Asexuality

[Vault101]

That happens. The hetero, homo, and bi -romantic labels aren't just for asexuals. As noted in my post above, I have a friend who once said to me "I really like having sex with women, but I'd never date one, so I must be straight." And, while I agreed that was a fine option, I suggested the possibility that she might find the phrase "bisexual but hetero-romantic" as more accurate of her actual feelings, and (once I explained what hetero-romantic meant) she agreed.

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

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

[quote/]Also, I too absolutely love lesbian fiction. Have you read the works of Jacqueline Carey (particularly Santa Olivia)? She is my very favorite author for many reasons (her command of language is just amazing) but one of those reasons is that she writes bisexuality in general and lesbian relationships in particular so well.[/quote]
huh no....but I think I might have heard of that book? maybe I'll look her up

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...

 

[Vault101]

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

The thought of this genuinly confuses me.

hetero-ness is everywhere....its in advertisements its in the media we consume, its generally assumed were straight until proven/indicated otherwise....not to mention the "male gazy-ness" present in a lot of it (car ads for example)

I can't speak for the OP but generally this statement is tounge in cheek...its not so much the fact that its there (most of the time) but its mainly the fact that some straight people react to explicit "gay-ness" with scorn when they don't realise our society is very hetero (and dare I say male) centric

Aesthetic Attraction:
The appreciation that something (or someone) looks good, but with no desire to sleep with it/them.
For example, this snow leopard is a beautiful cat.

Do you want to sleep with the snow leopard? I hope not.
.

I do want to give it a big hug and stick my face in its fur though...

 

[Erttheking]

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.

Well for starters, advertisements. Showing heterosexual sexuality in ads seems to be perfectly acceptable. For example, there was this.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/klt5266/blogs/mass_media_and_society_from_the_mind_of_kelly/burger%20king%20blow%20your%20mind.jpg

Yes, this was actually a thing.

Also this Axe body spray commercial which had a guy spraying the body spray and an army of bikini clad women charging at him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9tWZB7OUSU

Give me time and I can dig up dozens upon dozens of more examples.

 

[El Comandante]

So all I can realistically say is that nature didn't want me to be sexually attracted to my fellow humans.

I´m not sure if nature did want you like that. If Nature wants anything from you, it´s most likely to breed. So asexualety is kind of a dead end for nature. Ok maybe it does not want you to breed because it will not help evolution, we don´t know yet but it´s a theory. That would still make it somewhat similar to erectile dysfunction. From scientific view it´s at leat a major handicap.
We can´t tell if it´s a sickness, maybe we never will. Maybe in some cases it is and in others it´s not, like you said. What I can say is that it does not at any point justify discrimination, illness or not.
I once read an interview with an asexual women, she said she was asexual from birth and that she was not sick in any way. But then she talked about how she felt about intimacy and how her ractions where and she sounded very sick to me. She had such disgust that it made her nausea. It did not help that she listed a bunch of famous people, who may or may not have been asexual. That was a bit odd, but still it´s only one case.
I think I can understand why someone who is asexual, feels very uncomfotable in a society that is sometimes morbidly obsessed with sex (and that does not only come from straight people!).
It puts a lot of pressur on people sexual or asexual.
If it´s some sort of illness, it´s nothing that needs treatment. What it needs is a unagitated way of dealing with sexualety. The pressure behind it is what realy makes people sick. That would not only help asexual people.

 

[Something Amyss]

That doesn't make you 'asexual', that makes you repressed which is very unhealthy.

Ignoring for a moment that they still have a sex drive....

Do you have any actual background in biology? Or perhaps any related science field?

I only ask because people who make these sweeping declarations rarely, if ever, come from scientific or psychological fields where they would have any expertise. The number of biologists and/or psychologists who feel this way, in my experience, is zero. And biologists will generally balk at the concept of "hard wiring" as we use the term. I've been there before.

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.

But I'm open to being convinced. What's your pedigree? Please don't say something like "it's common sense," because a lot of science seems counter-intuitive to the layperson. If not your pedigree, what studies have you seen focusing on the impacts to health, or what papers have you read speaking to the sexual repression of a self-described asexual? What do you have beyond a sweeping declaration of hard wiring?

Or is this just some layperson justification against something you can't wrap your head around?

Oh, and it looks like you were addressing this to me, specifically when talking about asexuality.

Two points:

1. I'm in my 30s and unlikely to change any time soon.
2. I'm not asexual myself. I'm quite the opposite. As long as they're adult and consenting, I'm into ALL OF THE PEOPLE. Call me bisexual or pansexual or omnisexual or whatever the freel you want....

So yeah. Here's the thing, and I hope I don't insult any asexuals because it's not my point:

I don't get it. But whether I get it doesn't matter. I don't get homosexuality or heterosexuality, either. And it doesn't matter. Gays and straights exist, whether I get it or not. They don't need my approval to exist, and they deserve to live their lives as they see fit. The same should reasonably apply to asexuals, or whatever else exists as a sexuality as long as we're talking consenting relationships free from abuse. I draw the line at things like pedophilia because of the layers of harm that occur within such a relationship (among other issues, but this is another topic).

But asexuals? They're not hurting anyone. And in the end, barring evidence to the contrary of that notion, I have to ask:

Who am I to judge?

 

[Something Amyss]

I´m not sure if nature did want you like that. If Nature wants anything from you, it´s most likely to breed. So asexualety is kind of a dead end for nature. Ok maybe it does not want you to breed because it will not help evolution, we don´t know yet but it´s a theory. That would still make it somewhat similar to erectile dysfunction. From scientific view it´s at leat a major handicap.

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.

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

 

[Musette]

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?

(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".)

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.

 

[Beliyal]

I just think that we live in a society where people are kinda burned out on the idea that every possible aspect of your life has to be coded and described by a new term instead of just being understood as a general characteristic.

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.

That's not the reason for inventing new terminology where one was missing. The reason for inventing new terminology is to identify and explain things that previously lacked identification and explanation, which in turn helps people find out what describes them so they can finally feel like they are not abominations and liars. And also in order to form and/or find a community for similar people where they can discuss their things in safety.

I don't know why people think that there's terminology so someone can feel "special". No. They don't want to feel special. They want to be respected and to feel like they have a place in the world, instead of being a weirdo at best and a target for discrimination at worst. I'll give you a personal example that most people find funny and weird as hell; I have a really stupid phobia of buttons. Like, buttons on a shirt. I don't own any shirt with buttons and for as long as I remember, I actively avoided wearing shirts with buttons and hugging people who wore shirts with buttons. I feel repulsion at the thought of being in contact with a button. And for as long as I can remember, I thought I was fucked up in the head because of it. I thought it's some childish quirky shit or maybe that if I try really hard, it'll go away. Nope. And when I found out that that phobia has a name (koumpounophobia) and that other people have it, that was one of the most relieving moments in my life. Maybe I'm not fucked up in the head! Or at least, if I am, I'm not the only one! I'm not special, hoo-fucking-ray. I hate being "the only one" (well, the thought of it, you're never the only one). I don't want to be the only one. I want to have other people to talk about this shit and terminology to validate the legitimacy of my state. Identifying my issue, seeing that it has a name and that people talk about it in some corners of the universe was the best. thing. ever.

People want comfort, validation and proof that they have the right to exist. That's what they get with labels and when they invent new words. Especially groups that face discrimination on a daily basis, that get told by others that they are liars, who get excluded from everything or included only to be mocked. Asexual people get shit from everyone around them and yes, they need these labels to find each other, to find comfort in the knowledge that they are not alone in this world and to have their existence validated and explained. Words matter.

If you have no desire to reproduce and spread your genes then something is wrong.

What.

Are you aware of the fact that not all people want children and a lot of people live their life without reproducing (although they do have sex)? I don't want kids and I don't think there's something wrong about that. As a matter of fact, the line of thought that everyone should have kids is really toxic, especially to women because we're getting flooded with this bullshit since we're little. The stereotype that a woman is worth less before she is a mother is still prevalent, at least where I live. I mean, whatever. Even if there's something wrong with not wanting to reproduce, I couldn't give any shit. The human race will not go extinct any time soon, at least not because of reproduction issues, there's enough people reproducing.

And where does that put gay men and women? They won't reproduce, is being gay inherently wrong because you won't spread your genes? I know you didn't say this, but the question arises from your claim. I could ask the same about infertile people. Wrong or not, some people will never reproduce for a myriad of reasons. Lumping them into a "this is wrong" category is pointless and mean.

Note: If I sound hostile, I apologize. That's not the intention, but you never know through internet posts.

 

[Radoh]

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?

 

[peruvianskys]

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.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

I've said it before and I'll say it again; as long as its consensual, doesn't involve murder or kids, I'm fine with how two adults act/feel about sexuality. In the case of those who don't have the drive and are happy without it, I'm glad for them. My sex drive has done nothing but cause me misery, misery and misery.

Peace be with you and be responsible in all that you do.

 

[Musette]

I don't know why people think that there's terminology so someone can feel "special". No. They don't want to feel special. They want to be respected and to feel like they have a place in the world, instead of being a weirdo at best and a target for discrimination at worst. I'll give you a personal example that most people find funny and weird as hell; I have a really stupid phobia of buttons. Like, buttons on a shirt. I don't own any shirt with buttons and for as long as I remember, I actively avoided wearing shirts with buttons and hugging people who wore shirts with buttons. I feel repulsion at the thought of being in contact with a button. And for as long as I can remember, I thought I was fucked up in the head because of it. I thought it's some childish quirky shit or maybe that if I try really hard, it'll go away. Nope. And when I found out that that phobia has a name (koumpounophobia) and that other people have it, that was one of the most relieving moments in my life. Maybe I'm not fucked up in the head! Or at least, if I am, I'm not the only one! I'm not special, hoo-fucking-ray. I hate being "the only one" (well, the thought of it, you're never the only one). I don't want to be the only one. I want to have other people to talk about this shit and terminology to validate the legitimacy of my state. Identifying my issue, seeing that it has a name and that people talk about it in some corners of the universe was the best. thing. ever.

People want comfort, validation and proof that they have the right to exist. That's what they get with labels and when they invent new words. Especially groups that face discrimination on a daily basis, that get told by others that they are liars, who get excluded from everything or included only to be mocked. Asexual people get shit from everyone around them and yes, they need these labels to find each other, to find comfort in the knowledge that they are not alone in this world and to have their existence validated and explained. Words matter.

I'm pretty sure that you hit the nail right on the dead center of the head. I certainly don't feel special for being asexual, and I definitely don't think it's the most interesting part of my identity. Still, seeing asexual spaces online reminds me that while my experiences are rare, I am neither broken or alone. Labels are also fantastic as tools to contextualize past and present experiences in ways that make sense, so even without the community, the human tendency toward categorical thinking makes the addition of a relevant category amazingly useful.

(On the other hand, I have had the discovery of a label make me feel more isolated before, but that's because it disillusioned me from thinking that everyone was experiencing what I was. The one that comes to mind is Visual Snow.)

 

[Vault101]

I'll give you a personal example that most people find funny and weird as hell; I have a really stupid phobia of buttons. Like, buttons on a shirt. I don't own any shirt with buttons and for as long as I remember, I actively avoided wearing shirts with buttons and hugging people who wore shirts with buttons. I feel repulsion at the thought of being in contact with a button. And for as long as I can remember, I thought I was fucked up in the head because of it. I thought it's some childish quirky shit or maybe that if I try really hard, it'll go away. Nope. And when I found out that that phobia has a name (koumpounophobia) .

holy shit!...my brother had the exact same thing! he'd actually cringe when you "said" the word buttons,

except he had to get over it when he went to a private school and had to wear a button up shirt....he said it might be a word aversion thing but..heh

 

[BOOM headshot65]

At the risk of sounding harsh, that may have been a mistake. : (
Sex ed has taught me and my classmates a lot about sexuality, not just the nitty gritty of plumbing, but things like contraceptives, social dynamics and being considerate for your partner, as well as the sexual orientation of other people.
Not to mention, in middle school (I was about 16 then) they concluded the course by telling us about a few "tips", as well as helping us overcome anxiety regarding the matter, it helped us think about who we are and what we want/like.

Well, then you guys were a bit older than us (we were 12). And from what I heard from hearsay/remembering the course description, it covered the contraceptives at least, though there may have been things about how to have a healthy relationship (I cant remember). So make of that what you will.

Now I don't know if A-sexuality is an actual thing, from what I've seen, it looks like it is, but if you label yourself as A-sexual just because you're trying so hard to avoid the issue, you're hurting yourself way more than you may be aware of.

Like I said, I dont know what I am. I could be Asexual, I could just have a contempt for sex in general (Much anger toward my fellow students who I keep seeing hit on girls in ways I thought were disgusting, how they obsessed over sex, etc. could have lead to this), I could just have a hilariously low sex drive, or the answer could be "D: All of the Above". Whatever it is, it makes no difference to me other than how to refer to myself in conversations. I generally dont like sex, I may enjoy it with my wife-to-be once we are married (and if not, who cares), but I view sex as something that MIGHT be enjoyable, but not anywhere close to my idea of ultimate fun times that people make it out to be.

You know what my ultimate fun times is? A deserted country round, no traffic, no cops, a full tank of gas, my ipod blaring music [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KtxhlDzBOXE] like [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IV4w3b6dh2s&list=PL6_qhP3eWX5PI8G5H0RrW5hf4rejD2pZ9] this [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CDg9BuFbCXY] as I give General Motors so called "guidelines" the bird driving like there is no such thing as a speed limit. Now THAT sounds fun.

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

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

Its not quite that way here. I will be going by what it was in my school district (since this issue is a state by state and even district by district issue) and admittably what little I remember and heard about from others (namely, my fiance who actually took the classes). In 7th Grade (Middle School) you have the option to take Sex Ed One which covers, if I remember correctly, Human anatomy, puberty, contraception use (the infamous Banana springs to mind[footnote]And before anyone gets any weird ideas about what that means, They used a banana to demonstrate the proper way to put on a condom.[/footnote]), dangers of unprotected sex, and pregnancy, with some general info on STDs/STIs. However, it was a general class, so there was no separation by gender, and as you can probably guess since I did it, you can opt out on religious reasons (a half lie in my case). 9th Grade (Freshman year of High School) has a General Health class, which covers everything health related, ie Drug use, illnesses, injuries, etc. There was a unit that goes more in depth regarding STD's/STI's and dangers of unprotected sex, but that only last about a month compared to the whole class. This class has no opt out options and MUST be taken freshman year, and once again is a mixed gender class.

With all this out of the way, it makes no difference weather or not they told me how to have sex, I wanted NOTHING to do with the class. The only class in history I DIDNT want to take, and I almost guilt-tripped myself into not opting out because I was afraid I would hurt the teachers feelings...and then I found out I would have her for Intro to Health in 8th grade and suddenly I was right back to "GET ME THE HELL OUT OF THIS CLASS!!!"

 

[Musette]

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?

Some people even make plays on the slang of "Ace" by referring to themselves as an Ace of Hearts (if they're romantically inclined) or an Ace of Spades (if they're not). Either way, it's much less awkward than using "Asexual" in spoken dialogue.

To be honest, I see so much diversity spouted out in the asexual community that someone would probably list a million more ways to divide up the community. Sex neutral vs. sex respuled; libidoist vs. nonlibidoist; romantic vs. aromantic; they're what immediately come to mind as major divides within the community. There's probably more too. But still, your belief fall in line with one of the major divisions between asexuals. From my experience, I'd argue that an asexual's relationship with romance leads to some of the most drastic differences in experiences, because all the dialogue about compromising about sex with romantic partners has absolutely no relevance to my life. ("Mixed" relationships where one person is asexual and the other is not are pretty common, and since they come with a lot of potential for conflicts, the topic is very common.)

 

[Radoh]

Wait, we have a flag?
Snipping my own snip

Some people even make plays on the slang of "Ace" by referring to themselves as an Ace of Hearts (if they're romantically inclined) or an Ace of Spades (if they're not). Either way, it's much less awkward than using "Asexual" in spoken dialogue.

To be honest, I see so much diversity spouted out in the asexual community that someone would probably list a million more ways to divide up the community. Sex neutral vs. sex respuled; libidoist vs. nonlibidoist; romantic vs. aromantic; they're what immediately come to mind as major divides within the community. There's probably more too. But still, your belief fall in line with one of the major divisions between asexuals. From my experience, I'd argue that an asexual's relationship with romance leads to some of the most drastic differences in experiences, because all the dialogue about compromising about sex with romantic partners has absolutely no relevance to my life. ("Mixed" relationships where one person is asexual and the other is not are pretty common, and since they come with a lot of potential for conflicts, the topic is very common.)

You know, I seem to recall making a thread with similar beliefs toward the less than definable sexualities that you describe.
But what you say definitely help fix the confusion I have on the subject. I mean, it's not like I can find that many aces (I love that I get to call myself an ace by the by) in casual day to day conversation to clear these things up.
Additional apologies if I am making little linguistic sense, I am drunk right now as is typical for Sunday nights.
But again, I thank you for your input.

 

[Dragonheart57]

I'm a little disappointed at some of the people in this thread, but I didn't really expect anything better. While I don't think it's really necessary for so many classifications of sexuality, it's not really bad unless you resent being labeled, and it is better that people understand that various sexualities exist. I imagine that for some people, being asexual can be pretty frustrating if their significant other wants something different from their relationship.

 

[Musette]

You know, I seem to recall making a thread with similar beliefs toward the less than definable sexualities that you describe.
But what you say definitely help fix the confusion I have on the subject. I mean, it's not like I can find that many aces (I love that I get to call myself an ace by the by) in casual day to day conversation to clear these things up.
Additional apologies if I am making little linguistic sense, I am drunk right now as is typical for Sunday nights.
But again, I thank you for your input.

Interesting, I can't say that I've seen a lot of asexuality threads on these boards, but it's certainly a pretty nuanced topic.
I'm glad I could be of help! Running into another ace by pure chance (and knowing that the person is ace) is a pretty unlikely event, so it's especially interesting conversing with fellow aces on sites that aren't designated asexual spaces. To be honest, I have an embarrassingly poor concept of what is or isn't normal for people to do while drunk, (never got into alcohol because I have the taste buds of a small child and also because of my genetic predisposition for alcohol abuse,) but I can at least say that you seem like a fairly erudite drunk.

 

[Radoh]

You know, I seem to recall making a thread with similar beliefs toward the less than definable sexualities that you describe.
But what you say definitely help fix the confusion I have on the subject. I mean, it's not like I can find that many aces (I love that I get to call myself an ace by the by) in casual day to day conversation to clear these things up.
Additional apologies if I am making little linguistic sense, I am drunk right now as is typical for Sunday nights.
But again, I thank you for your input.

Interesting, I can't say that I've seen a lot of asexuality threads on these boards, but it's certainly a pretty nuanced topic.
I'm glad I could be of help! Running into another ace by pure chance (and knowing that the person is ace) is a pretty unlikely event, so it's especially interesting conversing with fellow aces on sites that aren't designated asexual spaces. To be honest, I have an embarrassingly poor concept of what is or isn't normal for people to do while drunk, (never got into alcohol because I have the taste buds of a small child and also because of my genetic predisposition for alcohol abuse,) but I can at least say that you seem like a fairly erudite drunk.

Aw, you think Drunk me is erudite? That's so nice of you to say!
And yeah, they don't happen too often, even here on the Escapist, but it's always nice to know that there are more of you than you think.
Makes you feel like you belong more than just the few that share your sexuality.
Too bad there are so many in this thread that are decrying such things, but what can you do