I'm hosting the September 2012 edition of the Carnival of Aces here at Confessions of an Ist. The theme for this month is diversity and unity in the asexual community. I prefer to choose very open-ended themes, so anything dealing with that topic is acceptable. You might consider racial diversity, gender diversity, religious diversity, age diversity, the importance of diversity and/or unity, the relationship between diversity and unity, whether or not the asexual community seems either diverse or unified to you... etc.
To participate in the Carnival of Aces, simply write a blog post dealing with this theme, and get me the link either here in the comments or at greenchestnuts at gmail dot com, by October 1st. I'll post the roundup shortly after that. Posts must be written during this month to be eligible for the Carnival.
Also, Asexual Agenda is looking for bloggers to host the Carnival in future months. Hosting is easy and does not require a substantial time commitment; you make the initial call for submissions, advertise the Carnival throughout the month, and then make a post with all the links you've received within the first few days of the next month. You get to pick the theme, and other bloggers usually help promote the Carnival. Nearly any platform is fine for hosting-- Blogger, Wordpress, Livejournal, Dreamwidth, Tumblr, etc. (You might run into some problems trying to use Twitter, though.) So please let them know if you're willing to host. You can find a list of past Carnivals and themes, and sign up, at the above link.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Ageism and Asexuality
How old is old enough to be asexual?
I've written a lot, lately, about how sexism affects asexuals and our perceptions of asexuality. A lot of that sexism and misogyny centers around themes of experience, whether that's using a woman's lack of (the correct kind of) sexual experience as evidence that she's not really asexual, or using the fact that she has engaged in sexual experience as proof that she's not really asexual. The first part of this double-bind, as well as the more general idea that people with more experience can explain people with less experience to themselves, is rooted in ageism, but today I'm going to talk about ageism and asexuality more explicitly.
The Trevor Project is "the leading national organization preventing crisis intervention and suicide prevention services to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth." One of their affiliates defines this more specifically-- "TrevorSpace.org is an online, social networking community for LGBTQ youth ages 13 through 24 and their friends and allies." The New York Times's "Coming Out" project features stories from teenagers as young as 15. The "It Gets Better" project is specifically aimed at teenagers. While there are many fair criticisms to be made of "Glee," no one seems to be arguing that its characters are too young-- or were too young, when the show began-- to know they're gay. As for heterosexuality, its undeserved status as the "default" sexuality means that rarely, if ever, is anyone who says they're straight told they're too young to know that for sure. Knowing that you're straight as a teenager is considered completely normal.
So the idea that teenagers know their sexual orientations-- even minority sexual orientations-- is clearly not a controversial one in general. When it comes to asexuality specifically, studies indicate that the average age of first sexual attraction, for both straight and gay children, could be as early as ten, so we know that most teenagers have had ample time to determine whether or not they've felt it. We also know that the same 2004 study that gave us the 1% number found that asexual respondents were, on average, slightly older than non-asexual respondents, so we know that asexuality isn't something teenagers experience and then grow out of.
In this context, it becomes obvious that telling asexuals they're not old enough to know their sexual orientation is rooted in both ageism-- the idea that anyone who can communicate about it is "too young" to know their sexual orientation-- and anti-asexual ideology-- the way this standard is applied to asexuals much more frequently than it is applied to members of any other sexual orientation. When I came out to my family, one of the responses I received amounted to "It's just a phase," even though I was in my twenties and had been dating men and describing myself as a straight woman for several years prior to that. Asexual people-- usually women-- who are in their thirties still report being told that they're "too young" to know their sexual orientation, or that they're just "late bloomers." The fact that asexuals from this same age group are also told that they're too old to have a sexuality, that their lack of sexual attraction is simply what happens to people in their thirties, shows that the point is to invalidate asexuality by any means necessary.
Ageism is a problem for the asexual community, but it seems to be a symptom of a deeper problem, which is, of course, the suspicion and distrust with which many people regard the concept of asexuality. For whatever reason, they think it cannot possibly be valid, and so they resort to any way that they can to invalidate asexual identities, whether that's ageism ("You're too young to know you're asexual." "You're too old to call yourself asexual, that's perfectly normal at your age.") or the experience argument ("You can't be asexual if you've never been in a 'real' relationship/never had sex/only had one sexual partner." "You can't call yourself asexual if you have sex.") or sexism ("All women are asexual, you're just normal") or arguments about one's romantic orientation or gender identity ("You're not asexual, it's just internalized homophobia/dysphoria/transphobia") or arguments about the patriarchy ("You've just been brainwashed into denying your sexuality.") Ageism is just an excuse, a tool to use to dismiss asexuality; if it weren't that, it would be something else. The bad news is that it's not going to go away until asexuality is accepted, but the good news is the ageist argument against asexuality is so implausible that there's no reason to listen to anyone who makes it.
I've written a lot, lately, about how sexism affects asexuals and our perceptions of asexuality. A lot of that sexism and misogyny centers around themes of experience, whether that's using a woman's lack of (the correct kind of) sexual experience as evidence that she's not really asexual, or using the fact that she has engaged in sexual experience as proof that she's not really asexual. The first part of this double-bind, as well as the more general idea that people with more experience can explain people with less experience to themselves, is rooted in ageism, but today I'm going to talk about ageism and asexuality more explicitly.
The Trevor Project is "the leading national organization preventing crisis intervention and suicide prevention services to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth." One of their affiliates defines this more specifically-- "TrevorSpace.org is an online, social networking community for LGBTQ youth ages 13 through 24 and their friends and allies." The New York Times's "Coming Out" project features stories from teenagers as young as 15. The "It Gets Better" project is specifically aimed at teenagers. While there are many fair criticisms to be made of "Glee," no one seems to be arguing that its characters are too young-- or were too young, when the show began-- to know they're gay. As for heterosexuality, its undeserved status as the "default" sexuality means that rarely, if ever, is anyone who says they're straight told they're too young to know that for sure. Knowing that you're straight as a teenager is considered completely normal.
So the idea that teenagers know their sexual orientations-- even minority sexual orientations-- is clearly not a controversial one in general. When it comes to asexuality specifically, studies indicate that the average age of first sexual attraction, for both straight and gay children, could be as early as ten, so we know that most teenagers have had ample time to determine whether or not they've felt it. We also know that the same 2004 study that gave us the 1% number found that asexual respondents were, on average, slightly older than non-asexual respondents, so we know that asexuality isn't something teenagers experience and then grow out of.
In this context, it becomes obvious that telling asexuals they're not old enough to know their sexual orientation is rooted in both ageism-- the idea that anyone who can communicate about it is "too young" to know their sexual orientation-- and anti-asexual ideology-- the way this standard is applied to asexuals much more frequently than it is applied to members of any other sexual orientation. When I came out to my family, one of the responses I received amounted to "It's just a phase," even though I was in my twenties and had been dating men and describing myself as a straight woman for several years prior to that. Asexual people-- usually women-- who are in their thirties still report being told that they're "too young" to know their sexual orientation, or that they're just "late bloomers." The fact that asexuals from this same age group are also told that they're too old to have a sexuality, that their lack of sexual attraction is simply what happens to people in their thirties, shows that the point is to invalidate asexuality by any means necessary.
Ageism is a problem for the asexual community, but it seems to be a symptom of a deeper problem, which is, of course, the suspicion and distrust with which many people regard the concept of asexuality. For whatever reason, they think it cannot possibly be valid, and so they resort to any way that they can to invalidate asexual identities, whether that's ageism ("You're too young to know you're asexual." "You're too old to call yourself asexual, that's perfectly normal at your age.") or the experience argument ("You can't be asexual if you've never been in a 'real' relationship/never had sex/only had one sexual partner." "You can't call yourself asexual if you have sex.") or sexism ("All women are asexual, you're just normal") or arguments about one's romantic orientation or gender identity ("You're not asexual, it's just internalized homophobia/dysphoria/transphobia") or arguments about the patriarchy ("You've just been brainwashed into denying your sexuality.") Ageism is just an excuse, a tool to use to dismiss asexuality; if it weren't that, it would be something else. The bad news is that it's not going to go away until asexuality is accepted, but the good news is the ageist argument against asexuality is so implausible that there's no reason to listen to anyone who makes it.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Sexism and Asexuality, Part Four: "Real Relationships"
So far in this series, I've written about how sexism kept me from realizing I was asexual, how asexual women don't get a pass from sexism, and how telling women they're not really asexual plays into a sexist narrative where women can't be trusted to know about themselves. This week, I'm going to write about the popular troll phrase, "Asexuals have just never been in 'real' relationships," and how this phrase is simply another way of coercing women into unwanted sex.
I wrote about one problem I have with this phrase back in March, but today I'm going to go deeper. The idea that they're only asexual because they've never been in a "real relationship" is something asexuals hear a lot; it should probably have a spot in the next edition of asexual bingo. So what constitutes a "real" relationship? In the eyes of most of the world, and the people saying it, a romantic relationship, and probably one that includes sex-- which is something many asexuals don't want to have.
Telling people they have to engage in unwanted sex before you consider their desires valid is a form of social coercion. It creates pressure on them to engage in unwanted sex, and it contributes to rape culture. When applied to women, it's a form of sexism as well, since women already face disproportionate pressure to engage in unwanted sex. Women's desires are already invalidated on so many grounds; adding more, telling women they have to check off "x" box before you consider their desires and experiences valid, is misogynistic.
Unfortunately, this phrase is found within feminist communities as well as outside of it. If your idea of feminist activism involves telling women you won't believe them about their sexual orientation until they have sex they don't want to have, you are not being a feminist, you are being a mouthpiece for the patriarchy. Go directly to feminist jail, do not pass feminist go, and do not collect two hundred feminist dollars. Go to your room and rethink your feminism. Women's desires and identities are not something on which you can place conditions. An orientation doesn't need "x" amount of relationship experience to make it valid; romantic desire doesn't need "x" amount of sexual desire to make it valid; platonic desire doesn't need "x" amount of romantic desire to make it valid.
Feminism means trusting women to be the authority on our own identity and desires, against a background of misogyny that tells us women shouldn't have any desires and need men to tell us what we want, anyway. Feminism means listening to women about our own experiences and identities. And feminism means not coercing us into unwanted sex by refusing to believe our own accounts of ourselves until we have it.
I wrote about one problem I have with this phrase back in March, but today I'm going to go deeper. The idea that they're only asexual because they've never been in a "real relationship" is something asexuals hear a lot; it should probably have a spot in the next edition of asexual bingo. So what constitutes a "real" relationship? In the eyes of most of the world, and the people saying it, a romantic relationship, and probably one that includes sex-- which is something many asexuals don't want to have.
Telling people they have to engage in unwanted sex before you consider their desires valid is a form of social coercion. It creates pressure on them to engage in unwanted sex, and it contributes to rape culture. When applied to women, it's a form of sexism as well, since women already face disproportionate pressure to engage in unwanted sex. Women's desires are already invalidated on so many grounds; adding more, telling women they have to check off "x" box before you consider their desires and experiences valid, is misogynistic.
Unfortunately, this phrase is found within feminist communities as well as outside of it. If your idea of feminist activism involves telling women you won't believe them about their sexual orientation until they have sex they don't want to have, you are not being a feminist, you are being a mouthpiece for the patriarchy. Go directly to feminist jail, do not pass feminist go, and do not collect two hundred feminist dollars. Go to your room and rethink your feminism. Women's desires and identities are not something on which you can place conditions. An orientation doesn't need "x" amount of relationship experience to make it valid; romantic desire doesn't need "x" amount of sexual desire to make it valid; platonic desire doesn't need "x" amount of romantic desire to make it valid.
Feminism means trusting women to be the authority on our own identity and desires, against a background of misogyny that tells us women shouldn't have any desires and need men to tell us what we want, anyway. Feminism means listening to women about our own experiences and identities. And feminism means not coercing us into unwanted sex by refusing to believe our own accounts of ourselves until we have it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)