''Aromantic'' makes no sense.

submitted by [deleted] from self.LGBDropTheT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

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

I mean if you consider asexuality a symptom which doesn't require therapy or treatment then why consider it a disorder?

I was thinking more in the context of if they find asexuality to have ties to Autism or some other brain/developmental condition, it would be listed but if someone doesn't feel like they're missing out because of it, then why spend the resources on working on that?

I feel like people who are romantic asexuals aren't really asexuals.

Perhaps you're right, it's hard to find out because any scientific studies are treated as "aphobic" by a sizable amount of people who are in the "aspec community". I've seen them do petitions over drugs that were for people who have low libido and hate it, claiming it was conversion therapy.

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

I've seen them do petitions over drugs that were for people who have low libido and hate it, claiming it was conversion therapy.

Lol that's funny especially when they are the same people screaming like mantra that low libido isn't asexuality.

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

Hah, good catch-- that's another mindbending TQ+ contradiction.