all 100 comments

[–]supersmokio6420 20 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 0 fun21 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Asexuality literally means "without sexuality"; by definition its the lack of a sexuality, not a sexuality itself.

Same as how for example something that is achromatic doesn't have a colour: it lacks a colour.

[–]HelloMomo 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

The "is it a sexuality, or a lack of any sexuality?" has always seemed like a really petty semantic debate to me. Like it has to do with how you define "a sexuality" rather than the the nature of asexuality. And like what would this distinction even mean, and how is it useful?

If I had to take a ruling on it though, I guess asexuality is the lack of a sexuality, but it is a sexual orientation.

[–]MezozoicGayoldschool gay 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

It is lack of sexual orientation too, no? Sexual orientation is romantic and sexual attraction to someone, arousal to one or both sexes. Lack of it will mean lack of orientation as well.

[–]HelloMomo 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Again, this is a semantic debate. The real question is how is this distinction meaningful or useful? Lately, semantic debates have been a huge political strategy, so that's where my mind goes: What is the endgame of this argument?

(If this really is just a semantic game with no serious implications, a la "is tomato a fruit or a vegetable?" then let me know)

Like regardless of whether or not white is "a color" or "lack of any color", it still functions like a color for most practical purposes. Yeah, there are some exceptions (you need to bleach something to get it white, rather than dying it) but there's plenty of overlap too. White is a color of paint you can buy, it's a color in the hexadecimal color system, etc.

But I'm not particularly attached to specific term "sexual orientation," though, and if you have a different term you'd prefer to call that category, I'd be curious to hear it.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What is the endgame of this argument?

To validate asexuality as an approved sexuality. LGBA and all. Those other letters, though... those ones are just identities!

[–]oofreesouloo⚡super lesbian⚡ 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Asexuals shouldn't be lumped in together with LGB. We have nothing in common with asexuals. LGB is for same sex attracted people. What we experience and the discrimination we face is very different from asexuals. Asexuals don't even face discrimination at all.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Asexuals are alienated, not discriminated against.

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

True

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

Agreed - that's my point. But then, when the argument comes for what an innate sexuality is, there's no evidence for anyside - hetero, homo, bi, a, the gender brigade), so I think that's where LGB loses even more ground. I assume that's the nature of setting up the "debate" around genital preferences and fluidity.

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

Words have meanings for a reason, so it is not really a semantic debate.

[–]oofreesouloo⚡super lesbian⚡ 19 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 0 fun20 insightful - 1 fun -  (34 children)

Asexuality does exist (and I would consider it a sexuality).

I highly suspect my sister is asexual. She hasn't felt attraction or interest towards ANYONE in her life (she's 23 now) and doesn't seem to feel interest to anything sexual either. I think asexuality combines not feeling attraction towards anyone AND no sex drive at all.

Now, there are "romantic" asexuals, meaning that despite they not feeling sexual attraction towards anyone or sex drive at all, they still long for a "companionship". My sister kind of feels this. So dating for asexuals will be a LOT more of a different experience than it is for sexual people (us). Now, this is just my personal opinion, but I think asexual people can practically "choose" who they want to date, since they don't feel sexual attraction. It's all about the emotional bond and all humans are able to create emotional bonds with everyone, same or opposite sex. It's basically another story and can't be compared to the "traditional sexual" relationships we're used to talk about.

But it's true that now are MANY people misusing the term and claiming to be asexual when they're not really.

[–]VioletRemiCat, homosexual one 21 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 0 fun22 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I was like your sister for very long time, until I realized I am lesbian and I was just blocking my own libido and trying to be heterosexual and failing hardly in it.

[–]oofreesouloo⚡super lesbian⚡ 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I understand and I'm not excluding the possibility of my sister being a lesbian. I've actually asked her already like multiple times, and she is getting annoyed that I'm always asking lmao. She insists that she genuinely thinks she likes guys. And my sister isn't trying to be heterosexual in any way. She just doesn't date anyone at all or interested in anyone at all. She doesn't care basically.

[–]MezozoicGayoldschool gay 18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 0 fun19 insightful - 1 fun -  (28 children)

Aren't romantic feelings tied to sexuality?

It's all about the emotional bond and all humans are able to create emotional bonds with everyone, same or opposite sex

I think it is called friendship, or family (in meaning of parents or kids).

[–]Lizzythelezzo 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

I don't know, I still don't want to kiss on the lips or make out with my platonic friends or family. A lot of asexual people like kissing, holding hands and cuddling their partner, and still get married and have kids together. They just don't particularly want to do activities that stimulate the genitals. I suppose you could say this is a platonic life partner, rather than a romantic non-sexual relationship. But if I had a truly platonic life partner I wouldn't want to kiss them at all because there would be no romantic attraction there whatsoever.

[–]VioletRemiCat, homosexual one 21 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 0 fun22 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

I don't see how it is lack of sexuality.

Is this world too depraved by porn, that just normal family and relationship without being sex addicts is counted as asexuality? LMAO

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

without being sex addicts

A normal couple would still have sex a few times, while true asexual people wouldn't want have sex with each other not even once.

[–]VioletRemiCat, homosexual one 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

How exactly you have kids together without sex?

[–]DifferentAirGC 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

They would only have sex to have the kid, and then never again. Although if they are rich they can avoid even that and do artifical insemination.

[–]emptiedriver 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

and how is the male getting an erection and ejaculating to fertilize the woman? Most people don't get pregnant on the first try either

[–]DifferentAirGC 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

A man can get hard and ejaculate even during rape, doesn't mean he is actually aroused, it's a physical reflex.

Edit: about this whole debate, would you say the most normal and healthy relationship would be one in which the couple only has sex for the first few years of marriage (to have kids) and then spends the next 30-50 years without touching each other at all?

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

A man can get hard and ejaculate even during rape,

Asexual men? I thought having a sexual response when you weren't mentally interested was due to your body being sexually stimulated against your will. But here it would be a willing man with no sexual interest being sexually stimulated...

Eh, whatever, it doesn't really matter what you call it, but it seems silly to me to call it "asexual" if you have a reproductive system, since technically you are a sexual being, even if your libido is low and you don't feel attracted to anyone.

Plenty of people don't have a lot of sex at various points in their lives. It's a stereotype (based on something) that couples stop having sex once they get married or have kids, for example. Older people can stop being very interested in sex. Depressed people can lose their libido. Not everyone is constantly doing it.

But actually asexual would be a robot without genitalia. Otherwise you're a sexed being.

If you are interested in a partner you're oriented toward some type or other.

If you ever think about non-platonic touching (intimacy you would enjoy with your partner but not with your parents) you have some level of libido, however low it may be.

If you're a sexed being with no interest in a partner who has never thought about private touching at all, my thinking is that you have somehow never fully physically matured and I wouldn't put a label on it yet. But everyone's different and if you're happy there's no need to force anything. I'd still call it nonsexual rather than asexual since asexual implies not having a sex. Still, given there are a huge range of levels of sex drive, and they change over time, age, circumstance, surrounding people, mood, etc, lots of people go through periods not thinking about sex, I wouldn't be certain it's so black and white. Probably a low sex drive, not with the right (type of) person, and/or with other things on their mind.

[–]Lizzythelezzo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

I thought it was pretty average for couples to have sex once or twice a week? A lot of asexual couples never have sex, or maybe once or twice a year at most.

[–]VioletRemiCat, homosexual one 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

With my husband I had sex less than once a year after doctor diagnose of my frigidness/asexuality. Later in life I was having sometimes 3-4 times sex a day with my girlfriend ;)

[–]Elvira95Viva la figa 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

3-4 times pretty extreme

[–]VioletRemiCat, homosexual one 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (13 children)

You know we would have more~

[–]Elvira95Viva la figa 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

My libido right now is under zero. All the stress and worries. But I'm sure you would fix that

[–]VioletRemiCat, homosexual one 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I hope, that one day~

[–]oofreesouloo⚡super lesbian⚡ 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Aren't romantic feelings tied to sexuality?

For sexual beings, yes. Like I said, "dating for asexuals will be a LOT more of a different experience than it is for sexual people (us)". You simply can't compare how asexuals view love in comparison to us really if they don't feel sexual attraction at all.

But answering even further your question, yes it is called friendship. And I'd argue and say that "love" for asexuals is rather a strong friendship. That's why I think it's very different from how we experience it.

[–]MezozoicGayoldschool gay 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I know at least two couples of very close friends, who are living together for almost whole life, and they aren't asexual (they are not sleeping with each other to my knowledge). I see no difference, to be honest, same very deep and close bounds, not in sexual way.

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

Exactly

[–]8bitgay 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Now, there are "romantic" asexuals, meaning that despite they not feeling sexual attraction towards anyone or sex drive at all, they still long for a "companionship". My sister kind of feels this. So dating for asexuals will be a LOT more of a different experience than it is for sexual people (us). Now, this is just my personal opinion, but I think asexual people can practically "choose" who they want to date, since they don't feel sexual attraction. It's all about the emotional bond and all humans are able to create emotional bonds with everyone, same or opposite sex.

I dunno, I think that romance is just an aspect of sexuality too. You wouldn't have romance with your mother, your dog, your kid, your sibling, even though you can create emotional bonds with companionship with those.

If you mean that she wants companionship just like a close friendship, sure. There are people who live with their friends and all. There are also people who live with their siblings their whole life.

But when it goes to the realm of romance - however you define it - frankly then for me it's just an expression of sexuality, even though you aren't having sex.

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

I'm agreeing with you. "Romance" for asexuals is kind of a close friendship, yes.

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

You made me remember how I tried to describe a perfect relationship when I was young and didn't think I could asexual but just still going through puberty and someone said "so you basically wanna a good friendship" after I described. I agreed. And I still have this ideal of a relationship in my head actually...

[–]HelloMomo 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I thought I was asexual for a decade, and I've written an essay about that here (https://moessays.wordpress.com/2020/10/31/that-time-i-was-aro-ace/) dissecting it more if you're curious, but in short:

On the one hand, if asexual means a person experiences no attraction to anyone, that makes sense for it to be a sexuality.

That is what it should logically mean. If you want to argue it's a real sexuality, then logically it needs to follow the same rules as all other sexualities. And that would make sense! There are 2 sexes, either of which a person can be into, or not. We know from bisexuality that your attraction to one sex isn't somehow inversely linked to your attraction to the other.

That was the kind I believed myself to me. I knew from a young age I wasn't interested in boys, but given the pseudo-romantic nature of close female friendships, it took me a long time to realize my attraction to girls wasn't always platonic.

However, the way most people seem to use it is as a synonym for having no sex drive i.e. no desire or interest in sex.

That's how it's used in practice. Which sucks, because it really screws over the people in the former group.

[–]VioletRemiCat, homosexual one 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I thought I was "frigid" (as sexologist said) until 20+ years. I was a lesbian, but tried heterosexual marriage and stuff, and I never knew that homosexuality exist - no one told me that girl can be with girl, I thought it wasn't love to other girls I was feeling, just strong friendship - as many girls are kissing jockingly as greeting or to make boyfriend want them more.

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

It's not talked about as much, but I've actually heard several stories of lesbians who thought they were asexual before realizing they're homosexual. It's not too different from the "I thought I was bi at first" story, which you hear pretty commonly as well — just, y'know, taking the other route to get there.

And to this day, I think the lack of cross sex attraction is in many ways a bigger deal than our same sex attraction. In the currently political landscape, it's our right not to date males that's under fire. In The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir wrote:

What must be explained in the female homosexual is thus not the positive aspect of her choice but the negative side: she is not characterized by her preference for women but by the exclusiveness of this preference.

(although to be fair, that might've just been Simone de Beauvoir being bi, and that being her lens through which she viewed things)

Historically, gay men were attacked for being with men. There was no female equivalent of the sodomy laws; lesbian sex/relationships/anything often wasn't considered "real" in the first place. Across history up to today, I think lesbians lack of cross-sex behavior was more "disruptive" of society than our same-sex behavior.

[–]VioletRemiCat, homosexual one 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Most of the time it is more like "there must be a man - relationship can't be without penises" or "at least there is dildo!". Society still consider women as commodity. And lesbian is the biggest "sin" women can ever made - not just saying "No", but saying "No" to men on such fundamental level. And the worst part of it is that our "No" is not even our choice, it is biological "No", we can't be other way, even if we really really want to. That is why the more misogynistic movement is - the more they are attacking lesbians, as being lesbian is like personal attack on them. That is why so big focus of misogynic trans movement is on lesbians and on destroying lesbians in any possible case - our spaces, word for us, our sites and trying to coerce us to "try a girldick".

[–]divingrightintowork 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's a sexuality the same way zero is a number. Is zero a number? Is a null hypothesis a hypothesis?

I would say of all of the letters that have been stapled on to LGB, A is actually more deserving than the rest. It is a sexual orientation, albeit a lack of one, but that is in and of itself an orientation (a non-orientation).

This isn't so much saying that it belongs with the LGB, so much as out of the TQIA+++whatever nonesense, it's like, the best candidate from that lifeboat, if that makes sense.

[–]dilsencySame-sex community 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'd say your libido is separate from your sexual orientation. You can be homosexual (only attracted to people of the same sex) and still have a low/nonexistent libido.

I'm guessing the majority of self-labeled asexuals have at one point expressed interest in the opposite sex, but never for the same sex. Correct me if I'm wrong.

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

I'm guessing the majority of self-labeled asexuals have at one point expressed interest in the opposite sex, but never for the same sex.

Self-id asexual here but I'm not sure what interest in the opposite sex means. Feeling attracted? Wanting to do something? Because in my case I never really felt stuff to the opposite sex. When it comes to same sex there was one time I felt like being friends with that one person but it didn't feel anything like what people express as a crush or anything. I also didn't see this person as physically attractive but more intellectually (we had shared niche interests and it was exciting for me to know someone into the sane thing as me). But aside from it I am also very indifferent to same sex as well.

[–]SerpensInferna 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Unfortunately I think it means whatever the person using it says it means at that given time.

I am someone who feels sexual attraction to people occasionally but I have little to no sex drive. I've gotten various hormonal and other tests done and they've come back within normal ranges, and years of therapy hasn't helped much either. When asexuality first became a 'thing' several years ago, I was initially intrigued because it placed a label on my weird self and seemed to give me some sort of basis to move forward with. At first, it wasn't even really attached to the 'LGBTQ((&DFAUDLJFLAKDF(()*-what the fuck ever' grouping because it was just a bunch of people that were kind of realizing it was okay to maybe not be obsessed with sex, or even really that into it.

Then the autists came, which made sense, and it got a little weird, and then a bunch of very young people showed up, and I witnessed it morph into a part of the LGBTQ movement because these kids wanted to feel special. They started putting up tables at LGBT events and marching in parades and gave themselves a flag. When people pointed out the reasons the LGBT community had organized in the first place and asexuals hadn't experienced a fraction of the bigotry and oppression gays and lesbians had, there was a ridiculous amount of 'reeeeeeeeeeeee'.

That's when I bowed out and words don't mean anything anymore, because you can be just an asexual, or a heteroromantic asexual, or a homoromantic asexual, or a furry biromantic demibanana asexual. I don't even know.

[–]Ladis_Wascheharuum 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Coming at it from a scientific or even mathematical point of view, yes, it is. If you regard homosexual attraction as one binary value (0 or 1, off or on), and heterosexual attraction as another, then you have four possible combinations: 01, 10, 11, and of course 00.

Is zero a number? There was a time centuries ago when people argued that it wasn't - numbers are for counting things, and you can't count zero things. Zero is the absence of things. Yet, zero ended up being a fundamental concept that modern mathematics can't do without. The empty set is still a set.

Asexuality is still a category of sexuality on par with L/G/B. And on a social level, the A's do face discrimination. (I'm sick of people who really should know better arguing that asexuals can easily pass as straight and aren't demeaned.) Trying being a 40-year-old virgin, or even someone who's never had a significant other. People will look at you differently, whisper about you and how much of a loser, loner, social incompetent and/or creep you must be. Families will try to pressure you to date and will eventually see you as a disappointment (and in the case of men, a total failure because A Man Is Not a Virgin). As another comment here astutely pointed out, often it's the lack of normal attraction/relationships that is seen as perverse. Asexuals definitely experience that.

[–]VioletRemiCat, homosexual one 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

, and heterosexual attraction as another, then you have four possible combinations: 01, 10, 11, and of course 00.

That is now how math will work here.

If 00 means no attaction, then 01 is one in couple attracted to other, but other not. Or do you mean 01 as "attracted to men", 10 as "attracted to women" and 11 as "attracted to both"? It is not a math then, tho, as it takes position of number and give it philosophical value.

Trying being a 40-year-old virgin, or even someone who's never had a significant other. People will look at you differently, whisper about you and how much of a loser, loner, social incompetent and/or creep you must be.

Not only asexual people are like that, tho.

I know one guy, who was all focused on studying and science in academia until age of 35 or so, and he had sexual drive, just had no time for any relationship or dating. And now he want to find someone, but can't, and don't want to use prostitutes "to just stop being a virgin". Most people saying he is a monk (as orthodox monks most often never having sex in their lives) and must know some kung fu.

While homosexual people discrimination is exclusive to us.

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

often it's the lack of normal attraction/relationships that is seen as perverse.

what?? since when is being single or a virgin seen as something perverse? since when has asexuality been compared to pedophilia and zoophilia? since when has asexuality been criminalized as an offense against the order of nature?? truth is, asexuals are seen as a (more often than not, straight) person that has failed their reproductive role. homosexuals are seen as failing their reproductive role because they are sexual degenerates. although both can feel ashamed, isolated and demeaned, these are not the same experiences.

also, lots of people in this thread are saying that a person that wants to be in a relationship/get married and have kids can still be considered asexual. where's the stigma in any two people in a straight relationship?? no one is that worried about how often a couple has sex. people that want to be in straight relationships exclusively have no business being associated with LGB.

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

Definitely asexuals aren't treated the same way as straights and aren't just left alone untouched by any form of bigotry. I remember hearing my mother saying how single people with no children can be easily recognized because they are weird and scary... It quite stuck to me how you can judge someone for not making a family...

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

That is not specific to asexual people, thought.

It quite stuck to me how you can judge someone for not making a family...

Many companies are not even hiring up people (at least true for men) for jobs with working teams, if they don't have any social media, as then such people are seen as "asocial" and "bad teamworker".

[–]MezozoicGayoldschool gay 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Is lack of something is something? No, it is lack of it.

Sexuality is very strongly tied to neural centers which are close to friendship and empathy. So asexual person supposedely will be very dry to everyone in their life. I saw no researches or even tries of researches - seems it is super hard to detect or super rare to occur.

For some reason all cases of asexuality I saw were about a lack of sexual or romantic drive, and never about lacking any sexuality (I am not even sure it is possible).

[–]Lizzythelezzo 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It seems a bit like asking is atheism a religion. It's not but it is a type of belief system or worldview.

[–]VioletRemiCat, homosexual one 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Atheism is not a belief system, tho.

[–]MezozoicGayoldschool gay 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Atheism is not about "not believing in god" or "believing in science", atheism is about lack of believing, atheist people can be atheists without realizing it, so it is pretty different to religions and belief systems.

[–]DifferentAirGC 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I believe the word was created to describe people who never feel sexual attraction to anyone, but like LGB it got coopted by people (mostly straights who want to be special) who didn't belong to the group and changed its definition to "low libido/only feel sexual attraction sometimes".

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

I was reading through somebody's post history on Reddit who I found in /r/asexuality over there. Turns out he does have sexual feelings for his partner, just roughly about once a month or so.

That's not asexuality. That's wanting sex once a month.

[–]Seahorse 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No it's not a sexuality. I don't believe it's a thing apart from super rare cases, I believe a lot of these "asexuals" are a symptom of the porn mad world we live in now.

I was exposed to porn at a young age (10) and had issues with my sex drive for years and years. I considered myself asexual until I worked through my issues.

I'd love to meet a so called 40 year old asexual, not a teen or young person (which it most commonly is associated with).

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

My opinion is that regardless of whether or not asexuality is a sexuality, asexuals are not discriminated against the way LGB people are and should form their own communities instead of trying to join ours. I've seen enough more than enough homophobia from self-described asexuals. Our experieces are way too different to be comparable.

[–]oofreesouloo⚡super lesbian⚡ 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Totally agree. Asexuals shouldn't be lumped in together with us. Only LGB

[–]emptiedriver 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No one’s attracted to everyone of a sex so it seems premature to declare yourself nonsexual bc you haven’t been attracted so far. Maybe you’re slow to sexually mature or just have a low libido. Orientation is oriented toward something.

[–]VioletRemiCat, homosexual one 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Most young kids put on blockers early in life are actually have almost non-existent libido and will be "asexual" for life if continue "treatment".

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

Not a sexuality. People who are asexual are not sexually attracted to anyone.

[–]Three_oneFourWanted for thought crimes in countless ideologies 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'd say asexuality is as much of a sexuality as being bald is a hair style.

It is inherently a lack of sexual attraction, but since it is mutually exclusive with every sexuality, it can be used to describe a lack thereof. "What hair style does John have?" "He has no hair, John is bald" bald is a valid answer because it describes the lack of any hairstyle. Similarly, if someone does not have sexual attraction, they are asexual.

So it isn't really a sexuality, but it is a valid answer to the question, "What sexuality do you have?"

[–]Eurowoman24 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

I see it as the absence of sexuality - just like black, white and grey are the absence of colour and not technically colours.

[–]VioletRemiCat, homosexual one 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

More like transparent.

[–]dippintots 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, asexuality is a sexuality. It's a sexuality in the same way black and white are colors. It's the absence of a sexuality. However, someone could be heteroromantic and asexual for instance (so they possess romantic capability but have no libido). Or someone could be aromantic asexual which means they have no romantic or sexual desires. Some people refer to asexuality as having no sex drive but that's not necessarily it.

[–]INeedSomeTimeAsexual Ally 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's attraction to no one. So it's a sort of sexual orientation but in this case you aren't attracted to anyone. But sadly TQ+ made it more complicated by introducing spectrum into it. As asexual myself I hate it. Asexuality should be a straightforward thing. Anything what's not asexuality is just normal sexuality no matter how often you feel attracted to people...

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

If a person has only sexual attraction to one sex, and only romantic feelings to the other sex, AFAIK everybody accepts that as being bisexuality. So if you're an asexual person who has romantic feelings exclusively for the opposite sex, wouldn't that just be plain heterosexuality? It's interesting to me that romance isn't applied the same way across these two orientations.

What if a person has no sexual attraction, but is romantically interested it both sexes. Is that bisexuality, or is that asexuality?

[–]oofreesouloo⚡super lesbian⚡ 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If a person has only sexual attraction to one sex, and only romantic feelings to the other sex, AFAIK everybody accepts that as being bisexuality.

That's not bisexuality. For someone to be bisexual, the person has to feel SEXUAL attraction to both, not romantic.

What if a person has no sexual attraction, but is romantically interested it both sexes. Is that bisexuality, or is that asexuality?

If the person has no sexual attraction, it's asexuality yes. And the person would be biromantic asexual.

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

I agree with you. It should be about sex and only sex. However, that's not how the American Institute of Bisexuality nor the American Psychological Association define it. They both include romantic love in their criteria.

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

I'm just saying that despite that, not everybody sees bisexuality as that. I'd argue that's a weird definition of bisexuality. Besides, I'm not American.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Crazy Americans, right?

[–]Wandering_Idiot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Asexual is just the lack of sexual attraction, not necessarily sexual arousal. Some asexual are sex repulsed, and some are neutral. The sex repulsed asexual might not even masturbate. Those who are neutral, might masturbate but also have sex to please their partners or to have children.

One thing to keep in mind true asexuality has nothing to do with hormones. So please if you meet someone who is asexual or demisexual, don't tell them to go to the doctor to get their hormones checked. It's like recommending L/G/B to go to conversion therapy. Think of it like this, lesbians don't magickly become strait if they go on hormone based birth control, nor to do strait women become Lesbians. Nor do male body builders taking T suddenly become steroid ragingly gay. Hormones can affect your sex drive and libido but not your sexual orientation.

[–]hyunnahh 13 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

demisexuality isn't a real thing lmao

[–]Wandering_Idiot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

It is. It fall under the asexual spectrum. Though I do have to say with everyone and their grandmother claiming to be one in the same way every girl in high school claimed to be bisexual when in reality they were just testing the sexual waters, does make it seem less... legit. But in the same way you have to fish though the bullshit to find an actual bisexual in your 20's you can find actual asexuals and demisexuals.

[–]oofreesouloo⚡super lesbian⚡ 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I'm sorry but demisexuals are simply normal people lmao. I know plenty of people who could use the "demisexual" label. Demisexual is bs sorry.

[–]Wandering_Idiot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

"I know plenty of people who could use the "demisexual" label."

That is exactly my point. The asexual spectrum isn't exactly a large number in the population; however, historically asexuality has existed unlike many of the modern 'sexualities'. You are seeing the same spike in numbers as with young women identifying as trans men in historically unprecedented numbers. To many people are confusing emotional bonding increasing sexual attraction and zero sexual attraction until some sort of emotional bond. There are far to many lesbian/gay/bisexuals who have internalized homophobia and can't differentiate between suppressed sexual attraction and no sexual attraction. So they call themselves demisexual to make sense of it.

If you want to know if a sexuality is "legit" look at it's history. You don't see any of this moonsexual, gender non-conforming, pansexual; pre early 00's. Yet asexuality was mentioned in 1869 as monosexuals, and 1896 as anesthesia sexuals. The label asexual didn't become a thing until the 1960's. There has always been recognition of those who seem to have no interest in sex beyond that of those who chose celibacy for religious purposes.

[–]oofreesouloo⚡super lesbian⚡ 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Gays and lesbians call themselves asexual, not demisexuals before realizing their homosexuality. I've never heard of any gay person calling herself/himself demisexual before realizing it. But asexual I have. Demisexual is not a real thing. I said mzny people could use the demisexual label because it's like common sense. Lots of people aren't just into hook ups and prefer to have an emotional bond first. You're not "special" nor need a label for it lmao.

[–]Wandering_Idiot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Bisexual is attracted to two different sex not gender or personality or emotional connection. Lesbian is attracted to the same sex not gender or personality or emotional connection. Demisexual is default to zero attraction until a strong emotional attachment forms. Just to be clear, I'm not attracted to someone's biological sex nor do I have any form of genital preference. When I look at a person I might as well be looking at an aesthetically pleasing painting. I see beauty but I have the same amount of sexual attraction to people as I do to a slab of canvas covered in oil paint. The issue I have with squishing them all together is it implies that bisexuals and lesbians just need to find the right dick. Or that they have zero issue with being sexually intimate with a trans person who might have conflicting genitals.

It's not about being "special" it's about realizing that grouping bisexuals and homosexuals with asexuals and those who fall under the asexual spectrum a.k.a. demisexuals is kind of insulting for everyone involved. Especially the homosexuals, because no amount of emotional bonding is going to make a lesbian ok with dick or a gay man ok with pussy.

You don't have to like it; but, asexuals exist. As I mentioned they have been documented throughout history. This isn't a random fad that's happened in the last decade but a persistent sexuality that seems to pop up across all races and cultures in the same manner that we see other legitimate sexualities; homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality. This is something you don't see with the stupid micro labels; there aren't moonsexuals documented history, nor across race and culture barriers.

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

Demisexual is default to zero attraction until a strong emotional attachment forms.

I believe asexual people exist (people who are never sexually attracted to anyone). Your definition of demisexual here though is very broad and would include many heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual people as is not that uncommon for people to be unable to feel sexual attraction until they have a deep connection with the person in question.

grouping bisexuals and homosexuals with asexuals and those who fall under the asexual spectrum a.k.a. demisexuals is kind of insulting for everyone involved. Especially the homosexuals, because no amount of emotional bonding is going to make a lesbian ok with dick or a gay man ok with pussy.

Your definition of demisexual, defaulting to zero attraction until a strong emotional attachment forms doesn't imply that the demisexual person would have to be pansexual, okay with all genitals as long as the emotional bonding is there. For some people the emotional bonding and the person being of the right sex are both requirements for sexual attraction to be able to kick in.

If you don't want demisexuals to be grouped with heterosexuals, homosexuals and bisexuals then you should narrow the definition of demisexual so it no longer includes people who are able to experience attraction. If you only exclude those who experience attraction pre deep bonding then you will inevitably categorize some heterosexuals, homosexuals and bisexuals as demisexual too.

[–]oofreesouloo⚡super lesbian⚡ 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What. The. Hell... What does that you said has to do with what I said? I believe in asexuality. I just don't believe in demisexuality or whatever that is lmao. I don't understand why you brought up all that genital preference issue into the table. And bisexuals don't hear that "you'll find the right dick or pussy", only homosexuals because bisexuals already do like pussy or dick. Oh, and by the way, if you read my comments on here, you'll see I don't want asexuals lumped in together with LGB. So I really don't understand you sorry lmao.

[–]hyunnahh 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Your reaction is the same as mine lmao. I tried to comprehend this person's comment and failed, and gave up trying to give a reply altogether.

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

I brought up genital preference because we are talking about sexuality; heterosexual, homosexuals, and bisexuals all have it. you can't really have a discussion about sexuality without it coming up. Without a genital preference we are essentially running into 'we are all non binary and don't care' bull shit. And yes bisexuals do get the whole "maybe you'll find the right dick/pussy and be strait" crap to, maybe even more so as because they are attracted to the opposite sex as well they'll sometimes be called 'confused' or just 'curious' and will 'normal out' in the end. I don't care about your other comments I'm not going to stalk your post history.

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

Sexual orientation is not a preference.

[–]oofreesouloo⚡super lesbian⚡ 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Girl were talking about demisexuality. That's irrelevant to our discussion

[–]hyunnahh 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

And how is "demisexuality" different from people who simply don't do hook-ups and prefer getting to the other person first? It just seems like a special snowflake label.

[–]Wandering_Idiot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"many people are confusing emotional bonding increasing sexual attraction and zero sexual attraction until some sort of emotional bond"

When I look at people I can see beauty in the same way a heterosexual person can see the beauty of people who share their same sex but with no sexual attraction. Yes I can form a sexual attraction after I form a deep emotional relationship with someone. Key word being deep. Not just a we got to know each others favorite movies, foods, and music; now we have sex.

Like I said too many people confuse the two and think "Whelp I don't like one night stands, I'm demi!" I've probably met around forty or so people who claimed to be demisexual like myself, yet only one seemed to actually fit the bill. It's a big problem with the plus part of the LGBT+ with this whole super-acceptance-your-sexuality-is-valid it prevents people from doing the soul searching/therapy/self reflection needed to help them deal with many of the sexualities masquerading as demisexuality; normally internalized homophobia.

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

no, the problem with the + side of the "LGBT+" is that they're mostly all bullshit labels made up by tumblr users that makes close to, if not, zero sense, demisexual being one of them.

the point of sexuality and sexual orientation labels is to bring across which sex you're attracted to, thereby distinguishing your dating pool. this is consistently seen with homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual and even asexual and the original definition of pansexual. whereas "demisexuality" is an outlier. there's nothing strange or unusual or "queer" about wanting an emotional bond, in fact it's quite natural. many non-demisexuals requires a strong emotional bond with someone before feeling sexual attraction as well. but they aren't demisexual, because demisexuality in and of itself, doesn't make sense and isn't even exclusive to the label.

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

Asexuality isnt a sexuality, its a lack of one coupled with no interest in people romantically and sexually, do ace ppl suffer from oppression? No, but I observe a lot of oppressions are on women, its more a feminist issue than a LGB one.

T. Ace male.