Many heterosexual people have deemed homosexuality difficult to understand. True that there is a much higher level of tolerance amongst people and maybe some level of acceptance in society, but straight people would probably find it difficult to understand the sexual desire of gay and lesbian people to have sex with someone of the same gender. Conversely, homosexual people would probably have the same problem of understanding why straight people sleep with persons of the opposite sex. But enough of that jabber. The topic of homosexuality is just so 20th century. Move over homosexuality... HeLLoO Asexuality! The homosexuality of the 21st century!
Can you imagine being asexual (unless you ARE asexual already that is)? To have an extremely low, or even no sex drive to have sex with another person. As difficult it is to understand, it do exist. However, it is difficult to ascertain the percentage of asexuals from the general population, as the ideology of asexuality is a new one, which is alien to many. The difficulty arises where people who are unaware of the term and the ideas behind it may not describe themselves as being asexual, i.e. not many would identify themselves as asexuals because they are not presented with it as an option.
So what is asexuality then? Generally, the definition of asexual being "No or low sexual attraction to other people" is widely accepted. "The important distinction between asexual people and sexual people is that asexuals are not motivated to be sexual with the people they find physically attractive (and may not find anyone physically attractive at all)." So even if you have a low sexual attraction to other people, asexual people are unlikely to act upon those feelings.
Nevertheless, that is on the issue of sexual attraction. Asexual people may even identify themselves as homosexual/heterosexual or even bisexual and still find that they fit within the definition of asexuality. This is because asexuality only deals with the lack of sexual attraction. Asexual people may still have a desire to have relationships with other people, though their asexual relationships may not be based upon gender. Many asexuals can express love and feel intimacy even without the need of sexual activity. It has more to do with the emotional and romantic attraction. Some might go on to form unconventional relationships. The possibilities of non-sexual intimacy are vast. Some may desire physical closeness, perhaps cuddling or stroking with their partner, whereas some may express intimacy through talking and sharing their innermost fears and secrets, making each other laugh, sharing common interests and activities or even working together toward common goals. Meanwhile, some might even experience intimacy in other deeply personal ways. Hence, it may seem that asexual people might have healthy relationships if they were based on emotional attachments rather then sexual ones.
However, here is where the discussion gets complex and rather sticky. Some asexual people masturbate and some even have sex with other people. Though they masturbate because they may find it pleasurable, the distinction between asexual people masturbating and sexual people is that when asexual people masturbate whilst thinking of other people, it is purely fantasy. Given the opportunity to have sex with that person, the asexual person would have an extremely low sex drive or even none at all. As for asexual people who have sex, they may also find it pleasurable, but if the usage of sex was an expression of romantic or emotional attraction (love) rather than because you are driven to do so by a sex drive, then that need not contradict an asexual identity.
Therefore, it has to be repeated again that asexual people have a no or low sexual attraction to other people. Finding sex pleasurable does not mean that they would have a higher sex drive. It also must be pointed out that asexuality is different from celibacy and abstinence. If one is celibate for a reason, for example, religious purposes or if they dislike the experience of sex they are not asexual. The distinction between asexuals and celibate or abstinent people is that asexuals are not choosing to be asexual, they just are. They could choose to have sex and would still remain asexual as asexuality is about attractions and not about actions.
In a world where sexuality has been promoted as the norm, it will undoubtedly be difficult for asexual people to come out of their closets. Many have struggled by themselves and some may have even labelled themselves as freaks. However, with the growing awareness of asexuality and with the existence of a culture that is ready to accept sexual variation much more readily than it was before, it may be easier to accept it as opposed to homosexuality where religious extremists continue to condemn the lifestyle and constantly try to arouse and promote homophobia, but that's another story...
Saturday, May 07, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Just to clarify. Celibacy in its first meaning is the refusal to marry. In its second meaning, it is complete sexual abstinence. Abstinence itself can mean a variety of things, but in its conceptual meaning, it means doing without something.
Alright, now that's clear, you're actually talking about the difference between those who do not have a desire to have sexual relations with any other human (those who you term Asexuals) and those who have a desire to not have sexual relations with any other human. This is not a bright line.
From a Christian perspective, sex is not important in comparison with one's relationship with God. In this sense, some Christians, once they've reached that stage of their relationship with God, no longer desire to have sexual relations or to get married. Now, would this be asexuality or sexual abstinence under your categorisation?
What I aim at here is that one can lead to the other (sexual abstinence to asexuality), and there can be no bright dividing line between the two. One difference between Christian sexual abstainors and asexuals though. The former might not even masturbate.
So, what should we call them? A-sexual-pleasurals?
I detest this categorisation of peoples into various different groups, and turning them into almost freak-shows. First it was homosexuals being exploited and paraded in society, and now we're being presented with so-called asexuals to wonder and marvel at. We wonder and marvel because society considers these people as 'weird', 'freaks' - yet we hide that feeling under the all-encompassing banner of 'diversity'.
True diversity tackles the heart of the problem - and once that is tackled, we wouldn't even want or need for others to be on show in order to vindicate our own selfish and ignorant views.
Down with categorisation. It's time we realised that we're all as one, and that we're all the same. I'm not afraid, are you?
Well, first off, I admit that I would be using the word celibacy in its second meaning.
Secondly, your mix of religion in the discussion will make things even more sticky if you get what I mean. Basically, the apprach that should be taken here should be from a purely biological perspective in which the debates raised by many other writers have centered around the human body in its natural form, and of different people naturally having different levels of sex drives.
Though, like I said in our conversation, categorisation would still definitely be a problem, but I do not completely agree as I feel some good can come out of it, i.e. the option for people to be able to identify themselves in a particular group, and not having to wonder if they were freaks.
True, the act of categorisation has made groups more easily exploitable, and you did bring up the point of whether this recognition would in any way make the group in question any more or less 'outsiders' in general society. Well, using the example of the homosexual society, they would say that they'd feel a high level of tolerance from the general public. However, acceptance would be a different issue altogether which reflects your point quite well. On the other side of the coin though, without this emergence of such groups, it might be safe to say that the level of acceptance might be in a worser state, possibly at zilch! Therefore, SOME good must have come out of it.
Nevertheless, I totally agree with you on the point that "it's time we realised that we're all as one, and that we're all the same." It WOULD be nice if everyone could be treated as equals regardless of orientation, race, sex, culture or creed.
Post a Comment