Tag Archives: aromantic

The Zero Was Important, And Aces Are Too

When I talk about being an Asexual Aromantic, one of the questions I get asked most (right after “Do you, not aces in general but you specifically you can tell I mean it’s you specifically because I’m leering and emphasising YOU in the question with a distinctive change in pitch, masturbate?”) is “why bother to talk about it if you just want to not-do something?”

The general expectation of these people being, of course, that the only thing which makes Asexual and Aromantic life different from that of sexual and romantic persons is that you just “don’t do” certain things. While some of this stems from genuine confusion over how a lack (for very deep want of a better word) of something can be such an issue. The humorous part of me just wants to reply to that by bringing up how difficult maths with Roman numerals was in comparison to the Arabic numbering system with their impressive invention of the ZERO (a mark to represent a number that was literally nothing), or how vacuums work and changed the world. I would love to leave it at that.

But I can’t. I can’t because for every person who genuinely doesn’t get it, there’s another two who ask the same question aggressively. Not asking because they don’t understand the fuss, asking because they – on some, most likely subconscious, level – blame the Aces and Aros for coming out and making a point of their existence. Asking because they think that we’re making something out of nothing and that if we all just kept our non-interest to ourselves we wouldn’t be discriminated against, or harassed, or – y’know – raped and told to be grateful that our attackers tried to “fix” us.

But that’s not how it works. The modern, global, society is in love with love. It is hypersexualised. It is not a place in which an Ace or an Aro (not the same thing, guys!) can slide under the radar.

What radar? You know which radar. The family gathering “Have you found someone yet?” radar. The girl/guy talk “Did you think X or Z was hotter?” radar. The causal chit-chat “Oh you’re single-that’s-the-same-as-available-don’t-worry-you’ll-find-someone-oneday” radar. The “Are you sexually active? Please don’t lie I’m your doctor I need to know” radar. The “Why didn’t you think it was sad that they didn’t get together in [fiction]? Do you WANT to be a crazy cat lady?!?” radar.

And if you’re thinking “But those are all just every day normal conversations”: yeah. That’s the point. Colleagues chit chat about their family lives. Family members and friends want to know when you’ve found someone and how it’s going because they “Just want you to be happy” – a happiness which fits very snugly into their own desires but is completely inappropriate for yours and which they will force you into whether you like it or not. Friends talk about their love lives, and their sex lives, and make “friendly” jabs about you if you don’t join in.

If you’re an Ace or Aro you can get away with dodging these questions …for a little while. But these are people you see regularly. They notice if you’ve never “found the time/the right person/aren’t ready for that right now”. They can count. And they can remember. And then they get PUSHY. I know this guy/girl whod be perfect for you! Im just trying to help! Do you WANT to end up a crazy cat lady? Thats [your name], theyre a prude. Or maybe a sociopath. Or something.  But whyyyyyy. I just want to fix you! WHY WONT YOU LET ME FIX YOU!?!?” 

…On and on and on.

No one should have to spend their life dodging questions like that. No one should have to suffer from anxiety or start conversations already planning escape routes. No one should have to feel dread at a gathering because they know that That Question is coming for them, sooner or later.

We live in a society where Romantic (which is generally conflated with Sexual) love is considered the highest good, the most important relationship, and the only thing that really makes life worth living. If you admit to not being into that, you’re told you’re broken. Or a serial killer.

And if that makes you think that coming out or not is irrelevant, let me make one thing clear: there is a huge difference, for Aces and Aros, between coming out by force – having to stumble through an explanation that you’re not really into something but not having the right words, which everyone around you will treat as a negotiation or a challenge – and coming out by choice.

Being able to just say “I’m asexual” or “I’m aromantic”, or “I’m an asexual aromantic” is a HUGE deal. It’s not a stumbled, confused attempt to explain something the other person has no concept of and no reason to consider it a concept. It’s clear. It’s simple. It’s a fact. It’s not a challenge. It’s not an apology. It’s not a mistake. And it’s NOT UP FOR NEGOTIATION.

It’s the difference between having to say “Um, well, Team A has not scored yet so, um, their score is well it doesn’t exist. Not like they aren’t playing but they haven’t got any points. Not necessarily in the minuses but less than one. Is less than one a thing? Um, no, not a half. Like …neither half?” or just holding up a scorecard with a 0 on it.


(Comments are closed.)
Leave a comment

Posted by on August 25, 2017 in On Reality


Tags: , , ,

Folklore Is Not Static

Only a short post today because I’m ill and struggling to concentrate. Just a brief list of misconceptions about folklore that really piss me off, those being that: the oldest form of a folktale is the “right” one, that folklore is somehow accurate to political correctness and other things the folk didn’t know about, and that innovation in writing about folklore by exploring its limitations and changing thins is somehow “Wrong”. Dear people who think these things: [redacted due to excessive vulgarity in vulgar Latin].


1) There is no one “true” or “purest” version of any folklore. Just because you’ve gone back to the earliest form of a folktale or the earliest description of a creature that we know of does not make that version any more “accurate” or “real” than any later version, okay? The Strigoi Mort, for example, is no more real folklore than the Stokerian vampire or the, loath as I am to have to include them, sparklepires of Twilight and its ilk. They are different pieces of folklore from folk who differ in both location and era, but they are all folklore. One can argue whether the latest still deserve to be called vampires instead of some new name, but the same was indubitably true when the Stokerian vampire first immerged from literary origin and became folklore. If, say, you had one person fall ill from iron deficiency or TB in one town and the story of their illness or death spread sideways to the two neighbouring towns – one of which recently had things knocked off tables by a minor earthquake in the night and one which had an albino merchant travel through it recently, within no time you’re going to have three completely different sets of vampire folklore (one without attachment to other issues, one implying vampires are also nocturnally poltergeists, and one laying blame on the poor innocent albino person who happened to pass through the week before). None of those is any less folklore than the others. Nor are the inevitable versions that form as time goes by, but which were based on those, any less true folklore than the earlier forms. I don’t say “original” because, frankly, although we can tell where certain traits originate from, all these ideas have to come from somewhere before and so there can be no true “origin” of any folklore.

2) Folklore is the lore of the lowest common denominator: that means it’s every –IST and –ISM in the book and then some. As a collective, humans are pretty stupid. And when they’re not stupid they’re still prejudiced – especially in groups. Folklore, as the name suggests, is the lore of the folk – that is, of the least educated group. Folklore, essentially, is ruled by the lowest common denominator amongst the social group it originated in. This means that it’s racist as hell. It’s sexist as hell. It’s sexualist (also called homophobic, but that’s narrower) as hell. It’s ableist as hell. It’s classist as hell. It’s religiously intolerant as hell. And it’s every other –ist and –ism which I’ve failed to mention as hell. Somewhere, I believe (it’s been a while since I read them) in one of the Eddas there’s a line about how Odin could seduce any pale wristed woman in the world. To the people who came up with that it probably was just a pretty way of saying “all the women in the world”, but to the modern lowest common denominator it begs the question “so what about women who aren’t white?”. The Sirens of Greek myth were said to be able to seduce any sailor (into crashing or drowning) with their beautiful singing… until one day someone pointed out that deaf people are a thing. Western European fairy tales, or rather: the majority of those fairy tales, have taught children for centuries that women are a passive reward for a heroes actions and only recently are fairy tales beginning to be retold without love interests or with more active female characters. Many traditional Scandinavian mythical creatures were said to be able to seduce (a word now almost exclusively attached to sexual seduction, although it originally also included leading astray and winning someone over to the other side – something vaguely remembered by “seduced to the Dark Side” although there tends to still be the evil=sexy implication) both men and women, both gay and straight – probably because Scandinavian countries have had a somewhat healthier mindset toward homosexuality and bisexuality. However, this does not account for asexuals, for whom there was no term until 1940 and before that either had to put up with almost definitely having to marry a sexual person who wouldn’t understand or taking a vow of chastity. (This is why it is hard to find “proof” of asexuality in the past. Also, my pet theory is that the concept of chastity – choosing to not have sex for religious reasons – cam about one day in prehistory when one quick witted repulsed Ace, who either didn’t want kids or couldn’t put up with sex to have them, was reminded that the way things are is that when you grow up you get married and have kids and that Ace went “NOPE! …because …um, religion! Yeah, I promised [vaguely appropriate deity of choice] that I’d dedicate my life to them specifically and that means ix-nay on the sex and babies thing, okay?” – and then it got dogmatised and lots of people who weren’t asexual and weren’t going to be okay with a vow of no-acting-on-pantsfeels got pressured into it, leading to all the disturbing jokes about “favourite” altar boys.) In all of these cases the common people – the folk – give absolutes which may make sense to them at the time because they don’t know that people aren’t all like that, but which are horribly restrictive and offensive when viewed through the critical eye of a different culture or era. All of which leads me to point 3:

3) Folklore adapts and changes as the L.C.D. changes and there’s no point clinging to the past. The nature of folklore is change. The beauty of folklore is change. Folklore shifts, like sand dunes in a desert – slowly to the human who stands there for a time but shockingly fast to the human who sees, leaves, and returns to see again. This shifting is a detailed record of how the lowest common denominator – how the general population or common folk – viewed the world. Both what is included and what is not excluded but simply not considered tell us far more about how people viewed the world and how those cultures changed (I won’t say evolved because people tend to mistakenly believe evolution is a linear progression to some betterment rather than just adapting to different circumstances). Folklore does include traditions, it is true, but to say “you shouldn’t change [X] or consider how [Y that the folk the lore originated from didn’t know about] and must take those absolutes they told for granted despite their lack of universal applicability because IT’STRADITIONAL” is bullshit. Folklore includes traditions, but is not confined by them. Folklore is about the ebb and flow of traditions, the path they take from when the idea was first formed to when it becomes defunct and forgotten. Folklore is about change. Without that person history has made anonymous who first pointed out that “uhhh, guys, deaf people can’t be seduced by Siren-song because they can’t hear”, we would never have had the story – so much a part of folklore for thousands of years now – of Odysseus being tied to the mast while his crew sail them safely past with wax blocking their ears. There is no reason, for instance, that the “common knowledge” (the folklore) that a creature can seduce any gender should not eventually amend itself to “can seduce any person who is interested in sex” and that new Western European fairy tales and new telling of old ones should not slowly change to reflect the fact that women are people too.

Sure, sometime writers and other artists will try to do a new take on a piece of folklore (by examining the changes between what the originators of the folklore believed was normal and what the modern folk believe is normal) only to have it be quickly forgotten because the older form of the folklore still holds strong and the new idea was not adopted by the folk, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t try. Folklore is like a wild and thorny, but beautiful, plant: you can’t control it; you can only offer it things to support itself with and stand back in awe.


…This was supposed to be short.

Leave a comment

Posted by on February 11, 2016 in On Folklore


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,