Your situation already exists in many countries. A lot of muslim men in arab countries are poly and have multiple wives. They're not queer.
Why isn't asexuality included in pride?
- Thread starter Hermii
- Start date
Your situation already exists in many countries. A lot of muslim men in arab countries are poly and have multiple wives. They're not queer.
Exclamation-One
Member
And this is what holds the movement for gay/trans rights back. Attitudes.
Fixed that for you.
Asexuality? Well I ask because not having sexual instincts or desires at all would likely be detectable and correlate with active hormones whereas otherwise sexual identity and orientation is much more linked to genetics
Butterfly Witch
Member
They can if they wish, especially since many kinksters are LGBTQ+. However being a kinkster does not make you queer.
Okay and? Sharing similar experiences doesn't make you the same.
Because it's true?
Again, the BDSM community and the LGBTQ+ community have always been fairly intertwined and oftentimes kinksters are allies of the LGBTQ+ community. Both communities have different needs even if they can be similar.
Laws that prohibit rope binding don't affect LGBTQ+ members unless they are kinksters themselves. Trans bathroom bills don't affect kinksters directly unless they're trans themselves.
Has the BDSM community been a very strong Ally to the LGBTQ+ community? Fuck yes! Are you queer because you're a kinkster? Nope.
Allies are free, and thanked, to advocate. Allies are not Queer. Being an Ally does not make you Queer.
I guess if you want to draw a line, I'd do it at biology. Is your non-mainstream classification/self classification who you are on a genetic level or the culture you've adopted?
Biology: Queer
Not biology: Not queer, but you're welcome to lend your voice to the queer cause
Of course some could argue that people are born S and M but I haven't seen any literature on that front.
Biology: Queer
Not biology: Not queer, but you're welcome to lend your voice to the queer cause
Of course some could argue that people are born S and M but I haven't seen any literature on that front.
umop_3pisdn
Member
You say you don't want to engage in some abstract theoretical exercise, but then you abstract the two movements so much that they're both simply reduced to "sex between consenting adults". If you think 'narrow' movements first and foremost are brittle, then you haven't really looked at the effect of principles that are so abstract that they lack any kind of clear outline. Even the noblest ideals are subject to corruption if we can't circumscribe them well enough. And 'infighting' isn't the problem, in determining the form that societies take, people are always going to make competing claims. The response to that isn't to force everyone to be on the same page, just create the circumstances where those disputes can happen equitably.
excelsiorlef
Member
Are you seriously doing this?
Calling that post as being exactly like Christian homophobia?
Amibguous Cad
Member
I can see where you're coming from, but at that point it seems pretty arbitrary to include, say, aces and trans people as queer and not kinky people as queer. As far as I can tell you can basically do it two ways:
You can have a broader queer movement kind of thing where it generally represents the interests of all people outside the norm on a few different axes, while each of them generally has separate communities. People along the:
Straight-gay axis
Vanilla-Kinky axis
Cis-Trans axis
Allo-Ace axis
And probably a few others that I'm forgetting.
Or you can say "we're going to narrowly define queer to mean gays and lesbians, and that's not meant to be derogatory towards people on the other axes, it's just for the sake of clarity."
But the way "queer" is actually used is "your suffering counts as important and these other people's don't." It's really hard to read an expansive definition that goes so far as to incorporate every other sexual minority but stops short of the one the speaker happens to dislike as anything else. As long as that's the case - as long as every single person, yourself included, who argues against kink inclusion does so by belittling the challenges the community faces - I'll be fighting for that inclusion.
I think its more so a case of no one wants to hear what others do in the bedroom. Which isn't exclusive to kinky activities but sex in general. Especially at work because it is not appropriate.
Society looks down on asexuals for not being interested in sex which makes coming out as asexuals difficult. Having them in pride makes perfect sense as it gives them a place where they can be proud of who they are and hopefully not be judged. It's not a competition to see who can be the most oppressed.
I feel like sex is whats oppressed in society and things like celibacy are irrationally revered
This is what happens when you open the umbrella.
Suddenly Pride is about cis het dudes, just like everything else is. Queerness is about cis het dudes, just like everything else is.
People can preach inclusivity all they like, but us LGBT folk have to defend our spaces for us. Because it took a hell of a fight to get them in the first place, and if we open them up it'll take another, bigger fight to get them back again.
umop_3pisdn
Member
I think both are oppressed, sex for some vague and insubstantial moral reason, and celibacy for its practice seeming to remove people from 'society'.
With the wondrous magic of heteronormative cultures sexuality can be both oppressed and also revered at the same time.
Thanks, hets.
It's like if I came up to you and said "hey I'm also black right, because I'm oppressed too and you should be inclusive".
I am PoC but Asian.
Poor GRIMES
Banned
The umbrella is already open though. And let's not forget for one second the erasure of QPOC and non-binary, genderqueer people in the umbrella either.
I took issue with your "opening up the umbrella is negative" stance when speaking about the inclusitivity of cishet aces in the umbrella, and I see you still haven't replied to me about any of that.
It probably depends where you come from but throughout my life the attitude has mostly been sex positive to the point where people think you aren't living properly if you aren't getting any. Among the catholics I know, they like people resisting thier sexual urges untill after marriage, so if you are never interested in sex even after marriage they will think there is something wrong with you and tell you to go see a doctor.
umop_3pisdn
Member
I'm not sure if that is even worth acknowledging.
Exclamation-One
Member
The tone of this thread is so combative and about keeping things exclusive!
And yes, I am comparing the attitudes here to Christian (or otherwise) homophobia.
"The kinksters don't belong here!"
"The gays don't belong here!"
And yes, I am comparing the attitudes here to Christian (or otherwise) homophobia.
"The kinksters don't belong here!"
"The gays don't belong here!"
Oh for fuck's sake THIS. THIS.
I don't know about any of you, but MY queerness is way more involved than who I am or am not fucking and HOW I fuck them.
Boiling this whole thing down to sex is really kinda offensive.
Kinky is not queer. Some of the most vanilla people I know are queer. Like, this is not the same thing. At all. Kink overlaps with queerness in the same way that it does heterosexuality.
umop_3pisdn
Member
Sometimes exclusion is good, as not everything is a unity. Most things have points of both conjunction and disjunction, and articulating those is what makes our concepts clear and useful.
Poor GRIMES
Banned
I personally don't care whether or not you identify yourself as queer or not because, like I said, there's no general consensus of what that word is because of its multiple definitions and how its spread depending on your own personal identity. I'm not going to police your self-identification because I could care less.
And I'm sure you would know that I have been defending cishet aces in this thread for a while now and telling critics to promptly consider that inclusivity for cishet aces is not removing the emphasis on their issues. However, being kinky is not the same thing as being queer in the LGBT+ sense. You should not conflate them, because the BDSM community is striving for different things compared to the LGBT+ community.
Exclamation-One
Member
I get what you're saying. But gay/lesbian folks have made a conscious effort to reclaim the word 'queer' from its pejorative origins as a slur. Why shouldn't folks involved with kink claim the word for themselves as well?
If I am also queer, solely as a kinkster, and you're queer due to your sexual orientation, are we not brothers and sisters in arms?
EdibleKnife
Member
Are we talking about striping you of your rights as a person that likes BDSM? Are we talking about laws to make it so that kinky couple's marriages don't count in comparison to vanilla couples? You are comparing them because it's convenient to demonize the fact that people have given you legitimate reasoning that liking to use whips during sex isn't the same thing as being afraid to kiss your partner in public or enter the men's bathroom as a transman.
Because it's origins exist as a slur for not being heterosexual. Not a slur for people who didn't like to stick to just missionary.
PaulExcellent
Member
This thread actually got even worse!
Wow. Kinda shocked.
Wow. Kinda shocked.
Because sexual kinks are nothing to do with being LGBT. Being gay/trans is about an emotion that trascends just sex. I can be gay and not have sex but still have true romantic feelings for my male partner.
Your kinks are all about your sexual desires. By putting kink into the LGBT basket you boil us down to orientations that are just about sexsexsex, and thats just insulting. You can be LGBT and kink at the same time, but kink is not queer. They are two entirely different things.
but youre not queer because of your kinks
so i guess that's where you're having trouble processing all this
Why would we be???
You're really not articulating why you think these two things are intertwined. You seem to subscribe to some naive idea that kinky sex has no link to heteronormativity, and so by default it must be queer, but this isn't true.
The straights get plenty kinky. You are PROOF of that. How does this relate you to MY identity as queer?
umop_3pisdn
Member
This is rhetorical nonsense.
Exclamation-One
Member
For the record, I'm not conflating polyamory with kink. I consider kink to be about sex. Polyamory vs Monogamy is about getting what we need and want from relationships.
That said, I think many are missing my point and I blame myself for not articulating it well.
Kink ≠ sexual orientation or identity. I agree with this 100%.
I'm also not suggesting that people all have the same level of hardship in discrimination that they face.
All I am suggesting is that the definition of 'queer' should encompass, many, many more people. Just because you are 'queer' doesn't mean you are necessarily gay, lesbian, trans, asexual, etc.
In other words:
Queer ≠ LGBTQ+ Why should it... because history? Because reasons?
As a sex-positive person, I've got your back. As a sex-positive person, you've got mine.
Do I need to fight for my rights in the same way as you? No, I don't. And, believe it or not, that is actually an ASSET. Strength in numbers.
Let's assume Billy Bob Bumfuck likes to suck on his wife's toes. You can say he's 'kinky,' sure... but where does that attraction come from? And if it's socially accepted that any sexual behavior that deviates from the norm is considered 'queer', that means he's queer too.
And thus, despite being from a small, isolated community down in Alabama, maybe, just maybe, he'll be more accepting of your sexuality since he's in the same boat.
Why should it? Then you might as well label everyone queer at this rate, and the whole purpose and meaning of queer is lost.
This is basically how you've explained yourself. Just because you feel a bit different doesn't mean you suddenly join a group of minorities. Your interests are kink. Go join a kink pride club. You are not queer because of kinks.
Like we've said several times, being LGBT has nothing to do with being sex positive. Someone who is gay can dislike sex and even remain celibate. They are still gay because they romantically love the same sex.
And sure strength in numbers is great. You are an ally. But you are not queer just because of kinks.
umop_3pisdn
Member
Because the significance of queer identities is often understood in terms of how people understand themselves and their relations to other people on a relatively fundamental level, while kinkiness is about how people relate to their sexuality.
Exclamation-One
Member
How about I start a straight-only kink club that disallows LGBT folk?
How would the LGBT community feel? Could we honestly say, within the ranks of our group, that we are accepting and sex-positive?
Let me ask you again:
Queer ≠ LGBTQ+
Why should it... because history? Because reasons?
Who gave LGBT folks exclusive rights to the word 'queer' ?
In my opinion the only thing that would qualify you as queer is your bi-curiosity, not your kinkiness, but frankly, I don't care how you define yourself but know the challenges that queer people face go beyond who and how we choose to have sex with someone and aren't comparable to being kinky.
EdibleKnife
Member
Society did by historically and currently robbing the rights of, disenfranchising punishing and destroying the lives of people who didn't fit into the rigid categories of being heterosexual males or females.
Read my edit. LGBT has nothing to do about sex positivity. You can be LGBT and abstain from sex. Many people have explained what LGBT is but you keep conflating it to sexsexsex. Just because you like having sex differently doesnt mean you are part of our identity struggles. We accept for you having your kinks. But you insult our cause for trying to label yourself as queer. It's as bad as all lives matter.
umop_3pisdn
Member
So you've asserted.
Largely history, yeah. History (including the present) preconditions our understanding of everything. Queer theory as a part of social theory generally regards these things as equivalent. And we can disagree with history or with theory, but it's generally done for reasons, and frankly yours are weak.
You can use it all you want, but if you expect people to understand or grant merit to your use of the term, you'll have to meet a higher standard.
CrocMother
Banned
Being left out of the "Pride" spectrum doesn't diminish or devalue an identity. Pride culture is a specific thing with a specific history. It's not a catch-all for every oppressed or discriminated against identity in our society.
That's easy to answer. The majority of english-speaking people who used it pejoratively against LGBT people, until around the 1980s when they decided to reclaim the word. That's grounds for exclusive usage by any group that's a target of a word for nearly a century.
i'm saying this from the bottom of my heart
it's time to stop posting LMFAO
i am fucking cackling
why can't my non black friends and i call each other nigga? why should only black people get to call each other that!! wah!!
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Oh, good grief. You can't reasonably expect people to start asking the pronoun preference of every person they meet. That's insanity, and incredibly socially awkward to boot.
I think making assumptions, and apologize and switch pronouns when corrected, is perfectly fine. I think most trans people understand and wouldn't be offended if you did that but, if someone does get offended for a honest mistake, well, so be it. Better that than looking like a weirdo to 99% of the population.
...That's because it's inappropriate to talk about intimate sex stuff with co-workers. Christ, are you for real?
Kinks != queerness. C'mon bro/sis, don't be dense.
There's lot of stuff you can't talk about at work flippantly that have nothing to do with discrimination or hell, repressing your identity. Doesn't make it queer or queer-like.
Edit:
....................FFS
A Link to the Past
Banned
The fact of the matter is that nothing you're saying is anything I'm arguing, so "old man yells at clouds" is appropriate here. You're making a rant directed at nobody. Nobody is equating one part of the movement with another, people (well, I) are pointing out how absurd you look when you claim that the umbrella is being watered down because a thread asked why asexual people are often excluded from pride.
Seriously, get a grip lol
Poor GRIMES
Banned
I default to they/them pronouns until someone else addresses them in a gendered pronoun. If the person I've been referring to as they/them/any other variation of gender neutral pronouns does not correct that person, then I take that as a cue to start referring to them as their preferred pronoun. I do this online as well to mitigate the "assume everyone is White and male" presumption in anonymous communication.
Besides, we've gone completely off-topic because of one guy who adamantly believes he needs to join the rainbow bandwagon because 'all-kinks-matter'.
Back onto the actual topic... asexuality is part of LGBT, but I guess it gets less coverage and is less stigmatised compared to more prominent sexual/gender minorities. It also has a wide spectrum, and people of any sexual orientation including heterosexuals can be asexual and so is often ignored as being legitimately part of the LGBT umbrella.
Back onto the actual topic... asexuality is part of LGBT, but I guess it gets less coverage and is less stigmatised compared to more prominent sexual/gender minorities. It also has a wide spectrum, and people of any sexual orientation including heterosexuals can be asexual and so is often ignored as being legitimately part of the LGBT umbrella.
excelsiorlef
Member
Queer is not your word.
Butterfly Witch
Member
Heavens forbid we make the question common and casual in the same respect we ask for someone's name.
Besides, if you pay enough attention you can learn someone's pronouns super easy based on how others talk.
So a thread about asexuality ended up with something like 40 posts discussing about kinks and queerness.
Celibacy is not always revered in christian society. Sure, if you're waiting for marriage before having sex, that's the best thing ever, but when people notice you won't get married or you are not having sex after marriage, then you're definetely not revered.
Poor GRIMES
Banned
Yes, the only reason anyone considers it "awkward" is because its not part of the outdated mainstream views on gender identity.
I've always considered the lesser stigmas that ace people face is due to lack of visibility. Much like the intersex population and the lack of publicity, the macro sociocultural stigmas is henceforth reduced in comparison to the more visible gender identities and sexualities.