Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:56 AM Sep 2012

Male Asexuality and Its Challenge to Masculinity

An asexual man, particularly a celibate and/or sex-averse asexual man, is a bit like a symbol of religion in a fiercely atheistic society: some will dismiss him as a fantastical impossibility, while others will react with varying levels of animosity, out of the sense that he is an intrusion threatening the validity of their own worldview. In one corner, we’ve got the asexophobes who don’t acknowledge that asexual men even exist, which is necessary to their general dismissal of asexuality as not a real orientation but simply a new way to label an exclusively female tendency toward disinterest in sex or sexual inexperience or repression. In another corner, we’ve got the asexophobes who accuse asexual men of: being too emasculated by exposure to feminism and feminist women to express their sexuality, being closeted homosexuals, being too socially inept or unattractive to obtain sex, etc. While many ignorant sexual people with little to no knowledge of asexuality often make the assumption that only women identify as asexual (which is in itself a roundabout expression of buying into the misogynistic stereotyping of women as naturally less sexual beings than men), others are downright angry at the idea of men identifying as asexual, and they’re especially angry at the idea of men having an enthusiastic aversion to sexual participation. I’ve noticed that the sexual people who feel anger toward male asexuality are usually other men. The reason? Male asexuality is a powerful challenge to mainstream masculinity, which hasn’t changed its attitudes toward male sexuality at all, even after three waves of feminism. No matter what else has changed about how we view men and women, masculinity and femininity, no matter how men have changed since the 1960s, one thing remains utterly the same: successful masculinity depends heavily upon the male’s active sexuality.

The role of sex in masculinity performance is connected to other important markers of successful masculinity: power, money, dominance, and the approval of other men. All one has to do is pay attention to mainstream media to see that we collectively associate sex with power and money, regardless of gender but especially for men. The more money a man has, the more powerful he is, the more sexually desirable he is. The more sex he has and the more sexual partners he has, the more masculine he is, which wins the approval not only of women but of other men. Sex is also a part of male dominance: over women, naturally, but also over other men, even when the man in question is heterosexual. In male society, men can have a sense of where they rank next to each other, based on these elements of masculinity. Sexual promiscuity is something to be proud of, if you’re a man, while sexual inactivity is shameful. Men respect other men for their sexual accomplishments and disrespect men who don’t measure up to a certain sexual standard. Men compete with each other sexually: who can rack up the higher number of sex partners, who can build the best reputation as a skilled lover, who’s had sex with the most desirable women (or men), etc. They dominate one another with their sexual performance according to these parameters.

*

One interesting observation I’ve made is the way that certain sex-positive feminists or sex-positive people, who adopt their own feminism-disguised attitude of compulsory sexuality, actually (unintentionally) encourage and bolster the very patriarchal conceptualization of masculinity that includes compulsory sexuality and sexual performance as defining features of itself. Men don’t have the same shame attached to their sexuality that women have, thus compulsory sexuality means something different for men than it does for women. Sex-positive feminists who pursue the idea of women having a lot of sex consistently as the expression of their empowerment, freedom, and rebellion against misogynistic control of female sexuality, without giving due respect to voluntary sexual inactivity, fail to realize that not only are they creating a new, unhealthy paradigm of sexuality for women–one that ironically circles back around to feed into rape culture–but that they are also affirming mainstream masculinity’s compulsory sexuality tenet that plays a part in men’s misogynistic treatment of women. The kind of compulsory sexuality that feminists recognize as overtly anti-woman is the kind that demands women be sexually available to all men, at all times, for the sake of pleasing the men. The kind of compulsory sexuality sprouting from sex-positive feminism is actually more along the lines of masculinity’s compulsory sexuality: creating shame around not having sex, rather than having sex.

A man is never supposed to NOT be in the mood for sex. It doesn’t matter if he’s straight, gay, or bi. It also doesn’t necessarily matter who the potential sex partner is. If someone offers a man sex, he’s expected to enthusiastically want it. The idea of a man saying “no” to sex and meaning it is so unbelievable to us, as a society, that male rape victims are still often viewed as a myth. This is one of the more extreme consequences of the compulsory sexuality aspect of masculinity. A man can’t say no, without failing at masculinity in the moment. For women, the issue of saying “no” is tied into the misogyny, compulsory heterosexuality, and rape culture of our society; it is more an issue of a woman’s “no” not meaning anything or having power, when she says it. For a man, “no” isn’t even supposed to be in his vocabulary, when it comes to sex. We have men tied up in a situation where he’s supposed to want sex constantly, having sex makes him more of a man, and he’s also supposed to be incapable of emotional passion and intimacy outside of a sexual context. Saying “no” to sex, if you’re a man, is a rejection of masculinity, love, and intimacy–not just a “no” to the sex. Arguably, when women say “no” to sex, their femininity isn’t in jeopardy. We encourage women to say “no” more, because saying “no” and having that respected, as a woman, is something we’ve had to learn that we’re entitled to do. But no one’s encouraging men to say “no” to sex when they aren’t truly enthusiastic about it, are they? No one’s even imagining that men want to say “no,” ever.


http://thethinkingasexual.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/male-asexuality-and-its-challenge-to-masculinity/



the whole article is interesting.

15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Male Asexuality and Its Challenge to Masculinity (Original Post) seabeyond Sep 2012 OP
Game, set, match. MadrasT Sep 2012 #1
i thought it was in this article, but i could not find it when perusing. seabeyond Sep 2012 #4
Amazing outsideworld Sep 2012 #2
you are welcome. seabeyond Sep 2012 #5
Very interesting ismnotwasm Sep 2012 #3
years of marriage.... seabeyond Sep 2012 #6
Basic Instincts MysticLynx Oct 2012 #10
could get people addressing their basic need of 'need' seabeyond Oct 2012 #11
Simplistic basic drives? ChaoticTrilby Oct 2012 #12
i hadnt thought of it in this manner. interesting. lack of desire is how i defined asexual. seabeyond Oct 2012 #13
No offense meant MysticLynx Oct 2012 #14
No worries! ChaoticTrilby Oct 2012 #15
We still flirt ismnotwasm Sep 2012 #7
Yet troubled marriage boards are full of them One_Life_To_Give Oct 2012 #8
i think back to younger ages, and there was not this all incompassing awesome seabeyond Oct 2012 #9

MadrasT

(7,237 posts)
1. Game, set, match.
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 11:19 AM
Sep 2012
Sex-positive feminists who pursue the idea of women having a lot of sex consistently as the expression of their empowerment, freedom, and rebellion against misogynistic control of female sexuality, without giving due respect to voluntary sexual inactivity, fail to realize that not only are they creating a new, unhealthy paradigm of sexuality for women–one that ironically circles back around to feed into rape culture–but that they are also affirming mainstream masculinity’s compulsory sexuality tenet that plays a part in men’s misogynistic treatment of women. The kind of compulsory sexuality that feminists recognize as overtly anti-woman is the kind that demands women be sexually available to all men, at all times, for the sake of pleasing the men. The kind of compulsory sexuality sprouting from sex-positive feminism is actually more along the lines of masculinity’s compulsory sexuality: creating shame around not having sex, rather than having sex.


 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
4. i thought it was in this article, but i could not find it when perusing.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:26 AM
Sep 2012

so much of what this person was saying is what we have said repeatedly, just was said in another way that was so articulate. but, it was when using the terms anti sex, prude, which the sex positive feminist has helped to cement, it is no different than using the term slut. it was said very well, and i really wanted to grab and post on this. alas, i could not find it.

reading in the feminist forum on the org that protests topless. protest objectification. topless. lol. a handful of young women, that must be "in shape" in case they have to run. ALL of it is about objectifying themselves to get attention, as the words they use says hu uh. like saying it will make it true. though in the article, the writer was sure to say, how disappointed the many male writers were to find out the women were not naked when giving the interview yet they persevered and tried not to show their disappointment.

really?

to stand there and say, i am going ot objectify myself to speak against objectification, so it is not really objectifying myself is beyond silly.

we have a brain. we have a voice. if we cannot get our message out using our brain and voice, then that needs to be addressed. cause we are certainly NOT being heard when we strip down.

(ok, rant, dont know why this goes with what you say).

these say we are a puritan people. when reality we are a sex obsessed people. allowing sex to define all that we are, both men and women. yet, re refuse to even think about it.

ismnotwasm

(41,976 posts)
3. Very interesting
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 02:39 PM
Sep 2012

My guess is that if a man presents himself to a doctor as 'asexual', they would run blood tests, especially testosterone levels, recommend counseling, subscribe Viagra and just in general freak out. Not being interested in sex is anathema in out society, male or female, although females are expected to be a lot more sexually passive. (Otherwise we're 'sluts' dontchaknow)

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
6. years of marriage....
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:33 AM
Sep 2012

so often whatever i would do.... he would say, sex?

ok. not where i was at, but, you want to play i am game.

after years, this happened yet, there had been none of the signs we give off to wanting it and i asked. really? you really want sex? years into the marriage. lol. and he says, well, not really (i think he had a bad cold, late at night, hard day of work, really tired, nothing in it saying, ..... horney), i just say it cause it is expected of me.

i laughed, rolled the eyes and geeeeesh. such a guy.

ya, to what you say.

MysticLynx

(51 posts)
10. Basic Instincts
Tue Oct 2, 2012, 08:50 AM
Oct 2012

Procreation is a natural and basic instinct, however as we evolve so do our basic needs. I personally think asexuality is for some that next step in evolution, moving beyond one of our simplistic basic drives.
Now if we could get people addressing their basic need of 'need' ie: greed we as a society may have hope yet.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
11. could get people addressing their basic need of 'need'
Tue Oct 2, 2012, 09:13 AM
Oct 2012

i went thru a period learning how to "surrender". let go of the things i needed to.

not surrender in the victim weak.

but a funny along the way in this process. they biggest eye opener was surrendering to surrender.

because we condition that surrendering is a bad thing, when in reality, done grounded and balanced it is the healthiest. so stop fighting the surrending.

kinda like your addressing the basic need of need.

ChaoticTrilby

(211 posts)
12. Simplistic basic drives?
Tue Oct 2, 2012, 03:18 PM
Oct 2012

Plenty of asexuals have the "drive"...It's just not directed at any person/thing and they prefer to "satisfy" it on their own. To be asexual is to lack desire for sex with others. They may still have libido (though some sexuals/asexuals do lack that) but that doesn't keep them from not being interested in sex with anyone.

Also, as an asexual, I doubt that we're some "next step" in evolution. We're not X-Men any more than homosexuals or bisexuals are. In fact, you'll find some heavy objections around the asexual community if you suggest otherwise...

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
13. i hadnt thought of it in this manner. interesting. lack of desire is how i defined asexual.
Tue Oct 2, 2012, 05:09 PM
Oct 2012
Asexuality (sometimes referred to as nonsexuality),[1][2][3] in its broadest sense, is the lack of sexual attraction to others[4][5][6] or the lack of interest in sex.[6][7] It may also be considered a lack of a sexual orientation.[8] One commonly cited study published in 2004 placed the prevalence of asexuality at 1%.[8][9]

Asexuality is distinct from abstention from sexual activity and from celibacy, which are behavioral and generally motivated by factors such as an individual's personal or religious beliefs;[10] sexual orientation, unlike sexual behavior, is believed to be "enduring".[11] Some asexual people do engage in sexual activity despite lacking a desire for sex or sexual attraction, due to a variety of reasons, such as a desire to please romantic partners or a desire to have children.[6]

Only recently has asexuality started to become accepted as a sexual orientation and a field of scientific research,[4][6][12][13] and a growing body of research from both sociological and psychological perspectives has begun to coalesce.[6] While some researchers assert that asexuality is a sexual orientation, others disagree,[12] and various asexual communities have started to form since the advent of the Internet and social media. The most prolific and well-known of these communities has been the Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN), which was founded in 2001.



thanks for sharing this.

MysticLynx

(51 posts)
14. No offense meant
Wed Oct 3, 2012, 12:40 PM
Oct 2012

it did not quite come out the way I had intended, was not trying to imply some sort of deviation or something. I will leave it at that because the more I try to find a way to explain what I meant the less of a way I can find to explain it

ChaoticTrilby

(211 posts)
15. No worries!
Wed Oct 10, 2012, 03:51 PM
Oct 2012

I didn't really take any offense. I just thought I'd warn you about bringing up speculative evolution and asexuality around asexuals. It's starting to become a hotbutton issue in some ace (short for asexual) communities and I didn't want anyone else to get sucked into it.

You seem to accept us as we are anyway and that's what matters.

ismnotwasm

(41,976 posts)
7. We still flirt
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 01:15 PM
Sep 2012

Quite a bit. Everyday in fact. What's fun, is anticipation, because life does get in the way, whether it's work or health or mood or interruptions. You do what you can do.

One_Life_To_Give

(6,036 posts)
8. Yet troubled marriage boards are full of them
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 11:21 AM
Oct 2012

Well not exactly full. But there is no problem finding wives posting semi-annonymously about their Husband that has little/no interest in sex with them.

Remembering back we might talk that way, but actions were often different. Saying no to sex often implied you were thinking about more than just the here and now. Seems to me that for a guy, wearing a dress is an order of magnitude or more, worse than being asexual.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
9. i think back to younger ages, and there was not this all incompassing awesome
Tue Oct 2, 2012, 08:09 AM
Oct 2012

of mens sexuailty there is today. it was around the 2000 with bushco macho. i started hearing this absurd caricature of male sexuality.

over the last handful of years it has gotten so extreme, and like you say, i was hearing more and more women complain that they werent getting it. they wanted more. as mens sexuality escalated in mythical heights and womens sexuality was more dismissed.... leaving a huge gap between the two.

it started dawning on me what we were doing, when one actually looked at reality, and then what we are creating. no way a man can live up to what culture is creating their sexuality as. there much be an even increasing pressure, already having a role of pressure when coming to their sexuality. but, i also see the reward in this falsely created illusion

Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»History of Feminism»Male Asexuality and Its C...