Opinion What do you think of asexuality and aromantics?

Let is first be said that I myself am asexual and aromantic, and I'm not trying to offend anyone. However, I would like to know your opinions. If you're straight, what do you think of asexuality/aromantics? Same question for members of the LGBTQ+ community. Also, to anyone who's LGBTQ+, what do you think about asexuals and aromantics being in the community?
 
asexuals, that when you dont have a attraction to either male or female right?
 
This could get really heated really fast lol.  I think a-spec people get screwed over by a lot of people.  Either people don't know they exist or they hate them.  Or they're ace.
 
Then I guess im [COLOR= rgb(152, 157, 160)]asexual, I guess[/COLOR]
 
It gets pretty vicious.  I know some people who have gotten so scared that they hide their orientation from everyone now.

I think that has happened to all orientations at some point in time. I live in a pretty open-minded place where people are accepting, but I've seen the stuff online where people talk about the "correction rapes" and stuff like that. 
 
I think its kinda nuts that THIS is what people are going crazy about
 
I think that has happened to all orientations at some point in time. I live in a pretty open-minded place where people are accepting, but I've seen the stuff online where people talk about the "correction rapes" and stuff like that. 

I live in a place where it's safe to be gay but not really safe to be any other minority, though everyone insists it is lol.
 
They're highfalutin terms that literally just mean "not interested in a relationship."
 
They're highfalutin terms that literally just mean "not interested in a relationship."

Might I respectfully disagree with you? If you take that logic and apply it to other orientations, it doesn't make sense. For example, when it comes to homosexuality: "They're highfalutin terms that literally just mean "not interested in a relationship with a straight person." 
 
Might I respectfully disagree with you? If you take that logic and apply it to other orientations, it doesn't make sense. For example, when it comes to homosexuality: "They're highfalutin terms that literally just mean "not interested in a relationship with a straight person." 



To me, that's not an equivalent comparison. Why find the need to label one's self for something that's actually pretty normal? It's not really anything so special that it needs a term associated with it (in regards to aforementioned sexualities).


Those who are celibate or swear off romantic ties (monks, etc) don't find the need to label themselves "asexual", which leads me to why I don't understand why the term is necessary in the first place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't have a problem with them, I don't see a reason to care about how do (or don't do) things.


I'll admit I can't really get my head around how they live but I suppose that's to be expected.
 
I believe "asexuals" and "aromantics" are just looking for a snazzier word for "chaste."



That's also rather rare for most people, as humans are, by very nature, social and physical creatures. There are those who are chaste, of course, but they're usually pretty humble about it.
 
To me, that's not an equivalent comparison. Why find the need to label one's self for something that's actually pretty normal? It's not really anything so special that it needs a term associated with it (in regards to aforementioned sexualities).


Those who are celibate or swear off romantic ties (monks, etc) don't find the need to label themselves "asexual", which leads me to why I don't understand why the term is necessary in the first place.





 







But those who swear off sex are making a choice. Asexuality is not a choice. It's the same thing as how being gay is not choice.



5 minutes ago, Shireling said:



I believe "asexuals" and "aromantics" are just looking for a snazzier word for "chaste."

Again, it is not a choice. It is an orientation.
 
I have nothing against asexuals whatsoever. I do differentiate between them and monks/chaste people because while monks certainly CAN be asexual (as anyone has the capability to be anything), I feel like there's a difference between "refusal to have sex, while I'm sexually attracted to people" and "I'm not attracted to people". If I had to give you an example: me. I am the virginiest virgin, by choice, because I'm waiting for the right person and simply haven't got to them yet. Yet I feel sexual attraction-- I'm not ace. So I definitely feel there's a difference between not feeling it and feeling it but not doing it for personal reasons.


Bit I'll respect anyone else's opinions. I don't really care, you know?
 
I have nothing against asexuals whatsoever. I do differentiate between them and monks/chaste people because while monks certainly CAN be asexual (as anyone has the capability to be anything), I feel like there's a difference between "refusal to have sex, while I'm sexually attracted to people" and "I'm not attracted to people". If I had to give you an example: me. I am the virginiest virgin, by choice, because I'm waiting for the right person and simply haven't got to them yet. Yet I feel sexual attraction-- I'm not ace. So I definitely feel there's a difference between not feeling it and feeling it but not doing it for personal reasons.


Bit I'll respect anyone else's opinions. I don't really care, you know?

Preach
 
But those who swear off sex are making a choice. Asexuality is not a choice. It's the same thing as how being gay is not choice.


Again, it is not a choice. It is an orientation.

Now you've lost me. I don't actually think this is a real thing. If it is, it has to be a hormone defficiency. 
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top