Tag Archives: sex-normativity

Takeaways from conservative Christian sex manuals

[cw: sex-normativity, misogyny, rape culture]

It is through sexual union that people feel closest to Christ. Not only does God reveal himself in sexual love, but, as one book poetically argues, the only way mortals can find Christ is in the marital act, which is the holiest of acts. In this sense, the marital union is seen as a profound prayer, as “no human activity gives more glory to man’s creator than the act by which man is permitted to share in creation.” […]

Husbands and wives are obligated to honor each other’s sexual needs for “it is God’s will that married people enjoy sexual relations.” Abstinence from sex is allowed only under specific conditions, by mutual agreement, and temporarily. […]

The two principal types of sexual maladjustment cited in the manuals are frigidity on the part of the wife and premature ejaculation on the part of the husband. According to one book, “sexual frigidity is without doubt the greatest sexual problem threatening contemporary marriages. It is not an exaggeration to say that the majority of modern wives are, in some degree, frigid!” These authors are pessimistic regarding the transformation of cold into passionate wives. “There are frigid women, many of them, and the most skilled lovers would be powerless to ‘cure’ them.”

Lionel S. Lewis and Dennis D. Brissett, “Sex as God’s Work”

Nothing to say here that I haven’t said already.

Thanks again to Kristiny for the link.



tfw you order some rope online and the package comes with a version of the company’s business card where one side just has a picture of a very naked woman, tied up and looking at the camera.

Excuse you, just because I bought some hardware doesn’t mean I’m okay with you putting this in my eyes.


[cw: pedophilia-adjacent and CSA-adjacent stuff]

Continue reading

The Virgin Queen

[tw: transmisogyny, incest]

But when we’re fictionalizing someone who was famously the “Virgin Queen,” most of that fictionalizing will center around one thing: “Come on.  We know she’s f***ing someone.  Who is she reeeeaaally schtupping?  Because it had to be someone, right?”

I’m not the only one who noticed this, I see.  Glad to hear it acknowledged.  Not glad that this thread carries through more depictions than I was even aware of, though.

Ace-Hate in Anti-Kink Rhetoric

One of the problems in anti-kink rhetoric, as relates to constructing a “normal, healthy sexuality” in opposition to the big bad wolf of kinkiness, oddly mirrors one of the chief oversights of libfemy sex-positivity.  This is a brief post about that.

I know other people have pointed out this stuff before; I’m just putting this here so it’ll be on my blog and in my tags.

Anyway — I’ve seen anti-kink folk highlight a number of different things as their sticking point, the intentional causation of pain being one of them, which I assume is why the pain play/spicy food comparison as a counterargument is regarded as old hat.  And one of the ways I’ve seen the object of moral criticism differentiated, subsequently, is the potential for traumatization.


You know what else can traumatize people?

In the title of this post, I labeled this rhetorical choice an implicit form of “ace-hate,” but strictly speaking that’s an oversimplification.  The actual demographics invalidated might be better described as some number of people who don’t want sex, some number of people who have experienced sexual abuse or violation, and some number of people distressed by sexual dysfunction.

There are lots of reasons why sex could be a site of trauma for someone.  There are lots of reasons why someone might view sex as, for them, a damaging and harmful thing.

Yet as far as I’m aware, it’s rare for anti-kink radfems to extend sex-critical lenses into fully anti-sex claims.  As far as I’m aware, they might view sexuality as something that’s not above criticism, but that doesn’t usually result in a blanket condemnation of sex itself.  Somehow I haven’t managed to see as many people proclaiming to be morally opposed to (all and any) sex — on the basis of potential for traumatization — as I’ve seen proclaiming to be morally opposed to “BDSM”* for a similar reason.

*I really dislike this umbrella term more and more as I try to discuss these things.  It brackets a bunch of things together that don’t always go together, which depending on the context can interfere with clarity.

If “can be experienced as traumatic” were really the sticking point for being anti-kink in whatever capacity, then logic would dictate that the same precept should apply to sex.

But it appears people are a lot less interested in pursuing that idea.

Almost as if an “atypical” (negative) relationship to sex is deemed too uncommon to take into account.  As if it doesn’t warrant consideration in these matters.  As if people are reluctant to judge and denounce the-physical-act-of-sex-itself on the basis that damaging outcomes with it are possible.

I guess remembering not to imply sex is free of these problems would just be too inconvenient.


Why do I even trust any resources not made by aces anymore?

[cw: abstract references to sexual harassment and I guess sexual violence more generally, plus (supposedly separate from the first two) sexual stuff worded-as-a-command, me making threats of violence out of frustration, general stress vibes]

Continue reading


It’d be nice if there were some kind of in-depth, ace-friendly resource for reading up on sexual disorders that wasn’t an utter minefield.

I’m thinking of the more technical/physical/structural ones here — pain disorders, arousal disorders, orgasmic disorders, etc (not desire or aversion disorders thx).

phone conversation

the copilot: (reading from the back of a book her friend gave her) “…Using Liberation Theology and Queer Theory, [this book] exposes the sexual roots that underlie all theology…”

me: (groaning) Why won’t people just leave me alone?

The Shame Clause

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.

Continue reading

A Thing That Happened

So there’s this thing, this occurrence I don’t know how to name, that I don’t want to talk about in person with any of the people that know her, and somehow I’ve been posting on an anonymous asexuality blog for almost a year without ever talking about it — and I still don’t want to talk about it, because I don’t know how.

CW for sexual harassment, sort of, even though I don’t know whether to call this sexual harassment.

Continue reading