While browsing the asexual blogs that I’ve recently discovered, I’ve found some really interesting posts on asexuality and rape culture. And since we’ve been talking about rape culture lately, I thought it was a really relevant topic to discuss.
“…99% of the world is sexual and awash in cultural narratives towards how sex is owed in a relationship and away from earnest examination of sexuality and relationship structures.In short, asexuals in relationships can find themselves highly prone to being coerced into sex they would not have agreed to otherwise, because of sexual society memes about how sex is owed in romantic relationships.”
“[People] talk about how asexuals don’t really have a human rights issue to organize about, that all we want is visibility. You point out–and rightly so–that asexuals can get married, and marriage isn’t all about sex. Now, you mentioned that there is an expectation there that the marriage isn’t consummated until the couple has had sex. You say that of course nobody is enforcing how often a couple has sex, and sure, that’s true… but the real problem is that nobody is enforcing the right of the uninterested party to NOT have sex. Marital rape is very real, but often goes unrecognized as a real rape because there is this idea that if people get married to one another, they automatically grant consent to have sex with that partner in the future, therefore, they believe those people cannot be raped.”
“…true consent is never tacit, it is never silent. Too many young men become date rapists by confusing silence with a clear, verbal affirmation. “No means no”, but with folks you don’t know well, you need to presume that silence (especially when accompanied by physical passivity) is also a loud, clear, shout-it-from-the-flippin’-rooftops, “NO!” How many women have had sex they didn’t desire with men they didn’t want simply because they were too tired of fighting, too tired of resisting, too eager to just have it over with?”
I also came across a few posts regarding “gift sex” or sex as a “compromise” with a sexual partner. I agree that compromise is important in all relationships, and sometimes you do things that you don’t want to do to please your partner, but to me, sex, especially for asexuals, should not be one of those things. That sounds like what Schwyzer deemed “sex characterized by obligation, confusion, and detached resignation.” Yes, both partners have a right to have their needs met, but in cases of sex, the sexual partner’s needs are far outweighing the asexual person’s needs if the asexual partner feels obligated to have sex with them. Where is the line drawn between coercive rape and “gift sex” from an asexual partner to their sexual partner?
“Part of being a good man, I teach, is not being a relentless advocate for your own pleasure. Part of being a good sexual partner is not using a variety of psychological (and chemical) tactics to turn the red light to green, to turn the “no” into a “yes”, or even worse, to simply wait until the young woman has grown tired of saying “no” and falls into a resigned silence.”
“Resigned silence,” to me, doesn’t sound pleasurable at all, for either party. One asexual described her experience in trying to learn to have sex with her sexual partner:
“There was a point where he tried to get me to get on top, but it was too painful, and I didn’t understand what I was supposed to be doing there, or how it could possibly be enjoyable to try. I didn’t want to drag it out. It felt unnatural, and I wanted it to just be over with.”
And, even though that is what sex was like for her, her partner continued to want to have sex. And she felt obligated to do so. To me, that’s coercive rape if I’ve ever heard it. Our culture and society, by only showing one standard of romantic relationships (marriage is for procreation, and therefore involves sex), promote coercive rape when an individual does not want to engage in what is seen as their “duty” as a participant in a romantic relationship.
I'm Britni, a snarky bitch and generally awesome person. I write about sex, love, and bullshit. If sex-positivity, discussions about BDSM and kink, queer issues, and topics that are completely inappropriate by society's standards make you uncomfortable, then this blog is not for you.
Good Vibes 
13 Comments
I don't think that what The Gray Lady described, if one reads her post, sounds much like rape. She wanted to try it, certainly because of pressures and obligations she felt, but she non-the less wanted to find a way "to do sex".
And while you are entirely right in saying that marriage and romantic relationships in general imply sexual interactions, I disagree with you on two points.
For one, this is not so because "marriage is for procreation". We have long since decoupled sexuality from procreation, thanks to reliable contraceptives. Some Christian groups might promote this, but the reality is different. Relationships involve sex, because one of their functions is to produce spaces where we can have legitimate sex. There are other matters of bonding, belonging, emotional and economic connections, but almost all of those are related to sex in some way. And, I would argue, its good, even necessary to have some kind of institution that does this. Most people want sex and they need some way to satisfy this desire in a socially acceptable way, that is without suffering social sanctions. They do this be having an institution (or several) in place that produces legitimate space for sex. This institution in modern, western society is called the (romantic) relationship. It's vital for its functioning, that it implies sex (at some point, in some way, details are open to debate).
Yes, social institutions do have coercive force. But this is just a matter of being social beings. Requirements of social spaces like reducing of complexity, producing reliability and stability and encouraging cooperation cannot be had unless we somehow make each other conform to some regular forms of behavior. And to some degree, this is always coercive.
This was a central point in my article on seduction.
The easy answer would be to say that if you don't want sex, don't have romantic relationships. If you want other things that romantic relationships produce, find someone who will do that with you without wanting sex. If you do want to participate in a full blown romantic relationship, find a way to communicate with your partner, and find a partner with whom you can communicate your problems on the matter, maybe you will find a solution, maybe you won't.
Queer people (in the widest sense) have solved the problem of heterosexual monogamous vanilla relationships being unfit for their desires by creating queer interaction spaces where they have set up their own institutions regarding sex. A good solution if there ever was one. I'm not sure if there are enough asexual people for this to be workable, but it makes sense to me at least.
So, I think that attacking that the institution of romantic relationships involves sex is not a good move. Alternative institutions would be better. But any institution requires a semi-stable group of regularly interacting people in order to bring it forth. Then, the requirements of sociality as well as the desires of the individuals can be satisfied.
She wanted to try it, certainly because of pressures and obligations she felt, but she non-the less wanted to find a way "to do sex".
Yes, but *why* did she want to do so? She had no interest in sex. Her partner did. Society told her that romantic relationships involved sex. And so, she tried. Which is fine. But she also hated it. And her partner couldn't accept that. Especially once she'd agreed to try it, she'd given in. It had become expected.
And it goes along with the concept of "gift sex." Why should an asexual person, who has no desire for this activity, give it up becuase their partner wants it? They shouldn't feel obligated to do so. Especially if they've made their feelings clear from day one with their partner.
The easy answer would be to say that if you don't want sex, don't have romantic relationships. If you want other things that romantic relationships produce, find someone who will do that with you without wanting sex. If you do want to participate in a full blown romantic relationship, find a way to communicate with your partner, and find a partner with whom you can communicate your problems on the matter, maybe you will find a solution, maybe you won't.
That would be ideal, no? But it's not an easy thing to find, is it?
Hardly anything is ever ideal, I guess. Society is a messy, untidy, swirling intermixing turmoil and nobody has complete control about where they will go at any moment.
Yes, but *why* did she want to do so? She had no interest in sex. Her partner did. Society told her that romantic relationships involved sex.
They do. They are the predominant social instutition which produces a space for legitimate sex by placing it within a larger structure of norms.
It seems that you critize the coercive power of social institutions in general and there is something to that criticism. Something about coercion seems inherently bad. But social institutions are a necessary requirement for any kind of social group. You simply do not get people interacting socially without institutions arising. And to work at all, they need coercive force. They need to enforce conformity to certain behavior patterns, without which there would not be any institution.
But it is also true that some people are such that some institutions do not work for their well-being or even severely disadvantage them. The latter would be a good description of women's situation. Or imagine a classical marriage, where permanent sexual availability is expected of the wife. One could say that such an institution institutionalizes rape. But this is not the case with romantic relationships. It does not say that you can fuck your girlfriend anytime you like, but it does say that sex is an important and central part of what a romantic relationship is.
The institution of romantic relationships does not work for asexual people, but it is not an institution that institutionalizes rape or mistreatment of asexual people.
And so, she tried. Which is fine. But she also hated it. And her partner couldn't accept that. Especially once she'd agreed to try it, she'd given in. It had become expected.
I don't see that in her article. Quite the opposite. She writes like she has always felt in control and her decision to "learn how to do sex" was not nakely coerced, but arose out of reflection on what she wanted, given the social context she was in. She did not merely submit to a coercive institution, but reflected upon it and oriented herself, as an agent and not just as a subject, towards it in a way she thought was right. Turns out it was, but the guy she did it with was the wrong person to do it with.
And it goes along with the concept of "gift sex." Why should an asexual person, who has no desire for this activity, give it up becuase their partner wants it? They shouldn't feel obligated to do so. Especially if they've made their feelings clear from day one with their partner. I agree that the sexual partner has as little business in being in a relationship with the asexual partner as the other way round. But I don't see what is wrong with "gift sex" per se. I can imagine many situations where doing something you have no desire to is ok, maybe even the right thing to do. Make it a bit more simple: A desires bondage, B doesn't. If B decides to partake in bondage play with A, it is not bad merely because of that fact. It can go well, with B finding something nice about bondage, it can go ok, with B feeling rather neutral, it can go terrible, with B wishing never to have done it. And it seems that The Gray Lady did find something enjoyable about sex in the end.
I have a really hard time understanding that "Asexuals" are a separate cohort that need recognition.
Sexual drive is something that is high in some individuals and low in others. And some are SUPER high, and some have no sex drive whatsoever. But this may ebb and flow over time. An individual may have periods of "asexuality" (that may last weeks, months, years) and may have periods of low to high sex drives.
I am inclined to believe that people aren't born "asexual," as people are born heterosexual, bisexual, straight, etc. Sex drive is controlled by, for lack of a better word, chemicals in yo' body. Hormones, etc. A person's desire to have sex (or masturbate, their "horniness level") could fluctuate greatly when these change, when taking medication for example.
So if there is an individual who never, ever, ever has felt hornypants and has no desire to masturbate or have sexual relations of any kind and they are fine with that… fine. But I think it's dangerous to assign them a new group to belong to. Because I think there are plenty of people, especially women, who may have no sex drives at all and want to. They wish they had a sex drive and don't know what to do about it. But now they're thinking, "Well maybe I was 'born Asexual' and am part of this group." And they might lose years of their lives thinking "that's just how it is" and not potentially addressing other options with a doctor.
That being said, if there is someone who never ever has had a sex drive and is fine with that, great! Live your life as you want it! Be happy and healthy! However they cannot expect to partner with a "sexual" person, (nor can a sexual person expect to partner with someone with no sex drive) unless there are some serious considerations made (open relationship, etc). That needs to be discussed immediately in a relationship, which is obviously hard when you just meet someone. So maybe THAT'S the benefit as labeling oneself as "asexual" and organizing… to widen the dating pool? I don't know. I just have a serious problem with considering people with little to no sex drive a separate cohort on the same level as LBGTetc.
Oh, wow, resigned sex. That's what I had for the last few years of my marriage… before I categorically refused and would fight him off (getting that black belt in karate meant that he knew I was not going to give in easily any more).
He never 'forced me' when it all started to go wrong but he just kept on trying. Night after night, he would continually paw at me, groping, poking. Sometimes I would wake up with his fingers inside me and sometimes I would push him away and at others I would just tacitly agree by saying and doing nothing. Just letting him because I didnt have the energy to keep making excuses. Rather than just telling him that I didn't find him sexually attractive any more.
Asexual is not something I've really thought about much. Was I asexual in the last years of my marriage when I didn't have sex with my Husband? Possibly for one or two because I didn't think about having sex with anyone. I was dead inside. But once those hormones became unbalanced because of the peri-Menopause, the testosterone kicked in and I definitely did want sex – just not with him.
I suppose the only real example we have in the UK is Stephen Fry. He thinks it's 'too messy' apparently and so chooses not to indulge… although that might be out of date info.
Are people really asexual? Or is it just that they havent found anyone who turns them on enough to want to 'get up close and personal and messy'?
Like Welcome to Chicago said, I think it's dangerous to assign labels because libido is so often driven by hormones and other external influences. Just dealing with kids and working fulltime can make you too knackered to want sex now but it doesnt mean that you never want it again.
I read recently about a gene relating to sexual preference that switches itself on and off regularly through the life of certain individuals which could explain why some people are bi-sexual. I will try to find the research.
One should take note that all those asexual bloggers apply that label to themselves and have certain things in mind thereby. And those are not: "never has sex" nor "has no sexual feelings", not "does not enjoy sex". As far as I can tell, it comes down to "does not feel sexual desire towards another person". Which to me looks less like a matter of sex, but of intersubjective interaction.
Whether or not someone should apply a certain label to themselves is open to debate. How much does it come down to how that person feels about him/herself? My girlfriend gets annoyed when I call myself unattractive or ugly. Should I or should I not label myself that? How much should her perceptions matter? How much those of others? How much mine? What kind of understanding of those labels do we have?
I cannot answer those questions, I can only say: "This is what they do, and I do not know why they shouldn't do so."
I don’t know about this one. I think you are bringing up valid questions but I don’t know if I can so easily come to the same conclusions as you. Maybe it’s because in my relationship sometimes I’m not in the mood but I have sex anyways since I know it makes my partner happy. Does that mean I was raped? No of course not. So to say categorically that any person who decides to have sex with their partner, even if they don’t really want to, is being cohesively raped is incorrect in my opinion (though obviously there is a difference between someone making the decisions to put their partners needs first and someone who feels like they don’t have a choice). But the problem is how are we supposed to know how each person individually feels about each individual sexual encounter?
I totally agree that this is a serious issue that needs more consideration but I think there is a lot of middle ground that needs to be worked out first because there are obligations in every relationship.
Oops. Obviously I meant “coercively” not “cohesively” lol
Joanna, people that are asexual treat it like any other orientation. It's not something that comes and goes, it's something that is always with them, like being hetero, homo, or bisexual. I wrote about it here. Your story about your marriage is one that I think you'll be able to relate to a post I will eventually write on marital rape and "wifely duty."
ignorantarmies, if someone identifies as asexual, who are we to tell them that they're not? That would be like telling your girlfriend that she isn't bisexual (or pansexual or queer; I'm not exactly sure how she identifies). Or telling a trans person that they're not a man/woman.
Alana, a lot of these points are strung together, and I know they're connected but I'm still trying to coherently formulate how. Some of your points will be more relevant to the post I mentioned to Joanna above. What makes obligation/"gift sex," etc different when someone in the relationship is asexual is that this person does not want to have sex. And it's never something that they want.
When most people get married/together, sex is an expectation, and therefore, yes, compromises have to be made and sometimes one partner will have sex when maybe they don't want to. But if an asexual person is coerced into this, say by a partner who "doesn't believe" that they're *really* asexual, or by someone who thought they could deal with a sexless relationship but can't, or by someone that decides they're sick of waiting for this asexual person to "change their mind," that's a different thing altogether.
I know I'm not articulating what I want to say as well as I would like, but as I said, these are still things I'm throwing around in my head. But hopefully you can see where I'm trying to go with it.
I totally see where you’re going and I agree, but I’m having a hard seeing how this works out practically. Are we supposed to look at asexual people as a separate type of person that needs special considerations? I don’t know if that’s a good solution. And what responsibility does the asexual person have in all this? I don’t know. It’s very complicated. I think that’s good though because it makes us question the way we look at relationships and what we consider the standard.
ignorantarmies, if someone identifies as asexual, who are we to tell them that they're not? That would be like telling your girlfriend that she isn't bisexual (or pansexual or queer; I'm not exactly sure how she identifies). Or telling a trans person that they're not a man/woman.
Which kind of was my point, wasn't it? It must have gotten lost among my usual uncertainties.
Still, I would like to make one observation: If labeling is entirely up to the person who labels herself, then it seems that labels might not mean much anymore. If I were to label myself asexual, citing that this doesn't have anything to do with me wanting sex. Some people will object. And I think rightfully so. I couldn't just label myself homosexual or black or Christian without earning criticism on not fitting those labels. Can I just make up a label for me? Like Paleosexual? Does this mean anything to anyone? Can it mean anything to me? I don't know. More important than the labels is that we try to understand the people and their perspective.
Can I just make up a label for me? Like Paleosexual? Does this mean anything to anyone? Can it mean anything to me? I don't know. More important than the labels is that we try to understand the people and their perspective.
Yes. You could. You can identify however you want, and however you see yourself. The label is not important, you're right, but to some people, finding one that they feel fits them is important. And sometimes that requires making one up.
But you are right on the money regarding perspective being more important than labels, when you look at the bigger picture.
I’m late to the party, but I really liked this post and felt compelled to comment. As an asexual (here defined as no sexual attraction to anyone, and no interest in sex for my own pleasure), the gray area of compromise in sex is a tricky one to navigate. My experience with sex has been very similar to The Gray Lady’s. Sex makes no sense to me personally, not the initiation of it, the reciprocation of sexual touch, or the various sexual positions. I’m mostly indifferent to and confused by sex, though not repulsed by it.
I’m in a committed relationship with a het guy who has a pretty strong sex drive, and when he first learned that I was asexual he said that, although he knew it was an ugly thing to say, he didn’t know if he could stick it out in a relationship if there wasn’t any sex involved. I immediately thought that if I had made the same ultimatum, it would have been much more unreasonable. Successive conversations made him realize what a shitty thing that was to say, and he later apologized and told me that if sex no longer became an option in our relationship, he’d still be determined to make our relationship work.
But while I don’t think of sex first when it comes to ways to express love and intimacy (I don’t think of it at all, really), that’s not to say I don’t derive pleasure from it through experiencing my boyfriend’s pleasure. There’s nothing onerous or unpleasant about sex with my boyfriend. It is simply something that is consistently foreign and unfamiliar to me, and kissing and cuddling before and after — and experiencing him in the throes of orgasm — make it fun and worthwhile in a way that isn’t altogether altruistic. I’m a “sex positive” asexual — many of us are, and don’t consider sex with our sexual significant others coercive rape.
One Trackback
[...] discussed coercive rape on this blog before, and that I think that men are victims when it comes to how we teach consent just as much as [...]