Opinion What do you think of asexuality and aromantics?

[The Mechanist]

This was interesting to read, although I am not surprised a certain someone has caused others to be upset, as they have countless times in the past that led to arguments, reports and what not. I myself acknowledge it's existsence thanks to the convincing of @SplashingSunsets, she had the patience to help me learn and understand; when I first learned of said orientations I refused to believe them, my inner scientist didn't wish to acknowledge such things, but as time went on and explanations were given I can to understand, there was another who had evidence that could track these orientations back years ago, I'm not sure if he has an account on here since I wasn't even a member of this site at the time. 

 

[The Mechanist]

 

[Pine]

So we don't understand the melodrama. 

I've come to understand a good portion of the melodrama is unwarranted. There's an entire segment of tumblr dedicated to "ace discourse" where, in part, people bicker over whether or not asexuality has its place in the LGBT acronym. Personally, after I've done a lot of thinking, I think it's an entirely separate issue of its own that should be kept separate. So not all of us are heightening the struggles of asexuality to those of homo/bisexuals.


Again, asexuality ≠ chastity, abstinence, or anything like that. That would imply that this is a case of morality, but it isn't. It's a literal incapability of experiencing that sort of attraction (assuming someone on that far side of the asexual spectrum). It's much easier to tell a partner "I'm asexual" than to say "I have a hormone imbalance/deficiency that makes me incapable of being attracted to you like that and I don't have any documents to prove it if you wanted to see those."


I also think there's a misconception spreading on this thread that asexuals don't ever have sex (some by ace people themselves), but that isn't the case. Sex-positive ace people exist, and just about any place you look up a definition for asexuality will mention this. (And to the ace people on this thread, non-asexual people can have low libidos too.)


What's annoying about being ace/aro is that it complicates relationships with people. Then when you find this as an explanation for your feelings, people will think that they're being supportive by saying "You just need to find the right person," but that is more damaging to say when they DON'T find "the right person." That's where people get the idea that something is wrong with them, causing undue stress on the psyche for something which doesn't need to be fixed because there's no innate harm that comes from it.


I would also argue that there are some corners of society that do have a stigma against not having sex. At the moment (at least in the U.S.) there's a lot of pushback from the previous, more conservative decades where sex was seen as filthy/purely for reproductive purposes. I'm really glad for this pushback, because maybe we can have some half-decent sex education come into the public school system if this movement persists, but anyone that falls outside of this sex-positive attitude can be viewed as people in opposition of this movement. This isn't entirely unwarranted, because some sex-repulsed ace people have honestly made dicks of themselves and shamed other people for their high libido and contributed to the stereotypes of homo/bisexuals as always being hypersexual (another cause for the discourse on tumblr). However, the most you will get from that is some snide remarks (I think corrective rape is more common in other societies, but it's hard to tell with how underreported cases of rape are). You don't have to look far in comment sections for articles to find people saying shit like "So they're unfeeling aliens" or w/e. For this purpose, again, I don't think ace/aro inherently face the same [gravity of] problems that people in the LGBT face. It really isn't something that can be discriminated by in the work force, social rights, etc.


However, again, I would personally like to see more awareness of being ace/aro so that it can better coexist with the sex-positive movement within society. If you're aromantic, you may still very well desire to be in a monogamous relationship with someone, even if you don't experience romantic attraction to any particular person. If you and your partner don't know/understand/have discussed you being aro, then the relationship may be damaged by misunderstandings. Like, if the other person doesn't understand the situation, then it would just seem like an unhealthy relationship with a one-sided love, which it doesn't have to be? Same thing for asexual people. If your partner is non-asexual and they try to make themselves look all sexy for a special evening or smthng... it's definitely going to hurt their feelings when it doesn't do anything extra for you. Then normalization of being ace/aro would be useful because if your partner knows it's some you're incapable of experiencing, then it's something you can move around faster and actually work to properly fix sexual/romantic discrepancies within the relationship.


So again, I don't think that being ace/aro brings the same problems as being LGBT does, and there has been some harmful things to have come from the repulsed ace/aro community, but I think a separate movement to just raise awareness about the orientations has its merits (also merits for the labels' existence).

 

[Scattered Ambitions]

You're welcome for this, by the way. 


It's stuff like this here. Listen, I'm not trying to be rude but you're elevating something not so odd to the status of being gay. While I don't necessarily support homosexuality, I can appreciate the effect that being a homosexual has on one's life and that there are certain social stigmas attached. 


This baggage just does not exist for you. People have been swearing off sex for thousands of years. If anything, melodrama over a hormonal deficiency or other such physiological irregularity (as you all have failed to convince me it is otherwise) is just damaging to the gay agenda. 


No one is attacking "aromantic" or "asexual" people, we're simply saying that people of your ilk have existed in society forever, openly, there is no social stigma against NOT having sex, at worst people just shrug and go, "Okay, John is chaste." So we don't understand the melodrama. 






 

Not to cherry pick or anything, but I only have a bit of time and would like to discuss one issue I have. First of all, yes, people do attack asexual/aromantic people. It's called corrective rape. And you are proving my point. While it's not at the level that most other members of the LGBTQ+ community experience, saying that it's just a "physiological irregularity", otherwise saying it's just something wrong with us, is a form of discrimination.   

 

[call me rae]

So interestingly enough I would probably classify myself as Chaste. I am attracted to people I am just too socially awkward to ever act on it. So in all likelihood I'll go my whole life without ever having any kind of sexual or romantic relationship with another person entirely by choice.



That being said I'm probably the wrong person to ask about asexual/aromantics. Because as far as I can tell the only difference is that they just lack any physical desire to be with another person whereas I choose to be single due to a lack of social skills.


But either way I don't see how it's really anyone else's business. Like I'm not going to go around quizzing people on their sexual orientation nor do I think that has any real relevance on how I should treat them as human beings. 


The same way I would never treat someone differently for their religious or political beliefs, I don't think you should treat people different for their sexual orientation either. 

 

[jinkx]

asexual/aromantic/aroflex/ace-spectrum people are awesome rock on everybody

 

[The Mechanist]

Is it so hard to just accept your fellow human for who they are and just move on? Don't question them, who they are and what not, just accept it and get on with your life

 

[call me Aim]

It would appear, that I have stumbled down the wrong rabbit hole... My apologies for what I am about to say. I will not reveal my opinions on this matter, only give out a bit of information.


Asexuality, by definition, is "The lack of involvement of Gametes." Or in English, the lack of a solid sex, the ability to swap back and forth between male and female. It is most common in frogs, but many other animals and insects have this ability. 


As for my personal beliefs, well... for want of peace, suffice it say to each their own.

 

[Cup of Mek]

It would appear, that I have stumbled down the wrong rabbit hole... My apologies for what I am about to say. I will not reveal my opinions on this matter, only give out a bit of information.


Asexuality, by definition, is "The lack of involvement of Gametes." Or in English, the lack of a solid sex, the ability to swap back and forth between male and female. It is most common in frogs, but many other animals and insects have this ability. 


As for my personal beliefs, well... for want of peace, suffice it say to each their own.

...


that


no??? Gametes are not genitalia???


The oxford dictionary definition is : 


Without sexual feelings or associations:


or as a noun


 


A person who has no sexual feelings or desires.


 


In a strictly biological sense, it can refer to asexual reproduction, which is indeed reproduction that does not involve the fusion of gametes. But that's mainly for plants. Humans are not plants. 

 

[call me Aim]

@Cup of Mek


Well, to quote wikipedia, 


Examples in animals



Parthenogenesis occurs in the hammerhead shark[24] and the blacktip shark.[25] In both cases, the sharks had reached sexual maturity in captivity in the absence of males, and in both cases the offspring were shown to be genetically identical to the mothers. The New Mexico whiptail is another example.


Reptiles use the ZW sex-determination system, which produces either males (with ZZ sex chromosomes) or females (with ZW or WW sex chromosomes). Until 2010, it was thought that the ZW chromosome system used by reptiles was incapable of producing viable WW offspring, but a (ZW) female boa constrictor was discovered to have produced viable female offspring with WW chromosomes.[26] The female boa could have chosen any number of male partners (and had successfully in the past) but on these occasions she reproduced asexually, creating 22 female babies with WW sex-chromosomes.


Polyembryony is a widespread form of asexual reproduction in animals, whereby the fertilized egg or a later stage of embryonic development splits to form genetically identical clones. Within animals, this phenomenon has been best studied in the parasitic Hymenoptera. In the 9-banded armadillos, this process is obligatory and usually gives rise to genetically identical quadruplets. In other mammals, monozygotic twinning has no apparent genetic basis, though its occurrence is common. There are at least 10 million identical human twins and triplets in the world today.


Bdelloid rotifers reproduce exclusively asexually, and all individuals in the class Bdelloidea are females. Asexuality evolved in these animals millions of years ago and has persisted since. There is evidence to suggest that asexual reproduction has allowed the animals to evolve new proteins through the Meselson effect that have allowed them to survive better in periods of dehydration.[27]


Molecular evidence strongly suggest that several species of the stick insect genus Timema have used only asexual (parthenogenetic) reproduction for millions of years, the longest period known for any insect.[28]

 

[call me Aim]

I am not looking for war, as said above. I am merely putting tidbits of factual information out there. As they say, don't kill the messenger.

 

[The Mechanist]

I am not looking war, as said above. I am merely putting tidbits of factual information out there. As they say, don't kill the messenger.

This discussion isn't about biological genders and sexualities, it's more along the lines of personal identification, asexuality has taken on two definitions, one to define living creatures reproducing without the need of a mate, such as parthenogenesis, hermaphradism, and budding. The second definition is to describe an individual who feels no sexual attraction to another.

 

[call me Aim]

@The Mechanist


Of course. I was not arguing the validity of that. No need to worry, as it is. I shall be taking my leave from here before I am indeed thrust upon a pike.

 

[The Mechanist]

@The Mechanist


Of course. I was not arguing the validity of that. No need to worry, as it is. I shall be taking my leave from here before I am indeed thrust upon a pike.

You're welcome to stay if you'd like though, I know topics like this can get touchy

 

[Windsock]

I don't get it and I'm not sure if I want to get it. It's self-defeating and the whole concept is eerie in some sort of existential way. I think everyone should have certain needs that can only be met through struggle and communication with other people, and effectively removing romance from the emotional needs of a human psyche is horrifying by itself. That's taking out something that's integral to our very existence, a self-reinforcing concept that's been with us, and life as we know it, for as long as life as we know it 'was here'. Do we even have the 'right' to modify our most important core biological tenants?


Of course, I'm just a fucking jackass who likes looking for shit where there isn't shit lmao

 

[call me rae]

I don't get it and I'm not sure if I want to get it. It's self-defeating and the whole concept is eerie in some sort of existential way. I think everyone should have certain needs that can only be met through struggle and communication with other people, and effectively removing romance from the emotional needs of a human psyche is horrifying by itself. That's taking out something that's integral to our very existence, a self-reinforcing concept that's been with us, and life as we know it, for as long as life as we know it 'was here'.


Of course, I'm just a fucking jackass who likes looking for shit where there isn't shit lmao

To the best of my knowledge it isn't so much romance as a lack of sexual attraction. I could be wrong but as I understood the definition it isn't really anything to do with how you feel emotionally about other people, you just don't want to get physically intimate with them.


Now granted that would make a relationship difficult - as I imagine the lack of sexual content is difficult for people to wrap their heads around. But it doesn't make you some kind of social pariah incapable of relating to people emotionally.


Further romance isn't the only way we form close bonds with people. Nothing wrong with just having strong platonic bonds with people. I myself find romance to be intimidating from a social standpoint. The idea of going on dates or talking to strangers makes me anxious. But that doesn't  mean I can't be friends with people or even theoretically that I couldn't be romantic. I just choose not to. 



I don't feel any lack in my life because I'm not dating anyone. Nor do I think anyone with asexual / aromantic identity should feel a lack in their life socially just because they don't want to go on dates or be physically intimate with another person. 

 

[Shireling]

To the best of my knowledge it isn't so much romance as a lack of sexual attraction. I could be wrong but as I understood the definition it isn't really anything to do with how you feel emotionally about other people, you just don't want to get physically intimate with them.


Now granted that would make a relationship difficult - as I imagine the lack of sexual content is difficult for people to wrap their heads around. But it doesn't make you some kind of social pariah incapable of relating to people emotionally.


Further romance isn't the only way we form close bonds with people. Nothing wrong with just having strong platonic bonds with people. I myself find romance to be intimidating from a social standpoint. The idea of going on dates or talking to strangers makes me anxious. But that doesn't  mean I can't be friends with people or even theoretically that I couldn't be romantic. I just choose not to. 



I don't feel any lack in my life because I'm not dating anyone. Nor do I think anyone with asexual / aromantic identity should feel a lack in their life socially just because they don't want to go on dates or be physically intimate with another person. 

What he's saying is, the drive to stick your dick in something is an inherent human need and it shouldn't be considered "normal" to not want to. Generally there is confusion around what is "normal" and what is accepted. Collecting stamps, for example, is not "normal" as most people don't do it. However, it is not frowned upon. 

 

[call me rae]

What he's saying is, the drive to stick your dick in something is an inherent human need and it shouldn't be considered "normal" to not want to. Generally there is confusion around what is "normal" and what is accepted. Collecting stamps, for example, is not "normal" as most people don't do it. However, it is not frowned upon. 

No that is what your saying. His post was more on line with - how can you choose not to find romance OR the idea that having a lack of of physical attraction is somehow a choice. Which are as I said are two very different things.


To an extent yes romantic feelings may or may not be a choice. For me personally it's a choice not to get into a romantic relationship. Is that objectively normal? I suppose not but it also not a detriment to myself or anyone around me.


Now is physical attraction - or the biological drive to be physically intimate with someone - a choice? No. You don't get to chose your own biological make up. If your not capable of feeling physical attraction than your not capable of feeling physical attraction. It's not a choice you made it's a fact of your life.


That's like saying I decided that I'm just not going to feel attracted to anyone ever again because I think that dating is a socially stressful situation. Attraction doesn't work like that. 

 

[Cup of Mek]

I agree that asexuality as a sexual orientation in no way facilitates reproduction. Therefore, its occurrence may be illogical in one sense from an evolutionary POV. However, given that we live on an overpopulated planet where there are too many humans draining limited resources, you could also argue that the birth of asexual individuals helps facilitate the continuation of the species. Whilst definitely not normal in the sense of being 'average' or 'common', it is perfectly natural. It happens. No evil scientist created people who are asexual. No one would identify as such without cause, or choose to feel that way, as anecdotes have shown here that it generally causes confusion/distrust amongst peers. I agree that some people might well do it for attention, because they are confused, or because they have not yet experienced sexual desire and may well do so in the future. However, this does not invalidate the use of asexual as an orientation label, nor does it disprove the identity of lifelong self-identifying asexuals. The best attitude is to be open-minded and accepting of how people wish to define themselves and live, so long as it does not harm anyone else. Allowing people to use labels such as this to define themselves is perfectly healthy, and can give people a sense of self, community, and stability. Whether it is accurate of what their sexuality is doesn't matter, so long as they are treated in a way that encourages self-study and communicates that changing that label is also perfectly acceptable. 


tldr; so long as no one is hurting anyone else, people should be allowed to define themselves as they please, even if it seems impossible to others. People could identify as dogs. Yes, they obviously are not a dog, but is their decision to call themselves dogs, and even act like it, harming anyone? Providing they're not vandalising public property by pissing on fire hydrants and chewing park benches, then no. They are not. Let them get on with it, and seek health counselling/treatment if it proves to cause harm to others or themselves. 

 

[Count Gensokyo]

This went from quick, precise quips to mountains of text walls in a flash

 

[jinkx]

Aromantic is a lack of romantic attraction to other people. Asexual is a lack of sexual attraction to other people. You can be one without being the other. You can experience romantic attraction and be asexual. It's the same vice versa.


It should be noted also that people on the ace spectrum are not "lonely" or simply people that cannot find anyone to be with. They just do not feel the attractions that are frequently considered the norm by society. And that's totally okay, in my opinion. Some people might have been born ace and some people might be ace because of past experiences but they're valid either way. 


If you don't understand it or consider it to be valid, that's okay too. You can believe whatever you want. But you still have to treat ace people with the same kind of respect you would treat non-ace people. They just don't feel the same kind of attraction towards other people as you do but that's not a reason to push them into doing things they aren't comfortable with or insulting them.


TLDR: I fully support ace people but if you don't, that's okay as long as you aren't an ass towards them. It's the same as any sexuality. 

 

[Cup of Mek]

This went from quick, precise quips to mountains of text walls in a flash

tbf I was just a lurker here till my #feels got the best of me

 

[Count Gensokyo]

tbf I was just a lurker here till my #feels got the best of me

What the actual heck is that profile picture

 

[Cup of Mek]

What the actual heck is that profile picture

A girl biting her thumb, BUT SIDEWAYS. What anime is your profile picture character from?

 

[Count Gensokyo]

A girl biting her thumb, BUT SIDEWAYS. What anime is your profile picture character from?

Ooh, now I see it, lol. I thought I saw something else...optical illusions are weird like that.


She's from a game series called Touhou Project. It doesn't have an *official* anime, but there are a handful of fan-made ones with great production quality, and there's also official manga and stuff. 


@Cup of Mek