I’ve been sort of taking over the conversation at Verte’s place since Trin threw us a particularly juicy bone by directing us to the Egalitarian Sex page on LJ (http://community.livejournal.com/egalitarian_sex/), and I want to talk about it some more, so I thought I’d bring my random babbling back over here instead.
So, egalitarian sex. I’ve heard the term thrown around for years, and never quite known what people meant by it. No one has even been willing or able to give me a definition. What does it mean to have sex in an egalitarian way, exactly? What would that look like?
Apparently it looks like poorly written male/male slash involving defenceless British rock stars who have not given their consent to being thus depicted, one of whom may or may not be dead. But I’m getting ahead of myself.
From the community info page, here are the rules for writing about/discussing egalitarian sex.


All sex partners fantasized about treat each other as equals and feel equal respect for each other.
No sex partners fantasized about behave any differently on the basis of what gender they are or treat other people any differently on the basis of what gender other people are.
All body types are celebrated, and no sex partners fantasized about ever feel distaste for any body type (including body types their partners do not possess - for example, the fact that your partner is beautiful fat does not make it egalitarian to find skinny people unattractive; it is only egalitarian to find all body types attractive).
No sex partners fantasized about define themselves as definitely going to remain exclusively heterosexual for life, because this implies treating people differently on the basis of gender or body type.
If the sex partners fantasized about define themselves as definitely going to remain exclusively homosexual for life, they choose to do so due to living in a society that would give partners in other-gender relationships unequal power toward one another, rather than due to any belief that members of the other gender are physically unattractive or biologically incapable of behaving in all the same ways that members of their own gender can.
All sex partners give their full and uncoerced consent, including financially uncoerced consent, to everything that happens.
No sex partners fantasized about pretend at any point not to be consenting, and none are tied up, voluntarily or otherwise (pretending not to consent is a turn-off, not a turn-on, to people who are turned on by egalitarianism).
No sex partners fantasized about are turned on by inflicting physical or emotional pain on each other or being subjected to physical or emotional pain by each other, consensually or otherwise


Now, in principle I can agree that a little more egalitariasm in relationships would be an excellent thing. What we have right now is a system in which everyone hetero is basically practicing a really fucked-up form of BSDM, but it’s not any fun because no one discusses anything, there are no safe words and women are ALWAYS supposed to be on the bottom. Well, not everyone, but you know what I mean. That’s the standard hetero script, right? I’m not thrilled with that script. It could do with some adjustment.

However…this is not the way to go about changing things. This script has a few problems, too.

Rule number one I’m fine with. Even the most extreme BSDM people do that – yes, you in the peanut gallery, they do. I know you don’t believe me but tough shit, cupcake, I know more about this than you do.

The second rule on the other hand…OK, we have a problem here. You see, the basic anatomy of men and women is different. It is not possible to have sex with men and women in EXACTLY the same way because the bodies involved are not made the same way. I know this is inconvenient in that it fucks up the theory, but there it is.

See, I’m bi. I’ve had sex with both men and women. I fantasize about both men and women, and I’ve gotta tell you, what I fantasize about does in fact vary based on what possibilities are available in a particular situation given the anatomy involved. I’m trying not to be too graphic here, but I’m sure people can see what I’m getting at, yes?

Rule number three…OK, now you’ve really jumped the shark.

I do not know anyone who is equally attracted to all body types. Literally, not a single person. Everyone has a type. Which type one prefers is widely variable, but everyone has some physical characteristics that push their buttons and others that do not.

Which brings us to…nobody should feel distaste towards any body type.

You know, whatever drugs you people are taking you really should offer to share them with the rest of the group. Sharing is caring, after all, and it would take a LOT of drugs to make me buy that particular argument.

Again…everyone has preferences. Likes and dislikes. This not only means that everyone has some characteristics that they really love, it also means that everyone had some physical characteristics that they find distasteful in others. Again, these vary, but everyone has them. One can attempt to pretend that one does not have them, but that will not make them go away. People are not robots, they cannot simply be reprogrammed at will. The psychology of how people come to favor the physical traits they do is pretty complicated, but everyone who has studied it is agreed that these things are fairly deep-seated and pervasive. By the time one is an adult, one has preferences, and one cannot simply reset them at will.

Why is it such a terrible thing for people to have preferences, anyway? How is the world as a whole harmed because, say, I have a preference for men who are tall and thin? Or because I find heavily muscular men unappealing? There are after all plenty of other people who do find muscular men appealing. It’s not as if my finding them distasteful means that no muscular man will ever find love again.

So, sorry, but this phrase - “it is only egalitarian to find all body types attractive” – is both unrealistic and frankly rather creepy. What if hypothetical person A is really, genuinely not attracted to skinny men? Should she/her force him/herself to date them because not to do so would be inegalitarian? Should she/he attempt to alter the content of his/her fantasies? Scold her/himself if he/she has an inappropriate thought?

In what way is this helpful to anyone? How does it improve anyone’s sex life? Make them a happier person? Add to the sum total of human happiness in general?

And that fourth one…now, I’m bi, and I’m inclined to believe that EVERYONE has someone out there for whom they would switch teams. I’ve seen it happen. I have a gay friend who makes passes at me when he’s drunk, even though he’s never slept with a woman. He says that me and Catherine Zeta Jones are the only women’s he’s ever gotten hot and bothered over. People are weird. However…for the most part people are pretty fixed in their orientation. To go around demanding that people not identify as exclusively hetero seems a bit…well, unreasonable. Especially when we consider the fact that no comparable demand is being made of gay people. What about them? It’s inegalitarian to only be attracted to the opposite sex because it implies that one is treating people differently based on gender, but it’s OK to only be attracted to one’s own sex even though that also implies that one is treating people differently based on gender? How does that work, exactly? How is that egalitarian?

Except there’s the next rule.
“If the sex partners fantasized about define themselves as definitely going to remain exclusively homosexual for life, they choose to do so due to living in a society that would give partners in other-gender relationships unequal power toward one another, rather than due to any belief that members of the other gender are physically unattractive or biologically incapable of behaving in all the same ways that members of their own gender can.”
How very convenient. Sorry, not buying it. Justify it however you want, you’re still creating a situation in which following the rules is going to be a lot easier for some people than for others.


Next rule... All sex partners give their full and uncoerced consent, including financially uncoerced consent, to everything that happens.

I’m actually fine with this one. Yep, eeevil BSDM me. Funny how that works.



The last two…well, OK, so obviously I don’t think those should or do apply to everyone. If people want to organize their sex lives that way I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t, though. As long as it’s understood that not everyone chooses to live by those rules.

If it’s being implied that those of us who DON’T choose to live by those rules are bad wrong, wicked etc rather than just “not egalitarian” then I have a problem with that. But as long as it’s just a prescription for how a certain group of people choose to live and not a judgement, then it’s none of my business. I wonder if they would extend the same courtesy to me?


Now, about those stories…about the only thing posted recently on that page is some m/m slash featuring the (dead) guitarist of the Manic Street Preachers, Richey, and their bassist, Nicky. I have no moral or ethical objections to RPS, but I do find the idea of writing slash about a guy who as far as we all know committed suicide a bit creepy, especially when he’s partnered with someone who probably wouldn’t be very happy to see stories about him shagging his dead friend.

That’s not the real problem I have with those stories, though. The real problem I have is that they’re not very egalitarian at all.

What those stories are all about is eroticizing innocence and lack of sexual experience. Note that the two characters are not equally innocent (I hate that word in this context, but it’s the word the author used so I’m sticking with it). There is a noticeable disparity in experience, and one characters (Nicky, described here as Nickly – blech!) is getting a thrill out of the other’s lack of experience (Richey, described here with loathsome, tooth-rotting levels of cutesiness as “Teddy”).

The eroticization of innocence/lack of sexual experience is all about power dynamics. Hell, it’s the oldest trick in the book, probably the one thing that has been and continues to be most used against women in our current system. How is that egalitarian, exactly? Does it suddenly become OK because they’re both (poorly written, painfully out of character) men?

Or is it OK because there’s no penetration, no one is in a position that LOOKS like they’re in control (note the “looks like” – in fact the one with more experience is clearly in control)? So basically egalitarian sex is people who behave as if they’re really young and unsure of themselves doing frottage?

This isn’t egalitarian, it’s just infantile. It’s defining egalitarianism as childhood, as about never really claiming any sort of control over one’s sexuality at all. And that’s just creepy.

Thoughts? I actually think that more egalitarianism isn’t a bad goal to strive for for most people, but there has to be a better way to do it than this.