Asexuality

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

I kind of get what you're driving at with not having an interest in being randy, but then one could assume that conservative Christians who don't have sex until marriage are also 'demisexual', which is usually done out of choice, not an extremely specific urge. I thought the whole point of sexuality is that you were born a certain way, which has been the top argument for LGBT rights from the get-go. Being emotionally attached to someone before wanting to get physically intimate with them doesn't really count as a sexuality in it's own right.

What I'm trying to get at is this:
Example - Would you only bang the opposite sex? Straight. Only if they were close to you first? Still Straight.
Example - Would you only bang the same sex? Queer. You are simply sexually attracted to them but have no desire to act on it? Still Queer.

Just ask yourself, if the person you became close with and attracted to was another gender, would you still want to have sex with them? Then you'd be pansexual or bisexual. Are you only attracted to them as the gender they are? Then you're queer or straight (depending on your gender and theirs).

Again, I get what you're driving at and I hope my explanation helps. There's nothing wrong with not being as horny as most human beings, and the way people interpret you not wanting to have sex at the crook of a finger will differ from person to person, and from community to community.

P.S. I apologize for my crass language, I live in Australia and have the colloquialisms running through my brain.

No worries mate, I swear like a sailor in person. I'm just happy to talk to someone that's being reasonable.

I can see what you're getting at, and it really is a weird thing to describe, but you did touch on something very important in your own post: It's not a conscious decision/choice. Personally, I can only be attracted to someone I'm romantically involved with, whether I like it or not. That it coincides with societies ideals is just a happy accident.

As to hetero/gay/bi/pan: It all still applies, albeit in a somewhat odd way. As the original poster pointed out, asexual people can have romantic relationships along all the alignments, and 1 person will maintain their orientation throughout their lives, they just don't desire sex.

I'm finding it difficult to make a good analogy for demisexuality and gray-a, but I think an electrical/light switch is a good place to start. For these people (us?) asexuality is the default, 0, off, and it will remain that way until someone comes along and actually hits the switch, but if they leave it just goes back to off. So far, so normal (I think... Again, demisexual/making assumptions). The main difference is that at no point does it feel like something is missing or wrong.

Is that making it any clearer? Or am I just making it worse?

I'm reading you loud and clear mate. I just have one question. You said hetero/gay/bi/pan all still apply. If you don't mind me asking, which one of these apply to you? Because I don't think you can be, hetero/gay/bi/pan and demisexual at the same time, it just doesn't make sense. There's an orientation (gender) which you aim at, demisexual/grey-a seems more like a condition or a kink (emotionally close, rich, older, younger, asian, tall, short, strong, door-mat, sadist, etc), albeit more of a... uh... hardline pre-requisite with no exceptions.

Although I do get what you're saying with the light switch though, you're saying "it's physically impossible to get aroused unless I'm emotionally attached to the person" right? I can understand that. If everyone in the world worked that way it'd be a much better place.

I mean in the end it doesn't effect me or anyone else but you and other people who identify similarly, I'm just glad I've gotten more of an understanding of this from you. What I would like to discuss are the logical problems I've mentioned in the first paragraph, if we hash it out over that, I think we could both learn something.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

by oppressive you mean depressing? yeah that was definitely the idea

Actually, no. It wasn't that it was depressing, it was that it was so constantly and consistently depressing in a very oppressive and... heavy way. It was like the house (the Lilly house, I mean) was closing in around me while I read, watching over my shoulder and frowning (as much as a house can frown) whenever I shook the book and yelled "Kiss damn it!" at Sue and Maud.

did you read the book or did you watch the thing first?

I actually haven't seen the BBC version of Fingersmith yet.

I first got into Sarah Waters by watching the Tipping the Velvet mini series and then seeking out the book. I also picked up Fingersmith because A) the library had it and B) I (wrongly) assumed that fingersmith meant to do with fingers what tipping the velvet means to do with the tongue.

If you want to recommend any of them for a next read, I'd be interested in a suggestion.

I watched it after and while it was good I feel I can't look at it objectively due to "book is better" syndrome, I feel like the two mains were...simplified to be a little more sympathetic...I will say though that they managed to make the words "you pearl" not cheesy at all

**snort**

The Kushiel series has forever ruined the word pearl for me.

I plan to read then watch tipping the velvet...

Considering how much the narrative is about song and costume, I'd almost suggest watching first. Almost. I generally find it hard to recommend watching before reading, since I generally prefer reading.

I will say, if nothing else, watching Nan (the main character of Tipping the Velvet) turn up on Doctor Who was... kinda hilarious.

I've heard of this one but the "high fantasy" thing put me off...though when you explain it like that...also does it have something to do with BDSM?

To answer in reverse order.

Yes, it has a lot to do with BDSM. The main character of the first trilogy is Phedre, a courtesan in everyone-is-bi France who is blessed/cursed by Kushiel, the French god of punishment and redemption. Her curse/blessing is that she feels pain as pleasure. Thus, as a courtesan, she is uniquely blessed to serve as the ultimate submissive. She also gets trained as a spy and is quickly embroiled in a deadly political game.

That said, actually the Kushiel universe is low fantasy, not high fantasy. More Game of Thrones level, where magic is very rare. There is a Wizard of note, but he's a hermit that gets his kicks sinking ships in the English channel and most non-sailors think he's a myth (and that bad weather is what sinks the ships).

At the same time, there are many minor magical elements. Kushiel's influence on her is clearly magical in nature (the red mark in her eye changes size depending on how much pain she's in). The high nobles are descended from angels (technically fallen angels) and often get minor powers based thereon (for instance, a noble line descended from an angel of agriculture have perfumed sweat - their sweat smells sweet, like fresh cut apples). This "power" is completely useless, but not all are (another noble line is sensitive to "fault lines" in individuals and can use this to be either more verbally cutting or gently manipulative).

Honestly, up until the Wizard, it is entirely possible to take every supernatural thing in the story as just a magical explanation for intuition or biology... again, until the guy who can control waves turns out to be real.

The main characters themselves never control any noteworthy magic (apart from Phedre's immunity to pain). Magic is mysterious, dangerous, and other - as in, not something you find in France.

maybe I heard about it from io9 or something...generally YA and dystopia aren't my thing...but still

**blinks**

Um, Santa Olivia is neither YA or dystopian.

It has far too much lesbian sex to be YA, and the genetic super soldier backstory actually leads into something more akin to a super hero story.

Okay, quick summary of the prologue.

A genetic supersoldier escapes from a lab... and hides out in a town on the American border with Mexico, where he falls in love with a local woman. They have a child together, but then the government catches up to him, so he has to go on the run again. They don't find out about the daughter. She is born with genetic supersoldier powers... in random New Mexican town. By age 10, she and her friends are "doing good" with some mysterious super heroic shenanigans.

Her town is a shit hole, true, but it isn't a dystopia. The other towns and cities (seen in book 2) are perfectly pleasant.

There are some issues of humanity and government ownership of people (and if genetic super soldiers are people), but it's all fairly reasonable and non dystopian.

I've been reading "maplecroft" by cherrie priest (better known for her steampunk novels I believe) and I was pleasantly surprised to find the main character had a girlfriend....great book anyway

Maplecroft. I will check the library for it. ^^

 

[Vault101]

Actually, no. It wasn't that it was depressing, it was that it was so constantly and consistently depressing in a very oppressive and... heavy way. It was like the house (the Lilly house, I mean) was closing in around me while I read, watching over my shoulder and frowning (as much as a house can frown) whenever I shook the book and yelled "Kiss damn it!" at Sue and Maud.

lol....I know what you mean, and [spoiler/]19th century asylum pretty much speaks for itself *shudder*[/spoiler]

[quote/]
I actually haven't seen the BBC version of Fingersmith yet.[/quote]
ahhh well tell me what you think if you ever get around to it...again I find it very hard to look at subjectively

[quote/]I first got into Sarah Waters by watching the Tipping the Velvet mini series and then seeking out the book. I also picked up Fingersmith because A) the library had it and B) I (wrongly) assumed that fingersmith meant to do with fingers what tipping the velvet means to do with the tongue.[/quote]
...well it could be a double entrendre

[quote/]If you want to recommend any of them for a next read, I'd be interested in a suggestion.[/quote]
The paying guests I'm really enjoying...Affinity is good just...not a happy kind of good


[quote/]Considering how much the narrative is about song and costume, I'd almost suggest watching first. Almost. I generally find it hard to recommend watching before reading, since I generally prefer reading.[/quote]
eh I'm willing to forgoe my enjoyment of the series to enjoy the book more

[quote/]I will say, if nothing else, watching Nan (the main character of Tipping the Velvet) turn up on Doctor Who was... kinda hilarious.[/quote]
the character or the actress?

[quote/]
Yes, it has a lot to do with BDSM....[/quote]
ah well that does sound interesting....

[quote/]**blinks**

Um, Santa Olivia is neither YA or dystopian.

It has far too much lesbian sex to be YA, and the genetic super soldier backstory actually leads into something more akin to a super hero story.
[/quote]

ohhhh....its those damn goodreads tags, they'll slap YA on anything doesn't help that if I even get a whiff of that kind of thing I avoid it

 

[DestinyCall]

Pretty scary, honestly. Today?s youth not interested in sex? What does that say for tomorrow?s generation?

Clearly it means the next generation will turn into giant pandas and modern civilization will collapse due to a worldwide shortage of bamboo shoots.

But seriously, asexuality has been around a long, long time. It is hardly an epidemic suddenly sweeping through our teenagers. Also, to my knowledge, it is a relatively rare orientation, although it wouldn't surprise me if the prevalence is under-reported. Asexuals are pretty good at flying under the radar - it is generally more difficult to prove someone is NOT doing something ... especially when it is something as private as sex. I suspect the reason why so many of the asexuals you encountered on that website were in their twenties has more to do with the a matter of timing. Young adulthood is a pretty common time for people to consider their sexual identity and explore other options if "heterosexual" doesn't seem to fit them - they are past puberty with enough time/experience to recognize that a different pattern is developing.

 

[Vault101]

. I mean, maybe this is why Japan?s birth rate is in decline A culture overflowing with escapism everywhere. From video games, to comics, to pop idols: Japan is flooded with escapism *and* youth not interested in sex. Heck, I only first learned about asexuality maybe 2 years ago from another internet website. And yea, most everyone claiming asexuality were kids in their 20?s and below.

Pretty scary, honestly. Today?s youth not interested in sex? What does that say for tomorrow?s generation?

I've heard about this Japan thing, however they ARE interested in sex...just not with people, they'd rather substitute it...people have speculated some cultural reasons for this but I don't think its the same as asexuality

Clearly it means the next generation will turn into giant pandas and modern civilization will collapse due to a worldwide shortage of bamboo shoots.

....wastelander panda?

[I/]the bamboo wars?[/I]

 

[Lieju]

Sorry, can you explain to me how straight people are shoving their sexuality in your face?

The thought of this genuinly confuses me.

For example, telling me they are straight.
Referring to their partner as 'wife' or 'husband' instead of gender-neutral terms.
Writing heterosexual characters in every freaking movie ever, often with romantic subplots that are superficial and don't matter...
Talking about how they find a person of opposite sex hot...

All things people in homosexual relationships or non-heterosexual interests get called out all the time if THEY do it.

Because I don't live in a society where people don't care what your sexuality is.

They don't care as long as you're straight.

 

[giles]

snip

I resent the fact that you put my posts alongside some of the ignorant tripe that some other users have recieved warnings for.
In fact, the reactions to my posts lead me to believe that my point was much more sophisticated than just saying "you're all frigid snowflakes" (also see Chromatic Aberration's post about normative properties of group labels).

 

[El Comandante]

If you're thinking it's a handicap "scientifically" for someone to be asexual, you're thinking too narrowly.

I only meant passingon your genes on. It's definitely a bit easier if you are in it with passion. For a lot of other parts of daily life it´s most likely the opposite.
But you are right it´s only one theory and I have not seen scientific proof for it.

It might not be. Often, beneficial genes are simply more beneficial than detrimental. Heterosexual siblings of homosexuals tend to be more promiscuous because of what appears to be a heritable trait. That means that there is a clear benefit: heterosexuals who have this trait are more likely to spread their genes. If homosexuals are removed from the gene pool, it's still a net benefit. The same is true of many genetic traits.

Are you talking about a homo/hetro or homo/homo parents? That would make a differnce, as in vitro fertilization is not that old. A more relaxed sexual education could also be a cause. I also would be interested in you source, it sounds very interesting. This all still does not have to apply to asexuals, but there might be reasons why this could be a advantage or at least not a dead end.
The point that I was trying to make is that there are no 100% answers if asexuality (or homo- and by definition also hetro-) is a medical condition. But I´m not sure if this diskussion those who are affected, but I do not feel good about not speaking about things.

 

[stroopwafel]

Now, there is debate within human sexuality experts as to whether or not asexuality is a sexuality, but I'm yet to see anyone say it's actually unhealthy, or any sort of clinical disgnoses indicating repression. I mean, I am open to proof to the contrary, but as far as I can tell asexuals are not harming themselves or others and as such dismissal of this nature is patently absurd and rather closed-minded.

Obviously, there are genuine medical explanations for lack of a sex-drive like androgeny or nervous system/hormone problems. But in otherwise healthy individuals who have sexual feelings yet claim to ''feel sexually attracted to no one'', well, I find that highly suspect. Like the scandal in the Catholic church, where clergy people claim to not need/want sex b/c they have Jesus yet ruined many a choir boy's life by raping them(in no small part thanks to their suppressed desires). Obviously it is not my intention to lump everyone in the same category or suggest 'asexuals' are could-be abusers, but with sexual desire being an integral part of human instinct similarly like wanting to eat or sleep(what other mechanism could there be to preserve the species?) 'overruling' this desire with whatever ridiculous make-belief our conscious mind makes up does not render a person 'asexual'.

Human behaviour is a complex thing primarily b/c our higher brain functions have exploded over the course of our evolution as a species. And it is exactly this that enables us to suggestively distance ourselves from our base instincts and desires, yet thinking so doesn't make it so. I don't buy into quack theories from psychology or social 'science'. So yeah, unless there is a clearly defined medical explanation I don't believe 'asexuality' is a thing. I understand there are a multitude of reasons that make people not act on their desires or that people can even pretend or genuinely believe to not feel any(espescially when it encapsulates parts of their identity) but eventually the frail construct that constitute our conscious mind won't subjugate the baseline instinct that is the source of all life. Ego, identity and sense of self be damned.

 

[Lieju]

Obviously it is not my intention to lump everyone in the same category or suggest 'asexuals' are could-be abusers, but with sexual desire being an integral part of human instinct similarly like wanting to eat or sleep(what other mechanism could there be to preserve the species?) 'overruling' this desire with whatever ridiculous make-belief our conscious mind makes up does not render a person 'asexual'.

Human behaviour is a complex thing primarily b/c our higher brain functions have exploded over the course of our evolution as a species. And it is exactly this that enables us to suggestively distance ourselves from our base instincts and desires, yet thinking so doesn't make it so. I don't buy into quack theories from psychology or social 'science'. So yeah, unless there is a clearly defined medical explanation I don't believe 'asexuality' is a thing. I understand there are a multitude of reasons that make people not act on their desires or that people can even pretend or genuinely believe to not feel any(espescially when it encapsulates parts of their identity) but eventually the frail construct that constitute our conscious mind won't subjugate the baseline instinct that is the source of all life. Ego, identity and sense of self be damned.

...

You are aware humans are a social species, yes?
And that things like sexual orientation can be dependant on multiple genes?

Those same arguments (which are quack theories based on partial understanding of evolution) are commonly used to 'prove' how homosexuality cannot be a thing, btw.
There could very well be an advantage for a social species to have asexual members.
Members who don't feel the need to breed and will help take care of the offspring of their siblings for example, indirectly ensuring their genes continue to the next generation.

And of course asexual people can have children and could have been coerced to do it, or chosen to.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

Romantic Attraction:
Attraction specifically to the romance aspect of a relationship. (ex: long moonlit walks on the beach, candlelit dinners, watching the sunset together, ext). An ace may use a romantic orientation to describe themself, which is similar to a sexual orientation, but without the sex.

Sooo, quick question. Is it weird that I'm the opposite to this?

I've never felt romantic attraction to anyone, ever. However, I still really enjoy sex, a lot.

It's not weird at all. That's Aromantic. Those descriptors can be used by anyone of any sexual orientation, it just tends to be a little redundant if your romantic orientation matches your sexual orientation (ex: Heteroromantic Heterosexual). Aromantic in particular would be extremely useful to people who just want to skip right to the sex part.

Wait, we have a flag?
Hold on, we get to be called Aces?
How is it that I'm a part of this group and I didn't know these things?
All that I have to say on that is that's freaking awesome.

Anyways, well said OP, I appreciate you making things clearer, though there seems to be a point of some contention to what I was thinking.
So I have always been of the belief that Asexuality was split between two types:
Type A: Being repulsed by the idea of sex
Type B: Not being repulsed but not seeking it out.

Is there two different schools of thought on this or am I simply mislabeling this from the more regular formula?

Yep and card puns abound. Also the Ace Trainer from Pokemon.

Sexuality is hard to define (which is why I'm for challenging the definition). Some people may believe they're two separate groups (Type A and Type B), I'm not personally one of those people and *from what I've seen* it's not regular practice to separate them because it's exclusionary and can branch into dickish behavior. Both these types are ace to me and I feel no reason to separate them.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

(I apologize in advance for my tendency to ramble a little excessively.)

It's actually pretty refreshing to see others looking to incite these types of discussions. Discussions on asexuality tend to sit on extremes, with YouTube-esque bile on one side and over-protectiveness to the point of groupthink on the other. Neither extreme tends to invite looking at the topic with critical eyes, which is pretty unfortunate, considering.

From what I've seen, a lot of online asexual spaces fall into an incredibly predictable repetition of the same topics on an endless loop, and for every "am I asexual?" thread , there is a "what even is sexual attraction?" thread waiting nearby. So while the definition of asexuality as "the absence of sexual attraction" is the cleanest definition on paper, it still is far from perfect because "sexual attraction" is not rigidly defined. (That problem is way worse when people start talking about what "romantic attraction" really is since that's an even more abstract concept.) Plus, even that definition is less straightforward than the oversimplified definitions commonly used to define orientation, which is why some people oversimplify asexuality as "doesn't want sex", which makes the dialogue all the more confusing when people are operating with different definitions of the term. (I think that's why a lot of questioning goes straight to libido, with some of the most common asexuality questions being "do you masturbate" and "have you had your hormones checked".)

I agree. To be honest, I'm surprised by almost none of this thread. This is literally the coolest I've ever been in a *heated* internet discussion, because I feel like this is a traveled road. That might annoy some people, but I'm comfortable answering these questions and pointing out the differences (over and over again), because how are people able to understand a topic if they're not allowed to ask questions?

Any trait defined by the absence of something is naturally going to be more abstract and difficult to explain than something based on the presence of something. I imagine that my religious apathy would be incredibly difficult for a super religious person to understand, and the concept would be even harder for someone to perceive if they thought that everyone was religious in the same way. I think that's why there's so many tangential topics attached; because there are so many assumptions and commonly asked questions to debunk. While it's helpful to debunk myths right out the gate, a fatter pill is generally going to be harder to swallow, so to speak. There has to be a balance somewhere, and the hardest part is that the balance point will differ on an individual level, so there's no promise that one audience will accept the same presentation of information as another. I won't pretend that I know the right amount of information to present when discussing asexuality, and if I ever had to "come out" about my orientation (I think the closet terminology is especially clunky for asexuality, but that's another ramble-fest), I would most likely just describe my own experiences instead of trying to educate about asexuality as a whole.

There have been a few people in this thread who have said along the lines of "I don't understand it, but I recognize it's a thing that's important to some people and I don't have to understand it to respect that."

That to me is an extremely positive attitude and one that I'm very happy to see.

Describing experiences is also a very useful tool, I chose not to do that in the OP, but rather have an introduction to the subject as a whole, because some people have just bluntly never heard of it at all. I had a hope people would describe experiences within the discussion it's self and some people have been doing that, but it's also uncomfortable for some in such an open manner, so I opened myself up to PM questions for people who want to be a little more private.

---

I would hope you can agree though, that they have the right to be upset about attitudes such as

...

Which are painfully common opinions.

I guess that's what I'm saying - a lot of homosexuals or even bisexuals would say their problems don't come from "painfully common opinions" but from serious institutional, systemic barriers to safety and social advancement.

There is a "painfully common opinion" that bisexual men are either just mindless sex machines or secretly just gay. That's annoying, but the real issue is that barring men who have sex with men from office, denying them job opportunities, discriminating against them in housing, harassing them, and even killing them are "painfully common actions". I think I bristle at a lot of this just because it seems like some people believe that oppression means people don't like you are people are mean to you or people say nasty things about you. That's not oppression. Oppression is when the material conditions of your life are negatively effected by a larger social structure.

Then you can freely look at some of the opinions in this thread as first world problems, and it'd be fine for you to do so, if you want, you can even express the difficulties of homosexuals as you have been doing. There have been a number of people in here who can relate and also opt to share their own experiences despite not being asexual. I just ask please, don't imply[footnote]Not that I'm saying you have[/footnote] they have no right to express themselves at all, even if the scale of hardship is different.

This thread is certainly going in many many directions because sexuality is such a diverse topic.

 

[Erttheking]

Isn't it funny that we can have multiple threads praising Greg Tito for letting people talk about GamerGate here but the moment someone starts a thread about a sexuality that isn't seen as standard we suddenly get loads of people jumping into the thread to decry that the thread exists? I guess a lot of people here only like freedom of speech when it's the freedom to say things that they identify with.

Wait, people have been trying to get rid of the thread or silence discussion? The most I've seen is people arguing about the nature of asexuality itself with some denying that it's a sexuality, but that's about it.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.861189-Asexuality#21422130

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.861189-Asexuality#21422277

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.861189-Asexuality#21422311

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.861189-Asexuality#21422338

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.861189-Asexuality?page=2#21422630

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.861189-Asexuality?page=3#21423070

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.861189-Asexuality?page=3#21423178

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.861189-Asexuality?page=4#21423865

That's just a quick and dirty inventory of the posts in this thread that go beyond rational, respectful disagreement and try to attack the fact that this discussion is happening- which is pretty much by definition an attempt to silence the discussion. Now personally, I don't object to the principle of trying to shame certain arguments into silence because certain arguments are unworthy of discourse and a waste of the public's time- but you can't exactly proclaim the greatness of being allowed to discuss things freely out of one side of your mouth and then turn around and bash people for having a thread about stuff you're not interested in out of the other.

Still don't see how it even comes down to a fraction of the stuff Gamergate discussion has had to face. Out of all of those, only one has actually questioned the need for the thread itself and only half are outright hostile/dicksih in their assertions. The other half are pretty much just a dissenting opinion on the matter, arguing in a fairly respective way what they believe is the nature of asexuality. You don't necessarily need to agree with the point or concept the OP is trying to promote to be for it's discussion. I kind of feel the same with the Anti-GG users on here even if I disagree with their points since it's not really them calling for the threads to be shut down and whatnot nor do they really have any clout or support to actually achieve such a thing.

You're honestly comparing the gamergate incident to the persecution faced by sexual minorities. Really? I mean...really? Do I have to explain why this isn't a proper comparison? This website is easily one of the nicest sites I've ever seen in regards to sexual minorities, and there's still a ton of bullshit that happens towards them.

 

[Beliyal]

The only problem I have with those kind of labels is that for the most part they're created by people who are pretty much the opposite of professional and then they expect everyone to take them as legitimate as any other label. It also doesn't help that the vast majority of these labels are for the most part covered by the already existent, more authentic labels and really only end up being a matter of splitting hairs on matters of personal preference. This is when you get to the point of the various Tumblr blogs with bios plastered with some sort of mish mash of words that don't really mean anything.

Well, there is another problem, in the fact that a lot of "new" sexualities or gender identities were never before explored or identified (and named) because until very recently, being anything other than heterosexual and cis was strange at best and potentially lethal to admit at worst. Without people speaking about it, professionals cannot identify and examine these cases, unless some professional has a rare condition like that. If you're just an average person and you feel that existing labels don't fit your experience, what can you do? You can seek help, but you have nothing to describe your condition with, only vague descriptions. So people come up with terminology and definitions and they try to make it official and validated by professionals.

When it comes to Tumblr, people have such a skewed opinion of it that it's not funny anymore. Tumblr has more than 200 million blogs. If I'm generous and say that on average, one user will have at least two blogs, that's 100 million people. Are there blogs where people invent new words for every little shit they can come up with? Yes, I've seen a few. One particular that I saw has, on average, 5 notes (which means that, on average, five people give those posts attention), and if the number of notes climbs to some outrageous number like 70, most of those come from people who found the post and started laughing at it (so you have people rebloging the post and adding "lol", "what the fuck" and "this is why we can't have nice things"). For your pleasure, or terror, I found the blog [http://mogaiarchive.tumblr.com/]. Aside from people constantly arguing with the owner(s) of the blog, as you can see, their invented genders and sexualities have from 3 to 7 notes. Let me make this clear: there is at least 100 million users of this site, and on average, there are 5 people that give attention to this blog that, by all means, is probably one of the perpetrators of this unspeakable crime of inventing mish-mash words that don't mean anything.

People find funny posts from Tumblr, compile them into funny posts for other sites and then laugh at them, making it look like to outsiders that Tumblr is nothing but people huddling together and inventing genders and sexualities in order to feel special. Needless to say, that doesn't happen. I mean, it happens somewhere because it's the internet, there are people who believe the Earth is flat and we don't use them to say that everyone on the internet fails at science. But to think this is the main problem or that this is all that's going on is false. It's a very bad practice that further promotes the discrimination and ridicule of people that don't fall within the norm. It uses the fringiest of cases to say that anyone who deviates from "normality" is a crazy weirdo who wants to be a special snowflake.

All that said, I do think that terminology should be concise, well-explained and well-organized, instead of chaotic and all around the place. But first we must speak about differences and identify them. More often than not, it's going to start with non-professionals, because what are the odds that only psychiatrists or neurologists will have them?

 

[Erttheking]

Isn't it funny that we can have multiple threads praising Greg Tito for letting people talk about GamerGate here but the moment someone starts a thread about a sexuality that isn't seen as standard we suddenly get loads of people jumping into the thread to decry that the thread exists? I guess a lot of people here only like freedom of speech when it's the freedom to say things that they identify with.

Wait, people have been trying to get rid of the thread or silence discussion? The most I've seen is people arguing about the nature of asexuality itself with some denying that it's a sexuality, but that's about it.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.861189-Asexuality#21422130

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.861189-Asexuality#21422277

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.861189-Asexuality#21422311

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.861189-Asexuality#21422338

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.861189-Asexuality?page=2#21422630

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.861189-Asexuality?page=3#21423070

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.861189-Asexuality?page=3#21423178

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.861189-Asexuality?page=4#21423865

That's just a quick and dirty inventory of the posts in this thread that go beyond rational, respectful disagreement and try to attack the fact that this discussion is happening- which is pretty much by definition an attempt to silence the discussion. Now personally, I don't object to the principle of trying to shame certain arguments into silence because certain arguments are unworthy of discourse and a waste of the public's time- but you can't exactly proclaim the greatness of being allowed to discuss things freely out of one side of your mouth and then turn around and bash people for having a thread about stuff you're not interested in out of the other.

Still don't see how it even comes down to a fraction of the stuff Gamergate discussion has had to face. Out of all of those, only one has actually questioned the need for the thread itself and only half are outright hostile/dicksih in their assertions. The other half are pretty much just a dissenting opinion on the matter, arguing in a fairly respective way what they believe is the nature of asexuality. You don't necessarily need to agree with the point or concept the OP is trying to promote to be for it's discussion. I kind of feel the same with the Anti-GG users on here even if I disagree with their points since it's not really them calling for the threads to be shut down and whatnot nor do they really have any clout or support to actually achieve such a thing.

You're honestly comparing the gamergate incident to the persecution faced by sexual minorities. Really? I mean...really? Do I have to explain why this isn't a proper comparison? This website is easily one of the nicest sites I've ever seen in regards to sexual minorities, and there's still a ton of bullshit that happens towards them.

I knew someone would try and spin it this way, probably should have addressed this point the second it popped up in my head. Anyway, I was talking exclusively about the ability to have discussion on the subject, which actually has faced more censorship than discussion about sexuality at this point. Honestly, the only general gaming forum that has allowed open discussion on the matter without rampant deletions/banning has pretty much been the Escapist, which really only deleted a couple of threads in the very beginning but relented fairly quickly when the higher ups realized that trying to curbstomp any dialogues would only create more problems. I mean hell, we you can't talk about legal SFW content on freaking 4chan for god's sake, you know something is up. You expect this shit from extreme fundamentalists that stifle any debate on certain subjects due to considering them "immoral", but to see that shit happen on supposedly "open" spaces? It's comes across as especially hypocritical when you try and promote reasonably regulated and civil free speech only to end up doing the exact opposite.

Look, I can appreciate that there are certain things you can't talk about when it comes to people jumping down your throat, but I just can't get behind that people who are sexual minorities, are told that they're special snowflakes or that there's something medically wrong with them, have it worst than the people who are in this clusterfuck of a debate (No, screw it, debate is too kind of a word). Point is that I don't see two people getting angry and hitting each other as bad as one person who has trouble fighting back being hit in the corner. Regardless of which websites are censoring what. Oh yeah and like I mentioned before, we can talk about it with comfort on the Escapist. Elsewhere though....

 

[Beliyal]

Like I said, the main problem I have with such terminology is how it's:

A. Created purely for personal use and has very little bearing over legitimate labels created through years of research and deliberation.

and

B. Not very consistent in usage/classification and such terms/concepts often contradict each other or already existent labels that have more authentic scientific bearing.

It's actually a problem I have with how sexuality is treated in general right now. It seems that even if the subject matter falls predominately under the realm of psychology, it is rarely supported by empirical evidence (which is pretty much psychology 101) and tends to be more anecdotal/emotional in nature.

Okay, so what is there to be done about this issue?

We can keep talking, exploring and searching for evidence or we can tell those people to go away until we can validate their claims... which isn't going to happen if no one is talking about it and exploring those aspects of human nature. That's why I believe it's futile to brand those people as purely "attention seekers" and "wannabe special snowflakes". Or to discuss about how it bothers us even if that terminology is not for us. Granted, it can be confusing if someone introduces themselves with terminology you've never heard of, but that's nothing that can't be fixed with a polite "Would you mind giving me the definition of this term?"

Consistency can be a problem, especially if certain terms overlap. But then again, who decides which terms overlap? If actual people this terminology is for say that they don't feel comfortable with one word and need another, I can't say that affects me or bothers me in the slightest. Sure, it might be confusing to keep track of everything, but we'll learn eventually.

I fully support professional research and finding empirical evidence. However, if we are to find evidence, we have to continue talking about this, we have to let people express what and how they feel and then conduct scientific studies. Some of these things are being talked about for the first time in our society. I can't reasonably expect heaps of empirical evidence if this is the first time that we are actively working on acknowledging and identifying aspects of our nature that have been ignored so far.

 

[Shadowstar38]

This sounds like what I'd consider a chaste person, which is something I've been familiar with even before understanding sexuality at all.

As far as labels go, instead of memorizing all the letters, I just address the whole deal as "sexual deviant". It's all inclusive and people can get the specifics on individual bases if they care past that.

 

[Beliyal]

That's the point I'm getting at. If you want someone to actually acknowledge a term some random person on the internet created beyond it being a personal term that has no bearing on them or any legitimate sexuality, you have to do more than just provide a definition and the reasoning being you "feel that it's different" or something like that. There's absolutely no problem with describing how you feel, but some people are going to take issue when you try and say that it's something it's not or end up grouping it fairly inaccurately. I mean the definitions for most of the terms on this thread are not far-fetched ideas and are actually fairly common among individuals within our society. The point where I draw the line is how badly they're miss-classified and a lot of the terms are really just needlessly superfluous ways of naming behaviors commonly found within cis hetero/homo/bi people rather than some innate form of asexuality within them. A healthy dose of skepticism doesn't hurt either since if such a belief were valid it would only serve to separate the wheat from the chaff and make it that much more logically sound. Not everything about self discovery should be comfortable, and you shouldn't stop being critical of yourself and others once you reach such a state. Just stating "Why do you care? It doesn't effect you and it helps them so there's no need to talk about it." is not an argument in and of itself as the burden of proof lies on them. If you want more professional research on the matter, you must hold it to the same basic guidelines.

Well, I'm not sure what specific terms are we even talking about, but most of the mainstream ones have become pretty standard already and have professionals writing about them.

When it comes to some newer terms, yeah, their definitions tend to vary and people don't necessarily agree on them and use them as they see fit. But I really rarely see this. I can't remember any specific situation right now. And since none of those terms are for me nor do I identify with them, I tend to stay away from debating the definitions because I am not a professional or a person affected by those terms. The only thing from the OPs list that could marginally fit me is demisexuality, because I strongly prefer having a bond with someone before finding them attractive, but I don't really think that part of me is important enough (to me) to say that I am a demisexual. So, should there be a term for me? Am I grey-demisexual? Does it matter? Well, to me it doesn't, but to some it might. This is where, I guess, the confusion comes from, because people's preferences vary too much and they use terms that fit them personally, so we get a lot of terms with very little nuance (or so it seems).

I think the biggest problem is just that. The fact that every person has a wide range and combination of unique experiences and preferences that putting a lot of people under a few all-encompassing terms is almost impossible. Should there be a term for everyone, regardless of scientific validation? I'm not sure honestly. I'm only sure that people find comfort in knowing that there's more to something than just a feeling in their guts and that more people feel the same, so I guess these terms could at least somewhat be helpful. That of course doesn't mean we should examine these claims and study them.

 

[Something Amyss]

Can we nominate "Cheesewheel" to be the new "official" Escapist term of derision?

Well, I'll go with it.

Maybe it's just me, but in my experience one of the most difficult things to explain to people is any concept involving 0. I don't know why, but the lack of something seems very difficult to grasp for a lot of people.

That could be, but much of the pushback I see is virtually identical to the pushback against homosexuals, bisexuals, and basically anyone of different gender identity. So I don't think in this case, it solely the case. Sexuality seems to be ruled by a fear of "not me."

I do get what you're saying, though. Actually, for me, asexuality makes sense because if "one" and "both" (add in "all" as you see fit) are valid concepts, it would make sense than "none" is also one. I will admit, I'm a little dubious as to whether one considered a "none" position to be part of a group (in this case sexuality, but I frequently get told atheism is a religion--hey, look, they even share the same root issue!), but it doesn't really bother me if people want to count it as a sexuality rather than a lack of sexuality because that seems more like a filing issue.

I guess a better way of explaining that last bit would be: is it a sexuality? I don't know, buuuuuuut...It really doesn't bother me if they say it is.

Sorry to ramble. This is what happens when I don't sleep for like 30 hours and collapse in the middle of an afternoon.

I'm not saying that non-gay folks don't experience acts of violence, but I do think it's important to understand that there is no systematic structure of oppression against asexuals. They can still have a shitty time, for sure, but there is not legal, economic, political etc. power keeping them down.

To the contrary, I would argue that there is a systematic oppression of anyone who is not straight. Many of the sentiments are even the same. Gays may be the figurehead, but they are not the only group at issue. In fact, I'd argue "gay" is often used for almost anything "not straight."

Nor would I claim that there is exact parity. But then, I've never tried to decide who was more oppressed between the Native Americans and the blacks. There's plenty of suffering to go around.

 

[Something Amyss]

Well, I'm sorry that my opinion will be seen as an attempt endorse the status quo, if that is even your point?

I find it kind of strange you had no problem putting words in my mouth, but when I am explicit, it's only then that you're unsure of my point and I'm suddenly "here and there."

Why divide people further?

Why is acknowledging difference divisive to you? According to your own posts, you have done just that.

I honestly don't get what you're talking about with the applying yourself equally, since it's written so that it can be interpreted in a whole bunch of ways. If you'd like to reword it, please do.

Dear Lord, this is intentional, isn't it?

You don't practice what you preach. Simple as. For all your talk about how you feel this way, you don't show up in hetero threads and start preaching. Of course, if you do, go ahead and prove it. Show me examples.

The thing I found rude was that you chose to point out me and another in a way that made it seem like we were deliberately misquoting you.

You omitted words and responded to something with a completely different meaning. You still appear to be sticking by that. I'm not particularly sure why I wouldn't think it was intentional. Hell, it worked within the context you chastised me for not using. One you're continuing to go on about me not using. IT looked deliberate and still looks deliberate.

At no point did I say that people aren't attacked over it.

I missed the point where I claimed otherwise. Are you once again misconstruing me?

Finally, I am trying to understand the reasoning behind the flags and the different groups, not dismiss the fact that people want them, or feel like they are necessary.

Weird how when I addressed it, that was not a big part of your response, then. Weird how you keep reciting your experience, especially if it's not your intent to portray it as typical and you're aware of how it can come off.

I'm sorry, I have absolutely zero faith in your sincerity.

But hey. People who feel like they're in a group of one like knowing they're not alone. Suicide rates among LGBT youth are huge, and part of it is because they are alone and isolated. To use your own terminology, they're already divided. I admittedly don't know how rare asexuality is, but it has even less media coverage, less popular portrayal, so I imagine it's quite lonely. So yes, a flag, a symbol, a term, they all equal knowing you're not out there on your own. Being able to identify things helps. And you know what? I didn't need a flag or a rally cry or a slogan or a symbol, but I'm capable of understanding it helps. Much of this should be self-evident just through a basic sense of empathy.

But then, I'm not adding new information here.

From the outside, having seen this explained already, you come off as lacking empathy for people who weren't in your position. And that's only if I get charitable and take you seriously. I'm honestly not sure I should. Your whole ordeal comes off as "pfft, I didn't have any trouble." It comes off that way even after you explained yourself.