OP: Marriage and Asexuality...

I think asexual is a legitimate sexual orrientation that's sadly often ignored, ridiculled or considered in need of "fixing". While it may be true there are some people who come to identify as asexual because of previous trauma, I think it's also a perfectly healthy and natural variety of sexuality. After all; an estimated 1% of the human population is asexual.

There's also a common misconception that asexual people can't have deep loving relationships. People forget that there's a difference between sexual attraction and romantic attraction. It's just that we've thought up and collectively try to smash this misconception into our brains that love and sex need to combined. So within a romantic relationship people need to have sex. And sex needs to be within a romantic relationship. It's interesting we've (rightfully!) challenged the latter statement and innthe wetern world people engage in sex (more) freely. But many people don't seem to realize that upholding the first while defying the latter, means a contradiction in itself.

I think a lot of the negatvitiy surrounding the subject of asexuality comes from fear, which arrises from misunderstanding. People just don't like dealing with things they don't understand. They don't like things they can't wrap up into neatly predefined little boxes. I guess other social influences may actually contirubute too. Since so many are taught that sex is sinful through religion/society, and despite sexual liberation that thought seems to be very persistent, they may feel even secretly jealous of those who seem to be without sin by nature, instead of having to fight their urges as they themselves do. Unless it's their own partner ofcourse; their own interests and nimby-behavior strikes there. It's the spouse's duty; society teaches us we're responsible for the sexual hapiness of our partners. Failing that is not uncommon to be seen as failing as a partner. Therefor people may feel they need to fix things, even the asexual partner him/herself, instead of accept.

In short; I think the start of accepting asexuality may lie in differing between romantic attraction and sexual attraction. They can co-exist and perhaps even enhance, but aren't mutually exclusive or in need of eachother to exist. This may also come with the realization we can't make another person responsible for our sexual hapiness. We need a more accepting society towards the complexity of relationships in all it's forms.

What do you think?

RedRoses

Posted: 05 Oct 08:23

Specifically to the part where asexuals are capable of deep loving relationships. To me in order for there to be romance there has to be attraction. If there's no attraction but they like the person then they're just good friends. That is the difference between friends and lovers last time I checked. I think asexuals do have loving relationships but I believe their love more like something felt towards a family member or a pet than romantic love.

g-dubz

Posted: 05 Oct 08:24

"I think the start of accepting asexuality may lie in differing between romantic attraction and sexual attraction. They can co-exist and perhaps even enhance, but aren't mutually exclusive or in need of eachother to exist."

Exactly!

Asexual people have to learn for their own reasons that thing that Evil is always trying to tell us about love and sex not being the same thing.

llovell

Posted: 05 Oct 08:24

You are really looking for a philosophy of life. The ancient Greeks identified four types of love; every culture and every society since has built upon these to define love. Modern day Catholics see three levels of love . We have not found that basic definition yet. No, in all likelihood, shall we ever. The sexual part of love is but one dimension but we can see sexual athletes incapable of the intimacy or commitment that most think is part of love. We can see others who have the commitment and intimacy who never form sexual bonds though we believe, generally, sex is part of "complete" love. Men and women will likely see it differently and there appear to be more asexual, by orientation, women than men wandering around. I am not aware of any studies that support this.

Both politics and religion of various cultures have obfuscated what is meant by love as have marital practices of many tribes and societies. Is agape really the purest form of love? Can two same sex heterosexuals really develop the connection that completes love? Because sex, as we know it, is a mammalian characteristic, is love restricted to the higher apes? Is incest warranted to fully develop filial love into mature committed love between equals? Does love, even sexual love, end with the death of either partner?

I should think there are many studies of sexless love or asexuality. Start with asexuality.org. When you can answer all these, and many more questions, let us know.

Brandye

Posted: 05 Oct 08:24

It says partly what I was trying to :) Also an interesting part; how being asexual also doesn't necesarrily exclude physical contact. I remember an article that even said asexuals are wrongly thought to by definition have no sexual feelings at all (I'd have to retrieve that). Many of them do enjoy masturbation, they just don't feel sexually artracted to another human being. Adding even more shades and colors to this spectrum of sex and love!

I do agree that it's a rather philosophical question, which is hard to answer. Though also those question can be fun to think about :) Yet it makes it even more worthwhile, when the fact is a question like this one has some practical implications; particularly interesting when we seem to limit ourselves and others. While accepting a flowing scale of "love" and "lust" that can interlace and can not, would probably serve us best. I know it's very tempting to type and define; as an analytical type of person I can even make a living out of it and I'm very sure I (over)simplify in daily life a lot too! We all do. If only because our brains would likely explode if we didn't rely on patterns and concepts to make sense of the world around us. Yet I also think there could be something "simple" about accepting the complexity of some things such as love, because we can't really capture it anyways. Perhaps that makes the complexity easier than the defining into categories. And maybe that helps to avoid adding those dreadful "wrong's" to it. When I see people in trouble trying to identify themselves and trying to defend themselves within their society, when they weren't harming anyone to begin with, it seems rather sad...

RedRoses

Posted: 05 Oct 08:25

Have you tried Aven?

I fall on the asexual part of the spectrum. I was much happier in life after I learned this. Going through the teenage and student years thinking there was something wrong with me for not being interested in boys or wanting to date. For a while I decided it was because I was interested in girls, but when an opportunity presented itself to be with a girl I realised that as much as I liked her I didn't really want to be WITH her, in that way. I was very confused because I didn't realise at that point that other people felt differently about sex.

I met my partner in my 20s and he became the first person I was able to be sexually attracted to and I am making up for lost time :3 But it's not like I had a "sexual awakening". I am still not attracted to anyone else. Desires related to touching or being touched ONLY involve him.

It came as a surprise to me to realise that this must be how sexual people feel about everyone they fancy. I am sort of grateful that I don't have to deal with it!

It's true that a lot of people are confused (and even threatened) by the concept of asexuality. I have no idea why. But it bloody irritates me when sexual people try to tell asexual people about how they feel, when it's something they clearly can't relate to. *coughgdubzcough*

llovell

Posted: 05 Oct 08:25