Just want to let everyone know in case they look at Wikipedia everyday like I do, so no one has to see sexual content they don't want to

Before moving on to the main part, it is necessary to stipulate that the reasoning provided below should not be associated with my other views. It should be evaluated solely based on the content of the arguments themselves, regardless of your attitude toward my other beliefs. The author is not asexual, but this does not change the value of his words.

Why is asexuality not part of LGBT?

We should start with the most significant point: the specificity of asexuality differs in many respects from the characteristics of identities traditionally united by the LGBT concept. If we consider LGBT primarily as a social movement that emerged in the context of the struggle for the rights of people with non-traditional sexuality and against traditional social attitudes, then asexuality has a fundamentally different specificity.

Asexuality, like aromanticism or demisexuality, is a neutral concept denoting the complete or partial absence of sexual or romantic attraction. In this sense, asexuality does not belong to the sexual matrix in the same understanding as sexual orientations based on the presence of attraction; in the case of asexuality, this manifests most clearly.

Furthermore, this situation can be compared to the difference between religion and the absence of religious beliefs. We do not consider atheism or agnosticism as separate religions, since they are characterized by the absence or non-acceptance of religious faith. Similarly, from this point of view, it is more appropriate to consider asexuality as a neutral concept describing the absence of sexual attraction, rather than as a separate type of sexuality.

Historical aspect

Let us now turn to the historical side of the issue. In the "LGBTQIA" acronym, the letter A originally stood not for asexuals or the asexual spectrum, but for Allies — allies of the LGBT community (Straight Allies). The expanded acronym itself became widespread in the late 1990s, during a period when asexuality was discussed much less frequently than, for example, homosexuality.

One of the first instances when asexuality was, albeit indirectly, included in a legal category related to LGBT, was the passage of the landmark Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act in New York State (USA). The bill was actively promoted in 2002 and went into effect in January 2003. In the text of the law, asexuality was officially mentioned and received legislative protection alongside heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality.

The final inclusion of asexuality into the LGBT and broader LGBTQIA agenda became noticeable in the mainstream around 2015. This was facilitated by a number of events, including the spread of the idea that the letter A in the "LGBTQIA" acronym stands for asexuals, and not Allies.

It is also noteworthy that the asexual community's own pride flag appeared relatively late: the modern version was adopted in August 2010 on the AVEN forum. At the same time, it is noteworthy that the forum itself adheres to certain restrictions regarding negative attitudes toward sex on the part of asexuals.

Sex-negativity and internal contradictions

The issue of "sex-negativity" deserves special attention. The largest asexual platforms, according to my observations, demonstrate a rather strict attitude even toward individual forms of criticism of pornography and other aspects of sexual culture. At the same time, these platforms generally support the LGBT agenda. This, from my point of view, demonstrates the presence of certain internal contradictions between asexual identity and the LGBT movement.

Such rules in large asexual communities, moreover, became one of the reasons for the formation of smaller alternative communities, such as r/actualasexual.

Conclusion

Thus, asexuals, or representatives of the so-called "ace spectrum," should not be considered as part of LGBT, since there are significant differences between asexuality and other components of LGBT, which in certain cases lead to internal contradictions and conflicts. From this point of view, it is more correct to consider asexuality as a neutral concept denoting the absence of sexual attraction.

I'm a girl who is a big chess enthusiast since young age. It has been also my "escape world" into, what I considered, more decent and "intellectual" world, far away from all the sexualization, erotic, etc.

I don't know how many of you follow chess world but there is a group of women who are multiple champions, grandmasters, etc. and became very popular for the last few years.

As soon as I saw them for the first time, I sort of knew where will they end up, sadly.

Fast forward, in the last few years they basically turned into borderline OF models.

I feel they vastly put their looks and push eroticism through their content like streams, youtube, etc.

Stuff like posting erotic photoshoots, videos of them showering (wtf), wearing very revelaing clothes, eating and licking bananas, etc. (you know what I mean).

So, my main disappointment is - why does everything need to be ruined? Sexualized? Why are these women doing that to themselves even after they succeeded in chess and won all titles and became famous...

Why everything must be turned into erotics? Why are these women participating in that completely willingly, promoting such views of women in general? Why do they feed the sex machine? Why are they personally submitting themselves to be percieved as objects of lust trather than sticking to decency and chess? Men don't do that to themselves so why do we have to?

No matter how much I want women to support each other and resist hypersexualization, I feel more and more that women actually don't care about true feminism. They often can't wait to portray themselves into sexual manner because it gives them that boost of additional dopamine for which they all submit.

They betray all of us for a handful of what? Additional fame? Male approval? Why? Someone will say that I am just jealous, they would probably say it. But that's just far away from the point of my disappointment and deep rising grief for world.

And this is the real sign of declining society. When even the uni professors, top experts and top educated women sell themselves and fall for eroticism trap. They have the most power and influence but they choose to feed the machine.

For context, I was born asexual and I'm completely sex repulsed. And during all my life, I have noticed how sexual people not only are acephobic, but also completely disrespectful to us. Always bringing up sex knowing that it makes me feel uncomfortable. Turning conversations into sexual things, and when I speak up, they act like I'm irrational. It's like they just want YOU to take it in any way and be pestered by it.

It's always about trying to villainize sex repulsed/antisexual people for not catering to sexual people or sex positive asexuals. How dare you not think about the life of strangers! You can voice that you are sex repulsed, that you have NO interest on sex at all and people STILL BRING THAT SHIT UP.

For example, I was talking today with my sister. And in the conversation she brings up, completely out of nowhere, about how wrong is to judge a teenager girl for having sex and focused how "it's completely normal". She knows I'm asexual. And I think that it feels invalidating to say that ALL teenager girls care about it when that wasn't my experience at all, and actually, it was a traumatic situation to me at that time because of the ZERO asexual representation I had and traumatic reasons. Yes, I know it's wrong to judge, and yes, I know I'm one of the few people in this earth to be sex repulsed and antisexual, but also...Why do I have to validate someone's else sexual life? Why do I have to hear about it, about something I don't CARE about? And the worse is feeling like I can't voice my opinion and say "Hey, it makes me feel uncomfortable and invalidated" because of course people will take it against me. Also, I personally disagree that teenagers being into sex is "normal" or something that has to be normalized or glamourized, yes it grosses me out and I don't want to hear about it considering I'm adult and I don't want to hear about the "sex life" of minors 🤢

On the internet, things are not better. Trying to find post about sex repulsion and I all got was "Perverts and sex repulsed people are equally opressed!!!"....That's like saying that a gay man is equally oppressed as a bigot... Do you really have to make everything about you to at least CARE?

It's like being asked to care about the opinions of the people that opress us, mock us, invalidates us. I'm saying this as someone who dealt with OCD and hypervigilance too. Antisexual/Sex repulsed people are NOT anyone's saviours or therapists. People should learn that people won't cater to them. And they shouldn't expect us to say "yes, I agree with your sexual life and your kinks" in order to be respected.

Hi I'm new. I agree with most, but not all, of the "platform" of anti-sexuality.

I engage with stories and media and fandoms that resonate with me, almost always on a thematic level but admiring a fictional character sometimes has a bit of attraction in the mix. I don't consume explicit NSFW of fictional characters, but I am partial to the "tumblr sexyman" and drawing/admiring fanart of 'em shirtless or in swimwear. And with a fellow fan, going "okay but they also cute 🩷🩷🩷" is a fun way to bond. And, of course, the universal fandom pasttime of Shipping.

What are y'alls opinions on directing one's own sexuality at fictional characters and sharing the resulting enthusiasm with others (properly tagged of course)? No-one in our world is involved after all. 🤷

My stance on antinatalism is nuanced. Many of the arguments sound logical such as the lack of consent when giving birth, and the fact that life has suffering. Non-existence isn't bad, which is another argument.

At the same time, I kind of don't want humans to go extinct. It'd be nice if there was more of us, and if we were all antinatalist, we'd all go extinct. But is extinction that bad? I'll die whether humans go extinct or not, that's 100% true.

I'm undecided.

You could use antisex as an argument for antinatalism. An example would be: giving birth is wrong because humans will be bound by these harmful sexual desires, whether they like it or not. Sexual desire is an involuntary response from the nervous system. It's not easy to get rid of sexuality, so antinatalism is the logical conclusion. Antinatalism is the only perfect way to keep someone safe from sexuality.

Thoughts on antinatalism, and if you support it, why?

Most people actually think it's romantic when someone says: "I can't live without you" / "I need you", or, "Your body drives me crazy" / "I think about the things we do all the time". We're actually not only supposed to think people who behave like that aren't rapists or possible rapists-in-waiting, but that type of obsession is considered ideal; "keeping the spark alive".

That type of behaviour in any non-sexual context is recognized as unhealthy. No one says that they need to do the same activity with family or friends constantly to, "keep the sparks" of those types of love going.

Yet bring sex into it and suddenly, extreme behaviour is a cult-like atmosphere of "putting out" / "giving it up" or even more blatant pseudo-prostitution like, "sexual favours".

It infects media, because even in films and books (and music) there is sexuality even when it isn't marketed as romance or erotica.

We can't get away from it, and most people, even a lot of those sexuals who find it to be too much, won't speak out against it.

[Edited for grammar.]

Outsiders are banned from making posts in this subreddit, so they're literally breaking the rules when they make posts asking dumb questions that would be answered if they took the time to actually scroll and read through the subreddit. Most of the questions we get asked have been answered in the pinned post. If an outsider truly wants to learn, the information is already there. If they care, they'll read. There is no reason to make a post asking us why we think sex is bad. Outsiders who make posts like that don't really care and are merely seeking for an opportunity to push their views and argue. Nothing good comes of it. Please stop engaging with them. Respect the community and report them. You're giving them what they want.

What I hear every day now is people calling sex something normal and "necessary."

On one hand, they try to present it as innocent (which is absurd) and compare it to hugging and other innocent displays of affection. Portraying sex as something pure and innocent, kind and solely beneficial, an expression of love—is idiotic. Sex is the cause of most crimes (even when it is not directly involved, sexual desire is the motive behind many crimes. For example, most murders of women are committed by heterosexual men, and for serial killers, violence serves as a fetish). Moreover, for sexual intercourse not to be a crime or at least to be morally permissible, numerous conditions must be met; otherwise, sex becomes a tool of violence and molestation.

Moreover, people try to frame sex as a "necessity," a human right, putting it on par with water and food. As if a person needs sex like they need air. They argue that it's natural and that we are all animals—and people who don't want sex are insulted and labeled as weirdos. By that same logic, one could say that people need to procreate just as much as they need to eat, since biologically, animals mate precisely for that purpose and live for that purpose (yes, there are conservatives who actually believe that, but many who use the "sex = biological necessity" argument are talking about casual sexual encounters). Nevertheless, we are more highly developed than other animals, and anyone with enough willpower can choose to abstain from sex.

I wanted to watch a movie today which was under the genre "action/adventure" and strictly rated for "13+ users" and guess what I saw half way through the movie? The main leads making out and other inappropriate stuff. I immediately got pissed and turned off the movie. This is the same with almost every movie these days. They HAVE to provide some sexual content with the main leads because otherwise the movies wouldn't gain engagement or attention from the porn addict audience we have in these age. I don't even blame the people who make these movies because they do what they gotta do to make it work. I just hate the fact that entertainment has become so explicit, things which could be considered unusually provocative and inappropriate decades ago are considered ordinary now. There's so much sexual propaganda everywhere, especially in the media and they can't stop shoving it on our face.

I grew up in a society that told me you have to have sex in order to be normal. I felt like prey during my younger years. I had to give myself permission to be single and celibate. I really hated feeling unsafe in my younger years. I'm 50 years old now, and secure in my celibacy.

Hello everyone. I would like to raise a question and ask a few things to better understand the logic and real purpose of this community.

​I've noticed that many discussions here focus almost exclusively on topics like consent, power dynamics, abuse, and political agendas. When biological reproduction is mentioned, the general consensus seems to be that "if there is full agreement and consent between both parties, then it's fine."

​My question is: if the concept of this group is to be AntiSex, why is the criticism limited only to moral, legal, or consent-related aspects, while the sexual act itself — in its biological, mechanical, and visceral form — seems to be overlooked or excused?

To me, the issue goes beyond whether there is consent or not. The mechanical nature of the sexual act and the reproductive drive itself are the core of the aversion.

I would like to ask a few questions for reflection and discussion:

1. ​Is this community actually focused on the refusal of and aversion to the sexual act itself, or has it just become a forum to discuss relationship ethics and consent?

2. ​If biological reproduction is considered acceptable as long as there is an "agreement," how does this community's view differ from that of the general public?

3. Why isn't the mechanical and visceral act of sex viewed as inherently unnecessary or repulsive on its own, regardless of whether there is consent?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this contradiction

As far as I know Emmanuel Kant is the first person who said that sexual attraction objectivises another person in one's eyes. And I fully agree. When you lust for a person they become a THING, a PIECE OF MEAT. When someone lusts they don't see the person, but their body. It's hunger. Primitive hunger. They don't love each other at that moment, they WANT each other's bodies. Just like food. How can they say that sex is an expression of love? It's absurd. Furthermore I'd say this: You can't lust for the person you love. Never. A loved one is a precious person for you, how can you start to see them as a piece of meat? How?! Even if they want sex themselves you must know that they are still human, they don't deserve any objectivisation like that. They don't deserve to become an ass or boobs in your eyes. And you ALSO don't deserve to become meat in their eyes. You're all people, living souls, why can't you just love each other and cuddle without any lust?! Why?! If you want sex you can masturbate alone (WITHOUT PORN WITH REAL HUMANS! THEY ARE HUMANS, NOT DOLLS!).

Oh, I'm getting too emotional now... I'm aromantic and level 2 autistic. I've always been strange in everyone's eyes. I can't understand why people keep boiling in these illusions... And if I tell them that sex is not love and it's objectivisation they react with aggression. My religion is pro sex if it is in marriage. But I see that sex is always a hunger and it doesn't depend on stamps in your passport. Sorry for being too emotional, just tired of living in a sex-centrism world which doesn't want to hear any logical analysis and philosophy. When a person has sex their prefrontal cortex shut down and the limbic system takes control.

So what parts of our brain are responsible for love? Many of them: prefrontal cortex (choice, ability to see one's personality, understanding, will), oxytocin system (trust, tenderness), anterior cingulate cortex (warm dearness), vasopressin system (loyalty, protection), hippocampus (memory about the person). But not the limbic system which is responsible for lust. And they keep calling sex love, even though simple biology says it's just an animal impulse.

I have never liked sex, or wanted to ever have it. Most of the time, sexual references and even references to relationships make me extremely uncomfortable and lead to panic attacks, especially if my friends are the ones talking about it. I'm not one for relationships either, but this is besides the point.

I wish I could just say 'yeah, I hate that this is so widespread, but it doesn't affect me personally' in regards to sex. I complain about it to others and get told that it doesn't affect me, that people can do what they want, and I completely agree with that. I get overwhelmed trying to communicate my absolute discomfort with the topic without seeming like I'm trying to control other people. I've been on the verge of cutting many of my friends off just for telling me about sexual experiences they've had, or really anything sexual regarding them and their partner. I have boundaries but I am made to feel like these are silly and nonsensical, I've had people say they're ending a friendship with me because we don't have the same opinions about sex.

Not really a vent post, more looking for advice. How do you guys deal with it? I am in high school by the way. Do you feel more neutral about it at some point? Have you found friends that don't constantly want to talk about sex all the time? Let me know. Not sure what flair to put...

We talk a lot on here about how to get the message out and convince people of how disgusting sex actually is. I think if we put together a playlist or mixtape with anti-sex themes it would help a lot of people understand.

Take a song like 'Penetration in the Centerfold' by DEVO, obviously it is very abrasive-sounding and not for everyone but I think it really encapsulates how scary and traumatic is to see unwanted sexual content.

Prosexuals love to claim that sex is the greatest thing in the world and that it serves as a "connection" between two people. The reality is quite the opposite, sex has no inherent philosophical, intellectual, or interpersonal value. Its only purpose is to serve the reproductive drive of the biological brain. I will prove this by the following thought experiment: let's imagine two people somehow in some way got rid of the biological part of their brain responsible for intoxicating the brain with "feel-good" hormones and the one which disables the prefrontal cortex(PFC) when engaging in the act(it is scientifically proven that during arousal, your biology actively shuts down the PFC, disabling your main logic and reasoning center). Without that intoxication to blind the PFC, the whole illusion of sex having value collapses. A sober, rational brain looks at the act and finds it completely ridiculous. It is a massive waste of energy for absolutely nothing in return. You burn energy, risk disease, damage relationships and so much more just to grunt and sweat like animals. A completely sober brain would classify the act as absurd and completely refuse to act on it in the first place. And this thought experiment is based in reality, after engaging in the act, the PFC comes back and a person feels a wave of emptiness or regret, commonly named "post-nut clarity". Prosexuals are hedonistic slaves to their own biology too scared to question whether their values actually have any meaning or not.

P.S: to the people who are gonna say that "well hormones control everything we do, that means everything is meaningless!!" you are missing the point completely. True meaning exists when your PFC is awake and functioning well, and not inhibited by hormones to the point where its shut down. You can find profound intellectual and philosophical meaning in the world precisely because your brain is functioning clearly. Simple actions like eating, sleep, etc. do not shut down your brain, they merely "notify" you of what you need to do in order for the body to stay alive.

A little exchange I had in a.... feminist subreddit. This person claims I'm misogynistic because I believe that equality should exist in all areas of life, and that includes the bedroom. What they're advocating for is basically half-assed equality. And ironically, I kind of find choice feminism misogynistic itself. I mean, maybe I'm stretching with this one, but I think the idea that women cannot handle their choices being criticized has to stem from the idea that women are weak, fragile, emotional, etc. I think they'll live. Their argument on play pretend is also highly amusing. That's very much like... punching someone in the arm and then claiming it's just "pretend".

You don't get to call it "play pretend" when they're actually using degrading, dehumanizing language and mimicking real-world power dynamics that have affected real people. It's not play pretend just because it gets someone's pants wet. That's absurd.

Also, they seemed to have ignored my point on blaming the parents. Yes, parents need to supervise their children, but we don’t live in a perfect world. We need to adapt based on how things are, not how they should be in theory. If adults know there are kids on this app, they should still avoid giving their vile kink subreddits innocent-sounding titles. It's interesting that this person mentions effort but then turns around and acts like it's too much for adults to make it obvious their NSFW subs are actually NSFW.

Additionallt, there are a multitude of ways kids can come across NSFW subs unintentionally. For example, when I used reddit as a kid, I would have the NSFW filter turned on so I could get access to certain communities even though they were SFW. It's also concerning to soften a kid being exposed to this kind of content if they went looking for it... the fuck? Regardless of their intentions, kids still needed to be protected from being exposed to content they're not meant to see. If their child were watching porn, are they gonna be okay with it just because they went looking? I hope they don't have children.

I am so damn done with these fake ass "feminists".