The Asexual Thread

[Cassiopeia]

Allonormativity does exist.

People do assume that adult people are sexually active. People do assume that everyone is  into sex, wants to be sexually appealing, enjoys porn, etc.

When a psychologist puts sex in the same category as food and water in the pyramid of human needs, I find it...kinda dodgy?! Getting laid is rad, but you know, celibacy isn't lethal. Allosexual people can go without sex for decades and they are fine.

 

Of course it is really tangled up with heteronormativity, cisnormativity, fatphobia, sexism, etc. because ignorance and bigotry often isn't limited to just one concept.

Yes, it is sexist that when I want to buy a damn piece of clothing, everything in the ladies section is transparent, frilly, pink, flashy or an actual loincloth. But also, it is rooted in a misconception that I, as a woman would dress to sexually appeal to someone all the time. Yes they also assume that I'd wanna dress high femme, appeal to a male gaze, that I'm size 0 and what parts of my body I am comfortable with or what parts should I have... But also, the whole concept of sexiness is based on the assumption that you want sex.

Yes, it is all sorts of cissexist and transphobic when a trans person is out of the blue questioned on how they have sex and what kind of parts they have and what they do with them... But its also allonormative to assume that they even want to have sex.

Assuming that a man's masculinity is tied to the number of sexual partners he had or that men can't be raped because a guy must want it all the time, are examples of the toxic masculinity+allonormativity combo.

Amatonormativity and allonormativity are especially closely tied together, people treat sex and romance as a package deal, and that hurts both alloaros and alloaces quite intensely, but also everyone else to varying degrees.

 

And yes, there are groups of people society really desperately wants to be asexual, to name a few disabled people, trans people, fat people, old people etc. Because its convenient. Or they treat these people as fetishes. But that is very different story.

 

Being part of a minority is not a guarantee that one isn't a dick to other minorities. Heck, even as part of a minority group you can perpetuate your own group's oppression. Being oppressed or not having certain privileges does not automatically make one a good or kind or accepting person. I am a woman, but I have to thrive to unlearn sexism. I am queer, but I still have to make an effort to unlearn homophobia. As an aro, I'm unlearning lots of stuff as we speak. I made a thread just to discuss internalised amatonormativity and how to dodge the self hate I think we all carry with ourselves to some degree.

People do not exist in vacuum, we internalise all sorts of harmful beliefs, we are trying to conform to norms, seek validation and approval even if it harms us in the process.

 

[Tal Shi'ar]

Amatonormativity affects homoromantics in its own way. The amount of stories I've heard homoromantic people getting knocked back for things available to homosexual people such as scholarship grants etc for basically being "not gay enough" because of their asexuality.

[morallygayro]

17 minutes ago, Cassiopeia said:

Allonormativity does exist.

People do assume that adult people are sexually active. People do assume that everyone into sex, wants to be sexually appealing, enjoys porn, etc.

 

 

Yeah, but most people don't benefit from that! As an autistic, mentally ill adult who is simultaneously desexualized and hypersexualized for my disabilities, as an intersex transgender adult in two marginalized communities where people are treated like sexual predators because our bodies violate gender roles, and as a bisexual adult who is told they're a sinner for acting on sexual desires, I don't ever benefit from assumptions that I'm sexually active. They just contribute to my oppression.

22 minutes ago, Cassiopeia said:

Allonormativity does exist.

People do assume that adult people are sexually active. People do assume that everyone into sex, wants to be sexually appealing, enjoys porn, etc.

 

 

Yeah, but most people don't benefit from that! As an autistic, mentally ill adult who is simultaneously desexualized and hypersexualized for my disabilities, as an intersex transgender adult in two marginalized communities where people are treated like sexual predators because our bodies violate gender roles, and as a bisexual adult who is told they're a sinner for acting on sexual desires, I don't ever benefit from assumptions that I'm sexually active. They just contribute to my oppression.

 

4 minutes ago, Tal Shi'ar said:

Amatonormativity affects homoromantics in its own way. The amount of stories I've heard homoromantic people getting knocked back for things available to homosexual people such as scholarship grants etc for basically being "not gay enough" because of their asexuality.

Yeah, about that:

 

1. Don't call gay people homo- anything. Ever.

2. The assumption that same-gender attraction has to be sexual to be valid isn't "amatonormativity". It's homophobia.

3. Why did they mention their asexuality in the first place? Why is that necessary information?

[Tal Shi'ar]

8 minutes ago, morallygayro said:

 

 

2. The assumption that same-gender attraction has to be sexual to be valid isn't "amatonormativity". It's homophobia.

3. Why did they mention their asexuality in the first place? Why is that necessary information?

 

That's one of the main points amatonormativity boils down to, is the expectation that everyone is sexual, so not being sexual brings a level of invalidation.

As for people mentioning their asexuality, from what I remember, people thought it just seemed relevant, or that since they considered themselves part of a minority, that it'd be a bonus card. Turns out that bonus card is only good for ace erasure a lot of the time, which brings me back to my first point here.

[Faeriefate]

14 minutes ago, morallygayro said:

Yeah, but most people don't benefit from that! As an autistic, mentally ill adult who is simultaneously desexualized and hypersexualized for my disabilities, as an intersex transgender adult in two marginalized communities where people are treated like sexual predators because our bodies violate gender roles, and as a bisexual adult who is told they're a sinner for acting on sexual desires, I don't ever benefit from assumptions that I'm sexually active. They just contribute to my oppression.

Yeah, but most people don't benefit from that! As an autistic, mentally ill adult who is simultaneously desexualized and hypersexualized for my disabilities, as an intersex transgender adult in two marginalized communities where people are treated like sexual predators because our bodies violate gender roles, and as a bisexual adult who is told they're a sinner for acting on sexual desires, I don't ever benefit from assumptions that I'm sexually active. They just contribute to my oppression.

 

Yeah, about that:

 

1. Don't call gay people homo- anything. Ever.

2. The assumption that same-gender attraction has to be sexual to be valid isn't "amatonormativity". It's homophobia.

3. Why did they mention their asexuality in the first place? Why is that necessary information?

 

Homophobia isn't saying someone's attraction has to be sexual to be valid. That is, indeed, amatonomativity, and it affects homoromantics in the same way as homosexuals. Because people don't think that romantic attraction is valid without sexual attraction, and that's a very real issue that homoromantics face.

[Tal Shi'ar]

Actually, you've brought up two amatonormative points just here. Men are expected to be sexual, especially when dealing with their attraction with women. I've not only witnessed this first hand, but also, do to peoples amatonormativity have been slandered and scrutinised for my lacking sexuality.

 

As for assuming a man and a woman being in a relationship, this is amatonormativity and heteronormativity all over, as well as assuming their romantic or sexual orientations, which to a small extent amatonormativity affects.

[Cassiopeia]

31 minutes ago, morallygayro said:

Yeah, but most people don't benefit from that!

 Social norms don't necessarily benefit the individual.

Some norms are even absolutely harmful, but people still perpetuate them because of complex reasons.

[morallygayro]

12 minutes ago, Tal Shi'ar said:

Actually, you've brought up two amatonormative points just here. Men are expected to be sexual, especially when dealing with their attraction with women. I've not only witnessed this first hand, but also, do to peoples amatonormativity have been slandered and scrutinised for my lacking sexuality.

 

As for assuming a man and a woman being in a relationship, this is amatonormativity and heteronormativity all over, as well as assuming their romantic or sexual orientations, which to a small extent amatonormativity affects.

"Men are expected to be sexual"

"Assuming a man and a woman are in a relationship"

Those are both caused by gender roles and heterosexism. Neither of which negatively affect only aros or all aros, and both of which some aros benefit from - therefore, they don't target aros for being aro, therefore they are not arophobic or """amatonormative""". 

 

Cis people - especially masculine presenting cis men - benefit from gender roles, and some aros are cis people (and specifically, masculine presenting cis men).

 

Straight people, including straight aros, benefit from heterosexism, and some aros date and can develop romantic feelings for others. So are you saying that grayromantics and aros in romantic relationships benefit from this amatonormativity bullshit? And if so, isn't that arophobic because it implies that grayros aren't really aro? You can't have it both ways.

[Faeriefate]

13 minutes ago, morallygayro said:

But I wasn't talking about "everyone". I was talking about LGBQ people. Men's attraction to women isn't expected to be sexual in order to be seen as valid. Women's attraction to men isn't expected to be sexual in order to be seen as valid. But achillean and sapphic couples, especially sapphic couples, are often mistaken for close friends when a man and woman would instantly be assumed to be in a relationship in the same situation. Again, not amatonormativity - homophobic double standards.

Judging by your profile, you're not even attracted to your same gender at all - but I am. So what the hell do you think you know about homophobia that I don't? Where do you get off saying what is and is not homophobic, after I just told you that this is?

 

And same-gender attraction isn't treated the same as different-gender attraction, so yeah, saying that someone's same-gender attraction has to be sexual in order to be valid = assuming that all LGBQ people are sexually active = hypersexualizing LGBQ people = homophobia.

 

Also, how many times do I have to say it - stop calling gay people homos. 

 

There's nothing on my profile that could tell you that I'm not possibly homoromantic, so I don't know why you're telling me I have no grounds to say what's homophobia.

 

Plus you're saying that assuming LGBQ are sexually active is hypersexualizing them, which is far from the truth. Just because someone assumes you're sexually active doesn't mean that you're sexualizing them at all. It simply means that you assume that they have sex because everyone has sex. In fact, you could be completely sex repulsed by a person and still assume they are sexually active.

 

On top of that, why do you keep saying LGBQ? I feel that's more offensive than anything I've said, because it's discluding Trans people from the community, which I assumed that an aromantic would understand how hurtful that is. You know, since many LGBT communities disclude asexuality.

[morallygayro]

1 minute ago, Thom said:

 

There's nothing on my profile that could tell you that I'm not possibly homoromantic, so I don't know why you're telling me I have no grounds to say what's homophobia.

 

Plus you're saying that assuming LGBQ are sexually active is hypersexualizing them, which is far from the truth. Just because someone assumes you're sexually active doesn't mean that you're sexualizing them at all. It simply means that you assume that they have sex because everyone has sex. In fact, you could be completely sex repulsed by a person and still assume they are sexually active.

 

On top of that, why do you keep saying LGBQ? I feel that's more offensive than anything I've said, because it's discluding Trans people from the community, which I assumed that an aromantic would understand how hurtful that is. You know, since many LGBT communities disclude asexuality.

What genders are you attracted to?

 

And it's immediately obvious from my profile that I'm trans. I wasn't excluding trans people from the LGBT community - I just didn't bring them up because some trans people don't experience homophobia.

[Faeriefate]

1 minute ago, morallygayro said:

What genders are you attracted to?

 

And it's immediately obvious from my profile that I'm trans. I wasn't excluding trans people from the LGBT community - I just didn't bring them up because some trans people don't experience homophobia.

 

I quite disagree. I think it's homophobia that drives transphobia. People don't think that someone should be with someone with the same gender, but when they see a trans person it confuses them. If a male dates a transfemale because he's gay as that female was born a male? If a male dates a transmale is he gay because this person looks like a male? Trans people are a lose/lose situation for homophobes, and they're scared because what if they date someone without knowing that they're trans?

 

As for what genders I'm attracted to, I fail to see how that matters here. You can't label me as homoromantic, or heteroeromantic, or any romantic because I identify with no gender. So, technically you can't say that I'm attracted to the same gender or a different gender, and assuming otherwise is equivalent to assuming my gender.

[Tal Shi'ar]

27 minutes ago, morallygayro said:

"Men are expected to be sexual"

"Assuming a man and a woman are in a relationship"

Those are both caused by gender roles and heterosexism. Neither of which negatively affect only aros or all aros, and both of which some aros benefit from - therefore, they don't target aros for being aro, therefore they are not arophobic or """amatonormative""". 

 

It's less to do with what's -phobic and what isn't, It's the fact that romance and sex are normative things. Of course some aro's are going to be able to deal with romantic aspects or avoid it all together if they're sexual, but people definitely start feeling the pinch when they're aro ace or romantic ace. Lacking a sexuality gets us a lot of crap thrown at us. If anything, it leads moreso to acephobia, but it has the potential to hurt potentially anyone.

[Faeriefate]

7 minutes ago, morallygayro said:

What genders are you attracted to?

 

And it's immediately obvious from my profile that I'm trans and bi. Which means that:

 

1. If you're not attracted to your same gender, you don't get to fucking tell me what is and is not homophobic and what does and does not hypersexualize LGBQ people. In any conversation between me and anyone who isn't attracted to their same gender, I get the only valid opinion on what is and is not homophobic, because in that conversation I am the only person who actually experiences homophobia. And I'm telling you that you're a homophobe.

 

2. I wasn't excluding trans people from the LGBT community - I just didn't bring them up because some trans people don't experience homophobia.

 

And you can hypersexualize someone without wanting to have sex with them. Many straight women hypersexualize sapphic women by assuming they're predatory and refusing to be around them after the sapphic woman comes out to them. Many straight men hypersexualize achillean men by assuming we all want to have sex with them, by calling us sinners and fags, by making our sexuality a sin (something that straight women also do to sapphic women), and by assuming we're pedophiles. And many dyadic cis people have blanket policies of refusing to have sex with intersex and trans people, but that doesn't seem to stop them from making futanari and tr*nny porn, as well as assuming all trans people (especially trans women) are sexual predators. A lot of white people have similar policies about people of color, but that doesn't stop them from coming up with racist fetishes like "yellow fever" or "BBC" (Big Black Cock) or making sexualized portrayals of WoC in the media. And you - your orientation is inherently ableist because it relies on neurotypical norms of intelligence, but would that stop you from sexualizing hypersexual mentally ill people? I doubt it.

 

Wow, is it my birthday? What ignorant comment should I go into first?

 

1. I don't identify as any gender, so you can't dictate whether I'm attracted to "the same" gender or "the opposite gender". I'm not masculine, or feminine, or agendered, or genderfluid, or anything. Therefore, it's very offensive for you to say that I'm "not homoromantic" or "am homoromantic" because you're ignoring my own labels. Which, by the way, you've been doing from the start when you assumed that I couldn't be attracted to the same gender because I'm sapioromantic.

 

2. Tranny is offensive word, so you can't yell at peopel for using the term homosexual or homorotoantic because it's something that people actually identify as, but calling a trans person a tranny is the equivalent of using a slur.

 

3. You again assume more things about my identity by calling me ableist and assuming that my identity is based on neurotypical norms of intelligence.

 

4. Saying that I sexualize hypersexual mentally ill people is extremely offensive for several reasons. Hypersexuality is an actual mental disorder that is characterized by the dsyfunctional preoccupation with sexual fantasies and sexual acts. Yes, a disorder, that people would go to a psychiatrist or psychologist for. That term, is also very offensive to use incorrectly. Saying I sexualize anyone is ignoring my identity again. As an asexual, I like walking through my daily life and pretending like no one has sex. In fact, I'm quite comfortable in assuming that no one has sex. I don't imagine anyone have sex because I'm sex repulsed, and the image greatly upsets me. Another fun fact if you would ask me for my labels rather than assuming things. Last, the whole statement defies itself. You can't say that I'm prejudice against people that are "mentally ill" as you so eloquently put it, then turn around and say that I sexualize them in the same sentence. Not only does that ignore my label as an asexual, but it contradicts itself.

[aussiekirkland]

What a mess

[Tal Shi'ar]

Yeah, since this ended up being unnecessarily aggressive, I'm gonna temp lock this.

[owl]

Thread unlocked.  

[Zema]

@morallygayro there's a common theme that I've noticed across many of you posts that I need to address. You seem to have this idea that because your problems are worse than others, their problems aren't real or don't matter. Please stop this. I said it before in the misplaced homophobia thread that everyone deserves a safe space. This is the only place that I am able to talk about asexuality and it's not fair that you've come along and have told the asexuals here that their problems aren't real or don't matter. Let me tell you something: everybody has problems in their life, no matter big or small. And they are real problems that they have to deal with. They don't need someone coming along telling them that their problems aren't real. It is true that there are asexuals who face difficulties because they are asexual. No, they aren't as severe as the problems that LGBTPQ people have to face. That doesn't mean that the asexual person doesn't have issues or that their issues don't matter.

 

I'd also like to address that homophobia and transphobia have no direct correlation to asexuality. Sure, there are asexuals who are gay/lesbian and there are asexuals who are trans, but any homophobia or transphobia they face isn't to do with their asexuality. I'm sure you'd agree with that last statement no? Because of this, it just doesn't seem fair that you would start a discussion about these things in the asexual thread. Both of those things are worthy of discussion and deserve there own threads, but this isn't the place to discuss them. I don't want any more posts from anyone unless they are related to asexuality.

 

@morallygayro if you would like to discuss what I have said further, please PM me. DO NOT REBUT ME IN THIS THREAD. I am willing to have a discussion about this, but I would very much prefer that it wasn't in this thread and remained private.

[aussiekirkland]

2 hours ago, Zemaddog said:

@morallygayro there's a common theme that I've noticed across many of you posts that I need to address. You seem to have this idea that because your problems are worse than others, their problems aren't real or don't matter. Please stop this.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Louis On Air]

Oh wow, in my absence I avoided a full bell curve of drama.

Anyway I don't really have that much to say about asexuality because you only get to sex after some form of verbal intimacy and I never go there and therefore don't picture myself in the situation of needing to decline sex. Aromanticism just makes more of my identity because I'm rejecting romance before thinking about sex. Obviously you can have sex without romance but I'm looking for neither and people tend to acknowledge romance first.

[Dodgypotato]

4 hours ago, Louis Hypo said:

Oh wow, in my absence I avoided a full bell curve of drama.

Anyway I don't really have that much to say about asexuality because you only get to sex after some form of verbal intimacy and I never go there and therefore don't picture myself in the situation of needing to decline sex. Aromanticism just makes more of my identity because I'm rejecting romance before thinking about sex. Obviously you can have sex without romance but I'm looking for neither and people tend to acknowledge romance first.

Yes. This is exactly how I feel as well. Couldn't have put it better.

 

But... I love cake... A lot. So that affects me quite a lot. A very great deal, in fact. Icecream cake is pretty damn awesome.

[Quinoa]

There was a tumblr post floating around recently about aro aces really being in their own category. I couldn't find it, but I read it and really liked it. It's hard for me to separate what makes me aro and what makes me ace, and how each of them affects me. 

[Philbo Wiseroot]

On 7/10/2016 at 1:07 AM, Zemaddog said:

@morallygayro there's a common theme that I've noticed across many of you posts that I need to address. You seem to have this idea that because your problems are worse than others, their problems aren't real or don't matter. Please stop this. I said it before in the misplaced homophobia thread that everyone deserves a safe space. This is the only place that I am able to talk about asexuality and it's not fair that you've come along and have told the asexuals here that their problems aren't real or don't matter. Let me tell you something: everybody has problems in their life, no matter big or small. And they are real problems that they have to deal with. They don't need someone coming along telling them that their problems aren't real. It is true that there are asexuals who face difficulties because they are asexual. No, they aren't as severe as the problems that LGBTPQ people have to face. That doesn't mean that the asexual person doesn't have issues or that their issues don't matter.

 

I'd also like to address that homophobia and transphobia have no direct correlation to asexuality. Sure, there are asexuals who are gay/lesbian and there are asexuals who are trans, but any homophobia or transphobia they face isn't to do with their asexuality. I'm sure you'd agree with that last statement no? Because of this, it just doesn't seem fair that you would start a discussion about these things in the asexual thread. Both of those things are worthy of discussion and deserve there own threads, but this isn't the place to discuss them. I don't want any more posts from anyone unless they are related to asexuality.

 

@morallygayro if you would like to discuss what I have said further, please PM me. DO NOT REBUT ME IN THIS THREAD. I am willing to have a discussion about this, but I would very much prefer that it wasn't in this thread and remained private.

 

Well said!

On 7/12/2016 at 5:52 PM, Dodgypotato said:

But... I love cake... A lot. So that affects me quite a lot. A very great deal, in fact. Icecream cake is pretty damn awesome.

 

Ice cream cake? Will that do? I see my aro-ness affects me more than being ace for the reasons @Louis Hypo said. 

[Zema]

I went to my first ace meet last Friday. I had a good time, even though there was only 4 of us. It helped having dodgy there as a friend otherwise I would have been really nervous.

 

At this ace meet, we played cards against humanity. We were playing an alternate version where you pick random white cards for every black card. It can lead to some rather interesting results. In one of the rounds the black card read, "For my next trick I will pull _______ out of ________." And it seems that the stars seemed to align in just the right way because the two random cards I picked were "teenage pregnancy" and "my genitals" in that order . At an ace meet. I can't even.

 

Also, a person at the ace meet gave everyone ace rings. They're just little rubber rings usually used in taps, but they still work as ace rings. I'm still wearing it actually and will continue to wear it until I get a metal ace ring.

 

EDIT: I just realised that I should probably include a picture . So here it is:

 

I should also mention that dodgy and I bought 2L of icecream beforehand like the true aros we are .

[Zema]

Australia, by and large, has good anti-discrimination laws. I won't go into detail, but it protects people on the basis of race, sex, intersex status, gender-identity and sexual orientation just to name a few when I went digging into the anti-discrimination laws in Australia, it defines sexual orientation to be, ‘a person’s orientation towards persons of the same sex, persons of a different sex, or persons of the same sex and persons of a different sex’ which is problematic as it completely excludes asexuals.

 

What irks me is that the definition for gender in Australia is much more inclusive than the definition of sexual orientation. Gender is defined as, ’the gender-related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of a person (whether by way of medical intervention or not), with or without regard to the person’s designated sex at birth' This definition includes genders that most people have never heard, and even some which don't have a term yet. Why can't the definition of sexual orientation be this inclusive?

 

Yes I realise other countries have it much worse than Australia. But this is one fine point which needs to be fixed. Because, as of now, I can't get protection from anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation, because asexual isn't defined as a sexual orientation.

 

 

[Nai]

I'll jump into this thread too I suppose. I spend more time on AVEN than I do here for...reasons.

 

Agree that AVEN has its issues, but at least it's not as bad as Tumblr. <_<;;