The small but growing international community of people who identify as asexuals has recently gained media attention; it projects varying visions of New orientations asexuality as a conscious decision or as an innate condition. Cerankowski and Milks strive to go beyond important efforts in social psychology to de-pathologize asexuality, suggesting that serious engagement with asexuals and asexuality will transform both feminist and queer studies.
I had hopes for this paper, although I have no idea why. I feel like they would have mentioned being asexual. They theorize that as transgender studies emerged from feminist and queer studies, because it challenged assumptions about sexuality and gender, so too should asexuality studies.
Also, that asexuality studies would affect conceptions of sexuality and gender in feminist and queer studies.
They spend a few pages defining asexuality. No blogs, no other message boards. Thus far, asexual individuals have not politicized their a sexual practices in the same way that radical feminists such as Andrea Dworkin have.
Then they say that this could go hand in hand with radical feminism,
New orientations asexuality I admit I know nothing about. My point is that they go on to say:. The asexual movement encourages New orientations asexuality feminist movement to think further about how to theorize a feminist asexuality that cannot be dismissed as conservative, repressive, or anti-sexual. And this boils down what my major problem with this paper is.
I never really got the vibe that they were advocating working with asexuals to incorporate asexuality into feminist and queer studies. I got the feeling that I often get "New orientations asexuality" I read sexuals talking about asexuals: It made me feel vaguely alien.
Look how you never noticed that! It just seemed that there was a failure to contemplate that asexuals could also be feminists, could also be queer, could want to participate in the dialogue. Maybe asexual feminists should get to define that. That made me angry, because I am all three of those things: And I know a lot of asexual people think of their aceness as queerness.
I suppose this paper was really for asexuals. It felt weird to be in the room as we were being discussed, though.
I mean, the ace community spends an incredible amount of time discussing all the different ways in which one can be ace.
That sounds very, uh, patronizing. I mean, have they heard of Asexual Feminism? Did they even try to look?
Othering is a good way to put it.
I have no idea why my mind leaps to this. They also mention something about competing definitions on the AVEN page. We do talk a lot about this though!