Radical Feminist Sex
I wish to make it clear that this essay’s purpose is not to provide a manual or template for proscriptive radical feminist sex. It is rather a discussion on the possibility of defending the use of objects in sex from a radical feminist position. My personal answer to this is a resounding no. And in usual radical feminist style my personal answer has political implications and can be generalised into a feminist theory.

Theorising Objects

I will begin by asserting that phallocentricity forms the basis for the development of both male and female sexuality and underpins all heterorelational ideology. I don’t think any radical feminist would argue with this assertion. Feminism has sought to change and challenge this model of sexuality from the very beginning. It was the basis of most lesbian radical feminist writing.

Gyn/affection as theorized by Janice Raymond is to me the best description of the ultimate goal of lesbianism as a political and personal way of redefining sexuality from a radical feminist standpoint. The ultimate heresy to the phallocracy is to become, as described by Mary Daly, a Woman-Touching woman. I think that the key word here is touch. The desire to establish a true connection with another woman. To touch her and have her touch you in the deepest sense of the word. Physically, spiritually, emotionally, intellectually. Most importantly, the connection must not be a one way street, as it is under patriarchy. It must be a sharing of touch and sense.

If we take this as a starting point for theorizing a sexuality that is radically Other than the established order of patriarchal disconnection then the question must be: is it possible to defend the use of objects in relations between women from a radical feminist perspective?

Inherent in my understanding of heterorelational sex is the violence of certain sexual acts in and of themselves. Intercourse for example can be engaged in ‘of her own free will’ and there may be no extenuating violence (ie. he may not hit her or call her bitch) and the act itself can still be violent; the act itself is caught up in the social context of violent, phallocentric cultural ideology. Under patriarchy the penis itself becomes a tool, a symbol. Its strongest manifestation and use is as a weapon. The phallus can conquer, penetrate, dominate, rape. It is difficult to divorce the penis from its cultural manifestation as a weapon. Intercourse is therefore a violent act in and of itself.

It is on this basis that I will reject outright any defense of strap-on dildos. The strap-on is a phallus, it is used and manipulated as a phallus and the phallus is a weapon. I don’t believe that any amount of reinterpretation can undo the violent symbolism inherent in strap-ons.

My argument against the possibility of a radical feminist defense of the use of objects in sex is a little bit more complex. I have read enough femmeslash and lesbian erotica to know that all penetrative sex, including penetration by fingers, is heavily saturated in phallocentric, penetrative ideology. My question then becomes is there a radical feminist way of transforming the act, ridding it of its cultural baggage?

demonista proposed a way transforming penetrative ideology with the idea of envelopment. An ensconsment with the extended implication of mutuality. This is a step in the right direction but I still feel it lacks something. It also feels a bit like a reversal in the way that it replaces the notion of penetrate with encapsulate.

The other side of the coin is not always the best place to look for a notion that is radically Other. I’m going to try to look elsewhere.

Let’s go back to the basis of a feminist sexuality that is radically Other. The gyn/affectionate process of becoming a Woman-Touching woman. As I stated in the beginning, the key concept in woman centred and centreing philosophy is touch. In a context of sexual relations I would define the radical feminist concept of touch as an intimate sharing of senses.

This concept is transformative. It is not a simplistic reversal of penetrative ideology. Nor is it referential to other forms of phallic relationism.

The sharing of senses is inherently mutual, grounded in forming a real physical connection with another person. By this I mean that lesbian sexuality should be formed, not as a mere anti-thesis to phallic sexuality, but as an extension of forming a radical commitment to women. Our emphasis must be on building and maintaining connections with other women; touch being a transformation in itself.

If I do choose to take this as my model for non-destructive, anti-patriarchal sexual relationism then I cannot see how it would be possible to present a radical feminist argument for the inclusion of objects in lesbian sexual relations.

Is it possible to ‘touch’ another through the use of an object without reducing the other to an object? Is it possible to translate the use of an object as an intimate sharing of senses without translating the object into the self, thereby reducing yourself to an object? The use of objects in sex, even if it is possible to divorce the object from the ideology of penetration and violence, seems to me to present a mechanized view of sexuality and is wrought with ideological difficulties.

Disconnection, disassociation, mechanization, disembodiment are all violent manifestations of patriarchy which have the potential to divorce women from themselves and other women. It is not possible to build a sense of one’s Self and establish radical connections with other women upon a basis of theorising objects into radical feminist sexuality.