WalrusDragonOnABike

Also sometimes how having a body feels like.

When you're clients are a handful of companies who will more aggressively change insurers than consumers to save a penny and have their own legal teams, it becomes harder to price gouge or illegally deny claims.

Demisexuality is under the asexuality umbrella, so it should seem relatable.

If you do experience sexual attraction towards those you are close to then that would be demi. If you want to have sex despite lack of sexual attraction, then that would be black-stripe ace.

The food analogy is the comparison I've seen people use to explain what sexual attraction is. Hunger is like libido and has little to nothing to do with sexual attraction. Sexual attraction would be like when someone brings out a fresh cake and you need to have a piece even if you just ate and are not hungry. I guess demi in this analogy would mean you wouldn't feel that way unless you already knew that specific dessert well. But if you just eat tasty desserts when you are bored, because you like the taste but don't have the mouthwatering reaction to it being presented, because the person who made it is important to you and you feel eating it's a way to bond with them, etc, you could still be a black-stripe ace.

That said, what counts as sexual attraction has confused me a lot despite spending a fair bit of time reading people trying to explain it.

Anyways, if demi is a functionally useful label, there no need to change. In-practice real-world usefulness of language is more important than weirdos on the Internet trying to be precise in the meanings of words.

Platonic seems fine with me. If you just see sex as another activity to do, like playing board games or TTRPGs, then it makes sense. As hikaru pointed out, the relationship itself wouldn't be platonic, but the attraction can be.

Granted, I say this as someone who does not engage in sex (and honestly not sure how ace I may or may not be).

This is like saying “yes, gay men can still have sex with women, as long as they’re not attracted to them. They’re still gay! It’s only a name!”

But that's true. Straight men can and do have sex with men and that should be accepted as normal. Etc. Nothing wrong with that. What would be a problem is if people were to try to pressure people into having sex outside their sexual orientation. Because its wrong to pressure people into having sex. Doesn't matter their orientation. But you seem to be suggestion that its okay, as long as aces get left out.

It’s an awful precedent. The amount of times I’ve been asked if I’m “one of those asexuals who have sex” is gross.

Some people don't have boundaries and don't know basic sexual etiquette. Acknowledging diversity exist no more justifies asking aces you barely know than it justifies asking trans people about their genitals. And yet, somehow people seem to somehow just forget basic etiquette when they meet queer people. As if our existence is either inherently sexual, so simply existing means we started the sexual conversation in their mind (even when we're aces somehow) or we're subhuman and don't desire basic courtesy/privacy. That said, some guys are really just that direct with each other and think its normal.

But there’s no such thing as “grey asexual”. That’s greysexual. It’s a separate thing.

Asexuality is used both a specific label and an umbrella term that includes both.

“Asexual” becoming “inclusive” to almost everything muddies the waters. I am against not being able to use the label to distinguish clear what I identify as anymore. It’s frustrating as hell.

Sounds about as valid as transmeds/truscum being upset that NBies and people who want something slightly different than them are under the same umbrella of "trans" and that they would need to use "binary" to qualify more specifically what they want to communicate.

You could be one whether it have sex people with never or often.

If sex is something at least one party desires. No one should be pressured into sex they don't want, but no one should feel bad leaving another person over the lack of sex either.

Why can't aces be both? The "sexual" in sexual orientations has always referred to attraction. Sex repulsed aces are like victim-playing US Christians in most of the interactions I see. They bully and make fun of anyone who has sex and then play the victim when asked to not insult others.

Basically.

There are grey-aces (whom are still aces; black-stripe ace sometimes is used to refer to those with no sexual attraction) whom experience some sexual attraction some of the time.

But there's a lot of aces who are surprised to realize sexual attraction is something people actually experience.

Sexualities generally refer to sexual attraction. Homosexuals are sexually attracted to people have the same gender, not to repeating the same sex acts over and over and heterosexuality is about attraction to people with different genders, not to novelty sex acts. Pansexual does not mean attraction to pans not to literally everyone or everything. Taking the words too literally is not really useful.

The differentiation of the ace/allo axis and the sex-favorable/sex-repulsed axis is particularly useful for aces, but it still has its use for allos as well (some people who have PTSD related to sexual activity may be sex repulsed, but can still experience sexual attraction). Lots of reasons to engage in and enjoy sex other than attraction to a specific person. Even allos often engage in sex with those whom they aren't attracted to.

The major ace subreddits regularly had issues with sex-favorable people complaining about all the posts being sex-negative and sex-repulsed people (sometime simultaneously) complaining about too much sex-positive content. Would be more amusing if those types of posts didn't waste so much space...

Ace is about sexual attraction, not interest in sex. You can be ace and love sex and you can be allo and be sex repulsed.

Aces can be into kink. There's things like ace BSDM communities /shrug.