ur calling me a rapist and shaming me if I want sex
So why do those folks always go there with this argument?
Reading through conversations like this, I’m seeing consistent translation of “don’t coerce/guilt/force people into sex” into “you are shaming me and accusing me of rape just for wanting sex.” But then those same people are also making statements that DO suggest whatever partner they’re with is responsible for satisfying their sex drive, and that it’s actually failure to fulfill a perceived obligation that’s abusive.
No. Saying sex-repulsed people should not have to have sex is not the same thing as telling you you’re bad for wanting it. Your desire for sex does not entitle you to receiving sex from your partner. Also, framing “withholding sex” as abusive buys right into rape culture.
Nobody called you a terrible person for desiring sex, and nobody advocated staying in relationships where your needs are not being met to an unacceptable degree. Nobody “called you a rapist” for wanting sex. Nobody perceives you as a “dirty sex haver” for the crime of having or desiring sex. But yeah, you’re a shitty person if you use your desires and the ENORMOUS POWER OF THE STATUS QUO to make a sex-repulsed person feel they must have sex with you because you want them to.
And yeah, you’re a shitty person if “don’t make people feel obligated to have sex with you” translates to “you’re forcing me to go without” in your mind. You know all those people who condescendingly told aces (and I guess sex-repulsed people or people who don’t want sex at all/as much as their partners, by association) that they should “just date each other, obvi”? Well, why doesn’t that apply to them? Why don’t they “just date each other”? Well, or if they are in a situation that requires them to either break up or find a compromise, is it too much to ask that they stop treating their desire for sex as more important and more deserving of satisfaction than the desires of their partner(s)?
Also, pointing out that someone’s behavior enables rape culture is not the same thing as “calling someone a rapist.” If you defend that desiring sex entitles you to that sex from a specific person, and you’ve dubbed that person responsible for your satisfaction, no you are not necessarily raping someone, but you ARE contributing to a societal dynamic that encourages people to view sex as a right. Your right to pursue sex is not in question. Your right to pursue it from a specific person shorts out at the border of that person’s bodily autonomy.
Your sexual needs are not dirty or wrong. But when you frame their satisfaction as another person’s responsibility against their will, that is manipulative. Especially considering how societal expectations already automatically put sex-repulsed people at a disadvantage in advocating for themselves. Don’t ignore that. We’re not and have never been on equal ground when it comes to whose needs are perceived as more important. When you exploit that dynamic to get what you want, knowing that your partner is probably already having to resist programmed guilt and shame to even express to you that they don’t want to consent, you deserve the shame you get. Make no mistake: that shame is not doled out because you want sex or want to feel loved and desired by your partner. It’s because people who try to make others feel they can’t say no deserve to be ashamed.
I recently had a conversation that was along these same lines, though it didn’t get as nasty. (If you want to read some thoughts on it, I posted about it here.) A person commented on my website claiming ace people just don’t understand what it’s like to “expect a comprehensive sex life” and not get it, and went on to say that people are expected in relationships to have sex (and I quote) two to three times a week for twenty to sixty minutes each session. If, this person opined, other arrangements are agreed upon, that’s fine. BUT. If it has not been discussed otherwise, it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that this level and frequency of sex is going to be happening. It’s the default, and it is understood by ALL who play the game as definitively as how pawns are expected to move in a game of chess. And the person who will not offer sex on these terms is, in fact, reneging on a universally understood contract. This commenter literally went on to say that not doing so is tantamount to not paying for your meal in a restaurant, or transplanting foreign rules onto chess moves, or getting out of the cab without paying the fare, or refusing to use the toilet. (REAL EXAMPLES. THESE ARE THE PERSON’S REAL EXAMPLES. You can read the thread here to see I am NOT exaggerating.)
That is the entitlement we’re talking about here, y’all. People like this claim we have to disclose/negotiate/take exception while they have a right to expect, and that the situation automatically defaults to their standard unless we say otherwise. If a person actually thinks sex in a relationship is part of an understood contract, it’s not surprising that they treat it like a “violation” when they don’t receive it. My argument is that no contract terms about sex automatically exist when people have a relationship, and one of my goals in activism is to destroy the idea that anyone ever owes another person sex, as a default or otherwise. The fact that people are arguing about this at all makes it clear that it is a conversation you have to have without assumptions, and it is necessary that all partners respect each others’ needs and acknowledge that those needs can fluctuate.
Surprisingly (not), the person I was arguing with concluded that I am accusing all sex-desiring people of being rapists, and insisted that requests for respect translate directly to “trapping” non-ace people in unhappy relationships. They also (of course) claimed my bias toward asexual people meant I can’t handle any dissent, and that the only conversations I welcome are exchanges in which people smile and agree with me. Framing me as being unable to handle arguments because I countered every entitled statement was pretty disingenuous, but that’s pretty common here too. They say something gross, you respond with why you think they’re wrong, and you’re told you can’t deal with “opinions.” When said “opinions” threaten the sexual consent, bodily autonomy, and mental health of some of the most vulnerable people in society (and when said “opinions” resoundingly echo the aggressively inculcated perspectives of mainstream culture that is in no danger of being drowned out or left unvoiced), yeah, I guess I can’t “deal with it.” It’s not just an opinion because it’s used to convince members of my community and those who intersect with it that someone else’s desires are always, by default, more important than theirs.
Being in a relationship is not consent to sex. It is not “understood” consent to sex. It is not “understood” consent to any amount of sex. And it is not a blanket level of consent to sex that applies unless it’s explicitly declined. If sex from your partner is vital to your happiness, what we’re saying is your solution should never involve pressuring a sex-repulsed person. That should not be controversial, and it should not be taken to mean that sex-desiring people don’t have important needs or that they become rapists just by wanting sex.
romaincrisis
ellievsbear
gamechangershow
gracieabrams
