Aarglefarg
Member
What do you mean, are you confused why the label exists?
Why isn't asexuality included in pride?
- Thread starter Hermii
- Start date
Thanks! I'll check it out.If you're genuinely curious about understanding better, check out the OT when it goes up soon.
No I'm confused about why it's a sexual orientation becuase I thought it was the lack of one. I have a few asexual friends at college but when I ask them they can't ever explain it. So I've always been confused about that.
Labels are pretty confusing to me lol.
I don't understand it, but I have no doubt it's a thing. Sex drive is massively variable between individuals, it makes sense some people would be blessed/cursed without a noticeable drive for traditional sex sexual relationships.
And even if it's not and every single person claiming to be asexual is making it up, so fucking what?
Role models and visibility count. Same as for any minority group.
Fake edit: Caught up on the train of conversation. Yeah, there doesn't need to be one for it to be a genuine community or identity.
Edit: This post was not aimed at you, KillLaCam
And even if it's not and every single person claiming to be asexual is making it up, so fucking what?
Role models and visibility count. Same as for any minority group.
Fake edit: Caught up on the train of conversation. Yeah, there doesn't need to be one for it to be a genuine community or identity.
Edit: This post was not aimed at you, KillLaCam
Threads like these remind me why I prefer to think of myself more of an ally rather than part of the current LGBTQ+ community. Maybe in a few years when people take asexuality more seriously I'll be proud to be a part of such community, but till then no thank you, I can get by.
However, not everyone is as lucky as I am and it saddens me even more to see such a vocal hatred/misunderstanding towards other people who are just looking for a safe space. I mean, there are so few asexuals and sometimes they may be so far apart geographically that the closest thing they will ever have of actually being surrounded by people like them is the local LGBTQ+ community. If these communities make them fell like they don't belong, just like the rest of the world, what then?
"but I know so many less lucky than I", sorry I couldn't help it
However, not everyone is as lucky as I am and it saddens me even more to see such a vocal hatred/misunderstanding towards other people who are just looking for a safe space. I mean, there are so few asexuals and sometimes they may be so far apart geographically that the closest thing they will ever have of actually being surrounded by people like them is the local LGBTQ+ community. If these communities make them fell like they don't belong, just like the rest of the world, what then?
I don't mean to cause any offense, I know I'm ignorant, I'm just wanting to learn. But if that's not what asexual is, is it really it's own standalone sexual identity that needs to be included in Pride? Being gay or bi doesn't necessarily mean you want to have sex, every single person is going to have varying degrees of sexual drive from never wanting to have sex to wanting it all the time. Asexuality doesn't specify who you are attracted to, you're still going to identify with a bi, gay or straight identity? Again I know I'm probably wrong, I'm just struggling to see how it's a sexual identity and not just a preference when it comes to sex drive.
Me.
Aarglefarg
Member
I thought that might have been it. Yeah it isn't a sexual orientation. It doesn't need to be. It's in that genre of classifications though.
Pride isn't all about orientation, its about a bunch of things. Trans people also have orientations, intersex people also have orientations. Ace is in the alphabet soup cause its something worth recognizing. Its something our society has trouble understanding and its a group of people who feel to some extent alienated from others due to their differences. The whole LGBT+ thing is a coalition of gender and sexual minorities who need their voices heard.
teacupcopter
Banned
I agree and I like to think of myself as someone who is accepting but this thread has really confused me. On the surface I feel myself being very dismissive of asexuality. I get that is wrong but no one in this topic or the links provided really help. The definition seems to be the lack of wanting to have sex, except when you want to have sex. But it's not about lack of libido. Is it about relationships? I don't get it. It probably doesn't help that the few times most people would have heard this phrase in general society is about that one perpetually single friend "oh maybe they are asexual or whatever it's called when you don't like dating", or potentially even worse put it in a label of autism spectrum disorders (though even that, is it not ok anymore to talk about them as a disorder? I am honestly not sure now)
The other problem is the Flow of these topics.
Topic- why isn't the asexuality label put in the lqbtq label?
Person- what is asexuality, I thought it was this
Topic- it's not that, also don't try to label it
But the topic is inherently about a label! If the topic on a discussion board is about labelling a sexuality, but then only people of that persuasion can post about it... what?
You get me. I thought asexuality was disinterest/disgust in sex but apparently you can want to have sex and actively seek sex out yet still be asexual.
My mind is trying to square a circle and now my head hurts.
Edit- Before anyone says anything, I understand that sex can be like letting out a troublesome fart for some people but the way this conversation is going seems like we're dealing with a different scenario.
Pride has always include it as far as I know? At one point even freaking NAMBLA was part of pride, I think they are the only group that has been cast out for obvious reasons.
I wish so much this catch on, it's perfect, and it isn't as divisory as the current one, the last thing we need is more divisions.
I wish so much this catch on, it's perfect, and it isn't as divisory as the current one, the last thing we need is more divisions.
I think an oversimplification is as follows:
Typical scenario = Desire, Stimulation -> Arousal, Sex
Asexual = ???, Arousal, Desire, Sex
Which basically means sex is never wanted and pretty much never happens.
Asexual is not saying sex isn't possible, that erection or similar can't happen, that climax is impossible... but the Desire that leads to it is simply never there. Whatever is causing the lack of desire is not as simple as a lack of sex drive. Libido is how frequent the desire is there.
Other medical problems with sex can affect arousal, where stimulation even is less effective. This is mutually exclusive to asexuality because the bodily functions can be working 100%.
From what I understand, it doesn't have an effect on sexuality such as, hetero, homo, or bi, because while kissing may be off the table, all else such as wanting to spoon, hand holding etc. is limited to whichever sex they prefer.
My understanding is that there are a lot of asexual people in relationships. They just don't initiate any sexual activity. There was a male GAFer before who described what it was like but they've since been perma'd so I don't know think I can pull up those posts. It was a good discussion because his wife was typical and his posts helped me try to emphasise with the other side.
I think it's just not simply due to culture and language. We'll get there.
They can have reasons other than wanting sexual stimulation. Which is almost impossible to imagine but that's what I've been told.
Typical scenario = Desire, Stimulation -> Arousal, Sex
Asexual = ???, Arousal, Desire, Sex
Which basically means sex is never wanted and pretty much never happens.
Asexual is not saying sex isn't possible, that erection or similar can't happen, that climax is impossible... but the Desire that leads to it is simply never there. Whatever is causing the lack of desire is not as simple as a lack of sex drive. Libido is how frequent the desire is there.
Other medical problems with sex can affect arousal, where stimulation even is less effective. This is mutually exclusive to asexuality because the bodily functions can be working 100%.
From what I understand, it doesn't have an effect on sexuality such as, hetero, homo, or bi, because while kissing may be off the table, all else such as wanting to spoon, hand holding etc. is limited to whichever sex they prefer.
My understanding is that there are a lot of asexual people in relationships. They just don't initiate any sexual activity. There was a male GAFer before who described what it was like but they've since been perma'd so I don't know think I can pull up those posts. It was a good discussion because his wife was typical and his posts helped me try to emphasise with the other side.
I think it's just not simply due to culture and language. We'll get there.
They can have reasons other than wanting sexual stimulation. Which is almost impossible to imagine but that's what I've been told.
Well, it's kind of hard explaining something you don't feel. For instance, how do you explain the lack of pain? You can sort of explain what pain is and the many different types of pain one can feel, but you can't describe very well how it is to feel not being in pain.
Regarding labels, it's not unheard of to use a negative to define something else. The defiition of healthy is basically the absence of sickness or injuries. Similarly asexuality is the absence of a sexual attraction.
Part of the confusion here is that asexuality is also comprised of various more specific things
Wikipedia generally does a good job explaining such things specifically relevant is the section on "definition, identity and relationships" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality
I don't see where anyone saying only asexual people can post about asexuality
perfectchaos007
Member
It's the 5th flag on this poster
See I get the ace people doing it to keep their allo partners happy. I understand that bit. What I don't understand is those who do it with strangers. Why would you want some sweaty nobody rubbing against you if you're not even getting an orgasm?
Err ace people still can orgasm. (or at least a lot of them)
Reread this part from the person you quoted
Its more the lack of thing that gets you to have sex. For most people its not just the promise of an orgasm that leads them to sex right? Its some feeling that makes them feel like they want to have sex (kindaish like being hungry or thirsty). The lack of that is often what makes someone asexual
perfectchaos007
Member
I hear a lot of couples become asexual when they get married. Is asexuality a thing you are at birth or can you become asexual later in life?
I mean, based on the very small sample of second-hand anecdotes... I heard asexual people find that in their teens that they don't get why people are so horny for each other.
Married couples aren't becoming asexual. They're having a failing relationship. There are treatments (including therapy) that can alleviate such issues.
But, realising who you are can happen at any point in your life.
I get they can orgasm but I don't get the interest in hook-ups.
See, I think this is where my personal assumptions are clouding my ability to understand this.
Sexual attraction is what I need to get off. If I think you're gross or just blah, nothing will happen. Is hook-ups for ace people like scratching an itch but with a person instead of a vibrator?
Yeah you should have a comma after possible
Are you serious or.... ? I can't imagine that people are sexual from birth...........
I'd imagine its more the default and lack of developing a sexuality but ��
Edit tho I think by definition one could become asexual, that's just not what married couples do
Maybe I'm missing something. Where are you thinking asexual people want hookups?
I mean orgasms still do feel good so id say probably more cause it feels like you're drinking alcohol than scratching an itch. Like it gives you a specific sensation that you don't exactly feel you need but probably could get addicted to.
Or at least that's my best guess cause the idea of hookups sounds awful to me 🤷
A Link to the Past
Banned
Who n the thread told people to not label it?
Maybe you're finding it confusing because you're trying to take in everything at the same time. Asexuality has become somewhat of an umbrela word, being used to describe also a lot of gray areas between sexuality and asexuality, that's why a lot of people call it a spectrum.
Maybe the easiest form of asexuality to understand is the exact opposite of what a sexual person normally is, that is someone who doesn't feel sexual or romantic attraction for others. I am an aromantic asexual, I don't fall in love, I don't feel the need to have a partner and I don't feel lonely because of that. I can roam around town and I won't ever find that girl/guy whose smile will be stuck in my mind for a whole day or that really attractive person I would like to go to bed with, none of those things cross my mind.
However that isn't the experience of every single asexual and that's basically the main reason why we started emphasizing the differences between sexual attraction and romantic attraction. Some asexuals do fall in love, they want to be together with their partners, and may want to hold hands, kiss and cuddle, however they don't experience the need to have sex with their partner. Usually society considers that there's a kind of scale in a relationship, everyone starts holding hands, then they start kissing, making out and finally you get to having sex, but for these asexuals that last step is just not there.
In a simplified way that's the begining of it. There are other things to know and other labels in the asexual spectrum that help people better explain their situation, but I'll let that be explained in the OT and because as I said before, it can be a lot to take in at once.
Yeah. Almost all who identify as asexual don't have casual sex. They also have sex in a relationship at a far lesser rate than those who are not asexual. I don't even really consider myself asexual and casual sex interests me none. Even sex in a relationship is very rare for me, and usually to maintain a stable relationship more than anything else.
Where the poster is seeing confusion I think is poor explanation that people lie on a scale with libido being higher or lower. A purely asexual person has 0 interest in sex of any kind, and actively avoids it. It even repulses them. And someone on the opposite side of the spectrum loves sex and has casual hookups a lot (or is involved in the sexual parts of a relationship a lot). Most people I have found tend to be closer to the latter end of the spectrum, though the former end still has quite a bit of room, which is where there is a bit of confusion.
I think if there's one thing that connects all asexual people is not having the desire to have sex. Like they can have sex and even like it, but when they look at a person, even one they are "attracted to", there's no desire to get anywhere with them. That doesn't mean they don't/can't have sex or can't orgasm or whatever. Though many asexual people don't really enjoy sex, what defines them as being "asexual" is not having the desire for sex.
Sexuality is complicated. Asexuality notoriously so. Back in the 1950's when they were officially defining the scale for gay/straight trans/cis, they referred to it as "group X" because it couldn't fit on a 1-D or 2-D chart. The idea of libido would've had to move out in the z-direction, or at least use a modified 2-D chart.
Of course, you likely already know this, but it's still interesting.
blame space
Banned
as someone that rarely feels sexual urges.. who cares? I'm not oppressed for the same reason atheists aren't oppressed. i mean, their opinions deserve respect and they as people deserve respect, but it's tough to argue they deserve special representation on the level of queer people.
That's not really why people identify as asexual though.
A Link to the Past
Banned
This is a pretty reductive viewpoint. Asexuality is not "eh, I don't really feel like having sex." And it's also reductive to ignore what they face. I mean, in this very thread we had someone express a level of disdain for ace people because of an article about them "being disgusted" by two gay people kissing and therefore not belonging in the group to begin with. The umbrella's coverage shouldn't be defined by oppression Olympics.
blame space
Banned
why do people identify as asexual?
and sure, opening the umbrella a little bit further doesn't hurt, but it does start association, which i feel like isn't fair to people who are literally hated and oppressed for being themselves. our society is hypersexualized, but not to the point where anyone's forced to prove they don't have asexuality just to be themselves.
and sure, opening the umbrella a little bit further doesn't hurt, but it does start association, which i feel like isn't fair to people who are literally hated and oppressed for being themselves. our society is hypersexualized, but not to the point where anyone's forced to prove they don't have asexuality just to be themselves.
I wouldn't say couples become asexual with time. The stereotype of old married couples regards them not having desire for one another anymore, but just because they stop being attractive to one another that doesn't mean they don't feel sexual attraction for other people. And there lies a big important difference.
As to the question if you are born asexual or if you become one, well, I'd say it's closer to being born like that, just like with other sexualities. One might find they are asexual later in life and it may seem like they "become" asexual, but they probably knew they were different from others for a long time and just didn't have a name for it.
I'm getting a bit confused here. Some of the things you say might be trying to describe a sexual aromantic person more than an asexual one.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Why do people identify a sexual? It's kind of a pointless question.
Also, your second paragraph contradicts itself. Opening the umbrella a little bit doesn't hurt, yet it's not fair?
And finally, think about your argument in different contexts. A black person who hates gay people because at least gay people can hide it. A cis woman who hates trans women because they didn't have to face oppression for being a woman while they grew up. Anyone whose priorities are "fuck that other person who gets shit on" might have shitty priorities.
blame space
Banned
how is asexuality discriminated against though? it seems like an education issue rather than a pride one.
Because they would still want relationships the way we all do, but lack the desire for sex and have all the issues that come with.
Without awareness, those relationships are easy or compatible.
How many times have you heard "if they don't do this, they don't love you"?
blame space
Banned
that's just our understanding of attraction in general, though. sorry, I'm not Hardline on anything I've said in here, and you guys have given me a lot to think about.
Well imagine if you feel like you can't be attracted enough to someone and wonder if the lack of sexual desire means there's something wrong with you?
I'm going to oversimplify and say... For a straight dude. Imagine if the world only had gay dudes. That would be only half of the complication.
blame space
Banned
but it doesn't. that's why attraction is as varied as it is.
People actually have strong prejudices against those who are asexual. Those which seem to go beyond an education problem. I can link to studies if you'd like. And asexual people face similar problems to those in the LGBT, though most would argue to quite a lesser extent.
It's an interesting question as to why there's not a similar level of discrimination, despite similar levels of prejudice. Likely it's a lot easier to seem "normal" (in the view of the many who discriminate against LGBT, not saying LGBT aren't normal) than those who are transgender or gay.
Not that I would particularly care for identification if I did describe myself as asexual, but I understand why others would.
Sources:
MacInnis, Cara C.; Hodson, Gordon (2012). "Intergroup bias toward "Group X": Evidence of prejudice, dehumanization, avoidance, and discrimination against asexuals". Group Processes Intergroup Relations. 15 (6): 725–743. doi:10.1177/1368430212442419.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1368430212442419
Chasin CJ D. (2015), Making Sense in and of the Asexual Community: Navigating Relationships and Identities in a Context of Resistance, Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 25, 167–180, DOI: 10.1002/casp.2203
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/casp.2203/abstract
It's not really been studied much, which is a real shame, because a few studies can be flawed, where as more would perhaps point to some stronger results.
Aarglefarg
Member
My sister was refused service at a store by people who went to school with her several years before, because she had told them at school (when asked) that she wasn't sexually attracted to anyone. At the store, one of them told a coworker not to serve her because she is a lesbian. They were thinking they were discriminating against her on the basis of homosexuality but it was for both asexuality and perceived homosexuality.
You have all the attracted and interest in a relationship but without the sexual desire.
Outside of asexuality, lack of sexual interest is considered a red flag or makes one question their attracted.
Of course attraction is varied, but if you're dating in the modern world and you would prefer to never have sex, you wouldn't get very far. It's always on the asexual person to accept sex without desire to prove their attraction.
That's not some small thing.
LGBTQIAS+ is the formal usage and most inclusive IMO
ahh, I never thought about it that way. That explains why my friends had a difficult time explaining it to me. Thank you!
Thanks, that makes sense. Now that I think about It, it would be really weird to have it classified as a completely different thing since it it's still focused on what sexuality is.
Had no idea that there was a BDSM flag. That's interesting
Because it's the first step to better understand oneself.
Because one understands that it was not that something was wrong with them all along, it was just another possibility.
Because one understands they are not the only human being in existence who doesn't get why everyone else seems so fixated into getting inside each others pants or why people seem to make sex one of the greatest accomplishments in human existence.
Because one finally understands why, even after all those years forcing oneself through various sexual acts they didn't want to take part in but ended up doing anyway just to keep their partner, it never really got to be as good as what everyone else describes.
Yes, no one is forced to prove they are not asexuals, it's just taken for granted that no one is.
You want to live your life without any relationships? You have issues, probably mental ones or you don't have feelings and is a horrible person.
You want a partner? You have to have sex, there's no real relantionship without sex, that's just friendship.
You're homoromantic asexual? Good luck, everyone will treat you as if you were gay, except for gay people who will treat you as a represed person who is still in the closet, good luck finding a date.
Your family is very religious? Too bad God said to be fruitful and multiply, you're not a nun so do your part.
I don't tell people I'm asexual. Last time I did, the person I was talking to was utterly baffled and kept asking things like "But if you could choose any celebrity to have sex with, who would it be?" I didn't have an answer, literally no one came to mind. He didn't like that and kept pushing with "what if they were really, really hot though?" or "You've seriously never fantasized about anyone?" like it was not normal.
I felt so disrespected.
I felt so disrespected.
Yeah, I don't agree with this.
I don't personally have a problem with asexuality being recognized along with LGBTQ+, but I won't stand by and allow my shared history as a gay person be watered down to make asexuality feel like it has an equal role in the struggle.
Queer people have been outlawed, legally discriminated against, experimented on, tied to fences and beaten. We have been murdered in our safe spaces, discarded from our families and our children taken from us.
And this is just the US.
Nobody is ignoring what asexuals face, but are instead refusing to have other queer identities trivialized by implying that what they face is the same.
Poor GRIMES
Banned
Allowing cishet aces a space within the larger LGBT+ umbrella is not equalizing the levels of oppression. Recognizing that they, too, need a platform in which they can express themselves and their ideas is important. Also, I'm not cishet ace, and I navigate my life as a POC cis gay man, but, I can absolutely be more inclusive and not poo-poo on people because their "lesser" struggles are just as legitimate as my own.
There has been de jure legislation and a history of beatings that the overall queer community has had to face. There have been a grave number of injustices that have been enacted against us. But, that doesn't make it within our right to exclude cishet aces because they are an invisible marginalized group that has been, essentially, erased from history because of coerced rape and the denial that asexualism is even a thing.
I'll still have my struggles. I'm not belittling myself for advocating for the inclusion of the asexual spectrum in the LGBT+ umbrella.