What does asexual mean to you?

[Fire2box]

Originally Posted by Neonite

I consider myself asexual, in that I'm not interested at all in actual sex and stuff with either gender at all. It's honestly a bit gross to me. I still 'like' diapers and such though, so I do have a libido. However, I'm a hopeless romantic too, and constantly daydream about some kind of great romantic partner that I could have a perfect emotional relationship with; so, I don't know where I'd fit in those definitions.

Basically, to me, the word just means what you'd think it does - not liking sex.

I am with Neonite here, sex realistically is nasty. But if you watch the movie Zack and Miri you also know it can be so much more then that.

That said I will only ever try to develop relationships with people I truly like and care for and less likely for a girl who has a nice body and tries to flaunt it. It also means I won't try and get into a girls pants right off the bat like it seems some guys seem to do.

[Huggies1998]

I'm asexual, and I agree with Neonite.

[Peachy]

Originally Posted by Dreamaker

It also doesn't mean I have no sexual feelings, it just means I have none towards people. Mostly they are towards my DL or water sports side.

Maybe you just have to combine those sides with the people to get things right

Peachy

[Milla]

Since sexuality is one of the most abstract aspects of the human psyche, I don't particularly like to put labels on orientation, or the lack thereof.

My personal definition of asexuality is that you are not sexually attracted to any binary human in particular. Not like Pansexuality, where gender identity does not matter, but rather where gender, orientation, and other such nonsense are not of any sexual prerogative; someone who isn't particularly interested in anyone's various holes.

Though I don't think it is a lack of libido, sexual attraction, fetishes, and the like. Many of our playmates here at ADISC log no interest in sex or interest in other genders (Or the same gender) in a sexual way, but could still qualify their interest in diapers as a sexual fetish and a turn on.

Eh, it's hard to discern these things. This question goes down under "To be filed."

[NutFreeFruitcake]

Originally Posted by Peachy

Maybe you just have to combine those sides with the people to get things right

Peachy

This joke really bothers me because the general point of asexuality, especially given the way Dreamaker expressed it (similar to how I feel), is that this doesn't work. Other people don't enter the sexual picture - even if they present, the attraction has nothing to do with having sex with them. Moreover, as worded, it unintentionally puts a value judgment on what is "right" in terms of sexuality.

While obviously not your intent, this joke struck me as rather insensitive.

[Peachy]

Originally Posted by NutFreeFruitcake

Moreover, as worded, it unintentionally puts a value judgment on what is "right" in terms of sexuality.

It is less of a value judgement and more of a scientific judgement. Evidently, sex is meant for reproduction, so not involving other people in your 'sexual' activities is at least not what nature had intended. Granted, you can and will argue that humans have evolved beyond the point where sex is merely reproduction, and you're right to infer that my statement is a value judgement then.
However, my argument still stands in defining what sexuality is, not which sexuality is right.

Peachy

[Chromos]

I'm kind of an odd case... because I can be physically attracted to people of either gender... but the thought to sex just sickens me- I'm not much for close contact as it is. But, I do have libido and I can get turned on... but its not related to people. Diapers and computers turn me on more than people do, lol. So I guess I am the second one.

[NutFreeFruitcake]

Originally Posted by Peachy

Granted, you can and will argue that...

However, the case I will make will be a different one that you proposed:

Originally Posted by Peachy

It is less of a value judgement and more of a scientific judgement.

I would argue that, given the wide prevalence of non-heterosexual orientations over a wide span of higher Animalia suggests that there is(are) one or more reasons why a population containing some members of alternative sexualities is evolutionarily favored.

In this sense, the proper scientific judgment to be made is that people of all sexual orientations have an evolutionary place and purpose in the wide scheme of producing and/or raising the following generation. Thus, no role is rightly called the "proper" form of sexuality, because all modes are relevant in the species's perpetuation.



Now, you could argue that asexuals lack sexual orientation altogether because the definition which you use for sexuality includes people. This is a more valid point of view, which, given that asexuals often refer to everyone else as "sexuals", doesn't seem so offensive. (I personally reject such a definition, as it seems to imply that asexuals are incapable of sexual activity.)

[itsme]

I really don't know. I consider myself asexual in that I have no sexual attraction to any people, but really your sexuality is whatever you make of it, it can't be confined to a specific definition.

[dangermouse]

Originally Posted by Raccoon

1. You have no libido nor romantic attraction towards people
2. You have no sexual or romantic interest in people; you still have a libido and non-human turnons

2 definitely.

Though by non-human I should add that doesn't mean I'm attracted to animals! . It's diapers mainly and wearing childish and some sports clothing, mostly boyish stuff but sometimes girly stuff. I can't explain why.

It's annoying as hell in some ways. Society wants me to be "normal" and I would like to fit in to make life easier. I would also love to do the whole family thing, but I just feel I'd be living a lie to have a relationship with someone I had no sexual attraction to, or at least they'd be likely to leave me as soon as they realised.

Originally Posted by itsme

I really don't know. I consider myself asexual in that I have no sexual attraction to any people, but really your sexuality is whatever you make of it, it can't be confined to a specific definition.

+1.

What annoys me is the way sexual orientation is a pigeonhole thing. Even shrinks do it. Go down the discussion of sexuality and if you're not one thing you must obviously be the other, are therefore denying things to yourself and should "come out".

I don't believe in black and whites. People have sexual attractions to things. People, objects, whatever. In some cases there's a genetic influence but I don't believe it's all genetic either. Upbringing, events in your life (often early on) can shape who we are and the way we think about things.