yrieithydd: Celtic cross with the knot work in red, orange, yellow, green, blue and purple as with the Pride flag (Rainbow Cross)
[personal profile] yrieithydd
So I've started reading Living in Love and Faith


I started by searching asexual to see if they've worked out I exist yet (See my blog in response to Men in Women in Marriage from 7 and a half years ago on when they didn't realise I existed.).*

This was reasonable though not perfect.

The first reference is in a list on p. 61 and is uncontroversial, though note it's a category on its own not with sexual orientations. Note too that non-binary/genderqueer isn't here.
More and more of us are coming to recognize ourselves, or people we know and love, as trans, as lesbian or gay or bisexual, as asexual, as intersex.


Then on p. 79 we have:
The recent rise in those identifying as asexual – that is, as people who do not experience sexual attraction to others – is just one way in which assumptions about the centrality of sex to human existence have been challenged.

I'd like to know more about why they call it a "recent rise" but they define it was as "do not experience".

On p. 82
In many contexts, adults are assumed to be sexually active, so that those who are not (whether by calling, choice, chance, imposed constraint or because they identify as asexual) can feel unnervingly invisible.

This is a very important sentence. Though I'd be happier with "are asexual" than "identify as" because that reads like they are withholding judgement on whether asexuals actually exist. It also ignores the fact that some asexuals are sexually active though that is not my own experience.

On p. 90. Two references:
A person’s orientation is their tendency to feel sexual interest in, or attraction to, people of particular sexes or genders, or to feel such interest or attraction to people regardless of sex or gender. Asexuality, which describes people who are not sexually attracted to anyone, is not a ‘sexual orientation’ as such, but a reality that is important to bear in mind in these discussions.

As mentioned above, the word ‘asexual’ is not a sexual orientation, nor is ‘gender fluidity’, which is discussed in the next section.

I would like to know why they feel it is important/helpful to say asexual is not a sexual orientation. Is it something asexuals have said to them or is a distinction they want to make? I can see why they might want to make it because it is an absence of orientation rather than an orientation but it's how I would answer the question. But it does leave space for people to have a romantic orientation whilst not experiencing sexual attraction. The final sentence on the page though is weird. Why have they brought in "gender fluidity" here in the same sentence as reiterating that asexual isn't an orientation?

On page 157-158 we have an encounter with James and Anna, where James is a teenage asexual and Anna is his mother and a vicar. It's good to have one story and it is a story which needs hearing, especially the parts about feeling invisible to the church.

Then we vanish until page 395 where in an (imagined?) conversation Jasmin says:
Je sus and Paul also say a lot about something we haven’t really talked about at all: singleness. I wouldn’t want it to sound like we’re saying if you never enter a sexual relationship, you have missed something of God’s grace and goodness. Saying sex is a necessary good could come across as difficult for people who are single, celibate or asexual.

I would go further here and say that Paul comes across to me as a fellow asexual.

Then the final reference before the index is in the glossary on p. 425. We get to be the first entry (the joys of the alphabet)
Asexual – lacking sexual desire or attraction.

This is disappointing. Given that the more neutral "not experiencing" was used when the term was introduced, why have they gone for "lacking" here? A lack suggests that something important is missing.

Having done this search I started reading and I've found places where by asexuals are omitted. In the forward on p. viii, they write
Especially amongst LGBTI+ people, every word we use – quite possibly including these in this very foreword, despite all the care we exercise – may cause pain.

This sentence proves itself true as the use of only LGBTI+ caused me if not pain then the feeling of being invisible. This usage is sort of explained in the "note to the reader" on p xi:
For the sake of flow and consistency, we have generally adopted the formulation ‘LGBTI+’ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Intersex), except when quoting or referring to work which uses other formulations (such as LGB or LGBT). We recognize that ‘LGBTI+’ brings together a variety of people whose interests, characteristics and perspectives are not the same. Some people might wish to use other formulations or words to describe themselves – such as ‘queer’, ‘same-sex attracted’, or having a ‘difference of sex development’, for example. Using ‘LGBTI+’ is not intended to signal a preference for one or other formulations or descriptors.

although it is not clear to me why they chose not to include Q and A. I can understand why it is important to be consistent in one's abbreviations but using the fullest is most inclusive. I'm glad that they have at least include I with consistency.


*Since then, they also managed to put asexual with gender in a list calling for engagement with LLF earlier on

Date: 2020-11-16 06:58 pm (UTC)
angelofthenorth: Two puffins in love (Default)
From: [personal profile] angelofthenorth
Interesting. Who are the authors of LLF? It sounds like they need sensitivity readers....




Are they any better than the infamous 119 words on bisexuality?

Date: 2020-11-16 11:33 pm (UTC)
angelofthenorth: Two puffins in love (Default)
From: [personal profile] angelofthenorth
Yes, that's what I was talking about in 119 words

Date: 2020-11-17 02:18 pm (UTC)
emperor: (Default)
From: [personal profile] emperor
Mmm, "identify as" can mean a lot of different things depending on context, and I think it can often imply some level of doubt to say '$person identifies as $foo'; though I suspect it was not intended thus here.

Re: Sexual Orientation versus Sexuality

Date: 2020-11-18 09:44 pm (UTC)
angelofthenorth: Two puffins in love (Default)
From: [personal profile] angelofthenorth
Yes - you can be both bisexual and asexual, for example....

Re: Sexual Orientation versus Sexuality

Date: 2020-11-19 08:34 pm (UTC)
angelofthenorth: Two puffins in love (Default)
From: [personal profile] angelofthenorth
I'm thinking of the woman who heads up bi Cymru who describes herself in those terms.

videos

Date: 2020-11-18 09:48 pm (UTC)
angelofthenorth: Two puffins in love (Default)
From: [personal profile] angelofthenorth
what's the beautiful story and CEEC videos about then

Profile

yrieithydd

May 2023

S M T W T F S
 1234 56
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 8th, 2025 12:07 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios