They are not even doing anything sexually. Why is their inaction offending people?

  • marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    If I ask what type of sandwich you like eating and you say you’ve never wanted a sandwich and don’t eat them, I might stop including you in discussions about sandwiches.

    This is nothing against people that simply have no desire for a sandwich, but compared to those that like their sandwiches with meat, without meat, or with imitation meat, there’s really not much to discuss when we’re talking about sandwiches.

    • when@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      There’s social persuation going on against people who don’t eat sandwitches - Some are saying “They don’t eat sandwitches because they’ve never eaten the right one”, Other are insisting that “They need to force fed”, Cultists are forcing that “Refusing to eat sandwitches is a disorder/disease”. Wide acceptance is lacking that there can be people who are beyond sandwitches.

      • marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        22 hours ago

        There’s really not, no more than any other LGBTQIA+ persuasion. Every single thing you just listed goes for every single sexuality, i.e. ‘spaghetti’s only straight until it gets wet,’ or 'I can fix her (referring to lesbians); every experiences that. That doesn’t mean your experience isn’t valid, but let’s face it, if that’s your complaint welcome to being accepted as a real human.

        Ace and aroace most often, in my experience, just get left out. Because like you wouldn’t bring an atheist to debate the finer points of faith, it’s not really great to bring an aroace to debate the finer points of sexuality.