Jump to content

Expectations and Asexuality


MedusaDan

Recommended Posts

Hi all...

I should say this post is rather long and sort of a culmination of some of my ideas, so forgive me for being a liddle verbose :)

From reading what you have said already I see that there seems to be a lot of different problems for people related to their asexuality. I'm wondering here how much of that comes from the background in which we have grown?

To explain my question, think of it this way. I am a young gay guy, but not a sexually active one. At that level the whole "have kids, start a family" thing is not happening for me. I've never had a bf (Well, I did briefly, but let's not go into that particular disaster!) so I'm not at all worried about facing the future "alone" as it's all I've ever known. I have a good family and social circle and good friends outside those circles, so I never have time to feel alone anyway.

Expectations are funny things though! I think TV, the media, the schools and religion have a lot to answer for here. You get brought up with this "perfect" notion of things being a certain way (married with children in an upwardly mobile job after a dating ritual to find the right partner, and a schooling ritual to find the right job). If you come out as gay, it's all about being young and proud, but with the essential expectations still the same - a long-term partnership with one guy. A lot of the talk in the gay community has been about legitimising same-sex marriage, for example. There's been no imagination here, although I do respect those who have fought so hard for it, and those for whom it would work so well.

But the whole asexuality issue throws that all up in the air. Society, however, depends on institutions - physical, social, moral, traditional - to define itself. Anglo-American and European values derive primarily from the primacy of the Catholic and various Protestant churches and the institutions surrounding the concepts of individual property ownership and inheritance. Nation states' policies are an extension of these ideas, with the idea of sovereignty within enclosed borders to deal with perceived problems or threats. The enclosed borders mean the state can define what is a problem or threat and what is not. Various traditions have arisen, often in times so remote from our own and to cope with situations present in those times, that have remained with us as a society and with us - you, me, anyone else here - as individuals.

The threat to this structure is that it is stable only so long as people accept that it is true and right. And the fact there is homeless people, war, divorce, rape and your usual sort of stuff suggests that maybe it is not - although it might work for some it does not work for others, and thus you have two classes of people. In the past, the prisons and the mental health system dealt with any of the "others" who were unlucky enough to be poor.

Marriage ultimately derives from the rather sexist notion that women are unable to do anything for themselves and need to be protected by first a father and then a husband, with whom they can mother children who, if they are male, can inherit the property and perpetuate the family's assets. Marriage was also a way for poorer people to get into a better social position by "marrying up" - thus totally perpetuating the social structure of the day. Until not that long ago, women couldn't vote, own property, or even speak in public. Those days thankfully are long gone. In the modern day, marriage exists as firstly a declaration of love and secondly as a means for ensuring children are cared for until they can function "out in the world".

In other societies, this is highly unnecessary - the children, while coming from specific mothers who do have unique bonds with their own children, are looked after by the community as a whole and brought up together. The property/assets question is answered by the fact there is no real concept of ownership of land by individuals. The community works by trading with other individuals and communities. An interesting modern example of this sort of phenomenon is the trade union, which protects workers by banding them together into blocs so that they collectively can bargain with employers. In minority groups in populations you do tend to see this sort of collectivism come into play - although it fails if employed on a mass scale, as we've seen from numerous countries who have attempted to force collectivisation across an entire country of tens of millions of people.

What I'm saying is that maybe there is Another Way, and maybe the asexual community, and any others which seriously challenge the dogma of societal cohesion based on marriage and property ownership, are the key to formulating better policies on these matters at a much wider level. It's probably brash to assume we can change society totally, but we can certainly influence it at the edges. The divorce and suicide rates, I think, wouldn't be so high if so many people weren't getting married and were thinking about less traditional, but possibly more suitable options instead. It would also help the gay, bisexual, non-gendered, trans-gendered and other minorities who are excluded from the picture through no fault of their own, and can't be part of these traditions which are supposed to work for everyone.

And in saying all this, I'm not at all anti-marriage. Marriage does work absolutely wonderfully for a fair segment of the population, possibly even a majority. I've seen some happily married couples celebrating 50th anniversaries whose lives and love for each other are an inspiration to all. My comments are addressed to the "it works for some so it must work for all" mentality that society has about this and a lot of other things.

And that concludes a very long rant. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think TV, the media, the schools and religion have a lot to answer for here.

Really. The Internet isn't immune either, even if you are on a science or Star Wars site, there will ALWAYS be sex-related popup ads jumping in your face :?

As for the TV though, got to love the "channel" buttons :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah queer theory.

Don't worry Medusa, there'r at least a few asexual queers drifting around. Though I would say that bigger fish than us have the critique of marraige as an outdated capitalist institution covered. Forget about marraige as a structure for a second and talk (you already did a little) about DATING, the idea that sexual and nonsexual relationships can be seperated into a binary and treated completely differently. (I realize that this isn't true for many people, but I would say that the idea is definitely out there in society.)

The marraige ideal runs on sexual metaphore. You're raised with the ideal of this perfect relationship, and that relationship is deliniated by it's sexuality (and intimacy, sure, but until Snow White and Prince Charming kiss the deal is off.) We asexuals come along and say, "Hey, it doesn't MATTER if she kisses prince charming, it matters if she trusts him." Suddenly it makes alot more sense for her to stay and create a family with the dwarves (who she knows and trusts and loves, according to Disney) than to run off with this guy she's just met. If we say that nonsexual relationships have to get the attention as sexual ones things are going to get more complicated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Graecisiva
It's probably brash to assume we can change society totally, but we can certainly influence it at the edges. The divorce and suicide rates, I think, wouldn't be so high if so many people weren't getting married and were thinking about less traditional, but possibly more suitable options instead. It would also help the gay, bisexual, non-gendered, trans-gendered and other minorities who are excluded from the picture through no fault of their own, and can't be part of these traditions which are supposed to work for everyone.

How do we change the majority of society by influencing the asexual way upon sexuals? It would be like suggesting to a straight man he's gay or should be gay, and vice versa. Like trying to change someone into something they are not?

That makes sense, divorce and suicide rates may decrease when the drama levels of marriage and dating decrease as well. But I'm curious as to what the "more suitable options" meant. Do you mean the breakdown of partnered unions and more of a group/community raising of children? That's interesting too, and could be a solution for the other minorities in society.

And the Snow White analogy sheds some light...but since marriage is usually based on the sexual metaphor, how can asexuals expect sexuals to think Snow White living with the dwarves makes more sense than running off with the prince?

So many complications...and there were other things in your post which are great discussion topics as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sexuals aren't geneticaly programed to buy into the sexual metaphore, they just like sex. Snow white has good friendship on the one hand and Sexual Healin' on the other, which does she choose? (not that we're the first to point out hos rediculous it is that she rides off with P. C., but we've got a new spin.)

If someone has one close friendship that involves sexuality and one that does not how do they treat the two differently? Why? I think we have some questions that most sexual people flat-out haven't looked into enough in detail.

(It only gets into socialism because pair-bonding gets dueced difficult when there's no way to tell what the pair is.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
VivreEstEsperer
"Hey, it doesn't MATTER if she kisses prince charming, it matters if she trusts him."

I think that's the perfect distinction. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the "dating" concept doesn't really apply outside the binary relationship paradigm ... And I like your Snow White analogy :)

It's already complicated enough for the sexuals. You take a girl or guy out to lunch. There's a chance that at least one of the people will consider it a "date". Any time two guys that are remotely interested meet up, they usually call it a date. I don't know that it even has a lot of meaning anymore. :)

We live in a society where ideals that have been accepted for centuries are being blown to smithereens. Why? (In my opinion) because we have moved away from a religious view towards more of a scientific view of life. The religious view enforces a "code" on the whole thing and everyone has to live by the code - one size fits all. Anyone who doesn't is deviant or wrong. The scientific looks at what realities exist and then tries to develop a code from that. So society continues to function, it's just been turned on its head. ;)

The question now is why asexuality is seen as deviant, when from a religious point of view it's acceptable (they'd see it as celibacy), and from a scientific view it makes perfect sense (population control/resource sharing). This is probably where my theory falls over and dies. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
[...]

The question now is why asexuality is seen as deviant, when from a religious point of view it's acceptable (they'd see it as celibacy), and from a scientific view it makes perfect sense (population control/resource sharing). This is probably where my theory falls over and dies. :)

Sex appeal is a large part of the media and the economy. Yes, TV isn't exactly selling ethical codes. Though, there is the exception of those religious channels.

Sean

PS. I actually watch very little TV, but I've seen enough to know what its about. ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...