Fish in a barrel: or yup, there's definitely a culture war on

[ricardienne]

Ross Douthat, seriously???

At times, as the French writer Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry recently suggested, this side of sexual revolution looks more like “sexual reaction,” a step way back toward a libertinism more like that of pre-Christian Rome —anti-egalitarian and hierarchical, privileging men over women, adults over children, the upper class over the lower orders.

I mean, yeah. As we all know, the kyriarchy ceased to exist with the domination of Christian sexual ethics in the 5th century CE. No one was ever ever exploited again until the 1970's. The fact that the sexual politics in modern America are (still) terrible definitely does not have anything to do with cultural habits and mores and beliefs that pre-existed the "sexual revolution."

I'm not going to quote the part about "the bizarre modern ideal is sexual freedom for everyone where coercion and harm are prevented by things like age of consent laws and contraception and "regulations about initiating intercourse" (exact quote: this is apparently ReligiousRight for "enthusiastic consent and not raping people"). Because...Yes? And the fact that some of this has become reality is a good thing! And don't worry, Ross: same-sex marriage and enthusiastic consent were definitely *not* features of ancient sexual ethics. It's okay: it's possible to have sex that St. Jerome wouldn't approve of without also e.g., being a brutally hierarchical slave society where girls are married at 13. And the former is what we're going for here.

(This was the part where the essay reminded me of just how different the moral universes are that Douthat (it's really tempting to type "Douchehat") and I inhabit. Is there even any point to me posting this, for example? There's really no point, except that it made me ragey and I need to get my rant out before I go finish my dissertation (ulp).)

Or the part where he suggests that liberal feminist sex-positive types are criticizing 50 Shades of Gray because it's portrayal of BDSM isn't realistic enough. Obviously, the fact that most of the criticism is actually about how it depicts a completely traditional abusive relationship would undermine his point about how liberals don't understand that modern supposedly "liberated" sexual culture is still newly unequal.

Comments

[achyvi.livejournal.com]

He semi-jokes(?) about how some FEMINISSSSSTSSS (I insert angry hissing here for lulz) are complaining about how it does not depict BDSM realistically enough, but it is a big deal that it's depicted so terribly! There's a reason there are so many built-in safety measures, dammit, and just throwing something as basic as respecting a friggin' safe word to the side is not only ridiculous, it can really be pretty dangerous... not to mention the whole, you know, "now this is rape" part. BUT I GUESS IT'S JUST SOOOO ROMANTIC. Bleh.

[ricardienne.livejournal.com]

Very true! I mean, I think his whole point is "liberal feminist-y types think that sexual acts and relationships that would be exploitative if they were not between actively and enthusiastically consenting competent adults taking precautions so that all participants are safe and happy are somehow okay and normal if all participants are actively and enthusiastically consenting adults. Haha that's so weird and contradictory!"

And...no. That's actually the whole freaking distinction between rape (and exploitation more generally) and consensual sex!