Jump to content

Do you feel asexuality as an orientation should come under the lgbt umbrella?


PiF

  

  1. 1. Should we come under the lgbt umbrella

    • Yes ...as a body I feel the lgbt should represent asexuality
      160
    • No..as a body the lgbt should not represent asexuality
      72

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

I want to be quite precise here

this poll IS NOT about wether individual members can or can't be an asexual and within the lgbt..quite rightly people as individuals should be allowed thier own choices

The poll is about the much talked about alliance between asexuality and the lgbt

some feel that we are all gender queer and as such we should align ..as asexuals..with the lgbt..and as such come under thier umbrella

some feel..that the lgbt is a sexual body mostly for gay, lesbian trans etc..and given that we are a largely NON sexual body with the majority being hetro..that it would be wrong to align us as an whole asexual body to a sexual gay group..that is not to disrespect or gay,lesbian trans etc members but again I ask you to hold onto the votes idea as whats best to represent asexuality and nothing more

so again I must remind everyone who wants to vote

this is Not about individuals alignment..this is about asexuality being represented as a group and by whom..and even if we need to ask someone to represent us or are we doing okay by ourselves

I have left it at two questions because it really is a yes or no answer

I'll leave this open for two weeks closing on monday the 8th November

the point of the poll is not to officially drive out direction but to ask the members what you views are on this matter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I think LGBT should represent asexuality for the following reasons:

Lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered people are in a minority in a largely heterosexual and cisgendered world, and so are we. It makes sense to stick together, and it would also raise more awareness of asexuality. It is true that LGBT is (as of now) mainly for sexual people but because among the people who indentify as asexual there're people who are bi- or homoromantic or transgendered it makes sense to be represented by the LGBT movement.

I can't see the harm in it. Explicitly distancing ourselves from the LGBT movement makes no sense in my eyes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thats just it..i don't think we are distancing ourselves from the lgbt

what is being suggested is that unless we associate with another non sexual group then the association with any other group would be incorrect

to say a small group should stick together because they are another small group could see extremes of diffences justified by this argument..peados and albino's for example..which would be silly of course but shows the small group small group association just isn't plausible or credible

this is purely about when a member is represented as an asexual part of an asexual body ..would lgbt represent asexuality in it;s entirity

i can't see how it possibly could and am more likely to say..no association at all ..we don't need it..we are by nature a quieter body than most and are doing okay slowly making others aware

Link to post
Share on other sites

what is being suggested is that unless we associate with another non sexual group then the association with any other group would be incorrect

Celibates would come to mind as the only other non-sexual group. But I don't believe you mean that, so no need to address this.

to say a small group should stick together because they are another small group could see extremes of diffences justified by this argument..peados and albino's for example..which would be silly of course but shows the small group small group association just isn't plausible or credible

Come on, why is there a LGBT movement at all? Because homosexual, bisexual and transgendered people are all minorities facing the same difficulties. So it DOES make sense to stick together as proven by the movement.

I don't care if paedophiles and albinos stick together, for that matter, but as one is a sexual perversion and the other a rare pigment disorder I wouldn't know how much they have in common.

Link to post
Share on other sites

but that is the point lec

to use..we are all a small group as a good enough exscuse to join with a group we have very little in common isn't enough reason to make a wrongfull association

why not join the feminists..they are a small group fighting for recognition..it doesn't matter that I am male and don't have sex..you see the small minority argument is incredibly flawed and an emotive pull on the poor we us small group people

this higlights it i feel more clearly..you said...."but as one is a sexual perversion and the other a rare pigment disorder I wouldn't know how much they have in common."

but they are both totally incompatable groups being asked to stand together for no other reason than being a small group

when i do this to your sentence you will see what i mean

"but as one is a sexual and the other isn't I wouldn't know how much they have in common."

being part of another small group is not a good enough reason for a wrongfull association..truly

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say (although this is only my opinion) that asexuality might better be considered part of the LGBTQ movement. As an alternative sexuality and a community looking for broader visibility and acceptance, the queer community is probably a useful space for us, and one that the asexual community can contribute to in return. Also, 'queer' is perhaps more of an opt-in term: it's possible to identify within the L, G, B, and/or T communities and identify as queer only if you choose, even though the broader identities are considered queer (I think: correct me if I'm wrong), and the same could apply to asexuals who might not identify as queer. (And there are certainly many asexuals who wouldn't identify as any of L, G, B or T specifically.)

I might just be arguing semantics here, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted no from the gay side.

Coming tho' from the other side, I believe, as a whole,the alignment would be useful for asexuals.

Saftey in numbers, more clubs/forums/commrades, etc...now that part I see as good.

The issue I have tho' is that asexuality and everything I've read about it here (and that

may be the problem), doesn't seem to jive with the gay community.

We fight for rights that asexuals don't. feel free to yell that I'm wrong.

Discrimination and laws are what we fight for. I'm not sure IF an asexual

can claim to be fired from a job for not having sexual attraction, not be able to marrying because

they have no sexual attraction, lose custody of child (or have a frigging hard emotional time

because of threats in general) because they have no sexual attraction.

hope I worded everything according to the unwritten rules here. If not, I actually TRIED

this morning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a tricky subject. I mean, yes, we're a "sexual" minority and not part of the heterosexual majority, so being part of the queer umbrella would make sense. I think queer asexuals should definitely be a part of that umbrella. Despite what some queer people I've talked with think, I also think aromantic asexuals should also be a part of that umbrella. I mean, if you're not straight, then where the hell are you supposed to go besides the queer community? Of course, there are also a lot of asexuals who identify as hetero, and, being a queer asexual, I can see that being a big issue for the queer community in terms of accepting those particular asexuals. Straight is straight, and the queer community isn't intended to address the issues of straight people. We get a bit defensive when you label yourself "hetero" and start talking about oppression. Asexuality is definitely a minority, but we also cover a whole spectrum of preferences, so it's difficult to say "yes, the whole community should be included" or "no, we shouldn't be included". It's way more complex than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

..but because among the people who indentify as asexual there're people who are bi- or homoromantic or transgendered it makes sense to be represented by the LGBT movement.

This is the bit I don't get. I mean by that logic all sexual people should be included in it also because there are sexual people who are bi or gay, trans etc.

Why did you edit the post, Friday? I had something of a counter-argument/apology prepared...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, maybe the question ought to be: "Should asexuality be part of the LGBT movement", not "Should we be represented by the LGBT movement." I'm fairly sure we should be representing ourselves, whether within the LGBTQ movement or without, and identifying within an umbrella community shouldn't invalidate or invisiblise the smaller communities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say (although this is only my opinion) that asexuality might better be considered part of the LGBTQ movement. As an alternative sexuality and a community looking for broader visibility and acceptance, the queer community is probably a useful space for us, and one that the asexual community can contribute to in return. Also, 'queer' is perhaps more of an opt-in term: it's possible to identify within the L, G, B, and/or T communities and identify as queer only if you choose, even though the broader identities are considered queer (I think: correct me if I'm wrong), and the same could apply to asexuals who might not identify as queer. (And there are certainly many asexuals who wouldn't identify as any of L, G, B or T specifically.)

I might just be arguing semantics here, though.

I'd like to point out here that you can be L, G, B, or asexual AND T, because the T is about gender, not sexuality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a tricky subject. I mean, yes, we're a "sexual" minority and not part of the heterosexual majority, so being part of the queer umbrella would make sense. I think queer asexuals should definitely be a part of that umbrella. Despite what some queer people I've talked with think, I also think aromantic asexuals should also be a part of that umbrella. I mean, if you're not straight, then where the hell are you supposed to go besides the queer community? Of course, there are also a lot of asexuals who identify as hetero, and, being a queer asexual, I can see that being a big issue for the queer community in terms of accepting those particular asexuals. Straight is straight, and the queer community isn't intended to address the issues of straight people. We get a bit defensive when you label yourself "hetero" and start talking about oppression. Asexuality is definitely a minority, but we also cover a whole spectrum of preferences, so it's difficult to say "yes, the whole community should be included" or "no, we shouldn't be included". It's way more complex than that.

Maybe we should ask the LGBT people whether they even want us first...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say (although this is only my opinion) that asexuality might better be considered part of the LGBTQ movement. As an alternative sexuality and a community looking for broader visibility and acceptance, the queer community is probably a useful space for us, and one that the asexual community can contribute to in return. Also, 'queer' is perhaps more of an opt-in term: it's possible to identify within the L, G, B, and/or T communities and identify as queer only if you choose, even though the broader identities are considered queer (I think: correct me if I'm wrong), and the same could apply to asexuals who might not identify as queer. (And there are certainly many asexuals who wouldn't identify as any of L, G, B or T specifically.)

I might just be arguing semantics here, though.

I'd like to point out here that you can be L, G, B, or asexual AND T, because the T is about gender, not sexuality.

Absolutely. Sorry, I put an and/or in the first time I mentioned it and forgot it the second. Oops.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a tricky subject. I mean, yes, we're a "sexual" minority and not part of the heterosexual majority, so being part of the queer umbrella would make sense. I think queer asexuals should definitely be a part of that umbrella. Despite what some queer people I've talked with think, I also think aromantic asexuals should also be a part of that umbrella. I mean, if you're not straight, then where the hell are you supposed to go besides the queer community? Of course, there are also a lot of asexuals who identify as hetero, and, being a queer asexual, I can see that being a big issue for the queer community in terms of accepting those particular asexuals. Straight is straight, and the queer community isn't intended to address the issues of straight people. We get a bit defensive when you label yourself "hetero" and start talking about oppression. Asexuality is definitely a minority, but we also cover a whole spectrum of preferences, so it's difficult to say "yes, the whole community should be included" or "no, we shouldn't be included". It's way more complex than that.

Maybe we should ask the LGBT people whether they even want us first...

I can tell you right now that opinions within the community vary greatly. Plus, they're stuck with me whether the like it or not, because queer and trans are both parts of my identity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say (although this is only my opinion) that asexuality might better be considered part of the LGBTQ movement. As an alternative sexuality and a community looking for broader visibility and acceptance, the queer community is probably a useful space for us, and one that the asexual community can contribute to in return. Also, 'queer' is perhaps more of an opt-in term: it's possible to identify within the L, G, B, and/or T communities and identify as queer only if you choose, even though the broader identities are considered queer (I think: correct me if I'm wrong), and the same could apply to asexuals who might not identify as queer. (And there are certainly many asexuals who wouldn't identify as any of L, G, B or T specifically.)

I might just be arguing semantics here, though.

I'd like to point out here that you can be L, G, B, or asexual AND T, because the T is about gender, not sexuality.

Absolutely. Sorry, I put an and/or in the first time I mentioned it and forgot it the second. Oops.

No problem. I just know that a lot people tend to forget that part.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a tricky subject. I mean, yes, we're a "sexual" minority and not part of the heterosexual majority, so being part of the queer umbrella would make sense. I think queer asexuals should definitely be a part of that umbrella. Despite what some queer people I've talked with think, I also think aromantic asexuals should also be a part of that umbrella. I mean, if you're not straight, then where the hell are you supposed to go besides the queer community? Of course, there are also a lot of asexuals who identify as hetero, and, being a queer asexual, I can see that being a big issue for the queer community in terms of accepting those particular asexuals. Straight is straight, and the queer community isn't intended to address the issues of straight people. We get a bit defensive when you label yourself "hetero" and start talking about oppression. Asexuality is definitely a minority, but we also cover a whole spectrum of preferences, so it's difficult to say "yes, the whole community should be included" or "no, we shouldn't be included". It's way more complex than that.

Maybe we should ask the LGBT people whether they even want us first...

I can tell you right now that opinions within the community vary greatly. Plus, they're stuck with me whether the like it or not, because queer and trans are both parts of my identity.

Yeah, as I'm bi-romantic and care greatly about equal marriage rights and so on they're stuck with me as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say (although this is only my opinion) that asexuality might better be considered part of the LGBTQ movement. As an alternative sexuality and a community looking for broader visibility and acceptance, the queer community is probably a useful space for us, and one that the asexual community can contribute to in return. Also, 'queer' is perhaps more of an opt-in term: it's possible to identify within the L, G, B, and/or T communities and identify as queer only if you choose, even though the broader identities are considered queer (I think: correct me if I'm wrong), and the same could apply to asexuals who might not identify as queer. (And there are certainly many asexuals who wouldn't identify as any of L, G, B or T specifically.)

I might just be arguing semantics here, though.

I'd like to point out here that you can be L, G, B, or asexual AND T, because the T is about gender, not sexuality.

Absolutely. Sorry, I put an and/or in the first time I mentioned it and forgot it the second. Oops.

No problem. I just know that a lot people tend to forget that part.

seeing that part..then i see no asexuality within it

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a tricky subject. I mean, yes, we're a "sexual" minority and not part of the heterosexual majority, so being part of the queer umbrella would make sense. I think queer asexuals should definitely be a part of that umbrella. Despite what some queer people I've talked with think, I also think aromantic asexuals should also be a part of that umbrella. I mean, if you're not straight, then where the hell are you supposed to go besides the queer community? Of course, there are also a lot of asexuals who identify as hetero, and, being a queer asexual, I can see that being a big issue for the queer community in terms of accepting those particular asexuals. Straight is straight, and the queer community isn't intended to address the issues of straight people. We get a bit defensive when you label yourself "hetero" and start talking about oppression. Asexuality is definitely a minority, but we also cover a whole spectrum of preferences, so it's difficult to say "yes, the whole community should be included" or "no, we shouldn't be included". It's way more complex than that.

but Cpt. Jaq - I don't get this one???

If yer not hetero, of course you fall under the LBTGQ umbrella, is you so choose to.

I'm just thinking, and maybe I'm wrong, that most people on Aven aren't homosexual?

Asexuality is a minority group, for sure. But gay? I don't see that.

Of course, there are also a lot of asexuals who identify as hetero, and, being a queer asexual, I can see that being a big issue for the queer community in terms of accepting those particular asexuals. Straight is straight, and the queer community isn't intended to address the issues of straight people. We get a bit defensive when you label yourself "hetero" and start talking about oppression. Asexuality is definitely a minority, but we also cover a whole spectrum of preferences, so it's difficult to say "yes, the whole community should be included" or "no, we shouldn't be included". It's way more complex than that.

And maybe the complexity is what's offputting or hard to understand. There's a lot of terms to wade thru

and even sexual attraction/libido/love/arousal are discussed to death here. Demi/Grey/aromatic/repulsed/etc

The only thing I ever knew about asexuality is what my friends also know - they don't have sex. They don't

want sex. Now it's a orientation, which is a bit hard to wrap my head around. But I try to understand at least!

I'd never dream of saying it was hormonal, you haven't found the right one, it's a stage....blah blah yada yada yada

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a tricky subject. I mean, yes, we're a "sexual" minority and not part of the heterosexual majority, so being part of the queer umbrella would make sense. I think queer asexuals should definitely be a part of that umbrella. Despite what some queer people I've talked with think, I also think aromantic asexuals should also be a part of that umbrella. I mean, if you're not straight, then where the hell are you supposed to go besides the queer community? Of course, there are also a lot of asexuals who identify as hetero, and, being a queer asexual, I can see that being a big issue for the queer community in terms of accepting those particular asexuals. Straight is straight, and the queer community isn't intended to address the issues of straight people. We get a bit defensive when you label yourself "hetero" and start talking about oppression. Asexuality is definitely a minority, but we also cover a whole spectrum of preferences, so it's difficult to say "yes, the whole community should be included" or "no, we shouldn't be included". It's way more complex than that.

Maybe we should ask the LGBT people whether they even want us first...

ha

considering maybe 1 in 20 posts of mine are even responded to, maybe a more "accpectable" gay person should post on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue I have tho' is that asexuality and everything I've read about it here (and that

may be the problem), doesn't seem to jive with the gay community.

We fight for rights that asexuals don't. feel free to yell that I'm wrong.

Discrimination and laws are what we fight for. I'm not sure IF an asexual

can claim to be fired from a job for not having sexual attraction, not be able to marrying because

they have no sexual attraction, lose custody of child (or have a frigging hard emotional time

because of threats in general) because they have no sexual attraction.

Asexuals don't exactly have it easy in society, but, you're right, most of us don't face the same issues as the queer community based solely upon our asexual identity. That being said, some of us are already a part of the queer community based upon other parts of our identity, and attraction doesn't have to be sexual to be ridiculed or discriminated against for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
LoNeR bY dEfAuLt

Well, I'm asexual but I would not feel comfortable being classed as part of the LGBT community. Mainly because I'm not L, G, B or T, and if asexuality was going to come under that umbrella then it would really need renaming to LGBTA.

But to be honest I don't really like the concept of such 'communities' anyway because it sets the people within them aside from the rest of society and only serves to reinforce the stigma behind these things. I'm part of the Human community, and even that has its drawbacks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a tricky subject. I mean, yes, we're a "sexual" minority and not part of the heterosexual majority, so being part of the queer umbrella would make sense. I think queer asexuals should definitely be a part of that umbrella. Despite what some queer people I've talked with think, I also think aromantic asexuals should also be a part of that umbrella. I mean, if you're not straight, then where the hell are you supposed to go besides the queer community? Of course, there are also a lot of asexuals who identify as hetero, and, being a queer asexual, I can see that being a big issue for the queer community in terms of accepting those particular asexuals. Straight is straight, and the queer community isn't intended to address the issues of straight people. We get a bit defensive when you label yourself "hetero" and start talking about oppression. Asexuality is definitely a minority, but we also cover a whole spectrum of preferences, so it's difficult to say "yes, the whole community should be included" or "no, we shouldn't be included". It's way more complex than that.

but Cpt. Jaq - I don't get this one???

If yer not hetero, of course you fall under the LBTGQ umbrella, is you so choose to.

I'm just thinking, and maybe I'm wrong, that most people on Aven aren't homosexual?

Asexuality is a minority group, for sure. But gay? I don't see that.

I've gotten the argument before, though, that, even though I'm queer, I shouldn't be allowed into the community because I'm not sexual. I guess what I was trying to say here is that I don't jive with that. I think you're right about AVEN, but there seems to be a significant number of LGBTQ asexuals in other communities I'm a part of, like the LJ community. I'm just saying I think non-hetero asexuals, even the aromantic ones, should be allowed under the queer umbrella, should they so choose.

Of course, there are also a lot of asexuals who identify as hetero, and, being a queer asexual, I can see that being a big issue for the queer community in terms of accepting those particular asexuals. Straight is straight, and the queer community isn't intended to address the issues of straight people. We get a bit defensive when you label yourself "hetero" and start talking about oppression. Asexuality is definitely a minority, but we also cover a whole spectrum of preferences, so it's difficult to say "yes, the whole community should be included" or "no, we shouldn't be included". It's way more complex than that.

And maybe the complexity is what's offputting or hard to understand. There's a lot of terms to wade thru

and even sexual attraction/libido/love/arousal are discussed to death here. Demi/Grey/aromatic/repulsed/etc

The only thing I ever knew about asexuality is what my friends also know - they don't have sex. They don't

want sex. Now it's a orientation, which is a bit hard to wrap my head around. But I try to understand at least!

I'd never dream of saying it was hormonal, you haven't found the right one, it's a stage....blah blah yada yada yada

You're right, it does get a bit confusing. I don't think most of us use it as a stand-alone orientation, and I think that's where the problem arises. Then, when people start talking about asexuality as part of the queer umbrella, it becomes an "all or nothing" debate, because they either don't care or don't realize how much more complex it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say (although this is only my opinion) that asexuality might better be considered part of the LGBTQ movement. As an alternative sexuality and a community looking for broader visibility and acceptance, the queer community is probably a useful space for us, and one that the asexual community can contribute to in return. Also, 'queer' is perhaps more of an opt-in term: it's possible to identify within the L, G, B, and/or T communities and identify as queer only if you choose, even though the broader identities are considered queer (I think: correct me if I'm wrong), and the same could apply to asexuals who might not identify as queer. (And there are certainly many asexuals who wouldn't identify as any of L, G, B or T specifically.)

I might just be arguing semantics here, though.

I'd like to point out here that you can be L, G, B, or asexual AND T, because the T is about gender, not sexuality.

Absolutely. Sorry, I put an and/or in the first time I mentioned it and forgot it the second. Oops.

No problem. I just know that a lot people tend to forget that part.

seeing that part..then i see no asexuality within it

No asexuality within the transgender community?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm asexual but I would not feel comfortable being classed as part of the LGBT community. Mainly because I'm not L, G, B or T, and if asexuality was going to come under that umbrella then it would really need renaming to LGBTA.

But to be honest I don't really like the concept of such 'communities' anyway because it sets the people within them aside from the rest of society and only serves to reinforce the stigma behind these things. I'm part of the Human community, and even that has its drawbacks!

The purpose of such a community is to create a safe space because they've already been set aside from the rest of society BY the rest of society, and to help organize in order to change this. By coming to AVEN, you are a part of just such a community.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say (although this is only my opinion) that asexuality might better be considered part of the LGBTQ movement. As an alternative sexuality and a community looking for broader visibility and acceptance, the queer community is probably a useful space for us, and one that the asexual community can contribute to in return. Also, 'queer' is perhaps more of an opt-in term: it's possible to identify within the L, G, B, and/or T communities and identify as queer only if you choose, even though the broader identities are considered queer (I think: correct me if I'm wrong), and the same could apply to asexuals who might not identify as queer. (And there are certainly many asexuals who wouldn't identify as any of L, G, B or T specifically.)

I might just be arguing semantics here, though.

I'd like to point out here that you can be L, G, B, or asexual AND T, because the T is about gender, not sexuality.

this part Jaq

it it really does hinge on this part

t is about gender and not sexuality..as is the lgb

asexuality is not part of a sexual community..those who have thier feet in both camps may have some parts within it

but asexuality can never be truly represented by a largely sexual body

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say (although this is only my opinion) that asexuality might better be considered part of the LGBTQ movement. As an alternative sexuality and a community looking for broader visibility and acceptance, the queer community is probably a useful space for us, and one that the asexual community can contribute to in return. Also, 'queer' is perhaps more of an opt-in term: it's possible to identify within the L, G, B, and/or T communities and identify as queer only if you choose, even though the broader identities are considered queer (I think: correct me if I'm wrong), and the same could apply to asexuals who might not identify as queer. (And there are certainly many asexuals who wouldn't identify as any of L, G, B or T specifically.)

I might just be arguing semantics here, though.

I'd like to point out here that you can be L, G, B, or asexual AND T, because the T is about gender, not sexuality.

this part Jaq

it it really does hinge on this part

t is about gender and not sexuality..as is the lgb

asexuality is not part of a sexual community..those who have thier feet in both camps may have some parts within it

but asexuality can never be truly represented by a largely sexual body

I guess I should've said the L, G, and B are about attraction, while the T is about your own gender.

And I still don't think this is an "either/or" situation. I think it's possible for asexual issues to be addressed from within both the LBGT community and heterosexual society, but, right now, we're a pretty new concept, so we're still seen as outsiders to everyone, despite the fact that we're already well established within all of these groups.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a tricky subject. I mean, yes, we're a "sexual" minority and not part of the heterosexual majority, so being part of the queer umbrella would make sense. I think queer asexuals should definitely be a part of that umbrella. Despite what some queer people I've talked with think, I also think aromantic asexuals should also be a part of that umbrella. I mean, if you're not straight, then where the hell are you supposed to go besides the queer community? Of course, there are also a lot of asexuals who identify as hetero, and, being a queer asexual, I can see that being a big issue for the queer community in terms of accepting those particular asexuals. Straight is straight, and the queer community isn't intended to address the issues of straight people. We get a bit defensive when you label yourself "hetero" and start talking about oppression. Asexuality is definitely a minority, but we also cover a whole spectrum of preferences, so it's difficult to say "yes, the whole community should be included" or "no, we shouldn't be included". It's way more complex than that.

but Cpt. Jaq - I don't get this one???

If yer not hetero, of course you fall under the LBTGQ umbrella, is you so choose to.

I'm just thinking, and maybe I'm wrong, that most people on Aven aren't homosexual?

Asexuality is a minority group, for sure. But gay? I don't see that.

I've gotten the argument before, though, that, even though I'm queer, I shouldn't be allowed into the community because I'm not sexual. I guess what I was trying to say here is that I don't jive with that. I think you're right about AVEN, but there seems to be a significant number of LGBTQ asexuals in other communities I'm a part of, like the LJ community. I'm just saying I think non-hetero asexuals, even the aromantic ones, should be allowed under the queer umbrella, should they so choose.

whoa....that's just wrong wrong wrong. They don't allow you into it because you asexual but queer?

well that just makes it sound like we've got the LGBTQ community only because we have sex? Which is ridiculous.

It's who you LOVE, not who yer *ucking. (altho' I've had that thrown back in my face too so...eh.)

Am in complete agreement with the non-hetero aromantics or otherwise should be allowed under the umbrella, if they

want.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Am in complete agreement with the non-hetero aromantics or otherwise should be allowed under the umbrella, if they

want.

and no one jaq is saying otherwise..nowhere..as individuals

the debate is about representing asexuality as a whole..and as such many..myself included..do not feel we need a sexual group representing us as asexuals

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...