Asexual doesn’t mean “lack”, it’s not a *lack* of sexual interest, it’s just *little to no* sexual interest. It’s not missing, it’s just insignificant to the person who identifies as asexual. Asexuals aren’t broken. Asexuals aren’t missing parts. Asexuals can have sex lives, and still not have sexual attracted to anyone.
(in response to this post)
there are multiple things in this ask that i’d like to point out, so i’m going to use bullet points for the sake of clarity and ease.
- the whole point of that post was to say that there is more than one valid definition of what it means to be asexual.
- among those valid definitions is asexuality being a lack of sexual attraction.
- another valid definition is asexuality being little to no sexual attraction.
- some people in the asexual community do define asexuality in relation to sexual interest or desire. this is also valid, as the links in the post in question point out.
- no where was it said that asexuals are broken.
- a lack of something is not necessarily synonymous with something being missing. this is a matter of semantics.
- no one is denying the fact that asexuals can have sex lives.
anon, i think you’ve missed the point of the post in question as it’s not disagreeing with anything that you’ve said. your main issue seems to be with the usage of “lack”, but this is a commonly used word to define and describe asexuality. at the same time, it’s a fact that some people such as yourself do not care for that word and that’s 100% okay! no one is disagreeing with you.
as the post points out, there can be more than one way of describing and defining asexuality. there being multiple definitions is not only okay, it is in fact the reality that we all live in.