![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
anghraine2011, apparently, is the year for acewank; there have been a number of other explosions on the asexuality tag at tumblr, most of which I didn’t feel any need to address at length. To explain sum up: no matter how often you call me straight, that will never make it true, usage =/= etymology, and sexual people do not have the right to decide who belongs in the asexual community.
The newest wank was precipitated by none other than that exemplar of open-minded activism, Dan Savage.
He announced that asexuals are obligated to out themselves early in a relationship with a sexual person, and in the process compared asexuality to (1) HIV and (2) pedophilia. Some people don’t see why many asexuals were offended by any part of it, while many more acknowledge that the comparisons were unfortunate, but he has a point – sexual people do naturally desire to have sex with their partners, and it’s only fair to let them know it’s not going to happen.
From the beginning, this argument was extremely confusing to me. Okay, my dating experience is admittedly very sparse – I dated for a few months when I was fifteen, and a few more when I was twenty-two, with the same person as before. He is an extremely monogamous heteroromantic heterosexual. I am an aromantic asexual who vaguely wished that he could have sexual relationships with other people and we could just have no-pressure cuddling. Not a match made in heaven, is what I’m saying, and it tanked gloriously (twice!).
You know what? I made it clear from the beginning that I was celibate. He knew sex was never going to be in the picture. He even knew I didn’t really care for kissing, and we tried to negotiate that. (Okay, with kissing quotas, which incidentally is a really bad idea, but we tried.) For a number of reasons, I never said “I’m asexual,” and to this day, I don’t reproach myself for that.
Do I think it’s important to communicate about your sexual preferences, especially if your expectations are obviously different? Yes, of course. Setting a universal timeline like the third date is ridiculous. But while I’m not experienced much in this area, certainly I believe people should be clear about their desires and boundaries. Honestly, I’m not sure anyone is even contesting that.
The problem is that people are talking about asexuality as if the identity itself is a blanket refusal to have sex, ever – that is, that asexuality is celibacy. Yet when they’re called on it, the only response seems to be, “well, of course I didn’t mean asexuals who are willing to have sex.” Of course? Since when does “asexual” obviously refer to “celibate asexual”?
Anyway, this takes the argument from “asexuals have an obligation to come out as asexual to presumably sexual romantic partners” to “celibate asexuals have an obligation to come out as asexual to presumably sexual romantic partners.” Not as celibate – as asexual. Even though the issue is that they’re not willing to have sex – that is, that they’re celibate. Moreover, framing this as a specifically asexual issue implies that sexual celibates aren’t obliged to clearly set out their boundaries, just asexuals.
Um. How about we give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume they’re not applying an unjust and nonsensical double standard to asexuals, but instead mean that sexual and asexual celibates should set out their boundaries (along with everyone else)? Okay, that makes a lot more sense … except one thing.
If the premise is that if you’re in a relationship with a sexual person and you’re absolutely unwilling to have sex, you should make this clear at some point, this is an argument about celibacy. It has nothing whatsoever to do with asexuality as such. It applies to celibate asexuals because they are celibate, not because they are asexual. So why are asexuals obliged to come out, again?
The newest wank was precipitated by none other than that exemplar of open-minded activism, Dan Savage.
He announced that asexuals are obligated to out themselves early in a relationship with a sexual person, and in the process compared asexuality to (1) HIV and (2) pedophilia. Some people don’t see why many asexuals were offended by any part of it, while many more acknowledge that the comparisons were unfortunate, but he has a point – sexual people do naturally desire to have sex with their partners, and it’s only fair to let them know it’s not going to happen.
From the beginning, this argument was extremely confusing to me. Okay, my dating experience is admittedly very sparse – I dated for a few months when I was fifteen, and a few more when I was twenty-two, with the same person as before. He is an extremely monogamous heteroromantic heterosexual. I am an aromantic asexual who vaguely wished that he could have sexual relationships with other people and we could just have no-pressure cuddling. Not a match made in heaven, is what I’m saying, and it tanked gloriously (twice!).
You know what? I made it clear from the beginning that I was celibate. He knew sex was never going to be in the picture. He even knew I didn’t really care for kissing, and we tried to negotiate that. (Okay, with kissing quotas, which incidentally is a really bad idea, but we tried.) For a number of reasons, I never said “I’m asexual,” and to this day, I don’t reproach myself for that.
Do I think it’s important to communicate about your sexual preferences, especially if your expectations are obviously different? Yes, of course. Setting a universal timeline like the third date is ridiculous. But while I’m not experienced much in this area, certainly I believe people should be clear about their desires and boundaries. Honestly, I’m not sure anyone is even contesting that.
The problem is that people are talking about asexuality as if the identity itself is a blanket refusal to have sex, ever – that is, that asexuality is celibacy. Yet when they’re called on it, the only response seems to be, “well, of course I didn’t mean asexuals who are willing to have sex.” Of course? Since when does “asexual” obviously refer to “celibate asexual”?
Anyway, this takes the argument from “asexuals have an obligation to come out as asexual to presumably sexual romantic partners” to “celibate asexuals have an obligation to come out as asexual to presumably sexual romantic partners.” Not as celibate – as asexual. Even though the issue is that they’re not willing to have sex – that is, that they’re celibate. Moreover, framing this as a specifically asexual issue implies that sexual celibates aren’t obliged to clearly set out their boundaries, just asexuals.
Um. How about we give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume they’re not applying an unjust and nonsensical double standard to asexuals, but instead mean that sexual and asexual celibates should set out their boundaries (along with everyone else)? Okay, that makes a lot more sense … except one thing.
If the premise is that if you’re in a relationship with a sexual person and you’re absolutely unwilling to have sex, you should make this clear at some point, this is an argument about celibacy. It has nothing whatsoever to do with asexuality as such. It applies to celibate asexuals because they are celibate, not because they are asexual. So why are asexuals obliged to come out, again?
no subject
on 2011-07-23 10:13 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2011-07-24 05:06 am (UTC)