knivesout

An article about what looks to be a growing movement among asexuals - people with no interest in sex - to be recognised as another variation of human sexual preferences: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996533

Blue Mythril

Haha, I've noticed in the magazine's I stack at work there are more and more articles about being "a-sexual".
I wouldn't go that far about myself, though I will admit that I'm really not too fussed about the old relationship factor at the moment.
The one thing with it though, is that my understanding of the definition of being asexual is that it is not about having no sex, but about not needing sex to reproduce. Though I guess (depending on where you live in the world) you could argue that with artificial insemination these days perhaps we are more like flowers than we think
But meh, personally, I don't see why we need yet another categorisation, that more than like will probably turn into some form of discrimination. I mean, its not like homosexuality where it is a part of who you are and people have been fighting for the right to be seen in public with their same sex partner etc. I mean, if you see yourself as 'asexual', well, thats more or less something that you don't need to worry about publicising or not, or being recognised as etc. Some people don't like sex. Some people don't care. whatever, their choice. I don't see why its such a big thing, or why people should have to be 'recognised' as having no interest or need for sex...

knivesout

It's just another attempt to find identity in a world that's increasingly alienating.

littlemissattitude

A very interesting article, JP.

The wording is of this passage interests me. Someone (the person who wrote up the survey, or the reporter?) seems to find it astonishing that someone who had not had sex in a year would still be happy - the "in spite of this" gives the game away. I think this probably says more about the dominant culture than anything - "What? Someone who isn't having sex on a regular basis is happy? How odd." It seems that among most people, in Western and heavily Western-influenced cultures anyway, having sex regularly is assumed to be the norm and voluntarily not having sex makes a person some kind of a freak. Which I think is silly, but that's just me.

Blue Mythril

but see, thats where finding identity falls apart. Because we arn't really looking to ourselves for our identoty, we are looking to constructs and labels, which, though will always exist in human society (we can't help it) building your identity in such a way means that its never really yours...
Bah, that came out wrong.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I find it sad that we feel the need to build our identity in such an unnecessary way.

See, I'm not a fan of sex or relationships, I have other things that are more important to me. I'm also quite happy on my own too, happier ever. Thats still a part of my identity, but I don't really feel the need for acceptance in society.
Yeah as Littlemiss said, there's a prevalant attitude that sex = happy and that no interest in sex is just abnormal, wrong, and some might even say impossible. But its not really like you are discriminated against for it, or need to have a little label declaring it to the demographic polls. Its more like the kid who stands up at a rave and says he likes country and western, he'll get funny looks from some. But most either don't care, or are happy to let him go on liking his country and western.

Edit: that was what i was going to say. I can understand the "common label" thing, about wanting to find others who feel the same as you. Thats something that people need. The "more intimate" section I found very interesting, and can relate to the guys position on wanting a partner one day, just not being after the physical side. problem is, thats a big call, especially if you find that partner, but they are more sexually oriented than you...
I guess I just pictured people protesting for "A rights" and whatnot. My main argument is that it is not really socially taboo.

bah. >.<
I'm going to bed, this is all too hard right now. I'm running on two hours sleep and the left over buzz of an awesome concert. *sigh*

knivesout

No, I get what you mean. I didn't mean to imply that it isn't on some level sad that people have to find these ways to establish who they are.

Personally, I refuse to classify myself. I Am That I Am.

Blue Mythril

See, thats the way to go. I personally am a big fan of no labels or categories or classifications (in case you hadn't noticed)
But more importantly, I am also very much aware that identity changes. Whats the point in classing yourself when people often don't get that that may change anyway?
Its all pointless. I am me, I like being me, and I really don't see any reason why we should classify our "me-ness" to people. thats our domain.

dwndrgn

Well said!

scalem X

I agree fully that no people should be judged on what they do/how they look like/who they are. But these people are just as discriminating as we would be if we judged people that haven't had sex. These people assume that not having sex is better and since they promote people to say that they don't feel attracted to someone in 'that' kind of way, they sort of make them part of a group. If those people would want to have sex anyway (after a while), they will have troubles because they told everyone that they were a-sexual. We shouldn't think thoughts like this : 'Damn , maybe these people are right and I am wrong' In a perfect world there is no right or wrong; there is just things that have consequences and other things having no consequences.

Princess Ivy

couldn't have put it better myself
(and i was thinking of trying)