Jump to content

Uk petition to protect asexual people


Fourthdwarf

Recommended Posts

The aces in your example would be protected against discrimination in the same way as an actual lesbian couple would be.

Lucinda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since asexuals are covered under "sexual orientation", then why did you assume that asexuals weren't mentioned because no one was aware of asexuality? That latter assumption is what I was reacting to.

We are not specifically mentioned, but the point I'm trying to make is that someone can not mistreat an asexual and get away with it 'because they're an asexual'. The original thing I reacted to was correctional rape. Because yes some sick people do this, but they are not legally allowed to because it's rape! If not protected for being ace, we are protected for being human.

We all know how little recognition we, and any sexuality other then hetero, homo and bi have. And as I said, it took us until 2014 for gay marriage to be ok. At this point in time, the government have other things to deal with, and they're all useless anyway. The law won't get changed unless the government are given a good reason to do so, and 1% of people who have to justify their existence constantly are not enough to specifically care about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How are aces protected from discrimination more than gay and bi people are?

If the law protects people from discrimination because of their sexual orientations, how would aces NOT be protected?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed that many aromantic asexuals prefer QP relationships with those of their same gender.

If, for example, two aro ace women are living together, co-sleeping, sharing finances, getting married for tax benefits, describing each other as partners or as being in a relationship, holding hands, cuddling, kissing, co-parenting, going to dinner (and other date-type outings) together, or some combination of the above, they're going to be read as a lesbian couple about as often as an ACTUAL lesbian couple would be. They're probably going to be discriminated against as much as a lesbian couple would be.

Same goes for aro ace men doing the same things.

How are aces protected from discrimination more than gay and bi people are?

The aces in your example would be protected against discrimination in the same way as an actual lesbian couple would be.

Lucinda

I would also like to point out that the UK is very chill with sexuality's. I can't speak for the entirety of England but the older generation are the ones with the main problems with sexuality. Also the UK doesn't tend to care as much about religion as other places do either, we're not as fundamental, so while said couple would still face some discrimination, they would't be attacked. If they were then the law wouldn't stand for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How are aces protected from discrimination more than gay and bi people are?

If the law protects people from discrimination because of their sexual orientations, how would aces NOT be protected?

They are protected. But there have been people, on this thread and off it, who have said that aces and aros aren't discriminated against unless they're attracted to their same gender.

In a practical sense, I believe that's more or less true. People aren't discriminated against for not having sex, but they are discriminated against for seeming gay. That's not a protection issue, it's an issue of... people hate gays and think it's against God, whereas people just don't care as much if you don't wanna have sex. Not enough to fire or kill ya or whatever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How are aces protected from discrimination more than gay and bi people are?

If the law protects people from discrimination because of their sexual orientations, how would aces NOT be protected?

They are protected. But there have been people, on this thread and off it, who have said that aces and aros aren't discriminated against unless they're attracted to their same gender.

Was it legal discrimination ie(you can't get this medical treatment because you're ace) or social ie(Oh, is that a hormone problem?), and where they all in the UK? This is a UK petition after all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the actual text of the law (the relevant section, anyhow):

12Sexual orientation

(1)Sexual orientation means a person's sexual orientation towards—

(a)persons of the same sex,

(b)persons of the opposite sex, or

©persons of either sex.

(2)In relation to the protected characteristic of sexual orientation—

(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person who is of a particular sexual orientation;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same sexual orientation.

Now, please, someone, tell me how asexuality isn't covered.

Technically asexuality is covered by that, I agree with you there.

What bothers me is how the law is applied in practice. When filling in a form relating to the equality act, I could have identified as homosexual woman (which is pretty unlikely because I am not a woman), but not as asexual. The only options I had were "other" or "do not want to disclose". I chose the "do not want to disclose" option, because I simply did not feel comfortable with choosing "other" without having a possibility to specify it. Maybe in a far future, when everybody in every HR department in this country knows about asexuality, I will consider the "other" option.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree with the intent of this petition but idk if people understand the purpose of a petition sometimes

Link to post
Share on other sites

So far as I can see, the only area in British law where there is a possibility that asexuals are open to discrimination is the divorce court. Non-consummation is a grounds for divorce, even if both parties entered the marriage knowing that one, or both were asexual.

There is one point where a petition could be useful, as others have already said, raising awareness of asexuality. A debate in parliament concerning a sexual orientation that 90%+ of the population have never heard of may be of benefit there, but otherwise how do you differentiate between asexual and between relationships without asking extremely personal questions of any person currently single?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the actual text of the law (the relevant section, anyhow):

12Sexual orientation

(1)Sexual orientation means a person's sexual orientation towards—

(a)persons of the same sex,

(b)persons of the opposite sex, or

©persons of either sex.

(2)In relation to the protected characteristic of sexual orientation—

(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person who is of a particular sexual orientation;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same sexual orientation.

Now, please, someone, tell me how asexuality isn't covered.

Technically asexuality is covered by that, I agree with you there.

What bothers me is how the law is applied in practice. When filling in a form relating to the equality act, I could have identified as homosexual woman (which is pretty unlikely because I am not a woman), but not as asexual. The only options I had were "other" or "do not want to disclose". I chose the "do not want to disclose" option, because I simply did not feel comfortable with choosing "other" without having a possibility to specify it. Maybe in a far future, when everybody in every HR department in this country knows about asexuality, I will consider the "other" option.

I agree. I think that an other box would be best, that you can write in your orientation, because of all the range of sexuality's. Or maybe an 'asexual spectrum' box, that will cover a few. I ticked 'other' on my UCAS app, and I was just happy to have that opportunity to be honest :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

So far as I can see, the only area in British law where there is a possibility that asexuals are open to discrimination is the divorce court. Non-consummation is a grounds for divorce, even if both parties entered the marriage knowing that one, or both were asexual.

There is one point where a petition could be useful, as others have already said, raising awareness of asexuality. A debate in parliament concerning a sexual orientation that 90%+ of the population have never heard of may be of benefit there, but otherwise how do you differentiate between asexual and between relationships without asking extremely personal questions of any person currently single?

I would argue that if sex is such an issue that you'd want to divorce over it, then you should have that right. After all, how can a relationship be positive if one or both parties have a huge issue with the sexual side?

I agree with you on the parliament side, but mp's are not forced to attend parliament at any time. I doubt anyone would show up to a debate over us, because we are so few and so invisible. We'd get visibility if argued in parliament but that won't happen unless we get visibility, hence the pointlessness of the petition. It sucks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the actual text of the law (the relevant section, anyhow):

12Sexual orientation

(1)Sexual orientation means a person's sexual orientation towards—

(a)persons of the same sex,

(b)persons of the opposite sex, or

©persons of either sex.

(2)In relation to the protected characteristic of sexual orientation—

(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person who is of a particular sexual orientation;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same sexual orientation.

Now, please, someone, tell me how asexuality isn't covered.

Technically asexuality is covered by that, I agree with you there.

What bothers me is how the law is applied in practice. When filling in a form relating to the equality act, I could have identified as homosexual woman (which is pretty unlikely because I am not a woman), but not as asexual. The only options I had were "other" or "do not want to disclose". I chose the "do not want to disclose" option, because I simply did not feel comfortable with choosing "other" without having a possibility to specify it. Maybe in a far future, when everybody in every HR department in this country knows about asexuality, I will consider the "other" option.

Why???? OMG seriously??? What is with this obsession with people knowing your specific sexual preferences??? Why on earth is no one in this thread advocating for removing sexual orientation entirely? Do you realize that adding "asexuality" will also mean adding a million other things too, and that the addition of NONE OF THEM was legally necessary??? How have we come to the point where people have nothing better to do than cry because they have to check "other" instead of their preferred sexual label? Jesus christ on a cross, man. I can't even. If no one is being discriminated against about their orientation, who cares if people know your exact one? No one knows my favorite food but I don't go around crying about the fact that I don't get to write it into forms. It just seems so incredibly self-centered to me. Get over yourself, man. That's some major dredging just to find a "harm", if the best you can do is "I have to check 'other' instead of 'asexual'".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the actual text of the law (the relevant section, anyhow):

12Sexual orientation

(1)Sexual orientation means a person's sexual orientation towards—

(a)persons of the same sex,

(b)persons of the opposite sex, or

©persons of either sex.

(2)In relation to the protected characteristic of sexual orientation—

(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person who is of a particular sexual orientation;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same sexual orientation.

Now, please, someone, tell me how asexuality isn't covered.

Technically asexuality is covered by that, I agree with you there.

What bothers me is how the law is applied in practice. When filling in a form relating to the equality act, I could have identified as homosexual woman (which is pretty unlikely because I am not a woman), but not as asexual. The only options I had were "other" or "do not want to disclose". I chose the "do not want to disclose" option, because I simply did not feel comfortable with choosing "other" without having a possibility to specify it. Maybe in a far future, when everybody in every HR department in this country knows about asexuality, I will consider the "other" option.

Why???? OMG seriously??? What is with this obsession with people knowing your specific sexual preferences??? Why on earth is no one in this thread advocating for removing sexual orientation entirely? Do you realize that adding "asexuality" will also mean adding a million other things too, and that the addition of NONE OF THEM was legally necessary??? How have we come to the point where people have nothing better to do than cry because they have to check "other" instead of their preferred sexual label? Jesus christ on a cross, man. I can't even. If no one is being discriminated against about their orientation, who cares if people know your exact one? No one knows my favorite food but I don't go around crying about the fact that I don't get to write it into forms. It just seems so incredibly self-centered to me. Get over yourself, man. That's some major dredging just to find a "harm", if the best you can do is "I have to check 'other' instead of 'asexual'".

100%, i don't consider that to be anywhere close to discrimination. i just think that asexuals prefer to have the chance to tick the "asexual" box since there are so few other ways we get to be visible. we can't just casually bring up a same-sex partner, or talk about hrt. :)

also think removing the orientation question from the form is a viable option. if people are gonna ask, though, i'd like to have the option to tell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the actual text of the law (the relevant section, anyhow):

12Sexual orientation

(1)Sexual orientation means a person's sexual orientation towards—

(a)persons of the same sex,

(b)persons of the opposite sex, or

©persons of either sex.

(2)In relation to the protected characteristic of sexual orientation—

(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person who is of a particular sexual orientation;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same sexual orientation.

Now, please, someone, tell me how asexuality isn't covered.

Technically asexuality is covered by that, I agree with you there.

What bothers me is how the law is applied in practice. When filling in a form relating to the equality act, I could have identified as homosexual woman (which is pretty unlikely because I am not a woman), but not as asexual. The only options I had were "other" or "do not want to disclose". I chose the "do not want to disclose" option, because I simply did not feel comfortable with choosing "other" without having a possibility to specify it. Maybe in a far future, when everybody in every HR department in this country knows about asexuality, I will consider the "other" option.

Why???? OMG seriously??? What is with this obsession with people knowing your specific sexual preferences??? Why on earth is no one in this thread advocating for removing sexual orientation entirely? Do you realize that adding "asexuality" will also mean adding a million other things too, and that the addition of NONE OF THEM was legally necessary??? How have we come to the point where people have nothing better to do than cry because they have to check "other" instead of their preferred sexual label? Jesus christ on a cross, man. I can't even. If no one is being discriminated against about their orientation, who cares if people know your exact one? No one knows my favorite food but I don't go around crying about the fact that I don't get to write it into forms. It just seems so incredibly self-centered to me. Get over yourself, man. That's some major dredging just to find a "harm", if the best you can do is "I have to check 'other' instead of 'asexual'".

We don't disagree here. My point is, if they absolutely have to ask me, they should at least give me the chance to specify (it could literally just be "other - please specify").

You are aware that "other" also includes sexual orientations that are harmful to our society and furthermore illegal? Or do you deny their existence?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are aware that "other" also includes sexual orientations that are harmful to our society and furthermore illegal? Or do you deny their existence?

Oh yes, whenever I mark "other" on any form, I figure that whoever's reading the form will assume that I'm the equivalent of an ax murderer. That is, if they give a shit, which they don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are aware that "other" also includes sexual orientations that are harmful to our society and furthermore illegal? Or do you deny their existence?

Oh yes, whenever I mark "other" on any form, I figure that whoever's reading the form will assume that I'm the equivalent of an ax murderer. That is, if they give a shit, which they don't.

For most jobs you might be right. But for people who, like me, need at least a minimum level of security clearance, or work in any sensitive areas, it is relevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are aware that "other" also includes sexual orientations that are harmful to our society and furthermore illegal? Or do you deny their existence?

Oh yes, whenever I mark "other" on any form, I figure that whoever's reading the form will assume that I'm the equivalent of an ax murderer. That is, if they give a shit, which they don't.

For most jobs you might be right. But for people who, like me, need at least a minimum level of security clearance, or work in any sensitive areas, it is relevant.

Then mark whatever you think would be best. It's not as though this was 1940 and you were a paired homosexual and had to hide anything. If you're not going to be having sex, just WHAT could anyone find out about you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are aware that "other" also includes sexual orientations that are harmful to our society and furthermore illegal? Or do you deny their existence?

Oh yes, whenever I mark "other" on any form, I figure that whoever's reading the form will assume that I'm the equivalent of an ax murderer. That is, if they give a shit, which they don't.

For most jobs you might be right. But for people who, like me, need at least a minimum level of security clearance, or work in any sensitive areas, it is relevant.

Then mark whatever you think would be best. It's not as though this was 1940 and you were a paired homosexual and had to hide anything. If you're not going to be having sex, just WHAT could anyone find out about you?
And the better question is, would they even give a damn if they knew you ain't into getting some? Lemme remember the last time anyone gave a damn (Experience). Hmmm.... Never.
Link to post
Share on other sites

My position: asexuals don't need to be added because 1) they don't face discrimination, 2) any discrimination they do face will be because of being in same-sex relationships, which fall under the homosexual umbrella, and 3) thinking that asexuals can be discriminated against when no others can be is a gross misunderstanding of how laws work.

I agree totally.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

So I've read this law, and it doesn't include heterosexuals, bisexuals, and homosexuals as protected classes while omitting asexuals. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which covers asexuals nicely. The words "homosexual," "bisexual," and "heterosexual" are never even mentioned.

And to everyone arguing that asexuals shouldn't be included because they don't believe acephobia's a big enough deal or is all misplaced homophobia, you'd be missing the point even if the law were as the OP says it is. The law according to the OP included heterosexuals as a protected class, and they're definitely not an oppressed group.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The laws against discrimination protect sexual orientations. We're covered.

The only legal thing I can think of that even could warrant a change for us would be immigration law. It still, technically, requires the couple be sexually active in some countries to be committed and an openly asexual and celibate couple would not fit the requirements. Otherwise, there aren't many legal issues for us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Realistically, would that involve US Immigration deciding the marriage wasn't genuine purely on the basis of lack of sex, even if it was demonstrably genuine in all other respects?

Technically, in the UK, lack of sex is grounds for divorce, as it's viewed as unreasonable conduct, but if both sides are fine with no sex, nobody external is going to annul the marriage.

Anything that is a conflict is grounds for divorce, as it should be. It just means if you're unhappy, you can legally divorce.

And interviewers for immigration have been reported to ask sex life questions to verify consummation, as it is legal grounds to deny the marriage as a fraud according to the documents. Proxy marriages (so say, you are in Aus and your spouse is in the U.S., someone could stand in as proxy for the one that can't make it due to finances or whatever, or Skype marriages for military members, etc) are also only accepted if the couple met up to have sex after the marriage, otherwise it does not count as a marriage.

From the page of an immigration lawyer:

"Before filing for any immigrant visa petition based on a marriage that has not been consummated, an immigrant should always speak to at least one competent immigration attorney about the specific facts of their case, especially since this is a complicated area that can turn on the facts."

"Whether a marriage is considered a sham(“fake”, i.e., entered into for immigration purposes only, not for love), can hinge on whether the marriage was consummated (the couple had sex). If the immigrant refuses to consummate the marriage, then it can imply that the marriage was a sham. If the US citizen resfuses to consummate the marriage, then fraud on behalf of the immigrant is NOT implicated."

Now, of course, this should mean two people who agree to not wanting sex should not be bothered. However, that would be up to your case worker and a lot of people do hold the opinion that an asexual celibate relationship is not "real".

http://www.peerallylaw.com/is-a-marriage-valid-for-immigration-purposes-even-if-not-consummated/another legal site on it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/nyregion/13fraud.html?pagewanted=all - examples of some sex life questions they might ask.

"...the man who volunteered that he had erectile dysfunction in an attempt to explain why his mate did not know the location of his nine tattoos (unsuccessful);... "

"...But then: was his wife on birth control?

“I said no,” Mr. Kahyaoglu said. “He said that could mean using condoms. I said, ‘No sir, we’re not using anything.’ ”

Separately, his wife was pressed about condom use, and said, “Once in a while.”

“How am I supposed to explain it to him?” the groom asked later. “ ‘Well, sometimes I feel like reaching into the drawer by the bed — ’?...”"

Edit: And I am sure this is just due to the fact non-sexual romantic relationships are largely still unheard of in society, rather than actively being against people who want that. In most relationships, sex is a good hint that it's a real one. But, still.

Link to post
Share on other sites

timewarp, on 16 Dec 2015 - 04:34 AM, said:

For most jobs you might be right. But for people who, like me, need at least a minimum level of security clearance, or work in any sensitive areas, it is relevant.

In the US at least, for federal employees, it's illegal to be denied a clearance based on the broad term "sexual orientation", and it's also perfectly legal to get super up in the face of (that's a legal term) anyone in the clearing process who implies that your orientation makes you a pedophile, for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My position: asexuals don't need to be added because 1) they don't face discrimination, 2) any discrimination they do face will be because of being in same-sex relationships, which fall under the homosexual umbrella, and 3) thinking that asexuals can be discriminated against when no others can be is a gross misunderstanding of how laws work.

Really? Because I was discriminated against at work for being asexual. I'm a lawyer, and had an internship in family law (collaborative law and mediation). I was told by my boss that I was unfit to represent clients in that area of law because of my sexual orientation. I was shocked, because this was a queer-friendly firm, too.

Also, no one is saying that "sexuals can be discriminated against when no others can be". There are plenty of other non-discrimination laws on the books, and no asexual person is calling for the abolishment of those laws.

Edit: I am not in a relationship, and that was part of the basis for the discriminatory comments. I was told that if I were gay/lesbian, that would be entirely different, because gay and lesbian people still form romantic and sexual partnerships with others, and so they can relate to the clients and their relationships, but because I was asexual (and not in any relationships), I was different, could not relate to clients, and therefore was unfit to work in that area of law. No one had even considered that I was "unfit" until I came out -- in fact, they seemed to think highly of me. Once I came out, things went downhill. So yes, this was specifically because I was asexual and not in a relationship. (I had also mentioned I was in the poly community, and that didn't go over well, either.)

Edit 2: This was not the only reason I left the internship, but it was a factor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because I was discriminated against at work for being asexual. I'm a lawyer, and had an internship in family law (collaborative law and mediation). I was told by my boss that I was unfit to represent clients in that area of law because of my sexual orientation. I was shocked, because this was a queer-friendly firm, too.

You disclosed your orientation to your internship supervisor? Which orientation did you say you were?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because I was discriminated against at work for being asexual. I'm a lawyer, and had an internship in family law (collaborative law and mediation). I was told by my boss that I was unfit to represent clients in that area of law because of my sexual orientation. I was shocked, because this was a queer-friendly firm, too.

You disclosed your orientation to your internship supervisor? Which orientation did you say you were?

Asexual. Remember, this was an explicitly queer-friendly firm. There's a long story about why I chose to come out and the context for it, but the short version was that I came out as ace, in the poly community, and, though I'd been in romantic relationships, grey-aromantic (though I never used this term or attached a label to my romantic orientation). A couple months later, during a session where my internship supervisor was giving me negative feedback about something else entirely unrelated, he also included his feelings about how I was unfit to represent clients in this line of work because of my sexual orientation. When I expressed shock because this was a queer-friendly firm, he drew an explicit distinction between being asexual and being gay or lesbian. He told me I could be a litigator if I wanted (I do not, it does not suit my personality type), but that he didn't think I was fit for the line of work that firm does.

It was clear that it wasn't working out between me and that firm. :(

I think he is a good man who truly didn't understand what asexuality is and is not. I also think I wasn't a good fit for that firm, but there's more to that than this piece.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"because I was asexual (and not in any relationships), I was different, could not relate to clients, and therefore was unfit to work in that area of law."

That's a stupid argument (as well as being wrong). Do the criminal lawyers have to be criminals? The corporate lawyers have to own companies? I'm surprised your lawyer bosses even thought of using it. Aren't lawyers meant to be skilled at assessing the strength of their argument?

Yes, it is stupid, I agree! But this is what I was told -- because I am asexual and semi-aromantic, I would not be able to relate to my clients' lives, and therefore could not be an effective family law mediator or family collaborative lawyer.

The thing is, people were not saying any such thing about me until I came out. But once I came out (and expressed an inability to relate to characters in a certain film -- characters, not real people, whom you can ask for clarification about things you don't understand) -- I was told I wouldn't be fit for this line of work.

As I said, I think my internship supervisor is a good man who just didn't understand what asexuality was all about. If he thought it meant "unable to feel the same range of emotions as other human beings are," which is a common misunderstanding, then I can see how he got to this point. A common misconception is that asexual people are missing some integral, major part of what it means to be human and form relationships with other people, but in reality, saying asexual people are unfit on the basis of being asexual makes as much sense as "if you're gay, you're not able to understand what it feels like to be sexually and romantically attracted to someone of the opposite sex, so you're not fit to counsel straight couples." /sigh/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, didn't know some aces had issues with their job just for being ace. Yes, I am looking at you, dash.

Realistically, would that involve US Immigration deciding the marriage wasn't genuine purely on the basis of lack of sex, even if it was demonstrably genuine in all other respects?

Technically, in the UK, lack of sex is grounds for divorce, as it's viewed as unreasonable conduct, but if both sides are fine with no sex, nobody external is going to annul the marriage.

Anything that is a conflict is grounds for divorce, as it should be. It just means if you're unhappy, you can legally divorce.

And interviewers for immigration have been reported to ask sex life questions to verify consummation, as it is legal grounds to deny the marriage as a fraud according to the documents. Proxy marriages (so say, you are in Aus and your spouse is in the U.S., someone could stand in as proxy for the one that can't make it due to finances or whatever, or Skype marriages for military members, etc) are also only accepted if the couple met up to have sex after the marriage, otherwise it does not count as a marriage.

From the page of an immigration lawyer:

"Before filing for any immigrant visa petition based on a marriage that has not been consummated, an immigrant should always speak to at least one competent immigration attorney about the specific facts of their case, especially since this is a complicated area that can turn on the facts."

"Whether a marriage is considered a sham(“fake”, i.e., entered into for immigration purposes only, not for love), can hinge on whether the marriage was consummated (the couple had sex). If the immigrant refuses to consummate the marriage, then it can imply that the marriage was a sham. If the US citizen resfuses to consummate the marriage, then fraud on behalf of the immigrant is NOT implicated."

Now, of course, this should mean two people who agree to not wanting sex should not be bothered. However, that would be up to your case worker and a lot of people do hold the opinion that an asexual celibate relationship is not "real".

http://www.peerallylaw.com/is-a-marriage-valid-for-immigration-purposes-even-if-not-consummated/another legal site on it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/nyregion/13fraud.html?pagewanted=all - examples of some sex life questions they might ask.

"...the man who volunteered that he had erectile dysfunction in an attempt to explain why his mate did not know the location of his nine tattoos (unsuccessful);... "[/size]

"...But then: was his wife on birth control?

“I said no,” Mr. Kahyaoglu said. “He said that could mean using condoms. I said, ‘No sir, we’re not using anything.’ ”

Separately, his wife was pressed about condom use, and said, “Once in a while.”

“How am I supposed to explain it to him?” the groom asked later. “ ‘Well, sometimes I feel like reaching into the drawer by the bed — ’?...”"

Edit: And I am sure this is just due to the fact non-sexual romantic relationships are largely still unheard of in society, rather than actively being against people who want that. In most relationships, sex is a good hint that it's a real one. But, still.

Well, this is the only problem that I heard of which affects asexuals legal-wise asides from Russia. Russia has much bigger problem and the russian ace I know of ism't supported by russia lgbt community and get the most hatred from them.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, didn't know some aces had issues with their job just for being ace. Yes, I am looking at you, dash.

I'm saying it can happen. I'm not saying it's common -- I don't know -- and I suspect most aces don't come out at work regardless. I'm just saying that it can happen, so folks shouldn't be quick to dismiss "you can face discrimination at work for coming out as ace" with THAT NEVER HAPPENS, UNLESS YOU'RE MISTAKEN FOR BEING GAY/LESBIAN! There are still a lot of people out there who don't know what asexual means. And though (as I said before) my former supervisor is a good guy who really missed the boat on this one, there are also some shitty bosses out there.

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...