cawcock

thought about this because it's so frustrating when people argue that 'dying in childbirth' is a historical sort of event that doesn't happen nowadays (false) and therefore is irrelevant to the legal status of abortion, since it's not a real danger.

except it super is, and i think a lot of people haven't noticed that this argument in addition to simply being incorrect is basically the same as when people say we don't need vaccines for deadly diseases because no one gets those now anyway.

You can see these beliefs, regarding compulsory sex, in conservative Christian politicians' obsessions with "increasing the birth rate," with blaming young people for not marrying or having enough babies, et cetera — so they attack any lifestyle that they see as antithetical to the "duty" of reproduction. Those disparaged lifestyles range from sex with contraception, to a lack of sex altogether.

But, noticeably — this isn't something anyone talks about when the word "purity culture" gets used on the internet! Yes, religious purity culture is objectively sex-negative — but as long as it's the right kind of sex, actual religious purity culture also upholds sex as virtuous and necessary! Sex, as a means of reproducing and propagating the faith, as a way of propagating the correct beliefs about sex, is said to be virtuous and necessary! Submitting to your cishet husband's desire is virtuous and necessary! Saying no isn't an option! This is compulsory sexuality! This is where compulsory sexuality largely comes from, in society — it comes from religious purity culture; it's inseparable from religious purity culture! It's an anti-consent culture, and it's antithetical to sexual liberation!

So, all that established... isn't it a little bit jarring, going into spaces on Tumblr that supposedly support sexual liberation, and oppose purity culture... only to see Tumblr users declare that sex is a moral virtue, and that sex is a moral necessity, all because specifically, having sex is what makes you a more progressive, pro-queer, anti-purity culture person?

Isn't it jarring to see Tumblr users declare that "sexless" people are always the culprits for perpetuating purity culture — and declare that "sexless" people perpetuate purity culture because they are sexless? Isn't it jarring when Tumblr users declare that "sexlessness," or "sexless lesbians," or just plain old "asexuals" are ruining the queer community?

Equating sexlessness with purity culture — because you don't understand religious purity culture, or recognize that it obligates sex — is assigning a negative moral value to sexlessness. And assigning a negative moral value to sexlessness is anti-consent. It is compulsory sexuality. It is saying, explicitly or implicitly: "You have to have sex to be a good person. You have to have sex to prove you have the correct beliefs about sex — because everyone who doesn't have sex has the wrong beliefs about sex. If you're saying no to sex — just to personally participating in sex, and deciding to personally be sexless — then you must be sex-negative. You can't be a good person."

Think about how that affects people's ability to say no to sex. If having sex makes you pro-liberation, and not having sex makes you anti-liberation — if liking sex is positioned as the good political stance, and disliking sex is positioned as the incorrect one — then how can you ever say no? How can you say no without feeling like it reveals something terrible about your moral character, or internalized beliefs? And in particular, how can you ever claim the right to say no to sex indefinitely?

Moreover, think about how this affects people who receive the answer "no" to sex. If having sex makes you pro-liberation, what does that give people the opportunity to say about those who refuse to have sex with them? What can they, and will they, say to the person who rejects them? How can a coercive person undermine any "no" that they receive? How will they twist, appropriate, and weaponize the superficial aesthetics of sexual liberation?

Simply put, when "sexlessness" is equated with internalized sex negativity, or with anti-sexual liberation politics, saying "no" to sex is not allowed to exist. Saying "no" means you're being a prude, and that's bad. You need to get over your prudishness — for your own good. And, of course, being a prude is the same as saying no to sex. So you need to stop saying no to sex. You need to have sex. It's the only way to not be a prude. It's the only way to be a good person. It's the only way to have the right beliefs. It's the only way to become liberated.

...What were we supposed to be liberating ourselves from, again? Oh, you know, just that culture of sexual purity that requires a morally obligated amount of sex to be a good person.

I could go on, but just, like... get that compulsory sexuality out of sex positivity. Please. It's not supposed to be there. It's really undermining the whole "consent is good" thing, and alienating people who would otherwise support sex positivity. If you mean sex negative, say "sex negative," instead of "sexless" or "puriteen." Those two words are going up on the high shelf, until people understand that "sexless" does not mean "sex negative," and "purity culture," as the term originates from religious environments, does not mean "we think all sex is bad and you should never have it." Or, in other words:

You can see these beliefs, regarding compulsory sex, in conservative Christian politicians' obsessions with "increasing the birth rate," with blaming young people for not marrying or having enough babies, et cetera — so they attack any lifestyle that they see as antithetical to the "duty" of reproduction. Those disparaged lifestyles range from sex with contraception, to a lack of sex altogether.

But, noticeably — this isn't something anyone talks about when the word "purity culture" gets used on the internet! Yes, religious purity culture is objectively sex-negative — but as long as it's the right kind of sex, actual religious purity culture also upholds sex as virtuous and necessary! Sex, as a means of reproducing and propagating the faith, as a way of propagating the correct beliefs about sex, is said to be virtuous and necessary! Submitting to your cishet husband's desire is virtuous and necessary! Saying no isn't an option! This is compulsory sexuality! This is where compulsory sexuality largely comes from, in society — it comes from religious purity culture; it's inseparable from religious purity culture! It's an anti-consent culture, and it's antithetical to sexual liberation!

So, all that established... isn't it a little bit jarring, going into spaces on Tumblr that supposedly support sexual liberation, and oppose purity culture... only to see Tumblr users declare that sex is a moral virtue, and that sex is a moral necessity, all because specifically, having sex is what makes you a more progressive, pro-queer, anti-purity culture person?

Isn't it jarring to see Tumblr users declare that "sexless" people are always the culprits for perpetuating purity culture — and declare that "sexless" people perpetuate purity culture because they are sexless? Isn't it jarring when Tumblr users declare that "sexlessness," or "sexless lesbians," or just plain old "asexuals" are ruining the queer community?

Equating sexlessness with purity culture — because you don't understand religious purity culture, or recognize that it obligates sex — is assigning a negative moral value to sexlessness. And assigning a negative moral value to sexlessness is anti-consent. It is compulsory sexuality. It is saying, explicitly or implicitly: "You have to have sex to be a good person. You have to have sex to prove you have the correct beliefs about sex — because everyone who doesn't have sex has the wrong beliefs about sex. If you're saying no to sex — just to personally participating in sex, and deciding to personally be sexless — then you must be sex-negative. You can't be a good person."

Think about how that affects people's ability to say no to sex. If having sex makes you pro-liberation, and not having sex makes you anti-liberation — if liking sex is positioned as the good political stance, and disliking sex is positioned as the incorrect one — then how can you ever say no? How can you say no without feeling like it reveals something terrible about your moral character, or internalized beliefs? And in particular, how can you ever claim the right to say no to sex indefinitely?

Moreover, think about how this affects people who receive the answer "no" to sex. If having sex makes you pro-liberation, what does that give people the opportunity to say about those who refuse to have sex with them? What can they, and will they, say to the person who rejects them? How can a coercive person undermine any "no" that they receive? How will they twist, appropriate, and weaponize the superficial aesthetics of sexual liberation?

Simply put, when "sexlessness" is equated with internalized sex negativity, or with anti-sexual liberation politics, saying "no" to sex is not allowed to exist. Saying "no" means you're being a prude, and that's bad. You need to get over your prudishness — for your own good. And, of course, being a prude is the same as saying no to sex. So you need to stop saying no to sex. You need to have sex. It's the only way to not be a prude. It's the only way to be a good person. It's the only way to have the right beliefs. It's the only way to become liberated.

...What were we supposed to be liberating ourselves from, again? Oh, you know, just that culture of sexual purity that requires a morally obligated amount of sex to be a good person.

I could go on, but just, like... get that compulsory sexuality out of sex positivity. Please. It's not supposed to be there. It's really undermining the whole "consent is good" thing, and alienating people who would otherwise support sex positivity. If you mean sex negative, say "sex negative," instead of "sexless" or "puriteen." Those two words are going up on the high shelf, until people understand that "sexless" does not mean "sex negative," and "purity culture," as the term originates from religious environments, does not mean "we think all sex is bad and you should never have it." Or, in other words:

- too sweet is about seizing the day and ignoring healthy habits in favor of having more fun with unhealthy ones. he’s actively critical of himself in the song. it’s now called a song about thinking you’re superior for drinking black coffee.

- take me to church is about worship as a metaphor for sex. it’s called a religious song.

- eat your young is a song about war and political greed. it’s called a song about sex.

- now, the strongly political message of nobody’s soldier is being ignored in favor of calling it a metaphor for hozier’s relationship with his fans.