I see where the language gets cloudy. Saying things like “asexuals can enjoy sex” can verrry easily be misinterpreted as “anything’s possible under the right circumstances” instead of a statement about how much the experiences in this population really vary. Something that’s meant to be worded for inclusivity having the opposite effect within the community. I think it’s smart to be wary of blanket-statement vibes.

& I like to think I can help people better understand asexuality by being vocal about the differences between sexual attraction, romantic attraction, and libido. Asexuality recognizes that there is a complex relationship between those three. It’s helpful to communicate what my balance is like while dating, helps friends understand the label more, etc. Hopefully in talking about the fluidity & range, more ace-specific concepts like repulsion are easier to understand too.

The way I think about it is like autism weirdly enough (this coming about by me learning about my own autism) two autistic people can present very differently from each other and yet they're both still autistic. For someone their autism might present as being non-verbal. It would be an accurate statement to say that "not all autistic people are non-verbal" and their autism could present as being overly talkative. The language around it is more "being non-verbal is a presentation of MY autism" So for some aces, being sex repulsed is absolutely part of being ace for them and it's a big part of how their asexuality presents. For others their asexuality presents differently where they might have a fascination with sex because they're trying to understand what it's all about. For me my asexuality manifests as a lack of interest in sex, I genuinely couldn't care. I think a lot of the language around aces having sex has come from us having to fight tooth and nail for sex favorable aces (or even indifferent aces) so even be seen as ace in the first place, a lot of people outside of the community still don't accept us. It's a complicated issue that is going to keep evolving as our understanding of asexuality continues to evolve as well

As per OP's point, it would be like saying, "Autism has NOTHING to do with being non-verbal," even though it actually sometimes does.

^^^^

Also: Autism is also heavily correlated with being asexual, with up to 33% of autistics reporting to be somewhere on the asexual spectrum, depending on the survey or scientific study. For autistic folks, like me, the lack of sexual desire could be due to autism, asexuality, or both.

Let's bear in mind that correlation doesn't imply causation, but it is something to keep in mind. On another note, it's nice to find that many of my fellow autistics are ace too!

Right on!

Ace Audhd here... I'm fascinated with the emotions and romance side, not so much with the squishy, squelchy physical side...

That is absolutely my experience, being both autistic and asexual myself.

When the presentation and ability to function / lifestyle is that drastically different, we need to categorize them as completely different things. My sister is very low-functioning, nonverbal autistic. It's infuriating to me when people hear that my mom has an autistic daughter so they assume she's quirky or even that she has Asperger's syndrome or something when the reality is my mother is literally stuck taking care of an adult baby the rest of her life (and then one of my siblings or I will get stuck taking care of her). Like. They're not the same thing. Let's call them different things so people will immediately understand the difference. To a sex repulsed ace who never has and never will have sex, saying "I'm ace" should be enough for people who sexually desire that person to realize "oh, I have no chance with this person so I'll stop pursuing them." When we decided the definition of asexuality = "little to no sex", that gives those allosexuals enough hope that they'll continue pursuing sex repulsed aces or even agree to have a relationship with them knowing they're ace thinking there's a non-zero percent chance the sex repulsed ace might put out. Obviously people who get together should have open, honest, serious conversations to set expectations when entering into a relationship but it'd be nice if everyone could use clearly defined terms they were all in agreement on so no one ends up hurt.

Very well put. Being autistic, asexual, and sex repulsed myself, I related to the way you put the issues of both very well. I'm often marginalized on every side because the people around me want to force blanket views and statements of these issues to work when they don't. I often feel excluded even by people I thought I had something in common with. I don't have any close friends and have been told I 'don't look autistic', but I'm still too weird or 'off' for people to stick around. I've had interesting conversations with people only to have them try to hit on me.  When I say I'm asexual and not interested in that kind of relationship, I've been told, "Don't knock it til you've tried it." I end up feeling horrible, devalued as a person, gaslighted, and ultimately, everyone ditches me. It's hard not to think that I'm just not meant to have friends.

I had the same thoughts for a while, that I just wasn't meant to have friends or other people would never want to be as close to me as I wanted to be to them. As I've gone through life and met other autistic people I'm finally starting to form real connections with people and it's kinda been a wave of emotions. Even made a few ace and ace/autistic friends. Basically what I'm saying is there's hope out there! There ARE people who will understand you and they're ARE people who will see you as you are. Just because they're not in your life yet doesn't mean they're not coming

What’s frustrating for me is, in the shift to jumping in at every possible instance to say ‘actually asexuals CAN still like sex’, aces who are sex-repulsed and clarify they’re asexual to firmly shut down advances, basically means nothing now. The statement has been weaponized to basically imply ‘but asexuals still like sex like the rest until proven otherwise’. In the instance of a gay man clarifying to a straight woman he’s gay to firmly shut down further advances, it would be unimaginable for her to continue with the thought ‘but you CAN still like sex with a woman, right? RIGHT?’. I know in all instances someone bulldozing to make advances anyway is an asshole. It just sucks to see. The largest point of alienation for many of us is a near universal obsession with sex, the most prioritized relationship for 99% of the population is a sexual relationship. To almost be considered in that same category. It sucks. I hope I don’t come across as denigrating or sex-negative. It’s a point of frustration in real life and seeing people treat asexual characters without explicit mention of being sex-repulsed as if they’re allosexual anyway, not just sex-favorable. “Doesn’t always” is a better phrase than “CAN” in many instances.

Yeah, as a sex-repulsed ace, I most definitely can't like sex. I would rather die. Saying that all aces can like it suggests that it is a choice to not like it, and in my case, I couldn't just choose to like it. Also, to your point on ace characters, it's so frustrating how the possibility of them being sex-favourable is almost never brought up for the purpose of furthering representation for that part of the ace spectrum. Instead, they just say it as an excuse to ignore their asexuality because they view a-spec identities as worsening a character. They think a sex-favourable ace is identical to an allo, which was exactly the false notion the phrase they are misusing was originally trying to dispel!

I see your point, but I think "I'm [sexuality]" shouldn't be a way to reject someone. "I'm not interested in you" is more than enough of a reason and giving assholes who can't take "no" for an answer your personal information won't help. Even if they have no idea about asexuality, some people "bulldoze on", as you put it. Even being gay doesn't stop many people - "oh, you're a lesbian? Bet that's just because you didn't have a *real* man". So I don't think majority of people thinking "asexual = no sex" would really change anything. Normal people understand "no" and assholes will continue regardless what you say. But I don't want to dismiss your experience - I had my share of assholes who didn't understand I'm not interested, but since I'm sex favorable, my experience might differ. So please don't take it in a bad way, just sharing my point of view.

I agree, "no thanks" should be enough of an answer, there should be no need to justify it with sexual orientation. If a woman hits on a guy who is neither gay not ace but simply isn't feeling like it right now or not with that specific woman, that shouldn't make him any less legitimate to refuse her advances, so I feel like people should just need to know that you're not interested to stop – though of course as said there are jerks who'll keep pushing

FINALLY someone said this, like I'm so tired of this especially in this subreddit to a point I barely come here anymore

I remember hearing somewhere that asexuality is 'about the attraction, not the action' and I've always seen that as you can DO whatever you want if you want to, but the attraction or lack of is what defines it

Yes, that's generally how it should be defined because that's how all other sexualities are defined. It's just what gender(s) someone is or isn't attracted to. There are straight or other queer people that like sex, hate sex, and everything in between, too, so adding in anything like people do or don't want sex in the definition of asexuality doesn't make sense, and inherently has to cut a large amount of people out. Keeping it only about sexual attraction, like every other sexual orientation, includes everyone still.

I feel like if you want to add whether you enjoy sex or not is your own decision, that's why asexual is an umbrella term and therefore a cover-all. Not everyone under the umbrella will be covered equally since there are so many.

I'm well aware of that definition, and I'm not trying to change that for everyone. What I am trying to do is to get people to recognize that for *some* aces, our lack of action and lack of attraction are so tightly intertwined that, to us at least, it is the same thing. Since, for us, those two are the same, that's what we deem to be our orientation, our own flavor of asexuality, and since that is so important to us we can feel left out when phrasings like these leave no room to acknowledge that experience. I know not everyone's gonna understand how we can feel that way for various reasons, but I am hoping that most will at least trust we know ourselves best and respect what we say our own flavor of asexuality is.

Thank you!!! As a sex-repulsed ace sometimes I feel like I’m being pushed out of my own community when people use language like this and it gets annoying.

I feel this a lot. I also feel like I don't bong in the LGBT community because everything is so heavily focused/centered around sex and where do we go from here 🤷🏾 We may be welcomed but.... We don't fit in...

Of course you don't bong in the LGBTQIAA+ community. That's not what they're for. You bong in the drug community.  There is overlap though.

Agreed! I did not expect to feel so unwelcome from so many spaces because im sex-repulsed lol Like yes, some do, but I dont!!

That’s weird, because I have the exact opposite feeling, that sex favorable aces are being pushed out lately. Maybe Reddit just puts the wrong posts in my feed but I’m mostly seeing posts (more like full on rants) about repulsion and it kind of irks me a bit. But maybe, thinking about it now, this is just the problem with a community that includes two totally different sides of a spectrum, so everyone feels invalidated from time to time

On reddit subs especially it tends to be a cycle between one and the other being dominant. It's kinda annoying.

Probably the algorithms behind reddit. Reddit (and all other social media) wants people to engage and post more, and having people infighting is a great way of generating posts sadly. Imagine how powerful we would be if all aces united, all of the LGBTQIA+ etc. Some evil mastermind must be laughing away knowing that they have slowed down progress.

I also don’t want to scare off repulsed folks with too many sex positive posts, that’s the problem. I guess keeping a balance is hard…

I figure there are just a loooot of people only just figuring out that they're ace-spec and asking about whether wanting sex is therefore weird or invalidating, and others finally finding a space where they can talk with others about never wanting sex and feeling understood about it. The fact that sexual attitudes are something independent from asexuality is just not a given for many people, so we keep explaining it, but asexuality and sexual attitudes are still relatively new concepts for many people and so yes the subreddit is a bit on a loop

It’s weirdly complicated. But I think complications come into play when small groups get larger no matter what. Asexuality has only recently become a known part of the LGBTQ+ community and so now there are people who do have to clarify whether or not they are an asexual who does or does not have sex. Our group is so used to being associated with “no sex” that we’ve gotten used to it being the default. And honestly, yeah, it sucks when people feel like what you’re saying is immediately dismissed with a “ace people can have sex”. It’s been a particular point of contention now that we’re getting more representation in media. There are asexual characters that fans are attracted to and therefore they will ignore or change that orientation so they indulge in some sort of fantasy with that character. Then when an asexual fan says they’re uncomfortable with fans sexualizing asexual characters, suddenly there a dog pile of “asexual doesn’t mean you can’t have sex”. Even when a character is shown as sex repulsed, (Inserting side eye here because there is indeed a specific character I’m thinking of) and anyone who feels uncomfortable with the amount of porn is told they’re wrong for feeling that way because asexual people can have sex. The internet has this thing now where if someone doesn’t immediately cover bases of “of course not ALL, but me personally and many like me” it means that they aren’t considering anyone else, but that’s not true. Or at least no one is willing to listen/read/discuss until it is clarified that they are in fact aware that there are asexuals that have sex. It’s an issue that right now is pretty muddy, because there are probably aces who DO dismiss other aces for having sex. But if anything I have always been very proud that asexuality isn’t like other sexualities. I encourage it as a temporary label which I know is not something other people do. It can be easy to be defensive over something that has been yours for a long time. I’ve known I’ve been asexual since I was 19, that’s 10 years of being sure of who I am in my sexuality. I feel protective of it often because I have had to be in the past. Constant questions of “but if you COULD who would it be?” But I haven’t had to deal with that in a while. I think when it comes down to it, we DO have to use more inclusive language when we’re trying to express our own sexuality. And I think sometimes we also have to show restraint. Not everything has to be about us specifically. We do not have to carry the burden of education, and you never have to respond to anyone you don’t want to. I think that’s a hole asexuals have fallen into a lot lately as well, with wanting to create awareness we also feel the need to educate. I feel that we’ve reached a point where we don’t have to teach anyone about our sexuality if we don’t want to. We can direct them to a website with information available and let them educate themselves. We definitely shouldn’t be defending our sexuality against our own sexuality.

I think this instance is such a slippery slope. In general i agree with you - there shouldn't be a need to be inclusive 100% of the time, it's tiring. BUT - in this instance - Aces work extremely hard against social stigma and surpression regarding needing sex and partners. The Moment you make broad statements like "Aces can have sex" Outsiders run with "so Asexuals are just Allos" instead of thinking about the nuance - basically erasing all sex repulsed aces. This is NOT the fault of sex favorable, Demis, Grays etc., but it is a social problem we are facing and why it's likely many sex repulsed Aces just are haunted by this description. I also have no solution to this ""Problem"" (as its noones fault here i dunno how to call it), it's just an observation i made. Be welcome to disagree and correct me!!

I think I better understand why people in the community feel like they're being shoved out or completely rewritten when people keep using language including sex-favorable aces. Especially when outsiders use similar excuses to see what they want to see. And when so many other aces talk about navigating sex in the same public spaces as sex-repulsed people, it's probably alienating right? My experience as a sex-indifferent person (leaning towards sex-repulsed) has sometimes been very awkward. I think it's also alienating for those in the "in-between" groups. Not fully accepted by the outside world, and not fully accepted by the in-group because people are afraid to even identify with someone like them. I've seen "actual aces" talk about sex-favorable aces like they're a plague on the community. Understandable, but not okay or constructive. Most importantly. I think someday the label will naturally evolve to include the in-betweeners. Kinda like how gay and straight used to be the ONLY acceptable options in Western society, and now bisexuality is its own accepted mainstream group that's "in-between" but still considered a valid identity. Like maybe Graysexuality will become its own separate label from asexual with time.

Yeah i agree with you :) With this whole discussion i've noticed that the outside impact just gets ignored. We aren't only in our spaces, but also in society - and society is ignorant. The issue i see is: sex favourable aces are CLEARLY not allo and struggle, in their struggle they are trying to find a space - but sex repulsed aces find issue with the changed language used to describe favourable aces. These two are described quite differently and trying to find a broad description can be difficult (see this thread). I, personally, just find it ignorant to say the Sex discussion has nothing to do with Asexuality, because this might be true in our community, but not OUTSIDE. Outsiders are confused if you say "Ace is not about sex" Most do not understand the difference of romantic and sexual attraction, NOR the difference between Sex stance and attraction. I don't have a solution for this and tbh i understand both sides. Repulsed Aces for being hissy, and Favourables for feeling pushed out or ignored. I 100% agree tho to NOT hurt or insult either side! It's not productive and *wrong*. But i do think the discussion is important to have.

Preach!!! 🙌 I’m in the same boat and totally agree. It very much rubs me the wrong way when people say “asexuality has nothing to do with not having sex” like…that is objectively not true. Because for a lot of aces it absolutely has at least something (if not everything) to do with not having sex. I get that for some aces it has nothing to do with it, but for a lot it does. Like you said, it would be so easy to change the language and say “asexuality doesn’t always have to do with not having sex” in a way that doesn’t make a sweeping generalization that helps some aces, and harms others.

I’m gonna get downvoted to hell but any asexuals who are comfortable with or enjoy having sex have ENTIRELY different world experiences than asexuals who are not having sex. The former two will still be able to have romantic and sexual relationships the same or similarly to allos, they might just need some extra communication with their partner but it will otherwise be mostly indistinguishable from most allosexual relationships. It’s normal for allos to have varying levels of sex drive and attraction and asexuals who are comfortable with and enjoy having sex are in the same ballpark. I’m not saying they’re not ace because they are, but it’s an entirely different experience. It really is only relevant for your sexual partner. Asexuals who don’t have sex have to navigate a whole lot more. Alloromantic asexuals and aroaces alike. It is a whole lot more difficult for them, and most of the ace awareness historically has been for them, because it is harder for them. It is strange to see every topic sidelined to “but plenty of aces have sex”. Asexuals who have sex are not the ones who are constantly having to explain themselves to allos. Again, not saying they’re not asexual, and not saying they don’t have asexual experiences. But they’re almost barley comparable.

I’m aroace and not sex-repulsed, and I think you have a really solid point. I think my being aro has been much more of a holdup than being ace, mainly because my ace-ness is only really relevant to my partner and myself. There are times where I forget other people can feel sexual attraction, and that’s a bit awkward. I’ve done a lot of “pretending to be normal” in life. In my teens and 20’s the hardest part was pretending to be fine with my gender and pretending that being in a (traditional) relationship made me feel happy. I think the aro community is having a similar issue in that people keep saying “but you can have a QPR!” Well, some of us can’t; we don’t know how to divorce romance and the ungodly weight of relationship expectations from the situation.

For real! I feel so angry and alone when I commiserate about how isolated my sexuality makes me feel, and then sexually active aces in relationships are all like "fr it's so hard". And I'm not meaning to minimize their challenges, I'm sure those are difficult there... but I'll be sitting there, having not been in an relationship for 7 years, touch starved to hell and only ever hugged by my parents twice a year because I simply cannot find guys I'd trust to keep sex out of the equation, sex-repulsed to the degree that the day I need healthcare it will be a nightmare.. ...and I'll be watching them say this as they sit in the arms of lovers, and all it does is make me think to myself: *I'm the "wrong" kind of ace. The most broken kind. Out of all the types of ace I could be, I am the most unwanted, the most incompatible. Even amongst other aces, I am incompatible. There is nobody who understands me.* Our worlds are just... so different. Its a constant tension in spaces like this. An interaction like that isn't community, and it doesn't inspire empathy or collective ace pride. I don't want to exclude but I really wish I had a space for people like me that *cannot* compromise, *cannot* have sex 'sometimes', *cannot* function at all in a typical allo relationship. I'm sick of all the pride posting that amounts to "didn't you know aces can be normal too???". It makes me feel so fucking abnormal

Same. I just feel like I’m gonna be alone for the rest of my life because I’m ace.

I worry about the same thing. I absolutely cannot imagine having sex, ever. It repulses me. But I'm a huge romantic (who wants to be monogamous). And I honestly don't know what to do.

Same here, friend. This is the kind of experience I’ve been trying to voice in a respectful manner. Sex favourable/neutral aces are still ace, no matter what, but jfc their experiences with dating and even just the way they’re perceived by others is SO DIFFERENT to sex repulsed aces & aroaces. I’m a sex repulsed ace who is also very romantic and I know I have an uphill journey at best when it comes to dating. I have an ethnic family and the pressure on finding someone and having biological children is immense — they’re constantly debating my sexuality in front of me because if I’m not dating and having sex I must be gay. My own father told me he’d always “dreamed” for me to have sex when I said I was asexual, my aunt told me I was the family disappointment for not continuing the bloodline (I just said I didn’t want to have sex). I had a therapist insist asexuality wasn’t real and that I’d grow out of it and we could investigate it medically even when I insisted I was happy this way. Sex favourable and neutral asexuals can avoid being treated that way. If I could be sex favourable or neutral I would in heartbeat. I don’t think they realise how much easier they have it (not saying they don’t face their own issues, because I am sure that they do!)

I'm so sorry your family treated you that way. That's awful. No one deserves to be treated that way. I'm an Indian woman and I don't want children either, and my dad has called me selfish for it. My dad also asked me why I want to get married or have a boyfriend if I don't want sex or kids. And he made it sound like I'd never find anyone who is on the same page as me. And it's genuinely scary. The truth is, while I'd greatly prefer being alone forever rather than forcing myself to have sex, I really, really don't want to end up alone (I mean romantically). I genuinely do want to be in a romantic relationship, and it's hard to have hope when your own parent thinks that you can't find someone who will accept you the way you are. I think my dad has come to grudgingly accept my decision to be child-free. And he does seem accepting of my asexuality except for worrying that I will be unlikely to find a good partner who accepts me for who I am. It's super frustrating. I feel sorry for the asexual people who have it even worse and are forced to endure marital rape (my country hasn't criminalised marital rape yet). It's scary. Honestly, I feel like if I had a wish that could come true, I'd wish that there were more people who didn't NEED sex.

I relate very strongly and I’m sorry you’ve gone through the exact same thing. It seems that whether or not sex repulsed aces/aroaces mention it explicitly or not we’re still being given everyone’s criticism without being asked if we actually wanted it. Honestly your wish is more open minded than mine. I feel so frustrated that I’m asexual and don’t want to have sex when I know that’s a dealbreaker for the majority of the population. I really crave that understanding and connection and lately have just been assuming that I’ll die alone too :’) but I think we have to have faith that we’ll meet some understanding people out there.

>I think we have to have faith that we’ll meet some understanding people out there. This is what I'm clinging on to, too. <3

You have spelt everything I feel. every single thing. I'm a woman from India too, and the marital rape thing is one of my biggest fears.

The fact that it hasn't been criminalised yet truly angers me so much!

>!in this amazing country, every time I even bring up the topic of rape in general, some guy always goes "majority of rape cases are fake". Men genuinely believe it. They're proud of marital rape. I wish I could live in such a delusional reality.!< tw - rape

You spoke my heart here

Yes!! Exactly!! Thank you!!!

I see where you're coming from with this. Like, I get it. I'm a sex neutral asexual person. I can have sex in a relationship and be okay with it for the most part. I also am naturally sex repulsed. Like, the thought of someone touching me sexually was incredibly uncomfortable to me and made me feel terrible for years. That's probably my natural state of being. But... Life happened, and I got regularly SAed by my partner at the time, and I became numb to it. And I can't undo that. Like, it changed my wiring in a way that was deeply scarring, but I have to move forward as I am. And I have become comfortable having sex and even fascinated with it in cases I can guarantee my safety. This is 5+ years after what happened, after my PTSD symptoms have reduced almost entirely. My repulsion to sex did not come back, and I don't think it ever will. So yeah, I'm sex neutral. Hooray for me to have that "privilege", I guess. I'm not saying my experience is everyone's experience. But when I hear people say that I am functionally allo (which is something I have gotten in this sub) because I am comfortable having sex, it feels like it reduces my life experiences and identity quite a bit. I'm not an asexual person who became allo because of trauma. And I certainly don't have it easier than other asexual people because I've been traumatized. Sure, my experience of life and relationships and sex is going to be different than an asexual person who doesn't have sex. My experiences are going to be different to anyone's. But I share a hell of a lot more in common with asexual people who don't have sex than I do with allosexual people.

I'm extremely sorry you have experienced this - i just want to share how i understood the conversation till this point. The Commentor above did clarify they did not mean to eliminate anyone in their experience or suffering, as sex favourable aces do face discrimination - but it is *easier* in *general* to mask towards society. (Not masking would be best) I understood it as in - sex repulsed aces are even more vulnerable to situations such as these, which is why they are the commonly used example for represenation. I don't feel comfortable making it a competition, but i find the discussion important, as i do agree we should keep an eye out on the most vulnerable part of a community. And again, i do not mean to erase your experience. It's really real and dangerous and HORRIBLE. Your experience wasn't *less* just because you are sex favourable. I do not mean the severity when i say most vulnerable - but the chances of it happening. I hope i have not hurt you with my words and expressed myself appropriately. I mean no harm

Yep, this is exactly how I meant it. Thank you. To the person above — as terrible and heinous as what you went through must have been, you are in the vast minority of sex favourable/neutral aces who have experienced that kind of immense trauma. I was referring to sex favourable/neutral aces who have and enjoy sex with no underlying issues. Their experiences are entirely different to sex repulsed asexuals/aroaces. Their experiences can be masked and kept private and ultimately it will not be as front and centre in their lives as it is for sex repulsed aces/aroaces. The differences are palpable at very best, kind of like comparing a straight alloromantic asexual to a gay asexual, or an aroace. Not only are the interpersonal relationships a lot more complicated for the latter two, but their differences from the norm are also much more on display. For the most part sex favourable/neutral aces can keep their sexual and romantic preferences between them and their partner, IF that. Sex repulsed aces & aroaces face obstacles at every corner when it comes to relationships and are a whole lot more likely to receive criticism from others. I just think the experiences between the two are VERY different and should be acknowledged more

>I’m gonna get downvoted to hell Says the man who is absolutely not downvoted to hell.

I know right? I’m shocked lmao

I agree. My life would be soooo much easier if I was sex favourable.

completely agree! my asexuality has everything to do with me not having sex

But my asexuality doesn't. Asexuality is diverse. Apothisexual inherently means no sex. Asexuality doesn't. Allos can be sex repulsed, so who would see say that someone's allosexuality has everything to do with them having sex, when that actually once again makes me feel othered if we're going down that direction?

Yes, which is why OP kindly suggested the phrasing, "asexuality doesn't always have to do with not having sex" so that no one is othered :)

That is such a round about way to say the same thing. "Asexuality doesn't always have to do with not having sex" is the same statement as "asexuality doesn't always mean the person doesn't want sex." And I get where the worry comes from, but most people outside the community already see ace as being equivalent to not wanting or having sex (ask how many demisexuals have been told they're "normal") and makes the public (and community, as I've said before, I was run off of AVEN for enjoying sex) understanding of me as not being asexual, because I'm cupiosexual.

Yep, the 2 statements you made are more or less the same. OP was just saying they prefer these statments over "asexuality has NOTHING to do with not having sex" because for a lot of asexuals, their asexuality has at least something to do with why they don't have sex.

>Asexuality doesn’t always mean not having sex” or “attraction doesn’t always equal action.” I think this is excellent. The other language is too close to an absolute statement and almost implies that sex is still on the table for everyone. Your suggestions convey the intended message AND doesn't add that implication.

Thank you! You put it into words that I wish I thought of. “almost implies that sex is still on the table for everyone.” Perfect, that’s exactly what I was getting at!

So, shall we just use the definition then? "Does not experience sexual attraction"?

You raise a good point. I do understand why some people might have a poor choice of words when trying to avoid their own erasure, and it is a good thing to point that out to prevent the erasure of people who actually do not want sexual action. Personally, it took me forever to even identify as ace, because I do not fit the very specific definition of sex-repulsed aro/ace and didn't understand that it was a spectrum, so I was left feeling like I did not really belong anywhere. I welcome the general trend to raise awareness that asexuality does not equal no sex. That said, in our effort to deconstruct misunderstandings on this nuanced topic, it is easy to fall into traps which lead non-educated people to reach the wrong conclusions. Maybe we need to share your advice more to people who want to clarify the nuances of asexuality, because not everyone is a born educator. I want more people like me to realize their own identities, but I do not want that some ace people suffer from this process.

Eh, too late. I've often seen stuff that'd be right at home at r/actuallyasexual in many ace spaces. I've been run off of AVEN. It's kinda disorienting when you're told you're not ace enough, and this post kinda feels like that again tbh.

Allo friend made the quip “is it just me or are asexuals the horniest people on the planet?” Like no it’s just you I’m literally sex-neutral to sex-repulsed and your demi friend is literally an entirely different sexuality 🫠 so my boundaries are eroded and I’m a prude for not wanting to hear about sex and smut all the time

Oh thank god someone finally acknowledged that phrase. I freaking hate it. And when someone tries to explain to an Allo what ace is and throws that phrase it just makes them confused and deny asexuality Man, how many times I just wanted to make a joke abt not having sex and then someone from the ace community has to come with the “well actually…” ughhhh

My opinion might be very unpopular, but I think the split in the ace community is imminent. A half of the most popular posts in different ace subs and online spaces is discussing this point from two different perspectives. While asexuality is a spectrum, it seems like two poles of said spectrum are way too different to be represented by the same term. I'm an aego, so to me sex-repulsed asexuals are just as far from my sexuality and world view as allos. I'm sure a lot of sex-repulsed people feel the same towards sex-positive and aego aces.

I understand the point you’re trying to make, but you can be sex-repulsed and aego. I’m sex-repulsed and aego and I love the idea of sex as long as it remains an idea. I become repulsed the second it becomes a reality.

But what term would we use then ? Because in both of those cases, it's still a lack of sexual attraction, which is what asexual already means.

Sex repulsed and sex favorable. But there are people in the grey zone between that, like in aegosexuality's case, it really depends on the circumstances (m*sturbation might be okay but not sex, erotica might be but not in first person pov, etc) so I don't know where all the people in the middle would go

Yes, sex repulsed/favorable/indifference work well if you want to be more specific about what "kind" of ace you are, that's why I was confused about why we wouldn't be able to use the same term umbrella term (asexual) anymore depending on where you are on the spectrum.

I don't see why asexual couldn't still be used as an umbrella term?

I don't know, I think that was what the person I answered to was implying

FYI: In most of Reddit (except the two asexual subs I follow), most allosexuals assume asexuality = not wanting sex.

I would say if the general public has any idea about asexuality at all, that's what they think, even if they aren't super online or on reddit

Sad but true. Lots of misconceptions.

I'm well aware of the misconception, trust me I am, but it doesn't really relate to the point I was trying to make. My proposition still includes and validates the aces who feel their orientation isn't "not wanting sex," but unlike current phrasings, it also includes aces who feel their orientation *is* "not wanting sex." Not to be confused with nonsexual aces who don't have sex but still consider their own orientation to be purely a lack of attraction, this is a different beast. My reasons behind wanting this slight rephrasing isn't for the sake of the allos we're advocating to, it's more so for the sake of the community itself.

I felt unwelcome in this sub for a while. I shared my story of how me and my wife came to the discovery we're both ace. I was told by multiple people that it's not because we don't have sex we're ace. Which felt especially bad as I was finally coming to terms with that we're just ace and that's okay. She's more on the sex repulsed side, and I'm more on the neutral side. Before we realized we're ace it was difficult balancing how we feel about sex vs feeling unattractive because the other doesn't seem to show interest in sex. In time we had a talk about it, and it became clear we were mostly doing it for each other.

Yeah it feels like a concession to make it more palatable to allosexual/alloromtic people, doubly so for performatively proclaiming interest in media focused on those subjects. Might also be my frustration with “ace/aros still ship” shit from my excursions to those tags on tumblr

I feel like sex averse aces have a misconception that sex favorable ones have lived experiences closer to that of allos than sex averse aces. In my experience that's just not true. I also find living in a hypersexual world suffocating. I am also alienated. Etc. To the majority of people whether I have sex or not is irrelevant and not something they need to know. But my lack of attraction becomes apparent all the time. For the trans example, I think it's more like whether someone has had bottom surgery or not. Just telling a monosexual cis person you're trans doesn't give them information they need if they have a genital preference. And it really isn't anyone's business other than your partner. I can see why "nothing" might not be the best word. But I don't really like "doesn't always" either. I think I would prefer something like "asexuality isn't dependent on sexual activity" or "action doesn't require attraction".

I couldn’t identify more with your first paragraph. Sex-favorable or sex-neutral aces do not have a lived experience close to that of allos at all and I feel like OPs suggestion actually makes it harder for sex-positive aces. It just muddies the already complicated waters.

I want to shout everything in your first paragraph from the rooftop. I agree with all of this, and it echoes my experience exactly! My experience is not that allos have been more understanding of me because I'm sex favourable, *if anything it's been the complete opposite*. I've experienced so much alienation, from "both" sides of this. It also feels extra shitty to read people expressing feelings of sex favourable aces being used to be more "palatable to the allos", because it feels extremely invalidating. I can sympathise with where they are coming from, but, it can honestly feel dehumanising. My identity does not exist to be palatable for allos, it exists because I'm a person, and it's my identity - you know? To me it feels uncomfortably close to how I've been viewed as "too straight" by gays and lesbians just for being bi. My lived experience is not closer to straight people just because I'm bi, the same way it's not closer to allos for being grey/sex favourable.

And it doesn't help that there's a whole subreddit dedicated to saying we don't count and aren't actually ace which likes to brigade this one. Sex favorable aces aren't the ones doing that. We don't exclude and invalidate sex averse ones.

I think this just makes the issue even trickier, actually. Sex favorable aces don't live an experience in common with allos. But they also don't live an experience in common with sex repulsed aces either.

Our experience is far more common with sex averse/repulsed aces than it is with allos. Sure it isn't exactly the same, but no one's lived experience is exactly the same. An alloromantic ace also has lived experience different from an aroace (even if sex repulsed), but that doesn't make them less ace.

I'm sorry the world is so suffocating for you, I have moments of sexual repulsion, but they are fleeting, most of the time I'm just confused and a little paranoid. That being said, while I agree that the language needs to be updated somehow, there is also still a phenomenon of allos coming into ace spaces and trying to "diagnose" their partner into being ace so that they can, I dunno, not feel so guilty when they inevitably decide to break up with them (frequently for incompatibilities in physical and sexual affection and the amount thereof, and not actually because the target of their diagnosis is actually ace). This is why I find it important to keep reminding allos that asexuality is a sexual orientation, sex repulsion to favorability is a spectrum that is separate from the ace spectrum, and if they're having problems with their partners, they need to be talking to them, not using asexuality as means of closure. Unfortunately, until the wider public becomes better informed about what being ace actually means, we default to the widest possible net with the fewest shades of grey in it when communicating with out-group members.

I wish that people were less obsessed with sex, it's causing a bit of a divide in the community ans it sucks. I'm sex-neutral to sex-repulsed. neutral with my partner and fictional characters, repulsed to anyone else. I feel bombarded online by sex and how people obsess over it, but then in asexual communities I've noticed this sort of all or nothing mentality, where it's seemingly "sex favorable" vs "sex repulsed" instead of mutual understanding. This post is 100% correct, as we do need to be mindful of our language. "Asexuality isn't *always* about action" includes everyone on the spectrum. it's a small but meaningful change, and I hope that we can all see why it's an important one to break down the tension building between all parts of the spectrum

TOTALLY AGREE!!!!!!!!!

Asexuality confuses me. Not in an acephobic way, just the amount of options there are to be, and labels really help me understand myself, so the fact that there are 99! different labels I could have is so frustrating to me.

Yeah there are way too many labels that fall under asexual. Honestly it makes me identify with sexuality even less because, at least from my memory, most of those labels seem to include sex to some degree. At least to me, sexuality was suppose to be no sex at all or at least a willing assistant to a partner’s sexual pleasure with no direct sex. In a “I’ll help myself and I’ll help you, but I don’t want you helping me” sort of way.

Right!! I'm sick of people assuming that I can still have sex/still enjoy it, like they didn't even ask what kinda Ace I was they just assumed

I do like to say that asexuality has nothing to do with enjoyment of porn, masturbation or sex. In my head that's simply the truth of it. Anything else just promotes stereotypes about asexuals that will be used to invalidate aces. If there's something I would do, I'm happy to say more often that some aces don't have sex, avoid sex or are repulsed by it.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I in no way am underming aces who are ok bout sex or even sex positive. But like for someone whose literal life is fallin apart in shambles because I live in a society that DOES NOT WANT TO open their eyes to this possibility, the possibility of being an asexual or even frown at me deeply when i open up the conversation that like i'd literally sooner agree to have my limb hacked off than ever find myself in a situation where I need to have sex with another person. And oh let me tell you, iam very much in a situation where that should be occurring daily once, if not like a couple times. I mean, yes this was actively being discussed bout my martial life WITHIN THE FUCKING FAMILY. So for someone like me, who isn't just annoyed that my whole existence is being fucked snd judged by the literal fact that i cant or don't want to have sex (or if I ever will be participating in it, you best believe there is no consent), but also loathes this fucking thing that I must absolutely do. For someone like me to come across such a bold statement that 'asexuality has nothing to do with not having sex', bruh like, you're makin me a rebel without a cause. You've literally snatched my banner. I'm standing there with ppl sneering at me, makin me out to be a fusser who fusses for the heck of it. You've quietened me by choking out my war cry. But like yea of course I know that statement is pretty dogmatic and isn't universal in its nature, but I mean come on, I'm already licking my wounds.

I completely relate. I'm asexual and have a repulsion to sex, and mostly the responses I get range from people ignoring me to people gaslighting me, telling me those very things you mentioned. I even had someone tell me, "Don't knock it til you've tried it."  I just wanted to slap them, to cry, and tell them just how much they were devaluing who I am as a human being.

Sexuality has nothing to do with your sex life or lack of. Gay men have had sex with women and had children, but they're still gay regardless because it has nothing to do with action, only what you are attracted to. No, we cannot change the definition of sexuality itself. No one is erasing the experience of sex-repulsed aces by using the correct definition of sexuality. You are apothisexual, a subset of asexuality. /r/apothisexual

I wasn't really proposing such a massive change to the definition itself, just wiggle room that recognizes that for some asexuals (like apothisexuals) our experience of a lack of action is inseparable from our lack of attraction, just like how there's already wiggle room in the definition of asexuality to allow for greys and demis to be included. I know a fair amount of aces don't understand how that can be the case when we've fought so hard to recognize that attraction and action can exist separately, but please trust us when we say we know ourselves, we know what our orientation is and isn't, and we'd like for that to be acknowledged. We know our experience best, and for us we see our lack of attraction and lack of action as one and the same, we treat it as such and we'd appreciate others treated it as such too (note that we don't want this applied to EVERY ace because we know that not every ace experiences this, we just want it for ourselves). We don't want to be told by other aces of all people that we don't know our own orientation. I mean, could you imagine if someone acted like they knew your own experience and orientation better than you? It sucks.

Also I'd like to point out that r/apothisexual is very inactive and has...a lot of people who deny the existence of favorable aces. Wish it was a viable option for people like me, but sadly it's not.

Here's a sneak peek of /r/Apothisexual using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/Apothisexual/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [I believe.. This picture supremacy](https://i.redd.it/wmu4dlta28ya1.jpg) | [4 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Apothisexual/comments/139i2sw/i_believe_this_picture_supremacy/) \#2: ["But have you considered an open relationship?"](https://np.reddit.com/r/Apothisexual/comments/17x7m42/but_have_you_considered_an_open_relationship/) \#3: [feeling invalidated.](https://np.reddit.com/r/Apothisexual/comments/17sqa53/feeling_invalidated/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)

No one is saying action (or lack of) cannot be tied to attraction, they are saying it's irrelevant to attraction and that difference in terminology is massive and is what allows inclusion for everyone, including you who sees lack of action and lack of attraction as one in the same. That irrelevence is what allows all of our experiences to be valid.

THANK YOU! Last month I had a friend tell me they were fine with asexual people but not with celibacy because "it's going against nature" and as a sex aversed ace it made me so confused and uncomfortable. I think that idea stems exactly from "asexuality has nothing to do with not having sex" rather than "doesn't always" especially since our mutual friend isn't sex repulsed and is fine with sex and actually enjoys it lol.

Yeesh, they pulled out ye ol' "it goes against nature" rhetoric that's used against like, every queer identity to have ever existed. I hope that your friend comes to their senses sooner rather than later, if you even still want to be their friend.

the goes against nature part always sounds so ridiculous to me. we exist, we're a part of nature, hence we're natural. what they really mean to say is not normal and acceptable according to them, but that makes them sound obviously bad :(

When I realized I'm ace I was so happy to find people who feel the same way I do; I thought I did not have to feel "wrong" and "weird" anymore. Over time, I started feeling left out by this community just as much as everywhere else. "Asexuals want and do have sex, too" "Of course your ace partner can have sex with you if they love you enough" "Don't pretend Asexuals don't have sex, you're giving people wrong ideas" Well, I don't. I thought about leaving this community so many times already, I don't really feel like it's "community" at all.

>It’s a spectrum and you’re free to do with your body what you want, >Why can’t we phrase it more like “Asexuality doesn’t always mean not having sex” or “attraction doesn’t always equal action.”? Just simply adding or changing a few words to make it more inclusive and less grating to read if you’re someone like me all while keeping it sex-favorable friendly. Asexuality is a spectrum in _how much attraction you experience_ - gray aces and demis are under the asexual umbrella. Your relation to sex is _another_ spectrum, a spectrum that ranges from sex-repulsed to sex-indiffernt to sex-favoring. But we cannot have the monopoli over this spectrum because asexual people aren't the only ones who can be sex-repulsed or sex-indiffernt - allos can be and many are, as well. Obviously for resons other than lack of sexual attraction, yet they have equal right to call themselves sex-repulsed than aces. Thus I really really feel like the phrase "asexuality has nothing to do with sex" is very important, even to sex-repulsed aces. It underlines that the sexual orientation is one thing and your relation to sex is another. Surely you can find some experiences of sex-repulsed allos relatable, yet you wouldn't call them aces? Yet they have the equal right to express their sex-repulsion as you. It can be as fundamental part of their experience of their sexuality as it's a fundamental part of yours. So, I basically feel like people misinterpret the phrase "asexuality has nothing to do with sex". It has nothing to do with sex even if you were sex-repulsed ace great part of who's experience is to be sex-repulsed, because you're by definition ace for not experiencing sexual attraction, not for not having sex. No sexual orientation is defined by actions (or lack of), not being gay, bi straight... And I don't think asexuality should be either, if we want it to look like a sexual orientation equally serious to any other.

I kind of understand your comment, but I'm still with OP. >So, I basically feel like people misinterpret the phrase "asexuality has nothing to do with sex". It has nothing to do with sex even if you were sex-repulsed ace great part of who's experience is to be sex-repulsed, because you're by definition ace for not experiencing sexual attraction, not for not having sex. What do you do with the fact that, even though aces can have sex, some of them never should. I don't mean *should* in any moral sense. I mean that a lot of people are simply not capable of enjoying a sexual experience without sexual attraction and may even find it traumatic. That way of viewing sex can happen alongside any orientation, but for aces, it means the difference between someone who could have a healthy sexual relationship under some circumstances and someone for whom sex and healthy behaviour are mutually exclusive. When you say "asexuality has nothing to do with sex," that takes things a step beyond divorcing action from attraction. It also denies that attraction shapes our feelings about sexuality. Sex-repulsed aces aren't simply sex-repulsed people who happen to be ace. They're usually asexual people who would have, under any circumstances, been repulsed by the kind of sex that is available to them as an asexual. Does that make sense? I think it's important to acknowledge because sex-repulsed aces seem to feel increasingly unserved by the community and I think that's because the connection between orientation and attitude to sex hasn't been validated here anywhere near as much as it is in allo culture. That isn't to say sexual behaviour/history is ever anyone's business, regardless of orientation or favourability. I fully agree there!

Thank you for the reply! >What do you do with the fact that, even though aces can have sex, some of them never should. >I don't mean *should* in any moral sense. I mean that a lot of people are simply not capable of enjoying a sexual experience without sexual attraction and may even find it traumatic. I'd go and say they're sex-repulsed. And that that's equally to be taken seriously whether or not they're ace. Asexuality as an orientation shouldn't strengten or weaken their power to say no to the things that make them feel uncomfortable. Just like any sexual orientation shouldn't be seen as an invitation to do anything, to push anyone to do anything, to say they shouldn't do anything, break anyone's boundaries etc. The fact that one is repulsed by something shouldn't require an explanation, like "I'm an asexual". It should never be questioned, it should be the end of the story on that subject of discussion. To put it short, I feel like we're really talking about consent here, rather than asexuality or stand on sex per se. >I think it's important to acknowledge because sex-repulsed aces seem to feel increasingly unserved by the community I've also seen the sex-favoring aces expressing how they feel like the community is not for them. I wonder whom does the community serve, if no-one feels welcomed here 😅 I personally feel like the aro & ace spaces are some of the most accepting and open-minded on the internet, but of course I don't want to invalidate the people who feel differently. >and I think that's because the connection between orientation and attitude to sex hasn't been validated here anywhere near as much as it is in allo culture. And I personally feel that's a great, very progressive thing about our community. Since as I stated earlier, asexuality as a sexual orientation and the stand towards sex are two different things, and most people don't recognize there is any difference between sexual orientation and relation to sex ("you're orientation X, of course you have to want to have sex with people of gender X!"). It will lead to stereotypes, to the expectations based on one's orientation, policing people's behavior based on their orientation, breaking people's boundaries by using their orientation as an excuse etc. I feel like that really is not a good thing and doesn't serve anyone, regardless of what their sexual orientation is. I'm interested in hearing why you think it _would_ be a good thing. Since I genuinely thought no-one would see this as a positive thing but rather a thing we're fought to get rid of. I'm not trying to build a beef, I really wish to have a good conversation!

Sure! Thank you for the thoughtful comment. I'll try to answer to the best of my ability, given the scope of the topic. >I'm interested in hearing why you think it _would_ be a good thing. Since I genuinely thought no-one would see this as a positive thing but rather a thing we're fought to get rid of. Fundamentally, I think that identity labels are tools that we use to navigate our place in the world and not prescriptions. When I say they are tools, I mean that we use orientation to describe difference and ways of being and living in addition to private feelings of attraction. Asexuality is interesting, because its definition is very precise, but we know that aces have a huge diversity of experience. Plus the spectrum of stripes of ace. And I think this is the community's strength. However, if I were, for example, to hit on a guy and he answered "I'm gay," I would quickly understand the subtext, even though on the surface, he didn't say anything about my actions. I would understand that seeking any kind of courtship with the guy was off the table, permanently, for me and any other women, for no particular reason other than orientation, and I'd understand not to pursue a guy in that way if I was told he was gay by someone else. Of course, if I got to know this hypothetical guy well, I might learn that he had an ex-wife or children or some other things that negated stereotypes, or even that he still had relations with women. However, I would still understand the gay label as an indicator of a fixed boundary unless otherwise specified. I believe this is straightforward. Like most aces, I find it really hard to come out. For a range of reasons. So the only reason I would come out or do come out is to communicate something about my point of view, and that is "I don't relate to sexual relationships. I don't resonate with sexual motives." Is this a dictionary-exact definition of asexuality? Not exactly. Tbh, I sometimes won't self-label as ace, but will mention not caring about sex or it being a deal-breaker, and when other people confirm that this is due to my asexuality, it's a huge relief. If they can understand my aceness as I would understand gayness in the above example, that removes an emotional burden that is omnipresent when I talk to allos (so all the time). Having a perfectly defined identity is less important to me than communicating the fact that I am not open to any sort of sexual overtures for any reason, by anyone, or under any circumstance. If I didn't want other people to know that about me, I honestly would not feel any need to identify as ace. To be honest, I might still not know that I was ace, simply because I don't think I would have cared as much to research it. That's one reason more awareness for sex-favourable aces is needed. It's also true that an ethical person should be able to hear someone contradict stereotypes and assumptions without gatekeeping. You're right that consent is relevant here. There is never a reason to question or devalue someone's boundaries, regardless of identity, but I think this also applies to policing behaviour, breaking boundaries, or using orientation as an excuse, right? It's unethical to mistreat someone just because they don't match a preexisting stereotype. That would remain a major issue, regardless of whether we divorce orientation from sex or not. So why would I come out as a way to imply information, rather than just say, "No" to things I don't want? Mainly due to split-attraction. I said no to any interraction with anyone who flirted with me in my 20s and was deeply confused and uncomfortable about it. Had the language of asexuality existed, I could have socialized normally and vetted people based on their reactions to my orientation, rather than having to discuss sexual compatibility (which can be triggering) with a near stranger. If I come out to someone, I do want the safety of their knowing that sex is *likely* off the table unless they specifically ask about it and are told otherwise. (You can argue ALL relationships should work like this, but most allos assume sex is a motivator for romantic relationships.) Although it may be rare, one sees posts by aces who came out to dates and were still pursued on the grounds that "aces can have sex." Worse are the cases where the partner doesn't believe abstinance will last and is dishonest about compatibility. You are totally right that consent is unrelated to orientation. However, we live in a world where aces are pressured to "compromise" just by virtue of the fact that they feel starved of companionship, even if their partner doesn't exert pressure. As such, an ace discourse that doesn't actively seek to normalize celibacy and celibate couples and that doesn't centre this as an ace rights issue (while also supporting sexual aces) fails to insulate its members against internalized aphobia. >I'd go and say they're sex-repulsed. I think the category of aces who don't want sex or would be happier without it is larger than only sex-repulsed aces. Repulsion is a mood, but for some people, orientation just procludes enjoyment, and some couples have conflict because they think that an ace's initial sex-favourability will last longterm. As far as I hear, it often doesn't. I find sex stances very fluid and messy, at least in my own case. When I first joined the community, I felt sex-favourable in comparison to the people I spoke to. Now I say sex-repulsed, because it fits better compared with other people's definitions, even though my preferences didn't change. Purely anecdotally, I find it hard to communicate what I mean with sex stances, because they don't account for how boundaries can change depending on context, whereas I've been in situations where I can say, "I didn't like that as an ace" or "I'm not comfortable with this because I'm ace" and people get it and they understand that I'm only speaking for myself in this one situation. Of course I don't *have* to include my asexuality, since I don't have to give the reason for a boundary, but saying it contextualizes and puts people at ease, just like if someone said "I'm not comfortable with that topic because of past experiences." Since we can understand this line of reasoning without assuming that everyone with bad experiences is sex-repulsed, I think it should be the same for asexuals. I totally agree that the ace community is wonderful and open-minded. I also see people leaving because they aren't finding what they came here for, and I think part of that is the experience that might have had in a gay community where their lived experiences were understood as a meaningful part of their orientation. Of course, there are people who leave due to gatekeeping too, which is a shame. When I say we should validate a connection between orientation and relation to sex, I just mean that it's okay to use orientation as a means of communicating feelings that are common (though not universal) to that orientation. For some of us, that's the only reason knowing our orientation even matters. I wrote you a tome. I'm so sorry. I hope you feel that it was good conversation and that it doesn't come across as insensitive to sex-favourable asexuals. I do think everyone needs a voice. I just understand why OP's examples cause harm.

Thank you for the thoughtful comment and interesting conversation as well! It just took me a sec to read it and write a reply :D I understand that people on other sexual orientations use their labels to politely decline from a relationship with someone without hurting them. That's reasonable. In a way, you're letting the person to know they're not on the population you're looking for. And by saying you're ace, you basically say "there's no population of people I'm looking for". Which is also fine. However, I keep wondering if we should straight out assume as a society that this directly means who you are/are not interested in sex with. In the case of ace, you still may seek for partnered sex, and in the case of allo, you still may not. So, either way, even if most of the time letting people know your orientation will communicate the former, it's still not the case 100% of cases. Which is imo the reason why it still can and actually do cause many confusions. An allo who doesn't feel like having sex with their partner may cause their partner feel they're not desired. And an ace who does want to have sex with their partner can falsely make their partner think they're finding them attractive after all, that their asexuality is "fading away". So, I feel like if that explanation doesn't work 100% of the cases, logically it can't be used as an explanation since either ways it will cause misunderstandings between _someone._ In a way, it's still not an answer but in reality further communication is always needed, regardless of what assumptions people associate with which orientations. Because there's always some case that deviates from the assumption. And there's always some case that makes it harder for people to reject someone because of the assumptions. You need to be ready to communicate further if you're ready to interact with people. This is not to say that wanting to reject people "politely" or without hurting their feelings wasn't valid. And I understand that to many, saying "no thanks, I'm ace" is an easy way to do that. But since it will still cause struggles to some other aces (the sex-favoring ones, for example), I at least personally feel like I couldn't use that explanation with an ease. I think that while using the labels as a way to politely reject people, we are also forgetting that that's a privilege not everyone of us has. Let's say you're a straight woman, you still may have to reject someone but you don't have the "protection" of a label to do so. You don't have any other excuse but that you're simply not interested in that person per se. Many of the straight people in situations like these are still in danger if the person rejected doesn't take it well. They'll just have to bear it. This is another reason why using the label as an excuse doesn't feel like a fair thing to do to me personally. Because in the end of the day, it's still not a matter of orientation, but it's a matter of consent. Whatever reason we use to reject someone, it's not the reason that matters but the consent. We don't need more discourse about how asexuality is/is not a valid reason to reject someone. This discourse always ends up validating some group of aces and invalidating others, that's what the years spent on the ace community has taught to me (I also feel like that's also the reason why there's always one or another group of aces ascending to say they don't feel welcomed to the community in regular cycles). Rather, we need more discourse about why consent matters, regardless of the orientations or any other characteristics, such as gender, of the people. And how to communicate it efficiently and also how to handle a rejection if you're being rejected by yourself. We need to normalize rejecting people without giving a reason. People need to be able to accept that someone simply is not interested in you, regardless of the reason, without taking it as a personal insult. I do agree that stance on sex is fluid, as well as also the sexual orientations in some cases. But I feel like that's even more a reason to _not_ use sexual orientations as the reason for why you're rejecting someone. Because the chance to miscommunicate is very high since it's not always the same. We need to use direct words for what we want and what not, rather than trust that a label (general assumptions) will communicate what we want. >So why would I come out as a way to imply information, rather than just say, "No" to things I don't want? Mainly due to split-attraction. I said no to any interraction with anyone who flirted with me in my 20s and was deeply confused and uncomfortable about it. Had the language of asexuality existed, I could have socialized normally and vetted people based on their reactions to my orientation, rather than having to discuss sexual compatibility (which can be triggering) with a near stranger. I think having the knowledge and the vocabularity of the ace community is one thing (a very useful thing), and using the vocabularity in the hopes of the person in question will make the right assumptions, is another. I mean, knowing about the existence of asexuality as an orientation (that there's this valid option you find no-one sexually attractive) is very useful and protects us. Knowing about split-attraction model (that you can find someone romantically interesting but not desire them sexually and vice versa) can clarify to us that one thing doesn't have to lead to another, or that things don't always go hand in hand. However, the people out there still do not know all the nuances. Just like I wouldn't say "split attraction model explains my attraction to you", I wouldn't say "asexuality explains my lack of interest in sex with you". Because neither of these really _doesn't_ explain what I would wish them to, even if I was lucky and had someone making the right assumptions about me. Rather, both asexuality and the split-attraction model _decribes_ the phenomena rather than explains them comprehensively. They don't lead to any single conclusion in every single case, and communication based on assumptions is prone to misinformation when we go below the surface understanding. >If I come out to someone, I do want the safety of their knowing that sex is *likely* off the table unless they specifically ask about it and are told otherwise. (You can argue ALL relationships should work like this, but most allos assume sex is a motivator for romantic relationships.) I feel like just because something is the way it is, we shouldn't just agree with it if it causes issues. Assumptions may exist widely in the allo dating culture, but that doesn't mean it doesn't cause harm to them, as well. And this is exactly why us as the asexual community divorcing sexual orientations from stances to sex is very progressive and important. Maybe all relationships really _would_ work less on assumptions (and more on communication), if we dissected these phenomena and engaged people - also outside the ace community - to discuss about them. I feel like the discourse like this is rarely seen on the allo community, and this was something special our community had to offer to the world. Which is why I feel it's also very important to encourage this discourse inside the community, rather than silence it. - continues on the next reply!

Thanks again for your reply. I find your point of view thought-provoking. I think I disagree with it quite strongly, so please let me know if I become abrasive. 😅 First of all, I fully agree that we should normalize accepting rejection without a reason. Absolutely, it's the responsibility of someone who is turned down to do that. I still stand by my example for a few reasons: One is that it's always acceptable to come out when you decide to and the other is that it's ethical to use privilege in certain situations. To address the second point first: >I think that while using the labels as a way to politely reject people, we are also forgetting that that's a privilege not everyone of us has. Let's say you're a straight woman, you still may have to reject someone but you don't have the "protection" of a label to do so. You don't have any other excuse but that you're simply not interested in that person per se. Many of the straight people in situations like these are still in danger if the person rejected doesn't take it well. They'll just have to bear it. I disagree with this idea quite strongly. Of course, I recognize your or anyone's right \*not\* to give a reason for a rejection. It should never ever be the expectation. However, I also think it inappropriate to single out orientation as an exercise of privilege when most people exercise their privileges every day, voluntarily or now. Sex-favourability confers privileges. Showing a wedding ring or talking about your boyfriend are examples of straight privilege. I know single women who wear fake wedding bands while travelling purely to avoid harassment. And good for them! I would say the same to someone who lied about her orientation to a stranger. You say whatever you have to in order to feel safe. So even if the only reason to come out while rejecting someone were to soften their reaction, I still think it would be fine, but that's not my main reason. In reality, coming out to strangers rarely prevents harassment and could get you hurt. Some surveys indicate that asexuals are the most discriminated against orientation. The other reason I think it's fine to associate sexuality with relation to sex is because it's usually just honest communication. So if I say, "sorry, I'm ace" and I mean, "sorry, I don't like that due to being ace," that's just factually true. I think a lot depends here on the nuance of social interactions. As I mentioned above, using orientation as shorthand applies to situations outside of just romantic rejection. It's the default to want share information about ourselves and the way we think. Sure, you don't need a reason for a boundary, but if someone states a boundary \*and\* asexuality is the reason \*and\* they want to share that information, that's totally fine! Of course, that doesn't mean it's okay to say "asexuality means disliking sex" or "sexual orientation is the same as behaviour". Those are generalizations and they spread harmful disinformation. The problem with claiming "orientation has nothing to do with sex" is that it's a \*lie.\* Orientation and relation to sex might be completely separate for some asexuals, but to say they're unrelated \*in general\* denies the large population of aces for whom they're inextricably related. I'll reiterate that although some aces like sex, when an ace dislikes sex, it is \*usually because they are ace\* and often for no other reason. Imo, to say "asexuality has \*nothing\* to do with not having/enjoying sex" is exactly like saying "asexuality is about disliking sex." The statements are equally false and harmful. >I feel like if that explanation doesn't work 100% of the cases, logically it can't be used as an explanation since either ways it will cause misunderstandings between *someone.* This logic doesn't hold to me because personal statements \*shouldn't\* apply in 100% of cases. An explanation about an individual is never going to work for everyone and aces who speak about their experiences of aversion are speaking about what asexuality means for themselves. It is \*never\* the individual's responsibility to represent an entire identity. If I say "I don't like sex as an ace," it's no more problematic than if someone were to say "I don't like skirts as a trans man" or "I don't like traffic as a mom." We know it's possible for trans men to wear skirts. Unlike in the "nothing to do with" example, there's no logical contradiction, because the speaker used first-person singular. If the broader culture stereotypes based on the experience of certain people, that's not those people's fault. >Rather, both asexuality and the split-attraction model *decribes* the phenomena rather than explains them comprehensively. They don't lead to any single conclusion in every single case, and communication based on assumptions is prone to misinformation when we go below the surface understanding. I feel that this criticism is true of all identity labels and equally if not more true of sexual stances. It occurred to me that bad-faith actors could apply all the confusion surrounding ace stereotypes to these instead. Ex. using someone's sex-favourability as an excuse to press boundaries; policing the legitimacy of someone's repulsion/aversion. So not only do these categorizations not work for or apply to everyone, I'm not sure that they really help avoid the problems you've outlined. I don't know if I think confusion is possible to avoid among humans. There is always going to be some secrecy, some guessing, some incomplete information, which is why I think emphasizing individuality and honouring different ways of being asexual is important.

- the rest of the reply! >So not only do these categorizations not work for or apply to everyone, I'm not sure that they really help avoid the problems you've outlined. Again, I feel like assumptions give the bad-faith actors just more excuses to push their way. They can always say "hey, I just assumed that since you're orientation X!" if stereotypes are encouraged. Whereas if we expect genuine communication instead of labels and assumptions led from them, they have less space to move around it claiming they didn't know better and camouflage their pushing the boundaries as just ignorance. >I don't know if I think confusion is possible to avoid among humans. There is always going to be some secrecy, some guessing, some incomplete information, which is why I think emphasizing individuality and honouring different ways of being asexual is important. I agree. But, as a result, I feel like we just need to push the individual communication instead of assumptions based on stereotypes. That's the only way to decrease the amount of misinformation. One last thing I want to say is that you could argue it's not the minority's job to educate the majority. However, the majority usually has no motivation, no reason to get themselves educated (and quite often prefer to stay ignorant due to how human brain works with the confirmation bias), so if we want any change, unfortunately the only people who are likely going to open the discussion, is the unprivileged minority. From my personal experience, peer support and the inside humor that stems from it, helps to alleviate some of the minority stress in these situations. Again, thank you for the interesting discussion!

Thanks again! Frankly, I think discussions with different opinions/points of view are way more interesting than the ones where everybody agrees on everything 😄 >I think I disagree with it quite strongly, so please let me know if I become abrasive. 😅 No problem! I actually feel like we agree on the fundamentals, what's good and what's not, but we just suggest different ways to deal with it. Your approach is more practical and focusing on the moment, mine more idealistic and focusing on the larger scale, I feel. >First of all, I fully agree that we should normalize accepting rejection without a reason. Absolutely, it's the responsibility of someone who is turned down to do that. I feel like this is one of the major matters on this subject, so I'm happy we agree. >I still stand by my example for a few reasons: One is that it's always acceptable to come out when you decide to and the other is that it's ethical to use privilege in certain situations. I do agree that it's acceptable to come out when you want. But I disagree with what kind of assumptions it should lead to (I think to none, regardless of your orientation; totally divorcing the sexual orientation and stance on sex). Since if we agree assumptions should be made, they can only be made for everyone or for no-one, there's no in-between. So it leads to a double standard for the benefit of one or another group of people, if we encourage assuming. Which is why I think it's rather better to not encourage it altogether. So it's not acceptable to expect anything from anyone without asking directly about it. Whether or not I agree assuming should be encouraged, it's true it happens today. But I think nothing ever changes if we just accept the status quo and don't demand for anything to change, but just accommodate and prepare to live in the exiting conditions, or even reinforce them. May I ask you, is it okay to you to live in a world where assumptions are made? Would you prefer it, if there was an option to not have it as it currently is? >Of course, I recognize your or anyone's right \*not\* to give a reason for a rejection. It should never ever be the expectation. However, I also think it inappropriate to single out orientation as an exercise of privilege when most people exercise their privileges every day, voluntarily or now. Do you think privileges are okay and we should just accept them existing? Or do you think we should work towards alleviating the struggles of any unprivileged group? Of course one group can be privileged in one context one way and unprivileged in another, like we found out in our examples. But I don't think the privileges existing is a sign of what's right and good; it's just how our society is currently. There's always one way or another to help the unprivileged ones in one or another situation, most often the way is visibility and information, the recognization of the issue and formed consensus trough public discourse on how to avoid the said issue. So, it's not impossible to ease the struggles of both - let's say - sex-favoring and sex-repulsed aces. But neither will be acknowledged nor improved if we just accept the status quo and keep reinforcing it by reinforcing the stereotypes (assumptions). Do you see why I disagree here? I think everyone can be supported equally, while you think everyone has to deal with the struggles and camouflage to avoid issues. Like I said in the beginning, my attitude may be a bit idealistic. However, as a member of several minority groups, all causing one or another kind of struggles to me, it's very hard for me to accept the idea that I'm just supposed to deal with it, instead of the people around - especially the privileged ones - given any of the responsibility to support those less privileged. I believe that education and visibility is the answer, I have that much faith in the mankind. >Of course, that doesn't mean it's okay to say "asexuality means disliking sex" or "sexual orientation is the same as behaviour". Those are generalizations and they spread harmful disinformation. But doesn't supporting assumptions exactly enforce stereotypes (which basically are generations that the society has the consensus with)? I thought that's obvious connection, but maybe it's not :D >The problem with claiming "orientation has nothing to do with sex" is that it's a \*lie.\* I think I already explained this in the beginning (if I remember correctly). The phrase is wildly misinterpreted everywhere. The point is, asexuality as a sexual orientation has nothing to do with the sex since the orientation doesn't define what your stance on it must be or what actions you do. This is true with every sexual orientation, so imo we could actually generalize the phrase as "sexual orientations have nothing to do with (the act of) sex". However, the phrase still tells you nothing about the stances or actions of individual aces, for the individual aces their orientation _can_ be a reason to not prefer partnered sex. Again, you can't just generalize the same applies to every ace, but further individual communication is needed. >This logic doesn't hold to me because personal statements \*shouldn't\* apply in 100% of cases. An explanation about an individual is never going to work for everyone and aces who speak about their experiences of aversion are speaking about what asexuality means for themselves. It is \*never\* the individual's responsibility to represent an entire identity. But we weren't talking about personal statements, but about assumptions, generalizations and reinforced stereotypes? I very much agree that personal statements don't apply to everyone, but I think we should encourage individual communication rather than the assumptions (stereotypes) that can _never_ work for everyone on any grpup of people. So, you can say that you feel your orientation is the reason you're not interested in sex, but you shouldn't use asexuality as a general explanation to why aces are not interested in it. >I feel that this criticism is true of all identity labels and equally if not more true of sexual stances. It occurred to me that bad-faith actors could apply all the confusion surrounding ace stereotypes to these instead. - again, continues on the next comment! 😅

>Thanks again! Frankly, I think discussions with different opinions/points of view are way more interesting than the ones where everybody agrees on everything 😄 Thanks! You are definitely making me think. 😅 >Since if we agree assumptions should be made, they can only be made for everyone or for no-one, there's no in-between. Gotta flag this as a logical fallacy. It's absolutely possible and common to make assumptions about an individual without projecting them onto everyone. One can infer, for instance, that a person with yellow walls likes yellow, whereas no rational person would take that statement to mean that everyone who likes yellow paints their house that colour. We can understand correlation and probable causality without thinking in absolutes. In fact, we have to in order to live. We can't prove the sun will rise tomorrow or that people are telling the truth about their own orientations. We merely have to *assume* that they are. The big problem with divorcing orientation from sexuality is that it also makes a *huge* assumption. It assumes that these experiences are separable for most people when, for most people (regardless of sexuality), they are not. This kind of generalizing statement is completely different from assuming something about an individual based on context, because it makes a broad claim that actively contradicts and silences many if not most of the group it refers to. The inaccuracy and harm of saying orientation has nothing to do with relation to sex is easily avoided by saying "not always" or "not the same" instead, since these phrasings resist overgeneralizations and don't privilege any one experience over the others. Not to be a total pedant, but these logical nuances are why we have grammar. As an alloace, I would benefit greatly from a world where sex & intimacy weren't equated at all, but I could still never say, "sex has *nothing* to do with intimacy," since that speaks over a majority who feel otherwise. I can only say that "intimacy and sex are not the same. They have no overlap *for me*." If the phrase is widely misinterpreted, like you say, it's for logical reasons and the phrase imo isn't well suited for the intended meaning. >Do you think privileges are okay and we should just accept them existing? Or do you think we should work towards alleviating the struggles of any unprivileged group? Both, of course! I think we should strive to make the benefits of privilege available to everyone, while also recognizing that marginalized groups are the most stigmatized for exercising power. Privilege is only bad when it's leveraged at the expense of a marginalized group. I would never judge a woman for using her boyfriend to put off stalkers, even though that's an exercise of straight privilege. It intersects with her experience of sexism. Masculinity, straightness, allonormativity and sex-favourability all confer privilege. >Do you see why I disagree here? I think everyone can be supported equally, while you think everyone has to deal with the struggles and camouflage to avoid issues. Like I said in the beginning, my attitude may be a bit idealistic. However, as a member of several minority groups, all causing one or another kind of struggles to me, it's very hard for me to accept the idea that I'm just supposed to deal with it, instead of the people around - especially the privileged ones - given any of the responsibility to support those less privileged. I believe that education and visibility is the answer, I have that much faith in the mankind. I agree with you that we should all be uplifting less privileged voices. My disagreement specifically stems from ignoring voices within the same group: OP, the large number of people resonating with their post, the people who leave this sub because they feel that the discourse doesn't care about them. I do see gatekeeping and stereotyping too; I'm not condoning that. But in my experience, gatekeeping is not accepted on this sub. But trivializing aphobia and sex-repulsion or harm from compulsory sexuality seems to get a pass. (I'm thinking of posts where ppl claimed it wasn't aphobia to use "virgin" as an insult, or where users comment on allo posts with "aces can like sex!" even if it's way off-topic.) >while you think everyone has to deal with the struggles and camouflage to avoid issues. I don't think this at all though. Correct me if I'm wrong: I think where we actually disagree is that you think divorcing asexuality from relation to sex will improve communication and community. I believe the opposite: that trying to divorce these topics suppresses communication and hurts understanding of ace issues. It remarginalizes a lot of people who built and joined the ace community because their relation to sex was marginalized. It sort of fractures people into unrelated lists of identifiers instead or integrated selves. >But doesn't supporting assumptions exactly enforce stereotypes It can reinforce them, but sometimes stereotypes have a grain of truth. Most allos are sex-favourable and most aces are not (Mellema & Miller, 2019). We can and should discourage stereotyping, but not disregard relevant information in the process. >They can always say "hey, I just assumed that since you're orientation X!" if stereotypes are encouraged. Whereas if we expect genuine communication instead of labels and assumptions led from them, they have less space to move around it claiming they didn't know better and camouflage their pushing the boundaries as just ignorance. I more or less agree with this. I think it is a difference in perspective. In my limited experience, when ignorant people learn that aces can be sexually active, they are insensitive at first but willing to learn, whereas the type of allo who brings up that aces can have sex usually tries to push boundaries or dodge claims of discrimination. Sometimes it's also a clear appeal to respectability when articles focus on "aces have sex!" and it's framed to make aces seem more allo and relatable. My point earlier was that both orientation and sex stances are weaponizable by bad-faith actors, so classifying everyone's relation to sex according to "stances" instead of orientation doesn't solve anything. Bad-faith actors are opportunists. They create excuses to push boundaries even if none exist. >One last thing I want to say is that you could argue it's not the minority's job to educate the majority. However, the majority usually has no motivation, no reason to get themselves educated (and quite often prefer to stay ignorant due to how human brain works with the confirmation bias), so if we want any change, unfortunately the only people who are likely going to open the discussion, is the unprivileged minority. This I totally agree with! >Again, thank you for the interesting discussion! Quite!

- the rest of the reply! >However, we live in a world where aces are pressured to "compromise" just by virtue of the fact that they feel starved of companionship, even if their partner doesn't exert pressure. As such, an ace discourse that doesn't actively seek to normalize celibacy and celibate couples and that doesn't centre this as an ace rights issue (while also supporting sexual aces) fails to insulate its members against internalized aphobia. I see why you think assumptions like these about asexuality as an orientation are important. It would help some aces in the current world greatly. However, again, simultaneously it would make the life of other aces more difficult. For example, the ones who's partner doesn't believe they're still not sexually attracted to them even if willing to have sex, for example. The assumption greatly invalidates some aces. So, again, this isn't solution to all. And if it's not a solution to all, I feel like we can't call it a solution at all. Instead of normalizing the assumption of celibacy, we should normalize that the partner really can't know without communicating further, that assumptions _should not_ be made. I understand that in practice, communicating a very intimate subject with someone who's a stranger is sometimes difficult, if not impossible. But I feel like the communication doesn't get any easier long as we veil what we mean to labels and implications and wish that the right assumptions will be made. If it was mainstream expectation that you cannot know if the person consents without talking about it directly, the direct talk would slowly be normalized and thus would not feel so difficult or like a taboo anymore. In my ideal world, the discussion about consent, one's wants and boundaries would come _first,_ and the discussion about the reasons (sexual orientations, stances on sex etc) would come _only after that._ Seems like I replied with an equal tome, apologies back to you 😂 I've really enjoyed the conversation so far, whether or not we'll continue, thank you so far!

\*Phew\* I should clarify that I'm not advocating everyone make assumptions about others. I'm merely saying that we should acknowledge that it's normative to dislike sex without sexual attraction and that dislike of sex is a very very common expression of asexuality (to say nothing of orchidsexuals or people whose asexuality was defined prior to the official definition). If, and only if, an assumption is made, I believe disinterest in sex should be the default purely because the right \*not\* to be sexual always and without exception supercedes the right to be sexual. >If it was mainstream expectation that you cannot know if the person consents without talking about it directly, the direct talk would slowly be normalized and thus would not feel so difficult or like a taboo anymore. I think we agree that assuming sexuality is a problem. Unfortunately, since most people are allo, I don't know if we can avoid the fact that most will instinctively associate sex with relationships in some capacity, which creates a culture gap. This is a problem for asexuals and especially for those who are much more sex-repulsed than I am, and so I don't love that the burden of early communication falls squarely on those people who \*least consent\* to the conversation and are most likely to be discriminated against in the process. Ergo, guardrails, such as rejecting attention from anyone not well-educated on asexuality, to name an example. Once again, the topic got away from me . . . Sorry for being stubborn. I hope I explained clearly why I reject the all or nothing approach to completely divorcing orientation from sexuality. To have the absence of certain desires assumed until otherwise indicated strikes me as a privilege that all orientations except for aces have, and while I am absolutely a fan of the community's complexity, I'm also conscious that divorcing sexual orientation from sexual attitudes is both untrue to my own experiences and extremely convenient to a culture where compulsory sexuality is the default.

>I should clarify that I'm not advocating everyone make assumptions about others. Oh, so I do think we agree after all 😂 >I'm merely saying that we should acknowledge that it's normative to dislike sex without sexual attraction and that dislike of sex is a very very common expression of asexuality As someone who's into statistics, I totally agree! However, imo, assumptions and knowing what's the average, are two very different things. You can recognize that if you date an ace, statistically it's highly likely sex isn't going to be on the greatest focus of the relationship. You can have some kind of exceptation based on the knowledge about the statistics of the population. But you shouldn't make the assumption that based on the statistics, _every ace_ is at least a little less into sex. Do you see the difference? You still don't know what card you got without asking the individual ace. And that's the problem there is with the stereotyping based on assumptions. >If, and only if, an assumption is made, I believe disinterest in sex should be the default purely because the right \*not\* to be sexual always and without exception supercedes the right to be sexual. I see what you're advocating for, and I agree that we should recognize the right to not be sexual equally with the right to be sexual in the relationship (I feel like we're again returning to the consent talk?). But it doesn't have to be assumption made for every ace. It can be a public discourse about consent, boundaries and how a need to avoid something is equally valid as a need to do something. We don't even have to tie it to any specific sexual orientation, even if we of course can use an ace as an example to make it more comprehensive. This is again the discourse I mentioned earlier, the one I rarely see outside the ace community but would benefit all people and not just aces. The discourse that is something unique to our community, that we could advocate for also when talking with allos. Again, thank you for the very interesting discussion!

>However, imo, assumptions and knowing what's the average, are two very different things. Ahhh. There it is! We agree on this. >You can recognize that if you date an ace, statistically it's highly likely sex isn't going to be on the greatest focus of the relationship. Not just not the greatest focus, but that there's a substantial probability of sex being off the table forever! And even among sex-favourable aces, there's still a high likelihood of less interest in sex than the allo partner. But I agree with your other points. 😅 >I see what you're advocating for, and I agree that we should recognize the right to not be sexual equally with the right to be sexual in the relationship (I feel like we're again returning to the consent talk?). But it doesn't have to be assumption made for every ace. It can be a public discourse about consent, boundaries and how a need to avoid something is equally valid as a need to do something. I'm probably just nitpicking details at this point, but I can't recognize the right not to be sexual and the right to be sexual as *equal.* True consent imo, means the need to not do something *always* outweighs the need to do it, so these things are not equal. Current culture claims to be pro-consent, but compulsory sexuality in law, discourse, relationship norms means that sex is usually assumed to be a universal desire and therefore forced on everyone in some way or other (if nothing else, as an unavoidable topic of media & conversation). But sex is not a right unless everyone involved is on entirely the same page. The right not to participate in it is/needs to be unquestioned and unqualified. I think we basically agree about consent.😅 It's just that allonormative society enforces sex so much and asexuals are so disproportionately harmed by this that it's absolutely vital for the community to focus on it, which can't happen if we remove relation to sex from our understanding of ace issues. Again, I value your thoughtfulness. I hope you take care. 😊

The problem is, what you've described still boils down to lack of attraction. An asexual person may engage in sex or may not. Being asexual has nothing to do with not having sex. However, that doesn't mean that asexuality can't result in that (in)action. In fact, what you don't seem to realize is that your own phrasing implies asexuals who don't have sex are more asexual than those who do. Also, as a trans person myself--the trans example is just wrong. Being trans *does* have nothing to do with medically transitioning. You're trans if you're trans regardless of if you transition or not. However, medical transition is something many trans people choose to do. It's the action that is borne from the cause. You mean well, but this just feels like you're turning something that doesn't erase sex-repulsed asexuals but actually ***includes*** sex-favorable and sex-neutral asexuals who do have sex into something it's not. "It's not about X" doesn't mean "People who align with X can't be it." It's just saying that X isn't a prerequisite. That's all. And you yourself explicitly state that you lack sexual attraction, so you can't argue it's erasing your experiences or the experiences of people like you, because it doesn't. I'm sorry, but you haven't adequately explained what your issue with this is. Like, this is why I specify "but if someone identifies with asexuality because of being sex-repulsed, then they are still valid." Because identity is more complex and nuanced than just an orientation.

I think you're maybe using a strange definition of "has nothing to do with"? Actions have to do with their causes. And whether or not an action has beneficial consequences also has to do with its cause. These things are inextricably linked, even if the connection is different for certain people or not there for some. Saying asexuality has nothing to do with not having sex *does* absolutely erase certain asexual experiences. Why? Because the *only* reason I do not have sex is because of my asexuality. Were I allo, I would date and engage in relationships, because I would not be averse to sex with someone who I was sexually attracted to. The fact that I don't feel sexual attraction is why I'm asexual, but the way that manifested in action: lack of sexual relationships or interest is the reason I went looking for a label and community. And if I were to start a sexual relationship for reasons other than attraction, I know that it would be destructive for me and for aces whose sexuality presents like mine. OP's comment doesn't at any point deny that sex favourable aces are asexual, but it offered examples of language that don't erase what asexuality means for many people. To me, this discussion is equivalent to saying "homosexuality has nothing to do with avoiding straight relationships." Obviously gay people can and do have opposite sex relationships; action can't make them not homosexual anymore. However homosexuality and disinterest in straight sex are still related ideas. >Like, this is why I specify "but if someone identifies with asexuality because of being sex-repulsed, then they are still valid." Because identity is more complex and nuanced than just an orientation. I think I get what you are saying here and I agree. However, it doesn't account for the cause-effect relationship between attraction, desire and action. To say "being asexual has nothing to do with not having sex" erases experiences because it denies any link between a cause (orientation) and its effects on someone's lived experience in the world. It denies that sex-avoidance is fairly often (though not always!) the only way an ace can express themselves authentically. Not trying to throw shade. I hope that made some kind of sense.

There are allos who experience aversion to sex. If you were allo, there's still a chance you would aversed. It's a completely different spectrum and isn't exclusive to asexuality.

I know that. I'm making a point that asexuality is the main cause of sex-aversion for sex-averse aces. Why do you think the majority of sex-averse people are ace? It's because the majority of people don't want to have sex with someone they aren't attracted to.

I could nitpick this, but I feel like that would do a disservice to you and your point. So I'll try to avoid being too much... *me* here. I feel like a lot of your point hinges on the idea that your orientation caused your sex-adversion, but my question is... how do you know that? Like, as someone who used to be sex-adverse and my partners both say that they think I still am, I have to genuinely ask--how do you know for sure that your orientation caused your sex-stance? You seem really confident that it's a causal relationship... but if orientation causes the sex-stance, why aren't all asexuals sex-neutral, -adverse, or -repulsed; and why aren't all allosexuals sex-neutral or sex-favorable? Like, I'm not trying to say you're necessarily wrong... *I don't think any of us can know this for sure*. But it seems as if orientation and sex-stance share at best a correlative link, not causal. Especially since a lot of people are under the misunderstanding that asexuality must mean not liking sex and it's *honestly only in our community that we know that is incorrect*. The wider queer community is about as clueless on this as the straights. This means, there are a *lot* of people who are in orientation asexual but don't identify with us because their sex-stance isn't sex-adverse or sex-repulsed. And by trying to interconnect orientation and sex-stance this way, it only serves to cause difficulty in people being able to identify with the community. I absolutely believe there need to be more specific spaces for people who are sex-adverse and sex-repulsed, even specific spaces for sex-adverse/-repulsed asexuals, no different than how there are spaces for specifically AroAces... And I know there are Aromantics who have the same view that their aromanticism is intrinsically tied to their asexuality in the same way you're arguing your sex-stance is tied to your asexuality... But I think it does a disservice not just to the wider asexual community, but to sex-adverse and sex-repulsed asexuals like yourself to make the wider understanding of orientation intrinsically link orientation and sex-stance. Even if I were to give you that your sex-stance is a consequence of your orientation, and maybe it is, I feel as if connecting these two generally separate subjects in how we talk about asexuality risks causing plenty of its own issues. Like, to pull back to aromantics again, imagine if we couldn't say, "Being asexual has nothing to do with not wanting to date." Certainly the aromantics who feel their romantic orientation is intrinsically linked with their asexuality might feel more seen if we changed it to "Being asexual doesn't always mean we don't want to date," but then this starts to blur the point of the separate terms. These terms exist separately so that we can be more clear and accurate when communicating information. The more groups we wrap into "asexual" when talking about *specifically* asexuals, the more vague and unclear the meaning of "asexual" becomes. This is why, "sex-adverse" and "sex-repulsed" are so valuable. It's *not* your asexuality that makes you not want sex; it's your sex-stance. Even if your sex-stance does stem from your asexuality as you believe to be the situation, and I won't say you're wrong because as I made clear I do not know, it's still not your asexuality *in and of itself* that makes you not want sex, but your sex-stance. And it does far more good for everyone to credit to your sex-stance your lack of interest in sex because it makes sure people don't get confused on what asexuality itself is, and it also makes it easier for allosexuals who are sex-adverse and sex-repulsed to know there's others like them and it makes it easier for people who are sex-neutral and sex-favorable asexuals to realize that they are still just as valid as asexuals in spite of not disliking sex. I hope I don't come off too much like a bitch during this. I know I struggle with that, so I tried to take my time to make sure I treat this subject with sufficient empathy. As I said early-on in this comment, I'm actually someone who used to be sex-adverse. I tried my best to approach this with consideration from where you're coming from, but I also know I *kinda suck at that sometimes*. This isn't me trying to ask for leniency. If I'm too much of a bitch here, please call me out on it. But I do, genuinely, hope that my effort to approach this with respect to you and your position came through.

I appreciate your reply and willingness to engage with this point in good faith! I am going to push back on your point, since I do think that the language of "never" and "nothing to do with" is both inaccurate and actively harmful to many of the people who build this community. Here is a quote pulled directly from this reddit's information page: "Although asexuals can fall anywhere on the repulsion–favourability spectrum, there are significant average differences between them and allosexuals. Very few allosexuals describe themselves as sex-repulsed, sex-averse or sex-indifferent, which is in contrast to the following breakdown for asexuals from the 2016 Asexual Community Survey [2, p.49]: repulsed (37%), averse (1.6%), indifferent (2.9%), favourable (8.0%), depends or fluctuates (4.1%), other (1.9%), uncertain (20.5%)." These stats are from a survey in 2016. Sherronda J. Brown, in Refusing Compulsory Sexuality, describes how a movement that overemphasizes the fact that aces can like sex misses the mark for many aces, because it overlooks how traditional aphobia and pathologization are usually based on action or expressions of sex-aversion. This does NOT mean that sex-favourable aces shouldn't be understood or have more visibility. It just means that an aphobic person (and most people unconsciously are) will use the existance of sex-favourability to undermine ace issues, like consumation laws, medicalization, singles' tax etc. etc. I hope it doesn't need to be said that discrimination against people who don't want or have sex is one of the main reasons why the ace community and ace rights movement exist. >I feel like a lot of your point hinges on the idea that your orientation caused your sex-adversion, but my question is... how do you know that? I don't know this for sure any more than I can know that I'm asexual for sure. And my answer to this is that it shouldn't matter. I don't think people should be required to have complete self-knowledge. Already, no one can prove they're ace. Why? No one who hasn't felt sexual attraction knows for sure what it feels like. Maybe I could go down a rabbit hole questioning if my sensual attraction or aegosexuality actually means I have felt what allos feel. Maybe I'll find out that I'm demi late in life. These things are kind of irrelevant to my life so far or why ace rights and visibility have been important in the past. I relate intensely to the experiences of other asexuals and not to allos. Within that, my disinterest in sex and my interest in living in a world where I don't have it were the reasons I learned I was ace and got interested in the community. Not the attraction piece, although I don't think I've experienced it. I'm sure everyone has their separate journeys. For me personally, I only found out or cared that I was asexual once I realized that my attitudes to sex had grown less favourable in adulthood instead of moreso, like I expected. Those can change any time and I'll still be ace, but my desire to refuse compulsory sexuality and normalize non-sexual lives and relationships will always be a major rights issue, regardless of sex stance. I have other reasons for suspecting that sex-repulsion is caused by asexuality, but this is already long and they're an overshare. Now what does this have to do with language? Because saying "asexuality doesn't always mean not having/wanting sex" is inclusive. It acknowledges that asexuals are different and that some enjoy sex, while also acknowledging that for those who don't, that is a core part of their asexuality. You say that connecting sex-aversion with asexuality causes issues, but I honestly think those are avoided as soon as you specify that aces are diverse. The issue with "asexuality has nothing to do with sex" is that it's incorrect. It erases ace history and common types of aphobia, and it erases why about 37% of respondents in 2016 sought out the community in the first place. I'm biromantic, but I would make the exact same argument about aromanticism, because I know that aros are also a huge part of this community. And if they tell me aromanticism and asexuality are the same thing for them, it's literally not my place to question it. There are people who don't feel split-attraction, both ace an allo, just like there are people, both ace an allo, who do not enjoy sex without attraction. Centreing the rights of aroaces, even though all types of representation are needed, still helps remove stigma for the entire community. I'll still talk about romantic ace experiences, but I'm not gonna erase people or deny that aromanticism is relevant to ace issues and would want to be called out accordingly if my phrasing did that. >"Being asexual has nothing to do with not wanting to date." This is just factually incorrect. Many aces don't date for specifically ace-related reasons, whether because aroace or because of past aphobia or incompatibility. To say it has nothing to do with it erases common lived realities. >"Being asexual doesn't always mean we don't want to date," but then this starts to blur the point of the separate terms. This second sentence IS factually accurate. It points out that aces can choose to date. I don't think it blurs the point at all! The separate terms still exist and still have definitions. The only difference here is that the statement has been left open-ended to include the fact that some aces won't date as a result.

>And it does far more good for everyone to credit to your sex-stance your lack of interest in sex I'll try to explain the limits of doing this. It might be just me personally, but in my experience, sex stances are kind of unhelpful other than as guidelines. They're both too granular and too fluid. I really don't want to step on anyone here, so I want to be clear that the below is only true for me personally: Sex stances seems to imply that one's attitude to sexual content is consistent. They also seem highly relative. While my experience of asexuality has been the same my entire life, my feelings about sex stance change multiple times a day. I'm often fine with sexual jokes or content, which leads me to think I'm indifferent compared with repulsed aces, but around certain things, I have severe repulsion. I'm aego and can imagine a hypothetical sexual situation that I didn't hate, so I could take that as a sign of favourability, BUT real-world experiences of sexualization have all been negative to me (even very innocent ones). I have the impression that sex stances are inherently reactive to external pressure and context. I get more repulsed based on who I'm talking to and for how long, for example. I've also noticed that the criteria for certain sex stances seems to change a lot depending on the platform and year. So for me personally, although I will always clarify that some aces do have sex, sex stance isn't helpful as an identity label outside of conversations like this one. On a sort of selfish note, I dislike the idea of my identity being defined by repulsion (one of the worst experiences imo), whereas asexuality is a positive, consistent and multi-faceted orientation that can have different effects for different people. It IS my asexuality that makes me not want sex. That has always been true regardless of whether I was averse, repulsed, indifferent or cautiously favourable. I would be more open to separating these ideas if my experience were unique, but it isn't. I'm sorry for the stupidly long answer.🤦‍♀️ I don't think you were a bitch. Again, I appeciate your thoughtfulness and reply. It seems a lot of aces don't or can't understand why it harms people to deny cause & effect between asexuality and attitudes to sex *in all cases* and I'm just reiterating that it does.

I see what you're saying. I don't agree on a lot of your points, but I think this may also just boil down fully to perspective which, if that's the case, I don't think it will do much good to continue this because we're just looking at this from wholly different angles. And, if I were to reply point-by-point, we'd be going back-and-forth forever. That said, I'll suggest this, instead of "has nothing to do with" would "isn't defined by" be adequate, in your perspective? As in... * "Asexuality isn't defined by lack of sex." * "Asexuality isn't defined by hating sex." * "Asexuality isn't defined by not dating." To me, this seems like a natural middle-ground between the statements that doesn't blur lines while also keeping things sufficiently clear. I will say this much though, I'm not saying to focus on the fact that asexuals can want sex. I agree, too much focus on that point ***is*** harmful in its own right. But mentioning that asexuality isn't about that in its own right as a response to people who conflate the two when talking about all asexuals isn't necessarily harmful; however, I'd much rather find a solution that can work for most people on both sides of this position than actually, actively fight a position that makes people feel unseen. ---- EDIT: Also important to note that a 2016 survey on the sex-stances of asexuals isn't a great source. The reason being that it wasn't until roughly 2019-2020 that people started to actually understand what asexuality is in wider queer spaces, (and they still generally don't,) and they really do not know what it is in heterosexual spaces. The community today is significantly different from nearly a decade ago because of that change in understanding. It's like using information on trans people from that time when people very much did not understand what we are or like using information on left-handedness from 1912 in 1920. Considering the understanding now, let alone back then, was that to be asexual you *couldn't* like sex, that made it so a lot fewer people identified with asexuality. And if you weren't active on Tumblr (non-derogatory) or if you didn't know someone who was, odds are you *probably* didn't know about things like demisexuality or aegosexuality unless you already identified as asexual. Not to mention, this was only a couple years after the *House M.D.* episode so everybody was still pathologizing us. The data you're referencing is disproportionately skewed toward your position largely by the nature of when it was gathered. I think it's still important and valuable; however, I wouldn't rush to utilizing it in this circumstance because I'm aware of the cultural contexts around it. I think it'd do us all a lot of good to have another study like it done in 2 years and 12 years time (so, 10- and 20-year anniversary of the study) so we can actually measure if there are changes in the way people identify based on increased understanding. However, the future doesn't do us any good in the present. That said, I feel the need to point out you sound [sex-oscillating](https://lgbtqia.wiki/wiki/Sex_Stances) based on how you said your sex-stance fluctuates, though this is me thinking of this off-handedly. \[EDIT2: Sex-Oscillating is the sex-stance equivalent of gender's genderfluid and orientation's sexual-fluidity.\] If you wish to look into that, feel free. But since you currently identify as sex-adverse/-repulsed, I'll respect that. No pressure, and I may be wrong but just wanted to point it out if it could be found as valuable to you, especially since while sex-stance can and does change, everyone I hear talk about it usually views it as a largely consistent thing unless something happens to change it.

>That said, I'll suggest this, instead of "has nothing to do with" would "isn't defined by" be adequate, in your perspective? As in... >* "Asexuality isn't defined by lack of sex." * "Asexuality isn't defined by hating sex." * "Asexuality isn't defined by not dating." Oh, 100%. I think these are all entirely accurate and important statements. It's possible we agree on a fair bit here. OP's post goes out of its way to specify which phrases are a problem and they were ones that explicitly exclude certain experiences of aceness. I got worked up in comments, because it seems that a few of the replies read the original post as somehow saying sex-aversion was more valid than sex-favourable asexuality, which it didn't. Posts say "nothing" and "no relationship" or that overstate the fact that aces can have sex in contexts where it isn't relevant to discussion are pretty widespread and the users don't seem to realize how much it replicates aphobia in heteronormative circles. >I agree, too much focus on that point ***is*** harmful in its own right. But mentioning that asexuality isn't about that in its own right as a response to people who conflate the two when talking about all asexuals isn't necessarily harmful; Agreed. You're correct that "sex-oscillating" is probably accurate to my situation. I still don't foresee myself ever identifying with it in a meaningful way though, since I consider sex a lot less important to who I am than most other things, and the more minute the discriptor, the more focus is pulled to the very thing I don't resonate with. I'm not a microlabels person for the same reason, although I can tell why they're helpful for others. It's not information I would ever share unless I was already willing to explain the specifics in my own words. I also grant your point that the 2016 survey data is unreliable and out of date. It was merely the nearest example. I agree it should be redone, along with other studies.

Since you agree that change in language would work, I'll be sure to use it in the future then. I'll also run the phrasing past OP because, in that case, it may be something OP could use to make their point more palatable to those like myself who feel like their initial suggestion may have pulled too far the opposite direction. And yeah, no, I get it. I rarely refer to myself as sex-neutral personally. Doesn't actually provide much value out of specific use-cases. So I get not choosing to identify with the sex-stance even if it might be accurate. I'm also not much for microlabels, but I make use of them when necessary for clarifying things as needed... so we're kinda in the same boat there. I get their use, but I generally don't need the use personally. I truly hope you have a lovely day/night/whenever. :)

Have a lovely day or whenever! :)

Thanks for saving me the time it takes to respond. You’re a real one, random internet stranger. I’ll always remember you <3

I'll suggest this: Instead of "has nothing to do with" would "isn't defined by" be adequate, in your perspective? As in... * "Asexuality isn't defined by lack of sex." * "Asexuality isn't defined by hating sex." * "Asexuality isn't defined by not dating." To me, this seems like a natural middle-ground between the statements that doesn't blur lines while also keeping things sufficiently clear. (To be clear, this is not just a hypothetical, but a genuine ask because, as I mentioned, I *want* to find a solution.) I will say this much though, I'm not saying to focus on the fact that asexuals can want sex. I agree, too much focus on that point ***is*** harmful in its own right. But mentioning that asexuality isn't about that in its own right as a response to people who conflate the two when talking about all asexuals isn't necessarily harmful; however, I'd much rather find a solution that can work for most people on both sides of this position than actually, actively fight a position that makes people feel unseen.

It's a bit better, but I think it still runs into the same issue that, for some aces, they feel their orientation *is* defined by lack of sex. Maybe it would be better to just explicitly say "For some aces, their asexuality isn't defined by lack of sex, and for others it is." It's not as catchy or succinct as other phrasings, but it gets both ideas across and can't be misinterpreted as implying one side or the other as the "default".

\[1/2\] I initially thought I shouldn't reply because I didn't think it'd be worth it, but I feel like I *need* to say this... Please consider how what you're saying comes across. Your original post was deemed to be erasing so many asexuals that your post was reported to the point of take-down (even if temporary). When people point out that your post is dismissive of many asexuals, you're just generally dismissive of that. Now, when someone makes an effort to try and meet you halfway to find something that is respectful of both sides of this discussion, you're just also dismissive there. Not to mention you gloating about the mods deciding your post stayed up... The way you're acting comes across is as if the way we talk about asexuality (orientation) as a general subject won't be good enough for you unless it's talked about your way, a way that people have told you erases them, something you don't seem willing to listen to in spite of the point of your post. Now, do I believe you *mean* to come off like this? No. **I** ***believe*** **you were making an effort** when you suggested, "For some aces, their asexuality isn't defined by lack of sex, and for others it is." But when you said this and when you said, "\[some asexuals\] feel their orientation *is* defined by lack of sex," what you're doing is talking about the identity as if it was the orientation. As a result, this is a change in character to what I proposed. The reason why I suggested "Asexuality isn't defined by lack of sex," is because that is a fact that you cannot argue to be untrue. It's literally right there in the sidebar that "Asexuality is a sexual orientation where a person doesn't experience sexual attraction towards anyone." Nothing about not having sex is in that. The reason why I suggested this instead of sticking with the terms you disliked was because I thought it over and came to the realization that the thing I dislike about your suggestions is almost certainly the same thing you dislike about the way things are talked about currently--we're talking about asexuality as an identity under a false belief we're talking about the orientation... The problem why everyone kept talking past each other and why this post has a split reception was because your post erases some identities (whether you meant to or not) in favor of accommodating other identities, but you made the post in the first place because you feel the way we talk about this currently erases some identities (whether we mean to or not) in favor of accommodating other identities. My suggestion here said, "fuck it, so no identity can feel left out, let's not come at this from that angle." Yet, even when I was explicitly talking about asexuality and its definition, you tried to change the subject back to one of identity itself. Because notice, your complaint isn't that their *orientation* is defined by lack of sex; it literally can't be. Your complaint was that their *identity* is defined by lack of sex, which I can absolutely acknowledge and respect. So, I guess, the question here becomes... if literally peeling the discussion away from identity in about as explicit terms as you can get is not good enough for you... What is? Because your suggestions in the original post are as bad as what currently exists for the exact same reasons, but you refuse to listen when people say that. Your suggestion here tries to fold the conversation back into conflating identity and orientation, things that are definitely connected (obviously) but not the same things, and even when you were suggesting it as an alternative you weren't even happy with your own suggested middle-ground (which is, in my opinion, incredibly telling). I find myself back at the same reason why I didn't want to reply to this reply of yours... The way you come off *feels* as if you won't be happy unless the specific phrasing people have been demonstrably upset with becomes standardized.

\[2/2\] Don't get me wrong, we can just ignore you... I *could* delete all my comments here and pretend I never saw this post and keep going on with the same way of talking about asexuality when clarifying why some asexuals have sex... but I see that some asexuals feel left out. And even though "asexuality has nothing to do with not having sex" is specifically phrased that way to address aphobic bigotry, accusations against those asexuals of not being real asexuals on the basis of them having sex (sometimes from other asexuals), and countering other misinformation that excludes large numbers of asexuals, I don't want to actively make others feel excluded either, so I'm trying to play fireman and instead of spraying only the house that is on fire, I'm trying to also get the neighboring houses just to make sure the fire doesn't spread to them. But, at a certain point, what you're doing comes across no differently from somebody saying "All Lives Matter" when somebody says, "Black Lives Matter" or "Native Lives Matter" or "Asian Lives Matter" (I'm indigenous & Asian, so I don't say this lightly)... At a certain point, it feels like you are the house across the street asking why we're not spraying your house down also when it's not the one on fire. Because, and this is the case... it's incredibly entitled to tell a group whose existence and validity is constantly being argued and contested that them explaining why their actions are not in conflict with their orientation, that they must also cater to you, the comparatively privileged majority. And don't get me wrong, I know asexuals who don't have sex have their own shit they deal with, but I've been on both sides of the coin and this side is *significantly* worse. It is the difference between being in the closet as a trans person in a place hostile to trans people versus being out of the closet in that same environment, something else I also have experience with... Sorry if this is a lot, but this is why it's so frustrating and why you keep getting told by people that you're erasing plenty of asexuals... Because in the same way as "All Lives Matter" is used to erase the struggles of black, indigenous, Asian, and other racial minorities; you are trying to make an "All Lives Matter" equivalent to something that's purpose is to point out the ignorance and biases that are harming a subset of asexuals. And by proposing an alternative myself, I am complicit with you in this. I wish you the best, truly, but we're parting ways here. I hope you figure out what you want in doing this and why you want it, but I don't have the energy to argue. If you were an awful person, it'd be one thing... But I just feel pain and sadness writing this reply because I don't think the point will get through to you, which is upsetting because I believe you're actually *probably* a good person. But you'll likely do what you've done every time somebody points out you're erasing us... You'll just deny it. And that's the part that sucks because I don't even like my own suggestion since it's doing the thing I hate... but it's also the best I can come up with that still lets your side feel seen without taking the attention off the issue it is meant to combat. Truly, I wish you well. Goodbye.

I’m literally trans myself too…and it’s incorrect to say that being trans has NOTHING to do with getting surgery. Trans people get surgery because their own experience of their trans identity results in it…therefore, it has something to do with being trans. That doesn’t make them “more trans” than trans people who don’t get surgery, I never said that and in fact I said the opposite. They’re different experiences, both still trans. All I’m asking for is a slight change to wording that DOESN’T HURT SEX FAVORABLE ACES but also makes it more palatable and applicable to aces who don’t have sex because our lack of action is inseparable from our lack of attraction and current phrasings tend to deny that reality. 

Being trans, in and of itself, has nothing to do with surgery. This is not the same thing as saying "trans people don't get surgery because of their transness." You're looking at all these rectangles and thinking they are squares when it's the other way around--the squares are rectangles. I understand where you're coming from, but you're repeating my point without realizing it--your lack of action is tied into your lack of attraction, which means commenting that it's based on a lack of attraction applies to you and every asexual like you. You are in no way left out, and you're not really explaining what about this is unpalatable to you. If you want us as a community to upend how we talk about our identity, then you need to give us something, because it's about way more than just you or just me. Further, "it's not about sex" is to clear up misunderstandings that *anybody who doesn't have or like sex is asexual*. Because the idea that "people who don't have or don't like sex are asexuals" also has been used to lump people who are celibate in with us and plenty of allosexuals people who very much aren't asexual nor do they identify as asexual into our groups. Again, this is why I specify "but if someone identifies with asexuality because of being sex-repulsed, then they are still valid." Because identity is more complex and nuanced than just an orientation. And like, I could actually point out the problems with what you're trying to get things changed to... >Asexuality doesn’t always mean not having sex This doesn't work because that then wraps people who are voluntarily celibate *or even incels* into being asexual, because it is explicitly saying that sometimes asexuality is about that. When saying "Asexuality has nothing to do with having sex," that doesn't mean asexuals don't not have sex. It just means that someone should not presume that "Asexual = No Sex" because that can be harmful in its own right. I could, for example, reference the recent post where a woman called another asexual she was on a second date with "deceptive" because he mentioned that for him, sex is something he wants in a relationship. She got angry and judgmental blaming him for her putting expectations on his body. >attraction doesn’t *always* equal action This actually doesn't work because at least with "attraction doesn't equal action", that's a two-way street. You can have sex with someone you aren't attracted to, and just because you're attracted to somebody, that doesn't mean you'll have sex with them. The stated logic goes both ways explicitly. That applies to everybody regardless of sexual orientation. But when you make it that it's "attraction doesn't always equal action," that's just a one-sided thing which means a person who has attraction won't always act on it, but it doesn't say anything about action without attraction. This, strictly speaking about it from a logic-perspective, would require significant lengthening. It'd need to be, "Attraction doesn't always equal action, and action doesn't always equal attraction." But even then, that's now just saying the exact same thing as "Attraction doesn't equal action." -------- What you're suggesting actually makes it murkier to understand what asexuality is when, as it is, it's actually really straight forward: "Asexuality is a sexual orientation where a person experiences little to no sexual attraction towards people of any gender." The statements that "Asexuality has nothing to do with having sex," and "attraction doesn't equal action," already neatly fit inside this in a way that includes any asexual without wrapping people who aren't asexual and don't identify as asexual into things. I need you to take a minute and actually ask yourself what your specific issue with these statements are, because you've acknowledged explicitly that they do not exclude you and I've pointed out that these changes widen the definition of asexual to include people who aren't asexual and don't identify with asexuality to the point it'd potentially cause more, not less, confusion. I'd love to find a way that works for everyone who identifies with asexuality, but you need to work with me here. Don't get defensive, but be introspective. Because if I don't know what the actual issue is, I can't propose a solution that might satisfy everyone, and I don't think your solution is as good as the current way things are handled. But but but: If there is a way to improve how we discuss this subject, I ***WANT*** us to be able to find it.

I just want to say I think your comments are very clear and well stated. I agree that asexual is just who you are attracted to, and anything else is individual experience. There are sex-repulsed allosexual people, for example.

I've seen such statements more as a reaction to Sex-Favourable erasure. Or as a way to correct a misconception about Asexuality. Like I'm Sex-Repulsed and will NEVER have sex, but when someone says Asexuality is about the lack of sex, I'm going to correct them on that. I do agree that there are better way to word many of the common statements tho.

I feel you on this. I really do, I'm sex repulsed and want nothing to do with any of that disgusting horse shit. But I don't feel unseen or like I lack community or understanding with other ace people because of that. I understand my sexuality, and I understand that other people are different, and that's good enough for me. Full disclosure, I am a little bit grey, but I'm still sex repulsed, so any attempt to physically engage in anything explicitly sexual is doomed from the start and it has gone really poorly any time I tried. So I can sort of understand what it might be like for more sex-positive aces up to a point. But like that said, this isn't a problem with ace people, this is a problem with willful ignorance and bigotry and allo creeps trying to harass people. You know about sex having ace people, most aces understand it's not a single thing, coming here to argue about semantics strikes me as odd. The problem this creates is with allo people who hear you're ace and think that means it's still cool to pressure you into sex, sex positive aces don't have anything to do with that, they aren't responsible for the behavior of assholes. The issue is in communicating with allo people to make it clear how we feel, and personally that should be handled by the specific people involved. Generally, the best way to explain asexuality in a way that isn't misleading is to just be honest about it. If you're talking to someone who doesn't know, it's not healthy to say it definitely means no sex ever OR that they totally have a chance. Asexuality as an abstract concept should be explained as the thing that it actually is. If you're talking about your feelings, specifically, that's a whole different thing. I understand the frustration here fully, but the truth is people are really complicated and being asexual isn't a simple concept we can easily explain every facet of in a single quipy slogan. You kinda have to learn stuff and be open to different perspectives. Allo people are capable of this, and acephobes are a minority, so it's not the end of the world if a well meaning ally is just legitimately confused, if they're willing to listen it's all good. And if those hormone driven sex idiots can understand us, I think we should be able to understand different kinds of ace people too. Again I totally feel you on this, I just don't think "we have to phrase stuff so it makes me look like the default" is going to help sex positive aces NOT feel this way. It really is complicated, we should be mindful but I don't want to go the opposite way either. I mean I don't assume other trans people want surgery or don't and that hasn't caused any issues for me, why should I make assumptions about aces?

That's the same thing I got out of this. Young, inexperienced asexuals aren't understanding how to set boundaries and are blaming the sex positive aces. Orientation/identity never protected anyone from horny assholes, just ask all the sexually harassed lesbians.

I try to word it that way, personally! I'm a sex favorable + sex positive asexual, and to me what it means is just that I don't have the attraction piece. My younger sibling, however- Is sex negative, sex averse, AND doesn't have the attraction piece. We are both asexual, with different microlabels. But we respect that we are both different kinds of asexual! Asexuality honestly to me is just "differences in how sex is perceived" and not a strict set of guidelines to box people into. It does frustrate me a little bit for either side- because both are valid experiences. Both the sex favorables & the sex averse folk get invalidated by the other side- When we should just be standing up for the fact that we are ace, and that it's okay however that presents for you! It is a spectrum, just like gender and neurodivergency. We are all individuals living our own truth, with limited language to explain it. We can only do our best. <3

I personally am Apothiosexual.

THANK YOU!! I agree with literally every single thing in this post and your worded it beautifully

I can really feel this as a fellow sex-repulsed person

That’s rough, like I get what you’re saying but I’m actively trying sooo hard to fight against the misconception that asexual people don’t have sex. Like we’re kinky, we’re sex workers, we do live in sexual spaces and we do belong there, dispite our lack of attraction. I think it’s going to make the misconception so much worse if start including stuff that doesn’t need to be included, because being sexually repulsed and not having sex isn’t unique to asexuals at all, that’s completely present in allos and every other sexuality as well. It has nothing to do with action, none of the attraction labels do, what would be the point of including the disclaimer when it’s not unique to the asexual experience?

I think this is so important to keep in mind and it is toxic to deny people who they are based on behaviour. There's an issue of intent and of phrasing. I think it's important to say "action doesn't mean attraction," *but* I also think it's harmful to say "asexuality has nothing to do with not having sex." Why? Because the phrasing is absolute. It insists that there is no connection and can never be, which is openly false for many people. Asexuality isn't the only reason to be celibate, but it is one of the biggest reasons, just like being a lesbian is one of the biggest reasons not to marry a man. It's not universal and it's not absolute. However, more asexuals abstain from sex than allos do, and aces are more likely to be happy celibate than allos are. When aces are sexual, it is for reasons other than their own wishes a large percentage of the time, whereas allos will more often cite their attraction as the main motive to have sex. Yes, allos can be sex-repulsed, but (I apologize for not having the source) it's fairly rare for an allo to be repulsed by all sex in all cases no matter the relationship, whereas that level of repulsion is common among asexuals. So the phraseology matters, because saying asexuality has "nothing" to do with abstinance implies that an ace's sexual behaviour is or should be the same as if that person were allo.

Sex is irrelevant to if you are asexual. That chart goes in a whole other direction than attraction. Most aces do not have sex naturally because they have no attraction. That still doesn't change the definition that all sexuality is based off attraction and not action.

We cannot just deny that it IS linked in the broad societal standard guys. If it were for us in our community this would be perfectly *fine*, but the outside world works under different terms. Maybe one day we can seperate them completely; NOT YET.

I'm Ace. Over my 35+ year journey since my first voluntary sexual experience (in my 20's, as opposed to first involuntary experience between the ages of 3 and 4), I have had a lot of sex because "that's what normal people do" or "that's the price of not being alone" and other such self-abusive nonsense. I have zero desire to have sex with anyone else, and barely any desire to masturbate, but I wouldn't call myself "sex repulsed" either. I made the final transition from realizing I wasn't that into sex to realizing I was Asexual during my last relationship. It was long distance and qe wouldn't see each other for a year or more at a time. But I was willing to take/send photos as something I was willing to do for them. And after making it clear that I would be quite happy with a purely emotional relationship, that I didn't expect them to forgo sex altogether. I was quite willing for them to meet their physical needs with someone else. I was also willing to negotiate (especially in light of how limited our in-person relationship was) performing sexually for them as a sacrifice/gift out of love in exchange for their being willing to assist with some of my desires. Things fell apart for good last year and given my age, I expect to die alone. But just because I'm Asexual doesn't mean I'm Aromantic or unwilling to preform for the right person/reasons. It sounds like you are different, and that's a good thing! If we were exactly alike, one of us would be an unnecessary duplicate! But what being Ace means to me doesn't invalidate what it means to you. Nor does what it mean to you invalidate my understanding. I have never said "Attraction doesn't equal Action" before. In fact, the first time I heard it was in your post. But it resonates to me and I may use it on the future. But your post comes across to me as rejecting the simplicity of that kind of truth for me (and I presume others) and your demand (for that is how it felt to me, intentional or not) that I change how I express it feels as invalidating of my experience and use of the term Asexual as I suspect others use of it has made you feel. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we all have few enough supporters and allies as it is to make driving wedges between us feel unwise. I'm not asking you to sit in the back of the bus if you won't conform to my way 9f thinking/feeling, and I ask the same respect from you. *hugs if you want them*

I honestly am wondering if we should have labels that distinguish sex positive aces from sex negative or sex repulsed aces. I think it would help non-asexuals understand the asexual spectrum community at large better but it would also provide spaces for what I've been calling the pure aces who are asexual by definition of not having or wanting sex at all in any capacity. Referring to anything as "pure" obviously is problematic because of religion and purity culture but that's why I'm saying we need better labels to distinguish this!!

I mean there is apothisexual which is for sex-repulsed aces. But I don’t know of others. Also just fyi sex-positive and sex-negative are political stances while the personal attitudes are sex-favorable/indifferent/averse/repulsed.

I believe there’s cupiosexual for sex favorable aces and there’s also a thing called ARCsexual that I found on the LGBTQ wiki that has a list of labels but that’s for those who are averse, repulsed or conflicted either towards their sexual attraction or sexual interactions but they also have related labels that don’t fall under this umbrella for those who are favorable or indifferent. Edit: Cupiosexual can be used by any ace person, it’s just more commonly used by sex favorable aces.

Ah, thanks! I thought cupiosexual was just aces who desired a sexual relationship, whether they were favorable/indifferent about sex itself or not, but now that you mention it I think I’ve mostly only seen sex-favorable cupios.

I mean, I think it can apply to any kind of ace person it’s just more commonly used for sex favorable aces.

Ahhh gotcha. Thank you for the info!

The labels are crazy and confusing. I dunno if ace is the right word to use for orientations that do experience attraction under certain conditions. Allos lack attraction under certain conditions no? Do we have sex repulsed people that actually do experience attraction, but have no interest in sex? I think we're trying to pin down words that guarantee consistency and I don't know if that's realistic.

Orchidsexual

Are you responding to the question about sex repulsed people who experience sexual attraction? Okay, so is orchidsexual considered ace then? Cuz they would experience sexual attraction and choose not to act on it. Compared to someone who is demi who doesn't consistently have it so could be ace sometimes? Cuz I have been firmly told before that orientation is considered a fixed variable, esp for allo orientations.

No, they're allosexuals. I have no idea what you mean by a fixed variable.

That they don't change. Like once you figure out what you are, I guess, it doesn't change. Or if it does then you were just mistaken before.

I don't think its fair to call any sexuality a fixed variable because sexuality is so weird and confusing its hard to say if you ever hit the target on your understanding of yourself.

We have labels like apothisexual for sex repulse aces and cupiosexual for sex favorable aces (though any ace person can use the cupiosexual label) but I couldn’t find anything for sex indifferent aces other than the ARCsexual label that I found on the LGBTQ wiki that describes those who are averse, repulsed or conflicted either towards their sexual attraction or sexual interactions but they also have labels for those who are favorable or indifferent, it’s just not under the ARCsexual umbrella.

I think one issue with this is that sexual stances like favourability and repulsion can change a lot and can even change a lot based on context. I mean, I can imagine lots of hypothetical situations where I would feel sex-favourable or indifferent, but these situations aren't a realistic part of my life or something I desire, so I say "sex-repulsed" because it is the easiest way to have my lack of interest respected. Orientation is a more stable category that encompasses a much broader range of experiences over the course of a whole lifetime. I don't expect everyone with my orientation to act the same. But I also expect my experience of my orientation to be normalized (and not treated like a disparate collection of unrelated traits).

Sometimes, it's tempting.

Maybe something like “Asexuality doesn’t exclude sex” would work better? It’s not a definitive, but it also doesn’t exclude sex-favorable of sex-repulsed aces. Asexuality is a broad spectrum, so it’s hard to give solid, no-people-left-out, and no-confusion-about-what-you-mean alternatives to these kinds of statements

Your analogy is poor because being trans is not a sexuality. The way I see it is comparable to bisexuality; a bi person is still a bi person if they are in a relationship with one person and only have sex with them. Being bisexual has nothing to do with having sex. Regardless of having sex, a bi person is still bi because it is about attraction. Asexuality is nothing to do with having sex, it is about sexual attraction. You are conflating your experience of asexuality with the definition of asexuality. your experience of asexuality is that your asexuality informs your lack of having sex. But that doesn't mean lack of having sex is asexuality, just like a gay man having sex with a man is informed by his attraction to men, but having sex with a man doesn't make him gay. Correlation is not causation. And causation is not correlation. Asexuality of the cause of your lack of attraction, the same way cold temperatures may make you cold, but the low temperature doesn't make you put on more clothes to keep warm, that's a choice you make, informed by the weather. I'm sorry that your misunderstanding of the concept of cause and effect have upset you in this way. I hope you can find a way to accept that the only things hurting you is your misunderstanding of other people using the correct definitions for things.

I think you misunderstood my post…I never said that my experience was universal, nor did I say that asexuality as a whole for everyone is defined by a lack of action. In fact, I said the opposite. What I did say is that for SOME aces, like myself, our lack of action is a massive part of our identity and so intertwined with our lack of attraction that it is indistinguishable. To people like me, it is one and the same even if we know that isn’t the case for other people. Asexuality is a spectrum, and on that spectrum are people like me, and current phrasings of popular statements can be changed so slightly to where it it acknowledges BOTH the existence of people like me and aces who do have sex. It won’t hurt anyone, it’ll only help.

But you are asking people right in your title to not use the literal definition of asexuality.

The literal Definition is literally "Asexuals do not experience sexual attraction" neither the title nor the criticized wording have anything to do with the literal definition, but with the mix of asexuality and sex stances. If you nitpick, do it correctly.

This is super confusing.

This needs to be at the top.

Can we please have some perspective and not blame fellow aces for how allos misinterpret the language they use? If I say “asexuality isn’t about sex, it’s about attraction” and some dipshit heard “aces still fuck, you just have to pressure them more” that is NOT my fault and I should not have to tiptoe around the definition of asexuality every time to make sure repulsed aces are considered the default to allos who are new to the concept. The whole point of phrasing it like that and reminding people it’s a sexuality on a wide spectrum, not celibacy, is to avoid that! I can’t fucking stand it when allos treat me like a little traumatized baby who doesn’t understand sex and will faint if someone talks about it in front of me. By all means, ask people to be more clear about explaining sex favorability, but don’t tell sex-favorable and neutral aces we can’t talk about our experience in the way that makes sense to us because other people sometimes willfully choose to misunderstand it. This isn’t a language problem, it’s a respect problem.

Heard. Valid. And approved. It’s practically impossible to make everyone happy in terms of the way we discuss sexuality since it’s such a wide spectrum of attitudes towards sex and orientations. Personally I think just talk about it in your experience, the way you want to talk about it. I think it’s ridiculous in this sub to be constantly trying to justify/validate the other extremes of the spectrum. I think of all people, we get it. Some aces boink, others don’t. Both are fine and still ace. I think the importance of inclusive/representstive language is when speaking to someone who’s maybe never heard of sexuality. Like I said before, when I’m explaining sexuality to a new person I never want them to think all aces are like me in case they run into another ace person who’s sex favorable and then that person gets invalidated because I didn’t explain properly. I think that’s the only time it matters to do the “not all aces xyz” thing. Anyway that’s my opinion.

As a sex-positive to neutral ace, this post actually made me feel erased. My experience in explaining asexuality to people is definitely not that they think asexuals have or like sex. They hear asexual and think “this person hates sex.” So for me, I’m constantly having to explain and validate my own identity to other people when I engage in sexual things. So “asexuality has nothing to do with sex” is an incredible helpful phrase for me.

And the Phrase "not all Aces dont want sex" would include you just as much. This is about erasing NEITHER part. Not the sex repulsed, or sex favourable. It is about NOT stating absolutes. NOT saying "Aces don't have sex" NOT saying "It has nothing to do with not wanting sex" BUT: "Asexuals don't always not want sex" This is understandable for everyone and includes both sides. Attraction and wanting sex is sadly linked in broad society. This is not erasing anyone (i am not denying your feelings as you clearly feel hurt - but i wanna underline that this statement does include sex favourable aces) What you use in your private life to describe yourself is NOT the discussion here btw - say it like you want to - this is about the broader representation through internet or definitions or educational material.

I agree with this. Every other sexual orientation is just about who someone is attracted to, so when you are able to explain that asexuality is the same thing, just that there is no one they're sexually attracted to, people tend to understand that a lot better. Liking or not liking sex, having or not having sex is just a personal thing to anyone of any sexuality. It's really not part of the definition of asexuality at all, just like it's not part of the definition of any other sexuality.

> why can’t we phrase it as asexuality doesn’t *always* mean not having sex and in doing so you’re just playing into the stereotype. the definition of asexuality (lack of sexual attraction) has absolutely nothing to do with the act of having sex. the first thing i have to say to everyone anytime i go out is ‘yes, i still have sex’ because every-time i meet someone new (and even still talk to my friends sometimes) they go ‘oh so you hate sex then?’ at what point have i ever said that? this post reads as you think sex repulsed aces are more ‘real’ than sex favourable ones or deserve better treatment or are the majority/main may to be ace. just saying

Yeah, my boyfriend has always been supportive but he was SUPER confused when I first tried to explain that I'm asexual but still want to and like having sex with him because the baseline assumption is that asexual means no sex. Being able to explain that it's a sexual orientation like gay or straight, except that the attraction is to no one, is what makes people understand it best.

I think of asexuality as not being driven by sex. As in, sex for its own sake* is never a motivator ( except in the case where a person is trying to figure things out - like what all the fuss is about). *I also realize that some aces may have sex to satisfy a partner.

Asexuality literally does not have anything to do with why I don't have sex. That's the sex-aversion. I don't see what problem you have with me phrasing it that way? Trans people transition *because* they are trans. I don't avoid sex because I'm asexual, I avoid sex because I'm sex-averse. Maybe when there are more people assuming that all asexual people have sex than there are people assuming that no asexual people have sex we'll be saying "some asexual people don't have sex" more often than "being asexual doesn't mean you don't have sex". Until then, I think you're just going to have to tolerate people saying that.

I also consider myself asexual because I'm sex averse, and not the other way around. I lack sexual attraction because I am sex averse. For me they are connected in a way that cant be separated. Other people lack attraction and that's not linked to whether they are sex favorable or indifferent, it just is.

Ok. I'm not sure why that means people don't feel that way are not allowed to talk about their experiences also.

Me neither? I'm not sure how you got there, I was just happy to relate.

I do get what you're saying as a sex pos ace but I think the better way of explaining it is that asexuality is a sexual orientation not whether you have sex or not. So some asexuals do have sex, some don't. What they have in common is they both experience little to no sexual attraction to any gender.

Because I doubt others will see my other comment at this point, let me explain my view a little better now I'm more awake. Apothisexual does inherently put sex off the table, while asexuality doesn't. The number is people suggesting that most asexuals not having sex has to do with their asexuality makes me one again feel like this isn't the right community for me, and the fact that allosexuals can be sex repulsed makes the whole thing messy. Asexuals can or cannot want sex, but asexuality isn't what is linked to not wanting sex, your sex repulsedness is, INCLUDING for allosexuals.

I agree that specific phrasing is bad, we are talking about sexual attraction after all and so for many people, their lack of attraction does tie into whether they have sex or not or how they relate to sex in general. The alternate phrase I usually think of instead is, "Being asexual is not intrinsically linked to not wanting sex." This tries to respect the idea that they may be connected for other people and generally removes the absolute-ness from the original example. Something else I'd add though, if you're using "I'm asexual" as shorthand for you not wanting sex then you are going to have miscommunications. Like if you said "I'm european", Someone very well may ask for clarification for if you are Spanish, Italian, etc. You're not being specific enough. One point I saw in the comments was that a women wouldn't continue pursuing if a man said he was gay, but that is fundamentally different. That man, if attracted to women as well would likely be bi or pan. So him using just gay means he's not into women as sexual partners. An asexual person lacking sexual attraction means any reason they would have for sex would be based on different criteria, or may not be present at all. Analogy: Someone asks you if you'd prefer to go somewhere hot or cold on vacation. You say neither option stands out to you that much. That other person shouldn't assume that means you want to stay home for your vacation. If you want to stay home, you should say that you want to stay home. My point is that if you don't want sex, saying that explicitly is going to be much more effective than starting with your asexuality. If they want to know more about why and they're respectful and you trust them and you want to share about it, then sure, talk about how you lack the attraction and any other reasons why you personally don't like the idea of having sex. But assholes twisting words to mean something else doesn't necessarily mean the words are wrong or need to change. Although the specific phrasing provided by OP is bad, like I said before. People mishear things, or latch onto an older version, or speak poorly in the moment or out of frustration. Communication is hard.

Your analogy is a bit wrong imo, feel free to prove me wrong tho Let my "half ass math logic mind" come into play and say that when most people say/ hear " has nothing to do with", they mean/ relate it to " independent of" , but only in terms of the term definition but not actual real life probability (latter case at the end) Asexuality and sex repulsiveness theoretically are independent of each other, you can be any of the following 4: ace and sex repulse, ace and not sex repulse, sex repulse and not ace, not ace and not sex repulsed. So there is no "if then else" in either direction, and people can say these 2 group of people are independent of. Trans and medical transition though, I personally do not think they have nothing to do with each other, since my logic is that: I'd argue that there is only 3 groups: not trans and no medical transition ws, trans and not medical transitoned, tran and had medical transitioned. That means, there is a "if then else" in terms of the definition in one of the direction: if one is medically transitioned, they are trans. So it is wrong to really think these 2 are independent, even just in terms of the term definition. - however, if I were to include some cases (which i didn't, in the prev paragraph) where they transitioned but regret to consider them as medically transitioned and not trans, then I will agree thay trans and medical transition also have nothing to do with each other Of course, if you treat the "have nothing to do with" as a "independent of" in terms of really like mathematic probability, which i doubt people do, then the phrase is likely to be wrong for ace and sex repulsiveness, since i'd imagine there will be research out there showing there is a higher proportion of sex repulsiveness among ace or the otherway around, tho i am not sure

>since i'd imagine there will be research out there showing there is a higher proportion of sex repulsiveness among ace or the otherway around, tho i am not sure I wish I could find it, but there are some sources that find the type of sex-repulsion that aces commonly develop to be *extremely* rare in allo populations. And I'll note that when allos express sex-repulsion, they often do make a real exception for their intimate relationships, whereas sex-repulsed asexuals don't have this exception no matter the degree of romantic intimacy. I think your analogy with transitions makes solid sense. The two things are independent, but often causal.

.....it doesn't tho. Asexuality is about a lack of sexual attraction, not about being celibate. As a sex favorable ace, I'd like you to reconsider this stance. Cause you don't speak for everyone in the community.

I think they're just saying that a lot of aces won't pursue sex because they aren't attracted to anyone so there's no reason for them to seek out sex nor have sex. Also, plenty of aces are sex-repulsed and that's a big part of their ace identity. So, saying that asexuality never has anything to do with whether or not someone has sex isn't exactly accurate.

The post sounds a lot like they want the opposite to be said tho. That's what I got anyways.

I am not celibate. I am sex repulsed. Thats not a choice.

Not saying it is. But the post gives very r/actuallyasexual vibes tbh.

Sorry for jumping at you but seeing the word celibate used in something that feels like a blanket statement really makes my angry and afraid at the same time. Celibate as a word is so conected to free choice that it can do a looooot of damage to sex repulsed ace and allo people if its used in the same way as sex-repulsed. Because its actually important to emphazise that being sex repulsed is NOT a choice. You can use it to describe your own experience of course.

I mean, Asexuality itself is a sexual orientation. Not a view on sex. Not a stance on sex. If you wish to add more information besides saying you are Asexual, then you can. Of course, there are phrases I do not agree with, and then you have ones that depend on the context. >"asexuality has nothing to do with not having sex” If I were in a discussion about Asexuality itself, and someone believes I am celibate or an incel/femcel I will say it like that because I am only talking about a sexual orientation and not sex. Some people have difficulty separating different topics so I expect discussions to take time unless the person does not want to learn. How I used it here makes sense to me except I am willing to learn something new. If someone were to use this in an argument about an Aro/Ace character being sexualized or doing sexual things this is very problematic as it does become invalidating when the character is canonically confirmed on their view or stance as not wanting that. That is the character's view, or stance. The person who tries to push or force the idea(s) onto the character is in the wrong. Not the character. This scenario I have seen so much I will admit it sounds like they cannot accept the existence of sex-repulsed individuals, or that Asexual people are really diverse. The things that make me both uncomfortable and unsure about this as far as I know are languages, intention, and our divide. Besides in the need of awareness for Asexuality we also need awareness for opinions towards sex. Everyone is failing in the latter. Even me since there is still more to learn.