Asexuality article in today's Toronto Metro

[JJButterworth]

In today's Toronto Metro I was delighted and suprised to see an article about asexuality that well done, even though no asexuals where quoted. Anyway here is the article: http://metronews.ca/voices/she-says/923413/asexuality-the-fourth-sexual-orientation/




2015 Edit - For future reference:

January 28, 2014
Asexuality: the fourth sexual orientation
By Jessica Napier

While most of us can’t imagine going through life without experiencing some form of carnal desire, researchers estimate about one per cent of the population — up to 70 million people worldwide — have absolutely no sex drive. Not in a, “No honey, not tonight. I have a headache,” kind of way but an ongoing disinterest in sexual behaviour with members of the same or opposite sex.

According to the Asexual Visibility and Education Network, an asexual person is a person who does not experience sexual attraction. Anthony Bogaert, a professor in the psychology department at Brock University, refers to asexuality as the “fourth sexual orientation,” distinct from heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality. Like other sexual orientations, asexuality is classified as an intrinsic part of a person’s identity and not something that can be turned on or off.

Some couples might lose interest in sexual activity during particular phases in their relationships — following childbirth or while faced with health problems or personal struggles — but these issues are usually a temporary concern rather than an innate and enduring absence of desire. Asexuals do not choose to abstain from sex for religious or moral reasons; it is not the result of some traumatic childhood event or because they haven’t found the right person.

For those who identify as asexual, this apathetic attitude toward sex is much more than just a simple dry spell or an empty vow of celibacy following a bad breakup. Many feel confused and isolated as they come to terms with their asexuality in our hyper-sexualized culture. I can imagine it would be hard not to feel like an outsider in a society where people read erotic paperbacks on the bus and talk about sexual positions in graphic detail over brunch.

It’s important to remember that sexuality exists on an extremely vast and complicated spectrum. From pansexuals to polyamorous to demiromantics to autosexuals, there exists a veritable alphabet soup of sexual preferences and expressions.

And while different forms of categorization can be helpful in promoting visibility, educating others and developing a sense of community, labelling shouldn’t be done for negative or exclusionary purposes.

Sexual desire might be one of our most basic biological instincts, but that doesn’t mean we should judge those who choose to have intimacy without intercourse. Accepting sexual diversity means recognizing the many different forms of attraction and giving others the freedom to embody their own sexuality, even if that means not at all.

Edited April 6, 2015 by ithaca

[Caketacular]

YES. This was a great article.

[Member54880]

Moving this topic from Vis/Ed to World Watch.

Aqua-ace,

Project Team

[JJButterworth]

Moving this topic from Vis/Ed to World Watch.

Aqua-ace,

Project Team

My bad, sorry.

[Lambda Corvus]

While an interesting bit of visibility, I'm always a tad annoyed when asexuality is phrased in terms of behaviour or interest, rather than through the sexual attraction which is not felt. To the author's credit, they did appeal to the community's definition, though only after implying that asexuality is about a lack of desire.

I've heard this "fourth sexuality" thing at least once before. I find it quite humourous, as if it is a new discovery like a "fourth law of thermodynamics". I wasn't aware we were assigning numbers to sexualities.

[Notte stellata]

I like that the article implies asexuality is "an innate and enduring absence of (sexual) desire." I prefer it far more than the attraction-based definition.

Also, I can't help commenting on this line: "I can imagine it would be hard not to feel like an outsider in a society where people read erotic paperbacks on the bus and talk about sexual positions in graphic detail over brunch." Haha, not for me. I've had a lot of graphic sex talks (maybe even too graphic for many sexuals) with a friend who is also asexual.:P

[Sassafras]

Yeah good article, well written overall and should def boost public awareness. Good work Toronto metro :)

I've heard this "fourth asexuality" thing at least once before. I find it quite humourous, as if it is a new discovery like a "fourth law of thermodynamics". I wasn't aware we were assigning numbers to sexualities.

I actually quite like the '4th sexuality' meme. I really think it justifies asexuality as a legitimate and valid option. Plus...i would have LOVED to have heard about asexuality as such an option when i was younger. I learnt about the other 3 while quite young so anything that gets asexuality into the same well know categories to help young people is a plus in my book.

[Kelly]

Short, but nice article, giving asexuality legitimacy and visibility. to her.

[ithaca]

While an interesting bit of visibility, I'm always a tad annoyed when asexuality is phrased in terms of behaviour or interest, rather than through the sexual attraction which is not felt. To the author's credit, they did appeal to the community's definition, though only after implying that asexuality is about a lack of desire.

I think it's important to remember that most people don't even see much of a difference between "sexual attraction", "sexual desire" and even "sex drive". They're often used interchangeably: "sexual desire" can mean "desire to have sex with other people" which isn't much different from sexual attraction, and "sex drive" is often used to mean "desiring sex" as well. Here on AVEN we use these terms a bit differently, and even among asexual people "sex drive" is used with different meanings. Overall, I wouldn't worry too much about it, 'cause most people will get the right meaning even with words different from the ones we use :)

Sexual desire might be one of our most basic biological instincts, but that doesn’t mean we should judge those who choose to have intimacy without intercourse. Accepting sexual diversity means recognizing the many different forms of attraction and giving others the freedom to embody their own sexuality, even if that means not at all.

Very well said ^_^

[Frigid Pink]

Thanks for the article link!

[Lambda Corvus]

While an interesting bit of visibility, I'm always a tad annoyed when asexuality is phrased in terms of behaviour or interest, rather than through the sexual attraction which is not felt. To the author's credit, they did appeal to the community's definition, though only after implying that asexuality is about a lack of desire.

I think it's important to remember that most people don't even see much of a difference between "sexual attraction", "sexual desire" and even "sex drive". They're often used interchangeably: "sexual desire" can mean "desire to have sex with other people" which isn't much different from sexual attraction, and "sex drive" is often used to mean "desiring sex" as well. Here on AVEN we use these terms a bit differently, and even among asexual people "sex drive" is used with different meanings. Overall, I wouldn't worry too much about it, 'cause most people will get the right meaning even with words different from the ones we use :)

Sexual desire might be one of our most basic biological instincts, but that doesn’t mean we should judge those who choose to have intimacy without intercourse. Accepting sexual diversity means recognizing the many different forms of attraction and giving others the freedom to embody their own sexuality, even if that means not at all.

Very well said ^_^

I don't think it undermines the message in any way. Certainly, it always helps to speak the language that the audience does, rather than using the terms which we do in the private community.

I think it would be a good effort to try to introduce our terms to the world, however. In that way, it would be providing the vocabulary which we use to best describe us. I'm probably just expecting too much of the general populace, and not anticipating how much confusion that would cause. Standards are too high...

[Eilera]

It was in the Vancouver Metro as well. I was very surprised to see it while I was on my way to work on the skytrain!

I'm mostly happy with the article, though it is short. It's exciting to know that a ton of people read that newspaper every day so I hope someone out there finally got an answer to their own doubts. :)

[Cayce]

I though it was good. Short and to the point but probably a good intro for those who may be familiar with asexuality.

On a side note I notice the term 'fourth sex' was coined by Anthony Bogaert who wrote "Understanding Asexuality", I was thinking of reading it, has anyone else here read it?

[Hedgie]

I really liked this asexuality article; it makes me wish I could go back in time and distribute copies to my junior high sex ed class.

[chair jockey]

The article explains things to people in their own language. This website tends to have an almost entirely asexual membership, while the readers of Metro are almost all sexual. Things have to be worded differently for them to understand what's being said. And, honestly, after the often ingrown and convoluted way sexuality gets discussed on AVEN, I found that article refreshing and easy to understand.

[Xavy]

The article was ok, the comments at the end .... Not so much.