Can one be asexual and gay at the same time?

[hh5]

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.

 

Thanks Graeme - I was getting a bit lost in the Asexuality definition stuff - thanks for explaining it

 

So are you saying that if sex is involve and their pleasing their mate ... they are doing it but its something that's not so natural for them to do but they do it.

 

So is it safe to say they are violating their own definition ... hence "Life will find a way" but its not super critical that they did this?

[Nephylim]

 

So is it safe to say they are violating their own definition

 

 

I really don't think that this is anywhere approaching the right phrase. If the definition of asexual is having no desire to have sex that doesn't stop them having the desire to please their partner. Not wanting to do something for yourself does not prevent you from doing it for someone else, especially someone you love.

 

And as for violating... I think that isway way too strong a word. if a gay man has a relationship with a woman does that violate his definition?

 

I don't think that anyone wakes up one day and makes the decision that they are asexual. it's just something that happens and no one makes rules that say you have to behave in this way or you can't behave in that way.

[Kev de Cauchery]

And sometimes one be asexual simply because of all sexual experiences were bad, no?

[Nephylim]

And sometimes one be asexual simply because of all sexual experiences were bad, no?

 

 

That's not asexual... that's scared.

[hh5]

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.

 

I just search for the information and then cut and paste ... I know its all mechanical ... Graeme sure did clear up Asexuality for me

 

That does illustrate gray areas and I leave that to "life will find a way" but they are still asexual.

Sure I could argue they are GaySex but only for that act but do they do it often ... I don't know that's for some xxxxgist type person to know.

 

Just like in Jurrassic park - they have the frog gene - but they are still essentially dinosaurs and I could not call them frogs.

 

Not sure where u saw the format done ... sure it be a lesson for me to see - I don't think it was me but I can be wrong.

 

Well lack sexual organs - well you have eunuch, Vasectomy, and hysterectomy

I best I missed some more ways to lack sexual organs in the natural evolution.

 

Then its their choice of sexuality but lacking sexual organs ... they still have A-Sex, GaySex or HeteroSex but it won't be 100% functional but its close or rather their coping without the organs or the lost or lack there of.

 

Its just that when someone is young and hasn't had any sexual experience there is a lack of understanding to each of the sexualities ...

That's why I put out the joke above in this thread to illustrate this lack of understanding and lack of experience ... it bugs the hell out of the experience ones.

Then DragonMando showed an evidence\example but of course the couple is young so pleasing one's mate further will come sooner or later.

=> if the person just learn by definitions only and some diagrams ... there still the potential for the lack of respect or understanding

The experience ones will teach us more ... the ones from other fields will broaden our knowledge that we don't normally bother to experience

 

=> if there were videos of each sexuality ... and one hasn't determined their sexuality ... there is a yuck response ... watching Kensey movie ... and seeing the Hetero love making ... first there was yuck for me ... but from a Kensey sort of objectivity ... this is what Hetero do to have sex ... each sexuality that watches another sexuality sex making will find that yuck reaction ... but to lose that objectivity is to hurt someone who can tell us what that experience is ... and can go in more detail as long as you have objectivity

 

What hard is to process that these acts of love or sex is quite normal for the sexuality that one is in. They are doing their best with what they have.

But some of us outside of that sexuality will find it hard to comprehend how it happens to be that way. And its merely to say that it happens that way,

 

The experience brings a lot of understanding and meaning to the persons of that that sexuality to them.

 

But if everyone had to do it exclusively Hetero (40s and 50s example) ... which was the case to not be gay or asexual ... its really hard to cope and to be happy ... then it leads to a lots issues. But as the unsaid witch hunt died down after the war(s) (WWII,Korean,Vietnam) then we have various sexualities starting to define themselves and then express themselves. And its was indeed a struggle to eventually wind up where we are now ... there still is that fight for the right to not be hetero ... but that all is in the education and acceptance in out society. Literally some one will have to rewrite the books, update the courses, and in that sense change the outlook of what our society is based on in other to be more tolerant.

 

But still we have the young coming here to ask us for help and guidance ... during their struggle to be define themselves in their teenage years which is made difficult by their parents and the society their up against.

 

Its much worst in the transsexual world ... to make the change in an unsupported environment is so very hurtful ... some can make their change quickly and some spent most of their years trying reach their goal ... there is a lot of questions of why, hate, rejection, or acceptance ... we definately need to be supportive even if we're not transsexual but to help them along with their journey ... but if or when they reach their goal then ultimately they will be happy and then they will experience fully what their sexuality offers them. This is much tougher route than being Asexual or otherwise.

For some of us that maybe we are weak at heart or trying to define ourselves ... the fight in the threads is really upsetting ... when some one comes to understand the topic and learn from the experience people in this community. It would help to each try to clarify and understand ... be open minded ... I hate fights ... someone gets hurt and value is lost

 

I really didn't expect this thread to be explosive as in the soapbox.

 

I think Kensey would have wanted us to understand something we don't really understand ... but to have the passion and support for each other.

( And to take what he has started to all new levels that he could not do in the trouble times he face that we don't face as much ... we have to face other things and is just as much as a struggle back then)

 

So please don't lose objectivity and professionalism ethics

 

I apologized if anything I said here is totally or partially wrong ... its just a lot of pieces of information that gets jumbled in my mind.

 

[Nephylim]

I really didn't expect this thread to be explosive as in the soapbox.

 

I think Kensey would have wanted us to understand something we don't really understand ... but to have the passion and support for each other.

( And to take what he has started to all new levels that he could not do in the trouble times he face that we don't face as much ... we have to face other things and is just as much as a struggle back then)

 

So please don't lose objectivity and professionalism ethics

 

I apologized if anything I said here is totally or partially wrong ... its just a lot of pieces of information that gets jumbled in my mind.

 

 

 

Don't apologise hun. A lively and even heated debate is no bad thing

[hh5]

Don't apologise hun. A lively and even heated debate is no bad thing

 

I come from a family that has abuse and heated debates and physical fallout... there bound to be someone that gets hurt ... even an outsider can get hurt and lose the objectivity and passion to learn something that he or she didn't know of the subject.

 

Its something that is hard to get use to especially not having the means to cope with it.

 

That is why I took a shot at the question ... sure I could be wrong (100% or partially ) ... and I would find out ... hopefully peacefully

 

----

 

I was trying to imagine ASexuality

 

=> If I had a mate that has been sexually abused ... then ASexuality or Gay without sex would be the best way to go ... to love and find another way to please my mate

 

=> If I had a mate that lack sexual organs(naturally or by other means) or lack the urge to have sex ... then again I find a way to love and please my mate

 

But there is a large sacrifice to not having sex and that could mean that I could build up an issue for the lack of sex in my life.

That seems to illustrate that one person is ASexual and the other one Gay or Hetero or ASexual.

 

Ultimately, my mate will try the best that he can to please me ... and may be even cross the line by having something close to sex or allow me to have sex with another person. There is drama if I would leave my mate over the lack of sex.

 

=> If I was purely ASexual with some who is the same ... perhaps we won't cross the line in the sexual organ part but find ways to be more intimate than love.

Perhaps in that sense I am not wired inside to have the notion of having sex in that way ... not that I find it repulsive but the way I am.

 

I hope this illustration is what Graeme and everyone else says.

If there are better illustrations ... I love to read them.

[John Doe]

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

 

But then well.. I'm blurting out nonsense so don't mind me.

 

 

You should be glad. Discussions are much needed, even if they get tense and heated. Without it, the world would still be "backwards" (more so than now). Blacks will still be slaves. Chinese will still be making railroads. Native Americans would be wiped from the face of the earth, and depending on how history falls there would be no more Jews. Korea would be one state, but basically an unfunctional country due to it's civil war. Science will still believe the earth is the center of the universe. The Christian God will be non existant. And majorities of humans would still be runnning around hunting and gathering.

 

And you shouldn't toss your own opinions aside so lightly. It's not nonsense. It reflects a part of your understanding and impression of the world.

[TalonRider]

Here's what wiki has to say on the topic.

[hh5]

Here's what wiki has to say on the topic.

 

Thanks, Already gave the link ... forgot to prefix wiki ... Graeme sure did clear up the meaning a bit more

[hh5]

Don't apologise hun. A lively and even heated debate is no bad thing

 

But when they get their meaning mixed up and frett on personal experience and generalizations and etc

finding something to blow steam

 

right now its the calm before the storm before they come out fighting in this thread or another one

 

- - -

 

there's no good sportmanship or gentlemen's shake - summing up what they agree

 

Do we really call this a healthy bonding?

hehehe or tell them "Get a room!!"

 

Now I see why the Chat room had some melt downs.

[Canuk]

before i started reading this post i had a pretty good idea about what I understood to be asexual. I now have no f'ing idea.

 

It comes down to which "filter" we apply first in determing the "label" to be applied. If a person is attacted to the opposite sex they tend to be labelled as straight ; if its the same sex , gay (or lesbian).

 

the same applies to how a person is defined based on who they wish to be physically intimate with, (a bloke who insits he is straight, but only sleeps with men, is likely to be considered gay....isn't he?)

 

to define a person interested in relationships but not sex, surely they would be considered straight or gay but only interested in platonic relationships.

 

a person interested in sex only, without the realtionship is a slut, but still either gay or straight

 

therefore to be by almost a process of exclusion someone who considers themself to "asexual" would be interested "people" completely disregarding that persons sex, and not interested in sex.

 

so can an asexual preson be gay? not the way I look at it. but then that's me and as it has been said elsewhere, words have meaing and you can assign any meaning you like to any word - just if you are going to engage in discourse, you'd better lay down some decent guidelines!

 

of course this still leave a few problems - I have no idea where masturbation fits into my neat paradigm, the same goes for bi-sexuality (an area I commented on elsewhere being an area of complete mystery to me).

 

not sure I have contributed anything much, but it was an interesting intellectual exercise over coffee and toast!

 

 

 

 

[Canuk]

I come from a family that has abuse and heated debates and physical fallout... there bound to be someone that gets hurt ... even an outsider can get hurt and lose the objectivity and passion to learn something that he or she didn't know of the subject.

 

Its something that is hard to get use to especially not having the means to cope with it.

 

That is why I took a shot at the question ... sure I could be wrong (100% or partially ) ... and I would find out ... hopefully peacefully

 

----

 

 

sorry a little off-topic, but I come from a family where debate was expected and a huge part of my growing up. I have an ex where simple questioning could be met with physical violence. it was a real shock the first time I encountered it. so I understand from whence you come. I sincerely hope that you have managed to find a way out from the history.

[hh5]

sorry a little off-topic, but I come from a family where debate was expected and a huge part of my growing up. I have an ex where simple questioning could be met with physical violence. it was a real shock the first time I encountered it. so I understand from whence you come. I sincerely hope that you have managed to find a way out from the history.

 

Ok for a second opinion - what do you make of the debate prior to my shot at more peaceful way ... to me for a topic of somewhat easier to answer with low to moderate debate ... was short of someone pressing buttons at each other ... some thing that happens between my two oldest brothers ... objectivity heading to a loss

 

i was just plainly put information out and work the meaning out ... Graeme add more ... just between us ... its was very peaceful and I learned a lot ... the above one that talk of coming from experience and I add with Graeme and then mine ... I learned a lot

 

A debate where both sides starts learning ... rather than fighting is much preferred ... even when russia and usa were talking and both sides had their finger on the button ... both sides did not result to pressing the button as the last stab at winning but would really be our loss if they did

 

No matter what arena ... if both sides can learn there is much to learn further ... but if its pressing buttons and dismissing each other ... science, discovery, politics, business ... took a step back to the stone ages ... a delay before we would step forwards as a society.

 

Sure I don't mind if the two were put into a room and the last man standing won the debate or no one comes out at all ... if both comes out then it was a good debate.

 

Managed? - I feel like a war vet that has a tough time with life - Its been a lonely life - its hard to find someone to connect with - its a jungle out there for me - the wrong place and wrong time kind of life - while others are at the right place and right time - like stepping into an alternate reality - i take it you did not stick with your ex for very long - and that's fortunate ... me I wonder if its in the next life time ... that's when its a way out ... some of us are lucky with second chances and some aren't

[hh5]

before i started reading this post i had a pretty good idea about what I understood to be asexual. I now have no f'ing idea.

 

It comes down to which "filter" we apply first in determing the "label" to be applied. If a person is attacted to the opposite sex they tend to be labelled as straight ; if its the same sex , gay (or lesbian).

 

the same applies to how a person is defined based on who they wish to be physically intimate with, (a bloke who insits he is straight, but only sleeps with men, is likely to be considered gay....isn't he?)

 

to define a person interested in relationships but not sex, surely they would be considered straight or gay but only interested in platonic relationships.

 

a person interested in sex only, without the realtionship is a slut, but still either gay or straight

 

therefore to be by almost a process of exclusion someone who considers themself to "asexual" would be interested "people" completely disregarding that persons sex, and not interested in sex.

 

so can an asexual preson be gay? not the way I look at it. but then that's me and as it has been said elsewhere, words have meaing and you can assign any meaning you like to any word - just if you are going to engage in discourse, you'd better lay down some decent guidelines!

 

of course this still leave a few problems - I have no idea where masturbation fits into my neat paradigm, the same goes for bi-sexuality (an area I commented on elsewhere being an area of complete mystery to me).

 

not sure I have contributed anything much, but it was an interesting intellectual exercise over coffee and toast!

 

One label you miss that separate of sex ... Love ... how does love fit into your argument??

Part of the impression I get for asexual is someone who slut switch is permanently in the OFF position but Love is still there and kissing and being kind ... friendship ... closeness

being of a sexual orientation is allowed because its someone you find yourself comfortable with

 

mmm its like putting two persons who are all business and only love money ... but they like each other because they work well with each other ... in some way this is love for them ... sex never does come into play ... actions of showing love is ... evidence of business in united way ... a partnership

 

No one in my family ever hugs or say I love you ... but if my father sees that you pass his expectations ... he'll give you a surf and turf dinner ... than say I love you etc etc ... sounds a bit asexual there ... sex was only used to produce babies ... maybe my parents were more asexual hetro ... but coming from a hard love family ... after I was born ... my parents were never know to have sex ... if that were the case then I have sibling#6

[Kev de Cauchery]

Given contemplation, I might be both gay and asexual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited: Okay, I take that back. I seemed to have forgotten how good it had been with my ex.

 

 

Edited September 26, 2010 by Kevin Caucher

[clumber]

Well, first things first, Yang Bang said:

 

On the contrary, I have the right to tell you whatever the h*ll I want.

 

Thus proving that my opinion of him cannot really be given within the rules of this forum but trust me, it is not a compliment.

 

 

The problem here seems to be that people are attempting to break down all relationships into Platonic and Sexual, with no regard given for the possibility of Romantic.

 

Simply put, a Platonic relationship is a strong love, but one with no intention or real possibility of sexual feelings while a Romantic relationship is the sort of strong love which does allow for sex but does not require it. As for a Sexual relationship, that merely involves riding them 'till the wheels come off.

 

The fact is, a person who defines themselves as asexual can be hetero-or homoromantic (that is, interested in a romantic relationship) or, for that matter, bi-romantic. They can also have platonic relationships or even sexual relationships. The only difference is that the sexual relationship itself does not interest them. It is, of course, possible that a person will term themselves Asexual and have no romantic feelings for other people, but that does not make them 'more asexual' than someone who does have romantic feelings.

 

 

Basically, yes, an asexual person can be gay, straight or bi. To suggest that they can't and then to try and interpret another persons feelings for them, just because you yourself are too narrow-minded and stubborn to accept that your view of the world may be incomplete does not make you correct - it merely makes you dim.

 

 

Martin

[Myk]

hahaha omg this thread is a disaster. Don't get me wrong, the question is a great one...especially considering the heated argument. I have no clue how this thread wasn't locked with all the personal attack that was going on in here. I've said much less in the past and been censored for it, totally jealous....

 

Anyway do I think you can be both asexual and gay at the same time? heck ya I do! There was quite a large debate going on about definitions, which to an extent I think detracted from the topic. Sure, I get definitions are an important way for us to communicate but words fail tremendously at explaining the feelings and intents of things a bit more involved than simple text communication. OK though, lets look at the words. Sure gay or homosexual might be referring to a sexual attraction or in my opinion more specifically a sexual orientation, there is no direct implication to the act of sex actually being involved. I totally understand where those very logical arguments were going early on saying that it was sexual, so asexual implied those feelings and desires were not present. Trouble is the same word can be used in more than one way and in doing so express entirely different ideas. This is sometimes a stumbling block of the english language. In a far as the meaning of the word asexual, they are referring to an absence of sex, or more appropriately interest in the physical act. In using the term sexual attraction or sexual orientation, as what gay/homosexual means, you are not referring to the act of sex, but the physical form of the sex, ie 'a man' or 'woman'. In doing so sex as an act does not apply to those terms. In reality I think the intention of sexual orientation refers more to our desire to have an intimate (I'm using intimate here as 'close' not 'sex')relationship with someone of a certain sex (ie a man's over a woman's physical form), but I understand it is truly impossible for some to see past sex in a relationship. For those people being gay may actually mean to them that they want to have sex with those of the same sex, but that is more their interest in a relation ship over what their sexual orientation actually is.

 

Now beyond the definition...I do believe it is possible for the spirit of the two ideas, gay and asexual, to co-exist. Furthermore I believe it is possible to be sexually (ie physically) attracted to someone and yet still have no interest in sex. We are talking about the attraction to a body, a look, a physical form or voice or smell. That attraction does not have any direct implication to the act of sex. You can even engage in sex with another person and still be asexual. The way asexual is actually used is a lack of interest in sex, having sex does not imply interest, just occurrence.

 

For me personally, the things I miss about my last relationship most do not revolve around having sex. I would gladly live my entire life with that person never having sex and still be happy. That being said I'd be even happier having both with him...but I never said I was asexual

[Y_B]

Well, first things first, Yang Bang said:

 

Thus proving that my opinion of him cannot really be given within the rules of this forum but trust me, it is not a compliment.

 

The problem here seems to be that people are attempting to break down all relationships into Platonic and Sexual, with no regard given for the possibility of Romantic.

 

Simply put, a Platonic relationship is a strong love, but one with no intention or real possibility of sexual feelings while a Romantic relationship is the sort of strong love which does allow for sex but does not require it. As for a Sexual relationship, that merely involves riding them 'till the wheels come off.

 

The fact is, a person who defines themselves as asexual can be hetero-or homoromantic (that is, interested in a romantic relationship) or, for that matter, bi-romantic. They can also have platonic relationships or even sexual relationships. The only difference is that the sexual relationship itself does not interest them. It is, of course, possible that a person will term themselves Asexual and have no romantic feelings for other people, but that does not make them 'more asexual' than someone who does have romantic feelings.

 

Basically, yes, an asexual person can be gay, straight or bi. To suggest that they can't and then to try and interpret another persons feelings for them, just because you yourself are too narrow-minded and stubborn to accept that your view of the world may be incomplete does not make you correct - it merely makes you dim.

 

Martin

 

 

Cute.

[Y_B]

n a far as the meaning of the word asexual, they are referring to an absence of sex, or more appropriately interest in the physical act. In using the term sexual attraction or sexual orientation, as what gay/homosexual means, you are not referring to the act of sex, but the physical form of the sex, ie 'a man' or 'woman'. In doing so sex as an act does not apply to those terms. In reality I think the intention of sexual orientation refers more to our desire to have an intimate (I'm using intimate here as 'close' not 'sex')relationship with someone of a certain sex (ie a man's over a woman's physical form), but I understand it is truly impossible for some to see past sex in a relationship. For those people being gay may actually mean to them that they want to have sex with those of the same sex, but that is more their interest in a relation ship over what their sexual orientation actually is.

 

Except, asexuality is a sexual orientation that is within the same categories as homosexuality, bisexuality or heterosexuality. As you said, homosexuality or heterosexuality does not revolve itself around the act of sex but rather the attraction to the very embodiment of males and females, it can be romantic love without the sex as clumber said. The point that is missed is that asexuality falls within the same logic. Being asexual is not the absence of the desire to have sexual intercourse. Like the prefixes: homo/hetereo and what those mean for sexuality, "a" should do the exact same thing. And by definition "a" means lack of or without. If a homosexual means a person who is attracted in however way to somebody of the same sex, whether it be romantic or sexual, an asexual is a person who has the lack of that very attraction in however way to a member of either sex.

 

If you remain consistent in defining these words, then it makes zero sense for someone to be gay and asexual at the same time. Those of you who think it's possible are applying a double standard to the terms within sexuality by defining one thing one way and another thing another way and that's making everything a whole lot more complicated than it needs to be.

[Myk]

Except, asexuality is a sexual orientation that is within the same categories as homosexuality, bisexuality or heterosexuality. As you said, homosexuality or heterosexuality does not revolve itself around the act of sex but rather the attraction to the very embodiment of males and females, it can be romantic love without the sex as clumber said. The point that is missed is that asexuality falls within the same logic. Being asexual is not the absence of the desire to have sexual intercourse. Like the prefixes: homo/hetereo and what those mean for sexuality, "a" should do the exact same thing. And by definition "a" means lack of or without. If a homosexual means a person who is attracted in however way to somebody of the same sex, whether it be romantic or sexual, an asexual is a person who has the lack of that very attraction in however way to a member of either sex.

 

If you remain consistent in defining these words, then it makes zero sense for someone to be gay and asexual at the same time. Those of you who think it's possible are applying a double standard to the terms within sexuality by defining one thing one way and another thing another way and that's making everything a whole lot more complicated than it needs to be.

 

Good argument, but I hope you don't believe everything wikipedia says. Asexual is not a sexual orientation, but has mistakenly been 'lumped in' with a continuum of attraction (hetero/bi/homosexual). Yes, we can do the definition thing again, but you are failing to put he word in the present day context for which they are used. So by definition: hetero-sexual (different sex), homo-sexual (same sex), bi-sexual (two sex) and finally a-sexual (non sex)...does not directly mean lack of or without, but that is used to express the usage of the word. When you look up asexual in an actual dictionary, there are numerous biological terms I will ignore for simplicity and then there is "Lacking interest in or desire for sex." It is not referring to an orientation at all. Asexual is misinterpreted as an orientation.

 

For arguments sake though, if we take asexual out of the literal translation and wrongly place it in the same context as our other 3 sexual orientations, it does not fit anywhere on the heterosexual-bisexual-homosexual continuum. I know, you would argue this means you can not be both at the same time. This however is a scale of attraction, specifically to the physical form ie 'man' or 'woman'. To that end an asexual either has no attraction to one form over the other (might as well call it bisexual) or would have no attraction to the physical form of either sex. In this context there is no reference once so ever to any attraction other than that of the physical form. It does not say anything about not being attracted to a certain personality or a deep voice or the scent or emotionally or socially or any other factor. Someone could easily align themselves as asexual but still say they are gay because they prefer a guy's personality or his smell or voice or being wrapped in strong arms or even just for familiarity with the sex itself.

 

It is not a double standard at all, the definitions remain the same, you just have to be aware of the context the words are being placed in. In the end it is not up to you to tell someone how they can define themselves anyways. Even if they are grossly misusing the words and their definitions, who cares? Words are a poor substitute to the feelings, emotions and characteristics that make not only us but life up. You should not worry about boxing everything off and categorizing it, especially if in knowing a little bit, you assume you know everything. I for one know that I know nothing, so I'm in no place to tell someone else who they are.

[clumber]

Cute.

 

 

Ah. I see that instead of a response I have your usual hipster apathy. Done popping the lenses out of your ironically retro glasses?

 

 

Except, asexuality is a sexual orientation that is within the same categories as homosexuality, bisexuality or heterosexuality. As you said, homosexuality or heterosexuality does not revolve itself around the act of sex but rather the attraction to the very embodiment of males and females, it can be romantic love without the sex as clumber said. The point that is missed is that asexuality falls within the same logic. Being asexual is not the absence of the desire to have sexual intercourse. Like the prefixes: homo/hetereo and what those mean for sexuality, "a" should do the exact same thing. And by definition "a" means lack of or without. If a homosexual means a person who is attracted in however way to somebody of the same sex, whether it be romantic or sexual, an asexual is a person who has the lack of that very attraction in however way to a member of either sex.

 

If you remain consistent in defining these words, then it makes zero sense for someone to be gay and asexual at the same time. Those of you who think it's possible are applying a double standard to the terms within sexuality by defining one thing one way and another thing another way and that's making everything a whole lot more complicated than it needs to be.

 

 

Either you are childishly quibbling over semantics, or you don't actually understand what asexuality is. I think the word you're looking for is aromantic, that is to say a person with no romantic desires. An asexual is merely someone who does not desire sex.

Is that clear enough for you?

There are of course people who are both asexual and aromantic, but they are not the primary subject of this discussion.

 

Now, I don't need some random stuff about the original meanings of the words homo- bi- or heterosexual or their origins as euphemistic terms, words change and that debate is one that would have nothing to add. The fact is that while a person may not technically be homosexual and asexual, they can quite easily be gay and asexual, since the word 'gay' has strong romantic meanings as well.

 

 

As you said, homosexuality or heterosexuality does not revolve itself around the act of sex but rather the attraction to the very embodiment of males and females, it can be romantic love without the sex as clumber said

 

 

As such, the term 'homosexual' does in fact, revolve entirely around sex. The term 'gay', however, does not. Also, to suggest that it does is to put the gay rights movement back a good few decades because it was my understanding that terms such as 'gay' were taken on to escape from the 'it's all about sex' image.

 

As such, someone can be asexual and gay. The sex does not really mean much for the person, but they can still love someone and these feelings of love can be limited to a single sex.

 

The problem seems to stem from the fact that you are using the scientific definition of 'asexual'. This can be very misleading as I do not know any asexual people who reproduce by splitting.

 

 

I hope you found this post informative,

Martin

[hh5]

I wish an asexual person to comment on this thread.:2hands:

[hh5]

hahaha omg this thread is a disaster. Don't get me wrong, the question is a great one...especially considering the heated argument. I have no clue how this thread wasn't locked with all the personal attack that was going on in here. I've said much less in the past and been censored for it, totally jealous....

 

For me personally, the things I miss about my last relationship most do not revolve around having sex. I would gladly live my entire life with that person never having sex and still be happy. That being said I'd be even happier having both with him...but I never said I was asexual

 

I agree and this is not even in the soapbox.

 

We've entered into the ASexual hunting ground.

[Y_B]

Ah. I see that instead of a response I have your usual hipster apathy. Done popping the lenses out of your ironically retro glasses?

 

 

Nope, that was the response.

Take the hint that I'm really not interested in anything you have to say, which should have been made clear the last time you mouthed off at me and by my lack of response to you in this thread. I don't know what you want from me, but you ain't getting it. You're not smart, you're not clever, and you're not intimidating but I am pretty tired of you trailing me.

 

If you respond to another post I make, including this one, insulting me again or not, I'm reporting your pathetic ass for harassment. Take this as my official warning to you.

Edited September 28, 2010 by Yang Bang