Racism and Asexuality: Being confused at the notion that people find certain races sexually unattractive when you can be aesthetically attracted to anyone from any race because anyone can be beautiful???
what the fuck are you talking about
you do know the excuse “i don’t find black/asian/latina/etcs girls attractive” is usually one used by racists???
if you say u find a race unattractive you’re probably a fucking racist and you need to check that
people need to not use asexuality as an excuse to be racist, how gross
Calling out intraracism is hard, especially if you’re not a PoC. I feel like if you could do it in a polite way, and not in a way that is racist or erasing experiences (for example, making poor metaphors, like comparing the internment camps made for east asian people in America is the same thing as slavery, so he shouldn’t say things like that), I think you could do it.
However, I feel like white folk should not be speaking on intraracism, nor should they be pointing it out in PoC communities because it is not your place to do so?
It doesn’t affect you, and your opinion is never original, nor warranted. It’s not your place to comment, esp when you haven’t solved the racism in yr own folk?
You can’t invite supportive to a house you don’t live in, you know? Clean up yr own act before pointing at PoC communities, especially since antiblackness is something that is borne of colonisation, taught and ingrained in people. That to be considered a “model minority,” you have to shit on the black man/woman in order to try and get closer to the social status of “white.”
Sooooo, I would just go about it carefully, and back down if it’s not going well?
Words that are NOT asexuality:
Virginity, purity culture, abstinence, celibacy, fear of sex, sexual repulsion, sexual dysfunction/medical issues regarding sexual performance, anti-sex, single. Do NOT use these words interchangeably with “asexuality.”
Virginity is mostly a heterosexist, phallocentric, shame-oriented construction meant to police the sexual choices of women (though not only women; some people are genderfluid or intersex and still face the same thing) via patriarchy, sexsim, misogyny, misogynoir, homophobia, transphobia, classism, ableism and more, and at times is used to question the masculinity (when masculinity is patriarchal) of men for being “less of a man” for not having sexual intercourse by a certain age. Any person of any sexual orientation can ascribe to this thought/behavior, though it tends to be heterosexist and cissexist when spoken of and usually relies on binary notions of gender and patriarchal binaries. (May also be connected to some theisms.)
Purity culture takes virginity a step further by then equating the actual value of a person to their sexual choices. It’s often heterosexist as well, focusing on a woman “preserving” her body and sexual experiences for a husband who depending on where the purity culture is proliferated, might not have to reciprocate the same “preservation” because of patriarchy and sexism as well as patriarchal notions of masculinity where men “have to” have sex while women “wait.” Any person of any sexual orientation can ascribe to this thought/behavior, though it tends to be heterosexist and cissexist when spoken of. (May also be connected to some theisms.)
Abstinence is usually associated with youth and refers to delaying sexual experiences until a relationship is legally recognized by the State as having value, i.e. via marriage, or when a “respectable” relationship can occur. Sometimes it only refers to waiting until college/adulthood before having sex depending on the social class/cultural norms of the particular person in question. Any person of any sexual orientation can ascribe to this thought/behavior. (May also be connected to some theisms.)
Celibacy is usually associated with adulthood and refers to an extended period of time where a person does not engage in sexual intercourse after having sexual intercourse sometime in their life before. The reasons may be personal (whether good [i.e. disinterest] or bad [i.e. shame]), medical, theistic, or simply “just is” and is not an over the top effort to “avoid” sexual intercourse, but simply a choice.
Fear of sex can be a reaction to trauma, result from strong disinterest, relate to a particular theism or be the response of shame. Anyone can be legitimately afraid of sexual intercourse. While marketed as the ultimate pleasure, for some people sex is painful, traumatic, not of interest and/or creates anxiety. (Not speaking of rape here. Rape is NOT sex.)
Sexual repulsion is what it is stated as—repulsed by sexual intercourse to the point it evokes a feeling of sickness or extreme dislike. This feeling is not specific to any particular sexual orientation. Dysfunction/medical issues refer to specific medical conditions (i.e. hormonal, biological, response to injury/trauma) that impact libido, arousal and performance. This can occur with anyone and is not particular to any sexual orientation.
Anti-sex speaks to people who are either opposed to sexual intercourse across the board or are opposed to very specific forms of sexual intercourse (i.e. a cissexist homophobic anti-sex person opposes sex unless between a cishet man and a cishet woman), or opposed, but in a political sense (i.e. some anti-sex people want White supremacy, heterosexuality, and cis/able-bodied privilege decentralized from “sex positivity” ideology).
Single is obvious; simply a person of any sexual orientation that is not involved in a sexual and/or romantic relationship. This word still tends to favor people who aren’t asexual. While people of any sexual orientation who are single can face endless insults and even inequality and discrimination, being asexual and single is written off as pathology quite often.
Asexuality is a sexual orientation. People who rarely or do not at all experience sexual attraction (though they may experience other forms of attraction; i.e. sensual, romantic, aesthetic) are asexual. It is about attraction, not their behavior the night before. It is not solely any of the things listed above though some of them can impact asexual people just as they can impact heterosexual and queer people.
Not all asexual people are people who have not had sexual intercourse before (“virgins”) or are prolonging their first sexual experience (abstinence). Not experiencing sexual intercourse is not what makes someone asexual or every teen who has not had sex yet would be asexual, which of course is ridiculous. Not all asexual people participate in purity culture. Many find it repulsive, restricting and heterosexist/sexist/dogmatic. Others may find it to be a good thing but still are not asexual solely because they think physical intimacy should not occur without a marriage license or adulthood. Celibacy does not even apply to some asexual people. Some do not engage in sexual activity whatsoever, so they are not on a prolonged “break” from sexual intimacy or intercourse. Celibacy does apply to some asexual people who were celibate before coming to terms with their sexual orientation as not heterosexual or queer etc. and can apply to some asexuals (i.e. gray, demisexual) who while rarely experiencing sexual attraction still may have sex and are thereby able to be on a “break” from sexual activity.
Some asexual people may fear sex but that is not what makes them asexual. The fear of sex is a separate issue that heterosexual and queer people can also experience. Some asexual people can experience medical issues that impact sexual performance but said medical issue does not determine their actual sexual orientation. If so, then cishet men with erectile dysfunction would automatically be asexual. Obviously, they aren’t. Some asexual people may be anti-sex but so are some heterosexual and queer people. Some may be anti-sex because of bigotry or conversely as a political statement specific to critiquing the narrow ways that “sex positivity" is proliferated. Even so, this is bigotry or sociopolitical resistance, respectively, not sexual orientation.
It should be more than obvious that being “single” has NOTHING to do with sexual orientation yet this word gets used interchangeably with “asexual” (as is “gay;” for Black women, not chasing cishet Black men often means being called a “lesbian” where the word is meant to be a slur via homophobia; feminists/womanists are regularly called “asexual” or “lesbian” where both are used as slurs) by people who don’t know the difference or by people who are willfully ignorant and mean to demean asexual people or shame single people.
Pretending like all of the mentioned words are the same as “asexuality” occurs because people do not have the correct information on asexuality or because they are being willfully ignorant and are trying to marginalize the experiences of asexual people by associating us with labels often used to marginalize those who aren’t performing sexuality in a way that is supported by the status quo or is supported but only via binaries ultimately meant to oppress. Because of the history of racism, sexism, misogyny and anti-Blackness as the root of White supremacy that creates misogynoir, there is no sexual orientation that Black women can have without facing oppression. Controlling images that make heterosexual Black women “Jezebels” and asexual Black women “mammies” while oppressing queer Black women for being neither one are evidence of misogynoir. Though the oppression is not uniform, as heterosexual Black women have heterosexual privilege, even heterosexuality for Black women is treated as deviant and as a divergence from “pure” White heterosexuality, let alone the immense oppression that Black women who aren’t heterosexual face, especially when they aren’t cis or binary gender either.
No examination of sexual orientation will ever be thorough if viewed through Whiteness or heterosexuality alone. Asexuality is its own sexual orientation and should be treated as such, not as an “alternate” word for the ones mentioned above, not as pathology and not as representative of people to control, pity or shame.
Overview:Are you black? Considering making some cash by selling unwanted items online this holiday season? You might not want to show any of your skin in the photos of your goods. The Daily Mail reports that according to the results of a newly released yearlong study tracking the sales of iPods that showing your skin color will directly negatively affect your sales online.
According to the results of a newly released yearlong study tracking the sales of iPods on Craigslist, shoppers are more likely to make a purchase when they think the seller is white.
Not only that, but researchers found that black sellers received lower offers than white sellers, and that buyers’ correspondence with them “indicated lower levels of trust.”
So much for only seeing green.
Black sellers received 13 percent fewer responses and 18 percent fewer offers than their white counterparts. When money was offered, it was 12 percent lower than that offered to a white seller.
Isn’t white supremacy awesome?
Excuses White People/White Appeasers Make:
- 28 Common Racist Attitudes and Behaviors Debunked
- White Inventor Argument
- What about the Irish?
- What about other European immigrants that experienced discrimination?
- Tone Policing*
Reverse Racism Debunked Resources:
- Reverse Racism, or How the Pot Got to Call the Kettle Black
- The Undergirding Factor is POWER: Toward an Understanding of Prejudice and Racism
- Prof. Robert Jensen Discusses Racism, White Supremacy and White Privilege
- Why there’s no such thing as “Reverse Racism”
- Examining the Myth of “Reverse Racism”
- Racism against white people does not exist.*
- Reverse Racism is Not Real PP*
Definition of Racism:
for anyone interested in reading more about how schizophrenia moved from being a diagnosis assigned to white, middle-class women to one used to pathologize and institutionalize noncompliant black men in the 1960s, jonathan metzl’s the protest psychosis: how schizophrenia became a black disease is a good place to start. i have a PDF scan of it, too — just ask.
#before someone says otherwise:#’the protest psychosis’ isn’t about how schizophrenia isn’t a real disease#schizophrenia is a very real mental illness — it has strong genetic and organic components#but how we group symptoms#how we portray people with schizophrenia#how we stigmatize it and how we talk about it#all of that has a long history#and in it is a lot of racism and sexism and classism and of course ableism#how we think about mental illness has a lot to do with the culture we grow up with#that’s why the dsm is sort of like a feedback loop#and why diagnosis has so much to do with social construction#symptoms are very real#how we group them and categorize them and talk about them — that’s us
(tags via bubonickitten)
Hahaha it’s not like people have personalities past their skin color. Haha
i never understand why racists continue to follow and reblog from me?
my blog clearly states whiteness isn’t welcome here
Ah..that..gosh darn “Racism Formula”: Prejudice + Power. Probably one of the most counter-productive theories I ever heard of in my life. So, a race of people without institutionalized power can’t be racist? That means Neo Nazis and KKK Members are not racist..because they have no power. LOL. ANYBODY can be a racist. It probably should read: privilege = prejudice + power ..kinda makes more sense like that. There are many definitions of the word, its been around forever. To me, racism is the hatred for a race based on generalized and stereotypical opinions. I don’t know why you got certain people that want to make new definitions and terms to classify the racial hate towards them like they are special. Racism doesn’t stop being that when a certain group starts being subjected to the hate. Racism is Racism. Nothing more or less.
yoooo, the Soft Ghetto blog is NOT down with the movement.
omgggg noooooo (~there goes my hopes and dreams~)
*ABORT* *ABORT* *ABORT* *ABORT* *ABORT* *ABORT* *ABORT* *ABORT* *ABORT* *ABORT* *ABORT* *ABORT* *ABORT* *ABORT*
Portrait of Elizabeth Murray
England (c. 1650)
Oil on canvas, 124 x 119 cm
I think I have seen pictures of this before, in high school maybe, but I don’t remember there being a second person before. I seem to remember this image being cropped differently too, which is very disturbing because now that I see the entire painting, the way I remember it being cropped was very clearly and deliberately intended to remove the person holding the tray of flowers.
Since we’re throwing haymakers at the kyriarchy today, I think this is something that we should really be talking about too, because it happens
ALL. THE. TIME.
Level 1: People of Color from Medieval, Renaissance, and other Early Modern European works were often literally painted over in later decades or centuries.
Level 2: It was very fashionable in a lot of 17th and 18th century paintings to have a Black servant featured in portraits of very important historical figures from European History.
Honestly? They’re practically ubiquitous. A lot of the very famous paintings you’ve seen of European and American historical figures have a Black servant in them that have been cropped out or painted over.
Those silly stock photos from your American History Professor’s Powerpoint?
Your Professor’s PowerPoint for “George Washington”:
The actual painting:
Your professor’s Powerpoint on Jean Chardin:
The actual painting:
PowerPoint on Maria Henriette Stuart (with some commentary about the Habsburg jaw):
But, because of whitewashed history curricula, teachers and professors continue to use the cropped images because they don’t want their lecture to get “derailed” by a discussion about race.
These images are also more commonly seen on stock photo sites, including ones for academic use.
I honestly can’t find anyone really writing about this, or even any analysis on how often the cropped photos are used.
The reason they are so easy to crop out is because of the the artistic conventions which reflect the power hierarchy:
Oil paintings of aristocratic families from this period make the point clearly. Artists routinely positioned black people on the edges or at the rear of their canvasses, from where they gaze wonderingly at their masters and mistresses. In order to reveal a ‘hierarchy of power relationships’, they were often placed next to dogs and other domestic animals, with whom they shared, according to the art critic and novelist David Dabydeen, ‘more or less the same status’. Their humanity effaced, they exist in these pictures as solitary mutes, aesthetic foils to their owners’ economic fortunes.
This is drastically oversimplified, but at least it addresses it directly.
If anyone knows more on any studies or statistical evidence on this tendency, feel free to add it.
The American government can’t praise Mandela’s steadfastness for sitting in prison, while ignoring our own political prisoners. -@zellieimani
THIS! The “otherizing” of evil that the U.S. regularly engages in is hypocrisy that creates a suffocating stench. And I love that Zellie addressed those who cannot understand why this juxtaposition between Shakur and Mandela rings truthful. Not everyone has access to the truth. So keep sharing it. Critical.
Here are 10 photos (out of 22) from my series Racial Microaggressions. I have asked my friends on the Fordham University Lincoln Center campus to write down an instance of racial microaggression they have faced on a poster for me to take a picture of them.
whites are so condescending. fuck you cracker. society dont see you as “colorless” but if you wanna claim thats what you are fine. but im black and proud! whites always wanna take away somebodys identity…
this is fucking racist as fuck and if you think it’s funny to compare black children to apes you need to think for more than two seconds about the history of dehumanizing stereotypes and social darwinism and literal people who believed that black people were similar to apes and therefore didn’t deserve human rights