Why are these the usual reactions?

[Nazgir]

I know it's not necessarily true. That's why I said "some people". Nowhere did I say that it was an absolute truth, as absolute truths do not generally exist.

So yes, it does depend on the person, and I stated - quite clearly - that what I have works for me. In no way did I say that it was the only way to be, just that it works for me.

EDITED, I reread the posts and saw I misread some stuff.

You said "some people haven't become emotionally mature enough."

That implies it's about emotional maturity and anyone can become "mature" enough to get over the need for sex...

[Tarfeather]

1) some people haven't become emotionally mature enough to recognize that a healthy relationship doesn't necessarily require sex. I'm sexual, and I recognize that it's not a prerequisite, and I'm happy with the relationship I have.

You're clearly stating that being emotionally mature implies the latter part of your sentence (recognizing that a healthy relationship yadda yadda). So I'm curious, do you mean that an emotionally mature person would recognize that it's possible for others to have a healthy, sex-less relationship, or do you mean that an "emotionally mature" person themselves would be able to lead a sex-less, happy relationship? The latter is not necessarily true.

[Autumn Season]

Sex is seen and glorified above other survival instincts because it is the most important, arguably. Even if I survive till an old age if I die without children then my bloodline dies. Many things feel good, including sex, but sex is seen and viewed by many as one of the best pleasured. And yes, it does make sense that the idea to procreate is hardwired into us. It's one of the most important things for a species to do is to carry on said species! Murdering people is detrimental to the species survival, so of course it isn't glorified and seen to be A-OK just because the murderer may have found it to be pleasurable (not including war. probably a few psycopaths in the army).

As far as I understand you are saying, that from the perspective of evolution everyone should want to have children in order to

1) carry on one's "bloodline", for whatever that means and

2) ensure the survival of the species.

I disagree. A person doesn't need to have children to carry on their bloodline and not everyone needs to have children for the species to survive. In fact, "too many" humans in the world is a bad thing, but that's a different story.

Here is why I disagree:

(1) From a biological point of view our parents and siblings are as precious to us as our children, because they have the same amount of genes, which match ours. Actually a human's genes are almost identical with another animal's genes. There's only a tiny amount, which is specifically "human". Inside of this tiny amount which is "human", there are genes which are more similar to our own. Our family has more of our genes than strangers have. When you have children, they have half of specifically your genes. This is the same amount that your parents and siblings have. And this is "only" half of what you have. In other words, we are designed to care for ourselves first, and then to take care of our parents, siblings and children. Our uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces have the same amount of our own genes as our grandchildren do.

In other words, just because somebody never has children, it doesn't mean that this person's bloodline dies.

(2) The species survives, when the birthrate is higher than the deathrate. Everyone having children doesn't ensure the survival of the species. There are more factors than this. For example, helping each other and helping to raise the children of family members lowers the death rates. In this context there's no reason at all for everyone to have children.

[Tarfeather]

As far as I understand you are saying, that from the perspective of evolution everyone should want to have children in order to

1) carry on one's "bloodline", for whatever that means and

2) ensure the survival of the species.

I disagree. A person doesn't need to have children to carry on their bloodline and not everyone needs to have children for the species to survive. In fact, "too many" humans in the world is a bad thing, but that's a different story.

Here is why I disagree:

(1) From a biological point of view our parents and siblings are as precious to us as our children, because they have the same amount of genes, which match ours. Actually a human's genes are almost identical with another animal's genes. There's only a tiny amount, which is specifically "human". Inside of this tiny amount which is "human", there are genes which are more similar to our own. Our family has more of our genes than strangers have. When you have children, they have half of specifically your genes. This is the same amount that your parents and siblings have. And this is "only" half of what you have. In other words, we are designed to care for ourselves first, and then to take care of our parents, siblings and children. Our uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces have the same amount of our own genes as our grandchildren do.

In other words, just because somebody never has children, it doesn't mean that this person's bloodline dies.

(2) The species survives, when the birthrate is higher than the deathrate. Everyone having children doesn't ensure the survival of the species. There are more factors than this. For example, helping each other and helping to raise the children of family members lowers the death rates. In this context there's no reason at all for everyone to have children.

And that's still all just biological stuff. We aren't just animals. That sense of "me" that we want to perpetuate isn't rooted in genes. It's related to mentality, knowledge and so on. We don't need children to carry on our genes, we need them to carry on our sense of self. Children are probably the most complete way to do that, because we can educate them on everything relevant to life. Teaching in its various forms can also be a way to do so, but in that case you can only perpetuate a specific aspect of yourself, and that can be dangerous. For instance, what if you teach someone your understanding of science, and they use it to build a weapon of mass destruction? It used to be the case that along with knowledge, a teacher would also pass on their understanding of ethics and the like, but in modern society this has been largely stopped because it wouldn't be beneficial for the "economy".

(Edit: Fixed the "We aren't animals" bit.. of course we're animals. Silly me.)

[Feral_Sophisticate]

1) some people haven't become emotionally mature enough to recognize that a healthy relationship doesn't necessarily require sex. I'm sexual, and I recognize that it's not a prerequisite, and I'm happy with the relationship I have.

You're clearly stating that being emotionally mature implies the latter part of your sentence (recognizing that a healthy relationship yadda yadda). So I'm curious, do you mean that an emotionally mature person would recognize that it's possible for others to have a healthy, sex-less relationship, or do you mean that an "emotionally mature" person themselves would be able to lead a sex-less, happy relationship? The latter is not necessarily true.

Both are possible, but the intended reception was the former of the two, as not everyone (even those who are emotionally mature) are capable (or even wanting) a sexless relationship - or would be happy being in one.

I know it's not necessarily true. That's why I said "some people". Nowhere did I say that it was an absolute truth, as absolute truths do not generally exist.

So yes, it does depend on the person, and I stated - quite clearly - that what I have works for me. In no way did I say that it was the only way to be, just that it works for me.

EDITED, I reread the posts and saw I misread some stuff.

You said "some people haven't become emotionally mature enough."

That implies it's about emotional maturity and anyone can become "mature" enough to get over the need for sex...

Were I to have met my girl a decade or more ago, I likely wouldn't have been suited to her (let's assume, for the sake of argument, that her age would have been unchanged, in order to avoid any issues with age disparity). I had not yet come to understand that physical and sexual intimacy were related but not mutually inclusive.

So yes, I did "become mature enough to get over the need for sex". I still enjoy it, and desire it, but I don't necessarily need it.

Of course, there's another factor at play here, too. My girl and I are involved in the local kink/fetish scene, so a lot of the stuff we do - though not involving any sexual acts - gives us the same mental and emotional connection that sexual activity often does for others. We have an outlet, at least. That is probably a major contributor in the "emotional maturity" that I mentioned. That, too, isn't for everyone, but it has provided a different way for us to experience some of the emotional and mental aspects of sexual acts, without the deeds themselves.

I'm not sure if that clarifies things at all, or just muddies the waters further, however. The kink and fetish scene often involves sex, but it doesn't have to.

[Nazgir]

I think I'm starting to get your point, I'm afraid it was just worded a bit unfortunately. What I initially got from the message was that people who don't have it that sex isn't needed in a relationship for them are emotionally immature, and that came across as pretty condescending. Glad we sorted it out ;)

[Feral_Sophisticate]

I think I'm starting to get your point, I'm afraid it was just worded a bit unfortunately. What I initially got from the message was that people who don't have it that sex isn't needed in a relationship for them are emotionally immature, and that came across as pretty condescending. Glad we sorted it out ;)

Me too.

:)

[Archived]

Because society's a dick.

[Qloshae]

Well, I guess because sex is so ingrained in our society. I mean, there's a reason Edward Bernays (father of advertisement) made people consume like crazy as soon as he added sex to the equation.

So I guess people feel like you are trying to be a rebel because they don't understand how a person can not like sex and people respond to those they see as trying to rebel in different ways.

[Custos]

Another response I have found to be pretty common in those I've told is ignorance. Not the "I don't understand" kind but the "I'm going to ignore the fact you are talking about this and seem to forget about your asexuality".

Those who I have told were fine with it when I told them. But in the long run, they change the topic if I mention it. They seem more quiet and a little put-off.

Sometimes they'll talk to me and be like "tell me you wouldn't screw [insert name here]" and I'm like.... "??? I wouldn't?"

In short, people are fine and then forget or more accurately, dismiss my sexuality as though they think it's a phase that has passed. It kinda sucks but there are people out there who are a tad more considerate :)

[Touchofinsight]

I hope that this doesn't come off as insulting or anything, but I do wish to know why the usual reactions from sexuals to a person that says that their not interested in sex (they don't have to be ace) the responses that are given are:

1) Disbelief: I know its not what its usually portrayed in media, social talks etc, but why is the possibility of this happening not accepted?

2) Discrediting it: as in saying things like "there's no way you dont like sex, you're just being X"

Lack of experience. The first thing people do when are introduced to a new concept is to look back on their previous experiences and breathe of knowledge for any useful information or references. Very little of what happens in normal society can prepare anyone for the idea that someone wouldn't feel sexual attraction.

3) Anger: this one really boggles me. I can maybe understand that in a exclusive relationship, stringing someone along and later surprising them with "no sex" can be rather angering. But what I mean is in the normal everyday life, why does the idea or the situation in which a person says "I don't like/want sex" causes such an angry retaliation.

Rejection, in a sense if their partner doesn't want sex with them they feel like they as a person, are being rejected because for most people sexuality is a part of their identity. It isn't something they can easily compartmentalize or detach themselves from, its a part of themselves that is being rejected or seen as unattractive. So for some people they feel Anger over feeling like they were perhaps lied to, maybe feeling deceived into feeling they were an attractive person where as they feel unattractive because they are not desired or wanted. Not everyone separates romance, love, and sex for most they are intertwined in some way.

[Nymra]

It's sad that in today's society your not able to say that you don't like sex, without getting the looks. I for myself have the most problem with the quote:

"Oh, you just need to cure it."

Like, no b*tch, it's not something you can cure, it's my damn sexuality. This angers me to the core and back. It's disrespectful.

But they don't know it better. We all grow up that to have sex is normal in a relationship. That you don't like sex is out of question. How I read in an other post "We're all born straight.". And with that mindset we grow up until we realize that something 'is not right' with us.

As well you can not say.

"Wow, this person really looks gorgeous." Or attractive or whatever without people assuming you want to frickle frackle with them. This shocks me everytime. But all honesty. I got some quite attractive friends, and I tell them a lot that they look great in what their wearing. They know me like this and probably also know that my intentions aren't bad.

Just dropped my opinion.

Regret nothing.

[Mizzy]

This was my reaction when a young friend posted about their Ace orientation in a thread.

I'll not sugar coat it or change it, I'm posting the exact quote.

"As for the Ace thing, I had to look it up, it's your choice of course (or maybe it's not I don't know enough about it and not my business) but it breaks my heart a bit. Mostly, I'm sure, because I get so much pleasure from sex that I can't imagine being asexual or indifferent. That being said, obviously I don't understand it but I hope you find contentment/happiness in that."

She was not offended but someone else seemed to be and said that it could be considered offensive and degrading. That it could be that I'm saying there something wrong with her. I don't see that nor obviously was that my intent as she is a friend.

So my question is, "is it offensive and if so why?" I consider myself a kind and open minded person with every empathy to marginalized groups but I also think that the current state of "everything offends everybody" has gotten out of control. I am not easily offended so maybe this is why I don't see it.

I don't mind admitting I'm wrong if someone can convince me I am. Please explain....

Mizzy

[TheBeatlesPkmnFan42]

1) Disbelief: I know its not what its usually portrayed in media, social talks etc, but why is the possibility of this happening not accepted?

2) Discrediting it: as in saying things like "there's no way you dont like sex, you're just being X"

In regards to these two, I guess a lot of people's reactions toward finding out about something they've never heard of is "if I've never heard of it my entire life, clearly it must not exist and there must be a different reason for it!". It's a mindset I don't understand in the slightest, but that seems to be the mindset of some for whatever reason.

I can't fathom the anger reaction either....

[Lord Jade Cross]

As far as I understand you are saying, that from the perspective of evolution everyone should want to have children in order to1) carry on one's "bloodline", for whatever that means and2) ensure the survival of the species. I disagree. A person doesn't need to have children to carry on their bloodline and not everyone needs to have children for the species to survive. In fact, "too many" humans in the world is a bad thing, but that's a different story.Here is why I disagree: (1) From a biological point of view our parents and siblings are as precious to us as our children, because they have the same amount of genes, which match ours. Actually a human's genes are almost identical with another animal's genes. There's only a tiny amount, which is specifically "human". Inside of this tiny amount which is "human", there are genes which are more similar to our own. Our family has more of our genes than strangers have. When you have children, they have half of specifically your genes. This is the same amount that your parents and siblings have. And this is "only" half of what you have. In other words, we are designed to care for ourselves first, and then to take care of our parents, siblings and children. Our uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces have the same amount of our own genes as our grandchildren do.In other words, just because somebody never has children, it doesn't mean that this person's bloodline dies. (2) The species survives, when the birthrate is higher than the deathrate. Everyone having children doesn't ensure the survival of the species. There are more factors than this. For example, helping each other and helping to raise the children of family members lowers the death rates. In this context there's no reason at all for everyone to have children.

And that's still all just biological stuff. We aren't just animals. That sense of "me" that we want to perpetuate isn't rooted in genes. It's related to mentality, knowledge and so on. We don't need children to carry on our genes, we need them to carry on our sense of self. Children are probably the most complete way to do that, because we can educate them on everything relevant to life. Teaching in its various forms can also be a way to do so, but in that case you can only perpetuate a specific aspect of yourself, and that can be dangerous. For instance, what if you teach someone your understanding of science, and they use it to build a weapon of mass destruction? It used to be the case that along with knowledge, a teacher would also pass on their understanding of ethics and the like, but in modern society this has been largely stopped because it wouldn't be beneficial for the "economy".(Edit: Fixed the "We aren't animals" bit.. of course we're animals. Silly me.)

This is one of the thought that I always keep coming back to in search of answers.

[Tarfeather]

This was my reaction when a young friend posted about their Ace orientation in a thread.

I'll not sugar coat it or change it, I'm posting the exact quote.

"As for the Ace thing, I had to look it up, it's your choice of course (or maybe it's not I don't know enough about it and not my business) but it breaks my heart a bit. Mostly, I'm sure, because I get so much pleasure from sex that I can't imagine being asexual or indifferent. That being said, obviously I don't understand it but I hope you find contentment/happiness in that."

She was not offended but someone else seemed to be and said that it could be considered offensive and degrading. That it could be that I'm saying there something wrong with her. I don't see that nor obviously was that my intent as she is a friend.

So my question is, "is it offensive and if so why?" I consider myself a kind and open minded person with every empathy to marginalized groups but I also think that the current state of "everything offends everybody" has gotten out of control. I am not easily offended so maybe this is why I don't see it.

I don't mind admitting I'm wrong if someone can convince me I am. Please explain....

Mizzy

That doesn't seem offensive or degrading at all. It's not "considerate", but nobody can expect you to be considerate of something that you don't (yet) understand. I'm sure you see things differently now that you know more about asexuality.

[Philip027]

This was my reaction when a young friend posted about their Ace orientation in a thread.

I'll not sugar coat it or change it, I'm posting the exact quote.

"As for the Ace thing, I had to look it up, it's your choice of course (or maybe it's not I don't know enough about it and not my business) but it breaks my heart a bit. Mostly, I'm sure, because I get so much pleasure from sex that I can't imagine being asexual or indifferent. That being said, obviously I don't understand it but I hope you find contentment/happiness in that."

She was not offended but someone else seemed to be and said that it could be considered offensive and degrading. That it could be that I'm saying there something wrong with her. I don't see that nor obviously was that my intent as she is a friend.

So my question is, "is it offensive and if so why?" I consider myself a kind and open minded person with every empathy to marginalized groups but I also think that the current state of "everything offends everybody" has gotten out of control. I am not easily offended so maybe this is why I don't see it.

I don't mind admitting I'm wrong if someone can convince me I am. Please explain....

Mizzy

I wouldn't call it offensive, just a wee bit ignorant. It is indeed not a choice of ours to be this way, so some people will get snippy at the implication that it's a choice. Plus, what you say comes across as pity, and not everyone likes that.

[Guest]

This was my reaction when a young friend posted about their Ace orientation in a thread.

I'll not sugar coat it or change it, I'm posting the exact quote.

"As for the Ace thing, I had to look it up, it's your choice of course (or maybe it's not I don't know enough about it and not my business) but it breaks my heart a bit. Mostly, I'm sure, because I get so much pleasure from sex that I can't imagine being asexual or indifferent. That being said, obviously I don't understand it but I hope you find contentment/happiness in that."

She was not offended but someone else seemed to be and said that it could be considered offensive and degrading. That it could be that I'm saying there something wrong with her. I don't see that nor obviously was that my intent as she is a friend.

So my question is, "is it offensive and if so why?" I consider myself a kind and open minded person with every empathy to marginalized groups but I also think that the current state of "everything offends everybody" has gotten out of control. I am not easily offended so maybe this is why I don't see it.

I don't mind admitting I'm wrong if someone can convince me I am. Please explain....

Mizzy

It's a bit ignorant, but you admitted you didn't know much about it. So, that's to be expected. On the "ignorance scale" it's pretty low. But, the offensive bits were the "choice" part (as it's not a choice, many would happily choose to be "normal" if they could and have spent YEARS trying to change). And the "it breaks my heart bit" - cause you personally getting enjoyment doesn't mean everyone needs to and there is no reason to pity for it. My friend gets enjoyment out of roller coasters, but I don't feel I am missing anything there either. So, to make it seem like there is some big magical experience we are cut off from and it's "sad" can be seen as offensive. Like, we're "broken people" rather than just different.

Now, obviously, offending wasn't your intent. And you admitted ignorance to start, so getting mad at you over your self-admitted lack of knowledge is a bit harsh. A reasoned explanation as to why the two things are not the best way to word a response would be more helpful, if someone was truly wanting to educate and get someone to understand what they said could be offensive.

[flesh-pocket]

This was my reaction when a young friend posted about their Ace orientation in a thread.

I'll not sugar coat it or change it, I'm posting the exact quote.

"As for the Ace thing, I had to look it up, it's your choice of course (or maybe it's not I don't know enough about it and not my business) but it breaks my heart a bit. Mostly, I'm sure, because I get so much pleasure from sex that I can't imagine being asexual or indifferent. That being said, obviously I don't understand it but I hope you find contentment/happiness in that."

She was not offended but someone else seemed to be and said that it could be considered offensive and degrading. That it could be that I'm saying there something wrong with her. I don't see that nor obviously was that my intent as she is a friend.

So my question is, "is it offensive and if so why?" I consider myself a kind and open minded person with every empathy to marginalized groups but I also think that the current state of "everything offends everybody" has gotten out of control. I am not easily offended so maybe this is why I don't see it.

I don't mind admitting I'm wrong if someone can convince me I am. Please explain....

Mizzy

i think its mostly just patronizing more than anything else. "you don't like sports? oh, i'm so sorry. i hope you can still be happy in life, though you will miss out on so much joy, i don't know how you could...."

no ones looking for pity or sympathy when they are just stating theyer sexuality. your response made it sound like you were reacting to them starting a restrictive diet or becoming a nun or something. a sexuality is not just a group you decide to up and join, shed be the same amount asexual if she hadn't told anyone or even had sex. you said you were ignorant though, so you cant be blamed too harshly in this. just think how you would have reacted if instead she said she was gay?

[animanova]

Perhaps it is that some people cannot wrap their heads around a concept so unique and different from their own lifestyle so they decide to act rudely toward what they don't understand. Maybe they fear it, maybe it's a wrong sort of compassion when thinking that they're trying to help someone and they don't know how to respond to something so different. Their heart may (or may not) be in the right place, but they're going about it the wrong way. If it's not the wrong sort of compassion, then it's just bigotry and fear of the unknown.

I apologize you've dealt with such horrible responses. In my own experiences, I have dealt with all of those as well. No matter how many times it happens, the pain is still very much there. Especially when you hear those things from loved ones.