#this has just been on my mind for a while

I think we need to redefine asexuality.

Our current definition for asexual is just “someone who experiences little to no sexual attraction” which is a decent enough baseline, but I don’t think it quite grasps just how broad a spectrum asexuality is. It’s also a little misleading, considering how some asexuals do experience sexual attraction when certain conditions are met (demisexual), but what I think I dislike the most about that definition is how it defines asexuality by what is not/what it lacks, rather than what it is or could be. I think that’s where a lot of the misconceptions around asexuality comes from, because if we understand asexuality as a simple lack of sexual attraction, then we leave little room for conversations around domestic partnerships/companionships, sex positive/neutral/repulsed discourse, etc.

I think a better definition would be something along the lines of “someone who doesn’t experience sexual attraction the same way allosexual people do.” I don’t think that is the perfect definition, but I do think it opens the door a little more to the fuller spectrum of asexuality