Introduction to "The Feminist Sexuality Debates"

Author(s): Estelle B. Freedman and Barrie Thorne

Source: Signs, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 102-105
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3174239
Accessed: 04-09-2015 14:27 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Signs.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.155 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 14:27:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

VIEWPOINT

Introduction to "The Feminist

Sexuality Debates"
Estelle B. Freedman and Barrie Thorne

Nowhere has the feministdiscussion of personal life been more highly

charged thanin explorationsof the politicsof sexuality.As contemporary
feministshave shown,sexualityis an arena bothof oppressiveinequalities
and of constructivestrugglestoward women's "liberation."This very
dualitygivesriseto confusion.In addition,feministtheoristshave shaken
our understandingof "the sexual" byshowingthatsexuality,gender,and
reproductionneed not be fused; on the contrary,theycan be separated
into distinctsystemsof power. Finally,in order to talkabout sex we find
thatwe mustovercome both internaland externalresistance,forwe live
in a culturethatis, in general,inhospitableto criticalanalysisof sex, and
one in which female sexuality,in particular,has been simultaneously
and degradation.To speak at all, and
manipulatedbytaboo, glorification,
then to speak in opposition to those manipulativetraditions,is to invite
strongreactions.
Nevertheless,feministsof the "second wave" have venturedbravely
into the discussion of sexual politics. In the late 1960s, Kate Millett's
introductionof this term initiatedan importantanalysisof power relationshipsbetween men and women, while Shulamith Firestone in The
DialecticofSex began to envisionpossibilitiesforalternativereproductive
and sexual arrangements.During theearly1970s,twothemesemerged in
the feministliterature,sometimes separatelyand sometimestogether.
[Signs:Journalof Womenin Cultureand Society1984, vol. 10, no. 1]
? 1984 by The Universityof Chicago. All rightsreserved. 0097-9740/85/1001-0027$01.00

102
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.155 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 14:27:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Signs

Autumn1984

103

One was a critique of ways in which male domination shapes female

sexualitythrough both practices,such as rape, and beliefs,such as the
primacyof the vaginal orgasm. This critiquewas tied to the development
of lesbian feminismas a politics that opened new sexual possibilities
between women and, fora time,made the so-called gay/straight
splitthe
most obvious politicaldivisionamong feminists.The second theme, related to the critique of male-definedsexuality,emphasized effortsby
women to defineand explore theirown sexualities,eitheras individuals
or withpartnersof eithergender. Basic informationaltexts,such as Our
and new sexual handbooks on masturbationand lesbian
BodieslOurselves
sexuality,as well as the creativearts produced by feminists,such as Judy
Chicago and Tee Corinne,affirmedautonomous "woman-centered"sexuality.
In the mid-1970s, while both of these themes continued, feminist
discussionsof sexualityreached a turningpoint. The impetusfora new
sexual politicswas the antipornographymovement,a movementcommitted to a particularcritiqueof patriarchalsexuality.Emergingas part of
increased feministactivismagainst rape, battering,and other formsof
violence against women, the antipornographymovementfound a concerned audience to whichit successfullycarried itsanalysisof pornography as violence against women. Almost simultaneously,however,other
feministsraised questions about the tone and content of the antipornographyliterature.They feared thatthe movementhad conflatedsexualityand violence (or at least heterosexualityand violence) and that it
played into the traditionalantisexual attitudesof American culture.
Unfortunately,the antipornographyand "anti-antipornography"
forcessoon engaged not in dialogue but in polarized debate, withattacks
and counterattacksmore charged thaneven thoseof thegay/straight
split
of the early 1970s. New labels-"antipornography,""pro-pornography,"
"bad girls,""moral purists"-furtheredthe sense thatseparate, antagonisticcamps existed.In 1982, afterseveralyearsof confrontationin print,
thedebate culminatedin publicconfrontationat theBarnard Conference
("The Scholar and the FeministIX: Toward a Politicsof Sexuality").A
group of antipornographyfeministspicketed and leafleted the conference, calling for a boycottof speakers whose views on sexuality and
alleged sexual practice theydeemed nonfeminist.
This latestpoliticalsplitwithinthe women's movement,like all such
splits,has been painfulforparticipantsand observersalike. It is especially
unsettlingfora movementthathas flourishedon an ideal of femaleunity
and a dream of a common sexual politics.At timesmanyof us have wished
thatthe debate would simplyfade away,or magicallyresolveitself,without our having to take personal stockof our confusionabout sexuality,
violence,pornography,and power. But when feelingsrun so high,on so
centrala politicalconcern, there is, we sense, more than mere factional-

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.155 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 14:27:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

104

Freedmanand Thorne

Introduction
to Sexuality
Debates

ism, personalityconflict,or a natural process of organizationalsubdivision at stake.The debates and theirintensitysignalimportantissues that
come at a criticalmomentin the historyof our movement.
We at Signshave read the literatureof bothsides,have argued about
itsimplications,and have pondered itsmeaning forfeministtheoryand
politics.We take no single positionas a group but have come to see the
need for stepping back and assessing the debates themselves.Why,we
asked potential contributorsto this forum, has a deep division over
sexualityemerged at this point in the movement'shistory?What is the
meaning of the debates? What seems to be at stake,and for whom?
As the papers suggest,the debates have raised basic questionsabout
the status of sexuality,violence, and pleasure in feministtheoryand
practice. What is the nature of sexualityor desire? How is sexuality
related to power and to violence,and how do those dimensionsrelate to
pleasure? How adequate are the theoriesof sexualityused by different
view of sexualityas deeply gendered
feminists(e.g., the radical-feminist
and shaped by men's control of women; and the radical theoretical
traditionthat emphasizes the historicrepression of sexual drives, the
suppression of sexual minoritiesby the dominantculture,and the need
forsexual liberation)?Should thesetheoriesbe positedas alternatives,or
can, and should, theybe combined? In what waysare other power divisions-class, race, ethnicity,age-related to sexuality?(Is the castingof
the debate shaped by class and ethnicityas well as by the assumptionsof
Westernculture?)How, withall of theseformsof dominationconsidered,
mightwe develop a more complex understandingof relationshipsbetween power and sexuality?
The debates draw, quite dramatically,on the plasticityof sexual
meanings.What,ithas been debated,is sexualitybasically"about"? Power
and violence? Pleasure? Intimacy?If sexualityis, at least in part, about
fantasy,how does it relate to the "real," whichis tied to the political?If
sexualityis sociallyconstructed(a beliefmostfeministsaffirm),are sexual
practicesand experiencesnot shaped bysocial structure,and should they
not be subjected to politicalscrutiny?But do we wanta movementwhere
such scrutinyresultsin thelabelingof some sexual practicesas "politically
correct"and others as "incorrect"?
These issues are not abstract;theybear on the culture,organization,
and strategiesof the women's movement.The politicalclimatein which
these divisionshave emerged is especiallycharged because of the presence of the New Right,whose antifeminismopposes nonreproductive
sexuality,abortion,and lesbian and gay rights.Questions about the relationshipof feministstrategiesto the state (which regulatessexual practices, sex education, and access to abortion) are also involved, as are
importantdecisionsabout movementpriorities(some have lamentedthat

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.155 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 14:27:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Signs

Autumn1984

105

sexualityhas absorbed so muchattentionin a period of economiccrisisfor

women in the United States and, especially,in the Third World).
In organizing this forum,we sought contributionsfrom different
vantage points. Ann Ferguson summarizes, compares, and criticizes
the basic assumptions of both the radical-feministand the libertarianfeministpositions. While each holds a differentparadigm of sexuality,
power,and freedom,bothpositions,Fergusonargues,are ahistoricaland
insufficiently
complex. Ilene Philipson criticizesthe analysis of sexual
repressionthatis centralto the "pro-sex"(or libertarian)position.Those
who claimthatlittledifferenceexistsbetweenthesexual repressionof the
nineteenthcenturyand that of the 1980s, Philipson argues, ignore the
sexualization of contemporaryculture, rely on simplisticdichotomies
and are insufficiently
criticalof pornogra(such as repression/freedom),
phy and of depersonalized sex.
Irene Diamond and Lee Quinby observe thatthe sex debates exemplifythe centralityof languages of sexualityand controlwithincontemporary feministdiscourse. They query the origins of the feministlanguage of control(e.g., the call for"controlof one's body") and the belief
thatsexualityis centralto identity,an "ultimatetruth"and a basic means
to liberation.Diamond and Quinbycall foralternativesto an emphasison
"sexuated pleasures." In the finalpaper, Carole Vance and Ann Snitow
thatsurroundanydiscussionof femalesexualityexplore thedifficulties
our lack of informationabout the fullrange of femaleexperience; misuse
of the idea that sexualityis sociallyconstructed;problemsin separating
violence,pornography,sex,and gender; and therole of representationin
the creation and transformationof human sexuality.
We hope thatthisforumwillhelp chartsome of the complexitiesof
the sexualitydebates. It is necessarilyincomplete,but we hope thatitwill
furtherdiscussionof the issues raised in these essaysand of theirsignificance for feministtheoryand practice.
ofHistory
Department
(Freedman)
StanfordUniversity
Department
ofSociology
(Thorne)
MichiganStateUniversity

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.155 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 14:27:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions