33
HistoryI buried a necklace
I buried a necklace that a man gave to me 13 years ago. It was silver with a dark blue stone. I thought it was beautiful. However, we should not have been together and he should not have purchased any gifts for me. We belonged to other people. I'm glad the necklace is under the dirt where it belongs.
Every single person I've known personally that claims some level of gray/ace/demi-whatever-ality...later admits to sever sexual trauma, or abuse, or a deep dislike for men, or SSRI use for years, or depression, or a myriad of other things that account for it better. All of them masturbate, many of them have had past sexual partners, and the amount of exotic art and writing they can create is on parr with Sara J Maas. But still they claim the Ace Spectrum Thing. It boggles my mind.
If they're sexually involved it does seem silly to "identify" as asexual. Plenty of older people, especially older women, will tell you that their sexual needs taper off at some point and they don't masturbate or create erotic art on a regular basis, but I don't think they'd call themselves "asexual" either, bc it's just unnecessary. It always used to be considered fairly normal for old married couples to eventually relax their sexual activities.
But then we invented viagra and normalized botox, and pushed the idea that everyone should try to be 25 forever. With porn available everywhere and even most ordinary entertainment far more explicit than it was a couple decades ago, the expectation is that everyone must be having sex constantly from their early teens until they die. I can imagine that people who feel like their interest is lower than what's perceived as the norm may find it useful to label themselves "ace" or "demi" just to clarify that they don't fit into that demographic, even though that is a manufactured concept of what is normal.
To me it seems like the concept of being asexual developed very much as a response to the increasing sexualization of our culture, largely through tech & internet changes. The more kinky, pornographic, explicit, and constant sexual action & reference is expected, the more there's a defense of some kind, which may be more extreme than the truth. Plenty of young people who identify as asexual may just want to have a normal level of sexual interest and live in a culture that doesn't put sex at the forefront of everything, but they end up exaggerating the case in order to push back. It's easy to see just by looking at fashion, movies or even educational activities how much norms have shifted, so that plenty of people who call themselves "asexual" now would probably be perfectly comfortable a generation or two back.
I remember when we used to discuss if "going all the way on the third date" was slutty. Or when it was considered a little bold to wear a skirt without tights.. Stuff like anal sex wasn't even on the radar. Sex for young people now has shifted & a lot of people are trying to define themselves in relation to that.
If my husband dies I will honestly never date or have a sexual partner again unless I suddenly become bi in my 40s, given the current...offerings available. Still, I feel it's better to openly confront the shitty situation than just hide behind a label that doesn't apply to 99.999% of the people using it.
I do feel bad for teens these days though. The fact that they're legitimately frightened of sex even to the point of being afraid of their own arousal is so odd to me. I wasn't partnered up in high school, and my libido has always been mid at best because of depression, but I wasn't afraid to explore those feelings myself, and I grew up in bumfuq nowhere, Bible belt, pentecostal, sex is the devil country.
If they're sexually involved it does seem silly to "identify" as asexual
One of my "asexual" friends currently has a fuckbuddy with no feelings attached. I'm pretty sure a huge majority of people who claim to be asexual just want a free pass into being LGBT (I'm not saying LGB because, from what I've seen, most of them support the T)
Niece called herself asexual when she was 14. When I was 14 I just hadn't developed a sex drive yet, not really until my 20s. Plus she was on Lupron from 11 to 12. I wanted to tell her she was just still growing and might get sexual attraction later but I would have been excommunicated.
Lo and behold at 17 she says she "loves men" and is "so gay."
If they're sexually involved it does seem silly to "identify" as asexual. Plenty of older people, especially older women, will tell you that their sexual needs taper off at some point and they don't masturbate or create erotic art on a regular basis, but I don't think they'd call themselves "asexual" either, bc it's just unnecessary.
I'm in exactly this stage of life. My libido is stone-cold dead since menopause, and I don't think it was ever that high to begin with. I don't want to go into specifics, might be a bit outing, but I don't regret it, save for the loss of urge to write or draw. I've been called asexual once or twice over the years, but that's just laughable.
I'm postmenopausal, and my libido is still there, I crave emotional and physical intimacy, as well as the release of orgasm. I exercise a lot, for health reasons, I have massive urge to write and draw, but struggle because of anxiety about finances, enough food, health, I am a worrier!
I love being in love, emotional, physical, intellectual, "historical" (meaning there's shared history there, common frame of reference) intimacy. When you say your libido is stone-cold dead, do you mean you don't feel appetite or hunger for these other kinds of intimacy as well?
If I was in a relationship with someone, and my libido was stone-cold dead, and they still had a libido, I would want to do everything I could to keep them satisfied, I would want them to experience orgasm, I would want to help them down that particular garden path! I would hope someone would feel the same about me, if I was in a relationship with someone whose libido was low or nonexistent (I find the latter hard to believe, but maybe they're on methadone, I read that will knock your sex drive out, or SSRIs, or both, or whatever, injuries, medical conditions).
We get older, our sex drive decreases, I don't think it has to disappear completely, at least not in your sixties! If someone's healthy, I think there's still capacity to experience sexual pleasure even further into old age. Humans were made for physical intimacy, I feel.
I'd be distressed by its disappearance if I was in a relationship, but fortunately I never have been, nor wanted one. I also don't want physical intimacy of any other sort. My family was never touchy-feely and the only cuddles I welcome are from cats! I'm enjoying living alone for the first time in my life and that's not going to change until I'm carted off to a nursing home.
We must be genetically different, I love cuddles, being in love, being close with another human being (man). Just have experienced so much abuse in my life, I just about gave up on that, but I definitely had a change of heart upon meeting someone who seems emotionally/intellectually compatible with me! Surprised the hell out of me, I must say!
Must be! I've never been abused for any length of time (harassment at high school that stopped once I reported it to the deputy head, ditto at my first job that also stopped when I reported it to my manager, who took it to his manager, who raked him over the coals - this in the '80s!)
My taste in men was always extremely specific and essentially unattainable, and while I wished my type was available, I didn't want involvement with anyone else, and evidently nobody was interested in me (I was never good-looking) so it worked out quite well, lol.
If people prefer that as a term rather than "low libido", or "frigid" as regrettably the term was (applied to women) back in the day, so be it.
What it doesn't need is to be an "identity" beyond a tick-box on dating app preferences, let alone some kind of special protected minority group.
So you don't like sex and don't have sex? Good for you. Millions of people the world over rarely if ever have sex for a whole host of reasons, even if they have normal libidos.
It doesn't make you special any more than I'm special for having no interest in cycling and choosing not to do it.
I hear what you’re saying, and these criticisms have some weight. At the same time, I don’t see any point speculating on other people’s sexual feelings. The only person who knows whether she is asexual or not is the person herself. We can’t read her mind and so we can only listen to what she tells us.
a silly cartoon I’m watching with a male “ace rep” character
You can say Bojack Horseman :)
if someone's still masturbating i'd call that autosexual, not asexual. i roll my eyes everytime.
Sexuality is influenced by more than just physical needs - emotional or intellectual connection is a significant dimension for many women to be interested. If women don't feel that connection with people they have met it is OK to opt out.
If it is a source of angst for them, they can explore if there are physical, psychological or relationship reasons.
But if they are content and happy with their asexual/celibate lives I don't see what the problem is. They can redirect all that spare time/money into doing something more fulfilling for themselves.
Why do women need to be sexually active? aside from if they want to have a child.
I get being fed up with everyone needing to be labeled with an "identity & flag" and fully support the eye-rolling at yet another navel-gazing bore.
They don't need to be sexually active. If they never are that's perfectly fine by me. It's the fact that it's used as a shield to avoid looking into the issues that (because I've known them for years) are clearly the reason they actually feel this way. You don't get traumatized or medicated into a sexual orientation, and every single one of them has trauma or a medical issue or both that you could almost pin on a board and say 'there's the switch!' If they want to be celibate, more power too them. But by God take care of the underlying issues too instead of sweeping them under the ace rug with the demi broom!
Exactly. I also find it concerning that young girls, who probably haven't even reached the stage of being sexual/interested in that, are now labelling themselves "ace" and making it their identity.
I heard a teacher say that many girls 12 to 16 in her classes were pressured to pick a sexuality by their peers. A large percentage picked asexual- probably because they have seen porn, and just want to be left alone.
A friend's son 'came out as ace' - I didn't say anything to her, but he hadn't even finished puberty yet. I worry about kids who preemptively stake everything on some 'identity' or other, then don't feel like they can change it once they've matured a bit.
I mostly agree with you, but I also don’t really care - if someone wants to call themselves asexual that’s none of my business anyway so I’m not going to engage lol.
The only thing that does annoy me is when they start claiming oppression on the same scale as gay people.
They are literally not oppressed at all.
Depending on culture maybe. Some cultures put more pressure on people (specially women) to marry, so I'd say in that case there is oppression
Yeah, but that's just ordinary patriarchal oppression of women.
I am not asexual, I just haven't met a man I'd want to marry. Forcing me to marry some ugly dude would be oppression just as much as forcing an "asexual" woman into that.
(I, too, would usually not care if people want to call themselves asexual, I just think it is covering up societal and medical problems. If people who find porn disgusting just call themselves asexual, there is no pushback against porn, no one opposes the claims that porn shows how you have to have sex. Same with SSRIs killing people's libidos, if depressed people claim to be asexual, then no one learns about the side effects of SSRIs. Not wanting to have sex can be a result of trauma, or of poor health, and if "asexual" is made an identity one may not question, all those things are covered up.)
Yeh I agree with you. I don’t buy this asexual thing. I think some people for various reasons may be uninterested in sex for periods of time, but I don’t think we need to label them ‘asexual’. Also, if you’re masturbating, there’s no way you’re asexual. Masturbating is still about sexual feelings even if it’s a solo activity. Also, the ridiculous thing I’ve seen from the ‘ace’ community is people (women) saying they’re asexual because they only want to have sex with people they have a strong connection with, and I’m like, well obviously! Doesn’t make you asexual, love! Makes you a very normal female human.
There is such a thing as responsive desire, more often in women than men. I have no interest in random sex with a stranger. For me, desire arises as part of a relationship with a specific person. The more sex I have, let’s say, the more I want to have. The less I have, the less I want. That includes masturbation, which tapers way off when I’m not having sex. The exception is a nasty period when I tried to watch porn, but that got old fast.
Copy-and-pasting my comment from the last time this perennial discussion came up:
I've never experienced sexual attraction to anyone, male or female. However, unlike OP, I spent much of my adolescence thinking I might be a lesbian, since I wasn't interested in boys. But I wasn't attracted to girls either, which I remember trying to rationalise by assuming the Westermarck effect had removed my capacity to be attracted to the girls around me, with whom I had come of age (I attended mainly all girls' schools).
But when a schoolmate of mine came out, and I finally saw what I really always knew - that homosexuality was not merely the absence of interest in the opposite sex - that explanation finally stopped satisfying me. And I was old enough that the "late bloomer" label was wearing thin.
So yes, I found AVEN. Accidentally, in my case (I was looking up "asexual reproduction" for biology and "asexuality in humans" appeared in the suggestions). I was lightly active on the forums in my late teens and early 20s, but I haven't used the site in more than ten years. And more than ten years later, I have felt nothing sexual towards anyone.
Am I gay, and unknowingly repressed by unconscious internalised homophobia due to my Catholic upbringing - for all that I have no memory of being told homosexuality was a sin by parents or teachers, and for all that even our religion teachers in school told us just the opposite? Did that same Catholic upbringing instil in me an unhealthy idolisation of virginity, and thereby cause me to repress all my sexual feelings? Am I straight, and it's simply the case that no man I've ever met has met my standards, whatever they may be? Is asexuality just a symptom of my ASD?
These are questions I've asked myself over and over, for years. I don't have the answers to them, but no matter what they may be, it doesn't change the fact that, for whatever reason, I do not experience sexual attraction. Therefore, as far as my life so far is concerned, the label "asexual" has a definite utility.
I have never had sex, and as long as I do not experience sexual attraction, I will not. Having sex with a person you do not want to have sex with is a lie.
And as for the SSRIs... I started identifying as asexual about two years before I was first put on them, so I'm sceptical that they can be blamed in my case. I'm sceptical about the phenomenon of "PSSD" in general, as I suspect it's yet another attempt to blame anything but porn for widespread sexual dysfunction, but I could be wrong there, of course.
If SSRIs could cause sexual dysfunction during its use why wouldn't there be some lasting effects?
Personally I had to discontinue SSRIs for years before I was able see improvement from PSSD.
But, if you don't mind me asking, your sex drive was normal prior to taking SSRIs?
For me, whether I'm on or off them, I've never noticed a difference in my lack of sexual attraction - and I never experienced any prior to using SSRIs either.
I can only assume that it was. I'm not sure what counts as a normal sex drive. On SSRIs, I didn't see a difference in frequency but intensity. That made sexual urges easier to ignore, not a bad side effect TBH. The main problem was the lack of physical sensation.
I can't really speak on the sexual attraction aspect too much.
I had a student once, a theatre major, who claimed he was asexual. It seemed clear to me he was gay in denial (he came from a very religious background).
I agree with you about it being highly unlikely anyone could naturally be asexual. And I, too, think the prevalence of SSRIs and sexual trauma explain a great deal of it. After my father committed suicide I went on Zoloft, and it flatlined both my emotional responses and my libido.
While I don't think it makes sense to call yourself asexual if you still masterbate or participate in or desire sex, I don't really have an issue with this label. I also don't necessarily think something has to be wrong with someone to not have sexual desire tbh. I also don't think it matters if someone feels asexual if it doesn't bother them, it isn't something they'd like to change and/or it isn't impacting their lives negatively.
I honestly think it's significantly weirder when I see some people unnecessarily annoyed with asexual people. Like they're mad someone doesn't want to have sex (usually women). It's weird to be so obsessed with how much someone is or is not fucking. However, I always understand frustration with illogical crap.
I guess for me if I were 'annoyed' by it it would be with someone 'identifying as asexual' to cast oneself as a 'persecuted minority' akin to being homosexual.
I honestly think it's significantly weirder when I see some people unnecessarily annoyed with asexual people. Like they're mad someone doesn't want to have sex (usually women). It's weird to be so obsessed with how much someone is or is not fucking. However, I always understand frustration with illogical crap.
It's not so much annoyance as it is a desire for honesty. It's clear to me that these women I know, like my few TIF friends, are using a label as a shield to not acknowledge deeper issues somewhere else in their life. I don't care what random people I don't know do in their own lives, until they're being obnoxious about it in shared spaces, but these women are my friends, and I care about them. I want them to be happy. That doesn't have to include a man or a woman in their life (though most of them clearly want a partner and just can't seem to find one, which good for them for having high standards,) but confronting the mental or physical issues that are making them pick up the label in the first place would be a damn sight healthier than just picking a label and giving up.
(Are you also rewatching Bojack Horseman? I always felt lucky they didn't include gender ideology and the weird asexual storyline always seemed to me they were told to include woke bullshit somehow in there but didn't want to do trans)
I think some women here identify as asexual but the concept and especially how it is lived today feels extremely "gendery" to me. There is like 207 varieties of asexual that almost all seem to include having sex, which... What? But even besides that, every single time I read about a self declared asexual firstly it's a woman and secondly if I dig through their profile sooner or later it comes up that they were victims of sexual violence. But obviously nobody should be coerced into any sex and if someone doesn't want to have sex, it certainly doesn't disadvantage my life so good for them. If asexuality is real, it feels more like a medical issue anyway than an "identity".
I do wonder if some young women identify as asexual because they're repulsed by today's disgusting porn culture. I mean just look at the latest Kanye shenanigans, parading his wife around naked like a sex slave he just bought at the market while he's clothed. Or how they have to make up a "sexuality" for having standards and wanting to know the person before you have sex with them. It's absolutely sick and if I grew up today among fetish TIMs in my bathrooms, all boys my age porn addicted and women screaming sex work is work, hey maybe I'd identify as asexual.
(Are you also rewatching Bojack Horseman? I always felt lucky they didn't include gender ideology and the weird asexual storyline always seemed to me they were told to include woke bullshit somehow in there but didn't want to do trans)
This is how I felt too! I actually did like the storyline, even though I have always been skeptical of asexuality. But I do like Todd so maybe that’s why I enjoyed his story.
I think it's possible but rare, and I also think that terms such as demisexual and the ace spectrum are silly. You would only be asexual if you weren't sexually attracted to anyone ever. Funnily enough every single person I know who claims to be asexual enjoys having sex with the opposite sex lol it's like saying you are a lesbian but being attracted to some men
I agree that it seems unlikely that asexuality is part of human sexuality. I think libido changes throughout our lives and there’s things in the modern world that can change it. You’ve mentioned things like pharmaceuticals and depression.
I feel like it’s normal to be open sexually these days and we see things like men talking openly about porn they watch and I see women that scold others on not to kink shame etc. society is pornified. So if you don’t fit into that , you might feel different. You might call yourself asexual.
But they have so many terms for it and it always seems to include sex. So clearly these people don’t abstain from it and if they aren’t having sex they’re thinking about it or the desire is there.
I knew 2 women who claimed to be asexual. Even if I believed it was possible , they wouldn’t be what I’d consider asexual. One had been a friend since childhood and we were very close. I knew she was interested in men. She’d have crushes on boys growing up and desired a relationship with a man. She had never been very lucky in romance/relationships. In her 20s she claimed she was asexual. But she’d still mention being interested in men and would pursue crushes. She basically called herself asexual because of not having a relationship ever and felt that it was weird and used this label because it made her feel better.
Another was a former co worker who said she was asexual and the reasoning my similar to my friend. However, she started an OF and called it empowering etc. she said being asexual is good for that kind of side hustle because you won’t develop feelings.
These women obviously have a sexuality, I’d assume heterosexual but they could be bi too. They just like the label because they’re inexperienced for their age. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with not having relationship experience but I also know it’s hard when your peers are getting married, dating, having babies and all that. So it makes sense to give yourself a label to make it seem that you’re not behind your peers, and hopefully they won’t judge you.
I used to think I was asexual. In hindsight, it was a mix of being young (14 to 19 or so is when I thought this), being on SSRIs, and also internalized homophobia—I didn’t want to admit to myself that I liked girls sexually, and I also wanted to pretend I could still romantically like boys, though I knew I couldn’t sexually like them. Oh, the level of culture being pornified also scared me. I feel like there was also a lot of “toxic sex-positivity” in the mainstream/liberal/choice feminist spaces around that time. You know, the idea that sex and kink is empowering and revolutionary and that anyone who thinks otherwise is a prude or conservative.
Also, I’m really surprised men haven’t latched on to the concept of “aromantic.” Basically they could claim to be attracted to people sexually but not romantically. Really seems like it would go with hookup culture perfectly.
Selling it as orientation would mean they'd have to be honest about it. There have always been men who were honest about only wanting sex, and those men don't need an excuse.
And the ones who like using women for sex while being emotionally unavailable, all the while pretending that if only she tries hard enough, a romantic relationship might be in the cards, well, they wouldn't gain anything from being honest about being "aromantic". That would cause the women to lose hope and look for love elsewhere.
Interesting - the impression I get is that women use the term 'asexual' as a clinical way to decline male attention - 'sorry, I'm asexual' is less likely (they think?) to provoke violence and retribution than 'I'm not sexually interested in you'.
Weirdly my favourite blogger has also been writing about this:
https://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2025/be-sure-always-to-call-it-please-research/ https://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2025/unlikely-2/ https://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2025/asexual-pride/
I’ve never really pondered it, but if you’re saying that asexual orientation doesn’t exist because we’re driven to reproduce then homosexual orientations shouldn’t exist either. But they do, so why not asexuality?
Not necessarily. The drive for having sex seems to be stronger than the attraction to a specific sex, even in animals other mammals that exhibit homosexual behavior. Homosexuality seems like a natural variation among sexually reproductive species (the hypothesis is that among animals they act as additional caretakers for the young in their own genetic lines, rather than spreading their own genes, which is still "propagate the species" focused. Complete aversion to one of the strongest biological drives seems antithetical to any sort of survival on the part of the species.
This really is not the case — there are multiple other functions for part-time bisexuality (which is what most homosexuality is across Animalia) that offer advantages for homosexually behaving social animals (potentially social support, kin selection, etc), advantages which asexuality would not offer. Asexuality (although I tend to agree with the OP here) is more likely than homosexuality in a helpers-in-the-nest evolutionary adaptation situation as long as their siblings (or bee queen mother) were super fertile. Trivers (1971,1974) has some good arguments on this; see also the fifth chapter of Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene.
Male 'ace rep' character? Hazbin Hotel?
Yep.
Canonizing fictional character sexuality for anything other than the plot of the show (like Will and Grace where the whole point was Will is gay) is a pet peeve because of all the infighting it causes.
It's about lack of attraction, not lack of libido. You don't seem to have even read the basic definition of the word in the first place, so why write a long post to hate on it?
This isn't meant to be rude, I just don't know how to word it and it's 2 am so my brain is out of commission. I have moments like this too, and it usually means I've been spending too much time on r*ddit or the news.
The basic definition of the word would seem to be "a- (as a prefix) = no" + "sexual." That could mean no sexual desire OR no sexual activities. Right?
There's also "may or may not want to have sex, but choose not to." The word for that is usually "celibate."
I've heard the attraction vs libido thing before, but it makes no sense to me. Libido is sex drive, otherwise known as the urge to have sex, no? I don't see how that fits in with the idea of asexuality. It would seem that "celibacy" is a better fit for that situation, where a person may feel aroused by chooses not to engage in sex.
Yeah. Heck, I am not even sure I experience "sexual attraction", from how other people describe it. I don't look at strange men and think about having sex with them. Just doesn't happen.
However, imho, if you experience romantic attraction, and have a high enough libido to want sex with someone you are in a romantic relationship with, then you are not asexual, and describing yourself as such just because you don't want to fuck strangers is just another way of self-deprecating for being a normal woman who feels like most women feel. (Right up there with demisexual.) The label, in such a case, is also pretty useless.
If you do NOT want sex with people you are in a romantic relationship with, for whatever reason, then it is only fair to tell your prospective partners that in advance. That's where such labels might be useful.
(And if sex feels like a chore but you still feel obligated to do it, then I think it would be better to seek help for the lack of libido rather than slap the "asexual" label on it and be miserable. I mean, who wants to have sex with someone who is so meh about it, anyway?)
The separation between romantic and sexual attraction is a little strange to me (and I don't remember the two being separated like they are now before the last 15 or so years). It's more of a package deal. Physical attraction matters, but it's not enough to want to have sex with someone for me (and I think most other women?). There has to be whole-person hotness, as it were, and that's what I'd call sexual attraction.
I also don't look at strangers and think about having sex with them, but I might think "whoah, nice." More is needed to activate the sex part.
Based on what I've read from people who claim to be asexual, it can be both or either. Some are actually repelled by sex, others appear to be neutral to it and can "go through the motions" with a partner for their partner's sake.
The term "asexual" has become effectively meaningless for all the reasons and more that you outline. Nonetheless, if people can be attracted to one sex or both sexes, I don't think it's a far stretch of the imagination that at least a handful of people out there would end up being attracted to neither sex.
Despite the online damage done to the term and the real life ignorance of the term, "asexual" is the only orientation term I'd ever openly call myself since everything else would be a blatant lie. Though just like before finding out about the term I usually stick with "I'm not interested" as an explanation the once in a blue moon someone thinks to ask in the first place.
I had about as picture perfect of a childhood as anyone could imagine, actively participated in everything from sports to robotics to theater and always had a fairly vibrant social life. My health problems begin and end at hearing loss on one side due to a birth defect and later worsened by me choosing concert production as a career path. Nonetheless, from the moment I even learned of the basic mechanics of sex when I was 12, I internally thought "thank goodness I can just be celibate for life!"
And honestly I didn't think about it much again until I was finishing up college, realized I had completely forgotten to try dating, and determined I was just too sensible to get swept up feeling for someone that way on a whim.
Now in my thirties, I've still never been on a date. I've never masturbated either because I've simply never been aroused. I've never watched porn because I don't want to see naked people though I can enjoy a less explicit romance plot on occasion just like anyone else going to the movie theater.
It always felt the most natural to me to go through life with friends by my side and I've been lucky to go on many adventures with quite a few of them. It always felt right that friendship would settle into something more domestic later in life which could I guess still happen for me. All my friends are currently married to men but... 50% divorce rate says hello!
Either way, I'm glad to have lived life in a way that is true to myself. I'm not particularly attached to "asexuality" as a label I'm shouting out to the world. Honestly my lack of sex life is no one's business. But I'll also push back on anyone claiming any of this makes me somehow insane. I'm about the most sane person I know. That's why I figure all my friends routinely asked me for relationship advice.
And for what it's worth, I know plenty of women who talk day and night about how much they hate men. They're still sleeping with them though so I'm like... ok gurl go off I guess. XD