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.
9 comments:
That's really disappointing :/ There was a post about asexuality on Feministe a while back and everyone seemed to take it well. Still, the ignorant behavior of people is quite inexcusable. You'd think feminists would be more inclined to listen if they don't understand something, instead of just jumping to offensive conclusions.
If you don't mind me asking, which post was it on?
It was on the "Dealbreaker indeed" post. I wouldn't call the people involved ignorant at all-- we had a pretty good discussion going for a while. It just... didn't click, I guess.
Maybe yours was a good discussion... I know there are a couple asexuals that post on feministe, and I'm not acquainted with/don't remember who R.T is, but the crap that's being said in there *is* offensive. And when I say 'ignorant' I don't mean 'stupid' or 'mean', I mean it literally: the majority seem to know little about asexuality. They are uninformed. The fact that some commenters make all kinds of assumptions and tell asexuals to shut up because that [obligation to perform sexual acts] is no concern of ours [asexuals].
You just answered your own question. You’re asexual, therefore sex isn’t important to you, therefore you don’t really have a dog in this hunt.
"What? If you’re not interested in sex, don’t get into/stay in a relationship with someone who is. "
"LOL at “the sexuals”. And yes, if you are asexual that is something you should disclose early in the dating process, just like I should dislose the fact that I’m bisexual and the fact that I like BSDM"
"Much like all people who aren’t messed up in the head, Savage, and most of the commentators here, advise breaking up if you aren’t sexually compatible."
"Here’s another question for you, R.T.: why don’t asexuals have a dating service of their own so you don’t have to deal with “the sexuals” at all?"
"Jesus H. Christ, RT. Be honest about who you are. It’s not fair to either you or a potential partner if you aren’t.
I mean, look, I’m glad you’re oh-so-above sex, but some of us aren’t, and enjoy it and need it for a sustaining relationship. And we don’t exactly relish the thought of being with someone who has to shut their eyes, grit their teeth, and think of England to do it."
I mean, WTH is all that? Mocking the existence of the word sexuals
telling asexuals that 'we don't have a dog in this race' aka we are all somehow unaffected by sexual's needs?
That we are obligated to out ourselves ASAP in a relationship.
That we are all repulsed/can't enjoy sex (close eyes, grit teeth, think of England)
... and I haven't even gotten past comment 90-ish, stopped because they've already accused asexuals of being slut-shaming. I mean, maybe they get better later on, but there's already enough fail, and I don't even think I've encountered any of the 3 things you mentioned in your post yet.
Not that it's any where near ontd_feminism levels or anything, but it's still not okay.
Ayden, I've found the discussion fascinating, just for the very reason that I am having so much trouble parsing what you mean by sexual attraction.
As you say, it is probably a need for better language. There is clearly a nuance to the way you are using "sexual attraction" that I (and I suspect other people on the thread) am not getting.
Perhaps it is because it is all "mixed up" as you say. I would strongly doubt it is all mixed into romantic attraction, but I don't doubt it involves the overlap with sex drive.
So far, every time you have tried to describe your sex drive interest in a particular person, it has come across indistinguishable from what most of us would describe as sexual attraction to a particular person.
So I'm thinking this is pretty clearly a language issue.
It is fascinating, and it's also frustrating. I didn't like the bit of the thread that was along the lines of, we don't understand how the definition of asexuality can cover this so therefore it must not be able to. How do you attempt to explain in the face of another group deciding your identity is... not really your identity?
I suspect it might be... more illuminating? if a variety of aces described their experiences with things related to sex. I was thinking of getting together with some other ace bloggers and submitting a guest post proposal to Jill, but after this... I really, really don't know.
I would say you should propose it, although it is likely to hit some of the same resistance.
1) More than one story will give it context.
2) It won't be the result of a massive derail on a question of sexual boundary making.
I strongly suspect a lot of the pushback you got had to do with the clear overlap of the language used to tell women they have no sexual desire and therefore claiming any is bad but they should put up with sex they don't like anyway and the lack of desire in asexuality.
(forgive my sloppiness in using desire loosely here)
In fact, I suspect that overlap makes asexuality discussions in a feminist space particularly land-miney.
I obviously can't speak for Jill and co., but I would certainly be interested in something like that, especially looking at how it intersects with the idea of choosing your own boundaries for desire, sex, and your body.
Good luck, whatever you do.
After all the "You can't call people Ace if they don't know they're Ace because that is creepy but I don't get how grey- or demi-asexuality could be anydifferent from not wanting to sleep with random strangers therefore they're probably just sexual" I want to never look at a Feministe comment thread again.
(Yeah I was following that. But I doubted more Aces jumping in trying to explain to people who quite frankly seemed unwilling to really consider some pretty basic stuff seemed completely useless).
Also the "I don't get it, explain it to me!" And only marginal reading of the links provided, not even bothering to google around apparently (since there's tonnes of good fairly 101 stuff out there already) and then just dismissing it all because they found it hard to grasp, proclaiming it too convoluted, then finding some people guessing as badly at what sexuals are like as they do about what asexuals are like and taking it as representative, then finding one horrible elitist and practically puncing on their find with glee like it proved something... ugh.
Yeah, the whole Ace thing was probably wrong for this thread, but the fail was pretty awful. Only 1 or 2 people seemed to even be trying. And it's not like this was the first time asexuality has been discussed on Feministe, so I think any guest posting would be useless and we'll just be reashing the same tired 101 every time it's brought up for thenext couple of years at least.
I hope I'm just pessimistic, but sheesh...
Yeah-- I didn't realize at the time how derailing it was, which was my fault, but I was distracted by how other people seemed genuinely interested.
What bothered me about the thread was that it was called out as a derail, and I stopped posting... and then posters continued to discuss asexuality in a kind of dismissive way, but I didn't feel I could jump back in and say anything again, because I'd be derailing. And, also-- I agree that it's important to let potential sexual partners know that you're ace, but then you have to explain what exactly being ace means and how it's relevant to your relationship, and if this thread is any example, that's... not necessarily going to go well.
I'm still thinking about the guest post. It might not go any better, but it would at least be on topic, and might be more illuminating with more perspectives, as LC said. Besides, a couple people have dropped by here or mentioned on the Feministe thread that it was educational for them, even if they didn't say anything at the time-- so even if some people visibly don't get it, others are having "click" moments that we don't see, I think.
Yeah, if coming out means 101 every single time with usually only limited success, you only start wanting to do it less (or at least I do).
Post a Comment