Hi there. I’m glad you reached out to me about this because you must have really upset your friend by saying stuff like this to them.
It’s easy to see why not only cishet people, but also LGBT+ people, think that asexuality is fake. The world is awash with sex and sexual attraction. It’s everywhere. And everyone is supposed to want it and feel it. It’s so extremely normalised that the idea that someone could be literally UNABLE to feel sexual attraction is, to many people, absolutely bizarre and a joke.
Even if you acknowledge that asexuality is real, it’s also easy to see why you would be so quick to reject and get angry at asexual people who call themselves LGBT+. Because asexual people are not like you, are they. Unless they are trans, asexuals don’t have gender troubles, and unless they experience same-gender romantic attraction, asexuals don’t experience same-gender attraction! Lesbian, bi, gay etc people can all be joined together in their experience of same gender attraction, and all trans folks, binary and non binary, can be joined together in their experience of feeing a disconnect from their assigned birth gender.
The result? No one wants asexuals near them. People can’t relate. No one else feels the way asexuals do and people don’t think they should be part of the group. They’re not the same as you.
But oh god, they are not allowed in the cishet club either.
The first thing you need to try and unlearn is that asexuality is in any way similar to heterosexuality. It’s not. It’s so, so fucking not. It’s painful how different it feels to be asexual compared to being heterosexual. Telling an ace person that asexuality isn’t ‘THAT different from heterosexuality’ is about as accurate as saying being gay isn’t ‘THAT different from heterosexuality’. Being asexual means you do not experience sexual attraction, ever. EVER. And while that might seem easy to you, it’s an extremely painful and terrifying thing to learn about yourself, in a world where everyone is expected to have an array of sexual experiences, fall in love, get married, and anyone who doesn’t do that is strange and a freak.
Learning you are asexual can be terrifying. When you realise you’ve never had a crush, when all your friends have had ten each, you are terrified. When you pass the age where people have started dating and having sex and you still feel nothing – NOTHING – you are terrified. When you think about ever falling in love and the idea disgusts you, or you think about falling in love and you crave it, god you CRAVE it, but you know you can’t ever feel that, you are terrified. When you realise you will never be able to enjoy a normal romantic/sexual relationship, the ones full of passion like you see in the movies, and people will reject you because you can’t fancy them in that way, and there’s a higher chance for you than anyone else that you will simply die alone, without love, without children – you are terrified.
You think being ace is the same as heterosexuality? You think it’s an easy thing to learn about yourself? Explain the terror, then. I’m all ears.
The fact you see asexuality as ‘hesitation’ is really horrifying to me. Asexuals aren’t attracted to the opposite gender but ‘hesitant’ to act on it. Asexuals DO NOT feel attraction. To anyone. It’s not a choice. It’s not a way of life. It’s not the same as celibacy out of choice, or being a ‘prude’, or waiting till marriage. It is ingrained in you, just like being gay is, just like being trans is. It is a part of you that no matter how hard you try to will it away, no matter how hard you try to persuade yourself otherwise, you cannot help it. You DO NOT feel attracted to ANYONE.
And in saying all this, I fully acknowledge that asexuals do not experience the extent of oppression that other LGBT+ folks do. There are no laws regarding asexuality. Lesbian, gay, bi, trans, and other LGBT+ folks no doubt experience a higher level and intensity of systematic oppression to asexuals, more frequently go through hard experiences due to their orientation or gender. But since when did being LGBT+ become a competition for ‘who’s the most oppressed’? Is that what LGBT+ is? You’re only allowed in the club if you’re ‘oppressed enough’? If you’re ‘gay enough’? If you’re ‘trans enough’?
If you need persuading that asexuals do experience their own form of oppression, though, consider the number of asexuals who are coerced into sex in order to ‘fix’ them. Consider the emotional pain that I have already discussed, of feeling that there is something fundamentally wrong and gross about you because you feel attracted to no one. Consider the number of asexuals who are hounded or emotionally abused by their families for failing to find partners. Consider the number of asexuals who force themselves to have sexual experiences, because it is the norm, because they don’t even know what asexuality is, because THEY think that they are just ‘hesitant’, despite finding sex disgusting and feeling no desire to do it. Do you really think asexuals are just running around, free and happy and content in who they are? They aren’t. I’m not.
So go ahead. Cast aside asexuals if you want. Call them attention-seeking, call them special snowflakes. Ignore the pain they feel. Make them go through it alone, in pain, terrified of what they are. Why on earth would the LGBT+ community be a place to support people like that!?
Messages like the one you have just sent me gives me further reason to never talk about that part of myself. To just sit and cry about it at home day after day because I do not like myself. Because I feel that nobody will accept me or understand who I am. I could list the number of things people have said to me to discredit and laugh at this part of myself, but it’s people like you who make me embarrassed to talk about it, too scared to own a label and talk about it freely and openly.
I thought, going into this, that the LGBT+ community was one of total respect, understanding, and empathy. I learnt pretty quickly that it is not.
I send love to your asexual friend. I really, really do.
Disclaimer: I am very aware of the nuances of asexuality, of the differences between romantic/aesthetic/sexual attraction, but sadly it seems that many people can’t even grasp the basic concept of asexuality, so I don’t quite think they’re ready for that yet.
my intention with transcribing that exchange from rose buddies was just to let people know that hey! griffin doesn’t really like it when you call pictures of him as a kid are “cursed.” i’ve probably said stuff like that once or twice in the past unthinkingly! but now, knowing he isn’t cool with it, i’m gonna stop. i advise you do too in order to respect griffin’s boundaries! you aren’t a bad person if you said “cursed image” in the tags of a post once or twice – what matters is that you change now that you know better.
but as a general word of advice, since i think this is a good time – don’t reblog photos of real people (especially internet personalities) if you don’t know where they came from. it’s fine to reblog pictures of the mcelroys as kids if the mcelroys actually consented to publishing them. for example, the photo of them with dave chapelle, or the pictures of travis and griffin that mary smirl posted for maxfundrive – those are meant to be seen.
but if you don’t see a PUBLIC instagram, twitter, or facebook source? if you can’t tell if something is MEANT to be shared? don’t reblog them. because sure, that blurry photo of a teenage nick robinson is a bit goofy and “relatable,” but are you seeing it because someone rifled through his second aunt’s private facebook?
it’s alright to be fans of real people. just remember: don’t be cruel, don’t be creepy, and respect their boundaries, privacy, and feelings. they’re just regular people who say funny stuff for a living. their whole LIVES don’t exist for our consumption. we’re fortunate that they feel comfortable sharing what they do. don’t abuse that trust.
baffling how much of this site is just conservative protestantism with a gay hat
you know what i’m in just enough of a bad mood that i’m ready to nail my grievances to the church door so let’s fucking go
black and white morality wherein anyone who doesn’t believe/think/live exactly as I do is a dirty sinner Problematic and probably a predatory monster
everyone is a sinnerProblematic but true believerspeople who activist the right way according to my worldview are still better than everyone else, and I will act in accordance to this belief in my own superiority to let everyone else know I’m better than them because I found Jesusam the most woke
casual and fucking omnipresent equations of womanhood with softness/goodness/purity/nurturing to remind every woman who isn’t/doesn’t want to be any of those things that they’re doing it wrong
aggressive desexualization (particularly of women’s sexuality, to the point where it may as well not exist at all) accompanied by pastels [not a criticism directed ace ppl having a right to sex-free content and spaces but specifically targeted at a wider problem resulting from the previous point]
YOU’RE VALID AND JESUS LOVES YOU and neither of these platitudes achieves a goddamn thing
historical context is for people who care about nuance and we don’t have time for either (see: black and white morality)
lots of slogans and quotes and nice little soundbites to memorize but does anybody actually study the source material with a critical eye to make their own informed analysis
the answer is no
I’ve been to bible study groups don’t @ me I know what the fuck I’m talking about
Good Christians™ Nice Gays™
don’t fraternize with/let themselves be influenced by non-Christians those terrible queers
all the media one consumes must be ideologically pure or it will surely harm the children
it is Our Sacred Duty to protect the children from Everything, thus ensuring their innocence/purity/etc until such time as they are idk probably 25 years old
literally just “think of the children” moral panic y’all can fuckin miss me with that
people who don’t conform to the dominant thinking WILL be excommunicated/driven from the social group, and any wrong treatment they suffer will be seen as a justified consequence of their wrong thinking
I Saw Goody Proctor With The Devil And She Had A Bad Steven Universe Headcanon
Thank you for breaking it down like that because so many of us have been saying it but to see a play by play breakdown comparison is just…Thank you.
tonight (4/6) the united states navy launched 59 tomahawk missiles from the mediterranean at a syrian air base. the strike was approved by trump, but was not approved by congress (we don’t know whether or not congress was notified prior to the strike or not).
the us launched this strike as a response to syrian president assad’s chemical warfare on his own people that killed approx 70. the strike was aimed at the air base we believe carried out the chemical warfare. so far, no casualties are reported. in 2013, a similar chemical attack happened. i believe approx 1400 died then and syria was forced to hand over its chemical weapons, though obviously they didn’t hand over all of them.
it is also important to note that in 2013 obama asked congress to approve a similar strike, but congress ignored him. this week, hillary condoned such a strike. the strike is being described by military experts as a “proportional response.”
what does this mean?
the strike is intended to show us power on the world stage and to further force assad from attacking his own people.
with concern about russia–assad’s closest ally–it is notable that the russian military was given advanced notice of the strike and it doesn’t appear that any russians were killed. the death of russians, obviously, would have other implications due to our precarious relationship with them atm.
the strike could potentially put american troops in danger of syrian military retaliation.
we don’t know if further strikes will ensue. i wouldn’t necessarily bet on it, but it’s possible.
is this constitutional?
not sure. the legal situation is unsure. usually, a president would go through congress for this, but if the administration can spin it to say that they were concerned abt the welfare of american troops, it could be constitutional. as i’ve said, though this sounds like a huge deal, it’s actually the most minor proportional response to assad, according to experts.
democrats are already voicing concern about trump and the administration’s flip on syria (earlier this week, trump said it was up to the syrian people if assad remains president and he has a history of tweeting that he wouldn’t interfere in syria while obama was president).
also:
it’s notable that michael flynn was replaced by mccaster as national security advisor and steve bannon no longer holds a position on the national security council.
it’s also extremely that important that while the trump admin says it won’t tolerate assad’s abuse of his people, he also doesn’t want to let refugees in.
here’s a washington post article on the strike: [x]
