Why is it considered bad to not like sex?

(Off-topic note: This is my first time starting a thread. I've always responded to others' threads, but never started my own until now.)

It's odd that it's acceptable to like or dislike a certain food, music, or hobby, but when it comes to sex, it's like one have to enjoy it or be positive about it, or it's seen as odd or juvenile if you don't. Why can't one say anything bad about sex without backlash?

It is considered bad to not like sexuality because sexuality is the norm for the majority or at least the dominant message throughout not just North America, but arguably the entire arable world.

It makes it even harder that the sexualists have formed together in massive gangs (in the form of unitary and federal governments) that force all minorities to live within their rules, while claiming the entire Earth's land as their own.

Have you ever been told to just "move somewhere else"? As if somewhere else was not under the tyranny of an oppressive sexualist government - either under a blue or red flag. Sort of difficult to settle and make your own community when all the land is literally claimed. Maybe blood is the only true currency after all when it comes to dealing with pro-war barbarians.

My own country (Canada) whose head of state was literally decided at birth, claims half of the continent of North America yet barely uses a quarter of it. If we antisexualists hope to form a society of our own, free from the ills of sexual barbarianism, than we must find some way in the future to unite. As individuals against groups of millions, it is absolutely essential that we organize.

One thing that is particularly odd is that in many socially conservative societies - females are often pressured into losing their virginity from men who then label them "sl*ts" after the fact. Of course, this does not happen always, but both the label of "virgin" and "sl*t" is negative in sexual society.

Pressure to like sex is used on males, too. Some think of all men as sex-crazed perverts, yet find it humorous if some are virgins. I see it as a human issue rather than a gender one.

It still makes no sense, though. Being a vegetarian/vegan or being a loner is in the minority, but even those are more acceptable than being antisexual.

SCH0206 wrote:Pressure to like sex is used on males, too. Some think of all men as sex-crazed perverts, yet find it humorous if some are virgins. I see it as a human issue rather than a gender one.

It still makes no sense, though. Being a vegetarian/vegan or being a loner is in the minority, but even those are more acceptable than being antisexual.

I absolutely agree that men are pressured as well, I was merely commenting on the pressure on women. Loners and vegetarians may be a minority, but there are far more vegetarians and loners than antisexuals.

Maybe there are more antisexuals than we know, but most are afraid to express it. I know I am. I can't imagine expressing my antisexual views outside antisexual-based websites because I know I'll get derided or judged if I do. Hopefully one day, being antisexual would be seen as an acceptable view rather than a problem that has to be fixed.

SCH0206 wrote:Maybe there are more antisexuals than we know, but most are afraid to express it. I know I am. I can't imagine expressing my antisexual views outside antisexual-based websites because I know I'll get derided or judged if I do. Hopefully one day, being antisexual would be seen as an acceptable view rather than a problem that has to be fixed.

I would not count on that. One day, asexualism will be accepted - very possibly at least. Antisexualism is direct resistance to the status-quo and unless the status-quo changes, it simply will not be accepted. As unlike asexualism, antisexualism does not seek or wish to coexist with sexualists, rather it wishes to be separate.

You could be right that there are more antisexuals than meets the eye, but probably not a lot than the already vocal ones. You also have to wait usually until the antisexual in question has gone through puberty to make sure they are truly antisexual - rather than just viewing sexual interest as anti-childhood.

The best option is for antisexuals (us) to form their (our) own society to determine their (our) own destiny and protect their (our) cultural identity. Until then, we will remain dissolved in the melting pot.

Sexual society having the gendered double-standards that it does, especially the dichotomy that women face, doesn't make sense. How are women supposed to want sex if they're shamed for showing any active interest in it, and are shamed for saying no? It implies that the only "acceptable" option is saying yes to sex, but being passive about it. A lot of people still don't think that most women have sexual desires, even though asexuality is still stigmatized. How are men supposed to want sex if their decision to have it is heavily influenced by being shamed for saying no?

I know there are more antisexual people out there, but they also might not be aware of it. How many are still convinced they are wrong for how they feel, and try to "fix" themselves, like many asexuals have before?

The asexual community has an internal battle between "assimilation vs. liberation", with assimilation being the vying for mainstream acceptance, to normalize asexuality and show it's similarities with sexual society, accommodating asexuals into the status quo. Liberation doesn't care about normalization, but rather aiming to overcome the status quo to benefit everyone. Assimilation generally benefits only those who fit the most closely to the status quo.

Because misery seeks company. Most people can't stand the thought of other people having less addictions than them.

Stars.of.Tears wrote:Because misery seeks company. Most people can't stand the thought of other people having less addictions than them.

That's a rather thought-provoking answer. I'm no mind-reader, but that can be a possible thought flowing around pro-sexuals' brains.

The mind-blowing part is that sex is something you'd have to be figuratively r******d to be into.

Figuratively because I don't want offend r*****s. (Sincerely)

So I don't know the answer, 
It does depend on what culture you're in. I'm not sure which is more prevalent but the OP reaction is certainly a thing that happens at some places.

SCH0206 wrote:

Stars.of.Tears wrote:Because misery seeks company. Most people can't stand the thought of other people having less addictions than them.

That's a rather thought-provoking answer. I'm no mind-reader, but that can be a possible thought flowing around pro-sexuals' brains.

They can't, or don't want to understand how someone can be happy without sex; being happy without sex seems like an affront to them. It's like how being happy without children feels like an affront to some parents and their choices, but that comparison isn't quite perfect, since some parents didn't want children, and some made anonymous confessions about how they regret it. I wonder if some allegedly prosexual people are in that situation; they don't actually want sex, but tried to convince themselves that they do, and see people who don't have sex as a threat to their "choice", or feel threatened being reminded that not having sex is an option that they could've taken, and regret not taking for so long.