:cake:

[Ficulnean]

I get your feelings; I'm not even sure how I'd act in a relationship. I'd like the other person to be happy, obviously. As it stands, my ideal is never having to mention I'm asexual and to just be fine with sex.

[binary suns]

[dash]

Sex is kind of the point of romance.

What? A lot of romantic aces would disagree with you there...

[Augustus]

Sex is kind of the point of romance.

What? A lot of romantic aces would disagree with you there...

And ISIS would disagree that women are people.

[Naosuu]

Sex is kind of the point of romance.

What? A lot of romantic aces would disagree with you there...

And ISIS would disagree that women are people.

Making such an extreme example doesn't really help your case nor does it actually address the subject at hand.

Sure, romance and sex can be intertwined however it's also showing the other person (or people) that you care about them. Showing your partner things that remind you of them; getting them that book they've been dreaming of, etc. In healthier relationships, you don't get that special gift with the expectation of sex in return. That type of behaviour is generally frowned down upon since it shows you don't care about the person, but rather how that person is simply a means to an end that you have to appease/keep happy.

[Augustus]

Sex is kind of the point of romance.

What? A lot of romantic aces would disagree with you there...

And ISIS would disagree that women are people.

Making such an extreme example doesn't really help your case nor does it actually address the subject at hand.

Actually, it does help my case, if my case is that I don't care if people simply disagree. For any randomly plucked belief I have, there is someone who disagrees with it, so if someone is going to tell me as a sole response "Yes, well, some of us disagree, sir!", then my reaction is going to be: "Like I don't know that not everyone will agree with me always? So fucking what?"

[WoodwindWhistler]

Sex is kind of the point of romance.

What? A lot of romantic aces would disagree with you there...

And ISIS would disagree that women are people.

Making such an extreme example doesn't really help your case nor does it actually address the subject at hand.

Actually, it does help my case, if my case is that I don't care if people simply disagree. For any randomly plucked belief I have, there is someone who disagrees with it, so if someone is going to tell me as a sole response "Yes, well, some of us disagree, sir!", then my reaction is going to be: "Like I don't know that not everyone will agree with me always? So fucking what?"

Dude, I get what you're saying, but you don't have to use obscenity and extremist examples to make your point. You can't see how comparing us to ISIS is a little bit hurtful? All we have to go off of in this form of communication is your words, and it'd be nice if you could remain polite. We're all friends here. Or at least, acquaintances that gathered intentionally for a similar common purpose.

I'd counter that perhaps 'romance' is not necessarily based on a biological drive for sex, rather, it is an innate desire to strengthen social bonds in general, which is what allowed humanity to transcend mere individuals' brainpower, share resources and work together, have safety in numbers, and dominate the planet. But I respect your opinion and I understand why you think that.

Or, at the very least you could concede that, 99% of the time, for 99% of people, your view is correct, but for the 1% it simply isn't. It doesn't invalidate what you said in general, it just adds a tiny exception. If your point is that romance would not exist if sex did not exist first, then yes, I suppose that fits, but it still doesn't erase the lived experience of lots of people, including an allosexual on the forum I remember saying was once attracted to a few women romantically but had no "sexual" spark. Human consciousness is a lot more complex than sweeping generalities, that, while accurate, can account completely for.

[Augustus]

Dude, I get what you're saying, but you don't have to use obscenity and extremist examples to make your point. You can't see how comparing us to ISIS is a little bit hurtful?

It is irrelevant to me. This thread is for Teagan ASBNH, by Teagan ASBNH, so I answered the thread accordingly, and then dash had to freak out and challenge my post. Well, I don't care. Teagen found some value in my input. That's all that matters to me, as this thread goes, since he made the thread for addressing his own thoughts. If you guys A) disagree with me and B) are hurt because I don't automatically care if you simply disagree, it's no big deal to me at all. Go on disagreeing and being hurt, all the way to the grave, if you must.

[Naosuu]

Dude, I get what you're saying, but you don't have to use obscenity and extremist examples to make your point. You can't see how comparing us to ISIS is a little bit hurtful?

It is irrelevant to me. This thread is for Teagan ASBNH, by Teagan ASBNH, so I answered the thread accordingly, and then dash had to freak out and challenge my post. Well, I don't care. Teagen found some value in my input. That's all that matters to me, as this thread goes, since he made the thread for addressing his own thoughts. If you guys A) disagree with me and B) are hurt because I don't automatically care if you simply disagree, it's no big deal to me at all. Go on disagreeing and being hurt, all the way to the grave, if you must.

I don't think it's necessarily about being hurt but also realizing how you come across. While some people think that as long as they communicate a message, it is considered "delivered", how you express your message is just as important as the message itself. It's one thing to tell someone, "don't XYZ because ABC," and it's an entirely different thing to say, "you're so stupid."

For example, you can state that you disagree with another member; but instead of stating, "here's why sex is the point of romance..." or, "I simply disagree," you simply gave an example, without any context, that compared the disagreement with ISIS' philosophy. Not only does this cause unnecessary tension with an example so out of context, not noticeably related to the topic at hand and so extreme, but it also gives the impression that you are dismissing the other member's point of view simply because they disagree.

Whether this actually matters to you is a different question, however this is the open board and other members can point out how problematic your post(s) comes across. We aren't mind readers and can only go by what's presented to the reader/audience. If you're annoyed at members responding to the unnecessary extreme comparison rather than responding to your contribution, perhaps you should be more conscientious of what you're trying to say and how it's going to come across.

[Philip027]

Actually, it does help my case, if my case is that I don't care if people simply disagree.

Unless you were simply being facetious with your original point (devaluing romance for all those who don't connect it with sex, which really isn't that unnatural because they're not the same things), your "case" is honestly pretty bad.

[Augustus]

You guys just need to grow some thicker skin.

[Xavy]

Good thread. I am an asexual because I have no sexual attraction to others. I also have no interest in sex; however I accept that other people who identify as asexual can be interested in sex and have sex.

[Philip027]

You guys just need to grow some thicker skin.

Except I wasn't really offended. Your point was just bad, and later defended poorly.

But you say you don't care what people think about it, so me saying that shouldn't have any effect on you, right

[Augustus]

You guys just need to grow some thicker skin.

Except I wasn't really offended. Your point was just bad, and later defended poorly.

But you say you don't care what people think about it, so me saying that shouldn't have any effect on you, right

Wasn't referring to you, specifically. You posted after I already had the page up.

Correct. I was not trying to make any kind of an argument in favor of my view of romance, so if it seems like I've been doing a bad job of it, then there you go.

[WoodwindWhistler]

Dude, I get what you're saying, but you don't have to use obscenity and extremist examples to make your point. You can't see how comparing us to ISIS is a little bit hurtful?

It is irrelevant to me. This thread is for Teagan ASBNH, by Teagan ASBNH, so I answered the thread accordingly, and then dash had to freak out and challenge my post. Well, I don't care. Teagen found some value in my input. That's all that matters to me, as this thread goes, since he made the thread for addressing his own thoughts. If you guys A) disagree with me and B) are hurt because I don't automatically care if you simply disagree, it's no big deal to me at all. Go on disagreeing and being hurt, all the way to the grave, if you must.

Ah okay, so you have no intention of actually addressing any of my points for your own edification. Fair enough. (yes, that was a little passive aggressive) I'm not hurt that you disagree. Not at all. I am hurt that the WAY you disagreed had to involve belittling us and being a jerk. Instead of having an interesting discussion, as we may have, you just dropped the topic.

"Grow a thicker skin" is usually what people say when they're in the process or have already partially numbed their conscience. It's almost similar to hitting someone and saying, "man up and take it." Except, peoples' minds are infinitely more valuable than their bodies, by many standards. You can't please everyone, obviously, but we're a small group and what we're respectfully asking of you is ridiculously simple and easy to do. It takes not much more effort than being negative. But if you wish to be *that* lazy, so be it.

[Augustus]

Right, I have no such intention, as I know that having the wrong ideas when winds are not blowing your way can be risky on this site. People are very sensitive about orientation and gender distinctions around here, so it's a topic I will avoid until AVEN shows a more mild attitude.

It's almost similar, but it's not. Physical injury is serious, and we are the sovereigns of our bodies and have every right not to be touched by others. We don't have a right to shield ourselves from opinions and expressions thereof that we might not like in every walk of life, and so we can grow a thicker skin for those things.

[butterflydreams]

first dilemma being that I don't experience sexual or romantic attraction.. .how am I to validate to a parrtner that I'm worth them wanting me if I don't want them?

I think when you find someone who's a suitable partner all that will resolve itself. However, it's entirely possible never to find such a person, which is sad. :/

Honestly, in high school, I thought to myself, "you know, if I never found a special someone just for me, I'm sure I'd find some way to pass the time and have fun in the end"

Oh Teagan...I really love your threads :) I'm not sure if it's the questions you ask, the way you think about things, or if it's just that you sound so darn similar to me.

I think I was a similar way in high school. Of course, with the pressures of the time, all I could worry about was never finding someone special for me. Now though, growing up and being able to reflect on that time, I understand more clearly how I actually felt. When everyone around you is acting a certain way, it can be easy to feel like you have to act that way. You might (like I did) even fold that thinking in on yourself and feel like you actually feel that way.

Maybe my realization about it might have some meaning to you. Sex, sexual relationships, romantic relationships...those were all things that "would" happen "to" me at some point in the future.

When?

The future.

No, but like when in the future? College? Post college?

I don't know. The future.

Turns out it was a very particular kind of future; the kind of future that never comes. And because it was something that would happen "to" me rather than something I'd go looking for, that helped distance myself from any involvement I might have. Even to this day, I still imagine that "future". And in it, I'm totally capable, and even willing to do sexual things with a partner, if only just for the experience (future me is still asexual after all). As long as it stays in the future. When it gets too close to me. Too close to the present. Klaxons start to go off in my head. Things become too real, and I reflexively push back.

To your opening post, I say that I can find no reason why you wouldn't be asexual. I don't even see any reason to worry about some more specific term if people give you a hard time. If referring to yourself as asexual helps you understand yourself better (which you seem to say it does), then why wouldn't it be the right term. Sex can be fascinating and exciting. So is skydiving or base jumping. Or tail-sliding your car in the parking lot at work. Exciting things can be fun just because they're exciting. Having sex, or even finding it exciting and fun doesn't make you not asexual (in my mind). Just like tail sliding my car in the parking lot at work doesn't make me a rally driver. You are always the be-all-end-all when it comes to deciding how you feel. You don't need to let others psyche you out about language, or theory, or whatever. They don't have a detailed blueprint of Teagan. Only you have that :)

[Philip027]

Right, I have no such intention, as I know that having the wrong ideas when winds are not blowing your way can be risky on this site. People are very sensitive about orientation and gender distinctions around here, so it's a topic I will avoid until AVEN shows a more mild attitude.

It's almost similar, but it's not. Physical injury is serious, and we are the sovereigns of our bodies and have every right not to be touched by others. We don't have a right to shield ourselves from opinions and expressions thereof that we might not like in every walk of life, and so we can grow a thicker skin for those things.

There's a big difference between having tolerance for opinions that you might not agree with but are still adequately and reasonably defended, and having tolerance for opinions that are just plain bad, founded in inaccuracy, and defended with comparisons to a terrorist organization. Until you learn that difference, then yeah, I agree this is a subject you should avoid.

[Augustus]

Well, it doesn't seem like you were ever interested in an actual conversation yourself, Philip, just an opportunity to talk down to me, which is fine, but lest others be misled...

[Naosuu]

This is a reminder to stay on topic of the OP - relationships and being open to initiating or having sex with a future partner.

Any content that concerns or relates to post #34, as quoted here:

Sex is kind of the point of romance.

What? A lot of romantic aces would disagree with you there...

And ISIS would disagree that women are people.

... will be hidden and may result in further disciplinary action.

Naosuu, Asexual Musings and Rantings Co-mod

[binary suns]

[binary suns]

[butterflydreams]

I guess what I'm trying to say, is when I see everyone eating their sandwich in one hand and it seems to work for them, when I'm given a sandwich - without even thinking I've already picked it up in one hand and have begun chowing down... I didn't stop and look at the sandwich and say "what are you? what am I supposed to do with you? oh I remeber that one person picked you up and ate you! I'll do that too". the thinking just wasn't necessary, my mind already internalized the observed behavior and was able to replicate that behavior when the time came. Even if it would work better for me to use both hands, it was natural/automatic/OK for me to just use the one hand. And I still get the sandwich inside my tummy, so I have no reason to doubt that the one-hand approach is the way I eat sandwiches.

so, when my body becomes aroused, I'm automatically responding to the arousal because it's what my subconscious mind already expects to happen, not because it's part of who I am but rather because it's part of what the moment is.

Exactly :)

This is going to sound way worse than I mean for it to, but when I think about sexual activity, basically the only reason it tends to be with someone who's female is because it "just kind of works that way" in a physical sense. Like, it's an act so removed from everything else, that it boils down to how it works as a biological function of reproduction. And that happens to work in such and such a way. Hell, I'm not even sure I'd want to have the biological kind of sex as a function of reproduction, but that's kind of all that's left for me.

I imagine this to be a bit like your description of just picking up the sandwich with one hand. Like, "oh yeah...seems my body knows what to do, even if my brain doesn't". Which, when you consider the autonomic nervous system, makes pretty good sense. My body does lots of things I don't actively tell it to do.

Obviously though, sex is FAR more than that, as every single non-heterosexual relationship can attest to. For those and heterosexual sexual relationships, I imagine body knows what to do, and brain is right on board with it. Which is probably pretty awesome!

Not sure which places I've suggested this here before, but I highly recommend just about anyone try filling out a want-will-wont list. Even if you've never had a sexual partner, or never plan to. It's a very eye opening experience. It let's you really break up your feelings into a much more granular way. It helped me understand more about what I might be like as a sexual partner, and what I'd need to watch out for.

[purplemutant]

Welcome to the club! It's nice to see someone else who feels the same way I do. I also have an interest in sex but don't feel comfortable identifying as grey. Here is the definition of asexual that I am currently using.

An asexual is someone who does not experience an innate desire for sex with other people.

Desire. Noun: "a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen." Synonyms: Urge, Craving, Yearning, Need.

By that definition you are completely asexual. It's quite simple really. Can you go for the rest of your life without sex with people? If yes, then you are asexual. If no, then you are allosexual. There is no need to complicate things with terms like "sexual attraction".

For me, I don't have the urge/need for sex with people. I can happily go for the rest of my life without sex with people. But just because I can doesn't mean I have too. Both times I did anything sexual with anyone, I enjoyed it. I would like to do it again sometime.

I don't identify as grey because I have never had the desire/urge/craving/need for sex with people. So I am not going to call my self grey just because I think sex is enjoyable.

So while it seems most aces have no interest in sex; level of interest in sex isn't what makes you asexual or not. The lack of innate desire for sex is what makes you asexual.

I totally understand being rejected as asexual. If you look at some of the threads I posted a couple of weeks ago, you can see people tell me that I am not asexual. On person in particular seemed to bend over backwards to try to convince me I am not asexual. But I am asexual and so are you :)

[purplemutant]

Sex releases all kinds of hormones and reactions so I'm not surprised some people find it nice even without an innate desire/libido/whatever... that is what it's designed to do after all.

I just want to point out that desire and libido are not the same thing. I have a desire to masturbate. I couldn't happily go for the rest of my life without masturbating. When I was on female hormones I was also taking a rather large dose of a testosterone blocker. I still had the same desire to masturbate as before. But, due to the low libido I couldn't get aroused enough to make anything happen. It was really frustrating. Other than that your comment was spot on. Your cake analogy was great. I feel the same way when it comes to sex. There is a whole lot of BS that goes along with finding a sex partner. Especially in my case since I am Autistic. Given all the BS I don't bother going through the hassle. But if someone offered, all other things aside; I would take it. It would be nice if were easier to find a safe sex partner. I like sex and would love to have the opportunity to do it again. But ultimately if I don't get the chance it's fine. I am asexual after all ^_^

Any urges I have I can take care of my self quite nicely. ;)

[purplemutant]

Yeah, the sub-labels of asexuality aren't exactly organized. I have heard of sex-favorable/repulsed, which is whether one would want sex themselves, and sex-positive/negative, which is whether one is accepting of sex in general.

I started a thread for just this sort of thing. I was looking for a label for someone who is interested in sex. I had been using Sex interested. Which doesn't work as well as I would like. Sex favourable is a good one. You may have just solved my quest for a label. Thanks Robin! I am going to add sex favourable to my identity list.

[dash]

Never mind. Just never mind.

[dash]

Dude, I get what you're saying, but you don't have to use obscenity and extremist examples to make your point. You can't see how comparing us to ISIS is a little bit hurtful?

It is irrelevant to me. This thread is for Teagan ASBNH, by Teagan ASBNH, so I answered the thread accordingly, and then dash had to freak out and challenge my post. Well, I don't care. Teagen found some value in my input. That's all that matters to me, as this thread goes, since he made the thread for addressing his own thoughts. If you guys A) disagree with me and B) are hurt because I don't automatically care if you simply disagree, it's no big deal to me at all. Go on disagreeing and being hurt, all the way to the grave, if you must.

"Freak out"? lol where did I "freak out" on this thread?

[dash]

Actually, it does help my case, if my case is that I don't care if people simply disagree.

Unless you were simply being facetious with your original point (devaluing romance for all those who don't connect it with sex, which really isn't that unnatural because they're not the same things), your "case" is honestly pretty bad.

The issue isn't that we (or anyone else) "disagrees." The issue is speaking for other people and telling them what the "point" of their feelings really is. Then when people say "uh, but this isn't the reason/purpose/meaning for my own feelings," going on about not caring how we feel, and how we all need to just toughen up, or weren't interested in a real conversation in the first place.

(This is not "freaking out," this is constructive feedback.)

[Guest]

It is neither wrong to feel hurt by words nor is it wrong to say words that end up hurting someone. people tend to say words they feel best impacts what they need to say, and unfortunately because we vary, what is best for some is not best for others. To try to change the 1% against their will so that they better suit the 99%, is probably neither worth the effort nor is it fair.

in order to more effectively convey your points, it is wise to try to seek the communication that more often presents what you need, or to try to understand people efficiently so that you are better at guessing what is important for them when communicating. but either path requires a lot of commitment and cost to pursue them, and every person is entitled to choose how they spend their resources.

It is easy to mean the words we say, but to expect our thoughts to meaningfully be said is not so realistic. It is important to accept that; that we will always communicate less than what we hope to be saying.

adequately and reasonably defended

"adequate and reasonable" is not a factual description, but rather a subjective element.

Augustus's post in question was adequate for me, I too tend to use extreme or singular/black-and-white statements, I find them more compact. for me, to say "if I'm not X than I'm the opposite" is merely an abstraction of the possible outcomes. If I can avoid those arguments I do, however, because I've found they don't work as well for more people than those who they do work for.

I'm interested in the reasoning behind the statement that "Sex is kind of the point of romance."

I'm also interested in the reasons why that statement is supposedly false.

as an aromantic asexual, I really don't understand what drives our culture for either sex or romance, tbh. I could reasonably see that statement be true OR false..

The issue with the statement "Sex is kind of the point of romance" is... it doesn't say "for me" or "for a lot of people" etc. Which, implies it's the point of romance for everyone. Which, when talking about motives / emotions in humans, trying to make a statement count for everyone is pretty much always going to make it inaccurate/false.

My motives for romance are: romance itself feels good. I have no interest in the sex parts, at all, ever. Wanting the connection and positive emotional state romance gives me is what drives me. *shrug* Simplistic, but often motives do end up being pretty simple.

As for the original post of this thread... you can ID however you feel fits. It's up to you, not anyone else. :)