What good is awareness, if it’s based on false information?
Some concluding thoughts on International Asexuality Day 2022
CN: aromisia, acemisia, sex
We do, however, want to make sure to point out that we do not want to call out any certain channels or individuals. The citations are used for transparency reasons only.
1. asexuality = aromanticism??
Let's start with the assumption that aromanticism is part of the asexual spectrum:
"Examples of the asexual spectrum - demisexuality [...], gray-asexuality [...], aromantic" (IG post by ZDF heute).
Aromanticism and asexuality are two different and unrelated orientations. Aromanticism is a romantic orientation (as the word suggests), whereas asexuality is a sexual orientation (likewise indicated by the word).
That means, among other things, that aromanticism is NOT an inherent part of the asexual spectrum! Aromanticism is part of the romantic spectrum, whereas asexuality is part of the sexual spectrum. This seems to be the source of confusion, although it's actually quite simple: romantic orientation doesn't equal sexual orientation, just like romance doesn't equal sex - and vice versa.
And sure, some people are both asexual and aromantic, and for some people this can't be separated - but that doesn't mean that romantic attraction can simply and generally be equated with sexual attraction.
2. What the hell is asexuality again?
Looking for an attempt at a definition?
"People who don't experience sexual attraction towards other people are referred to as asexual (ace)." (IG post by 100% Mensch)
There are countless attempts at explaining asexuality in a short and sweet way. Reducing asexuality to mean 'never experiencing sexual attraction' is a very trimmed-down definition and cause for confusion at best - especially if the asexual spectrum is mentioned shortly after - and will at worst be used to deny people their asexuality!
Yes, there are asexual people who never experience sexual attraction to other people. Just like there are asexual people who experience sexual attraction sometimes or relatively regular or only under certain circumstances!
3. What Aces can "still" do
"Asexuals can still have a romantic relationship, however without sexual desire." (IG post by 100% Mensch)
This type of wording reproduces normative assumptions about asexuality. Firstly, this heavily amatonormative assumption reproduces the idea that romantic relationships have to be inherently sexual. Secondly, this denies that asexual people (can) experience sexual desire.
Another example:
"sexual desire can still be present (self-pleasure). Physical contact (e.g. cuddling, kisses) is also possible but doesn't have any sexual meaning." (IG post by 100% Mensch)
Once again, this type of wording suggests that asexual people don't (usually) experience sexual desire - and if they do, it only manifests in self-pleasure. The fact that some asexual people do, in fact, (occasionally) experience strong sexual desire, doesn't get across here.
Are there asexual people that have romantic relationships without any sexual components? Yep! Does sexual desire play a (huge) role for some asexual people in their romantic relationships? Hell yeah! Are asexual people a diverse group of individuals and are generalizing assumptions in any way, shape or form always inappropriate, given that they are all false? You bet!
4a. Why is aromanticism defined differently?
(Almost) no matter how asexuality is defined - it's different with aromanticism:
"A_romanticism - when people don't want to / can't fall in love and/or enter romantic relationships." (IG post by Feministisches Kollektiv Mainz)
Earlier in the same text, asexuality was defined as: "An a_sexual person feels little or no sexual attraction to other people. [...] A_sexuality does not mean that a person does not have sex."
This suggests that aromanticism and asexuality are, at least in part, held to different standards. While asexuality is explained based on attraction, aromanticism is reduced to action (or rather, in-action).
Not only does this ignore what "attraction ≠ action" means, it also ignores that there are definitely aromantic people who do and/or want to fall in love and also those who (want to) enter romantic relationships.
Another example:
"Asexual are people who feel little or no sexual attraction, while 'aromantic' describes people with little or no romantic desire." (article in Siegessäule magazine, april 2022)
It may be less noticeable here but: In this example asexuality is explained in terms of attraction - aromanticism in terms of desire. Sure, not everyone distinguishes between attraction and desire - but there *is* a difference, and it's an important one at that! (see: Hannah Witton's Video "Sexual Arousal, Desire and Attraction: What's the Difference?")
Oh, and the fact that "aromantic" was put in quotation marks here when "asexual" was not ... doesn't exactly help o.ô
5. sex-favorable vs. sex-positive
"Generally speaking, a distinction is made between asexuals who find sex repulsive (sex-repulsed), who simply don't care about sex (sex-indifferent) or who enjoy sex (sex-positive)." (IG post by Feministisches Kollektiv Mainz)
Ehrm ... no.
The word they were looking for here is "sex-favourable" - a term that, just like "sex-repulsed" or "sex-indifferent," refers to personal views and preferences regarding one's own sexual interactions. Sex positivity, on the other hand, is a political term that describes an open and supportive view towards sexual freedom and diversity - including not having sex.
Also, side note: A person can be sex-repulsed and sex positive at the same time - and they don't even have to be asexual!
6. a dubiously binary spectrum
"Other a_sexual people rarely experience sexual attraction and are thus on the spectrum between allo- and asexual people" (IG post by Feministisches Kollektiv Mainz)
The wording here opens up a binary between allo- and asexuality that does not exist, while also implying that the sexual spectrum is linear! This is an oversimplified representation that produces many exclusions.
7. the issue with impairment and limitation
Sometimes we read things like:
"asexual people don't suffer from their sexuality since they aren't impaired / limited* by it." (IG post by ZDF heute)
This wording implies that impairments must / will always cause suffering. Impairments of any kind are often viewed negatively, which is a form of ableism.
It also ignores the fact that asexual people can certainly experience limitations - with and without suffering - e.g. because their identity is denied, mocked and/or pitied by society at large, the media and often also by people in their immediate environment. Asexual people are affected by acemisia - even though they may not realize it or be bothered by it a lot.
-----------
*The German word "Beeinträchtigung" which was used here originally means both impairment in a physical / health sense as well as, in a broader sense, limitations of any kind. This is why we include both impairment and limitation in this translation.
Conclusion
Awareness and visibility are necessary for informing and educating people about asexuality. That's why it's especially important to spread information that is both easily understandable and nuanced so as to not accidentally spread false information about a way too little-known sexual orientation.
Thank you for reading!
Sources
With many thanks to Lauri for the translations!