The tension here is between an individual (if influential) woman expressing her sexuality (and, yes, selling her album) as she sees fit and a sexist society that prioritizes the male gaze and normalizes male dominance. There is no easy resolution of this tension; everyone has to weigh individual expression against social obligation every day in every aspect of their lives.

The second wave feminist argument is that Carpenter’s choices not only affect Carpenter but everyone exposed to those choices. Third wave feminists will claim that Carpenter is owning her sexuality, including an expression of submission.

These two poles are much less helpful at the extremes; the Marxist analysis assigns too little agency to individuals, whereas “choice” feminism assigns too much. No one “chooses their choice” in a vacuum, but each of us can transcend our historical and class circumstances to make decisions for ourselves.

The feminist objection to Carpenter’s image is not that it is sexual but that it reinforces a very specific vision of heterosexual relations. Second wavers will argue that Carpenter has an obligation not to celebrate sexual submission because both men and women will necessarily see it as an endorsement of male supremacy. Third wavers will deny that Carpenter has any such obligation.

In my opinion we are each responsible for what we put into the world, regardless of our intentions. Any human expression has the potential to have unintended consequences, but that does not mean that we should stop expressing ourselves.

Midnight Tryst