“Asexual Erotics is a much-needed study on queer theory’s obsession with ‘sex’ as an underpinning force. What’s more, it shows that paying attention to ‘erotics’ opens up new intersectional possibilities for thinking with and through difference in ways that a focus on sex and sexuality can prohibit. It makes a timely intervention in feminist studies and queer studies and provides important material for disability scholars, trans studies scholars, and visual and media studies scholars.” —Jennifer Tyburczy
“This book contributes an expanded repertoire of objects of analysis for feminist and queer studies in addition to refining and developing asexual theoretical and methodological frameworks that demand a reshaping of scholarship on sexuality and queerness.” —KJ Cerankowski
Challenging what she sees as an obsession with sex and sexuality, Ela Przybylo examines the silence around asexuality in queer, feminist, and lesbian thinking—turning to Audre Lorde’s work on erotics to propose instead an approach she calls asexual erotics, an alternative language for discussing forms of intimacy that are not reducible to sex and sexuality. Beginning with the late 1960s as a time when compulsory sexuality intensified and became increasingly tied to feminist, lesbian, and queer notions of empowerment, politics, and subjectivity, Przybylo looks to feminist political celibacy/asexuality, lesbian bed death, the asexual queer child, and the aging spinster as four figures that are asexually resonant and which benefit from an asexual reading—that is, from being read in an asexually affirming rather than asexually skeptical manner.
Through a wide-ranging analysis of pivotal queer, feminist, and anti-racist movements; television and film; art and photography; and fiction, nonfiction, and theoretical texts, each chapter explores asexual erotics and demonstrates how asexuality has been vital to the formulation of intimate ways of knowing and being. Asexual Erotics assembles a compendium of asexual possibilities that speaks against the centralization of sex and sexuality, asking that we consider the ways in which compulsory sexuality is detrimental not only to asexual and nonsexual people but to all.
7 有用 Cory 2023-07-04 16:09:43 上海
整体很有启发,用Audre Lorde的erotic取代对“性”的狭义理解,辨析desexualization和asexuality两个概念在sex-positive discourse中的频繁混淆,批判compulsory sexuality和desexualization的双重运作(既预设人类必须有性才“健康”、“正常”,又预设某些群体没有性欲或不配成为他人欲望的对象)。有几处文本分析和理论框... 整体很有启发,用Audre Lorde的erotic取代对“性”的狭义理解,辨析desexualization和asexuality两个概念在sex-positive discourse中的频繁混淆,批判compulsory sexuality和desexualization的双重运作(既预设人类必须有性才“健康”、“正常”,又预设某些群体没有性欲或不配成为他人欲望的对象)。有几处文本分析和理论框架的联系似乎不太紧密,比如对Frances Ha的解读放在aging那一章显得有些错位。 (展开)
1 有用 月小兰 2024-04-22 15:50:45 北京
反思了asexuality的关系模式是如何随着compulsory sexuality和性在现代主体形成中的中心地位而被搁置的。巧妙提出用erotics替代sex(啊亲切的Lorde),前者超越sex的想象,可以植根于asexuality/celibacy的实践,指向充满可能性和差距的开放结构。 看到Ahmed’s killjoy和作为非线性时间存在的Trauma Time感到亲切。喜欢开篇的诗,... 反思了asexuality的关系模式是如何随着compulsory sexuality和性在现代主体形成中的中心地位而被搁置的。巧妙提出用erotics替代sex(啊亲切的Lorde),前者超越sex的想象,可以植根于asexuality/celibacy的实践,指向充满可能性和差距的开放结构。 看到Ahmed’s killjoy和作为非线性时间存在的Trauma Time感到亲切。喜欢开篇的诗,and “she who has chosen her Self, who defines her Self, by choice, who is Self-identified, spinning in a new time/space”. (展开)
1 有用 kookyobject 2024-03-29 14:22:17 美国
目前关于ace的讨论里最喜欢的一本!区分了political celibacy, lesbian asexual erotics, nihilism, asexuality等诸多有着不同genealogy的ace现象,补充了看似相同的ace现象可能背后有完全不同的underlying structure,也间接呼应了当下ace spectrum这个巨大光谱的多样性。不同的ace experienc... 目前关于ace的讨论里最喜欢的一本!区分了political celibacy, lesbian asexual erotics, nihilism, asexuality等诸多有着不同genealogy的ace现象,补充了看似相同的ace现象可能背后有完全不同的underlying structure,也间接呼应了当下ace spectrum这个巨大光谱的多样性。不同的ace experience放置在对compulsory sexuality的各种resistence(当然也包含complicity, oppressive double bind等等)的庞杂地图上,对allosexuality这个共同的起点发出质疑。尤其喜欢time spell这个概念! (展开)
1 有用 月小兰 2024-04-22 15:50:45 北京
反思了asexuality的关系模式是如何随着compulsory sexuality和性在现代主体形成中的中心地位而被搁置的。巧妙提出用erotics替代sex(啊亲切的Lorde),前者超越sex的想象,可以植根于asexuality/celibacy的实践,指向充满可能性和差距的开放结构。 看到Ahmed’s killjoy和作为非线性时间存在的Trauma Time感到亲切。喜欢开篇的诗,... 反思了asexuality的关系模式是如何随着compulsory sexuality和性在现代主体形成中的中心地位而被搁置的。巧妙提出用erotics替代sex(啊亲切的Lorde),前者超越sex的想象,可以植根于asexuality/celibacy的实践,指向充满可能性和差距的开放结构。 看到Ahmed’s killjoy和作为非线性时间存在的Trauma Time感到亲切。喜欢开篇的诗,and “she who has chosen her Self, who defines her Self, by choice, who is Self-identified, spinning in a new time/space”. (展开)
1 有用 kookyobject 2024-03-29 14:22:17 美国
目前关于ace的讨论里最喜欢的一本!区分了political celibacy, lesbian asexual erotics, nihilism, asexuality等诸多有着不同genealogy的ace现象,补充了看似相同的ace现象可能背后有完全不同的underlying structure,也间接呼应了当下ace spectrum这个巨大光谱的多样性。不同的ace experienc... 目前关于ace的讨论里最喜欢的一本!区分了political celibacy, lesbian asexual erotics, nihilism, asexuality等诸多有着不同genealogy的ace现象,补充了看似相同的ace现象可能背后有完全不同的underlying structure,也间接呼应了当下ace spectrum这个巨大光谱的多样性。不同的ace experience放置在对compulsory sexuality的各种resistence(当然也包含complicity, oppressive double bind等等)的庞杂地图上,对allosexuality这个共同的起点发出质疑。尤其喜欢time spell这个概念! (展开)
7 有用 Cory 2023-07-04 16:09:43 上海
整体很有启发,用Audre Lorde的erotic取代对“性”的狭义理解,辨析desexualization和asexuality两个概念在sex-positive discourse中的频繁混淆,批判compulsory sexuality和desexualization的双重运作(既预设人类必须有性才“健康”、“正常”,又预设某些群体没有性欲或不配成为他人欲望的对象)。有几处文本分析和理论框... 整体很有启发,用Audre Lorde的erotic取代对“性”的狭义理解,辨析desexualization和asexuality两个概念在sex-positive discourse中的频繁混淆,批判compulsory sexuality和desexualization的双重运作(既预设人类必须有性才“健康”、“正常”,又预设某些群体没有性欲或不配成为他人欲望的对象)。有几处文本分析和理论框架的联系似乎不太紧密,比如对Frances Ha的解读放在aging那一章显得有些错位。 (展开)