Should asexual people demand protection from discrimination?

Post Reply New Topic

I remember putting this on facebook, in response to all the pro-homosexual marriage propaganda. I honestly don't see why anybody would want to marry in the first place.





Should gays be allowed to marry? I don't know/care. One thing is for sure, if they get marriage rights, I will stick up for the asexual right to marry too!

well, I pressume that the gay marriage issue comes down to "two consenting adults being able to marry legally".


People are weird.

It is the same with asexuals, in that romantic relationships are tied to orientation, the difference being that that orientation is romantic in nature. There are gay, straight, and bi asexual individuals, and the relationships they pursue reflect these preferences.
And, just as with non-heterosexual attractions, an experience is no less "natural" simply because it is statistically non-normative.
As for what "nature tells us", there are individuals within almost every animal population, actually, who can be observed to have no mating inclinations toward either sex.


As a straight woman, I cannot imagine pursuing a romantic relationship with another woman, either, because I'm not romantically-attracted to them.

See what I did thar?

It doesn't make sense to you as to why an asexual being would be interested in romance because for you, apparently, the two are utterly-inextricable from one another. But we're talking about people for whom, by definition, this is simply not the case.

I can assure you that there is absolutely nothing sexual about my romantic attraction to men (one man, now). Nothing sexual about wanting to hold his hand, or spend time with him, or grow together as a couple, or get married, or raise children together, or grow old together, spending our lives together.

The difference is that whereas the sexual component of romantic attraction which the majority of people seem to experience,
while it completely befuddles me and I can never empathize with those who have it,
doesn't compel me to deny that it is natural, and a completely valid experience and way of being.


I think romantic relationships are predicated on intense affection for someone else, as caused by mutual attraction, and actualized through deliberate efforts over time. The only difference is that for the asexual, that attraction contains no sexual component. The rest of the feelings are the same.

Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 16 Dec 2011, 10:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Custodial and property issues. Power of attorney. Societal recognition. Internal sense of permanency and commitment.

Those are my reasons, anyway.

To me it seems unauthentic. If you love someone (in an asexuals case, yourself) then why do you need some silly contractual ritual to prove it? Especially when divorce is so prevalent, it seems unnecessary to go through the whole thing. My take on it is it's more of a womans thing, they need to dress up and play princess for a day.

For the same reason people need "silly" signifiers of other types, whether it be verbal "I love you's", physical affection, or anything else.
Saying divorce is prevalent, therefore you shouldn't get married is like saying one should forgo cars because auto accidents are common.
And, as I mentioned, there are other, extremely important rights dependent on two individuals' marriage, such as health benefits, power of attorney, and more.

As someone who doesn't want a wedding ceremony, merely a justice of the peace presiding, and a legal contract,
I can most certainly assure you that marriage is not at all synonymous with "dressing up" and "playing princess for a day".
That refers not to a marriage, but to a wedding, more specifically, a certain kind of wedding ceremony.

I'm not getting into wether it's "natural" or not, the actual issue was "asexuality and romantic relationships seem to contradict each other".


The same thing you did in the previous post, but another thing I see you did in the same sentence is that you said "As a straight woman", so there goes another thing that looks like a contradiction, as in the example, the "straight woman" is "asexual". (P is not P?)

A thing that I did in my last post, is on the case of an heterosexual person to be "romantically" attracted to someone of the same sex, if your definition of romantic relationships applies to asexuals, it should apply to this case as well, so you would have to admit that if a straight guy who longs for romantic relationships or is in a relationship with another guy, is always straight and not gay, and the likelihood of that being considered as such, either by the gay community and by society as a whole is, I would say zero. I pressume that, if out of the blue we take WP as a sample, to ask that question, they would be inclined towards considering the person as being either gay or bisexual, and never take "the guy is straight but he is romantically attracted to another guy" seriously.

Now, it happens that some gay men marry a woman and some lesbians marry a man, but that isn't to say that they are actually romantically attracted, given that society has seen marriage to be between man and woman, that is the reason.

Also, for an asexual person, it would be the same to date a man, a woman or a transgender person, given the "lack of sexual orientation." so it wouldn't matter, and if that's the case, then I'd see some consistency.


The reason romantic attraction is separated from sexual attraction, and that that only seems to be applied to asexuals, makes it all questionable. Romantic relationships are part of human's social behaviours, and has always been a social expression of sexual attraction, unless you are redefining it.

But as I said earlier, if you expand the definition of romantic relationships to include "friendship", "economic/social convenience" and even because you like children and you would like to live in an ideal family environment to raise children, then I'd say, you have something there.

Last edited by blunnet on 16 Dec 2011, 11:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

blunnet, if you consider that some people cannot physically have sex for medical reasons, and yet form romantic relationships, you can see that it is clearly possible to separate sexuality and romance. and people who have non-sexual romantic relationships have gender preferences.

just like it is possible to have sex with no romance, it is possible to have romance with no sex. so a person could be sexually attracted to both men and women, yet romantically attracted to only women. or even only romantically attracted to women yet sexually attracted only to men. highly unlikely, but possible. and it would be up to that person whether to call themselves bi or straight or gay.

there is no set criteria for the definition. one example that highlights this is when people are heterosexually married yet have sex with members of the same gender on the side and yet still call themselves straight.

I'm referring to the lack of sexual orientation, not inability to have sex and attitudes towards sex.


Romance with no sex, sure, that doesn't mean lack of sexual orientation, there is still sexual attraction.
Bisexuals can have a preference towards one gender over the other in regards of romantic relationships, yet they would still be physical attracted to both.


Err, gay people marrying the opposite sex, is nothing new, and........

So? what matters is what X person calls himself? oh well, I suppose if I call myself asexual, that's ok.

I'm getting into a bit more than what X individual calls him/herself.

"Straight" refers to opposite-sex attraction, to the exclusion of same-sex attraction.
It is only in popular, sexual-dominated culture that this refers to sexual attraction.
Asexual individuals also use these labels: "straight", "gay", and "bi" (and "pan", and also "demi", etc).
So, in this case, P is, indeed, P, but (Blunnet's conception of what words mean is not what they mean in all ways of usage, especially subcultures he's not familiar with.)


I don't understand this sentence, sorry. If someone longs for relationships with someone of the same sex, I don't know how they would be defined as straight. Though that doesn't make them gay, per se (bisexual erasure ftw?). If I misunderstood what you were saying, I apologize.


Well, argumentum ad populums and appeals to popular ignorance aside, I don't know how someone can be defined as straight if they experience same-sex attraction. I'm not entirely certain what this has to do with romantic versus sexual attraction. Again, I think I'm missing something.

Right. This is discriminatory, and unConstitutional.

No, it isn't.
We're talking about non-platonic, asexual attraction.
So it most certainly WOULDN'T be "the same to date a man, a woman, or a transgender person"-
that is the very topic of conversation:
romantic attraction.
There's nothing, really, to be "inconsistent" (or not) about:
not all people experience the sexual component of romantic attraction.
It's literally that simple.


There needn't exist any "reason" for variation among individuals within populations, separated from the evolutionary mechanisms which produces them.
Other than that, simply understand it as a way of being that is not the majority, similar to any other minority experience.

It's "only" being applied to asexuals because...that's who we're talking about.
Just as if we'd "only" be "applying" discussions of opposite-sex attraction if we were talking about...straight people.

Obviously.

Oh, most certainly not!
Romantic relationships have been expressions of domination, of conquest, of economic alliance, of revenge, and a great many other things. Moreover, stating one (of many) reasons for romantic relationships doesn't make the other reasons disappear, nor erase that the attractions and variations thereof we can observe today (in our species and others) have in all likelihood existed throughout our history alongside the status-quo, institutionally-defined relationships to which you appeal.

No. We're not making arguments for this or that type of relationship, but discussing the motivations on which they are based.

If you can't fathom the notion of romantic attraction without a sexual component, then that's all well and good.
I can't imagine what romantic attraction WITH such a component is like, so I can empathize with the feeling of befuddlement.
But to argue that the experience cannot and does not exist, that there isn't a group of people for whom it is their norm, is somewhat ridiculous.

Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 17 Dec 2011, 12:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Well, in that case, I call myself, for instance,

a heteroromantic asexual:

I am romantically attracted to the opposite sex (men) and sexually attracted to neither sex.

Nope, I'm a little bit more familiar with the LGBT community, however I know that people always have wanted to redefine words and concepts.


You separate romantic attraction from sexual attraction, so that must applies to sexual humans, no? if an asexual person can have a "romantic attraction" towards X gender, and still be asexual, then a straight person can have "romantic attraction" towards X gender, and still be straight.


Right, well, I kinda expect few non asexual WP members to defend your position, so this is partly why I did it, if they were asked this question, they wouldn't agree with the concept being applied to another group, while agreeing with this case, and that would be inconsistent.

Second, this is mostly a cultural issue, so I see some problem when a subculture is inconsistent with another.

The criticism is when we take Asexuality = "lack of sexual orientation", if romantic relationships is how humans express their sexual attraction from their sexual orientation, how is the nonexistence of sexual orientation compatible with this? With redefining romantic relationships, which differs from how we (sexual beings) take it. (and your criticism towards society is evident of this), That is practically my take on this and that this is questionable.


The issue that I find problematic is imagining asexual attraction because all attraction is sexual within sexual humans, why is it that that isn't considered to happen with them and only with asexuals, is part of the skepticism.


well, the 'sexual component', doesn't mean 'sexual relationships' or 'sexual activity', the sexual component here is 'sexual orientation' and 'sexual attraction'. Sexual attraction exists without any sexual activity.

Last edited by blunnet on 17 Dec 2011, 12:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

It's not totally-redefining a word, to apply it to the asexual community, it's simply removing one connotation of it.


I would think so, yes, and I think as we move away from binaries and all-or-nothing definitions of attraction, we will see less rigid adherence to the notion that they're synonymous.


I still don't understand. You're referring to...something...in the hopes that other asexuals will chime in...and you can tell them you find their views inconsistent?
I can only speak from personal perception, of course, but I don't think you'll find many asexual people who opine about what is and is not a legitimate human experience when it comes to attraction, being as they are, so often declared non-existent or somehow flawed, themselves.


It's not at all inconsistent- it simply lacks an experiential component that the larger, sexual culture has, and as it grows in recognition, I think many, many more people will find that they identify with it. The asexual forum I belong to has exploded recently with people who've been searching their whole lives for a term to call themselves (much like WrongPlanet, in many ways) and are so grateful to have "found" their identity in that way.

It isn't.
But then, romantic relationships for asexuals AREN'T how they "express their sexual attraction", are they?


Again, we're not "redefining romantic relationships".
We're RECOGNIZING that for many people, they're not compelled to bring a sexual component into them, because they don't experience sexual attraction. No laws be drafted or summit be called. We're talking about simply acknowledging that an experience exists. It's not too hard, since we're here talking about it already.


You're asking....why all attraction is sexual within sexual humans (false) and why...this is considered the case for asexuals, and not sexuals?
That was inherently non-sensical.
It is sexuals who experience sexual attraction.
If it was a typo and you meant to ask why asexuals don't experience sexual attraction, you can ask that about any other orientation-
the answer is because those individuals serve an adaptive purpose in the survival of a group or species.



Right, we are talking about sexual attraction/sexual orientation.
I was saying that to assert that romantic attraction doesn't exist without it for you is one thing,
but to say that about others is to flat-out accuse them of lying. Either that, or being deluded.

Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 17 Dec 2011, 12:34 am, edited 3 times in total.

That person would likely be what we term a eunuch.

well, not sure if this even works if sexual orientation is taken as a spectrum.


Consistence: Separation of 'romantic attraction' and 'sexual orientation' must work for all sexual orientations, but these don't seem to be considered as such, only by asexuals.

An asexual person not having and never having had any interest in a romantic relationship at all, looks to be more consistent with the definition of asexuality we are using.


well, good for them, but if asexuality means more than just "lack of sexual orientation", such as "lack of sexual desire" or the like, then it would make more sense.


well, I meant "non asexuals" with "sexuals". I see I did it wrong there, so I apologize, I should have it worded like this: "Why all attraction is considered sexual within non asexual humans and why this is not the case for asexuals, and only to that group?" But that same objection is above.


"Everybody lies"
well, they believe that and I disagree with that.

There are different ideologies, movements and activisms as well religions out there, and some of them are crap. So "are they liars or deluded?"


Finally, I'm seeing that such argument seems to make children asexuals, I mean, a 6 year old boy likes a 6 year old girl, even though they are disgusted by sex, obviously, and even may find kissing disgusting, nevertheless they like each other, the usual consideration is that the kids are heterosexual, and also that there is physical attraction. I would have thought this is sexual attraction without sex.

Or, are kids asexuals because their attitudes are very similar to those of asexuals towards sex?

See above.

I've said several times that I think it works for all sexual orientations, although I don't know what condition requires that it "must".

Uh...we're talking about non-sexual romantic attraction, are we not? That's kind of the opposite of an asexual not interested in romantic relationships.

It DOESN'T mean more than "lack of sexual orientation".
Lack of sexual desire is a completely different variable, since many sexuals have very low to no sexual desire,
and many asexuals (such as myself) experience a sex drive.

Evolution: infinite variation in infinite combination.

So...take me for instance...you think I'm lying about not experiencing sexual attraction, or that I merely "believe" I've never experienced it?
Is this really so much easier than the notion that my way of being is simply different from your own?

Yes, but asexuality isn't an "ideology, movement, activism, or religion"- it's a lack of a sexual orientation.


It is usually sexual attraction without sex.
And therefore usually not asexuality.
But romantic asexuals experience those same things,
so just as I have no problem saying that some children are heterosexual, others are asexual, and so on and so forth.

Asexuality isn't an attitude, nor do all asexuals have a monolithic attitude toward sex.
Some are very sex-positive, others are outright anti-sex.
...much like sexuals.