I'm optimistic that asexuality
might be a real thing, but does it need to be? It's so new, we don't know much about it. I do think it's important to acknowledge that it may stem from underlying health issues. (To name a few, low libido caused by medication, sexual dysfunction, paraphilic disorders, neurodevelopmental disorders, sexual trauma, etc...) And that it has no real functionality as a sexuality, unless you use it to denote that having sex may be difficult for you when dating. For some people, sex can be crucial in a relationship: a dead bedroom can make or break some marriages. Originally, it seems many original asexual communities existed for those who feel it is harder to establish an intimate long term relationship due to their "lack of sexuality." Then came the argument that asexuality wasn't caused by trauma or health issues, and that you can just be "born ace." And with that, asexual people became recognized by the LGBTQs as a minority, (and potentially a sexuality) Thus adopting them into their acronym. (In the west, at least.)
What confuses me is the asexual label has now become a
spectrum under LGBTQIA8347+. Now, nobody can agree on what exactly asexuality is, and why it needs to be a thing. Its current definition on wikipedia is "....the lack of sexual attraction to others, or low or absent interest in or desire for sexual activity." I think that's simple enough, but as a spectrum, it's about to get more complicated:
Just like the influx of new genders, the ace spectrum is a very new concept and constantly changing. Its current standing as a spectrum combines unnecessarily complicated interpretations of sexual attraction, usually depicted as various sub-identities. (One of the most popular ones being Demisexual, a form of asexuality that basically exists to let people know that you don't fuck people until you're friends with them. Yes, I think it's a useless label.) Aromanticism is the same as asexuality except it has to do with romantic attraction instead. The identity labels are practically the same, and they go hand in hand as ANOTHER sub identity, called "aro ace." Personally, I think making asexuality a spectrum renders the original meaning completely useless. When sub identities like the ones shown above exist, it then encompasses a large portion of otherwise normal people in society with fluctuating libidos or simple sexual preferences. The criteria doesn't need to be this broad. When everyone is asexual, nobody is.
...Wait, so, since asexuality can manifest in so many different ways, I could adopt a "marginalized" label for basically no effort? Bingo, enter mentally ill qweers. This is why so many "asexual" people are the majority in online kink groups. Fap to abstract furry fetish fanfiction your whole life, and now you can't get it up with a real human being? Congrats, you're ace. You're on antidepressants and have no libido? Yep, you're ace. You don't do casual hookups with people? You guessed it, probably ace. You poor thing, you must be terribly oppressed by the cishet allosexual normies. Why would I do something about my health issues when I can use them to my advantage and further my victim/oppression complex? There are so many unstable, trooned out, anime obsessed, furry asexuals on twitter. Being asexual is just one more intersectionality label they can claim for more oppression olympic cred. One more reason for them to e-beg, one more reason for them to hate the hets, yadda yadda. Some use asexuality and aromanticism to excuse their deviant behaviour. I'm acquainted with an aro ace person who basically has their own mantra of "Yeah, I overstepped your boundaries and grabbed your junk, but I didn't mean it in a
sexual way, I'm ace!"
That's what LGBTQIA+ has become, and it's likely that this person isn't going to find any true and honest asexuals under the qweer umbrella. They should have stopped at B.