fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #5752 ]

new to this thread

I honestly feel like it's gone too far in the other direction. I feel like lately I've seen so many people going overboard that just because they're asexual doesn't mean they don't like sex! I've seen a few people who identify as asexual say they actively WOULD NOT WANT a non-sexual relationship.

It confuses me, and it annoys me because it makes the label meaningless. The other sexuality labels have specific meanings and it bugs me that with asexual apparently anything goes. If you had someone claiming to be gay but saying they loved having sex with the opposite sex, no one would take them seriously because THAT'S NOT WHAT THAT WORD MEANS, but someone can be like "I'm asexual but I really love sex and can't imagine living without it" and everyone's like "yes, yes, that totally makes sense".

I get the whole "it's about sexual attraction and nothing else" argument, but it still doesn't even make sense to me. Again, if someone was like "I'm gay, but I love having sex with the opposite sex, but it doesn't count because I'm not sexually attracted to them" they would be rightly called out for it.

I don't know, it's all just confusing and contradictory and kind of hypocritical to me. Sorry for the rant, but lately I feel left out even in asexual communities and it sucks.

in all fairness, humans are a lot more complicated and more multifaceted than any label can ever truly cover.

Like the whole point of labels in the realm of sexuality is to help describe the bare basics of what a person can identify as, especially since in the case of the western world for the longest time its been heterosexuality = normal, and if you don't experience sexual attraction at all or in the 'correct way' then "something is deeply wrong with you".

For instance a straight guy can be into a woman - but it doesn't mean he'll be into every woman ever in existence because of personal preferences. He might be more into romance than he's into sex, or into sex more than romance - maybe there's an even amount or all or nothing in either sections. He might find out later in life that new guy Dave from the gym is pretty attractive and perhaps he wasn't as straight as he originally thought or it was just a passing fancy and no big deal after all.

Not being sexually attracted to anyone doesn't mean you can't ever be attracted to anyone ever - such as being drawn to someones personality or thinking that they look nice. And of course there's people who don't want any of the above and don't want a relationship.
'Asexuality' just happens to cover a common ground, but isn't going to cover every individual's experience into one word. And nowadays with more language to terminology readily available online people can either go into detail with multiple of labels to describe every aspect of themselves, or can be happy with just the one word.

Also being asexual doesn't mean you can't have sex at all - physically there's anatomy and sometimes a libido there. While there are those who are sex repulsed, there are those who are not.
In my experience idgaf. Sex doesn't gross me out but I haven't been that eager for it either, but while in the past I've been in relationships where there wasn't any sex, I've also been with partners who I have had sex with since I didn't mind going along with it and liked the intimacy part of it.

Even thought there are people who can fit perfectly into their designated boxes without a fuss, there will always be people who won't or can potentially fit into more than one.

For instance a straight guy can be into a woman - but it doesn't mean he'll be into every woman ever in existence because of personal preferences. He might be more into romance than he's into sex, or into sex more than romance - maybe there's an even amount or all or nothing in either sections.

Wouldn't he be considered (by some definitions) to be maybe asexual or aromantic in a couple of those examples, not straight? I feel like there are sort of two different versions/definitions of sexuality, and in one of them a guy like your examples could count as straight, and in the other he wouldn't, but that's a whole different (long) subject.

Sex doesn't gross me out but I haven't been that eager for it either, but while in the past I've been in relationships where there wasn't any sex, I've also been with partners who I have had sex with since I didn't mind going along with it and liked the intimacy part of it.

No, I get all that. I know plenty of asexual people will have sex with their partners because the partner wants to and they don't mind, and I totally understand that. What I don't get is people that will they say that they LOVE sex themselves, independent of what any partners want, and that they would actually turn down a non-sexual relationship because they love sex so much, but they still claim to be asexual. It just doesn't make sense to me.

"What I don't get is people that will they say that they LOVE sex themselves, independent of what any partners want, and that they would actually turn down a non-sexual relationship"

I will admit, that baffles me too.

If we're really going to nitpick - being mostly into romance while still somewhat being into sex doesn't necessarily eliminate any desire for sex completely - vice versa for mostly into sex than romance. I suppose if the guy in question felt like they had a place in the ace community - there's even more labels under the umbrella.
I know when I was first looking into asexuality I saw terms like demiromantic and demisexual or graysexual for anyone looking for a more accurate definition - so maybe they'd fall under that category? Or maybe they don't want the headache of having to specify the pristine perfect definition of themselves down to the bone because sometimes you get to the fun part where there are no more words that describes you exact experience and maybe just saying asexuality is easier - or of course there's people going through their lives completely unaware of any terminology that could apply to them or simply don't care. With billions of people on this planet there's going to be a lot of different kinds of people.

And as for that last part - I mean *shrug* each to ones own? Sex can feel nice for people with the organs and working libidos so maybe they enjoy the sensations of sex? I guess the only person who could explain this view of why they're asexual would be the person you're talking about and their point of view because all I can do from this end is speculate.
I'm personally not that invested in who does or doesn't get to be in the alphabet soup. Unless I'm actually getting to know them personally how another person identifies isn't my business - hell I'm still getting my head around understanding what aromanticism is, but just because I don't understand it doesn't mean its not a real thing.

*to continue from above

In my experience I didn't just have sex with my past partners because they wanted it - it did feel nice. The only thing I never understood was things like sexual fantasies or finding people sexually attractive; I suppose I like the feel of it and the hugs/kisses part along with it.

In my experience I didn't just have sex with my past partners because they wanted it - it did feel nice.

But if you met someone you really liked and would otherwise want a relationship with, and they didn't want sex, would that be a dealbreaker for you? I keep saying people who say it would be who also identify as asexual and that just doesn't make sense to me. (Sorry if you're also the person elsewhere in the thread who said that baffles them, it's hard to know when we're all anon!)

I was talking about this part:

maybe there's an even amount or all or nothing in either sections.

But yeah, I get people not feeling the need to be super specific with labels.

Honestly, I guess it's the fault of whoever decided the "official" definition of asexuality because I feel like it's too muddled and confusing where the other labels are more clear-cut. I don't know, I've barely gotten any sleep in four days and am probably not making much sense lol.

To may aces I know, including me, sex is just another activity, like bowling or knitting. One that some may find fun and enjoyable (or intensely off putting), but that doesn't mean that they're sexually attracted to their partner. And maybe they find the activity of sex enjoyable enough that it's a deal breaker for a relationship. Doesn't mean they're not ace. Still not physically attracted to their partner.

There's a spectrum between gay and straight, allo and ace, and none of it depends on what acts you DO, but what you FEEL. A gay man who marries a woman and has children with her but is not actually attracted to her (see: lots of Mormons) is STILL GAY.

maybe they find the activity of sex enjoyable enough that it's a deal breaker for a relationship. Doesn't mean they're not ace. Still not physically attracted to their partner.

See, that doesn't make sense to me. What does it matter that they're not sexually attracted to their partner if they still love having sex with them and would be sad if they couldn't?

none of it depends on what acts you DO, but what you FEEL. A gay man who marries a woman and has children with her but is not actually attracted to her (see: lots of Mormons) is STILL GAY.

Oh, I totally agree, maybe I didn't word it right. To me, it's like...what would you personally want in an ideal world where there were no external factors. In a perfect world, a gay man would be able to be with another man. He's only with a woman because of social/religious factors in your example, but he would still WANT to be with a man if he had the option, so he is gay.

If an asexual person has sex with their partner because the partner wants to and they don't mind and they find it a fun activity or whatever, sure, I get that. But in an ideal situation where they could have whatever they wanted, and they still say they personally want sex and couldn't live without it, independent of any other factors, and would actually turn down a relationship with someone who didn't want sex, but they still claim they're asexual...that's what I don't get.

Like the example of the gay person before. It's like if a man was in a situation where he COULD sleep with men and there were no external reasons why he couldn't, but HE chose to only sleep with women, and claimed that he LOVED sleeping with women, but wanted to still call himself gay. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I've never been able to get any sort of explanation for this other than "it's different" but no one seems to be able to explain why. If that's the case, I feel like asexuality shouldn't be considered a sexual orientation like straight/gay/bi/whatever, because the definition isn't consistent with the others.

I guess it's a difference between liking an activity enough that it's lack would be a deal breaker in a relationship (i.e. don't throw out my Marvel figurines, come to cons with me) and it being the foundation of a relationship (i.e. only dating people who also have Marvel figurines and love going to cons). Does that make more sense? I feel like aces can fall into the first one, but not the second. Having sex in a relationship could be a deal breaker, but the sex is not the foundation of it because there's no actual attraction there.

I don't know, I just feel like someone who feels like sex is important enough to them that the lack of it is a dealbreaker shouldn't be calling themselves asexual, but if I say that I get called a gatekeeper. I just feel like there's a double standard where asexuality is an "anything goes" kind of label based on an extremely nebulous concept that few people seem to be able to actually articulate, and when they do, it's sort of circular and contradictory. I don't know, I just feel like we're getting to a point where some words don't even seem to have a meaning anymore and it's frustrating.

DA than the one you've been talking to

As someone who doesn't quite know whether they are demisexual or ace-ish with with a kink, I think I can get how people can identify as ace but say they love sex. Though I will qualify all of the below with saying that I don't participate in ace communities so don't know how much all of this is already existing talking points.

It's not unusual for me not to feel attracted to my partner in that to feel turned on at all I need to focus on my kink. But that doesn't mean I don't want regular(ish) sex with my partner, since it gets us both off and brings us closer together romantically.

So I could see how someone could identify as ace because they see sex as essential in their romantic relationships to fill their libido and romantic needs.

But I also get the general criticism of 'is this specifically something that needs a label or is this just another way human sexual relationships commonly work?'

And as someone who has come to think they are on the ace/demi spectrum, I think the answer to that is that it's hard for anyone to know whether their experience of sex and attraction is the same as someone else's. Like, what I experience is normal for me and I have a het romantic relationship that involves sex so I fit into society 'normal' on those levels as well, so most of the time I don't think about labels.

But other times I come across a description of sexual attraction and it just bewilders me by how alien it is, and that's when I go through the 'am I normal? Have I ever experienced true sexual attraction? Or am I just kinky?' thought process. But I find it's almost impossible to know whether my experience is truly abnormal (in that being on the ace-spectrum is a significant minority), as I sometimes I think there could be many people who are on the ace-spectrum but think of themselves as being sexual just with a low libido, or as someone who just doesn't enjoy sex all that much.

Which kind of brings me back to the original discussion point - that I think I understand how there could be asexual people who love sex.

But that doesn't mean ace people who feel alienated by sexual norms or are sex-repulsed shouldn't have their own communities either.

Sorry for the mini-ramble.

ayrt

That all makes total sense, so thanks for your response!

I also get the general criticism of 'is this specifically something that needs a label or is this just another way human sexual relationships commonly work?'

I think that's the main thing I'm stuck on with trying to understand all this. I guess I feel like if someone loves sex and is in what society considers a "normal", sexual relationship, then what does it really matter whether or not they're "sexually attracted" (a term that I can never really find a concrete definition of anyway) to their partner? I never really thought of it the way you said it, but I think that's part of it...why does it necessarily need a label?

I sometimes I think there could be many people who are on the ace-spectrum but think of themselves as being sexual just with a low libido, or as someone who just doesn't enjoy sex all that much.

I sometimes wonder about that, too. I don't know, the more I think about it, the more I feel like maybe all the smaller/more-specific labels just make things more complicated. I do wish there was just a general label for "someone who is not interested in romantic and/or sexual relationships", though, because there doesn't seem to be one (since asexual and aromantic have the whole "attraction" definition attached) and why you're not interested seems kind of irrelevant to me, but I don't know, I feel like I'm in the minority on that.

I do wish there was just a general label for "someone who is not interested in romantic and/or sexual relationships", though, because there doesn't seem to be one (since asexual and aromantic have the whole "attraction" definition attached) and why you're not interested seems kind of irrelevant to me,

I think that's your problem, nonny. The why is VERY important. If you're not interested in a sexual relationship because of your medication, you're having a very different experience than someone who was born that way.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2022-10-07 01:37 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2022-10-06 17:34 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2022-10-07 01:42 (UTC) - Expand

It really is just incredibly, unbearably frustrating not knowing where you belong as an ace. I've never sought out ace-specific communities because of general queer spaces with aphobes telling me I should (because spiteful contrarianism and all that at the time) but seeing the trend going in the other direction and the general backlash from it makes me want to even less than before. I genuinely hate sharing my identity now because it just invites people to make broad assumptions about me, regardless of whether those people are queer or not. It doesn't feel like there's a "safe" way for me to say that I'm ace without people demanding to know whether I fall on the "sex-repulsed or not" binary (because of course it's a binary, I can't roll my eyes hard enough) and making a blanket judgment of me based on that, either of which boils down to "oh, you're one of THOSE asexuals." Because to everyone else, there's three kinds of aces: sex-repulsed, sex-loving, and asexuality isn't a thing.

Sex and gender is just too much goddamn work. It's too stressful. Why do we all have to focus so damn much on it? Can't we just focus on more interesting shit? I don't even care about being ace, I just want to pet cats and buy nice things.

Sex and gender is just too much goddamn work. It's too stressful.

Seriously. I feel like I spend so much time on all of this, and no matter what it's never going to make sense to me. I'm constantly trying to read about sexuality in an attempt to understand it all but everyone has a different opinion so I feel like I can never really get a handle on it and it's just so confusing and exhausting.

NAYRT
oh this. It's so stressful. Am a this or am that? What gender I am? How do you include talk about gender when your language and your history is wildly different from dominant English-speaking dialog?
What is even attraction? Am I gay? Maybe I am just ugly. Or just wrong? Or am I ace? Or straight? Is it bi? Why do we even care?

Yes, absolutely yes. I'm ace. I'm even pretty sure I'm aroace! But the last thing I want is to be interrogated into pinning down every last bit of my identity so people can make a judgement over me as to whether I'm genuine or pretending I'm a "special snowflake". Same goes for gender. I have books to read and a cat to feed, I don't have the time or energy for that conversation.

I've never engaged with the asexual (or greater queer) community for the precise reason in your second paragraph. Me not being interested in sex as about as relevant to my life as me not being interested in climbing Mount Everest -- why should I expend energy making this negative interest part of my life or personality?

(And agreed too with that first paragraph. My close friends/family know I'm asexual, but I mostly keep it under wraps for work and the internet because the assumptions are exhausting and I don't owe anyone an explanation.)

Society doesn't operate on the assumption that everyone in the world wants to and will climb Mount Everest because they believe it's an essential part of being human. Of course nobody has to make their sexuality part of their identity, but that's not a very apt comparison.

I think it has to do a bit with respectability politics in the LGBT+ community, and in the sub- ace and gay communities; and a bit to do with the histories of said communities; and a bit to do with the language people are simply used to using to define themselves based on their sexual attraction and drive. And an intersect of all these things.

A lot of the pushback by aces about how they can and do love sex is just that -- pushback. Not liking sex at all ever gets you called a prude and more, and I've even seen more times than I can count when someone would act like just the state of someone else existing as a person who doesn't enjoy sex is the same as being a slut-shamer. This makes the perfect condition for lots of neutral aces to overcompensate and be loud about loving sex to dispel the myth, when probably not as many of them actually do love sex.

On the gay side, it's always been expected that being gay means you hate sex with anyone of another gender, but some are people who loathe the act itself and some more loathe what it represents: the pressure to be "cured of gayness." Whether there's any functional difference depends on the person. If it weren't for all the historical baggage, there probably would be gay people who are open about liking sex with other genders while only being attracted to their own.

So. I think neither "being ace and loving sex with people" nor "being gay and loving sex with people-not-your-gender" are that common, but if it weren't for all the outside influences, the amount of ace and gay people it does apply to would be about the same.

The being loud/overcompensating thing isn't something I've really thought about, but it makes sense.

there probably would be gay people who are open about liking sex with other genders while only being attracted to their own

I think that kind of goes back to me being confused about what sexual attraction even IS. I feel like it's really hard to find a concrete definition, but the closest thing I've been able to find is "the desire to have sex with someone" = being sexually attracted to them. And if these gay people like having sex with other genders, then obviously they had the desire to have sex with them (assuming it's consensual, obviously), and if that's what sexual attraction means, then that means they WERE sexually attracted to them, which means they're obviously not gay.

It just doesn't make sense to me. Maybe there's some definition of sexual attraction that I've somehow never come across that's drastically different than anything I have found, that would make it make sense.

I don't know...sexuality is confusing lol.

DA

I think what you're possibly running into is not having experienced the difference?

This is probably a better metaphor for libido, but I still think it works. Think of it like eating and hunger - people eat when they're hungry. But they also eat for other reasons, including pleasure, and they don't need to be hungry to enjoy the act of eating.

But if a person who had never experienced hunger came across someone really enjoying food when they weren't hungry, they'd probably be confused - 'you're getting something out of this, surely your desire for food is hunger?' Because it's pretty difficult to imagine or describe what a physiological sensation feels like without a reference point.

For reference, I am working with the concept of sexual attraction as being when a person experiences sexual desire/arousal caused by stimuli from another person, be it looks, smell, taste, touch, voice, and the main source of their arousal/desire is the other person. I.e. even if someone also needs to be in the right mood or whatever else to have sex, and needs to work up to their orgasm, the other person is still the main source of their arousal.

Which is different from being aroused primarily by a fantasy or by physical stimulation, which you may happen to enjoy with another person. Or even if a close relationship with another person facilitates your arousal because you are able to relax with them/ they know how to physically stimulate you. This is different from the above definition, because the source of your arousal isn't the other person, even if they might be necessary for you to get off. If that makes sense.

I think general/ working definitions of sexual attraction seem to sometimes not be as specific as the above and/or be circular (i.e "Sexual attraction is the desire to have sex with someone" = not very helpful for anyone who is ace), probably to cater for different sexual experiences. I'm not an expert, just an internet random, but as someone who sometimes experiences sexual attraction as defined above, and sometimes does not, I think it is a pretty useful way to describe the difference, and one that seems to align with both allo and ace experiences I've come across.

(I also think that people who don't or very rarely experience physiological arousal based on sexual attraction to another person are probably on the ace spectrum, even if they don't identify as such. But that's another discussion.)

Sorry for replying late but this:

I think what you're possibly running into is not having experienced the difference?

is interesting to read! I'm fairly sure I'm aroace but still questioning because I've never been able to get a definition that made enough sense to me to say for sure. I've always gone with "well, if I can't say, then that must mean I don't experience" because if I had surely I would know, right?

And obviously I'm missing something, but if the person really likes sex, and it's not really about the other person, do they just do it because that person happens to be there? If someone isn't sexually attracted to anyone but they love sex, how do they seek out people to have sex with? Just the first person they come across that seems like an acceptable gender/age/whatever?

This is all probably further confirmation that I'm definitely asexual because none of it makes any sense at all to me lol.