July 31, 2025 • 51 mins
Aubri Lancaster shares her expertise on asexuality and consent, introducing frameworks like "favor vs. chore" and the spectrum from sex-favorable to sex-repulsed that apply to everyone regardless of orientation. She challenges our cultural understanding of intimacy and desire, offering practical tools for healthier relationships.
• Understanding consenting to unwanted sex - acknowledging when sex is consensual yet still unwanted
• Favor vs. chore framework - distinguishing between freely given acts and obligatory ones with consequences
• Consent tools including negotiation, safe words, and aftercare should be used in all sexual contexts, not just kink
• The spectrum from sex-favorable to sex-repulsed exists for everyone in different contexts
• Compulsory sexuality creates pressure that impacts everyone, especially asexual individuals
• Unbraiding different forms of intimacy (emotional, intellectual, sensual) creates more options
• Questioning the pathologization of low desire through diagnoses like HSDD
• Creating relationships where "a no is as welcome as a yes"
Aubri Lancaster is an AASECT and ANTE UP! Certified Sexuality Educator. As a Greyromantic Asexual Jewish Femme, Aubri has lived experience and a connection to the Asexual and Aromantic communities that provides a unique perspective on the issues facing the changing landscape of sexuality and orientation. Aubri's services can be found at AceSexEducation.com including workshops, consulting, and training. She also offers free content on IG & TikTok at @AceSexEducation. When not working, Aubri spends her time with her spouse, her friends, her 8 year old, and her three adorable Chihuahuas.
Find Aubri Lancaster at www.acesexeducation.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello, sex Therapy 101.
Friends, you notice I mighthave taken a break, but we're
back and we're excited and I'mreally passionate about this new
series that I'm going to beoffering to all of you.
(00:21):
I haven't disappeared.
I've been working on someprojects that are really going
to be offering to all of you.
I haven't disappeared.
I've been working on someprojects that are really
meaningful to me, and one ofthose is a book for the public
about my research aboutregarding long-term outcomes of
consenting to unwanted sex, orduty sex as we sometimes call it
, and in doing that, adding tomy own research over the year,
(00:42):
you'll see my hair change, myface change, because these were
all recorded over the course ofa year and I wanted to talk to
experts about the culturalimplications or cultural beliefs
or the cultural ideas amongdifferent communities in the US
(01:03):
that might protect peopleagainst negative outcomes and
that might actually kind ofpromote people into some of the
more negative outcomes.
And that is the series I haveto offer you.
I'm really excited.
It's been really meaningful tome, it's been enlightening to me
, it's really helped me makesure that this book is what I
(01:24):
want it to be for all of you.
So, with no ado, here we go.
This is going to be the introfor the whole series.
I'll give you a little bit of abio for each and then we'll
jump into the recording of theinterview.
In this interview, I have aconversation with Aubrey
Lancaster.
It was really important to meto make sure we made this
distinction about orientation.
(01:47):
Aubrey is an ASEC certifiedsexuality educator.
Her focus is in asexuality,aromanticism and the mechanics
of arousal.
She's also a secular, jewish,non-divergent, gray, romantic,
asexual femme, and it'sfantastic to have this
(02:08):
conversation with her and gether input on a conversation that
we need to put a seat at thetable for this population, and
I'm really happy to have learnedfrom her and hope that you find
it stimulating as well.
So I wanted to have thisconversation with you because I
don't want to put a book outthere about desire and not
(02:32):
acknowledge this very validhuman experience, and I didn't
just want to like pretend itdidn't exist or didn't apply to
this discussion.
So I appreciate you beingwilling to teach me and to talk
through all this.
Okay, so let's start Questionone Using your clinical lens the
(02:55):
way that you're trained to lookat sexuality how would you
interpret my research findingsand how would you explain what I
demonstrated, that we foundwith these 1,300 women?
Speaker 2 (03:07):
You know, I just really appreciated the language
of consenting to unwanted sex.
Just being able to name that, Ithink, is so huge because there
is this push that it's eitherfully consensual, enthusiastic
yes, or it's sexual assault, andno discussion of what that
(03:28):
in-between can look like.
And I really appreciatedespecially that element of
recognizing that some people maynot call it assault, may not
feel that it was non-consensual,and yet it was still unwanted,
and I thought that was reallyimportant to be able to name
(03:49):
that and I'm absolutely going tobe bringing that into my work.
The other stuff that stood outto me was being able to name all
of the different emotionalresponses people had to
consenting to unwanted sex.
Because, again, being able toname these things and say, you
(04:11):
know, even if you fullyconsented, you heart of hearts
consented, there was stillnegative impact, and being able
to hold both of those truths atonce yeah, and then even to
recognize that some of themconsented and didn't feel there
was any negative impact, yeah,and that's a niche I think can
(04:34):
be explored a lot more too.
Yeah, where I would go withthat and what I expand on that
is when I talk about some ofthese elements, especially for
asexual people.
Some asexual people do want toengage in sexual activity.
It just may not be motivated bysexual attraction, and some
(04:55):
asexual people have no interestin sexual activity with another
person, maybe with themselves ormaybe not.
So a lot of asexual people, Ithink, find themselves in that
space that if they want to havea romantic partner, they must
expect that they will beconsenting to sex.
(05:16):
So I think that there areprobably a lot of asexual people
who are in mixed orientationrelationships, who are
consenting to unwanted sex.
Yeah, and again, we can look atthat in a couple of different
ways as far as whether or notthat is a problem for them.
Yeah, this is where I bring inthe language of favor versus
(05:41):
chore.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
Okay, oh, okay.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
Yeah, Okay, you could do a favor for somebody and it
doesn't mean that youparticularly got anything out of
it by doing it, but you knowthat they enjoyed it and you're
happy to do it.
A favor is freely given and ifyou don't have the capacity and
you say no, there's noconsequences.
You just move on.
They figure out what they needto do about it.
(06:06):
A chore is expected and thereare consequences if you don't do
a chore.
So I often will talk to peopleabout how to kind of locate that
for themselves.
You know, is this a chore?
Is it freely given?
You know, like I don't likecooking, but I get satisfaction
(06:32):
out of knowing that the foodthat I've made is being enjoyed.
So somebody who is consentingto unwanted sex can still get
satisfaction out of making theirpartner happy, out of giving
that gift to their partner.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
I like this language because, though, sullivan was
using language like approach oravoidance motivations, but I
don't know that the everydayperson is going to get that, but
I like your language, which ismuch more understandable of
favor versus chore.
Yeah, it's much more accessible.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
And then we can also kind of transfer that over into
those understandings of capacity.
What do we do if there is arequest and we don't have the
capacity for it?
So I don't have the capacity tomake dinner tonight.
What are our options?
Either my partner makes it orwe eat out, or we just fend for
ourselves and get our own food.
So that same thing again cantransfer over into a sexual
(07:29):
setting of if somebody asks fora sexual favor and the other
person doesn't have the capacityfor it or doesn't want to.
First of all there has to beconversations around handling
rejection, handling a no, nottaking it personally.
So there's a lot of that andthat can be a huge point of
(07:54):
discussion.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
I like how you highlighted it that there needs
to be some discussions here andsome options and looking at some
negotiation.
That's like not coercive but iswhat are our options?
Speaker 2 (08:08):
Yeah, I think the kink community gives us a lot of
really great language that weassume is only within that
context, but I think all of thatcan so importantly be used in
any sexual encounter.
Negotiation, consent, safewords, aftercare yeah, all of
(08:31):
that needs to be taught in allsexual contexts, and everything
else too.
I mean, if you're going to bein a highly activated, intense
situation, you need to know howto stop it, how to take care of
yourself when it's over, all ofthose sorts of things.
And I think that for those whoare consenting to unwanted sex,
(08:54):
who want to consent for somereason where it's not coerced,
those are things that can helpmitigate those negative feelings
that come out of it.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
Mm-hmm, some of that aftercare, right, yeah, but I
mean all of that.
You can totally use that better.
Yeah, yeah, the negotiation.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
What are we going to actually do?
What are we going to engage in?
It's not going to be a surprise.
Here is what.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
I am agreeing to.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
Here are my boundaries, here my boundaries.
Here's what I don't want to do.
Let's do our thing and thenafterwards we can debrief and
have a conversation about whatworked, what didn't, and maybe
create a new menu of things totry.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
And it's so valuable.
Do you see that languagepermeating from the kink
community into the larger, intoother communities, Like I
totally agree with you and I'mwondering, into other?
Speaker 2 (09:46):
communities.
Like I totally agree with youand I'm wondering what do you
see?
I don't see it enough.
Like I really see that mostlydiscussed with people who are
doing work around kink Consentis talked about in multiple
spaces.
Um, I really there's a coupleof things around consent that I
(10:07):
find helpful in the context ofconsenting to unwanted sex.
first of all, um betty martin'swheel of consent I know she's so
great the the simple concept ofunderstanding who the touch is
for, yeah, I think is huge,especially, um, within that
context of consenting tounwanted sex.
If somebody is consenting toreceive touch and is told it's
(10:35):
for them but it's not, it's forthe person doing the touching
being able to explore that andplay those little games.
Because, you know, one of thethings that really stood out for
me in the Wheel of Consent bookwas how she talked about there
would be a moment when they'replaying these games where it
(10:56):
would suddenly click.
You know they would be saying,well, what do you want to do?
No, no, no, it's not about you,it's about you know.
Well, what do you want to do?
No, no, no, it's not about you,it's about you know, it's not
about them, it's about you.
How do you want to be touched?
And they wouldn't really get itat first, and then, after
actually doing it, it would hita point where they're like, oh,
(11:17):
oh.
So I think that in and of itselfcan really help people to
recognize if they are consentingto something unwanted or not.
Asexual men and men who have alower desire than their partners
(11:50):
get not only all of that aswell, but there's also this
challenge to their masculinity,that gets tied into it.
Yeah, you know, whenmasculinity is defined by
virility and sexual prowess andall of these things, any step in
the other direction on any ofthat is very shamed and not
(12:11):
talked about.
So you know, I definitely wouldlove to see some of these
numbers for men who consent tounwanted sex, right.
Speaker 1 (12:20):
I agree, I'm interested too.
I can't do all the studies atonce, I know, but they need to
be done.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Yeah.
And then the other tool aroundconsent that I find really
useful is Emily Nagoski's fourlevels of consent.
Are you familiar with that one?
Thanks for bringing that up.
Yeah, enthusiastic, willing,unwilling and coerced.
And it's that willing levelthat gets so misunderstood,
(12:47):
because we have this idea ofwhat enthusiastic consent looks
like and we can sometimes atleast identify coerced consent,
although not always, butespecially willing.
Why would you just be willingand not enthusiastic?
And that's when it comes downto.
There are many differentreasons people will have sex
beyond their own personaldesires.
(13:10):
You know, and while I alsothink it's super important to
reiterate you don't owe anyonesex, ever, you don't owe anybody
access to your body, ever,partner or not.
This is not a service you arerequired to perform.
Sex is a co-created activityand you can still be willing and
(13:40):
happy to do that favor forsomebody else.
And then that long-termexpectation kind of comes into
play, like is a no contingent ona yes tomorrow Right?
Or is every no freely acceptedso that a yes can truly freely
(14:00):
be given?
Speaker 1 (14:01):
Right, I like how you appraised that for sure.
Really be given, right, I likehow you appraised that for sure.
All right, so when and so Iwanted to speak with you
specifically for your expertisewith the you know asexual
aromantic gray, all those spacescoming together Are there
aspects that you see ofcommunity culture that are
(14:21):
protective against CUS?
And you just probably namedthem.
You know the four levels ofconsent, the you know Betty
Martin's work, the safe word,aftercare consent, those kinds
of things.
Is there anything specificallyin that asexual space that you
see that is protective?
Speaker 2 (14:43):
So some language that's come out of the asexual
community that I absolutely loveand I think applies on so many
different levels and can be sohelpful in so many different
ways, is the language offavorable, indifferent, averse,
repulsed.
So we can look at attitudesabout engaging in sexual
activity in both cultural waysand personal ways.
(15:06):
So cultural attitudes aboutengaging in sexual activity
include being sex positive, youknow, thinking sex is fine, not
necessarily for me, but forwhoever is consenting, and, you
know, happy and willing.
Sex neutral, not really placingany value judgment on sex.
It just, it's a thing, itexists.
(15:27):
And sex negative to have anegative attitude towards sex in
general, to think it's bad ordirty or wrong and to also
mandate sex within specificparameters, that's all within
that sex negativity.
But then we look at personalattitudes of engaging in sexual
activity.
Somebody may be sex favorable.
They have a, you know they'refavorable towards having sex.
(15:48):
They want to engage in sexualactivity, sex indifferent, they
could take it or leave it.
You want to have sex?
Sure, we'll have sex.
Sex averse no, I don't want todo that.
You know, to be averse toengaging in sexual activity and
then sex repulsed, to have avisceral response to the idea of
(16:09):
engaging in sexual activity oreven seeing sexual content in
media or in conversations.
Now we pathologize, averse andrepulsed heavily.
But if you think about it, youknow, I don't know your sexual
orientation.
But if you are sexuallyoriented towards a single gender
and you are presented with theopportunity to have sex with
(16:33):
somebody who is of a genderyou're not attracted to, or just
in general, think about youknow somebody you're not
sexually attracted to and you'represented with the opportunity
to have sex with them, maybeyou're favorable.
Maybe you're like, hey sure,let's give it a try with the
opportunity to have sex withthem.
Maybe you're favorable.
Maybe you're like, hey sure,let's give it a try.
Maybe you're averse, you aren'tinto this person and the idea
of having sex with them is notcool.
(16:53):
Or you have a visceral responselike, oh my God, I would never
do that.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
This is fascinating.
I've never thought about itthat way.
We are all averse, sexually,dependent on context.
Yes, this is is fascinating.
I've never thought about itthat way.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
Thank you so much and yet that just is assumed.
When you talk about an asexualperson who may be averse or
repulsed towards sex of any kind, there's this assumption that
must be trauma related or theremust be a reason.
And there is no acceptance ofthis idea that well, if you're
just not sexually attracted tothe person, yeah, it's totally
(17:28):
reasonable you might be averseor even repulsed to that idea.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
I love that.
Thank you, that was like awhole new idea to me and I love
it so much, thank you.
Thank you so much.
Okay, what about aspects of aceculture, gray culture, that it
gets messy and it maybe promotessome damaging consenting to
(17:53):
unwanted sex?
Speaker 2 (17:55):
So we have the term compulsory sexuality, which is
the assumption that everybodywants and needs sex and is
defined by some kind of sexualattraction and that, basically,
in order to have a romanticrelationship, you must be
willing to engage in sexualactivity.
It's mandated through a lot ofreligious models and even
(18:16):
political legal models.
You know, if you think aboutwanting to get citizenship with
a partner, you know if you'renot having sex or romantically
connected to them, you're notgoing to get a green card as
their partner.
Um, the idea of uh, what'swhat's the word?
Um, consummating a marriage.
(18:37):
We have all of these ways thatwe define relationships through
sex.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
Like, the validity hinges on one behavior.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
And the validity of adulthood, to lose your
virginity and become an adult,that to be an adult virgin is
either to be waiting forsomebody to end that state that
it's this liminal state ofexistence, or that there is a
failure of some kind along theway, either a failure of
(19:13):
character or a failure of youknow gender, that you are either
unappealing to others or youdon't meet some societal bar
that qualifies you to be worthyof this thing called sex.
(19:33):
So there is a lot of pressure,not specifically from the
community, but that thecommunity deals with feels, yeah
, constantly as being part ofsociety.
The idea like I will never finda partner if I'm not willing to
have sex, that is, is a heavystigma.
There's a lot of people thatdon't know they're asexual until
(19:56):
they're in a relationship andthey're spending this time
figuring out why don't I likethis thing that I was told I was
going to really really likeonce I was finally in this
relationship.
Beyond that, I think within thecommunity, the biggest
challenges become prescriptivism.
Yeah, you know, david Jay, whocreated the Avon forums in the
(20:20):
early 2000s, did us all a hugefavor and was very clear that
everybody gets to define theirown labels and he ran his forums
with that idea that you knoweverybody is the final arbiter
of their own labels.
You get to decide what labelswork for you.
If you say you're asexual, thenyou get to use the word asexual
, but that doesn't stop peoplefrom saying, oh, wait a minute,
(20:43):
if you do this, you're notasexual.
Or if you do this right and toreally get down into that.
Well, do you like this or doyou do this thing?
Or, you know, starting toreally ask all of those
qualifying questions that takeaway that agency, that take away
that agency.
(21:04):
That also becomes a challengewhen asexual people are trying
to validate their queernesswithin queer spaces and are
invalidated that way, being toldwell, you know, if you have any
sort of inclination towards across-gender attraction,
(21:24):
whatever, that even means thatyou're not queer.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
Mm, hmm.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
Not recognizing that queerness is a spectrum.
The idea of not conforming toheteronormativity in and of
itself is queering theexperience that's expecting
(21:55):
things and some of it is withinthe community.
Speaker 1 (21:56):
We've got like gatekeeping of terms and trying
to determine who's in, who's out.
You know your letters so fardown that you don't matter as
much.
That, yeah, I really appreciatethat, but those are some of the
aspects everyone's dealing with.
That's um, that impacts ourself-identity, claiming it for
ourself, and can influence ourchoices of whether we think we
(22:19):
should consent to unwanted sexor if we shouldn't.
If I do, does that change who Iam?
This identity piece?
Speaker 2 (22:27):
Yeah, that it's a deal breaker.
Yeah, that sex is automaticallygoing to be a deal breaker.
Do I disclose in a datingprofile if I'm asexual or can I
have that conversation in thegetting to know you phase, which
there are pros and cons to each.
But, just as with anything,there's lots of different things
that might be deal breakers ina relationship.
(22:49):
We set sex as this top, mostimportant thing, but that's not
a priority for everybody,regardless of orientation, right
?
So just like you could bereally into hiking and you want
a partner who's also really intohiking, you may specifically
(23:12):
seek that out.
Or you may get together withsomebody that you really like
but they're not into hiking andyou find another hiking buddy A
lot harder to do sexually.
But we are growing awarenessaround non-monogamous
relationship models too.
That may be more affirming forsome people.
Speaker 1 (23:28):
Right.
Okay, let's see Question four.
As an expert in this field,what do you see as a solution
for a woman experiencingnegative outcomes of CUS and how
would you work with a woman ora couple experiencing this?
Maybe it's a light and lightand like orientation discovery
and they realize oh, I amasexual, we're in a mixed
orientation marriage, we had noidea, you know, or finding this
(23:52):
woman who's saying I reallycan't get to the favor, it's the
chore, you know, it's always Ican't get to making it a favor.
When you're thinking about that, what do you see as solutions?
Speaker 2 (24:05):
To find non-sexual forms of intimacy and pleasure
to center in the relationship.
Instead, intimacy is closenessand connection and gets heavily
conflated with the sexual.
But there's emotional intimacyfeeling seen and heard and
having deep conversations.
There's intellectual intimacythe sharing of knowledge and
(24:26):
geeking out together or sharingyour values with another person
and having you know those kindsof you know person and having
you know those kinds of you knowintellectually stimulating
conversations.
There's sensual intimacy.
Some asexual people still reallywant physical touch and cuddles
and hand-holding and kisses.
(24:46):
That doesn't have to move into asexual space and again, space.
And again, even those who arenot asexual may not prioritize
sex and may be just as happy tohave that as a physical
connection in the relationship.
So you know, it is entirelypossible for the higher desire
(25:10):
or allosexual partner to gettheir sexual needs met through
their own engagement, throughsolo sex, using toys, lubes,
porn, erotica, giving themselvespermission and being given
permission to explore solo sexin a fully embodied, pleasurable
way, rather than only seeing itas a less than throw away, get
(25:37):
it over with type of thing.
So giving even both partnersthat permission to explore
individual, solo sexual pleasurebecause an asexual person with
a high libido or who isinterested in sexual activity
may not be interested in sharingthat because it's about
directionality.
(25:58):
So they may feel all thosefeelings in their own body and
have an interest in engagingwith that, but just not feel
like sharing it and doing itwith somebody else, and that
gets stigmatized too.
There is this expectation thatif they have those feelings that
they owe their partner to dothat together.
(26:20):
Reminding people, especiallywithin desire discrepancy
context, if you take two randompeople out of the population,
the odds that they're going tohave the exact same level of
desire at the exact same time isalmost impossible.
Like desire discrepancy isinevitable in an interpersonal
(26:43):
sexual relationship.
Speaker 1 (26:45):
You can count on it.
It's not that it's disordered.
That might happen.
You can count on it.
Speaker 2 (27:17):
This will happen, yes , and yet it is always, or
almost always, the lower desirepartner who the other 23 hours
and 30 minutes in their liveswhen they're not having sex.
Speaker 1 (27:29):
And I appreciate that , because it's so much intimacy
is all somehow braided into onething and you can see, oh, if
the sex stopped, everythingstopped, and you're like, no,
let's unbraid all these forms ofintimacy and make them each
have a valuable space that wecan prioritize and receive
fulfillment from, instead ofbeing like it all comes with sex
(27:50):
or none of it comes at all.
Yes, you know.
Speaker 2 (27:52):
Yes, you know what do they like to do together.
Do they like to cook together,do they dance together, do they
watch TV together?
Do they go out to eat togetherand try new foods and swap each,
you know, swap foods on theirplates.
And you know my spouse bringsme fun new flavors of coffee
mate when he sees them at thestore, flavors of coffee mate
(28:18):
when he sees them at the store.
You know they had a mean girlsflavor, it was like kind of a
strawberries and cream flavor.
But it's fun, you know there's,there's so many other things
you were thought of.
Speaker 1 (28:29):
You were considering each other, prioritizing each
other.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
You knew each other what would matter, you know yeah
and hotter ship has her, hastheir book um, uh, the 18 love
languages.
Have you seen this one?
Speaker 1 (28:46):
no, but I'm glad because, oh, my gosh makes me
mad yes, yes.
Speaker 2 (28:51):
So Anne's book is specifically in response to the
you know Christian patriarchal,you know hetero model of Gary
Chapman's book.
So Anne's book focuses centers,platonic love, and they have 18
different languages instead ofjust five.
Speaker 1 (29:12):
I'm so glad you told me about this.
I wasn't aware of this, oh it'sa great book.
Speaker 2 (29:15):
You could buy it for $4 digital on Amazon and it's
the fastest read you'll ever see.
There's illustrations.
It's a super quick, easy read.
I don't remember the beginningbecause it's 18 languages, but
look up Anne Hoddership, youknow their name right.
Yeah, yeah.
But again, finding other waysto define love in the
(29:38):
relationship, to seek pleasurein the relationship, to find
intimacy between them, so thateither sex can be taken off the
table entirely in aninterpersonal context and can be
satisfied in a solo ornon-monogamous context context
(29:58):
and can be satisfied in a soloor non-monogamous context, or
there can be some level of sexthat actually is freely given
and freely engaged in.
That does center pleasure andhopefully for both partners.
But there is that concept thatsome people enjoy giving and not
receiving, some people enjoygiving and not receiving, some
people enjoy receiving and notgiving, and there is this
(30:20):
expectation of mutual orgasm atthe same time, rather than
making space for the reciprocityisn't actually what everybody
wants.
Speaker 1 (30:34):
You know, if you think I agree when, like when, I
love like six principles ofsexual health and whenever I get
to the principle of mutual,people will think it's
reciprocity in it.
To me it's you each got whatyou wanted out, it was mutually
like, it was mutually enjoyable.
But we only get to enjoyment ifwe kind of got what we each
(30:54):
wanted.
And it's okay if we kind of gotwhat we each wanted and it's
okay if we wanted differentthings out of the experience.
But both people were consideredyou know, what do you want out
of this, what do I want out ofthis?
And also reciprocity.
I love that Right.
Speaker 2 (31:07):
And also just looking at the activity itself.
Some people specifically getoff on giving and don't really
enjoy receiving.
So if they're paired withsomebody who gets off on
receiving and not giving, thatcan actually work out really
well.
And with an asexual person,they could be on either space on
that as well.
(31:27):
So, and again, what are theygetting out of?
It can be that satisfactionthat I was talking about earlier
.
I love getting a neck massage.
We could just take turns.
Or if I walk up and I give mypartner a neck massage, I get
(31:48):
satisfaction out of knowing thatthey're enjoying, that they're
relaxing.
It's a physical touch betweenus and even if I don't get a
neck massage in return, it's notlike that was a failure of that
experience and I can't beexpected to enjoy giving a back
(32:08):
massage in the same way that theperson receiving it is enjoying
it.
Speaker 1 (32:12):
Right, that's a good analogy.
That's a good one.
Okay, let's see how.
I think we all have opinions onthe DSM and the diagnosis of
hypoactive desire interestdisorder.
Looking through the lens ofthis research, as well as your
lens and your expertise, shouldthese outcomes be considered as
(32:37):
meeting DSM criteria for thisdiagnosis?
Is it something completelydifferent?
Tell me your thoughts andopinions.
Speaker 2 (32:45):
So the DSM-5 actually has an exclusion for people who
identify as asexual on thosediagnoses and that was pushed by
AVEN, the Asexual Visibilityand Education Network.
I do question the validity ofpathologizing low desire in
general.
The duality of hyposexual andhypersexual creates this
(33:09):
assumption that there is anormal.
Speaker 1 (33:11):
You're right, because it creates the two extremes and
so we're going to deduce thatsomewhere in the middle is
normal.
We're going to make a bellcurve in our head, whether we've
realized it or not.
You're right, I'd never thoughtof that.
Speaker 2 (33:24):
So we're either comparing it to a non-existent
normal in-between expectation orwe are comparing it to the
other random person that's beenpulled out of the population and
you cannot diagnose anindividual as a pathology based
on how they compare to thisother random person.
It's too subjective.
(33:46):
Now the HSDD and FSID diagnosesdo have some useful elements in
them.
They talk about clinicallysignificant distress.
Where is the distress comingfrom?
Is it coming from societalpressure?
Is it coming from a partner?
Speaker 1 (34:03):
And that's listed in the criteria.
It says or distress of yourpartner.
I mean it does.
Speaker 2 (34:08):
It actually does suggest that interpersonal
distress is a good reason tomake that diagnosis, which I
think is a problem when it comesto internal distress.
I think you know there is thisdid they have a lifelong lack of
desire, which I think actuallylends more towards recognizing
(34:32):
it as an asexual experience?
But if they had this experienceof desire and libido that
suddenly changed you know it'scontextual what are the other
things going on?
That might be a reason to lookinto it as a pathology, but if
we're just looking at theirnatural level of desire and
(34:55):
libido, how do we decide thatthat is a problem when they may
be perfectly fine with being atthat level?
Speaker 1 (35:07):
except for the pressure, the distress can come
from the comparison, not, yeah,their internal experience right,
it's, the distress can be inthat comparison, not their
internal experience, right, it's, the distress can be in that
comparison of.
Speaker 2 (35:18):
I'm not experiencing what my partner is or my friend
is or what it looks likeeverybody else is, and yeah, I
do think it's useful with thefact that they kind of changed
it, at least for the femaleversion of it.
With interest and arousal,arousal can be something that
needs consideration because ofthe concept of arousal
non-concordance.
(35:38):
Is there subjective arousal butno physical response?
That's something we can workwith.
If there is that subjectivearousal but they're not
lubricating, they're not gettingan erection, they're not
getting any sort of arousal,physical experience within their
body, even if they'recompletely turned on in their
head, yeah Well, that'ssomething we can address.
(36:00):
Yeah, but if there's nosubjective arousal and we're
just telling them you shouldhave subjective arousal, that's
that's a lot of socialinterpretation on an individual
experience.
It's okay to not want sex, it'sokay to not prioritize sex.
We have to make space to letpeople know that's okay,
(36:26):
regardless of orientation.
Speaker 1 (36:29):
Let's see we kind of answered this one as an expert
in the field.
What do you see as the solutionof preventing women
experiencing negative outcomesof this Right, because some
people didn't have negativeoutcomes.
Some people did have negativeoutcomes.
I think we've talked about it alittle bit, but I wanted to see
if you had additional thoughts.
Speaker 2 (36:46):
I think it's mostly what I said, that you know
really giving them the tools tounderstand consent, negotiation,
safe words, aftercare, and togive them that ability to just
not want it and to be okay withnever wanting it and never
wanting to engage in it.
(37:06):
They may just not be, they maybe averse or repulsed, and
that's not going to change.
And if they're favorable, italso doesn't mean that they're
favorable for sex three times aweek.
You know, my favorite analogyis going to Disneyland.
It's super fun, it's exhaustingyou.
Some people want to go everysingle day and others are like
(37:28):
you know.
Give me a year or two.
Speaker 1 (37:30):
Yeah, yeah, but they're still Disney favorable.
Speaker 2 (37:33):
Yeah, exactly.
So some people may be favorabletowards having sex, but it's a
special occasion once in a whilething, and the pressure, the
expectation to perform takesaway all of the favorability and
interest and just buildsresentment and all of those
(37:54):
negative feelings.
So we have to find a way totake away the expectation.
Speaker 1 (38:00):
The expectation that's part of the solution is
how do we manage thisexpectation we've got as a
society?
And it's permeating everycommunity, I mean in the US.
I'm making a huge statement.
Someone can tell me if it's not, but I believe it probably is.
Speaker 2 (38:16):
And I want to support that higher desire partner in
accepting a no, in acceptingrejection, in giving that option
for no.
One of the best lines I heardrecently was from Andrew Hartman
, who said he was asking a favorof me that was not sexual, but
(38:36):
said a no is as welcome as a yesand that was just beautiful to
me.
How can we give the higherdesire partner language to give
permission to say no, so thateverything doesn't rely on
either acquiescing or rejecting?
Speaker 1 (38:59):
Right.
Right Because, with theseexpectations we all have,
someone says do you want to havesex?
There's only one right answeryes, right.
So we have to address this sothat or not tonight, or not
tonight.
Speaker 2 (39:11):
Let's defer this expectation.
We're not taking away theexpectation, we're just putting
it off and making it even morepressure the next time.
Speaker 1 (39:21):
I love this language.
No is as welcome as a yes.
Andrew Hartman, andrew Hartman,that's the new expectation, new
goal.
Okay, now tell me a little bit.
You said that you had somethoughts that I didn't really
write questions up for, so tellme a little bit.
Just this op ed commentary If Isent you this 10 minute video,
(39:42):
I'm like I want to know whatyour thoughts are.
Here's what I found, but I wantmore eyes and opinions and
thoughts on this.
Speaker 2 (39:51):
Yeah, I think we wove a lot of it into the
conversation.
So I'm feeling pretty good aboutwhat we touched on and again, I
am really grateful for thatlanguage because it's been hard
for me to name that for peopletoo that you know to recognize
that you can consent without itnecessarily being coerced or
(40:14):
assaults, that there is this,there's this space here for for
this idea and also, um, even ifit is coerced or there's these
negative outcomes, the fact thatyou're going to have people
that honestly feel that theyhave consented and I can say
that I my first marriage wasseven years of that If I ever
(40:37):
said no, he would stop.
He never physically assaulted me, he never physically forced me
into anything, but boy did heguilt, trip me into it and use
societal expectations to make mefeel like this is something I
must do, that it is necessarywithin the relationship, all of
(41:02):
these forms of coercion.
But even within that, I neverfelt like, even though I got to
the point where I was able tosay it was coerced consent, the
point where I was able to say itwas coerced consent but it
still, I still wouldn't havecalled it assault.
Yeah, and I don't feel like hehad any understanding of what.
(41:25):
What was wrong with thatsituation?
so I think that language ofnaming consenting to unwanted
sex covers so much of that,because it acknowledges that the
person feels that there isconsent and names that it's
(41:49):
still unwanted.
I love that so much.
Speaker 1 (41:52):
It moves us from the binary to more of a spectrum
that we can have more accurateconversations about people's
actual experiences, instead ofthis binary of it was or it
wasn't.
And I like what you pointed out.
That is one concern of mine inlike teaching this or writing a
book about this.
Whatever this is going tobecome for me, I do have that
(42:15):
concern that there areindividuals who would conflate
coercion with rape and and and,instead of seeing it as a
spectrum, which that we do havesome research coming out.
That's really helpful.
That's trying to give us thatspectrum of here we know, forced
, you know, we know these arethe outcomes, but there's also
(42:35):
verbal and emotional coercionand they have different outcomes
.
They're not, you know, and justbeing able to pull that apart
and create, um, not such abinary but I that is something
I'm concerned about the peoplewill make a jump of.
I can send it to unwanted sex.
Does that mean it was assault?
And here we're saying there'smore options here than that.
Speaker 2 (42:55):
Well, I think that's what's also important about that
, especially if you're able touse that language in a couple's
therapy session, where you don'twant to stigmatize, you don't
want people to get defensive.
But if you can name, you know,yes, it was consent and it was
also unwanted activity, Like, ifwe can name that, in that
(43:16):
setting there might be a lotmore room for somebody to
acknowledge oh well, maybe if itwas actually unwanted then we
shouldn't have done it, then weshouldn't have done it.
But if you say it was coerced,well now I have to explain to
you why it wasn't coercion.
Speaker 1 (43:42):
Or why I'm not a predator, why I'm not a criminal
right, and that's not thediscussion that I'm trying to
have with people, but that is adefensive reaction.
I've seen more partners open tothe idea, but I have seen a
couple men specifically getsuper defensive.
Speaker 2 (43:59):
I mean, I think you're going to have that in any
situation, but hopefully thatcan at least be some of that
useful language that usefullanguage.
Speaker 1 (44:12):
I hope it is useful.
I had one individual look overa book proposal.
It was like a peer editor andthey were like I'm so worried
about the men who we're notalienating, the men and I don't
know.
I have feelings on.
That Part of me thinks it mightbe okay to shine a light on
something that's not helpful.
And there's another part of methat's like and we want to do it
in a way that people canreceive it and we're not.
(44:36):
We're not calling this criminalbehavior.
I mean there's this.
You know more options.
Speaker 2 (44:42):
I think a lot of that again comes down to what are
the alternatives, you know, ifthe man feels that, well, how
else do I get this need met?
Speaker 1 (44:52):
This is a need for me .
Speaker 2 (44:55):
And how do I know, you know?
How do I figure out where thatconsent line is?
You know that's such a hugeconversation in and of itself.
Like you know, we think we canrecognize body language, but
that's not necessarily true.
And we're in a society thattells you that playing coy is
(45:19):
showing interest, right, youknow.
Oh, she's playing hard to get.
She must want more of this.
There's whole books written onthat, the book, the Game.
More of this.
There's whole books written onthat, the book, the game.
So you know, pepe, le pew andpenelope, we have cartoons about
(45:39):
the chase, we have moviesromanticizing the chase.
So it gets really hard.
We tell little little kids, oh,he hit you, it's just because
he liked you, right, right,right.
It permeates our society, thisidea that you can't ever trust
(46:02):
your instincts on anotherperson's response, because it
might prove exactly what, theopposite of what you think
you're seeing.
Speaker 1 (46:08):
Right.
Speaker 2 (46:09):
Yeah of what you think you're seeing, right, yeah
, so again, giving them thelanguage of negotiation and
consent.
And you know the wheel ofconsent and safe words and
aftercare, and practicing a no,and practicing receiving
rejection in a setting thatisn't that immediately
(46:30):
intimidating, rejection in asetting that isn't that
immediately intimidating, youknow, um, having that
opportunity for embodied solopleasure that can be explored
alone and that might be thespace for non-monogamy.
Speaker 1 (46:44):
Yeah, that might be the trickiest populations or
those where those ideas areprohibited or less favorable
even just solo sex and thingslike that.
That's going to be a trickiersell for that population because
there's a harder bind perceivedthere.
This was awesome.
I really appreciate your timeand I did send a form so I have
(47:08):
all your information.
But just when this, when, whenwe publish this or when this
gets used in another way, howcan people who are just maybe
awakening to the possibility ofan late in life orientation
discovery or wanting support asthey choose their own
orientation identity labels, howcan they find you and all the
(47:31):
things you're creating?
Speaker 2 (47:34):
ace sex educationcom or a sex education on instagram.
Speaker 1 (47:40):
um, yeah, that's, and you, you've got offerings for
the public, but you've also gotofferings for mental health
professionals.
If there's people who this iskind of language is very new to
them, you're educatingprofessionals too.
Speaker 2 (47:54):
I have a six hour six ASEC CE training on asexuality
and aromanticism, hosted throughBianca Lariano's Ante Up
program.
I love it so so yeah.
And then, yeah, I do doindividual workshops from time
to time too.
Speaker 1 (48:10):
Thank you so much you gave so much depth and breadth
and life to this conversation.
I really appreciated it.
Speaker 2 (48:18):
I appreciate your willingness to explore all these
different ways of looking atthese things and you know one of
the things that I've seen whenit comes to including asexuality
in these books around desire orwhatever there's often this
inclination to do kind of adisclaimer somewhere in the
beginning of the book and say ifyou're asexual, none of this
matters.
And it's so wrong because it isa spectrum Not everybody is
(48:43):
going to identify on it rightaway.
There may have misconceptionswhere you know they don't
recognize that it's a label theyhave access to.
And because of the spectrum ofhuman sexuality there's so much
overlap between the asexualcommunity and people who do
experience sexual attraction butdon't want sex or have a lower
(49:06):
interest in sex or any of that.
So I think everything appliesto the asexual community,
especially when they may befavorable versus repulsed.
So I know all of that.
Plus, I think the languagecoming out of the asexual
community is applicable acrossthe board.
So if you do include asexuality, I would love to see it woven
(49:27):
throughout the entire book,rather than this, you know,
token mention at the beginningof the book and say well, don't
worry about it.
Speaker 1 (49:36):
Yeah, thank you for that advice.
Yeah, that would be um.
It might look inclusive, butfeel dismissive, for sure.
Speaker 2 (49:46):
Yeah, more than anything.
It's like just reminding people, and sexual attraction may not
even be a factor.
You know, when we assume sexualattraction is the primary
mechanism of arousal, we forgetall the other mechanisms of
arousal.
Person may find arousal throughfantasy, or touch or toys or
(50:18):
all of these other ways ofaccessing arousal that don't
rely on sexual attraction kinks,fetishes.
Thank you, all of it can stillapply.
Speaker 1 (50:25):
Yeah, I appreciate that advice.
That's fantastic.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 2 (50:29):
Yeah, well, if you uh , if you need a sensitivity
reader when you got things readyto go, please hit me up Really.
Speaker 1 (50:35):
Yeah, thank you.
Okay, that that's fantastic.
I probably will.
Speaker 2 (50:40):
Yeah, no, I love books like this.
I have, you know, my wholeshelf of all of the things.
I am constantly trying to readall of these things.
And was the book Desire thatcame out recently.
I don't remember the twoauthors on it, but I will tell
you they had a lot of greatstuff in it, but they
intentionally conflated desireand libido.
(51:02):
They straight out said we'regoing to use these terms
interchangeably, and that droveme nuts and I couldn't put my
finger on it until I thoughtabout it this way Think about an
itch scratching an itch Libidois the itch, desire is the urge
to scratch it.
Speaker 1 (51:25):
They usually happen simultaneously, but they're not
the same thing.
That's fantastic, thank you.
That's really important to thisdiscussion as well.
Yeah, yeah, so all right.
Thank you so much.
I appreciate your time.
We'll talk soon.
Speaker 2 (51:38):
All right, take care Bye.
Hello, sex Therapy 101.
Friends, you notice I mighthave taken a break, but we're
back and we're excited and I'mreally passionate about this new
series that I'm going to beoffering to all of you.
(00:21):
I haven't disappeared.
I've been working on someprojects that are really going
to be offering to all of you.
I haven't disappeared.
I've been working on someprojects that are really
meaningful to me, and one ofthose is a book for the public
about my research aboutregarding long-term outcomes of
consenting to unwanted sex, orduty sex as we sometimes call it
, and in doing that, adding tomy own research over the year,
(00:42):
you'll see my hair change, myface change, because these were
all recorded over the course ofa year and I wanted to talk to
experts about the culturalimplications or cultural beliefs
or the cultural ideas amongdifferent communities in the US
(01:03):
that might protect peopleagainst negative outcomes and
that might actually kind ofpromote people into some of the
more negative outcomes.
And that is the series I haveto offer you.
I'm really excited.
It's been really meaningful tome, it's been enlightening to me
, it's really helped me makesure that this book is what I
(01:24):
want it to be for all of you.
So, with no ado, here we go.
This is going to be the introfor the whole series.
I'll give you a little bit of abio for each and then we'll
jump into the recording of theinterview.
In this interview, I have aconversation with Aubrey
Lancaster.
It was really important to meto make sure we made this
distinction about orientation.
(01:47):
Aubrey is an ASEC certifiedsexuality educator.
Her focus is in asexuality,aromanticism and the mechanics
of arousal.
She's also a secular, jewish,non-divergent, gray, romantic,
asexual femme, and it'sfantastic to have this
(02:08):
conversation with her and gether input on a conversation that
we need to put a seat at thetable for this population, and
I'm really happy to have learnedfrom her and hope that you find
it stimulating as well.
So I wanted to have thisconversation with you because I
don't want to put a book outthere about desire and not
(02:32):
acknowledge this very validhuman experience, and I didn't
just want to like pretend itdidn't exist or didn't apply to
this discussion.
So I appreciate you beingwilling to teach me and to talk
through all this.
Okay, so let's start Questionone Using your clinical lens the
(02:55):
way that you're trained to lookat sexuality how would you
interpret my research findingsand how would you explain what I
demonstrated, that we foundwith these 1,300 women?
Speaker 2 (03:07):
You know, I just really appreciated the language
of consenting to unwanted sex.
Just being able to name that, Ithink, is so huge because there
is this push that it's eitherfully consensual, enthusiastic
yes, or it's sexual assault, andno discussion of what that
(03:28):
in-between can look like.
And I really appreciatedespecially that element of
recognizing that some people maynot call it assault, may not
feel that it was non-consensual,and yet it was still unwanted,
and I thought that was reallyimportant to be able to name
(03:49):
that and I'm absolutely going tobe bringing that into my work.
The other stuff that stood outto me was being able to name all
of the different emotionalresponses people had to
consenting to unwanted sex.
Because, again, being able toname these things and say, you
(04:11):
know, even if you fullyconsented, you heart of hearts
consented, there was stillnegative impact, and being able
to hold both of those truths atonce yeah, and then even to
recognize that some of themconsented and didn't feel there
was any negative impact, yeah,and that's a niche I think can
(04:34):
be explored a lot more too.
Yeah, where I would go withthat and what I expand on that
is when I talk about some ofthese elements, especially for
asexual people.
Some asexual people do want toengage in sexual activity.
It just may not be motivated bysexual attraction, and some
(04:55):
asexual people have no interestin sexual activity with another
person, maybe with themselves ormaybe not.
So a lot of asexual people, Ithink, find themselves in that
space that if they want to havea romantic partner, they must
expect that they will beconsenting to sex.
(05:16):
So I think that there areprobably a lot of asexual people
who are in mixed orientationrelationships, who are
consenting to unwanted sex.
Yeah, and again, we can look atthat in a couple of different
ways as far as whether or notthat is a problem for them.
Yeah, this is where I bring inthe language of favor versus
(05:41):
chore.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
Okay, oh, okay.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
Yeah, Okay, you could do a favor for somebody and it
doesn't mean that youparticularly got anything out of
it by doing it, but you knowthat they enjoyed it and you're
happy to do it.
A favor is freely given and ifyou don't have the capacity and
you say no, there's noconsequences.
You just move on.
They figure out what they needto do about it.
(06:06):
A chore is expected and thereare consequences if you don't do
a chore.
So I often will talk to peopleabout how to kind of locate that
for themselves.
You know, is this a chore?
Is it freely given?
You know, like I don't likecooking, but I get satisfaction
(06:32):
out of knowing that the foodthat I've made is being enjoyed.
So somebody who is consentingto unwanted sex can still get
satisfaction out of making theirpartner happy, out of giving
that gift to their partner.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
I like this language because, though, sullivan was
using language like approach oravoidance motivations, but I
don't know that the everydayperson is going to get that, but
I like your language, which ismuch more understandable of
favor versus chore.
Yeah, it's much more accessible.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
And then we can also kind of transfer that over into
those understandings of capacity.
What do we do if there is arequest and we don't have the
capacity for it?
So I don't have the capacity tomake dinner tonight.
What are our options?
Either my partner makes it orwe eat out, or we just fend for
ourselves and get our own food.
So that same thing again cantransfer over into a sexual
(07:29):
setting of if somebody asks fora sexual favor and the other
person doesn't have the capacityfor it or doesn't want to.
First of all there has to beconversations around handling
rejection, handling a no, nottaking it personally.
So there's a lot of that andthat can be a huge point of
(07:54):
discussion.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
I like how you highlighted it that there needs
to be some discussions here andsome options and looking at some
negotiation.
That's like not coercive but iswhat are our options?
Speaker 2 (08:08):
Yeah, I think the kink community gives us a lot of
really great language that weassume is only within that
context, but I think all of thatcan so importantly be used in
any sexual encounter.
Negotiation, consent, safewords, aftercare yeah, all of
(08:31):
that needs to be taught in allsexual contexts, and everything
else too.
I mean, if you're going to bein a highly activated, intense
situation, you need to know howto stop it, how to take care of
yourself when it's over, all ofthose sorts of things.
And I think that for those whoare consenting to unwanted sex,
(08:54):
who want to consent for somereason where it's not coerced,
those are things that can helpmitigate those negative feelings
that come out of it.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
Mm-hmm, some of that aftercare, right, yeah, but I
mean all of that.
You can totally use that better.
Yeah, yeah, the negotiation.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
What are we going to actually do?
What are we going to engage in?
It's not going to be a surprise.
Here is what.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
I am agreeing to.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
Here are my boundaries, here my boundaries.
Here's what I don't want to do.
Let's do our thing and thenafterwards we can debrief and
have a conversation about whatworked, what didn't, and maybe
create a new menu of things totry.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
And it's so valuable.
Do you see that languagepermeating from the kink
community into the larger, intoother communities, Like I
totally agree with you and I'mwondering, into other?
Speaker 2 (09:46):
communities.
Like I totally agree with youand I'm wondering what do you
see?
I don't see it enough.
Like I really see that mostlydiscussed with people who are
doing work around kink Consentis talked about in multiple
spaces.
Um, I really there's a coupleof things around consent that I
(10:07):
find helpful in the context ofconsenting to unwanted sex.
first of all, um betty martin'swheel of consent I know she's so
great the the simple concept ofunderstanding who the touch is
for, yeah, I think is huge,especially, um, within that
context of consenting tounwanted sex.
If somebody is consenting toreceive touch and is told it's
(10:35):
for them but it's not, it's forthe person doing the touching
being able to explore that andplay those little games.
Because, you know, one of thethings that really stood out for
me in the Wheel of Consent bookwas how she talked about there
would be a moment when they'replaying these games where it
(10:56):
would suddenly click.
You know they would be saying,well, what do you want to do?
No, no, no, it's not about you,it's about you know.
Well, what do you want to do?
No, no, no, it's not about you,it's about you know, it's not
about them, it's about you.
How do you want to be touched?
And they wouldn't really get itat first, and then, after
actually doing it, it would hita point where they're like, oh,
(11:17):
oh.
So I think that in and of itselfcan really help people to
recognize if they are consentingto something unwanted or not.
Asexual men and men who have alower desire than their partners
(11:50):
get not only all of that aswell, but there's also this
challenge to their masculinity,that gets tied into it.
Yeah, you know, whenmasculinity is defined by
virility and sexual prowess andall of these things, any step in
the other direction on any ofthat is very shamed and not
(12:11):
talked about.
So you know, I definitely wouldlove to see some of these
numbers for men who consent tounwanted sex, right.
Speaker 1 (12:20):
I agree, I'm interested too.
I can't do all the studies atonce, I know, but they need to
be done.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Yeah.
And then the other tool aroundconsent that I find really
useful is Emily Nagoski's fourlevels of consent.
Are you familiar with that one?
Thanks for bringing that up.
Yeah, enthusiastic, willing,unwilling and coerced.
And it's that willing levelthat gets so misunderstood,
(12:47):
because we have this idea ofwhat enthusiastic consent looks
like and we can sometimes atleast identify coerced consent,
although not always, butespecially willing.
Why would you just be willingand not enthusiastic?
And that's when it comes downto.
There are many differentreasons people will have sex
beyond their own personaldesires.
(13:10):
You know, and while I alsothink it's super important to
reiterate you don't owe anyonesex, ever, you don't owe anybody
access to your body, ever,partner or not.
This is not a service you arerequired to perform.
Sex is a co-created activityand you can still be willing and
(13:40):
happy to do that favor forsomebody else.
And then that long-termexpectation kind of comes into
play, like is a no contingent ona yes tomorrow Right?
Or is every no freely acceptedso that a yes can truly freely
(14:00):
be given?
Speaker 1 (14:01):
Right, I like how you appraised that for sure.
Really be given, right, I likehow you appraised that for sure.
All right, so when and so Iwanted to speak with you
specifically for your expertisewith the you know asexual
aromantic gray, all those spacescoming together Are there
aspects that you see ofcommunity culture that are
(14:21):
protective against CUS?
And you just probably namedthem.
You know the four levels ofconsent, the you know Betty
Martin's work, the safe word,aftercare consent, those kinds
of things.
Is there anything specificallyin that asexual space that you
see that is protective?
Speaker 2 (14:43):
So some language that's come out of the asexual
community that I absolutely loveand I think applies on so many
different levels and can be sohelpful in so many different
ways, is the language offavorable, indifferent, averse,
repulsed.
So we can look at attitudesabout engaging in sexual
activity in both cultural waysand personal ways.
(15:06):
So cultural attitudes aboutengaging in sexual activity
include being sex positive, youknow, thinking sex is fine, not
necessarily for me, but forwhoever is consenting, and, you
know, happy and willing.
Sex neutral, not really placingany value judgment on sex.
It just, it's a thing, itexists.
(15:27):
And sex negative to have anegative attitude towards sex in
general, to think it's bad ordirty or wrong and to also
mandate sex within specificparameters, that's all within
that sex negativity.
But then we look at personalattitudes of engaging in sexual
activity.
Somebody may be sex favorable.
They have a, you know they'refavorable towards having sex.
(15:48):
They want to engage in sexualactivity, sex indifferent, they
could take it or leave it.
You want to have sex?
Sure, we'll have sex.
Sex averse no, I don't want todo that.
You know, to be averse toengaging in sexual activity and
then sex repulsed, to have avisceral response to the idea of
(16:09):
engaging in sexual activity oreven seeing sexual content in
media or in conversations.
Now we pathologize, averse andrepulsed heavily.
But if you think about it, youknow, I don't know your sexual
orientation.
But if you are sexuallyoriented towards a single gender
and you are presented with theopportunity to have sex with
(16:33):
somebody who is of a genderyou're not attracted to, or just
in general, think about youknow somebody you're not
sexually attracted to and you'represented with the opportunity
to have sex with them, maybeyou're favorable.
Maybe you're like, hey sure,let's give it a try with the
opportunity to have sex withthem.
Maybe you're favorable.
Maybe you're like, hey sure,let's give it a try.
Maybe you're averse, you aren'tinto this person and the idea
of having sex with them is notcool.
(16:53):
Or you have a visceral responselike, oh my God, I would never
do that.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
This is fascinating.
I've never thought about itthat way.
We are all averse, sexually,dependent on context.
Yes, this is is fascinating.
I've never thought about itthat way.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
Thank you so much and yet that just is assumed.
When you talk about an asexualperson who may be averse or
repulsed towards sex of any kind, there's this assumption that
must be trauma related or theremust be a reason.
And there is no acceptance ofthis idea that well, if you're
just not sexually attracted tothe person, yeah, it's totally
(17:28):
reasonable you might be averseor even repulsed to that idea.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
I love that.
Thank you, that was like awhole new idea to me and I love
it so much, thank you.
Thank you so much.
Okay, what about aspects of aceculture, gray culture, that it
gets messy and it maybe promotessome damaging consenting to
(17:53):
unwanted sex?
Speaker 2 (17:55):
So we have the term compulsory sexuality, which is
the assumption that everybodywants and needs sex and is
defined by some kind of sexualattraction and that, basically,
in order to have a romanticrelationship, you must be
willing to engage in sexualactivity.
It's mandated through a lot ofreligious models and even
(18:16):
political legal models.
You know, if you think aboutwanting to get citizenship with
a partner, you know if you'renot having sex or romantically
connected to them, you're notgoing to get a green card as
their partner.
Um, the idea of uh, what'swhat's the word?
Um, consummating a marriage.
(18:37):
We have all of these ways thatwe define relationships through
sex.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
Like, the validity hinges on one behavior.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
And the validity of adulthood, to lose your
virginity and become an adult,that to be an adult virgin is
either to be waiting forsomebody to end that state that
it's this liminal state ofexistence, or that there is a
failure of some kind along theway, either a failure of
(19:13):
character or a failure of youknow gender, that you are either
unappealing to others or youdon't meet some societal bar
that qualifies you to be worthyof this thing called sex.
(19:33):
So there is a lot of pressure,not specifically from the
community, but that thecommunity deals with feels, yeah
, constantly as being part ofsociety.
The idea like I will never finda partner if I'm not willing to
have sex, that is, is a heavystigma.
There's a lot of people thatdon't know they're asexual until
(19:56):
they're in a relationship andthey're spending this time
figuring out why don't I likethis thing that I was told I was
going to really really likeonce I was finally in this
relationship.
Beyond that, I think within thecommunity, the biggest
challenges become prescriptivism.
Yeah, you know, david Jay, whocreated the Avon forums in the
(20:20):
early 2000s, did us all a hugefavor and was very clear that
everybody gets to define theirown labels and he ran his forums
with that idea that you knoweverybody is the final arbiter
of their own labels.
You get to decide what labelswork for you.
If you say you're asexual, thenyou get to use the word asexual
, but that doesn't stop peoplefrom saying, oh, wait a minute,
(20:43):
if you do this, you're notasexual.
Or if you do this right and toreally get down into that.
Well, do you like this or doyou do this thing?
Or, you know, starting toreally ask all of those
qualifying questions that takeaway that agency, that take away
that agency.
(21:04):
That also becomes a challengewhen asexual people are trying
to validate their queernesswithin queer spaces and are
invalidated that way, being toldwell, you know, if you have any
sort of inclination towards across-gender attraction,
(21:24):
whatever, that even means thatyou're not queer.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
Mm, hmm.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
Not recognizing that queerness is a spectrum.
The idea of not conforming toheteronormativity in and of
itself is queering theexperience that's expecting
(21:55):
things and some of it is withinthe community.
Speaker 1 (21:56):
We've got like gatekeeping of terms and trying
to determine who's in, who's out.
You know your letters so fardown that you don't matter as
much.
That, yeah, I really appreciatethat, but those are some of the
aspects everyone's dealing with.
That's um, that impacts ourself-identity, claiming it for
ourself, and can influence ourchoices of whether we think we
(22:19):
should consent to unwanted sexor if we shouldn't.
If I do, does that change who Iam?
This identity piece?
Speaker 2 (22:27):
Yeah, that it's a deal breaker.
Yeah, that sex is automaticallygoing to be a deal breaker.
Do I disclose in a datingprofile if I'm asexual or can I
have that conversation in thegetting to know you phase, which
there are pros and cons to each.
But, just as with anything,there's lots of different things
that might be deal breakers ina relationship.
(22:49):
We set sex as this top, mostimportant thing, but that's not
a priority for everybody,regardless of orientation, right
?
So just like you could bereally into hiking and you want
a partner who's also really intohiking, you may specifically
(23:12):
seek that out.
Or you may get together withsomebody that you really like
but they're not into hiking andyou find another hiking buddy A
lot harder to do sexually.
But we are growing awarenessaround non-monogamous
relationship models too.
That may be more affirming forsome people.
Speaker 1 (23:28):
Right.
Okay, let's see Question four.
As an expert in this field,what do you see as a solution
for a woman experiencingnegative outcomes of CUS and how
would you work with a woman ora couple experiencing this?
Maybe it's a light and lightand like orientation discovery
and they realize oh, I amasexual, we're in a mixed
orientation marriage, we had noidea, you know, or finding this
(23:52):
woman who's saying I reallycan't get to the favor, it's the
chore, you know, it's always Ican't get to making it a favor.
When you're thinking about that, what do you see as solutions?
Speaker 2 (24:05):
To find non-sexual forms of intimacy and pleasure
to center in the relationship.
Instead, intimacy is closenessand connection and gets heavily
conflated with the sexual.
But there's emotional intimacyfeeling seen and heard and
having deep conversations.
There's intellectual intimacythe sharing of knowledge and
(24:26):
geeking out together or sharingyour values with another person
and having you know those kindsof you know person and having
you know those kinds of you knowintellectually stimulating
conversations.
There's sensual intimacy.
Some asexual people still reallywant physical touch and cuddles
and hand-holding and kisses.
(24:46):
That doesn't have to move into asexual space and again, space.
And again, even those who arenot asexual may not prioritize
sex and may be just as happy tohave that as a physical
connection in the relationship.
So you know, it is entirelypossible for the higher desire
(25:10):
or allosexual partner to gettheir sexual needs met through
their own engagement, throughsolo sex, using toys, lubes,
porn, erotica, giving themselvespermission and being given
permission to explore solo sexin a fully embodied, pleasurable
way, rather than only seeing itas a less than throw away, get
(25:37):
it over with type of thing.
So giving even both partnersthat permission to explore
individual, solo sexual pleasurebecause an asexual person with
a high libido or who isinterested in sexual activity
may not be interested in sharingthat because it's about
directionality.
(25:58):
So they may feel all thosefeelings in their own body and
have an interest in engagingwith that, but just not feel
like sharing it and doing itwith somebody else, and that
gets stigmatized too.
There is this expectation thatif they have those feelings that
they owe their partner to dothat together.
(26:20):
Reminding people, especiallywithin desire discrepancy
context, if you take two randompeople out of the population,
the odds that they're going tohave the exact same level of
desire at the exact same time isalmost impossible.
Like desire discrepancy isinevitable in an interpersonal
(26:43):
sexual relationship.
Speaker 1 (26:45):
You can count on it.
It's not that it's disordered.
That might happen.
You can count on it.
Speaker 2 (27:17):
This will happen, yes , and yet it is always, or
almost always, the lower desirepartner who the other 23 hours
and 30 minutes in their liveswhen they're not having sex.
Speaker 1 (27:29):
And I appreciate that , because it's so much intimacy
is all somehow braided into onething and you can see, oh, if
the sex stopped, everythingstopped, and you're like, no,
let's unbraid all these forms ofintimacy and make them each
have a valuable space that wecan prioritize and receive
fulfillment from, instead ofbeing like it all comes with sex
(27:50):
or none of it comes at all.
Yes, you know.
Speaker 2 (27:52):
Yes, you know what do they like to do together.
Do they like to cook together,do they dance together, do they
watch TV together?
Do they go out to eat togetherand try new foods and swap each,
you know, swap foods on theirplates.
And you know my spouse bringsme fun new flavors of coffee
mate when he sees them at thestore, flavors of coffee mate
(28:18):
when he sees them at the store.
You know they had a mean girlsflavor, it was like kind of a
strawberries and cream flavor.
But it's fun, you know there's,there's so many other things
you were thought of.
Speaker 1 (28:29):
You were considering each other, prioritizing each
other.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
You knew each other what would matter, you know yeah
and hotter ship has her, hastheir book um, uh, the 18 love
languages.
Have you seen this one?
Speaker 1 (28:46):
no, but I'm glad because, oh, my gosh makes me
mad yes, yes.
Speaker 2 (28:51):
So Anne's book is specifically in response to the
you know Christian patriarchal,you know hetero model of Gary
Chapman's book.
So Anne's book focuses centers,platonic love, and they have 18
different languages instead ofjust five.
Speaker 1 (29:12):
I'm so glad you told me about this.
I wasn't aware of this, oh it'sa great book.
Speaker 2 (29:15):
You could buy it for $4 digital on Amazon and it's
the fastest read you'll ever see.
There's illustrations.
It's a super quick, easy read.
I don't remember the beginningbecause it's 18 languages, but
look up Anne Hoddership, youknow their name right.
Yeah, yeah.
But again, finding other waysto define love in the
(29:38):
relationship, to seek pleasurein the relationship, to find
intimacy between them, so thateither sex can be taken off the
table entirely in aninterpersonal context and can be
satisfied in a solo ornon-monogamous context context
(29:58):
and can be satisfied in a soloor non-monogamous context, or
there can be some level of sexthat actually is freely given
and freely engaged in.
That does center pleasure andhopefully for both partners.
But there is that concept thatsome people enjoy giving and not
receiving, some people enjoygiving and not receiving, some
people enjoy receiving and notgiving, and there is this
(30:20):
expectation of mutual orgasm atthe same time, rather than
making space for the reciprocityisn't actually what everybody
wants.
Speaker 1 (30:34):
You know, if you think I agree when, like when, I
love like six principles ofsexual health and whenever I get
to the principle of mutual,people will think it's
reciprocity in it.
To me it's you each got whatyou wanted out, it was mutually
like, it was mutually enjoyable.
But we only get to enjoyment ifwe kind of got what we each
(30:54):
wanted.
And it's okay if we kind of gotwhat we each wanted and it's
okay if we wanted differentthings out of the experience.
But both people were consideredyou know, what do you want out
of this, what do I want out ofthis?
And also reciprocity.
I love that Right.
Speaker 2 (31:07):
And also just looking at the activity itself.
Some people specifically getoff on giving and don't really
enjoy receiving.
So if they're paired withsomebody who gets off on
receiving and not giving, thatcan actually work out really
well.
And with an asexual person,they could be on either space on
that as well.
(31:27):
So, and again, what are theygetting out of?
It can be that satisfactionthat I was talking about earlier
.
I love getting a neck massage.
We could just take turns.
Or if I walk up and I give mypartner a neck massage, I get
(31:48):
satisfaction out of knowing thatthey're enjoying, that they're
relaxing.
It's a physical touch betweenus and even if I don't get a
neck massage in return, it's notlike that was a failure of that
experience and I can't beexpected to enjoy giving a back
(32:08):
massage in the same way that theperson receiving it is enjoying
it.
Speaker 1 (32:12):
Right, that's a good analogy.
That's a good one.
Okay, let's see how.
I think we all have opinions onthe DSM and the diagnosis of
hypoactive desire interestdisorder.
Looking through the lens ofthis research, as well as your
lens and your expertise, shouldthese outcomes be considered as
(32:37):
meeting DSM criteria for thisdiagnosis?
Is it something completelydifferent?
Tell me your thoughts andopinions.
Speaker 2 (32:45):
So the DSM-5 actually has an exclusion for people who
identify as asexual on thosediagnoses and that was pushed by
AVEN, the Asexual Visibilityand Education Network.
I do question the validity ofpathologizing low desire in
general.
The duality of hyposexual andhypersexual creates this
(33:09):
assumption that there is anormal.
Speaker 1 (33:11):
You're right, because it creates the two extremes and
so we're going to deduce thatsomewhere in the middle is
normal.
We're going to make a bellcurve in our head, whether we've
realized it or not.
You're right, I'd never thoughtof that.
Speaker 2 (33:24):
So we're either comparing it to a non-existent
normal in-between expectation orwe are comparing it to the
other random person that's beenpulled out of the population and
you cannot diagnose anindividual as a pathology based
on how they compare to thisother random person.
It's too subjective.
(33:46):
Now the HSDD and FSID diagnosesdo have some useful elements in
them.
They talk about clinicallysignificant distress.
Where is the distress comingfrom?
Is it coming from societalpressure?
Is it coming from a partner?
Speaker 1 (34:03):
And that's listed in the criteria.
It says or distress of yourpartner.
I mean it does.
Speaker 2 (34:08):
It actually does suggest that interpersonal
distress is a good reason tomake that diagnosis, which I
think is a problem when it comesto internal distress.
I think you know there is thisdid they have a lifelong lack of
desire, which I think actuallylends more towards recognizing
(34:32):
it as an asexual experience?
But if they had this experienceof desire and libido that
suddenly changed you know it'scontextual what are the other
things going on?
That might be a reason to lookinto it as a pathology, but if
we're just looking at theirnatural level of desire and
(34:55):
libido, how do we decide thatthat is a problem when they may
be perfectly fine with being atthat level?
Speaker 1 (35:07):
except for the pressure, the distress can come
from the comparison, not, yeah,their internal experience right,
it's, the distress can be inthat comparison, not their
internal experience, right, it's, the distress can be in that
comparison of.
Speaker 2 (35:18):
I'm not experiencing what my partner is or my friend
is or what it looks likeeverybody else is, and yeah, I
do think it's useful with thefact that they kind of changed
it, at least for the femaleversion of it.
With interest and arousal,arousal can be something that
needs consideration because ofthe concept of arousal
non-concordance.
(35:38):
Is there subjective arousal butno physical response?
That's something we can workwith.
If there is that subjectivearousal but they're not
lubricating, they're not gettingan erection, they're not
getting any sort of arousal,physical experience within their
body, even if they'recompletely turned on in their
head, yeah Well, that'ssomething we can address.
(36:00):
Yeah, but if there's nosubjective arousal and we're
just telling them you shouldhave subjective arousal, that's
that's a lot of socialinterpretation on an individual
experience.
It's okay to not want sex, it'sokay to not prioritize sex.
We have to make space to letpeople know that's okay,
(36:26):
regardless of orientation.
Speaker 1 (36:29):
Let's see we kind of answered this one as an expert
in the field.
What do you see as the solutionof preventing women
experiencing negative outcomesof this Right, because some
people didn't have negativeoutcomes.
Some people did have negativeoutcomes.
I think we've talked about it alittle bit, but I wanted to see
if you had additional thoughts.
Speaker 2 (36:46):
I think it's mostly what I said, that you know
really giving them the tools tounderstand consent, negotiation,
safe words, aftercare, and togive them that ability to just
not want it and to be okay withnever wanting it and never
wanting to engage in it.
(37:06):
They may just not be, they maybe averse or repulsed, and
that's not going to change.
And if they're favorable, italso doesn't mean that they're
favorable for sex three times aweek.
You know, my favorite analogyis going to Disneyland.
It's super fun, it's exhaustingyou.
Some people want to go everysingle day and others are like
(37:28):
you know.
Give me a year or two.
Speaker 1 (37:30):
Yeah, yeah, but they're still Disney favorable.
Speaker 2 (37:33):
Yeah, exactly.
So some people may be favorabletowards having sex, but it's a
special occasion once in a whilething, and the pressure, the
expectation to perform takesaway all of the favorability and
interest and just buildsresentment and all of those
(37:54):
negative feelings.
So we have to find a way totake away the expectation.
Speaker 1 (38:00):
The expectation that's part of the solution is
how do we manage thisexpectation we've got as a
society?
And it's permeating everycommunity, I mean in the US.
I'm making a huge statement.
Someone can tell me if it's not, but I believe it probably is.
Speaker 2 (38:16):
And I want to support that higher desire partner in
accepting a no, in acceptingrejection, in giving that option
for no.
One of the best lines I heardrecently was from Andrew Hartman
, who said he was asking a favorof me that was not sexual, but
(38:36):
said a no is as welcome as a yesand that was just beautiful to
me.
How can we give the higherdesire partner language to give
permission to say no, so thateverything doesn't rely on
either acquiescing or rejecting?
Speaker 1 (38:59):
Right.
Right Because, with theseexpectations we all have,
someone says do you want to havesex?
There's only one right answeryes, right.
So we have to address this sothat or not tonight, or not
tonight.
Speaker 2 (39:11):
Let's defer this expectation.
We're not taking away theexpectation, we're just putting
it off and making it even morepressure the next time.
Speaker 1 (39:21):
I love this language.
No is as welcome as a yes.
Andrew Hartman, andrew Hartman,that's the new expectation, new
goal.
Okay, now tell me a little bit.
You said that you had somethoughts that I didn't really
write questions up for, so tellme a little bit.
Just this op ed commentary If Isent you this 10 minute video,
(39:42):
I'm like I want to know whatyour thoughts are.
Here's what I found, but I wantmore eyes and opinions and
thoughts on this.
Speaker 2 (39:51):
Yeah, I think we wove a lot of it into the
conversation.
So I'm feeling pretty good aboutwhat we touched on and again, I
am really grateful for thatlanguage because it's been hard
for me to name that for peopletoo that you know to recognize
that you can consent without itnecessarily being coerced or
(40:14):
assaults, that there is this,there's this space here for for
this idea and also, um, even ifit is coerced or there's these
negative outcomes, the fact thatyou're going to have people
that honestly feel that theyhave consented and I can say
that I my first marriage wasseven years of that If I ever
(40:37):
said no, he would stop.
He never physically assaulted me, he never physically forced me
into anything, but boy did heguilt, trip me into it and use
societal expectations to make mefeel like this is something I
must do, that it is necessarywithin the relationship, all of
(41:02):
these forms of coercion.
But even within that, I neverfelt like, even though I got to
the point where I was able tosay it was coerced consent, the
point where I was able to say itwas coerced consent but it
still, I still wouldn't havecalled it assault.
Yeah, and I don't feel like hehad any understanding of what.
(41:25):
What was wrong with thatsituation?
so I think that language ofnaming consenting to unwanted
sex covers so much of that,because it acknowledges that the
person feels that there isconsent and names that it's
(41:49):
still unwanted.
I love that so much.
Speaker 1 (41:52):
It moves us from the binary to more of a spectrum
that we can have more accurateconversations about people's
actual experiences, instead ofthis binary of it was or it
wasn't.
And I like what you pointed out.
That is one concern of mine inlike teaching this or writing a
book about this.
Whatever this is going tobecome for me, I do have that
(42:15):
concern that there areindividuals who would conflate
coercion with rape and and and,instead of seeing it as a
spectrum, which that we do havesome research coming out.
That's really helpful.
That's trying to give us thatspectrum of here we know, forced
, you know, we know these arethe outcomes, but there's also
(42:35):
verbal and emotional coercionand they have different outcomes
.
They're not, you know, and justbeing able to pull that apart
and create, um, not such abinary but I that is something
I'm concerned about the peoplewill make a jump of.
I can send it to unwanted sex.
Does that mean it was assault?
And here we're saying there'smore options here than that.
Speaker 2 (42:55):
Well, I think that's what's also important about that
, especially if you're able touse that language in a couple's
therapy session, where you don'twant to stigmatize, you don't
want people to get defensive.
But if you can name, you know,yes, it was consent and it was
also unwanted activity, Like, ifwe can name that, in that
(43:16):
setting there might be a lotmore room for somebody to
acknowledge oh well, maybe if itwas actually unwanted then we
shouldn't have done it, then weshouldn't have done it.
But if you say it was coerced,well now I have to explain to
you why it wasn't coercion.
Speaker 1 (43:42):
Or why I'm not a predator, why I'm not a criminal
right, and that's not thediscussion that I'm trying to
have with people, but that is adefensive reaction.
I've seen more partners open tothe idea, but I have seen a
couple men specifically getsuper defensive.
Speaker 2 (43:59):
I mean, I think you're going to have that in any
situation, but hopefully thatcan at least be some of that
useful language that usefullanguage.
Speaker 1 (44:12):
I hope it is useful.
I had one individual look overa book proposal.
It was like a peer editor andthey were like I'm so worried
about the men who we're notalienating, the men and I don't
know.
I have feelings on.
That Part of me thinks it mightbe okay to shine a light on
something that's not helpful.
And there's another part of methat's like and we want to do it
in a way that people canreceive it and we're not.
(44:36):
We're not calling this criminalbehavior.
I mean there's this.
You know more options.
Speaker 2 (44:42):
I think a lot of that again comes down to what are
the alternatives, you know, ifthe man feels that, well, how
else do I get this need met?
Speaker 1 (44:52):
This is a need for me .
Speaker 2 (44:55):
And how do I know, you know?
How do I figure out where thatconsent line is?
You know that's such a hugeconversation in and of itself.
Like you know, we think we canrecognize body language, but
that's not necessarily true.
And we're in a society thattells you that playing coy is
(45:19):
showing interest, right, youknow.
Oh, she's playing hard to get.
She must want more of this.
There's whole books written onthat, the book, the Game.
More of this.
There's whole books written onthat, the book, the game.
So you know, pepe, le pew andpenelope, we have cartoons about
(45:39):
the chase, we have moviesromanticizing the chase.
So it gets really hard.
We tell little little kids, oh,he hit you, it's just because
he liked you, right, right,right.
It permeates our society, thisidea that you can't ever trust
(46:02):
your instincts on anotherperson's response, because it
might prove exactly what, theopposite of what you think
you're seeing.
Speaker 1 (46:08):
Right.
Speaker 2 (46:09):
Yeah of what you think you're seeing, right, yeah
, so again, giving them thelanguage of negotiation and
consent.
And you know the wheel ofconsent and safe words and
aftercare, and practicing a no,and practicing receiving
rejection in a setting thatisn't that immediately
(46:30):
intimidating, rejection in asetting that isn't that
immediately intimidating, youknow, um, having that
opportunity for embodied solopleasure that can be explored
alone and that might be thespace for non-monogamy.
Speaker 1 (46:44):
Yeah, that might be the trickiest populations or
those where those ideas areprohibited or less favorable
even just solo sex and thingslike that.
That's going to be a trickiersell for that population because
there's a harder bind perceivedthere.
This was awesome.
I really appreciate your timeand I did send a form so I have
(47:08):
all your information.
But just when this, when, whenwe publish this or when this
gets used in another way, howcan people who are just maybe
awakening to the possibility ofan late in life orientation
discovery or wanting support asthey choose their own
orientation identity labels, howcan they find you and all the
(47:31):
things you're creating?
Speaker 2 (47:34):
ace sex educationcom or a sex education on instagram.
Speaker 1 (47:40):
um, yeah, that's, and you, you've got offerings for
the public, but you've also gotofferings for mental health
professionals.
If there's people who this iskind of language is very new to
them, you're educatingprofessionals too.
Speaker 2 (47:54):
I have a six hour six ASEC CE training on asexuality
and aromanticism, hosted throughBianca Lariano's Ante Up
program.
I love it so so yeah.
And then, yeah, I do doindividual workshops from time
to time too.
Speaker 1 (48:10):
Thank you so much you gave so much depth and breadth
and life to this conversation.
I really appreciated it.
Speaker 2 (48:18):
I appreciate your willingness to explore all these
different ways of looking atthese things and you know one of
the things that I've seen whenit comes to including asexuality
in these books around desire orwhatever there's often this
inclination to do kind of adisclaimer somewhere in the
beginning of the book and say ifyou're asexual, none of this
matters.
And it's so wrong because it isa spectrum Not everybody is
(48:43):
going to identify on it rightaway.
There may have misconceptionswhere you know they don't
recognize that it's a label theyhave access to.
And because of the spectrum ofhuman sexuality there's so much
overlap between the asexualcommunity and people who do
experience sexual attraction butdon't want sex or have a lower
(49:06):
interest in sex or any of that.
So I think everything appliesto the asexual community,
especially when they may befavorable versus repulsed.
So I know all of that.
Plus, I think the languagecoming out of the asexual
community is applicable acrossthe board.
So if you do include asexuality, I would love to see it woven
(49:27):
throughout the entire book,rather than this, you know,
token mention at the beginningof the book and say well, don't
worry about it.
Speaker 1 (49:36):
Yeah, thank you for that advice.
Yeah, that would be um.
It might look inclusive, butfeel dismissive, for sure.
Speaker 2 (49:46):
Yeah, more than anything.
It's like just reminding people, and sexual attraction may not
even be a factor.
You know, when we assume sexualattraction is the primary
mechanism of arousal, we forgetall the other mechanisms of
arousal.
Person may find arousal throughfantasy, or touch or toys or
(50:18):
all of these other ways ofaccessing arousal that don't
rely on sexual attraction kinks,fetishes.
Thank you, all of it can stillapply.
Speaker 1 (50:25):
Yeah, I appreciate that advice.
That's fantastic.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 2 (50:29):
Yeah, well, if you uh , if you need a sensitivity
reader when you got things readyto go, please hit me up Really.
Speaker 1 (50:35):
Yeah, thank you.
Okay, that that's fantastic.
I probably will.
Speaker 2 (50:40):
Yeah, no, I love books like this.
I have, you know, my wholeshelf of all of the things.
I am constantly trying to readall of these things.
And was the book Desire thatcame out recently.
I don't remember the twoauthors on it, but I will tell
you they had a lot of greatstuff in it, but they
intentionally conflated desireand libido.
(51:02):
They straight out said we'regoing to use these terms
interchangeably, and that droveme nuts and I couldn't put my
finger on it until I thoughtabout it this way Think about an
itch scratching an itch Libidois the itch, desire is the urge
to scratch it.
Speaker 1 (51:25):
They usually happen simultaneously, but they're not
the same thing.
That's fantastic, thank you.
That's really important to thisdiscussion as well.
Yeah, yeah, so all right.
Thank you so much.
I appreciate your time.
We'll talk soon.
Speaker 2 (51:38):
All right, take care Bye.
Popular Podcasts
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.