you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]slushpilot 32 insightful - 18 fun32 insightful - 17 fun33 insightful - 18 fun -  (11 children)

Thanks for this... I think I finally figured it out.

"Asexual" just means "Virgin"

[–]censorshipment 18 insightful - 8 fun18 insightful - 7 fun19 insightful - 8 fun -  (5 children)

I used to think that, but I've learned from Reddit that women who aren't sexually interested in their partners have sex out of obligation. Not sure if they have low sex drives or they have (bad) partners who don't (try to) turn them on.

I once read a post where a woman said sex was very painful. She wasn't aroused, and her husband didn't use any lubricant. But she loved him, so she basically suffered for him. Yikes!

[–]INeedSomeTimeAsexual Ally 18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 0 fun19 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I swear I never understood these people forcing themselves to have sex they don't want to have and asexual communities basically praising it as a so normal.

[–]bopomofodojo 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Is painful sex not a medical condition, though? That's not "asexuality", that's painful sex. I agree with the Yikes though.

There is a certain irony in A being included with LGB though. For years, didn't atheists argue that "we don't hate god, we don't believe in him". Is then Ace, by that same logic, not a sexual orientation? Like T, why is it lumped in with LGB? Asexuality is just that - no sexual attraction. I don't doubt it exists. But is it part of LGB? No. Absence of sexual attraction is not a sexual orientation; it is the lack of sexual orientation. Is it a "sexual minority"? Sure, but it's just more letters to dilute the acronym and turn it into the "big tent" of "not vanilla". LGB meant something important before 50 other letters diluted it.

[–]INeedSomeTimeAsexual Ally 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'd argue that if LGB is more like a group of atypical sexualities then technically a lack of one can count. The problem is LGB part has completely different issues to deal with than asexuals, whose biggest "problem" is just feeling weird/bad for being completely disinterested and being basically loners. It doesn't compare to LGB problems, which are about the right for adoption and marriage + protection against homophobia including violent one. Meanwhile asexuals are just weirdos at most and nothing else. In the worst cases they may end up being suspected for being gay (this happens to me but fortunately the people, who do aren't homophobes) but LGB has been already fighting for protection against homophobia included misdirected one.

[–]Shales123 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Painful sex could be due to vaginismus or vulvodnya which are medical conditions, but it could also be women who experience friction due to lack of lubrication because they're not turned on. And women can also develop vaginismus after being pressured into sex

Personally I have vaginismus so if I tried penetrative sex it'd be painful, but I'm not asexual at all, I just can't do penetrative sex

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

Yeah, that's not good. I'm sure there are people for whom sex is not pleasurable for many different reasons, or even just because, and hence they don't want it in their relationship.

But then, if "asexual" just meant that, then it would actually mean something. It's when it starts being combined with modifiers like "hypersexual asexuals" etc. that you start to wonder—is someone just making this up because it's really a kid who hasn't actually had sex (and maybe is too young to really want to), but has instead just read all about it on the internet?

[–]TransspeciesUnicornI sexually identify as a mythical sparkly equine 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I think that's a bit of an oversimplification. I used to identify as asexual when I was younger, and I can tell you first hand that the hypersexual culture people (mainly liberals and kinksters) have created was a big part of the reason. Growing up, all my friends and a large chunk of other kids I knew were all pro-kink and "sex positive", which has really just become such a toxic culture. Like being seen as "sex negative" or a prude is practically seen as a character defect. And while kinksters say that "vanilla" is just a neutral term for non-kinksters, it really isn't. I've pretty much only ever heard my friends and other kinksters use "vanilla" as a condescending or mocking term.

It's actually downright disturbing, because I've even witnessed my friends mocking each other for not being into a particular kink. If one of them would be like "Yeah, I like [insert kink A here], [insert kink B here], but I'd never do [insert kink C here]." and the others would mock her like "wow you wouldn't do [insert kink C here] lol you're so vanilla". It's pretty sad to watch young women mocking each other for not wanting to do certain painful and/or degrading sex acts. But that was the norm for me growing up. I thought my friends represented the majority. I grew up listening to them talk about their kinky sex lives, and I thought I was the one who was abnormal and different. A lot of younger people are being made to think that not being into kink or not being promiscuous makes them abnormal, so it's no surprise to me that a lot of people are calling themselves "asexual". It's almost like asexuality is a shield that lets you opt out of the toxic "sex positive" culture. For a lot of young women these days, it's becoming more normal for them to be expected to like anal and choking and shit like that. If you're just a normal straight chick saying no to anal/choking/whatever, then you're just a boring vanilla prude who's probably secretly conservative and "sex negative". But if you're a "hetero-romantic asexual" chick saying no to anal/choking/whatever, then it's suddenly ok. It's just a normal and totally valid part of your queer asexual identity.

So while this stuff is annoying and ridiculous, I think a lot of these people probably deserve a bit more sympathy. Not all of them of course. Some of them are just id'ing as asexual to be special. And tbh any dude who calls himself a "hypersexual asexual" is probably just a creep who's trying to make himself seem less threatening. But I think there's also a lot of closeted LGB people and other just confused young people who legitimately think they're different from most other people.

[–]slushpilot 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I thought I was just making a goofy joke there by obviously oversimplifying, but that's a very insightful response. Thank you for writing it.

I do suspect that there are a lot of young people who haven't actually had sex before they start labelling themselves and identifying as something just to fit in, too. I would dismiss it as a harmless "what I'm going to be when I grow up" kind of fantasy—if only it didn't come with so many harmful ideas and expectations like the ones you describe.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you for this explanation. That really sucks. Where I come from (an older generation than yours, I'm guessing, which originated the term), "sex positive" was never supposed to be a weapon, just an affirmation, but put anything a little edgy or trendy or otherwise novel into the hands of young, insecure people and they can weaponize it. So a pushback / identity reorganization makes sense.

[–]soundsituationI myself was once a gay 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ahhh so asexual is to normal as superstraight is to straight!

[–]reluctant_commenter 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

At least to these people it does...