#And just indicated a high level of ignorance about asexuality that I didn't really want to engage with

[queer-as-used-by-tolkien]

this got long, so TL;DR: I am asexual and in the asexual community. Nobody here thinks that's what those labels mean or imply. Everybody here loves, values, and treasures our nonsexual and nonromantic relationships and considers them equally as important as sexual and romantic relationships.

As an asexual person, please?

I also strongly object to the idea that the most standard and basic way for humans to relate to each other is sexually, or even romantically. So would every other asexual or aromantic person I know. So would all the heterosexual and homosexual people I know. (BTW the word you're looking for is "allosexual", aka you DO experience sexual attraction of some kind, regardless of orientation.)

I'll preface this with the fact that I, as stated, am asexual, yet I still consider myself straight. Among other reasons, I am heteroROMANTIC and do plan on marrying a member of the opposite sex. I can go into this more if you like.

To clarify because it's been an issue of confusion before: asexuality and demisexuality do NOT mean "I don't want to have sex until I know a person / am married." That is standards and/or boundaries, worldview and/or ideology and/or religion. Anyone can have those. If you have religious convictions, I'm sorry, that doesn't make you asexual or demi. Those labels means you experience little (in the case of demi) or no sexual ATTRACTION.

I cannot, for the life of me, figure out from looking at a guy if he's "hot" or "cute" or anything else. Many times I told someone "I'm considering this guy romantically" and the first question was "ooohh, is he cute?" To which my response was, without fail: "I dont know, you tell me [show picture]". Eventually, when they all said "oohhhh he IS cute!!" I would sigh and say, "so I've been told." I can also extrapolate from information: e.g. if a guy is tall, has a lot of muscle, etc? Okay he's probably conventionally attractive. I feel nothing, emotionally or physically, from looking at such a guy. I am not irresistibly drawn to him. I do not crave his presence, approval, or favor just because he looks a certain way.

I feel zero attraction. No desire to know what they'd be like in bed or kiss them or anything else. The most I've ever cared about a guy's physical appearance has been "hmmm I wonder what his beard feels like." I have not taken the liberty of finding this out with anyone except my father. Perhaps it might be more accurate to say, "I wonder what ANY beard feels like" because my curiosity is now sated and I have no particular interest in finding out more from any other guys.

I apologize if I am miserably failing to describe sexual attraction. I've never experienced it, see. Feel free to (politely) correct any misunderstanding.

But I do NOT, in any sense, imagine that allosexual people's only important relationships are sexual. I (a "straight" cis woman) have a strong, healthy, awesome and amazing relationship with my father, with my brother, and with my other brother. I have a close and fond relationship with my other two brothers, with a male friend I met at school and with another male friend I met at school. I have a competitive, intellectually rich relationship with almost all of the above plus a male friend I met at a social gathering. I have a nerdy and awesome relationship with a male friend I met at that social gathering and with another male friend I met at that social gathering. I have a teasing/rivalrous relationship with an older man I met at church. I have made good friends with another older man I met at church and with another older man I met at church and with an older man I met at that social gathering. To say nothing of my female friendships.

None of those are sexual. Three are near enough my age and interests that I have considered them romantically (perhaps four depending on how you count) but the relationships themselves have not become romantic and I experience no sexual or any physical attraction towards them (despite some(?) of them being conventionally attractive as far as I am aware). I love my friends as friends, and value and treasure them. They are all, as far as I know, allosexual and alloromantic, and they love and value and treasure me and their other friends.

Being asexual says nothing about what the most standard way of relating/perceiving is. It's saying that, whether sexual attraction is the most standard and basic or not, we don't experience it. And no, again, sex is not the most standard and basic.

The asexual community - and the aromantic community - do the exact OPPOSITE of "othering" nonromantic and nonsexual relationships. We celebrate them. We struggle to understand and relate to sexual/romantic relationships, and consider friendships, familial bonds, and other relationships as being equally important as sexual and romantic ones. We neither condemn nor devalue romantic and sexual relationships, although we do sometimes feel abandoned by our friends who are allosexual and/or alloromantic, who suddenly get a significant other and elevate that person above longtime friendships.

Being allosexual does not and never has implied, to me or anyone else, that the ONLY important relationships an allosexual person has are sexual ones. Is a sexual/romantic relationship AMONG the most important ones for most people? Of course! They're your life partner! Asexual people can have life partners too and we understand that.

"(A-spec labels imply) the default heterosexual way of perceiving others of the same sex is apathetic ambivalence" have you. Have you SEEN how heterosexual people act around people of the same sex? Girls share all their secrets with each other, giggle and laugh about guys they consider "hot," and plan their weddings together. They're closer than peas in a pod. They're thicker than thieves. They're besties. All the heterosexual people I know are closest friends with members of the SAME sex, not opposite. Myself? An asexual? I'm very close with my female friends. Not as close as I am with immediate family members, but I have two dear female best friends. I just spent the day with them earlier this week. I've been friends with them for a long time. I have many other female friends and acquaintances that I talk to occasionally, if not regularly.

Meanwhile, it is commonly reported among heterosexuals that girls and guys CAN'T "just be friends" and there is frequently "no platonic explanation for XYZ." I think just maybe, it's not the asexuals who make sexual relationships the priority and who devalue nonsexual and nonromantic relationships.

The asexual/aromantic labels and community do not consider ANY sexual or romantic orientation or lack thereof to be the default, most basic, or standard. Most asexuals and aromantics consider themselves to be queer and emphasize that the A in LGBTQIA+ is for asexual, aromantic, aplatonic, and agender. (It is also frequently written as LGBTQIAAAA+). Depending on your definition of queer, I don't consider myself such. (Haha look at my username.) The "gift of celibacy" is right there in the Bible and Paul urges people not to get married. Since I am the daughter of an asexual woman, I have never faced a-phobia and have been raised with an understanding of asexuality, although not in those terms. Christian and/or conservative a-phobia, that many asexual and aromantic people experience regularly, appears baffling and contradictory to me. Perhaps if I had experienced the same I would relate more to the label "queer." Anyway: yeah the queer asexual community is not in the habit of treating any orientation or experience as "standard" or "basic" or "default."

If you think that "considering straight to be the default orientation" (esp in exclusion of homosexuality) makes sexuality to be the most basic and standard way of relating to people, I don't know what to tell you. Please don't worry about the a-spec labels implying this because nobody at all thinks they do.

If you're allosexual and you value your friends, regardless of gender? If you value your significant other for more than their sexual assets? Congrats, you're a human being who experiences sexual, romantic, and platonic attraction. You are, for lack of better terms, "whole" and "normal." Asexual people and aromantic people are also whole, although "normal" might be a stretch.

Footnote: I speak from the perspective primarily of a cis, asexual, heteroromantic woman. I have not delved deeply into other viewpoints because I have not experienced them.

One of the main issues with labels like asexual and demisexual and queerplatonic, in my opinion, is the "othering" of nonsexual relationships.

The labels imply that the only truly "straight" person is someone whose only important relationships are sexual; whose default way of perceiving members of the opposite sex is sexually, and whose default attitude toward people of the same sex is apathetic ambivalence.

And so what this implies, assuming "straight" is the default sexual orientation, (traditionally it is) is that the most standard and basic way for humans to relate to each other is sexually. To which I strongly object.