Ace Admiral

I made a quick post last night about what repulsion/aversion is not, but my initial intention was to write a post about what aversion is. I’ve tried to think of a way that I could, you know, introduce my personal experience and then broaden it out, or try and weave together several people’s writing on the subject, but there is a problem with either of those strategies in that neither of them really address aversion in a framework that makes it clear how seriously skeevy it is to have a problem with aversive aces.

But let’s talk about what aversion is first, because it’s important to understand. Aversion/Repulsed means that a one is not comfortable with oneself being in a sexual situation. That is the community usage. Simple.

We need to draw the line between aversion and erotophobia/love shyness. I understand the impulse to conflate the two; it’s not as if the three things can’t co-exist in one person. The problem with comparing them, though, is that aversion becomes, if not pathologized, at least equated on some level to an illness. In fact, aversion is a preference, and needs to be discussed as one.

We also need to draw a line between aversion and sex-negativity/hatred of sex or people who have sex. Aversion is a personal preference. It is not a prejudice or a political stand against the sexual world. Conflating those two is really just offensive, especially because the VAST majority of anti-sex forces in the world come not from the ace umbrella community, but segments of the heteronormative majority.

The issue of aversive aces and what it means for the community and community image and what have you, though, is much, much bigger than the insular issue it’s being made out to be. Talking only about aversive people in the context of the ace umbrella community is missing the fact that this is just a logical extension of something no other group of people would be made to feel bad or broken about in the sex-positive society the critics advocate.

What do you think about BDSM? Is that your personal cup of tea?
Watersports? Bloodplay? Breathplay?

If you are a monosexual person, think about sex with a person of a gender you do not prefer.
How about sex with people who, for whatever reason, you just don’t find attractive?

There are people in this world who only like vanilla sex in the missionary position. There is nothing wrong with them.
There are monosexual people in the world. There is nothing wrong with them.
And there are omnisexual people with obscure kinks. There is nothing wrong with them either..

So what, exactly, is the problem with aversive aces?

I have said it before, and I am not alone in saying it: holding the ace umbrella community to a higher standard of “receptiveness” to sex is not right. As a matter of fact, it is wrong. It is not consent, it is coercion. It is not helping aversive people, it is hurting them more. It is not empowering ANY aces, graces, or demis, rather, it is buying into the majority narrative that, since we are not normal, we are broken.

And ultimately, this issue needs to make one think: what does it say when I value the feelings and “delicate” sensibilities of poikkisexual people at the expense of the well-being of over half my community’s members? Because, and this is just my opinion, but I think a community exists to look out for the well-being of its members.