Deleted

[Vestal]

Deleted

[binary suns]

Good words

[Burgundy]

This is lovely to read :)

[littlepersonparadox]

That was a well put together article/advice response.

[Annapox]

Overall, I really liked this.

However, I did notice that the writer talked about "asexual behavior." And, while I understand that certain behaviors are more common or at least more accepted in the ace community (celibacy, for example), I don't like it when people talk about asexual behavior because it can turn into another way for people to invalidate each other. "You can't be asexual because you've had sex" is a good example of this.

But overall, very well done!

[RedPanda3]

Overall, I really liked this.

However, I did notice that the writer talked about "asexual behavior." And, while I understand that certain behaviors are more common or at least more accepted in the ace community (celibacy, for example), I don't like it when people talk about asexual behavior because it can turn into another way for people to invalidate each other. "You can't be asexual because you've had sex" is a good example of this.

But overall, very well done!

I don't think there's anything wrong with including behaviour as an indicator of sexuality. I know tons of people here don't agree with that, and I fully understand their arguments but to say that behaviour shouldn't be an indicator at all doesn't make sense to me. Of course asexuals have sex for a lot of reasons - curiosity, wanting to compromise with a partner, they like to feel emotionally close,or didn't know they were asexual etc. But for example - I don't think someone who likes to go clubbing every weekend and have casual promiscuous sex should identify as asexual (I mean they can of course, but I would seriously doubt their asexuality). That behaviour is so completely opposed to asexuality, then it just doesn't fit imo. I do think one's sexuality will help dictate their behaviour. Just like, if a man claimed to be only straight, but insisted on having tons of sex with other men, I would doubt the legitimacy of his claim/label.

When it comes to asexuality, I think it's very useful to explain that there are many reasons an asexual may have sex, but I also think it's wrong to say that behaviour has no bearing on what sexual orientation one should identify with. Labels will become utterly useless otherwise and only serve to confuse people if they appear to be the exact opposite of what they're claiming.

(I know you were probably just referring to cases like your example, but in general, I get a little confused when people on this forum insist that behaviour is irrelevant to one's chosen label.)

[Annapox]

Overall, I really liked this.

However, I did notice that the writer talked about "asexual behavior." And, while I understand that certain behaviors are more common or at least more accepted in the ace community (celibacy, for example), I don't like it when people talk about asexual behavior because it can turn into another way for people to invalidate each other. "You can't be asexual because you've had sex" is a good example of this.

But overall, very well done!

I don't think there's anything wrong with including behaviour as an indicator of sexuality. I know tons of people here don't agree with that, and I fully understand their arguments but to say that behaviour shouldn't be an indicator at all doesn't make sense to me. Of course asexuals have sex for a lot of reasons - curiosity, wanting to compromise with a partner, they like to feel emotionally close,or didn't know they were asexual etc. But for example - I don't think someone who likes to go clubbing every weekend and have casual promiscuous sex should identify as asexual (I mean they can of course, but I would seriously doubt their asexuality). That behaviour is so completely opposed to asexuality, then it just doesn't fit imo. I do think one's sexuality will help dictate their behaviour. Just like, if a man claimed to be only straight, but insisted on having tons of sex with other men, I would doubt the legitimacy of his claim/label.

When it comes to asexuality, I think it's very useful to explain that there are many reasons an asexual may have sex, but I also think it's wrong to say that behaviour has no bearing on what sexual orientation one should identify with. Labels will become utterly useless otherwise and only serve to confuse people if they appear to be the exact opposite of what they're claiming.

(I know you were probably just referring to cases like your example, but in general, I get a little confused when people on this forum insist that behaviour is irrelevant to one's chosen label.)

I agree that it's unlikely that I'll ever meet an asexual person who really likes to have casual sex with a lot of different people. It's possible, but very unlikely.

I guess, as someone who isn't sex-repulsed and might have sex one day, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that celibacy is somehow a requirement for being asexual. But it's a pretty common misconception. Some people also think that the only "real" asexuals are the aro aces. Things like that.

I completely acknowledge that asexuals are more likely to identify as aromantic and that we're more likely to be sex-repulsed than people of other sexual orientations, but I don't want to spread the idea that there's just one way to be ace, and that's why I don't like to categorize behaviors as inherently ace or non-ace.

I'm probably not making any sense. This kind of thing is difficult for me to articulate.

[Frigid Pink]

Great article!