Talking about asexuality fairly and accurately (tips against accidental erasure)

[Kroete]

This topic is mostly about "aces talk about aces".

 

I think in talking about asexuality, we tend to often be quick to mention that some (not all!) asexuals may have sex for various reasons. This is of course true.

 

But I am worried about HOW this fact is presented. It may sometimes come over as an "excuse" to make asexuality more "palatable" to majority society. "See? We're not that different from you after all! Please accept us!". Not saying this is always deliberate but I'm worried it can backfire.

 

My goal is to find a form of language that explains asexuality both accurately and fairly, without accidentally erasing any subgroup, or putting it by the wayside. Remember, most of majority society knows absolutely nothing so precision is critical. The worst outcome is that the audience walks home with falsehoods.

 

It's possible I may have taken part in my own erasure in the past without even noticing. I am myself ace, sex-averse and never had sex nor desire sex ever so this is personal for me as well.

 

Hee are some examples of statements that backfire:

 

Quote

Asexuals can/may have sex.

A common statement but it can be easily misread as "ALL asexuals can have sex." which is patently false.

 

Quote

Asexuals sometimes engage in sexual activity.

Again, the problem is that this can easily misread as a statement about ALL aces. What was actually meant that in the asexual community, there are some people (but not all) who engage in sexual activity and some others who don't.

 

What is also common is that sex-having asexuals are mentioned but the non-sex-havers are only implied but not explicitly mentioned.

 

Another case is that the sex-having asexuals are being talked about for 5 paragraphs while the non-sex havers are mentioned just in passing. "Oops, we almost forgot about you guys!" 😅

 

 

If there are any other statements by fellow aces that make you cringe or nervous or annoyed, please let us know! It's possible I screwed up in this very post 😅.

 

Any ideas on how to talk about asexuality better to most accurately and fairly treat ALL aces without accidentally erasing anyone and also don't make the explanation a 60 minute lecture? Examples would be nice.

 

----

 

I have one strategy myself: I mention that asexuality is diverse and one should be careful about making assumption. But after that, I usually start to ramble. 😦

[Picklethewickle]

For blanket statements, how about "Don't expect asexuals to have sex".

 

It points to the main aspect of asexuality, not being into sex. Meeting an asexual who doesn't want sex under any circumstance doesn't come as a surprise that way. If someone is willing to have sex for certain reasons, they aren't pressured into it and can bring it up in their own time.

[previously known as aroace]

Asexuality is no sexual attraction nor desire for partnered sex. It is not a personal failing, a mental nor a physical disorder. It is not a choice or phase or a temporary condition. Sexuality is a spectrum and many labels exist to better describe attraction and desire; no one person is exactly the same.

 

1 hour ago, Picklethewickle said:

For blanket statements, how about "Don't expect asexuals to have sex".

 

Maybe "Don't expect asexuals to agree to or choose to have sex"

[Picklethewickle]

21 minutes ago, previously known as aroace said:

Maybe "Don't expect asexuals to agree to or choose to have sex"

That's a better wording.

[Mult]

People need to be more careful to avoid inferring that those who don't have sex, would not have sex and do not want sex are inhuman. I've seen more than one comment floating around about asexuals not being "loveless robots." Although I've been seeing this outside of AVEN, I think it is important that people understand what this is saying about those who would not engage in sex under any circumstance. I don't think there's an alternative that can be said here; people just need to avoid using "robot" to describe a sexless life.

 

I would also like people to avoid saying that not having sex is a "stereotype" when it is just plainly accurate for many. Use words like "misunderstanding" or "misconception" when describing how some asexuals might agree to have or choose to have sex.

 

I think using "may" instead of "can" is also more clear. Everyone regardless of sexuality physically can have sex and asexuality is not a description of a medical inability to feel pleasure, but saying asexuals "may" agree to or choose to have sex is much more of a choice or action than the word "can". 

 

Also avoiding grouping everyone together is important when talking about sex. "Asexuals may choose to have sex" vs "some asexuals may choose to have sex for a variety of reasons."

 

This is especially important when referring to those who are aromantic along with asexual. People need to be careful when saying asexuals can date or fall in love so they do not unintentionally other or dehumanize those who don't or would not.

 

Examples:

 

"It is a misconception that every Asexual would never choose to or agree to have sex."

 

"Not all asexuals are aromantic, so a lack of romantic attraction cannot be assumed."

 

"Some asexuals may compromise with sex in a romantic relationship"

 

Always frame not having sex vs having sex as a neutral statement where either is acceptable rather than unintentionally imply that not having sex is inhuman.

[Galactipunk]

In line with the statements in the first post, I want to highlight the importance in avoiding accidental erasure when you answer/argue against typical aphobic statements. Excuse me if I'm a bit rambly here. But I feel like this is an important thing to say that I don't hear enough about.

 

An easy structure to follow when it comes to arguing, especially online, is to follow Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. It's effectively a 7-layer hierarchy of different ways you can respond to someone you disagree with, with the arguments becoming worse and more emotionally driven the lower you go down in the hierarchy.

A very common mistake I see online is that people responding to aphobia tend to use counterarguments when better responses exist. So if someone says something like "Asexuals are just people who can't get laid" you might see a response like "Well, asexuals can have sex!"

And yeah, if you word it right it might not be as erasing. But it is still innately a bit erasing and I don't think there's anything you can do about that. Worse yet, it is playing into amatonormative standards. The base-line of the counterargument is that it is trying to appeal to the standards of the original argument. It's not critiquing amatornormativity but rather highlighting an alleyway within asexuality that fits amatonormative standards. I shouldn't need to highlight how this isn't a very good way to respond.

 

Instead of responding with a counterargument, it's better to refute the central point. This avoids any statements that could be seen as accidental erasure, steers the conversation into a more important conversation and is generally a stronger argument that forces the opponent to think harder about what they are saying. So if someone says something like "Asexuals are just people who can't get laid" it's better to respond with something like "What's wrong in not having sex?" This avoids being insulting to both asexuals who do and don't have sex and steers the conversation into talking about amatonormativity instead. This strategy doesn't work against all aphobic statements, but it usually works against those where your response could accidentally be erasure.

[previously known as aroace]

6 minutes ago, Galactipunk said:

So if someone says something like "Asexuals are just people who can't get laid" you might see a response like "Well, asexuals can have sex!"

Agree with everything and this "rebuttal" is really an agreement with the statement "asexuals are socially invalid" by saying "well they can avoid being socially invalid by having sex!" = congrats, aphobia achieved harder.

[Mult]

15 minutes ago, Galactipunk said:

It's not critiquing amatornormativity but rather highlighting an alleyway within asexuality that fits amatonormative standards

This is very accurate. Arguing against asexophobic statements by saying that asexuals can simply do "normal" things inadvertently suggests that the negative statement was correct about those who don't engage in "normal". 

 

If someone claims that asexuality is just people who are afraid of having sex, retorting that asexuals can have sex is just separating asexuals into two groups: those that have been "proven" not to fear sex and those who are simply left to have the statement applied to them. It's not on purpose, but there are better ways to argue against these statements.

[MarRister]

20 hours ago, previously known as aroace said:

Don't expect asexuals to agree to or choose to have sex

Sorry to step in just wanted to say that this might not be the best wording. If people are looking at sexual/asexual as a dichotomy, then it would present that it can be expected that sexuals will agree to or choose to have sex, which just feels a little bit too non-consenty.

 

Part of my issues around thinking of myself of sexual, was this belief that had somehow been ingrained in me that sex was expected of me. I hated that idea and it caused terror when thinking about dates/relationships/etc.. I had to work to overwrite that to get a sense that I had choice and control over when sex happens for me and that this should be the expected norm. A norm that others don't expect sex from others, regardless of who they are or how they identify. And I think that asexuality coming to the forefront will be so good for the culture around sex generally by really pushing that idea of total non expectation out there (which I think goes for anyone).

 

...Sorry I just kind of shit on that and gave no reasonable alternative, but I think some other statements suggested were worded with less negative implications to the other side. 

[previously known as aroace]

57 minutes ago, MarRister said:

Sorry to step in just wanted to say that this might not be the best wording. If people are looking at sexual/asexual as a dichotomy, then it would present that it can be expected that sexuals will agree to or choose to have sex, which just feels a little bit too non-consenty.

 

Part of my issues around thinking of myself of sexual, was this belief that had somehow been ingrained in me that sex was expected of me. I hated that idea and it caused terror when thinking about dates/relationships/etc.. I had to work to overwrite that to get a sense that I had choice and control over when sex happens for me and that this should be the expected norm. A norm that others don't expect sex from others, regardless of who they are or how they identify. And I think that asexuality coming to the forefront will be so good for the culture around sex generally by really pushing that idea of total non expectation out there (which I think goes for anyone).

 

...Sorry I just kind of shit on that and gave no reasonable alternative, but I think some other statements suggested were worded with less negative implications to the other side. 

That's a valid concern. I worded it around the problem with people saying "you'd have sex with me if you loved me romantically" which is also a problem for sexual people.

 

I think it really comes down to asexuality is literally no desire or attraction and choosing to have sex is not intrinsic to asexuality and should therefore only be a private discussion between consenting individuals just like any other relationship.

 

While getting up in arms and saying "asexual can/do have sex" is like saying "well homosexual men can/do have sex with women" which basically making the except the norm and leads to an expectation of sex.

[Kroete]

Thanks for the responses. This gave some food for thought. Graham's hierarchy of disagreement seems reasonable. BUT:

 

Quote

Instead of responding with a counterargument, it's better to refute the central point. This avoids any statements that could be seen as accidental erasure, steers the conversation into a more important conversation and is generally a stronger argument that forces the opponent to think harder about what they are saying. So if someone says something like "Asexuals are just people who can't get laid" it's better to respond with something like "What's wrong in not having sex?"

I have thought about this. This example sounds reasonable at first but it still leaves a bad taste IMHO. First of all, the reply "What's wrong in not having sex?" is very good one. However, now you created a different problem. You left the claim that aces just "can't get laid" on the table. You have challenged the ethics of the statements, but not the falsehood. Some asexuals DID, in fact, get laid. You just erased those. ☹️ Thinking of a better response is actually more difficult the more I think about it because this short statement gets much more wrong. Maybe something like: "It's okay to not have sex. Many asexuals don't have sex because they don't have a desire to do so in the first place, or they feel repulsed or averse to it. That's okay. That having said, you're still wrong because some asexuals did have sex (for various reasons like child wish, etc.). Asexuals are diverse and many aces relate differently to sex.".

Yeah, this is a mouthful, unfortunately, but you get the idea (suggestions welcome).

 

I especially agree with the suggestion to not frame a sexless life as merely a seterotype of asexuality. I agree because I never had sex and I'm asexual. If a sexless life really is stereotypical, then I am literally that stereotype. I think the problem here is the broader fallacy that stereotypes are always automatically wrong. But still, avoiding the whole stereotype argument completely is better because it avoids confusion.

 

When I posted this, I was kind of hoping that some people who might have felt erased by some statements in the past would come forward as well, so we can learn what definitely *not* to say.

 

My goal when posting this thread was basically to make some sort of "advocacy guide" for asexuality listing common mistakes and pitfalls and oversimplifications (that, let's be honest, even aces may fall into). Maybe it could be something for the wiki or something, idk.

 

Maybe compiling a list of "dos and don'ts" would be nice. I try to summarize my own ideas and your responses by making such a list.

 

I have now a list of "don'ts":

• Don't say "robot" to refer to aces
• Don't frame a sexless life as "just" an asexual stereotype
• Don't separate aces/aspec people into 2 groups: "those who do have sex, and those who don't"
• Don't say "Asexuals can have sex"
• Don't say "Asexuals sometimes engage in sexual activity."
• Don't lie or oversimplify just to make aces look more "normal" to majority society

Making a list of "dos" was a lot harder tho but I try my best:

• Do take care when making any claims about aces. Does the claim apply to all aces or only some of them?
• Do highlight the fact that aces, aspec people are very diverse
• Do say that it's okay to not (or rarely) feel sexual attraction
• Do say that it's okay to not (or rarely) desire or engage in sexual activity
• Do expose allonormative bias when you see it
• Do refute falsehoods and underlying moral/belief systems when asexuality was attacked

 

Suggestions/complaints welcome!

[Mult]

Was going to make an individual post before I realized this would fit here.

 

Okay, this is getting on my nerves and I really need to yell at a wall right now.

 

As the ongoing situation with a fictional aroace character floods tags or searches around asexual, aromantic and aroace on certain websites, I'm seeing more people making arguments about how "normal" aroace people can be to justify fictional relationships. Putting fiction aside since fictional characters don't exist to have opinions or feelings, so I don't care what people draw or write involving characters that are confirmed whatever sexual/romantic orientation—the emphasis on one's ability to fit into normalcy is really bothering me.

 

After going through what I did growing up and dealing with people in my life who cannot fathom not having any sort of want or intention to have a romantic or sexual relationship, I really can't see how people could gleefully declare that someone who is neither sexual or romantic can "love just like everyone else". If someone loves and experiences relationships just like everyone else they wouldn't or simply shouldn't identify with words that mean "not sexual" and "not romantic". Dating and having sex just like everyone else is literally just being "normal" and having a "normal" experience with sex and romance. Even for those who do date or have sex, the very fact that they identify with these labels identifies that there is something about their experience with love and attraction that is not "normal" even if their relationship appears "normal" on the surface.

 

It's so strange to see people trying to "normalize" aromanticism and asexuality by declaring how "normal" a person can be under those labels. It really doesn't help against the stigma that "abnormal" people still face by touting how "normal" other people are capable of being. 

[Galactipunk]

10 hours ago, Mult said:

It's so strange to see people trying to "normalize" aromanticism and asexuality by declaring how "normal" a person can be under those labels. It really doesn't help against the stigma that "abnormal" people still face by touting how "normal" other people are capable of being. 

I think there is some desire in everyone to feel like you’re ”normal.” People are taught when growing up to be whatever is “normal” in their society/culture and thus will naturally come to defend the institutions they only know. I myself, arguably someone who is anything but “normal,” have still dealt with many cases of being peer pressured into fitting in with “normalcy” throughout my life. Even though I thought I was better at the time. Asexuality and aromanticism still lie on the fringe of society. Not everyone who is in the a-spectrum is used to the feeling of being “abnormal.”

 

There can exist many reasons for someone to feel like this. A desire to fit in and connect with others. A desire to re-capture what you feel like you have lost. A wish to not be considered the “odd one” and mocked for it. It takes a lot of personal development and willpower to break out of this loop and come to accept yourself. Sometimes it can require someone else to take the first step for you. Someone who may not appear.

[what the face]

Being Disoriented is a common symptom and cause of anxiety.

When oriented to person, place and time we are generally more at ease and less anxious.

More normal.

Oriented to our family/group/society is perceived as safer than those feelings of being lost from our people.

 

Remember a situation where you were lost, disoriented and felt anxiously alone?

A universal experience, feeling in over-our-head, out of our depth.

 

Now remember that feeling when lost and

you heard your name or saw a familiar face.

Relief of anxiety 

being recognized and reconnecting to your people.

An experience not nearly as universal.

 

 

[nanogretchen4]

If you want to come out as asexual you do not need to describe every possible asexual experience. It is probably better to stick with describing your own asexual experience and what asexuality means to you.

 

For example: "I am asexual. I have no desire to have sex with anyone ever. In fact, I have a strong aversion to the thought of participating in sex." And done. If you do not want or intend to have sex, why immediately cancel that message by saying that asexuals can have sex? Who cares? You are the only asexual you can truly represent and you are not going to have sex.

[Mult]

On 2/18/2024 at 8:25 PM, nanogretchen4 said:

For example: "I am asexual. I have no desire to have sex with anyone ever. In fact, I have a strong aversion to the thought of participating in sex." And done. If you do not want or intend to have sex, why immediately cancel that message by saying that asexuals can have sex? Who cares? You are the only asexual you can truly represent and you are not going to have sex.

Cue the people chiming in "asexuals CAN—" because you didn't mention it, and even though you were explicitly talking about yourself, you put "asexual" and "no desire" and "aversion" in one paragraph. I do agree with you, but it seems a lot of people just expect you're describing everyone and their mother whenever you make a simple statement about yourself.

 

Unfortunately speaking from experience 🤦 although that's not the experience off the internet since irl responses are often "but babies tho" instead.

[day.walker]

Just dropping in here to say, I adore how respectful, thoughtful, and thorough all these responses have been. It's hard to find all of that on the internet sometimes, even in generally rad spaces like AVEN forums.

 

I love that folks are acknowledging the potential problem with jumping in saying "Asexuals can have sex!", how it can become a way to justify asexuality by aligning the experiences of some aces/aspec people closer to the cisheteronormative & amatonormative society that we are living in. The way such a blanket response carries the risk of dividing us into those who are somewhat acceptable (asexuals who perform "normal" sexual behavior, i.e. having sex) and those who are true deviants (asexuals who do not engage in sex) is super dangerous and inherently acephobic! And yet, of course it is also completely valid for an asexual individual to choose to have sex for any number of reasons--we are capable of participating in ethical consent because we are human adults, and sometimes that gets glossed over!

 

I guess I ended up summarizing all of your wonderful points in my joy at the fact that these wonderful points were given. But yeah, thanks y'all. Reasonable people are not always easy to find.