Jump to content

Asexuality and Collective Identity


AVENguy

Recommended Posts

I just made a post on the new AVENWiki, and want to create a thread to talk about it. The post is here:

http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Asexuality

At the bottom. Here's the text:

AVENguy's Collective Identity Model

Another model of asexuality has been put forth by AVENguy. Rather than trying to define a common sexual classification for all asexual people, this frames asexuality in terms of collective identity. Asexual people have something in common because they have all chosen to actively disidentify with sexuality, a socially dominant framework for thinking about everything from pleasure to attractiveness to intimacy.

Under this model an asexual person is anyone who uses the term "asexual" to describe themselves. The label can only be applied internally, no one has the power to create a set of criteria which determine who "is" and "is not" asexual. The desire to identify as asexual comes from occupying a particular social position relative to culturally dominant ideas about sexuality. This common social position is the one thing which unifies all asexual people.

Imagine a person who does not experience sexual attraction. Imagine they are put in an environment where they are free to talk about desire and pleasure, pursue relationships, and go about their lives without their lack of sexuality ever becoming an issue. This person would feel sexually "normal", they would feel no desire to identify as asexual or participate in a community. Under the collective identity model this person would not be asexual, because they would not use the term "asexual" to describe themselves.

Not imagine that same person in a different environment, where they are reminded of their lack of sexuality constantly. In this environment things like intimacy and attraction are entangled in a set of sexual ideas which have nothing to do with the person's life. The person is constantly expected to be thinking and feeling things which they are not. This second environment qould create feelings of confusion and isolation leading to the formation of an asexual identity and making the person asexual.

The collective identity model implies that asexuality as we know it is a direct result of culturally dominant ideas about sex which are incompatible with our lifestyle. By growing as a community and becoming visible in the public sphere asexual people will challenge those ideas, changing what it means to be sexual and what it means to be asexual.

Thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this model describes the asexual community better than most that I've heard so far. It accounts for the incredible diversity that we have here at AVEN that most models have been unable to explain so far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes sense to me. :)

The same could probably be said of why there is such a thing as 'atheist' - why need to identify with others in reference to what you don't believe in unless you are completely surrounded by so many who do believe in it that you have to figure out how to live without it.

Nobody is creating an 'afootball' or 'acooking' or 'aphotography' group because the culture is not soaked in it and it's natural and normal to not be as into such things as other people are.

And btw, I would LOVE to be in an environment where I could talk about and experience intimacy without there being sexual inuendos or suspicions of sexual motives all over the place. *looks around * oh... yeah. That's why I'm here. *heheheh*

Link to post
Share on other sites
Makes sense to me. :)

The same could probably be said of why there is such a thing as 'atheist' - why need to identify with others in reference to what you don't believe in unless you are completely surrounded by so many who do believe in it that you have to figure out how to live without it.

Well said! I was never an atheist as a kid, because my family wasn't theist and there was no reason to differentiate myself. I only began needing the term when I realized most of society was some kind of theist. But outside of certain contexts, that identification really doesn't matter anyway and we can forget we have these differences at all.

I like it, AVENguy. This is kind of like something a bunch of us have been talking about in various threads re: the 20/20 segment. The media makes a big deal about asexuals because we're strange and novel and a curiosity, but ideally with more exposure we'll become less novel and less interesting at all, and eventually we'll just be. . .people. Who don't happen to experience sexual attraction.

Oh, for that day :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me this model of identity recalls a postmodern identity concept like "queer", in that it lacks any fixed definition, it's a kind of umbrella term for various groups of people, it's strategic, it challenges dominant cultural norms etc.

I'm all in favour of it, I hope it works.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Omnes et Nihil

I like that. It isn't a model of asexuality per se though-- it's a model of the asexual identity. I think it's a descriptively good model, which is what's important.

The internal defintion is important too. It paralells the structure of a social-identity of being gay, for instance. The behaviour, and inclination toward (or lack of inclination toward) any behaviour isn't enough on its own to justify a label. And personal labels are more important / valid than imposed ones. I know a lot of people tend to disagree on this particularl point regarding being gay though-- oddly enough. It gets to the question of whether or not you can be gay and not know it. By this definition you cannot be asexual and not know it. I would say that you cannot be gay and not know it. Although you can be inclined toward being gay-- the social identity is separate from the characteristics themselves. I am of course assuming that in some ideal society, where the gender of attraction isn't an issue, and heteronormativity is defunct, that people would be gay or straight. They would just be people. Some of whom are mostly attracted to people of similar gender, some of whom are mostly attracted to people of different gender, and others with all different attractions, probabilities of attractions, and lacks thereof.

That gets back to what I mean about it being a model of the asexual identity, and not of asexuality. There is still room, given this model of the asexual identity, for another model of asexuality. It would probably be a model of the people who are likely to feel a need to have an asexual identity, the reasons, and the way they come to that identity. Okay, so the model has a basic who, but not a how or why. Now, a model of asexuality per se might be neither useful or desirable. That's a philisophical discussion of its own. My point is that this, despite being both useful and descriptive, isn't it.

Wow, that's rather disorganised and longwinded. But as I'm not in a position to remedy that right now... take what you will or leave it.

On a completely different note, the asexual identity (who claims is, how, why and when) and how it develops is one of the many topics that needs to be studied. I was actually talking about this earlier today, since I might be in a position to do a very small academic study on asexuality in the spring. I'm also interested in stuff like asexuality and gender. But any kind of study is only possible IF I can manage an ethics board, and find people interested in participating. (which might on itself create difficulties with ethics boards.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

It's an interesting definition. Since in this society so much of our Identity is tied up with our sexuality.

Still I think there must be a way to objectively define asexuality. Your example of a person without sexual desire living in a society where it never comes up is a good one. I would say that he is asexual, but he lives in a society where your sexuality is not a major part of your identity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Omnes et Nihil
It's an interesting definition. Since in this society so much of our Identity is tied up with our sexuality.

Still I think there must be a way to objectively define asexuality. Your example of a person without sexual desire living in a society where it never comes up is a good one. I would say that he is asexual, but he lives in a society where your sexuality is not a major part of your identity.

Strictly speaking, there isn't a way to objectively define any type of sexual orientation or identity. There are definitions and descriptions. And although people may debate the definition of asexuality... we kind of all assume that one is at least plausible. That's why I think this a model of asexual identity. (But I've already said that, so I won't say it again, and instead address some of the issues that get raised if you assume that there are objective means of identification of such things.)

Is a person with sexual desire directly only toward people of a particular sex or gender necessarily of a certain sexual orientation, or have a certain sexual identity? What if that person understands sexuality in a completely different way than any of us have ever been exposed to it being framed?

If someone lives in a world where there isn't a concept of sexual orientation, where that isn't part of people's identities, where any type of sexual expression or beahviour is expected, including a lack thereof... and people are just assumed to vary smoothly along dimensions of how much of what they want with whom... Does it even make sense to talk about people who don't experience sexual attraction or desire as qualitatively different in any way from anyone else?

What do you make of people who are so-called "in denial"? Consider a hypothetical person for the sake of argument who identifies at the most personal level as straight, and (for whatever reasons, self-permission, or anything else) has only straight erotic fantasies... even if hypothetically they might be much happier in a state where they would have homoerotic fantasies etc... Is this person gay? And if so, why would you get to decide that?

Another interesting example would be men on the down low. (The term usually refers mostly to Black men in an urban setting, who engage in usually purely sexual relationships with other men, and many of whom are in heterosexual marriages where their wives usually don't know about their extramarital sexual behaviour.) Most if not all of these men are NOT going to identify as or with labels of "bisexual" or "gay". They might identify as "married", or possibly on the DL. Does it make sense for someone to come along and declare that they are wrong... that an observer's label is more important than their own?

Those are some of the problems that come up when you want to be able to have a way of objectively declaring people "asexual", or anything else like that, really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The example of a person in a society that expected all varieties of sexual behavior, would be asexual. It's just in that society that particular characteristic is not considered a defining characteristic.

Another example, A black man is living in a community where there is a wide range in complexion and in which no one considers skin color to be a defining characteristic. Is the man then not black?

What about a society that differenciates based on height? Where people are divided into 3 different height definitions Tall, Medium, Short. If we pull a tall person out of that society and put him here, does that mean he isn't tall?

As for men who are on 'the down low' I would say yes they are bi-sexual, and I would say that being on the DL is merely that subcultures slang for that sexuality.

Any form of classification is completely arbitrary. Even our definitions of biological species groups, families, kingdoms, etc. The point is if we are going to discuss these issues we need to be able to have a shared definition that includes specific identifying characteristics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the model; I'm just in something of a fiesty mood right now.

If we take the term 'asexual' to only be valid when it is self-applied, is there, then, necessarilly any connection between any two given asexuals? That is, if I say I'm asexual, and you say you're asexual, are we connected by that? If we both perceive and interpret asexuality independently of both each other and any larger, absolute definition, then does the statement 'I'm asexual' become meaningless? What point is there, then, to an asexual community, movement, or identity?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Omnes et Nihil
I like the model; I'm just in something of a fiesty mood right now.

If we take the term 'asexual' to only be valid when it is self-applied, is there, then, necessarilly any connection between any two given asexuals? That is, if I say I'm asexual, and you say you're asexual, are we connected by that? If we both perceive and interpret asexuality independently of both each other and any larger, absolute definition, then does the statement 'I'm asexual' become meaningless? What point is there, then, to an asexual community, movement, or identity?

I think the proof of that is in the pudding, as the expression goes. If it were meaningless, and there was no useful connection, then there wouldn't be an asexual community. We wouldn't all be here interacting... because we would have no connection to eachother.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer to be labelled "Asexual" since I most definitely don't identify with any of the other sexual orientation or leanings. Here at least I know with a great degree of certianity that NOTHING is expected of me. Absolutely no pressure to comply or to conform to other peoples idea of sexuality and so called norms. To me this is norm, this is where I feel happiest because this is as far removed from sex as I can possibly get.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...