Is it really necessary to create categories for people to fit into for the sole purpose of then raising awareness and acceptance of that category? Or do "scientists" have too much time on their hands? Why do some people want to parade their particular sexual quirks as if the rest of us care?
Apparently, One in 100 adults [is] asexual.
About one percent of adults have absolutely no interest in sex, according to a new study, and that distinction is becoming one of pride among many asexuals.Right, because obviously any trait that puts someone in a minority should elicit pride.
Bogaert's analysis looked at responses to another study in Britain, published in 1994. That study was based on interviews of 18,000 people about their sexual practices.One percent and three percent aren't that close together when you've got a sample size of 18,000. And anyway, what's the point? One percent is also close to the number of left-handed people with blonde hair.It offered respondent a list of options. One read: "I have never felt sexually attracted to anyone at all." One percent said they agreed with the statement.
That response level is close to the percentage of gay people in the population, which is around three percent, the New Scientist report says.
A 1994 survey, published by The University of Chicago Press, found that 13 percent of 3,500 respondents had no sex in the past year. Forty percent of those people said they were extremely happy or very happy with their lives.There are lots of reasons someone may be happy to not have sex other than being asexual. Maybe some people are actually waiting to have sex until they get married.
"If asexuality is indeed a form of sexual orientation, perhaps it will not be long before the issue of 'A' pride starts attracting more attention," New Scientist says.Why? Because the media decided to stir up conversation about some pointless categorization?
Activists have already started campaigning to promote awareness and acceptance of asexuality, it reports.If people aren't aware of something, they can't be unaccepting, can they? Does anyone really sit around and think about how much they dislike people who don't have sex? Why should sexuality even be a topic for acceptance or unacceptance? Isn't it a personal matter that's best left out of the public eye?
The Asexual Visibility and Education Network has an online store that sell items promoting awareness and acceptance on asexuality.Who cares? And the same goes for every other sexual-orientation. I just don't care. What does bother me is seeing big signs at work announcing "National Coming Out Day". I don't want to know anything about the sexual preferences of my co-workers. I don't want to know who's gay, I don't want to hear about the sexual escapades of straight people either. I just don't care.Among the items is a T-shirt with the slogan, "Asexuality: it's not just for amoebas anymore."
If you and I are friends, then of course I'm happy to talk about sex. That's fine, because friendship is a different type of relationship than exists between me and the public at large. If I don't know you, I don't want to know where you stick your stuff, or don't stick it, or anything.
Update:
Clayton Cramer agrees.
Wow,
I'm a left-handed person with blonde hair. That means I fit in the 1% category. I'm so filled with pride at this moment. Does this mean that I now fit into a protected category and get special rights at the majorities expense?
Next thing that will happen is there will be an asexual-awareness day and then hate crime legislation to protect asexuals. Oh and just wait, affirmative action will be right behind. The government never created a program that it didn't intend to become an all-consuming, amorphous blob.
Why on earth do we have these kinds of surveys. It disgusts me to think how much money is wasted year after year on this type of bunk.
Just chalk one up for the Dems. Trying to create more dissention where none previously existed. Hey, anything for a vote!
Hehe... I'm an semi-ambidextrous (eating only), heterosexual, white, blogging, conservo-libertario-populist-leaning, independent-protestant, blonde-haired male with a now-mild case of Asperger's Syndrome and a bit of a gut. That should count for something, shouldn't it? Am I *special* yet?
I guess I can understand the category itself: some people are constantly hounded by family ("when ya gonna settle down with a nice girl/guy?") for their asexuality, others probably find most church singles groups and bars alike annoying in their focus on mating rituals, and there is the situation that rising health care costs are disproportionately placed on the unmarried/childless, even if those costs are hidden in employer-paid premiums. I wouldn't put asexuality on the same scale as race in the grand scheme of things while we determine how to shape society for equality, but a lifestyle decision of abstinence (for whatever reason) *is* a bigger deal than hair color or handedness.
I guess celibacy isn't impossible for everybody. Watch as the pro-RC implications drop asexuality awareness right off the left's to do list.
It's more a problem with the humanities than with the left. When they've run out of stuff to study or can't come up with anything original to say about old studies, they make up things like asexuality and do studies on that cos otherwise they're out of a job.
Yeah, yeah, I know - not all humanities are so counterproductive. But studies on asexuality are just an example of the field gone awry.
You should care as a conservative, because homosexuality's abnormal. Homosexual activists are trying to demoralize this country and the institution of marriage by pushing "gay marriage."
If you've grown up as an asexual (as all asexuals have) then unless you hear something about asexuality then you will think there is something seriously wrong with you. There is nothing in sex education or religious studies to indicate the possibility of asexuality, and until recently there was absolutely nothing on the internet about it either.
If you're asexual then as you're growing up you watch other people, your friends, enemies, siblings, pairing off, talking 'the arse on that', continually, unrelentingly, and even occasionally being asked out by people, and you go through this for years and years. You just do not get the whole sex thing. You don't understand why it's such a big deal.
Therefore, you reason that as everyone else is sexual, there is something seriously wrong with you. You might try to research your problem, but there is nothing at all, anywhere, ever, about it. This only adds to your feeling that you are seriously abnormal.
Stopping millions more people feeling that is why asexuals are starting to make themselves known. A lot of them are so relieved that they aren't freaks, they aren't broken or deficit, that it makes sense they want to get the message out to all the other asexuals who haven't yet heard that there is nothing wrong with them.
Oh, celibacy is completely different to asexuality. Celibates DO feel sexual attraction. Asexuals DON'T.
To the comment about money spent on surveys - as far as I know only one survey has been carried out, and the money spent on that can't be that great. Much much more is being spent on telling thick kids that they're not worthless, so why not spend a tiny tiny amount of money on telling asexual kids they're not worthless either?
To this comment - "make up things like asexuality". I take it that you're the authority on other people's emotions and therefore you know for certain that no asexuals exist?
I could take the same stance on tap-dancing: I don't tap-dance, I don't like tap-dancing, I have no idea why anyone would tap-dance, it's a daft thing to do. It looks stupid and sounds stupid. But apparently some people claim to like tap-dancing, some even claim to love it, live for it. By your argument I could simply say that they're making it all up and no one really likes tap-dancing at all.
Emma: I don't recall saying that asexuality doesn't exist. I just don't care about it and don't think it should be a basis for pride. There's nothing wrong with being asexual.
Michael - I was replying some of the other people who have responded to your article. I have no issue with your article, sorry if I have caused you offence.
the wording that is being used is a figure of speech.people who are not excited about sexual relationships only want the people who are sexualy active to know and understand so the people who want sex dont feel bad or uncomfortable when thse accations arise.Question,if you are sexualy active and was dating a person you didnt know was not interested in sex with you later on,how would you react if this person who didnt feel sexual towards you didnt come forward and told you from the begaining how they feel about not having sex just a relationship only?could you realy blame this person for being decietful?sexual people,understood,nonsexual people,weird,odd,broken,lame,outsiders,the wordings can go on,and so dose life even for people like them.try words like,understanding,openness,caring.