#and understand there is nuance to identities and just because someone is asexual alloromantic | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

bilesproblems · 4 months

Note

hi we have one question

we heard the argument "the split attraction model was invented before, but it was spread by asexuals for asexuals, so using the sam not on the a-spectrum is aphobia, the use of sam is only allowed when in the a-spectrum".

can u say something about this?

our thinking ended with “according to this logic, using microwaves without being in the military at war is bad because they were created in war, by the military and for the military". we don’t understand what else can be written.

we hope u will find time to answer us.

Seeing as I am asexual and arospec, I am more than qualified to talk about this

The idea that split attraction can only exist for people with aspec attractions and can't be a divergence of orientation unless the divergent orientation is completely a(n)- as an argument against mspec lesbians is utter bullshit that doesn't give any respect to the complexity of the anattractional spectrum, argues against people's real lived experiences (you literally can't say the SAM is only for aspecs when people in real life have split attraction, that's like disagreeing with being gay, you aren't able to have an opinion or stance on it because it's just fact and not subjective in any way shape or form that people are gay, and that non-aspecs experience split attraction), and completely ignores the nuances that being aspec might have on one's identity- including identifying as an mspec lesbian

I'm ace and arospec. I'm asexual, specifically black stripe ace/suptiliasexual/absexual (all terms for no attraction at all not even a little), cupiosexual, and pseudosexual (other attraction can mimic sexual attraction), and I'm both demiromantic and apresromantic. I have somewhat complicated relationships with attraction and favorability, as I experience them differently than most people. I also consider myself para-oriented as an ace, because I feel like I have a sexual orientation despite feeling no attraction, because of my favorability (I would only want to be with people I'm romantically attracted to, so my orientations aren't divergent, but keep in mind some para-oriented people might feel their para-orientation is different than their other orientation(s).) Given my complex experience with attraction, not only do I think there's no way on earth it could even be remotely appropriative or offensive for a person to describe a phenomenon they experience in similar terms to us, even if we experience it differently, but I actually think it's more aphobic to take the stance that only aspecs can use the SAM. For one, there's a lot in between totally ace and totally allo, so the idea that orientations described by split attraction like bi lesbian or straight gay are aphobic ignores that a demisexual alloromantic could be biromantic and attracted to all genders, but exclusively sexually attracted to women. For two, saying split attraction doesn't apply to split orientations, only splits in where someone is on the ace-to-allo scale, delegitimizes asexuality as an orientation itself, when it often is one, and further argues that sexual and romantic attraction cannot be truly separate, because how could your orientations differ unless they are separate? Aces and Aros have been arguing for years that sexual and romantic attractions are different, that you shouldn't equate sex and romance, etc. Saying people who are alloallo or have split attraction that includes different orientations is literally furthering aphobic arguments while trying to convince the aspecs who will call you out otherwise that this person is The Enemy

It's also really dumb based on the principle that someone saying they have a certain lived experience can't be discrimination or appropriation. Not only was the SAM first described for bi straights, but if a person says they experience two forms of attraction differently, that's split attraction, period. You can't say they don't get to use the model that describes that experience and aren't allowed to separately label the two attractions they feel differently as two different labels because of some bullshit about how only aspecs can use it because they made it popular. If a single non-aspec ever experienced split attraction, then the model isn't allowed to be aspec exclusive, period.

It's also worth noting that not only can some aspecs be mspec lesbians and experience split orientations, but sometimes that unique and complex relationship with being aspec is why a person would identify as an mspec lesbian. Para-orientations and being favorable towards having sex/relationships with genders that they're not romantically/sexually attracted to (order of which comes before or after the slash matters), experiencing attraction rarely enough that one could be a pan straight because they've only been attracted to people of the opposite gender so far, but in theory would totally be open to anyone, one could be orchidspec and feel attraction to many genders but be repulsed by all but one, being aroace and feeling two very significant, different forms of attraction and calling yourself a straight lesbian because you're a woman who's only platonically attracted to girls and some enby folk, while feeling strong aesthetic attraction towards men, exclusively, the list goes on. Being aspec is complicated and leads to very different relationships with our orientations. It's ignorant to claim labels like bi lesbian aren't SAM compatible, because aspecs "own" split attraction, when our complex relationships can lead to identifying as an mspec lesbian or other "contradictory" SAM term.

10 notes · View notes

fastidious-and-a-mess · 2 years

Note

I keep getting disappointed by how often I serch for riz fan content only to see Fariz (or other Riz ships included in it) I started watch fh cause I heard people talking about riz being aroace, good aroace characters are hard to find and I love all of them that I do find. so to see so much of the fandom just dismiss Riz being aroace in favor of their ships is very disappointing

disclaimer; in writing this response, i tended to lean more towards talking about fic and less about fanart because that’s where i’ve seen the most of what you’re talking about. also, in some places i strayed to talking about aroace characters in general and not just riz, which honestly i feel is appropriate because what happens to him happens to a lot of characters.

i totally understand what you mean. as an aroace person, it can be really disheartening to see things like “aroace people can still be in relationships!” etc etc.

honestly a lot of the fabriz content i’ve come across has been with demi!riz, which i don’t have too much of an issues with? in canon, he’s never had close friends like the bad kids before, so he’d never formed that close bond with anyone that would lead him to discovering his sexuality. i’ve read a few fics that do this pretty well, and in this context personally i think putting riz into romantic relationships is fine. not great, but not flat out erasure either.

although, sometimes it does feel like an excuse to be able to put him into relationships. like someone interpreting riz’s kind of vague sexuality in a way that allows them to write him in a ship without technically erasing his aro/ace-ness. and you’re absolutely right, that can feel very dismissive.

there’s a similar thing with people writing him aroace and still writing him into qprs. like, yes aroace people are often involved in exclusive and intimate relationships that, although explicitly not romantic or sexual, often involve a lot of the same mechanics as those relationships. but sometimes people just use that as an excuse to effectively write him into a traditional romantic/sexual relationship. they’ll think it’s fine because they’ll say he’s still aroace and it’s a qpr but i can tell there’s a very subtle difference between actually aro/ace people writing him in a qpr and allo people writing him in a qpr.

but then there’s so much riz content that just. chooses to ignore it completely. they’ll write riz into relationships with absolutely zero consideration for how he canonically is some flavor of aroace. to his aroace-ness implied or coding and not explicitly canon because they never label it would be like say fig’s queerness is only implied or coded because they never label it. fig kisses girls, and without labels that’s MORE than “enough” for her to be acknowledged as canonically queer, but riz has conversation after conversation after offhand comment about how he isn’t into the whole crushes relationships kissing thing, and for some people it’s STILL not enough to “earn” him a queer label. some people are quicker to accept a bisexual gorgug headcanon, which to my knowledge was never implied or suggested in canon at all, than to accept riz’s very canon aromantic/asexual identity. and it’s frustrating.

WHOOPS this was longer than i intended. as always. but anyways TL,DR: there are some instances where, when given proper nuance, depth, and care, riz can be appropriately written into a relationship without erasing his aroace identity. however, all too often people attempt to do that or say they attempt to do that and instead use those practices as an excuse to write him, effectively, alloromantic/allosexual. people just flat out ignoring and erasing his canon identity for the sake of their ships is also a common problem. so, even though there are a few nuanced exceptions, by and large i completely agree. aroace characters just don’t get the same respect for their identities that other queer characters do.

#ask #anonymous #you’re absolutely right anon. it’s disheartening #riz gukgak #riz fantasy high #fantasy high #dimension 20 #anyways shout out to everyone who’s written something under the ‘asexual riz gukgak’ tag on ao3

99 notes · View notes

and-stir-the-stars · 2 years

Note

would it be dumb to ask what loveless aro means? i guess i'm not as educated on aromantic as i'd like to be

It's not dumb to ask at all; I appreciate you asking for clarification :)

Lovelessness can be a hard concept to wrap your mind around, and I mostly have a vague idea of what it means rather than a concrete one, but I'll do my best.

Lovelessness refers to the rejection of "love" (in more than just its romantic form) being the key feature in human existence. According to the queer wiki, "Loveless Aromantic, or Loveless Aro, describes someone who is on the aromantic spectrum that is in some way disconnected from the concept of love, does not feel love, may doubt that they feel love, or rejects the idea of experiencing love."

There's a problem with dehumanizing aspec people in our community. For example, someone might say it's okay to be asexual because the asexual person "is just like any 'normal' person because they can still fall in love", which dehumanizes aromantics. Or someone might say it's okay to be aromantic because the aromantic person "is just like any 'normal' person because they can still love their friends just as passionately as any alloromantic would love their partner", which dehumanizes anyone who doesn't form or hasn't formed close/intense friendships with others. Or someone might say it's okay to be aplatonic (which is someone who doesn't experience platonic attraction to others) because the aplatonic person "is just like any 'normal' person because they still love pets/hobbies/etc."

So you can see, this line of thinking forms what seems to be a never-ending loop of putting other people down to justify the existence of being aromantic or asexual or aplatonic, because you're suggesting that it's okay to not feel one form of love so long as you can substitute it with another form of love, especially with a substitute that's "close enough" to romance. Instead of accepting and being comfortable with aspec identities, people will accept aspecs on the condition that they can "make up" for their lack of one form of love with an "approved" other form of love, which is just amatonormativity and aphobia in disguise, and it's extremely harmful.

Lovelessness stems from the idea of asking: who says love in any of its forms is necessary to human existence? Who says feeling love in any of its forms is the default or normal way to experience life? Who says love as a concept is inevitable in our lives and existences?

Being loveless doesn't mean that a person is miserable all the time because that the person doesn't feel passionate about anything in their life, or that they don't care about anyone, or that they lack empathy. But it does mean that if they do experience any of those things in the last sentence, the person likely will not feel comfortable or see it as necessary to use the word "love" to describe how they feel.

Some people might feel a disconnect with the term love because the term has been overused. People use the term love to talk about everything from nature, to food, to friends, to romantic partners, to hobbies, to family, etc etc; the list just goes on and on. Because of this, some people feel a disconnect with the term love because they feel it's too vague to be able to properly express themself or to clearly understand others, and it's been incorrectly used as a blanket term for so many things that it's almost lost meaning entirely. People lump so many feelings under the one umbrella term "love" that so many nuances in human emotion and connection get buried and lost, not just in communication with other people, but in our ability to understand ourselves and how we actually feel, because we just use the word "love" instead of digging deeper to see the complexities of what we're really feeling (this post does a good job of highlighting this tendency to lose the complexities of emotion when we use love as an umbrella term in this way). Having the term love be so broad can be confusing and even harmful, and it's hard to pinpoint whether or not you can feel love when you can't pinpoint what exactly love means, which also contributes to the disconnect a person might feel with the concept of love.

Here's some other posts that talk about lovelessness in more detail:

(1) (2)

*If you happen to be reading this and have a more in depth understanding of the topic of lovelessnes, and you disagree with anything I said, think I phrased something poorly, left out an important detail, etc, then please let me know

#hopefully this helps!#also! i have your other ask in my inbox but i wanna take some time to really think about my sexuality hcs for spn characters <3 #loveless #lovelessness #loveless aro #aromantic #lgbt #lgbtq #aro

661 notes · View notes

thedreadvampy · 3 years

Note

I am the same age you are. My point is that being aroace can be a reason people don’t seek relationships (including myself), but it is not the only reason, it is common but not universal, and the constant conflation of the two causes issues. It goes along with the misconception that asexuality is the same as celibacy. Allosexual, alloromantic people obviously also choose not to pursue romantic and sexual relationships, and some do not desire them for reasons other than attraction. The linguistic gap exists, and the solution is not to use orientations with nuanced, complex experiences as an inaccurate catch-all.

I brought this up largely because I, and many of my aroace friends, have been through a lot of shit due to this exact conflation. I do not want reassurance that I’m valid, I want other people to not go through the same thing, because there are reasons we have largely moved away from descriptions that include not desiring or seeking relationships as a defining feature of aroace identities.

I will not see any response you give, as I am completely blacklisting this and all related topics.

Ok but like I'm going to respond to this even if you won't see it because I'm really quite baffled by it. I just don't think we're having the same conversation because I don't think anything you're saying runs counter to what I'm saying?

Like, first of all I'm not trying to reassure you you're ~valid~, I've said several times I think that's a totally hollow gesture. I'm trying to explain how there's a difference between an identifier used or questioned on a personal level (I Am Aroace) and an identifier used in the abstract (Aroace People). We can and should always trust people to have a more nuanced understanding of their own identity as the person experiencing it than any outside observer, but for a term to have meaning as a word is got to cover a specific meaning, which people individually may relate to differently.

but also what? when was I saying being aroace is the only reason people don't seek relationships? I literally know about 500 more reasons just that I've seen, and some of them I experience myself. what I'm saying is that aroace is a reason people don't seek relationships, and there are a lot of contexts where that reason is pertinent, and also a lot of contexts where people refuse to accept that reason because 'oh but aroace people can still date' and again I am pulling from experiences people I care deeply about have had and been harmed by. (also again this is about desire not seek I'm absolutely clear as someone who's dated a lot of people I actively did not like in any way that there are a lot of reasons people seek or enter relationships other than specific desire)

I'm not sure why your age is relevant. I'm not trying to talk down to you or explain from a position of Ancient Wisdom, I am explaining how I think you've misunderstood what I'm saying. apparently explaining pretty poorly because I still don't think you're actually hearing what I'm trying to get across.

12 notes · View notes

shades-of-grayro · 5 years

Text

“Aces can still love”

This phrase gets a lot of criticism from the aro community. But it’s become such a common example used to demonstrate arophobia in the ace community that we’ve lost sight of what actually makes it bad.

It’s time we have an honest conversation about the nuances behind this phrase, why aces say it, and how to recognize whether something that looks like it is actually problematic.

(This can also serve as a guide for alloromantic aces who want to be good allies to aros, but who don’t understand what’s wrong with this phrase.)

Why do aces say this?

When people first learn about asexuality, they often presume that this includes a lack of interest in romantic endeavors as well as sexual ones. When you’re aroace, this misconception generally doesn’t bother you so much.

For alloromantic aces, this is often a touchy issue for a couple of reasons. One, many allo aces didn’t know that being ace and not being aromantic was a thing at first, and that was a barrier to being able to figure out their identity. There’s often a personal story behind why this misconception bothers them so much - one that probably a lot of allo aros can relate with (and even some aroaces, like myself).

They also find that they often have to correct others on this misconception quite a bit - whether those people are allosexual or ace. There are pockets of the ace community that are predominantly aroace! I know I’ve had to correct other aces on this misconception myself at my in-person ace meetup. Correcting people on this misconception all the time does get tiring.

But what about respectability politics?

Do some aces say that phrase because they want to try to humanize themselves by showing that they can love just like anybody else? Probably. But that is not inherent in the phrase “aces can still love” — that needs the “just like anybody else” bit to come after it to count as respectability politics.*

Still, I think most aces who do the “we can still love just like you” variation of this phrase honestly don’t realize that they are throwing aros under the bus. The number of people who do this knowingly are a tiny fraction of the people saying statements like “aces can still love”

Variations on “Aces can still love”

There are many variations on this phrase, and they are not all created equal. Some are bad, but some are perfectly fine! The rest of this post is a guide to the different phrases so you know which are safe and which are fair game to get upset with.

Note: I’m using “still love” at a part of each of these phrases. I think on a whole, this part of the phrase should be replaced with something that specifies this love as romantic, but that’s not really the point of this post.

The Classic: “Aces can still love”

Let’s look at the sentence structure here… It doesn’t necessarily specify all aces, but also most people would read it as talking about all aces. Ultimately what is bad about this phrase is its ambiguity and potential generalization.

Sometimes I think people might mean “Feeling romantic love doesn’t invalidate your ace identity” when they say this phrase, but that’s not the only way of interpreting it once it’s said, and the other way of interpreting it is Bad, and therefore, this sentence structure should be avoided.

The Respectability Politician: “Aces can still love, just like anyone else!”

Aces face a high amount of dehumanization. This phrase is an attempt to humanize the ace experience, but unfortunately, it further dehumanizes the aro experience by comparison.

It’s also possible that someone might use a phrase that looks somewhat like this when trying to explain what romantic orientations are, so it’s important to look at the context to see if someone is simply explaining romantic orientation (though in this case, this phrase would still have the same problems as “The Classic”).

The Non-Generalization: “Some aces can still love”

Yay! This is a good one! Look at the word “some” in there. It takes a statement that was a generalization about all aces, and turns it into one that acknowledges that while some aces can still love (romantically), others don’t!

The Agape Context: “Aces can still love! They love their pets, their friends, their hobbies…”

The word “love” is very vague - sometimes it means romantic love, sometimes it means broadly towards other people, and sometimes it can even refer to a feeling regarding something that’s not human like an animal or activity.

Sometimes, if you look at the context, the statement “aces can still love” isn’t referring to romantic love. These can vary in how acceptable they are; it’s important to keep in mind that some aces might not experience “love” towards those other things being listed as well, or might have objections with the word “love” due to associations with romance, even if it’s not meant in a romantic way.

And yes, I know that’s not quite the right use of agape. I just wanted a cool title.

The Personal Experience: “I’m ace but I can still love”

This is another one that’s fine! Please don’t attack this!

This statement is talking about a personal experience. It’s not a generalization. 100% acceptable. I mean, unless it is in a very specific context where they’re spitting in an aro’s face going “I may be ace but at least I can still LOVE!”

But like, that’s not what most of these are. Be very very careful before you get mad at anyone for using an “I” statement.

The Personal Politician: “I’m ace but I can still love just like you”

This one is highly dependent on context. Is it in response to a dehumanizing statement, or is it an attempt to explain romantic orientation?

In response to a dehumanizing statement? Nope, don’t do that, that throws aros under the bus, even if you are using an “I” statement.

Explaining your orientation to someone by demonstrating where there are similarities between your experience and theirs? Go for it!

TL;DR

Not all statements that look like “aces can still love” are bad, and we should look at the context they are in before making blanket criticisms.

—

*There are probably some other contexts where this would be respectability politics. If the phrase “aces can still love” was in response to a dehumanizing statement, as opposed to a misconception, then it would be respectability politics.

#asexual #ace #aromantic #aro #aro community #actually aromantic #arophobia #arophobia in the ace community #aroace #aromisia in the ace community #i've been meaning to talk about this for a while #long post

319 notes · View notes

thedreadvampy · 3 years

Note

Hey Ruth! I noticed you've talked in the past about asexuality in quite a negative manner. As an ace-person (who has received backlash for it) I was wondering: do you still uphold these opinions?

Hey! I have in the past said I don’t really...like people popping up in my ask box asking me My Opinion On Asexuality, but I do appreciate you asking me as someone I kinda know and with your face turned on, so I’m gonna aim to answer in the macro. Though I mean it depends on what the opinions...are? I have had a lot of opinions over the time I’ve had this blog and I don’t necessarily know what all of them were or which ones have concerned you. I can give you a top-level view of how I see my views, though (however, since I have been largely holding off on answering this kind of ask for Literally A Year Now this is less an answer to your specific question and more an answer to the last year of asks)

(also if I get dogpiled in my inbox for Having Bad Asexuality Opinions which I do every time I talk about asexuality regardless of what I actually say then. my phone is broken I won’t know about it :) so I feel untouchable)

I don’t think I hold a negative opinion of asexuality as an identity (I say I don’t think bc we all have blind spots)? I have a lot of very important people in my life who are asexual, aromantic or aroace and. I mean it feels pretty condescending to say ~uwu it’s valid~ bc like. ace and aro people don’t really need my input to validate their identity. but a) it seems like a pretty accurate way to describe their experience and b) I know a lot of them have had a really huge boost from finding a name and community to fit their experience and have found that really helpful, and I’ve seen that make a huge difference in people’s lives and I’m really happy to watch my friends come to understand themselves and feel comfortable and accepted in a part of themselves they had felt really alienated or stigmatised by. In a broader sense, I think there’s huge value in decentralising romance and sex in our assumptions of What Human Happiness Means and for some people that’s not the most important thing, and for some it’s just not interesting.

So like. I find it difficult to really express these opinions in any meaningful way because my opinion on asexuals and aromantics is much like my opinion on trans people or idk like people of colour. like very obviously those people exist and very obviously those people don’t deserve to be marginalised or stigmatised but it would feel. weird and performative to just make a post saying like “Asexuality Is Good And Valid, I Am Pro It” bc again like. who needs my permission or cares about my opinion. it’s not a Good Thing To Do it’s just. a thing you are that shouldn’t be treated as a bad thing.

however. and I suspect that this is what you’re referring to. while I love and appreciate ace and aro people, I think building communities and active support for ace and aro people is valuable and needed and, as above, I think Asexuality Is Good And Valid I Am Pro It, I do take some issue with elements of how discussions around asexuality are framed online (pretty much only online, I really haven’t run into the kind of black-and-white thinking in in-person queer spaces)

and I also. think there are some issues with people extrapolating their experience of their own sexuality onto the world in a way which. I’m just going to say a lot of the time when I talk about The Ace Discourse in a negative way it’s around people assuming that the world is split into a binary between ace and allo people, or assuming that only aspec people experience a nuanced or complex or fluid relationship to their sexuality while pigeonholing allosexuality into a pretty flat image of sex and romance focus. and I have always felt like this does a massive disservice not just to people who don’t identify with aspec labels, but also to the general hope that we could work against the expectation that there’s a Standard Amount To Value Sex/Romance - I think that the assumption that there are aspec people and then Everyone Else Has The Normal Type and Level of Attraction just. reinforces the idea that there’s a “Normal” type and level of attraction. which is ultimately pretty self-defeating and also just. observably untrue.

and this division of the world into Aspec People and Allo People also has some other weird knockon effects - I don’t think there’s anything intrinsically wrong with identities like gray ace or demi or other aspec labels beyond asexual and aromantic, but I do think that the way those labels are used is often. unhelpful. and they’re defined in such personal, subjective ways that you get weirdnesses sometimes like people Diagnosing Each Other With Demisexual or people saying ‘you can’t talk about this experience you share because it’s an Aspec Experience’ and again. there isn’t a concrete material experience there because the whole experience of romantic and sexual attraction, what that feels like and how sharply divisible it is is very, very personal and subjective. and everyone has different experiences of those and will name those experiences differently.

there’s also. historically a minority of Big Ace Blogs that kind of sneer at allosexuality or who would hijack posts about other issues to derail them to asexuality. but I don’t think they were ever representative of the community as a whole and I certainly think that inasmuch as those blogs remain around they’re a legacy of the Long-Ago (and a lot of them are trolls imo)

but there is. an issue I take that does seem to be more currently live which is the question of allo privilege. I think personally that framing all allosexuals/alloromantics as privileged over all aspec people on the basis of feeling sexual/romantic attraction is provably untrue in a world where people, particularly queer people, are actively oppressed and marginalised for expressing non-normative sexuality. it isn’t that I don’t think asexuality and aromanticism isn’t marginalised and stigmatised, because it visibly is, but it seems pretty reductive to boil it down to a binary yes/no privilege when both sexualisation and desexualisation are so actively tied into other forms of marginalisation (this is what I was trying to express in the argument about Martin a while ago - sex and sexuality are so often disincentivised for fat, queer, disabled and neuroatypical people that it doesn’t...feel like a reclamation that those tend to be the characters that get fanonised as ace where slim, straight, able-bodied and neurotypical characters aren’t. like it’s more complex than a binary privilege equation; sex and romance are incentivised and stigmatised differently at the intersection of oppressions and. for example. in a world where gay conversion therapy and religious oppression of gay and SGA people is so often focused specifically on celibacy and on punishing the act of sexual attraction, I don’t think it’s a reasonable framing to say that a gay allosexual man has privilege over an aroace man on the basis of his attraction)

so those are like. things I would consider myself to feel actively negative about in online discourse (and again. in online discourse. not in how I relate to asexuality or aromanticism or aspec identities in general but in the framing and approaches people take towards discussing it in a very specific bubble).

but also. um. the main criticism I have of the online discourse culture of asexuality is that there are things I don’t have experience of that I have mentioned, when asked, that I don’t personally understand the meaning of but I don’t need to understand them to appreciate that they’re useful/meaningful to others. things like

the difference between QPRs, asexual romantic relationships and close friendships

how you know the difference between romantic attraction and friendship

the distinction between sexual attraction and a desire to have sex with someone for another reason

and I hope I’ve generally been clear that this is. honest lack of understanding and not condemnation. I personally have a very muddled sense of attraction and often have difficulty identifying the specifics of any of my own emotional needs so like. it’s a closed book for me at the moment, how you would identify the fine distinctions between types of want when I’m still at step 1: identify That You Want Something Of Some Sort, Eventually, Through Trial And Error. but I think I’ve always been explicit that this isn’t a value judgement it’s just a gap in my own knowledge and yet. every single time I’ve said anything other than enthusiastic “yes I understand this and I love it and it’s good and valid” (and again. I have not gone out of my way to talk about it I have mostly only mentioned it because people keep asking me to talk about it) I have got a massive rush of anger and accusations of aphobia and “just shut up if you don’t know what you’re talking about but also answer my 30 questions to prove you think Correct Things about asexuality” and. I understand that this comes from a place of really unpleasant and aggressive backlash towards the ace community so it’s a sensitivity with a lot of people but like. it doesn’t seem proportional.

also I feel like ever since I hit like 700 followers my Tumblr life has been a constant cycle of people asking me Are You An Ace Inclusionist Are You An Exclus Are You An Aphobe Justify Your Opinion On Asexuality which. eventually yeah I’ve got pretty snippy about the whole thing. but you know. fuck it I’m just gonna lay it out and if you or anyone else is uncomfortable following me based on those opinions then I’m sorry to hear that and I will be sad to see you not want to engage with me any more but I also think that’s absolutely your prerogative. however I will not be taking questions at this time (and not just bc my phone’s broken) - demands for an argument about this Are Going To Be Ignored so if you want to go then go.

so like the big question I reckon is Do You Think Asexuality Is Queer and

yes. no. maybe. I don’t understand the question what does it mean for an identity to be queer?

there are spaces and conversations where any form of aromanticism or asexuality makes sense as a relevant identity. talking about hegemonic expectations of normative romance. building community. combatting the idea that heterosexual missionary married sex between a man and a woman is the only rewarding or valuable form of relationship or intimacy.

there are spaces where I think heterosexual aros/heteromantic cis aces don’t. have a more meaningful or direct experience of the issues than allo cishets. because while being aro or ace or aspec has a direct impact on those people on a personal and relational level, disclosure is largely a choice, and the world at large sees them as straight. they don’t have the lived experience of being visibly nonconforming that SGA people and aroace people do. they may still be queer but there’s a lot of conversations where they bring a lot of the baggage of being Straight People (because. even if you’re ace or aro you can still be straight in your romantic or sexual attraction and if your relationships are all outwardly straight then you don’t necessarily have an intimate personal understanding of being marginalised from mainstream society by dint of your sexuality). this doesn’t make you Not Queer in the same way that being a bi person who’s only ever been in m/f relationships is still queer, but in both cases a) you don’t magically have a personal experience of societal oppression through the transitive properties of Being Queer and b) it’s really obnoxious to talk as if you’re The Most Oppressed when other people are trying to have a conversation about their lived experience of societal oppression. and they’re within their rights to say ‘we’re talking about the experience of being marginalised for same gender/non-heterosexual attraction and you’re straight, could you butt out?’)

(I very much object to the assumption coming from a lot of exclus that “cishet ace” is a term that can reasonably be applied to non-orientated aroace people though. het is not a default it really extremely doesn’t make sense to treat people who feel no attraction as Straight By Default. when I were a lad I feel like we mostly understood “asexual” to mean that identity - non-orientated aroace - and while I think it’s obvious that a lot of people do find value in using a more split-model because. well. some people are both gay/straight/bi and aro/ace, and it’s good that language reflects that. but I do think it’s left a gap in the language to simply refer to non-attracted people. this isn’t a criticism of anything in particular - there’s a constant balancing act in language between specificity and adaptability and sometimes a gain for one is a loss for the other)

some queer conversations and spaces just. aren’t built with aces in mind. and that isn’t a flaw. some spaces aren’t built with men in mind, but that doesn’t mean men can’t be queer. some conversations are about Black experiences of queerness but that doesn’t mean non-Black people can’t be queer. not all queer spaces will focus on ace needs but that doesn’t mean asexuality isn’t queer, or that queerness is opposed to aceness - sex, sexuality, romance and dating are all really important things to a lot of queer people, especially those whose sexuality and romantic relationships are often stigmatised or violently suppressed in wider society. there should be gay bars, hookup apps, gay and trans friendly sex education, making out at Pride, leather parades and topless dyke marches and porn made by and for queer people, romantic representation in media of young and old gay, bi and trans couples kissing and snuggling and getting married and saying sloppy romantic things. and there should be non-sexual queer spaces, there should be discussions around queerness that don’t suppose that a monogamous romantic relationship is what everyone’s fighting for, sex ed should be ace inclusive, etc.

I think the whole question of inclusionism vs exclusionism is based on a weird underlying assumption that If An Identity Is Queer All Queer Spaces Should Directly Cater To That. like. aspec identities can be queer and it can be totally reasonable for there to be queer spaces that revolve around being sexual and romantic and there can be conversations it’s not appropriate or productive to centre asexuality and aspec experiences in and we can recognise that not all queer people do prioritise or have any interest in sex or romance. in the same way that there’s value in centring binary trans experiences sometimes and nonbinary experiences at other times but both of those conversations should recognise that neither binary or nonbinary gender identity is a Universal Queer Experience.

anyway that one probably isn’t one of the opinions you were asking about but I have been wanting to find a way to express it for a while so you’re getting it: the Ruth Thedreadvampy Inclusionism Take.

uh. it’s 1:30 on a work night so I have been typing too long. if there was an opinion you were specifically thinking of that I haven’t mentioned, chuck me another ask specifically pointing to what you want me to clarify my thinking on. sometimes I gotta be honest I’ve just been kind of careless in my framing (thinking of the Martin Fucks debacle where I spent ages insisting I didn’t say Martin couldn’t be aroace then read back like two days later and realised that I had said “he’s not aroace” bc I had written the post at 2am without proofreading and had meant to say “unless you think he’s aroace”) so I May Well Not Stand By Some Posts or might Stand By Them With Clarification

28 notes · View notes