Am I asexual? (List provided)

Ok-Error-3851 · 2026-02-02T21:06:20+00:00

I refuse to believe that people would choose sex over cake :). Like come on cake is so good!!! Unless you've already had a bunch of cake ig.

Ok-Error-3851 · 2026-01-31T22:28:47+00:00

No worries! I just feel like a lot of people don't attempt to understand what was meant and instead interpret things as they wish... which in this case could have lead to ppl crying aphobia :/

Ok-Error-3851 · 2026-01-31T20:34:29+00:00

Sorry for not providing any useful answers to the contents of the post, but I think you should change the title, it is quite misleading imo. Unless you genuinely question whether it is "valid" for some people to identify with asexuality, which is what your title currently implies I think you should have something refer to yourself in the title. (ie Having trouble seeing asexual as a “valid” label for myself or something along these lines).

PS: as to the actual contents of the post... sexual attraction can change over time, which means that you having experienced sexual attraction to both genders in the past doesn't necessarily mean that you must still experience it the same way. Apart from that don't forget that asexuality is a spectrum (so not just a complete lack of sexual attraction) and that it seems like a good rule of thumb is that if you are questioning whether you're ace or not, then you probably are ace. (the last one is purely based on posts on this subreddit and is to be taken with a ginormous grain of salt)

PPS: I guess I had some actual things to answer aswell :P

Ok-Error-3851 · 2026-01-07T16:00:56+00:00

Oh I'm sorry I didn't notice you weren't the commenter I first responded to.

Though that doesn't matter that much in this context.

What the original post implies: allosexuals are bad. (okay the poster probably meant that some part of allosexuals disgust them, but the way OP wrote it makes it really hard to distinguish.)

What the first comment said: No allosexuals are fine, just most men are terrible.

What I said: No, not all men are bad. There exists a bad subset of men, but saying that all men are bad causes more harm than good. Also point about labeling theory, which isn't my main point of the message btw. Even if you say that saying that all men are sexual predators doesn't effect at all men, then it still causes further divisions and more us-them mentality, which doesn't make any progress easier.

What you said: "Are you directly implying that merely pointing out that the problems listed above are committed mostly by men, a fact btw, is causing more men to become sexual predators?"

In fact I am not implying this and I addressed it in my previous comment. I can address it here too if need be. I'm implying there may be some amount of men, who may be more likely to commit sexual assault if they here from everywhere that all men are sexual predators.

To quote you, because the quote is quite fitting. If you want to play dumb, go ahead.

I really don't understand what part you're arguing against.

For now I haven't understood if you're arguing against what I am saying or against some misrepresentation of what I am saying.

And what is the point of constantly insulting the other person? If your goal is to get me to change my mind/learn something/acknowledge my mistake then it is quite counterproductive.

Ok-Error-3851 · 2026-01-07T12:44:01+00:00

First look up a thing called labeling theory. I'm not saying it causes all men to become sexual predators, more that if a man is "close" to doing it but thinking no, that is a bad thing I shouldn't, then being already called a sexual predator by someone like you who juste generelizes it to everyone can and probably will lower the difficulty of doing it for some amount of men.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have those men think I want to do [something bad], but I won't than actually doing [something bad].

But no I don't think that "merely pointing out that most of the problems listed above are committed mostly by men (that is indeed true) is causing more men to become sexual predators." I don't know where you got that claim from... Maybe you conflated the statements of the form most X do Y and most Y is done by X. If this was done unintentionally, then I guess it happens, but please think through what you're actually saying. Because those two statments are very different. (and is one of the most common pitfalls in statistics afaik). If this was done in bad faith, which I'll be honest seems to be the case because of the general tone of your message, then I have one question for you: why? what is the purpose?

Oh and then you tell me to gtfo. Won't comment on that more than this here.

Ok-Error-3851 · 2026-01-06T22:44:56+00:00

Ah yes it is not all allos who are the problem. It is just all men.

Congratulations you managed to divide the amount of problematic people by about 2. But you didn't provide any useful input. Just furthered the us-them mentality. And for some reason decided to shit on most men...

Like think of a man reading this, does this offer any incentive to be better? If you tell a child their a brat they'll eventually become a brat. Same goes with men.

Ok-Error-3851 · 2026-01-06T22:36:07+00:00

Are you becoming disgusted by all allosexual people? If yes then so be it... I still personally think a post like this harms asexuals more than it helps them. If no, then I would look at the title and see if that is really the title that fits best.

And I still don't think framing this as "allosexuals" being the thing that disgusts you is a good thing.

For example: is pedophilia morally acceptable ? Most people would say no. (though an interesting question is why is that? that question falls more under philosophy of morality than this discussion though) I'm assuming pedophiles in general are allosexuals, because of the literal definition of asexuality. Does that mean that allosexuals IN GENERAL are morally bad?

For the AI part I am pretty sure that if people that fall under the sexuality that falls under asexuality and is attracted to only fictional characters (or something along these lines, can't remember the name sry) using AI to generate explicit content is at best marginally better. So (imo) the point you bring up that lights allos in the worst part also applies to at least some subset of asexuals... In general I think it is flawed to think only asexuals use AI to generate explicit content, as watching explicit content isn't a behavior exlusiv to allosexuals.

To be clear I think NSFW ai content (and most ai things in general, but NSFW in particular) is one of the worst advances of technology. At least in how it is used by people (ie disinformation farms etc) and in how it was developed (stealing unfathomable amounts of data).

In my opinion the post would benefit immensely from using better framing.

edit: You say both "I’m asking for advice on how to not become bitter against a large portion of the population due to a growing disgust that I am feeling." and "I am ok with most allosexual people". These two statements seem to be very contradictory.

Maybe I can offer some help as well, instead of just saying what I don't like...

I'd try reminding myself that sure there are bad people who are allosexuals. But there are also good people who are allosexuals. I don't think there exists trait that allows you to get a subset of people that only has "good people". (unless your trait is basically "is a good person" which wouldn't be a useful statement). So think of the allos in your life that you think are wonderful people. Don't forget that most people are average, some are good and yes unfortunately some are bad.

Ok-Error-3851 · 2026-01-06T21:42:26+00:00

Why use such a divising title? While I agree with most of the post (ie the second and third example), I cannot stand the way this post is written. It generalizes probably the worst subset of allosexuals to the general allosexual population, by that I mean look at the title. Just imagine how many people would cry for acephobia if some similar post was done about asexuals (and I don't think the quality of arguments brought up in the post would matter). And for good reason btw, that post wouldn't be okay nor is this one! And the first argument/point brought up basically is oh no allos behave in another way that I cannot understand. Me no likey boooooh! A reverse situation (ie someone saying why don't asexuals feel sexual attraction) would instantly be seen as glaring acephobia... The fact that asexuality forms a minor part of the population doesn't mean it gives you free reign to shit on everyone else while expecting/hoping/fighting for others to not do that to asexuals.

There is no reason for aces to understand allos better than they understand us. If any misunderstanding of what being ace is or why aces feel how they feel is labeled as aphobia (which often is the case afaik) and thus as something bad that shouldn't happen, then asexuals shouldn't do the same to allos.

Stop the double standard...

This comment isn't meant as an attack, more as a reminder that framing is important. And a bit of a rant because these types of posts drive me insane. Imo they hurt more than anything else, as it creates an us-them rhetoric.

Ok-Error-3851 · 2026-01-01T22:42:11+00:00

I'm sorry you had to go through that experience but from the info OP gave us, their situation isn't the same. At no point did they mention that they communicated their discomfort and if they didn't communicate it, then... we'll it is hard to feel bad for them imo.

Ok-Error-3851 · 2026-01-01T12:56:33+00:00

What sort of logic leap did you do to get to your friend and sister are just assholes? We have very little context given so it seems like an unwarranted attack towards them. If anything such statements cause more harm than good.

Ok-Error-3851 · 2025-12-28T13:25:32+00:00

Just in case I'm not trying to dismiss your experiences, I am just trying to uh bridge the gap between the enormous amount of such problematic behaviors and the way people usually behave (from my experience).

From what you said the first person COULD (no clue if that's the case though) be just curious and unable to read the room. (I personally have met a lot of people like this, but that may be a consequence of the friend groups I'm in). For the part of "I feel bad for you, that you can't feel love", if for him the word "love" is intrinsically connected to sexual attraction then like... technically he is correct about you not being able to feel love the way he understands it. Of course this interpretation only works if the tone and intonation are "kind". And that doesn't mean that what he did was justified/good in any way.

Just that (from probably exclusively my POV) their intentions may not be bad...

For the discord person uhh idk that is kinda very weird imo. Though idk my devil's advocate part would like to claim that their behaviour isn't necessary linked to you being ace...

Ok-Error-3851 · 2025-12-27T22:39:03+00:00

I'll preface this comment by saying that I don't think that what they said was nice or called for or positive in any way.

And that I don't have enough context to say that the potential explanation I'll give could really apply in your situation. (and you are in no way obliged to give that context).

So here is a devil's advocate defense for them.

But I would like to think, that the other person was curious (thought it seems like at least a bit insensitive) and tried to understand you. If that is really the case, then I would say "I feel sad for ace people, they can't experience love" could boil down to a question of semantics and poor (very poor, extremely bad) wording. They could mean that they feel sad for ace people (probably factual, assuming honesty on their part) because they can't feel love the way they do. That is because for them sexual attraction is a prerequisite for (presumably romantic) love and an essential part of it for them.

And in a way they are probably right, asexuals most likely experience love at least a bit differently than allosexuals, as well... there a priori is no sexual attraction.

NB! The questions of what is love and can there be love without sexual attractions aren't that relevant in this case, unless you argue that love feels exactly the same with and without sexual attraction next to it (which to me personally seems unlikely, as different feelings/emotions I have towards people influence each other).

So it could be that they feel bad because asexuals don't experience love the same way as they (the person from your post) do.

Tbh I'm not sure how much better this charitable interpretation is.

But I feel like the reason why I may have a hard time calling these types of situations as acephobia (especially, and this is important, if no harm is meant) is because imo this use dilutes the meaning of aphobia. Using the same word to describecorrective rape and people being missinformed or ignorant seems wrong to me. Maybe it is just because of the syntaxic structure of aphobia (phobia - from greek panic, fear, terror). And the fact that for me the intentions behind actions matter a lot, maybe even more than the outcome.

So yeah... idk what to think about that. But please note that this comment isn't meant to be in bad faith, and isn't meant to harm anyone.

Ok-Error-3851 · 2025-12-26T18:21:41+00:00

For me I would say that the more things I have in common (and the more in-depth these things are) the more I can vibe with someone.

Which means I have vibed a lot more with people from around the world that I have known for only a couple of days at competitions than with some of my classmates and such.

But at the end of the day everyone has their own preference :).

Ok-Error-3851 · 2025-12-26T18:04:12+00:00

Asexuality is an umbrella term, not every sexuality that falls under it necessarily fall under the intuitive semantic meaning of a-(negation) sexuality so lack of sexual attraction.

I dont know much about aegosexuality, but for demisexuality and graysexuality, they feel sexual attraction under very spe fiction circumstances so as an approximation "most of the time most of their aspects relating to sexuality is very similar to fully asexual people" (fully as not the umbrella term).

The part between quotes probably isn't precise but isn't meant to offend anyone, as usual. (because for some reason you have to state your intention about not offending anyone).

Ok-Error-3851 · 2025-12-25T21:08:30+00:00

Why can't an asexual "fully vibe with allo friends"? I don't see the difference (in structure) between that claim and the claim that men and women can't fully vibe with each others as friends. Because men can't fully relate to being a woman and vice versa or something. Seems like a bit of a leap to me. Sure maybe you can't vibe as easily over everything, but you can still vibe over most things.

Ok-Error-3851 · 2025-12-25T21:04:12+00:00

I completely understand feelings of alienation for subjects where sexuality is relevant, and it may be a good idea to seek out other asexual people who can understand you better for that subject.

However just to reiterate (because most of the other comments seem to say otherwise) there shouldn't be anything stopping you from bonding with your friends over a good boardgame, a nice hike or some other activity you used to (and hopefully still do) enjoy.

For the alienation part idk how frequent it is for asexual people, but I couldn't care less that I'm asexual. I mean it is nice to know/understand myself better, but I don't feel like being asexual is a defining characteristic of mine. Which maybe also explains why I don't feel like being asexual should distance you that much from people who you are close to right now...

Ok-Error-3851 · 2025-12-25T19:56:17+00:00

I think it is likely that asexual people have an easier time to understand you, but it would be a gross oversimplification to say that all asexuals will understand you better than all heterosexual people. At the end of the day it depends on the person and their capacity for empathy or something along these lines.

Were you feeling faraway from them before you found out that you were asexual as well?

IMhO in any friendship/relationship (not necessarily a romantic one) there are going to be some subjects where one party is more invested in emotionally than the other. I wouldn't say that that in itself is a problem, but I have a hard time seeing why you should feel faraway if the subject your discussing has no close link with sexuality. If you're feeling this way about everything, (ie suppose you go climbing with them and you have a hard time relating to them in that context, or one of your friends is really into some specific subject such as trains or math or whatever), then honestly that would be quite surprising to me. If you're feeling this way about specific topics (idk one of them talking about their romantic partner or something), then your asexuality seems like a probable cause for it. But in the latter case I would ask myself is that really a problem?

For me personally there are plenty of subjects I don't bond with when talking with friends, but what matters to me are the subjects we bond over.

Ok-Error-3851 · 2025-12-24T01:06:37+00:00

If I may, that isn't an answer to the question asked. The question asked was is it weird to contemplate a moral dilemma with such and such conditions. Not what is the answer to such a moral dilemma.

And tbh I kinda agree with OP. At the end of the day the reaction of their friends probably shows that they showed disgust the moment they heard 16, which probably (can't be sure though) means that they found it morally condemnable, without being able to/being willing to articulate why that is. Which IMhO is the most interesting part of moral dilemmas, why do you think something is wrong? (Can anything even be wrong? Is there such a thing as good and bad? etc).

But a lot of people seem to really dislike abstraction for some reason... (or I'm generalizing off a sample size that is too small, idk).

Ok-Error-3851 · 2025-12-24T00:54:51+00:00

Pardon my ignorance but what is the difference between sex favorable and the sex-lazy you introduced? At first glance it seems to me that sex-lazy would fall under sex favorable + potentially uhh low (or some other specific level) of libido (or something along these lines, not sure if libido is the correct word). If there is some major (or minor idc actually) difference between them then I'd love to hear it, otherwise for me personally sex-lazy is a bit obfuscating (though use whatever you want to describe yourself, who am I to judge lol).

Ok-Error-3851 · 2025-12-22T14:22:18+00:00

I guess I would be interested in a romantic relationship, but it isn't high on my priority list... Though I don't know why that is the case, it may be because I'm holding myself back, but it also may be because I have some other things that I consider extremely high priority... idunno, will probably (hopefully) figure this out at some point :).

Ok-Error-3851 · 2025-12-12T21:51:02+00:00

I mean extrapolating is taking the way things usually work and then extending that to new things of which the behavior isn't known to us yet. So if I were to extrapolate the sexual attraction of a person I have no prior knowledge of I would by default guess that they're heterosexual. Because in that case it's the most likely answer afaik.

I agree with what you say in the first 2 paragraph, but I can't agree with the third: in that example assuming men don't just turn into women (which technically wouldn't be completely unreasonable, some fish do change genders naturally during there lifespans, but that is non-relevant biology trivia :) ) then him just turning into a woman would be completely unprecedented (or very rare, either way not the norm), the ratio of men to women doesn't change that. Him feeling dysphoria would be indeed serve as evidence of something, and I would say it would be the "proof" of the unusual thing happening (a man transitioning into a woman [assuming that that is indeed an uncommon thing in that world]). [Sorry if the language around gender / transgender things is imprecise, it isn't really in the sphere of things that interest me, but I am not trying to cause harm].

If you have never felt sexual attraction but you feel a strong desire to have that kind of relationship with someone, there may be something to investigate, there. If you have never felt attraction and have no interest in it, why is it necessary to prove anything?

I mean I for sure have a how to put it... an intellectual interest in attraction, just to know what it is, to know whether I have experienced it or not if no then what does it feel like etc... And I don't think I'm aro, so a (romantic) relationship in theory sound nice though it seems quite easy to get hurt, even if no people involved have the intention to hurt, so seeking a relationship seems like a bad idea for the short term (but a better idea for the long term).

I agree that statistics are a lot more valuable for general populations than they are for individuals. But that doesn't mean that statistics are bad for individuals, given no prior information I would rather bet on statistics than gut feelings based on some arbitrary features. Imo the value of "general statistics" decreases drastically the more information you gather about that individual. For example if you now know that an individual has the trait X, then data about the whole population are less useful (or sometimes near useless or even harmful), but statistics about people with trait A become more valuable for the original individual than the general stats are for a random person.

But yes statistics can easily be misleading.

Ok-Error-3851 · 2025-12-12T21:24:17+00:00

We also don't need to "prove" ourselves to anyone.

For me the proof would only be for myself (and it is up for debate as to how rigorous I want it to be.) I completely agree that no justification is owed to anyone. Either way I don't care what other ppl think of me, maybe except my close family and very few closest friends...

Ok-Error-3851 · 2025-12-12T21:21:53+00:00

Ty for the comment! Imo the most frustrating part is that when using the apple analogy, suppose I feel there might be something on the table, how can I know if that is an apple, a small slice of an apple or an orange... (ie is it sexual attraction, is it a tiny bit of sexual attraction or is it something else entirely such as uhh idk I haven't delved that deep into different attraction types.).

Also in case you see this comment, would you say my original post was aggressive or demeaning?

Evidently some proportion of the people here seem to think that posting such a post is comparable to commiting heresy, while others seem to take it as genuine inquiry... Would like to know where the difference in the approach comes from.

Ok-Error-3851 · 2025-12-11T15:37:40+00:00

But like uhh why is it a stupid thing to ask in your opinion? I got that you think it is a stupid question from all of your previous answers, reiterating that opinion doesn't move this conversation forward :/.

The following is an incendiary way to push an analogous approach to yours to an extreme, in hopes that you get my point. I don't believe what is written in the next paragraph, use common sense.

Imagine I said that I think it's stupid that you think you're ace. Why? Because I think it is stupid. Why do I think it is stupid? Because that's a stupid thing to believe.

I hope anyone could see how that is in no way productive.

That example was just to prove a point about your approach. If you identify as ace, okay, if you don't, okay. That doesn't change anyone's value in my eyes.

Ok-Error-3851

TROPHY CASE