.png)
On one of the recent podcasts, Lilith mentioned the difference between sexual liberalism and sexual liberation--arguably, what we've undergone as a culture has been a period of sexual liberalism where "anything goes" so long as the other participant is of age and supposedly consents.
However, we are still stuck in the same dominance-subordination framework as it relates to heterosexual relationships, and in this context women cannot truly be sexually liberated if we are continually expected to cater to whatever the man in our life wants, no matter how inconvenient, degrading, painful, upsetting, or simply unenjoyable it may be.
Under sexual liberalism with patriarchy, the Madonna-Whore Complex, male entitlement, and the pornography industry still very much intact, women's sex and dating lives are absolutely hellish, and probably the number one reason FDS gained the traction it did, along with the rise in female celibacy.
Yes, sexual conservatism and sexual liberalism are terms of compliance: ie under which conditions an agreement to sex can be made. They are never about a woman's right to say 'no'. The core of feminism is a woman's right to say 'no'. To exert agency the ability to say no is paramount because that option is always on the table unless coercion/extortion is involved. Notice how differently people act when they truly have options to engage/disengage- the difference is obvious and everyone can see it. Feminism fought for women's right to say "no, I won't be doing that" and every time I say it I feel my foremothers love from beyond the grave
Real sexual liberation would be a primary focus on women's pleasure.
The only reason why we are stuck in a subordant- dominance framework is because everything goes unless it benefits women, then that's the big bad.