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.