Asexuality is not the same thing as celibacy. This is something we can agree upon. However, when people mock celibacy, it can be done in a way that is particularly unfriendly to asexuals. This is a particularly common occurrence in atheist spaces, where people often make fun of clerical celibacy.
Nearly ever time I’ve ever raised the issue, the defense is that asexuality is not the same as celibacy. While true, I want to show why it is uncompelling as a defense.
The bottom line: It is okay to not have sex. First corollary: it is okay for asexuals to not have sex. Second corollary: it is okay for literally anyone else to not have sex.
One common response to asexuality is that it is inherently disordered. Asexuals are thought to be missing out on sex, a crucial life function. The assumption is that if you’re not having sex, then you are in a lesser state of existence.
But sex is neither inherently positive, nor inherently negative. There are only cases where sex has a subjectively positive or negative meaning. People who consider asexuality to be disordered presumably find positive subjective meaning in sex. Many asexuals find a neutral or negative subjective meaning in sex. Neither positive nor negative views are disordered, because sex itself is inherently neutral, and we can view it however we like.
If you accept asexuality, but imply that celibates are lesser for being celibate, that tells me you missed the point. It’s like you took a fundamentally asexual-unfriendly worldview, and then carved out a special exception for asexuals without making any further modifications. What part of “it’s okay not to have sex” did you not understand?
Also see: every time people make fun of virgins, or people who can’t get laid. If you mock someone’s egregious character flaws by insulting their lack of a sex life, you are saying that not having sex on par with all the character flaws. You are suggesting that those character flaws are bad specifically because they lead to sexual undesirability.
There are some attacks on celibacy that are more acceptably nuanced. For instance, it’s okay to not have sex, but there are certainly some dubious reasons to not have sex.
For example, clerical celibacy involves an institutional requirement. That’s bad. Like that institutional requirement that married people must “consummate” their marriage. Where is the justification for this restriction on personal freedom?
Of course, even personal choices can be made for dubious reasons. Some people don’t have sex because they believe it brings them closer to God. This is dubious because gods don’t exist. Nonetheless, it must be observed that “God” often wants people to do things that they already wanted to do in the first place, but are unwilling to admit to. Could we question people’s religious motivations for celibacy, while reaffirming that celibacy can be secularly justified in any number of ways?
[cn for this paragraph: general reference to rape] If you are unable to think of any secular justification for not having sex, allow me to suggest a very basic one: just because. Gosh, maybe some people, regardless of orientation, just don’t want to have sex. Either for the time being, or forever, or maybe just not with the people present. You don’t need to watch many movies to see that some people have turbulent emotions regarding sex–anxiety, shame, pride, intimacy, distance. Maybe for some people those emotions are on balance negative. Maybe for some people, sex is dangerous, because they’re with someone who won’t respect a retraction of consent. Maybe some people just don’t know why they don’t want sex. Maybe some of those people later decide that it’s part of their orientation.
In summary, while there may be some “bad” reasons not to have sex, there are also so many legitimate reasons which could be operating unseen. It takes a nuanced approach to critique the motivations of personal choices while still affirming the potential value of those choices.
In the past I have commented that priestly celibacy (which many of us know is not particularly celibate…) as an homage to god – is pretty kinky. I guess there’s a bit of splash damage in the implication that someone might be a sexual being and choose otherwise being ‘kinky’ so I appreciate your correction.
I don’t like being lectured about my sexuality. I guess that’s the takeaway for me: don’t do that.
I’m pretty sure there is no institutional requirement of consummation, at least not as far as secular law in the United States goes. I don’t think any state requires consummation for a marriage to be valid, or permits annulment on the basis of nonconsummation. However, some (all?) states allow annulment if one party is physically incapable of consummating the marriage and this was not disclosed to the other party prior to the marriage.
I like how you wrote that sex is not inherently positive or negative. I agree. I’m not asexual but I’m certainly sex-neutral: good for some people in some circumstances, bad for others in other circumstances. I don’t know if I’d label myself celibate — more just currently sexually inactive — and I have no plans to change that anytime soon. I’m not quite sure when the label ‘celibate’ formally kicks in. My reasons for staying sexually inactive are purely personal: that after *years* of online dating and trying to safely engage in emotional intimacy before sexual intimacy, I’ve come across too many men who want the reverse, which makes for a bad combination of unenjoyable sex and feeling objectified/pressured. I find it uncomfortable and demeaning when men I barely know proposition me online or during a date for sex, or when they try to push physical intimacy too quickly. I’ve gotten better at asserting my boundaries as I’ve gotten older but it’s still hard. I’ve now reached a point where if someone I’m dating is trying to force an invitation to my house at night or being sexually suggestive, I walk away. I feel like I’m in constant negotiations before I even meet these guys in person about when we’re going to have sex, how much, what acts, how important it is to me . . . and I’m like, I don’t even know if these guys chew with their mouths closed; can’t we work out first things first?? I’m certainly not ready to make any commitments or give a timeline about such personal things. And it certainly kills my dating life, because there seems to be an impression that once you’ve reached your 30’s you should be ready to have sex the moment you’re attracted to someone and that any “withholding” is to screw with the mind or wallet or whatever of your date.
I see the dark side of sex-positivity to be acceptance of solicitation: that propositioning someone for casual sex is OKAY, so long as the speaker respects a no and doesn’t harass the listener for saying no. And honestly, I don’t think it is. Respecting a no is not enough justification to make a proposition okay in the first place.
I never really had these thoughts until I started online dating, and a barrage of sleazy grossness and false intentions came my way. Right now, NOT having sex feels healthier, happier and safer, and no part of that has anything to do with religion.
Sex doesn’t have any “meaning,” positive or negative. It’s an activity, which some people find enjoyable under certain circumstances and everyone finds unpleasant under (at least) many circumstances.
Based on common usage, I always thought “celibacy” excludes asexuals by definition— that being “celibate” means deliberately deciding not to have sex despite wanting to. If so, that certainly makes the insults easier; mocking someone for depriving themselves of sex for (almost invariably) dubious reasons is an easy target with no collateral damage to asexuals; the insult condemns suppression of desire (that we don’t have).
Is it just me, or does anybody else find the phrase “a sexual being” to be incredibly irritating?
@Jake Harban,
Lots of aces identify as celibate, and the “common usage” is not universal. I have an upcoming post discussing this subject in more depth.
I disagree that celibacy (necessarily) means not having sex despite wanting to, Jake Harban. It can be, of course. But a sexual person who has been sexually active in the past can lose any desire to continue being so. For the present, or forever.
I am not asexual and not anti-sex, for others. But since sexual assault, the idea of anyone touching me, looking at me, or even thinking of me sexually literally makes me ill. Even nonsexual touch, except from my cats, makes me cringe. And it’s not likely to change.
And if that bothers someone, go yell at the doctor who assaulted me and everyone who said it was my fault, don’t yell at me.
Celibacy has some vague overlap with BDSM.