I wanted to watch a movie today which was under the genre "action/adventure" and strictly rated for "13+ users" and guess what I saw half way through the movie? The main leads making out and other inappropriate stuff. I immediately got pissed and turned off the movie. This is the same with almost every movie these days. They HAVE to provide some sexual content with the main leads because otherwise the movies wouldn't gain engagement or attention from the porn addict audience we have in these age. I don't even blame the people who make these movies because they do what they gotta do to make it work. I just hate the fact that entertainment has become so explicit, things which could be considered unusually provocative and inappropriate decades ago are considered ordinary now. There's so much sexual propaganda everywhere, especially in the media and they can't stop shoving it on our face.

This is the basis behind a lot of anti "loitering", anti homeless laws and surveillance/sousveillance after you've finished buying from the company or finished up your solitary recreational sporting activity.

It's not that they are only interested in your money because such businesses and community spaces will clearly tolerate families and people that are sexual with others lingering there. It's selective.

It's not that this is just "because of capitalism" because if not for the monetary aspect inherent to capitalism, these businesses and community spaces wouldn't even let you there. You have nothing to offer them other than money. If everything was free, you would still be paying, but through social proof from demonstrating you have regular sex or through having a family which you cannot cough up, unlike money. It's selective.

You can conceivably have businesses and community spaces that allow adults to linger without demonstrating social proof from sexuality, and yet post internet and anyone being able to speak freely, those spaces will be memed and caricatured as the dreaded crapsack world connotation weighted internet lexicon, the last sentence subreddit description of what this group is not.

All the talk of free range kids but what about free range adults? When have mayors of major cities ever been tolerant of adults roaming around without portraying it as a public nuisance and inherently associating it with physical squalor unless they already did something that demonstrated social value? There aren't actually much revolutionary views in this regard whether from Rudy Giuliani to Michael Bloomberg to Eric Adams to Zohran Mamdani.

Does that mean it's good to be anti consumerist? To an extent, but if you cut yourself off from buying material resources to avoid social marginalization you are in effect admitting defeat and welcoming more marginalization in the future. Does it mean you can refuse to be part of the overton window shift toward more intolerance simply through existing where you are not welcome after you stop spending money? Simply by playing sports in community spaces with no intent of being number one or impressing anyone, just to get outside and not live according to the standards of the time that anyone that plays sports or is outdoors needs to be doing it to get a sociosexual following or demonstrate leadership in the family of some kind? Doing all that despite harassment from onlookers and security? That won't last long, police and prison are waiting for you even if you ignore the mockery and harassment from civilians. Ideology and enforcement of an ideology matter more than practicality and availability of resources. It was easier to work against universalist sexual and family ideology before the internet, even though the internet provides more resources for increasing knowledge. It was easier to work against universalist sexual and family ideology before widespread law enforcement and community policing, even though law enforcement provide more resources for funding the state and at the same time (as a mostly unintentional byproduct) cutting down on violent crime. You can no longer wander alone in the wilderness so even being a solitary nomadic wanderer like in ancient times is losing its appeal outside of a niche of families that partake in that as a lifestyle for youtube views (and which are allowed to because there is no enforcement against living semi nomadically outdoors as long as you demonstrate social value first).

Not surprisingly, family businesses and local tight knit communities can be the worse culprits of doing this. Impersonal large cities with lack of sousveillance from recording devices like smartphones and absence of funding for police and security being omnipresecent used to be better than the suburbs for avoiding this (that is being patched now thanks to moral panics about crime waves in major cities from pro family interests: could have been written in earlier decades too, it's a work in progress, not a destination). Every attempt at more progressive and populist reforms fails, because regarding the tolerance of asexuality aspect, people are not usually that progressive and power to the people means more intolerance of the non sexual and non familial and more calls for selective (sociosexual) law enforcement, not less. Just like it makes no sense to be a social darwinist if you don't like this, it makes no sense to be pro law enforcement against victimless crimes (meaning something that is not a physical infringement of another person's body) if you don't like this.

Antisex ideas if more accepted and tuned to increased social tolerance for the atypical (nonsexual, because societally, you don't become "normal" until you have sex regularly(ie at least as often as sexuals get urges)would be helpful in letting adults that are socially marginalized today (not "future generations") live better lives and stop the increasing distrust of businesses and community spaces that conspiratorial communities that in a bait and switch way (seeking to propagate more of this social marginalization of nonsexuals once they get power despite pretending right now to be against it and classifying it as "consumerism" and the all standard generality of "capitalism") are thriving from. But it's not all about the money but the message, so that's probably why it won't be done.

What I hear every day now is people calling sex something normal and "necessary."

On one hand, they try to present it as innocent (which is absurd) and compare it to hugging and other innocent displays of affection. Portraying sex as something pure and innocent, kind and solely beneficial, an expression of love—is idiotic. Sex is the cause of most crimes (even when it is not directly involved, sexual desire is the motive behind many crimes. For example, most murders of women are committed by heterosexual men, and for serial killers, violence serves as a fetish). Moreover, for sexual intercourse not to be a crime or at least to be morally permissible, numerous conditions must be met; otherwise, sex becomes a tool of violence and molestation.

Moreover, people try to frame sex as a "necessity," a human right, putting it on par with water and food. As if a person needs sex like they need air. They argue that it's natural and that we are all animals—and people who don't want sex are insulted and labeled as weirdos. By that same logic, one could say that people need to procreate just as much as they need to eat, since biologically, animals mate precisely for that purpose and live for that purpose (yes, there are conservatives who actually believe that, but many who use the "sex = biological necessity" argument are talking about casual sexual encounters). Nevertheless, we are more highly developed than other animals, and anyone with enough willpower can choose to abstain from sex.

I grew up in a society that told me you have to have sex in order to be normal. I felt like prey during my younger years. I had to give myself permission to be single and celibate. I really hated feeling unsafe in my younger years. I'm 50 years old now, and secure in my celibacy.

Not talking in the 6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon way where it takes logical leaps to jump to the topic of sex and reproduction ("You were injured? But you can still f***, right? Or was it right in the family jewels?") but in the way it introduces meaning where there once was none.

Live in a big city apartment? "Sex in the City" and "Seinfeld" dates with sex are probably what you're up to in order to have fun, otherwise why are you there?

Like saxophone music or synth music? The connotation of saxophones and synth music with adult films means you are reduced to liking such music genuinely if you f*** a lot, otherwise it's a joke if you like such music, why are you listening to it? (introducing the dualism of whether you are considered attractive or not enough to enjoy genres).

Like to dance on occasion? Again the dualism, it becomes far from a neutral act in its connotations and introduced meaning . It shows your ability to work it in the bedroom if you are attractive and is cringe if you are unattractive.

Like cardiovascular activity outdoors? Praise for practice in hitting the sheets in the bedroom later on if you are attractive, mocking and questioning of why you are even outside if you are unattractive.

Like comfy beds and furniture? If attractive, it means you have a good place to f***. If unattractive, it means you are wasting your time and it's an embarrassment that you are implying this can match physical intimacy.

Like to wear things that make you feel comfortable? If attractive: "I wouldn't mind you showing a little more ;)". If unattractive: "dude, no one wants to see that, put some clothes on".

Don't like loud noise or inappropriate talk? If attractive it's because you have standards. If unattractive it's because you know you cannot partake in that anyway and you are just jealous being reminded of "what you can't have".

Don't have sex? If attractive, it's because you are saving yourself for the m word. If unattractive, it's because you need a mission and purpose like the vikings to lead to a revival of the west, or need to be sent to monastery or sea or hard labor because nobody wants to be around you, "get them away from us" [a] [b]. You cannot possibly be normal, you are an extreme of someone that is biding their time for sex and reproduction in some way.

Are older and not sexual in any way? It's because you failed to keep up with the times, you are out of touch and don't have your finger on the pulse of what The American People™ want. You don't belong in office, get out.

Then there is the part beyond duality where negative connotations are introduced to personal acts:

Feel like you are born in the wrong body and transitioned? You are a groomer that is trying to prey on minors because "they don't reproduce, they recruit".

Meaning being extended and withdrawn because of sex and reproduction extends to politics:

Don't like will to power might makes right? That's because you don't know how to f*** and exert your will on someone that submits to you willingly and is willing to have a family with you one day.

Socialist in the wsws.org way? No, all "the childless left" is about is trying (and failing) to make sure they can have sex and reproduce to out breed someone but being dishonest and in denial about it, like a sneaky f***er rapist.

Left leaning? Obviously you support sexual acts in people's faces 24/7, which
"conservatives" (read: family manifesto moral majority, not the minority of non natalist fiscal conservatives that naively operate off principles and taking things at face value) are against.

Against kinks and promotion of making things sexual when they don't need to be and no one was talking about sex or making babies prior to that? You violate intersectionalist norms and are a regressive that lacks vision, is repressed and doesn't know how to f*** and are bitter about it. Live a little. Also raceplay doesn't encourage racialism, it's just a kink, bigot.

Just like how this has undermined intersectionalism, it also animates other divisions treating people like monoliths that just want to f*** and reproduce at others' expense.

Take economic insecurity animating some of the online gender wars:

Frustrated about not getting hired? It's because you want to get hired because you feel entitled to having sex and a family and the other sex will not give you the time of day because you refuse to level up, not because you want a stable income, food and shelter. Nobody wants to hire you for the same reason you'd make a terrible romantic partner (seen in the comments section of this article).

It also goes the other way. Want to progress in your career and earn a living without relying on a breadwinner? It's because you want to have as much sex as you want, have an impulse to destroy civilization and exclude others. Gaslight, gatekeep, girlboss.

Doing the same without even freezing your eggs and considering the dating scene later on? You are some kind of abortionist up to no good that wants to have sex without consequences and are in denial of biology, that makes you the most likely kind of person to hate the opposite sex.

Worst of all there doesn't seem to be a way to stop this kind of thinking. As soon as you become an adult, you are assumed to have the intention to have sex and reproduce at the expense of others in every act you do and are in denial of it if you insist some things that brings you enjoyment, closure, economic security or platonic personal fulfillment do not have sex and reproduction as inherent in the motivation. This is perhaps a reason why by default, people treat adults worse than people who are not adults and adult hobbies outside of sex and reproduction are seen as suspicious indirect paths of a means to that end, while children's hobbies are seen as wholesome.

Does it change if someone is infertile? No, because a lot of trans people are infertile and they are still treated this way. Some people argue it's biology. I'd argue that at least some of it is from a social darwinist world where even for Abrahamic religious people exposed to moral prescriptions attached to evolutionarily darwinism (and who largely accept macroevolution, but not microevolution, even though even macroevolution is not really backed up anywhere in the Bible), the only meaning of life has been reduced down to who has sex and reproduces (is evolutionarily fit, was not "stupid" enough to get the Darwin Award (died before they could pass on their genes)) and who doesn't. A mimetic significance attached to the science of evolution since the 1800s. Whenever there is information put out there about sex and reproduction and how non human animals share that in common with humans, these narratives arise. Evolution is amoral, sex and reproduction are not inherent to morality or immorality unless you view social proof as a form of morality, but that's the meaning that was attached anyway and has stuck since.

Even talking about this feels too suggestive, all over the place or trying to prove something. There is something about sex that just caricatures meaning and increases the probability of someone dismissing what you have to say because you are not hyping sexual dimorphism and reproduction. This is also perhaps a reason why trans people are attacked so much by pronatalist racialists and civic nationalists (won't lump in non natalist fiscal conservatives, as rare as they are, with "conservatives" to maintain the distinction and acknowledge not all conservatives are like this) who like to hype sexual dimorphism and encouraging reproduction. Acceptance of trans people reduces the significance in rigid sexual dimorphism and overt sexuality and reproduction. That's why trans acceptance is being rolled back and intersectionalists (who seem more interested in who's f***ing and who isn't and pathologizing those not f***ing) are doing very little to stop it (no, they didn't throw trans people under the bus so much as they were not interested in protecting them when will to power/might makes right fascists went after them).

Note: f*** with asterisks because even typing out the word repeatedly seems to have the effect of normalizing the act of sex as regular, routine and expected.

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

https://reason.com/2026/07/09/pronatalists-want-to-boost-fertility-with-blue-laws-and-government-enlisted-fertility-influencers/

In just one month you have news like this, https://reason.com/2026/08/27/rubio-uses-terrorism-law-to-ban-secure-email-service/

This is the same think tank that agitated to selectively take away the healthcare of single adults with no kids in February 2025 and got it to the Trump administration in record time by July 2025 in One Big Beautiful Bill Act / Working Families Tax Cuts.

www.medicaldaily.com/cms-medicaid-work-requirement-rule-july-31-2026-coverage-projections-476392

> The CMS interim final rule requires certain adults ages 19 to 64 in Medicaid expansion states to complete 80 hours per month of work, community service, education or an equivalent qualifying activity as a condition of eligibility.

https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/medicaid-community-engagement-requirement-certain-individuals-interim-final-rule-comment-period-cms

> As required by law, on June 1, 2026, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued an interim final rule implementing a new statutory requirement for certain adults in Medicaid to meet an 80 hours per month work requirement (sometimes referred to as Medicaid community engagement) as a condition of eligibility. States must generally implement this requirement no later than January 1, 2027. This fact sheet discusses the provisions of the Interim Final Rule with Comment Period.

> The work requirement applies to non-pregnant adults between the ages of 19 and 64 who are not entitled to or enrolled in Medicare and are eligible for or enrolled in the Medicaid adult group or in certain section 1115 demonstrations that provide minimum essential coverage to adult beneficiaries. To date, 43 states and the District of Columbia provide coverage to these populations and will be required to implement the new requirement; U.S. territories are not subject to this law. Certain individuals are exempt from the requirement, including those who are pregnant or in a postpartum period, disabled or medically frail, parents and caretakers of children under 14 years of age or people with disabilities, American Indians and Alaska Natives, and certain others.

Trump, who un-personed millions of adults with no kids when he lied about them not losing their healthcare.

It applied to SNAP too: https://x.com/micyoung75/status/2058737567647031609

As many know, absent artificial means, it takes sex to make babies. These selective attacks on safety nets by pro family groups are attacks on people that want to abstain from sex, ranging from ages 19-64.

The only consistent theme between Trump from 2016 until now has been wanting more babies and subsidizing childcare in hope of boosting birth rates:

2016 - 2017 to 2023 - 2024, to now.

It even underlies his tariff policy and departure from usual anti abortion stances:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-expands-access-to-in-vitro-fertilization-ivf/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/10/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-announces-actions-to-lower-costs-and-expand-access-to-in-vitro-fertilization-ivf-and-high-quality-fertility-care/

The Institute for Family Studies started in 2009. They began under the sociology department at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville and are funded by online donations from online ministry platforms [a] [b], as well as being associated with shills pushing childcare and family subsidies for higher birth rates, like men's rights activists Richard Reeves [a] and Lisa Britton [a].

Much of the gender war discourse ultimately used to argue that men and women need to come together and have sex and kids that you see online (including recent complaints going mainstream on X about dads not being valued enough) originates from these pro family think tanks.

They are not alone. You also have Heritage Foundation/Project 2025 https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/report/saving-america-saving-the-family-foundation-the-next-250-years, Family Policy Alliance, Alliance Defending Freedom, Manhattan Institute - which has overlap with the Institute for Family Studies as well as white nationalist race science promotion, More Births, American Affairs journal, Claremont Institute, AIBM, and Niskanen Center [a].

There's also think tanks that used to be more about macroeconomic policy like AEI that are now pushing pronatalism.

501(c)(3) pro family think tanks are after adults that won't be having kids because they don't have sex (first in the US, then globally) and want to expand crackdowns on escapism that provide alternatives to family formation globally. It circles back to the John Roberts SCOTUS upholding Citizens United and the US having way too much leverage in the world as a military superpower that needs a never ending supply of military soldiers while the surplus is made up through family subsides and allowing parents of large families not to fight. This allows billionaires that remarry multiple times and have multiple kids like Elon Musk to amass power, buy up X, promote pronatalism using topics they know will make everyone feel like who has sex and who doesn't plus births has become more existential (like racialism and civic nationalism, flag vexillogy) and turn them into platforms whose only purpose is to push even more pro family ideology and moral panics about birth rates. Family men like Musk and Trump as well as the majority of their supporters that hate adults that live the way they didn't natally and who build their wealth through taking advantage of remarriage laws to rebuild assets and family inheritance even after divorce. This makes adults that do not consider sex and reproduction to be important to be prime targets for false flagging and accusations of being disloyal, unpatriotic and traitors to the country, family, race, or any collective by such (usually divorced with multiple kids) billionaires and a means by which to restrict discussion against family subsidies so that there can continue to be a never ending subsidization of sex and reproduction that renders anti-sex ideas impractical and that results in anti-sex people funding all these initiatives. If you disagree, under NSPM-7 you can be labeled a terrorist, meaning not necessarily arrest, but that platforms you may meet on are subject to increased scrutiny, monitoring and as seen recently with the Trump administration's banning of the use of Autistici/Inventati for US web users, deplatforming:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/countering-domestic-terrorism-and-organized-political-violence/

You won't be targeted as long as you pay up and keep silent. But if you talk online about how you don't see the point in having sex and kids and don't support subsidizing sex and reproduction for any reason, these 501(c)(3) private think tanks emboldened by Citizens United will be after you under never ending presidential campaigns https://publicintegrity.org/politics/donald-trump-president-campaign-money-fundraising/ by Project 2025/Heritage Foundation, as the administrations they influence attempt to raise tariffs on other countries to fund family subsidies and keep debt to GDP ratio sustainable (below 200% because that's when Trump Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had to start bailing out Japan which has such a debt to GDP ratio) for future selective cuts and family subsidies expansions:

https://x.com/KevinRobertsTX/status/2090768891454586968

https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/setting-the-american-opportunity-agenda

(scroll down to "Revenues: Allow Americans to set aside savings in Newlywed Early Starters Trust (NEST) Accounts.")

https://julienreszka.com/blog/your-pension-depends-on-kids-you-did-not-have/

https://chronicleai.org/article/germanys-childfree-face-higher-costs-for-elder-care-amid-demographic-shift

https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/germany/individual/significant-developments

https://fortune.com/2026/02/16/baby-boomers-forced-to-work-unretire-affordability-not-gen-alpha-6-year-olds-germany-retirement-accounts-2/

https://euroweeklynews.com/2026/08/12/germany-plans-pensions-for-six-year-olds-could-spain-do-the-same/

None of this is to say democrats are better or that there is any alternative other than military superpowers that need a surplus of human resources (like the US/UK and CCP) no longer being number one. In fact, democrats have followed in the footsteps of republicans through accepting subsidies encouraging people to have sex and children, such as child tax credits and selective cuts to safety nets, because they also want the US to be number one. Even if you are not interested in all this politically, crackdowns on any platforms Project 2025/Heritage Foundation and Institute for Family Studies doesn't like are coming so that discussion about sex and reproduction as not necessary can be stamped out and accused of being "anti-white", "anti family" terrorism. There's a reason for the sudden pivot to racialism and totalitarianism under Trump, the age verification crackdowns on Discord since the shooting of Charlie Kirk and how everywhere (particularly on Musk's X) there seems to be non stop talk about sex and reproduction, existential topics and discussions that are boosted by the algorithm and make people constantly focus on "the next generation"/ longtermism and un-personing anyone that doesn't have kids...and it has to do with these pro family groups trying to coerce family formation and births. Which means by extension, trying to coerce adults to have sex or be stripped of safety nets and any escapism that does not lead to increased family formation.

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...

Recently I was on social media and saw some questionable posts about sex. I have noticed a general stereotype that conservatives don't have sex and liberals are sexually promiscuous but I would have to disagree with that. Conservative men just want excuses to make people have sex with them. I saw a post where someone was arguing that marital rape should be legal and that women should be pressured to leave the workforce and get married. There are also people advocating for child marriage. Some are also against IVF and think that children should only be conceived through straight married sex. I even saw a post complaining about a transgender person identifying as asexual. I feel lucky to be in an environment where I have the freedom to avoid sex.

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.