This sounds a lot like the anti-atheist argument theists give: that we don’t want to believe because then we’d have to give up our sinful ways.

Sex – negativity is not a pejorative any more than pseudoscience is. It’s an accurate description of feminists AND conservatives who make irrational and unjustified claims against the act of sex. The same supposed skeptics against pornography would not rationally use the same arguments against gay male pornography despite a sheer lack of difference between gay male and straight porn.

My favorite example of this dilemma in the movement is the sexual images in the anime Ghost In The Shell. I’ve heard people criticize these images as “objectifying women.” However, the woman in the image is a character who is the protagonist and who is also a leader in a future police force. What’s more, those female sexual parts of her actually are just objects. Only a fraction of her nervous system is still human. The rest, cyborg. The feminine beauty of her body “shell” was her personal choice.

There’s no denying that the show uses sex to advertise to it’s target male audience, but is that the concept of objectification and misogyny that we should be fighting as feminists? I personally don’t think so, but many feminists would disagree. So, which is it?

As a straight male with a strong attraction to the female body, you can have the thickest clothes you can find on a female body and somehow my mind will still desire her soft skin against mine. Does that infringe on her or objectify her just because I have an attraction? I don’t think so. I still treat such women as equals and behave professionally around them.

As more female protagonists enter popular culture, is it really a surprise that they would be depicted sexually? You going to tell me that Superman wasn’t depicted sexually? In tights? How many other male heroes out there wear tights or even go shirtless? And how right is it to suggest that bodybuilding men are the ideal of male beauty?

The only way to depict a woman which would not draw out my desire for women sexually, is wearing a burca. That’s the irrational direction that the argument against objectification eventually treads. The argument itself is weak unless coupled with clear signs of dehumanization towards the woman in question, like in the case of rape, which as it has scientifically been established, is not about sex. It’s important to note that the real problems with the sex industry which harms people are not connected to the objectification of people. Rather, they are connected to the fact that sex-negative culture has forced the industry into unregulated black markets. That’s why sex negativity is a real thing and not just an insult to your ears. It deserves to be called out.

I know someone who is unable to see the similarity between her saying about a man, “Isn’t he dishy,” and her husband saying something similar about a woman. “Ah, but he means it in a sexual way,” she says, in her defence. “And your way is?” “Oh, because he is just so dishy!”

She openly admits she watches tennis (especially Wimbledon, for some reason) as she likes to ogle the men’s legs; she will say this in front of her husband, and makes no concealment of feasting her eyes when any male “sex symbol” is on TV. Her husband is rather dumpy, and balding, apparently way off the scale of what his wife admits to finding attractive. He once made the mistake of saying, “What a bonny lass,” (or something similar – the actual quote, though given, eludes me) about a young girl as they were walking past a school; she is still convinced that he is a paedophile, and watches him like a hawk.

This is not an unusual situation; I have observed it in many other couples. So, who is the more “downtrodden” here?

Getting more O/T, the idea of “sex-positive” and “sex-negative” is intriguing, and one I had never considered before. A lot of women moan, “Men only want women for sex,” which I do consider to be a very sweeping statement, and one that is not always correct, though I have heard one man admit, “Men’s bits,” [men can be rather coy around women] “are always producing, so a certain back-pressure builds up. In a sense, it’s like having to go for a wee; once it’s done, that’s it, you’re okay for a while longer.” “Men only want women for sex,” is also a statement that implies that women have no interest in sex, which I know to be wrong.

Obviously, some women recognise this, and use it for their advantage, be it pleasure or financial, or both – they, I assume, are the “sex-positive”. However, this does not mean that there are no victims in the sex industry (and there are males as well as females in the trade) but there are a lot of women who are glad to be able to use their talent for their personal gain. In most cases, the talent is that of beauty (though not always). I have spoken to a few (certainly not a huge number) women working outside the more blatant sex industry (perhaps one might call it the “visual sex” industry – the beautiful-women-draped-over-expensive-cars industry) who say that they enjoy it, and do not feel in any way demeaned, used or abused; it’s just a great way of earning money, and a lot better than sitting in a stuffy office all day. I can only take their word for it, as I am no oil painting myself; even if I was, I doubt it would be my chosen vocation. However, what is most often the case is that any women demonstrating their disgust at women being “used” like this are, as one man described them, “right munters” (a term that both appals and amuses me). Curiously, the “munters” are not prepared to listen to the beauties putting their views across – in other words, treating them with the same disdain as the bosses are claimed to be meting out.

It does appear to me that a lot of women want to have their cake and eat it.

I consider myself ‘sex-positive’, but in a much broader sense than sex-work. My views on sex-work is that every case is individual and it is too complex a subject to describe so generally. But then, I also consider myself ‘pro-choice’ in many other ways than abortions, even though that falls into it too.

To be honest, I tend to just describe myself as a humanist, and if people query what that means, THEN I launch into my impassioned speech about a woman’s right to choose her sexual partners and the fact that god more than likely does not exist!

most porn haters are religious conservatives.

Are you sure? How do you know this? Have you ever actually investigated who objects to porn?

skeptics should be open to criticism of all their ideas.

I agree that skeptics should be open to criticism of all their ideas.

porn-turns-men-into-rapists nuts

What is this referring to?

This entire business about the fake category of “sex-negative” feminism keeps the number of women participating in active skepticism to a minimum. Is it a conspiracy to keep porn around? I dunno.

There’s no admission test, skeptics should be open to criticism of all their ideas. If that puts off fairy-believers or porn-turns-men-into-rapists nuts, so be it. I find that porn haters are a tiny minority among nonbelievers — most porn haters are religious conservatives.