Haven for the Human Amoeba

Thanks, BRC, For giving me that perfect segway. I have recently joined the visibility group of my campuses Queers and Allies Group. Our Goal is to represent under-represented Sexualities. And Asexuality is going to be one of those.

I find myself in the slightly awkward position of being the representative for Asexuality wiout actually being Asexual. Because of this, I Will be relying on the members of this group to help me out quite often. Our current project is sort of a primer; we plan to put out publications on a semi-regular basis regarding specific sexualities, and the first will be a general opener. A large part of that will be defining terms. Now a lot of those terms will be from the webster's dictionary, but for asexuality we will have trouble there.

I know this topic has already been discussed, but That was a while ago And I'm interested in what you guys have to say now. Plus it will get the forum hopping again, and let the new guys say something.

how, If forced to define Asexuality, Do we Define Asexuality?

Hi everyone!

Okay, i thought i would attempt to address this request for a defintion...which i tend not to do, as it leads to labels, which should only be used for soup, but none-the-less ;-) The way i percieve asexuality to apply to me is that it is the absence of sexual activity, but can also apply to low sexual response, or a non-existent sex drive.

I have a lack of interest or involvement in sex in sexual species. This in essence means an aversion to either heterosexual or homosexual genital sexual contact. Umm, that pretty sums it up, but what i think is more important is discussing the underlying reasons and motives to this, rather than simply what you do and do not engage in! I think that way people would be more understanding, and somewhat enlighted! I hope this has helped! I could type for much longer..but i must not procrastinate any longer..uni work to be done..hehe.

I'm currently working on a workshop that will do just this, I have the basic structure down, once it's more complete I'll post it. But for the time being my answer is this:

Do a symantic breakdown. A, greek (I believe) prefix meaning not. Sexual meaning sexual. Pretty simple, pretty straightforward, so which of those two terms is confusing for people?

You need a definition because the idea of asexuality is confusing (maybe downright alien) to people; not because it is a difficult concept but BECAUSE THEIR NOTIONS OF SEXUALITY (and possibly of larger humanity) don't allow for it. The only way to define asexuality is to redefine sexuality. This is

A) Easier-becuase your audience will know alot more about sexuality than about asexuality.

B) Harder-because the larger social institution cares alot more about the definition of sexuality than of asexuality, and won't necessarily want you messing with it.

So how do we define it in a few words? "Someone who does not experience sexual attraction" seems like a catch-all (avoid using binary gender with "attracted to neither men nor women.") Though it seems like that should be there just to get people interested. It's the critique of sexual-centeredness which is pertinant to sexual and nonsexual (my new catch-all term for people who have low sexual intensity but don't identify as asexual or think in terms of it) people alike.

My cents..

-BRC

Ok, while I really have no ideas for better defining asexuality I want to say that I'm confused by the whole, asexual/nonsexual distinction. Sorry if everyone else gets this but I'm really new to this whole thing. So, is a nonsexual person just someone who is close to being asexual but isn't quite there? And what is "thinking in terms of asexuality" exactly? I'm feeling the walls of definition closing in here. Earlier I got the impression of everyone approaching this a different way. Now it seems like you are talking about a unified or characteristic "asexual thought."

Simone, I think your definition is very basic, probably applies to everyone and is a good starting off point. Seems like once you get much beyond that point differences start popping up. Don't know what everyone else thinks.

Nobara

Sorry, I have a penchant for being extremely extract and inventing terms that have no real reason to be there. As with most things I don't think that there's an accurate, all-encompassing 1-sentence definition. Simone, you're definition definitely works, but I'm going to be forced to get symantically nitpicky. First off its pretty graphic, and possibly confusing ("so, are you just into non-genital forms of sexuality?"). Also it's got the word "aversion", which could get messy. It implies that we don't have sex because we think it's disgusting, not because we're genuinely not interested, and opens up the possibility of people telling us that we think sex is disgusting because we haven't experienced it. It also doesn't distinguish us from celebate people, which I think is EXTREMELY important, because that's the first thing that most people think.

Closed text analysis, hear me roar.

Apologies, "nonsexual people" and "asexual thought" are terms flying around in my head while I try and find out what, exactly, I want my workshop to be about. I'll have it posted sometime soon.

What do people think about "a person who does not experience sexual attraction" as another possible definition?

-BRC

Wow look at the club grow. I haven't had a computer for a couple weeks now and I have a little catching up to do.

The reasons that I come out is to make things less complicated. That way some one won't be doing this and that trying to get me into a sexual relationship and then I have to turn around and say "um, whoops sorry bud". Another way it makes it less complicated is for the b/f g/f husband wife factor. This is basically so that all my friends who are in a relationship can put thier partners at ease (I get so sick of ppl mentioning their wives like I am friggin out to "lead them astray"). Not to mention, it gets rid of all the ppl who are just out for sex pretty damn fast. In essence, by "coming out" I save myself the shit of the sexual world (mostly), nd spare myself from hanging out with anyone who is interested in anythying more than a platonic, intillectual relationship.

Another reason is for community just like this. We are supposed to feel strange if we don't want sex and I think it is good to have a haven for all us folks! We can come together and share view points, ideas, and just find out more about our asexuality.

Well I am gonna have to cut out, I have gone from unemployment to two jobs on top of my activism and other endeavours. Hope to still be able to post frequently. Bye for now.

--GT

However, unlike you it seems, I do in fact have an aversion -- a repulsion -- which in turn manifests the disinterest. Why be interested in something that you'd rather not put up with, especially when there really is no *need* to. I would imagine that homosexuals are "repulsed" by heterosexual encounters. Just as heterosexuals would find the thought of sex with their own gender to be revolting. This is what makes them what they are. Whether that be a psychological thing, or something much more elemental.

So then, why is not a dual revulsion, asexuality? Sure, that might harbor the opinion that one has just not tried it, which simply isn't the case for me. I seem to be one of the few here who actually has had sex. I went there because I did not know there was any such thing as asexuality, and I was trying to desperately find my place in the world. But, in having it, I found no comfort in it: It disgusted me.

Important to note, once I did have my "taste" of this, and found it to be distasteful, I lost interest in the entire matter. Just as I would not walk 37 miles to go shovel manure, I wouldn't go through all of the antics required to have sex.

Beyond this board, I don't really think about it all. That is more a definition than anything else, and it has already been stated as such. It simply doesn't enter the mind as a product of activity. I see a woman or a man, and I wonder what their favorite book is, not whether or not they rock the bed at night, and if they wouldn't mind including me.

Perhaps I am alone in this stance.

Hey, congratulations upon finding not only one job, but two!

maybe not... I find such a reversion in myself... but it's only because I have no place for sex at all.

I think it should be outlawed anyway... look at how much trouble it causes (broken familes, immorality, porn, etc).

That's only because people go about it wrong. If we all thought of sex in terms of something one does, as opposed to SEX, in caps. there wouldn't be much of a problem. In other words, Sexuality isn't so bad as long as we think like Asexuals. I call this being Platonic. By being sexual yet Platonic, one avoid lots of the crap that goes with being sexual. Except then one get more Crap because peole don't understand one's thought process, but That's why I'm trying to get visibility for asexuality.

and What's troublesome about Porn?

I agree with ppimp on this one. Many heterosexual people are disgusted with the idea of same-gender sexuality, but is that really what we want to emulate? Think of what it leads to. Sure alot of us expereience disgust with the idea of sexuality, but for me I'd say that that's a symptom of asexuality rather than a cause. I don't have a firsthand understanding of sexauality THEREFORE it is confusing and at times repulsive. But I challenge myself to try and understand and become comfortable with sexuality in other people, I can't see what being disgusted with it can accomplish.

-BRC

I find porn troublesome in some situations...example:

I used to work in a large music/video store which sold quite a lot of pornography. This alone did not bother me. What bothered me was the customers who bought the stuff. Sure, I got a kick out of seeing guys buy movies like "Edward Penishands" and stacks of "Big Butt" magazine and then asking them "Would you like a bag, or do you just want to carry that out?". But...these guys were slimy. There was one in particular who came in every Sunday morning to buy his weekly stock of porn. He leered at me and asked me if I had children and things like that. The leering, winking, etc, went on every week. The whole scenario made me uncomfortable. It probably would not have made me nearly as uncomfortable had I not seen the stuff he was buying. It always felt like he was visualizing things from his porn library.

Another porn sidenote: I was in the Amsterdam airport a few weeks ago, and I've never seen an airport with so much porn! Guys were whipping out GRAPHIC hardcore porn centerfolds in the middle of the duty free shop. And they had magazines with graphic covers sitting out like they were as innocuous as an issue of "Newsweek". That says a lot about European vs. American views of sex. There's a grocery store near me that covers up the cleavage on the covers of "Cosmopolitan". I'm not sure which view is healthier, though. I now have this idea of Amsterdam being disgusting and smutty, and I didn't even leave the airport.

While many people here may be disgusted/totally uninterested in sex is that really a justification for outlawing it? Ok, there are some problems that can be connected to it but that is mostly from people approaching it wrong and from other factors. Sex can't be the only reason behind all social problems. It just can't be. Likewise, while I have no interest myself I don't see anything wrong with sex for procreation etc. I mean, I know I wouldn't be here writing this without it. I'm guessing that the same is true for many of you unless everyone but me is an in vitro baby. I think that it probably does have its place in the world. Problems only happen when people let it get into other places where it does not belong. It would be nice if they didn't make that mistake - but outlawing it? Just seems kind of extreme. However, maybe I just don't fully understand this. Could one of you please elaborate?

Of course, I'm being rather facetious here, but I really don't understand what this thread is about. What does the platonicpimp mean when he states that persons should approach sex more as asexuals do? While I have no desire to engage in sex myself, I acknowledge the right and desire that others may have to do so. The results of sex can indeed be shocking and horrid, and persons should take great care in avoiding such pitfalls, but I certainly don't believe that sex in and of itself is inherently evil...There's just too much evidence to the contrary, although I don't have any personal experience in that area.

About pornography...there's nothing that's wrong with it as long as all parties involved in its creation have done so willingly and knowingly. There's also nothing inherently wrong with picking one's nose and farting in public...yet where would the world be if everyone did such things. I believe that there are some basic social sensibilities that should be taken into account when doing certain things. We should to the best of our ability keep our fetishes to ourselves.

Judy

Here's an elaboration.... I think that "natural" childbirth is anything but natural... and it would be better if we replaced that with a rigorus eugenics program.... genetic profiles at birth, in vitro gestation, the whole works... and pregnancies would require a license first (with a psychological makeup as a condition of the license to prevent the chance of child abuse).

This way we could contain AIDS, many types of gentically transmitted diseases, and in the end we'd become what Huxley wanted us to be... PERFECT.

Here's an elaboration.... I think that "natural" childbirth is anything but natural... and it would be better if we replaced that with a rigorus eugenics program.... genetic profiles at birth, in vitro gestation, the whole works... and pregnancies would require a license first (with a psychological makeup as a condition of the license to prevent the chance of child abuse).

This way we could contain AIDS, many types of gentically transmitted diseases, and in the end we'd become what Huxley wanted us to be... PERFECT.<<

The defects which you speak of ARE a consequence of most childbirths being natural. What you are advocating is that we make the acts of conception and gestation wholly unnatural in order to achieve some intangible and as yet undefined standard of human perfection.

It's somewhat laughable that you would use Huxley's satire of a brave new world to support your views. What Huxley was trying to show in BNW was that in order to have a perfectly ordered, "healthy" society, you essentially had to make 95% of the population into automatons through thought control and genetic manipulation. For example, in order to have a group of workers who would be satisfied in mind-numbing assembly line jobs you actually had to create an entire race of mentally incompetent beings who could not aspire to anything better than performing a menial task. The point he was trying to make was that the "perfect" world was one in which free-thought and free-actions are unheard of for the most part (i.e. the perfect world is one which employs institutionalized imperfection). I don't think that I should apologize for prefering a world in which a gas station attendant can still aspire to become a physician.

While I would generally agree that it is fairly unconscionable for parents who have a high risk of transmitting certain diseases not to screen themselves and their future offspring for these diseases, one has to admit that most of the ills that afflict mankind have not been directly linked to genetics. Right now there are perfectly normal children rotting away in rural backdrops and urban hellholes. There is nothing genetically "wrong" with these children or with the parents who created them. On the contrary if they manage to survive through such deprivation into adulthood, they may be among the "fittest" human specimens from a Darwinian perspective. And who determines what a psychologically fit parent is? For example, people tend not to question the psychological fitness of wealthy parents no matter how insane and abusive their behavior toward their children may be.

Ya know, I used to be all for the "reversibly sterilize everyone at birth until they've proven they're worthy of procreation" argument. Then I realized that such a stance would only work if we had some concrete standard of what it means to be a good parent, and we simply don't have that. Incidentally, have you ever watched Gattaca? Lacks a great deal of subtlety and is obviously trying to prove a point, but it's not an utter waste of two hours.

And by the way, how on earth did you come to the conclusion that AIDS could be contained through eugenics?

Judy

Greetings Everyone. I just wanted to ask you all a couuple of questions. What reactions have you recieved when you have in fact revealed that you are asexual to people? I tend not to disclose it to people, unless necessarily, i guess more so when they assume something more than platonic will eventuate. I have found that most people dismiss it as merely being a phase, one which will not remain or i will grow out of. However, i feel the more i think and ponder on it, i become increasingly asexual, and even further deterred by sexual / physical encounters.

Does everyone know that this will be a lifelong state? or a little uncertain?

Just curious! Look forward to your replies!

Leaving in peace...Simone.

Wow, I could have written this same post, word for word. I assume that for me this is a lifelong state, but, of course, I can't predict the future. I have a better chance of getting hit by lighting than becoming sexual, though.

Wow have a missed some great stuff over the last few days!

Asexuality as a stage? Well I don't think so at least in my case. I have never been sexual in all my twenty one years and don't see anything changing. In fact my asexuality only grows stronger day by day as I find my fulfilment in my everyday life and see the devistations that sex leaves in its wake.

I have told many ppl that I am not interested in sex. Honestly I haven't gotten any noteworthy reactions. Most just sort of shrug and say "okay". Some might ask "what does that mean" if I actually use the term asexual. I do have some men give me the macho "it's only cuz you haven't been with me routine" but the look they get in return turns them pale and shuts them up real fast. All in all, most ppl are cool with it.

What's wrong with porn? I can't say I am a big fan but that is my own personal choice. My thing is it expliots sex, women, and there is really no freaking point or maybe I should say a constructive point becase it does have the point to make money. Each to his own I guess but I have never and will never watch it/look at it.

Sex being outlawed is a tad extreme. I think that anyone who wants to do it should but just not in the middle of friggin wal-mart, okay!!! As long as I don't have to see it, hear it, or get told the gory details later, shag like rabbits for all I care. It's just not for me.

I really liked the point that IOA made about hetero sex being undiserable for homos and vise versa. That makes it even more unbeleivable to me that ppl still can't believe some of us have no desire for sex. I'll have to use that comparison sometime. ;-)

Anyway my brain is turning to mush so I guess I'll retire for the night. Glad to see things up and running again.

--GT

And by the way, how on earth did you come to the conclusion that AIDS could be contained through eugenics?<

Because in eugenics, conception is done in the lab.. not through sexual contact... therefore if an HIV is detected, the cell can be terminated (a mercy killing if you ask me)

And by the way, how on earth did you come to the conclusion that AIDS could be contained through eugenics?<

Because in eugenics, conception is done in the lab.. not through sexual contact... therefore if an HIV is detected, the cell can be terminated (a mercy killing if you ask me)<<

You obviously didn't understand my question and you have a very strange view of the meaning of eugenics. Eugenics doesn't necessitate in-vitro fertilization. This is a fairly silly early 20th century concept that tried to improve the human species by encouraging supposedly "good" human specimens to procreate. Genetics just doesn't work that way. You can only breed for "good" genes if you know what the heck they are and how they are transmitted. Consequently, you can screen for certain genetic diseases, but you can't breed for something like height or face-shape which are highly multifactorial in their transmission.

HIV is not a genetic disease and it's primary mode of transmission is not vertical (i.e. from mother to child). In fact this is one of the only types of HIV spread that can be adequately controlled via pharmacological means and prevention of breast feeding. You can't breed out a communicable disease, so I have no idea how the concept of eugenics fits into HIV prevention. Also, there are certain congenital defects that cannot be screened for (e.g. cerebral palsy). Should we institute infanticide in those cases? Have you ever read Plato's Republic? I'm sure you'll be very sympathetic toward Socrates' utopia.

Judy

Eh, what about when that little cell turns into a huge mass of cells and it wishes to have intercourse with other huge masses of cells? Even if every single birth on planet earth was done within a controlled environment (heh) the virus would still propagate itself through the numbers of channels that it has historically used to become the beast it is today. Even after the current generations have expired, as it would have stair-stepped down through the new eugenically created humans as well.

Excuse me for saying this, but I love porn. Porn hurts no one in my mind. I buy porn, I keep the porn industry afloat. I keep thousands of women who have no vauluable job skills. Whose only means of survival is either prostitution or porn. Which is safer? Obviously porn. Outlaw sex? Most definetly not. We live in the U.S. where the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is every man's inalienable right. Of course politicians have changed that basic message over the years, but the Bill of Rights, in my opinion, is the most valuable document on the face of this planet. Without it, we would be in 1984, or Fahrenheit 451, or Brave New World.

I'm an asexual who values freedom of speech above all else.

What is this stuff about fertilization and making perfect babies? I say we don't mess with that stuff. As much as I'd like to see a Supehuman with no defects and a longevity rivaling immortalality, I've seen too many movies and cartoons where things have gone horribly wrong. I say we don't mess too much with what we have. Why can't we use the technology we have to colonize mars or something? We already have enough people on this planet? Do we really need more babies that will live 150 years and reproduce? I think not.

Ok, I don't want to nag you for saying you like porn. That, in itself is fine. BUT---it appears to me that your view of porn is similar to that which I feel can make pornography detrimental to our society.

People in the porn industry enter the industry for many different reasons. It is unfair to assume that they enter the industry because they're stupid or have no other marketable skills. It's thoughts like that that perpetuate stereotypes (i.e. only dumb girls like sex, these girls have no personality).

The truth is we don't know what those girls are like. The truth is that people who watch porn don't -care- what those girls are like. They're objects, nothing more.

This said, I doubt that many strong-willed, intellectual, confident girls enter the porn industry. It's women who perhaps were told all their lives that they were stupid or had no marketable job skills.

In some sick way, it's more tolerable (for me) to hear someone say that they objectify women (or people in general) than to veil it under a "well, they're stupid people anyway" umbrella.

We can't have a race of perfect people. That's insane. I have my own, personal idea of human perfection. Trust me..my idea of it is nowhere near anyone else's.

Judy mentioned Gattaca, which I agree is worth the time it takes to watch the movie. Sadly, I don't believe it was too far-fetched. What do you think would happen, Eiji, with a world full of "perfect people" and a minority of us naturally imperfect people? I, for one, am a terrible genetic sample. No one would want my genes. This doesn't mean that I'm a bad person or undeserving. I just don't want to be refused a job or be treated differently simply because I wasn't tailor-made in a lab.

I think we're all a bit more interesting when we have our little physical and personality flaws...

Genetic sidenote: It is nearly impossible to "weed out" a recessive gene, as it may take generations for the gene to show up, assuming of course we know what we're looking for and exactly how it's transcribed. Unless we literally perform DNA tests on everyone on the planet and then kill or otherwise sterilize those who carry whatever "undesirable" gene we see...hmm..isn't that a high-tech version of what Hitler had in mind?