THE A DOES NOT STAND FOR ALLY. YOU CANNOT CAST OUT ASEXUALS BECAUSE “THEY’RE STRAIGHT” AND THEN ALLOW STRAIGHTS IN BY CALLING THEM ALLYS. CAN’T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO. BRUH.
no one arguing it’s supposed to be straight people. The “A is for Ally” argument is based on the idea that it exists so closeted lgbt people could participate in the community without outing themselves. I don’t really care either way and I think lgbt+ covers it, but most people who want A to mean Ally aren’t actually arguing for straight people to be let in.
No matter how often I read posts explaining this, I don’t understand it. Could you pls explain it to me?
Like, to me, there’s two scenarios:
Scenario one: straight people know ally stands for closteted people. This scenario doesn’t make sense because it would automatically out them. So this can’t be it.
Scenario Two: straight people don’t know. In this scenario you’ll have to let straight people in the community because they’re allies. Otherwise you’d have to tell them which would out closteted people.
So either you’re lying when you say that “a stands for ally” doesn’t let in straight people or you want to out closeted people to them
And why can’t closeted/questioning people just be included under the appropriate letter?
When there’s an event that includes “A for Ally”, the assumption is that not everyone at the event is necessarily LGBTQ. That way someone can get away with being parsed as “straight” because it’s not assumed that everyone there is cishet. There will also be allies that are genuinely cishet in attendance.
It’s not that “ally” always means “closeted person”, it’s that “ally” can be a catch-all for basically “everyone else as long as they’re cool with LGBTQ folks”.
So asexuals just get left out? I understand not wanting/being able to be out, but to use the A for “allies” (whether an actual ally or closeted/confused/whatever that person’s situation is) while we asexuals don’t get any recognition is pretty shitty.
I understand making allies feel included, I understand giving the cover to people that may want/need it.
BUT to leave out an entire group of people fucking sucks.
For the longest time while the lgbtqa+ was growing, I spent YEARS trying to figure out why saying I was bisexual (later pansexual) just never seemed to fit. If it weren’t for this website, I STILL wouldn’t know that I’m demisexual.
Normally I don’t get involved in things like this in case I’m misinformed, but I’m really emotional about this and I think it’s really shitty to cut out a whole group of people. I get it, the allies care, they’re supportive, I don’t want to make anyone feel unwelcome, but they’re still not lgbtqa+. (Plus, you can still be called an ally without it having to be in the acronym, that’s why they’re called ALLIES, they’re a SEPERATE group helping the main group.)
So, my point in the end is that, yes, it may help some to use the A for allies (for WHATEVER reason), but it hurts those of us that lose our representation.
(And, just so I don’t forget, not even gonna sugar coat it: I don’t give a fuck if the A was even ORIGINALLY for allies. It should be for asexuals.)
It’s not a mutually exclusive thing (most spaces I’ve been in also incluce a-spec folks), I’m just trying to explain what the deal is with “A for Ally” since an earlier post got it all jumbled.
Ally-hate is rooted in a tragic ignorance of our history and it variously breaks my heart and pisses me off. Once upon a time, being an ally wasn’t a badge straight people bragged about, it could ruin a person’s life. Supporting and protecting your out friend family member could be almost as risky as being out yourself. Allies were part of our community, they risked ostracism, loss of employment, even personal violence, to stand with us, to fight for us, to nurse our dying and bury our dead. Allies included straight parents that not only embraced their out children, but opened their hearts and homes to people whose families had rejected them. Allies included straight lawyers and politicians who worked to secure and protect our rights instead of playing it safe by turning our cases down. Allies included nurses, doctors, hospice carers who compassionately cared for HIV patients, when everyone else was afraid. Allies included people who risked everything to smuggle unapproved HIV medicines to people who needed them. Allies included celebrities and public figures who risked career suicide to advocate for us. Please, kids, learn our history.
I never “cast out” asexuals for “being straight”. If people wanna come do activism, and they’re not total assholes about it, I’m pretty much fine with that.
I got into this community identifying as “an ally” something close to 30 years ago. If you’d asked me then I woulda said I was a straight dude. (It wouldn’t have occurred to me to add the “cis” qualifier.) These days I’m gender-ambiguous, maybe a trans girl, married to a gay guy. Life’s weird.
But I will tell you straight up, I faced more hostility and more threats to my health and safety for being an “ally” in the late 80s and early 90s than I do now for being a vaguely-masculine-looking person with nail polish and a husband.
s/o to aces who like to be sensually intimate with their partners
s/o to aces who like to be sexually intimate with their partners
s/o to aces who aren’t “perfect” asexuals, you are still valid and you are all ace af
I am really not trying to be rude, I just want to understand!! If you enjoy being sexually intimate with a partner, how are you asexual? Sorry if this comes across as offensive, I’m just interested to know!
There are other reasons than specifically wanting to have sex for the sake of having sex. For example, some asexuals want to please their non-asexual partners, and it isn’t necessarily uncomfortable for them, they just don’t specifically desire that particular action. Like, asexuals can still dig the feeling of sexual stimulation, since it is meant to be pleasurable.
It’s like, if there’s cake on the table, but you don’t particularly want cake at that time, or you don’t really care for cake, you can still choose to eat it because even if cake isn’t your favourite or you’re quite full already, it still tastes fine, and your best friend is eating some with you.
Alternatively, it’s possible to sort of “trade favours”; instead of sexually pleasing their asexual partner who is disinterested in receiving sexually, the non-asexual party might cuddle, kiss and otherwise be physically affectionate with their partner while making love. This’d still count as sexual intimacy, even though only one person in the act is – hopefully – orgasming.
Some asexuals see sex as a way to bond with their partners. Again, the act isn’t specifically interesting to them, but it works as a means to an end – through it, they get to feel closer to their partner.
Asexuality is the absence of sexual attraction, the “I want to bang that” trigger that most people have in response to potential sexual partners. Not the absence of sexual activity itself, which would be celibacy – the choice to not engage in sex, the act. An asexual can have sex and not feel that specific type of attraction to their partner, as attraction is passive and not based in active choice. It doesn’t mean that that partner is disgusting to them, either; they may well be aesthetically attractive to the asexual person (the same way you can appreciate a beautiful statue or a painting without becoming sexually aroused by viewing it) and the asexual person may well desire physical intimacy with them, such as hugging, kissing, cuddling and holding hands. Since not all asexuals are inherently repulsed by sex but merely disinterested in it by default, turning that desire for general closeness into sexual activity where it provides fulfillment of some form to both parties isn’t necessarily paradoxical.
Someone once brought up a fairly good point regarding this subject; non-asexual people also sometimes hook up and have sex with people that aren’t specifically attractive to them. It can still be perfectly consensual and satisfy the needs of both parties, despite the fact that the base attraction wasn’t there. For example, a person who just wants to have sex with someone might go along with a partner they would not otherwise choose, but who simply happens to be available and ready to do the deed with them. Alternatively, a woman might seek to have a baby, and have sex with a partner solely for that purpose, and whether the partner chosen is sexually attractive to them or not isn’t a big factor in the choice. (Plenty of asexual women choose to have sex to have children.) There are multiple reasons to have sex even when you’re not sexually attracted. Specifically for asexuals, the factor of having a non-asexual partner is usually a big motivator to have sex, and other reasons like the ones I explored above may additionally pop up to support that decision.
Finally, some asexuals just really dig orgasms. Most people do. We just don’t have that special someone we wish was delivering them to us, and largely prefer to take care of our own. But when you are in a relationship and that kind of comes as a package deal, some asexuals don’t feel like it’s a bad trade, or at least aren’t violently opposed to the idea. I think most asexuals who do choose to have sex are indifferent to it – it’s not their favourite thing in the world, but it takes care of business.
Sex Positive: I don’t feel sexual attraction but I do enjoy the physical sensation of sex. (Maybe even crave it!)
Sex Neutral: I can have sex but I don’t need it. To be honest I have no strong feelings about sex. But a slice of pizza would be better.
Sex Repulsed: I don’t like sex. I don’t want to have sex. I’m not going to have sex with you. I understand that people enjoy sex but I do not.
The presence of a libido does not invalidate any of these orientations. Dicks jokes and sexual humor do not invalidate these asexuals. These orientations are a SPECTRUM and are very fluid. Asexuals can and do exist in between theses definitions.
just moving along like everyone else 