As for the visibility of feminism in the sessions, I thought Amber put it well when she said it’s difficult to imagine sex positivism without feminism.

I read her concern as more directed at the sort of quotational “sex positivism” that actually seems more accurately described as men-fucking-and-women-being-sexually-available-to-be-fucked-by-men-positivism. Which certainly exists in some environments, particularly some con environments, so being concerned about Sex 2.0 becoming that seems not-unreasonable.

—

About who looks, ogles, stares, gazes, etc.: in general it’s much more interesting to assume everyone is pretty much the same out of the gate and then to inquire where the differences come from than to assume we’re different and then just go home after saying “oh, well we must be different because we’re different.”

—

As for the visibility of feminism in the sessions, I thought Amber put it well when she said it’s difficult to imagine sex positivism without feminism. So to a certain extent it was invisible but more in the way that water is invisible to fish. My strong suspicion, based on both conversation and conviction, is that if feminism were threatened nearly all the attendees, including those who forswear use of the term, would immediately stand up to defend it. Articulately.

Now, the above isn’t a completely accurate description of what Sex 2.0 turned out to be–at least, not the three lectures I attended. Feminism barely came up at all, though all the attendees around me save for two, when asked by one of the lecturers, indicated that they self-identified as feminists.

Amber Rhea, who founded Sex 2.0, was not particularly happy about that (before the con, at least).

The thing about staring / oogling is that yes, it’s mostly part of the background, but it’s part of a substantially violent background. We live in a culture where women are constantly told, “be vigilant! he might be a rapist!,” and however problematic we think those exhortations are, they’re in the water, and getting stared at or ogled, particularly by strange men, carries this low-level implicit threat of violence, particularly if you’re a trans woman or a woman of color.

Ogling isn’t really the problem, though. I ogle (discreetly). Everyone ogles a bit. It’s the assumptions that often go along with ogling that a person’s body is there primarily to be ogled, and that it’s therefore open to comment, suggestion, crowding. It’s the assumption that women’s bodies, in particular, are in public specifically to make the landscape prettier. It’s the assumption that a person’s value is in their ogleability, and that if they’re not fodder for the male gaze, then they can either 1) be taken seriously (if they’re a man) or 2) be dismissed entirely (if they’re a woman).

Those are far more problematic than whether someone stares at my physique or not; however, I think it’s fair to say that the ogling and the attitudes tend to be linked.

The ladies are annoyed because your post was a collection of cliches…sorry, but it is. Lemme help you out a little. And of course you’re free to express your opinion–and others are equally free to express their opinion of your opinion, eh?

“On one hand, it’s obvious why staring isn’t polite, but on the other hand I often feel feminists are overthinking it and wind up encouraging oversensitivity and, occasionally, oppressive rules”

Oh, those overthinking, oversensitive feminists! Not here, I’m afraid. If you really read what I wrote, you’ll see that generally speaking, I am the exact opposite of sensitive when it comes to being stared at. I actually make a big, huge point of describing that. Don’t let cliches interfere with reality, Stace.

“Men are visual”

Humans are visual. That’s what I love about evo psych–on the one hand, women have this amazing color detection sense and ability to see messes that men simply can’t detect but on the other hand, “men are more visual than women.” Oh sigh. Next!

“I’m not an overly handsome man, but I do find women looking at me from time to time. I don’t mind as long as it’s not disruptive”

For it to be a truly comparable experience, you need to spend all day surrounded by a group of people consisting solely of women over 50 with big bellies and missing teeth and big, powerful, aggressively homosexual men and experience them staring at you–as well as constantly hitting on you–and take it all with a sweet smile and unflappable courtesy, even when one or more of them accidentally manages to find an excuse to touch you over the course of the day. Then, when you say you don’t mind, I will absolutely go for this as a valid comparison.

Don’t get me wrong, Stacy–I hardly think that ogling is the biggest issue faced by women today–this is probably the first time I’ve ever blogged about it and I wasn’t actually complaining about its presence, merely reveling in its absence.