#anti-ace
(TRIGGER WARNINGS for: rape, rape culture/apologism, institutionalized abuse, mentions of violent racism, ableism, transphobia, homophobia and misogyny. Time for some real talk, folks. Getting serious.)
+Because I’m a survivor of sexual assault(s), wherein my sexuality was used to degrade, shame, and traumatize me, and after which - still to this day, in fact - my sexual history and status as a sexual woman has been used to trivialize that trauma, deny me accountability and justice for what was done, and justify even further violence against me.
+Because I’m mentally ill, and women with mental illnesses have been non-consensually sexualized, deemed “hypersexual” and “sex addicts” as a means of justifying institutionalized abuse (often sexual abuse) against them, etc, since pretty much the advent of psychology.
+Because the bodies of people of colour, particularly women of colour, are also consistently non-consensually sexualized, and that DIRECTLY contributes to higher rates of sexual violence against women of colour.
+Because I’ve done sex work, and I’m fucking sick of the cultural/social understanding that people who do sex work have no right to ever not be sexual objects, that our bodies are unrapeable, not even bodies at all really but commodities.
+Because I’m queer, and queer people have been demonized as sexual deviants, who are incapable of ever curbing or controlling our (inherently abusive) sexual natures without excessive therapy and “training”, and that’s been used to keep queer people out of work, housing, etc - something that goes double for trans folks, by the way, and if you don’t believe me just look at all the cis people freeeeeeaaaaking the fuck out about trans women simply USING THE WASHROOM with cis women, and how that’s always, always “justified” with shit like “but what if one of those trans women is secretly a sexual predator preying on innocent cis women?!”, and all the violence that that logic has resulted in.
+Because I’m poor and from a poor/working-class background, and am intimately familiar with the stereotype of poor/working-class people as being “classless” and “tacky”, WHICH MEANS inherently sexual (this is why when I was in junior high, the boys at my school would throw pennies at me and the other “welly” - you know, welfare - girls, chanting “penny whore, penny whore” as we walked by).
+Because dividing people into binary categories of “sexual” and “non-sexual” is a STAPLE of enforcing dynamics of marginalization and privilege - where MARGINALIZED PEOPLE are seen as inherently sexual, and therefore dirty, untrustworthy, incapable of real feeling, and most of all unrapeable, while PRIVILEGED PEOPLE are seen as non-sexual, and therefore pure, innocent, intelligent and compassionate, and most of all worthy of protection and empathy.
+And therefore when I see people repeatedly referring to anyone who does not identify as asexual or demisexual as “a sexual” or “sexuals”, and talking about “sexual privilege” and “sexual supremacy”, what I see is someone erasing centuries of MULTIPLE, intersecting oppressions - throwing whole classes of people under the bus, and I hesitate to use that phrase because it is so violent, but that’s what this denial is: it’s a violent denial, violent in that it erases and obfuscates so much real violence, and that erasure is a big part of what enables that violence in society already. It’s harming people, directly, specifically, in order to further discourse about an idea and identity that is still fairly new and still finding it’s place, and that does not bode well for me at all.
I haven’t read the notes, so forgive me if this has already been said, but let me help you out here a little: You argument is not about the word “sexual.” It’s really just confusing the issue, so you might want to say what you mean instead of giving the impression that if the word was just changed to “alisexual” or “poikkisexual” or “orange twizzled jumpers” you would be okay with it.
Because your argument seems to be saying that you have a problem with asexual people who suggest that there are challenges unique to the asexual community that other, non-ace spectrum people do not have to face. I am relying mainly on the last paragraph, but it seems to say that what is bad is asexual people suggesting they have different issues than orange twizzled jumpers, in your words, “erasing centuries of multiple, intersecting oppressions.” It also seems to imply that furthering discourse about this “new” idea is something that should not be undertaken lightly.
So, just come out and say, “I don’t like it when asexual people talk about their community’s concerns. I don’t like it when asexual people have a community, given that it is united by a feeling of alienation from the majority. I don’t like that asexual people insist that they exist when it’s such a new thing, how we can we be sure?” There’s no need to couch it in a vocabulary argument.
Own your acephobia. It’s not hate from your point of view anyway, so what can it hurt?
Given that the “are asexuals oppressed?” thing keeps coming back, and that the actual people alleging this have yet to actually come up with the links, I will ask my dash, who I hope likes me more and therefore will be more likely to help: Do you have any links to a place where an ace is saying LGBT people aren’t oppressed, or that aces are more oppressed? Or any clues as to where one might be? I can use the google if you can give me some hints. Thank you in advance :D
Like, some people who wouldn’t consider themselves asexual are celibate; some people who do consider themselves asexual have sex. Some asexuals are genuinely attracted to other people; some non-asexual-identified people aren’t attracted to people physically. The fact is, the only consistent definition of “asexual” is “having a non-normative quantity of sexual desire,” and so any oppression that acts against asexuals as a group also acts against A LOT of people who don’t identify as asexuals.
The asexual community needs to address this and stop expecting that everyonewho experiences some aspect of sexuality to a lesser degree than is socially acceptable* to either start identifying as ace or accept that they are “privileged” for not doing so.
*So, like, a sexual abuse survivor who gets triggered by sex sometimes and often has to stop in the middle or avoid it altogether would be included under this umbrella just like someone who doesn’t desire sex in the first place and never engages in it.
Factually incorrect. I have said it many times, and I will say it once more: Discussions about asexuality have to actually be about asexuality. This deserves no further comment.
No other way to really throw that out there so. Pretty much for the reasons denoted in the things I’ve been posting today. Being a-typical, put at a disadvantage, or even having your identity being slightly frowned upon/erased/joked about, while not fun, is not equivalent to oppression and systematic discrimination and abuse.
I think there are A LOT of issues/oversights with a lot of the language and phrasing of “sexual privilege”. It creates this very binarist, erasing dichotomy that oversimplifies a lot of people’s lived experiences based on culture or personal experiences. A lot of aspects of it can be really slut-shaming, too.
Everyone’s personal level of expression and sexuality needs to be acknowledged and respected. More relationship models that don’t necessarily involve sex need to be recognized and respected and shown for what they are. But let’s be careful and not step into douchebag territory by appropriating language and privilege checklists for every time you’re inconvenienced.
First, I’d like to echo the points greenchestnuts has made that equating the problems aces face to “lightly frowned upon/erased/joked about” betrays an ignorance of the subject matter. It seems from the notes you’ve dropped the “asexuality isn’t an orientation”/“hetero ace and queer ace” line (a friend corrected you and you don’t think that anymore? Is that right?), so I’ll leave that be. But I would like to talk more about haffurupufu’s point, which is, there is a difference between “there is no such thing as sexual privilege” and “asexuals aren’t oppressed.” Given the bit I’ve bolded from the original and some of the things you’ve said in the notes, you seem to be arguing for the latter, despite the title implying you are talking about the former.
I personally have a lot of conflicted feelings and doubt about “sexual privilege,” and I always have. Those reservations come not from the relationship of the asexual community to the heterosexual majority, however, they come from the relationship between the asexual community and other sexual minorities. It is an undeniable fact that ace-spectrum orientations are not heteronormative. People denying the existence of sexual minorities, or trying to “correct” the behavior of sexual minorities, or hurting people because they are a sexual minority are all heterosexist actions, whether the sexual minority in question is asexuality or not. That aces should be marginalized under a heteronormative framework is not something of which I have any doubt.
The question of sexual privilege is a different one. It asks, are all sexual people inherently valued over asexual people by virtue of their sexual orientation? This is the sticky subject, this is the one that gives a lot of people pause and/or offense. And, to be quite frank, I don’t have an answer for you. I have read a lot of persuasive arguments in favor of the existence of sexual privilege, but still something in me holds back. I have no issue with people voicing their opinion one way or another on sexual privilege, because I think it’s still very much an open question.
But like I said earlier, that is different from accusing aces of “appropriating language and privilege checklists for every time you’re inconvenienced.” That denies that ace-spectrum orientations are valid, that they are not heteronormative and therefore face heterosexist headwinds, and most importantly that there are things most aces experience that are worlds beyond “inconveniences.” We are not talking about a sub-culture, or a club, or a community of shared belief. Someone’s sexual orientation, which they did not choose and cannot change, needs to be taken a little bit more seriously than that.
