Asexuality

[Brainpaint]

I think I'm somewhere on the asexual scale but I'm not fully sure. I've had health problems that are supposed to stifle libido and was sexually abused and bullied heavily in my tweens and early teens which would put most people off the idea.

However, I have always had a lack of interest in sex (although since all the abuse happened when I was so young it's difficult to gauge) and when I do think about it I tend not to get aroused. I think I might be somewhere between Demi and Grey but I honestly don't know for sure yet. I experience aesthetic attraction definitely but often struggle to imagine anything further than hugging and kissing happening with the man (it's always male). Even sexual dreams do nothing for me.

Probably doesn't help that most of my sex dreams are rape dreams, either...

 

[Steve Waltz]

It boggles my mind people don't think asexuality exists or have difficult time imagining it.

Well, I?ve always viewed sex as a survival instinct. Yea, most societies insist we do it in private, but I?ve always put it next to eating, sleeping, and drinking: things humans are programmed to do for survival. So, I can totally understand why some people don?t believe, or have trouble believing in a human uninterested in sex.

But for me, asexuality is easiest to believe when thinking that it?s some kind of psychological imbalance brought on by trauma or too much escapism. I?m no scientist, but I would love to see some studies done on this. 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?

 

[Radoh]

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.

What, is it weird that you've never emotionally connected to someone, and enjoyed that little niche thing called "banging"?
I'd hardly see that as irregular, you silly sausage.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

yeah it does make a lot of sense when put like that

...its still a little frustrating though trying to figure out ones feelings

Yeah, can't help ya there. Feelings are hard like that.

huh no....but I think I might have heard of that book? maybe I'll look her up

Possibly from me in another thread. Huge Carey fan.

my favourite Author is Sara Waters...she writes historical fic (ranging from Victorian era to the 40's) that more often than not involves lesbians, "Fingersmith" is one of my absolute favourite's and right now I'm reading her latest "The paying guests" and really enjoying it

its great when you find something that is both GOOD and has a good Gay romance...

Ah! Yeah, I own both Fingersmith and Tipping the Velvet (and the Tipping the Velvet BBC mini-series on DVD). I found Fingersmith a tad oppressive, but it was still beautifully done.

Actually, if you like historical fiction, you might want to look at Jacqueline Carey's other series - the Kushiel series, starting with Kushiel's Dart. The main character is bisexual rather than specifically lesbian, and it's historical fantasy (ie, it's set on Earth, in France, in the 1300s or so, but in an alternative universe where water-controlling Wizards are a real thing), but it is my favorite novel series bar none.

I recommended Santa Olivia specifically because the main character is lesbian (well, mostly). Unlike Kushiel, Santa Olivia is actually a sci-fi novel about a genetic super-soldier project.

 

[Vault101]

Ah! Yeah, I own both Fingersmith and Tipping the Velvet (and the Tipping the Velvet BBC mini-series on DVD). I found
while not oppressive Affinity left me with a strange feeling of emptiness

Fingersmith a tad oppressive, but it was still beautifully done.

by oppressive you mean depressing? yeah that was definitely the idea ,did you read the book or did you watch the thing first? 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

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

[quote/]Actually, if you like historical fiction, you might want to look at Jacqueline Carey's other series - the Kushiel series, starting with Kushiel's Dart. The main character is bisexual rather than specifically lesbian, and it's historical fantasy (ie, it's set on Earth, in France, in the 1300s or so, but in an alternative universe where water-controlling Wizards are a real thing), but it is my favorite novel series bar none.[/quote]
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?

[quote/]I recommended Santa Olivia specifically because the main character is lesbian (well, mostly). Unlike Kushiel, Santa Olivia is actually a sci-fi novel about a genetic super-soldier project.[/quote]

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

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

 

[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.