If we legislate the law for Asexual, what would be good?

[flying girl]

Asexual people are in hard time socially, mentally. If we legislate the law for Asexual, what would be good?

[Homer]

Which law are you talking about?

[flying girl]

Any kind of law, like many countries lesgislate the same-sex marrige, that kind of thing

[Still]

Is there any systematic discrimination against asexuals, though? Nothing's stopping two asexuals from getting married, except for those countries that don't allow same-sex marriage, but that's not ace-specific.

[Yoruka]

There's no systemic oppression, so... Eh.

[Homer]

1 hour ago, flying girl said:

Asexual people are in hard time socially, mentally.

What are you referring to here?

[everywhere and nowhere]

15 minutes ago, CBC said:

Er... but there's nothing preventing asexuals from marrying based on being asexual. If they're homoromantic, in some jurisdictions, yes... but what is there that people who don't want sex aren't allowed to do? How do the authorities know that they don't want sex?

Still, wherever there are "consummation laws", they should be revoked. Even if a couple is very unlikely to actually fall under scrutiny, I fully understand that such laws can feel hurtful, can even actively contribute to asexual invisibility (through some people thinking that if it's even written in the law, sex-free marriage cannot possibly be real love).

I have recently discussed it elsewhere, and generally I have strict views on consent and a pessimistic suspicion that a lot of actual sex acts do not meet the criteria of unquestionable consent. Generally: consent is meaningless if the possibility to say "no" isn't 100% recognised, isn't considered a choice exactly equally valid and equally possible as saying "yes". If one cannot say "no", we have no way of distinguishing whether their "yes" is genuine. So we must fight against all factors which result in sexual expectation. Yes, rape within marriage is recognised as real rape, it is recognised that having said "yes" once or twice or fifty times doesn't automatically mean consent in all subsequent situations. But it's not enough. The marriage institution should be liberated from sexual assumption. Marriage should be a union of two people who intend to create a lasting bond, and sex should not be a relevant factor. Otherwise people who don't want to have sex will never be, in sociopolitical terms, on equal ground.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, CBC said:

Sex is a perfectly normal and reasonable expectation within a marriage. No, that obviously DOES NOT give someone the right to commit rape, ever, under any circumstances, but if there's no sex happening, and there's been plenty of opportunity for it to do so, I don't understand the problem with one party saying they want the marriage annulled. I don't see how that's discrimination. The marriage would likely end up miserable anyway, and quite possibly going the down the path of infidelity and/or divorce.

I agree with this. If anything it's actually an advantage for asexuals, as it's generally much easier to get out of a marriage if there's something concrete to point at as a reason for annulment/divorce, and an unmet expectation of consummation is a pretty good one. The only reason any attention would ever be brought to it is if one or both parties did so deliberately, at which point I would assume the marriage is going to fail anyway.

[everywhere and nowhere]

10 minutes ago, CBC said:

Sex is a perfectly normal and reasonable expectation within a marriage.

No. Sex is perfectly normal within a marriage, but lack of sex is perfectly normal too. Even if only a minority strongly prefers and explicitly desires a sex-free marriage. I do believe that we should make sex an irrelevant factor, otherwise there will always be a pressure to conform on those who don't want to have sex.

And yes, I do think that if one party wants sex and the other one doesn't, it should simplify procedures of divorce or annulment. It's a significant incompatibility and people shouldn't be forced to stay in incompatible relationships. But it should never be believed that a married couple is, for any reason, obligated to have sex.

[Yoruka]

2 hours ago, theV0ID said:

If anything it's actually an advantage for asexuals, as it's generally much easier to get out of a marriage if there's something concrete to point at as a reason for annulment/divorce, and an unmet expectation of consummation is a pretty good one.

Exactly. Even if there are countries (that sadly exist) with laws that state marriage is already consent, then divorce is still possible. Heck, it's easy for relationships to end if they can't meet in the middle, whether it's asexuality or something else.

[Yoruka]

1 hour ago, Moonman said:

Because a divorce settlement would relate to assets. You are entitled to something in a divorce whereas you are not with an annulment AFAIK.

That's a point.

[Purple Red Panda]

Interestingly in England and Wales I think only hetrosexual marriages can be annuled due to lack of consummation and not same sex marriages.

[nanogretchen4]

That sounds like discrimination based on sexual orientation. I think annulment based on lack of consummation should be available to all married people. I also think the partners should have the option to waive the right to annul the marriage for lack of sex in the prenup. If they put it in writing, clearly the asexual partner got the sexual partner's informed consent to a mixed orientation marriage. If nothing is in writing, the marriage and the prenup look pretty scam adjacent to me.

[Janus the Fox]

15 hours ago, Red Right Hand Panda said:

Interestingly in England and Wales I think only hetrosexual marriages can be annuled due to lack of consummation and not same sex marriages.

It is interesting as Consummation seems to just be legislating for PIV sex.  In the eyes of such a law, PIV seemingly does not exist in Homosexuality in law.  Like 2P and 2V does not equal PIV.  While we may know differently as common people within our common laws.  There where grounds to extend Civil Partnerships to hetro couples, but without the legal commitments of Marriage itself, this was brought forward after Gay Marriage where ratified into law.  Was highlighted a long time ago in the news, do wonder if it’s become a thing.