Many people think that being asexual means you don't have sex, you don't enjoy sex, you don't have any interest in sex. This is not necessarily true. Celibacy and asexuality are not synonymous; one is a life choice, and one is a sexual orientation. Some asexuals don't want to have sex or think about sex; some don't care; some do want to have sex and do think about sex.
These last two categories tend to confuse people. Think about it like food. Asexuals never get hungry; they don't look at a plate of macaroni and cheese and immediately feel their stomach growl. In fact, some asexuals don't even like to think about food, but some don't mind it. The asexuals that don't mind thinking about food still don't get hungry, but they can still enjoy eating it, sometime. Just because it doesn't fulfill a need doesn't mean it doesn't taste good.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Yes, I Made an Environmentalist Post. Try Not To Faint.
Today I saw Starbucks's brand of bottled water, Ethos. According to the company, for every bottle purchased, five cents will be donated to helping people around the world access clean water.
This is unabashed greenwashing. (For a lovely use of the word unabashed, in an equally lovely pro-feminist and unfortunately discontinued webcomic, click here.) Bottled water contributes to the privatization of water, which is not something we need. Bottled water companies can contribute to environmental degradation and to aquifer depletion, especially in poor rural areas. Bottled water requires a lot of fossil fuel to make the bottles and to transport it to its destination, and most of the bottles end up in the trash, not the recycling.
I have a better idea. Find a glass mason jar, glass wine bottle, or other glass container with a lid. Find some old rags, and rubberband them around the container to protect it from breaking in case of rough treatment. Fill your new water bottles from the tap, and for each commercial water bottle you don't buy, donate five cents to your local stream, bay or river cleanup, or to an organization working to promote responsible water use, or dig wells. There you go-- just like Ethos, except... ethically.
This is unabashed greenwashing. (For a lovely use of the word unabashed, in an equally lovely pro-feminist and unfortunately discontinued webcomic, click here.) Bottled water contributes to the privatization of water, which is not something we need. Bottled water companies can contribute to environmental degradation and to aquifer depletion, especially in poor rural areas. Bottled water requires a lot of fossil fuel to make the bottles and to transport it to its destination, and most of the bottles end up in the trash, not the recycling.
I have a better idea. Find a glass mason jar, glass wine bottle, or other glass container with a lid. Find some old rags, and rubberband them around the container to protect it from breaking in case of rough treatment. Fill your new water bottles from the tap, and for each commercial water bottle you don't buy, donate five cents to your local stream, bay or river cleanup, or to an organization working to promote responsible water use, or dig wells. There you go-- just like Ethos, except... ethically.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Being Ace, part 1
Trigger warning for rape and sexual assault, as well as acephobia and suicide. General non-trigger warning for gloom.
Inspired by the recent attempts to tease out whether or not sexual privilege exists, I decided to start a place where we could make a community effort to compile some of the less-frequently talked about negative experiences of being ace, grey-ace, or demi. Everyone knows about being told asexuality only applies to bacteria, being told you're broken, or that your sexual orientation is made up, stupid, or inherently misogynist or slut-shaming, but there are more serious issues that don't seem to come up a lot. These are anecdotes, and there are no numbers. We don't know how widespread these things are; we don't even know how many asexuals there are. A lack of much hard data is one of the problems in the asexual community. Please, please, contribute in the comments! (I'm not trying to erase grey-aces and demis; please read "asexuals" as a broad category that includes these orientations. Also, after some thought, I have decided not to link to the specific places I found asexuals talking about corrective rape, because I wasn't sure if the people talking about their experiences would be okay with being singled out like that.)
1.) Asexuals can marry, if their chosen romantic or platonic partner is, in the state or country where they reside, considered the opposite sex, or if they live in a state that permits same-sex marriage. However, in several states, non-consummation of a marriage is considered grounds for annulment, which offers fewer legal protections than does a divorce. (Of course, some or many asexuals have sex.)
2.) Asexuals report experiencing corrective rape, corrective sexual assault, and threats of such, from both straight people and queer people.
3.) Asexuals can be subject to or coerced into unwanted, unneeded, and invasive medical procedures and treatments based on an assumption of their sexual activeness (though asexual and celibate are not synonyms; many people who are not sexually active are not asexual, and many asexuals are sexually active). An example would be a Pap smear, or hormonal birth control-- or hormone therapy.
4.) I've seen at least one report of an ace kid being beat up at school, specifically for being ace. (I didn't link to this one because I can't remember where I saw it. If anyone does, please link me. I think it was in the comment section of an imbroglio, either at ontd_f or sf_drama.)
5.) At least some groups of at least two major world religions that I know of teach that it is a spouse's responsibility to have sex with or please their spouse sexually. Some people argue (quite wrongly, of course) that failure to do so is grounds for justifying the infidelity of their spouse.
6.) A wildly unscientific AVEN survey reports that about 65% of asexuals surveyed have seriously considered committing suicide; about 30% felt that their asexuality was connected to considering suicide.
7.) While some or many aces consider themselves introverted and are happier either being alone or having clear boundaries to mark of when and where they can be alone, asexuals who feel otherwise may be more likely to end up alone or more lonely than they would like, since asexuals, aromantics, and double aces don't participate or can have trouble participating in some of the ways our society considers most significant for forming deep bonds. Being alone can be distressing in many ways, ranging from the practical like having no one to execute your power of attorney, to higher blood pressure and greater risk of depression.
8.) Asexuals and aromantics whose primary intimate relationships don't take the form of marriage or civil union may have trouble with things limited by law to family members. For example, in many places only family members can ride with someone in an ambulance or visit them in certain wards of hospitals. As far as I know, mechanisms to designate a non-family member as legally able to do these things are few and far between.
What am I missing? Let's discuss in the comments.
Inspired by the recent attempts to tease out whether or not sexual privilege exists, I decided to start a place where we could make a community effort to compile some of the less-frequently talked about negative experiences of being ace, grey-ace, or demi. Everyone knows about being told asexuality only applies to bacteria, being told you're broken, or that your sexual orientation is made up, stupid, or inherently misogynist or slut-shaming, but there are more serious issues that don't seem to come up a lot. These are anecdotes, and there are no numbers. We don't know how widespread these things are; we don't even know how many asexuals there are. A lack of much hard data is one of the problems in the asexual community. Please, please, contribute in the comments! (I'm not trying to erase grey-aces and demis; please read "asexuals" as a broad category that includes these orientations. Also, after some thought, I have decided not to link to the specific places I found asexuals talking about corrective rape, because I wasn't sure if the people talking about their experiences would be okay with being singled out like that.)
1.) Asexuals can marry, if their chosen romantic or platonic partner is, in the state or country where they reside, considered the opposite sex, or if they live in a state that permits same-sex marriage. However, in several states, non-consummation of a marriage is considered grounds for annulment, which offers fewer legal protections than does a divorce. (Of course, some or many asexuals have sex.)
2.) Asexuals report experiencing corrective rape, corrective sexual assault, and threats of such, from both straight people and queer people.
3.) Asexuals can be subject to or coerced into unwanted, unneeded, and invasive medical procedures and treatments based on an assumption of their sexual activeness (though asexual and celibate are not synonyms; many people who are not sexually active are not asexual, and many asexuals are sexually active). An example would be a Pap smear, or hormonal birth control-- or hormone therapy.
4.) I've seen at least one report of an ace kid being beat up at school, specifically for being ace. (I didn't link to this one because I can't remember where I saw it. If anyone does, please link me. I think it was in the comment section of an imbroglio, either at ontd_f or sf_drama.)
5.) At least some groups of at least two major world religions that I know of teach that it is a spouse's responsibility to have sex with or please their spouse sexually. Some people argue (quite wrongly, of course) that failure to do so is grounds for justifying the infidelity of their spouse.
6.) A wildly unscientific AVEN survey reports that about 65% of asexuals surveyed have seriously considered committing suicide; about 30% felt that their asexuality was connected to considering suicide.
7.) While some or many aces consider themselves introverted and are happier either being alone or having clear boundaries to mark of when and where they can be alone, asexuals who feel otherwise may be more likely to end up alone or more lonely than they would like, since asexuals, aromantics, and double aces don't participate or can have trouble participating in some of the ways our society considers most significant for forming deep bonds. Being alone can be distressing in many ways, ranging from the practical like having no one to execute your power of attorney, to higher blood pressure and greater risk of depression.
8.) Asexuals and aromantics whose primary intimate relationships don't take the form of marriage or civil union may have trouble with things limited by law to family members. For example, in many places only family members can ride with someone in an ambulance or visit them in certain wards of hospitals. As far as I know, mechanisms to designate a non-family member as legally able to do these things are few and far between.
What am I missing? Let's discuss in the comments.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
What Asexuality is Not
This was inspired by the post on sexual privilege made on ONTD Feminism. I haven't responded there because I'm not a member of the comm, and because ONTD Feminism has a history of ace fail and I don't have high hopes that I'd be taken seriously.
Asexuality isn't a choice. It's not an option, or something you can do instead of being gay. Some people who identify as queer talk about being pressured to be asexual. But-- it's not possible to become asexual as an "alternative" to being gay. Someone who pressures a queer individual to become asexual is fundamentally misunderstanding the concept of being asexual and, in all likelihood, means celibacy instead. Celibacy /= asexuality. Asexuality is not experiencing sexual attraction. Celibacy is choosing not to have sex. You can be asexual and celibate, asexual and engaging in sex, sexual and celibate, sexual and engaging in sex... you get the idea. Does this make the situation any better? Well, no, but it's a common misunderstanding.
Asexuality isn't a pass out of being sexualized. This argument gets tricky because of semantics, but I'll try to be clear. One of the commenters writes, "Sometimes I wish I could find a way to erase everything sexual about myself so that I wouldn't have to worry about not being taken seriously." This concept that the commenter wants is not asexuality; it is not being sexualized. If asexuality got you being out of sexualized, I wouldn't have kept Wendy Shalit's books because of their message, problematic in many other ways though it is, that it's okay not to have sex. Sometimes I wish the same thing-- or rather, I wish that all the characteristics about myself that are considered sexual or sexual markers were interpreted differently by my culture so I was taken more seriously. But it's not a wish I can have, even though I am asexual, because that's not what asexuality is.
One question that came up is, how can queer people have the power to oppress asexual people? Certainly, individual people who identify as queer or gay can say oppressive things. (Just Google "Dan Savage asexuality" for more.) But one man doesn't constitute a good example. To be more broad, is it oppression to tell people they are broken, that they need to have their hormones checked, that they're confused, that they don't know what their own identity is? Is it oppression to rape someone because you don't believe their sexual orientation exists, so they must be lying about not wanting sex? I think it is. I think it's just as much oppression when a man does this to a sexual lesbian as when a woman does this to an asexual lesbian, or an asexual homoromantic woman. I'm reluctant to say much about this because I don't want to tell queer people what it's like to be queer; I may or may not be straight, but I can certainly pass well enough to have straight privilege.
On the Tumblr that launched the post, someone wrote, "you are queer if you want to have a relationship with a member of the same sex, regardless of whether or not you want to have sex. you are not queer if you want no relationship or a relationship with a member of the opposite sex." But... maybe I'm missing the point, but I think this statement actually demonstrates the nature of the problem (and erases bisexuality to boot). Of course I want relationships with members of the same sex: most of my best friends are women. I also want relationships with members of the opposite sex: some of my best friends are men. The very idea that when you say "a relationship" it's automatically assumed to be sexual or romantic, demonstrates asexual and aromantic invisibility, and the privileging of sexual and romantic relationships over non-sexual romantic relationships and platonic friendships. I'm not playing like I misunderstand the question to be provoking-- rather, I'm not sure I want meaningful relationships beyond friendships; I want some of those friendships to be with women. Does that make me queer? I certainly don't identify as queer, yet this definition would seem to imply that I do.
I don't know if sexual privilege exists or if asexual people can or should ID as queer; I don't ID as queer, so it's not my argument, and not what this post is about. Just teaspooning for education and visibility, here.
EDIT: I made the mistake of reading more comments when I got home tonight, and I... well, that was a mistake. I don't have the teaspoons to go through any more categorically. I wanted to point out, though, that for people who identify as feminists to be calling someone else's sexual orientation "stupid" is, um... not particularly feminist, to be understated about it.
Asexuality isn't a choice. It's not an option, or something you can do instead of being gay. Some people who identify as queer talk about being pressured to be asexual. But-- it's not possible to become asexual as an "alternative" to being gay. Someone who pressures a queer individual to become asexual is fundamentally misunderstanding the concept of being asexual and, in all likelihood, means celibacy instead. Celibacy /= asexuality. Asexuality is not experiencing sexual attraction. Celibacy is choosing not to have sex. You can be asexual and celibate, asexual and engaging in sex, sexual and celibate, sexual and engaging in sex... you get the idea. Does this make the situation any better? Well, no, but it's a common misunderstanding.
Asexuality isn't a pass out of being sexualized. This argument gets tricky because of semantics, but I'll try to be clear. One of the commenters writes, "Sometimes I wish I could find a way to erase everything sexual about myself so that I wouldn't have to worry about not being taken seriously." This concept that the commenter wants is not asexuality; it is not being sexualized. If asexuality got you being out of sexualized, I wouldn't have kept Wendy Shalit's books because of their message, problematic in many other ways though it is, that it's okay not to have sex. Sometimes I wish the same thing-- or rather, I wish that all the characteristics about myself that are considered sexual or sexual markers were interpreted differently by my culture so I was taken more seriously. But it's not a wish I can have, even though I am asexual, because that's not what asexuality is.
One question that came up is, how can queer people have the power to oppress asexual people? Certainly, individual people who identify as queer or gay can say oppressive things. (Just Google "Dan Savage asexuality" for more.) But one man doesn't constitute a good example. To be more broad, is it oppression to tell people they are broken, that they need to have their hormones checked, that they're confused, that they don't know what their own identity is? Is it oppression to rape someone because you don't believe their sexual orientation exists, so they must be lying about not wanting sex? I think it is. I think it's just as much oppression when a man does this to a sexual lesbian as when a woman does this to an asexual lesbian, or an asexual homoromantic woman. I'm reluctant to say much about this because I don't want to tell queer people what it's like to be queer; I may or may not be straight, but I can certainly pass well enough to have straight privilege.
On the Tumblr that launched the post, someone wrote, "you are queer if you want to have a relationship with a member of the same sex, regardless of whether or not you want to have sex. you are not queer if you want no relationship or a relationship with a member of the opposite sex." But... maybe I'm missing the point, but I think this statement actually demonstrates the nature of the problem (and erases bisexuality to boot). Of course I want relationships with members of the same sex: most of my best friends are women. I also want relationships with members of the opposite sex: some of my best friends are men. The very idea that when you say "a relationship" it's automatically assumed to be sexual or romantic, demonstrates asexual and aromantic invisibility, and the privileging of sexual and romantic relationships over non-sexual romantic relationships and platonic friendships. I'm not playing like I misunderstand the question to be provoking-- rather, I'm not sure I want meaningful relationships beyond friendships; I want some of those friendships to be with women. Does that make me queer? I certainly don't identify as queer, yet this definition would seem to imply that I do.
I don't know if sexual privilege exists or if asexual people can or should ID as queer; I don't ID as queer, so it's not my argument, and not what this post is about. Just teaspooning for education and visibility, here.
EDIT: I made the mistake of reading more comments when I got home tonight, and I... well, that was a mistake. I don't have the teaspoons to go through any more categorically. I wanted to point out, though, that for people who identify as feminists to be calling someone else's sexual orientation "stupid" is, um... not particularly feminist, to be understated about it.
What We Can Learn from the Rapture That Wasn't
The end of the world, as predicted by Family Radio, has not happened. I've watched the whole thing unfold with a sense of cringing, feeling bad for what Family Radio's adherents when May 22nd rolled around and they realized they'd given up their life savings, their kids' college funds, etc, for a mistake. There have been reports of people committing suicide for reasons related to the expected apocalypse, which is tragic.
But I can't help but wonder what the world would look like if more Christians had their zeal. They could have just sat in a compound somewhere and waited for the end of the world, but they tried to get the message out to as many people as they could in order to help them. It was the wrong message, but they spread it very well.
What if we had that passion? What if we sold our stuff and used the money to build wells and end world hunger? What if we gave up our spare time and used it to build houses? What if Christians made the news in a big way for something positive for once? What if we captured the world's attention by trying to be as selfless and loving as we are commanded to be?
It's a hard thing to believe in, honestly; I've been stuck in a rut in my faith for months now, and I feel too flawed to think that I would be able to contribute to something like that. But... believing in hard things is what we're all about, isn't it?
But I can't help but wonder what the world would look like if more Christians had their zeal. They could have just sat in a compound somewhere and waited for the end of the world, but they tried to get the message out to as many people as they could in order to help them. It was the wrong message, but they spread it very well.
What if we had that passion? What if we sold our stuff and used the money to build wells and end world hunger? What if we gave up our spare time and used it to build houses? What if Christians made the news in a big way for something positive for once? What if we captured the world's attention by trying to be as selfless and loving as we are commanded to be?
It's a hard thing to believe in, honestly; I've been stuck in a rut in my faith for months now, and I feel too flawed to think that I would be able to contribute to something like that. But... believing in hard things is what we're all about, isn't it?
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Not Sexual, Not Sexualized
I'm preparing for my ninth move in four years. I'm looking forward to settling down for some time, to being able to decrease my carbon footprint* by not flying across the country every four months. I hope there will be a post at some point about my new apartment with space to grow things to eat, a worm composting bin, and secondhand furniture. This is not that post.
I was going through my books, sorting out what I wanted to go with me and what I wanted to give away or sell, and I came across Wendy Shalit's books, A Return to Modesty and Girls Gone Mild. I hesitated over which box to put them in, because the books are problematic in many ways; someone once described them as encouraging women to find happiness by baking cookies.
The fact remains, however, that when I read Girls Gone Mild, something about it clicked with me even as I recognized there was a lot I disagree with. In retrospect, I think what I liked about it has to do with being asexual. Women face, or at least I face and faced, a lot of pressure to be sexual, sexually active, and sexualized. I experienced this in feminist circles as well, at least some of the time. It's kind of odd how sex positivity and patriarchy can both make women feel they should be having sex, or that they ought to have sex, or that something is wrong with them if they aren't having sex. While I think Ms. Shalit argues for a world where women are less sexualized for reasons with which I disagree, parts of the vision she paints are still attractive to me: a world where it's not considered odd that I want my social interactions with the vast majority of people to take place on the level of the brain, not the body; a world where I can call "time out" from being automatically seen as sexual, in both the sense of an orientation and the sense of something to be exploited; a world where virgin-shaming is just as unacceptable as slut-shaming.
What I think Ms. Shalit is wrong about is that women can bring about this change in any substantial fashion by what they do or how they dress, or that they are responsible for this change insofar as it applies to themselves. (What I mean by that is that men aren't the only ones responsible for slut-shaming, the objectification of women, and basically the kyriarchy in general; women reinforce these norms all the time, too, so we have the power to resist them, but we don't have the power, or the responsibility, to change how others perceive us.) I also think she's wrong in advocating a return to traditional gender roles, for obvious reasons-- the first and foremost being the older I get, the less I fit into them-- and wrong in reinforcing the double standard for male sexual behavior vs. female sexual behavior. If that seems like a whole lot of problems with the books, well-- consider, then, how rare it must be for me to hear "it's okay not to have sex or be sexual" if I kept them anyway.
At some point I want to reread them critically, from an asexual and feminist point of view, to see what positive things I can get out of them. Maybe I'll give them away after that, once I've gotten what I can out of them. Maybe this time I'll be so frustrated by the anti-feminism that I won't be able to get through them; it's been known to happen. (For a brief period in high school, for example, I very much enjoyed Twilight. When I went to reread, I gave the book to Goodwill.) We'll see.
*it's been months since I blogged in any substantial way about being green, and I regret not being more active about it, but at the same time it's comforting how many green things have been incorporated into my life to the extent that I do them even when I'm stressed. I still do the baking soda for my hair, I've barely turned on the heat or the air all year, I still line-dry my clothes, and though I get some conventional, not-ethically-raised dairy products sometimes, I'm a full-out vegetarian now, at least for the moment-- no humanely-raised meat. I still love my DivaCup, I can't remember when the last time I used a conventional cleaning product was, and I have a jar of sprouts going in the fridge now.
I was going through my books, sorting out what I wanted to go with me and what I wanted to give away or sell, and I came across Wendy Shalit's books, A Return to Modesty and Girls Gone Mild. I hesitated over which box to put them in, because the books are problematic in many ways; someone once described them as encouraging women to find happiness by baking cookies.
The fact remains, however, that when I read Girls Gone Mild, something about it clicked with me even as I recognized there was a lot I disagree with. In retrospect, I think what I liked about it has to do with being asexual. Women face, or at least I face and faced, a lot of pressure to be sexual, sexually active, and sexualized. I experienced this in feminist circles as well, at least some of the time. It's kind of odd how sex positivity and patriarchy can both make women feel they should be having sex, or that they ought to have sex, or that something is wrong with them if they aren't having sex. While I think Ms. Shalit argues for a world where women are less sexualized for reasons with which I disagree, parts of the vision she paints are still attractive to me: a world where it's not considered odd that I want my social interactions with the vast majority of people to take place on the level of the brain, not the body; a world where I can call "time out" from being automatically seen as sexual, in both the sense of an orientation and the sense of something to be exploited; a world where virgin-shaming is just as unacceptable as slut-shaming.
What I think Ms. Shalit is wrong about is that women can bring about this change in any substantial fashion by what they do or how they dress, or that they are responsible for this change insofar as it applies to themselves. (What I mean by that is that men aren't the only ones responsible for slut-shaming, the objectification of women, and basically the kyriarchy in general; women reinforce these norms all the time, too, so we have the power to resist them, but we don't have the power, or the responsibility, to change how others perceive us.) I also think she's wrong in advocating a return to traditional gender roles, for obvious reasons-- the first and foremost being the older I get, the less I fit into them-- and wrong in reinforcing the double standard for male sexual behavior vs. female sexual behavior. If that seems like a whole lot of problems with the books, well-- consider, then, how rare it must be for me to hear "it's okay not to have sex or be sexual" if I kept them anyway.
At some point I want to reread them critically, from an asexual and feminist point of view, to see what positive things I can get out of them. Maybe I'll give them away after that, once I've gotten what I can out of them. Maybe this time I'll be so frustrated by the anti-feminism that I won't be able to get through them; it's been known to happen. (For a brief period in high school, for example, I very much enjoyed Twilight. When I went to reread, I gave the book to Goodwill.) We'll see.
*it's been months since I blogged in any substantial way about being green, and I regret not being more active about it, but at the same time it's comforting how many green things have been incorporated into my life to the extent that I do them even when I'm stressed. I still do the baking soda for my hair, I've barely turned on the heat or the air all year, I still line-dry my clothes, and though I get some conventional, not-ethically-raised dairy products sometimes, I'm a full-out vegetarian now, at least for the moment-- no humanely-raised meat. I still love my DivaCup, I can't remember when the last time I used a conventional cleaning product was, and I have a jar of sprouts going in the fridge now.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Conflict Minerals and the DR of Congo
[Trigger warning for rape]
A new study reveals that rape in the Democratic Republic of the Congo occurs 26 times more frequently than was previously estimated. 1,150 women are raped every day-- and that figure doesn't include women under the age of 15, over the age of 49, men, or boys.
While about a fifth of the rapes are committed by husbands or partners, rape is still being used as a weapon of war-- sexual terrorism, to fragment communities and hurt millions of people.
This human rights violation is beyond words. You can take action against it by contacting the State Department and asking Secretary Clinton to urge the U.N. to take action. You can also take action by contacting your federal representative and senators and asking them to sponsor legislation addressing the conflict minerals problem; legislation has been introduced in the past to require electronics manufacturers to show that their supplies are "clean," but it has not been passed. A third way, possibly more productive, to help end the conflict in the Congo, with its accompanying horrifically high rape rate, is to stop purchasing new electronics unless you know that the source of the minerals in the electronics is conflict-free.
This is one of the things that shows us that everything is connected. Consumerism fuels rape; environmental problems fuel feminist problems. What everything boils down to is treating each other well, and realizing how much power we have, as consumers, to affect lives halfway around the globe.
A new study reveals that rape in the Democratic Republic of the Congo occurs 26 times more frequently than was previously estimated. 1,150 women are raped every day-- and that figure doesn't include women under the age of 15, over the age of 49, men, or boys.
While about a fifth of the rapes are committed by husbands or partners, rape is still being used as a weapon of war-- sexual terrorism, to fragment communities and hurt millions of people.
This human rights violation is beyond words. You can take action against it by contacting the State Department and asking Secretary Clinton to urge the U.N. to take action. You can also take action by contacting your federal representative and senators and asking them to sponsor legislation addressing the conflict minerals problem; legislation has been introduced in the past to require electronics manufacturers to show that their supplies are "clean," but it has not been passed. A third way, possibly more productive, to help end the conflict in the Congo, with its accompanying horrifically high rape rate, is to stop purchasing new electronics unless you know that the source of the minerals in the electronics is conflict-free.
This is one of the things that shows us that everything is connected. Consumerism fuels rape; environmental problems fuel feminist problems. What everything boils down to is treating each other well, and realizing how much power we have, as consumers, to affect lives halfway around the globe.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Yes Means Yes: Asexuality and Enthusiastic Consent
Since I blog about environmental issues on here, most of you probably don't know that I'm asexual. If you're not familiar with asexuality, AVEN has a good primer, though I find that the definitions at AVEN tend to be slanted towards the repulsed side of the community, and inadvertently erase some asexuals. The short version: asexuality is a sexual orientation defined by a lack of sexual attraction towards people. Think of it as heterosexuality being attraction to the opposite sex, homosexuality being attraction to the same sex, bisexuality being attraction to both sexes, and asexuality being attraction to neither or no sex. Subsets of the asexual community include grey-asexuals, who find themselves somewhere between being asexual and sexual, and demisexuals, who only experience sexual attraction with people they have a strong emotional/romantic bond with. Some asexuals are romantic-- heteroromantic, homoromantic, biromantic, etc-- and some are aromantic, with variations in between.
Now that the 101 is out of the way for new readers, on to the meat of this post. A Feministe post on enthusiastic consent got me thinking that it might not be a bad idea to talk about this asexual's misgivings about enthusiastic consent. I think the idea of yes means yes-- that is, not taking the absence of a "no" as sufficient proof of consent to sexual activity, but requiring the presence of a "yes"-- is really important, but I'm not sure we should consider "enthusiasm" a necessary part of the yes.
So: some asexuals identify as repulsed, meaning they're not interested in sex and in some cases find it repugnant, and some identify as indifferent, meaning anything from actual indifference to liking sex. A lot of people think asexuals liking sex is a preposterous or contradictory idea, but asexuality is defined by a lack of sexual attraction; it's not defined by a lack of libido/sex drive or by an inability to get aroused. Some asexuals experience these things also, but other asexuals masturbate and/or find the act of sex enjoyable.
Why would asexuals want to have sex? Well, as I just said, there's nothing in the definition of asexuality that stipulates a dislike of sex itself; it's just that not being sexually attracted to anyone can, as you might imagine, reduce interest in the subject. But some asexuals have sex for the physical pleasure, some have sex for the emotional intimacy, for the physical contact with their partner, because they like making their partner feel good, or some combination of these (and other) factors.
This is a lead-up to saying there are several reasons asexuals might want to have sex, or be willing to have sex, but that doesn't mean we're necessarily going to be enthusiastic about it; I would imagine that being sexually attracted to your partner would add a certain urgency or drive to the proceedings. Lacking that urgency or drive, however, doesn't mean the asexual lacks agency, a knowledge of hir own desires, or a willingness or desire to have sex.
It's perfectly possible and maybe even probable for an asexual person to consent to sex with a sexual person, and to want to have sex, but to not feel urgently enough about it to be at the "responding passionately, kissing you back, saying things like 'Yes' or 'Oh my God, don't stop'" headspace that's detailed in the Feministe post. And depending what it means to be "into" your partner "in bed," as detailed in this related post from the Yes Means Yes blog, that's a standard that asexuals cannot, by definition, meet. You can be into the act without being into your partner. You can be into the act without gasping about it, becoming incoherent, or leaving nailmarks on your partner's back.
Others have proposed alternative terms to "enthusiastic consent" to account for this wrinkle. Andrea on the Feministe comment thread uses "explicit consent"; one of my friends has suggested "affirmative consent"; Jaclyn Friedman mentions "active consent." Some of the nuances are addressed relatively well in the comments of the Yes Means Yes post, including the idea that yes means yes is a concept meant to keep people from raping, not from being raped-- that is, it means you need to make sure your partner actually wants to have sex with you, not just isn't saying no. Some commenters mention that the enthusiasm doesn't have to be for your partner, or for the sex itself; it can be for the physical pleasure, for the bonding, etc. I think that's a good way of putting it, though it may come with its own set of problems.
Other takes on asexuality and enthusiastic consent can be found at Writing from Factor X and the ace community on Tumblr. None of these posts are answers; this one is an attempt at an explanation and dialogue, so we can refine the (really good) concept of "yes means yes" so that it doesn't erase anybody's sexual orientation or agency.
Now that the 101 is out of the way for new readers, on to the meat of this post. A Feministe post on enthusiastic consent got me thinking that it might not be a bad idea to talk about this asexual's misgivings about enthusiastic consent. I think the idea of yes means yes-- that is, not taking the absence of a "no" as sufficient proof of consent to sexual activity, but requiring the presence of a "yes"-- is really important, but I'm not sure we should consider "enthusiasm" a necessary part of the yes.
So: some asexuals identify as repulsed, meaning they're not interested in sex and in some cases find it repugnant, and some identify as indifferent, meaning anything from actual indifference to liking sex. A lot of people think asexuals liking sex is a preposterous or contradictory idea, but asexuality is defined by a lack of sexual attraction; it's not defined by a lack of libido/sex drive or by an inability to get aroused. Some asexuals experience these things also, but other asexuals masturbate and/or find the act of sex enjoyable.
Why would asexuals want to have sex? Well, as I just said, there's nothing in the definition of asexuality that stipulates a dislike of sex itself; it's just that not being sexually attracted to anyone can, as you might imagine, reduce interest in the subject. But some asexuals have sex for the physical pleasure, some have sex for the emotional intimacy, for the physical contact with their partner, because they like making their partner feel good, or some combination of these (and other) factors.
This is a lead-up to saying there are several reasons asexuals might want to have sex, or be willing to have sex, but that doesn't mean we're necessarily going to be enthusiastic about it; I would imagine that being sexually attracted to your partner would add a certain urgency or drive to the proceedings. Lacking that urgency or drive, however, doesn't mean the asexual lacks agency, a knowledge of hir own desires, or a willingness or desire to have sex.
It's perfectly possible and maybe even probable for an asexual person to consent to sex with a sexual person, and to want to have sex, but to not feel urgently enough about it to be at the "responding passionately, kissing you back, saying things like 'Yes' or 'Oh my God, don't stop'" headspace that's detailed in the Feministe post. And depending what it means to be "into" your partner "in bed," as detailed in this related post from the Yes Means Yes blog, that's a standard that asexuals cannot, by definition, meet. You can be into the act without being into your partner. You can be into the act without gasping about it, becoming incoherent, or leaving nailmarks on your partner's back.
Others have proposed alternative terms to "enthusiastic consent" to account for this wrinkle. Andrea on the Feministe comment thread uses "explicit consent"; one of my friends has suggested "affirmative consent"; Jaclyn Friedman mentions "active consent." Some of the nuances are addressed relatively well in the comments of the Yes Means Yes post, including the idea that yes means yes is a concept meant to keep people from raping, not from being raped-- that is, it means you need to make sure your partner actually wants to have sex with you, not just isn't saying no. Some commenters mention that the enthusiasm doesn't have to be for your partner, or for the sex itself; it can be for the physical pleasure, for the bonding, etc. I think that's a good way of putting it, though it may come with its own set of problems.
Other takes on asexuality and enthusiastic consent can be found at Writing from Factor X and the ace community on Tumblr. None of these posts are answers; this one is an attempt at an explanation and dialogue, so we can refine the (really good) concept of "yes means yes" so that it doesn't erase anybody's sexual orientation or agency.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Peanut Butter, A Love Letter
Oh peanut butter, how do I love thee? Let me count the budget-friendly, time-friendly, environmental-friendly, ways.
My personal life has been in upheaval lately, leaving me busy and emotionally stressed. Frequently I don't take the time to, or don't feel up to, eating a meal, especially breakfast. What do I do then? Why, make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, of course! Quick, easy, cheap, and eminently digestible, peanut butter cures a multitude of ills. If you use the full 2 tablespoon serving, and use whole-grain-hippie-multiwhatever-5-g-protein-per-slice bread, you get 18 g of protein in one measly veg*n sandwich. Wash it down with a few swallows of milk, and you have a meal's worth of protein, which goes a long way towards offsetting the perils of not eating regular meals.
Never leave me, peanut butter.
My personal life has been in upheaval lately, leaving me busy and emotionally stressed. Frequently I don't take the time to, or don't feel up to, eating a meal, especially breakfast. What do I do then? Why, make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, of course! Quick, easy, cheap, and eminently digestible, peanut butter cures a multitude of ills. If you use the full 2 tablespoon serving, and use whole-grain-hippie-multiwhatever-5-g-protein-per-slice bread, you get 18 g of protein in one measly veg*n sandwich. Wash it down with a few swallows of milk, and you have a meal's worth of protein, which goes a long way towards offsetting the perils of not eating regular meals.
Never leave me, peanut butter.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
The Illusion of Being Powerless, pt. 2
I find it very easy to focus on the things I haven't done instead of the things I have done, both in general and in terms of making a positive difference in the world. For example, I tend to dwell on my diet, specifically on the difficulties of producing food in a shoebox-sized urban flat with no balcony or patio. It's difficult enough that I haven't tried. But in dwelling on that, I forget that I've gone vegetarian in the past few years and reduced my consumption of dairy products. I have trouble with some things like butter and cheese, but overall, most of the dairy and eggs I consume comes from sustainably raised animals. And in dwelling on not growing food, I forget that I walk or take public transportation nearly everywhere I go, at least when I'm at school; I forget about the things I've done that don't cost money, like having line-dried nearly all my clothes this year, or having run the heat less than 24 hours total all year.
This isn't me boasting. It's me giving myself a pep talk. It's so easy to forget about the changes we've made once we get used to them, and get caught up in focusing on how much there is still ro be done.
This isn't me boasting. It's me giving myself a pep talk. It's so easy to forget about the changes we've made once we get used to them, and get caught up in focusing on how much there is still ro be done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)