#and depending of where you fall on the spectrum and your personal experience of asexuality

[darlingofdots]

like I do think we need to acknowledge that being asexual can suck. I'm proud to be queer and I'm happy for everyone whose experience is different but for me, specifically, being asexual sucks. If I had the choice, I would change this about myself. The ways in which it affects my life are frustrating and upsetting to me and it's not just a question of accepting myself or 'coming to terms with' who I am, it is a very real impact on my interactions and relationships with other people, my existence in my community, and what the rest of my life will look like. I think it's important to talk about this not only in the context of the very real discrimination and exclusion that asexuals experience as a consequence of acephobia but also just the frustration of having so many choices and experiences taken away from you just because of your orientation

[miraculouslbcnreactions]

You write adrien as aspec right? In a narrative sense what's the difference between platonic and romantic relationships, once you remove sex as a factor. I'm having lots of trouble in that aspect without sounding amatonormative.

I do and I'm aspec myself, so I'll answer as best I can noting that this is a complex topic as well as deeply personal topic for many people. As such, this is not meant to be a definitive guide. It is, at best, a primer because I'm not going to be able to cover all the nuances of human sexuality in a Tumblr post. Before we get into it, let's define amatonormativity:

The widespread assumption that everyone is better off in an exclusive, romantic, long-term coupled relationship, and that everyone is seeking such a relationship.

Amatonormativity is a problem when people force it on you or make you feel bad for not wanting an amatonormative life. It is not a problem when someone chooses to live an amatonormative life and many asexual people make that choice. I'm one of them. Let's get into why.

We'll start with some high level discussion of attraction in its various forms as that's a big part of how sexuality works. While being asexual can mean that your romantic relationships don't include sex, that's not a hard rule. Asexuality is more complicated than that. To dive into that nuance, let's quickly go over the three different "scales" or "spectrum" that are useful for understanding how romantic and sexual attraction can work for different people:

Kinsey scale: the hetero to homo scale. The various categories here tell you where someone falls in terms of how sexual organs and gender expression plays into their experience with attraction. Are you bi, pan, hetero, homo, or somewhere in-between?

Aromantic spectrum: this spectrum helps us understand how people experience (or don't experience) romantic attraction. Do you fall in love or don't you? Are there specific conditions that need to be met for you to feel romantic love? All these things play into the identities in this spectrum.

Asexual spectrum: this spectrum helps us understand how people experience (or don't experience) sexual attraction. Do you feel sexual attraction or is that not a thing for you? Are there specific conditions that need to be met for you to experience sexual attraction? All these things play into the identities in this spectrum.

Each spectrum is its own thing, but they play together in complex ways. For example, a person can experience romantic attraction that seems to have no clear tie to gender expression while only developing sexual feelings for things tied to gender expression. That would generally put them under the panromantic heterosexual banner or the panromantic homosexual banner depending on the way they identify and the type of gender expression they're drawn to.

I use the term "banner" because I don't like to refer to these things as labels. Instead, I like to think of them as descriptors or broad categories because these words aren't meant to put people in boxes. They're too expansive for that. Instead, they give us a language that we can use as a quick shorthand to get across broad ideas.

It's like how we use the word green to cover a whole host of colors. My green may not match your green, but we both have a general idea of what that word means and also we know that it's sure as heck not red. When someone gives you the words that broadly describe their identity, think of it like a person saying "green." You now have a general idea of how sexual and/or romantic attraction works for them, but you probably don't have a perfect one. This is where we circle back to your ask!

In a narrative sense what's the difference between platonic and romantic relationships, once you remove sex as a factor.

All asexuality means is that you don't experience sexual attraction. It does not mean that sex is off the table. Some asexuals are sex repulsed, some are sex neutral, and some are sex positive to the point of being incredibly kinky. You don't need to experience sexual attraction to want some action! I know some non-sex-repulsed asexuals who are fine with casual hookups and others who will only do sexual things in a romantic relationship.

I fall into the latter category and it's how I tend to write Adrien because he's clearly a romantic. That doesn't mean that he has to be okay with sex! You can be extremely romantic while also being sex repulsed, but he doesn't give me those vibes so I go more sex neutral or sex positive with him. I actually switch between writing him as asexual and demisexual depending on the story and what I want to do, but for now we'll stick to how to write him as a non-sex-repulsed asexual who experiences romantic attraction.

If your goal is to write an asexual character who experiences romantic attraction and is not sex repulsed, then the main thing you're going to want to avoid is writing in sexual attraction which is not the same as sexual arousal or ascetic attraction.

To put that in clearer terms, Adrien won't get turned on from seeing Marinette in a pretty dress or a swimsuit because that's an example of sexual attraction. However, he still can appreciate that she looks nice. It's just going to be more like he's talking about a beautiful painting instead of his hot sexy girlfriend because the idea of finding his girlfriend hot and sexy does not compute.

He may still want to have sex with her, it's just not because he's turned on by her appearance. It's because he's in love with her and wants to share that experience with her or because they're physically touching and he got turned on or even just because he's independently horny! Those last two are the sexual arousal thing I mentioned above. Sexual attraction is not required for arousal to occur or even for arousal to be tied to a person! Sexuality is more complex that that.

For example, I have never in my life looked at a person and found them hot. The fact that people can do that is wild to me especially when it's with someone they've never met. Celebrity crushes are deeply confusing to me because you don't know that person. How can you be attracted to them? Does not compute!

Even though I'm incapable of experiencing sexual attraction, I still require attraction to be interested in sexual activity. If I'm not romantically attracted to you, then I am fully sex repulsed. Once I'm into you? I'm sex neutral and even occasionally sex positive depending on the day, but I still won't find you sexy which is why I call myself ace and not demisexual though I don't particularly care which one you use for me. I've had people tell me my experience falls under both banners which I can see, ace just seems more accurate. I often just say I'm on the ace spectrum or aspec and leave it at that. I tend to do the same when tagging characters sexuality just to keep readers from having very specific expectations that may not be met.

None of that is the universal ace experience. It's just how my specific subtype works and is why I brought up the various spectrums at the start. They all play into how a person's sexuality is expressed.

Since this was mentioned in your question, I'll note that I'd be totally fine in a sexless romantic relationship. I'd probably even be fine if the romantic part was one sided so long as my partner clearly cared about me and was committed to a life together. From an outside perspective, those situations really wouldn't look that different from a relationship that includes sex because, for many couples, sex is just one of many activities they do together. When you really think about it, asking how to write a sexless couple is kind of like asking how you write a couple who doesn't like hiking. They just don't go hiking.

You can leave out sex and still have a couple kiss, cuddle, and/or hold hands if you like, but even those activities aren't required for a great romance. People adore Disney couples and most of them barely even kiss on screen. What draws people to those romances is the characters' relationship since that's really what any great romance is about. The bond that forms between the characters as they face life together, ultimately deciding to keep facing life together till death do they part. The sexual part is just an optional bonus feature thus so many fans shipping couples who canonically never show any signs of romantic or sexual attraction.

That's obviously a lot of information to deal with, but hopefully it puts you on the right path. Feel free to send additional asks on this topic if you like. I love devoted relationships and have a penchant for writing characters on the ace and/or aro spectrum, so I've played around with all sorts of ways a character can identify while still being in some flavor of committed relationship though there are characters where I just don't think they'd be into that. Really depends on the way they come across to me and that's all that I'd worry about if you're worried about amatonormativity. I'd you truly think your version of the character would be happy in the life you've given them, then you're fine and I wouldn't stress about it. They're not real. You're not forcing them into a box against their will.

I'll end with my biggest piece of advice for writing specific sexualities and/or types of attraction: don't obsess with perfectly representing a given group because, as we discussed above, these are broad categories not scientific labels. Asexual means different things to different people. Decide what it means for the character you're writing, stick to that, and you'll probably be fine so long as it doesn't totally go against the broad idea of asexuality. It's fine if your character ends up in a committed monogamous relationship as many asexuals do that just like many don't. No character can represent an entire group perfectly because no person represents an entire group perfectly. We are all wonderfully unique in our own unique ways.

[hpowellsmith]

Re: asexuality representation in IF

As someone who falls very nebulously under the ace umbrella, here are my thoughts: Most IFs I have played that include an asexual option only include one facet of it, and that's being hard-line against any form of sexual interaction. But asexuality is an enormous spectrum. Some ace people are not interested in sex, some might be interested in sex with only certain people, some might engage in sexual intimacy to be close to their partner(s) even if they aren't as driven by it, some might experience physical attraction even if they aren't interested in performing sexual acts—the list goes on and one.

Truthfully, I can think of only one IF I have played where I felt like I had the freedom of options to express asexuality in different ways, and that's the Fallen Hero series by Malin Ryden (in particular the second book, Retribution). In that IF, you have the option to set whether or not your Sidestep is physically attracted to people, and then you have options during intimate scenes on what kind of intimacy your Sidestep is willing to engage in, if any at all. Those options allow a range of asexuality to be represented, in my opinion, even if not every minute detail is discussed.

I can't remember if every RO had a conversation about it, but you can have a more pointed conversation with at least one of them regarding your Sidestep's asexuality in which you tell them that sex is something you just won't ever be interested in. I personally enjoy when characters have open conversations about their sexuality like this, but I think some people prefer not to have conversations like that pop up at all, especially in settings where queerness is and always has been completely acceptable. I think this aspect of your inquiry in particular is really going to be more dependent on the individual ROs and how much of an impact they feel coming into their sexuality had on their personal growth. Some people like to talk about it because it's really important to them. Others don't feel the need.

Hope this helped and was what you were looking for! Good luck with your continued work on The Earth Has Teeth! I'm really enjoying it so far! 🧡

Thank you for your thoughts and your kind comments about The Earth Has Teeth! <3

So far with TEHT, I've included some options about whether the MC has had sex or been physically intimate with people before the start of the game, and one option that's like "I'm not into that at all". I think the more detailed choices about how the MC feels about it will come up when there are opportunities to be physically intimate.

I do like including (clear!) options to allow someone to block off NPCs initiating sex at all, and to have additional options that allow for nuance in the moment. A lot of those options work for allosexual and asexual characters alike as well; obviously an allosexual MC isn't necessarily going to be like "I'm up for anything and everything all the time" either, heh.

I think this aspect of your inquiry in particular is really going to be more dependent on the individual ROs and how much of an impact they feel coming into their sexuality had on their personal growth. Some people like to talk about it because it's really important to them. Others don't feel the need.

That totally makes sense - some of the characters feel that sex is more, or less, important in relationships and it can be fun to write conversations about that as part of developing emotional or physical intimacy.

Thanks again for your thoughts!

[ineffable-hyperfixation]

Ahem *puts on best "ok people listen up" tone*

Good Omens (and everyone else) fandom! It seems we have regressed a bit....somehow? On the definition of Asexual! Let's clear this up!

Yes the actual literal meaning of the term: A=no sexual =....sex....well but actually no, which is the point of the post

Dictionary definition is why we are here!

Asexual: a person who experiences no sexual feelings or desires, or who is not sexually attracted to anyone.

Note the last line please!

Asexuality is a spectrum.

On one side you have: I cannot become sexually aroused by anything, and in some cases I do not want to

And on the other you (might) have: Literally any other stimulation other than A Face will do just fine!

Asexuals can be turned on by: the written word, a comic, a scene in a movie/show/porn/irl/etc, physical contact, etc!

There is a difference between attraction and desire! Allosexuals usually have that lumped into one thing, to them there (usually) isn't one without the other! If you're attracted to someone it means your body is uh...also good to go. For a lot of asexual people you can be attracted to someone, but your body's just off reading a book or something

Asexual people have crushes, fall in love, comment on how aesthetically pleasing someone is! But they probably don't want to jump their bones like right now (or possibly ever! Depends where you fall on the spectrum!)

You might say: no but! You're talking about demisexual people!

Maybe! Probably not! Demi is just a place way to one side of the spectrum. Where, after getting to know someone really well, you may actually look at them one day and go...."oh shit! Hi down there when'd you wake up??" Your attraction and desire have fused for this person/s...congrats!

An asexual person may never ever want to have sex with their partner. This is fine! But it needs to be discussed between everyone near the start of a relationship. And people need to acknowledge that "once you've found The One everything will click!" is pretty deeply internalized. Be sure you truly understand that that's not (necessarily) the case before commiting to a relationship

An asexual person may absolutely want to (awesome!), but have a hard time getting things moving (put down the damn book there are things to do!!) In which case it's good for all parties to see if they can figure out what sorts of things do turn you on, (as long as you're both willing and able), and how to approach letting your partner/s know they'd like to initiate fun times. (Without it coming across as awkward or pushy!) This makes for a healthy relationship!

"I'm doing this only to please my partner" is not healthy! It's also a really condescending thing to say about all asexual people! Please stop!!

And yeah an asexual person may indeed realize they're demi after starting a relationship! Neat!

Sexuality is like gender. It's all made up because we like labels! Your bits know what they want, when they want it! (Your brain ofc has the final say, I'm very well aware that bits go way off the rails sometimes, that's an entire other post lol)

Other people do not get to dictate how you feel, and like gender it can take a while to realize what your orientation may be. And that label can change so many times over the course of your life!!

Love who you love, have sex with who you (and they) want to have sex with, or don't!! But stop telling other people what they are and are not, simply because your definition or experience is different from theirs

(Please let me know if I've left out something crucial or gotten something horridly wrong! My research is personal/others experience + tumblr explanations + a google search here and there. Please do not come in my replies/comments/inbox telling me the whole post is wrong.....that's petty)

[oraclekleo]

10. What are you enjoying to do in your free time?

This is one of the easy questions as even my free time has a certain routine to it. I love to have a cup of tea, read tarot cards, read books, watch my favourite shows and movies. I also love to cook or bake when the mood is right and I sometimes watch YouTube videos. I also go for dog walks. Technically it's a duty but I like it. Occassionally I play PC games. And my most favourite free time activity is sleeping 😂 What can you do? I'm old. I feel tired 24/7. 😂

14. Something you wish you were better at?

I think I would wish to be more consistent and dedicated when I want to learn something new or improve my existing skill. Unless it's truly interesting or fun for me, I quickly lose the motivation and drive. I used to go to Korean Language classes for example but it simply wasn't fun enough for me to stick to it. I wasn't bad at it but my brain came up with so many reasons why it's pointless to continue and so many more fun things I could try instead of the classes so I just stopped. I would trully need to have a stronger will in this sense.

16. Do you have any tattoos? If not, would like to?

Haha! I have no tattoos at all. Mom was strongly against the idea. That probably wouldn’t stop me but I don’t like needles in general and also to imagine that some alien substance is inserted in my own skin doesn’t sound appealing to me. I mean I find tattooed people attractive but the maximum I could do myself would be a henna tattoo. I had it when I was still a teen. They made it in Tunisia where we were on a vacation. Unfortunatelly I had some allergic reaction, the henna tattoo got swollen and itchy. But once it peeled off, I had the pattern there like white because the rest of the skin got tanned. 😂 So yeah… That’s my experience.

17. What's your sexuality?

I guess I'm somewhere in the asexual spectrum? I'm not completely sure, to be frank and I don't even know all the terms these days. There are way too many. I also don't like to be put in a box. I have never been in love and I don't desire for it so currently it probably means asexual. But you never know. Maybe one day I will meet a person I'll just click with and fall in love with them. Or maybe not. I don't really feel like this aspect of mine would have any importance when I'm not in a romantic or sexual relationship. If there was someone who's comfort and decisions would depend on me clearly stating my preferences then yes, I would probably give it more thoughts but currently I don't really care much what my sexuality is. 😁

Thank you for asking me! 💖

Kleo 🦄

[thedomesticanthropologist]

This has been debunked as he explicitly states he was/is attracted to the PC "of course i am attracted to you, look at you, youre a vision!" and he states in a Spawn romance that he "wants it all, all life has to offer" and then propositions for sex with flirtation,

He's traumatized severely from being prostituted against his will, but as a person he experiences sexual attraction (based on in game dialogue) and therefore doesn't fall under Asexual spectrum, defined as someone who does not experience sexual attraction

He also specifically volunteers with the drow twins because he wants to explore his desires, and never states he has a bad time, but dissociates due to trauma triggers. He does want to pursue sex sometimes, and he experiences attraction - again, I'm not making any guesses or assumptions outside of what's presented in game.

I happen to be an SA survivor who has a similar issue where I feel attraction but actually *having* sex isn't always enjoyable and I don't always want to be touched, so that's my perspective I come at this with

However I fully think people should be able to create and enjoy ace astarion headcanons if they so choose, it's just important to note that it's not highly supported by in game canon.

It has been highly discussed as well so you can find a lot of this topic on larian forums and reddit just by googling "astarion not good ace rep" cause he isn't. He wants a break from sex in Act 2, as he's gone 200 years without a break and then less than a month later he propositions you cause he wants to try already

Halsin also comments that he's amazed that Astarion is able to overcome so much sexual trauma and be willing/wanting to explore his sexual freedoms so soon when many victims never recover from trauma or want to try again and Astarion is pleased (you can find these dialogues from dev files as they may still be glistched in game with most ambient romance)

This little dialogue shows that he most likely would be just fine not having sex for a long time, and being happy to not have sex, but that does not mean he doesn't experience attraction/desire sex depending on who he's with. He does explicitly state he wants a physical relationship with the PC in the Spawn route via the graveyard scene and in his act 2 confession where he says he wanted it very much but couldn't separate himself from the shame/disgust that became inherent to sex due to being trafficked for 200 years

Great Ace rep would be a character that does not want sex because they don't experience sexual attraction, or as you say, only use it as a tool. Astarion is, in my opinion, severely traumatized sexually but wants to regain his control and freedom over his own body and desires. This takes time, but isn't great ace rep. I'd LOVE to see an ace companion,

Tbh Wyll had a lot more Ace friendly interactions than astarion imho but I believe he's more likely Demi as he wants an established relationship prior to intimacy.

Anyways! Enjoy ace headcanons and be free! This isn't to negate anyone's fan preferences just to note how the game was designed and the details within it regarding Astarions trauma from my research, in game experience, and reading through the discussions online as the topic has been covered fairly thoroughly.

What I wanted to make note of is astarion may actually desire a "break" despite experiencing sexual attraction, and if he does he's immortal. Maybe he wants to take 200 years of celibacy, maybe he wants to explore intimacy in other ways at some point, etc. Totally!

Sadly it doesn't create good asexual representation, as he does experience *sexual attraction* regardless of if he needs or wants time off, from how I saw it. Feel free to correct me if I've made errors within my analysis

"And I want to wake up beside a handsome virgin every morning but life doesn't give us what we want"

**post edited for correct quote

I keep rotating this Astarion line in my head because it can go two ways and bc of his storyline I think it's actually quite cleverly written. It may just be a funny throwaway comment but let's look into it anyway

Taking the comment at face value, the listener implies that he wants to deflower a new virgin every day and he's being hedonistic and loving the debauchery

But he says "wake up next to" not "go to sleep with/bed" which made me pause for a sec because it leaves it open to the interpretation that he wants to wake up next to the same handsome virgin every day and not deflower them.

He kinda said a thing that initially sounded like a sex thing but was actually kinda him saying

"Yeah and I wanna wake up next to a beautiful partner I didn't/dont have to have sex with"

So that's a thing

[delphinidin4]

Sex-repulsed, sex-averse, sex-negative: all different!

The terms “sex-repulsed”, “sex-averse”, and “sex-negative” are sometimes used synonymously, but they actually refer to three different things.

Spectrum 1: Philosophical

Sex-negative <---------------------------------------------------> Sex-positive

This spectrum is philosophical / ethical / moral; it depends on what you think is right or okay, rather than what you personally feel an instinctive urge to do.

Sex-positive people believe that sex is, in general, an okay/good thing. Consenting adults should be able to have as much sex as they want. Cool. Your body. You do you. Nobody else’s business! Enjoy that sex if you want!

Sex-negative people believe that sex is often or always a morally bad or tricky thing. There are a lot of situations in which consenting adults should not be having sex. There are a lot of rules governing sex. If you have sex in a way you shouldn’t be, there will be bad consequences.

This is a spectrum. There are a lot of people who fall in the middle of this spectrum. Many people have certain situations in which they think sex should not be happening. 

Spectrum 2: Personal emotional

Sex-repulsed <----- sex-averse ------ sex-neutral -----> sex-favorable

This spectrum is personal / emotional. It has to do with someone’s personal feelings about sex, not about their philosophical beliefs about sex.

Sex-repulsed people are disgusted or upset by the thought of anybody having sex. Descriptions of sexual activity, discussion of it, images of it, sounds of it, etc, may cause them negative reactions, often visceral ones: feeling sick to their stomach, anxious, panicked, etc. Some sex-repulsed people have sex-related trauma histories which may be a cause of their repulsion, but some do not.

Sex-averse people don’t mind the discussion of sex, or when other people have sex, but they don’t like the idea of having sex themselves. They may or may not get viscerally grossed out or upset by the idea of having sexual contact themselves. They want to not have sex.

Sex-neutral people are cool with themselves having sex, but they may not necessarily seek it out. Their feelings about having sex are basically in the “meh” category.

Sex-favorable people enjoy having sex and may seek out sex as an experience. Sex is, for them, a desirable thing.

This is also a spectrum. A person may feel averse to sex in some situations and positive to it in others. And obviously, nobody wants to have sex with ANYBODY in EVERY situation.

That covers the difference between sex-repulsed (upset / grossed out by the idea of sex in general), sex-averse (do not want to have sex themselves), and sex-negative (have negative philosophical or moral beliefs about sex).

But remember: there are many spectra, and things can get complicated! It is possible for a person to be both sex-positive and sex-repulsed:  they are personally grossed out by the thought of people having sex (sex-repulsed), but they believe that people have the right to have sex if they want (sex-positive). It is possible to asexual and sex-favorable: a person can experience no sexual attraction (asexual) and still enjoy sex (sex-favorable). It is also possible to be allosexual and sex-averse or -repulsed: a person can experience sexual attraction (allosexual) and still be upset by the thought of sex (sex-repulsed) or not want to have sex themselves (sex-averse).

As a reminder, there are other spectra at play here:

Spectrum 3: Sexual attraction

asexual <---------- gray-asexual / demisexual ---------------> allosexual

Asexual people experience no sexual attraction; gray-asexual people experience little sexual attraction, or only in certain situations (like demisexuals); allosexual people often experience sexual attraction (though, again, nobody is sexually attracted to EVERYBODY!).

Spectrum 4: Libido

no libido <------- low libido ---------- mid-libido --------> high libido

This refers to how often you feel physical sexual urges. Libido may be satisfied by sexual contact with others, by masturbation, or not physically satisfied at all. You can have an asexual person with a high libido (they do not experience sexual attraction, but they frequently experience sexual urges), and you can have an allosexual person with low to no libido (they experience sexual attraction, but they rarely or never experience sexual urges). Some people experience low libido because of hormonal or health problems; some people just have a naturally low libido.

And this doesn’t even get into things like the different kinds of attraction (sexual, romantic, sensual, aesthetic, platonic)! There are many spectra that people, both allo and ace, can fall along. While it’s okay to have philosophical / moral disagreements with people on when sex is okay (spectrum 1), it’s not okay to reject people because of where they fall on the other 3 spectra discussed here. That would be the same as rejecting people because of where they fall on the homosexual / heterosexual spectrum.

[cynicaldom]

I’m starting to explore sex & sexuality with another person (longtime lurker here but always did solo stuff) and we’ve been experimenting. I’m still figuring out whether I’m on the dom/sub side. Some aspects of dominating & control really turn me on... but outside of that, I don’t have a lot of desire to lead. I have a strong fantasy to be blindfolded and tied, let her be in charge, and give up a lot of control. I find much more attraction to being submissive, free, and being hers. (I’m also asexual so I think that’s part of why “leading” is difficult for me — I don’t have a ton of instinctual desires to guide me and fall back on. It’s genuinely scary being in charge bc I feel rudderless.)

At the same time, outside of the bedroom, I am a natural leader. I ask questions and listen well; to my anxious friends, I am the stable rock in the storm of anxiety; people ask me for advice and listen to it (sometimes too much, it’s frightening sometimes). I’m even at my best when I get to plan dates and romantic activities; I am decisive and form plans, and people seem to enjoy and trust me when I lead them.

All of this to say that, across all of the blogs I follow here, all of them display an archetype that I feel like I am hopelessly unable to fit. I want to be able to help & support my partner by being a leader, except when it comed to sex I want someone who will take charge and free me from the decisions, planning, etc. I can’t be the only person like this, but I feel like it’s rare and I’ll be unlikely to find someone who matches me in this way.

I hope you see this bc you & Amy have great content and I respect your thoughtful writings / posts on here! Cheers.

@amysubmits is on tumblr much more than I am so I asked her to chime in, but she ended up saying everything I would. I want to emphasize try not to stress fitting into an archetype. Nobody fits anywhere perfectly, and more often than not worrying about something like that just makes things worse. The rest is from Amy:

I definitely agree with you that here on Tumblr (and probably in other D/s or kink communities as well) about people who take the same “role” inside and outside of the bedroom (or play). But of course that isn’t how all people are. It’s certainly possible to be a sub during play but to be a dom otherwise. As far as how easy or hard it might be to find a partner who has needs that alignment, I really can’t guess how likely or unlikely that is? I think finding the right match is tough for almost everyone, but I’m sure there are people out there who would enjoy topping/domming in the bedroom but who are subs or ‘followers’ otherwise. You mentioned that a few aspects of dominating or control excite you as well - so depending on how significant those interests are, you might be able to find a good match with someone who likes to switch in the bedroom but you could be their Dom in the lifestyle sense?

It’s also common for people to enjoy power exchange during sex or scenes but to not have any agreed-upon power exchange dynamic outside of play. So if you like to lead but don’t necessarily need or want full spectrum D/s as far as rules or protocols or so on, you could have your playtime where you sub and then the rest of your relationship could just be based on your natural personality, so you’d be able to lead in the ways you naturally are inclined to, but not have a formal/intentional D/s agreement outside of play as long as your partner doesn’t need or want that. 

It’s easy to feel like the norm in D/s is to look at a few different categories that exist and smush yourself into one of the options. But in reality, a lot of people don’t fit perfectly in the popular categories. Even for those of us who have a bedroom role and a lifestyle role that do fit fairly well into a category, we may not fit into other kink categories perfectly such as cg/l or m/s or whatever. I like to advocate for customizing your relationship based on what you and your partner need and want when it comes to rules or titles and other things…but I think the same applies for your whole relationship, really. I hope you’re able to find someone who has needs and wants that are well aligned with yours! :) 

[dammitjas]

okay, wow...um...not even going to lie, that hit me in the heart a bit. i'm not sure if it's because i already went into the video with dread, i went in expecting it to be bad based on what i've heard from tumblr and instagram and i already had preconceived notions about this. so maybe i was hit so easily because i went in with a subconsciously negative attitude. but...um. idk i just... Jensen: i think 'romantic'-- Jared: i think the point is-- Jensen: i think the term 'romantic' is being used because there isn't a term that necessarily-- Jared: he's 'junkless', you know? Jensen: uh, yeah...(indiscernible) i don't think lust is--is involved with the romanticism Jared: i don't think it's the point that they both have...pause...uh...human male bodies, seemingly...and...want to...sleep with each other, i think the point is that, like, you could love anything.

Jared then goes on to discuss two scenarios where the phrase "I love you" was used very flippantly and without and romantic connotation or meaning behind it. it was used in a way of acquaintances, similarly to the context it's used in for the phrase "love your neighbor as yourself". in this sense, it seems like Jared's definition of love is being used to mean "I will not/do not hate you" for the first one, and "a strong emotion conveying gratitude" for the second. he then said he says it to his friends and to Jensen all the time, and that in none of these cases does it mean "i wanna take you to a hotel room".

then he goes on to say that the "point" of deancas "story-wise" is that Cas loved Dean in just the same way Jared explained above. not romantically, but platonically. similarly to how Sam and Dean love each other, how the actors love their friends.  

but okay, Jar, if that's the case, then why wasn't Sam present for the confession? If there was nothing romantic about Cas's confession, and he was just platonically stating that he loved Dean like family, then why doesn't the same apply for Sam? like how it was in Stuck in the Middle (With You), when Cas blatantly said the words "I love you" to all of them, no tears in his eyes, no speech about Dean specifically changing him and teaching him how to love. which is another thing...

you mean to tell me that the whole speech Castiel gave to Dean was merely nothing but a platonic/familial declaration of love? Cas poured his heart out and bore his soul to Dean in those words. that would be a stretch for the whole scenario to be "no homo, bro"

and back to Cas being "junkless"...the topic was posed of when Dean realized Cas loved him and it was discussed in a romantic sense. Cas doesn't NEED "junk" to be in deep romantic love with Dean. nobody needs any type of "junk" to experience romantic love. romance doesn't have anything to do with the fact that they "both have human male bodies, seemingly" because romantic love depends entirely on personality. somebody's body, looks and/or physical attributes and attractiveness fall under aesthetic, sensual or physical attraction, not romantic. as somebody on the asexual spectrum, this hit me in the heart. maybe i'm just being overly analytical and overly emotional, but is this man that i've (non-romantically, since we should specify) loved and admired for years insinuating that there is no difference between romantic and sexual love/attraction? that romantic love can not exist without the existence or use of one's "junk"? or am i being too sensitive?

Jared compared Cas's love for Dean to Sam and Dean's love for each other, and backed up that statement by saying "it's not a show about incest", essentially drawing a line between the two types of love and saying they're the same. when that just doesn't seem true for us.

and he said it's "not a show about heterosexuality or nonbinary." it's a show about being able to choose to live your life with love. that this doesn't mean "hey, they wanna make out". and then goes on to say his love for his son or daughter doesn't mean he wants to "do stuff" to them...like....okay?? and that the point is simply being free to love and loving who you want.

but then my mans goes on to say that you can be hetero and love whoever you want, you can be queer and love whoever you want, anybody in the LGBTQIA+ community can love "whoever the fxck they want".....so then....why can't....Cas....love Dean....romantically?? why is this being taken away from us? why are we being told this isn't the way it is when Misha essentially said "haha yes I'm going to do a gay". we all know Misha carries Cas on his shoulders and in his heart. Misha is Cas. they can write Cas however they want, but ultimately, it's up to Misha on how he plays it. if it made sense to Misha, who has played Cas for 10 years, to say that he loved Dean in a gay way, then that's as close to canon as it can get imo. if Misha can fit the entirety of Cas's persona and all his interactions with Dean and wrap it up with the bow of a romantic "I love you", then it cannot be taken away from him or us. Misha could have been playing Cas like that from day one. he could have decided somewhere down the line that Cas fell for Dean. it wouldn't change the way he played him and it wouldn't need to be said, because we know Cas couldn't say it. so maybe Misha didn't either. we'll never know what Misha's thoughts behind that was. and it is not our place (nor anyone else in the cast) to determine what Cas meant by his confession. 

why would Cas's true happiness be something he has already said? when Cas got stabbed by the prince of hell, he looked them all in the eyes and told them he loved them, all the same way. he said "i love you" straight to dean, but clarified "i love you all". maybe that was a first attempt at trying to get his truth out, but it didn't go right. so he had years to find the right words to tell his truth in his way. and he knew that the ball was in his court, and he could hold off until he was ready. but just saying "i love you" as a no homo bro thing....he has done that already. it's been done. why would he need to do it again? this would have to be something dean didn't know...something he never saw

Cas is a character who has brought so many people, including myself, hope and love in dark times. we have found comfort in him, solace and strength in him. some of us have found ourselves in him, or seen him as a protector or a mentor. now Misha has given us him as a queer icon as well. and the way it was revealed directly at the end of his life may have been cheesy and cliche, but it also doesn’t undermine or change a single thing about his character or the decisions he made or who he was. Cas is still Cas. him being in love with Dean was just written into the story, woven in along the way. It was a part of him and a part of who he was. Dean didn’t have to love him back. Cas just knew his own truth. please don’t take this away from us or him. let him have his identity out in the light for the first time, now that he’s finally comfortable to do so.

like the Greek words for love, there are many types and definitions that we have tried to fit into the one word "love". Cas says in his speech that Dean essentially taught him agape, pragma and philia (love of everyone, longstanding love and deep friendship.)

Misha himself confirmed that Cas also meant something mixing between ludus and eros depending on your understanding of each. for some, ludus or playful, lovely love, is flirtatious and easygoing love, or puppy love, while eros or passionate love, can mean anything from romance to sexual love. Jared is saying the only kind of love Cas had for Dean was philia or storge (family love) which directly contradicts what Misha has told us and how Misha played the role and delivered the lines.

i don't know. i really don't. long, long story short is that i'm hurt, as are many of us. i'm hurt because to me, it seems like Jared directly contradicted what Misha said and the way he intended for Cas's words to be interpreted. to me, i felt hurt by Jared comparing Cas and Dean's romantic love to inc3st or p3dophilia. to me i felt like the "junkless" comment could be interpreted in a way that was invalidating towards asexuals and a-spec people such as myself. i really don't know. just as i said earlier, just as none of us can say for sure what Misha truly thought, felt and intended behind Cas and his words, none of us can say for sure what Jared truly thought, felt and intended through this speech either. all i know is I would like more clarification, because seeing and hearing all of this, as well as input from many people in the fandom, has left a bruise on my adoration and happiness for this man. and that genuinely hurts my heart. i don't know what to think. i have loved him for years (again, non-romantically, just to clear it up) and he has inspired me to stay strong and Always Keep Fighting. he has indirectly saved my life and helped me get through some of my darkest times. but i'm scared i may be led to question 7 years of deep connection to somebody because if they do not approve of and accept those with my identity...my connection is meaningless and hypocritical. and when it all boils down to it, over the last few years, i don't know who i am without SPN or without my connection to Jared Padalecki.

and that scares me.

[stallionspirit444]

Asexual A-Week Blog post

What is more natural than seeing a member of the opposite sex and spontaneously feel incredibly shy, an impulsive desire to approach them, and the anxiety or butterflies about your impression? We were conditioned to see this as innate behavior of a character with a crush in our childhood TV shows, such as Caillou, Max & Ruby, Avatar: the Last Airbender, Mickey Mouse, and etc. The infatuation and admiration aspect, for the most part, unmistakably different than feelings toward a friend. Like night and day!

For me, this romanticized portrayal of “obvious” romance seemed so foreign and unrelatable to me for years. However, in high school peers began to show me pictures of their crush or “hot” celebrities and asked for my opinion so often that I couldn’t help but become painfully aware of emotions I did not and could not harbor. Thus, I could only resort to comparing myself to the “normal” and using process of elimination. SPOILER ALERT: The conclusion was not a ��coming out” story, but rather an implosion of my beliefs in “normal” that completely buried my sense of self for a time.

I am a creature of labels. Why? Because that means there’s a population with a common definable attribute large enough to be considered and recognized with a title. For me, labels satisfy one of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, love and belonging. After several processes of elimination, I was introduced to “demisexual” in 2014 “quoiromantic” or “WTFromantic” in 2016. Initially, I was ecstatic to find terms that described my feelings or lack of feelings in an easily understood way. I learned that demisexuality is the lack of primary sexual attraction or “only [feeling] sexually attracted to someone when they have an emotional bond with the person” (WebMD). I learned that quoiromantic, coined in 2012 by Cor, is “feeling that these categories [of romance/romantic attraction/romantic orientation] are personally inaccessible, inapplicable, or non-sensical” (Asexual Wiki). 

Demisexual and quoiromantic are associated with the asexual spectrum and aromantic spectrum, respectively. The reality is that the majority, including LGBT members, believe asexuality and aromanticism to be unrealistic and a mental illness and thus, members are dehumanized. I’ve experienced it firsthand. All of the high school Gay-Straight Alliance members and the advisor discounted and mocked “demisexuality” when I asked about it anonymously. A girl said “It sucks [. . .] to have stumbled upon you” and “I didn’t know how extreme it was” when I pointed out that I informed her of my exact aro-ace orientation in my initial greeting just one week before.

Honestly, I feel like asexuals and aromantics are seen as model minorities in the discussion of orientation. The truth about a “model minority,” which is a marginalized minority considered to be more successful than the average population and even other minorities, is that their experience of discrimination is often denied and invalidated. 

On one hand, I identify as an Asian American adopted and raised in a Caucasian family, where the privilege gap between myself and my family can be experienced firsthand 24/7. I also fall into the Asian career stereotype of an engineer, but I am a woman. These are the communities that I associate with based on appearance, and are also “model minorities.”

On the other hand lay my hidden identities, such as being a lesbian. But the reason I say my sexuality is a hidden identity is because I rarely have interests, AKA. I don’t have crushes. Today, it’s common to hear someone say, “I need to have an emotional bond to be intimate or before I like someone.” Depending on the context, they’d either identify as having a partner preference (AKA a choice), or they may identify as demisexual, which is not by choice. When I use this phrase, I truly mean that there is a set condition in order for the chemicals dopamine and norepinephrine to be released in my brain, or for that “instinctive” feeling to click. 

My friends often tell me, “I wish I was like you” and, “You’re so lucky” as if I’m incapable of making shallow choices and am less likely to feel regret in relationships. Like the model minority, people think I have it easier than others, for some reason. Asexuals are not celibate, abstinent, sex-repulsed and sex-aversed, or traumatized individuals with high standards for intimacy. Aromantics are not incapable of love, commitment, affection, or anti-romance. Again, the aro-ace communities are STILL met with discrimination and erasure, as demonstrated with the acronym kicking “A” to the back of the line and then somehow(?) interpreted as “Ally.”

My very first experience of romantic and sexual attraction (that I could accept and admit) occurred in junior year of university at age 20. Being the self-aware psychoanalytical adult that I was, one cannot fathom how much confusion and self-disgust and torment I felt for several months. Unfamiliar emotions I hadn’t naturally and frequently felt in childhood had crept up on me until it was unbearable and I would have to cry myself to sleep. Thank God for my friends who supported and validated my emotions so that I could eventually accept them and attribute an impulsive phrase that would come to mind for each feeling. The moment I accepted them it was as if I had mastered inner peace, Kung Fu Panda style. I remained honest to my emotions and began my first relationship that almost completely erased my memory of feeling broken. 

In my experience, no matter how I try to phrase my sexuality and my attraction, I’m always met with some sort of denial or a proposed “fix”. It’s similar to my frustration with society habitually assuming that any man I meet is a romantic interest rather than platonic including the men themselves who deny my sexuality because I “just haven’t met the right guy yet.” 

Through trial and error I’ve come to treat my explanations like talking to someone in another language. When an English-speaking tourist wants to share a story with a Spanish-speaking individual the tourist has to meet the other person in their world or communicate in Spanish if they want that individual to see their world. And it is especially important to hear each persons’ stories as individual and personal instances. In the past I dismissed inquisitive people to google my labels as it was bothersome to re-explain myself and likewise, I would immediately google my friends’ labels so they wouldn’t be annoyed with my ignorance. However, my cis-hetero white male friend made a great statement: “Even with good intentions, you’re doing a disservice to them and to yourself when you immediately try to educate yourself with Google.” Be warned, those who immediately go to the internet may become misinformed and inadvertently assume stereotypical characteristics that aren’t applicable to everyone. That’s why there are spectrums.

We are not clones of each other with the same personality, preferences, skills, neuropsychology, biology, etc. But anything that diverges from your “natural” doesn’t mean it’s dirty, wrong, or broken. Honestly, the internet can be the savior to connect you with your community as well as the saboteur that cripples your sense of self. I have internalized arophobia and acephobia and that is exactly why I continue to speak against the existence of one normal. The next time someone says they’re aromantic or asexual, please give them the opportunity to explain what it means to them, because we aren’t set molds of your own imagining

[acespec-ed]

Hey, so I've recently started experimenting with the gray-ace label. Your blog as been a huge help in figuring things out, so, thanks for that! I was wondering, i think i remember that once you wrote about reactionary sex drive vs spontaneous sex drive. My question is, what's the difference between having a reactionary sex drive and being sex-favorable or even sex-neutral ace? Like, if you aren't turned on or don't really think about sex until something physical happens, how is that different from being asexual? If you don't have an easy answer that's fine, but I'd appreciate any input you or anyone else seeing this could offer :)

(Post in question and for those who don't know, spontaneous sex drive is when someone's sex drive is set off by seeing someone, and a responsive/reactionary sex drive is when someone's sex drive doesn't go off until the sexual activities start.)

That is a very good question, and one I can't properly answer unless we hear from an allosexual who has a responsive sex drive. But here's my assumptions/theories. Take everything I'm about to say with a grain of salt.

I think, allos with a responsive sex drive still feel sexual attraction to some capacity. They might have sexual fantasies of themselves with the person, or maybe it is possible for them to be turned on by seeing the person, but they lack the "must have sex with them NOW" feeling. Maybe they still get horny for no reason, and when they go to take care of that, they have a special person in mind. Whereas a sex favorable ace usually won't have anyone in mind. (Or maybe they do have a special person in mind, but they don't include themselves in the fantasy.) The fantasies could be the big difference.

With those I’m sexually attracted to, forcing myself to think sexual thoughts of them can trigger that need for sex with them. It’s a gradual feeling that grows the more I feed into the thoughts. Maybe it’s like that for an allo with a reactionary sex drive. They have to actively put themselves in a sexual fantasy with that person, and that triggers the sex drive just as much as it would irl. This possible difference makes the most sense to me.

I think, if someone with a responsive sex drive really wanted to, they could place themselves somewhere on the ace spectrum. Because the ace spectrum has evolved to the point where, anyone relates to acespecs more than allos can fall under it. And allos with a responsive sex drive look almost identical to sex favorable aces. The only difference could be what goes on in their heads- and even then, there’s probably acespec labels that an allo with a reactionary sex drive can fall under. I’d be surprised if there aren’t.

I already mentioned it in the other ask, but allos who call sex favorable aces "normal" are probably allos with responsive sex drives. I've seen posts by demis discussing people telling demis "everyone is like that" may actually be demi themselves. We could have a similar thing going on with sex favorable aces and allos with responsive sex drives. But the allo with the responsive sex drive sees no need to identify as ace whereas sex favorable aces do. Maybe that's the only difference between the two?

But again, this is all a bunch of assumptions I'm making. I'm not allo and am only sex favorable towards people I'm already sexually attracted to. My sex drive seems to be a mix of both depending on my mood. So I’m not confident in my answers. If anyone else wants to take a shot at it, go ahead!

[robotslenderman]

Someone on Reddit was asking why labels were important and I went into a whole goddamn essay because my Vyvanse is kicking in.

TLDR - Labels are important for communication. Without communication, we are isolated. Sexuality is so fundamental to our experiences as human beings that being able to describe those experiences succinctly can mean the difference between feeling isolated and feeling connected. Also sneering at ace people for microlabels dismisses the asexual experience as so unimportant that we SHOULDN'T be able to describe our exact experience of it, when discussing asexuality often requires these labels because of how varied and complicated the asexual experience is.

I've been waffling on the fence about microlabels but I've decided that no, microlabels aren't overthinking it, for the reasons I discuss below. In the past I've reblogged things saying that microlabels are about isolation instead of connection, that further dividing our sexuality into smaller and smaller boxes creates increasingly exclusive clubs.

I no longer believe that. I believe it does the opposite. I believe that being in touch with your sexuality just as much as you need to helps you connect to others even outside your microlabel, not just within it, because then it makes it clearer to everyone involved what experiences you have in common and makes it easier to set aside the ones you don't.

You don't understand how important labels are until you've struggled without one. It's human nature to use language to describe our experiences, and when we don't have the language to do so it is stressful and isolating. Because language is how we connect to other people, so when we can't use easy language to summarise our experiences, it becomes isolating.

My personal experience - I struggled with my asexuality for years, even before I began to realise that I was asexual. Even once I started letting myself admit it, I didn't feel that the word "asexual" was enough. Sure, I could explain to people "I'm asexual and don't want to have sex, but I love sex in theory and in novels and I love reading about romance and daydreaming about them, but don't want a relationship." That's a very specific type of asexuality that people don't think of when they hear "asexual". People hear "asexual" and think "doesn't like sex."

But people use labels because others don't want to stick around and listen to your dissertation on what your sexuality actually is, they want bite sized information as soon as possible and sometimes YOU want to describe who you are without spending a ton of time explaining it. It's not just because I want to understand myself, it's because I want other people to, too, and labels is how we communicate. It's the fundamentals of how language works. Labels are so important that they consist of two entire grammatical categories - adjectives and nouns.

So when I found out about aegosexuality? I was like "oh thank god, I'm not a broken asexual, I'm this specific TYPE of asexual."

Most people haven't heard of aegosexuality. I used to actually roll my eyes at microlabels like that, thinking it was needlessly self absorbed and pretentious. But now I get it. Now I have the ABILITY to summarise my experiences in one word, and it turns out that having that ability to use language efficiently to describe myself has brought me quite a significant amount of peace. Because when I tell people I'm asexual, they often have a certain idea in their heads of what asexuality is, and I don't fit under most of that. Many asexuals don't, because asexuality is the most complicated sexuality there is.

But god is it fucking exhausting to say "I'm asexual" and then have to hold a fucking Q and A session about how I'm asexual and yes, I really am asexual even though I'm not adhering to someone else's idea of what asexuality is. By knowing I'm aegosexual, I can say, "oh, you're thinking of X type of asexuality, which is when you experience Y. I'm aegosexual, which means that I still get horny and love sex in fiction, but I don't personally want to experience it, unlike X type of sexuality which doesn't like sex at ALL."

And then people get it! They don't get "I'm asexual, but different." That just makes them think I'm not actually asexual, or that I'm an allo in denial who needs therapy to be "fixed". They get "I'm asexual, but this specific type of asexuality that has a name." People respond to names. People respond to labels. They GET labels, even ones they haven't heard of, even ones they roll their eyes at because they think we're over thinking it because they assume that because their sexuality is so fucking simple, everyone else's must be too.

I still tell people I'm asexual because a lot of the time my type of asexuality isn't actually important. Actually, most of the time I tell them I'm queer and leave it vague because queer is a wonderful umbrella word and my sexuality isn't anyone's business. For me, "queer" is often enough because it communicates that my experience isn't a straight one, and that's usually all people need to know.

But having that label just on *hand* that describes my experiences, and having the option to use it to people who do know what it means, and being able to hand it to people who are lost like I used to be lost -

That's powerful. It's important. It *matters*.

It's not like needing a label for yourself because you prefer pineapple on pizza, this is sexuality, this is the kind of thing that makes or breaks your experiences with other human beings. When you're straight your sexuality is so simple and easy that you don't even need to think about it. You're straight. That's easy. And as homosexuality becomes more accepted I'm seeing baby gays start to take that attitude as well because they're gay and as homosexuality becomes less stigmatised, it's allowed to become more simple.

But other sexualities don't have that luxury.

Bisexuality and pansexuality are more complicated because often people experience a split attraction model, or they don't have equal attraction to different genders and they're not fully comfortable describing themselves as bi or pan because again, people hear "bisexual" or "pansexual" and assume that you experience the same amount of attraction to different genders and it's important to be able to communicate to people that no, you don't. The whole point of using a word is so that the other people understand you - if they don't understand the word, they don't understand YOU. So I think bisexuality and pansexuality is also a spectrum in that there's different types of both depending on how your attraction works, and that it would help bi and pan people to have more specific words - using bisexual and pansexual as an umbrella term much like queer and asexual - to allow them to better communicate their experiences.

And asexuality is, I think, the most complicated sexuality of all. It's based not just on who you're attracted to, like other sexualities, but if you're attracted at ALL. No other sexuality has a footnote attached of "but this one likes sex" or "this one doesn't like sex" or "this one is indifferent to sex". Even bisexuality and pansexuality don't. It also has the contradictory feature of involving some level of attraction - demisexuals and grey aces experience attraction! Just only under specific circumstances. The split attraction model is also much more significant; whereas some bisexual people are explicitly homo- or heteroromantic, many asexuals are not aromantic, and many aromantic people are not asexual. This is far more common with us.

It's also the ONLY sexuality where the split attraction communities are actively hostile to each other. Aromantic people have lately been slinging a lot of shit at asexual people because in their need to be told apart from us (I say "us" even though I'm aromantic myself because I'm also asexual), some have gone to the extreme of showing outright hostility to asexual people and show offence for being associated with us at all. When I thought that I was bi, for example, I NEVER saw this kind of shit between homoromantic bis, heteroromantic bis and biromantic bis. Only the asexual and aromantic community has this hostility.

I respect that aros don't want people to mistake them for asexual people and that's important for the same reasons I've been discussing in this entire essay, but here I'm referring to outright hostility aimed AT asexuals because of other people's failures to understand them. "Aromanticism isn't the same as asexuality" is not hostility. Treating asexual people like garbage - or even aroace people because they dare to exist as asexual AND aromantic - is hostility. This hostility is rising.

So asexuality is deeply complicated, and when you have completed concepts, you need simple labels to communicate that. And frankly - allos don't fucking get it. Bi and pan people do to a certain level, but their sexuality, while more complicated than being gay or straight, is still not as complicated as asexuality. That's not a bad thing, having a more complicated sexuality doesn't make us superior, nor is complication the same thing as depth. Other sexualities are not shallow for lacking the same level of complication, nor should they be taken less seriously.

But it does mean each sexuality has nuance to it that you can't understand without being that sexuality, and it's vital not to fall into the same trap straight people do that your experience of sexuality applies to everyone else, of assuming that because your sexuality isn't complicated to you that it must be the same for everyone else or we're overthinking it. And it's important for us to be able to succinctly sum up our sexuality so that we can share our experiences.

People who've never faced that don't understand how important it is to feel connected to people by being able to efficiently describe yourself. To use language is to connect, to use language and labels is to communicate. Without that, it's an isolating experience, simply because people do not fucking want to hear you bring out a PowerPoint presentation to talk about yourself when they just want one word. And when you're talking about something that defines your human experience, that makes your ability to communicate it THE difference between being isolated and disconnected, and feeling human.

Having different levels of labels helps, too. Sure, I'm aegosexual, but even if most people knew what that meant, most of the time it's completely fucking irrelevant. Most of the time all I need to do is say I'm queer - because I'm communicating that my experience isn't a straight one (or a cis one, if you're queer because of your gender). Sometimes I need to say I'm aroace, or just asexual, because that's what the conversation calls for. It's only when discussing asexuality itself that I actually need to say I'm aegosexual - but that's important, too.

Discussion of asexuality is no less important than being able to say I'm ace, or that I'm queer, and a lot of allos think that distinguishing yourself from straight people is important, that distinguishing yourself from non straight people is important, but asexuality itself is so unimportant that we're not allowed to distinguish ourselves among each other. And that's just another form of aphobia. It doesn't mean that we're going "ew, we're not THOSE asexuals" like I've been seeing in the arosexual community lately, it's being able to say "this is my experience of asexuality, so I'm viewing our discussion through THIS lens, whereas you might not."

And it's so fucking typical that allos think that that shouldn't be important to us. I regret ever thinking the same.

At the end of the day, we need language. It describes our experiences, and without being able to describe those experiences, we are isolated. We need language and labels to connect.

[demis-deserve-love]

Stolen from @aro-aceplace because I found it online but couldn’t find the original post to reblog.

Aro/Ace Spectrum Orientations

Abrosexual/Abroromantic: Having an orientation or feelings about it that constantly change and cannot be pinned down for this reason.

Aceflux/ Aroflux: When someone’s sexual/ romantic orientation fluctuates but always stays on the aro/ace spectrum.

Acespike/ Arospike: When someone usually doesn’t feeling sexual/romantic attraction but occasionally rapidly skyrockets into intense attraction, then plummeting down to asexuality/aromanticism again.

Acoromantic/Acosexual: Asexual/Aromantic(spec) because of negative past experiences. (similar to Caedromantic/Caedsexual)

Adfecturomantic/Affecturomantic/Adfectual/Adfomantic: Is someone whose romantic attraction is affected by their neurodivergency.

Aegosexual/Aegoromantic: Feeling attraction and desire only for situations that do not involve one’s self.

Aliquasexual/ Aliquaromantic: Not normally feeling attraction, but feeling it on occasion under specific circumstances.

Amicussexual/Amicusromantic: When you are only attracted to people you’re also platonically attracted to.

Antisexual/ Antiromantic: Would rather not develop platonic/romantic/sexual feelings for people, but does anyway.

Apressexual/ Apresromantic: Only feeling attraction after another form of attraction is felt.

Aromantic/Asexual: When someone doesn’t feel sexual/ romantic attraction to anyone

Arovague/Acevague: Aromanticism or asexuality that is heavily influenced by neurodiversity (also known as Adfecturomantic / Adfectusexual)

Akoinsexual/ Akoinromantic: When someone feels sexual/ romantic attraction towards others and also enjoys romantic/ sexual relationships in theory, but does not need that affection to be reciprocated. An Akoinsexual/ Akoinromantic person may also experiencing sexual attraction until those feelings are reciprocated.

(Also known as Lithsexual/Lithromantic or Akoisexual/ Akoiromantic)

Apresromantic / Apresexual: An orientation where romantic/sexual attraction is felt only after another type of attraction is formed.

Apothisexual/ Apothiromatic: A specific term for when someone on the asexual/ aromantic spectrum is sex repulsed or romance repulsed. (Also known as ARCsexual/ ARCromantic)

Autochrissexual/ Autochrisromantic: When someone feels sexual arousal/ romantic attraction for something, but from a distance, as if they were someone else, and have no desire to do that thing themselves (Also known as Aegosexual/ Aegoromantic or Autochorrisromantic / Autochorrissexual).

Bellusromantic: When someone is fine with cute fluffy stuff with anyone but doesn’t want a relationship at all.

Burstsexual/ Burstromantic: An orientation where a type of attraction will occur in a sudden burst, then vanish or fade away.

Borearomantic/Boreasexual: an orientation that seems to revolve around one person in particular. (can also be defined as an exception to one’s orientation, ie, someone who identifies as homosexual/homoromantic feeling attraction to someone of a different gender)

Caedromantic/Caedsexual: The feeling that romantic or sexual attraction was taken away due to past trauma -for PTSD and trauma survivors

Casssexual/ Cassromantic: Feeling utterly indifferent to attraction, believing it isn’t important.

Ceasesexual/ Ceaseromantic: Usually being allosexual/romantic, but occasionally having a complete loss of attraction for a period of time before feeling it again.

Cupiosexual/ Cupioromantic: When someone does not experience sexual/ romantic attraction, but still desires a sexual/ romantic relationship. (Also known as kalossexual/ kalosromantic and Icularomantic/ Icularsexual)

Demisexual/ Demiromantic: When someone is only sexually/ romantically attracted to people they already have a strong emotional connection with.

Dreadsexual/ Dreadromantic: An orientation that fluctuates from feeling no attraction to feeling attraction. When attraction is felt, it is accompanied by a strong feeling of dread or anxiety.

Duosexual/ Duoromantic: Having two or more well defined orientations that you switch between (e.g. cupiosexual and fraysexual).

Durasexual/Duraromantic: Rarely experiencing attraction, but when it happens it lasts for a long time.

Fictosexual/ Fictoromantic: When someone only feels sexually/romantically attracted to fictional characters.

Freysexual/ Freyromantic: When Someone is sexualy/ romantically attracted to those they are less familiar with but after a while the “excitement” of meeting the new person dies down and you are perfectly content on just being friends.

Greysexual/ Greyromantic: When someone only feels sexual/ romantic attraction rarely.This term can also be a general term for identifying as somewhere on the aro/ace spectrum.

Lamvanosexual/ Iamvanoromantic: Feeling uncofortable doing sexual/romantic things to someone, but being willing to receive sexual and romantic acts.

Idemromantic: When someone Categorizes relationships and feelings as platonic or romantic but experiences no notable internal differences

Inactoromantic: When someone experiences romantic attraction and wants a romantic relationship but doesn’t like romantic actions. Also known as initiaromantic.

Limnosexual/ Limnoromantic: Attraction only piqued by depictions of acts of attraction (eg drawings or writing), not the acts themselves in real life (similar to fictosexual/ fictoromantic).

Malasexual/Malaromantic: When someone only experiences attraction during maladaptive daydreams

Metaromantic: Only experiencing attraction that is unable to be defined by strict terms of platonic or romantic.

Nebula-romantic/ Nebula-sexual: Difficulty distinguishing romantic/sexual and platonic attraction due to neurodiversity

Novisexual/Noviromantic: Feeling complicated attraction or lack thereof in such a way that it is difficult or impossible to fit into one word or term.

Omniaromantic:Is someone who feels no romantic attraction whatsoever. In no way, shape, or form do they fall in love or feel any attraction to anyone.They are asensual, have no aesthetic attraction to others, and no squishes. They can experience platonic love or familial love, though not all do so. This term was made to made a distinguish between being on the aromantic spectrum and specify from the common definition of a aromantic person, since saying someone is “aromantic” could mean they could be demiromantic, gray-aromantic, and such other types of aromantics who do feel sensual, have aesthetic attraction and such.

Placiosexual/ Placioromantic: When someone feels little to no desire to receive sexual/romantic acts but expresses interest/desire in performing them on someone else.

Platonisexual/ Platoniromantic: When someone feels no difference between platonic and romantic attraction.

Polarsexual/ Polarromantic: Switching between being either extremely attracted and not at all attracted.

Post rubor: Is someone who quickly gets crushes/squishes/etc on others, but after the initial excitement of said crush/etc vanishes so do their feelings.

Presexual/ Preromantic: A placeholder term for when someone feels that they have not experienced attraction enough to know their orientation yet.

Propeestsexual/ Propeestromantic: An aro/ace spec identity which feels like a mix of many (any more than two a-spec identities) that all are a part of your identity

Quoisexual/ Quoiromantic: Is when someone experiences sexual attraction in a way that is not typical of allosexuals individuals, but doesn’t knowing where they fit on the asexual spectrum; or not identifying with any of the existing labels./ Feeling as if the concept of romance or sexual attraction, etc. is inapplicable or nonsensical to one’s self.(Also known as wtfsexual)

Recipsexual/ Recipromantic: When someone feels sexual/ romantic attraction only after realizing someone is sexually/ romantically attracted to them.

Requeissexual/Requeromantic: When someone feels limited or no sexual/romantic attraction/interest/activity due to some form of emotional exhaustion or trauma.

Schromantic: Is someone who is aromantic and romantic at the same time, or some mix of the two. Frequently described in terms of Schrödinger’s cat as having the possibility of being romantic and aromantic at the same time

Singulusexual/ Singuluromantic: Only experiencing one type of attraction towards people (i.e. if you experience sexual attraction towards a person, you won’t feel romantic/alterous/platonic attraction towards them).

Thymsexual/ Thymromantic: Feeling attraction which varies depending on emotional state

[imoga-pride]

I have seen that you know a lot about sexuality and gender things, so I have a question for you. I am a born female and identity as such. I am attracted to men and just assumed I was straight. However, I’ve noticed a lot of my fictional and celeb crushes are bi and pan. I also have little sexual interests right now, which i think is unusual, given my age (I’m 15). I think I might fall somewhere on the asexual scale. but is there a term for someone like me who seems to be attracted to bi/pan men? Or is it just a coincidence? And lastly can you be straight and ace?

Okay. I actually get where you're coming from and you seem to be very cautious about such things. If/when you are attracted to multiple men, I think you could use plurian, but that only quantifies your attraction. The only identifier I know that nuances orientation is panamory/panamorous, but that specifies the lack of dependence towards orientations [capability of relationships with many kinds of partners regardless of their sexual orientation or gender(s)].

Now, if the attractions you experience are only inside your mind, you could be cogitari- (only experiencing attraction within your own head).

Obviously, as wlm (julietians, women loving/liking men) are culturally conditioned to be attracted to straight men, I noticed it. The consensus is that the other person's orientation shouldn't affect your attraction towards em. You'd still be str8 but you can always use amative terms for your circumstantial attractions (in the sense of asexual spectrum and grey areas). So you could be still mono- (attracted to one gender).

Other orientations you could take a look is poeti-, ficto-, procul-, cele-. Not judging people with such orientations, but in my point of view, they are forms of escapism. Nothing wrong with that, as they are Neptunine traits. Because you're still not attracted to people in real life, right?! But think with me: you're always welcome in rethinking your labels and renaming them, they don't need to be forever, in the future there could be a specific label you'd better identify than all of those I mentioned.

[chibimyumi]

【Response to this post: “What does ‘transgender’ mean?” Explanation through a Pizza and Kuroshitsuji.】

Dear Anon,

I am by no means qualified to make statements about you since I don’t know who you are, but do allow me to suggest a few ideas.

The sexuality that comes to my mind from your ask is something that falls within the spectrum of Asexuality, named ‘Graysexuality’. As for what this is... I think it might be best if you read up on it a bit more if you’re interested, because this is too broad. But for now, I think this website might be helpful.

What you experience is not mainstream at all and rather complex, so forgive me for starting this post in what seems like a “Chibi, where the hell are you trying to go to?”

⚠️Disclaimer: EVERYTHING I will say below is simply food for thought. This post is by no means an essay to convince you (or anyone else) what sexuality you are.The below are simply SOME aspects from which you can consider whether asexuality applies to you. In the end of the day, whether you are ace or not, depends entirely on whether or not you feel comfortable calling yourself as such. ⚠️

1. Enjoyment of Romance vs Participation of Romance

The role of Fiction

First of all I would like to touch upon you saying that you do enjoy reading romance in fiction, but are horrified at the idea of actively participating in a romantic relationship.

I think your “I like it, but I also hate it” is a very normal thing. Fiction is a means through which people explore possibilities that would be impossible, dangerous/scary, or undesirable in real life. That is the whole point of fiction; that we are able to experience a life that doesn’t exist for us, or to re-live a life through someone else (who is just like us, or reversely, very different). That is why fiction matters, oh, people who have not noticed yet.

Perhaps active participation of romance is to you something that is ‘undesirable’ or even ‘dangerous/scary’, and that is why you enjoy it in fiction in the same way some people like reading dystopia stories. For example: “do people want to live in Victorian England where serial murders occur and people need to fight tooth and nail just to get by?” Well, I SURE HOPE NOT! But I know my blog audience consists mostly of Kuroshitsuji readers, and yet we are all here anyway.

Q1: Now, my first question to you is: “Do you perhaps only like the ‘idea of romance’ but not ‘romance it self’? Is ‘romance’ to you personally like ‘murderous 19th century England’? Exciting in theory, but terrible in practice?”

2. Allonormativity and “the broken aces”

Allonormativity - Socialisation and Romance-crazed-society

Our society is BONKERS about romance and treats the ‘achievement of romance’ as a person’s ‘holiest achievement’. Why? Because society wants us to make BABIES. But it can be a pain in the arse (literally), and many people might actually not want it. What did society do? Tell us that we WANT IT and sell us stories of GREAT LOVE sugarcoated in ✨romance✨. (A reminder that the notion of ‘romance’ being linked to ‘marriage’, and by extent, ‘procreation’ has not always existed in human society. It is since the more recent history that humans have come to think of these things to be intrinsically connected.)

Growing up, what is the most persistent question we hear? “Do you have a Boy/Girlfriend?”, “what is your type?”, “is that your partner, or are you JUST friends?” All these questions hold assumptions that it is ‘natural’ for people to want to be in a relationship. In particular, the last phrase also contains two very loaded words, namely 1. ‘partner’, and 2. ‘just’.

Partner: When the question about ‘partner’ is raised, people usually don’t ask:  “My partner in what...? Partner in crime? Partner in business?” That is because there is a silent assumption that this refers to ‘romantic partner’. If you do ask what ‘partner’ should refer to, however, the answer will be a variant on: “you know.... your PARTNER, your ‘lover’”. The word ‘partner’ is actually just a term for someone we are supposed to work in a team with. But over time, a ‘partner’ has come to be interpreted as the ONE person you want to bang AND are supposed to be ‘in a team with.’ It is assumed that “you can’t be someone’s partner if you don’t want to kiss them, and share the rest of your life with.” The suggestion that comes with this word is that ‘if you don’t have a romantic partner, you are alone.” (How often do we hear people say: “I don’t want to be alone” when they actually mean: I don’t want to NOT be in a romantic relationship?) This is also where ‘your other half’ as a term comes in; there is an assumption that you are ‘incomplete’ without someone you want to bang (and have babies with).  

JUST: As I have said before in this post, the word ‘just’ is a linguistic signifier that something is ‘trivial’ or ‘less important’. In this phrase, the ‘friend’ is assumed to be “not a partner” and likewise “less important than ‘partner’”.

Where am I going with this? As we can see, growing up we have been fed great stories of romance that brainwashed us with the idea that “it is normal to want a ‘partner’, or otherwise you are without someone to be in a team with.” You will be the ‘loner’ and excluded from ‘normal society’. This is allonormativity, wherein not being romantic is condemned. This is why many people rush into relationships, and often rather stay in a bad/abusive relationship than walk away; for fear of being ‘excluded’.

  “The sad, traumatised, broken aces”

The next thing I would like to throw out also as food for thought is about the knee-jerk reaction of “did something happen in the past?” when someone says they are not interested in dating or sex. There seems to be a common assumption that if someone doesn’t want ““to love and be loved””, there is something wrong with them.

I really don’t know you, so I am forced to make conclusions based on the little information from your ask. Please by ALL means ignore me if I am wrong, but this is just food for thought:

Q2: “is it possible that you suspected something was ‘wrong’ with you, but have no ‘trauma’ to explain this ‘wrongness’ about the way you feel? And did this suspicion that you are ‘abnormal’ lead you to visit a ‘doctor’, who in turn might have reinforced the idea that it is “odd to not want to be in a romantic relationship without prior trauma”? In other words; were you confronted with allonormativity but find yourself not to fit this norm? (If your doctor did instill the idea in you that it is ‘odd’ to not be romantically inclined without trauma, please tell them to educate themselves on asexuality, please. Please.)

In case it wasn’t clear what I am trying to say: someone does not need to be ‘broken’ to not (always) desire romance and/or sex.

3. Chocolate vs Water

There is a also common misconception among even the people who are familiar with the term ‘asexuality’ or ‘ace spectrum’: namely that asexuality is the same as abstinence or the absence of desire for sex/romance. This however, is very far from the truth.

I would say that sex and/or romance to allo people is like water; it is a necessity. Without water, they feel like they lack a basic life necessity to stay sane and healthy.

To ace people however, I suggest romance/sex is chocolate. Some people like chocolate, some people don’t. When someone says: “I don’t like chocolate”, they are usually met with disbelief: “WHAT, you don’t like chocolate?! What’s wrong with you?”

Ace people who DON’T like chocolate just don’t want it, and they’re not ill or something. They don’t need a sob story of how they choked on it or had an allergic reaction when they were little. These people do not have to hate on chocolate though. Perhaps it is like: “sure, chocolate looks pretty in food art, but do I want to eat it? Nah.”

Ace people who DO like chocolate eat it happily sometimes, but they will survive fine without chocolate. It’s something you must ‘feel like’. Just imagine car-sickness for now. You might love chocolate, but you might not even want to see it when you’re car-sick. You don’t ‘feel like it’.

4. Afterword

Dear Anon, I have rambled quite a lot, but I hope it is comprehensive. Again, I am not trying to impose any labels on you, I am simply trying to list and unpack a few ideas that may not have been considered yet. Again: whether or not someone is x/y/z-sexual depends on whether they feel that label fits them, after all.

To other people, perhaps it is interesting for you to consider these things too? Have you too been battered with allonormativity? Are sex and/or romance water to you, or chocolate?

Anyway, I hope this helps a little bit! (*´▽｀*)ノ

[secretly-of-course]

my bf just told me he’s asexual. we’ve been together for a year. i was supportive of him of course and asked him to clarify how he defines asexual as a label for himself, but i’m honestly having such a hard time processing this. as an ace person, i was wondering if you could give any perspective/advice if you feel comfortable with it ? :)

hi! Full disclaimer I’ve never been in a relationship myself but I can try my best!

For the majority of the general population, romantic attraction and sexual attraction go hand in hand, so it can be hard for many people to understand those of us for whom those feelings are separate. Some asexuals are aromantic, while some are alloromantic, meaning that they can experience romantic attraction. It sounds like your boyfriend, given the fact that he is dating you, is alloromantic. Your boyfriend still wants to be with you and date you and stuff, he just may not be attracted to you physically (unless he is gray or demi). His feelings for you as well as your feeling for him are still valid.

Now I don’t know how old you are, or if you’re at a point in your relationship where you’ve had/are having/considering having sex, but that’s something the two of you will have to discuss together. Some asexuals are sex positive (enjoy sex, may seek it out), some are sex neutral (don’t care much one way or the other for sex, may have sex if their partner wants to), and some are sex repulsed (do not like or want sex, may avoid sex). Asexuality is different for everyone and depending on where your boyfriend falls on that spectrum as well as both of your own boundaries will determine what the physical aspects of your relationship will look like, as well as how to keep you both satisfied.

If it makes you feel better, remember a lot of allosexual and asexual people have made relationships work with each other, and there are plenty of ways to be intimate with someone that don’t actually involve sex. It’s totally okay and natural to need a minute to wrap your head around this, and the fact that you two were already able to have an open and honest conversation about this is already a great sign. Keep communicating with each other and ask as many questions as you need to while you process. Things will be okay :)

I really hope this helps <3