#sex negativity
Being aromantic bisexual and polyamorous tells you so much about how society views sex. Because those identities are very sexualised, when people try to talk about them in a ‘positive’ light they emphasize non sexual aspects and experiences of those identities and communities and while those experiences are obviously important to discussions and need to be uplifted, the way these discussions, positivity posts etc. are phrased and presented become less about celebrating diversity within our communities and more about saying that sex, and specifically the type of sex associated with these identities (non monogamous, non romantic casual sex) is bad. That it’s a reflection of poor moral character. That it’s degrading etc. In order to truly support our communities and challenge stereotypes we have to stop this. Sex is morally neutral. Non monogamous, non romantic casual sex is morally neutral and certainly not morally or emotionally damaging. There are ways to emphasize the diversity within our groups beyond stereotypes without playing into sex negativity and purity culture. If you’re trying to combat stereotypes, use the words like 'some’ and phrases like 'people who do 'fit stereotypes’ are still people’. If you’re making a positivity post about non sexual aspects and experiences, address it to the people who have those experiences instead of making a blanket statement about the entire community. Some of us do have casual non romantic and/or non monogamous sex and that’s ok.
Blowjobs used to be illegal lmao
States in dark red still have laws on the books that make “sodomy” (oral and anal sex*) illegal; states in red only have laws against same-sex sodomy. These laws are unenforceable due to Lawrence v. Texas(2003), but would go into effect if the ruling were to be overturned. And yes, you read that correctly, 2003!
* Laws in Michigan and South Carolina ban only anal sex, not oral.
It’s not even just that blowjobs were illegal: a lot of sex negative radfem discourse is predicated on the idea that things like blowjobs (or anal sex, or penetrative sex at all, the goalposts keep moving) are inherently degrading and violent. When they say “foul, dangerous shit,” they don’t mean something like scat play, they mean “literally any sex.”
Like, just to illustrate my point, here are some screengrabs from the notes of that post about the guy who went to the hospital because he accidentally ruptured something during a blowjob.
To be clear: at no point was it either said or implied in the original post that the guy was having rough sex, that he was kinky, or literally ANYTHING ELSE other than that he was giving a blowjob. And here come the radfems saying that sex with any man is inherently violent and dangerous. And when someone calls them out on their homophobia, this is their response:
notice how it goes from “how can you say that our concern for this guy in the hospital is homophobic” to “you don’t need to go to the hospital for it to be violent and yes, actually, we ARE saying that any sex with men, including gay men having consensual sex with each other, is inherently violent.”
It’s not just whatever you’re picturing when you think of extremely kinky sex that they consider “foul and dangerous” - they’re defining that to include any sex acts they personally don’t like.
And also? This is why queer people and kinky people have a lot of overlap when it comes to their rights. The laws that criminalize “indecency” and other “damaging” sexual behavior always impact queer people the most, whether that’s a side effect or by design.