Asexuality

[Lieju]

I don't care what people call themselves, but the self-importance it must take to invent a label like "demisexual" or "grey ace" to describe an incredibly common experience most people have and don't care about is staggering - as if your experience of the world is so unique and indescribably special that plebians could not possibly understand without the invention of an entire new set of terminology.

If it's an incredibly common experience, why should it NOT have a word to describe it?
I mean, people are gonna talk about it then?

I also find it offensive when asexuals or "pansexuals" or whatever relate to their orientations as though they are somehow oppressed in the same way homosexuals are. As a man who has sex with other men and who has experienced serious violence and abuse for that, I am not happy to see someone pull the oppression card because they don't fuck anyone, or god forbid, because they only fuck people they're romantically involved with (like most people in the world ever???).

tl;dr Call yourself what you want, but maybe consider that your particular set of feelings isn't revolutionary and new enough to warrant an entire conceptual category of human desire.

Yeah, and people like you then make them unwelcome in the LGBT+ communities too.
It's not like all homosexuals face the same kind of oppression either. Do you live in a country where homosexuality is illegal? Do you face the threat of violence daily? Not oppressed enough to want better treatment then.

Asexuals might not be oppressed the same ways homosexuals are, but it doesn't mean they aren't.
At the very least face ridicule and erasure. Like in this thread.

Also I don't think you know what a pansexual is, they can be attracted to their own gender and face exactly the same persecution homosexuals do.

 

[Lieju]

Hmm, I've always considered demisexual to be on a different level than the gay/straight/bi/pan/ace identity, because demisexual doesn't really state who you're attracted to (same gender/opposite gender/both genders/everything inbetween/no gender) but rather the measure in which you are attracted to them. So, you could be a gay demisexual, but you can't really be a straight bisexual, I guess. It's a sort of libido scale.

Yeah, this is how I see it too. I mean, the only reason Asexual is a full blown asexuality is because it basically says you aren't attracted to anyone or anything. For that reason, you can't turn it into a sliding scale because it's strictly an all or nothing kind of thing, else you start getting overlaps with the other sexualities so it's not possible for it to be strictly Asexual. Just saying you're "Demisexual" really doesn't say anything about your sexuality, it's just saying that you have to create some sort of romantic bond first (which to be honest, is how most people form relationships anyway) before you can become physically attracted to a person. It says nothing about what kind of people you're attracted to, just HOW you form relationships.

Yeah, I agree.
I do think demisexuality is a thing, in that some people only get sexually attracted to people only after an emotional bond but it's not a sexual orientation. I mean, I identify as a lesbian, and there have been women I have only been attracted to after I've gotten to know them because they weren't really all that attractive to me physically but their personality and what I learned about them helped I guess?

Although I get attracted also to women I don't know so I wouldn't call myself demisexual.

 

[Something Amyss]

I also find it offensive when asexuals or "pansexuals" or whatever relate to their orientations as though they are somehow oppressed in the same way homosexuals are. As a man who has sex with other men and who has experienced serious violence and abuse for that, I am not happy to see someone pull the oppression card because they don't fuck anyone, or god forbid, because they only fuck people they're romantically involved with (like most people in the world ever???).

Do you honestly think that non-gay folks who fall outside of heterosexuality just get some pass when it comes to not being normal?

Christ, I've been harassed, beaten and even stabbed for being a "******." do you honestly think if I had said to those folks 'actually, no, I'm pansexual,' they'd be all "well, my mistake, then!" and move on, looking for some real homosexual to try and kill? Or is it more likely they'd try and kill me anyway because I was still some sort of "queer" to them.

Serious question, because I think you're downplaying what other folks might go through, and that starts to look more and more like the "oppression olympics" the anti-AJW crowd complains about.

 

[chiggerwood]

I also find it offensive when asexuals or "pansexuals" or whatever relate to their orientations as though they are somehow oppressed in the same way homosexuals are. As a man who has sex with other men and who has experienced serious violence and abuse for that, I am not happy to see someone pull the oppression card because they don't fuck anyone, or god forbid, because they only fuck people they're romantically involved with (like most people in the world ever???).

I've been bullied and harassed by friends, family and classmates because I don't want to have sex with anyone. I've been made to feel like a lesser human being because I'm a virgin. I have been threatened with rape so I could be "fixed". there are people within my own religion that consider me an abomination and I actively avoid going to church because of the bullshit. I've had doctors look at me like I'm an alien because of my asexuality, but I'm sorry. I'm sorry that I offend you, because apparently I haven't been through enough shit!

 

[Toilet]

OKay, this'll get me flack but if you are Asexual there is something wrong with you or you are a liar. If you have no desire to reproduce and spread your genes then something is wrong. Fine with Trans-Polar Bears and other LGBBQ people but if you have no sex drive don't make a flag and have a pride rally but go to a Doctor and say "I have no sexual drive."

Asexuality isn't a sexuality but lack thereof.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

OKay, this'll get me flack but if you are Asexual there is something wrong with you or you are a liar. If you have no desire to reproduce and spread your genes then something is wrong. Fine with Trans-Polar Bears and other LGBBQ people but if you have no sex drive don't make a flag and have a pride rally but go to a Doctor and say "I have no sexual drive."

Sexual attraction =\= libido

Sexual attraction is who or what you want to have sex with.

Libido is the bits acting up and how often they do so.

There's nothing wrong with the libido of an asexual person. They don't look for people to satisfy it because they don't experience sexual attraction. They may choose to take care of that business without help from others.

 

[Something Amyss]

But fair enough, I'll correct my statement, and add in the vague part of the generally bit.

Well, at least you did that. So let's go back.

"So, because I don't see the need for defining yourself by your sexuality and have symbols reflecting of it, I'm probably endorsing the status quo?"

Well, no. The issue is, it's going to be responded to that way. Which, you know, is why you were having the argument in the first place. I would hop;e you got that, especially since you just made the argument that I couldn't ignore the context of your previous replies (even though I actually can, and it would be totally legit to do so).

In effect, you told me I had to do what I was already doing and then chastised me assuming I wasn't doing it. And that's really bizarre, especially since your first volley relied on removing words from what I said to turn it into an accusation.

But actually, it's more "because you made a specious claim that generally means x...."

Though technically, yes. Because you made a specious claim that generally means x, it wouldn't be unreasonable to presume you meant it that way. That wasn't my thrust, but the statement is actually true. Language does have a structure and common usage is common for a reason. And, to be honest, I rarely hear the people complaining about asexuals on here (or gays, bisexuals, transgender, genderqueer, intersex) actually apply themselves equally.

Have you? Actually applied yourself equally, that is.

Meanwhile, I'm not particularly sure even your further discussion with Lieju helps any. You read as "X worked for me, so it should work for you." Which would be great, if we were all you, but we're not. Yes, you acknowledge that people "can be" dicks about this whole thing, but that's horribly underselling it. I would wager your experience, while nice for you, still firmly places you in the minority of experiences. You still come off as dismissing people through specious reasoning. I think I'd be more prone to say it now than I was before, so have you really made your case by taking umbrage?

As for this whole thing, stating that I misquoted you, rather than the fact that I assumed that you had read the original post that was being replied to is sort of rude. :/

Except you did misquote me. Reading the rest of the chain doesn't change my meaning. That's not rude, that's factual.

You incorrectly inferred that I was talking to you specifically, despite using terms deliberately intended to generalise. Maybe this is moot now, because I'm not convinced you don't fall into that category, but it certainly wasn't my intent at the time.

You have a positive experience. My last two girlfriends have been threatened by their parents, one with the threat of death. I've been assaulted and nearly killed just on the assumption I was gay. I mean, it's nice for you, but I'm going to go with assuming that the experience that appears to be more common is the more common one. Which comes back to dismissal and/or lack of empathy.

 

[Nickolai77]

I feel that this constant classification and sub-classification of sexual orientations as if they're heavy metal genres is starting to get a little out of hand. Why do you feel the need the create these sort of rigid categories? People's sexual orientations and habits can change through life. Maybe we should just have a more general approach where we just accept that not everybody's a heterosexual and that's alright? I don't know, there's my two cents.


I can imagine that being asexual can be quite difficult in a society where asexuality isn't exactly understood. I wouldn't want to be goaded into sexual or romantic acts against my will by other people who think I'm just being frigid- so I'm all in favour of anything that spreads awareness of this sexual orientation (or lack of thereof).


From my perspective, asexuals are missing a huge and significant portion of the general experience of life, but it's a portion that really has it's up's and downs, swings and rounderbouts. For every moment of sexual or romantic bliss there are equally powerful moments of loneliness, regret, sadness and all the other negative emotions surrounding sex and relationships. To be an aromantic asexual and miss all that emotional experience...well, I don't think you are really any better or worse off in that regard.

 

[Silvanus]

*Entering Science Mode*
To be entirely fair, Miller has argumented similarly noting in a paper [http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1001836320541],

It is fairly easy to imagine how asexuality could occur (the complicated mechanisms needed to recognize potential mates and be attracted to them need merely have a critical link broken by a mutation). Since there may be a certain irreducible number of errors in the sexual attraction process, a certain amount of asexuality could easily be explained. However, attraction to the same sex is harder to imagine evolving from scratch.

...in an effort to introduce a model to explain homosexuality as emerging in a qualitatively different way.

As such, I don't think the assumption that asexuality may hail from broken mechanisms of attraction is that much of a faulty one to make. Of course that does not imply that the condition in itself demands treatment or should be pathologized in general. When it comes to sexuality, the scientific modelling with regards to origin, emergence and the like should always be distinguished from social-normative or medical aspects.

Would be interesting if true, and I certainly agree with your approach, and the separation of scientific explanation from the social implications.

Of course, there are other perfectly innocuous characteristics that come about through biological mechanisms deviating (I would avoid terms like 'functioning wrong', or 'failing to function', because they're difficult to justify without appealing to a will or design). Extra digits on the hand, third nipples, albinism.

 

[Chromatic Aberration]

snip

I really appreciate your posts (esp. the part about normativite property of labels), but could you try to reference free sources? I'm not at university right now so I don't have the subscription access to Springer :/

Thanks! I can send them to you but in terms of free resources I can only point to Google and Wikipedia - best course of action would be to wait till you have access again.

 

[Ninjamedic]

go to a Doctor and say "I have no sexual drive."

Umm, why?

If these people are perfectly happy going about their lives why should they go to a doctor? I fail to see how this is a problem for them if they are happy and healthy otherwise.

Seriously, why should they go to a doctor?

 

[peruvianskys]

Do you honestly think that non-gay folks who fall outside of heterosexuality just get some pass when it comes to not being normal?

Christ, I've been harassed, beaten and even stabbed for being a "******." do you honestly think if I had said to those folks 'actually, no, I'm pansexual,' they'd be all "well, my mistake, then!" and move on, looking for some real homosexual to try and kill? Or is it more likely they'd try and kill me anyway because I was still some sort of "queer" to them.

Serious question, because I think you're downplaying what other folks might go through, and that starts to look more and more like the "oppression olympics" the anti-AJW crowd complains about.

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.

If asexuals wanna say "Hey this sucks sometimes, people are jerks" that's great! People are jerks and we all have the right to draw attention to the ways we're hurt by the social order. But I do bristle when they set themselves up as an oppressed sexual minority because to me it really just isn't the same, and I don't think you can pretend you don't understand why. There haven't been pogroms against asexuals. Asexuals haven't been rounded up and thrown in jail under sodomy laws. Asexuals haven't been systematically denied access to public goods and opportunities.

None of this is saying "Asexuals should shut up they don't have any problems" in the least; it's simply asking that folks recognize that not all oppressions are equal and that they have the decency to acknowledge their relative privilege and refrain from hijacking the language, narratives, and activism of other groups who really just do have it worse.

I'm a bisexual man *technically* because I do have relationships with women although most aren't sexual but more platonic (and notice how I haven't decided that distinction is *~*~super special and unique~*~* enough to warrant some kind of special terminology) and I absolutely recognize that I have massive privilege as someone who is not read 100% as a homosexual. That doesn't mean I don't ever have things bad, but it does mean that I recognize my position in a relative hierarchy of oppression. That's not "oppression Olympics", that's just addressing reality.

If it's an incredibly common experience, why should it NOT have a word to describe it?
I mean, people are gonna talk about it then?

What I mean is that I find it somewhat grating when folks decide their personal experience of the world is SO SPECIAL that it cannot possibly be captured in the words and expressions we've been using for the last two thousand years. I want to have sex with folks who are kind and compassionate, like most people - and if I met someone who decided that fact made them a compassionosexual, I would roll my eyes, because to me that would communicate at the very least an assumption that their orientation/feelings/identity/whatever was in some way unique enough to be deserving of its own label instead of just being subsumed under the general banner of "Things human beings are". I'm not comparing asexuals to that nonsense in any way, but anyone in the LGBT community has to admit that we're a little too happy to self-define and a little too afraid to ask, "Well, do we really need this new narrative?"

Yeah, and people like you then make them unwelcome in the LGBT+ communities too.
It's not like all homosexuals face the same kind of oppression either. Do you live in a country where homosexuality is illegal? Do you face the threat of violence daily? Not oppressed enough to want better treatment then.

Asexuals might not be oppressed the same ways homosexuals are, but it doesn't mean they aren't.
At the very least face ridicule and erasure. Like in this thread.

I don't want folks to be unwelcome, but I also don't think that center stage in the LGBT community should be open to folks who are in lesser need of relief from oppression. I'm a man who is sometimes partnered with women, as I said before, and I would never complain that the LGBT movement doesn't cater to bisexuals enough *because we as bisexuals do not face the same level of oppression* and folks need to recognize and respect that. So sure, asexuals, join and be comfortable in the LGBT community but recognize that it developed largely to meet the needs of folks with far, far greater oppressions.

Why are people so adverse to being told they might not be at the bottom of the pyramid? Recognize your privilege and act accordingly.

Bolded the selfcontradictions. I don't care but I get mad anyway? I find this whole post especially baffling considering it's coming from a gay person, but what do I know I guess.

I don't care what people call themselves; I care when they erase the reality of oppression by claiming that all identities outside the strictest possible definition of heterosexuality are equally oppressed.

Not for you to decide.

Then who decides? Is there any point at all wherein a community might ask for some self-reflection?

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

snip

To be fair, I don't think anyone in this thread has explicitly stated asexuals have things as bad or worse than other LGBT+

I've actually explicitly stated the opposite.

They do not face prosecution as badly as homosexuals and transexuals, but they do have their fair share of societal issues. Asexual men for example have it particularly difficult. Society pushes growing boys to sleep with people, because it's expected and even in some places encouraged (boys will be boys), and if they aren't interested, well they must be gay, but that doesn't work either. These kids don't fit in with any groups. People will tell them there's something "wrong" with them, that they're "broken", to the point where they start believing it.

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

Asexuals either have something physiologically or psychologically wrong with them or are liars. It's not normal for a "healthy" adult. I don't personally care about anyone's proclivities (or lack thereof) to be clear, but do believe there is something wrong that makes someone asexual (if they genuinely are).

and

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.

Which are painfully common opinions.

 

[DestinyCall]

I can imagine a thousand reasons why someone would want to label themselves 'asexual' but what's the point of lying to yourself that you don't need or want another person? Why would you want to starve yourself like an emotional anorexic? The mind is a powerful thing and through suggestion we can basically convince ourselves of anything, no matter how ridiculous. But in the end you can only ask yourself who you're really fooling.

I mean, its not like I have anything against people who don't want sex or physical intimacy and if you're happy that way than more power to you. I just hope that when you're older you're not going to regret having missed out on the nicest feeling you can have as a human being. After all, you only live once and there are no second chances.

You bring up many of the reasons people give for why they don't think asexuality is a real sexual orientation and you are entitled to your opinion on the matter. But sexual identity is a very personal thing. Ultimately, there's no way to really prove that the label you pick for yourself is "true" because you are the only person who can say for sure how you really feel about other people. I can't tell you what works for you and you can't tell me what attracts me.

Imagine walking up to an openly gay man and tell him that his sexual orientation was not legitimate - since it is natural to be attracted to the opposite sex, his homosexuality must be all in his head or maybe he is just faking it for attention. Or telling him that he should really reconsider his choices, because someday he might look back on his life and regret not finding a nice girl and starting a family like everyone else. Unfortunately, I'm sure there are people who WOULD say those things ... and they would be wrong. Wrong to say it to a stranger they don't even know and wrong to think their baseless opinion was more important than another person's self identity.

Sometimes you just need to take a step back and accept other people's differences at face value rather than judging them without proof.

 

[DarkRawen]

But fair enough, I'll correct my statement, and add in the vague part of the generally bit.

Well, at least you did that. So let's go back.

"So, because I don't see the need for defining yourself by your sexuality and have symbols reflecting of it, I'm probably endorsing the status quo?"

Well, no. The issue is, it's going to be responded to that way. Which, you know, is why you were having the argument in the first place. I would hop;e you got that, especially since you just made the argument that I couldn't ignore the context of your previous replies (even though I actually can, and it would be totally legit to do so).

In effect, you told me I had to do what I was already doing and then chastised me assuming I wasn't doing it. And that's really bizarre, especially since your first volley relied on removing words from what I said to turn it into an accusation.

But actually, it's more "because you made a specious claim that generally means x...."

Though technically, yes. Because you made a specious claim that generally means x, it wouldn't be unreasonable to presume you meant it that way. That wasn't my thrust, but the statement is actually true. Language does have a structure and common usage is common for a reason. And, to be honest, I rarely hear the people complaining about asexuals on here (or gays, bisexuals, transgender, genderqueer, intersex) actually apply themselves equally.

Have you? Actually applied yourself equally, that is.

Meanwhile, I'm not particularly sure even your further discussion with Lieju helps any. You read as "X worked for me, so it should work for you." Which would be great, if we were all you, but we're not. Yes, you acknowledge that people "can be" dicks about this whole thing, but that's horribly underselling it. I would wager your experience, while nice for you, still firmly places you in the minority of experiences. You still come off as dismissing people through specious reasoning. I think I'd be more prone to say it now than I was before, so have you really made your case by taking umbrage?

As for this whole thing, stating that I misquoted you, rather than the fact that I assumed that you had read the original post that was being replied to is sort of rude. :/

Except you did misquote me. Reading the rest of the chain doesn't change my meaning. That's not rude, that's factual.

You incorrectly inferred that I was talking to you specifically, despite using terms deliberately intended to generalise. Maybe this is moot now, because I'm not convinced you don't fall into that category, but it certainly wasn't my intent at the time.

You have a positive experience. My last two girlfriends have been threatened by their parents, one with the threat of death. I've been assaulted and nearly killed just on the assumption I was gay. I mean, it's nice for you, but I'm going to go with assuming that the experience that appears to be more common is the more common one. Which comes back to dismissal and/or lack of empathy.

Oh, yay, I thought I was finally done being quoted. Let's see...

Well, I'm sorry that my opinion will be seen as an attempt endorse the status quo, if that is even your point? Your argument is rather here and there, so I'm not entirely sure I won't be misquoting you again, apologies. But yeah, it's not attempt to do that, I've been trying to say that I, from my perspective, don't understand why it is something that needs to be a way of defining people, both with symbols, flags, and so on. Why divide people further? It goes both ways, though, I don't understand why people feel like bothering people because they're different either.

And yes, you can ignore my other posts as much as you want to. My point was that I thought you were taking that into consideration, since I thought that was the common practice when quoting someone in a conversation with someone else. I'm not one for arguing on forums, so apologies for that too, I suppose.

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.

I suppose I might be coming off as "it worked for me, so it'll work for you", but that was not at all my intention. Heck, I know that it won't work for many others, it takes a certain lack of morals to work, I'd guess, and an extreme distrust of people in general. I've been pretty careful with stating that this is my perception of it, and since Lieju had a different kind of experience, I wanted to make it clear that there's not one way it happens. I was certainly not trying to dismiss anyone, I was comparing my own situation to theirs, to why my opinion is what it is.

And I tried to explain that it was not at all intentional, and the reason I thought that was your intended meaning. 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. As for me thinking that you were referring to me, you did quote me and addressed me directly.

As for your last point, two things. At no point did I say that people aren't attacked over it. I know that I'm lucky, but I also know that I have likely avoided bad situations by considering it private. I also know that I'm lucky to live somewhere where it's not very common for things like that to happen. Secondly, people like me, who have had little negative experiences don't really talk about it a lot. We have no reason to, apart from the rare opportunity to perhaps show people that it's not terrible. Sure, I suppose this is where I'm supposed to say that I'm sorry for your experiences, but I have a feeling you'd just react negatively to that.

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. When people question how I see it, insinuate that I'm trying to, or in any other way hindering the progress being made in regards to these kinds of things, and say that I seem to lack empathy, that doesn't help at all. No, I'm not going to go around petting everyone on the head and saying I'm sorry for what they've had to endure, carry a flag on my shoulders and demand that people see me as a bisexual guy. I don't think it's the right approach. I'm trying to understand the approach, and, when people ask why I prefer my approach, I try to explain why, but apparently that's bad too. :/

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

Huh, despite some, let's say less than stellar comments, this is pretty informative ,if not a bit confusing thread and OP. I don't think I actually am asexual because I still have a sexual attraction to let's just say more feminized and androgynous traits and people, but I may have a bit of a desire to be asexual.[footnote] Or maybe pansexual or bi with or without more sexual thoughts, or maybe something clearer because although labels divide and treat people on less than an individual bases, people can better understand you with them. It'd be difficult to say all of my feelings regarding my gender and sex so labels could actually help a lot for that. [/footnote]

I might be considered a bit of a Grey A since, 1, I don't actually experience sexual thoughts too often anymore [footnote] ...but let's just say I acted like the typical 14 year old boy before recently. Recently being about a year or so. [/footnote] and 2, I tend not to feel the need to act on my sexual thoughts as soon as I have them, even if my time is free. I wonder if it's because I rarely find the greatest absolute pleasure in it anymore or I'm thinking about other things [footnote] Which I constantly am and not as distractions or anything. I can't focus on my sexual attraction for more than 3 minutes without thinking of something else. Could always chalk that up to the internet age and obsession, but I'm still unsure of what's motivating it and I'm not just going to say it's just my nature. [/footnote] or something else entirely. Despite this, I think I would still be willing to have sex, I just wouldn't pursue it or feel the absolute need to have it. I'm sure I could have a perfectly happy life or even romantic relationship without it, but I'd probably also like the experiences it could possibly bring.

It's a confusing topic to be honest and I probably haven't helped much in clearing it up (though I did my best). One thing that does tend to help people even more is sharing experiences and finding others who can relate.

snip

I'm all up for challenging the definitions, that's part of why I made this thread on the Escapist. On this site we can have these kind of discussions. Even if they may rub a few people the wrong way, the forum is structured so that people can't just come in, spit bile like Youtube and get away with it.

The definitions are not set in stone and just like video games, how can they improve if they're not critiqued?

 

[InsanityRequiem]

Since this thread has taken off, gonna try my hand at making things more simple.

The main definition is the lack of sexual attraction towards other humans of any gender. Some have confused it as inability to have sex (Understandable really, since society has put an emphasis on humans fucking each other a lot). So lets separate what is attraction.

Attraction in general can be considered how you view your friends, family, pets, and interactions with other people. You like them enough to hang out and enjoy company. Asexuals are able to do this.

Sexual attraction in general is what makes girl/boyfriends, husbands/wives, significant others. You need to be attracted to them in a sexual manner (The desire to be intimate, have sex, nudity, etc) to be able to sustain such a relationship. This part is more difficult for asexuals because we do not (For the most part) have the ability to see people as sexually attractive. We can tell physical attractiveness, and can see how someone could be sexually attractive, but it is seen in more of a medical fashion. For example; Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hardy, Ryan Gosling, Kate Upton, Jennifer Lawrence, and Katy Perry can be considered attractive to an asexual, but they are not sexually attractive to us. Yet to (at least) the US, those six people are boner creators and panty-wetters. Just not to an asexual.

Does that mean an asexual is mentally ill or sick? Maybe to some (Usually the case if the victim of molestation or rape, either in childhood or young adulthood), but for most we just did not develop the same way as most people. Just the same as homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals, and the rest developed their sexuality as they grew into adulthood.

And for comparison to the animal/insect world, it's wrong to compare humanity to the rest of our planetary companions. We developed the cognitive mental capability to do more than our natural body, while the likes of canines, felines, equines, insects, arachnids, and aquatic life only have sex when the females are biologically capable. Outside of that small timeframe of what considers a couple hours at least, up to a few weeks in a year at most, how many animals have sex? I know of dolphins and a couple ape and monkey species. And in some of those species, homosexual acts happen. What's to say that the rest of the planet is asexual? The only factor of sexual habit is a biological timeframe to keep the species alive. Nothing else for most species. Ultimately, it is not a good argument to push human sensibilities on that of the rest of the animal and insect kingdoms because they are cognitively limited in understanding (Hence why such actions, like bestiality, are illegal).

And as an asexual, I grew up listening and seeing sex around me, from brother, to friends, to schoolmates (middle school through college) and I never saw it as a positive. I even originally thought I was bisexual, but it was through the understanding of myself I realized I did not see sexual attraction to other people. Am I a freak/mentally ill/medically diseased? No doctor has said so, no psychologist/therapist (Been to five in high school) said I was mentally deficient/ill in any way. So all I can realistically say is that nature didn't want me to be sexually attracted to my fellow humans.

 

[Here Comes Tomorrow]

Perhaps it'd be more of a given if people didn't focus so much on that one aspect of themselves? It's possible to be yourself privately, you know. :/

What a wonderful idea!

As soon as straight people stop pushing their sexuality on everyone's faces I'll be all for that!

Ehm, yes? No need to be sarcastic, I was talking about everyone, straight people included. Look, my point is that I don't care who you want to have sex with, and I'm very sure you don't care who I want to have sex with, or even what I see myself as on the inside. Sexuality in itself isn't really a negative thing, but defining yourself by it sort of is, IMO.

I was not being sarcastic. I meant what I said.

And I'd love it if people didn't define me by my sexuality.
If it wouldn't be a big thing.

But since I'm constantly treated like it is, mostly from straight people, I'm just kinda waiting for people to start calling THEM on it.
If I just keep quiet it is even easier for the majority to demonise people like me or try to erase my existence.

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

The thought of this genuinly confuses me.