Broadly, the term ‘asexual’ refers to persons who do not experience sexual arousal or who, despite sexual arousal, choose not to engage in sexual activity. These people may or may not experience romantic feelings for others. In the Western world, the trend of “sex positivity” and its accompanying created or discovered (“outted”?) proliferation of ways to understand or identify one’s own sexuality (i.e., as “pansexual,” “polyamorous,” etc.) is pervasive in academia and the lived world. While interest, both expert and otherwise, has increased with respect to non-heterosexuality, despite some exceptions, asexuality is largely overlooked. Perhaps best described in the works of Foucault, Western society emphasizes “compulsory sexuality” – the idea that human beings are “naturally sexual.” This idea, coupled with the current trend of “sex positivity” and its accompanying proliferation of ways to understand or identify one’s sexuality, while considered emancipatory by some, can serve to reinforce the notion that there is something wrong with asexual people. In Ian Hacking’s terms, asexual people are also subject to the looping effect. Being characterized as asexual by oneself or by others, an individual has some capacity to negotiate the meaning of that characterization - to accept, reject, or alter it. A main theme of Beauvoir’s Second Sex (1949) is to underscore the social undergirding of much of what woman is. Though I will not restrict my attention to asexual women, Beauvoir’s analysis is useful in providing a lens through which to reconceptualize asexuality by means of ideology critique. Beauvoir reconstructs frigidity as an active resistance to one’s situation rather than a passive pathology. I hope to further underscore this important rearticulation and to buttress Beauvoir’s reading with Catherine MacKinnon’s work on pornography.