# Is asexuality a valid sexual orientation?



## fihe (Aug 30, 2012)

I've had a suspicion for many years now that I may be asexual, and just over the past year or so, I have come to terms with myself and have declared that I indeed am asexual. I have tried dating and sex with men out of my own curiosity, combined with feeling like it was just something that I "had to do", but it never felt right. Not only was it always physically painful, but I realized that I just have trouble relating to someone on a romantic or sexual level. I would not consider dating or sex with a woman because the thought makes me feel quite uncomfortable.

My concern is that it appears that some people do not consider asexuality to be a valid sexual orientation. Most people in the developed world are now accepting, or at least tolerant, of homosexual and bisexual people, but it appears that the idea that one cannot have feelings for neither men nor women is foreign to most people. I realize that heterosexuality is the default setting for humans so that they can reproduce and carry on the species, and perhaps anyone who falls outside of this, such as myself, is considered "abnormal" or just "weird". Oh well.

What does PerC think?


----------



## flummoxed (Jun 29, 2015)

Is that really an orientation or just mean you're straight with very low sex drive? Seems like a lot of semantics to me, who the hell would even confront you on such a thing? It's not like someone is going to say, "you aren't having enough sex for your age, get out there and get laid you freak". Especially for a woman it's hard to imagine it would ever be considered shameful.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

flummoxed said:


> Is that really an orientation or just mean you're straight with very low sex drive? Seems like a lot of semantics to me, who the hell would even confront you on such a thing? It's not like someone is going to say, "you aren't having enough sex for your age, get out there and get laid you freak". Especially for a woman it's hard to imagine it would ever be considered shameful.


In the city in the US where I live in, it's not shameful, it's considered standard. My female friends who do not naturally include that in their "interests" are actually nagged by their parents that they should look for a boyfriend.

No, asexuals can have a very high sex drive.


----------



## flummoxed (Jun 29, 2015)

Metasentient said:


> No, asexuals can have a very high sex drive.


Oh good lord can we not turn this into one of those bull shit threads where people argue all sort of bogus definitions to words again? The word asexual means you're NOT sexual. If you have a high sex drive you are the exact opposite of an asexual.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

flummoxed said:


> Oh good lord can we not turn this into one of those bull shit threads where people argue all sort of bogus definitions to words again? The word asexual means you're NOT sexual. If you have a high sex drive you are the exact opposite of an asexual.


Go look up what an asexual actually is before spouting any further nonsense, we'll wait. Hint: It's not the first definition one pulls out of their ass.


----------



## flummoxed (Jun 29, 2015)

Metasentient said:


> Go look up what an asexual actually is before spouting any further nonsense, we'll wait. Hint: It's not the first definition one pulls out of their ass.


a·sex·u·al
āˈsekSH(əw)əl/
adjective
1.
without sexual feelings or associations.
"she rested her hand on the back of his head, in a maternal, wholly asexual, gesture"
2.
BIOLOGY
(of reproduction) not involving the fusion of gametes.
noun
1.
a person who has no sexual feelings or desires.

The only one pulling shit out of their ass here is you.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

flummoxed said:


> a·sex·u·al
> āˈsekSH(əw)əl/
> adjective
> 1.
> ...


I took the liberty of helping you with this.

The Asexual Visibility and Education Network | asexuality.org It's the first headline on the page. 

An asexual, as any here can tell you, can have a high sex _drive_, it's simply not directed towards other human beings, and they do not see others as objects of sexual desire.


----------



## flummoxed (Jun 29, 2015)

Metasentient said:


> An asexual, as any here can tell you, can have a high sex _drive_, it's simply not directed towards other human beings, and they do not see others as objects of sexual desire.


So they just like dildos or what? Seems pretty silly to me.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

flummoxed said:


> So they just like dildos or what? Seems pretty silly to me.


Well, to an asexual, sticking dicks into moist human beings is also pretty silly.

Some might like sex toys, some might have zero sex drive at all (your original definition). The main point of agreement on a person's asexuality though, is whether they feel attraction to other human beings. Since that's the main asexuality site, there are plenty of discussions on this topic obviously, and this is generally the consensus that I've yet to see semantic disagreements on, as of right now anyway.


----------



## fihe (Aug 30, 2012)

flummoxed said:


> a·sex·u·al
> āˈsekSH(əw)əl/
> noun
> 1.
> a person who has no sexual feelings or desires.


Sounds just like me. I haven't had any sexual feelings or desires in a very long time. Again, I was curious about it at one time, but then after experiencing it, and even trying again a couple of times, I decided that sex is just not for me.


----------



## flummoxed (Jun 29, 2015)

huesos said:


> Sounds just like me. I haven't had any sexual feelings or desires in a very long time. Again, I was curious about it at one time, but then after experiencing it, and even trying again a couple of times, I decided that sex is just not for me.


TBH, that probably makes life a lot less complicated. I guess the only issue is that it would be hard to find someone who wanted to date you or marry you but not have a sexual relationship.


----------



## UraniaIsis (Nov 26, 2014)

Personally, I find asexuality a valid antithesis to sexuality. Some humans have the biological programming to biochemically bond in order to mate, others do not.


----------



## the.soph.ia (Jul 21, 2015)

One could argue that it's the absence of a sexual orientation, but that would be unfair as some asexuals so have a preference (i.e romantic asexuals, just not a "sexual" preference.) I do know, however, that asexuals can have high sex drive but are just not interested in sex. Some asexuals can also be aromantic or grey romantic, it all depends. Not everyone likes affection.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Realize that these are all categories by which people categorize themselves and don't have any meaning beyond that.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Realize that these are all categories by which people categorize themselves and don't have any meaning beyond that.


including ageism and ageists and age victims


----------



## marblecloud95 (Aug 12, 2015)

Have you had your hormones checked?


----------



## fihe (Aug 30, 2012)

marblecloud95 said:


> Have you had your hormones checked?


Just blood work this past June. But I don't see this as a problem to be fixed. At least I'll never need to worry about an accidental pregnancy.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Metasentient said:


> including ageism and ageists and age victims


We do not believe race exists but we still critique racists. I for one don't believe age exists but I continue to critique ageism. Your age-blindness is really just a denial of societal age power structures. You are no better than any other, I am repulsed I say!


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> We do not believe race exists but we still critique racists. I for one don't believe age exists but I continue to critique ageism. Your age-blindness is really just a denial of societal age power structures. You are no better than any other, I am repulsed I say!


It's simple my poor puffed-up popinjay

The concept of race will exist for as long as there are racists.
The concept of age will exist for as long as there are ageists.

idk what to do i spent all day on xxxcougarliciousx.com and now my browser is asking me if I want to install Windows, and that I need to install Malware on my computer to delete viruses??


----------



## SiFan (Mar 10, 2015)

huesos said:


> I've had a suspicion for many years now that I may be asexual, and just over the past year or so, I have come to terms with myself and have declared that I indeed am asexual.
> ....
> 
> My concern is that it appears that some people do not consider asexuality to be a valid sexual orientation.
> ...


Seems like what you want is for the situation of asexual persons to be recognized-- e.g. get some media play-- as a legitimate 'sexual orientation' (as opposed to being some unknown abnormality). And, along with _Hetero_, _Gay_, _Lesbian_, and _Bi_, _Asexual_ would also be listed on the usual forms.

Can get how that could be helpful to asexual persons. Wish you luck in your crusade!


----------



## castigat (Aug 26, 2012)

flummoxed said:


> Yeah but who the hell wants to have sex with someone they know isn't enjoying it at all? That sounds pretty rape-y to me.


It's so easy to fake it.


----------



## Jebediah (Mar 27, 2013)

It is valid, it's just that some people can't wrap their head around it. How can someone not be attracted to anyone? 


It's easier to understand if you picture it from your own point of view. If you're a heterosexual male, try to imagine yourself sucking a dick. You _could_ do it, but you're just not into that. And while you can tell the guy is attractive you're not attracted _to_ him. Now imagine you felt this way about both genders. That's what I imagine asexuality to be like.


----------



## StoneMoon (Dec 23, 2013)

Dante Scioli said:


> Everyone is different. Not everyone is different enough to need a new word. Asexuality isn't a very useful word.


Asexuality is a very useful word, because thousands of people find it useful, not just asexuals but their partners and a lot a other people as well, and we have an active community under that word. And that word works fine. There's no need to change it. It has the same goals as the other, hetero-, ****-, bi-, pansexual etc. words have. There's no reason why asexuals should have completely different way of definition and there's no reason why we shouldn't have a word of our own since there's so many of us who are connected by a certain experience which people of other sexual orientations are not. Each of those words exist because there is enough people to identify with them rather than some other.

I know very well there is bias about people wanting "unique labels" but anyone who says that has clearly not lived a day in the shoes of an average member of a sexual minority.

If most people actually did not care what others do or don't so sexually, then maybe there would be no need for the word asexual, I don't know. Maybe _you_ don't care, but unfortunately asexuals don't need to advertise their asexuality to get crap about it. We need that word to be understood. Things need words so they can be talked about. And asexuality needs to be talked about because acephobia is just as real as homophobia or biphobia. Asexuality staying invisible does no good to anyone.

Also, any word is useful as long as the person identifying with it finds it useful. It doesn't even have to become a word in general use if it helps them articulate their experience to other people, by explaining what it means for them. It may not make sense to everyone but I have nothing against someone creating a word for themselves when there isn't one. Saying that "not everyone is different enough to need a word" is true in general but when the difference becomes big enough is ultimately self-defined. And the difference IS big enough for asexuals since so many people find that word describes them accurately. (Asexuality also is already a generally accepted term that is used in official context.)




> Someone who hasn't experienced attraction can simply be described as "not sexual." They can also be hetero-, ****-, or bisexual at the same time, wouldn't you agree?


This makes no sense. If someone has not experienced sexual attraction to anyone, then they are by definition NOT hetero-, ****-, bisexual etc. The members of those orientations experience sexual attraction to people of certain gender/s.



> Someone who experiences sexual feelings for the opposite gender but has "no desire to get rid of it with a person" would be a "heterosexual asexual" under your proposed nomenclature.


Well, I was not talking about a person who experinces sexual attraction but has no desire to get rid of their urges with someone. I was talking about a person who does not experience sexual attraction nor wants to take care of their sex drive with someone. However, BOTH of these people do fit under the ace umbrella, if they find that asexual describes them better than some other word. There's a difference between sexual desire and sexual attraction also, and what you're describing would be someone who feels sexual attraction but no desire. These individuals often use the word grey-asexual. Which is also a word that is needed, since many people feel they're more similar in experience to the ace community than another one despite sometimes feeling sexual attraction. They are still equally alienated.



> That shows that "asexual" describes something entirely different than the other sexual orientations and thus it is NOT a sexual orientation.


No, you didn't even make it clear that you understood the distinction between attraction and sex drive. Sexual orientation answers the question of "Which gender are you sexually attracted to"? Straight=opposite, gay=same, pan=any, ace=none. They answer the same question, they are used for the same purpose, they're all valid.



> Further, "heterosexual asexual" is cumbersome and honestly unhelpful terminology, so why don't we just call this person "heterosexual" and accept that we will make no assumptions about what they intend to do about it?


If someone feels "heterosexual asexual" describes them they're welcome to use it. But the people you used that word for, are more likely to describe themselves as grey-asexual, grey-sexual, or possibly even a heterosexual celibate, if not having sex is how they want to describe themselves rather than lacking the desire.

And YES it would be wonderful if people would just make no assumptions about what others do and whether it's according to their orientation. Sadly, in general this is not the case and that's why we need words to help awareness, because only awareness can help reach understanding and acceptance.

Sorry for the long post, but one person's logic is not what's important in this topic, it's the common experience of asexuals who need that word for awareness.


----------



## IncoherentBabbler (Oct 21, 2013)

huesos said:


> I've had a suspicion for many years now that I may be asexual, and just over the past year or so, I have come to terms with myself and have declared that I indeed am asexual. I have tried dating and sex with men out of my own curiosity, combined with feeling like it was just something that I "had to do", but it never felt right. Not only was it always physically painful, but I realized that I just have trouble relating to someone on a romantic or sexual level. I would not consider dating or sex with a woman because the thought makes me feel quite uncomfortable.
> 
> My concern is that it appears that some people do not consider asexuality to be a valid sexual orientation. Most people in the developed world are now accepting, or at least tolerant, of homosexual and bisexual people, but it appears that the idea that one cannot have feelings for neither men nor women is foreign to most people. I realize that heterosexuality is the default setting for humans so that they can reproduce and carry on the species, and perhaps anyone who falls outside of this, such as myself, is considered "abnormal" or just "weird". Oh well.
> 
> What does PerC think?


I guess that would depend on how you mean that phrase "sexual orientation" and "valid". I'd say asexuality is valid but is not an orientation. If you are asexual your sexuality isn't oriented in any direction because you don't technically have a sexuality, hence the "a-". It's a perfectly valid position to have, especially if it wasn't caused by trauma or other post-birth .. difficulty. Just imagine a world in which everyone was hypersexually heterosexual for a moment. If that seems like a good situation for the world to be in then maybe asexuality is bad..


----------



## eclecticbill (Jan 11, 2013)

I'm not ready to discard the scientific definition for that of an activist group especially given the links on that website. 

Show me a professional scientific study using fMRI that proves true asexuality is anything more than a rare occurrence rather than a SOCIAL/psychological choice.

Until then I will consider asexual as much a sexual orientation as atheism is a belief system or that unflavored is a flavor.

Believing something does not make it true; a million people CAN be wrong. Kind of off-topic, but not really: if a guy wears a wig/make-up/womens's clothes and acts like a female (which I have absolutely no problem with) that does not make him a female; until he has that operation he's still a guy regardless of his gender identity.


----------



## GoosePeelings (Nov 10, 2013)

eclecticbill said:


> I'm not ready to discard the scientific definition for that of an activist group especially given the links on that website.
> 
> Show me a professional scientific study using fMRI that proves true asexuality is anything more than a rare occurrence rather than a SOCIAL/psychological choice.
> 
> ...


https://books.google.fi/books?id=zL...sCh0YyQ0d#v=onepage&q=fmri asexuality&f=false
http://www.indiana.edu/~sexlab/files/pr2007/Brottoetal2007.pdf
Scientific Research - Asexuality
Research relating to asexuality - AVENwiki

Why can't the word have multiple definitions? 'nail' has multiple definitions. 'open' has multiple definitions. The word 'set' has the most definitions in the whole English dictionary.

There isn't enough research because we're such a small minority. Human sexuality is about attraction and we feel none of that. It's different from that of other animals. Modern times are more accepting than ever and most if not all identities people adopt are valid.

About the last thing you said, https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan/ . Some transgender people choose not to have an operation. Might be because of fear, maybe health problems. Those who wear a wig, makeup and/or women's clothes aren't always transgender, sure, but it's about how they feel about themselves.
I know I probably can't change your mind because you seem rather set-in-your-ways but I'll try. I'll try because I know this isn't just a choice. I didn't choose to be different.

Also, if I'm not asexual, what am I? Straight? I'm not attracted to men. Homosexual? I'm not attracted to women either. Or would that somehow make me a zoophile?


----------



## Ne Plus Ultra (May 18, 2015)

Of course you can be asexual. I mean..._of course_. You can absolutely not desire sex with another person ever. 

You can also have a very limited range of people you want to have sex with or a very limited number of circumstances in which you would want to have sex. 

You can find some people beautiful but not want to have sex with them.

You can want a close, loving bond with someone but not want it to be sexual.

You can enjoy the feeling of physical pleasure but not want to experience that with another person. You can also enjoy the feeling of physical pleasure and be okay with experiencing that with another person but not have any particular drive to do so.

Sometimes a lack of interest in sex can be caused by low hormonal levels. Sometimes it can be caused by painful physical conditions. Sometimes it can be the result of traumatic experiences. Sometimes it can accompany depression or poor self-image. But other times, none of the above are true, and someone just isn't interested in sex with another person and never really has been. 

There are different terms for all of these states, and some people will want to use them for themselves, and some won't. The terms can be useful as a shorthand so that you don't have to keep explaining yourself over and over to new people. They can also make some people feel less alone. 

The bottom line is that it's okay not to want or not to like sex. Just because most people like it doesn't mean you have to. No one has the right to tell you that you _must_ have sex or do anything at all to your body that makes you uncomfortable. Is asexuality a "valid" orientation? Valid for what? Valid to whom? If it's the way you feel, then it's the way you feel, and that's all there is to it.


----------



## SparklingWaves (Aug 25, 2015)

Seems valid to me. Do you like being asexual?


----------



## StoneMoon (Dec 23, 2013)

IncoherentBabbler said:


> If you are asexual your sexuality isn't oriented in any direction because you don't technically have a sexuality, hence the "a-".


The "a-" doesn't refer to not having a sexuality. It refers to not having sexual feelings directed at anyone, not whether you have them in you at all. It works the same way as hetero-, ****- etc. prefix. It stands for the people the person is sexually attracted to: no one, so "a-". It's still possible that an asexual has a sex drive or enjoys sexual fantasy and many other things so it would be incorrect to assume they have no sexuality at all. Maybe you're aware of this, your explanation just sounds misleading. The people who want to emphazise the lack of sex drive/any kind of sexual feelings often call themselves nonlibidoists.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

As valid as any other sexual orientation.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

No. 

What would you be attracted to as an (a)sexual? Unless you are sexually attracted to the absence of sexuality to human beings... Then I guess. From my understanding, (A) means absence of sexual desire and feelings. 

It's not a sexuality, its lack of sexuality with nonsexual physical attraction to human beings. (Heterosexual) or (Homosexual), etc.

In other words, its irrelevant as far as having a stance on sexuality. 

You are simply a heterosexual person with no desire for sex.

I say you are heterosexual (or ****, bi), whateva, because of whatever brain chemistry that non-sexually draws you to the opposite sex and not the other. Unless you are pansexual. 

Or you are just simply a horny (driven purely by natural hormones and nothing else) person with no sexual desire towards people - then OK. Asexual with a sex drive.

If you aren't attracted to anything, then I wouldn't consider it even relevant.


----------



## GoosePeelings (Nov 10, 2013)

Flamingo said:


> No.
> 
> What would you be attracted to as an (a)sexual? Unless you are sexually attracted to the absence of sexuality to human beings... Then I guess. From my understanding, (A) means absence of sexual desire and feelings.
> 
> ...


So my orientation is a lack of orientation, huh.

Except that I'm not drawn to the opposite gender. And even though one with a sex drive is valid, I personally don't really have one.
Is asexuality an orientation or a LACK of sexual orientation? Make your arguments. - Asexual Musings and Rantings - Asexual Visibility and Education Network
I'm not exactly sure how to explain my stance but that link should have quite a few arguments.


----------



## Blessed Frozen Cells (Apr 3, 2013)

Dante Scioli said:


> She made sex jokes regularly. She ogled male celebrities. She was fascinated with sex and liked to discuss it frequently.


If you made gay jokes, does that mean you're gay? Sex is a fun subject to talk about (at least for me) and asexuals are not blind. We can see who's attractive and who's not.



Dante Scioli said:


> Everyone is different. Not everyone is different enough to need a new word. Asexuality isn't a very useful word.


It's not useful FOR YOU!

1% of the world's population beg to differ. That's 70 million people. Who are you to say if it's useful or not? I was confused with myself for a very long time. I tried to be straight, gay and bi but felt there was something off about it. Once I stumbled upon Asexuality definition on AVEN and I was like "that's me!! Finally!! I'm not alone in this." All this peer pressure to be sexual messed up by teenage years. You will hear and see very similar experiences like this from other asexuals.

Imagine yourself having sex with different genders to find out what if you are straight. Do you think it would be fun for you to have sex with some guy? If I knew asexuality AND aromantic was a thing, it would have saved me from experimenting and it would have saved people I dated and broke up from feeling unwanted sexually and romantically.

So, yeah it's necessary and useful for people like me. 




kuusi said:


> I don't really know how that works, but I can definitely say there's times I've felt horny and been disinterested in the people around me to the point I just ignore it until later.


If you're straight or gay, then you are only sexually attracted to one gender, right? You've never felt sexually attracted to the other one. Now apply that lack of sexual attraction you feel towards that gender to every person in this world. That's how asexuals feel.



flummoxed said:


> Yeah but who the hell wants to have sex with someone they know isn't enjoying it at all? That sounds pretty rape-y to me.


Can't speak for all asexuals. Sex is physically pleasurable and it's not rape because it's consensual. It's like watching some sports you don't like but you do so because your partner is a big fan. You enjoy it because your partner is enjoying it. At the end of the day it was a fun activity to bond with your partner. You can live without it easily but your partner can't so why not enjoy the ride (pun intended) :wink:


----------



## Blessed Frozen Cells (Apr 3, 2013)

IncoherentBabbler said:


> I guess that would depend on how you mean that phrase "sexual orientation" and "valid". I'd say asexuality is valid but is not an orientation. If you are asexual your sexuality isn't oriented in any direction because you don't technically have a sexuality, hence the "a-". It's a perfectly valid position to have, especially if it wasn't caused by trauma or other post-birth .. difficulty. Just imagine a world in which everyone was hypersexually heterosexual for a moment. If that seems like a good situation for the world to be in then maybe asexuality is bad..


Zero lacks number value but it's grouped with other numbers because it represents the lack of it. 


Another example..

Heterosexuality and homosexuality also imply that you LACK sexual attraction towards one gender.

This can't get any simpler...

_Pan/Poly - _*all/many*_
Bi -_ *two*_
Hetero/**** - _*one*_
A - _*none
*
There's clearly a pattern or a spectrum here and logical grouping. I don't know why people keep denying it.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

Blessed Frozen Cells said:


> Another example..
> 
> Heterosexuality and homosexuality also imply that you LACK sexual attraction towards one gender.
> 
> ...


 Exactly.

Heterosexuals aren't attracted to the same gender, but heterosexuality is still considered an orientation. Asexuals aren't attracted to the same gender either.

Homosexuals aren't attracted to the opposite gender, but homosexuality is still considered an orientation. Asexuals aren't attracted to the opposite gender either.

Bisexuality is the orientation that combines Homosexual interest with Heterosexual interest, Asexuality is the orientation that combines Homosexual non-interest with Heterosexual non-interest.


----------



## IncoherentBabbler (Oct 21, 2013)

Blessed Frozen Cells said:


> Zero lacks number value but it's grouped with other numbers because it represents the lack of it.
> 
> 
> Another example..
> ...


I suppose one could say "zero", in your example, it oriented in the positive direction. Seems like a non-oriented number to me though, but I'm not a mathematician so.. /shrug

The groupings as I see them - Oriented toward male, oriented toward female, oriented toward both, not oriented toward either. Other non-binary classifications would likely be an orientation to a particular anatomy or anatomy-independent (ie oriented toward male genitals vs masculine non-genital features, etc)

Orientation is a positive statement as I see it. It "defines" what a person *IS* oriented toward, not what they aren't oriented toward. Asexuals are not oriented toward either one, thus I don't see it as an orientation toward anything - it appears to be in the definition. It's still a perfectly valid position to be in - I'm not going to argue with nature after all, just terminology.


----------



## IncoherentBabbler (Oct 21, 2013)

Simpson17866 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Heterosexuals aren't attracted to the same gender, but heterosexuality is still considered an orientation. Asexuals aren't attracted to the same gender either.
> 
> ...


Right. Axexuality is defined by what they are NOT attracted to while all other orientations are defined by what they ARE attracted to. The same situation applies to any other term with non-something as it's definition (atheism isn't a religion).


----------



## flummoxed (Jun 29, 2015)

Blessed Frozen Cells said:


> There's clearly a pattern or a spectrum here and logical grouping. I don't know why people keep denying it.


It's not that simple. Thing of colors instead. Black and white aren't colors because they are the lack of any color and the presence of all colors respectively. By the same logic asexuality isn't a sexual orientation it's the lack of sexual orientation. One could even say "pansexuality" isn't a sexual orientation since it is the presence of all orientations simultaneously. Don't get caught up in the semantics though that sort of stuff is meaningless, just worry about the reality. Getting offended by someone saying asexuality isn't a sexual orientation is about as dumb as getting offended by someone saying white isn't a color or infinity isn't a number.


----------



## Blessed Frozen Cells (Apr 3, 2013)

flummoxed said:


> It's not that simple. Thing of colors instead. Black and white aren't colors because they are the lack of any color and the presence of all colors respectively. By the same logic asexuality isn't a sexual orientation it's the lack of sexual orientation. One could even say "pansexuality" isn't a sexual orientation since it is the presence of all orientations simultaneously. Don't get caught up in the semantics though that sort of stuff is meaningless, just worry about the reality. Getting offended by someone saying asexuality isn't a sexual orientation is about as dumb as getting offended by someone saying white isn't a color or infinity isn't a number.


No one is offended here. Just giving examples so you can have an understanding of my view. Just because someone has a different take from yours doesn't mean they are offended. People not considering Asexuality as a sexual orientation doesn't make it any less valid but in my opinion, it's in the same logical grouping with other sexual orientations.
*
I see sexuality as a spectrum ranging from none to all.*



IncoherentBabbler said:


> I suppose one could say "zero", in your example, it oriented in the positive direction. Seems like a non-oriented number to me though, but I'm not a mathematician so.. /shrug
> 
> The groupings as I see them - Oriented toward male, oriented toward female, oriented toward both, not oriented toward either. Other non-binary classifications would likely be an orientation to a particular anatomy or anatomy-independent (ie oriented toward male genitals vs masculine non-genital features, etc)
> 
> Orientation is a positive statement as I see it. It "defines" what a person *IS* oriented toward, not what they aren't oriented toward. Asexuals are not oriented toward either one, thus I don't see it as an orientation toward anything - it appears to be in the definition. It's still a perfectly valid position to be in - I'm not going to argue with nature after all, just terminology.


In that way, it makes sense but if we are going by your logical grouping, where would you put asexuality in? In my opinion, positive or negative it's still in the same logical grouping. Because very likely people would mention asexuality when they are talking about other sexual orientations. For example, I knew what straight, gay and bi was when I was younger but if I was educated about asexuality at that time, things would have been simpler. And when people couldn't find the right (well-known) sexual orientation to express themselves, they look for the lesser know ones like Asexuality.* The lack of sexuality is inseparable with the presence of it. *If we go back to zero example, you learned about zero when you learned numbers, right? Where would this zero fit in other than in number grouping?


----------



## clear moon (Feb 7, 2010)

It is valid as a disposition or a state of being, but it's not a sexual orientation. It's just semantics or methods of classification... whatever you want to call it. In the same way, atheism is not a religion, but to be an atheist is still a "valid" way of being in the world.


----------



## GoosePeelings (Nov 10, 2013)

Soft_Sound said:


> Hmmm... Surprisingly, _most people I meet tend to peg me as asexual_, and I'm not opposed to the thought, but I still like the idea of a boyfriend and stuff, but I don't actively pursue it at all or really think much of it. Not sure what I do with one if I had one either since it's just not something I think about. Not much of a romantic am I? Especially for a girl.
> 
> I mean, I've had plenty of people interested in me, but I've had no feelings for most of them or in the end, I suppose I can't find a reason to ever actually become a couple. I guess it's pretty easy to talk yourself out of not liking people more than talking yourself into liking them. So, I've probably turned down like 8 people and half my friends- _sorry wasn't trying to led you on, I just like people to hang out with that share my interests_.... I tend to have more guy friends, in general, so I guess actually dating them seems weird to me.
> 
> ...


That all is just so like me too, almost everything there. Liking the idea of a boyfriend but not actually knowing what to do with one, having to turn down male friends, finding only some people even aesthetically attractive and hanging out with outcasts. Sorry, it's just so weird. 

Since you're Gen Y, I'd say you're at least one year older than, me, 21 or older, so I don't think you'll change your mind.
I'd say you're also aromantic, one with no romantic attraction.


----------



## Soft_Sound (Feb 25, 2013)

I imagine a lot of people are like us, I mean with so many people in the world, statistics are on our side  Yeah, I'm 23. My parents at least don't care that I don't date, but I've read about many people who get upset over this sort of thing.

...Er, not that I'd be against dating, but I don't want to waste their time/hurt them. I'd probably go on a date if people asked and also knew I didn't have feelings and such, I like hanging out with people, just not romantically.


----------



## Track (Jun 15, 2015)

Yes. Science doesn't matter on that topic. If a person identifies and truly feels asexual, that's all that matters.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

huesos said:


> My concern is that it appears that some people do not consider asexuality to be a valid sexual orientation.


 People didn't think homosexuality was a valid sexual orientation either. I have family members who believe so now. Some people are simply ignorant when it comes to anything that doesn't concern them.


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

Are we talking about asexuality asexuality or Tumblr's version of "I'm going to say I'm asexual to be a special snowflake, but tack on lots of fancy words which basically mean I'm not so I can have a sexual relationship with someone anyway"?


----------



## Mirkwood (Jul 16, 2014)

huesos said:


> I've had a suspicion for many years now that I may be asexual, and just over the past year or so, I have come to terms with myself and have declared that I indeed am asexual. I have tried dating and sex with men out of my own curiosity, combined with feeling like it was just something that I "had to do", but it never felt right. Not only was it always physically painful, but I realized that I just have trouble relating to someone on a romantic or sexual level. I would not consider dating or sex with a woman because the thought makes me feel quite uncomfortable.
> 
> My concern is that it appears that some people do not consider asexuality to be a valid sexual orientation. Most people in the developed world are now accepting, or at least tolerant, of homosexual and bisexual people, but it appears that the idea that one cannot have feelings for neither men nor women is foreign to most people. I realize that heterosexuality is the default setting for humans so that they can reproduce and carry on the species, and perhaps anyone who falls outside of this, such as myself, is considered "abnormal" or just "weird". Oh well.
> 
> What does PerC think?



I sometimes have trouble with the term, espesially when someone like you tell about negative experiences, are you then not just trying to.. uhm... not excuse yourself so much, because your not doing anything wrong for not liking it or not having sex all the time, but trying to explain/conclude.. "It must be because im asexual".. "I must be born to be a loner".. etc.

Hey!, I have considered it myself, and I too have had negative experiences, but also good ones tho.

When talking about sexual orientation.. Then i cant help but to think of how people apply themselves and their feelings to almost anything in this world.

Also, in a book ive read, the author says that nearly every man in the world has had thought about if he was gay, and id imagine.. yes, just imagine, that girls have had thoughts about if they were into girls.
But most people just put that thought aside again. Some maybe very plauged by the thought, etc.

Uhm.. also it is interesting, that.. when we are developing in our mothers womb, there is an indifferent stage.

But yes, id also say that hetro is the default, that is kinda how we have developed or thousands of years.

I just like to see myself as a hetro, who maybe dont always is so interested or fond of sex, but not having excluded it, at all.
That it dont matter that great a deal for me, some say they will litterally go crazy without ^^.


----------



## mhysa (Nov 27, 2014)

yes, it's a valid sexuality, and i don't think there's a "default" sexuality for humans. no one gets to dictate what your sexuality should be, it's completely your own and anyone who says otherwise is full of shit.


----------



## Zic (Dec 30, 2009)

Valid, yes. "Normal"? Well, depends. It's a puzzle for scientists, that's for sure. And it's not that common.


----------



## Blessed Frozen Cells (Apr 3, 2013)

Playful Proxy said:


> Are we talking about asexuality asexuality or Tumblr's version of "I'm going to say I'm asexual to be a special snowflake, but tack on lots of fancy words which basically mean I'm not so I can have a sexual relationship with someone anyway"?


What's asexuality asexuality?


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

Blessed Frozen Cells said:


> What's asexuality asexuality?


Legitimately not feeling sexual attraction towards anyone.


----------



## Blessed Frozen Cells (Apr 3, 2013)

Playful Proxy said:


> Legitimately not feeling sexual attraction towards anyone.


Ok how do you know that though? :frustrating: Especially online? I like to think of myself that I have some kind of asexual equivalence of gaydar :laughing:


----------

