Archived

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

hollowed out feeling

Asexual Erasure

Recommended Posts

hollowed out feeling

Please don't think i'm stupid for asking this, but i always see 'asexual erasure' thrown around tumblr, and other places, and i have no idea what it means :blink: Can someone please explain? (and hopefully this isn't already a topic buried deep in the forums somewhere).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Faelights

To my understanding (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), the term "asexual erasure" refers to any action that can be perceived as denying the existence of asexuality and people who identify as asexual.

When an identity is denied, it is effectively saying that it doesn't exist, so it's erased from the eyes of the mainstream society. This prevents recognition of that identity and the voice is silenced, as though to say "your voice doesn't matter, because it's irrelevant/doesn't exist/etc".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest member25959

To my understanding (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), the term "asexual erasure" refers to any action that can be perceived as denying the existence of asexuality and people who identify as asexual.

When an identity is denied, it is effectively saying that it doesn't exist, so it's erased from the eyes of the mainstream society. This prevents recognition of that identity and the voice is silenced, as though to say "your voice doesn't matter, because it's irrelevant/doesn't exist/etc".

Pretty much this.

It's totally nothing to do with

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrannyWeatherwax

To my understanding (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), the term "asexual erasure" refers to any action that can be perceived as denying the existence of asexuality and people who identify as asexual.

When an identity is denied, it is effectively saying that it doesn't exist, so it's erased from the eyes of the mainstream society. This prevents recognition of that identity and the voice is silenced, as though to say "your voice doesn't matter, because it's irrelevant/doesn't exist/etc".

Yep, like when my four textbooks for this term's human sexuality class all fail to mention asexuality at all. All were written in the past ten years too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PiF

This is one of those poisonous words that get thrown around when someone doesn't get thier own way

Thankfully it stays in tumblr with the tards that use this word

It did appear once in aven when again some one tried to use it to get thier own way then threw the erasure card in when they didn't get it ... Like a petulant child... but thankfully was put in thier place quick smart

Leave it at the door of tumblr where it belongs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lucinda

No one's existence can be denied as long as they are breathing and have a pulse. That's a fact.

Is "erasure" one of those radical political buzzwords? Was it made up to be helpful or hurtful??

The truth of the matter is, unless you are so attached to an identity and require that the identity be discussed continuously, then you are not likely to consider yourself erased or subject to erasure. Otherwise, it might play into your victim mentality, which should be the real subject to be addressed.

Lucinda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lekzýs

No one's existence can be denied as long as they are breathing and have a pulse. That's a fact.

Metaphysical solipsists would disagree. :P

Is "erasure" one of those radical political buzzwords? Was it made up to be helpful or hurtful??

From what I've gathered regarding asexuality, it's the description of a real or perceived phenomenon in which people either deny or fail to acknowledge the existence of asexuality as an orientation (and subsequently refuse to acknowledge the existance of asexuals) under such circumstances in which they might be expected to. I don't particularly like the term, but...

The truth of the matter is, unless you are so attached to an identity and require that the identity be discussed continuously, then you are not likely to consider yourself erased or subject to erasure.

I very much so disagree. To use GrannyWeatherwax's example, if I were reading a very modern textbook on human sexuality, I would expect asexuality to be mentioned, albeit with the caveat that it's a 'new' concept and mostly lacking in academic research. Then you have members of the psychological/psychiatric professions who seem to refuse to believe asexuality exists as anything other than some sort of disorder - and I can certainly see why someone in such a situation would feel both insulted and denied/'erased'.

Otherwise, it might play into your victim mentality, which should be the real subject to be addressed.

...So if you ever feel part of your identity has been denied or 'erased' then you have a 'victim mentality', hmm? Not to say that some don't, but there are many, many circumstances under which I feel it's quite an understandable response to feel part of you is being ignored - or worse, denied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PiF

Oh please

If you honestly base your existence on other peoples opinions then you have bigger problems than your admitting too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bristrek

No, it just means you'd liked to be acknowledged as something other than broken, made up, mythical or comical by people. You'd like to not be left out of text books on human sexuality, or by psychiatrists etc who instead want to insist we're the product of trauma and trust issues, or people say we exist because of hormonal issues, or even little things like wanting to see people like us on TV without them being made an alien or the 'other' or heck even having the option of ticking 'asexuality' if you want in forms where they ask for your sexuality.

Nobody is saying it's the same thing as having laws discriminating against us (though there was that thing in France not long back of a guy being forced to give thousands of Euros to his ex-wife because he didn't have sex with her) but that doesn't mean that it can't be aggravating. It doesn't mean that it can't lead some people to feel isolated or that it can't be used against us.

So no, regardless of what you think of the name (and really, it only fits in with the general theme of naming this sort of thing amongst different groups) it's a real thing and it doesn't mean you're basing your existence on the thoughts of others or that you have a victim complex.

Say, I dunno, we remove all women from TV. That'd be erasure of women. It'd be an issue. Except if being upset with it means you're basing your identity on the thought of others etc?

Or perhaps women are too large a group (though there are real issues around how women are portrayed in the media) so lets go with a smaller group. Bisexuals! I guess it not being a real thing means that GLAAD has no business commenting on how many LGBT people are in the American media huh cause it's just so unimportant.

It's about the world around us not pretending we don't exist and instead allowing us to see ourselves reflected back by that world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PiF

Which sounds a very politically correct and like a political speech bris

But... Percentage wise.. Asexuals hide what they are far more than others refuse we exist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lucinda

even little things like wanting to see people like us on TV without them being made an alien or the 'other' or heck even having the option of ticking 'asexuality' if you want in forms where they ask for your sexuality.

What is the "other"?? I'm not up on all things TV, but could you point out a character on television who is considered the "other"?

And why would forms ask you for your sexuality? Don't you find that a bit strange? Or is it relevant in some way? My answer would be yes.

Lucinda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PiF

forms that allow the tick for asexuality???

man some people can't help coming forward to show thier backward

in some countries now..they are removing the father and mother from a childs passport and having parent 1 and parent 2..others are contemplating removing male and female /or allowing other to generate a a more us instead of them and us

and your pissed because we are not enforcing additional divides by identifying single groups?

some times people wanteth with one hand and taketh with the other

please please mods can we have that so desperatly needed facepalm smiley?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lekzýs

forms that allow the tick for asexuality???

If the forms have options for sexual orientation, why not add 'asexual'?--at least then you'd get a more accurate reply to the question. Though I would very much like not to see that question at all unless it's actually wholly relevant, the same with gender.

in some countries now..they are removing the father and mother from a childs passport and having parent 1 and parent 2

Certainly not in the UK.

and your pissed because we are not enforcing additional divides by identifying single groups?

No, people are irked because they don't consider the existing divisions to be inclusive/an accurate picture of reality.

please please mods can we have that so desperatly needed facepalm smiley?

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PiF

lez do you read your own links..that showed the uk was leading the way for the removal :rolleyes:

how many boxes do you think would be in a passport if they added every single minority group on it? you are confusing your wants with real world practicalities

as to orientation the move is to do away with that as well..by the way incase your not to sure about asexuality

asexuals are not a sexual orientation..we are an orientation but nothing about us is sexual

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bristrek

Well maybe I sound a bit political case I am involved with politics. And that sort of language sprung up for a reason.

Look PiF, I get that you don't think being asexual is in any way important or relevant to anything ever (or at least that's how you come off) but that's your view and not that of many others.

Some of us, when they have the sexuality question (usually to monitor diversity to make sure not everyone is a straight, white dude) I get really pissed cause I have to choose between two lies. Do I go with 'prefer not to say' which is a lie cause I would LOVE to say or go with 'bisexual' cause that's the closest what with me being bi/panromantic. But isn't really a fit cause I'm not, I'm asexual.

And it really really bugs the heck out of me. I'm not the only one either.

As for what 'other' means it's not really a TV term specifically. Though it's often used by people analysing TV and media, it's also used in sociological and historical contexts. It basically means the outsider, the different from everyone else. Like, say, Sheldon Cooper or Sherlock Holmes. Love them you may but they aren't seen as normal even within the contexts of their own culture, they are 'other'. People can try and frame another person or another group as 'other' in order to treat them differently, make them outsiders or treat them wrongly. You see bigots do it a fair bit. Though it isn't always extreme like that, football fans will do it between the groups they're to.

In any case, 'othering' a character, making them the 'other', puts them outside the 'us' mentality, outside of normal and when used on a minority it can make them seem not normal. If the main examples you see in media of a minority are the other then that's the perception a person may gain of the rest of that minority. With asexuals it often comes with the 'aren't they strange/broken/odd' kind of connotations.

Some links:

http://arafatasad.blogspot.com/2011/01/othering.html

http://www.ruthdeller.co.uk/?tag=othering

http://westwinded.com/lib/mats/WPC11-Othering.pdf (a few slides in, lasts a few slides some of which make me groan though it's mostly on race)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other

Oddly there doesn't seem to be an essay on othering and asexuality, just a lot of people mentioning it in a paragraph or 'lets not even get into the othering' or talked about in round about ways but not ways that explicitly state what it is who don't already know.

Hope that helps though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lekzýs

lez do you read your own links..that showed the uk was leading the way for the removal :rolleyes:

Of course I read my own links, and my link quite clearly stated that: '[n]ew forms including "parent one" and "parent two" alongside "mother" and "father"'.

how many boxes do you think would be in a passport if they added every single minority group on it? you are confusing your wants with real world practicalities

My wants are to see passports using as little information as would be relatively realistic: Name, Photo, Address (not printed, but on a database that can be accessed remotely), DoB - and possibly country of origin, with a Parents addition for children.

I want to ask you this: at what point do you think we should stop adding options to forms and why do you think that?

as to orientation the move is to do away with that as well

That is what I would like to see, but society seems rather against the idea, unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hollowed out feeling

asexuals are not a sexual orientation..we are an orientation but nothing about us is sexual

I'm not trying to go OT, but if asexuality isn't a sexual orientation, then what? We just don't have one? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bristrek

When they said 'alongside mother/father' they meant both are an option. As in you can choose to have one or the other (I think, none have been published yet so we wont know until then but that's what it sounds like to this Brit).

And PiF doesn't believe asexuality is a sexual orientation, that it is a lack of sexual orientation in fact. And they aren't the only one. It's a valid view point but one nobody is obliged to agree with. Most asexuals I've come across tend to take the view point that it is a sexual orientation, just one that doesn't experience sexual attraction.

Much like you would say somebody with white hair does have a hair colour - white. Even though that hair colour is the result of no pigmentation in the hair as opposed to specific white pigmentation.

But to each their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RandomDent
erasure.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PiF

lez do you read your own links..that showed the uk was leading the way for the removal :rolleyes:

Of course I read my own links, and my link quite clearly stated that: '[n]ew forms including "parent one" and "parent two" alongside "mother" and "father"'.

your link title said..certianly not in the uk..when it clearly is happening in the uk

My wants are to see passports using as little information as would be relatively realistic: Name, Photo, Address (not printed, but on a database that can be accessed remotely), DoB - and possibly country of origin, with a Parents addition for children.

so you want less information on the passport but want to add a tick box for asexuals..which is it less or more?

Well maybe I sound a bit political case I am involved with politics. And that sort of language sprung up for a reason..

i'm sure your aware of the opinions on politicians

Look PiF, I get that you don't think being asexual is in any way important or relevant to anything ever (or at least that's how you come off) but that's your view and not that of many others.

then clearly i would advise you to never become a mind reader, you may stay broke and poor

asexuality is incredibly important to me..but i also know wwith lgbt tactics of trying to shove it down peoples throats..you get little respect back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lekzýs

your link title said..certianly not in the uk..when it clearly is happening in the uk

You claimed that 'in some countries now..they are removing the father and mother from a childs passport and having parent 1 and parent 2'.

My link demonstrates that that is not the case in the UK, as they are adding the 'parent 1' and 'parent 2' while keeping 'mother' and 'father'.

so you want less information on the passport but want to add a tick box for asexuals..which is it less or more?

I want less information for the passports, and a tickbox for asexuals on forms where it is completely relevant and important to ask about orientation - which would not be the case for documents like passports. If it is not relevant/important, I believe the question should not be asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lucinda

I'm not trying to go OT, but if asexuality isn't a sexual orientation, then what? We just don't have one? :blink:

The term "sexual orientation" is a politically inspired term by the LGB folks. I'll let SkulleryMaid explain:

The arguments here all seem to rest on the underlying assumption that there are a small number of discrete "orientations". The word "orientation" is a new one. Some of you are probably too young to remember, but being gay used to be called a sexual preference. It was common to be asked "what's your sexual preference". The reason we now use "orientation" is purely political... it was adopted to reinforce the idea that being gay isn't a choice. I, for one, thought it was stupid back then too... people who think its a choice are going to think its a choice, regardless of the word you use.

People certainly do choose who they want to be involved with and how they want to be involved with them. However, the brainwashers of that time thought if they could change the LGB folks way of thinking, that they could redirect their behavior. But the reality is, if you take away X, it does not mean someone is going to then prefer and choose Y.

The American Psychological Association realized the damage that was done to LGB folks and came up with a definition of sexual orientation that was more suitable. To quote: Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes.

If an ideal partner for you in an emotional, romantic, or sexual bond/relationship is based in part on the gender or bio sex of that person, than that is your sexual orientation. You are not required to have a sexual orientation. In fact, the only reason someone would want to know your sexual orientation is so that they can pigeon hole you.

Along comes some other folks who decided it would be a good political move to define asexuality as a sexual orientation. They truncated the commonly accepted definition of sexual orientation to suit this purpose. Additionally, asexuality is about the preference regarding doing sex, not the bio sex of the partner ... so this strategy seems to result in talking apples and oranges.

And those who cry that they are being othered and erased are actually supporting a political cause that is in essence saying, "We are separate and different from normal" as they create more and more sexual orientations. Now grey is a sexual orientation? And demisexuality is another sexual orientation? You already fit in, so why are you going out of your way to say no, no I am not the same ... I don't fit in. I need to find another box or else create yet another new one.

Lucinda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bristrek

Besides 'Parent 1/Parent 2' isn't less information than 'mother/father' it's just more flexible.

Though, for those who have more than one parent it'd be nice to have more than two slots but I expect that wont happen for a long time yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member33070

x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest member25959
Erasure: The act or an instance of erasing.

Erasing: .2. To remove all traces of.

.3. To remove or destroy as if by wiping out

Just thought I'd throw the definitions out there. Personally, whenever the word 'erasure' is used for such a situation, I imagine something more along the lines of mass erasure, rather than just one or two peoples' ignorant opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the Lady Ashuko

@ Birdwing

Oddly enough, the only asexuals I've ever met in person were without Aven aid. One was because she overheard me talking about something funny I read on the forum and the other was a total coincidence, I found out a friend from my Japanese class was arom ace after we'd already become friends. /back to ontopicness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrannyWeatherwax

No, it just means you'd liked to be acknowledged as something other than broken, made up, mythical or comical by people. You'd like to not be left out of text books on human sexuality, or by psychiatrists etc who instead want to insist we're the product of trauma and trust issues, or people say we exist because of hormonal issues, or even little things like wanting to see people like us on TV without them being made an alien or the 'other' or heck even having the option of ticking 'asexuality' if you want in forms where they ask for your sexuality.

This. So this. I'm a psychology graduate student. Having to explain to professors (who regularly teach about and are supposed to keep up with the literature about sexuality) what asexuality is or, if a prof has heard of it, the professor giving the wrong definition is definitely a form of erasure. And yes, each of those situations have happened. I'm at a very liberal university and went to a liberal undergraduate institution. A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lucinda

What definition did your prof give for asexuality?

Lucinda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
weathered fair
Additionally, asexuality is about the preference regarding doing sex, not the bio sex of the partner...

Wat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrannyWeatherwax

What definition did your prof give for asexuality?

Lucinda

I think it was "A person who does not want romance or sex." She said it was from a list of terms from a LGBTQ website, but there wasn't a url for me to track down. It isn't a truly awful definition, but it leaves out many asexauls who do want romantic relationships. And, since she prided herself on knowing a lot about sexuality, it was pretty disappointing to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.