Standard Definitional Disclaimer: Asexuality refers here to a sexual orientation among humans.  It does not have anything to do with biology, whether that means the biology of non-human asexually reproducing species, or humans with non-standard anatomy (if you’re looking for that, google intersex conditions instead). Asexuality means not experiencing sexual attraction; it does not mean or imply that we are “not sexual” in any way at all. The term is analogous to homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, etc. For a more detailed explanation on this, please check my FAQ page. Asexuals are a widely varied group that may have little else in common with one another aside from not experiencing sexual attraction to others as a general rule. I can only answer for myself. My answers may include sarcasm.

On to the questions!

*************
Q: I’m asexual, and one thing that always seems to come up when people find out is the whole “well, no one will ever want you if you’re not going to put out” situation. sometimes I find myself thinking the same thing. how did/do you respond to that? (from Formspring)
A: Hm… well, for me personally, in my current situation, it’s fairly easy to respond to. The assumption that just because I’m asexual I won’t “put out” is bad in the first place, and depending on the situation I may or may not correct it. Usually if I do correct it, I will say something like, “You shouldn’t assume that all asexuals don’t want to have sex, some of them are sexually active, for whatever reason.” That way they’re free to make whatever assumption they want about my own sex life without directly asking me. Then I will point out that they’re just flat-out wrong. Being engaged myself and having had my partner plainly state that while she would like to have sex with me, she would still want to be in a romantic relationship with me even if we never had sex (and indeed, we’ve gone long stretches of time without), it’s fairly easy for me to counter these arguments with personal experience. But for someone without that kind of personal experience, I understand it can be much harder! I’ve had those worries that nobody would ever want to date me because I’m asexual myself. I used to try to keep in mind examples of successful asexual couples that I knew of from browsing AVEN, but there’s also other hard evidence that you can find to contradict this idea. For example, the very existence of Celibate Passions, an online dating site specifically geared towards people who want celibate romance and friendships, disproves the notion that nobody would want to date a person who doesn’t want to have sex. You can link to it as proof, and if people continue to insist that nobody is interested against hard evidence contradicting them, then they are being unreasonable and it’s totally fair to point that out. If the conversation continues to devolve—and I know that some people would even go so far as to predict eventual relationship failures, which they see as somehow inevitable—I’d just advise you to calmly tell them they have no basis to be making such claims and that they should drop it. If they won’t, feel free to take whatever steps you need to in order to get them to leave you alone.

Q: It burns when I pee, why? (from Formspring)
A: …Yes, dear. That is indeed a burning question. And one which I am not qualified to answer. I’m glad I know it’s not someone actually looking for one!

Q: asexuals and kitties why do they match (from Google)
A: Because they are both awesome. :3

Q: Can someone become asexual or is it a condition you are born with and may be never realized you had it until you read an article on the website BBC website? (from Formspring)
A: I have heard some people report “becoming asexual” before, however I’m unclear on what exactly they mean by that. I do think that sexuality in general has at least some degree of fluidity, but it’s not the type of thing you can consciously influence. You can’t “become asexual” by sheer force of will, and people who report having done so likely do not mean asexual in the same way that we mean it. I think those people are talking about being celibate, and not realizing that there’s a difference between celibacy and asexuality (covered elsewhere on this blog ad nauseum, so I won’t go over it again). There are, however, a few people within the asexual community who used to identify as sexual and have said that they did feel sexual attraction prior to a certain point in their lives, at which point they say they became asexual. I’m recalling some very old forum posts on sites I’ve long since stopped visiting, so I can’t give any specific examples (and for privacy reasons it probably wouldn’t be best to do so anyway), but as far as I can recall, most of them felt that they were on the low end of the scale of sexual attraction or somewhere in the gray area between asexual and sexual. We tend to tread cautiously in cases where a person says that they’ve had a sudden, drastic drop in their level of interest in sex, as that can be a symptom of a number of different health conditions. If that sounds like you, then it’s a good thing to get checked out.

Q: a newbie to understanding this orientation……are there any stats on gender, as related to this? More prevalence in one or another? Also, is this ever known from an early age, as has been suggested in other sexual orientations? Do romantic asexuals feel (from Formspring)
A: I guess that last question got cut off, feel free to resubmit it for the next round! Anyway, there are some stats on gender suggesting that asexuality is vastly more prevalent in women than in men, but due to the way that these stats are collected, they’re not very reliable. Most surveys are collected from samples gathered over the internet, which leads to sampling bias, especially in cases where the links get passed around on sites like Livejournal which are largely made up of women in the first place. It is also more likely that due to cultural pressures to be sexual, asexual men are less likely to find out about asexuality and begin (publicly) identifying as asexual, even if they actually fit the definition. If not for those factors, would there still be a big gender difference? Who knows.

As for the second question, because asexuality is a lack of something rather than the presence of something, and particularly because all children are assumed to be asexual before puberty (even though that isn’t actually true), it’s very difficult for young asexuals to come to the understanding that there is a difference between them and their peers. It’s not readily apparent that there is anything different until you’ve gotten past the point at which the excuse that “you’re just a late bloomer” starts to become questionable to you, and this point varies a lot depending on the individual. Indeed, many of us are so well-trained that asexuality doesn’t exist that doubts about whether or not we’re just “late bloomers” plague us well into our twenties. There is no universally agreed-upon acceptable age at which you can determine that you are asexual for sure even within the asexual community itself, so many of the younger asexuals will be told that while it’s cool to hang out with us, they should still keep their minds open to other possibilities. We are often accused of “closing ourselves off” to possibilities by identifying as asexual by people who are not familiar with the community, but actually we may tend to be a little too cautious to leave ourselves open to those possibilities, in some cases. There are quite a few 13-14 year olds that I’ve seen already identifying as asexual, though typically people begin identifying as asexual later than that. The youngest I’ve personally heard of someone identifying as asexual is twelve.

Q: Could you add ‘sentually attracted’ as a term? I ask this as I want to flert and turn on a partner, but when the pants come down I become disinterested. As you may know it takes about 6 sec of physical contact for most guys to start pulling it out. (from Formspring)
A: Actually, I already use that term! The way I define it, sensual attraction is about wanting that skin-to-skin feeling, wanting to indulge in something that engages the senses without necessarily being sexual with one another. It’s not so much just wanting to cuddle, but more about wanting to be close in a sufficiently epicurean way. Like lying close while feeding each other grapes, for example.

*************

Have you got a question you’d like me to answer? Ask me here. Remember to check the FAQ page!

I’ve been watching House for years now. When I first started watching, it was sometime between the end of season two and the beginning of season three, and I burned through the first two seasons very quickly and then showed it to my best friend and then-roommate, K, who eagerly awaited season 3 with me. We would stop all our other activities and watch it together when it came on. Sometimes other people would come over to watch it with us, and we’d have little “House parties” but more often, we’d just shut the door and get quite annoyed when other people would disturb us in the middle of the show. As the seasons have worn on the show has held my interest, but it’s been waning more and more. I no longer eagerly await each episode and watch it as soon as I am able. Now weeks or months will pass before I think about getting caught up again. But I’m still watching, even though I am losing confidence in the writers.

Last week, I happened to check the AVEN home page as I (too infrequently) do, and saw that an upcoming episode of House would feature an asexual couple. I watched the preview clip with a mix of hope and deep, cynical dread. I wasn’t surprised at all to see House opposing the existence of asexuality. I was glad that Wilson said it was a “valid sexual orientation,” although the preview (terrible as usual) proved to be misleading, because he was quoting a magazine article when he said that. The show’s formula includes House being nearly always right—could the writers really take the risk of showing House being wrong about this? (Spoilers below the cut.)

No, of course not. I didn’t think so.

For those of you who didn’t watch it, here’s the short version: the husband isn’t asexual because he has a brain tumor; the wife isn’t asexual either, she’s just been lying to her husband this whole time because she knew that being with him “meant making certain sacrifices.” She went on to explain that “a girl has needs, you know.” As an aside, I find it some ironic humor in that line, as I was told in a fiction workshop this past fall that the line “Everyone has needs” is very unrealistic. Apparently the writers of House find it just as realistic as I did. But that’s besides the point.

The episode’s writer, Katherine Lingenfelter, has been answering questions about the episode. Here are some of the things she has said to asexuals who have expressed their disappointment:

I am trying to communicate with several of the people of the asexual community who were displeased, so forgive me if I repeat myself. I did a lot of research on asexuality for the episode. My original intent was to introduce it and legitimize it, because I was struck by the response most of you experience, which is similar to the prejudice the homosexual community has received. People hear you’re asexual and they immediately think, “What’s wrong with you, how do I fix you?” I wanted to write against that. Unfortunately, we are a medical mystery show. Time & again, my notes came back that House needed to solve a mystery and not be wrong. So in THIS CASE, with THESE patients, it was a tumor near the pituitary. But I hoped I could (now it seems unsuccessfully) introduce asexuality to the general public and get them asking questions. All they need to do is one google search and they can see for themselves it’s a real community of great people. Originally, part of my dialog included thoughts about whether as a species we’ve grown past sex. Any time we tackle a subject, we risk the possibility of not doing it justice. I apologize that you feel I did you a disservice. It was not my intent. Asexuality is a new topic for me and definitely one I find fascinating. It is a subject I would like to continue to explore here or ..on future shows I write for. I think it speaks to where humans are now and where we are going. I will do my best in the future to do it justice. Thank you for feedback and please share any and all thoughts.

I appreciate your frustration. I can only say to you that through my research (Which included long visits to http://asexuality.org), I have my eyes opened to your community & if I did you a disservice here, I will try again in the future because I think your community is one that is growing and says a lot about what it is to be human today (tho historically there have been aces a plenty). Again, I’m sorry to do your community I disservice. I wanted to get a dialog going w/the public about asexuality but there are many masters to please in TV. I am open to any and all comments, suggestions, critiques. (This does remind me a a frustration for a writer for the CW who vented that they could never cast African American characters as criminals because the network was too afraid of offending them. Not a direct corollary, but perhaps speaks to the day when ppl respect asexuality as an orientation enough that we can do a story with the medical condition and it won’t discredit it all). Thank you for letting me explain myself/ramble.

These quotes were taken from this thread on AVEN, in case anyone is interested in reading more. Full disclosure: I haven’t read the whole thread, just the last couple of pages.

If what Lingenfelter says is true, and I have no reason to doubt that it is, it’s a pretty good demonstration of the reason why I think writing about asexuality in fiction is extremely difficult to do at this stage, if not downright untenable in some situations. Her original intention was good, laudable even, although a couple of quotes indicated to me that she may still have had some misunderstandings about asexuality herself—more on that later. Where it sounds like she went wrong—and I don’t really blame her for this too much, given her situation—is not sticking up for her idea enough in the editing process, not vehemently defending asexuality as a legitimate orientation enough to convince the other writers that it would be a better story, a more honest story, if House turned out to be completely in the wrong.

And no doubt it would have been a better story if House had been wrong. I can’t even begin to describe how much more compelling the story would have been if House had been wrong about this, even putting aside my own feelings about my already terribly misunderstood sexual orientation being portrayed in such a negative light. I don’t want to watch a show where the main character is always right. I want to see him struggle and FAIL sometimes. To the writers’ credit—and this is why I have continued watching—sometimes he does fail. Sometimes he does get things wrong. But it’s not nearly often enough.

My biggest problem with House is that it’s too formulaic, and while on special occasions the writers do write episodes where House fails, most of the time they’re not willing to take the risk of breaking their formula. Often, the formula works well enough. But come on, guys, it’s season eight. By now I am so sick and tired of House being right all the freaking time that my interest in the show—despite the fantastic acting, despite my continued love for these characters—is seriously flagging. And especially in cases where House would be very likely to get things wrong, like this one—I think it would, in fact, have been completely out of character for him to view asexuality as legitimate—he SHOULD. From one writer to another: if you ever find yourself saying that your main character “must be right” then you need to stop, take a step back. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. You’re character is coming dangerously close to becoming a Dreaded Mary Sue. You can write a character who is obsessed with being right, like House, but you don’t want to write a character who Must Be Right. If you won’t even at least consider the possibility that your character could be wrong, why write it at all?

And look, since there were two “asexual” characters, House could have even been just partially right and it still would have been a vastly more compelling story, although I would have preferred if he was just flat-out wrong about both of them. If the rest of the writing team just absolutely HAD to have House be right about something, why couldn’t he have been right about only one of them?

Here’s the thing: while I understand that writing workshops are tough sometimes, and especially in a group writing situation where you’re not in charge you can be easily overruled, intent still isn’t magic. And this episode is not just offensive, it actually does tremendous damage to the asexual community. (Protip: “Sorry if I offended you” and similar phrases are classic not-pologies that show that you do not actually understand what was wrong with what you did, and you should never say something like that.) It reinforces negative stereotypes and prejudices the audience—many of whom surely have never heard of asexuality before and put undue trust in medical drama shows even though they are fictional—to think that asexuality has been “debunked” by House. While it’s all sounds well and good to say that “all they have to do is google it” to find the community, this 1) overestimates the number of people who will actually be inclined to do so and 2) overestimates how likely they will be to a) find the actual asexual community instead of finding communities of people who hate us (like certain communities I won’t link to on Tumblr) and b) agree that it’s a “great” community despite their prejudice. I’ve mentioned this before, but it bears mentioning again that people are very likely to pay attention to things that confirm their existing attitudes and ignore things that don’t, so if they think that people only “claim to be asexual” and really must have something wrong with them, they’re much more likely to seek out things confirming that opinion than things contradicting it. And probably the majority of viewers will not seek out any kind of verification at all, and will just take House’s opinion at face value.

This post? This is damage control. I sincerely hope the writers of the show will read this and take it to heart, but even if they don’t, I hope at least some people who see the show and decide to google asexuality will see it and understand what’s wrong with the cowardly “debunking”—which would certainly not stand if this were homosexuality we’re talking about.

I won’t get into too much detail about each point, but here’s a list of reasons why this portrayal was awful:

1. Does it even medically make sense? Asexuality is usually lifelong, and we know that this guy has been identifying as asexual for more than ten years, at the very least. He has either been asexual since puberty, or he once experienced sexual attraction and then lost it due to the pituitary tumor. If he has had this since puberty, even if it is slow-growing, shouldn’t there be some other symptom besides a lack of libido? I’m not a doctor, so this is a genuine question, and if anyone wants to inform me, please do. But it seems dubious to me.
2. Asexuality is a lack of sexual ATTRACTION, it is NOT a lack of sexual interest or sex drive. I feel like a broken record saying this yet again, but it needs to be said. This distinction is not made clear in the episode. Quite likely the writer did not understand it herself. Some asexuals DO want to have sex for various reasons, and yes, some of us even ENJOY it (gasp!). You can have a sex drive and still not feel any kind of sexual attraction, so the treatment might not even make this guy sexual anyway, as was implied.
3. Since some asexuals want and enjoy sex, why the deceit? You made this character lie to her husband for over a decade about her sexual orientation. That is a VERY LONG TIME to be lying about such a serious issue, and it paints us in a VERY BAD LIGHT. This is probably the very worst thing about the episode. Real asexuals? Real asexuals tend to be extremely hesitant to come out to people, especially to doctors, because of the way that people endlessly harass us about what they think “must be” wrong with us. It’s trivializing to show a character who so glibly “comes out” to a doctor and then, equally easily, admits to her husband that she’s been lying to him about her sexual orientation for over a decade. Worst of all? If someone can’t find a convenient excuse for why our asexuality must not be real, if someone can’t find anything wrong with us to explain it away, you’ve just given them an out. You’ve given them a reason to continue to be suspicious about our orientation. If they can’t say there’s something wrong with us, they’ll just say we’re LYING. Or delusional. Not that there wouldn’t be people who would say that anyway, but you seriously don’t need to reinforce it. Making reference to how Everybody Lies is a cheap shot in this circumstance, and it is SO NOT WORTH IT.
4. Asexuality is not anti-sexuality, and asexual elitism is BAD. Upon learning that he has a tumor, Asexual Guy insists that he doesn’t want the treatment and that he’s “not one of them.” This implies that asexuals see themselves as somehow being “above” sexuals. Even more troubling, the writer notes that, “Originally, part of my dialog included thoughts about whether as a species we’ve grown past sex.” Seriously? Only a small minority of asexuals think anything like that, and these are soundly trounced by the rest of us when something like that comes up. We don’t think we’re better than sexual people, even if some religions treat celibacy as somehow more “transcendent” and godly and so sexual people sometimes just automatically assume that we do. Also, evolution is not teleological—in layman’s terms, that means that there is no “end goal,” there is no destiny or sentience of any kind involved—so it is wrong to assume that asexuality is the “next stage” as the idea of us “growing past sex as a species” implies. It is equally wrong to assume that asexuals will die out, not least because of the whole “it’s about attraction, not behavior” thing.
5. Asexuality is not a world view. Nor is it a lifestyle, although I’ve covered that already in numbers 2 and 3. Asexuals are diverse and have many, many different world views. Some of us even have world views that tell us that asexuality doesn’t exist, that we’re wrong and broken. Pretty much the ONLY thing that all of us have in common is that we lack sexual attraction.

And just in case the damage that this episode has done isn’t real to you yet, let me share a personal anecdote. Once upon a time, I met this guy, who I refer to as M. He is extremely similar to House, so I introduced him to the show. I liked him far too much considering what an asshole he is. He has all of House’s terrible flaws, including his extreme arrogance and need to be right all the time. He is irrational in all the same ways that House is, including the skewed view of evolution that House demonstrated in this episode (“asexuals are either sick, lying, or dead,” given House’s world view, implies that House thinks this is true because asexuals “would have died out,” as M said), while priding himself in his cold, rational, cynical view of the world. He had the same misunderstanding about asexuality that House apparently does (asexuals would have died out because asexuals apparently just don’t want sex), the same propensity to make cruel jokes about it (he often alluded to me being inhuman, just like House’s “pool of algae” comment), and the same eagerness to seek a way to find what’s wrong and “fix” it. He unethically ignored my wishes on more than one occasion, just like House routinely does to his patients. He was unwilling to listen to me about what asexuality actually is, jumping to the conclusion that my attempt to correct his misunderstandings was a “rationalization,” and he loved to get into “point-scoring” debates where his goal was not to actually have a discussion, but just to win and prove himself right. He was also “fascinated” with me in both a sexual way and in the way that House gets fascinated with puzzling cases, including the case of the asexual couple.

While M prides himself as a skeptic, he is not (or was not, perhaps, but I suspect that’s being much too hopeful) actually open to hearing evidence that contradicts his prejudices. Whether he realized he was doing it or not (and I wouldn’t put it past him to be that manipulative, he is certainly smart enough), he led a gaslighting campaign against me on the basis of his belief that my asexuality isn’t real, and that I’m just delusional “like a five-year-old cross-eyed child trying to drive.” He was exceptionally nasty about it towards the end, when instead of listening to me about the problems I was expressing with his behavior, he insisted that I was wrong and that I somehow had a “disability” (I don’t; I have completely normal sexual function, as my current partner and this study will attest). This has done considerable, long-lasting damage to me psychologically.

M is the kind of person who will find this portrayal of asexuality on House validating. He is the kind of person who will be bolstered by it and will likely become more antagonistic and abusive towards any asexual he meets. I doubt he would bother to google the response to this episode, although if he did I suppose he would probably be looking for me. I’m very glad I’ve cut off contact with him. The thing is, though, there are people out there who are even worse than M. I fear that this episode of House will embolden those people, and multiply not just the number of frightened but well-meaning people who are now certain that their friends or family members must have something horrible and scary wrong with them, but also the amount of abuse and harassment that the less fortunate asexuals face from less savory types.

So while I think that Lingenfelter got House’s (and Wilson’s, for that matter) character exactly right, the presentation of “facts” in this episode was extremely dangerous and damaging. It’s naive to say “Oh, it’s only these particular characters who are like that.” At best, really. It’s a lazy cop-out, and one that trivializes these characters’ issues at that. When the only representation of asexuality on popular TV is this one, if you actually intend to be an ally, you have a responsibility to research your subject better than that (by the way, I don’t think that AVEN is a particularly good place to research asexuality beyond very, very basic stuff), and portray it accurately. This episode had the potential to explore House’s willful pathologization of certain groups of people in a really fascinating way, while also exposing the truth, but that opportunity was instead squandered on more stigmatization.

I’m not going to say that House has Jumped The Shark (I don’t know if there was ever any such dramatic moment where the show obviously started going downhill), and I’m probably not going to stop watching entirely, although I’m sure for many viewers this episode will mark the moment where they write the show off forever. But I hold the writers to a higher standard than this, and they have fallen way, WAY short of the mark. I can’t say I’m surprised, sadly. Being a writer myself, I can understand why it happened, and I’m glad that at least Lingenfelter is listening to feedback and apologizing, even if her apology comes off as rather… well, clueless. But again, intent isn’t magic.

EDIT: There is a petition to get the exec producer’s attention here, please sign it!

If anyone wants further reading, please check out Sciatrix’s House link roundup post here.

Also, while I wasn’t thinking about the Carnival of Aces when I wrote this, it dovetails nicely with this month’s topic of media representation so I think it totally counts. I will post what I originally planned to write for the carnival later on. If you’ve written a post about this, I’d encourage you to submit the link for inclusion in the carnival.

Back when I ran my own guild (there were a couple of other officers who had stopped playing at that point, so it was pretty much just me), we had a zero-tolerance policy about it. There were several people who left after I explained that rule, one of whom I got along pretty well with. When I asked why, she explained that she firmly believed that “words can’t hurt you if you don’t let them,” which is pretty much bullshit. If that were true, bullying would be a non-issue, but it’s not. And most people don’t blame kids who commit suicide because of being bullied because they “let themselves” be hurt by the bullies. Words have real, measurable psychological impact. They have an especially heavy impact on survivors, because trauma re-wires the brain in such a way that it is primed to detect danger. Rape jokes don’t just bring back what’s probably the worst memory of your life; they can also trigger intense anxiety and depression, and there’s no way to turn this reaction off—that’s why it’s called “being triggered.” I tried to explain this, but this girl just wouldn’t hear it. Not feeling stifled in her choice of expression was more important to her than showing a little consideration for people who have gone through some truly awful experiences, sadly.

So when I saw the following conversation happen just a few hours ago in guild chat, I was awe-struck:

[13:00:29][G] [Warlock1]: im going to rape you
[13:00:32][G] [Warlock1]: irl
[13:00:36][G] [Paladin]: wow
[13:00:42][G] [Paladin]: not cool idc who you are
[13:00:48][G] [Warrior]: yeah that’s not a cool thing to be sayin
[13:00:50][G] [Warlock2]: agreed
[13:00:53][G] [Paladin]: not at all
[13:00:53][G] [Warrior]: and this is me talking
[13:00:58][G] [Warlock1]: as if i care
[13:01:13][G] [Warlock1]: goons are very sensitive
[13:01:23][G] [Paladin]: I could give 2 shits
[13:01:29][G] [Warlock2]: no rape is pretty fucking horrible
[13:01:39][G] [Paladin]: but its not something to be said jokingly
[13:01:59][G] [DK]: The fuck is wrong with you that you’re trying to defend using rape as a joke
[13:02:07][G] [Paladin]: Im not
[13:02:12][G] [DK]: not you
[13:02:31][G] [Paladin]: k either way, just saying, now its done

Last spring, this conversation would not have happened like this. There used to be long, drawn-out arguments about whether or not rape jokes are okay to make with several people vehemently defending them. But through those arguments, we’ve changed the discourse. It used to be that only a few people would call this behavior out, usually only my partner and maybe one or two other people, but this time neither one of us had to say a thing, because four other people had already dealt with it. The guild leader was online at the time and I’m unsure of whether or not he said anything—it’s possible that he whispered the offending player with a warning to cut it out—but he didn’t say a thing in guild chat.

So if ever it seems like speaking up won’t make a difference, like all it will do is cause a huge argument and alienate people, just remember this. It’s perfectly understandable if you don’t have the spoons to speak up every time, and you may not be able to change everyone’s mind, but it CAN make a difference. And the more people speak up, the faster rape culture will change.

Standard Definitional Disclaimer: Asexuality refers here to a sexual orientation among humans.  It does not have anything to do with biology, whether that means the biology of non-human asexually reproducing species, or humans with non-standard anatomy (if you’re looking for that, google intersex conditions instead). Asexuality means not experiencing sexual attraction; it does not mean or imply that we are “not sexual” in any way at all. The term is analogous to homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, etc. For a more detailed explanation on this, please check my FAQ page. Asexuals are a widely varied group that may have little else in common with one another aside from not experiencing sexual attraction to others as a general rule. I can only answer for myself. My answers may include sarcasm.

On to the questions!

*************
Q: how to be asexual (from Google)
A: This is one of those questions that makes assumptions that aren’t true. It assumes that you can learn how to be asexual, which implies that it’s also assuming that asexuality is a set of behaviors. Most likely, you’re looking for advice on how to be celibate. Celibacy means not having sex. Asexuality means not experiencing sexual attraction. Sexual attraction is not really something that we can just turn off or on at will.

Q: can you make an asexual sexual (from Google)
A: No, you can’t. Don’t bother trying, you’ll do way more harm than good. PLEASE.

Q: is assexuality an emotional problem (from Google)
A: No, it isn’t. Social reactions to it can cause emotional problems, but the same is true of being gay. Asexuality is a sexual orientation just like being gay or bi.

Q: can a man be asexual and still enjoy sex (from Google)
A: Yes.

Q: am i sexually frustated if i bite my nails (from Google)
A: What the… Seriously? No, there’s no connection. You might be nervous if you tend to bite your nails, sure, but…

Q: why do people think it’s ok to ask if asexuals masturbate? (from Google)
A: You know, I wish I knew. I think it’s probably a combination of things, or different people have different reasons. It does kind of depend on the situation, as in a few cases it might actually be okay (and if you have to wonder if it’s okay to ask someone or not, then it’s NOT). I know a lot of people are genuinely curious, and curiosity’s fine (that’s what this question series is about), but thinking that it’s okay to directly ask someone whether or not they masturbate is something else. I think for some people it might be that they think that just because you brought up a word related to sex that it’s okay to ask you intimate details of your sex life… kinda like those people who think that if someone talks about sex they must be open to doing it with them. In other words, they can’t understand discussion of sex that is detached and intellectual, and/or don’t realize that by directly asking about masturbation, they’re making it personal. Others might think it’s a “problem” that you need to have them solve for you, even though you tell them it’s not. And plenty of people just start thinking that you’re wrong immediately and that they have to prove it to you. Still others probably just go around asking EVERYONE about masturbation, without knowing or (more likely) caring that it’s usually considered rude at best, and especially bad to ask of an asexual person. Whether they realize it or not, they almost always come off in a way that communicates “you don’t deserve the respect I give normal people.” The “problem-solvers” and the people who want to prove you wrong clearly start thinking of you as a problem, and forget that you’re a person with your own agency.

Q: can asexuals still find people attractive (from Google)
A: Yes, in other ways. We can think people are beautiful, for example, while not feeling sexual interest because of their appearance. Or a myriad of other kinds of attraction that I’m not going to get into here because it’s been done to death. Poke around if you want examples. I’ve written about it some, but other asexual people are a lot more into categorizing different kinds of non-sexual attraction than me.

Q: is it possible to have a sexual relationship with an asexual person? (From Google)
A: Likely I’ve already answered this question for you if you’ve found this blog, but yes. Yes, it is. I have several posts about this already, most notably this one on things that help, and this one on what NOT to do, and I have a few more coming up, including a guest post by my partner.

Q: how to have a nipplegasm (from Google)
A: LOL, I find it hilarious that this search term somehow led to my blog. I guess that phrase must’ve come up at some point. It’s also weird that this search has led to my blog more than once. I’m not going to actually answer that question because there is no surefire way for any given person to have one. Some people don’t. And I’m not terribly familiar with techniques—are there actually like named, distinguishable techniques for different kinds of nipple stimulation? It seems like the kind of thing that looking up on the internet would make worse, not better, because then you’d be more focused on whether you’re doing the technique as described and not whether your partner likes it.

Q: if you have been celibate for a long time do you need std testin? (from Google)
A: [Disclaimer: I AM NOT A DOCTOR.] It seems to me that it would depend how long it’s been, and when your last STD test was. Some STDs can go a very long time without symptoms, or the symptoms might not show up at all (like herpes). And some (like HIV) may not show up on tests right away, so you can test negative even if you do have it. I’m told it’s standard to wait six months before testing for HIV, because it won’t show up on the test right away. But keep in mind that it can take a lot longer than that to be detectable in your body. If you haven’t been tested at least six months after you last had sex, go do it. And if you got tested like seven months after or something, you might want to err on the side of caution and get tested anyway, but I realize not everybody has the money for it. Look for a free clinic in your area.

*************

Have you got a question you’d like me to answer? Ask me here. Remember to check the FAQ page!

I’ve been having a hard time coming up with the will to post much lately. I do have a couple of ideas, and there’s a draft of a guest post on sexual attraction that C is currently (not!) editing, so that will go up whenever she finishes it. If anyone else would like to make a guest post to this blog, please let me know! I’ve posted a list of guidelines for guest postings that you can find at the top of the page.

I don’t want to do a retrospective on 2011, and I don’t make resolutions. But I hope that in the coming year, we each find our place in the world a little bit safer, a little more accepting. Good luck to all of you!

We have a word for someone who abstains from sex (celibate) and the idea of abstaining from sex in general (celibacy). Actually, we have two words for it if you count abstinent as well.

But as far as we know, there isn’t really a word for someone who has decided not to pursue romantic relationships for whatever reason (whether they’re celibate during this period or not). The closest we have (as far as I am aware, at least) is aromantic, but that’s different. The vast majority of people who don’t pursue romantic relationships are not aromantic, they’ve just decided that now is not the time, for whatever reason. Maybe a bad break-up, maybe they have career goals that they don’t want to be distracted from, maybe they just want to spend time single to get to know themselves well and gain a sense of independence. It’s the same as the difference between asexuality and celibacy, only with aromanticism and… a person who is abstaining from romantic relationships, I guess. You see what I mean? We have a description, but not a word.

Has anyone heard of such a word? It gets rather unwieldy to say that every single time when you’re trying to have a conversation about someone who is intentionally, purposefully single like that. I guess there’s “independent,” but that’s more of a general personality trait used as a euphemism than an actual term for it. Since it has that general meaning as well, if you say that without explaining what exactly you mean, other people are liable to get confused. You can say, “She’s very independent” about a married woman, too.

And what does it say about our culture’s values that people have never thought to name this concept? It’s like the idea of people being single on purpose is considered so wrong that people don’t even consider naming it, even though it’s not unheard of. It always seems to be considered just a temporary thing that requires explanation.

I do not identify as gray asexual anymore. At the time when I started my blog, I did, and there were no other blogs or forums out there focusing on gray asexuality, so I decided to start a blog where I could sort of think out loud about it. But after thinking about it for a while, and feeling like my identity was sort of in flux between sexual and asexual, I’ve started realizing some things which have led me to identify as just asexual. I’ve thought about changing the name of the blog, but I don’t know what I’d change it to and the idea of not thinking in black and white is still important to me, plus that would involve a lot of broken links at this point, so I’m leaving it like this for now.

When I started this blog, it was during a time of immense turmoil and stress, in which I had just been subject to a very heavy load of anti-asexualism and some very nasty gaslighting. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, it comes from a play called Gas Light in which a man attempts to make his wife think she is going insane by subtly dimming the gas lights and then denying that anything has changed. It’s an attempt to make someone believe that their perception of reality is wrong. Or, in other words: “There are four lights!”

When I started this blog, I didn’t recognize that this was what had been going on. I didn’t know there was a word for it until someone else used it to describe my experiences (this happened more than once, and in several cases I would argue that it wasn’t whatever someone said it was, though now I think their perceptions were accurate while mine were skewed by the gaslighting). I don’t necessarily think it was entirely intentional, and it really doesn’t matter whether it was or not, but throughout the time I knew him, M was manipulating my perceptions of reality. I was already off-kilter at the time because I was in a foreign country, and just from that I was having bouts of derealization (another example of a word I didn’t know until later), but M played the game of doing things behind closed doors and then never acknowledging that anything was going on in public, with the additional standard Pick-Up Artist technique of ignoring/avoiding me and the other girls he must have been treating the same way (several other people told me about them). More importantly for the purposes of this discussion, he led a sustained campaign for nearly a year to convince me that I’m not really asexual, only ever dropping it for long enough that I would let my guard down thinking he had changed his mind.

Which brings me to discussing attraction.

I was attracted to M in various ways. I found him somewhat aesthetically attractive on a visual level (sort of a push-pull sort of thing; if I just saw him in a picture without meeting him I would have thought he was pretty average-looking, though a lot of people seemed to disagree) and considerably more so on a sonic level (he is a musician). I found him intellectually attractive in a way that I know that he understands well because he described similar feelings toward House at one point, albeit in a much more sexualized way than I would have put it. When he wasn’t being a hugely self-absorbed asshole, I enjoyed his company enough that I was willing to overlook his transgressions. I wanted to cuddle with him and kiss him, but I never wanted it to go farther than that. Later on I did sort of want to, but only in a “can I get myself to be okay with this?” sort of way and not in a genuine desire sort of way. I had a genuine desire to be able to be okay with doing sexual things with him, but in reality that wasn’t happening. That got really confusing.

There was another thing, too: I really fucking wanted to scratch him. I’ve always had kind of a thing for scratching, though it’s not something that turns me on, just something I like doing. I’m decidedly more sadistic than I am masochistic. I never asked him if that would be okay because he didn’t foster the kind of relationship where that kind of thing would be acceptable—he never made any effort to gain explicit consent himself, and consequentially he was abysmally bad at sex even when I did unambiguously consent. He made it out like he was so open and accepting of talking about things like that, but he wasn’t. He was blunt and open about talking about sex in public to the point of being considered quite rude, but as far as anything serious or important goes, any time I would try to bring up an issue I was having with him it was always “your problem, not mine.” So something like that was so far off the table I didn’t even consider it.

I had all of these different sorts of attractions to him at varying levels of intensity, and I was being constantly told that I was not really asexual to the point that I began to question whether all of those things added up to what people call sexual attraction after all. The kinky attraction was particularly confusing to me because of how intense (and intensely physical) it was. But the thing is, I still did not want to have sex with M. In an ideal situation, yes, I think I would have wanted to eventually, and had he been the kind of person who would ask me what I wanted and listen to me instead of telling me I was wrong, I probably would have found it enjoyable. But had he been that kind of person, he would have accepted that I’m asexual, if not from the beginning then at least after a certain point. Not having such intense pressure to think I’m “not asexual enough” would have made me considerably less likely to identify as gray in the first place.

At the time when I first started this blog, there had been a lot of arguing around AVEN about who counts as asexual and who doesn’t, with I think some members accusing moderators of not being “real” asexuals. Maybe it’s just that I stopped going to the AVEN forums, but in the three and a half years since I started this blog, I’ve seen a lot less of that kind of elitism. I’ve also, through blogging and also from conversations with my partner (who still needs to make a guest post here about it), come to the realization that desire and attraction are quite separate things, and wanting to have sex does not make you not asexual. I did sort of recognize that before, because obviously you can have sex with people you’re not attracted to, but I didn’t live it until after I met C. Since I saw so many more comments judging other asexuals for being sexually active and (gasp!) enjoying/desiring it back then, and since I was already inclined to doubt my own perspective due to the gaslighting, I internalized those stereotypes too much and thought I was further in the gray area than I actually was.

There’s still room for me to change my mind, of course. The nice thing about the asexual community is that we don’t deny that phases of sexuality exist, and we don’t consider it less valid to identify a certain way for a period of time and another way later. But for the past… mm, roughly two years, the “gray” part of my identity has become less important and fallen away. I’ve stopped hedging and doubting myself.

Now, I’m just asexual. And there really are four lights.

Standard Definitional Disclaimer: Asexuality refers here to a sexual orientation among humans.  It does not have anything to do with biology, whether that means the biology of non-human asexually reproducing species, or humans with non-standard anatomy (if you’re looking for that, google intersex conditions instead). Asexuality means not experiencing sexual attraction; it does not mean or imply that we are “not sexual” in any way at all. The term is analogous to homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, etc. For a more detailed explanation on this, please check my FAQ page. Asexuals are a widely varied group that may have little else in common with one another aside from not experiencing sexual attraction to others as a general rule. I can only answer for myself. My answers may include sarcasm.

On to the questions!

************

The asexual flag. Four horizontal stripes, from top to bottom: Black, gray, white, and purple.

Q: does the asexual community have a flag (from Formspring)
A: Yes, it is pictured to the left.

Q: what is asexual porn (from Google)
A: I assume it means either porn of a person who identifies as asexual, or gratuitous images of non-sexual things, like adorable cats.

Q: can a gay istj asexual ever be happy? (from Google)
A: Yes, why couldn’t they be? This is like the most emo question I have ever seen.

Q: are there dating sites for asexuals (from Google)
A: There are some, though I don’t really know all of them as I’ve only used Asexualitic myself, and even then only briefly. I’ve had success with OKCupid, but I wasn’t trying to date other asexuals (or anyone at all, at the time). You might find some others just from the sheer numbers that OKC has, though I think a lot has changed since I last used it, so it might not be that good anymore, and anyway it doesn’t have an option for asexuals. A little while ago I heard about one that was not made for asexuals, but was geared towards people who want romantic relationships without sex, or who can’t have sex anymore because they’ve had cancer or something like that, but I can’t find the link anymore. Oh, and one site that isn’t asexual-specific but allows an option for you to list yourself as asexual is Fetlife, which may work for any kinkier-minded asexuals. If anyone has a handy list of asexual-friendly dating sites, please do post it in the comments.

Q: how do i let someone know i am interested in them romantically (from Google)
A: I suggest you tell them.

Q: what to do when you suffer victim blaming (from Google)
A: This is a tough one. I think it’s best to try to take a step back from the situation, if you can, maybe try to do something relaxing or distracting, if you aren’t so upset that you can’t focus on it. The most important thing is that you remember that IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT. It really isn’t. They want you to think it is your fault, maybe because they are abusers themselves and they want to keep getting away with it, or maybe just because they want to distance themselves from the idea of abuse happening to them, and pointing to some perceived fault of yours allows them to say, “I’m not like that, I would never let that happen to me.” They’re wrong, of course, it very well could happen to them, but it would probably take being in that situation themselves for them to understand that. Whatever the reason may be, it’s extremely hard to deal with people who blame you for your own abuse. If you do have people who support you, try to seek them out for counter-balancing the victim blaming, and try visiting a supportive website. For example, the _survivors_ community on Livejournal is really great.

Q: what does it mean to call a person obtuse (from Google)
A:  I’ll just quote from a dictionary: “not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull.”

Q: my partner is bi male i would lime him to masturbate with another male , why would i like this , i am female (from Google)
A: Well, why wouldn’t you like it? Have you ever heard of slash fanfiction? Yaoi? They’re very popular among women. For some reason, people who aren’t familiar with those things tend to assume that women aren’t turned on by two guys like men often are by two girls. But as anyone who’s been in any sort of fandom can tell you, that’s silly. It’s normal.

Q: is not wanting to have sex fear of intimicy (from Google)
A: No. It *might* be caused by fear of intimacy, but even if it is, they’re separate things. If you don’t want to have sex, don’t just assume you have a problem with being intimate. Are there other forms of intimacy you’re okay with? If yes, then you’re not afraid of intimacy. You might just not want sex. And that’s perfectly okay.

Q: what do asexuals feel? (from Google)
A: Wow. It’s sad that people have to ask this question. Contrary to the stereotype that we are alexithymic, autistic sociopaths, asexuals actually feel about the same things as everyone else, minus only the sexual attraction. (Btw, the same goes for people on the autistic spectrum, who are also often assumed to be emotionally lacking. Please never assume that.) Not feeling sexual attraction doesn’t mean we can’t experience love, or have any kind of stunted emotional development. Both on an individual level and a group level, asexuals have a wide range of different feelings.

*************

Have you got a question you’d like me to answer? Ask me here. Remember to check the FAQ page!

I hear tons about asexuality and fiction, how to handle asexual characters, whether to interpret various characters as asexual, and so on and so forth. But I haven’t heard much about asexuals in non-fiction. I don’t mean documentaries or magazine articles explaining what asexuality is, but rather creative non-fiction, things like personal essays and memoirs, things specifically focusing on life as an asexual person. There’s Tim Gunn, sure, but the focus of his book isn’t on being asexual. I haven’t heard of any other asexual writer doing any kind of long creative non-fiction. There are some personal essays, but that’s all I’ve seen. Even those are sparse.

The thing is, I’m not really a fiction person. I do enjoy reading fiction, but it’s not what I like to create. I can do it, I have done it, but I don’t really want to be a novelist or anything like that. I want to write, but I don’t want to make things up. So while I find discussions of fiction interesting, I don’t usually have a whole lot to contribute. Even less when the discussion turns to fandom, because I left fandom behind quite a while ago; that sort of thing just doesn’t interest me anymore.

How do you make an asexual character believable to a world that doesn’t believe that asexuals exist? This is the big question, for me, and I think the answer is, you can’t. Until asexuals gain some level of acceptance, asexual characters are going to be seen as unbelievable. I would rather not bother with fiction about asexual characters, in that case. I would rather tell true stories, because it forces readers to grapple with the reality of it. I’ll certainly applaud any writer who wants to write fictional asexual characters, as long as they do it well. But I feel that fiction can only go so far. At this point, I think non-fiction will be better at getting through to people.

So I’m working on a memoir. I wasn’t planning to announce it so soon, as I’m only about twelve thousand words in, and it’s on the back burner for the moment while school is in session. But, I’m working on it, slowly. And… you know, it’s rather intimidating, to write a memoir. What if I’m not a good enough representation of an asexual person? What if people actually think I’m lying? What if people claim I’m not “really” asexual, or not asexual enough? What if I get so much bad press that it actually hurts the community more than it helps?

Part of the reason I want to write is to present an asexual perspective to people who are not asexual. In particular, I think the two other communities most likely to read it will be the feminist/womanist community, and the atheist community, because it will deal with both feminism and atheism. I’m not worried about the feminists, really. But I’m VERY nervous about the reception it would receive from atheists, especially after Elevatorgate (which, if you don’t know… oh, just google it). Most of it is going to focus on the treatment I received from an atheist guy who was very much an asshole. He systematically went through every single item on the list of common bad responses to finding out that someone is an asexual, and when he was done with that, he invented some more.

Names will have to be changed, of course, and that’s another sticky issue, particularly because names are somewhat significant. I’m not going to worry about that until I start to edit it though.

Probably the hardest part about writing a true story, though, is writing the embarrassing parts. But those are often the parts that people respond the best to. Showing that kind of vulnerability is risky, but my favorite writers are the ones who take those risks. So that’s what I’ll try to do.

For the moment, I’m not going to talk much about this. I’ve barely started, and it’s certainly going to take me a while to finish. But I thought that it was relevant, since we’ve been talking about literature and media representation this past month.

So, the last homosexual survivor of the Holocaust has died at age 98. And one asexual person, for some reason, decided to say this:

This is so touching. This guy seems like he was a pretty awesome dude.

But… and is it just me… or do people say a lot about the LGBT people who were oppressed during the Holocaust but not a whole lot about the asexual and demisexual victims? I AM NOT SAYING IT’S NOT AWFUL WHAT HAPPENED TO GAY PEOPLE BACK THEN. I’m panromantic myself. I just… I know that people on the asexual spectrum were targeted too, and I wish we had more of a voice.

This is of course grossly inappropriate, and was swiftly debunked by other asexuals. No, people on the asexual spectrum were not targeted. At best, that comment shows a deep ignorance of historical facts. The original comment has been deleted, and so the only way you can see it now is via the people who reblogged it, one of whom was Sciatrix, who said:

I…. what? What?

This is seriously not okay. For one thing, asexuals weren’t targeted as asexuals the way that gay people were. And for another, this is not a horrific event in history that had anything to do with asexuals—of course people are not going to discuss us. No one was out as asexual in the forties! No one knew it we existed—even the Kinsey Reports hadn’t been done yet. And frankly, this particular incident in history would have been a time at which I would have been grateful to be invisible.

I just. I have no words. This, here? This is not a place where it’s appropriate to bring up asexuality at all. Seriously, no. Not our history, not our suffering, not our place to speak up. This is a time to listen to other people’s histories.

You can read the discussion of this here, and Sciatrix’s response to it here. As this got reblogged by more and more people, somehow that one offensive comment, which was refuted by other asexuals, became representative of the entire asexual community’s views, at least in the minds of people who hate asexuals. At the very least, of those who reblogged from Sciatrix’s comment, even if hers was the only comment by another asexual that they saw, they had to ignore her comment to do so.

This is called confirmation bias. It’s when people selectively pay attention to only the things that confirm what they already believe—in this case, that asexual people are just trying to co-opt other people’s oppression. That several other asexuals have called this comment out themselves doesn’t matter, because that fact is being deliberately ignored. Or maybe not deliberately in all cases; it’s possible that the people reblogging this just didn’t read Sciatrix’s comment closely enough to notice that she used “we” and “our” to refer to asexuals, thus marking herself as asexual to anyone who didn’t know that already. Still, either way, they are ignoring the bulk of the evidence in favor of the one comment that supports what they’ve already decided is true.

We should call out this behavior whenever we can, because hopefully if we can introduce enough cognitive dissonance, people will change their minds. That’s why when Jay announced his intention to stop talking in the comments to this post, I still replied, even though Jay hasn’t been back to the site since, so unless he turned on comments notifications, he didn’t see any of the replies to his comment. Hopefully some people like him did see it and were, if not convinced immediately, then at least made less sure of their position.

The thing is, if a member of a group that is not a minority says something offensive, it’s attributed to that individual. People don’t assume that all other members of that group are the same. If a white person says something stupid and offensive about the Holocaust, it’s just that person being stupid and offensive. If a black person says something stupid and offensive about the Holocaust, then it’s seen as a bad reflection of all black people everywhere, and there will be people who say that all black people are stupid. All evidence to the contrary will be ignored.

The same phenomenon is happening here, only with asexuals. In any group, there will be people who step out of line, and say offensive things. But to say that all of us are like that, especially when in order to even see the comment in question you have to go through other asexuals who are calling that person out, is pretty ridiculous. And it’s especially so because this exact same phenomenon happens to gay people, too.

If you don’t want one gay person who says something awful to represent all gay people, don’t think that one asexual person who says something awful represents all asexual people, either.