Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

kt8

Asexuality - An orientation?

Recommended Posts

kt8

This question was brought up in the comments of the article in this post: Dan Savage

The question is: should asexuality be considered an "orientation"?

Comment #112 in the article says:

...this is where we're butting heads. If there is no sexual attraction to begin with, then it can't be about sexual attraction. It can't be about a negative. Or, a better way to put it is that it's about the lack of sexual attraction to other people. "Orientation" is all about attraction to other people.

Man, I know it's lame to pull out the old Webster's, but I think that defining our terms would be a big help: Orientation: a usually general or lasting direction of thought, inclination, or interest.

See how the definition is active? positive? Asexuality is the lack of all these. Not negative! Not lacking! Just the lack of an inclination (sex) or interest (sex) or direction of thought (about sex). Asexuality seems to be the opposite of a sexual orientation.

Now, I thought this was a really good point. So I thought about it and my response is that, as far as the question of asexuality as an orientation goes, asexuals don't really have much of a choice. We don't HAVE a sexual orientation, and yet society expects us to say that we do. Thus, we are forced to exert that asexuality IS an orientation lest we be unable to answer the question: "What is your sexual orientation?" The term "orientation" isn't really appropriate to describe how we are, but it's the only way for us to answer that question truthfully.

Your thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oliver Mundy

An absorbing question!

The Webster definition cited in the original article is a good and wise one, since it does not demand the presence or even the imagined presence of another living entity as the object of the orientation.

Is it possible that, one day, activities and interests which have no obvious sexual content will be recognised as equivalents to sexual activity, in the sense that they engage the same neurones (or whatever the correct physiological term is) and achieve the same results (transfiguration, release, a satisfaction that goes far beyond the purely intellectual)? For example, it has long been recognised that music can carry away those who play it, or even those who only listen, into regions beyond the physical world. Some people (not only asexual people, of course) are overwhelmed, uplifted and taken out of themselves by religious experiences, others by study of the natural world or even of abstract sciences such as mathematics, others by tactile sensations (a cat's fur, a sculptor's stone, cold water), others again by physical actions - horse-riding being one example whose erotic content has often been remarked. Are these not, at least potentially, 'orientations'? If they could be acknowledged as such - perhaps even validated by continuing research into the workings of the human body and mind - we would have a far better hope of casting off the stigma of incompleteness.

Oliver Mundy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kt8
An absorbing question!

The Webster definition cited in the original article is a good and wise one, since it does not demand the presence or even the imagined presence of another living entity as the object of the orientation.

Is it possible that, one day, activities and interests which have no obvious sexual content will be recognised as equivalents to sexual activity, in the sense that they engage the same neurones (or whatever the correct physiological term is) and achieve the same results (transfiguration, release, a satisfaction that goes far beyond the purely intellectual)? For example, it has long been recognised that music can carry away those who play it, or even those who only listen, into regions beyond the physical world. Some people (not only asexual people, of course) are overwhelmed, uplifted and taken out of themselves by religious experiences, others by study of the natural world or even of abstract sciences such as mathematics, others by tactile sensations (a cat's fur, a sculptor's stone, cold water), others again by physical actions - horse-riding being one example whose erotic content has often been remarked. Are these not, at least potentially, 'orientations'? If they could be acknowledged as such - perhaps even validated by continuing research into the workings of the human body and mind - we would have a far better hope of casting off the stigma of incompleteness.

Oliver Mundy.

Really interesting thought. That would be really cool, because right now, "orientation" is so biased in favor of sexual attraction to people, you really can't win.

I can just imagine it:

"What's your orientation?"

"Horse riding!"

:D

(... except that some overly sexual mind would probably add a "that's what she said" onto the end of that conversation... <_< ;))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roy(Banned)

I take "orientation" to mean "Who are you attracted to?". Many asexuals do have attraction to one gender or another, or both. Mainstream society does not seem to consider the other types of attraction, though, and asexual relationships are viewed more as strong friendships. Mostly the word seems to mean "Who do you have sex with?", in which case we would be without an orientation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pandoren

I find one of the easiest ways of explaining asexuality to people who don't understand is by way of saying that bisexual = sexual attraction to both sexes, homo/hetero= sexual attraction towards one sex and asexuality = no sexual attraction towards either sex. It sort of... completed a sexuality square (yeah, I sometimes miss out pansexual because that tends to baffle people I'm explaining to... just keeping it simple). Since I do not fall under the Orientation categories (homo, hetero, bi, pansexual) I do describe Asexuality as being my orientation since as far as I'm concerned it falls on the Orientation spectrum albeit as a lack of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gotanks0407

well if you dont get attracted to people the way other people do, arent you still describing your attractions or lack there of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sinisterporpoise

Warning: I am about to do something many online editors want to do but I personally hate doing. I've addressed this here: http://www.examiner.com/x-14275-Philadelph...ve-podcast-host. I will call myself a hypocrite and save you the trouble.

For those who hate clicking links like I do, I'll include the relevant point here:

Asexuality in some ways is like Atheism. Atheism is not a religion, but rather a lack of belief in a higher power. It attempts to answer some of the same questions religion does, but does so by saying there is no god. Asexuality is a lack of attraction. We're not interested in either gender. When someone asks about our orientation, what are we supposed to say?

Now, I agree that asexual is a poor word to describe a lack of sexual attraction, but the definition is entrenched by this point. A person who asks this question may be prying into an area of our lives that he has no business in, but if we feel compelled to answer it, asexual is the best word we have available. What is an Atheist going to ask when you ask him his religion? (This assumes he does not follow a religion that does not require a belief in a higher power, such as Buddhism.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zeki_Nelo

I agree that society seems to put emphasis on the ACT of sex rather than the strength of relationships. (It never fails to amuse me how people seem to believe asexuals are missing out on something...lol).

I remember in one of my classes we were discussing the spectrum of sexual orientation. I spoke up to point out the added dimension of high sexuality to no sexuality. (I've never seen any textbook point out THIS dimension, only including heterosexual to bisexual to homosexual.) I would argue that Asexuality IS an orientation, because the opposite of that would be Hypersexuality. At least that's what I think.

Whether or not asexuality can be classed as an orientation at all, it's probably best to label it as such to avoid confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chrysalide

I've always wondered this. I usually say asexuality is my sexual identity (instead of orientation), but I think orientation is used because of a lack of a better word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ProdeFemme
This question was brought up in the comments of the article in this post: Dan Savage

The question is: should asexuality be considered an "orientation"?

Comment #112 in the article says:

...this is where we're butting heads. If there is no sexual attraction to begin with, then it can't be about sexual attraction. It can't be about a negative. Or, a better way to put it is that it's about the lack of sexual attraction to other people. "Orientation" is all about attraction to other people.

Man, I know it's lame to pull out the old Webster's, but I think that defining our terms would be a big help: Orientation: a usually general or lasting direction of thought, inclination, or interest.

See how the definition is active? positive? Asexuality is the lack of all these. Not negative! Not lacking! Just the lack of an inclination (sex) or interest (sex) or direction of thought (about sex). Asexuality seems to be the opposite of a sexual orientation.

Now, I thought this was a really good point. So I thought about it and my response is that, as far as the question of asexuality as an orientation goes, asexuals don't really have much of a choice. We don't HAVE a sexual orientation, and yet society expects us to say that we do. Thus, we are forced to exert that asexuality IS an orientation lest we be unable to answer the question: "What is your sexual orientation?" The term "orientation" isn't really appropriate to describe how we are, but it's the only way for us to answer that question truthfully.

Your thoughts?

I have argued against asexuality as an orientation since, well, pretty much since I joined Aven. The 'A' prefix in asexuality is there to denote we are devoid of typical sexual behavior. So if by definition asexuality means 'without sexuality' that would technically make it the opposite of sexuality; so if we are the other white meat then how in the hell are we a subset within it simultaneously? It's like saying atheism is a subset of theism; if I say 'I'm a Christian' and person 'B' says 'I'm an Atheist' just because person 'B' inserts atheism into the appropriate place a subset of theism would usually go does not now make it an aspect within theism as well. It just makes no sense to me that it would be lumped in within sexual orientation when the whole point is supposed to be we are not sexual.

So my stance is Asexuality is no more an orientation then (to quote a poster who made a kick ass point in the past, though I forget which Avenite said it) not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siggy

People keep on bringing up the atheism analogy, but I think it only confuses the issue. Most people are deeply confused about why atheism is not a religion. It really has very little to do with belief vs lack of belief. Religion does not equal belief. Religion is so much more than that. There are rituals, practices, leaders, organizations, etc. etc. etc. Precisely defining "religion" is a difficult problem, but I think most religious scholars would agree that it's much more than just a belief system. And even if religion were defined only as a belief system, atheism is hardly a whole belief system. Strictly speaking, atheism only relates to belief in god. Note that theism is not a religion either.

Atheism is not a religion, but I would say that it is a category of views on religion. When a survey asks about my religion, what they're really interested in is which category of views on religion I fit best. That is why I would answer "atheist", without fussing over semantics.

So if we're going by the atheism/asexuality analogy, we have to answer the question: is sexual orientation more analogous to religion, or is it more analogous to a category of views on religion? IMO, sexual orientation is more analogous to the latter. A sexual orientation is simply a category which describes the orientation of sexual attraction. Therefore, asexuality is as much a sexual orientation as straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, monosexual, pansexual, and so forth.

But I can see how other people might see it differently.

In any case, I feel that this is something which we should never ever have to argue while in "diplomatic" mode. In the context of the comments on Dan Savage's article, I would have said:

"I don't know whether asexuality should be considered a sexual orientation or not. That would depend on our definition of sexual orientation. However, asexuality is like sexual orientation in that it cannot be willfully changed, and appears to be mostly stable."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mello
An absorbing question!

The Webster definition cited in the original article is a good and wise one, since it does not demand the presence or even the imagined presence of another living entity as the object of the orientation.

Is it possible that, one day, activities and interests which have no obvious sexual content will be recognised as equivalents to sexual activity, in the sense that they engage the same neurones (or whatever the correct physiological term is) and achieve the same results (transfiguration, release, a satisfaction that goes far beyond the purely intellectual)? For example, it has long been recognised that music can carry away those who play it, or even those who only listen, into regions beyond the physical world. Some people (not only asexual people, of course) are overwhelmed, uplifted and taken out of themselves by religious experiences, others by study of the natural world or even of abstract sciences such as mathematics, others by tactile sensations (a cat's fur, a sculptor's stone, cold water), others again by physical actions - horse-riding being one example whose erotic content has often been remarked. Are these not, at least potentially, 'orientations'? If they could be acknowledged as such - perhaps even validated by continuing research into the workings of the human body and mind - we would have a far better hope of casting off the stigma of incompleteness.

Oliver Mundy.

Really interesting thought. That would be really cool, because right now, "orientation" is so biased in favor of sexual attraction to people, you really can't win.

I can just imagine it:

"What's your orientation?"

"Horse riding!"

:D

(... except that some overly sexual mind would probably add a "that's what she said" onto the end of that conversation... <_< ;))

That is a good point except when someone asks your orientation like that they usually mean your "sexual orientation."

Maybe the best way of answering that question, "what's your sexual orientation" would be to say that you're asexual, as a way of saying you don't really have one. It's the same for anything, if someone asks what your preferences are for something you don't do, then you simply say you don't have any preferences, or that you don't do that. It's the same thing, except we just gave it a name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ProdeFemme
People keep on bringing up the atheism analogy, but I think it only confuses the issue. Most people are deeply confused about why atheism is not a religion. It really has very little to do with belief vs lack of belief. Religion does not equal belief. Religion is so much more than that. There are rituals, practices, leaders, organizations, etc. etc. etc. Precisely defining "religion" is a difficult problem, but I think most religious scholars would agree that it's much more than just a belief system. And even if religion were defined only as a belief system, atheism is hardly a whole belief system. Strictly speaking, atheism only relates to belief in god. Note that theism is not a religion either.

Atheism is not a religion, but I would say that it is a category of views on religion. When a survey asks about my religion, what they're really interested in is which category of views on religion I fit best. That is why I would answer "atheist", without fussing over semantics.

So if we're going by the atheism/asexuality analogy, we have to answer the question: is sexual orientation more analogous to religion, or is it more analogous to a category of views on religion? IMO, sexual orientation is more analogous to the latter. A sexual orientation is simply a category which describes the orientation of sexual attraction. Therefore, asexuality is as much a sexual orientation as straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, monosexual, pansexual, and so forth.

But I can see how other people might see it differently.

In any case, I feel that this is something which we should never ever have to argue while in "diplomatic" mode. In the context of the comments on Dan Savage's article, I would have said:

"I don't know whether asexuality should be considered a sexual orientation or not. That would depend on our definition of sexual orientation. However, asexuality is like sexual orientation in that it cannot be willfully changed, and appears to be mostly stable."

I see what you're saying. But I still don't define it as an orientation.

I only use Atheism to illustrate the meaning of the prefix 'A'; if atheism opposes theism by definition why wouldn't the 'A' in asexuality denote the same opposition to sexuality? If I'm without hair I'm hairless; I'm not another kind of hairy, I'm what's opposed to hairy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally
A sexual orientation is simply a category which describes the orientation of sexual attraction. Therefore, asexuality is as much a sexual orientation as straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, monosexual, pansexual, and so forth.

Yes, that.

Oh.....I disagreed with PF! :unsure::unsure::unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Inevitable

It's just semantics. While Asexuality might be a lack of orientation, what's the point in saying that?

It's far simpler to just say it's an orientation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
michaeld
Now, I thought this was a really good point.

I'm not so sure. Do bisexuals have two orientations because they are sexually attracted to two sexes? If bisexuals have two orientations then I'll agree that asexuals have no orientation, but I don't think that's how the word is usually used.

Moreover, as I mentioned on the comment thread, I think it's well established that some orientations can include negative parts in their definition. If someone says they're heterosexual then that doesn't only mean they're attracted to the opposite sex - it also means they are not attracted to the same sex. If an orientation's definition can be partly negative and partly positive (as is the case with heterosexuality and homosexuality) and can be entirely positive (e.g. pansexuality, as I understand it anyway) then I don't see why it can't be entirely negative too.

Finally: I think Siggy is right about the religion analogy not really working, and I think you are right about the practical point too. An atheist can answer "none" to the question of "what's your religion?" without misleading anyone too much, whereas if we answer "none" to "what is your sexual orientation?" then I think this is just as likely to be interpreted as "I have no particular preference" instead of "I am not sexually attracted to anyone".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
House of Chimeras

Like others have already said before in this thread, I’ve always kind of thought asexuality as a sexual orientation is a lot like atheism is toward religion/spiritual beliefs. There is always going to be people on both sides saying yay and nay that they are or they are not. Both are, in essence in a nutshell, the lack of something. Depending on how you define a sexual orientation or spiritual belief could include or exclude asexuality or atheism either way. The general actual definition of these things, sexual orientation and spiritual belief, might generally and technically exclude the ‘lack of a ___”.

I think that while by some really technical definition asexuality may or may not be a sexual orientation as that term is usually used it still should be considered one as such because if you remove the ‘lack of’’ term it leaves a hole in the spectrum. To leave out asexuality as a label for someone to define themselves as, would almost be like removing atheism as a potential option for people to check themselves as on a question asking “what is your religious/spiritual beliefs?”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jrackula

What about when someone is grey-A? I've just never heard it discussed in this argument, sorry if it's been asked before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tomatl

i would say that asexuality is an orientation (perhaps the term asexual isn't the best term we could have come up with, but as someone previously posted, its what we've got). Some people are oriented towards sex with men, some people are oriented towards sex with women, some people are oriented towards sex with both genders, some people are oriented towards sex with transgendered persons etc etc etc, i would say we are oriented away from sex with other people. Still an orientation. Just like if you were trying to get oriented in a new city, you could go left towards something, right towards something, or you could orient yourself in a direction away from the city. Still oriented. I do not identify as a directionless blob, and include my self in the queer community welcoming the pedantic arguments that ensue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ProdeFemme
A sexual orientation is simply a category which describes the orientation of sexual attraction. Therefore, asexuality is as much a sexual orientation as straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, monosexual, pansexual, and so forth.

Yes, that.

Oh.....I disagreed with PF! :unsure::unsure::unsure:

And earlier today you agreed with Roy... who are you and what have you done with my Sally!? :o

I kid, I kid!

But honestly, it's taken since *clicks back to check her sig*, there we go... it's taken since August 11th for you to figure the subject out! :lol:

(I remembered from a thread similar to this we vary on asexuality as an orientation :P)

O/T: ...uh, I still disagree it's an orientation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChaliceFlame
A sexual orientation is simply a category which describes the orientation of sexual attraction. Therefore, asexuality is as much a sexual orientation as straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, monosexual, pansexual, and so forth.

Yes, that.

Oh.....I disagreed with PF! :unsure::unsure::unsure:

I agree that asexuality is a valid orientation. I'm trying to promote it as such. Ok, maybe it doesn't quite fit into the original defination. Then again, I'm guessing asexuality wasn't even in the picture then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daveb

Interesting question.

I'm an atheist (not capitalized), but when asked what my religion is I say none. If people delve further or ask about spcidic views/ideas I'll likely include the word "atheist" in there, or something about not believing in a god/ess or god/esse/s.

I think "sexual identity" is closer to correct than "sexual orientation". Does it matter? I'm not sure. I haven't really encountered a need deal with whether it's an identity, and orientation (Darn! Did I miss the sexual orientation? Maybe that's why I'm asexual! :lol: ), or something else. I don't recall ever being asked what my sexual orientation is. I have been asked if I were gay (I knew I wasn't, but at that point I hadn't discovered the term asexual - at least not in the context we talk about here. Being a hetero-romantic though, another term I hadn't encountered, I would just say "no, I like girls", which I do.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jazmin

I'd still class it as an orientation. It's just a reverse situation to bisexuality. Bisexuality = attraction to BOTH sexes, asexuality = sexual attraction to NEITHER sex. I don't see why people start arguing that it can't be an orientation because of the lack of sexual attraction. To use a random analogy, it's like someone asking you: what is your colour preference? Some people might have a colour preference for blue, others for red or green. But someone else might have a colour preference for none of the colours - but that in itself is still a preference, isn't it? Just a preference for none of the colours. Still a preference, technically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snap-Dragon

Eh, this all looks like semantics to me. Here, what about "orientation toward none"? There, now you've defined a negative in a positive way. :P

Overall, I agree with Siggy:

"I don't know whether asexuality should be considered a sexual orientation or not. That would depend on our definition of sexual orientation. However, asexuality is like sexual orientation in that it cannot be willfully changed, and appears to be mostly stable."

But I also want to add, the atheism analogy doesn't quite hold up. The key difference there, I think, is the different use of prefixes between the two words. The "a" in atheism denotes "without" in reference to theism. So, indeed, atheism is not a religion, or a subset of theism, but a lack of it. However, that is not the way the "a" in asexuality is used. The various prefixes that precede "sexuality" refer not to having or lacking sexuality, but to where the attraction characteristic of sexuality is directed. Hetero-sexuality is sexuality, with the attraction part being directed toward people of the opposite sex. Homo-sexuality is sexuality, with the attraction part being directed toward people of the same sex. A-sexuality is sexuality, with the attraction part being directed toward none, or where the attraction part is simply absent. But this does not mean a lack of sexuality. Depending, of course, on your definition of sexuality. :P But asexuals don't inherently lack all aspects of sexuality -- just the attraction part, which is what the prefix is referring to.

So in conclusion, yes, I'd say it is indeed an orientation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ProdeFemme

Edit.

I get why some consider it an orientation, I can see why.

Although I would be interested in a further explanation from Snap_Dragon as to what other aspects of sexuality asexuals continue to have barring of course, equipment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jazmin

I just think that if asexuality ended up being classed as a 'non-orientation', that would confuse people even more if and when an asexual tries to come out. It wouldn't help much with visibility and education if we just told people, 'I don't have an orientation.' Then they'd just be like, 'What?? :wacko: ' and it would be even more challenging getting the asexuality concept out there. Whereas now, if people ask you what your orientation is, you can say, 'Asexual' and then start explaining what that is. Overall I think it's better and makes more sense for it to be considered an orientation.

And another thing - I've noticed that most of the people who go on about asexuality not being an orientation are often the ones who say that it is not valid, that asexuality is more like an illness or due to some psychological trauma. (Like that annoying sex therapist on Montel.) By refusing to accept that it's an orientation, it's like they are saying, 'Asexuality must therefore be lumped into those other categories.' I for one, would much prefer that didn't happen. It doesn't do much to help our cause. So even if it's just to challenge those people, I will stand by the fact that (in my view at least) asexuality is indeed an orientation. Otherwise, what will society label it? (we all know that society's gonna categorize it as something or other anyway, as it always does with anything). Will it be labelled instead as: A mental illness? Hormonal imbalance? An unsolvable unexplainable 'issue' 1% of the population happens to have? All of which I don't believe is true. I think 'orientation' makes more sense than the alternative boxes that society's going to throw it into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ProdeFemme

I must admit, I've had an easier time explaining asexuality to sexuals as being devoid of sexuality as opposed to a subset of sexuality. Could possibly just be how I'm explaining it though... :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kt8

Wow, okay, now my head hurts... :blush:

Let's see here...

I've always wondered this. I usually say asexuality is my sexual identity (instead of orientation), but I think orientation is used because of a lack of a better word.

I agree, "identity" is a better word. It takes into part both negative and positive aspects of sexuality.

In any case, I feel that this is something which we should never ever have to argue while in "diplomatic" mode. In the context of the comments on Dan Savage's article, I would have said:

"I don't know whether asexuality should be considered a sexual orientation or not. That would depend on our definition of sexual orientation. However, asexuality is like sexual orientation in that it cannot be willfully changed, and appears to be mostly stable."

Yes, I'd rather not argue about such a pointless thing when trying to explain asexuality either. "Orientation" is a word, nothing more, and just because it may not be the most appropriate label doesn't mean that the nature of asexuality changes. I just think that they're interesting things, words, and how they help/hinder definitions of things. Sometimes, when explaining, it's best to just avoid using big, all-encompassing labels as much as possible and simply describe what's going on directly. It takes longer, but that way there're less definitions to argue about. <_<

It's just semantics. While Asexuality might be a lack of orientation, what's the point in saying that?

It's far simpler to just say it's an orientation.

Yes, it is much simpler... and it is just semantics. But semantics are kind of fun to think about when one is bored in the middle of the night.... :rolleyes:

Just like if you were trying to get oriented in a new city, you could go left towards something, right towards something, or you could orient yourself in a direction away from the city. Still oriented. I do not identify as a directionless blob, and include my self in the queer community welcoming the pedantic arguments that ensue.

NICE metaphor. That's a really good one. But... aren't you still kind of a directionless blob? Even if you are going away from the city, you're still not going anywhere in particular... yes?

To use a random analogy, it's like someone asking you: what is your colour preference? Some people might have a colour preference for blue, others for red or green. But someone else might have a colour preference for none of the colours - but that in itself is still a preference, isn't it? Just a preference for none of the colours. Still a preference, technically.

I like the analogies. :) Yes, it's a preference, but it's a preference born out of the lack of preference for anything else. I was just pointing out that the finer meanings behind the word "orientation" don't really encompass that correctly.

There, now you've defined a negative in a positive way. :P

Haha, nice. :lol: I like the word play. Yes, indeed, we've managed to describe a negative in a positive way and made ourselves "asexy". ;) Nicely put!

As a final note: "orientation" is just a word. It doesn't matter really whether or not this word is appropriately assigned to asexuality. Asexy is asexy, regardless of what it's called... obviously, we're not anything else. I just think it's fun to point out the flaws in the word and how it confuses everybody... :P I'm a literature geek, what can I say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally

I suppose we could start calling our selves "unattracted" but that would be confused with unattractive and many of us are quite attractive. And also someone will no doubt point out that some of us are romantically or aesthetically or politically or spiritually attracted. Gah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
um???

I'm kinda new to all these diffferent labels 'n' stuff, but my instinct is that asexuality isn't an orientation.

Before I'd read anything at all about asexuality, I'd been thinking of it in my head as a spectrum. You know how there's a spectrum with gay at one end and straight at the other, with eeeeverything possible in between? Well, I kinda thought that there'd be some kind of spectrum of... sexualness?... from asexual to sexual. 'Cause I have an orientation. I'm queer. I know who I'm attracted to. I'm just on the asexual end of the scale. I don't wanna have sex with the people I'm attracted to.

Does anyone else like that idea? I'm still figuring stuff out, so I'm thinking this could change. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.