Ho boy, a lot to go through.
AndyFromMonday said:
Christ you're being difficult. If asexuality is defined as having no sex drive, which for the record is usually caused by a number of issues and is rarely if ever "inborn", but you state that you are disgusted with sex then you are not asexual, you suffer from something called sexual aversion disorder.
Asexuality is defined as lack of sexual attraction and sometimes lack of any sexual desire (depends on whose definition, whether it's from AVEN or somewhere else). There are asexuals who have libidos, yet they have no interest or attraction to any gender sexually. It is about whom one is sexually attracted to, whom one is naturally inclined to having sex with, not whether a person has a libido or not.
Asexuality is much to complex of an issue and claiming that you're "asexual" without first considering virtually every other possible cause is being presumptuous at best and at worst it's nothing but a feeble attempt at gaining attention.
It is indeed a complex issue, but it seems to be just as presumptuous and downright ignorant to assume the truth is flat out that all people are not what they claim, and that it is merely a plea for attention. I do not go about flaunting my asexuality. When asked, I tell, and when threads such as this one pop up, I come in to answer questions and do my best to clarify things. You have made the claim that all people who refer to themselves as asexual are not what they say, so I would say the burden of proof would therefore be up to you here. Rather than citing mere opinion and particular circumstance and lashing out at anything that disagrees. For that serves only redundancy and further useless bickering.
If by peer reviewed you mean put up a poll on the internet and report the findings then sure, why not. If that's what passes for "peer reviewed" nowadays then I don't want to see what the future holds.
I agree. It's a very complex issue. Unfortunately, you don't understand it. In fact, no one understands it. We've barely just scratched the surface, in fact we know fuck all about it, and people are already claiming they're "asexual". This is yet another "internet disorder" and just like the internet asperger's sufferer who self diagnosed his disorder, the bisexual who hasn't been in a same sex relationship and the pansexual who wouldn't touch a tranny with a 10ft pole you'll eventually fade into history and make way for the next big thing.
Since when do I need a scientist's permission to use a term of convenience? I don't have any sexual interest in any gender, and any romantic relationship I would do well in would be preferably a non-sexual one. Do you need an article to tell you that you're straight/gay/bi/pan? I've spent a good deal of my time figuring out myself than any scientist has, what I like, what I don't like, and have never been repulsed to try something for myself. I know what I am, and to me, it's not a big deal, I don't need somebody else to affirm it.
--------
Agayek said:
To be completely fair, "sick in the head" is a colloquially term for strange and eccentric behavior. The definition of strange or eccentric: "not normal". Thus, someone behaving differently from the average is sick in the head. It's not really a negative.
"Sick in the head" is pejorative in reference to asexuals, or anybody who isn't of the 'norm', the very language suggests that it is 'wrong' and a 'problem'. Abnormal, used to refer to as "not of the norm", would be obvious, but not derogatory in the same sense as "sick in the head".
Also, using the whole "normality is subjective" argument is completely ludicrous. Normality is, by definition, the average state. There's no such thing as subjective normality. For example, your everyday routine is familiar, but if it involves randomly punching strangers in the dick, it's certainly not normal. Confusing the terms doesn't help anyone.
Yet there is a normality that is dependent on the individual person as well. It depends on what sense you are using the word. For me asexuality is my normal state. I'm healthy, mind and body, hormones are fine, etc. It might not be normal in the sense of the "average across all humans". But it is normal relative to me and my personal health as I have always been this way, and am physically and mentally quite fine.
--------
matthew_lane said:
For the first and last time there is no such sexual preference as asexual. Asexual people are just people who are suffering from some illness that hampers sex drive or& people who are so petrified of sex, or have given up on the idea of sex that its just easier to call it a "sexual preference." After all if you call it a sexual preference you can just pretend its not your choice & in fact you were born this way.
There is a reason why all the studies are so darn inconclusive: Because they are full of liars who would rather pretend not to be sexual aroused, then admit to not having sex due to lack of confidence.
I would like to see your particular conclusive evidence on this, rather than using mere opinion as justification for belief. It is difficult enough if not impossible, to measure sexual attraction or interest other than by behaviour. A lack of such things therefore would be even more difficult.
I have in the past, tried an extensive amount of sexual techniques, and have tried to have an interest in others sexually. I'm very open to experimentation, I'm not repulsed by sex at all. Unfortunately, all it did was stress me out terribly, and I tortured myself wondering why I wasn't interested in others in that way like other people were, for an entire two years after hearing about the term. There are plenty of other asexuals who have been in relationships, and have been married and have even had kids, with stories not unlike my own. I cannot force a sexual interest in people that I do not naturally have, and I am much happier when I am not worrying over such things. Why would I want to continue something that only stresses me out to the point where I am constantly irritable and cannot concentrate on my work?
I'd be willing to change my opinion when supplied with conclusive evidence but lets be realistic here, if humans had the genetic propensity for asexuality at 1% of our population mass we'd have died off millions of years ago.
To be realistic, one should not trust and attach oneself to merely opinion alone, and be aware of one's own limitations of understanding, otherwise it only effects nonsense. 1% was a number that refers to the Kinsey Scale; it is not a reliable number, it may be more or it may be less. And if that number is more or less reliable, I'm also not sure of what logic you are using to come to the conclusion that 1% of the population's sexual behaviours affects the entire 99% of the rest so severely. It's no different, and just as ignorant and ridiculous, as claiming that because a minority of people are gay, that somehow the entire world is doomed. There are also studies of sexual behaviour in animals, if you are willing to pay the price to get access to research databases.
--------
KingsGambit said:
Unless there is a medical, physiological or serious psychological condition, anyone who claims to be asexual is lying. They might be lying to other people, they may be lying to themselves but whatever the reason for it, they are lying.
What sensible reason would anyone have to lie about such a thing? And by sensible, I mean something that isn't an excuse for something else. It's immensely difficult to find a romantic partner that isn't interested in sex, and there's always the very huge risk that one may never find anyone and have to cope being alone. To top that off, if an asexual goes into a relationship with someone who isn't ace, compromises for both partners often have to be made; sometimes they work, often they don't, resulting in stress and unsatisfactory conditions for both parties in the relationship. Then there are asexuals who have libidos, but have no sexual attraction or interest in others, can you imagine how annoying it would be to have a libido that isn't directed to anything, it just goes off whenever it feels like, due to the dopamine high sexual release can bring and the body thinking it needs its fix, much like an addiction, even when it is entirely unwelcome and the person isn't interested?
If people are romanticizing asexuality, they need to stop. It has its problems just as any other sexuality does. I do not use the term lightly, and I only use it as a point of reference to make communication of my needs in a relationship clear. It does not define me. It is not a 'toy'. And assuming that every person is lying, is just mere delusion.
