The Intersectionality of Feminine Sexuality and Sexual Desire

Feminist geographies look at broader views of identity and sexuality, with focus on how bodies are constructed and the role of body image in making women feel equal and not the oppressed in today’s society. Reflecting upon one’s self, discussions of sexual health and sex give women the self-awareness and confidence to feel empowered and liberated coining phrases such as “the independent women has become the heroine of modern feminism” (Chardon, 2013, p1)

Sex links to our self-awareness and self-esteem. Feminist geographies link closely to how we develop as sexually active individuals, addressing ways in which gender and geographies are mutually constituted (Pratt, 1994). This ties in with the Third Wave of Feminism, rejecting traditional and stereotypical understandings of feminism (Dicker, 2003) but allowing women to take back and recover voices and ideas from a woman’s perspective, as early geographies are defined by men (Rosen, 1995). For women to recreate and build their sense of identity and voice, modern geographies on sexuality address the first and second wave of feminism; fighting for equality by adopting universal thinking, confronting differences and inequalities between genders, promoting individual growth (Chardon, 2013)

Despite movements to push for equality and empowering voices of women, inequalities still exist in the modern personal or private sphere of feminine life. Women today continually experience issues regarding relational and sexual inequality. This poses a threat to the safety and security of conversations women have regarding the topics of their sexual lives, with other gendered bodies defining a woman’s power and her freedom (McRobbie, 2013). Waves of feminism have put emphasis on empowerment through sexual expression using virtual and realm platforms. Yet this has resulted in an unforeseen consequence of second wave activism (Chardon, 2013). Female self-expression and the stressing sex as a feminine power has subsequently resulted in the ‘pornification’ and over sexualization of female cultures today. This leads to the everlasting question of what can be done for women to not be sexualised and instead have her sexuality applauded as feminine liberation? It is this question that creates geographical boundaries of safe spaces, as women crave female only spaces to feel comfortable expressing their sexuality without the fear of being sexualized.

This oppression of women’s sexuality, calls for the re-education of women’s liberation, pushing women to engage in conversations about their sexual desires so that it is not a taboo that heterosexual women have sexual needs to fulfil. The beings about the need of reflecting on feminist theories, “calling for intersectional work to acknowledge both oppression and privilege in intersection of identities” (Baird, 2006 in Brown 2012, p 543). Utilising women in power and men in power to expose oppressed groups and remove stigmatisation around sex so all spaces become safe spaces for women to feel open discussing sex.

Intersectionality

Intersectionality emerges from feminist legal scholarship, conveying connections between one dimensional identity-based structures of oppression and inequality. Valentines (2007) work first put intersectionality on the map for feminist geographies, arguing that place is a key means through experience and structure along with recognition of what we find comforting and safe. Our experiences link to the notion of intersectionality as it builds our identities of class, sexuality and social relations.

“We use the notion of intersectionality to refer to the way in which different social and cultural categories – like race, ethnicity, class, gender, age and sexuality overlap and interact with social relations and processes to legitimise specific social hierarchies and inequalities” (Crenshaw, 2003, p192) Crenshaw (2003) identifies that in order to understand oppression and the larger picture of what causes the oppressed, all aspects from gender to class to ethnicity should be considered to give explanation on what causes such inequalities between individuals. Large amounts of feminist geography work look at straight women with the focus on how heterosexual sexualities are controlled by patriarch and heteronormative ways (Boyd 2010). To give understanding to this, Crenshaw (1991) uses the example of an oppressed black women to demonstrate how in comparison to her black partner, her gender is what causes inequalities between the two. First structurally oppressed through racism, secondly, oppressed through patriarchy. Her black partner is only oppressed by his skin colour demonstrates the inequalities and oppressions between them are as a result of gender. This example of how gender creates oppressions can be used in understanding how to approach discussions of sex in safer environments and spaces. Yet a new paradox is emerging whereby women, despite differences of class, ethnicity, location and sexuality – share fear, risks and experience of oppression from men (Lewis, 2015), and so women find comfort in discussing sex as a means of activities and health with other women as they share the same experiences of oppression as a result of gender.