xkcd

by **Kain** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:06 pm UTC

Im not sure if that description is entirely correct, nor if it is in line with the idea of the OP.

In the definition I have come to understand, asexuality is a term for the lack of desire for sexual relations of any kind. Note that this would include non-traditional sex (traditional defined as what a church might consider sanctioned).

Moreover, it is entirely possible to appreciate another's beauty/handsomeness/attractiveness, and be attracted to them, yet be repulsed at the idea of intimate relations with them. (I know this from experience, though I personally am not quite asexual). Such people may be asexual, yet would still be attracted to one or both genders (platonically).

by **Jessica** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:13 pm UTC

Two things. 1) Just because you're attracted to someone, doesn't mean you're sexually attracted to someone. For example, really good heterosexual friends who're attracted to each other. It happens. not often, but it can. 2) If someone wants to call themselves a straight asexual, what does it matter? It's not like personal labels are really important. In my opinion, if someone wants to say they don't want sex, but like women, then let them.

by **Kain** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:25 pm UTC

Jessica wrote:Two things. 1) Just because you're attracted to someone, doesn't mean you're sexually attracted to someone. For example, really good heterosexual friends who're attracted to each other. It happens. not often, but it can. 2) If someone wants to call themselves a straight asexual, what does it matter? It's not like personal labels are really important. In my opinion, if someone wants to say they don't want sex, but like women, then let them.

Which is what I was trying to say, only I used a much more convaluted argument.

Though to be fair, while assuming things based on labels (ie that someone who is asexual is not attracted to anyone) is likely to lead to false assumptions, that doesn't mean that labels are not important. If someone feels like calling themselves an arsonist, power to you, but dont be surprised if the cops come aknocking. (disclaimer: I am not suggesting that asexuallity is in any way associated with criminality, nor do I hold that belief. Rather, this is intended to show that all self applied labels have some baggage).

by **Falmarri** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:40 pm UTC

Jessica wrote: 2) If someone wants to call themselves a straight asexual, what does it matter? It's not like personal labels are really important. In my opinion, if someone wants to say they don't want sex, but like women, then let them.

Because words have to have agreed upon definitions if they're going to be used. I'm going to call myself homosexual. Except I'm not attracted to guys and I have sex with women. See a problem with that?

by **Jessica** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:53 pm UTC

Falmarri wrote:
Jessica wrote: 2) If someone wants to call themselves a straight asexual, what does it matter? It's not like personal labels are really important. In my opinion, if someone wants to say they don't want sex, but like women, then let them.
Because words have to have agreed upon definitions if they're going to be used. I'm going to call myself homosexual. Except I'm not attracted to guys and I have sex with women. See a problem with that?

Nope. As long as you don't mind being treated as the label you accepted. If you want to call yourself a homosexual, then all power to you. What do I know about your inner desires. You could be the biggest ladies man in the world, never having had gay sex, and still consider yourself a homosexual, if you want. And if you tell me you're gay, I'll call you gay until the ends of the earth.

Same goes for men who sleep with men, but don't consider themselves homosexuals. There was a large group of people in the 80s who did this, not to mention prison rape. If you sucked cock and called yourself a heterosexual man, I'll accept you calling youself straight. If you did it enough, I might ask if you're still straight, but if you really want to be straight, then that's fine by me.

Of course, not everyone will agree with my blanket acceptance of personal lables, so others might label you differently. And, objectivly people will label you as a 3rd party. But, in this instance, the person is saying "I like women. But, I don't want to have sex. So, I'm going to accept a label of Straight asexual, because I have warm fuzzy feelings toward women, but no tingly groin grabing feelings toward women." If a friend, or a collegue told me they wanted to be refered to as whatever, I'd suck it up, no matter how silly, and call them that to their face. And in their presence. Because that's what they'd like of me, and really because that's what I'd like of others.

by **poxic** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:02 am UTC

Falmarri, it sounds like you're trying to make the English language more precise than it really is. If asexuality were very common, we'd have a lot of words available to explain exactly what flavour of "A" a person is. (In my case, hetero-asexual, or asexual/hetero-romantic if you like. I like men and would love to date, but sex just doesn't work for me.)

Since asexuality has NOT been a common topic of discussion throughout the ages, the language is sorely deficient in precise words on the subject. We just don't have a word for "no sex please but yes to relationships with one/both genders". Heteromantic? Homoromantic? They're awkward to use and confusing -- no one knows what they mean. Among asexuals, some use "bi-romantic" to indicate a willingness to be in a (nonsexual) relationship with either gender, but the word is in limited use.

The asexual community, such as it is, has fallen into the habit of using asexual to mean "not wanting sex (with anyone)", and aromantic to mean "not attracted to either sex". So someone might describe him- or herself as asexual, then qualify it with heterosexual/homosexual/bi-romantic/aromantic as appropriate (if relevant to the conversation).

Reminds me a bit of a scene from a French-Canadian film in the '70s (I think). There was a lot of angst in Quebec about separatism, federalism, wanting to be distinct but not wanting to reject other Canadians, blah blah blah. The scene was of a couple on an airplane, trying to explain to a fellow passenger who they were. I'll quote from memory, poorly, in translation: "We're French-Canadian. Er, Canadian-French. That is, Canadians of the French persuasion. I mean, we're linguo-French-natal-Canadians. Er..."

Asexuals are finding themselves in a similar situation. We either invent new words, or we use existing ones in new ways. Both are problematic. We'll eventually settle on a way to explain ourselves, but it'll take time.

by **Falmarri** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:23 am UTC

poxic wrote:Asexuals are finding themselves in a similar situation. We either invent new words, or we use existing ones in new ways. Both are problematic. We'll eventually settle on a way to explain ourselves, but it'll take time.

You say that like there's some national committee on asexuals or whoever the takes votes from representatives of the community or something. I partially consider myself asexual not because I don't like the idea of sex, but because I'm not really particularly attracted to either gender. I just don't see a need to separate yourself from heterosexuals, homosexuals etc simply because you prefer not to have sex. It seems like that's an arbitrary distinction that doesn't require it's own subsection.

by **poxic** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:22 am UTC

Falmarri wrote:You say that like there's some national committee on asexuals or whoever the takes votes from representatives of the community or something. I partially consider myself asexual not because I don't like the idea of sex, but because I'm not really particularly attracted to either gender. I just don't see a need to separate yourself from heterosexuals, homosexuals etc simply because you prefer not to have sex. It seems like that's an arbitrary distinction that doesn't require it's own subsection.

No national committee, no. Just my own experience with hanging out on the AVEN forums, and meeting a few of them for coffee.

I have some motivation for using asexual to describe myself: I'm trying to explain to people who know me why I'm not dating and/or married, and why that's okay. When you're a female nearing 40, people worry about you. (I've told my father and one brother, but haven't worked up the nerve yet to tell my mother. I don't think the other brother would care.)

It's also useful when guys hit on me. A brief, intellectual discussion about asexuality either converts them to a friend or scares them the hell away. One day I might luck out and meet a guy who says, "Hey, that describes me, too." That would be cool. I haven't been on a date for over a decade, dammit.

by **Malice** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:54 am UTC

Falmarri wrote:I just don't see a need to separate yourself from heterosexuals, homosexuals etc simply because you prefer not to have sex.

That's a bit like saying, "I just don't see a need to separate yourself from lefties or righties simply because you don't have arms."

by **Falmarri** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:57 am UTC

Malice wrote:
Falmarri wrote:I just don't see a need to separate yourself from heterosexuals, homosexuals etc simply because you prefer not to have sex.

That's a bit like saying, "I just don't see a need to separate yourself from lefties or righties simply because you don't have arms."

Or is it more like "I don't see a need to separate yourself from lefties or righties if you prefer not to write."

by **poxic** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 6:06 am UTC

Interesting point, Falmarri. For me, since I actually would like to date, it does matter. I won't lead a guy on who's expecting sex sooner or later. If I tell him it won't happen, ever, and he's cool with that, then sure. I know some great places for a dinner out, and I make a mean stir-fry.

To use your analogy, it's like "I just want to hold the pen, not write with it. Is it more comfortable to hold the pen with my left hand or my right?"

/happens to be a leftie

by **Falmarri** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:27 am UTC

poxic wrote:To use your analogy, it's like "I just want to hold the pen, not write with it. Is it more comfortable to hold the pen with my left hand or my right?"

Not completely related, just following your analogy out to its conclusion. But it would depend on how you held the pen. If you didn't intend to write with it, you wouldn't necessarily have to hold it like one would a normal pen. Just like in baseball, righties wear mits on their left hands, it's surprisingly uncomfortable to wear a baseball mit on your opposite hand.

Ok that was kind of a silly analogy, ignore that

by **poxic** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:01 am UTC

That's why I don't completely rule out living with a female partner one day. Since no sex is involved, and I don't really like kissing, does it matter whether my partner is male or female? I'd prefer a male, since I'm attracted to men. If I meet a wonderful female who would make a perfect partner, though, I can't say I wouldn't try it. (I'm left-handed, but I could physically stick a pen in my right hand, too. It would be weird, though.)

by **pollywog** » Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:18 am UTC

The way I see it, asexuality is a lack of interest in sex. Which describes me. Heterosexuality is an attraction towards the opposite gender, which describes me. Actually, it's not really an attraction, but more like if I had to see someone nude, I'd rather it were a female. So the opposite of attraction to males. I forget what that word is.

I'd be perfectly happy never to have sex again, but I'd die inside if I never got to hug or cuddle anyone again. It doesn't matter who I'm hugging or cuddling, as long as they're a close friend. But I'd still rather see my female second best friend nude than my best mate. Females have nicer looking bodies. But that's just a personal opinion on what is beautiful and what's not.

For me, it's more like "I'll hold the pen happily in either hand, and I don't want to write with it, but if I have to, I'd rather use my right hand". I prefer not to write, but when I do, I use my right hand.

by **Esperite** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:27 am UTC

I figured I'd post my convoluted little description of myself here, so here it is:

I don't feel attraction at all. I don't think it is from not meeting the right person, because I know plenty of people who look nice, and are asthetically appealing, but I just don't really feel any attraction, just friendship.

Spoilered for more details (that are descriptive) and length:

Spoiler:

Overall, I'm not that worried about what term/label would describe me that much. I think the best term would be aromantic (because I'm not attracted to people) pansexual (because in theoretical sex I doubt I would really care), but it is still a confusing subject. I've been going through thoughts of what I like and don't, and I think this is how I really feel.

It is weird being in high school and feeling this way though, because sexual topics make me uncomfortable (in part because of this feeling, and partly because I just don't like that subject area), and since people are in the process of growing towards sexual maturity and getting girlfriends/boyfriends and such, it is an isolating feeling for me realizing that I don't really care about this. Logically, I understand that this is okay, but it still makes me slightly uncomfortable when sexual topics are brought up. It tends to not be a big deal, because I can either ignore this conversation, move the topic, or focus on other aspects of the conversation that aren't sexual.

One aspect of my personality that definately helps make this alot easier is that I don't really care how this developes. My generally philosiphy towards this is "Well, if I later find someone I'm attracted to, thats fine. If I don't, that's fine too." I don't really care what happens, so I'm just going to let myself feel however I normally feel.

(As a side note, I am a 16 year old male, and alongside this I'm confused about my gender

. I might be genderless, androgynous, or trans, and I'm not really sure. xkcd and other sites I've found are definately helping me find out who I am though. I've gone alot farther than I was before I joined this community.)

(Second note: ARGH! It is so hard to type a coherant post that sounds right. I had to rewrite this way too many times until it looked right.)

by **General_Norris** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 1:25 pm UTC

They can be nice, they can be hot but that doesn't means you should like them, don't worry. A friend of mine was the most asexual thing on Earth until very recently and still doesn't show a lot of interest in sex itself. Another friend of mine is 21, interesting and really hot and has never dated anyone. You are 16, my first friend didn't even said anything about girls until he was close to 18.

Don't try to search labels, they are kind of pointless, IMHO. I mean, you like X person because it's X person and that's all.

by **MrGee** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:57 am UTC

This is so weird for me to read...how can someone like cuddling, enjoy masturbating, love their partner, think they are beautiful, and yet NOT want to have sex? What else is there??

Still, I find the stories interesting. Maybe if I keep reading I will understand.

by **existential_elevator** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:13 am UTC

MrGee wrote:This is so weird for me to read...how can someone like cuddling, enjoy masturbating, love their partner, think they are beautiful, and yet NOT want to have sex? What else is there??

I'm sure I don't speak for everyone, but for me, the whole climax thing is pretty, well, arbitrary. Sure, I have a pleasure drive, but it does nothing for me emotionally. It's, well, irrelevant. People identify as asexual for a lot of different reasons. Some people do not like any form of sexual contact whatsoever. People more like me really experience a divorce between sex as an emotional experience and sex as a physical experience. It's completely possible to be a romantic being without being a sexual being.

by **somebody already took it** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:02 pm UTC

These are some questions I'd like to see some people respond to:
If you were able to somehow manipulate yourself into being or not being asexual, would you try to do it?
What do you see as the pros and cons of having or not having a sex drive?

by **Elvish Pillager** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:48 pm UTC

somebody already took it wrote:These are some questions I'd like to see some people respond to:
If you were able to somehow manipulate yourself into being or not being asexual, would you try to do it?

I think that I actually am able to do that (I have a weird mind), and I'm not doing it; I have no reason to, and a sex drive would be a horrible distraction.

somebody already took it wrote:What do you see as the pros and cons of having or not having a sex drive?

The only pro I can think of for having a sex drive is that it makes you more likely to have sex, if you're into that kind of thing. That and, as I understand it, most people derive more enjoyment from things that they've been looking forward to positively. (I don't.)

For not having a sex drive, you get more independence, and you save yourself a lot of frustration in situations where you can't have sex for whatever reason.

by **poxic** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:24 am UTC

For MrGee (and others): I did think of a way to explain asexuality to sexuals. It's incomplete and won't describe all asexuals, of course, but it might be useful.

Imagine a person, maybe one you know, to whom you are NOT sexually attracted. At all. You might love the person to bits as a person, as a friend, or as a family member (if you want to make it really squicky). You are, however, utterly turned off by them physically. If they're a friend, you might enjoy hugging or kissing them, but adding sex to the equation makes your genitals try to crawl up inside themselves.

That's something like what an asexual feels toward everyone. Me, I find the idea of sex kind of attractive (some asexuals don't), but I have never met a person I'd be willing to do it with. The few relationships I've had, before I figured out the asexual thing, all ended fairly quickly once it became apparent that sex just wasn't fun for me. It's kind of horrible, actually -- horror is the closest emotion I can find to describe it. Not because of how I was treated, not at all. (I was always treated respectfully.) Just because of ... whatever makes me asexual, I guess.

Disclaimer: I don't speak for all asexies. YMMV. HAND.

by **electronic mily** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:29 pm UTC

somebody already took it wrote:These are some questions I'd like to see some people respond to:
If you were able to somehow manipulate yourself into being or not being asexual, would you try to do it?
What do you see as the pros and cons of having or not having a sex drive?

For me personally: No, I definitely wouldn't. I like the way I think of people now. They're nice and they're pretty, and not just because biology is making me want to stick myself to them. Now, of course, I don't assume non-aces are incapable of connecting people without sex, because that would be a flagrant generalization and kind of mean. But I myself like knowing that I'm interested in people as completely independent of what they're made of.

As for pros of being asexual:
Speaking from observation, sex can take up your time. I've seen people get frustrated over lack of it, hunt down people looking for it, and worry about whether it's going to happen. Me? Not even an issue.

I can't think of a lot of cons that I've seen in first-person, except: sitting quietly with a group of people who are all talking about their latest romantic exploits can get awkward.

I realize this is not me being especially Serious about Business, and I do know that some people have more issues than this. I'm currently living in a very accepting zone, and have had pretty much no 'problems' as such. I do know that some people are actively put off or even disgusted by sex (I don't exactly understand this particular viewpoint; if anyone wants to talk about that I'd be interested), and I can definitely see how living in a world as sex-saturated as ours could become unpleasant in that respect. And if you are someone who is totally set against the idea of ever having sex, but you still want to find someone to "pair up with," it would probably be a bit difficult to make a working match.

by **MrGee** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 11:32 pm UTC

poxic wrote:For MrGee (and others): I did think of a way to explain asexuality to sexuals. It's incomplete and won't describe all asexuals, of course, but it might be useful.

Imagine a person, maybe one you know, to whom you are NOT sexually attracted. At all. You might love the person to bits as a person, as a friend, or as a family member (if you want to make it really squicky). You are, however, utterly turned off by them physically. If they're a friend, you might enjoy hugging or kissing them, but adding sex to the equation makes your genitals try to crawl up inside themselves.

That's something like what an asexual feels toward everyone. Me, I find the idea of sex kind of attractive (some asexuals don't), but I have never met a person I'd be willing to do it with. The few relationships I've had, before I figured out the asexual thing, all ended fairly quickly once it became apparent that sex just wasn't fun for me. It's kind of horrible, actually -- horror is the closest emotion I can find to describe it. Not because of how I was treated, not at all. (I was always treated respectfully.) Just because of ... whatever makes me asexual, I guess.

Disclaimer: I don't speak for all asexies. YMMV. HAND.

I guess I can think of people like that. I can also think of people I would have sex with but not kiss. I suppose that's weird.

I've noticed that even as a straight guy, sex and romance tend to pull in opposite directions. You can have both with the same person, but it takes a sort of mental gymnastics.

by **Esperite** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 12:42 am UTC

I know for me, my weird form of asexuality is that while I find the idea of sex, in general, attractive, it's not directed. I don't really feel any desire to have sex with anyone in particular, and if I did it wouldn't be for any romantic or relational reasons, so it would be kind of hollow. Also, I'm way too uncomfortable with anything relating to sex or romance in social environments, so it's not really an issue for me.
(Right now, the terms I'm leaning towards are Effectively Asexual, Aromantic, and part of the gray area. Yay for more terms that don't fully explain things and tend to make things more complicated =P.)

As for whether I would want to not be asexual, not really. It's not that I don't want to feel sexual, it's more or less that I have no reason too. It's easy enough for me to fall under the radar sexually, I don't think anyone I know well would really care, and I have no reason to want to change. At most I'd rather be less uncomfortable socially, but thats really it.

Edit: Just reread about conversations about relationships being akward.
Personally, while that type of conversation can be awkward for me, I am so naturally curious that I want to know what happened anway. It's only awkward whenever my friends start talking about people being 'hot' or 'sexy,' especially if they want my input. I tend to either avoid the question or answer uncertainly (I don't know/I don't care). Changing the topic usually follows quickly (Or I exit that conversation, whichever is better at the time).

by **Amnesiasoft** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 4:33 am UTC

electronic mily wrote:I do know that some people are actively put off or even disgusted by sex (I don't exactly understand this particular viewpoint; if anyone wants to talk about that I'd be interested)

I'm really not sure what the best way to put this is. I have no problems with anyone else having sex, talking about having sex, or anything like that. But once you get the idea of me being involved with sex there, it's just... something my brain is incapable of comprehending. It's just a complete feeling of "this makes absolutely no sense, and shouldn't be." So, uh, I don't do it? I really can't think of any better way to put it. Sometimes I think I've got some other problem going on here that makes this the case, so take from it what you will.

by **mastered** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:44 pm UTC

In my experience, I have a certain aversion to sex, but realize it can be pleasurable. I just wouldn't choose it. I probably couldn't share the profundity of my life with another anyway.

by **BlackSails** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:57 pm UTC

mastered wrote:In my experience, I have a certain aversion to sex, but realize it can be pleasurable. I just wouldn't choose it. I probably couldn't share the profundity of my life with another anyway.

Do you think your life is more profound that other peoples'?

by **mastered** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:48 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:
mastered wrote:In my experience, I have a certain aversion to sex, but realize it can be pleasurable. I just wouldn't choose it. I probably couldn't share the profundity of my life with another anyway.

Do you think your life is more profound that other peoples'?

No. I simply couldn't fathom sharing how I experience my life with another, since everyone's perspectives are different. I can appreciate diversity, but it's difficult to find unity with another without losing sight of oneself.

by **CalebC** » Fri May 14, 2010 3:42 am UTC

Fascinating. If I sited Freud's Three Contributions to the Theory of Sex and reiterated his claim that all humans have congenital sexual desires, what would your response be? I certainly am all for whatever sexualities people have, but the debates surrounding them I find fascinating. Although I kind of wish that we all could get some rights and acceptance.

Perhaps I am rude for being fascinated, but forums by definition are the place for discussion and learning. I do not mean to offend any asexual.

by **Shivahn** » Fri May 14, 2010 3:49 am UTC

Though not an asexual myself, I'd have to say that I don't find the writings of Freud to be particularly useful in much of anything, other than perhaps a historical context. Is there empirical evidence for all humans having congenital sexual desires? Doesn't the very existence of asexuals provide empirical proof that Freud was wrong, rather than the writings of an old man proving that an extant group of people does not exist?

by **poxic** » Fri May 14, 2010 3:59 am UTC

Context for the above post: a discussion on asexuality was started (by me, I guess) in the Coming Out thread. I suggested that it continue here.

CalebC, I have to leave my computer for a bit, but I'll come back and give your post lots of thought and response. If anyone else reading here wants to answer in a respectful way, go ahead. In the meantime, here is a summary from the AVEN website that might make for interesting reading. Other areas of that site might have useful information. (Not that I just went and looked for all that while crossing my legs in the peepee dance and telling my cat to wait for dinner... :wink:

)

by **CalebC** » Fri May 14, 2010 4:29 am UTC

Thank you. I appreciate it.

by **Singulaire** » Fri May 14, 2010 10:26 am UTC

Just to add to the ~~confusion~~ discussion, I'll put my own brand of asexualism on the table.
The chemical/biological/what-have-you functions are all in place. That is to say the implication of sex does cause me arousal. Moreover, I can force myself to look at female genitalia for slightly longer than i can force myself to look at the male analogue. However, the thought of intercourse, or even a romantic relationship for that matter, are somehow very unappealing. It feels... hollow, in a sense. Like knowing I won't get any intellectual fulfillment out of it, and even satisfying the primal urge will just be fleeting.
Okay, that probably sounded a lot more melancholy than how I actually feel, but you get the gist of it.
That said- enough about me, time to contribute to the conversation:

These are some questions I'd like to see some people respond to:
If you were able to somehow manipulate yourself into being or not being asexual, would you try to do it?
What do you see as the pros and cons of having or not having a sex drive?

I might try out having a sexuality, I'm rather interested in having risk-free experiences. But this assumes I'm perfectly capable of reverting to my good old asexual self at ease, I definitely don't wanna be stuck with a sexuality I may very well not like.
the pros of lacking a sex drive, aside from the time I have to do all sorts of stuff while other people go about getting laid, would have to include not doing a lot of "couple things" I find rather preposterous. Really the whole relationship ritual thing kinda makes me laugh a bit and wonder why people do it. That may sound removed, but I feel kind of relieved knowing I'm not in that rather high stress environment.
The cons come down to being uncomfortable around couples. This is particularly problematic when your friends are part of a couple. Two of my best friends are a couple, and while I like hanging out and talking to them, I enjoy it a lot better when only one of them is there at a time.
Also any advertisement that leverages sex. Those are an issue.

PS: Yes, I did just register to comment in this thread. What can I say, being a teenage asexual can get awfully lonely sometimes, I couldn't pass talking to people who understand.

by **Elvish Pillager** » Fri May 14, 2010 1:30 pm UTC

CalebC wrote:Fascinating. If I sited Freud's Three Contributions to the Theory of Sex and reiterated his claim that all humans have congenital sexual desires, what would your response be?

I would laugh loudly at you. Then I would nitpick your grammar (you mean "cited", right?)

CalebC wrote:I certainly am all for whatever sexualities people have, but the debates surrounding them I find fascinating.

Debate? That'll spawn about as much debate as if I cited Aristotle and reiterated his claim that objects fall at a rate directly proportional to their weight. There's nothing to say beyond "Yeah, I'm glad we know by now that his statement is unequivocally false."

by **CalebC** » Fri May 14, 2010 9:25 pm UTC

Singulaire wrote:PS: Yes, I did just register to comment in this thread. What can I say, being a teenage asexual can get awfully lonely sometimes, I couldn't pass talking to people who understand.

I seek to understand, but do not yet fully understand. Do you credit the source of asexuality as congenital or environmental? What reforms do asexual seek, be it cultural, political, or anything else? Is it mostly acceptance or are there political desires? I learned about asexuals last night and am a little bit new to the topic.

I also apologize for any discomfort my misspelling of the word cited may have caused anyone.

by **Jessica** » Fri May 14, 2010 9:29 pm UTC

I'm pretty sure (speaking not as an asexual person, but as an ally) that the main thing that people are looking for is acceptance. All too often people disregard people who are asexual as... well a number of things. Essentially most people don't believe they even exist, or can even exist. So, it's nice to have people who can accept that it does exist and is perfectly normal.

by **Elvish Pillager** » Fri May 14, 2010 10:33 pm UTC

One thing I'd add is awareness - the AVEN forums frequently get stories of asexuals who had trouble accepting or understanding themselves for a long time because they didn't know that it was a real/legitimate orientation.

by **CalebC** » Sat May 15, 2010 1:27 am UTC

I can relate to the hellish time of doubt and not feeling any sense of belonging or definition.

by **Ignignoct** » Wed May 26, 2010 5:50 am UTC

Spoiler:

I might try out having a sexuality, I'm rather interested in having risk-free experiences. But this assumes I'm perfectly capable of reverting to my good old asexual self at ease, I definitely don't wanna be stuck with a sexuality I may very well not like.
the pros of lacking a sex drive, aside from the time I have to do all sorts of stuff while other people go about getting laid, would have to include not doing a lot of "couple things" I find rather preposterous. Really the whole relationship ritual thing kinda makes me laugh a bit and wonder why people do it. That may sound removed, but I feel kind of relieved knowing I'm not in that rather high stress environment.
The cons come down to being uncomfortable around couples. This is particularly problematic when your friends are part of a couple. Two of my best friends are a couple, and while I like hanging out and talking to them, I enjoy it a lot better when only one of them is there at a time.
Also any advertisement that leverages sex. Those are an issue.

PS: Yes, I did just register to comment in this thread. What can I say, being a teenage asexual can get awfully lonely sometimes, I couldn't pass talking to people who understand.

Hello, Me. Nice to see Me. What are you doing on the other side of the internet?..

Anywho, I'm often accused of being emotionally/romantically robotic, with the exception for my need to laugh often. I feel like I could be very affectionate, but it's reserved for those I care about, but sex doesn't fulfill me. I will massage the hell out of someone's shoulders/back, though!

Sex is off in some "recreational" list of activities, far removed my needs as a human, and hardly pursued due to cost efficiency VS other hobbies, like sleep. I guess the best way to explain my sexuality is a sort of muted, cerebral pansexualism that plainly sees itself as merely physical nerve stimulation; usually hoping for some sort of exotic psychological power dynamic to spice things up. I enjoyed eating out women, and I'm not opposed to trying risk-free homosexual acts. I can't pinpoint any sexual gratification WANTS/NEEDS, though, aside from performing masturbatory maintenance to avoid random, awkward erections at work.

Logically, I'd hope that I could embrace homosexuality as it seems in my current life experience that finding a gay male with similar life goals would be much easier. That being financial stability, independence, and the capability to have a clean break when the partnership is no longer mutually beneficial. The thought of serious relationships in general, though, seems like a weird idea that's more an element of my environment that's pushed onto me as something to strive for rather than something I intrinsically want. That being said, I feel like I'm at an advantage over my peers to achieve my own personal idea of happiness, and I don't feel bad about who/what I am in the least.

TL;DR I just decide to tell people that I'm taking a break because my last 2 GFs went psycho just weeks after sex was involved both times, which is true, but that was 3 years ago and I simply don't care anymore. Last time I had sex, I remember hittin' it from the back, distractedly thinking, "Hmmm... I could be reading a book right now."

by **Kendo_Bunny** » Wed May 26, 2010 11:51 pm UTC

CalebC wrote:I seek to understand, but do not yet fully understand. Do you credit the source of asexuality as congenital or environmental?

It depends on the person, really. I'm in a grey area of asexuality, because while I am generally uninterested in sex, I have met one person who I feel what I presume is sexual desire towards. However, I feel that desire because I love him very much, and it's just another way to be close to him. I like just sitting, talking with him just as much, if not more, than any sort of snuggly stuff. But he is sexual, and so it becomes more of a bonding experience. I'm not so much on finding sex distasteful as a little confusing. Like, 'Why would people do anything to do that? Why do people do stupid things like have sex with strangers and end up pregnant or with crotch rot? What's the big flipping deal?'. I never really thought about doing it myself, and when I had partners who were sexual (though we never had sex), I'd just sort of go along when they would tell me I was sexy or whatever.

I did have a sexually traumatizing experience around the time my sexuality should have been developing, but that just made me find the idea of sex disgusting for about four years. After I considered it rationally, I decided it was not disgusting, but also only interesting insofar as a psychological study of how the rest of the world lives. I realized pretty quickly that other people don't have the same feelings of indifference towards sex that I do. I was also the first kid in my grade to get sick of dirty jokes when we all discovered them in the late 3rd grade/early 4th grade. They just got boring, and I didn't see why it was thrilling to tell them beyond that the adults would freak out if they overheard.

CalebC wrote:What reforms do asexual seek, be it cultural, political, or anything else? Is it mostly acceptance or are there political desires? I learned about asexuals last night and am a little bit new to the topic.

From my own personal experience, I'd just be satisfied with just a few things:

1) People assuming that it doesn't actually exist, and is just a phase that will be grown out of.

2) People assuming that asexuality only springs from sexual trauma or really bad sexual experiences.

3) People assuming that a good romp through the sack will "fix" asexuality, not counting that even if an asexual has an enjoyable sexual experience, that will not make them suddenly run down the street wanting to hump everyone. It may make them more amenable to sex with that particular partner, but they will not suddenly grow a sexuality.

4) People assuming that asexuality is something that must be fixed, as if there was something wrong with it.

Who is online