Asexual Women Musings

[Lonelyghost]

hi, im new but i thought that this is a very cool thread. I have had some issues with coming out as Ace to my family. They assume that as a woman, i should want a boyfriend and to have children. I have tried explaining what asexuality is to them, but they think that it " just isn't who you are". They think that as soon as i get into a relationship, that i will suddenly realize my sexual feelings. They think that i will grow out of it... anyhoo, thanks for the opportunity to vent 

[Salted Karamel]

On 5/22/2017 at 8:24 PM, borkfork said:

 

Most things have been gendered by society. Other than evo-psych bullshit you're not going to find a scientific reason why cosmetics are "feminine." We categorize things to make them easy to understand, mom is female and dad is male, but things don't need to be gendered to be understood. I don't believe watching hockey, fixing my own car, or drinking beer makes me less female. It makes me a person who enjoys hockey and beer, and doesn't pay crooked mechanics. 100 years ago it was scandalous for a woman to wear pants in public.

Beer! There's one of those crazy unnecessarily gendered things that not only makes men less manly for not identifying with, but also makes girls less cool for being too girly or something. The other one that comes to mind is cats/dogs. Woe be unto you if you're a girl who likes cats and doesn't like beer, because then you're apparently the girliest of the girly girls, and...this has been decreed Bad™. Of course, I suppose even more woe would be unto you if you were a guy who felt the same, because then you would also be the girliest of the girly men and that would be even more Bad™.

 

Basically the moral of the story is:

1. don't be feminine.

2. these arbitrary things here are feminine.

3. don't like these things.

4. if you do you are feminine.

5. being feminine is very Bad.

[Skycaptain]

@rose tyler. Welcome to AVEN and have our traditional greeting 🎂 🎂 

[fuzzipueo]

12 hours ago, katydidd said:

On 5/22/2017 at 6:24 PM, borkfork said:

Most things have been gendered by society. Other than evo-psych bullshit you're not going to find a scientific reason why cosmetics are "feminine." We categorize things to make them easy to understand, mom is female and dad is male, but things don't need to be gendered to be understood. I don't believe watching hockey, fixing my own car, or drinking beer makes me less female. It makes me a person who enjoys hockey and beer, and doesn't pay crooked mechanics. 100 years ago it was scandalous for a woman to wear pants in public.

Beer! There's one of those crazy unnecessarily gendered things that not only makes men less manly for not identifying with, but also makes girls less cool for being too girly or something. The other one that comes to mind is cats/dogs. Woe be unto you if you're a girl who likes cats and doesn't like beer, because then you're apparently the girliest of the girly girls, and...this has been decreed Bad™. Of course, I suppose even more woe would be unto you if you were a guy who felt the same, because then you would also be the girliest of the girly men and that would be even more Bad™.

 

Basically the moral of the story is:

1. don't be feminine.

2. these arbitrary things here are feminine.

3. don't like these things.

4. if you do you are feminine.

5. being feminine is very Bad.

There are cultures where only the men wear makeup/colors on their faces. As for beer? Bleh. I do have cats, but I don't drink alcohol. I don't wear dresses/skirts and the only time I put makeup on is at Hallowe'en. I certainly don't think of myself as a girly girl, I don't feel that girlish, much less female-ish (even If I'm stuck with all the parts).

[butterflydreams]

17 hours ago, Philip027 said:

I think you should be asking yourself, would that even be something you 1) want, and 2) think you could handle?  Do you think your life would be stable enough right now to actually be that mom, 24/7, for at least the next 18 years of your life (quite possibly more because you're not a douchebag that would just kick their kid out as soon as they were able)?  Because if not, it's kind of a moot point anyway, right?

Well, no, maybe not right now, but it would be nice if I felt like I was on that path. Or I could at least be married, or on that path as well.

 

17 hours ago, Philip027 said:

As far as I see it, being the loving involved aunt grants you most of the "benefits" of raising a child (if you could call them that; not everyone particularly loves being around kids and wouldn't necessarily see it that way) without having to be the one looking after them 24/7.  I know that's part of the reason why many people look into careers in childcare without actually desiring to be parents themselves -- they get to be around kids, but they also get to give the kids back to their own families at the end of the day for a reprieve.

It might be quite a while before my brother has kids, if he ever does. My sister might have kids sooner, but we don't get along super well. They're both younger than me too, so in terms of "child rearing age" they're both a little behind me.

 

I just saw it as an alternative and something to maybe hope for, and maybe a bit more realistic. I don't have much faith in myself and my ability to make anything resembling parenthood happen any time in the near future.

[Guest Deus Ex Infinity]

On 23.4.2017 at 9:41 PM, LVG said:

That sounds like the premise for terrifying dystopian sci-fi novel.

Possibly but not neccesarily.

[fuzzipueo]

18 hours ago, Hadley167 said:

A lot of my similar aged friends are getting married and having children. It's kind of tough honestly. It's one thing to say you don't want to have those things, but it's another when you know you can't.

 

I was kind of wondering today though, if my brother had kids, could I be that super cool aunt who is really involved in their lives? I don't have an example of that to know if it's a thing. My aunts and uncles were all pretty distant. The only family outside of my parents who had any real hand in raising me was my grandmother. Being an involved, loving aunt probably wouldn't be as good as being a mom though, would it? What a frustrating situation :/

I love being an aunt. I'm sorta co-parent with my sister, so we're raising the niece up between us. My niece practically lives with my dad and me on the weekends and during the holidays/summer vacation, so we spend a lot of time together. I'll admit, I prefer this situation, personally, as I've never wanted kids (I discovered when my sister was pregnant I have tokophobia in spades), but I still get to interact with a younger generation without too much trauma [we're currently experiencing teenagerhood, so there's a way to go yet LOL. Thankfully, the niece is not into drama!].

[Salted Karamel]

I feel like I would be okay with parenthood if I could be a father instead of a mother. Maybe. Which makes it baffling that the stereotype is that women want kids, because like, why would you ever want kids if you're a woman?? Men are the one who get the sweet deal out of it.

[Allegra]

Maternity leave sounds pretty good though...  OK, I have a friend who's adoring every minute and another who's bored and can't wait to go back to work, so I guess it's different for everyone. 

 

This isn't really a serious comment but more light-hearted, and I realize parental leave is a thing, and also that leaves differ greatly depending on what country you're in.

[PixieCat]

Anyone here have opinions on the 'responsive desire' thing that says women don't experience primary sexual desire until they're in the moment aka "Female Sexuality"? I want to see the viewpoints of people who are solidly ace on this issue, since I'm questioning and would love the input.

[CJcassandra]

I'm not sure. To me I can sometimes take it better "in the moment"...that doesn't seem like an easy answer

 

[CJcassandra]

I think it sucks that that is the idea, though. I think it's probably 100 percent un true, but until like the 50s women were considered mentally unstable if they wanted sex

 

[borkfork]

2 hours ago, PixieCat said:

Anyone here have opinions on the 'responsive desire' thing that says women don't experience primary sexual desire until they're in the moment aka "Female Sexuality"? I want to see the viewpoints of people who are solidly ace on this issue, since I'm questioning and would love the input.

I think responsive desire is different from feeling like lacking in sexuality at all. No one has ever described to me being hit over the head with  previously unknown sexual motivation after heavy petting. If the attraction or desire is vague or abstract, it's still there. It's just not the spontaneous "I wanna hit that" some naively believe is be all and end all.

 

I talked to a lot of non-internet people about things like this a few years ago.

[Snao Cone]

4 minutes ago, borkfork said:

I think responsive desire is different from feeling like lacking in sexuality at all. No one has ever described to me being hit over the head with  previously unknown sexual motivation after heavy petting. If the attraction or desire is vague or abstract, it's still there. It's just not the spontaneous "I wanna hit that" some naively believe is be all and end all.

 

I talked to a lot of non-internet people about things like this a few years ago.

I should really talk to more people offline about this. I think that a lot of people, more likely to be women, don't feel sexual desire/attraction on an independent basis, but still have a sense of sexual intimacy being a natural progression of romantic relationships they're in. They might not describe themselves as "sexual" as a standalone adjective, but that could be because they tie in their sexuality more with their romantic side. It's not raw to them, so they don't view it the way intense sexuality is often portrayed. The reason there may be many people like this who don't identify as asexual or question if they're asexual is because they still see sex as a stage that their relationship will eventually get to, if it is a relationship that's meant to be.

[Cimmerian]

On 5/23/2017 at 9:01 PM, Hadley167 said:

A lot of my similar aged friends are getting married and having children. It's kind of tough honestly. It's one thing to say you don't want to have those things, but it's another when you know you can't.

 

I was kind of wondering today though, if my brother had kids, could I be that super cool aunt who is really involved in their lives? I don't have an example of that to know if it's a thing. My aunts and uncles were all pretty distant. The only family outside of my parents who had any real hand in raising me was my grandmother. Being an involved, loving aunt probably wouldn't be as good as being a mom though, would it? What a frustrating situation :/

You could definitely be an involved Aunt. My extended family was pretty close and I grew up with a couple aunts I saw often and enjoyed getting to hang out with or who did little things like paint nails or just play. It won't be the same as being a Mom who has the job 24/7, but you could get a lot of the enjoyment at least.

 

3 hours ago, PixieCat said:

Anyone here have opinions on the 'responsive desire' thing that says women don't experience primary sexual desire until they're in the moment aka "Female Sexuality"? I want to see the viewpoints of people who are solidly ace on this issue, since I'm questioning and would love the input.

I don't really know what to say about it. I believe it exists, I believe responsive desire is probably more common in sexual women than other forms of sexual desire. I don't believe it's solely a "woman's" version of desire, and I believe some women experience primary sexual desire as prominently as the stereotyped male.

[JeyAce]

3 hours ago, PixieCat said:

Anyone here have opinions on the 'responsive desire' thing that says women don't experience primary sexual desire until they're in the moment aka "Female Sexuality"? I want to see the viewpoints of people who are solidly ace on this issue, since I'm questioning and would love the input.

Hmmm...that's a tough one.  As an asexual, I've never felt the desire to seek out a sexual relationship with another person and I've never felt sexual attraction to another person.  However, I do still have a libedo but it's never tied to a person and is really just more of an "itch I have to scratch" to put it bluntly.  I do have a close friend who is polysexual and feels very little sexual attraction to her husband but a lot of sexual attraction to her boyfriend so it may be a more complex issue.  I feel that maybe responsive desire is more of a social construct where women aren't "supposed" to want sex and perhaps don't feel sexual desire until the moment because it is supposed to be the man that takes charge.  I'm not sure, but all the info I read on Google seemed to tie "responsive desire" to women so I feel that it may be more of a social construct than a physiological one.  Sorry I couldn't be more helpful, I can just tell you that I've always felt a lack of sexual attraction to people, I had just not realized until recently that it was a sexual identity in and of itself.  Only you can know for sure if you're asexual.  Good luck to you in your journey!

[Allegra]

I certainly know women who love sex and crave it when they're not having it, as well as women who don't (whether they're asexual or not), so I'm definitely inclined to believe "responsive desire" is a social construct, a descriptor for those who identify with it, but not a rule or anything we can quantify. I also agree that it's not solely a "woman thing" and think it's dangerous to call it that, because there are plenty of women who love sex and shouldn't be made to feel abnormal for that, just like anyone asexual shouldn't be made to feel abnormal. 

[Guest Jetsun Milarepa]

Oddly enough @katydidd, I found myself playing the role of dad when my daughter was growing up, I went out to work on 3 different shifts while my mother helped me by looking after her, as I was a single parent. I always thought I was being dad. 

[Allegra]

4 hours ago, chandrakirti said:

Oddly enough @katydidd, I found myself playing the role of dad when my daughter was growing up, I went out to work on 3 different shifts while my mother helped me by looking after her, as I was a single parent. I always thought I was being dad. 

I grew up thinking family arrangements other than the 1950s "ideal" were pretty normal. My mother was the high earner, and my dad kind of did various jobs here and there and was also a stay-at-home-dad at times. When my parents split (when I was seven), my mother worked all the time and her parents looked after me and my brother, kind of like with your daughter.

[Machine_Artificia]

I wonder if there can be a pregnancy - leave (what is that called again?) maternal - leave thing? Can we have that for us who don't have kids? I just feel like I am missing out on having paid leave for something I care about.

It might not incur the massive and lengthened physicality that birth and a baby entails, I know.

I am glad maternity leave exists. Don't get me wrong!!!

I would love time to do and foster skills I want to have, just like people have time to foster and help babies they have physically. I know there is a huge portion of physical effort for a baby, and there is also the fact that I want to spawn a new skill and nurture it to grow as my life's purpose. I would have to quit my job to have time to do that at this moment.

Sorry if I offend and thanks for letting me vent, just would love that time off lol. I know this very likely will never happen. But I wish there was an equivalent time period off for those that were single without children. Might make the hiring of those that do have to go on maternity leave more balanced, since both those with and without kids will incur the same amount of maternity / paternity / skill leave time.

[Autumn Season]

I grew up with both parents, but only mom fulfilled the roles of both parents. My aunt is the same, she does all the work, both at home and by earning money. Actually, there are many examples like this in my family. For this reason I feel like having a husband is troublesome and I can only afford him if my life circumstances are very stable.

[Philip027]

Quote

I wonder if there can be a pregnancy - leave (what is that called again?) maternal - leave thing? Can we have that for us who don't have kids? I just feel like I am missing out on having paid leave for something I care about.

Uhh well, no.  That's kind of the whole point of maternity leave, it's for the people who get pregnant.  No preggers kinda means you're not entitled to it.

 

It's not something that's there to support those who care about kids; it's there because employers don't want to be liable for exposing a second entity who isn't even working for them to stressful working conditions that can put the employee, their unborn kid, or both at risk -- and leave them open for a potentially big fat lawsuit.

[Snao Cone]

Maternity leave is generally taken after the baby is born. Some people may stop working while still pregnant, but usually far along their pregnancy. The risk of people having miscarriages due to stressful work isn't really a factor...or at least it's not that way in Canada. Who knows what reasons employers do anything in the US.

 

While it does suck that people who give birth get that time off, it's about physical recuperation as much as it is about infant care and bonding. Here, a birth mother gets 17 weeks off, 15 of them covered by employment insurance, immediately surrounding the birth. Then either parent can take up to 37 weeks off, 35 of them covered by employment insurance. Some fathers have of course made huge deals about the fact that they don't have the option of taking both periods of time off while women do, but that's because of what the birth mother's body was put through. Fathers get the same as non-birth mothers (e.g. same sex partner or adoptive or natural mother of child carried by surrogate).

 

Aaaaand yeah, those of us who don't have kids don't get anything. It does suck, but I certainly don't need that time off as much as new parents do. I think in general if we had a more flexible work ethic as a culture, it wouldn't be so taboo for people to take their own sabbaticals for whatever reason.

[Salted Karamel]

Yeah I have a lot of feelings about that whole “responsive desire” = “female sexuality” BS. Actually I think I almost started to rant on it and then scrapped that post.

 

Firstly, as others have pointed out, there’s an inherent danger in attributing one type of sexuality to an entire gender. Not even because you’re implying the whole gender feels that way, but because you’re also implying that only that gender feels that way. Let’s get away from those harmful mindsets, which spawned such traditional gems as "women don't enjoy sex" and "good girls never."

 

Secondly, I have known a fuckton—pardon the pun—of women who report experiencing sexual attraction to other human beings upon sight, not after being stimulated by them. The logic of this movement denies the existence of probably half the women I know.

 

Thirdly, the idea that only developing sexual desire after some condition is met is “normal for women” and “all women are like that” comes dangerously close to demisexuality erasure, and I have seen it used to diminish demisexuality as “not a real thing” because clearly demisexual women just haven’t been properly aroused yet or whatever and everyone is like that.

 

The idea that this is simply what “female sexuality” is and how it works is the toxic cultural idea that carried me through my 20s and impeded me in learning about my demisexuality a lot sooner. Because I thought all these men were doing something wrong, and all these women were faking their interest in sex, and something was wrong and broken with me because the ways that “everyone” is supposed to be—that I was told I was too; I was just doing it wrong—did not reflect the reality I experienced. Because surely if all these other women experiencing sexuality had managed to be “activated” by whatever magical thing men are supposed to be doing like they're some kind of sexual sleeper agents then something was wrong with me for failing to achieve the same results. Or maybe I was just too dumb, too picky, too superficial, too repressed, too thinky, too unattractive, too inexperienced, too sober, too serious, etc. etc., too [insert any one of the millions of things women are told they are too much of on a daily basis and how their innate failure to be something else is causing them to fail at life].

 

Yeah, I have a lot of problems with it.

[Visenya]

56 minutes ago, Autumn Season said:

I grew up with both parents, but only mom fulfilled the roles of both parents. My aunt is the same, she does all the work, both at home and by earning money. Actually, there are many examples like this in my family. For this reason I feel like having a husband is troublesome and I can only afford him if my life circumstances are very stable.

I've had a similar experience. In fact, I don't think I know of a single family in which the man does part of the work. This is why, as katydidd said, I'd prefer to be a father, but never a mother. Married women with children always seem too tired and overwhelmed. I wouldn't be able to do everything they do (raising kids, doing household chores, working and trying to earn some money, giving attention to their partners, taking care of pets). It's too much! If I wanted to start a family, I'd make sure that I have the time, energy and money to do all of that without the help of a partner.

[Salted Karamel]

11 minutes ago, Visenya said:

I've had a similar experience. In fact, I don't think I know of a single family in which the man does part of the work. This is why, as katydidd said, I'd prefer to be a father, but never a mother. Married women with children always seem too tired and overwhelmed. I wouldn't be able to do everything they do (raising kids, doing household chores, working and trying to earn some money, giving attention to their partners, taking care of pets). It's too much! If I wanted to start a family, I'd make sure that I have the time, energy and money to do all of that without the help of a partner.

Yeah, my parents were married but my dad was basically a relative who lived with us. Now my mom's dead after doing all that work and he's reaping the benefits of having offspring I guess, whatever those benefits are. All raised for him and everything.

 

And yeah, not to mention that society lets fathers get away with "phoning it in" a lot more than mothers are... Motherhood vs fatherhood is basically the difference between working a full time job or a part time job that both get paid the same salary. Of course the person working part time hours is going to think it's a sweeter deal. (And then you still have some men complaining about how hard it is because oh my god their families want so much from them...)

[Snao Cone]

My dad did some of the work. I don't think it was ever even, but they at least negotiated some arrangements after talking through it. My dad likes cooking and cleaning, but because of the job he had he couldn't commit to doing it as regularly as my mom could. When that changed he started doing more, though the kids were all grown by then. My mom drilled a lot of better habits into his head, which helped a lot for all of us. It certainly wasn't perfect, but at least I got to see that couples go beyond the common rut of unfair balance of family work.

[LVG]

My mom definitely did and still does the majority of work. My dad can't cook, has never cleaned, and has no idea how to do laundry. He never wanted to learn either, because in his antiquated mindset, that's women's work. About the only thing he would do was yard work.   

[Tintinfan]

From my perspective it is mostly the other way around. My mother is the breadwinner of the house and my dad brought the children up. 

[CJcassandra]

I only had a mother, so I have no idea. Honestly she was more breadwinner less coddler.