Why must we define ourselves by what we are not?

So, any basic google search of asexuality (at least ones that ignore references to amoebas and bacteria) will most likely lead you to the most common definition of the term. Usually quoted from AVEN (the Asexual Visibility & Education Network), right on the main banner:

An asexual person is a person who
does not experience sexual attraction.

Or, a slightly longer definition, from Wikipedia:

Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction to others, or low or absent interest in or desire for sexual activity.

Notice what’s there? “Does not”. “Lack”. “Low”. “Absent”.

But why do we have to define ourselves by what we are not? We then spend so much time correcting others on what we are, either well meaning (so, you just…never?) or not so well meaning (hey, robot, you gonna just split yourself in half?). Talk to anyone on the ace spectrum, and they’ll tell you of the intimate questions that are suddenly fair game once they tell anyone about their sexuality.

Nearly all other colors of the LGBTIA+ rainbow get to define themselves by what they are. We define ourselves by our lack.

So, what would happen if we could switch the mindscape of our own understanding? What if, instead of defining by lack, we could define by abundance.

An asexual is a person unafraid to explore the broad spectrum of love and human relationships, beyond the hetero- and amatonormative society in which they live.

Or something like that. Thinking about our own sexuality as an abundance. What would that mean for our mental health? For our ability to deal with the sheer amount of sex that permeates our society? For our ability not to bite the head off the next person who asks about our sex life?

Sometimes it can be as simple as that.

How do you define yourself positively in these times?

Thanks for reading! As always, if you have any questions that you would like me to explore, feel free to reply, send me a DM, start a chat, send a smoke signal, carrier pigeon, however you want to contact me!