catwort

I previously introduced the concept of derivatization: when we view other people as mere derivatives of our own thoughts and desires, and expect them to behave accordingly. Derivatization encapsulates precisely what’s wrong with nonconsensual objectification—namely, it involves treating others as mere extensions of ourselves rather than as distinct individuals with desires of their own. At the same time, this term doesn’t discount the legitimate pleasure that can come from being appreciated as the object of somebody else’s desire in other contexts, such as consensual relationships or solitary fantasies. We should avoid derivatizing other people, as it both invalidates the targeted person’s perspective, and simultaneously denies the significant differences in sexual interests and interpretations that exist within the population. Or, to put it differently, while nonconsensuality is sometimes driven by a deliberate disregard for the other party’s wishes and well-being, it may also take the form of assuming that the other party must want the exact same things we want, or expects the same things we expect, due to a lack of imagination or consideration on our part. Therefore, rejecting nonconsensuality also requires us to ditch our reliance on assumptions, and to turn instead to honest and direct communication, in order to better understand our potential partners’ perspectives and desires.

The second guideline is to stop divvying up sex into “good” and “bad” categories. Obviously, we each have personal preferences in these regards, in much the same way that certain foods may taste pleasant or unpleasant to us. However, we should refrain from intellectualizing these preferences and projecting them onto other people, as we saw with the psychologists who divide up the sexual world into “normophilic” versus “paraphilic,” or the anti-pornography feminists who do the same with “egalitarian” versus “hierarchical” sex, or the many religious institutions that sanction “reproductive” sex while denouncing “non-reproductive” forms.

Sexualization is steeped in the notion that certain sexual bodies and behaviors are inherently “bad,” and thus deserving of condemnation and public shaming. Moving away from judging sex and sexuality in terms of good versus bad will not only reduce sexualization but will hopefully allow us to better embrace ambivalence: understanding that a sexual experience that is positive to one person may be negative for another and may evoke mixed feelings in a third.

This brings us to the third guideline: If we wish to live in a world where our solitary and consensual sexual expressions are not routinely policed by others, then it becomes incumbent upon us to self-examine desire.”]