A sexual's view of Asexuals

[PsychedX]

That's exactly my point. Not many people want to understand.

I just read this thread: http://www.asexuality.org/en/index.php?showtopic=51529 , and that pretty much summarizes many peoples' initial reactions. Albeit that that case is an extreme one.

It's just that when certain peoples' knowledge and beliefs are challenged to accompany new ones, you will encounter ignorance, arrogance, and resistance.

[Qutenkuddly]

Okay, I'm a newcomer here, but I'm thinkin', after all that, if the OP still hasn't figured it out (and it appears from one of his posts that he may be on the path to doing so), further explanation isn't going to help. Any point carrying on, or can we put away the torches and pitchforks?

[Dubravka]

Oh dear, we were doing so well... Sure, other people have said what you said, but there's no need for swearing like that. That just gets yourself in hot water.

First of all, I apologize if my language has offended anyone. I have edited the post in question.

However...the OP's post was extremely insulting and a textbook example of sexual privilege run amok. We get enough of that crap out in the real world; we certainly don't need it here. The OP wasn't "just asking questions," they were informing us that our orientation doesn't exist because they, a sexual, don't think it exists, therefore it's not real and we're all just a bunch of deluded morons. Which is just really, really crappy and privileged behavior, and frankly, when I see something like that it doesn't exactly make me want to put on my Visibility hat and patiently correct them, because they've already indicated to me that they don't think the members of this community are worthy of basic respect. So, chances are I'll probably be less than respectful in my response.

Once again, I apologize for the cursing. But I certainly hope the OP at least attempts to educate themselves before deciding to lecture us, or any other minority group again.

[Pandoren]

I already edited out my initial response that you quoted, upon request, since you edited yours.

[Sally]

Here are some attempts at further explanation, since you seem to really want to understand.

Perhaps it's part of the culture - the stereotypical expectation is that "if you see something you like, you have to bang it." So, if we are obligated by biology or whatever to have sex with what we're attracted to... what happens if you don't find something attractive? You just stay away from it. (Although that notion is a bit arguable in itself)

Asexuals can see someone they like and find them romantically attractive (romantic as in emotion) but not want to have sex with them. We indeed can find people attractive; we don't necessarily want to stay away from people just because we don't find them sexually attractive.

people can't wrap their minds around such an extreme notion, and then add all of these nuances."

We realize it sounds extreme to someone who finds attractiveness = sexual attraction. But to asexuals, it's not extreme. To us, it's natural. The nuances come more easily because the basis is natural to us.

The only thing that's really important to know is that there is nothing wrong with asexuals. We simply don't feel sexual attraction.

[oneofthesun]

1. "Asexuals" who have no experience of sex.

This opinion would only be fair if there were no risks involved in having sex. This is like saying "you've never tried skydiving, therefore you must be afraid of heights."

2. "Asexuals" who find it easy to pleasure themselves.

If masturbation were equivalent to having sex, why would anyone go to the trouble of finding a partner?

3. "Asexuals" who have sex regularly.

Some of us go to school or work regularly too even though we don't enjoy that either.

[PsychedX]

Yes, I know all of that already. Perhaps I'm not good at making my points clear - I just wanted to explain the typical thought process of a sexual who hears of asexuality for the first time. I, personally, know asexuality (at least somewhat better than most sexuals...) and accept it.

Moreso, I was criticizing the mainstream. At least, I was trying.

Honestly, I know the difference between emotional romance and sexual attraction. However, that is not to say that I can separate the two as well as many of you have. Although I want to, it's just... a bit difficult for me. Perhaps I just see sex as a really, really nice bonus. Yes, I -want- to separate the two completely, because I don't want to have sexual appeal as a criterion.

...And I ramble. But we humans all have our downfalls. I suppose that's one of mine.

[Sally]

I just wanted to explain the typical thought process of a sexual who hears of asexuality for the first time.

A number of us have tried to explain it to friends, family, and relationship partners, and have definitely come up against that thought process, very personally. You can probably understand that for those of us who have had that experience, it's hard to hear the words again, even if they're only on-line from someone we don't know. I've spent three years trying to explain it to my former partner.

[Professor T. Pollution]

Well, it's an interesting set of topics, but you appear to have several erroneous beliefs regarding asexuality. And no, you have not offended me in any way, nor do I see any reason at all why anyone would ban you.

Let's see; I think I'll address your questions point by point...

1. "Asexuals" who have no experience of sex.

You held forth that old mantra, "You can't reject it 'til you try it." It sounds good in theory, but in reality it's superfluous and not necessarily beneficial. You seem to think that sexual desire is limited to the actual sexual acts, when in fact it is the reverse. Most people can be physically aroused and do have a sex drive, but that doesn't mean that they desire any humans to be involved in that process. Asexuality is an orientation, not a behavior. Are you straight (or gay)? How do you know you aren't attracted to people of the sex/gender you say you aren't attracted to? Did you have to climb into bed with them to figure it out? I highly doubt it. And even beyond that, "sexual desire" is not limited to the bedroom — sexual people feel attraction towards people they percieve as attractive (yes, that is absurdly redundant), but asexuals do not experience that attraction at all. I'm talking about the ability to comprehend the concept of sexual attraction — I can't really fathom what it is about aesthetically pleasing people that would make anyone want to hop into bed with them. For me, there simply isn't a link between other humans and sexual desire.

2. "Asexuals" who find it easy to pleasure themselves.

This is silly. See my answer above; sex drive is completely different from sexual attraction. You can be gay or straight and have a high sex drive, you can be poly or bi and have a low sex drive, etc; any of these pairings is possible. Similarly, it's possible to have a high sex drive and still be asexual. Asexuality has nothing to do with ability to feel sexual pleasure. There are people who find it very hard to get sexual pleasure but still feel attraction...and there are people who feel no sexual attraction but can still feel sexual pleasure.

3. "Asexuals" who have sex regularly.

Again: ASEXUALITY IS NOT A BEHAVIOR. To put it into perspective, a straight male could be physically aroused if another male were...ahem, touching him. That is a physical response to direct stimuli. However, that same male is not aroused by the other male's presence, the thought of the other male naked, etc; he is still straight despite his actions or physical responses. If a lesbian has sex with a man, SHE IS STILL LESBIAN. The same is true of asexuals who, for whatever reason, engage in sexual behaviors. As a side note, usually when asexuals have sex with their partners, it's because their partner is sexual and the asexual partner is willing to compromise for the sake of the relationship. And as I said above, asexuals can usually feel sexual pleasure, so the physical touch can arouse them even though they aren't attracted to the other person.

Well, that's about all I have to say. That felt very repetitive...I think it's because the main issue is that you are confused about the actual definition of asexuality, so I kept having to repeat myself. Hope it's helpful...

~Monochromania

[PsychedX]

I just wanted to explain the typical thought process of a sexual who hears of asexuality for the first time.

A number of us have tried to explain it to friends, family, and relationship partners, and have definitely come up against that thought process, very personally. You can probably understand that for those of us who have had that experience, it's hard to hear the words again, even if they're only on-line from someone we don't know. I've spent three years trying to explain it to my former partner.

It is understandable, I didn't keep that in mind, honestly, when making my posts. I should have known, because I got somewhat of a taste of this, myself. (Of course, it doesn't compare with the struggles of a usual case about this. And I'll explain my story another day.)

But I do hope that your partner eventually understands.

[Ender]

Don't get too discouraged by the tone of the responses to your thread. You're attempting to learn, and some of us appreciate that. :)

[whitelime]

Not a trash talk, but Read more and post less :D

People above me have more or less told you what was wrong with what you said : considering that enjoying and wanting to do some things are related, that you need to have tried yo be able to give a judgement about things, etc ...

EDIT : just saw your 1:55AM post that makes your point of view more understandable :)

[Iridien]

I wanted to second Ender here--yes, we tend to go off on people who bring up questions we've seen over and over. But I, personally, am really glad you're trying to figure this all out. Keep it up!

Everyone else seems to have covered the main misconceptions (and if you haven't read it yet, I also highly recommend the Asexual Elitism thread). I'll just throw in another tidbit that usually helps my friends understand the masturbation issue. Basically, ask yourself this. Does masturbating indicate whether someone is attracted to girls, not attracted to guys, attracted to both, etc and so forth? No, it doesn't. So with that in mind, why on earth would it indicate whether someone is asexual or not?

[Rappy28]

Yeah, speaking of asexual libido, here's another explanation that might shed light on it, though the analogy only works if you're purely hetero/homosexual, not bi.

Let's say you're 100% heterosexual (or close to it), and you're stranded on an island that is only populated with people of the same sex than you. You wouldn't be naturally sexually attracted to anyone on that island, but you still have a sex drive nonetheless. You could masturbate to take care of it, or you could, physically, have sex with one of these people, in an "insert tab A into slot B" kind of way, mostly. You might even derive pleasure from it, too. But the fact remains, there was no "primal" attraction in the first place.

At least, that's how I'd explain it, but knowing I don't really have any experience of sexual attraction in the first place...

[Notako]

Using those terms interchangeably demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about, because they do not mean the same thing. Words mean things. Also, your definition of asexuality is hideously incorrect, as people have explained to you (and no doubt will further). It is also neither definitive or literate. Insofar as there is actually a definitive definition of asexuality, it is the one which is actually used by asexual people to describe themselves, which has been explained to you at length. As for the literate definition, in the context of sexual orientation, that would be "not attracted to anyone," since "asexual" follows the standard convention of "sexual," signifying this is an orientational word like "heterosexual" and "homosexual" and adds the prefix "a," meaning "no."

Again, before you claim to understand a topic, you need to actually sit down and make sure you're not missing something, or you're going to get a response which is less than pleased.

Look. It's really nice that you want to learn more about asexuals, but you have to actually sit down and read things for that to happen. You? Are walking into a community of people who are discussing asexuality, who are themselves asexuals, and telling them what asexuality is.

It's like walking into a convention of neuroscientists and announcing that you have identified all the purposes of the structures of the brain, and incidentally you can tell someone's personality from the bumps on their skull. It's arrogant and it's finely calculated to make people laugh at you or, in cases like sexuality and race where the topic of study is actually fairly marginalized, pissed at you. Sit down and learn something before you talk about absolutes. Ask questions all you want, but do not approach this community from authority if you have any intention of being polite or being received politely. (That advice right there, incidentally, is good advice to anyone interacting with a space for a minority group you are not part of. I use it when working in spaces for people of color and trans spaces, for example. When you do not have lived experience, you need to listen more before you speak to make sure you understand all the nuances.)

I'm sorry if it looked like I was informing you on what you were, but the truth was, and I stated this multiple times in the OP, I do not dress up what I said as facts. They are merely my opinions, ones which I came on here to see if they were correct, and if not, alter them accordingly.

And of course you have your completely baffled people who just can't grasp the notion of people not wanting sex at all.

What complicates a good understanding is that then you hear things like, "Asexuals can have sex" and "Asexuals do feel romantic/intellectual attraction to others" and "Asexuals just really don't care for having sex with those they are attracted to."

At this point, everybody's mind is blown.

So basically, it's the lack of a clearly understood simplified definition that we tend to like. See, with heterosexuality and homosexuality, you know "Okay, so heteros are attracted to their opposites... and homos are attracted to their sames."

Asexuality's definition includes many nuances that are completely alien to a lot of sexuals.

So, OP, I think just accepting their word for it is the best option for now. Think of their views as true, and then hopefully you'll eventually understand it after thinking through.

This. 100% this. I'm drawn to the tag line of the book 'Bad science' - "It's a little more complicated than that"

Oh dear, we were doing so well... Sure, other people have said what you said, but there's no need for swearing like that. That just gets yourself in hot water.

First of all, I apologize if my language has offended anyone. I have edited the post in question.

However...the OP's post was extremely insulting and a textbook example of sexual privilege run amok. We get enough of that crap out in the real world; we certainly don't need it here. The OP wasn't "just asking questions," they were informing us that our orientation doesn't exist because they, a sexual, don't think it exists, therefore it's not real and we're all just a bunch of deluded morons. Which is just really, really crappy and privileged behavior, and frankly, when I see something like that it doesn't exactly make me want to put on my Visibility hat and patiently correct them, because they've already indicated to me that they don't think the members of this community are worthy of basic respect. So, chances are I'll probably be less than respectful in my response.

Once again, I apologize for the cursing. But I certainly hope the OP at least attempts to educate themselves before deciding to lecture us, or any other minority group again.

You are correct in that I was not asking questions. I simply stated a few things I understood about asexuality and my views on them. I have never claimed to know anything for definite on asexuality. However the "it does not exist therefore you are deluded morons" is just complete fabrication. I have nothing against any asexuals, and have no gripes with the vast, vast majority. I even stated I look up to some. The problem was I started with a faulty premise and the conclusions I drew from it ended up faulty. You can act as respectful or direspectful as you like to me, but it wont change these things. More or less everyone that has replied to this thread (with the exception of you) has said exactly the same thing: "It's a little more complicated than that"

Don't get too discouraged by the tone of the responses to your thread. You're attempting to learn, and some of us appreciate that. :)

Thank you :D I am trying to learn here, and lots of people have been very helpful.

[Notako]

Y'know, my dad once made a comment how it seemed a bit daft that someone was calling themselves bisexual when they've only ever had sex with one gender.

That was damned stupid.

What you've said? Goes with what my dad said.

My opinion is that you do not need to have sex with a gender to know your sexuality, but that you have been in a situation in which you will experience sexual desire. So you could tell if you were bisexual because you have experienced the want to have sex with both genders, regardless of whether you have actually had sex with them or not.

1. "Asexuals" who have no experience of sex. Having an opinion of something without actually having first hand experience of it is something I try very hard to avoid, and is a quality I find immensely annoying in others.

Ugh! I hate when people say this almost as much as the infamous "You haven't met the right person yet" line. It's impossible for one person to experience everything in life. And you don't have to personally experience something to know you aren't interested in it or won't like it. People aren't stupid. They know what they want and what they don't want at some point in their lives.

If that's a valid argument, then I guess it's valid to ask a heterosexual "How do you know you're gay if you've never slept with someone of the same sex?" or ask someone "How do you know you're not a plushie unless you've had sex with a stuffed animal?" etc, etc. People will get so offended if you ask that, yet they fail to see how offended someone who's asexual would be from that very same line of questioning.

Even if you take the topic off sex. How do you know you don't want your hair on fire if you've never had your hair on fire? How do you know you don't want to lick the toilet if you've never licked the toilet? How do you know you don't want to dress in drag if you've never dressed in drag?

And sex isn't like reading a book; You can just toss the book in the garbage or in the back of your closet and forget about it. You can't just toss a sexual experience in the back of the closet and forget about it. Especially if it's your first. Asexuals shouldn't have to force themselves to have sex just to prove to non-believers they know what their own body does and doesn't want.

If I have no desire to do something, I will not identify myself as someone that wants to or someone that definitely doesn't. I do not want to kill someone, but I would never label myself as "amurderous" as it isnt as black and white as that. I would just not express an opinion on the subject. Whatever asexuality is, one thing I am pretty sure of what it is not is a statement of "I don't feel like it, but that may change" although I could be wrong. However responding in that way sets up some rather circular logic:

-I don't want to do it

-How can you tell if you haven't tried it?

-Because I'm not going to try it because

I don't want to do it

etc.

etc.

[Iridien]

If I have no desire to do something, I will not identify myself as someone that wants to or someone that definitely doesn't. I do not want to kill someone, but I would never label myself as "amurderous" as it isnt as black and white as that. I would just not express an opinion on the subject.

I'm sure that if we had the choice, most of us simply wouldn't give an opinion on it, either. We would just leave the whole issue alone. This is what most of us try to do. However, today's sex-driven society, at one point or another, FORCES us to take a stand on what we want and don't want. It would be ideal if we never had to express an opinion, but it's simply not realistically possible.

If we used your 'amurderous' analogy, society today would be all about murdering and your friends would eventually start to ask you why you don't go out and murder people like they do. Sure, you could say, "Well I don't feel like murdering today" or "No comment" but that will only go so far before they start thinking something is wrong with you and pressuring you to go murder someone. In the end, you'll either have to go murder people to fit in or flat-out say, "I don't want to murder people."

Whatever asexuality is, one thing I am pretty sure of what it is not is a statement of "I don't feel like it, but that may change" although I could be wrong.

Well... that's the way I define it. I don't know about other people, but I'm not a fortuneteller.

However responding in that way sets up some rather circular logic:

-I don't want to do it

-How can you tell if you haven't tried it?

-Because I'm not going to try it because

I don't want to do it

etc.

etc.

This is a valid point to use for things that are not naturally ingrained into the human mind. Sexual attraction generally is. Sure, this is okay to say if you want to get a kid to eat his green beans, but I would rather err on the side of caution than pressure someone into sexual activities they don't want just to prove a point.

[Sally]

Re the "how do you know you don't want to do it" issue:

I sense, Notako, that you expect a logical answer to why we consider ourselves asexual. There is none, any more than there is a logical answer as to what sexual orientation you feel that you are. (I'm not making any conjectures about that.)

The real point is that every person has the right to determine, and either announce or not announce to the world, where we are on the orientation spectrum. That is a very personal right that simply goes with being human.

No one else has the right to question us or criticize us or about how or why or what or anything else. No one. On AVEN we do attempt to answer questions because sexuals are invited onto the forum through the Friends/Allies section and because AVEN is a generally welcoming forum. We also attempt to give some support to sexuals who are experiencing all sorts of feelings when they suspect or find that their partner is asexual.

But the fact remains: our self-definition of asexuality is ours, and we need not justify it to anyone. Any post that seems to require justification or make inaccurate statements, instead of simply asking polite questions, is going to attract some frustrated replies. Think of yourself having those statements/requirements directed at you by someone who is asexual and wants you to explain why exactly you know that you are sexual. I think you might also feel a little frustrated.

[sindi]

If we used your 'amurderous' analogy, society today would be all about murdering and your friends would eventually start to ask you why you don't go out and murder people like they do. Sure, you could say, "Well I don't feel like murdering today" or "No comment" but that will only go so far before they start thinking something is wrong with you and pressuring you to go murder someone. In the end, you'll either have to go murder people to fit in or flat-out say, "I don't want to murder people."

Lol... lol... LOL!!! XD

[sindi]

The real point is that every person has the right to determine, and either announce or not announce to the world, where we are on the orientation spectrum. That is a very personal right that simply goes with being human.

No one else has the right to question us or criticize us or about how or why or what or anything else. No one. On AVEN we do attempt to answer questions because sexuals are invited onto the forum through the Friends/Allies section and because AVEN is a generally welcoming forum. We also attempt to give some support to sexuals who are experiencing all sorts of feelings when they suspect or find that their partner is asexual.

But the fact remains: our self-definition of asexuality is ours, and we need not justify it to anyone.

This X 10000!!! The real point indeed! Why should we need a "justification" for our identity, only because it happens to differ from the majority?!

[ingenius]

so many sexual people try to research asexuality in order to -argue- with asexuals about their asexuality.

(paraphrase) How do you know you don't desire sex until you're in a situation to desire sex, sounds like rape. I feel sorry for your so-called friend.

[Olivier]

If I have no desire to do something, I will not identify myself as someone that wants to or someone that definitely doesn't. I do not want to kill someone, but I would never label myself as "amurderous" as it isnt as black and white as that. I would just not express an opinion on the subject. Whatever asexuality is, one thing I am pretty sure of what it is not is a statement of "I don't feel like it, but that may change" although I could be wrong. However responding in that way sets up some rather circular logic:

-I don't want to do it

-How can you tell if you haven't tried it?

-Because I'm not going to try it because

I don't want to do it

etc.

etc.

There's your logic fail right there. The argument usually made does not contain this "because" and so the circle is broken.

I'm as much a one for "you won't know if you don't try" as anyone - I say it to my young kids all the time regarding food, and often it turns out they like what they were sure they wouldn't. BUT, I think you have to make exceptions for things that do seem to be intrinsically knowable - eating non-foods, engaging in plainly harmful behaviours, and, yes, sexual orientation. I'm heterosexual, and I didn't need to experiment with behaviours associated with any other orientation, including asexuality, to know that. Some may not be so lucky if they fall in a grey area, but I couldn't presume to insist that others were incapable of just knowing their orientation when I do; that would be horribly conceited.

[michaeld]

My opinion is that you do not need to have sex with a gender to know your sexuality, but that you have been in a situation in which you will experience sexual desire. So you could tell if you were bisexual because you have experienced the want to have sex with both genders, regardless of whether you have actually had sex with them or not.

So what situations have you been in to try and experience sexual desire for other males? If none then how do you know you are heterosexual and not bisexual?

[kionx]

Asexuality IS a sexual orientation, much like gay/straight/homo/hetero is. A person knows their sexuality. You seem to think that the only way for someone to possibly be "in a situation to feel sexual desire" is to be in a sexual situation when that makes no sense at all. If that were the case, then all those people out there that call someone 'hot' or 'sexy' just by looking at them would be wrong.

"She's hot."

"You don't really like her yet. Go over there and start making out."

"What?"

"How will you know that you actually WANT to sleep with her without going over and starting something? So, go on."

At which point you could either be beaten up by her very unhappy date or be arrested for attempted rape or, who knows, have yourself a mate for life.

In my mind, the situations in question are simply interacting with humanity on a daily basis. I do that. I'm always around people. Unless you're a total recluse that spends all their time in their room (which is possible and I'm totally not judging that), then you see people all the time. I go out all the time and meet all sorts of new people. Sometimes I even *gasp* speak to them.

Your other comment of "If I have no desire to do something, I will not identify myself as someone that wants to or someone that definitely doesn't." doesn't make sense. You have no desire to have sex with a man (or woman) so why bother identifying yourself as straight (or gay)? You do so because in our sexual culture you have to make those distinctions. If you don't, there's that thought that someone will get it wrong and you'll wind up grouped with the other group of people.

I have no desire to have sex, but launching into a long explanation and pulling out pamphlets won't win me many friends so having a word I can use is much more convenient.

Still, this has all been said elsewhere on the site and much more eloquently than I could ever hope to be. All I can do is hope that you'll do some more reading before telling people what they can and cannot feel.

[silentdreamer]

My opinion is that you do not need to have sex with a gender to know your sexuality, but that you have been in a situation in which you will experience sexual desire. So you could tell if you were bisexual because you have experienced the want to have sex with both genders, regardless of whether you have actually had sex with them or not.

Hmm... Many people have been in a situation where they could experience sexual desire. You can desire to have sex with the person sitting across from you on the bus on your way to school/work. I've been around plenty of attractive people and have had no desire to have sex with them. This augment would only make sense if you're talking to people who live in caves and have never been around another human being in their entire lives. Sexual desire is usually a automatic feeling and if you feel it, you feel it. If you don't, you don't.

Now, if you're trying to say that you have to be in a situation where you will experience sexual pleasure, rather than desire, the argument is still invalid. What makes a sexual person (under normal circumstances) venture into having sex for the first time? They desire to do it. They feel sexually attracted to someone and they act on that attraction. If you don't feel that type of attraction, then you don't have the desire to do it. The only other option is to have sex out of curiosity and some of us just aren't that darn curious about it.

I'm curious about how it would feel to break my leg. I have no desire to break my leg. So, I'm not going to go out and break my leg just so I can say "I tried it. I don't like it. I knew I wasn't going to like it to begin with." Seems stupid.

No one's saying sex is bad or evil. We just aren't interested. It's so simple.

[isotopegirl]

1. "Asexuals" who have no experience of sex. Having an opinion of something without actually having first hand experience of it is something I try very hard to avoid, and is a quality I find immensely annoying in others. I am speaking as the person who read Twilight in its entirety purely so I can go around voicing my view of how godawful it is, safe in the knowledge that no one could say "ohhh but you haven't read it!" (read in an extremely nasal nerdy voice). Those who claim to be asexual despite never having been in a situation in which they could feel sexual desire strikes me as very hypocritical. Someone will bring up porn here, but that's not a true test of your desire: I know many sexual people who actively despise pornography and would not be aroused to watch it.

I personally take no offense to what you've said. I think everyone is entitled to their own opinion on this. Personally, my asexuality is something I needed to know about myself, not something to prove to someone else. So, it doesn't matter to me what other people think of it (once they are informed, of course! can't have those people talking shit about it and not doing the research, so kudos to you for knowing something about it!)

as for the "asexuals who have no experience of sex" I find fault with this and would like to play devil's advocate for a second. Using the "having an opinion of something without actually having first hand experience" logic, can we also imply that a straight man wouldn't know he isn't gay unless he has sex with another man? Or a gay man can't know he's gay unless he's had sex with a woman? a hetero woman with a lesbian? etc. etc. etc. can we also assume that I don't know if I won't like being a serial killer unless I give it a try?

again, I've taken no offense, but i felt the need to argue that point :)

[bligyn]

I have stayed out of it because I think the views and the information have been summed up well, by better keyboards than mine, but I have to explain while your views are moderate and by all means fair, we get slightly offended with being judged for what we identify as on the site we seek support. Calling us hypocritical I can understand, but you have to look at the alternative. As a repulsed asexual I even abhore the idea of having sex, I hate it passionately. Does that mean I should make a life changing decision I will probably, not absolutely mind you and that is your arguement, but probably find traumatizing...no. And I realize your logic for calling us hypocritical I do, but you have to realize that asking us to try something we don't want to do for any reason, especially such a major thing like sex, can be detrimental to our wellbeing as we identify, even if we are not, asexuals.

[Notako]

so many sexual people try to research asexuality in order to -argue- with asexuals about their asexuality.

(paraphrase) How do you know you don't desire sex until you're in a situation to desire sex, sounds like rape. I feel sorry for your so-called friend.

To me, it sounds like experimentation, and not a forced experimentation if thats what you're thinking! I'm not proposing 'solutions' to the things that I argue, just wishing to express what I think and try to learn something in the process. Sometimes I feel sorry for Joe as well :(...

Now, if you're trying to say that you have to be in a situation where you will experience sexual pleasure, rather than desire, the argument is still invalid. What makes a sexual person (under normal circumstances) venture into having sex for the first time? They desire to do it. They feel sexually attracted to someone and they act on that attraction. If you don't feel that type of attraction, then you don't have the desire to do it. The only other option is to have sex out of curiosity and some of us just aren't that darn curious about it.

I'm curious about how it would feel to break my leg. I have no desire to break my leg. So, I'm not going to go out and break my leg just so I can say "I tried it. I don't like it. I knew I wasn't going to like it to begin with." Seems stupid.

No one's saying sex is bad or evil. We just aren't interested. It's so simple.

That's the thing: curiosity. If you don't feel you have to prove it to yourself you would not enjoy sex and the pleasure/desire/attraction/whatever would be there, I personally would not call you out for it. I will still have my opinion on the legitimacy of the statement, but if you can prove it to yourself, why would you need to bother proving it to me? Also, you can break your leg accidentally, but I don't know of anyone who has had sex accidentally, so that analogy is not really 100% sound.

1. "Asexuals" who have no experience of sex. Having an opinion of something without actually having first hand experience of it is something I try very hard to avoid, and is a quality I find immensely annoying in others. I am speaking as the person who read Twilight in its entirety purely so I can go around voicing my view of how godawful it is, safe in the knowledge that no one could say "ohhh but you haven't read it!" (read in an extremely nasal nerdy voice). Those who claim to be asexual despite never having been in a situation in which they could feel sexual desire strikes me as very hypocritical. Someone will bring up porn here, but that's not a true test of your desire: I know many sexual people who actively despise pornography and would not be aroused to watch it.

I personally take no offense to what you've said. I think everyone is entitled to their own opinion on this. Personally, my asexuality is something I needed to know about myself, not something to prove to someone else. So, it doesn't matter to me what other people think of it (once they are informed, of course! can't have those people talking shit about it and not doing the research, so kudos to you for knowing something about it!)

as for the "asexuals who have no experience of sex" I find fault with this and would like to play devil's advocate for a second. Using the "having an opinion of something without actually having first hand experience" logic, can we also imply that a straight man wouldn't know he isn't gay unless he has sex with another man? Or a gay man can't know he's gay unless he's had sex with a woman? a hetero woman with a lesbian? etc. etc. etc. can we also assume that I don't know if I won't like being a serial killer unless I give it a try?

again, I've taken no offense, but i felt the need to argue that point :)

I completely agree with that logic. I do not know for sure that I am not actually secretly homosexual or bisexual, as, like you said, I have not experienced it. The difference is, I am not saying I am either of those things since I have no evidence to back that stament up. (also, I have a girlfriend) It's all well and good to say "I know I will not enjoy these things despite the fact that I haven't tried them because I just do" and thats perfectly fine, until you start identifying yourself as someone who has a strong view on the subject

I can tell you with absolute certainty I will not enjoy many many things, but I will never assign a designation to myself as someone 'a-whatever' because it serves no purpose, when I could just remain ambiguous on the subject because I have no experience. The thing is, as someone else said (I cant remember your name, sorry) society nowadays forces you to put yourself into camps to do with sex, because it's just everywhere. (Now I don't actively have a problem with this, sex is just a biological mechanism and a lot of people take the overuse of it in society WAY too seriously, despite the fact that violence is a much worse problem, but this is beside the point) My ideal scenario would be if no one called themselves asexual if they did not want to have sex, only "heteroromantic/homoromantic/biromantic/panromantic/anything else" because that defines something you are, not something you aren't. But again, this is all just my opinion and I am sorry if it offends. :)

[bligyn]

Once again, I know you are trying to be fair, but take it from a sexuals point of view, we get into a relationship and if we don't tell our partners that we don't like sex in the forseeable future maybe never, then we are being unfair towards those we are in a relationship with. They expect something, and we can't give it to them, it is much more helpful for both partners if there is a name for our identification the terms you listed imply attraction which we on the most part haven't had. Asexual may not be what we are, but it is how we feel toward sex, so it isn't what we aren't it is what we are. Also the term asexual gives us an identification, unites us other than, I don't really get attracted to people or feel the urge to have sex. There is solidarity in the term which unites us, and we sorely need in a sexual world that promotes marriage and sex on a regular basis we need it.

On another note, I know we won't convince you our way, you are stubborn and won't back down on the issue unless we all acted poorly, which we won't. But consider this, I read your original post and you knew this would be controversial and you wanted to challenge us on our own ground. I do this on atheist and theist type forums often and I can understand the incentive, but you also should know that your last statement was flat out rude and overtly challenging. It would be similiar if I told atheists that they had no right to call themselves atheists because it is describing something they are not instead of something that you are and should call themselves agnostics, but I degress. Saying that you wished we wouldn't call ourselves asexuals is just being pugnacious, and you know offends us. If we were a friend or especially a loved one who had come out to you, I would understand and try to reason with you, but you don't seem to want to be reasoned with, but beat us at our own game. It hurts some of us to be challenged here, please respect that.

[Sally]

My ideal scenario would be if no one called themselves asexual if they did not want to have sex, only "heteroromantic/homoromantic/biromantic/panromantic/anything else" because that defines something you are, not something you aren't.

I call myself asexual because that defines who I am: someone who doesn't feel sexual attraction to anyone. Homo- means same gender; hetero- means opposite gender; pan- means all genders; a- means no gender.

But again, that's our right to so define ourselves, and we're not asking anyone's permission, nor are we interested in their cricism of our self-definition. So your nomination of yourself as the arbiter of ideal scenarios is not relevant.