Invisibility--Advantage or Disadvantage?

[sciatrix]

So in the aftermath of that pretty horrible incident over on ontd_feminism--is everyone familiar with that here? It's an LJ comm, but I know the post in question was linked on AVEN--I was going through some of the other notable incidents other people linked to.

And one of the persistent things I noticed was a claim that invisibility is actually a form of privilege vis-a-vis queer politics. I am really, really suspicious of that claim, personally. Especially since most of the main things people bring up about how asexuality causes distress in the first place revolve around being invisible. I can see how the option to pass might be construed as a privilege, but... well, intentionally passing is not the same as erasure.

Does anyone else have thoughts on that? Or resources on invisibility as stifling/not a totally awesome thing? I feel like there's an argument to be had, there, but it's not anywhere nearly well fleshed out in my head yet for me to articulate it.

[ocelotofdoom]

I had a number of other problems with that thread you mentioned, but I won't go into them here.

I personally find passing not to be worth the trouble. This may be because I've gotten used to, and even in some (often backhanded) ways benefited from, standing out in other ways, and have never really felt like I was normal so as to miss it when I realized I was ace. When someone finds out I'm "different" in some way, whether because I'm asexual or have a facial deformity or have Asperger's, and draws whatever conclusions they do from that, the worst has already happened in a way, and it can only get better from there. When someone's still operating on the assumption that I'm Just Like Everyone Else, however, there's always some awareness on my part that the other shoe is bound to drop at some point. In the case of asexuality, it's always awkward when the people I've come to know over a period of hours or days or months get into a conversation about guys (or girls), or people's attractiveness, or my future plans, and suddenly that belief that they had that I was working off the same set of priorities, interests and beliefs as them is shattered. Also, at such a point, it always seems like people feel they have more ground to question my identity than they do if I come out to them immediately or at least relatively quickly.

I would imagine the problems with asexuality being invisible would be even more difficult for me if I eventually come to the conclusion that I am a romantic of any stripe. I would worry that the invisibility of asexuality, in combination with the widespread belief that all women are demisexual, would essentially force me into a situation where I would not want to pursue a relationship for fear of the belief that everyone, including my partner, would think that I just needed to be "cured" of whatever issues I had with sex by the Power of Love (or sex therapy or hormones or any other means, for that matter). If asexuality were better known, I believe it would still be hard to be romantic, but it would at least spare many people the trouble of (potential) partners not taking their self-identification at face value and trying to change them.

I don't think the invisibility issue makes it quantifiably easier or harder to be asexual than to be another orientation. It gives us a whole host of different problems than other parts of the queer community have, or at least different reasons for facing similar problems, such as alienation from mainstream culture and the possibility of sexual assault.

[bristrek87]

I know the post on LJ you meant. The one on ontd_politics was a lot better, far more positive and accepting. But it was horrific. The entire argument that we didn't have any rights to views on queer stuff because they were queer and they said so and it didn't matter if any aces identified as queer - they were asexual so it didn't count. Not far enough away from hetero.

And the way they kept trying to split us up into hetero and non-hetero was disturbing to say the least. Treating us like all asexuals are just a sub type of other people's sexualities. And aromantics aren't a subtype of gay/lesbian/bi/pan ergo they're hetero too. Even aside from them (and it always was them) trying to bring up the oppression olympics I was sick to my stomach reading it.

And that's one of the reasons visibility is important. We need people to understand that we're us, with our own identity that can, yes, be a part of the LGBTetc umbrella if you want but is a sexuality of it's own. We're not a bunch of rejects or weirdos from other sexualities, this is OURS.

We need people to see that asexuality is a thing of it's own and even if we do have different romantic orientations, even if there's variation amongst us (as if there isn't any amongst the others) it doesn't mean you can go treat the hetero/aromantics as lesser than the rest of us because they aren't far enough away from heterosexuals for your tastes. I'm demi-biromantic but it really pain me when stuff like that happen.


And there is of course the visibility so other aces can realise they aren't alone, they aren't freaks and so on. But that's a pretty well known issue.


With lack of visibility comes lack of understanding, a greater tolerance of intolerance towards us and so on. So it is a disadvantage, yes.

[sciatrix]

Oh god, there are so many problems with that thread I can't even list them all, either. I just wanted to focus on that one, since it was coming up in a lot of other threads which were really hateful to asexuals I'd been linked to. One of them in particular had the most asexual-friendly person in it arguing that invisibility was a form of privilege, but asexuals should be included as queer anyway! Which made me think, and not in a happy way.

I don't know if it's just that I've been participating in a lot of gender and sexuality classes lately, but I don't even want to pass most of the time. Passing doesn't help me at all. I identify as mostly aromantic, and I heavily suspect that any exceptions to that would be female for a variety of reasons. I am really not straight, and people who think I am are missing a lot about how I relate to people. And it's not like I even pass as straight well. Before I was out as ace, I got a lot of people who were just certain I was a closeted lesbian.

And then I'm taking this Human Sexuality class and the teacher likes to get us all to participate with (anonymous) clicker questions and half the time there's just no answer that even remotely works for me. And the other half I answer the things which are closest to the truth and I'm regularly in tiny tiny percentages of answers. And this is a class in which the teacher tries to make it not heteronormative, which makes it all more glaring by contrast. Sigh.

I agree, I don't think it's a problem related to easiness or difficulty as compared to the experiences of gay people. It's different, is all. I guess what I wanted to know was the specific issues invisibility brings to the table, why it's not just a walk in the park to not be known.

[bristrek87]

That's.... I wish I were surprised, but I'm not. Any time I'm asked there's never a response for me. I don't want to hide, I'm proud and happy to stand up and say I'm asexual and put it into the stats. But that option isn't there, just gay/straight/bi. And bi is the closest but it isn't me cause it's sexual. Harder for you I guess, there's no sexual version of aromantic unless you consider asexual but if that were there...

It's like because people don't know of us, don't consider us, we're slightly askew and out of the phase even in classes like your Human Sexuality one. In some ways, in many ways, it's minor. But it builds up and becomes frustrating and I wish it weren't there.

That said, I got some ribbon today to make myself a bracelet in the asexual flag. Had to go all over town and ended up finding it in a book shop of all places. When the women at the till asked what it was for and I told her I was surprised, and pleased, to hear hear her respond that she didn't know we had a flag rather than asking what the heck we are.

Did you talk to the class teacher after? Tell her your concerns and what was going on, cause I'd hope she would take that into account for future classes.


We wont win an oppression olympics with gay, bi and trans people. If we even wanted to start one up which I've never seen. I'm sure plenty of aces have been treated badly for their sexuality in the past, even people didn't realise that's exactly what was going on. Women forced into marriage and the roles that came with along with certain attitudes that, well. An asexual women in that situation? In the same situation as a lesbian woman. There's probably a few things similar, or when we have a romantic orientation or gender identity that falls in line with traditional LGBT groups.

But for being asexual alone we've never had it near so bad. What we have is different, and easier I think in many ways if you look at it objectively. Could it get worse if more people find out about us? Possibly.


But that doesn't mean it'd be damned nice to be recognised and known by the world.

[sciatrix]

I really need to sit down with her, but... I have a lot of do and I'm avoiding it because the idea fills me with terror. (Visibility work usually does. I try to do it anyway when I have the energy, but I'm not at the stage yet where I'm totally comfortable speaking out as asexual.)

It actually did get better when I was frustrated and complaining to a friend that there was nothing for me as I was packing up my things to go after class. I'm ah, not that quiet if I'm not actively monitoring my voice level and I sit right in the front row, about three feet from her desk, and she knows I'm asexual from a previous class I had with her. Suddenly there started being shoehorned-in options for things like "I have never had a crush on anyone" when the question was about the age of your first crush.

I don't think I've ever seen an asexual person attempt to start an Oppression Olympics contest with an. And possibly this is because, well, we'd lose. And possibly it's because of this general trend I've observed where asexuals claim that we don't experience any oppression at all, as if asexuality has no impact on our lives. My experience is that asexuals seem very hesitant to discuss asexuality as a place on an axis of oppression, and that this is a trend which is particularly strong on AVEN. (I don't see it nearly as much on the blogosphere or on LJ.)

[you*hear*but*do*you*listen]

Well, all of you know I am a visibility nut, so keep that in mind.

I see invisibility as a major disadvantage. While there are probably many asexuals who see sexuality as private, there are many aces who also are very comfortable being out. And for those aces who want to be out, invisibility's a bitch. Trying to be out while being told your orientation doesn't exist, you have a biological disorder, you just need to get laid, etc. is annoying to say the least. It's especially frustrating when people take you on as a personal make-'em-sexual project, usually by trying to give you an exposure to sexual media etc.

There are separate issues that both aromantic and romantic asexuals have, and I won't try to say who has it worse, but I got flak when I identified as aromantic and I get flak now, though I currently identify as homoromantic. And all aces who try to be out may run into problems with acquaintances, which sucks, but one of the biggest reasons I think people need to know about asexuality is, well, health professionals need to know. I dream of a world where people ask "Are you into men, women, both, those in between, or neither?" and no matter what that answer is, your PCP won't tell you to get your hormones checked and your psychiatrist won't diagnose you with Sexual Arousal/Interest Disorder.

Ugh. Nobody will ever convince me that invisibility is an advantage.

[murray]

Although it's hard for me to know for sure because I'm not really out (I'm not really in, but I don't feel up to the necessary explanations and I don't want to make a bad impression if I'm the first asexual they've met), the GLBTQA group I'm involved with seems to feel that anything that's not heteronormative is queer. The few individuals I've spoken to so far certainly seem comfortable with asexuality being distinctly separate from heteronormativity.

In my old school, queer was used pretty much the same way. "If you don't feel that you fit in with society's expected sexual norms, then you're queer," was how they put it. So I identify as queer anyway, despite it's apparently more common only-for-gays/bis/pans meaning.

What would you call being probably demi-romantic, with your attraction directed equally towards members of the opposite gender (generally the more sexless members) and genderless/agender/nurtrois/androgynes? Is that queer in the common sense of the term, sexually or not? Or is it just confusing?

[you*hear*but*do*you*listen]

Oct 29, 2010 18:47:00 GMT -5 murray said:

Although it's hard for me to know for sure because I'm not really out (I'm not really in, but I don't feel up to the necessary explanations and I don't want to make a bad impression if I'm the first asexual they've met), the GLBTQA group I'm involved with seems to feel that anything that's not heteronormative is queer. The few individuals I've spoken to so far certainly seem comfortable with asexuality being distinctly separate from heteronormativity.

In my old school, queer was used pretty much the same way. "If you don't feel that you fit in with society's expected sexual norms, then you're queer," was how they put it. So I identify as queer anyway, despite it's apparently more common only-for-gays/bis/pans meaning.

What would you call being probably demi-romantic, with your attraction directed equally towards members of the opposite gender (generally the more sexless members) and genderless/agender/nurtrois/androgynes? Is that queer in the common sense of the term, sexually or not? Or is it just confusing?

You know what, Murray, I don't think I've ever properly understood the concept of being demiromantic. Would you care to explain, please? Then maybe I could answer your question better.

[murray]

As it pertains to myself, it means that I am capable of romantic attraction and would like it in my life to some extent, but that I experience it infrequently and then only to people I am friends with already (not necessarily close friends, though, which keeps it from being awkward). It's not something I pursue, and I'm happy without it, but it's something that I would welcome if it were to happen along. It's not an everyday consideration, I'm never "scoping" for potential interests or considering anybody for their possibilities.

It really doesn't cross my mind except as an abstract wish except on the rare occasion that I'm mildly interested in an acquaintance, which I call a "fascination" because "crush" doesn't really seem appropriate. The feeling only grows past this point as it is encouraged to do so, by me or by the situation, which means that I don't really know what may come to happen afterward, as the situation has never been encouraging.