I’ve been trying to make this argument that repulsed =/= bad on the basis that repulsed, in fact, =/= bad, and that most people have things that turn them on as well as kinks they don’t understand, and boundaries about what they feel comfortable doing with and having done to their bodies. But, more specifically?
For repulsed asexuals (not demis or grey-aces, sorry), you are talking about saying “I don’t want to have sex with people I’m not attracted to” is bad. Because by definition there are no people we are attracted to. The reason this whole thing has a word in the asexual community instead of the way it is talked amongst people of other sexualities (namely: “You do what? Ew!”) Is because we are talking about how much we are willing to do with people we’re not sexually attracted to. This word we have? Is entirely about sexual people and sexual culture.
It is entirely about how the world rejects asexual people in favor of the sexual majority.
And that’s why nobody ever calls themselves a “repulsed heterosexual” or a “repulsed homosexual” or what have you. Because sex between people who are attracted to each other is accepted as something that is logical and makes sense, no matter what the moral judgment is that comes after it.
There are a lot of people of all different sexualities who don’t like various sexual acts. Nobody should try and force them to like it, especially not without their permission. I stand behind that general argument and will continue to do so, because it is a sound argument with solid logical underpinnings.
But on a micro level, singling out repulsed asexuals because we’re not willing to have sex with people we’re not attracted to? You disgust me.
It occured to me yesterday that this is exactly it. The reason sexual people don’t identify as repulsed/indifferent/etc. is because they are not generally expected to have sex with people they categorically aren’t attracted to in the way asexuals are, and if they refuse to have sex with people they categorically aren’t attracted to that doesn’t generally make their experience of their sexuality very different. That is, if a straight person says “nah, not having sex with anyone of my own gender”, that doesn’t have massive knock-on effects in terms of their likelihood of finding a romantic relationship or w/e. Whereas, due to being repulsed, I completely dismissed romantic relationships as an option for ages, and there’s a lot of what indifferent and/or aces who enjoy sex say that is totally alien to me. As a result, it can be an important distinction for asexuals, because it actually carries useful information beyond “ew, sex”.
Although I could see situations where it’d be a useful categorisation for sexual people as well, for instance heteroromantic homosexuals or homoromantic heterosexuals. But for most of them I suspect there’s just no point.