Jump to content

The New York Times recognizes us!


Sally

Recommended Posts

Sorry, can't paste stuff into main white space

Why Asexuals Don’t Want to Be Invisible Anymore - The New York Times

Why Asexuals Don’t Want to Be Invisible Anymore

By ANNA ALTMAN SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 3:44 PM

Julie Sondra Decker is a writer. She lives in Florida, likes playing Dance Dance Revolution, and has known since she was about 14 that she was not, nor would she ever be, sexually attracted to anyone. Ever. As she writes on her blog, “I’m thirty-six years old, not interested in dating or marriage, and not planning to have children.” In other words, “I’m an aromantic asexual woman.”

Ms. Decker published a book this month called “The Invisible Orientation: An Introduction to Asexuality.” The book provides an introduction to asexuality for those new to the concept, also called “the fourth orientation”; information and definitions for those who think they may identify as asexual; and a section for non-asexual, or “allosexual,” people who might know someone who is asexual.

Ms. Decker explains, in an excerpt published for Time, that asexuality is not a disorder, it does not refer to someone who has “not met the right person,” and it is not something that needs to be “cured.” A post on DailyKos by “ApostleofCarlin,” who identifies as asexual, explains that asexuals “are born that way. We didn’t choose to not have sexual attraction, it’s just how we’re wired. That makes asexuality a different phenomenon from celibacy, which is the conscious decision to abstain from sex.”

To help those who are trying to figure out what it means to be asexual, Ms. Decker asks a series of questions: “Are you sexually attracted to other people? Do you feel the need to make sex a part of your life? Do you have a desire to introduce sexual activities into your relationships?” An answer of no to any of those questions, Ms. Decker writes, could mean that someone is asexual. (For more information, Ms. Decker and others refer interested parties to the Asexual Visability and Education Network, or AVEN.)

In an interview with Tracy Clark-Flory on Salon, Ms. Decker carefully explains that asexuals distinguish between sexual arousal, sex drive and sexual attraction: “Sexual arousal suggests a physiological response, sex drive suggests a desire to respond to arousal or a desire to pursue sex, and sexual attraction suggests an experience of finding someone sexually appealing.” These distinctions are important, especially in the case of masturbation: “An asexual person might have a libido and be able to get aroused, but not have those experiences directed at anyone.”

Ms. Decker similarly decouples romantic feelings and sexual feelings: “Some of us are romantically attracted to people even if we’re not sexually attracted to them, and some of us may experience sensual or aesthetic attraction.” Allosexuals tend to have their romantic and sexual feelings align, but this isn’t true for asexuals, and so new terms and definitions are required. “With terms like heterosexual biromantic, they can have words for their feelings.”

Mark Carrigan, a sociologist who reviewed Ms. Decker’s book, hopes the book will be an answer to the common, but indeed troubling, questions that curious or disbelieving people ask asexuals. He writes that asexual people are often told that their feelings don’t exist. Instead, “it must be their hormones, psychological damage, repressed child abuse. Don’t they know that sex is natural? Don’t they realise that sexuality is an integral aspect of the human condition?” (Ms. Decker created an Asexual Bingo card with the most commonly heard responses.) Mr. Carrigan calls such questions “deeply hurtful.”

In her interview with Ms. Clark-Flory, Ms. Decker offers a perspective on rights asexuals want. Issues of marriage equality apply to asexuals, too: “There are still some places that have consummation laws. In these places, a partner who desires sex can legally annul a marriage if the expected intercourse is not allowed or not possible, and this affects sex-repulsed and sex-reluctant asexual people,” Ms. Decker explains.

If a couple admits they don’t have sex, that can have adverse effects on their rights: Immigration officials interviewing a bi-national couple may insist that a real marriage requires sex, while in the case of adoption, as Ms. Decker shares in an anecdote, “an asexual couple reported that they were adopting partly because they did not want to have sex to conceive a child themselves, and they were told they were not eligible to adopt because ‘if you’re asexual, you’re not fit to be married.’”

Spousal rape can also be a problem: “Asexual people are at a much higher risk for being coerced or forced into sex by a partner only to be told that being in a relationship or being married renders them in a constant state of consent and that they, not the assaulting partner, are ‘abusing’ their mate if they withhold sex.”

In certain cases, the L.G.B.T. community has not embraced the asexual community (which often uses the term “aces,” from the word’s first syllable, to refer to those who identify). In some cases, L.G.B.T. activists bridle at the asexual community’s appropriation of the word “queer.” Kristen Bahler, writing for Vice last year, explains that the community’s low profile is resented by gay activists. Ms. Bahler quotes a Tumblr user named Aria who says, “Practicing sex/sexuality slightly differently, or not at all, does not make you queer,” and David Jay, the founder of AVEN, says, “A lot of people in the queer community have fought so hard for sexuality, they can’t understand how the asexual community is connected to what they’re doing.”

Calling asexuality a “fourth orientation” doesn’t mean the community is simple or easily defined, however. A 2011 online census generated by Asexual Awareness Week asks a series of questions about how asexuals understand their orientation. There are other identities on the asexuality spectrum, including grey-asexuals (those who only rarely experience sexual attraction) and demisexuals (someone who only experiences sexual attraction after a strong emotional bond is established). Some asexuals think of themselves as aromantic: individuals who don’t experience romantic attraction and have no interest in having a romantic relationship. Sixteen percent of asexuals who responded to the 2011 survey consider themselves aromatic, and 72 percent of asexuals are “sex positive,” meaning they think it’s O.K. for other people to have sex.

As Amelia Tait writes in a piece this month on Vice about aromantics, “all of this variation doesn’t make the label less valid.” Ms. Tait argues that all human relationships are complex and unique, so a broader vocabulary to qualify each experience could be helpful. “I guess the real question is why aren’t there more labels for the way that we relate to each other?” she asks.

Edited by ithaca
added article for future reference
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
Arctic_Revenge

On another positive note: I accidentally highlighted the word 'asexual' and my auto-google dictionary responded with us, instead of the straight-up biology class definition.

+1 Recognition.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
Amoeba-Proteus

Good article.

However, I don't understand the one person's comment about "how can you expect a reader to properly absorb this concept of asexuality, when you compliment it with an image that arouses and visually teases..."

I just have to ask... Is a person standing in a window behind a curtain, fully clothed... actually, seriously enough to arouse people? What the hell...? How sexually obsessed does one need to be, that they can't handle a picture of someone in a window, in order to be able to absorb an article. My goodness...

I'm sorry, but really...?

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yay! and i love how it isn't worded in a way that made it seem like it was by asexuals for asexuals, so I could post it on my social media :)

Amoeba-Proteus, I know what you mean haha I saw that too and was like are you seriously THAT sexual that you see curtains as provocative lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/op-talk/2014/09/24/why-asexuals-dont-want-to-be-invisible-anymore/?post_id=100001595716440_813527288710454#_=_

I couldn't view the article on my phone because for some reason the link wouldn't work, but i hunted it out through google and thought I'd link it here again just in case anyone else has trouble with the original link :) (funny if I found a completely different article but I'm pretty sure it's the same one hehe)

great article by the way! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Amoeba-Proteus

@PurpleKoolaid: I agree, it was well written and informative. I think it summarizes things really well for someone who has never heard of it before.

I couldn't wrap my head around that comment, honestly. Once again, making me kind of glad to be ace, because if things that simple, are THAT distracting and stimulating, I would not want to spend my life like that. I don't know what being "turned on" feels like, but I think being "turned on" by simple things that you'd see all the time, would be incredibly annoying... I think I'd feel ashamed of myself actually... :blink: (Not telling people to be ashamed of themselves. I'd just be ashamed of my own self if I got turned on by a window.)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link! Nice article, though as usual, I made the mistake of reading the comments. Is it really that hard for some people to understand that labels are necessary? I mean, do they have a name? And how do they do their shopping?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, what a well thought out article. How refreshing! And better yet I can still sleep easy because I made sure not to even wander near the comment section.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is really nice that asexual people are gaining some recognition, but some reactions on the comments to this remind me of why I usually don't bother talking to people.

I mean, classifying not wanting to have sex in a marriage as abusive is... Kind of offensive, and if the couple is smarties you can assume that the sexual partner knows of the asexual one's situation and agreed to live with it, so what the hell.

And another guy, claiming he can't understant the concept of asexuality because the picture used is sensual (I don't even see what about that photo could be sensual, but what would I know).

Just. Why did I read the comments. WHY.

On the positive side, some other people understood that sexuality is a thing that changes from person to person and had flexible ways of thinking about it even without knowing of the label asexual, so that's good, I suppose. I know I can't expect this of everyone, but I'm still sort of disappointed.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that post. Well worth a look...way 'down here' it could have snuck past without me seeing it! Cia :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moved from Visibility and Education Projects to World Watch.
Also edited url into post.

Robin L, Project Team

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ace-TheTimelordsCompanion

Awesome article, thank you!
For those who feel slightly sick, like me, after reading those damn comments, if it helps you sleep then counter argue! There are some lovely rebuttals here, why not post them there. I've commented and replied a little, under the name 'Sue', but mine are not as lovely and concise as others on here. I know it may feel like trying to empty the ocean with a sieve, but I think such a lovely article deserves our support. I also think that it may be very damaging if an ace who hasn't found aven reads the comments, and no one has argued back at the worst ones. For anyone who has commented, please say what name you commented under if you want to, and we can all cheer you on.

P.S. I hope I got my replies on their comments right, I'm fairly new here still, and trying to explain is still tricky

EDIT: I don't get the curtain thing either, my thoughts on seeing it were, in order: 'Creepy', 'DOCTOR WHO!!!!', and finally 'what an awesome metaphor of us being invisible'. Sexuality didn't feature till I read the comment, and it still strikes me as weird.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Astrochelonian

Good article.

However, I don't understand the one person's comment about "how can you expect a reader to properly absorb this concept of asexuality, when you compliment it with an image that arouses and visually teases..."

I just have to ask... Is a person standing in a window behind a curtain, fully clothed... actually, seriously enough to arouse people? What the hell...? How sexually obsessed does one need to be, that they can't handle a picture of someone in a window, in order to be able to absorb an article. My goodness...

I'm sorry, but really...?

The guy making the comment about the "sexy" picture in the window was almost certainly (I am 99% sure) being sarcastic. It was a joke, and he was aiming to be funny by saying he couldn't concentrate on an article about asexuality because of the (totally innocent) "arousing" picture. Sarcasm is notoriously hard to always convey in a written media.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not realize that asexual people were not allowed to adopt children in some places... ? As, being "not fit to be married," and therefore, an "asexual couple" cannot adopt... ? With so many kids that need homes, you would think they'd be freakin' happy to find a person or couple that won't molest the little urchins... !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally the comment I had the most issues with was the one that said that an enormous amount of research should be done before the creation of a new gender (and yes gender was the word that they used) and that at this time, they had no way of knowing if we were actually some other orientation with personal reasons for avoiding sex.

Seriously? Did you read the article?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading about citizenship laws in NZ because eventually my partner wants to move here, and it said to apply for a citizenship as a partner you have to have been married/living together for a certain amount of years and prove that you are in a sexually active relationship. sure, we're happy to lie about the sex part, but should we really have to? seems so old fashioned to me. I understand that some people might try to fake a marriage or a partnership, but hopefully the govt catches on soon that there is such a thing as people who can have a romantic relationship, even be married, without the need to have sex with each other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

but hopefully the govt catches on soon that there is such a thing as people who can have a romantic relationship, even be married, without the need to have sex with each other.

So true, and there seem to be so many people out there who simply can't get their head around the fact that romantic relationships minus the sex DO exist.

It makes me so mad ... that's why I simply had to reply to a comment. (I know I should have just skipped the readers' comments, but I couldn't.) Somebody wrote that "it's different than being LGBT. Those are people who don't want to be shunned, or worse, attacked by people, when they show affection for each other in public, for example." Ah, sure. Because being asexual means that we're incapable of showing affection by default, that we can't love another person of the same gender and that we're probably unfit for any type of human relationship, anyway. :angry:

And then he goes on to say that "what underpins this desire for acceptance is really a non-acceptance of oneself." Yeah, right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quintus Crinis

I was reading about citizenship laws in NZ because eventually my partner wants to move here, and it said to apply for a citizenship as a partner you have to have been married/living together for a certain amount of years and prove that you are in a sexually active relationship. sure, we're happy to lie about the sex part, but should we really have to? seems so old fashioned to me. I understand that some people might try to fake a marriage or a partnership, but hopefully the govt catches on soon that there is such a thing as people who can have a romantic relationship, even be married, without the need to have sex with each other.

Hopefully you don't have to be living together for a certain amount of years to allow the person to move at least semi-permanently?

I think the bit about proving you're in a sexually active relationship though is unfortunately common - certainly marriage is only considered valid in the UK if there has been "consummation". Hopefully that'll change some-point soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good article (except I'm laughing like a hyena on how the author spelt aromantic as aromatic...teehee), and, of course...the comments. There were some decent souls who commented but the rest? *smacks his head with a crowbar*

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that SwankIvy's book?

Yep.

My publisher says they asked for a copy of the book, but she was considering it so unlikely that they'd write anything that she didn't tell me about it at first, haha.

I thought it was a lovely article for the most part, despite a couple of glitches. (The definition of "sex positive" in context, for instance.) But yeah, those comments are the worst. It seems kinda similar to the flipping out some of the Salon commenters engaged in--they seemed to be under the impression that we're out to trick them into marrying us and then gleefully denying them sex, and that we somehow think it's unfair for them to divorce us over this. The ACTUAL issue is that we often DO disclose--if we feel empowered to do so--and people simply don't believe us. They outright believe we are not serious, no matter what we say. The partner and everyone in both partners' lives repeat that sex is inevitable for a married couple. I even saw them saying that for an asexual married couple--both partners were asexual--and people were still saying wellllllll if they're married you KNOW it WILL eventually happen, it just has to, because, uh, it has to.

So if you imagine that a mixed-orientation relationship containing an asexual person and a non-asexual person leads to marriage, EVEN IF the asexual person KNOWS they're asexual and/or that they want to be abstinent, they can tell their partner and the world that until the cows come home and they will Still Expect Sex. And blame us for it if it turns out we were actually serious.

It's the fact that sex "legitimizes" and cements a marriage that we have a problem with. Not some kind of disastrous, distrustful, misleading marriage in which we're somehow using our immense social power to harness unsuspecting folks into miserable sexless marriages.

Beyond that, it's the "BUT WHY DO WE EVEN NEED LABELS" and the "OH GOD THOSE MILLENNIALS THINK THEY'RE SO SPECIAL" comments that really irritate me. Not that it's a legitimate comment to make in the first place (invalidating someone over their youth), but I'm freaking thirty-six years old and still being told I'm just not old/mature enough to know my sexuality. Considering I'm also old enough that some people are literally telling me I'm too old to have a sexuality and must have just "lost" my sex drive, I'm pretty sure it's all about invalidating us by any means necessary--doesn't matter if it's full of contradictory reasons.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...