Asexuality.

I find this an interesting situation.

Apparently it is supposed to be a legitimate area of orientation, but has only been recently explored in academic and scientific literature. Some detractors claim it is merely a frustrated form of homosexuality or a kind of celibacy.

I doubt anyone is actually asexually oriented. It might not be a frustrated form of homosexuality, but it is probably a frustrated or repressed form of some other sexuality. I suspect that may "asexuals" just can't cope with intimacy and so they avoid it.

Perverted sexualities always fascinate me.

Having known a couple of people who proclaim themselves "asexual," I noticed that they're actually trying to justify the fact that they've never had a girlfriend (either due to being unattractive or frightened of the concept due to trust/intimacy issues) by saying "oh, no, it's because I'm asexual."

Not saying it might not be a valid sexual orientation, but in my experience it's just a heterosexual person covering for their flaws in a way that sounds like it isn't their fault, like a fat person blaming genetics.

I don't really buy it, beyond it being merely psychological. Human beings are sexual... period. It's like saying that some lions and tigers are vegetarians.

While I think some may be heterosexuals with trust issues, I think the vast majority are frustrated or latent homosexuals who have been raised in cultures/situations where homosexuality is viewed as an aberration and so they simply deny their attraction.

Anybody raised in a very conservative Christian area (like the Bible Belt) knows that growing up, homosexuality is taught to be something wrong, evil, even criminal. As such, "good, moral" kids from good families who are feeling attractions outside of the "norm" often don't even consider for a very long time that what they are feeling might be homosexuality. They are good kids, they are taught that homosexuality is bad and only bad people do it, so therefore they can't be gay. A strange leap of logic, perhaps, but one that is still VERY prevalent.

So, they take on the "asexual" angle because it is easier to be celibate in many situations than to be gay. As well, it fills a certain vacuum within themselves where they can lie to themselves and say that they aren't gay... they just don't "want" a girlfriend because they are celibate/asexual/etc.

Many of my gay friends raised in the Bible Belt/Christian South (myself included) went though a period where we claimed "asexuality" or it's sanctioned Christian equivalent (abstinence/celibacy) because we were so fucked-up by our surroundings that homosexual attractions weren't even on the radar. Literally, our logic was "We wouldn't punch a pregnant lady. We wouldn't steal a car. We aren't bad people. So, therefore, we cannot be gay." It's really SAD that this type of prejudice and hate against homosexuality is still so prevalent. ...and it is, in much of the "heartland." Kids are taught this **** from birth and it usually takes getting OUTSIDE that environment to realize how screwed up it all is.

One of the more surreal points that the asexual supporters also like to note is that there are apparent homosexual and heterosexual aspects to asexuality, not unlike a kind of Platonic relationship, it seems to me. Moreover, they claim that some asexuals pursue romantic relationships but with certain orientations.

I confess, I've never really experienced any significant or commendable sexual urges for either gender, even during those so-called hormonal phases. In fact, it never even struck me to pursue intimate relations. It simply seemed to be something that everyone else did, whether gay or straight. One should note, I did not grow up in the Bible Belt, or in any insular regressive community; I do not possess religion nor ever did.

However, one could argue that a large component of human sexuality is merely psychological. The mere existence of fetishes attests to that as does the notion of a "third gender" as found in some ancient and antique cultures.

^Certainly some people are more "sexual" than others, in that everybody's appetites differ. But, as you mention, I think if it exists at all, it is purely is psychological (for example, the idea of "asexuality" being a more euphemistic word for narcissism.)

In any case, my mentioning of the South/Conservative Christendom was just to show an example of which I'm familiar. Of course there are many other situations in which this might fit.

It would simply be easier to be a lapsed Roman Catholic of the old order. Then, at one's deathbed, you convert back in a kind of **********ac aesthetic ecstasy.

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Click to expand...

It would simply be easier to be a lapsed Roman Catholic of the old order. Then, at one's deathbed, you convert back in a kind of **********ac aesthetic ecstasy.

Exactly. And, buying a few Indulgences along the way for good measure.

this is an interesting subject with some good points brought up in the replies...

i have a friend here who is asexual...I don't think he's ever claimed to be such, but also being a friend of my parents as well my mother once made this observation, that he is simply seeking for platonic companionship and does not particularly care for intimate relationships. Throughout all the years we've been acquainted I have never seen him in a relationship of a **** or heterosexual manner, so I am wondering if this condition is actually possible in reality. Then again, the guy is a bit of a loner in general, so maybe repression may have something to do with it.

LabelKing your stance is also one which I find intriguing and relate to, at times. I'm heterosexual, but go through certain phases where I don't really have any desire to engage in any kind of intimate relationship. Just out of curiosity, are you a virgin? I apologize in advance if this question offends you, I am purely curious. You've made some interesting posts throughout the time I've posted here regarding perversion and sexuality, especially regarding the subject of sex as it was in the distant past. Perhaps you are a voyeur - you are interested in the subject of sexuality, but are detached from the desire to engage in it actively?

This conversation is amusing. Where once the heterosexual hegemony tried to claim homosexuals as their own (e.g. homosexuals were just confused or decadent heterosexuals that merely needed re-training), today the homosexuals are trying to claim the asexuals for their own (they're just confused or closeted homosexuals who need to face it).

I have no opinion on the matter, but it's funny how definitively some folks are stating it, and projecting all these characteristics (e.g. religion) onto the asexuals in a manner that once would have been applied to homosexuals (e.g. decadence), and would be derided today.

Originally Posted by Douglas

Click to expand...

This conversation is amusing. Where once the heterosexual hegemony tried to claim homosexuals as their own (e.g. homosexuals were just confused or decadent heterosexuals that merely needed re-training), today the homosexuals are trying to claim the asexuals for their own (they're just confused or closeted homosexuals who need to face it). I have no opinion on the matter, but it's funny how definitively some folks are stating it, and projecting all these characteristics (e.g. religion) onto the asexuals in a manner that once would have been applied to homosexuals (e.g. decadence), and would be derided today.
Fair cricitism, to be sure. I'm not saying that asexuals can't/don't exist, but I do feel that the vast majority are probably frustrated homosexuals. Obviously, it isn't something quantifiable, and from the start I was speaking more or of my experience and ONE particular example, so I'm hardly speaking for any group as large as "the homosexuals." As you point out, though, upsetting one hegemony to put in another isn't the goal...

Fade to Black,

I find transgressive sexuality most interesting. Sexuality is quite compelling to me in an aesthetic and intellectual form rather than any kind of tactile form; eroticism seems be a kind of minor form unto aesthetics. I also take delight in double entendres and general conversational inappropriateness that interestingly enough in the past, seems to have been a gay speciality, e.g. Paul Lynde. I can't say I find voyeurism arousing either; it's another intellectual exercise I find intriguing and sometimes rather elegant.

Anent your question, I've never engaged in intimate relations. I should say, however, that when I've been proposed, I've never had any distinct desire to pursue it.

thanks for your insightful answer and commentary. i'm glad to see that this subject can be discussed in a tasteful manner.

re: sexuality as a form of aesthetics, i wholeheartedly agree. Especially the juxtaposition of sartorial culture with eroticism. That sounds hard to grasp - but i'm referring to images like the one you conjured up a while back about a man very properly dressed watching a Appreciation but in a stoic and emotionless manner. Also sexual humor, inappropriateness and sexual decadence appeal to me because they seem like values of a world long gone. I'd love to make short films that get these points across or just to visually express a certain form of sexuality in a more conceptual manner, sometimes I have a hard time verbalizing it.

I do feel though that society's attitudes towards sex have at times become more repressive even as in other avenues sex is increasingly objectified and sensationalized. This is the counter intuitive relationship that disappoints me the most - i've never been a big fan of appropriateness.

Yes, in this day of wanton personal expression, inappropriate humor has lost its traction and stoutness.

I also think that sartorial eroticism is something best expressed in photography, notably in someone like Guy Bourdin. His work was exquisitely thorough and obsessive, and the man was apparently a misogynist.

Another point is this idea of public sexuality. It's as if there is this overwhelming desire to categorize oneself into a particular state of mind and then wholeheartedly display that allegiance. Of course, that may be a natural human tendency to form groups, but one has the idea that some part of that also owes to the fact that society condones, and celebrates that tendency. On the other hand, it is also used by certain marginal groups to galvanize support and public approval, which however noble the origins, always leads to tawdry and adulating group dynamics.