After my duck-feeding plans were thwarted, I used the stale bread to make this bread pudding recipe. I think it's a pretty good recipe; next time I would use larger pieces of bread, because there was essentially a layer of scrambled egg stuff on the bottom, try to substitute some brown sugar for the white, and maybe cook it a minute or two longer. This made a good amount for one person, not to eat in one sitting (unless you want to), but it definitely reheats well, and there's not so much of it that you'd be eating it until you get sick.
Making recipes that feed one person well without spoiling is relevant to my interests, so I'll be posting them here from time to time.
(xposted at my Tumblr)
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Weasel Words (Trigger Warning, Police Brutality)
(Originally posted at my Tumblr.)
This post, from the NY Daily News: Wall Street protesters cuffed, pepper-sprayed during ‘inequality’ march. This first sentence is, “Scores of protesters were arrested in Manhattan Saturday as a march against social inequality turned violent.”
The relevant bits: “a march… turned violent.” This language implies that the marchers were the ones who turned violent, who initiated the violence. However, reading on, it becomes clear that the violence was almost entirely on the side of the police: the article references “the dramatic mood shift in an otherwise peaceful demonstration,” “80 people carted away in police vehicles and up to five… hit with pepper spray near 12 St. and Fifth Ave., where tensions became especially high,” and “footage of other police altercations.” Multiple witnesses talk about the pepper spraying, police slamming protesters to the ground, and police striking protesters who were already on the ground. In contrast, “one demonstrator was charged with assaulting a police officer.”
By saying “a march… turned violent,” the article takes a supposedly “balanced” look at the facts that, in this case, obscures what really happened and makes it sound like the protesters were the ones who became violent. This is, in my opinion, poor journalism; it’s not terribly surprising, however, since the supposedly liberal media is… not particularly liberal.
This post, from the NY Daily News: Wall Street protesters cuffed, pepper-sprayed during ‘inequality’ march. This first sentence is, “Scores of protesters were arrested in Manhattan Saturday as a march against social inequality turned violent.”
The relevant bits: “a march… turned violent.” This language implies that the marchers were the ones who turned violent, who initiated the violence. However, reading on, it becomes clear that the violence was almost entirely on the side of the police: the article references “the dramatic mood shift in an otherwise peaceful demonstration,” “80 people carted away in police vehicles and up to five… hit with pepper spray near 12 St. and Fifth Ave., where tensions became especially high,” and “footage of other police altercations.” Multiple witnesses talk about the pepper spraying, police slamming protesters to the ground, and police striking protesters who were already on the ground. In contrast, “one demonstrator was charged with assaulting a police officer.”
By saying “a march… turned violent,” the article takes a supposedly “balanced” look at the facts that, in this case, obscures what really happened and makes it sound like the protesters were the ones who became violent. This is, in my opinion, poor journalism; it’s not terribly surprising, however, since the supposedly liberal media is… not particularly liberal.
Adventures in Vegetarianism
I can't walk by the lobster tank at the grocery store without wincing and having brief visions of going all Elliott-from-E.T. I know that lobsters have roughly the mental capacity of bugs, since they are basically giant aquatic bugs, but it just doesn't feel right to keep them penned up like that, awaiting death (don't get me started on the manner of cooking a lobster...). I'm sure they don't mind the tank, I just... well, I wince.
I also usually don't have any reason to go by the meat section, just because of what I usually buy and how the store is laid out, but yesterday I was grabbing something from a frozen food case, and I happened to look to my right, and it was just like... "Oh. That's a dead chicken. Wrapped in plastic."
(Cross-posted at Musings of an Ist.)
I also usually don't have any reason to go by the meat section, just because of what I usually buy and how the store is laid out, but yesterday I was grabbing something from a frozen food case, and I happened to look to my right, and it was just like... "Oh. That's a dead chicken. Wrapped in plastic."
(Cross-posted at Musings of an Ist.)
Friday, September 23, 2011
Rewriting History
This morning, browsing a link from a link from a link, I found this article about how some Indiana Tea Party groups want to replace sitting Republican Senator Lugar with a more conservative candidate.
Among the motivations listed are that, and I quote, Lugar "Voted for Obama’s controversial Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, which pumped billions of dollars into ailing banks and financial institutions during the 2008 financial crisis." The article as it stands now does not read that; it has been corrected. I cannot find a screencap and I did not save it when I originally found it. However-- the problem with the article as it read is apparent, yes?
President Obama was elected at the end of 2008; he took office at the beginning of 2009. How, therefore, could he have created a program that took effect in 2008? Am I the only one who vividly members that one of the presidential debates was nearly canceled so that the senators could go back to Washington and work on TARP? TARP was, in fact, signed into law by President Bush on October 9, 2008.
Googling "Bush TARP" turns up 7,530,000 hits, while Googling "Obama TARP" turns up 11,800,000 hits. Such Googling also turns up this article from the Pew Foundation, which indicates that more than half of Americans cannot correctly identify which president signed this widely-reviled bill into law. I've seen people blaming Obama for it before, but never so blatantly, and never in a published news piece.
Things like this are literally rewriting history. I'm glad the article was corrected, but appalled that, with TARP as such a hot-button issue three years later, less than half the country actually knows the president to whom it should be attributed.
Among the motivations listed are that, and I quote, Lugar "Voted for Obama’s controversial Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, which pumped billions of dollars into ailing banks and financial institutions during the 2008 financial crisis." The article as it stands now does not read that; it has been corrected. I cannot find a screencap and I did not save it when I originally found it. However-- the problem with the article as it read is apparent, yes?
President Obama was elected at the end of 2008; he took office at the beginning of 2009. How, therefore, could he have created a program that took effect in 2008? Am I the only one who vividly members that one of the presidential debates was nearly canceled so that the senators could go back to Washington and work on TARP? TARP was, in fact, signed into law by President Bush on October 9, 2008.
Googling "Bush TARP" turns up 7,530,000 hits, while Googling "Obama TARP" turns up 11,800,000 hits. Such Googling also turns up this article from the Pew Foundation, which indicates that more than half of Americans cannot correctly identify which president signed this widely-reviled bill into law. I've seen people blaming Obama for it before, but never so blatantly, and never in a published news piece.
Things like this are literally rewriting history. I'm glad the article was corrected, but appalled that, with TARP as such a hot-button issue three years later, less than half the country actually knows the president to whom it should be attributed.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Telling People How To Identify
I am reblogging this from my Tumblr since I think it's a point that's getting lost in the acrid, vitriolic arguments happening on Tumblr right now.
It’s not okay to tell people what their identity is. It’s insulting, belittling, condescending, arrogant, and dehumanizing. There’s a difference between policing the borders of your own community, and policing someone else’s identity. One is your right. The other is none of your business.
For example, it’s not okay to tell a homoromantic asexual woman that she’s a lesbian— that’s up to her to decide. It’s not okay to tell a man who’s sexually attracted to men and women that he’s bisexual— off the top of my head, there are at least four common labels that include this definition, and which one he wants to identify with is his business, not yours. It’s not okay to tell a woman of mixed African and European heritage that she’s white, whether she likes it or not. It’s not okay to tell someone questioning his gender identity that, since he’s not trans, he must be cis. It’s not okay to tell a woman with depression that, since she’s “clearly” not abled, she must identify as having a disability. It’s not okay to tell a man that he’s “x” religion since he’s not “y.” And it’s not okay to tell a heteroromantic asexual person that zhe must be straight, no matter what your opinion on whether or not asexuality is inherently queer. Even if you think heteroromantic asexuals are not queer, queer and straight are not the only options. No matter what the other options are, it’s not your business to tell someone which one applies.
These are not perfect analogies. I am not arguing that the problems asexuals face are the same as the problems people of color or members of ethnic or national minorities face, the problems that people who aren’t cis face, the problems that people with disabilities face, or the problems that religious minorities face. I am giving other examples of telling someone what their identity is to illustrate how problematic it is in general. If someone comes by my blog and says, “I’m asexual, and I experience sexual attraction to this person and this person,” I’m within my rights to say, “Actually, you don’t sound like you’re asexual*, because asexuality is not experiencing sexual attraction to people.” I have no right to say, “You’re not asexual. You’re grey-a,” or, “You’re not asexual. You’re gay.”
So if you have a horse in the “are asexuals inherently queer” race, and you want the asexual community to listen to you, don’t try to tell people what they should identify as. (Also, please stop using “attraction” if you specifically mean sexual and/or romantic attraction, and “relationships” if you specifically mean sexual and/or romantic relationships, but that’s a different issue.)
*This is an instance where we need better terminology— I don’t mean to erase people who identify as on the asexual spectrum but are not asexual in the strict sense.
It’s not okay to tell people what their identity is. It’s insulting, belittling, condescending, arrogant, and dehumanizing. There’s a difference between policing the borders of your own community, and policing someone else’s identity. One is your right. The other is none of your business.
For example, it’s not okay to tell a homoromantic asexual woman that she’s a lesbian— that’s up to her to decide. It’s not okay to tell a man who’s sexually attracted to men and women that he’s bisexual— off the top of my head, there are at least four common labels that include this definition, and which one he wants to identify with is his business, not yours. It’s not okay to tell a woman of mixed African and European heritage that she’s white, whether she likes it or not. It’s not okay to tell someone questioning his gender identity that, since he’s not trans, he must be cis. It’s not okay to tell a woman with depression that, since she’s “clearly” not abled, she must identify as having a disability. It’s not okay to tell a man that he’s “x” religion since he’s not “y.” And it’s not okay to tell a heteroromantic asexual person that zhe must be straight, no matter what your opinion on whether or not asexuality is inherently queer. Even if you think heteroromantic asexuals are not queer, queer and straight are not the only options. No matter what the other options are, it’s not your business to tell someone which one applies.
These are not perfect analogies. I am not arguing that the problems asexuals face are the same as the problems people of color or members of ethnic or national minorities face, the problems that people who aren’t cis face, the problems that people with disabilities face, or the problems that religious minorities face. I am giving other examples of telling someone what their identity is to illustrate how problematic it is in general. If someone comes by my blog and says, “I’m asexual, and I experience sexual attraction to this person and this person,” I’m within my rights to say, “Actually, you don’t sound like you’re asexual*, because asexuality is not experiencing sexual attraction to people.” I have no right to say, “You’re not asexual. You’re grey-a,” or, “You’re not asexual. You’re gay.”
So if you have a horse in the “are asexuals inherently queer” race, and you want the asexual community to listen to you, don’t try to tell people what they should identify as. (Also, please stop using “attraction” if you specifically mean sexual and/or romantic attraction, and “relationships” if you specifically mean sexual and/or romantic relationships, but that’s a different issue.)
*This is an instance where we need better terminology— I don’t mean to erase people who identify as on the asexual spectrum but are not asexual in the strict sense.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Eating in Public
TW/Nota bene: discussion of food, dieting, and body image
I've never been an enthusiastic fan of salad, or of vegetables in general (that is, I don't get as excited about buying and eating them as I do about fruit), though I have know that they're good for me, and that it's better for the planet if more of my diet is plant-based. So when I discovered a salad recipe I actually like-- spinach, tomatoes, bell peppers, sometimes cucumbers but they make it all soggy, walnuts, and feta cheese-- I was excited.
Then I had the experience of eating salad in public, and it made me think.
Eating anything in public can be more of a self-aware activity than it needs to be if you belong to a category whose eating people judge, like a woman, someone who's considered "overweight," someone who's eating ethnic or minority food, etc. I fall into two of those categories. Normally I'm not terribly self-conscious about eating in public, but this is in a conference setting, where the moderator has explicitly invited to bring our lunches since it's the lunch hour. No one else does on a regular basis, though.
Am I being "bad" for being an overweight woman eating in public, or am I being "good" because I'm eating a so-called "good" food, and thus giving the impression that I'm "penitent" and trying to "reform?" (Ick.) Am I contributing to the idea that all women should diet all the time? Am I giving the impression that I am insecure or unhappy with my body? That is, in fact, not true, and being happy with my body despite being overweight is one of the more revolutionary and subversive things I do on a regular basis. I don't want to undermine that just because I happen to be a hippie vegetarian.
I should be able just to eat my lunch without worrying about the kind of message people are reading into it, but I know that many people consider any display of femininity to be an all-access pass into that person's private life and motivations. Maybe I should make a sign... "This salad not eaten as part of any weight loss effort." Or maybe I should bring in some cheesecake.
I've never been an enthusiastic fan of salad, or of vegetables in general (that is, I don't get as excited about buying and eating them as I do about fruit), though I have know that they're good for me, and that it's better for the planet if more of my diet is plant-based. So when I discovered a salad recipe I actually like-- spinach, tomatoes, bell peppers, sometimes cucumbers but they make it all soggy, walnuts, and feta cheese-- I was excited.
Then I had the experience of eating salad in public, and it made me think.
Eating anything in public can be more of a self-aware activity than it needs to be if you belong to a category whose eating people judge, like a woman, someone who's considered "overweight," someone who's eating ethnic or minority food, etc. I fall into two of those categories. Normally I'm not terribly self-conscious about eating in public, but this is in a conference setting, where the moderator has explicitly invited to bring our lunches since it's the lunch hour. No one else does on a regular basis, though.
Am I being "bad" for being an overweight woman eating in public, or am I being "good" because I'm eating a so-called "good" food, and thus giving the impression that I'm "penitent" and trying to "reform?" (Ick.) Am I contributing to the idea that all women should diet all the time? Am I giving the impression that I am insecure or unhappy with my body? That is, in fact, not true, and being happy with my body despite being overweight is one of the more revolutionary and subversive things I do on a regular basis. I don't want to undermine that just because I happen to be a hippie vegetarian.
I should be able just to eat my lunch without worrying about the kind of message people are reading into it, but I know that many people consider any display of femininity to be an all-access pass into that person's private life and motivations. Maybe I should make a sign... "This salad not eaten as part of any weight loss effort." Or maybe I should bring in some cheesecake.
Hippie To-Do List
I'm not putting a time limit on this since that will just stress me out without contributing to productivity:
a.) plant spinach
r.) sprout things
d.) figure out how to make my own equivalent of Clif bars/Lara bars
s.) start baking bread again
@.) set up composting
q.) set up another drying rack or a clothesline
o.) look into ways to carry groceries home on my bike when I have too many for my backpack-- bags on my wrist, especially reusable bags which are bigger, tend to destabilize me just a bit
5.) see if it's possible to buy my electricity from a renewable source through electric company
*.) break out the crockpot!
k.) learn to make my own taffy apples
x.) general food preservation skills
n.) insulate the water heater
^.) look into insulating drapes
m.) get a space heater/heat lamp
This is my current hippie to-do list. I don't know what would be on my feminist to-do list or my asexual to-do list if I had one-- if it would even make sense to have one-- except for one item on both, which is "become more self-sufficient." The other day I bought a piece of used furniture which was too heavy to lift, and got it into the house by tipping it end-over-end up the stairs and through the house until I could slide it. Ingenuity, it works.
I have a general sense of what's on my Christian to-do list, but I'm not sure I could or should put it into words.
a.) plant spinach
r.) sprout things
d.) figure out how to make my own equivalent of Clif bars/Lara bars
s.) start baking bread again
@.) set up composting
q.) set up another drying rack or a clothesline
o.) look into ways to carry groceries home on my bike when I have too many for my backpack-- bags on my wrist, especially reusable bags which are bigger, tend to destabilize me just a bit
5.) see if it's possible to buy my electricity from a renewable source through electric company
*.) break out the crockpot!
k.) learn to make my own taffy apples
x.) general food preservation skills
n.) insulate the water heater
^.) look into insulating drapes
m.) get a space heater/heat lamp
This is my current hippie to-do list. I don't know what would be on my feminist to-do list or my asexual to-do list if I had one-- if it would even make sense to have one-- except for one item on both, which is "become more self-sufficient." The other day I bought a piece of used furniture which was too heavy to lift, and got it into the house by tipping it end-over-end up the stairs and through the house until I could slide it. Ingenuity, it works.
I have a general sense of what's on my Christian to-do list, but I'm not sure I could or should put it into words.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Why there's (maybe) no such thing as a straight asexual
Someday I will write posts about things besides asexuality, like all the exciting hippie stuff I am doing in my new town.
Today is not that day.
This is a response to this post on Morning Chorus's Tumblr, "why straight asexuals can't join the queer club". (Someday I might also get Tumblr, so someone actually sees these things, but again, today is not this day.) This is not an attack on Morning Chorus; this is in response to the points zhe has made, which I have also seen elsewhere. A lot.
Standard disclaimer: I have no opinion on whether or not asexuality is inherently queer. It's certainly not normative, and we need a way to express that, but that way does not have to be including asexuality under the queer umbrella. I do not identify as queer. This post is not about whether or not asexuality is inherently queer.
My problems with this post are:
a.) it is not acceptable to label heteroromantic asexuals as straight. It is not acceptable to tell people what they should identify as. Heteroromantic asexuals generally fit in as well with the heterosexual world as a fish at a tractor convention. Yes, heteroromantic asexuals experience passing privilege and can date their preferred opposite-sex partner without societal harassment. However, being in a long-term-- or even a short-term-- romantic relationship without engaging in sex is generally not considered okay. Just as the defendant in this case in France. Most major world religions, as far as I am aware, teach that sex is an integral part of marriage, and that someone who does not engage in sex in marriage is wrong. The obvious rebuttal to this is, straight sex is considered an integral part of marriage-- well, yes. People who are with a same-sex partner are also considered to be "doing this wrong." That doesn't, however, make it any easier on the heteroromantics. If straight sex is the standard, then anyone who is not heterosexual or willing to engage in a fairly regular basis in heterosexual sex, which can include most heteroromantic asexuals, is viewed as abnormal.
A heteroromantic woman with an opposite-sex partner will, almost certainly, never have anyone harass or her assault her because of her partner's gender. Nobody denies this. A heteroromantic woman may experience coercive sex, if, for example, she wants to continue living with her spouse and doesn't want to get kicked out of the house. A heteroromantic woman may experience corrective rape to fix what's "wrong" with her. A heteroromantic woman may have her doctor try to "fix" what's wrong with her via hormone therapy, or prescribe inappropriate treatments like birth control or STD treatments on the basis that everyone must be having some sort of sex. A heteroromantic woman may find that the man she loves is unwilling to enter into a romantic relationship with her because of her sexual orientation.
These problems are not unique to heteroromantic women; I am not claiming they are. I am claiming that they happen, and that heteroromantic asexuals do not have heterosexual privilege. It's not just about having "a listing in a medical book." Heteroromantic asexuals who want to identify as straight are of course free to do so. For those who do not want to identify as straight, it is offensive to label them as such. Would it be acceptable to tell a homoromantic asexual woman that she is a lesbian and must identify that way?
b.) Attraction: please, stop. No, really. There are a number of women I love and am attracted to. There are also a number of men I love and am attracted to. This does not mean I am bisexual or biromantic. This means that neither sexual nor romantic attraction, nor both together, comprise all types of attraction. If you mean sexual and/or romantic attraction, then say so.
Why does this matter to me? Well, because the non-sexual and non-romantic types of attraction are, I am reasonably sure, the only types I will ever experience. The non-sexual and non-romantic attractions are those on which I found and will continue to found my deepest and most meaningful relationships. Please stop acting like they don't exist or don't matter.
Ditto for relationships. My queerness or lack thereof is not determined by whether or not I am in a relationship with a member of my gender. I am in multiple relationships with members of my gender, and also some with members of other genders, and I am not queer. They are not romantic relationships, or sexual relationships, but they are the most important relationships in my life. Do not erase that to try to make a point about whether or not asexuals are queer.
c.) This argument that homosexuality means experiencing attraction to the same sex, rather than experiencing sexual attraction to members of your sex... breaks down, because it implies that there is only romantic attraction or sexual attraction. By this logic, either aromantic asexuals are the only "real" asexuals, or aromantic asexuals are bisexual, since we are equally attracted to men and women.
I feel like I keep saying this over and over, but it's important. Don't label people with labels they don't themselves accept. Don't erase non-romantic, non-sexual attraction or relationships. Doing so indicates that you're missing what drives many of the concerns of the asexual community.
Today is not that day.
This is a response to this post on Morning Chorus's Tumblr, "why straight asexuals can't join the queer club". (Someday I might also get Tumblr, so someone actually sees these things, but again, today is not this day.) This is not an attack on Morning Chorus; this is in response to the points zhe has made, which I have also seen elsewhere. A lot.
Standard disclaimer: I have no opinion on whether or not asexuality is inherently queer. It's certainly not normative, and we need a way to express that, but that way does not have to be including asexuality under the queer umbrella. I do not identify as queer. This post is not about whether or not asexuality is inherently queer.
My problems with this post are:
a.) it is not acceptable to label heteroromantic asexuals as straight. It is not acceptable to tell people what they should identify as. Heteroromantic asexuals generally fit in as well with the heterosexual world as a fish at a tractor convention. Yes, heteroromantic asexuals experience passing privilege and can date their preferred opposite-sex partner without societal harassment. However, being in a long-term-- or even a short-term-- romantic relationship without engaging in sex is generally not considered okay. Just as the defendant in this case in France. Most major world religions, as far as I am aware, teach that sex is an integral part of marriage, and that someone who does not engage in sex in marriage is wrong. The obvious rebuttal to this is, straight sex is considered an integral part of marriage-- well, yes. People who are with a same-sex partner are also considered to be "doing this wrong." That doesn't, however, make it any easier on the heteroromantics. If straight sex is the standard, then anyone who is not heterosexual or willing to engage in a fairly regular basis in heterosexual sex, which can include most heteroromantic asexuals, is viewed as abnormal.
A heteroromantic woman with an opposite-sex partner will, almost certainly, never have anyone harass or her assault her because of her partner's gender. Nobody denies this. A heteroromantic woman may experience coercive sex, if, for example, she wants to continue living with her spouse and doesn't want to get kicked out of the house. A heteroromantic woman may experience corrective rape to fix what's "wrong" with her. A heteroromantic woman may have her doctor try to "fix" what's wrong with her via hormone therapy, or prescribe inappropriate treatments like birth control or STD treatments on the basis that everyone must be having some sort of sex. A heteroromantic woman may find that the man she loves is unwilling to enter into a romantic relationship with her because of her sexual orientation.
These problems are not unique to heteroromantic women; I am not claiming they are. I am claiming that they happen, and that heteroromantic asexuals do not have heterosexual privilege. It's not just about having "a listing in a medical book." Heteroromantic asexuals who want to identify as straight are of course free to do so. For those who do not want to identify as straight, it is offensive to label them as such. Would it be acceptable to tell a homoromantic asexual woman that she is a lesbian and must identify that way?
b.) Attraction: please, stop. No, really. There are a number of women I love and am attracted to. There are also a number of men I love and am attracted to. This does not mean I am bisexual or biromantic. This means that neither sexual nor romantic attraction, nor both together, comprise all types of attraction. If you mean sexual and/or romantic attraction, then say so.
Why does this matter to me? Well, because the non-sexual and non-romantic types of attraction are, I am reasonably sure, the only types I will ever experience. The non-sexual and non-romantic attractions are those on which I found and will continue to found my deepest and most meaningful relationships. Please stop acting like they don't exist or don't matter.
Ditto for relationships. My queerness or lack thereof is not determined by whether or not I am in a relationship with a member of my gender. I am in multiple relationships with members of my gender, and also some with members of other genders, and I am not queer. They are not romantic relationships, or sexual relationships, but they are the most important relationships in my life. Do not erase that to try to make a point about whether or not asexuals are queer.
c.) This argument that homosexuality means experiencing attraction to the same sex, rather than experiencing sexual attraction to members of your sex... breaks down, because it implies that there is only romantic attraction or sexual attraction. By this logic, either aromantic asexuals are the only "real" asexuals, or aromantic asexuals are bisexual, since we are equally attracted to men and women.
I feel like I keep saying this over and over, but it's important. Don't label people with labels they don't themselves accept. Don't erase non-romantic, non-sexual attraction or relationships. Doing so indicates that you're missing what drives many of the concerns of the asexual community.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
For Those Who Live Alone
This morning during church I found a prayer for those who live alone in the Book of Common Prayer:
"Almighty God, whose Son had nowhere to lay his head: Grant that those who live alone may not be lonely in their solitude, but that, following in his steps, they may find fulfillment in loving you and their neighbors; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
I like so many things about this prayer. I like that it distinguishes between loneliness and solitude, and that it acknowledges that people can find fulfillment in platonic love. And I like that it exists at all, and is in the church book for the fourth largest communion (or group of churches-- sort of like a denomination) in the world.
"Almighty God, whose Son had nowhere to lay his head: Grant that those who live alone may not be lonely in their solitude, but that, following in his steps, they may find fulfillment in loving you and their neighbors; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
I like so many things about this prayer. I like that it distinguishes between loneliness and solitude, and that it acknowledges that people can find fulfillment in platonic love. And I like that it exists at all, and is in the church book for the fourth largest communion (or group of churches-- sort of like a denomination) in the world.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Ace Survey
Taken from Asexual Walks of Life.
1. How do you define your asexuality?
I'm not sexually attracted to people-- I feel no desire to seek out sexual partners, nor any sense of urgency regarding seeking out sex partners or having sex. I've never met anybody I actively desired to have sex with.
I think under certain circumstances, I would want to have sex, though with what urgency or frequency I don't know. From where I'm standing, it makes perfect sense to want to have sex but not be sexually attracted to people. I more actively want various forms of physical intimacy, including some that most people would consider sexual, but they're not sexual to me.
2. Are you out? If so, has that caused you problems? What was coming out like for you?
I am out to my immediate family, some close friends, and the Internet. My family seems uncomfortable with the subject; I was asked why I would tell people something like that, and that lots of people go through a phase where they decide to focus on something else. They're supportive, though, just not... terribly comfortable, if that makes sense. From my friends I got some good reactions as well as some squares on the bingo card, like "I can't conceive of what you're telling me" (not asexuality as a whole, but my specific experience of it), and "you should consider how frequently you masturbate."
3. Do you have any fears, specifically as an asexual person?
Living and dying alone.
Oh, and Muller's ratchet.
4. How did you figure out that you were asexual?
At first I thought I might be demisexual, but then I started really thinking about what sexual attraction is and what it would feel like to be sexually attracted to a person, and I realized I'm either grey-a or asexual. I identify as asexual these days-- I seem to be less repulsed and more open to the possibility of sex under the right circumstances than many other aces I've met, but I don't think that makes me grey-a.
5. Do you have an asexual role-model? Who? Why?
Nope.
6. How do you feel about romance? What about dating outside of the asexual community, i.e. a sexual person?
The thing is that I'm aromantic, or ???romantic, in that I'm not romantically attracted to people, but I still very much have the desire for intimacy that's traditionally associated with romance. The idea of dating (or being in some sort of non-platonic relationship) has appeal to me because I do want many of the things that come with romance, marriage and sex, just not... for the reasons most other people want them. I dated sexual people before I realized I was asexual (though largely within the context of a Christian community where celibacy is widely accepted), and I would be open to doing it again with the right person.
7. How connected do you, personally, feel to the queer community? What have your experiences, if any, been like with them?
I do not identify as queer. I don't have an opinion on the "are asexuals inherently queer" debate other than that the amount of acephobia and homophobia that has come out of it is unfortunate, it's not acceptable to force labels on people (ie calling heteroromantic asexuals straight), and a few members of the queer community have evinced really puzzling levels of hostility outside of the other acephobia-homophobia back and forth. I guess that's to be expected with any community, though. The queer friends to whom I am out have been very supportive.
8. What are your pet peeves that people bring up when you are discussing sexuality/asexuality?
There's no such thing as asexual/most women are asexual/you just haven't met the right person yet/get your hormones checked.
And on the other side of things, how can you be asexual if you masturbate/how can you be asexual if you're not repulsed/how can you be asexual if you're repulsed/how can you be asexual if you want to have sex.
Oh, and the relationship/significant other: using "relationship" when you specifically mean a sexual and/or romantic relationship, and significant other when you specifically mean a sexual and/or romantic significant other.
9. What are some of the best and worst experiences you’ve had with peoples’ opinions of asexuality?
Best? I have one or three friends who have been super-supportive, and to whom I can talk knowing that they don't think there's anything "wrong" with me, even when I feel broken.
Worst? Either the Savage Love columns, or the Feministe dealbreakers thread. (I should say that Chally also had a Feministe post about asexuality, Not Sexual Justice From Where I'm Standing, that was really excellent.)
10. Do you see yourself in a committed relationship eventually? Are you in one now? Do you even want one? Have you given up?
Please see above re: "relationship." I would be cool being married under the right circumstances, or alternately, strengthening my existing friendships and making new ones so I know that there are people who will always be there for me, for whom I will always be there, with the intensity you might treat a romantic relationship. Actually, the best thing would be to have all of the above.
11. Are you sex-positive? What does that mean to you?
I think the best way I've seen it put is "I'm 'the-sex-that-you-want-to-have'-positive." Sex by itself is a neutral thing.
12. What sort of future do you want for asexuals, in terms of visibility, laws, etc?
I want people to know what asexuality is so no one grows up thinking they're broken because they're not sexually attracted to anyone. I want therapists and doctors to know that asexuality is a valid sexual orientation and doesn't need treatment. I want the general public to know what asexuality is and accept it, so we stop getting erased. I want people to know that it's not acceptable to try to "fix" someone who's asexual in any way, especially by trying to coerce them into sex. I want a world where platonic relationships are not devalued in comparison to romantic and/or sexual relationships. I want a world where no one gets kicked out of their house for being asexual, whether by their parents or by their spouse or sexual/romantic partner. I want a world where asexuals can find partners or significant others to whom they matter just as much as a sexual person would.
I'm not sure about laws. I'd have to think about that one more.
13. Is there anything in particular that you want me to educate the group on? Anything that I missed in this questionnaire, keeping in mind that it will be largely an overview with Q&A and discussion after?
Please see above re: relationships.
1. How do you define your asexuality?
I'm not sexually attracted to people-- I feel no desire to seek out sexual partners, nor any sense of urgency regarding seeking out sex partners or having sex. I've never met anybody I actively desired to have sex with.
I think under certain circumstances, I would want to have sex, though with what urgency or frequency I don't know. From where I'm standing, it makes perfect sense to want to have sex but not be sexually attracted to people. I more actively want various forms of physical intimacy, including some that most people would consider sexual, but they're not sexual to me.
2. Are you out? If so, has that caused you problems? What was coming out like for you?
I am out to my immediate family, some close friends, and the Internet. My family seems uncomfortable with the subject; I was asked why I would tell people something like that, and that lots of people go through a phase where they decide to focus on something else. They're supportive, though, just not... terribly comfortable, if that makes sense. From my friends I got some good reactions as well as some squares on the bingo card, like "I can't conceive of what you're telling me" (not asexuality as a whole, but my specific experience of it), and "you should consider how frequently you masturbate."
3. Do you have any fears, specifically as an asexual person?
Living and dying alone.
Oh, and Muller's ratchet.
4. How did you figure out that you were asexual?
At first I thought I might be demisexual, but then I started really thinking about what sexual attraction is and what it would feel like to be sexually attracted to a person, and I realized I'm either grey-a or asexual. I identify as asexual these days-- I seem to be less repulsed and more open to the possibility of sex under the right circumstances than many other aces I've met, but I don't think that makes me grey-a.
5. Do you have an asexual role-model? Who? Why?
Nope.
6. How do you feel about romance? What about dating outside of the asexual community, i.e. a sexual person?
The thing is that I'm aromantic, or ???romantic, in that I'm not romantically attracted to people, but I still very much have the desire for intimacy that's traditionally associated with romance. The idea of dating (or being in some sort of non-platonic relationship) has appeal to me because I do want many of the things that come with romance, marriage and sex, just not... for the reasons most other people want them. I dated sexual people before I realized I was asexual (though largely within the context of a Christian community where celibacy is widely accepted), and I would be open to doing it again with the right person.
7. How connected do you, personally, feel to the queer community? What have your experiences, if any, been like with them?
I do not identify as queer. I don't have an opinion on the "are asexuals inherently queer" debate other than that the amount of acephobia and homophobia that has come out of it is unfortunate, it's not acceptable to force labels on people (ie calling heteroromantic asexuals straight), and a few members of the queer community have evinced really puzzling levels of hostility outside of the other acephobia-homophobia back and forth. I guess that's to be expected with any community, though. The queer friends to whom I am out have been very supportive.
8. What are your pet peeves that people bring up when you are discussing sexuality/asexuality?
There's no such thing as asexual/most women are asexual/you just haven't met the right person yet/get your hormones checked.
And on the other side of things, how can you be asexual if you masturbate/how can you be asexual if you're not repulsed/how can you be asexual if you're repulsed/how can you be asexual if you want to have sex.
Oh, and the relationship/significant other: using "relationship" when you specifically mean a sexual and/or romantic relationship, and significant other when you specifically mean a sexual and/or romantic significant other.
9. What are some of the best and worst experiences you’ve had with peoples’ opinions of asexuality?
Best? I have one or three friends who have been super-supportive, and to whom I can talk knowing that they don't think there's anything "wrong" with me, even when I feel broken.
Worst? Either the Savage Love columns, or the Feministe dealbreakers thread. (I should say that Chally also had a Feministe post about asexuality, Not Sexual Justice From Where I'm Standing, that was really excellent.)
10. Do you see yourself in a committed relationship eventually? Are you in one now? Do you even want one? Have you given up?
Please see above re: "relationship." I would be cool being married under the right circumstances, or alternately, strengthening my existing friendships and making new ones so I know that there are people who will always be there for me, for whom I will always be there, with the intensity you might treat a romantic relationship. Actually, the best thing would be to have all of the above.
11. Are you sex-positive? What does that mean to you?
I think the best way I've seen it put is "I'm 'the-sex-that-you-want-to-have'-positive." Sex by itself is a neutral thing.
12. What sort of future do you want for asexuals, in terms of visibility, laws, etc?
I want people to know what asexuality is so no one grows up thinking they're broken because they're not sexually attracted to anyone. I want therapists and doctors to know that asexuality is a valid sexual orientation and doesn't need treatment. I want the general public to know what asexuality is and accept it, so we stop getting erased. I want people to know that it's not acceptable to try to "fix" someone who's asexual in any way, especially by trying to coerce them into sex. I want a world where platonic relationships are not devalued in comparison to romantic and/or sexual relationships. I want a world where no one gets kicked out of their house for being asexual, whether by their parents or by their spouse or sexual/romantic partner. I want a world where asexuals can find partners or significant others to whom they matter just as much as a sexual person would.
I'm not sure about laws. I'd have to think about that one more.
13. Is there anything in particular that you want me to educate the group on? Anything that I missed in this questionnaire, keeping in mind that it will be largely an overview with Q&A and discussion after?
Please see above re: relationships.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)