The politics of CAKE

Yet another piece decrying the downfall of civilization, or at least, feminism, via CAKE. Now, I am not going to say that some aspects of one of the CAKE parties I've been to felt a little contrived to me, but I believe that rather than tearing people down, we should be supporting a plethora of options for female and male sexuality to thrive. The way this writer and Ariel Levy make it sound, you can't have your CAKE and be a feminist too; it's one or the other, stripper or President, as opposed to viewing a little more accurately how our sexuality and sexual self-esteem can actually empower us in other areas of our lives. Even if they don't, we're all entitled to a healthy, fulfilling sex life, and the idea that there's some way "feminist sex" should or shouldn't be is outdated and ludicrious and almost always close-minded. Read on:

"Just Desserts" by Eliza Strickland, SF Weekly

SFist: We Ogle The Weekly's Rack With CAKE

Violet Blue on CAKE and the SFist article

CakeNYC (now with blog)

And sortof related, Dani Garavelli's article "Why today's woman really is saving herself" from The Scotsman - briefly, while I think there are issues to look at regarding casual sex, I feel like we can't paint women or men in such broad strokes. Some women may want ot explore casual sex, some may not, and some may have mixed feelings or a range of experiences doing so. To advocate for the right to have casual sex does not mean it's a panacea or will solve all your problems. I don't think we have to see it as "having sex like a man," or at least, there are ways of viewing our ongoing grappling with the aftermath of the sexual revolution and the ongoing efforts to improve and change cultural attitudes around sex that are not so falsely black and white. It's not just "casual sex is good" or "casual sex is bad" because there are so many versions of casual sex, so many ways it can be done, people to do it with. What if your casual sex involves an intense online relationship, or exploring getting spanked but going no further? Or figuring out how to seduce someone? Or whatever it is that you want from that particular encounter. And yes, OF COURSE, I've been in the situation countless times where I think someone really likes me and really all they want to do is fuck me. Story of my life recently, actually, but still that does not mean we should slip into these really simplistic notions of good vs. bad like it's all so easy. That does a total disservice to women and the realities of our lives and desires and complexity.

Certainly, there is growing evidence that, disillusioned by feminism, women are jettisoning the radical ideals of their forebears for a more conventional lifestyle. Whether it be choosing commitment over one-night-stands or children over careers they are opting for more traditional roles (though that they have a choice at all shows they are empowered in a way that would have been unthinkable 50 years ago). Even Ball, the epitome of the hard-drinking, sexually-liberated 90s girl, chose marriage to Norman Cook over the life of a sexually active singleton.

Of course, there are women who genuinely enjoy sex with no strings attached; women who wake up with a succession of partners and no sense of regret. And good luck to them.

In a sense, they have it made. Not only can they sleep around without attracting too much disapproval, they have a degree of control over their sexual destiny unavailable to most of their male counterparts. Where men often return from a night on the pull alone and disappointed, women more or less have sex on tap. So long as they don't drink too much and use condoms - what harm are they doing?

Unfortunately, most of the casual sex had by women in Britain does not fall into this carefree category. Previous studies have shown that up to half of those aged 18-40 have had one-night-stands they regretted after drunken partying. Then there are the teenagers pressurised into having sex by their peers and by boys anxious to prove their masculinity. And the women who have sex because they believe (wrongly) that a relationship will follow.