gif:p

vine

asexuality is based around eurocentric/western ideas of sexual attraction and has little relevance in cultures that aren’t western. the concepts of sexual and romantic attraction and distinctions made between them, asexuality, and aromanticism, are very western and were in fact created by people in the west. the founder of the ace movement is a white person, who has been shown to be racist in his personal statements. the movement was created in the west, for the west, by the west, and spread outward.

it also is a very modern concept. historically, even in the west, marriage was a social requirement and did not automatically equal romance or love or sexual attraction. it was a contract, and inherently tied to the societal view of women as inferior and as a commodity. experiencing the western-defined concept of sexual or romantic attraction was not a requirement for marriage. even now, in 2016, it legally is not a requirement. we cannot say that people are encouraged to get married and enter relationships, regardless of sexuality, when only straight people can get married without dispute. same gender marriage exists in many countries in the west, but our relationships are still highly stigmatised and being in a same gender relationship and being visible can very quickly end in abuse, assault, or death. in non-western countries, the consequences can be even worse. to say that we are all expected to be in relationships ignores and erases that. to say that we are all expected to experience romantic or sexual attraction erases that.

the concept of amatonormativity doesn’t hold water not only in the west but also in asia, for example, where many relationships aren’t even built on attraction but honour and social standing and the ownership of women. marriage is a contract in many asian cultures, and oftentimes it doesn’t matter if the people involved love or even like each other. even amongst the diaspora, the defined concepts of romantic and sexual attraction aren’t relevant to many poc, whose families still actively participate in non-western cultures.

these statements are integral to the movement’s history and relevant when discussing intersectionality. to say otherwise and pretend that these points are irrelevant to the movement does an incredible disservice not only to poc, but women, people who are attracted to the same gender, and ace people - all four of which i happen to be.

pointing these things out does not erase ace poc. pointing out the history of the movement and how the defined, specific concepts of sexual and romantic attraction are relevant mostly in the west does not erase ace poc. pointing out that in non-white, non-western countries the concepts don’t hold as much or any relevance, or simply do not apply, does not erase ace poc. pointing out that the majority of the movement is white does not erase ace poc. pointing out the fact that the founder of the movement is a racist white person does not erase ace poc. pointing out that the concept of amatonormativity is incredibly modern as a theory of social discrimination, and it does not hold water neither in the east nor the west, and this does not erase ace poc.

no one is saying poc cannot id as ace, or their experiences are not valid as ace poc. no one is saying we don’t exist. as poc, we can be as heavily immersed in western culture and society as any white person. as poc, our experiences with sex and romance are very complicated and our discussions regarding those topics can be nuanced and complex. ace poc exist. that isn’t up for questioning. but pretending as though the rhetoric the ace community uses is not deeply biased toward white perspectives, white issues, white history, white reality, does not help us and actually does erase us. pretending as though our rhetoric is not deeply biased toward het perspectives, het issues, het history, het reality, does not help us and actually does erase us. if we don’t acknowledge the parts of our rhetoric that actively harms other people, other aces, and consider intersectionality then we are not doing good enough. people deserve better.

- p