anchiton oladabas

otomemachine:

neutered:

sidneyia:

neutered:

swanblood:

sidneyia:

I think I might be a radical asexual. I’ve never self-identified as a radical anything, with the exception of possibly radically prochoice - but even then, I feel like “radical” is acknowledging one’s beliefs fall far outside the norm, and I think more people…

nnn but “sex positive” doesn’t mean “i like and want to have sex”

the sex positive movement is supposed to be about being able to talk about sex, sexual agency, and issues of consent without any stigma. about being able to express your sexuality (or not) without getting shamed for it, about being able to say “yes” without being labelled a slut and being able to say “no” without that being taken as “try harder” instead of a refusal, about celebrating the vast array and levels of sexual performance/expression/interest, about not shaming people for wanting to be sexual because they’re not “good looking” or for not wanting to be sexual because they’re “too good looking for that to go to waste,” about not pressuring people into or out of sexual situations, about not assigning moral value to the amount or type of sex someone is or is not having, about not holding other people to your standards of acceptable sexuality

sex positivity is not HEY EVERYONE SHOULD BE HAVING SEX, it’s “everyone should be able to navigate sex and sexuality freely, however they want to, as much or little as they want to, as long as they are not infringing on the rights or well-being of others in the process”

god damn words mean things

Maybe that’s what it’s supposed to mean, but it is absolutely used to shame people who don’t/can’t have sex. Even the very phrase “sex positive” implies that other, non-positive attitudes toward sex are invalid. (Forced positivity is kind of a crappy thing in general, not just toward sex.) 

Not everyone even has the luxury to be “sex positive”. Some people were born with strong aversions to sex. Others have experienced trauma that makes sex a negative thing for them. Their opinions on sex - which, incidentally, is a completely neutral thing in itself - have just as much merit as “positive” ones. 

the only time i’ve ever seen it used to shame people is when those people are explicitly or implicitly making moral judgments about people who DO have sex though. things like saying “i have self respect thank you” when talking about nude photos, which is problematic behavior. i have heard of people who use the concept of sex positivity to, say, shame people into having sex with them, but not only is that not actual sex positivity but they are quickly marked as abusers and shunned. just because a minority appropriates a label or language in order to shame or abuse people does not mean that label or language is the problem… otherwise, kink positivity would be inherently bad just because some people use it to defend creepy chaser behavior that trans* people get, feminism would be inherently bad because some people use it to shame people who choose to be stay-at-home moms, and anti-racism would be inherently bad just because some people try to use it to argue in favor of their own sexist attitudes.

the phrase does not mean “my personal view about sex is positive,” which is how you seem to be interpreting it, but rather “i am in favor of people doing what they want with themselves”

and there is a reason the movement has the name it does!

sex positivity as a movement was originally created as a subset of feminist ideology in order to combat the way women are shamed and ostracized for daring to express or talk about their own sexuality. the “positive” was meant as “hey women are allowed to be sexual if they want! stop telling them otherwise! i support their ability to do that!” since there are a variety of fucked-up ways in which people police others’ sexuality and sexual behavior, the movement has grown to encompass the idea that all sex policing is wrong, this expansion starting with fighting the idea that a woman is “frigid” for refusing to have sex with people who feel entitled to it.

does this mean the name might need tweaking? possibly, especially if enough people read it as an implication that there should be an obligation to be sexually available and willing. but that’s not what it is implying, and it’s not a reference to “you should be fine with having sex.” it’s a way of naming the idea that being negative towards other people for what they personally do is wrong. you can have a negative or neutral opinion on sex itself while still being sex positive, because it’s positivity in the sense of not judging other people.

emphasis mine

Oh, I see people are still passing around one of “my” posts with all of my words removed so it just looks like sexual people agreeing with themselves. 

That’s fine, I guess.

But, this is not an issue of a “minority” “appropriating” a term. What I complain about? With people shaming and excluding me for being asexual, and particularly for being aversive asexual? That is mainstream sex positivism. Not some fringe attitude. People can claim over and over again that they aren’t like that, that they’re one of the good ones, honest, but that does not change what I and some other asexuals have experienced. How about instead of insisting your community is doing everything right and it’s us with the problem, how about you actually listen to us? That means, you know, not literally erasing my words, for a start.