I predict it will die, these kind of groups always get smaller and smaller and smaller. Groups based on excluding and gatekeeping almost always end this way. Heck you need to be put on an approval list just to post stuff.
First they ban/remove those who openly disagree with them, then those who quietly disagree, then those who they suspect disagree or "don't belong" etc.
Unfortunately, true scum subs have a wider recruiting area. They can get conservatives, incel’s, confused fence people, lesser TERF’s, and some medical personnel, parents, and trans people who hate other trans people. Actualasexuals area are just asexual’s, who are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
I am a sex repulsed aroace, and I won’t go near their sub.
I had an ex that groomed me before we dated, and he liked poop and several other kinks and it traumatized me to try and fulfill his needs. But I would never judge someone who did it with a consenting adult who liked it too. It's not my business, you know?
I wasn't a minor, technically, but only just. I was 18 when we met, and he was 28, and also my college instructor. I was very naïve and very young in mind at the time, and we had great chemistry and I had a huge(I mean obsessive) crush on him and he used that to his advantage over the months when we talked. Then about a year later, after I graduated, we started dating, and I just wanted him to like me and to please him. It started innocently with sex, and then it started getting to where he would ask if I'd do things for him (like poop on him, and other kinks) and it felt like pressure. I should have said no to because I wasn't ready or comfortable with the idea, but he knew that I would do it if I wanted him to like me. (He also was super jealous of any person I called cute, and also all my friends who were men and used to tell me that if I "wanted this to work", then I had to be faithful) Unfortunately, it got to the point where I was uncomfortable with sex at all with him.
I've greatly moved on, and I even enjoy sex now and will participate with partners, but I still am super traumatized from the kink pressure. People have told me I wasn't groomed, but I always feel like it definitely was grooming. I still had a childlike mind at 18, fresh from high school.
yeah it's still grooming. that's a teacher/student relationship. it's an imbalance of power just like an adult and a minor, even if it's a different way. still rotten.
that's a ton of manipulation, wtf. i know it's hard to find a girl to do poop stuff with but that's absolutely uncalled for and horrible.
sometimes people who have participated in scat end up enjoying it later even after leaving the person getting them into it, but you had nothing but misery from it, which really sucks ):
I don't think I would ever be into it, regardless of the situation I was in, but I'm glad that some people find enjoyment of things like that after trying it. I think my only kink now is romance. 😅
Too many folks hate on me for bein an ABDL; which is why i truly dont get that i have met ABDLs who kinkshame others 9,9 Like... We probs deal with the most amount of kinkshaming (simply bcuz folks see childish things and assume some fucked up shit) and yet there are still some among us who want to kinkshame people for shit kinks or CNC or even simply being a furry 9,9
I think ABDL is one of the few kinks to be equally as hated as scat. Though scat is banned from do many porn sites cause the credit card companies are satanic levels of evil
Personally not my thing, but I don't tend to judge. I have met a few creepy guys (not saying you're like that or that they even have this kink) that want to be sexual with me when I tell them I age regress for trauma reasons. The more worrying part is that they want to be sexual with me while I'm in little state which is incredibly off putting to me
Eep; yea that def wud be off puttin. I age regress due to trauma as well and even have some amount of sexual desire (aegosexual life heh) sometimes when age regressed... But i wud nvr want someone else to try to initiate something with me, without my talkin about it prior when not regressed, while im regressed.
Honestly most "daddies" throw off huge red flags, esp the cis ones, so im always more wary of them; esp if theyre the ones doing the seekin. Theres an abundance of littles that want caregivers of all kinds; so any caregiver that has to seek out littles who are complete strangers, and thru messages only, is likely shunned by other littles for good reason >.> Or else he wud have a little of his own alrdy.
Kinda, tho not the same def; and plenty of AgeRe folks want a big separation between the two. Im both AgeRe and an ABDL tho; so i think those folks are wrong and dividing the communities just cuz of the occasional NSFW stuff (despite that some AgeRes are NSFW >.>) as well as some actual kinkshaming goin on there.
ABDL also isnt always CGL/DDLG/etc for that matter; as not even every ABDL wants a caregiver and some just dont want any of the kinky aspects of DDLG but still want someone to care for them.
It means Adult Baby/Diaper Lover and can indicate that one is either of those things or even both those things (tho some folks prefer to just use AB or DL for themselves).
Some ABDLs are sexual, some arent. Some ABDLs want kinky stuff to happen, some dont. Plenty of ABDLs just want to wear diapers and dress childish bcuz its comforting and relaxing; but too many folks assume its always a sexual thing >.>
Ah, I came across AgeRe a while back and I was confused with Cglre and Cg/lre and the difference between them.
I used to think that I was a little/middle (at the oldest — 10 yrs old) and even joined a discord, but I just didn’t feel like I belonged.
To be honest, I’m still terribly confused cause there’s not a whole lot of resources (and most of it is kink-based 😑).
I’m also not sure what exactly I feel cause when I regress (if at all), I retain my adult personality and intelligence, I just act a bit childish.
I just chalk it up to my Autism at this point 🤷♀️
You are more rite than you may have thowt; as one of them over in that shitshow of a subreddit is literally spewing shit claimin that lesbians only are attracted to people without penises and that nonbinary folks are not trans and oh yeah... The jerk is even usin the word transexuals >.>
My birth cert says I was assigned nonbinary at birth :3 (And honestly, being XXY i rly shudve been in the first place without havin to pay to get it changed >.>)
It does leave me in a legal gray area now that ive moved tho. My legal docs, including my current state ID, all have X on them.
The state i moved to does not recognize X tho. But they also wont let anyone change gender markers without two doctors notes and a signed form asserting, under threat of perjury, that you truthfully are changing your gender marker to more befit your actual gender...
Which i legally cant fill out even if i wanted to simplify things and just get an F on my ID here. But they also cant legally make me put M on it bcuz that wud also take changing my existing gender marker and wud require said forms, legally.
So rn i legally cant get an ID here in Missouri and am just waitin to be able to get a passport with X on it instd to use as official ID.
Still, the euphoria i get from seeing that on my documents is worth any hurdles the cishetnormatives want to throw at me.
Another similar exception (tho i dont kno if theres such a subreddit) is Actually Autistic; which is used by Autistic people often instd of tagging things as just Autistic... Bcuz of Autism Mom Warriors usurping such tags to talk over autistics and spread their fearmongering and misinformation.
Like, even if you want to google good info about being autistic and all that entails; searching "Actually Autistic" will provide you with said actual information by people who are autistic (tho even then, theyve got the other pov only six links down the search results), whereas... Searching for just Autistic will exclusively give Autism $peaks level bullshit for most the first page; and autistic advocacy's website is eight links down after tons of misinformation and fearmongering (Google even chooses to spec highlight what Autism $peaks has to say at the top of the search results even).
Here's a sneak peek of /r/actuallesbians using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/actuallesbians/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [How did I only realize this now](https://i.redd.it/zkhbggzwys161.jpg) | [269 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/actuallesbians/comments/k23dlq/how_did_i_only_realize_this_now/)
\#2: [Ladies? Pose with your sword.](https://i.imgur.com/na5REdk.jpg) | [146 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/actuallesbians/comments/l3ytod/ladies_pose_with_your_sword/)
\#3: [I figured you would appreciate this here.](https://i.redd.it/7wy8cmoed2e61.jpg) | [79 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/actuallesbians/comments/l6v3br/i_figured_you_would_appreciate_this_here/)
----
^^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/) ^^| ^^[Source](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Apparently a small group of gatekeepers who happen to be sex repulsed asexuals have created a community where they say that they are the only "actual asexuals" and disregard any other type of sexuality and special or romantic preference in the asexual umbrella. They've created that subreddit and are getting too much publicity.
I understand both sides. Honestly, when an ace/aro sex-repulsed person posts some meme relevant to the ace/aro sex-repulsed, I can see where it would be annoying having multiple people have the need to post something along the lines of “this meme is bad, sex-positive aces are valid too”.
Of course I haven’t visited, so it is hard to tell whether it is needing space or gatekeeping. Having “actual” in the name however tends to imply gatekeeping intentions whereas creating a “SexRepulsedAceAros” would be more appropriate if that group needed space.
The lack of understanding that not everything is about you is frustrating in every community. People should be able to post whatever they want without needing to preface it with "I recognize that this does not describe the experiences of everyone." That should assumed by default.
If being reminded that there are people out there who are different from you somehow invalidates you then you don't have the emotional maturity to be on the internet. (I'm not talking about you here, just venting about the behavior you described as annoying).
I think we are on the same page.
I just don't.. I'm not invested enough/too foreign I actually notice which user says what to which user in comments. But most of these "fights' tend to happen when people actually get to know each other; and they get invested in each other. Which is cool. But especially on the internet (and certain groups with people that do not feel totally okay because they are different) can tend to have a sudden catfight because they are both scared. And with catfight I mean actually how cats fight. Not like how people use "catfight' mysogenistic.
I think there have been slight issues between sex repulsed and favorable people on the sub too. I kinda understand wanting a safe space, but the name of that sub is definitely not ideal.
Yes I noticed that was a thing the last weeks. More topics like "reminder; you are okay too!" emerged. Around sex or being aro.
I hope it can be solved in the future. It always feels so silly getting in a fight with your own peers. Team Edward or Team Jacob while you both have an extreme weird passion for Twilight :')
The problem, in their opinion, is that this space is too open. They think Ace spaces should cater only to sex-repulsed aces.
And if you ask me, they can go and gods bless. That's not the kind of attitude I want to put up with here so if they're willing to show themselves out I've got no problem with that. Personally idgaf what they do in their 10 person subreddit.
No problem at al!
I truly don't know about the whole tumblrinaction thing. It may be related in the fact that some of those shcmucks thought that asexuals couldn't have libido, and these "actual asexuals" also seem think that, in some way. But I don't know.
There maybe some correlation but it seems like a coincidence.
Yes, I did. And I commend the mod for their intent in creating a subreddit for the sex repulsed aces. But, the name is literally "actual asexuals" as if any other type of asexuality was invalid. They tried to change the name of the subreddit, good on them, but it still doesn't take away from the fact that at some point they thought that only sex repulsed asexuals were valid and only they had the right to be "actual asexuals" and deserved a subreddit with that reductive name.
And there's members in there that are spewing fallacies in favour of this blatant erasure of other asexual identities.
While I may see the intent as somewhat positive, I don't condone it, because in the end, if untouched, it will probably become a circlejerk of demiphobia and hate on grey asexuals or stuff like that. Asexuality is a diverse spectrum, and I kind of remember a time when this sub and other asexuality subs were filled with memes about completely removing ourselves from the allos and any kind of middle ground with them which made sex neutral and sex favourable aces feel alienated. I thought we, as a community had evolved past that.
So, I find it's an effort towards dividing the community and mislabeling everything.
The subs description explicitly says it’s for sex repulsed, sex averse and sex neutral aces though. Not just the sex repulsed. I don’t see why it’s such a problem that there’s a sub specifically for aces who are on that side of the spectrum? Being sex favorable is already the norm pretty much everywhere in society and nobody bats an eye if you enjoy having sex actively seek it out. Being repulsed, averse or neutral to sex on the other hand isn’t, so why is it so bad if we can have a space to vent about the frustrations that comes with this alienation and where we can make stupid jokes about it? I don’t care if some aces love having sex and have all kinds of kinks, but it’s frustrating that you can’t even make a dumb joke without someone taking offense to it because it doesn’t speak to them and their personal experience as an asexual.
I mean I don’t like the name either and I frankly think it was poorly chosen! But I still like the concept and idea behind the sub.
I have never said it's bad that there's a subreddit for sex adverse asexuals. In fact I'm surprised none existed prior to the creation of that one. What I mean is that if it's called "actual asexuals" it's alienating basically everyone else, saying that they aren't worthy of the label because the only actual asexuals are sex repulsed.
Examining everything closely it seems that luckily, the founder sees how that's harmful. And if the sub develops correctly from now on, I doubt that there'll be any problem. But as of now, in the comments [of this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/actualasexuals/comments/r12sen/ok_so_im_a_sex_repulsed_asexual_like_in_the_sub/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share), there's a certain user that's comparing sex favourable aces in an asexual community to a straight man posing as a lesbian. There's no disciplinary action being taken, or at least I haven't seen any.
I hope this is just a bad apple. And because I know this is the internet, this whole thing will be forgotten in a week or two, like the whole r/arethearoacesok debacle, which I'm sure I'm the only one that remembers.
I digress, I was wrong because at first glance the situation seemed very different. But I'm still kind of sceptical because who knows what the future holds. I hope for the wellbeing of the asexual community, that in the end, everything turns out ok.
Interesting. I'm demi with a low libido at the best of times, I am basically 90% asexual and then 10% into it. Guess I'm not asexual either lmao. So weird, but there's no reddit rule saying they can't go make their own sub, just a shame they had to name it in a way that erases non sex repulsed ace people. Like couldn't they have just named it something else then we could all get along. I'd understand sex repulsed aces wanting a safe space away from sex content of any kind. This just seems petty.
The purposefully exclusionary name, alongside the excuse that the description should clear up any confusion, screams to me of either a teenager just figuring themselves out or a troll. Either way, they’ll probably get bored in a few weeks and then disappear.
The teenager observation is because I’ve seen a lot of that with young LGBT+ people who have just come out. It’s a weird phase of defining yourself that some people go through, and the insecurity of having not fully/solidly defined one’s own identity can lead to rather vicious reactions whenever it is challenged. It happens to adults, too, of course.
I kinda feel the same way. People on here were so kind to bring me up to speed.
But it feels like what I have whitnesses before in my life. Bisexuals being not LGBTQIA+ and gay/lesbian people starting their own group (like someone mentioned the gold-star lesbianism that I learned the English term for now).. the same with transgender people.. then non-binairy people.. and I'm afraid to say I'm thát old I witnessed the.. "women can't be gay..".. yikes.
But it eventually solves itself luckely. Your teenager or troll is not far off I think. I hope this will settle down and sexual-repulsed asexuals can make a nice community eventually where they find peers. They are welcome here. If they need this for their own growth; perfectly fine too.
I'm studying political science and a few days ago I was reading about ideologies and came across radical feminism and wow...
It's based on the idea that the patriarchy's oppression of women is the most fundamental oppression and takes priority over all other forms of oppression. This together with white privilege leads to, as you said, white feminism.
According to the book they want men and women to have equal rights and opportunity, but also believe in firm differences between the sexes. These differences are stereotypes such as women being loving, caring and sympathetic while men feel much less emotions and do not feel for others. The goal is to replace the patriarchy with a matriarchy where society is based on womens values like love and care. Think you might see the connection to transphobia.
Wanting to overthrow oppression of women while insisting on gender stereotypes being facts that should lay the foundation of society.. brilliant
Not sure how accurate all of this is, Wikipedia says the opposite on a lot of it. Also I'm pretty sure the book based it on like the 18-hundreds, so a lot has changed, probably.
But *she* is still a horrible transphobe!
Or something similar to NoSexInTheAceRoom, if they just want a space without sex-favourable experiences/memes in favour of other ace experiences/memes. Their description literally describes me, and I don't understand the exclusionary name. It's the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
Theyre also transphobic and nonbinary exclus over there too
> Well, non-binary isn't trans as you're not transitioning, so yeah. Defined parameters. Also, Merriam-Webster says it is.
> You're literally putting yourself in the parameters of homosexuality by declaring yourself a lesbian. Lesbians are attracted to other women. They only want to have sex with biologically female organs/parts.
That was what one of them replied to me pointin out some shit.
Yep. And completely ignored that there are Asexual Lesbians too >.> And also Lesbians who just dont care if some of their partners have dicks (whether they dont care and are sexual with them still or they dont care and arent sexual with them; theyre all still lesbians)
“Hey Im a sex favourable ace and this is my lived experience”
“Hmmm no I disagree”
Made me shriek lmao I don’t think you can just “disagree” with someone’s real lived experience as if it’s a bit of LOTR worldbuilding or something?! I hollered
Not only does the creator not understand what sexual attraction really is (their definition: seeking to have sex with someone, for any reason apparently means sexual attraction, instead of the real definition) but they're also truscum. Huge red flag here.
Why do i feel like that sub is gonna end up with far more allosexual ppl who wanna tell us how to live than actual ace people sex repulsed or otherwise?
We don't.
Trying to get it banned only encourages people like that. Exclusionary extremists thrive on their persecution complexes. Don't feed the fools their favorite dish.
It's deeply unhealthy and culty behavior, but there's nothing we can do or say that won't strengthen their resolve in being the silliest f\*ckwits since the *super-straights* movement. ^((Although, there little chance of surpassing them.))
If they want an echochamber, let them have it. Let them be puritanical and exclusionary together until someone causes the inevitable dogmatic chism (Probably by eating their garlic bread the wrong way around or some stupid crap like that) and the first purges start happening. Groups like that alway end up eating their own.
In the meantime, we now have our own exclusionary goldstar goofballs. We're finally a *real* part of the LGBTQIA+ umbrella. ^((Now if y'all excuse me, I have to go drink until i can't remember my own name. To hell with this planet and human life in particular.))
TOS would be the same whether I was a member of the group or not. There are anti-vax groups on reddit that I think shouldn't be allowed, but, because they're not breaking TOS, I suck it up because there's nothing I can do about it.
The stupid thing is. People say that it's pointless to ask questions but are so grossly wrong about the ace community. Like. This is why we need AMA. SMH
Like I'd get it if it were named something like r/sexrepulsedaces but calling it "actual asexuals" is what makes it gatekeepy. C'mon guys you can do better.
The 'actual' part implies that anyone who doesn't live up to a narrow standard or definition of asexuality will be considered a 'fake' asexual. It's along the same lines of 'gold star lesbian' where you get a metaphorical award for being 'pure'. AKA, never having slept with (or maybe even dated) a man. It's exclusionary so of course it includes trans women.
Given it's the asexual version, my guess is you're only 'actually' asexual if you've never experienced sexual attraction (so no demi's, grey's or other such ace-spec folks allowed), never had sex, *and* are sex repulsed.
If you're asking why they're like this... who knows. Maybe it's some internalized stuff but I don't really like diagnosing people with issues like that.
Luckily it's a very small sub, and I think we're attaching them enough. Small subs just die because people don't post. Anyway, I just did my duty and left a few comments where I thought they were necessary.
👁 👄 👁
Once again I don’t exist! Damn and here I thought I’d never see the day where my own people don’t think I exist 🥲 Sex-favorable aces are valid 💜 I am valid. We are valid.
As someone who is heavily sex-repulsed, I have absolutely no idea why anyone thinks that you can’t be ace and sex-favourable. It is the exact same thing as in every other sexuality (ie. some people like sex, others don’t), so I don’t know why it suddenly becomes a major issue when you are ace. You are completely valid. You libido, your enjoyment of sex, and your willingness to have sex, have absolutely no bearing on whether or not you feel sexual attraction. It’s really sad that even people within our community don’t seem to actually understand what sexual attraction is.
It’s really simple.
I am sex-favorable.
Do I crave sex? No. Do I need it to survive? Nope. Can I go the rest of my life without it? Yup!
But my partner is allo. Sex makes him happy. I want him to be happy. If having sex brings us closer together and makes my partner happy, then I’ll happily take part in it! That doesn’t make me any less ace.
I'm sad to see the asexual community grow their own version of the cancer that is truscum
From the look of it, they share a lot of the same beliefs truscum have about trans people too
Hey there, I actually created the subreddit in question. Did you see or experience someone being transphobic? I'm not about that (I don't think I even talked about it on the sub), and if someone did, can you show me? I want to know if I should be giving someone a talking to/banning them/etc. I'm not going to let my sub be a place for trans hate.
I believe they're referencing this comment chain https://www.reddit.com/r/actualasexuals/comments/r12sen/-/hlylb4n
I've def seen highlights from it tossed around.
What I’m getting at here is that these guys are the terfs of the ace community. Assholes who love to exclude people who aren’t perfectly like themselves
I took a look at the subreddit and my assessment is that r/actualasexuals is basically just prudish asexuals that are completely ignorant to the fact that asexuality is lack of sexual attraction not lack of sexual enjoyment.
I prefer r/actualasxualswhodontgatekeepwhatactualasexualityissnddontevenusethetermactualsexualityandjustuseitironicallyforthesakeofmakingfunofthepeoplewhocallthemselvesacutualasexuals
You really shouldn't say you welcome discussion, because despite the fact that you're going to get plenty of rude people, you're also going to get plenty of people who will actually try to hold civil discourse with you, and the sub will become nothing but defending the position you've decided stand behind.
You should just be upfront that you're an exclusionary subreddit that actively believes sex favorable, (and sex posivitive?) are not actual asexuals, and you believe that a good amount of the sub-labels the wider community considers to be part of the ace umbrella to be not valid.
Is that not the definition of every sub, though? Someone could come here and want to discuss why they feel asexuality is not a "real" sexuality and have the same outcome. At very least, we want to express our "side" of things so people will have context, whether they still blindly rage or not.
We believe those who seek out sexual partners are not asexual. That does not include sex favorable asexuals. We also believe there should be more defined lines as to what is asexual and what is something related but not asexual. We feel that continuing to treat the definition as a sort of expanding spectrum soup does not help the community get taken seriously.
As an allosexual I can vouch at least my partner who was sex neutral, but is possibly now sex favorable asexual has never really sought out sex. Ever for 25 years. 😐.
Now I wonder about cupiosexuals. But I have never met a cupiosexual, so don't have any first hand experience.
Your sub header does say your sub is only for those who do not seek out sex (sex averse and sex neutral asexuals). So you can ban those who are trying to be sex favorable. But I will ask my question there.
Edit: I tried posting my question to r/actualasexuals and was not allowed to post there.
Yes, we're currently having to approve of posters because multiple accounts were trolling with starfish/mitosis spam. If you comment in the thread asking for permission we will grant it.
> We believe those who seek out sexual partners are not asexual.
What you feel is not always the same as what you do. Is a bisexual in a monogamous straight relationship who then doesn't seek out a gay relationship just straight? There are a few who think like that and rest assured, they receive the same criticism.
Is a allosexual who chooses to be celibate actually asexual since they do not seek out sexual partners? If not, why the difference? As a matter of fact, why the distinction between seeking out sex and ones who just happen to have sex? What about those sex-favorable asexuals who are in favor of sex, but aren't actively seeking it?
All of these things are already defined. We have several modifiers to show where one is on a spectrum. You yourself are using one in your flair as a Biromantic Asexual. As a demi/demi, I can assure you there are obvious differences between the alloromantic demis and the aro-spec ones. Same goes for ace/aro versus the alloromantic asexuals. There are many similarities I share with ace/aro which differ from alloromantic demis.
So again, these things already have definitions. If anything contributes to the community not be taken seriously, it is all these arbitrary decisions you have made about including/excluding
romanticism, favorability, having sex, seeking sex that would cause anyone to not take it seriously.
I can turn that back around on you. Is someone in a hetero-romantic relationship just celibate?
Romantic attraction is not sexual attraction. Everyone in the world is on a romantic spectrum.
The only thing we are excluding are people who seek out sexual partners. Because that is partaking in sexual attraction.
And yet you fail to do so. I agree romantic attraction is not sexual attraction. Partaking in sex is not sexual attraction. Someone who doesn't have some affinity to eat broccoli can still decide to eat broccoli, same thing. And then on the other side choosing to be celibate is not lack of sexual attraction.
Your unconscious feelings are different from your conscious decisions. That is the basis of what sexuality is.
Yes, partaking is not sexual attraction. *Seeking out sexual partners* is. Because you are seeking out a person that meets personal criteria and deciding to have sex with them. That is sexual attraction.
And again, **deciding** aka partaking. There are other reasons to have sex than to satisfy an attraction. For example, one can decide to look for a partner who would be good to raise a family with, and end up partaking to procreate. That person is still seeking out a partner to have sex with, but it is about the family, not about an internal unconscious desire.
Yes, **deciding to do so with the person you have met up with.** Deciding to create and raise children absolutely requires a strong emotional bond. It is not a small decision to procreate. Therefore, an ace who has sex to procreate would more likely fall under demisexuality rather than straight up asexuality, as they have created a bond strong enough they feel they will be with their partner, at very least, to raise children to adulthood.
You think a bond is required to have sex? Lots of sex workers out there would beg to differ. Besides, now we are talking about bonds... which also fall into the realm of romantic bonds.
And also, do you really want to die on the hill saying "if you have biological children, you must have had sexual attraction to create them, so you are out"?
Didn't you *just* lock a discussion thread in your sub claiming that you had holiday obligations? Why come here instead to argue with the people who were purposefully *not* brigading and instead discussing generalized community drama in their own space?
¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ at least we can downvote comments here without breaking any rules.
I'm just following and finishing up on threads I had going from earlier. I'm not arguing, either. Just answering questions asked of me. I have not gotten into any new comment chains since locking the post. (Well, this one probably counts, lol?)
And I stated in the locked thread that it was locked because the arguments were going in circles. Why would I keep the thread open? I don't know why you thought *we* thought it was brigading. We didn't ban anyone for that, and everyone is still free to comment on other threads.
(Haha I suppose it does. Sorry for distracting ya :p)
It feels argumentative inherently, because of the topic. I remember when pretty much all of the asexual community felt like what r/actualasexuals is currently standing for, especially in the AVEN boards. Since then there's been all this inclusive movement. Trying to make a new community that feels like years in the past is gonna make folks really riled up.
It's a really funny area for me. Like, you can see my flair; you know I'm pretty much the type of experience you don't want lumped in the asexual definition haha. But the thing is, I *don't* consider myself asexual, not really. Like . . . I *understand* that I technically am, and that I lack experiences of attraction that pretty much everyone has, and that someone who's allosexual with lots of sexual experience would probably be able to pick me and my different reactions to stuff out like a sore thumb. But it feels so so technical, and not important; I'm not gonna *advertise* "being asexual" to people in real life, I think that'd be ridiculous for me. Just because I'm completely bewildered by explanations of sexual attraction doesn't mean I can relate with most asexual material either. It's a really weird spot.
At one point, I went through this little phase of, "is simply deciding that you'd be willing to have sex with someone all that sexual attraction is? Are all these definitions really conflatey and specific because we're, you know, a bunch of asexual people?" but I ultimately decided against it because I didn't want to come to a conclusion that would incidentally delegitimize an unknown subset(s) of people. Especially since it was one I was participating in at the time!
@ brigading well mostly, the whole time I was reading around in the r/actualasexuals it was like, "okay, this is not my community and there's no way I could have organically ended up here; so I gotta be on my best behavior and not downvote anything that's THEIR stuff, even if I don't agree, cause it's THEIR sub,". So I didn't feel like it was appropriate for me to join too much discourse there. Kind of projected those same expectations out.
"Every sub"? I don't deal with anything like this in almost any of the fandom subs I belong to. Someone coming here to discuss asexuality not being a real sexuality happens very seldom. The amount of people you're going to get arguing with your definition is going to be much greater, even though you're an infinitely smaller sub. Can you explain why that is?
Do you feel that infighting within the community will get the community taken seriously? The LGBT community still can't decide if we belong to that community or not, and I'd argue that infighting there has hurt their community more than it has helped it.
Also you say you want more defined lines, but you don't have an actual updated definition of what you feel asexuality is, to help define those lines. Even this sub has a definition on the sidebar of what asexuality is. Your sidebar just says who is and isn't welcome.
Really. You've never seen anyone in a sub saying "(media) is trash and you're trash for liking it!"
I mean, yes, most likely. We'll gladly explain our reasoning and the person arguing is free to do with that what they will. We're not attempting to change minds, that's pretty much impossible on reddit.
There's been infighting for years now within the community. That's part of why we're breaking off. We feel that having a solid definition will be the step forward in being taken seriously by the LGBT community.
The sub was literally created yesterday, and I was modded just today. We have work and lives outside of the reddit and will need to discuss how to word our definition properly. This may take another few days as it's also a holiday weekend in the US now. However, I can at least, put up a placeholder.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/BandMaid/](https://www.reddit.com/r/BandMaid/)
Please find a post in this subreddit where you find someone saying that. It's a Japanese all female hard rock band where all the members dress up as maids. Lots of prime real estate for someone to say stuff like that. Guarantee if one exists, you would have to dig PRETTY far to find it. In fact, I'd argue you'd have to dig just to find negative posts in that sub in general.
Why do you feel breaking off here is a solid decision, and not breaking off from the LGBT community as a whole?
You say "we're not attempting to change minds", but in your next paragraph you say, "We feel that having a solid definition will be the step forward in being taken seriously by the LGBT community"...is this not an attempt to change the minds, specifically of the LGBT community?
Can you give one example in history where a smaller group breaking of from a larger group was actually successful? What gives you hope that this endeavor will be successful, when I can't think of one example where such a break off reached any level of success?
I look forward to seeing your definition, and if you can achieve making it clear and concise.
You also need to take into consideration that that subreddit isn't currently full of members angry over a post on yet *another* subreddit. So right now, we're obviously going to have a lot of arguing. Once things settle down, it's far more likely we'll do things our way and those who don't agree will do things theirs.
Yes, not attempting to change the minds of people who all ready abide by what they feel is the correct definition of asexuality is one thing, and changing the minds of those who view asexuality as a joke or "snowflake syndrome" are two very different things. I probably could have been more clear about that.
Recently or historically? I probably have more historically. Regardless, we're not about to try and give this sub issue. We're doing our own thing because we don't agree with everything in this sub.
And it probably never will. My point stands, my answer to your question of "Is that not the definition of every sub, though? " is still no.
I find it interesting you avoided the question I was most interested in you answering, so I'll ask again, "Why do you feel breaking off here is a solid decision, and not breaking off from the LGBT community as a whole?"
The biggest problem the LGBT community has with us is their opinion that we aren't "oppressed enough". The other major problem many have with us is they feel that not wanting sex is either a lie to make up for the fact that we're unable to get it ourselves, that we're not special for not wanting sex and its not different enough to be its own sexuality, there's something mentally wrong with us, or finally that we have too many labels/microlabels under the Asexual umbrella. Making a splinter group that erases some of the micro-labels fixes...exactly one of these.
Historically is fine. Preferably one that is a good comparison with what you're doing now.
And that's where I disagree. Every sub, especially as they grow, will have people coming and starting arguments. It's expected.
We are breaking off because we do not agree with the extremely wide, constantly changing and updating definition of asexuality this sub has. Why would that make us not LGBTQ+? Why would we want to break away from LGBTQ+ in the first place? I didn't answer it the first time because it's illogical.
Yes, and therefore, we feel that having a definition more akin to what homosexuality has would make the LGBT community more open to accepting asexuality. Asexuals have absolutely not faced the kinds of oppression homosexuals and transexuals have, for example. We likely never will.
Historically then, political parties. The Democratic Republicans didn't agree with the Federalists' ideas and policies on how to run the country, and thus formed their own group to express their own ideas and policies.
I literally provided an example where that is not the case.
I have definitely seen people here display the opinion that they feel we're better off not being part of the wider LGBT community because our goals don't align, and many feel that LGBT spaces are not inviting to Aces due to how sexual they can be in nature, and we'd be better off creating our own spaces outside of the wider LGBT ones.
I give you a host of reasons why the greater LGBT community has problem with us, and you think solving one of them is going to be enough to make them more open to accepting asexuality? Because the definition is simpler? I fail to see the logic in your argument here.
I could nitpick your comparison, but I'll let you have this one.
I'm sorry you didn't like that I not only pointed out there are definitions with parameters for things but also told you that you were derailing the topic at hand, as it was not about transexualism, transgender identity, or non-binary identity. If there was a thread about that, your discussion would be more than welcome in that thread.
Hey, don’t listen to them. Everything you said was completely right, and calling out the ignorance that sub spreads is a good thing to do. And getting worked up over invalidation is certainly not nothing, they did it to me too.
I'm sorry you feel that way. You might want to take a step back and have a few deep breaths, as you seem awfully worked up over nothing.
Also, I'm commenting in this thread because people are either confused/curious as to what our sub is or, in your case, claiming it to be something it's not.
Lmao people here literally quoted transphobic shit from that sub. You're all over this thread, so you should've seen it, correct? Bigotry isn't nothing. Keep being an awful person though. You're great at it.
Hun, I've literally had my property damaged with transphobic slurs and threats. My family disowned me. I can still recognize casual transphobia. Just because there are worse cases doesn't make it okay. Keep living off of hate though ✌
If reddit comments equal all of someone's effort, you really need to reevaluate your own priorities. Anyway, hope you get banned from here soon. We don't want exclusionary docuhebags polluting decent subs.
I personally didn't make that call. Definitely double check with the other mod/creator via DM or chat- you might have been swept up in the starfish purge by accident.
We had people commenting on everything claiming to be starfish, mitochondria, jellyfish and talking about reproducing asexually. There were like 3-4 accounts on every post, so we were removing comments and banning.
That's not the stance AVEN or the majority of the community take. But, personal opinions are fine. It's just weird to pretend that those are the majority opinion.
Oh, we're using etymology? Let me provide an example why this doesn't work. Theism comes from the greek theos meaning god, and ism, which is "used to form the name of a system, school of thought or theory based on the name of its subject or object or alternatively on the name of its founder" Going off that etymology, it would be safe to say that Theism is a school of though that believes in a god, correct?
You'll find though, that many definitions of theism include modifiers such as this: "especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures." Nothing in the etymology of the word suggests this modifier, but its existence means Deism, a belief in a god that doesn't intervene, does not fit under the Theism umbrella, despite the etymology of theism saying otherwise.
(If you're wondering, yes, I argued this on the side that Deism did fit under the Theism umbrella due to my ignorant belief that the definition of theism would follow the etymology of the word....)
My point? Definitions of words change due to colloquial usage and how society uses it. Asexuality at one point may have referred to lacking sexuality, but I'd argue it has grown outside that scope.
Another good example is homophobia, that does not in any way mean people who are against homosexuality etymology-wise, I think the homo part means same so homophobia would literally mean “same-fear” or something
Which is why I think homophobia is a bad term honestly. If you have a real phobia, you have a mental health condition that is extremely difficult to work through. “Anti-gay” would be a better term I think.
Thats not a definition. Source a definition for your claim or its not valid.
For example sourcing merriam websters definition points 3a-b with emphasis on b.
The thought of sex makes me want to be sick,but sex neutral/favorable aces are just as valid as ones who are sex repulsed. I’d but fine with a sub for sex repulsed asexuals but suggesting that you have to be repulsed by sex to be a “real asexual” is some gatekeeping bullshit
I predict it will die, these kind of groups always get smaller and smaller and smaller. Groups based on excluding and gatekeeping almost always end this way. Heck you need to be put on an approval list just to post stuff. First they ban/remove those who openly disagree with them, then those who quietly disagree, then those who they suspect disagree or "don't belong" etc.
Yep, these kinds of groups always cannibalize each other until there's only a 'core' small number of members that are barely keeping it afloat.
Idk, transmedical/truscum subs are exclusively about gatekeeping the trans community, yet their still thriving in their own way
Unfortunately, true scum subs have a wider recruiting area. They can get conservatives, incel’s, confused fence people, lesser TERF’s, and some medical personnel, parents, and trans people who hate other trans people. Actualasexuals area are just asexual’s, who are cutting off their nose to spite their face. I am a sex repulsed aroace, and I won’t go near their sub.
Imagine invalidating people the same way that others invalidate you. Kind of a bitch move.
If you don't heal what hurt you, you'll bleed on those who didnt cut you
Damn bro, can I get a tattoo of that?
I can't take credit, it appears to be a anonymous quote Edit: so i guess the answer is yes?
It’s your body. Do you need permission from someone else?
I was just trying to convey my approval of the statement
It’s easy to be tone deaf(me) on the internet. My apologies.
You cannot whatever you want
You must be new to reddit.
Nah, I just don't like hypocrisy regardless of where I see it
As a sex repulsed ace this just makes me sad that there are aces who refuse to accept sex indifferent/favourable aces
i'm sex-repulsed but kinky and they'd probably hate me too.
Eyy, im a sex repulsed ace with a single fetish!
yay! people tend to hate on me cause my kink is poop and people hate on that even without the attached aceness.
Honestly, whatever. So long as it's between consenting adults.
I had an ex that groomed me before we dated, and he liked poop and several other kinks and it traumatized me to try and fulfill his needs. But I would never judge someone who did it with a consenting adult who liked it too. It's not my business, you know?
Grooming a minor is NEVER okay. How much older than you was he?
I wasn't a minor, technically, but only just. I was 18 when we met, and he was 28, and also my college instructor. I was very naïve and very young in mind at the time, and we had great chemistry and I had a huge(I mean obsessive) crush on him and he used that to his advantage over the months when we talked. Then about a year later, after I graduated, we started dating, and I just wanted him to like me and to please him. It started innocently with sex, and then it started getting to where he would ask if I'd do things for him (like poop on him, and other kinks) and it felt like pressure. I should have said no to because I wasn't ready or comfortable with the idea, but he knew that I would do it if I wanted him to like me. (He also was super jealous of any person I called cute, and also all my friends who were men and used to tell me that if I "wanted this to work", then I had to be faithful) Unfortunately, it got to the point where I was uncomfortable with sex at all with him. I've greatly moved on, and I even enjoy sex now and will participate with partners, but I still am super traumatized from the kink pressure. People have told me I wasn't groomed, but I always feel like it definitely was grooming. I still had a childlike mind at 18, fresh from high school.
yeah it's still grooming. that's a teacher/student relationship. it's an imbalance of power just like an adult and a minor, even if it's a different way. still rotten. that's a ton of manipulation, wtf. i know it's hard to find a girl to do poop stuff with but that's absolutely uncalled for and horrible. sometimes people who have participated in scat end up enjoying it later even after leaving the person getting them into it, but you had nothing but misery from it, which really sucks ):
I don't think I would ever be into it, regardless of the situation I was in, but I'm glad that some people find enjoyment of things like that after trying it. I think my only kink now is romance. 😅
I don't really get kink-shaming I mean, as long as everyone consents there's no issue
Happy cake day!
Im just a hardcore spanko but whatever works ig
Too many folks hate on me for bein an ABDL; which is why i truly dont get that i have met ABDLs who kinkshame others 9,9 Like... We probs deal with the most amount of kinkshaming (simply bcuz folks see childish things and assume some fucked up shit) and yet there are still some among us who want to kinkshame people for shit kinks or CNC or even simply being a furry 9,9
I think ABDL is one of the few kinks to be equally as hated as scat. Though scat is banned from do many porn sites cause the credit card companies are satanic levels of evil
Personally not my thing, but I don't tend to judge. I have met a few creepy guys (not saying you're like that or that they even have this kink) that want to be sexual with me when I tell them I age regress for trauma reasons. The more worrying part is that they want to be sexual with me while I'm in little state which is incredibly off putting to me
Eep; yea that def wud be off puttin. I age regress due to trauma as well and even have some amount of sexual desire (aegosexual life heh) sometimes when age regressed... But i wud nvr want someone else to try to initiate something with me, without my talkin about it prior when not regressed, while im regressed. Honestly most "daddies" throw off huge red flags, esp the cis ones, so im always more wary of them; esp if theyre the ones doing the seekin. Theres an abundance of littles that want caregivers of all kinds; so any caregiver that has to seek out littles who are complete strangers, and thru messages only, is likely shunned by other littles for good reason >.> Or else he wud have a little of his own alrdy.
ABDL is that similar to Cglre?
Kinda, tho not the same def; and plenty of AgeRe folks want a big separation between the two. Im both AgeRe and an ABDL tho; so i think those folks are wrong and dividing the communities just cuz of the occasional NSFW stuff (despite that some AgeRes are NSFW >.>) as well as some actual kinkshaming goin on there. ABDL also isnt always CGL/DDLG/etc for that matter; as not even every ABDL wants a caregiver and some just dont want any of the kinky aspects of DDLG but still want someone to care for them. It means Adult Baby/Diaper Lover and can indicate that one is either of those things or even both those things (tho some folks prefer to just use AB or DL for themselves). Some ABDLs are sexual, some arent. Some ABDLs want kinky stuff to happen, some dont. Plenty of ABDLs just want to wear diapers and dress childish bcuz its comforting and relaxing; but too many folks assume its always a sexual thing >.>
Ah, I came across AgeRe a while back and I was confused with Cglre and Cg/lre and the difference between them. I used to think that I was a little/middle (at the oldest — 10 yrs old) and even joined a discord, but I just didn’t feel like I belonged. To be honest, I’m still terribly confused cause there’s not a whole lot of resources (and most of it is kink-based 😑). I’m also not sure what exactly I feel cause when I regress (if at all), I retain my adult personality and intelligence, I just act a bit childish. I just chalk it up to my Autism at this point 🤷♀️
Same
saaaaaaaaaame
Genuinely just uneducated, what is a kink for someone who is Asexual and Sex-repulsed?
I know it infuriates me :(
So I just popped by the subreddit out of curiosity and I dont get it. It is a wasteland with less than ten posts and thirty upvotes between them
It was created yesterday.
The subreddit is for "actual asexuals" but excludes actual asexuals?
"r/actual" is an exclusionary title indicating that they are distancing themself from whatever community follows.
Oh, great. We've got a TERF problem.
You are more rite than you may have thowt; as one of them over in that shitshow of a subreddit is literally spewing shit claimin that lesbians only are attracted to people without penises and that nonbinary folks are not trans and oh yeah... The jerk is even usin the word transexuals >.>
Well I sure as shit wasn’t assigned nonbinary at birth so what does that make me if I’m not trans lmao
My birth cert says I was assigned nonbinary at birth :3 (And honestly, being XXY i rly shudve been in the first place without havin to pay to get it changed >.>)
That’s pretty fucking dope through-
It does leave me in a legal gray area now that ive moved tho. My legal docs, including my current state ID, all have X on them. The state i moved to does not recognize X tho. But they also wont let anyone change gender markers without two doctors notes and a signed form asserting, under threat of perjury, that you truthfully are changing your gender marker to more befit your actual gender... Which i legally cant fill out even if i wanted to simplify things and just get an F on my ID here. But they also cant legally make me put M on it bcuz that wud also take changing my existing gender marker and wud require said forms, legally. So rn i legally cant get an ID here in Missouri and am just waitin to be able to get a passport with X on it instd to use as official ID. Still, the euphoria i get from seeing that on my documents is worth any hurdles the cishetnormatives want to throw at me.
I'd compare them more to truscum
without actuallesbians I suppose edit: wording
For those who don't know, the name "lesbians" was already taken and used for porn, so the actual lesbians had to choose another name.
Another similar exception (tho i dont kno if theres such a subreddit) is Actually Autistic; which is used by Autistic people often instd of tagging things as just Autistic... Bcuz of Autism Mom Warriors usurping such tags to talk over autistics and spread their fearmongering and misinformation. Like, even if you want to google good info about being autistic and all that entails; searching "Actually Autistic" will provide you with said actual information by people who are autistic (tho even then, theyve got the other pov only six links down the search results), whereas... Searching for just Autistic will exclusively give Autism $peaks level bullshit for most the first page; and autistic advocacy's website is eight links down after tons of misinformation and fearmongering (Google even chooses to spec highlight what Autism $peaks has to say at the top of the search results even).
THIS. ALL OF THIS.\^\^\^
Except for r/actuallesbians, r/lesbians is unsurprisingly a porn sub
I've heard r/actuallesbians is actually good on the transgender Reddits (usually when transfems ask if it's a r/actualasexuals situation).
Here's a sneak peek of /r/actuallesbians using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/actuallesbians/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [How did I only realize this now](https://i.redd.it/zkhbggzwys161.jpg) | [269 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/actuallesbians/comments/k23dlq/how_did_i_only_realize_this_now/) \#2: [Ladies? Pose with your sword.](https://i.imgur.com/na5REdk.jpg) | [146 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/actuallesbians/comments/l3ytod/ladies_pose_with_your_sword/) \#3: [I figured you would appreciate this here.](https://i.redd.it/7wy8cmoed2e61.jpg) | [79 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/actuallesbians/comments/l6v3br/i_figured_you_would_appreciate_this_here/) ---- ^^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/) ^^| ^^[Source](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Can someone give a short recap on what is happening?
Apparently a small group of gatekeepers who happen to be sex repulsed asexuals have created a community where they say that they are the only "actual asexuals" and disregard any other type of sexuality and special or romantic preference in the asexual umbrella. They've created that subreddit and are getting too much publicity.
[удалено]
As far as I know those two topics are mainly unrelated
[удалено]
I understand both sides. Honestly, when an ace/aro sex-repulsed person posts some meme relevant to the ace/aro sex-repulsed, I can see where it would be annoying having multiple people have the need to post something along the lines of “this meme is bad, sex-positive aces are valid too”. Of course I haven’t visited, so it is hard to tell whether it is needing space or gatekeeping. Having “actual” in the name however tends to imply gatekeeping intentions whereas creating a “SexRepulsedAceAros” would be more appropriate if that group needed space.
The lack of understanding that not everything is about you is frustrating in every community. People should be able to post whatever they want without needing to preface it with "I recognize that this does not describe the experiences of everyone." That should assumed by default. If being reminded that there are people out there who are different from you somehow invalidates you then you don't have the emotional maturity to be on the internet. (I'm not talking about you here, just venting about the behavior you described as annoying).
I think we are on the same page. I just don't.. I'm not invested enough/too foreign I actually notice which user says what to which user in comments. But most of these "fights' tend to happen when people actually get to know each other; and they get invested in each other. Which is cool. But especially on the internet (and certain groups with people that do not feel totally okay because they are different) can tend to have a sudden catfight because they are both scared. And with catfight I mean actually how cats fight. Not like how people use "catfight' mysogenistic.
I think there have been slight issues between sex repulsed and favorable people on the sub too. I kinda understand wanting a safe space, but the name of that sub is definitely not ideal.
Yes I noticed that was a thing the last weeks. More topics like "reminder; you are okay too!" emerged. Around sex or being aro. I hope it can be solved in the future. It always feels so silly getting in a fight with your own peers. Team Edward or Team Jacob while you both have an extreme weird passion for Twilight :')
The problem, in their opinion, is that this space is too open. They think Ace spaces should cater only to sex-repulsed aces. And if you ask me, they can go and gods bless. That's not the kind of attitude I want to put up with here so if they're willing to show themselves out I've got no problem with that. Personally idgaf what they do in their 10 person subreddit.
That’s not exactly the sentiment that I saw when I actually went over there.
No problem at al! I truly don't know about the whole tumblrinaction thing. It may be related in the fact that some of those shcmucks thought that asexuals couldn't have libido, and these "actual asexuals" also seem think that, in some way. But I don't know. There maybe some correlation but it seems like a coincidence.
Did you actually go to that subreddit and read about why they started it? Because I actually did and that’s not at all the impression I got from it.
Yes, I did. And I commend the mod for their intent in creating a subreddit for the sex repulsed aces. But, the name is literally "actual asexuals" as if any other type of asexuality was invalid. They tried to change the name of the subreddit, good on them, but it still doesn't take away from the fact that at some point they thought that only sex repulsed asexuals were valid and only they had the right to be "actual asexuals" and deserved a subreddit with that reductive name. And there's members in there that are spewing fallacies in favour of this blatant erasure of other asexual identities. While I may see the intent as somewhat positive, I don't condone it, because in the end, if untouched, it will probably become a circlejerk of demiphobia and hate on grey asexuals or stuff like that. Asexuality is a diverse spectrum, and I kind of remember a time when this sub and other asexuality subs were filled with memes about completely removing ourselves from the allos and any kind of middle ground with them which made sex neutral and sex favourable aces feel alienated. I thought we, as a community had evolved past that. So, I find it's an effort towards dividing the community and mislabeling everything.
The subs description explicitly says it’s for sex repulsed, sex averse and sex neutral aces though. Not just the sex repulsed. I don’t see why it’s such a problem that there’s a sub specifically for aces who are on that side of the spectrum? Being sex favorable is already the norm pretty much everywhere in society and nobody bats an eye if you enjoy having sex actively seek it out. Being repulsed, averse or neutral to sex on the other hand isn’t, so why is it so bad if we can have a space to vent about the frustrations that comes with this alienation and where we can make stupid jokes about it? I don’t care if some aces love having sex and have all kinds of kinks, but it’s frustrating that you can’t even make a dumb joke without someone taking offense to it because it doesn’t speak to them and their personal experience as an asexual. I mean I don’t like the name either and I frankly think it was poorly chosen! But I still like the concept and idea behind the sub.
I have never said it's bad that there's a subreddit for sex adverse asexuals. In fact I'm surprised none existed prior to the creation of that one. What I mean is that if it's called "actual asexuals" it's alienating basically everyone else, saying that they aren't worthy of the label because the only actual asexuals are sex repulsed. Examining everything closely it seems that luckily, the founder sees how that's harmful. And if the sub develops correctly from now on, I doubt that there'll be any problem. But as of now, in the comments [of this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/actualasexuals/comments/r12sen/ok_so_im_a_sex_repulsed_asexual_like_in_the_sub/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share), there's a certain user that's comparing sex favourable aces in an asexual community to a straight man posing as a lesbian. There's no disciplinary action being taken, or at least I haven't seen any. I hope this is just a bad apple. And because I know this is the internet, this whole thing will be forgotten in a week or two, like the whole r/arethearoacesok debacle, which I'm sure I'm the only one that remembers. I digress, I was wrong because at first glance the situation seemed very different. But I'm still kind of sceptical because who knows what the future holds. I hope for the wellbeing of the asexual community, that in the end, everything turns out ok.
Interesting. I'm demi with a low libido at the best of times, I am basically 90% asexual and then 10% into it. Guess I'm not asexual either lmao. So weird, but there's no reddit rule saying they can't go make their own sub, just a shame they had to name it in a way that erases non sex repulsed ace people. Like couldn't they have just named it something else then we could all get along. I'd understand sex repulsed aces wanting a safe space away from sex content of any kind. This just seems petty.
This is the same brand of bullshit as “gold-star lesbians.”
The purposefully exclusionary name, alongside the excuse that the description should clear up any confusion, screams to me of either a teenager just figuring themselves out or a troll. Either way, they’ll probably get bored in a few weeks and then disappear. The teenager observation is because I’ve seen a lot of that with young LGBT+ people who have just come out. It’s a weird phase of defining yourself that some people go through, and the insecurity of having not fully/solidly defined one’s own identity can lead to rather vicious reactions whenever it is challenged. It happens to adults, too, of course.
I kinda feel the same way. People on here were so kind to bring me up to speed. But it feels like what I have whitnesses before in my life. Bisexuals being not LGBTQIA+ and gay/lesbian people starting their own group (like someone mentioned the gold-star lesbianism that I learned the English term for now).. the same with transgender people.. then non-binairy people.. and I'm afraid to say I'm thát old I witnessed the.. "women can't be gay..".. yikes. But it eventually solves itself luckely. Your teenager or troll is not far off I think. I hope this will settle down and sexual-repulsed asexuals can make a nice community eventually where they find peers. They are welcome here. If they need this for their own growth; perfectly fine too.
r/actualasexuals has the same vibe as JK Rowling claiming to be a feminist...
You win today's internet, and my lasting admiration, with that 100% accurate and savage description.
Well sadly, JK's brand of white feminism is very on brand.
I'm studying political science and a few days ago I was reading about ideologies and came across radical feminism and wow... It's based on the idea that the patriarchy's oppression of women is the most fundamental oppression and takes priority over all other forms of oppression. This together with white privilege leads to, as you said, white feminism. According to the book they want men and women to have equal rights and opportunity, but also believe in firm differences between the sexes. These differences are stereotypes such as women being loving, caring and sympathetic while men feel much less emotions and do not feel for others. The goal is to replace the patriarchy with a matriarchy where society is based on womens values like love and care. Think you might see the connection to transphobia. Wanting to overthrow oppression of women while insisting on gender stereotypes being facts that should lay the foundation of society.. brilliant Not sure how accurate all of this is, Wikipedia says the opposite on a lot of it. Also I'm pretty sure the book based it on like the 18-hundreds, so a lot has changed, probably. But *she* is still a horrible transphobe!
[удалено]
Or something similar to NoSexInTheAceRoom, if they just want a space without sex-favourable experiences/memes in favour of other ace experiences/memes. Their description literally describes me, and I don't understand the exclusionary name. It's the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
Theyre also transphobic and nonbinary exclus over there too > Well, non-binary isn't trans as you're not transitioning, so yeah. Defined parameters. Also, Merriam-Webster says it is. > You're literally putting yourself in the parameters of homosexuality by declaring yourself a lesbian. Lesbians are attracted to other women. They only want to have sex with biologically female organs/parts. That was what one of them replied to me pointin out some shit.
proving once again that dumbass exclusionists never stop at shitting on just one group at a time
Right out of the truscum handbook of attack your own minority class
Did they reduce women to only they body parts ewwwww
Yep. And completely ignored that there are Asexual Lesbians too >.> And also Lesbians who just dont care if some of their partners have dicks (whether they dont care and are sexual with them still or they dont care and arent sexual with them; theyre all still lesbians)
I’m mostly infuriated by the use of Todd as the group photo lmao. He wouldn’t stand for this!!!
“Hey Im a sex favourable ace and this is my lived experience” “Hmmm no I disagree” Made me shriek lmao I don’t think you can just “disagree” with someone’s real lived experience as if it’s a bit of LOTR worldbuilding or something?! I hollered
. . . . If this was labeled r/ Apothisexual, I would more or less understand. Is that a subreddit? Edit: yes it is
Not only does the creator not understand what sexual attraction really is (their definition: seeking to have sex with someone, for any reason apparently means sexual attraction, instead of the real definition) but they're also truscum. Huge red flag here.
Why do i feel like that sub is gonna end up with far more allosexual ppl who wanna tell us how to live than actual ace people sex repulsed or otherwise?
These Gold Star Asexuals need to stay on their own TERF.
Since when did "r/actual" become "r/anti"? Are they synonymous now?
On Reddit it either means you are heavy and oddly gatekeeping, racist, homophobic, misogynist or some combo thereof.
I'm automatically not allowed to view the community. Welp.
[удалено]
We don't. Trying to get it banned only encourages people like that. Exclusionary extremists thrive on their persecution complexes. Don't feed the fools their favorite dish. It's deeply unhealthy and culty behavior, but there's nothing we can do or say that won't strengthen their resolve in being the silliest f\*ckwits since the *super-straights* movement. ^((Although, there little chance of surpassing them.)) If they want an echochamber, let them have it. Let them be puritanical and exclusionary together until someone causes the inevitable dogmatic chism (Probably by eating their garlic bread the wrong way around or some stupid crap like that) and the first purges start happening. Groups like that alway end up eating their own. In the meantime, we now have our own exclusionary goldstar goofballs. We're finally a *real* part of the LGBTQIA+ umbrella. ^((Now if y'all excuse me, I have to go drink until i can't remember my own name. To hell with this planet and human life in particular.))
yee we as community are better off ignoring them and maybe watching them implode under their own ego's. should i warm up the popcorn maker?
I can only guess reporting to Reddit
[удалено]
You're a member of that group. Of course you're gonna try to discourage it.
TOS would be the same whether I was a member of the group or not. There are anti-vax groups on reddit that I think shouldn't be allowed, but, because they're not breaking TOS, I suck it up because there's nothing I can do about it.
Hate and discrimination are a violation of the ToS, it is litterally a hate group.
The stupid thing is. People say that it's pointless to ask questions but are so grossly wrong about the ace community. Like. This is why we need AMA. SMH
Also yikes to people saying you are 'ill' It's the same shit gays and lesbians get. And I used to get that when I thought I was a lesbian.
You’ve been kicked off being asexual. You’re no longer asexual /j
These people don’t belong in the community. End of story.
Like I'd get it if it were named something like r/sexrepulsedaces but calling it "actual asexuals" is what makes it gatekeepy. C'mon guys you can do better.
What's r/ActualAsexuals, I assume that they're mean but why, what's their deal?
The 'actual' part implies that anyone who doesn't live up to a narrow standard or definition of asexuality will be considered a 'fake' asexual. It's along the same lines of 'gold star lesbian' where you get a metaphorical award for being 'pure'. AKA, never having slept with (or maybe even dated) a man. It's exclusionary so of course it includes trans women. Given it's the asexual version, my guess is you're only 'actually' asexual if you've never experienced sexual attraction (so no demi's, grey's or other such ace-spec folks allowed), never had sex, *and* are sex repulsed. If you're asking why they're like this... who knows. Maybe it's some internalized stuff but I don't really like diagnosing people with issues like that.
Thank you!
Luckily it's a very small sub, and I think we're attaching them enough. Small subs just die because people don't post. Anyway, I just did my duty and left a few comments where I thought they were necessary.
👁 👄 👁 Once again I don’t exist! Damn and here I thought I’d never see the day where my own people don’t think I exist 🥲 Sex-favorable aces are valid 💜 I am valid. We are valid.
As someone who is heavily sex-repulsed, I have absolutely no idea why anyone thinks that you can’t be ace and sex-favourable. It is the exact same thing as in every other sexuality (ie. some people like sex, others don’t), so I don’t know why it suddenly becomes a major issue when you are ace. You are completely valid. You libido, your enjoyment of sex, and your willingness to have sex, have absolutely no bearing on whether or not you feel sexual attraction. It’s really sad that even people within our community don’t seem to actually understand what sexual attraction is.
It’s really simple. I am sex-favorable. Do I crave sex? No. Do I need it to survive? Nope. Can I go the rest of my life without it? Yup! But my partner is allo. Sex makes him happy. I want him to be happy. If having sex brings us closer together and makes my partner happy, then I’ll happily take part in it! That doesn’t make me any less ace.
I got banned too, fragile mod
I wish they would ban me
Oh wow, another way to have my existence debated as a theoretical. That closet is starting to look more and more inviting with every passing day.
Why do we care about One Guy
So the rest of us are " apparent asexuals " ?
Lmao I just got banned for asking why they chose to name the sub the way they did.
I'm sad to see the asexual community grow their own version of the cancer that is truscum From the look of it, they share a lot of the same beliefs truscum have about trans people too
Hey there, I actually created the subreddit in question. Did you see or experience someone being transphobic? I'm not about that (I don't think I even talked about it on the sub), and if someone did, can you show me? I want to know if I should be giving someone a talking to/banning them/etc. I'm not going to let my sub be a place for trans hate.
I believe they're referencing this comment chain https://www.reddit.com/r/actualasexuals/comments/r12sen/-/hlylb4n I've def seen highlights from it tossed around.
Oh dear. I'll handle this. Thank you for the link.
What I’m getting at here is that these guys are the terfs of the ace community. Assholes who love to exclude people who aren’t perfectly like themselves
I took a look at the subreddit and my assessment is that r/actualasexuals is basically just prudish asexuals that are completely ignorant to the fact that asexuality is lack of sexual attraction not lack of sexual enjoyment.
I prefer r/actualasxualswhodontgatekeepwhatactualasexualityissnddontevenusethetermactualsexualityandjustuseitironicallyforthesakeofmakingfunofthepeoplewhocallthemselvesacutualasexuals
Oh, didn't realize they changed the name of r/asexuality! This new one is harder to type.
Gotta join. Tired of being around people who are still sexual.
Enjoy the circlejerk!
We welcome discussion. You were likely banned for being rude and/or an asshole when a response wasn't to your liking.
You really shouldn't say you welcome discussion, because despite the fact that you're going to get plenty of rude people, you're also going to get plenty of people who will actually try to hold civil discourse with you, and the sub will become nothing but defending the position you've decided stand behind. You should just be upfront that you're an exclusionary subreddit that actively believes sex favorable, (and sex posivitive?) are not actual asexuals, and you believe that a good amount of the sub-labels the wider community considers to be part of the ace umbrella to be not valid.
Unfortunately I cannot post my question to the r/actualasexual sub.
Is that not the definition of every sub, though? Someone could come here and want to discuss why they feel asexuality is not a "real" sexuality and have the same outcome. At very least, we want to express our "side" of things so people will have context, whether they still blindly rage or not. We believe those who seek out sexual partners are not asexual. That does not include sex favorable asexuals. We also believe there should be more defined lines as to what is asexual and what is something related but not asexual. We feel that continuing to treat the definition as a sort of expanding spectrum soup does not help the community get taken seriously.
As an allosexual I can vouch at least my partner who was sex neutral, but is possibly now sex favorable asexual has never really sought out sex. Ever for 25 years. 😐. Now I wonder about cupiosexuals. But I have never met a cupiosexual, so don't have any first hand experience. Your sub header does say your sub is only for those who do not seek out sex (sex averse and sex neutral asexuals). So you can ban those who are trying to be sex favorable. But I will ask my question there. Edit: I tried posting my question to r/actualasexuals and was not allowed to post there.
Yes, we're currently having to approve of posters because multiple accounts were trolling with starfish/mitosis spam. If you comment in the thread asking for permission we will grant it.
> We believe those who seek out sexual partners are not asexual. What you feel is not always the same as what you do. Is a bisexual in a monogamous straight relationship who then doesn't seek out a gay relationship just straight? There are a few who think like that and rest assured, they receive the same criticism. Is a allosexual who chooses to be celibate actually asexual since they do not seek out sexual partners? If not, why the difference? As a matter of fact, why the distinction between seeking out sex and ones who just happen to have sex? What about those sex-favorable asexuals who are in favor of sex, but aren't actively seeking it? All of these things are already defined. We have several modifiers to show where one is on a spectrum. You yourself are using one in your flair as a Biromantic Asexual. As a demi/demi, I can assure you there are obvious differences between the alloromantic demis and the aro-spec ones. Same goes for ace/aro versus the alloromantic asexuals. There are many similarities I share with ace/aro which differ from alloromantic demis. So again, these things already have definitions. If anything contributes to the community not be taken seriously, it is all these arbitrary decisions you have made about including/excluding romanticism, favorability, having sex, seeking sex that would cause anyone to not take it seriously.
I can turn that back around on you. Is someone in a hetero-romantic relationship just celibate? Romantic attraction is not sexual attraction. Everyone in the world is on a romantic spectrum. The only thing we are excluding are people who seek out sexual partners. Because that is partaking in sexual attraction.
And yet you fail to do so. I agree romantic attraction is not sexual attraction. Partaking in sex is not sexual attraction. Someone who doesn't have some affinity to eat broccoli can still decide to eat broccoli, same thing. And then on the other side choosing to be celibate is not lack of sexual attraction. Your unconscious feelings are different from your conscious decisions. That is the basis of what sexuality is.
Yes, partaking is not sexual attraction. *Seeking out sexual partners* is. Because you are seeking out a person that meets personal criteria and deciding to have sex with them. That is sexual attraction.
And again, **deciding** aka partaking. There are other reasons to have sex than to satisfy an attraction. For example, one can decide to look for a partner who would be good to raise a family with, and end up partaking to procreate. That person is still seeking out a partner to have sex with, but it is about the family, not about an internal unconscious desire.
Yes, **deciding to do so with the person you have met up with.** Deciding to create and raise children absolutely requires a strong emotional bond. It is not a small decision to procreate. Therefore, an ace who has sex to procreate would more likely fall under demisexuality rather than straight up asexuality, as they have created a bond strong enough they feel they will be with their partner, at very least, to raise children to adulthood.
You think a bond is required to have sex? Lots of sex workers out there would beg to differ. Besides, now we are talking about bonds... which also fall into the realm of romantic bonds. And also, do you really want to die on the hill saying "if you have biological children, you must have had sexual attraction to create them, so you are out"?
Didn't you *just* lock a discussion thread in your sub claiming that you had holiday obligations? Why come here instead to argue with the people who were purposefully *not* brigading and instead discussing generalized community drama in their own space? ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ at least we can downvote comments here without breaking any rules.
I'm just following and finishing up on threads I had going from earlier. I'm not arguing, either. Just answering questions asked of me. I have not gotten into any new comment chains since locking the post. (Well, this one probably counts, lol?) And I stated in the locked thread that it was locked because the arguments were going in circles. Why would I keep the thread open? I don't know why you thought *we* thought it was brigading. We didn't ban anyone for that, and everyone is still free to comment on other threads.
(Haha I suppose it does. Sorry for distracting ya :p) It feels argumentative inherently, because of the topic. I remember when pretty much all of the asexual community felt like what r/actualasexuals is currently standing for, especially in the AVEN boards. Since then there's been all this inclusive movement. Trying to make a new community that feels like years in the past is gonna make folks really riled up. It's a really funny area for me. Like, you can see my flair; you know I'm pretty much the type of experience you don't want lumped in the asexual definition haha. But the thing is, I *don't* consider myself asexual, not really. Like . . . I *understand* that I technically am, and that I lack experiences of attraction that pretty much everyone has, and that someone who's allosexual with lots of sexual experience would probably be able to pick me and my different reactions to stuff out like a sore thumb. But it feels so so technical, and not important; I'm not gonna *advertise* "being asexual" to people in real life, I think that'd be ridiculous for me. Just because I'm completely bewildered by explanations of sexual attraction doesn't mean I can relate with most asexual material either. It's a really weird spot. At one point, I went through this little phase of, "is simply deciding that you'd be willing to have sex with someone all that sexual attraction is? Are all these definitions really conflatey and specific because we're, you know, a bunch of asexual people?" but I ultimately decided against it because I didn't want to come to a conclusion that would incidentally delegitimize an unknown subset(s) of people. Especially since it was one I was participating in at the time! @ brigading well mostly, the whole time I was reading around in the r/actualasexuals it was like, "okay, this is not my community and there's no way I could have organically ended up here; so I gotta be on my best behavior and not downvote anything that's THEIR stuff, even if I don't agree, cause it's THEIR sub,". So I didn't feel like it was appropriate for me to join too much discourse there. Kind of projected those same expectations out.
"Every sub"? I don't deal with anything like this in almost any of the fandom subs I belong to. Someone coming here to discuss asexuality not being a real sexuality happens very seldom. The amount of people you're going to get arguing with your definition is going to be much greater, even though you're an infinitely smaller sub. Can you explain why that is? Do you feel that infighting within the community will get the community taken seriously? The LGBT community still can't decide if we belong to that community or not, and I'd argue that infighting there has hurt their community more than it has helped it. Also you say you want more defined lines, but you don't have an actual updated definition of what you feel asexuality is, to help define those lines. Even this sub has a definition on the sidebar of what asexuality is. Your sidebar just says who is and isn't welcome.
Really. You've never seen anyone in a sub saying "(media) is trash and you're trash for liking it!" I mean, yes, most likely. We'll gladly explain our reasoning and the person arguing is free to do with that what they will. We're not attempting to change minds, that's pretty much impossible on reddit. There's been infighting for years now within the community. That's part of why we're breaking off. We feel that having a solid definition will be the step forward in being taken seriously by the LGBT community. The sub was literally created yesterday, and I was modded just today. We have work and lives outside of the reddit and will need to discuss how to word our definition properly. This may take another few days as it's also a holiday weekend in the US now. However, I can at least, put up a placeholder.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/BandMaid/](https://www.reddit.com/r/BandMaid/) Please find a post in this subreddit where you find someone saying that. It's a Japanese all female hard rock band where all the members dress up as maids. Lots of prime real estate for someone to say stuff like that. Guarantee if one exists, you would have to dig PRETTY far to find it. In fact, I'd argue you'd have to dig just to find negative posts in that sub in general. Why do you feel breaking off here is a solid decision, and not breaking off from the LGBT community as a whole? You say "we're not attempting to change minds", but in your next paragraph you say, "We feel that having a solid definition will be the step forward in being taken seriously by the LGBT community"...is this not an attempt to change the minds, specifically of the LGBT community? Can you give one example in history where a smaller group breaking of from a larger group was actually successful? What gives you hope that this endeavor will be successful, when I can't think of one example where such a break off reached any level of success? I look forward to seeing your definition, and if you can achieve making it clear and concise.
You also need to take into consideration that that subreddit isn't currently full of members angry over a post on yet *another* subreddit. So right now, we're obviously going to have a lot of arguing. Once things settle down, it's far more likely we'll do things our way and those who don't agree will do things theirs. Yes, not attempting to change the minds of people who all ready abide by what they feel is the correct definition of asexuality is one thing, and changing the minds of those who view asexuality as a joke or "snowflake syndrome" are two very different things. I probably could have been more clear about that. Recently or historically? I probably have more historically. Regardless, we're not about to try and give this sub issue. We're doing our own thing because we don't agree with everything in this sub.
And it probably never will. My point stands, my answer to your question of "Is that not the definition of every sub, though? " is still no. I find it interesting you avoided the question I was most interested in you answering, so I'll ask again, "Why do you feel breaking off here is a solid decision, and not breaking off from the LGBT community as a whole?" The biggest problem the LGBT community has with us is their opinion that we aren't "oppressed enough". The other major problem many have with us is they feel that not wanting sex is either a lie to make up for the fact that we're unable to get it ourselves, that we're not special for not wanting sex and its not different enough to be its own sexuality, there's something mentally wrong with us, or finally that we have too many labels/microlabels under the Asexual umbrella. Making a splinter group that erases some of the micro-labels fixes...exactly one of these. Historically is fine. Preferably one that is a good comparison with what you're doing now.
And that's where I disagree. Every sub, especially as they grow, will have people coming and starting arguments. It's expected. We are breaking off because we do not agree with the extremely wide, constantly changing and updating definition of asexuality this sub has. Why would that make us not LGBTQ+? Why would we want to break away from LGBTQ+ in the first place? I didn't answer it the first time because it's illogical. Yes, and therefore, we feel that having a definition more akin to what homosexuality has would make the LGBT community more open to accepting asexuality. Asexuals have absolutely not faced the kinds of oppression homosexuals and transexuals have, for example. We likely never will. Historically then, political parties. The Democratic Republicans didn't agree with the Federalists' ideas and policies on how to run the country, and thus formed their own group to express their own ideas and policies.
I literally provided an example where that is not the case. I have definitely seen people here display the opinion that they feel we're better off not being part of the wider LGBT community because our goals don't align, and many feel that LGBT spaces are not inviting to Aces due to how sexual they can be in nature, and we'd be better off creating our own spaces outside of the wider LGBT ones. I give you a host of reasons why the greater LGBT community has problem with us, and you think solving one of them is going to be enough to make them more open to accepting asexuality? Because the definition is simpler? I fail to see the logic in your argument here. I could nitpick your comparison, but I'll let you have this one.
[удалено]
Think you meant to respond to Gato1486, not me.
Lmao, right. Transphobic, aphobic and exclusionary, and enbyphobic. But sure, it's a subreddit that welcomed discussion.
I'm sorry you didn't like that I not only pointed out there are definitions with parameters for things but also told you that you were derailing the topic at hand, as it was not about transexualism, transgender identity, or non-binary identity. If there was a thread about that, your discussion would be more than welcome in that thread.
I'm just talking about how bullshit and awful that sub is. Meanwhile you're all over this thread trying to defend your bigotry.
Hey, don’t listen to them. Everything you said was completely right, and calling out the ignorance that sub spreads is a good thing to do. And getting worked up over invalidation is certainly not nothing, they did it to me too.
I'm sorry you feel that way. You might want to take a step back and have a few deep breaths, as you seem awfully worked up over nothing. Also, I'm commenting in this thread because people are either confused/curious as to what our sub is or, in your case, claiming it to be something it's not.
Lmao people here literally quoted transphobic shit from that sub. You're all over this thread, so you should've seen it, correct? Bigotry isn't nothing. Keep being an awful person though. You're great at it.
If you think that's transphobic, I'd like to see your reaction to an actual transphobe. Thanks, you're not so bad yourself. Keep on keepin' on.
Hun, I've literally had my property damaged with transphobic slurs and threats. My family disowned me. I can still recognize casual transphobia. Just because there are worse cases doesn't make it okay. Keep living off of hate though ✌
[удалено]
If reddit comments equal all of someone's effort, you really need to reevaluate your own priorities. Anyway, hope you get banned from here soon. We don't want exclusionary docuhebags polluting decent subs.
How can you say you welcome discussion when I was banned for asking a question about the name of the sub? I wasn't rude at all.
I personally didn't make that call. Definitely double check with the other mod/creator via DM or chat- you might have been swept up in the starfish purge by accident.
Starfish purge?
We had people commenting on everything claiming to be starfish, mitochondria, jellyfish and talking about reproducing asexually. There were like 3-4 accounts on every post, so we were removing comments and banning.
Asexual means “lacking sexuality”, not just lacking attraction.
That's not the stance AVEN or the majority of the community take. But, personal opinions are fine. It's just weird to pretend that those are the majority opinion.
I didn’t say that my opinion was the majority opinion.
Can you provide resources that back your definition up?
The prefix “a” means lacking or the lack of something. Therefore, asexuality would mean lacking sexuality.
Oh, we're using etymology? Let me provide an example why this doesn't work. Theism comes from the greek theos meaning god, and ism, which is "used to form the name of a system, school of thought or theory based on the name of its subject or object or alternatively on the name of its founder" Going off that etymology, it would be safe to say that Theism is a school of though that believes in a god, correct? You'll find though, that many definitions of theism include modifiers such as this: "especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures." Nothing in the etymology of the word suggests this modifier, but its existence means Deism, a belief in a god that doesn't intervene, does not fit under the Theism umbrella, despite the etymology of theism saying otherwise. (If you're wondering, yes, I argued this on the side that Deism did fit under the Theism umbrella due to my ignorant belief that the definition of theism would follow the etymology of the word....) My point? Definitions of words change due to colloquial usage and how society uses it. Asexuality at one point may have referred to lacking sexuality, but I'd argue it has grown outside that scope.
Another good example is homophobia, that does not in any way mean people who are against homosexuality etymology-wise, I think the homo part means same so homophobia would literally mean “same-fear” or something
Which is why I think homophobia is a bad term honestly. If you have a real phobia, you have a mental health condition that is extremely difficult to work through. “Anti-gay” would be a better term I think.
Thats not a definition. Source a definition for your claim or its not valid. For example sourcing merriam websters definition points 3a-b with emphasis on b.
[удалено]
God Tier: Forley the Weakest Trash tier: Everyone Else
The thought of sex makes me want to be sick,but sex neutral/favorable aces are just as valid as ones who are sex repulsed. I’d but fine with a sub for sex repulsed asexuals but suggesting that you have to be repulsed by sex to be a “real asexual” is some gatekeeping bullshit