Indifferent Asexuals, A post as Advocacy for them

[PunStoppableChatNoir]

As I have now witnessed, many do not know of the sexual orientation known as Indifferent Asexuality 

i am here to remedy that!

Indifferent Asexuals are Asexuals who are neither repulsed nor particularly interested in sex, meaning, they do not initiate sex nor are particularly repulsed by it, they are valid Asexuals, let’s not gatekeep here, they do not feel sexual attraction and they are not any less asexual just because there’s an added word in front of the label! 

An also, it is not to be confused with the attitude towards sex know as Sex Neutral! Sex Nuetral is ones own personal thoughts on sex, they span from Sex Negative, Sex Nuetral and Sex Postive, Indifferent Asexual is seperate from this, as it is about the individual and how they actively engage in sex, they still feel no sexual attraction, and for sex, they usually won’t inititate it and they won’t become  uncomfortable to the idea of sex or prefeorming sex, it is a subclass of Asexuality, such as gray Asexuals,  Demisexuals, Lithosexuals and many more

Heres is a link to a previous post from some of our fellow community members 

and here is a link to a definition of the orientation 

http://wiki.asexuality.org/Indifferent

 

and here is a link to one lovely Indifferent Asexual Pride Flag! For Indifferent Asexuals to be represented and advocated for, not for them to be gatekeeped or insulted for ones own self!

https://perpetualasexual.tumblr.com/post/186106295534/since-there-was-no-pride-flag-for-indifferent

 

thank you for reading and have a lovely day!

and remember!

dont be rude just because Indifferent Asexual is not the label for you, it is for others and they have found their place in the world, Do Not Take That Away From Them.

[Guest]

Slightly confused, why split them up (repulsed, indifferent, positive)? Why should that be a different "sexual orientation"? Why does the indifferent ones care to have a different label for being indifferent?
 

[PunStoppableChatNoir]

27 minutes ago, Marian the Herbalist said:

Slightly confused, why split them up (repulsed, indifferent, positive)? Why should that be a different "sexual orientation"? Why does the indifferent ones care to have a different label for being indifferent?
 

It’s not a “different” sexual orientation it’s part of Asexuality, it’s a sexual orientation under the label Asexuality, and those three words are three seperate things, if someone is sex repulsed we shouldn’t call them sex positive, we should respect that they are sex repulsed, we have a different label because it’s a descriptor? Why should demisexuals and lithosexuals have their labels too then by that logic? Because it’s a valid thing that we should respect and just because I don’t feel like I’m Demi doesn’t mean I won’t respect those who are 

[Homer]

Why do we need a label for that exactly?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, PunStoppableChatNoir said:

It’s not a “different” sexual orientation it’s part of Asexuality, it’s a sexual orientation under the label Asexuality, and those three words are three seperate things, if someone is sex repulsed we shouldn’t call them sex positive, we should respect that they are sex repulsed, we have a different label because it’s a descriptor? Why should demisexuals and lithosexuals have their labels too then by that logic? Because it’s a valid thing that we should respect and just because I don’t feel like I’m Demi doesn’t mean I won’t respect those who are 

But why do we need to add that word? All those three are still asexuals, why in the world do we need 10 different asexuality labels (yes, I've seen about that many)?
Why can't you just add it as an explanatory word instead of making it a "new label and part of asexuality"? I mean, don't most asexuals fall under indifferent? And I don't understand the comparison to demisexuals, they're not asexual and hence don't have much to do with this, and their place under greysexual is defined by the fact that they, under certain circumstances, feel sexual attraction and otherwise do not. Being indifferent, repulsed, or positive while still asexual doesn't change the fact that you don't feel sexual attraction, hence asexuality being the only label to describe the "sexual orientation".

[Winged Whisperer]

Attitudes towards sex is not orientation. A heterosexual can be repulsed by sex, just as an asexual can be indifferent or even "positive" towards it.

[QueenOfTheRats]

How is that any different from non-repulsed asexuals?

[casey-the-ace]

I still don't really see the difference between 'Indifferent Asexual' and 'sex-neutral Asexual'?

On 7/7/2019 at 8:27 PM, PunStoppableChatNoir said:

for sex, they usually won’t inititate it and they won’t become  uncomfortable to the idea of sex or prefeorming sex

Is that not what Sex-neutral means?

Aside from that, if you want a specific label for indifferent asexuals, what about 'sex-positive' asexuals and 'sex-negative' asexuals? Do you think they should have specific labels too? Why not just say that you're a sex-neutral asexual (or sex-positive asexual or sex-negative asexual)
Basically, I just want to understand how the term 'indifferent asexual' is different to what is already used.

[everywhere and nowhere]

It's not a different orientation, it's a part of asexuality. Probably statistically the (slightly) most common kind.

I don't in any way support treating sex-indifferent asexuals as "less ace", I'm just definitely not sex-indifferent myself. And I just don't see the problem of invalidating sex-indifferent asexuals. If anything - though it's not anymore much of a problem, at least here - the opposite could be true: sex indifference is sometimes perceived as the asexual default, which leads to sex-averse people being treated as if they Have A Problem (which they "should" prefer to treat) and aren't "True Asexuals". And once again: there's nothing wrong with just not caring about sex, but not asexuals are like this. Some would rather do something universally considered seriously unpleasant than have sex - and this group is invalidated and pathologised more often.

22 hours ago, sophie-the-ace said:

Is that not what Sex-neutral means?

Not really. Of course terminological differences exist, but when "sex-neutral" becomes a synonym for "sex-indifferent", a name for a political stance is lost.

For me "sex-indifferent" means: being personally indifferent - OK, neutral - about the idea of sex, neither interested not repulsed.

"Sex-neutral" means: politically believing that sex is neither "good" nor "bad" overall. An important and necessary counterpart to "sex-positive" and "sex-negative", because disagreeing with sex positivity doesn't automatically mean being sex-negative (still, I consider sex negativity a legitimate political position which shouldn't be excluded from discourse).

You see my problem: such terminological confusion leaves me unable to easily express my position. I'm absolutely not sex-indifferent, I'm strongly sex-averse. But sex neutrality is very close to my political stance on sex. I prefer calling myself "sex-critical", but if I have to choose from three: sex-positive, neutral and negative, I would choose "sex-neutral". (However, if the pool was woefully reduced and I had to choose between "sex-positive" and "sex-negative" only, I would choose "sex-negative".) As I said, it's really close to my stance: I just don't believe that "sex is good!". I don't believe that sex can have any moral value outside of an individualised context. Only individual sex acts can be "good" or "bad" (for example, I won't hesitate to classify sex under even the more subtle kinds of pressure - such as being made to feel embarassed about having never had sex before - as "bad". And of course, the ones to blame are those who create this pressure, not someone who finds themself unable to resist it), "sex as such" is a phenomenon without moral value.

[casey-the-ace]

On 7/13/2019 at 10:09 PM, Nowhere Girl said:

Not really. Of course terminological differences exist, but when "sex-neutral" becomes a synonym for "sex-indifferent", a name for a political stance is lost.

For me "sex-indifferent" means: being personally indifferent - OK, neutral - about the idea of sex, neither interested not repulsed.

"Sex-neutral" means: politically believing that sex is neither "good" nor "bad" overall. An important and necessary counterpart to "sex-positive" and "sex-negative", because disagreeing with sex positivity doesn't automatically mean being sex-negative (still, I consider sex negativity a legitimate political position which shouldn't be excluded from discourse).

Ah, that makes sense! Thank you for explaining the difference! I always just figured that the sex-positive, sex-neutral and sex-negative thing had two different situations where it could be used, when referring to your personal feelings, or when referring to you 'political' views on sex. But that always seemed a little clunky and confusing if your views weren't the same for both, (such as yourself, being averse to sex but also mostly have a neutral political view on sex).

 

Aside from that, I still don't know if 'Indifferent Asexual' can be considered different from 'Asexual'. PunStoppableChatNoir, you used the examples of graysexual, demisexual, etc. falling under the umbrella of 'Asexual'. But the reason why those orientations are not considered the same as asexual, only similar, is because they do not quite fit into the definition of asexual.

Indifferent asexual, however, does fit into the definition of asexual, as the definition only requires that the person does not experience sexual attraction. Asexuals who feel indifferent towards sex, or who, for some reason other than attraction, enjoy sex, or those who are averse to sex, are all still asexuals because in the end it's attraction that matters, not action and/or feelings towards sex.

Have there been situations in which people have told you that feeling indifferent towards sex means you're not actually asexual, or that you're 'not as asexual' as them? Because you're right, feeling indifferent towards sex doesn't make you any less asexual. It also doesn't make you a different orientation to an asexual who has different feelings towards sex, such as feeling averse to the idea of sex altogether.

[MrDane]

Neutral, indifferent? Pretty darn close to being the same. 

Could you come with some examples? Like from everyday life?

[3Xi3X]

On 7/13/2019 at 8:09 AM, Nowhere Girl said:

For me "sex-indifferent" means: being personally indifferent - OK, neutral - about the idea of sex, neither interested not repulsed.

"Sex-neutral" means: politically believing that sex is neither "good" nor "bad" overall. An important and necessary counterpart to "sex-positive" and "sex-negative", because disagreeing with sex positivity doesn't automatically mean being sex-negative (still, I consider sex negativity a legitimate political position which shouldn't be excluded from discourse).

I find this explanation quite adequate. The difference really seems to be in a political stance versus a personal one.

 

Personally I am indifferent.

Politically neutral.

 

I won’t tell other people asexual or otherwise that they shouldn’t support or encourage sex and I won’t tell them to discourage or put it down either. Political.

 

If someone wants to engage with me I will be indifferent in the moment, I will be able to “have” the deed take place or not. Personal.

[firebird8]

Wait, what? Sex positive and sex negative are political statements, yes, when we're talking about feminism, not when we're talking about how you personally describe your own sexuality. These days, the divides in feminism are between TERFs, SWERFs and intersectional feminism, and between "white" feminism and intersectional feminism.

 

How I describe my own orientation is not a political statement, and it's dangerous to get the two confused. If I'm asexual, that is not a political statement that sex is bad or unnecessary for all people everywhere. If I'm aromantic, that is not a political statement that romance is bad or unnecessary for all people everywhere. If I'm sex-repulsed, that's not an objective judgment on the true nature of sex, just my feelings/orientation/reaction. 

 

There's no political statement in favour of sex being kept on as an active part of society. Much as some of us are tired of hearing about it, there's no likelihood of a political action to stop sex being a part of society, and honestly, there would be no good reason to try such a mad scheme because sexual people's orientations are valid too. So there's no reason for a political stance of sex-negative or sex neutral. 

 

People can say they are indifferent if they want, I don't care. I'm pretty sure what you are describing is actually sex-positive though. Asexuals who don't mind having sex even though they don't feel attraction are pretty rare and seem to identify as sex positive. 

[everywhere and nowhere]

3 hours ago, firebird8 said:

How I describe my own orientation is not a political statement, and it's dangerous to get the two confused. If I'm asexual, that is not a political statement that sex is bad or unnecessary for all people everywhere.

But as an asexual, you have just as much of a right to have your political opinion about sex, as does everybody else.

[3Xi3X]

https://writingbeyondtherainbow.tumblr.com/post/126710555890/writing-an-asexual-character

 

The above tumblr page gives a picture of a spectrum and an explanation that goes as follows:

 

“Sex-repulsed asexuals: those who want nothing to do with sex, period.

“Sex-positive asexuals: those who are okay with sex. 

“Sex-indifferent: those who don’t care but don’t object to engaging in sex. 

“Circumstantial: those who are only okay with sex under very specific circumstances, such as needing a strong emotional bond (demisexual). 

“Where your character falls is worth a bit of consideration and many points on the spectrum do have a specific name. As always, sexuality can be fluid and change over time so where your character falls on the asexual spectrum could change.”

 

[starweb]

I've always described myself as sex indifferent. I happen to be married to a sexual. If we went for weeks without sex, whatever. If he wanted sex, whatever.  I never felt sexual attraction to anyone, didn't even know what it was, just that after the act was over, I forgot about it until enough time had passed that husband wanted it again, and I complied and  it was wash rinse repeat. It didn't repulse me, I didn't think it was bad (although for a while I did blame my religious upbringing for my lack of whatever it was I was supposed to feel, turns out that had nothing to do with it)....it was just a thing I did like having to go to the grocery store.

 

Looking back, that was the way I felt about my romantic life before I met my husband. If I had a boyfriend, fine, if I didn't, fine. I didn't go looking for one, didn't go out of my way to attract anyone's attention, was never jealous of other girls when they did have boyfriends or if they happened to be prettier than me.  That whole part of my life was a big 'whatever'. 

[firebird8]

10 hours ago, Nowhere Girl said:

But as an asexual, you have just as much of a right to have your political opinion about sex, as does everybody else.

Of course, but the place for my political opinions is not as part of my (a)sexual orientation. If I say I'm a sex-positive asexual, I'm saying something about my personal position on sex in regards to what I might or might not do, not my political position on what I think others should do. 

 

Besides, it is much more necessary in this space here on these forums, to have a way to talk about our personal orientations than to have a way to talk about political opinions about what the rest of the world should do about sex. We have language to talk about political action. We are still working on understanding ourselves.

 

If you want to understand more about political action and thought around sex, I really do encourage you to do some reading from both sides from feminist theory and activists from second and third wave. Both of them have good arguments and I'm conflicted on the subject, personally. Adding ace in doesn't make it clearer, but it's important to know what else is out there to avoid reinventing the wheel. 

[Karst]

On one hand, it's good to give people more words to describe themselves, but on the other hand, it's not wise to split a group up too much.  Adding more and more microlabels stops being helpful at a certain point.

[Moon6Shadow]

On 7/18/2019 at 12:19 PM, Iridium said:

On one hand, it's good to give people more words to describe themselves, but on the other hand, it's not wise to split a group up too much.  Adding more and more microlabels stops being helpful at a certain point.

Point but also

On 7/17/2019 at 4:51 PM, firebird8 said:

Wait, what? Sex positive and sex negative are political statements, yes, when we're talking about feminism, not when we're talking about how you personally describe your own sexuality.

On 7/17/2019 at 4:51 PM, firebird8 said:

How I describe my own orientation is not a political statement, and it's dangerous to get the two confused.

If there is a confusion between those two terms I can see that causing issues. If people are tagging them the same on Tumblr or whatever for instance. Although if someone is saying 'sex negative ace' rather then 'sex negative' by itself, I guess that could be a way to indicate if it's personal or political in tags or in a conversation it could be indicated via context.