'Slut-shaming' does not defeat the notion that women are sluts, it does not deter men from referring to women as sluts, it does not deconstruct the concept of the slut or stigmatize the slur slut as a negative in order to avoid the further normalization of the slur's concept. 'Slut-shaming' still means you are referring to women perceived in a sexual/ized manner as sluts (and takes a course towards circular logic when trying to address the rape culture myth that “women who dress like sluts are asking for it”). Instead of actually attacking the virgin/whore dichotomy by stating that no woman is a slut and no woman is a prude, libfems have re-vamped the slur in a post-patriarchal context which completely ignores how normalizing and imposing the use of the slur impacts all women in society and not just women who claim to have claimed it.
Anonymous asked: hey so what if someone was asexual but still romantically and aesthetically attracted to women? should they be allowed to call themselves a lesbian?
I would say no. Lesbian is the word for female homosexuals, and homosexuality is it’s own sexuality just like asexuality is. You can’t be two sexualities at once. But it’s totally fine to be an asexual person who is only romantically attracted to women
yo, I 100% disagree. I think someone can def call themselves a lesbian ace.
Asexuals sometimes (or maybe it’s juuuuust me and no one else?) feel like our feelings are less whole and legit because of being asexual. Essentially, being gay-lite or [insert attractions here]-lite. And it’s really harmful thinking and it really sucks to conceptualize our own feelings like this.
and not all ace-spectrum ppl use the “[blank]-romantic” form to describe themselves (for example: me). Not every ace even believes in “romantic orientation/attraction” or, at least, uses it to describe themselves.