Heterogeneidad en la comunidad asexual

11 enero 2017

English version

Esta entrada es una colaboración para el carnaval de blogs, que este mes trata sobre diferentes formas de ser asexual. La he traducido del inglés, que es el idioma de este carnaval, por sugerencia de su anfitriona.

A pesar de no haber dos asexuales iguales, incluso dentro de cada subcategoría, todavía percibo una gran división entre románticos y arrománticos. Aunque la frontera entre ambos es borrosa, habiendo una amplia y diversa zona gris, todavía encuentro útil la distinción entre románticos y arrománticos. Mientras que la división entre asexual con y sin libido, la cual completa el modelo ABCD ahora obsoleto, tiene que ver con asuntos más privados, la división según la atracción romántica tiene que ver con cómo los asexuales se comportan socialmente, en especial respecto al emparejamiento. Tenemos que lidiar con presiones sociales muy diferentes. En mi primera quedada asexual, el anfitrión dijo en la presentación “supongo que todo tenéis experiencia sexual”, a lo que yo respondí “ni la tengo, ni me he visto presionado a tenerla”. La clave estaba en que yo era el único arromántico en la quedada y esto hacía mis experiencias acerca del sexo muy diferentes de las de los demás. Aunque hay quienes, siendo arrománticos e ignorándolo, sucumben a la presión por emparejarse y así tienen que soportar también la presión por practicar sexo, la mayoría de las experiencias que he oído de asexuales podrían clasificarse grosso modo como, bien felizmente solteros y célibes, bien en pareja y con problemas acerca del sexo. Cada grupo suele sentir una sola de las susodichas presiones sociales, con excepciones. Por ejemplo, algunos chicos felizmente solteros, ya aceptados como solteros empedernidos, sufren presión para echar un polvo.

Al contrario que la división discutida en el párrafo anterior, que puede reconocerse a partir de la historia de cada asexual, hay otro dato que debería proporcionarse para saber de dónde viene cada asexual y cómo les trata la sociedad: el sexo asignado al nacer. No me refiero a la identidad de género, que suele proporcionarse en el perfil de usuario, sino del sexo asignado al nacer, el que es socialmente reconocido, en especial por los más conservadores, salvo que vivan como su género preferido manteniendo en secreto su sexo. Mientras que la identidad de género es necesaria para tratar con respeto a los demás usuarios, el sexo al nacer es necesario para entender adecuadamente las reacciones sociales y poder aconsejar más acertadamente. Cuanto más conservadora sea la sociedad donde vive el asexual, más relevante será el sexo asignado al nacer. Yo soy un chico cis y así lo tengo puesto en mi perfil. Si fuera trans y no me sintiera identificado con mi sexo de nacimiento, consideraría alguna fórmula para hacerlo saber en mi perfil. Pero, aludiendo al tema del mes pasado, es una decisión de privacidad personal qué datos compartir en la red.

A pesar de su utilidad en las presentaciones, las categorías antes discutidas no son divisiones nítidas, pues Natura non facit saltus [la Naturaleza no hace saltos]. No debemos reemplazar un estereotipo homogéneo de la asexualidad por un conjunto discreto de ellos, pues incurriríamos en el mismo error a otro nivel. Quiero finalizar traduciendo una palabras del Informe Kinsey:

El mundo no se divide entre ovejas y cabras. No todo es blanco o negro. Es un fundamento de la taxonomía que la naturaleza raramente trata con categorías discretas. Sólo la mente humana inventa categorías y trata de forzar los hechos en nichos separados. El mundo vivo es un continuo en cada uno de sus aspectos. Cuanto antes aprendamos esto en relación al comportamiento sexual humano, antes llegaremos a un claro entendimiento de las realidades del sexo.

PD. Otra división, en este caso dentro de la comunidad arromántica, se discute en esta entrada de A Life Unexamined. A grandes rasgos, separa los arros dirigidos al emparejamiento o a la soltería. El estereotipo de arromántico que mencioné se correspondería con el de aquéllos dirigidos a la soltería. De todos modos, la conclusión de la autora es similar a la mía.


Heterogeneity in the asexual community

6 enero 2017

Esta entrada es una colaboración para el carnaval de blogs, que este mes trata sobre diferentes formas de ser asexual. Escribo en inglés porque es el idioma de este carnaval, pero hay una traducción aquí.

Despite not being two similar asexuals, even within subcategories, I still notice a great divide between romantics and aromantics. Although the border between both is blurred, existing a wide and diverse grey zone, I still find useful the distinction between romantics and aromantics. Whilst the divide between asexual with and without libido, which completed the now-obsolete ABCD model, deals with more private issues, the divide about romantic attraction has to do with the way the asexuals behave socially, especially about pairing off. We deal with very different societal pressures. In my first asexual meet-up, the host said in the introduction “I assume you all have sexual experience,” to which I replied “No, I don’t, and I’ve never felt pressured into it.” The point was that I was the only aromantic at the meet-up, and this made my experiences around sex very different to others’. Although there are people who, being aromantic in ignorance, succumbed to the pressure to pair off and so had to bear the pressure to have sex too, most experiences I’ve heard from asexuals could be roughly classified as, either happily single and celibate, or with couple issues around sex. Each group use to feel only one of the two aforesaid societal pressures, with exceptions. For instance, some happily single guys, once accepted as confirmed bachelors, feel pressure to get laid.

Contrary to the divide discussed in the previous paragraph, which can be recognized from the asexual’s story, there is another piece of information that should be provided in order to know where the asexual comes from and how society treat them: the so-called sex assigned at birth. I don’t mean the gender identity, which is stated in the user’s profile, but the sex assigned at birth, the socially recognized, especially by the most conservative ones, unless they go stealth. Whilst gender identity is necessary for politely addressing the other users, the sex assigned at birth is necessary for properly understanding the societal reactions and giving better advice. The more conservative the society where the asexual lives, the more relevant their sex-at-birth is. I am a cis guy, thus I state so in my profile. If I were trans and felt mislabeled by my sex-at-birth, I would consider using a formula in my profile that let other users know. But, recalling the previous month’s topic, it’s a matter of personal privacy to decide what data to share online.

Despite, their usefulness at introductions, the aforesaid categories are not clear cut, since Natura non facit saltus [Nature doesn’t make jumps]. We should not replace a homogeneous stereotype of asexuality with a discrete set of them, since it would be the same mistake at another level. I want to end with some words from Kinsey Report:

The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. Not all things are black nor all things white. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories. Only the human mind invents categories and tries to force facts into separated pigeon-holes. The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects. The sooner we learn this concerning human sexual behavior, the sooner we shall reach a sound understanding of the realities of sex.

PS. Another divide, in this case inside the romantic community, is discussed in this post at A Life Unexamined. Roughly speaking, it divides between aros driven to couplehood or driven to singlehood. The stereotype of aromantics I mentioned would correspond to those driven to singlehood. Anyway, its author’s conclusion is similar to mine.


Naming and discovering new categories

31 agosto 2016

Esta entrada es una colaboración para el carnaval de blogs. Escribo en inglés porque es el idioma de este carnaval.

When I first came across the asexual community and read the descriptions of the terms it used, I didn’t identify with it initially, though these distinctions made a lot of sense to me. Despite the definition of the word “asexual” was a bit undefined that time because of the vagueness of “sexual attraction,” I considered really necessary to separate sex drive, sexual attraction and romantic attraction. Because of the lack of a good definition of “sexual attraction,” I considered myself hetero-hyposexual, but I immediately felt that the word “aromatic” described myself, so I wrote in my AVEN description “strongly aromantic.” Through discussion of the concept of “sexual attraction,” I finally recognized I had always been asexual, but I didn’t feel as identified as when I learnt of aromanticism. But the best word I found in the asexual community for describing myself was “squish.”

My reference for the definition of squish has always been the blog post Squish! by Trix. I had experienced squishes before, but I misidentified them heteronormatively as crushes if they were on girls and irrelevant if they were on boys. In the terminology of an older post, lacking the platonic category, I misclassified the girl squishes as romantic and the boy squishes as social. I think they would have been better classified as social, but amatonormativity made me consider some of them actual crushes. But they were platonic, and the word “squish” opened my eyes to a new category where I could recast many relevant feelings of my life. The platonic category has simplified the understanding of my feelings since I was aware of it, and the word “squish” has allowed an accurate communication with other members of the asexual community about my feelings.

The word “squish” was a breaking point of my policy about translation of asexuality terms between English and Spanish. Initially I kept a dictionary so that I could speak of asexuality in both languages, but I couldn’t find a word for “squish,” and the Spanish word “platónico” is quite different from the English word “platonic.” Anyway, the platonic category was so useful that we needed to use it in Spanish regardless the denomination. Some years later, some Spanish-speaking aromantic activists proposed terms for this category, like “arrobo” or “arrobamiento” for “squish” and “afectivo” for “platonic”, but the years when I had to use the English ones made hard for me to adapt to the new ones, especially “afectivo” because of it’s prone to confusion.

Other people may live happily unaware of the platonic category, but for me it was lacking words for one of our senses. If we identify the platonic feelings with hearing and romantic feelings with sight, my previous life was lacking terms for the sounds, being blind in a visual society. When I heard music, I thought I had to be seeing something. Realizing I was blind and that sound was a sensible reality, I could enjoy the music for itself.


My experience with asexuality, marriage and Christian religion

26 octubre 2014

Esta entrada es una colaboración para el carnaval de blogs, que este mes trata sobre asexualidad y religión. Escribo en inglés porque es el idioma de este carnaval.

I am not religious nowadays, but I was raised Roman Catholic, which is the traditional religion in Spain. I am asexual aromantic, and singlehood is my natural state, though I lacked unmarried role models in my childhood, except in the Church. So religion was for me the proof that marriage is a choice, and not something unavoidable and irresistible everyone experiences when grown up. It is therefore understandable that I considered becoming a priest when a child. Later I detached myself from the Church because of the hypocrisy of its people, who make prophetic the words of Matthew 23 that Jesus addressed to the Pharisees.

Fortunately, when I left the sheepfold, I already knew that marriage is a choice, but I still had to bear the societal pressure to match, maybe tempered by the Catholic tradition. I don’t know from experience what happens in Protestant societies, but from what I read in the asexual blogosphere, the pressure to marry is stronger there, probably because they lack unmarried role models. But I think that, though the priestly celibacy is questionable, the Catholic doctrine of celibacy is righter than the Protestant one. The latter, who allegedly follow the sola scriptura policy, are forgetting the doctrine of Saint Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians, who clearly states the following.

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. […] But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. — 1 Corinthians 7:1-2,6-9

I had to remind this passage a few times in AVEN because the Protestants ignore these verses. I shall assume bona fide they did for ignorance, but I feel tempted to think that they are teaching as God’s commandment what is plainly human tradition, as Jesus himself condemned.

Another biblical passage that I had to quote in AVEN, though less clear than the Pauline excerpt above, is the so-called verse of the eunuchs. I know there is controversy because of the exact meaning(s) of the word “eunuch” in the verse, with the Christian gay groups preaching it refers to homosexuals, but I shall not enter here the discussion. I will only notice that “eunuch” did not mean exclusively “castrated”, as the Justinian compilation proves, but I may blog about this in another occasion. The verse, in context, is the following.

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. — Matthew 19:9-12

Jesus is clearly speaking of marriage in this passage, clearly claiming that marriage is not for everybody. The verse of the eunuchs is an (obscure) explanation of this statement. This “marriage is not for everybody” thing is something that the Protestants are forgetting again. So I’m glad I had been raised in Roman Catholicism rather than in Protestantism because of its acceptance of unmarried life.


Asocial: the final frontier?

13 octubre 2014

Versión en español

This post is a translation of the relevant parts of Asocial: ¿la última frontera? (in Spanish).

In the short history of asexuality we have witnessed twice a reaction against which we should be cautious in order to avoid committing it a third time. I mean the denial of asexuality by the (allo)sexuals who, unable to conceive that someone may lack what they feel, deny that asexuality might exist arguing that sexual attraction is universal and lacking it would result in inhuman beings incapable of loving. In reaction to this, the romantic asexual raise the flag of love without sex and reply things like “asexuals can also fall in love,” invisibilizing and denying the aromantics. Moreover, forgetting the way they were attacked, they now defend the universality of romantic love and even claim that its lack would result in inhuman beings incapable of loving. In reaction to this second denial, the aromantic asexuals discovered the squish and reclaimed the (queer)platonic relationships. This sounds again as the invisibilizing and denying cries of the (allo)sexuals and the romantics, and I would not want that these findings so useful to our emotional lives were used for the invisibility and denial of the aplatonics. I have read claims of universality of platonic love, although I still have not read that its lack would result in inhuman beings incapable of loving, and I would not like to see it happened. We know that the aplatonics exist and are capable of loving. Even the aplatonic aromantic asexuals show other kinds of affection for other people: for their family, their non-platonic friends and their close acquaintances. Apart from family love, the affection toward this kind of friends could well be called social. The coinage is not mine, since I had already read “homosocial” before, especially in the context of “heterosexual and homosocial.” In the same way we are socially conditioned into heterosexuality, we are also socially conditioned into homosociality, but I think that in past times more than nowadays.

This social affection would correspond with social attraction, which would be what we call “to take to,” in my opinion. Thus, according to the social attraction, a person could be heterosocial, homosocial, bisocial (well recognized terms en sociology) and even pansocial or, why not, asocial. Nevertheless, does the term “asocial” do justice to the people lacking this affection? We have spoken out in favor of the aplatonics and would not want to see another turn in the cycle of oppression described above, but it seems that the various senses of the term “asocial” does yield the same meaning. Do I miss anything? A person can be asexual, aromantic, aplatonic… and asocial; is “asocial” the final frontier of human attraction? I can at least say that, being platonic, I am not an interested party in setting the frontier precisely in the first kind of attraction I experiment in this digging of attractions: sexual, romantic, platonic and social. Though I can’t be accused of partiality, I don’t want to boast of objectivity either, so I would like to get feedback from the readers. You may post your message either as a comment below or, if you prefer privacy, through the contact form. I would like to get replies especially from aplatonics and from asocials.


Asocial: ¿la última frontera?

12 octubre 2014

English version

En la anterior entrada Atracción romántica, afectiva y platónica presenté las dos alternativas en uso para la atracción que orienta los squishes, arrobos o arrobamientos: “afectiva”, en uso por algunos activistas de la comunidad asexual hispana, y “platónica”, calco del inglés, ambas en conflicto con usos establecidos en la lengua española. En aquella entrada utilicé “afectiva” para esta atracción, pero en ésta, debido a los conflictos que genera, utilizaré “platónica”, advirtiendo desde aquí que este uso técnico del término excluye lo romántico.

En aquel post planteaba una reacción que ya se ha producido dos veces en la corta historia de la asexualidad y contra la cual deberíamos estar precavidos para evitar cometer una tercera. Me refiero a la negación de la asexualidad por parte de los (alo)sexuales quienes, no concibiendo que haya quien carezca de lo que ellos sienten, niegan que pueda existir la asexualidad aduciendo que la atracción sexual es universal y carecer de ella resultara en seres inhumanos incapaces de amar. En reacción a esto, los asexuales románticos enarbolan la bandera del amor sin sexo y responden cosas como “los asexuales también nos enamoramos”, invisibilizando y negando a los arrománticos. Más aún, olvidando la forma en que se les atacó, ahora defienden la universalidad del amor romántico e incluso afirman que carecer de él resultara en seres inhumanos incapaces de amar. En reacción a esta segunda negación, los asexuales arrománticos descubrieron el squish y reivindicaron las relaciones (queer)platónicas. Esto vuelve a sonar como los gritos invisibilizadores y negacionistas de los (alo)sexuales y los románticos, y no quisiera yo que estos descubrimientos tan útiles para nuestra vida emocional sean utilizados para la invisibilidad y la negación de los aplatónicos. Sí, he leído afirmaciones de universalidad del amor platónico, aunque todavía no he leído que carecer de él resultara en seres inhumanos incapaces de amar, y no quiero esperar a que esto ocurra.

Una de las razones en favor de la denominación “platónico” en lugar de “afectivo” es precisamente que “aplatónico” no lleva a pensar en alguien incapaz de amar, como sí puede llevar “anafectivo”. Éste es uno de los conflictos que genera esa otra elección, a los que me refería en el primer párrafo, y creo que es una razón suficiente para optar por “platónico”, como he hecho en este post. Sabemos que los aplatónicos existen y que sí son capaces de amar. Incluso los asexuales arrománticos aplatónicos presentan otros tipos de afecto (otra razón en favor de “platónico”) por otras personas: su familia, sus amigos no platónicos y sus conocidos cercanos. Dejando aparte el amor familiar, el afecto por este otro tipo de amigos bien podría llamarse social. No es acuñación mía, pues yo ya había leído “homosocial” antes, especialmente en el contexto de “heterosexual y homosocial”. Al igual que estamos condicionados socialmente hacia la heterosexualidad, también estamos condicionados socialmente hacia la homosocialidad, aunque creo que en los tiempos pasados más que en la actualidad.

A este afecto social se le correspondería la atracción social, que creo que sería lo que llamamos “caer bien”. Así, según la atracción social, una persona podría ser heterosocial, homosocial, bisocial (términos reconocidos en sociología) e incluso pansocial o, por qué no, asocial. Ahora bien, ¿hace justicia el término “asocial” a la gente carente de este afecto? Hemos roto una lanza en favor de los aplatónicos y no quisiéramos repetir el ciclo de opresión antes descrito, pero parece que el término “asocial” sí que coincide en el mismo concepto la acepción “sin atracción social” con la acepción clásica de asocial. ¿Se me está escapando algo? Una persona puede ser asexual, arromántica, aplatónica… y asocial; ¿es “asocial” la última frontera de la atracción humana? Al menos puedo decir que, siendo platónico, no soy parte interesada en fijar la frontera precisamente en la primera atracción que sí siento en esta excavación de atracciones: sexual, romántica, platónica y social, del mismo modo que hay (alo)sexuales que fijan la frontera en la atracción sexual y asexuales románticos que la fijan en la atracción romántica. Aunque no se me puede acusar de parcialidad, tampoco quiero presumir de objetividad, por lo que me gustaría recibir las impresiones de los lectores. Podéis escribirme bien comentando en esta entrada o bien, si preferís privacidad, por el formulario de contacto. Me gustaría recibir respuestas en especial de aplatónicos y de asociales.