planet-j, NYT

[planet-j]

Hello. I, too, read the NYTimes article about asexuals and was intrigued. In fact, I was moved to register and post here for the first time after reading the article.

I have to say, first of all, that my proverbial hat is off to all those who are going against the stream of our hyper-sexual culture, though I gather that you are not doing so by choice but rather because you have discovered that being "asexual" is a vital part of who you are. Hopefully the story in the NY Times will heighten awareness of and respect for "asexuals" in particluar and for the many different sexual paths that people walk in general.

I should explain why I feel the need to put "asexual" in quotation marks (and henceforward I will stop doing so because it might get annoying to readers and also tiring for my pinky).

Toward the end of June I will be taking a 2-week summer class on Christian Sexuality and in preparation for the course I have been doing a lot of reading about sexuality. In the process of the reading and my reflecting on it, I am becoming more and more persuaded that sexuality embraces much more than mere genitality and that at a very deep level it is bound up with who and what we are as human beings. Our sexuality, to put it broadly and simply (though working out our sexuality is never simple), is our energy for life-giving and life-affirming relationships, whether they be parent-child relationships, friendships, spousal relationships, romantic relationships, work relationships, celibate relationships, whatever. In some of these relationships, such as that between a parent and child, genital expression is inappropriate and harmful, while in some of these it is appropriate and beneficial when expressive of mutual love and respect. But our sexuality can be expressed in a number of different and creative ways that have nothing to do with sexual intercourse. Sexuality is our drive for connection, for intimacy, for sharing with others something of who we are and for receiving with respect and reverence the gift that others give to us. David Jay is quoted in the NY Times article as being interested in "deep emotional involvement." That's an expression of sexuality! Unfortunately, our culture has narrowed sexuality to refer exclusively to sexual intercourse or what we do with our genitals.

So, what I'm saying is that I don't believe anyone is truly asexual, and that whether or not someone desires to have sex with another person they are still a person with sexual energy to be expressed in art, conversation, listening, touching, or in silent and supportive presence, to name just a few outlets. However, I appreciate the use of the word asexual in our highly-charged, media-dominated culture, and I hope that it will eventually provoke a larger and less narrowly fixated discussion about sex and intimacy and what it means to be human.

[kbrd143]

So, what I'm saying is that I don't believe anyone is truly asexual, and that whether or not someone desires to have sex with another person they are still a person with sexual energy to be expressed in art, conversation, listening, touching, or in silent and supportive presence, to name just a few outlets. However, I appreciate the use of the word asexual in our highly-charged, media-dominated culture, and I hope that it will eventually provoke a larger and less narrowly fixated discussion about sex and intimacy and what it means to be human.

Well, I, for one, would certainly disagree with your assesment that no one is truly asexual; however, we have never claimed that asexuality is not a form of valid sexual expression. In fact, AVEN posits that asexuality is a valid sexuality in its own right, not ostensibly different from homo-, hetero- or bi-sexuality. Just as the distinctions between the preceeding sexualities hinge upon the gender of the person one desires sexually, ours hinges on the fact that we find no one to be desirable sexually. We might find people of either gender to be desireable for other, not explicitly sexual reasons, but actual sex is out of the equation. Cuddling, dinner, movies, sharing of ideas or lives -- certainly, some of us do desire these things. And, yes, that would be an aspect of our sexuality. But it would be wrong, I think to presume that the word "asexual" is incorrct or invalid. Discribing ourselves a asexual is one way in which we can let others know how our sexuality expresses itself, much as discribing oneself as "gay" can define expected sexual expression for a homosexual. If that makes any sense.

At any rate, welcome! I will split this post off into its own thread. You bring up some interesting points that I feel people will want to discuss more fully. For the time being, I will leave this in the Welcome Area, but if a number of people feel that this thread would be better suited in another forum (perhaps Q and A?), I will move it there.

[Amcan]

[Keith, I agree Q&A.]

I will say I would be careful to say no-one is truly asexual.

There is a huge mix of asexual people here and all would agree that they are asexual that is how they describe themselves that is their orientation. It is not by choice but how we were born.

I will say sexuality can be fluid and change however. It just doesn't change for some where it might for otheres.

However I ma glad that you are taing the time to look at asexuality nad try tot understand it.

[Eta Carinae]

Cuddling, dinner, movies, sharing of ideas or lives -- certainly, some of us do desire these things. And, yes, that would be an aspect of our sexuality.

David Jay is quoted in the NY Times article as being interested in "deep emotional involvement." That's an expression of sexuality!

Why are either of these things true? "Sexuality" implies that there is something involving sex (as in sexual activity or desire, or as in gender) going on. If it's the former -- well, I don't experience sexual attraction. How can cuddling or watching movies or being deeply emotionally involved be sexual under those circumstances? If it's the latter (which I find to be a less than ideal definition), well, then I guess emotional relationships are an expression of sexuality, but so is nearly everything else a person does.

[Shivers]

Hmmmm..... interesting defenition of sexuality. Not sure if I neccessarily agree with the defenition, but I do see your point.

[planet-j]

After I posted my first remarks, I realized that saying in this forum that no one is truly asexual might be taken as inflammatory. I apologize if I offended anyone or seemed dismissive of those who identify themselves as asexual.

we have never claimed that asexuality is not a form of valid sexual expression. In fact, AVEN posits that asexuality is a valid sexuality in its own right, not ostensibly different from homo-, hetero- or bi-sexuality. Just as the distinctions between the preceeding sexualities hinge upon the gender of the person one desires sexually, ours hinges on the fact that we find no one to be desirable sexually. We might find people of either gender to be desireable for other, not explicitly sexual reasons, but actual sex is out of the equation.

I'm glad you put it that way. I was trying to broaden the term asexuality out of narrow categories of actual, physical intercourse, but you reminded me that homo-, hetero-, and bisexual all refer specifically to the gender(s) of those we would like to have sex with; so why can't the term asexual function in the same way. I see your point.

I guess my main point was that our society has become so conditioned to think of sexuality as having to do only with sexual intercourse and as something that is only operative in romantic relationships. Go into any bookstore and look in the Sexuality section and you'll see books on positions and techniques and how to get/give the best orgasm. These can all be aspects of sexuality, but they are not the whole story.

My reading leads me to believe that part of the problem is the discomfort, shame, guilt, and fear with which Western culture, in general, regards the body and its functions and desires. This comes, I believe, through centuries of Christian tradition (I should point out that I myself am Christian) but also, earlier, from ancient Roman and Greek ideals. We (I'm speaking generally here) dissociate from the bodily and create a category for specifically "sexual" feelings and activities because they are powerful and fearful and overwhelming. But I think if we weren't so frightened and uncomfortable with our bodies, we would be able to fully integrate them into all the ways we have of relating to others, and all these ways would be acknowledged as sexual. Again, by "sexual" I mean that which pertains to our relationality as humans.

I'm afraid I might just be quibbling about words. I think we need to reclaim the word sexuality from narrow definitions, while respecting the reality that asexuality describes.

I guess I'm thinking of sexuality as akin to attraction. I can be heterosexual and yet find members of my own gender attractive in certain ways that do not include specifically sexual behaviors.

I see that this is the Asexual Visibility and EDUCATION Network, and I admit that I am just beginning to learn. Thanks for your patience and understanding.

[kbrd143]

I guess my main point was that our society has become so conditioned to think of sexuality as having to do only with sexual intercourse and as something that is only operative in romantic relationships. Go into any bookstore and look in the Sexuality section and you'll see books on positions and techniques and how to get/give the best orgasm. These can all be aspects of sexuality, but they are not the whole story.

Exactly what I was saying, planet j. If sexual orientations can also be referred to (somewhat imprecicely, perhaps) as "sexualities", then an asexual would express his or her "sexuality" by not engaging in sexual activity. In this way, asexuality might even fall within the perameters of convntional sexual theory: by not having sex, then we are doing precisely what we are oriented to do. Certainly, I believe that by not having sex, I am behaving in exactly the manner in which I was hard-wired to behave at birth. . . .

I'm afraid I might just be quibbling about words. I think we need to reclaim the word sexuality from narrow definitions, while respecting the reality that asexuality describes.

I guess I'm thinking of sexuality as akin to attraction. I can be heterosexual and yet find members of my own gender attractive in certain ways that do not include specifically sexual behaviors.

Well, it must be said that the current definition of asexual, "a person who does not experience sexual attraction", is a bit unwieldy in its simplicity. To be frank, we discuss frequently what it means to be sexually attracted and, as far as I know, at any rate, to date we have not found a difinitive answer that pleases everybody. A simple reason for this could be that, as asexuals, we have never really experienced it and therefore would have no clue as to what it is, much less be able to discribe it coherently. Another explaination would be that sexaul behaviour is rather fluidly defined, in our society: what one group considers sexual others find harmless, and so forth. (Think of the prohibitions against dancing in the south. . . Or, for that matter, how the President of the United States can be ah... pleasured orally in the Oval Office, and yet still say that he has not had sex with the pleasurer. . . ) If the people who get up to this kind of thing can't even figure it out, then how in the world could we even begin to?

I see that this is the Asexual Visibility and EDUCATION Network, and I admit that I am just beginning to learn. Thanks for your patience and understanding.

Well, to be fair, we are still learning too. Thanks for joining in on the consersation and being open to our comments. On antoher note, I think I will move this to the Q&A section. I think it might get more traffic, there, and some pretty interesting points are being discussed, here. This subject deserves to be explored as fully as possible. . . .

[Goonie]

*looks around*

Welcome to AVEN

*heads out before getting hit with the discussion*

[McBuh]

I think we need to reclaim the word sexuality from narrow definitions, while respecting the reality that asexuality describes.

I agree totally. I refer to sexuality as any basis, regardless of relation to attraction, drive or orientation, for gender-based differentiation of behavior.

By which, quoting a $35,000 salary to a female interviewee and then a $40,000 salary to a male interviewee, is an expression of sexuality.

A decision on whether or not to grow one's hair long is often an expression of sexuality.

The conceptual difficulty I preceive as arising from a tendency to associate such differentiation of behavior as relating to drive, orientation and attraction. Defining sexuality thus eliminates a problem of indeterminate teliology.

[Islander9]

Which does not obviate some real physically/hormonely testable individuals- who are, for reasons generally hormonal, asexual.

I also find an unwonted squandering of the word 'sexual': it seems to have slipped into everything including jam....