Go read this post by maladaptive

[conuly]

About asexuality and how people react to it and news and all.

She summed up what I would have said far more eloquently than I actually would have said it.

Comments

[wodhaund.livejournal.com]

I have never understood and will never understand the vehement "OMG THAT'S NOT RIGHT" reaction to asexuality. It is not that big a deal. It is no more shocking than finding out that the guy down the street is heterosexual (and really, for that matter, is it so shocking to find a heterosexual who also happens to be asexual?). Why are people's sex lives such cause for shock and awe anyway? Who cares? Unless I'm actively trying to bed someone, I could not care an iota less how large or small that person's sex drive is.

Argh.

I think it really bothers me that the people who are often the loudest about "MY SEXUALITY ISN'T YOUR BUSINESS" are also often the loudest about "YOU CAN'T BE ASEXUAL THAT'S JUST NOT RIGHT" and I find that stupid. Argh.

Again I say: Argh!

[feebeeglee.livejournal.com]

God, whoooo cares whether or not people want to have sex? I guess those folks.

St. Thomas Aquinas was asexual. And awesome. And Temple Grandin is. And many others of course.

I still don't get why it's even notable.

*hugs*

[ser-kai.livejournal.com]

I get it. It was me that helped James explore the fact that he might just be asexual.

I might be up the other end of the spectrum but that has its drawbacks too.

[leora.livejournal.com]

Asexual seems like it should be the easiest orientation to accept. These are just people who aren't having sex with other people. What's the big deal in that?

It's only a problem if you get a mismatched relationship from it. But that can happen with any orientation, and if they know enough to be honest about it, then that isn't likely to be a risk.

I understand, sort of, why people get uncomfortable with homosexuality - either it makes them think of sex acts they find icky or it takes potential partners[1] off the market. I guess this does have a little of the latter, but none of the former.

[1] No, it doesn't. Nobody is your potential partner in any way that gives you any right or claim on them. That sort of thinking is bad. Stop it. But people have it anyway.

[velvetchamber.livejournal.com]

Also, isn't prejudice against such things quite a thing with extremely religious christians? Because that is just all wrong. Monks and nuns should be asexual (or at any rate, that would be more comfortable), and monks and nuns are very christian...

Still, asexuality is quite unnatural from a biological perspective (barring asexual reproduction being an option), as an asexual individual is highly unlikely to pass on it's genes. So from that perspective I can understand people's reaction to asexuals, as a deviation from the norm. But still, as beings capable of reason, that is a reaction people should be able to suppress and reason that we don't all need to reproduce anyway... and if asexuals are content with being asexual, it's a non-issue.

But I can not agree with what maladaptive says about asexuality not being a disorder, as it is a deviation from proper biological function (i.e. reproduction), and as such it is "something that is out of order". But whether someone wants something to be done about their disorder is a completely different subject, people can live quite happily in all sorts of states that deviate from the norm. So again, non-issue, as long as happiness and contentedness are there.

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

To be pedantic: A disorder has to cause distress or disability to be classed as a disorder. Just because it deviates from the norm doesn't make it a disorder, because that word has a very specific meaning in medical circles and that one (the dictionary definition) is not it. /pedantic

Sorry, just a medical person who gets kind of flaily about people throwing that word around, which is why I pointed that out in my post.

[velvetchamber.livejournal.com]

Hmm, perhaps my approach to this word differs because English is not my first language. Or perhaps because medical definitions are not particularly intuitive : )

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

Haha, that's very true, I think! It's just that when you apply the word "disorder" to a person, it has a lot more connotations to it than when you apply it in the physical sense. Not only is a disorder outside the norm, but it indicates that something is wrong and damaging to a person's quality of life.

It's kind of why homosexuality and left-handedness aren't disorders either, despite being outside the norm and in the case of homosexuality, a deviation from a biological function.

[velvetchamber.livejournal.com]

If you will forgive me my biological approach, I would actually like to argue that homosexuality is not exactly a deviation from biological function, as it seems quite likely that the underlying cause can be traced to traits that are beneficial to one sex being expressed in the other. So, it is perhaps more a misfortune of the arrangement of traits, rather than traits that have in and of themselves no value to reproduction.

But really, that is being pedantic, I know. Still, the biology of sex interests me, even though I chose to delve into other genetics.

[wodhaund.livejournal.com]

I have never understood and will never understand the vehement "OMG THAT'S NOT RIGHT" reaction to asexuality. It is not that big a deal. It is no more shocking than finding out that the guy down the street is heterosexual (and really, for that matter, is it so shocking to find a heterosexual who also happens to be asexual?). Why are people's sex lives such cause for shock and awe anyway? Who cares? Unless I'm actively trying to bed someone, I could not care an iota less how large or small that person's sex drive is.

Argh.

I think it really bothers me that the people who are often the loudest about "MY SEXUALITY ISN'T YOUR BUSINESS" are also often the loudest about "YOU CAN'T BE ASEXUAL THAT'S JUST NOT RIGHT" and I find that stupid. Argh.

Again I say: Argh!

[feebeeglee.livejournal.com]

God, whoooo cares whether or not people want to have sex? I guess those folks.

St. Thomas Aquinas was asexual. And awesome. And Temple Grandin is. And many others of course.

I still don't get why it's even notable.

*hugs*

[ser-kai.livejournal.com]

I get it. It was me that helped James explore the fact that he might just be asexual.

I might be up the other end of the spectrum but that has its drawbacks too.

[leora.livejournal.com]

Asexual seems like it should be the easiest orientation to accept. These are just people who aren't having sex with other people. What's the big deal in that?

It's only a problem if you get a mismatched relationship from it. But that can happen with any orientation, and if they know enough to be honest about it, then that isn't likely to be a risk.

I understand, sort of, why people get uncomfortable with homosexuality - either it makes them think of sex acts they find icky or it takes potential partners[1] off the market. I guess this does have a little of the latter, but none of the former.

[1] No, it doesn't. Nobody is your potential partner in any way that gives you any right or claim on them. That sort of thinking is bad. Stop it. But people have it anyway.

[velvetchamber.livejournal.com]

Also, isn't prejudice against such things quite a thing with extremely religious christians? Because that is just all wrong. Monks and nuns should be asexual (or at any rate, that would be more comfortable), and monks and nuns are very christian...

Still, asexuality is quite unnatural from a biological perspective (barring asexual reproduction being an option), as an asexual individual is highly unlikely to pass on it's genes. So from that perspective I can understand people's reaction to asexuals, as a deviation from the norm. But still, as beings capable of reason, that is a reaction people should be able to suppress and reason that we don't all need to reproduce anyway... and if asexuals are content with being asexual, it's a non-issue.

But I can not agree with what maladaptive says about asexuality not being a disorder, as it is a deviation from proper biological function (i.e. reproduction), and as such it is "something that is out of order". But whether someone wants something to be done about their disorder is a completely different subject, people can live quite happily in all sorts of states that deviate from the norm. So again, non-issue, as long as happiness and contentedness are there.

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

To be pedantic: A disorder has to cause distress or disability to be classed as a disorder. Just because it deviates from the norm doesn't make it a disorder, because that word has a very specific meaning in medical circles and that one (the dictionary definition) is not it. /pedantic

Sorry, just a medical person who gets kind of flaily about people throwing that word around, which is why I pointed that out in my post.

[velvetchamber.livejournal.com]

Hmm, perhaps my approach to this word differs because English is not my first language. Or perhaps because medical definitions are not particularly intuitive : )

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

Haha, that's very true, I think! It's just that when you apply the word "disorder" to a person, it has a lot more connotations to it than when you apply it in the physical sense. Not only is a disorder outside the norm, but it indicates that something is wrong and damaging to a person's quality of life.

It's kind of why homosexuality and left-handedness aren't disorders either, despite being outside the norm and in the case of homosexuality, a deviation from a biological function.

[velvetchamber.livejournal.com]

If you will forgive me my biological approach, I would actually like to argue that homosexuality is not exactly a deviation from biological function, as it seems quite likely that the underlying cause can be traced to traits that are beneficial to one sex being expressed in the other. So, it is perhaps more a misfortune of the arrangement of traits, rather than traits that have in and of themselves no value to reproduction.

But really, that is being pedantic, I know. Still, the biology of sex interests me, even though I chose to delve into other genetics.