And now for something completely different.

saltmarshhag:

privilegedenyingasexuals:

saltmarshhag:

I understand their line of questioning because there is clearly some serious denial of what qualifies as sexual behavior and sexual attraction. I don’t buy that masturbating is like sneezing or taking a shit. “Fucking yourself” is hardly a metaphor - that’s basically what it is. Just recently someone was saying that they know they’re asexual because when they masturbate, they don’t imagine themselves in their mental scenarios - which is ridiculously common I’m sure. And then there’s all the stuff about “aesthetic attraction” that gives you a boner but totally is not sexual attraction,- uh huh, sure. Or the demisexual/gray shit where sexual discernment is supposed to be a totally unique quality among them. So anything beyond a reasoned argument for how their behavior is completely not sexual is a just-so-story to me.

I can understand asexuals masturbating. Masturbation feels good. It’s like vegans eating tofurkey.

What I want to know is, what would someone’s sexual orientation be if they are not attracted to anyone, but still masturbate? It’s not gay, straight, bi, or pan. And if the answer is “autosexual”, then all of a sudden it’s not just aces making up bullshit special snowflake words.

idk go to your ~not like the others~ asexual corner and figure it out yourselves. just don’t expect all of us to uncritically accept it when you tell us the sky is green and that we’re “sexuals.”

I’m not asexual. Nice assumption, though.

(via saltmarshhag-deactivated2013011)

And now for something completely different.

saltmarshhag:

I understand their line of questioning because there is clearly some serious denial of what qualifies as sexual behavior and sexual attraction. I don’t buy that masturbating is like sneezing or taking a shit. “Fucking yourself” is hardly a metaphor - that’s basically what it is. Just recently someone was saying that they know they’re asexual because when they masturbate, they don’t imagine themselves in their mental scenarios - which is ridiculously common I’m sure. And then there’s all the stuff about “aesthetic attraction” that gives you a boner but totally is not sexual attraction,- uh huh, sure. Or the demisexual/gray shit where sexual discernment is supposed to be a totally unique quality among them. So anything beyond a reasoned argument for how their behavior is completely not sexual is a just-so-story to me.

I can understand asexuals masturbating. Masturbation feels good. It’s like vegans eating tofurkey.

What I want to know is, what would someone’s sexual orientation be if they are not attracted to anyone, but still masturbate? It’s not gay, straight, bi, or pan. And if the answer is “autosexual”, then all of a sudden it’s not just aces making up bullshit special snowflake words.

(via saltmarshhag-deactivated2013011)

saltmarshhag:

privilegedenyingasexuals:

You know, just while I’m at it.

I hate the Tumblr asexual community. I hate the concept of demisexuality. I hate ~queer heteroromantic asexuals~. I hate people who think not wanting to have sex in and of itself makes them just as oppressed as LGBT people. I hate the appropriation of the pink triangle.

But if there is one thing I hate more than Tumblr asexuals, it’s off-Tumblr Tumblr sexuals. By which I mean sexual people who use Tumblr, taking their Tumblr politics onto other sites like Livejournal and Dreamwidth. These people are all wound up and ready to pounce every time the word “asexual” is so much as whispered.

“Why do asexuals have to be such special snowflakes?” they’ll demand the instant they see the slightest discussion of asexuality crop up. “Why do they always have to play Oppression Olympics and act like they’re more oppressed than queers? Ugh, demisexuality is so stupid!” they will add, even if nobody had even mentioned demisexuality up until this point.

When you do this, if you do this, you are the problem, not the innocent non-Tumblr asexuals you just jumped all over for no reason. When you bust out the “Queers are more oppressed than asexies!” line even when nobody had been claiming otherwise, you are the one playing Oppression Olympics.

Just some food for thought.

It didn’t originate on Tumblr though. I’ve watched a lecture/training by that David Jay neckbeard himself and it’s all right there - the entitlement, the denialism, the appropriation of the holocaust triangle, the absolute stupidity about the effect patriarchy has on all women’s sexuality, etc. I encountered obnoxious asexuals well before I came onto Tumblr. So yeah. I generalize. 

Are you admitting to being one of those kneejerky assholes who jumps all over someone who says the word “asexual” in any context?

(via saltmarshhag-deactivated2013011)

You know, just while I’m at it.

I hate the Tumblr asexual community. I hate the concept of demisexuality. I hate ~queer heteroromantic asexuals~. I hate people who think not wanting to have sex in and of itself makes them just as oppressed as LGBT people. I hate the appropriation of the pink triangle.

But if there is one thing I hate more than Tumblr asexuals, it’s off-Tumblr Tumblr sexuals. By which I mean sexual people who use Tumblr, taking their Tumblr politics onto other sites like Livejournal and Dreamwidth. These people are all wound up and ready to pounce every time the word “asexual” is so much as whispered.

"Why do asexuals have to be such special snowflakes?" they’ll demand the instant they see the slightest discussion of asexuality crop up. "Why do they always have to play Oppression Olympics and act like they’re more oppressed than queers? Ugh, demisexuality is so stupid!" they will add, even if nobody had even mentioned demisexuality up until this point.

When you do this, if you do this, you are the problem, not the innocent non-Tumblr asexuals you just jumped all over for no reason. When you bust out the “Queers are more oppressed than asexies!” line even when nobody had been claiming otherwise, you are the one playing Oppression Olympics.

Just some food for thought.

And now for something completely different.

Usually I post about asexuals being idiots. Today I’m going to post about sexuals being idiots. This is because, contrary to popular belief, I do not hate asexuals. I hate stupid asexuals — I hate stupid people, period.

So I’m hanging around on a certain anon community when I see a link to a post someone’s made on Plurk (Plurk being what would happen if Twitter and Disqus had a baby).

so apparently you can be an ace and still masturbate. this makes no fucking sense to me.

you’re still being sexual! you’re just doing it by yourself. it’s like saying i’m aurinic because i can’t piss in a public urinal

And from there it basically devolved into a bunch of pissing and moaning about how people who masturbate cannot be considered asexual omg!!

(It should be noted that the two most vocal people in this post are one of those middle-class white cis gay guys who thinks he speaks for the entire LGBTQ community, and a woman who was trolled viciously by certain Tumblr asexies and then decided that those people’s actions should reflect on every asexual ever.)

Guys, we need to decide on the definition of “asexual” here. While operating this blog, I was going by the assumption that the “-sexual” in hetero, homo, bi, pan, and a-sexual referred to the gender(s) one was attracted to; hence, a man attracted to a woman or a woman attracted to a man is heterosexual, regardless of whether that attraction is romantic or sexual. Although I admit, I did dumb it down and use words like “heteroromantic” because otherwise I would have spent all my time explaining myself to dumbasses hellbent on missing the point.

But if the “sexual” actually does mean that one has sexual urges, and therefore someone who masturbates is not asexual even if they aren’t attracted to anyone, this breaks down.

What exactly are the definitions we’re using?

College #21

melancholyhill-:

In which I expand on my asexuality after some interesting observations.

I mentioned that I got turned on by a kiss the other night and how confusing this was to me. I’m assuming myself to be asexual and here I am getting turned on, how could that be, right? I was so confused. He was making me feel things I didn’t think I could feel. Well after some more fooling around I noticed something interesting: it’s not the physicality of the act that turned me on, rather, it was the emotion I felt from it.

Rather than being turned on by the kiss itself, as in feeling his lips upon mine, it was the emotion I felt from him that prompted a reaction from me. The way he would become more passionate, the intimate look he would give me, or even just the tone of his voice when he told me how happy he was…those are the things that turned me on. When I feel the amount of emotion radiating off of him, it makes me feel good.

So that’s just an observation I made when he slept over—and I mean this in the most innocent meaning of the word—in my dorm last night. It wasn’t the smartest decision I’ve made, not in the the least, considering we both had class in the morning. Also, we didn’t get much sleep at all. He ended up missing his two classes and I ended up skipping composition again. But I think it was well worth it. Although I will not be doing that again unless there are no classes the next day.

I…

Seriously?

Are you serious?

"Rather than being turned on by the kiss itself, as in feeling his lips upon mine, it was the emotion I felt from him that prompted a reaction from me."

HOW DO YOU THINK “SEXUAL” PEOPLE OPERATE, EXACTLY?!

Submitted by anon

The other problem with the terms ‘sexuals’, and ‘demisexuality’ is that it assumes there’s some kind of sexual norm - an experience of sexual attraction that is the standard, that supposedly differentiates some people from being ‘sexuals’. This concept of normative sexuality seems to be based on ideas that [people who use the term ‘sexuals’] get from the hypersexual media, which doesn’t accurately portray real life.

missvoltairine:

Attempted Danger: “Sexual” and “Asexual” (TW: slut-shaming, rape culture))

outlawroad:

I don’t understand why some sexual people have a problem with being called sexual. I really don’t. And it’s not all of them that take offense to it either. Asexuals don’t use the word as a way to insult or demean people who experience sexual attraction; we use it because what the hell else are we…

1. It’s anti-queer and anti-trans. Because as people living under a cis-supremacist, heterocentric patriarchy, any of us whose sexual orientations are seen as deviating from the norm are ALSO seen as then being defined solely by those sexual orientations, which are then used to mark us as “perverts”, etc, due to our assumed “hypersexuality”. See also: the anti-queer rhetoric that queers are all sex fiends who spread AIDS; transphobic rhetoric about the “danger” of trans* folks using the bathrooms that are appropriate for them. Calling all queer AND straight folks who have sex “sexuals” manages to simultaneously render invisible AND reinforce that history (by erasing our actual orientations, while reducing our marginalized identities to a label that defines us only in terms of pure sex, which is exactly how homophobes have talked about queerness for, oh, the entire course of history).

2. It’s slut-shaming and rape culture. I know this is a heavy charge. But it’s true. Calling people “sexuals” reduces them to an assumed willingness to have sex. Rape culture is all about doing exactly that. Like, if I had a nickel for every time I’d heard someone explain that a rape survivor couldn’t have been raped because they were “sexual” before and/or after their rape, I wouldn’t need student loans. Under rape culture, men can’t be raped because they “always want it”; women can’t be raped because they SECRETLY “always want it”. Simply expressing any sexual desire at all means you “always want it”; rape is never seen as serious because we are defined as always being “sexual”, regardless of the fact that having sexual desire doesn’t mean you always feel sexual/want sex all the time (And that’s not even getting INTO how rape culture and capitalism contribute to this by sexualizing women’s bodies, and bodies that are coded as women’s bodies, against our will). Which brings me to:

3. It’s inaccurate. Sexuality - just like asexuality - is not a monolith. There are asexual folks who have sex; similarly, there are also people who don’t identify as asexual, and who experience sexual desire, who don’t have sex and don’t always feel sexual. Calling us all “sexuals” is not only dehumanizing, slut shaming, rape apologizing, anti-queer rhetoric, it’s not even actually reflective of the reality of many of our situations. I have sexual desire, but I’m not sexual all the time. Go figure! Sexual desire is not necessarily a constant; it’s often fluid and changing. I mean, ultimately this point is less of a concern for me that the first two points, because inaccuracy in and of itself does not encourage violence, the way rape culture, slut shaming, homophobia and transphobia do; but when you combine this particular inaccuracy with the rape culture-spewing, slut shaming, homophobic and transphobic society we live in, well, you get a big, red, flashing “DANGER WARNING” from me. 

4. It’s disempowering and disrespectful. When it comes to queer identities like homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, etc, self-determination is important. We come to these labels often through great personal struggle; through experiencing violence, through losing family members, through internalized hatred and fear. When we claim these labels publicly, we do so at great personal risk. In short, you should respect other peoples’ identities. Calling us all “sexuals” erases the sexual identities we have struggled so hard to own, and that is a shitty thing to do, regardless of why you’re doing it.

In short, I don’t CARE if it takes longer for you to type out peoples’ actual sexual orientations instead of just lumping us all together into the humiliating, hurtful, dangerous category of “sexuals”. You should do that, not because we’re all a bunch of nitpicky, “whiny” jerks who just want to feel special, but because to call us all “sexuals” is to perpetuate dangerously violent rhetoric, while actively disrespecting peoples’ identities. (Like, being called “sexuals” is actually starting to verge on triggering for me, which is a big part of why I haven’t been engaging in this debate very much up until now.) That is some straight-up damaging “no your intent really doesn’t matter here” shit. 

(I’m probably missing things; I didn’t touch on the subject of asexual folks who also identify as bisexual, pansexual, etc, mostly because I feel pretty ignorant on the subject and didn’t want to disrespect anyone’s identity. So, I’m sorry if that made anyone feel erased. I’d love to read a response to this from someone who identifies that way.)

You can’t split sexuals into heterosexual and non-heterosexual.

You can’t split homosexuals into men and women.

You can’t split women into white and non-white.

You can’t split men into rich and poor.

Just like you can’t split asexuals into heteroromantic and queer.

Heteroromantic asexuals are just like bisexuals, except for the whole same-sex attraction thing.

Claim to fight heteronormativity. Only argue with queer people.

LGBT people being killed? Shut up you've got too much privileges.

Why won't you let us reclaim a slur that's never been used against us?