Coyote's Girl Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 So. I've been puttering around the site, and came across this thread. I used to be very sexual, maybe even hyper. But only with people who genuinely intrigued me. Except for that one guy, who was pretty but not quite right in the head. And also had no skillz. Anyway, at some point in my life I just stopped wanting sex. Yes, men (and women) are nice to look at but I don't want the bother of sex. The pressure if you will. It's too much and it's too heavy and I just don't want to do it anymore. Except for when I do. Which is rare. Very very very very very very very very very rare. And even then I can't get into it. It's all pretty "Meh." Maybe I just don't like people anymore. Don't get me wrong, I find people genuinely beautiful to look at. I may even be slightly smitten with people by the way they look, but enter the thought of sex and it's like being caught in a downpour of slugs. I just don't want anything to do with it. I'm not the person I was 10 years ago. Something has shifted. I never asked for this. I'm not even sure it's something I want. It's just nice to know my brokenness has a name. Or a label. Or whatever. Link to post Share on other sites
columbine Posted October 13, 2011 Author Share Posted October 13, 2011 I'm not the person I was 10 years ago. Something has shifted. I never asked for this. I'm not even sure it's something I want. It's just nice to know my brokenness has a name. Or a label. Or whatever. First, you're not broken, any more than someone who is bisexual, or someone who marries someone whose skin is a different color, or a woman who enjoys sex... (this "broken" schtick has a long history!) However, that doesn't mean that there won't be people who'll tell you you haven't the right to call yourself asexual unless you fit THEIR definition of asexual. It's up to you whether to accept their judgment or not. Anyway, yeah, we're around. Not a lot of us, but we're here! Link to post Share on other sites
Lucinda Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Hi Columbine!, Some of us are having a discussion on another section of this board in regards to the current AVEN definition of asexuality. The truth of the matter is that a group of folks chose to fashion it as a sexual orientation in an effort to take advantage of the momentum gained by other sexual minorities. However, AVEN is using a truncated definition of "sexual orientation" in order to make asexuality fit and thus be able to ride the coattails of the LGB political activists. Yes, the AVEN definition is politically motivated and thus stands on shakey grounds when scrutinized. Here's proof of the thought process from several years ago: Well, just to clear up some confusion, the lifestyle of living without sex is celibacy, not asexuality. Not all asexuals are celibate and not all celibates are asexual, even though there is sure to be some overlap. Asexuality is having no sexual interest in people of any sex or gender. It isn't a voluntary decision to abstain from sex, either for religious reasons, lack of opportunity, fear of intimacy, or etc. There was mention of the possibility that asexuality might become a lifestyle at some point, but it would be pretty hard for it to be visible. (There were jokes about meetups in local libraries or bookstores.) Single people don't attract a huge amount of notice, aside from some curiosity and the inevitable matchmaker wannabes. Couples living together are normally assumed to be sexual regardless of their sexes, unless perhaps a visitor happens to takes note of totally separate bedrooms. The reason asexuality has been classified as an orientation is because it is the easiest way to get people to understand that it isn't a voluntary choice. Also, the other minority sexual orientations are currently getting a lot of attention and we are able to capitalize on that to some extent. It fits on a very simple spectrum: Sexually attracted to all sexes and genders. (pansexual) Sexually attracted to both men and women. (bisexual) Sexually attracted to the opposite sex. (heterosexual) Sexually attracted to the same sex. (homosexual) Sexually attracted to neither sex. (asexual) I hope this makes sense ... I'm running on fumes today. -GB If one isn't interested in sex and doesn't want sex, then why not own it and say so? Why define oneself based on the political motivation of others? Additionally, sexual orientation has to do with the gender sex of the person one is in an emotional, romantic, and/or sexual relationship with ... and has nothing to do with doing sex at all. Apples and oranges. Lucinda Link to post Share on other sites
columbine Posted October 13, 2011 Author Share Posted October 13, 2011 Yes, the AVEN definition is politically motivated and thus stands on shakey grounds when scrutinized. Wow. Just - wow. I joined this board too recently to have seen this. I can sort of see why they'd do that, to try to fit asexuality into a box comprehensible to the population at large, but I don't think the price (excluding most of us) is worth it. I think there's also an emotional side to it, though. The yearning to belong is strong in modern times, with everybody so unsure of the protocols because things are changing so fast, and the surest way to feel like you belong is to tell somebody else they don't, and so there! However, I've heard more open views on this board too. I've mostly dropped back to the Facebook group because there's a bit less of the "nyaah-nyaah, say what you like, you don't count" stuff over there. But sometimes it would feel a bit more honest to either fish or cut bait - if that many people think I'm just "passing," I don't know if this is a "community" (or "beauty contest") I'm that interested in. It seems like it's not a majority, though, just a few particularly adamant contributors. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I think there are two completely different issues that people seem to have trouble separating. 1. What is the definition of asexuality? 2. What is the structure of an asexual community? The answers to each of those questions will be totally different. And to that end, perhaps AVEN needs to stop trying to be all things to all people. Maybe the research/ visibility/ definitional section could be somehow separated from the "come here and talk with people like you!" section. It's important to be precise under the first group, and its important to be inclusive under the second group. Link to post Share on other sites
columbine Posted October 13, 2011 Author Share Posted October 13, 2011 I think there are two completely different issues that people seem to have trouble separating. 1. What is the definition of asexuality? 2. What is the structure of an asexual community? The answers to each of those questions will be totally different. And to that end, perhaps AVEN needs to stop trying to be all things to all people. Maybe the research/ visibility/ definitional section could be somehow separated from the "come here and talk with people like you!" section. It's important to be precise under the first group, and its important to be inclusive under the second group. I think that would be EXTREMELY helpful, even if people who don't fit the narrowest definition could have our own "grudgingly tolerated poseurs" section so that we can discuss our experiences and ideas without ticking off the True Asexuals and starting the same old dead-end argument again. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 I, for one, would find AVEN far less helpful to me if it only included "true asexuals". I'm here in part because of my partner, who doesn't fit the definition of asexual... but that doesn't mean that talking to other people with similar feelings as hers (and mine, for that matter) hasn't been life altering. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.