It doesn’t make sense to me that people with too much time on their hands love to accuse asexuals and demisexuals and grey-asexuals of just wanting to be ~special snowflakes~ who are ~unique~ and ~not like…
I don’t really get how demisexuality can be a completely separate sexual orientation when it could apply to people of pretty much every sexual orientation. It’s not a question of whether it exists, I do think it’s possible to only be attracted to people you’re emotionally attached to, I just don’t get how only being attracted to people ( it never specifies what gender or genders) you’re close to is a sexual orientation in the same way that only being attracted to the opposite sex or only being attracted to the same sex are, to use 2 examples.
*shrug* I don’t really get how gender can be anything, but I believe people when they tell me it does.
I’m not being gratuitously flippant. At some point, you just have to believe people, whether they’re telling you gender exists and matters to them or they’re telling you no, none of the other sexual orientations do describe them.
(I’ve missed the beginning of this conversation, so correct me if I’m bringing up something that’s been adressed better elsewhere…)
I think this is is a case where there’s a difference between how say, a scientist would classify someone’s identity, and how they actually identify. For example, someone who is attracted to mostly women but sometimes men might be “technially” considered bisexual - but may identify personally as “lesbian”, for example. And for social purposes it’s what they personally identify as that is most important.
I would agree that conceptually, it makes more sense to place demisexuality as a “mode” of sexuality that occures in addition to rather than in place of another sexual orientation (which is used to refer specifically to targeted gender orientation). But in daily life, you aren’t doing a statistical research study on the people you meet, so it doesn’t really matter.
(there’s also defintional issues: in common parlance, “sexual orientation” and “sexuality” are pretty much conflated; while technically speaking I would class “sexual orientation” as specifically about target gender, and “sexuality” a larger category made of up of many other aspects (like say libido levels or demisexuality); however in general speech there is no distinguishing that so “demisexuality” and say heterosexuality” end up all lumped together in the same pool of options, with a single choice for each person)
For what it’s worth, when I’ve talked with demi people before some have mentioned that they do or may have some kind of underlying gendered orientation (what we might call sexual orientation) - but the fact is that for them, their demisexuality is by far the most salient part of their overall sexuality, rather than the underlying gender orientation of that attraction. (Plus, due to how demisexuality works, many many may not even know what their underlying orientation is (or if they have one) - you can’t extrapolate well from a sample that small)
(for another more confusing example: when you have color scales, you can adjust hue (red green blue etc.) and lightness darkness - now if you set it to red, then turn the darkness up to the max: sure, it’s an underlying “red” - but for common use “black” will be a much more practical descriptor. If that makes any sense?
but tl;dr: sure, technically speaking, “demisexual” should propbably be considered part of a different axis of sexuality than say “heterosexual” and “homosexual”. But that really doesn’t matter - that’s a level of theory that really isn’t useful in actual social interaction, where personal identity (whether gay, asexual, demi, or otherwise) is far more relevant.
AVEN requires two new moderators.
A journalist for Barcroft Media in London would like to interview an asexual couple.
ithaca will be giving another presentation on asexuality in Florence on Tuesday 10th December.
Australia - Melbourne AVENites will be having a beach meetup on Sunday 15th December.
the term “aro-ace” is especially lovely because it also sounds like “arrow ace.” are you aromantic and asexual or are you an incredibly skilled and deadly archer. surprise, you’re both
Let’s not forget the original arrow ace:
ARTEMIS JOKE I’VE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS FOR SO LONG
Some of you may have noticed that I’ve been dropping the asterisk I had previously been adding to the word “trans”
A lot of my original education on gender things came from the internet and I learned many things from a group of largely white, largely dfab nonbinary folks, particularly initially.
I’ve used the asterisk since then and it kind of stuck
Recently I’ve come across some discussions held by transwomen (binary and otherwise) who explained that the asterisk is at best unnecessary and at worst harmful and it has some gross origins.
So I’ve dropped the asterisk and I’d like you to do the same, particularly if you learned that terminology from me.
What are the gross origins, if you don’t mind me asking?
I’ve also never heard of this - followers, anyone know a bit more about this?
…Here’s the question that cuts to the heart of it:
This gets into the not-so-guilty-pleasures department. I like to tuckerize. With this caveat: I have no time for the “if you’re not nice to me I’ll put you in a book and kill you horribly” kind of thing. I have never included any real-life person as a character in my work who I didn’t really like, or who wasn’t a good friend. Life’s too short. When you’re having a good time, it’s your friends you want around you.
And those inclusions are all over the damn place. Over thirty-plus years and fifty-plus novels, screenplays, comic scripts, computer games and whatnot, I can’t think of a single one of them that doesn’t include a tuckerization of some kind. Friends appear as starship captains and in passenger manifests. There are people who die heroically (by request), people who survive heroically and are action heroes (like the owner of a favorite Dublin restaurant). Neighbors appear, other writers appear, business associates appear. Etc., etc. (Sometimes when other writers are involved, the gesture gets returned, which is sweet.)
In the YW books alone: Nita is a real person (with a name change). Ponch was a real dog (with a name change). Picchu was a real macaw (no name change). Ed was a present to a friend who likes sharks (name altered. And just as well: imagine the excitement of fitting Ed’rashtekaresket onto a driver’s license). There are many other incidences of this kind scattered across over the nine books.
And then of course we come to Tom and Carl. At the time I introduced them into the series, I don’t think I was clear how integral they were going to become to business when I included their names. But now, well, there they are. Hindsight being twenty-twenty as usual, had I known then what I know now, I would have changed their names. I didn’t.
Now, however, I need to avoid having people do what my mother would have called “jumping to concussions” about the real people from things that are going on in the fictional narrative. The YW series is obviously not a roman à clef, but it’s never wise to underestimate people’s ability to act like dingbats. When the series eventually goes to screen, the publishers will have an excuse to bring all the first nine books out in new covers, in the New Millennium Edition versions: and when that happens I can make some discreet name changes and then move on to other things. (Of which at that point there will be way too many.)
So much for that. A couple of last things to tidy up:
Why is she getting so defensive?
Because some things are worth defending.
And as to her thing about the queer representation is coming in later volumes? Um. We’re on book NINE. Some could have been thrown in the last 25 years this series has been written.
Thirty years, actually. SYW… came out in 1983. ;)
I will say this. There are presently two characters on stage who are gay or bi, but it hasn’t come up for handling yet because (a) one of them has been working through the details of identification and requires the events of GWP for this, and (b) in the case of the other character, it didn’t come up because everybody was really busy saving the universe at the time. (Not to mention the new grey ace character who I just want to squeeze. What a cutie.)
So now if you’ll all excuse me I’m going to go back to stuffing myself with antihistamines. (God, I almost typed “amphetamines” there. Gack.)
"(Not to mention the new grey ace character who I just want to squeeze. What a cutie.)”
"(Not to mention the new grey ace character who I just want to squeeze. What a cutie.)"
"(Not to mention the new grey ace character who I just want to squeeze. What a cutie.)”
Canonical grey-ace character? In the young wizards books no less? yesyesyesyesyes please give me now.
Project Team elections are currently underway.
Asexuals in the UK are sought for a new TV show.
A student at Western Carolina University is conducting a survey looking at asexuality and personality characteristics.
The Runaway Thoughts podcast recently answered a question about asexuality.
swankivy’s book So You Think You’re Asexual will be published next year.
UK - The last Scottish meetup of the year takes place this Saturday, 30th November.
A range of asexuality-themed t-shirts have been designed on Zazzle.co.uk
1. The unbeliever
- "You’re just a late bloomer."
- "You’ll grow out of it."
- "You’re just saying that because you can’t get laid."
- "No way, you’re a man, men aren’t like that."
- "You’re just playing hard to get."
- "You just want attention."
- "You’re just trying to seem special/different/trendy."
- "No way, you’ve had sex before, you’re not asexual."
- "You must be faking it because natural selection wouldn’t allow asexuality to persist."
2. The unwanted sympathizer
- "I feel sorry for you."
- "Wow, that sucks."
- "You don’t know what you’re missing."
- "I can’t imagine a life without sex!"
- "Your life must be so empty/lonely/pointless."
- "Aww, but I’m sure you’ll find someone who wants to date you!"
- "You just haven’t met the right person yet."
3. The intrusive questioner
- "Do you masturbate?"
- "What do your genitals look like?"
- "Don’t you ever get horny?"
- "What happens when you have a sex dream?"
- "Is it because of your religion?"
- "Do you have something wrong with your genitals?"
- "Did somebody hurt you?"
- "Were you sexually abused or something?"
- "Did you get raped?"
4. The asshole questioner
- "Do you reproduce by budding?"
- "Do you still think [opposite sex] have cooties?"
- "So are you in love with yourself?"
- "Are you attracted to animals?"
- "But everybody likes sex, what’s wrong with you?"
5. The unnecessary therapist
- "Have you tried having your hormones checked?"
- "You’re just afraid to get close to people."
- "You’re in denial about being gay."
- "You’re not asexual, you’re just shy/frigid/repressed."
- "You must be a psychopath."
- "You probably have [insert mental disorder here]."
- "You should seek therapy."
- "Have you tried Viagra?"
- "Do you think you’re not worthy of being loved?"
- "But what if you change your mind some day?"
- "You should keep an open mind in case you meet somebody special."
- "You’re afraid of sex/intimacy/falling in love."
- "If you don’t like sex then you must not have been doing it right."
- "How can you know you don’t want it if you’ve never tried it?"
6. The progressive who gets upset without having a clue what you’re talking about
- "Stop slut-shaming people!"
- "You’re being homophobic."
- "You’re appropriating the struggles of REAL queer people."
- "Since when have you ever been oppressed for NOT having sex?"
- "That’s not a real sexual orientation."
- "What, do you think you’re better than me for not having sex?"
- "You’re repressed, you need to be sexually liberated."
7. The conservative who gets upset without having a clue what you’re talking about
- "All women are like that."
- "You’re being selfish by not getting married."
- "If you don’t procreate, your life is pointless."
- "Not having sex is unnatural."
- "You’re sinning against God."
- "You have a duty to your parents/ancestors to give them grandchildren."
8. The creep
- "You just need to get laid."
- "I can change your mind."
- "I’m Robin Thicke."
- "Someone should just force you to have sex so you’ll realize you like it."
9. The actually decent person
- "You’re asexual? Okay, cool. Have you seen my keys, by the way?"
I’d argue that there’s actually a tenth type: The Idolizer
So, of all the people I’ve come out to (or halfway come out to), the teenagers/twenty-somethings all reacted with “Okay cool, you now what you want better than I do”, and the adults all reacted with “You’ll change your mind when you’re older”. I’m sensing a pattern here…
I’ve noticed that a bit as well, especially in queer/LGBT spaces: younger folks (like, college age) are usually more like “oh cool, I’ve heard of that”; older folks (parentish-age) tend to be more like “Oh, don’t be so sure…don’t limit yourself, etc.”
I think part of it may be that younger folks are more likely to be more involved in spaces like the internet where they learn about asexuality as a legiitimate identity, as well as the fact that younger generations often tend to be a bit more accepting to new ideas in general.
Ugh this one journal article is my life
A paper published in 1980 that recognizes asexuality as a valid orientation.
AND it mentions that asexuals might be defined as equally sexually attracted to both sexes, which yes, and explains flaws in defining bisexuality that way.
Why is a paper from the ’80s so much more validating and respectful in it’s treatment of asexuality than stuff from the 2000s? I’m looking at you, Anthony Bogaert.
Out of curiosity, which paper is this?
Here’s the biblographic info. I found it on JSTOR, unfortunately behind a paywall, but maybe it exists elsewhere?
Storms, M. D. (1980). Theories of sexual orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 783–792
Ah, the storms paper! I forgot that was the year for it. I’m a big fan of storms-type models of sexuality