Jump to content

Media Misrepresentation of Asexuality


deletingthisaccount

Recommended Posts

deletingthisaccount

Obviously, asexuality hardly receives any media representation to begin with. However, I feel like even when we do finally get media representation, the coverage misrepresents our orientation. I want to see what others think as well. 

 

For example, I just stumbled upon this article: https://www.bustle.com/p/asexual-people-can-have-sex-lives-heres-what-theyre-like-2436642. Now, I will say that I absolutely think that asexuals who have sex or are on the grey-spectrum deserve media coverage. However, I feel like the way this article covers the topic misrepresents asexuality as a whole.  Such as: "'I define asexuality as an orientation where you are attracted to people, but with a lot of caveats,' they say. 'Sometimes, you're only attracted to folks who are smart, or folks who you connect with. Sometimes, you're attracted to folks, but never want to have sex with them.'"  Additionally, the article states that one "myth" about asexuality is that asexuals "have 'no desire for sex or sexual pleasure.'" 

 

I understand that these statements are true for some members on the asexual spectrum. However, the article seems to oversimplify the orientation as a whole and fails to actually explain split attraction and the gray area of the asexual spectrum properly. The article also has no mention of asexuals who have never felt sexual attraction/desire but still have or have had sex for various reasons (compromise, uncertainty, experimentation, etc. whatever other reason).

 

And this article, for example, basically just misrepresents asexuality as a a low libido or medical issue: http://theconversation.com/health-check-is-it-normal-not-to-want-sex-56503. I saw another article at some point which said the asexual community is fighting for "the right to not have sex" like it's just an anti-sex or celibacy movement (rather than an orientation -- although obviously we want to promote respecting the right not to have sex as well!)


Do other members of the community also feel like we are misrepresented in media (in addition to underrepresented)? If so, what should we do about it, if anything? I feel like a lot of non-asexual writers/producers, even though usually with good intention, misunderstand asexuality and inadvertently provide misleading or wrong information about it. In a way, misrepresentation could contribute to invalidation almost as much as under-representation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes; several members are aware of this. :) That's why there's a 'Visibility and Education Projects" forum, where others posts about hosting their own talks/making posters educating others about asexuality at schools, their workplace, etc.

 

It's why some AVEN representatives attend Pride parades and also give talks to schools, communities, etc.: they're trying to help educate others about asexuality and dispel possible misconceptions.

 

You can read others' replies about how they feel about representation, in threads like these.

https://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/187470-frustrating-representation/?tab=comments#comment-1063407541

 

https://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/170806-aces-in-the-media/?tab=comments#comment-1062810998

Link to post
Share on other sites
everywhere and nowhere
1 hour ago, paytonk07 said:

I saw another article at some point which said the asexual community is fighting for "the right to not have sex." 

Of course the asexual movement is about much more, but I wouldn't consider it so absurd. It is important for people to know that sex is not compulsory, that love without sex is possible, that people should never have sex if they don't want to. I also always remember how many women felt that after the "sexual revolution" they no longer had an excuse to say "no". And it should be obvious: it doesn't matter whether the society is "puritan" or "permissive", when someone doesn't want to have sex, they should say "no" to sex and it's a real shame on our culture if it makes people feel like simply not wanting to have sex!! (with that particular person, in that particular situation, or sometimes - at all) is not a "good enough reason".

The right to not have sex really is important - if we want to fight against rape culture, we must ensure that people realise that the right to not have unwanted sex stands above the right to have desired sex. So if there is a conflict between two people in this matter, the preference of the person who doesn't want to have sex should always come first.

 

But anyway, I largely agree with what you wrote. It seems to me like for some media the understanding of asexuality is quite tilted towards what we sometimes call "desire without attraction". Perhaps that's the source of some people's ideas that desiring sex while not finding anyone sexually attractive is asexuality?

Link to post
Share on other sites
deletingthisaccount
On 2/20/2020 at 5:12 PM, Nowhere Girl said:

Of course the asexual movement is about much more, but I wouldn't consider it so absurd. It is important for people to know that sex is not compulsory, that love without sex is possible, that people should never have sex if they don't want to. I also always remember how many women felt that after the "sexual revolution" they no longer had an excuse to say "no". And it should be obvious: it doesn't matter whether the society is "puritan" or "permissive", when someone doesn't want to have sex, they should say "no" to sex and it's a real shame on our culture if it makes people feel like simply not wanting to have sex!! (with that particular person, in that particular situation, or sometimes - at all) is not a "good enough reason".

The right to not have sex really is important - if we want to fight against rape culture, we must ensure that people realise that the right to not have unwanted sex stands above the right to have desired sex. So if there is a conflict between two people in this matter, the preference of the person who doesn't want to have sex should always come first.

@Nowhere Girl that's true, you bring up great points and I completely agree. Respect of the choice is VERY important, and our community should protect that. I guess I meant more so along the lines of asexuality being misconstrued as simply "right not to have sex," like some sort of anti-sex or celibacy revolution rather than an orientation. I'll edit my post to clarify. 

 

On 2/20/2020 at 5:12 PM, Nowhere Girl said:

But anyway, I largely agree with what you wrote. It seems to me like for some media the understanding of asexuality is quite tilted towards what we sometimes call "desire without attraction". Perhaps that's the source of some people's ideas that desiring sex while not finding anyone sexually attractive is asexuality?

That's true. I believe the lack of attraction but desire for sex is called cupiosexual, correct? Meaning that a person doesn't experience sexual attraction but desires a sexual relationship? Someone feel free to correct me on that if I'm wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza

This is what happens when places like AVEN refuse to take a stand on what asexuality actually means. This is why we are now just special snow flakes who no one will take seriously. This is why some of us get so involved in definition debates, because this has real life consequences for actual aces.

Link to post
Share on other sites
deletingthisaccount
7 hours ago, CBC said:

And that is what everyone who refuses to define it clearly, and everyone who uses all those silly micro-terms, forgets. I promise you as a non-ace, it makes you guys look ridiculous. It just does. Linguistic pedantry isn't the only reason I get involved in definition debates. I see people I legitimately care about -- my ex, friends from this site -- who are, you know, actually asexual, get frustrated as hell and embarrassed by the way asexuality is perceived.

 

Also I don't even want to read the article linked here. 😂 I feel like it'll probably make me cranky.

Thank you!!! As an aroace, you have no idea how refreshing it is that even non-aces such as yourself understand that. I'm so glad that even some non-aces realize how misrepresented we are and how many issues these misrepresentations cause us. Thank you SO much for standing up for us!

 

I understand. The article did make me cranky and that's why I posted this discussion 😂

Link to post
Share on other sites
deletingthisaccount
20 hours ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

This is what happens when places like AVEN refuse to take a stand on what asexuality actually means. This is why we are now just special snow flakes who no one will take seriously. This is why some of us get so involved in definition debates, because this has real life consequences for actual aces.

Agreed. Without clear definition, our identity becomes meaningless. I understand that all asexuals experience asexuality a bit differently - just like all allosexual orientations do - but a line has to be drawn somewhere. That's simply how all identity works.

 

If you have any links to definition debate forums, would you mind sending them to me?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza
3 hours ago, paytonk07 said:

If you have any links to definition debate forums, would you mind sending them to me?

Honestly, leave this thread going long enough and you'll see a definition debate emerge organically.

 

2 hours ago, CBC said:

I wish this could be stickied somewhere.

But... invalidation! :o 

Link to post
Share on other sites
deletingthisaccount
On 2/21/2020 at 6:13 PM, Anthracite_Impreza said:

Honestly, leave this thread going long enough and you'll see a definition debate emerge organically.

 

But... invalidation! :o 

 

On 2/21/2020 at 6:17 PM, CBC said:

😂

 

True, though. 
 

Invalidation! Gatekeeping! Acephobia! Oh my. Say it ain't so.

Haha the horror! 😲😂

 

I mean, I know that AVEN doesn't want to risk inadvertently invalidate anyone who is actually on the asexual spectrum. BUT refusing to stand behind any specific definition of asexuality and thus allowing asexuality to be turned into "whatever anyone wants it to be!" is a grossly extreme measure to take. We have much better ways to prevent invalidation of ace-specs besides allowing our orientation to be turned into a snowflake label (maybe even by *gasp* finding a clear definition for all these terms!). If someone is defining asexuality so blatantly wrong--basically using the term to mean exactly what we've fought so hard to show the world that asexuality isn't--then it's not "identity policing" to correct it. We're destroying our own validity by tolerating it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
deletingthisaccount

@CBC LOL. I've actually been very carefully avoiding using swear words on here because I wasn't sure what the policy was for using them 😂 I'm new. But now that I know I can, I'll say it fuckin' proudly too 😎

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza

@paytonk07 You are such a breath of fresh air, honest to gods. Far too many "everyone can be ace!!" types nowadays. Call me an invalidating knobhead all you like but I will not back down from this, it's fucking ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AceMissBehaving

I feel the same way lately, and it honestly gets really depressing. The things I’ve seen on my Facebook timeline some days makes me feel as adrift, broken, and misunderstood as I did before learning about asexuality, in some ways worse because it comes with an added feeling of futility. You’re not alone 

Link to post
Share on other sites
deletingthisaccount

@AceMissBehaving 

On 2/21/2020 at 10:19 PM, AceMissBehaving said:

I feel the same way lately, and it honestly gets really depressing. The things I’ve seen on my Facebook timeline some days makes me feel as adrift, broken, and misunderstood as I did before learning about asexuality, in some ways worse because it comes with an added feeling of futility. You’re not alone 

I agree soooo much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, AceMissBehaving said:

I feel the same way lately, and it honestly gets really depressing. The things I’ve seen on my Facebook timeline some days makes me feel as adrift, broken, and misunderstood as I did before learning about asexuality, in some ways worse because it comes with an added feeling of futility. You’re not alone 

I had to bite my tongue on reddit group I am in because an asexual came in saying how sad they were a vital piece of their relationship (sex) was going away and they weren't sure they could be with their partner anymore without the sex. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CBC said:

Haha I wonder if my ex saw that post. I'm not active on the asexual Reddits because I try to give him his space, but I look at them once in a blue moon. He's on there all the time and has been given several time-outs (I don't know what it's called when you're temporarily suspended on Reddit) for not biting his tongue over that sort of thing.

Wasnt on an asexual reddit. Was on a trans partner one. The person said they were asexual but due to their partners transition, they weren't sexually into their partner anymore and were considering breaking up over it since sex was so vital to a relationship for them, even though they were ace and so didn't find them sexually attractive. I was just sitting there like... uhhhh ooooook (and no the transitioning partner wasnt the issue)

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, CBC said:

Ah gotcha.

 

Humans confuse the fuck outta me sometimes. 

Only sometimes? :P 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just keep thinking that, idk man, I think it's really silly to try and define yourself by or care about sexual orientation so much when we literally live in a world that's still so lgbtphobic and gendered and all. I think this is maybe why even coming on the Internet from a very early age, I never really understood the way people act as if definitions are always going to encompass everyone in every culture etc because there are always so many factors. So at the end of the day I think you are what you define yourself as. I mean, as long as you're not doing that out of bigotry or a desire to hurt someone else etc.

 

Myself, I've always been very confused personally and even though I seem to fit most ace definitions, stereotypes or representations - just not having an interest when everyone was going through puberty, to the point other people seemed to be more aware of my lack of sexual interest than myself and also being neuroatypical, legitimately never knowing what to answer when prompted about sexual orientation, being a feminist but being vehemently against sexual discourse etc etc. - I just never felt comfortable about calling myself ace because as sex repulsed as I have always been, I can't say for sure I am going to be like this forever, right? I guess it's this pov that makes me... well, I'm genuinely disinterested in sex but I do acknowlege that I have a libido, albeit not much. And it's not a pride or an identitary thing for me precisely because I don't feel much about it. I don't talk about my sex life, I just try to pretend I do have one when prompted and move along. I don't feel really that I am prejudiced against because of it, I'm just silent. Sure I hate when my parent says "aren't you giving me any grandchild?" (because I have birth conditions that make it hard for me to bear children actually!) but I know I could have or adopt one if I wanted to.

 

I just really don't do the reproductive thing lol. Nor do I like the non-reproductive thing for that matter.

 

But, well, it's precisely not caring that makes me not understand it when people think they're always going to be the same orientation or that it's somehow an important part of their identities I guess. I think being sex-repulsed is a strong feeling but not all asexuals are sex-repulsed and I can see how someone who is ace could enjoy sex for different reasons so... why not be inclusive then? To which extent would be a much better question, wouldn't it?

 

(But to me I would be satisfied if all of a sudden "aspec" uh, visibility was suddenly a thing and people could say they're simply aspec when they have that low libido/sexual interest thing but unsure and that being an OK thing. Because I just want to fit in this weird world things scheme where people are for whatever silly reason being identified as their sexual orientation, or depend on this identification to find themselves a (platonic or otherwise) partner and I end up feeling hella leftout lol how to scream "I'm ok with having a partner but I probably won't wanna sex you up sorry" without offending any sensibilities that may thing being asexual is somehow a competition is really ... complex.)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
deletingthisaccount
On 2/22/2020 at 7:35 PM, Hanas said:

I just keep thinking that, idk man, I think it's really silly to try and define yourself by or care about sexual orientation so much when we literally live in a world that's still so lgbtphobic and gendered and all. I think this is maybe why even coming on the Internet from a very early age, I never really understood the way people act as if definitions are always going to encompass everyone in every culture etc because there are always so many factors. So at the end of the day I think you are what you define yourself as. I mean, as long as you're not doing that out of bigotry or a desire to hurt someone else etc.

 

Myself, I've always been very confused personally and even though I seem to fit most ace definitions, stereotypes or representations - just not having an interest when everyone was going through puberty, to the point other people seemed to be more aware of my lack of sexual interest than myself and also being neuroatypical, legitimately never knowing what to answer when prompted about sexual orientation, being a feminist but being vehemently against sexual discourse etc etc. - I just never felt comfortable about calling myself ace because as sex repulsed as I have always been, I can't say for sure I am going to be like this forever, right? I guess it's this pov that makes me... well, I'm genuinely disinterested in sex but I do acknowlege that I have a libido, albeit not much. And it's not a pride or an identitary thing for me precisely because I don't feel much about it. I don't talk about my sex life, I just try to pretend I do have one when prompted and move along. I don't feel really that I am prejudiced against because of it, I'm just silent. Sure I hate when my parent says "aren't you giving me any grandchild?" (because I have birth conditions that make it hard for me to bear children actually!) but I know I could have or adopt one if I wanted to.

 

I just really don't do the reproductive thing lol. Nor do I like the non-reproductive thing for that matter.

 

But, well, it's precisely not caring that makes me not understand it when people think they're always going to be the same orientation or that it's somehow an important part of their identities I guess. I think being sex-repulsed is a strong feeling but not all asexuals are sex-repulsed and I can see how someone who is ace could enjoy sex for different reasons so... why not be inclusive then? To which extent would be a much better question, wouldn't it?

 

(But to me I would be satisfied if all of a sudden "aspec" uh, visibility was suddenly a thing and people could say they're simply aspec when they have that low libido/sexual interest thing but unsure and that being an OK thing. Because I just want to fit in this weird world things scheme where people are for whatever silly reason being identified as their sexual orientation, or depend on this identification to find themselves a (platonic or otherwise) partner and I end up feeling hella leftout lol how to scream "I'm ok with having a partner but I probably won't wanna sex you up sorry" without offending any sensibilities that may thing being asexual is somehow a competition is really ... complex.)

 

As to your first sentence, I'm a bit confused about the point you're trying to make. How is it silly to define yourself as a non-straight orientation because some of the world disapproves? I'm genuinely just asking because I don't understand. (And the world has made significant progress towards acceptance anyway - still has to improve, but it's moving forward).

 

As to the rest of that paragraph, words have no meaning without definition. If a man is sexually attracted to, has sex with, desires, and dates only women, then he is not "gay" just because he says he is. If people could define themselves as absolutely anything without regard to the word's actual meaning, the word loses its meaning. I don't believe that anyone has intentionally tried to hurt others by misusing "asexual." However, misusing the term does hurt asexuals even if the harm is unintentional.

 

I respect your decision; you don't have to identify as asexual if you want to account for the possibility of your feelings changing in the future. However, asexuality is still a major identity to many other people, including myself. Many of us have faced prejudice and struggled throughout our lives because we're ace. In a sexualized world, sexuality is a huge part of most people's identities, and massively impacts their lives, so most people prefer having an orientation identity that (accurately) reflects who they are.

 

I agree and understand that some asexuals can enjoy sex for various reasons. I never claimed that all asexuals are sex-repulsed, nor that non-sex-repulsed aces should be excluded. I am sorry if I came off that way. However, enjoying sex is not the same as actively wanting and constantly seeking out sex - I simply think a line needs to be drawn somewhere. Too many people are misconstruing asexuality as mere dislike of the hookup culture.

 

Asexuality is more than a low libido - while a low libido can be a part of asexuality, that is not all asexuality is. If someone thinks they're possibly a-spec because of a low libido but is unsure of that, then that's fine. We will welcome them and help figure them that out. However, asexuality isn't hyposexuality. The hyposexual misconception has already caused asexuals so much pain as is, and failing to distinguish the two will only cause more. If we allow people to start defining asexuality as hyposexuality, then asexuals will be forced to continue suffering through doctors, nurses, therapists, etc. attempting to treat our orientation like a disease because they have a bunch of other "asexual" (hyposexual) patients needing fixed that suddenly we aren't any different from.

 

We want to preserve the meaning of asexuality because most of us know the pain and consequences of living in a sexualized society without our asexual identity. We aren’t trying to make asexuality a competition. We just don’t want our identity swallowed into a meaningless, trendy buzzword. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

With the sheer number of labels (and growing all the time) and arguing after a news article is published "they didn't mention arows" or "they didn't mention demis", "they didn't mention romantics", it's a confusing minefield for any journalist or researcher. It's no wonder we get misrepresented.

Link to post
Share on other sites
deletingthisaccount
13 hours ago, Lipbalm said:

With the sheer number of labels (and growing all the time) and arguing after a news article is published "they didn't mention arows" or "they didn't mention demis", "they didn't mention romantics", it's a confusing minefield for any journalist or researcher. It's no wonder we get misrepresented.

That's very true. In my post, I pointed out the article not mentioning asexuals with no attraction/desire more so because that's what I would expect an "asexuals with sex lives" article to be like, and this seemed like more of an "aces have sex because we love it!" article. I'm aro ace and I've never had sex, so I wasn't trying to start an argument out of being personally offended or anything. Sorry if I came off that way.

 

I wanted to start this discussion more so to think of plausible solutions. I wonder how we can find ways to give all a-specs get representation while ensuring accurate representation for our community.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, paytonk07 said:

As to your first sentence, I'm a bit confused about the point you're trying to make. How is it silly to define yourself as a non-straight orientation just because some of the world disapproves? I'm genuinely just asking because I don't understand. (And the world has made significant progress towards acceptance anyway - still has to improve, but it's moving forward).

 

As to the rest of that paragraph, words have no meaning without definition. If a man is sexually attracted to, has sex with, desires, and dates only women, then he is not "gay" just because he says he is. If people could define themselves as absolutely anything without regard to the word's actual meaning, the word loses its meaning. I don't believe that anyone has intentionally tried to hurt others by misusing "asexual." However, misusing the term does hurt asexuals even if the harm is unintentional.

 

I respect your decision; you don't have to identify as asexual if you want to account for the possibility of your feelings changing in the future. However, asexuality is still an identity to many other people, including myself, even if you don't personally consider it a big part of who you are. Many of us have faced prejudice and struggled throughout our lives because we're ace. In a sexualized world, sexuality is a huge part of most people's identities, and massively impacts their lives, so most people prefer having an orientation identity that (accurately) reflects who they are.

 

I agree and understand that some asexuals can enjoy sex for various reasons. No one here claimed that all asexuals are sex-repulsed, nor that non-sex-repulsed aces should be excluded. However, enjoying sex is not the same as actively wanting and constantly seeking out sex - we simply think a line needs to be drawn somewhere. Too many people are misconstruing asexuality as mere dislike of the hookup culture.

 

Asexuality is more than a low libido - while a low libido can be a part of asexuality, that is not all asexuality is. If someone thinks they're possibly a-spec because of a low libido but is unsure of that, then that's fine. We will welcome them and help figure them that out. However, asexuality is NOT hyposexuality. The hyposexual misconception has already caused asexuals so much pain as is, and failing to distinguish the two will only cause more. If we allow people to start defining asexuality as hyposexuality, then real asexuals will be forced to continue suffering through doctors, nurses, therapists, etc. attempting to treat our orientation like a disease because they have a bunch of other "asexual" (hyposexual) patients needing fixed that suddenly we aren't any different from.

 

We want to preserve the meaning of asexuality because most of us know the pain and consequences of living in a sexualized society without our asexual identity. We aren’t trying to make asexuality a competition. We just don’t want our identity swallowed into a meaningless, trendy buzzword.

I think you are completely addressing my point but not my "political" stance so to speak, which is understandable.

 

I meant to me it's silly to make sexual orientation/preferences/whatever a strong part of your id when there are so many other things involved. People are really all but understanding, on the internet (and therefore in culture in the globalized world in general) of human beings who might live in other cultures/places/situations etc. So, I keep thinking that there's so many other things involved that you can't put sexuality above all else when it comes to identity, do you get my point? And if it's not above all else, then it makes more sense to let people "self-identify" as whatever they want.

And, yes, what I mean is exactly that the sexualized world is the problem so we shouldn't just roll with it as if there's a norm and everything else is "weird", IMO. Or else we tend to fall into other problems such as "asexual elitism", etc. because we're having a skewed vision of what things are (or should be) like.

Sorry I ain't good at explaining.

 

But, really, I think I just didn't get where *you* come from personally. I don't see people identifying as asexual much so maybe that's why I personally never saw anyone who identified as such, uh, actively seeking sex. And if they do well, it's their loss isn't it? Because people will look at that descriptor and be like ok, that's not someone I'll try to have sex with. So. lol.

 

Yes, but again that's my point. If society can accept there is nothing wrong with not wanting sex or wanting sex with people who aren't from the opposite sex etc (which is the point really, because then there's no such thing as a """real""" """asexual""" and then there's nothing to be fixed if you don't want it to be fixed) then there is nothing wrong. But I tend to feel that most people end up rolling with the (currently dominant) idea that yes, there is something wrong with those people, be it because they don't want to be wrong or because they want to victimize themselves.

 

There are asexuals who are and who aren't hyposexuals. Just as there are sex repulsed and non sex repulsed asexuals, asexuals who masturbate or don't etc. This is why I'm saying I feel that if we really try to pick apart all those things, of course there are very different people in the asexual community, but at the end of the day how can you discern one from the other if not by their feelings and how can anyone know their feelings better than themselves? Also, to have very different people in the community, is that a bad thing? I mean, maybe it's my age or whatever but ... If the point is to show there are plenty of us, why would we segregate/exclude/tear ourselves apart so much? You know. But I guess it's really my age because I feel similarly about all these definitions like _romantic/_sexual/_whatever and how some people (esp. young people) seem to put some big weight on these words. I mean, I think the fact that they put so much thought into something they technically don't care for OR barely have already experienced (and therefore could be open for changing!) is what baffles me. Why? Y'know. 

 

Again, sorry I am really bad at explaining, and I'm not trying to disagree with you, I'm just saying I have a very different pov on these things. And personally, I wouldn't say something like "(will welcome them and) help them figure that out" because I don't think there is anything to be figured out other than what the person personally wants (or thinks they want, because we can change too). And yes, not everyone has enough self-knowledge or whatever to right away know what they want, but to think there's always something underneath is just silly. It's like peeling an onion.

 

(Thinking a bit further after writing now, really trying to get where you're coming from, I guess what you see as misrepresentation is what I personally see as maybe introjected self-hatred from people who might see themselves as asexuals now but are still speaking/writing in terms of it being wrong or deserving of treatment in any way? Again, if so that's also because those people are coming from a place of thought where there's a norm for human sexuality. And that's not really something I agree with so maybe that's why I don't even perceive that kind of behavior/talk/phrasing as a "threat" to the meaning of asexuality or whatever, I just perceive it as a personal issue they have maybe.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2020 at 9:07 PM, Anthracite_Impreza said:

@paytonk07 You are such a breath of fresh air, honest to gods. Far too many "everyone can be ace!!" types nowadays. Call me an invalidating knobhead all you like but I will not back down from this, it's fucking ridiculous.

 

I agree, I can't tell you how many "you haven't found the right one" types have literally surrounded me in my life. Its very invalidating and annoying ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
deletingthisaccount
2 hours ago, Nylocke said:

 

I agree, I can't tell you how many "you haven't found the right one" types have literally surrounded me in my life. Its very invalidating and annoying ...

The same happens to me. Even when I tell most people that I’m asexual, they have such a hard time understanding what I mean. I could make a phenomenally long list of all the misunderstandings I’ve gotten trying to explain it to people over the years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
deletingthisaccount
On 2/23/2020 at 8:21 AM, Hanas said:

I think you are completely addressing my point but not my "political" stance so to speak, which is understandable.

 

I meant to me it's silly to make sexual orientation/preferences/whatever a strong part of your id when there are so many other things involved. People are really all but understanding, on the internet (and therefore in culture in the globalized world in general) of human beings who might live in other cultures/places/situations etc. So, I keep thinking that there's so many other things involved that you can't put sexuality above all else when it comes to identity, do you get my point? And if it's not above all else, then it makes more sense to let people "self-identify" as whatever they want.

And, yes, what I mean is exactly that the sexualized world is the problem so we shouldn't just roll with it as if there's a norm and everything else is "weird", IMO. Or else we tend to fall into other problems such as "asexual elitism", etc. because we're having a skewed vision of what things are (or should be) like.

Sorry I ain't good at explaining.

 

But, really, I think I just didn't get where *you* come from personally. I don't see people identifying as asexual much so maybe that's why I personally never saw anyone who identified as such, uh, actively seeking sex. And if they do well, it's their loss isn't it? Because people will look at that descriptor and be like ok, that's not someone I'll try to have sex with. So. lol.

 

Yes, but again that's my point. If society can accept there is nothing wrong with not wanting sex or wanting sex with people who aren't from the opposite sex etc (which is the point really, because then there's no such thing as a """real""" """asexual""" and then there's nothing to be fixed if you don't want it to be fixed) then there is nothing wrong. But I tend to feel that most people end up rolling with the (currently dominant) idea that yes, there is something wrong with those people, be it because they don't want to be wrong or because they want to victimize themselves.

 

There are asexuals who are and who aren't hyposexuals. Just as there are sex repulsed and non sex repulsed asexuals, asexuals who masturbate or don't etc. This is why I'm saying I feel that if we really try to pick apart all those things, of course there are very different people in the asexual community, but at the end of the day how can you discern one from the other if not by their feelings and how can anyone know their feelings better than themselves? Also, to have very different people in the community, is that a bad thing? I mean, maybe it's my age or whatever but ... If the point is to show there are plenty of us, why would we segregate/exclude/tear ourselves apart so much? You know. But I guess it's really my age because I feel similarly about all these definitions like _romantic/_sexual/_whatever and how some people (esp. young people) seem to put some big weight on these words. I mean, I think the fact that they put so much thought into something they technically don't care for OR barely have already experienced (and therefore could be open for changing!) is what baffles me. Why? Y'know. 

 

Again, sorry I am really bad at explaining, and I'm not trying to disagree with you, I'm just saying I have a very different pov on these things. And personally, I wouldn't say something like "(will welcome them and) help them figure that out" because I don't think there is anything to be figured out other than what the person personally wants (or thinks they want, because we can change too). And yes, not everyone has enough self-knowledge or whatever to right away know what they want, but to think there's always something underneath is just silly. It's like peeling an onion.

 

(Thinking a bit further after writing now, really trying to get where you're coming from, I guess what you see as misrepresentation is what I personally see as maybe introjected self-hatred from people who might see themselves as asexuals now but are still speaking/writing in terms of it being wrong or deserving of treatment in any way? Again, if so that's also because those people are coming from a place of thought where there's a norm for human sexuality. And that's not really something I agree with so maybe that's why I don't even perceive that kind of behavior/talk/phrasing as a "threat" to the meaning of asexuality or whatever, I just perceive it as a personal issue they have maybe.)

I understand what you're saying. Sexual orientation definitely isn't the whole person - we have other factors like race, ethnicity, nationality, sex/gender, religion, etc. that also make up who we are. However, sexual orientation plays a major role in people's lives regardless, and that's why people need to be able to identify themselves. Someone's sexual orientation can affect whether they'll get married or to whom they will get married; whether they will have kids or if so, how they are planning on having these kids (natural conception and birth, surrogacy, adoption, etc.); living situation, etc. No one is "labeling" different sexual orientations to say that something is "wrong" with anyone that isn't straight -- the purpose is to communicate a vital part of most people's path in life.

 

Believe me, as a fellow ace, I wish world didn't make sexuality a huge deal. But even before I knew what I was asexual and "put a label on it," (at 19) absolutely no one could understand (including myself) my seeming disinterest in absolutely everyone. People speculated and gossiped about it. When I finally figured out who I was and tried to tell people, still no one understood. Believe me, I hate how people make it a big deal - but unfortunately, the reality is that they do. ☹️

 

When I'm talking misuse of "asexuality" causing harm, I'm not talking about harm to allosexuals misidentifying as asexuals who can't find sexual partners. I'm talking about asexuals being harmed because media is misconstruing "asexual" to be anything short of casual hookups, or as a choice, an illness, etc. Misinformation causes allosexuals who encounter a-specs to have serious misconceptions about a-specs.  For example, because I'm aro-ace, I can't tell for the life of me if someone is flirting with me. An allosexual, who thinks "asexual" means having sex only with those the asexual "likes" based on misinformation, could misinterpret me as positively responding to his flirting, even though I actually have no idea that his words, body language, etc. are flirtatious, and I'm just laughing at "jokes" oblivious to their underlying connotations. Then the allosexuals could feel "led on" when they find out the opposite. And at the worst, it can put aces in some very dangerous situations. 

 

There is a difference between hyposexuality and asexuality. I'll post the link explaining it here because I don't feel like doing it: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/hyposexuality-what-causes-symptoms-asexuality-difference-meaning-types-a8355786.html.

 

Anyway, if someone doesn't want our help figuring that out, then that's fine too. The point is that being asexual is more than having a low libido. Wondering "I might be asexual spectrum because I always have a low libido, but I'm not sure" is a mountainous difference from "I am asexual because at age 40 my libido suddenly decreased and now I'm upset that I'm having trouble experiencing needed sexual pleasure with my beloved spouse." That's why we need to distinguish the two. The distinction prevents both: 1) pushing treatment onto asexuals being who likely won't change no matter how much "treatment" they receive; and 2) unintentionally deterring allosexuals, who are legitimately distressed by a decreased libido, from seeking treatment out of mistaken belief that their orientation "turned asexual" even though they might actually benefit from hyposexual treatment. Yes, sometimes gray situations where the person is unsure which it is happen - and that is fine! But failing to distinguish the two, in all circumstances, causes harm.

 

love the diversity we have in our community. I absolutely understand that everyone on the asexual spectrum is different. Our community has asexuals, graysexuals, demisexuals; aromantics and romantics, sex-repulsed and sex-indifferent and sex-positive; and they are all valid and valuable members of the spectrum. The problem is people misunderstanding the definition of those terms and then misusing those terms in a way that erases their real meanings.

 

For example, one person the "Ace Sex Lives" article said that she is ace-spec because she only has sex with people she likes and respects. Now, if "likes and respects" for her means something that happens so rarely that she has only ever been sexually attracted to a couple people in her entire life, then that sounds the asexual spectrum as gray-asexuality. However, if "likes and respects" means that she's consistently experiencing sexual attraction, but waits until she gets to know the person before acting on her feelings, as opposed to banging these people the moment that she sees them, like many of her college peers, then that's blatantly not asexuality -- her feelings of sexual attraction/desire levels align with the allosexual population, and she's simply waiting to act on them. The problem is that the article makes the asexual spectrum sound like the second option I just described, which leads to a bunch of young allosexuals misidentifying as asexual because they dislike hookups.

 

Asking for terms to be clearly defined or accurately represented isn't promoting asexual elitism - no one here is advocating for that, and I will gladly tell any elitist that they are wrong if I encounter one. I even said when I posted this forum ^ that the article disregarded asexuals who have never felt sexual attraction/desire but have still had sex for other reasons (although this doesn't apply to me personally). Preserving our identity is to prevent all people on the asexual spectrum from being erased.

Link to post
Share on other sites
deletingthisaccount
7 hours ago, CBC said:

Give it time... eventually you'll despise this shit as much as the rest of us but keep debating it anyway because it's like the proverbial car wreck you can't look away from.

Oh god. I don't know if I'm ready 😂

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, paytonk07 said:

I mean, of course sexual orientation isn't the whole person - we have other factors like race, ethnicity, nationality, sex/gender, religion, etc. that also make up who we are. I understand what you're saying. However, sexual orientation plays a major role in people's lives, regardless of whether you wish it didn't, and that's why people need to be able to identify themselves. Someone's sexual orientation can affect whether they'll get married or to whom they will get married; whether they will have kids or if so, how they are planning on having these kids (natural conception and birth, surrogacy, adoption, etc.); living situation, etc. No one is "labeling" different sexual orientations to say that something is "wrong" with anyone that isn't straight -- the purpose is to communicate information that is vital to most people's path in life.

 

Believe me, as a fellow ace, I don't understand the world didn't make sexuality a huge deal. But even before I knew what I was asexual and "put a label on it," (at 19) absolutely no one could understand (including myself) my seeming disinterest in absolutely everyone. People speculated and gossiped about it. When I finally figured out who I was and tried to tell people, still no one understood. Believe me, I hate how people make it a big deal - but unfortunately, the reality is that they do.

 

When I'm talking misuse of "asexuality" causing harm, I'm not talking about harm to allosexuals misidentifying as asexuals who can't find sexual partners. I'm talking about asexuals being harmed because media is misconstruing "asexual" to be anything short of casual hookups, or as a choice, an illness, etc. Misinformation causes allosexuals who encounter a-specs to have serious misconceptions about a-specs.  For example, because I'm aro-ace, I can't tell for the life of me if someone is flirting with me. An allosexual, who thinks "asexual" means having sex only with those the asexual "likes" based on misinformation, could misinterpret me as positively responding to his flirting, even though I actually have no idea that his words, body language, etc. are flirtatious, and I'm just laughing at "jokes" oblivious to its underlying connotations. Then the allosexuals could feel led on when they find out the opposite. And at the worst, it can put aces in some very dangerous situations. 

 

There is a difference between hyposexuality and asexuality. I'll post the link explaining it here because I don't feel like doing it: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/hyposexuality-what-causes-symptoms-asexuality-difference-meaning-types-a8355786.html.

 

Anyway, even if someone doesn't want our help figuring that out, then that's not a problem either. The point is that being asexual is more than having a low libido. Wondering "I might be asexual spectrum because I always have a low libido, but I'm not sure" is a mountainous difference from "I am asexual because at age 40 my libido suddenly decreased and now I'm upset that I'm having trouble experiencing needed sexual pleasure with my beloved spouse." That's why we need to distinguish the two. The distinction prevents both: 1) pushing treatment onto asexuals being who likely won't change no matter how much "treatment" they receive; and 2) deterring allosexuals, who are legitimately distressed by a decreased libido, from seeking treatment out of mistaken belief that their orientation "turned asexual" even though they might actually benefit from hyposexual treatment. Yes, sometimes gray situations where the person is unsure which it is happen - and that is fine! All I'm saying is that failing to distinguish the two in all circumstances causes harm.

 

love the diversity we have in our community. I absolutely understand that everyone on the asexual spectrum is different. I understand our community has asexuals, graysexuals, demisexuals; aromantics and romantics, sex-repulsed and sex-indifferent and sex-positive; and they are all valid and valuable members of the spectrum. The problem is people misunderstanding the definition of those terms and then misusing those terms in a way that erases their real meanings.

 

For example, one person in the original article "Ace Sex Lives" article said that she is ace-spec because she only has sex with people she likes and respects. Now, if "likes and respects" for her means something that happens so rarely that she has only ever been sexually attracted to a couple people in her entire life, then that sounds the asexual spectrum as gray-asexuality. However, if "likes and respects" means that she's consistently experiencing sexual attraction but waits until she gets to know them before acting on her feelings, as opposed to banging them these attractive people the second she sees them like many of her college peers, then that's blatantly not asexuality -- that's most of the allosexual population. The problem is that the article makes the asexual spectrum sound like the second option I just described, which leads to a bunch of young allosexuals misidentifying as asexual because they dislike hookups.

 

Asking for terms to be clearly defined or accurately represented isn't "promoting asexual elitism" - absolutely no one here is advocating for that, and I will gladly tell any elitist that they are wrong if I encounter one. I even said when I posted this forum ^ that the article disregarded asexuals who have never felt sexual attraction/desire but have still had sex for other reasons, so I'm not sure where you got that idea. Preserving our identity is to all people on the asexual spectrum - regardless of their sexual behavior - from being erased.

Ohh. No, nevermind, I get where you come from now that you mention these examples. I still think, again, that because there are so many factors into play on anyone's psyche, it's always hard to draw a line even on a psychologically intimate level/upon closer inspection, where asexual ends and aspec begins or where allo ends and aspec begins etc. So I tend to relativize how much say others have on that. But yes, surely there is a difference between "I am not interested in having sex" or "I only ever want to have sex with that person" vs "I am interested in having sex but there are obvious medical/psychological conditions that make me unable to do so". Thanks for explaining that kindly and patiently! 

 

I think, too, that precisely because of some generic allo political agenda things tend to get messy and that's why I believe there shouldn't be a "default" option between ace and allo, etc. But that's for another topic! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...