Jump to content

Does this sound acephobic, or am I misinterpreting?


SpideyFan1644

Recommended Posts

Saw this on another forum, copying text since I can't upload screenshots.

 

"Ace *is* not normal, you're not supposed to want it or be ok with it. There's a reason I don't believe in it because it means there's literally a physiological problem with your endocrine system and everyone thinks having a low libido or no fantasies is ace when it's not, but even if you had legit asexuality it's a condition. Aromanticism is purely theater of the mind, it requires nothing special to feel romantically to one another."

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did you find this? It reads a lot like a TOS violation to me. But alas, I'm not a mod.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SpideyFan1644 said:

Saw this on another forum, copying text since I can't upload screenshots.

 

"Ace *is* not normal, you're not supposed to want it or be ok with it. There's a reason I don't believe in it because it means there's literally a physiological problem with your endocrine system and everyone thinks having a low libido or no fantasies is ace when it's not, but even if you had legit asexuality it's a condition. Aromanticism is purely theater of the mind, it requires nothing special to feel romantically to one another."

 

 

 

 

ok yeah this is incorrect information, they misunderstand what asexuality is. 

 

Some people do feel like they don't want to be asexual, but a lot of people instead are glad they are. The thing is, you don't want sex, so why would you want to be someone who wants sex?

 

By the statistical definition of normal, asexual is not normal, but people use normal by a different definition in this case  - I'm not going to define it because I suck at definitions, but personally when I say an asexual person is normal I mean that they're not broken, that they exist, that they're valid, that they deserve love in whatever way they may want it, etc.

 

"you're not supposed to want or be ok with it" is very rude btw

 

They also state that it is a lack of a functional endocrine system - that's not currect. Asexuals typically have normal amounts of hormones, usually can feel aroused, and many have an active libido. There is nothing wrong with their endocrine system. 

 

then they say that it takes nothing to feel romantic for someone... well that's just not correct for an aromantic person. For an alloromantic person, it is very easy to feel romantic attraction - but an aromantic person simply does not feel this attraction towards anyone. There is further nothing about their psychology (in most cases) that makes them want to be in a romantic relationship - and most find that they feel pressured and uncomfortable in such a relationship.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
everywhere and nowhere
5 minutes ago, Phalena said:

Where did you find this? It reads a lot like a TOS violation to me.

I understand "another forum" as "not AVEN", not "another subforum of this forum". But the OP would have to confirm or clarify it.

 

It sounds absolutely acephobic. Absolutely in denial of people's feelings and their right to their own feelings. "You're not supposed to want it or be ok with it"? I embrace my asexuality, I would never want to be allosexual and/or sex-capable in any way, and I won't let anyone tell me that "I'm not supposed" to accept it.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Phalena It was on the aromantic subreddit. I reported the comment b/c it violated one of their rules (you can't invalidate people's identities). But they posted another comment that one of the mods seemed to agree with, so idk if anything will come out of it. It wasn't anywhere on this site.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Feds the Freds
45 minutes ago, SpideyFan1644 said:

even if you had legit asexuality it's a condition.

yes, it is a condition :) their orientition is a condition too, so that doesn't really say much :P

Tbh, I like critical views on everything, as I like discussing, even if if it's such a wrong take. I like to say, I'm open to every opinion, but at the same time I also just view it as fun entertainment (it's much more fun imo to discuss something with someone you disagree with than with someone you agree with), as for me nothing bad can come of it, they can say whatever they want, I'm still going to have my opinions - thats the cool thing about the internet, as in public spaces, people can get hurt much faster discussing sensitive subjects.

For here, I think, I would first just say, that they have their views on what is a right sexual/ romantic orientation and that's ok. But how would they argue, that their sexuality/ romantic orientation is not a "
physiological problem with their endocrine system". If they say, their orientation isn't a "physiological problem", because of it's normality in society, well that wouldn't work... as there were many things that were normal in society at one point, which aren't normal anymore. Like they have to find something to show, that they don't have a problem, that doesn't apply to asexuals/ aromantics, which I don't think they could do...

Link to post
Share on other sites

@hois @everywhere and nowhere Thank you for your input, I feel validated that this comment didn't pass the vibe check for me. I was infuriated when they said, "you're not supposed to be ok with it," like excuse me? I occasionally want sex (mostly cuz of libido) and feel bad that I don't feel attracted to people in that way. But at the end of the day, me not wanting to have sex isn't really going to impact my life. I'm ok with it because it's my decision and it's my life. 

 

Also with the whole endocrine system thing, I was starting to think maybe that was an issue with me cuz I've had depression on-and-off for years. But even as my mood has improved, I changed my diet, and took medication at one point, my sexual attraction/feelings towards others didn't really change. 

 

The ironic thing is that the person who posted this said they were aro. Feels even more infuriating that they were invalidating identities.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
RoseGoesToYale

Yes, it's aphobic and also factually wrong. Asexuality is not a medical condition. Aces can have low libido or lack sexual fantasies, but they can also fantasize and/or have a high libido. There's no mutual exclusivity there.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's only bits and pieces that I find correct.

 

It isn't "normal", yep.  It's quite rare, and as far as I'm concerned that's what not being normal means.  It isn't inherently good or bad, just uncommon.

 

Pretty much anything with "supposed to" attached to it is bollocks.  Supposed to according to whom?  You?

 

I happen to have many issues with my endocrine system, but many other aces have checked theirs and they do not.  Explain those?

 

Who thinks having low/no libido is what asexuality is?  I'm not one of them, but there's plenty of aces out there with considerable libido.

 

"Aromanticism is purely theater of the mind"

Yes, it's just a feeling, not something serious.  Not like romance -- oh wait.

 

"it requires nothing special to feel romantically to one another"

I feel pretty bad for any romantic partners this person has had if that's how they've felt about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What subreddit was that I'd only wonder?  an Aromantic Reddit? but it does sound like something from the Antisex reddits out there.  Sure it's not invalidating a individual there, not calling out the persons asexuality by their name, that maybe why the mods there kept it up.

 

The statement is full of fallacies as it assumes a hormonal condition.  But I'm an individual that I've got no sexuality and libido with normal hormonal levels prior to transitioning HRT.  That's just one living person that makes such a statement completely moot.  Ant the Aromantic portion completely erases the existence of Romanticism as well.

 

To AVENs rules... yeah id say that comes under a few clauses.  If it weren't a copy-paste, I'd had to review that properly, take a critical look at that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heavily acephobic, with a large dollop of rather archly expressed ignorance for a side dish.  And that's before we get into the atrocious grammar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 9/24/2022 at 1:24 PM, Mike D said:

Heavily acephobic, with a large dollop of rather archly expressed ignorance for a side dish.  And that's before we get into the atrocious grammar.

This, basically.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...