LGB ErasureThe only possible explanation for being gay and not LGBTQT++++ is: Republican Nazism!

submitted by ChunkeeguyTeam T*RF Fuck Yeah from reddit.com

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

view the rest of the comments →

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

I'm not sure it even makes sense for asexuals... although I would be curious to hear the perspective of asexual people here. It just seems like an "asexual and biromantic" person could be simply described as a touchy-feely person who has no preference regarding the sex of who they are physically affectionate with. Just my POV, idk.

[–]INeedSomeTimeAsexual Ally 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

According to this form of classification I am aromantic and asexual (so technically your stereotypical asexual) so I may not be able to answer that too well. I think the difference between sexless romance and friendship is a bit blurry. I guess you wouldn't kiss a friend though. Might be that asexual simply says they're comfortable with doing stuff like kissing with both sexes. Some only feel comfortable with doing it with the same sex as them or as the opposite one.

Since I am super clueless about romance and sex (I mean, not surprising lol) then I am not gonna try engaging in a discussion about romantic attraction. Traditionally romantic attraction is understood as platonic attraction and sexual attraction. In asexual community they define it as... platonic attraction with some extra but not sexual stuff? I mean I am not gonna critize it because it's not rare to find the same word meaning a bit different things depending on the place/context/culture. So I don't think it's a stretch that romantic attraction understood by asexuals will be different than romantic attraction defined by the rest of society. It even shows some of these fundamental differences between actual asexuals and the rest of population I assume.

But this is where I think the whole split attraction model should be used exclusively by asexuals. Because asexual romantic attraction(platonic+nonsexual extra) is different from typical romantic attraction (platonic+sexual).

[–]reluctant_commenter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Hmm, interesting. Thanks for sharing your perspective. I wonder what that "nonsexual extra" is supposed to mean, though, to asexuals who identify with this framework... I could be wrong but I am really wondering if it may actually just be a very very strong platonic bond, such that the "asexual romantic" person is deeply invested in the person they have "romantic but not sexual" attraction to. I say "just" to indicate the simplicity of the type of attraction; I do not mean to diminish the significance of that bond in any way. If anything, "friend" is too light and casual a word to describe the kind of incredibly deep platonic bond that two human beings can have. I guess what I am saying is, I wonder if some "romantic asexuals" are actually experiencing platonic affection but are put off by how much pop culture may dismiss and undervalue deep platonic relationships compared to sexual ones.

I think there is also a different subgroup of "romantic asexuals" who seem to be disgusted by or otherwise bothered by their sexual attraction. I know a number of gay/lesbian/bisexual people sometimes call themselves asexual before realizing and/or admitting that they are LGB, because the fact of their own sexual attraction bothers or unnerves them, or makes them ashamed. I have known at least one straight person like this, too.

[–]INeedSomeTimeAsexual Ally 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I definitely agree that the whole "romantic asexual" thing might be just a platonic bond but since people don't take friendships seriously even if such bonds can be as strong and a "breakup" hurts as much too, then they prefer to call it romantic so it could be seen as more significant.

If that's the case it's definitely rather sad, not gonna lie. I can form really strong platonic bonds (friendships) but since it's not romantic in the actual sense (lacks sexual component) then it isn't seen as important by society even if it is important for me. It is seen as okay to end or neglect such a relationship for the sake of romantic one because it's seen as higher priority.

So I can see why ace community is clingy towards using that wording. Even if it's technically wrong.

I also agree with the other subgroup of "romantic asexuals." I overall have the impression asexual label truly attracts confused people (or spicy straights) but since this is a some kind of entry to LGBT community as a whole then maybe with time they will grow more comfortable with being just gay or bi by observing others who are gay or bi there.