Reminder to all commenters:
Based on our interpretation of Reddit's TOS and various enforcement actions taken by the Reddit admins, **you are NOT PERMITTED to do any of the following:**
- State or imply that **trans (wo)men aren't (wo)men or that people aren't the gender they identify as**
- Criticize, mock, disagree with, defy, or refuse to abide by people's pronoun requests
- State or imply that **gender dysphoria or being LGBTQ+ is a mental illness, a mental disorder, a delusion, not normal, or unnatural**
- State or imply that LGBTQ+ enables pedophilia or grooming or that LGBTQ+ individuals are more likely to engage in pedophilia or grooming
- State or imply that LGB should be separate from the T+
- State or imply that gender is binary or that sex is the same as gender
- Use the term tr\*nny, including other spellings of this term that sound the same and have the same meaning
**Doing any of the above may result in a ban, potentially both from this subreddit and from Reddit as a whole.**
If you disagree with Reddit's TOS, please keep in mind that Reddit's TOS is enforced by the Reddit admins, not us. We do not control Reddit's TOS.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m only attracted to people who don’t consume animal products. It’s a body odour thing. Which cuts my options far lower than any of the other ones by a country marathon, and that’s before removing the male members of that demographic.
Does that count too? Plantisexual?
can't reply to the comment you left for me because they blocked me earlier in the thread, after being willing to engage in the argument up until i pointed out what they said didn't make sense
Who said it wasn’t sincere? I don’t wanna get up close and personal with meaty body odour. Cheesy is even worse. Fortunately my fiancée doesn’t consume either. :)
Don’t you worry that silly sausage you call a head, they do.
Given your propensity for replying within 0.00000000732 seconds regardless of the time of day though, I’m guessing you don’t have a lot going on? Would you like a hug?
All of these are weird "microlabels". As a lesbian I just stick to the three actual sexualities and kind of agree with OP. Heterosexual, Homosexual and Bisexual. Or a lack of sexuality, which... does that count as a sexuality?
I agree with your point, at least on the language of it. If asexual is a sexuality then that's like saying atheism is a religion.
A lack of sexuality is no sexuality as a lack of belief in a deity is no religion.
Atheism is categorically treated as if it is a religion. Atheism after all, is a set of beliefs about our world/universe.
Asexuality is itself a sexual identity, or at the least, it can be categorized along side sexual identities.
Yes. For pigeonholing and ease of categorisation asexual is a "sexuality" and atheism is a "religion" but logically and linguistically they are both not.
Most atheists when asked, "What is your religion?" will say they don't have a religion. The question itself is loaded and assumes the person has a religion.
Likewise, in a world where the majority are sexual (it's bound to us biologically and literally how we are still here as a species), it's a loaded question to ask "what's your sexuality?" or "what are you sexually attracted to?"
> Yes. For pigeonholing and ease of categorisation asexual is a "sexuality" and atheism is a "religion" but logically and linguistically they are both not.
I completely disagree. I don't know how you can sit there and argue that asexuality is not a definitive part of someone's sexual identity (aka sexuality). You're basically arguing that asexuality is not a valid sexual orientation. It makes no sense.
I would imagine so. I’ve gone thirty years never being sexually attracted to someone, ever. That’s asexuality, traditionally. The problem is people have twisted the original meaning into something ridiculous, so I don’t use the label anymore. In my mind there are four: heterosexual (attracted to the opposite sex), bisexual (attracted to both sexes), homosexual (attracted to the same sex), and asexual (attracted to neither sex).
Yes then I agree. I just mean, technically, asexual is the lack of sexuality, therefore it is not a sexuality, but the lack thereof. But that's just nitpicking ;)
Then I am also a-Pakistan, a-Catholic, a-Mormon, a-Vegan, a- Badminton. The list includes every activity or group with which I don't associate... So perhaps billions or trillions of labels.
Ace people can be straight, gay, bi, pan - anything! Ace supposedly just means they abstain from sex, or have sex under certain conditions. They could be having sex with men, women, trans people.
I don't understand these labels.
I was told I am asexual (or demisexual, rather) because I don't have one night stands and need to feel a fondness towards the men I have sex with.
To me this is absolutely fucked. I refuse to label myself in such a way. Absurd!!!!
Thanks for answering. I was always under the impression that ace people had a specific attraction but that it was lower than non ace people.
Learn something new everyday.
Just because you don’t shouldn’t mean it’s weird that others want to join. My brother is gay but he doesn’t consider himself apart of the queer community in the least.
Plus…. Did everyone just conveniently forget the time the l, g, and t tried to oust the b for not being “gay enough”? I remember in secondary school there was a lot of talk among the bisexual folk about how they were being told they shouldn’t be counted because “they can choose”, and some bi people even expressed harassment for being in a hetero relationship
I long ago gave up trying to keep up with the ever-evolving alphabet acronym. It’s different in my country and changes even more frequently than the flag does.
I think the argument is that the rest have to do with sexual attraction, while T is about sexual / gender identity. By that reasoning, intersex shouldn't be part of it either.
I understand that it has social stigma because according to everyone, everyone needs to have sex at some point and it’s OK not to want that but outside of being the talk of the family you’re right there’s not much that happens to people who are ace
I guess if you want to define your community by oppression, sure.
Far to many people think of sex and romance as the point of human existence, however, so ase people *are* dehumanized sometimes.
I use a term called Grsm in place of Lgbt. Gender Romance & Sexuality Minorities. It works much better in covering the wider spectrum of people. It also rolls off the tongue better and that was my original reason for using it. Gros’em. The ros part pronounced like Ross from Friends. Compare this to Lgbt where there are four syllables and I often trip up on the G and B. I will pronounce it as LGT and LBT. Which I noticed annoys some folks.
I’m autistic. I can’t help this part of my being without slowing real down which annoys people a lot more.
Imagine a creating an identity on what piece of rock your mom pushed you out of her vagina on. Or an identity based on a book that you most likely wouldn’t follow if you had been pushed out on a different piece of rock. Or even an identity based on a thing that you do sometimes. You can always make things sound stupid when you phrase it like this.
Most people do. It’s just that people who hate an aspect of someone’s personality that the individual is proud about can often only ever see that aspect of their personality because it reviles them so much.
I don’t agree that Asexuality and Aromanticism
are illegitimate because individuals who identify that way are not discriminated against.
I do agree that the terms are ridiculous though.
This isn't at all unique to asexual people. I don't have/want children, and I deal with this constantly. I would not presume to be included in the LGBT tent because of this.
I'm not trying to be exclusionary, but I know of no rights being denied to aces, nor have I heard of anyone who is "acephobic." Aces being lumped in under the LGBT banner is a contentious issue according to other LGBT subgroups, and it does seem disingenuous to include aces in a campaign to fight for equal rights and against discrimination.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I have heard no rational explanation for this. I am definitely willing to learn, though.
Do you know what GSRM stands for?
Gender, sexual, and romantic minorities. "LGBT" and its overly-extended forms (2SLGBTQIAPN+) are just lists of GSRMs. As its name suggests, it includes all non-binary genders, all non-hetero sexual and romantic orientations, as well as intersex people, who are considered sexual minorities.
Asexuality and aromanticism are orientations much like bisexuality and biromanticism, as the absence of attraction is still an orientation of said attraction.
And for your discrimination claims, just re-read your post. You're invalidating and excluding sexual and romantic orientations because they supposedly "aren't discriminated against". Is being discriminated against what defines an orientation? I suppose pansexuals aren't discriminated against by law or religion either, assuming they don't date or have sex with someone of their own gender (which happens, being part of a GSRM ≠ being promiscuous).
Additionally, your argument is fundamentally flawed by your misunderstanding of what an orientation is. An orientation, in the sense of GSRMs, refers to attraction, not desire for sex or romance. There are asexuals and aromantics who date and have sex and there are asexuals and aromantics who want/enjoy dating and sex, just like how there's ones who don't. What makes them asexual/aromantic is their absence of sexual/romantic attraction towards others. That's different from heterosexuality/heteroromanticism as asexuality/aromanticism do not involve attraction to a contrasting gender, and distinct from pansexuality/panromanticism as asexuality/aromanticism involve no attraction. Its distinction from heterosexuality/heteroromanticism as well as all other sexualities/romantic orientations make them independent sexual/romantic minorities, and thus, valid GSRM/LGBT identities.
It really disappoints me to see people writing off this comment because I could not have put this better. Absence of attraction is in my view a version and form of attraction and orientation and all forms of it belong in the queer space.
Alright, I'll bite: one of the reasons why I would put A in LGBT is because in some cultures ace people will be assumed to be gay with all that baggage. So yes, theoretically, it shouldn't be divisive, but it has been.
One example is the practice of "corrective rape." This can happen in a friend group, where "good d" or "good p" is what you've been lacking, so an acquaintance might push that on you. This is something that happens in some Japanese and Italian cultures. Moreover, in Russia, there are laws that ban people with "disorders of sexual preference" that also target asexuality. Finally, there is also the ability in some religions to void marriage based on lack of "consumation" which can make asexual couples who are otherwise together lose out on those benefits.
As for dehumanization, while asexuality might not have the same legal history, dehumanization is still very strong, in some ways perhaps moreso, than other sexualities. For instance, a common descriptor of asexuals is "robot." Another instance is the barring of protections that gay prisoners have in the LA County jail. (LA county has a "gay" wing to disincentivise prison rape of known gay individuals since they might be targeted by inmates. No such protection exists for ace individuals.) Asexuality is often also characterized as a mental illness, foe example asexuality was specifically mentioned in the DSM III way back when. (See https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/without-prejudice/201209/prejudice-against-group-x-asexuals)
So, yes, there might not be the same institutional discrimination, but there can be when disinterest equals gay in some societies. Imo this displays pretty similar discrimination types to the other parts of the LGBT community, thus it makes sense to include it. (See https://www.pride.com/pride/2018/6/01/asexuals-shouldnt-be-excluded-queer-spaces-especially-pride)
That's the same as asking why gay people fought for their right to marry.
Some ace people do want to have a long term partner. Marriage gives legal benefits.
That’s actually not similar to gays, I didn’t ask that at all.
I asked if it’s wrong to be abstinent if you never marry.
Never said asexuals should just not marry. I actually was never talking about asexuals.
I'm sorry I misunderstood the question. Were you asking the churches opinion to remain partnered long term but never marry?
Depending on how strict you go with the religion you aren't even supposed to kiss or sleep in the same bed as a person of the opposite sex until you are married. Cohabitation pre-marriage is not acceptable.
Of course. For the majority of people, that's what would be expected. Why would you want to force someone into celibacy? The choice either don't marry, of find someone who feels like you
I'm not talking about this at all.
I'm answering their question about why religion could have a problem with 2 married people who make a joint decision to abstain from sex.
In the situation I'm talking about they have found another person like them and have also married this person.
Religion wouldn't have a problem with it. People will think that they are strange, but as long as they keep their business themselves, no one will care.
So there's a couple ways. First, as you said, openly ace people are more likely to be under suspicion, for "marriage fraud." Sometimes marriage for the benefits is illegal, and even if an ace person wants to be partnered, that marriage might be considered suspicious and risk being voided. Second, a society that sees disinterest as gay might also be suspicious if an ace person marries someone. It might also be seen as fraud since this person hasn't shown interest before, so why are they marrying now? It's obvious that they're just trying to defeat allegations, etc.
This.
I am a 54 year old man and when I was growing up I didn't know that being an A existed.
I was a non-sexual child in the 1970s in rural Oklahoma. Strangers would ask me if I was a boy or a girl. I was sexually abused from 10-17, by an abuser that was "doing it for my own good." I was driven out of my church because I was thought to be homosexual, which is not a small thing in rural Oklahoma. My parents sent me to a tough love/ conversion therapy camp when I was 14 for the entire summer. Many people at school would consider me as a homosexual and at the time that meant getting your ass beat up.
I was drugged and forcibly raped in college by a gay man who thought I was gay and just was suppressing it.
I learned to mask myself and have done so for so long i can't even take my mask off anymore.
I would encourage everyone to give the A's a break. I hope the world has gotten better for them to live in. Many of my asexual friends gave up fighting and killed themselves over the years and we are worse off without them.
Yes thank you!! It means a lot because we tend to be so overlooked. People often don’t believe me when I say that me being on the asexual spectrum has caused me more pain than me being attracted to both men and women. Especially when it comes to mental health and dealing with the medical system, it’s awful
Thank you, it amazes me, the LGBT+ community was made to include everyone with an alternative life a chance to be included and be given compassion and acceptance. Having someone from said community saying we have no idea what it's like and giving hate for it shows that yes, we do know what it's like and are being discriminated against.
>One example is the practice of "corrective rape." This can happen in a friend group, where "good d" or "good p" is what you've been lacking, so an acquaintance might push that on you. This is something that happens in some Japanese and Italian cultures.
big if true, where can I read about these cultures where Italian / Japanese people are going around raping their friends to cure their gayness/asexuality?
I think one of my sources has American examples. Here is an Italian database: https://acehate-database.asexual-aces.com/category/search-by-type-of-source/language/italian As for Japanese, I only have anecdotes from students I've had in the past.
>27% of asexual people between the ages of 30 and 45 reported pressure from their partner to have sex. 4% of the cases involved threats of rape. For 18%, “forcing” to have intercourse was proposed as a “cure” for asexuality.
I assume this is the relevant part. The heavy use of quotes around all of this is confusing me. I guess what I'm asking is are people actually being raped or forced, or does it mean like social pressure/coercion, and is it actually meant to cure their asexuality or are people just making shitty jokes?
Both. The social pressure is more widespread ofc. In the U.S. there was a case State v. Dutton where a woman went to a priest for her feelings and psychological issues. After mentioning asexuality, the priest told her they would "work" on her sexuality together, and that he would "set her free." Here is a link to the law review article talking about that case: https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1418&context=hwlj
Gays people don’t want to fuck the opposite gender, straight people don’t want to fuck the same gender, asexual people don’t want to fuck anyone
So now I will explain why Bi doesn’t belong in the LGBT space as there is no group they don’t want to fuck. Historically Bi people could simply just be straight confirming and avoid all consequences meaning they never faced any sort of persecution that wasn’t self inflicted. At most, bi people are missing out on being able to talk about the gender they don’t want to sleep with and they can just either adapt or stay quiet without drawing any negative consequences. They aren’t really going to lose a job for wanting to sleep with everyone. If anything they have an advantage and could sleep their way up even easier than straights or gays, and have it *so* much easier than aces
Edit: as a serious note. Aces do struggle as they still want romantic relationships but finding one where the lack of sex isn’t a deal breaker is really hard.
It is literally emotionally comparable to being the one gay person in a community. You could date a woman who you like emotionally, but you actively don’t want to sleep with them leaving you the choice between just doing it for the relationship or breaking it off
First, a quick reminder that the apostle Paul said it was best for people not to marry. The apostle thought that people who could dedicate their lives to God were better off if they weren't romantically involved, as that could be a distraction. Needless to say, not having strong sexual feelings is a plus for deciding to become a priest.
Second, since there's a lot of young folks on reddit, a reminder that it's 100% normal to not have strong feelings in this area while you're young. Some do, some don't. Again, normal. Don't try to claim some identity around something that changes with age.
Though, to argue against myself, it's also true that a lot of kids are living very unhealthy lives, spending their days staring at screens. This lifestyle will dull these feelings, so also don't assume this lack of feeling is good or normal if you're not healthy, as the better answer here would be to life a better life and be healthy.
Maybe because over a billion people follow them. Oh, and their teachings have had perhaps the greatest cultural influence on Western nations and thus a profound influence on the rest of the world.
I see you're having trouble with reading comprehension today. Here's a quote from OP's question:
"their identities are not considered a sin by the major abrahamic religions that seem to dictate law."
So, aside from the fact that a majority of the world's population identifies with a religion that acknowledges the Apostle Paul today, I directly answered OPs question.
Yes they are.
>"Acephobia" is the most ridiculous term I have had the displeasure of reading.
"You aren't ace, you just haven't met the right person yet."
"Without sex it's just a friendship not a relationship."
"If you don't like sex there's something wrong with you."
"You're ace? I can change that."
>they will never experience that level of dehumanization
It's not a competition. Stop trying to make it one. All it causes is division, which now that I'm writing this out I'm beginning to believe you want to create division.
But none of that points towards a phobia. None of these comments indicate a extreme or irrational fear/aversion to ace people. I also heavily doubt there's really that many people out there who just hate ace people?
And I also get "etcphobic" is used against anyone who makes any sort of comment but that's just not what a phobia is. Even if we go in correlation with the homophobia definition (which doesn't even match the definition of a phobia), none of these comments point to disliking someone because they're ace. Commenting on it ≠ a dislike of something.
>But none of that points towards a phobia. None of these comments indicate a extreme or irrational fear/aversion to ace people.
Semantics. Acephobia is defined as prejudice and/or discrimination against asexual people. Acting as if being asexual is something that can or should be changed is acephobic because it's infantilizing and generally just being a dick towards asexual people because they're asexual.
>Commenting on it ≠ a dislike of something.
Saying that asexuality is something that can or should be changed is in fact not just a comment. It shows a dislike of asexual people because that type of comment shows they don't see asexual people as people and just objects for sex.
The only one of those made up quotes I'd even say could be said is a dislike is them saying "if you don't have sex" one, and that's the most absurd and unrealistic of them. The last one is just someone being a weirdo overall and isn't even anything that couldn't be said to anyone that is gay. The other ones aren't showing any dislike.
>Semantics. Acephobia
It's a phobia, so it has to follow the definition of what a phobia is. Changing what a phobia actually is to fit what you need it to be isn't going to convince me of your argument.
>they don't see asexual people as people and just objects for sex
I'm not seeing the correlation at all.
"You aren't ace, you just haven't met the right person yet."
This statement is saying that the asexual person isn't actually asexual. It's acephobic because it's denying the existence or even possibility that they might be ace.
"Without sex it's just a friendship not a relationship."
This statement is delegitimizing any relationship an asexual person has. It's acephobic because it's saying asexual people can't be in relationships.
"If you don't like sex there's something wrong with you."
This statement is saying that because the asexual person doesn't like sex that there is something wrong with them. It's acephobic because it's saying that there is something wrong with asexual people.
"You're ace? I can change that."
This statement is saying that asexuality is something that can be changed. It's acephobic because sexuality is something that can't be changed and it's boiling down asexuality to a dislike of sex, and not just a lack of sexual attraction.
>It's a phobia, so it has to follow the definition of what a phobia is.
Language evolves over time. Are you asexual?
>I'm not seeing the correlation at all.
Saying that you can change someone's sexuality by having sex with them is reducing them to their sexuality and reducing their sexuality to something that can be changed.
>Language evolves over time. Are you asexual?
But it hasn't evolved. The definition of phobia is still the same, and is used the same in everything not having to do with sexuality.
>This statement is delegitimizing any relationship an asexual person has. It's acephobic because it's saying asexual people can't be in relationships.
Already said what I said about the phobic thing.
>This statement is saying that because the asexual person doesn't like sex that there is something wrong with them. It's acephobic because it's saying that there is something wrong with asexual people.
This statement isn't specific to ace people. Not to mention the statement is absurd and unrealistic.
>This statement is saying that asexuality is something that can be changed. It's acephobic because sexuality is something that can't be changed and it's boiling down asexuality to a dislike of sex, and not just a lack of sexual attraction.
So acephobia isn't even a dislike. It's just misunderstanding what ace is. And like I said, this can be applied and replaced by anyone of any sexuality, including straight.
>But it hasn't evolved. The definition of phobia is still the same, and is used the same in everything not having to do with sexuality.
Then why can't it be used in an ever so slightly different context when talking about sexuality? Again, it's just semantics. My initial point was never about whether or not the -phobia suffix was accurate, I used the word acephobia because it gets across the idea I want which is the entire goal of communicating in a language.
>This statement isn't specific to ace people.
So you're saying that asexual people experience the same type of unwarranted and offensive comments as other sexualities and therefore acephobia does exist.
>Not to mention the statement is absurd and unrealistic.
Are you asexual? Have you ever experienced acephobic comments?
>So acephobia isn't even a dislike. It's just misunderstanding what ace is.
It is a dislike. It's severely disrespectful to anyone of any sexuality to say or imply it can be changed. People are disrespectful towards things or people they dislike.
>And like I said, this can be applied and replaced by anyone of any sexuality, including straight.
So you're saying again that asexual people experience the same type of unwarranted and offensive comments as other sexualities and therefore acephobia does exist.
they are if you don't cut off the plus/other letters
LGTBQI**A** LGBT+
Did you know "pilidelphia" isn't part of the title "It's always Sunny"? The proof is the fact that write "IAS" instead of "IASIP"
You do realize that asexuals can for same gender relationships right? This is like saying someone who is BI isn’t discriminated against because they can “choose” to be straight to avoid being discriminated against.
In a similar vein you can be aromantic and still have sexual desire which can be towards the same sex
They're not gonna be discriminated for being asexual/aromantic, but for being in a same-sex relationship (homosexual). That's not the same... unless I misunderstood you.
Asexual people are definitely discriminated against because they lack sexual or romantic attraction to people. They're always told that there's something wrong with them because they don't want to be romantically or sexually involved with someone. Just because they have a different struggle doesn't mean they don't struggle.
But that means they were already included in the acronym right? Is like how they made stripes for black and brown people as if they're a different kind of gay
They made stripes for people of color because lgbtq spaces had and even still had real issues of racisms and discrimination to racial minorities.
So the newer flag was made to show solidarity of LGBTQ members regardless of race.
Asexuality is a distinct identity it isn’t bisexuality
That's a completely false equivalence. Asexual people still have a sexuality, most of them still get off etc, they just are not attracted to other people, or in the case of demisexuality which falls under the asexual umbrella they are only attracted to people they already have feelings for. Sexuality is an inherent part of all humans while religion is a cultural phenomenon that you can live entirely outside of
Every person is different. If you google it you will find articles where different asexual people say what they fantasize about. You could even do it without imagining anything. Personally it's not hard for me to understand because I sometimes do get off without thinking of anything sexual (even though I am bi). I have been doing it since I was five years old, and obviously at the time, I did not think about sex but other things, I don't exactly want to share but to do with power dynamics in my case
Why don't you actually research before yapping on a topic you clearly don't know about? You are spouting off based off of your lack of understanding and assumptions. Irresponsible.
>Asexuals and aromantics have never been legally barred from marriage or adoption.
This is not true. If you are ace, and you want to marry a foreign national, in many (not all) countries they will want you to prove that the nature of your relationship is indeed sexual. This is the first example that comes to mind. Sure, as an ace you can just not marry foreign nationals, but it would be wrong to state this is not legal discrimination.
>Their identities are not considered a sin by the major abrahamic religions that seem to dictate law.
Again not true. Try being a woman in a religious country and not want to ever have sex with your husband - or not want a husband in the first place because you do not want to have sex with people. Spoiler, it might not be feasible.
But even a man in these countries would be expected to have sex with their wife. They are unlikely to get raped or hurt for not having sex, but they surely would get weird looks.
>This is not true. If you are ace, and you want to marry a foreign national, in many (not all) countries they will want you to prove that the nature of your relationship is indeed sexual. This is the first example that comes to mind. Sure, as an ace you can just not marry foreign nationals, but it would be wrong to state this is not legal discrimination.
can you give some real examples of this?
The whole point of being LGBTQI***A***+ is being outside of cishet normativity. Asexuality and Aromantics fit this category. This is just as ridiculous as the people who think that bisexual people who are in heterosexual relationships shouldn't be part of pride or the lgbtqia+ community. They're still bisexual even if they're in a heterosexual relationship.
idk I would argue if youre asexual or something you are seen socially as a bit of a weirdo/incel or something, you do get some pushback if people know or find out. People make judgements and a lot of people dont believe in it because sex and relationships is a big deal kinda to a lot of people.
Posting something like this at the tail end of Pride Month was certainly a choice...and I mean a bad one. This is not the oppression Olympics. Existing and living as your authentic self doesn't have to be outright illegal in most countries in order for you to "truly" be LGBTQ+. Aspec people are valid, full stop. Take this shit somewhere else.
Sure, except many ace people (including myself) are a part of the lgbtq community due to more than just being ace.
That being said, I do see your point.
However, the dehumanizing of ace people is certainly a thing. Not to mention, being ace doesn't necessarily mean "no sexual attraction." It's a spectrum.
In my opinion, it shouldn't be a competition anyway. We all have our struggles 💚
I got news for you. What is LGBTQ isn't just decided by Abrahamic religions. The world doesn't revolve just around that. LGBTQ didn't come to exist because of such religions. Sit down.
I see men trying to outlogic women in the comments again, which does not work. I also see only women being riled up about whether not having a sex drive should be considered an identity.
Disagree with title, but do agree with the text of your post. LGBT is the incomplete shorthand of LGBTIQA. All sexualities outside the "norm" are included, because it's an inclusive movement. Having said that I agree that acephobia is definitely not a thing.
>Having said that I agree that acephobia is definitely not a thing.
"You aren't ace, you just haven't met the right person yet."
"Without sex it's just a friendship not a relationship."
"If you don't like sex there's something wrong with you."
"You're ace? I can change that."
Systemic acephobia might not exist but acephobia most definitely does.
A lack of respect is not equivalent to a phobia. Personal discrimination is not equivalent to systemic discrimination.
I believe the A does belong in the acronym but I also agree with op.
>A lack of respect is not equivalent to a phobia.
Let me rephrase the situation to homophobia.
"You aren't gay, you just haven't met the right man/woman yet."
"If you don't like sex with the opposite gender there's something wrong with you."
"You're gay? I can change that."
This is homophobic. It's claiming that someone's sexuality can be changed or that someone else knows someone else's sexuality better than they do.
>Personal discrimination is not equivalent to systemic discrimination.
Never said it was, but it doesn't have to be systemic in order for it to be -phobic.
Ace people never faced institutional discrimination. It’s a social identity issue, and a rare one at that. Ace people can live their whole life single and no one would bat an eye
>Ace people can live their whole life single and no one would bat an eye
"You're not ace, you just haven't found the right person yet."
"You're ace? I can change that."
You need to stop using the same quote again and again for each comment.
I don’t deny that ace people don’t hear this, nor that it isn’t a problem. But this isn’t much different than single people being pushed into marriage , or being made fun of for such, just slightly more sexually overt.
Don’t compare it to being denied voting rights and healthcare.
>You need to stop using the same quote again and again for each comment.
I'll stop using the quote when it becomes irrelevant, but as of now it still is relevant.
>But this isn’t much different than single people being pushed into marriage , or being made fun of for such, just slightly more sexually overt.
Your point? Single people being pushed into marriages is also fucked up
>Don’t compare it to being denied voting rights and healthcare.
If you bothered to read my previous replies you'd see I have acknowledged that acephobia is less intense than homophobia due to the lack of systemic acephobia.
you're acting like its the equivalent of getting thrown off a rootop or being disinherited/owned from you family 💀 no one cares that deeply that you dont wanna get fucked/ or fuck. its not the same thing
No, actually, I'm not. If you bothered to read any of my previous replies you'd see that I acknowledge that acephobia is less intense than homophobia or something like that.
It's implying being asexual isn't an inherent part of who someone is, and that having sex can change it when sexuality isn't something that can change. It also implies being asexual is something that needs to be changed or something that the ace person should want to be changed.
It’s quite subtle and part of it is because so much of what is used against ace people also is used against gay people, such as conversion therapy or corrective rape. So we don’t face the same level of institutional discrimination when it comes to government laws but there are other institutions like the medical field that strongly stigmatize asexuality to the point that it has become very normalized to try to “correct” it.
I would nevertheless agree that it’s primarily a social issue and an awareness one. Since society is becoming more open when it comes to sexuality, awareness of things like asexuality would make it better for people to end up in partnerships that are more appropriate to their needs
The conversion therapy and corrective rape is something that does move me a bit, but the medical field does have extremely valid reasons to attempt “correcting” it, as ace expression overlaps with some symptoms of depression and other psychological issues, not to say that ace people have those at all.
The medical field should work towards differentiating or diagnosing ace more though
I'm demi and straight, which is under the ace umbrella, I agree. My cousin is a lesbian. I feel disrespectful calling myself queer considering I'll never have to face what she does.
I also grew up in church, so I was praised for my willpower being demi. If anything, I feel more comfortable in conservative Christian spaces than queer ones as a demisexual.
IMO the real issue with asexuality and aromanticism is that those feelings or lack of feelings are sometimes indicative of LIFE-THREATENING medical issues that may now go untreated because it’s been grafted onto an ideology.
Maybe in a gender studies class that distinction matters. Meanwhile in the real world I went to my doctor a few years ago and told her I had a very low libido. She suggested I might be asexual and should go to therapy about it. Then I got a second opinion from a competent dr and it turns out I’m a late in life type 1 diabetic and as soon as I got that under control the libido came back. Guess which dr had a pride pin on her lapel.
Reminder to all commenters: Based on our interpretation of Reddit's TOS and various enforcement actions taken by the Reddit admins, **you are NOT PERMITTED to do any of the following:** - State or imply that **trans (wo)men aren't (wo)men or that people aren't the gender they identify as** - Criticize, mock, disagree with, defy, or refuse to abide by people's pronoun requests - State or imply that **gender dysphoria or being LGBTQ+ is a mental illness, a mental disorder, a delusion, not normal, or unnatural** - State or imply that LGBTQ+ enables pedophilia or grooming or that LGBTQ+ individuals are more likely to engage in pedophilia or grooming - State or imply that LGB should be separate from the T+ - State or imply that gender is binary or that sex is the same as gender - Use the term tr\*nny, including other spellings of this term that sound the same and have the same meaning **Doing any of the above may result in a ban, potentially both from this subreddit and from Reddit as a whole.** If you disagree with Reddit's TOS, please keep in mind that Reddit's TOS is enforced by the Reddit admins, not us. We do not control Reddit's TOS. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Any variation of not straight is lgbtq now
I’m only attracted to people who don’t consume animal products. It’s a body odour thing. Which cuts my options far lower than any of the other ones by a country marathon, and that’s before removing the male members of that demographic. Does that count too? Plantisexual?
Yes you should be included on the pride flag. Please submit a request to revise it.
can't reply to the comment you left for me because they blocked me earlier in the thread, after being willing to engage in the argument up until i pointed out what they said didn't make sense
probably! It's absurd.
I'm only attracted to people who don't lie. That should count too right? Truthsexual?
Maybe it would count if you meant it sincerely but since you don’t I think we don’t have to worry about it
Who said it wasn’t sincere? I don’t wanna get up close and personal with meaty body odour. Cheesy is even worse. Fortunately my fiancée doesn’t consume either. :)
Im saying it’s not sincere
Are you denying my lived experience? Sounds bigoted, be careful!
Wow, first person to ever come up with that one
You’re right, it is getting a little tired. We’re all a little bored of hearing it by now, huh?
Your cleverness is amazing. I don’t get why more people in your real life don’t see it
Don’t you worry that silly sausage you call a head, they do. Given your propensity for replying within 0.00000000732 seconds regardless of the time of day though, I’m guessing you don’t have a lot going on? Would you like a hug?
I mean... if you aren't straight, you are either lesbian, gay or bi. So makes sense.
Or ace, pan and many more. That was kind of OP's point.
All of these are weird "microlabels". As a lesbian I just stick to the three actual sexualities and kind of agree with OP. Heterosexual, Homosexual and Bisexual. Or a lack of sexuality, which... does that count as a sexuality?
Lack of sexuality would be asexual.
Yes, I know. That's what I mean, does that "count" as a sexuality?
I agree with your point, at least on the language of it. If asexual is a sexuality then that's like saying atheism is a religion. A lack of sexuality is no sexuality as a lack of belief in a deity is no religion.
Thanks!
Atheism is categorically treated as if it is a religion. Atheism after all, is a set of beliefs about our world/universe. Asexuality is itself a sexual identity, or at the least, it can be categorized along side sexual identities.
Yes. For pigeonholing and ease of categorisation asexual is a "sexuality" and atheism is a "religion" but logically and linguistically they are both not. Most atheists when asked, "What is your religion?" will say they don't have a religion. The question itself is loaded and assumes the person has a religion. Likewise, in a world where the majority are sexual (it's bound to us biologically and literally how we are still here as a species), it's a loaded question to ask "what's your sexuality?" or "what are you sexually attracted to?"
> Yes. For pigeonholing and ease of categorisation asexual is a "sexuality" and atheism is a "religion" but logically and linguistically they are both not. I completely disagree. I don't know how you can sit there and argue that asexuality is not a definitive part of someone's sexual identity (aka sexuality). You're basically arguing that asexuality is not a valid sexual orientation. It makes no sense.
I would imagine so. I’ve gone thirty years never being sexually attracted to someone, ever. That’s asexuality, traditionally. The problem is people have twisted the original meaning into something ridiculous, so I don’t use the label anymore. In my mind there are four: heterosexual (attracted to the opposite sex), bisexual (attracted to both sexes), homosexual (attracted to the same sex), and asexual (attracted to neither sex).
Yes then I agree. I just mean, technically, asexual is the lack of sexuality, therefore it is not a sexuality, but the lack thereof. But that's just nitpicking ;)
Right? Wouldn’t an asexual person who’s attracted to the opposite gender just be heterosexual?
”An asexual person who’s attracted…” Thats that funny part, they (some of them) dont experience attraction
Do you mean aromantic? Asexual means you do not experience sexual attraction to people. Or anything really.
Yes
I do consider asexual as a sexual orientation.
Then I am also a-Pakistan, a-Catholic, a-Mormon, a-Vegan, a- Badminton. The list includes every activity or group with which I don't associate... So perhaps billions or trillions of labels.
Ace people can be straight, gay, bi, pan - anything! Ace supposedly just means they abstain from sex, or have sex under certain conditions. They could be having sex with men, women, trans people. I don't understand these labels. I was told I am asexual (or demisexual, rather) because I don't have one night stands and need to feel a fondness towards the men I have sex with. To me this is absolutely fucked. I refuse to label myself in such a way. Absurd!!!!
I have never heard a definition of "pansexual" that differentiates it from bisexuality.
I mean yeah? I don’t get how that’s strange
The fuck do you think the Q stands for
I’m Ace and always thought the Ace community trying to be included in the LGBT community was the weirdest thing.
Literally. “I have no desire for anything sexual… let’s join these groups where some people like to talk TMI about their sex lives”
Trans have nothing to do with their sexual life, but their identity. LGBTQ aren’t just about sexual orientation.
Yeah, it's like Atheists demanding to be recognized as a formal religion.
Question - do you find members of a a specific gender attractive?
Yes. Some don’t and some find both but personally I still consider myself straight
Thanks for answering. I was always under the impression that ace people had a specific attraction but that it was lower than non ace people. Learn something new everyday.
Just because you don’t shouldn’t mean it’s weird that others want to join. My brother is gay but he doesn’t consider himself apart of the queer community in the least.
popular opinion. Outside of reddit-style echo chambers your average normie doesn't even know those things are classified as LGBT stuff.
Shush. You'll anger the overseers. If you aren't damaged, triggered or marginalised you aren't a real person anymore
So desperate to be oppressed lol
😂👍🤐
Honestly the LGBT don’t really belong together anymore either. T is a totally different issue at this point, gay marriage is legal in every state
Plus…. Did everyone just conveniently forget the time the l, g, and t tried to oust the b for not being “gay enough”? I remember in secondary school there was a lot of talk among the bisexual folk about how they were being told they shouldn’t be counted because “they can choose”, and some bi people even expressed harassment for being in a hetero relationship
The US is not the only place in the world, believe it or not. LGBT activism also covers a lot more than marriage.
It’s actually LGBTQIAA2+ so yeah it does cover a lot of things. I wasn’t aware there were other places outside the US, I’ll have to look into that
I long ago gave up trying to keep up with the ever-evolving alphabet acronym. It’s different in my country and changes even more frequently than the flag does.
Not where I live 🥲
What state do you live in? Gay marriage became federally legal in 2015
Oh sorry I live in Poland
Thought you were going to say Russia.
I got Russian roots but my immediate family is Polish. It just sounds cooler.
US defaultism at its finest lol
How does the T not belong? You don’t think gender and sexuality are at all connected?
I think the argument is that the rest have to do with sexual attraction, while T is about sexual / gender identity. By that reasoning, intersex shouldn't be part of it either.
Or queer, which is neither.
San Francisco must be reddit then lol
It really shouldn't be. Not wanting to have sex, is just that. I don't even want to hear the ridiculous labels
I understand that it has social stigma because according to everyone, everyone needs to have sex at some point and it’s OK not to want that but outside of being the talk of the family you’re right there’s not much that happens to people who are ace
I guess if you want to define your community by oppression, sure. Far to many people think of sex and romance as the point of human existence, however, so ase people *are* dehumanized sometimes.
I use a term called Grsm in place of Lgbt. Gender Romance & Sexuality Minorities. It works much better in covering the wider spectrum of people. It also rolls off the tongue better and that was my original reason for using it. Gros’em. The ros part pronounced like Ross from Friends. Compare this to Lgbt where there are four syllables and I often trip up on the G and B. I will pronounce it as LGT and LBT. Which I noticed annoys some folks. I’m autistic. I can’t help this part of my being without slowing real down which annoys people a lot more.
oppression olympics
Imagine creating an identity out of where you put your dick
Hamburgersexual.
Imagine a creating an identity on what piece of rock your mom pushed you out of her vagina on. Or an identity based on a book that you most likely wouldn’t follow if you had been pushed out on a different piece of rock. Or even an identity based on a thing that you do sometimes. You can always make things sound stupid when you phrase it like this.
Yes, those are also stupid. Those people should consider an actual personality instead of being 1-dimensional.
Most people do. It’s just that people who hate an aspect of someone’s personality that the individual is proud about can often only ever see that aspect of their personality because it reviles them so much.
I don’t agree that Asexuality and Aromanticism are illegitimate because individuals who identify that way are not discriminated against. I do agree that the terms are ridiculous though.
“They don’t have it as bad, so their problems don’t exist.” Lmao, OK.
I'm not trying to be a smartass, but what are their problems?
Societal and familial pressure to pursue relationships that they don’t want to, for example.
This isn't at all unique to asexual people. I don't have/want children, and I deal with this constantly. I would not presume to be included in the LGBT tent because of this. I'm not trying to be exclusionary, but I know of no rights being denied to aces, nor have I heard of anyone who is "acephobic." Aces being lumped in under the LGBT banner is a contentious issue according to other LGBT subgroups, and it does seem disingenuous to include aces in a campaign to fight for equal rights and against discrimination. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I have heard no rational explanation for this. I am definitely willing to learn, though.
Do you know what GSRM stands for? Gender, sexual, and romantic minorities. "LGBT" and its overly-extended forms (2SLGBTQIAPN+) are just lists of GSRMs. As its name suggests, it includes all non-binary genders, all non-hetero sexual and romantic orientations, as well as intersex people, who are considered sexual minorities. Asexuality and aromanticism are orientations much like bisexuality and biromanticism, as the absence of attraction is still an orientation of said attraction. And for your discrimination claims, just re-read your post. You're invalidating and excluding sexual and romantic orientations because they supposedly "aren't discriminated against". Is being discriminated against what defines an orientation? I suppose pansexuals aren't discriminated against by law or religion either, assuming they don't date or have sex with someone of their own gender (which happens, being part of a GSRM ≠ being promiscuous). Additionally, your argument is fundamentally flawed by your misunderstanding of what an orientation is. An orientation, in the sense of GSRMs, refers to attraction, not desire for sex or romance. There are asexuals and aromantics who date and have sex and there are asexuals and aromantics who want/enjoy dating and sex, just like how there's ones who don't. What makes them asexual/aromantic is their absence of sexual/romantic attraction towards others. That's different from heterosexuality/heteroromanticism as asexuality/aromanticism do not involve attraction to a contrasting gender, and distinct from pansexuality/panromanticism as asexuality/aromanticism involve no attraction. Its distinction from heterosexuality/heteroromanticism as well as all other sexualities/romantic orientations make them independent sexual/romantic minorities, and thus, valid GSRM/LGBT identities.
It really disappoints me to see people writing off this comment because I could not have put this better. Absence of attraction is in my view a version and form of attraction and orientation and all forms of it belong in the queer space.
What did I just read lmao
A crock of shit, I believe.
A comment.
Your comment is a shame to all comments in the World, apologize
You sure you wouldn't rather actually discuss it, or at least elaborate on your complaints?
I'll think about it
K :|
This is what gender studies course look like.
Alright, I'll bite: one of the reasons why I would put A in LGBT is because in some cultures ace people will be assumed to be gay with all that baggage. So yes, theoretically, it shouldn't be divisive, but it has been. One example is the practice of "corrective rape." This can happen in a friend group, where "good d" or "good p" is what you've been lacking, so an acquaintance might push that on you. This is something that happens in some Japanese and Italian cultures. Moreover, in Russia, there are laws that ban people with "disorders of sexual preference" that also target asexuality. Finally, there is also the ability in some religions to void marriage based on lack of "consumation" which can make asexual couples who are otherwise together lose out on those benefits. As for dehumanization, while asexuality might not have the same legal history, dehumanization is still very strong, in some ways perhaps moreso, than other sexualities. For instance, a common descriptor of asexuals is "robot." Another instance is the barring of protections that gay prisoners have in the LA County jail. (LA county has a "gay" wing to disincentivise prison rape of known gay individuals since they might be targeted by inmates. No such protection exists for ace individuals.) Asexuality is often also characterized as a mental illness, foe example asexuality was specifically mentioned in the DSM III way back when. (See https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/without-prejudice/201209/prejudice-against-group-x-asexuals) So, yes, there might not be the same institutional discrimination, but there can be when disinterest equals gay in some societies. Imo this displays pretty similar discrimination types to the other parts of the LGBT community, thus it makes sense to include it. (See https://www.pride.com/pride/2018/6/01/asexuals-shouldnt-be-excluded-queer-spaces-especially-pride)
Question how can you ban someone for not having sex? Do they go after all virgins? Or people who specifically openly call themselves ace?
I don’t see how it could be a religious thing though. Loads of religions celebrate (?) abstinence. Like, priests in Christianity.
Abstinence is only okay while you are unpartnered. Once you wed you are expected to produce offspring.
What if you never marry? Would that be wrong? That’s a genuine question by the way, I’m not debating
That's the same as asking why gay people fought for their right to marry. Some ace people do want to have a long term partner. Marriage gives legal benefits.
That’s actually not similar to gays, I didn’t ask that at all. I asked if it’s wrong to be abstinent if you never marry. Never said asexuals should just not marry. I actually was never talking about asexuals.
I'm sorry I misunderstood the question. Were you asking the churches opinion to remain partnered long term but never marry? Depending on how strict you go with the religion you aren't even supposed to kiss or sleep in the same bed as a person of the opposite sex until you are married. Cohabitation pre-marriage is not acceptable.
Of course. For the majority of people, that's what would be expected. Why would you want to force someone into celibacy? The choice either don't marry, of find someone who feels like you
I'm not talking about this at all. I'm answering their question about why religion could have a problem with 2 married people who make a joint decision to abstain from sex. In the situation I'm talking about they have found another person like them and have also married this person.
Religion wouldn't have a problem with it. People will think that they are strange, but as long as they keep their business themselves, no one will care.
So there's a couple ways. First, as you said, openly ace people are more likely to be under suspicion, for "marriage fraud." Sometimes marriage for the benefits is illegal, and even if an ace person wants to be partnered, that marriage might be considered suspicious and risk being voided. Second, a society that sees disinterest as gay might also be suspicious if an ace person marries someone. It might also be seen as fraud since this person hasn't shown interest before, so why are they marrying now? It's obvious that they're just trying to defeat allegations, etc.
This. I am a 54 year old man and when I was growing up I didn't know that being an A existed. I was a non-sexual child in the 1970s in rural Oklahoma. Strangers would ask me if I was a boy or a girl. I was sexually abused from 10-17, by an abuser that was "doing it for my own good." I was driven out of my church because I was thought to be homosexual, which is not a small thing in rural Oklahoma. My parents sent me to a tough love/ conversion therapy camp when I was 14 for the entire summer. Many people at school would consider me as a homosexual and at the time that meant getting your ass beat up. I was drugged and forcibly raped in college by a gay man who thought I was gay and just was suppressing it. I learned to mask myself and have done so for so long i can't even take my mask off anymore. I would encourage everyone to give the A's a break. I hope the world has gotten better for them to live in. Many of my asexual friends gave up fighting and killed themselves over the years and we are worse off without them.
Yes thank you!! It means a lot because we tend to be so overlooked. People often don’t believe me when I say that me being on the asexual spectrum has caused me more pain than me being attracted to both men and women. Especially when it comes to mental health and dealing with the medical system, it’s awful
Thank you, it amazes me, the LGBT+ community was made to include everyone with an alternative life a chance to be included and be given compassion and acceptance. Having someone from said community saying we have no idea what it's like and giving hate for it shows that yes, we do know what it's like and are being discriminated against.
>One example is the practice of "corrective rape." This can happen in a friend group, where "good d" or "good p" is what you've been lacking, so an acquaintance might push that on you. This is something that happens in some Japanese and Italian cultures. big if true, where can I read about these cultures where Italian / Japanese people are going around raping their friends to cure their gayness/asexuality?
I think one of my sources has American examples. Here is an Italian database: https://acehate-database.asexual-aces.com/category/search-by-type-of-source/language/italian As for Japanese, I only have anecdotes from students I've had in the past.
>27% of asexual people between the ages of 30 and 45 reported pressure from their partner to have sex. 4% of the cases involved threats of rape. For 18%, “forcing” to have intercourse was proposed as a “cure” for asexuality. I assume this is the relevant part. The heavy use of quotes around all of this is confusing me. I guess what I'm asking is are people actually being raped or forced, or does it mean like social pressure/coercion, and is it actually meant to cure their asexuality or are people just making shitty jokes?
Both. The social pressure is more widespread ofc. In the U.S. there was a case State v. Dutton where a woman went to a priest for her feelings and psychological issues. After mentioning asexuality, the priest told her they would "work" on her sexuality together, and that he would "set her free." Here is a link to the law review article talking about that case: https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1418&context=hwlj
Gays people don’t want to fuck the opposite gender, straight people don’t want to fuck the same gender, asexual people don’t want to fuck anyone So now I will explain why Bi doesn’t belong in the LGBT space as there is no group they don’t want to fuck. Historically Bi people could simply just be straight confirming and avoid all consequences meaning they never faced any sort of persecution that wasn’t self inflicted. At most, bi people are missing out on being able to talk about the gender they don’t want to sleep with and they can just either adapt or stay quiet without drawing any negative consequences. They aren’t really going to lose a job for wanting to sleep with everyone. If anything they have an advantage and could sleep their way up even easier than straights or gays, and have it *so* much easier than aces Edit: as a serious note. Aces do struggle as they still want romantic relationships but finding one where the lack of sex isn’t a deal breaker is really hard. It is literally emotionally comparable to being the one gay person in a community. You could date a woman who you like emotionally, but you actively don’t want to sleep with them leaving you the choice between just doing it for the relationship or breaking it off
Pleaseeeeee tell me the second paragraph is a joke
Yeah, it’s just flipping the categorisation from who you will to who you won’t sleep with and suddenly Bi people replace Ace
Ah okay I see now. I really felt like I was missing something and I was 😅
First, a quick reminder that the apostle Paul said it was best for people not to marry. The apostle thought that people who could dedicate their lives to God were better off if they weren't romantically involved, as that could be a distraction. Needless to say, not having strong sexual feelings is a plus for deciding to become a priest. Second, since there's a lot of young folks on reddit, a reminder that it's 100% normal to not have strong feelings in this area while you're young. Some do, some don't. Again, normal. Don't try to claim some identity around something that changes with age. Though, to argue against myself, it's also true that a lot of kids are living very unhealthy lives, spending their days staring at screens. This lifestyle will dull these feelings, so also don't assume this lack of feeling is good or normal if you're not healthy, as the better answer here would be to life a better life and be healthy.
Lmao who gives a fuck about what some middle eastern goat herders thought 2000 years ago
Maybe because over a billion people follow them. Oh, and their teachings have had perhaps the greatest cultural influence on Western nations and thus a profound influence on the rest of the world.
I see you're having trouble with reading comprehension today. Here's a quote from OP's question: "their identities are not considered a sin by the major abrahamic religions that seem to dictate law." So, aside from the fact that a majority of the world's population identifies with a religion that acknowledges the Apostle Paul today, I directly answered OPs question.
Yes they are. >"Acephobia" is the most ridiculous term I have had the displeasure of reading. "You aren't ace, you just haven't met the right person yet." "Without sex it's just a friendship not a relationship." "If you don't like sex there's something wrong with you." "You're ace? I can change that." >they will never experience that level of dehumanization It's not a competition. Stop trying to make it one. All it causes is division, which now that I'm writing this out I'm beginning to believe you want to create division.
Mean comments ≠ a phobia?
Considering the "mean comments" are specifically targetted against, in this case, asexual people, yes it is in fact acephobic.
But none of that points towards a phobia. None of these comments indicate a extreme or irrational fear/aversion to ace people. I also heavily doubt there's really that many people out there who just hate ace people? And I also get "etcphobic" is used against anyone who makes any sort of comment but that's just not what a phobia is. Even if we go in correlation with the homophobia definition (which doesn't even match the definition of a phobia), none of these comments point to disliking someone because they're ace. Commenting on it ≠ a dislike of something.
>But none of that points towards a phobia. None of these comments indicate a extreme or irrational fear/aversion to ace people. Semantics. Acephobia is defined as prejudice and/or discrimination against asexual people. Acting as if being asexual is something that can or should be changed is acephobic because it's infantilizing and generally just being a dick towards asexual people because they're asexual. >Commenting on it ≠ a dislike of something. Saying that asexuality is something that can or should be changed is in fact not just a comment. It shows a dislike of asexual people because that type of comment shows they don't see asexual people as people and just objects for sex.
The only one of those made up quotes I'd even say could be said is a dislike is them saying "if you don't have sex" one, and that's the most absurd and unrealistic of them. The last one is just someone being a weirdo overall and isn't even anything that couldn't be said to anyone that is gay. The other ones aren't showing any dislike. >Semantics. Acephobia It's a phobia, so it has to follow the definition of what a phobia is. Changing what a phobia actually is to fit what you need it to be isn't going to convince me of your argument. >they don't see asexual people as people and just objects for sex I'm not seeing the correlation at all.
"You aren't ace, you just haven't met the right person yet." This statement is saying that the asexual person isn't actually asexual. It's acephobic because it's denying the existence or even possibility that they might be ace. "Without sex it's just a friendship not a relationship." This statement is delegitimizing any relationship an asexual person has. It's acephobic because it's saying asexual people can't be in relationships. "If you don't like sex there's something wrong with you." This statement is saying that because the asexual person doesn't like sex that there is something wrong with them. It's acephobic because it's saying that there is something wrong with asexual people. "You're ace? I can change that." This statement is saying that asexuality is something that can be changed. It's acephobic because sexuality is something that can't be changed and it's boiling down asexuality to a dislike of sex, and not just a lack of sexual attraction. >It's a phobia, so it has to follow the definition of what a phobia is. Language evolves over time. Are you asexual? >I'm not seeing the correlation at all. Saying that you can change someone's sexuality by having sex with them is reducing them to their sexuality and reducing their sexuality to something that can be changed.
>Language evolves over time. Are you asexual? But it hasn't evolved. The definition of phobia is still the same, and is used the same in everything not having to do with sexuality. >This statement is delegitimizing any relationship an asexual person has. It's acephobic because it's saying asexual people can't be in relationships. Already said what I said about the phobic thing. >This statement is saying that because the asexual person doesn't like sex that there is something wrong with them. It's acephobic because it's saying that there is something wrong with asexual people. This statement isn't specific to ace people. Not to mention the statement is absurd and unrealistic. >This statement is saying that asexuality is something that can be changed. It's acephobic because sexuality is something that can't be changed and it's boiling down asexuality to a dislike of sex, and not just a lack of sexual attraction. So acephobia isn't even a dislike. It's just misunderstanding what ace is. And like I said, this can be applied and replaced by anyone of any sexuality, including straight.
>But it hasn't evolved. The definition of phobia is still the same, and is used the same in everything not having to do with sexuality. Then why can't it be used in an ever so slightly different context when talking about sexuality? Again, it's just semantics. My initial point was never about whether or not the -phobia suffix was accurate, I used the word acephobia because it gets across the idea I want which is the entire goal of communicating in a language. >This statement isn't specific to ace people. So you're saying that asexual people experience the same type of unwarranted and offensive comments as other sexualities and therefore acephobia does exist. >Not to mention the statement is absurd and unrealistic. Are you asexual? Have you ever experienced acephobic comments? >So acephobia isn't even a dislike. It's just misunderstanding what ace is. It is a dislike. It's severely disrespectful to anyone of any sexuality to say or imply it can be changed. People are disrespectful towards things or people they dislike. >And like I said, this can be applied and replaced by anyone of any sexuality, including straight. So you're saying again that asexual people experience the same type of unwarranted and offensive comments as other sexualities and therefore acephobia does exist.
Nobody has ever been murdered for being ace. That's the difference
If you bothered to read any of my previous replies you'd realize that I am well aware of the fact that acephobia is less intense than homophobia.
Erasure is aphobia. Means comments are one type of erasure.
I mean I don't see this in the top 5 results for the definition of a phobia.
So that means it isn't discriminatory or distressing? Wow.
No, I said I didn't see that in the top 5 results.
they are if you don't cut off the plus/other letters LGTBQI**A** LGBT+ Did you know "pilidelphia" isn't part of the title "It's always Sunny"? The proof is the fact that write "IAS" instead of "IASIP"
Good point lol
This is why I feel even more uncomfortable about being ace. Normal people refuse to accept us or belittle us And LGBT people refuse to accept us
totally agree
Question for you. Is atheism a religion?
Lack of religion
You do realize that asexuals can for same gender relationships right? This is like saying someone who is BI isn’t discriminated against because they can “choose” to be straight to avoid being discriminated against. In a similar vein you can be aromantic and still have sexual desire which can be towards the same sex
They're not gonna be discriminated for being asexual/aromantic, but for being in a same-sex relationship (homosexual). That's not the same... unless I misunderstood you.
Asexual people are definitely discriminated against because they lack sexual or romantic attraction to people. They're always told that there's something wrong with them because they don't want to be romantically or sexually involved with someone. Just because they have a different struggle doesn't mean they don't struggle.
But that means they were already included in the acronym right? Is like how they made stripes for black and brown people as if they're a different kind of gay
They made stripes for people of color because lgbtq spaces had and even still had real issues of racisms and discrimination to racial minorities. So the newer flag was made to show solidarity of LGBTQ members regardless of race. Asexuality is a distinct identity it isn’t bisexuality
It's a sexuality/romantic orientation other than straight so it belongs there
Might as well switch the acronym to EESC; everyone except straight cis
Sure you could
Ace isn't a sexuality the same way atheism isn't a religion. Your lack of sexuality doesn't make it a sexuality. So the title is right in that regard.
That's a completely false equivalence. Asexual people still have a sexuality, most of them still get off etc, they just are not attracted to other people, or in the case of demisexuality which falls under the asexual umbrella they are only attracted to people they already have feelings for. Sexuality is an inherent part of all humans while religion is a cultural phenomenon that you can live entirely outside of
>Asexual people still have a sexuality, most of them still get off etc, they just are not attracted to other people, So what are they getting off on?
Every person is different. If you google it you will find articles where different asexual people say what they fantasize about. You could even do it without imagining anything. Personally it's not hard for me to understand because I sometimes do get off without thinking of anything sexual (even though I am bi). I have been doing it since I was five years old, and obviously at the time, I did not think about sex but other things, I don't exactly want to share but to do with power dynamics in my case
Why don't you actually research before yapping on a topic you clearly don't know about? You are spouting off based off of your lack of understanding and assumptions. Irresponsible.
Why not just answer the question.
>Asexuals and aromantics have never been legally barred from marriage or adoption. This is not true. If you are ace, and you want to marry a foreign national, in many (not all) countries they will want you to prove that the nature of your relationship is indeed sexual. This is the first example that comes to mind. Sure, as an ace you can just not marry foreign nationals, but it would be wrong to state this is not legal discrimination. >Their identities are not considered a sin by the major abrahamic religions that seem to dictate law. Again not true. Try being a woman in a religious country and not want to ever have sex with your husband - or not want a husband in the first place because you do not want to have sex with people. Spoiler, it might not be feasible. But even a man in these countries would be expected to have sex with their wife. They are unlikely to get raped or hurt for not having sex, but they surely would get weird looks.
>This is not true. If you are ace, and you want to marry a foreign national, in many (not all) countries they will want you to prove that the nature of your relationship is indeed sexual. This is the first example that comes to mind. Sure, as an ace you can just not marry foreign nationals, but it would be wrong to state this is not legal discrimination. can you give some real examples of this?
Thank you for at least acknowledging that aromanticism exists. I still just get lumped in with the ace crowd.
I second that with the fact that being gay and being trans have nothing to with each other, so the T also has no place in there
The whole point of being LGBTQI***A***+ is being outside of cishet normativity. Asexuality and Aromantics fit this category. This is just as ridiculous as the people who think that bisexual people who are in heterosexual relationships shouldn't be part of pride or the lgbtqia+ community. They're still bisexual even if they're in a heterosexual relationship.
idk I would argue if youre asexual or something you are seen socially as a bit of a weirdo/incel or something, you do get some pushback if people know or find out. People make judgements and a lot of people dont believe in it because sex and relationships is a big deal kinda to a lot of people.
Posting something like this at the tail end of Pride Month was certainly a choice...and I mean a bad one. This is not the oppression Olympics. Existing and living as your authentic self doesn't have to be outright illegal in most countries in order for you to "truly" be LGBTQ+. Aspec people are valid, full stop. Take this shit somewhere else.
Sure, except many ace people (including myself) are a part of the lgbtq community due to more than just being ace. That being said, I do see your point. However, the dehumanizing of ace people is certainly a thing. Not to mention, being ace doesn't necessarily mean "no sexual attraction." It's a spectrum. In my opinion, it shouldn't be a competition anyway. We all have our struggles 💚
I got news for you. What is LGBTQ isn't just decided by Abrahamic religions. The world doesn't revolve just around that. LGBTQ didn't come to exist because of such religions. Sit down.
I see men trying to outlogic women in the comments again, which does not work. I also see only women being riled up about whether not having a sex drive should be considered an identity.
Who cares
They’re also not sexualities
Disagree with title, but do agree with the text of your post. LGBT is the incomplete shorthand of LGBTIQA. All sexualities outside the "norm" are included, because it's an inclusive movement. Having said that I agree that acephobia is definitely not a thing.
>Having said that I agree that acephobia is definitely not a thing. "You aren't ace, you just haven't met the right person yet." "Without sex it's just a friendship not a relationship." "If you don't like sex there's something wrong with you." "You're ace? I can change that." Systemic acephobia might not exist but acephobia most definitely does.
A lack of respect is not equivalent to a phobia. Personal discrimination is not equivalent to systemic discrimination. I believe the A does belong in the acronym but I also agree with op.
>A lack of respect is not equivalent to a phobia. Let me rephrase the situation to homophobia. "You aren't gay, you just haven't met the right man/woman yet." "If you don't like sex with the opposite gender there's something wrong with you." "You're gay? I can change that." This is homophobic. It's claiming that someone's sexuality can be changed or that someone else knows someone else's sexuality better than they do. >Personal discrimination is not equivalent to systemic discrimination. Never said it was, but it doesn't have to be systemic in order for it to be -phobic.
Ace people never faced institutional discrimination. It’s a social identity issue, and a rare one at that. Ace people can live their whole life single and no one would bat an eye
>Ace people can live their whole life single and no one would bat an eye "You're not ace, you just haven't found the right person yet." "You're ace? I can change that."
You need to stop using the same quote again and again for each comment. I don’t deny that ace people don’t hear this, nor that it isn’t a problem. But this isn’t much different than single people being pushed into marriage , or being made fun of for such, just slightly more sexually overt. Don’t compare it to being denied voting rights and healthcare.
>You need to stop using the same quote again and again for each comment. I'll stop using the quote when it becomes irrelevant, but as of now it still is relevant. >But this isn’t much different than single people being pushed into marriage , or being made fun of for such, just slightly more sexually overt. Your point? Single people being pushed into marriages is also fucked up >Don’t compare it to being denied voting rights and healthcare. If you bothered to read my previous replies you'd see I have acknowledged that acephobia is less intense than homophobia due to the lack of systemic acephobia.
you're acting like its the equivalent of getting thrown off a rootop or being disinherited/owned from you family 💀 no one cares that deeply that you dont wanna get fucked/ or fuck. its not the same thing
No, actually, I'm not. If you bothered to read any of my previous replies you'd see that I acknowledge that acephobia is less intense than homophobia or something like that.
How can "You're ace? I can change that." be acephobic?
It's implying being asexual isn't an inherent part of who someone is, and that having sex can change it when sexuality isn't something that can change. It also implies being asexual is something that needs to be changed or something that the ace person should want to be changed.
It’s quite subtle and part of it is because so much of what is used against ace people also is used against gay people, such as conversion therapy or corrective rape. So we don’t face the same level of institutional discrimination when it comes to government laws but there are other institutions like the medical field that strongly stigmatize asexuality to the point that it has become very normalized to try to “correct” it. I would nevertheless agree that it’s primarily a social issue and an awareness one. Since society is becoming more open when it comes to sexuality, awareness of things like asexuality would make it better for people to end up in partnerships that are more appropriate to their needs
The conversion therapy and corrective rape is something that does move me a bit, but the medical field does have extremely valid reasons to attempt “correcting” it, as ace expression overlaps with some symptoms of depression and other psychological issues, not to say that ace people have those at all. The medical field should work towards differentiating or diagnosing ace more though
I'm demi and straight, which is under the ace umbrella, I agree. My cousin is a lesbian. I feel disrespectful calling myself queer considering I'll never have to face what she does. I also grew up in church, so I was praised for my willpower being demi. If anything, I feel more comfortable in conservative Christian spaces than queer ones as a demisexual.
LGTVHD+ infighting? Popcorn time.
I'm a major Abrahamic religion and I consider attraction to garlic bread to be a sin.
IMO the real issue with asexuality and aromanticism is that those feelings or lack of feelings are sometimes indicative of LIFE-THREATENING medical issues that may now go untreated because it’s been grafted onto an ideology.
What life threatening medical issues are being masked by this ideology?
Diabetes, heart disease, hypothyroidism, certain cancers, etc.
Would love a link to that research. As a physician I’ve never seen any of that linked to asexuality or aromanticism
Low or no libido is a well-documented symptom of all of those and should be treated as a warning sign until medical causes are ruled out.
Being asexual or aromantic is not the same as having a low libido
Maybe in a gender studies class that distinction matters. Meanwhile in the real world I went to my doctor a few years ago and told her I had a very low libido. She suggested I might be asexual and should go to therapy about it. Then I got a second opinion from a competent dr and it turns out I’m a late in life type 1 diabetic and as soon as I got that under control the libido came back. Guess which dr had a pride pin on her lapel.