How do you talk about sexual norms in an ace-competent way?

There can be a lot of complexity involved in articulating the nuances of societal norms around sexuality, and even in the briefest of offhand references, sometimes people can miss the mark. One of the most common mistakes I see (and the one that I’m the most sensitized to, for the same reasons that I identify as ace) are the mistakes that zero in on the types of sex you’re told not to have without accounting for the types of sex you’re told to have, to the point of being not just incomplete but outright inaccurate. Neglecting the latter leads into overgeneralizations as ludicrously inaccurate as “everybody tells you not to have sex,” instead of attending to the specifics of which particular subjectivities and choices are condemned. This, in turn, is functionally how you end up with people arriving at the notion of asexual privilege.

So how can that be avoided? I don’t claim to have the answer completely sorted out, which is why I’m inviting input here in the comments. As an opening to the discussion, though, here are some things that I think are important to understand: 1) there is no one singular monolithic “society” that speaks with one voice, 2) other sexual norms can intersect with sexnormativity/compulsory sexuality, and 3) when talking about other types of sexual norms, you should try to take that intersection into account.

[Crossposted to Pillowfort. Preview photo by Marco Verch.]

There Is No One Singular “Society”

When we talk about societal norms, if we’re being precise, we are not necessarily talking about something that is wholly uniform, monolithic, and internally-consistent across all time and space. There is no one singular universal Societal Message that everyone on the planet receives about sex. It’s more like there’s a range of patterns that can be identified — in communication, in social pressures, in punitive measures — and understood as a type of norm.

Identifying a single pattern only highlights one piece of a very large and interwoven puzzle. For example, some of these patterns have been referred to by names such as misogyny, racism, heteronormativity, cissexism, and so on. Each of these describes an axis according to which certain sexual agents/choices are treated as more socially acceptable vs. unacceptable. In some cases we may encounter an example in isolation, but other times (often) these patterns intersect, operating in tandem with each other or compounding one another. For instance, misogyny and heteronormativity are two societal norms that very often intersect with another pattern called sexnormativity.

Sexnormativity/Compulsory Sexuality

Sexnormativity is a name for a pattern of sexual norms under which sex, itself, is the norm. This is not just something that affects people under the asexual umbrella — when it comes to ace-specific problems, I use the term “anti-ace” for that. Sexnormativity, though, refers to a broader pattern that puts pressure on people regardless of identity. To better paint a picture for you, here are some specific examples of what I mean by sexnormativity:

This is what I mean by sexnormativity: in different contexts, in different ways, through varying means and justifications, the throughline of pressure to want and have (normative) sex. Many sexnormative messages may have other norms and prejudices at play — for instance, placing disproportionate pressure on women to submit to the sexual desires of men, framing heterosexual sex as the “default” or most acceptable type of sex, etc. Identifying some issues as sexnormative doesn’t necessarily entail saying that all sex is treated equally; it only means that people are pressured to express or pursue sexual activity/desire/pleasure in particular ways, often with heavy constraints.

Taking Sexnormativity Into Account

When referring to some aspect of sexual norms, being accurate calls for taking sexnormativity into account and determining when it’s relevant. More broadly, a thorough assessment of what’s going on with societal norms has to look at both sides of the equation: both what’s condemned/what people are pressured away from and what’s valued/what people are pressured into. Too many times, I’ve seen people generalize from “this message tells people not to have particular kinds of sex” to “this message tells people not to have sex,” which is imprecise reasoning that usually fails to address what’s actually at stake.

Where it crosses the line from imprecise to completely inaccurate is where sex is still excessively valued in a sexnormative way. I’ve seen this mistake pop up even in rigorous academic analyses, for instance, with critics describing certain ideologies as “anti-sex” and failing to address how those ideologies are in fact very clearly pro-sex (of a narrow and particular kind). In order for a message to be truly “anti-sex,” it would need to be truly endorsing a celibate lifestyle (not just presenting straight/married sex as the only acceptable kind), and I think you’ll find that’s rarely the case.

As I’ve said, there can be a lot of complexity involved in pinning down how these things actually work. Regardless of which sexual norms you’re talking about, though, it should be possible to talk about them without inaccurate sweeping statements that posit sex, itself, as always a denigrated act. Usually, the reality is more complicated that that. So in order to avoid implicitly implying you’re always safe and socially accepted as long as you don’t have/want sex, you need to get more specific about what’s actually going on. It’s beyond me to provide a more comprehensive guide to every issue, but I think the above are some worthwhile starting points.

What else would you add here? Let me know in the comments.

5 responses to “How do you talk about sexual norms in an ace-competent way?

  • kernsing

    I went to Catholic school and they’re really into purity culture :| I had to go to the same chastity talk two times (it might have been three times). According to canon law, inability to have sex disallows you from getting married in the first place ( (of note: sterility, on the other hand, is not an impediment to marriage). I also remember asking the sister who taught theology in my high school if simply choosing to not have sex invalidates a marriage and the answer was yes, that is grounds for annulment.

    • Coyote

      Thanks for the link. I’m not as familiar with Catholicism, but I’m not surprised. Really wish more people were more attentive to these things — just because it’s a norm that many people are happy to abide by doesn’t mean it’s not a norm.

  • Linkspam: April 24, 2020 | The Asexual Agenda

    […] Coyote explains how to talk about sexual norms in an ace-competent way. […]

  • Carmilla DeWinter

    Yeah. This is a great summary of the problems with some discussions so far. Thanks!
    Also, you’re listing the reason I was turned off Wicca almost as soon as I encountered it on my search for a spiritual home. (Back in the 90s. I would’t have been able to tell you exactly what was going on, but the then more prevalent notion that women had to have certain parts and be mothers was offputting. Why follow a religion where you’ll always be judged of falling short?)

This comment section does not require an account.

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: