we're not kids anymore.
No title available

Product Placement
art blog(derogatory)
No title available
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"

Kaledo Art

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
will byers stan first human second

blake kathryn

Kiana Khansmith
taylor price
No title available
Misplaced Lens Cap
noise dept.
trying on a metaphor

Love Begins
Sweet Seals For You, Always
styofa doing anything
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Hungary
seen from Türkiye
seen from T1
seen from Türkiye
seen from Argentina
seen from United States

seen from Indonesia

seen from Switzerland
seen from Greece
seen from Türkiye
seen from Germany

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Brazil

seen from United States

seen from Türkiye
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Canada

seen from Germany
@thisisnotpositivity
Bro.... you’re excluding ace and aro people from LGBTQ+ spaces?? In 2020?? Ngl.... that’s kinda cringe, bro...
Hello can you make a biromantic asexual moodboard? I'd like to have one because I can't seem to find one anywhere.
Asexual Biromantic Moodboard
Reblog if you save
Requests are open!!!
because pride month is around the corner, and ive already seen art using the pink lesbian flag, i feel the need to say that non lesbians need to understand that this:
is the lesbian flag!!! The all pink one was made by a transphobe and biphobe!!! We use this!! Here’s the one for merch!
please please use this one instead!!! As a lesbian im less inclined to rb art using the pink one which makes me sad bc everyone’s pride art is always amazing. Non lesbians pls learn this already im going to scream
here’s for th person asking for meanings
I made a metric fuck ton of these, in accordance to a 2019 Pride Month calendar I saw on here, but I think I’m only going to be using one to make things easier.
The lesbian flag used here is from @sadlesbeandisaster!
These are free for use with credit, please don’t edit them!
Transmeds/Truscum/Terfs/Exclusionists aren’t allowed to touch these, sorry not sorry!!
More of them are under the cut, in no particular order, I can also make some custom ones for people who want them, provided that you give me a link to the correct flag!
Keep reading
fairly telling that on twitter i frequently see people say “microidentities and tumblr ruin(ed) lgbt community” despite the fact that most microidentities, especially the more obscure ones, have largely fallen out of use. the ones that remain are ones people find personally useful or largely useful to have as a whole community because they fill a necessary gap. yet when it comes to ace-exclusionism and ra/d/fe/m inflitration of the lgbt community on tumblr, which is an actual severe, current issue, radio silence.
also with this i always see two things:
1. “tumblr had me thinking i was ____ but i was just ___”
2. “it was the fault of adults pushing kids into these labels”
bc the thing is usually “pansexual grayace demiboy but i was just “a cis lesbian”, as tho implying the first one isn’t a valid identity at all, as though most of the labels in it or the combination of those several labels can’t possibly be valid. it’s a weird aversion to long words, like how people are afraid of long chemical names. “lesbian” is normal, natural, but “homoromantic asexual demigirl” is overcomplication and bad.
and then ofc implying the reason these labels came up and became popular wasn’t just bc teens experimenting, but bc adults somehow forced or encouraged teens and young lgbt people to id as them. the birth and nature of tumblr’s identity politics has a long history and many complicated factors, and i don’t deny peer or social pressure had a hand in it, i know on some level for plenty of people it might have. but the way people blame adults for somehow not like, stopping people from using “microidentities” is…weird. there’s a lot of unpack there.
and ofc let’s not even get into how the idea that like, “simpler” lgbt identities, such as the “main” (les, gay, bi, trans, sometimes pan) are the “real” or most valid ones, which is clearly exclusionist-lite thinking.
I seriously can’t get over people’s failure to understand that, if we want to accomplish things, we sometimes have to try things that don’t work.
Coming up with 1000 microlabels for gender and sexuality hurts no one!!! If the labels truly are “useless” and “overcomplicated” then … people will stop using them! The ones that are necessary for people to make sense of their lived experiences will stick around, unless the hostility from people playing respectability politics becomes too much to bear. Don’t be part of that pressure.
So many of yall havent interacted with actual ace people in real life and keep seeing ace people as the caricatures made up by sockpuppet blogs and popular tumblr funnymen and it fucking shows
the “bi” in “bisexual” means 2 because bi people are exactly 2x better at everything compared to biphobes
peepole…”lesbians are subject to unique forms of violence and oppression because of their inherent lack of attraction to men” and “bisexual women are subject to unique forms of violence and oppression because of their attraction to both women and men” are things that can be true at the same time, and neither of these things mean that one group is more or less oppressed for the way our sexualities are parsed under patriarchy
pls give me 1(one) reason aces have ever been oppressed, and 1(one) example of aces being a part of lgbt history(before 2004 at least) and then maybe i’ll consider the idea that aces belong in the lgbt community lol
Proof of the existence of asexuals in LGBT+ communities before 2000:
The Golden Orchid association (1644-1949) - a group of women in China that included lesbians, bisexuals, and “women who wanted to avoid both marriage options, and any romantic or sexual partnership” that today we would call asexual or aromantic.
Another Golden Orchid association link (which, interestingly, describes what appears to be a poly relationship).
Personal experience of a queer-identifying person noting that aces were part of the bi community in the 80s and 90s.
A book published in 1999 supports the previous link of someone’s personal experience, and notes that asexuals could be considered part of Kinsey’s “Group 3″ (the bisexuals) because they were “about equally homosexual and heterosexual” and “have no strong preferences for one or the other” just like bisexuals.
Another book that supports the personal experience source by noting that asexuals were considered part of the bisexual “Group 3″, which was published in 1999.
Another post of someone’s personal experiences of asexuals being part of the LGBT+ community in the 90s.
A source from 1999 noting that, while some female-female relationships in the early to mid-twentieth century were obviously lesbian relationships, not all of them were, but that it would be a mistake to label them all “friendships”. It specifically notes that asexual partnered relationships also existed.
This book describes a series of interviews done in 1990 by Catherine Whitney who interviewed heterosexual women married to gay men, and found that they were often asexual. It also describes how, in 1990, Ann Landers (a very popular advice columnist) asked her readers if married couples could enjoy a full life without sex and was flooded with 35,000 responses from people of all ages who had little or no sex and didn’t miss it. It also describes how “Boston marriage” was originally coined with a not-necessarily-always-accurate implication that such a relationship between women was nonsexual, but that later on the assumption was reversed to imply women in a sexual lesbian relationship, and how that caused some women involved in such relationships to hide the asexual nature of their relationships for fear of being called frauds by the larger lesbian community.
This 1997 book that states “To be a Kinsey 3 (bisexual) is to be equally attracted to men and women, i.e. completely bisexual…it is also to be equally unattracted to men and women, i.e. completely asexual. Bisexuality is never about two, only about one – asexual, or self-fulfilling – or three – continuously and equally attracted to both men and women”.
Proof of asexuality being considered as a concrete, distinct orientation before 2000:
One of the first online posts about asexuality in its current use, was made in 1997.
A study on anorexia and bulemia in gay and bisexual men done in 1999 found that 58% of anorexia patients were asexual.
The 1997 Australasian Gay & Lesbian Law Journal mentions asexual as a “relevant sexual identity”.
A 1983 issue of the Journal of Sex Research studied the Mental Health Implications of Sexual Orientation among heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and asexual people.
The article “Asexuality as Orientation: Some Historical Perspectives” describes different historical studies on asexuality, including a study from Johnson in 1977 where the word asexual was used to describe women “regardless of physical or emotional condition, actual sexual history, and marital status or ideological orientation, [who] seem to prefer not to engage in sexual activity”. It also describes a 1980 study by Storms who included asexual as one of four orientation categories when mapping out sexual orientation. It also describes a 1983 study by Nurius that found out of 685 participants, 5% of males and 10% of females were asexual. It also describes a 1990 study by Berkley et al. that included questions “related to homosexuality, heterosexuality, and asexuality” and included four items (out of 45) that were specific to asexuality.
This book published in 1922 contains a lot of what I personally would describe as narcissism and pseudo-science, but acknowledges asexuality nonetheless: “In addition to the ordinary distinctive males and females, we have asexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, and old women of both sexes.”
This book from 1996 that notes “A transsexual may have a heterosexual orientation, a homosexual orientation, a bisexual orientation – or an asexual orientation” and clarifies that “a very small number – are asexual or bisexual.”
This book mentions a study by Malyon in 1981 that noted the options available to gay and lesbian teenagers choosing whether, or how, to come out by “[describing] three possible modes of adaptation in adolescence: repression of sexual desire, suppression of homosexual impulses in favor of heterosexual or asexual orientation, or a homosexual disclosure.”
Kinds of oppression that asexuals face:
Eunjung Kim wrote a chapter titled “How Much Sex Is Healthy? The Pleasures of Asexuality” that describes how “the absence of sexual desires, feelings, and activities is seen as abnormal and reflective of poor health” in Western contemporary culture “because of the explicit connection between sexual activeness and healthiness” and argues that “medical explanations of asexuality as an abnormality that has to be corrected constitute a large part of the stigmatization and marginalization experienced by asexual people.” It also discusses the ways in which some groups, specifically Asian American males, that are desexualized can erase the space for asexual Asian American men to simply exist.
Asexuals also face sexual harassment, rape threats, corrective sexual assault, and corrective rape (which, no, is not a lesbian-only term according to actual South Africans) specifically because they are asexual.
There was a recent study by the AAU to identify sexual assault on college campuses, and broke down the responders to their survey by sexual orientation, including asexual. The results clearly show that asexuals are not immune to unwanted sexual contact, stalking, intimate partner violence, or sexual harassment.
A chapter of “Asexualities: Feminist and Queer Perspectives” that notes the specific way that asexual people are talked to/about: “Because asexual difference cannot be iterated in the linguistic field where sex and a sexed position dominate the discourse of sexuality and desire, the asexual subject is linguistically and visually dismantled and reconstructed in the position of a fetish object. This fetishistic conversion happens because the asexual person is made into an image, or spectacle, for consumption.” and “The difference between the unassailable asexual (someone who lacks all of the traits commonly blamed for asexuality such as past history of abuse, disability, etc.) and the spectacular asexual is that while the unassailable asexual allegedly makes asexuality digestible for a skeptical public and presents an accessible image, the spectacular asexual is always consumed as a fetish object, regardless of mental health, ability, and gender.”
The study “Intergroup bias toward “Group X”: Evidence of prejudice, dehumanization, avoidance, and discrimination of asexuals” is exactly what it sounds like. The article’s abstract states: “In two studies (university student and community samples) we examined the extent to which those not desiring sexual activity are viewed negatively by heterosexuals. We provide the first empirical evidence of intergroup bias against asexuals (the so-called “Group X”), a social target evaluated more negatively, viewed as less human, and less valued as contact partners, relative to heterosexuals and other sexual minorities. Heterosexuals were also willing to discriminate against asexuals (matching discrimination against homosexuals). Potential confounds (e.g., bias against singles or unfamiliar groups) were ruled out as explanations.”
The Invisible Orientation: An Introduction to Asexuality describes many issues that asexuals face, including: how asexuality is seen as “invisible” and lends to people thinking it does not exist, how asexuality is actively erased as “unimportant” or not its own identity, the explicitly and implicitly negative messages associated with a lack of sexual attraction, the fear asexuals face when they believe there is something physically or psychologically wrong with them for being asexual, the belief asexuals face about how they must be deeply flawed since they do not conform to other sexual identities, how asexuals face cultural ideologies that sexuality is biologically based and ubiquitous (that all humans possess sexual desire) and that don’t acknowledge asexuality, that to describe oneself as asexual is a statement of moral superiority or purity or failure to find a suitable partner, that asexuality is an immature state they will “grow out of”, that asexuality is a description of action or a preference, that asexuality is unnatural or unhealthy or has to be a symptom of something else, etc.
Asexuality has been shown in the media in a negative light for decades, reflecting the idea that (for various reasons steeped in classism and racism) any woman who wasn’t willing to marry and procreate was a threat to the status quo, as seen in this 1955 book that notes: “Women who did not marry incurred political and social scorn for another reason. The influx of eastern and southern European immigrants in the United States pushed the question into eugenic terms–the wrong people were reproducing. Educated women came primarily from white middle- and upper-class stock, the most desired element by dominant social norms. When these women refused to marry and reproduce, they forced a new concern into the public discourse. it is not a coincidence that the stereotypical asexual unmarried older woman emerged at this time as a source of popular humor.”
Some people in some religions are very explicit about hating asexuals specifically because they are asexual, seeing asexuality as “a perversion akin to homosexuality and bestiality”.
Other religions see asexuals as actually sinful if they choose not to have sex with their spouse.
While not every member of every religion looks down on asexuals, many people in portions of various religions choose to view asexuals negatively.
Some people even recommend asexuals avoid being in a relationship with non-asexuals and assert that “promoting and trying to spread” asexuality, or behaving in an asexual manner, is wrong or unhealthy.
Because of these religious beliefs about asexuality, that also opens up asexuals to discrimination in various legal ways, including (but not limited to) things like the new adoption bill in Texas.
Asexuality was implicitly pathologized until very recently, and even now, the DSM-V states that a diagnosis of HSDD may not be given only if the patient has a preexisting knowledge of asexuality and chooses to ID that way.
TL;DR:
Asexuals have long been considered part of the bisexual community. When people used to talk about bisexuals, it included asexuals because asexuals were the bisexuals too. Bisexual history is asexual history.
Asexuals have also long been considered as a stand-alone orientation that was part of larger non-straight communities and could be studied in comparison to other sexual orientations.
Asexuals face many of the same issues that other marginalized orientations face as well as issues specific to their orientation. These include erasure, medicalization, misidentification, harassment, rape specifically targeted at them for being asexual, and religious intolerance, to name just a few.
None of this is exhaustive. There are more sources to be found and studied.
i made some userboxes because aphobia is in the ace positivity tags;;
edit: aromantic version here
i honestly can’t believe that the aphobic discourse is still going on on this blue site of hell, so here is some positivity ✌
*banging pans together* ALL ACES AND AROS ARE LGBTQ+!!
why do inclusionists think we’re going to take them seriously when they infantilize themselves with the cake and dragons thing and whine about the mean queerphobe exclusies and then think it’s activism
cake and dragons aren’t for you. they are for aces who have experienced nothing but stress and hate with their identity.
it’s not activism for your behalf. it’s not even activism. it’s community building and a hopepunk reminder that things can be utter shit but also be fun and silly.
it’s not infantilizing and even when you think it is it’s not behavior I and others are doing to convince you of shit. It’s a behavior that refuses adulthood to be exclusively be serious.
I want to know what’s so infantalizing about liking cake (a popular dessert treat) and dragons (a popular and ancient fantasy animal that’s existed in folklore, religions, and fiction around the world). It seems like OP probably thinks these are infantalizing not because of the subjects or the jokes, but specifically because it’s ace people doing this. And where did we say it was activism? It was friendly ace community discourse about ace community symbols (quite literally ace discourse) meant specifically to break up the constant mockery and misinformation spreading around the ace discourse tag by exclusionists, terfs, and anti-ace people (OP included).
Also, if talking about dragons and cakes is infantalizing wouldn’t it damage that idea to make it a common joke or interest for adults? If people want to use it against us in a bad way, like claiming liking desserts or fantasy stuff is somehow “infantalizing” us, then embracing that should take power away from those pushing that insulting idea. Like buddy, friend, chummy chum, pal, bud. I didn’t grow up just to have people tell me I can’t like things any more. If you think it infantalizes people, maybe that’s because you’re looking for an excuse to infanatilze those and disregard any of their arguments.
it’s immature because y'all use it to disregard any criticism of the ace community, including LGBT people saying things like “maybe 13 year olds shouldn’t say they’re ace” or “covering up your trauma with an ace label is unhealthy” or “cishets don’t belong in our community”. Also y'all act like it’s ~ace culture~ and compare it to LGBT culture, which is frankly insulting since our culture has, y'know, a history and meaning attached to it.
I’m not “anti ace” I’m anti cishet inclusion and anti harmful ideas like the ones listed above, because honestly your community is pretty fucking homophobic currently and that needs to change!
also don’t call me pal, you weird fuck.
we use it because we’re sick of our existence being a debate where our voices are valued less, and facing constant mockery because of our sexuality. if you see that as immature or infantizing, that’s on you, not us.
i’ve rarely seen problems in the ace community brought up in discourse in good faith with the genuine intention to fix them. no, they’re used to demonize us and paint us all as terrible people.
and why is the idea of ace culture is insulting? lgbt culture didn’t appear fully-formed with history one day, it was built. we haven’t known about asexuality for very long, we’re building it and you shouldn’t be insulted by that.
you’re so adamantly against ace people having fun and seem to think it’s unreasonable for us to not like getting mocked constantly, so assuming you’re anti-ace isn’t really that big of a stretch.
you’ve never taken us seriously and we’ve stopped caring.
“You’ve never taken us seriously and we’ve stopped caring”
That’s it right there.