I’m sorry, but I’m still going to believe what two doctors say rather than an obviously biased blog whose author doesn’t seem to have any reputable sources. I understand that you seem very passionate about this, but in no way am I saying asexuality isn’t a thing, so I’m not quite sure why you seem so upset.

Asexuality itself in the most raw form possible means exactly what the word is; absolutely no sexuality. It’s not the lack of the ability, because asexuals can certainly have sex. It’s the lack of drive. Asexuals don’t feel the need to have sex. You get varying degrees of it though - some asexuals can’t stand the thought of even touching themselves, and some are perfectly fine with sex if only because they love their partner and know they enjoy it.

Yes, asexuals can also masturbate. Again, it’s not the question if they can or can’t, it’s the want. The “A” in asexual means “lack of”, or “none”; if someone has any amount of sexual urges, then they obviously don’t completely lack it. You then get into demisexuality and regular sexuality.

So some asexuals can masturbate; but again, it’s because they don’t view it as sexual. It’s the same as someone enjoying a back-scratch: it just feels good. Asexuals don’t think of anyone, nor do they think of relationships while they do it. Think of it as mechanics (because sexuality is in fact psychological and not always physical) - asexuals are most of the time, the same “machine” as sexuals. They have the same button that when pressed, they feel pleasure. But asexuals can only have it pressed manually, not by romance or relationships with other people. It’s disconnected, if you will. Asexuals can be entirely romantic and love someone, but it’s just not connected with the urge to have sexual relations.

There are all kind of varying degrees of sexuality. Many people do, in fact, forget that demisexuality is in-between. Though like I said, to me (and a growing number of people out there) you can not be a “true, textbook definition” of asexual and still call yourself as such, if it’s close enough. If you’re truly a demisexual and only feel the tiniest bit of sexual urges that’s close to nothing, I think calling a technical foul on that would be meaningless. But there is still something to be said about those technicalities.

And I’m sorry I have to say this, but it sounds just a liiiitle conceited to say a doctor is wrong when all the proof you have is a biased blog post. There’s nothing mean or wrong being said here, and I don’t think calling a word for what it is (asexual = no sexuality) is “narrow” or “outdated”. It is what it is. But like I said before, only the person in question can truly understand what they feel and label themselves.

The term “asexuality” has in fact changed over the years. It’s become a looser term than before, beginning to encompass people who feel just barely above sexuality; and there’s nothing wrong with that. It doesn’t change who a person is, after all, whatever they wish to call themselves. I was just pointing out the true definition of what asexual means. Because believe me, I’ve done my fair share of research about it, too.

In the end, am I wrong? No. Are you wrong? No. The lines between asexuality and demisexuality are so thin as it is. And in the end, it doesn’t really matter anyway. It’s just a label.