IAD 2026 Day 1: Countering public misunderstandings

[Frog Ham Teth Radio]

As part of IAD, I previously asked for questions people would most like to be answered. I will be posting the top unanswered question each day for this week. It is also not too late to add your own questions or vote: https://app.sli.do/event/oG8CD7TrqvXD7i6m4WveLP/live/questions

 

Day 1:

Anonymous asks: How could we counter general public misunderstandings of aces as a group that is monolithic (all nonlibidoist, aromantic, cis, not enjoying sex, non-partnered)?

 

I would say making sure to emphasise that asexuality is a spectrum when introducing it, especially in content aimed at the general public, would go a long way here. Perhaps include some examples of ace people and their lifestyles/preferences too - ones that break the stereotypical assumptions are helpful.

 

If asexuality is introduced by one of its simpler definitions instead (the ones that are one sentence long for example), then that really fails to capture the diversity within the community and can lead to some of the assumptions that are mentioned.

 

For example, if you tell a non-ace member of the public that many asexual people don't experience sexual attraction (one of many definitions that get used...), that person may assume that aces also don't have sex, romance, or libido since for sexual people these factors may not be something they have ever considered to disentangle from their own sexual attraction itself.

 

What thoughts does everyone else have here?

[Mult]

I think it is important not to exclude aroaces, non-partnering aces, aplatonics, afamilials, nonlibidoists, and sex averse or repulsed individuals. 

 

Saying "aces have sex!" is incorrect because this generalizes just as much as "aces don't have sex". "Some aces still engage in sex for a variety of reasons" is better. Also I see some people say that sex aversion or repulsion is a preference like a food they don't like which is... not an adequate comparison. Having sex is not a simple thing that can be given to others solely for their benefit.

 

The "aces can have sex when they love someone enough" is a very coercive statement, in my opinion. I don't like this idea that there is a threshold for sex or that a person's perceived lack of love could be held over their head to guilt them into providing sex. Engaging in sex is a personal choice not an indication that the love is strong enough to deserve sex. 

 

"Aces date! We aren't robots!" is unfortunately not terribly uncommon to see. I suggest people just never bring robots into the conversation because it pretty much always implies that aromantics are inhuman and that not being romantic is robotic. "Not all asexuals are aromantic" is enough and represents people better than trying to elevate romantic love as the superior human experience. 

 

Elevating friendship as the replacement for romance/sex also doesn't work because this alienates aplatonic individuals. Having deep friendships or queer platonic relationships doesn't represent a person's humanity and save them from their lack of sexual and romantic attraction. It's just a different type of relationship. The same can be said about family, it is not the saving grace of someone's humanity. Someone who is aroace, aplatonic and afamilial is human not some unfeeling creature because they don't engage in intimate or close relationships. We shouldn't need to have a relationship that makes us more palatable to others whether that is romantic or platonic or familial etc. 

 

I also dislike when people call some experiences "bad stereotypes" such as being aroace or being sex repulsed because it alienates people in the community. These experiences tend to stick out more because they are more visible to outsiders when someone is single and doesn't like sexual content. There isn't anything wrong with being single and not liking sexual content, so I don't like seeing people frame it as a bad thing or that being a partnered ace or an ace who has sex is better. 

 

Pretty much all I ask is that people pay close attention to how they are trying to be inclusive because from my experience a lot of times people exclude others in the community in the name of inclusion. 

[everywhere and nowhere]

3 hours ago, Frog Ham Teth Radio said:

What thoughts does everyone else have here?

That aces shouldn't be portrayed as a monolithic group, but also that certain behaviours - generally, those which make asexuals more "palatable" to sex-normative society - shouldn't be assumed to be typical for asexuals. I mean, of course, first of all the "aces can have sex!" rhetoric which has become far too widespread and far too insensitive. Even if it's technically true that the vast majority of asexuals are not physically incapable of having sex - it is still an activity most aces prefer not to do, with their feelings about sex ranging from disinterest to extreme fear and repulsion. Aces who decide to have sex for some reason are still doing it in a sociocultural reality in which the choice to have sex is much more accepted than the choice never to have sex. (Even in very conservative countries where extramarital sex might even be criminalised - a strong preference for never having sex might require either a tolerant and asexuality-understanding family who is willing to live with their unmarried adult child indefinitely, or extreme measures such as fleeing the country.) The more such a choice is highlighted, the more pressure it puts on sex-averse people to conform. For example what @Mult wrote above: presenting undesired sex as something people might do out of love for their partner creates a very dangerous pressure on those who are sex-averse. (Why don't we advance the opposite and much more accurate narrative instead: that people who truly love should dread the idea of expecting their partners to do something which is uncomfortable for them?) We should always consider what might be the collateral damage of promoting a particular narrative and avoid narratives which create some simple, easily remembered idea of asexuality at the expense of weaker subgroups within our community.

[Xaver]

I'd say exposure, representation and simply asexuals being comfortable enough to be out and have their voices heard is the best way. Diversity is taught best by encountering asexuals multiple times in friendly situations.

 

It's also good to emphasise that asexuality is diverse when talking about it. In particular making clear the distinction between asexual and aromantic, I think that's something that's getting better. But it's important to keep focus on what makes us asexual, not on the ways we can play nice with allosexuality.

 

As for the simplest, shortest descriptions of asexuality - I feel we're putting the cart before the horse when trying to make descriptions that are as "all-encompassing and understandable" as possible. Is the problem really with the description of asexuality? Doesn't it have more to do with people who don't understand nuance? Not to mention over-explaining is a thing. Or how sometimes, the more we try to define something, the more we wind up excluding.

[Slajmy]

On 4/6/2026 at 12:06 PM, Mult said:

I think it is important not to exclude aroaces, non-partnering aces, aplatonics, afamilials, nonlibidoists, and sex averse or repulsed individuals. 

 

Saying "aces have sex!" is incorrect because this generalizes just as much as "aces don't have sex". "Some aces still engage in sex for a variety of reasons" is better. Also I see some people say that sex aversion or repulsion is a preference like a food they don't like which is... not an adequate comparison. Having sex is not a simple thing that can be given to others solely for their benefit.

 

The "aces can have sex when they love someone enough" is a very coercive statement, in my opinion. I don't like this idea that there is a threshold for sex or that a person's perceived lack of love could be held over their head to guilt them into providing sex. Engaging in sex is a personal choice not an indication that the love is strong enough to deserve sex. 

 

"Aces date! We aren't robots!" is unfortunately not terribly uncommon to see. I suggest people just never bring robots into the conversation because it pretty much always implies that aromantics are inhuman and that not being romantic is robotic. "Not all asexuals are aromantic" is enough and represents people better than trying to elevate romantic love as the superior human experience. 

 

Elevating friendship as the replacement for romance/sex also doesn't work because this alienates aplatonic individuals. Having deep friendships or queer platonic relationships doesn't represent a person's humanity and save them from their lack of sexual and romantic attraction. It's just a different type of relationship. The same can be said about family, it is not the saving grace of someone's humanity. Someone who is aroace, aplatonic and afamilial is human not some unfeeling creature because they don't engage in intimate or close relationships. We shouldn't need to have a relationship that makes us more palatable to others whether that is romantic or platonic or familial etc. 

 

I also dislike when people call some experiences "bad stereotypes" such as being aroace or being sex repulsed because it alienates people in the community. These experiences tend to stick out more because they are more visible to outsiders when someone is single and doesn't like sexual content. There isn't anything wrong with being single and not liking sexual content, so I don't like seeing people frame it as a bad thing or that being a partnered ace or an ace who has sex is better. 

 

Pretty much all I ask is that people pay close attention to how they are trying to be inclusive because from my experience a lot of times people exclude others in the community in the name of inclusion. 

Thank you for writing this.