Asexuality and bad experiences

[uhtred]

2 hours ago, StreetlightDawn said:

Fair point.  Self-reflection is a very good thing, that without, you are correct, can lead to regrettable choices.

 

I read your opening post as condescending instead of you asking a genuine question.  That's on me.  It's a knee-jerk reaction to the common question upon revealing oneself as asexual. "But how do you knowww you're asexual if you haven't had good sex?"  As someone who struggled with the question you're asking (how does one innately know they are asexual), it felt frustrating to be confronted with it again.  To me, there's an assumption in the question that zero self-reflection has occurred.  And that's kind of insulting.  But that's how I read it, which I see now doesn't mean that's how you "said" it.

 

To try and answer your question genuinely then: I don't think it's sad if someone who is sexual writes it all off and claims asexuality.  It's not on anyone to police how people identify, or to police if they've researched their own feelings to see if they've come to an accurate conclusion, or to police what even is an accurate conclusion for them.

Yes, I can see how my question / comment seems very close to implying that people haven't thought about it, and I really didn't intend it that way.

 

Mostly this is just that I'm very much a fan of internal honesty and self reflection.  I think a lot about why I am the way I am, and why I do the things I do.  Often I'm not proud of the answers.    

 

 

[binary suns]

@StreetlightDawn same

 

@uhtred haha, same! 

[Baam]

I've put your quotes in spoilers since you wrote your text in one as well.

Spoiler

19 hours ago, float on said:

Further, some people who are "repressed" do want to know if they are ace or not - they want to know if they can change if they heal, and if so, will prioritize healing that over other things. Further, some people who have trauma want more clarity in whether they should be preparing for a life sexless - or a life with sex - and either such folk would actually have meaningful differences in how they move forward depending on which is true. Not everyone "repressed" are these folk - but some are. 

 

additionally, while it isn't usually as big of an issue... with serious illnesses and other life conditions, people who are literally impaired can feel quite the appropriation imposed on their situation when people casually go "lol I'm so _____" and this can exist with asexuality. I wouldn't want to police people out of the asexuality community, but I believe it's more helpful to say, "if asexuality fits, might as well ID that way" rather than "you're asexual no matter what" - er, crap this doesn't target my concern perfectly. uh..

I wasn't trying to say 'you're asexual no matter what.' I was trying to say that if you lack the desire for partnered sex (or sexual attraction, let's not get into that debate now), then you're asexual. A label is just a word used to describe yourself. So saying, 'if asexuality fits, might as well identify that way,' is exactly the same as saying, 'I'm asexual regardless of the reason behind it.' Unless you wanna use really long and (imo unnecessary) labels to describe the reason behind your asexuality instead of just saying you're asexual...

Spoiler

19 hours ago, float on said:

ok, here - the other aspect to that prior concern comes from my experience in how some of my identity has shifted. For me, it does actually matter "what used to be" because it was a part of who I am. So between the risk of appropriation, and the fact that our past is a memory that we might cherish, I just didn't feel comfortable with how you said "it's irrelevant. If you're ace you're ace, no matter your past" - that just really rubs me the wrong way... Sorry  

Sure, it's a part of who you are. That's important. But what's the point of not calling yourself asexual if you experience everything that defines an asexual person's identity, just because your past is different? I didn't mean your past is irrelevant. I meant more that you don't need a unique label to describe your identity just because you weren't always asexual for instance. Should I not be calling myself gay because I used to be asexual? Should that depend on why I used to be asexual, or why that changed?

Spoiler

19 hours ago, float on said:

ugh and another nuance to this. You say "it doesn't make you less asexual" and the problem I have with that is that I am greysexual, because I am clearly and obviously less alike other asexuals. I think that it is very wise to say "it don't make you less of a person if [this or that]" and 100% agree with such a sentiment. but when you say "it doesn't make you less asexual" this to me implies that I'm either an ace or not an ace. I'm not either of those - I'm sort of asexual, and sort of not. I am, in fact, less asexual than most asexuals, and less sexual than most sexuals. but by your wording, it's implied I must be an ace... when I'm not. 

I'm grey-sexual as well. I don't see how what I said implies that a person is asexual or not with no in between, I'm sorry if it came across that way. I don't know how I managed to imply that my own identity doesn't exist, oops! Why does saying that a person's past doesn't affect their validity of being asexual mean that you can't be grey-sexual? I mean, what I said applies exactly the same to grey-sexual people. It doesn't make you 'less grey-sexual' if you used to desire sex with other people and no longer do now either! Notice I put 'less asexual' in quotation marks as well in my original post and here. I did that because it doesn't really make sense for a person to be more or less asexual, sexual, or grey-sexual because of anything. Asexuality is not a spectrum, you're either asexual or you're not. You're either grey-sexual, or you're not. You're either sexual, or you're not. You can't pick two to the best of my knowledge. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

Spoiler

19 hours ago, float on said:

I'm sorry that I'm so sensitive to what you've said. don't think too much into it.. it comes from bad experiences in the past. It's nothing against you personally, and I probably am being annoying saying anything at all. What you said contained the information you wanted to say, and that in and of itself is important to remember. It's just that I needed to nitpick it 'cause of things contained in the implication that I doubt you intended to say. So, I'm sorry for bothering you... 

You don't need to apologise, I hardly expect that everyone must agree with anything and everything I say! You're not being annoying, I'm more than happy to discuss anything I say - it's a public forum. I tend to word things badly, and I do often imply things I didn't intend to. Again, you're not bothering me at all!  I also didn't intend to upset anyone with anything I said.

[Tasha the demi squirrel]

43 minutes ago, Baam said:

I tend to word things badly

So do i sometimes it can be dificult to covey tone and meaning when typing 

[binary suns]

ooh, thanks for responding  

4 hours ago, Baam said:

, 'if asexuality fits, might as well identify that way,' is exactly the same as saying, 'I'm asexual regardless of the reason behind it.' 

oh,  I like the way you said that! yes, I would agree - if the label fits, that's good enough to ID by it. 

 

oh, I wonder, tho, part of the concern is when the "fit" hides something deeper. But that doesn't change  the - what you said I really like. "If it fits, might as well identify by it" - it shows both that there's importance to one's own experience, and expressing that; and it leaves the advice as optional, inherently to its statement. 

 

(which I definitely have struggle with responding to people with wording that ain't absolutist... so I like when I find better options... but incorporating them into my mind/vocab is hard to do lol) 

 

 

Quote

 

. But what's the point of not calling yourself asexual if you experience everything that defines an asexual person's identity, just because your past is different? I didn't mean your past is irrelevant. I meant more that you don't need a unique label to describe your identity just because you weren't always asexual for instance. 

ah,, my concern is more so.. 

 

Ok so with that regards, a person's past identity doesn't necessarily change who they ID as now. That is certainly true! 

 

but what I'm thinking of is instead  - that for example, a person who has a bad experience - blindly trusting the "everyone is ace if they look like it" - that can actually be damaging IF they are actually not-ace. damaging for themselves I mean.

 

I mean I say this 'cause it kinda applies to me. my sexual experience was "bad experience" more or less... I think it was "bad" because "I didn't have the drive/attraction/other emotions needed to want and enjoy it" - but I have doubts sometimes. What if I am sexual? There's a lot lot lot of nuance to this issue I don't want to delve into - but the long story short is, some people do want to pick apart the difference between "effectively ace" and "actually ace" and so I want to see my community avoid saying statements that erase out that concern altogether... IDK....

 

 Not all people who appear ace should just willy-nilly claim it and force it upon themselves. But there's nothing inherently wrong with such a practice.. just, I don't like sharing that practice as if it's always right - for some people it is not correct, and for example this thread is one investigating situations when alternative methods are healthier. So I don't like people attacking questions like what's been posed here as if it's intrinsically wrong and bigoted - because from my experience, this exact topic is something I've had to face. For my own sake. 

 

 

 

Quote

 

I'm grey-sexual as well. I don't see how what I said implies that a person is asexual or not with no in between, I'm sorry if it came across that way.

hey, it's okay. like I said I don't mean to be conveying any hurt or anger in response to you as a person. The things you said unsettled me, but it's me who is the reason for that... I have a lot of conflicting thoughts I can't sort out. 

 

Also, regarding what this quote was about, I actually ended up finding better words later: 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Tasha27 said:

4 hours ago, Baam said:

I tend to word things badly, and I do often imply things I didn't intend to. 

So do i sometimes it can be dificult to covey tone and meaning when typing 

Same!

 

 

 

[Light02]

I generally think that if someone has maybe gone through sexual trauma in the past and now no longer feels comfortable with having sex, regardless of whether or not they start to identify as ace afterwards, why not just let them not have sex? I know that I'm biased because as an asexual person I keep wondering why do people have sex even if they don't like certain aspects of it but in the case of someone being a survivor and losing interest in/becoming uncomfortable with sex, what's so sad about them cutting something out of their life that makes them feel bad? As an abuse survivor myself (not sexual abuse, though) I'm afraid of men and yeah, that kind of sucks, but instead of forcing myself to overcome this I just prefer being friends with women. If I forced myself to interact with men despite my fear I don't know whether I'd actually "cure" my phobia but I would surely stress myself out.

[uhtred]

3 hours ago, Light02 said:

I generally think that if someone has maybe gone through sexual trauma in the past and now no longer feels comfortable with having sex, regardless of whether or not they start to identify as ace afterwards, why not just let them not have sex? I know that I'm biased because as an asexual person I keep wondering why do people have sex even if they don't like certain aspects of it but in the case of someone being a survivor and losing interest in/becoming uncomfortable with sex, what's so sad about them cutting something out of their life that makes them feel bad? As an abuse survivor myself (not sexual abuse, though) I'm afraid of men and yeah, that kind of sucks, but instead of forcing myself to overcome this I just prefer being friends with women. If I forced myself to interact with men despite my fear I don't know whether I'd actually "cure" my phobia but I would surely stress myself out.

I think it depends on the situation. 

 

Sorry for a poor analogy but trying to find a similar way to describe this.   I hate eating mushrooms. I hate it because of an unfortunate incident when I was a young child and I ate a mushroom in the wild.  Not a badly poisonous one, but one that made me sick.   My parents (understandable) terrified reaction left me somewhat traumatized with respect to mushrooms.    So I have a choice to never try eating mushrooms, or to see if I can make myself eat them to discover if I might actually enjoy them.   I've chosen not to eat them - but chosen having thought about why I don't like them.  (as opposed to Durian which I can't stand simply because it tastes bad).

 

In my analogy, I've known I hated mushrooms ever since I was young, but it was a very long time before I made the connection and realized why.  It meant that I learned something about myself - even if I didn't change my behavior in any way. 

 

Other people in the same situation might choose to try eating them.  Neither  choice is bad - I'm just of the opinion that its worth understanding your own feelings on things so that you can make as informed a choice as possible. 

 

So I'd suggest that someone who has had bad sexual experiences should think about why.  They may find that they really don't have any interest in sex.  Or they may find that they might be interested in sex under the right conditions.  Then its entirely up to them on whether on not the act in any way on what they have discovered.

 

For the post I'm responding to - first, I'm sorry you were abused and that has left you with negative feelings toward men. It sounds like you understand the source of your feelings and have decided not to fight the way you feel.  To me, that is completely fine: you have thought and you have decided based on that thinking. 

 

Maybe most people already do this and I'm unusual in that it sometimes takes me a very long time to identify the source of my feelings about things. 

[Light02]

12 hours ago, uhtred said:

I think it depends on the situation. 

 

Sorry for a poor analogy but trying to find a similar way to describe this.   I hate eating mushrooms. I hate it because of an unfortunate incident when I was a young child and I ate a mushroom in the wild.  Not a badly poisonous one, but one that made me sick.   My parents (understandable) terrified reaction left me somewhat traumatized with respect to mushrooms.    So I have a choice to never try eating mushrooms, or to see if I can make myself eat them to discover if I might actually enjoy them.   I've chosen not to eat them - but chosen having thought about why I don't like them.  (as opposed to Durian which I can't stand simply because it tastes bad).

 

In my analogy, I've known I hated mushrooms ever since I was young, but it was a very long time before I made the connection and realized why.  It meant that I learned something about myself - even if I didn't change my behavior in any way. 

 

Other people in the same situation might choose to try eating them.  Neither  choice is bad - I'm just of the opinion that its worth understanding your own feelings on things so that you can make as informed a choice as possible. 

 

So I'd suggest that someone who has had bad sexual experiences should think about why.  They may find that they really don't have any interest in sex.  Or they may find that they might be interested in sex under the right conditions.  Then its entirely up to them on whether on not the act in any way on what they have discovered.

 

For the post I'm responding to - first, I'm sorry you were abused and that has left you with negative feelings toward men. It sounds like you understand the source of your feelings and have decided not to fight the way you feel.  To me, that is completely fine: you have thought and you have decided based on that thinking. 

 

Maybe most people already do this and I'm unusual in that it sometimes takes me a very long time to identify the source of my feelings about things. 

I don't think that's unusual at all, I'm the same way. 

 

I understand what your saying and it's a good idea but I do think that most people already do what you're suggesting.

 

[Frogster]

As a person who spent 50+ years with often well meaning people trying to fix me after an atypical introduction to what I later learned was sexual behavior,...does it matter if I was born this way or if it was acquired?

 

Would it have mattered 20 years ago? 45 years ago? 50?

 

I agree that it is good to look at why one is saying "no" .  And I try to understand why saying "yes" is seen as so desirable to so many good people.

 

But at some point, just saying "no" and walking away makes sense. Someone told me once that its easier to say "no" first and change your mind and say "yes" later than to say "yes" and then try to change it to "no".  I think that might be true.  

[Lucas Monteiro]

On 20/02/2018 at 4:11 PM, TheAP said:

Doesn't this contradict itself? It matters whether people are objectively right about their identity, but it doesn't matter whether there's objective evidence that someone is a special snowflake, it just matters what people think?

Well, it truly matters if we want asexuality to be taken as serious by people who are not so familiar or don't know anything about the subject. We have here on the forum some posts saying about some people telling to aces that they were just trying to be special, and this type of conclusion could have arrived by this kind of thoughts.  Wanting or not, it's truly hard to address to this and people prefer to stay away from it. As AVEN policies and other situations can be a proof.

 

But please put on your mind that I'm not saying against the self-identifying but sometimes people who wouldn't think too much about the matter would conclude that the person who is asexual it's just trying to be different from the heteronormative way.

[Baam]

Sorry I took so long to reply - I went away for a few days.

On 22/02/2018 at 4:32 AM, float on said:

ah,, my concern is more so.. 

 

Ok so with that regards, a person's past identity doesn't necessarily change who they ID as now. That is certainly true! 

 

but what I'm thinking of is instead  - that for example, a person who has a bad experience - blindly trusting the "everyone is ace if they look like it" - that can actually be damaging IF they are actually not-ace. damaging for themselves I mean.

Sure, but it's also dangerous the other way around. If someone thinks there's something wrong with them for example, but they're actually just ace. There's inherent 'dangers' in taking any label and slapping it on yourself with an air of finality. I think it's better in any sense to keep in mind that any label, any adjective you use for yourself is subject to be potentially inaccurate or to change at any time.

On 22/02/2018 at 4:32 AM, float on said:

I mean I say this 'cause it kinda applies to me. my sexual experience was "bad experience" more or less... I think it was "bad" because "I didn't have the drive/attraction/other emotions needed to want and enjoy it" - but I have doubts sometimes. What if I am sexual?

I do see your point, I will be more careful with my comments in the future. It's just that a lot of us will naturally rebel against this notion as similar statements are often used as attacks against asexual people. For instance, suggesting asexual people are only the way they are because they must have been assaulted in the past. Or that they must be so because they can't have ever had a good sexual partner.

On 22/02/2018 at 4:32 AM, float on said:

There's a lot lot lot of nuance to this issue I don't want to delve into - but the long story short is, some people do want to pick apart the difference between "effectively ace" and "actually ace" and so I want to see my community avoid saying statements that erase out that concern altogether... IDK....

And some insist that there's no difference between being 'effectively ace' and 'actually ace', it is a matter of opinion. My first statement was unintentionally erasing that concern, so I apologise for that. I intended more for my comment to address people who may think that they're not 'allowed' to identify as asexual because they didn't always feel that way, or they had a bad experience which changed their identity. Although, as you say, there can be a difference between 'effectively ace' and 'actually ace' (arguably), it shouldn't in any way influence the validity of your identity should you choose the asexuality label.

On 22/02/2018 at 4:32 AM, float on said:

Not all people who appear ace should just willy-nilly claim it and force it upon themselves. But there's nothing inherently wrong with such a practice.. just, I don't like sharing that practice as if it's always right - for some people it is not correct, and for example this thread is one investigating situations when alternative methods are healthier. So I don't like people attacking questions like what's been posed here as if it's intrinsically wrong and bigoted - because from my experience, this exact topic is something I've had to face. For my own sake. 

I don't think anyone should force any label upon themselves. Whether it be a sexuality label or something else. I actually think that it is wrong to do so. Forcing a label on yourself implies that it doesn't actually describe you. If so, there's no point in using it. It's like forcing the label 'tall' on myself when I'm only 1.6m. It's just... Pointless and confusing.

 

I wasn't supporting forcing the asexuality label on anyone, and as I said I'm firmly against just that. I've read dozens and dozens of accounts of people worrying that they're not allowed to identify as asexual for countless various reasons that it's really just a first response of mine to reassure people that sexuality is fluid and there's no sexuality police reviewing your past and deciding that you must be asexual because you've had sex before, etc etc... I wasn't attacking the OP for their question, and if you're referring to @Nowhere Girl, I believe she was simply flipping the question on its head in order to present a different perspective. I don't see any attacks on the OP's question, perhaps this is a matter of tone being conveyed badly again?

[TheAP]

On 2/22/2018 at 12:55 PM, Lucas Monteiro said:

Well, it truly matters if we want asexuality to be taken as serious by people who are not so familiar or don't know anything about the subject. We have here on the forum some posts saying about some people telling to aces that they were just trying to be special, and this type of conclusion could have arrived by this kind of thoughts.  Wanting or not, it's truly hard to address to this and people prefer to stay away from it. As AVEN policies and other situations can be a proof.

I'd rather not throw the members of our community with more uncommon labels under the bus in order to win the approval of judgmental people.

[Telecaster68]

Everybody's judgmental. You can't cross the road without making a judgement about someone, literally.

 

What you mean is judgements you don't agree with.

[TheAP]

No, I mean judgments about things that don't hurt anyone.

[Lucas Monteiro]

44 minutes ago, TheAP said:

I'd rather not throw the members of our community with more uncommon labels under the bus in order to win the approval of judgmental people.

I never said anything to throw members of our community because of the uncommon labels. I just said that it can happen so that if many people who identified as asexual and later on as sexuals will give the impression that people who identify as asexual just don't know how they feel about sex or didn't had enough sex. Even so, I'm not saying I'm against people who feel they are asexual and identify as they want and later discover they aren't, I just think that people still will get to arrive to a different conclusion from the people around here.

[Telecaster68]

It's not about uncommon labels, or throwing anyone under a bus. It's simply recognising that adopting a label to describe yourself when it flies in the face of observable evidence shouldn't be beyond challenge, and while people may know more about some aspects of themselves than anyone else does, it doesn't make them right.

 

Taking a stance that people can make palpably absurd claims about their sexual orientation and be beyond criticism is one of the reasons all asexuals get tarred with the special snowflake brush.

[awkwardbookworm]

On 2/21/2018 at 3:53 PM, Light02 said:

I generally think that if someone has maybe gone through sexual trauma in the past and now no longer feels comfortable with having sex, regardless of whether or not they start to identify as ace afterwards, why not just let them not have sex? I know that I'm biased because as an asexual person I keep wondering why do people have sex even if they don't like certain aspects of it but in the case of someone being a survivor and losing interest in/becoming uncomfortable with sex, what's so sad about them cutting something out of their life that makes them feel bad? As an abuse survivor myself (not sexual abuse, though) I'm afraid of men and yeah, that kind of sucks, but instead of forcing myself to overcome this I just prefer being friends with women. If I forced myself to interact with men despite my fear I don't know whether I'd actually "cure" my phobia but I would surely stress myself out.

I feel very similarly. Though my story differs in that I was a sexual abuse survivor. Also I can easily be friends with gay men, trans men (trans people in general), or asexual straight cis men; just pretty much never regular cis & sexual straight men. The men I'm afraid of are exclusively those who might find me attractive. Lesbian/bi/pan women/trans who might be attracted to me don't scare me though because I have this belief that they wont attack me & are much gentler. 

Unfortunately that phobia turns to hate at times. For example if I see a mass shooting on the news I'll think to myself "of course the perpetrator was male, men are always violent" even though deep down I know men can be good people (of course) these hateful thoughts will still come. I've been working on my phobia and hate during therapy but I don't see any reason why I should expose myself to men if I don't want to.

 

Hopefully this post doesn't come off as too hateful & bitter because I don't want to be a hateful & bitter person.

[Light02]

17 hours ago, awkwardbookworm said:

I feel very similarly. Though my story differs in that I was a sexual abuse survivor. Also I can easily be friends with gay men, trans men (trans people in general), or asexual straight cis men; just pretty much never regular cis & sexual straight men. The men I'm afraid of are exclusively those who might find me attractive. Lesbian/bi/pan women/trans who might be attracted to me don't scare me though because I have this belief that they wont attack me & are much gentler. 

Unfortunately that phobia turns to hate at times. For example if I see a mass shooting on the news I'll think to myself "of course the perpetrator was male, men are always violent" even though deep down I know men can be good people (of course) these hateful thoughts will still come. I've been working on my phobia and hate during therapy but I don't see any reason why I should expose myself to men if I don't want to.

 

Hopefully this post doesn't come off as too hateful & bitter because I don't want to be a hateful & bitter person.

I totally get what you're saying and I relate to it somewhat. I don't think you have anything to apologize for, trauma sometimes changes us in unpleasant ways and it isn't our fault.

[Philip027]

Quote

There is nothing wrong with not wanting sex in your life, but it would be sad for someone who otherwise would enjoy sex, to do without due to bad early partners. 

Who cares if they're fine with how they are?

 

I get this sort of thing all the time when it comes to food.  Yes, I order the same X thing over and over whenever I go to Y restaurant, but that's because I already know I like it.  I don't have to deal with unknowns.  All the time I get people telling me "why don't you try out Z thing instead, you might like it better!"  Yeah, but I also might not.  If I'm content with what I got, I really wish people would just leave it well enough alone.

[uhtred]

1 hour ago, Philip027 said:

Who cares if they're fine with how they are?

 

I get this sort of thing all the time when it comes to food.  Yes, I order the same X thing over and over whenever I go to Y restaurant, but that's because I already know I like it.  I don't have to deal with unknowns.  All the time I get people telling me "why don't you try out Z thing instead, you might like it better!"  Yeah, but I also might not.  If I'm content with what I got, I really wish people would just leave it well enough alone.

Food may be a good example.  Sometimes trying new foods is a great experience and adds enjoyment to your life.  OTOH, often you can make a pretty good guess beforehand, so there is no need to try foods you are sure you won't enjoy.

 

To take the analogy further - imagine that one day you tasted some food that had gone bad.  It tasted terrible and made you sick. That might turn you off on ever trying it again - but maybe if you tried you would discover that you enjoyed it if it wasn't rotten.  OTOH, maybe you already know you wouldn't like it. 

[Philip027]

If someone is lost and confused in the world of food and is struggling to find something that they actually like eating, then at that point it could be worthwhile to point out that that Weird Thing they tried and didn't like when they were a kid might be a different experience nowadays.

 

But like I said, if I'm already content with what I got, people coming up to me and being all like "why don't you try Z instead; don't you get tired of X all the time?" is just annoying and tiresome.  I don't bother anyone else about what they eat ever, so I wish they could extend to me the same courtesy.

[Rhaenys]

When I was 5 I never liked the idea of marriage and knew I never wanted to get married. That was one of my signs. As a teen UEFA was my life and I wouldn't spend those 90+ minutes watching those meant more than spending 90 mins with some sexual guy. That was another sign.

After I had bad experiences one with a rapey sexual and another who came from a culture where women are subordinates and acted like my genitalia was his by right. I knew I was asexual before I had my bad experiences.

[Chrissy Noelle]

On 3/11/2018 at 1:46 AM, Philip027 said:

But like I said, if I'm already content with what I got, people coming up to me and being all like "why don't you try Z instead; don't you get tired of X all the time?" is just annoying and tiresome.  I don't bother anyone else about what they eat ever, so I wish they could extend to me the same courtesy.

Yes. I personally have a large distaste for corn, ever since I was little. I tried it again when I was about 12 due to circumstances, and still LOATHED it. I won't ever eat it again because I know I hate it.

 

I've never had sex, I've only been harassed by an online predator and generally been stuck around internet douchebags. But I still refuse to try it, even though I'm a minor I don't ever want to get any further with sexual things than I was forced to.

 

But as an analogy for sex- what if I'd never tried corn? What if I only hated the smell of it so I never tried it? That's okay! I'm fine with what I have and don't need to go out of my "comfort zone". I don't have to know if I'm an absolute corn lover or an absolute corn hater.

 

It's the same with sex. I don't have to know if I'm sexual or asexual if I'd rather just not try sex because of how it turns me away.

 

Maybe if I one day get past my repulsion of it, I can decide even more strongly if I want to try or not. 

 

The thing is, if you are questioning whether you really do want sex, but you just can't come to a conclusion- you can be content where you are. You're not harming yourself, you're deciding that you are ok not to have sexual intercourse. You don't HAVE to have a solid foundation of facts for your sexuality if you are just in the grey area of "Do I want this?"

 

I've been questioning my sexuality since my predator attack last year, and I came on this forum thinking that "I have to find the truth! I can't be my real self until I know what I want!"

But after awhile of thinking, I've realized you really don't have to know the pure truth. If looking for it causes too much conflict and you honestly would rather "Do what make me comfortable", do that. Your comfort can come before truths, because your sexuality is a personal thing and your perception of it will not harm anybody.

 

The problem is that a lot of people think that you can only be happy if you keep reaching outside your comfort zone and better yourself, I.e. trying sex when you don't really feel like you'd like it. But you're allowed to be CONTENT with where you are. You don't have to change if you are happy with how you are and if it isn't harming you. 

 

It's ok if you don't know, that's all there is to it. If you can find it out, go do that! 

 

But for people like me, asexual, greysexual, suppressed sexual, whatever it is, I'd rather just be inside my bubble and do what I want, which is to probably not have a partner and not to have sex, ever.