should asexuality be put in the GLBT group?

[OwlCat]

hey all. this is something that i've often pondered since realizing that i'm ace. one reason why i can see that asexuality could be placed in the GLBT group is because (according to popular media, and you know how accurate that is...) those who are one of the above are considered a minority because of it (the whole "10% of the population is queer to some degree" thing...though i bet kinsey would have something to say about that!). however, since the asexuality group is generally made up of people who don't want to have sex, should asexuality be its own category, completely separate from the GLBT group (who, i assume, do want to have sex)? there are many sides to this debate and i would like to know what you think about it all.

peace and

jessi

p.s. if asexuality fits in the GLBT group, what letter would we use to represent it? "A" is already taken by the allies (those who are not one of the other letters, but who support the group). maybe an upside down A? is there even an alt code for that? lol! :lol:

[Plaid]

I thought the acronym usually had a Q on the end of it, for queer. Which is what asexuals would fit under, I guess.

[OwlCat]

I thought the acronym usually had a Q on the end of it, for queer. Which is what asexuals would fit under, I guess.

i suppose that would work, considering we would fit under "queer" as being different from a conventional viewpoint...but so are goths and punks, even though these labels have absolutely nothing to do with sexuality. also, "queer" has usually been understood as being an umbrella term for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people. other than being different from what is usually considered "normal" (which a multitude of labels could also fit under), i don't see how asexual would fit that category. however, i might be wrong. anyone else?

[Roy(Banned)]

This is already thread in the Q&A section.

[Sally]

We're quite a bit different from the other groups. I think we need our own space. The straights basically understand the gays (they both are sexually attracted to someone) but nobody understands us but us, and I don't think they ever will. We'll just be stepchildren in the larger group.

[Asterion Orestes]

We're quite a bit different from the other groups. I think we need our own space. The straights basically understand the gays (they both are sexually attracted to someone) but nobody understands us but us, and I don't think they ever will. We'll just be stepchildren in the larger group.

Seems all too true.

[LimeTreeArbour]

"i've never come over a little queer" (david brent)

i dont really know if we should it depends on the situation - it all comes down to the question of whether we are an orientatation or a lack of one

[Gotanks0407]

i think it is a good idea to be apart of it, but i dont think it should be our main focus. Like we need to bring visibility to there eyes, but i also think we need to also do things our own way also. but its better if we can cover all of the fronts. and the "A" at the end always means allies, so if we sneak an A in the middle or front somewhere then it could mean asexual and the A at the end can still be ally

[Roy(Banned)]

I'll say the same thing/s I said in the other thread like this:

Hopefully, nothing makes asexuality part of the LGBT. They're just as hostile to us as anyone else, so I see little reason for asexuality to be affiliated with them.

If "special" is your chosen word for it, then so be it. We aren't "special" in the sense that we're more important than everyone else, but we are certainly fewer-numbered and more obscure than the 10%-or-so strong LGBT community (as my one gay friend so elegantly bragged about it).

Quite simply, we have nothing in common with the LGBT community. Their goals, struggles, culture and lifestyle are hardly leaving asexuals screaming to be let in to the group. And let's face it; they seem to find little use for us anyway, given that they seem almost entirely based around sex. Out of all the people I've discussed aseuality with, the gays have certainly given me the worst reactions. I feel far more comfortable among some over-the-top heterosexuals who assume I must be gay, as opposed to to some moderate LGBT's who treat me like some diseased and crippled creature incapable of understanding their complex and "beautiful" mating rituals.

Any implied dislike of of the LGBT community is entirely of my own inflection, and not anything to do with the topic overall. This is the one time I've refrained from using derogatory language towards LGBT's.

Well, they are sexual, and we are not. They're a group for different types of sexuals, and we are a group that is defined by our complete lack of sexuality. The two just don't fit together at all. Asexuals face much different challenges than an LGBT person does. For some of us, LGBT people and their ways are a huge problem.

[Gotanks0407]

If "special" is your chosen word for it, then so be it. We aren't "special" in the sense that we're more important than everyone else, but we are certainly fewer-numbered and more obscure than the 10%-or-so strong LGBT community (as my one gay friend so elegantly bragged about it).

Quite simply, we have nothing in common with the LGBT community. Their goals, struggles, culture and lifestyle are hardly leaving asexuals screaming to be let in to the group. And let's face it; they seem to find little use for us anyway, given that they seem almost entirely based around sex. Out of all the people I've discussed aseuality with, the gays have certainly given me the worst reactions. I feel far more comfortable among some over-the-top heterosexuals who assume I must be gay, as opposed to to some moderate LGBT's who treat me like some diseased and crippled creature incapable of understanding their complex and "beautiful" mating rituals.

Any implied dislike of of the LGBT community is entirely of my own inflection, and not anything to do with the topic overall. This is the one time I've refrained from using derogatory language towards LGBT's.

well Roy i understand where your coming from, because i have had that reaction from 2 gay people, but out of the 3 that know, i would say the last one is by far the most understanding and accepting of it, but i would also say she is a middle-sexualized person, as one of the other ones was a hyper-sexual, and the other one i have no idea about but i would like to add they are more hyper than middle, but i also think we could help desexualize the GLBT, cuz i do completely agree with you that most of them probably think like you say they do, but i also think the society of the world as a whole needs to grow and we cant just turn and walk away from some people sometimes there is a fight to be had, they are wrong to look at us like that, and people need to learn to be more accepting expecially the oversexualized GLBT.

[Ocelot]

maybe an upside down A? is there even an alt code for that?

Go to http://www.fliptext.net and type in A, then copy and paste. The Javascript will turn it upside down.

[Sally]

well Roy i understand where your coming from, because i have had that reaction from 2 gay people, but out of the 3 that know, i would say the last one is by far the most understanding and accepting of it, but i would also say she is a middle-sexualized person, as one of the other ones was a hyper-sexual, and the other one i have no idea about but i would like to add they are more hyper than middle, but i also think we could help desexualize the GLBT, cuz i do completely agree with you that most of them probably think like you say they do, but i also think the society of the world as a whole needs to grow and we cant just turn and walk away from some people sometimes there is a fight to be had, they are wrong to look at us like that, and people need to learn to be more accepting expecially the oversexualized GLBT.

That sentence has 165 words in it. Maybe consider some periods to make it more readable?

[Siggy]

p.s. if asexuality fits in the GLBT group, what letter would we use to represent it? "A" is already taken by the allies (those who are not one of the other letters, but who support the group). maybe an upside down A? is there even an alt code for that? lol! :lol:

I think this is a total nonissue. Even if we agreed that asexuals should be part of LGBT, I think it would be entirely unnecessary to actually explicitly include it in the acronym. The acronym is already too long as is, and there are a bunch of other sexual minorities which are also usually omitted. And if we included them all, "A" would not be the only double letter. For instance, there are two Qs for queer and questioning, two Ts for transgender and transsexual, two Gs for gay and genderqueer, etc.

[you*hear*but*do*you*listen]

p.s. if asexuality fits in the GLBT group, what letter would we use to represent it? "A" is already taken by the allies (those who are not one of the other letters, but who support the group). maybe an upside down A? is there even an alt code for that? lol! :lol:

I think this is a total nonissue. Even if we agreed that asexuals should be part of LGBT, I think it would be entirely unnecessary to actually explicitly include it in the acronym. The acronym is already too long as is, and there are a bunch of other sexual minorities which are also usually omitted. And if we included them all, "A" would not be the only double letter. For instance, there are two Qs for queer and questioning, two Ts for transgender and transsexual, two Gs for gay and genderqueer, etc.

I've taken to saying "alphabet soup" or "the alphabet soup" acronym instead of GLBT or some variant of that.

[Filmfan]

Most of Roy's quotes were really hostile, to the point that I have to wonder where he found the gay people he's been hanging out with. I find most members of the gay community to be kind and accepting of others' differences.

Well, they are sexual, and we are not. They're a group for different types of sexuals, and we are a group that is defined by our complete lack of sexuality. The two just don't fit together at all. Asexuals face much different challenges than an LGBT person does.

However, I do agree with much of this. I don't think we should be included with the LGBT community, per se, because they are defined in part by their sexual orientation. Plus, they face so many issues like same-sex marriage and adoption that really don't apply to us. In many areas, they can't walk down the street holding hands with the person they love without having something awful said to them, or much worse.

None of this is a problem for us. There are a lot of people who haven't heard of asexuality, and there are some who make fun of the idea. But from the outside, we're often seen as single people who are a bit odd. Most people just accept us as a bit eccentric or socially awkward, or they kind of pity us for not engaging in what's supposed to be the most pleasurable act for humankind. But there have never been laws against asexual acts. There aren't widely accepted stereotypes about us (yet). And there aren't usually hate crimes against us.

I think our challenges are more about educating the world right now, whereas theirs are probably acceptance, especially in the face of cultural and religious conventions.

[Conor Wilson]

For what little it's worth, here's my two cents:

I am opposed to using the letter system. Why, you ask? Simple: there is always a new letter to add on. Back in the day, the word "Gay" by itself, seemed to work just fine. But then lesbians decided they wanted separate recognition. Okay, no problem, now it's "Gays and Lesbians." We're done, right? Wrong. Bisexuals wanted to be listed. So we stop with words, and go to letters: LGB. And this pattern keeps going. If we included every group that I--currently--know of, we end up with *at* *least* LGBTTQQAA. (That's "Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transvestites, Transsexuals, other Queer, Questioning, Asexuals, and Allies.") And it would not be unreasonable to lengthen it further: what about Pansexuals? What about the Polyamorous community? Pomosexuals? What about people who have fluid sexualities? Granted, Transvestites and Transsexuals could be combined into Transgender--and they often are--but that still leaves a lot of letters, and room to grow the list. And a further problem is that there is no "official order;" any given group could just decide to change the order of the letters, such as: BGLAAQQTT, or whatever.

*My* preference is to just realize that there is one issue uniting all of these groups (and even more, such as celibates;) namely, we all are outside of the usual life-pattern of falling in love with a person of opposite gender, having sexual relations with and marrying said person (not necessarily in that order,) and proceeding to form a family with that person either through sexual procreation or through adoption. That is to say, none of us are "heteronormative." As I understand it, the word for "not heteronormative" is queer. So I say: just use the word queer as a general term, and then explain further which particular queer community you belong to when asked. There is a downside to this attitude of mine: it makes the in-your-face question "What kind of queer are you?" into a perfectly legitimate and even intelligent question. (Ah, well...life isn't perfect.) But at least it simplifies the discussion, without forcing everyone to memorize--in order--an alphabet soup of letters, devoid of any conceptual order, just to recognize everyone. If we use one fairly simple term--queer--to indicate "I don't fit the usual life pattern" then we can move on from there to say things like, "I'm a gay man." or "I'm a heteroromantic asexual." or whatever the case may be.

Conor

[ProdeFemme]

Most of Roy's quotes were really hostile, to the point that I have to wonder where he found the gay people he's been hanging out with. I find most members of the gay community to be kind and accepting of others' differences.

Yea really, I find all my gay people at www.happyshinygaypeople.com , it even lets you pick their outfit. Roy should try there.

:lol: I'm kidding!

Now, I refuse to lump everyone in to one pot, but I cannot begrudge Roy on this; I have noticed a theme in a few threads where aces complained gays truly came away seemingly less understanding overall. I've complained of this myself once on here before, from my own experiences but seeing as I'm currently arguing about our umm, leaders in the other LGBT thread I'm not going to delve to deeply here. I just wanted to point out, blunt though it may be, Roy is not alone in this impression as an ace.

Well, they are sexual, and we are not. They're a group for different types of sexuals, and we are a group that is defined by our complete lack of sexuality. The two just don't fit together at all. Asexuals face much different challenges than an LGBT person does.

However, I do agree with much of this. I don't think we should be included with the LGBT community, per se, because they are defined in part by their sexual orientation. Plus, they face so many issues like same-sex marriage and adoption that really don't apply to us. In many areas, they can't walk down the street holding hands with the person they love without having something awful said to them, or much worse.

None of this is a problem for us. There are a lot of people who haven't heard of asexuality, and there are some who make fun of the idea. But from the outside, we're often seen as single people who are a bit odd. Most people just accept us as a bit eccentric or socially awkward, or they kind of pity us for not engaging in what's supposed to be the most pleasurable act for humankind. But there have never been laws against asexual acts. There aren't widely accepted stereotypes about us (yet). And there aren't usually hate crimes against us.

I think our challenges are more about educating the world right now, whereas theirs are probably acceptance, especially in the face of cultural and religious conventions.

I completely agree with this.

[Conor Wilson]

I'll say the same thing/s I said in the other thread like this:

Hopefully, nothing makes asexuality part of the LGBT. They're just as hostile to us as anyone else, so I see little reason for asexuality to be affiliated with them.

If "special" is your chosen word for it, then so be it. We aren't "special" in the sense that we're more important than everyone else, but we are certainly fewer-numbered and more obscure than the 10%-or-so strong LGBT community (as my one gay friend so elegantly bragged about it).

Quite simply, we have nothing in common with the LGBT community. Their goals, struggles, culture and lifestyle are hardly leaving asexuals screaming to be let in to the group. And let's face it; they seem to find little use for us anyway, given that they seem almost entirely based around sex. Out of all the people I've discussed aseuality with, the gays have certainly given me the worst reactions. I feel far more comfortable among some over-the-top heterosexuals who assume I must be gay, as opposed to to some moderate LGBT's who treat me like some diseased and crippled creature incapable of understanding their complex and "beautiful" mating rituals.

Any implied dislike of of the LGBT community is entirely of my own inflection, and not anything to do with the topic overall. This is the one time I've refrained from using derogatory language towards LGBT's.

Well, they are sexual, and we are not. They're a group for different types of sexuals, and we are a group that is defined by our complete lack of sexuality. The two just don't fit together at all. Asexuals face much different challenges than an LGBT person does. For some of us, LGBT people and their ways are a huge problem.

Roy: I'm sorry that you have experienced such negativity at the hands of other queer communities. As a gay man, I am appalled at such behavior. Personally, I would have thought it elementary to think that if I'm asking the larger society to accept my difference, then I should be accepting of the differences of others. You know...the Golden Rule. It seems common sensical basic ethics to me; how it escapes others, I really don't know.

I just want you to know that not all gay men, or members of other queer communities, are hostile to asexuals. I guess that sometimes everyone needs to learn things--even if it's gay men learning about human sexual diversity.

Conor

[Sally]

For what little it's worth, here's my two cents:

*My* preference is to just realize that there is one issue uniting all of these groups (and even more, such as celibates;) namely, we all are outside of the usual life-pattern of falling in love with a person of opposite gender, having sexual relations with and marrying said person (not necessarily in that order,) and proceeding to form a family with that person either through sexual procreation or through adoption. That is to say, none of us are "heteronormative." As I understand it, the word for "not heteronormative" is queer. So I say: just use the word queer as a general term, and then explain further which particular queer community you belong to when asked. There is a downside to this attitude of mine: it makes the in-your-face question "What kind of queer are you?" into a perfectly legitimate and even intelligent question. (Ah, well...life isn't perfect.) But at least it simplifies the discussion, without forcing everyone to memorize--in order--an alphabet soup of letters, devoid of any conceptual order, just to recognize everyone. If we use one fairly simple term--queer--to indicate "I don't fit the usual life pattern" then we can move on from there to say things like, "I'm a gay man." or "I'm a heteroromantic asexual." or whatever the case may be.

Conor

To me, the problem with this is that we are categorizing ourselves (and others) as not normal (i.e., nonheteronormative). That enshrines heterosexuals who do/want all that stuff above as normative, and everyone else is outside that circle. And that just continues what I see to be the myth of normativity as far as orientation. We don't know how many of us there are, and we probably number less than heterosexuals. But that doesn't have to mean that we regard them as the gold standard and everyone else is off to the side somewhere.

I would think that all we'd have to say is "I'm not attracted to anyone." That's understandable by anyone without going into details they probably don't want to know anyway.

[Jazmin]

We're quite a bit different from the other groups. I think we need our own space. The straights basically understand the gays (they both are sexually attracted to someone) but nobody understands us but us, and I don't think they ever will. We'll just be stepchildren in the larger group.

Yup.