Petition for including Asexuality in anti-discrimination laws

[Yellinmichellin]

Hello guys, gals, and nonbinary pals!

I’ve noticed that in American Anti-discrimination laws, the ‘sexuality’ section doesn’t recognize Asexuality. The only state to do so, is New York. This is a major problem. To help with it, I started a petition on change.org. I go into more detail about this in the petition. Please sign it, and share as much as you can. Everything counts. 

[JDP]

Why is it a problem? Who's discriminating against people who aren't openly sexual?

 

This petition strains credulity. Asexuality is the opposite of sexuality. It doesn't describe a member of any protected or identifiable group.

[MoraDollie]

13 minutes ago, JDP said:

Asexuality is the opposite of sexuality.

I'm sorry buty as a sexologist - this is completely false and I hate how people try to use the literal "prefix + word" to descibe asexuality because that is just wrong. "Sexual wellness" is apart of what professionals see as the "wheel of wellness". Sexual wellness isn't just masturbation/sex (who you do or don't have it with). It's about being comfortable with your identities, realizing the difference between kinks/fetishes and paraphilias. It's about healthly questioning and exploring your own sexuality, preferences, likes/dislikes, what have you. It's about having society accept non-paraphilias. Asexuality just means "no sexual attraction". It is NOT "no sexuality." 

 

More to the topic:

Federally speaking it is illegal to discriminate against someone based purely on sexual orientation. This is any sexual orientation under the sun. 

[KathyHoh]

Not sure in USA but lack of sexuality is discriminated against in many communities and marriage laws in some jurisdictions

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, MermaidRomani said:

I'm sorry buty as a sexologist - this is completely false and I hate how people try to use the literal "prefix + word" to descibe asexuality because that is just wrong. "Sexual wellness" is apart of what professionals see as the "wheel of wellness". Sexual wellness isn't just masturbation/sex (who you do or don't have it with). It's about being comfortable with your identities, realizing the difference between kinks/fetishes and paraphilias. It's about healthly questioning and exploring your own sexuality, preferences, likes/dislikes, what have you. It's about having society accept non-paraphilias. Asexuality just means "no sexual attraction". It is NOT "no sexuality." 

 

More to the topic:

Federally speaking it is illegal to discriminate against someone based purely on sexual orientation. This is any sexual orientation under the sun. 

I think @JDP was just using the term sexuality like many of us do here; sexuality as in 'non-asexuality'. 'Sexuality' is everything that isn't asexual. Asexuality is the lack of the inherent desire for partnered sexual contact that sexual people (ie non-asexual people) experience.

 

 

[JDP]

14 hours ago, MermaidRomani said:

Asexuality just means "no sexual attraction". It is NOT "no sexuality." 

That is doublespeak, and explains succinctly why asexuality will probably never be accepted by the majority.

 

If one isn't attracted to anyone, or to anything, sexually, how can sexuality be ascribed to that person?

 

You can't call yourself a motorist if you don't have a car.

[JDP]

15 hours ago, KathyHoh said:

Not sure in USA but lack of sexuality is discriminated against in many communities and marriage laws in some jurisdictions

Give one example.

[JDP]

14 hours ago, PanFicto. said:

I think @JDP was just using the term sexuality like many of us do here; sexuality as in 'non-asexuality'. 'Sexuality' is everything that isn't asexual. Asexuality is the lack of the inherent desire for partnered sexual contact that sexual people (ie non-asexual people) experience.

Non-asexual is redundant and sloppy. You're either sexual or you're not.

 

I'm still waiting to read a single example of discrimination specifically targeting people who regard themselves as asexual.

[KathyHoh]

7 hours ago, JDP said:

Give one example.

In many jurisdictions ( I read 36 countries) marital rape is not illegal. That is the presumption that all people are sex positive. Add to that arranged marriage..

[Lucinda]

Marital rape and forced marriage are illegal in the US.

 

Lucinda

[Guest]

11 hours ago, JDP said:

Non-asexual is redundant and sloppy. You're either sexual or you're not.

 

Yeah that's how most people use the terms around here (you're either sexual or you're asexual) but some people aren't up-to-date with all the lingo which is why I was clarifying for the other member to avoid future confusion 

 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Lucinda said:

Marital rape and forced marriage are illegal in the US.

 

Lucinda

Yeah I think in places where forced marriage or marital rape are legal (like certain parts of Africa, parts of the Middle East etc) it's not a case of asexuals being discriminated against. It's literally every single person who doesn't want to be in that marriage who is being discriminated against regardless of their orientation!!

 

Often in places where certain laws negatively effect asexuals, there are many other folks those laws effect negatively as well.  

 

[Kimmie.]

Yeah if the law is not created with just asexuals in mind it doesn't count.

[Someone Else]

I can't think of anything that oppresses asexuals and only asexuals, at least not in the US where I am.  The OP didn't mention the country in which these laws were needed.  Are there groups out there specifically targeting asexuals and not targeting celibates, nuns, or non-marrying sexuals?  If such horrible things exist, I should probably be aware of them.  There are certainly people who might not like asexuals or might not believe they exist, but the law can't make people like us.
Are there really people who say "I'll fire you unless you start having sex!  Unless you're celibate rather than asexual, that's ok."  

[Lucinda]

12 minutes ago, Someone Else said:

The OP didn't mention the country in which these laws were needed. 

The petition states that it concerns people living in the US.  It also states:

 

Quote

This means that Ace people can be denied housing, jobs, and even marriage. 

I'm with JDP in that I would like an example.

 

Lucinda

[Someone Else]

I'm pretty sure they can't be denied marriage, and I guess someone could theoretically refuse to sell a house, or fire an asexual, but it'd be weird.  
I mean, technically, there are bosses who actually crave power and love throwing it around abusively... high school bullies who never grew up and love making people feel small.  But they could just as easily torment an employee over a million things, since they're just getting off on the humiliation and power games.  But to specifically fire an otherwise good employee, if they don't experience sexual attraction?  If that has happened even once in the US, I'd be impressed.  

[JDP]

16 hours ago, KathyHoh said:

In many jurisdictions ( I read 36 countries) marital rape is not illegal. That is the presumption that all people are sex positive. Add to that arranged marriage..

Certainly among sexuals the assumption will always be anyone going into marriage is sex positive. If you think that's ever going to change, you're delusional.

 

I also don't see how a law aimed at eliminating imagined discrimination against asexuals would stop or deter arranged marriages.

[KathyHoh]

Just found out something sad

Russia bans trans, asexual, and others from driving

https://www.glbtrt.ala.org/news/archives/1584

[aring91]

Ugh that sucks

[Lucinda]

16 hours ago, KathyHoh said:

Just found out something sad

Russia bans trans, asexual, and others from driving

https://www.glbtrt.ala.org/news/archives/1584

 

2 hours ago, aring91 said:

Ugh that sucks

Yes, it would suck if it were true.  However, since AVEN has members from Russia who also happen to drive, perhaps more investigation is needed.  

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-lgbt-driving/russia-gives-green-light-for-transgender-drivers-to-stay-on-the-road-idUSKBN0KN23220150114

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/russias-trans-driving-ban-doesnt-really-target-lgbt-community-it-actually-targets-the-mentally-ill

 

Hope this helps!,

Lucinda

[KathyHoh]

16 hours ago, Lucinda said:

 

Yes, it would suck if it were true.  However, since AVEN has members from Russia who also happen to drive, perhaps more investigation is needed.  

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-lgbt-driving/russia-gives-green-light-for-transgender-drivers-to-stay-on-the-road-idUSKBN0KN23220150114

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/russias-trans-driving-ban-doesnt-really-target-lgbt-community-it-actually-targets-the-mentally-ill

 

Hope this helps!,

Lucinda

UUGH one of those fake news. I should just stick to AVEN for info

[Chloe88]

On 8/12/2020 at 4:50 PM, JDP said:

 

 

I'm still waiting to read a single example of discrimination specifically targeting people who regard themselves as asexual.

So true.

I can't imagine a scenario where the manager of a team sacks or mistreats an employee because he didn't shag someone the past week, or promotes a guy who shagged a few women.

Discriminated for not having sex? I think it's a ridiculous idea.

 

[KathyHoh]

Although I do not believe it could ever happen, I had a discussion with a lawyer friend a while back. She claims a hypothetical case "An Asexual marries a sexual person, and eventually they decide they are not compatible and decide to separate. The allo could potentially sue the Asexual of marrying without innate sexual desire with the presumption that marriage is solely for meeting sexual needs of both parties."

It is hypothetical, and I never came across any law penalizing a spouse who could not be sexually intimate. 

[JDP]

On 8/16/2020 at 4:30 PM, KathyHoh said:

Although I do not believe it could ever happen, I had a discussion with a lawyer friend a while back. She claims a hypothetical case "An Asexual marries a sexual person, and eventually they decide they are not compatible and decide to separate. The allo could potentially sue the Asexual of marrying without innate sexual desire with the presumption that marriage is solely for meeting sexual needs of both parties."

It is hypothetical, and I never came across any law penalizing a spouse who could not be sexually intimate. 

That is a simple breach of contract. I would not grant asexuals immunity from such torts.

[KathyHoh]

5 hours ago, JDP said:

That is a simple breach of contract. I would not grant asexuals immunity from such torts.

Even if the Asexual never knew asexuality existed, and did not have a clue others have innate desire for sex? What if the asexual develops sex repulsion over time? 

Example from personal experience: I got into deep depression the day I learnt wedding vows mean having sex in sickness and in health. I always thought it was about helping each other in bad times. I thought sex would be optional whenever we both feel like it. I still struggle with depression. Last week an old friend confronted me about the dissolution of my marriage and I went back to depression for a few days, took a good talk with another friend to snap out of it. all of this while taking care of my baby toddler alone as single mum and working full time. The ex does not even bother to help financially.

Not to mention everyone thinks I am a horrible person. 

Everything feels like a dream and I keep thinking my happy single days when nobody bothered if I have sex or not. I am enjoying motherhood but cannot focus on my baby due to this depression. Nobody consoles me that much but i also lost love, even though I am the presumed cruel one to deny him the marriage given rights LOL

I have always been a wise person, doing all my homework as a child, going to college and doing all the good citizen stuff. but i fell through the crack on this one and turned out a presumed cruel person breaching some law without me even realizing it. and i thought of suicide several times. 

[KathyHoh]

I used to be a bit religous now i even doubt if there ever exists a God that created such inequality. Why me? why give me problems even law cannot understand? Why was i created? to make my ex miserable raise a fatherless baby and be a shame to my parents?

[KathyHoh]

If anybody ever sues me for something I do not understand, was so confused about since teenage years feeling broken and abnormal, believe me I am going to kill myself. I am not going to live in such a cruel world

[KathyHoh]

marriage is an ambigous contract anyway. Not even a page of agreement about sex lol

[JDP]

56 minutes ago, KathyHoh said:

Even if the Asexual never knew asexuality existed, and did not have a clue others have innate desire for sex? What if the asexual develops sex repulsion over time? 

Example from personal experience: I got into deep depression the day I learnt wedding vows mean having sex in sickness and in health. I always thought it was about helping each other in bad times. I thought sex would be optional whenever we both feel like it. I still struggle with depression. Last week an old friend confronted me about the dissolution of my marriage and I went back to depression for a few days, took a good talk with another friend to snap out of it. all of this while taking care of my baby toddler alone as single mum and working full time. The ex does not even bother to help financially.

Not to mention everyone thinks I am a horrible person. 

Everything feels like a dream and I keep thinking my happy single days when nobody bothered if I have sex or not. I am enjoying motherhood but cannot focus on my baby due to this depression. Nobody consoles me that much but i also lost love, even though I am the presumed cruel one to deny him the marriage given rights LOL

I have always been a wise person, doing all my homework as a child, going to college and doing all the good citizen stuff. but i fell through the crack on this one and turned out a presumed cruel person breaching some law without me even realizing it. and i thought of suicide several times. 

I'm married to someone who is bipolar and is clinically depressed (although she doesn't "suffer" from it, at all). She's with me as a sexual, notwithstanding my sex repulsion, because she can't survive on her own (her own family won't help, either).

 

I have profound sympathy for you and you you get the treatment you need to weather your depressions. Were you my spouse, your health would be my priority. Then again, I'm not sexual.

 

There is nothing more futile than trying to reason with someone, particularly someone who is married, who puts sex before everything in a relationship. That is because the entire medical and mental health establishments are aligned with him/her. Pedophiles get more understanding than asexuals do, because the former, at least, are sexual.

 

Returning to the original topic, I don't think it discriminates against asexuals when letting sexuals out of marital contracts because of breaches, intentional or otherwise, by spouses. Sexuality and asexuality, the way I see it, are like oil and water. They don't mix.

 

 

[Lucinda]

Should Your Prenup include a Sex Contract?

 

Lucinda