(Part One is here.)
Of the three Sex 2.0 lectures the ex-spouse and I attended, he liked the second one best. The session description:
Internet Advocacy for Sexual Freedom
Do we need a new national sexual freedom discourse? Does the transparency of the internet or its opportunity for anonymity help answer this question? Can we use our blogs, elists and online groups to shape the national sexual freedom discourse? For this workshop we will explore how we can use the internet to transform sexual issue debates into dialogues and then broad conversations creating new allies. We will use the issues of trafficking and decriminalization of consensual sex as examples.
In the beginning of the session, one of the speakers used the example of this as an ideal situation where people who are supporters of sexual freedom (defined as being supportive of polyamory, swinging, homosexuality in general and marriage equality in particular, etc.) could dialogue with people who are not supporters of sexual freedom (defined as thinking that doing any of those things will result both in you personally burning in Hell and the collapse of civilization as we know it generally). It’s a nice idea, and I actually remember reading about that whole pro-choice/pro-life lovefest several years ago when it was happening and thinking then that it was a nice idea. The speaker at the session emphasized that the great thing about this was that neither side is expected to change his or her opinion–compromise can and often does leave a sour taste in the mouths of both compromisers–this was all about building consensus.
But…there does have to be a but, I’m afraid…
…is that consensus, and this kind of dialoguing, are simply not possible unless both sides of the issue see the persons arguing the other side as, well, persons. Not deviants, freaks, murderers, sluts, etc. This can work with the abortion issue because it rarely descends to the personal; one side of the table is not dominated by women who’ve had abortions, stating to the faces of the pro-life contingent on the other side that yes, not only are they all women who’ve had abortions, they’re glad they did it and plan on doing it as many times as they feel necessary in future. In these abortion consensus-building meetings, both sides agree that abortion is wrong, bad, evil and to be avoided as much as possible.
Those promoting sexual freedom are not going to take the stance that sexual freedom is a necessary evil, as those who promote abortion rights do. They are arguing, generally, that there is nothing wrong with sexual freedom. This leaves absolutely no base concept whatsoever for both sides to build a consensus upon. And even worse(!), the people promoting sexual freedom are usually active and current practitioners thereof–they’re not simply misguided in their beliefs. As the ex-spouse put it during the discussion–”It’s the 800 pound gorilla in the room that nobody wants to mention–that what you’re actually, physically doing is in direct opposition to the laws of God!…how can you possibly dialogue with somebody who sincerely believes that about you?”
Near the end of the lecture, we got to the point where we were going to use “the issues of trafficking and decriminalization of consensual sex as examples” in a real-time group discussion exercise…except we never actually got to do that, because there were too many questions from the audience about what, precisely, were the definitions we were using of trafficking and decriminalization..? And it was funny, because the questioners were so polite about questioning–and the answerers were so careful about answering–very careful to avoid any language that any of the diverse group of people in that room might find belittling or insulting, and clearly attempting to be as inclusive as possible of every viewpoint that might be represented there. At that moment, I tried to imagine a similar scene in a fundamentalist religious seminar–and failed utterly. See, they’ve all agreed already on what terminology they use, and if it upsets or offends anybody, they really couldn’t care less–! It’s up to the people in the group to suck it up and adjust their feelings to reflect the doctrine handed down from their highest authority–you will adjust your viewpoints to that, never the other way round! And what does a group like that really care about consensus-building..?
I admired the speaker for her clear dedication to promoting sexual freedom, but given how much experience she seemed to have doing so with major political figures (she mentioned Sam “Psycho” Brownback as one real-life example), I found myself amazed at her optimism and what seemed to me like willful naivete. She actually said, at one point, “While I’ve spoken to many people who oppose gay marriage, I’ve never spoken to anyone who opposed equal rights for gays.” That didn’t really go over too well with the rest of the room, I couldn’t help but notice. I suspect it’s because far too many of us have indeed spoken to people who opposed equal rights for gays–some of us have spoken to people who think that gays actually deserve to die, which is about as opposed to equal rights for ‘em as you can possibly get, eh? One thing she said really did resonate with me, though–she said that reframing the debate in terms of basic human rights really got it taken a lot more seriously–and I absolutely agree with that. It’s a great strategy and one I’m going to actively pursue myself…but it isn’t a consensus-building strategy really, not when your opponents believe that your actions taken in the name of sexual freedom literally dehumanize you.
(The ex-spouse was a little frustrated with the session after we left–he would have liked a lot more time to discuss the ideas presented, I think, and also being the die-hard atheist that he is, he probably would have liked to explore in more depth the religious bases for the opposition to sexual freedom.)
[...] « Education, Schooling, and John Gatto Sex 2.0! Part Two: Constructive Dialoguing [...]
Yeah, it’s hard to “build consensus” when you’re talking past each other, and have vastly different worldviews, and way different goals for the world. I’d say “impossible”.
I really do not think that all pro-choice activists think that abortion is “wrong, bad, evil and to be avoided as much as possible”. In fact, I think the whole comparison between abortion rights and sexual freedom is unfair: the idea that pro choice and pro life activists have a common goal (reducing the number of abortions) and thus can easily work together completely misses the boat on the underlying diametrically opposed moral arguments for each movement. Amanda talks about this in more detail here: http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/id_love_to_put_it_to_bed_but_its_still_up_and_walking_around/
I agree that not all pro-choice activists think abortion is a bad thing to be avoided as much as possible, but certainly the mainstream pro-choice movement presents them that way–”safe, legal and RARE,” remember? Amanda differs from the main, generally speaking, in her attitude–I think I recall on one occasion her characterizing abortion as a moral good, not just its existence but the act of having one period. (I also don’t regard it as a particular evil, but again, I don’t think that’s the mainstream pro-choice pov.)
In the session, what was the position of the pro-criminalization-of-consensual-sex group? Or were they referenced in terms of conservative or religious communities not present at the conference? Was the definition-of-terms around the concept of consent?
I agree that these sorts (and all sorts) of personal/political issues are most powerfully framed in terms of basic human rights, but doing so does tend to polarize debates because the issue becomes one of morality and absolute(ish) right and wrong as opposed to differences of opinion. It’s especially difficult when one party can overrule basic human rights with the will of a omnipotent and divine moral judge, for sure.
[...] Sex 2.0! Part Two: Constructive Dialoguing at PunkAssBlog.com (tags: sex2.0 sex2.02009) [...]
Anti-prostitution / anti-pornography activists who support legal abolition. Because the legal system has been shown, time and time again, to be effective at providing support, justice, and basic human rights and dignity to sex workers. Or something.
I think “safe, legal, and rare,” is actually a bit different from, “wrong, bad, and evil.” As the not-particularly-radical Katha Pollitt tells William Saletan over here.
This is actually relevant, since it’s why the hypothetical constructive dialogue over abortion doesn’t materialize at any substantial level.
Actually, Vi, Katha Pollitt pretty much backs up my assertion about the position that mainstream pro-choice takes on abortion. To wit: “It’s been decades since the visible, mainstream pro-choice groups defended abortion as anything but a sad necessity and/or something that had to be legal because women have a right to make their own mistakes. They always portray abortion as a “decision,” often a “difficult” one, made reluctantly. That is a way of emphasizing women’s moral agency but also a way of saying that abortion is a morally serious, very unfortunate event.”
Jad, we seriously never got far enough into it to really define them, either.
That session really just didn’t have the time to cover all the things it wanted to cover…a shame, too.
I am a little confused by the way you are framing this. Is there a pro trafficking advocacy group that you think the victims of trafficking should attempt to find common ground with?
It is difficult to imagine a position in favor of forced pregnancy or forced sex that does not dismiss the human rights of the person being forced.
I do not think it is possible to build consensus with people who think they have a right to restrict your rights. Who insist that their access to your body is an expression of their rights rather than a violation of yours.
Gail Dines, Rebecca Whisnant, Melissa Farley, have all addressed these issues.
Perhaps you might want to look into their work.
Bewilderness…I’ve never even heard of a “pro trafficking advocacy group.” So I’m pretty sure that whatever I’m discussing, that isn’t it. I’m also not sure what about the work of the people you’ve listed (who I’m honestly not familiar with beyond probably having heard at least one of their names mentioned before in passing) you think I should look into. I’m quite sure that I’m not in favor of building a consensus with people who are in favor of forced sex, and frankly I don’t have much personal interest in building a consensus with people who are in favor of forced pregnancy, though I can’t object if others who oppose it want to do so, especially if they wind up getting positive results out of it without having to compromise their principle that forced pregnancy is wrong.
Well then Lisa maybe you need to look into both camps. Without dismissing anti-sexploitation folks as potential blamers throwing imaginary insults I.e “Not deviants, freaks, murderers, sluts, etc”
Maybe they just have a valid and empirically researched different point of view, without the hyperbole.
But, there again, you have not read them.
You know, there’s suddenly an influx of folks eagerly thrusting words into my mouth. Wonder why..?
Who have I singled out in this blog post, other than fundamentalist evangelicals, as persons who oppose sexual freedom? Are you defining “anti-sexploitation folks” as fundamentalist evangelicals? If you’re defining anti-sexploitation folks in some other fashion, I’m afraid you’ll have to give a summary of what they believe/pursue/etc. before I can express an opinion about them…because I have not done so to date, since I clearly don’t know who they are.
You’re commenting on my blog, not the other way around–you have to specify what you’re talking about to get any further responses.
So you only think that fundamentalist evangelicals oppose prostitution? Scandinavia/ US/ UK is full of feminist atheists who oppose prostitution. TBN gave a good list up-thread for you to examine – if you want a more balanced critique of “sexual freedom”
“Gail Dines, Rebecca Whisnant, Melissa Farley, have all addressed these issues.
Perhaps you might want to look into their work”
Google is your friend.
I’m unsure how you can talk of [...]is that consensus, and this kind of dialoguing, are simply not possible unless both sides of the issue see the persons arguing the other side as, well, persons.”
If, you have no knowledge of the ‘other-side’ – beyond ‘fundamental Christianity’
Mirror, as soon as you stop misconstruing, either deliberately or otherwise, what I said, we’ll make a lot more progress.
No, I didn’t think fundamentalist evangelicals are the only people that oppose prostitution. Actually, if you’ll reread the blog article…literacy is your friend
…you’ll see that I never once mentioned prostitution at all, much less who does or doesn’t oppose it. In the blog, in my examples of those who practice sexual freedom, I listed “supportive of polyamory, swinging, homosexuality in general and marriage equality in particular,” actually. So where exactly is this prostitution thing coming from, may I ask..? And apparently Google isn’t my friend, because searching for all those ladies, coupled with the words “polyamory,” “swinging” or “homosexuality” gets no results whatsoever.
So I think you’re going to really have to start tying in what you’re trying to get across here with the actual blog post you’re appending your comments to, eh?
Mirror,
I feel totally secure in saying that consensus between two groups is impossible when one of the groups sees the other as dehumanized. If you have some evidence that consensus actually can be achieved under those circumstances, I’d love to see it.
No, you’re right. I was mostly commenting on the fact that she was advocating an abortion-as-morally-neutral position in Slate, a pretty mainstream magazine. It seems relevant to your point because the pro-choice / anti-choice divide isn’t regularly crossed with constructive dialogue, even if it seems like it ought to be possible. I think that’s because pro-choicers tend to see “safe, legal, and rare” within a framework of women having sexual freedom, agency, access to health care, and ultimate control over their bodies; anti-choicers tend to see “wrong, bad, and evil,” within a context of women being shamed and controlled by their appointed patriarch. They aren’t reconcilable positions, even if they appear so from afar.
Mirror’s, uh, presence reminds me of a question I had: to what degree was the session about dialogue within activist communities over issues of, say, decriminalization? Because that is contentious, but there might be enough shared ground to hope for productive dialogue in some instances.
We didn’t get very far with the trafficking and decriminalization discussion specifically, as I said above–really just ran out of time. As far as we got was discussing the definitions of both terms–as it turns out, decriminalization and legalization are two different things, which I didn’t know before I went there.