Asexual Identity And Community: Article Analysis
In her article, Scherrer describes how language and naming are important in constructing asexual identities and communities. Though not all individuals experience asexuality in this way, it is commonly defined as lacking romantic, sexual, and physical attraction towards other individuals (Scherrer 2008). Using language from a predominately heteronormative society such as binary understandings of sex and gender affect the construction of an asexual identity. For example, many individuals who were interviewed described their sexuality in relation to the gender of their partner and limited definitions of sexual behaviors to androcentric views of vaginal sex (2008). Being able to name acts as sexual versus nonsexual or romantic versus aromantic removes limitations on a strict definition of asexuality, giving individuals freedom to define their identity differently. Similarly, using essentialist language when discussing asexuality constructs a community that views
…show more content…
their identity as natural, differentiating it from others terms such as celibacy referring to a conscious choice.
Scherrer also explains how the language and naming taking place in online communities influence feelings and experiences of asexuality.
The Asexuality Visibility and Education Network provides a safe space for support and discourse where individuals can explore their identities and establish a platform that is often suppressed in dominant society (2008). Here, asexuals expand their identities when labeling themselves as romantic asexuals, aromantic asexuals, queer asexuals, or bi-asexuals. For example, a romantic asexual may enjoy a partnership and engage in kissing, but not sex. The distinctions drawn between sexual or romantic experiences allow individuals to feel different emotions and attractions other than lust. The language in AVEN allows individuals to legitimize their own feelings and allows them to explain their identity to themselves and others. Language is important, as many individuals could not make sense of their identity until discovering the term asexuality and began claiming it as their
own. In their article, Ritchie and Barker describe how language and naming also influence the construction of a polyamorous identity and community. Polyamory is defined as simultaneously engaging in multiple romantic relationships with other individuals (Ritchie and Barker 2006). Similar to asexuality, polyamorous individuals use online communities to construct their identity. A new language is created within this community because society lacks the vocabulary necessary to accurately describe this lifestyle. If individuals lack a language to communicate in, it is difficult to express and make sense of their emotions, beliefs, and experiences (2006). In addition to the creation of a community, language is also important in redefining a polyamorous identity in order to move away from ideas of monogamy that portray non-monogamous relationships as negative and sinful. The creation of the term “ethical sluts” redefines polyamorous relationships as trustworthy and open (2006: 590). Both ethical sluts and polyamory are terms that establish a community for individuals, reshaping its meaning from a lifestyle choice to an identity. Language is also important in influencing the feelings and experiences of polyamorous individuals when allowing them to experience new emotions previously unavailable. For example, Ritchie and Barker explain how naming the individuals your partner is in a relationship with as “metamour” or “paramour” allows you establish a connection to them, making it easier to form a relationship (2006: 593). Similarly, “wibble” communicates to your partner that you are feeling anxious about their new relationships, meanwhile “compersion” and “frubbly” allows you to express your sincere happiness for their relationships (2006: 595). Polyamorous individuals can use these terms to explain their feelings in a positive manner without the connotations and language of jealousy that is deeply embedded in society. Individuals cannot experience new emotions if they lack the language to discuss it. Thus, making sharing this new language online allows individuals worldwide to legitimize their feelings, enabling them to govern their own thoughts outside of a monogamous perspective.
Naming and language have impacted my own sense of sexual identity, community, and feelings in various ways. For the most part, the language used in my family and religion influenced my understanding of my heterosexual identity. My parents defined marriage between one man and one woman and practiced strict gender roles that reflected these ideas. Similarly, my Catholic religion and readings from the bible reflected heterosexuality from stories about Adam and Eve who were created for one another. Religion also professed monogamy in language expressing commitment, loyalty, and faithfulness in marriage; for example, wedding vows read “for better or for worse” and “until death do us apart.” Here, my heterosexual identity was constructed through an understanding that women should be attracted to men in a relationship that would eventually result in marriage. My heterosexual identity was further impacted through a strong sense of community reflected in many aspects of media. My interaction with music, movies, books, and television all reinforced ideas of heterosexuality. In this space, all relationships and language revolved around men courting women or expressing their admiration, desire or love towards them. My experience with heterosexuality was further constructed during my high school years when I began dating males and participated in traditions such as prom that necessitated an investment in heterosexual culture in order to participate. Additionally, the language used in sex education presentations and biology books in high school focused on only describing sex between males and females in an androcentric perspective that Scherrer critiques in her asexuality article. This focus on heterosexual language hindered my exposure to other sexualities or identities as I was growing up. The heterosexual culture, community, and language I was exposed to helped facilitate and legitimize my heterosexual feelings and experiences. Because heterosexuality in often discussed using an essentialist language where it is described as the “natural” or “default” identity, I am able to effectively express my feelings to other individuals. Additional, I am able to find other individuals who share my beliefs and sexual identity without looking too far. Meanwhile, marginalized identities such as asexuals or polyamorous individuals are constrained by heterosexual language and must create their own communities. In their work Ritchie and Barker explain how by establishing a dominant language in society other individuals are silenced and suppressed (2006). Being a member of the dominant sexuality practiced signifies that my heterosexual feelings and experiences are rarely threatened, questioned, or dismissed by mainstream society—a privilege not all individuals possess.
their identity as natural, differentiating it from others terms such as celibacy referring to a conscious choice.
Scherrer also explains how the language and naming taking place in online communities influence feelings and experiences of asexuality.
The Asexuality Visibility and Education Network provides a safe space for support and discourse where individuals can explore their identities and establish a platform that is often suppressed in dominant society (2008). Here, asexuals expand their identities when labeling themselves as romantic asexuals, aromantic asexuals, queer asexuals, or bi-asexuals. For example, a romantic asexual may enjoy a partnership and engage in kissing, but not sex. The distinctions drawn between sexual or romantic experiences allow individuals to feel different emotions and attractions other than lust. The language in AVEN allows individuals to legitimize their own feelings and allows them to explain their identity to themselves and others. Language is important, as many individuals could not make sense of their identity until discovering the term asexuality and began claiming it as their
own. In their article, Ritchie and Barker describe how language and naming also influence the construction of a polyamorous identity and community. Polyamory is defined as simultaneously engaging in multiple romantic relationships with other individuals (Ritchie and Barker 2006). Similar to asexuality, polyamorous individuals use online communities to construct their identity. A new language is created within this community because society lacks the vocabulary necessary to accurately describe this lifestyle. If individuals lack a language to communicate in, it is difficult to express and make sense of their emotions, beliefs, and experiences (2006). In addition to the creation of a community, language is also important in redefining a polyamorous identity in order to move away from ideas of monogamy that portray non-monogamous relationships as negative and sinful. The creation of the term “ethical sluts” redefines polyamorous relationships as trustworthy and open (2006: 590). Both ethical sluts and polyamory are terms that establish a community for individuals, reshaping its meaning from a lifestyle choice to an identity. Language is also important in influencing the feelings and experiences of polyamorous individuals when allowing them to experience new emotions previously unavailable. For example, Ritchie and Barker explain how naming the individuals your partner is in a relationship with as “metamour” or “paramour” allows you establish a connection to them, making it easier to form a relationship (2006: 593). Similarly, “wibble” communicates to your partner that you are feeling anxious about their new relationships, meanwhile “compersion” and “frubbly” allows you to express your sincere happiness for their relationships (2006: 595). Polyamorous individuals can use these terms to explain their feelings in a positive manner without the connotations and language of jealousy that is deeply embedded in society. Individuals cannot experience new emotions if they lack the language to discuss it. Thus, making sharing this new language online allows individuals worldwide to legitimize their feelings, enabling them to govern their own thoughts outside of a monogamous perspective.
Naming and language have impacted my own sense of sexual identity, community, and feelings in various ways. For the most part, the language used in my family and religion influenced my understanding of my heterosexual identity. My parents defined marriage between one man and one woman and practiced strict gender roles that reflected these ideas. Similarly, my Catholic religion and readings from the bible reflected heterosexuality from stories about Adam and Eve who were created for one another. Religion also professed monogamy in language expressing commitment, loyalty, and faithfulness in marriage; for example, wedding vows read “for better or for worse” and “until death do us apart.” Here, my heterosexual identity was constructed through an understanding that women should be attracted to men in a relationship that would eventually result in marriage. My heterosexual identity was further impacted through a strong sense of community reflected in many aspects of media. My interaction with music, movies, books, and television all reinforced ideas of heterosexuality. In this space, all relationships and language revolved around men courting women or expressing their admiration, desire or love towards them. My experience with heterosexuality was further constructed during my high school years when I began dating males and participated in traditions such as prom that necessitated an investment in heterosexual culture in order to participate. Additionally, the language used in sex education presentations and biology books in high school focused on only describing sex between males and females in an androcentric perspective that Scherrer critiques in her asexuality article. This focus on heterosexual language hindered my exposure to other sexualities or identities as I was growing up. The heterosexual culture, community, and language I was exposed to helped facilitate and legitimize my heterosexual feelings and experiences. Because heterosexuality in often discussed using an essentialist language where it is described as the “natural” or “default” identity, I am able to effectively express my feelings to other individuals. Additional, I am able to find other individuals who share my beliefs and sexual identity without looking too far. Meanwhile, marginalized identities such as asexuals or polyamorous individuals are constrained by heterosexual language and must create their own communities. In their work Ritchie and Barker explain how by establishing a dominant language in society other individuals are silenced and suppressed (2006). Being a member of the dominant sexuality practiced signifies that my heterosexual feelings and experiences are rarely threatened, questioned, or dismissed by mainstream society—a privilege not all individuals possess.