Agreed 100% absolutely.

Eyup.

Never got why people don't treat asexuals as they would so eagerly support gay rights. Asexuals are people too, right? I don't care for sex at all and I don't see how that's a problem.

-TN05

There actually has been studies showing that some people legitimately feel no sexual attraction for anyone or any gender. So yeah, it's a real thing.

Perhaps some people don't think it's a legitimate orientation because some people misuse it. I admit that I am a culprit of that. I call myself asexual sometimes, since I usually have low libido and have little motivation to find a partner, but I know I'm truly heterosexual. I just don't act upon it.

Probably would bebetter off calling yourself heteroromantic, instead, then. Not sure what the term for very low libido is, though

I've become really good friends with an asexual person. There's absolutely nothing wrong with him and it's not even an issue at all (not that it should be). He's totally fine living that way and I have to give him major props for it.

LGBTQAS. Letters to live by.

I disagree, but since I'm not allowed to disagree, I'll just leave it at that =P.

I disagree, but since I'm not allowed to disagree, I'll just leave it at that =P.

You're allowed to disagree if you keep it calm and within BZP rules.

And if you can't, please let me know, and we can discuss this elsewhere. I'm curious to know just what you're disagreeing about.

Can I say, I'm probably the only one who disagrees here? I'm not trying to insult anyone, but sexuality is a pretty standard drive that's basically embedded in our DNA and everyone feels it on some level. Now if you put off sexual tendencies and actually control yourself to the point where it doesn't come to mind unless you want it to, congratulations, because I think more people need to be like that.

But, again I don't believe someone is just truly "asexual" by birth, but puts off sex by choice. Which, again (makes sure that people aren't going to kill me for making a non arguing comment but simply disagreeing) is probably a good thing, since the world is pretty sex crazed now.

Meh, not particularly a topic I have any interest in debating (although GS did a good job of expressing how I feel =P). But long story short, it's not something I'd consider impossible, but it's a rarity, both biologically an psychologically (and sociologically, but that's where it starts to get more controversial); it isn't something I think would be considered "normal".

You can make it a choice to be abstinent, but truly lacking in any sexual component in mind or in body is decidedly not average. Plus, anybody I've ever met who has told me that they're asexual are horribly awkward and have just given up in general anyway.

(plus this is coming from a guy who hasn't had an a decent relationship, emotional or otherwise, in a good two years. There's a difference between being asexual and hopeless, as I full well know =P)

That goes back to the question of how much of one's sexual orientation is psychological/sociological and how much of it is genetics - and also if it matters or not. Even if everyone is born with an inherent sex drive, if their personality utterly overrides it and it becomes physiologically nonexistent over time, does it really matter that there was a drive in the first place?

According to some definitions, you can be asexual while still experiencing sexual feelings. The genetic imperative is still there, but it is, as GSR said, the personality and psychology that ultimately decides orientation.

So ... an asexual person can have sexual desires and choose to not act on them, becoming less of a feeling over time.

I don't really call that asexuality so much as monkhood =P. I perceive a difference between abstinence and asexuality, but again, that's just me.

Yeah, and it's nothing personal, but I also agree with Dorek there.

I feel that there's a lot of useless assumptions and prejudices, even "passive" ones that people have about all and every sexual orientation. Asexuality pretty much always garners the same response. (ie disbelievers). It is still a real thing, and thinking otherwise is pretty close-minded. Even if it is pretty rare, it's not something bad or necessarily unnatural.

We can go with that, or maybe such people are not being "close-minded" and just giving their input by what they see in their lives and by people they know. And maybe in fact, heaven forbid, some people are "fixed-minded" into believing one thing and not wanting to assume anything else because they're not entirely sure themselves on such matters, and such, tell the "close-minded" people that they have useless assumptions and prejudices.

But that's just my two cents. :B

That is an equally valid stance, though still not one I buy into. I maintain that a certain degree of close-mindedness is necessary to outright deny asexuality. Is a person without a sex drive truly that hard to fathom?

Needless to say, there will be those who identify as such who will simply be suppressing their sex drive, and that is not inherently wrong. As others have said, much is decided by a person's psychology. You say that a person is not asexual by birth, and maybe that is true, but can one also say a person is truly and fully heterosexual, homosexual, et cetera, by birth? There is a genetic component to everything, and it is definitely relevant, but it is not necessarily set. A person's orientation can be shaped by sociological and psychological influences over time. And at the end of the day, why should there be any need to equate a nonexistant sexual drive with abstinence? I suppose it is futile to argue weither way.

Let's not start trying to explain the reasons behind whatever sexuality, because nobody knows anything factual.

The way I see it, a small number of people might be genuinely asexual. Just as only a small number of people are genuinely straight, only a small number are genuinely gay, and an even smaller number are genuinely bisexual. For some reason society has assigned an incredibly complicated thing three/four vague categories, in which very few people actually exist.

And as has been said, being attracted to people but not acting on it isn't asexuality, lol. Just as people who are gay but have gone to a 'gay fixing camp' to learn to repress it are still gay.

Never got why people don't treat asexuals as they would so eagerly support gay rights. Asexuals are people too, right? I don't care for sex at all and I don't see how that's a problem.

 

-TN05

I don't think you really get anyone who's anti-asexuality, do you? So that's why you get more distinctly pro-gay people than pro-asexual people, it doesn't mean that they're anti-asexual. I mean, it's not like people can really campaign for asexual marriage and stuff anyway, lol.

But yeah. If you want to define yourself in terms of asexual/straight/bi/gay than that's gravy. Kinsey scale is the way forward, IMO. Sexuality is a personal and often complicated thing, and trying to fit yourself into one of four vague categories is silly. Two bisexual people aren't going to be the same, for example - one might have a 50:50 attraction to men and women, the other might have a 25:75, yet they'd be categorised as the same. Obviously that itself is an oversimplification, but it's just demonstrating a point. I'm going off topic here. Basically, few people are asexual, just as few people are straight/bi/gay. But if you are then that's all good.

- Tilius

I agree that Asexuality exists. I don't know if it's because of the brain or what, though

Considering titles of sexuality are applied to individuals rather than through instinctive knowledge, it's impossible to know exactly what sexuality anyone truly possesses (at least, at our current state of technology). You may have not yet met someone right for you, or you may be, as you say, asexual.

Alternate sexuality is a tricky subject, though, so I hope you haven't labelled yourself hastily.