I too was a child who had so much shit done to in the name of "fixing my eating habits". None of it took, and all of it accomplished was fucking me up even more. I can't eat around people. I sometimes can't even *touch* food. I have nightmares decades on about having to eat certain things. I have something important coming up later this year, and all I can think about is how the fuck am I going to sustain myself for an entire week in an unfamiliar country, around people that I either don't know, or make me extremely anxious in a casual setting (family!).
I've also been the victim of sexual harassment, assault even, but as much as that was not a good experience, it fucked me up far, *far* less than the above. Getting people to understand that, unless they've experienced the same, is a fruitless endeavor, precisely because of these magical qualities people ascribe to sex, so I'm cosigning this bigly.
Your focus on power distance rather than sex in cases of assault, harassment, coercion is significant. The "she was asking for it" argument and modern versions of it ignore that nobody can make up for power distance by being hot. Abuse of power is abuse, full stop. I see your perspective echoed a lot in my teenager's generation. Sexuality and gender is a menu of options, all of which are optional.
I strongly agree with this article and appreciate having all this detail spelled out in one spot. I feel that a lot of the pushback to sex neutrality come from people’s gut feeling that if we take away sex exceptionalism then sexual abuse will be downgraded to being treated only as seriously as e.g. the force feeding children experience or the coercive nature of much employment. These are abuses and exploitations that society largely does not take seriously. For many it is easier to imagine (or has already happened) that people would take sexual abuse as equally unserious than to imagine them taking these other abuses and coercions seriously.
As always, I really appreciate how you break this all down! While some of this I already had read about/agreed with, you dug into a lot of different aspects here that got me thinking and considering things in a new way. Thank you!!
Thanks for this piece! 🙏🏼 I recognize myself in the trauma response you're describing for your sister regarding food : I also have a hard time with group meal and the omnipresence of food in the social spaces. I still get judged when I say that I don't enjoy food, that I don't like eating. Same kinds of judgements I receive in many queer spaces when I say I can go with or without sex for years, that's it's not something I'm really craving or anything. That I don't have "a type" or that I can't just look at a picture and say if I'm attracted or not to someone.
It also helped me put words on some discomfort I have with the "body positivity" and "sex positivity" movements.
"Look at how Ms. Bellum was drawn on the Power Puff Girls — her extreme waist-to-hip ratio and long flowing hair surely reflect the twisted mind of a man with a femininity fetish, how dare he expose children to that."
I'm sure you're being sarcastic here, but Craig McCracken is a fairly button-down guy compared to his animator contemporaries. Some of them have gotten in trouble for what they have done or said, but I've never heard of any such things associated with him.
Yes, I am being sarcastic. My point is that it's not untoward at all for an animator to draw what they find visually appealing -- be it a sexy woman or a musclebound hunk.
Some of this feels relevant, but to say that sex is no different than anything else when it does literally create children, would be to miss out on a very big detail. My whole life changed when I had a baby recently, and it was because of sex. I saw you differentiate sex from sexual pleasure in an instance but I think the lingo could shift a lot more…
It sounds to me like parenthood changed your life? The majority of sexual encounters people have do not result in parenthood, and a majority of sex acts that exist, particularly between queer individuals, cannot result in parenthood. Equating the two is unhelpful to queer people or anyone for whom sex means something other than penis-in-vagina intercourse without contraceptives.
Right, of course. I think you make amazing points. I just hope you can remember it’s equally triggering for parents to read things like this when it WAS a big thing that was very different than taking a ballet class, and is currently still traumatizing in its own way every day, as our nervous systems are fried in a world that barely supports mothers. Everything else in your article resonated for sure.
i mean, that's true, it does have that power, but a lot of the mundane things we do also have similar powers and are treated much more normally. like the fact that we eat and drink is, barring things like IV drips, the only reason any of us is able to life more than a few days and yet those are both completely mundane things. regardless of how impactful sex can be, we gotta just treat it like a normal regular thing
I think you’re right. Sex and reproduction are intrinsically linked. Sure, gay sex doesn’t carry a risk of pregnancy. I would imagine most of the time straight people have sex they’re also doing it for pleasure, not to make a baby. But without reproduction we wouldn’t have genitals, we wouldn’t have orgasms, we wouldn’t have any sexual drive at all. Just because the two are not always literally happening together doesn’t mean they aren’t fundamentally connected in the human imagination. They’re called REPRODUCTIVE organs for a reason. I know sex is much more than just genitalia. But I don’t think identifying the very obvious link between sexuality and reproduction is queer phobic. And I’m saying this as a bi nb born to lesbian moms via sperm donation, I get that there are all kinds of ways to have sex and to have kids.
But does this relate back to sex's traumatic potential? Sex for which reproduction is not a possibility can be just as traumatic as sex for which it is. Even sexual acts where there is no physiological stimulation or response at all happening can be deeply traumatic. If there is something about sex that makes it other or special, it can't be that some sexual acts predict reproduction some of the time.
I actually think it can be. I’m pulling a bit from your other comment here, but just like being exiled by a friend group can be traumatic because it relates back to community and survival even if you don’t literally think you’re going to die, the relationship between sex and reproduction can add to the trauma of sexual violence even if you don’t literally think you’re going to get pregnant. I don’t think reproduction is the whole story on why sex is so psychologically significant, but it’s certainly an important piece.
Ok I am LOGGING OFF now haha✌🏻I think we are very aligned in terms of material political goals, this is basically a philosophical disagreement 💙
Ahh, I see your point! It's true, people bring reproductive language and ideas to sex that can't cause pregnancy all the time. I'll stew on this a bit, thanks.
Hey I hear that. I think mostly what I’m asking for is a little more representation for mamas and parents etc. I think my experience just felt left out of the article is all. It would be nice for a little more mention of the fact that for some people, the thought of sex is COMPLETELY altered after having a simple orgasm turn into 9 months of pregnancy, birth (ow….to the 8477474 power), and a child. Just calling out for a little more mention of that part :) . I ultimately understand the basis and agree.
I got you! Yes, it not being in my realm of experience it can be a blindspot for sure. (It's also admittedly a topic I look away from because of my own dysphoria and triggers). I'll talk with some friends who have been pregnant and ponder it.
I agree with a lot of what you’re saying here but I don’t think sex can ever really be compared to dancing or going out to dinner. There are no “dance crimes”. Sex is not a hobby. Sex is exceptionalized because it IS exceptional. It holds a unique and incredibly important place in our psychology. This is why it’s so important to de stigmatize and liberate sex, and to protect people from sexual violence. As a csa/incest survivor, seeing you argue that sexual abuse is “equal” to other types of parental abuse or neglect feels pretty gross. I’m not saying other types of abuse are better or worse, but sex is fundamentally different, it is unique. I don’t think that it should be stigmatized or that someone has to have sex to enjoy life (I’m celibate lol) but it is a unique aspect of our behavior and psychology that is incredibly important. The quality of people’s sex lives (as in, having access to sex and enjoying the sex you’re having, or having access to abstinence without stigma) hugely affects people’s overall health and wellness. I think food is a good comparison here, but food is also exceptional in my opinion. It’s incredibly culturally significant and having some kind of relationship to food is a universal human experience, while having a relationship with dance, painting, or knitting is not. I think using the idea of sex neutrality in the same way as body neutrality, as in seeing all types of sex and varying choices around sex as equally valid makes a lot of sense. I also agree that we should de stigmatize talking about sex and expressing sexuality in public, and create equality around sexual expression (ex: free the nipple). But imo comparing sex to a hobby or blaming our shitty sex culture on the idea of sexual exceptionalism goes too far. I think people are right to identify sex as a fundamental and unique aspect of life, whether or not one chooses to engage in it. Social control is exerted over sex precisely because it is so important.
So would you say that both sexual abuse and abuse surrounding food are exceptional because they have to deal with fundamental human needs? I would be receptive to the idea that abuse surrounding a person's basic needs and physiological responses is likely to be especially charged. There are a lot of both psychological and physiological effects that can happen when a person is abused either sexually or with food. Or if they have their toileting controlled. Or if they are never allowed to ever touch another person. Or if their ability to socialize is restricted and used to abuse them.
And that last bit is where the distinction breaks down somewhat for me -- dancing, knitting, playing card games, etc are all just ways of meeting fundamental human needs for contact, touch, social affiliation, etc. If I can be traumatized during, say, puppy play (a way of meeting an essential sexual need for me that might otherwise look kind of silly or unnecessary to somebody else), then can't someone be equally and profoundly as traumatized doing community theater (if doing so meets a fundamental need for social affiliation for them)? I certainly know a lot of people who have been really profoundly betrayed by communities they belonged to, including hobbyist communities, in ways that shattered their ability to relate to others for years -- in fact, my own experiences with that kind of thing have cast as long a shadow as some of my experiences of being sexually assaulted.
Maybe we’re just using different language here. Yes, I think sex is significant because it’s a fundamental human need. Community (or maybe “a secure place in the in-group” would be a better way of phrasing it?) is another fundamental human need. Just like all kinds of specific situations fall under the category of sexual trauma, I would put your theater example under the category of “community trauma” (or whatever we wanna call it). Sexual trauma is traumatic because of its relation to sex, which is significant. Similarly, “community trauma” is traumatic because of its relation to community, not because it has to do with theater, to use your example. Most things that have the potential to be very traumatic are related to life and death— sex gives life, but it can also be deadly and having children can represent a kind of metaphorical death of the parents. One’s standing in their community is directly related to survival. So is food. I believe these types of things do have a special significance and power.
Thank you Evan for articulating the discomfort I was having with this. While intriguing in many meaningful ways in the first half of it where I’m absolutely with you on pulling stigma away and having healthier, shared, more objective and less charged language around acts of consensual sex, I’m not sure the answer to exceptionalism is neutrality.
A couple of reflections I’d offer:
- The neuroscience and biochemistry associated with sex for anyone (whatever they’re into or not) are quite different from several everyday activities or hobbies. So a direct likeness to them would be difficult to make, in how they’re experienced.
- While control and power are aspects of sexual abuse, they’re not the only drivers of them. And regardless, comparing traumas & types of abuse feels like a slippery slope into trivialisation of one or the other. The main point being the same act can have very different impacts on two people so no act of abuse = a standard degree of trauma. It’s not formulaic. So saying “more than” or “lesser than” is concerning, and false.
- Things can be not-neutral (which I believe sex to be, again regardless of what preferences or behaviours one may have around it) and still have better, clearer, more objective vocabulary around them. Forcing likeness to mundane things doesn’t really achieve that goal.
I appreciate the discussion here, and it caused me to take pause and assess my language more carefully.
This has me thinking about OP's comment about "dance crimes." And how that was a thing in footloose 😅 and how it is a thing with consensual BDSM in many states. Law reflect society and power. So the existence of a crime doesn't make the action inherently "bad."
Thinking about your comment about brain differences also has me thinking about the way we talk about sex having a role in that. And the research's emphasis on orgasm and penetrative sex rather than sex more broadly. If we talked about food or dance the way we talked about sex, how would that change our the look and data on our neurochemistry.
I definitely had a body reaction to reading parts of this essay. I still am. And I can't help but wonder how things could be different
There’s lots of research on how our bodies respond / think of food - and it already reflects in language too - ex. “Craving” is used for both, and has to do with the anticipation of a reward, and the chemical reaction in the body is similar.
That said, there are several aspects of it which are *not* comparable, especially with trauma (because trauma is not comparable even for the same act or trigger) so a 1-1 likeness though provocative, would be false.
Really insightful article. Now I'm wondering, what makes one form of sexual expression a violation of personal autonomy, while another is just neutral evidence of sex being present around us? Take exhibitionism, for instance. Where does the violation lie in situations that most would recognize as harassment, like someone exposing themselves in public parks to random people? Is it the fact those people didn't give their consent to see their body/their arousal?
Then, is there a similar violation of passerby's autonomy in a couple heavy petting in the grass? What about someone watching porn on their phone while sitting on a bench? And another person sunbathing naked in front of a playground? Etc.
If not, what makes the difference, and what's the key factor?
These are important questions to ponder! I think part of the reason that a flashing is generally regarded as a form of violation is because there is an intent to intimidate or harass. It's the intention and disregard for other people that is the real issue -- incidentally seeing someone's genitals in an accidental way is far less upsetting. Most of the people I know who have been flashed were young girls at the time being harassed by much older men. There's an element of power to it that makes it menacing.
I think the biggest factor is power differential. In the naked sunbathing example, compare how male nudity is often used and perceived as a threat - for example in exhibitionism - while the slightest gesture in the direction of female nudity is usually read as an invitation to abuse. Why? I'd say sexist power differential in public space.
Intention of course also figures, but it might be hard to make up for power differential with intention. For example a young teenage girl trying to harass older men by exposing whatever body parts - this seems difficult to achieve unless she leverages some specific social power over them?
Similarly, an older guy might still make younger women uncomfortable by being half naked in public even if he has absolutely no intention to harass, just because of social power structures that are in place.
Like, in the bottom line the power differential wins?
I'll also add, it's interesting to read this whole discussion for me as a European who spends time in Eastern Germany and the Czech Republic. The way Americans seem to equate nudity = sex and the breast fetish is common but not universal, there are cultures where in some context nudity can just be nudity. For example in both these countries I know, as well as in Scandinavia afaik, there are nudist beaches where people go with their children, folks with breasts sunbathe topless even on non-nudist beaches, friend groups can go swimming naked without this meaning a sexual orgy and it's no scandal if you accidentally meet another full family swimming naked. It's kept separate with some kind of vibe - you can simply meet people being naked cause they want to swim or tan in a neutral way without any sexual vibe. It's not like everywhere but it's certainly less paranoiogenic than in religious or ex-religious countries.
I find this "secular" attitude of nudity being neutral and separate from sex (which requires actions, intentions or vibes rather than simply the fact of having a body) very healthy and practical and I wish it could expand further.
This (and Devon's) were very clarifying takes, thank you.
I agree with the importance of power differential, but I'm not completely sure I wouldn't feel upset, uncomfortable, and vaguely harassed if a girl randomly flashed me, and I were an old man. But since I'm not, it's all speculation. It would definitely be different because I wouldn't perceive her as a threat, and I'd have more agency, but it's still something being done to me without me having a say in it.
Oh, and I’m European too, and non-sexual nudity was a pretty normal part of my upbringing, haha. I chose that example because I grew up around people sunbathing naked, and I wasn’t bothered by it. In fact, I think it helped me feel comfortable in my own body—until I went to a different country where nudity was sexualised. Anyways, I just wanted to find various examples to appeal to different sensitivities.
I think this comment also invites discussion of where the line between an uncomfortable situation and a violation is. (And I don't think there is an objective answer that applies to all scenarios). I think if a random stranger got into my face and started showing me their stomach, underarms, or other body parts, I'd probably feel pretty damn weirded out even if I didn't think it was sexual. I don't think this would qualify as abuse or harassment on its own, necessarily, unless it was done with the intention of upsetting me and pushing my boundaries. Some experiences can be weird or unwanted without being abusive -- we have a right not to be attacked, but not to never be annoyed.
Similarly, I think a random woman flashing you in the scenario you have described could be annoying, uncomfortable...but maybe not a violation. Where it tips over into harassment I think depends on if the person was repeatedly ignoring your discomfort or setting out to make you feel harassed. How and why it was done definitely matters here.
When we were in high school, my friends and I used to sometimes stand beside the highway and flash our chests at passing cars. It was juvenile stuff intended to surprise and also to celebrate our body autonomy in a world where it was largely denied to us (I think, anyway -- I'm sure 16 year old me would have explained it differently). I think we did also get a bit of a sexual thrill from it. I think that at worst, we distracted people who were driving, which was not a great choice, but that we didn't really sexually harass anyone. There was a distance from the road of many feet, people only ever saw us at a glance of a few seconds, and we weren't singling anyone out to corner them or make them specifically uncomfortable.
Similarly I think there's a big difference between a 1970's style flasher who runs nude through the middle of a football field for shits & giggles and a man cornering a young woman in a park and showing his penis to her. There's a lot about the motives, setting, escapability, playfulness, isolation, etc of the two scenarios that makes one (in my view) not a violation of anyone in a meaningful way, and the other far more menacing. Interestingly, either of these activities could be done for sexual reasons or not.
I was uncomfortable and I liked it. Joseph Fischel in his book Screw Consent talks about power in a similar way. We often focus on the capacity of a child, disabled person, or your own family member to consent instead of criticizing the abuses of power that can come from any number of sources. It's a book I think you'd very much enjoy. Looking forward to sharing this article around! Thank you!!
Great article. I really appreciate how you break some of this down. I do just want to provide feedback that asexual people generally identify as people who don’t experience sexual attraction, not people who don’t enjoy sex. That is an important distinction to many of us in the a-spec community!
My question is how do we move from where we are now to the world you propose? I love the idea of sex being a neutral act, but the reality for many people is that there is a variety of intense emotions attached due to upbringing/societal conditioning/toxic monogamy/etc. Reading articles like this is a great step, but this stuff is hard to shake! I see people in my community having sex parties and saying it's all chill but then there is very real conflict afterwards, even if everything that happened was theoretically consensual. It seems like some people think that simply saying sex isn't a big deal will make it so and that just doesn't feel true to my experience.
I think it does have to start slow -- with speaking more frankly and openly about sex, and educating people of all ages about sex. Diving into sexual encounters themselves without first laying that important cultural groundwork is bound to cause confusion and eruptions of triggered and hurt feelings. I certainly have my own sexual insecurities and discomforts, and I think true sex neutrality means letting those bad feelings just exist, and not trying to badger any person into being cooler and freer with sex than they actually feel. That's one of the big failures of sex positivity, after all.
I too was a child who had so much shit done to in the name of "fixing my eating habits". None of it took, and all of it accomplished was fucking me up even more. I can't eat around people. I sometimes can't even *touch* food. I have nightmares decades on about having to eat certain things. I have something important coming up later this year, and all I can think about is how the fuck am I going to sustain myself for an entire week in an unfamiliar country, around people that I either don't know, or make me extremely anxious in a casual setting (family!).
I've also been the victim of sexual harassment, assault even, but as much as that was not a good experience, it fucked me up far, *far* less than the above. Getting people to understand that, unless they've experienced the same, is a fruitless endeavor, precisely because of these magical qualities people ascribe to sex, so I'm cosigning this bigly.
Your focus on power distance rather than sex in cases of assault, harassment, coercion is significant. The "she was asking for it" argument and modern versions of it ignore that nobody can make up for power distance by being hot. Abuse of power is abuse, full stop. I see your perspective echoed a lot in my teenager's generation. Sexuality and gender is a menu of options, all of which are optional.
I strongly agree with this article and appreciate having all this detail spelled out in one spot. I feel that a lot of the pushback to sex neutrality come from people’s gut feeling that if we take away sex exceptionalism then sexual abuse will be downgraded to being treated only as seriously as e.g. the force feeding children experience or the coercive nature of much employment. These are abuses and exploitations that society largely does not take seriously. For many it is easier to imagine (or has already happened) that people would take sexual abuse as equally unserious than to imagine them taking these other abuses and coercions seriously.
Well said!
As always, I really appreciate how you break this all down! While some of this I already had read about/agreed with, you dug into a lot of different aspects here that got me thinking and considering things in a new way. Thank you!!
Truly an excellent read. Thank you for putting this together so eloquently. I can't wait to share it with my friends and family.
This is everything i wish I could have written, over years and years of my life.
Devon, we need more of you, me, people like us in this world speaking up and changing the flow.
I homeschool my daughter, I protect her autonomy and right to her self. I ask her who owns you? She goes I DO.
Thank you for these articles, your books, your inspiration.
Thanks for this piece! 🙏🏼 I recognize myself in the trauma response you're describing for your sister regarding food : I also have a hard time with group meal and the omnipresence of food in the social spaces. I still get judged when I say that I don't enjoy food, that I don't like eating. Same kinds of judgements I receive in many queer spaces when I say I can go with or without sex for years, that's it's not something I'm really craving or anything. That I don't have "a type" or that I can't just look at a picture and say if I'm attracted or not to someone.
It also helped me put words on some discomfort I have with the "body positivity" and "sex positivity" movements.
boy harsher mentioned!!! 🗣️‼️‼️💕🌈
"Look at how Ms. Bellum was drawn on the Power Puff Girls — her extreme waist-to-hip ratio and long flowing hair surely reflect the twisted mind of a man with a femininity fetish, how dare he expose children to that."
I'm sure you're being sarcastic here, but Craig McCracken is a fairly button-down guy compared to his animator contemporaries. Some of them have gotten in trouble for what they have done or said, but I've never heard of any such things associated with him.
Yes, I am being sarcastic. My point is that it's not untoward at all for an animator to draw what they find visually appealing -- be it a sexy woman or a musclebound hunk.
Some of this feels relevant, but to say that sex is no different than anything else when it does literally create children, would be to miss out on a very big detail. My whole life changed when I had a baby recently, and it was because of sex. I saw you differentiate sex from sexual pleasure in an instance but I think the lingo could shift a lot more…
It sounds to me like parenthood changed your life? The majority of sexual encounters people have do not result in parenthood, and a majority of sex acts that exist, particularly between queer individuals, cannot result in parenthood. Equating the two is unhelpful to queer people or anyone for whom sex means something other than penis-in-vagina intercourse without contraceptives.
Right, of course. I think you make amazing points. I just hope you can remember it’s equally triggering for parents to read things like this when it WAS a big thing that was very different than taking a ballet class, and is currently still traumatizing in its own way every day, as our nervous systems are fried in a world that barely supports mothers. Everything else in your article resonated for sure.
i mean, that's true, it does have that power, but a lot of the mundane things we do also have similar powers and are treated much more normally. like the fact that we eat and drink is, barring things like IV drips, the only reason any of us is able to life more than a few days and yet those are both completely mundane things. regardless of how impactful sex can be, we gotta just treat it like a normal regular thing
I think you’re right. Sex and reproduction are intrinsically linked. Sure, gay sex doesn’t carry a risk of pregnancy. I would imagine most of the time straight people have sex they’re also doing it for pleasure, not to make a baby. But without reproduction we wouldn’t have genitals, we wouldn’t have orgasms, we wouldn’t have any sexual drive at all. Just because the two are not always literally happening together doesn’t mean they aren’t fundamentally connected in the human imagination. They’re called REPRODUCTIVE organs for a reason. I know sex is much more than just genitalia. But I don’t think identifying the very obvious link between sexuality and reproduction is queer phobic. And I’m saying this as a bi nb born to lesbian moms via sperm donation, I get that there are all kinds of ways to have sex and to have kids.
But does this relate back to sex's traumatic potential? Sex for which reproduction is not a possibility can be just as traumatic as sex for which it is. Even sexual acts where there is no physiological stimulation or response at all happening can be deeply traumatic. If there is something about sex that makes it other or special, it can't be that some sexual acts predict reproduction some of the time.
I actually think it can be. I’m pulling a bit from your other comment here, but just like being exiled by a friend group can be traumatic because it relates back to community and survival even if you don’t literally think you’re going to die, the relationship between sex and reproduction can add to the trauma of sexual violence even if you don’t literally think you’re going to get pregnant. I don’t think reproduction is the whole story on why sex is so psychologically significant, but it’s certainly an important piece.
Ok I am LOGGING OFF now haha✌🏻I think we are very aligned in terms of material political goals, this is basically a philosophical disagreement 💙
Ahh, I see your point! It's true, people bring reproductive language and ideas to sex that can't cause pregnancy all the time. I'll stew on this a bit, thanks.
Hey I hear that. I think mostly what I’m asking for is a little more representation for mamas and parents etc. I think my experience just felt left out of the article is all. It would be nice for a little more mention of the fact that for some people, the thought of sex is COMPLETELY altered after having a simple orgasm turn into 9 months of pregnancy, birth (ow….to the 8477474 power), and a child. Just calling out for a little more mention of that part :) . I ultimately understand the basis and agree.
I got you! Yes, it not being in my realm of experience it can be a blindspot for sure. (It's also admittedly a topic I look away from because of my own dysphoria and triggers). I'll talk with some friends who have been pregnant and ponder it.
I agree with a lot of what you’re saying here but I don’t think sex can ever really be compared to dancing or going out to dinner. There are no “dance crimes”. Sex is not a hobby. Sex is exceptionalized because it IS exceptional. It holds a unique and incredibly important place in our psychology. This is why it’s so important to de stigmatize and liberate sex, and to protect people from sexual violence. As a csa/incest survivor, seeing you argue that sexual abuse is “equal” to other types of parental abuse or neglect feels pretty gross. I’m not saying other types of abuse are better or worse, but sex is fundamentally different, it is unique. I don’t think that it should be stigmatized or that someone has to have sex to enjoy life (I’m celibate lol) but it is a unique aspect of our behavior and psychology that is incredibly important. The quality of people’s sex lives (as in, having access to sex and enjoying the sex you’re having, or having access to abstinence without stigma) hugely affects people’s overall health and wellness. I think food is a good comparison here, but food is also exceptional in my opinion. It’s incredibly culturally significant and having some kind of relationship to food is a universal human experience, while having a relationship with dance, painting, or knitting is not. I think using the idea of sex neutrality in the same way as body neutrality, as in seeing all types of sex and varying choices around sex as equally valid makes a lot of sense. I also agree that we should de stigmatize talking about sex and expressing sexuality in public, and create equality around sexual expression (ex: free the nipple). But imo comparing sex to a hobby or blaming our shitty sex culture on the idea of sexual exceptionalism goes too far. I think people are right to identify sex as a fundamental and unique aspect of life, whether or not one chooses to engage in it. Social control is exerted over sex precisely because it is so important.
So would you say that both sexual abuse and abuse surrounding food are exceptional because they have to deal with fundamental human needs? I would be receptive to the idea that abuse surrounding a person's basic needs and physiological responses is likely to be especially charged. There are a lot of both psychological and physiological effects that can happen when a person is abused either sexually or with food. Or if they have their toileting controlled. Or if they are never allowed to ever touch another person. Or if their ability to socialize is restricted and used to abuse them.
And that last bit is where the distinction breaks down somewhat for me -- dancing, knitting, playing card games, etc are all just ways of meeting fundamental human needs for contact, touch, social affiliation, etc. If I can be traumatized during, say, puppy play (a way of meeting an essential sexual need for me that might otherwise look kind of silly or unnecessary to somebody else), then can't someone be equally and profoundly as traumatized doing community theater (if doing so meets a fundamental need for social affiliation for them)? I certainly know a lot of people who have been really profoundly betrayed by communities they belonged to, including hobbyist communities, in ways that shattered their ability to relate to others for years -- in fact, my own experiences with that kind of thing have cast as long a shadow as some of my experiences of being sexually assaulted.
Maybe we’re just using different language here. Yes, I think sex is significant because it’s a fundamental human need. Community (or maybe “a secure place in the in-group” would be a better way of phrasing it?) is another fundamental human need. Just like all kinds of specific situations fall under the category of sexual trauma, I would put your theater example under the category of “community trauma” (or whatever we wanna call it). Sexual trauma is traumatic because of its relation to sex, which is significant. Similarly, “community trauma” is traumatic because of its relation to community, not because it has to do with theater, to use your example. Most things that have the potential to be very traumatic are related to life and death— sex gives life, but it can also be deadly and having children can represent a kind of metaphorical death of the parents. One’s standing in their community is directly related to survival. So is food. I believe these types of things do have a special significance and power.
Thank you Evan for articulating the discomfort I was having with this. While intriguing in many meaningful ways in the first half of it where I’m absolutely with you on pulling stigma away and having healthier, shared, more objective and less charged language around acts of consensual sex, I’m not sure the answer to exceptionalism is neutrality.
A couple of reflections I’d offer:
- The neuroscience and biochemistry associated with sex for anyone (whatever they’re into or not) are quite different from several everyday activities or hobbies. So a direct likeness to them would be difficult to make, in how they’re experienced.
- While control and power are aspects of sexual abuse, they’re not the only drivers of them. And regardless, comparing traumas & types of abuse feels like a slippery slope into trivialisation of one or the other. The main point being the same act can have very different impacts on two people so no act of abuse = a standard degree of trauma. It’s not formulaic. So saying “more than” or “lesser than” is concerning, and false.
- Things can be not-neutral (which I believe sex to be, again regardless of what preferences or behaviours one may have around it) and still have better, clearer, more objective vocabulary around them. Forcing likeness to mundane things doesn’t really achieve that goal.
I appreciate the discussion here, and it caused me to take pause and assess my language more carefully.
This has me thinking about OP's comment about "dance crimes." And how that was a thing in footloose 😅 and how it is a thing with consensual BDSM in many states. Law reflect society and power. So the existence of a crime doesn't make the action inherently "bad."
Thinking about your comment about brain differences also has me thinking about the way we talk about sex having a role in that. And the research's emphasis on orgasm and penetrative sex rather than sex more broadly. If we talked about food or dance the way we talked about sex, how would that change our the look and data on our neurochemistry.
I definitely had a body reaction to reading parts of this essay. I still am. And I can't help but wonder how things could be different
There’s lots of research on how our bodies respond / think of food - and it already reflects in language too - ex. “Craving” is used for both, and has to do with the anticipation of a reward, and the chemical reaction in the body is similar.
That said, there are several aspects of it which are *not* comparable, especially with trauma (because trauma is not comparable even for the same act or trigger) so a 1-1 likeness though provocative, would be false.
Really insightful article. Now I'm wondering, what makes one form of sexual expression a violation of personal autonomy, while another is just neutral evidence of sex being present around us? Take exhibitionism, for instance. Where does the violation lie in situations that most would recognize as harassment, like someone exposing themselves in public parks to random people? Is it the fact those people didn't give their consent to see their body/their arousal?
Then, is there a similar violation of passerby's autonomy in a couple heavy petting in the grass? What about someone watching porn on their phone while sitting on a bench? And another person sunbathing naked in front of a playground? Etc.
If not, what makes the difference, and what's the key factor?
These are important questions to ponder! I think part of the reason that a flashing is generally regarded as a form of violation is because there is an intent to intimidate or harass. It's the intention and disregard for other people that is the real issue -- incidentally seeing someone's genitals in an accidental way is far less upsetting. Most of the people I know who have been flashed were young girls at the time being harassed by much older men. There's an element of power to it that makes it menacing.
I think the biggest factor is power differential. In the naked sunbathing example, compare how male nudity is often used and perceived as a threat - for example in exhibitionism - while the slightest gesture in the direction of female nudity is usually read as an invitation to abuse. Why? I'd say sexist power differential in public space.
Intention of course also figures, but it might be hard to make up for power differential with intention. For example a young teenage girl trying to harass older men by exposing whatever body parts - this seems difficult to achieve unless she leverages some specific social power over them?
Similarly, an older guy might still make younger women uncomfortable by being half naked in public even if he has absolutely no intention to harass, just because of social power structures that are in place.
Like, in the bottom line the power differential wins?
I'll also add, it's interesting to read this whole discussion for me as a European who spends time in Eastern Germany and the Czech Republic. The way Americans seem to equate nudity = sex and the breast fetish is common but not universal, there are cultures where in some context nudity can just be nudity. For example in both these countries I know, as well as in Scandinavia afaik, there are nudist beaches where people go with their children, folks with breasts sunbathe topless even on non-nudist beaches, friend groups can go swimming naked without this meaning a sexual orgy and it's no scandal if you accidentally meet another full family swimming naked. It's kept separate with some kind of vibe - you can simply meet people being naked cause they want to swim or tan in a neutral way without any sexual vibe. It's not like everywhere but it's certainly less paranoiogenic than in religious or ex-religious countries.
I find this "secular" attitude of nudity being neutral and separate from sex (which requires actions, intentions or vibes rather than simply the fact of having a body) very healthy and practical and I wish it could expand further.
Fantastic additions, thank you.
This (and Devon's) were very clarifying takes, thank you.
I agree with the importance of power differential, but I'm not completely sure I wouldn't feel upset, uncomfortable, and vaguely harassed if a girl randomly flashed me, and I were an old man. But since I'm not, it's all speculation. It would definitely be different because I wouldn't perceive her as a threat, and I'd have more agency, but it's still something being done to me without me having a say in it.
Oh, and I’m European too, and non-sexual nudity was a pretty normal part of my upbringing, haha. I chose that example because I grew up around people sunbathing naked, and I wasn’t bothered by it. In fact, I think it helped me feel comfortable in my own body—until I went to a different country where nudity was sexualised. Anyways, I just wanted to find various examples to appeal to different sensitivities.
I think this comment also invites discussion of where the line between an uncomfortable situation and a violation is. (And I don't think there is an objective answer that applies to all scenarios). I think if a random stranger got into my face and started showing me their stomach, underarms, or other body parts, I'd probably feel pretty damn weirded out even if I didn't think it was sexual. I don't think this would qualify as abuse or harassment on its own, necessarily, unless it was done with the intention of upsetting me and pushing my boundaries. Some experiences can be weird or unwanted without being abusive -- we have a right not to be attacked, but not to never be annoyed.
Similarly, I think a random woman flashing you in the scenario you have described could be annoying, uncomfortable...but maybe not a violation. Where it tips over into harassment I think depends on if the person was repeatedly ignoring your discomfort or setting out to make you feel harassed. How and why it was done definitely matters here.
When we were in high school, my friends and I used to sometimes stand beside the highway and flash our chests at passing cars. It was juvenile stuff intended to surprise and also to celebrate our body autonomy in a world where it was largely denied to us (I think, anyway -- I'm sure 16 year old me would have explained it differently). I think we did also get a bit of a sexual thrill from it. I think that at worst, we distracted people who were driving, which was not a great choice, but that we didn't really sexually harass anyone. There was a distance from the road of many feet, people only ever saw us at a glance of a few seconds, and we weren't singling anyone out to corner them or make them specifically uncomfortable.
Similarly I think there's a big difference between a 1970's style flasher who runs nude through the middle of a football field for shits & giggles and a man cornering a young woman in a park and showing his penis to her. There's a lot about the motives, setting, escapability, playfulness, isolation, etc of the two scenarios that makes one (in my view) not a violation of anyone in a meaningful way, and the other far more menacing. Interestingly, either of these activities could be done for sexual reasons or not.
I was uncomfortable and I liked it. Joseph Fischel in his book Screw Consent talks about power in a similar way. We often focus on the capacity of a child, disabled person, or your own family member to consent instead of criticizing the abuses of power that can come from any number of sources. It's a book I think you'd very much enjoy. Looking forward to sharing this article around! Thank you!!
Great article. I really appreciate how you break some of this down. I do just want to provide feedback that asexual people generally identify as people who don’t experience sexual attraction, not people who don’t enjoy sex. That is an important distinction to many of us in the a-spec community!
Amazing article, thanks!
My question is how do we move from where we are now to the world you propose? I love the idea of sex being a neutral act, but the reality for many people is that there is a variety of intense emotions attached due to upbringing/societal conditioning/toxic monogamy/etc. Reading articles like this is a great step, but this stuff is hard to shake! I see people in my community having sex parties and saying it's all chill but then there is very real conflict afterwards, even if everything that happened was theoretically consensual. It seems like some people think that simply saying sex isn't a big deal will make it so and that just doesn't feel true to my experience.
I think it does have to start slow -- with speaking more frankly and openly about sex, and educating people of all ages about sex. Diving into sexual encounters themselves without first laying that important cultural groundwork is bound to cause confusion and eruptions of triggered and hurt feelings. I certainly have my own sexual insecurities and discomforts, and I think true sex neutrality means letting those bad feelings just exist, and not trying to badger any person into being cooler and freer with sex than they actually feel. That's one of the big failures of sex positivity, after all.