#Amia Srinivasan

[haggishlyhagging]

Were anti-porn feminists being hysterical? Censorious prudes? In the age of internet porn, DVDs and video cassettes, let alone centerfolds and seedy theaters, can be joked about as nostalgic throwbacks. It may seem to some, looking back, that feminist anti-porn campaigners must have been overtaken by anxiety about a mass culture that was becoming more open about sex, and that was quite capable of separating fantasy from fact. Feminists, anxious about sex under patriarchy found it easier, a group of pro-porn feminists wrote in 1983, “to attack the picture of what oppresses us than the mysterious, elusive . . . thing itself.” The implication is that anti-porn feminists were overestimating the power of porn: they had lost perspective. But what if the true significance of the perspective of anti-porn feminists lay not in what they were paying attention to, but when? What if they weren’t hysterical, but prescient?

It was my students who first led me to think about this question. Discussing the "porn question" is more or less mandatory in an introductory class on feminist theory. But my heart wasn't really in it. I imagined that the students would find the anti-porn position prudish and passé, just as I was trying hard to make them see the relevance of the history of feminism to the contemporary moment. I needn't have worried. They were riveted. Could it be that pornography doesn't merely depict the subordination of women, but actually makes it real, I asked? Yes, they said. Does porn silence women, making it harder for them to protest against unwanted sex, and harder for men to hear those protests? Yes, they said. Does porn bear responsibility for the objectification of women, for the marginalization of women, for sexual violence against women? Yes, they said, yes to all of it.

It wasn't just the women students talking; the men were saying yes as well, in some cases even more emphatically. One young woman pushed back, citing the example of feminist porn. "But we don't watch that," the men said. What they watched was the hardcore stuff, the aggressive stuff—what is now, on the internet, the free stuff. My male students complained about the routines they were expected to perform in sex; one of them asked whether it was too utopian to imagine sex that was loving and mutual and not about domination and submission. My women students talked about the neglect of women's pleasure in the pornographic script, and wondered whether it had something to do with the absence of pleasure in their own lives. "But if it weren't for pornography," one woman said, "how would we ever learn to have sex?"

Porn meant so much to my students; they cared so much about it. Like the anti-porn feminists of forty years ago, they had a heightened sense of porn's power, a strong conviction that porn did things in the world. Talking with my graduate teaching assistant after that seminar (she was a handful of years younger than me), I realized what should have been obvious from the start. My students belonged to the first generation truly to be raised on internet pornography. Almost every man in that class would have had his first sexual experience the moment he first wanted it, or didn't want it, in front of a screen. And almost every woman in the class would have had her first sexual experience, if not in front of a screen, then with a boy whose first sexual experience had been. In that sense, her experience too would have been mediated by a screen: by what the screen instructed him to do. While almost all of us today live in a world where porn is ubiquitous, my students, born in the final years of the last century, were the first to have come of age sexually in that world.

My students would not have stolen or passed around magazines or videos, or gathered glimpses here and there. For them sex was there, fully formed, fully interpreted, fully categorized—teen, gangbang, MILF, stepdaughter—waiting on the screen. By the time my students got around to sex IRL—later, it should be noted, than teenagers of previous generations—there was, at least for the straight boys and girls, a script in place that dictated not only the physical moves and gestures and sounds to make and demand, but also the appropriate affect, the appropriate desires, the appropriate distribution of power. The psyches of my students are products of pornography. In them, the warnings of the anti-porn feminists seem to have been belatedly realized: sex for my students is what porn says it is.

-Amia Srinivasan, The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century

[that-stubborn-feminist]

Academia aesthetic ✨

[rakuhoku-kyoto]

Japanese Translation Amia Srinivasan, The Right to Sex, 2021, published by Bloomsbury (UK) and Farrar, Straus and Giroux (USA).

『セックスする権利』、アミア・スリニヴァサン、山田文 訳、装幀 佐々木暁、勁草書房、2023刊

[mirrorbreaks]

I just finished The Right to Sex by Amia Srinivasan and was really enamored with her essays on the politics of desire. It’s a topic that gets discussed a lot on here but the arguments always (in my opinion) rely on the reader’s finely tuned instincts honed in this relatively narrow Tumblr ecosystem. I believe there’s an instinct to say that, for example, the Grindr stereotype of ‘no fats, no femmes’ is wrong (and it is!) but I’ve seen that people struggle to justify this position due to the competing instincts that rise to stop one from moralizing another individual’s desire. I think Srinivasan deals with this seeming contradiction sharply and with incredible clarity by differentiating between moralizing and liberating one’s desire. I’d highly recommend the titular essay (linked below!) and the follow up essay written years later when the book was published (The Politics of Desire), though you might have to get the book to read that one. Both are fantastic essays that provided a ton of insight into a topic I’d previously avoided because of what seemed like a contradiction that laid at the center of my ideas on it.

[slayercain]

[Ellen] Willis concludes “Lust Horizons” by saying that for her it is “axiomatic that consenting partners have a right to their sexual proclivities, and that authoritarian moralism has no place” in feminism. And yet, she goes on, “a truly radical movement must look ... beyond the right to choose, and keep focusing on the fundamental questions. Why do we choose what we choose? What would we choose if we had a real choice?” This may seem an extraordinary reversal on Willis’s part. After laying out the ethical case for taking our sexual preferences, whatever they may be, as fixed points, protected from moral inquisition, Willis tells us that a “truly radical” feminism would ask precisely the question that gives rise to “authoritarian moralism”: what would women’s sexual choices look like if they were really free? One might feel that Willis has given with one hand and taken away with the other. But perhaps she has given with both. Here, she tells us, is a task for feminism: to treat as axiomatic our free sexual choices, while also seeing why, as “anti-sex” and lesbian feminists have always said, such choices, under patriarchy, are rarely free. What I am suggesting is that, in our rush to do the former, feminists risk forgetting to do the latter.

Amia Srinivasan, The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century

[bookofshitposts]

Feminism’s embrace of carceralism, like it or not, gives progressive cover to a system whose function is to prevent a political reckoning with material inequality.

Amia Srinivasan, “Sex, Carceralism, Capitalism”, The Right to Sex

[aeslinnreads]

"It is often the case that those with power are the ones least capable of seeing how it should be wielded."

The Right to Sex (Amia Srinivasan)

[haggishlyhagging]

When feminists embrace carceral solutions—cops on the street, men sent to prisons—it gives cover to the governing class in its refusal to tackle the deepest causes of most crime: poverty, racial domination, borders, caste. These are also the deepest causes of women's inequality, in the sense that it is these forces and their corollaries—lack of housing, health care, education, childcare, decent jobs—that are responsible for the greater part of women's misery. Globally, most women are poor, and most poor people are women. This is why feminism understood as the fight against "common oppression" comes apart from a feminism that fights for the equality and dignity of all women. A feminism focused on women's common oppression leaves untouched the forces that most immiserate most women, instead seeking gender-equal admission to existing structures of inequality.

-Amia Srinivasan, The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century

[benedictusantonius]

[2023|002] The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century (2021) written by Amia Srinivasan

[librospdfgratismundoepub]

El derecho al sexo - Amia Srinivasan (2022)

¿Cómo pensar el sexo en el siglo XXI? Este libro plantea una mirada feminista cuestionadora, retadora y que invita a reflexionar. ¿Cómo pensar el sexo en el siglo XXI? Este libro plantea en diversos ensayos un modo de abordarlo desde una mirada feminista, a la luz de acontecimientos y debates que han llegado a la opinión pública. Reflexiona la autora sobre el consentimiento después del #MeToo, las…

[breakingthebinding]

In a post #metoo world can we all agree that consent and sex are things we need to be talking about outside of the academy when configuring libratory policies and practices? Not sure? Read this. Think hell yeah we should be doing that! Read this. Not sure. Read this.   

“ To grasp sex in all its complexity—its deep ambivalences, its relationship to gender, class, race and power—we need to move beyond yes and no, wanted and unwanted. We do not know the future of sex—but perhaps we could imagine it. Amia Srinivasan’s stunning debut helps us do just that. She traces the meaning of sex in our world, animated by the hope of a different world. She reaches back into an older feminist tradition that was unafraid to think of sex as a political phenomenon. She discusses a range of fraught relationships—between discrimination and preference, pornography and freedom, rape and racial injustice, punishment and accountability, students and teachers, pleasure and power, capitalism and liberation.” -- via Goodreads

[judgingbooksbycovers]

The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century 

By Amia Srinivasan.

[bookofshitposts]

A feminist politics which sees the punishment of bad men as its primary purpose will never be a feminism that liberates all women, for it obscures what makes most women unfree.

Amia Srinivasan, “Sex, Carceralism, Capitalism”, The Right to Sex

[imanes]

not counting mangas/manhwas i read 11 books in july. damn it's crazy how much more i read when I'm not down in the dumps sjdlkfjgk. I'm at work and bored out of my mind and I'm actually going to leave two hours early because I've got better things to do but here's my wrap up (in chronological order)

ready or not by cara bastone: big meh, would not recommend

not in love by ali hazelwood: i liked it, probably for all the reasons that habitual hazelwood readers hated it

the art of catching feelings by alicia thomspon: enjoyable but probably her most forgettable book

can the monster speak by paul b. preciado: very enlightening

dragon unleashed by grace draven: nobody can write fantasy romances except this author... i said what i said

the tainted cup by robert jackson bennett: probably my favourite book of the month

a fragile enchantment by allison saft: the concept was there but the execution was disappointing

know my name by chanel miller: very enlightening as well, though not as well written as everybody makes it out to be

senlin ascends by josiah bancroft: perfect for people who are bored of the usual fantasy stories

year of the reaper by makiia lucier: perfect for people who aren't bored of the usual fantasy stories, my second favourite read of the month

the undying by anne boyer: final very enlightening read of the month, and extremely well written, though the last chapters didn't feel as purposeful as the rest

for mangas/manhwas i read all of solo leveling (super fun, not groundbreaking, and i found the end a little disappointing) and the latest instalment in how i met my soulmate (the future of shojo, thank you anashin for your service)

[aeslinnreads]

"There is a paradox in powerlessness. Collectivised, articulated and represented, powerlessness can become powerful. This is not in itself a bad thing. But with new power comes new difficulties and new responsibilities."

The Right to Sex (Amia Srinivasan)

[haggishlyhagging]

There are direct connections between the world of incels, pick-up artists and MRAs, and the far-right movement that helped bring Trump to power. The grievance politics of flailing white masculinity that fuel the manosphere have served as an ideological and material gateway to the more overt grievance politics of ethnonationalism: from Gamergate, Red Pill, and Jordan Peterson to Unite the Right, Proud Boys, and Three Percenters. Two of the men arrested for their involvement in the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, were Patrick Stedman, a "dating and relationship strategist" and expert in “female psychology”, and Samuel Fisher (aka "Brad Holiday'), the owner of a You Tube channel that promises to "help men get high value girls." Two months before storming the Capitol, Stedman tweeted "You don't have a problem with Trump, you have a problem with masculine energy."

-Amia Srinivasan, The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century