20

I'm not sure if this is the right circle to post, but I feel like it's the most relevant.

for me personally, I don't think they should be included with LGB for the following reasons -

  1. asexuals aren't killed, ostracised, bullied etc just for being asexual. asexual women may be pressured into getting married to men, but that's just misogyny. lesbians go through the same thing, and so do basically single women of any age and orientation. ace men may be made fun of for being virgins, but that's just toxic masculinity. any virgin guy would experience that.

  2. asexual can sometimes be not innate, as in, a trauma response. sexual trauma from childhood or any time of your life really, can cause you to be asexual, especially sex-repulsed. no amount of trauma or life experience can turn a straight person gay. that's a very important distinction, and I don't doubt that it might lead to conversion therapy narratives against gays and lesbians.

    sidenote: this is personal (and maybe only happens online), but I've seen so much ace homophobia. I'm not sure if y'all noticed, but yeah. I was in a fb group that archived/pointed out examples of asexuals being homophobic, and there were asexuals in that group too. they (homophobic aces) made fun of gay men for being infected with HIV, by saying stuff like "haha, I'll never have HIV! I don't fling myself at random people" during a conversation about that epidemic, in regards to LGB issues. it was a tumblr post, I'm not sure how to find it, but the hyperlink is to a tumblr blog that points out ace homophobia. I've never used tumblr, and maybe this is just a very online phenomenon.

I'm not sure if this is the right circle to post, but I feel like it's the most relevant. for me personally, I don't think they should be included with LGB for the following reasons - 1. asexuals aren't killed, ostracised, bullied etc just for being asexual. asexual women may be pressured into getting married to men, but that's just misogyny. lesbians go through the same thing, and so do basically single women of any age and orientation. ace men may be made fun of for being virgins, but that's just toxic masculinity. any virgin guy would experience that. 2. asexual can sometimes be not innate, as in, a trauma response. sexual trauma from childhood or any time of your life really, can cause you to be asexual, especially sex-repulsed. no amount of trauma or life experience can turn a straight person gay. that's a very important distinction, and I don't doubt that it might lead to conversion therapy narratives against gays and lesbians. sidenote: this is personal (and maybe only happens online), but I've seen so much [ace homophobia](https://homophobicaces-blog.tumblr.com/). I'm not sure if y'all noticed, but yeah. I was in a fb group that archived/pointed out examples of asexuals being homophobic, and there were asexuals in that group too. they (homophobic aces) made fun of gay men for being infected with HIV, by saying stuff like "haha, I'll never have HIV! I don't fling myself at random people" during a conversation about that epidemic, in regards to LGB issues. it was a tumblr post, I'm not sure how to find it, but the hyperlink is to a tumblr blog that points out ace homophobia. I've never used tumblr, and maybe this is just a very online phenomenon.

29 comments

[–] Lipsy 11 points Edited

The "ace" thing, as I've seen it, as invariably three things:

/1/ aimed only at Women and Girls; nobody is trying to limn any notion of "ace" males

/2/ never accompanied by commonsense messaging saying that singlehood and celibacy are perfectly acceptable lifestyle options

/3/ alws with some mention made that "asexuals can still have sexual rls" with some patently insincere happy-ass joywashing about 'intimacy' and 'bonding' and other such phenomena that are clearly real parts of a healthy rl, but that here are offered as the proverbial bill of goods in a mutual exchange with asexual pu$$y—where (let's all be shocked!) the 🐈 is duly received but none of the billed emotional and spiritual goods are tendered.

Putting these together, the entire thing is pretty clearly a front intended to trick or lull a Woman into a "«'relationship'»" in which She gets not only no sexual pleasure at all, but moreover no effort or attentiveness or attempt at bettering either of these from dude-o, and purpose-built to coerce Her and wear Her down into believing that this kind of one-way street is a legitimate 'orientation' rather than what it is, which is an endorsement of abuse and neglect.

As the world's worst imaginable 'bonus' for Lesbians the entire edifice of the cotton ceiling is tossed right in there, in raw whole undiluted form.
For straight Women it's "only" horribly bad, totally unsatisfying, and actively toxic. But at least it's mutually heterosexual on paper! Not that that's actually a plus🥴 although, on a basis of pure wild-eyed speculation, I would guess that this does actually make everything incrementally less bad than for Lesbians because at least the entire nature of attraction is "only" ignored, not actively traduced.

I haven't mentioned bi Women because there are only two possibilities, /1/ bi is exactly the sum of the two parts and is no more and no less, or /2/ a synergy (of any kind at all) exists in which the hetero and lesbian attraction modules talk to each other as it were.
If it's /1/ then it's already covered in discussing impacts on straight and lesbian Women. If on the other hand it's /2/ then i know nothing (but want to know everything!) and shall happily defer to another Woman who can tell that story.