Hello everyone. I would like to raise a question and ask a few things to better understand the logic and real purpose of this community.

​I've noticed that many discussions here focus almost exclusively on topics like consent, power dynamics, abuse, and political agendas. When biological reproduction is mentioned, the general consensus seems to be that "if there is full agreement and consent between both parties, then it's fine."

​My question is: if the concept of this group is to be AntiSex, why is the criticism limited only to moral, legal, or consent-related aspects, while the sexual act itself — in its biological, mechanical, and visceral form — seems to be overlooked or excused?

To me, the issue goes beyond whether there is consent or not. The mechanical nature of the sexual act and the reproductive drive itself are the core of the aversion.

I would like to ask a few questions for reflection and discussion:

1. ​Is this community actually focused on the refusal of and aversion to the sexual act itself, or has it just become a forum to discuss relationship ethics and consent?

2. ​If biological reproduction is considered acceptable as long as there is an "agreement," how does this community's view differ from that of the general public?

3. Why isn't the mechanical and visceral act of sex viewed as inherently unnecessary or repulsive on its own, regardless of whether there is consent?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this contradiction

As far as I know Emmanuel Kant is the first person who said that sexual attraction objectivises another person in one's eyes. And I fully agree. When you lust for a person they become a THING, a PIECE OF MEAT. When someone lusts they don't see the person, but their body. It's hunger. Primitive hunger. They don't love each other at that moment, they WANT each other's bodies. Just like food. How can they say that sex is an expression of love? It's absurd. Furthermore I'd say this: You can't lust for the person you love. Never. A loved one is a precious person for you, how can you start to see them as a piece of meat? How?! Even if they want sex themselves you must know that they are still human, they don't deserve any objectivisation like that. They don't deserve to become an ass or boobs in your eyes. And you ALSO don't deserve to become meat in their eyes. You're all people, living souls, why can't you just love each other and cuddle without any lust?! Why?! If you want sex you can masturbate alone (WITHOUT PORN WITH REAL HUMANS! THEY ARE HUMANS, NOT DOLLS!).

Oh, I'm getting too emotional now... I'm aromantic and level 2 autistic. I've always been strange in everyone's eyes. I can't understand why people keep boiling in these illusions... And if I tell them that sex is not love and it's objectivisation they react with aggression. My religion is pro sex if it is in marriage. But I see that sex is always a hunger and it doesn't depend on stamps in your passport. Sorry for being too emotional, just tired of living in a sex-centrism world which doesn't want to hear any logical analysis and philosophy. When a person has sex their prefrontal cortex shut down and the limbic system takes control.

So what parts of our brain are responsible for love? Many of them: prefrontal cortex (choice, ability to see one's personality, understanding, will), oxytocin system (trust, tenderness), anterior cingulate cortex (warm dearness), vasopressin system (loyalty, protection), hippocampus (memory about the person). But not the limbic system which is responsible for lust. And they keep calling sex love, even though simple biology says it's just an animal impulse.

I have never liked sex, or wanted to ever have it. Most of the time, sexual references and even references to relationships make me extremely uncomfortable and lead to panic attacks, especially if my friends are the ones talking about it. I'm not one for relationships either, but this is besides the point.

I wish I could just say 'yeah, I hate that this is so widespread, but it doesn't affect me personally' in regards to sex. I complain about it to others and get told that it doesn't affect me, that people can do what they want, and I completely agree with that. I get overwhelmed trying to communicate my absolute discomfort with the topic without seeming like I'm trying to control other people. I've been on the verge of cutting many of my friends off just for telling me about sexual experiences they've had, or really anything sexual regarding them and their partner. I have boundaries but I am made to feel like these are silly and nonsensical, I've had people say they're ending a friendship with me because we don't have the same opinions about sex.

Not really a vent post, more looking for advice. How do you guys deal with it? I am in high school by the way. Do you feel more neutral about it at some point? Have you found friends that don't constantly want to talk about sex all the time? Let me know. Not sure what flair to put...

We talk a lot on here about how to get the message out and convince people of how disgusting sex actually is. I think if we put together a playlist or mixtape with anti-sex themes it would help a lot of people understand.

Take a song like 'Penetration in the Centerfold' by DEVO, obviously it is very abrasive-sounding and not for everyone but I think it really encapsulates how scary and traumatic is to see unwanted sexual content.

Prosexuals love to claim that sex is the greatest thing in the world and that it serves as a "connection" between two people. The reality is quite the opposite, sex has no inherent philosophical, intellectual, or interpersonal value. Its only purpose is to serve the reproductive drive of the biological brain. I will prove this by the following thought experiment: let's imagine two people somehow in some way got rid of the biological part of their brain responsible for intoxicating the brain with "feel-good" hormones and the one which disables the prefrontal cortex(PFC) when engaging in the act(it is scientifically proven that during arousal, your biology actively shuts down the PFC, disabling your main logic and reasoning center). Without that intoxication to blind the PFC, the whole illusion of sex having value collapses. A sober, rational brain looks at the act and finds it completely ridiculous. It is a massive waste of energy for absolutely nothing in return. You burn energy, risk disease, damage relationships and so much more just to grunt and sweat like animals. A completely sober brain would classify the act as absurd and completely refuse to act on it in the first place. And this thought experiment is based in reality, after engaging in the act, the PFC comes back and a person feels a wave of emptiness or regret, commonly named "post-nut clarity". Prosexuals are hedonistic slaves to their own biology too scared to question whether their values actually have any meaning or not.

P.S: to the people who are gonna say that "well hormones control everything we do, that means everything is meaningless!!" you are missing the point completely. True meaning exists when your PFC is awake and functioning well, and not inhibited by hormones to the point where its shut down. You can find profound intellectual and philosophical meaning in the world precisely because your brain is functioning clearly. Simple actions like eating, sleep, etc. do not shut down your brain, they merely "notify" you of what you need to do in order for the body to stay alive.

A little exchange I had in a.... feminist subreddit. This person claims I'm misogynistic because I believe that equality should exist in all areas of life, and that includes the bedroom. What they're advocating for is basically half-assed equality. And ironically, I kind of find choice feminism misogynistic itself. I mean, maybe I'm stretching with this one, but I think the idea that women cannot handle their choices being criticized has to stem from the idea that women are weak, fragile, emotional, etc. I think they'll live. Their argument on play pretend is also highly amusing. That's very much like... punching someone in the arm and then claiming it's just "pretend".

You don't get to call it "play pretend" when they're actually using degrading, dehumanizing language and mimicking real-world power dynamics that have affected real people. It's not play pretend just because it gets someone's pants wet. That's absurd.

Also, they seemed to have ignored my point on blaming the parents. Yes, parents need to supervise their children, but we don’t live in a perfect world. We need to adapt based on how things are, not how they should be in theory. If adults know there are kids on this app, they should still avoid giving their vile kink subreddits innocent-sounding titles. It's interesting that this person mentions effort but then turns around and acts like it's too much for adults to make it obvious their NSFW subs are actually NSFW.

Additionallt, there are a multitude of ways kids can come across NSFW subs unintentionally. For example, when I used reddit as a kid, I would have the NSFW filter turned on so I could get access to certain communities even though they were SFW. It's also concerning to soften a kid being exposed to this kind of content if they went looking for it... the fuck? Regardless of their intentions, kids still needed to be protected from being exposed to content they're not meant to see. If their child were watching porn, are they gonna be okay with it just because they went looking? I hope they don't have children.

I am so damn done with these fake ass "feminists".

I don't know how many people here are unattractive and suffer from disfigurements or deformities, but if you are then you know that people treat you TERRIBLY for your appearance in a lot of ways. people who are unattractive have less confidence because they get treated terribly, they have a harder time making friends, getting jobs, being treated with respect and overall it's just harder to exist because if you're ugly people automatically stereotype you as a bad person.

a large part of the reason why ugliness is even a concept and people dislike ugly people is because of biological reasons. reproduction is extremely important and furthermore, the concept of being ugly is derived from having poor health, being deformed, or simply not being an ideal partner for reproducing with.

so with that said it's obvious that this entire social class of "ugly people" are oppressed and discriminated against and held back in society. why? because people don't want to have sex with them. because people's brains are telling them unconsciously, "that person is ugly. you don't want to have sex with them, so don't bother to waste your time"

sex also creates competition between people based on attractiveness and because reproduction is viewed as so important (for biological drives and societal reasons), sometimes people's entire lives revolve around sexual competition and their whole personality and who they are a person is largely based on how much people want to have sex with them and how much sex they can get from other people and who those other people are. For example looksmaxxing and people like clavicular, now I'm not blaming people for wanting to be attractive because as I said it means your life will be better especially among social circles. However somebody like clavicular seems like his entire life is based off of being fuckable and being able to brag to other people "look how hot I am, people want to have sex with me"

If sex didn't exist then we wouldn't have created this type of suffering.

another example is misogyny and gender Conflict in general. think About all the gruesome and horrible shit that happens to women in particular societies. in the best case scenarios they're just treated inferiorily and have gender roles put into them unfairly, and in the worst case scenarios( which are actually exceedingly common occurances) women have horrible things committed against them because of their gender.

there has never been a time in human history that we know of where things like sexual violence and gender based violence were not happening and furthermore it is EXTREMELY hard to find a society on earth that is not divided in some way based on gender. And why does this happen? Because sex and gender exist because of reproduction, and humans are stupid creatures that like to put categories around everything. Essentially the reason why gender based oppression and every kind of sexual violence and competition exists because of sex and if it didn't then maybe we would Be able to have an egalitarian society...? But that's never going to happen because our species remains extremely sexual and obsessed with sex.

this is a long rant sorry I hope it makes sense

As a young man I decided to never have sex as I concluded that this would bring less suffering to me since it would take away a craving and it would take me away of the perversion cycle and make me a better human. I like a lot of the arguments you guys make on this sub.

However sometimes I look for reassurance but most people just say I’m coping, I even went to Buddhist subs to try to understand the perspective of celibates but most of the posts were just them saying “no we’re normal and we like sex” to be accepted amongst other people, it’s kinda tiring, but could anyone here make me feel that I made the right choice and that I won’t regret it, thanks in advance.

I've been thinking about prostitution, and I find the idea to be so repulsive, and here's why:

It involves sex with a stranger, since the prostitute most likely doesn't know the client very well. I'm repulsed by this because: sex is very intimate because it involves skin contact and bodily fluids, which is already a bit disgusting to think about. Sex also causes vulnerability, especially for the female (most prostitutes are female) since there's a pregnancy risk, and she's the one getting penetrated. There's the risk of STDs too.

Imagine doing all of this with a stranger, and you're doing this just for the money. The idea just sounds so repulsive in my opinion, would you agree?

Then there's the fact that most prostitutes are doing this for the money, so consent starts to get murky. The prostitutes probably won't have sex with their clients if it wern't for the money.

Most prostitutes are women, so I think prostitution is bad for women. While at the same time, prostitution benefits men's sexual urges, since they can see prostitutes and follow their animalistic urges, instead of controlling them like a decent human being.

I'm a pretty moderate antisexual. I would say that, in my view, sex has no moral value whatsoever outside of an individualised context. Only considering all the factors can it be said if it is "good", "bad" or somewhere in between.

I mostly hang around on the AVEN forum, not asexual Reddit, because the AVEN forum is much more critical of "attraction absolutism" (the view that "lack of sexual attraction" is the only valid definition of asexuality and that asexuality has nothing to do with not wanting to have sex... so, a very unsafe view for sex-averse people like myself). But still, even with my moderate views - disillusionment with sex positivity (thinking of it as very premature in a world of inequalities), abolitionist views on prostitution and porn, disgust with kink - I'm quite on the antisexual edge of the AVEN community. I personally think that there is an increased pressure on asexuals to "at least" be sex-positive in order not to appear as spoiling other people's fun, but that's a different issue. At least I am personally comofortable with being in the minority and so I don't subscribe to sex positivity (and despite this continue reproaching those who use "sex-positive" in the sense of "open to having sex", precisely because it's unsafe for sex-positive asexuals who aren't sex-favourable).

Anyway... that was a bit of an instoduction. Given my lack of pro-kink views, I was thinking about how "vanilla" has been made into almost an insult. And that's how I ran into some posts which I could largely applaud... about how a real decent man should never want to cause pain to their partner, and how "kink shaming is not nice!" has become just an excuse for misogyny and abuse. About how unsafe it is for those who are figuring themselves out when kink is being normalised to the extent that people are shamed for not wanting to engage in it. About porn promoting extreme sexual practices. Some women mentioned how hard it is to find men who don't ask women to enact BDSM scenes and instead want to have loving sex, aren't selfish in bed, don't take porn as their guide...

So, my question is: is it true? I simply don't know it, because I have never had sex, never been in a relationship. I'm asexual and sex-averse, I'm also autistic and genuinely don't know how to form romantic relationships... I used to regret this part to an extent, now I don't because I understand that I anyway could never feel comfortable in a relationships, even a fully nonsexual one (sex-including relationships are completely out of the question for me), with the amount of solitude I need. So, simply speaking, I have no experience. But I care about women who are being coerced to ignore their boundaries under the guise of "inclusivity".

I'm feeling really hopeless, being in the "I'm going to die alone" kind of state of mind, even when I know that you can live a satisfying life and rely purely on friendships. With that being said, I still crave love, obviously – without sex, but is there a chance to find someone as a sex-negative and sex-repulsed person? Do you have a significant other? If so, how does it look like?

I absolutely hate the feeling that in some sense I want to “take” something from women as a biological drive. Lust absolutely disgusts me, the problem is that I have it, it almost seems like lust is a demon that lives inside every man, even semen retention or waiting until marriage don’t do much, you are still waiting to use someone’s body for your pleasure which is by nature carnal and animalistic no matter how you like to frame it. I kinda feel bad for even desiring such carnal act that by default creates power dynamics. A sexless society with artificial insemination would be the first step to a utopian society. The problem is that I ask myself why nature or God did it that way, why is the act of continuing humanity tied to desire of control and hate and violence and basically every negative thing you could think of.

Even if guys do semen retention, to reproduce naturally they would still have to engage in the act of penetrative sex with women, perhaps the real fall from grace in the Bible is the separation of genders, no matter how you say it, sex is penetrating someone else, even if the person is brainwashed by society to let you sleep with them in exchange of feeling the fake love and attention that society sold to the masses, if that’s not proof that the world is a prison planet than I don’t know what is

I just want to get this off my chest. The example that pushed me to finally post is niche and kind of dumb, but the point stands, it's one example out of way too many.

I was watching YouTube animations of the two robots from Portal 2 going on random adventures. Most of these are wholesome, basically just about the robots being friends. Then out of nowhere one switches to a joke about the robots trying to have sex. These robots aren't human looking, seem more like siblings or friends in how that act in the game, and don't have a gender.

Why add that? It's unrelated to everything else in the video. It's 1984 style subtle propaganda and it's everywhere not only in this random youtube video, you can't escape it. This is a video about robots, how am I supposed to see that coming?

Why does so much random media do this? Is it really that hard to not sexualize completely unrelated, innocent things? I notice it constantly.

PS: resisting carnal desires is what seperates humans from animals, we are the only ones who willingly chose to disobey instinct and look at us compared to animals

This is not gonna make a lot of sense. I’m just upset as fuck and i don’t know who to tell it to. As a sex-repulsed ace, i do like the concept of romance and love between a pair that is pure and long-lasting like fucking swans but that can never happen and will always be rare because we as as society are so obsessed with sex that we can’t ever envision romance as exciting on its own or even as something that exists on its own without immediately being linked to sex and sexuality.
I just wish romance was real and i wish we had a way of exploring romance without there always being sex. Everyone can imagine a loveless/non-romantic relationship where there is sex (one-night stands/friends with benefits) but do we even have a concept of a purely romantic relationship without sex that isn’t just limited to niche communities? I think that proves where proof is not needed that people just view romance as something that happens pre-sex or just a weird mental foreplay for the leading main event that is sex. Not something that holds up or has any meaning on its own. And i hate it. I hate it because sex is already painted as something full of power dynamics and if romance is just introduction to it, i feel like it just robs romance of all its meaning and ruined it. I believe if sex didn’t exist, romance would have actually been something fun and enjoyable and not viewed as a sort of chore or transaction you do to get access to sex.

I'm down to make one if there isn't one already but if I did would I be able to send the link to it in here?

Continuing the theme of my previous post, I also wanted to talk about the manipulations in articles about the alleged "benefits of sex." However, looking through the archives of the old "Antisexual Stronghold" website, this topic was already addressed in the FAQ. Therefore, I decided to simply translate their detailed answer to this question into English. So, here it is:

...

13. Q: But what about the articles that talk about the health benefits of sex?

A: All such articles that we have come across are built on several flawed techniques:

1. Unreliable sources. "Foreign experts have established," "Greek scientists have proven," etc. Neither the names of these scientists, the names of the scientific institutions, nor links to publications in scientific journals are specified (as a rule, no references are provided at all; judging by the texts of these articles, most of them are simply retellings of one another).

2. Incorrect research methodology. The research methodology is either not mentioned at all, or non-representative groups are chosen for analysis. For instance, groups that are too small, have obvious pathologies (this, in particular, is what the foundations of Freud's psychoanalytic theories are built upon, see below), or (the most frequent case) sexophiles are compared with sexophiles, rather than with people who practice celibacy or live an asexual lifestyle (not to mention staunch antisexuals).

3. Presenting effects as causes. This relates to the previous point: several groups of sexophiles are compared, and it is claimed that those who have sex less frequently have more health problems. From this, the conclusion is drawn that the latter is a consequence of the former. However, in reality, it is the other way around—those with poorer health have sex less often (but nevertheless, do it several times a week, so their lifestyle can in no way be called abstinence, let alone voluntary abstinence). Alternatively, they talk about various mental problems (frustrations, depressions, etc.) that arise during forced abstinence, and their disappearance when engaging in sex. Naturally, a drug addict high on drugs feels much better than an addict in withdrawal. But this testifies not to the benefits, but to the harm of drug addiction as such.

4. Presenting the narcotic properties of sex as healing ones. This relates to the previous point. This also includes claims that sex can relieve physical pain. Indeed, it can—just like morphine (the term "endorphins" itself means "endogenous morphines"), but pain relief is symptom management, not curing a disease. "And aspirin helps against cancer" (c) Strugatsky brothers. Besides, there are enough cases where sex does not relieve, but rather causes severe postcoital pain (headaches, in particular).

5. Incorrect comparison with physical exercise. In physical exercise, if practiced in a way that brings benefit rather than harm, the physical loads are metered, controlled, and smoothly increasing. During sex, they are erratic and almost unmanageable (the stronger the arousal—i.e., the "better" the sex is in the view of sexophiles—the more dangerous the picture is, primarily for the cardiovascular system, the load on which increases exponentially).

6. Presenting harm reduction as providing a benefit. This includes claims like "sex boosts immunity," etc. In reality, sex, being a destructive impact on the body, activates defense mechanisms designed to reduce the harm from this impact. It's just that the final balance, even in the best-case scenario, will be zero, and more often negative (i.e., the harm will decrease, but not to zero). Arguments in this category are similar to the thesis: "A stab with a dirty shiv is very beneficial. Blood flow to the affected area increases, and the immune system is activated. Due to blood loss, blood pressure drops, and the hematopoietic function is activated. The rise in temperature in the affected area simultaneously contributes to the death of microbes..."

7. Focusing on factors that are not specific to sex. "A good mood is good for health, sex improves mood -> sex is good for health." Obviously, such "logic" is applicable to any drug, and there are plenty of much more reliable and safer ways to improve one's mood. Particularly remarkable in this series is the thesis that "not just any sex is beneficial, but only with a loved one." That is, it is openly admitted that there is no benefit in sex itself, and it is all about the emotional state. This thesis is completely analogous to the statement, "not just any madness is beneficial, but only megalomania (because it feels nice to feel great)." Alternatively, when talking about the benefits of sex, they actually mean the benefits of a massage.

8. Substituting health benefits with benefits for sex itself. Indeed, for a man to maintain potency in old age, he must have sex regularly—but this is not needed for anything other than the sex itself. This is analogous to the thesis: "scabies is very beneficial—after all, the more you scratch, the more you want to."

...

P.s. It is also recommended to read my previous post, as they are related.

Looking into methods to suppress/eliminate my libido, currently, the only option I've identified that does not come with huge health risks/mutilation while being somewhat effective is starting on SSRIs or TCAs.

Wondering if anyone on this sub had found other methods that work well for them.

"submissive" men who are into femdom will always make me feel uncomfortable because they're still reinforcing patriarchal sex in a way. especially on how they dehumanize women as "mommies" and praise their feet LOL thats still objectifying. i don't get how some "dominatrix" women think that their job is empowering and "breaking" patriarchal norms when literally most men who are into femdom only like it because they are fond of the idea into submitting to someone "inferior" (aka a woman). in a patriarchal society where women's oppression is fundamentally sex based, all forms of heterosexual sex is oppressive (EVEN if the woman is "dom" or has a strap on because in the end, the male gets what he wants anyways, lol) because it is shaped by historical inequalities between men and women.

People have always been told that oral sex is safe. It is not safe. You know how many nasty shit you can get? Including throat cancer. Yes. Even if oral sex were safe, you couldn't pay me all the money in the world to suck a dick. YUCK! Let alone swallowing. Yet, so many women have been fed this lie that swallowing semen has amazing health benefits. This is a lie made up by men and fed to women.

Does anyone know of any good chat sites where you can find and meet like minded people who are antisex? I know the people into this are a minority but figured I'd ask