Linkspam: September 5th, 2014

Every Friday, we will share links to news, blogs, and anything else we find interesting.  We can’t catch everything, so you are invited to self-promote in the comments!

Queenie reviewed The Invisible Orientation.

SL Huang interviewed Swankivy about The Invisible Orientation.

luvtheheaven wrote about sex-positivity, compulsory sexuality, and AVEN.

Spade (The Ace Theist) wants to write a How to Not to Hose Up Your 101 Powerpoint 101 post, and is looking for input.

mild-madness wrote about the ethics of expecting sex from someone who isn’t sexually attracted to you. (content note: discussion of rape)

Dragon wrote about respectability politics.

About queenieofaces

QueenieOfAces is a graduate student in the U.S. studying Japanese religion. She is a queer asexual. She also blogs over at Concept Awesome and runs Resources for Ace Survivors. She is never quite sure what to write in these introduction things, but this one time she accidentally got a short story on asexuality published in an erotica magazine.
This entry was posted in Linkspam. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Linkspam: September 5th, 2014

  1. Siggy says:

    I did a double-take when the mild-madness article claimed that “sex-positive” meant you were more than willing to have sex. That’s quite a drift in meaning there.

    • Spade says:

      I’ve seen some people use it that way before, synonymously to what people have been using “sex-favorable” to mean, as if it’s an antonym to being sex-averse… and as if there aren’t sex-averse people who also identify as sex-positive.

      I find the mixup kind of worrying.

    • I’ve also seen people treating “sex-favorable” as if it means “sex-positive”. I can see where it might be confusing if you weren’t at all familiar with the existing terminology, but it can make it really difficult to write about any of the topics if there’s a good chance people are going to misunderstand what you’re referring to.

    • queenieofaces says:

      I did as well. Then again, people are reblogging my “Sex isn’t always good” article on tumblr and claiming that it’s an encapsulation of the essence of sex-positivity (when…actually it’s criticizing sex-positivity pretty severely) so I really don’t know what’s going on. I actually found the conflation of sex-negativity with sex-repulsion more surprising, somehow.

      • Elizabeth says:

        Probably what’s going on with the reblogging as encapsulating sex-positivity is that sex-positivity is a political movement that is split between those people who push compulsory sexuality and people who emphasize consent. The people reblogging probably have the same criticisms of the movement, but feel like they are criticizing it from within, and that the people who are pushing compulsory sexuality are failing to live up to the movement’s goals, and thus aren’t really being sex-positive in the first place. That may seem like a No True Scotsman, but I think it’s more comparable to people saying that Sarah Palin isn’t a feminist even if she may call herself that. Being a political movement instead of a fact of birth/biology, it’s more of an expectation that you behave in a particular way that upholds the goals of the movement than something you can just identify as and have it be accepted… Does that make sense?

        That said, yeah, the conflation of sex-negativity with sex-repulsion and sex-positivity with being “more than willing to have sex” is… really, what the hell? If that is a paper for a school project, I really hope it is a rough draft still and not something that has already been turned in.

      • Siggy says:

        I’ve long thought that the meaning of “sex-positivity” in ace communities has drifted significantly from its meaning everywhere else. I think of “sex-positive” as referring to a cluster of political positions, and different people have different ideas of what is the principle behind the politics. As far as asexuals seem to care, it’s all about the principle, and no one ever seems to say they’re sex-positive in order to convey their beliefs about abortion or contraception. This makes a certain amount of sense, since asexuality is a non-canonical issue for sex-positivity, and if we want to extend sex-positive politics to asexuality, we have to think about the underlying principle. But yeah, everyone gets confused.

        Using “sex-positive” and “sex-negative” to refer to asexuals who are or aren’t willing to have sex, on the other hand… where does that even come from? I guess they found the political meaning of “sex-positive” to be so useless that the term got pressed into a different purpose entirely?

        • Aqua says:

          I think that it’s because of what those terms sound like they mean at face value; it sounds like ‘sex-positive’ means being open to sex, and it sounds like ‘sex-negative’ means not wanting sex. This is what I thought when I first heard those terms, and I think I heard of them from the asexual community first. I plan on writing some more things about the discrepancies in terminology I’ve ran into since finding the asexual community. I had nearly forgotten about these ones until it was brought up just now.

          • Siggy says:

            But… they’re pre-existing terms. “Sex-positive” has been around since what, the 60s? (Wikipedia dates it to the 1930s.) Using the terms to refer to willingness to have sex doesn’t make any sense outside of an ace context, and is enough of a break from previous meanings that it’s simply erroneous. I get why people are making the error, but it’s simply indefensible, not to mention problematic in a number of ways.

  2. Aqua says:

    I wrote about some other less-talked about ways asexuals can have their identities assailed, based off of some of the submissions from the first issue of F-ace-ing Silence: http://cakeatthefortress.wordpress.com/2014/08/30/other-ways-of-being-an-assailable-asexual/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s