The Shame Clause (noun): the product of the mandate that any positive comment about sex repulsion must be followed with an addendum about not shaming sexual pleasure or expression.
Example: theplaceinsidetheblizzard’s repulsion acceptance post receiving numerous replies such as “But what’s not okay is shaming people who don’t feel the same way for liking things that they deem gross or repulsive. Respect everyone’s opinions so long as they’re not outright offensive or mean and everyone will be happy!” and “People is fine but a whole country is not. Women should not be taught to be ashamed of their bodies and neither should men. We should celebrate our bodies” and “But dont [sic] have them try and tell me how to dress. That’s not ok.”
All this in response to a simple “People are allowed to be uncomfortable with nudity.”
How often, I wonder, do these same people jump on a “People are allowed to like sex” type of post with “But what’s not okay is shaming people who don’t feel the same way” and “Women should not be taught to be ashamed of being uncomfortable with naked bodies and neither should men” and “But don’t have them try and tell me how to dress” …? Tell me, how often do you see that happen?
If support for sexual activity and sexual desire and general sex-positive messages don’t need a shame clause, then why doesn’t the same apply to repulsion acceptance as well?
Does our existence really need to come with a disclaimer?
The fact that (evidently) some people feel threatened by a statement of acceptance (“but don’t attack those who don’t!” in response to “people are allowed to feel this way”) is itself an indication that people see something wrong with us — or see us as potentially oppressive.
Why is it that some people disliking nakedness is fine “but a whole country is not”? Why not? Are sex-repulsed people only acceptable if their numbers stay below a certain percentage of the population?
Don’t tell me to celebrate my body. I don’t want to “celebrate my body.” Go jump in a lake.
The only connection I can see between “people are allowed to be uncomfortable with genitalia” and “but don’t have them try and tell me how to dress” is that the latter speaker presumes “I don’t want to see your exposed crotch” is equivalent to “telling me how to dress,” in which case: yes, you should absolutely not put people in the position of seeing your genitals if they haven’t consented to that. You should be allowed to dress how you want up to and only as far as that. I don’t normally assume that the “freedom from restrictive dress codes” movement is advocating for acceptance of flashers, but such a reply in this context would suggest someone believes full nudity in public deserves unconditional tolerance. Really, am I that much of a right-wing extremist for wanting to draw the line there?
Of course I understand that they probably just associate “doesn’t like sex” with “tries to control others,” but that’s part of my point: that there’s this unstated concern that sex-repulsed people have institutional control over society. Which, in case you haven’t noticed, we don’t. Otherwise our natural sentiments wouldn’t be considered a psychological disorder.
We are not hurting you by breathing the same air as you. We are not the threat that needs to be braced against. We are among the cold and hungry for acceptance, not the enemy at the gates. We don’t need a shame clause.
In conclusion, you all look like this: