Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Tazzled One thank your for the rep Two I suggest reading up on some Social Psychology not the Pop stuff that gets thrown around but the nitty gritty academic work. So glad for my Psychology/Sociology major.
I have a degree in Psych/Soc also, and have taken many social psychology classes. Intellectually, I totally get it - but man, it makes no sense. I'll take my Abnormals any day over this.
Romanticism and platonism in asexuality also allows for the diversity of different "orientations". It is indeed a much more complex orientation that heterosexuality or homosexuality (or a combination of both- bi, pan, trans, etc.)
Heteroromantics are essentially heteroplatonic in essence- asexuals with this description are basically the same as heterosexuals except for the sexual attraction. A heteroplatonic does not have to be heteroromantic. I am this case.
Homoromantics are the equivalent to the previous description for the gays. They are basically gays without the sexual attraction. Homoplatonics don't have to be homoromantics.
Biromantics are the equivalent but for the case of bisexuals, without the sexual attraction. Biplatonics don't have to be biromantics.
Now there are those of us who are aromantics- meaning have no interest in romance either. We can be of any platonic orientation, including aplatonic. In a way of analogy, an aplatonic, aromantic asexual would be closer to be a robot than any other "asexual". There is simply no interest in either sex, romance or platonic feelings. I would love to be aplatonic... but I am not. I have a platonic side for women, making me heteroplatonic. I don't want romance or sex though.
Homosexuals and heterosexuals can be basically taken as romantics by default, but there are aromantic homosexuals and aromantic heterosexuals.
I'm with you on this. I do have a religion (sort of), but I agree that God designed some people to be single.
I prefer "celibate", or more exactly "permanent celibate".
Socially, "singles" are considered to be people without a sentimental partner but actively looking for one or available to have one; celibates sometimes are considered singles waiting for the right partner.
And since I am not any of these, permanent celibate would fit me better. I think it is time for a word that describe people like me that are single- not looking for love- not available for love.
I have a tremendous dislike for the need some folks have to be threatened by difference, to consider it wrong, to say you should change to be more like what they consider "normal." Whether that takes the form of "go to a bar and get laid" or "you have a medical problem, see a doctor."
If you are not harming yourself or others with your lifestyle, no one has the right, in my opinion, to try and force you to change or to feel negatively towards it. And a person who rejects those who are different, who makes those negative judgments, in my opinion is not doing himself/herself any favors.
Also, I dislike the need to find a correct label to affix oneself with. It's OK to be whatever you are even if there isn't a proper word for it, or a big community (online or otherwise) of like-minded people.
I have had a hard time with labels, I used to look for them but I've learned to stop. Whenever a social networking site asks me for my "orientation" I just say, "Married." Does that mean "straight?" Well, functionally so I guess...because I'm committed to this monogamy with a guy. But if I had fallen in love with a woman I could have gone that direction, too. I'm not repelled or afraid of the idea. I've been there, casually, before. To me, who a person is matters much more than what is in their trousers, and although I had it with many partners prior to marriage, I've never sought sex simply for its own sake. I hungered for the person, not the act. And I've often felt different because of that, as though craving people is creepy and weird but craving sex is healthy and normal...
I am an asexual guy who realized his asexuality not long ago, and now I am in a kind of heated debate with other asexuals so I wanted to check what would your opinion be...
The community is much more complex that the usual straight or LBGT communities: some of us are still romantic and would pursue relationships with others, just that there is no sexual attraction, some of us (and I am in here) would not be romantic either.
Now there is a group of people who claim themselves to be asexuals yet say something like
-I would like to have sex with some friend with benefits
-I am still interested in sex
-I enjoy sex
The heated debate comes when some asexuals like me, possible like some of you sexuals right now reading this, doubt and possibly deny they are asexual if they are looking forward for sex.
I know I am not interested in sex, and I want no relationships, no sex with anyone- woman, man, friend with benefits, potential partner... NO ONE.
Please give your opinions.
The very definition of asexual is to not have sexual feelings or desires. So it is really fatuous to claim asexuality when you occasionally bang someone. It's kind of like claiming to be a vegetarian except when you act on your craving for steak.
I personally think asexual is one of those fad words that lots of people use without bothering to understand what it means.
I have a degree in Psych/Soc also, and have taken many social psychology classes. Intellectually, I totally get it - but man, it makes no sense. I'll take my Abnormals any day over this.
Also, you're quite welcome for the rep.
Personally I laugh at it the fact that I can intellectual get lets me laugh at it. Its on CD on various different threads and other websites it is not a contained thing its a very similar pattern that CD is a part of that is the internet.
So far the farther I can understand from the claim of asexual-asexual sex is that asexuality since is most really a lack of sexual attraction does not really deter from sexual activity: let's say an asexual man and an asexual woman who are in a romantic relationship, both have libidos but they don't feel sexual attraction to each other- they just end up having sex for the sake of releasing libido.
The problem here are basically two:
1. How do we really know they really don't have attraction to each other?
2. How will the sexual community buy this?
I don't know. This is why I have suggested the AVEN community to be clearer on this otherwise better take the V out of the initials because it will be bloody difficult for the sexuals to accept this, it is something I am aware of.
you don't sound like an asexual by some of the things you are saying, you sound like another run of the mill skeptic....who cares how the 'sexual community' will buy it? Nobody is trying to convince them of anything....here's how they will buy it: They don't. Or haven't you gotten that impression yet? It's certainly been made clear.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
