Misconceptions

Have you faced any misconceptions, and did you try to counter them?

I've faced a lot of them, by some people who kept trying to push me into sex, and convince me I was wrong about myself. I've been told that:

I must be lying: They assumed that everyone must want sex, and whoever didn't, must have been abused. They told me the only people who claim to not want sex (antisexuals and/or sex-repulsed), and/or not desire it (asexuals) were abused, and claiming their identities in order to have more control over their lives. I've been abused by them, so that was extremely insulting to me.

I must be afraid of sex: One of them still thought this well after I declared my antisexuality. They thought I rejected sex only because I was scared of it, but that I'll get over it, even when I told them that I intend this for life. In other words, they thought it was a phase that I'd grow out of.

I'm repressed, in denial of my "true sexuality" and that I can only be "liberated" by coming to terms with it, and having sex.

I'm oppressing them: How is my choice to not have sex oppressive to them? My choice wasn't infringing on their bodily autonomy, but their choice to keep shaming and bullying me, was infringing on mine, because if I had caved into sex, it would've been because I was too beaten down to say no.

I'm going against nature: Natural isn't always good, and there are so many things that aren't natural (but are good) but do they get the same criticism?

On the main page, I started listing, and countering some of the misconceptions. In a few other threads, I saw a few more that I could use help elaborating on:

That it must be the result of trauma or bad relationships, with the implication that antisexuality is something that we will get over with when we find the "right person", or that it's just a phase: This is insensitive in multiple ways. Some sexual violence survivors never want sex again as a result of their experiences, and if someone is antisexual for that reason, then it's as valid as any other. Our decisions to be antisexual are for life, but those friends I mentioned were so sure they could get me to change.

We're only antisexual because of low self-esteem: I'd argue it'd be the opposite. We had the confidence to take a stand for ourselves, when there is so much pressure to have sex. Someone who doesn't have the self-esteem to do that, may be at risk of caving into sex that they don't want.

In another thread, I asked about what "repression" is exactly, because that's another major one.

"We're only antisexual because of low self-esteem" It seems to me anyone with at least 0.0001f of self-esteem would be antisexual.
That is preposterous thinking it'd come from low-esteem I don't see where that even comes from.

Ok I may have heard of weird special cases where some fool is posing as asexual/antisexual because of this reason but let us roll our eyes at that.

Biscotti wrote:"We're only antisexual because of low self-esteem" It seems to me anyone with at least 0.0001f of self-esteem would be antisexual.
That is preposterous thinking it'd come from low-esteem I don't see where that even comes from.

It's preposterous, but I understand where the "logic" comes from: probably thinking that one of the only reasons someone wouldn't want sex, is because they feel inadequate, or don't feel like they're good enough to attract a sexual partner. The people making this claim may see a lack of trying as being due to low self-esteem.  

Ok I may have heard of weird special cases where some fool is posing as asexual/antisexual because of this reason but let us roll our eyes at that.

What would they have to gain from claiming to be either when they aren't?

"We're only antisexual because of low self-esteem: I'd argue it'd be the opposite. We had the confidence to take a stand for ourselves, when there is so much pressure to have sex. Someone who doesn't have the self-esteem to do that, may be at risk of caving into sex that they don't want."

That almost would have been me if I didn't have the courage to admit that I found sex objectionable.  Deep inside me, I knew I was antisexual, but I wasn't honest with myself until in my early twenties when I discovered the Antisexual Stronghold site.  (When it was still there.)


About low self-esteem concerning lack of partners:  That was me during my boy-crazy phase.  At school, it seemed like practically everyone, but me had a partner.  (It didn't help that I was the "ugly girl" who the popular kids liked to pick on.)   A part of me considered getting a beauty makeover while another part of me wished for a boy to look past my looks and like me for me.  Now, since I'm no longer in that phase, I find it sad that many people have their self-esteem be dependent on another person.  I admit, a part of me is still a bit scarred from the bullying, but as cliche as it sounds, it's the inside that counts.

SCH0206 wrote:About low self-esteem concerning lack of partners:  That was me during my boy-crazy phase.  At school, it seemed like practically everyone, but me had a partner.  (It didn't help that I was the "ugly girl" who the popular kids liked to pick on.)   A part of me considered getting a beauty makeover while another part of me wished for a boy to look past my looks and like me for me.  Now, since I'm no longer in that phase, I find it sad that many people have their self-esteem be dependent on another person.  I admit, a part of me is still a bit scarred from the bullying, but as cliche as it sounds, it's the inside that counts.

The whole sexualist concept of beauty is viciously promoted by the cosmetic industry, just another sect of capitalism. I never understood how covering up one's face is not considered the product of low self-esteem. If the sodomites consider trivial skin conditions to be such a concern, maybe they should look at pictures of what their country's latest bombing campaign has produced on the skin of its victims (if they still have any).

If only people cared more for their internal organs rather than the individual pores on their skin. Humans are terrible at reproductive health and extremely genetically imperfect. You would probably not even find a filter for "liver health" on dating sites.

No, instead, drinking and eating poisonous substances is perfectly acceptable as long as it contributes to the "economy". One must wonder what exactly the "economy" contributes to us. We do not get food from money, we get food from crops, which are maintained by farmers. Apparently doing the right thing is not a good enough incentive, people need money to buy a bunch of cheap products that will just end up in a gigantic landfill by the end of the month.

It is not good enough for the sodomite to be free from pain, the sodomite demands more than to be just content, but to fall under the addiction of euphoria. It is this addiction that ironically is the source of the sodomite's pain. Unfortunately, the sodomites make most of the decisions, often ones that harm the innocent who are not guilty of the sodomite's evils.

With the rise of internet use, I believe that antisexuals will be able to organize more easily and work to completely expel sexuality from society. Sexuality is a cancer, if not amputated, it will spread and overwhelm the pure in the numbers of its slaves. Try to think of ten people you know personally (not just on the internet) that completely reject and oppose sexuality - just try if you can.

SCH0206 wrote:
About low self-esteem concerning lack of partners:  That was me during my boy-crazy phase.  At school, it seemed like practically everyone, but me had a partner.  (It didn't help that I was the "ugly girl" who the popular kids liked to pick on.)   A part of me considered getting a beauty makeover while another part of me wished for a boy to look past my looks and like me for me.  Now, since I'm no longer in that phase, I find it sad that many people have their self-esteem be dependent on another person.  I admit, a part of me is still a bit scarred from the bullying, but as cliche as it sounds, it's the inside that counts.

I'm glad you broke out of that phase, though it's sad to hear that you didn't break out unscathed. It also saddens me that so many don't break out of it at all. When someone's self-esteem is dependent on another person, they can only focus on pleasing the other person for their happiness, even if what they're doing actually makes them unhappy. I've been in that situation in a codependent relationship.

ForeverPure wrote: The whole sexualist concept of beauty is viciously promoted by the cosmetic industry, just another sect of capitalism. I never understood how covering up one's face is not considered the product of low self-esteem. If the sodomites consider trivial skin conditions to be such a concern, maybe they should look at pictures of what their country's latest bombing campaign has produced on the skin of its victims (if they still have any).

The marketing tactics of the cosmetic industry are also awful, with a lot of shaming people into buying their products, profiting off of consumer's insecurities. Good point about the glaring double-standard there.

Some say they're wearing make up for themselves. Perhaps they are, but outwardly, we can't tell apart who is buying cosmetics because they feel worthless without them, and like they have to cover up (having bought into the advertising), or those who are buying them for themselves and see make up as a form of self-expression.

Sometimes I like to dress up, and it's the same kind of issue; I'm dressing for myself, but some people will always think I'm doing it just to attract others.

It is not good enough for the sodomite to be free from pain, the sodomite demands more than to be just content, but to fall under the addiction of euphoria. It is this addiction that ironically is the source of the sodomite's pain. Unfortunately, the sodomites make most of the decisions, often ones that harm the innocent who are not guilty of the sodomite's evils.

What's said about addictions, including drug addictions and sex addictions, is that it doesn't mean enjoying the thing they're addicted to. It's perpetuated by negative reinforcement, engaging in the addiction to keep the withdrawal symptoms away.

With the rise of internet use, I believe that antisexuals will be able to organize more easily and work to completely expel sexuality from society. Sexuality is a cancer, if not amputated, it will spread and overwhelm the pure in the numbers of its slaves. Try to think of ten people you know personally (not just on the internet) that completely reject and oppose sexuality - just try if you can.

The antisexual community has been around for 20 years now, originating right around the time the internet started to become widespread, but suffers obstacles to being as organized as it could, including how easy it is for others to take it the wrong way, and being fragmented and isolated: There's nearly no one in both the Russian-speaking and English-speaking branches, and the Russian-speaking branch is much larger, and there are language differences that don't translate well into English (not without a lot of explaining, which I've started in the Site Info and Announcement threads) leaving us largely on our own.