This was inspired by the post on sexual privilege made on ONTD Feminism. I haven't responded there because I'm not a member of the comm, and because ONTD Feminism has a history of ace fail and I don't have high hopes that I'd be taken seriously.
Asexuality isn't a choice. It's not an option, or something you can do instead of being gay. Some people who identify as queer talk about being pressured to be asexual. But-- it's not possible to become asexual as an "alternative" to being gay. Someone who pressures a queer individual to become asexual is fundamentally misunderstanding the concept of being asexual and, in all likelihood, means celibacy instead. Celibacy /= asexuality. Asexuality is not experiencing sexual attraction. Celibacy is choosing not to have sex. You can be asexual and celibate, asexual and engaging in sex, sexual and celibate, sexual and engaging in sex... you get the idea. Does this make the situation any better? Well, no, but it's a common misunderstanding.
Asexuality isn't a pass out of being sexualized. This argument gets tricky because of semantics, but I'll try to be clear. One of the commenters writes, "Sometimes I wish I could find a way to erase everything sexual about myself so that I wouldn't have to worry about not being taken seriously." This concept that the commenter wants is not asexuality; it is not being sexualized. If asexuality got you being out of sexualized, I wouldn't have kept Wendy Shalit's books because of their message, problematic in many other ways though it is, that it's okay not to have sex. Sometimes I wish the same thing-- or rather, I wish that all the characteristics about myself that are considered sexual or sexual markers were interpreted differently by my culture so I was taken more seriously. But it's not a wish I can have, even though I am asexual, because that's not what asexuality is.
One question that came up is, how can queer people have the power to oppress asexual people? Certainly, individual people who identify as queer or gay can say oppressive things. (Just Google "Dan Savage asexuality" for more.) But one man doesn't constitute a good example. To be more broad, is it oppression to tell people they are broken, that they need to have their hormones checked, that they're confused, that they don't know what their own identity is? Is it oppression to rape someone because you don't believe their sexual orientation exists, so they must be lying about not wanting sex? I think it is. I think it's just as much oppression when a man does this to a sexual lesbian as when a woman does this to an asexual lesbian, or an asexual homoromantic woman. I'm reluctant to say much about this because I don't want to tell queer people what it's like to be queer; I may or may not be straight, but I can certainly pass well enough to have straight privilege.
On the Tumblr that launched the post, someone wrote, "you are queer if you want to have a relationship with a member of the same sex, regardless of whether or not you want to have sex. you are not queer if you want no relationship or a relationship with a member of the opposite sex." But... maybe I'm missing the point, but I think this statement actually demonstrates the nature of the problem (and erases bisexuality to boot). Of course I want relationships with members of the same sex: most of my best friends are women. I also want relationships with members of the opposite sex: some of my best friends are men. The very idea that when you say "a relationship" it's automatically assumed to be sexual or romantic, demonstrates asexual and aromantic invisibility, and the privileging of sexual and romantic relationships over non-sexual romantic relationships and platonic friendships. I'm not playing like I misunderstand the question to be provoking-- rather, I'm not sure I want meaningful relationships beyond friendships; I want some of those friendships to be with women. Does that make me queer? I certainly don't identify as queer, yet this definition would seem to imply that I do.
I don't know if sexual privilege exists or if asexual people can or should ID as queer; I don't ID as queer, so it's not my argument, and not what this post is about. Just teaspooning for education and visibility, here.
EDIT: I made the mistake of reading more comments when I got home tonight, and I... well, that was a mistake. I don't have the teaspoons to go through any more categorically. I wanted to point out, though, that for people who identify as feminists to be calling someone else's sexual orientation "stupid" is, um... not particularly feminist, to be understated about it.
2 comments:
Ack. Anytime there's any kind of ONTD post with that many comments on it, I just have to walk away. Even if every comment was respectful and insightful (and the odds do not favor it), just So. Much.
Yes!
And what so many people are missing is that being disprivileged is not always just about being oppressed. It's about visibility, representation, and being seen and treated as a regular, not abnormal or freakish. Sometimes I wonder if any of the people that argue against the existence of sexual privilege or asexual oppression have even read the "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" post. It's really astounding that people familiar with the concept of privilege and privilege-holders' invisibility to it can so quickly deny privilege.
One thing that cheered me up after reading all those terrible comments was the way the asexuals in the LJ asexual community treated it-almost everyone at least entertained the idea of sexual privilege/asexual oppression existing, whereas every other discussion I've had there previously was full of fervent privilege/oppression denying asexuals, with only a few holdouts.
Post a Comment