Tara, i don't think you've written an essay yet that hasn't articulated something that's been bugging the fuck out of me for eons.
the compulsory polyamory of the casual sex scene wrapped in the label "Sex Positive" has been bugging my Wife and i for years, and your essay just tears it to shreds. Thank you.
this was interesting. i personally stick to the don’t have sex with someone you aren’t committed to worldview and like it when others do the same but this taxonomy of the problems with that kind of culture is amazing
Truly this is why I avoid the white queer scene at all costs, as a Black bigender woman. And I honestly believe that this is why the white lesbian communes of the 60s-80s all fell apart, one-by-one.
I would love to see more of your analysis regarding ostracization from the queer community, which has significant overlaps with the mutual aid space, and as you so aptly alluded to can come as the cost/consequence for all levels of boundary-setting within these spaces. IMHO, ostracization and isolation are the weapons by which people are forced into continuing to bear these lowkey rapes.
That isolation is a weapon used by patriarchy and puritanism. It more often happens to women and those found sexually violatable than to men and those with social capital. What would our communities look like if we banned isolation as a practice, and were radically inclusive to all?
IMHO, it is probably best to think of (non-) monogamy as a *spectrum* rather than a binary, with most people (queer or otherwise) falling somewhere in between the two extremes.
Everyone, basically. It is literally the most egalitarian way to deal with such differences. What it does NOT do, of course, is continue to privilege strict monogamy above all else. Monogamy is fine for those who choose it, but it should be a conscious choice, not an unconscious default setting.
I come from an Anarchist African tradition of contractual nonmanogamous marriages and I disagree with you strongly. Most people in the white queer world are not default negotiating their boundaries consciously.
Regardless, it is still a spectrum, and trying to shoehorn everyone into a false binary (or *either* extreme) does far more harm than good, and is essentially the root of the problem discussed in the article.
All that said, we must still remember that sexual liberation is the real kill switch to end patriarchy (and with it, the larger kyriarchy) for good. Thus, trying to end patriarchy first before sexual liberation, and thus delaying the latter until the former is fully realized, is ultimately a Sisyphean dead end, and thus I respectfully disagree with Dworkin on that.
So here is our kill switch: we stop telling women when, where and with whom she is allowed to get involved romantically. Her body, her choice. And she is perfectly capable of making it a responsible choice, thank you very much."
And lest anyone misunderstand his words, read too much into it, or try to put words in his mouth:
"NOTE: This is not to suggest that anyone should change their own behavior. We do whatever we are comfortable with. That, of course, includes staying monogamous, still a perfectly valid choice. But it can not be justified as a moral choice anymore -- rather, it is a personal preference."
Respectfully, I don't think it's wise to dispute Dworkin's argument with the words of a man, given how her argument was basically how the definition of "sexual liberation" was designed by men (and for men), and could thus be easily used to block more materially feministic causes. Equal pay, equal representation in government, equal representation in workplaces, equal healthcare; such things will never be possible for as long as men imagine women to be freely available to fuck without any following consequences (which, btw, is what the mainstream interpretation of "sexual liberation" has come to be).
Of course, I personally find the claim that you will dehumanize anyone you feel sexually entitled to, to be dubious at best; that's a correlation I'm not 100% sure equals causation. In fact, I'm pretty sure the dehumanization comes *before* the sexual entitlement in the overwhelming majority of cases, rather than the other way around. If there is a psychosexual root to modern misogyny, I think it has more to do with the idea that sex has an inherent power dynamic, which in turn I think comes from the idea that formal hierarchies are the primary signifier of advanced civilisation
With all due respect, I will note that Dworkin is not particularly representative of feminism in general. She makes some good points here and there, granted, but there is a reason why she is generally seen as relatively fringe nowadays. The collapse of the second wave in the early 1980s can be traced to the Feminist Sex Wars, of course.
But yes, it's the old question of the cart before the horse, in regards to sexual liberation. The only debate here is which one is the cart and which is the horse. And we may just have to respectfully agree to disagree about that.
It is basically Pendulum Theory meets Horseshoe Theory. The specious idea that "casual" is inherently a synonym for "meaningless" or "impersonal", as opposed to simply meaning "uncommitted" or "exploratory", is NOT neutral, and ultimately serves power at the expense of the powerless. And it is simply the other side of the very same coin as the opposite extreme, just like compulsory nonmonogamy is the other side of the very same coin as compulsory monogamy or monogamy by default.
As for consent, remember the first rule of enthusiastic consent: if it's not a "HELL YEAH!", it's a "HELL NO!"
Also, it is probably better to say that the supposed casualness *enables* the violence, rather than that it *IS* the violence itself. Semantics, I know, but still important regardless.
I have read only the first part of this article, so far. read only the I will read the rest in the morning.
I do want to say, as a male feminist from the 1970s, that I understand exactly what you mean about sex being a thing of the society I was raised in. My intellect thinks as it will, the act has a different agenda. I am impressed with your clarity of thought and how honestly you write.
I am now a subscriber. Thank you!
Sorry for the bad editing. I cannot see what I am writing. Hope the meaning is still clear.
Tara, i don't think you've written an essay yet that hasn't articulated something that's been bugging the fuck out of me for eons.
the compulsory polyamory of the casual sex scene wrapped in the label "Sex Positive" has been bugging my Wife and i for years, and your essay just tears it to shreds. Thank you.
looking forward to citing you!
The feminine masses have yearned for their Marx they just didn’t know it would come in the form of a 5’5 lightskinned transsexual woman
Tara, I have to print you. I can’t be staring at my phone for 24 pages of text! New to the feed but loving your insights. 👋
Lmfao really appreciate this thank you
this was interesting. i personally stick to the don’t have sex with someone you aren’t committed to worldview and like it when others do the same but this taxonomy of the problems with that kind of culture is amazing
Truly this is why I avoid the white queer scene at all costs, as a Black bigender woman. And I honestly believe that this is why the white lesbian communes of the 60s-80s all fell apart, one-by-one.
I would love to see more of your analysis regarding ostracization from the queer community, which has significant overlaps with the mutual aid space, and as you so aptly alluded to can come as the cost/consequence for all levels of boundary-setting within these spaces. IMHO, ostracization and isolation are the weapons by which people are forced into continuing to bear these lowkey rapes.
That isolation is a weapon used by patriarchy and puritanism. It more often happens to women and those found sexually violatable than to men and those with social capital. What would our communities look like if we banned isolation as a practice, and were radically inclusive to all?
IMHO, it is probably best to think of (non-) monogamy as a *spectrum* rather than a binary, with most people (queer or otherwise) falling somewhere in between the two extremes.
Who does this help, and whose boundaries does it prioritize?
Everyone, basically. It is literally the most egalitarian way to deal with such differences. What it does NOT do, of course, is continue to privilege strict monogamy above all else. Monogamy is fine for those who choose it, but it should be a conscious choice, not an unconscious default setting.
I come from an Anarchist African tradition of contractual nonmanogamous marriages and I disagree with you strongly. Most people in the white queer world are not default negotiating their boundaries consciously.
Regardless, it is still a spectrum, and trying to shoehorn everyone into a false binary (or *either* extreme) does far more harm than good, and is essentially the root of the problem discussed in the article.
All that said, we must still remember that sexual liberation is the real kill switch to end patriarchy (and with it, the larger kyriarchy) for good. Thus, trying to end patriarchy first before sexual liberation, and thus delaying the latter until the former is fully realized, is ultimately a Sisyphean dead end, and thus I respectfully disagree with Dworkin on that.
https://thechaliceandtheflame.blogspot.com/2025/03/patriarchy-has-kill-switch-and-we.html
"As Yuri Zavorotny himself says:
So here is our kill switch: we stop telling women when, where and with whom she is allowed to get involved romantically. Her body, her choice. And she is perfectly capable of making it a responsible choice, thank you very much."
And lest anyone misunderstand his words, read too much into it, or try to put words in his mouth:
"NOTE: This is not to suggest that anyone should change their own behavior. We do whatever we are comfortable with. That, of course, includes staying monogamous, still a perfectly valid choice. But it can not be justified as a moral choice anymore -- rather, it is a personal preference."
AMEN and AWOMEN!
(Mic drop)
Respectfully, I don't think it's wise to dispute Dworkin's argument with the words of a man, given how her argument was basically how the definition of "sexual liberation" was designed by men (and for men), and could thus be easily used to block more materially feministic causes. Equal pay, equal representation in government, equal representation in workplaces, equal healthcare; such things will never be possible for as long as men imagine women to be freely available to fuck without any following consequences (which, btw, is what the mainstream interpretation of "sexual liberation" has come to be).
Of course, I personally find the claim that you will dehumanize anyone you feel sexually entitled to, to be dubious at best; that's a correlation I'm not 100% sure equals causation. In fact, I'm pretty sure the dehumanization comes *before* the sexual entitlement in the overwhelming majority of cases, rather than the other way around. If there is a psychosexual root to modern misogyny, I think it has more to do with the idea that sex has an inherent power dynamic, which in turn I think comes from the idea that formal hierarchies are the primary signifier of advanced civilisation
True, Yuri Zavarotny is a man. But the legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder is a woman who agrees with his thesis all the same:
https://thechaliceandtheflame.blogspot.com/2025/03/rasa-responds-to-my-kill-switch.html
With all due respect, I will note that Dworkin is not particularly representative of feminism in general. She makes some good points here and there, granted, but there is a reason why she is generally seen as relatively fringe nowadays. The collapse of the second wave in the early 1980s can be traced to the Feminist Sex Wars, of course.
But yes, it's the old question of the cart before the horse, in regards to sexual liberation. The only debate here is which one is the cart and which is the horse. And we may just have to respectfully agree to disagree about that.
It is basically Pendulum Theory meets Horseshoe Theory. The specious idea that "casual" is inherently a synonym for "meaningless" or "impersonal", as opposed to simply meaning "uncommitted" or "exploratory", is NOT neutral, and ultimately serves power at the expense of the powerless. And it is simply the other side of the very same coin as the opposite extreme, just like compulsory nonmonogamy is the other side of the very same coin as compulsory monogamy or monogamy by default.
As for consent, remember the first rule of enthusiastic consent: if it's not a "HELL YEAH!", it's a "HELL NO!"
Also, it is probably better to say that the supposed casualness *enables* the violence, rather than that it *IS* the violence itself. Semantics, I know, but still important regardless.
Enabling violence is violence. Semantics are linguistic distraction. How does this distraction benefit you?
It doesn't benefit me, I am simply making an observation.
I have read only the first part of this article, so far. read only the I will read the rest in the morning.
I do want to say, as a male feminist from the 1970s, that I understand exactly what you mean about sex being a thing of the society I was raised in. My intellect thinks as it will, the act has a different agenda. I am impressed with your clarity of thought and how honestly you write.
I am now a subscriber. Thank you!
Sorry for the bad editing. I cannot see what I am writing. Hope the meaning is still clear.