Asexuality

[JoJo]

Simply discussing a group of people, in a polite and measured manner as the OP has done, is too much?

IMO, yes quite frankly it is. I'm just tired of the constant, incessant threads on sexuality, diversity, feminism, misogyny, yadda yadda. There should really be a separate forum for those issues, similar to R&P. The social crusades are tiresome and it's completely destroyed the "family friendly" ethos of the site. It's no longer a fun, light-hearted place to hang out, talk about games and geekery and it's threads like this one that are to blame.

The Escapist... family friendly? Have you ever watched Zero Punctuation or the Jimquisition?

Besides, this was quite clearly a sexuality thread from the title, no-one is forcing you to read it or any similar threads if you don't want to.

OT: Interesting thread, I have a question I'd like to field for any asexuals who are willing to answer. Would an exclusive paraphiliac, i.e. someone who is only attracted to something that isn't men or women count as an asexual? They would effectively be in the same situation after-all, being uninterested in a real life sexual relationship.

 

[IceForce]

(And if you weren't making that claim, but simply explaining the reasons why pan broke off, then fine, I don't mean to get snippy - it's just that Z. Amaranth already fielded this question and did so while acknowledging that not all bisexuals believe the same thing - thanks Z! - likely because Z and I have had arguments about this in the past and have come to something of a detente.)

Oh yes, no claim, just pointing out the (I assume) widely-held reason that pansexuals have chosen to distinguish themselves.

Personally, I don't believe such a distinction is necessary, either.

 

[Silvanus]

Some humans do not desire sex and live perfectly happy lives. That's true. But it's neither normal...

"Normal" in what sense? "Normal" in the sense of "of the common type"? If so, that's an arbitrary and meaningless measure.

...nor the behaviour of healthy humans.

Prove it. Provide some actual evidence that it's unhealthy, and I'll listen. Until then, we just have baseless claims.

IMO, yes quite frankly it is. I'm just tired of the constant, incessant threads on sexuality, diversity, feminism, misogyny, yadda yadda. There should really be a separate forum for those issues, similar to R&P. The social crusades are tiresome and it's completely destroyed the "family friendly" ethos of the site. It's no longer a fun, light-hearted place to hang out, talk about games and geekery and it's threads like this one that are to blame.

Don't know whether it's a "crusade" to discuss something of interest to the OP, or how this topic is somehow not "family friendly". If you don't want to read about it, don't.

Don't go telling other people what they should discuss in the damn Off-Topic Forum. Absurd.

 

[chiggerwood]

Simply discussing a group of people, in a polite and measured manner as the OP has done, is too much?

IMO, yes quite frankly it is. I'm just tired of the constant, incessant threads on sexuality, diversity, feminism, misogyny, yadda yadda. There should really be a separate forum for those issues, similar to R&P. The social crusades are tiresome and it's completely destroyed the "family friendly" ethos of the site. It's no longer a fun, light-hearted place to hang out, talk about games and geekery and it's threads like this one that are to blame.

The Escapist... family friendly? Have you ever watched Zero Punctuation or the Jimquisition?

Besides, this was quite clearly a sexuality thread from the title, no-one is forcing you to read it or any similar threads if you don't want to.

OT: Interesting thread, I have a question I'd like to field for any asexuals who are willing to answer. Would an exclusive paraphiliac, i.e. someone who is only attracted to something that isn't men or women count as an asexual? They would effectively be in the same situation after-all, being uninterested in a sexual relationship with another person.

I would say no, because that still denotes sexual attraction. Asexuality is no sexual attraction, paraphilia is a sexual attraction, to objects instead of people, but still a sexual attraction.

 

[Haukur Isleifsson]

If you doubt that a group is misunderstood and faces prejudice. Than make a thread acknowledging their existence. The comments will show you if a label is necessary.

 

[shirkbot]

I just wanted to say thank you for posting this. I'm usually not big on discussing my sexuality, but it's sometimes nice to have confirmation that I'm not alone in my state of being.

[HEADING=3]Demisexual[/HEADING]
Demisexuals (Demi for short), are people who are for the most part asexual, but will experience sexual attraction only toward a person with whom they have a significantly strong bond. This person does not have to be an S.O, they can also be a best friend, colleague or anyone else.

[HEADING=3]Grey-A[/HEADING]
These people do not feel the asexual label fits them completely. They are asexual with exceptions.

Examples:

-May not experience sexual attraction for long periods of time, but only every so often.

-Sexually attracted to someone but with no desire to act on it[footnote]Outside of reasons like "they're married"[/footnote]

-Asexual but fantasize about sleeping with people who are typically unavailable (celebrities, video game characters, ext)

I don't think not being horny counts as a sexual orientation, but I can go with "live and let live".

What's makes zero sense though are these things I've quoted. These are not sexual orientations. Sexual orientations define who/what you are attracted to, not how/under what conditions you are attracted to them.

Edit: took edginess out of post.

Thanks for being pretty chill about it. As to the not-totally-asexual categories: I can see how it can seem like just not being particularly randy, but the key is that you're not just not randy, but that you have no interest in being randy. Someone like this finds their sexuality largely defined by the conditions of attraction because they aren't going to want sex at all until those specific conditions are met.

Admittedly, everyone has their set of conditions and some are more stringent than others, but they are also not usually apathetic to the idea of sex itself from the get-go. For me the thought of sex generally makes me shrug, even when I'm single, and it's difficult to understand when other people talk about wanting it. I have to be in a relationship before I'll feel any sexual desire, and even then it's strictly for my partner. If that relationship ends then I go back to a null state.

I hope that helps somewhat.

 

[Sarah Kerrigan]

I remember when I first came out about my asexuality to my parents they both just told me I was confused. But really, I'm not. I know I don't want to have sex in my life at the moment, and maybe I won't for the rest of my life, or a few months, or a few years...I don't know. I just know this is who I am and who i want to be soooo...

yeah.

thanks for making this thread <3

 

[The Lunatic]

Also I think a good chunk of the people in this very thread accusing asexual people of being "special snowflakes" show that quite a few people deny that they even exist and that they just want attention.

Honestly, as somebody who would probably be regarded as "Asexual", I think that do run with the definition just so they can be a "Special snowflake".

I mean, I don't doubt that they are asexual, but, to define yourself by it is a little silly. Your sexual orientation generally shouldn't be of interest to many people outside yourself, as to why you'd want to define yourself by it to such an intent just screams attention mongering.

Obviously, this is not to say that one should repress their sexuality, just that some of those that don't tend to do it for the wrong reasons which reflects badly on everyone else.

 

[giles]

Also I think a good chunk of the people in this very thread accusing asexual people of being "special snowflakes" show that quite a few people deny that they even exist and that they just want attention.

Err no. If you want my opinion you should ask me and not assume something completely unrelated. I don't deny that people can have varying degrees of sexual urges. There was a time when I thought I might be "asexual" to some degree.
Point is I slapped myself out of it because I'm too old to need labels for myself other than "me". And really, who cares. I'm not concerned about other people's sex lifes unless it relates to me and if they're too infantile to return the favour they are simply not worth my attention. I encourage mental growth about such things, coming to terms with who you are and want to be is a fundamental part of growing up.

BUT if you must have your "awareness week" that's cool, just remember to get over it eventually.

 

[Malty Milk Whistle]

I think one of the reasons people still have awareness weeks and flags and stuff is due to opinions like a some in this thread, in that people tend to just think "no, you're being special and pretentious stop"
not that I agree with either the flags or the douchiness.
I don't really like using the labels or whatever either, but I do know that I've never really felt any overpowering urge to do anything of that nature with anyone or anything, though it's probably just a low libido or whatever you call it.

Have got some aggressive reactions to me telling people that I'm just not interested though.

 

[shirkbot]

If you doubt that a group is misunderstood and faces prejudice. Than make a thread acknowledging their existence. The comments will show you if a label is necessary.

Spoiler: High-five

Though to be fair, labels are as much for the people using it as for others. It's nice to be able to shorthand aspects of yourself so that you can more easily explain them and find similar people.

 

[Erttheking]

Also I think a good chunk of the people in this very thread accusing asexual people of being "special snowflakes" show that quite a few people deny that they even exist and that they just want attention.

Honestly, as somebody who would probably be regarded as "Asexual", I think that do run with the definition just so they can be a "Special snowflake".

I mean, I don't doubt that they are asexual, but, to define yourself by it is a little silly. Your sexual orientation generally shouldn't be of interest to many people outside yourself, as to why you'd want to define yourself by it to such an intent just screams attention mongering.

Obviously, this is not to say that one should repress their sexuality, just that some of those that don't tend to do it for the wrong reasons which reflects badly on everyone else.

I can understand what you're saying, but when so many people assume that asexuality just can't exist, say it's unhealthy or just a figment of someone's imagination, I really can't blame people for standing up and saying "No, I exist!"

Also I think a good chunk of the people in this very thread accusing asexual people of being "special snowflakes" show that quite a few people deny that they even exist and that they just want attention.

Err no. If you want my opinion you should ask me and not assume something completely unrelated. I don't deny that people can have varying degrees of sexual urges. There was a time when I thought I might be "asexual" to some degree.
Point is I slapped myself out of it because I'm too old to need labels for myself other than "me". And really, who cares. I'm not concerned about other people's sex lifes unless it relates to me and if they're too infantile to return the favour they are simply not worth my attention. I encourage mental growth about such things, coming to terms with who you are and want to be is a fundamental part of growing up.

BUT if you must have your "awareness week" that's cool, just remember to get over it eventually.

"Get over it" that nice little dismissive term to silence someone else's point of view. Charming.

And here's the thing. You may not feel the need for the identity, but plenty of other people do, especially considering that many people in this very thread seem to be convinced that being asexual isn't a real thing. People don't like being told that they're not real, and maybe you went through an asexual phase, but for plenty of people it isn't a phase, it's who they are. Don't be so dismissive.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

That said, I do find some of the classifications a little pointless. I can't remember the name of it, but there was some scale of sexuality being bandied about a while back. One end was 100% homosexual and the other was 100% heterosexual, and people were trying to classify these grey areas inbetween. That strikes me as an utter waste of time- if you're mostly straight but have a slight attraction to the same sex, does it really matter if that attraction isn't enough to act upon? To all intents and purposes, you are straight.

That's probably the Kinsey scale you're talking about.

That's the one, thanks.

OT: sexuality is a funny thing, mabye it's Easyer if we let people call themselves what they want

I'm inclined to agree with this. Sexuality is one of those things (like religion) that's so deeply personal that it's usually best not to argue to much even if you disagree, because you're never to going to change their opinion.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Some humans do not desire sex and live perfectly happy lives. That's true. But it's neither normal nor the behaviour of healthy humans. Genuine asexuals have an underlying physiological or psychological reason for it. Anyone else claiming to be asexual without an issue is a liar.

Why do you believe this though? Their is a legitimately helpful evolutionary reason for asexuals, in that they allow for more child caretakers without more children. They also appear in high enough numbers around 1%, to be consider a standard trait. So for no you are insisting on calling apxotimaly 1% of people broken or damaged for being who they are. Unless you give a reason (and repeating the same baseless statement over and over again is not a reason), it looks like you are just being a jerk because the idea of someone not wanting sex seems unnatural to you, which is stupid.

I consider asexuality, in the genuine cases, to be an issue. It is a result of genetics, a "syndrome" or "disorder" of some sort in those cases. Someone is born with something that represses sexual desire. Perhaps it's something acquired later in life and not a result of genetics, heredity or the like; an illness, damage to parts of the brain/body that regulate hormones, etc.

It may also be psychological. Abuse as a child, some traumatic or learned experience has caused an issue later in life. It is also quite distinct from *choosing* to remain celibate, consciously stifling attraction/desire or having a strange fetish of some sort, like attraction to an inanimate object. Those are vastly different. Healthy, normal adults desire sex. They may be attracted to one gender, the other, or both. Being attracted to neither, the definition of asexuality, is a result of something wrong that causes them to be that way. The fact that over 95% of people are heterosexual, about 3% are homosexual already shows that it isn't normal. And understanding basic biology, hormones, evolution, genetics, reproduction, attraction, puberty, menstruation, etc. tells me that is not a normal state for healthy individuals. They may well be healthy in all other ways, but genuine lack of sexual desire is not normal, it *is* unnatural and those 1% of people you mention, if it is so high, are thus abnormal.

 

[shirkbot]

If you're asexual you have a mental disorder and ought to seek help. If you experience sexual attraction, then you're not asexual and you're a special snowflake looking for attention. The system devised in OP is full of logical fallacies and plain bullshit. For example, "Romantic attraction" is not a real fucking emotion.

... Why?
If you're asexual, you don't care about sex, that's all. It's not a mental illness and it doesn't hurt anyone, so why seek help for something that isn't a problem?
The system described in the OP is actually an existing system. People use it to find ways to describe themselves, how they act, and how they feel to make it easier for them to understand and communicate those aspects of themselves to others. If you have problems with it, why not actually address specific concerns rather than insisting it's fallacious and assuming anyone will consider that a valid argument?
It's pretty broadly accepted that there is more than one type of attraction, and more than one type of attractiveness, so why is "romantic attraction" any less valid than any other emotional descriptor?

 

[Something Amyss]

Ah the classic "what does it matter to you? if you don't like it just go away." argument.

Except that was a lie, and you shouldn't twist my words.

I asked why it mattered how you felt about it, and how that differed from the way people "felt" about other sexualities. If I don't "feel" monosexuality is legit, does it change its existence? Gays and straights still exist, after all.

I notice you didn't really address that, even as you said I didn't address your argument. Hmmm. Well then, moving on.

So, because I don't see the need for flags and boxes in a modern, western society, I'm endorsing the status quo?

Unfortunately, I'm moving on to another person attributing to me something I didn't say.

Please, point to where I said that. Spoiler: I didn't.

 

[Spider RedNight]

If you're asexual you have a mental disorder and ought to seek help. If you experience sexual attraction, then you're not asexual and you're a special snowflake looking for attention. The system devised in OP is full of logical fallacies and plain bullshit. For example, "Romantic attraction" is not a real fucking emotion.

But I don't have a mental disorder(to my knowledge but that doesn't help my case); I'm a perfectly functioning human being who just never has thoughts of sex or sexual attraction. I don't think being legitimately asexual is any more a problem than someone having a sexual preference for men or women or both.

I don't parade around wearing a sticker that says "ASEXUAL AND PROUD", I don't usually even bring it up in conversation because it doesn't really matter to me because I don't feel anything in that regard. Yeahhh I'll admit I thought something was wrong in high school because all of my friends were sex-obsessed kids who only talked about looks and lists of people they'd wanna screw and I just never took part in it. I just don't find any interest in the idea of anything sexual and the posts in this thread that are all like "If you're asexual then you're either a liar or mentally ill" so how come when straight people say gay people are mentally ill there's this rush of defense but when anyone calls an asexual mentally ill it's okay because hell, ANY sexuality is more normal than none?

Yeah okay, there MIGHT be something wrong upstairs but is it REALLY an issue that someone would rather not have sex with anyone than crave too MUCH sex and somehow crowd the world with typical fantasies, kids formed in immature decisions and general wastefulness of things relating to any bad repercussion that comes with sex?

 

[V4Viewtiful]

While I'm good with the discussion and exposure of us Asexuals, just be wary about such a thread. There's a few folks around that will demean us as just "trying to explain our virginity/lack of contact/etc". Anyway, asexual here and proud of it.

Hey, at least you have that option for an excuse, hehe.

I had an Ace friend for a while, she was more fun than most girls I knew.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

Thats what it was for me. My parents told me about it before 7th grade Sex Ed, I told them "I dont care what you have to do, I WILL NOT take that class", opted out, took another gym class instead.

Now I am no expert on the American School system... but your Sex Ed is about how to have sex?

In the UK Sex Ed is more about health and keeping safe. It's split into genders earlier on (primary school) where you learn about puberty within your own gender, and then later in schooling (mid secondary, pre-GCSE's) you do similar, but more on the health side like STI's (not only received through intercourse) how to check yourself for cancer and contraceptive measures. At not one point were we told how to stick a dick in a fanny...

 

[Combustion Kevin]

I asked why it mattered how you felt about it, and how that differed from the way people "felt" about other sexualities. If I don't "feel" monosexuality is legit, does it change its existence? Gays and straights still exist, after all.

Because he's not argueing wether people like that excist, he argues if it's supposed to be called a sexuality or not, since it mostly describes one's sex drive, not their attraction.
A strong sex drive is not a sexuality, neither is a small one, these are personal traits to an individual, homosexuality on the other hand, is a legitimate sexuality.