asexuality | Asexuality and phobias

Asexuality and phobias

I was taking part in a discussion on facebook's asexual. group page where somebody asked why a man she talked to reacted in such an angry, hostile way to her saying that she was asexual. She didn't understand what he found so threatening about her asexuality. There's also a lot of online wank at the moment regarding whether aces qualify as queer or not. But here's my take on why people may find our sexuality - or lack of it - threatening.

Society pushes sex at you from every angle, and for men, the idea that sexual perfomance is the basis of masculinity. It's very similar, in its way, to traditional homophobia: men who are afraid that the positive feelings they have towards other men somehow threatens their heterosexual orientation even if those feelings aren't sexual in nature, and the lingering idea that homosexual men are somehow emasculated by their sexual practices.

'Real' men are supposed to have sex, and lots of it. It's all a load of bullshit, of course, but stereotypes usually are. Asexuals aren't sexually attracted to them - therefore they are somehow failing, regardless of the fact that it has nothing to do with them personally. Or possibly somebody has had sex with them in the past and failed to enjoy it - again, a threat to their own sexual identity and masculine confidence. Perhaps they don't feel a burning desire to go out and have sex all the time (the way 'real' men should), and it has them worrying that they are suffering from some kind of sexual dysfunction, and you just have to watch one ad for male erectile dysfunction to know how utterly disastrous this is. (Nothing like making you feel bad to get you to buy something.)

For women, it's the idea that our value lies in our attractiveness to the other sex. It doesn't matter how much we 'know' that this is shallow, objectifying and degrading behaviour: we want to be sexually attractive, because society judges us on those merits in the absence of its ability to see others - like intelligence, caring, personality - at a glance.

Feminism has both helped and hindered. We are supposed to be sexually active and enjoying it, these days; it is our right as liberated women. But asexuals don't want this, and some of the old stereotypes creep through - 'frigid', 'spinster', that sort of thing. 'Left on the shelf' is one of my favourites, because it is wonderfully descriptive of the negative connotations of not being in a relationship - nobody wants you. We don't necessarily want to be alone, but if sex is the basis for most modern relationships, then we don't have anything to offer. The idea of other reasons for a relationship - companionship, affection, support - all seem to pale in the absence of sex, because that is what modern society tells us we should want.

Ironically, a lot of this still holds true for non-heterosexual communities. The LGBT community has been fighting for a long time to be recognised, to have the same rights as everybody else. Some of them object to the fact that asexuals have 'passing privilege': we can have hetero-romantic relationships, and therefore are 'straight' - but we're not. We're not sexually attracted to the opposite gender; we're not sexually attracted to the same gender. They can still find us threatening to their own sexual identities just as much as the hetero-normative majority can. And because we're outside their norm, too.

A hetero-romantic asexual has some of the rights that they want - legally recognised marriage, for example - but may or may not choose to exercise them. A hetero-romantic or aromantic asexual will not have to deal with the persecution that comes with being in a relationship with somebody of the same gender. A homo-romantic or bi-romantic asexual still doesn't necessarily want to have sex with someone of the same gender - a state which may impact their own feelings of sexual attractiveness. At the same time, some may feel that it calls into question the long campaign for them to be allowed to have sex with somebody of their own gender without fear of religious, legal or societal persecution.

In the end, it's not that different from any other minority-based phobia or prejudice: it's because we're different. And in being different, we make others worry about how they are different, or what we might take away from them because of our differences.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

This was a fascinating read. Thank you for posting this.

I really like your thoughts on this. May I link to it elsewhere?

Feel free :D

Thank you. :)

Also linking, because this was fantastic!

While I think there definitely IS a stigma around asexuals, and being asexual ('you've probably been sexually abused' and 'you have sex, so you can't be asexual' are a few I've gotten a lot). I don't think it's exactly on par with the kind of oppression the GBLT community faces. There is inter-sectionality, to be sure, but hostility, confusion and erasure is probably the worst most of us face. No arguments that it's outside the norm, because it is, but our needs and problems as asexuals are rather different from the GBLT community and I personally feel it is unfair to compare them, or try to say it is the same.

It has similarities, yes, but there are similarities across the board for racism, sexism, ableism and so on... it doesn't mean it's fair to compare experiences. Although I know what it's like to be treated differently for being asexual, I don't know what it's like to be shunned/persecuted for being gay, lesbian, or trans (bi is debatable, as I've been with women). Since I'm dating a man, I DO get passing privilege. It is also very unlikely for someone to react with violence towards an asexual, compared to the GBLT community.

So though I do think the points you've made here are valid, I don't think it's fair to try and say it is similar to all minority-based prejudice. It appears similar, yes, but our experiences are way different in the end. I agree people would find it threatening (I met a man once who treated me appallingly because I didn't find him attractive. He harassed me for years), but not for the same reasons as the GLBT community (afterall, people are 'okay' with gays, lesbians and bisexuals... as long as they're not having sex, or only having sex with who they deem appropriate). Though with homo-romantics or bi-romantics, there would be overlap when they're in a relationship with someone, because no one is going to know they aren't having sex if that's the case. I would say in those cases, an asexual person could identify as queer.

As for feminists, anyone who is going to judge a woman (or a man, because an asexual man undermines the misogynist idea that men are supposed to have a lot of sex) for how much sex they are or aren't having, they are doing it wrong, lol. In recent years, feminism is supposed to be about what empowers a woman personally.

Yes, we are different, but it's not as likely we are going to be killed, fired, lose all or most of our friends, face violence, threats or daily fear of harassment. Sometimes I'm sure this is definitely the case for some of us, and there are other things socially that may suck for us... but I don't feel it's quite on the same level as other institutionalized oppressions.

I personally feel our societal needs are different; we definitely have prejudices against us that suck and yes, they should be addressed in our society for sure. :) But by and large, it's not quite on the same level as other prejudices out there.

Forgive me if that's what you were saying here, and this post was just pointing out the similarities!

Why does this always turn into Oppression Olympics?

No one here - or anywhere that I have seen recently - has said that oppression is expressed in exactly the same way. But just because it's different doesn't invalidate that oppression happens.

"Asexuals DON'T EXIST." That is oppressive. If I had a dime for every time I heard/read that we don't exist, or that it's a choice (like celibacy), or that it can be fixed (like a disease), or one time I read that "an asexual is not a person" (sighs) - I could retire and live off that money for the rest of my life.

If you do any social justice studies the qualifying concept is "On the Margins," "invisible to society," etc. That is enough. You don't have to physically be beat up to be oppressed: being told that you don't exist is enough.

(deleted comment)

Okay, I guess I read it like that, because I didn't see anywhere in the original post that might have lead to the OP needing to be told not to get into the 'OO.'

As to being part of the group: I frankly don't care one way or the other. I've been ousted out of enough GBLT places, even as an ally, that I don't have a desire to try anymore. However, if others want to be seen that way, I have no objection to the "Queer = everything not hetero-normative" definition. Which is the one I was raised with as far back as the early '80s.

However, I object vehemently to being told I'm straight when I'm not. Which is the response most of the GBLT groups give when Aces are ousted from them.

Erp, sorry for the deleted comment, wanted to reword something!

I don't have any opinion one way or another as to queer being anything not heteronormative, but if the queer community DOES, then we should listen to the reasons why. Our intent is not to be offensive, but that doesn't mean it's not. Personally I would not feel comfortable IDing as such because I feel our needs and oppression differ too greatly from theirs.

And I agree it's offensive to be ID'd as straight when you don't ID that way. That's also wrong. :/ We might get passive straight privilege sometimes, but that doesn't mean we actually are straight. Kind of part of the erasure thing.

NP it happens. :)

If they have reasons beyond "you can pass for straight" and/or "you are straight" and/or "Aces have NEVER been beat up (etc) for being ace." I'd be more than happy to hear those out. But, those points are invalid because they're simply not true.

And at least to this point, I haven't heard any other reasons for why the definition of queer has suddenly changed. (Suddenly being in the last 5-10 years)

Well, I can definitely agree that being asexual =/= straight. Dictating someone's sexual orientation to them is just ugh. :| But nor do I think that means asexuals can always deny they have passing privilege.

I don't think the definition has changed, just been refined. Like I said, I think asexuals have some overlap with the queer community, but I'm not sure we fit there either. They were the ones that adopted the term queer, so who are we to dictate what that means? I personally feel that using it to define Ace's is a bit problematic BECAUSE our oppression is rather different from theirs. I can see how they might feel that we might be appropriating their oppression to be heard.

I do hope someday the GLBT community and Aces can work together on topics where there's overlap, but as it stands we're just on rather different levels, I think. We both have different issues that need to be addressed differently.

I don't think the definition has changed, just been refined.

Previous definition: Queer = everyone not hetero-normative.

"Refined" = only those who can't 'pass' for straight. And yes, I have been seeing Bi/Trans folks getting excluded from the Queer definition.

Hmm, I can see the problems with that definition. Someone having passing privilege as being bi or trans does not necessarily mean they aren't queer. :/ Again, it's that thing where you shouldn't really tell people what they can ID as. (For us, I just think IDing as queer is more confusing than IDing as asexual, but having relationships with the same sex, both sexes, or being trans would make an asexual person fall under queer, I would think...)

Personally this is the first time I've heard of that phenomenon. I'm not sure how I feel about it. :/

But, to not ID as queer is your opinion/choice. There are other aces who DO want ID that way for whatever reason. As I said, I don't know that I would, but I don't think they should be told "well you can't because of 'passing privilege'"

I think there probably needs to be an open discussion about it between both communities, to figure out something that would be good for everyone involved.

That would be best, but I think we're a long way off from that, unfortunately. (I'm a bit pessimistic, but I've encountered a lot of hostility just from working on a research project :S )

The problem I keep running into is that the people telling me that asexuality is not queer don't really have the authority to speak for the whole queer community - particularly as there have been plenty of instances where members of that community have welcomed asexuals in as part of the group. So they're out there pushing their definition, but it's in direct opposition to another definition being pushed by other parts of the same community.

I don't really claim the term. I used to, and I still feel that the it describes me, as I follow the broader definition, but at the end of the day it's just a word and I don't need to take a bunch of abuse over it. What bothers me more is that the exclusion in terminology is also meant by many to be an exclusion from the whole community. I'm not saying we deserve to walk in and have everything they've fought for handed to us on a silver platter, but the fact that some people seem determined to make us unwelcome even as allies is troubling.

I haven't run into anyone like that, so I'm very sorry you been treated that way by some people in the queer community (not that it's up to me to apologize for anyone, but that doesn't mean it doesn't suck!).

I can't really agree that it's just a word, because it's a powerful word the community has fought to reclaim in the positive instead of negative. I can see why it's very important to the community, and I can see why they might defend it from things they feel threatened by. I can see how they might be worried about the Ace community appropriating their oppression (because I have seen that before, though I'm not by any means saying all Asexuals do this), but I can also see how there could be a space for Aces in the queer community, if only as good allies with some common goals.

There are a lot of people who think they are good allies who are not, if we're entering certain spaces that are specifically gay, lesbian, bi or trans safe-spaces, I do feel it would be inappropriate to bring asexual experiences into that, no matter how similar they may be. In those circumstances, I would probably react badly as well. But if they are treating Aces badly BECAUSE they are Aces, that would most certainly be wrong.

I don't know, it seems a very delicate matter, a lot more complicated on both sides than it seems. I can't say for sure what a better solution would be. :(

wow. I... think I shall respond here.

As I said in the original post, the fact that we don't necessarily face the same persecution as the LGBT community is one of the things that makes them feel we are a threat to their identity - and their cause. The majority of us certainly aren't in danger of being gay-bashed.

We also aren't completely free of the threat of some form of physical violence, but it takes a rather alarming trend. I was quite disturbed to find one person on my FB group did feel that she was threatened with sexual violence due to making her asexuality known (thankfully from someone no longer in her life). There seems to be a recurring theme of sexual harrassment, but this, too, could be considered something that the victims suffered not because they were asexual, but because they were female and uninterested. That says something rather sorry about how far we haven't come in terms of gender equality, because rape-culture is alive and well.

But the Oppression Olympics is every bit as sad and ridiculous a sporting event as it sounds - I'd really rather not compare them. It seems that it always comes down to 'Who is oppressed more?' when it's not the relevant question. The question is 'Who is oppressed and why?' and it should be followed by 'How can we fix this?' It is not a case of who suffers more. The oppression we do suffer from on a regular basis is erasure, the outright denial that we exist, and this comes at us from many different angles, including from some within the LGBT community.

I personally don't claim any great trauma on the basis of my asexuality, just a long period of confusion and occasional low self-esteem. Learning about asexuality resolved a lot of this for me. If I had been aware of it earlier, it might have helped - which is why I think more awareness is needed. Denying our existence does not further this, because you are denying our right to fix things for future generations.

Ironically, the other discussion that was taking place on FB was 'Do you identify as queer or not?' Queer is an appropriated term, one that the LGBT community reclaimed in order to empower themselves. We do fit the dictionary definition, but it is overwhelmingly linked with a community that is defined primarily by their sexuality - and as asexuals, we don't fit that definition. Some ace are just as offended by the idea of being labeled 'queer' as they are by being labeled 'straight', because they feel these are, at the end of the day, sexual labels that therefore do not fit them. Some LGBT groups are very accepting of us, some are not: sadly, it is up to us to discover which are which the hard way. But prejudice can and does exist within minority groups, and the argument that 'I am oppressed therefore I cannot be a bigot' doesn't really hold water.

I was linked to an article from one LBGT group vehemently denouncing another where the writer, identifying himself as LGBT, declared all asexuals to be mentally ill and sexually dysfunctional people who should stop trying to label themselves queer and seek medical help instead. I would identify myself as queer because I do not fit the norm. But I am not going to argue the point with those who disagree, because I don't think they are worth arguing with. What I will argue is that yes, I am asexual, and yes, we do exist - and anybody who does feel threatened by that should ask themselves why.

I didn't say we didn't experience prejudice or oppression, only that it was not on the same level as the GBLT community, so that it was unfair for us to keep making comparisons to them. Not to mention, in the GLBT community, there is a lot of asexual erasure as well. That would put our needs kinda outside the GLBT community.

This not being the 'Oppression Olympics' was exactly my point.

i've been part of lgbtq organizing for years...and the queer male partners who abused me on multiple levels adhered to "sex positive" rhetoric. when i came out about the abuse, i was told i was too frigid and unliberated. in my own personal experience, i've never experienced lots of shit for identifying as queer, but plenty of hostility/rape culture rhetoric for not putting out. but i'm just speaking for myself and my own experiences here. although i think it's a subsection of misogyny, personally. i personally rank my race/class/gender as primary categories that determine how people treat me. this isn't to tell anyone else what to do.

♥ Brilliant this. I've always thought though that sex being the heart of a relationship a stupid idea and the thing is, most people I know judge their relationship by how much/little/good the sex is. Shouldn't there be more to a relationship?

Oops...went a little there.

...my point was that I loved this.

Ironically, a lot of this still holds true for non-heterosexual communities. The LGBT community has been fighting for a long time to be recognised, to have the same rights as everybody else. Some of them object to the fact that asexuals have 'passing privilege': we can have hetero-romantic relationships, and therefore are 'straight' - but we're not. We're not sexually attracted to the opposite gender; we're not sexually attracted to the same gender. They can still find us threatening to their own sexual identities just as much as the hetero-normative majority can. And because we're outside their norm, too.

You know, I recently got a letter and survey from an organization fighting for LGBTQ rights. And the letter kept on hammering away at using the same phrase over and over and OVER: "straight ally."

Now, I'd consider myself an ally. But I don't identify as straight. So the phrase is wrong there. And I'm not one of the people that the organization is fighting for, either. I've heard them talk about lesbian rights, trans rights and gay rights. Bisexuals rarely are mentioned, and I've never seen any acknowledgement that asexuals exist.

But leaving aside the fact that I don't fit into either the "ally" or the "people we're fighting for" category, I don't see why it's so important to know who likes what in bed when you're talking about someone being on the side of LGBTQ rights. Why not just say "allies"? Why define allies by their sexual orientation when the gay community protests being seen solely in those terms? Why is the sexual orientation of allies in any way relevant?

There was a place on the survey where I could comment and say what I thought the organization could do differently. I told them to stop using the exclusionary term "STRAIGHT ally," listing all of the reasons that I found it wrong.

I used to hear from the organization at least three times a day. I haven't heard from it since I sent back the survey with that comment. And I have no idea why.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Asexuality and phobias

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Late to the party, but...