this series of posts makes me swoon

Notes on “types of attractions as orientations” Part 1: neoliberal identity politics, Part 2: problems of orientation *independence*, & Part 3: QP relationships and/not platonic attraction

So many things.  So many things I’ve been thinking about but wasn’t able to say.

Relevant to:

  • quoiromantic, wtfromantic, no I don’t have a romantic orientation, stop asking
  • ace/q***r-debate rhetoric based on sorting aces by romantic orientation (stop)
  • the assumption that, in absence of attraction, no one would want or form committed same-genderish relationships (wrong, wrong, hello hi, other people like me exist)
  • identity-policing & “no you must have precisely zero of X type of attraction in order to ID as Y” & otherwise = gray
  • insistence on a One and Only singular definition of an identity based solely on one Platonic factor
  • respectability ploys of isolating variables & “this is completely independent from…” “this has nothing to do with…” (other experiences, gender, race)
  • get away from “pin down what specific types of feelings and attractions you have, this is The Most Important and all we do here” & get into pursuing the political implications
  • asterisk nominal recognition = not enough; the endgame should be changing the entire rule set and rebuilding it from the ground up
  • actually naming and critiquing neoliberalism in the ace community

Some really good reads.  Check ’em out.

I know RZ’s style is pretty jargon-y and academic though, so feel free to ask me (or them! I’ve seen them do this too) to translate any sections and talk it over with you.


6 responses to “this series of posts makes me swoon

  • embodiedinlanguage

    WOW that was a lot to take in. Very thought-provoking & relevant to any number of disputes I see circulating on Tumblr, for example.

  • October 2015 Carnival of Aces Round-Up (Aromanticsm & The Aromantic Spectrum) | From Fandom to Family: Sharing my many thoughts

    […] is so much in these posts, and Coyote has already reacted to them here. Please consider reading […]

  • epochryphal

    I feel like the history of affectional orientations, and bi people being shoved into behavior-not-attraction/identity, is super key here.

    Like, there’s a (resistant-to-oppression) reason why behavior has been deemphasized — because it was weaponized into biphobia.

    I’m just wary of swinging back too hard and repeating the same mistakes and sabotaging coalition possibilities.

  • Siggy

    I’m still in the process of reading this, because it’s way tl;dr. But my first thoughts:

    As a nominalist, I agree with the idea that sexual/romantic orientation categories are socially constructed, and are not “real”. I’m also sympathetic to the idea that they are informed by social and economic structures that have only really existed in the last century.

    However, I don’t like framing this as “neoliberalism” because that word clearly has a negative valence, and I think the descriptive and and normative theories should be separate. Sexual orientation is a social construction regardless of whether or not you think it is a beneficial or harmful social construction. If you wish to argue that sexual orientation is a harmful social construction, arguing that it is a social construction clearly isn’t enough. But you might think it was enough if you only ever talk about social constructions in relation to neoliberalism.

    I think epocryphal’s point above is just a specific case of this problem. The deemphasis on behavior is culturally contingent, but that doesn’t mean it’s bad. Like most things, it’s probably a mix of good and bad.

WP account not required to comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: