#sex negativity

LIVE
The vanilla straight edge pride flag for exclusionary sex negative people. The X is for straight edg

The vanilla straight edge pride flag for exclusionary sex negative people.

The X is for straight edge. The beans are for enforcing vanilla politics


Post link

bottom-of-the-riverbed:

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.

bemusedlybespectacled:

afloweroutofstone:

facelessoldgargoyle:

Blowjobs used to be illegal lmao

image

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.

vandopo says: porn has really rotted ppls brains to the point that a guy can rupture his throat during a bj and neither he nor a 100.000 tumblr users see anything wrong with it. it's tagged: #do you really think a sex act that ruptures someones throat was pleasurable up until that moment
bitter radfem harpy says: It’s not homophobic to say “rupturing your partner’s airway and nearly killing him is fucking repulsive and damaging.” Literally all of you Males are sexually violent. You need to “pound” and “nail” and “plow” and “destroy” and “wreck” even while you’re performing an intimate act with someone that you “love” (as much as men are capable of love). You make jokes about your partners limping from how hard you fuck them. You’re aroused by pornographic images of your preferred sex in visible pain. Male sexuality is fucking repulsive and damaging.
not cis just woman says: this and the post the other day about how gay male bottoms have their lower intestines injured during anal sex and have to spend hours noisily wrecking the toilet after anal intercourse really just highlight the fact that male sexuality is fucking repulsive and damaging. sending your partner to the ER is not a healthy sex act.

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:

too angry to stop says: @ gay means homosexual explain to me why women caring about a man ending up in the hospital because of a sex act is homophobic? gay means homosexual says: @ too angry to stop they’re not “caring” about him, they’re using this as an opportunity to broadcast how repulsive they find gay sexuality. It’s incredibly transparent. The implication that this kind of thing is anything but an extremely rare anomaly is homophobic. We’re not out here rupturing each other’s throats all the damn time for gods sake. The fact that radfems feel the need to comment on gay men’s sex lives and call them repulsive and harmful (just like homophobic conservatives, what do you know) is really damn telling. Mind your own fucking business too angry to stop says: sweetie, newsflash but this is just as much my business as it is yours lmfao…but the original comment literally mentions male sexuality which u know is something radfems talk about regardless of the man’s sexual orientation…. like excuse me that males are fond of expressing their sexuality in violent ways as if u necessarily have to rupture anything for it to be violent…. -eye roll-

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.

loading