Opinion What do you think of asexuality and aromantics?

[Sunbather]

@Pine My post was only in regards to the different layers of asexuality, not demisexuality. While I personally cannot logically view demisexuality as a sensible and unique classification, I feel it has at least some merrit that are worth arguing about it. Saying "There are asexuals who like sex" is just inherently contradictionary, so I felt the need to speak up against that.

 

[punkinblackk]

Okay, look, so asexuality is totally valid and nothing wrong with it at all, but the bottom half of that tumblr post is redundant AND stupid. If you're consensually sexual and enjoy it, you're not asexual. If you enjoy sex "but only with people who you have a strong bond with" then you're not asexual or whatever else people wanna classify that. You're just not promiscuous. If you enjoy sex but don't actively seek it out, you probably have a low sex-drive. That's all. That isn't a sexualty, that's just having a certain degree of sexuality.

Apologies. The bottom half of the post contained definitions I thought would be slightly useful for some of us. 


Also, I'm not agreeing with the entirety of the post. I believe gray and Demi sexual were only included because they are in fact, similarly unrecognized, and fall under the umbrella of very rare (or complete lack of) sexual attraction. 


I identify with Demi sexual, and it's not low sex drive, it's not a lack of promiscuity, it's simply the fact that, whatever I do, I don't find people who I'd immediately be sexually attracted to. It means I have very rarely felt sexual attraction to people and it only exists after I have spent weeks to months interacting with them in a deep and meaningful way.

[SIZE=inherit]And then there are people who would just feel comfortable knowing that people are aware of what they feel, yet in a less Tumblr-angsty teen-hipster kinda way.[/SIZE]

Yes, tumblr is rather angsty, in certain areas. Mostly because in lieu of Twitter's absurd character limits, people on tumblr can post to their hearts content, and finally express their opinions on bloody well anything. 

[SIZE=inherit] and then there are descriptors you only find in the deep dark depths of Tumblr because some kid thought it would be fun to make one up. (I'm sure it exists people, considering the age we live in today.)[/SIZE]

I agree that this may be involved with some sexualities that are extremely obscure. (Like... Extremely extremely rare to the point you stand a better chance of being eaten by a shark and winning the lottery, than to meet more than one. 

View attachment 237220

To clear this up 


Demi sexuality is not specifically asexuality. 


Grey asexuality is not an invalidation of of asexuality.


tumblr may not have been the best medium for this crowd, and I apologize, but I stand by my opinion that tumblr is no worse than any other social media site, or any crowd . 

 

[welian]

//eats popcorn


I always thought this was pretty cut and dry. "I don't experience sexual desires, so I've made this label to help describe this part of myself to people." "The thought that I'd want to sleep with a person doesn't even OCCUR to me until I've known them really well, so I use this other label. It's not quite the same as low libido because for all I know, I might end up sleeping with her a LOT after we get to know each other really well. But for right now, she's the only person I've ever had dirty thoughts about." "I'm going to call myself aromantic because I'll take all the booty calls I can get, but FUCK being emotionally intimate with someone. I couldn't do it."


There's no decline of civilization or "snowflake millennials" involved. We talk about sex more openly than we used to, and we like to use the internet for matchmaking. Having these labels is a great way to convey this information about myself. I didn't make up these words because I wanted to be special, I use them because they're genuinely helpful when I talk to my doctor my sexual activity, and when my friends and I talk about our relationships and who we're looking for and hoping to meet. People naturally like to compare themselves to each other and sort themselves into groups, that's just how we keep track of our social circles. 


On Tumblr, we'd have already moved on to arguing over whether or not people who don't like and don't care about sex are queer enough to be considered queer (I say yes), and just how inclusive "The LGBT+ Community" needs to be, as though there's a singular leader with a well-defined mission and creed, with membership cards and everything.

 

[Pine]

American is definitely a cultural identity, in which there are several subgroups but they all share similar traits.

Mhm, and you could equate American, European, Asian etc. with heterosexuality, homosexuality, so forth (or if we were to take it as more specific, things like pansexual, gender fluid, so forth). I'm not very patriotic, so my personal experience of gender and sexuality have much more relevance to me than any sense of nationality I may feel. I think this just boils down to a matter of personal values, in that case.

But there are only two genders.

I encourage you to look up intersex and two-spirit. I'm afraid I've gotten off-topic enough as it is.


@Sunbather ah, alright, my mistake. I've personally taken to heart that asexuality specifically refers to sexual attraction and distinguish that from sexual acts, but I can understand defining asexual a little more... strictly? so that it has more/maintains its original meaning.

 

[Count Gensokyo]

The way I see it, there are only three scientifically possible sexualities (straight, gay, bisexual), with one of them that I think is the only real one for romantic relationships and marriage (one man and one woman). Before you argue "asexual is one too," even if it exists (I don't think it does), it isn't a sexuality—hence the 'a' before the word 'sexuality'.

 

[Shireling]

Mhm, and you could equate American, European, Asian etc. with heterosexuality, homosexuality, so forth (or if we were to take it as more specific, things like pansexual, gender fluid, so forth). I'm not very patriotic, so my personal experience of gender and sexuality have much more relevance to me than any sense of nationality I may feel. I think this just boils down to a matter of personal values, in that case.


I encourage you to look up intersex and two-spirit. I'm afraid I've gotten off-topic enough as it is.


@Sunbather ah, alright, my mistake. I've personally taken to heart that asexuality specifically refers to sexual attraction and distinguish that from sexual acts, but I can understand defining asexual a little more... strictly? so that it has more/maintains its original meaning.

I don't care if you personally are patriotic. You don't even have to be patriotic to reside within the cultural framework of your ethno-national group. If you honestly think your sexuality is the most important thing about you, I feel kind of sad for you. 

 

[Sunbather]

@Sunbather ah, alright, my mistake. I've personally taken to heart that asexuality specifically refers to sexual attraction and distinguish that from sexual acts, but I can understand defining asexual a little more... strictly? so that it has more/maintains its original meaning.

No worries. owob And that's the thing though, isn't it? If you feel sexual attraction and have sex, and enjoy it on top of that, you're not asexual. Asexuality is the absence of sexual attraction, so if you feel like you want to engage in a sexual activity, you cannot be asexual, no?


@punkinblackk As I said in my previous post, that did not refer to demi or gray sexuality. I'm saying if you rarely feel sexually attracted to someone, you're not any level of asexual. Whether it's a low sex-drive, or not wanting to be promiscuous, or honestly whatever else you wanna call it or whatever reason you have for it (if it's conscious celibacy), I don't really care; But sexual attraction being part of your emotional spectrum = Not asexual.

 

[Pine]

I don't care if you personally are patriotic. You don't even have to be patriotic to reside within the cultural framework of your ethno-national group. If you honestly think your sexuality is the most important thing about you, I feel kind of sad for you. 

What I mean is, I guess, that I don't in any way want to restrict myself to my own cultural background, and I think this is applicable to a lot of people involved with internet forums, or other mediums where you can easily meet people from other countries. I've been friends with and kept contact with someone in New Zealand for eight+ years of my life. I've become acquainted with people in Australia, South Africa, England, and I've recently started talking to someone in the Philippines. In no way to I value my culture over theirs, and not just in a "being respectful" kind of way. I mean they literally just exist as their own separate entities and that's about all there is to it. As Welian was saying, sexuality is a point of discussion for people looking for relationships, and the relationships I hold with individuals (platonic or not) are much more important to me than the cultural environment I was born and raised in, which could have been any one of many.

No worries. owob And that's the thing though, isn't it? If you feel sexual attraction and have sex, and enjoy it on top of that, you're not asexual. Asexuality is the absence of sexual attraction, so if you feel like you want to engage in a sexual activity, you cannot be asexual, no?

Mm but mean, if done properly (technique, appropriate level of intimacy etc.), the physiological aspects of sex would make it difficult not to enjoy? Unless you're suffering from a sex disorder. And just because you have sex once and had a Grand Ol' Time doesn't mean you actively seek it out again and/or you start experiencing attraction. I think you can enjoy it and have a desire to do it again, but if there isn't any specific object of your interests (ala no sexual attraction), then that's worth distinguishing as ace imo.

 

[punkinblackk]

@Sunbather I have never said that gray sexual and demi sexual equate to asexual. Just that they are, in the eyes of most of the LGBT+ society, very similar, and thus often lumped together/presented in tandem with each other. 


Grays and Demis experience sexual attraction rarely.


Asexuals never experience sexual attraction.


For some obscure reason these are considered similar enough that they often feature together on social media posts about asexuals.  

 

[adrian_]

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?

A fellow asexual, cool.


And I really have no opinion, I would just like people to be accepting.

 

[Morris]

Here's my take on the issue:


Whatever a person wants to do or does not want to do in a relationship with another person is their own business.


That's pretty much it.


People can throw around labels, terms, try to cast bunches of letters upon any phenomena trying to define it. But it is up to the individuals involved to sort out what they feel between themselves and what they each want.

 

[Sunbather]

@Pine But that's not what I dismissed as rubbish at all. If you don't feel sexual attraction, you're asexual. If you somehow end up having sex and enjoy it, I would argue you are not asexual, but let's ignore that scenario for now. We're talking about attraction. The post I refered to originally stated "there are asexuals who do have a sexdrive but it is only triggered by" and that's where it becomes nonsense if you ask me. If you have a sexdrive, that means you experience arousal and, most likely (probably as per definition, but that's one of those cases where me not being a native speaker gives me a lil bit of doubt) sexual attraction. So if someone says something like "yeah I'm asexual but I occassionally wanna fuck" then no... no. :U


What you described is of course very situational. I mean, some people live their lifes for years and years as straight/gay, and later discover they are attracted to the same/opposite sex only anymore. So yeah, I'd say you can asexual even if you've persued sex before. But, like, the intervalls and sexual fluidity is a very complicated and also super different topic, so I don't wanna lump that in this one.


To make a long thought short, if you want or persue sex, or feel sexual attraction to anything or anyone, you are not asexual.


Edit: Also, you mentioned intimacy. That's a huge factor, and it's a mental one. There's a ton of people who had, in lack of a better term, "properly done" sex, but didn't enjoy it. Physiologically, it can be right, but that doesn't mean it's enjoyable. So, since it is actually sort of seperate, I would actually not agree with that. If you like/enjoy sex I'd definitely say you can't be asexual.

 

[Autumn McJavabean]

I will say, however, most of this crap these days is either made up entirely or slapping the gay label on a pathology of some kind.

Maybe, but I feel each thing should be looked into by itself. I know that the transgender community has members that despise the non-binary sub-group because they make the name "Transgender" synonymous with being "gender fluid" (BS identity imo). There are tons of crap out there, I agree, but I think it's something to be judged individually. Asexuality, to me, just makes sense from a biological and logical stand point. Not normal, but I can see it being real.

 

[Autumn McJavabean]

@Pine But that's not what I dismissed as rubbish at all. If you don't feel sexual attraction, you're asexual. If you somehow end up having sex and enjoy it, I would argue you are not asexual, but let's ignore that scenario for now. We're talking about attraction. The post I refered to originally stated "there are asexuals who do have a sexdrive but it is only triggered by" and that's where it becomes nonsense if you ask me. If you have a sexdrive, that means you experience arousal and, most likely (probably as per definition, but that's one of those cases where me not being a native speaker gives me a lil bit of doubt) sexual attraction. So if someone says something like "yeah I'm asexual but I occassionally wanna fuck" then no... no. :U


What you described is of course very situational. I mean, some people live their lifes for years and years as straight/gay, and later discover they are attracted to the same/opposite sex only anymore. So yeah, I'd say you can asexual even if you've persued sex before. But, like, the intervalls and sexual fluidity is a very complicated and also super different topic, so I don't wanna lump that in this one.


To make a long thought short, if you want or persue sex, or feel sexual attraction to anything or anyone, you are not asexual.


Edit: Also, you mentioned intimacy. That's a huge factor, and it's a mental one. There's a ton of people who had, in lack of a better term, "properly done" sex, but didn't enjoy it. Physiologically, it can be right, but that doesn't mean it's enjoyable. So, since it is actually sort of seperate, I would actually not agree with that. If you like/enjoy sex I'd definitely say you can't be asexual.

No, disagree. Asexuality is simply the lack of attraction to either male or female. You can have sex and enjoy it and be asexual, because you're attracted to that dopamine release din anticipation of an orgasm. To suggest enjoying sex means you're not asexual is to conflate what asexuality actually is. It also undermines many asexuals by that narrow definition.


The reason why grey asexuals are not asexuals is because they're attracted to either male or female or both. Just not all the time. So they're sexual. When an asexual has sex, it's because of that release of brain chemicals and the orgasm, which anyone having one normally would say feels amazing, since it's the "original high".

 

[Shireling]

No, disagree. Asexuality is simply the lack of attraction to either male or female. You can have sex and enjoy it and be asexual, because you're attracted to that dopamine release din anticipation of an orgasm. To suggest enjoying sex means you're not asexual is to conflate what asexuality actually is. It also undermines many asexuals by that narrow definition.


The reason why grey asexuals are not asexuals is because they're attracted to either male or female or both. Just not all the time. So they're sexual. When an asexual has sex, it's because of that release of brain chemicals and the orgasm, which anyone having one normally would say feels amazing, since it's the "original high".

Well shit, I don't always wanna get it on either. Does that make me "grey sexual?" 

 

[Autumn McJavabean]

The way I see it, there are only three scientifically possible sexualities (straight, gay, bisexual), with one of them that I think is the only real one for romantic relationships and marriage (one man and one woman). Before you argue "asexual is one too," even if it exists (I don't think it does), it isn't a sexuality—hence the 'a' before the word 'sexuality'.

Why's that? Naturally, you're supposed to be heterosexual. But by some anomaly, you can be gay, or homosexual. That's not normal in terms of biology (normal meaning what is supposed to happen, not that it's inherently bad). If someone can be an anomaly and not be attracted sexually to the opposite sex, but the same sex instead, and some can be attracted to both, why can that inability of a gay man being attracted sexually to a female not be applied to both by some strange biological occurrence?

 

[Autumn McJavabean]

Well shit, I don't always wanna get it on either. Does that make me "grey sexual?" 

I would say no, because grey sexual doesn't make any sense. You're either sexual or you're not, from what I know. I'd say "grey sexuality" is just a redundant and asinine label. My issue with grey sexuality or grey asexuality (what ever the fuck label they use on that day) is that they try to create a middle ground between the two. It's as I said before, it's like saying you're gay, but also attracted to the opposite sex. Or that you're bisexual, not attracted to one of the sexes. If you're grey, you're simply sexual in either of the 3, bi, homo, or hetero.

 

[Shireling]

I would say no, because grey sexual doesn't make any sense. You're either sexual or you're not, from what I know. I'd say "grey sexuality" is just a redundant and asinine label. My issue with grey sexuality or grey asexuality (what ever the fuck label they use on that day) is that they try to create a middle ground between the two. It's as I said before, it's like saying you're gay, but also attracted to the opposite sex. Or that you're bisexual, not attracted to one of the sexes. If you're grey, you're simply sexual in either of the 3, bi, homo, or hetero.

Okay. I was making fun of it anyways. 


To me, it seems logical that there are three sexualities: 


Heterosexual, Homosexual, Bisexual 


And two genders: 


Male and Female. 


Transgendered people, to me, don't need some sort of special category if they really want to live as their preferred gender. 


Asexuality, naturally, is a lack of sexuality. 


Anything beyond this is just hogwash. 

 

[welian]

And two genders: 


Male and Female.

Do keep in mind that:

• Multiple non-Western cultures have more than two genders.
  
• Gender is a social construct, it helps create roles by which to organize society.
  
• Gender is derived from, but is not the same as biological sex.
  

You're not going to get very far by openly calling concepts that don't fit conventional identities "hogwash". Let people explore themselves, and decide what aspects of identity to adopt and reject in order to define themselves. It's not your place or mine to tell others how to describe themselves.

 

[Autumn McJavabean]

@Colleen McJavabean


There's nothing saying that demisexuals aren't sexual, they just don't experience typical sexual attraction. 


I'm not saying there is much if any similarities between Demi sexual, asexual and greysexual other than the untypical sexual attraction experience. 


As for the whole greysexual thing, my opinion is, if you find one person outside your typical sexuality preference (straight guy gets involved with gay guy, whatever) that does not immediately make you bisexual. Especially if, after that relationship, you never feel sexually or romantically attracted to another member of that gender. 

No, they label themselves as an in between. If you're sexual, you're sexual. In which, you're either bi, homo, or hetero. If you're not sexual, you're asexual. There's no in between with "Grey" or "demi-". It just makes no sense.


Greysexual - Sometimes attracted to people. It fluctuates.


Demi- Only when you form a stark emotional bond.


Asexual - Feels no sexual attraction to either sex.


Bisexual - feels sexual attraction to both sexes.


IDK, I feel if you can be sexually attracted to a male and female, you're bisexual. Of course I can be wrong.

Okay. I was making fun of it anyways. 


To me, it seems logical that there are three sexualities: 


Heterosexual, Homosexual, Bisexual 


And two genders: 


Male and Female. 


Transgendered people, to me, don't need some sort of special category if they really want to live as their preferred gender. 


Asexuality, naturally, is a lack of sexuality. 


Anything beyond this is just hogwash. 

Agreed. I think people lump asexuality as a sexuality because it's simply easier to do in terms of convenience.

Do keep in mind that:

• Multiple non-Western cultures have more than two genders.
  
• Gender is a social construct, it helps create roles by which to organize society.
  
• Gender is derived from, but is not the same as biological sex.
  

You're not going to get very far by openly calling concepts that don't fit conventional identities "hogwash". Let people explore themselves, and decide what aspects of identity to adopt and reject in order to define themselves. It's not your place or mine to tell others how to describe themselves.

1) Non-western, not scientifically based genders are not a means to go by, in all fairness.


2) Gender is not a social construct. It's entirely based on our sex. Hence why male gender is called male, based on male sexes. Agender is a social construct. Binary genders, are not.


3) Gender is defined as the state of being male or female. It has been synonymous of sex for many years in our contemporary, scientific western world. What cultures do in old Native American traditions or Africa is of no concern considering it's not based on science.


It's not your place to tell someone to not state their opinion about something, but here you are. Obviously they can, as you can, as I can. Let people read theirs, yours, mind, do some research that is peer reviewed, and come to their conclusion th0emselves. Calling it "hogwash" may be bad in your book, but making any comment like "non-binary genders are real" or "demisexual and greysexual are real" is just as bad. They're both making conclusive claims.

 

[Shireling]

Do keep in mind that:

• Multiple non-Western cultures have more than two genders.
  
• Gender is a social construct, it helps create roles by which to organize society.
  
• Gender is derived from, but is not the same as biological sex.
  

You're not going to get very far by openly calling concepts that don't fit conventional identities "hogwash". Let people explore themselves, and decide what aspects of identity to adopt and reject in order to define themselves. It's not your place or mine to tell others how to describe themselves.

We don't get to define ourselves. Society defines all of us, that's just how it works. Any term that I could make up to describe myself has no validity unless some crackpots take it up and treat it like a real thing. 


And another, gender is not a social construct. Certain aspects of gender are societal (boys liking blue for example) but gender really is based on real differences that exist between men and females. Just because other cultures had this weird fetishizing of hermaphrodites or crossdressers doesn't mean that societies just make up gender. Other societies are just as suceptible to making random shit up and pretending it's true as we seem to be. 


I think the fact that, throughout all of human history, genders in almost all societies have virtually the same functions and the same relationship to one another. That seems to make it self-evident that there's a little more to gender than just, "We make it up in our head." 

 

[welian]

A relevant blog post:


"Science is a social construct. It only exists because we, humans, do it. And we are full of, often unconscious, bias. We, as scientists, can’t separate ourselves from the society that we’re a product of, which is sexist and racist and ableist and transphobic, so, at some level, the science we produce will also carry those biases. 


So no matter how much we want to think of ourselves as unbiased seekers of truth, we aren’t. Not really. In plenty of cases this doesn’t really matter, however, there are tons of examples where it does. Where the questions we ask and the problems we construct and base our research around are based on said bias. Or the way we interpret results. 


Society is rigged to benefit those in power, and thus, science is too. Especially when you consider that the vast majority of funding comes from the government. 


To say that science is objective and only, inherently, a force for good in the world is at best simplistic and at worst actively harmful. Has it done a lot of good? Of course, unquestioningly. But it’s also done a lot of harm, both historically and currently. 


Science is a tool. And how it’s used depends on who is using it."


Gender is not completely tied to sex. I am a girl. But do you know what my DNA looks like? If I have XY chromosome, I am biologically male. But if I call myself a woman, think of myself as a woman, carry and dress and speak in a feminine fashion that would be expected of a "typical" woman, than am I not a woman? We have accepted that there are many people whose gender (gender, a performative thing, something that we establish by what we do in society) does not match the genitalia of their respective associated sex, and we haven't even touched those with intersex features or XXY chromosomes.


Gender works similar in many societies because it's derived from sex, which is pretty fucking universal (thanks meiosis!). But ultimately, gender and sex are different. You can be a man and have a uterus, you can be a woman and have a scrotum. Case closed.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Gender_studies


Wikipedia's Gender Studies portal is a great place to skim for an overview on academic studies of gender and sexual identity, if you're interested in expanding your worldview.

 

[Shireling]

A relevant blog post:


"Science is a social construct. It only exists because we, humans, do it. And we are full of, often unconscious, bias. We, as scientists, can’t separate ourselves from the society that we’re a product of, which is sexist and racist and ableist and transphobic, so, at some level, the science we produce will also carry those biases. 


So no matter how much we want to think of ourselves as unbiased seekers of truth, we aren’t. Not really. In plenty of cases this doesn’t really matter, however, there are tons of examples where it does. Where the questions we ask and the problems we construct and base our research around are based on said bias. Or the way we interpret results. 


Society is rigged to benefit those in power, and thus, science is too. Especially when you consider that the vast majority of funding comes from the government. 


To say that science is objective and only, inherently, a force for good in the world is at best simplistic and at worst actively harmful. Has it done a lot of good? Of course, unquestioningly. But it’s also done a lot of harm, both historically and currently. 


Science is a tool. And how it’s used depends on who is using it."


Gender is not completely tied to sex. I am a girl. But do you know what my DNA looks like? If I have XY chromosome, I am biologically male. But if I call myself a woman, think of myself as a woman, carry and dress and speak in a feminine fashion that would be expected of a "typical" woman, than am I not a woman? We have accepted that there are many people whose gender (gender, a performative thing, something that we establish by what we do in society) does not match the genitalia of their respective associated sex, and we haven't even touched those with intersex features or XXY chromosomes.


Gender works similar in many societies because it's derived from sex, which is pretty fucking universal (thanks meiosis!). But ultimately, gender and sex are different. You can be a man and have a uterus, you can be a woman and have a scrotum. Case closed.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Gender_studies


Wikipedia's Gender Studies portal is a great place to skim for an overview on academic studies of gender and sexual identity, if you're interested in expanding your worldview.

Good lord. A Gender Studies nut. 

 

[welian]

Good lord. A Gender Studies nut. 

Actually, I'm an Information Technology major, hoping to eventually get a Bachelor's in Information Systems. I don't like programming, but I'm also inclined to continue studying database design & administration.

 

[ewolf20]

science, to me, is one of the few ways people can seek validation. then, there's social ideas and education. gender isn't a social construct. the roles of it are. think of it this way. gender is something that happens in the brain whereas the other stuff is physical.