#asexual feminist

[mossy-aro]

sorry but i am SO deeply tired of the 'aphobia isnt real' arguments because they are literally always being conducted in such bad faith. NO there is not specific societal or legal discrimation against aces and aros BECAUSE we are asexual and or aromantic. you cannot hold specifically bigoted beliefs towards a group you do not even know exist. there ARE, however, underlying and deeply pervasive systems and beliefs that actively erase, dehumanise and make life tangibly more difficult for aro and ace people on a social, economic and legal basis. most of this is due to hyperinvisibility, the medicalisation of any nonnormative + misunderstood orientations, the elevation of romance + romantic structures as the most important aspects of interpersonal relationships in society, as well as the nuclear atomisation of the family. among other things. like. amatonormativity has never been ABOUT aromantic people specfically oh my GOD. its simply the underlying social belief that everyone is expected to be in monogamous romantic relationships and that those relationships are expected to the default centre of one's life. its something that affects EVERYONE! but within that it affects aromantic people in a specific and heightened way because of our inability to participate in it in a societally acceptable way. like these are not 'aromantic' or 'asexual' or 'polyamorous' issues specifically. these are theories and terms that originated within feminist + queer sociology studies! its all part of the wider underlying social fabric! aspec people are simply pointing out that we are often affected by these things in unique and often unseen ways.

the idea that we believe people actively 'hate' us for being asexual or aromantic is completely ridiculous. most people i know do not even know the definition of those words! so how could they hate me for it. they could however, for example, hold the pervasive + societally unchallenged belief that not experiencing sexual or romantic attraction is a medical issue or something concerningly abnormal in a human being + something i should get fixed. and its not uncommon that when you DO explain that its simply your orientation to them, they continue to medicalise it and see it as some sort of issue. genuinely so deeply tired of having to explain this to people time and time again when they only want to cherry pick the most ridiculous arguments to respond to and then act as if that's a majority held opinion in the aspec community. like i actually think we are aware of how society views us we're not fucking deluded and stupid. we don't have victim complexes we are just pointing out facts that yall are so desperate to ignore. UGHHHHH

[whereserpentswalk]

Twenty four year olds are adults.

Twenty one year olds are adults.

Eighteen year olds are adults.

Petite or 'smol' young adults are adults.

Transmasc young adults are adults.

Asexual young adults are adults.

Autisitc young adults are adults.

Young adults you find cute or wholesome are adults.

These people consume media as adults.

These people make life choices as adults.

These people have sex as adults.

Reblog if you agree.

[fixing-bad-posts]

ily kinky asexual feminists <3

[femrodeeeeo]

Girl get's admitted to mental health ward due to trauma from rape gets raped by 13yr old male patient. She was not helped despite staff being aware of what was happening.

I'm so horrified by what happened to this girl in a place where she was supposed to be to safe and given help to heal from her previous sexual assault. She is unable pursue legal action due to the severity of the trauma the rapist caused her as well as the legal process itself. She would be required to admit herself in that same hospital in order for them to monitor her mental wellbeing during the case.

I can't find anything to express the rage I felt when I first of this case.

[ratedpinnix24]

Yo fking favourite ❤️❤️❤️

[museumofferedophelia]

Some of the faggiest 💅 dykiest 🪓 twinkiest 💁🏻 queerest 🌈 sex 🥵 🔥 occurs between 👨🏻 men and 👩🏻 women 🤯 . Don't let those nasty genital fetishist homos 👨🏻‍🤝‍👨🏾 🙅🏻‍♀️ tell you that intercourse 👉🏻👌🏻 has to occur between people of the same sex 🥱 in order to be gay 🍆 💦 gay is whatever you want it to be. We all define gayness for ourselves!

Straight het PIV is more subversive than boring 🏠o sex, they're all elitist 🚩 exclusionist 🖕🏻 gatekeepers anyway

❤️ Love, beans (he/him, ze/zir), your local minor transmasculine achillean faggot gremlin ❤️

-How some of y'all be sounding like

[gray-ace-space]

it's international women's day, so shoutout to asexual women! you're living in a world that's against you, and every day that you keep going is an act of defiance. you're strong, you're brave, and you're beautiful. your asexuality is something to celebrate, and so is your womanhood. and yes this includes trans women - especially trans women. you're incredible and i'm proud of you! keep being you! ❤

[letters-from-x]

'Radfems' need to stop claiming that women who don't have sex are fucked up, broken, or need medical intervention. Whether they're asexual, victims of trauma, or celibate for another reason, nobody is obligated to have sex or to take action to try to force themselves to want sex when they don't.

It's appalling that anyone claiming to be a radfem would attempt to guilt, berate or shame women into sexual activity or medical intervention they neither want nor need, when it's so obviously against the principles of radical feminism.

Ask yourself why you don't trust women to recognise whether their lack of sexual interest is a problem for them that requires medical support. Ask yourself what you're achieving by attacking these women, when your stunning lack of empathy is alienating them from the ideology that would support them. Ask yourself why women not having sex bothers you so fucking much.

[insufferablefirehazard]

I think we as humans need to realize how privileged we are to be born into a human body.

Sure, I've seen a lot of people wishing how they could be a cat, dog or wolf just so they could be cute and taken care of and relax all day.

But let's remember that most non-human animals aren't so privileged.

Not only are pets often neglected and abused, but if you had been born into the body of a fish, a pig, a cow, a chicken?

Your life is seen as worthless - a means to an end. Fish are often not even regarded as living sentient beings, just decorations or food.

Pigs get their tails cut off, chickens get their beaks cut, often living in their own shit and piss. Cows get their babies stolen so you can drink their breast milk or eat cheese. And at the end of the day their lives are ended by being gassed, electrocuted, having their throat slit.

Thank your lucky stars for being born into the human body because your life could've been much much worse.

[lorynna]

i would consider myself a radical feminist also and i agree with the vast majority of your views. honestly i am just curious why you think aromantic/asexual people don't exist or shouldn't be labeled. i don't mean this as hate i'm honestly curious to know if it is part of most radical feminist views

if you can accept someone who is lesbian, and knows for themselves that they aren't at all attracted to men, why would you not accept someone who realizes both that they aren't attracted to men and they aren't attracted to women? (obviously very different identities and experiences i'm just wondering why some people can be trusted to know who they're not attracted to and others can't)

Hello anon, thank you for asking so kindly.

I am going to try and explain what my personal opinion on the topic is, as well as I can, and please keep in mind that I don't speak for the radical feminist community but just for my own views.

First of all, the definitions I have read of both terms (aromantic and asexual) so far aren't really specific, differ from each other at times and leave open room for interpretation. The gendies meanwhile continue to preach "everything means something different to each person" and "it is a broad spectrum" just like they do with gender, which according to them is so complicated and unfathomable that you have to ask each person identifying with it seperately, to know what their gender means to them.

The first thing that comes up when I google the definition of both terms displayed below (just as an example of what I mean):

Like, what do "sexual feelings" all include and to which extent does "little romantic attraction" go?

I do think that people who fit the mainstream criterias for being asexual or aromantic exist, I am not trying to say that it is naturally impossible to experience no sexual or aromantic attraction to anyone. I do think it is really really rare for this to authentically occur though, and that a lot of people identifying with these labels have experienced some kind of trauma or are doing it because it has become a trend.

The thing I most dislike about these labels are not only their inconsistency in definitions but also how much they are starting to get pushed online = trend. In my personal experience I have seen not only online but also offline how younger kids and teens start to pick up on these labels without knowing what they truly mean, because they are "cool" and just like gender it is starting to become a similar trend. Seeing who publicly identifies as those labels, it is again mostly the demographic of teenagers who are going puberty and the several different, crucial developmental phases that come with that.

Since you are asking if this is a common radfem belief, I cannot say. There surely is a variety of opinions, however I have seen some good takes from which I remember being said that a person doesn't need the label of "asexuality" or "aromanticism" as an excuse to not participate in dating culture or to not engage in sexual relations. It should just be common sense to not ask strangers about their dating lives and not ask "why" if they say they are not dating or having sex as if it was something unusual.

Also answering to your last question of "why I don't trust those people to know who they are attracted or not attracted to" is not what I am trying to do insinuate by questioning/criticizing the labels they use to describe said attraction. It is not about me trying to say "I don't believe you, you are lying" it is "why do you need those labels". I just don't think it adds anything valuable to society and it's getting more mainstream each day. Now even with teenagers using those labels when they haven't had the time to figure out themselves as a person yet. It just looses its meaning.

I've seen women going through long periods without having partners (radfems participating in male seperatism for example) being asked "oh, so you're asexual, right?" or "oh, so you're unable to form a romantic connection?" because people start assuming, forgetting that there are so so many reasons why people might not have partners or might not want to.

Again, people who truly are not experiencing any sexual desire or romantic desire are really rare but through so many people mindlessly adopting the label it looses it's meaning because it gets more broad in definition and everyone continues to define it for themselves. "Yeah, I am asexual but sometimes I have sex. Like once a month but that's barely enough so I must be asexual." Like... you might just have a low libido and that's totally okay! Why do you feel the need to label yourself as asexual? Is it easier because of your partner's expectations, maybe? Is a simple no not enough for them?

"I'm 15 and I haven't had a crush on anyone so far. I actually think boys/girls are ew and I can't imagine kissing anyone, like ew saliva. Also the girls/boys in my class are so annoying!!" And no, I've heard statements like this several times before. I mean, give yourself some time you're only 15.

Why do we always have to slap a label on top of everything and why can't we just go through life saying "yeah at the moment I really don't feel like having a partner, I don't want to date or have sex. Maybe that will change someday, maybe not and either way it's okay, I'm open for change. " but we have to say "oh yes, I'm an asexual aromantic without doubt and that won't change, that's my identity" and then when that changes we get an identity crisis realising that oh, maybe that wasn't me? Who am I now?

It all boils down to me not being able to take those labels seriously anymore, which is why I reacted so sarcastically in the post you're probably referring to, where I talked sarcastically about those terms.

"labels are different for anyone"

like no.. to define means to limit, to define means to exclude people who don't meet those criterias and that's okay, that's what makes labels and words meaningful = contributing to a conversation of mutual understanding instead of having to first discuss what each person means by using one and the same word.

Like I can't go outside in a clothing store saying "oh I want a red dress" and when she shows me a red dress I then say "oh that's not red for me, that's yellow by my own definition." How do you expect everyone to effectively communicate by leaving the option open for everyone to seperately define one single term??

But as we know, the gendies aren't fans of definitions.

[i-3at-s0ap]

"when I decide women and girls don't know how to label themselves and that my opinion is more valid than their lived experiences, it's because I'm a ✨feminist✨"

[whereserpentswalk]

The worst part about a website as transphobic as tumblr.com being the called the queerest place on the internet is its true.

[thenewwomensmovement]

Bible Belt Queers Zine 3 is in!! 🎉

[kikifem]

Asexual moid appreciation posts keep showing up on my timeline. I’m extremely “acephobic” and I hate men. Stop.

[she-is-ovarit]

Breakdown of sexual orientation among Tumblr radical feminist ("TERF"), radfem-leaning, and gender critical feminists and allies.

[museumofferedophelia]

A lot of "queer" culture is deeply intertwined with the emergent "what about me?" culture, which is centred around people believing that every single conversation and post on the internet has to relate to them or reflect them in some measure- and if something doesn't, it's exclusionist, or exposes some deep-seeded issue in society.

I'll give you some examples:

There'll be a post talking about enjoying intimacy with a partner, how sex can be so special and sensual. And it'll get flooded with asexuals talking about "allonormativity" and asking why society "revolves around icky sex," and how "we need to cultivate a culture that isn't so centred around sex, asexuals exist too."

Someone will post about how special it is to find "the one" and share your life with them. And a bunch of "polyamorous" people will insert themselves, complaining about how "you can share your life with more than one person," and "just people forgetting polyam people exist," and "mononormativity and polyam ersaure."

A lesbian will post about how she's happy that she'll never have a pregnancy scare, and will jokingly talk about how doctors are always confused when she tells them that. And a bunch of "trans lesbians" or women dating "trans lesbians" chime in being like "well, about that..." or "trans lesbians are valid" or "cisnormative terf, lesbians like girldick."

I think people are too immature and narcissistic to realise that people are talking about their own experiences. Not everything is meant FOR YOU. If it doesn't reflect you, ignore it and move on.

And if you want to see more representation that reflects you, go create your own rather than harassing people whose life experiences are vastly different to yours.

Not everything has to be about you.