So we’ve been talking a lot about sex-positivity recently. This is a pretty good example of the sort of conclusions the asexual community has been coming to, written by someone who might not be on your regular reading.
And I’m going to admit, I’m annoyed when I see statements about how ever-wonderful sex is in sex-positivity. I don’t like it when people act like bi or pan is the most enlightened sexual orientation, because who you’re attracted to isn’t a matter of political expediency, and some people can’t or shouldn’t help being attracted to people who fall almost entirely to a particular side of the gender binary, or attracted to no-one. That’s basic.
I don’t like it when people say that sex is sacred, that it is a primal force within us all, that every sensation is a sexual sensation because sex equals life. I don’t want to have to explain why using your personal religious beliefs to create perscriptive rules about how and whether people should have sex is a really fucking bad idea.
And I almost can’t believe I’m saying this, it’s so blindingly obvious, but the reason everyone isn’t spiritually pansexual is because no is a really GOOD word. No goes beautifully with sex. Without it, the entire sex-positive mission just crumbles. Because we are genuinely all unique flowers. That means some of us get turned on by Pamela Anderson, and we somehow can’t operate an equality policy when it comes to David Hasselhoff. We SHOULDN’T be operating an equality policy with our minds, or our beds, or our genitals. It means some of us will absolutely love that special move with the leather implements, and some of us will be bored or uncomfortable. It means we all define sexuality on our own terms. Defining sexuality on your own terms, a fundamental human right, means making full and total use of the buttons marked ‘icky’ and ‘dull’ and ‘not for me’.
Why is this difficult? Seriously?