every time I see someone reblog this post without commentary (like this and other comments), I check their bio it almost always says they’re white. and honestly? it fucking shows.
anyway the desexualization of asian men is the fault of white people, white media, etc. not of asian men nor of ace people.
the misconception that ace = desexualized is continually furthered by exclusionists and is not the fault of aces. when you say that our identity means that we are desexualized, you are removing our sexual agency, our ability to consent.
this (asides from being creepy as hell) means that you are desexualizing actual people of color in order to “protect” fictional ones. you’re putting your time and effort into criticizing aces (including aces of color) for headcanoning characters as their sexuality instead of criticizing the white culture that desexualizes asian men in the first place.
when exclusionists reblog the original post, all I’m hearing is “I care more about hating aces than actually combating racism and protecting real asian men.”
activists at barnard college providing “labels”, photographed by susan rennie and published in off our backs: a women’s newsjournal vol. 3 no. 6, february 1973
Wow, David Jay really time traveled back to 1973 to start inventing asexuality. 😮
This makes my heart so happy
Just for the purposes of authentication…
Here’s a link to where you can view the image in-context (you must have a jstor account, which is free if you’re okay with only reading 6 papers a month, if you do not already have institutional access). It turns out that this image, along with another, was intended to be published in the previous issue of off our backs, but was not received in time.
Here’s the article that that image was supposed to accompany (apologies for the fact that this is another jstor link). It turns out this was from an event called “Lesbian/Feminist Dialogue” that those young women (from the Lesbian Activists at Barnard) were supporting. Now, before we get the hue and cry about “they weren’t really talking about asexuality in the sense that you mean it!!!!11! they were just spitballing label ideas,” here’s what the author of the article, Frances Chapman, had to say about it:
“I attended the workshop on asexuality lead by Barbara Getz. According to Barbara, asexuality is an orientation that regards a partner as nonessential to sex, and sex as nonessential to a satisfying relationship.”
Obviously not quite the definition we used today, but decently close to it.
If your aroness or aceness stems from dysphoria, you’re a valid aro or ace.
If your aroness or aceness stems from past trauma, you’re a valid aro or ace.
If your aroness or aceness is an integral part of who you are as a person, you’re a valid aro or ace.
If you have no idea what your aroness or aceness comes from, you’re a valid aro or ace.
I’m sorry I don’t make the rules.
my “aro/aceness” did come from trauma and dysphoria and this mindset is what kept me from getting better and pursuing healthy relationships because i was told everything was perfectly fine with me and getting help was aphobic. then i did actually get help and listen to my therapist and low and behold that “aro/aceness” was a symptom not an orientation and, after getting better, straight up vanished.
if you think you’re aro, ace, or both because of factors like trauma and dysphoria, go get some help or at least try to heal before deciding to use the labels. and if you don’t know where it comes from, think about that.
no one becomes gay due to trauma or dysphoria, that doesn’t actually happen. if you think your orientation comes from those things, you need to reevaluate some stuff and get help. chances are if you actually are aro or ace, it had nothing to do with trauma or dysphoria. correlation is not causation and if your ace or aroness is caused by those factors, you need to get help. and, hey, if you’re still ace or aro after getting help, cool, that happens, but your personal issues would have nothing to do with that. if you’re like me and many others, however, and you realize you aren’t aro or ace, you were never either of those things to begin with and you were holding on to pain.
That’s not an appropriate rhetoric.
Neurodivergence isn’t some monster that represents all thats wrong and disgusting with humankind. It’s a word that describes what people are.
The a-spectrum has always had a close relationship with neurodiversity. And thats precisely because of people who discover their asexuality/aromanticism through exploration of their neurodivergence.
And you’re wrong – people actually do ‘become’ trans and non-straight due to trauma and neurodivergence. That’s a thing that happens. And we can frown all day and question their legitimacy, but that’s such a non-issue.
People question and re-question their sexuality all the time. Ace/aro people in particular are under extremely strict scrutiny. There’s many reasons why someone would drop their a-spec label, or perhaps pick up a slightly different one, and so on. You attributed it to forsaking your trauma. That’s your story. And yours alone.
Queer identities are spawned by neurodiversity all the time. It doesn’t suddenly become suspect because it’s ace/aro people in the picture.
Bloggers like Kerschenbaum — many of them students — have stepped up to fill the gap, building a canon of asexual history where it was previously nonexistent.
as an official spokesperson for the ace community let me just say
we are chugging “loving and supporting lesbians” juice all day every day
as an official spokesperson for the aro community let me just say we too are chugging that “loving and supporting lesbians” juice by the gallon 24/7
As an official spokesperson for the Lesbian community lemme say were absolutely drinking that “loving and supporting aces/aros” juice 24/7 right back
As an official spokesperson for the bi community let me just say we’re definitely chugging that “loving and supporting aces/aros and lesbians” juice 24/7 always
As an official spokesperson of the enby community, I too can affirm that we’re chugging that “loving and supporting aspec people, lesbians, and our bi-thren.”
as the official ace spokesperson I’d like to reaffirm that we are not only chugging loving lesbians juice but also loving, supporting, and appreciating bi people, enbies, and aros all day every day
My bi ass: no wonder I have to pee all the time.
out here staying hydrated on this solidarity juice
Every time I reread the Hunger Games trilogy I become more furious about the movie representation.
These books were about an indigenous woman (with a brain injury in book 3) living in poverty overthrowing a corrupt white government.
She was demisexual, had stomach hair, was not even remotely romantically driven (and canonically didn’t even find romance until after she had finished a revolution.)
And Peeta was disabled and physically abused as a child and they both suffered from mental health problems and the parallel between the Capitol and the ruling rich was so very transparent.
And I’m seeing fun coloured makeup in stores labeled “Capitol colours from the Hunger Games”!
These books were about the revolution of the most oppressed taking over the extravagance and elitism and decadence of the ruling class while citizens starved.
These books were a parallel to our current social dynamics, they were a call to arms. They were a battle cry for the impeding ruin of the rich white ruling class.
And the movies portrayed them as a fantasy, a romance story, a cute little tale. When the real story in the books was one of strength and upheaval and shifting paradigms and revolutions.
And like…… the death of a young Black child sparked the rebellion.
When Katniss thinks about running away in the second book it is the memory of Rue that makes her decide to stay and “cause all kinds of trouble.”
That is an indigenous woman deciding that the death of a Black child is so horrific and unacceptable that she needs to start an entire uprising about it. That is WOC solidarity.
Then again, when Katniss is talking with Peeta about not leaving he literally, canonically and verbally SAYS it’s because of Rue.
The movies did not lend enough weight to the injustice and violence that Black women face; they didn’t waste any time in deciding the rebellion came from their White Katniss’s determination to overthrow the Capitol.
The movies purposely and aggressively erased all of the racial oppression and power and dynamics that were so apparent in the books.
They made Katniss white, they made Gale white, they erased Peeta’s amputation, they seriously diminished the PTSD both of them faced (which was actually one of the more accuract accounts of PTSD I had ever read in the books), they drastically lessened the weight and importance of Rue’s death.
Anyway, fuck the movies. The books are miraculous. Right down to the respect of survival sex workers. Right down to the power imbalances of society being set in the hands of a violent old white man who has surgery to appear younger.
I also found it so ironic because the books constantly talked about how the media would portray horrors in different ways to make them “viewable” and desired by the audience. How the hunger games would make it into a tragic love story instead of a horror show.
And you know what? The movies became basically that. People were fighting over #teampeeta or #teamgale and totally missed the point (but partially because the movies watered it down to be a tragic romance instead of a revolution and in doing so, being exactly like the Capital)
whitemanning critical 