A schadenfreudal orgasm.
Delightful.
Author's Note: This lengthy diatribe was inspired by a sf-drama post -- a forum I do not attend, nor do I desire becoming invested in -- which elicited a severe twitch of irritation within me. I, very reluctantly, said nothing. After all, why would I, somebody who devotes massive amounts of their time into Dare-I-Say-PC research, ever want to open the door to be verbally sullied; being accused of enabling "LGBT Piggybackers"? You may now, however, return to your assumed programming.
It is, first of all, important to underscore that I identify as lesbian but also identify as asexual. I don't interpret these concepts as being mutually exclusive. This has nothing to do with "celibacy", either; I quite simply believe the way our current world has defined sexuality to be pointless, restrictive, dooming. Absence of libido is a heavy contribution, but it is not the primary catalyst. Or perhaps it is, and I simply rationalize it through highbrow smokescreens. What exists within this nuanced identity of mine is a repulsion for conventional intimacy, and an equal repulsion for sexual expectations. Another component is an interlocking factor of depressing contradictions: I can cerebrally enjoy the idea of sex, but not viscerally.
On other occasions, it is entirely the opposite. I can intellectually discuss sexuality from a favorable point of view, discuss my previous endeavors with a modicum of appreciation, all while feeling as though a knife is being dug underneath my ribs with regards to how this connects to my actual body. On other days, I can detect a visceral sensation of desired lust, while intellectualizing sexuality with utter contempt from a political and sociological front. The idea of familial and procreative "biotruths", in addition, literally makes me recoil.
This does not mean, given another hypothetical world, that I wouldn't feel differently.
That being said, I can acknowledge the paradoxical quality this identity upholds, particularly given my attitudes toward construction of gender. I am, after all, resentful of the concept that orientation is strictly defined by the body, even though I inadvertently subscribe to that mentality myself. I have no reservations in confessing to this internal grappling and perplexity -- so in the meantime while I figure this shit out, gentle readers, it would be fairly appreciated if you would abstain from dropkicking my type into further self-abhorrence.
Which leads me into the greater problem. There exists, within liberal, often "sex-positive" circles, an ideology of permissibility and broadening of the spectrum of orientation tolerance ... provided the common ground resides in an ubiquitous enamor of sex. This exists within conservatism as well, but I find it more insufferable when this ranking occurs from my supposed comrades. Even from contemporary radicals, asexuality -- and it's subsequent political ideologies -- is equated with sex-negativity, a defiance from the Holy Trinity of What Is Desirable. And what could possibly be more worthy of attaining than the right to any variation of sex?
I mean, I get it. People, hopefully, understand that I get it. I acknowledge that disingenuous sycophants adore pontificating about their lamentable otherkin oppression, their Scottish-American flags, searching greedily to alleviate themselves from introspection about their own privilege in this world, whatever it may be. And many privileged people, potentially, harbor agendas: and to masquerade those agendas with flowery emotional appeals, tongues of silver, gold, or any other earthy gems of persuasion. Inviting asexuality into the LGBT cylinder could, admittedly, open the door for a dangerous genre of appropriation. But this has not stopped members of the queer community from, let's say, glossing over their undeniable white privilege, so I find it peculiar that the line is drawn here, in particular.
But alas, opponents of mine will propose aimless platitudes about "education", and then stagnate at this proposal. They agree, after all, that the world should be enlightened about asexuality and it's many cultural hindrances. While we certainly appreciate the spiritless asspat, I nonetheless speculated about how a marginalized group -- particularly one that is, arguably, quantitatively the lowest of minorities -- would attain enough of a foundation to promote this nebulous education without being attached to a mainstream movement; without harboring a multitude of progressive pillars entwining with them. This, I believe, is the largest issue.
Even though asexuality is, of course, antithetical to sex, and their marginalization typically doesn't scrape the blistered surface-skin as it does to the LGBT community, they are nonetheless mandated to exist within a sex-normative world where everything -- EVERYTHING -- is eroticized. The entrenchment of sexualization exists within their consumption, within the reality that most economic value being bolstered by the existence of sex; in their interactions, their education, their media; in the prospect of living bodies and inanimate objects being mired within carnality ... and the subsequent reality that this is inescapable. To deny that there exist parallels within generalized sex-normativity and heteronormativity is demonstrative of an appalling level of myopia. That homosexuality, transexuality, and asexuality are all pathologised within the medical community, the psychological community, and within collective society ... well, suffice to say, seeing this component being ranked or denied causes my blood to run cold.
I can say with rigid certainty that both elements of my identity have caused me massive grief at the hands of other's ignorance. But more specifically, from the amorphous collective; from the people who I don't see.
Similarly to the LGBT community, asexuals are bludgeoned with the naturalistic fallacy on a near-constant basis. I recall an instance from when I was sixteen years old that demonstrates this minimization perfectly: When discussing my perspective on the relative unappealing nature of sex, a trained psychologist was unhesitant at losing his shit on me, invoking a dozen frustrated appeals to nature. Needless to say, it stirred quite a bit of illuminating deja vu.
I had an asexual male friend -- among many -- who faced constant, scathingly vicious allegations of his gayness, with rigid insistence that he was broken inside. That, after all, was the only way people could conceptualize him: a member within the universe that must be engaging within the ubiquitous need of pair-bonding, which entails sexual sacrifices and sexual obligations. What was implicit was that he should at least be gay; it was, after all, better to be sexually-deviant rather than exercising unspeakable deviance by abstaining from sex in totality. When he methodically detailed how he was "opting-into" what felt like terrifying molestation while fervently attempting to cure himself, this resonated with me strongly. I recall a thousand lurid stories within this vein: The homosexuals who had felt "raped" while curatively dappling with the opposite sex, as systematically dictated; the phenomenon of transpeople feeling "invaded" when sex involved bodies, their bodies, that did not belong to them internally.
Of course, these mentionings of rape are not confined to the abstract. Upon watching a documentary about lesbian women being brutalized in Africa to "show them their straightness", and acknowledging the existence of this within the rest of the world, I recall a plethora of anecdotes about how this can, and does, relate additionally to asexuality. If I touch you the proper way, the light will hit your thighs and fill you with hunger. Yes?
Even what is antithetical to sex must, after all, be rooted in sex: You've simply had inadequate partners. You must have endured grotesque child abuse. This was, additionally, used as a vivisecting tool to rationalize my lesbianism: It must be related to inadequate or abusive men. You must be pathologised. You must be compartmentalized. Figure yourself out; rather, make it more simplistic so we can figure you out.
The fact that the weighing of oppression's collateral damage was entirely being centered around marriage was absurd to me, and is demonstrative of where people's priorities lie. The vast majority of the "PC" movement, particularly of the internet variety, works on changing social conceptions -- not simply altering legalities. As if the LGBT community would crumble into resplendence if said legalities were attained. As if laws even change minds. And nevermind Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder ... and indeed, nevermind that it has been seared into psychological and scientific terminology, and is not purely something that has been flippantly mentioned in social circles in a so-called passive manner. If who you are is unanimously considered a disease, I'm loathe to deny any systematic component is involved.
"That's fine, Jen, but I never asserted that these issues didn't exist." Thank you, cherubs, for your brilliant ripostes.
Besides, I would be fascinated to read Asexuality Theory in copious amounts, from a group whose authors don't simply contain doughy college philosophers who play Day of Defeat. I'll even ask nicely.
Author's Note: This lengthy diatribe was inspired by a sf-drama post -- a forum I do not attend, nor do I desire becoming invested in -- which elicited a severe twitch of irritation within me. I, very reluctantly, said nothing. After all, why would I, somebody who devotes massive amounts of their time into Dare-I-Say-PC research, ever want to open the door to be verbally sullied; being accused of enabling "LGBT Piggybackers"? You may now, however, return to your assumed programming.
It is, first of all, important to underscore that I identify as lesbian but also identify as asexual. I don't interpret these concepts as being mutually exclusive. This has nothing to do with "celibacy", either; I quite simply believe the way our current world has defined sexuality to be pointless, restrictive, dooming. Absence of libido is a heavy contribution, but it is not the primary catalyst. Or perhaps it is, and I simply rationalize it through highbrow smokescreens. What exists within this nuanced identity of mine is a repulsion for conventional intimacy, and an equal repulsion for sexual expectations. Another component is an interlocking factor of depressing contradictions: I can cerebrally enjoy the idea of sex, but not viscerally.
On other occasions, it is entirely the opposite. I can intellectually discuss sexuality from a favorable point of view, discuss my previous endeavors with a modicum of appreciation, all while feeling as though a knife is being dug underneath my ribs with regards to how this connects to my actual body. On other days, I can detect a visceral sensation of desired lust, while intellectualizing sexuality with utter contempt from a political and sociological front. The idea of familial and procreative "biotruths", in addition, literally makes me recoil.
This does not mean, given another hypothetical world, that I wouldn't feel differently.
That being said, I can acknowledge the paradoxical quality this identity upholds, particularly given my attitudes toward construction of gender. I am, after all, resentful of the concept that orientation is strictly defined by the body, even though I inadvertently subscribe to that mentality myself. I have no reservations in confessing to this internal grappling and perplexity -- so in the meantime while I figure this shit out, gentle readers, it would be fairly appreciated if you would abstain from dropkicking my type into further self-abhorrence.
Which leads me into the greater problem. There exists, within liberal, often "sex-positive" circles, an ideology of permissibility and broadening of the spectrum of orientation tolerance ... provided the common ground resides in an ubiquitous enamor of sex. This exists within conservatism as well, but I find it more insufferable when this ranking occurs from my supposed comrades. Even from contemporary radicals, asexuality -- and it's subsequent political ideologies -- is equated with sex-negativity, a defiance from the Holy Trinity of What Is Desirable. And what could possibly be more worthy of attaining than the right to any variation of sex?
I mean, I get it. People, hopefully, understand that I get it. I acknowledge that disingenuous sycophants adore pontificating about their lamentable otherkin oppression, their Scottish-American flags, searching greedily to alleviate themselves from introspection about their own privilege in this world, whatever it may be. And many privileged people, potentially, harbor agendas: and to masquerade those agendas with flowery emotional appeals, tongues of silver, gold, or any other earthy gems of persuasion. Inviting asexuality into the LGBT cylinder could, admittedly, open the door for a dangerous genre of appropriation. But this has not stopped members of the queer community from, let's say, glossing over their undeniable white privilege, so I find it peculiar that the line is drawn here, in particular.
But alas, opponents of mine will propose aimless platitudes about "education", and then stagnate at this proposal. They agree, after all, that the world should be enlightened about asexuality and it's many cultural hindrances. While we certainly appreciate the spiritless asspat, I nonetheless speculated about how a marginalized group -- particularly one that is, arguably, quantitatively the lowest of minorities -- would attain enough of a foundation to promote this nebulous education without being attached to a mainstream movement; without harboring a multitude of progressive pillars entwining with them. This, I believe, is the largest issue.
Even though asexuality is, of course, antithetical to sex, and their marginalization typically doesn't scrape the blistered surface-skin as it does to the LGBT community, they are nonetheless mandated to exist within a sex-normative world where everything -- EVERYTHING -- is eroticized. The entrenchment of sexualization exists within their consumption, within the reality that most economic value being bolstered by the existence of sex; in their interactions, their education, their media; in the prospect of living bodies and inanimate objects being mired within carnality ... and the subsequent reality that this is inescapable. To deny that there exist parallels within generalized sex-normativity and heteronormativity is demonstrative of an appalling level of myopia. That homosexuality, transexuality, and asexuality are all pathologised within the medical community, the psychological community, and within collective society ... well, suffice to say, seeing this component being ranked or denied causes my blood to run cold.
I can say with rigid certainty that both elements of my identity have caused me massive grief at the hands of other's ignorance. But more specifically, from the amorphous collective; from the people who I don't see.
Similarly to the LGBT community, asexuals are bludgeoned with the naturalistic fallacy on a near-constant basis. I recall an instance from when I was sixteen years old that demonstrates this minimization perfectly: When discussing my perspective on the relative unappealing nature of sex, a trained psychologist was unhesitant at losing his shit on me, invoking a dozen frustrated appeals to nature. Needless to say, it stirred quite a bit of illuminating deja vu.
I had an asexual male friend -- among many -- who faced constant, scathingly vicious allegations of his gayness, with rigid insistence that he was broken inside. That, after all, was the only way people could conceptualize him: a member within the universe that must be engaging within the ubiquitous need of pair-bonding, which entails sexual sacrifices and sexual obligations. What was implicit was that he should at least be gay; it was, after all, better to be sexually-deviant rather than exercising unspeakable deviance by abstaining from sex in totality. When he methodically detailed how he was "opting-into" what felt like terrifying molestation while fervently attempting to cure himself, this resonated with me strongly. I recall a thousand lurid stories within this vein: The homosexuals who had felt "raped" while curatively dappling with the opposite sex, as systematically dictated; the phenomenon of transpeople feeling "invaded" when sex involved bodies, their bodies, that did not belong to them internally.
Of course, these mentionings of rape are not confined to the abstract. Upon watching a documentary about lesbian women being brutalized in Africa to "show them their straightness", and acknowledging the existence of this within the rest of the world, I recall a plethora of anecdotes about how this can, and does, relate additionally to asexuality. If I touch you the proper way, the light will hit your thighs and fill you with hunger. Yes?
Even what is antithetical to sex must, after all, be rooted in sex: You've simply had inadequate partners. You must have endured grotesque child abuse. This was, additionally, used as a vivisecting tool to rationalize my lesbianism: It must be related to inadequate or abusive men. You must be pathologised. You must be compartmentalized. Figure yourself out; rather, make it more simplistic so we can figure you out.
The fact that the weighing of oppression's collateral damage was entirely being centered around marriage was absurd to me, and is demonstrative of where people's priorities lie. The vast majority of the "PC" movement, particularly of the internet variety, works on changing social conceptions -- not simply altering legalities. As if the LGBT community would crumble into resplendence if said legalities were attained. As if laws even change minds. And nevermind Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder ... and indeed, nevermind that it has been seared into psychological and scientific terminology, and is not purely something that has been flippantly mentioned in social circles in a so-called passive manner. If who you are is unanimously considered a disease, I'm loathe to deny any systematic component is involved.
"That's fine, Jen, but I never asserted that these issues didn't exist." Thank you, cherubs, for your brilliant ripostes.
Besides, I would be fascinated to read Asexuality Theory in copious amounts, from a group whose authors don't simply contain doughy college philosophers who play Day of Defeat. I'll even ask nicely.