Various thoughts and questions

[lylet]

Sexual male here. I recently entered into a romantic relationship with someone who claims to be asexual. I prefer to use the term "nonsexual" because I see "asexual" as being a biology term for organisms that reproduce by other means; humans reproduce sexually, but may choose not to engage in sexual activity. For that reason, I choose to use the word "nonsexual," and I'll use it for the remainder of this post. I hope you understand that I don't mean to disrespect anyone or disapprove of the words you choose to use to describe this pattern behavior. I just think that this term describes the behavior more accurately and more specifically.

 

When my partner first brought up to me the issue of her sexuality, she did it in tears and with much emotional struggle. I told her that I loved her and that I was okay with the way she is. Every time since that we have discussed it, there have been tears. She has told me that her nonsexuality doesn't bother her and that it's not something she wants to change, but her emotional state during our discussions sort of indicate otherwise to me. She lives her life normally, but any discussion about this topic leaves her quite distressed.

 

From what I've seen about ways to deal with relationships between sexual and nonsexual people, the advice always seems to be that the sexual person is the one that needs to change. And to some extent, I agree. We can't force another person to behave the way we want them to sexually. On the other hand, it's possible that the nonsexual person is nonsexual because of pathology or injury, and there's no advice given on how to find out if that's the case. My (admittedly brief and ignorant) insight into my partner's condition leaves me to believe that her nonsexuality may be the result of spinal injury, and may partially be out of fear. I genuinely believe that she and I would both be happier if I could someday show her this sexual world.

 

I'm a little hesitant to post this here, because the political attitude surrounding issues of sexuality is often quite hostile. It seems often that there can be no discussion about why someone behaves sexually the way that they do. The general trend of advice or comments seem to be something along the lines of, "They are the way they are and they can't change it and to suggest that there might be any possibility of that is bigotry." I hope I don't get anything like that here. I genuinely want to understand. Sexuality is complicated, and surely we can agree that there's a wide, wide range of reasons why people might be the way they are. So let's discuss it honestly. Human beings are biologically equipped for sexual reproduction, and for that reason, I don't think it's discriminatory to say that it might be worth exploring options for developing sexual attraction. Below, I'll use the terms "curable" and "curing", but I by no means wish to express that I believe that nonsexuality is some kind of "disease". My vocabulary just doesn't provide me with better terms right now. They're not quite right, but they get the point across, I hope.

 

All that said, I fully anticipate having an intimate and meaningful romantic relationship with my partner even if she remains nonsexual forever.

 

So, to sum it up:

How can I determine if my partner's nonsexuality is

1. "curable" (for lack of a better word), and
2. worth "curing"?

 

 

Thank you.

[Gizamaluke]

You can't 'cure' someone who doesn't want to be 'cured.'

 

Ultimately any change is usually temporary and people tend to revert back to what makes them feel most comfortable.

[Agent_Smith]

Welcome to AVEN 🍰🍰🍰! If I were you, I would just ask if your partner's sexuality was caused by trauma or injury. If not, just try to be understanding if she can't be changed. Best of luck to you Lylet!

[ryn2]

There are many reasons why a person may elect not to participate in sexual activities.  These can include, among other things, religious beliefs, medical issues (physical and/or mental), personal priorities, lack of a suitable partner, and asexuality (nonsexuality isn’t really an accurate substitute; many asexuals have sex drives and engage in masturbation, enjoy erotica/porn, etc., and some engage in sexual activities for some secondary benefit e.g., pleasing a partner or earning a living... what asexuals share is a lack of interest in partnered sexual activity for the sex alone).

 

Typically, someone who is not asexual and who is choosing not to participate in sex can clearly explain their reasons.  Also typically, someone who desires sex but is not able/afraid to engage in it due to health reasons knows this as well.  People in these categories are celibate (by choice or by necessity), not asexual.

 

Perhaps your partner is upset by discussion of the topic because she gets the sense you don’t believe her self-identification?

[NickyTannock]

@lylet Welcome to AVEN!

 

Words tend to have multiple definitions, so I don't quite understand why you'd prefer to use Nonsexual instead of Asexual, even with the explanation you've given.

 

Anyway, if she's Asexual, then she doesn't experience Sexual Attraction, which we define as leading to the desire to have sex with a specific person.
Meaning you could dial her libido up to eleven, and she still wouldn't find you or anyone else sexually attractive.
As for determining if she's Asexual or not, I don't have an answer for that.

 

Incidentally, it is a tradition here to welcome new members by offering cake,

[Lucinda]

1 hour ago, lylet said:

I genuinely believe that she and I would both be happier if I could someday show her this sexual world.

Has she indicated that she would be happier if you could show her this sexual world or is this wishful thinking on your part?

 

If you genuinely believe that you would be happier in a sexual relationship, then why not search for someone who wants to be in a sexual relationship with you or is that easier said than done, in your experience?

 

Lucinda

[Camicon]

2 hours ago, lylet said:

Sexual male here... *snip*

Homosexual. From the Greek homos, meaning "same".

Heterosexual. From the Greek heteros, meaning "other", or "different".

Asexual. From the Greek a, meaning "without" or "not".

 

Asexual literally describes exactly what we are, and far better than "nonsexual" does because "nonsexual" implies a whole host of activity that asexuals do not engage in, even though some of us do. Whether or not you use a different term to describe us is not a matter of accuracy, it's a matter of what you're comfortable with. Anyways...

 

To my knowledge, while spinal cord injuries (any injury to the nervous system) have the potential to impair the functionality of one's sexual organs, I'm not aware of any kind of trauma which correlates with people being of a particular sexual orientation. This is a long-standing myth that has been wielded against sexual minorities in order to take away their agency. And from this myth arose the idea of "curing" sexual minorities. So, yes, I'm certain you can see why sexual minorities would be hostile to any discussion that takes away their agency and delegitimizes them as a person.

 

That said, there is always the potential that someone might experience some kind of trauma that impairs the functionality of their sexual organs, and in response to this they assume they are now "asexual". Whether because they're confused about what asexuality is, or they find eschewing sex entirely is easier than being a sexual person that isn't able to fully enjoy themselves. I think that seems to be what you suspect may be the case here. That would be a discussion you need to have with your partner, though don't be surprised if they don't appreciate you second-guessing them.

 

In any event, minority sexual orientations cannot be "cured", nor are they "worth curing".

If you want the religious argument "[insert Creator here] made everyone exactly the way they are supposed to be, and that includes sexual minorities".

If you want the scientific argument "minority sexual orientations are common throughout history and across species, so they have likely provided some kind of evolutionary advantage to the species as a whole. A kind of self-regulating population control, for instance, or a means of group-care. In any event, there is nothing inherently wrong with being a sexual minority; so long as the individual is happy and not harming anyone there is no reason to change them".

[Guest]

You cannot force someone to want what you do. Even if it is caused by something, she has to want to change to change. Trying to force it or staying in the hopes it can change arent healthy choices. 

 

So, you can talk to her and ask her why she feels how she does about sexuality. But, it is up to her, not you, if she wants to change it. 

[Philip027]

Quote

Sexual male here. I recently entered into a romantic relationship with someone who claims to be asexual. I prefer to use the term "nonsexual" because I see "asexual" as being a biology term for organisms that reproduce by other means; humans reproduce sexually, but may choose not to engage in sexual activity. For that reason, I choose to use the word "nonsexual," and I'll use it for the remainder of this post. I hope you understand that I don't mean to disrespect anyone or disapprove of the words you choose to use to describe this pattern behavior. I just think that this term describes the behavior more accurately and more specifically.

You do realize words can have more than one meaning, right?

 

Idk man, but I think it's a little bit incredibly arrogant to step into a community of X people and be all like "hey, I'm going to call you Y instead because REASONS"

[Telecaster68]

25 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

I think it's a little bit incredibly arrogant to step into a community of X people and be all like "hey, I'm going to call you Y instead because REASONS"

Oh the irony.

[Ceebs]

I'm often one of the first ones to tell asexuals not to randomly come up with unnecessary labels for sexual folks that they don't use for themselves, and I'm gonna suggest the same thing here: if you're taking part in an asexual community, with people who've chosen that term for themselves, I'd suggest maybe you refer to them that way. I agree with Philip, it's ridiculously arrogant. (And this isn't coming from a place of personal offence, I'm not asexual.)

[Philip027]

Quote

Oh the irony.

Is this directed at me in particular, or are you referring to the whole "allosexual" thing that's spread like a disease around here and tumblr and such?  Because I take no credit for the latter

[Telecaster68]

4 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

Is this directed at me in particular, or are you referring to the whole "allosexual" thing that's spread like a disease around here and tumblr and such?  Because I take no credit for the latter

Not particularly directed at you specifically. More the idea of AVENites getting wound up by a non-asexual coming up with a new word which means exactly the same as an old one....

[lylet]

5 hours ago, ryn2 said:

Perhaps your partner is upset by discussion of the topic because she gets the sense you don’t believe her self-identification?

I have no reason to believe that she doesn't believe me. We're both insanely honest and open with each other.

 

 

4 hours ago, Lucinda said:

Has she indicated that she would be happier if you could show her this sexual world or is this wishful thinking on your part?

 

If you genuinely believe that you would be happier in a sexual relationship, then why not search for someone who wants to be in a sexual relationship with you or is that easier said than done, in your experience?

 

Lucinda

She has indicated the opposite, actually, but based on how she feels any time the topic is brought up (even in public by strangers), it seems obvious to me that her situation causes her an awful lot of grief. It's certainly possible that the negative emotion is a result of feeling alone or misunderstood in the broader world, but that's something I'll have to discuss with her further.

 

 

4 hours ago, Camicon said:

Homosexual. From the Greek homos, meaning "same".

Heterosexual. From the Greek heteros, meaning "other", or "different".

Asexual. From the Greek a, meaning "without" or "not".

 

Asexual literally describes exactly what we are, and far better than "nonsexual" does because "nonsexual" implies a whole host of activity that asexuals do not engage in, even though some of us do. Whether or not you use a different term to describe us is not a matter of accuracy, it's a matter of what you're comfortable with. Anyways...

 

To my knowledge, while spinal cord injuries (any injury to the nervous system) have the potential to impair the functionality of one's sexual organs, I'm not aware of any kind of trauma which correlates with people being of a particular sexual orientation. This is a long-standing myth that has been wielded against sexual minorities in order to take away their agency. And from this myth arose the idea of "curing" sexual minorities. So, yes, I'm certain you can see why sexual minorities would be hostile to any discussion that takes away their agency and delegitimizes them as a person.

 

That said, there is always the potential that someone might experience some kind of trauma that impairs the functionality of their sexual organs, and in response to this they assume they are now "asexual". Whether because they're confused about what asexuality is, or they find eschewing sex entirely is easier than being a sexual person that isn't able to fully enjoy themselves. I think that seems to be what you suspect may be the case here. That would be a discussion you need to have with your partner, though don't be surprised if they don't appreciate you second-guessing them.

 

In any event, minority sexual orientations cannot be "cured", nor are they "worth curing".

If you want the religious argument "[insert Creator here] made everyone exactly the way they are supposed to be, and that includes sexual minorities".

If you want the scientific argument "minority sexual orientations are common throughout history and across species, so they have likely provided some kind of evolutionary advantage to the species as a whole. A kind of self-regulating population control, for instance, or a means of group-care. In any event, there is nothing inherently wrong with being a sexual minority; so long as the individual is happy and not harming anyone there is no reason to change them".

I understand the etymology of the term. My only previous understanding of the word has been in a biological sense, and it seems to me that the culture surrounding minority sexualities likes using scientific terminology for political reasons, and that doesn't really sit well with me. Marginalized people don't need to be defended by the use of dishonest language games. We don't need to hijack words to legitimize our existence. And maybe that's not the case here. Language changes, words change; I understand.

I'll admit I may have been overzealous in describing all of the "asexual" community as "nonsexual". My partner is physically capable of sexual reproduction, she just doesn't feel any sexual attraction to anyone, and doesn't masturbate or watch pornography -- that sounds like "nonsexual" to me more than "asexual." But you guys can call it whatever you want, and I don't have a problem with it.  So I'll withdraw on my first thought a bit. I was projecting my second-hand experience of the phenomenon onto the entire community of asexual people. Having never been non- or asexual myself, I'm obviously coming from a place of ignorance, so I appreciate any patience with me that you can muster. I'll still refer to my partner as "nonsexual" though. I've discussed it with her even, and she's okay with that term.

 

Something else I don't understand is the description of asexuality as an "orientation". It seems to me that it's more the lack of an orientation, in the same way that atheism is not a religion. But we could argue about that too, I suppose. Can you help me to understand what makes it a separate orientation rather than a lack thereof?

 

The real presence of anomalous (and it is anomalous, make no mistake) sexual behavior isn't an indication that it's evolutionarily advantageous, either. Variation among individuals in a species is important -- the specific variations themselves are not "chosen" or necessarily "useful".

I feel that I must state that "anomalous" is not the same as "bad" and that I'm not implying asexual people shouldn't exist or aren't real people.

 

And I'll agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with being a sexual minority. I've never argued otherwise. I'm trying to find out if there is something wrong with my partner. If an injury or some kind of fear is holding her back from typical sexual behavior, then it would make sense to think about trying to do something about it. Such a situation is clearly pathological, and not innate, and is, as such, worth considering a correction. She may disagree, and if that's the case, okay. I myself have physical limitations that I don't feel need to be fixed. As I said in my first post, I'm confident that our relationship will remain intimate and meaningful even if she remains nonsexual forever.

 

 

59 minutes ago, CBC said:

I'm often one of the first ones to tell asexuals not to randomly come up with unnecessary labels for sexual folks that they don't use for themselves, and I'm gonna suggest the same thing here: if you're taking part in an asexual community, with people who've chosen that term for themselves, I'd suggest maybe you refer to them that way. I agree with Philip, it's ridiculously arrogant. (And this isn't coming from a place of personal offence, I'm not asexual.)

There's nothing random about it, and as I've said, I'm more than okay with whatever terms you want to use. And there's a good reason why I said in my post that I would use it "for the remainder of this post". It's something I wanted to discuss; if I was shown to be wrong (and I was), I would change (and will change, at least in most cases).

[Philip027]

Quote

My only previous understanding of the word has been in a biological sense

Not an excuse.  You're here now on an asexuality website, so broaden your mind a little bit.

 

Quote

and it seems to me that the culture surrounding minority sexualities likes using scientific terminology for political reasons, and that doesn't really sit well with me.

Political reasons?  Try "having a simple one-word descriptor to convey sexual orientation"; you know, like how heterosexuals and homosexuals probably wanted for themselves.

 

For that matter, I wouldn't call slapping an a- prefix on something any more significantly "scientific" than slapping a non- prefix on something.

[Camicon]

43 minutes ago, lylet said:

I understand the etymology of the term. My only previous understanding of the word has been in a biological sense, and it seems to me that the culture surrounding minority sexualities likes using scientific terminology for political reasons, and that doesn't really sit well with me. Marginalized people don't need to be defended by the use of dishonest language games. We don't need to hijack words to legitimize our existence. And maybe that's not the case here. Language changes, words change; I understand.

Sexual minorities use scientific terminology because it is precise, and precise communication is important when you're trying to explain things to people that have no frame of reference for the subject. Also because bigots like to try and muddle things, and precise language is one way to combat that. It's not a way to legitimize our existence, but it is a way to help explain it to those who don't understand, and defend it against those who don't want others to understand.

 

9 minutes ago, lylet said:

Something else I don't understand is the description of asexuality as an "orientation". It seems to me that it's more the lack of an orientation, in the same way that atheism is not a religion. But we could argue about that too, I suppose. Can you help me to understand what makes it a separate orientation rather than a lack thereof?

 

The real presence of anomalous (and it is anomalous, make no mistake) sexual behavior isn't an indication that it's evolutionarily advantageous, either. Variation among individuals in a species is important -- the specific variations themselves are not "chosen" or necessarily "useful".

I feel that I must state that "anomalous" is not the same as "bad" and that I'm not implying asexual people shouldn't exist or aren't real people.

 

And I'll agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with being a sexual minority. I've never argued otherwise. I'm trying to find out if there is something wrong with my partner. If an injury or some kind of fear is holding her back from typical sexual behavior, then it would make sense to think about trying to do something about it. Such a situation is clearly pathological, and not innate, and is, as such, worth considering a correction. She may disagree, and if that's the case, okay. I myself have physical limitations that I don't feel need to be fixed. As I said in my first post, I'm confident that our relationship will remain intimate and meaningful even if she remains nonsexual forever.

I've seen the asexual/atheist comparisons come up before. The mistake everyone seems to make is that they conflate atheism with a rejection of religion. And it is a mistake, because atheism makes no claims with regards to religion, but rather to the existence (or nonexistence) of deities (side-note: there are nontheistic religions, so it is very possible to be both atheist and religious). For a better analogy, asexuality is a sexual orientation in the same way that atheism is an opinion on the existence of God/gods. An asexual does not experience sexual attraction; an atheist does not believe in the existence of God or gods.

 

The question of how a lack of sexual attraction can be an orientation seems to stem from an understanding of sexual orientation as something like an opinion (we see this kind of mindset when people ask sexual/gender minorities "have you tried not being X", as if their sexual orientation/gender is something that they can just change their mind about). It isn't. A person's sexual orientation is simply a short-hand description of how they experience sexual attraction. Generally speaking, heterosexuals are sexually attracted to the opposite sex, homosexuals to the same sex, bisexuals to both sexes, and asexuals to nobody.

 

In terms of the evolutionary aspects, non-heterosexual behaviour is downright common in the animal kingdom, across a wide variety of species, many of whose common ancestor is very distantly related (dolphins and primates, for instance, split off about 95 million years ago). So either non-heterosexual behaviour emerged very soon after sexual reproduction did and has stuck around since, or it has emerged independently across a wide variety of sexually reproducing species throughout history. Whatever the case, this suggests that non-heterosexual behaviour provides some evolutionary advantages to the population.

 

Anyways, yes, if your partner's aversion to sex is some kind of trauma induced pathology then you might want to consider treating it. But that is contingent on a whole host of things, such as (but not limited to): is she not actually asexual, and instead suffering some kind of trauma-related pathology that is manifesting as asexual behaviour; is she unhappy with this behaviour; is this behaviour harming her, or people around her; is treatment for this behaviour something she has any interest in pursuing? And so on. But you said something in your OP that did not sit well with me:

7 hours ago, lylet said:

Human beings are biologically equipped for sexual reproduction, and for that reason, I don't think it's discriminatory to say that it might be worth exploring options for developing sexual attraction.

Being physically capable of sexually reproducing is not justification to explore options for "developing" specific sexual attractions in people. This shit is called conversion therapy, and it is incredibly unethical, immoral, and harmful. And when that's the place you're coming from, I can't help but feel immensely distrustful when you talk about asexuality potentially being "curable", or "worth curing".

[Philip027]

Quote

I've seen the asexual/atheist comparisons come up before. The mistake everyone seems to make is that they conflate atheism with a rejection of religion. And it is a mistake, because atheism makes no claims with regards to religion, but rather to the existence (or nonexistence) of deities (side-note: there are nontheistic religions, so it is very possible to be both atheist and religious).

I can pretty much guarantee you that the vast majority of people who claim atheism are doing so because they reject religion and that most people cannot conceptualize "religion" without deity figures, and that therefore your "religious atheists" are an incredible minority, probably even smaller than aces.

 

In short, it's still more or less accurate enough for the comparison to make sense.

[Camicon]

1 hour ago, Philip027 said:

I can pretty much guarantee you that the vast majority of people who claim atheism are doing so because they reject religion and that most people cannot conceptualize "religion" without deity figures, and that therefore your "religious atheists" are an incredible minority, probably even smaller than aces.

 

In short, it's still more or less accurate enough for the comparison to make sense.

It's accurate to describe most atheists as being non-religious, but it isn't accurate enough to make the comparison. Religion is not to atheism what sexual orientations are to asexuality.

[Philip027]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯  we'll have to agree to disagree there.  I think with how the majority of people interpret atheism, the comparison makes perfect sense.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Camicon said:

It's accurate to describe most atheists as being non-religious, but it isn't accurate enough to make the comparison. Religion is not to atheism what sexual orientations are to asexuality.

The A still means the same thing: 'Without'. 

 

Atheists are without religion (without a belief in a certain deity/deities)

 

Asexuals are without a desire to connect sexually with others/sexual attraction.

 

Makes sense to me *shrug*

[Camicon]

2 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯  we'll have to agree to disagree there.  I think with how the majority of people interpret atheism, the comparison makes perfect sense.

But it doesn't, because atheism isn't a religion, while asexuality is a sexual orientation. If you accept the comparison then you either have to believe that atheism is a religion or that asexuality isn't a sexual orientation.

 

Just now, Ficto. said:

The A still means the same thing: 'Without'. 

 

Atheists are without religion (without a belief in a certain deity/deities)

 

Asexuals are without a desire to connect sexually with others/sexual attraction.

 

Makes sense to me *shrug*

Atheists are without theism, but not necessarily religion. There are nontheistic religions, which atheists are perfectly capable of following while still being atheistic. That's why the atheism/religion-asexuality/sexual orientation comparison doesn't work; asexuality is a sexual orientation, but atheism is not a religion. The relationship between asexuality and orientation, and atheism and religion, is not the same, and if the relationship isn't the same then there's no valid comparison to make.

[Philip027]

Quote

But it doesn't, because atheism isn't a religion, while asexuality is a sexual orientation.

Debatable.

 

I happen to not think of it as a sexual orientation, but rather the lack of a sexual orientation... incidentally, exactly like how I (and most people) view atheism regarding religion.  Atheism, likewise, isn't a religion; it (almost always) indicates the lack of one.

[Guest]

Just now, Camicon said:

But it doesn't, because atheism isn't a religion, while asexuality is a sexual orientation. If you accept the comparison then you either have to believe that atheism is a religion or that asexuality isn't a sexual orientation.

 

Atheists are without theism, but not necessarily religion. There are nontheistic religions, which atheists are perfectly capable of following while still being atheistic. That's why the atheism/religion-asexuality/sexual orientation comparison doesn't work; asexuality is a sexual orientation, but atheism is not a religion. The relationship between asexuality and orientation, and atheism and religion, is not the same, and if the relationship isn't the same then there's no valid comparison to make.

Well then you're getting into the territory of whether or not asexuality is an orientation which is still hotly debated because many claim it's the lack of an orientation. It's a total lack of a desire to connection sexually with others, so your desire/attraction isn't directed at anyone. Normally it's the direction of that desire that defines your orientation. But that's a different topic.

 

And you're just twisting words at this point. Replace 'without religion' with 'without theism' in my previous post and you've got exactly the same thing. A lot of people have used the comparison here in the past and even if it doesn't make absolutely perfect semantic sense, people still generally get the gist of what they're saying.

[Camicon]

5 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

Debatable.

 

I happen to not think of it as a sexual orientation, but rather the lack of a sexual orientation... incidentally, exactly like how I (and most people) view atheism regarding religion.  Atheism, likewise, isn't a religion; it (almost always) indicates the lack of one.

Your sexual orientation isn't a thing that's contingent on your being attracted to someone/group in order to exist. It is a description of who you are, and are not, sexually attracted to.

 

A heterosexual is attracted to the opposite sex, but not the same sex.

A homosexual is attracted to the same sex, but not the opposite sex.

A pansexual is attracted to everyone.

An asexual is not attracted to anyone.

 

Each one is a sexual orientation.

 

1 minute ago, Ficto. said:

Well then you're getting into the territory of whether or not asexuality is an orientation which is still hotly debated because many claim it's the lack of an orientation. It's a total lack of a desire to connection sexually with others, so your desire/attraction isn't directed at anyone. Normally it's the direction of that desire that defines your orientation. But that's a different topic.

 

And you're just twisting words at this point. Replace 'without religion' with 'without theism' in my previous post and you've got exactly the same thing. A lot of people have used the comparison here in the past and even if it doesn't make absolutely perfect semantic sense, people still generally get the gist of what they're saying.

Sexual orientation is a description of who you are, and are not, sexually attracted to. As I said above, having a sexual orientation is not contingent on experiencing sexual attraction.

 

Religion and theism are not synonyms. People may understand what someone else is trying to say, vis a vis the atheism/asexuality comparison, but that doesn't mean that either party (or the comparison) is accurate.

[Philip027]

Quote

Your sexual orientation isn't a thing that's contingent on your being attracted to someone/group in order to exist.

Maybe to you it isn't.  Some of us don't like getting dictated to that we nevertheless still have a sexual orientation -- possibly because of the connotations that it carries but possibly for other reasons too -- and your insistence that we all do would be problematic and on the verge of identity policing.

[Camicon]

13 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

Maybe to you it isn't.  Some of us don't like getting dictated to that we nevertheless still have a sexual orientation, and your insistence that we all do would be problematic and on the verge of identity policing.

Let's consider a hypothetical. A girl, or a boy, exclusively heterosexual, who lives and dies in complete isolation from the other sex. They have no idea that the other sex exists. They've seen no pictures of the opposite sex, nothing to indicate that the opposite sex is a thing. They go their entire life without knowing of the opposite sex, and thus without experiencing sexual attraction.

 

Is heterosexuality still a sexual orientation under these circumstances?

 

I think, obviously, that it is. And if heterosexuality can be a sexual orientation, even if a heterosexual person never experiences sexual attraction, then asexuality can also be a sexual orientation, despite asexuals not experiencing sexual attraction.

 

But more to the point, people use sexual orientation as a description of who we are and are not attracted to. If I tell you that Person A is hetereosexual then you would not assume that they are attracted to members of the same sex. And if sexual orientation is simply a description of our sexual attractions, and our lack of sexual attractions, then why would asexuality be exempt?

 

And no, that is not identity policing.

[Philip027]

Quote

Let's consider a hypothetical. A girl, or a boy, exclusively heterosexual, who lives and dies in complete isolation from the other sex. They have no idea that the other sex exists. They've seen no pictures of the opposite sex, nothing to indicate that the opposite sex is a thing. They go their entire life without knowing of the opposite sex, and thus without experiencing sexual attraction. 

 

Is heterosexuality still a sexual orientation under these circumstances?

Does it matter?  We're practically entering Schrodinger's Cat territory here.

 

Quote

And no, that is not identity policing. 

Unfortunately, it kinda is.  If I were to go around saying I don't have a sexual orientation, and you waltz up saying "yes you do, everyone does", how is that significantly different from someone saying "I don't want sex with anybody" and someone waltzes up to them saying "yes you do, everyone does"?

[anisotrophic]

Is "pansexual" not similarly directionless?

 

PS as long as everyone faces east, we're good. (Ref to etymology of "orientation".) 😄

 

[lylet]

I can see that this discussion is going in a direction that I do not wish to follow; I believe that any further input on my end will only lead to strife, and in no small part because of my own ignorance. I must depart from this forum forever. Thank you for your replies and your insight. I will ruminate on these ideas for some time and continue to discuss the matter with my partner. I really believe that she and I are right for each other. Please believe that my desire to encourage her to become sexual with me is not purely a result of lust on my end, but motivated largely by true love and a hope for our mutual happiness.

 

Good luck out there, AVENgers. Life is difficult for all of us. We need all the support we can get. Work hard and do your best!

[Camicon]

35 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

Does it matter?  We're practically entering Schrodinger's Cat territory here.

 

Unfortunately, it kinda is.  If I were to go around saying I don't have a sexual orientation, and you waltz up saying "yes you do, everyone does", how is that significantly different from someone saying "I don't want sex with anybody" and someone waltzes up to them saying "yes you do, everyone does"?

 

It does matter, because the answer to that question informs us of whether or not sexual orientation is contingent on experiencing sexual attraction.

 

And it isn't identity policing because I'm not contesting that you're asexual. I'm pointing out an inaccurate understanding of what sexual orientation is. In much the same way that I might tell an atheist who believes that atheism is the rejection of religion that, no, atheism is the non-belief in the existence of a god(s). I am not contesting that they are atheist, I'm pointing out a factual error in their understanding of the subject.

 

Everyone has a sexual orientation, even if that sexual orientation is "no, thank you". That's not identity policing, it's a statement of fact.

 

28 minutes ago, anisotropic said:

Is "pansexual" not similarly directionless?

 

PS as long as everyone faces east, we're good. (Ref to etymology of "orientation".) 😄

I would say yes, in the sense that both pansexuality and asexuality are "all or nothing" orientations; an asexual isn't sexually attracted to anyone, and a pansexual is sexually attracted to everyone. There's no granular discrimination.

 

23 minutes ago, lylet said:

I can see that this discussion is going in a direction that I do not wish to follow; I believe that any further input on my end will only lead to strife, and in no small part because of my own ignorance. I must depart from this forum forever. Thank you for your replies and your insight. I will ruminate on these ideas for some time and continue to discuss the matter with my partner. I really believe that she and I are right for each other. Please believe that my desire to encourage her to become sexual with me is not purely a result of lust on my end, but motivated largely by true love and a hope for our mutual happiness.

 

Good luck out there, AVENgers. Life is difficult for all of us. We need all the support we can get. Work hard and do your best!

Leaving the forum isn't necessary. Lurking is great, and there are plenty of other discussions going on you might feel more comfortable with. In any event, best luck with you and your partner.