>>156402Maybe? The penetration doesn't occur so I guess not.
>>156406If you didn't notice from the /lh indicator this was actually an edgy eugenics joke. I will now explain the joke in case you didn't get it.
As asexuals are in fact asexual, this means they cannot impregnate or get pregnant through conventional means without heavy mental strain or whatever it is they would've felt if they tried to have sex with their SO (and you did say asexual and not aromantic asexual so y'know). It leaves asexual people with only medically assisted information, though I haven't researched if semen could be retrieved like this, I do know the other party can be inseminated without the need for intercourse. These limitations put a lot of uh like strain or expense on having a biological child. So I assume asexual couples are more likely to adopt children or not have children at all. Thus comes the punchline, if asexuals are less likely to have biological children then there are going to be less people with genes of asexual parents. Though one must consider the statement that asexuals have probably existed for as long as humanity did and it is unlikely they're going to die out due to what I've discussed before.I don't really have any strong feelings towards asexuals. If you think I don't like asexuals because I can't fuck them then you're greatly overestimating my game, my wealth and you have no idea where I live.