Could be interesting.

[nobleplatypus]

So, as y'all undoubtedly know (unless you're new or tend to skim or something), I identify as asexual and aromantic. This means, in a nutshell, that I am neither sexually nor romantically attracted to other people: I have no interest in banging anyone or dating anyone.

I don't really talk about it all that much, for a variety of reasons. They tend to boil down to things like, "it's not relevant" or "I don't feel like it" or "I'm too busy watching MST3K," but I am also acutely aware that not many people know much about it, and I'd be lying if I said that the general populace's lack of awareness isn't a big damn reason for me to not bring it up.

So, consider this an open forum. If you have questions, ask away. Since this is unlocked, I believe anonymous commenting is an option for you shy folks. If things get out of hand, I'll lock it down.

Some quick notes from me, first:
1.) I will assume the best of intentions on your part, which means that if you say something offensive, I will endeavor to explain with minimal nastiness why it's offensive instead of just bringing the smackdown.
2.) Unless I think you're just being a douche, in which case I will bring the smackdown and/or lock things down.
3.) It might take me a while to answer a question. Don't take it personally. Could be that I wandered off to do other things, could be that it's a new one and I need time to think about it lest my answer be incoherent and/or incorrect. If other aces on my flist want to chime in, I think that would be awesome, but I'm sure I'll get to things eventually.
4.) The ace spectrum is a varied place, and while I will try to be inclusive, bear in mind that I am not speaking for the asexual community as a whole.

Some quick notes for you:
1.) It is okay to be curious!
2.) It is not okay to dehumanize someone else because you're curious; I am not your patient or your specimen. If your question is of an intensely personal nature, you may want to generalize it a bit--either way, you're probably going to get a generalized answer (what with me not being an accurate representation of the entire community and all).
3.) Try to be cool.
4.) If you want to explore the topic on your own (which I strongly encourage), here are some resources:

- The Asexuality Visibility and Education Network (AVEN). I am not active on this site and have heard some discouraging things about the forums, but it's a good place to go for the basics. It's also pretty much THE big asexuality website, so there you go.
- Google "Swankivy." She is on many different social networks (including LJ, Tumblr, and Youtube) and does great work on the awareness front. Her patience far surpasses my own, and she's wonderfully articulate, even when dealing with the most obnoxious trolls you could imagine. You can learn a lot by looking through her archives.

I think that's about it. Ask away.

And if you have no interest in this topic at all, enjoy this gif of a corgi:

Comments

[the-epic.livejournal.com]

CORGI!

[nobleplatypus]

Corgis are always appropriate for any occasion!

Be cool...

[hukbillgoomba.livejournal.com]

On a serious note, I do wonder sometimes about how I would tell the difference between being aromantic and being intensely socially anxious to the point where romance is just not feasible. I mean, I often feel that failure is inevitable in almost everything I do, so perhaps it's just part of that, in the same way I'll never be the first person to set foot on the surface of the sun.
DAMN YOU, SUN!!

Re: Be cool...

[nobleplatypus]

It's definitely true that there was a good amount of "this isn't feasible" that prompted my little ~aromantic awakening~ in college. Social anxiety wasn't really the issue so much as my introversion and the fact that I'm easily bothered by other people, and my realization that the fictional (and tolerable) relationships I could imagine in my head did not actually translate to reality and how people actually behave. So for me, it was less "THIS IS WHOLESALE BOGUS" and more "Well, I can see the appeal but I don't think I'd actually want to involve myself with someone else that way because what I want doesn't exist."

Re: Be cool...

[hukbillgoomba.livejournal.com]

Yeah, like romance to me seems as feasible as the Penguin-Dragon wars, and other fantasies. Maybe I'm over-analytical but whenever I read about it in fiction it seems incredibly implausible - but because it's alongside magic, excitement, adventure and really wild things, I guess it fits in. XD

Re: Be cool...

[nobleplatypus]

How plausible I find it in fiction depends on how it's handled, because there are a lot of romantic tropes that I just don't buy and never will (Continual fighting means they're really in love! Stalking someone is sweet and makes for a great How We Met story! etc.). But all that really matters is how unfitting it is for me, as far as reality is concerned.

Re: Be cool...

[hukbillgoomba.livejournal.com]

You got me thinking about how I've handled romance in my own books. It occurs to me that it never goes very far, because I usually end up killing one of them or separating them indefinitely BECAUSE I'M A HEARTLESS BASTARD MUHAHAHAH! Or maybe I just don't know how to handle it if I let it go further. :\

Re: Be cool...

[nobleplatypus]

Writing romance is exhausting for me, which is why I tend to just be really vague and ambiguous. XD And I'm always torn between wanting to write an asexual/aromantic character for representation's sake and not wanting to bother because no one would read fantasy sans romance. Blargh.

Re: Be cool...

[hukbillgoomba.livejournal.com]

In The Dinosaur Prince I wrote the character Diyn as asexual and aromantic - but nobody has picked up on it. I think it's because people don't notice what isn't mentioned, quite often. I have it in my mind that if you don't talk about it, it doesn't come up. Besides, as we've established, the internet will always, ALWAYS, ship your characters with anyone and everything and there's nothing you can do about it. XD

[alto2.livejournal.com]

Okay, here's a question I've wondered about for ages: an LJ friend of mine also identifies as asexual but writes a pile of really romantic fic, both slash and het. I can't quite figure out how that works. I realize that I tend to write male characters without being one myself, so maybe it's that simple, but my poor addled brain just can't figure out how you can write about feelings/desires you don't yourself experience. Help?

[nobleplatypus]

I don't know your friend's romantic orientation, so there are two ways I could answer this.

I think it's a common misconception that asexuals are necessarily disinterested in romance because romance and sex are considered to be inseparable, and it's true that some aces (such as myself) are disinterested in anything beyond platonic relationships. But most aces do experience what we call "romantic attraction"--the desire for all the warmth and fuzziness that a romantic relationship would provide. That's why we usually identify ourselves as "asexual and [hetero/homo/bi/pan/a]romantic" when we talk about our orientations. It's possible--even likely--that your friend is personally familiar with what it's like to fall in (or be in) romantic love, even if she doesn't know what it's like to look at someone and think, "I'd hit that."

The other answer, presuming your friend is aromantic, is that we all grew up hearing the same stories and drinking the same cultural kool-aid. I'd guess that many aromantic aces took a while to figure themselves out because they'd internalized the message that a romantic partnership is the only real relationship that matters, and it can take a while to realize and come to terms with your own disinterest in something you're supposed to want more than anything. So in that sense, I don't think anyone is really approaching romance from a place of total and utter ignorance.

Plus, as you said, writers often write outside the boundaries of their own personal experience.

Hope this helps!

[alto2.livejournal.com]

So, what I think you're saying is that there can be a separation/division (not sure what the right word is--compartmentalization?) that exists between romance and sex, and so you can have/like/be interested in romance but not want to take it any further? Is that right, or am I misunderstanding? (I don't have that ability to compartmentalize, apparently, so I am not sure if I'm getting it or if I'm totally missing something important.)

I agree that writers write outside their personal experience, but can they write outside their own emotional experience? Or is the cultural kool-aid enough to counteract a lack of emotional experience here? Or is it more empathy? (But then, can empathy exist if the emotion you're empathizing with is totally alien to you?) I'm kinda thinking out loud here and kinda hoping for clarification, so take that as you will. Regardless, it's interesting to contemplate.

BTW, I really appreciate you providing the opportunity to ask this sort of stuff, because it's tough to grasp on your own--and tough to ask questions without feeling like you're either an idiot or being an unintentional ass because you just have no clue.

[nobleplatypus]

Yep, that's a good way of putting it! Just as it's possible to have sex without romance, it's possible to have romance without sex. As a society, we're far more familiar with the idea of casual sex than sexless romance, but they're both real things that happen.

For most asexuals, there's just no automatic progression from "I love this person and want to spend my life with them" to "and also I want to have sex with them," because sexual attraction isn't part of the equation. To us, that's on par with something like, "I love this person, so naturally I want to go kayaking with them." It doesn't follow.

This is where things can get complicated, because some asexuals are willing to have sex with their partners to make them happy, or for the emotional side of the equation, just as some people who aren't really into kayaking might be willing to go kayaking with their partner if their partner was into that sort of thing. But the innate desire to have sex is still absent.

BTW, I really appreciate you providing the opportunity to ask this sort of stuff, because it's tough to grasp on your own--and tough to ask questions without feeling like you're either an idiot or being an unintentional ass because you just have no clue.

Hey, that's why this post exists. ^_^ It is easy to forget, after you've immersed yourself in the online asexual community, that a LOT of the information you take for granted is not easily available to the public at large.

[nobleplatypus]

To expand on writing against your emotional experience, I think it is possible through both empathy and familiarity (due to the cultural kool-aid). A writer could realistically portray a character's murderous rage without having ever been so furious that they killed someone, because they've undoubtedly been angry before and know from observation that sometimes rage makes people stabby. It'll take some imagination, but that's writing for you. ;)

I suspect that even aromantic asexuals don't (or even CAN'T) find romantic love to be that alien of a concept. We all have people we care about and are all capable of forming strong bonds. We all experience attraction in some form, even if it isn't sexual or romantic in nature (I can expand on this if you like; let me know). That, combined with the romantic narratives we've internalized, makes writing romance less of a stretch than it could be.

[andi-horton.livejournal.com]

I could fit the description of your friend myself, although lately I have been writing less in the romance department. So this is going to be pretty much anecdotal, and I just hope it helps.

I identify as romantic (albeit also asexual) and I personally love the ideal of a good-fit romance. Any couple with complementing strengths who've got each other's backs no matter what? That's pretty much my gravy. So you'd find a lot of that in the things I watch, read and write.

When it comes to my writing, sometimes couples have sex, and sometimes they don't. Depends on the story, the couple, and the particular situation. If they do have sex, I tend to focus on whatever emotional connection they're sharing or write it as a natural extension of plot-based tension between them, because THAT'S what I want the sex scene to enhance: their relationship, and the story of it.

I don't know if these particulars are the case for your friend of course, but in a more general sense, does that help at all?

(I also quite like the "control over the strawberry" analogy sinneahtes gave)

[alto2.livejournal.com]

This does help--thank you! :)

[jensi08.livejournal.com]

I am a lot like your friend. I write everything from intense romance to smut, but I want none of it in real life. I think it plays like a movie in my mind more than anything, and it really is the characters as opposed to myself wanting anything along those lines. It is funny to talk to my readers who imaaaagine me as the characters though! I just giggle and shake my head. They won't get it. So being a writer is being a writer to me, and life is so much different!!
Does this help?

[sinneahtes.livejournal.com]

I think that in our imaginations (and works of fiction), we're generally under more control of what's going on and how things feel to us (or our imaginary selves). Like, in my imagination, I can picture myself eating a strawberry and enjoying the experience because in my imagination, a strawberry can taste however I want it to, and/or I can react however I want. In the real world, I can only have so much control over my taste buds and my brain's reaction to those sensations, so it's very difficult for me to like eating strawberries for real. Or I can enjoy watching someone else eat a strawberry if they clearly enjoy it, because I get to see the enjoyment without having to deal with the strawberry myself.

(If that makes sense.)

[tabslock.livejournal.com]

I might have to think about it a little before I ask any questions, but I wanted to say now that:

a) it's really cool of you to provide this forum for people to increase their understanding and awareness, and

b) I initially read your first sentence as "I identify as asexual and aromatic" and heard Shirley in my head saying, "Oh, that's nice!"

[nobleplatypus]

a) Thanks. It's easy to get caught in a vicious cycle of "I don't talk about this because nobody understands because I don't talk about it," so here is me breaking the cycle. Whee!

b) I think just about everyone reads it that way at first. Most text programs tend to autocorrect it, too, so I'm always paranoid that I didn't catch it. XD

And now I'm hearing Shirley in my head.

[tabslock.livejournal.com]

There are worse voices to have in your head than Shirley's!

Okay, a question (and I'm trying not to feel silly or shy about it)... A few weeks ago we shared a squee over this:

I MAY HAVE SKIPPED BACK TO REWATCH THE SCENE IN WHICH [ABED] CHANNELS DON DRAPER TO PUT THE MOVES ON ANNIE. BECAUSE IT WAS SHOCKINGLY HOT.

What does that mean in an asexual context?

I feel like that sounds like I'm trying to catch you in a lie or something, which please believe me I am not - it's just that at the time I wasn't really thinking about the asexuality angle, and now that I am, it's something I'm curious about.

[nobleplatypus]

Haha, no worries. Hopefully I can answer this coherently.

This is partly a case of appreciating something without actually wanting it, much like you can admire a nice painting in a gallery without thinking, "I have to have this on my wall!" And it's partly a case of watching a show with your focus on the character's feelings and not on your own.

I can appreciate that what Abed did was excessively hot (exhibit a: I like his beautiful face; exhibit b: his voice got all deep and purr-y and I like that, too; exhibit c: Annie was totally into it) while also recognizing that if I had been in Annie's position, I would have giggled nervously and scooted away from him the moment he sat down because people invading my personal space makes me uncomfortable as all get-out.

Plus, as I said, Annie was into it, and that makes a HUGE difference. She was clearly enjoying it, so I enjoyed it with her, but if she'd been taken aback or displeased I would have tapped into that, instead, and been skeeved out by Abed's behavior.

[tabslock.livejournal.com]

So are asexuality and aromanticism (is that the noun?) less about "I don't find sex/romance appealing" and more about "I don't find sex/romance appealing as an option for me personally, but it's appealing when it presents as a mutually satisfying option for others"?

And it's partly a case of watching a show with your focus on the character's feelings and not on your own.

That's a really good illustrative point. I love A LOT of characters who make choices that I wouldn't make, but the fact that I wouldn't choose to act that way myself has no effect whatsoever on my appreciation of their choices in the context of their characters and my empathy for them.

(P.S. Icon love.)

[nobleplatypus]

I think that's a pretty accurate summation of my attitude--most of the time--though I'm not speaking for the whole community.

As I briefly addressed upthread with hukbillgoomba, I'm not going to automatically support a fictional, canonical romance just because the characters are okay with it. I might find it problematic for other reasons, like, "I think having a relationship begin with the man following the woman around even though she tells him to quit it perpetuates some pretty gross ideas about what constitutes 'romance,'" but I don't find sex or romance inherently problematic or bothersome in fiction. Or in real life, so long as it's not involving me.

Or, to put it more bluntly, the fact that I am disinterested in sex and romance, personally, does not mean that I never want to see it anywhere and wish it would all just go away. :P

That being said, I do have a really strong appreciation for fictional platonic relationships and would kind of like to see more of those. And I do find myself feeling irked when fandom absolutely insists on projecting romance onto awesome friendships. There's nothing wrong with valuing romantic relationships, but the attitude that a relationship can't be close/deep/significant unless it's romantic (and therefore sexual) can't die quickly enough, as far as I'm concerned.

[tabslock.livejournal.com]

Okay, I think that clears it up for me. Thank you!

"I think having a relationship begin with the man following the woman around even though she tells him to quit it perpetuates some pretty gross ideas about what constitutes 'romance,'"

With you on that one.

the attitude that a relationship can't be close/deep/significant unless it's romantic (and therefore sexual) can't die quickly enough

That one too!

[featherfish.livejournal.com]

To build on what Platy said... it's just like how gay people can enjoy heterosexual relationships (since that's mostly what there is readily available) in TV/movies/books/etc, while not actually wanting it for themselves. Asexuality is just another streak on the sexuality spectrum - individuals who appreciate fellow humans are totally capable of empathizing with and rooting for other people, even when their desires totally don't match up. There are a LOT of straight women on the internet for example who are all about homoerotic relationships. This isn't a perfect comparison, since that has a lot to do with titilation and pleasure, but it's still an experience you wouldn't (and COULDN'T) have but are capable of following and enjoying.

And there's also a linguistic/cultural element... to refer to a character as "shockingly hot" is to speak the language. That's how to relate your feelings on Abed in that scene without getting into the deeper annals of why you feel that way - you just have to drop that familiar turn of phrase, and everyone knows what you're talking about. Efficiency, basically, and simplicity of conversation, because being asexual isn't a full time job and not the endpoint of every conversation you want to open. Hope that makes sense!!

[tabslock.livejournal.com]

This is very helpful, thanks for chiming in!

[ember-firedrake.livejournal.com]

I have a question of sorts for you.

Over the past year I've been plotting/writing a series of stories (two days to finish this NaNoWriMo, with 4000 words to go). Fantasy/adventure with a romantic sideplot for some characters.

One of my main characters has sort of surprised me, in writing her. She hasn't been part of the romantic subplot, and I didn't really see the need to give her a love interest. In part because I hate that "pair the spares" mentality. At the same time, I didn't want to delegate her to sidekick status or have her feel like a third wheel, so I've been really thinking consciously about her role in events that occur. And recently, it's occurred to me that I see her as rather aromantic, possibly asexual. She has a fondness towards her friends and is intensely loyal to those she trusts, but doesn't really see herself forming romantic attachments (and I definitely don't plan on hooking her up with anyone over the course of the three books I have planned).

I guess I was wondering what advice you might have, if any, as I go about writing this character. With my own awareness that the character is aromantic, is it something that should be definitely stated at some point within my trilogy, so there's that "canon" confirmation?

[nobleplatypus]

Oooh, this is exciting! I am hardly unbiased in this regard, but here are my thoughts:

I think explicit representation would be awesome. I think fiction needs more explicit representation of marginalized groups who otherwise have to settle for "arguably like me" when they encounter characters who strike a chord with them. It would be really great to have it be canon, and not in a "Dumbledore's gay because JKR said so in an interview" sort of way.

And I say that not to disparage that particular interpretation, but to point out that it's still interpretation and interpretation is not representation when you can just as easily interpret things a different way. Plus, being an ~English Major~ and all, I know just how little authorial intent matters when it comes to interpreting a work. Sometimes this works in the favor of fandom aces (see: anything Moffat has said regarding Sherlock's orientation and his ambiguous treatment of the Doctor and River's relationship), but often it doesn't, because most people don't fill perceived gaps with things like 'asexual' and 'aromantic,' they fill them with 'straight' or 'repressed' or 'closeted homosexual' or other, more familiar tropes.

All that being said, I'm also aware that it could be awkward to shoehorn in an expository blurb about asexuality that doesn't cue up this in the reader's mind. I don't want to come across all, "YES DO IT YOU HAVE TO YOU MUST."

But it would be awesome.

[nobleplatypus]

Aww, thank you! ♥ ♥ ♥



I think it will be good for me. I want to be better at explaining myself to people, and that won't happen if I never explain myself to people. :P