Can people really be asexual?

`
Since I do not recognize you as any kind of expert on this issue, thanks for your opinion.

 

It is my thread, I shall thank you.

 

Expanding a little;
Hetero-, homo- and bisexuality are not choices. Obviously. Asexuality, demisexuality and aromanticism, on the other hand are. To a certain externt. Now it is of course possible to not have felt any kind of romantic or sexual attraction to anyone, but as your anecdote proves, this is a question of not having met the right person yet.

As I mentioned previously, I had suspicisions of being asexual. Did my research and realised this cannot be because to me it appeared such thing cannot and does not exist. And as far as this fancy new term of "demisexuality" goes, I do fall into that but I wouldn't really call it an actual sexual orientation because it simply derrives from preference and choice- I would not engage in sex without love because that's just the way I am.

To me, ones sexuality is something permanent and thus it is impossible to first be asexual and then all of a sudden "lose the A" to become sexual. Again, puttning your little, cute anecdote into perspective it is just as fooolish and silly sounding as; "I was heterosexual util I became gay." See what I mean?

But it is great to see different opinions. Twas why I started this topic.

 

If someone were completely impotent, they would have no sexual attractions which would make them effectively asexual. I do not see a difference in the context we are discussing.

 

Not perfectly no. All sexual designations are matters of degree.

I've met people who process all social interaction sexually, and personally I find it annoying at best and creepy and predatory at worst. I tend to interact socially on an asexual level unless I feel 'chemistry' or some spark of interest. Otherwise I am more interested in people for their ideas and experiences, usually I completely miss sexual overtones unless they become obvious. In which case I'll usually avoid that person like the plague, (I'll use it to my advantage once in a blue moon if its non-threatening), I'm married so even an attractive possibility has too many complications.

Sex is too big a thing though for a person to exist completely neutral to it.

 

`
Yes, this is your thread but that doesn't make you an expert, especially in light of the fact that the information on this link, proves you mistaken.

 

I think you mean, "why do I see no value in troll threads posted to attack things people don't understand, and clearly don't want to understand."

"attempt to research or understand"?

Pull the other one.

 

Baloney. If you don't get that questioning whether someone's sexuality can even exist doesn't communicate a hateful message to them, then that's on you. Not them, and not me.

This has been done to gay people, it's been done to transgender people, and now it's being done to asexual people.

I am not the least bit fooled by these protestations of a sincere desire to discuss the issue. It's not evident in the way this was framed, and it's not evident in the responses that were immediately forthcoming.

This is little more than a demand that anyone who self-labels as asexual must bend to how you want to define it, not according to how they see it as fitting their understanding of their own sexuality. It's an attempt to pigeon-hole people, in ignorance of the fact that people's sexuality doesn't neatly fall into perfect categories, but can exist along a multi-layered spectrum.

Sorry it's not as simple as you'd prefer it to be.

Bottom line - you aren't in charge of anyone else' sexuality.

Which is very much a case of you projecting and viewing someone else' experience through the lens of your own. No one can escape doing so entirely, but people should at least make the effort to try.

 

Because you demand it must be so? Who died and made you Lord God Emperor Over All?

It proves nothing of the sort. People marry and have children for all sorts of different reasons, and not solely based on attraction as the all-controlling driver.

 

What is again, that you say about projection further below?

I am very much after a serious and sincere debate. You are the one using attacks and accusations here.

Again, that part about projecting. Hmmmm.

Neither are you of anyone's opinion.

Aaaaaah. There it Is!

Are you mental?

I don't agree.

 

TrollIng? E xcuse med brother, but if you are too deep up your own arse and take every perception of reality that does not correspond with yours as an insult you have some serious issue.

Have I been using bad language? Have I made fun of anyone? Have laughed at someone being different? No. No. No.

If you cannot take it, sod off!

 

My statement was quite clear.

Someone who makes declarations that asexuality doesn't exist is not after a serious and sincere debate. Nevermind that a person's sexuality shouldn't even be a matter for someone else to debate in the first place. That just smack's of privilege and a misguided sense of one's own, albeit false, superiority.

Which you clearly have made no effort to understand.

Strawman. I have zero obligation to refrain from criticism of the opinions expressed in the OP, responses to it, and subsequent posts. You're welcome to hold whatever asinine opinion you please, and I'm free to tell you how asinine that opinion is, in my view.

Try reading it again and actually understanding it this time. Your apparent intent is to suggest that I'm the one projecting, which is ridiculous. If I were projecting, I would be arguing that asexuality doesn't exist, because it doesn't conform in the least to how I experience my own sexuality. A point that apparently went right over your head.

I am instead defending their right to their own sexuality, and their own understanding of it, regardless of whether or not it conforms with my own experience. You clearly cannot say the same.

Are you baiting? Yes, you are. Too bad for you that this isn't my first rodeo, and I'm not going to fall for that kind of nonsense.

Ok. I will just point out that you apparently don't have any sort of argument whatsoever to make in support of your disagreeing opinion, though - or you would have offered it.

 

Says the guy who demands that asexuality isn't real/doesn't exist because it doesn't conform to his own perception of reality. Seriously, you made a whole lot a noise about why you think it doesn't exist, based one your own experiences. You gave us no counterpoint to consider. It was all about your personal experiences and how you perceive it. No room whatsoever given for someone to have a different experience that validates them self-labeling as asexual.

Which is a segue to another point: Labels like asexual, bisexual, heterosexual, etc. aren't a matter of what you or I think about someone else' sexuality. It's about how they perceive their sexuality and its role in shaping their identity.

"Bad language" isn't the sole indicator of hatred, condescension, bullying, etc.

You've belittled other people's sexuality as not being genuine, and that's not so very different.

So you're not the worst of the worst. Congratulations on that.

I can take it, and then some. If you can't, then don't start threads that attack other people's sexuality.

 

When all what comes around?

What if you didn't? What if you just masturbate because it feels good abd weren't attracted to anybody?

Again I can't read people's minds.

 

Please, re-read all my posts again.

 

Sure. But if you masturbate it means you are sexual and thus not ace. Yes?

 

Well not asexual in the strictest sense meaning without sex. But asexual as an orientation yes. That's what people mean when they describe themselves that way. They don't mean they are born without either male or female sexes.

 

no, that's not term. celibacy is something entirely different.

everyone is capable of celibacy.

 

no, there can't. even impotent people have a sex drive.

people who say they have no sex drive, will still have erections (if male), so clearly it's psychological.

- - - Updated - - -

you don't have to know anything at all about sex. it's simple human biology.

 

I must have missed the posts expressing 'concern' over this. And the posters who wouldn't 'live and let live'.

Again, what's with the attempts to shut down open discussion? Cow too sacred?

- - - Updated - - -

we're curious, and having a discussion.

do we have your permission to continue?

- - - Updated - - -

logic is a beeatch, no.

 

From what I've heard some married people say, yes!

 

NO

sorry for the caps, but this is getting a bit tiresome. impotence can coexist with a normal sex drive. even psychosomatic impotence can coexist with a normal sex drive. physiological pretty much always does. if it didn't, Viagra would not exist.

- - - Updated - - -

I have seen no attacks. Not one.

 

So the cow is too sacred.

Nice for science and progress. Do you suppose we ought never research or question anything related to genitals, lest it hurt someone's feelings? How about random mental illnesses? Leave 'em alone to stew? Don't do any investigations?

 

I am sure being wrong is tiresome for you. To say that because sexually active people can become impotent means that asexual people could not be impotent is nonsense.

 

You want the world to acknowledge your 978 genders and all your different 'sexualities', without apparently considering that to the average person these concepts sound (and often are) absurd. You then demand that we never question any of these things, nor research them in any way, shape, or form. You demand we accept them, and further - integrate them into our lives as reality.

THAT IS PHKNG RELIGION.

We're not obliged to user 'preferred pronouns', nor recognise any gender but male and female, any more than we're obliged to go along with the lunatic's assertion that he's Napoleon Bonaparte. Trying to force us to do so by shaming is the equivalent of the fundamentalist shaming of atheism.

- - - Updated - - -

where did I say 'asexual' people can't be impotent?