Sexuality has become a central political issue for feminists and also a source of

divisions amongst them. This is perhaps not surprising given that sexual activities
and identities are more generally controversial within Western societies and are
issues around which there has been a great deal of public discussion. Feminists have
developed their own distinctive perspectives on these public issues, for example, on
pornography, prostitution, sexual violence, and homosexuality and lesbianism - as
well as their own private practices. We have rarely, however, been able to present a
united front. In<k~~d~~lJ,a~ha$~k~en~I!!eS~~~~~~~!l:l11:l~n~!f~~illist$$j:flC:~.t he
l1in~t~fE!h~~~tury. No sooner had it been identified as a major area of concern by
th~~ modern movement, than significant disagreements began to emerge.
Our aim in compiling this reader is to provide a guide to the development of
feminist debates on sexuality since the eady 1970s. Although constrained by the
space available, we have endeavoured to reproduce material which is representative
of the diversity of feminist theory and politics and illustrative of some of the shifts
in perspective which have occurred over the last t\vo-and-a-half decades. 1 \X!hile we
have our own opinions about the issues we will be discussing here, and will make it
clear where we stand, we will also attempt to explain other views as cleady and fairly
as we can. Making this selection has by no means been easy, given the sheer volume of
work feminists writing in this area have produced. A glance at any publisher's catalogue
reveals that sexuality is now a major issue within and across many academic disciplines.
The growth of interest in this area can be traced backJ2.~~J~~~~gQ[~~§~c~g. _
-w:~~t11iQjsm,2 ~~_~~Q.the~L~£th~rne::~~J:~i~e~~~!l
I\rI?~~J:)}e~~~Dj!ml-0e mo~e~~nt for gay Ybera~()n.In recent years feminist and
gay· scholars have taken t~Tead in p~~sexlliIlity on the~ acadefl}ica&c:Q9:a and in
v·--~·~--'"·_~- ~ ~.:::-. _.....~.~~ ... ~. ~.."

2
, developing research, theory and teaching in this field. This/new~~olarship on sexual-
differs radically from tpe older, sexological traditio~~)treated sexuality as
a biological and psychological phenomenon, often drawing on a medical model which
(regarded differences from a narrowly defined heterosexual norm as pathologicaP
recent approaches have given far higher priority to the social and cultural shaping
human sexuality. Instead of treating male-dominated heterosexual relationships as
an unproblematic norm, these perspectives have subjected it to critical scrutiny. In this
book we are concerned primarily with feminist rather than gay perspectives, and will
deal with the latter only where the relationship between the two has been identified
as an issue by feminists. 4
In this introduction we explain how and why sexuality became a political issue
for feminists and explore the different strands of thought which have subsequently
emerged. First, however,>'Z) sh?kL~d define the tefillS \ve are using. P",rnini"t" trpnllPntlu
distingujsh~9~~~~~.~~<g~~).<J:~~?6l!:ty"although
consensus on how tllese terms shouldbe used. The
basic to these debates, have, in common usage, two m~;mngs.
to ~y~~icaLd~t!Jl<:::tiQ!L~!}Y~en_.m~k~~nd ..~~le .~~9JQjnt!fQ~~~.~.£()~t!.<:.actiyity:.
Ann Oakley (Reading 1.1) accounts for this double"meaning by suggesting that what
is sexual in the second sense concerns relations between the sexes in the first sense.
In so doing she reinforces the heterosexist thinking, common in \X/estern cultures,
which many other feminists have gone on to challenge: the tend~' to define '§fx.'--..as
'tb~_sex act', and t~i~i::!u:~~§J~~::~~.~~~~~i~~.~e~g~E~~.i§.~iiwilli.
~E?ade~~!~~~.~i~~.c:>E_~~gesi~§,.pJa£~E~s.<J:1'1~i.9~£l~it:i~s.
Sometimes
this term, too, is used to include our sense of ourselves as women or men. \X/e prefer
to use the tenJYgfn-4.SJto cover all aspects of what it means to be a woman or~.~
and to refer ta-mesocial and cultural distinctions between women and men. '~.1!:ilit1;
is then reserved for aspects of ~nd social life which have erotic sign~nce.
In this sense, the conce~~emainssomewhat.Hu~?,i~~.~~cau~~~~_a!.
is deemed erotic, and hence sexual in this sense, is -not
"~~~~-~'<"'~~~'~="~--~
fixed. \Vhat is erotic to one
--.,--.,"-_._,F-----..
'~~","'~"'~'-~"""""'". -~~~.-. -~~=~~""-,._.-,,-,,,.-"-"
person might be disgusting to a second and politically unacceptable to a third. Indeed,
competing ideas about eroticism have underpinned many of the fiercest controversies
among feminists around such issues as pornography. In using this rather slippery term,
we wish to convey the idea ~ot l~~~~;: b~~:1Vol~~:.~:ur
sextlglfe~~n~l the ways ip which~we are or a~~ not defined as sexual
by others, <J:?_~el1as-th~~~~w~~._--~.-
"'-..~~. ~~.~ .•.~~~~ ~'.'-
T.h~~~e;~~a~~r femin~sts to emph:'~~~~he_.~~<:.lli~~~gof
fer;:lnlfllty an~ascuhflltY".-l,O c/~~~!h~~s b~~!..~::~
m~E~!l~ by ~~Ie. SometImes a dlstlfiCtlOn IS made between 'sex' as the
biological differences between male and female and 'gender' as the cultural distinction
between femininity and masculinity along with the social division between women
and men. s Not all feminists accept this distinction. Some think that it denies the
importance of the physical body, while others argue that our understanding of the
anatomically sexed body is itself socially constructed. 6 W/e ourselves endorse the
latter view.
::>TEVI JACKSON AND SUE ::)COTI SEXUAL SKIRMISHES AND FEMINIST FACTiONS 3
While making an analytical distinction between gender and sexuality, we recognise
that the two are empirically related. Inq~~~hip_hen.Ti~~~~O
whi~~mini~~ts~!1d...w.hichi§~J:hef()<:t1.~()~~~~y of
the rt:~e h~~9 in~ti2~.~.?!urn,:: The social distinction and hierarchical
relationship between men and women profoundly affect our sexual lives. This is true
not only for those of us who are heterosexual: lesbian and gay sexualities are also
shaped by wider understandings of masculinity and femininity, as are heterosexual
attitudes to other sexualities - for example, the idea that lesbians are not 'real women'.
Gender and sexuality intersect with other social divisions such as those based on
'race' and class, so that we each live our sexuality from different locations within
society. Hence women's eXEerience~~both gend~~lityareJllgh1y-"V-ariibte:-'-
F~~s~ve .~~bt tMl1der~~~~~~:,e ~~ar:~~.<:Q!Pm~£l~~~_wQmeruill.sL. .....~.
tEe differences between us. In the context of the women's movement, which aims to
women, these differences have become a crucial, and often
highly contentious, issue.
POLITICISING THE PERSONAL-
It is not difficult to see why sexuality should be a major feminist issue. f-listorical1y
en()~us efforts, from chastity belts to prope~,:,s,ha,::~n ruade.t€r:€~~l·f~-:'...
mal~..?e~uality and to ~~.~2rrLeuJ:.~1IDel1 through monoga,moushet.em/§~.?'c.t1<J:L.
relatio~fUps~l'Eedoublesta!l..~!.9~lity Bas. e1]titkd.lJ1....f.n t~ual fr~~ciQm.5
denied to women. It has also divided women themselves into two categories: the
res~ma~~nnaand tEe reb~.~h~~~s·b~~;;p~·li~~d·
and regulatedIn a way \vlUC1rIrl"en's has not: it is the woman prostitute who is stigma-
tised and punished, not her male clients. Heterosexual activity has always been risky
for women, associated as it is with loss of 'reputation', with unwanted pregnancy and
with diseases which threaten fertility. Women have also been vulnerable to male sexual
violence and coercion, yet held responsible for both their own and their assailants'
"'--.. .-,----"'--.~
be~gyiour.~~..~~~'~~-~'\
(//~First wav~.feminist~-<=kmpaignedaround many of these issues, but the ways in
~ere~~dJ?~material circumstances in which theyliv:ed- such
as limited opportunities for economicmaependence~dcontr01otffiell:-ownlertility­
and the prevailing sexual morality. Hence, fer example, the most immediately feasible
.~
-' strategy for opposing the sexual exploitation of women and the double standard of
morality w!:~~ra~_~al~~~l fr~.ed~~
.~~7 The social and political context which gave rise to second wave feminism
was very different and created new possibilities for feminist approaches to sexuality.
In the era followmg the Second World War, more women than ever before entered
the labour market and they had greater opportunities for education. None the less they
remained disadvantaged in both spheres, and the ideology of woman's place being
in the home was still firmly entrenched. The 1960s were years of relative affluence
and full employment in the West, but also of major political upheavals. Economic
prosperity was not equally available to all: poverty was 'rediscovered' at this time, while
members of ethnic minorities in many countries were excluded from full citizenship
4 STEVI JACKSON AND SUE SCOTT
rights. In the southern United States, black voters remained disenfranchised; the civil
rights movement, aimed at counteracting this, became an important training ground
for young American political activists, both black and white. More generally, there was
a resurgence of Left politics among the young in \YJ estern nations as a whole, mobilised
through opposition to the Vietnam War and a host of other examples of injustice and
imperialism. In Europe the year 1968 saw two major upheavals: the quashing of a new,
more liberal, socialist government in Czechoslovakia by the Soviet Union and a major
student uprising and general strike in Paris. From the late 1960s and into the early
1970s Left activism, especially among students, remained at a high level. It was largely
from among the ranks of this 'New Left' that the new generation of feminist activists
came. Having become politicised through these movements, many women became
aware that they were marginalised within them, relegated to secondary supporting
roles, \vhile men made the decisions. \x''hile combating all other forms of inequality,
that between women and men was largely neglected: it was ignored altogether, treated
as triv-1.al or, later, diagnosed as a problem to be solved 'after the revolution'.
The 'New Left' and 'Old Left' shared this insensitivity to women's oppression,
but they differed in many other respects. Crucially for the direction which feminist
politics was to take, the 'New Left' was far more libertarian and specifically opposed
to the authoritarian regimes of the Eastern Bloc, state socialist, nations. This entailed,
among other things, a greater receptivity to ideas about the possibility and desirability
of change in personal life, and a vision of individual fulfilment, pleasure and freedom
as legitimate revolutionary goals. 8 A further influeE~. 2t-·-thj.s--timeL_~vident within
the Left and more generally, was the so-called ~U'~1~The
extent to which this was a revolutionary chan~me:Je1ya..continuationoTtrends
evi.dent long before has been called into question. 9 There were some developments
during this which did seem to pre§~ge ~E.. era. of greater
~ ~
se~~a.J X:t:~edom,
-_. . ..____ -..,·"·.. _.'c._"_
such as the
widc:ravailabWtY ofcontracepti()n, .p~rticuIany the oraIcofltraceptive pill. In many
- --'~o~~trie~','p~~r;;is;~~ legi';latio~'ar6und ~exual issu~s ;as also a feature of this
period. In Britain, for example, the abolition of theatre censorship, the liberalisation
of abortion and divorce laws and the decriminalisation of homosexual acts between
consenting men over 21 were all enacted in the later years of the decade. It took
some time before the effects of such changes became evident in the population as a
whole, but for those who were young, independent and politicised, they were part of
a broader social context in which sexually libertarian ideas were current. These ideas
certainly had an impact on women in Left groups and played a part in the subsequent
development of a feminist analysis of the sexual revolution.
The new ideals of sexual liberation circulating within the Left, and.-irfvaljious
counter-cultural movements of the time, promised new freedoms. '~e l~:w~_
RrO~~~bollI~~i.g~1;itl:!_~()n_~reduced
people to_~~~<:ssions. These ideas potentially put men and wo~en-o-;;~artequal
footi~~-~halleni~g'-theold double standard and presenting sex as something to be
enjoyed for its own sake. In practic~~!::.~~~er,they]1~idifferentconsequences for
women and men. In ~trospe~E1~Y_~_~~~.~~g~~!1ibeiati~'-mear1t greatef~
access for men to women's bodies and the removal of their to sa)T-'No'-to'sex;~
SeXUAL SKIRMISHES AND FEMINiST FACTIONS 5
lest they be damned as 'unliberated'.lo As a feminist cartoon of the time put it: 'They
used to call me a frigid bitch - now I'm a bourgeois individualist.' All this, combined
with the marginalisation of women, and women's issues, within Left organisations,
provided the impetus for feminist critique. Marge Piercy described the situation as
follows:
A man can bring a woman into an organization by sleeping with her and remove
her by ceasing to do so. A man can purge a woman for no other reason than
that he has tired of her, knocked her up, or is after someone else. 11
This is not as far-fetched as it might sound. Stokely Carmichael, of the Student
Nonviolent Co-ordination Committee (SNCC) 12 is on record as announcing that 'the
only position for women within the SNCC is prone'.
~L the.~.9 of~e12().Q~~itjs.~~fteLtftat--maB:y-·WGmeu.icl.L!.hat.J:h~y
neede.cLatL.aJJ1onomoill?Jn.QYeJJ1~.2Ltheir oWfl ' nor that ~~~Y sh~ulci~~"\T~i~~fltifis:d~
se2fgalitv..~".?:J~~i~Wh~~~Q.~~~£.th~~--;;~caJJecrse};Y@1 ,e1ro1.uiQ!l.Q!L~'.I\/
?e se~n as h.aving been ~men,it did open u? .:.e~~:~~.~~.~.12?H~;:~.JJI-
.lss~c:.:_.gven Its more negative consequences had the eliecrofJ>i:oducmg the pOSSIbility / iT
of resistance, and the development of alternative, feminist, perspectives. Many fem- /
inists tried to preserve what~ID1!.....a&-th-e-positiveel@meats-:wi.t.~bertarian
ide~~g£Jh.~~..mssociatiOB:~.from..t~ro41!.<;.tiQD~~fl'lpb~"ili2~-·
sex~~LJ}kas.11IL?-Jld-freedom~ .. ~.ti<:fl:1<:...~K!!!.?:rria~_~Il~_rIl?~.?JE~rIly - while also
challenging the coercive and predatory aspects of male sexuality. It was not simply
that women were questioning men's rights of sexual access; they also began to express
dissatisfaction with the quality of their relationships with men, both in bed and out.
Feminists also retained the New Left idea that our political analysis should be carried
through to the way we live our personal lives. The_~_Th.e-~2.-L~sf6±itfeat;-_ ...
however, meant much more than this. Women discovered that many of their individual
problems and anxieties were shared by others and concluded that they weremore than
merely perso~_"tb~~erived frQillJI!.ll. social situation and were charact;~i~1OUr-~
~~ ~""'~"'-,,-~'"'"~ ~~----=--~-'--'--'-'<"',"-"""'=' -,. -",- -, _.., ".,".", .. '
oPEressi2n as ~men. Sinse th~.~~_~~~.Q~ciaLin_!1rigiu.th~Yl~q~pj)Iitical~~!~§.I?:~:_~
In coming to see our personal troubles as political issues we redefined the boundaries
of politics itself. Women-only groups and the practice of consciousness-raising were
central to this process. Consciousness-raising was not, then, a self-indulgent collective
act of introspection. O::J.~ the£ufllli§e. oUalking..aboJll..D.llI..l2~l~Q1J._alliys:.s_ .
was~Q.20ol o~eriences, to ~~~~~~~~c:.2!Pm~.fl~~~Il~~rIl?gg'!~.?:n<i.~2':l~:~his
as the basis of politisaranarVSiIansl action:
Asp"ects of life which had previouslibee~ seen as outside the public realm of politics
were placed on the political agenda. It became possible to talk, for example, about
the :P'5)litics ~_c::.~§~E~:.,.~or 'th~~~~~"_?f 0E~S~'.13 Many aspects of sexuality
were opened up for discussion and analysis. Feminists continued to attack the double
standard, to challenge the view that sexuality was bad for women and that only 'bad'
women were sexual. They be~..theJighuQ~tbeirown ~~uatij:y,~.~_~
to seek form~_9i~~~~..E~~~~§~~~C?.!.c~~~hy--the--set-hetel'o£€.xualFa~fnoL
foreplay (Ifyou"\\l~JellKh--yti~~~,:"eciEuene~~on, to see themselves as sexually
 STEVI JACKSON AND SUE Scon
6
active rather than passive objects of male desire. At the same time, women's shared
experience of pressured sex with men led to new analyses of sexual coercion and
violence which drew parallels between 'normal' heterosexuality and rape. Feminists
also attacked the sexual objectification of women in beauty contests, pin-ups and
pornography and the commodification of sexuality through prostitution. All this
contributed to a fundamental critique of heterosexual practice and ultimately of the
institution of heterosexuality itself. 14
Most of the issues which have been the focus of later feminist debates were
already being discussed within a few years of the \'(:LM coming into being. Many of
the tensions which were to give rise to political differences within feminism were also
evident at this time. Feminists began from a common point of departure: that the
current orderi n~~QJJ2~!~E~~xu~lrel~!iQns.~.wa~4ettimental·t(,T'vm:ITen~Rdj!EJ?licated
in o~~n. \'X1e subsequently followed divergent paths, guided by differing
priorities for change and strategies for action. Some of these key areas of debate
have gui<:1.<:~L~~! 0~ni~~JiQn~M~whet1:L~~.:2E12~'ssexuality is repressed ~~~:;,
socially constructed; th..s..differences ~een ~terosexu~iaIl £~~~
tensio~~.pleaSJ1[~.and.se""*·itS~6\Ver;t1l·eext<:firto wnicir"V0~r4filiy
and Drostitution can be considered oDDressive to women.
CHALLENGING BIOLOGICAL DETERMINISM
In making sexuality a political issue ~~co~:mgeabl~~d
therefore..£hallenged the prev~ass~ption that sex~ltl.~s"...a.nd"ptaGtiGe&":uLet~
fixed by nature. This challenge was eing made across~angeof issues. The \X"LM aimed
·to change the conditions which produce women's subordination. If those conditions
were natural it would have been futile to try to change them; conversely trying to
change them implied that they were understood as social in origin. As Christine
Delphy puts it:
People do not revolt against what is natural, therefore inevitable; or inevitable,
therefore natural. ~~~igilil~.s...nuti~vitabk~what iSD.~!i!l~~i.~~.QL~"_
coukLh..~.~th.euy~ =it is...~£l:>itrary .!h.er.e£Ql~ ... ~gs!gLThe logical and necessary
implication of wo~en's""revoIt~lfke all revolts, is;. ..!t.2~!~.!~~. .§!t!J~lli~?E.. ....~~..~~ ..~"". ~..._.,i
ch::inged. BsJi~flI?: the possibility of change implies
the ~itu;tti~n .15
therefore an important political strategy for
not just an academic matter. A related issue here i~ th~t of agency and
st.ructure. I~~i!:j0m12ortaJ}l".tb~.L::Y~ __~£_. ~?~.:~E~:.~.
bIological determinism with another forrnof~~~~~i11ism.We need t(). take a~c?~~::
orthe social strusuues~~tUralEg~!!~~iY~ic~·~~o!1~~rai~~~r~=~~~fuY:but we
shoUfc[;Iso consider the ways i~"~hich we activ~ly co~;trud Our own understanding
of sexuality and negotiate sexual activities within these constraints. ~ith.~t a.~
u~~!~ta!}din.£~~einterrel~!!.Q.ushiE..~~~et:~U:h~g[':!.~!~[~.§.~~.!Qh::l!?!!.::i~.9()~E~~.~.~s
as agents, there canbeno- of stratecies for chanQ"e. \Xlhile feminist
SEXUAL SKIRMiSHES AND I-EMINIST fACTIONS 7
sexual politics has been concerned with choice and taking personal responsibility for
our conduct, feminists have also been aware of the SQJ:r!E!~?9t¥...QE.S.Q.cia1and·ei:}:k.ural
in~~~~.~~Ls.~ality.~.l}~.~~Y~LU2f.the.daagers of overly individualistic solutions
to the problems women face.
This belief in the social origins of women's oppression was and is common to all
shades of feminist opinion, but there have always been different forms of analysis
arising from this shared assumption. Moreover, these analyses have evolved further
over the last few decades. \X/here sexuality is concerned, the idea that its current form
is oppressive and needs to be changed does not always lead to a fully developed
analysis of sexuality itself. For feminists with reformist aims, the focus is more likely
to be legislative or bureaucratic change relating to issues such as the treatment of rape
victims or responses to sexual harassment. These issues are also important to feminists
seeking more radical change, but are likely to be integrated into an understanding of
sexuality as more fundamentally embedded in the social and cultural order. It is these
more radical tendencies which have generated most feminist theorising on sexuality.
The majority of these theorists have conceptualised sexuality as socially constructed,
but precisely how this process occurs has been the focus of much debate. There has
also, always, been a minority position arguing that women have an authentic sexuality
which is repressed or suppressed within patriarchal societies.
Contrary to what is suggested in many women's studies texts, this difference does
not map neatly on to a division between socialist, poststructuralist and postmodernist
feminists on the one hand and radical feminists on the other. 16 There is, for example, a
tradition in Marxist thought within which sexuality is seen as repressed by capitalism.
Some Marxist and socialist feminists have turned to psychoanalysis - a theory within
which repression is a central concept - in order to explore female sexuality.17 Radical
feminists are often misrepresented as essentialist, as believing in an essential female
nature and female sexuality. \X/hile there are, no doubt, some radical feminists who
embrace these views, the majority are opposed to them. 1S We have already quoted
Christine Delphy, who is pan of a French radical feminist tradition which has always
stood against the doctrine of women's 'difference'.19 In Britain, too, there is a strong
anti-essentialist radical feminist current. 20 Some North American feminists have been
particula~ly badly misrepresented in this respect, Andrea Dworkin being one case in
point. She is on record as being fundamentally opposed to the idea that women are
innately 'better' than men (see Reading 1.4), yet she is frequently labelled essentialist. 21
Differing opinions on whether female sexuality is socially constructed or is an
innate potential cut across other theoretical and political divisions. So too do other
differences of emphasis to be found in feminist work. Among those who see sexualil)?
as socially constructed there are three main strands of analysis, each focusing on a
different aspect of social construction. The first of these foregrounds the issue of
male dominance, analysing sexuality in relation to patriarchal structures; the second
concentrates on the construction of our sexual desires at the level of individual
subjectivity, in other words on how we come to be sexual in particular ways; and the
third seeks to demonstrate the variability and malleability of human sexual desires. Al-
though feminists have contributed to these strands from many different perspectives,
 STEVI JACKSON AND SUE Scon
10
less mechanistic and more open? Feminists have long been aware that our individual
sexualities are profoundly influenced, yet not wholly determined, by the cultures we
inhabit. Developing a means of theorising this, accounting for both socio-cultural
structures and individual agency, is an ongoing project for feminists. One obvious
and established body of theory which addresses this issue is psychoanalysis. Feminists
originally found Freud's view of female sexuality - as shaped by penis env-Y1 as
inevitably passive and masochistic - both implausible and misogynist (see Reading
1.5). Later, less literal and more symbolic readings of Freud, inspired by the French
3o
psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan, found favour among some feminists. The attraction
of this perspective is its emphasis on the cultural and linguistic structures in which we
,'are positioned in becoming sexed subjects, and its representation of feminine se"%ual
J identity as a precarious accomplishment (see Reading 1.6). The Lacanian version of
~-----~
psychoanalysis remains androcentric, placing the symbolic phallus - if not the hv:ral
penis _ at the centre of culture. This has led some feminists influenced by Lacan to ~)eek
alternative formulations. One possibility is to challenge phallic privilege by exploring
the possibility of a female sexuality founded on women's bodily specificity rather than
defining it in terms of male sexuality. It is this project which is particularly associ2.ted
with Luce Irigaray (Reading 1.7).31
Many feminists, however, remain sceptical of the entire psychoanalytic enterprise.
Since it offers a universalistic theory of subjectivity, it is very difficult to reconcile with
historical understandings of sexuality as changing over time. Even in the Lac2tnian
version, which suggests that sexed, desiring subjects are constituted through weir
entry into language and culture, this refersnoLtoaspecific language and culture,
but to the very process of becomin~~~It is difficult to chalknge
its phallocentricity without assuming some essential pre-cultural female sex@ity.
Because psychoanalysts conflate gender and sexuality, reducing both to the g~nder
of our 'object choice', they cannot adequately account for lesbian and homos~xual
desire without falling back on ideas about masculinised women and effeminate men.
~~~~~Uf.~~~~~;~a~w~o~m~an~~m~~ea~nsdesiring a man: where does this kave
these and many other criticisms, psychoanalysis retains a strong foothold
within feminist theorising on sexuality. It is still often treated as if it were the only
perspective which can explain our individual sexual desires. Its influence may bG' due,
in ~e~~ernatives. It is not th;rttIiere are no other thel)rle-s,-~"~
but that they are either inadeq~ or underdeveloped. Traditional social scic.-ntific
theories of socialisation have generally been abandoned as far too mechanist~.c and
deterministic. A few feminists have drawn on the interactionist tradition wbich tocuses
'. on the negotiation of sexual meanings and posits individual subjects as active agf,~nts in
the construction of their own sexual identities (see Reading 1.5). Others have brought
I
. Foucauldian perspectives to bear on the problem of subjectivity. \x/endy Hollw~y, for
exa~ple, analyses the ways in which men and women can position themselves as ,$:>,~xual
subjects and objects within the discourses available to them (Reading 1.8). Neither
of these perspectives has been fully developed and both share a major conoeptual
\ 1.• problem: tI:;y~otcond_~~~l1'@.latiQrr?bc:~~_~~
SEXUAL SKIRMISHES AND fEMINIST fACTIONS 11
men and women in relation to their understandings of subjective and intersubjective
~ ~_ _ - - - ~ .>'. ',. .~"~'~"'''_<__ . "~'~~"~"~~~""-"""~"""~"~""-""-'-'~~~'~-""'-·~--··-·-·-··~~·'·~·~_"~"'''~~'"'~''M·'''''·'··'·''·'"'-·-""--",~",-_,. ._"" __ " .. ,.,._.•.__.•.."•.• ,., "', -. " ,•.., ,
proc~~~~es. The lac1L9.L~~i1}J·:ing-ili~!I'!gliy:e~"1Q_l~~~9~nalysisi~~Jg"~gX~~gap~i!!~
~~", -~.~~~,,~,
femini~t theo~ and ()ne whic~,L~0u-.r view, dese~<:?~ill2f~~!tel:l~?n.
We are~nc;w ~~tt~~g~~ph~se in ~h1Ch~f~~Tru;tsare re-eval~;ting past work on the
social construction of gender and sexuality and assessing its strengths and weaknesses.
One question which has been raised, in particular by Diana Fuss, is whether it is
possible to escape entirely from essentialist thinking and w~~Q1er ~e ~re~~~~~~g~l:"
of posing~~f~se di::!::9!2-IIlY-J:?~S~:v~~g.es~~I'l~~~~,~g<!~~~~.~,~~~Qfu§m:32Similarly,
Carole Vance has drawn our attention to different degrees of social constructionism
and asks whether those theories which conceptualise sexual desires themselves as
constructed are in danger of ignoring the body, treating sexuality as disembodied. 33
The challenge which faces us here, and which feminists are now taking up, is to
develop a~eory of£b~ b09Xas its~l~~~ci~ly~()l1stl:"ll~t~~~T~il~?~il:lg;e:pel:"i~~~~~-~
asa-mar;Jial,ph)~i~~~lE~i~l1c~)4~Arel~tedTs~u~ 'Is t'h~ ~~y In ~\vhici-l feminists have
de;eIOpea.theTr~;fguments~about the social construction of gender and sexuality by
dra'wing contrasts between bumans as social and animals as natural. In the final
reading of this section, Lynda Birke suggests that we think again about our depiction
of animals and that this could serve to strengthen, rather than weaken, social
constructionist theory.
We remain firmly committed to the social constructionist project, which we see
as both theoretically and fo,,9~cally necessary for feminism. T}:<:re are a _t?-~~r ()L
Er~~~!h._S:SSertti~:In.,the first place, ,it rests on something unknowable,
a hypothesised 'natural' sexuality somehow uncontaminated by cultural influences.
As a result, it cannot adequately explaih cultural and historical variations in human
sexuality - differ~~l repression is too crude a concept to capture the complexities
of such variatio~urthermore, it conceptualises the social r~lation of sexuality
-'~~~",=-~.-=--' ~,~>;-=-',•.~-~-'~~~.=,"'""'."::,,"',.<~.;;,
as a .1}~g~ti~~e force and hence does not allow for. the E!Qdu~tiY_e-.deploym@Ht"0f
pow~~ i?th~gi?f~~~§all~ftcannotac~t-for differences in masculine and
feminine sexuality except in terms of 'natural' differences or differential repression.
Either women and men are innately different and nothing can change this, or
women's sexuality is seen as more repressed than that of men. This latter view takes
current definitions of male sexuality as the bench-mark of unrepressed sexuality, in
other words what sexuality should be like. Few feminists would find the political
consequences of this acceptable. Subsumed within this paradigm is an equation
of normal sexuality with heterosexuality, thus its assumptions are both sexist and
heterosexist.
It m~y be t~Il~~W!!~~otential for~~BLa.L121~"§jJ~.L.~hi£h.~~~.,.
is denied to us within patriarchal societies,35 but this presupposes that there is such a
thiri.g~as-~;;: i~'lfiate sexuality which ca11be~Ireed from social constraints. Clearly, no such
sexuality can ever exist, since we have no way of conceptualising it outside of language
and culture. Human sexuality hasalwaysbeena social pro~uct an9~ill~()cl:l?~~~to
be so, in whatt~rroimorsocle:tyccm1es1ntOl3eingfiimetutU~~·"The~appear~{the
concept of repression is that it can carry a sense of the damage and danger women have
experienced in the sexual arena. However, this idea is better expressed as oppression
12 STEVI JACKSON AND SUE Scorr SEXUAL SKIRMISHES AND FEMINIST FACTIONS
13
rather than repression. Whereas the concept of repression suggests the
holding back active in sexual politics through theGLF, or combin ed involve ment
of some underlying force, oppression focuses attentio n on social relations in both gay and
of power feminist politics. Before long, however, the male-do minated agenda ofgay
and domination. politics led
to widespread disillusionment. 40 Nor were lesbians universally accepte
d in the wom-
HETEROSEXUAlITY AND LESBIANISM en's movement. In the USA, the movem ent had a strong reformi st current
represented
by the N ati~::maLQrgani~!tiillLQf WQIDen~NBW):-':Altht7tlghlesbiansi()inec
An incipient critique of heterosexuality was evi.dent in discussions among I;lheywere
feminists not~ade welcome i~~!!.~~Q!LS_~~king_~Q-l"~J?!"~sgl1t!h~"'1."~~p<
from the earliest years ofWLM, and it was not long before lesbianism began :::t~~l<:::fac:eof
to be seen feminisl!!:-J3etty Friedan, a promin ent membe r of NOW, dubbedt~<::~~h
as both a viable alternative and a form of resistance to patriarchal domina ~J.<iY:"~~
tion. Debates menace', provokin&E- d~I!lQnsl£~9no£ksJl~ns ajJJl~"~~c~nd-~~on~<::~~
iI11?70·41
\X'hile thi~ led to a change of policy within NO\Y' aoo~~~ome
times been destructive, in that it caused major rifts within n'~htto
defi~~theiL2..wn s~~, lesbianism continu ed to be regarded as problem
women' s movement, but it has also proved productive in that it has atic with1;;-'~""~"'
forced us to this liberal feminist tendency. It was largely radical feminists, in the USA
theorise heterosexuality more adequately. and elsewhere,
who made lesbianism a central political issue. Those New York women
/ In the e~~_~~~~Qllid way~ic;mini§g1~~c:!iscll~Q!J.,~~QL~~~ali who had
tyiQQkjtJ:obe proteste d at the marginalisation of lesbians formed the Radicalesbians
. ,. .

t
Y112~"'~!!!J}~~i2S~~~Jld-LQ~ll~ecLG&~wB-m~~tmggLe~iQ_Qeri .-""""~"'".".".... who, in 19 7 0,
Ye~<i~~=
""---=---~~,_.~"'~
produce d a paper entitled<)Yo~de~ed WOlTI:Ml', one of the
~cti~n from ~~lationships with men. It was argued that heterosexuality, as currently~ which located lesbianism as a form~~riarchy. 'A lesbian
first statements
practi;e'";Cpnoritised mare pTeasure irrSfres slifgpen ettative sex as 'the is the rage of
real thing' and all women condens ed to the point of explosion',42 th~y wrote, and
perpetuating the myth of the vaginal orgasm. Anne Koedt's article went on to argue
(Reading 2.1) that as long as women put their energies into relationships with individu
was particularly influential at that time in alerting women to the ways al men, this
in which they held back their own liberation and the liberation of all women. Lesbian
had been duped into expecting to derive maximum pleasure from s, by contrast,
minimal clitoral gave all their energies to their sisters rather than their oppress ors. In
contact.36 Although the basis of the argument - that female orgasm the years which
was centred on followed, many feminists in North America, Europe and Australasia
the clitoris rather than the vagina - derived from mainstream sexologi developed this
cal research 37 stance, which came to be known as political lesbianism.
feminists were able to appropriate it for their own purposes. Koedt Outside the L'SA, the reformist, liberal variant of feminism was less
and others developed and
argued that this 'discovery' called for a rethinking of sexual practice
, a deprioritising the.re.. was l~ss ov.ert o~position to lesb~ithin the m,?:\l::.\~me~~. ~3_~
of penetrative sex, and that it rendered the penis more or less irreleva ~IU:-­
nt to women' s pl<::~t~~lILClu:reotsltJ !h<::~re di J~!lsi~~~~~, andJesb ians were _
sexual satisfaction. Koedt's critique was well aimed. For many women,
steeped in the prQmij}~!lL~"£S)thJQ"0up~~gs. None the less, there was still some
mythology of male sexual needs and female sexual obligations, the idea unease about lesbian-
that they had ism }-g:d"1f"ten:ctem:y"for"hetem~xual feminists to resist the derogat ion
of feminists as
a right to pleasure at all was relatively new. B~970s, th~~~<:):
::,l~dge~~thaL~£~""~ 'rbun~~~':ihsisting on their own 'normality'. The early
c~llid and s~~able for women~ad se:F':cl intomains~:~~cult~:e, o'fme\x-'Ij,,~itain, as elsewhere, excluded specifically lesbian concern
agenda
but
ma~y yo-~womenoutsidef~minist circlesre~~ained inIgnorance of their own not~---_
until 1974
s, and it was
sexual t ~ a self-defined sexuality and the end
anatomy and orgasmic potential. 38 Even now, when such knowledge .--- ~-~'---"~~'-"""
.
"~~_~~~,m,~~,,~
of discrimination
",,,",'0=M'_~'~"=«_'~'_'~"="="",,",,_,,'W,"~_,,,,;,
circulates widely agains~ lesbians was. aq4~d to the list of the fIlovem
__

ent's demand s. 43 By this time,

in the pages of magazines such as Cosmopolitan, young heterosexual women
still have lesbI~~sm h;d bec~a"~ocarteriaency"m"th1~~~th;-British-movement.
difficulty in defining and demanding their own pleasure (see Reading Many
2.2). hitherto heterosexual women came out as lesbians in this period, defining
Koedt suggested that men might not be necessary to women' s sexual themselves
pleasure, but as such in terms of their politics and lifestyle rather than as a result
she did not extend this to advocacy of lesbianism. Over the next few of some innate
years, however, predisposition. 44 Thus lesbianism was seen by some as a choice any
feminist debates became increasingly focused on lesbianism and lesbian woman could
sexuality. Les- make, as in the slogan 'any woman can'. None the less, there was also
bians had been visible in \'('LM from the beginning but the role they played a recognition of
depende d on the many constraints whIch kept women heterosexual. The critique of
their own political commit ments and the: response to them on the part heterosexuality
ofhetero sex,aal went much further than disconte nt with male sexual ineptitude. Heteros
feminists. The precise details of the relationship between lesbian and exuality was
heterosexual seen as an institution through which men appropr iated women' s
feminists varied from one country to another. In Britain and the USA, bodies and their
the gay and labour. Romantic attachm ent to men led only to exploitation. As
feminist movements emerged more or less simultaneously, at the end of another popular
the 1960s, and slogan put it: 'It starts when you sink into his arms and ends with your
the more radical elements of both movements saw themselves as facing arms in his sink.'
a commo n Political lesbianism was thus an escape from and a challenge to patriarc
enemy: the patriarchal establishment. In both countries the Gay Liberati hal domination.
on Front (GLF) Political lesbianism in this sense was most commo n!y found among
sought to establish alliances with other oppress ed groups and identifie /~
~__ __
alreidy:.~emiuisuri~ who s~~~triarchyas ~~~ystem
~"' _.~_~_=-_m, ""'~-
those who
"~"---="'~ A"~"... ,_,,,~_, __ .d0~,._,.,.,,,,, __ ,,,,,.~
d 'the roots of of male dominance.
.__ ~~

women' s oppression as in many ways similar to (their] own'.39 Many Some of these women became 'sep;rart~' in ori'ffi"tatio~rejecttnga
lesbians became IIpers-onaIcontact
__
~, ~~<~~~_ .
.__
_~=~~._~
.~~. =-,,=__W ~ _ " ~ ._.__ ,=_~_~~~
 14 Srevi JACKSON AND SUE Scon
and political alliances with men. It was tensions between these radical lesbians and
other feminists which;by the end of the 1970s, were to prove particularly disruptive
for the WilL The rifts thus created, alongside other divisions, made a unified women's
movement increasingly difficult to sustain. 45 However, there was no simple split
between lesbian and heterosexual wome~.MaEYlesbian feminists reject~paratis11l
~~3 I2oli~ solution, especially where it implied criticism of those women who
remained heterosexual. Those who had been lesbians before the rise of the WUvI, so-
called 'real lesbians', were often sceptical of the zeal of recent converts, and concerned
about the authenticity of their desires.46 Lesbian socialist feminists, for whom sexuality
was a less central political issue, largely remained aloof from disputes about political
lesbianism. Lesbian radical feminists were to be found on both sides of the divide,
causing acute and painful splits within radical feminism. More positively, the debate
this engendered produced a fuller theorisation both of the critique of heterosexuality
and of the politics of lesbianism.
One of the landmark publications of this P~!~~S:h~(:~~E~!~~:!
het~sexuality and lesb~~D~~Qf~e-~~ding2.3). Rkb~~~!l:~~ns!it1,lj:i2~~E==-~
sation of h~ality,arguing that ~~at w~~slUne~LtalleJl~aturar~hoicr_wasjn._
~~~9_.1:!IlQD._~~tp.eQ.Rather than emphasising the differences between lesbian
and heterosexual women, she posited the_existence of a~§l)~tinuum<:>11 \J1hi~~
all wo~en ~~d Q~~_~' S~r les~fclt that Rich's notio~~f~~~~tin~~~"­
denied the specificity of lesbian sexuality and lesbians' oppression as lesbians. On the
other hand, those identifying themselves as radical lesbians thought that Rich did not
go far enough, that she focused too much on women's coercion into heterosexuality
rather than on the oppressive nature of the institution itself. 47
I Rich's critique of heterosexuality in no way implied a personal criticism of
( hetero..s.exual feminists - indeed this is one reason why radical lesbians objected to
\it. Sheila Jeffreys claims that it 'seems to allow heterosexual women to~ot:irr~
~fe1ari,?nships with men wh~le feeling politically v~lidated in sha~n a-k§.~
continuuf¥".48 Other analyses bemg produced at that time were certamly fnore
. fiting for heterosexual feminists, as well as for those lesbians who did not want
to dissociate themselves from their heterosexual sisters. The idea that heterosexual
feminists were traitors to the cause had been in circulation since the early 1970s, but
gained momentum in Europe towards the end of the decade. The final WLM conference
in Britain in 1978, disintegrated into chaotic warring factions over this issue. The
following year a€)upk:iio\\;n~\~he~~Q~I¥~ circulate~
paper entitled' olitical le~s l- : the case a ainst heterosexuali~~_~~hich strongly
implied th2.t het .. and feminism were mutually exclusive.4~ This provoked
further heated debate and served to draw a sharp demarcation between radical and
revolutionary feminists. 50 Radical feminists, whether lesbian or heterosexual, insisted
that the WLM was for all women and that all women shared a common oppression.
An equally acrimonious dispute occurred in F.t~Ee~.-Ublif debate 0. n ra.diCal
lesbianism was sparked off by the publication oLM' .
W~.. . :~::Ih~ ~~~~~
inQl:!!stifJ11£flministe.£~ltiuJ!2§0 (~5~J3,~.ading 2.4), wed by a further a~_'On~_
is not b..2~woman' in the next issue of the journal. Lesbians, according to Wittig,
'~~-
SEXUAL SKIRMISHES AND FEMINIST FACTIONS 15
were fugitives from the patriarchal class system in w~£h-w{')ffienarec:!efi~edby their
subordination to men, hence her conclusion that:l sbians are not womert). In Parisian
feminist circles during that year, heterosexual wo foUJJ._ emse ves'castigated as
collaborators, while those lesbians who defended them were damned as 'kapos'51 and
even denied the status of lesbians by being referred to as 'homosexual women'.~y
raQical feminists, both het~!Q~~JHlalwd lesbian, ~i~rincluding
Marie-Jo Dhavernas (Reading 2.5). Like their sisters in Britain they were highly critical
of the vanguardis! stance taken by radical lesbians and saw them as turning the
women's movement against women, of seeing heterosexual women - rather than men
or patriarchy - as the enemy.52
These debates were almost exclusively conducted without reference to other
divisions between women. In posing men as the class enemy, class in its wider social
sense was ignored as were racial divisions. The ways in which women are located
within the intersection between various forms of oppression profoundly influence
their experience of both lesbianism and heterosexuality (see Readings 2.6 and 2.9). As
a black lesbian, Cheryl Clarke (Reading 2.6), 6nds_he~elf fiKhting~Q1L~Y.e.taL£routs'"~
a~LhomQpbob~~d sexism in both black and white commu~~~<:§.,__aL:NdLa_~_~,
against white. racism. This iss~r~ised q~s ?rcIifference'~;Jthin ferginism lllQl:~~,~
~iacli,~~,~~§Illgl~t@~~i§j9~i~~~~~~~i=th~2Ee~-~fiQiJe'q£Lr!!lii~iL2~~~E~!~~~I~~~~ys
of talUl1K~~countof t~e complexities a11d <:QllttadictiQ1).JlYLh~!entinw~men's li\~es.53
One r~sult ~f thTs-;a;'anexp~;tI;n~~fthe potential for feminist theorising within
?<:ststructuralism. an~.l2:~1;Il}Q~{:El1.i$m.54- >,
"A"'TIrongEeft~emICs in particular, disillusionment with traditional Marxism
rendered poststructuralist and postmodernist perspectives attractive. Once appropri-
ated by femillist~andgaytheorists,a~1}fL applied to sexuality, this tendency ultimately
led to t~jk~~of~r. the~J Rather than settin-?:,ll:I?fategorie&~stlcil,
as 'l~Jlbi~~as~tl1ebasis ofpolitic:aI i~~ntities, Queer souro d~~e th~_~iI?~EI
~positionsJ:>etweenmen and women ail9~5trafght and gay. In:lriderrtifies-wer;~~ot
seen as authentic pr<jper~of-tnd1vidual subject~2_but~id ancL~J:lliligg~~!~,
adppted and discarded,2!?J',~<iwith~~j}~s_l!Qyerted,strat~Ei~g1!Y"depI()yedin di~fering
contexts (see Ikading27). Radical lesbian pe;~p~~ri;~;;ere rega;d~d;s~essenti~a'list in
tnat they c2f!.lesbian.i.. s.ma. s. a fixed..p
.. Oi.nt .outside o.f, an.d i.n opposei.tion tO.'. p.a.t.ri.a.rc.hal
relations.56 rolitic~Uy the~airrLQfQJ:!~~Ltheory~i.s--tQJiemQng!~!~~~~~~~~n_~~~_~1!_~ s.<=~ual
categorie~~::t!~D~ven realiti~s but are_~~<:8E!~.t~rY-fj£1i<:>~s',produc~~()~~isco,urse.57
Heif~Qi~erj:he,~ko~riyi'1"ges ~LtJiQ~i~L1201!~jD thd.atteri~iiing out 6T parodic
performances atg!~~tle'yel~JQrex~argl?l<: holding public 'kiss-ins' an~~~~ock weddings,
and th~ ;~ti;;~uL'g~n(:k!:.j~<:k' -- ch~g~ngi~ggenaerc;t~g~ri~~ through dress and
transgressive sexu~L~tJormance.58
Queer means to fuck with gender. There are straight queers, bisexual queers,
tranny queers, lez queers, fag queers, SM queers, fisting queers in every single
street in this apathetic country of ourS.5~
quotation
exclusively to
16 STEVI JACKSON AND SUE Scon
from both lesbian feminism and gay activism. ~!s,"a~!1~9JIl4?~ass-hetetQS~!JzLactivity
betwee~~bia~~~~d:ga~~;md~ft.~t:erfn~~!ftheirpractices are
sufficiently disruRti~ of ~!!~gh!l'~:lillili~~~~~.tions.
Heterosexual behaviour does not always equal 'straight'. When I strap on a dildo
and fuck my male partner, we are engaged in 'heterosexual' behaviour, but I can
tell you it feels altogether queer, and I'm sure my grandmother and Jessie Helms
would say the same. 60
~';)
v)/'
So, no doubt, would Mary Whitehouse! This furthe . strates a second key feature
of Queer, implicit in both the above quotations, that the tran~~.Q.Lmo.tal-and
gender boundaries is seen as subversive. Claire Her;;rnings ~iues that, in the context
~. --------------"-~~
... --~- .....
of Dlsexuality, sudu~~erformanc.es destablise t~ier~I£hica12rde~~,"..?j3eterosexu-
a~ty.61 Elizabeth \XTilson contests Hemmings's interpretation, arguing th;t~sucE"acts
c~uld easily be incorporated into a conventional, if 'kinky', heterosexual couple's
repertoire without having any such destablising consequences. 62
Que~~gl~n.tails.JJ.reaJiguing-o£leAbians .~!!b~~IDe1L.r.athe1:.J;halLStllh
feminism. In the context of AIDS and attacks on gay . men and lesbians by the moral
0~~ --~-'O_-----~""--~W~~'--'_'"
_._~'~-_. ~-'"'~"-
Right, many lesbian feminists felt tha~!h~.-£!9 allian<:!.~with gay men'"-snowd be
~._~._._ _. , ~ . ~ . ~_._ _ . """=-=_~~=-=-~,",,, ,-=~,~w".=,~,~~_~·",,·,··,,==-~~=,.~=,,0J'"
resu~e<:t<:;!i~ all of these women identified with Queer, but this alliance, combined
with a dissatisfaction with the prescriptiveness of radical lesbianism, led many lesbians
to engage with these new forms of political activism. Others remained more sceptical.
Rather than the radical departure it purports to be, Queet.£~~ se~~...£:~
i:!~nti~tics. Moreover, althoug~_~~cl~i~_~J:~~~~~I12~g§'_QL.w-9rlQQ.g_?-~~~s
diff~ret1ces3ElddjsruJ'i!~gboundarie~;itcanturn o~t to be yet ano~~~r mear:~?y :'YJlich
white=Wr.~~~.:~ the!'r agefJ.~a u~~n.~:~~~~~~p~~~~~~,=~~~UmQif];J;~ c~~;traints
imposed ~y~illstitntiQnarrsecri~~i~!~s§~?-I.222re~~<?!l'T his point has been made
a number of prominent black lesbian activists. 63
Q::.~L,th~<?!y,~d.Qg~,~LP.Q..@g..M~.~12<?~~<:~~relysynonYI'!10us.In so far as Queer
activism affi.E!J1~~W oEPositional identity, it 0nfllctswithtFleemphasis in Queer
theory on deconstructin~ll such id<:..ntity categ()ries. While'-ic'a:<Ierillc theoiists. are
ngaged~challe:~~~g the 'compulso~r~ofsex/genci~~much~cl"'the
. lurringofg~nder cat~utrurels'occuITinglrtthe level of style rather
than politics. 65 We ourselves doubt whether wearing a tutu with Doc Martins will bring
patriarchy to its knees. Mor~~~~~nce of Qyeer-theory1na'rhave IllOTelO--
do with t~ making o£a~~~m!!ationsthaI?:~ith f~rthering grass-roots struggles,
and ma):J2.~.xplicaW~ terms of academic rather tha;S'treet pOlltiCslSeeiteacling
2.8). Much of this theoI}~OUclred in a language i!'lacc~~~~1.Jle to those outside the
intellectual clique which produces it.
As one lesbian femme explained, she likes her boys to be girls, meaning that
'being a girl' contextualizes and resignifies 'masculinity' in a butch identity. As a
result, that masculinity, if that it can be called, is always brought into relief against
a culturally intelligible 'female body.' It is precisely this dissonant juxtaposition
and the sexual tension that its transgression generates that constitute the object
of desire. 66
SEXUAL SKIRMISHES AND fEMINIST fACTIONS 11
It is doubtful whether those depicted here would recognise themselves.
In the meantime older debates have not gone away, although the recent spate of
writings on heterosexuality engage to some extent with Queer theory and politics. 67
The. q~~~.D..s~~~nefessarily oppressive for women, and
wheth~.Lh~~~3J;~le.p£'aeciee-.foL~~5:mr':::'Hfleef~~sion.
H<:;tetosexual.it¥~have'Lhe-"SaTIIe·meaning-fe:f~
women. Just as
.
black lesbians, who have always allied with black men against racism, are less impressed
with Queer's transgression of women-only politics than their white sisters, so black
heterosexual women do not necessarily see relationships with men as politically reac-
tionary (see Reading 2.9). Heterosexual feminists more generally are still struggling to
retain a critical stance on the institution of heterosexuality while engaged in redefining
its practices and renegotiating relationships with men (Reading 2.10). This raises a
number of questions about the pleasures and dangers of sexualitv for women.
POWER, PLEASURE AND THE SEX WARS
There has long been a tension in feminist thinking about sexuality between the
~=~-'_
potentially pleasurable aspects of sex and its dangers. Heterosexuality has always
.. ,-~ .. ~,.-
bee~~pQC~2!:P~Q..~er-.in.tenns~e>tlblestalldm-d~f6tr5··t)fless-
of ~5.~P~~~~_~~J?.!'~~cYL91~<:L~~!<:E:~§,ncl,c,;~sio~:~ At the same time, as
dis:ussed i~ ~he previous s~ction, th~.:.:~cernwith plea~ur.e and the lack
of 1!:_.N!.!Ql~!.LQ.Q.und.up.-with.!b.~J~~",~~~; hete:91~§truS!~9~_..;
around ,~hie~rchv of gende~i.9~ntin its_~.ecifi~~~?CE~~J2E~,~ti~~.!S~!~~~~ere.
Lesbianism is a potential escape from this, a more pleasurable and less risky alternative,
yet lesbians are not immune from the heterosexual ordering of desire which shapes all
our sexualities. \X!hat.counts as erotic is it~clf socially constructed in terms of relations
~<,C'~'" ~~-~_.~,_~ __"_.
~-~<~,~--'''_~~ ~-·=====~-·""'-~h.,"", __ ·~"'-~·""--~-"~_,,=.~,.~
of dQI!lirLance,~to-J:he extent tha,tit.. .is.di££icult~e¥.en·t6thirrk~of~(')utsid<::lJf~the·
patriarchallangtJ~~.g.lJ.i~llJtiire..wbjcb sbape·Gtl:F·theHgh:ts,d~sir.es and fantasies.
Much' of f~minist critique has been concerned with heterosexuality as a locus of
male power, with the policing of women through coercive sex, with the continuities
between 'normal' heterosexual practice and sexual violence and abuse. One strand of
radical feminism identifies sexuality as a key site of women's oppression. Kate Millett,
for example, in one of the earliest radical feminist texts, argued that women's oppres-
sion began in the bedroom and from there infected all aspects of sociallife. 68 One
of the strongest theoretical ~el~hQ!:gltions o~e ce~al!~lit¥-in..maiJJ.ta,ini~\ //
women's subordiI1ation is that develope<i.b)l~cKinnQQ-CReading 3.1). 1X
MacKin~ch:aws upon Marxist class analysis in arguing that, ju~lillt~ f13
of ~~b<!!:!L~~}2.~?!1s, ~? sex_~~ploTt:atiQ.llj~fllndamental\#
to m$ domi11.atJ..G@~llce~Q~the ull~~&a&-b.e.t~E~Pw ~
Many feminists have developed analyses of sexual violence W.h./i.5Ml~e-tlfiderlin.e;
the way~).l1_~~~~QQ!ll~~~pi~~.~n t!:~ir."
~ace.7° One key theme which has emerged from much of this work IS ~e
between the standard pattern of heterosexual encounters and coercive and violent sex.
Within dominant cultural discourses, men are cast as the active initiators of sexual
activity and women as passive recipients of male advances; men's desires are seen as
18
STEVI JACKSON AND SUE SCOTT
uncontrollable urges which women are paradoxically expected both to satisfy and to
restrain. These dynarilics have been analysed in relation to a range of phenomena from
everyday sexual harassment on the streets or at work, to rape, murder and the sexual
abuse of children. 71 The parallels between these various forms of coercive sexuality
and 'normal' heterosexuality have led a number of feminists to think in terms of a
continuum of violence (see Reading 3.2).72
Feminists have seen sexual violence as an enactment of male power. In order to
counteract the tendency to see acts such as rape as simply a form of seduction using
undue force, feminists have tended to emphasise the power relations rather than
sexual relations in this context. The regularity with which male sexuality finds violent
expression has, however, led many feminists to consider the ways in which power
is itself eroticised within contemporary culture.7 3 Deborah Cameron and Elizabeth
Frazer illustrate the ways in which this eroticisation of power can lead to the extreme
of murder (Reading 3.3). Their analysis is particularly interesting in that they argue that
such acts are not the result of a generalised misogyny, but are enacted as a result of
the specific ways in which masculine subjectivity is constructed in modern societies.
Sexual violence has been a major focus of feminist activism. On the surface it would
appear to be an issue around which feminists could unite, since all women, whatever
their class, 'race' or sexual orientation can be subject to violence or the threat of
violence. In practice, however, this has proved a thorny issue, especially in terms of the;
intersections between racial and sexual oppression (Reading 3.4). Sexual violencs;has
very specific meanings for black women, since routine sexual exploitation, c.gercion
and brutality towards women have been very much a part of the historx;c,of slavery
and colonialism. This renders it inseparable from racism: enslaved.~rfd colonised
women have been subject to specific racialised forms of patriarcha,Jl'Oppression and
sexualised forms of racial oppression.74 This is complicated by th$i..:t~ys in which black
masculinity under colonial and slave regimes has been constnyzted as a threat to white
women, which was used to legitimate forms of control and punishment from lynchings
and beatings through to legislation limiting black me9-'~s access to white women.7 5
Historically white men's 'protection' of 'their' wofl1,€fi has existed side by side with
their gross exploitation of black women. The fo~ of activism engaged in by white
feminists have often been attacked on the ~0Gnds of insensitivity to these issues.
For example 'reclaim the night' marches, v.:):rlch called for a curfew on men, failed to
acknowledge that black men do not hav)ithe same freedom of the streets enjoyed by
white men, that they ha~e been vulnerap'r~ ~o bot~ ~olice harassment ~nd racist attacks.
Another source of dissent fro~f'fmill1st aCtiVIsm and scholarship around sexual
violence is voiced by those wl;9' feel that too much emphasis has been placed on
sexual danger at the expense of sexual pleasure. The point has been made particularly
strongly by feminists with a libertarian perspective on sexuality.76 The issue of sexual
pleasure is taken up by Amber Hollibaugh in Reading 3.5. Hollibaugh does not only
argue for a recognition of sexual pleasure, but suggests that power itself can be a
source of eroticism and that we should not deny this potential in ourselves. This is
taken further in Pat Califia's explicit defence of sadomasochism (Reading 3.6). These
articles exemplify one of the opposing positions in what became known as the
SEXUAL SKIRMISHES AND fEMINIST FACTIONS
19
'feminist sex wars'. Other feminists strongly object to this rehabilitation of power as
a source of pleasure (see Readings 3.3 and 3.7). .,i ;'''';',.;!'''''''"
I
The libertarian stance has primarily been adopted by ~9.se?tesbian feminists who
have maintained allegiances with gay men,77 For the§.e·theorists the emphasis has
moved from gender oppression to sexual oppr~~.~!p:rtjThs is coupled with a desire to
re-eroticise lesbian sex, to challenge what is§.~eil' as a puritanical orthodoxy with les-
bian feminism, summed up by the term'~anilla' sex. 78 In casting themselves as 'outlaw'
lesbians, libertarians such as Gayle."Rubin have defended other so-called sexual mi-
norities and in so doing have dS.pfe'd the importance of gender hierarchy.79 The whole
range of outlaw sexualities,fl;r{'seen as equally worthy of protection from oppression
i
and opprobrium, wit1}9l:1f any apparent awareness that there is a world of difference
between a street prostitute and a millionaire pornographer or between a man who
has sex with 2;pl'Uld and that child. This defeJ;lce of sexual pluralism loses sight of the
basis on ,);rich feminists originally developed their critique of power and dominance
in sexgfl;l'relations, through questioning the hierarchical basis of heterosexuality. Many
o~tMe sexualities currently being defended or promoted reproduce these hierarchies
,whether in the form of sado-masochism or 'cross-generational relations' (Rubin'S
euphemism for pederasty). Generally such practices are defended only in the context
of lesbian and gay relationships - libertarian f~minists refrain from suggesting that,
for example, heterosexual sado-masochism is acceptable. They maintain that sado-
masochistic practices do not have the same meaning where they are not part of the
institutionalised hierarchy, and moral privileging, of heterosexuality (see Reading 3.6).
As Deborah Cameron and Elizabeth Frazer point out, this argument fails to ask where
these desires come from and therefore assumes that they are 'natural' or given (Reading
3.3). Those critical of the libertarians do not deny that we all experience desires which
entail the eroticisation of power, but suggest that we should subject such desires to
critical scrutiny rather than simply celebrate them.
These debates have been occurring in the context ofincreasing concern about AIDS
and therefore about the potential dangers attached to certain sexual practices. 80 Fear
of the risk of HIV transmission might seem to close down the potential for sexual
pleasure and exploration, but some feminists have argued that safer sex could be
better sex, especially in the heterosexual context. While libertarian lesbians have been
seeking to bring power back into sex, including penetrative sex, other feminists have
sought to increase women's pleasure through decentring penetration and arguing for
more egalitarian forms of heterosexual practice. While safer sex in government health
campaign literature has tended to mean sex as before,81 but with a condom, some
feminists have drawn on earlier critiques of heterosexuality in order to promote alter-
native sexual practices (see Reading 3.8).82 The reality of heterosexual relationships,
however, works against women redefining sexual practices. The balance of power in
such relationships, along with wider cultural discourses and the sexual scripts which
men and women draw on, militate against women negotiating safer sex (Reading 3.9).
The final readings in this section deal with what counts as sex and what counts
as pleasure in the 1990s, with the ways in which eroticism is discursively constructed
and produced in practice (Readings 3.10 and 3.11). In discussing lesbian sex, Diane

18
-~'"
1,UICbntr9nable urges which women are Rarad()~all~~xpec~ bg,t~~ ~tQ satisf¥~~dto
\ 'feminist sex wars'. Other feminists strongly object to this rehabilitation of power as
~ These dynaffiics have been analysed in relation to a rang~ of p enome;;~'from~'
everyday sexual harassment on the streets or at work, to rape, murder and the sexual
abuse of children)1 The parallels between these various forms of coercive sexuality
'normal' heterosexuality have led a number of feminists to think in terms of a
&JI1htinuum of violence (see Reading 3.2).72
Feminists have seen sexual violence as an enactment of male power. In order to
counteract the tendency to see acts such as rape as simply a form of seduction using
/
"undue force, f~~ hay~tended JQJIDpbasise thuow~!:J~~than
)s~~al relation0fLthis co~. The regularity with which male sexuality finds violent
I expression has, however, led many feminists to consider the ways in which power
is itself eroticised within contemporary culture. 73 Deborah Cameron and Elizabeth
Frazer illustrate the ways in which this eroticisation of power can lead to the extreme
of murder (Reading 3.3). Their analysis is particularly interesting in that they argue that
such acts are not the result of a generalised misogyny, but are enacted as a result of
the specific ways in which masculine subjectivity is constructed in modern societies.
~~~cus of femini~~~.~ti:::~~.On the surface it would
appear to be an issue around which feminists cOUld unite, since all women, whatever
their class, 'race' or sexual orientation can be subject to violence or the threat of
violence. In practice, however, this has proved a thorny issue, especially in terms of the
intersections between racial and sexual oppression (Reading 3.4). Sexual violence has
very specific meanings for black women, since routine sexual exploitation, coercion
and brutality towards women have been very much a part of the history of slavery
. and colonialism. This renders it inseparable from racism: enslaved and colonised
women have been subject to specific racialised forms of patriarchal oppression and
sexualised forms of racial oppression)4 This is complicated by the ways in which black
masculinity under colgnial and s~.'~'laS.bee~~threat to -;;.hi~.
womeJl,y{hkJ::u&a8J~~(L!?kgilimate.fur!!!?gfcon~~ol and punishment fr?m lynchings
and be:lJ:jngL1hEQ,::!gl:Ltojegis1atiQnJimitiu-K~i~~km~;'~; ;~~~ss~·towEitewo~en.75
Histo~<:_~ll)L.~,hi1;~~~.Qt.@€1:ion~Trf£thei~~~Gmift~s~::e;tist.eJ=&l.ae:l)¥=si<lc."i¥ith._:
their ~~EJ210itatiop of ~~.9s..WO~j1. The forms of activism engaged in by white
feminists have ofneen attack"ed on the grounds of insensitivity to these issues.
For example '. eclaim the nigh!LLU~E.<:~~\Yhi.<:h~C::llle~JoQ.£t!.t~Q~.~~~2 ..£~i!.~1 to
acknowledge c - men do not have the same freedom of the streets enjoyed by
white men, that they have been vulnerable to both police harassment and racist attacks.
Another source of dissent from feminist activism and scholarship around sexual
violence is voiced by those who fe~Lthat··reo~ffiu..c.1L~mphasishas-heen-plfl.€{;d-Q!LI
argue for a recognition of sexual preasure, but suggests
c--~--::-~~---~---:---~~=.~__ ~
soU{S<:~and that we should not de~y this po~en~alifl
taken further in Pat Califia's explicit aerenc-eoI"sadOmas-oclUsm (ReadI~g-3.6). These
articles exemplify one of the opposing positions in what became known as the
SEXUAL SKIRMISHES AND FEMINIST FACTIONS
19
a source of pleasure (see Readings 3.3 and 3.7).
The libertarian stance has primarily been adopted by those lesbian feminists who /
have maintained allegiances with gay men. 77 For these theorists_Jh~ emphasis has \
moved from gender oppression to ~~:li:ualoppr~~c~~pledwith a ~to /
re-eroticise lesbIan sex, to challenge ~ " puritanical orthodoxy with les-
bian feminism, summed up by the ter vanilla' s~x.7~)In casting themsely~~~~ 'o~E~~'~
J
l~sbiansl libertarians such as Gayle ave de~~_
norities ~i.~!?-~.rried~~~e of gen~e~hi~~ar~~y.79The whole
range of outlaw sexualities are seen as equally worthy of protection from oppression
and opprobrium, without any apparent awareness that there is a world of difference
between a street prostitute and a millionaire pornogr~l:>l!<:rQE~e,t"Ween a man who
has sex with a child and that child. ~~-~~ses sight of the
basis on which feminists originally developed theIr cntlqueorpo;er and dominance
in sexual relations, through questioning the hierarchical basis of heterosexuality. Many
of the sexualities currently being defended or promoted reproduce these hierarchies
whether in the form of sado-masochism or 'cross-generational relations' (Rubin's
euphemism for pederasty). Generally such practices are defended only in the context
of lesbian and gay relationships - libertarian f<:minists refrain from suggesting that,
for example, heterosexual sado-masochism is acceptable. They maintain that sado-
masochistic practices do not have the same meaning where they are not part of the
institutionalised hierarchy, and moral privileging, of heterosexuality (see Reading 3.6).
As Deborah Cameron and Elizabeth Frazer point out, this argument fails to ask where
these desires come from and therefore assumes that they are 'natural' or given (Reading
3.3). Those critical of the libertarians do not deny that we all experience desires which
entail the eroticisation of power, but suggest that we should subject such desires to
critical scrutiny rather than simply celebrate them.
These debates have been occurring in the context of increasing concern about AIDS
and therefore about the potential dangers attached to certain sexual practices.8~
o~ the risk of mv tr~mission might ~~~~QWJ;H:he1forentiatf~tl1!±-.~
pleas,lJJ:.<:~<;Laplor:~ti2!1J~.~~.om~J<:~§J!g~that
~~f<:!.~~:li:~c.Q~~J~<:
better sexl ~specially in the heterosexual context. Whileliberta.ri.e,ll.l~~J)i:l.!!~Lb.aY~~~.
~eeking to b~g po~~back into sex, including ~ne~~~:::~~?:~er~:~sts have
sought to increase women's pleasure through decentring penetrati2!l and arguing-for
more ~~i~ri~fQrmsQ[h<:~~~§~ct:1<:e~_Whilesafer sex in go~~ent health
campaign literature has tended to mean sex as before,81 but with a condom, some
feminists have drawn on earlier critiques of heterosexuality in order to promote alter-
native sexual practices (see Reading 3.8).82 The reality of heterosexual relationships,
however, works against women redefining sexual practices. The~.e-o£.pQwerjn.._.
such re1~t;!QJ.l~~~along witl1~i~.c:~ cultural discourses ~_~(L.the..sex~~hic~~_~
men and w<:>f!l~<:J:lgI.ii~lin~~_~twom~n negotiating safer ~~di~? 3.9).
The final readings in this section deal with what counts as sex and what counts
as pleasure in the 1990s, with the ways in which eroticism is discursively constructed
and produced in practice (Readings 3.10 and 3.11). In discussing lesbian sex, Diane
20 ~~~~S~ACKSON AND SUE SCOTT SEXUAL SKIRMISHES AND FEMINIST FACrlONS 21

Richardson raises the issue e lack of a w . h to As:£ctiPe~oth men 'conjugal rights' over their wives' bodies in exchange for maintenance. Thus a
prac~~~sure;(Reading . 1). This lack is· also evident in heter;S~~~al wife can be seen as having a single employer while a prostitute works on freelance
relations, where pleasure has long been defined from a masculine perspective (Reading terms. In an early feminist analysis of prostitution, Ellen Strong, herself previously a
3.9). While we have been critical of libertarian perspectives, we believe1h~j;lL~~1lLsuit hooker, argued this case. Having pointed out that all women learn to trade their sexual
of £!ea§J,1~~lllini~ls.In pursuitlg this goal, however, we need attractions and favours for economic support, she comments:

~~
--
to reUin a .critical stance on the :w~ in which our d~~-es'lTIrvrteenconstructed.-~~~
within a heterosexualllE!dered patriarchal society, and remain aw-are~te~al
constr~~~~~~_~~~~~asure
._ _ - ~ , , ~ - ~ ~ ~ d d ~ ~ - ' - ~ ~ c c ~

~ curr~~~l_a~. The polarisation of

--- -_.~
all the hustler has done is to eliminate the flowery speeches and put things
where they're really at. Without the games, she will trade what is regarded as a
commodity anyway, for what she wants. 85
the debate betWeen libertarian and anti-libertanan feminists has made it difficult to
theorise a space between these two positions in which we can explore both power and ~ work, how~ in~.£~
... e t.h.a~_.ma~.
lations.. I.t ?_.nt~.s~?:.~~~.~._~.ual ( -'
pleasure and their interconnections. Linda Singer expresses some similar misgivings form~~jxarinn~~::~~,~p~t:l_~e <:~~~~~§£~t:!9~_£t~om~~§~~lity.1
about the terms of current debates, arguing for a new sexual politics which takes It is not just exploitation per se which is addressed by feminist critiques of pornography /
account of the specific local and global contexts within which our sexual practices are and prostitution, but 0-~whicl1,.thi.s-i:rrtetseefs-~.et""opp,r-ess.ULe.aspectsDf-
located (Reading 3.10). In accepting the need to contextualise SE~c sexlJ:;ll practices sexua~t:zJ!!j?~E,~iEh_$exllaLYiQJ~~~~gd~g!!.t::i~~.~gn_~Lm~l~_~<:~~~:~~~~s'.
and relationships, howeve~0Ve would not wa!.1LtO Jose sight of the broader structural Fermnists have been addressing these issues for over a century. Judith WalKowi.tz
(Reading 4.1) draws out connections between Victorian campaigns around prostitu-
inequalities_~~~~d~hidu\leJim;-mlUlli~_~.~~_
tion and the politics of pornography today. Wh::_iss.u.~'
SELLING SEX
for feminists is that they ar~ also the focus of attention from th~JnQIalRigbt. It is
In many respects feminist debates on pornography and prostitution mirror those we t~re imperative that the feminist aim of liberating women is differentiated from
outlined in the previous section. Por~hy is anot~al issue in the 'sex.J ~forcingthe patriarchal family.F~~~~mpaig~t:lK~gair:~t
wars~;. on on~.~iq~~r.~_~!hosewho seeEornogra~ntrallyimplicated in women's pOf!1~hy have ol~fn found t1iemserv~~~anceswiththe Right, lea~ng
theQLQl?~~ to ~Jr_~ other krnirri~.E~rtf~ul~£!Yt~~'arglili1j;Jro!!!§Q~~~~t~r"
~"____ ~~- -= ='A~~",~~,'~"''''~~'_''''~''="'~'''''''''" '~=-~ _, _, ". __ "-,, '-" . ", . _ . ,~,~-~~=,~"~~"~-'~
.... ~

opp~~~sion~~~~lmJ;ampaign~Qrously·again.stii~~w1iiTeofltIi~·<5ther :Who
_M '," u. , " .... __. 'M' .. _,- ,,- , ...

are those
seek.tQ. a12P·r~.EEi~E9si~_iI!l~g~nr,iQi~o~~~~rurwho:·oppose~i~~?~-t~wards liberta.ri~~~E.~.!~Wa1koW1fZsh~~show th~~e problems have bedevilled f~~n-
ti~~~~rr<:~~!ion.~L~9fE!.(~g:aphy.83) Pornography~and"prostltutionare 'linKed in a ists since the nineteenth century-2-~e,~s.Ql!gb!.anJ~!l~!9_,s_~~y.ale~Rlm.~!i0l1
variety of ways. Both involve the-commodification of sexuality within the marketplace foun<;t,!E~~~P~gg$~.ili:~~d1?1.s!!~~_~J!l_Qralilljs-~~:w:a±l.~4,t&-lre~~wonielli~·a~~,
where the buyers are predominately men. In both cases the appropriation of women's 'protec!ed', and hence subordinated?lace ~i£~~~fam!ly:~2~~~_~~.
bodies by men occurs through the medium of a cash nexus. This also raises questions Whereas the moral Right's objections to pornography are framed jg~~!~S of c .'

about the social construction of male sexuality, ofwhy men are the main buyers of sex, 'obs~~nity', a specific:allYieml1Ust'c~ti~~e ~rno~ap1iYansesfr~der con~en~~~~-:~
since both male and female prostitution exist largely for men. Men are seen as having abo~t: '~~men'~-cqgi;cl.Qf=th~'i'~<?~Ey'~~es~'It entail~;men'srefusal wbereauced /
sexual 'needs' which must be met. If they do not have access to a regular sexual partner, to their physical sexuality and resistance to our subordination ,as objects for male I '\ /
then an 'outlet' must be found elsewhere. Therefore prostitution is often explained use and pleasure. The ape:.()p.t:i!-~~!l.Q.L~ome!l'.s..,:hQdies-by~'ffi€fl ..i.s..a-.fuf,ldameJlt~L. . ,_~,J){/
ccC

as providing a necessary service. It is this hydraulic model of male sexuality which fe~s.t~e,88 which~ls why some feminists have put so much energy into com- )
feminist analysis has sought to challenge. 84 bating pornography, sexual exploitation and violence. Andrea Dworkin, a prominent
Both rostitution orno a h provide employment for women and raise more campaigner against pornography, draws our attention to the connections between !
i

gener~L~uesti(~t:l~,gbnuLth~~xpl()it~!ign~Q£~Qlll~nj!Lth~~JabQJ.!LmarkeLilli:ljIso pornography and prostitution, through the representation of woman as whore who
about, t~e-~Q~ditions under whichj~articulargroup of women w0i"k. Women's exists only to serve men's sexual 'needs' (Reading 4.2). The whore can only figure in
invol~~nH:rr~~1-is~mg~t~i~ullcitJ;;,~~I~Qill!s~2£portuniti~s male imagination under patriarchal domination, within which women are reduced to
elsewhere. We need, then, to consider what is general to women as worke;;'ancfwhat their sex.
is specific to work within the sex industries. When we consider women's position as One feminist response to women being reduced to sexual objects is to turn the
workers in this way, we should recall that feminists have always made connections tables on men, to argue that heterosexual women can gain pleasure from looking
between women's paid work in the labour market and their unpaid work in the home. at representations of the male body, that if each sex objectifies the other then the
r The cash nexus disguises the continuities between commercialised sex and the private situation is no longer one of inequality. Even if it were possible to reorder our
\ unp~d sexual services women routinely provide for men. In 0-..5 case~L~fQ.stituti~,.,_ desires so that women gained the same pleasure from the act of looking, to overcome
Jpartlcular p~~~ can b~dra:\1Ul-wAA~ge, sincema~~g~h~s.!f~dit:llm~tlven the centuries of male dominance within which the male and female gaze have been
 STEVI JACKSON AND SUE SCOTT
20
Richardson raises the issue of the lack of a language with which to describe both
practices and pleasures (Reading 3.11). This lack is also evident in heterosexual
relations, where pleasure has long been defined from a masculine perspective (Reading
3.9). While we have been critical oflibertarian perspectives, we believe that the pursuit
of pleasure is a positive goal for feminists. In ipursuing this goal, however, we need
to retain a critical stance on the ways in which our desires have been constructed
within a heterosexually ordered patriarchal society, and remain aware of the material
constraints which limit the pleasure we can currently attain. The polarisation of
the debate between libertarian and anti-libertarian feminists has made it difficult to
theorise a space between these two positions in which we can explore both power and
pleasure and their interconnections. Linda Singer expresses some similar misgivings
about the terms of current debates, arguing for a new sexual politics which takes
account of the specific local and global contexts within which our sexual practices are
located (Reading 3.10). In accepting the need to contextualise specific sexual practices
and relationships, however, we would not want to lose sight of the broader, structural
inequalities within which we live out our sexual lives.
SElUNG SEX
In many respects feminist debates on pornography and prostitution mirror thosp,,",e
outlined in the prev-ious section. Pornography is another central issue in /tH~ 'sex
wars'; on one side are those who see pornography as centrally implicated 1.r(/~omen's
oppression and who campaign vigorously against it, while on the other/af~ those who
seek to appropriate erotic imagery for women, and who oppose apY move towards
tighter regulation of pornography.83 Pornography and prosti1Jrion are linked in a
variety of ways. Both involve the commodification of sexualiry"within the marketplace
where the buyers are predominately men. In both cases tht;l~fppropriation of women's
bodies by men occurs through the medium of a cash n~x:ii~. This also raises questions
about the social construction of male sexuality, of w9y 'men are the main buyers of sex,
since both male and female prostitution exist largely for men. Men are seen as having
sexual 'needs' which must be met. If they do n~Jyhave access to a regular sexual partner,
then an 'outlet' must be found elsewhere.}l1erefore prostitution is often explained
as providing a necessary service. It is ¥'S hydraulic model of male sexuality which
feminist analysis has sought to challe9ge.84
Both prostitution and pornogragl1'Y provide employment for women and raise more
general questions about the exproitation of women in the labour market and also
about the conditions under wrl'ich this particular group of women work. Women's
involvement Ll1 sex work is directly related to their lack of economic opportunities
elsewhere. We need, then, to consider what is general to women as workers and what
is specific to work within the sex industries. When we consider women's position as
workers in this way, we should recall that feminists have always made connections
between women's paid work in the labour market and their unpaid work in the home.
The cash nexus disguises the continuities between commercialised sex and the private
unpaid sexual services women routinely provide for men. In the case of prostitution in
particular parallels can be drawn with marriage, since marriage has traditionally given
SEXUAL SKiRMISHES AND fEMINIST fACTIONS 21
men 'conjugal rights' over their wives' bodies in exchange for maintenance. Thus a
wife can be seen as having a single employer while a prostitute works on freelance
terms. In an early feminist analysis of pro~9:tUtion, Ellen Strong, herself previously a
hooker, argued this case. Having pointSp,/5ut that all women learn to trade their sexual
attractions and favours for econ~.~c"support, she comments:
all the hustler has dqpe;)Yi~ to eliminate the flowery speeches and put things
where they're realWy:at. Without the games, she ",-ill trade what is regarded as a
commodity a9-~;y, for what she wants. 8S
Sex work, hOJ!e~~r, involves more than market relations. It entails specifically sexual
forms of~,xploitation and depends upon the commodification of women's sexuality.
It is nq1J!cjbst exploitation per se which is addressed by feminist critiques of pornography
ans!:i,prostitution, but the ways in which this intersects with other oppressive aspects of
~.S'exuality, in particular with sexual violence and the prioritisation of male sexual 'needs'.
Feminists have been addressing these issues for over a century. Judith Walkowitz
(Reading 4.1) draws out connections between Victorian campaigns around prostitu-
tion and the politics of pornography today. What makes these particularly tricky issues
for feminists is that they are also the focus of attention from the moral Right. It is
therefore imperative that the feminist aim of liberating women is differentiated from
the moralists' goal of reinforcing the patriarchal family. Feminists campaigning against
pornography have often found themselves in uneasy alliances with the Right, leaving
them open to attack from other feminists, particularly those arguing from socialist or
libertarian positions. 86 Walkowitz shows how these problems have bedevilled femin-
ists since the nineteenth century, when those who sought an end to sexual exploitation
found their campaigns hijacked by those moralists who wanted to keep women in a
'protected', and hence subordinate, place within the family.87
Whereas the moral Right's objections to pornography are framed in terms of
'obscenity', a specifically feminist critique of pornography arises from wider concerns
about women's control of their own bodies. It entails women's refusal to be reduced
to their physical sexuality and resistance to our subordination as objects for male
use and pleasure. The appropriation of women's bodies by men is a fundamental
feminist issue,88 which is why some feminists have put so much energy into com-
bating pornography, sexual exploitation and violence. Andrea Dworkin, a prominent
campaigner against pornography, draws our attention to the connections between
pornography and prostitution, through the representation of woman as whore who
exists only to serve men's sexual 'needs' (Reading 4.2). The whore can only figure in
male imagination under patriarchal domination, within which women are reduced to
their sex.
One feminist response to women being reduced to sexual objects is to turn the
tables on men, to argue that heterosexual women can gain pleasure from looking
at representations of the male body, that if each sex objectifies the other then the
situation is no longer one of inequality. Even if it were possible to reorder our
desires so that women gained the same pleasure from the act of looking, to overcome
the centuries of male dominance within which the male and female gaze have been
 STEVI JACKSON AND SUi:: ~C0ii
22
differendy constructed, and to counter the economic domination which ensures that
the mass production of representations remains under male control, the idea that
objectifying men solves the problem is fatally flawed. Susanne Kappeler addresses this
problem in Reading 4.3, analysing what it means to turn people into objects, to thus
rob them of the status of subjects. Kappeler is not saying that other sexual practices
can simply be 'read off from pornography, or that pornography has specific effects
outside of engagement with it. Rather repres on e act on m-
s e ~afl~~~~lvesobjectificato!y.
he o.~~~ctification which is roduced throggh these pracri<;e~orrlyt:xIsLwithina
system of inequality and would be inconceivable ifsuch ine9.ualitv~d!lot exist. While
we accepfthatwomencan look at marebodies,-ar;.d-m;Y~vendesire th~em:they do
not look from a position of authority, and hence their looking lacks the sexual frisson
men gain from power. Truly to objectify men would be to subordinate them, a goal
which, in our vi.ew, is both unrealistic and undesirable.
Other forms of inequality can also lead to objectification and to the material
appropriation of human bodies. This has been the case under systems of slavery and
colonialism, where the bodies of the enslaved and colonised are variously used as
instruments of labour, cleared from land wanted by the coloniser or ultimately physi-
cally destroyed and annihilated. As we argued in the previous section, enslaved and
colonised women have been subjected to specific forms of subjugation in which racial
and sexual oppression intersect in complex ways. The racism which is often a feature
of pornography is not accidental, but is the product of the double objectification of
black women as objects to be used by their white masters. The mast:g:=~laveifpagery so
oftenpsed in pomoirraohy, and which positions the male s~~ator as master of what
~"-~-_., ~ - - ~ ~-,~-,~'-_.-~----,~,------~,~_._-~--~'--"
he sll~eys, would have no ~ultU!a! or erotic significance with()Ut the history ()f white
.
impe;i;lis~Th~-;-;aasmls~~~~cid~ntar'featu~'~fp;;;noiraPhY~'b~t' ls'aec'ply
embedded in symbolic repertoire. Hence Patricia I-:Ii.lLC::~llins argges!b~t an a~~J
racism.is<:~l1t,~~~~~ullun~~~~~fl,~·!~flK~-£(),rno~aPh.l_(Reading 4.4). The reduction
of black women to the status of whore is likewise central to prostitution.
The widespread availability of pornography within~~sultsfr~
the devt~eritOfmass meara~com~uni~ati9~~t,~~E.I1~!.<:).gies.It is no longer the-
property of the privileged, literate few. Dianne Butterworth discusses the most recent
medium through which pornography is disseminated, through computer-generated
imagery and the internet (Reading 4.5). In all the discussion about virtual reality and
virtual sex, it is easy to forget that the production of pornography still ultimately
involves real women and that it cannot have any meaning outside of power relations
between men and women. Butterworth forcefully reminds us of this. \X1hat goe$ on
in cyberspace, however 'virtual' it is, does interconnect with a web of material social
However, thi~~~ to imply a.~~g~~.,m~el in
l2~~J'~heldr~.E0nsible for men's ab\!~~.l'l<:)!E-_~,<:)l1_<:).fvloITlen:
One cc:mmon cri~ti-porn~stH-s-4~t*hey""-&€e~p0"~~~Phi_,_._,
as cau~~.sex.~~ viole~ce ~~~~at they ,<:~nfuse w!!:~t goe~_~_~!0~J~~eL<:)L[~~~~asy
with ~~a!~~2~c:~a!~pr~cti~~~-:.~~s_iI!.thesl~g;a~ '~orno~PbYi~_~het~eory'E~p~~s~e~
practice .'89 Ther-ear(;'probiems with~;ny- attempt to 'prove' a causal link ;fth1~ kind,
as
~-" ..~
SEXUAL SKIRMISHES AND FEMINiST FACTimJS 23
many feminists on both sides of the debate recognise. Most research which claims to
do so, measures changes in men's attitudes after exposure to pornographic material
under artificial conditions which bear little relation to the complexities of human
actions in concrete social situations. Moreover, it is impossible to read off behaviour
9o
from belief..s a.n., d attitudes. It is:'l~~~y~~.GdeeQdtto~~~?-~~~ ki.nd '
to dem0l!~tra~ethe-2.bsenceoLa1i~l.a:tionshi~en poroography and the abuse__, _\
of w()~~~=~which some feminists opposed to anti-pornography campaigns try to
do. 91 De~()~~hC.amemll-and-.F~eth ..Etaz~L2.!.g:ueJ:ha.L~hQllld mQ~he}i:QJ!(:t_ I
these di'5p~tes about causality anddevelopa mores()p~istic~tedun~ersta~9:ingof the
relatiorrshiJ![yef\~~pres-entationsanr.1?enav,our (Reacli~g4:6)'~R;q;i~;, ~urderers
and abusers must d~ive theid~~fu~ the s~~-~nostheyenac~ from somewhere; while
pornography does not cause violence it does provide scripts which violent men can
utilise. As Cameron and Frazer point out, human action, including sexual violence, is
always meaningful for the actor; it always entails processes of interpretation in which
human beings represent their actions to themselves. In so doing they make use of the
forms of cultural representation available to them.
It is clear that neither male violence nor the production of pornography occur in
a social vacuum: both depend upon the ideas circulating within a culture at any given
time. Pornography draws on the wider cultural narratives through which masculinity
and male sexuality are constructed and itself contributes to their construction and
reconstruction. It helps to circulate and perpetuate particular versions of these nar-
ratives such as the mythology of women as sexually available, deriving pleasure from
being dominated and possessed and a model of masculinity validated through sexual
mastery over women. A man does not rape as a direct reaction to a pornographic
stimulus; rather pornography contributes to the cultural construction of a particular
form of masculinity and sexual desire which make rape possible and which script
the possibilities for its enactment. Pornography is not, of course, the only form of
representation implicated in these processes.
Po~gr~~:'::~~2l}~s.a~0produc,~~_~d consumed,within histo.ncaJly
specif~_~()E!~:<~hisJ)~~~~~~~g~~li_~~~~ro~._~.I1<i_J::'E~?er,~n_~_])X}'V!.a~1}T
McIE.tg~hl~=ading 4.7). Whereas Cameron and Frazer locate pornography within
modernist ideal'sormaSUIline transcendence,92 McIntosh analyses the historical con-
struction of the concept of pornography and the social contexts in which it became
available. It was originally defined, in the nineteenth century, in terms of the then
current norms of obscenity and the capacity of erotic material to deprave and corrupt.
Only bourgeois men were deemed fit to be exposed to such material, protected from
its purportedly deleterious effects by a supposed scholarly interest. Hence both the
definition of, and access to, pornography were rooted in gender and class distinctions.
McIntosh argues against the anti-pornography movement, suggesting that feminists
should seek to subvert the morality through which pornography is defined. She
exhorts us to adopt a politics of transgression and to develop our own alternative
practices of erotic representation.
Pornography entails more than just representations since it involves the employ-
ment of women as models and actors. This is also a central issue in relation to
 STEVI JACKSON AND SUE Scon
24
prostitution. Indeeq there is some overlap between those employed in these two
forms of sex work, and in associated occupations such as stripping and hostessing.
A~Qg~~~§J:~ndto focus o~~~~~"~le,:~and de~~~::~~V"hich
women in the sex industry are su~rs are wary of seeing prostitutes only as
vicui:~~~~~~~~:_:~~§:~::!~~rtE::~~on~~<:>E~:~~~£~~~~~~,fi~11~=~Qrpi~_J,~:pI)~
this trade i~ greater safety and ~?C~E! m<:>~e c?!1~r()l O\~~~t~eirw()~~i!1g~?,:?i?onsand
earnin~. Th~~are~~?!e~::l;s~~s~~n"0~y~~~!i()rf9;iriiF"LQ§ii~~0!1ta~es, the
varying s0Cia1~nd~onomic context"ln ~hi~hiLQ~c~"s~an<LcrQSS;;;natiQi:ig[variations
in legislation~;r~Qp.~It~1tead;~ 4.8).
Prostitution can be seen as a job like any other which women choose because it gives
them a better deal than the available alternatives. Such a choice is clearly made within
/\ certain constraints and in some circumstances women, especially those from poorer
\oumries, are coerced into prostitution. The .Eerm 'prostitutes' encompasses women
!ommanding big!: fe~fro111a select clienteie,~essescapeestromaouse
I~ving and working on tllestteets-andT111ra~\X7 o dd women ensnared into working in
,brothels all over the world. 93 It is not surprising then that women who have experience
J of this work can define it very differently. Some prostitutes' organisations, such as The
I English Collective of Prostitutes seek recognition as workers:
I
The sex industry is not the only industry which is male dominated and degrades
women, but it is the industry where the workers are illegal and can least defend
publicly our right to our jobs.94
rhe~hasi~ here is on women's poverty, on prostitutes' nee9~,L~\YJ2rlL~nd the
illegality whkh bot-h limits where and how "they ~rk:;'nd increases the dang~~s
as~oc;~~th~:-P~o~"iss§rlm~piY";sa clas;f~~e~ather than a mat-
te:~fsp~se~le~E~g~osition~~~~tE~§~~~!=o!l~~eof
Prostitutes with certain forms of socialist feminist an,:ly~is:Ihl!~ ~eminist campaigns
to limit kerD=craWling are seen as a threat t~lhli;s' ~York. On the other
hand, some ex-prostitutes organise around enabiffi.g:uzomCJ1JQ escape from the abuse
and coercion entailed in sex-work. This is more in keeping~i!b~~~calX':!Ei?ist _
a~~J~ithe ~~~~~Qhr,g~ of ~~~~~.This is tile lille taken bY~~J:IISPER(\Y/omen
Hurt by Systems of Prostitution"Engaged inltevort:r"~~"~··~"·"~··~·_-~·~"·""
We have chosen the acronym WHISPER because women in systems of prostitution
do whisper among ourselves about the coercion, degradation, sexual abuse and
battery in our lives ... Our purpose is to make the sexual enslavement of women
history.')::;
The diverse individual experiences of sex-work do not invalidate structural analyses
it. /\ ferr1~t perspective shoul~::~"~J?Qth..ilik._~.~QllQIniC.J::datiQ!l~lYhich
to
differential ~ocial·~~~:~;~~i();;~":t~areancrtimaTe-se~ualitywhich positions women
as providers of sexual services and men as the purchasers. The research carried out
in Norway by Cecilic Hoigard and Liv Finstad provides a revealing account of the
SEXUAL SKIRMISHES AND FEMINIST FACTIONS 25
mismatch between prostitutes' feelings about commercial sexual relations and their
clients' desires and fantasies (Reading 4.9). While the women distanced themselves
from the sexual acts they engaged in, men often assumed that they were giving the
women pleasure. Whatever their reading of the women's experience, men were able
to gain pleasure from these encounters. Women who work as prostitutes may also, of
course, engage in non-commercial sex for pleasure or as part of a valued relationship.
For prostitutes who are heterosexual in their non-working lives, this entails marking a
boundary between sex as work and sex as sex. In a study of London prostitute women
Sophie Day and Helen Ward illustrate this distinction in relation to the use of condoms
(Reading 4.10). A condom creates a physical barrier between the prostitute and her
client's penis, whereas latex-free sex with a partner connotes intimacy and trust.
Our final reading (Reading 4.11) brings us back to the economic structures which.
underpin prostitution. The econ~titutioninvok::es not only local labo.~r \
mar~~~~~?al~~i2abour. Sexual tourism promises jaded business men \
'exotic' women in exotic locations, and should once more alert us to the intersections I
between gender, 'race' and class. Third World women are constructed as exotically \
other, as docile and hospitable waiting to welcome the traveller. This imagery pervades I
much of the marketing of regular tourism in South East Asia,96 and is easily transferred (
to commercial sex - the more so since it mirrors the wider market relationship between
rich and poor nations. In the local context where young women are recruited, poverty
is a major motivating factor for entry into sex-work. 97 (
A final issue which deserves consideration here, which is raised in Reading 4.10, !J
is that prostitution can expose women to the risk of infection with HI\' and other !
sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). P~~jl..aY:e",."~~~hTet'ttttl")~,~~ I
been!Jlamed fO!_~~~ ..i!:lfuo:ingl!l~J;l=J:hu,~9~:i~~~4rot:tiliaYing"" .._"
infect~~e.~min 8
co,n,te~t., EOStitut~~
the..h.rst p.l.. ace.9 In. th.e curren.t. .. . !.ol.g thoosS .
held~~9P~~~~!PS·."!~~~~~5~.~!.Utes-::~~?utin~b'~~dxpect
their clients to use condoms, but many men are still reluctant to do so and some will \
pay more, or resort to violence, to obtain unprotected sex. In an age of international
travel a man can carry HIV from one side of the world to the other, thus subjecting
women thousands of miles apart to a shared risk which is itself a product of male \
expectations of heterosexual practice. 99 The link this creates between such women )
does not, however, erase the vast inequality between a British middle-class wife and a l
Thai prostitute: the life expectancy of such women once infected with HIV is likely to
be dramatically different, one product of the social and economic advantages of the
former over the latter. Thus while male heterosexual practice may have globalising
these effects are mediated by the local contexts where their impact ic; felt.
CONCLUSION
,I
JItterences amongst women have emerged as a major issue in feminist theory in recent
and there is still a great deal ofwork to be done in drawing out the consequences
these differences for women's experience of sexuality. Many feminist analyses of
sexuality have tended to homogenise women as a category. The differences which have
surfaced in this area of debate have often had more to do with differences in sexual
26 STEVi JACKSON AND SUE Scon
practices and theoretical perspectives than with the different positions women occupy
in local and global structures of inequality. If we are to appreciate the complexity and
diversity of women's sexual lives and the relationship of sexuality to other aspects of
women's subordination, a great deal more work needs to be done.
Feminist debates arqyruLs,exua1.it¥.~~e-beetl-frmnectfrom-ft""Wesn::~erspecriv~­
and' t:b~~~ta~- and the h~_~~~~~~~.~hav~~~~ed- owe a great
deal.~? t~~~~fic~ceof ::~in ~od~rn Western s~cieti~s. Sexu~li~ is
conventIonally sIngled out as a .'~1~~.e:1 OI1J1"e:1t1ias1reen vanousty-romantlclsed
and tabooed, seen as a threat t~tionor the route to social revolution, as a source
of degradation and a means of personal growth. Wbichever meanings it is accorded it
is made to carry the burden of a host of aspirations and anxieties. Gavle Rubin calls
th~~L~iSl?~~Oci~.Eegati~ the way;T~­
which our cu s associ~~~~~vith heino~ln.s-.)O \XIe see this as a feature of
positive attitudes to sex as well as negative ones. Sexuality may be feared as a source
of dirt, disease and degradation, but it is equally revered as a gateway to ecstasy,
enlightenment and emancipation. Feminists need to give more critical attention to this
cultural obsession with sexuality, including the ways in which it shapes the discourses
that we ourselves have produced.
We are not saying that sexuality is unimportant or an insignificant aspect ofwomen's
subordination. Ra~ve ar~~~th1t~ateria]appropriatioG g.Lw.Q!Il.ell:S.
bodies and the cultural significance accorded to sexuality are interrelat~d. We cannot
aff~rd to leave either OTtlieseaspect~~~~~~theyonly exist
in relation to each other. If we concen~~~L2mrnen~bodies lL
witE0ut paying attention to the cultural..rneanings mapped on to these bodies, we are
in q~ger of assuming some givellm~JQ.pns.s.ess.:weffiefHtfl:tki:&k-&'\:l€el:Xfft:bi:ng
to the ess~9!i~which fgllinis!s have tried so hard ~f;-efr~R@-othe.r-hand.,-. .•.
we focus ~xc~~~e cultur~~~~~.9i_~.~.~.. YJ~.~r~iQ,~~E.£~~~~2~~~the
material inequalities with WlUCfiOur sexual desires and practices are enmeshed.
NOTES
1. There are, hO\vever, "vo serious omissions: the work of Gayle Rubin and Carole Vance, which we had
hoped to include in the collection. Unfortunately, both of these influential theorists refused us permission
to reproduce extracts from their work.
2. The term 'second 'wa\'c feminism' refers to the \X'omen's Liberation Movement which cmerged in most
\'('estern countries at the end of the 1960s and beginning of the 1970s. 'First wave feminism' generally
means the feminism of the nineteenth and early twentieth century - although some would locate its
origins earlier. :\lthoug!: usually associated with the demand for women's suffrage, first wa\'e feminism
encompassed a wide range of political campaigns.
3, For critical gay and feminist perspectives on the history of sexology see Jeffrey Weeks, Sex Politics and
Society: The Regulation ofSe•...-ualif)' Since 1800, 2nd ed, London: Longman, 1989; and Margaret Jackson, The
Real Facts oflift: Feminism and Ihe Polilics ofSexuality c1850-1940, London: Taylor & Francis, 1994.
4. For a selection of writings on gay and lesbian perspectives see Henry Abelove, .Michele Aina Barale and
David Halperin (eds), The Le.rbian and GI1)' Studies Reader, London: Routledge, 1993.
5. This distinction was first made by Robert Stoller in Sex and Gender. On the Dez'e/op17lent ofMasmlini!)' and
FenJininily, New York: Science House, 1968. Ann Oakley took up this distinction in Sex, Gender and Socie!)1,
Oxford: J\lartin Robertson, 1972. It has since become commonplace in much feminist social scientific writing
in English-speaking countries. An alternative formulation, that of a sex-gender system, was made by Gayle
Rubin in a classic article entitled 'The traffic in women: notes on the "political economy" of sex', in R. Reiter
SEXUAL SKiRMISHES AND FEMINIST fACTIONS
27
(ed.), TOI1'ards an Anthropolog), of If'OI7Je!1, New York: Monthly Review Press, 1975.
The term 'gender' is less often used by speakers of other European languages.
6. For overviews of these debates see Sue Scott and D.H.]. Morgan, 'Bodies in a social landscape', in Sue
Scott and David Morgan (eds), Boe!;' Mailers, London: Falmer Press, 1993; and Stevi Jackson, 'Gender
and heterosexuality: a materialist feminist analysis', in Mary M.aynard and June Pun;s (eds), (Hetero) se:':ual
Politics, London: Taylor & Francis, 1995.
7. For differing interpretations of first wave campaigns around sexuality, see Judith Walkowitz, 'The politics
of prostitution', in Catherine R. Stimpson and Ethel Spcctor Person (eds), If'olJlen, Sex and Sexuali!)"
Chicago: L'niversity of Chicago Press, 1980 (reprinted from Signs, 1980), and her CI!)' ofDreadful Delight:
Narmlires of SexlIal Dallger in Lale- ~'Idorian London, London: Virago, 1992; Ellen DuBois and Linda
Gordon, 'Seeking ecstasy on the battlefield: danger and pleasure in nineteenth century feminist thought',
in Carole S. Vance (ed.), Pleasure and Danger. E>..ploring Female Sexuali!)', London: Routledge, 1984; Sheila
Jeftreys, The Splilster and her EnelJlies, London: Pandora 1985.
8. In terms of the intellectual influences of the time, there was an interest in l\larx's early work on alienation,
in existential philosophy and in the work of Frankfurt School theorists such as Reich and Marcuse.
9. See \X:eeks, Sex PolJiics and Sode!); Sheila Jeffreys, Anli-ClilJlax: A Fe!ilinisl Perspeclil'e on the Sex/wi ReI'oltilioll,
London: The Women's Press, 1990.
10. See Jeffreys, Anti,Cli!l"I.,~ and the introduction to Ann Snitow, Catherine Stansell and Sharon Thompson,
Desi",: The Politics ofSexllali!)', London: Virago, 1984.
11. .\large Piercy, 'The Grand Coolie Damn', in Robin :'10rgan (ed.), .\isterhood is POlJ'erji.d: An A I1thulog)' 0/
IFi-itingsj;w!J tbe Women's libemlion Jlol'eJllfJlt, New York: Vintage Books, 1970, p. 483.
12. The S,\(C was a civil rights organisation, particularly active in registering black voters in the southern
Cnited States in the 1960s.
13. There were articles with these titles in one of the earliest North American collections of feminist writing,
Robin Morgan's Sisterhood is POIJinful.
14. All of these issues are cO\'ered in Morgan, Sislemuod is POll'erful, with the exception of rape. One of the earliest
discussions of rape is Susan Griffin's, 'Rape: the All American Crime', RallJparlS, 10(3), 1971, pp. 2-8.
15. Christine Delphy, Close to Home: A Material Ana!pis of IFill/tell's Oppression, London: Hutchinson, 1984, p. 211.
16. The practice of classifying feminist thought into such categories as radical feminism, socialist feminism
and liberal feminism is itself problematic for a number of reasons. In particular it tends to treat these
categories as static and o\'eremphasises the differences between them while ignoring differences \vithin
each of them. The result is often a set of unhelpful stereotypes. For an excellent discussion of these
problems see Mary Maynard, 'Beyond the big three: the development of feminist theory into the 1990s',
II''OmfIJ's Hisl0f)' Rel'iell', 4(3), 1995, pp. 269-81.
17. See, for example, Juliet Mitchell, Ps,)'choana!)'Sis andFeminism, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1975, or many oi
the articles in the journals m/and Feminist Reriell'. In France, the group known as 'Psych et Po' has explicith'
used psychoanalysis to argue that women's difference is suppressed and have also allied themselves to
proletarian class sttuggle. See Simone de Beau\'oir, 'Feminism - alive, wel1 and in constant danger', in
Robin Morgan (ed.), Sisterhood is Global, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1985.
18. This is a widespread misapprehension, but some of those guilty of perpetuating it include Lynne Segal,
Is the Future Female?, London: Virago, 1987; and Chris \X'eedon, FeJlllilist Practice and Poslstmcbmzlist Tbeol)',
Oxford: Blachvel1, 1987, An American version of this myth is to be found in Alice Echols, 'The taming
of the id: feminist sexual politics, 1968-83', in Carole S. Vance (ed.), Pleasure and Dang/'!7 E>..plorillg
Female Sexuali!)'. London: Routledge & r.:egan Paul, 1984. Echols maintains that radical feminism, with
its emphasis on gender and sexuality as socially constructed has given way to 'cultural feminism' which
sees women's oppression as stemming from the repression of female \·alues and which assumes that
female sexuality is inherently different trom that of men.
19. This view has been clearly ~xpressed in their journals Questions Fimil1lstes and NOtl/!elles QuestiollJ' Fiministe.r.
20. This tendency is represented, for example, in the publication Trouble and .\irift and by writers such as Deborah
Camcron, Diane Richardson, Susanne r.:appeler and Diana Leonard - as well as ourselves. Some of these
writers have produced critiques of this misrepresentation. See Maynard, 'Beyond the big three'; Debbie
Cameron, 'Telling it like it wasn't: how radical feminism became history', Trouble and Strife, no. 27, 1993,
pp. 11-15; and Diane Richardson, 'Representing other feminisms', FeJllinism and P[j'cholo.fJ,J', forthcoming.
21. To take one particularly gross example, Lynne Segal informs us - on "vo occasions - that Dworkin 'states
with finality' and is 'insistently certain' that 'male power "authentically originates in the penis"', (Segal,
Is the Fulure Female p. 103 and in her Siraighl Sex: The Polilics ofPleasure, London: Virago 1994, p. 61). If
we trace the quote from Dworkin back to its source, we find that it appears in a discussion of the ways
in which patriarchal culrure constructs sexuality in terms of male power. Her complete sentence reads
as fol1ows: The se\'enth tenet of male supremacy is that sexual power authentically originates in the
penis.' Dworkin is not saying that the penis as a physical organ is the source of this power, but that it is
culrurally endowed with power and actual1y used as a weapon against women. In other words, in taking
Dworkin's words out of COntcxt, Segal radical1y alters their meaning. See Andrea Dworkin, Pomo.grap~)':
Jim Possessin,~ trolllm, London: The \\'omen's Press, 1981, p. 24.
26 STEVI JACKSON AND SUE SCOTT
practices and theoretical perspectives than with the different positions women occupy
in local and global structures of inequality. If we are to appreciate the complexity and
diversity of women's sexual lives and the relationship of sexuality to other aspects of
women's subordination, a great deal more work needs to be done.
Feminist debates around sexuality have been framed from a \X/estern perspective
and the forms they have taken - and the heat they have generated - owe a great
deal to the cultural significance of sexuality in modern Western societies. Sexuality is
conventionally singled out as a 'special' area of life: it has been variously romanticised
an~booed, seen as a threat to civilisation or the route to social revolution, as a source
of de~adation and a means ofpersonal growth. Wbichever meanings it is accorded it
is made\'« carry the burden of a host of aspirations and anxieties. Gayle Rubin calls
this 'the fal:l~~y of misplaced scale' and associates it with 'sex negativity', the ways in
which our culture has associated sex with heinous sins. IOO \Ve see this as a feature of
"
positive attitudes"'~() sex as well as negative ones. Sexuality may be feared as a source
of dirt, disease anet'4egradation, but it is equally revered as a gateway to ecstasy,
enlightenment and em~~ipation. Feminists need to give more critical attention to this
cultural obsession with se~llf!,~ty, including the ways in which it shapes the discourses
that we ourselves have produc'e4:
We are not saying that sexuality ~s.~~mportant or an insignificant aspect of women's
subordination. Rather we are suggestingthat the material appropriation of women's
bodies and the cultural significance acco~de4 to sexuality are interrelated. We cannot
afford to leave either of these aspects of sextl~tlitr unexamined since they only exist
in relation to each other. If we concentrate on theacppropriation of women's bodies
without paying attention to the cultural..meanings mappecl?n to these bodies, we are
in danger of assuming some given male desire to possess woIne~. and risk succumbing
to the essentialism which feminists have tried so hard to resist. If;'Qn the other hand,
we focus exclusively on the cultural meanings of sex, we are in danger Gi)gnoring the
material inequalities with which our sexual desires and practices are enm~SheQ..
" Is tbe I'i,tllre Fell/ale?, London: Virago, 1987; and Chris Weedon, Fell/iJlist Practice al1a' PosfJ'lrnctlmzliJt Theo!)',
NOTES
1. There are, however, rwo serious omissions: the work of Gayle Rubin and Carole Vance, which we had
hoped to include in the collection. Unfortunately, both of these influential theorists refused us permission
to reproduce extracts from their work.
2. The term 'second wave feminism' refers to the \Vomen's Liberation Movement which emerged in most
\'("estern countries at the end of the 1960s and beginning of the 1970s. 'First wave femimsm' generally
means the feminism of the nineteenth and early rwentieth century - although some would locate its
origins earlier. A!t!":0ugh usually associated with the demand for women's suffrage, first wa\'e feminism
encompassed a \>.;de range of political campaigns.
3. For critical gay and feminist perspectives on the history of sexology see jeffrey \'reeks, ,IfX Politics and
Societ.y: The Reglliatioll ofSexuality 5111ce 1800, 2nd ed, London: Longman, 1989; and Margaret jackson, Tbe
Real Fads of Lift: Femillism afld the Politics ofSexllalil)' r1850-1940, London: Taylor & Francis, 1994.
4. For a selection of writings on gay and lesbian perspectives see Henry Abelove, :Michele Aina Barale and
David Halperin (eds), The Lnbiall alld Gq)' Stlldies Reader, London: Routledge, 1993.
5. This distinction was first made by Roben Stoller in Sex alld Gender: 011 the Del'elop!1lfJIt ofMasCIIlinil)' alld
Fenniriflil)', New York: Science House, 1968. Ann Oakley took up this distinction in Sex, Gender and Sode!J',
Oxford: l\Iartin Robenson, 1972. It has since become commonplace in much feminist social scientific writing
in English-speaking countries. An alternati\'e formulation, that of a sex-gender system, was made by Gayle
Rubin in a classic article entitled 'The traffic in women: notes on the "political economy" of sex', in R. Reiter
SEXUAL SKIRMISHES AND FEMINIST FACTIONS 21
(ed.), TOlJ'ards an Allthropolo!!)' of W0!7Je11, New York: Monthly Review Press, 1975.
The term 'gender' is less often used by speakers of other European languages.
6. For overviews of these debates see Sue Scott and D.HJ Morgan, 'Bodies in a social landscape', in Sue
Scott and David Morgan (eds), Body Mallm, London: Falmer Press, 1993; and Stevi jackson, 'Gender
and heterosexuality: a materialist feminist analysis', in :Mary Maynard and june Purvis (eds), (Hetero) se:xlIal
Politics, London: Taylor & Francis, 1995.
7. For differing interpretations of first wave campaigns around sexuality, see judith Walkowitz, 'The politics
of prostitution', in Catherine R. Stimpson and Ethel Spector Person (eds), 1l70!7Ie11, Sex afld Sexualil)',
Chicago: Cniversity of Chicago Press, 1980 (reprinted from S{?,ns, 1980), and her Cit)' ofDreadful Delight:
J\'arratil.'es ofSexllal Danger in Late- L-idorian London, London: Virago, 1992; Ellen DuBois and Linda
Gordon, 'Seeking ecstasy on the battlefield: danger and pleasure in nineteenth century feminist thought',
in Carole S. Vance (ed.), Pleasllre and DaI~?,f/: E:>..ploring FflJiale Sexllali!J', London: Routledge, 1984; Sheila
jeffreys, The Spiflster and her Enemies, London: Pandora 1985.
8. In terms of the intellectual influences of the time, there was an interest in i\Iarx's early work on alienation,
in existential philosophy and in the work of Frankfurt School theorists such as Reich'and Marcuse.
9. See \\'eeks, Sex Politics and Sodel)'; Sheila jeffreys, Allti-Climax: /1 Femini.rt Perspective on the Sexllal Rer'oilltioll,
London: The \X'omen's Press, 1990.
10. See Jeffreys, Allti-Climax; and the introduction to Ann Sniww, Catherine Stansell and Sharon Thompson,
Desin': Tbe Pol,liCJ ofSexlIalitJ" London: Virago, 1984.
11. Marge Pierc~', 'The Grand Coolie Damn', in Robin i\lorgan (ed.), .I/J/erbood is POIJ'fljitl.- All /1I1tbalog)' ~r
In-;til~r,s.fiwl! Ibi' Women! Liberation MOl'ell/mt, 0:e",' York: Vintage Books, 1970, p. 483.
12. Thc S?\CC was a ci\'il rights organisation, particularly active in registering black voters in the southern
L'nited States in rhe 1960s.
13. There were articles with these titles in one of the earliest I\:orth /\merican collections of feminist writing,
Robin Morgan's .l/sterhood is POll'eifll1.
14. All of these issues are cO\'ered in Morgan, .\Isterhood is POll'e!ji,l, with the exception of rape. One of the earliest
discussions of rape is Susan Griffin's, 'Rape: the All American Crime', Rampalis, 10(3), 1971, pp. 2-8.
15. Christine Delphy, Close to Home: __1 Material Aflab'sis of IFomfll's Oppression, London: Hutchinson, 1984, p. 211.
16. The practice of classifying feminist thought into such categories as radical feminism, socialist feminism
and liberal feminism is itself problematic for a number of reasons. In particular it tends to treat these
categories as static and overemphasises the differences between them while ignoring differences within
each of them. The result is often a set of unhelpful stereotypes. For an excellent discussion of these
problems see Mar\' Maynard, 'Beyond the big three: the development of feminisr theory into the 1990s',
IFom/'il's Hisl0l)' Rtl'l;'lI', 4(3), 1995, pp. 269-81,
17. See, for example, juliet Mitchell, PD'choalla!ysis and Felllinisll/, Harmondswonh: Penguin, 1975, or many of
the articles in rhe journals l;if and FfllIIilist RfI'If:Jli. In France, the group known as 'Psych et Po' has explicitly
used psychoanalysis to argue that women's difference is suppressed and have also allied themselves to
proletarian class struKl!;le. See Simone de Beauvoir, 'Feminism - alive, well and in constant danger', in
Robin Morgan (ed.), Sisterhood is Global, Harmondswonh: Penguin, 1985.
18. This is a widespread misapprehension, but some of those guilty of perpetuating it include Lynne Segal,
Oxford: Blackwell, 1987. An American version of this myth is to be found in Alice Echols, 'The taming
of the id: feminist sexual politics, 1968-83', in Carole S. Vance (ed.), Pleasllre al1d Dal1gel: E:>..ploril/g
Fell/ale Je.>:ualit)'. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984. Echols maintains that radical feminism, with
'~" its emphasis on gender and sexuality as socially constructed has gi\'en way to 'cultural feminism' which
""'sc,,~ women's oppression as stemming from the repression of female \'a1ues and which assumes that
fem;:;r~~xualitv is inherently different from that of men.
19. This \"ieW"ha~n clearly ~xpressed in their journals QuestiollS Fell/iJlistes and lVOl/l'elles Qllestiol1J Felllil1iJte.f.
20. This tendency is rern-~~:lted, for example, in the publication Trouble al1d Stnfe and by writers such as Deborah
Cameron, Diane RichardSbR~sanne Kappeler and Diana Leonard - as weB as ourselves. Some of these
writers ha\"e produced critigues C>f'cl:l.i~isrepre,sentation. See Maynard, 'Beyond the big three'; Debbie
Cameron, 'Telling ir like it wasn't: how raotcalJ'eminism became history', Trollble alid 5ir[(e, no. 27, 1993,
?p. 11-15; and Diane Richardson, 'Representin~~isms" Femil1ism aJld P:rcholo!!)', forthcoming.
d . To take one par:.icularly gr~)ss example, Lynne Segal informs us-~::? occasions - that Dworkin 'states
\vith finality' and is 'insistently cenain' that 'male power "authentically orlginat-&SjIlJ!le penis"', (Segal,
Is the Fllture hll/ale p. 103 and in her Jiraight Sex: The Politics ofPleasure, London: Virago19'9~;p;6J)~lf
we trace the guote from Dworkin back to its source, we find that it appears in a discussion of the ways
in which patriarchal culture constructs sexuality in terms of male power. Her complete sentence reads
as follows: 'The seventh tenet of male supremacy is that sexual power authentically originates in the
penis.' Dworkin is not saying (har the penis as a physical organ is the source of this power, but that it is
culturally endO'wed with power and actually used as a weapon against women. In other words, in taking
Dworkin's words out of comext, SCi-,"al radically alters their meaning. See ;\ndrea Dworkin, POl71o,grapl?F
111m PossesJil~?, IFOIII<'ll, London: The \\'omen's Press, 1981, p. 24.
 L;:)
STEVI JACKSON AND SUE SCOTT SEXUAL SKIRMISHES AND FEMINIST FACTIONS
28
D. Spender and E. Sarah (cds), Leamif{p'
William Morrow, 1935. 38. See, for example, Ste"oiJackson, 'Girls and sexual knowledge', in
22. Margaret Mead, Sex and Temperanle1lt in Three PrinJitive Sodeties, London: to Lose, London: The Women's Press, 1982.
Sanday and R. Goodenou gh (eds),
23. See Anna Meigs, 'Multiple gender ideologies and statuses', in P. Reeves 39. London Gay Liberation Front broadsheet, 1970, reproduced in David
Evans, Se:X7lal Citizenship: The
ia: University of Pennsylvania
Beyond the Second Sex.- New Directions in the Anthropolog)' ofGender, Philadelph iHaterial Construction ofSexualities , London: Routledge, 1993.
sex in New Guinea, in Gilbert
P;ess, 1990; Gilbert Herdt, 'Mistaken sex: culture, biology and the third 40. See Liz Stanley, 'Male needs' the problems and problems of working
v.oith gay men', in S. Friedman and
Herdt (ed.), Third Sex. Third Gender. BI!J'ond Sexual Dimorphism in Culture
and History, New York: Zone Conferences, London: The Women's Press, 1982; Jeffreys,
S. Sarah (eds), 011 the Proble11l ofMen: Two Feminist
and a Feminist Anthropology:
Books, 1994; Frederick Errington and Deborah Gewertz, CulturalAltematillts Anti-Climax; Snitow et aL, Desire. For views of this split from gay men see Evans, Sexual Citizenship and
Cambridge: Cambridge University
An Ana!Jsis of Giltural!)' Constructed Gender Interests in Papua NellI Guinea, Tim Edwards, Erotics alld Politics: G~)' Male Sexualifj', MasculinifJ' alld Feminism, London: Routledge, 1993.
ted cultural differences,
Press, 1987. \X'hereas some of Mead's critics claim that she overestima 41. For a discussion of these events and the relationship between lesbians
and the women's movement at
in Western ideas about gender
Errington and Gewertz suggest that her analysis was too deeply rooted this time see Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, I.-esbian/lFolI/an, New York:
Bantam Books, 1972.
and Martin and Lyon, l.-esbiall/l:l:7olllall.
as a quality intrinsic to the self.
London: Eyre & Spottiswood, 1952. 42. Quoted in Jeffreys, /J.lIti-Clilllox, p. 290. See also Snitow et aJ, Desire;
24. See, especially C.S. Ford and F.A. Beach, Pattems ofSexual Behaviour, 43. The original four demand, of the British movement, formulated
at the Oxford conference in 1970,
and Herdt 'Mistaken sex', and his
25. See, for example, !\'leigs, 'Multiple gender ideologies and statuses'; were equal pay; egual education and opportunity; free 24 hour nurseries;
and free contracept ion and
Herdt describe societies in which
Guardians orthe Flutes, New York: McGraw Hil~ 1981. Both .fo.1eigs and abortion on demand. Four years later at the national conference in Edinburgh
, two more demands were
to attain manhood. A Western
young bo~:s must ingest semen through rirual acrs of fellatio in order added: legal and financial independence, and an end to discrimination
against lesbians and a right to a
is understood in terms of
obseIYer might see this a homosexual act, but to participants its meaning self-defined sexuality. Later a further demand, for freedom from male
violence, was added.
attributes of masculinity which are in no way antithetical to heterosexual activity. see E.?\1. Ettorre, l.-esbians, IFomeJ1 and
acquiring the necessary
London: Hutchinso n, 1974. Gagnon 44. For a discussion of lesbian feminism in Britain during the 1970s
26. See particularly John Gagnon and \Villiam Simon, Se:x.7lal Conduct, SotiefJ', London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980.
notion of repression from an interaction ist perspective, arguing that nothing increasingly apparent at this time.
and Simon criticised the
being defined as such. 45. Class, and more crucially racial, dh-isions among feminists were also
is sexual in itself, that acts and relationships come to be sexual only through 46, See Enorre, l.-esbioIlS, WOII/en and SociefJ'; and SnitQ\,v d a!., Desire. :\1anv
lesbians were later to comment
Childhood and Sex-ualifJ'. Oxford:
This argument was developed from a feminist perspecti\'e in S. Jackson, that their sexual practices had been de-eroticised by the emphasis on
lesbianism as a political choice.
Clark, 'The dyke, the feminist
Blackwell, 1982 and Reading 1.5.
trans. Robert Hurley, See Joan Nestle, _-J. Restricttd Count,:)', London: Sheba, 1988; and \X'endy
27. See especially ~lichel Foucault, The HistoT)' ofSexualifJ', vol. 1, An In/roduc/ion, and the de\-il', FtlJJillist Rel'ifJI', 11,1982, pp. 30-39.
Harmondsworth: Allen Lane, 1979. to i\lonique \X:ittig, The Straight Milld
Disciplining Foucault Feminism, Power and 47. See Jeffreys, Allti-Clillla.,~ and also Louise Turcotte's introduction
28. For positi\-e feminist appropriations of Foucault see Jana Sawicki, a !,TIore positiye appraisal of Rich's
and unruly sex: the regulation of and Other Essay, Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1992. For
tbe Bocj)', New York: Routledge, 1991; and Carol Smart, 'Disruptive bodies work see Debbie Cameron, 'Old het?', Trouhfe alld Stnje, no. 24, 1992,
pp. 41-5.
(ed.), Regulating Womanhood' Historical
reproduction and sexuality in the nineteenth century' in Carol Smart 48. Jeffreys Desire, p. 297.
more critical engagements see
Essa)'s on Mama,ge, Motherhood and Sex-uali!)', London: Routledge, 1992. For 49. This paper, along with other contributions to the ensuing debate,
is published in Onlywoma n Press (eds),
Oxford: Polity Press, 1989; and
Nancy Fraser, Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse and Gender in Social Theo1]', LlJI'e }-our El1el1!F The Debate Behnen Heterosexua l FelJJinislIl and Politicall.-es biallislll, London: Onlywoman
Between Foucault and Feminism,
Caroline Ramazanoglu (ed.), Up Against Foucault E'fJlorations ofSome Tensions Press, 1981.
London: Routledge, 1993. ry feminism although the distinction
popular advertising in the mid-Victorian 50. The term 'radical feminism' is now often used to include revolutiona
29. See Sally Shuttleworth, 'Female circulation: medical discourse and between them is a politically important one. Both analyse patriarchy as a system of male dominatio n
s: Women and the Discourses of give far greater causal priority to
era', in M. Jacobus, E. Fox-Keller and S. Shuttleworth (eds), Bot!J/Politic and are critical of heterosexu ality. Revolution ary feminists, however,
Science, London: Routledge, 1990. See also Reading 1.2. women's subordinat ion. While radical feminists see lesbianism as a potential
1977; and J. Mitchell and J. Rose sexuality in explaining
30. For Lacan's own work see his Eerits: /1 Selection, London: Tavistock, feel that political lesbianism is
Macmillan, 1982. Lacan is renowned form of resistance to patriarchy, it is only revolutionary feminists who
(eds), Feminine SexualifJ': Jacques Lacan and the Ecole Freudienne, London: a necessaIJ' strategy for feminists. Hence it is the latter who are critical
of those feminists who remain
of his work see Stephen Frosh,
for the impenetrability of his writing. For more accessible discussions heterosexual. Sheila Jeffreys is the best known exponent of revolutiona
ry feminism. Others currently
London: Macmillan, 1987
The Politics ofPsychoanaD'sis: An Introduction to Freudian and Post-Freudian Theor)' writing in this tradition include Sue \X'ilkinson and Celia Kitzinger. See,
for example, the introduction to
1990.
and Elizabeth Grosz,Jacques Lacan: A Feminist Introduction, London: Routledge, their edited collection Heterosexuality: A 'Feminislll 6~ PS)'chology' Reader,
London: Sage, 1993. The radical
work of American object-relations
31. A further feminist approach to psychoanalysis is to be found in the feminist magazine Trouble and .5irife was founded in 1983 to counter this
tendency and explicitly opposed
: PS)'choanafysis and the Sociology
theorists such as Nancy Chodorow . See her The Reproduction ofMotberil1g the radical lesbian position in its first issue. Feminists who have been
associated with this magazine
Angeles University of California Press; Feminism and Psychoanafytic Theory, (the founder members) and more
of Gender, Berkele~~ and Los
a reading from Chodorow 's work since include Jalna Hanmer, Diana Leonard, Sophie Lawns, Lynne Alderson
1989. We have not included
New Haven: Yale University Press,
n of gender rather than recently Susanne Kappeler, Liz Kelly, Deborah Cameron and Stevi Jackson.
her earlier, and most influential, writings were concerned with the constructio 51. Kapos were prisoners in Nazi concentration camps who acted as
guards under the authority of their
recently, however, she has turned her artention to sexuality, in Femininities, Alasculinities,
sexuality. More captors.
Beyond London: Free Association Books, 1994. the French radical feminist theoretical
Sexualities: Freud and
York: Routledge, 1989. 52. The dispute also split the editorial collective of Questiolls Femillistes,
32. Diana Fuss, Esse11tiaID' Speakint,: Feminism, Nature and Diffimlce. New Emmanui:le de Lesseps and
of sexuality', in D. Altman et aL journal. Those who opposed the radical lesbian line - Christine Delphy,
33. Carole S. Vance, 'Social construction theory: problems in the history legal battles in the courtS with
hoped to include this piece in this Simone de Beauvoir - went on to found JVolll'elles questionsfiministes, amid
(eds), nry,ich Homosexualit)'?, London: Gay Men's Press, 1989. We had the radical lesbian members of the original collective. See Claire Duchen,
'What's the French for political
volume, but were denied permission to do so by the author. Frellch Connections, London:
Judith Butler, Bodies that Malter, New lesbian?', Trouble and Strife, no. 4, 1984., pp. 24-34; Claire Duchen (ed.),
34. See, for example, Scott and Morgan, 'Bodies in a social landscape'; Hutchinson, 1987; Stevi Jackson, Christine Delp~)', London: Sage, 1996.
in M. Maynard and J. Purvis,
York: Routledge, 1993; Caroline Ramazanoglu, 'Why men stay on top', For a lreIleral discussion of these issues see Caroline Ramazanoglu, Femillism
alld the COlltradictiollS of
(eds), (Hetero)sexuol Politics, London; Taylor Francis, 1995. London: Routledge, 1989.
Sherfey, The Nature and Evolution of
35. This wa~ argued by SO,,)(,: e;:rly f=inists, for example, Mary Jane two interconnected perspectives derive from ~ tradition in French thought.
Poststructuralism
women's insatiable s~xual appetite
Female Sexuali!)', New York: Random House, 1972. Sherfey argued that developed out of the structuralist tradition establishec in linguistics by
Fel'dinand de Saussure, which
of human civilization.
and capacity for multiple orgasm had been suppressed since the dawn for structures underlying all human language and culture. \,(''here structuralis
ts see language and
ideas, she was not alone in expressing
36. Although Koedt's statement is the best known exposition of these meaning as arbitrary but patterned, POststructuralists see meanings are
far more fluid, as constantly
points is Susan Lydon's 'The
them. Another article, contemporaneous with Koedt's and making similar shifring and discursh-e1y constituted. Postmodernism represents a critical
stance on the modernist
had also been tackled, over
politics of orgasm', in R. Morgan (ed.), Sisterhood in POIJ!eiful. These issues project of the Enlightenment, in particular the idea that there are objective
truths which reason can
Adam's Rib, New York: Harper explanatorv theories, and also of
two decades pre\;ously in Ruth Herschberger's ground- breaking book uncover. Postmoder nists are sceptical of all 'metanarra tives', or grand
& Row, 1970, originally published in 1948 when there was no
women's movement to receive it. Sarup,'AII IntroductoT)' Guide
the idea of history as progress. For a summary of these ideas, see Mandan
York: Bantam Books, 1981. This
37. William Masters and Virginia Johnson, Human Sexual Response, New to Poststructuralislll and Postlllodemislll, Hemel Hempstead : Harvester \X'heatshea f, 1988.
orgasm, however it was induced, as a continuation of an older
work, originally published in the 19605, purported to prove that female The term 'Queer' is not meant in the old pejorative sense. It can be seen
was centred on the clitoris, not the vagina.
28 SiEVi .JACKS.v!". klllD ~lL
22. Margaret Mead, Sex and Temperament in Three Prinlitive Societies, London: William Morrow, 1935.
23. See Anna Meigs, 'Multiple gender ideologies and statuses', in P. Reeves Sanday and R. Goodenough (eds),
BC)'ond the Stmnd Sex: New Directions in the Anthropology ofGender, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1990; Gilbert Herdt, 'Mistaken sex: culture, biology and the third sex in New Guinea, in Gilbert
Herdt (cd.), Third Sex. Third Gender. BC)'ond Sexual Dimorphism in Culture alld History, New York: Zone
Boo' 1994; Frederick Errington and Deborah Gewertz, C1Ii/uralAlternatives and a Feminist Anthropology:
All An is ofCltlturallY Constmeted Gender Interests in Papua NelP Guinea, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 198' \X"nereas some of Mead's critics claim that she overestimated cultural differences,
Errington an Gewertz suggest that her analysis was too deeply rooted in Western ideas about gender
as a qualitv inm sic to the self.
24. See, ~speciaJ]y C. . ord and F.A Beach, Patterns ofSexual Behal'iour, London: Eyre & Sportiswood, 1952.
25, See, for example, M' , 'Multiple gender ideologies and statuses'; and Herdt 'Mistaken sex', and his
Guardians ofthe FY/les, York: McGraw Hill, 1981. Both Meigs and Herdt describe societies in which
young boys must ingest s en through ritual acts of fellatio in order to attain manhood. A Western
observer might see this a ho osexual act, but to participants its meaning is understood in terms of
acquiring the necessary attribut of masculinity which are in no way antithetical to heterosexual activity.
26. See particularly John Gagnon and lilliam Simon, Sexual Conduct, London: Hutchinson, 1974. Gagnon
and Simon criticised the notion of re ession from an interactionist perspective, arguing that nothing
is sexual in itself, that acts and relations's corne to be sexual anJ:' through being defined as such.
This argument was developed from a femin:St perspective in S. Jackson, Childhood and Sexuality. Oxford:
Blackwell, 1982 and Reading 1.5.
27. See especially Michel Foucault, The HiJtoT)' ofSexu ' S ',' 1'0/, '1, All Introduction, trans. Robert Hurley,
Harmondswon..!): Allen Lane, 1979.
28. For positive feminist appropriations of Foucault see Jan' awicki, Discipli1Jing Foucalllt: Femi1Jism, Power and
the Bot!)', New York: Routledge, 1991; and Carol Smart, 'Dis t1\'e bodies and unruly sex: the regulation of
reproduction and sexuality in the nineteenth century' in Carol an (ed.), Regulating Womanhood' Historical
Essays 011 Marriage, Motherhood and Sexuality, London: Routledge, 199 . For more critical engagements see
Nancy Fraser, UnrulY Practices: Power, Discollrse and Gender in Sociai TheoT)', xford: Polity Press, 1989; and
Caroline Rarnazanoglu (ed.), Up Against Foucault: E.xplorations ofSome Tensiol etween Foucault and Feminism,
London: Routledge, 1993. " '.•
29. See Sally Shuttlewonh, 'Female circulation: medical discourse and popular advettiSffig in the mid-Victorian
era', in M. Jacobus, E. Fox-Keller and S. Shuttleworth (eds), Bot!)'/Politics: Women and tfJ~iscourses of
Science, London: Routledge, 1990. See also Reading 1 . 2 . ' - "
30. For Lacan's own work see his Emts: A Selection, London: Ta\;stOck, 1977; and J. Mitchell andt~se
(eds), Feminine Sex1lali(y:jacques IAcan and the Ecole rreudienne, London: Macmillan, 1982. Lacan is reilo~,ned
for the impenetrability of his writing. For more accessible discussions of his work see Stephen Frosh,'''"
The Politics of P~Tchoa1Jab'sis: An lntrodunion to Frelldia1J and Post-Freudian Theol)' London: Macmillan, 1987
and Elizabeth Grosz,Jacques lAcan: A Feminist Introductio1J, London: Routledge, 1990.
31. /\ further feminist approach to psychoanalysis is to be found in the work of American object-relations
theorists such as Nancy Chodorow. See her The Reproduction ofMothmn.g: Psychoanab'sis and the Sociology
q( Gmder, Berkeley: and Los Angeles University of California Press; Feminism and Psychoa1JalYtic Theory,
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. We have nor included a reading from Chodorow's work sinc<~
her earlier, and most influential, writings were concerned with the construction of gender rather than
sexuality. More recently, however, she has turned her attention to sexuality, in Femininities, MasCllfinities,
Sexualities: Freud a1Jd Beyo1Jd London: Free Association Books, 1994.
32. Diana Fuss, Essential!;: Spea/ein..~: Feminism, Nature and Diffemlce. New York: Routledge, 1989.
33. Carole S. Vance, 'Social construction theory: problems in the history of sexuality', in D. Altman et al
(eds), IFhich HomoseX1lality?, London: Gay Men's Press, 1989. We had hoped to include this piece in this
volume, but were denied permission to do so by the author.
34. See, for example, Scott and l\Iorgan, 'Bodies in a social landscape'; Judith Butler, Bodies that Matter, New
York: Routledge, 1993; Caroline Ramazanoglu, '\v'hy men stay on top', in M. Maynard andJ. Purvis,
(eds), (Hekro)so..'1ial Politics, London; Taylor Francis, 1995.
35, This was argued by some early feminists, for example, Mary Jane Sherfey, The Nature and Evolution of
Fenlale Sexria,fitJ', New York: Ralldom House, 1972. Sherfey argued that women's insatiable sexual appetite
and capacity for multiple orgasm had been suppressed since the dawn of human civilization.
36. r\lthough Koedt's statement is the best known exposition of these ideas, she was not alone in expressing
them. Another article, contemporaneous with Koedt's and making similar points is Susan Lydon's 'The
politics of orgasm', in R. Morgan (ed.), 51Jterhood in POJJ'Crful. These issues had also been tackled, over
two decades previously in Ruth Herschberger's ground- breaking book /ldan/s Rib, New York: Harper
& RO\v, 1970, originally published in 1948 when there was no women's movement to receive it.
37. \'filliam Masters and Virginia Johnson, Human Se;':llal Response, Ne\v York: Bantam Books, 1981. This
work, originally published in the 1960s, purported to prove that female orgasm, however it was induced,
was centred on the clitoris, not the vagina,
38, See, for example, Stevi Jackson, 'Girls and sexual knowledge', in D. Spender and E. Sarah (eds), Leaming
to Lose, London: The Women's Press, 1982,
39, London Gay Liberation Front broadsheet, 1970, reproduced in David Evans, Sexual Citizenship: The
Material C()/)slmction ofSexualities, London: Routledge, 1993.
40. See Liz Stanley, 'Male needs' the problems and problems of working with gay men', in S. Friedman and
S. Sarah (eds), On the Problem ofMm: Tiro FC!Jlinist Conferences, London: The Women's Press, 1982; Jeffreys,
Allti-Clill;a:x~ Snitow et al, Desire. For views of this split from gay men see Evans, SeX1lol Citizenship and
Tim Edwards, Erotics and Politics: Gq)' Male Se.....'1iality, MasClllinitJ' and Feminisnl, London: Routledge, 1993.
41. For a discussion of these events and the relationship between lesbians and the women's movement at
this time see Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, l.-esbian/lf7olllan, New York: Bantam Books, 1972.
42. Quoted in ]effreys,A1Jti-C/illlox, p. 290. See also Snitow et aI., Desire; and Martin and Lyon, Lesbian/Woman.
43. The original four demands of the British mo\'ement, formulated at the Oxford conference in 1970,
were equal pay; equal education and opportunity; free 24 hour nurseries; and free contraception and
abortion on demand. Four years later at the national conference in Edinburgh, twO more demands were
added: legal and financial independence, and an end to discrimination against lesbians and a right to a
self-defined sexualin·. Later a further demand, for freedom from male violence, was added.
44. For a discussion of iesbian feminism in Britain during the 1970s see E.M. Ettorre, I.-esbions.. IFiJl/leJI and
Sodef)', London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980.
45. Class, and more crucially racial, di\'isions among feminists were also increasingly apparent at this time.
46, See Ettorre, l.ubiaIlJ, lFimltll alld Society; and Snitow et aI., Desire. .'-lany lesbians were later to comment
that their sexual practices had been de·eroticised by the emphasis on lesbianism as a political choice.
See Joan J:\:esrle, /1 Restricted C(INntl)', London: Sheba, 1988; and \X'endy Clark, 'The dyke, the feminist
and the de\·jl', Femillist RerieJl', 11, 1982, pp. 30-39.
41. See Jeffreys, .·illti·e/illla....; and also Louise Turcotte's introduction to Monique Wittig, The Straight Mind
alld Otber ESJq)'s, Hemel Hempstead: Han'ester \\i'heatsheaf, 1992. For a !}lore positi\'e appraisal of Rich's
work see Debbie Cameron, 'Old het?', Trouble and 5ilifi, no. 24, 1992, pp. 41-5.
48. Jeffreys Desire, p. 297.
49. This paper, along with other contributions to the ensuing debate, is published in Onlywoman Press (eds),
LON }'o1fr EIIClJl)': The Debate Befll'eell Heterosexual Felllinislll and Political I.-esbiallislll, London: Onlywoman
Press, 1981.
50. The term 'radical feminism' is now often used to include revolutionary feminism although the distinction
between them is a politically important one. Both analyse patriarchy as a system of male domination
and are critical of heterosexuality. Revolutionary feminists, however, give far greater causal priority to
sexuality in explaining women's subordination. \v'hile radical feminists see lesbianism as a potential
form of resistance to patriarchy, it is only revolutionary feminists who feel that political lesbianism is
a necessaf)' strategy for feminists. Hence it is the latter who are critical of those feminists who remain
"" heterosexual. Sheila Jeffreys is the best known exponent of revolutionary feminism. Others currently
' writing in this tradition include Sue \X'ilkinson and Celia Kitzinger. See, for example, the introduction to
their edited collection Heterosexualit.y: A 'Felllinislll fi,~ P!J'cbology' Reader, London: Sage, 1993. The radical
',,", feminist magazine Trouble and Strife was founded in 1983 to counter this tendency and explicitly opposed
'"" the radical lesbian position in its first issue. Feminists who have been associated v.;th this magazine
~de Jalna Hanmer, Diana Leonard, Sophie Lawns, Lynne Alderson (the founder members) and more
'receritti~usanneKappeler, Liz Kelly, Deborah Cameron and Ste\; Jackson.
51. Kapos w~~soners in Nazi concentration camps who acted as guards under the authority of their
captors. "'-"',
The dispute also spUt·~ editorial collective of Questions Filllillistes, the French radical feminist theoretical
journal. Those who oppo~he radical lesbian line - Chrisrine Delphy, Emmanuele de Lesseps and
Simone de Beau\'oir - went ori'te~und iVoUl'elles questionsjiministes, amid legal battles in the coutts with
the radical lesbian members of the ori~ collective. See Claire Duchen, '\X'hat's the French for political
lesbian?', Trouble and Strife, no. 4, 1984., pP':'24;}4; C1,aire Duchen (ed.), French Connections, London:
Hutchinson, 1987; Stevi Jackson, Christine Delplij;bo.~on: Sage, 1996.
tal discussion of these issues see Caroline Ra~noglu, Femillism and the Contradictions of
London: Routledge, 1989. ''''-,
two interconnected perspectives derive from a tradition in Fretreb. thought. Poststructuralism
out of the structuralist tradition established in linguistics by Fer I de Saussure, which
tructures underlying all human language and culture. W'here structuralists anguage and
meaning as arbitrary but patterned, poststructuralists see meanings are far more fluid, as con tantly
shifting and discursh'ely constituted. Posrmodernism represents a critical stance on the modernist
project of the Enlightenment, in particular the idea that there are objective truths which reason can
uncover. Postmodernists are sceptical of all 'metanarratives', or grand explanatory theories, and also of
the idea of history as progress. For a summary of these ideas, see Mandan Sarup, An hltroductol)' Guide
to Poststmc/uralisnl and Pos/Illodemislll, Hemel Hempstead: Harvester \V'heatsheaf, 1988.
The term 'Queer' is not meant in the old pejorative sense. It can be seen as a continuation of an older
...;'..:
political strategy, found in feminist and anti-racist politics of 'reclaiming' names previously used against
oppressed groups. This is summed up by the phrase 'Queers bash back'. 'Queer' is thus confrontational
and is used in this sense to cover all kinds of transgressive sexual activities.
56. See particularly the criti~ue of Moni~ue Wittig in Diana Fuss, Essentially Speaking, New York: Routledge, 1989.
57. The phrase 'regulatory fictions' is Judith Butler's. See her Gender Trouble, New York: Routledge, 1990.
58. For a discussions of Queer politics, see Cherry Smyth, Lesbian.f Talk Queer Notions, London: Scarlet Press,
1992. For a criti~ue see Julia Parnaby, 'Queer straights', Trouble and Strife, no. 26, 1993; pp. 13-16.
59. Anonymous leaflet, 'Queer Power Now', London, 1991, ~uoted in Smyth, Lesbians Talk Queer Notions p. 17.
60. Carol Queen, ~uoted by Claire Hemmings, 'Re-situating the bisexual body', in Joseph Bristow and
Angelia R. Wilson (eds), Activating Theor)': Lesbian, Gtl)" Bisexual Politics, London: Lawrence & Wishart,
1993, p. 132.
61. Ibid.
62. Elizabeth \X'ilson, 'Is transgression transgressive?' in Joseph Bristow and Angelic R. Wilson (eds), Actit'ating
The0'J': Lesbian, Gay; Bisexual Politics, London: Lawrence & \'';:ishart, 1993.
63. See, for example, the contributions made by Inge Blackman and Pratibha Parmar to Smyth, LesbianJ
Talk Queer Notions.
64. Butler, Gender Trouble, p. 6.
65. For an ascerbic criti~ue of Queer style from a gay male perspective see Stephen Maddison, 'A Queered
pitch', Red Pepper, February 1995, p. 27.
M. Butler, Gender Trouble, p. 123.
67. See, for example \'filkinson and Kitzinger, He1l!ro Sexuali!)', especially the contributions by Mary Gergen
and Alison Young; see also Segal, Straigj)t Sex.
68. Kate .:\fillett, Sexual Politics, New York: Doubleday, 1969. The idea that sexuality is central to women's
subordination goes back well before the rise of second wave feminism. For sources on first wave
feminism see note 7. BeNteen 'the waves', issues of sexuality were given considerable attention by both
Herschberger, Adaln's Rib; and Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972
(originally published in 1949).
69. Here she differs from other radical feminists. French radical feminists, and those British feminists
influenced by them, see sex-dasses as themselves economic, as based on male exploitation of women's
labour as well as their bodies. For examples of French feminism see Delphy, Close to Home; Wittig,
The Straigbt Mind; Colette Guillaumin, Racis11/, Sexisl1/, Pou!er and ldeola!!)', London: Routledge, 1995. For
British appropriations see Diana Leonard, Gender and Gel1eration, London: Tavlstock, 1980; Sylvia Walby,
Patriarckr at Work, Oxford: Polity, 1986; Jackson, 'Gender and heterosexualiry'.
70. For a range of perspectives on this issue see, Susan Brownmiller, A,gainst our IPiIL' Mm, WOJnm and Rape,
Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1976; Stevi Jackson, 'The social context of rape: sexual scripts and morivation',
W011/en's Studies IntemationalQuarter!)', 1(1), 1978; pp. 27-38; Susan Edwards, Female Sexuality and the Law.
Oxford: Martin RobertSon, 1981; Carol Smart, Fe11/inis11l and tbe Power 0/LaU!, London: Routledge, 1989.
71. There is a vast literature on these themes. A few examples follow. On sexual harassment see Catharine
MacKinnon, Sexual HarassllJOJt of Working W011le1l, New Haven: Yale Uni\'ersity Press, 1979; Liz Stanley
and Sue W'ise, Georgie Porgy, London: Pandora, 1984. On rape see Griffin, 'Rape'; Brownmiller, Against
our [PilI, Jackson, The social context of rape'. On sexual murder see Jane Caputi, Tbe Age of the Sex
CriRle, London: The \Vomen's Press, 1988; Deborah Cameron and Elizabeth Frazer, The Lust to KilL-
A Fe11linist Inl!est(gation ~f Se:X'1ffL! Murder, Oxford: Polity, 1987. On child sexual abuse see Emily Driver
and Audrey Droisen, Child Sexl/alAbuse: Feminist Perspectil'es, London: Macmillan, 1989; Judith Herman,
Father-Dau,ghter Incest, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981; Florence Rush, The Best Kept
Semt, Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill, 1980.
72. For other examples of the use of the idea of a continuum of v;olence see Jackson, The social context
of rape'; Andra Medea and Kathleen Thompson, Agaimt Rape, New York: Noonday Press, 1974.
73. This has been a consistent theme in Sheila Jeffreys writing. See Jeffreys, Anti-Clilnax. For a more
sophisticated analysis see Susanne Kappeler, The Pomo.grapl!)' of Represe1ltation, Oxford: Polity, 1986, and
The IFill to Violence: The Politics ofPersonal Behaz,iollr, Oxford: Polity, 1995. For a discussion of rapists'
accounts of the ways in which power intersects ",.jth sexual desire see Diane Scully, Understandil{g Sexual
Violence: A Stur!J' ofCo1ll-i<ted Rapists, London: Unwin Hyman, 1990.
74. See also Patricia Hill Co!bs, Re::ding 4.4.
75. Sec:, for example Amirah Inglis, The Waite W011lan's Prvtection Ordinance, London: Susse}( Cniversit'f
Press, 1975.
76. This was a particular focus of tbe controversial conference on the politics of sexuality held at Barnard
College, New York in 1982 See the papers from that conference collected in Carole S. Vance (ed.),
Pleasure and Danger: E:xploring Fe11lale Sexualil)', London: Routledge, 1984.
77. There are also links between libertarians and Queer, although by no means all Queer theorists
endorse libertarian perspectives.
78. 'Vanilla' sex is generally used as a pejorative term, although some do use it to describe their own
practices. It refers to egalitarian sexual practices in which neither partner takes a dominant role, which
usually excludes penetrative sex, and certainly the use of sex toys. It is sweet and cuddly sex, rather than
passionate raunchy sex. See Reading 3.11.
79. Gayle Rubin, 'Thinking sex: notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality', in Carole S. Vance
(ed.) Pleasure and Danger. E"'1'lori~g Fe11lale Sexuali!]', London: Routledge, 1984. \Xfe had initially hoped to
include extracts from this article in this volume, but were denied permission to do so by the author.
80. Some lesbians have defended sado-masochistic practices on the part of gay men on the grounds that
they can be 'safer' than penetrative sex. They may be safer ",.jth re,ls-ard to HIV transmission, but whether
they are safer in any other sense is open to question.
81. See Janet Holland, Caroline Ramazanoglu and Sue Scott, 'Managing risk and experiencing danger:
tensions betv."een government AIDS education policy and young women's sexuality', Gender and Education,
1(4), 1990; Sara Scott, 'Sex and danger: feminism and AIDS', Trouble and Strife, no. 11, 1987; pp. 13-17.
82. See also the final chaprer of Diane Richardson, If/oRlell fl/ld the AIDS Crisis, London: Pandora, 1989.
83. In Britain these debates are reflected in the activities of two opposing campaigning groups. The Campaign
Against Pornography (C\i') and Feminists Against Censorship (FAC). /\ third group the Campaign
Against Pornography and Censorship, largely shares (.\I"s analysis of the harm done by pornography bm
also resists censorship. It should be noted that feminists in cw do not necessarily suppOrt censorship.
They are more likely to favour direct action against pun'eyors of porn and to support the sort of ci\'il
liberties legislation favoured by Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKillnon in the CS:\.
84. Mary 1\fcImosh was one of the first to question this model of male sexuality in '\X:ho needs prostitutes-
The construction of male sexual needs', in Caroi Smart and Barry Smart (cds), [F'Qmm, .\i:_':IIa1it)' f1i1d .locia!
Control, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1~)7S, Feminists han' also made the same point in relation
to rape, which is often excused in terms of men being unable to 'help themselves'.
85. Ellen Strong, 'The hooker' in Robin ]\forgan (cds), .\i~i/frli(,od i.r POimfilL An Antholog)' of [Fritingsfrolll the
rr"011JeIi'S Libc'ratioli .lion/Wilt, New York: Vintage Books, 19 7 (),
86. For anti-pornography perspectin.:s on rhese issues see the essays in D.orchen Leidholdt and Janice
Raymond (cds), The Sexual Liberals and the Attack 011 Fel1lilli.rJJ/, New York: Pergamon, 1990; For libertarian
arguments against anti-pornography campaigners see Gillian Rodgerson and Elizabeth Wilson (eds),
P017lograph)' and Feminism: The Case Against Censon·hip. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1991.
87. For further sources on these issues, see note 7
88. For an insightful analysis of the individual and collective appropriation of women's bodies see Colette
Guillaumin, The practice of power and the belief in nature, part 1: the appropriation of women', in
Colette Guillaumin, Racism, Sexis11!, P01nr and Jdeolo!!)', London: Routledge, 1990.
89. See, for example, Rodgerson and Wilson, Pomograp~J' and Feminism.
90. For a discussion of such studies and a criti~ue of their methods, see Alison King, 'Mystery and
imagination: the case of pornography effects studies' in Alison Assiter and Avedon Carol (eds), Bud
Girls al1d Dirty Pictures, London: Pluto Press, 1992:
91. For an example of this see Lynne Segal, 'Pornography and violence: what the "experts" really say',
Feminist Rflif1J', 36, 1990 pp. 29-41.
92. See also Reading 3.3.
93. For a discussion of some different fornls of prostitution in relation to the difficulties of defining it see
Jo Phoenix, 'Prostitution: problematizing the definition', in M. l\'faynard and J. Purvis (eds), (He/ero)
Sexual Politics, London: Taylor & Francis, 1995.
94. Nina Lopez-Jones '\X:orkers: introducing the English Collective of Prostitutes', in Frederi~ue DeJacoste
and Priscilla Alexander (eds), .\e_,· [f70rk: IFriti'tW ~y [FOil/en in the Sex 111dust!)" London: Virago, 1988, p. 273.
95. Sarah Wynter, '\XlIlSPER: W'omen Hurt by Systems of Prostitution Engaged in Revolt', in Frederi~ue
Delacoste and Priscilla Alexander (eds), Sex IFork: U"ritil1gS 0' fr/Olllell in the .Sex Indust!)" London:
Virago, 1988 p. 270.
96. For example, see advertisements for many of the airlines based in South East Asia.
97. For a further discussion of sex tourism see Julia O'Connell Da\'idson, 'British sex tourists in Thailand',
in M. Maynard and J. Pun·is (eds), (Hetl'ro) Sexual Politics, London: Taylor & Francis, 1995.
98. A well-known historical example, The Contagious Diseases Acts which subjected prostitutes working
in English garrison towns in the 1860s to punitive forms of surveillance, is discussed in some detail in
Judith Walko\\.jtz, Prostitution and I/ictorian Sociel)', Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.
99. See Sue Scott ;lf1"; Richard Freeman, 'Prevention as a problem of modernity: the case of HIV and :\IDS',
SocioIJ!!)' OJ-H~alth and filum, 1995.
100. Gayle Rubin, 'Thinking Sex', p. 278.