SF’s Lusty Lady model of sex-positive feminism worth saving

[boston bean]

The Lusty Lady, the nation’s only employee-owned, unionized strip club, is in financial trouble and in danger of closing down.

The SF Chronicle reports that the club, which makes an effort to employ “diverse body types and ethnically diverse dancers” has come across hard times due to the recession and internet porn. Now it’s looking for an angel investor who believes the club is a model worth saving:

..the ladies argue they are one of only two privately owned venues left in the city – the rest have gone corporate with strippers that look like Barbie dolls. They don’t serve alcohol (which also allows them to put on a totally nude show). And they made “talk to a live, nude girl” a local catch phrase.

“We’re a San Francisco institution,” said Dolores, a dancer since 2005 who named herself for Mission Dolores Park. “If you can walk into a place, pay a dollar, see a beautiful nude girl and give her a wave, there’s something to be said for that.”

When I graduated from college in the early Nineties, I became aware of a term:  “sex-positive feminism.” The term is obviously problematic because it assumes other feminists are “sex negative,”  a stereotype used to caricature feminists.

The “sex-positive” group includes Susie Bright, Annie Sprinkle, and Carol Queen: feminists who were often sex workers, performers, or pornographers; they were supposed to contrast with anti-pornography activists like Andrea Dworkin, Catherine Makinnon, and Robin Morgan.

http://blog.sfgate.com/mmagowan/2012/05/16/is-sfs-lusty-lady-model-of-sex-positive-feminism/

Very interesting read.

[Little Star]

1. You know what they say about assuming...

“sex-positive feminism” The term is obviously problematic because it assumes other feminists are “sex negative”

k&r

[seabeyond]

6. the term was used to get the young women in the cause because MEN had vilified women so

no woman wanted to be a feminist. create a caricature of a women acting her sexuality as a human being. something men consistently use to attack women from all angles. surely we can wake up to that fact and not allow it.

so not only did the women buy into mens definition of women, but they allowed themselves to bond with the oppressor.

and not only did they do that, but by adopting they adopted a manner in attacking the very women with the "sex negative" label.

and they have given the men what they need to have the dominance of women and STILL be a part of the feminist movement.

it is all really interesting. and still, on the subject of feminism..... women being human too, a part of a wave (not the whole of the wave) has fallen into the patriarchy. i cant see it any other way. someone tell me where i am wrong.

[MadrasT]

2. Great read.

Thanks, boston bean.

Also enjoyed the link from that article to the Orenstein article about the difference between sexualization and sexuality.

As author Peggy Orenstein explains so well, there is a huge difference between sexualization and sexuality. Sexualization is sexuality as performance and not a healthy, integrated sexuality. Unfortunately, sexualization has become so confused with real sexuality, it’s hard to separate it, to define what real sexuality is.

[boston bean]

4. Didn't notice that

I'll swing back on by and take a looksie!

[seabeyond]

7. thanks for pointing that out. i gotta read that. nt

[boston bean]

3. The part that interested me most

was near the end of the article.

The economics of it, is essentially anti-feminist. They are still caught up in all the same old quandries. It hasn't been empowering in every way. It didn't magically make all the other issues go away.

[seabeyond]

5. Sexualization is sexuality as performance and not a healthy, integrated sexuality

"One example of this is how we perceive breasts. Breasts are secondary sex characteristics, existing in part to give women pleasure. But when they are replaced by implants, breasts become homogeneous; visual stimulation for a men and a more numbed experience for women."

" But I don’t think it’s the greatest thing women can do for our souls, for the most part."

thanks BB. what women choose to do is there business. but with discussion, there has to be an honesty. we never get to get to the point of honesty. there is too much having to defend from the very beginning to really peel back the onion to get to the reality of it.

at every point, it is a woman giving up something important to be her authentic self. i never see the good, or dismissal in that

[MerryBlooms]

8. Two great articles that I'm sharing off DU.

The Orenstein article could easily stand on it own OP- it's very good and I believe will resonate with many.

TY for sharing, BB.