Ace elitists say I'm not allowed this </3

﻿Asexuality and evolution is a topic that must be discussed. After all, if the only reason we exist is to procreate, how can we explain asexuality? The only way must logically be through connections to religion.



Except that argument is so full of logical fallacies that I think I might cry. Say hello to asexuality portrayed, not as a legitimate and broad orientation, but as an excuse for attempting to legitimise religion. Now, please don’t get me wrong. I like religion. I fully respect people’s right to believe in what they believe, as long as they respect my right to exist. It also applies to people not using my orientation as a premise for your beliefs.



I am asexual. I am also an atheist. That’s my choice.





Not only did I find a thread based around this argument, I also read through it and found a whole load of asexual elitism. Believe me, the "asexuals are the evidence for god" line was the least irritating part. There were things like “It can also have to do something with the fact that the asexual brain does not have to waste itself on disturbing sexual desires and urges to act upon them. The whole energy can go into study, work, making lots of money and becoming successful, carefully choosing who will be allowed to enter our lives based not on their hot and sexy bodies or abilities to leave as much offspring as possible but on their moral and other more useful traits in today's society”





Now, correct me if I’m wrong, non-aces, but I don’t know many friends of mine that are only friends with me because of my “hot and sexy body”. And yes, a lot of aces are pretty successful. So are a lot of non-aces.





I also don’t choose my friends based on their moral compass. I have friends that believe in no sex before marriage, I have friends that are in a mutual polyamorous relationship, I have friends who are repulsed by sex, I have friends that love it, and I have a whole range of the orientation spectrum encompassed in my friend group. I didn’t choose them because of their moral views. I didn’t choose them based on their “more useful traits”. I am friends with them. End of, really.

﻿

Swimming is a useful skill, right?

The idea that this sort of asexual elitism is so rampant (similar posts appear throughout the thread) is irritating to me. Regardless of whether you’re ace or non-ace, you should be irritated as well. Non-aces don’t pick and choose their friends based on their looks. Aces don’t choose their friends because, I don’t know, that friend knows CPR (that’s a useful trait, right? Right?)





I don’t even know if choosing your friends is an option (unless you are particularly heartless…). The only way I can see that happening is if you look at who you didn’t choose as a friend. Have you ever looked at someone and decided “I don’t want to be that person’s friend. I don’t like their haircut” or “I don’t like you because you don’t know how to write a rant about people being shallow when choosing their friends” (see what I did? I’m sorry; I had to throw that in there).





Either side of this argument is equally as shallow as the other. So please, don’t be shallow. Don’t choose your friends based on their “useful traits”. Because, ultimately, you’re friends with someone that has some of the same interests as you, not with someone that would be more likely to help in an emergency (although those are not mutually exclusive, of course). And don't let your dog make friends with a crocodile. Crocodiles don't have the same political views. Be wary...﻿﻿