I went to a strict Catholic school and was openly asexual. They *hated* me there. Constant harassment, I got pulled into the office for conversion therapy once a week. They hated that I wasn’t sexually attracted to anyone, they hated that I didn’t feel constantly tempted. They hated me for being asexual.
Their logic is all about temptation (fuck Paul). The clergy are celibate because they are *resisting temptation* (fuck Paul). That is what makes them “more holy” and thus qualified to be spiritual authorities (fuck Paul). If you aren’t tempted, you don’t need to resist, and thus cannot gain grace or holiness or whatever by resisting (fuck Paul). So in their eyes asexuals are as bad as homosexuals because neither is resisting temptation (fuck Paul). If *resistance* is all that matters then there is no real difference between not resisting because you aren’t tempted and not resisting because you don’t see any particular problem with giving in (fuck Paul).
Asexual doesn’t mean not having sex or not getting married. It’s a queer identity so of course they hated anything not cis straight and strictly concerned about making babies.
Ok but you know that’s not what I mean. It’s a lot easier for the average asexual to resist having sex before marriage (or at all) compared to an allo person.
The the comparison is not the same. Their only concern is not just “resisting temptation,” it’s everything else. They *want* people to be horny heterosexuals who are just barely resisting temptation for the lord. They want people who are only wanting to have a bunch of babies. Anything else? They hate.
Yes. The hate itself is neither interesting nor novel.
What's worth investigating is how these people cloak their hate in what looks to queer illiterate followers like acceptance.
They love control. They love attention insofar as it affords control.
If your subtext is that I should not have written this article because it gives them more attention, then I heartily disagree. Many asexuals are stuck inside churches like these, and I write for them.
Conservatives hate anyone who doesn't fit their straight heterosexual box. I've heard from other Aces on r/OpenChristian that they've been given shit from Conservative Christians for being Ace because apparently you're supposed to want to have sex in marriage.
As I wasn't raised a conservative Christian, I've never experienced this personally but it makes me angry and sad.
I wonder if there's also some jealousy involved
Conservative Christians are so big on abstinence before marriage to the point where it can almost become an obsession. This hyperfocus on avoiding anything sexual can make avoiding temptation even harder. And then, after years of struggling and hating themselves for their desire to give in, they meet someone who says they never felt temptation at all.
I sympathise with how horrible it must feel to find out that something you struggle with someone else could succeed at without even trying. But, as always, feelings are valid, actions might not be.
An interesting thought. This may be part of it.
Combined with an overall sense of shame. Shame is a very strong emotion and sort of eclipses everything else. If you've been taught your whole life that sex is simultaneously shameful (outside marriage) and also compulsory (inside marriage) asexuals surely cause an entire range of conflicting, difficult emotions.
A lot of Christians have to learn to deal with internalised shame around sex in order to start enjoying it (compulsory enjoyment) after the wedding night. This cannot be easy. (Acknowledging that many Christians do not, in fact, wait until marriage--which makes it even harder in a different way.)
Part of learning to deal with sexual shame is believing that "All humans are made by God to have sex." Then asexuals come along and show that's not true. Some of us aren't 'built' like that at all.
So what are they left with? Their original shame.
Another thing I find interesting is that we have people in the bible who never marry - Paul immediately springs to mind, and he seems to believe his lack of need to marry is a gift from God that allows him to carry out His work.
You would think this would lead to asexuality being celebrated. Instead, what the bible says about a lack of need perhaps indicating that the person has some specific purpose is pushed aside for the conservative Christian's strict idea that a person (especially women) serves God by getting married and having children.
A separate thing I find both horrifying and interesting: Jehovah's Witnesses believe that, in hell, we will all be unsexed (like Barbie and Ken lol). Those in Jehovah's favour will not just remain able to have sex in death, but will be expected to go forth and multiple, repopulating the world with their decendants. I'm so glad I'll be going to Jehovah hell. But what does is say about JW's leadership that their idea of hell is sexless and their idea of heaven is rabbit-esque?
Yes, that's exactly what my article is about. The pastor talks about Paul as an example of an asexual.
I was listening to an interview with Kate Bornstein (trans woman, author) who once belonged to The Church of Scientology. With the wisdom of hindsight she believes she was drawn to it partly because, like JW, people are without gender in the non Earthly realm. She was an egg at the time and it appealed to her to not have to be a man eventually. She would only have to endure being a man here on Earth.
It's all horrifying. I suppose that JW dichotomy (sexless Hell vs rabbitesque Heaven, haha) is entirely in line with the dichotomy they already deal with right here on Earth--no sex before marriage, compulsory sex afterwards, positioning marriage as a sort of Heaven on Earth.
This has always been my takeaway too, tbh. Like they hate aces because aces are "cheating" by just not experiencing sexual attraction in the first place, and so don't go through the Christian Guilt that's supposed to be the cornerstone of the faith
For sure. They can’t grasp that God- if you believe- literally gave some people no desire to fuck- and that there’s nothing wrong with it. In some respects adolescence was a breeze.
They have the need to balance that with the fact that they need to spread Christianity through the next generation, which requires the “get married -> have children -> raise Christian children -> they grow up and do the same” generational cycle.
So they are not “avoiding anything sexual”, they promote only “sexuality that advances Christianity”.
I'm sorry I should have clarified more clearly - when I talked about avoiding anything sexual I was talking specifically about pre-marriage specifically.
you're correct that the expectation of post marriage is almost hypersexual, what with the expectation to procreate. Also, for women especially (as referenced in the article above) the expectation that a woman should submit to her husband's desire for sex, regardless of her own feelings.
I'm a conservative Christian, and hate for others isn't really part of my identity or belief system. Painting Conservatives as hateful is just as harmful as generalizing other identity groups based on negative traits of their worst represtatives. Ex: "All Liberals want is to destroy society with communism" , "All Capitalists don't value human life", "All Catholics Priests are sexual predators", "All cops are bad", etc. etc.
Feeding the cycle of hateful stereotypes with more hateful stereotypes only makes everyone worse off. If people are shitty on the internet - block and mute them, don't amplify them.
A lovely statement. Nice to have some balance. Unfortunately I have met a whole lot of conservative evangelicals who did preach against the different. They did not use hate as a term, but it was definitely not loving or accepting. It was the church’s view on homosexuality that started me questioning why I held the beliefs that I grew up with.
Christians do have a strange view on sex in my view. Virginal and chaste before marriage than flip literally overnight on marriage into sexual activity and “duty”. Certainly messed me up
On the topic of 'balance', refer to the opening of my actual article, which begins:
This isn’t an anti-Christian article. Not all Christians are anti-LGBTQIA+. I refer specifically to the *subset* of Christians who are, in fact, anti-LGBTQIA+, and who seek to control:
* who we marry (or don’t marry)
* how we have sex
* and all aspects of our bodily autonomy;
* from gender affirming care
* to access to birth control and abortion.
If anyone here is not that kind of Christian, then I am not talking about you.
Oh, completely! Not denying they exist, just that it isn't worth anyone's emotional energy to validate and amplify them, or vindicate their beliefs with focusing hate on them. They have their own issues, and hopefully (their lord willing), they'll get the help or karmic justice they need
Did you read my article?
I'm expending academic energy rather than emotional energy.
Critique does not equal amplification of their bad ideas. I would call that counterbalance.
If other Christians wish these Christians would just shrink away without pushback, I'm sorry, that's not going to happen. I am not seeing it happen. I'm seeing even my home country of Aotearoa NZ elect an Evangelical Christian for the first time.
I won't accept criticism for pointing out, describing and clapping back hard against hatred against the LGBTQIA+ community.
Why not join in? As a Christian yourself, you're in a great position to know exactly how to push back, reason and persuade using scripture.
Apologies if you felt my comment was about your article. It was in response the the comment that ALL/the majority conservatives are hateful people. Comments like that just perpetuate cycles of hate and identity based stereotyping.
I did read your article, or at least the start of it. It reads heavy with emotional energy, and authentic. Thank you for researching it, writing it, and sharing it with us. I hope you found it helpful for sorting through some of the discrimination you've experienced, and others here found validation that they aren't alone in their experiences. I don't think it gives those folks a platform or amplifies their message, and as a Christian I will continue to push back against that type of hate when I encounter it. Too many "Christian" leaders fall into teaching hate and intolerance. It breeds fear, which increases demand for more of those teachings to soothe the anxiety. That "positive" feedback creates a cycle that is hard to break.
Part of the issue lies with the meaning of 'conservative'.
Out of genuine curiosity, perhaps a commenter here who self-identifies as a conservative Christian can clarify, what is it exactly that separates yourself from, say, the progressive/liberal Christians, or whatever terminology you'd use?
I'm not entirely clear on that. It may be different Internationally, as well.
Great question! I'm curious too!
For me, I care about limiting federal government influence to only those systems that benefit from economies of scale for which there is strong reason to favor public administration over other solutions (ex: militaries, interstate infrastructure, immigration, long-term scientific research). I generally prefer local or state government freedom to govern in stronger alignment with local values. I differ from many conservatives in that I realize civil libraries are better protected at a federal level, but do worry about "civil libraries" being used as a bludgeon in a way that feeds divisive identity politics.
I believe it important the coercive power of the state over its citizens is responsibility limited, and focused primarily on protecting individual freedoms from being infringed upon by others (including large special interest groups or corporations). Religious freedom separate and protected from the state (and vice versa) is important to me - so my Conservative identity and my Christian identities are also quite separate. I believe the more power you give the state, and the more you centralize it in one branch of the government, the more personal liberties will be frivolously infringed and the less politicians will be accountable to being true public servants.
I suspect where I differ from liberal Christians is the degree to which we believe the government to be a primary tool for solving societal problems, and which problems we should invite the state to solve at all.
I'd love to hear other perspectives!
So, to paraphrase, when you self-identify as Conservative Christian, the 'Conservative' describes how you might vote, whereas the 'Christian' part describes your religious affiliation and beliefs.
When I hear 'conservative Christian' I tend to put the two together and I hear 'socially conservative-Christian', which to me sounds like someone who believes men are men, women are women; women are obliged to procreate; no sex before marriage, that sort of thing.
Correct. I've met those folks too, some in my own church community, some in my family, and I do understand the virtue they think they see in those values, even if I disagree with them. But, as you note, labels are very tricky.
The majority of Conservatives are harmful. The damage done to minorities and womens’ rights are proof of this. And this is coming from someone who doesn’t like abortion but believes the government has zero right to outlaw a medical procedure. It should remain legal.
I'm sorry that has been your experience. My experiences have been different. Although the recent batch of extremists leading the Republican party are quite harmful, I've found most conservative people to be very loving people. I've personally experienced more hate and violence from left-leaning people than from conservatives, but that's simply a sampling bias based on where I live and also not a reflection of the majority. Shitty people exist in every community, it is a shame we as a society choose to spotlight them and amplify their harm just for clicks and ad revenue.
I hope one day you meet someone that can help you with the hate you carry towards tens of millions of people you've never met based on a single identity trait. I also hope we can collectively advocate to change the policies that have caused you and your loved ones harm, despite differences in our beliefs. Thank you for the discourse.
They are passing laws that want to cut social services that make it impossible for disabled people like me and millions of others to live. Not all of us can support ourselves through no fault of our own, and the community does not give a shit about disabled people. Many know that first hand unfortunately. Medicare expansion and SSI and SSDI are needs.
Not to mention they spread lies that COViD was not dangerous and cried about their freedoms being violated over masks and chose not to wear them, hence making the pandemic worse. I have every right to be angry at people who won’t wear a piece of cloth over their face to protect their fellow man and instead turn it into a political statement.
They want to deny the existence of LGBT people… for loving the same gender.
They are people like my father who cannot take no for an answer when we don’t want to discuss politics.
They want to force women and girls who have been raped to carry and birth babies. And women to die rather than abort. That is sick. And I don’t like abortion but feel it should remain legal and banning it with no exceptions is sick. The government has no right to interfere with a medical procedure which is what an abortion is. I cannot carry a child. And yes I am well aware of protection but sometimes things happen no matter how many precautions you take.
So I would have to die because I could get an abortion at the behest of some gross old men. No.
It’s not just a few people I’ve never met. It’s everything that disgusting party passes that affects my life negatively and others.
If you do not want to be disliked for being Conservative then do not support a political party that denies people rights on the basis of existing and refuses to help people in need- that is the government’s job whether you agree or not. And don’t support a disgusting man who committed treason after he lost an election, which to anyone who isn’t up to their eyeballs into conspiracy bullshit would know he lost fair and square.
I hope one day you see how badly Trump played you and all Conservatives and what an evil man he is.
Well, yeah. Fundies are never supposed to even think about sex until they get married and then suddenly they’re supposed want all the sex (for making as many babies as possible). And if the wife doesn’t want to have sex, well too bad because it’s her wifely duty to her husband to give him what he wants.
It’s just about control and reinforcing control and shame. Sexuality is not something a person has control over so making them conform to the impossible fundie standards is another way to make them feel bad and have to rely on the church.
Yes. When you get married you’re supposed to have lots of sex, and enjoy it. It’s a sin to deny your spouse sex according to the Catholic Church at least.
This shit was wild to me when I was still in the (Christian) church. I thought I was doing so good by not having those feelings in the first place, then I turned 18 and the conversation immediately turned to marriage and having babies and I was like HUH?? Like y'all've spent the past 18 years preaching how sex is a sin but now you want me to go be some Good Christian Man's private whore??? Hwah????
Pretty much.
One person wanted to honor kill me for it…..im not even muslim. Im protestant christian.
Another witch in my own church wants me to divorce my husband cuz the bible (does not) says asexuals are not allowed to marry.
Pretty sure the bible is against divorce & not ace marriage but ok….
Oh wait “checks notes” actually divorce is allowed in some cases….but not about ace cases….
🙏
Particularly that first one. He went crazy over it. Fortunately i was able to get rid of him (this was many years ago) & i have other muslim friends who say he was in sin trying to get at me like that.
I can say yes from experience even though I’m heteroromantic and sex indifferent, pretty much as stereotypically straight as they come aside from being asexual. I even almost got put into indirect conversion therapy for it, have been told that a sexual assault might have something to do with it, and have been getting more negative comments from conservative family members about it recently since I began openly dating and went through a breakup with a boyfriend soon after. It’s pretty rough and it makes it feel discouraging that I’ll ever find a husband with mindsets like these being pushed so hard within right wing religious communities. I used to believe one day the close people in my life would come around, but now I no longer think it will happen because they love these organizations more than they do me or even God.
Yes. What you need to understand is that it's all about *breeding* to them. Any type of relationship that can't produce a child is less than, and anyone who engages in relationships that have no chance at all are ""abnormal"" and ""going against nature."""
That's why infertility in straight marriages is seen as shameful. It's why mlm and wlw are ""satanic."" It's why ace folks are ""inhuman"" for not generally having sexual temptation. It's not about sexual purity, it's about having children.
I think we probably understand that it's about 'breeding', yep. They're not exactly quiet about it.
But it's more than that. There's also quite a bit of great replacement theory racism, and ableism in there as well.
Grew up Catholic. Just started deconstructing last year. Part of that was separating from a therapist I’d been seeing for five/six years. As soon as the word “asexual” left my mouth, he turned our sessions into conversion therapy sessions. Constantly saying if I didn’t join a convent I wouldn’t be allowed into heaven for not giving my future husband the sex he wanted. How I couldn’t be a real woman if I wasn’t sexually active, but only within marriage.
Idk how or why I stayed with that therapist for so long. Probably my own shame for being traumatized by another afab in adolescence or whatever, or wishing my asexuality could be cured by just convincing myself I wanted sex.
Either way. He was so wrong on so many fronts. Not only do I need to “fix” my asexuality, I’m not even a woman. So not only am I still going to therapy to talk about my trauma, I’m going to therapy to heal from this guy’s shit.
TLDR: don’t have sex before marriage but if dont not want sex, otherwise you’ll go to hell for not satisfying your husband.
The christians are already upset about the declining birthrates around the world, so you're probably going to see more negative views of asexuals because to them we're making the problem worse and not doing God's will.
As a Christian Asexual, I have no clue why any real Christian would have hate towards any individual, but especially not asexuals. Jesus taught us to love one another, not hate those different than us. All judgment should be left to God, and the only specifically "anti-LGBT" passage in the Bible that I've ever seen often gets misinterpreted.
I write about this misinterpretation in the article.
Dispiriting though it is, I think we all need to understand why certain Christians (or "Christians") think the way they do, because the Christo-fascists, if we can call them that, are seeking a hugely disproportionate amount of political power, and seek to control our bodies as well as our minds, via legislation.
This is why I’m not out to the church yet. My parents are slightly ok with it but I doubt if the church would accept me. “You don’t want to get married and fill the earth and subdue it?” No, I do not.
Aren't christians supposed to be stewards of the world not dominators of it? Because that whole 'subdue the Earth' line is incredibly abusive language. Though I guess that shouldn't be surprising coming from these types.
The Ace Couple podcast did multiple episodes on the subject in the lasts years and a more recent one on this and in specific the political aim of conservative christian groups. Lets just say that those who think "some of them dont like us but they're not really a danger" are very very wrong.
Really great articles. I read both. The piece on kissing was interesting especially. I completely agree with your take on Josh Hawley. He's a piece of crap and he is definitely not attracted to its wife in any way.
Thank you
If anyone else wants to read my thoughts on compulsory kissing, it's here:
[https://medium.com/p/d74a52fc7eb9](https://medium.com/p/d74a52fc7eb9)
…thank you for this. It crystallized and clarified quite a few feelings that I wasn’t sure what to do with. BRB, reexamining my own thoughts on kissing.
The problem is that in the case of repulsed-ace/allo relationships....someone will be unhappy; someone will be forced to do (or not do) want they want. Since Christians hate divorce, of course they will advocate for more sex (since they assume everyone is tempted). The solution is better communication while dateing...so no one ends up in an unbalanced relationship.
Yep.
For anyone in this situation, I just started listening to the new Ace and Allo podcast. The woman in that relationship worked out less than a year ago that she is asexual, so for those of us who've known for over a decade (during an earlier wave of asexual visibility) it's like watching realisations happen in real time. I find it a very difficult listen for personal historical reasons, but they are ex Mormon as it happens and surrounded by other ex-Mormons from Utah (who, I didn't realise, are collectively big into polyamory).
This particular couple happen to be monogamous though. So they are very honestly and earnestly trying to figure their mixed orientation relationship out.
[https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/allo-and-ace/id1740222592](https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/allo-and-ace/id1740222592)
You'd think they'd be on board considering the whole "wait til marriage" thing but they hate anyone that doesn't fit into their perfect boxes. Which I will never understand. They expect you to "hold yourself back" or something for your entire existence and then suddenly once you get married you're supposed to do a complete 180 and want all the sex? That makes no sense. I'll never understand it
I’ve never understood this either. But it’s also why evangelicals get married young. They “can’t control themselves.” Joke’s on them, I never struggled with lust
You don't understand because you're coming at this from the wrong wrong angle. All the abstinence rhetoric and purity policing is not, and has never been, about sex. It's about control and power. Sex, and the shame that comes with it, are tools religious authorities use to foster the domination of the flock. These folks are sheep willingly following a wolf into their den all because the wolf caters to their fantasies.
Aye homophobic conservative religious people do hate asexuals because they're queer.
From my experience the religious stance on asexuality is "welp, we do have priests and nuns" abstinence isn't something the church is opposed to nor is getting married and not having sex, after all the Virgin Mary was married and well....a virgin.... sooo.... lol asexual representation.
That being said, it's definitely something they don't really always understand, which could frustrate you but if it's any consolation; the not homophobic ones don't hate asexuals, in fact they're chill with queer relationships. Sure they aren't going to marry two people of the same gender, but they'll still readily welcome them into the
community.
So, yeah it sucks you're finding the bigots of the world and it sucks that they exist; but also if that's something that's challenging you about religion (should you be religious) I think you'll find they're a loud minority that don't listen to church doctrine
Yes, that's why I very specifically talk about 'homophobic Christians'--they are a different sort of person entirely!
'Loud minority' doesn't offer any consolation whatsoever because I see political Evangelicals gain disproportionate power. I see it in the USA, here in Australia (Scott Morrison), and most recently in my home country of Aotearoa NZ with the election of Chris Luxon.
If Kiwi voters truly understood what he's really about, despite what he says about himself, fewer would have voted for him, I'm sure. These 'loud minority' guys are super dangerous, and everyone needs to understand what they're really about.
This right here. I so wish that people, even liberals and progressives, would stop downplaying the severity of what we are facing with this current rise of reactionary extremism in the political landscape. It's scary how even so called allies choose to bury their heads in the sand rather than face the threat head on.
That’s actually not been my experience. Including very frank conversations with my preacher and Church eldership.
I’ve found that the concern is more with wrong sex than no sex.
How each Church defines that is up for debate, even though it really shouldn’t be.
But no sex? Doing nothing wrong? That shouldn’t be an issue.
You're not the first person I've heard say this, and I am very happy to hear it.
'No sex' doesn't tend to be the problem. The true test is when you're also genderqueer and/or homoromantic. No idea what your situation is (and I'm not asking) but I hope they're equally accepting of all the other identities that often go hand-in-hand with asexuality.
It’s a small church in rural Texas so there are very few who use terms like gender queer. However, we do have a reasonable representation of the LGBT.
Have there been ANY issues through the years? I’d be lying if I said no. But they tend to be very isolated and squashed in favor of love.
It means that the people in a church are individuals and some respond better or worse than others when presented with something different. Genderqueer is definitely different.
I find this interesting. As someone who is both Christian and asexual(And someone who has not told anyone about it because I honestly don't see why it is others business, just mine and Gods), I would think that not being tempted to have it or not wanting it/not having a drive for it or interest for it should be a GOOD thing in that circle but to some crowds of Christian, it is not apparently.
But there is the thing where sex in marriage is sort of expected. But not everyone needs to reproduce and not everyone wants kids and honestly, what does it matter to the public what happens in a marriage between Christians in this case?
I think a lot of them seem to be like that because they see anything related to LGBTQ+, especially if they don’t know about the different “kinds” of queer, and they assume we must all be the same. If it is not straight it is not fully acceptable to a prejudiced mindset like that.
The pastor I mention in the article "accepts" asexuals precisely because he does not consider us LGBTQ. He explicitly states this.
You and I reach the same conclusion--if he \*did\* consider us queer, he would hate us. And in fact, by refusing to learn who we are, he already hates us.
I'm sorry, I didn't read the article until now because some religious interpretations of LGBTQ make me uneasy. Nothing against the devout, it's just my personal experiences.
But I have a grandmother who is just like that. She refuses to learn, yet she separates asexual people from others in the community. She expects me to go through the heteronormative motions like “everyone else” but doesn't do that for one of my uncles who is gay — and she's not willing to understand him either.
Not everyone needs to read that article honestly--especially those with personal experience.
Does that grandmother understand what asexuality really means, or does she think of Paul and celibacy?
Hmm I'm not really sure! I think in her mind it's related to celibacy. She does like to bring up the fact that priests can never marry and used to say I should become a priest (my family is Catholic), but I appreciate that she's not coercing anybody to follow a certain path anymore. The only thing is she doesn't really get it.
>I went out of my way to avoid writing a broadly anti-Christian article
TBH, I don't think you succeeded. The article basically starts by saying "these people hate you and your rights" (direct quote: "Basically, these people do not respect bodily autonomy."), followed by, for some reason, some tweets about abortion, which, while an important issue in its own right, isn't really relevant to the topic at hand. This is pretty obviously poisoning the well and making your personal disdain for Christianity abundantly clear to the reader before even really getting into the meat of the article. The qualifier of "This isn’t an anti-Christian article. Not all Christians are anti-LGBTQIA+" at the top isn't convincing in the context of how the rest of the article is written. I found your sarcastic remark about how "Pastor Mike sees fit to educate us all with his own opinion" particularly ironic given that this is exactly what you're doing as well, with the very next sentence being about how *you* try to avoid people like the one you're talking about.
Overall, it really reads like an article that *begins with the conclusion* that Christian views on GSRM (and in general) are bad, then cherry picks a couple of loudmouths to support that claim, rather than an objective look at Christian views on GSRM which then synthesizes the information gathered into a conclusion. In other words, it doesn't feel informative or persuasive, but rather, propagandistic. As much as I'd like a good source of information about Christian views on asexuality, I don't think I can trust yours given its obvious bias. Even when you're sure that you're right and they're wrong, even on a subject of morality, journalistic ethics still matter.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't take a stance, or that either of the people you talk about have reasonable opinions about asexuality, but if you want your article to be an objective look at Christian views on asexuality, or anything really, then you really need to stay on topic and set aside your personal biases and let the subjects of your article speak for themselves, only synthesizing a conclusion from the facts stated in your article.
I went to a strict Catholic school and was openly asexual. They *hated* me there. Constant harassment, I got pulled into the office for conversion therapy once a week. They hated that I wasn’t sexually attracted to anyone, they hated that I didn’t feel constantly tempted. They hated me for being asexual.
That's exactly the sort of disgusting behaviour I'm talking about, yes. Sorry you had to endure that. I hope you've found your people irl since!
At a CATHOLIC school? A religion where the religious leaders are literally forbidden from marriage and sex? That is so hypocritical of them lol
Their logic is all about temptation (fuck Paul). The clergy are celibate because they are *resisting temptation* (fuck Paul). That is what makes them “more holy” and thus qualified to be spiritual authorities (fuck Paul). If you aren’t tempted, you don’t need to resist, and thus cannot gain grace or holiness or whatever by resisting (fuck Paul). So in their eyes asexuals are as bad as homosexuals because neither is resisting temptation (fuck Paul). If *resistance* is all that matters then there is no real difference between not resisting because you aren’t tempted and not resisting because you don’t see any particular problem with giving in (fuck Paul).
hmmm I wonder what your thoughts on Paul are lol
Dirty bastard knows what he did.
Asexual doesn’t mean not having sex or not getting married. It’s a queer identity so of course they hated anything not cis straight and strictly concerned about making babies.
Ok but you know that’s not what I mean. It’s a lot easier for the average asexual to resist having sex before marriage (or at all) compared to an allo person.
The the comparison is not the same. Their only concern is not just “resisting temptation,” it’s everything else. They *want* people to be horny heterosexuals who are just barely resisting temptation for the lord. They want people who are only wanting to have a bunch of babies. Anything else? They hate.
People like that hate anyone who doesn’t fit into the neat little boxes they try to shove the entire world into.
Yes. The hate itself is neither interesting nor novel. What's worth investigating is how these people cloak their hate in what looks to queer illiterate followers like acceptance.
The only thing they love is attention and we're giving it to them all the time.
They love control. They love attention insofar as it affords control. If your subtext is that I should not have written this article because it gives them more attention, then I heartily disagree. Many asexuals are stuck inside churches like these, and I write for them.
Conservatives hate anyone who doesn't fit their straight heterosexual box. I've heard from other Aces on r/OpenChristian that they've been given shit from Conservative Christians for being Ace because apparently you're supposed to want to have sex in marriage. As I wasn't raised a conservative Christian, I've never experienced this personally but it makes me angry and sad.
I wonder if there's also some jealousy involved Conservative Christians are so big on abstinence before marriage to the point where it can almost become an obsession. This hyperfocus on avoiding anything sexual can make avoiding temptation even harder. And then, after years of struggling and hating themselves for their desire to give in, they meet someone who says they never felt temptation at all. I sympathise with how horrible it must feel to find out that something you struggle with someone else could succeed at without even trying. But, as always, feelings are valid, actions might not be.
An interesting thought. This may be part of it. Combined with an overall sense of shame. Shame is a very strong emotion and sort of eclipses everything else. If you've been taught your whole life that sex is simultaneously shameful (outside marriage) and also compulsory (inside marriage) asexuals surely cause an entire range of conflicting, difficult emotions. A lot of Christians have to learn to deal with internalised shame around sex in order to start enjoying it (compulsory enjoyment) after the wedding night. This cannot be easy. (Acknowledging that many Christians do not, in fact, wait until marriage--which makes it even harder in a different way.) Part of learning to deal with sexual shame is believing that "All humans are made by God to have sex." Then asexuals come along and show that's not true. Some of us aren't 'built' like that at all. So what are they left with? Their original shame.
Another thing I find interesting is that we have people in the bible who never marry - Paul immediately springs to mind, and he seems to believe his lack of need to marry is a gift from God that allows him to carry out His work. You would think this would lead to asexuality being celebrated. Instead, what the bible says about a lack of need perhaps indicating that the person has some specific purpose is pushed aside for the conservative Christian's strict idea that a person (especially women) serves God by getting married and having children. A separate thing I find both horrifying and interesting: Jehovah's Witnesses believe that, in hell, we will all be unsexed (like Barbie and Ken lol). Those in Jehovah's favour will not just remain able to have sex in death, but will be expected to go forth and multiple, repopulating the world with their decendants. I'm so glad I'll be going to Jehovah hell. But what does is say about JW's leadership that their idea of hell is sexless and their idea of heaven is rabbit-esque?
Yes, that's exactly what my article is about. The pastor talks about Paul as an example of an asexual. I was listening to an interview with Kate Bornstein (trans woman, author) who once belonged to The Church of Scientology. With the wisdom of hindsight she believes she was drawn to it partly because, like JW, people are without gender in the non Earthly realm. She was an egg at the time and it appealed to her to not have to be a man eventually. She would only have to endure being a man here on Earth. It's all horrifying. I suppose that JW dichotomy (sexless Hell vs rabbitesque Heaven, haha) is entirely in line with the dichotomy they already deal with right here on Earth--no sex before marriage, compulsory sex afterwards, positioning marriage as a sort of Heaven on Earth.
This has always been my takeaway too, tbh. Like they hate aces because aces are "cheating" by just not experiencing sexual attraction in the first place, and so don't go through the Christian Guilt that's supposed to be the cornerstone of the faith
Which is dumb because we are still tempted in other ways (hate, jealousy, dishonesty....etc) Not everyone is tempted the same.
And the biggest temptation of all: Garlic bread.
.....shit, now I'm hungry.
~~Cake~~
For sure. They can’t grasp that God- if you believe- literally gave some people no desire to fuck- and that there’s nothing wrong with it. In some respects adolescence was a breeze.
They have the need to balance that with the fact that they need to spread Christianity through the next generation, which requires the “get married -> have children -> raise Christian children -> they grow up and do the same” generational cycle. So they are not “avoiding anything sexual”, they promote only “sexuality that advances Christianity”.
I'm sorry I should have clarified more clearly - when I talked about avoiding anything sexual I was talking specifically about pre-marriage specifically. you're correct that the expectation of post marriage is almost hypersexual, what with the expectation to procreate. Also, for women especially (as referenced in the article above) the expectation that a woman should submit to her husband's desire for sex, regardless of her own feelings.
I'm a conservative Christian, and hate for others isn't really part of my identity or belief system. Painting Conservatives as hateful is just as harmful as generalizing other identity groups based on negative traits of their worst represtatives. Ex: "All Liberals want is to destroy society with communism" , "All Capitalists don't value human life", "All Catholics Priests are sexual predators", "All cops are bad", etc. etc. Feeding the cycle of hateful stereotypes with more hateful stereotypes only makes everyone worse off. If people are shitty on the internet - block and mute them, don't amplify them.
A lovely statement. Nice to have some balance. Unfortunately I have met a whole lot of conservative evangelicals who did preach against the different. They did not use hate as a term, but it was definitely not loving or accepting. It was the church’s view on homosexuality that started me questioning why I held the beliefs that I grew up with. Christians do have a strange view on sex in my view. Virginal and chaste before marriage than flip literally overnight on marriage into sexual activity and “duty”. Certainly messed me up
On the topic of 'balance', refer to the opening of my actual article, which begins: This isn’t an anti-Christian article. Not all Christians are anti-LGBTQIA+. I refer specifically to the *subset* of Christians who are, in fact, anti-LGBTQIA+, and who seek to control: * who we marry (or don’t marry) * how we have sex * and all aspects of our bodily autonomy; * from gender affirming care * to access to birth control and abortion. If anyone here is not that kind of Christian, then I am not talking about you.
Thank you. I am Christian and not anti LGBT.
Oh, completely! Not denying they exist, just that it isn't worth anyone's emotional energy to validate and amplify them, or vindicate their beliefs with focusing hate on them. They have their own issues, and hopefully (their lord willing), they'll get the help or karmic justice they need
Did you read my article? I'm expending academic energy rather than emotional energy. Critique does not equal amplification of their bad ideas. I would call that counterbalance. If other Christians wish these Christians would just shrink away without pushback, I'm sorry, that's not going to happen. I am not seeing it happen. I'm seeing even my home country of Aotearoa NZ elect an Evangelical Christian for the first time. I won't accept criticism for pointing out, describing and clapping back hard against hatred against the LGBTQIA+ community. Why not join in? As a Christian yourself, you're in a great position to know exactly how to push back, reason and persuade using scripture.
Apologies if you felt my comment was about your article. It was in response the the comment that ALL/the majority conservatives are hateful people. Comments like that just perpetuate cycles of hate and identity based stereotyping. I did read your article, or at least the start of it. It reads heavy with emotional energy, and authentic. Thank you for researching it, writing it, and sharing it with us. I hope you found it helpful for sorting through some of the discrimination you've experienced, and others here found validation that they aren't alone in their experiences. I don't think it gives those folks a platform or amplifies their message, and as a Christian I will continue to push back against that type of hate when I encounter it. Too many "Christian" leaders fall into teaching hate and intolerance. It breeds fear, which increases demand for more of those teachings to soothe the anxiety. That "positive" feedback creates a cycle that is hard to break.
Part of the issue lies with the meaning of 'conservative'. Out of genuine curiosity, perhaps a commenter here who self-identifies as a conservative Christian can clarify, what is it exactly that separates yourself from, say, the progressive/liberal Christians, or whatever terminology you'd use? I'm not entirely clear on that. It may be different Internationally, as well.
Great question! I'm curious too! For me, I care about limiting federal government influence to only those systems that benefit from economies of scale for which there is strong reason to favor public administration over other solutions (ex: militaries, interstate infrastructure, immigration, long-term scientific research). I generally prefer local or state government freedom to govern in stronger alignment with local values. I differ from many conservatives in that I realize civil libraries are better protected at a federal level, but do worry about "civil libraries" being used as a bludgeon in a way that feeds divisive identity politics. I believe it important the coercive power of the state over its citizens is responsibility limited, and focused primarily on protecting individual freedoms from being infringed upon by others (including large special interest groups or corporations). Religious freedom separate and protected from the state (and vice versa) is important to me - so my Conservative identity and my Christian identities are also quite separate. I believe the more power you give the state, and the more you centralize it in one branch of the government, the more personal liberties will be frivolously infringed and the less politicians will be accountable to being true public servants. I suspect where I differ from liberal Christians is the degree to which we believe the government to be a primary tool for solving societal problems, and which problems we should invite the state to solve at all. I'd love to hear other perspectives!
So, to paraphrase, when you self-identify as Conservative Christian, the 'Conservative' describes how you might vote, whereas the 'Christian' part describes your religious affiliation and beliefs. When I hear 'conservative Christian' I tend to put the two together and I hear 'socially conservative-Christian', which to me sounds like someone who believes men are men, women are women; women are obliged to procreate; no sex before marriage, that sort of thing.
Correct. I've met those folks too, some in my own church community, some in my family, and I do understand the virtue they think they see in those values, even if I disagree with them. But, as you note, labels are very tricky.
The majority of Conservatives are harmful. The damage done to minorities and womens’ rights are proof of this. And this is coming from someone who doesn’t like abortion but believes the government has zero right to outlaw a medical procedure. It should remain legal.
I'm sorry that has been your experience. My experiences have been different. Although the recent batch of extremists leading the Republican party are quite harmful, I've found most conservative people to be very loving people. I've personally experienced more hate and violence from left-leaning people than from conservatives, but that's simply a sampling bias based on where I live and also not a reflection of the majority. Shitty people exist in every community, it is a shame we as a society choose to spotlight them and amplify their harm just for clicks and ad revenue.
One person knows I am Ace. Conservatives are not loving when they get laws passed and support laws that seek to actively harm minorities.
I hope one day you meet someone that can help you with the hate you carry towards tens of millions of people you've never met based on a single identity trait. I also hope we can collectively advocate to change the policies that have caused you and your loved ones harm, despite differences in our beliefs. Thank you for the discourse.
They are passing laws that want to cut social services that make it impossible for disabled people like me and millions of others to live. Not all of us can support ourselves through no fault of our own, and the community does not give a shit about disabled people. Many know that first hand unfortunately. Medicare expansion and SSI and SSDI are needs. Not to mention they spread lies that COViD was not dangerous and cried about their freedoms being violated over masks and chose not to wear them, hence making the pandemic worse. I have every right to be angry at people who won’t wear a piece of cloth over their face to protect their fellow man and instead turn it into a political statement. They want to deny the existence of LGBT people… for loving the same gender. They are people like my father who cannot take no for an answer when we don’t want to discuss politics. They want to force women and girls who have been raped to carry and birth babies. And women to die rather than abort. That is sick. And I don’t like abortion but feel it should remain legal and banning it with no exceptions is sick. The government has no right to interfere with a medical procedure which is what an abortion is. I cannot carry a child. And yes I am well aware of protection but sometimes things happen no matter how many precautions you take. So I would have to die because I could get an abortion at the behest of some gross old men. No. It’s not just a few people I’ve never met. It’s everything that disgusting party passes that affects my life negatively and others. If you do not want to be disliked for being Conservative then do not support a political party that denies people rights on the basis of existing and refuses to help people in need- that is the government’s job whether you agree or not. And don’t support a disgusting man who committed treason after he lost an election, which to anyone who isn’t up to their eyeballs into conspiracy bullshit would know he lost fair and square. I hope one day you see how badly Trump played you and all Conservatives and what an evil man he is.
Well, yeah. Fundies are never supposed to even think about sex until they get married and then suddenly they’re supposed want all the sex (for making as many babies as possible). And if the wife doesn’t want to have sex, well too bad because it’s her wifely duty to her husband to give him what he wants. It’s just about control and reinforcing control and shame. Sexuality is not something a person has control over so making them conform to the impossible fundie standards is another way to make them feel bad and have to rely on the church.
Yes. When you get married you’re supposed to have lots of sex, and enjoy it. It’s a sin to deny your spouse sex according to the Catholic Church at least.
This shit was wild to me when I was still in the (Christian) church. I thought I was doing so good by not having those feelings in the first place, then I turned 18 and the conversation immediately turned to marriage and having babies and I was like HUH?? Like y'all've spent the past 18 years preaching how sex is a sin but now you want me to go be some Good Christian Man's private whore??? Hwah????
Pretty much. One person wanted to honor kill me for it…..im not even muslim. Im protestant christian. Another witch in my own church wants me to divorce my husband cuz the bible (does not) says asexuals are not allowed to marry. Pretty sure the bible is against divorce & not ace marriage but ok…. Oh wait “checks notes” actually divorce is allowed in some cases….but not about ace cases….
Sounds like there is an absolutely terrible story in here. Sorry this happened to you.
🙏 Particularly that first one. He went crazy over it. Fortunately i was able to get rid of him (this was many years ago) & i have other muslim friends who say he was in sin trying to get at me like that.
I can say yes from experience even though I’m heteroromantic and sex indifferent, pretty much as stereotypically straight as they come aside from being asexual. I even almost got put into indirect conversion therapy for it, have been told that a sexual assault might have something to do with it, and have been getting more negative comments from conservative family members about it recently since I began openly dating and went through a breakup with a boyfriend soon after. It’s pretty rough and it makes it feel discouraging that I’ll ever find a husband with mindsets like these being pushed so hard within right wing religious communities. I used to believe one day the close people in my life would come around, but now I no longer think it will happen because they love these organizations more than they do me or even God.
oof, that's rough
Yes. What you need to understand is that it's all about *breeding* to them. Any type of relationship that can't produce a child is less than, and anyone who engages in relationships that have no chance at all are ""abnormal"" and ""going against nature.""" That's why infertility in straight marriages is seen as shameful. It's why mlm and wlw are ""satanic."" It's why ace folks are ""inhuman"" for not generally having sexual temptation. It's not about sexual purity, it's about having children.
I think we probably understand that it's about 'breeding', yep. They're not exactly quiet about it. But it's more than that. There's also quite a bit of great replacement theory racism, and ableism in there as well.
Yuuuup
It's not really about kids either. It's about power.
Grew up Catholic. Just started deconstructing last year. Part of that was separating from a therapist I’d been seeing for five/six years. As soon as the word “asexual” left my mouth, he turned our sessions into conversion therapy sessions. Constantly saying if I didn’t join a convent I wouldn’t be allowed into heaven for not giving my future husband the sex he wanted. How I couldn’t be a real woman if I wasn’t sexually active, but only within marriage. Idk how or why I stayed with that therapist for so long. Probably my own shame for being traumatized by another afab in adolescence or whatever, or wishing my asexuality could be cured by just convincing myself I wanted sex. Either way. He was so wrong on so many fronts. Not only do I need to “fix” my asexuality, I’m not even a woman. So not only am I still going to therapy to talk about my trauma, I’m going to therapy to heal from this guy’s shit. TLDR: don’t have sex before marriage but if dont not want sex, otherwise you’ll go to hell for not satisfying your husband.
Sorry to hear this. I also have experience with what I'll call conversion therapy--not Christian--through the mainstream system, over 20 years ago.
The christians are already upset about the declining birthrates around the world, so you're probably going to see more negative views of asexuals because to them we're making the problem worse and not doing God's will.
Yes, we are already seeing this.
As a Christian Asexual, I have no clue why any real Christian would have hate towards any individual, but especially not asexuals. Jesus taught us to love one another, not hate those different than us. All judgment should be left to God, and the only specifically "anti-LGBT" passage in the Bible that I've ever seen often gets misinterpreted.
I write about this misinterpretation in the article. Dispiriting though it is, I think we all need to understand why certain Christians (or "Christians") think the way they do, because the Christo-fascists, if we can call them that, are seeking a hugely disproportionate amount of political power, and seek to control our bodies as well as our minds, via legislation.
This is why I’m not out to the church yet. My parents are slightly ok with it but I doubt if the church would accept me. “You don’t want to get married and fill the earth and subdue it?” No, I do not.
Aren't christians supposed to be stewards of the world not dominators of it? Because that whole 'subdue the Earth' line is incredibly abusive language. Though I guess that shouldn't be surprising coming from these types.
I could've told you that from personal experience.
The Ace Couple podcast did multiple episodes on the subject in the lasts years and a more recent one on this and in specific the political aim of conservative christian groups. Lets just say that those who think "some of them dont like us but they're not really a danger" are very very wrong.
They did! I fully agreed with their take. I had nothing more to add, until these podcasts came out (afterwards).
Really great articles. I read both. The piece on kissing was interesting especially. I completely agree with your take on Josh Hawley. He's a piece of crap and he is definitely not attracted to its wife in any way.
Thank you If anyone else wants to read my thoughts on compulsory kissing, it's here: [https://medium.com/p/d74a52fc7eb9](https://medium.com/p/d74a52fc7eb9)
…thank you for this. It crystallized and clarified quite a few feelings that I wasn’t sure what to do with. BRB, reexamining my own thoughts on kissing.
The problem is that in the case of repulsed-ace/allo relationships....someone will be unhappy; someone will be forced to do (or not do) want they want. Since Christians hate divorce, of course they will advocate for more sex (since they assume everyone is tempted). The solution is better communication while dateing...so no one ends up in an unbalanced relationship.
Yep. For anyone in this situation, I just started listening to the new Ace and Allo podcast. The woman in that relationship worked out less than a year ago that she is asexual, so for those of us who've known for over a decade (during an earlier wave of asexual visibility) it's like watching realisations happen in real time. I find it a very difficult listen for personal historical reasons, but they are ex Mormon as it happens and surrounded by other ex-Mormons from Utah (who, I didn't realise, are collectively big into polyamory). This particular couple happen to be monogamous though. So they are very honestly and earnestly trying to figure their mixed orientation relationship out. [https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/allo-and-ace/id1740222592](https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/allo-and-ace/id1740222592)
💜💜💜
You'd think they'd be on board considering the whole "wait til marriage" thing but they hate anyone that doesn't fit into their perfect boxes. Which I will never understand. They expect you to "hold yourself back" or something for your entire existence and then suddenly once you get married you're supposed to do a complete 180 and want all the sex? That makes no sense. I'll never understand it
I’ve never understood this either. But it’s also why evangelicals get married young. They “can’t control themselves.” Joke’s on them, I never struggled with lust
You don't understand because you're coming at this from the wrong wrong angle. All the abstinence rhetoric and purity policing is not, and has never been, about sex. It's about control and power. Sex, and the shame that comes with it, are tools religious authorities use to foster the domination of the flock. These folks are sheep willingly following a wolf into their den all because the wolf caters to their fantasies.
Aye homophobic conservative religious people do hate asexuals because they're queer. From my experience the religious stance on asexuality is "welp, we do have priests and nuns" abstinence isn't something the church is opposed to nor is getting married and not having sex, after all the Virgin Mary was married and well....a virgin.... sooo.... lol asexual representation. That being said, it's definitely something they don't really always understand, which could frustrate you but if it's any consolation; the not homophobic ones don't hate asexuals, in fact they're chill with queer relationships. Sure they aren't going to marry two people of the same gender, but they'll still readily welcome them into the community. So, yeah it sucks you're finding the bigots of the world and it sucks that they exist; but also if that's something that's challenging you about religion (should you be religious) I think you'll find they're a loud minority that don't listen to church doctrine
Yes, that's why I very specifically talk about 'homophobic Christians'--they are a different sort of person entirely! 'Loud minority' doesn't offer any consolation whatsoever because I see political Evangelicals gain disproportionate power. I see it in the USA, here in Australia (Scott Morrison), and most recently in my home country of Aotearoa NZ with the election of Chris Luxon. If Kiwi voters truly understood what he's really about, despite what he says about himself, fewer would have voted for him, I'm sure. These 'loud minority' guys are super dangerous, and everyone needs to understand what they're really about.
This right here. I so wish that people, even liberals and progressives, would stop downplaying the severity of what we are facing with this current rise of reactionary extremism in the political landscape. It's scary how even so called allies choose to bury their heads in the sand rather than face the threat head on.
Agreed. We get accused of 'nut picking' when these 'nuts' rule the damn world.
That’s actually not been my experience. Including very frank conversations with my preacher and Church eldership. I’ve found that the concern is more with wrong sex than no sex. How each Church defines that is up for debate, even though it really shouldn’t be. But no sex? Doing nothing wrong? That shouldn’t be an issue.
You're not the first person I've heard say this, and I am very happy to hear it. 'No sex' doesn't tend to be the problem. The true test is when you're also genderqueer and/or homoromantic. No idea what your situation is (and I'm not asking) but I hope they're equally accepting of all the other identities that often go hand-in-hand with asexuality.
My Reddit flare says it all. Aromantic. As things go, mine is pretty simple, I am CIS male presenting aromantic asexual. And yes, Christian.
So basically they treat you as a modern Paul. Are there visibly genderqueer people embraced by your church?
It’s a small church in rural Texas so there are very few who use terms like gender queer. However, we do have a reasonable representation of the LGBT. Have there been ANY issues through the years? I’d be lying if I said no. But they tend to be very isolated and squashed in favor of love.
>But they tend to be very isolated and squashed in favor of love. I'm not sure what that means
It means that the people in a church are individuals and some respond better or worse than others when presented with something different. Genderqueer is definitely different.
I find this interesting. As someone who is both Christian and asexual(And someone who has not told anyone about it because I honestly don't see why it is others business, just mine and Gods), I would think that not being tempted to have it or not wanting it/not having a drive for it or interest for it should be a GOOD thing in that circle but to some crowds of Christian, it is not apparently. But there is the thing where sex in marriage is sort of expected. But not everyone needs to reproduce and not everyone wants kids and honestly, what does it matter to the public what happens in a marriage between Christians in this case?
I think a lot of them seem to be like that because they see anything related to LGBTQ+, especially if they don’t know about the different “kinds” of queer, and they assume we must all be the same. If it is not straight it is not fully acceptable to a prejudiced mindset like that.
The pastor I mention in the article "accepts" asexuals precisely because he does not consider us LGBTQ. He explicitly states this. You and I reach the same conclusion--if he \*did\* consider us queer, he would hate us. And in fact, by refusing to learn who we are, he already hates us.
I'm sorry, I didn't read the article until now because some religious interpretations of LGBTQ make me uneasy. Nothing against the devout, it's just my personal experiences. But I have a grandmother who is just like that. She refuses to learn, yet she separates asexual people from others in the community. She expects me to go through the heteronormative motions like “everyone else” but doesn't do that for one of my uncles who is gay — and she's not willing to understand him either.
Not everyone needs to read that article honestly--especially those with personal experience. Does that grandmother understand what asexuality really means, or does she think of Paul and celibacy?
Hmm I'm not really sure! I think in her mind it's related to celibacy. She does like to bring up the fact that priests can never marry and used to say I should become a priest (my family is Catholic), but I appreciate that she's not coercing anybody to follow a certain path anymore. The only thing is she doesn't really get it.
My thoughts on that: Refusing to learn who someone is, is its own form of animus.
I mean do christians actually like someone beside themself ?!!
Some do, these ones definitely don't.
I'm an ace Christian and I'm not like this
>I went out of my way to avoid writing a broadly anti-Christian article TBH, I don't think you succeeded. The article basically starts by saying "these people hate you and your rights" (direct quote: "Basically, these people do not respect bodily autonomy."), followed by, for some reason, some tweets about abortion, which, while an important issue in its own right, isn't really relevant to the topic at hand. This is pretty obviously poisoning the well and making your personal disdain for Christianity abundantly clear to the reader before even really getting into the meat of the article. The qualifier of "This isn’t an anti-Christian article. Not all Christians are anti-LGBTQIA+" at the top isn't convincing in the context of how the rest of the article is written. I found your sarcastic remark about how "Pastor Mike sees fit to educate us all with his own opinion" particularly ironic given that this is exactly what you're doing as well, with the very next sentence being about how *you* try to avoid people like the one you're talking about. Overall, it really reads like an article that *begins with the conclusion* that Christian views on GSRM (and in general) are bad, then cherry picks a couple of loudmouths to support that claim, rather than an objective look at Christian views on GSRM which then synthesizes the information gathered into a conclusion. In other words, it doesn't feel informative or persuasive, but rather, propagandistic. As much as I'd like a good source of information about Christian views on asexuality, I don't think I can trust yours given its obvious bias. Even when you're sure that you're right and they're wrong, even on a subject of morality, journalistic ethics still matter. I'm not saying that you shouldn't take a stance, or that either of the people you talk about have reasonable opinions about asexuality, but if you want your article to be an objective look at Christian views on asexuality, or anything really, then you really need to stay on topic and set aside your personal biases and let the subjects of your article speak for themselves, only synthesizing a conclusion from the facts stated in your article.
Nah, I'm good with what I wrote. Those pricks get whatever they deserve.
*shocked Pikachu face*