Hahahaha!!!!

[DialSquare]

I love JKR!

Are you being serious?

@MolkosTeenageAngst But asexuality isn't simply an absence of sexual desire or romantic desire. Having a low sex drive or no sex drive is not something that's new - and it can happen at various stages in your life or it can be something that is just part of you. It's just that now it's become another identity, a label that defines someone to give them membership to a community - it even has its own flag, for goodness sake. The introspection isn't healthy - the focus instead should be on healthy relationships in the many different forms they take.

We all have many relationships, most of which are neither romantic nor sexual. You are relating to other posters on this thread. It's generally better if we relate healthily, rather than nastily or needily or by taking offence (including when offence isn't intentional).

The response from @MakeYourOwnMusicStartYourOwnDance highlights what I think someone else mentioned. The focus on the sexual aspect of an individual’s personality and its promotion as important above all other aspects. Make assumed relationships means sexual or possibly romantic. It’s unhealthy and ignores everything else people are.

But that's what society does. It isn't just a few individuals. We live in a world where the standard unit for living is 'the family' which is based on sexual/romantic feelings. That's the relationship model that our legal system acknowledges - inheritance law, immigration law, spousal privilege in criminal cases etc. Medicine/psychiatry assumes sexual/romantic feelings are a sign of good mental health and lack of desire is a sign of poor mental health (it's something my psych has asked about repeatedly when I've been unwell). I feel like it's deeply disingenuous to keep saying 'no one cares if you fancy a shag or not' when our entire social structure is sending a different message.

Of course - that's how children are born (obviously) and it's the norm to be in a relationship (about 2% of the population classes themselves as asexual - but obviously that's not 2% abstaining from sex or romance completely). Those relationships will also take many differnt forms. However, around 40% of the population is single, so 'the family' is changing.

I will challenge you on your claim that medicine assumes sexual/romantic feelings are a sign of good mental health and lack of desire is a sign of poor mental health. I'm perimenopausal and am having some significant issues which has required many GP and consultant appointments for both my physical and mental health. Not one has implied or stated that - they have all, without exception, made it clear that my feelings are perfectly normal. I'm sorry you haven't had that experience.

First if your ‘psych’ is ‘repeatedly’ asking without taking note of what you say then change them. Most medical professionals will be interested in what is ‘normal’ for you or what has changed. So a lower sexual drive in someone who usually has a higher sexual drive and/or for whom that is an issue may be relevant.

Secondly, questions that people may find uncomfortable or not relevant to them are not confined to sexual relationships.

The law recognises all types of family structures to a greater or lesser degree. I’m not sure what that has to do with asexuality. I imagine most asexual people have families. Many have gone out of their way to say tell us they are in relationships. They’d still be protected by the same law as everyone else. Inheritance tax isn’t levied on the basis of whether your relationship was sexual or romantic.

I think the point being made is that when teens are in school, no one knows if they will choose to have relationships, sex, or whatever. They are young and their sexuality is still developing and likely to change.

So really, they all just need to learn that they can choose to have those things or not, for any reason, and what a healthy relationship looks like if they have one.

Schools have gone way down the rabbit hole with labeling kids sexuality and giving them flags and special days of any kind. None of it's necessary, it assumes that they are "done" which is often not the case, and it creates the sense that having a sexual label is really really important for everyone. And frankly I think it's appropriate and not the role of schools or teachers.

Teens are feeling pressure to define themselves because so much emphasis is being put on it, and it should all fuck right off.

That stuff needs to be taken off forms. Dentists don't need to be asking that. I cross that stuff out. If I was bolder I might write, fuck off, but a good dentist is worth keeping even with stupid forms.

The very odd time it might actually be relevant there could probably be an asexual, or none of the above, category. (Though some of the time they only care if you are actually having sex, not if you aren't, so maybe that should be the question?)

As for pressure for relationships - this is the case with everything that most people do, and a few people don't. My grandmother didn't have relationships after her divorce because she didn't like sex any more. My aunt didn't because she was too upset about her marriage and the emotional aftermath. My friend didn't because she had kids and didn't want a man in the picture while they were at home. All got those questions. People are curious when someone does something different, and they are nosy, (not always in a bad way.) There are other examples too, people who make unusual like choices get quizzed all the time. It doesn't mean people don't accept the answer, just because they ask, or even because they think it's a choice they don't understand.

I am - it can be a sign of mental health, just like keeping yourself clean, and going out and being social occasionally, are. When people stop doing these things I can be a sign that something is wrong.

Sometimes no sexual desire can be caused by things like trauma which are important in a therapeutic setting.

But a psychiatrist IS a person who should know that there are some people who just have no sexual interest, particularly when dealing with autism.

And maybe they do but it wasn't really relevant to the discussion you had in that context. There are some stupid counselors out there though.

@TempestTost

People are curious when someone does something different, and they are nosy, (not always in a bad way.) There are other examples too, people who make unusual like choices get quizzed all the time. It doesn't mean people don't accept the answer, just because they ask, or even because they think it's a choice they don't understand.

Very much this in every aspect of life. I'm vegan. I don't drink. I wasn't brought up by my parents and barely know them. All of these things and more are 'unusual'. Sometimes people ask, sometimes they don't and I'm sure some people make assumptions or judgements about these things. Sometimes questions about these things can feel intrusive or downright rude. Sometimes I feel uncomfortable about questions on these or other things. Sometimes I feel very different from everyone else. But these are only parts of who I am. Who decides which facets of human beings get a flag or a day, and who benefits from those decisions?

@TempestTost I agree. It can be a useful question for a psych to ask. And that's why it's useful to have a simple term like 'asexual' to respond with "no, I don't feel sexual desire but that's normal for me. I'm asexual". In the same way it's useful to have a word for "doesn't eat animal products" instead of having to explain "vegan" from scratch every time or having a word for "am part of an ethno religion with X beliefs and practices" instead of explaining "Judaism" from scratch. Labels are really useful tools, especially if you are in a minority group.

I'm not asexual, fwiw. I just can very much see why it's a useful term for some people, and why they would like the concept to be slightly better known/understood.

and why they would like the concept to be slightly better known/understood

But what exactly would you like to be slightly better known or understood? That some people don't want sex at all? Or they do, but only occasionally? Or they are fine with sex but don't have romantic feelings? Or they have romantic feelings but don't want sex? Or they don't want either? Or they only want sex when they've formed an emotional bond? Or they have a deep emotional connection? Or that it's not always a fixed condition? Etc etc etc? Because these things are all perfectly normal aspects of the human condition that have been around since time immemorial.

Healthy relationship education covers all these and more - this is what's helpful, labelling less so.

We should absolutely be teaching teenagers that they can say no for whatever reason, that is a complete given.

We have a long, long, long way to go to achieving this end position for all teenagers in all situations, and young people are still in the thick of confusing encounters that they don't know how to handle well. They are the collateral damage in our society's present inability to hammer home this message.

Asexuality is not a diversion to this, unless you wish you persist in an authoritarian direction of denying the expressly owned identity of others. It is legitimate for an individual who has enduring experience of lack of sexual attraction to others to declare they are asexual, in the same way it is legitimate for an individual to declare they are a lesbian etc. It does not detract from anything or anyone else.

When guys ask me out and I say I'm a lesbian (I am) are you saying I should not be allowed to say that, and in fact I should just say no? I mean I obviously can completely just say no, but saying I am a gay woman adds context to my refusal and it also raises awareness that lesbians do actually exist, which seems to be forgotten a lot of the time, and is a huge problem for gay women. We are sidelined, forgotten, we are often read as heterosexual. I am entitled to proudly assert my identity in these situations; an asexual person is likewise entitled to proudly assert their identity.

What it does do is create a broader understanding that the identity and the experience is legitimate, which will support a societal understanding of the various different experiences and identifies we all have, and reduce the likelihood of an automated reading of a situation as a likely heterosexual woman who is likely interested in sex. Which in feminism previously used to be considered problematic, but in this aping the patriarchy world of FWR Mumsnet, is apparently not any more.

Hard patriarchy: any woman is fair game for unwanted sexual attention.
Soft patriarchy: any woman is fair game for unwanted sexual attention unless she can provide a damn good excuse why not.

Defining asexual as an identity adds to the recognised excuses, which in this wicked world is probably useful as far as it goes. It doesn't challenge the underlying patriarchal assumption about women's availability. Basing exemption from harassment on being an exception to the norm rather tends to reinforce the idea that "normies" are fair game.

Non-patriarchy: a woman's No means No - no explanations, excuses or special identities required.

So you also think it's unreasonable for women to identify as 'lesbian'? Because that's a label and they should just say "no" if they don't want to have sex with men and it's attention seeking to say "I'm only interested in women"?

Out of interest, do you not think some people are asexual and are entitled to define themselves to others as such?

I am a gay woman. When I say that am I using that as an excuse to get out of sexual encounters with men? Are you saying I am not allowed to tell anyone I am gay anymore?

If I say that I am gay am I magically saying that heterosexual women are fair game for sexual harassment? What sort of idiotic logic are you applying there?

Tell me when you arrive at this non-patriarchy world you speak of. Because from what I'm seeing and the Mumsnet FWR love-fest for Trump social policies, is doing everything that it can to shift the ground towards the Hard Patriarchy that you define.

I am a gay woman
Which nowadays could, of course, mean you are a straight man

Because from what I'm seeing and the Mumsnet FWR love-fest for Trump social policies, is doing everything that it can to shift the ground towards the Hard Patriarchy that you define.

The key point being "what I am seeing". All you are telling us is how you translate what women say to fit your pre-existing assumptions.

So I entirely believe you when you say this is what you take away from the conversation here.

You want to interpret it that way. You want to be able to dismiss women here as not-feminist, as championing the patriarchy, because it gives you an easy excuse to ignore the fact that these women are pointing out that men (original biological meaning) believing they have more insight into, and right to define, what women are and are not allowed to think about ourselves, what we are and are not allowed to be, who it is and is not acceptable for us to deny and for what reasons, than we do ourselves is pretty much the foundation of patriarchy.

However - these days we are often told that Pride, and similar celebrations, are not mainly about anything to do with oppression. They are just a day to celebrate people's sexuality and have fun and build community. Which could presumably also be something that straight people would want to do.

I have noticed lately among the kinds of people who I think of as "identity collectors," that there may be some attempt to collect disability identities.

It's hard to be sure, but most of the group I have seen doing this are people who are already identifying as queer, of some sort, and nd of some kind.

And suddenly I am seeing an unusual number doing things like using canes - quite young people. Of course, it could be they really have balance issues and need them, but it is odd that in the last few months I've seen three people in the 18 to 23 range using canes, which is an increase of 100% compared to the past five years.

So it seems to me that in so much as there may be an increase of focus on disability, the effect may be creating it as a kind of identity that some people want to adopt for some reason. Which to me is really where my concerns around these different labels are coming from. There is something really odd and IMO unhealthy going on.

Well actually, the evidence is there in black and white for anyone who cares to, for eg. look over the Mumsnet FWR threads supporting sex offender 'grab 'em by the pussy' Trump's intention to defund Planned Parenthood, the primary organisation in the US that supports women with birth control, sexual health, STD testing and treatment, abortions.

Ref to this obv.

Identify how you like, and if you feel that referencing your identity in a situation where you are under pressure will help you, then of course, go for it. As I said, it's a wicked world.

But always thinking in terms of identity groups and carving out protections for people on the basis of having a special identity has its limits as a challenge to the system because it leaves unlabelled people unprotected.

An analogy: the boss of a business decides to worsen everyone's pay and conditions.
Worker response A: unionise and fight the boss for better pay and conditions for everyone on the grounds that what he's doing is unreasonable, full stop.
Worker response B: The techies gang up and try to convince the boss that their special skills deserve better. Middle management do likewise. So do other groups with identifiable special characteristics.
Response B may have more chance of working than A, but it leaves out the people who can't argue that there's anything out of the ordinary about their role or abilities. If it works, it protects some people from the system but leaves the system itself intact.

Response C: The union fight for better rights for all but recognise that not everyone wants to join their union or be active in the fighting or even recognises their causes. Nevertheless the union achieves their aims of establishing better rights and pay for all workers, not just the ones who are members of their union.

People who proudly vocalise that they are lesbian or asexual etc, can, by broadening societal awareness, tolerance and understanding of different experiences and identifies, bring about positive changes for the whole of society that everyone benefits from.