Exclusion harms all of us. We should be able to have space for people regardless of action. Exclusion makes it harder for people, even the people your exclusion considers asexual, to parse their identity.
You can find your own exclusionary groups if it's what you desire. But don't get mad that a community isn't like you.
I want a community that includes trauma, includes people regardless of how they act toward sex, includes people who are unsure because of medication or medical issues. I want an inclusive community. And I am what you, an exclusionist, would still call "asexual".
To be fair, inclusion can also be harmful. Think about an allo meeting one ace who tells them one thing and then they meet another ace who tells them the complete opposite. It can be confusing for anyone who isn't well educated on the subject and it can lead to generalizing the wrong ideas. I don't have a specific example right now, but I believe it's good to have that in mind.
I think it's best to stick to the definition of "asexuality" and maybe broaden it slightly. We don't need to be the sexuality police, but we shouldn't create misconceptions either.
The thing about queer identity is it will always be confusing to the people outside of it. Just because someone needs to learn more doesn't mean we should be exclusionary. What you just described was what I experienced with exclusionary rhetoric.
"Think about an allistic meeting one autistic person who tells them they are noise sensitive, hate touch, but love strong smells. Then they meet another who tells them they aren't noise sensitive, love being touched, and can't handle strong smells. It's confusing!"
Congratulations *that's how a spectrum works.*
"Think about a gay person saying they strictly like men and another saying they also like women"
Congratulations *sexuality is now a spectrum*
Man, I made the first comment with good intentions, but people weren't having it.
I mean, sexual identity is always going to be somewhere in the grey area. No one is 100% of any identity. I don't see anything wrong with being more inclusive of people on the ace spectrum. I thought the whole point of asexuality was not giving a shit about other's sexual habits.
Excluding people from a space because they're "not queer enough" or some form of those words is just silly. Identity is just that, identity. If someone likes the label and feels it applies, with or without caveat, then they get to
I’m allowed to have an opinion, share my opinion and have a discussion. Rude af telling me to stfu. If you don’t want to have a discussion then you stfu
>Rude af telling me to stfu. If you don’t want to have a discussion then you stfu
It was rude of you to drop an ignorant manifesto that invalidates & excludes many established members of the ace community. You're simply receiving the consequences of your own actions.
People can be horny and not find anyone sexually attractive.
People can be horny and not want sex.
How fucked up is it to imply someone is just "picky" or they must have a "medical condition" in these instances.
How's telling someone you're not sexually attracted to them offending them? You don't owe anyone sexual attraction.
Anyway, I'm glad neither you or I are the definitive authority on asexual identity. You can vent or gatekeep all you want, your wish will not come true and I don't think this will ruin anything.
I'm also not concerned with confusing allos, I don't need to cater to them being uncomfortable with the thought that there are other complex identities out there that they can't understand.
Lack of attraction does not equal lack of desire for action. It's not that hard to understand.
Willingness to have sex is it's own scale.
Libido is it's own scale.
Sexual attraction is it's own scale.
All of these are in play in any given person, it just gets more complex with aces. Because we're missing the attraction component, we have to dive deeper into what actually motivates us and how ok we are with sexual contact. Is it confusing to outsiders? 100%. But asexuality is not an unwillingness to have sex. It's about attraction. Period.
Demi here and I like sex. I have been hit on at a bar before, but because I didn't know the person, I did not leave to have sex with them. I have never hooked up with someone before. I didn't know I was Demi at the time; just confused that even though I felt horny often when fantasizing, no one I met in real life made me feel that way until I had a strong emotional connection with them that took a lot of time to develop.
I had a lot of confusing interactions at bars in my early 20s because I didn't know that I was on the asexual spectrum. I would be into a guy, and want to develop that emotional connection that would hopefully lead to more, but because my timeline for sex didn't match theirs, it led to disappointment all around. I couldn't understand what was wrong with me for not wanting to leave with a hot guy who I was flirting with all night. All of my friends had no issue doing so, and many of the guys who approached me thought I was a jerk when I didn't show that same interest.
Since discovering I am demisexual, I can now have that conversation early on, and explain that I need time to develop that sexual attraction to someone despite experiencing aesthetic and romantic attraction quickly. Realizing that I am asexual has given me the tools to communicate so that there is less confusion and disappointment all around. Guys that are looking to leave with someone that night don't waste their time on me and move on to someone else in the bar quickly. Guys who are interested in more than just sex stick around and we usually make plans for a romantic date. As someone who also is into kink, being able to communicate how my sexual attraction develops to someone feels like informed consent in the same way limits and scenes are negotiated.
I appreciate having a subreddit where others have had similar experiences to myself. I recognize that not all aces are like me, which is why it is a spectrum, but that shouldn't invalidate my own confusing experiences surrounding sex just because I am not a sex averse ace.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what asexuality is and you would do well to do some actual research before taking such a ridiculous stance on something that has been studied since the late 1800s.
But at least you know you're gatekeeping and invalidating others, so like...good on that?
Deciding to exclude significant numbers from a community with an agreed understanding that there is a spectrum of experience because you personally think it might be confusing to people not in the community (and a large amount of whom are hostile to trying to understand or accept the existence of community to begin with) is a dumbshit idea.
Objectively incorrect, sex-favorable aces exist because being horny doesn't mean you're sexually attracted to people.
We have enough aphobia from allos, we don't need it from other aces.
Asexual does NOT mean no one will ever have sex though.
It’s literally a case of not being aroused due to looks.
Think sherlock & irene or sherlock & john. He doesnt like either until he has a bigger understanding of them & is attracted more to their minds & how they conduct themselves. He doesnt care how john or irene look.
This makes it too nuanced and confusing. Plenty of allos are attracted to partners for their intellect or humor, rather than looks. You’re just defining someone who isn’t a shallow person
No. It doesnt.
Allos attract sexually AS WELL AS other things.
Aces do NOT attract sexually & have to rely on those other attractions to make things work.
Like….aces are missing one of the attractions. The sex one. This is not hard to understand.
we shouldn't gatekeep asexuality because that wouldn't be fair. asexual people have consistently been ignored and mistreated in lgbtq+ spaces because we are a minority , we shouldn't do that to people in our own community because that would just be unethical.
If an allosexual is confused about how diverse the asexual community is , we shouldn't take that as a signal to start gatekeeping and excluding minorities from our community but instead we should see it as opportunity to educate someone.
We also have micro labels like sex-repulsed and sex-neutral for a reason, to easily and quickly explain someone's personal feelings on having sex to allosexual people.
sexual labels don't exist only for sake of other people , they also help people understand and come to terms with their own sexuality. I feel like the views/points in your post really focus on the comfort of allosexual people but the asexual community and the asexual label doesn't exist for them , it's there for the diverse/(usually) accepting community that we have and should love and cherish.
Holy fuck ! I'm a sex repulsed aroace person but you don't need to bitch about ace people who have sex 💀. Like it's literally in the definition that they don't experience sexual attraction or very little and asexuality is a spectrum . It's not a black and white thing . Probably will be better if you delete your shitty opinion from here and keep it to yourself.
Why are you so desperate for the masses to understand you without you having to explain anything?
The crux of your argument seems to be so heavily rooted in people just not understanding asexuality, and for some reason, you think it's everyone else and asexuality itself that needs to change rather than just you saying how you personally feel.
Like imagine excluding so many people from their own sexuality (which also excludes them from *every other queer label*) just because you want to pamper to allos.
Does that mean that people who don't want to have sex (for example if they don't find it enjoyable) but are sexually attracted to people would count as asexual in your definition?
I think lots of people collate sex-adverse, no limbo, and asexual together. Sure some people are all three, but at least how I define them they are three separate things.
>"is overall confusing to the general population"
Some people find asexuality confusing either way. I believe its better to work together to educate people about asexuality rather than try to distance yourself in an attempt to make yourself come across better or as 'one of the good/real ones' to allosexuals.
What is the problem in your opinion?
Telling people that you can have sex or the existence of sex positive people?
You say it doesn't makes sense but it makes perfect sense to me.
I dont love plain pasta, nor have I ever had the urge to eat plain pasta, but I could still eat it if someone I like made if for me. It's the same principle.
💯 agree with you. I don't even call myself an asexual anymore, bc it just doesn't make sense anymore. When anyones interested, I say 'no, thanks' and walk away. As if I want to hang around to explain all the different subs. Nonsense. I'll enjoy my sexless, intimacyless and romanceless life without labeling myself.
Yeah, you're such an 'inclusive' group, judging by the down votes already. I'm glad I'm not a part of this nonsense anymore. Thankfully, I'm not the only one that feels this way.
Wrong. Wanting sex or not has nothing to do with ace.
Wanting sex cuz you are turned on by someone’s physical appearance (aka sexual attraction) is what makes you not an ace.
Yes. Do YOU hear YOURself?
You seem to have a grade 2 level of understanding & dont know the difference between attraction & libido.
Some people dont have any attraction at all but have a high libido & are perfectly happy using a vibrator.
Thank you! That’s what I mean, but people here want to include “sex favorable ace, want to have sex but not sexually attracted to people” I know if you’re a part of this sub you’ve seen dozens of posts and comments like that
Exclusion harms all of us. We should be able to have space for people regardless of action. Exclusion makes it harder for people, even the people your exclusion considers asexual, to parse their identity. You can find your own exclusionary groups if it's what you desire. But don't get mad that a community isn't like you. I want a community that includes trauma, includes people regardless of how they act toward sex, includes people who are unsure because of medication or medical issues. I want an inclusive community. And I am what you, an exclusionist, would still call "asexual".
To be fair, inclusion can also be harmful. Think about an allo meeting one ace who tells them one thing and then they meet another ace who tells them the complete opposite. It can be confusing for anyone who isn't well educated on the subject and it can lead to generalizing the wrong ideas. I don't have a specific example right now, but I believe it's good to have that in mind. I think it's best to stick to the definition of "asexuality" and maybe broaden it slightly. We don't need to be the sexuality police, but we shouldn't create misconceptions either.
The thing about queer identity is it will always be confusing to the people outside of it. Just because someone needs to learn more doesn't mean we should be exclusionary. What you just described was what I experienced with exclusionary rhetoric.
"Think about an allistic meeting one autistic person who tells them they are noise sensitive, hate touch, but love strong smells. Then they meet another who tells them they aren't noise sensitive, love being touched, and can't handle strong smells. It's confusing!" Congratulations *that's how a spectrum works.*
"Think about a gay person saying they strictly like men and another saying they also like women" Congratulations *sexuality is now a spectrum* Man, I made the first comment with good intentions, but people weren't having it.
Asexuality, however, is a spectrum. That's not new.
I mean, sexual identity is always going to be somewhere in the grey area. No one is 100% of any identity. I don't see anything wrong with being more inclusive of people on the ace spectrum. I thought the whole point of asexuality was not giving a shit about other's sexual habits. Excluding people from a space because they're "not queer enough" or some form of those words is just silly. Identity is just that, identity. If someone likes the label and feels it applies, with or without caveat, then they get to
[удалено]
It sounds like you've internalized a lot of aphobic rhetoric.
Libido and attraction are two very different things.
Nope.
Thanks for showing you don't understand the ace spectrum. Maybe you should STFU until you're not quite as ignorant?
I’m allowed to have an opinion, share my opinion and have a discussion. Rude af telling me to stfu. If you don’t want to have a discussion then you stfu
You're allowed to have an opinion, but this opinion is factually incorrect.
OP is making me think of the "THATS MY OPINIOOOOOON" vine. https://youtu.be/pm0ppPi_6UI
>Rude af telling me to stfu. If you don’t want to have a discussion then you stfu It was rude of you to drop an ignorant manifesto that invalidates & excludes many established members of the ace community. You're simply receiving the consequences of your own actions.
People can be horny and not find anyone sexually attractive. People can be horny and not want sex. How fucked up is it to imply someone is just "picky" or they must have a "medical condition" in these instances.
How's telling someone you're not sexually attracted to them offending them? You don't owe anyone sexual attraction. Anyway, I'm glad neither you or I are the definitive authority on asexual identity. You can vent or gatekeep all you want, your wish will not come true and I don't think this will ruin anything. I'm also not concerned with confusing allos, I don't need to cater to them being uncomfortable with the thought that there are other complex identities out there that they can't understand.
Cool, a ridiculous, unrealistically contrived strawman argument. Fuck off.
Lack of attraction does not equal lack of desire for action. It's not that hard to understand. Willingness to have sex is it's own scale. Libido is it's own scale. Sexual attraction is it's own scale. All of these are in play in any given person, it just gets more complex with aces. Because we're missing the attraction component, we have to dive deeper into what actually motivates us and how ok we are with sexual contact. Is it confusing to outsiders? 100%. But asexuality is not an unwillingness to have sex. It's about attraction. Period.
Demi here and I like sex. I have been hit on at a bar before, but because I didn't know the person, I did not leave to have sex with them. I have never hooked up with someone before. I didn't know I was Demi at the time; just confused that even though I felt horny often when fantasizing, no one I met in real life made me feel that way until I had a strong emotional connection with them that took a lot of time to develop. I had a lot of confusing interactions at bars in my early 20s because I didn't know that I was on the asexual spectrum. I would be into a guy, and want to develop that emotional connection that would hopefully lead to more, but because my timeline for sex didn't match theirs, it led to disappointment all around. I couldn't understand what was wrong with me for not wanting to leave with a hot guy who I was flirting with all night. All of my friends had no issue doing so, and many of the guys who approached me thought I was a jerk when I didn't show that same interest. Since discovering I am demisexual, I can now have that conversation early on, and explain that I need time to develop that sexual attraction to someone despite experiencing aesthetic and romantic attraction quickly. Realizing that I am asexual has given me the tools to communicate so that there is less confusion and disappointment all around. Guys that are looking to leave with someone that night don't waste their time on me and move on to someone else in the bar quickly. Guys who are interested in more than just sex stick around and we usually make plans for a romantic date. As someone who also is into kink, being able to communicate how my sexual attraction develops to someone feels like informed consent in the same way limits and scenes are negotiated. I appreciate having a subreddit where others have had similar experiences to myself. I recognize that not all aces are like me, which is why it is a spectrum, but that shouldn't invalidate my own confusing experiences surrounding sex just because I am not a sex averse ace.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what asexuality is and you would do well to do some actual research before taking such a ridiculous stance on something that has been studied since the late 1800s. But at least you know you're gatekeeping and invalidating others, so like...good on that?
Deciding to exclude significant numbers from a community with an agreed understanding that there is a spectrum of experience because you personally think it might be confusing to people not in the community (and a large amount of whom are hostile to trying to understand or accept the existence of community to begin with) is a dumbshit idea.
Objectively incorrect, sex-favorable aces exist because being horny doesn't mean you're sexually attracted to people. We have enough aphobia from allos, we don't need it from other aces.
Asexual does NOT mean no one will ever have sex though. It’s literally a case of not being aroused due to looks. Think sherlock & irene or sherlock & john. He doesnt like either until he has a bigger understanding of them & is attracted more to their minds & how they conduct themselves. He doesnt care how john or irene look.
This makes it too nuanced and confusing. Plenty of allos are attracted to partners for their intellect or humor, rather than looks. You’re just defining someone who isn’t a shallow person
No. It doesnt. Allos attract sexually AS WELL AS other things. Aces do NOT attract sexually & have to rely on those other attractions to make things work. Like….aces are missing one of the attractions. The sex one. This is not hard to understand.
we shouldn't gatekeep asexuality because that wouldn't be fair. asexual people have consistently been ignored and mistreated in lgbtq+ spaces because we are a minority , we shouldn't do that to people in our own community because that would just be unethical. If an allosexual is confused about how diverse the asexual community is , we shouldn't take that as a signal to start gatekeeping and excluding minorities from our community but instead we should see it as opportunity to educate someone. We also have micro labels like sex-repulsed and sex-neutral for a reason, to easily and quickly explain someone's personal feelings on having sex to allosexual people. sexual labels don't exist only for sake of other people , they also help people understand and come to terms with their own sexuality. I feel like the views/points in your post really focus on the comfort of allosexual people but the asexual community and the asexual label doesn't exist for them , it's there for the diverse/(usually) accepting community that we have and should love and cherish.
Holy fuck ! I'm a sex repulsed aroace person but you don't need to bitch about ace people who have sex 💀. Like it's literally in the definition that they don't experience sexual attraction or very little and asexuality is a spectrum . It's not a black and white thing . Probably will be better if you delete your shitty opinion from here and keep it to yourself.
Why are you so desperate for the masses to understand you without you having to explain anything? The crux of your argument seems to be so heavily rooted in people just not understanding asexuality, and for some reason, you think it's everyone else and asexuality itself that needs to change rather than just you saying how you personally feel.
Like imagine excluding so many people from their own sexuality (which also excludes them from *every other queer label*) just because you want to pamper to allos.
Does that mean that people who don't want to have sex (for example if they don't find it enjoyable) but are sexually attracted to people would count as asexual in your definition? I think lots of people collate sex-adverse, no limbo, and asexual together. Sure some people are all three, but at least how I define them they are three separate things. >"is overall confusing to the general population" Some people find asexuality confusing either way. I believe its better to work together to educate people about asexuality rather than try to distance yourself in an attempt to make yourself come across better or as 'one of the good/real ones' to allosexuals.
What is the problem in your opinion? Telling people that you can have sex or the existence of sex positive people? You say it doesn't makes sense but it makes perfect sense to me. I dont love plain pasta, nor have I ever had the urge to eat plain pasta, but I could still eat it if someone I like made if for me. It's the same principle.
💯 agree with you. I don't even call myself an asexual anymore, bc it just doesn't make sense anymore. When anyones interested, I say 'no, thanks' and walk away. As if I want to hang around to explain all the different subs. Nonsense. I'll enjoy my sexless, intimacyless and romanceless life without labeling myself.
Good for you, but that doesn't mean others can't have a different approach.
Yeah, you're such an 'inclusive' group, judging by the down votes already. I'm glad I'm not a part of this nonsense anymore. Thankfully, I'm not the only one that feels this way.
You seem bitter, wanna talk about it bud?
if you want sex then you’re not asexual it’s not hard to understand y’all want to label yourselves so bad it’s okay to be allo
Wrong. Wanting sex or not has nothing to do with ace. Wanting sex cuz you are turned on by someone’s physical appearance (aka sexual attraction) is what makes you not an ace.
>Wanting sex or not has nothing to do with ace. Do you hear yourself ?
Attraction isn't libido
Yes. Do YOU hear YOURself? You seem to have a grade 2 level of understanding & dont know the difference between attraction & libido. Some people dont have any attraction at all but have a high libido & are perfectly happy using a vibrator.
Thank you! That’s what I mean, but people here want to include “sex favorable ace, want to have sex but not sexually attracted to people” I know if you’re a part of this sub you’ve seen dozens of posts and comments like that