Some people in the lefty / progressive / social justicey sphere of loosely affiliated movements online have disagreements on important issues. That’s fair. The DiscourseTM is meant to help us all improve our ethics, work toward a better world. You don’t have discourse without coming from at least slightly different positions. However, there are some positions people take that are so wrong they tempt me to throw my hands up and give that conversation a pass.
Too often, I see these things coming from people in asexual advocacy. I’m writing this article as an invitation to asexual people that hold those positions to give me the justifications that will change my mind, because I haven’t seen them yet, and I feel like my eyeballs are being poisoned just looking at these things on tumblr. So without further ado, my beeves:
“Sex positivity is bad! It’s a way to justify abuse and sexual coercion!” Apparently, some asexuals even refer to advocates of sex positivity as “sex pozzers,” a delightful way to reduce something and make it easy to dismiss. OK, I will absolutely grant that some people use the language of sex positivity to play the victim when people call them out for coercive or creepy behavior. Those are the kind of people that are most likely to accuse someone of kinkshaming. For example: Creep sends unsolicited bizarre sex fantasy scenario to a person on a dating site. Recipient says “yuck” and the sender cries “don’t shame my kink! That’s sex negativity!”
However, this is not a reasonable argument against sex positivity. ANY CONCEPT CAN BE MISUSED. Feminism can be misused. See SWERFs and TERFs. (I’ll be getting back to one of those in a minute.) Prominent male feminists have turned out to be serial harassers. Atheism is used to promote islamophobia and racism, which makes it no less true. Anti-racism can be misused. White guy sends unwanted advances to Asian lady, she says don’t creep, he cries racism. It doesn’t mean that anti-racism is an invalid concept. That’s fucking absurd.
So in case your opposition to sex positivity is based entirely on misunderstanding the term, here’s my understanding: Sex is natural and normal for people to engage in. They should not be shamed or abused for being sexual, within the bounds of consenting acts between adults. That’s it. Why is this important? Two reasons immediately spring to mind. One, sexual disgust is the basis of most homophobic oppression. Look at the propaganda used by US Xtian fucklords to promote ant-LGBT violence and state persecution in Uganda, Russia, Jamaica, etc. It is ENTIRELY based on presenting sex acts as disgusting. To see sex as positive in its various forms is a way of fighting against that.
And two, shaming people for the amount of and types of sex they have is the basis of much misogynist oppression, especially in the domain of women’s health and reproductive rights. Sex positivity and fighting against slut shaming directly fight back against those who would use promiscuity as an excuse to brutalize and oppress others. It’s so important, I’d go so far as to say it’s essential.
Take another look at that sentence. I’ll drop a few words from it to show why sex positivity is something you should relate to. Shaming people for the amount of sex they have… That can go both ways, as you’re well aware. Being shamed for not having sex is a thing, I’m given to understand. Being shamed for having too much or the wrong kind is something I’m more familiar with, but I won’t shit on your struggle if you don’t shit on that of others.
Back to SWERFs. Many asexual advocates are also SWERFs, or Sex Worker Exclusionary Radical Feminists. Their views line up perfectly with those of right wing religious opposition to pornography and sex work on pretty much every level. Given that keeping sex work illegal or on the margins of law prevents meaningful regulation that can save lives, given that it’s part of the reason prostitution is the single most dangerous profession in the USA, you’re going to need a mountain of evidence to convince me this is a reasonable position. And even then, I’ll take the word of sex workers over people who are admittedly “sex repulsed,” when it comes to matters of major impact on their lives and livelihoods.
So this is the invitation. If you think sex work and pornography are wrong and bad, if you think sex positivity is a bad thing, tell me why. This is the last time I’m going to invite comment on the matter, because real sex negativity – not reasonable exercise of consent, but the demonization of sexual people – is hateful to me, and I’d rather not see it.
EDIT – To be clear, not all advocates for asexual people are overly sex negative, oppose sex positivity, or are SWERFs. I’m also fine with people not caring about this topic so much because they perceive it as having minimal impact on their lives. This post is directed at those who allow their own distaste for sexuality to promote ideas harmful to others.
I hope this comment goes through, because it will have a lot of links.
First, there are multiple meanings for “sex-positivity” in the asexual community’s usage. It’s very likely that your understanding of what “sex positive” means is different from any given ace’s. And we definitely do NOT all agree with each other! See:
The Two Meanings of “Sex-positivity”
Sex-positivity is a muddle
In my experience, SWERFs are a pretty small minority in the asexual community. I almost never hear from them unless I specifically seek them out on tumblr (and I barely know where to look). I have typically found that asexuals who would either describe themselves as sex-positive, or hold a more neutral position towards sex-positivity, are way more common in the ace circles I run in.
Please understand that there is a LOT of pressure on asexuals to adopt or accept sex-positive rhetoric. The way that asexuals are often attacked as “sex shaming” when they talk about THEIR OWN personal experiences with feeling averse to/repulsed by sex, leads to a situation where aces feel that they have to be sex cheerleaders for other people. The fact is, when sex is construed as “natural and normal” and that’s where your statement ends? Then the corollary is that NOT having or liking sex is UNnatural and NOT normal, and bad. Even if you don’t mean it that way, that’s how it’s going to come across. Very rarely do people talking about sex positivity bother to make space for asexuals who absolutely can’t see sex as a thing they could ever consent to or be comfortable with. And there are many, many people who profess to be sex-positive who actually do think (and say!) that yes, asexuality is not normal and bad. So you need to actively correct for that in all sex-positive statements that you produce, or else you’ll still end up reinforcing status quo hostility towards asexuals.
There can also be a tendency among sex-positive people to try to dismiss any bad experiences with sex, or even define such experiences as “not actually sex” (because they claim that asexuals couldn’t have consented to them, and if you don’t consent, it’s not sex). See: Sex isn’t always good. To be even more clear, asexual people are often told (by sex-positive people) that they should just TRY HARDER to have “good” sexual experiences. (And frequently, the response to that is “Well, those people are not REALLY sex-positive” but that’s either a No True Scotsman or educators on sex-positivity are REALLY REALLY failing to communicate to people what sex-positivity means. Personally I think it’s both.)
So, in response to all these issues, asexual people may actively reject sex-positive ideology in favor of making space for talking about negative experiences with/feelings about sex as well as positive ones. The term “sex-negative” has been reclaimed for describing that sort of political priority. The best and most exhaustive post about this that I’ve ever seen is Lisa Millbank’s The Ethical Prude. If you want to really understand the argument against sex positivity coming from ace people, start there. (Btw, that essay was physically painful for me to read on the page itself due to the gray-on-black text, so if you’re like me and have issues with that, try using Readability or something similar.)
I hope that was informative. Since I am not one of the asexual people making the arguments you have a problem with (and I agree with you about the use of “sex pozzers” btw), I’m not really the person you’re asking for debate with. However, I do think there are reasonable arguments against sex-positivity. I personally used to describe myself as sex-positive, but I don’t anymore. I don’t call myself sex-negative, either. I’m more in the neutral category. And I should add that partially, my decision to stop identifying myself as sex-positive was because when I wrote about sex-positivity, non-asexual people decided to use my writing to try to browbeat other asexual people into agreeing with me, or straight-up dismiss all of what they had to say, and that is absolutely not what I intended because I DO think they have reasonable arguments.
Context is important and one thing social media is excellent at is stripping posts of context. So when I see people trash-talking sex positivity with a half-assed excuse or a sneer at best, it gets my goat. Hence the post. But even though I feel like wading into the same waters as “reclaimed sex negativity” people to find that context, your post helped provide some perspective that does help me get it. Good job!
I still think it’s shit to bring that attitude into conversations with gay people for the rather dire reason mentioned in my post, but again, that’s probably not where the offending posts originated, was it? Probably the punchy ace stuff was aimed generally at ace people in response to aggression of the type you describe, that is:
“Asexual people are often told (by sex-positive people) that they should just TRY HARDER to have ‘good’ sexual experiences.”
That, to me, is very disrespectful of an ace person’s identity and justifies some attitude. I’ve never seen it happen, but the way you describe it, I can easily imagine the situation, I believe it. So I’ll go back to groaning when I see these posts, but leaving it at that, unfollowing if I see too many of them, and leave ace people to ace it up on their own terms, sans my judgment.
It’s a shame the strife caused by disrespect poisons our relationships and isolates us like this. That’s neither you nor I, but it still messes things up for us. I can’t tolerate a space where people feel it’s important to self-identify as sex negative, they can’t tolerate the reverse – which unfortunately for them is mainstream culture. And all because someone else started shit.
All previous words aside, it seems like the crux of the matter is this: Many people are told their sexuality is bad, disgusting, repulsive. This causes them harm. Ace people feel the need to express how they find sexuality bad, disgusting, repulsive. That is a fundamental incompatibility and there ain’t no way past it, is there?
“I still think it’s shit to bring that attitude into conversations with gay people for the rather dire reason mentioned in my post, but again, that’s probably not where the offending posts originated, was it?”
I haven’t seen any of the posts you’re referring to, so I don’t know. I would believe it either way, there is certainly no shortage of shitposts on tumblr.
“Ace people feel the need to express how they find sexuality bad, disgusting, repulsive. That is a fundamental incompatibility and there ain’t no way past it, is there?”
Well, I wouldn’t say that. Generally speaking, it’s not “sexuality” that is repulsive (note also that feeling repulsed is not the same as feeling that sex = bad, it’s not a moral judgment at all), but rather, sex (and being sexualized/objectified). As in, the thought of them personally having sex, not other people’s enjoyment of it. But when any talk of how you have negative feelings about sex gets automatically misinterpreted as a moral judgment against people who have positive feelings about it, then there’s no space for those conversations. When any talk of bad sexual experiences challenges simplistic ideas that sex = good coming from the people around you, such that they immediately jump to dismissing your experiences, then…
That said, I don’t think there has to be an incompatibility, or that there is always one that can’t possibly be worked around. But there is an incompatibility in some spaces where talk about sex is 100% expected, and never warned for—in other words, where they might end up seeing other people discussing their sex lives in great detail, including posts which have NSFW images or erotica, without others considering how they might feel about having to see that. This is an issue on sites like FetLife, which some asexuals even recommend to other asexuals who are interested in non-sexual kink, without keeping in mind that the images all over that site might be very triggering.
In physical spaces, a lot of aces do have friends who are really kinky and adamantly sex-positive, but who are not very respectful of the ace’s feelings about it. To be more specific, I’m talking about people who will actually do things like engage in scenes right in front of their sex-repulsed ace friends, without asking if it’s okay. Sometimes they just don’t even realize it might be an issue for anyone, but others are actually intentionally trying to trigger the ace person, because they’ve decided that their aversion is morally wrong, bad, and “immature” and that the ace person “needs to get over it.” If people aren’t going to respect each others’ boundaries, and either party judges the other to be morally wrong, then yeah, that’s a fundamental incompatibility. But if both parties give each other space and respect, and try to get consent or at least give warnings about what they’re about to delve into so that people can opt out of the conversation, then I wouldn’t say it’s a fundamental incompatibility.
I don’t dispute there are sexual individuals who would be assholes about this, but seeing as how you mentioned kinky sex+ folks, I have to wonder if you mean at a play party.
If that’s the case, I’m less inclined to apologize. The waiver, at least in any event in my local city, has a bit about de facto consent to voyeurism. With 100+ participants in the dungeon, you can’t very well go to the other 98 to ask if it’s okay for you to do x scene. Or you could, but you won’t ever play if you actually accept someone’s “no, I’m not comfortable with that,” which you WILL get in a big enough dungeon, because everyone has a pet issue and I can promise someone in the dungeon is disgusted by a scene. If you can’t deal with that, host your own play party, hand pick the guests, and enact a stricter code of conduct. Semi-open dungeons are often the only context where some kinksters get to practice their kink, I don’t think it’s fair to imply the space should be taken away from them because one of the other participants is made uncomfortable. The prerequisite to entering the dungeon is consenting to view play, and if you don’t want to consent, don’t enter.
I wrote a response on my blog 🙂
I feel a bit ashamed I opened this conversation and now don’t have time to participate in it substantively. (I’m going to post this comment on my article as well.) I just want to say I appreciate well-reasoned and extensive responses. That’s great, thank you and your co-blogger from The Asexual Agenda. Also thanks to Siobhan for contributions from another view.
I have a similar point of view to Siggy and Elizabeth Leuw. Honestly, I have not run across any of the people who say “sex pozzers”, nor have I seen hardly ANY discussion at all of sex-work by people who also are openly asexual. I have seen far more people who use sex-positive in asexual communities to mean “may not be sexually attracted to people, but still would seek out/enjoy sex as a means of dealing with their libido” — asexual people who have no idea the term “sex-positive” is at all related to feminism or a political movement.
Elizabeth said in the comments here, “Asexual people are often told (by sex-positive people) that they should just TRY HARDER to have ‘good’ sexual experiences.”
And then you, Great American Satan, replied:
“That, to me, is very disrespectful of an ace person’s identity…”
And I want to stop you there. I’m not sure what Elizabeth implied when she originally said that, but it sounds to me like you’re assuming all asexual people who are being told to “Try harder” to have a sexual experience they’ll “surely enjoy” because “Sex is THE BEST when done consensually, in the right context” – you’re assuming all of them identify as asexual. The problem, then, is that asexuality is NOT THAT WELL KNOWN yet, not brought up enough, often forgotten, etc.
When I “identified” as straight and considered myself a sex-positive, really inexperienced straight young woman who was mainly diving into sex-positivity from an atheist community perspective, I believed the general attitude that sex is “part of what makes us human”, a “universal” drive, that every single person around will enjoy some kind of sex and you just have to find what sex acts are YOUR preference/desire/etc. It never crossed my mind that a human being might be, well, like me. I slowly was starting to feel broken… slowly starting to feel like I was failing at “normal”, lacking a concept with which to describe myself, with which to find community of other asexual individuals, to feel a little less alone.
Sex-positive communities were essentially were telling me to “Try harder” all the time, telling someone who wouldn’t realize until she was almost 24-years-old that you know what? She’s asexual and she’s always been asexual. And so… that issue itself is more nuanced than you probably realize.
Personally, I identify as a non-libidiost, sex-averse, asexual person who also still often identifies as sex-positive, because to me, sex-positivity is pro-LGBT people including their freedom to have consensual sex, because to me sex-positivity is not shaming people for having too many sexual partners, is freedom and mainly just… does line up with most of my political views, and I believe for a ton of people it is still really important. But I hesitate to identify as sex-positive around other asexual people nowadays, because too many young aces, aces who may only be familiar with the community thanks to Reddit or Tumblr or something, think that means “personally interested in having sex” or something, which uh, no. I identify as sex-averse and not sex-repulsed because to me the word “repulsed” is so harsh and extreme and makes me sound more “Grossed out” or “disgusted” or something than I am. I respect other people feeling personally pretty extreme ways about sex, respect for whatever reason someone choosing to identify as “sex-repulsed”, but when I say “Sex-averse” to describe myself, I think it is less likely to be misunderstood as me judging all other people for having sex.
For me, being sex-averse means I have decided, for sure, I never want to have sex again in my life – that I’m not “indifferent” enough to ever imaging compromising and participating in something sexual for the sake of a partner. When I tried something sexual with a partner on two different occasions I wasn’t simply “bored”, and was certainly not “enjoying making them happy”, but rather I was feeling like I kind of wished the experience would end. I was feeling like never having sex again would be much preferred to having it. I felt like an experience that is supposed to bring me intimacy and more emotional closeness with a romantic partner was making me feel less close to them, more detached, was hurting our relationship rather than helping it. In terms of how I feel about sex in other contexts, I’m still figuring out how I feel, or sometimes it is on a case-by-case basis whether or not I’m “Averse” to being exposed to pictures/films/erotic fanfiction/etc/etc. Sometimes I’m really interested or even enjoying those things that do not involve me personally but have to do with sex. Not enjoying them in any kind of sexual way, but still.
I just thought I’d add my voice to this discussion…
“seen hardly ANY discussion at all of sex-work by people who also are openly asexual … asexual people who have no idea the term “sex-positive” is at all related to feminism or a political movement.”
Interesting to hear there are alternate wrong definitions out there in ace space. I thought that might be the case, though I didn’t know what. As for SWERFish sentiments, I’m catching them on tumblr, where there is uncomfortable overlap between relatively conservative “radical” feminists, ace activists, and many other groups. I wouldn’t follow a SWERF, but people I follow that identify as ace reblog that stuff occasionally, because it agrees with their distaste for all things sexual. No es bueno por mi.
“And I want to stop you there… it sounds to me like you’re assuming all asexual people who are being told … to have a sexual experience they’ll “surely enjoy” … identify as asexual. The problem, then, is that asexuality is NOT THAT WELL KNOWN yet, not brought up enough, often forgotten, etc.”
I didn’t make an assumption (tho I admit I may have not phrased the sentence for maximal inclusivity), asexuality is an extremely common and discussed topic in the webspace I inhabit, so I know a lot about it without ever actively seeking such knowledge. On the forum where I GM, at least half of the people are ace (or similar) and I *never* put up a sign saying “ace people, get in here!” I’m familiar with the idea there are a bunch of variations within or associated with asexuality as an identity.
In fact, I see so many asexuals (and related “ace spectrum” identities) in my internet travels, I’m inclined to think they outnumber all other LGBT folks together by at least two to one, maybe more. Either that, or y’all are just comparatively very well represented by word count.
I actually far prefer people self-describing as “sex-averse” to “sex-repulsed,” for the same reasons you said – though from the outside perspective of not having had those feelings, so not really entitled to an opinion.
On the topic of how ace (& ace-ish) people identify, but getting far afield of your comment,
I’ve thought before that it’s a shame no one identifies as pre-sexual or post-sexual. Those would be very valuable identities. A ton of people who presently identify as ace are children, and with highly varied rates of development in different aspects of our minds and bodies, some people don’t have sexual feelings until in their twenties. Saying one is pre-sexual could be like saying “maybe in some years, for now fuck off with ur advances.” And it’s well known that people’s sexual interest can reduce with age. People pathologize it, but if instead there was a terminology for embracing it (post-sexual), maybe it would be less of a problem, or at least offer some sense of normalcy for those people?
If pre- and post-sexual identities were included in ace-dom more formally, then Bam – You are a heaping giant chunk of the human race, outnumbering all LGBTQI people by a lot.
@Siobhan:
“I don’t dispute there are sexual individuals who would be assholes about this, but seeing as how you mentioned kinky sex+ folks, I have to wonder if you mean at a play party.”
Nope. I’m talking about like, when people have invited you over to their house, and then they start doing some kind of scene without warning, assuming that you’d be okay with it. Or, sometimes even people will go out and do something in public (not involving nudity, but like for example, maybe a person on a leash being treated like an animal type of play). For context, I help run an organization catering to ace survivors of sexual violence. Some survivors are triggered by that sort of thing, and I’ve seen that actually happen. In that type of situation, you can’t very well ask all bystanders walking by whether they’re okay with it. At a play party, though, yeah. It’s okay in that situation, because it’s expected. It’s context-dependent, yes, but I’m talking about contexts where it’s inappropriate or borderline inappropriate. (There’s a good case to be made that yeah, you’re just going to see that stuff on FetLife, of course, and that’s context-appropriate. But can’t we at least warn people about it when recommending the site to aces, if not come up with some sort of image-blocking technology to go along with the recommendation? I feel like that should be standard, really.)
And our other co-blogger has already written about all of this much better than I ever could years ago, so please check it out for a more thorough explanation: Don’t yum my yuck
Just notes, to no one in particular:
All of the things I’m talking about don’t only apply to asexuals, btw. Sex aversion is a thing for non-asexuals, too. And not all asexuals are sex-averse. Also, sex aversion can often fluctuate, so some people (like me) are only sometimes sex-averse. I would ike more understanding and acceptance of sex aversion in general, not just in spaces where you’d expect to find ace people.
Also, I think Emily provided some more great context for this whole discussion above. It’s really important to keep all that in mind, so I’m glad she addressed it.
@GAS:
“If pre- and post-sexual identities were included in ace-dom more formally, then Bam – You are a heaping giant chunk of the human race, outnumbering all LGBTQI people by a lot.”
Um, I think those people ARE already covered by “asexual”? By which I mean, it’s okay to identify as asexual based on where you’re at RIGHT NOW, even if you IDed as something else before or if you expect your identity might change. Within the ace community, we are VERY aware that sexuality can change over time. From witnessing all the gatekeeping that happens, I honestly think it’s healthier for children to just be allowed to embrace asexuality if they feel like it, rather than making the assumption that they’re pre-sexual, which they will SURELY be told by someone, probably many many someones because that is a thing.
Personally, I IDed as bi at 13, and I don’t think that’s too young to know your sexuality. That doesn’t mean I knew how I would feel at 20+, and of course how I identify did change—now I ID as bi ace. I didn’t know that asexuality was an option for years, and I made the assumption that someday I would be sexual. So essentially, I DID identify as a pre-sexual bi person for years. And throughout those years, I always felt like there was something wrong, and I STRONGLY avoided all situations where sex, dating, or people crushing on me might come up throughout those years. It wasn’t until I realized that asexuality was a real option that I was able to relax and, ironically, explore sexuality. For me, that was a much, much healthier option, and I suspect that is the case for others in that situation more often than not.
Are they covered by asexual? In another place where i moderate comments, I’ve seen someone who ID’d as ace say they still liked erotica, and another ace came in to say “duh, it’s definitionally part of what ace means” (paraphrasing from memory). Which is clearly not true of all ace people. I’m just saying there’s a lot of disagreement about who is covered by what term. And for ace people who are invested in being Ace 4 Lyfe as a marginalized identity, they might (for the purposes of not being too inclusive & mainstreamed) want to differentiate themselves from those who have been sexual & changed, and/or those who suspect they might get there, and those people as well might feel the need for a term of differentiation themselves.
On the yum/yuck thing and situational sex aversion, I’ve weighed in on the negative side of that recently here. But right this minute, in the wake of someone killing 50 people because he thought a type of public kissing was yucky, I feel a lot less inclined to accept any kind of repulsion to sex and romance as OK. An unfair reaction, I’m sure I’ll be over it in a week.
@GAS,
There’s no way for young people to tell whether they’re asexual or “pre-sexual”. Making the distinction would cause a lot of undue anxiety, since it requires people to know something they cannot know before they even adopt a label. A major part of ace communities is already devoted to the anxieties of young questioning people, so it’s a no-go.
If some people wanted to adopt “post-sexual” it might be reasonable, but it’s a question of whether they truly need separate resources. Another concern is asexual elitism, which holds certain “types” of asexuals as superior to others. Historically, asexual elitist groups have excluded people with any sort of sexual history, and it was accompanied by more than a hint of sex-negativity.
Re: frequency of asexuals. When I discovered the idea of asexuality, it seemed very serendipitous, and furthermore, occurred many years after it might have become useful. Lots of aces have had this experience, so they tend to be loud and explainy about it where it’s safe and easy to be so, i.e. the internet. Some kids these days will grow up with a different experience, where they’ve known aces on the internet since their early teens.
This is false, and I honestly don’t know what they were getting at.
Makes sense, makes sense.
Re: the quote, I know, that person is my own personal pest.
“In fact, I see so many asexuals (and related “ace spectrum” identities) in my internet travels, I’m inclined to think they outnumber all other LGBT folks together by at least two to one, maybe more. Either that, or y’all are just comparatively very well represented by word count.”
Well, we certainly need better studies to really see what percentage of the population is asexual, and what percentage of the population is gay, straight, bisexual, etc.
Even for other LGBT identities (where asexuality was never considered as a possibility in most studies, surely throwing off results), the final statistics vary wildly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States
I know once a few years ago, there was a tumblr-based study of the popular fanfiction website Archive of Our Own: http://centrumlumina.tumblr.com/post/63208278796/ao3-census-masterpost . The survey had 10,000 respondents, and a surprisingly high percentage of those people were asexual: http://centrumlumina.tumblr.com/post/62840006596/sexuality (maybe as many as 11.4% ??) but that survey is tumblr AND archive of our own based, two places where asexual people and asexual fanfiction readers are much more likely to be. There is an actual set of TAGS for your stories about asexuality on Archive of Our Own, unlike on any other fanfiction website I’ve heard of. There is a whole asexual “community” on tumblr. Where else are we supposed to be going?
So perhaps you are hanging out around places like tumblr where a ridiculously high portion of asexuals also spend their time. And as Siggy explained, “When I discovered the idea of asexuality, it seemed very serendipitous, and furthermore, occurred many years after it might have become useful. Lots of aces have had this experience, so they tend to be loud and explainy about it where it’s safe and easy to be so, i.e. the internet.”
Um yeah. That is TRUE and also describes not only me but um, many other aces I know online.
Tumblr wasn’t the start of it for me. I’d heard about it some via LiveJournal and random convos with activist people IRL like ten years ago. But then about 5 years ago, my partner started doing a horror webcomic with a gay protagonist and very occasional sexual content, which for some reason has had a few vocal asexuals in the comment section. Out of curiosity when we were doing Discus, I checked out where else one of them was posting, and it was on an even more explicitly sexual gay comic site. Then when we started a forum related to the comic, half the people who showed up for it were ace. Some of y’all are counterintuitive, and certainly making yourselves visible in unexpected places, completely without apparent welcome. Not that I want to make asexuals feel unwelcome. Just pointing out some of you are popping up like gophers in places that don’t even seem like they’d be your thing. Pop pop.
Focusing in on one particular point here (though still interested by the rest of it!), I’m intrigued by what you say about SWERFs being in favour of keeping prostitution illegal.
I have never come across a feminist speaking in favour of keeping *prostitution* illegal. What I have come across a lot, among feminists, is the agency-denying attitude that sex workers all need rescuing from sex work. This primarily leads to support of something known as the Swedish Model or Nordic Model, in which it is illegal to *purchase* sex but not illegal to sell it. This is not as egregiously awful a position as the position that prostitution itself should be illegal (which is simply indefensible outside of particular religious moralities) but still has many significant problems, which I discussed at one point on my previous blog (https://goodenoughmummy.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/why-the-swedish-model-is-a-bad-idea/).
So I’m curious about what you’re saying here. Have you come across feminists who actually support keeping prostitution, itself, illegal? I can at least see the reasoning behind supporting the horrible Swedish Model even though I utterly, vehemently, disagree with it; I’m really baffled as to how any feminist could support keeping prostitution illegal.
Very simple: I don’t agree that sex is positive by itself. I also don’t think that it is bad or disgusting by itself (apart from any act that would include me). I believe that sex by itself is morally neutral and any value judgement should be related to the particular case.
“Have you come across feminists who actually support keeping prostitution, itself, illegal?”
As a specific policy position, I haven’t seen it explicitly expressed in a few years, don’t have the time to dredge up the link. But the fact there’s sex worker excluding feminists implies there are feminists who would like to see sex work illegal, doesn’t it? When I see a feminist post implying porn is inherently horrible and can never be done right, there’s an implied preference with regards to legality, isn’t there? Or at least support for the status quo. Sounds like you’re on point tho, so you’d know better than me.
“Very simple”
I don’t agree necessarily, but your post doesn’t offend me, so I will let it stand without trying to get in a last word. In fact, I’m willing to let anyone else whose arguments do not offend me post whatever they like without comment from here on out. Anyone who isn’t a total jerk, feel free to get some last words in here! Open invitation.