Aces and Aros

submitted by Beth-BR from self.LGBDropTheT

So I heard that many people do not think asexual and aromantic people should be in the lgbtwhatever+ and I'm just curious what people think about it. It's hard for me to get some perspective becouse eventhough I am aromantic I don't know if I would feel as much part of the community if I wasn't also bisexual. How different it is for AroAces, heterosexual aromantics and heteroromantic asexuals? What do you think about it?

all 52 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]oofreesouloo⚡super lesbian⚡ 37 insightful - 1 fun37 insightful - 0 fun38 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

No, asexual and aromantic should not belong. For me, it only makes sense a LGB community, because it's dedicated to SAME SEX attraction. Asexualitiy is lack of sexual attraction. Besides, what rights do asexuals want? What discrimination have they faced or do they face? None. The only exception for me would be homoromantic asexuals because those asexuals actual do suffer discrimination because they're can engage in homosexual relationships. Aromantic people? Apart from aromantic ASEXUALS (so asexuals who prefer to be single), I don't think those people exist. I think people who don't lack sexual attraction and identify as aromantic have mental issues/commitment issues/attachment style issues/trauma/etc etc etc to address. For me, it's not normal that a person isn't able to develop an emotional connection with anyone. Only LGB.

[–]insta 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Aromantic people? ... I don't think those people exist. I think people who don't lack sexual attraction and identify as aromantic have mental issues/commitment issues/attachment style issues/trauma/etc etc etc to address.

https://i.imgur.com/W9kjIG7_d.webp?maxwidth=728&fidelity=grand

I honestly think it's just a coping mechanism for people who are resided lonely people. That's fine, I don't care if anyone wants to be alone. No sweat off my back, but don't expect me to go along with your "aromantic" delusions.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Same. It’s okay if someone wants to be single for life, but they don’t need a new label for this.

[–]Beth-BR[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Wow, ok. Being aromantic isn't about attachment and commitment, it's about feeling romantic attraction. An aromantic person may still crave a close physical relationship it's just not going to be romantic from their point of view. In our culture we assign all the importance to a romantic relationship and set it as an ultimate goal and happiness and anyone not interested is a heartless villan. Friendships can hold just as much importance and they require just as much effort and commitment. You can be a very loving person without the love being romantic. That's why I didn't think that aromantics should be in the community unless they're also bi/gay, that doesn't mean they don't exist, just separately. I don't know if that changes your mind, don't care but I had to say something. Aromantics aren't sex-obsessed lone commitment phobes they just do not feel romanticly attracted to anybody and a romantic attraction towards them makes them uncomfortable. They assign bigger meaning to platonic relationships and maby even crave an exclusive one. We have feelings, they're just not romantic feelings.

[–]oofreesouloo⚡super lesbian⚡ 18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 0 fun19 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

For me, there is only emotional connection. What will differentiate close platonic friendships from relationships will be the sexual part. As a lesbian, I'm only capable of feeling sexual attraction towards women, but as a human being, I can develop emotional connection with both men and women. That's it lol. I don't understand what is "romantic feelings" honestly.

[–]Lizzythelezzo 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I've talked to people who define themselves as aromantic and basically it means they never experiences crushes or feelings of infatuation. I think it would be more accurate to say they are "non-limerent" as they don't experience limerence. However people have romantic relationships without the experience of limerence/infatuation/crushing. Also most of them are asexual or on the ace spectrum but your mileage may vary.

[–]oofreesouloo⚡super lesbian⚡ 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Yes, but that makes sense for asexual people and I get that, as they don't experience sexual attraction. What I don't get is "aromantic" homo or bi or heterosexuals, so people who actually experience sexual attraction and feelings of infatuation like OP. Like I had already said:

I think people who DON'T lack sexual attraction and identify as aromantic have mental issues/commitment issues/attachment style issues/trauma/etc etc etc to address.

[–]Beth-BR[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I often go trough "what even is love" and all that and basically everything you said above and think I'm no different from a regular person and it's all a lie but then I talk to 'normal people' or look at irl couples and I just know that's not gonna be me. I don't go around saying how oppressed I am for being aro, that label just exist to find other people to relate to (just like differating bi and pan/Omni or whatever) these labels exist only to describe your feelings but they don't hold any real meaning to the outside world. If you are in a relationship no one gives a shit you're aro or when you're bi no one cares you're actually pan/Omni ect. Is romance just an illusion and a tool for selling stories? Maby it is but I am definitely not 'a romantic' and it's nice to have people to talk about it with and I've meet ppl irl who are big romantics and it's just the opposite of me. It doesn't have to be a big deal I just asked the question out of curiosity and didn't expect aros to be a part of the community based on them being aro.

[–]oofreesouloo⚡super lesbian⚡ 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I personally believe "romantic love" IS an illusion and I also wonder several times what the hell is even love. But I don't need a label for it. I just find it so unnecessary. When you meet someone you're interested in, you let her/him know what "you're up to". Love (be it fraternal love, sisterly love, motherly love, friendly love, lover love) exists, but it takes work. Now if you're referring to that honeymoon lovey dovey thing? Nah. It will eventually fade away and I do think it's a "lie" that infatuation tricked us. For me it's all about true emotional connection, and one that takes commitment and hard work - that IS love and it doesn't need to be between two lovers. Love =/= infatuation. It can perfectly be a close platonic friendship. The only difference between a close platonic friendship (which I had for 5 years by the way) and a relationship is that I'm not sexually attracted to that person. I don't want to kiss, have sex, feel attracted to, etc etc to that person. But I still care deeply about that person and want that person to be part of my life!

[–]Beth-BR[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's still nice to have memes about it (part of why there's a label). Whatever. I call myself that, I share my views on love with friends and it's easier for them to understand but it really isn't a big deal. So I'm not gonna argue, you seem down to earth and there's nothing really to argue about - I just like the label becouse it helps me describe my feelings and connect to other people and there are days I really need it. But yeach, whatever. Real or not - it's a thing. I know who I am with or without that label.

[–]oofreesouloo⚡super lesbian⚡ 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Fair enough. Wish you the best.

[–]INeedSomeTimeAsexual Ally 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah aromantic "allosexuals" feel like bullshit to me.

[–]HelloMomo 25 insightful - 1 fun25 insightful - 0 fun26 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

(For context, I thought I was aro ace for a decade. I wrote a thing about that here if you're curious.)

First off, I don't believe in the split attraction model. The split attraction model isn't something that a researcher came up with to describe their findings, such as the Kinsey Scale. It's not a concept a philosopher put forth in an essay, complete with an explanation and defense. This framework is literally just something someone on the internet came up with, and then other people were like, "Sure, ok," and started using. The only evidence than posits this is a useful or accurate way to describe people's patterns of attraction is anecdotal accounts of "this works for me," and for each of those, there's more personal accounts saying the opposite.

I've yet to see a satisfying definition of romantic attraction in which it's not contingent on sexual attraction, but is also distinct from platonic fondness. I think romantic attraction is fondness (like friend fondness) but flavored by the hormones that attraction triggers. Sure, there are some people who aren't really interested in sex, but I see that as a variant rather than a distinct sexuality.

I do think that real asexual people (aromantic asexuals) do exist, albeit very rarely. It's the logical 4th sexuality: there are 2 sexes, each of which you can be into or not. And those real asexuals have a fair amount in common with gay people—lacking cross-sex attraction and being unable to be part of a straight relationship is a big deal, and to brush that off as "nothing" is very flippant.

But at present, I don't think it's logistically possible to include them without opening a huge can of worms and causing way more harm than its worth.

[–]reluctant_commenter 14 insightful - 3 fun14 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

The split attraction model isn't something that a researcher came up with to describe their findings, such as the Kinsey Scale. It's not a concept a philosopher put forth in an essay, complete with an explanation and defense. This framework is literally just something someone on the internet came up with, and then other people were like, "Sure, ok," and started using.

This is a really important observation. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever behind this popular theory. If you search "split attraction model asexuality" on Google Scholar, you'll find ONE publication that even mentions the "split attraction model" a grand total of 1 time, and provides no support for it:

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/679772

I've yet to see a satisfying definition of romantic attraction in which it's not contingent on sexual attraction, but is also distinct from platonic fondness.

Same here.

[–]VioletRemiCat, homosexual one 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Same here. I even was diagnosed by doctors as frigid and not able to get aroused. In reality, tho, I was not able to get aroused by men, while first woman I slept with - "cured" my frigidness, as my blood was pumping out and I wanted some more action, and that was just from sleeping near woman I liked (we had no sex, no romantic, just slept in one bed, due to lack of space).

[–]blackrainbow 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Frigidness in 2020??

[–]VioletRemiCat, homosexual one 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It was 2005.

[–]blackrainbow 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Still.. I didn't know people would diagnose women with frigidness, even in the 2000s

[–]VioletRemiCat, homosexual one 5 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

Welcome to the real world.

[–]reluctant_commenter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

cue Life is Strange music

[–]zephyranthes 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

And those real asexuals have a fair amount in common with gay people—lacking cross-sex attraction and being unable to be part of a straight relationship is a big deal, and to brush that off as "nothing" is very flippant.

It's not a "big deal", it's literally nothing.

[–]HelloMomo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It's a non-thing, yes, but it's an absence that people feel very acutely, which is stigmatized, and which plays a large hand in shaping people's lives. It's a non-thing, but it's not a non-issue. It's absence is not trivial.

[–]peaked2020 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

For totally different reasons than LGB though... they agave more similar problems to child free on reddit than LGB.

[–]HelloMomo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't think you're going to change your mind, so I'm gonna make this my last post.

Basically, what you're saying is not my personal experience. I misidentified my lesbianism as asexuality because they do have something important and fundamental in common. I realized I wasn't interested in boys a decade before I realized I liked girls. It was the "abnormal" part; it what stood out. My interest in girls slipped under the radar, given the pseudo-romantic nature of female friendships, but I had no explanation for my lack of crushes on boys. It's common enough to hear "I thought I was bi for a while before I realized I'm gay", but the inverse version of "I thought I was ace before I realized I'm gay" is not unique to me—I've since heard it from multiple other people as well.

There is definitely a lot about asexuals that is completely different from anyone else. They have major questions to face about what a life not based around central romantic partnerships looks like, and they don't have that in common with any other sexuality. I'm doubt there's really be much to be gained from an alliance between them and gay and bi folk—one more reason that I'm not advocating for it.

But homosexuals and asexuals do have one major thing in common, and I think there's room for understanding between us around this shared experience. If there's no understanding to be had between you and them, that's ok. But between me and them there is. At the very least, we'll always share Artemis.

[–]peaked2020 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That happens with everything... a lot of girls also don’t think they are gay and think they just don’t want a marriage. Or that they just don’t want children... or that they just think kissing isn’t so interesting. Or that they simply prefer to focus on school... or that nobody is good enough for them... or that they are too busy... the mind will find many ways to not understand that it’s different from others, going under the normal society’s rules.

None of this means that we need to include all of these communities in LGB.

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oof, I had some awareness of my attraction to girls/women (that I kept trying to downplay), and I still cycled through all of those thoughts for a long-ass time before putting off the inevitable conclusion that I was gay. I knew I wasn't asexual though. I just didn't understand why I couldn't feel any of those things toward boys/men, and thought that was just a problem for me to get over and a symptom of something else. You're right, I was trying to find normal ways to justify why I wasn't different from everyone else I knew. Just one more reason I will never understand the blue-haired queers.

And adding to that list, "I'm just really focused on my friends right now. . . . who are all girls."

[–]INeedSomeTimeAsexual Ally 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I also don't think split attraction is real. The mainstream understanding of asexuality forces me to describe myself as aromantic asexual as if these parts were different from each other. To me they aren't. They are a one thing to me.

[–]haveanicedaytoo💗💜💙 20 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 0 fun21 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Aromantic Asexual does not belong with LGB, the same was Straight doesn't belong with LGB. LGB is about human beings who experience same sex attraction. Why don't Aromantic Asexuals want to hang out with the S instead? That's a sexuality too, so?

Asexuals who experience same-sex attraction..................................

Okay so one version is, they're "Aromantic" and... okay that's fine. They still get sexually aroused by other humans? That's not asexuality. They are mislabeling themselves and taking away from actual asexuals. If an "Aromantic" human being experiences same-sex physical attraction, they are already included in the LGB, but they don't get a special A label. They're either going to have to be happy with an L a G or a B, or go cry about it, I don't care. (I know you said you're aromantic, and this isn't a dig at you. But you are obviously not asexual, right? I didn't see you call yourself asexual in this post.)

If they are "Asexual" but experience "Romantic" feelings for same sex, I'm not a doctor, but I'd say go get that checked out. In any case, if these people have romantic feelings for same-sex, they are already included under LGB, again, they don't get a special A label, they are either L, G, or B. Just because you don't want to fuck doesn't mean you get a special label. Plenty of LGB don't want to have sex, especially as they get older. "Lesbian bed death" is a thing, there are some gay/bi men who NEVER want to do anal, giving or receiving. This isn't such a big deal that it requires it's own IDENTITY.

Tim Gunn of Project Runway has come out as asexual in interviews, and I've read that he had boyfriends long ago. I can't figure out if he claims to be aromantic or not, but I think to many people he reads as homosexual. SO in his case, I'd say it depends on how he feels about it. If he claims to be homoromantic, then of course he belongs with LGB, if he doesn't, then we can't just kidnap him and make him sit with us by force.

I feel like people REEEEALLLY need to leave Aromantic Asexuals alone and stop trying to force themselves under the Asexual label with this demisexual, graysexual, whateversexual shit. Just let the tiny amount of human beings who feel zero sexual + romantic attraction have their fucking label in peace! I'll give an exception for romantic Asexuals because at least they're still not feeling any sexual desire, but Aromantics who feel sexual desire just need to call themselves Aromantic but not be under the Asexual umbrella. Like you'd be an Aromantic Bisexual and you'd be a part of the LGB.

[–]MezozoicGayoldschool gay 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

LGB is about same-sex attraction and sexuality, not about lack of it.

[–]Silverdarling 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

These made up 'sexualities' have no business in the LGB community. The L, G and B (and 'straight' for that matter) are permanent sexual orientations that do not change throughout people's lives. They may be repressed, avoided or denied but they are inescapable and innate modes of desire, intrinsic and universal and observed globally and throughout human existence.

Being asexual is a typical symptom of past abuse or extreme trauma, physical pathology (eg. obesity), common mental ill health (especially depression and anxiety - which are at pandemic levels within modern Western populations) and as such it is highly questionable whether such a state is permanent and innate or is a comorbidity of pathology.

As for 'aromantic' - lol. This is just a trendy social attitude among certain age groups within a handful of Western countries, exposed to the same viral memes on tumblr. And like other social attitudes, there is absolutely nothing intrinsic or universal about it. You may as well state 'being attracted to rich old men with massive bank balances' is a valid sexual orientation - that one at least has a universal pedigree of truth throughout human history.

Adding this nonsense in to the LGB dilutes the core message of equality for same-sex attracted people and actively makes it harder for the LGB in the many socially and politically repressive countries to gain public sympathy and overturn laws which ruin lives.

[–]reluctant_commenter 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Being asexual is a typical symptom of past abuse or extreme trauma, physical pathology (eg. obesity), common mental ill health (especially depression and anxiety - which are at pandemic levels within modern Western populations) and as such it is highly questionable whether such a state is permanent and innate or is a comorbidity of pathology.

Just curious, what makes you think that? I have a friend who is asexual who has none of the conditions/situations you described. And he is not drinking the TQ koolaid, either. It doesn't seem remarkable to me that say 1% or something of the population could be asexual.

[–]oofreesouloo⚡super lesbian⚡ 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I second this. I actually genuinely think my sister is asexual (she's 23 and she has NEVER, not even ONCE, in her life had any crushes or showed interest in ANYONE on a romantic/sexual level and feels out of place because she genuinely doesn't understand why people are so obsessed with love LOL) and me and my sister had a perfectly healthy environment growing up, good parents and family. No traumas or anything. I do believe asexuals exist. Aromantic people? No. In that case, I would say they do have issues to address (unless they're aromantic asexuals).

[–]INeedSomeTimeAsexual Ally 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Asexual here and same. No mental issues and physical ones. I didn't even hang in TQ+ spaces when I started to realize something was off about me. I didn't know asexuality existed so I hoped that I just didn't know for a reason who I was attracted to - even if most people actually know their sexuality when they are late teens and young adults.

I think asexuality is legitimate but it's a big shame it's always used by the TQ+ kweeers.

[–]Silverdarling 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Yeah, I can accept that asexuality may exist for a very small % of people. There's people born without the capacity to emotionally connect or empathise with others (eg. psychopaths), so it wouldn't be a stretch to believe that true asexuals (as in people born without the capacity to ever feel sexual desire for others) might be found in rare circumstances. I would assume it would be rare circumstances though, as such a condition would presumably not flourish in a species which reproduces sexually - at least in modern western populations where marriage and childbearing have become individual choices?

It just seems a whole lot more likely to me that when most people diagnose themselves with 'asexuality' it is actually just a co-symptom of one of the common conditions I mentioned, rather than being an innate state of being in itself. If the 'asexual' in question has dyed their hair a radical shade of blue or green, then this suspicion is as good as scientifically proven.

[–]reluctant_commenter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

as such a condition would presumably not flourish in a species which reproduces sexually - at least in modern western populations where marriage and childbearing have become individual choices?

I have heard theories that it might have similar evolutionary benefits as homosexuality might, for example:

  • lack of childrearing responsibility allows individuals to devote energy to other activities that benefit the species

  • it is the flip side of having another minority be very sexual, which could be a superior strategy for a species to have in certain contexts / ecological niches

Your comparison to psychopaths is a good parallel.

It just seems a whole lot more likely to me that when most people diagnose themselves with 'asexuality' it is actually just a co-symptom of one of the common conditions I mentioned, rather than being an innate state of being in itself.

I would not be surprised if say 75%+ of the people who call themselves asexual, are not actually asexual. Especially given the whole "graysexual" thing-- by some definitions, practically everybody in the population could be "ace spectrum"...

This is a paper talking about how asexuality is a real phenomenon-- AND how some people who identify as asexual, might actually have something else going on (e.g. paraphilias).

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-016-0802-7

If the 'asexual' in question has dyed their hair a radical shade of blue or green, then this suspicion is as good as scientifically proven.

Hahaha, yeah not gonna lie I have seen that a lot. For the record my asexual friend does not dye his hair. :)

[–]Silverdarling 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thanks for the link, will have a wee read on my Friday lunchbreak! :)

[–]reluctant_commenter 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

No prob! Hope that wasn't too much information, I get really excited about research haha.

[–]reluctant_commenter 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If you want to see more discussion on this topic, btw, there were several threads about a month ago about asexuality and the split attraction model. Too lazy to link, maybe I'll go digging for them.

Here's where I relate to asexuals: I was heavily pressured to be attracted to the opposite gender, to the point of significant physical and mental harm. (I am lesbian btw-- I know some asexual women have similar experiences, would be curious to hear GB men's perspective.) I think that similarity is really substantial, and I have had some great conversations with an asexual friend of mine about it.

This is probably an unpopular opinion on this sub, but I would be okay with being LGBA as opposed to just LGB. Happy to hear arguments otherwise, but I feel that there is a lot of violence predicated on forcing opposite-sex attraction, and asexuals do suffer from that-- even if they don't suffer from violence predicated on suppressing same-sex attraction. Would be curious to see specific statistics, but unfortunately it seems kind of hard to pin down accurate numbers, currently.

Having said that, there are of course some asexuals, or people who say they are asexual, who are.. heterosexual with a fancy label, it looks like. E.g. "heterosexual heteroromantic demisexual" that person is supposed to be a part of the "asexual" community? You've gotta be kidding me. I think that has less to do with what asexualism is, though, and more to do with the TQ ideology.

edit: About split attraction model. I think it's kinda bullshit ("sensual attraction"?) but I get why asexuals might use it just as vocabulary to describe their experience.

[–]LesbiSilly 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree with you. Asexual is a thing and I don't like all the micro-labels, but I think just basic Aces (Model aside) belong. I mean, I laugh at Demisexual Pan Lesbians, too. But Asexual has SEX in the name and deals with sexual attraction.

[–]Seahorse 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No they don't belong, what do these people have in common with LGB?

The whole asexual/aromantic thing does my head in, I don't doubt that these people exist but why do you need a title for it and to somehow act like you're given a hard time in life about it? (Comparative to LGB).

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

While I think these people definitely exist I don't understand how they need to be in the community from either an activist or social point of view. I, as a lesbian, want sexual and romantic relationships— what interest would I have in dating ace people? Also, I do not see that they face the same level of discrimination either legally or socially. Ok, people may be a bit weird at first about the fact that some people don't date or have sex but I've never met someone who was hateful about it or discriminatory towards someone— at least in the west anyway. I could see how in some cultures ace people might find that they are forced into hetero marriages or something and that is very worrying.

Unrelated, but I don't buy into the split attraction model as I think that romantic love and sexual love are really two sides of the one coin. I can't see how someone would be unable to have romantic attractions (but still have sexual ones) unless that had some psycho-social issue going on like a personality disorder. It's more likely they just haven't fallen in love with someone yet. It also creeps me out how there is a sentiment in the community that asexual people can / should have sex. If you're not into someone sexually I can't see how it would be a good idea to have sex with them, it seems rapey to me.

Edit: personally I wonder if there is a developmental delay / disorder angle to this, at least in part. I have ASD and can see how someone might think of themselves as ace / aro when they are lonely, socially isolated, have trouble forming friendships and strong connections with others. Like, if you never meet people and get to have friendships with them you can't fall in love! So of course you would probably think you are asexual. And for many people sexual attraction follows romantic attraction so I can see how that would get lost in there too. Nonetheless, that doesn't seem to be every asexual and there are plenty of people who say they don't experience attraction despite the opportunity to so I think there is something to it.

[–]LesbiSilly 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I would say Asexual is part of LGB, because it's a sexuality (more like lack of) that differs from the norm. The oppression faced by Ace people from what I've learned is from the world's mass expectations of getting married, having kids. Sex is the most important human experience and if you don't like it you're 'weird. broken." So, I think Aces face a different kind of script than LGB, but both are hit by the "don't you want real love? What about kids? What will the neighbors think? You just haven't found the right man/woman. It's a phase." Script.

[–]INeedSomeTimeAsexual Ally 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I am aromantic asexual and see no point in belonging there. But I'm an ally.

[–]zephyranthes 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Please don't enroll asexuals into Oppression Olympics.

Genderism is a subset of identity politics, which says people are discriminated against on the basis of their "identity" rather than physical reality. Including asexuals into the alphabet soup is peak identity politics: unlike LGBs and even many Ts, asexuals are indistinguishable from the general population on the basis of observable reality. No one cares about our "identity" outside of the genderist cult.

[–]Lesbianese⚢ 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No. They aren't same-sex attracted inherently. If you are SSA and aro or ace, then sure but LGB isn't going to cater to your aromanticism or asexuality unless you specifically seek out something for SSA A/A people.