Hello and Welcome

Hello, I am Framboise (not my real name), a 20-something, asexual, radical feminist librarian, and I will be your host for this here blog. Why have a blog? Well, all the cool kids are doing it, but no actually much of my thinking on feminism and sexuality has been undergoing a sea change as of late and I wanted to create a space to work through some of my emerging thoughts and to discuss these issues in a positive space with other feminists.  This is not a feminism 101 blog and anyone wishing to comment should do so only if they agree with the idea that women (and people of all genders) are fully human and deserve full equality, without qualification.

Lately I have been growing more and more uncomfortable with third wave heavily sex positive feminist discourse I came up in.  It started when I realized I am asexual; this realization was hard won and, I believe, hindered by sex-positive feminist society (as it is lived, not necessarily it's ideals).  I was sure the reason I wasn't interested in sex was because I still hadn't thrown off the sexual repression I received from the patriarchy, never considering or realizing that compulsory sexuality is all part of that. I will discuss this at length later, but suffice it to say, I have come to think that is it not that patriarchy says women should not enjoy sex, but that women should enjoy the kinds of sex men want them to.  That our sexuality is not really for us.  Sex positivism is one response to this problem, and I genuinely believe it is a powerful and worthwhile response that has been extremely valuable for many women.  However, it is only one side and leaves little space for us to discuss and unpack the ways in which under patriarchy sex is not always good, or to seriously consider whether sex is something we (as individuals) want at all.  I think it is more useful to consider sex as neutral, something that can be enjoyed and used for good, or something that can be used to coerce and oppress, like golf or wine tasting (but maybe a little more culturally significant). 

About the name:  According to Wikipedia, a prude is " a pejorative term to suggest excessive modesty, and is hence unflattering, often used as an insult by people who do not share the moral standards of the 'prude. A person who is considered a prude may have reservations about nudity, participating in romantic or sexual activity." I identify as a prude because I am not personally interested in sex and do have reservations about sex and the way female nudity is used and socially constructed under Patriarchy.  I am doubtless "excessively modest", with my flat shoes and buns (I am a stereotype and I don't care). I think this definition shows what a ridiculous bind woman are in under Patriarchy and why it is important.  What exactly is "excessive" modesty? As a relatively busty woman I have noted the difference between a top that is "slutty" and "frigid" is about half an inch in the neckline because that is about the distance between my collarbone  and the start of cleavage. I think sex-positive feminism has done excellent work in highlighting and exploring the problem of slut shaming, and how little it takes to be labeled a "slut" in the patriarchy.  I support and applaud that work, but I also think we need to realize that women are also shamed* for being "frigid" or "prudes" in the patriarchy. I want to explore the ways that prudes are shamed by the patriarchy to explore how there is no solid ground for women seeking to own their own sexuality.  Of course some argue that society loves the virgin, sure life on the pedestal doesn't leave much room to move, but it is idealization and safety.  This is partially true, but there is a difference between being a virgin and being a prude.  In her inspiring and excellent article "The Ethical Prude" (which I highly recommend reading in its entirety. Reading that article and realizing just how many things I had to say on it, far more than a reasonable comment, was what finally pushed me to start this blog and obviously inspired the title), Lisa at Radical TransFeminist explained:

 "A woman who has too little [sex]… it can go two ways. She can take the route of deferred sex, saving up her sex for the ‘right’ man, all of which is still really sex, it is just considered elaborate foreplay. The practice is acceptable insofar as it eventually leads to sex. But women who truly remove themselves from or deprioritise the possibility of sexual relationships are monstrous, dried-up, man-hating, a threat to civilisation itself."

Also don't dismiss the difficulties of that whole pedestal thing too fast.  Anyway, I call myself "prude" to own my status as a women "de-prioritizing sex" and threatening (patriarchal) civilization itself.  I call myself radical because I refuse to apologize for that.  I also refuse to play patriarchy's game and turn on my sisters who have different preferences and ideas about sex.  I refuse to shame women for their sexual decisions whatever they may be.  I affirm and seek to understand how slut-shaming and prude-shaming* have the same root: a patriarchal culture that marries sex,  (male)power, and violence and leaves women no safe middle ground to stand by themselves.


Finally a note about gender in my writing:
I think there are two "levels" of gender which feminism has to consider.  The first is the individual identity.  There is a broad spectrum of gender identities which individuals can and do identify with.  I believe everyone has the right to identify as they wish (and that these identities represent real and authetic aspects of themselves) and be addressed as their identified gender (ie: you should use the pronouns and terms an individual asks you to use for them).  Simply, the gender a person identifies with is their "real" gender and acting any differently is asshole behavior.  However, under Patriarchy, gender is binary and hegemonic, one can only be a man or woman and that identity is enforced from without.  The privileged category "man" includes cis-sexual, non-effeminate (and at times only heterosexual) men. Anyone who deviates from this is not given male privilege and thus regarded as women, or just not men. The degree to which transmen or gender-queers are regarded as men depends on whether or not they are read as men in context and by the patriarchy.  Trans and genderqueer people face additional oppression stemming from gender non-conformity, but they also face oppression as women (this is why it is extra gross when misguided feminists seek to ban transwomen from women-only spaces).  The upshot of this long discussion is that when critiquing aspects of Patriarchy I will use "men" to refer to "individuals read as men and given male privilege under patriarchy" and "woman" as "individuals denied male privilege and oppressed as women under patriarchy".

*Shaming doesn't seem like the right word, as you are not supposed to be shamed so much as invalidated....another post.