Jump to content

Do Asexuals deserve specific legal rights?


LittleBee

Recommended Posts

Asexuals aren't legally recognized (as far as I know) anywhere, and therefore aren't protected or supported on issues that affect them.

So I have a few questions I really want to know what you think.

  • Are asexuas recognized in your area, or anywhere to your knowledge (if yes, do explain where and how)
  • If asexuals are not recognized in your area, do you think they should? (and why)
  • Do asexuals need rights, what do we need to be protected from?
  • How do you think these rights could be introduced and implemented?
  • Do you see any purpose in an "Asexual Rights" movement, or are we simply not worth mentioning in the eyes of the law.

I have my own views on this of course ^0^ but I'd like to hear what you guys think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Australia does have a sex discrimination act that should in theory cover it, but, I looked into the detail and I don't think asexuality is within the scope of the legislation.The sex discrimination act prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation,however, the definition of sexual orientation in the legislation is as follows:

"sexual orientation" means a person's sexual orientation towards:

(a) persons of the same sex; or

(b) persons of a different sex; or

© persons of the same sex and persons of a different sex.

The definition would need (d) lacking sexual orientation to either sex, to specifically cover asexuality.

The most efficient way for asexuality to be recognised and protected would be to piggyback upon existing legislation that protects queer or non normative sexuality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

THanks foryour reply Braydin :)

I see exactly what you are saying about that law. I haven't looked deeply into my own law, but there is one thing that really sticks out at me.

In marriage law here, you can file for divorce if your marriage is not consummated, as an asexual with a particularly high aversion to sex, I feel as if I am not protected should I enter marriage. Sure, this law protects a straight person who marries a person who is gay and they later need to separate, but, the law does not consider asexuality or even acknowledge its existence, similarly to how your Australian law does not acknowledge asexuals.

I'll have to look into legislation here and see if there is anything concerning "non-sexuality", though I highly doubt I'll find anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, you may want to look at the laws in your jurisdiction. A few years back, I did look up the Irish laws for a member and they were similar to those of the states. I'll let you look them up and read through them and we can discuss more if you want. :)


Let me ask you this: If you entered a marriage or civil partnership with an individual -and- later decided that you wanted out, do you think the laws should protect your partner from you seeking a divorce? Should the laws force you two to stay together?


Lucinda

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you wish to get a divorce, it's likely that your marriage partner will want to get divorced also. Thus there would be no problem. Not too many people want to stay married to someone who doesn't want to be with them.

Otherwise, if there are no laws or actual discrimination regarding sexual orientation (housing, jobs, voting, etc.) in your area, why would you need protection? There was actual discrimination and sometimes laws against homosexuals in the states, but now there is protection against that discrimination in most areas. That was necessary to stop the discrimination. If there is none, you don't need laws against it. And to get any kind of legislation, you'd have to pretty much prove that it was necessary -- i.e., show actual discrimination.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Amoeba-Proteus

I think New York is the only place to have stated that Asexuals are a protected class. Other than that, I think Brazil has "attempted treatment of sexual orientations by mental health professionals" banned, which in theory would include asexuality.

Those are the only two that I've heard of.

In terms of legal rights, the only one I can think of is to have the right to not be discriminated against, like all orientations or races. Other than that, I don't think there's any legal rights to fight for unless there was a problem occurring.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Amoeba-Proteus
In marriage law here, you can file for divorce if your marriage is not consummated, as an asexual with a particularly high aversion to sex, I feel as if I am not protected should I enter marriage. Sure, this law protects a straight person who marries a person who is gay and they later need to separate, but, the law does not consider asexuality or even acknowledge its existence, similarly to how your Australian law does not acknowledge asexuals.

If you were married to a sexual and they decided they wanted out because you didn't want to consummate it, would you really want to be legally bound to that relationship? I would think having a law there would cause some serious issues later...

Link to post
Share on other sites
In marriage law here, you can file for divorce if your marriage is not consummated, as an asexual with a particularly high aversion to sex, I feel as if I am not protected should I enter marriage. Sure, this law protects a straight person who marries a person who is gay and they later need to separate, but, the law does not consider asexuality or even acknowledge its existence, similarly to how your Australian law does not acknowledge asexuals.

If you knew before marriage that you were averse to sex, why would you marry a sexual who expected sex? Just what would you expect to be protected from?

Link to post
Share on other sites

European law historically has required consummation (first coitus during marriage) for the validity of the marriage. This requirement originated in canon law and is still in effect in many jurisdictions. In England and Wales, for instance, a marriage can be annulled for non-consummation (Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (UK), c 18, s 12(a–b)), whether consummation was possible or not. Canada has mostly abolished the requirement of consummation; but a few provinces and territories (Alberta and Saskatchewan come to mind) still allow for annulment for non-consummation when one spouse is a minor, and most allow for annulment when consummation was impossible ab initio for reasons that could be either physical (e.g., impotence or a hypoplastic vagina) or mental (e.g., an inalterable religious objection to sex with the spouse).

In England, France, and some other jurisdictions, a factual dispute about consummation formerly had to be resolved through "trial by congress"—forced sexual intercourse in the presence of witnesses.

The law thus presumes that sexual activity is essential to a marriage. But that just isn't true. Even some sexual couples do not have sex with each other: some abstain, and some have sex only outside the marriage. And of course there are couples of all kinds that know at the outset that they will never have sex with each other. But thanks to the law's sexual bias, they are at risk of annulment at any time, should either party demand it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

. And of course there are couples of all kinds that know at the outset that they will never have sex with each other. But thanks to the law's sexual bias, they are at risk of annulment at any time, should either party demand it.

But I ask again: if one party does not want to remain married -- for whatever reason, sex or otherwise -- why should the marriage continue?

Are you saying that person A should be able to continue to be married to person B, even if person B does not want to continue the marriage? What good would that do? What exactly does the "risk of annulment" mean in that case?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sally, two people might marry with the understanding that they would not have sex. In many jurisdictions, however, their marriage could be annulled at any time upon application by either party, even though they had consented to a sexless marriage. The marriage would then never have existed, and the rights and responsibilities that the parties had thought that they had would vanish into thin air. (Contrast divorce: the marriage did once exist, and rights and responsibilities stemming from it may continue even after divorce.)

Now, if they had once had sex with each other during the marriage, the possibility for annulment on the grounds of non-consummation would not exist, and they could end the marriage only by divorce or death.

Why should non-consummation allow for annulment when the parties agreed in the first place that they would not have sex?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For example, if B got an annulment after many years of marriage. A might then lose all entitlement to B's estate, pension, insurance, and so forth. That's a harsh result that many people would find shocking. It's certainly harsher than divorce, which typically entails obligations of support and such.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't really know why! Asexuals 'deserve' them probably, but I don't know where we're left out or discriminated against in a legal sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would argue that current legilsation in almost every Western state is sufficient to provide us protection. The bigotry and difficulties we face stem mainly from a combination of ignorance and willful erasure of our identity - for instance, some of us may face violence, because those we come out to may attack us because they view Asexuality as being Homosexuality. That is a very real fear of mine, but is based in ignorance and bigotry towards another minority rather than an assault on Asexuality itself.

Honestly, a lot of the problems we face are not because of institutional systems of bigotry, but rather an atmosphere of anonymity that allows people to badger and mock us with impunity. It's bad, and it's humiliating, but I don't see it being a legal issue in the same way as discrimination against homosexuals and transgender individuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No law should stand in protection of a single group, but should encompass all citizens within the state. This to hinder exclusive rights. A persons rights do not and should differ in regards to their sexuality, gender identity or anything other than them being a person. The question "Is this person a person" should always result in the affirmative (sadly, this doesn't always happen and is the core of these kinds of problems), and if it does, then it should also follow that a person should have all the rights any other person of the state has. So the question is really; what constitutes a person? Personally I answer this question rather simply: Is it self aware on such a level that it can discuss morality and ethics? If yes, then it's a person. If partially yes, it is not yet a complete person and is in need of extra protection (such as children). If no, then it is not yet a person, and should therefore not have the same, but a separate sets of rights.

So no, asexuals should not have laws to protect them exclusively, they should have a law that protects them, as well as people of all other sexualities.

To answer your other questions.

1. Yes and no. Yes because asexuality is known of. No because there is too little knowledge of it.

2. Yes asexuals should be more recognized, but so should pansexuals, demisexuals and other minority sexualities. Why? Firstly because invisibility can, and often will, lead to isolation, which in my opinion is a breach of a persons rights, as no one should feel isolated in a society. Secondly because all information gathered by a society should be readily accessible and discussed, so that information isn't hidden or misrepresented from people that can gain from it.

3. The same as any other sexuality: persecution, discrimination, etc.

4. Through discussions of what is morally right and wrong in the intent of gaining a society that follows the morally right choice. All matters that can be discussed in regards to this, should be discussed.

5. Yes I see it as necessary, if only to bring us into the sight of societies eyes. Such a group must however not regard it's problems as bigger than any others (there are no "small" or "big" forms of suffering, there is only different kinds of suffering, and all are equally important), which is a common problem in such group.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For example, if B got an annulment after many years of marriage. A might then lose all entitlement to B's estate, pension, insurance, and so forth. That's a harsh result that many people would find shocking. It's certainly harsher than divorce, which typically entails obligations of support and such.

Reasons why marriage should be abolished as a legal concept: add one. -_-

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue with marriage here, in my opinion,is this, if a person enters marriage (sexual and an Ace) then it should be clearly laid out in writing or whatever SOMEWHERE, that the sexual is aware of the asexual and still consents to the marriage, in that case, the sexual is aware of the commitment they are making and they agree to it (if sex is that important, they can choose not to marry, that is fine). But when a sexual threatens to cease a marriage because it isn't sexual, they are essentially blackmailing the Ace "Have sex with me, or we get a divorce."

Im not sure about you guys, but to me, that sounds practically the same as rape, forcing sex onto someone who does not wish to consent.

Ace's arent aknowledged in most laws as far as I'm aware, and if we don't exist, how can we be recognised and our specific needs tended to.

Corrective rape -Ive mentioned somewhere on the AVEN forum in similar debates- is also an issue. Rape in general is obviously very serious crime and illegal, however consent is a grey area, a lot of rape victims don't get their rapist arrested because issues regarding consent can be blurred. if a person is Ace, they should be recognized so that instances of corrective rape can be appropriately dealt with. A person could be in a serious relationship with someone (a sexual) and the sexual attempts to "correct" their sexuality. I'm no expert in rape, but, from where a jury is standing, they are likely to assume it is just two sexuals in a realtionship, without saying that corrective rape exists and this is what it is, its likely that the sexual in this situation would get off scott free. (This is not even mentioning the kinds of violent rapes that occur outside of relationships)

The fact that there exists academic essays arguing that asexuals don't exist, really upsets me. You cant write a paper saying that homosexuals don't exist without getting laughed out of whatever institution you attend, but papers on asexuality are rife with mis-conceptions and no one is stopping them. How can we have a voice and exist when high flying academics argue otherwise? Who will society believe an "asexual fairy" or a respected academic with a Doctorate in whatever field? Im not saying forced censorship should be a thing (freedom of speech is vital) its just, homo, hetero, bisexuality, none of them are treated like that are they?

Rights, we may be okay (in terms of housing, medical etc), but we are vulnurable in marriage laws since sex is required. If a couple want to divorce, sexual behaviour should not be a feature, as mentioned already, some people who are not Ace aren't able to consummate a marriage, they also face this issue. We need to be recognized, that much is certain, but what we need protection from, is forced rapes and being forced into divorces. When a sexual divorces an asexual on the grounds of not consummating the marraige, the asexual has nothing, the sexual holds all the power, I think it should be a 50/50 thing. If two people decide to marry it should take two to decide to divorce.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A-listed, on 08 Feb 2014 - 10:42 PM, said:

For example, if B got an annulment after many years of marriage. A might then lose all entitlement to B's estate, pension, insurance, and so forth. That's a harsh result that many people would find shocking. It's certainly harsher than divorce, which typically entails obligations of support and such.

No. The annulment itself would include a division of property and financial assets between the partners. And it is highly unlikely that after many years of marriage, an annulment would be granted instead of a divorce.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue with marriage here, in my opinion,is this, if a person enters marriage (sexual and an Ace) then it should be clearly laid out in writing or whatever SOMEWHERE, that the sexual is aware of the asexual and still consents to the marriage, in that case, the sexual is aware of the commitment they are making and they agree to it (if sex is that important, they can choose not to marry, that is fine). But when a sexual threatens to cease a marriage because it isn't sexual, they are essentially blackmailing the Ace "Have sex with me, or we get a divorce."

Im not sure about you guys, but to me, that sounds practically the same as rape, forcing sex onto someone who does not wish to consent.

Ace's arent aknowledged in most laws as far as I'm aware, and if we don't exist, how can we be recognised and our specific needs tended to.

Corrective rape -Ive mentioned somewhere on the AVEN forum in similar debates- is also an issue. Rape in general is obviously very serious crime and illegal, however consent is a grey area, a lot of rape victims don't get their rapist arrested because issues regarding consent can be blurred. if a person is Ace, they should be recognized so that instances of corrective rape can be appropriately dealt with. A person could be in a serious relationship with someone (a sexual) and the sexual attempts to "correct" their sexuality. I'm no expert in rape, but, from where a jury is standing, they are likely to assume it is just two sexuals in a realtionship, without saying that corrective rape exists and this is what it is, its likely that the sexual in this situation would get off scott free. (This is not even mentioning the kinds of violent rapes that occur outside of relationships)

The fact that there exists academic essays arguing that asexuals don't exist, really upsets me. You cant write a paper saying that homosexuals don't exist without getting laughed out of whatever institution you attend, but papers on asexuality are rife with mis-conceptions and no one is stopping them. How can we have a voice and exist when high flying academics argue otherwise? Who will society believe an "asexual fairy" or a respected academic with a Doctorate in whatever field? Im not saying forced censorship should be a thing (freedom of speech is vital) its just, homo, hetero, bisexuality, none of them are treated like that are they?

Rights, we may be okay (in terms of housing, medical etc), but we are vulnurable in marriage laws since sex is required. If a couple want to divorce, sexual behaviour should not be a feature, as mentioned already, some people who are not Ace aren't able to consummate a marriage, they also face this issue. We need to be recognized, that much is certain, but what we need protection from, is forced rapes and being forced into divorces. When a sexual divorces an asexual on the grounds of not consummating the marraige, the asexual has nothing, the sexual holds all the power, I think it should be a 50/50 thing. If two people decide to marry it should take two to decide to divorce.

There are so many red herrings in this comment that it would be difficult to address them all in one post. Suffice to say that the issue of "corrective rape" has been addressed in a number of AVEN threads, and why on earth would someone want to stay married to someone when their partner doesn't want to be married to them. Marriage is not a prison.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would be interested in how the academics who insist that asexuals don't exist define "asexual" or "asexuality" in the first place. AVEN has its definition and there were other definitions that existed concerning people pre-AVEN. What exactly are their arguments?


Everyone is susceptible to "forced" divorce if they live in a jurisdiction that grants divorces. Why should any group of people be less susceptible and/or protected?


Rape is rape. In my jurisdiction, motivation does not have to be proven or stated. The state only has to prove intent and opportunity.


If a "sexual" threatens to cease a marriage by presenting an ultimatum, I don't consider that blackmailing as I do not have an inalienable right to stay married to someone who does not want to stay married to me on my terms. Additionally, the ultimatum presents a choice and what would stop you from choosing to walk out the door?


Lucinda

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would be interested in how the academics who insist that asexuals don't exist define "asexual" or "asexuality" in the first place. AVEN has its definition and there were other definitions that existed concerning people pre-AVEN. What exactly are their arguments?

"Clinical psychologist and director of Sex Therapy NZ Robyn Salisbury says some people who call themselves asexual still masturbate regularly - "which isn't asexual to me". Salisbury says sex therapists would call that auto-erotic - that is, enjoying their sexuality themselves - rather than asexual." ...

...

...

Professionals often consider that an underlying cause may make a person more disposed towards asexuality. Salisbury tells of one man she worked with who claimed to be asexual; it turned out that he'd been horrifically sexually abused and was making a very valid choice for himself to not engage in that aspect of life.

...

...

Salisbury says, "We don't know whether someone can be born asexual or not. That has not been established either way."

Although Sailsbury does admi that it has "not been established either way", it is clear to see she has an agenda "He was sexually abused and decided to be asexual", "Asexuals can't masterbate" and so on.

More examples

AASECT-certified sex therapist Joy Davidson, PhD, believes asexuality could be “explained or partly explained” by one of several conditions:

• “Endocrine imbalances that are undiagnosed or not understood;

• An extreme adaptation to unusual or distressing conditions such as pain or punishment for sexual feelings;

• Defense against intolerable anxiety such as trauma, religiosity, anger at oversexualizing of women, expectations of how to be sexual that conflicts with desires, lack of knowledge about desires, pathological narcissism, history of anorexia in girls as a way to give ‘meaning’ to asexuality or bulimia in males with its higher incidence of asexuality as indicative of other comorbid conditions;

• Shameful sexual arousal pattern that the individual doesn’t want to have triggered.”

“In a sense, asexuality defies one of the basic tenets of sexuality: That we are all sexual beings,” Coleman said. “Some people may not have much of a sexual drive. But does that make it an orientation? It’s a very interesting question that is certainly worthy of investigation.”

“Just because someone calls themselves an asexual doesn’t mean that they are asexual in the scientific definition of the term,” said Leonard R. DeRogatis, PhD, director of the Center for Sexual Health and Medicine at Johns Hopkins University. “It doesn’t mean that they don’t have a sex drive, it just means that they are choosing not use it.”

Marty Klein, PhD, is an AASECT-certified sex therapist and publisher of Sexual Intelligence., agrees. “Every clinician has seen people with no interest in sex, sometimes lifelong,” he said. “Some have been exploited; some have personality disorders; some are terrified of their own sexuality; some are, well, just not interested in sex.”

Neither DeRogatis nor Klein believes asexuality deserves special recognition.

“No, it’s not a sexual orientation,” DeRogatis said.

Added Klein: “The entire issue here is the question of the identity/orientation ‘asexual.’ The fact that … one researcher refers to people who are uninterested in sex by a special name doesn’t mean that it is a meaningful or clinically valuable category.”

Theres plenty more examples I'm sure, but heres a start anyway. While some researchers say "Well maybe it exists", theres a lot of the emphasis on "Its not an orientation, its a choice or a hormone imbalance."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there are people who have some sense and write things like this

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/200912/asexuals-who-are-they-and-why-are-they-important

but the fact of the matter is, asexuality is viewed (by some) as a disorder because it doesn't make "scientific sense" for a sexual creature to be asexual. IMO, humans don't always make sense, not everything can be explained, so asexaulity exists, researchers can feck off and try breed dinosaurs or something xD

Link to post
Share on other sites

If two people live together as a couple in my country (as in not married) they are still considered married in terms of income and whether they qualify for financial support in case of unemployment.

It is beginning to be the norm that people aren't married young.

I don't see anything that requires laws to be changed in regards towards asexuality.

It would be nice if they taught more about alternative orientations in sex ed in school but I wouldn't know what I was back then anyway...

Link to post
Share on other sites
LittleBee, on 09 Feb 2014 - 2:45 PM, said:

Of course there are people who have some sense and write things like this

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/200912/asexuals-who-are-they-and-why-are-they-important

but the fact of the matter is, asexuality is viewed (by some) as a disorder because it doesn't make "scientific sense" for a sexual creature to be asexual. IMO, humans don't always make sense, not everything can be explained, so asexaulity exists, researchers can feck off and try breed dinosaurs or something xD

So what does this have to do with legal rights for asexuals?

Some doctors don't believe that chronic fatigue syndrome or fibromyalgia are real physical conditions. Does that mean that people who have those conditions should be given specific legal rights?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what does this have to do with legal rights for asexuals?

Some doctors don't believe that chronic fatigue syndrome or fibromyalgia are real physical conditions. Does that mean that people who have those conditions should be given specific legal rights?

Perhaps I phrased it wrong, but "legal acknowledgement" doesn't exist, as in "we" don't exist in writing anywhere (and lets face it, we live in a "written" world.

Wouldn't it be nice if on FB match.com or whatever you could select "Neither" when asked if you preferr men or women, if "asexual" was an option instead of just "straight, gay and bi" options.

People with conditions, or who are asexual, may not need specific rights per-say (I apologise for confusion I've caused), but they deserve to exist at least. And in terms of rape, discrimination etc (it may not happen to you, or to me, but it could happen to someone and they are not protected if they are discriminated for being ace) asexualtiy needs to exist and be "real" so these people can be protected.

As for being forced into sex or divorce, it isn't always so black and white, its easy for you to say "If I was in a marriage and my partner said sex or divorce" I'd leave him" or "I'd have sex to save the marraige", but when you stand there, when you have spent years buildingu p a realtionship, a home with someone, perhaps you've adopted children so there are kids involved, it is a lot easier to say "I'd leave" or "I'd have sex" on an online forum, than to actually say it to your partner.

It isn't always black or white, so I think Aces should be given some kind of clause in marriage certificates, that shows that both parties are aware that this may be a sexless marriage and that non-consummation shouldn't grant divorce. Ace marriages are a-typical to sexual marriages, not in all cases, but, there are some Aces who will not, or cannot have sex. Some kind of consideration or arrangement should be given to this. At the very least, non-consummation shouldn't be a grounds for divorce. Marriage is a partnership legally between two people, I don't see anyne signing legal documents to prove their straightness or gayness, why should they be legally obligated to prove their "sexualness" to be married?

That said, if a couple are in an unhappy marriage, they should divorce, but I just disagree with the requirement of sex to validate a marriage. Asexuality aside, its just weird that sex is so heavily involved in this kind of laws. Relationships =/= sex and sex=/= relationships.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice if they taught more about alternative orientations in sex ed in school but I wouldn't know what I was back then anyway...

I think this is very important.

You know, it makes me sad to imagine kids going through what I did, the years of uncertainty, the constantly mislabelling by peers and family, the self doubt as you realise that you're just not into something everyone else is obsessed with. It hurts, doesn't it? And I guess if legislation could help solve that, and make kids aware of who we are - maybe it could help those unhappy few understand themselves a little better, and not have to experience what a lot of us have.

We owe them better, don't we?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many jurisdictions nowadays offer "no-fault" divorce: either spouse can seek a divorce at any time, without having to give a reason. Typically all that is required is a period of separation. So a spouse who wants a divorce for any reason, including dissatisfaction with the sexual or non-sexual aspect of the marriage, can get one just by moving out and applying to the court.

Annulment is a different matter. One of the few grounds for annulment is non-consummation. Until the two spouses have performed a sexual act together during the marriage (and typically the act must be penile–vaginal coitus sufficient for insemination to be possible in principle), either of them could seek an annulment at any time. As I said above, annulment would mean that the marriage had never existed, so the spouses would have no rights, responsibilities, or status that would have resulted from marriage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here it's just required that you want to divorce and that the marriage is ''irretrievably broken'' according to one or both of the partners.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what does this have to do with legal rights for asexuals?

Some doctors don't believe that chronic fatigue syndrome or fibromyalgia are real physical conditions. Does that mean that people who have those conditions should be given specific legal rights?

. And in terms of rape, discrimination etc (it may not happen to you, or to me, but it could happen to someone and they are not protected if they are discriminated for being ace) asexualtiy needs to exist and be "real" so these people can be protected....

It isn't always black or white, so I think Aces should be given some kind of clause in marriage certificates, that shows that both parties are aware that this may be a sexless marriage and that non-consummation shouldn't grant divorce. Ace marriages are a-typical to sexual marriages, not in all cases, but, there are some Aces who will not, or cannot have sex. Some kind of consideration or arrangement should be given to this. At the very least, non-consummation shouldn't be a grounds for divorce. Marriage is a partnership legally between two people, I don't see anyne signing legal documents to prove their straightness or gayness, why should they be legally obligated to prove their "sexualness" to be married?

Rape is already against the law. As someone said either in this thread or elsewhere, the cause of the rape doesn't matter; it's still a crime. If someone gets raped, it doesn't matter if they're asexual or hypersexual; the law looks at the crime the same.

As far as specifying lack of sex in the marriage contract, marriages happen over time -- hopefully, over a long time. It's up to the partners what happens, sexual or otherwise, and sometimes things change from when the marriage occurred. The legal marriage contract cannot reasonably guarantee anything concerned with sex.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If two people live together as a couple in my country (as in not married) they are still considered married in terms of income and whether they qualify for financial support in case of unemployment.

It is beginning to be the norm that people aren't married young.

I don't see anything that requires laws to be changed in regards towards asexuality.

It would be nice if they taught more about alternative orientations in sex ed in school but I wouldn't know what I was back then anyway...

This. Same sex marriage is a totally different thing, because that's something that's can be physically seen/observed. Heterosexual or heterosexual-esque (I put -esque down, because just because a couple looks male and female, doesn't make the participants anymore "straight" if they aren't straight) look like opposite sex couples. Asexuality, not exactly something that can be seen (since people don't carry around a neon sign saying, "HEY! I'M THIS ORIENTATION!"). I really don't see the point of any legal rights that should pertain JUST to asexuals. If someone forces sexual conduct you, the laws are the same in America that you can count it as RAPE, no matter what your orientation is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...