Anna Kurowicka's Asexuality

1259 Words6 Pages
In her article, What Can Asexuality Do For Queer Theory, Anna Kurowicka makes the argument, that while not always in practice, in theory asexuality is the ultimate rejection of the mainstream, as it denies the possibility of having children. Her argument is rooted in the view of children “as a symbol of hope, futurity, biological, social and cultural reproduction, all of which are supposedly unquestionable values” (22). Children are the future, both in continuing blood lines, as well as entities necessary to continue both political and capitalist system. In this way asexuals are denying their social duties by refusing to contribute to the future of their country. In the following paper, I will analyze this argument, discussing its social implications…show more content…
the rejection of reproduction, it is important to look at and understand why we view children as the most important piece of society as a whole. This symbol of child as the future, comes from two main places in societal thought. The first being that of keeping blood lines pure, especially white, Christian blood lines. Within our society, there is a constant fear of low birth rates in Europe and North America that would ultimately lead to the collapse of western society. Panic and debate has lead to an apocalyptic rhetoric in which, “ the importance of producing a new generation of workers by raising two threatening specters: of a non-white, non-Christian immigrant wave that is bound to destroy the Western civilization, and of a complete economic collapse that will similarly spell the end of the world as we know it” (23). If this is true, that not having children, will lead to a collapse of pure bloodlines, and by definition, a collapse of Western culture, then it is easy to follow how asexuals would be anathema to societal function. To not have children is to abandon all societal obligation, and therefore is to abandon society as a whole, leaving asexuals as the absolute social…show more content…
It in no way looks at asexuality in practice. Kurowicka sates early on in the article “these understandings of asexuality are only loosely linked with the actual lived experience of asexual people” (22). It is necessary to note this statement, as to suggest that all asexual people live the experience of shunning society, and their duty to it, would be extremely unfair and wrong. As we all know, in practice, things are rarely black and white. While Kurowicka’s reading of asexuality holds for very little grey, as asexuality is strictly seen as a rejection, in practice this is very different. As we know, there are plenty of asexual people who end up having children, much the same as there are many who experience straight sexual attraction do not. I note this difference between theory and practice, as I feel that the strictly theoretical reading of asexual as “other” can become damaging and confusing if not explained. On my first reading, I found myself questioning Kurowicka’s points, as they did not line up with reality. When taken from a theoretical position only,

    More about Anna Kurowicka's Asexuality

      Open Document