Not social justice from where I’m standing — Feministe
I almost always see asexuality brought up as a negative and inaccurately. For example, a disabled character or character of colour in a television show might be denied sexuality or coded as non-sexual. Someone critiquing this portrayal from a social justice perspective might condemn it as “asexualising” or some such, as though asexuality is an oppressive tool rather than an orientation.
As best I can gather, a good part of equating asexuality with the negative, with absence, comes from a skewing of feminist ideas around promoting sexual agency and fulfillment. I think a lot of feminists are operating under the idea that women in particular have been denied sexual pleasure, expression, and fulfillment, so encouraging everyone to stop being prudes and be sexual on their own terms is always the way to go. But the thing is, those terms, what happiness around sexuality looks like, is not the same for everyone. Models of proper sexuality still perpetuate the idea that “healthy” or “good” sexuality has to look a particular way, and that isn’t a way that’s going to fit every sexual assault survivor, or queer person, or, well, any individual, really.
I love the way this is put. I ran into this article, randomly, yesterday. The clarity of that thinking jumped out at me. It’s something that’s irritated me for the last decade. My less tactful version is anger seeing otherwise bright women pursue meaningless (later, regretted?) sexual identies trying to live up to narrow stereotypes or the notion that lots of sex as a biologic human right. Human imperative, yes. Birthright with a socially mandated quota, no.
In my little world of experience, I fully blame “Sex and the City”. Both for cookie-cutter sexual feminism and unwearable shoes.
(I will now follow up this with a post of of a random cute father playing with his son because I do like contradictions.)
