What is Asexual?

[Batou667]

Atheists can still pray and attend places of worship, even if we leave aside the existence of atheistic religions.

I know because I've done it myself.

This is a complete digression (and a week-old one at that), but I don't consider prayer without at least a degree of genuine belief to be prayer. I don't know, but I imagine many religious people would agree with me on that. The concept of prayer/worship implies a kind of active involvement, not just a very superficial display of going-through-the-motions; in kind of the same way that laying down with your eyes closed and actually sleeping are two very different things even if a casual observer might mistake one for the other.

And admittedly that's another example of my analogy falling down, as it's abundantly possible for people (especially women, but to a lesser degree men) to take part in sex without much arousal, let alone enthusiasm.

 

[Batou667]

The "sexuality spectrum" isn't just there to be celebrated and provide some colourful gay spice to the stew of heterosexual culture, it also has serious responsibility to people, especially young people, who feel alone or abandoned in that same culture, and who deserve a language to articulate themselves and a community which might be capable of understanding them.

OK, fine, I get that.

But does "I don't like sex very much" deserve an equal seat at the table alongside L, G, and B? At this point we're not discussing the x-axis of "who do you want to bone" but rather we've switched to the y-axis of "how much". I mean, you've discussed how asexual people may still have romantic interest, so presumably they would also overlap into having a straight, homosexual or bi identity regardless of how much sex they want/have. Do we NEED yet another pigeon hole?

Genuine question, if asexuality gets to be a noodle in the LGBTQIA+ spaghetti soup bowl, why not N for nymphomania?

Kids need to recognise there are others like them, I completely understand that. But I still honestly believe that for many self-described asexuals, it's a transitionary state rather than an innate identity like being homo/hetero. As much as having this label may help them make peace with their place in the world, isn't it also limiting? ("Dave, did I catch you buying condoms in the pub toilet? But you're asexual! Back in your lane, *****")

Do you watch porn?

You bet I do. And I know there are plenty of progressive types who would say that in some nefarious way I am, in so doing, reinforcing the patriarchy, or "making women's bodies spaces for violence" or somesuch hyperbole. The idea that mutually consenting adults could freely partake in whatever they wanted fell by the wayside around the time progressive society decided that everything had to be viewed through the lens of power dynamics, no?

 

[CyanCat47_v1legacy]

Atheists can still pray and attend places of worship, even if we leave aside the existence of atheistic religions.

I know because I've done it myself.

This is a complete digression (and a week-old one at that), but I don't consider prayer without at least a degree of genuine belief to be prayer. I don't know, but I imagine many religious people would agree with me on that. The concept of prayer/worship implies a kind of active involvement, not just a very superficial display of going-through-the-motions; in kind of the same way that laying down with your eyes closed and actually sleeping are two very different things even if a casual observer might mistake one for the other.

And admittedly that's another example of my analogy falling down, as it's abundantly possible for people (especially women, but to a lesser degree men) to take part in sex without much arousal, let alone enthusiasm.

As someone who considers themselves asexual, i don't think religion is a good analogy, humans can ultimately choose what they want to believe in. I have the opportunity to have sex, hookup apps would probably allow me to find someone or other out for quick sex and nothing more if i wanted it, but i don't have any desire to pursue that opportunity. I don't see any benefit to it, neither do i see any need to try to involve sex in any of my relationships with other people

 

[CyanCat47_v1legacy]

The "sexuality spectrum" isn't just there to be celebrated and provide some colourful gay spice to the stew of heterosexual culture, it also has serious responsibility to people, especially young people, who feel alone or abandoned in that same culture, and who deserve a language to articulate themselves and a community which might be capable of understanding them.

OK, fine, I get that.

But does "I don't like sex very much" deserve an equal seat at the table alongside L, G, and B? At this point we're not discussing the x-axis of "who do you want to bone" but rather we've switched to the y-axis of "how much". I mean, you've discussed how asexual people may still have romantic interest, so presumably they would also overlap into having a straight, homosexual or bi identity regardless of how much sex they want/have. Do we NEED yet another pigeon hole?

Genuine question, if asexuality gets to be a noodle in the LGBTQIA+ spaghetti soup bowl, why not N for nymphomania?

Kids need to recognise there are others like them, I completely understand that. But I still honestly believe that for many self-described asexuals, it's a transitionary state rather than an innate identity like being homo/hetero. As much as having this label may help them make peace with their place in the world, isn't it also limiting? ("Dave, did I catch you buying condoms in the pub toilet? But you're asexual! Back in your lane, *****")

Do you watch porn?

You bet I do. And I know there are plenty of progressive types who would say that in some nefarious way I am, in so doing, reinforcing the patriarchy, or "making women's bodies spaces for violence" or somesuch hyperbole. The idea that mutually consenting adults could freely partake in whatever they wanted fell by the wayside around the time progressive society decided that everything had to be viewed through the lens of power dynamics, no?

I think it would be hard to find any general asexual stance on where asexuals belong in terms of spectrums and communities. Personally I don't consider myself part of the LGBTQ+ community as i associate that with a movement for emancipation and rights, things asexuals don't really have to fight for. Asexuality is effectively in stealth by default. No government could realistically opress me for my sexuality. The hypothetical scenario you describe of it being potentially limiting seems highly implausible, not impossible perhaps, but one i could never recognize myself in. If an asexual person were to start engaging in sexual activity for whatever reason, the reaction would much more likely be 'i told you, you weren't really ace'. What you described is probably more likely to happen to a bisexual engaging sexually with someone of the opposite sex, which I have heard some bisexuals complain of being disparaged by homosexuals for. Speaking from personal experience, the main reason for having a term is that asexuals simply don't agree with the idea that sex is a need, is the purpose of all social dynamics or of humans in general, because that simply isn't true for the way an asexual experiences life

 

[Silvanus]

You bet I do. And I know there are plenty of progressive types who would say that in some nefarious way I am, in so doing, reinforcing the patriarchy, or "making women's bodies spaces for violence" or somesuch hyperbole. The idea that mutually consenting adults could freely partake in whatever they wanted fell by the wayside around the time progressive society decided that everything had to be viewed through the lens of power dynamics, no?

I think you're missing the point. It wasn't an attempt to shame you; it was to point out that "plenty of people routinely have passionless, unenjoyable sex".

 

[Terminal Blue]

This is a complete digression (and a week-old one at that), but I don't consider prayer without at least a degree of genuine belief to be prayer.

And that's a valid personal viewpoint. It's just not applicable to many religious denominations, or to the way many people live their lives.

But does "I don't like sex very much" deserve an equal seat at the table alongside L, G, and B?

Don't forget the T.

A lot of people still try to exclude or minimise the fact that trans people are included in the LGBT acronym. After all, the experience of being trans is quite different from being gay or bi. The reason they're so closely linked is primarily because straight people have always had enormous trouble separating them. Gay, bi and trans people have always existed in the same spaces by virtue of shared discrimination, which is why we talk of a single "LGBT community" even though there have also been enormous tensions within that community. It's never been about whether we logically fit together as some kind of natural taxonomy, it's about the fact that we all have to live in a society that still treats us like shit.

And yes, living in a society where people are literally incapable of understanding that your attraction (or lack thereof) to people exists and is meaningfully distinct from their own perception of your sexual behaviour is a part of that shitness. Just ask bisexuals.

So it's not really about whether more pidgeonholes are needed, it's about gradually unpacking and recognising the various ways in which people are already pidgeonholed by a cisnormative and heteronormative culture that remains utterly, destructively incapable of adequately dealing with any form of gender or sexual diversity.

Genuine question, if asexuality gets to be a noodle in the LGBTQIA+ spaghetti soup bowl, why not N for nymphomania?

For one, nymphomania is an archaic term to describe women (and only women) having an inappropriate desire for sex.

Nowadays, while there remains a lot of societal stigma around sexual promiscuity in women, we generally accept that sex is a good and nice thing, and that the desire for it is normal and natural.

There are people who develop an unhealthy and compulsive relationship with sex. We would describe these people as hypersexual or as having a sex addiction. Hypersexuality in this sense is generally accepted to be a very bad thing, and typically not at all fun for the person experiencing it, which means it's nothing like being LGBT or being asexual.

But I still honestly believe that for many self-described asexuals, it's a transitionary state rather than an innate identity like being homo/hetero.

Again, there are plenty of people who say the same thing about being bisexual.

And really, so what if it is? Sexuality in general really isn't as innate as people like to pretend. It's just not something we can control, which is different.

You bet I do. And I know there are plenty of progressive types who would say that in some nefarious way I am, in so doing, reinforcing the patriarchy, or "making women's bodies spaces for violence" or somesuch hyperbole. The idea that mutually consenting adults could freely partake in whatever they wanted fell by the wayside around the time progressive society decided that everything had to be viewed through the lens of power dynamics, no?

Do you think the actors in the porn you watch are always sexually attracted to each other?

Also, the fact that you still think those people are "progressive" or represent some mainstream voice of progressivism is pretty funny for me. Like, I wasn't even born when that was a progressive position.

I mean, yeah. Porn is pretty gross. The industry that makes it is gross and misogyny of straight porn isn't exactly something you need to be Andrea Dworkin to see any more. But in case you missed the memo from SJW headquarters, SWERFs are cancelled now.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Whenever I see a discussion in queer communities about whether or not Ace folks should be under the general LGBTQ+ umbrella, I always think about these sorts of discussions with people who think somebody not being interested in sex or finding other people sexy is some sort of tragic dysfunction.

That shit fucked my up in high school. Because if I'm not interested in anybody like that, either they're all shallow, petty assholes and/or I'm fundamentally broken, and that doesn't lend itself to putting you in a good headspace for *anything*.

If I'd known that some peop"e just aren't into other people like that, I'd've had a much easier time. Cultural programming is a helluva thing.