anonymous said: 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…