• Toes♀@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’ll need that explained more if you don’t mind.

      I thought the whole point of asexual was you’re just not interested in sex or anything relevant to that?

        • So, technically speaking, an ace individual cannot find someone sexy? They can have sex with someone for the sake of having sex, be it for bond or pleasure or whatnot, but from what you’re saying they do not show any sexual attraction towards any demographic of people?

        • I always feel a bit confused by the name, and wonder whether it will eventually see itself focused or broadened further. Sexuality is a spectrum, but “asexual” doesn’t seem, overtly, to include sexual desire given its literal meaning. I do love the names of the sub-identities associated with it, though. Each one’s intention and definition feels apparent and up to date.

          • Sexualities generally refer to sexual attraction. Homosexuals are sexually attracted to people have the same gender, not to repeating the same sex acts over and over and heterosexuality is about attraction to people with different genders, not to novelty sex acts. Pansexual does not mean attraction to pans not to literally everyone or everything. Taking the words too literally is not really useful.

            The differentiation of the ace/allo axis and the sex-favorable/sex-repulsed axis is particularly useful for aces, but it still has its use for allos as well (some people who have PTSD related to sexual activity may be sex repulsed, but can still experience sexual attraction). Lots of reasons to engage in and enjoy sex other than attraction to a specific person. Even allos often engage in sex with those whom they aren’t attracted to.

            The major ace subreddits regularly had issues with sex-favorable people complaining about all the posts being sex-negative and sex-repulsed people (sometime simultaneously) complaining about too much sex-positive content. Would be more amusing if those types of posts didn’t waste so much space…

            • SharkEatingBreakfast@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              I’m going to go out on a limb and feverently disagree with you here.

              This is like saying “yes, gay men can still have sex with women, as long as they’re not attracted to them. They’re still gay! It’s only a name!”

              It’s an awful precedent. The amount of times I’ve been asked if I’m “one of those asexuals who have sex” is gross. I identify as asexual because the name itself was… what I was. I can no longer safely identify with it now because it apparently includes everybody.

              Aces can have sex. Yes. There are caveats and disclaimers, but that’s not untrue. But there’s no such thing as “grey asexual”. That’s greysexual. It’s a separate thing.

              “Asexual” becoming “inclusive” to almost everything muddies the waters.

              I’m not against sex-favorability— I am against not being able to use the label to distinguish clear what I identify as anymore. It’s frustrating as hell.

              • hikaru755@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                This is like saying “yes, gay men can still have sex with women, as long as they’re not attracted to them. They’re still gay! It’s only a name!”

                Well… That’s correct, though. It might be a little easier to see if you consider the stereotype of male-on-male sex in prisons or militaries. Or, to keep closer to your example, a homosexual man having sex with a woman just to see what it’s like. Or because he’s closeted and trying to conform to social pressure. There are lots of reasons to have sex with someone, and having sex with people of a particular gender does not necessarily determine your sexuality, if sexual attraction is not one of them. I mean, sure, a gay man having sex with lots of women for apparently no other reason than that he likes it might be a little sus, but, like, you might just not know what’s going on.

                The amount of times I’ve been asked if I’m “one of those asexuals who have sex” is gross.

                I agree that that’s gross. But not because it implies that it’s valid for asexuals to like sex. It’s gross because that is a weirdly intimate detail to just ask casually about, regardless of your sexuality.

                because it apparently includes everybody.

                No. Only those who don’t feel sexual attraction towards others. Regardless of whether they like having sex or not.

                I am against not being able to use the label to distinguish clear what I identify as anymore

                If the “not having sex” part is important to you, what’s wrong with identifying as “sex-repulsed asexual” instead of just “asexual”? Sounds like that would already solve your problem

                • Makeshift@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Why do people whose sexual preference is “no” have to add an extra tag to what was already a perfectly useable term? Why overcomplicate?

                  Sexual people have decided that the term is now their term as well, when it was previously a safe way to say in one simple word “I’m not into sex at all”.

                  This is just bullying people away from their own term, because we’re after a way to clearly communicate no.

                  The examples you gave are of desperation and exploration. If you try sex and decided “Yes, I like this” then that’s not a sexual preference of “no”.

                  It’s not bad to be sexual. At all. In fact, most people are and THAT IS OKAY.

                  It is annoying (and harmful, because it encourages people to see “asexual” as “still likes sex for my sake!”) to take the word “asexual” and say “Yes asexual people still want sex!”

                  Let people who don’t like sex have one safe way to say it without being lumped in with a sex-enjoying group. Please. Why is it so important to take that away.

      • Fosheze@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Asexual ≠ Not Liking Sex

        Asexual = Not Feeling Sexual Attraction

        The way I usually describe it as an asexual guy is that there’s basically noone I find hot. That doesn’t mean they’re the opposite. It just like a sense I lack or a color I can’t see. I just don’t feel sexual attraction. But I do still like people based on other types of attraction and sex is still fun. For me platonic attraction is the main criteria for sexual partners. It’s just a fun activity between close friends like watching a movie or playing a board game.

        That’s not to say that there aren’t asexual people who don’t like sex because those people do exist, but how much a person likes sex is on the sex repulsion to sex favorable axis and is only tangentally related to asexuality.

        • stebo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          This is really helpful thank you

          Could you elaborate further on platonic attraction? The internet says a platonic relationship is a relationship without romance or sex. This seems to contradict with it being a criteria for sexual partners for you but maybe I’m confusing things

          • hikaru755@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            If you label a relationship as platonic, that usually serves to make it explicit that there’s no romance or sex going on, yes.

            When talking about attraction though, we’re in the context of the split attraction model (look that up if you’re interested), and there, platonic attraction is treated not as the opposite of sexual attraction, but as its own axis for basically saying “how much do I want this person to be my friend”, without saying anything about how much you’re sexually attracted to the person.

            If you want to properly reconcile the terms, think about it like this - a sexual/romantic relationship is one where the sexual/romantic attraction between the partners is the strongest force, whereas a platonic relationship is one where their platonic attraction is the strongest force.

            I personally actually have a hard time seeing platonic and romantic attraction as separate axes, for me, romantic attraction just feels like an extension, a stronger form of platonic attraction.

  • inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    She still is? Being in to link has nothing to do with being ace. She may not have sexual desire or want sexual contact (which are VERY different things) is entirely seperate from the dynamics of a kink relationship.

    Anon probably isn’t being malicious, but is definitely uniformed.