Toward a Feminist Praxis

of Sexuality
Wendy Stock, Ph.D.

The feminist movement is currently in a state of deep division over

where to place sexuality within feminist theory and practice. The issue
of pornography has highlighted this division, which has occurred on
both political and personal levels for many women. Representing ex­
treme ends of the continuum of the response to pornography and views
of sexuality are the Feminist Anti-Censorship Task Force (FACT) and
Women Against Sex (WAS). Although I am more sympathetic to the
analysis of WAS, I find that the positions of both groups have inherent
limitations and contain theoretical oversights. I am a feminist clinical
psychologist specializing in research and treatment in the area of sex­
uality.
The major inadequacy of FACT'S position lies in its tacit acceptance
of sexuality as currently constructed by the patriarchy, and its belief
that women need only appropriate their rightful piece of the pie to
achieve sexual liberation (Gayle Rubin, 1984; Jessica Benjamin, 1983;
Ellen Willis, 1983). This position is similar to that of some middle class
feminists who believe that upward mobility for some women, while
leaving the current political system intact, will lead to a just society.
WAS, conversely, errs in the opposite direction, by assuming that all
sexuality that occurs within the patriarchy is patriarchally constructed
sex (Southern Women's Writing Collective, 1987a, 1987b). This view­
point, by definition, does not allow for the existence of any current
feminist vision or practice of sexuality, and assumes that absolute ubiq­
uity of patriarchal control.
Both FACT and WAS believe that, currently, patriarchally con­
structed sexuality represents all sexuality, which must be either enthu­
siastically embraced and adopted (FACT), or rejected completely, by
resisting engaging in sexual practices (WAS). The limitations of these
views, respectively, indicate either a culture-bound and context-absent
analysis of sexuality, or an overinclusive, absolutist, and static analysis
of sex. What remains to be developed is a view of sexuality that allows
for the possibility of feminist change, even before the overthrow of the
patriarchy. This feminist praxis of sexuality must incorporate a radical
critique of patriarchally constructed sex, and place at its forefront an
awareness of the conditions of sexual subordination under which women
live now.
The FACT position will be discussed first. By uncritically accepting
sexuality in all its current manifestations, FACT errs in assuming that
what we see in sex is the natural expression of sexuality. In adopting
this view, FACT overlooks the ways in which patriarchal society has
shaped and determined sexuality by eroticizing the hierarchy of power
at every level of society. Ehrenreich et al., in Re-Making Love, erro­
neously disassociate sex from its political context: "For women, sexual
equality with men has become a concrete possibility, while economic
and social parity remains elusive" (B. Ehrenreich, E. Hess & G. Jacobs,
1987). Marx said that every social institution reflects the unequal dis­
tribution of power inherent in capitalism. Embedded within feminist
analysis is the similar theorem that all social institutions, including sex­
uality, reflect the power that men have over women. As Catharine
MacKinnon has pointed out, as work is to Marxism, sexuality is to
feminism (Catharine MacKinnon, 1982).
Many women are currently embracing and defending a patriarchally
constructed notion of sex. They believe, in keeping with psychoana­
lytic thinkers, that the erotic necessitates an imbalance of power, and
that our "erotic scripts" are expressions of the fantasized reversal or
the reenactment of thwarted infantile desires (R. Stoller, 1979). Thus,
all eroticism is seen as governed by a fantasy of retribution, by an atr
tempt to restore a balance of power by doing to others what has been
done to the self as a powerless infant. Eroticism becomes defined in
this view as the enactment of either dominant or submissive sexual
behaviors which are endlessly repeated with supposedly cathartic ef­
fects. This model of sexuality presupposes this dynamic as innate and
natural. Women identified as feminists who adopt this theory believe
that the key to liberating women is to reverse or invert the oppressor-
oppressed dynamic in sex, or to act out these roles within an eroticized
context. As Ehrenreich et al. assert, "The suburban woman who gets
her thrills from watching male strippers is paying, with her admission
price, to invert the usual relationship between men and women, con­
sumer and object. At a different end of the cultural spectrum, a prac­
titioner of ritualistic sadomasochism confronts social inequality by en­
capsulating it in a drama of domination and submission" (B. Ehrenreich
et al., 1987). Becoming a dominatrix and assuming a position of total
control of a sexual partner or "choosing" to be subordinate in sex is
supposed to heal us of our prior victimization.
Women's advocacy of patriarchal sexual relations is a part of the
phenomenon of identification with the oppressor, much like that of
some concentration camp prisoners with their jailors. Lenore Walker,
in The Battered Woman, has observed that battered women sometimes
plan when their abuse will occur by intentionally precipitating a batter­
ing incident (Lenore Walker, 1979). In a battering relationship, it is a
given that violence will occur, and by choosing to precipitate when,
the woman gains the illusion that she is exercising control over her
situation. In a culture in which the majority of women will experience
at least one form of sexual aggression (rape, 15-44%; childhood sexual
abuse or incest, 38%; spouse abuse, 50%; and sexual harassment, 88%)/
a culture in which sexual violence is normative, women develop psy­
chological mechanisms to cope with the inevitable violence. This phe­
nomenon can also explain the existence of the rape fantasies that some
women are aroused by. To quote from an anonymous letter sent to Off
Our Backs, a feminist newspaper reporting national and international
political and cultural issues: "If women were capable of enjoying rape,
this restored some dignity and equality to them, and was a source of
strength. I saw enjoyment of rape as a victory over man because it
foiled their attempts to hurt me. Often when women appear to be ac­
quiescing in oppression, they are, in a misguided way, attempting to
adjust to male violence and domination as best they can" (Anony­
mous, 1986).
I believe it is this phenomenon to which Sheila Jeffreys refers when
she speaks of women learning to have "pleasure" in their own subor­
dination. Such fantasies may be interpreted as attempts to establish a
sense of subjective control over the threat or reality of sexual coercion.
Women who enjoy pornography or rape fantasies are not rebels, as
Ellen Willis maintains (Ellen Willis, 1983); rather, they are like slaves

*M. Koss, C. Gidycz & N. Wisniewski, 1987: In a national sample of 3,187 women, 27.5%
had been raped. Authors cite other studies ranging from 14.5% to 44%. A. Johnson,
1980: A statistical analysis based on a sample of 250,000 females living in metropolitan
areas, and assuming that only one in ten rapes are reported, a female living in a metro­
politan area has a 40% chance of being raped between the ages of 12 and 60. C. Safran,
1976: Nine thousand readers of Redbook responded to a questionnaire on sexual harass­
ment on the job published in the magazine. Eighty-eight percent said they had experi­
enced sexual harassment on the job. L. Walker (1979) estimates that at least 50% of
women will be battered in their relationships at some time. Diana Russell (1986) found
that 38% of a sample of 930 women reported at least one experience of incestuous and/
or extrafamilial sexual abuse before the age of 18 years. This figure is similar to rates
reported in other studies involving large samples.
adjusting to the seeming inevitability of their position. By mislabeling
and glorifying this internalized oppression as a celebration of the erotic
by such doublespeak terms as "rebel/' FACT grossly misinterprets and
perpetuates the psychology of the oppressed.
When women defend pornography and patriarchally constructed sex
and attempt to make it their own, they are "timing" sexual abuse in
the same manner as do some women in battering relationships. We do
not need to define our liberation as an acceptance of the erotic inequal­
ity that characterizes the turn-on of the patriarchy.
The seemingly dichotomous ways in which FACT and WAS deal
with sexuality resemble the reactions of some survivors of incest and
child sexual abuse. While some develop sexual dysfunctions and avoid
sex, others respond by becoming very sexualized, initiating sex indis-
criminantly, or becoming prostitutes. Several studies have indicated that
as many as 50 percent of prostitutes have been sexually abused as chil­
dren (J. James & J. Meyerding, 1977). FACT'S position on sexuality
seems to be in line with this second response, i.e., to identify with the
oppressor and adopt his view of sex. In this vein, FACT members try
to appropriate sex for themselves, but do so without questioning the
dynamics of oppressor and oppressed and by eroticizing dominance
and submission. The FACT creed seems to be, "O .K., you call us bad
women, so we'll show you just how bad we can be." Ironically, this
effort at self-definition and rebellion against sexual subordination is in
reality conformity to the sexual paradigms of the patriarchy. FACT has
lost its ability to distinguish between a positive sexuality for women
and the patriarchally constructed practice of sex.
Another mode of response to incestuous abuse is the avoidance of
sex and a diminished ability to distinguish between coercive and non-
coercive sexuality. Some incest survivors find themselves involved in
situations in which they continue to be hurt, feeling as if they deserve
it or it is the best they can do or that ongoing abuse is an inevitable
part of a sexual relationship. In treatment, a period of celibacy is often
recommended to allow the woman to heal from her injuries. WAS con­
tends that it is necessary to resist all sex practices within the current
social structure, that none can occur outside the context of coercion, in
either subtle or obvious forms. WAS emphasizes that we cannot trust
our feelings, a statement common among incest survivors. It is true
that the patriarchy may have eroded our ability to distinguish between
sex that is consensual, mutual, and egalitarian, and sex that is exploi­
tative and violent.
WAS claims that all sex is the same under patriarchy and assumes
that nothing good can happen sexually under current conditions. If
one accepts this premise, arguing for the possibility of healthy forms
of sexual expression becomes totally irrelevant. It is this overarching
assumption that constitutes the major flaw in the WAS position. Ac­
tually, the patriarchy is contested on a daily basis. While strikes or
worker slowdowns are several very effective tactics used to bring man­
agement to the bargaining table, with sex resistance as a parallel, strug­
gling for creative alternatives is at least of equal importance. This effort
can take place as an ongoing dialogue among feminists, as we imple­
ment, critique, and restructure our sexual practice.
In incest we learn not to trust, because our trust has been violated.
We also may learn to dissociate our bodily experience from sex acts,
and to separate sex from any valid experience of love. Similarly, the
meaning and practice of sex within patriarchal culture has become
identified with subordination. In distrusting our ability to distinguish
between desirable and undesirable sex, we are similar to incest survi­
vors, who sometimes suffer from frightening flashbacks in which the
past and the present become blurred. However, in therapy, it is pos­
sible for incest survivors to differentiate past abuse from present expe­
rience, to take control of sexual encounters, and to choose partners
with whom they feel safe and honored. These changes are not accom­
plished by avoiding sex. I am raising the possibility that, even in an
imperfect and misogynist society, even in the area of sexuality, healing
and growth can occur.
Given that we all exist under patriarchy, it influences us at all levels
of our being, including our sexuality. Changing these conditions can­
not be accomplished in a vacuum or through withdrawal. We may choose
to withdraw from individual relationships that are intrinsically unequal
and oppressive, in which sexuality cannot occur without the burden of
that inequality. Extrinsic to all sexual relationships is the context of
gender inequality, which must be recognized and struggled against as
it impinges on the relationship. In some situations it is survival to with­
draw. In others, however, it is accepting disenfranchisement and ghet-
toization not to stand firm and demand change. Demanding change
within institutions and within relationships is a crucial and effective way
to push back the boundaries of patriarchy.
There are many other examples of social change implemented suc­
cessfully on a massive scale. One, assertion training for women, has
resulted in a more widespread and public acceptance of assertiveness
as a normal and healthy quality for women. This training involves
teaching actual skills and, more important, identifying basic rights and
fostering a sense of entitlement, a belief in one's basic integrity. Al­
though this change has occurred within a social context of gender in­
equality in which there are limitations on when and how assertion may
be successful, it nevertheless has produced many significant changes
in the individual and social behavior of women. We did not have to
wait until the revolution to implement such change.
Sex-avoidant behaviors, including feigning or developing illness,
changing clothes in the closet, staying up until one's partner is asleep,
or making oneself unattractive, are used by women who do not feel
they can legitimately decline unwanted sexual contact, or who are pun­
ished with physical or verbal abuse when asserting their right to con­
trol their bodies. In these cases, sex is not the primary concern in ther­
apy; changing power distribution within the relationship or leaving the
relationship if the partner will not change are more important con­
cerns. Some relationships have the potential to recognize and realign
unequal power dynamics, and in turn, to help the woman to experi­
ence and believe in her own bodily integrity, to discover what gives
her pleasure, and to implement this within her relationship. This pos­
itive experience has been labeled negatively by WAS as "consensually
constructing her desire in [patriarchy's] oppressive image."
WAS denies and/or grossly misrepresents the feminist practice of
sex therapy, and has leaped to the conclusion that all sexual self-help
books are pornography. This description could as easily apply to sev­
eral excellent and sensitive books available for women with sexual
problems such as Becoming Orgasmic (J. Heinman, L. LoPiccolo & J.
LoPiccolo, 1976) and For Yourself (L. Barbach, 1975). These books en­
courage, in gradual stages, self-exploration and discovery of what spe­
cifically, uniquely is arousing to the individual woman. The exercises
which WAS refers to as "scripted" masturbation are actually sugges­
tions to explore the vaginal area visually, with the use of a mirror
(something that many women have never done) and tactually, to iden­
tify sexually sensitive areas. The ultimate goal of these exercises is to
bring the woman's sexual arousal and sexual knowledge under her own
control, rather than her partner's. In both books, orgasm during inter­
course is not the focus; instead, the emphasis is on discovering alter­
native pleasuring techniques that are more strongly associated with
women's enjoyment of sex. Two more recent books, The Courage to Heal
(E. Bass & L. Davis, 1988) and Incest and Sexuality (W. Maltz & B. Hol­
man, 1987) are books sensitive to feminist issues and invaluable re­
sources for incest survivors in addressing sexual problems, either within
or outside the therapeutic context. This type of treatment represents a
considerable departure from Freudian psychoanalysis, from the sexual
myths of the 1950s, and from patriarchally defined sex in general. While
these changes in sexuality are, of course, taking place within a social
context of women's inequality, they are part of feminist activism against
it. The actual changes feminist sex therapy effects in real women's lives
that I have observed in my own clinical practice are welcome and em­
powering ones.
Whether we uncritically adopt the male-constructed model of sex­
uality and act on the assumption that all sex is good sex, or take the
opposite tack, avoiding sex out of an aversion to the subordination
under which we live and its construction as sexuality, we are acting in
response to the reality of patriarchy. Other options are possible. Social
change does not suddenly emerge from nothingness; it evolves often
through a series of social mutations. Some of these mutations are fem­
inist and some are not; we need to foster the feminist elements, and
use them, discarding the rest as we redefine our practice of sexuality
through analysis, application, and reanalysis. We cannot afford to wait
and do not need to wait for the revolution. We have not waited to
become assertive, to begin to analyze and change the politics of child­
care and housework, and to organize women's groups to challenge and
end pornography, battery, and rape. Sheila Jeffreys spoke about shar­
ing sexual fantasies, including disturbing rape fantasies, with other
feminists with the goal of examining these fantasies, understanding
their origin, and ultimately transcending them. A consciousness-raising
format might lend itself well to development of a feminist praxis of
sexuality.
My own passionate opposition to pornography and commitment to
the antipomography movement is fueled not only by my anger at men's
rape, abuse, and sexual subordination of women, and their control of
our lives and our sexuality. It is fueled also by my hope that women
can evolve and develop our own model of sexuality based not on a
submission/domination dynamic but on a mutual exchange between
equals. Both FACT and WAS suffer failure of vision: FACT in its in­
ability to imagine an alternative to patriarchal sex, and WAS in its in­
ability to imagine that creating alternatives is a form of resistance to
the patriarchy.
All feminists are "socialization failures." If the patriarchy functioned
perfectly, we would not exist with our current consciousness. Some­
how, some of us have managed to slip through the cracks and avoid
the attempts of the patriarchy to brainwash us completely. Conse­
quently, we have the ability to imagine a different sexuality and to
struggle to create it. We must continue to question our assumptions
and, through feminist analysis, to detoxify ourselves from a culture
that hates women. Through these experiences we are formulating new
ways of living and being. Deconstructing patriarchal sexuality and ab­
staining from patriarchal sex may be a stage in the articulation and
creation of a feminist sexuality, in the same way that black separatism
and lesbian separatism have helped these movements to define them­
selves apart from their oppressive context. But we cannot give up on
sexuality; we cannot turn aWay from it as if sexuality itself was a pa­
triarchal abomination.
By turning our backs on our own sexuality, we are admitting defeat
to the same degree that we would if we accepted the patriarchy's con­
structed version of sex. We must sustain a vision of what the erotic can
be. By nurturing our sexuality with a critical feminist awareness, we
can resist the social structure that would take away this vital part of
ourselves.

REFERENCES
Anonymous. (1986, August/September). Understanding rape fantasies. Letter. Off Our
Backs, 16:8. p. 31.
Barbach, L. (1975). For yourself: The fulfillment of female sexuality. New York: Doubleday.
Bass, E. and Davis, L. (1988). The courage to heal: A guide for women survivors of child sexual
abuse. New York: Harper & Row.
Benjamin, Jessica. (1983). Master and slave: The fantasy of erotic domination. In A. Sni-
tow, C. Stansell & S. Thompson (eds.) Powers of desire: The politics of sexuality. New
York: Monthly Review Press, pp. 280-299.
Ehrenreich, B., Hess, E., & Jacobs, G. (1987). Remaking tove: The feminization of sex. Gar­
den City, New York: Anchor Books.
Heinman, J., LoPiccolo, L. and LoPiccolo, J. (1976). Becoming orgasmic: A sexual and per­
sonal growth program for'women. New York: Prentice Hall Press.
James, J. and Meyerding, J. (1977). Early sexual experience as a factor in prostitution.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7:1.
Johnson, A. (1980). On the prevalence of rape in the United States. Signs, 6:1. pp. 136-
146.
Koss, M., Gidycz, C. & Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and preva­
lence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education
students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55:2. pp. 162-170.
MacKinnon, Catharine A. (1982). Feminism, Marxism, method, and the state: An agenda
for theory. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 5:3. pp. 515-544.
Maltz, W. and Holman, B. (1987). Incest and sexuality: A guide to understanding and healing.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Rubin, Gayle. (1984). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality.
In Carol Vance (ed.) Pleasure and danger: Exploring female sexuality. Boston: Routledge &
Kegan Paul. pp. 267-320.
Russell, Diana E. H. (1986). The secret trauma: Incest in the lives of girls and women. New
York: Basic Books.
Safran, C. (1976, November). What men do to women on the job: A shocking look at
sexual harassment. Redbook, 148:149. pp. 217-223.
Southern Women's Writing Collective, Women Against Sex. (1987a). Sex resistance in
heterosexual arrangements. Paper presented at the New York Conference “Sexual Lib­
erals and the Attack on Feminism."
Southern Women's Writing Collective, Women Against Sex. (1987b). W.A.S. speaks out:
Dismantling the practice of sexuality. ASWWC.
Stoller, R. (1979). Sexual excitement: Dynamics of erotic life. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Walker, L. (1979). The battered woman. New York: Harper & Row.
Willis, Ellen. (1983). Feminism, moralism, and pornography. In A. Snitow, C. Stansell &
S. Thompson (eds.) Powers of desire: The politics of sexuality. New York: Monthly Review
Press, pp. 460-467.