An asexual YA heroine? Why not? (crossposted from Dreamwidth)

[rj_anderson]

NOTE: This post was written as part of the November 2012 Carnival of Aces, with the subject of Fiction. It contains some unavoidable plot and characterization SPOILERS for the novels mentioned, so click the cut-tag at your own risk.

Hi. I'm R.J. Anderson, a Canadian-born, US-published, UK-bestselling author for children and teens whose sixth novel

Comments

[goldvermilion87]

I definitely see what you're saying. I guess I still take issue with the term "asexual". Maybe it's just because I feel like it takes me into the world of discussion of sex that assumes a lot of lack of will. I believe some people are fairly uninterested in sex just as much as some people are uninterested in their opposite gender just as much as some people are uninterested in monogamy but that doesn't mean they can't with an act of will do something else. (Don't get me wrong -- I don't think a person uninterested in sex ought to "get over it" (unless they're married, but hopefully they wouldn't get themselves into such a situation except, perhaps, with a like-minded individual) but just that they could.) In my mind the [insert greek prefix here]-sexual terms carry the connotation of biological determinism that I take issue with.

And again, I don't know that I am explaining myself well. I am not in the debate much because I have some very clear views on sexuality that would only get me in trouble most of the time, so perhaps I read more into the terminology than is justified?

PS: I didn't think your book was only about asexuality. :-)

[rj_anderson]

I do actually know where you're coming from on this (probably more than anybody else who's likely to enter this debate!) and I think I may already have addressed your questions and concerns as part of another post -- see here.

Does that help at all?

[goldvermilion87]

Yes, that does help. It shows me for one thing that we're on pretty much the same page. I particularly liked this line:

"I genuinely don’t believe that the idea of “orientation” poses any threat to Christian belief. Because sexual desire or attraction is not the same as sexual behavior, and it is sexual behaviour that the Bible approves or condemns."

I think I am trying to draw a line in the sand via terminology.

Because I absolutely believe people are born heterosexual or homosexual or asexual or other things. But that doesn't mean they should act on it. (But to reiterate, I agree that the Bible (or rather, God) is absolutely fine with not engaging in sex, provided the person is not denying their spouse.) I do think that the second of those orientations is definitely a result of the fall, and I'm actually inclined to say the third is as well. But while I think acting on the second is sinful, acting (not acting?) on the second is not. Our God accepts, us single or married for whatever reasons, as individuals, and that is a beautiful and comforting truth.

But now that I'm reading your well-thought-out essay, I'm wondering if I should be more happy to use the terminology that so often goes with the "my body made me do it" attitude toward sexuality that I so often see around me so as to not be alienating. As well as to indicate that I DO know the difference between celibacy and asexuality.

Thank you for the discussion! (And especially that essay.) It's an issue I think is important, but not one I have the opportunity to discuss for reasons of the internet not always being a very nice place...