Poll: Are There That Many Asexuals Here?

[Agayek]

When talking to others it's important to take the general connotations of a word into account, regardless of its factual meaning or objective accuracy. Heck, even a word which has neutral meaning in one setting could be seen as negative in another. I'd find this to be an example of the latter. I wouldn't have even brought it up, but the fact that you said "suffer from a biological defect" makes it almost seem as though you're being subtly inflammatory. I just don't want to see you unwittingly alienate yourself

Okay, going on thinking that I guess, but it doesn't change the fact that calling it a defect or an aberration sounds really, really rude. At least, it is to me.

Two things to cover here:

1) It's not an insult, it's simply a statement of biological fact. You can not like it all you wish, but the facts very rarely limit themselves to what we would like. Again, I will link it directly to albinoism. It's a genetic/developmental change that causes you to be different from the "average". It's neither good nor bad, it simply is.

2) If you're so uncomfortable with yourself and your sexuality that connotative derision that may or may not exist is enough to offend you, you may want to re-evaluate things. A bit of self-confidence does wonders for that kind of thing.

 

[TehCookie]

I think it's mostly users who don't feel like explaining their sexuality and just pick the closest option. I tend to call myself a romantic asexual rather than describe everything. Besides even if the terms people use aren't 100% accurate, it's the internet do you really need to know that much about a random person?

 

[Erana]

Even at a less active time such as right now, it is perfectly feesiable to have a handful of asexuals here to speak their voice.

I didn't know the existence of something was determined by how many people screamed hard enough it does. Thanks for clearing that up.

Here, let me help you by showing you my entire quote, as it seems you missed the point entirely:

Um... Wanna run that math by me one more time?

That doesn't change anything. The fact of the matter is, inborn asexuality is way to rare to account for the tens of people here claiming they're asexual. Much more likely they suffer from an actual problem ranging anywhere from hyperthyroidism to teenage angst.

Now I'm going to pull out my Escapist-fu, and point out that, during the El Shaddai event last year, users cheating with bots were able to amass over 10000 users who had recieved an El Shaddai badge in a matter of days after the event began, thus proving that, statistically, there were at least 100 asexuals active in a period of under a week. Then add in the fact that that the number of participants is only a fraction of total users active in that time, and, as I myself have done, asexuals seeing a thread like this that questions the authenticity of their orientation would log in to defend themselves!
Even at a less active time such as right now, it is perfectly feesiable to have a handful of asexuals here to speak their voice. You, sir, have grossly underestimated the nature of this website!
*proceeds to prance around like an Escapist ninja*

If I understood you correctly, you said that the number of people who are claiming to be asexual here is unlikely.

I replied with evidence to suggest that it is, in fact, feasible under the circumstances for this many asexuals to be on the Escapist.

I even included lighthearted comments, including one which implied that I was prancing around pretending to be a ninja, and you respond to me not only in a disrespectful manner, but one that has nothing to do with a proper discussion.

I kindly suggest you reconsider this behavior, as it is not good for the community, nor for the long term status of the individual on this website.

 

[Smithburg]

Nope, Im attracted to all sorts of stuff, even this guy |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
\ /
. V

 

[Unchained_M]

I wonder how many Bisexuals there really are in the world... Hmmm....

 

[chaosyoshimage]

The internet is full of lies and half-truths.

The internet is kind of like Obi-Wan Kenobi...

 

[TheMagicLemur]

I think it's mostly users who don't feel like explaining their sexuality and just pick the closest option. I tend to call myself a romantic asexual rather than describe everything. Besides even if the terms people use aren't 100% accurate, it's the internet do you really need to know that much about a random person?

I think you make a good point. Everyone's sexuality is unique to them alone; human nature demands we crate arbitrary categories, so people just find the closest match.

And yeah, it's strange how we do that online; it's not like most people would walk into a store and go "So how many of you in here aren't really into sex?"

 

[viranimus]

You know what... every last one of you is wrong. NONE of you exist. You are all just a figment of my massive acid induced overdose that kills me and you all are just my life flashing before my eyes. Wow... says a lot about my life. Anyway....


Bet some of you havent thought about that in over a decade.

But in all seriousness.. really no need for such hostility over this topic I do not think..

 

[InsanityRequiem]

Why don't you tell me the scientific facts that support your "opinion" that asexuality doesn't exist then?

I have never made the claim that asexuality doesn't exist. Good job pulling shit out of your ass.

Yes, you got the right to say what you want. But here's the thing, what you say needs back up like what you're calling me out on. Otherwise, you are wrong.

Except I'm not. There's not enough scientific literature to classify asexuality as an actual sexual orientation. Also, sagepub? That's your go to website for scientific studies regarding asexuality? Lol. Just fucking lol.

I misquoted you, yes, and I was wrong on that. But you saying that everyone, on these forums, saying they are asexual are frauds. Something that has been proved wrong many times. To the point that it looks like you are trolling. Are you trolling? Maybe, maybe not. I will not judge you.

And you told me to pull scientific articles and that is what I did. SAGE Publications does academic journals on social sciences and humanities, in which their sexualities journals are tailored to what the title is. Sexualities. Does it cover purely asexuality? No. I looked through it, and they cover sexuality in all its forms. I pulled up scientific articles, and you are immediately denying them because of their source? An independent publisher of academic journals that goes through the same Peer Reviewed process as those of biology, astronomy, geology, etc.

Sexuality, including asexuality(or non-sexuality if that sounds better), is excessively complex. Altered both by hormonal wiring in the brain and how one grows up. Do I call myself an asexual? Yes, I do. But that does not mean I am a fraud, because of what you say.

 

[JemothSkarii]

I'd say 1% would be right, as for this site alone, I reckon there'd be 20 or so at least. As for people ACTUALLY being asexual or not, I used to think I was, but I find that I'm actually a Demisexual, but I don't doubt their existence.

 

[MetalMagpie]

I see no reason why they should be lying. Whether or not they'll be asexual forever is another question.

I think many of the people who say they are asexual just don't have an interest in dating right now and want a cooler term for it. So do you believe that the many people who claim to be asexuals (claim to have no desire for sex of any kind) really belong to this small psychological group?

That wikipedia quote makes no mention of asexuality having to be a permanent state. So why is it invalid to describe yourself as asexual until you reach a point in your life when you experience sexual attraction?

Everyone starts out asexual. You don't experience sexual attraction as a child! The age at which people start experiencing that sort of attraction varies a lot. (I knew people at school who were having sex at fourteen, but I didn't start having those sort of feelings at all until I reached nineteen.)

A small minority of people will never experience sexual attraction. But - by definition - you can't say for certain that someone is part of that group until after their death!

 

[axlryder]

When talking to others it's important to take the general connotations of a word into account, regardless of its factual meaning or objective accuracy. Heck, even a word which has neutral meaning in one setting could be seen as negative in another. I'd find this to be an example of the latter. I wouldn't have even brought it up, but the fact that you said "suffer from a biological defect" makes it almost seem as though you're being subtly inflammatory. I just don't want to see you unwittingly alienate yourself

Okay, going on thinking that I guess, but it doesn't change the fact that calling it a defect or an aberration sounds really, really rude. At least, it is to me.

Two things to cover here:

1) It's not an insult, it's simply a statement of biological fact. You can not like it all you wish, but the facts very rarely limit themselves to what we would like. Again, I will link it directly to albinoism. It's a genetic/developmental change that causes you to be different from the "average". It's neither good nor bad, it simply is.

2) If you're so uncomfortable with yourself and your sexuality that connotative derision that may or may not exist is enough to offend you, you may want to re-evaluate things. A bit of self-confidence does wonders for that kind of thing.

well, your first point really just reiterates your initial response towards Dragonizer despite me explicitly stating that the connotation of a word should be taken into account regardless of its technical accuracy. I don't think it was something to cover so much as needless repetition.

Now, presuming that a person taking issue with your diction, regardless of its connotation, is a result of their discomfort with themselves or their own sexuality is fairly baseless conjecture. What's more, some connotations are inherent within a word itself. Attempting to relegate an inherent connotation to potential interpretation makes little sense, as that's not how the majority of people are going to process words. Just go on a LGBT forum and ask them if calling homosexuality a defect comes off as rude and see how they respond.

You also never addressed your use of the word "suffer". Was that technically accurate too?

 

[Starik20X6]

Why do I get the feeling a sizeable portion of the people claiming to be asexual are just trying to justify their virginity?

 

[Casual Shinji]

I'm not taking anyone's claim to asexualty at face value.

Like it or not, humans are sexual beings. This has nothing to do with societal pressure, but with the simple fact that we're alive. It's in the core of our very being. And if you lack this, not because you're fighting society's obsession with it, or you're depressed, but because you genuinely just don't have it at all, then you can call yourself asexual.

My guess is that most people's claim to being asexual is simply out of spite because they feel society is pressuring them to be sexual, not because they truly don't feel any sexual desire.

And honestly, people who have absolutely zero urge for physical human contact of any kind, whether by trauma or just cuz, are sick in the head.

 

[Reggie Rock]

Why do I get the feeling a sizeable portion of the people claiming to be asexual are just trying to justify their virginity?

This is the reason i just tell people im straight. If I tell them im asexual, suddenly i'm just some loser who can't get sex.

I'm asexual because im simply not attracted to men or women. I don't find anything really sexually stimulating. I have been sexually stimulated before i decided i was asexual.Now i just don't feel attraction to people.

 

[Agayek]

well, your first point really just reiterates your initial response towards Dragonizer despite me explicitly stating that the connotation of a word should be taken into account regardless of its technical accuracy. I don't think it was something to cover so much as needless repetition.

Now, presuming that a person taking issue with your diction, regardless of its connotation, is a result of their discomfort with themselves or their own sexuality is fairly baseless conjecture. What's more, some connotations are inherent within a word itself. Attempting to relegate an inherent connotation to potential interpretation makes little sense, as that's not how the majority of people are going to process words. Just go on a LGBT forum and ask them if calling homosexuality a defect comes off as rude and see how they respond.

You also never addressed your use of the word "suffer". Was that technically accurate too?

First off, if you are really sensitive enough to be offended when a complete stranger disparages something about you, you're failing at life pretty epicly. Especially when said disparagement requires you to read subtext that may or may not be there.

When someone insults you, there are three possible outcomes. They are incorrect, they are correct but you like that part of yourself, or they are correct and you dislike that part of yourself. In the first two cases, you can summarily dismiss them as being an idiot. They are clearly either wrong or being stupid, either way they're not worth the time and effort to be annoyed at. In the third case, the only thing to do is to do something about it. If you honestly find it to be a problem, then change it.

None of these involve getting your panties in a twist. The only reason for someone to be offended by something a random stranger says is because the comment makes them uncomfortable with the aspect(s) of themselves in question. If you are secure and confident in who and what you are, the disapproval of the whole fucking world is meaningless. Thus, we can conclude that being offended by someone disparaging you stems from a lack of self-acceptance and far too much emotional investment in Joe Q Public's opinion.

And with regards to using "suffer": That's what happens with a defect. It is an imperfection that one has to deal with. One could also use "bear", "deal with", "put up with", etc. As mentioned before, it's a biological aberration, and as such is something one has to suffer through.

Whether or not that's a bad thing is entirely up to personal interpretation. I don't see it that way, but plenty of other people do apparently.

 

[Agayek]

I'm not taking anyone's claim to asexualty at face value.

Like it or not, humans are sexual beings. This has nothing to do with societal pressure, but with the simple fact that we're alive. It's in the core of our very being. And if you lack this, not because you're fighting society's obsession with it, or you're depressed, but because you genuinely just don't have it at all, then you can call yourself asexual.

My guess is that most people's claim to being asexual is simply out of spite because they feel society is pressuring them to be sexual, not because they truly don't feel any sexual desire.

And honestly, people who have absolutely zero urge for physical human contact of any kind, whether by trauma or just cuz, are sick in the head.

To be fair, a desire for physical contact and a desire for sexual contact are entirely different things.

For example, I myself feel no urge or need for physical (or even emotional, to be completely honest) closeness to anyone else, but I very much have a sex drive. For a bit more clarity: sex is awesome, hugs are meh. It's rather odd, I'll be the first to admit, and quite possibly contradictory, but there's really not a whole lot I can do about it.

 

[axlryder]

I'm not taking anyone's claim to asexualty at face value.

Like it or not, humans are sexual beings. This has nothing to do with societal pressure, but with the simple fact that we're alive. It's in the core of our very being. And if you lack this, not because you're fighting society's obsession with it, or you're depressed, but because you genuinely just don't have it at all, then you can call yourself asexual.

My guess is that most people's claim to being asexual is simply out of spite because they feel society is pressuring them to be sexual, not because they truly don't feel any sexual desire.

And honestly, people who have absolutely zero urge for physical human contact of any kind, whether by trauma or just cuz, are sick in the head.

I don't really see the purpose of adding that last part, as being asexual and desiring zero physical human contact of any are two completely different things. However, aversion to physical contact can be a completely physiological thing, thus making it inherent within the person themselves. While it usually results from developmental abnormalities, I don't really consider people with autism to be "sick in the head" for example.