A sexual's view of Asexuals

[oneofthesun]

To me, it sounds like experimentation, and not a forced experimentation if thats what you're thinking!

I'm not against that idea. But, who to experiment with? If I'm dishonest about my asexuality, I'm going to end up hurting someone's feelings. If I'm honest about it, I'm only going to attract the kind of person who doesn't care about their partner's feelings in the first place.

It's a Catch-22.

Also, you can break your leg accidentally, but I don't know of anyone who has had sex accidentally,

I know a couple of people who had sex while drunk and regretted it later. Doesn't that count as accidental?

[Iridien]

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

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I interpret what you're saying there as something like, "I think, before asexuals go really gung-ho into their orientation, they need to have experimented with sex so they have evidence to back up their claims."

I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but I agree with you on that point. It's not because it's logical or correct in any way; it makes my blood boil to hear anyone make such a claim. I agree only because today, in this imperfect world, the majority of people are never going to take asexuals seriously--at least not in the fledgling stage we are in now--until at least some of us show some 'proof' (as superfluous as that is) that we explored our alternatives before nailing ourselves into little asexuality boxes. Nobody should EVER have to give ANY justification for their orientation. The very nature of orientation is that there is NO WAY to 'prove' it to anyone but ourselves. I wish that more people understood that. But they don't, not yet, so in order for us to get any acceptance through their heteronormative little heads, I fear that we're going to have to get our hands dirty.

And THIS is why I stick around and care about asexuality. I don't want future generations to have to pander to some privileged group's lame-ass definition of 'proof' in order to be taken seriously. I couldn't care less if sexual people jump on the asexual bandwagon too early and end up 'missing out' because they didn't bother to try EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE sexual activity. Boo hoo, they'll miss out on something without ever knowing they wanted it. What a tragedy. What I DO care about is that perfectly asexual people are being pressured into performing sexual acts they don't want--just to prove a point. It's sickening. It's wrong and has no place in a civilized society.

And heck, now that I'm on a roll, I'm now going to go off on why it's stupid to call someone more or less 'valid' depending on their sexual experience. You simply cannot know what someone requires in order to "be in a situation in which they could experience sexual desire." For some people, simply seeing a pretty lady across the street could be enough to trigger desire if they had it in them--that's all the 'experience' they would need. For others, they might require a deep emotional connection before they felt any sexual attraction--so even full-blown sex would not be 'experience' enough for them without that emotional component. The point is is that it's impossible for anyone but the individual to know when enough experience is enough. When you say, "I don't think an asexual is VALID unless they try THIS and THIS and THIS," you're basically imposing your own standards of 'experience' on someone who is radically different from you. Not only is that completely ineffective as 'proof,' it's demeaning and arrogant.

Whew... I haven't ranted so hard in a long time. My poor keyboard's going to be aching for days. But still, thank you for the debate. You brought up a point that, while unpleasant, is something I've been wanting to get out for a long time.

[Sally]

As far as experimentation is concerned, I experimented for 40 years. I didn't know I was asexual because the term really wasn't in use then. I just tried and tried to be "normal". It didn't worked, and truly, I am asexual. Asexual in the same sense, with the same lack of sexual attraction toward others, that other asexuals on AVEN are who have NOT had sex.

So do you think 40 years is a long enough period of experimentation, Notako? And isn't it strange that I feel exactly the same as other asexuals who haven't done so? Maybe they rightfully feel they don't need to go through that difficult period to decide who they are. It wasn't pleasant for me or the people I experimented with.

[asexual cake]

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

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I interpret what you're saying there as something like, "I think, before asexuals go really gung-ho into their orientation, they need to have experimented with sex so they have evidence to back up their claims."

I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but I agree with you on that point. It's not because it's logical or correct in any way; it makes my blood boil to hear anyone make such a claim. I agree only because today, in this imperfect world, the majority of people are never going to take asexuals seriously--at least not in the fledgling stage we are in now--until at least some of us show some 'proof' (as superfluous as that is) that we explored our alternatives before nailing ourselves into little asexuality boxes. Nobody should EVER have to give ANY justification for their orientation. The very nature of orientation is that there is NO WAY to 'prove' it to anyone but ourselves. I wish that more people understood that. But they don't, not yet, so in order for us to get any acceptance through their heteronormative little heads, I fear that we're going to have to get our hands dirty.

And THIS is why I stick around and care about asexuality. I don't want future generations to have to pander to some privileged group's lame-ass definition of 'proof' in order to be taken seriously. I couldn't care less if sexual people jump on the asexual bandwagon too early and end up 'missing out' because they didn't bother to try EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE sexual activity. Boo hoo, they'll miss out on something without ever knowing they wanted it. What a tragedy. What I DO care about is that perfectly asexual people are being pressured into performing sexual acts they don't want--just to prove a point. It's sickening. It's wrong and has no place in a civilized society.

And heck, now that I'm on a roll, I'm now going to go off on why it's stupid to call someone more or less 'valid' depending on their sexual experience. You simply cannot know what someone requires in order to "be in a situation in which they could experience sexual desire." For some people, simply seeing a pretty lady across the street could be enough to trigger desire if they had it in them--that's all the 'experience' they would need. For others, they might require a deep emotional connection before they felt any sexual attraction--so even full-blown sex would not be 'experience' enough for them without that emotional component. The point is is that it's impossible for anyone but the individual to know when enough experience is enough. When you say, "I don't think an asexual is VALID unless they try THIS and THIS and THIS," you're basically imposing your own standards of 'experience' on someone who is radically different from you. Not only is that completely ineffective as 'proof,' it's demeaning and arrogant.

Whew... I haven't ranted so hard in a long time. My poor keyboard's going to be aching for days. But still, thank you for the debate. You brought up a point that, while unpleasant, is something I've been wanting to get out for a long time.

And, cue epic music.

/begins slow clap

Really, though. That was awesome.

[Lady Heartilly]

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 have never had sex, but I know from the sexual experiences I have had that I would enjoy it, in the same way I know I will enjoy a Frank Herbert novel even if I haven't read it, based on the fact that I love the rest. Now I have no problem with people who have had sex, realised they have no desire to do so again, and stopped doing it from that point. It's those who are the real asexuals. I hold those people very highly in my opinion, and in some ways look up to them, to have such strength of their convictions.

I realize this has more or less been covered several times over in this thread, but I still don't understand how you title this portion "Asexuals who have no experience of sex" and then go on later to say "having been in a situation where in which they could feel sexual desire," as to me, those seem to be separate things. You can experience sex without the desire just as easily as you can desire sex without having the experience. Yet, you go on to say that you have no problem with asexuals who have had sex and have no desire to do it again, which goes back to your original title. So, which one do you mean exactly? That one should not determine himself or herself as asexual if they have no experienced sex, or if they have not been in a situation where they have experienced sexual desire?

I ask this because as a heteromantic asexual, I have been in many situations where I believe most sexuals would have experienced sexual desire, but I have not felt the desire, nor did I go through with any sexual act because I did not want/desire to go any further. I have been in bed with men--sexual men--who have even told me that if I were not asexual, they would probably be having sex with me under the circumstances that we were in because that's what they would do with any other woman in those conditions. Yet, I had no desire to do so, and I did not. So would you consider this having been in a situation in which I could feel sexual desire, or would I have had to actually engage in the act to prove that I did not feel the desire?

I know some sexuals find our posts to contradict each other when we say asexuals are capable of having sex or falling in love, but I found this particular comment to be very much a contradiction, and even after reading the entire thread, I still fail to grasp its meaning.

[Notako]

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

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I interpret what you're saying there as something like, "I think, before asexuals go really gung-ho into their orientation, they need to have experimented with sex so they have evidence to back up their claims."

I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but I agree with you on that point. It's not because it's logical or correct in any way; it makes my blood boil to hear anyone make such a claim. I agree only because today, in this imperfect world, the majority of people are never going to take asexuals seriously--at least not in the fledgling stage we are in now--until at least some of us show some 'proof' (as superfluous as that is) that we explored our alternatives before nailing ourselves into little asexuality boxes. Nobody should EVER have to give ANY justification for their orientation. The very nature of orientation is that there is NO WAY to 'prove' it to anyone but ourselves. I wish that more people understood that. But they don't, not yet, so in order for us to get any acceptance through their heteronormative little heads, I fear that we're going to have to get our hands dirty.

I direct you to this sentence from the first paragraph of my post yesterday: "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?" I sdo not see asexuality as a 'box people nail themselves into' but rather a box constructed around a portion of the population, in order to differentiate themselves from others.

And THIS is why I stick around and care about asexuality. I don't want future generations to have to pander to some privileged group's lame-ass definition of 'proof' in order to be taken seriously. I couldn't care less if sexual people jump on the asexual bandwagon too early and end up 'missing out' because they didn't bother to try EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE sexual activity. Boo hoo, they'll miss out on something without ever knowing they wanted it. What a tragedy. What I DO care about is that perfectly asexual people are being pressured into performing sexual acts they don't want--just to prove a point. It's sickening. It's wrong and has no place in a civilized society.

Why is it that every time I mention what I would prefer and would make the situation much easier in my view, everyone flames me and says I am trying to tell them what they are, yet when you do the same no one speaks out? I don't want anyone to try every single sexual activity, if you don't care for it thats your perogative. I guess what I have a problem with is people who go around saying "I'm Asexual!" at any opportunity when there's no need for it, just to attract attention. I've never stated any intention to make asexual people try sex out, just that it seems a little counterintuitive to me. You can think that a society grouped exclusively with people 'like me' would turn out like that if you want, but that couldn't be further from the truth. I respect other peoples views, and I certainly wont try to change thew, but that doesn't mean I wont have opinions on them.

And heck, now that I'm on a roll, I'm now going to go off on why it's stupid to call someone more or less 'valid' depending on their sexual experience. You simply cannot know what someone requires in order to "be in a situation in which they could experience sexual desire." For some people, simply seeing a pretty lady across the street could be enough to trigger desire if they had it in them--that's all the 'experience' they would need. For others, they might require a deep emotional connection before they felt any sexual attraction--so even full-blown sex would not be 'experience' enough for them without that emotional component. The point is is that it's impossible for anyone but the individual to know when enough experience is enough. When you say, "I don't think an asexual is VALID unless they try THIS and THIS and THIS," you're basically imposing your own standards of 'experience' on someone who is radically different from you. Not only is that completely ineffective as 'proof,' it's demeaning and arrogant.

Then you would base your decision of asexuality on whether you think you have enough experience to tell or not. The designations 'heterosexual', 'homosexual', 'asexual' are not things that individually apply to people. Every heterosexual person will have different sexual fetishes or standards or whatever to every other, but they are still grouped by that word. Every asexual person will have slightly different perceptions of things like 'desire' 'attraction' and dare I say 'proof'. Like you say, every person will be different with their definitions of those many ideas. But with asexuality, its those things that actually affect whether or not others (such as myself) will see you as asexual or not. It doesnt matter what a straight/gay/bi person thinks counts as sexuality or not, because whatever it is everyone else will still agree that they are straight/gay/bi. With asexuality its not quite as cut and dry, because if you think certian things count as sexuality and certain other things don't, it can affect whether or not people think you are valid (as evident by my views in the original post) in your asexuality.

Whew... I haven't ranted so hard in a long time. My poor keyboard's going to be aching for days. But still, thank you for the debate. You brought up a point that, while unpleasant, is something I've been wanting to get out for a long time.

I'm glad I could help you get that out, it's going to bring up some things that will hopefully be being discussed more than the oft repeated first few posts that have already been adressed. I'd give you some cake if I could work out how to make the emoticon appear on here...

I realize this has more or less been covered several times over in this thread, but I still don't understand how you title this portion "Asexuals who have no experience of sex" and then go on later to say "having been in a situation where in which they could feel sexual desire," as to me, those seem to be separate things. You can experience sex without the desire just as easily as you can desire sex without having the experience. Yet, you go on to say that you have no problem with asexuals who have had sex and have no desire to do it again, which goes back to your original title. So, which one do you mean exactly? That one should not determine himself or herself as asexual if they have no experienced sex, or if they have not been in a situation where they have experienced sexual desire?

I ask this because as a heteromantic asexual, I have been in many situations where I believe most sexuals would have experienced sexual desire, but I have not felt the desire, nor did I go through with any sexual act because I did not want/desire to go any further. I have been in bed with men--sexual men--who have even told me that if I were not asexual, they would probably be having sex with me under the circumstances that we were in because that's what they would do with any other woman in those conditions. Yet, I had no desire to do so, and I did not. So would you consider this having been in a situation in which I could feel sexual desire, or would I have had to actually engage in the act to prove that I did not feel the desire?

I know some sexuals find our posts to contradict each other when we say asexuals are capable of having sex or falling in love, but I found this particular comment to be very much a contradiction, and even after reading the entire thread, I still fail to grasp its meaning.

I have more or less answered the first paragraph in my reply to Isanda. Although you're right, it's not very clear which one I mean, sorry for the confusion. I meant the second option, but shortened it for the sake of having a catchy title XD As for your circumstances, like I said earlier, its your opinion of "situation to feel sexual desire" and you obviously have. Therefore, you have proven to yourself you are asexual. To reword a sentence from my original post so as not to cause any more confusion: I have no problem with asexuals who know, through their own evidence, that they have not felt as a sexual would in a sexual situation.

As for the last bit, falling in love is not sexual by any definition of the word, and I get rather offended by anyone who assumes I am someone who cannot tell the difference. (that's not you btw, you obviously didn't identify me there ^^)

I don't think its as simple as grouping sexual people into those who think asexuals having sex is a contradiction and those who think asexuals having sex is a necessity to decide. While those groups do exist I have not identified with either view (even though some things I've said could be taken to support both those ideas) as I'm not that extreme.

[Sally]

I have more or less answered the first paragraph in my reply to Isanda. Although you're right, it's not very clear which one I mean, sorry for the confusion. I meant the second option, but shortened it for the sake of having a catchy title XD As for your circumstances, like I said earlier, its your opinion of "situation to feel sexual desire" and you obviously have. Therefore, you have proven to yourself you are asexual. To reword a sentence from my original post so as not to cause any more confusion: I have no problem with asexuals who know, through their own evidence, that they have not felt as a sexual would in a sexual situation.

You're still talking as though it was required that asexuals go through some sort of test to determine they are REALLY asexual -- and that you, in some way, feel that you are the test examiner, or you feel that sexuals as a group are the examiners.

We are not contestants for the label of "true asexual." If we want label, we'll apply it ourselves. We may talk among ourselves about labels, but in no way do we need to ask the permission of the sexual community to apply those labels.

I'd like to hear from you that you understand that (if you do). The fact that you use the phrase "I have no problem" sounds like you really haven't gotten it yet.

[Lady Heartilly]

I have more or less answered the first paragraph in my reply to Isanda. Although you're right, it's not very clear which one I mean, sorry for the confusion. I meant the second option, but shortened it for the sake of having a catchy title XD As for your circumstances, like I said earlier, its your opinion of "situation to feel sexual desire" and you obviously have. Therefore, you have proven to yourself you are asexual. To reword a sentence from my original post so as not to cause any more confusion: I have no problem with asexuals who know, through their own evidence, that they have not felt as a sexual would in a sexual situation.

While I appreciate that you think the circumstances I was in were enough to know that I am asexual without needing to have sex, my qualm with this is that I already felt that way before I was in those situations. I responded in actuality exactly how I would have envisioned myself responding when I would imagine being in a situation like that. I don't think people actually need to be in specific situations to know what they would do. We've all literally known ourselves and our bodies for our entire lives, and we all know how we respond to various circumstances. It isn't very difficult to say to another person "Imagine you're in xyz, and xyz happens. What do you do?" and have them tell you exactly how they would react even if they have not been in that situation. I didn't think that I needed to cuddle and make out with guys to know I was asexual; it was just something I wanted to do, and having sex was not. Placing myself in those situations really proved nothing to me.

[Dubravka]

Why is it that every time I mention what I would prefer and would make the situation much easier in my view, everyone flames me and says I am trying to tell them what they are?

Because that's exactly what you're doing. You are STILL lecturing us on a subject that, as you have demonstrated numerous times within this thread, you know absofreakinglutely NOTHING ABOUT and don't have the least intention of trying to understand, and you keep telling us what you would "prefer" like that's something we're supposed to care about and take into account because God forbid some sexual person doesn't approve of us. You do realize that this Is. Not. Your. Decision? This is a community of people who came together because they felt alienated by their lack of sexual attraction in a world that dictates everyone must be sexual in order to be considered "normal" and because they wanted to give each other support and work through this stuff together. You, as a member of the majority group, as a sexual person, DO NOT get to come in here and say, "Well, *I* have to analyze why you all feel this way before I will allow you to call yourselves asexual and form this group." It is NOT your place to tell us what we should feel or do and it is NOT your place to decide whether our identity is sufficiently valid or not! What you "prefer" is utterly irrelevant--we are autonomous human beings who live our own lives and decide our identities for ourselves, and we do not need to justify our existence to you.

Honestly, why are you still posting here? You clearly have no interest in being an ally or even in being respectful, so I'm really not sure what you're hoping to accomplish.

I guess what I have a problem with is people who go around saying "I'm Asexual!" at any opportunity when there's no need for it, just to attract attention.

Hmmm, now this definitely sounds familiar...where have I heard this before...? Ah yes.

Heterosexual Bigot: I don't actually have a problem with gay people, honest! I just wish they'd stay in the closet and stop flaunting their sexuality because it's annoying and I don't want to hear or see it! I bet most of them probably aren't really gay, they just want attention! I mean, what's the big deal? Life would be SO much easier if they all pretended to be heterosexual, because then I wouldn't be bothered by their gayness and I wouldn't have to do my heterosexual duty of telling them how wrong/sinful/messed-up/sick/weird they are! It's their fault I have to pick on them, because they're not hiding their real identity and spending the rest of their lives feeling like freaks and being trapped by other people's assumptions and expectations in a mostly heterosexual world that treats all other sexualities as aberrations!

[Herr Joseph von Löthing]

Sometimes I feel sorry for Joe as well :(...

And why might that be?

[Notako]

You're still talking as though it was required that asexuals go through some sort of test to determine they are REALLY asexual -- and that you, in some way, feel that you are the test examiner, or you feel that sexuals as a group are the examiners.

We are not contestants for the label of "true asexual." If we want label, we'll apply it ourselves. We may talk among ourselves about labels, but in no way do we need to ask the permission of the sexual community to apply those labels.

I'd like to hear from you that you understand that (if you do). The fact that you use the phrase "I have no problem" sounds like you really haven't gotten it yet.

I'm talking like that because that is what I believe. The difference to what you are saying I am saying is, as I have stated multiple times in this thread, It doesnt matter what my definition of knowing/proof is. If you can prove it to youself I have no problem with you. My OP had a very different air about it than that, so I can understand if you see what I am saying differently because of my statements back then. There is no such thing as a 'true' member of any sexuality, everyone is different. Oh and I =/= the sexual community.

While I appreciate that you think the circumstances I was in were enough to know that I am asexual without needing to have sex, my qualm with this is that I already felt that way before I was in those situations. I responded in actuality exactly how I would have envisioned myself responding when I would imagine being in a situation like that. I don't think people actually need to be in specific situations to know what they would do. We've all literally known ourselves and our bodies for our entire lives, and we all know how we respond to various circumstances. It isn't very difficult to say to another person "Imagine you're in xyz, and xyz happens. What do you do?" and have them tell you exactly how they would react even if they have not been in that situation. I didn't think that I needed to cuddle and make out with guys to know I was asexual; it was just something I wanted to do, and having sex was not. Placing myself in those situations really proved nothing to me.

Yes, exactly. Being in a situation reinforcing what you expected to happen 100% is what should happen. I'm not disagreeing with you on anything. But what if the unexpected did happen?

Why is it that every time I mention what I would prefer and would make the situation much easier in my view, everyone flames me and says I am trying to tell them what they are?

First of all, thats not an exact quote. Please quote what I said instead of removing some, thanks :)

Because that's exactly what you're doing. You are STILL lecturing us on a subject that, as you have demonstrated numerous times within this thread, you know absofreakinglutely NOTHING ABOUT and don't have the least intention of trying to understand, and you keep telling us what you would "prefer" like that's something we're supposed to care about and take into account because God forbid some sexual person doesn't approve of us. You do realize that this Is. Not. Your. Decision? This is a community of people who came together because they felt alienated by their lack of sexual attraction in a world that dictates everyone must be sexual in order to be considered "normal" and because they wanted to give each other support and work through this stuff together. You, as a member of the majority group, as a sexual person, DO NOT get to come in here and say, "Well, *I* have to analyze why you all feel this way before I will allow you to call yourselves asexual and form this group." It is NOT your place to tell us what we should feel or do and it is NOT your place to decide whether our identity is sufficiently valid or not! What you "prefer" is utterly irrelevant--we are autonomous human beings who live our own lives and decide our identities for ourselves, and we do not need to justify our existence to you.

Wait a minute: you think I'm telling you what you are and so are countering by doing exactly the same to me? Fantastic! I have every intention of understanding asexuality, why do you think I would create an account on this forum if I didnt? I am getting sick of having to mention in every post I make that I do not have a problem with asexuality and do not wish to analyse/change/insult anyone here. I have opinions, and as do you. I'm accepting what people are telling me and learning from it, and the fact that everyone is saying different things to what I have is accelerating that process. The reason I say what I prefer is to show that I am not telling anyone to do anything. After which I get accused of still doing that anyway.

Honestly, why are you still posting here? You clearly have no interest in being an ally or even in being respectful, so I'm really not sure what you're hoping to accomplish.

Because otherwise I would get accused of not sticking around in the discussion I created by people like Sciatrix. Can you not see the fata compli situation? as for why I am, not why I am not not, it is because I intend to provoke a discussion, and expand my knowledge in the process. After all, the description for this subforum is: "Are you a friend, relative or romantic partner of an asexual? Have some questions or need some support? Then this is the forum for you! You're welcome to use the rest of the board, as well, of course."

Hmmm, now this definitely sounds familiar...where have I heard this before...? Ah yes.

Heterosexual Bigot: I don't actually have a problem with gay people, honest! I just wish they'd stay in the closet and stop flaunting their sexuality because it's annoying and I don't want to hear or see it! I bet most of them probably aren't really gay, they just want attention! I mean, what's the big deal? Life would be SO much easier if they all pretended to be heterosexual, because then I wouldn't be bothered by their gayness and I wouldn't have to do my heterosexual duty of telling them how wrong/sinful/messed-up/sick/weird they are! It's their fault I have to pick on them, because they're not hiding their real identity and spending the rest of their lives feeling like freaks and being trapped by other people's assumptions and expectations in a mostly heterosexual world that treats all other sexualities as aberrations!

Yes, because asexuals have really been persecuted to the extend homosexuals have, haven't they! Great way to take one sentence out of context and create an analogy completely beyond all logic there :D by that logic, anyone who has less than positive opinions of anyone they believe to be attention seeking is that person. whether or not they are asexual doesnt make any difference (which I suppose means that part of the topic is well and truly dont to death by now) and I was only saying that to show that, when those two things comes together (no experience yet 'flaunting sexuality' to use your words) thats what highlights those counterintuutuve elements to me. (notice I am quoting your post in full, not in snippets that dont refect the intent of what you say)

Look I get that not a lot of people here like the fact that I've strolled in and presented opinions completely at odds with what all of yours and it can get maddening, but insinuations of bigotry are below everyone here. If you hate what I have said that much, there's no need to spend all that time coming up with a paragraph like that which adds nothing to the thread. (I should mention, that's not to say I have any authority over whether you *can* do that or not, its just my opinion on it, if you needed any clearing up)

Sometimes I feel sorry for Joe as well :(...

And why might that be?

Because of this whole affair: http://www.asexuality.org/en/index.php?showtopic=47793

[------]

Sometimes I feel sorry for Joe as well :(...

And why might that be?

Probably because you're friends with me.

I have nothing much else to add except that a lot of people here have said a lot of truely interesting things, particularly Isanda's 'rant'. I have very much enjoyed reading it so far.

[Sally]

Last thing I'll say, Notako, because all of your backtracking and claims of being misunderstood are getting really confusing and tiring.

This indeed is a section of the AVEN forum where sexuals are invited to come with stories of their relationships with asexuals, and with questions. QUESTIONS.

You, however, came here with claims about asexuals, in the guise of "opinion."

We're not interested in hearing claims about us. We KNOW us. OK?

[eee]

so everyone should give homosexuality a try? Maybe even beastiality? Just to find out how the experience goes? I don't know man, it's kinda on the fence to me. I've had sex, lots of sex........and decided, wow what a shitty waste of time and highly intolerable........but those who never had it probably dislike it from an innate sense and the fact that they don't feel the sexual ATTRACTION can contribute to 99.99% of their asexuality. I had sex just to test it out...........turned out, there was no sexual attraction to the long list of flavors (I sound dirty but it's the truth)

[Data]

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.

So if you couldn't break your leg by accident, then you would do it? :lol:

Your complain about given example is completely irrelevant, and wrong anyway becouse you can be raped.

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.

You are incoherent, first you say that you can't know if you would like something if you had not tried, and now you are saying that there are things that you are absolutely certain that you would not like despite not trying them. It is one or the other.

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.

So you would not call yourself with a world that describe, you would rather use 15 words that mean the same as that 1 word, why exactly? But you had said yourself that you are absolutely certain that you would not like some things that you had not tried, so you would be ambiguous about something that you are absolutely certain about? That makes no sense.

There is no magic in experience, it is very faulty way to judge reality just becouse you didn't like to have sex with somebody it doesn't meant that you would not enjoy it with somebody else, also you may stop liking some activity that you used to enjoy.

btw: Asexuality is about not experiencing sexual attraction, and not about enjoy sex or not. Many people would enjoy para-shoot jumping but few feel attracted to the idea of trying it. Sexual attraction is supposed to happen before you have sex it is supposed to motivate you to have it, it is the case for you so I don't see why you are so confused about that.

Oh, and how exactly do you define a situation where you can experience sexual attraction? Don't most people feel it just by looking at somebody? I need an official definition of it to decide if I can call myself asexual or not :lol:

[oneofthesun]

Yes, exactly. Being in a situation reinforcing what you expected to happen 100% is what should happen. I'm not disagreeing with you on anything. But what if the unexpected did happen?

Yes, what if it did happen? What if you had a homosexual experience and didn't hate it? What would that make you?

[virescence]

Why is it that every time I mention what I would prefer and would make the situation much easier in my view, everyone flames me and says I am trying to tell them what they are?

Because that's exactly what you're doing. You are STILL lecturing us on a subject that, as you have demonstrated numerous times within this thread, you know absofreakinglutely NOTHING ABOUT and don't have the least intention of trying to understand, and you keep telling us what you would "prefer" like that's something we're supposed to care about and take into account because God forbid some sexual person doesn't approve of us. You do realize that this Is. Not. Your. Decision? This is a community of people who came together because they felt alienated by their lack of sexual attraction in a world that dictates everyone must be sexual in order to be considered "normal" and because they wanted to give each other support and work through this stuff together. You, as a member of the majority group, as a sexual person, DO NOT get to come in here and say, "Well, *I* have to analyze why you all feel this way before I will allow you to call yourselves asexual and form this group." It is NOT your place to tell us what we should feel or do and it is NOT your place to decide whether our identity is sufficiently valid or not! What you "prefer" is utterly irrelevant--we are autonomous human beings who live our own lives and decide our identities for ourselves, and we do not need to justify our existence to you.

Honestly, why are you still posting here? You clearly have no interest in being an ally or even in being respectful, so I'm really not sure what you're hoping to accomplish.

*standing ovation*

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. :)

What are the aromantics supposed to do, while you're busy telling us what you would prefer so we can all change our descriptions of ourselves to satisfy you?

Kind of curious as to what the atheists are supposed to call themselves too. Or the anarchists. Or, you know, anyone else with an a-, an-, anti-, non-, etc. prefix in their name.

[Verp]

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 have never had sex, but I know from the sexual experiences I have had that I would enjoy it, in the same way I know I will enjoy a Frank Herbert novel even if I haven't read it, based on the fact that I love the rest. Now I have no problem with people who have had sex, realised they have no desire to do so again, and stopped doing it from that point. It's those who are the real asexuals. I hold those people very highly in my opinion, and in some ways look up to them, to have such strength of their convictions.

Would you take offense if, when talking about incest, somebody asked you how you can say you don't like it when you haven't tried it? I'm just kind of wondering, because I think that if you're like the majority, you very much not only think incest is wrong, you feel disgusted when thinking about doing it.

Well, I don't think sex is wrong, but I do feel immense disgust on par with imagining my sisters having sex with my father when I think about me having sex with anybody. Now, imagine yourself in a situation where someone demands, expects, or even suggests in all seriousness that you to do something that feels the same as having a long steamy threesome with your parents or else have your sexual identity forever doubted.

How would you feel?

[Notako]

so everyone should give homosexuality a try? Maybe even beastiality? Just to find out how the experience goes? I don't know man, it's kinda on the fence to me. I've had sex, lots of sex........and decided, wow what a shitty waste of time and highly intolerable........but those who never had it probably dislike it from an innate sense and the fact that they don't feel the sexual ATTRACTION can contribute to 99.99% of their asexuality. I had sex just to test it out...........turned out, there was no sexual attraction to the long list of flavors (I sound dirty but it's the truth)

If someone says they are homosexual, why wouldn't they be willing to try it out to see?

So if you couldn't break your leg by accident, then you would do it? :lol:

Your complain about given example is completely irrelevant, and wrong anyway becouse you can be raped.

So rape is accidental for the person being raped? I'd like to see you explain that to a judge.

You are incoherent, first you say that you can't know if you would like something if you had not tried, and now you are saying that there are things that you are absolutely certain that you would not like despite not trying them. It is one or the other.

Thats because ive changed my views based on what people have told me here. Seriously, if I kept saying the same thing I'd get accused of trolling, but when I actually take on board what people have said I get accused of hypocrisy.

So you would not call yourself with a world that describe, you would rather use 15 words that mean the same as that 1 word, why exactly? But you had said yourself that you are absolutely certain that you would not like some things that you had not tried, so you would be ambiguous about something that you are absolutely certain about? That makes no sense.

I could think of hundreds of thousands of words that describe things I have no interest in doing, but I don't because theres no need for that designation. The difference with sexuality is, it's so engrained in peoples minds and in society that you have to identify with one thing or other. As for the second sentence, I'm sorry but I've read that five times and I still have no idea what you are trying to say.

There is no magic in experience, it is very faulty way to judge reality just becouse you didn't like to have sex with somebody it doesn't meant that you would not enjoy it with somebody else, also you may stop liking some activity that you used to enjoy.

Exactly, thats what I've been trying to say to people!

btw: Asexuality is about not experiencing sexual attraction, and not about enjoy sex or not. Many people would enjoy para-shoot jumping but few feel attracted to the idea of trying it. Sexual attraction is supposed to happen before you have sex it is supposed to motivate you to have it, it is the case for you so I don't see why you are so confused about that.

There are quite a lot of reasons people don't go parashoot jumping even though they'd want to that really do not apply to sex

Oh, and how exactly do you define a situation where you can experience sexual attraction? Don't most people feel it just by looking at somebody? I need an official definition of it to decide if I can call myself asexual or not :lol:

We've been over this point: it's whether the person themselves would judge if they have sufficient experience to tell if they're asexual.

What are the aromantics supposed to do, while you're busy telling us what you would prefer so we can all change our descriptions of ourselves to satisfy you?

The reason I say I would prefer is so I don't make any statements of what I would change or anything like that, so people wont think im proposing some kind of 'final solution to the asexual problem'. Seriously, it's just what I think, don't take it as me telling you a fact about yourself.

Kind of curious as to what the atheists are supposed to call themselves too. Or the anarchists. Or, you know, anyone else with an a-, an-, anti-, non-, etc. prefix in their name.

Well how would you define atheism? personally I would say that the definition "lack of belief in God" covers atheism and agnosticism. There's also several related but different concepts such as irreligeon, nontheism, ignosticism, antireligeon, antitheism and apatheism (of which I would class myself) An atheist to me has just as strong views on the existence of God as a theist, just in the opposite direction. Strong opposite views =/= lack of want to believe, hence why I personally would not compare asexuality and atheism. But this is a very interesting point. The very reason I started this thread was because of the discrepancies I believed between what a standard a- prefix meant and the actual behavior of asexuals. Asexuality is definitely not a flat no to everything sexual, it can mean different things to different people and who define various aspects of sexuality differently. (You can say I'm lecturing you about yourself, but these are things I have been told by asexuals on this very thread.)

[Guest fridayoak]

Talk about missing the point.

[sindi]

so everyone should give homosexuality a try? Maybe even beastiality? Just to find out how the experience goes? I don't know man, it's kinda on the fence to me. I've had sex, lots of sex........and decided, wow what a shitty waste of time and highly intolerable........but those who never had it probably dislike it from an innate sense and the fact that they don't feel the sexual ATTRACTION can contribute to 99.99% of their asexuality. I had sex just to test it out...........turned out, there was no sexual attraction to the long list of flavors (I sound dirty but it's the truth)

If someone says they are homosexual, why wouldn't they be willing to try it out to see?

Um, now I must say that you missed the whole point, even if you were not talking to me. That's just so obvious!

I'm sure they meant that if you say, that asexuals should have sex before knowing they're asexuals (not attracted to anyone sexually), you should as well have gay sex to prove that you're not sexually attracted to other men. Or bestial sex, to prove that you're not attracted to animals.

If you can tell us that we should try sex to prove that we're not into it, the very same logic requires you to try all other kinds of sex than hetero sex to prove that you're not into those.

[Verp]

Well how would you define atheism? personally I would say that the definition "lack of belief in God" covers atheism and agnosticism. There's also several related but different concepts such as irreligeon, nontheism, ignosticism, antireligeon, antitheism and apatheism (of which I would class myself) An atheist to me has just as strong views on the existence of God as a theist, just in the opposite direction. Strong opposite views =/= lack of want to believe, hence why I personally would not compare asexuality and atheism. But this is a very interesting point. The very reason I started this thread was because of the discrepancies I believed between what a standard a- prefix meant and the actual behavior of asexuals. Asexuality is definitely not a flat no to everything sexual, it can mean different things to different people and who define various aspects of sexuality differently. (You can say I'm lecturing you about yourself, but these are things I have been told by asexuals on this very thread.)

Atheism, as a term, has relatively little to do with how strong your views are in the opposite direction of theism or how informed you are about theistic and atheistic views. It simply means that you lack belief in deities, there are no gods for you. A person who rejects the belief in gods because they have never been introduced to the concept and haven't thought of it themselves is just as much of an atheist as a militant anti-theist who became that way because they've had bad experiences with religion.

I myself do not have particularly strong feelings, personal experiences, or feverishly polished, informed views towards or against religion or the possibility or impossibility of deities' existence, I simply do not see a good reason to think that religion should be a part of my life or that some kind of gods exist. Rather, I'm inclined to think the opposite. Yet, I do indeed publicly identify myself as an atheist and there's nothing you can really do about that since I fill the basic criteria. Unless you are in the position to make stricter criteria, I have no need or obligation to listen to you and, in fact, I would be majorly annoyed and I would feel unnecessarily persecuted if you insisted that I don't know enough about myself or tried hard enough to understand the concept to be able to refer myself as an atheist and further my agenda as an atheist.

The truth is that although I do not really care for gods or religion, many people do and I am unhappy about a lot of things that religion does in my society. Therefore, I will at times protest these phenomena all the while referring to myself as an atheist whenever it's relevant for other people to know. I may not have tried being a buddhist or a muslim or a mormon or whatever, and I haven't read anything from Dawkins, but I am not stupid. I know how I feel and I know what I want and I am entitled to take action for or against things that affect my life whether anybody thinks I'm informed enough or not. It is my right as a person to not only relish in my identity, but to pursue things of my choice as long as my practices are legal.

You can change a few words from that and make what I just wrote about asexuality instead, except that my asexuality and aromanticism are things about my identity that I have basically been forced to be on top my game at all times in my entire life or else be questioned, doubted, and disregarded. I do not think I'm the only one. I really do hope that you acknowledge that even if you back yourself up with logic, you are bound to attract frustration when you go against people on this and no amount of "Hey, it's just an opinion" may help your case. Whether you think people can justify their asexuality or not or whether they should publicly announce their lack of sexual attraction, when you question their identity and their need to pursue acknowledgment, and through that, social benefits that other sexual orientations enjoy (which you are doing whether you're intending to or not), you are taking a stab at a very sore spot.

[Herr Joseph von Löthing]

Sometimes I feel sorry for Joe as well :(...

And why might that be?

Probably because you're friends with me.

He should be feeling sorry for you really.

[mindlife]

2. "Asexuals" who find it easy to pleasure themselves. I'm talking about anyone who can masturbate easily, yet still do not find being pleasured by others a nice prospect. This one raises an interesting question: where does shyness end and asexuality begin? If the arousal is there in certain situations, but not in others, does that qualify one as asexual? Now I know you are all going to define libido for me right now, so I've taken the liberty of doing it myself so you guys don't have to: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/libido as you can see, the ability to masturbate, as far as I can see, will come under that definition of libido. Even if it doesn't, when does sexuality automatically equal that and nothing else? Masturbation is sexual. No one can deny that. My view is that you cannot be fully asexual if you indulge in it.

3. "Asexuals" who have sex regularly. I was going to discuss this until I realised that this phenomenon was discussed at much more length in the hilariously redundantly titled thread "are sexual asexuals not asexual at all?" In one of the other forums.

You are defining asexuality not as orientation or perspective, but as behavior.

Sexual contact, sex in culture and society, all make me indifferent and often want to turn away, even though I may have masturbated.

The same perspective can exist in me even if I found it easy to masturbate.

Yes it can, because I'm an asexual.

I am and obviously, you aren't.

I would refer you to this thread:

On the relationship between behavior and asexuality.

Cate Perfect used to say that your sexual orientation was not a fucking merit badge.

She was right.

[mindlife]

so everyone should give homosexuality a try? Maybe even beastiality? Just to find out how the experience goes? I don't know man, it's kinda on the fence to me. I've had sex, lots of sex........and decided, wow what a shitty waste of time and highly intolerable........but those who never had it probably dislike it from an innate sense and the fact that they don't feel the sexual ATTRACTION can contribute to 99.99% of their asexuality. I had sex just to test it out...........turned out, there was no sexual attraction to the long list of flavors (I sound dirty but it's the truth)

You have, what we believe to be at least, a pre-existing attribute. That is, a sexual orientation, a way of seeing intimacy and being intimate.

And part of living is finding what accords with that orientation.

[Siggy]

On the subject of "Don't knock it before you try it", there was some discussion on Apositive, which is an alternative forum for asexuality. There's a lot of text, but it's good if you want more nuanced opinions on the subject.

[Data]

We've been over this point: it's whether the person themselves would judge if they have sufficient experience to tell if they're asexual.

People experience sexual just by being with other people so I don't see how anybody who didn't live separated from other humans could not have tested it. Anyway I will not read your post becouse they are complete mess, you don't even separate response from what you are responding too. Just copy quote function when you want to break down a post.

[Notako]

Um, now I must say that you missed the whole point, even if you were not talking to me. That's just so obvious!

I'm sure they meant that if you say, that asexuals should have sex before knowing they're asexuals (not attracted to anyone sexually), you should as well have gay sex to prove that you're not sexually attracted to other men. Or bestial sex, to prove that you're not attracted to animals.

If you can tell us that we should try sex to prove that we're not into it, the very same logic requires you to try all other kinds of sex than hetero sex to prove that you're not into those.

The difference is im not saying I am those things, so have no reason to prove them XD why would I need to prove something I do not identify as?

Atheism, as a term, has relatively little to do with how strong your views are in the opposite direction of theism or how informed you are about theistic and atheistic views. It simply means that you lack belief in deities, there are no gods for you. A person who rejects the belief in gods because they have never been introduced to the concept and haven't thought of it themselves is just as much of an atheist as a militant anti-theist who became that way because they've had bad experiences with religion.

Except that atheism and antitheism are different things. Thats the point of them having different designations. That's also the reason that I believe that there should be different designations within asexuality to describe the different qualities and nuances of that persons sexuality (or not, if the case may be)

I myself do not have particularly strong feelings, personal experiences, or feverishly polished, informed views towards or against religion or the possibility or impossibility of deities' existence, I simply do not see a good reason to think that religion should be a part of my life or that some kind of gods exist. Rather, I'm inclined to think the opposite. Yet, I do indeed publicly identify myself as an atheist and there's nothing you can really do about that since I fill the basic criteria. Unless you are in the position to make stricter criteria, I have no need or obligation to listen to you and, in fact, I would be majorly annoyed and I would feel unnecessarily persecuted if you insisted that I don't know enough about myself or tried hard enough to understand the concept to be able to refer myself as an atheist and further my agenda as an atheist.

When have I ever said anything that implies that?

The truth is that although I do not really care for gods or religion, many people do and I am unhappy about a lot of things that religion does in my society. Therefore, I will at times protest these phenomena all the while referring to myself as an atheist whenever it's relevant for other people to know. I may not have tried being a buddhist or a muslim or a mormon or whatever, and I haven't read anything from Dawkins, but I am not stupid. I know how I feel and I know what I want and I am entitled to take action for or against things that affect my life whether anybody thinks I'm informed enough or not. It is my right as a person to not only relish in my identity, but to pursue things of my choice as long as my practices are legal.

You can change a few words from that and make what I just wrote about asexuality instead, except that my asexuality and aromanticism are things about my identity that I have basically been forced to be on top my game at all times in my entire life or else be questioned, doubted, and disregarded. I do not think I'm the only one. I really do hope that you acknowledge that even if you back yourself up with logic, you are bound to attract frustration when you go against people on this and no amount of "Hey, it's just an opinion" may help your case. Whether you think people can justify their asexuality or not or whether they should publicly announce their lack of sexual attraction, when you question their identity and their need to pursue acknowledgment, and through that, social benefits that other sexual orientations enjoy (which you are doing whether you're intending to or not), you are taking a stab at a very sore spot.

I can see what you're saying here, and I agree. Surely the point of having a public forum is to look at everyones point of view and learn from them all in the process. Things here (in this sub forum, I mean) wouldn't be particularly fun if everyone already knew everything about asexuality and had no need to discuss it. But yes, I'm always going to offend someone no matter what I say, but thats not going to stop me from starting this dicsussion :)

On the subject of "Don't knock it before you try it", there was some discussion on Apositive, which is an alternative forum for asexuality. There's a lot of text, but it's good if you want more nuanced opinions on the subject.

That's fantastic! Thank you for finding this, it's been a great read

We've been over this point: it's whether the person themselves would judge if they have sufficient experience to tell if they're asexual.

People experience sexual just by being with other people so I don't see how anybody who didn't live separated from other humans could not have tested it. Anyway I will not read your post becouse they are complete mess, you don't even separate response from what you are responding too. Just copy quote function when you want to break down a post.

I don't know how you can still be arguing with me when I'm agreeing with you As for the quoting, sorry it annoys you but I didn't know how to seperate different parts of one post in quotes until now :) thanks!

[Iridien]

Man, I have no idea what we're debating anymore... oh well. Siggy, that link was absolutely excellent; I immensely enjoyed the viewpoints there.

Except that atheism and antitheism are different things. Thats the point of them having different designations. That's also the reason that I believe that there should be different designations within asexuality to describe the different qualities and nuances of that persons sexuality (or not, if the case may be)

What exactly are you meaning by that? Because we already have a bunch of different definitions--for example, nonlibidoists who don't have sex drive, demisexuals, hetero/homo/biromantics and aromantics, gray-A's, sex-positive, sex-indifferent, and repulsed asexuals...

And by the way, I wasn't really going off on you specifically in my little pretension parade up there--I'd just gotten home from work and I was in an overall bad mood, and you happened to be the first moving target. I hope I didn't offend too badly.

[sindi]

Um, now I must say that you missed the whole point, even if you were not talking to me. That's just so obvious!

I'm sure they meant that if you say, that asexuals should have sex before knowing they're asexuals (not attracted to anyone sexually), you should as well have gay sex to prove that you're not sexually attracted to other men. Or bestial sex, to prove that you're not attracted to animals.

If you can tell us that we should try sex to prove that we're not into it, the very same logic requires you to try all other kinds of sex than hetero sex to prove that you're not into those.

The difference is im not saying I am those things, so have no reason to prove them XD why would I need to prove something I do not identify as?

How can you supposedly still not get it?? Did you even read what I said, or the person before me who gave you that example? I bet you just skimmed on it, or then you're pretending dumb to tease us :P

THE POINT WAS that you have to try all those things to prove that youre freakin' HETEROSEXUAL! See, if asexuals have to try SEXUALITY to know that we're not sexuals but asexuals, then you need to try different sexualities to prove that you're not some of them but heterosexual, duhhh.... <_<

Why do you assume, that being heterosexual needs no proving at all, while being asexual needs to be proved?!! If you think that asexuals need to prove that they're asexuals by having sex, then according to your own reasoning heterosexuals would need to prove that they're not for instance homosexuals, by having gay-sex (as I've said several times already) <- do you see the connection finally?