Can one be asexual and gay at the same time?

[Kev de Cauchery]

As titled, can one be that?

 

I mean, asexuals probably have no interests in sex but they still love, right? And what if, let's say, an asexual who is a he (A) and falls in love with a him (, I suppose that makes A both asexual and gay, does it not?

 

I'm just curious. Because I've been brewing this in my mind.

 

And I'd love Mattie tell me this. Well, he's the only asexual I know, so...

 

 

 

 

And I'll admit it's somewhat inspired by Graeme's antho story.

 

 

[hh5]

I think that was insinuated in a sitcom ... a student was hinting that the teacher was asexual to his wife about reproduction ... and gay the rest

of course the teacher said "get out"

[DragonMando]

I have an asexual friend who believes himself to be gay as well, so yes. He feels romantic love for guys and likes to cuddle with them, he just has no interest in sex

[Y_B]

Gay is a sexuality, and as the term implies, it's a sexual attraction. The kinda love you described above (with no sexual interest) is platonic love, which doesn't sort itself by gender cuz you can love your parents, your dog or whatever the same way. So no, you can't be asexual and gay at the same time because being gay implies you have a sexual attraction towards guys, not just platonic attraction.

Edited September 18, 2010 by Yang Bang

[Former Member]

Yes, I'm proof of that in an odd way, but saying "no interest in sex" is a bit extreme. "Having sex with someone else" is the difference and more the thing. I've interest in sex naturally, and if I have sex it would be with another man, but in general I don't feel like being bothered with it for a variety of reasons.

 

 

Gay is a sexuality, and as the term implies, it's a sexual attraction. The kinda love you described above (with no sexual interest) is platonic love, which doesn't sort itself by gender cuz you can love your parents, your dog or whatever the same way. So no, you can't be asexual and gay at the same time because being gay implies you have a sexual attraction towards guys, not just platonic attraction.

 

Incorrect Yang Bang unless you know absolutely everyone out there and can speak for us all.

 

It is entirely possible to be asexual and gay, and in love with someone. I'm in love with someone and we cannot be together. It is not platonic in the least, but it is simply reality because of our circumstances. Even if he and I were to get together I would still not have sex with him although I have in the past and still feel attraction.

 

This kind of all leads back to the question I wrote an article for Queer Magazine Online about, "What does 'gay' mean to you?" By definition homosexuality means sexual attraction to one's own gender. But being gay does not only equal sex or sexual activity for everyone. That's too broad a generalization to cover everyone with.

 

P.S. For me what DragonMando described does not necessarily equal platonic love. That never occurred to me when I read their post.

[Y_B]

Incorrect Yang Bang unless you know absolutely everyone out there and can speak for us all.

 

It is entirely possible to be asexual and gay, and in love with someone. I'm in love with someone and we cannot be together. It is not platonic in the least, but it is simply reality because of our circumstances. Even if he and I were to get together I would still not have sex with him although I have in the past and still feel attraction.

 

 

Ok....if you're gonna play the semantics games, then go for it, but through my interpretation of what sexuality means, it doesn't make sense to claim that you have sexual attraction to men and not have sexual attraction at all at the same time. Homosexuality is a sexual attraction, asexuality is a lack of such an attraction for anything/anyone. To make things a little less complicated, I'm gonna put love in two different categories, sexual love and platonic love. Platonic love, by term, meanings non-sexual love. You're implying there is a 3rd, which I just don't know what it is, so enlighten me.

 

 

[John Doe]

Gay is a sexuality, and as the term implies, it's a sexual attraction. The kinda love you described above (with no sexual interest) is platonic love, which doesn't sort itself by gender cuz you can love your parents, your dog or whatever the same way. So no, you can't be asexual and gay at the same time because being gay implies you have a sexual attraction towards guys, not just platonic attraction.

 

 

Yang is right. In a world where everything is being interchanged people confuses the meanings and uses of certain words. For example take the word "nationality" and "ethnicity." I get asked what I am by people all the time (as I live in a not very diverse city in the US). These two words get used interchangably from most people. There's a huge difference. I'm a very proud person meaning I take pride in what I recognize as an explanation or part of my identity. Whenever people ask me what my nationality or what my ethnicity is I tell them. When they ask about my nationality I say American. Ethnicity? <insert Ethnicty aka race and creed> (I'm very private about this matter whenit gets combined with my gay identity... not because I'm ashamed of being gay, far from it. It's difficult to explain). Some people get pissed off at me but for me they are two very different quesitons. I have been yelled at for being not patriotic enough and for being too Asian (and to those people who says as such, you just lack a sense of personal identity... so shove it) and so I learned distingush the difference of the two and when I explain my reasoning these days people are like "Oh that makes sense" and I don't get accuse of being too white washed or Asian anymore.

 

Tangent big time.

 

But Yang is correct in his reasoning. Asexual lacks sexual desires and attraction. Asexual and gay at the same time is not technically correct.

[Former Member]

Ok....if you're gonna play the semantics games, then go for it, but through my interpretation of what sexuality means, it doesn't make sense to claim that you have sexual attraction to men and not have sexual attraction at all at the same time. Homosexuality is a sexual attraction, asexuality is a lack of such an attraction for anything/anyone. To make things a little less complicated, I'm gonna put love in two different categories, sexual love and platonic love. Platonic love, by term, meanings non-sexual love. You're implying there is a 3rd, which I just don't know what it is, so enlighten me.

 

 

 

I do not play games nor have a need to. And I don't respond to challenges of this sort. I just gave my very real view of the OP's question without resorting to generalizations. Just because it's your interpretation and you think it's the correct one, doesn't make it so. Too many real experiences and lives prove otherwise.

 

You can put love into categories if you wish, sexualities, and any other thing, but there will always be exceptions and varieties because we are humans and don't fit into boxes, not even male or female. Right or wrong. I firmly believe that putting things and people into certain categories, that action, by nature, forces other ideas, possibilties and realities out. It's self-limiting.

 

To John Doe and Yang Bang, applying one's own reasoning to everyone is general is incorrect. I believe everyone can have their opinions and thoughts and it is their right, but applying those opinions to others incorrectly is wrong. What you're saying is just not true for everyone, and I'm proof positive of that. Step outside your own world into another's and gain a different perspective. It can be enlightening.

[Y_B]

This kind of all leads back to the question I wrote an article for Queer Magazine Online about, "What does 'gay' mean to you?" By definition homosexuality means sexual attraction to one's own gender. But being gay does not only equal sex or sexual activity for everyone. That's too broad a generalization to cover everyone with.

 

Yes, being gay doesn't mean all you want is sex with men, but the love you feel towards men because you are gay stems from a deep rooted sexual drive. It doesn't mean sex is all you think about.

[Former Member]

Yes, being gay doesn't mean all you want is sex with men, but the love you feel towards men because you are gay stems from a deep rooted sexual drive. It doesn't mean sex is all you think about.

 

*sigh* Tell me something I don't know. You're saying this as if I have no idea about it or something. You don't have to read my article of course, but that's in there. Please don't assume.

[Y_B]

I do not play games nor have a need to. And I don't respond to challenges of this sort. I just gave my very real view of the OP's question without resorting to generalizations. Just because it's your interpretation and you think it's the correct one, doesn't make it so. Too many real experiences and lives prove otherwise.

 

You can put love into categories if you wish, sexualities, and any other thing, but there will always be exceptions and varieties because we are humans and don't fit into boxes, not even male or female. Right or wrong. I firmly believe that putting things and people into certain categories, that action, by nature, forces other ideas, possibilties and realities out. It's self-limiting.

 

To John Doe and Yang Bang, applying one's own reasoning to everyone is general is incorrect. I believe everyone can have their opinions and thoughts and it is their right, but applying those opinions to others incorrectly is wrong. What you're saying is just not true for everyone, and I'm proof positive of that. Step outside your own world into another's and gain a different perspective. It can be enlightening.

 

This isn't generalization. What Kevin pointed out was like asking if one can be inside and outside at the same time (non riddle based) and when I say it's impossible, you refute my claim based on the fact that I'm generalizing about space. It's not about possibilities if it doesn't make sense.

[Former Member]

This isn't generalization. What Kevin pointed out was like asking if one can be inside and outside at the same time (non riddle based) and when I say it's impossible, you refute my claim based on the fact that I'm generalizing about space. It's not about possibilities if it doesn't make sense.

 

It doesn't make sense to you. For some of us, that is our reality, day in and day out.

 

Generalizing and saying that no one can be asexual and gay is making an all-inclusive statement for everyone. That is exactly what generalization is.

[Y_B]

It doesn't make sense to you. For some of us, that is our reality, day in and day out.

 

Generalizing and saying that no one can be asexual and gay is making an all-inclusive statement for everyone. That is exactly what generalization is.

 

I read your article and my conclusion is that you're greatly missing the point.

 

You referred to this as your first gay experience.

 

"I wasn't listening to him. I was looking at him: the smoothness of his skin, the shape of his nose, how his lips moved when he finally gave that crazy grin of his to punctuate his joke's conclusion. And I realized I loved him like crazy, adored him totally, and like a fool I reached out and stroked his curling brown hair and down his cheek and his expression changed to horror and then fury in the space of seconds. He never spoke to me again after that. And fifteen years later when his chopper got shotdown in Afghanistan, I still cried."

but you deny that it was sexual just because you didn't reach out for his d*ck instead. The point you are missing is that the above illustrates a very sexual attraction, the same sexual attraction as if you did reach out for his d*ck. Sexual attraction is a physiological response connected with physical attraction and intimacy, it does not always have to deal directly with the genitals. You can become infatuated by a person's smell, the softness of their skin, their masculine or feminine features and they would all be physiological. Of course love is never just about the physical aspects, but we're just talking about your article. You didn't wanna grab his junk but you noticed his physical appeal to you, you described his physical appeal down to the last detail of the shape of his nose and lips. And then you reached for his hair. That is classic gay sexual attraction even if you didn't wanna jump his bones. If you were asexual, you would not have entranced yourself by his physical appearance and wanted to reach out for his body, any part of it.

Edited September 18, 2010 by Yang Bang

[John Doe]

Step outside your own world into another's and gain a different perspective. It can be enlightening.

 

I am not in the mood to be talked down to today so I'll make a response to this specific part here. Maybe in the future choose better words to describe the way you feel instead of belittling others as if you knew them. The same can be said to you.

 

This world is created by definitions and representation. Thats how we communicate. Without them there would be no sense of communication and a world with no communication is a world lacking of many things. I wasn't saying that an asexual person can't love or that it doesn't exsit. I was saying that being gay means you feel an attraction (sexual) with other members of the same sex. To be asexual you have to be void of that desire. There's a difference from abstaining from sexual desires and being asexual. Just because you are celibate and have no involvement in sexual activities does not mean you are asexual.

 

That's where I side with Yang. Asexuals are platonic lovers. (I disagree with your <yang> assesment of Red's article passage that you pulled though.... I believe you can love physical qualities of a person and not be sexually attracted to them. For example, I go around judging girls if they are attractive or not and I'm not sexually attracted to women. But I have a ideal of what an attractive woman is... but that doesn't make me bisexual. Wmoen do not excite me.)

 

And I did not generalized as I was speaking on behalf of my self and my opinion of the subject at hand. I understand that that what I said was my understanding and perspective on things and I know others have different parameters in which they qualify things. I do not assume that what I think is what everyone thinks. That is generalization: applying ones thoughts to represents others.

 

To clarify I was responding to Yang's definition of asexual (in my first response). I wasn't saying that asexuals cannot love. Nor for the matter that in order to love you have to be sexually attracted to someone. I love my family and I do NOT want to have sex with them.

 

To sum it all up:

I stand by what I say. For me, one cannot be asexual and gay. One can love a man and be a man. That doesn't make or define one as being gay. One needs to be void of physical attraction to be asexual.

[Y_B]

That's where I side with Yang. Asexuals are platonic lovers. (I disagree with your <yang> assesment of Red's article passage that you pulled though.... I believe you can love physical qualities of a person and not be sexually attracted to them. For example, I go around judging girls if they are attractive or not and I'm not sexually attracted to women. But I have a ideal of what an attractive woman is... but that doesn't make me bisexual. Wmoen do not excite me.)

 

I very much agree. There is where things can become complicated and that's what makes sexuality such an interesting topic. I believe that one can like someone's physical qualities without it becoming sexual but it will be different. You may find a woman's body attractive and good looking but as you said, you do not become excited about them. Red's descriptions clearly demonstrate that his attraction to that guy went beyond what a person would normally find appealing in another person's embodiment and that this attraction transcended platonic appeal into a deep feeling of want (hence sexual attraction in his case). You do not feel that with women do you?

Edited September 18, 2010 by Yang Bang

[John Doe]

Yang - Heh, I can see where you are coming from but just based on those words alone I can't come to that conclusion. I have a guy friend who I'm very close to. We hold hands, hug, whisper to one another, do all the small "cute" things that most would define as couple like but neither one of us find the other attractive. He's straight by the way. (It's kinda weird but kinda not. You have to take cultural aspects into perspective. Physical displays of affection between the same sex is more acceptable in Korea and Japan (friend is Japanese) than the western world and it doesn't always constitute sexual physical attraction. That's why Red's passage that you pulled ... I can't get right up there with you on that bandwagon cause I can see the two of us (friend and I) do that.... but I can see where you are coming from. That wanting of touch is in the gray zone ... borderline. Where as in my relationship with my friend we both uderstood that we deeply cared for the other, there wasn't a moment of oh I love him *hits a wall of realization* . We kinda just figured it out(i'm talking platonic here); it's like loving your parents. There's no sexual tension nor do sexual thoughts or responses occur when we do those small things to each other (i.e. brushing one's hair aside). Sleeping on the other's stomach if the other is already laying down or using their lap as a pillow. We just do it without a thought. I guess that's the difference. Red's passage hints at wanting to touch, an urge... that's why I can see your argument... but I just can't be completely sold.

[Former Member]

I read your article and my conclusion is that you're greatly missing the point.

 

You referred to this as your first gay experience.

That is classic gay sexual attraction even if you didn't wanna jump his bones. If you were asexual, you would not have entranced yourself by his physical appearance and wanted to reach out for his body, any part of it.

 

I'm sorry Yang Bang. You cannot tell me what my first gay experience was or was not. You read my experience and are attempting to judge it by YOUR own beliefs. YOU define it as sexual. I did not feel it as sexual and it is does not have to be sexual to look at someone's eyes or their nose or want to touch their hair. I do it all the time and there's nothing sexual in it. As my article hinted I, but I will explore further: why is it that by some any type of touch, admiration or look is seen as sexual? Astounding.

 

Do not define me by your standards and measures. And I see you have decided to revert to using common slang and vulgar terms in your reply to me. I'm sorry I do not speak that way and I do not accept it from anyone either.

 

I find it really hard to grasp how you have the gall to tell someone else "classic gay sexual attraction" when 1) You are not them. 2) You do not know them. 3) You try to apply your more limited life experience to their own.

 

You cannot tell me I'm missing the point, well you can tell me but you'd be wrong..but that is a type of arrogance I find astounding. I wrote an article of my opinion, my thoughts. If you want to write an article about your opinions and thoughts about the same topic, do so, but you have zero right to tell me I am missing the point of my own question. That's erroneous.

[Former Member]

I am not in the mood to be talked down to today so I'll make a response to this specific part here. Maybe in the future choose better words to describe the way you feel instead of belittling others as if you knew them. The same can be said to you.

 

This world is created by definitions and representation. Thats how we communicate.

 

To sum it all up:

I stand by what I say. For me, one cannot be asexual and gay. One can love a man and be a man. That doesn't make or define one as being gay. One needs to be void of physical attraction to be asexual.

 

I wasn't talking down to you John Doe. I am a very literal person and do not believe in condescension. I will not receive it and I will not give it. You took my message the wrong way and jumped to an erroneous conclusion. And for the record, do not tell me what to do ever. You are not my parent, no one and nothing connected to me, you do not have the right.

 

My message is this for everything and everyone: It is better not to generalize because you do not know how another person is, what their life experience was or what their life is now. It is better not to jump to conclusions either or be in a hurry to get yourself offended where none was intended.

 

I believe everyone has the right to their own opinion, to speak and stand by it and I firmly support that. You're attempting to make an argument where one is not intended. My summation, which is my trademark saying and utter truth regarding anything: "I welcome questions. I hate assumptions."

 

You've attempted to define the world and everyone in it by your own standards and definitions, make all-inclusive statements and I don't agree with stereotyping. You and Yang Bang seem to think you're 100% right and apparently know everything about "gay", "gayness", "classic gay experience" etc. etc. so what's the point of my saying anything reasonable since you're convinced of your correctness?

 

I come from a culture and society of discussion without the need to resort to insults, verbal vulgarity or telling others what they should do. When people demonstrate that is their way of communication, I have nothing further to say to them on the topic. I wish you well, and yes I do wish you enlightenment because I believe one day you'll understand better what I was referring to and realize the open-minded stance I was advocating, the rejection of stereotypes. I hope so anyway.

[John Doe]

I wasn't talking down to you John Doe. I am a very literal person and do not believe in condescension. I will not receive it and I will not give it. You took my message the wrong way and jumped to an erroneous conclusion. And for the record, do not tell me what to do ever. You are not my parent, no one and nothing connected to me.

 

My message is this for everything and everyone: Do not generalize because you do not know how another person is, what their life experience was or what their life is now. Do not jump to conclusions either or be in a hurry to get yourself offended where none was intended.

 

I believe everyone has the right to their own opinion and I firmly support that. You're attempting to make an argument where one is not intended. My summation, which is my trademark saying and utter truth regarding anything: "I welcome questions. I hate assumptions."

 

LOTS of assumptions and generalizations have gone on here. You and Yang Bang want to think you're right and apparently know everything about "gay", "gayness", "classic gay experience" etc. etc. so what's the point of my saying anything reasonable since you're convinced of your correctness? I know better, and I have better things to do.

 

The way you have presented yourself (word choice and structure) kinda shows that you are not open to other people's opinions. I was not commanding you to do something. Only pointing out the fact that your tone was very condensing. Your last two sentences were condenscending as it was a response to Yang and myself's comments. You speciifcally made that comment (and addressed us) because our views were slightly different. If they were the same would you have made those comments about enlightment? Why not simply say I disagree or We're coming from different perspectives. To use that specific word (enlightment) has its own implication and taken from the context and the mode of response it read that way, hence I suggested a better way of stating your emotions. Enlighment suggests that we lack something, thus making our own comments and opinions invalid, thus condenscending. As I have stated before my comments and opinions are my own and I do not assume or implicate them onto anyone else or have my own opinions and comments influence how I feel, think, or assume to know about a person. I do not think I was "right and know everything about 'gay.' gayness,[etc.]." Looking back I should have stated that I agreed with Yang and not use the words "yang was right" (or whatever words to that effect I have used). I have stated that what I have said on this forum strand is my opinion and is how I feel about the subject. Even Yang and I have our disagreements we do not claim the other of claiming to be something or wanting to be something. You are right there have been assumptions and generalizations made from ALL three of us, but for me I don't think they meant this is the only and final way.

 

The words we chose to show and write all have a connotation. As writers and even as anyone who speaks a language we all know this (you called yang out on his slack language because of this very notion). As I have stated before you should find a better way to articulate your feelings. You accuse us of being unopen and "convinced of our correctness." Explain to us. Instead of accusing us of making assumption and generalizations as I wasn't making such claims and (I'm stretching to say) that Yang's repsonses were not of that sort either (at least for the earlier parts.)

 

I'll say this now, I was annoyed with your responses. We need to reevualate this situation. I apologize if you felt like you were being attacked for having your own opinions and even more so if you felt like you couldn't voice your opinions. You have that right (to voice that opinion as this is a forum). It was not my intentions of doing so...

 

We argued that you cannot be asexual if you have a physical attraction to some guy. You stated in a previous post that you have been attracted to a guy in the past and still feel that attraction. You said you would not have sex with him, to which I have commented that sexual abstenance and celibacy does not infer asexuality. I said my thoughts of asexuality means that you have to be void of that attraction, but you can still love a man (if you are a man or woman if you are a woman). Thus what you said did not fall into my definition of asexuality. Your article articulated and questioned the meanings and definitions of being gay but nothing of the sort of asexuality. You have yet to offer an explantion or definitions of asexuality from your perspective. Instead you keep saying that Yang and I are making assumptions and generalizations. That we should not define you in our terms. Well define yourself. State your mind. What does asexuality mean to you? What constitute it and wasn't doesn't. Yang and I keep explaining our piece and we are accused generalizers and assumers. I can't even see where you are coming from as you offer us no foundations to begin with. It'd be a different story if you explained yourself, defined your perspectives and if we continued to say that "no that's not how it is" then yes we are doing what you said we were. You say you come from a society and culture of discussion. It's kinda hard to have a discussion where one side refuses to explain oneself and only accuses the other of generalizing and assumptous. I don't consider that a discussion.

[Tiger]

This is an interesting topic. I have to say I agree with Yang. Sexuality isn't just about sex. It's about love. Asexuality is the absence of desire for sex, not the absence of desire for love, and that is a key difference. Sometimes asexual people even have partners (very unlucky partners who never get laid).

 

@Kevin- Mattie is not asexual. He's a big time pervert.

Edited September 19, 2010 by Tiger

[hh5]

There seems to be a lot of mincing of words and hormones.

 

Bent feelings becomes lost of objectivity.

 

Kensey sure did show traits to be a rational vulcan.

 

So without going into alot of wasted breath or lost of objectivity - here is my attempt

 

- - -

 

I am not an english major ... not an experience gay man ... not a scientist but I can understand science and medical

 

So below is looking into just a couple of levels

 

So its a matter of what you all mean above will you find your answer below

 

You go ahead and find your yes answer or no answer - but have fun in the debatable issue but don't get bent out of shape

 

This is one lesson I learn from someone on a DEBATE team.

 

but one thing I did observe from someone on the debate team is the lack of acceptance of both debatable positions and its that both positions are right and wrong

The loss in the debate is learning to accept the other sides position on a NO WIN situation - the two sides will continue to fight.

 

Only a WinLose position a debate is winable but hopefuly in the pursuit of sportsmanship and leaning more about knowledge - not the fight itself

And bottom line - there is a tendency to fight and lose site of sportsmanship, knowledge, and objectivity

 

-----

 

I only looked at Laymans and Medical and then Looked at Asexuality.

 

-------

 

I have to agree Gay means to have an affinity for someone in a same sex relationship.

We all know Love is separate from Sex.

 

Then there are levels of the Gay meaning

 

* An appreciation for same-sex person; having gay friends (Gay Friendship)

* Love in a same sex relationship. (Gay Love)

* Having sex in a same sex relationship. (Gay Sex)

 

- - - -

 

Asexual - away from the medical definition

 

free from or unaffected by sexuality: an asexual friendship.

Sexuality

 

[John Doe]

<too much to quote>

 

Are you using a template? Cause I saw this format in another forum thread. It's be easier to discuss this if an asexual just lacked sexual organs. Done. No gripes about it. No gray areas.

[Y_B]

I'm sorry Yang Bang. You cannot tell me what my first gay experience was or was not. You read my experience and are attempting to judge it by YOUR own beliefs. YOU define it as sexual. I did not feel it as sexual and it is does not have to be sexual to look at someone's eyes or their nose or want to touch their hair. I do it all the time and there's nothing sexual in it. As my article hinted I, but I will explore further: why is it that by some any type of touch, admiration or look is seen as sexual? Astounding.Do not define me by your standards and measures. And I see you have decided to revert to using common slang and vulgar terms in your reply to me. I'm sorry I do not speak that way and I do not accept it from anyone either. I find it really hard to grasp how you have the gall to tell someone else "classic gay sexual attraction" when 1) You are not them. 2) You do not know them. 3) You try to apply your more limited life experience to their own. You cannot tell me I'm missing the point, well you can tell me but you'd be wrong..but that is a type of arrogance I find astounding. I wrote an article of my opinion, my thoughts. If you want to write an article about your opinions and thoughts about the same topic, do so, but you have zero right to tell me I am missing the point of my own question. That's erroneous.

 

On the contrary, I have the right to tell you whatever the h*ll I want. Whether or not you take some of these things to heart is at your own discretion. Of course you're entitled to think whatever you want but when it comes down to the widely accepted view of what certain terms mean and what certain things are, you're on the short end of the stick. As JD said, the world operated by a standard of its own. It's that standard that creates even the language that you and I are communicating with. You're biting the hand that feed you by disrespecting it as if you are above it. You can dig all the holes you want and create all the extra-ordinary rules you want to live under; call the color blue, green or argue why $1 is worth $2 in your opinion but if you are to operate by the standards that are set upon us as a functional society of modern day human beings, you are by the definitions created, wrong.............ooorrrrr, let's pretend that you have a slight point, you sure are not doing a good job defending/explaining why you believe what you believe beyond "it is just so and you don' understand because you're not me". I may or may not be limiting my "life experiences'....but you're quite limited in literacy and logic. Irony?

 

I would love you see you cross examined in a court trial.

Edited September 19, 2010 by Yang Bang

[Graeme]

Since my anthology story seems to have a part to play in the creation of this thread, I probably should give my opinion

 

Before I read the thread, my response to the question would have been 'No'.

 

However, I've changed my mind.

 

As hh5 said, it all comes down to definitions. Too many arguments I've seen have come down to people having different definitions for the same terms, and their disagreements can be traced back to those different definitions, and that appears to be the case here.

 

I originally saw 'asexual' in terms of sex drive. An asexual would have a sex drive that's close to zero -- in other words, they're not interested in sex.

 

HOWEVER, that doesn't stop them from loving someone, and that would include loving someone of the same sex. Their love wouldn't be a sexual love, but few, if any, serious long term relationships are based purely on a sexual love. Now, given that they aren't interested in sex, does that preclude a sexual relationship with someone? Of course not! It would probably be more difficult for them to take certain roles (eg. any role that would require an asexual male to have an erection), but there are other ways that they could perform sexually. They may not want to, but when you love someone you try to please the other person, and that would include doing things that aren't at the top of their list of things they want to do.

 

So, even if they are asexual, they are capable of loving another person, and that includes another person of the same gender. They could also have sex with that person, because, as a loving person, they want to please the other person.

 

While I personally may baulk at saying that they're gay, by all practical measures they're in a same-sex relationship and I think that's enough to say they're gay.

 

And yes, I know I'm being a hypocrite with that last paragraph, as someone who self-identifies as gay who is in a long term heterosexual relationship (we'll have our 20th wedding anniversary later this year). My only defence is that people are complex and we don't fit into neat little boxes (unless you use a chainsaw)

[Kev de Cauchery]

Should I be glad or not that this opens such a discussion?

 

But...

 

Yeah, of course I think yes, that one can be both. It's just that I want to find out if anyone thinks the same with me or if I'm the only one thinking about this.

 

But then well.. I'm blurting out nonsense so don't mind me. Thanks to anyone who's given their thoughts. I just wish I could've been here earlier to join in the discussion..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@ Yang... I miss you, my lust.   And well, @ Tiger too.