Look! A BBC article on asexuality*! Woot! I like exclamation marks! It’s a pretty good one, too. I do object to their description of aromanticism. I personally am pretty strongly heteroromantic. I don’t want to be touched. Actually, I took up partner dancing to get over my crippling fear of being touched*. I’m not saying that that’s related to my asexuality – far from it, as I’ll explain in a bit. Just that ‘aromantic’ ≠ ‘doesn’t want to be touched’, although it’s a lot better than ‘aromantics don’t want to get closer to people, to find out more about them, or to share things with them.’ Actually, now I think about it, the description of ‘romantic’ does kinda imply that, doesn’t it? I’m not aromantic, and I certainly don’t want to speak on the behalf of those who are. The description in the article is pretty much fine, I just want to make clear that ‘aromantic’ doesn’t mean ‘sociopath’ – they can still have friendships, even very close ones. All the difference between me and an aromantic is is that I will fall in love, and an aromantic won’t***. No more, no less. I’d also like to back up what Jenni says about hormones. For various reasons (including a rather spirited disagreement with my parents over the issue of my sexuality), I actually have been checked for hormonal problems, as well as for genetic problems, and pretty much everything else. Guess what? They came back clean, at least of anything that might cause me to think I was ace****.
Just as an aside, another question. What’s the difference between asexual and sad repressed loners with no social skills and a fear of being touched? As I am both of these things, this seems to be something into which I should have quite a bit of insight. The first difference in my case is when I’m drunk. I get drunk really easily*****. At which point my social inhibitions don’t disappear – it would probably take severe brain damage to eliminate my social inhibitions. But they do get a hell of a lot less. I’m far more willing to hug someone, my general disgust at sex completely disappears, to be replaced by general apathy. I still have no idea why anyone would want to have sexual contact with anyone else, but thinking about it is less likely to make me spontaneously want to vomit.
Now, if there was no point to that beyond ‘me having a normal relationship is probably gonna be pretty hard on my liver’, I probably wouldn’t have bothered to write the above paragraph*****. The point is, probably the easiest way I can think of to figure it out. No matter what you do to their inhibitions, an asexual probably isn’t going to spontaneously become sexual. Of course, I have no idea whether this is always true, but it is for me. And even the most thixophobic wreck is going to have a normal reaction to pornography. Am I suggesting you should get people drunk and show them pornography to check if they’re ace? No. Of course not††. The point is that there really is a difference between a sad, repressed thixophobic loner with no social skills. Essentialy, it’s a question of desire. No matter how far they bury it, or how impossible it is, they’re still going to desire sexual gratification from members of their preferred sex and/or gender. A schizoid might prefer to do it via masturbation, but sexual desire is still the reason for it. For an ace, that isn’t there. It isn’t that there is something which is for some reason being denied. Instead, the desire doesn’t exist at all. It’s the difference between anorexia, and having awesome superpowers which allow one to absorb nutrients from one’s surroundings.
A few other things about the article: Asexuality really doesn’t suffer that much prejudice against it. I suspect that that’s because it’s hard to have a strong pre-existing prejudice against something you’ve never heard of. But I also suspect we’ll never have to go through what LGBT went through, since they went there first. Also, what’s wrong with ‘sexual’ as a word for ‘not asexual’. I find John Price’s comment to be ignorant and without merit. Remember that test I suggested? How does ‘being a homosexual is just a temporary measure, I’m sure, among young people.’ Sound? Eric is totally right. I can’t be bothered to comment on any of the other comments. I don’t think I’d be adding anything new if I did. Also I absolutely love Jenni’s hair. Seriously. I want it.
I still haven’t decided what to do with old Acanthus. One day, possibly, but since I have more than fifteen different friend requests pending on Facebook from people who I’m really not sure whether or not I know (some of them more than a year old, and I still haven’t got around to going through them and figuring out who I actually know), some would say that the evidence is not in favour of a speedy decision. Hell, I'm surprised I've even kept up my 'more than 30 words a day' posting speed target.
*Yes, it was up a few days ago. I write slowly.
**Seriously, there was a point when I felt uncomfortable sitting on the other side of an empty room from someone.
***Also for the record, that difference could be pretty massive.
****Actually, the genetics test got lost. I’m told it was almost certainly completely clean, though.
****I should probably reveal less of myself on this blog. I take comfort in the fact that there’s no possible way to blackmail someone with information they’ve published publicly on the web. Probably.
*****Actually, there’s a pretty good chance I’d have written it, but there’s no way in hell you’d be reading it†
†Unless you happen to be future me, reading this and gloating at how bad present me’s writing skills are. Curse you future me, you bastard.
††Although, come to think of it, if you want to buy me drinks, I’m really not going to complain.
No comments:
Post a Comment