Ask an Ace of Spades

Introduction One thing the asexual/aromantic community is known for is our remarkably long and intricate labels. Unlike many minorities, where labels are usually one or two words, it is quite common for our community to have half a dozen words or more, detailing every detail of our nature. Why is this, though? Why do we have so many words for what is so simple for most others? Well, to put it simply, to understand what you aren't, you must first understand both what you are, and what you lack. Especially when the are also differences between people in the community, there easily emerge multiple levels of these differences. An Allegory Let's consider color-blindness for a minute. The typical human eye has cone cells for three colors: red, green, and blue. For simplicity, let's consider each person to have one, two, or three of these cells. If you are missing one of these three types of cells, you won't be able to see the color green (instead seeing i...

There's an odd sentiment that crops up from time to time, especially when talking about some distant future, and that's the " Everyone is Bi " world (often realized as pansexual, rather than bi). At first glance, this sort of world is often considered to be more "tolerant". Afterall, bi- or pansexual is part of the LGBT umbrella, so that's tolerance, right? The problem, though, is that it's not inclusive . It's not saying that everyone is fine being who they are (which is what we should all strive for!), it's that, in the future, people will all have the same orientation (which just happens to be non-straight). Worse, is that this is usually passed off as being more "evolved" or "enlightened" (although this implication is rarely stated outright), as if bi-/pansexuality were some ideal state. No orientation is an ideal state. Not heterosexuality, not pansexuality. The idea that "everyone is bi in the future" h...

One thing that allosexual people (a "normal" sexual individual) have a hard time understanding is what asexuals feel towards sex. It is (to my understanding) such a deep-seated yearning in them, that the idea that someone might not want it is simply... alien to them. As such, I'd like to present sex as I see it. Of course, the idea of sex is different for every asexual. Some asexuals are sex-repulsed (the idea of sex actively grosses them out), while others are just neutral towards it. Some have no sex drive at all, others can have quite strong sex drives. Some have sex with others for the sake of their partners, some have sex because it feels good, and some never have sex at all. I can't speak to how every asexual feels about sex, but I can give my own thoughts. I have a sex drive (possibly a strong one, though I have little basis for comparison), and I am sex-neutral (not sex-repulsed). For me, the idea of sex is kind of like the idea of bubble wrap. Everyone ...

Before I realized how obsessed the world was with sex, still believing it to be operating on the lines of my own asexual libidoist nature, the idea of matchmaking was really cute. It was some time after I realized that, for a great many people, sex is the primary aspect of a relationship, that I was hit my some unflattering fridge logic . Matchmaking is all about choosing two people and trying to get them to have sex. Based on random internet research, it seems that most people begin having sex within a few weeks of their first date. Very commonly, it seems that people have sex long before they say, "I love you," to the other person. So it's certainly not some distant eventuality. The only "date" I've ever been on was a semi-blind date set up by a friend of mine at the request of her other friend. (I eventually accepted, only to be polite, though told her in no uncertain terms that her friend shouldn't expect anything but the friend zone.) ...

There's a certain reviewer online that I follow. His mix of sarcasm and insight have seen me through many ennui ruts. One comment he once made, though, had always confused me. He was discussing how, in China, a contest had been set up. In this contest, people could have their faces scanned, and facial recognition would determine how beautiful they were, with prizes of some sort distributed on this basis. His concluding comment on the subject was something on the topic of "whether or not a robot wanted to fuck them." For a long time this confused me. Although people seemed to want to have sex with attractive people, it seemed strange to ascribe such motive to an inanimate processor. It was only recently that I realized that he said this because, for him, (human) beauty and sexual attraction were one in the same. This understanding made me sad: sad that he was so limited in his aesthetic, sad that he would apparently never appreciate the natural lines and forms...

Imagine , if you will, that in your city, town, whatever, there is a Fancy Restaurant. People talk about it, people think about it, people hardly seem to get it out of their thoughts. It's in all the movies. This Fancy Restaurant is always being advertised, and sometimes other companies even allude to it in their own ads, just implying that the people in their ad are going there. In a word, everyone is obsessed with this Fancy Restaurant. It seems like the life goal of everyone is to eat at the Fancy Restaurant as much as possible. But there's a catch: you need a reservation. And the reservations are expensive and take a lot of effort to get. Many people get jobs, or try to get better jobs, just so that they can get past the bouncer, and then it takes careful negotiating with the staff to actually secure a reservation. "But why," you ask, "do I need to eat at the Fancy Restaurant? I can cook. It's far easier, cheaper, and less of a bother to just w...