you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]HelloMomo 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

The "is it a sexuality, or a lack of any sexuality?" has always seemed like a really petty semantic debate to me. Like it has to do with how you define "a sexuality" rather than the the nature of asexuality. And like what would this distinction even mean, and how is it useful?

If I had to take a ruling on it though, I guess asexuality is the lack of a sexuality, but it is a sexual orientation.

[–]MezozoicGayoldschool gay 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

It is lack of sexual orientation too, no? Sexual orientation is romantic and sexual attraction to someone, arousal to one or both sexes. Lack of it will mean lack of orientation as well.

[–]HelloMomo 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Again, this is a semantic debate. The real question is how is this distinction meaningful or useful? Lately, semantic debates have been a huge political strategy, so that's where my mind goes: What is the endgame of this argument?

(If this really is just a semantic game with no serious implications, a la "is tomato a fruit or a vegetable?" then let me know)

Like regardless of whether or not white is "a color" or "lack of any color", it still functions like a color for most practical purposes. Yeah, there are some exceptions (you need to bleach something to get it white, rather than dying it) but there's plenty of overlap too. White is a color of paint you can buy, it's a color in the hexadecimal color system, etc.

But I'm not particularly attached to specific term "sexual orientation," though, and if you have a different term you'd prefer to call that category, I'd be curious to hear it.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What is the endgame of this argument?

To validate asexuality as an approved sexuality. LGBA and all. Those other letters, though... those ones are just identities!

[–]oofreesouloo⚡super lesbian⚡ 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Asexuals shouldn't be lumped in together with LGB. We have nothing in common with asexuals. LGB is for same sex attracted people. What we experience and the discrimination we face is very different from asexuals. Asexuals don't even face discrimination at all.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Asexuals are alienated, not discriminated against.

[–]oofreesouloo⚡super lesbian⚡ 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

True

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed - that's my point. But then, when the argument comes for what an innate sexuality is, there's no evidence for anyside - hetero, homo, bi, a, the gender brigade), so I think that's where LGB loses even more ground. I assume that's the nature of setting up the "debate" around genital preferences and fluidity.