National Women’s Studies Association (NWSA)
2012 Call for Papers about Asexuality

November 8-11, 2012, Oakland, CA.

Papers on any topic at the intersection of women’s and gender studies and
asexuality will be considered.

At minimum, your submission should fall under one of the following themes
for NWSA 2012:
*Revolutionary Futures
*Traveling Theory
*Social Networks, Power, and Change
*Decolonizing Knowledge
*Creative Awakenings

For more information on the themes, visit: http://nwsa.org/

While this is an open call, topic suggestions include:
* Asexual Intersections (including with LGBTIQ, Race, Nationality,
Disability, Appearance/Beauty)
* Online Asexual Communities (AVEN, LiveJournal, Tumblr, etc)
* Asexual Activism & Visibility
* Teaching Asexuality Studies
* Asexual Discourses and Theory
* Asexual Research Methods
* Asexual Literature
* Asexual Artists & Artwork

If you are interested in being a part of the 2012 Asexuality Studies panels
at NWSA, please send the following info by February 13, 2012 to Regina M.
Wright: (wrightrm@indiana.edu). Please make sure receipt of your submission
is confirmed.

Your submission should include your:
*Name, Institutional Affiliation, Snail Mail, Email, Phone.
*NWSA Theme your paper fits under (and asexuality studies topic area/s if
yours fits any of the above).
*Title for your talk, a one-page, double-spaced abstract in which you lay
out your topic and its relevance to this session.
*AND a 100 word truncated abstract (NWSA requirement).

Each person will speak for around 15 minutes, and we will leave time for
Q&A. In order to present with your name in the program, you must become a
member of NWSA in addition to registering for the conference.

Well, now that I’ve discussed how I DON’T want asexuals/asexuality to be represented in the media, it’s time to talk about how I DO want us to be represented. This is the post that I originally intended to make for this month’s Carnival of Aces,  the topic of which is Re/presentation, and which I’d encourage you to submit a post for if you haven’t done so yet. The deadline is the 31st (tomorrow) but they can be submitted a day or two late.

First, though, a couple of updates.

The Asexual Awareness Week group has started a petition to get the executive producer’s attention about the damaging portrayal of asexuality on House. Please sign it and pass it on!

If you scroll down you’ll see that the Twitter feed is back on my blog with a new account linked, so if you were following my old one you’ll want to switch to following @Lunacinzenta. I am also going to start using Publicize to automatically post links to new blog posts on Twitter, so if you prefer to follow me that way you can. I’m going to make an effort to actually continue using Twitter this time, as well.

About the ongoing House Saga: I tweeted a link to my post to Kath Lingenfelter, the writer of the episode, asking her to read it so she might better understand what’s wrong with the portrayal of asexuality in the episode. She tweeted back:

@Lunacinzenta V. well written & clearly stated. Personal anecdote about M especially upsetting. Appreciate your continuing the conversation.

I am glad that she read the post and replied. Given the limited format of this medium, it’s difficult to know exactly what she’s thinking, and I know that many people are very skeptical that she’s genuinely apologetic. I agree that she has made several troublesome statements since the whole thing started blowing up in her face. However, for a person who has never actually given much thought to the rhetoric of apologizing, on the surface of it, “I’m sorry if I offended you,” and the like seem like perfectly fine ways to apologize. That’s kind of the whole point, isn’t it? They’re crafted to seem like an apology, so that some people will accept them as one. If someone has never had much experience with weaselly abusive people, maybe doesn’t follow politics all that closely, doesn’t read a lot of social justice blogs and so on, it’s possible that they’ve just never encountered analysis of what statements like that are actually saying, so they take not-pologies at face value and even use them themselves. It’s a lack of critical thinking about that topic, certainly, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they didn’t have genuine intentions. So I’ll cut her some slack. I’m not saying that I’ve decided for sure one way or another on whether her apologies are genuine, but I don’t have enough evidence to conclusively rule out the possibility that she is sincere, so she gets the benefit of the doubt for now.

The reason I’m giving her the benefit of the doubt is because a large part of what it means to be an ally is learning from your mistakes. The damage has already been done, and because it’s a popular show on international television, it is very widespread. It can’t be reversed, but maybe it can be mitigated somewhat. The asexual community by itself is marginalized enough that we don’t have the power to do that alone. Hence the petition. I don’t want to write off potential allies for making mistakes, but rather I want to provide them with an opportunity to learn how to do better. I’m offering myself up as a consultant, for Lingenfelter or anyone else who wants to write about asexuality—if you do, get in touch! I’m trying to provide resources here on this blog by answering questions that people may have through my series of Q&A posts; if anyone has questions, you can ask them completely anonymously on Formspring.

Dealing with stereotypes

With that out of the way, I want to talk about the problematic notion of a stereotype-free portrayal of asexuality.

I think at this point we’ve reached the stage where there is a certain “stereotypical asexual” that a lot of sexual people have in mind when they think of asexuals. I don’t think they imagine that all of these traits apply to all of us. There’s room for people to break stereotypes, but there are certain things that people just automatically assume about asexuals unless they have evidence to contradict their assumptions. Like:

1. Asexuals are unattractive.
2. Asexuals are socially awkward and/or are on the autistic spectrum.
3. Asexuals spend too much time on the Internet. Make up too many new words.
4. Asexuals are cold, analytical, robot-like. Not passionate.
5. Asexuals are either very sexually inexperienced, or have experienced sexual trauma. This causes us to have a lot of anxiety about sex.
6. Asexuals are all celibate or would all rather be celibate.
7. Asexuals are white. Maybe sometimes Asian.
8. Asexuals are gender non-conforming.
9. Asexuals are isolated, alone.
10. Asexuals are deceptive, hide their asexuality to get dates. Or are hiding that they are NOT asexual, delusional/self-deceptive.
11. Asexuals are aspiring cat ladies.
12. Asexuals are all huge nerds.
13. Asexuals have something physically wrong with them (e.g. hormone problems, hypothyroidism, brain tumors, erectile dysfunction, etc.)
14. Asexuals think they are better than people who have sex.

This may not be a complete list of stereotypes, but it’s what I can think of off the top of my head. I fit into maybe about half of these stereotypes, and break the rest. The tricky thing is that stereotypes don’t come from nowhere. A lot of us DO fit many of them. There’s a little grain of truth hidden behind most of them, although it’s distorted because people don’t understand what’s really going on and therefore interpret what they see in a much more negative way.

Take number ten. Asexual people who are married to non-asexual people get a LOT of flack, with many people just automatically assuming that they must have led their spouse on before the marriage (I’d provide links to back this up, but mostly I see this going on in comments sections of various articles dealing with asexuality, and I forget where exactly I’ve seen it, so if anyone has any examples, feel free to provide them in the comments). They take for granted that asexuals know their orientation before getting married, which in a lot of cases is not true. A lot of asexuals spend years not understanding what’s wrong with them, and only start coming to the realization that they are asexual after they’re in a marriage that isn’t working out well for them because of the issue of sex. This is only aggravated in religious circles where abstinence before marriage is considered the only moral alternative. So the little grain of truth to the stereotype is that sometimes people find out their partners are asexual after they’re already invested in a relationship. The problem is that then they assume more understanding and control over the situation than the asexual person actually had in reality, and from that assumption they conclude that the asexual person intentionally deceived them… because they’re evil or something, I guess. The second part of this stereotype of the “deceptive asexual” was reinforced during the recent episode of House. It’s true that sometimes people identify as asexual and then later realize that they are sexual after all, but people tend to look for any instance of that happening and then interpret that as evidence that all of us are lying, or lying to ourselves. Either way, it’s hugely exaggerated and distorted from what’s really going on.

At least a third of these stereotypes, if not more, are connected to stereotypes about other groups of people, like nerds and non-NT people, which are themselves interconnected. And the asexual community does appear to have a higher-than-average proportion of nerdy people and people on the autistic spectrum. Most likely this has to do with the visible community being based on the internet—there are local meet-up groups but they aren’t seen as much as AVEN, and due to the rarity and invisibility of asexuality they’re hard to plan without the aid of the internet. Nerds tend to be more likely to actually post and stay connected to the internet communities. I’m sure there are asexuals out there who aren’t terribly well-connected to asexual communities because they aren’t online that often.

Obviously, some of these stereotypes, like 10, are so damaging that they should never be reinforced. It’d be fine to explore a character who discovers that they’re asexual after being married, but not one who lies about being asexual in order to get married, because that wouldn’t be a fair representation of reality. But when it comes to stereotypes like “asexuals have Asperger’s” and the like, there’s a point where refusing to portray an asexual with Asperger’s becomes an act of erasure. It is even more an act of erasure when it comes to non-fictional media representations. Are asexuals with Asperger’s unfit to represent the rest of us in news pieces and documentaries because they aren’t NT, because they don’t “prove” that asexuals are perfectly normal? Of course not.

But if the ONLY representations of asexuals out there are asexuals who have Asperger’s, then we have a problem. Because there are a lot of asexuals who don’t fit that stereotype, and then they are erased.

So the key thing is not to try to avoid all the stereotypes, but rather to portray a wide variety of asexual characters who are fully developed, and break stereotypes in different ways. Pay attention to the balance of how asexual characters are being portrayed, and if there are already too many portrayals of one type and not enough of others, don’t contribute to it by making yet another character fit stereotype x. At the same time, we have to be mindful that we don’t slip into tokenism, including an asexual character who ___ just because we want to fill a quota, without being mindful of whether we can write that character well or not. Certain things, like characters with traumatic pasts, are sometimes used as a cheap way to give depth to a character without fully exploring their trauma in a thoughtful way. Asexual characters with trauma, especially sexual trauma, need to be extra-thoughtfully explored because there’s a lot of room for unintended “debunking” of their asexuality. Perhaps until we are more well established as a legitimate sexual orientation, it’s best to only explore asexual characters whose sexual traumas happened because of and were not the cause of, their asexuality. I’d trust an asexual writer infinitely more than I would a non-asexual writer trying to tackle topics like this. At this stage in our visibility efforts, though, fictional characters who are asexual are quite likely to be regarded as unreliable even when they aren’t meant to be read as such at all.

But as far as non-fictional media representation goes, we should all feel free to tell our own stories, whether they make asexuality’s legitimacy seem “unassailable” or not. We do have to be careful about where and to whom we try to tell our stories, because some journalists will be unscrupulous about attacking asexuality if they can find a “flaw” that they think they can use to “disprove” asexuality. I think a lot of journalists take the idea of being “fair and balanced” too far, and insist on providing a dissenting point of view even when the dissenter is clearly making things up. And some people, like Tyra Banks, who canceled her planned segment on asexuality because she couldn’t find an asexual married couple in the United States who were willing to volunteer, are only looking for one specific kind of asexual story to tell. So there’s a lot of erasure coming from both outsiders and people within the community who are so anxious about presenting an image of asexuality that can’t be attacked that they reflexively erase people who have aspects of their past or personality that people typically latch on to in order to claim that asexuality can’t be real. Those people often have a lot of anxiety about talking about those aspects of their stories, because they are so frequently attacked or erased. It’s very understandable that someone wouldn’t want to come forward and open themselves up to that kind of hostility. It’s much easier to just omit those parts of the story. But because these parts of our stories get omitted so frequently, they’re extremely difficult for non-asexual writers to research, and since the issues aren’t well understood, asexual writers are likely to find their fiction attacked as “unrealistic.” Thus, I tend to feel quite strongly that we need to explore these trickier topics in works of non-fiction first.

Good portrayals of asexual characters and good, balanced representations of asexuality in media require a lot of research and careful thought. Many non-asexual people who have not been involved with the community really underestimate the amount of research that they need to do in order to create a fair and thoughtful representation of asexuality. Above all else, we need stories about asexuals where those characters are NOT “debunked” by the facts presented in the story. My hope is that we can get people who want to write about asexual characters to actually run their stories by real-life asexuals for critique BEFORE they are published. Maybe we need to create some sort of organized group of asexual beta readers for that purpose. I would join that group in a heartbeat if it existed.

All search terms appear exactly as they were typed into Google/Formspring, so I take no credit for any spelling or grammar errors.

Standard Definitional Disclaimer: Asexuality refers here to a sexual orientation among humans.  It does not have anything to do with biology, whether that means the biology of non-human asexually reproducing species, or humans with non-standard anatomy (if you’re looking for that, google intersex conditions instead). Asexuality means not experiencing sexual attraction; it does not mean or imply that we are “not sexual” in any way at all. The term is analogous to homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, etc. For a more detailed explanation on this, please check my FAQ page. Asexuals are a widely varied group that may have little else in common with one another aside from not experiencing sexual attraction to others as a general rule. I can only answer for myself. My answers may include sarcasm.

On to the questions!

*************
Q: I’m asexual, and one thing that always seems to come up when people find out is the whole “well, no one will ever want you if you’re not going to put out” situation. sometimes I find myself thinking the same thing. how did/do you respond to that? (from Formspring)
A: Hm… well, for me personally, in my current situation, it’s fairly easy to respond to. The assumption that just because I’m asexual I won’t “put out” is bad in the first place, and depending on the situation I may or may not correct it. Usually if I do correct it, I will say something like, “You shouldn’t assume that all asexuals don’t want to have sex, some of them are sexually active, for whatever reason.” That way they’re free to make whatever assumption they want about my own sex life without directly asking me. Then I will point out that they’re just flat-out wrong. Being engaged myself and having had my partner plainly state that while she would like to have sex with me, she would still want to be in a romantic relationship with me even if we never had sex (and indeed, we’ve gone long stretches of time without), it’s fairly easy for me to counter these arguments with personal experience. But for someone without that kind of personal experience, I understand it can be much harder! I’ve had those worries that nobody would ever want to date me because I’m asexual myself. I used to try to keep in mind examples of successful asexual couples that I knew of from browsing AVEN, but there’s also other hard evidence that you can find to contradict this idea. For example, the very existence of Celibate Passions, an online dating site specifically geared towards people who want celibate romance and friendships, disproves the notion that nobody would want to date a person who doesn’t want to have sex. You can link to it as proof, and if people continue to insist that nobody is interested against hard evidence contradicting them, then they are being unreasonable and it’s totally fair to point that out. If the conversation continues to devolve—and I know that some people would even go so far as to predict eventual relationship failures, which they see as somehow inevitable—I’d just advise you to calmly tell them they have no basis to be making such claims and that they should drop it. If they won’t, feel free to take whatever steps you need to in order to get them to leave you alone.

Q: It burns when I pee, why? (from Formspring)
A: …Yes, dear. That is indeed a burning question. And one which I am not qualified to answer. I’m glad I know it’s not someone actually looking for one!

Q: asexuals and kitties why do they match (from Google)
A: Because they are both awesome. :3

Q: Can someone become asexual or is it a condition you are born with and may be never realized you had it until you read an article on the website BBC website? (from Formspring)
A: I have heard some people report “becoming asexual” before, however I’m unclear on what exactly they mean by that. I do think that sexuality in general has at least some degree of fluidity, but it’s not the type of thing you can consciously influence. You can’t “become asexual” by sheer force of will, and people who report having done so likely do not mean asexual in the same way that we mean it. I think those people are talking about being celibate, and not realizing that there’s a difference between celibacy and asexuality (covered elsewhere on this blog ad nauseum, so I won’t go over it again). There are, however, a few people within the asexual community who used to identify as sexual and have said that they did feel sexual attraction prior to a certain point in their lives, at which point they say they became asexual. I’m recalling some very old forum posts on sites I’ve long since stopped visiting, so I can’t give any specific examples (and for privacy reasons it probably wouldn’t be best to do so anyway), but as far as I can recall, most of them felt that they were on the low end of the scale of sexual attraction or somewhere in the gray area between asexual and sexual. We tend to tread cautiously in cases where a person says that they’ve had a sudden, drastic drop in their level of interest in sex, as that can be a symptom of a number of different health conditions. If that sounds like you, then it’s a good thing to get checked out.

Q: a newbie to understanding this orientation……are there any stats on gender, as related to this? More prevalence in one or another? Also, is this ever known from an early age, as has been suggested in other sexual orientations? Do romantic asexuals feel (from Formspring)
A: I guess that last question got cut off, feel free to resubmit it for the next round! Anyway, there are some stats on gender suggesting that asexuality is vastly more prevalent in women than in men, but due to the way that these stats are collected, they’re not very reliable. Most surveys are collected from samples gathered over the internet, which leads to sampling bias, especially in cases where the links get passed around on sites like Livejournal which are largely made up of women in the first place. It is also more likely that due to cultural pressures to be sexual, asexual men are less likely to find out about asexuality and begin (publicly) identifying as asexual, even if they actually fit the definition. If not for those factors, would there still be a big gender difference? Who knows.

As for the second question, because asexuality is a lack of something rather than the presence of something, and particularly because all children are assumed to be asexual before puberty (even though that isn’t actually true), it’s very difficult for young asexuals to come to the understanding that there is a difference between them and their peers. It’s not readily apparent that there is anything different until you’ve gotten past the point at which the excuse that “you’re just a late bloomer” starts to become questionable to you, and this point varies a lot depending on the individual. Indeed, many of us are so well-trained that asexuality doesn’t exist that doubts about whether or not we’re just “late bloomers” plague us well into our twenties. There is no universally agreed-upon acceptable age at which you can determine that you are asexual for sure even within the asexual community itself, so many of the younger asexuals will be told that while it’s cool to hang out with us, they should still keep their minds open to other possibilities. We are often accused of “closing ourselves off” to possibilities by identifying as asexual by people who are not familiar with the community, but actually we may tend to be a little too cautious to leave ourselves open to those possibilities, in some cases. There are quite a few 13-14 year olds that I’ve seen already identifying as asexual, though typically people begin identifying as asexual later than that. The youngest I’ve personally heard of someone identifying as asexual is twelve.

Q: Could you add ‘sentually attracted’ as a term? I ask this as I want to flert and turn on a partner, but when the pants come down I become disinterested. As you may know it takes about 6 sec of physical contact for most guys to start pulling it out. (from Formspring)
A: Actually, I already use that term! The way I define it, sensual attraction is about wanting that skin-to-skin feeling, wanting to indulge in something that engages the senses without necessarily being sexual with one another. It’s not so much just wanting to cuddle, but more about wanting to be close in a sufficiently epicurean way. Like lying close while feeding each other grapes, for example.

*************

Have you got a question you’d like me to answer? Ask me here. Remember to check the FAQ page!

A few reminders:

1. Isn't it fun to come across a vanity plate that reminds you of something you've been blogging about?

[Image: Car license plate that reads "<3 YORSLF"]

Happens all the time, amirite? Spotted in the...Whole Foods parking lot. (Seriously, click on that link.)

2. If you haven't already done so, check out Sciatrix's compilation of links on the House TV episode debacle. I'm glad she put them all together in one place.

3. Carnival of Aces is still happening! Deadline for posts is coming up in a few days--this month's theme is re/presentation.

…Or at least, that’s how it should be written.

I’ve been watching House for years now. When I first started watching, it was sometime between the end of season two and the beginning of season three, and I burned through the first two seasons very quickly and then showed it to my best friend and then-roommate, K, who eagerly awaited season 3 with me. We would stop all our other activities and watch it together when it came on. Sometimes other people would come over to watch it with us, and we’d have little “House parties” but more often, we’d just shut the door and get quite annoyed when other people would disturb us in the middle of the show. As the seasons have worn on the show has held my interest, but it’s been waning more and more. I no longer eagerly await each episode and watch it as soon as I am able. Now weeks or months will pass before I think about getting caught up again. But I’m still watching, even though I am losing confidence in the writers.

Last week, I happened to check the AVEN home page as I (too infrequently) do, and saw that an upcoming episode of House would feature an asexual couple. I watched the preview clip with a mix of hope and deep, cynical dread. I wasn’t surprised at all to see House opposing the existence of asexuality. I was glad that Wilson said it was a “valid sexual orientation,” although the preview (terrible as usual) proved to be misleading, because he was quoting a magazine article when he said that. The show’s formula includes House being nearly always right—could the writers really take the risk of showing House being wrong about this? (Spoilers below the cut.)

No, of course not. I didn’t think so.

For those of you who didn’t watch it, here’s the short version: the husband isn’t asexual because he has a brain tumor; the wife isn’t asexual either, she’s just been lying to her husband this whole time because she knew that being with him “meant making certain sacrifices.” She went on to explain that “a girl has needs, you know.” As an aside, I find it some ironic humor in that line, as I was told in a fiction workshop this past fall that the line “Everyone has needs” is very unrealistic. Apparently the writers of House find it just as realistic as I did. But that’s besides the point.

The episode’s writer, Katherine Lingenfelter, has been answering questions about the episode. Here are some of the things she has said to asexuals who have expressed their disappointment:

I am trying to communicate with several of the people of the asexual community who were displeased, so forgive me if I repeat myself. I did a lot of research on asexuality for the episode. My original intent was to introduce it and legitimize it, because I was struck by the response most of you experience, which is similar to the prejudice the homosexual community has received. People hear you’re asexual and they immediately think, “What’s wrong with you, how do I fix you?” I wanted to write against that. Unfortunately, we are a medical mystery show. Time & again, my notes came back that House needed to solve a mystery and not be wrong. So in THIS CASE, with THESE patients, it was a tumor near the pituitary. But I hoped I could (now it seems unsuccessfully) introduce asexuality to the general public and get them asking questions. All they need to do is one google search and they can see for themselves it’s a real community of great people. Originally, part of my dialog included thoughts about whether as a species we’ve grown past sex. Any time we tackle a subject, we risk the possibility of not doing it justice. I apologize that you feel I did you a disservice. It was not my intent. Asexuality is a new topic for me and definitely one I find fascinating. It is a subject I would like to continue to explore here or ..on future shows I write for. I think it speaks to where humans are now and where we are going. I will do my best in the future to do it justice. Thank you for feedback and please share any and all thoughts.

I appreciate your frustration. I can only say to you that through my research (Which included long visits to http://asexuality.org), I have my eyes opened to your community & if I did you a disservice here, I will try again in the future because I think your community is one that is growing and says a lot about what it is to be human today (tho historically there have been aces a plenty). Again, I’m sorry to do your community I disservice. I wanted to get a dialog going w/the public about asexuality but there are many masters to please in TV. I am open to any and all comments, suggestions, critiques. (This does remind me a a frustration for a writer for the CW who vented that they could never cast African American characters as criminals because the network was too afraid of offending them. Not a direct corollary, but perhaps speaks to the day when ppl respect asexuality as an orientation enough that we can do a story with the medical condition and it won’t discredit it all). Thank you for letting me explain myself/ramble.

These quotes were taken from this thread on AVEN, in case anyone is interested in reading more. Full disclosure: I haven’t read the whole thread, just the last couple of pages.

If what Lingenfelter says is true, and I have no reason to doubt that it is, it’s a pretty good demonstration of the reason why I think writing about asexuality in fiction is extremely difficult to do at this stage, if not downright untenable in some situations. Her original intention was good, laudable even, although a couple of quotes indicated to me that she may still have had some misunderstandings about asexuality herself—more on that later. Where it sounds like she went wrong—and I don’t really blame her for this too much, given her situation—is not sticking up for her idea enough in the editing process, not vehemently defending asexuality as a legitimate orientation enough to convince the other writers that it would be a better story, a more honest story, if House turned out to be completely in the wrong.

And no doubt it would have been a better story if House had been wrong. I can’t even begin to describe how much more compelling the story would have been if House had been wrong about this, even putting aside my own feelings about my already terribly misunderstood sexual orientation being portrayed in such a negative light. I don’t want to watch a show where the main character is always right. I want to see him struggle and FAIL sometimes. To the writers’ credit—and this is why I have continued watching—sometimes he does fail. Sometimes he does get things wrong. But it’s not nearly often enough.

My biggest problem with House is that it’s too formulaic, and while on special occasions the writers do write episodes where House fails, most of the time they’re not willing to take the risk of breaking their formula. Often, the formula works well enough. But come on, guys, it’s season eight. By now I am so sick and tired of House being right all the freaking time that my interest in the show—despite the fantastic acting, despite my continued love for these characters—is seriously flagging. And especially in cases where House would be very likely to get things wrong, like this one—I think it would, in fact, have been completely out of character for him to view asexuality as legitimate—he SHOULD. From one writer to another: if you ever find yourself saying that your main character “must be right” then you need to stop, take a step back. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. You’re character is coming dangerously close to becoming a Dreaded Mary Sue. You can write a character who is obsessed with being right, like House, but you don’t want to write a character who Must Be Right. If you won’t even at least consider the possibility that your character could be wrong, why write it at all?

And look, since there were two “asexual” characters, House could have even been just partially right and it still would have been a vastly more compelling story, although I would have preferred if he was just flat-out wrong about both of them. If the rest of the writing team just absolutely HAD to have House be right about something, why couldn’t he have been right about only one of them?

Here’s the thing: while I understand that writing workshops are tough sometimes, and especially in a group writing situation where you’re not in charge you can be easily overruled, intent still isn’t magic. And this episode is not just offensive, it actually does tremendous damage to the asexual community. (Protip: “Sorry if I offended you” and similar phrases are classic not-pologies that show that you do not actually understand what was wrong with what you did, and you should never say something like that.) It reinforces negative stereotypes and prejudices the audience—many of whom surely have never heard of asexuality before and put undue trust in medical drama shows even though they are fictional—to think that asexuality has been “debunked” by House. While it’s all sounds well and good to say that “all they have to do is google it” to find the community, this 1) overestimates the number of people who will actually be inclined to do so and 2) overestimates how likely they will be to a) find the actual asexual community instead of finding communities of people who hate us (like certain communities I won’t link to on Tumblr) and b) agree that it’s a “great” community despite their prejudice. I’ve mentioned this before, but it bears mentioning again that people are very likely to pay attention to things that confirm their existing attitudes and ignore things that don’t, so if they think that people only “claim to be asexual” and really must have something wrong with them, they’re much more likely to seek out things confirming that opinion than things contradicting it. And probably the majority of viewers will not seek out any kind of verification at all, and will just take House’s opinion at face value.

This post? This is damage control. I sincerely hope the writers of the show will read this and take it to heart, but even if they don’t, I hope at least some people who see the show and decide to google asexuality will see it and understand what’s wrong with the cowardly “debunking”—which would certainly not stand if this were homosexuality we’re talking about.

I won’t get into too much detail about each point, but here’s a list of reasons why this portrayal was awful:

1. Does it even medically make sense? Asexuality is usually lifelong, and we know that this guy has been identifying as asexual for more than ten years, at the very least. He has either been asexual since puberty, or he once experienced sexual attraction and then lost it due to the pituitary tumor. If he has had this since puberty, even if it is slow-growing, shouldn’t there be some other symptom besides a lack of libido? I’m not a doctor, so this is a genuine question, and if anyone wants to inform me, please do. But it seems dubious to me.
2. Asexuality is a lack of sexual ATTRACTION, it is NOT a lack of sexual interest or sex drive. I feel like a broken record saying this yet again, but it needs to be said. This distinction is not made clear in the episode. Quite likely the writer did not understand it herself. Some asexuals DO want to have sex for various reasons, and yes, some of us even ENJOY it (gasp!). You can have a sex drive and still not feel any kind of sexual attraction, so the treatment might not even make this guy sexual anyway, as was implied.
3. Since some asexuals want and enjoy sex, why the deceit? You made this character lie to her husband for over a decade about her sexual orientation. That is a VERY LONG TIME to be lying about such a serious issue, and it paints us in a VERY BAD LIGHT. This is probably the very worst thing about the episode. Real asexuals? Real asexuals tend to be extremely hesitant to come out to people, especially to doctors, because of the way that people endlessly harass us about what they think “must be” wrong with us. It’s trivializing to show a character who so glibly “comes out” to a doctor and then, equally easily, admits to her husband that she’s been lying to him about her sexual orientation for over a decade. Worst of all? If someone can’t find a convenient excuse for why our asexuality must not be real, if someone can’t find anything wrong with us to explain it away, you’ve just given them an out. You’ve given them a reason to continue to be suspicious about our orientation. If they can’t say there’s something wrong with us, they’ll just say we’re LYING. Or delusional. Not that there wouldn’t be people who would say that anyway, but you seriously don’t need to reinforce it. Making reference to how Everybody Lies is a cheap shot in this circumstance, and it is SO NOT WORTH IT.
4. Asexuality is not anti-sexuality, and asexual elitism is BAD. Upon learning that he has a tumor, Asexual Guy insists that he doesn’t want the treatment and that he’s “not one of them.” This implies that asexuals see themselves as somehow being “above” sexuals. Even more troubling, the writer notes that, “Originally, part of my dialog included thoughts about whether as a species we’ve grown past sex.” Seriously? Only a small minority of asexuals think anything like that, and these are soundly trounced by the rest of us when something like that comes up. We don’t think we’re better than sexual people, even if some religions treat celibacy as somehow more “transcendent” and godly and so sexual people sometimes just automatically assume that we do. Also, evolution is not teleological—in layman’s terms, that means that there is no “end goal,” there is no destiny or sentience of any kind involved—so it is wrong to assume that asexuality is the “next stage” as the idea of us “growing past sex as a species” implies. It is equally wrong to assume that asexuals will die out, not least because of the whole “it’s about attraction, not behavior” thing.
5. Asexuality is not a world view. Nor is it a lifestyle, although I’ve covered that already in numbers 2 and 3. Asexuals are diverse and have many, many different world views. Some of us even have world views that tell us that asexuality doesn’t exist, that we’re wrong and broken. Pretty much the ONLY thing that all of us have in common is that we lack sexual attraction.

And just in case the damage that this episode has done isn’t real to you yet, let me share a personal anecdote. Once upon a time, I met this guy, who I refer to as M. He is extremely similar to House, so I introduced him to the show. I liked him far too much considering what an asshole he is. He has all of House’s terrible flaws, including his extreme arrogance and need to be right all the time. He is irrational in all the same ways that House is, including the skewed view of evolution that House demonstrated in this episode (“asexuals are either sick, lying, or dead,” given House’s world view, implies that House thinks this is true because asexuals “would have died out,” as M said), while priding himself in his cold, rational, cynical view of the world. He had the same misunderstanding about asexuality that House apparently does (asexuals would have died out because asexuals apparently just don’t want sex), the same propensity to make cruel jokes about it (he often alluded to me being inhuman, just like House’s “pool of algae” comment), and the same eagerness to seek a way to find what’s wrong and “fix” it. He unethically ignored my wishes on more than one occasion, just like House routinely does to his patients. He was unwilling to listen to me about what asexuality actually is, jumping to the conclusion that my attempt to correct his misunderstandings was a “rationalization,” and he loved to get into “point-scoring” debates where his goal was not to actually have a discussion, but just to win and prove himself right. He was also “fascinated” with me in both a sexual way and in the way that House gets fascinated with puzzling cases, including the case of the asexual couple.

While M prides himself as a skeptic, he is not (or was not, perhaps, but I suspect that’s being much too hopeful) actually open to hearing evidence that contradicts his prejudices. Whether he realized he was doing it or not (and I wouldn’t put it past him to be that manipulative, he is certainly smart enough), he led a gaslighting campaign against me on the basis of his belief that my asexuality isn’t real, and that I’m just delusional “like a five-year-old cross-eyed child trying to drive.” He was exceptionally nasty about it towards the end, when instead of listening to me about the problems I was expressing with his behavior, he insisted that I was wrong and that I somehow had a “disability” (I don’t; I have completely normal sexual function, as my current partner and this study will attest). This has done considerable, long-lasting damage to me psychologically.

M is the kind of person who will find this portrayal of asexuality on House validating. He is the kind of person who will be bolstered by it and will likely become more antagonistic and abusive towards any asexual he meets. I doubt he would bother to google the response to this episode, although if he did I suppose he would probably be looking for me. I’m very glad I’ve cut off contact with him. The thing is, though, there are people out there who are even worse than M. I fear that this episode of House will embolden those people, and multiply not just the number of frightened but well-meaning people who are now certain that their friends or family members must have something horrible and scary wrong with them, but also the amount of abuse and harassment that the less fortunate asexuals face from less savory types.

So while I think that Lingenfelter got House’s (and Wilson’s, for that matter) character exactly right, the presentation of “facts” in this episode was extremely dangerous and damaging. It’s naive to say “Oh, it’s only these particular characters who are like that.” At best, really. It’s a lazy cop-out, and one that trivializes these characters’ issues at that. When the only representation of asexuality on popular TV is this one, if you actually intend to be an ally, you have a responsibility to research your subject better than that (by the way, I don’t think that AVEN is a particularly good place to research asexuality beyond very, very basic stuff), and portray it accurately. This episode had the potential to explore House’s willful pathologization of certain groups of people in a really fascinating way, while also exposing the truth, but that opportunity was instead squandered on more stigmatization.

I’m not going to say that House has Jumped The Shark (I don’t know if there was ever any such dramatic moment where the show obviously started going downhill), and I’m probably not going to stop watching entirely, although I’m sure for many viewers this episode will mark the moment where they write the show off forever. But I hold the writers to a higher standard than this, and they have fallen way, WAY short of the mark. I can’t say I’m surprised, sadly. Being a writer myself, I can understand why it happened, and I’m glad that at least Lingenfelter is listening to feedback and apologizing, even if her apology comes off as rather… well, clueless. But again, intent isn’t magic.

EDIT: There is a petition to get the exec producer’s attention here, please sign it!

If anyone wants further reading, please check out Sciatrix’s House link roundup post here.

Also, while I wasn’t thinking about the Carnival of Aces when I wrote this, it dovetails nicely with this month’s topic of media representation so I think it totally counts. I will post what I originally planned to write for the carnival later on. If you’ve written a post about this, I’d encourage you to submit the link for inclusion in the carnival.

[TW: This post discusses rape jokes, with an excerpt from a discussion in a video game. It is not explicit.]

Like many nerds who don’t have a lot to do (or just want to procrastinate), I play WoW. I stay out of Trade and General chat, and often deliberately ignore chat in battlegrounds or world PvP raids because of the amount of rape jokes that get told there. The way that people just casually refer to losing in a video game as “being raped” is completely abhorrent to me. It’s not comparable in the least, and not only is it trivializing, but it has the potential to seriously ruin someone’s day, if they are a survivor. Since you can’t know if anyone is a survivor or not, especially in a situation where you’re grouped with random players, it’s best to just avoid telling jokes like that.

Back when I ran my own guild (there were a couple of other officers who had stopped playing at that point, so it was pretty much just me), we had a zero-tolerance policy about it. There were several people who left after I explained that rule, one of whom I got along pretty well with. When I asked why, she explained that she firmly believed that “words can’t hurt you if you don’t let them,” which is pretty much bullshit. If that were true, bullying would be a non-issue, but it’s not. And most people don’t blame kids who commit suicide because of being bullied because they “let themselves” be hurt by the bullies. Words have real, measurable psychological impact. They have an especially heavy impact on survivors, because trauma re-wires the brain in such a way that it is primed to detect danger. Rape jokes don’t just bring back what’s probably the worst memory of your life; they can also trigger intense anxiety and depression, and there’s no way to turn this reaction off—that’s why it’s called “being triggered.” I tried to explain this, but this girl just wouldn’t hear it. Not feeling stifled in her choice of expression was more important to her than showing a little consideration for people who have gone through some truly awful experiences, sadly.

So when I saw the following conversation happen just a few hours ago in guild chat, I was awe-struck:

[13:00:29][G] [Warlock1]: im going to rape you
[13:00:32][G] [Warlock1]: irl
[13:00:36][G] [Paladin]: wow
[13:00:42][G] [Paladin]: not cool idc who you are
[13:00:48][G] [Warrior]: yeah that’s not a cool thing to be sayin
[13:00:50][G] [Warlock2]: agreed
[13:00:53][G] [Paladin]: not at all
[13:00:53][G] [Warrior]: and this is me talking
[13:00:58][G] [Warlock1]: as if i care
[13:01:13][G] [Warlock1]: goons are very sensitive
[13:01:23][G] [Paladin]: I could give 2 shits
[13:01:29][G] [Warlock2]: no rape is pretty fucking horrible
[13:01:39][G] [Paladin]: but its not something to be said jokingly
[13:01:59][G] [DK]: The fuck is wrong with you that you’re trying to defend using rape as a joke
[13:02:07][G] [Paladin]: Im not
[13:02:12][G] [DK]: not you
[13:02:31][G] [Paladin]: k either way, just saying, now its done

Last spring, this conversation would not have happened like this. There used to be long, drawn-out arguments about whether or not rape jokes are okay to make with several people vehemently defending them. But through those arguments, we’ve changed the discourse. It used to be that only a few people would call this behavior out, usually only my partner and maybe one or two other people, but this time neither one of us had to say a thing, because four other people had already dealt with it. The guild leader was online at the time and I’m unsure of whether or not he said anything—it’s possible that he whispered the offending player with a warning to cut it out—but he didn’t say a thing in guild chat.

So if ever it seems like speaking up won’t make a difference, like all it will do is cause a huge argument and alienate people, just remember this. It’s perfectly understandable if you don’t have the spoons to speak up every time, and you may not be able to change everyone’s mind, but it CAN make a difference. And the more people speak up, the faster rape culture will change.

The Hobbit Acceptance Project continues apace. I guess these sorts of things never truly end. Since the start of the project in June, I've only shaved my legs and armpits a couple of times. Mostly to wear a bathing suit and to wear a dress at a fancy restaurant, things I was still not comfortable doing while hairy. I decided to take a tip from Beth Terry and obtain an old-school safety razor for the times that I did want to shave. One reason I don't like shaving is because I don't want to support companies that bombard me with "smooth legs = beauty!" advertising. So, shaving with an antique is one solution to that, although it's not as user-friendly as the plastic multi-blade models. While I'd heard horror stories of people cutting themselves with safety razors, I haven't had that problem. If anything, I cut myself less.

Anyway, I'm a lot more comfortable "going out with stubble" on my legs now, as I mentioned in my first post on body hair. I barely notice the stubble now. When I do shave my legs or armpits, they look strange to me. My loyal following of Hairy Pits Club has shown me that like all hobbits, I'm hairier than 99% of the female population (although I think some of this has to do with self-selection...not everyone chooses to post their pits online). No, I don't have a hormone imbalance or anything...this is just how I roll. I've decided that I can't abide my armpits in a total state of nature, and that's okay. If you check out Hairy Pits Club, you'll see people actually having fun with their armpits. Dying them rainbow colors, even. This inspired me. I learned that there were actually a range of armpit hair modification options. You could shave them, trim them, dye them, buzz them, braid them (I'm not that hairy), etc.

On a related note, I liked this post a lot. I don't agree with it, but it made me think more deeply about my own stance. I do agree with the commenters who say it's impossible to eschew femininity entirely, even if one tries. If I spent my life in a gray sweatsuit, people would view my body, hear my voice, and ascribe femininity to me. So I agree with those who are saying: Keep what you genuinely like about femininity (not only what you get socially rewarded for) and toss out what you don't like. I like glittery eyeshadow, the color pink, and wearing jewelery. I don't like dieting, talking about dieting, wearing high heels, "control" garments, etc. I don't like to leave my body hair entirely to its own devices, but I don't like shaving, either. I think I'll just let the two battle it out. It's not as exciting as Middle Earth, but it's something.

You may have a few of them: Situational friends. People whom you primarily see within the context of one activity. I've had many of them from work, classes, groups, volunteer activities, and Occupy. I see these people a lot, in some cases more frequently than I see my close friends. But no matter how much we chat, they still don't know a lot of personal stuff about me. (In fact, I'm a champ at knowing people for a really long time and having them know almost nothing about me as a person. I don't even know how I do it.)

This is on my mind, because at the last Occupy meeting, someone mentioned that "half of the working group is out [as gay]." I cynically thought, "I can't come out because everyone would make fun of me". Even though I've come out to positive responses a bunch of times, and I'm a big proponent of the action in general, it doesn't stop being scary. Although I doubt anyone cares what my orientation is, suddenly it felt like the elephant in the room to me. I am, indeed, the only person in that group who is not either out as gay or in a long-term heterosexual couple.

Situational friends can be the hardest people to come out to. The level of emotional investment is fairly low, and yet you still have to spend a lot of time with them, making things difficult if their reaction is negative. Situational friendships also often take place in groups, and it's much harder (and in my experience, not the best idea) to come out to a crowd. I don't want to come out, at the wrong time, just for its own sake. I won't lie about my sexuality--the one time a situational friend asked me, "Are you straight?" I said, "No, I'm asexual". But that rarely comes up. No one EVER asks me annoying stuff like, "do you have a boyfriend?" or "why are you single?" As aggravating as those questions (and the assumptions behind them) are, I'm left with no real segues.

It makes me bemoan the fact that there's no way to successfully drop hints about being asexual. I think it's that lack of cultural context that makes coming out so hard and so formal-seeming a lot of the time. In my experience, no one says "by the way, I'm gay" to their situational friends. They mention a girlfriend, wife, boyfriend, husband, or someone they find attractive (of course, there's room for misinterpretation here, too...another place where bisexuals easily share our experience). I can't say "that person is cute" without having people think I'm straight or gay. I think that's why I never told my friends about my rare crushes, even though I cultivated them (sometimes) in order to fit in.

If someone knows me for 10 years, they'll see that I never date or have sex, and they might start to realize that I'm "different" somehow. But even in the case of these sticky situational friends, I don't think I'm going to wait quite that long.

All search terms appear exactly as they were typed into Google/Formspring, so I take no credit for any spelling or grammar errors.

Standard Definitional Disclaimer: Asexuality refers here to a sexual orientation among humans.  It does not have anything to do with biology, whether that means the biology of non-human asexually reproducing species, or humans with non-standard anatomy (if you’re looking for that, google intersex conditions instead). Asexuality means not experiencing sexual attraction; it does not mean or imply that we are “not sexual” in any way at all. The term is analogous to homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, etc. For a more detailed explanation on this, please check my FAQ page. Asexuals are a widely varied group that may have little else in common with one another aside from not experiencing sexual attraction to others as a general rule. I can only answer for myself. My answers may include sarcasm.

On to the questions!

*************
Q: how to be asexual (from Google)
A: This is one of those questions that makes assumptions that aren’t true. It assumes that you can learn how to be asexual, which implies that it’s also assuming that asexuality is a set of behaviors. Most likely, you’re looking for advice on how to be celibate. Celibacy means not having sex. Asexuality means not experiencing sexual attraction. Sexual attraction is not really something that we can just turn off or on at will.

Q: can you make an asexual sexual (from Google)
A: No, you can’t. Don’t bother trying, you’ll do way more harm than good. PLEASE.

Q: is assexuality an emotional problem (from Google)
A: No, it isn’t. Social reactions to it can cause emotional problems, but the same is true of being gay. Asexuality is a sexual orientation just like being gay or bi.

Q: can a man be asexual and still enjoy sex (from Google)
A: Yes.

Q: am i sexually frustated if i bite my nails (from Google)
A: What the… Seriously? No, there’s no connection. You might be nervous if you tend to bite your nails, sure, but…

Q: why do people think it’s ok to ask if asexuals masturbate? (from Google)
A: You know, I wish I knew. I think it’s probably a combination of things, or different people have different reasons. It does kind of depend on the situation, as in a few cases it might actually be okay (and if you have to wonder if it’s okay to ask someone or not, then it’s NOT). I know a lot of people are genuinely curious, and curiosity’s fine (that’s what this question series is about), but thinking that it’s okay to directly ask someone whether or not they masturbate is something else. I think for some people it might be that they think that just because you brought up a word related to sex that it’s okay to ask you intimate details of your sex life… kinda like those people who think that if someone talks about sex they must be open to doing it with them. In other words, they can’t understand discussion of sex that is detached and intellectual, and/or don’t realize that by directly asking about masturbation, they’re making it personal. Others might think it’s a “problem” that you need to have them solve for you, even though you tell them it’s not. And plenty of people just start thinking that you’re wrong immediately and that they have to prove it to you. Still others probably just go around asking EVERYONE about masturbation, without knowing or (more likely) caring that it’s usually considered rude at best, and especially bad to ask of an asexual person. Whether they realize it or not, they almost always come off in a way that communicates “you don’t deserve the respect I give normal people.” The “problem-solvers” and the people who want to prove you wrong clearly start thinking of you as a problem, and forget that you’re a person with your own agency.

Q: can asexuals still find people attractive (from Google)
A: Yes, in other ways. We can think people are beautiful, for example, while not feeling sexual interest because of their appearance. Or a myriad of other kinds of attraction that I’m not going to get into here because it’s been done to death. Poke around if you want examples. I’ve written about it some, but other asexual people are a lot more into categorizing different kinds of non-sexual attraction than me.

Q: is it possible to have a sexual relationship with an asexual person? (From Google)
A: Likely I’ve already answered this question for you if you’ve found this blog, but yes. Yes, it is. I have several posts about this already, most notably this one on things that help, and this one on what NOT to do, and I have a few more coming up, including a guest post by my partner.

Q: how to have a nipplegasm (from Google)
A: LOL, I find it hilarious that this search term somehow led to my blog. I guess that phrase must’ve come up at some point. It’s also weird that this search has led to my blog more than once. I’m not going to actually answer that question because there is no surefire way for any given person to have one. Some people don’t. And I’m not terribly familiar with techniques—are there actually like named, distinguishable techniques for different kinds of nipple stimulation? It seems like the kind of thing that looking up on the internet would make worse, not better, because then you’d be more focused on whether you’re doing the technique as described and not whether your partner likes it.

Q: if you have been celibate for a long time do you need std testin? (from Google)
A: [Disclaimer: I AM NOT A DOCTOR.] It seems to me that it would depend how long it’s been, and when your last STD test was. Some STDs can go a very long time without symptoms, or the symptoms might not show up at all (like herpes). And some (like HIV) may not show up on tests right away, so you can test negative even if you do have it. I’m told it’s standard to wait six months before testing for HIV, because it won’t show up on the test right away. But keep in mind that it can take a lot longer than that to be detectable in your body. If you haven’t been tested at least six months after you last had sex, go do it. And if you got tested like seven months after or something, you might want to err on the side of caution and get tested anyway, but I realize not everybody has the money for it. Look for a free clinic in your area.

*************

Have you got a question you’d like me to answer? Ask me here. Remember to check the FAQ page!

The Occupy movement gets addressed from a lot of angles, but the one most relevant to this blog is community-building. I sort of wanted to get involved with Occupy, but the groups in bigger nearby cities seemed really overwhelming. The prospect of being smooshed in a huge crowd of strangers made me feel too unsafe. So, idly, I searched for "Occupy [my town]" online, and found that we were actually having a meeting. I was truly surprised, because this is a small, boring, apolitical, relatively conservative suburban town. Since then I've become pretty involved with our small occupation, even though we only meet for a couple of hours each week. And at this point, the most notable result of our occupation has been a burgeoning sense of local community.

I'm not saying that everyone in the group is my new BFF, or that we're all going to get along 100% of the time (that's not what community is, anyway). Nor do I know what this occupation is going to look like a few months from now. But the fact remains: This is the first time, in the 3 years I've lived here, that I've ever experienced community in my town. Through Occupy, I'm able to sit down with a group of people who were strangers to me in October, and work with them to try and change things for the better. I've met neighbors, and around town, I've ran into people that I know. This is a big deal, because it's something that I doubted would ever happen. I've always felt very isolated here, like the world was happening outside my town, and I was missing most of it. Occupy gives me some hope that this is not the case. If we can create community here, of all places, then maybe change is truly possible.

Although there is that asexual issue...up next.

(And last, here is some utterly shameless self-promotion for my zine, because it's been a while. If you're ever thinking, "Well, I'd sure like to hear what Ily has to say on some non-asexual topics", here's your chance. It's both serious and funny, like this blog tries to be.)

My name's Andrew and I'm writing my doctoral dissertation on asexuality, and for the first part of my research I am wanting to better understand how asexuals understood their asexuality before the rise of online asexual communities. This will help us to better understand the history of asexuality and the conceptual resources people have drawn on for understanding asexuality.

To participate you must
1) presently identify as asexual
2) be 25 years of age or older, and
3) and have lived most of your life since age 12 in English language contexts.

Asexual Identity Online and Before.

I know that there are a lot of you who like taking surveys who may be disappointed about not meeting the eligibility requirements. (Based on the results of the AAW11 census, the eligibility requirements probably exclude about 85% of aces active in online English language communities.) It's not because I don't care about people outside the above demographic, but because of the specific issues I'm wanting to investigate with this particular survey.

Edit: I got the number of responses I was aiming for a much faster than I anticipated. Since I now have 200 responses I have closed the survey. I want to thank everyone who participated.

You might notices that the blog looks quite a bit different now. I’ve changed it for a couple of reasons: 1) some people with vision problems were having trouble reading parts of the site, and 2) I don’t have the money to pay for another year of custom design, much as I’d like to mess around with it (okay, I’m probably too lazy to do that anyway). I’m hoping that this theme has enough color contrast that people with poor vision can still see it well, without it being too harsh. I don’t particularly like that the links in the sidebar aren’t distinguished from the regular text, but oh well.

I’ve been having a hard time coming up with the will to post much lately. I do have a couple of ideas, and there’s a draft of a guest post on sexual attraction that C is currently (not!) editing, so that will go up whenever she finishes it. If anyone else would like to make a guest post to this blog, please let me know! I’ve posted a list of guidelines for guest postings that you can find at the top of the page.

I don’t want to do a retrospective on 2011, and I don’t make resolutions. But I hope that in the coming year, we each find our place in the world a little bit safer, a little more accepting. Good luck to all of you!

So it's Big Big Love time! The book is "a sex and relationships guide for people of size (and those who love them)"; Hanne Blank is the author. I really liked it, even though a lot of it didn't apply to me personally. I'm what's awkwardly known as an "inbetweenie" i.e., I am somewhere between thin and fat. A lot of the book, of course, is targeted towards people who are larger than myself. But, most of us have loved ones of varied sizes, and if you want to be an ally to all of them, it's important to know some of the issues your fat peeps may contend with.

Certain sections might seem skim-worthy if you're not actually having sex. Some of it also seems a wee bit basic...I would assume that if you're going to pick up this book, you probably know that fat people don't all smell bad or are desperate (there's a section debunking common fat myths). But, I could be wrong about that. Here are my favorite parts/parts I found the most interesting:

• Section on asexuality! It's well-done, it includes quotes from asexuals ourselves, and it's included in a chapter with all the other sexual orientations. YEAH!
  
• What Hanne says are her two main take-aways: "Stop putting your life on hold" (until you're thin...or anything else, really) and "Don't expect love and sex to heal your entire life" (pgs 26 & 27).
  
• A discussion of weight distribution/shape, and how this affects perceptions of someone's sexuality and gender. For instance, a pear-shaped man is quoted as saying that people just assume he's gay because his shape is traditionally considered "womanly". Apparently, apple-shaped women (that's me, I guess) "may feel like they are sexually invisible" (36). You know...I think there's some truth to that. I do have breasts, but I don't have much in the way of hips, butt, or thighs. When I was slightly heavier, I had no defined waist. I am rarely approached by anyone in a sexual manner. From hourglass-shaped asexual women, I hear different stories.
  
• Good stuff about body image and acceptance. Hanne suggests this exercise: "Try finding something to compliment in every fat person you see (72)". (You don't have to say the compliment out loud unless you want to.) I can tell you, this kind of exercise really works, and it can improve your whole mood for the day. We can often be really judgmental of other people's appearances, sometimes without even realizing it ("she's wearing that?"). To change that casual criticism into something positive can be a powerful thing to do for ourselves, even (especially) if the other person doesn't know what the heck we're thinking.
  
• Responses to rude comments about size. This one amused me the most: "Why am I so fat? Because every time I fuck your mom, she bakes me a pie." Of course, it hinges on someone yelling, "Why are you so fat?", but in the event that it happens...you'll be ready. (More comeback ideas...and I want all her clothes.)
  

Happy 2012, folks! My resolution will be to not end posts with bullet points.

The holidays are upon us and that means it's time to indulge in some festive musings relating to Asexual and general issues.

C and I made this observation over lunch today:

We have a word for someone who abstains from sex (celibate) and the idea of abstaining from sex in general (celibacy). Actually, we have two words for it if you count abstinent as well.

But as far as we know, there isn’t really a word for someone who has decided not to pursue romantic relationships for whatever reason (whether they’re celibate during this period or not). The closest we have (as far as I am aware, at least) is aromantic, but that’s different. The vast majority of people who don’t pursue romantic relationships are not aromantic, they’ve just decided that now is not the time, for whatever reason. Maybe a bad break-up, maybe they have career goals that they don’t want to be distracted from, maybe they just want to spend time single to get to know themselves well and gain a sense of independence. It’s the same as the difference between asexuality and celibacy, only with aromanticism and… a person who is abstaining from romantic relationships, I guess. You see what I mean? We have a description, but not a word.

Has anyone heard of such a word? It gets rather unwieldy to say that every single time when you’re trying to have a conversation about someone who is intentionally, purposefully single like that. I guess there’s “independent,” but that’s more of a general personality trait used as a euphemism than an actual term for it. Since it has that general meaning as well, if you say that without explaining what exactly you mean, other people are liable to get confused. You can say, “She’s very independent” about a married woman, too.

And what does it say about our culture’s values that people have never thought to name this concept? It’s like the idea of people being single on purpose is considered so wrong that people don’t even consider naming it, even though it’s not unheard of. It always seems to be considered just a temporary thing that requires explanation.

I'm taking a brief holiday break, but I do have Big Big Love on hold for me at the library. I'd heard of the book before, but Mary convinced me to read it with her video of appreciation. I'd also been taking a hiatus from sexuality books, but I guess we can only be kept apart for so long. Whether or not you're religious, I know this can be a stressful time of year. So, I want to wish everyone a peaceful December.

Here's an interesting essay: Dress to Kill, Fight to Win, by Dean Spade. Somehow he manages to tie together both fashion and trans surgery in a fairly short piece. It ends with a question:

"Why would we want to do things that don’t require explanation, that are obvious, impervious to critique because no one even notices we’re doing them?"

Well, to fit in, of course. I've always had such a strong desire to be understood and to avoid misunderstanding. Confusing people on purpose is something that hasn't really occurred to me. Although...I like the idea of it. Don't get me wrong, understanding is an incredible thing. But it isn't always going to happen, and it's heartening to know that there might be some value in the alternative.

Spade also talks about "resistant aesthetics", which I think is a helpful term. I do want to resist, through my appearance, the sexual and gender norms of our culture. But I don't think anyone is going to figure this out just by looking at me. For women and those read as such, dressing "entirely outside of the sexual dimension" is virtually impossible. (Either we're sexy...or the absence of sexy.) I recently read a post called "Femme Visibility". The writer says that "femme presentations are often done to queer the idea of women as objects of men’s desire. It can be done to parody traditional ideas of women’s gender roles and dress." While these femmes are coming from a place of aesthetic resistance, they're often not perceived as queer or transgressive by society at large. I can relate to that dissonance, because I keep trying to dress outside of sexuality and gender. Spade seems to maintain that there's importance to these efforts, as imperfect as they may be. In some ways, my style does require explanation, even though it isn't unusual enough to draw much questioning.

We've talked about the differences between Asexuals and the LGBT community in great detail in the past. This time we turn the table and talk about the similarities.

Hughes, L. (2011). The presence of absence: Asexuality and the creation of resistance, gnovis, 12.
This paper investigates the existence of asexuality or ace identity. The aim of the paper is twofold, to examine the emergence of a seemingly impossible identity and to consider the consequences of an asexual space in a sexual discourse. Since the term ‘asexual’ proves problematic in its dependence on the existence of sexuality, the first half of the paper attempts to renegotiate a definition of asexuality, focusing on the power of the term “ace”. I then explore the work of three exemplary authors, Anne Fausto-Sterling, Lillian Faderman, and Michael Foucault, who prove successful in constructing an alternative discourse to the dominant sexual regime. Using their work, I argue that not only does an asexual space help individuals articulate their existence; it also creates resistance against the dominant power regime. Outside of academia, I argue that technology takes the reins, as the Asexual Visibility and Education Network’s (AVEN) online presence continues to raise awareness and expand the asexual community.

Erro, N. (2011). Asexy pioneer: Asexuality versus eroticism in Willa Cather’s O Pioneers!, Inquire: Journal of Comparative Literature, 1.

No abstract.