who do not want to participate in hook-up culture, asexual folks, and anyone else who does not enjoy “freaky” or promiscuous sex, which makes it a problematic and intrinsically limiting form of sex-positivity.

The last form of sex-positivity that I will explore is sex-positivity which applies to sex and not sexuality. In this form, sex-positivity encompasses acceptance of all types of sex but fails to extend that acceptance to all displays of sexuality. Anything behind closed doors is deemed permissible, but freedom of sexual expression in all forms and settings is not accepted. Under this type of sex-positivity, people may shame those who wear more revealing clothing, especially in an environment which is deemed to be “professional,”or may judge people for speaking openly about sex and sexuality. This conception of sex-positivity is related to the debate over whether or not kink should be featured at Pride. People both in and outside of the LQBTQ+ community have advocated for the absence of kink at Pride, usually under the pretense that it is inappropriate for children and Pride is a family event. This exclusion demonizes kink and attempts to hide it, despite the fact that, as leatherman Kyle Kingsbury states, it has a “cultural legitimacy at Pride,” that stems partially from its “contributions to that movement” (Kingsbury 2021, 11). Coming back to sex-positivity, we cannot expect to improve positivity toward, celebration of, and acceptance of sex without applying these same principles to the ways people express their sexuality and the countless facets of life outside of the bedroom that sex influences.

It is natural, especially as an idea becomes more popular, for people to have a variety of differing interpretations, and there is clearly no one correct way to conceive of sex-positivity. However, authentic sex-positivity must be accepting of the full spectrum of sexualities, expressions of sexuality, and forms of consensual sex, which not all forms of sex-positivity do. This is not to say that the mainstreaming of sex-positivity is a bad thing or that we have not made progress as a society. My argument concludes that we have further to go toward a future of full acceptance. It is critical to keep questioning our own and others’ notions of sex-positivity in order to continue making progress. Many of these shortcomings of interpretations of sex-positivity are influenced by internalized misogyny, negativity towards sex, and repressive patriarchal norms. It is impossible for any of us to be completely free of internalized misogyny because it constantly surrounds us and shapes our understanding of the world. Therefore, the best thing we can do is to be open to identifying our own biases, and the shortcomings of our ideas. Through keeping openmindedness and empathy at the forefront, while remaining critical of the power structures and dominant cultural narratives that continue to shape our experiences, we can actively work towards creating a more sex-positive future where all people are seen, accepted, and celebrated.

Bibliography

Kingsbury, Kyle. “A History of Leather At Pride.” Accessed October 2022. https://aphyr.com/data/posts/358/leather-pride.pdf. 

Rubin, Gayle. “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality.” In Queer Cultures, edited by Deborah Carlin and Jennifer DiGrazia. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, [1984] 2004.