Asexuality Contradictions

[Idontpostmuch]

Has anyone noticed all the contradictions and flaws in all the stuff about asexuality? Of course there are asexual people but a lot of the 'information' just doesn't hold water, and spookily, many people quote it like a bible without challenging any of it. Too many to list but I'll detail just a few:

1. Supposedly, only around 1% of people are asexual, yet the 'definition' includes so many types of attitudes to sex that it must account for a large number. Take demi-sexuals alone. Many people only feel sexually attraction when emotionally connected. In fact, women are stereotypically supposed to need to feel close to have sex (Nature's way of ensuring a stable upbringing for children) while men need to have sex to feel close. Of course there are both men and women who deny the stereotype, but there are still probably more demis among women than among men. Years ago I remember the subject coming up with friends (not all at once and they didn't all know each other, all aged around 30) and out of 7 of us, only 2 thought sex was all it was cracked up to be, and something they 'needed'. Yet all 5 of us would be classed as asexual since the definition includes those who can enjoy it but don't need it. That's way more than 1%. Both claims can't be true. Either most people classed as asexual are not asexual or so many of us are asexual that it's so normal it's not worth identifying.

1. We're told that people who experience sexual attraction but don't want to carry through are asexual. Yet we're told that sexual attraction and wanting to have sex are separate things, and that some asexuals like sex while some sexuals don't. The second statement makes nonsense of the first.

1. We're told that some asexuals like sex for emotional connection while some like it for the sensation. Ummmm, what else is there in sex to like? Both these are forms of sexual desire. It doesn't matter whether that desire stems from a drive to express love or a drive for physical sensations, there still has to be attraction. You wouldn't get emotional closeness unless you felt attraction, and surely we're not expected to believe anyone would have sex just to experience orgasms with someone they didn't find attractive. The ultimate logic here is that an asexual girl in her 20s would be indifferent to the age and attractiveness of her partner provided he had the right body parts.

Many more such inconsistencies. Potentially damaging, both to true asexuals (those who have always felt different) who must feel squeezed out, as well as to impressionable young people who are persuaded they're asexual simply because they're not 'up for it' all the time or with strangers. A lot of this has arisen in line with the increasing sexualisation of society. The more we have sex shoved in our faces, the more people there will be who start thinking there's something unique about them, and they're ripe for recruiting and open to persuasion. It's playing on their vulnerability and potentially causing some to fear relationships.

Nobody has to believe what has been written. I don't understand why "labels" are so important.

Sexuality is what it is. None of the labels actually make much sense. People just like a label. I don't pay much attention to any of them.

It's none of your business how others choose to think or indeed label their sexuality. If someone doesn't want to sleep with you, tough.

I'm not asexual so I can't really say, but I am demisexual and I wouldn't count that as anything like asexual - I love sex, have a very high drive, but I can only have sex with someone once I have an emotional connection - until then they're nice but I'm not aroused (any dick pics sent during that time, they may as well be sending me a photo of a potato 😂). I have been asexual though - for several years after my last birth, I had no libido or interest. I found men nice looking, but didn't fantasise or think about sex. I don't know how representative my experience of asexuality is, and how many people who are ace feel the same - in my case I had no sexual attraction to anyone, but others may feel attracted but not act, though I have no idea. What I do know of my ace friends is that physical contact is still a very big deal, lots of hugging.

Labeling people is getting a bit onious now. I don't care who anyone likes or dislikes. I only concentrate on what I like. I leave everyone else to get on with their own life.

Yes, the amount of labelling that goes on is ridiculous, which is one of the points I was trying to make. What does onious mean? A typo for onerous?

You're right. I don't see how so-called demisexuals can possibly be classed as asexual, and that's part of one of the points I made to illustrate the inconsistency and meaninglessness of a lot of the 'information' flying around. Interestingly you talk about ace friends in the plural. So, either you have a huge number of friends or there are a lot more than 1%. Yet the 'definition' that so many people swallow and cite makes the claim that 99% of people see random strangers that they 'want to jump' while only a tiny minority feel differently. You don't have to be asexual or sexual or anything in between to be able to spot the glaring inconsistencies and contradictions around. It reminds me of a Guardian article from a few years ago called 'How Technology Disrupted the Truth'. While the subject in question is asexuality, I could probably have found many other topics to illustrate the same thing, essentially the power of the internet to mislead, cajole and convince.

You're right, I have a lot of friends who are asexual (four close friends off the top of my head, one is my husband's partner), but I'm out on the Nottingham kink and poly scenes which is huge so my perceptions are skewed compared to the average person...however one of those friends is my partner's colleague, I'm the only person she's told about her asexuality, so there may be a lot of people just not divulging (just as most of the population would look at me and see an innocent mum). Of those friends, most love touching and cuddling, just not sex. Though I haven't delved into whether they feel attraction that they don't act on.

The labelling of people's sexuality is full of contradictions, because our sexuality is incredibly complex. In my opinion, people do not necessarily fit into neat boxes; if they do today, they probably will not fit in the same box next year, or even the next day.

What we need to remember is that there are quite a few people who make a living from our sexuality. They would like us to think of ourselves as being confined within certain limits in order to be classified as asexual, pansexual, bisexual, or whatever. In my experience the boundaries between the classifications, if they exist at all, are very blurred.

I say that to heck with the experts: sleep with whoever you want to, when you want to, and just enjoy being yourself.

I disagree completely.

I think there's a lot of effort lately being put into making us believe that our sexuality is complex or often changes. Those making the effort to put that narrative out there are often really dodgy people and organisations such as mermaids. It's to groom people to be up for anything with anyone. To put pressure on people for others kinks. It's disgusting.

Others are trying to justify previous decisions that have fucked up someone else life. For example a man/woman who has now realised at 40 that he/she is gay, and apparently had never been attracted to someone of the same sex before, and that is why he/she married a man/woman and had children. He/she leaves their partner traumatised and feeling like they've lived a lie. But we've all got to be kind because sexuality can apparently change and the person is so brave. Yeah, fuck that. It's bullshit.

Most people are straight, some are gay, some are bisexual. For most people, I believe it's very clear to them. Whether they admit it is something else.

The whole pansexual thing is to get us all to accept people being trans. For lesbians to be called transphobic for not wanting to date and sleep with trans women is disgusting and again this narrative that it's possible for us all to be attracted to anyone at some point is bullshit.

Reminds me of the whole Phillip Schofield drama. How brave to leave his wife! Can't help wondering how many people truly believed in this 'bravery' and how many were just afraid of being called homophobic.

I think xpc316e and ObsessedWithZach are both right, even though they differ from one another.

I wouldn't want to suggest at all that anything is perfect but in many ways this is the best time there has ever been to enjoy sex. Reliable contraception, more openness about desires and orientations, affordable equipment, a more open discussion about consent. There is a lot more interest from all sorts of people into the subject of sex as a consequence of this.

I think the ascribing of labels (together with the tribal flags) has become a fetish, but they can be useful if you are still trying to work out where you are on the spectrum of sexuality. I think the above means that those who genuinely aren't interested in sex stand out more and get labelled with their own status (and cute flag.)

BUT as with any walk of life or topic, all these academics, obsessives, enthusiasts and advocates bring their own agendas, and we have to be mindful of that.