Asexuals vs. Poly people

Asexuals, since they refuse to admit they're ugly and/or have a hormonal problem. At least polys grow out of their phase eventually.

Yes, the polys almost always end up burning down their entire lives with their relationship practices so at least there's something to eventually humble them.

Poly people are attention seeking by nature and loud. So, more annoying, At least you don't have to listen to the asexual guy fuck half the town.

Poly people because they won't admit they just like to fuck around and don't want to be committed in a single relationship.

Also, poly men who claim to be bisexual, or more likely, "pansexual", are always 90% straight. I mean, this is OK and kind of hot for a one-nighter, but don't pretend you're open to a male BF when really all you want is a blowjob from a guy before you settle down with your future wife (whom you'll cheat on with other women).

Polyps are usually hideous and seriously overweight.

What about the "aromantics" OP?

I think they find each other annoying.

Polyamory is Crossfit for the chronically underemployed.

All these silly "labels" which I have no understanding of or interest in.

At least polyamory still has a definition. Asexuals have taken the meaning and watered it down to where they genuinely believe shit like "demisexual" is a sexuality rather than a normal aspect of human sexual attraction. Oppressed because you don't do hook ups. Wah Wah Wah.

Anyone who runs their mouth about their sex life is annoying - anyone who keeps it to themselves isn’t. I don’t have an issue with poly or ace people I have a problem with attention seekers and inappropriate conversations.

R3 Modern day "asexuals" would argue that being asexual doesn't mean not having sex with one or multiple partners.

Asexuality is just a lack of sexual attraction to males or females. That's it. It's not that complicated. Demisexuality is just normal people who don't do hook-ups.

I really, really, hate how mainstream asexuality has become, now. And yes, a lot of people are indeed doing it for attention. But there are genuine asexuals who keep to themselves, just want to be left alone, and don't wave it around in people's faces. The attention-seekers in the community have opened everyone up to ridicule.

I hate it. I hate everything.

R9, conservatives said the same thing about gays and bis

I don't understand freaking out over a minority that makes up .1% of the population. Leave people alone.

R1, lots of people are ugly but only .1% of people identify as asexual.

R5, most non-poly heterosexual are seriously overweight, so what is your point?

R1 David Jay, founder of Asexual Visibility & Education Network (AVEN) is neither ugly, nor has a hormonal problem.

Just wait til you meet a polyamorous asexual (they exist, and loudly). I'd rather listen to a zoophile tell me about their love life.

If people said stuff like this about gay people, you'd call them homophobic

Treat others the way you want to be treated

R16, maybe not, but he's not very virile-looking. He probably has low testosterone or something. How would you know unless he chose to announce his health problem, which he would not do because it would be contrary to the goal of normalizing and mainstreaming a lack of libido, which is definitely abnormal in a healthy male of his age.

David Jay above has BDF.

Do asexuals masturbate? Curious.

R19 I don't know whether he lacks libido or not, but he's said he lacks attraction. It's obvious by looking at his facial development and 5 o'clock shadow that hormones aren't the problem. I agree that humans are SUPPOSED to be sexual, therefore it usually indicates some sort of problem. But the problems aren't simply being ugly, or not having enough hormones. Many asexuals are on the autism spectrum/neurodivergent.

I'm starting to understand the asexuals. I say it's spinach, and I say the hell with it!

R18 It's not because I find their lifestyle offensive or immoral in any way. They just seem to think everyone wants to hear every tedious detail of their unnecessarily convoluted, frighteningly insipid relationships.

Straight trouples are always fay and ugly. And so very mental.

[quote]normalizing and mainstreaming a lack of libido,

r19 Asexuality is not a lack of libido. It's a lack of sexual attraction. You can still have a libido but have no desire to have sex with a person. There are asexuals with a libido who just masturbate. It's akin to eating a meal you prepared yourself as opposed to going to a restaurant. And there is nothing wrong with that. Masturbation is also healthy.

[quote]Do asexuals masturbate? Curious.

Yes. We do.

[quote]Modern day "asexuals" would argue that being asexual doesn't mean not having sex with one or multiple partners.

Can someone please translate this?

R28 There are attention whores who call themselves asexual but fuck and suck their way through hordes of men and women alike. Some do so while remaining in sexual and romantic relationships, yet are still calling themselves "asexual".

What would be the social benefit of claiming you were asexual if you really weren't? Is it just people wanting to seem more 'quirky' or unique than they really are?

I suspect that is it r30. People who need to get on talk shows, or get noticed on social media, for whatever psychological need that fulfills, who can then show off how sexual they are while claiming to be asexual. Our culture does lend itself to that kind of shit, unfortunately.

R26, that's a made-up meaning. "Asexual" in any common-sense definition would mean "without sex", like asexual reproduction.

What you're describing is something else entirely. Most of us have, at one time or other, felt undefined horniness - wanting the pleasure of sex without having a specific target in mind. It's like being hungry but not knowing what you want to eat, or not having an appetite for anything specific. So-called asexuals apparently feel that way all the time, which is odd but not the same as not wanting sex.

I am dubious that these so-called asexuals never have fantasies about people when they masturbate. Maybe they fantasize about themselves, which is fine.

Really, I'm just sick of every group with a slightly different-from-average sexual inclination deciding they need a name for themselves and recognition as a forgotten or oppressed , as though anybody cared that you masturbate to pictures of liminal spaces or something.

R14 - Yes good point. Apologies. I shouldn't have posted that.

OP, your poll needed a third option that references a grease fire.

I don't think anybody is freaking out about asexuals or polysexuals. It is more a combination of side-eyeing and mocking, with the occasional live and let live attitude. Nobody wants to "do anything" about these various fake identities, any more than anybody really wants to "do anything" about influencers. They're just a silly part of a silly era, and I think most of us just accept that.

[quote][R26], that's a made-up meaning. "Asexual" in any common-sense definition would mean "without sex", like asexual reproduction.

Not exactly, r32. Similar to how homosexual refers to having sexual attraction for the same-sex (male or female), asexual merely means no sexual attraction for either sex (male or female). That's all it means. It has nothing to do with reproduction.

[quote]So-called asexuals apparently feel that way all the time, which is odd but not the same as not wanting sex.

It is the same thing as not wanting sex when the presence of another person can actually serve as a way to get rid of the horniness as opposed to exacerbating it. That is the case with me, and many other asexuals. If I get the urge, someone else being there makes it go away. I don't care how "pretty" they are. I'm not driven to want them sexually. I prefer to do it myself and only by myself. If you're a gay man, this is the same concept as being horny and then a woman being present making you go limp. I, and many other asexuals, are like that with both sexes. This has nothing to do with my romantic attraction, however, which is for the same-sex (completely different discussion).

[quote]I am dubious that these so-called asexuals never have fantasies about people when they masturbate. Maybe they fantasize about themselves, which is fine.

I don't fantasize about anyone. Never have, and never will. It is possible. It just seems impossible to you because you're not asexual.

[quote]Really, I'm just sick of every group with a slightly different-from-average sexual inclination deciding they need a name for themselves and recognition as a forgotten or oppressed , as though anybody cared that you masturbate to pictures of liminal spaces or something.

While I understand the frustration due to the new era of social media-induced narcissism and dopamine addiction to fake internet points, this is no reason to paint us all with a broad brush because the loudest in the community happen to be the most insane. Most of us stay to ourselves and don't bother anyone. There is no "oppression." But it is annoying when people try to armchair psychologist/endocrinologist us as though there is something wrong with us. It's especially annoying when this is done from people who are gay since the exact same thing was done to LGB individuals.

I'm both, and get it from all sides. You get used to it. But this isn't made up or new. It's just getting more exposure because of social media. But I've known about my asexuality since I was 15 which was a little over 20 years ago.

R34 this poll also badly needed Vivian Vance.

I certainly have better things to do than get annoyed about other people's sexual leanings. Such things dont bother me unless they're illegal

OP knows neither.

But manages to be more annoying than either.

R36 I'm not the person you're responding to, but I'd like to thank you for giving a different perspective. I'm used to hearing from asexuals online that are anything but asexual. Many seem to confuse being celibate or having a low sex drive as asexuality. It's enlightening to hear from someone who has known this about themselves for longer than the current cultural conversation has been vocal about it.

R24 I'm the op, and this is why I started this poll. I've met so many people in both groups who like to talk about being ace or poly and how their sexual preference makes them and oppressed minority, when in reality, most people don't care.

Many soi-distant asexuals and aromantics are in reality just celibate hikis with severe social anxiety or OCD or autism or very low esteem/body image, and it would better fairer help to themselves and to real asexuals to be transparent and more accurate about that.

E.g. I would only ever call myself celibate (volcel, unless I think too hard about my looks then it’s femcel) with low drive, for the excellent reasons R36 & R39 point out, because though I don’t seek physical intimacy or sex and the thought of pursuing and trying it for real makes me feel gross and scared and overwhelmed, still I have felt sexual attraction to and chemistry with other people before, and when I do take care of myself I do mentally picture other people in a sexual context (though never myself, and often fantasy figures or celebrities..idk why, poor self concept probably). I can’t rightly call myself asexual when regular sexual attraction to one or both sexes is something I’ve experienced and can well understand.

It’s like the bandwaggoners and confused kids these days who all call themselves autistic. I am a grown adult into my 30s with clinically diagnosed and properly assessed autism with comorbid depression (real Big D depression, like lock yourself in a room for years type), and while I am glad that ASD is gaining wider acceptance and public understanding, it breaks my heart that these youngsters would want and pretend to have such a condition when they don’t. It’s not fun, it’s not a way to get perks or get social acceptance & breaks (quite the reverse, ime), it limits your life and opportunities so much. I didn’t have a normal healthy adolescence because of it. What many of these teens have imo is again just a lot of normal social anxiety and low esteem, which is common for teens to have and part of natural social order, but it’s being pathologised and made out to be a serious developmental disorder. It’s so dangerous and so sad.

Also, I posit that a lot of these teens are identifying out of sexuality because the media they’re being fed and weaned on is highly p0rnographic in nature. And by p0rnographic, I mean that media today presents young healthy people as performers and embodiments of stylised airbrushed Sex(tm) to titillate an audience, not fumbling awkward animals seeking a physical connection as a natural reaction and having privacy and time to do that. Just look at Euphoria; every character on that show is in some way commodified or objectified or dehumanised by the sex they’re undergoing or performing, and every character treats this as normal and self-flagellates that it makes them sick and crazy to do it.

It’s interesting that these days we call call sex ‘fucking’, an animalistic and p0rnographic term, rather than ‘having sex’ or ‘sleeping together’ or ‘making love’. All the co-creation and care and freedom and privacy has gone out of the act; it’s now just a primal ritual spectacle only meant for the Beautiful Soulless People on our screens. Can’t blame young people or vulnerable people for noping out altogether.

You know how there's speed dating? There ought to be speed sex. Get to start fucking some people speedily, just for a few minutes. If it's good, then you'll know you'll want to get to know them. Maybe a relationship can bloom. At least you'll know you'll have great sex. Maybe you will fall in love.

I don't give a shit, OP. Poly, Asexual, whatever someone's personal life is about - it's not about me and it's none of my fucking business. If it's someone I want to actually fuck, then I'll take an interest and I'd guess that my chances are better with the Poly person.

Poly - also the added annoyance as someone else has said of the faux bi/pan shit that is inevitably linked to it. And this goes for male/female groupings and male/male ones. They all seem to proclaim some non -monosexuality' and yet act very 'mono sexual'. Annoying attention whoring.

non of youse would last a day on tumblr. all your hearts would explode from stress

And that is why I never go there, R45. Why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?

[quote]and what the fuck is a hiki

It's short for hikikomori. A Japanese colloquialism for individuals (mostly males) who are in complete social isolation.

Thank you kindly, R47, although that was not a genuine question on my part as I looked it up when I read the relevant post here. The oldest DL thread it shows up in is from Sunday, so I guess I'm not the only one who's just learned a new term.

They're both phony sexual orientations, so who cares?

I'd say that a guy who calls himself "polysexual" is probably less annoying because he's so scatterbrained he'll fuck anything. Pro-sex is always better than anti-sex.

How is it phony to generally not have a desire to have sex with others, or even fantasize about it? I’ve come to terms with some of this using what I call the strip club analogy. When I was younger I didn’t ever think about going to a strip club because I wasn’t super interested in women or rather express interest secretly. As I became older and came to terms with being attracted to men, these types of feelings didn’t change. I appreciate nice guy but I still don’t want to visit the strip club even if there are new owners and it’s all men.

r50 It's phony because he says it's phony. That's it. He's in all of our heads, apparently.

If somebody ever uses the word “phoney”(sp?) in conversation with me, I am assiduously avoiding them. They might have come from a J.D. Salinger novel, or be reading one.

Not our sort of people, darling.

I voted asexuals. They're not about inflicting their quirks on others.

[quote] r5, most non-poly heterosexual are seriously overweight, so what is your point?

r15 It is all about patterns, general tendency and percentage. Every group (hetero, homo, etc) has a mix of fugs, fatties, ordinary ones, decent-/good-looking ones, fit ones, etc. Polys, exceptions (exist, a lot, depending on where you look at; but percentage-wise...) make the rule. Literally hideous and obese whales and various gross 'styling'.

R42 I think that's pretty much what I do. I imagine I'm whatever the opposite of 'demisexual' is.

DLers are so porn-addicted and incel-adjacent they can't accept that not everyone is into promiscuous sex. And that people who lack sexual attraction exist. Most asexuals don't go around announcing themselves. If anything they're the least obnoxious compared to both straight people and gay men who can be very annoying in broadcasting their sexuality and shaming virgins or asexuals or low-key people not into drugs, drinking, partying and hookup culture.

R57 true. When I was a university freshman (my dark depression days), I was given unbelievable amounts of hazing-type shit socially by both straight & gay classmates (and it was a theatre arts program, every other student was gay or bi/fluid) for not being sexually active. They made one tiny unremarkable fact about my private life their business and used it to bully me, fuck knows why.

Since then I’ve not had sex, and honestly that’s one of the 13+ reasons why.

I understand why some young women de-sex themselves with the nonbinary stuff. Imagine as a little girl growing up with hypersexual imagery pushed by the mass media and now social media pressure to look like a Kardashian and have an OnlyFans. I'd understand why many are rejecting their femininity and sexuality. It's the reaction against the capitalist pornographication of everything to sell stuff and dehumanize people into brands. Also people keep bringing up Europe as a sexually liberated paradise but Europe isn't obsessed with nudity, promiscuity, sex work and pornography like Americans are. They see sex as a thing between private adults in their homes and not anyone's business to judge. They just don't act like babies about nudity and make a big deal about premarital sex.

[quote]Imagine as a little girl growing up with hypersexual imagery pushed by the mass media and now social media pressure to look like a Kardashian and have an OnlyFans.

Previous generations of girls would've also wanted to de-sex themselves if possible, without any Kardashians in sight. It just wasn't nearly as much of an option until now. The GOP is also in the middle of an all-out war on women's rights that begins and ends with seizing control of their bodies. I don't think Republican politicians have any clue of the extent to which they're feeding into all these complex gender issues they constantly rail against.

Now I'm just thinking about a Wargames type of situation between Aces & Pollys. Who would win? Neither's main weapon works against the other.

Why do we need to know about their sex lives? Is it possible for them to commit mass suicide and free us of their presence?

R41 Thank you for speaking out. My story is similar to yours, though I'm not autistic, just dealt with some terrible depression and anxiety from leaving a cult as a kid and took medication that made me feel bloated and sexless. If social media had been as popular then as it is now, I likely would have identified as some form of asexual.

I never saw gay men that looked like me as a teen on TV; the closest was a gay character that was written off with a piss poor storyline that never involved him being seen sexually attractive to any guys he was interested in. That shit sticks with you when you're that age, especially if you have the combination of a mental health issue + society's obsession with looks + external health factors. The kids today are even worse off than our generation.

I liken my life to a Twilight Zone episode. Casting aside any false modesty, I have every physical attribute a gay man would stereotypically covet (“What it must be to be you”), yet, although capable of (very rare) deep emotional attachment, sexual activity has remained a barrier.

[quote]Most asexuals don't go around announcing themselves.

r57 Correct. Note that nearly every DL thread started about asexuals is started by non-asexual DLers. The usual goal is to announce that they don't care about us nor want to hear about the fact that we're asexual.

Naturally, this announcement is requested by absolutely nobody.

[quote] It's phony because he says it's phony. That's it. He's in all of our heads, apparently.

r50 Uh, no, it's phony because those are not true sexual orientations.

r66 Polyamory is not a sexual orientation. Correct. It is a social [bold]behavior[/bold] and the antithesis of monogamy, another social behavior.

Asexuality is, indeed, a sexual orientation. You are incorrect.

Have a good day.

R65 exactly.

The only truly naturally poly person I’ve ever met and known IRL would never call herself or talk about it like a sociopolitical identity. She just openly admits that she prefers living communally/in a Harem type situation, and knows that it’s looked at as fet!shy or weird. She just quietly goes about her business with her partners, though, and then runs wild behind closed doors. For an abnormal person with abnormal relationships, she’s so normal about it. It’s kind of cool.

She is schizophrenic and prone to shoplifting or stripping or screaming in public when she has meltdowns, though. That’s the more concerning and weird part about her life than the five partners she has at once. Though hypersexualjty could well be part of her condition.

[quote] Asexuality is, indeed, a sexual orientation. You are incorrect.

r67 No, it's a dysfunction, the lack of an innate sense or physical drive. It's comparable to blindness.

However, as I said, it's not real. Everyone is oriented to find someone or something attractive, unless they're a sociopath.

Please get the 'A' off our LGBT... immediately. It has nothing to do with homosexuality, bisexuality or a healthy sex life in general.

Gameboy has spoken. 🤣

R69 I'm gay, I love sex and being with men. But it is stupid to think that asexuality is a defect. Who is harmed by asexuality exactly? People said the same thing about homosexuality and it was commonly believed to be a disorder until quite recently.

And if you've listened or read anecdotes from asexuals. They acknowledge other people can be physically appealing or have attractive personalities. So emotional attraction is there. But the sexual desire is not. Not every relationship has to be sexual. Ironic your username is "Platonic Cavemen" and you dismiss people can express love and companionship without the need for sexual intercourse. Please grow up.

[Quote][R67] No, it's a dysfunction, the lack of an innate sense or physical drive.

Having a sex drive or libido is not the same thing as experiencing sexual attraction. This was already explained in this thread at r13 and r26. Homosexuals experience sexual attraction for the same-sex but "lack" sexual attraction for the opposite sex. Surely you realize how problematic it is to insinuate that because people don't experience sexual attraction to either sex there is a "dysfunction."

[Quote]However, as I said, it's not real. Everyone is oriented to find someone or something attractive

Sexual attraction is but one type of attraction humans are capable of experiencing. Asexuals are capablr of experiencing other forms of attraction that are not specifically sexual in nature.

[Quote]Please get the 'A' off our LGBT... immediately. It has nothing to do with homosexuality, bisexuality or a healthy sex life in general.

I personally didn't ask for, nor have any hand in, the 'A' being added to the acronym. Take your grievances to the appropriate channels. Maybe write a scathing letter to a senator.

I'm also both gay and asexual. Yes this is possible. No, I'm not going into further details about myself as I've had sufficient when it comes to this subject in the 20+ years or so since I've realized it personally applies. You can Google that shit.

can a monkgirl... and a nunboy.... ever find true love

R71, I understand your lack of interest in endlessly explaining what comes naturally to you.

On the other hand, I hope you understand that it's hard for most people to wrap their head around some of the concepts that asexuals are using to describe themselves.

Starting with the easy one: It's not unusual or controversial that one can have a libido, even a strong libido, but have no desire to have sex with anyone else. Is such a person asexual, even if they feel sexual attraction to particular men (but don't want to have sex with them in real life)? They masturbate thinking about these men OR they have somewhat undefined but clearly homosexual sexual fantasies while they masturbate. This would describe a lot of gay men, especially older men, who have stopped having sex and have no intention of seeking it.

Also, the idea that someone has little or no sex drive is not hard to grasp. I admit it seems strange in a man (not quite as strange in a woman), but it happens. It's not complicated. Is this person asexual?

What is more puzzling is the idea that asexual people have a libido, heterosexual or homosexual, but it's not ... directed? Is that the right word? How do you feel sexual desire but not sexual desire FOR anything, ever? It's like being hungry but not thinking about food. I'm not doubting your word, but it's a confusing idea that seems to belong more in the realm of philosophy or metaphysics than real-world behavior.

Anyway, with regard to the thread topic, it seems that comparing asexuals and polyamorous people is like comparing apples and oranges in that the traits in question aren't in the same category.

[quote] I'm also both gay and asexual.

r71 This really gets to my point though. We'll have to disagree on whether or not a life without sex is bad thing. I think everyone should be able to enjoy sex. It's a natural right.

But it is not a sexual orientation on par with gay or bisexual. You're gay. Every asexual is either gay, bi, or straight. There's nothing else.

R59 Hit the nail on the head. Women like the Kardashians are these hyper sex objects now. I can't think of a famous women except Billie Eilish who actively tried not to participate in that.

R75 it’s just gross and no I’m not always a pearl clutcher. I think it’s a signifier that society is in decline.

[quote] But it is stupid to think that asexuality is a defect. Who is harmed by asexuality exactly? People said the same thing about homosexuality and it was commonly believed to be a disorder until quite recently.

r70 The asexual themself is harmed by it. Do you not believe sex is great?

Homosexuality is not comparable. That's love between two people.

Sure, we don't condemn a blind man for being blind. But we don't say it's better he be blind than see.

[quote][R71], I understand your lack of interest in endlessly explaining what comes naturally to you.

r73 Yes. It is exhausting. And I honestly don't have the energy or patience to do it anymore. Thank you for understanding that bit of it, at least.

[quote]Is such a person asexual, even [bold]if they feel sexual attraction[/bold] to particular men (but don't want to have sex with them in real life)? They masturbate thinking about these men OR they have somewhat undefined but clearly homosexual sexual fantasies while they masturbate.

No. Specifically because of the bolded portion. You're also assuming that everyone fantasizes when masturbating when that is not the case. You're also assuming that everyone fantasizes when masturbating when that is not the case. Please see r39 where I explained all of this.

[quote][R71] This really gets to my point though. We'll have to disagree on whether or not a life without sex is bad thing. I think everyone should be able to enjoy sex. It's a natural right.

Sir, can you just worry about yourself, please instead of worrying about who is or is not choosing to have sex? Especially if it has zero effect on you whatsoever. You keep equating this to a disability such as blindness. That is inaccurate. Once again, you are wrong.

[quote]But it is not a sexual orientation on par with gay or bisexual. You're gay. Every asexual is either gay, bi, or straight. There's nothing else.

Sexual orientation encompasses both sexual and romantic attraction. Asexuality is a sexual orientation in that it is still possible to experience romantic attraction, which I and many other asexuals do. This is also why the 'A' doesn't belong in the acronym because just as it is possible to be homo/biromantic and asexual, it is possible to be heteroromantic and asexual. In other words, there are straight asexuals. Ergo, it doesn't belong in the acronym.

We absolutely are capable of falling in love with someone and having an emotional connection with someone without desiring them sexually. Just like it's possible for people to desire others sexually and have sex with them without loving them or being emotionally connected to them (see: aromantics). Although, for some reason, the latter is more understood and seen as normal. You are confusing this with hypoactive sexual desire disorder. That is not what this is. Every source you search on this matter, from scientific journals to medical news sites will tell you this is, indeed, a sexual orientation. You can disagree until you are blue in the face. You will, however, remain wrong.

^ r36 is what I meant.

Thank you R78. The challenge in understanding asexuality comes in the idea of feeling sexual desire (for example, masturbating) without that desire having an object. It seems to be, as you describe it, a nameless, directionless urge to have the sensation of an orgasm without having any particular sexual thing one desires. This is very hard for many non-asexual people to understand because desire for a sex object or sex act is inextricable from sexual behavior for most people.

However, it doesn’t matter if others understand or not. It’s your business and, as you describe it, certainly sounds different from hetero- or homosexuality, making it an orientation unto itself. Asexuality harms no one as long as any romantic partners are clear up front that sex will not be happening. Thank you for you time and patience.

I'm presenting this hypothetical to anyone who wants to answer out of genuine curiosity. Let's say there is an adult that has a healthy libido, can masturbate to orgasm with no issues, acknowledges how another person is sexually attractive, be turned on by porn/erotic works/photos of genitalia, and potentially finds others in their personal life to be attractive enough to want to have sex with.

Now would you classify this person as asexual if they don't go through with the act with another person or finds it's frightening to them for various reasons (trauma, religious repression, body image, self esteem issues, etc)? To me, this seems like an issue of mental health and/or voluntary celibacy rather than a lack of sexual desire and sexual attraction.

I've seen far too many young adults identifying as asexual for these reasons and these reasons alone. If I had grown up in the social media age, I likely would have identified as asexual if these were part of the "criteria" so to speak.

r80 You're welcome. And your understanding is also appreciated.

[quote]It seems to be, as you describe it, a nameless, directionless urge to have the sensation of an orgasm without having any particular sexual thing one desires. This is very hard for many non-asexual people to understand because desire for a sex object or sex act is inextricable from sexual behavior for most people.

Yes, any urges, at least for me, are 100% autonomic and not triggered by anything or anyone external. If anything, it's solely driven by biology because I was able to figure out that it only happens once a month when I'm the most fertile (ovulating). It's almost as if I, to put it crassly, "go into heat" without feeling a need to look for a mate to satisfy that urge. My hormones are fine. I just have no desire to "resolve" that urge with a person and the presence of another person actually "kills" the urge altogether similar to how the presence of a male or a female turns off someone only sexually attracted to a specific sex.

[quote]Now would you classify this person as asexual if they don't go through with the act with another person or finds it's frightening to them for various reasons (trauma, religious repression, body image, self esteem issues, etc)? To me, this seems like an issue of mental health and/or voluntary celibacy rather than a lack of sexual desire and sexual attraction.

r81 I think it would be best for the person to seek the proper mental healthcare to first address their trauma, body image or self-esteem issues before declaring themselves asexual only if that is, indeed, the reason for their avoidance of sex and it is personally distressing to them. In other words, they genuinely want to enjoy sex with another person but feel "blocked." If they're content and not experiencing distress from not having sexual desire for others, then they're just an asexual who happens to have trauma and body image or self-esteem issues similar to people of other sexual orientations with the same struggles.

It’s funny that PlatonicCaveman is trying so hard when in previous threads he said he didn’t believe in the gay label either.

[quote] it would be best for the person to seek the proper mental healthcare to first address their trauma, body image or self-esteem issues before declaring themselves asexual only if that is, indeed, the reason for their avoidance of sex and it is personally distressing to them.

Easy to say this, but a lot of these poor kids claiming the asexual level don't have the luxury of freedom, money, time or maturity to do that. When you're a hormonal mess in a bad living situation and everyone treats you like a stupid kid, it's hard to take your pussy off to to a doctor or expensive therapy, and sometimes even counterproductive when they're quacks or compromised.

r84 True. And unfortunately, a lot of therapists are hesitant to push back on young people when they make claims to be anything that is considered part of the "LGBTQ+" community. Unfortunately, even though I disagree with its inclusion, Asexuality is considered an LGBTQ+ identity in mental health. I acknowledge that Asexuality has some overlap with other genuine sexual dysfunctions from a purely "symptom" standpoint so it is important to differentiate and make sure that nothing else is going on and not just "take a kid's word for it." However, that doesn't negate the fact that it is a legitimate sexual orientation.

Asexuality is unique in that it can get confused for hypoactive sexual desire disorder and vice versa. I'm 100% on board with people getting themselves sorted with a professional first to make sure nothing else is going on because let's face it, it's not common (occurs in ~1% of the population).

R85 right! And it’s such a pain these days trying to get actual therapeutic help for issues with sex/uality, because ‘affirmational’ care has gone too far.

One of the last counsellors I had, before I threw my hands up and gave up on talk therapy, wouldn’t get into my adult virginity or low drive as a medical or psych/trauma issue beyond “oh it’s fine, you’re just Ace. Moving on...” Despite me telling her that I couldn’t be such a thing due to my mindset about sex and how confused I was. Surely an asexual, on hearing and seeing so much positive reinforcement all around, would feel settled into their way of being and not have so much desire for something else? I have even in the past really sat down and wondered if she’s right and I could be asexual, but it just doesn’t fit with my history, so it’s not like I’m in denial or didn’t give it fair consideration.

It’s scary to think how many other people younger and more vulnerable than us have been fed lies from the tablecloth so to speak.

[quote] It’s funny that PlatonicCaveman is trying so hard when in previous threads he said he didn’t believe in the gay label either.

r83 Trying hard for what? First, I said "gay" is an antiquated and offensive term. I prefer queer. "Gay" will dumped in the trashcan of history like "Negro". I never said there are no homosexuals. What a silly statement.

Second, I said asexual is not a sexual orientation. It's a handicap like blindness. No one has refuted that.

There’s an active thread about poly here:

R87 Excuse me, I think queer is offensive.

denoting or relating to a sexual or gender identity that does not correspond to established ideas of sexuality and gender, especially heterosexual norms.

Norms is offensive. Homosexuals ARE normal. Throughout time. I don't base my life off the established norm.

No, I'm not participating in that word game.

Poly? A?

PAN!

r86 I'm sorry that you've had, what sounds like, rather incompetent mental health support regarding this matter. Therapists are, today, afraid of losing their licenses, so instead of delving deeper into anything considered LGBTQ+ they brush it off. I would say if you've ever felt the desire to have sex with another person or found a person sexually attractive (i.e. wanting to have sex with them) but felt there was a "barrier" preventing you from reaching this goal, you're likely not asexual. It could be a fear of intimacy.

I'm not afraid of intimacy and don't have issues with being physically, emotionally, or even sexually close with a partner. I am simply not sexually driven toward anyone. In other words, I can engage in the act if that's what my partner needs and I am in love with this person, but honestly, I would rather not do it. I liken it to agreeing to participate in any other activity that you know your partner enjoys but you don't necessarily care for or are mostly indifferent to. Most participate because they love their partner and enjoy spending time with them. But if their partner were ever to express that they never want to do that specific activity/hobby again, the other partner would likely feel relief or indifference. That's the best way I can explain this.

From a female celibate perspective: I remember being exposed to fet!sh content when I was only in middle school, and it warping my ideas about what sex/uality is as well as estranging me from my natural real sexual desires. To this day, I struggle not to estrange myself psychologically from sex--I can't even visualise myself in sexual situations, I can only manage voyeurism.

Children & teens can’t enter the anime genre without being exposed to henta! almost immediately. It’s too prevalent and normalized in the community. Any underage person exposed to this form of hardcore is traumatized imo, and we should start a discussion as to how we can protect underage brains from normalizing it.

It’s easy to say women who fetishize yaoi are annoying and ignorant, but we need to keep in mind they were essentially groomed by this type of porn from a super young age. Perhaps they identifiy are ace because they really can’t relate to other humans sexually. I would argue their brains were, essentially, rewired and traumatized from such a young age they are incapable of healthy sex life.

Girls & women really need to have conversations about why so many now are disidentified with their sexuality and womanhood. Social media for fandom has got to be at least 80% women who ID as asexual/aromantic and/or non binary. Most...are not even GNC. There needs to be analysis how the media we consume effects us. How consuming and making too much male-centric content can be a form of self-loathing. How identifying or emphasizing WITH male characters doesn’t mean anything else regarding sexuality or gender expression.

[quote] I'm not afraid of intimacy and don't have issues with being physically, emotionally, or even sexually close with a partner. I am simply not sexually driven toward anyone. In other words, I can engage in the act if that's what my partner needs and I am in love with this person, but honestly, I would rather not do it. I liken it to agreeing to participate in any other activity that you know your partner enjoys but you don't necessarily care for or are mostly indifferent to. Most participate because they love their partner and enjoy spending time with them. But if their partner were ever to express that they never want to do that specific activity/hobby again, the other partner would likely feel relief or indifference. That's the best way I can explain this.

Thanks R91, that's a really clear explanation. It's refreshing to get a logical take from someone who's actually experiencing asexual life.

[quote]Children & teens can’t enter the anime genre without being exposed to henta! almost immediately. It’s too prevalent and normalized in the community. Any underage person exposed to this form of hardcore is traumatized imo, and we should start a discussion as to how we can protect underage brains from normalizing it.

r92 Yeah, no. Watching Sailor Moon and Dragonball Z when I was 12 did not "almost immediately" expose me to Hentai. I didn't actually see that particular form of porn until my 20s. And it was on a porn site. I watched anime on Toonami and Adult Swim in my adolescence and teens, neither of which ever aired Hentai, so I'm not sure what you're talking about, here.

Your point regarding young women "disidentifying with sexuality and womanhood" is valid for specific situations, usually situations of abuse or trauma, but this is hardly a new discovery and has always been known. The issue that you're not acknowledging here is that this isn't the case for all asexuals. There are plenty of people who were never sexually abused or experienced sexual trauma who are still asexual. To insinuate that someone's sexuality is rooted is childhood sexual trauma is problematic for numerous reasons. It's no different than saying men are gay or women are lesbians because they were sexually abused so maybe stop saying it, yeah?

*rooted in

[quote] No, I'm not participating in that word game.

r89 You just did.

Queer just stands for the whole LGBT... without being divisive. No one needs to know what I do in bed.

Sorry, I don't like the reproductive norm.

R36 thanks for sharing. Illuminating for sure.

My sex drive is gone. So I don't seek out sex and haven't for years. I'm only 43. Friends joke that I'm asexual. But I'm not. You clearly are. I just don't want sex anymore. But I used to and might one day again.

You really highlighted the difference between you and I.

[quote]Asexual

ACE!

Anyone done a timeshare on their man? Like you having him Mondays Wednesdays and Saturdays, and the other partner having him the rest of the days?

[quote] Sorry, I don't like the reproductive norm.

Does it get in the way of your erotic lifestyle?

[quote] Asexual is not a sexual orientation. It's a handicap like blindness. No one has refuted that.

Inept comparison. A more apt parallel could be drawn between anorgasmic people and the blind.

We can safely assume that most blind people desperately want to be able to see, as the anorgasmic would dearly love to be able to climax and feel sexual release.

Anybody that desperate to be labeled is annoying. There have always been people who fucked around and people who had no interest. There is nothing new here, other than the desire to be part of an importantly newsy community with an ugly flag.

^Newsie?????

newsy adjective ˈnü-zē ˈnyü- newsier; newsiest Synonyms of newsy [...] 2 : NEWSWORTHY

[quote]There have always been people who fucked around and people who had no interest.

And those people have always been called asexual. It just wasn't widely discussed because we mostly stayed to ourselves. A lot of asexuals tend to be more introverted and reserved, anyway. The more extreme are even borderline avoidant of people.

So, this "annoyance" is misplaced and should be directed at people who have adopted the label for attention and social media points (i.e. so-called demisexuals).

There are people who sincerely believe that only experiencing sexual attraction when emotionally connected to someone means they are asexual and it doesn't.

This is not asexual. This is just normal people who aren't into hooking up and don't want to fuck strangers at first sight. There are a lot of people like this because sexuality is on a spectrum. Asexuality is rather fixed.

^when an entire culture hinges on increasingly violent and commercialised and airbrushed and inhumane sex by near-mandate, of course people find creative ways to opt out.

R105, I'm not sure who's who in this thread, but someone upthread went to a lot of trouble to explain fully and clearly that asexual is not the same as low libido or lack of desire. Rather, it seems to be lack of desire toward any particular sex object (and consequent lack of interest in having sex with anyone), which is not the same thing. Having no interest in fucking around could be asexuality or it could be low libido. It could also be a strong sense of moral duty to one's spouse.

Yes, low-libido people have always been around. There's nothing new in that concept. The concept of having sexual desire that has no direction toward something is new and, to most people, pretty weird and hard to understand. If that's "asexual", then it seems harmless enough, and people who are asexual should be allowed to live their lives without suffering discrimination. But you can't claim it's something we've always known about and recognized, because - at least as asexuality was explained earlier in the thread - it isn't.

‘Poly people’ sound like a community of vagrants who live in urethane tunnels set up in fields for growing produce.

r108 Yeah that person who went to the trouble to explain the difference was me. I'm r36. To be clear, I was referring to r102's insinuation that having no interest is the same as having low libido, thereby implying that asexuality isn't real.

I disagree that demisexuals are asexual because they do have an interest in having sex and also experience sexual attraction, just with a specific person with whom they share an emotional bond. Asexuals do not experience sexual attraction and have no interest in having sex with someone regardless of how strong the emotional bond is.

As r107 stated, the rise of people claiming to be demisexual is a byproduct of our hypersexualized society that places pressure on people, especially young people, to be all about sex all of the time when most people don't function that way. The vast majority of people desire to have partnered sex with someone they are emotionally connected to and committed. We have reached a point where insane societal expectations have made such people think they're "broken" for only desiring sex while in a committed relationship with their partner.

R110 Huh? I wasn't "insinuating" anything, and didn't even delve into libido. Asexual people, by definition, have little or no interest in having sex. I suspect you're mixing me up with someone else, or reading a whole lot into a simple statement.

I don't want romance or sex

just want to be a little woodland creecher living in an enchanted forest and away from everyone else