"You Don’t Need a Sexual Identity to Enjoy Sex"

[SithLord]

I agree with the idea of not letting labels limit you, but I'm with @Nowhere Girl and @Karret that it's treating our label with erasure and disrespect it doesn't give others. It's worse with demisexuals. I understand not forcing yourself into a box and refusing to accept anything except life inside that box, but that has nothing to do with dismissing the actual experiences of people.

 

Saying I don't get to be angry at someone for not respecting my orientation is the same as not getting mad at someone who believes being gay is a choice. Homophobes try and use this excuse a lot. "It's their choice." "It's their life style." "Why do they have to be gay?" Being ace is as imporant to me as homosexuality is for gay people. 

[Karret]

5 hours ago, Bloodmoon Spirit ☽ said:

@Karret I find it weird that the author is telling people they're not allowed to judge, it's not up to them to tell people what they can and can't do. But personally I think that if someone is doing something to other people that they hate having done to them, that they are being childish and stooping to the same level as the people who did it to them. Also, not everyone is judgmental.

Lol, right?

That's a fair point. I tend to turn things around on the other person so they can see how it feels when the shoe's on the other foot so that maybe it'll click that "OOOOOooooo yeah that's NOT cool to do~"

-shrug- I'm not so sure about that. I'm sure everyone's judgmental about SOMETHING. And different people ascribe different judgments to the same thing. Person A thinks a ripped fishnet top looks trashy, while Person B thinks it looks edgy and trendy. I think it's hardwired into us to make snap judgments on things. It doesn't mean those judgments will remain the same, and it doesn't mean that can't be broken through, but I think everyone instinctively does it. Even if it's mild, like that Hilton commercial, where Anna Kendrick is all "Laptop by the pool, bold choice" kind of comes across a little judgy, like "wow, that's stupid," but the inoffensive way to get that message across. That's just how people are in my experience.

[Homer]

9 hours ago, Karret said:

People judge other people everyday for just about every reason, from the way they dress, to the way they speak, so why can't a person judge another who doesn't believe asexuality is a thing?

Because it's not a smart thing to do? You mentioned examples of unnecessary judgement and the question is: How would adding another judgemental situation make anything more reasonable?

[BlueSaint]

10 minutes ago, Homer said:

Because it's not a smart thing to do? You mentioned examples of unnecessary judgement and the question is: How would adding another judgemental situation make anything more reasonable?

It is reasonable to judge someone on how they treat substantial issues, especially when they involve other people. You are making a judgment based on their character and not some surface element. Now your response afterwards can be unreasonable, but judging a person based on their actions is a basic aspect of being human.

[SithLord]

23 minutes ago, Homer said:

Because it's not a smart thing to do? You mentioned examples of unnecessary judgement and the question is: How would adding another judgemental situation make anything more reasonable?

I'm personally of the belief that anything people put out there is safe to judge. You cut your hair really short, I'm going to make assumptions about you from it. You wear hard rock band shirts? Judged. You sip tea with your pinky erect. JUDGED. 

Not all of it is negative, it just tells me whether or not we have things in common or could get along. Me looking at a girl and going "Yeah, based on her speech, dress, and body language, we won't get along. Probably should steer clear" isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Me judging someone because they reject my label, yeah that person can watch my butt walking in the opposite direction, thank you very much. Why subject myself to that level of disrespect?

[Karret]

3 minutes ago, Homer said:

Because it's not a smart thing to do? You mentioned examples of unnecessary judgement and the question is: How would adding another judgemental situation make anything more reasonable?

Lol, fair point, I didn't ever say it was smart to do.
I guess for me, the main basis for it is he's a professional in the field of sex/sexuality, PhD and everything, therefore you've gotta hold him to a higher standard than an average layman because if you don't judge someone on their skill within their profession, then you aren't really rewarding the ones who do their due diligence and instead just might as well let any ole Joe Shmoe be a sex therapist/psychotherapist . A psychiatrist who rubs you the wrong way - technically, that's being judgmental against them, but if your personalities don't mesh, you gotta look for a different one. Not holding experts to a discerning standard and letting haphazard nonsense filter through muddies the educational waters. There are times and places where it's important to be a little judgmental; maybe not in the snotty "Oh I don't like your ensemble" way, granted, but there are times when you have to exercise your best judgment in order to get the best result. Parents are judgmental of schools after researching the overall quality, and they'll decide whether or not they want to send their children to that school [assuming they've got the means to choose]. Don't want to have your children raised in a school that challenges evolution with creationism, or that's supportive of anti-vaxxers when your kid can't get their shots because of medical conditions they have. You're exercising your judgment, which is the act of being judgmental.
In addition, by saying "you decide you’re 'asexual,'" is already being judgmental of whoever identifies as asexual by claiming it's a choice, a conscious decision, and therefore not  a REAL orientation. The next step in this is to infer you're doing it for attention or approval, instead of genuinely feeling that it's a term that describes you, which then gets thrown in with the "special snowflake" shit, which is loaded with judgment. If I can show them what judgement right back looks like, they might be like "oh shit, that's not cool" then I can turn around and be like "yeah, and neither is your assuming asexuality isn't a thing just because you didn't hear about it way back in ye olden days when you went to school."

[everywhere and nowhere]

16 hours ago, Karret said:

If he was just some guy, then there wouldn't be as big a burden on him, laymen don't typically get around to coming in contact with newly developing ideas, but this shit is LITERALLY his fucking job.

Yes, that's it. In the other topic on this article I wrote something like "How can I trust sexologists?". I'm just tired of sexologists who believe that in case of asexuality they can decide for themselves whether it's valid and who, first of all, treat their profession as if it was about pushing the joys of sex on everyone.

In a broader perspective - more about my general problems with sex positivity than just about this particular article: how can people not see that supporting "sexual freedom" while being very suspicious of celibacy and treating it as almost always the result of "repression" which should be "cured" is contradictory in itself? No, you can't support sexual freedom without supporting voluntary celibacy. If you don't accept celibacy, than the "sexual freedom" that you preach becomes compulsory sexuality.

[DarkStormyKnight]

WHAT DID I JUST READ 

Like sure ok don't let a label take over your life but COME ON MAN, I would judge people who don't think asexuality exists regardless of whether I was ace or not because that just indicates that you're a decent human.

[Homer]

Merged the topic in World Watch discussing the article with this thread.

Homer

Moderator World Watch

[PoeciMeta]

I've already thought, more than once, that I have mixed feelings for the phrase 'I am [insert orientation]'. I think 'I like [insert gender(s)]' is simpler, more exact and universal, and less categorising. Partly because some orientations, especially straight, can't be well applied to non-binary genders, and partly because I don't like the idea of defining oneself based on what kind of people they like. Just like them and whatever, no big deal. Why does your own gender matter in that, too? Among all people who like girls, why should girls be any different, after all? 

Yeah, in a perfect world, we wouldn't have to care about naming our orientation. 

 

In this world, though, I came to understand that having a word, like 'asexual' (for 'I sexually like: no one') is in fact useful and other people do have to recognise those words that we define. We can't let others define asexuality (as 'that small bunch of repressed weirdos who don't know how to love', for example...) 

Telling people that they define whatever orientation however they like is erasure. You only get to define your own. 

 

First of all, for oneself, labels are reassuring, there's the sense of community and self-understanding and acceptance. It's good to have a word to explain who you are, hence people being attached to them. And that's right, you don't let them define you, accept whatever you are, don't force yourself to fit a label, blah blah blah. Agreed. 

 

However, and this is where this article rubs me the wrong way. Labels are also tools, used for visibility, validation of people's experiences and communicating simple yet complex things; like for example, the fact that there is such a thing as normal, healthy people who just don't want sex, that it's fine and that people must respect that. Why should you believe that? Because it's called being asexual. And you can look it up, and see it's an actual thing. See the impact of having a name? 

 

Sure, labels shouldn't be meant to include every little natural individual variation of who, what, when, how you like, everyone has too many variations. That would make them limiting, it's a bit pointless and we'd get lost. That's one of the main points of the article: do self-explore, but don't try to define everything you find. You can't, and you must allow yourself to evolve and discover more things. And since you're unique, per definition, no mould can ever fit perfectly. That's fine. It's all just a big continuum anyway. 

So, labels should stay basic and clear, allow room for some variation, and they should just tell what people need to know. Notably: 1) if you won't date them, and 2) that it's not a disease we have to cure. We don't care about the specifics. (That's the job of microlabels, which communicate subtler stuff and work only within an educated community. I'm not dismissing them. They can be cool too I guess, but they're more changeable and less 'basic' and are fine without much visibility. Otherwise they just overcomplicate stuff.) It's a bit sad, but we need it; we need to rally under a name to prove we're valid. 

 

Now, telling people it's up to them to define all that is problematic. Sure, we're talking about humans with a culture, so many categories in there are fluid and blurry around the edges, but if we want credibility, we need some level of coherence.

We can't choose to warp a label just because we want it (not) to apply to us, because that invalidates the experience of people who actually fit the commonly agreed definition, creates tension and confusion, and then there's the whole 'orientation is a choice' narrative. I know, it sounds suspiciously like gatekeeping, but if everyone can access that category, the very notion of it being a (real) category loses its meaning. If 'asexual' loses its meaning, if its definition becomes 'whatever', then we are nothing but people who chose that name, in other words, confused weirdos trying to be interesting but who might accept sex if you insist long enough. It's worse than no name at all.

Therefore, we absolutely can't let people make up their own definitions of others' labels and decide they'll ignore what these labels actually mean for people who use them. We obviously have the right to speak up when people say false or wrong things about us, or when they outright say they don't believe we exist. If we don't ask for respect, we won't get it. 

(This issue is much harder to discuss when it comes to gender, by the way.) 

People don't have to care, they just have not to disrespect. I know, right??? 

 

Trivialising labels as akin to footwear preference is dismissive, plain stupid and frankly a bit insulting. I can discern a tinge of majority privilege here. Can't be sure whether the author is straight, but yeah... if you're straight, of course you can enjoy your orientation as it is without having to worry about labels and being [...] enough. No one will ever, ever question your legitimity. Not everyone has that luck. 

 

 

 

TL;DR: I agree, you do you and you shouldn't force yourself to fit a mould. Labels should be used for communication, not for self-definition. Thus, they should be inclusive, understandable and above all believable. We need at least some loose but coherent categories with a proper name, so that on the huge convoluted map of attractions, we can point to a named portion that everyone can see and say 'I belong around there, more or less.' (Hopefully they'll understand at least 'I'm not an alien.') Don't mention how close you are to the boundary, it's irrelevant as far as they're concerned. We need people to respect those different groups as they are, accept differences within them, and acknowledge their existence and legitimity; we can and SHOULD challenge their views if they are harmful. And we can't accept to be told our name doesn't matter. 

 

Whew, end of the essay! 

 

Two more things: 

-Him saying that bisexual and pansexual ''look'' (read: 'basically are') the same. 

NO. 

 

-I agree with people above who said that judging isn't inherently bad. Having a sound judgement is important.