Holy shit, is that like a normal thing over in the US? ‘Cause that is some seriously aggro harassment. No way you could get away with that over here..
Unfortunately that’s actually pretty tame. In the city, I’ve had guys give me their phone number on the train and then mutter in my ear a rather long and explicit definition of what they’d like to do to me, I’ve gotten screamed marriage proposals from homeless people…most recently I had a guy pursue me for around 45 minutes, try to kiss me, follow me halfway across central park and even to the train entrance after I told him that 1) I have a boyfriend and 2) I needed to leave. So….um….yeah.
Oh, okay. Knowledge! Thanks for the links. What would be a preferred term, then?
No problem! As far as I’ve seen, there hasn’t been one specific term that people have agreed on thus far…I’ve just been using “non-asexual people” or “people who experience sexual attraction” as general terms, or if describing a specific person, use the sexual orientation that they identify with. Figure I might as well ask my followers though- anyone know if there’s a preferred unproblematic term for people who are not on the asexual spectrum?
What's the issue with referring to non-aces as sexual?
It’s not something I currently feel comfortable explaining in my own words, but there are two posts by missvoltairine that come to mind as discussing the issue very well, which can be found here and here.
“Being asexual instead of sexual is like being left-handed instead of right-handed. It’s not the way most people are, but it is no better or worse than being anything else. In a classroom with movable one-arm desks, a right-handed person can sit anywhere; a left-handed person can either sit in discomfort at a desk made for the right-handed or locate a left-handed desk and be as comfortable as everyone else. It takes a little more effort for the left-handed person to fit in, but that is because culture is dominated by the right-handed, not because a left-handed person is biologically inferior.”—
Like many of you who have been discussing the issue on Twitter and Facebook today, I was angered to learn that a new UK conference for radical feminists, RadFem2012, is not only playing host to a well-known transphobe, but is actively excluding trans women from attending.
The conference is open only to “women born women living as women”. Now, I personally support and fully appreciate the value of women-only space, but that space has to be open to all self-defining women. Excluding trans women from an event that aims to build an “anti-oppressive movement for the liberation of all women from patriarchal oppression” is bitterly ironic.
Trans women suffer horrifying levels of violence, abuse and discrimination, fuelled not only by the fact that they are women, but by the refusal of the vast majority of the cis population to acknowledge and respect their identities. The organisers of RadFem2012 have actively chosen to align themselves with this majority, and in so doing are complicit in trans women’s oppression. Radical? Feminism? I think not.