Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:39:57.149Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Feminist Sexuality Debate: Ethics and Politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

Cheryl H. Cohen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to offer a critical evaluation of representative positions in the feminst sexuality debate and to suggest that ethical considerations are essential to the complex task of political transformation which is the goal of both sides in the debate. This paper explores both a “rights view” of ethics and a “responsibilities view” and shows, through specific examples, how an appeal to ethics might take feminist sexual politics beyond the current debate.

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 1 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Motherhood and Sexuality , Fall 1986 , pp. 71 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 I rely on Ann Ferguson's discussion of the sexuality debates for the labels “Radical feminist” and “Libertarian feminist.” See Ferguson 1984b.

2 For example, that the radical feminist notion of the “Woman-identified-Woman” which made lesbianism a political practice for feminists lost sight of the liberation of female desire; lesbianism was no longer primarily an expression of repressed female desire but became a rebellious sexuality, defined in terms of its relation to patriarchy.

3 For a brief historical summary of feminist sexual politics and the current political split, see Freedman and Thorne 1984.

4 Carol Gould reminds us that some men display more of these historically “feminine” traits than some women, and more importantly, that the whole range of character traits are human traits which may be appropriated for one's own self-development (Gould 1984).

5 Here again, the distinction between the three areas of concern in the sexuality debate is important. A rights ethic would prevent state censorship of pornogaphy and erotica, but it might also justify some form of legislation against certain kinds of pornographic images used in public places (especially violent pornography). A responsibilities view of ethics could then extend feminist criticisms to all forms of pornography, and also provide guidelines for the creation and use of erotica as a means of transforming and liberating human sexuality.

6 Rubin says, “One may more reasonably ask if anyone truly ‘consents’ to be straight in any way. Coercion does occur among perverts, as it does in all sexual contexts. One still needs to distinguish rape and abuse from consensual situations. But the overwhelming coercion with regard to S/M is the way in which people are prevented from doing it. We are fighting for the freedom to consent to our sexuality without interference, and without penalty” (Rubin 1982, 223).