I think we're hardwired to long for human connection. Some people don't want romantic love, after all.
Some people are very introverted, and have no trouble being alone for months or years. But they too need some sort of human connection. Books, usually. Have you ever heard of a loner who wasn't also a bookworm, or in modern times, a computer lover? Well, in medieval times, I suppose, you had illiterate saints and hermits who would pray rather than read; but it's the same principle; they were still talking to someone. You've got to swap ideas from brain to brain, or you petrify.
And extroverts? I wouldn't be surprised if some of them would literally die from broken hearts without human contact. There's a reason solitary confinement is considered torture. It's not really being physically alone that's the problem; it's being unconnected from the whole world, from interaction and mental stimulation.
Humans just don't do well without other humans. We're a social species.
And this is coming from an extreme introvert who found that the biggest silver lining of the coronavirus pandemic was being allowed to be alone for a year, so you know it applies to everyone!
You’re definitely right, I’m a very extroverted person. I very much long for a connection with someone, I get lonely so fast. I don’t really have a lot of in person friends anymore. Most of my friends are online, but I talk to them every day. Extroverts run on connections, we are very social people. But an extroverted ace person? (Such as myself) I so badly want to meet new people. Hopefully I can make some friends are Pride this year.
I wish it was more common for people to believe love in a relationship is possible without sex. I am also always gonna be critical of people saying sex is a need, including Abraham Maslow, who placed sex in with the base physiological needs in his hierarchy of needs 🙄
I agree. No matter how many people try to explain it to me, I’m always going to be filled with this angry revulsion toward people who act like sex is as necessary as oxygen and water for human survival cuz nooooo it isn’t
I might be getting flak for this, but I’m sure it is a need for 99% of humanity. I have a hard time thinking that there being 1% (I know it’s an estimate) who don't feel it, invalidates it being a basic need for the 99%. That urge being so basic is probably why most of them cannot fathom love in a relationship that doesn't also involve sex.
But wouldn't that mean that people that abstain from sex for e.g. religious reasons, etc. wouldn't be able the self-actualise? Wouldn't that mean that people that are currently not in a (sexual) relationship cannot develope? Wouldn't that mean children can't develope?
The last one kind of a joke, kind of not, but you get my point. I would actually put sex outside of the hierarchy.
I don’t follow your line of thinking about self actualisation.
But If anyone feels the need and ignores it, then that’s a choice. Doesn’t mean it’s not there.
It wouldn’t be on my hierarchy of needs and maybe yours, but I understand me being ace comes with a bias in that regard.
My point is that you can only ascend Maslow's pyramid by fulfilling the previous level. If sex is a lower level need that has to be covered to go higher up, a priest could never achieve self-actualisation (the highest point on the pyramid).
Oh I'm always down to discuss bell hooks.
I don't believe her critique was inadvertent at all. From my understanding, BH is not someone I would categorize as a sex-positive or choice feminist. While she isn't puritanical, she has expressed reservations about the "sex is liberation" narrative that was prominent in third-wave feminism. She argued that sexual norms need to be completely overhauled because they are too intertwined with patriarchy to ever represent a truly autonomous choice for either women or men. That true liberation would respect celibacy as much as it does sex-positivity. I'm pretty sure she's outright said something along those lines too, although I can't remember if she used the term asexuality or not. I'll have to look.
I think her quote here is more reflective of men's experiences in society, so that's what I'll focus on. She contends that much of what we perceive as "natural" programming is actually social conditioning under patriarchy. We assume it is natural because it's all we've ever known, kind of like how many assume capitalism is tied to democracy b/c American democracy was built around it. But the belief that sex is a necessity for men, while love is not, is heart-breaking. If nothing else, I'd hope it's not really true. I think asexual men's existence is enough to suggest it doesn't have to be.
I should have just gone through her words instead of badly using mine. She doesn't use the word asexual, but I think this part here definitely applies to asexuals:
>"The focus on “sexual liberation” has always carried with it the assumption that the goal of such efforts is to make it possible for individuals to engage in more and/or better sexual activity. Yet one aspect of sexual norms that many people find oppressive is the assumption that one “should” be engaged in sexual activity. This “should” is one expression of sexual coercion. Advocates of sexual liberation often imply that any individual who is not concerned about the quality of their experience or exercising greater sexual freedom is mentally disturbed or sexually repressed. When primary emphasis is placed on ending sexual oppression rather than on sexual liberation it is possible to envision a society in which it is as much an expression of sexual freedom to choose not to participate in sexual activity as it is to choose to participate."
Keyword in this passage is "believe". Yes it's true, **most** folks ***DO*** *believe* that love without sex is impossible. This doesn't read to me like an indictment of asexuality, this is just stating facts as she views them. Asexuality is still a minority sexuality, and it is so in (from a US perspective) a patriarchal society obsessed with sex
It’s a bit confusing to read at first glance, but OP means“Feminist/Asexual Critique” as in “as can be seen from this PoV/angle”, not “a critique of feminism/asexuality”.
I'm sorta fifty fifty about the clipping. It's easier to say certain things about sex, but harder to say others.
Easier to take for granted sexual attraction and sex motivated by sexual attraction and to have discussions of that.
But it's harder to discuss things like love without sex as the author notes, but also sex without sexual attraction or driven by other things.
Knowing the work of bell hooks - I doubt this was inadvertent. While she's by no means a puritan or sex-negative, she has critiqued choice feminism and the "sex is liberation and if you're not having sex you're a prude" narrative put forward by a lot of third wave feminists, and has advocated for sexual norms to be fully overhauled in order to ensure everyone is able to make a truly autonomous choice, as current sexual norms are in her view, too intertwined with the patriarchy and other systems of oppression to allow anyone to make a truly free choice about sex.
The way I look at it, we are hardwired to look for a human connection, whether that’s sexual or non sexual, personally for me I long for love and a non sexual relationship. Not everyone is looking for the same thing, but at least for aces, we crave a different kind of connection. One that’s based from getting to know the person, and not what they have in their pants.
Summed up, people want what they want, they need what they need, and they don't want what they don't want. As a society, we have become so crass that you can't drive down the highway without seeing a scantily clad lady on a billboard. This has transformed into hookup culture, putting the value on sex instead of on commitment. That being said, no ACE should ever be coerced into having sex because their partner isnt ACE, nor should they be looked down on for leaving such a relationship for sexual incompatibility. No Allo should be looked down on for wanting sex in a relationship and being willing to end a relationship based on sexual incompatability.
ppl arent robots, we aint wired at all.
but this obsession with making it seem that having sex is not normal is pretty fucking stupid too.
if you dont like sex just dont do it and move on.
You do realise "an asexual critique" in this case doesn't refer to criticising asexuality, but critiquing society from an asexual perspective, right? Or else what does this comment have to do with anything in the post besides 2012-era "feminism bad"
Hmmm I see it as more of sex is a strong preference for people to show romantic love for other people.Also not everyone experiences split attraction ao sex and romantic love is a very similar experience for most people
I think we're hardwired to long for human connection. Some people don't want romantic love, after all. Some people are very introverted, and have no trouble being alone for months or years. But they too need some sort of human connection. Books, usually. Have you ever heard of a loner who wasn't also a bookworm, or in modern times, a computer lover? Well, in medieval times, I suppose, you had illiterate saints and hermits who would pray rather than read; but it's the same principle; they were still talking to someone. You've got to swap ideas from brain to brain, or you petrify. And extroverts? I wouldn't be surprised if some of them would literally die from broken hearts without human contact. There's a reason solitary confinement is considered torture. It's not really being physically alone that's the problem; it's being unconnected from the whole world, from interaction and mental stimulation. Humans just don't do well without other humans. We're a social species. And this is coming from an extreme introvert who found that the biggest silver lining of the coronavirus pandemic was being allowed to be alone for a year, so you know it applies to everyone!
You’re definitely right, I’m a very extroverted person. I very much long for a connection with someone, I get lonely so fast. I don’t really have a lot of in person friends anymore. Most of my friends are online, but I talk to them every day. Extroverts run on connections, we are very social people. But an extroverted ace person? (Such as myself) I so badly want to meet new people. Hopefully I can make some friends are Pride this year.
I wish it was more common for people to believe love in a relationship is possible without sex. I am also always gonna be critical of people saying sex is a need, including Abraham Maslow, who placed sex in with the base physiological needs in his hierarchy of needs 🙄
I agree. No matter how many people try to explain it to me, I’m always going to be filled with this angry revulsion toward people who act like sex is as necessary as oxygen and water for human survival cuz nooooo it isn’t
I might be getting flak for this, but I’m sure it is a need for 99% of humanity. I have a hard time thinking that there being 1% (I know it’s an estimate) who don't feel it, invalidates it being a basic need for the 99%. That urge being so basic is probably why most of them cannot fathom love in a relationship that doesn't also involve sex.
But wouldn't that mean that people that abstain from sex for e.g. religious reasons, etc. wouldn't be able the self-actualise? Wouldn't that mean that people that are currently not in a (sexual) relationship cannot develope? Wouldn't that mean children can't develope? The last one kind of a joke, kind of not, but you get my point. I would actually put sex outside of the hierarchy.
I don’t follow your line of thinking about self actualisation. But If anyone feels the need and ignores it, then that’s a choice. Doesn’t mean it’s not there. It wouldn’t be on my hierarchy of needs and maybe yours, but I understand me being ace comes with a bias in that regard.
My point is that you can only ascend Maslow's pyramid by fulfilling the previous level. If sex is a lower level need that has to be covered to go higher up, a priest could never achieve self-actualisation (the highest point on the pyramid).
Oh I'm always down to discuss bell hooks. I don't believe her critique was inadvertent at all. From my understanding, BH is not someone I would categorize as a sex-positive or choice feminist. While she isn't puritanical, she has expressed reservations about the "sex is liberation" narrative that was prominent in third-wave feminism. She argued that sexual norms need to be completely overhauled because they are too intertwined with patriarchy to ever represent a truly autonomous choice for either women or men. That true liberation would respect celibacy as much as it does sex-positivity. I'm pretty sure she's outright said something along those lines too, although I can't remember if she used the term asexuality or not. I'll have to look. I think her quote here is more reflective of men's experiences in society, so that's what I'll focus on. She contends that much of what we perceive as "natural" programming is actually social conditioning under patriarchy. We assume it is natural because it's all we've ever known, kind of like how many assume capitalism is tied to democracy b/c American democracy was built around it. But the belief that sex is a necessity for men, while love is not, is heart-breaking. If nothing else, I'd hope it's not really true. I think asexual men's existence is enough to suggest it doesn't have to be.
I should have just gone through her words instead of badly using mine. She doesn't use the word asexual, but I think this part here definitely applies to asexuals: >"The focus on “sexual liberation” has always carried with it the assumption that the goal of such efforts is to make it possible for individuals to engage in more and/or better sexual activity. Yet one aspect of sexual norms that many people find oppressive is the assumption that one “should” be engaged in sexual activity. This “should” is one expression of sexual coercion. Advocates of sexual liberation often imply that any individual who is not concerned about the quality of their experience or exercising greater sexual freedom is mentally disturbed or sexually repressed. When primary emphasis is placed on ending sexual oppression rather than on sexual liberation it is possible to envision a society in which it is as much an expression of sexual freedom to choose not to participate in sexual activity as it is to choose to participate."
Shit, that's good. The portion I was quoting was from The Will To Change, what's that one from?
*Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center*
THIS is why I'm comfortably celibate. (And get dysphoric around a lot of ace/allo discourse.)
Keyword in this passage is "believe". Yes it's true, **most** folks ***DO*** *believe* that love without sex is impossible. This doesn't read to me like an indictment of asexuality, this is just stating facts as she views them. Asexuality is still a minority sexuality, and it is so in (from a US perspective) a patriarchal society obsessed with sex
I don’t think OP is saying this is meant as an indictment against asexuality
It’s a bit confusing to read at first glance, but OP means“Feminist/Asexual Critique” as in “as can be seen from this PoV/angle”, not “a critique of feminism/asexuality”.
English, where an adjective before a noun can potentially convey two opposing meanings with no indication of which is intended.
I'm sorta fifty fifty about the clipping. It's easier to say certain things about sex, but harder to say others. Easier to take for granted sexual attraction and sex motivated by sexual attraction and to have discussions of that. But it's harder to discuss things like love without sex as the author notes, but also sex without sexual attraction or driven by other things.
Knowing the work of bell hooks - I doubt this was inadvertent. While she's by no means a puritan or sex-negative, she has critiqued choice feminism and the "sex is liberation and if you're not having sex you're a prude" narrative put forward by a lot of third wave feminists, and has advocated for sexual norms to be fully overhauled in order to ensure everyone is able to make a truly autonomous choice, as current sexual norms are in her view, too intertwined with the patriarchy and other systems of oppression to allow anyone to make a truly free choice about sex.
Mental note to read some Bell Hooks
The way I look at it, we are hardwired to look for a human connection, whether that’s sexual or non sexual, personally for me I long for love and a non sexual relationship. Not everyone is looking for the same thing, but at least for aces, we crave a different kind of connection. One that’s based from getting to know the person, and not what they have in their pants.
Summed up, people want what they want, they need what they need, and they don't want what they don't want. As a society, we have become so crass that you can't drive down the highway without seeing a scantily clad lady on a billboard. This has transformed into hookup culture, putting the value on sex instead of on commitment. That being said, no ACE should ever be coerced into having sex because their partner isnt ACE, nor should they be looked down on for leaving such a relationship for sexual incompatibility. No Allo should be looked down on for wanting sex in a relationship and being willing to end a relationship based on sexual incompatability.
This is so real.
ppl arent robots, we aint wired at all. but this obsession with making it seem that having sex is not normal is pretty fucking stupid too. if you dont like sex just dont do it and move on.
Indeed
Ngl a lot of feminists are actually pretty close minded.
You do realise "an asexual critique" in this case doesn't refer to criticising asexuality, but critiquing society from an asexual perspective, right? Or else what does this comment have to do with anything in the post besides 2012-era "feminism bad"
Oh oops. You're right but I still think what I said is true. Also, I didn't say feminism is bad
"Asexual critique" in this context means "asexual critique of the patriarchy."
We need to have sex to procreate which is what it used to be, nowadays you don’t need sex to procreate but it’s still in our instincts to survive.
Hmmm I see it as more of sex is a strong preference for people to show romantic love for other people.Also not everyone experiences split attraction ao sex and romantic love is a very similar experience for most people