💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › organise-anarchism-and-sex.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:06:59. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Anarchism and sex
Author: Anarchist Federation
Date: 2002
Language: en
Topics: sex, Organise!
Source: Retrieved on December 24, 2009 from http://libcom.org/library/anarchism-and-sex][libcom.org]] and [[http://www.afed.org.uk/org/org59.pdf
Notes: This article originally appeared in Organise! #59

Anarchist Federation

Anarchism and sex

Anarchist views on sex can range from the idea that ‘anything goes’

between consenting adults, to the more traditional approaches of what

constitutes free love between individuals. One thing these diverse

opinions do have in common, however, is the idea of sexual freedom and

the opposition to sexual exploitation. Nevertheless, being pro sexual

freedom and anti sexual exploitation is open to wide interpretation and

can encompass diverse, and sometimes conflicting, analyses from one

anarchist to the next.

Within certain historic anarchist traditions (as well as within the

left), there has often been a significant strand of ‘puritanism’ towards

sex and any activities deemed generally frivolous.

We all know the story about Emma Goldman dancing all night with the

blokes at an anarchist social event, then being chastised for behaviour

not befitting a revolutionary (we know about her subsequent outrage

too). We also know that some sections of the anarchist movement in the

Spanish revolution have been accused of similar puritanism, and the idea

that anarchist and communist revolutionaries should somehow live their

lives like ascetic monks or nuns still, in some quarters, continues to

this day.

The novels of 19^(th) century anarchist writers like Octave Mirbeau were

classed as pornography by the literary establishment of the time. The

Diary of a Chambermaid portrayed the sexual habits of the bourgeoisie in

such a way that Jean Grave commented, “What filth and decay there is

under the pretty surface of our society”. To be fair, Mirbeau’s

proletarian anti-heroine, Celestine, was certainly no sexual saint

either, but the emphasis on the so called sexual ‘perversity’ and

‘depravity’ of the rich at play clearly implies the notion that sexual

waywardness is in some way bourgeois. This is really not that dissimilar

from the old Militant Tendency (now the Socialist Party) telling us a

few years back that homosexuality was nothing but a bourgeois disease.

Victorian values

Added to this, is the enduring effect of certain elements within the

women’s liberation movement, which led many feminists and their male

supporters to adopt ‘puritanical’ attitudes towards sex and sexuality,

and to embrace censorship against pornography and all kinds of erotica.

Without doubt, many positive things came out of feminism and the women’s

movement in general, yet a major downside was the growth in the belief

that men in general are inherently exploitative towards women

(admittedly based on the very real fact that many men do actually behave

in this way for much or at least some of the time), whereas women were

always seen as victims of male domination and oppression. For some

feminists there followed from this view a giant leap of faith, in which

it was alleged that all men were either actual or at least potential

sexual abusers of women, while women, on the other hand, were seen as

fundamentally saintly and almost asexual beings open to corruption by

men; and those women who, by doing things like actively going out,

picking up and fucking blokes (or even entering into relationships with

‘the enemy’), were in fact merely living as the dupes of men and their

patriarchal system. Subsequently, this ‘asexual exploitee’ view of women

holds much in common with the bog standard religious ‘woman as Madonna

or whore’ mythology and contains more than a hint of good old ‘Victorian

values’. Sadly, even the occasional anarchist still clings to some of

this patronising moral baggage.

Under capitalism, everything and everyone is a commodity, we all have

our market price. And whether by selling our labour power as workers, or

by buying things necessary (and some things not so necessary) as

consumers, we all exist as part and parcel of the commodity system, of

world capitalism.

Sex then, is no different and is something that is not only marketable

but aggressively marketed under capitalism (as we all know, sex sells).

However, when sex is bought and sold — whether via pornography,

prostitution, etc. — the left, pro-censorship feminists and some

anarchists have a tendency to see this trade as somehow worse than many

other forms of capitalist exploitation.

Lapping it up

As an example, a lap-dancing club recently opened up in Nottingham and a

campaign was promptly organised to shut it down. Now, I don’t know

whether anarchists were actually involved in this campaign, but I do

know that some anarchists see such a campaign as a worthy cause.

I understand the arguments of the pro-censorship feminists. However, the

view that pornography (and in this case lap-dancing) in some way incites

men to commit violence or rape against women is very dubious. Also, the

simplistic overview of pornography and the sex industry in general —

which is seen as a place where the women involved are super-exploited

victims — seems to me to be one built on a form of conservatism or

liberalism, crypto-religious moralism, with a large helping of

sensationalistic media mythology thrown in for good measure. But only a

smattering of this view is based on the actual reality of sex work or

the sex industry, which, in truth, is extremely broad and multifaceted.

Yes, sections of it are horrendously exploitative, sometimes tantamount

to real (non-wage) slavery, and being little more than a means for

commercial interests big and small, legitimate and illegal, to coin it

in.

But I’d say that (certainly in this country) many sections of the sex

industry are no more, no less exploitative than any other capitalist

concern and other sections still are about as unexploitative as you can

get under capitalism.

So to generalise about the sex industry too much leads to a very limited

and naive understanding of it and says nothing about actual conditions

there.

Now I tend to think of lap-dancing clubs as, well... crap. But in the

socio-economic scheme of things, within capitalism, I’d put them in the

above ‘no more, no less’ category of the system’s exploitative

industries. In lap-dancing clubs, there are usually strict safety rules

of ‘no physical contact’ between dancers and spectators and if you don’t

mind being gawped at by some bloke or blokes, then the money isn’t that

bad and pays a lot better than most other working class jobs. It’s also

the kind of job where you can come and go as you please and the hours

can often be quite flexible. True, employers usually discriminate by

only employing women deemed stereotypically ‘attractive’ or ‘sexy’ and

by having an upper age limit — on the basis of that being what brings in

the paying punters.

So as anarchist communists, our attitude to a lap-dancing club should be

pretty much on a similar basis to our attitude to a cinema or a foundry

or a supermarket — in other words, it’s about business as usual. But, of

course, it isn’t that simple, is it? Why do people get so up in arms

about these clubs that they want to campaign to shut them down more than

they do the local rag trade sweat shop that pays ‘illegal’ workers a

quid fifty an hour for a 12 hour day? Is it because in the former a

woman has the audacity to dance naked or semi-naked for a few hours for

a half-decent wage? Or is it because the campaigners don’t want to have

(admittedly not very) naughty goings on behind closed doors in their

neighbourhood?

And why are people much less inclined to bother about campaigning

against the local rag trade sweat shop? Is it because it’s ‘just a bunch

of foreigners’ working there and they actually don’t give a shit about

refugees working long hours, in awful conditions with little or no

health and safety regulation, and getting paid piss poor money? Is it

because working in the rag trade is at least ‘honest toil’ where no one

has to get their kit off? Or are people just OK about having those kinds

of seedy things going on behind closed doors in their neighbourhood?

Now when talking about what I call this middle bracket of ‘no more no

less’ exploitative sections of the sex industry (e.g. lap-dancing

clubs), I get the sneaking suspicion that what it all comes down to is

morality. What’s really at issue here is that people use their bodies in

a sexual manner for money. “And only a really, really exploited person

would do that, wouldn’t they? Or someone psychologically damaged...

sexually abused as a child... a helpless dupe... someone on the side of

the enemy... Well, how can any self-respecting woman allow herself to be

objectified in such a way?”

Well I’m sorry to say this, but it’s as if some of us haven’t really

moved on from Queen Victoria’s day and sex is still the big taboo it

always was. Sex for sale, sex as a commodity, sex in public, sex in

print and on film, offbeat, bizarre, kinky, fetishistic, wayward sex,

missionary style sex, in fact any kind of sex at all in a public arena

is the issue.

People who choose to attack the local lap-dancing club but not their

local petrol station do so because of personal morality/moralism about

sex. Sex makes it a moral issue because if we were just talking about a

simple economic relationship, then it really is as humdrum as the next

industry. But we’re not, are we? So, when certain anarchists single out

the lap-dancing club or the adult bookshop, they’re not basing their

actions on a class analysis, but on what they think is morally good or

bad for the rest of us (which actually brings into question their

interpretation of anarchism). This elevation of their opposition to the

sex industry is a personal moral choice, but it’s got absolutely nothing

to do with either a revolutionary class analysis or with anarchism

itself.

Revolutionary skin flicks

Another disturbing thing about procensorship ideology is its (possibly

wilful) ignorance of sexual openness as a liberating even revolutionary

force. It’s no coincidence that during many revolutionary episodes,

pornography and erotica have played a significant role in popular

revolutionary culture. Sexual images created for pleasure have of course

been around for millennia but usually they were only accessible to the

well-off, the educated, and the high clergy. But during the French

revolution, greater free sexual expression and the distribution of

pornography really came to the fore. In other words, it became freely

available to us plebs as well. I remember reading about the early days

of the Portuguese revolution of 1974, when the fascist dictatorship had

just fallen and all the forbidden literature was suddenly becoming

freely available, so one could find works by Bakunin, Kropotkin, Marx

and Lenin sitting alongside an assortment of porno mags!

And historically, it’s also no coincidence, that when the reaction

begins to reassert itself, both Bakunin and the sex magazines are the

first to go under the proverbial counter. Neither is it a coincidence,

that pornography and so called ‘illicit sex’ is illegal and severely

punished under some of the most repressive (and incidentally anti-women)

regimes in the world.

That’s not to say pornography is a wonderful liberating thing in itself.

It isn’t. The vast majority of pornography (particularly the soft-core

variety produced by the big corporate media empires) is absolutely

dreadful, reflecting very sexist capitalistic values and only seems

geared to appeal to the dreariest most sexuallyrepressed conformist

male. Hence, if pornography were the food of love, this would be a Big

Mac.

It’s interesting to note that such soft-core trash is quite freely

available in any newsagent or high street WH Smiths; it is actively

promoted by mainstream media and distribution networks and is seen by

the establishment as acceptable and pandered to by some of the most

conservative of institutions. On the other hand, hard-core pornography

is seen as dangerous, subversive and is usually a police matter to be

dealt with under the Obscene Publications Act. While some of the

material classed as hard-core can be decidedly dodgy, and even

dangerous, it’s also no surprise that some of the more interesting,

non-mainstream, least stereotypical and sexually diverse erotic material

finds itself put neatly under this heading.

Anarcho-sex with bread and butter!

Having said all this, pornography (good and bad) is of course just more

spectacle; something to be used by the passive (usually) observer. Sex

and sexuality, however, are not passive, but things we do, things we

actively participate in. Which leads me to the question, can there be

such a thing as an anarchist view of sex or even an anarchist sexuality?

The fact that certain readers may profoundly disagree with some of the

points raised in this article means it’s very tempting to answer no.

Also some comrades may argue that it’s all just a diversion from the

real struggles against capitalism and the bread and butter class issues.

Yet I don’t think that an anarchist view of sex and sexuality is in any

way a diversion.

Moreover, I believe it’s not that far away from the so called ‘bread and

butter’ class issues as some comrades might think.

Food, drink, a roof over our heads and sex are all basic human needs.

OK, the lack of sex doesn’t generally kill you (as is the case with

starvation), but being sex-starved can seriously fuck you up mentally.

Having said this, many adults do participate in fairly regular sexual

activity and of course sometimes it’s all very good, while at other

times it’s not at all enjoyable. Added to this, the fact that more open

and diverse sexualities are vigorously repressed not only by the family,

church, state, the education system, peer group pressure, the mass media

and of course capitalism in general, but also by some of those who

adhere to apparently more progressive ideologies; rebels, radicals,

leftists, anarchists and communists.

Consequently, although not exactly starving, I’d guess that much of the

world’s adult population is at least sexually malnourished or

undernourished (which can lead to problems such as lack of self

confidence, depression and other mental illnesses, alcoholism, drug

addiction, suicide). So I’d say this situation is something definitely

worth addressing by revolutionaries.

Deviancy

There’s also the problematic view which I mentioned earlier, that any

sexual waywardness (usually labelled ‘deviance’, ‘depravity’ or

‘perversion’) is in some way a product of capitalism, a bourgeois trait.

If this is the case, will sex in an anarchist society only be the kind

which is firmly rooted in anarcho-communist social reality? Or more

bluntly, does this mean that any possible future anarchist communist

society would be relatively ‘kink free’? I, for one, sincerely hope not.

A sexual future like that, sort of reminds me of the childhood view of

the Christian ‘Heaven’, where you have to sit on a cloud all day playing

a harp. And, quite rightly, Hell always seemed much more appealing to

me. Hmmm... unless you’re into sexual fantasies based on the socially

just and egalitarian cummings and goings between the workers’ assembly

member and the mandated local delegate... or maybe a little ‘mass

action’ would appeal?

Sex, of course, can often reflect social realities, but it doesn’t have

to and can be totally unrelated to anything we know or have experienced.

Anyway, let’s face it, sex doesn’t always work too well on the rational

and philosophical level (except in articles such as this). And people do

all sorts of inexplicable, weird and wacky things when they’re in their

purely sexual mode. This may involve things like playing out sexual

power exchange fantasies, fetishism, transgendered activities, etc.

Often, the reasons we like doing the things that we do cannot actually

be explained, nor would we necessarily want to explain them either (just

in case it makes something we find really exciting, suddenly seem

mundane). Nor does that mean it’s unhealthy sexual tastes or activities

we are indulging in (or want to indulge in).

Unfortunately, psychiatry has traditionally offered medication and the

asylum for any wayward and ‘bizarre’ sexual tendencies in people

(particularly in working class people), and bourgeois society at large

and its media likes to label such divergent people as ‘perverts’.

It’s important that we never fall into this line of thinking. If

revolutionary anarchists were ever to start denouncing anyone with a

‘nonmainstream’ sexual orientation or preference, it would be a total

disaster not only for anarchism as a philosophy, but also for our class

and for future humanity. For me, the revolutionary anarchist attitude to

sex and sexuality has to encompass the belief that sexual activities and

relations should be safe, free, diverse and consensual; acknowledging

that people are queer, bi or hetero, ranging from the monogamous to the

polyamourous, from the disinterested asexual to the rampant polysexual,

and from the softest vanilla to the hardest edge playing SM-er. At the

end of the day, if it’s a safe and mutually consensual activity (however

weird it may seem) and all parties involved enjoy themselves, then

what’s the big deal?

Hopefully anarchism is about sexual freedom, openness, honesty and

equality. And when I say this, I’m not talking about everyone devising

rota systems to see whose turn it is to go on top. The honesty is when

people are truly and non-judgementally in a position to sexually express

themselves without fear of being labelled a pervert, a deviant or a

poof.

And when people are really being sexually honest, some weird shit can

start to happen. And that, in its own way, can be quite revolutionary.