Reframing Sex-Positive Feminism
The premise of sex-positive feminism is that healthy relationships require explicit communication and work. Rather than assume that everyone in a relationship wants the same things, sex-positive feminism assumes that each individual has different desires, needs, and backgrounds. Healthy sex requires explicit negotiation.
From this come some ethical positions:
Censorship of sexually explicit materials limits our ability to fully communicate about sex and sexuality. This was a primary concern during the arguments about pornography at the point where sex-positive feminism emerged. Informed consent requires information. And censorship regimes almost always favor conservative politics and relationship values.
If you don't practice the relationship work, other people are not obligated to have sex with you. Sex-positivity doesn't guarantee anything beyond a conversation. You can say no. The other person can say no.
It's reasonable to choose not to have sexual relationships where there's a pervasive power imbalance. This includes choosing t4t and bi4bi relationships. It includes not dating straight men. It even includes celibacy if I feel that getting what I want is going to be too much work or risk.
It's reasonable to choose not to have sexual relationships for any reason. A key influence here for me is Susie Bright, who wrote about being celibate after the birth of a child. If you're unable to engage in relationship work with a partner, it's reasonable to be single.
Sex-positive feminism does not say that everyone should have sex, only that people should be empowered to make informed choices based on personal needs and experiences. These choices include not having sex as a matter of personal choice and conscience.