ACE PRIDE HEADERS (REQUEST)

Keep reading

I got myself thinking too deeply about asexual history again so here is the link to my summarized notes on asexual history from the 1800’s to modern day

The notes are easy to read and give the broad strokes of major events in asexual history. I didn’t go into much detail for most things, so if any of them grab your curiosity I highly recommend looking into it in more detail!

asexual activism is PART of sex positivity. education about asexuality is part of sex education. speaking openly about sex, defying repressive sexual norms, and encouraging people to be comfortable with and enjoy their "unconventional" sexual lives all needs to include the messaging that not wanting sex is fine and that saying "no" every time is not only acceptable but good if that's what you really want. asexuality is not the opponent of sex positivity, it's another arm of it.

I am both.

#one weird counterintuitive aspect of being asexual #is that im more open to kinky or weird shit #im not HAVING kinky or weird sex it's all theoretical

Hey @rosierugosa I hope it’s okay that I stole your tags because YES.

Because sexual desire is so weird and alien to me, personally, I find myself more accepting of weird and alien sex: I’m definitely not a monsterfucker in that I don’t wanna fuck the monster, but I fully accept and respect all monsterfucking because hey, sex in general -- straight, gay, or otherwise! -- is already so weird to me. Wanting to fuck Chad McDude down the street is just as strange to me as wanting to fuck the mothman. So my attitude is...go for it, I guess! Here’s a water bottle.

*pulls a water bottle from the cooler*

I never thought of it that way, but yeah. As a teen I was mystified at how anyone would just want to have sex with someone, like that was the goal. I understood getting off, sure, but to want to with the guy in chem class because he’s hot? Weird.

*hands over the water bottle*

Anyway, to each their own.

*gets out some orange slices*

And like, reducing hypersexuality in the queer community is an important conversation. We are more than our sexualities, all of us! Asexuals know that better than anyone. As such we should absolutely have spaces in our community where sex is de-emphasized. But for many people in the world sex is a natural part of their lives and what has, in the past, set the queer community apart is frank and open discussion of sexuality instead of shame. We should be trying to help the straight world adopt that frank openness instead of trying to assimilate into shame.

*restocks the lube counter*

*shows up 15 minutes late with a cooler full of gatorade*

Also don't forget about sex neutral and sex favorable asexuals! Asexuality, like most things, is a spectrum, and we tend to get left out of discussions regarding asexuality or boiled down to gotchas regarding ace people being in relationships with non-asexuals, but we exist and aren't any less asexual because of our decision(whatever the reasoning behind it may be) to have sex!

We are also just as tired of asexuality being used as a scapegoat for attacking kink in the queer community, since that attitude not only is bigoted bs, but it hinges on the assumption that ace people who have and enjoy sex just don't exist, which, news flash, we do!

Plus a lot of us are very kinky, just sayin', so when you support sex and kink as a natural part of the queer experience you're not just helping your fellow queer allosexuals, you're helping people within the asexual community as well!

Anyway there really are tons of reasons ace people understand why we shouldn't police what people do in the bedroom, and ace people across the spectrum don't want to nor should be used as a cover for anti-kink bullshit. It hurts us just as much as it hurts everyone else.

*passes out cups*

“but aces are only 1% of the population!”

okay, do you have a friend who:

the chances are pretty damn good you know someone in an above group. i’ll admit, the numbers aren’t perfect. but just think about it. what are the odds you know someone who is ace?

especially when more and more people are realizing they’re aspec due to more visibility

Now seems like a great time to point out that as of 2021 the global population is around 7.8 billion. What’s 1% of 7.8 billion?

78,000,000.

Thats 78 million. There are at least 78 million aces in the world.

The country of France has around 67 and a half million people. There are more asexuals than there are French people.

Furthermore, 1% is a conservative estimate. There are other sources that say that as many as 5% of the global population is ace. So at minimum, there are more aces than French folk. Or maybe there’s as many of 390 million of us. Thats more than the current population of the United States.

Finally. My people outnumber the French. We may win yet.

FAQ - What are the stereotypes of asexual and aromantic characters?

These are just a few of the most harmful and common ones. Longer lists can be found here and here, and a list of asexual characters in popular fiction can be found here! 

If you want to include any of these in your story, please send in an ask so we can assist you in doing it properly, or research on the stereotype! Whether or not a portrayal is harmful is up to authors, and we are happy to to help you create unique, accurate asexual/aromantic representation in fiction!

Want to do more research? Check out this article on ace characters, this article on ace and aro characters, and this guide on writing aro/ace characters!

Here is a post specific to writing ace POC. We recommend doing more research with material and narratives created and lead by ace POC on these topics. This post does not include enough information on that, as we are still learning ourselves. (And we welcome any info from racialized ace folks who want to add/recommend anything on this subject!)

I have been read for the ages. 😒 I never said asexuals were a new trend. I only asked about clarification on your thoughts on cis gendered asexuals that aren’t romantically attracted to the same sex demanding inclusion in the LGBT community now in the modern age. I don’t recall these asexuals I am speaking of wanting to be consisted LGBT in the 60’s through the 2010’s until the last few years.

You’re an inclusionist, kool. I don’t know what an article about sapphic asexuals in 17th century China has to do with my question. I never asked about gay asexuals historically.

Don’t twist my words then come for my wig when you’re literally begging for Patrons every other day for what amounts to small, but admittedly interesting well written, articles that lots of LGBT/Queer studies majors could do on 4 hours of sleep.

Become a Patron of my project literally begging for Patrons every other day for what amounts to small, but admittedly interesting well written, articles that lots of LGBT/Queer studies majors could do on 4 hours of sleep to make an aphobe angry.

*Toasts @makingqueerhistory*  Cheers to pissing off aphobes.  They really didn’t even read their ask before they pitched a fit about your very accurate answer.  Also, have you read The Asexual Manifesto from the 1970s or early 1980s?  https://archive.org/details/asexualmanifestolisaorlando  We are a ‘new trend’ that’s older than ME!

This post is circulating again on my day for answering questions, so I wanted to touch on it a bit.

First off, a thanks for all the sweet words from everyone responding to the response, including myself from the past, because when I read that last paragraph, having forgotten about this interaction entirely, it was a little disheartening.

As a queer creator, no it is not fun to have to constantly ask for patrons, and “begging” is what it feels like a lot of the time. I know my work has improved immeasurably since I first answered this response, but I wouldn’t have been able to do that if I had been forced to give up on this project due to lack of financial stability. So to those who are patrons, or have been, thank you for allowing me to continue pissing off aphobes with my “admittedly interesting well written, articles that lots of LGBT/Queer studies majors could do on 4 hours of sleep”.

I also think it is worth noting that calling the self-combing members of The Golden Orchid Society sapphic shows a severe lack of understanding of the entire concept. The self-combing women had the choice to marry other women, being members of the Golden Orchid Society, but chose not to, so to state that they are all sapphic is reductive and odd. As expressed in the article:

“When women in China were married, they would have their hair combed differently to signal to society and any men interested in courting them that they were not available. While the terms we use now for asexual or aromantic did not exist yet, the Golden Orchid Society had a system set up for women who wanted to avoid both marriage options, and any romantic or sexual partnership, by introducing “self-combing women.” These women would comb their hair into a married woman’s style and often had a ceremony to celebrate such a decision, similar to a marriage ceremony. And for asexual women who were romantically attracted to other women, the marriages were often non-sexual – a decision supported by most of the Golden Orchid Society.”

There were likely sapphic asexual women within the Golden Orchid Society, but to say all the self-combing women were sapphic, is just incorrect.

In hindsight, yeah, I see how I focused initially on a misunderstood part of the question, but the question is answered in the end, as stated here: “to pretend that asexual people have not been a part of our community ever before is ahistorical"

Asexual people “that are neither trans or attracted to the same sex romantically demanding inclusion in LGBT spaces” are only as new as LGBT spaces are. Something that is shown within the Golden Orchid Society is that the queer community is not some monolith that has done one thing for all its members since the beginning.

There are and have been thousands of branches in the history of this community, and some of them have included asexual and people, some of them have not. But being an “inclusionist” is not an insult to me. 

Having spent five years in this field now, researching, being proven wrong, and having my assumptions challenged, I can’t say I have ever seen a good reason to be anything but an inclusionist. I have seen plenty of fantastic ones not to exclude, though.

This hair-splitting reminds me of Lou Sullivan, who was told by doctors he was not allowed to be a part of the trans community because he also experienced same-gender attraction. Queer people are only allowed to be counted as queer if they tick some arbitrary boxes. It is not a new sentiment, it has a longer legacy than most people realize, and I will do everything in my power to keep from adding to that legacy.

So no. Five years on, looking back, I do not see this “new trend” of asexual people “demanding” space within my community, with fear. I see it with hope, and love, and thanks. I am so grateful for the asexual members of my community, how they have shaped discussions, supported others, and uncovered beauty in things I never would have seen without them. If I had only met awful asexual people I would still be grateful, because I am endlessly thankful for every member of this community. The paths they have forged, whether perfect or human, mean everything to me. I would not exclude a single one.

— The Asexual Manifesto, Lisa Orlando and Barbara Getz, 1972

Note the date, people:

That’s 1972

29 years before AVEN was started online,

and 47 years before the present.

And that’s only the date that Manifesto was written, so asexuals as members of a community must have existed at least some time before that.

So, no: we are not just Tumblr trenders. Get out of here with that.

Decided to answer a very stinky ask for pride month! Some more asexual and aromantic history below, with some sources for both a quick read and a less quick read.

Also, be warned, my nerves are frayed, and I was certainly less polite this time. Sorry for that, guys 😔

I really do try to keep my cool, but the sass slips when it becomes obvious someone isn’t actually interested with the factual answer to their question, y’know?

https://anam-writes.tumblr.com/post/653574281024897024/its-crazy-how-none-of-the-sources-you-linked

What a saga. But honestly, guys, I’m just here for some nice pride month time! Ace history, scrumptious, and super intersectionally relevant.

https://anam-writes.tumblr.com/post/653579554112274432/thr-golden-orchid-society-was-for-all-women-who

Hey, @rittz! Hope you don’t mind me responding to you here so I can keep everything nice and orderly on my end.

There’s an issue I have with this argument, you see. And it’s one I see a whole bunch.

“Linking the asexual community’s history to century old lgbt+ movements does not have bearing on contemporary discussion,” (if I may paraphrase) is a common view.

And while you and others are sort of correct, you are sort of not. It wouldn’t necessarily be relevant on its own; but contextually, it is.

If it was a matter of my saying “17th—20th century China had a prominent Lesbian-Asexual woman’s alliance in the Golden Orchid” then your point would make sense. Asexuals were prominent figures in one queer community, one time, in one culture? That would be nothing.

But it’s consistent. Throughout history, everywhere you find queer people you find asexuals among them.

Greek Antiquity, the cult of Dionysus being one of the more sexually liberated political-religious groups. They were associated strongly with sexual fluidity: sapphic love, achillean love, bisexuality, and asexuality as well. So much so, that among the many Masks of Dionysus in Ancient Greek culture and literature, there were aspects of him defined solely by either his bisexuality or his asexuality. Thus, chapter 4 of this handy book about archeological knowledge on all things Dionysus, the Cult of Dionysus, and the Theatre Dionysia, being called “The Asexuality of Dionysus.”

https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Masks_of_Dionysus/O_QkAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0&bsq=isbn:0801480620

So, an ancient group of gender and sexual fluidity and diversity prominently features asexuality. Okay. Let us go on.

That comes far before the Golden Orchid Society, which we already discussed. 

If you scroll all the way up, you see I give a timeline in my first post about the prominence of asexuals and asexuality in the queer community during the LGBT+ golden age in 19th century Germany. But to summarize:

The most famous gay scholar of the time—openly gay man, Magnus Hirschfeld—publishes “Sappho and Sokrates” as a defining document for straight people to educate themselves on queer folks with. Who does he include ion there? Trans folks, gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and—you guessed it!—asexuals! His contemporary colleague, Emma Trosse, wrote most frequently in defense of who she saw as being the most underrepresented in her community: non-binary folks and lesbians. And guess what? She was asexual. She wrote a paper on “counter-sexualities” at the time and came out in her own paper. Her work in the modern day is featured in the Schwules Museum, literally translated to the Gay Museum. So, clearly this asexual woman, married to a man was considered to be part of the community in her time AND our time, including by her more famed gay colleague, and the Gay Museum in Berlin. 

(You can find all those links up at the top post)

Then I got up to America’s own lgbt+ renaissance. The Asexual Manifesto, the Kinsey Scale work, and subsequent rework, and testimony from members of the bisexual community all place us firmly in the lgbt+ community from the year 1940—1990. 

(You can find links to Kinsey’s work, the context for it, the Asexual Manifesto, and more up at the top again!)

And here are references to the fact that, at the time of the original pride movement, we were considered a subsection of bisexuality, because we were mistakenly being defined by our lack of gender preference and sexual fluidity instead of our lack of attraction in general, with some choice quotes. 

“Many bisexual respondents described bisexuality as a potential or as an essential quality that many people possess, but that only some people express through actual feelings of attraction or sexual behavior.

“According to this definition, people can be – and are – bisexual without ever experiencing an attraction to one sex or the other and without ever having sexual relations with one sex or the other.

“In contrast to lesbian respondents, most of whom define a bisexual as a person who feels attracted to or has sexual relations with both sexes, very few bisexual women define bisexuals as people who necessarily have these actual emotional and physical experiences.”

https://books.google.ca/books?id=RhWntJf7EpIC&pg=PA207&dq=%22many+bisexual+respondents+described+bisexuality+as%22&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22many%20bisexual%20respondents%20described%20bisexuality%20as%22&f=false

And an extra goody from an article by the Gay Liberator, 1971 “Trans Lib includes transvestites, transsexuals, and hermaphrodites of any sexual manifestation and of all sexes—heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and asexual.” 

https://voices.revealdigital.org/?a=d&d=BDHIIHBB19710101.1.10&e=——-en-20–1–txt-txIN—————1

Then we have today, where you really just have to look around to see asexuals. We’re here, hi! Go to pride and you’ll see us. Join an club and you’ll see us. Hang out in a sapphic server and you’ll see us. Talk to me right here! (Hello! I’m right here, being on the ace spectrum.) 

So you see the issue I’m having correct? 

“It doesn’t matter that asexuals were prominent members of a sexually fluid movement in ancient Greece, we’re talking about today!”

“It doesn’t matter that asexuals were prominent members of a queer feminist group from 16th - 20th century China, we’re talking about today.”

“It doesn’t matter that asexuals were apart of the 19th century queer golden age in Germany that first brought our movement in mainstream print, we’re talking about today!”

“It doesn’t matter that asexuals were part of the movement for pride and queer liberation from the 1940′s to the 90′s, and that asexuals alive today are old enough to remember being part of that movement. We are talking about literally right NOW kinda today!”

“It doesn’t matter that asexuals were a subsection of the bisexual community that only recently split off!”

And then, finally, the ask from that original nonny up there: “can you back up that cis straight people lacking sexual attraction have always been queer?” 

Essentially, well sure, aces are here now, but it’s not like they ALWAYS been here!

When we point to ourselves as part of the community today, we are asked when we got here. When we point to how far back we’ve been here, we are asked, “how is that relevant to today?” 

Because we were asked how long we’ve been here. 

So if I’m answering in a LOOOOOOONG way, I hope you’ll forgive me. Because it’s clear that you need a line drawn between where we were, and where we are. I’m not sure if that’s because you were not present to the beginning of this conversation, or if it was because you were unaware of the history. 

Asexuals have been in lgbt history for as long as there has been lgbt history. And we are present in the community today. The question is not, whether we are here, have been here, or not. The question is, are you going to accept that, or not?

Thank you for reading. I know it was a long reply to a short comment. But I hope it was useful. 

Keep reading

"Talking about being asexual/aromantic is pointless and nobody's business"

Have you considered that I openly talk about being asexual and aromantic because I felt like I was a freak of nature for not being able to relate to other people and I don't want anybody feeling in any way like I did? Shoving asexuality and aromanticism under the rug encourages people to feel isolation and alienation - which isn't good. Talking about asexuality and aromanticism and informing people about such identities is important whether or not you are ace or aro. If it bothers you, then you can leave these spaces. Ace and aro people deserve to talk about their identities and advocate for acceptance and understanding.

Asexuality in Fic Roundtable - What We Like

How do I write a convincing asexual character in a fic?  Is there a way to address a character’s sexuality outside the context of sex or coming out?  Can a story feature a character’s asexuality aside from exploring the negative aspects of the asexual experience?  It’s usually not too hard to find lists of what not to do when writing asexual characters, but much more difficult to find the opposite.

The asexual members of The Magnus Writers discord gathered to discuss their favorite ways to incorporate the day-to-day details of asexual peoples’ experiences into fiction.  We also discussed depictions that we’ve enjoyed in the past, or would love to see more of.  Note that this isn’t an Asexuality 101 resource, so if you don’t feel familiar with the basics, feel free to check out the resources we will link in the reblog of this post.

This conversation included a variety of ace-spectrum people from multiple countries, including both arospec and non-aro people, various genders, and varying relationships to sex and sexual content.  Just like all asexual people are different, the things that we enjoy reading are far from universal.  Some tropes/details brought up as favorites can vary widely–for example, “innuendo completely flies over their head” vs. “they understand but are completely unphased by innuendo.”  Additionally, some aces love tropes that others would prefer to avoid: for instance some enjoy discussions of physical boundaries to be included in the fic, and some prefer that to be established as happening in the past.  

The examples brought up in our discussion are also far from comprehensive, and can be seen as the beginning of an endless list of possible ways to write asexual characters.  Some examples given are specific to the Magnus Archives, but can apply to any writing.  Take these as inspiration and a way to broaden your understanding of who we are and what we like to see!

Keep reading

Please see the below links for the articles referenced throughout this post, as well as a few additional resources:

General Asexuality Information:

Asexuality and Gender:

Asexuality and Race:

How NOT to write an ace or aro character

If you’re writing a story and you’re trying to include an ace or aro character that is either A. a robot, B. a monster, or C. an alien, …while all the other characters in your story are human beings/more humanoid than your ace/aro character, …then maybe you should try a bit harder on your representation because aces and aros are commonly seen as robotic/less human for lacking attraction. In real life, we are often told that sex, romance, or attraction is what makes us human. 

If you’re writing a story and you’re trying to include an ace or aro character and that character is the most naive, childish, innocent, or immature one among a group of characters that are around the same age as that character, …then maybe you should try a bit harder on your representation because aces and aros are often told that they don’t experience attraction because they are late bloomers who will grow up to feel it, and they are often infantilized in real life. 

If you’re writing a story and you’re trying to include a neurodivergent ace or aro character and that character is the only one that’s not neurotypical, or if you treat their lack of attraction as a symptom, …then maybe you should try a bit harder on your representation because aces and aros often have their lack of attraction seen  and treated as a physical or mental health issue that can be fixed or changed. Our lack of attraction is seen as abnormal and people like to make our orientations their business. 

If you’re writing a story and you have your ace or aro character become romantically or sexually attracted to a character at the end of your story that ends up being “the one”, then you NEED to take a lot of care in writing the development of the relationship between those two characters and forming a close bond between them from start to end, and you need to explicitly establish that that character is demisexual or demiromantic, …or else it’s not good representation.  

This is so important to understand! (Also some NSFW stuff below, talking about asexuality and sex. To skip, press the J button on your keyboard)

I would also like to add that asexuality, like all orientations, exists on a spectrum—which should come across in your writing. For example, myself and my friend both identify as asexual very firmly at the moment. I’m filthy minded, experience libido and generally have an open mind to sex, I just don’t feel the attraction. She on the other hand is, as far as I know, pretty fine with writing a nice bit of smut but probably wouldn’t match up with the other stuff that I do (which has led to some hilarious conversations, namely “but what would you want with lube?” which I had to shut down with “You don’t want me to answer that”)

The point I’m trying to make it that while I agree with all of this, particularly the infantalisation bit, it’s also okay to show the range of asexuality, which does include naivety. Being asexual is pretty common, and there is no reason why you can’t have more than one asexual character and some comparisons (while still being firm on the fact that they are all asexual). I for one would really, really love to see that.

I just wanna add that aromanticism exists on a spectrum too and its range is just as wide as the asexual one. An aro can love romance, hate it, maybe only like it a little, or for others and not themselves, etc.

Just like with what @artattemptswriting said about more than one ace, you can have more than one aro character on different parts of the aro spectrum.

I also wanna mention aro =/= ace all the time. While a character can be both, make sure to NOT imply that aro and ace are the same thing.

ASEXUAL QUESTIONNAIRE

This is a small questionnaire for asexual muses and muses that fall under the asexual umbrella in honor of asexual awareness week! Ace muses tend to fall under the radar next to allo muses and they deserve some love and respect regardless of whether they have sex or not. Maybe this could even be helpful for those that want to write ace muses but don’t know how to develop that side of them! Send me a number between 1 – 15 and I’ll answer:

pls give me 1(one) reason aces have ever been oppressed, and 1(one) example of aces being a part of lgbt history(before 2004 at least) and then maybe i’ll consider the idea that aces belong in the lgbt community lol

Proof of the existence of asexuals in LGBT+ communities before 2000:

The Golden Orchid association (1644-1949) - a group of women in China that included lesbians, bisexuals, and “women who wanted to avoid both marriage options, and any romantic or sexual partnership” that today we would call asexual or aromantic. 

Another Golden Orchid association link (which, interestingly, describes what appears to be a poly relationship). 

Personal experience of a queer-identifying person noting that aces were part of the bi community in the 80s and 90s.

A book published in 1999 supports the previous link of someone’s personal experience, and notes that asexuals could be considered part of Kinsey’s “Group 3″ (the bisexuals) because they were “about equally homosexual and heterosexual” and “have no strong preferences for one or the other” just like bisexuals. 

Another book that supports the personal experience source by noting that asexuals were considered part of the bisexual “Group 3″, which was published in 1999.

Another post of someone’s personal experiences of asexuals being part of the LGBT+ community in the 90s. 

A source from 1999 noting that, while some female-female relationships in the early to mid-twentieth century were obviously lesbian relationships, not all of them were, but that it would be a mistake to label them all “friendships”. It specifically notes that asexual partnered relationships also existed. 

This book describes a series of interviews done in 1990 by Catherine Whitney who interviewed heterosexual women married to gay men, and found that they were often asexual. It also describes how, in 1990, Ann Landers (a very popular advice columnist) asked her readers if married couples could enjoy a full life without sex and was flooded with 35,000 responses from people of all ages who had little or no sex and didn’t miss it. It also describes how “Boston marriage” was originally coined with a not-necessarily-always-accurate implication that such a relationship between women was nonsexual, but that later on the assumption was reversed to imply women in a sexual lesbian relationship, and how that caused some women involved in such relationships to hide the asexual nature of their relationships for fear of being called frauds by the larger lesbian community.

This 1997 book that states “To be a Kinsey 3 (bisexual) is to be equally attracted to men and women, i.e. completely bisexual…it is also to be equally unattracted to men and women, i.e. completely asexual. Bisexuality is never about two, only about one – asexual, or self-fulfilling – or three – continuously and equally attracted to both men and women”.

Proof of asexuality being considered as a concrete, distinct orientation before 2000:

One of the first online posts about asexuality in its current use, was made in 1997. 

A study on anorexia and bulemia in gay and bisexual men done in 1999 found that 58% of anorexia patients were asexual. 

The 1997 Australasian Gay & Lesbian Law Journal mentions asexual as a “relevant sexual identity”.

A 1983 issue of the Journal of Sex Research studied the Mental Health Implications of Sexual Orientation among heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and asexual people. 

The article “Asexuality as Orientation: Some Historical Perspectives” describes different historical studies on asexuality, including a study from Johnson in 1977 where the word asexual was used to describe women “regardless of physical or emotional condition, actual sexual history, and marital status or ideological orientation, [who] seem to prefer not to engage in sexual activity”. It also describes a 1980 study by Storms who included asexual as one of four orientation categories when mapping out sexual orientation. It also describes a 1983 study by Nurius that found out of 685 participants, 5% of males and 10% of females were asexual. It also describes a 1990 study by Berkley et al. that included questions “related to homosexuality, heterosexuality, and asexuality” and included four items (out of 45) that were specific to asexuality. 

This book published in 1922 contains a lot of what I personally would describe as narcissism and pseudo-science, but acknowledges asexuality nonetheless: “In addition to the ordinary distinctive males and females, we have asexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, and old women of both sexes.”

This book from 1996 that notes “A transsexual may have a heterosexual orientation, a homosexual orientation, a bisexual orientation – or an asexual orientation” and clarifies that “a very small number – are asexual or bisexual.”

This book mentions a study by Malyon in 1981 that noted the options available to gay and lesbian teenagers choosing whether, or how, to come out by “[describing] three possible modes of adaptation in adolescence: repression of sexual desire, suppression of homosexual impulses in favor of heterosexual or asexual orientation, or a homosexual disclosure.”

Kinds of oppression that asexuals face:

Eunjung Kim wrote a chapter titled “How Much Sex Is Healthy? The Pleasures of Asexuality” that describes how “the absence of sexual desires, feelings, and activities is seen as abnormal and reflective of poor health” in Western contemporary culture “because of the explicit connection between sexual activeness and healthiness” and argues that “medical explanations of asexuality as an abnormality that has to be corrected constitute a large part of the stigmatization and marginalization experienced by asexual people.” It also discusses the ways in which some groups, specifically Asian American males, that are desexualized can erase the space for asexual Asian American men to simply exist.

Asexuals also face sexual harassment, rape threats, corrective sexual assault, and corrective rape (which, no, is not a lesbian-only term according to actual South Africans) specifically because they are asexual. 

There was a recent study by the AAU to identify sexual assault on college campuses, and broke down the responders to their survey by sexual orientation, including asexual. The results clearly show that asexuals are not immune to unwanted sexual contact, stalking, intimate partner violence, or sexual harassment.

A chapter of “Asexualities: Feminist and Queer Perspectives” that notes the specific way that asexual people are talked to/about: “Because asexual difference cannot be iterated in the linguistic field where sex and a sexed position dominate the discourse of sexuality and desire, the asexual subject is linguistically and visually dismantled and reconstructed in the position of a fetish object. This fetishistic conversion happens because the asexual person is made into an image, or spectacle, for consumption.” and “The difference between the unassailable asexual (someone who lacks all of the traits commonly blamed for asexuality such as past history of abuse, disability, etc.) and the spectacular asexual is that while the unassailable asexual allegedly makes asexuality digestible for a skeptical public and presents an accessible image, the spectacular asexual is always consumed as a fetish object, regardless of mental health, ability, and gender.”

The study “Intergroup bias toward “Group X”: Evidence of prejudice, dehumanization, avoidance, and discrimination of asexuals” is exactly what it sounds like. The article’s abstract states: “In two studies (university student and community samples) we examined the extent to which those not desiring sexual activity are viewed negatively by heterosexuals. We provide the first empirical evidence of intergroup bias against asexuals (the so-called “Group X”), a social target evaluated more negatively, viewed as less human, and less valued as contact partners, relative to heterosexuals and other sexual minorities. Heterosexuals were also willing to discriminate against asexuals (matching discrimination against homosexuals). Potential confounds (e.g., bias against singles or unfamiliar groups) were ruled out as explanations.”

The Invisible Orientation: An Introduction to Asexuality describes many issues that asexuals face, including: how asexuality is seen as “invisible” and lends to people thinking it does not exist, how asexuality is actively erased as “unimportant” or not its own identity, the explicitly and implicitly negative messages associated with a lack of sexual attraction, the fear asexuals face when they believe there is something physically or psychologically wrong with them for being asexual, the belief asexuals face about how they must be deeply flawed since they do not conform to other sexual identities, how asexuals face cultural ideologies that sexuality is biologically based and ubiquitous (that all humans possess sexual desire) and that don’t acknowledge asexuality, that to describe oneself as asexual is a statement of moral superiority or purity or failure to find a suitable partner, that asexuality is an immature state they will “grow out of”, that asexuality is a description of action or a preference, that asexuality is unnatural or unhealthy or has to be a symptom of something else, etc.

Asexuality has been shown in the media in a negative light for decades, reflecting the idea that (for various reasons steeped in classism and racism) any woman who wasn’t willing to marry and procreate was a threat to the status quo, as seen in this 1955 book that notes: “Women who did not marry incurred political and social scorn for another reason. The influx of eastern and southern European immigrants in the United States pushed the question into eugenic terms–the wrong people were reproducing. Educated women came primarily from white middle- and upper-class stock, the most desired element by dominant social norms. When these women refused to marry and reproduce, they forced a new concern into the public discourse. it is not a coincidence that the stereotypical asexual unmarried older woman emerged at this time as a source of popular humor.”

Some people in some religions are very explicit about hating asexuals specifically because they are asexual, seeing asexuality as “a perversion akin to homosexuality and bestiality”. 

Other religions see asexuals as actually sinful if they choose not to have sex with their spouse.

While not every member of every religion looks down on asexuals, many people in portions of various religions choose to view asexuals negatively. 

Some people even recommend asexuals avoid being in a relationship with non-asexuals and assert that “promoting and trying to spread” asexuality, or behaving in an asexual manner, is wrong or unhealthy. 

Because of these religious beliefs about asexuality, that also opens up asexuals to discrimination in various legal ways, including (but not limited to) things like the new adoption bill in Texas. 

Asexuality was implicitly pathologized until very recently, and even now, the DSM-V states that a diagnosis of HSDD may not be given only if the patient has a preexisting knowledge of asexuality and chooses to ID that way.

TL;DR: 

Asexuals have long been considered part of the bisexual community. When people used to talk about bisexuals, it included asexuals because asexuals were the bisexuals too. Bisexual history is asexual history.

Asexuals have also long been considered as a stand-alone orientation that was part of larger non-straight communities and could be studied in comparison to other sexual orientations. 

Asexuals face many of the same issues that other marginalized orientations face as well as issues specific to their orientation. These include erasure, medicalization, misidentification, harassment, rape specifically targeted at them for being asexual, and religious intolerance, to name just a few.  

None of this is exhaustive. There are more sources to be found and studied. 

“assuming autistic people don’t know what things like sex and romance are is infantilizing and ableist” and “let asexual, aromantic, and aroace autistic people exist in peace” are two opinions that can coexist and some of you really need to Know

The idea that they can’t coexist also perpetuates the idea that because asexual and aromantic people don’t feel sexual or romantic attraction that they dont understand sex and romance which is also infantilizing and ace/arophobic

actually rb this version instead

PRIDE ICONS !

Keep reading