I am too old to be afraid of the dark. I know that.
Sometimes I justify it by pointing out to myself that I'm not afraid of the dark, I'm afraid of the things that could be in the dark.
I recently moved across the country to start grad school. My landlord in the other half of the duplex is on leave for the semester and possibly the year, so it's just me in the house. There's a basement. The house itself is a little creaky, as old houses are, and makes noises to which I am unaccustomed. During the day, I like it a lot. During the night, it's creepy. It seems like every shadow can potential hold something with teeth or tentacles or both, waiting to kill me in a gruesome manner. I know this is illogical. My mind acknowledges it, and I can picture the shadows as just... the empty shadows of an empty house. But when I stop putting in the effort to picture it like that, the fear comes back.
In some ways this is a really good house for me, but it's too big. During the day I enjoy having the space to metaphorically stretch out, but at night I rattle around like a solo pea in a large pod. I'm not exactly a people person, and there are several reasons why I enjoy living alone... but not always. And I don't always enjoy being alone. It doesn't help that the neighborhood is not always safe, so when I think I hear something, I can't automatically dismiss it.
I could get a roommate, of course. The thought has crossed my mind before, and once I get more settled in, it's a definite possibility if I meet anybody who needs a place and with whom I click. That would solve the problem for a few years, until I got my degree or zhe got hir degree or found a romantic/sexual partner and wanted to live with r/s partner instead. Then I'd have to start over again with finding a new roommate. Presumably this would get more difficult as I get older.
This isn't a terribly significant problem, in the grand scheme of things. But when I'm staring at the ceiling, trying to fall asleep, and the house feels so empty, it's not reassuring to think, "This is probably how it's going to be for the rest of my life." Because I'm aromantic and asexual, and so my means of forming primary relationships with people, of pairbonding or tribonding or what have you, are... reduced, significantly.
Nobody owes me any differently. I wouldn't want to live in a world where they did. But I'm also not obligated to pretend that I like the current state of things, even if I wouldn't want to change who I am.
Welp, that's enough depressing blogging for this hour, at least.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Friday, August 26, 2011
Same Song, nth Verse
TW for rape
There's been more argument and anger (read: wank) lately about asexuality; I'm not going to link to it, but head over to asexuality on LJ, or the asexuality tag on Tumblr, if you want a better idea. Apparently it still goes back to the argument (3-6 months ago?) about whether or not asexuals are queer, which, let me be clear, is not what this post is about. I don't identify as queer, and my concern with that argument comes from the way people are treating each other in it rather than the main idea. Asexuality certainly isn't well-recognized or considered "normal"; asexuals certainly lack heterosexual privilege. There needs to be some word to denote how un-usual, societally speaking, asexuality is, but it's not my place to say whether or not that word should be "queer." And that's all I have to say about that.
My concern, as I said, is with other things that are being thrown around in this argument. I believe that self-identifying queer people (and I make that distinction because I know some people consider the word a slur, while other consider it something that's been reclaimed) have the right to police their own community boundaries with regards to the definition of "queer." What they don't have the right to do is police other people's identities. For example: calling heteroromantic asexuals, and aromantic asexuals, straight. No. You do not get to tell members of a minority sexual orientation whether or not they are straight. Conflating someone's romantic orientation and their sexual orientation is also particularly egregious. I am not queer; I am also not straight, and no one gets to police my identity otherwise.
Also, I wanted to reiterate that being asexual is not exactly a walk in the park. I am not playing the Oppression Olympics; this is not about whether asexuals have it "worse" than people who ID as queer (as if the two didn't overlap). This is simply about what asexuals face. I've heard aces reporting corrective rape and being beaten up at school. I've heard aces reporting getting kicked out of the house by their parents, and other aces having their parents maintain an Orwellian watch over all their activities, upon coming out as the "wrong" sexual orientation. Aces have reported being sent to therapy or put on medication, and having unnecessary medical tests done explicitly against their consent. While asexuality and celibacy are not synonyms, in states that maintain "fault" divorce laws, non-consummation or not having sex can be grounds for such a divorce. Some branches of Christianity teach things at odds with asexuality-- for example, much of the fundamentalist Christian church and their attitudes towards having children. So-- no, erasure and invisibility isn't the only problem we face, not by a long shot. (I am working on sourcing all these things this time around, but many of them were on Tumblr, so it's going to take a while.)
But, speaking of erasure... I may be beating a dead horse at this point, but I wanted to reiterate something about the queer-asexual debate and relationships: please don't say that people who want relationships with someone of the same sex are queer, and people who don't are straight. For one thing, it's binary-centric, and erases bisexuals, trans individuals, genderqueer individuals, etc. It also labels people straight who may not identify as such (see above). And the other thing it erases? All relationships that aren't romantic or sexual. Such relationships are incredibly important to a large swath of the ace community, particularly those of us who are aromantic. Of course, sexual people also place a high value on platonic relationships, and I'm not saying they don't-- but, in my experience, the majority of sexual people value their romantic and/or sexual relationships above their platonic ones (except relationships with their children).
So, yeah: a lot of asexual people are fine with the idea of asexuality itself not being inherently queer. What we're not fine with is the labels and ideas that are being thrown around in that argument.
ETA: If anyone has seen the examples I am talking about and can link me, please do so if you wouldn't mind! Thanks.
There's been more argument and anger (read: wank) lately about asexuality; I'm not going to link to it, but head over to asexuality on LJ, or the asexuality tag on Tumblr, if you want a better idea. Apparently it still goes back to the argument (3-6 months ago?) about whether or not asexuals are queer, which, let me be clear, is not what this post is about. I don't identify as queer, and my concern with that argument comes from the way people are treating each other in it rather than the main idea. Asexuality certainly isn't well-recognized or considered "normal"; asexuals certainly lack heterosexual privilege. There needs to be some word to denote how un-usual, societally speaking, asexuality is, but it's not my place to say whether or not that word should be "queer." And that's all I have to say about that.
My concern, as I said, is with other things that are being thrown around in this argument. I believe that self-identifying queer people (and I make that distinction because I know some people consider the word a slur, while other consider it something that's been reclaimed) have the right to police their own community boundaries with regards to the definition of "queer." What they don't have the right to do is police other people's identities. For example: calling heteroromantic asexuals, and aromantic asexuals, straight. No. You do not get to tell members of a minority sexual orientation whether or not they are straight. Conflating someone's romantic orientation and their sexual orientation is also particularly egregious. I am not queer; I am also not straight, and no one gets to police my identity otherwise.
Also, I wanted to reiterate that being asexual is not exactly a walk in the park. I am not playing the Oppression Olympics; this is not about whether asexuals have it "worse" than people who ID as queer (as if the two didn't overlap). This is simply about what asexuals face. I've heard aces reporting corrective rape and being beaten up at school. I've heard aces reporting getting kicked out of the house by their parents, and other aces having their parents maintain an Orwellian watch over all their activities, upon coming out as the "wrong" sexual orientation. Aces have reported being sent to therapy or put on medication, and having unnecessary medical tests done explicitly against their consent. While asexuality and celibacy are not synonyms, in states that maintain "fault" divorce laws, non-consummation or not having sex can be grounds for such a divorce. Some branches of Christianity teach things at odds with asexuality-- for example, much of the fundamentalist Christian church and their attitudes towards having children. So-- no, erasure and invisibility isn't the only problem we face, not by a long shot. (I am working on sourcing all these things this time around, but many of them were on Tumblr, so it's going to take a while.)
But, speaking of erasure... I may be beating a dead horse at this point, but I wanted to reiterate something about the queer-asexual debate and relationships: please don't say that people who want relationships with someone of the same sex are queer, and people who don't are straight. For one thing, it's binary-centric, and erases bisexuals, trans individuals, genderqueer individuals, etc. It also labels people straight who may not identify as such (see above). And the other thing it erases? All relationships that aren't romantic or sexual. Such relationships are incredibly important to a large swath of the ace community, particularly those of us who are aromantic. Of course, sexual people also place a high value on platonic relationships, and I'm not saying they don't-- but, in my experience, the majority of sexual people value their romantic and/or sexual relationships above their platonic ones (except relationships with their children).
So, yeah: a lot of asexual people are fine with the idea of asexuality itself not being inherently queer. What we're not fine with is the labels and ideas that are being thrown around in that argument.
ETA: If anyone has seen the examples I am talking about and can link me, please do so if you wouldn't mind! Thanks.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Small Victories
So, I just started grad school, I'm alone in a new city, I don't seem to be able to do what I'm supposed to be doing, and it's all rather overwhelming.
But I cut up and froze two full two-gallon bags of local peaches, so I can eat them during winter and spring. It was easier than last year. It was such a small thing, and yet it snapped me out of the bad mood I'd been in.
And as I experienced this small victory, it reminded me to stop subconsciously considering myself incompetent. "Not perfect" and "incompetent" are two entirely different things. It's easy, for me, to let small setbacks convince me that I'm not good at anything, but that's not true and it's harmful.
So thanks, peaches.
But I cut up and froze two full two-gallon bags of local peaches, so I can eat them during winter and spring. It was easier than last year. It was such a small thing, and yet it snapped me out of the bad mood I'd been in.
And as I experienced this small victory, it reminded me to stop subconsciously considering myself incompetent. "Not perfect" and "incompetent" are two entirely different things. It's easy, for me, to let small setbacks convince me that I'm not good at anything, but that's not true and it's harmful.
So thanks, peaches.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Journey to the Center of the Ace
Unlike many aces who have related their stories, I didn't grow up thinking there was something wrong with me and that I didn't fit in. I grew up convinced I was heterosexual (and heteroromantic, except I didn't know that was a thing, then). Sometimes I was concerned that I was a lesbian, because I've never been terribly feminine and women who were could make me feel… inadequate, like I was a different gender, almost. (I say concerned because that would not have gone over well, on so many levels, in my school, or my town, or…) But I did know enough to know that, no, this didn't make me a lesbian. There wasn't any "spark" when I thought about women. And I had crushes on boys! That meant I was totally heterosexual, right?
There should have been some clue bats along the way. I remember wondering why all my peers were interested in having sex, because that hadn't happened to me, and I figured it was just a matter of time. I remember thinking it was probably a way of being cool-- having sex, that is. But, nope, no clue bats.
I encountered the definition of asexuality once or twice in college, and didn't give it more than a glance-- I thought, "Nope, I have a boyfriend, I like him, sex sounds pretty good, I'm straight." Then after a while, I encountered it again (in the context of the "Sherlock" fandom, I think) and went "… wait. What is this 'sexual attraction' thing? What?" And it wasn't a concept that made sense at all, so I went, "Huh. You know, I've certainly never been interested in sex outside the context of my boyfriends. Maybe I'm demisexual, or grey-asexual."
Another clue bat should have been that the only thing I really wanted to do with the boyfriends, where want is a visceral desire with no logical explanation, was cuddle. We didn't really, for a variety of reasons, but I wish someone had just kind of shown up and gone, "OK, that thing you feel about cuddling? Where you just want to do it? And you daydream about it and sometimes feel kind of empty because it's not on the menu? That's how most people feel about sex." And I probably would have gone "Are you high?" (And, darn it, I came up with a really good definition of sexual attraction in the middle of the night and then I forgot it. I think it might have been "a desire to engage in sex with a specific person without a logical explanation.")
Eventually it occurred to me to wonder whether sexual attraction wasn't a bit more needy than what I felt in the context of the boyfriends. Sure, if we were having a conversation about sex, sometimes I'd get physically aroused. But I never felt the need or desire to do anything about it at the time, and it was mostly just… kind of inconvenient. It didn't make me want to have sex with them, and it didn't mean I wanted to have sex with them. So then I went, "Hmm. Well, I must be a heteroromantic asexual, then. Glad I got that sorted out."
Then that niggling little voice went, "So what is this romantic attraction thing, anyway?" Eventually I realized that there's a difference between having a crush on someone because you're insecure and you want their friendship and approval, and having a crush on someone because you're into them romantically. Now that I'm older, the kind of crushes I experienced when I was a high-schooler seem… illogical. And while I kind of know what my friends mean when they describe romantic attraction, it's hard for me to sort out from meeting someone, liking them, wanting to get to know them better, and wanting them to like me. So I now identify as grey-romantic or aromantic. (In retrospect, this also explains why the concept of dating-- and the feelings my peers expressed about romantic love, which seemed to me at the time to be downright codependent-- disturbed me in high school.)
I knew I didn't like women as anything besides friends, so I was convinced I was heterosexual. Because of that, I assumed that everything I felt mapped onto something in heterosexual discourse-- "oh, well, this is how I feel about boys and sex so this must be desire." It's like having an anatomical diagram that you're convinced fits you, and standing and looking at it saying "OK, if this is me, then this thing must be my spleen because I know I have one and this is the thing that looks most like it," only to find out later that you were pointing at your left eyeball. Or something equally unspleenish. And then someone comes along and says, "Actually that's a diagram of a cow, and you're holding it upside down." And then you look at them, and look back at the diagram, and kind of moo at them out of spite.
And this is where I think we need more ace education. If you grow up, as I did, thinking that everyone wants sex with someone so this, this strongest feeling I had about sex, well that must be the wanting… then you're going to be really confused the first time you stop and go "Wait. What?" Whereas if you grow up knowing that people have all sorts of different feelings about sex, then you're going to be much less confused.
There should have been some clue bats along the way. I remember wondering why all my peers were interested in having sex, because that hadn't happened to me, and I figured it was just a matter of time. I remember thinking it was probably a way of being cool-- having sex, that is. But, nope, no clue bats.
I encountered the definition of asexuality once or twice in college, and didn't give it more than a glance-- I thought, "Nope, I have a boyfriend, I like him, sex sounds pretty good, I'm straight." Then after a while, I encountered it again (in the context of the "Sherlock" fandom, I think) and went "… wait. What is this 'sexual attraction' thing? What?" And it wasn't a concept that made sense at all, so I went, "Huh. You know, I've certainly never been interested in sex outside the context of my boyfriends. Maybe I'm demisexual, or grey-asexual."
Another clue bat should have been that the only thing I really wanted to do with the boyfriends, where want is a visceral desire with no logical explanation, was cuddle. We didn't really, for a variety of reasons, but I wish someone had just kind of shown up and gone, "OK, that thing you feel about cuddling? Where you just want to do it? And you daydream about it and sometimes feel kind of empty because it's not on the menu? That's how most people feel about sex." And I probably would have gone "Are you high?" (And, darn it, I came up with a really good definition of sexual attraction in the middle of the night and then I forgot it. I think it might have been "a desire to engage in sex with a specific person without a logical explanation.")
Eventually it occurred to me to wonder whether sexual attraction wasn't a bit more needy than what I felt in the context of the boyfriends. Sure, if we were having a conversation about sex, sometimes I'd get physically aroused. But I never felt the need or desire to do anything about it at the time, and it was mostly just… kind of inconvenient. It didn't make me want to have sex with them, and it didn't mean I wanted to have sex with them. So then I went, "Hmm. Well, I must be a heteroromantic asexual, then. Glad I got that sorted out."
Then that niggling little voice went, "So what is this romantic attraction thing, anyway?" Eventually I realized that there's a difference between having a crush on someone because you're insecure and you want their friendship and approval, and having a crush on someone because you're into them romantically. Now that I'm older, the kind of crushes I experienced when I was a high-schooler seem… illogical. And while I kind of know what my friends mean when they describe romantic attraction, it's hard for me to sort out from meeting someone, liking them, wanting to get to know them better, and wanting them to like me. So I now identify as grey-romantic or aromantic. (In retrospect, this also explains why the concept of dating-- and the feelings my peers expressed about romantic love, which seemed to me at the time to be downright codependent-- disturbed me in high school.)
I knew I didn't like women as anything besides friends, so I was convinced I was heterosexual. Because of that, I assumed that everything I felt mapped onto something in heterosexual discourse-- "oh, well, this is how I feel about boys and sex so this must be desire." It's like having an anatomical diagram that you're convinced fits you, and standing and looking at it saying "OK, if this is me, then this thing must be my spleen because I know I have one and this is the thing that looks most like it," only to find out later that you were pointing at your left eyeball. Or something equally unspleenish. And then someone comes along and says, "Actually that's a diagram of a cow, and you're holding it upside down." And then you look at them, and look back at the diagram, and kind of moo at them out of spite.
And this is where I think we need more ace education. If you grow up, as I did, thinking that everyone wants sex with someone so this, this strongest feeling I had about sex, well that must be the wanting… then you're going to be really confused the first time you stop and go "Wait. What?" Whereas if you grow up knowing that people have all sorts of different feelings about sex, then you're going to be much less confused.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
A Failure to Communicate
This is why I don't want to be a professor: I'm really bad at explaining things.
Over at Feministe the last couple of days, there's been a comment thread going touching on asexuality. After reading asexuality fail in the comments, I attempted some 101. It's entirely possible and maybe probable that I misread the interest/engagement from other people on the thread, and should have just bowed out sooner, or that what I was trying to tease out was too technical to be relevant to anyone else... but if sexual attraction is what defines all sexual orientations, then the definition of sexual attraction is clearly very relevant to any sexual orientation 101. Anyway, the point is, I'm not very good at 101. I bowed out of the thread when it became apparent other members thought I might be 101ing so I could find people to sleep with...? After that, highlights of the conclusion of the thread indicated that I hadn't really gotten much across, and included such concepts as demisexuality isn't a thing, maybe asexual people are just confused sexuals, asexuals are creepy (that might have just been at me? or asexuals who aren't repulsed? I'm not sure) and, my personal favorite, sexual people get to decide whether asexual people should be offended by being compared to masturbatory aids. The first three are just frustrating, but the last one is irritating, coming as it did on a social justice-oriented blog.
I don't know if what we need is better common language to talk about these things or more input from both sexuals and asexuals on what sexual attraction actually is or just for people named Aydan to stop trying to explain things (!) It seems like it should be really intuitive: asexuals don't experience sexual attraction. Demisexuals only experience sexual attraction to people they have a strong emotional bond with. But I guess if you're used to experiencing sexual attraction mixed up with a bunch of other things that make you want to have sex, then you're not used to differentiating them. And, if you're a repulsed asexual and you're not used to experiencing sexual attraction or anything like sensual attraction or things that often go along with for sexual people, then you're not used to differentiating them, either. So, we have this thing that defines sexual orientation-- if you're heterosexual, then you're attracted to members of the/a opposite sex and/or gender; if you're homosexual, you're attracted to members of the/a same sex and/or gender; etc-- but... we don't really agree on what it means.
I think better common language is key, and here's why: as far as I understand it, demisexuals identify as neither asexual nor sexual (though they can identify as part of the asexual umbrella/spectrum), but something in between. However, sexual people seem to have a really hard time grokking demisexuality, while asexual people don't. Why? I think because asexual people are used to considering concepts like sexual attraction, how that differs from romantic attraction and from having a sex drive, etc. Maybe we need a new and better 101 than the stuff AVEN provides, and need to hash out some definitions besides just asexuality/demisexuality/grey-asexuality?
On a related note, I am excited for the new DW community that ace eccentric is forming as a safe space for aces! I started a DW account to go along with this Blogger account so I'll be able to participate.
Over at Feministe the last couple of days, there's been a comment thread going touching on asexuality. After reading asexuality fail in the comments, I attempted some 101. It's entirely possible and maybe probable that I misread the interest/engagement from other people on the thread, and should have just bowed out sooner, or that what I was trying to tease out was too technical to be relevant to anyone else... but if sexual attraction is what defines all sexual orientations, then the definition of sexual attraction is clearly very relevant to any sexual orientation 101. Anyway, the point is, I'm not very good at 101. I bowed out of the thread when it became apparent other members thought I might be 101ing so I could find people to sleep with...? After that, highlights of the conclusion of the thread indicated that I hadn't really gotten much across, and included such concepts as demisexuality isn't a thing, maybe asexual people are just confused sexuals, asexuals are creepy (that might have just been at me? or asexuals who aren't repulsed? I'm not sure) and, my personal favorite, sexual people get to decide whether asexual people should be offended by being compared to masturbatory aids. The first three are just frustrating, but the last one is irritating, coming as it did on a social justice-oriented blog.
I don't know if what we need is better common language to talk about these things or more input from both sexuals and asexuals on what sexual attraction actually is or just for people named Aydan to stop trying to explain things (!) It seems like it should be really intuitive: asexuals don't experience sexual attraction. Demisexuals only experience sexual attraction to people they have a strong emotional bond with. But I guess if you're used to experiencing sexual attraction mixed up with a bunch of other things that make you want to have sex, then you're not used to differentiating them. And, if you're a repulsed asexual and you're not used to experiencing sexual attraction or anything like sensual attraction or things that often go along with for sexual people, then you're not used to differentiating them, either. So, we have this thing that defines sexual orientation-- if you're heterosexual, then you're attracted to members of the/a opposite sex and/or gender; if you're homosexual, you're attracted to members of the/a same sex and/or gender; etc-- but... we don't really agree on what it means.
I think better common language is key, and here's why: as far as I understand it, demisexuals identify as neither asexual nor sexual (though they can identify as part of the asexual umbrella/spectrum), but something in between. However, sexual people seem to have a really hard time grokking demisexuality, while asexual people don't. Why? I think because asexual people are used to considering concepts like sexual attraction, how that differs from romantic attraction and from having a sex drive, etc. Maybe we need a new and better 101 than the stuff AVEN provides, and need to hash out some definitions besides just asexuality/demisexuality/grey-asexuality?
On a related note, I am excited for the new DW community that ace eccentric is forming as a safe space for aces! I started a DW account to go along with this Blogger account so I'll be able to participate.
Various Ace Things
Has anyone ever successfully explained demisexuality to a group of sexual people? I'm beginning to think it's like the Kobayashi Maru of asexuality 101. It's particularly frustrating to invest time in trying to explain all the reasons a person might "want" sex separate from feeling sexually attracted to their partner, and then to have demisexuality erased on the grounds that "normal people don't want to have sex with everyone," by people who are conflating wanting to have sex with feeling sexual attraction. I'm sorry, demisexual-identified members of the ace spectrum, I too have failed you.
On a completely different note, I've been trawling through the brilliant Ace Secrets (which has gotten a lot more submissions in the short period of time since its launch than I would have expected). I think it was here, in the notes to one of the secrets, that someone mentioned they found all the mentions of cake triggering for ED. I had never thought about that before, and now I feel kind of bad. No more gratuitous mentions of cake for me. (I was thinking of replacing them with mentions of staring contentedly at various pretty people, but decided that could be upsetting, too. However, that reminded me of this Tumblr post re: Sherlock and asexuality, which entertained me to no end.)
ETA: So the joke in the Sherlock fandom is that it's the purple shirt of sex, because I guess people think Sherlock looks particularly attractive in it, or something.
On a completely different note, I've been trawling through the brilliant Ace Secrets (which has gotten a lot more submissions in the short period of time since its launch than I would have expected). I think it was here, in the notes to one of the secrets, that someone mentioned they found all the mentions of cake triggering for ED. I had never thought about that before, and now I feel kind of bad. No more gratuitous mentions of cake for me. (I was thinking of replacing them with mentions of staring contentedly at various pretty people, but decided that could be upsetting, too. However, that reminded me of this Tumblr post re: Sherlock and asexuality, which entertained me to no end.)
ETA: So the joke in the Sherlock fandom is that it's the purple shirt of sex, because I guess people think Sherlock looks particularly attractive in it, or something.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Asexuality 101/201: Aces and Sex
The definition of asexuality is a lack of sexual attraction to either or any sex or gender.
Let me repeat that: the sexual orientation that is asexuality constitutes a lack of sexual attraction to either or any sex or gender.
Asexuality is not a lack of romantic attraction, celibacy, a lack of sensual or aesthetic appreciation or attraction, an inability to experience sexual arousal, or a dislike for sex. Any or all of these things can coincide with asexuality, but they do not have to. Being asexual does not mean you do not experience love or form deep and meaningful relationships.
Alongside asexuality, and usually considered part of the asexual umbrella, are two other sexual orientations, grey-asexuality and demisexuality. Grey-asexuality is usually used to describe people who experience sexual attraction occasionally, but infrequently enough that they are still significantly different from sexual people. Grey-asexuality is also used to describe people who, for whatever reason, identify as "mostly" asexual but don't feel like asexuality is a total fit for them. Demisexuality is used to describe people who only experience sexual attraction to someone with whom they have formed a strong emotional bond, which can be romantic or not. Demisexuals are often accused of being slut-shaming, because the definition is often abbreviated to "I don't like to have sex with people I don't know." I can see how people can interpret this as slut shaming, but it's not. There's no reason a demisexual couldn't have sex with a complete stranger; it's just that, in that scenario, the demisexual would be functionally asexual.
The asexual community, like any other community, is not monolithic. Asexual people run the gamut of ages, races, cultures, religions or lack thereof, sexes, genders, romantic orientations (usually given as homoromanticism, biromanticism, panromanticism, heteroromanticism, and aromanticism), and levels of libido/sex drive (there's dissent in the ace community about what exactly the difference between those two is; more on that in a minute). Some asexuals are abled and some are not; some are cisgendered and some are transgendered; some identify as queer, and some do not (and I am not touching that debate with a ten foot stick, and I would appreciate if you would not do so in the comments); some identify as gendered and some do not.
Asexual people also have a wide variety of views and feelings towards sex and everything to do with it. Some asexuals don't like to be touched; some asexuals like to be touched but don't like any sexual interactions; some like both platonic and sexual interactions. Some asexuals are libidinous, and some are not; for the purposes of this discussion, libidinous means seeking orgasms and sexual gratification, and one's sex drive is a measure of the degree to which one is libidinous. Some asexuals, therefore, have a low sex drive, and some have a high sex drive. Some masturbate, and some don't. Some watch porn, and some don't. Some have sex, and some don't; some asexuals are "repulsed," which basically means they don't like the idea of sex or anything sexual, and some are "indifferent," which doesn't actually mean indifferent but basically means "not repulsed." (I think we need a third category, which I'm going to define as "interested.") Being repulsed or indifferent does not necessarily correlate with having sex or not having sex.
Most allosexual people tend to understand asexuals who don't have or want sex. Asexuals who have, enjoy, or want sex tend to be more confusing. Here's a list of why asexuals might be interested in or have sex despite not experiencing sexual attraction:
1.) For many or most people, orgasms and the sexual stimulation leading up to them feel good.
2.) Many people enjoy physical intimacy with someone they love, whether or not this intimacy is sexual.
3.) Many people enjoy doing fun things with someone they love.
4.) Many people enjoy pleasing their partners, whether emotionally, sexually, sensually, or a combination thereof.
5.) Many people enjoy experiencing emotional intimacy or connection with their partners, and sex is often a way to achieve this.
6.) Many people find sex to be a very sensual experience (in the sense of pleasing to the senses) as separate from a sexual experience. Asexuals can enjoy the way their partners look, feel, taste, smell, and sound in a way that is not necessarily sexual.
None of these reasons for enjoying sex necessarily include any of the others, nor are any of them mutually exclusive. An asexual and an allosexual having sex together (or two asexuals having sex) does not by definition exclude "mutuality," urgency, or both partners being "into it." This might be easier to understand if you consider that an asexual and an allosexual having sex can experience the same level of energy or enthusiasm for different reasons. Both can want with equal intensity to get to the same destination for different reasons. Consider also that when two allosexual partners have sex, they don't necessarily get the same things out of it, though they can both enjoy the experience equally-- for example, some allosexual sex bloggers recount times where, even though they do not orgasm, they enjoy a sexual encounter with a partner, because of the physical pleasure, the emotional intimacy, etc.
The axis along which asexuals and allosexuals differ in the way they experience having sex is, of course, the presence or absence of sexual attraction. This is a hard thing for me to define, since I don't experience it. I think the best way to explain it is by comparing it to other visceral urges or cravings, like hunger or thirst. You can enjoy the taste, presentation and smell of food, enjoy cooking it, enjoy the social aspects of eating it, and overall enjoy eating food, and still never get hungry. You can crave food because it tastes so good or because it's a new recipe that you can't wait to try, without getting hungry.
I don't believe that sexual attraction is the same thing as desire, though this is arguable, and a thoughtful sexual would probably be better at elucidating the difference than I can be. Sexual attraction is a subset of desire, but it's possible to desire your partner along other axes than that of sexual attraction: for example, aesthetic attraction. I'm not sure that allosexual people can necessarily tell the difference between a partner who is really into the sex, and a partner who is sexually attracted to them, assuming that the partner is also invested in their pleasure. I'm certainly willing to believe that many can, of course, but I don't think making the distinction is automatic and easy for everyone.
I understand that many or most allosexual people don't enjoy sex with a partner who's not into them, doesn't want them in some way, and I agree with this-- I also would not want to have sex with a partner who was doing it out of duty, or who wasn't into it in some way. However, being sexually attracted to someone is not the only way of wanting someone, desiring someone, or being enthusiastic about sex. I'm unconvinced that many or most allosexual people do make the distinction, simply because of how hard I usually have to work to explain the distinction between sexual attraction, which asexuals don't experience, and other forms of enthusiasm, desire, or wanting with regards to sex. In my limited experience, allosexual people, who experience all of them, are not used to differentiating between them.
Additionally, asexuals can want to have sex with someone without being sexually attracted to them, which feeds into the variety of types of desire and also affects the urgency present in an asexual-allosexual or asexual-asexual sexual encounter. I would characterize that as a logical decision rather than a craving or a yearning-- if the asexual expects that the sex will be a pleasant experience for all concerned, though "pleasant experience" might be something different for each partner, then it's perfectly reasonable to want to have that encounter. An asexual can think "I believe sex with this person would be good, so I want it when the situation is right" without wanting it right then or feeling sexually attracted to the other person. Some (most? I have no idea) asexuals experience arousal under circumstances similar to foreplay, and the desire to continue feeling good sexually, and/or to have an orgasm, is another axis on which asexuals can experience enthusiasm in, craving for, or urgency with regard to sex.
Now: how representative are the things I have mentioned of the entire community? I really, really don't know. For one thing, some people who don't experience sexual attraction but who enjoy sex may not identify as asexual because there's a very prevalent stereotype out there that asexuals can't or don't like sex-- the first few times I encountered the definition of asexuality, I thought it couldn't possibly fit me since I'm not repulsed. I know of some people who don't experience sexual attraction but who identify as grey-asexual specifically because they desire, or want, some aspects of a sexual relationship, which to me is completely consistent with asexuality. (For example, if I die without ever finding a sexual partner, I'm going to be more upset that I never had a relationship of the type where I personally feel I would like sex-- deep emotional intimacy-- than about the actual lack of sex.) Some asexuals identify as "unusual" asexuals because they like or enjoy sex. This AVEN thread gives an idea of the qualitative difference in what aces enjoy, though keep all the things I just mentioned in mind when reading it. My gut instinct tells me that repulsed asexuals are usually the loudest and most noticeable voice in any ace community, which skews everyone's perceptions of asexuality as a whole. (Also: I do not, overall, recommend the AVEN forums, either for asexuals or as a site for information about asexuality. It can be very informative if you take it in the parameters I just mentioned, but there's also a good deal of anti-sexuality and the conversations tend to be dominated by repulsed asexuals. I've also been told that people have experienced misogyny, cissexism and ableism on the AVEN forums. The wikis are decent, but not everyone agrees with the definitions.)
I hope this has been a helpful explanation, and I want to emphasize that these are all obviously my thoughts; I don't speak for the entire asexual community. However, the opinions and observations I've expressed here have been developed in interaction and dialogue with the asexual community.
EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot to talk about sexy and hot. I don't know how much my conception of these words is generalizable to other aces, but for me I've never gotten quite what they're supposed to mean. Do they mean you find someone sexually attractive? Or that you think others find someone sexually attractive (for example, telling a good friend zhe looks sexy today even though you're not interested in hir that way)? Do they mean that someone is appearing in a sexualized manner or a manner that connotes that they're interested in sex (which would be extremely problematic)? I know some aces will use these words to denote "pretty" or "appealing, but not in a sexual way" or "someone others probably think is sexy" but I tend to stick with "pretty," since it's usually what I mean anyway.
EDIT TWO: One thing some aces, especially those who identify as indifferent or interested, spend a lot of time doing is figuring out language and clarifying what different things mean. So in my world, not all the words and phrases one can use to talk about sex and the sexual experience are interchangeable. Here are some that, as I understand them, are not:
Being "hot for" a person is not the same thing as being sexually attracted to them, though I suspect sexual people don't distinguish between sexual attraction and the other things this phrase can mean. Being "hot for" someone, to me, means being aroused by someone, especially by engaging in foreplay with them.
Being aroused (or turned on-- I guess the two could be interchangeable, though I see being aroused as a purely physical reaction and turned on as both physical + mental) by a person or situation is not the same thing as being sexually attracted to that person. Asexual people may not experience arousal outside of foreplay as much as sexual people do, which I think is a component of not experiencing sexual attraction.
I would argue that desiring a person is also not the same as experiencing sexual attraction. Desire, however, is a really hard thing for me to define-- and if I'm using wanting a person sexually as a synonym for being sexually attracted to them, where's the cut-off between desiring a person and wanting them?
Sexual intimacy isn't the same thing as experiencing sexual attraction, to me-- possibly because I define sexual intimacy as "the intimacy that comes from having sex with someone." It's entirely possible I'm missing the point.
Let me repeat that: the sexual orientation that is asexuality constitutes a lack of sexual attraction to either or any sex or gender.
Asexuality is not a lack of romantic attraction, celibacy, a lack of sensual or aesthetic appreciation or attraction, an inability to experience sexual arousal, or a dislike for sex. Any or all of these things can coincide with asexuality, but they do not have to. Being asexual does not mean you do not experience love or form deep and meaningful relationships.
Alongside asexuality, and usually considered part of the asexual umbrella, are two other sexual orientations, grey-asexuality and demisexuality. Grey-asexuality is usually used to describe people who experience sexual attraction occasionally, but infrequently enough that they are still significantly different from sexual people. Grey-asexuality is also used to describe people who, for whatever reason, identify as "mostly" asexual but don't feel like asexuality is a total fit for them. Demisexuality is used to describe people who only experience sexual attraction to someone with whom they have formed a strong emotional bond, which can be romantic or not. Demisexuals are often accused of being slut-shaming, because the definition is often abbreviated to "I don't like to have sex with people I don't know." I can see how people can interpret this as slut shaming, but it's not. There's no reason a demisexual couldn't have sex with a complete stranger; it's just that, in that scenario, the demisexual would be functionally asexual.
The asexual community, like any other community, is not monolithic. Asexual people run the gamut of ages, races, cultures, religions or lack thereof, sexes, genders, romantic orientations (usually given as homoromanticism, biromanticism, panromanticism, heteroromanticism, and aromanticism), and levels of libido/sex drive (there's dissent in the ace community about what exactly the difference between those two is; more on that in a minute). Some asexuals are abled and some are not; some are cisgendered and some are transgendered; some identify as queer, and some do not (and I am not touching that debate with a ten foot stick, and I would appreciate if you would not do so in the comments); some identify as gendered and some do not.
Asexual people also have a wide variety of views and feelings towards sex and everything to do with it. Some asexuals don't like to be touched; some asexuals like to be touched but don't like any sexual interactions; some like both platonic and sexual interactions. Some asexuals are libidinous, and some are not; for the purposes of this discussion, libidinous means seeking orgasms and sexual gratification, and one's sex drive is a measure of the degree to which one is libidinous. Some asexuals, therefore, have a low sex drive, and some have a high sex drive. Some masturbate, and some don't. Some watch porn, and some don't. Some have sex, and some don't; some asexuals are "repulsed," which basically means they don't like the idea of sex or anything sexual, and some are "indifferent," which doesn't actually mean indifferent but basically means "not repulsed." (I think we need a third category, which I'm going to define as "interested.") Being repulsed or indifferent does not necessarily correlate with having sex or not having sex.
Most allosexual people tend to understand asexuals who don't have or want sex. Asexuals who have, enjoy, or want sex tend to be more confusing. Here's a list of why asexuals might be interested in or have sex despite not experiencing sexual attraction:
1.) For many or most people, orgasms and the sexual stimulation leading up to them feel good.
2.) Many people enjoy physical intimacy with someone they love, whether or not this intimacy is sexual.
3.) Many people enjoy doing fun things with someone they love.
4.) Many people enjoy pleasing their partners, whether emotionally, sexually, sensually, or a combination thereof.
5.) Many people enjoy experiencing emotional intimacy or connection with their partners, and sex is often a way to achieve this.
6.) Many people find sex to be a very sensual experience (in the sense of pleasing to the senses) as separate from a sexual experience. Asexuals can enjoy the way their partners look, feel, taste, smell, and sound in a way that is not necessarily sexual.
None of these reasons for enjoying sex necessarily include any of the others, nor are any of them mutually exclusive. An asexual and an allosexual having sex together (or two asexuals having sex) does not by definition exclude "mutuality," urgency, or both partners being "into it." This might be easier to understand if you consider that an asexual and an allosexual having sex can experience the same level of energy or enthusiasm for different reasons. Both can want with equal intensity to get to the same destination for different reasons. Consider also that when two allosexual partners have sex, they don't necessarily get the same things out of it, though they can both enjoy the experience equally-- for example, some allosexual sex bloggers recount times where, even though they do not orgasm, they enjoy a sexual encounter with a partner, because of the physical pleasure, the emotional intimacy, etc.
The axis along which asexuals and allosexuals differ in the way they experience having sex is, of course, the presence or absence of sexual attraction. This is a hard thing for me to define, since I don't experience it. I think the best way to explain it is by comparing it to other visceral urges or cravings, like hunger or thirst. You can enjoy the taste, presentation and smell of food, enjoy cooking it, enjoy the social aspects of eating it, and overall enjoy eating food, and still never get hungry. You can crave food because it tastes so good or because it's a new recipe that you can't wait to try, without getting hungry.
I don't believe that sexual attraction is the same thing as desire, though this is arguable, and a thoughtful sexual would probably be better at elucidating the difference than I can be. Sexual attraction is a subset of desire, but it's possible to desire your partner along other axes than that of sexual attraction: for example, aesthetic attraction. I'm not sure that allosexual people can necessarily tell the difference between a partner who is really into the sex, and a partner who is sexually attracted to them, assuming that the partner is also invested in their pleasure. I'm certainly willing to believe that many can, of course, but I don't think making the distinction is automatic and easy for everyone.
I understand that many or most allosexual people don't enjoy sex with a partner who's not into them, doesn't want them in some way, and I agree with this-- I also would not want to have sex with a partner who was doing it out of duty, or who wasn't into it in some way. However, being sexually attracted to someone is not the only way of wanting someone, desiring someone, or being enthusiastic about sex. I'm unconvinced that many or most allosexual people do make the distinction, simply because of how hard I usually have to work to explain the distinction between sexual attraction, which asexuals don't experience, and other forms of enthusiasm, desire, or wanting with regards to sex. In my limited experience, allosexual people, who experience all of them, are not used to differentiating between them.
Additionally, asexuals can want to have sex with someone without being sexually attracted to them, which feeds into the variety of types of desire and also affects the urgency present in an asexual-allosexual or asexual-asexual sexual encounter. I would characterize that as a logical decision rather than a craving or a yearning-- if the asexual expects that the sex will be a pleasant experience for all concerned, though "pleasant experience" might be something different for each partner, then it's perfectly reasonable to want to have that encounter. An asexual can think "I believe sex with this person would be good, so I want it when the situation is right" without wanting it right then or feeling sexually attracted to the other person. Some (most? I have no idea) asexuals experience arousal under circumstances similar to foreplay, and the desire to continue feeling good sexually, and/or to have an orgasm, is another axis on which asexuals can experience enthusiasm in, craving for, or urgency with regard to sex.
Now: how representative are the things I have mentioned of the entire community? I really, really don't know. For one thing, some people who don't experience sexual attraction but who enjoy sex may not identify as asexual because there's a very prevalent stereotype out there that asexuals can't or don't like sex-- the first few times I encountered the definition of asexuality, I thought it couldn't possibly fit me since I'm not repulsed. I know of some people who don't experience sexual attraction but who identify as grey-asexual specifically because they desire, or want, some aspects of a sexual relationship, which to me is completely consistent with asexuality. (For example, if I die without ever finding a sexual partner, I'm going to be more upset that I never had a relationship of the type where I personally feel I would like sex-- deep emotional intimacy-- than about the actual lack of sex.) Some asexuals identify as "unusual" asexuals because they like or enjoy sex. This AVEN thread gives an idea of the qualitative difference in what aces enjoy, though keep all the things I just mentioned in mind when reading it. My gut instinct tells me that repulsed asexuals are usually the loudest and most noticeable voice in any ace community, which skews everyone's perceptions of asexuality as a whole. (Also: I do not, overall, recommend the AVEN forums, either for asexuals or as a site for information about asexuality. It can be very informative if you take it in the parameters I just mentioned, but there's also a good deal of anti-sexuality and the conversations tend to be dominated by repulsed asexuals. I've also been told that people have experienced misogyny, cissexism and ableism on the AVEN forums. The wikis are decent, but not everyone agrees with the definitions.)
I hope this has been a helpful explanation, and I want to emphasize that these are all obviously my thoughts; I don't speak for the entire asexual community. However, the opinions and observations I've expressed here have been developed in interaction and dialogue with the asexual community.
EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot to talk about sexy and hot. I don't know how much my conception of these words is generalizable to other aces, but for me I've never gotten quite what they're supposed to mean. Do they mean you find someone sexually attractive? Or that you think others find someone sexually attractive (for example, telling a good friend zhe looks sexy today even though you're not interested in hir that way)? Do they mean that someone is appearing in a sexualized manner or a manner that connotes that they're interested in sex (which would be extremely problematic)? I know some aces will use these words to denote "pretty" or "appealing, but not in a sexual way" or "someone others probably think is sexy" but I tend to stick with "pretty," since it's usually what I mean anyway.
EDIT TWO: One thing some aces, especially those who identify as indifferent or interested, spend a lot of time doing is figuring out language and clarifying what different things mean. So in my world, not all the words and phrases one can use to talk about sex and the sexual experience are interchangeable. Here are some that, as I understand them, are not:
Being "hot for" a person is not the same thing as being sexually attracted to them, though I suspect sexual people don't distinguish between sexual attraction and the other things this phrase can mean. Being "hot for" someone, to me, means being aroused by someone, especially by engaging in foreplay with them.
Being aroused (or turned on-- I guess the two could be interchangeable, though I see being aroused as a purely physical reaction and turned on as both physical + mental) by a person or situation is not the same thing as being sexually attracted to that person. Asexual people may not experience arousal outside of foreplay as much as sexual people do, which I think is a component of not experiencing sexual attraction.
I would argue that desiring a person is also not the same as experiencing sexual attraction. Desire, however, is a really hard thing for me to define-- and if I'm using wanting a person sexually as a synonym for being sexually attracted to them, where's the cut-off between desiring a person and wanting them?
Sexual intimacy isn't the same thing as experiencing sexual attraction, to me-- possibly because I define sexual intimacy as "the intimacy that comes from having sex with someone." It's entirely possible I'm missing the point.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Boston Marriage Article in Ms.
Someone on Feministe linked to this Ms. magazine article about Boston marriages, and I wanted to reblog it because I think it has a lot of relevance to the ace community-- it talks about and provides a good model for deep, meaningful platonic relationships. I really enjoyed reading it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)