That really only applies when the words "asexual reproduction" are used in conjunction.Nayr said:Don't want to sound rude, but I am pretty sure asexual only refers to being able to carry on your own genes to the next generation. From parent cell to daughter cell, and this is really only common for cells; of course there are exceptions but I am pretty sure people are not asexual. Maybe non- sexual is proper, but asexual refers to passing of only your genetic information to the next generation. Feel free to argue with me, I have never heard of referring to a person as asexual though; just curious really. I am a biology major though, so kind of only exposed to cellular stuff and those terms.
I'm an atheist, yet I am not oblivious to religious themes being inappropriately injected into situations, and it makes me feel uncomfortable because I'm being reminded that I'm part of a minority that is recognized almost entirely through preconceived notions by people with a poor understanding. It's a near-direct parallel.Necrofudge said:But if you were really asexual, then by that same definition, all the sexual references flying around you would probably be automatically ignored since you wouldn't care.
I apologize if this is offensive, but in my opinion, if it makes you that uncomfortable, you aren't sounding like an asexual... More like a teenage girl who hit puberty.
EDIT:
I'm glad you believe yourself capable of accurately psychoanalyzing everybody in this thread by way of broad, sweeping generalizations, but your entire post is an entire article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature] you decided not to read before insisting that asexual people are socially inept losers with a severe case of sour grapes. In case you decided not to read it, here's the very first sentence:zelda2fanboy said:Snip.
Asexuality (also known as nonsexuality), in its broadest sense, is the lack of sexual attraction or the lack of interest in and desire for sex.