this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2024
582 points (96.6% liked)

Greentext

4410 readers
1285 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (6 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (5 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

Thank you.

Your last line is exactly where my frustrations lie.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

What's wrong with just saying "I don't want sex" or "I'm sex repulsed"? You make it sound like that's unsafe in some way, and I don't understand why, so I feel like I'm missing something here.

Nobody wants to take anything away from you. Sex-favorable people who don't experience sexual attraction just also want to have a label for themselves. If they're not allowed to call themselves asexual, what do you propose they call themselves instead? Graysexual would be wrong since that would mean experiencing sexual attraction to some degree at least some of the time.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Because I don't want to have to continually explain my orientation to people? Like, holy shit, why the hell is this particular label a whole goddamn spectrum that I have to pull out a chart to explain??

"I'm gay", "I'm bi," "I'm lesbian", "I'm pan" — that's concise with no need to explain further! I'd LOVE to say "I'm asexual" without having them be like "Oh but you can still be kinky and have sex, right?" Literally all meaning is lost.

In a world where sex & relationships are deeply intertwined, I just want to be understood and have a space with people I can relate to without all that being something I'm forced to constantly wade through.

I don't even want to be asexual, alright? It's difficult enough as it is. I just want a goddamn word. Ffs..

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

why the hell is this particular label a whole goddamn spectrum that I have to pull out a chart to explain??

I'm sorry that humans and human sexuality are complicated, I guess? Asexuality is just a little bit different in that there's significant spread in sex-favorability, which just is not the case as much with the other orientations. Again, if you really want the label all for yourself, please tell what label sex-favorable aces should use instead in your opinion, I'm genuinely curious.

But also, I still don't see how just a quick addition of "and sex-repulsed" is that much harder. It is literally three words. If the other person doesn't respect that, that likely wouldn't have been any different with a shorter label.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)