Are asexuals oppressed?

[ben8884]

Is there ace-phobia? Totally. Is it wrong? Yup! However, is phobia the same as oppression? Not really-although I think they are close. Many asexuals may feel the need to oppress themselves in other words not come out and try to live a sexual lifestyle because they are told that that is the "normal" way to live. Its not exactly oppression mind, but I think its something we need to address, In the UK the Green party said if elected they would include asexuality in sex ed and I think things like that would go a long away. 

So to answer the question in my opinion-no, asexuals are not oppressed however that doesn't mean we are considered equal either. 

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

Which members/groups of society are oppressed, if any, in the West?

My point kind of hinges on the idea that there are few groups that are oppressed in the West. Not in the sense that they are being sent to jails or gulags. I think that there could be a case made that certain groups are targeted and maybe victimized to some degree but that oppression as it is traditionally considered is not happening in the west. So to use such strong language isn't only wrong but works towards the aim of the people trying to be accepted into the greater society. 

[Dreamsexual]

On ‎2‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 2:20 PM, MiseryTriumphant said:

few groups that are oppressed in the West

 

[Guest]

A lot of economic and political groups have their assemblies met with force. Just look at Venezuela. The French yellow coats were disbanded with police force. How about Mexicans at the border? The Stonewall riot in New York? The point is is until that happens then you can't say you are oppressed. 

[Dreamsexual]

On ‎2‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 3:04 PM, MiseryTriumphant said:

The point is is until that happens then you can't say you are oppressed. 

 

[Skycaptain]

The oppressed legally in the UK have, ironically become a hetero-normative couple who have less options on how to formalise their union than everyone else 

[Dreamsexual]

On ‎2‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 8:04 PM, Skycaptain said:

less options on how to formalise their union than everyone else 

.

[SorryNotSorry]

On 1/28/2019 at 12:21 PM, zoe_eevee said:

I saw a post on Reddit a post claiming that asexuals weren't oppressed, thought and opinions? (without getting angee) (I'm also ace y'all)

Denial and ridicule rather than oppression. It makes no sense to me, but it is what it is.

[Dreamsexual]

'

[SorryNotSorry]

2 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

I'm still no clearer after 3 pages as to exactly what oppression means and now it's defined.  I can't answer whether asexuals are oppressed or not if I'm not even sure what is meat by the term!

Well... here in the US, there are plenty of people who don't like the idea of having rights, or of letting people who are different in some way live and let live. They want strong authority figures to dictate to them what they can and can't do. That's one aspect of oppression.

[Hamsterlover]

On 1/28/2019 at 4:20 PM, A. Sterling said:

Although there is nothing stopping asexuals from getting married

I've noticed some backlash to this comment on the grounds that the same argument could be used to promote a heteronormative view of marriage. While I understand your point, I think this comment might be referring to aces who wish to marry their romantic or platonic partners. It also seems to me that the situation is a little bit different here, because there was something preventing gay people from getting married to their partners, even if there was nothing preventing them from getting married to people of the opposite gender. In contrast, aces can get married to anybody they want, they just often don't want to get married at all.

 

Now whether giving benefits to married couples is discrimination against people who don't want to get married is a different question, and an interesting one, which I honestly don't have many opinions about and I would be interested to hear more perspectives on that.

 

I hope my comment helped, and I'm interested to hear what you have to say about this subject.

 

Edit: I just noticed that discussion of this comment/subtopic is mainly on the first page of the thread, so I apologize if this isn't relevant anymore. Still, I felt like I wanted to put in my opinion on this part of the discussion.

[A. Sterling]

1 hour ago, Hamsterlover said:

I've noticed some backlash to this comment on the grounds that the same argument could be used to promote a heteronormative view of marriage. While I understand your point, I think this comment might be referring to aces who wish to marry their romantic or platonic partners. It also seems to me that the situation is a little bit different here, because there was something preventing gay people from getting married to their partners, even if there was nothing preventing them from getting married to people of the opposite gender. In contrast, aces can get married to anybody they want, they just often don't want to get married at all.

Yeah. I'm not really attached to a view of it one way or another. My suggestion, I suppose, was that there aren't any actual laws that would stop aces from being married so the tax benefits are as unfair to aces as they are to all people who don't want to get legally married and there are plenty of people (aces and not) who don't want to get married and plenty who do. It is, of course, becoming more common to not get married at all or to get married much later in life.

 

1 hour ago, Hamsterlover said:

Now whether giving benefits to married couples is discrimination against people who don't want to get married is a different question, and an interesting one, which I honestly don't have many opinions about and I would be interested to hear more perspectives on that.

As to this, I think it is unfair to give married people tax benefits. It is one of the many way the government works to control/influence the behavior of its people and I don't find that to be a particularly good thing. The government usually uses taxes in this way, another common example is the tax on cigarettes but I don't disagree with that one as much. Maybe I should. 

 

[DuskFire]

I certainly feel oppressed. Damn oppressed!

I'm tired people assuming what I like and what I'm supposed to do. Just leave me alone! It's none of your business! (That'd be what I'd say if I wasn't so nice)

[Jusey1]

The vast majority of people are not oppressed, at least not in a large enough scale where it would affect your individual life. At most, I can see Transexuals being oppressed in today's society but that's about it off the top of my head. The LGBT+ community as a whole has done an amazing job.

[Guest Jetsun Milarepa]

Maybe it's easier to oppress a group for doing something you disagree with, than something they're not doing at all.

Probably akin to the laws that outlawed homosexuality in men but not women because it couldn't be figured out how lesbian sex physically operated.

Apologies if the sentence above is apocryphal.

[YouDontNeedMyName]

I don't feel we're oppressed but certainly not represented. Makes sense though since we're a smaller group that other sexualities and a lot of people never even realize they're ace.

[Mr. Unknown]

I would say asexuality is not oppressed legally. It is however ridiculed, mocked, and ignored. There was a previous poster that said asexuality has no problems that couldn’t be fixed by educating the public properly, I second that opinion. 

 

It doesn’t need to be normalized per say, as it isn’t a normal thing but if it was well known that would be helpful. Took me way too long to figure out I was asexual due to lack of exposure and I’m sure many others on this site have had a similar experience.

 

Also would be cool because dating and meeting other asexuals would be a lot easier. Ironically I’ve only met one (openly) asexual person in my life and I offended her because I tried to be sexual with her because I knew basically nothing about asexuality. It being popularized in media is really helpful, I’m embarassed to say I figured out I was Asexual about a year ago, at the age of 22, from watching a tv show that had an asexual character.

[Guest Jetsun Milarepa]

IRL I feel that we're invisible. 

On AVEN I see us being repressed every time I look in.

[user23974865]

I'm not exactly "sexual", but I'm not exactly "asexual" either. I have ADHD though (among other things), which has a much bigger impact on my life than my sexuality or lack thereof. I'll use it for comparison.

 

Most people either 1) believe it's a misbehaved-child-syndrome that kids eventually "grow out of" (which results in both overdiagnosis in children and underdiagnosis in adults), 2) deny that it's "a real thing", or 3) are entirely unaware that it exists (public awareness of it varies a lot between countries). I'm sure these three points will sound familiar to most here. It's frustrating. It's alienating. The condition on its own is complicated, but life sure would be easier if people could understand me better and vice-versa.

 

The question then: Am I oppressed?

The short answer is "no".

The long answer is "no".

 

I also don't wish for visibility or recognition. Because the outcomes I would expect from it are: 1) mass assumptions and stereotypes that people previously didn't have, 2) antipathy from people who were previously indifferent, 3) ten new widespread misconceptions for every infrequent misconception that gets clarified, and 4) people co-opting my personal struggles for themselves, either casually or, worse, for specifically questionable purposes, claiming to be "on my side" and trying to recruit me for their cult. In short: social spam. Actual improvement to my life is the last thing I would ever expect from it. Because I already have all the legal rights and protections I could reasonably expect to have (none of which are specific to ADHD and such, just regular people rights), even if the infamous "system" doesn't exactly work in my favor. Life gives you lemons. I have my struggles, but I'm way better off without going out of my way to invite meddling.

 

And the way I see it, the same goes for every other thing about me that places me outside of the norm (autism among them -- and this is why I'm no longer an active member of a certain autism forum out there).

 

I realize I didn't address the actual question "are asexuals oppressed", but you can take your own conclusions.

[user23974865]

I think what most people who feel "oppressed" for such things don't realize is that they lack a healthy level of assertiveness.

 

I'm not saying it's a simple thing. It certainly never was for me (it's not easy to strike the right balance somewhere in between total doormat and berserk maniac). But I think almost every problem is better approached first from the perspective of what you can do to change things, starting with your own flaws and what you can do about them. However unrealistic it may seem (like "I can't do anything about it!"), chances are it's exponentially more unrealistic to expect others to be able or willing to adjust to your needs without clear and direct feedback from you at the moment when it's relevant.

[Muledeer]

On 3/6/2019 at 8:09 PM, YouDontNeedMyName said:

I don't feel we're oppressed but certainly not represented. Makes sense though since we're a smaller group that other sexualities and a lot of people never even realize they're ace.

I was looking for a response like this so that all I have to do is say:  I Agree!

[Ldlelee]

I think oppression is applied. If someone told me, "You can't be asexual because humans are sexual beings," it sounds eerily similar to "You can't be gay because God created Adam and Eve." However, I do understand what people mean when they say we aren't oppressed in the way most people attribute the term. We haven't been restricted from sitting in certain places, or joining the military, or voting, or any other human rights that minorities have fought for generations. Mostly, people just don't think we exist. Is that sad? Is it bigotry? Yes. But it isn't oppression.

[Joe the Stoic]

17 minutes ago, Lee 🌸 said:

I think oppression is applied. If someone told me, "You can't be asexual because humans are sexual beings," it sounds eerily similar to "You can't be gay because God created Adam and Eve."

For one, it's not saying that.

 

Secondly, that's just skepticism.  We can't call ourselves oppressed just because we encounter skeptical people, from time to time.  I mean, if that is oppression, then anything is.

[Ldlelee]

8 minutes ago, Rob Boss said:

For one, it's not saying that.

 

Secondly, that's just skepticism.  We can't call ourselves oppressed just because we encounter skeptical people, from time to time.  I mean, if that is oppression, then anything is.

That's what I was getting at. It sounds like oppression, but there's a difference between thinking an orientation doesn't exist and going out of your way to oppose and belittle an orientation. For instance, excluding asexuals from the LGBT community because they're "basically straight"? I would consider that oppression. But saying that it doesn't exist is just ignorance.

[catra]

well, going by the definition of oppression being “unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power”, no. aces aren’t systematically oppressed. i suppose you could argue that aces are discriminated against, though.

[user23974865]

6 hours ago, catra said:

well, going by the definition of oppression being “unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power”, no. aces aren’t systematically oppressed. i suppose you could argue that aces are discriminated against, though.

"Oppressed" just sounds overly and needlessly dramatic, which only takes meaning away from the word. "Are asexuals discriminated against", though, does sound like a much more reasonable question. And if you ask me that question, I'll have to say "I don't know".

 

I'm permanently single and celibate by choice, and, while I do feel annoyed and alienated by people, I don't feel / don't think I am discriminated against. No amount of understanding or acceptance on the part of other people could change this annoyance and alienation if they're still going to be so different from me. But I'm an unapologetic recluse, so I can't exactly take my personal experience as representative. And I know that people in other parts of the world really are way more nosy and moralistic than they are here, so there's that.

[Sally]

5 hours ago, catra said:

well, going by the definition of oppression being “unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power”, no. aces aren’t systematically oppressed. i suppose you could argue that aces are discriminated against, though.

Not really, though, unless your life is substantially worsened because you aren't able to have the same things that other people do -- like a job, a place to live, medical care, etc.  That's discrimination, and that's what happened to homosexuals, people of color, or people of  minority religions.  They experience actual discrimination.  

[catra]

5 hours ago, Sally said:

Not really, though, unless your life is substantially worsened because you aren't able to have the same things that other people do -- like a job, a place to live, medical care, etc.  That's discrimination, and that's what happened to homosexuals, people of color, or people of  minority religions.  They experience actual discrimination.  

yeah, that’s fair. i just thought that since one of the definitions of discriminate is “to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than inidividual merit” people could argue that aces experience a smaller form of discrimination in some cases (although, it’s still not something that’s prevalent)

[erf]

Nope

[kumiko_itoe]

Being oppressed means being handicapped mentally, emotionally, physically and even socially. 

 

Before announcing that I am asexual in any of my social circles, I certainly do not feel oppressed in anyway. Many think of me as a social butterfly eventhough I am more of an introvert. 

After announcing? I do get some sarcastic and ignorant remarks but it doesn't bother me and it doesn't change who I am and it has not affected my job or how people in general perceive me. 

 

So in a nutshell I'm not oppressed.