Should asexual people demand protection from discrimination?

Post Reply New Topic

By asexual, I mean people who don't want to have sex because they were born asexual or chose
to be asexual. I should also include people who choose relationship abstinence as a way of life, like me.

I am saying it because I stumble into people who ask me if I have a "special someone", and I always say
"no", and they don't ask me when was the last time I had someone, but they look at me as if I was a weird
creature. I am also saying it because if I chose to go to a psychiatrist for one reason or another, said psychiatrist
would probably think that a relationship is good for my well being, and I am convinced it would not be. I am saying it
because someone can say I am ret*d because I haven't had a relationship, and in said case, I'd love to accuse
that person of discrimination.

Isn't this the way gay people are treated? Well, no religion will attack me for this, since
religions tend to despise sex, and no one goes around beating up asexual people, as far as I know. But guys may
tend to avoid me if they have wives or girlfriends they're hanging out with, for example.

But all (most of?) religions put a value on marriage and having a family, and sex in reproductive purposes is encouraged. So if you're not abstinent for a greater good (to serve God, for example), most religions won't see your abstinence for life as a thing to be encouraged.

Just saying...

As for the problems with people, just tell them to mind their own business. I know it's not easy, but there's no way to prevent people from assuming things or wanting to force their views on you.

Everyone should demand protection from discrimination.

I just need to point out, though, that not most religions dispise sex and put value on marriage and having a family. You're forgetting the non-Judeo-Christian religions (*cough* Paganism *cough*). A lot of people tend to forget these religions because they don't hold as much power in the United States.

I guess they should. I mean homosexuality was considered a psychiatric disorder until DSM III came out in the late 70s or 80s. Why? No real reason, it's not like homosexuality got more or less healthy or moral or whatever, just the psychiatry moral police decided homosexuality was OK. So, if having sex with the same sex is considered OK, I certainly see no logical reason why asexuality cannot be. However, psychology and psychiatry is not really logical, it simply takes the place religions used to have in society as the moral police. I listened to this big talk show on NPR one day about asexuality, but psychiatry apparently claims asexuality is a disorder and they'll link it to schizoid personality type and whatnot. Why? Because they can. It's not logical, but neither is the entire field to me.

So yes, I definitely don't think people that are asexual or claim to be asexual should be discriminated against. No, I don't think people who are or claim to be asexual will get protection from discrimination ever.

One last thing, too. Christianity actually until pretty recently tended to value people who were celibate. Monks, nuns, etc. But besides even monks and nuns, there were many just plain out hermits who were considered great saints, just for trying to be holy and separating themselves from the world. The way St. Paul described marriage was "It's better to marry than to burn with passion." Basically, if you have sexual desires and wanna be married, then get married, if you don't, then don't get married. St. Paul also said this, "I wish that all men were even as I myself," referring to his celibacy. So I believe people are dead wrong in accusing Christianity of hating people who are asexual, far far from it. Just now history seems to be getting rewritten, and especially at my old Protestant nondenominational church, my youth pastor would pretty much scoff at those saints who were hermits or ascetics, because they weren't socially active enough (I'm out of there now, thank God.) But that seems to be the prevailing attitude among Christians nowadays, but asexualness was pretty much encouraged in early Christianity.

I'm definitely not asexual, but I'm chronically single, which I believe is the same thing in the context of this discussion.

I've never experienced any discrimination which rose to the level of requiring "legally protected minority" status in employment, housing, etc.

Mostly it's just annoying: awkward questions that are embarassing to answer truthfully, and sometimes restaurant staff asking you to sit at the bar so they don't have to "waste" a table on a single person, but that's about as serious as it's ever gotten...

yeah, this was exactly what i was going to say.

OP, in order for this to qualify as discrimination you would have to be prevented from having the rights and privileges that sexual people have, but suffering uncomfortable judgements is not really akin to discrimination. you're not excluded from having same jobs as sexual people, for example.

^ This. And going to weddings is more awkward when single, too.

So maybe the question is "how protected are we from psychiatrists who dislike or despise any lifestyle we take?"

Asexuality is a lack of sexual attraction to either sex.

It is not a lifestyle choice, nor a lack of desire for sex, nor a lack of experience in or desire for a romantic relationship.

I'm not sure what mental health professional would deem someone "ret*d", even if they did lack desire for a relationship.

Okay, I'm just going to be brutally honest here from what I know.

You're not going to be able to stop discrimination on this subject. Why? Because anyone who is not asexual cannot relate to you whatsoever. The condition will not have disability status, as it is seen as something you choose, and does not impair your life. At least with homosexuality you understand that they fancy someone, the same feelings you have. They just fancy the same gender. Like it or not we are animals, and the vast majority of us are ruled by our hormones in all walks of life. We are geared to reproduce, and fight for that right.

This is why I agree that asexuality is abnormal. If it wasn't, the human race would not be here. I totally respect the fact that it's a biological fact that it happens, but it is an impairment to the typical human psyche. Psychology will try to cure this for the rest of time, as it is their job to try and 'cure' or find coping mechanisms to any abnormalities. They will see this as a condition, and will question whether it is down to previous experience (such as abuse) or bilogical. I have a close friend who is asexual, and her relationship advice is invaluable to a hormone driven drooler like me. Hers is however down to extreme sexual abuse as a child, but she refuses counselling. She is extremely feminist and hates all people. She only shares a bond with animals. She has a friendship with me, as supposedly I have more of a 'dog' temperment than a human (still not sure how to take this ). Do not discriminate the mental health professionals, they are merely doing their jobs. They will always try and ask the more common questions first, as this strategy quickly kills down the number of conditions.

You have the stance where all the drama that comes from the dating scene is gone, and that's a big advantage. No NT person will ever be able to relate to you in this sector, but you shouldn't get annoyed about it. Of course they are going to ask if you're in a relationship yet, that is normality to them. Most peoples main goal in life is to find someone they can at least have sexual relations with, or further on a commited relationship. It is an entirely normal topic of conversation, and like it or lump it that will not change. You have the courage where you don't feel the need for someone to hold your hand through life; you don't need their words to make you feel good about yourself. Sometimes I wish I could be confident enough to live my life on my own, but my oestrogen levels make me swoon for a man. After major counselling for my own relationship issues throughout my life, I can now have a stable committed relationship. And to me, that is the best feeling in the world.

This is a total misunderstanding of evolution.
It is very rarely in the best interest of a species for every single member to be driven to reproduce.
It's "abnormal" in the same way that homosexuality is "abnormal", in the strict sense meaning statistically un-average.


"Impairment" has a very specific definition.
A lack of sexual attraction hardly meets it.

Sexual attraction can't magically be gained with counseling. Since you mention childhood sexual abuse, she very likely suffers from Sexual Aversion Disorder, and is actually not an asexual.

I feel the same way.
And I'm still asexual.

t is not a lifestyle choice, nor a lack of desire for sex, nor a lack of experience in or desire for a romantic relationship. [/quote]
The issue is that people confuse the term, given that you have to point that out, is evidence that people confuse them, so someone identifying himself or herself as asexual because of lack of desire would not be surprising, so there is bit of an issue with claimed asexuals.

One thing is that I heard some are into romantic relationships, which looks contradictory.

Very true. Similar to the confusion vegetarians have to face due to all the fish-eating "vegetarians".
It also makes it very hard for asexuals to "discover" if you will, their orientation, since so much of the scientific literature and popular discourse is focused on sex drive, with the presumption being that everyone experiences physical attraction of some type, while for aces this simply isn't the case.

Most of us are, yes. It's only contradictory to those who consider romantic relationships and sexual attraction synonymous.

Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 14 Dec 2011, 10:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

About as protected as you are from anyone who disapproves. All they can do is disapprove. The psychiatrist is your employee you know. You can fire him and hire another one. Or you can tell him that part of your life is off limits for discussion. It's your life, not his. You can tell him that your romantic life is off the table for discussion, or you will find a new doctor.

The bolded portion is right on the money.

Asexuality isn't a "lifestyle", but there is a criterion of harm required, meaning an asexual person is not considered disordered psychologically unless that way of being causes them suffering.

Nature tells us that they ought to be synonymous. Whithin heterosexual and homosexual relationships, we see evidence that romantic relationships are tied with the sexual orientation, and that that is the expression of that sexual orientation, even if X has a partner Y, who may lack of sexual activities or not persue any of it, for some reason (ie religion), that is what they got them together.

As a straight guy I cannot imagine persuing a romantic relationship with another guy, because I separate my romantic goals from my sexual orientation, its absurd. It doesn't make sense why a truely asexual being would be interested in romance at all.

Unless in the definition of a "romantic relationship" we include social/economic convenience, social pressure or mere friendship, rather than what is typically considered actual romantic relationship, then you would have something there.