My sexual preference Is “no” and I have to say that instead of asexual because sexual people have decided that the prefix “a” in front of the word “sexual” does not mean “not sexual”.
What used to be safe spaces for people whose sexual preference is “no” are now filled with people whose sexual preference is “yes, but I don’t feel horny by looking at people”.
And if anyone dare speaks up they get bullied, called acephobic, and told to just accept asexual people are sexual too and how dare we say please use a different label for that.
I am far from the only one who’s noticed this. It also leads to things like romantic asexuals (people who want a romantic relationship just without sex) having a harder time than they already did because people are learning “Oh your ace? But you’ll have sex for ME, right?”
Why can’t aces be both? The “sexual” in sexual orientations has always referred to attraction. Sex repulsed aces are like victim-playing US Christians in most of the interactions I see. They bully and make fun of anyone who has sex and then play the victim when asked to not insult others.
Why do other orientations get to be easy to understand, but the ones that just want to say ‘no’ absolutely must be comfortable in the same label as yet another ’yes’?
What is wrong with having graysexuality and asexuality be as separate as homosexuality and heterosexuality?
Why do people want to force others to be comfortable with what they’re not comfortable with?
Why is it so important to dismiss and erase people who just don’t have a sexuality that it’s acceptable to take over their one safe word and sexualize it?
I genuinely find antisex spaces more welcoming than asexual spaces and I hate that. Because people born without sexuality often don’t care about other people having sex. It’s normal, it’s natural, it’s fine, it’s just not our thing. So why do people insist on sexual themes in a community started to be safe for those who are just born not sexual?
Many of us already feel broken when we don’t get horny as teens. Yes, we’re freaks. We’re weirdos. We’re biological failures.
We create a space to feel not broken. To vent among others born the same. So why take that away? Why take away the one safe term for people who already struggle with feeling like something is wrong with them by coming in and saying that people who DO like sex are the same label and the ones who don’t want sex at all are outsiders among outsiders?
It hurts. It genuinely hurts to finally find others like you, to then be told that no, you’re still a weird broken minority even in this supposedly “fitting” label.
Why is it so important to have a special label that it’s worth hurting the people it was made for to make sure more people can claim it?
If you’re queer you should be supporting us aces, not acting like we’re some sort of anomaly yeah? It may not be your cuppa but we’re all on the same side here
You ever feel hungry but you’re not sure what to eat so you stare blankly into the fridge hoping something takes your fancy, but you’re not really craving anything because you never really get cravings. But you are hungry, so you want to eat something, so you have a choice, you can grab a protein shake because it’s quick, easy, and a pragmatic solution, but that gets boring when that’s always your “go to” when you’re hungry. Or you could order a decadent meal to enjoy, since you’re not really craving anything so you might as well set yourself up for a pleasurable experience.
Now replace being hungry with being horny.
You’re horny, but you don’t have any attraction to any options, and you never have. You could go for the pragmatic approach with masturbation. Or you could find someone that you think is a great person in all the important (non sexual) ways, and have sex with them because sex with fun people is fun, even if there’s nothing about that person (or any person) who flicks the sexual attraction switch.
So, technically speaking, an ace individual cannot find someone sexy? They can have sex with someone for the sake of having sex, be it for bond or pleasure or whatnot, but from what you’re saying they do not show any sexual attraction towards any demographic of people?
There are grey-aces (whom are still aces; black-stripe ace sometimes is used to refer to those with no sexual attraction) whom experience some sexual attraction some of the time.
But there’s a lot of aces who are surprised to realize sexual attraction is something people actually experience.
I always feel a bit confused by the name, and wonder whether it will eventually see itself focused or broadened further. Sexuality is a spectrum, but “asexual” doesn’t seem, overtly, to include sexual desire given its literal meaning. I do love the names of the sub-identities associated with it, though. Each one’s intention and definition feels apparent and up to date.
Sexualities generally refer to sexual attraction. Homosexuals are sexually attracted to people have the same gender, not to repeating the same sex acts over and over and heterosexuality is about attraction to people with different genders, not to novelty sex acts. Pansexual does not mean attraction to pans not to literally everyone or everything. Taking the words too literally is not really useful.
The differentiation of the ace/allo axis and the sex-favorable/sex-repulsed axis is particularly useful for aces, but it still has its use for allos as well (some people who have PTSD related to sexual activity may be sex repulsed, but can still experience sexual attraction). Lots of reasons to engage in and enjoy sex other than attraction to a specific person. Even allos often engage in sex with those whom they aren’t attracted to.
The major ace subreddits regularly had issues with sex-favorable people complaining about all the posts being sex-negative and sex-repulsed people (sometime simultaneously) complaining about too much sex-positive content. Would be more amusing if those types of posts didn’t waste so much space…
I’m going to go out on a limb and feverently disagree with you here.
This is like saying “yes, gay men can still have sex with women, as long as they’re not attracted to them. They’re still gay! It’s only a name!”
It’s an awful precedent. The amount of times I’ve been asked if I’m “one of those asexuals who have sex” is gross. I identify as asexual because the name itself was… what I was. I can no longer safely identify with it now because it apparently includes everybody.
Aces can have sex. Yes. There are caveats and disclaimers, but that’s not untrue. But there’s no such thing as “grey asexual”. That’s greysexual. It’s a separate thing.
“Asexual” becoming “inclusive” to almost everything muddies the waters.
I’m not against sex-favorability— I am against not being able to use the label to distinguish clear what I identify as anymore. It’s frustrating as hell.
This is like saying “yes, gay men can still have sex with women, as long as they’re not attracted to them. They’re still gay! It’s only a name!”
But that’s true. Straight men can and do have sex with men and that should be accepted as normal. Etc. Nothing wrong with that. What would be a problem is if people were to try to pressure people into having sex outside their sexual orientation. Because its wrong to pressure people into having sex. Doesn’t matter their orientation. But you seem to be suggestion that its okay, as long as aces get left out.
It’s an awful precedent. The amount of times I’ve been asked if I’m “one of those asexuals who have sex” is gross.
Some people don’t have boundaries and don’t know basic sexual etiquette. Acknowledging diversity exist no more justifies asking aces you barely know than it justifies asking trans people about their genitals. And yet, somehow people seem to somehow just forget basic etiquette when they meet queer people. As if our existence is either inherently sexual, so simply existing means we started the sexual conversation in their mind (even when we’re aces somehow) or we’re subhuman and don’t desire basic courtesy/privacy. That said, some guys are really just that direct with each other and think its normal.
But there’s no such thing as “grey asexual”. That’s greysexual. It’s a separate thing.
Asexuality is used both a specific label and an umbrella term that includes both.
“Asexual” becoming “inclusive” to almost everything muddies the waters.
I am against not being able to use the label to distinguish clear what I identify as anymore. It’s frustrating as hell.
Sounds about as valid as transmeds/truscum being upset that NBies and people who want something slightly different than them are under the same umbrella of “trans” and that they would need to use “binary” to qualify more specifically what they want to communicate.
This is like saying “yes, gay men can still have sex with women, as long as they’re not attracted to them. They’re still gay! It’s only a name!”
Well… That’s correct, though. It might be a little easier to see if you consider the stereotype of male-on-male sex in prisons or militaries. Or, to keep closer to your example, a homosexual man having sex with a woman just to see what it’s like. Or because he’s closeted and trying to conform to social pressure. There are lots of reasons to have sex with someone, and having sex with people of a particular gender does not necessarily determine your sexuality, if sexual attraction is not one of them. I mean, sure, a gay man having sex with lots of women for apparently no other reason than that he likes it might be a little sus, but, like, you might just not know what’s going on.
The amount of times I’ve been asked if I’m “one of those asexuals who have sex” is gross.
I agree that that’s gross. But not because it implies that it’s valid for asexuals to like sex. It’s gross because that is a weirdly intimate detail to just ask casually about, regardless of your sexuality.
because it apparently includes everybody.
No. Only those who don’t feel sexual attraction towards others. Regardless of whether they like having sex or not.
I am against not being able to use the label to distinguish clear what I identify as anymore
If the “not having sex” part is important to you, what’s wrong with identifying as “sex-repulsed asexual” instead of just “asexual”? Sounds like that would already solve your problem
Why do people whose sexual preference is “no” have to add an extra tag to what was already a perfectly useable term? Why overcomplicate?
Sexual people have decided that the term is now their term as well, when it was previously a safe way to say in one simple word “I’m not into sex at all”.
This is just bullying people away from their own term, because we’re after a way to clearly communicate no.
The examples you gave are of desperation and exploration. If you try sex and decided “Yes, I like this” then that’s not a sexual preference of “no”.
It’s not bad to be sexual. At all. In fact, most people are and THAT IS OKAY.
It is annoying (and harmful, because it encourages people to see “asexual” as “still likes sex for my sake!”) to take the word “asexual” and say “Yes asexual people still want sex!”
Let people who don’t like sex have one safe way to say it without being lumped in with a sex-enjoying group. Please. Why is it so important to take that away.
take the word “asexual” and say “Yes asexual people still want sex!”
Yeah but nobody is doing that. More accurate would be “Asexual people might still want sex, if it’s important to you, please ask (appropriately)”.
If you want “asexual” to exclusively mean people who feel no sexual attraction and are sex-repulsed, then what would you propose people who experience no sexual attraction who are still sex-favorable or sex-neutral should call themselves? Like, I’m sympathetic to your frustration, but they also deserve a label
we’re after a way to clearly communicate no.
There is, it’s saying “I don’t want sex” or “I’m sex repulsed”. It’s even better because anyone can use that regardless of their sexual attraction, even.
What’s wrong with just saying “I don’t want sex” or “I’m sex repulsed”? You make it sound like that’s unsafe in some way, and I don’t understand why, so I feel like I’m missing something here.
Nobody wants to take anything away from you. Sex-favorable people who don’t experience sexual attraction just also want to have a label for themselves. If they’re not allowed to call themselves asexual, what do you propose they call themselves instead? Graysexual would be wrong since that would mean experiencing sexual attraction to some degree at least some of the time.
Because I don’t want to have to continually explain my orientation to people? Like, holy shit, why the hell is this particular label a whole goddamn spectrum that I have to pull out a chart to explain??
“I’m gay”, “I’m bi,” “I’m lesbian”, “I’m pan” — that’s concise with no need to explain further! I’d LOVE to say “I’m asexual” without having them be like “Oh but you can still be kinky and have sex, right?” Literally all meaning is lost.
In a world where sex & relationships are deeply intertwined, I just want to be understood and have a space with people I can relate to without all that being something I’m forced to constantly wade through.
I don’t even want to be asexual, alright? It’s difficult enough as it is. I just want a goddamn word. Ffs…
If sex is something at least one party desires. No one should be pressured into sex they don’t want, but no one should feel bad leaving another person over the lack of sex either.
Ace is about sexual attraction, not interest in sex. You can be ace and love sex and you can be allo and be sex repulsed.
Bro this makes 0 sense
I’m queer and fully agree
My sexual preference Is “no” and I have to say that instead of asexual because sexual people have decided that the prefix “a” in front of the word “sexual” does not mean “not sexual”.
What used to be safe spaces for people whose sexual preference is “no” are now filled with people whose sexual preference is “yes, but I don’t feel horny by looking at people”.
And if anyone dare speaks up they get bullied, called acephobic, and told to just accept asexual people are sexual too and how dare we say please use a different label for that.
I am far from the only one who’s noticed this. It also leads to things like romantic asexuals (people who want a romantic relationship just without sex) having a harder time than they already did because people are learning “Oh your ace? But you’ll have sex for ME, right?”
Why can’t aces be both? The “sexual” in sexual orientations has always referred to attraction. Sex repulsed aces are like victim-playing US Christians in most of the interactions I see. They bully and make fun of anyone who has sex and then play the victim when asked to not insult others.
Why does it have to be both?
Why do other orientations get to be easy to understand, but the ones that just want to say ‘no’ absolutely must be comfortable in the same label as yet another ’yes’?
What is wrong with having graysexuality and asexuality be as separate as homosexuality and heterosexuality?
Why do people want to force others to be comfortable with what they’re not comfortable with?
Why is it so important to dismiss and erase people who just don’t have a sexuality that it’s acceptable to take over their one safe word and sexualize it?
I genuinely find antisex spaces more welcoming than asexual spaces and I hate that. Because people born without sexuality often don’t care about other people having sex. It’s normal, it’s natural, it’s fine, it’s just not our thing. So why do people insist on sexual themes in a community started to be safe for those who are just born not sexual?
Many of us already feel broken when we don’t get horny as teens. Yes, we’re freaks. We’re weirdos. We’re biological failures.
We create a space to feel not broken. To vent among others born the same. So why take that away? Why take away the one safe term for people who already struggle with feeling like something is wrong with them by coming in and saying that people who DO like sex are the same label and the ones who don’t want sex at all are outsiders among outsiders?
It hurts. It genuinely hurts to finally find others like you, to then be told that no, you’re still a weird broken minority even in this supposedly “fitting” label.
Why is it so important to have a special label that it’s worth hurting the people it was made for to make sure more people can claim it?
If you’re queer you should be supporting us aces, not acting like we’re some sort of anomaly yeah? It may not be your cuppa but we’re all on the same side here
You ever feel hungry but you’re not sure what to eat so you stare blankly into the fridge hoping something takes your fancy, but you’re not really craving anything because you never really get cravings. But you are hungry, so you want to eat something, so you have a choice, you can grab a protein shake because it’s quick, easy, and a pragmatic solution, but that gets boring when that’s always your “go to” when you’re hungry. Or you could order a decadent meal to enjoy, since you’re not really craving anything so you might as well set yourself up for a pleasurable experience.
Now replace being hungry with being horny.
You’re horny, but you don’t have any attraction to any options, and you never have. You could go for the pragmatic approach with masturbation. Or you could find someone that you think is a great person in all the important (non sexual) ways, and have sex with them because sex with fun people is fun, even if there’s nothing about that person (or any person) who flicks the sexual attraction switch.
So, technically speaking, an ace individual cannot find someone sexy? They can have sex with someone for the sake of having sex, be it for bond or pleasure or whatnot, but from what you’re saying they do not show any sexual attraction towards any demographic of people?
Basically.
There are grey-aces (whom are still aces; black-stripe ace sometimes is used to refer to those with no sexual attraction) whom experience some sexual attraction some of the time.
But there’s a lot of aces who are surprised to realize sexual attraction is something people actually experience.
Can I be a grey heterosexual if I only fuck guys some of the time?
You could be one whether it have sex people with never or often.
I always feel a bit confused by the name, and wonder whether it will eventually see itself focused or broadened further. Sexuality is a spectrum, but “asexual” doesn’t seem, overtly, to include sexual desire given its literal meaning. I do love the names of the sub-identities associated with it, though. Each one’s intention and definition feels apparent and up to date.
Sexualities generally refer to sexual attraction. Homosexuals are sexually attracted to people have the same gender, not to repeating the same sex acts over and over and heterosexuality is about attraction to people with different genders, not to novelty sex acts. Pansexual does not mean attraction to pans not to literally everyone or everything. Taking the words too literally is not really useful.
The differentiation of the ace/allo axis and the sex-favorable/sex-repulsed axis is particularly useful for aces, but it still has its use for allos as well (some people who have PTSD related to sexual activity may be sex repulsed, but can still experience sexual attraction). Lots of reasons to engage in and enjoy sex other than attraction to a specific person. Even allos often engage in sex with those whom they aren’t attracted to.
The major ace subreddits regularly had issues with sex-favorable people complaining about all the posts being sex-negative and sex-repulsed people (sometime simultaneously) complaining about too much sex-positive content. Would be more amusing if those types of posts didn’t waste so much space…
I’m going to go out on a limb and feverently disagree with you here.
This is like saying “yes, gay men can still have sex with women, as long as they’re not attracted to them. They’re still gay! It’s only a name!”
It’s an awful precedent. The amount of times I’ve been asked if I’m “one of those asexuals who have sex” is gross. I identify as asexual because the name itself was… what I was. I can no longer safely identify with it now because it apparently includes everybody.
Aces can have sex. Yes. There are caveats and disclaimers, but that’s not untrue. But there’s no such thing as “grey asexual”. That’s greysexual. It’s a separate thing.
“Asexual” becoming “inclusive” to almost everything muddies the waters.
I’m not against sex-favorability— I am against not being able to use the label to distinguish clear what I identify as anymore. It’s frustrating as hell.
But that’s true. Straight men can and do have sex with men and that should be accepted as normal. Etc. Nothing wrong with that. What would be a problem is if people were to try to pressure people into having sex outside their sexual orientation. Because its wrong to pressure people into having sex. Doesn’t matter their orientation. But you seem to be suggestion that its okay, as long as aces get left out.
Some people don’t have boundaries and don’t know basic sexual etiquette. Acknowledging diversity exist no more justifies asking aces you barely know than it justifies asking trans people about their genitals. And yet, somehow people seem to somehow just forget basic etiquette when they meet queer people. As if our existence is either inherently sexual, so simply existing means we started the sexual conversation in their mind (even when we’re aces somehow) or we’re subhuman and don’t desire basic courtesy/privacy. That said, some guys are really just that direct with each other and think its normal.
Asexuality is used both a specific label and an umbrella term that includes both.
Sounds about as valid as transmeds/truscum being upset that NBies and people who want something slightly different than them are under the same umbrella of “trans” and that they would need to use “binary” to qualify more specifically what they want to communicate.
Well… That’s correct, though. It might be a little easier to see if you consider the stereotype of male-on-male sex in prisons or militaries. Or, to keep closer to your example, a homosexual man having sex with a woman just to see what it’s like. Or because he’s closeted and trying to conform to social pressure. There are lots of reasons to have sex with someone, and having sex with people of a particular gender does not necessarily determine your sexuality, if sexual attraction is not one of them. I mean, sure, a gay man having sex with lots of women for apparently no other reason than that he likes it might be a little sus, but, like, you might just not know what’s going on.
I agree that that’s gross. But not because it implies that it’s valid for asexuals to like sex. It’s gross because that is a weirdly intimate detail to just ask casually about, regardless of your sexuality.
No. Only those who don’t feel sexual attraction towards others. Regardless of whether they like having sex or not.
If the “not having sex” part is important to you, what’s wrong with identifying as “sex-repulsed asexual” instead of just “asexual”? Sounds like that would already solve your problem
Why do people whose sexual preference is “no” have to add an extra tag to what was already a perfectly useable term? Why overcomplicate?
Sexual people have decided that the term is now their term as well, when it was previously a safe way to say in one simple word “I’m not into sex at all”.
This is just bullying people away from their own term, because we’re after a way to clearly communicate no.
The examples you gave are of desperation and exploration. If you try sex and decided “Yes, I like this” then that’s not a sexual preference of “no”.
It’s not bad to be sexual. At all. In fact, most people are and THAT IS OKAY.
It is annoying (and harmful, because it encourages people to see “asexual” as “still likes sex for my sake!”) to take the word “asexual” and say “Yes asexual people still want sex!”
Let people who don’t like sex have one safe way to say it without being lumped in with a sex-enjoying group. Please. Why is it so important to take that away.
Yeah but nobody is doing that. More accurate would be “Asexual people might still want sex, if it’s important to you, please ask (appropriately)”.
If you want “asexual” to exclusively mean people who feel no sexual attraction and are sex-repulsed, then what would you propose people who experience no sexual attraction who are still sex-favorable or sex-neutral should call themselves? Like, I’m sympathetic to your frustration, but they also deserve a label
There is, it’s saying “I don’t want sex” or “I’m sex repulsed”. It’s even better because anyone can use that regardless of their sexual attraction, even.
Thank you.
Your last line is exactly where my frustrations lie.
What’s wrong with just saying “I don’t want sex” or “I’m sex repulsed”? You make it sound like that’s unsafe in some way, and I don’t understand why, so I feel like I’m missing something here.
Nobody wants to take anything away from you. Sex-favorable people who don’t experience sexual attraction just also want to have a label for themselves. If they’re not allowed to call themselves asexual, what do you propose they call themselves instead? Graysexual would be wrong since that would mean experiencing sexual attraction to some degree at least some of the time.
Because I don’t want to have to continually explain my orientation to people? Like, holy shit, why the hell is this particular label a whole goddamn spectrum that I have to pull out a chart to explain??
“I’m gay”, “I’m bi,” “I’m lesbian”, “I’m pan” — that’s concise with no need to explain further! I’d LOVE to say “I’m asexual” without having them be like “Oh but you can still be kinky and have sex, right?” Literally all meaning is lost.
In a world where sex & relationships are deeply intertwined, I just want to be understood and have a space with people I can relate to without all that being something I’m forced to constantly wade through.
I don’t even want to be asexual, alright? It’s difficult enough as it is. I just want a goddamn word. Ffs…
Maybe a little relief might be… I’m sorry.
deleted by creator
one of my exes was a sex repulsed allo and unfortunately that was part of why we broke up
No sex in a relationship kills the relationship.
If sex is something at least one party desires. No one should be pressured into sex they don’t want, but no one should feel bad leaving another person over the lack of sex either.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator