Jump to content

If there was an 'asexual city', would you move there?


ily

Asexual City  

  1. 1. Would you move to it?

    • Yes, wherever it was
      89
    • Yes, within my country
      81
    • Yes, within my continent
      19
    • Yes, hinging on another factor (please explain)
      44
    • No
      95
    • Other (please explain too!)
      22

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

I'm slightly confused, would we be building this city? or invading a city that already exists?.........because i'm not much good at building, ^_^ invading on the otherhand.....

Invading. (But nicely.)

I'll get the pitchforks...

But seriously, I probably wouldn't move to such a city, unless everything else about the city was also good, particularly things like the quality of universities in the area.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm slightly confused, would we be building this city? or invading a city that already exists?.........because i'm not much good at building, ^_^ invading on the otherhand.....

Invading. (But nicely.)

Yes! A bloodless coup! (All smothering!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a nice idea, but living at the mercy of the academic job market, I doubt I'll ever get to choose the city in which I reside.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Eurasian_Dreamer

In a realistic setting, I don't think I'd move there because there are so many other factors that go into where a person chooses to live - career, family, type of place, all that. I would definitely want to visit though. If we're talking idealistically and it happened to be the exact kinda place I'd want to live and work, then yeah, I'd totally move there, but at that point asexuality almost seems like a side bonus, you know?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on the importance you put on asexuality.

Some of us would not consider any other kind of relationship.

I, for one, would prefer to live among people who I know are above sexuality.

If there was an "A"bar (as mentioned in other topics) I would travel quite some distance to visit it.

So, an entire city of asexuals would make me very comfortable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be nice where there are more of us than in other cities. Not just us, but lots of us comparatively. And although there are some places I'd like to try living in, I have no set plan for where I will be later in life. So I would probably move there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I would. Even though I'm sexual I still get tired of living in an over-sexed society and if I could have any relief from that I'd gladly take it. If sexuals were allowed in an A city if there ever was one I'd move there. I'm not looking for any kind of relationships so that wouldn't be a factor..just being around people who are either uninterested in sex or just don't talk about it or whatever would be nice

Link to post
Share on other sites
There are plenty of 'gay villages' throughout the country, and they are all basically districts of larger cities.

If there was an asexual city it would probably be the same thing, just an urbanized area with a higher asexual concentration than the national average.

Hm ... my city has a sort of gay district too. And if there would be an asexual district I'd move there.

Anyway, an asexual city or an asexual district in, let's say san francisco, would be great publicity for the asexual world :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, an A district where I can give as many hugs, hold as many hands and smooch as many faces as I like and never have it miss-interpreted as an indication of a desire to take it any further? Where do I sign up? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would definitely live in an area with a high Asexual concentration! It wouldn't need to be "built", it would be an already existing place. And as others have said, it wouldn't be exclusively for aces, just alot of us.

If AVEN is an indication of all asexuals in general, then having a good Uni there (or near by) would be a given. Ditto for cultural access and rural as well as urban.

Many minority groups have already done this. San Francisco has already been mentioned. There are the Amish concentrated in Pennsylvania. The Danish community in Solvang, So. Cal. Many, many Artist "colonies" worldwide. Many Deaf communities. I used to work with the deaf community. They tend to concentrate in areas where the schools have a good deaf program. In fact, in NY (I think it's Rochester) that city is known as a "deaf" city. Of course, the majority of people are not deaf, but it's called that because of the concentration of deaf people. It started with the schools, and the Uni is very deaf-friendly. It attracted so many deaf people that now many "normal" places automatically adjusted. Deaf people can freely go to everyday places such as the banks, post office, doctors, shops, theaters, etc., and sign language is used (at least enough to get by) by the hearing people. There have been many entire hearing families that have moved there because they had one deaf family member. Deaf people know that they are accepted as perfectly normal people, and not stared at for using sign language (for example) like they are in areas without a deaf concentration.

So, yes to an A city!

But for starters, a holiday/vacation place for Asexuals would be fantastic!!

Sign me up! 8) :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd move within my country, but I'm too close to my family to move abroad. My reason is that is that at this rate, although I'm young and busy enough for it to not bother me much now, I'm going to end up quite lonely, as a romantic asexual. I'm surprised this isn't the number one reason people are saying they would move. The probability of anyone I ever like romantically being asexual is very low, and I don't think it would work out well for me to date sexuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I used to work with the deaf community.

In what way? I'm curious because I was an ASL interpreter right before I joined AVEN.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Many minority groups have already done this. San Francisco has already been mentioned. There are the Amish concentrated in Pennsylvania. The Danish community in Solvang, So. Cal. Many, many Artist "colonies" worldwide. Many Deaf communities. I used to work with the deaf community. They tend to concentrate in areas where the schools have a good deaf program. In fact, in NY (I think it's Rochester) that city is known as a "deaf" city. Of course, the majority of people are not deaf, but it's called that because of the concentration of deaf people. It started with the schools, and the Uni is very deaf-friendly. It attracted so many deaf people that now many "normal" places automatically adjusted. Deaf people can freely go to everyday places such as the banks, post office, doctors, shops, theaters, etc., and sign language is used (at least enough to get by) by the hearing people. There have been many entire hearing families that have moved there because they had one deaf family member. Deaf people know that they are accepted as perfectly normal people, and not stared at for using sign language (for example) like they are in areas without a deaf concentration.

Interesting! That's the sort of thing I was thinking of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd probably consider it, were it not all that far away from where I am now. Part of me wants to entirely dismiss the appeal of such of a place, but I think the idea of being around other asexuals would outweigh most other factors.

I like my friends and family to pack up and move across the continent or something though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I used to work with the deaf community.

In what way? I'm curious because I was an ASL interpreter right before I joined AVEN.

(This is regarding Canada & US).

I was an interpreter too, but alot of ASL interpreters didn't approve because I interpreted using S.E.E., not ASL.

The reason I used Signed English (not cued english) was because I worked with children. I think it's important that they learn english and then they easily switch to ASL at about Middle School age. By the time they switch to ASL they have excellent english reading & writing skills, which isn't usually the case with children who only learned ASL.

I definitely agree that ASL is preferable for adults because it makes more sense as a visual only language. The kids who learned SEE seem to pick up ASL very rapidly and keep their solid foundation of english reading/writing.

Also, CIs are getting more common and many of the kids had them, so SEE was helpful for that reason too.

Although adults don't use SEE, I have been approached, by more than one ASL only adult, who wanted me to use SEE with them because they were embarrassed by their lack of English and wanted to learn more. They didn't want to use SEE for regular communication----only for English practice.

Btw, I don't know ASL :redface:. I learned BSL in Scotland, then learned SEE in the US, (then gradually lost BSL to SEE :rolleyes: ) but never learned ASL (although there are many signs common to both SEE and ASL).

Link to post
Share on other sites
I used to work with the deaf community.

In what way? I'm curious because I was an ASL interpreter right before I joined AVEN.

(This is regarding Canada & US).

I was an interpreter too, but alot of ASL interpreters didn't approve because I interpreted using S.E.E., not ASL.

The reason I used Signed English (not cued english) was because I worked with children. I think it's important that they learn english and then they easily switch to ASL at about Middle School age. By the time they switch to ASL they have excellent english reading & writing skills, which isn't usually the case with children who only learned ASL.

I definitely agree that ASL is preferable for adults because it makes more sense as a visual only language. The kids who learned SEE seem to pick up ASL very rapidly and keep their solid foundation of english reading/writing.

Also, CIs are getting more common and many of the kids had them, so SEE was helpful for that reason too.

Although adults don't use SEE, I have been approached, by more than one ASL only adult, who wanted me to use SEE with them because they were embarrassed by their lack of English and wanted to learn more. They didn't want to use SEE for regular communication----only for English practice.

Btw, I don't know ASL :redface:. I learned BSL in Scotland, then learned SEE in the US, (then gradually lost BSL to SEE :rolleyes: ) but never learned ASL (although there are many signs common to both SEE and ASL).

Well, that's what SEE was created for: to help children learn English. I can use SEE but I rarely do. The biggest difference between the two is that SEE has added signs for English parts of speech and English sentence structure. Almost all of the vocabulary is borrowed from ASL.

I interpreted in a college setting so most of my clients preferred ASL but if the client wanted SEE I used SEE. I was never proficient though so they usually got a different 'terp who was.

I prefer ASL for communication because it's more visually oriented. I'm also very fond of ASL classifiers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, that's what SEE was created for: to help children learn English. I can use SEE but I rarely do. The biggest difference between the two is that SEE has added signs for English parts of speech and English sentence structure. Almost all of the vocabulary is borrowed from ASL.

I interpreted in a college setting so most of my clients preferred ASL but if the client wanted SEE I used SEE. I was never proficient though so they usually got a different 'terp who was.

I prefer ASL for communication because it's more visually oriented. I'm also very fond of ASL classifiers.

Sorry. I was being a bit defensive in my post because of a few bad experiences with ASL interpreters, and not knowing how you'd personally react to the dreaded word, "SEE".

My response to them (the critics) was exactly what you said, "Well, that's what SEE was created for: to help children learn English." They acted like I was committing a crime by using it. One said (sneered) to me, "You need to go to (XYZ) school. They won't allow it. They'll kick that SEE sign right out of you real quick."

I agree that most of the basic vocabulary in SEE is borrowed from ASL, but there's alot of modifications to many signs, plus added vocabulary, plus prefixes/suffixes, english grammer, etc. like you said. So, in my experience, deaf people who know ASL can understand SEE (although all the 'extras' are somewhat confusing to them), but hearing people who know ASL can't understand SEE.

I mostly worked with Middle School kids who were beginning the transition to ASL so we did use ASL classifiers quite a bit.

I do wish I knew ASL too though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'd enjoy a celibate community, for me an asexual community would be desirable to the extent it approximates a celibate community.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the city was nice and had job opportunities, then yes, I'd move there. But only temporarily. I'd go there for maybe a year, find my asexual soulmate and then we'd go galivanting around the world meeting all kinds of interesting people; sexual, asexual and everything in between. ^_^

In other words, life's too short and the world's too interesting for me to stick in one city for too long, regardless of its general orientation!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I chose the other option. It would depend on a lot of other factors. I wouldn't move there just because an A community, but I wouldn't not move there either. However, it would be a nice bonus and may tip the balance if I had to make a choice between to places.

If all other things were convenient I'd probably like to give it a go for a year or so, but not necessarily to settle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Naw, I don't think I'd leave all my sexual friends and family. Plus I wouldn't like the on display/zoo like factor wherein sexuals could come and watch us in our habitat sort of thing; that'd make me feel far more freakish then I do now! Lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget making a city, we should make an Asexy Theme Park! Some can work or live there, while others can visit yearly with friends and family.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

I would forge a passport if necessary!

How about an island?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I would move to asexual city, wherever it was (preferably far away from place I live in).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd live there (if it were sunny). I'm tired of watching rampant sexuality. I could do without that for the rest of my life, which won't be any 50 years more, so I'd like to spend it in a place where I'm comfortable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I'd be able to take it, haha. Being away from all my friends, and how would we decide who gets into the city or whatnot?

:lol:

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

Why would anyone want to move there? How can humanity embrace and understand each other when we divide ourselves? Second, even if you wanted to live in a community of people who were like-minded (with or without division from the rest of society), why would you do it with Asexuals? Aren't there better things, like your intellectual pursuits, or a cause you work for, or a favorite activity, that you'd rather base your life upon? I am really surprised by the poll results.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Marco - Proprietor of Doom

Wouldn't the population of the city be in constant decline? lack of reproduction and all that.

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...