1 of 15

IN DEFIANCE OF WHITE SUPREMACIST RELATIONSHIP HIERARCHIES

MBLGTACC 2022

THE ACE AND ARO ADVOCACY PROJECT

2 of 15

SECTION HEADER

3 of 15

USEFUL TERMINOLOGY

Compulsory Sexuality: the assumption that everyone has or will eventually have sex, is interested in sex, and considers it important.
Amatonormativity: the assumption that a committed monogamous romantic relationship is the highest form of interpersonal bond that everyone aspires to and considers central to life.
Hypersexualization: assuming certain people have an insatiable lust, are always seeking out sex, will always consent, and are possibly predatory.
Desexualization: assuming certain people do not have any sexual agency or identity because they are too child-like, naive, or undesirable. Often paired with de-romanticization.

In our society, romance and sex are both seen as key life milestones; inherently good and enjoyable; essential to human experience, fulfillment, and happiness; and biological inevitabilities. These attitudes are described by compulsory sexuality and amatonormativity, and they directly support rape culture and undermine principles of consent.

Compulsory sexuality is the sociocultural assumption that everyone has or will eventually have sex and is interested in sex. This involves stigma and stereotypes against people who don’t have or haven’t had sex, such as that they are frigid or immature. People who are not interested in sex are either not believed; told they will eventually mature and develop a desire for sex; or considered sick, broken, or inhuman.
The term amatonormativity was coined by Elizabeth Brake and refers to the disproportionate focus on romantic relationships above all else and the widespread assumption that finding romantic love is a universally shared goal. It describes the systemic way in which these sociocultural ideas and norms are upheld - this includes the formal institution of marriage and the thousands of legal benefits it confers. Amatonormativity dictates that couplehood, and marriage in particular, is a special site of morality and a sign of maturity. People who are not interested in romance are either not believed; told that they will eventually mature and develop a desire for romance; or considered heartless and inhuman, and they are vilified for any sex they may have.
These intertwine in that people are expected to form romantic-sexual coupled relationships, and sex is often held up as a special expression of romantic love, so people who do not want to have sex are often told that they cannot be a good romantic partner. People are also assumed to be open to potentially being a sexual partner, and if they are not in a relationship, they are more likely to experience sexual harassment.
People who are hypersexualised are sexually objectified and assumed to be “overly” sexual, to have sexual desire that is “too much”; to be always sexually interested and available, never saying no; and to be predatory and sexually aggressive.
People who are desexualised are denied the possibility of sexuality and sexual agency; they are viewed as undesirable and often assumed to be incapable of understanding and/or desiring sex. They are often deromanticised as well based on the assumptions of being undesirable and underdeveloped.

4 of 15

THE RELATIONSHIP ESCALATOR

Coined by Amy Gahran
Progressive hierarchy of relationships
Each step is presumed to inevitably follow the “lower” rung
Sets a standard by which the importance and seriousness of relationships is judged
Assumes lifelong exclusive commitment and the formation of a nuclear family unit to be the ultimate goal, always

dating and/or having sex

emotional investment, “catching feelings”

a committed, monogamous relationship

cohabitation

marriage

children

5 of 15

HOW COMPULSORY SEXUALITY CREATES HARM

Has a compounding effect on hypersexualisation
Upholds pressures to have sex, whether that pressure is internally felt or being applied toward others, potentially coercively
Sex is often seen as a biological and/or familial responsibility - as part of couplehood, “having a family,” and continuing family lines - such that a lack of interest may be viewed as something to be dismissed
Lack of sex and/or sexual interest is viewed as both a physical and mental health issue

Both compulsory sexuality and amatonormativity create a lot of harmful norms that we grow up with. While they’re always harmful to everyone, they can be especially harmful and noticeable to aspec youth when they and their peers may start to explore, or be expected to explore, romance, sexuality, dating, and so on, which may also be around the time they might start reflecting more on their orientation and their self identity. These experiences can shine a harsher light on the intersections of marginalisation they face.

Expectations of sexuality differ significantly by gender expectations and stereotypes as well, and they are both heteronormative and cisnormative. For example:

Men’s sexuality is assumed to be aggressive and not romantic, and toxic masculinity discourages emotional openness. However, if they do not engage in romance, they are often stereotyped as predatory and exploitative.
Women’s sexuality is assumed to only exist as a function of romance. They are stereotyped as romantic and expected to be sexually available, but they are not expected to have their own primary sexual desire. Their sexual desire is expected to be responsive, such that they are willing to fill a romantic partner’s sexual needs.
These stereotypes and racial stereotypes are frequently enshrined in medical and psychological doctrine. For example, the DSM-5 pathologises a lack of sexual desire and separates the diagnoses for men and women based on the assumption that men report, and this is a direct quote, “significantly higher intensity and frequency of sexual desire compared with women.” It also asserts that East Asian people have less sexual desire than people in western cultures.
Men’s sexual desire is considered disordered if they do not desire sex, but women aren’t assumed to desire sex naturally. Instead, their sexual desire is considered disordered if they don’t get aroused during sex, are not interested in initiating sex with their partner - assumed to be within the context of a committed relationships - and are not receptive to their partner’s initiation of sex.
While this edition of the DSM finally carved out an exception for asexuality, it still reinforces compulsory sexuality and gendered stereotypes. The entire sexual dysfunction section also generally assumes the context of a committed romantic relationship, with some criteria only being evaluated in relation to the socionormative expectations of a romantic-sexual relationship, such that sex therapy is conflated with couple’s therapy. These kinds of expectations are invalidating toward all kinds of aspec people and can exclude them from getting care.
Trans and nonbinary people may face different stereotypes of their perceived gender as well as their actual gender identity. Being trans or nonbinary is often wrongly viewed as a sexual fetish in itself, and trans people in particular are often stereotyped as predatory.
All of these expectations of when and how to engage in sex intersect with stereotypes of other identities and can complicate one’s identification and/or compound negative stereotypes.

6 of 15

HOW AMATONORMATIVITY CREATES HARM

Devalues nonromantic interpersonal relationships and erodes community
Teaches us that we’re not complete on our own, can’t have fulfilling lives without being part of a romantic couple unit, and are better off in an unsatisfactory or even unhealthy relationship than single
Engineers artificial scarcity around romance, sex, physical affection, emotional intimacy, support structures, and other forms of care
Directly supports sex-negative attitudes and gender role stereotyping
Western cultural hegemony that falsely universalises patriarchal and white supremacist ideals

In our society, romance is treated as intrinsically better and more valuable than other forms of interpersonal bonds. People commonly assume that committed monogamous romantic relationships are a universal and natural norm and goal, but the norm of monogamy was created and imposed by patriarchal societies to control women’s sexuality in order to ensure paternity of landowning men for the purpose of patrilineal property inheritance. Before and outside of such societies, neither sexual exclusivity nor long-term/indefinite commitment were normative expectations of romantic relationships, and child raising responsibilities were typically shared across the communtiy or extended kin instead of an insular nuclear family unit. Marriage has also been selectively promoted or prohibited for certain groups throughout history as a form of social control for enforcing white supremacy - for example, through colonialism and cultural genocide of Native Americans, slavery and Jim Crow, immigration restrictions against Asians, and marriage fundamentalist welfare legislation.

Though marriage has been reframed as individual fulfillment and companionate romantic love in order for the imposed norms to withstand women gaining legal personhood and rights, the legalisation of no-fault divorce, free love, and other civil rights movements, it is still property law and the societal norm of monogamy continues to exist to enable families to hoard their wealth and to assign parents control over their children. Amatonormativity is, of course, especially damaging to aromantic people, particularly aromantic allosexuals, but it is a fundamental axis of oppression in a system that benefits only the privileged.

Amatonormativity harms everyone very directly, such as by promoting isolation and unhealthy relationship views. The belief that committed romantic relationships have special value leads to the overlooking of other important interpersonal relationships and the erosion of community. For example, sociological research consistently shows that people become more insular when they get married, regardless of whether or not they have children. They become less likely to spend time with or help their friends, parents, siblings, neighbours, or community organisations, and they have less friends than people who stay single. This is why many aros fear losing their social groups and support networks when their alloromantic friends enter romantic relationships.

Amatonormativity is also intrinsically linked with sex shaming because it pushes monogamous romantic commitment. When we’re expected to get all our social needs met by an exclusive romantic relationship, it creates a scarcity mindset around physical affection, emotional intimacy, support structures, and sex. For example, the popular idea of people having “the one” they’re “meant to be” with, or a “soulmate,” discounts the effort that one must choose to put into a relationship to make it work, and it displaces personal accountability. When a relationship doesn’t work out, people may write it off as not being “real” because it wasn’t “the one” they were “meant to be” with, or they may stay in a bad relationship because they think they can only find love once and it’s so all-important that preserving the relationship is worth any sacrifice.

That artificial scarcity is then accompanied by inherent sex shaming, gender role stereotyping, and the idea that romance and sex are some kind of zero-sum game and power struggle, all attitudes which support rape culture. People are wrongfully taught that all women want is romance and all men want is sex, so they have to exploit each other in order to get what they want. These toxic norms encourage emotional manipulation and discourage open communication.

Moreover, sex without romance is condemned as immoral and harmful while romantic sex is pedestalised as a special expression of love. This dehumanises aro and ace people. Humanity isn’t conditioned on love of any kind, and love doesn’t have moral significance. When love is considered so unassailably sacrosanct and pure, it gets used to excuse or mitigate things that should be inexcusable: domestic abuse; child abuse; spousal and intimate partner violence, including sexual violence; so-called “crimes of passion”; marriage trafficking; romantic harassment; stalking; and so on. In fact, the majority of violence against women is committed by their current or ex husbands or romantic partners, and most murders of women are committed by intimate partners or family members. Love shouldn’t be painted as the ultimate universal good, and the word “romantic” isn’t synonymous with “virtuous and wholesome.”

Just like compulsory sexuality encourages sexual harassment, amatonormativity and the accompanying gender role expectations encourage romantic harassment. Our society teaches women that they should “play hard to get” and that being “too easy” is a bad thing, and men are taught that persistent pursuit of a romantic interest is not only acceptable but expected in order to “win” someone over. In fact, society doesn’t really have concepts of romantic harassment or romantic objectification. If someone refuses to “give up” on making romantic advances after being rejected, this persistence is commonly considered desirable behaviour instead of unacceptable behaviour, but this is just as inappropriate as repeated unwanted sexual advances. It’s harassment and it’s a violation of boundaries. Unfortunately, the recipients of this reprehensible behaviour are often vilified if they don’t “give the person a chance.” Treating love, including and especially romantic love, as inherently moral and pure fails to recognise these types of harms. No one is ever entitled to a relationship or to having their romantic feelings reciprocated, just like no one is ever entitled to sex. It is not a prize people can earn by being friendly. Consent requires the freedom to say “no” without fear of repercussion.

7 of 15

HOW THE RELATIONSHIP ESCALATOR CREATES HARM

Each step creates progressively higher exit barriers for the relationship, restricting consent by making it more difficult to revoke.
Ascending the escalator encourages increased co-identification, life merging, possessiveness, and control over & entitlement to one another
Descending steps is stigmatised as shameful
Makes a state-sanctioned nuclear family the ultimate goal and priority, discouraging or obliterating obligations of care outside of the family
The state assigns & privatises relationship authority, rights, and responsibilities according to the nuclear family
The nuclear family reproduces class, compulsory sexuality, amatonormativity, and gender roles

8 of 15

INTERSECTION WITH OTHER FORMS OF MARGINALISATION

People with other marginalised identities are denied agency over their orientations and their romantic and/or sexual behaviour
Many ethnicities are hypersexualised or desexualised, and those stereotypes can make it difficult to identify with or claim an aspec identity
Stigma, stereotypes, and desirability politics around body types, gender, disability, and neurodivergence can also impact one’s comfort with an aspec identity
Things like lack of interest in sex, romance, and/or committed monogamous relationships are pathologised and listed as disorder criteria

Stereotypes of other marginalised identities often deny people’s agency over their orientations and their romantic and/or sexual behaviour. Some examples:

Asian men in western culture are desexualised and deromanticised, which has roots in immigration restrictions against Asians that wouldn’t allow Asian men to settle or marry because they were viewed as a threat to white supremacy and the “purity” of white women.
Other men of colour, particularly black men and Native men, are hypersexualised and stereotyped as sexually aggressive, predatory, and uncivilised. These stereotypes can be traced back to white settlers, again viewing men of other races and ethnicities as a threat to white supremacy and the “purity” of white women.
Asian women are fetishised by racial stereotypes, sexualised yet assumed not to have sexual desires or agency of their own, instead being ultra-submissive to the sexual desires of men. This has roots in the sexual violence perpetrated during military occupation of eastern Asian countries in WWII, as well as marriage trafficking that continues today.
Native and First Nations women are also fetishised as an “exotic” race and hypersexualised yet denied sexual or romantic agency, stemming from colonialism, and they face especially high rates of sexual violence.
Many Latine and Hispanic peoples are hypersexualised and romanticised by being stereotyped as “spicy,” “fiery,” passionate lovers, in both a romantic and sexual way, assumed to naturally have excessive desires.
Black women are denied sexual and romantic agency; they are sometimes desexualised and deromanticised, assumed to have no desire, through the mammy stereotype and sometimes hypersexualised, assumed to have everpresent sexual desire, through the Jezebel stereotype, and both of these stereotypes have roots in the dehumanisation imposed by slavery.
This often intersects with body type. For example, curvy femmes are assumed to be inherently sexual because their bodies are hypersexualised.
Fat people and disabled people are desexualised, deromanticised, and viewed as undesirable, and body positivity movements often push for acceptance by asserting and emphasising romantic and sexual desirability, which can be inaccessible and unhelpful to aspecs.
Disinterest in sex, romance, and/or committed monogamous relationships are pathologised and viewed as medical and mental health issues, often preventing aspecs from receiving the care they seek. Health professionals may attibute their aspec identity to a health problem or to their neurodivergence or disability, or vice versa. To them, health and recovery become synonymous with seeming alloromantic and allosexual.
In some religions and in cultures with traditions of arranged marriage, people may be raised to believe that sex is not a function of desire but rather a marital requirement to have children, and likewise that marriage is an imperative of the family and one’s own desires are secondary or even irrelevant.
Expectations and stereotypes of binary gender roles also intersect, and we’ll cover that more in the next few slides.

Clashing stereotypes get assumed to override or nullify an aspec identity, which can make someone feel like an aspec identity is impossible for them to have or like they are “less” of their other identity. Coinciding stereotypes get used to invalidate an aspec identity as if it is their natural default, which can make someone feel like they are confirming stereotypes of their other identity or not “really” aspec. Either way, it’s often more difficult to assert an aspec identity, be secure in and feel no dissonance between one’s identities, and be believed.

9 of 15

MONOGAMY IS A SOCIAL CONTRACT OF PROPERTY LAW

Monogamy was not a norm for most of human history
This norm was created and imposed by patriarchal societies to control women's sexuality in order to ensure patrilineal property inheritance
Before and outside of such societies, neither sexual exclusivity nor long-term/indefinite commitment were normative expectations of romantic relationships, and child raising responsibilities were typically shared across the community or extended kin
Marriage was rebranded as an avenue of love and personal fulfillment so that the imposed norms could withstand women gaining legal personhood and rights, legalisation of no-fault divorce, free love, and other civil rights movements

The belief that monogamy is a universal norm, a beautiful solemnisation of love, and a core part of human nature is cultural hegemony sustained and perpetuated by amatonormativity. Before and outside of patriarchal societies, neither sexual exclusivity nor long-term/indefinite commitment were normative expectations of romantic relationships, and child raising responsibilities were typically shared across the community or extended kin.

The norm of monogamy did not exist for most of human history; it was created and imposed by agricultural patriarchal societies to control women's sexuality in order to ensure patrilineal property inheritance. Marriage was not related to romantic love. It was, and still is, a tool for assigning property rights and control over children; a vehicle for family wealth consolidation and forming strategic alliances; and a way to generationally reproduce socioeconomic class. Women were exchanged as property, and property law-rooted norms persist in the form of possessive and controlling behaviour in relationships. It is also why people who aren't in (or pretending to be in) a relationship are more likely to experience sexual or romantic harassment – men's "ownership" is more respected than women's bodily autonomy.

Today, marriage has new window dressing: It's been rebranded as an avenue of love and personal fulfillment, and the norm of monogamy is applied to control everyone's sexuality, not just women's. This shift was to enable the imposed norms to withstand women gaining legal personhood, rights, and economic opportunities; legalisation of no-fault divorce; free love; and other civil rights movements. These positive trends have resulted in people worldwide are marrying less and later and divorcing more. Many people who seek to preserve patriarchy and its norms fearmonger about the decline of marriage and the rate of so-called "failed" marriages, but it is a positive thing, reflecting greater ability to leave harmful relationships. For example, legalisation of unilateral, no-fault divorce has consistently resulted in significantly lower rates of domestic violence, women committing suicide, and women being murdered by spouses.

In truth, nuclear families were only the majority of US households for about 15 years. Today in the US, around half of adults are single, and around half of young adults do not even live with romantic partners. And a 2020 Pew survey found that half of single people are not interested in romantic relationships or even casual dating.

10 of 15

AMATONORMATIVITY & WHITE SUPREMACISM

Patriarchal societies treat women as reproductive tools, the construct of virginity as a form of currency, and children as extensions of their fathers' bloodlines
Patriarchy has been a tool used by societies to increase birth rates and assign men control over their children for various purposes such as drafting armies or using child labour to support "corporate families"
Western colonial heteropatriarchy is a tool meant to increase "white" birth rates specifically to protect white supremacy
Marriage has been selectively promoted or prohibited for certain groups, historically and contemporarily, as a form of social control for enforcing white supremacy

11 of 15

WHITE SUPREMACY & SEXUALITY

Sexuality as a way of colonizing and controlling people

Tying citizenship status to ethnicity of marriage partner
Separation of families and couples through slavery, indentured servitude, and immigration policy
Tying ability to own property to marriage
Forced prostitution
Forced marriage
Pathologization and forced medical treatment

Sexuality also as a way of asserting your own desires and relation to others

So white supremacy and sexuality. One way that white supremacy has sustained itself is through oppressing and controlling people through sexuality. For the sake of this presentation, we're using the word sexuality to refer to a variety of romantic and sexual and other intimate interactions, although we recognize that not everyone uses the term this broadly. A variety of ways white supremacy and racial oppression have been perpetuated through sexuality, includes tying citizenship status to ethnicity or status of marriage partner, rape and sexual violence, separation of families and couples through slavery, indentured servitude, and immigration policy, tying ability to own property to marriage, legally defining certain people as impossible to rape, forced prostitution, forced marriage, fetishization and sexual objectification, pathologization, forced medical treatment, denial of sexual agency and desires, and other violent acts not named.

The modern LGBTQ+ feminist and sex positivity movements have aimed to make sexuality something that's empowering. Naming and claiming one's desires or lack thereof can be an act of identity formation, community connection, and resistance to power structures that demand a heterosexual nuclear family unit that produces children. Asexual and aromantic identities definitely have the same potential for power and resistance. However, the ways that this power and resistance works at racial and ethnic intersections is different than how it works for white aspecs. To illustrate how white supremacy and racial oppression impacts sexuality, we'll provide a few examples before opening the floor for discussion. The examples presented are a mixture of scholarly research and experiential knowledge from people at those intersections. These examples are not complete in any way, due to time and due to the difficulty in finding words and expressions from aspecs of color. The invisibility of racial identities in the aspec community is something we will more directly discuss towards the end.

12 of 15

MARRIAGE IMPOSITION: EXAMPLES

Colonisation and cultural genocide of indigenous peoples, coercing assimilation into white settler cisheterosexist norms and forcibly removing children from their extended families
Legal marriage mandated for black people under tenant sharecropping regimes and to receive many federal or church services
Criminalisation of sex and/or cohabitation outside of marriage

13 of 15

MARRIAGE PROMOTION: EXAMPLES

Lack of scrutiny on international marriage "brokers" or marriage trafficking to import "mail order brides" (often Asian women) for privileged white men
Legal discrimination against children born outside of marriage
TANF funding of marriage promotion, prevention of "out-of-wedlock" pregnancies, and sex-negative curricula, instead of income assistance
Midnight raids on single black women receiving welfare to exclude them from benefits if they were sexually active and/or cohabiting with a man
1855 Naturalisation Act allowed foreign-born white women to naturalise through marriage and granted citizenship to children of US men with foreign-born women
1922 Cable Act repealed marital expatriation for non-Asians only

14 of 15

MARRIAGE DISCOURAGEMENT: EXAMPLES

Exclusion of disabled people from receiving benefits if they get married or are suspected of "holding out as married"
1855 Naturalisation Act excluded foreign-born women from naturalisation through marriage if they were racially barred from immigration (barriers not all lifted until 1952) and refused citizenship to children of US women with foreign-born men
1907 Expatriation Act stripped citizenship from US women who married foreign-born men, permanently expelling them from the country if they were racially barred from naturalisation
1922 Cable Act further made foreign-born women ineligible to citizenship if their husbands were Asian American

15 of 15

MARRIAGE PROHIBITION: EXAMPLES

Laws against interracial marriage (not overturned in all states until 1967)
The Page Act of 1875 (first US law restricting immigration based on race) effectively barring all Chinese women and girls from entering the country to prevent Chinese families from settling
Kinship ties and bodily autonomy of black people not recognised under slavery and colonial codes