Just need to talk?
UK: Childline on
0800 1111
US: Trevor Project on
866 488 7386
|
Topic: Asexuals and Polyamorous: Queer?
Posts
 |
 |
:: JayD
:: QA8 High Householder | |
Here is a poll I came across earlier today. I made some comments that received some feedback that I didn't care to read. The broader internet tends to be inconsiderate of peoples thoughts. The only feedback I generally trust to be well thought out is here at Queer Attitude. And with the topic concerning the definition of queer being open to including polyamory and asexuality as a part of the broader definition, I wanted to know people's thoughts.
Perhaps my own thoughts will change. I am leaning to see queer mean any crossing of the gender binary. Meaning any deviation from Butler's heterosexual matrix which, if I recall correctly, shows the progression from born with a sex, developing a sense of gender based on sex, and than getting married or in a relationship with the opposite sex.
Broader definitions seem to include any sexual deviation from current westernized standards of sex, gender, and sexuality, etc. This definition would then include advocating for polyamorous rights. But they stop at BDSM and other forms. So, it is a heated debate in the comments. Good luck and I can't wait to hear back from you -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/..._n_1527983.html
?
I love helping people. If I succeeded consider liking my Good as Gay FB page.
FB page - http://www.facebook.com/goodasgay
Blog -
http://goodasgay.blogspot.com
|
|
Post: #650186  , Sat 19 May 12, 2:18AM |
|
|
i do believe asexuals fit into the queer spectrum cuz their a minority of people with the asexual orientation.
polyamrous? i dnt rlly know much about it so sorry if im ignorant but i dnt see it as a sexual orientation. its seems more like a prefrense someone has. and its all good if they all happy, but idk if it could be a sexual orientation cuz anyone with any sexuality could be polyamorous right? however i do belive they should be able to live their lives happily as they are and its all good. i do belive they sorda belong closer to the LGBT community b/c LGBT people are much much more understanding and welcoming of different sexual prefrenses then the straight community. its like i went to the Castro in san fran where alot of gay people live and there are nudist that live there (and majority are actualy straight) b/c they are more welcomed and accepted as they are.
i think when it comes down to it we are all human and i think the LGBT community is pretty good at accepting people of all sexual orientation or gender identity (as well as straight and ci) i know there are still some ignorant rude people in the community but its still usually good.
hopefully that all made sense.
|
|
Post: #650201 , Sat 19 May 12, 3:47AM |
|
|
I'm just going to keep this simple..
no.
Asexuality: a lack of sexuality- one who does not have attraction (sexuality) to a partner or others.
LGB - all based on sexuality
While Polyamorous- I'm personally against them. It's the persons life choice or whatever- but I believe relationships are between two people to keep pure. (not attacking anyone) But I believe it shouldn't be added to something like this. I can't say I have anything to back it upon- it just...seems off to add it.
|
|
Post: #650295 , Sat 19 May 12, 4:09PM |
|
|
I think of queer as any lifestyle that doesn't align with the heteronormative one. Under that definition, sure, asexuals and polyamourous people can be considered queer.
Especially since queers have been ostracized for a very, very long time, I don't think those of us who identify as queer should practice any exclusivity within our community.
|
|
Post: #650302 , Sat 19 May 12, 4:41PM |
|
|
Asexual, yes. Polyamorous, no.
I believe that queer refers to your sexuality and gender identity. Asexual is a sexual identity, whereas polyamorous is just that a person happens to like multiple people at once.
To me, suggesting that being polyamorous is being queer is like suggesting that a straight guy is queer just because he wants to have a threesome with two girls. And to me, that sounds pretty straight.
La clarté étrange de ton sourire illumine mon été.
I wish I were a glow worm, a glow worm's never glum. 'Cause how can you be grumpy when the sun shines out your bum?
|
|
Post: #650316 , Sat 19 May 12, 6:07PM |
|
|
I have to agree with the others. Asexuality is a non-heterosexual "orientation", which is what associates it with queer, which tends to refer to anything non-heterosexual. Polyamorous can apply to anyone. That would be like saying BDSM qualifies as "queer", when that's not true at all.
OMNIA SUNT INGRATA |
|
Post: #650321 , Sat 19 May 12, 6:31PM |
|
|
Not all asexuals are queer and not all polyamorous people are queer? Like, hetero-romantic asexuals aren't queer, right?
I guess with polyamory it's kinda more complicated, but I guess, same can apply. I guess.
|
|
Post: #650341 , Sat 19 May 12, 7:28PM |
|
|
I'd like to propose a hypothetical argument. (That hopefully won't prove to be composed of lighter fluid.)
Lets say we have an MtF trans person. She is attracted to men, and therefore identifies as a straight female. If she wants to call herself part of the queer community because she is trans, should we let her?
Or, should we argue that she shouldn't be included because she is straight? Or, perhaps, because the "different" part of her identity doesn't have to do with her sexuality?
...
Anyone? Anyone at all going to make those arguments?
...
I didn't think so. In fact, we would probably accuse anyone who did make them of being transphobic, and with good reason.
How is this different?
If "queer" is going to be an umbrella term — and if the community it describes is ever going to get anywhere — I don't think we should claim the right to exclude people from under it. As far as I'm concerned, if you don't fit the societal norm of heterosexual, cisgender, AND monogamous, and you want to call yourself queer, go for it, and welcome.
I get that there's fuzziness where, say, heteroromantic aces are concerned. Or straight poly people. I get confused about that sometimes. But... if they don't fit the community of the "norm," where will they go if not to us?
As for poly, I've come to believe that it's not a sexual orientation exactly, but a relationship orientation that is just as natural as sexual orientation. I'm not meant to be poly, and my ex-girlfriend isn't meant to be monogamous. It's just the way we're wired.
...ahem.
As you can see, I feel rather strongly about this matter.
My answer to the original question is an emphatic yes.
Hearts don't follow the rules of logic.
|
|
Edit: Splash, Sat 19 May 12, 9:15PM
Post: #650364 , Sat 19 May 12, 9:12PM |
|
|
:: Tiara
:: QA9 Grand Elder | |
I don't think that a group of people should be able to dictate what another person labels themselves as. That's just my opinion. Who are we to declare who is fit to call themselves queer or not? Isn't this the same issue with equal marriage rights? It's a group of mostly heterosexual people dictating that same sex couples can't get married.
To hell with labels. I don't give a damn what anyone does with their genitals as long as it's consensual. Call yourself what you will... I do not care.
|
|
Post: #650389 , Sat 19 May 12, 10:06PM |
|
|
:: JayD
:: QA8 High Householder | |
It seems to me a number of consistent viewpoints have emerged here as well as upon the original huffington post article.
Yes ace No poly - Under the idea that ace is defined as a sexual identity and that aces face discrimination, they should definitely be included. Polyamory on the other hand is a lifestyle choice and should therefore not be included as queer.
No ace No poly - Asexuality is not an orientation because it is the lack of an orientation. There is also the problem of heteromantic which still can be perceived as straight. Aces don't face discrimination and therefore shouldn't be a part of the umbrella. Polyamory reasoning is the same as above.
YES - For someone to identify as queer they should identify it for themselves. As for anyone who doesn't identify as queer, they shouldn't be put into the umbrella box. Some people argue here that they don't identify as queer because they don't embrace the identity or take back they word because they continue to interpret the word as offensive. Yes for both has broad implications meaning that something that is seen as a a sexual choice like polyamory is frequently viewed, should also be considered queer. However this leaves BDSM as . . .
I think I am missing some viewpoints. I think I might draft up all the generalized viewpoints here and on the original post and put them on my blog at Good as Gay - thanks for the feedback everyone. I will keep everything anonymous. And will only synthesize and paraphrase.
I love helping people. If I succeeded consider liking my Good as Gay FB page.
FB page - http://www.facebook.com/goodasgay
Blog -
http://goodasgay.blogspot.com
|
|
Post: #650440 , Sun 20 May 12, 1:32AM |
|
|
I generally follow QUILTBAG for my grouping. I like to include asexuality in that as asexuals face many o the same challenges as the rest of the group. Polyamory I do not include, though it's not as if I feel especially strongly about it and could not be convinced with pertinent information. What anyone wishes to call themselves is their own business, but as things are grouped in my head, polyamory isn't really wrong, but does not fit in the same category.
Also for those who don't know QUILTBAG:
Q - Queer and Questioning
U - Unidentified
I - Intersex
L - Lesbian
T - Transgender, Transexual
B - Bisexual
A - Asexual
G - Gay, Genderqueer
I always find it more inclusive and more fun to say than LGBT.
|
|
Post: #650475 , Sun 20 May 12, 3:22AM |
|
|
:: XlobX
:: QA8 High Householder | |
"Queer" is a word in the English language that means "unusual" or "different". Some will say that the usage we are discussing relates that definition to sexuality, relationships and gender. Therefore, "queer" can refer to all the things mentioned above. However, others say that the definition relates only to sexuality. In that case, "queer" only means GLB. It's an undefined slang term, so there is no right answer.
However, in my opinion, abnormal sexuality, gender and relationships should not be grouped together, and so, a word like "queer" which covers all of the above, is not useful. I don't see what my "queer" sexuality has in common with anyone else's "queer" gender or "queer" relationships. The psychological causes that these things share are probably also present in the causes of more mainstream atypical "mental conditions" that one would never associate with the word "queer". The only thing that abnormal sexuality, gender and relationships do exclusively share is probably society's prejudice attitude towards them; not something we really want to highlight with such a broad term.
|
|
Edit: XlobX, Sun 20 May 12, 7:20AM
Post: #650509 , Sun 20 May 12, 7:06AM |
|
|
The reason it is used and is extended specifically to those who it is extended to is because t was once used as an attack, but has since been re-branded as our own. That is also one of the reasons it applies to the many "T"s in the spectrum as it was used for for them and not just applied to sexuality.
Also, I would have to say using "abnormal" is less preferred than uncommon or unusual. Normal generally does not refer to what is mot common in cases like this, it is in reference as to what is natural or considered alright. Since we are arguing semantics of words already.
|
|
Post: #650514 , Sun 20 May 12, 7:29AM |
|
|
:: darkless
:: QA7 Taking responsibility | |
Two main points:
I consider asexual and polyamorous people as parts of the queer community. Ultimately I'd define the lgbtq community as being anyone who crosses gender boundaries, which would include trans people and people who "break the rules" of "traditional" relationships. I'm sorry, but "While Polyamorous- I'm personally against them. It's the persons life choice or whatever- but I believe relationships are between two people to keep pure. (not attacking anyone) But I believe it shouldn't be added to something like this. I can't say I have anything to back it upon- it just...seems off to add it." sounds a lot like people who argue against gay marriage, since marriage "must be" between one man and one woman. Polyamorous people are often attacked by heteronormative, cissexist society. If you love someone or some people and everyone in the relationship is okay with it, there is nothing wrong about it.
Ultimately though, you're a part of the lgbtq community if you identify as such. If you're asexual and heteroromantic then if you identify as queer, I think you should be able to, but I don't think most people who identify as such would.
"Be who you are and say how you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."-Dr.Seuss
|
|
Post: #650518 , Sun 20 May 12, 8:05AM |
|
|
I'm reasonably sure it all depends on any individual's perception or understanding or the word 'queer', and if it is taken to mean a deviation from the normal, then the definition of normal also has to be agreed on.
On simple and personal note (taking into account the above I'm taking queer to mean not heterosexual)... Asexual could be, technically, though it kinda seems that by definition it's ruling out sexuality. I am taking into account that there are same sex asexual relationships, but it just seems, I don't know, like something completely different. Ultimately I think it's down to the individual, as are a lot of these things.
As for polyamorous people, well, if you're not heterosexual then I have no issue with it, but if you are then it seems kind of pointless.
This whole labelling thing seems to have gone mad...
I'm a ratfish trying to practice doing back flips on your mattress.
|
|
Post: #650532 , Sun 20 May 12, 11:31AM |
|
|
it depends on how you interpret it.
in my opinion, the asexuals are queer, as queer is used for sexuality, and gender minorities.
but polyamourus people are not queers unless they are a minority sexually or genderally.
often, you find polyamourus people also fit on the queer spectrum, but being polyamourus in itself does not qualify you for it. I consider the nonqueer polyamourus people to be the eqivilant to a close cousin and good friend to the queer community.
my example, I had an FtoM bisexual poly boyfriend, he is queer. but a straight cisgendered poly person is not queer .
(: (:
it will be alright in the end, and if it's not alright, it's not the end yet.
|
|
Edit: AdamJJW, Tue 22 May 12, 9:52PM
Post: #651063 , Tue 22 May 12, 9:49PM |
|
|
:: Inch
:: QA6 Livin' it up! | |
I must admit, I'm very shocked at the attitudes some people have here. Yes, ace and polyamorous people should be able to self-identify as queer.
They are both sexual and/or romantic minorities.
They both face discrimination.
And no, I do not believe polyamory is a "lifestyle choice" any more than I believe homosexuality or transsexuality is. Do you really think someone would throw him or herself into an "undesirable" or "deviant" category? Because that's what people consider things like homosexuality, transsexuality, AND polyamory.
The LGBTetc. community is not limited to sexual orientation and gender identity. Romantic orientation, the ace-rooted concepts of heteroromanticism, homoromanticism, etc., plays a large role as well.
Would you really limit the definitions of gay and bi to sexual attraction? What happened to love?
I apologize if I was overly emphatic here, but it really shocked me to see LGBT people making the same arguments against polyamory that homophobic straights use against gay people.
I will never be afraid again
I will keep on fighting 'till the end
I can walk on water
I can fly
I will keep on fighting 'till I die
|
|
Post: #651082 , Tue 22 May 12, 11:13PM |
|
|
:: darkless
:: QA7 Taking responsibility | |
@Inch, I love you. I get so annoyed when marginalized people marginalize other groups, or some of their own (ex. internal racism, radical feminists going against trans people and feminine women).
"Be who you are and say how you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."-Dr.Seuss
|
|
Post: #651085 , Tue 22 May 12, 11:26PM |
|
|
Okay, I'm going to have to disagree here.
No one here is saying that anyone shouldn't be able to self-identify as anything. People always have the freedom to self-identify and no one is trying to prevent people form identifying that way. This question is asking about whether you consider polyamory and asexuality as fitting under the umbrella term "queer", since the term is loosely defined as it is and varies highly on a person's perspective. No one is saying a person should be barred from self-identity; call yourself a male lesbian for all I care. This seemed to me more about personal perspectives on what is meant by "queer" and whether polyamory fits that definition.
Secondly, I don't think it is accurate to compare polyamory to homosexuality. One is a sexual orientation and the other is not and they cannot be seen as exact counterparts. If we're making the argument that neither are lifestyle choices, then we must say: homosexuality is outside of a person's control. Which seems to be true. We are attracted to people of the same sex and it has nothing to do with choice; it's just the way we are. But can the same be said of polyamory? Do polyamorous people need to be in a relationship with multiple people? Are polyamorous people incapable of a monamorous relationship?
I would argue that I can't just opt for a relationship with a woman because I am homosexual. I am in a sense incapable of a relationship with a woman. But it seems to me that polyamorous people simply are open to something additional that most people aren't. Or all polyamorous people exclusively bound to relationships of multiple people?
The only polyamorous person I've ever known seem to be of the former type: he was open to a relationship with multiple people but he would be perfectly fine in a monamorous relationship.
OMNIA SUNT INGRATA |
|
Post: #651133 , Wed 23 May 12, 2:05AM |
|
|
'Queer' refers to anything that is out of the ordinary. Asexuality and polyamory are both out of the ordinary, so they count as 'queer'.
Whether or not polyamory relates to sexual orientation or not is a different question. I, personally, think it does not, because I think sexual orientation is more what gender you love, not how many people you love. But this particular question I think is more a matter of opinion, anyway.
The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong in the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry. -Ernest Hemingway
|
|
Post: #651142 , Wed 23 May 12, 2:25AM |
|
|
 |
 |
LIKE THIS PAGE
|
Who's Online
Last 15 mins: 34 guests, 12 members: charles5611, prussianblue, james123456, KiKi, BigGayBear, Ceasedtoexist, razrsharp, gamerguy99, ChristianCripp, Britts, Merovingian, 9thEcho QA Ethos
Above all else, QA should be a friendly community. Contact us when our Terms are broken.
Events and promos
Check out
The Official QA Blog
|
Three's A Crowd... or is it?
Oh no, I procrastinated again! (Rant Warning)
Lily Helena Knight
Things that grow
Just so.
My new life
Trip to the zoo!
![Techie Shaun is paradoxical, indefinitely [Avatar]](images/?img=avatars/6243wee.jpg?i=0){kind=small}
