How does this place view single and celibate women

[IsThereAnEchoInHere]

I was reading the comments on other thread (I have a point, so not a TAAT) about the asexual person.
And I’ve also been lurking on Ovarit (I can’t register there) and they also have, just like comments here about asexuality, very disparaging things to say.

So I was wondering does that extent to women who do not have sex? Maybe ever, even once?
Or is the problem just that you don’t like people calling themselves or being asexuals?

And once I’m here.
There’s been lot of talking about virginity being a social construct and shouldn’t matter, but IRL a self-proclaimed feminist (and happens in other situations too) bullied a person who was a virgin. Why was that seen as an okey thing to do?

Most people dont care whether you sleep with men, women, both, neither. Its not the most interesting thing about you, unless your identity is defined by your sexuality or asexuality and you yourself make it an issue.
Generally whats important is: are you interested in the topic being discussed and do you have interesting/insightful ideas to add.

On the thread you mentioned people were pointing out that screaming loudly that you are asexual whilst posting photos of yourself in highly sexualised BDSM bondage gear is inconsistent, at the very least.

Not YOU you, but the woman that some guy had pointed out did this.

Just be asexual. Wont get much grief from me.
Out of curiosity, what is the problem of being asexual? Is there one?

This place is not a hive mind. Most of us will at some stage of our lives have been celibate / single etc at some stage in our lives.
What there is I think is a weariness at the incessant self absorbed labelling of every passing phase / feeling that the rest of us are meant to acknowledge.
Live your life, be happy, look for support when facing the multitude of challenges (bereavement, mental health, serious illness etc) that life throws our way.

Having said that, there's a fascinating book by the excellent Sheila Jeffreys "The Spinster and Her Enemies: Feminism and Sexuality, 1880-1930"

It's an interesting read.

"This place" doesn't have a view to which participants must subscribe to join the conversation, as evidenced by the fact there are discussions and debates over many topics.

Threads wouldn't get so rowdy if everyone on here thought the same things, and that's a good thing, as it's important to be challenged and to stress-test one's own position and engage with others so that they can do the same.

Some people here will have a strong view on a subject and some people couldn't care less, so it's worth remembering that even if a few posters are vehemently against your position, that's not the MN view or the FWR view, and it's not necessarily even the standard radical feminism or liberal feminism view (even if they're convinced it is).

Sure, a poster can say "you can't be x if you think or do y", but their saying it doesn't make them correct, and it would be a shame to walk away from all the incredibly useful and valuable bits of MN FWR because you've mistaken a few vocal posters (including the ones who respond on this thread) as being the arbiters of the FWR/feminist/GC view and have concluded that you don't belong.

Personally I find it's often helpful to debate the differences between different notions of feminism, and to drill down to exactly why people believe that x view isn't compatible with a gender critical position, and so on. I've learned a great deal over the years from others on MN FWR, and also about what I really think on many issues, through the process of having my views challenged and defending and/or modifying my position, which has been incredibly valuable to me personally.

We're all just anonymous people without any collective agreement on anything, so please don't place too much weight on what any one poster (or random person criticising people elsewhere) says, and remember that they don't speak for everyone here, whether "here" means FWR, radical feminism, liberal feminism, gender critical people or whatever.

IRL a self-proclaimed feminist (and happens in other situations too) bullied a person who was a virgin. Why was that seen as an okey thing to do?

It doesn't remotely sound like an okay thing to do. Bullying in general obviously isn't, bullying someone for being a virgin sounds frankly weird.

There is zero animosity to asexual people on here or society in general. The issue is around militant asexuals who are claiming the mantle of oppression.

'This place' is more interesting in. discussing issues related to sex ( as in biological fe/male) and gender. Sexual practice or celibacy would only be discussed if it cropped up in relation the these broad topics.

Identity labels that tend to be associated with the LGBTQ+ are often rigoropusly challenged and tested. And as 'asexual' is now an 'offical' identity - that gets challenged too.

I think this. My hobby group, which is a physical hobby and nothing related to sex or anything, recently announced they were a safe and welcoming place for various groups including asexuals. The asexual bit did strike me as there is no way the group could ever be an unsafe place for someone who doesn’t want sex. No one would ever know or be bothered. I think asexual can be a handy label for people to describe themselves to themself or others when required ( if dating, say) but I cannot see how asexual people are in any way an oppressed group.

Why are people so desperate for the whole world to know they don’t want to have sex recently?

is this something that requires massive fanfare? Why should anyone care?

I'm asexual and no I don't think we are an oppressed group! People who say we are just bring hate our way.

"Single and celibate" is fine but I've seen a lot of posters take umbrage at the use of the label "asexual". I think partly because of the trend to label everything and claim it as an identity, and partly because they see celibacy (or lack of interest in sex) in others as something of minor significance and not worthy of a name.

A lot of posters lack empathy in comprehending the visceral feeling of not being like other people because all around you are displays of relationships/coupledom/sex being the norm. There was a poster not too long ago who took the trouble to write considered explanations of their experiences and feelings - some posters got it but others still shrug off the notion with common replies of "I don't care whether other people have sex or not so why should they feel bad about themselves" or "Well I was celibate for x years between relationships and didn't feel the need to label it, so why should anyone else".

I don't know anything about feminists bullying virgins so can't answer that one.

Single and celibate doesn't necessary mean the same as asexual though. Asexuals never experience sexual attraction. That's different to people just choosing not to have sex for a while.

Sorry I think i read the post wrong, read it too quickly

The year 7 art club at my children's secondary school spent pride month carefully designing flags which defined demisexual, aro/ace, pan, etc etc etc. Not exaggerating, there were about 16 different flags.

These are 11/12 year olds. The vast majority of them have no sexual experience whatsoever. I'd say they are significantly less mature in that way than my peers were 30 years ago.

There is a weird, obsessive, cult-like devotion to defining every single tiny variant of human behaviour as an identity , and centering sex, or lack of it, as all important.

I don't care if my friends and family are having sex with one person, loads of people, no people, every day, once a year, or never. Why would I? Why would anyone make this the focal point of talking about themselves or anyone else?

We all have feelings about our lives and the way they do or don't function in relation to how we perceive others to feel or function. That's not unique to people who adopt the label of asexual. But most people tend not to centre these feelings and turn them into an identity.

I mean seriously. Look at this shite. From the BBC. How does this in any way help the political cause of feminism?

Demisexuality, which falls on the asexuality spectrum, differs from simply wanting to wait for a deep bond to form before having sex with someone; rather, it’s more akin to the experience of being asexual until that type of connection forms, at which point the sexual attraction extends only to that person. For allosexuals, on the other hand (people who aren’t on the asexual spectrum), waiting to have sex until forming a deep connection is more of a preference, and less of necessity to developing sexual desire.

www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20211101-why-demisexuality-is-as-real-as-any-sexual-orientation

@Superfood that's dreadful that school didn't that. I agree with what you said. Someone's sexuality is private and should remain so. I don't get the need to be labelling all feelings and using them as an identity. Our private lives should be just that-private.

I don’t like the currant trend of labelling aspects of one’s personality.
Surely, like most other things in life, human behaviour (sexual or otherwise) falls on a bell curve. Whilst some people have no sex drive, there will be the other extreme.
It seems rather self centred to assign labels to yourself and assume that others should be interested to learn about it.

I’ve seen the whole identity thing compared to neurodivergent disabilities, but I disagree that they’re similar. Knowing someone has a disability means that reasonable adjustments can be made, no such adjustments need to be made for someone because they don’t have sex, so why does anyone need to know?

I think part of the issue is the inconsistency, of the campaigning ones anyway. They insist they’re discriminated against and proclaim that it’s fine to be asexual and not have sex nor want it (which it is) but then you also get people saying it’s normal for asexual people to have sex and be horny.

It does seem to be a common theme - create flags for every single different situation (aro/ace etc as a pp said) but then not want to exclude people so the differentiations become meaningless.

There is a weird, obsessive, cult-like devotion to defining every single tiny variant of human behaviour as an identity , and centering sex, or lack of it, as all important.

You said this so much better than I did!

surely if someone is so unhappy about feeling different because they don’t want to be in a monogamous sexual relationship, the answer is for them to get some individual therapy to be happier in themselves.

Why does there need to be some big focused campaign around affirming asexuality or whatever?

Don't care.

OP is showing remarkably little interest!

About as much interest as they showed in including actual evidence of their claims of widespread bullying of virgins across a variety of feminist spaces 😒

There is no group "you". Just individuals with differing opinions. We are not an organisation with a party line and people being whipped to toe it.

You seem to think that the average poster posting here hates people who don't have sex. I cannot fathom why you have come to that conclusion. I don't think asexuals face discrimination nor need any specific protection like sexual orientation has in the Equality Act for example. What would be a constructive discussion would be for you to explain why you think asexuals do face discrimination, what form that takes and how the Equality Act could be extended to protect them.

Women who don't have sex through choice or circumstance are as welcome in feminism as any other women, and I think feminists would be particularly understanding of heterosexual/bisexual women who have chosen not to engage in sexual relationships with men. It's a pretty common aspect of women's history and women's struggle to forge their own identities independent of men.

You say " IRL a self-proclaimed feminist (and happens in other situations too) bullied a person who was a virgin. Why was that seen as an okey thing to do?" - why are you asking people here? I have no idea what you're talking about. Bullying is wrong, clearly, for whatever the reason!