cross-posted from: https://quokk.au/c/lgbtq_plus/p/1184160/why-niger-explicitly-criminalising-asexuality-is-significant-to-everyone-regardless-of-ident
To understand Nigers asexuality criminalisation, we should see this law as part of a bigger – and growing – global trend among conservatives about ‘traditional families’
What does that even mean, in practice? Mandatory government sex?
It’s a proxy for “why aren’t you married and having kids?” Niger usually has one of the highest fertility rates per woman, which is a troubling way to measure that.
Source: lived there for years. People take “be fruitful and multiply” very literally.
Neat, a first-hand source! What else should we know about Niger, beyond the statistics?
Rice and beans slap.
Edit: y’all getting mixed up I’m out
Besides having nothing to do with Niger, which is a totally different situation, the first bit is understandable. A kid needs a house and stability much more than an adult does. Here, there’s not really council houses for kids, either.
And no, it’s not migrant’s fault. Stop reading the Sun or the Daily Mail or whatever.
Nobody mentioned migrants.
OP did, then edited it out.
And now edited the rest out, too.
But that’s not how you treat criminals. You’re describing a mix of positive and negative incentives, which are just policy effects. Criminalization means a particular action or belief has been made criminal, for which a person may be criminally suspect of having committed. There are consequences to be satisfied, such as prison time or community service, not passive burdens for not conforming. Is that not correct or am I overreading the word “criminalizing” here?
It’s becoming increasing obvious how desperate the elites are getting, now that every woman isn’t churning out 5+ children for the meat grinder.
This is Niger, where the mean women has like 7, meaning many have more. IIRC it’s the highest rate in the world. Niger is also one of the poorest countries, so there’s no real reason they’d want more.
Okay, but how many do the nice women have?
(sorry, couldn’t resist. The article is horrifying, so i’m escaping into humour)
Mild conspiracy alert time, but:
Increased diplomatic ties with Russia + Russia is desperate for more soldiers = keep churning out those future military contractors
Also much of that region of Africa (Niger included) is highly unstable; there’s always the possibility of more localized geopolitical concerns promoting a population arms race.
Going more by Occam’s razor, and a bit of Hanlon’s: They copy-pasted every queer term they could find, and dumped it into the gay-bad bill. The junta may or may not have known what asexual even is.
It’s an islamic country, which also has evangelical missionary influence, and positions itself as anti-Western (when tolerance is highly associated with the West), so that’s a great way to win political points. Now, poorly written laws like that would be a problem… if they had rule of law and working courts in the first place, which they don’t.
This is also highly likely. Anti-LGBTQIA+ folks aren’t exactly known for being well-versed in their queer terminology, and I can totally see the “A” (hell, probably the “I” too) getting swept up in general anti-queer measures, even when it’s nonsensical.
What, are they going to make it illegal to not have sex then? What?
Nigerian incels’ last hope.
Nigerien*
Nigerian would be someone from Nigeria
Niger being a different, fully islamic country, mostly in the Sahara instead of on the lush coast. Since a lot of people don’t know the difference
Ah, just like how we use “Americen.”
Americens are from Americ
Canadians are from Canadia.
It’s more about not being able to be open about it.
I would not put it past the nutjobs (of any country) to pass a law that requires that each and every person* ensures their own replacement if not also surplus to that effect to make up for those that can’t. Or won’t.
* of course, by that point they might have created propaganda if not also a law about who or what counts as a person, because they only want more of those, not anyone who might be classified as less than one.
Somehow that’s even more stupid than criminalizing homosexuality.
You can be ace and have sex, have children…
You just can’t enjoy it, at least if you’re at the deeper ends of the spectrum.
Pretty much :(
This is also about censorship. Can’t discuss or teach about these things, since they’re “criminal”. Engineering sexual ignorance.
The fuck… ?
Didn’t have that one on my bingo card.
In June 2026, the nation of Niger became the first nation in the world ++to criminalise asexuality++, as part of a wider crackdown on the LGBTQIA+ community. The country, currently run by a military junta, broadened its anti-LGBTQIA+ laws, increasing the criminalisation of LGBTQIA+ ‘practices’ to include anyone who ‘attempts to’ participate.
The ILGA database says the newly passed laws, Article 25 and 390, are already having life-threatening implications on LGBTQIA+ people in Niger.
Ace people in Niger, alongside people of all LGBTQIA+ identities, can now face 5-10 years in prison and fines worth up to £130K.
The change was significant as it makes Niger the first country to name the asexual community in its law books. However, it begs the question: how does one ban an asexual “practice”, other than to punish people who are not married and those who don’t have babies? To understand, we should see this law as part of a bigger – and growing – global trend among conservatives.
Understand the LGBTQIA+ news
Every Saturday we explain the 🏳️🌈 headlines, help you stay on top of the latest queer content, and a different underrepresented writer shares their unique queer gaze
Try it!
No spam, no ads, unsubscribe anytime - supports queer creatives
Niger’s crackdown on asexual “practices” is not isolated to the West African nation; it’s part of a greater trend of anti-LGBTQIA+ rhetoric, enforced monogamy and anti-abortion movements worldwide.
In ++2026++, Niger (alongside Burkina Faso and Mali) has strengthened diplomatic ties with Russia, while their military juntas are at war with insurgent groups. This move comes at a time when Russia instituted a ban on “++propaganda++” that promotes childfree lifestyles. But this rhetoric is not isolated to countries we tend to associate with deep-rooted conservative laws.
Meanwhile, conservatives in the U.S. have been shaming childfree women as ++“childless cat ladies”.++ This builds on previous campaigns from the religious right in America, which stated the Respect for Marriage Act ++would lead to asexual marriages++, which they believed would lead to a marriage “inferno”. Groups like the Heritage Foundation equated asexual marriages to “selfishness”.
Zoom out a little, and it’s easy to see the hypocrisy of conservative religious people demonising asexuality, considering how much abstinence was preached to me growing up in a conservatively religious home.
Asexuality stands in direct contrast to the religious right’s shaming of ‘childfree’ people, which also often ignores other routes to having children like adoption, and ++family models that show you can be asexual and a parent++. Instead, the decreasing birth rate has been a talking point of right-wing politics for years.
And yet, conservatives do not care to address the many concerns related to raising a child – such as rising costs of childcare, affordable housing, and lack of reproductive justice. They only seem to care about making everyone become a parent.
[…]
