Attraction

I've been intending to write a blog post for the carnival of aces for...the entire year, but uni and stuff got on top of me/I couldn't really think of anything to write on the topic which wasn't "yeah, I think what other people have said about this is right/interesting/worth reading...soooo".

But! Now, I'm finished uni for the year, and I have words which I wish to say (type?) on the topic this month.

Which, by the way, is attraction.

I'll start off talking about the kinds of attraction I don't* experience, namely sexual and romantic.

I actually have a hard time with romantic and sexual attraction, mostly because I have no idea what it actually feels like. And not in the "I've never been bitten by a redbacked spider, but I've been bitten by a huntsman so I have a reference point", but in the "everyone keeps talking about invisible elephants and I have no idea what the hell an elephant is".

But. I do have demonstrable interest in cuddling a few people, and extreme interest in skin on skin contact with S. Both of which are things that are mostly classed as sexual attraction. Except the way I feel it, doesn't seem sexual. (I'm equally happy running my hands over S's arms or back as I am running them over somewhere else. Which, from what I've gathered, is not How It Works for most people. And I cuddle with many of my friends, something I've spoken about before, again to an extent I'm fairly sure is quite unusual.) And (primary, at least) sexual attraction is usually described as having a sense of "I want to have sex/be sexual with this person(s) now/at somepoint" which is not a feeling I can say I have ever experienced. On the other hand, if something with S does become sexual, my reaction is usually to continue it. Quite a bit. And enjoy myself thoroughly while doing so.

And as for romantic attraction, I can say the same kind of thing. "I want to spend lots of time with this person, and have a mutually acknowledged important relationship with them, but it doesn't feel romantic (and in the case of people who are not S, it is not my most important relationship but it is important)", whereas the view of romantic attraction I have pieced together is "I want to date that person and be important to them and have ~romantic feelings~ for them (and generally be monogamous)", which is something I don't...really understand. I don't know what these romantic feelings actually are. Except I think I would know what they were if I had them, and since I don't seem to...

But. (there's always a but, isn't there?) I know there is something different about my relationship with S that is not present in my relationships with others. And I do things and say things** and feel things and want things which are typically romantic. (except not this time because they don't feel romantic (oh my god this has become the refrain of my life "it's this except not because it doesn't feel this"), and this is why it is Very Confusing to be me sometimes)

Romantic and sexual attraction are kind of like unknown languages for me, ones that the majority of the world speak fluently. I can see the effects these languages have on native speakers, but I can't understand them. And then the language I speak, which appears to be one I'm making up as I go along half the time, sometimes sounds like these languages. But it's not. And pretending it is just means I and everyone else gets confused (people may pretend my language doesn't exist, but that's a separate matter)


But. Enough about the types of attraction I don't experience. Onto the ones I do.

Um. This is where it gets even trickier.

I experience aesthetic attraction to people, but really it's more just an urge to draw them a whole lot. But this seems to come in two 'stages' - primary and secondary. Primary is more of a "I've never met this person, but god I'd really like to draw them/they're really awesome looking, like a piece of art", whereas secondary is more of a "This person is my friend so they mean a lot to me and also I would like to draw them because they mean a lot to me and I have gotten used to their faces and because their faces remind me of them they are awesome and should be drawn." For some of my friends, there has been both primary and secondary aesthetic attraction, for others only secondary, and still others there just doesn't seem to be an urge to draw at all. They still mean a lot to me, but I'm not aesthetically attracted to them at all. And gender doesn't seem to have any impact on whom I'm aesthetically attracted to - I've been attracted to people all over the gender spectrum.

I also experience what I'd call intellectual attraction - that is, I find myself wanting to talk with some people because they have a really interesting point of view on something/have a huge range of knowledge/ know lots about something I'm interested in/will discuss with me interesting things. And I'll want to talk with these people even if they're kinda arseholes.

So. I've got attractions, and in addition to this I like specific things on people. (Longish hair on men, dark or red hair on any gender, curvy women and skinny-ish guys). Not in a "This is the best, any thing else is ugly", but in the "I prefer Russian caravan tea to Irish breakfast tea -they're both tea (which I like), I just prefer one"***.

And this is the point that I've run out of words.

So, in summary - ATTRACTION, IT IS COMPLICATED.




*or if I do, I sure as hell don't know I do/ do so really weirdly.


**Like, you know, write Gallifreyan sappy notes on his whiteboard. Or other typically romantic/sappy things.

***I cannot think of a non-problematic way of saying this, despite the fact I don't mean it problematicly - if anyone's got any ideas/want me to clarify this, I'm happy to answer in the comments

Queer meetings and Cohorts

Today I went to my first uni queer group meeting (I know, we're starting late (only a few weeks left of this year!)). I was some what nervous - what if they told me that I'm not welcome? what if they tell me I'm broken, or repressed, or a freak, or don't belong?

Happily, they didn't. They were all really welcoming, and I'm very much glad I went.

There was a fair chunk of the time that I'm fairly sure they all thought I was actually lesbian, until we had a conversation about who was out/who wasn't in regards to parents (and discussed coming out stories, for those that had them). I was eventually asked my out status, and when I disclosed I wasn't out to my parents I was asked if I was subtly directing them towards it with TV choice. At this point, I really felt I had to say I was ace, and thus had no TV choices. And they sympathised with me. They sympathised, something I wasn't expecting (most people don't even think about the fact there's little to no representation of aces in popular culture).

Before the meeting, however, I was doing some uni work in one of the computer labs. A couple of the other people in my course, M and B, were there doing their assignments too. We got talking as we did our assignments, and it eventually came up that I was going to the queer meeting at 5:30. I came out to them, too (so much coming out today! o.o) and they took it so very well. B was the one who actually asked what Asexual meant, and he and M both listened as I explained, asked a couple of questions, and accepted me. They didn't try to tell me I was wrong, or 'too young to decide' (both are a couple of years older than me), or caution me not to label myself. They just accepted who I was, and wished me luck with my meeting.

And I'm so very thankful to both of them for that.

Of Pavlov, Buttons and Capybaras

There are a few warnings for this post, both about sexual content (it's vague, but it's there), and generally TMI about me and my relationship. It's also very tangential, as I kinda just wrote this on the fly.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED


For the past while my zucchini and me have been working out what, exactly, we want out of this relationship and what we're willing to do.

This has been very, very slow and difficult going, not only because neither of us are particularly good at the whole 'talking about emotions and such' thing, but because the English language wasn't designed to have this sort  of conversation. In fact, we've found (I've found) that the English language is particularly bad when it comes to talking about anything which is non-normative at all, let alone feelings.

(I should probably explain right now that he's quite comfortably heteroromantic and heterosexual, whereas I, quite obviously, am comfortably aromantic and asexual. (Yes, I am aware of how strange it is that an aromantic asexual is willingly entering into a relationship which is both romantic and sexual*. However, it's working for us right now, and hopefully will continue working for us for the rest of our lives). As you can probably guess, this has lead to a few miscommunications and erronus assumptions on both our parts.)

The other night, it got to the point that we were adlibbing metaphors on the fly as we discussed what I wanted/felt and what he wanted and felt. One of these actually is useful for the both of us, so we're sticking with it for now. (I'll explain it in a bit, I promise). 

However. Before we discussed this, he was feeling a fair bit of turmoil as he was under the (incorrect) assumption that whatever feelings/sensations I'd receive from any more physical actions would be less than someone who was otherwise orientated (i.e. sexual) would recive from the same actions  (e.g., that if he were to preform an action which would normally be sexual for both parties, such as caressing a body part etc., that I would receive less sensation than someone who was equally sexual as him would), instead of different sensation to someone who was sexual.

As far as I understand it (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong/explain it better/put in your two cents/etc) and as far as I can conceptualise it, sexual people (and society as a whole) has a hierarchy of touch. At the bottom, you have the touches which you're expected to share with everyone you meet, like handshakes and pats on the shoulder and such. At the top, you have the ones which you're only meant to share with certain people (Shagging, etc.). This mostly coincides with the sensitivity of said location for touch (i.e., your nipples are far more sensitive to touch than your shoulders generally, etc.), along with the relative softness of the skin at that location. As it is a hierarchy, it is expected that you will want to have as much of the top 'ranked' actions as possible, and that you will value the top 'ranked' actions far above those at the bottom.

Most sexual people tend to have this hierarchy instinctively.

I don't. I have a line, instead.

On my line, there are still categories of touch, some of which are the same as society's. People, depending on how much I trust them, have access to categories. (S has access to all of them**, random stranger has access to one or none).

However. I don't place the same hierarchy on them that society does. Society wants everyone to try and get as much of as many 'top ranked'  actions as possible. I just want to get as many actions as possible. I don't care whether it's hugging, or cuddling, or kissing or whatever, I just want lots.

Quantity, not 'quality', is me. I want lots with the people I trust, and the actions become 'higher ranked' for me not by what they are but by who they're with. Thus, shaking hands with S is of a higher rank then hugging K. Something which ties into this is that, and I'm not sure if this is because I'm ace or because I'm just wired that way, I don't see most actions as inherently sexual. I see them more as "this feels good (SPAM THE ACTION)".

This leads to the metaphor I was talking about earlier. For S, who has, up till now, been in purely heterosexual romantic/sexual relationships, this is more than a little weird/different.

And this is where the Capybaras and Pavlov come in.

We used the metaphor that S was Pavlov, who so far has been dealing with experiments on dogs*** (experiments in this case standing in for romantic/physical relationships). Each dog had a huge control board of buttons which make it feel and do certain things. So, as far as Pavlov knows, push a particular button, dog gets hungry and eats. (standing in for sexual...ness. Yeah, my English is failing me, it's nearly 4 am)

However. This relationship is as if Pavlov (who done all his work with dogs and so knows, generally, how they react to having a particular button pushed) has just been given a Capybara.

Which, quite obviously, is not a dog. And Pavlov doesn't know how the Capybara will react when he pushes the button he pushed to get the dogs hungry. It might get hungry and eat, but it might also start dancing. (The Capybara, on the other hand, is just happy to have Pavlov paying attention to it, and so doesn't really care what buttons he tries to push. Both reactions are positive, anyway).

At this point I worried about S getting something out of the whole thing, because as he's stated before what he generally gets out of the more physical side of things (other than the pure physical stimulation) is causing pleasure in the other person. However, continuing the metaphor, he explained that Pavlov is just happy to get data, even if it's not the data he's got in the past.

Then, because we have this need (I. I have this need, and I drag S along with me) to extend metaphors far past their logical ending point, we started having the buttons stand in for causing pleasurable**** reactions in the other. Thus, it became a case of "(other) reacts well to this particular action. SPAM THE BUTTON!" Thus, as part of a nerdy, sewer-located joke, S commented that a Mortal Kombat line***** would have been appropriate at some points during his visit ( it was tangentially relevant too as a common tactic in the game for many players is "spam all the buttons").

There were some more bits added, but that's the basic summary of the metaphor. (I am aware it probably doesn't make much sense to anyone who is not me or S. I don't actually care, though I will attempt to explain in further detail if anyone wants to ask me questions in the comments section)




*This is another problem I've run into recently. How do you define when something is sexual? Sometimes, when me and S preform an action, like rubbing each other's backs, it is nonsexual in nature. Other times, it is sexual in nature. Other times, he finds it sexual and I don't. Yet, at the heart of it, it is the same action(s).
(I am aware the answer is probably "you just know", but I am not comfortable with this answer, because a couple of times it has gone from something that was distinctly not sexual to ...something that was, and I was not really aware of when that happened. (S, I know you're reading this. This is not a bad thing, more of a "Huh, I fail observation forever" thing, with me trying to look out for landmarks for next time)

**Nominally. At any given point, however, I may not allow him to do so. Much like he has a keypass to a building, but sometimes the building is locked and the keycard won't let him into said building. He still has the permission to enter the building, he just can't at that point in time.

***Not to say anything about his previous girlfriends. They're, as far as I know, very nice people.

****Not necessarily sexually pleasurable. This also extends to general hugging, and such.

*****If you can't work it out, I'm not telling you.

Of Vegetables and Termites

I have a zucchini.

I never thought I'd be lucky enough to find anyone, let alone the wonderful person I have found, let alone someone who understands that romance/sex is never really going to be on the table from the start. (eventually, we'll see. I suspect not, but I can't see the future.)

(By the way, for regular readers of my blog, I suspect none of you will be surprised to learn that my zucchini is S.)

However, this has lead to some unexpected issues.

The least of which is what the hell do I call what we're doing now?

We're not dating (not a romantic relationship, even if S assures me he doesn't expect it to be). It's not friendship, either. I hesitate to use the phrase 'more than friends', but we're not, strictly speaking, purely friends any more.

We're something other than both of these, and while I have a word (actually, I have a word and a phrase!)* to attempt to convey what we are to each other**, I don't have any words to explain what we are actually doing. (again, can't use dating. It's not the right word, and I have this strange need to attempt to label things).

One larger problem I have is the lack of visibility about said relationships. I went to my cousin's the other day, and nigh on the first thing I was asked was if I had a boyfriend.*** And I totally dodged the question. I was the roadrunner to the Wile E. Coyote of the question, that was how much I dodged it. (If I remember correctly, my answer was "How's uni?" Not the most subtle topic change, but it worked, so I'm counting that as a win.)

But as I was lying in bed last night, I got wondering. "How would I have answered that question?"**** I thought to myself. And the answer I received was "I don't know." I probably wouldn't have answered yes, because technically speaking I'm don't have a boyfriend. I will never have a boyfriend. Asking me if I will is like asking a fish if it will ever have a spaceship - mostly pointless.

However.

Society says that if you do not have a boy/girl friend*****, you have no important relationships in your life except those you have with your blood family. And, in my case (and others' cases), this is not true. And so saying "No, I do not have a SO." is generally taken to mean "I do not have a primary relationship outside my family."

And I'm not cool with that. I'm very much not cool with that. I have a primary relationship. I will not stand for people assuming I don't. I will not stand for people disregarding it. It is my relationship, and it is important to me. It is just as worthy of respect as any other.

So I can't answer "No, I do not have a boyfriend."

So my choices of answering is either taking the 3+ hours to explain first asexuality, second being aromantic, and third queer-platonic relationships (and fourth my own said relationship), or dodging the question.

A third, and more worrying, issue that I have recently become aware of, is the fact that  at least one of my friends does not, and has never, believed me about my orientation. The most worrying, and frustrating, thing about this is that she hasn't said so directly to me. (She has actually said so to S though. Which is so far beyond the pale it's not funny.(pro-tip: do not doubt a person's stated orientation. Pro-tip two: DO NOT DOUBT A  PERSON'S IDENTIFIED ORIENTATION. I don't care if it "doesn't make sense". I don't care what you think. Another person's orientation is not something you may have an opinion on. It is not a book, or a piece of art or a movie. IT IS THEIR ORIENTATION, and you must deal with that.)) Even if he wasn't my zucchini, and even if she wasn't assuming we were shagging (which she quite obviously is), this would still not be acceptable******. (Also the fact that I suspect she never intended for me to know that she didn't believe me. As if (what she is assuming) my 'boyfriend' wouldn't tell me. -_-)

It's the fact that she's passive aggressively doubting my orientation that's really pissing me off. (Although it does explain her reactions to my previous comments/linking on Facebook...) If she said she didn't believe me, I could take that. I already have taken it from other people, some who are much closer to me. Obviously, it's not the best state of affairs. It's still better than assuming she's supportive, and then finding out she's not. Now, there's a bit of me that wonders what else she doesn't believe me about. There's a rather large bit of me that wonders who else doesn't believe me, that wonders how many of my support pillars that I thought were strong are actually riddled with termites.

And I hate that. I hate that so much.

But, other than these issues, none of which are my zucchini's fault, I'm beyond ecstatic. I'm in (aromantic)love with the loveliest man on earth, and through some extreme luck he shares my feelings and is willing to wander down this unknown goat track of a path with me.


*Zucchini and queer-platonic life partner, respectively.

**even if only a tiny handful of people will ever understand what the hell I'm saying.

***There was a rather large bit of me that wanted to comment on the heteronomativity of that question, but I really couldn't deal with the fall out that'd potentially cause. My cousin would probably take it in the spirit I meant it (i.e., not as a confession of my sexuality but as a blanket statement), but my aunt certainly wouldn't.

****Assuming I was the type to actually answer a question like this when asked by my relatives or someone I don't know very well. as I'm not, it was really more a thought exercise than anything else.

*****I am aware of the binarism inherent in that statement, but it is the societal view. It is not my view.

******The fact that she is assuming we're shagging also really pisses me off. Because it means she was, in essence, congratulating my zucchini on "turning me" sexual. She also hadn't been informed (as far as I know) about us starting this relationship, and so was assuming based upon the fact that we were sitting together at a party (not an unusual thing for us). If she had been told, the only other people who knew also knew that he was my zucchini. So she was either drawing her own conclusions (again. this is not the first time she has assumed we were shagging), or she had it explained to her and then disregarded it.

30 Day Asexuality Challenge, Day 29 -30

So, I haven't really been up to blogging for the past fews days, and thus have missed posting my final two responses to the 30 day challenge. Thus, I'm posting them now.


29. Where did you first learn about asexuality?

The internet, during a disscussion on the (then new) series of Sherlock.


30. Tell us anything about asexuality that you want to end with.

We're here, guys. We withstand trolls, and more trolls, and people insulting us, and people pretending we don't exist and hate and rage and sorrow and so much shit for being who we are, but we're still here.

And we're not going anywhere.

 

30 Day Asexuality Challenge; Day 26

26. Who is your biggest ally?

To regular readers of this blog, this will come as no surprise. To those of you who have never read my blog, allow me to elucidate.

Without question, S (I have mentioned him before) is my biggest ally. Not only because he's there for me, and because he puts up with me randomly ranting/crying/breaking down/etc at him when people are stupid (on the internet or  off), and not only because he's my closest friend. 

No, he is also my biggest ally because he's willing to learn. If he doesn't understand a term/phrase/acronym, he asks respectfully. He treats me like a proper person, and he explains things I have no frame of reference for. He also manages to take into consideration my lack of understanding re: romantic/sexual desire, without being patronizing when he references it.

o.o

I’m somewhat in shock at the moment, I think.

I’m also fairly sure I just came out to my mother, during a conversation about the Mana bar.

Later this week I’m going to the Mana bar with a friend, and I was informing her that I would be out late (i.e., that I couldn’t cook tea that night), and somehow the conversation came around to my nondrinking. This somehow lead to my brother’s future dating habits, and the fact that she wouldn’t care who he dated as long as he was happy. She then extended the sentiment to me, before (hesitantly) asking if “I have any preferences”. I said that I didn’t, and she kinda went silent for a while. Then she commented that she “Had no hope of intimidating your future partners, do I?”, and then said something along the lines of “as long as you’re happy.”

I'm still not sure how to react.

On the one hand, she took it well.

On the other, I'm ot actually sure how much she understands that I don't ever want a partner. I'm not sure if I have an actual coming out I still need to do.

But for now, I'm not looking a gift horse in the mouth.

30 Day Asexuality Challenge, Day 25

25. What is the worst argument you’ve heard against asexuality?

Worst as in makes no sense: “No.”

(No what? No it doesn’t exist, no I’m not, no unicorns don’t exist?)

 Worst as in wtf are you talking about: “Asexuality is already in use as a word. You can’t give it another meaning.”

(I’m sorry, what? Have you not read the dictionary or spoken any common language ever?)

Worst as in why the hell would you even say that: “It’s ok if your abuse left you scared of relationships, but not all are like that.”

(Just. Why? Even if I had been abused, I would be asexual. I would also not want you to goddamn mention it in public.

Also, the implication in this (that the only people who consider themselves asexual have been abused), is all kinds of horrifying. Stop it now.)

Worst as in hurt me: “You can’t be. You’ll never be happy, and I just want you to be happy.”

(Worst because it was a (at the time) very close friend who said it.)

I am not pleased.

LANGUAGE WARNING: BOTH SWEARING AND SLURS

Ok, so it has come to my attention that some arsehole wrote a(nother) blog post on how asexuals are actually being special snowflakes, claiming oppression, unjustifiably calling ourselves queer, the whole tired rigmarole.

This has displeased me muchly, because until reading this I was in a good mood, having just spent significant time with my closest friend.

So I decided to pick apart the post, because I am now in the right kind of mood to do so.

Also, you may say I am being too hard on the op, or hurting their feelings.

Honestly, I don’t give a flying fuck. Sciatrix has summed it up well here.

Anyway, ONTO THE POST!

(Italic is the original post, everything else is me)

 On weighing in on the asexual clusterfuck.

Starting off well here, acknowledging that it has been a clusterfuck. Congratulations, you get +1 observation.

Splitting this up into two parts, because I am realising that I had way more to say than I initially thought.

Possibly a good thing – maybe you’ve really thought hard about this!

I know that there’s a chance that this post is going to be disregarded as ‘trolling’ by some people, because this is just a baby tumblr, and I don’t post about sj, and really I don’t post anything all that often.

Or not. I don’t really care about the age of your tumblr anyway, there is no ‘posting age of consent’, and if you think people will assume you’re trolling  reword what you’ve written until they can’t accidentally think you’re trolling.

-1 writing skills.

 But, as they say, gators gonna gait. I’ve posted the vast majority of this over at sfd_anon (another reason people will probably think I’m trolling) in dribs and drabs

Ok, maybe you have thought long and hard about this. Or at least, fumed long and hard about this. So far it doesn’t seem like you’ve thought much, if at all.

 in seething anon comments, but frankly I want to get all of it out in the open because this whole debacle just makes me livid, every time, and maybe pinning my name to it will be a relief*.

GUESS WHAT? This ‘whole debacle’, as you call it, makes me livid too. (That’s why I’m ripping apart your post. Because I’m mad and feeling snarky.)

Quick heads up: there’s a particular (censored) slur in here, for gay women, a few times.

This is a good thing.

+1 consideration for others

There’s three things I’m gonna address in these posts, just so you don’t get halfway through this and realise you dgaf. 

YAY, a summary. This is nice, +1 consideration for others

This first one’s about the way some asexual people feel entitled to the label ‘queer’, and the way they’re manipulating language to make it seem like they do deserve to be included. 

-_-

Really? Really? Could you sound more condescending and paternalistic?

-2 consideration for others

The next one’ll be about whether or not coming out as asexual is as comparable to coming out as LGBT as Tumblr seems to think,

I’m sorry, I’m fairly sure you have never come out as asexual. I have never come out as gay/bi/trans*/etc. I am not saying “Coming out as gay is like this”, because I will never have that experience.

YOU CANNOT SPEAK FOR EXPERIENCES YOU WILL NEVER HAVE.

Also, fairly sure most people would agree coming out is different for everybody. The only way anyone ever coming out as ace could not be like anyone ever coming out as gay/bi/trans*/etc would be if all coming out experiences for each group was the same. As they aren’t, stfu fool.

and, a few footnotes on a quite common and pretty ugly little nugget of transphobia that seems to be a favourite tool in some asexual people’s SJ arsenal.

+1 points for remembering the T in LGBT,-1 for using the vague “some people” (It’s akin to saying “Some people say this, so ALL people say this.” Obviously, this is shit logic.)

—-

Let’s just get something sorted out here with regards to “LGBT” and “GSM” and “queer”. I’m going to spell it right out for you (using many acronyms):

Oh good, you get to show off your wisdom social justice savvy

 ‘LGBT’ and ‘queer’ are two terms that mean the same thing, more or less. GSM is something that includes both, but is synonymous with neither. GSM and queer are not two words for the same thing. All queer people are GSM (GSMs?), all LGBT people are GSM, but not all GSM are queer.

♪ One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn’t belong ♪

“But,” I hear the Tumblr activist cry, “queer is a word for anyone who isn’t heterosexual and cisgendered!” Well, yes

PROBLEM SOLVED!      

and no.

Or not.

Again: all queer people are either non-heterosexual or non-cis,

So queer = not cis, and/or not Heterosexual. Cool, I’ve got no problem with that.

Come, my ace fellows, TO THE QUEER GROUPS!

 but not all non-heterosexual and/or non-cis people are queer**.

Huh?

I’m sure you’re not just saying this to keep out the aces. Really, you have to have a better reason that that.

Here’s why: the reason that the queer community is called queer is because queer is a slur against a specific group of people - LGBT people - that, depending on how you view it, is currently being reclaimed or has been reclaimed. The people who have the right to use that word are the people it has historically been used against - that’s 101 stuff, really. Frankly? People who are (aromantic or heteroromantic) asexual don’t fit under that umbrella, despite being GSM.

No, you don’t Yeah, you did just come up with that rule to keep out the aces.

(Also? Aromantic != asexual. Heteroromantic != asexual. You can’t decry us as “manipulating language”, and then do it yourself. If you’re going to refer to aromantics and heteroromantics, call us that. What you’re doing is aiming for a small group of us within the asexual spectrum, and hitting the whole thing.)

-1 for acefail

Have an analogy

Oh goody

, and it’s probably going to get me into trouble,

So why say it? You’re coming across as an immature child, doing the “I’m soooo naughty, isn’t it funny? Aren’t I soooooooo like, cool for being a rebel?”

 but here goes.

 Hold on to your brains, they may melt out of your ears with this next bit of logic.

 “D*ke”, for example, is a slur for a specific group of people: lesbians. Right? So say you’re looking at the lesbian community, who have for one reason or another decided to reclaim that slur and refer to themselves as ‘the d*ke community’. But, aha, you notice something: all lesbians are women. So, technically, d*ke is a slur against women.

Uh, no, it isn’t. It is a slur against homosexual appearing women. You do not have to actually be one in order for this slur to be used against you.

Trust me, I know from experience.

 But then you get straight women saying they belong, because it refers to people who aren’t men, and you can’t exclude SOME women! But it’s not a slur against all women: it’s a slur against a specific group of women, and that is gay women, and I think it’s obvious to everybody reading this paragraph that this’d be wildly inappropriate, right?

Nice straw man, what does this have to do with the topic?

(-1 for a strawman)

Just because all lesbians are women doesn’t mean all women have the right to call themselves d*ke. Likewise, just because all LGBT people are GSM people, that doesn’t mean all GSM people have the right to call themselves queer.

Ah, that’s what you think it has to do with the topic!(You’re wrong, but you gave it a shot. You just went in the wrong direction entirely.)

Not a good enough reason for you?

NO.

-5 for shit logic

 Here’s another:

Let’s hope it’s a better ‘reason’ than your previous ‘reason’.(Do the quote marks get across the fact that your reason wasn’t actually any more of a reason than the one given by 3 year old children when asked why they won’t play with the opposite gender? (i.e., “They’re ICKY!”) I’d hate for you to miss that.)

the way the asexual community has clung to the term ‘GSM’ as their green card for the queer community is an exploitation of a dual meaning of the word ‘minority’, namely, that it can be used to refer to either a numerical minority or to refer to an oppressed group.

We are actually both. No, seriously, we are. The fact that we have people like you claiming that our experiences aren’t real, that we don’t feel the way we do, that we don’t belong with “the normal people”, kinda disproves your point. A lot.

-5 for fail.

In some instances - LGBT people, or POC, for example - they are one and the same: these groups are both marginalised and outnumbered.

Also for example, The asexual community.

In some cases, such as women, they’re oppressed despite numerically being a majority.

And in some cases - like asexual people, like pastry chefs, like very tall people, like very tall asexual pastry chefs, like straight, cis men, for God’s sake - they’re numerically in the minority, but they’re not oppressed for being a minority,

-7 for being badly wrong about oppression

Everyone, sing it with me!

♪ SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE NOT LIKE THE OTHERS ♪

-10 for comparing unalike things.

You cannot do this, it breaks logic, please stop it, doing this just makes me not take you seriously (even less so, that is. You’re invaliding my identity, be glad I’m being even vaguely civil.)

but some Tumblr-aces are choosing to deploy the term ‘GSM’

This only gives me mental images of the great ship GSM, being shoved off from docks by aces wielding cake. I’m sure that’s not what you we going for.

“Deploy the GSM!” “Aye aye, captain!”

 as if it has those connotations of marginalisation

because it does, funnily enough. (I know, I know, how dare we use words in the way in which they are meant)

 when in actual fact it refers only to how many GSM people there are around.

Fairly sure it doesn’t. But, you know, whatever. You keep redefining your words, we’ll be over here going “WTF?”

It’s a lot like how “queer” means both “unusual” and “LGBT”.

And dyke is a slur and a wall to keep back the ocean (also a rock formation).

 Asexual people use that one, too, as a reason for them to be included.

Uh, no, we use the fact that we are not straight.

 The fact that you are queer-as-in-unusual does not grant you access to the queer-as-in-LGBT community

and here is the real issues. You have defined queer as == LGBT, which means if you are not L, G, B or T, you cannot be queer. So all you pansexual people, you aren’t queer. Neither are you, two spirits, or you, intersexed people, or anyone who is not one of the above but is also not straight.

We all apparently inhabit a no-man’s land, between “LGBT” and “Straight”.

(a helpful diagram of where the OP thinks were are in the great 2d land of sexual orientation. We didn’t get a compass or a map, let alone a home base)

 just like how being a numerical minority doesn’t automatically make you an oppressed minority.

And just like you (presumably), can be part of an oppressed minority but still oppress others!

-3 for oppression olympics

Seriously though, we aren’t claiming that because we are a minority we are oppressed. We are stating that we are a minority (you can’t argue with that, we only make up something like 1% of the world’s population) and we are oppressed.

Also, since when was oppression the keycard into the queer community? How do you check that? “You came out to a loving family who accepted you, you aren’t really queer. I don’t care if you love your own gender only, no oppression no queer.”

-

*There are some asexual people out there who seem to revel in the fact that LGBT people - queer people - don’t jump to put their names on their thoughts about the asexual-as-queer debate. Like there’s something to be proud of, that their detractors are just pissy little cowards

I’m sorry, why should we not be happy that people are aware that if they put their names to hate speech (which is what a lot of it is, thank you very much. Try replacing all references to asexuals in one of these vitriolic rants with references to homosexuals, or bisexuals, or transgendered people. Suddenly not so acceptable, is it?), that they will be looked down upon by some of the community.  

Also, if you’re going to identity police, you are a pissy yellow bellied coward, with or without using your pseudonym. Using a pseudonym is not actually a brave thing. You can walk away from your pseudonym at anytime. You are not being brave, stop looking for a gold star.

, like frightening queer people is something to be proud of.

ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: HYPOCRISY!

But, frankly? The queer community - the LGBT community         

I’m sorry, you need to stop defining the queer community as LGBT only. It doesn’t work that way.

- is the one place where queer people can hang out together and be safe and queer

And somehow us asexuals being there will make it not safe and not queer?

Do we emit queer damping fields or something? Safety breaking vibes? Fairly sure I don’t, because I would have found out before now.

and gay.

Ahahahahaha, you failed your own definition, good job there.

Gay = attracted to your own gender. So, the GL is covered, the B is half covered, and the T has been thrown out the door again

-10 for hypocrisy and failing your own definitions

(There’s another word that’s got two meanings. Just to nip it in the bud - you’re still not queer just because you’re really, really happy, ok?)

Relevance? No, but it is a nice strawman.

-1 for another strawman

**More on this in the next post, don’t jump on me yet.

Too late.

PART TWO

Damn, we’re only halfway through! How does the score stand so far?

The OP is at: -43!

Anyway, ALLONS-Y!

Let’s dive right in, shall we? If you’re going to skip everything else, ace activists, because it’s ~policing~ or whatever, 

Nice scare quotes there.

-1

at least read the last paragraph, because that’s got very little to do with what I think of your identity

Not much, obviously.

 and very much to do with what you seem to think of mine.

 Which of course is the more important thing in this discussion. About asexuality.

 Ta.

(This post contains so, so much anecdata.)

Cool. Thanks for warning us.

+1 for consideration of others

There’s another rationale as to why asexual people should be included in the term queer, and that’s the experience of coming out.

Plaese don’t argue we don’t come out. Don’t argue we have no issues with coming out, or that ours ‘don’t count’. If you do, I will scream, laugh historically, and then go and curl into a dear friend for a while while whimpering. And S really doesn’t need to deal with me being limpeted to his side for a while.

It’s apparently something we all share. I wouldn’t personally call that the defining characteristic of queerness, but we’ll run with it.

Because you are the one true definer of queerness LGBT.

I’ve come out a lot of times in my life as one thing or another. I’m still not really out. My close friends know. My family don’t. There have been times when I have briefly outed myself only to return, shamefaced, to the closet.

So have I. Not sure how yours “counts’ and mine doesn’t.

It took me a long, long time to even admit to myself that I wasn’t cis, and that I was same-sex attracted. I suppressed all that like a motherfucker. Even once I had accepted that those feelings existed, I would never even call myself trans, or even GQ; I wouldn’t even call myself bi, let alone admit that I was primarily attracted to the same gender. “Not cis”, I called myself. “Not straight”. If the thought crossed my mind that I was trans, or bi, or whatever, I would quietly squash it.

Yes, been there, done that.

“You’re just not 100% straight, is all. Nobody’s 100% straight.

Hello, old justification, thought I’d left you behind in 12^th grade.

 Don’t get any funny ideas; you still need a place to live, you need companionship in your life.

Yeah. That moment when you have to choose between saying to yourself “I am This” and defiantly keeping your friends and family? I’ve been there too.

Still not sure why yours counts and mine doesn’t, but I’m sure you’ll tell me.

They might not be real friends if they’d ditch you for this, but they’re better than being cold and alone forever. You get bullied enough. No, you’re normal. You can be normal.”

No, I really couldn’t.

So you can imagine when I eventually - very timidly, and more than a little drunkenly - came out to a few of my mates, the first time, it was a big deal for me. Timid and drunk as I was, I knew that you can never quite know how someone will react, and I was preparing to get the shit kicked out of me, or to lose everyone I knew, or to get outed to everyone else. (I didn’t. I got lucky that time. I meant to post the story of when I came out as trans, but that one I can’t really deal with typing out for all to see.)

The reason that I’m not out to my family? Because, while I’m not sure about my immediate family, my extended family has made clear in no uncertain terms that any ‘deviants’ will be disowned, and I can’t really foresee that working out well for my family. Would my mother choose me, or her parents? Even if she did choose me, she’d essentially lose her parents. Because I came out. So I don’t. I don’t know when or if I will. I know I should, to everyone, in order to be true to myself etc. But I can’t bring myself to.

My family’s prone to mental illness, and so will probably assume I have one and send me to shrinks. Both of these things (your situation and mine) fucking suck. Why are you making my situation harder?

When I found the word “asexual”, though, it was easy, there was no internal conflict:

For you. For lots of us, there was a whole fucktonne. I’m still shovelling some of mine around.

 “huh. Guess you’re not such a freak. Got a word and everything.” it didn’t even seem like something that warranted coming out about.

Because your situation is every person who identifies as ace’s ever.

-1 for egocentricity

I didn’t fret about deceiving anyone, because it was not the strength or nature of the attraction that I felt that was the problem: it was the direction. The only times I’ve ever even bothered to mention it to people were invariably something along the lines of a friend asking why I never seemed to hook up, me saying I was asexual, them asking that (apparently dreaded) question

Because dreading having to explain, over and over and over again who you are is irrational.

 - “what’s that mean then” - and me explaining. Easy.

Fuck you. Seriously, fuck you. How dare you tell me that is is easy to explain who you are, all the while expecting to be told by your nearest and dearest that you are a freak, failure, broken and/or wrong. How dare you tell me that it is easy to be expected to react “nicely” when people say “No, you are actually this. You do not know your own feelings.”

How dare you.

-100 for fail of the highest order, identity policing, and invalidating experiences.

 Why? Because nobody gives a fuck about how strong your sex drive is, whether it is 0 or 1000, because nobody goes into that much detail.

You do not know the people I do then.

-1 for assuming your experiences are universal

Saying “I like x” (in either a sexual or romantic way) is enough detail for people, you don’t have to quantify it all the way down for them. For yourself, sure, but other people? Not so much.*

Which works great when you have something you actually like. Aromantic?

We’re shit out of luck.

-1 for forgetting aromantics

(also, the time I started with “I’m aromantic” I immediately got “But how will you fuck people? WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU SHAG PEOPLE? Would you want to fuck anything, like a bench or a dog or a building? I mean, if you don’t care about who you’re with, why bother with a person?”)

The thing is, some asexual people seem so frustrated by people asking what asexuality is, having to explain it, and that’s why they hate coming out.

And some us hate coming out (most of us who hate coming out) hate coming out for the reasons I’ve outlined above. Also, why is not wanting to explain every minute detail about your orientation not a legitimate reason to hate coming out?

-2 for fail

I wish that that was the biggest problem that LGBT people faced when they came out.

I wish that was the biggest problem asexual people face when we come out.

Unfortunately, that’s not the world we live in.

And you don’t seem to be helping it become that world.

Also: a quick note on a weird little transphobic trend that sometimes seems to crop up - the reply to angry queer people saying that if you’re hetero-, you’re not queer, that goes a little like this: so straight trans people aren’t queer?

Here’s the thing: there are straight trans people who DON’T identify as queer and queer trans people who identify as queer separately from being trans. For every other group, it’s divided into straight/queer, but trans people, oh well, they’re all the same, even the straight ones are queers.

I would like to point out that there are straight trans people who identify as queer also. Are you saying they can’t either?

So, when you say LGBT, you actually mean LGB.

(this is a hard thing for me to explain. If I say “I identify as queer” as my orientation, that’s not much clarification if I’m already automatically pegged as queer just because I’m trans).

That said, that’s just for me personally, I don’t like to be automatically labelled “queer” for being trans.

BUT I don’t begrudge straight trans people their inclusion in the queer community, and here’s just one example of why: we live in a transphobic world, and misgendering is rampant. A trans person in a heterosexual relationship is not always going to be treated that way. Some of the time they are probably going to be treated as two cis people in a gay relationship, and if the trans partner has the audacity to behave in any way that is ‘typical’ of their actual gender (eg: a trans woman wearing makeup), then that’s going to be treated not as them being trans but them being treated as a feminine gay man (or, for trans men, a butch lesbian). And that just plays back into homophobic stereotypes. But that’s just one example.

Whut? Striaght trans people aren’t queer because they’re trans, but they can identify as queer because...they’re trans? They’re mistaken for gay? I’m...not quite sure what you’re arguing here.

-2 for fail logic and unclear arguing

BUT

Wait, there’s more!

What’s most unnerving about this rather smug rebuttal, though, along with that gleefulha!-I’ve-outsmarted-those-pesky-queers-now attitude all in itself?

Ah, never have I seen this attitude. I’ve seen the “Ha! I’ve put those bloody freaks ace’s in their place!” one though.

Trans people are just that, PEOPLE. We are not your loophole into the queer community. We do not exist just so you can point to us and say “but you let them play!” We’re not here as an example for you. Kindly fuck off, you can’t hitchhike in with me, because frankly? I don’t want anyone in my community who cares about me as long as it benefits them and not a second more.

Sorry, but if you’re going by the only people who care about trans people all the time, you may have to kick out a lot of the GLBT. Including yourself, it seems.

And since when was it “your” community? You are a part of the community, not the ruler of it. You can make no rules.

If you’re going to be transphobic, or you’re going to ignore trans people, that’s one (ugly) thing. But don’t dress that up as if you actually give a shit about me, or you’re somehow morally superior, please&thanks.

I can understand that view point.

But could you please stop standing on my face to make it?

—-

*Full disclosure, because people will probably decide it’s relevant: no, I no longer identify as asexual. Not that that matters, but whatever.

And thus we come to the end of my snark fest review of the post.

The total score is: -150!

(no) Thank you for playing op, please (don’t) come back!

(now I'm going to look at pictures of lovely coats and virtually hug my closest friend for a while.)