L.J. Writes

After my prior post on the subject, here's yet another commonality between the fandom policers and the woobiefiers/apologists: They think their personal emotional reactions define the morality of a thing.

Again, they go to opposites from the same premise. The fandom police think that since they react with disgust, shame, fear etc. to a fictional depiction, it must be objectively harmful and therefore immoral to create. The apologists think that since they react with positivity and excitement to a fictional depiction, it must necessarily be harmless and objectively moral. The emotional and intellectual dishonesty is staggering in either case, which isn't surprising because they both start with the same dishonest and flawed premise.

( Fatphobia, emotional abuse, parenting )

I know the subject of asexuality and sex acceptance can be a fraught subject because aces are already stereotyped as inherently slut-shaming and homophobic for their orientation. This is, of course, textbook aphobia: Being slut-shaming or homophobic is a matter of choices and beliefs, not a sexual orientation.

With that in mind I think it's still important to discuss that some people on the asexual spectrum do go through or went through a slut-shaming phase, myself included. Some determined jerks never leave that phase, but again, I'll let you use the fact against all aces if you can show me ONE marginalized group that does not have its share of jerks. Just one. I'll wait.

Here's another reason slut-shaming is no ace in the hole (hah) for aphobes: Far from being slut-shaming being inherent to asexuality, slut-shaming for aces is often a reaction to aphobia, not to mention an example of the utterly messed up way a lot of us are taught to engage with sex.

( Discussions of aphobia, sex, slut-shaming, exclusionism )