The majority of the opinions in the No category point out the scientific version of asexuality, saying they cannot reproduce by themselves. Congrats, you have stated the obvious, but missed the point of the debate.
The debate is about if a person can have no sexual attraction to either sex. The answer is yes. Just as some are hyper sexual, some feel not a whisp. I have never been attracted to a man or a woman. I thought it was normal and that those who did think sexual thoughts were weird. It would not be until I found about asexuality that I knew it.
Has anyone asked how you knew you were straight? I know that there is something you feel that I do not. I cannot explain it as you can't put it in terms that make sense to me anymore than a sighted person can describe color to a blind man. There will always be some disconnect in the explanation.
I was not abused as a child. I am not repressing my biological needs in some misguided attempt to gain sympathy or to make myself a purer person. I am who I am. Being asexual does not mean that I shun society or the bonds that keep humanity together.
Asexuality is not referring to reproduction. The nomenclature also makes perfect sense; "a-" means not, so it literally means "not sexual." Asexuality does not refer to sex drive or libido; many asexuals do have a libido, they just don't have the urge to satisfy it with another person. Asexuality is about sexual attraction and not experiencing it. There's always someone you don't find sexually attractive; this just happens to apply to everyone for an asexual. Educate yourself about asexuality before deciding what someone else can identify as.
Of course they can be asexual! I am asexual and have neither experienced sexual attraction nor wanted to have sex in my life. Albeit, it isn't all that common unfortunately, but it is the way people are and an important part of identity.
I feel like to deny asexuality would be like denying the existence of heterosexuality or homosexuality or any sexuality really.
In the term of reproduction, of course not. Human beings cannot reproduce multiple versions of themselves. But, people who don't experience sexual attraction do exist. They don't feel sexual attraction and it's perfectly fine. It was once described as like the volume of a radio. Some people will go to certain stations and crank it loud and be happy. And some people will have it low and occasionally bring it up. However, asexual people have no need to use that dial, they're fine with it being silent.
It's totally possible to not experience sexual attraction. Some people experience romantic attraction, which is exactly what it sounds like, and others don't - the same goes for sexuality. It's as simple as that. It doesn't mean that you're opposed to sex or had a bad experience with it, it just means you don't experience that sort of attraction.
When looking at someone who's sexually appealing to others and turns people on, I get nothing. I've even tried to look at someone in a sexual way, and the only urge I got was an urge to be close to them. The urge to jump into bed with them wasn't there. It's like hearing TV static; no matter how hard I try to look closely at the picture through all of that white static, I still can't see it as clearly as everyone else can. I only seem to be attracted to people in non-sexual ways.
I mean sure, sex feels good and all, but I really do not care. I have never thought to myself "I want to have sex with that girl". I have never had sex, and I don't care. I'm very apathetic about a lot of things, sex is most certainly one of them. I still feel romantically attracted to females, though. I'm asexual, hetero-romantic.
I am an asexual, which simply means I do not experience sexual attraction. I am 20 years old, and I have never fantasized about having sex with people, never seen a person and wanted to have sex with them, or been interested in porn involving sex between people. I have had sex, and it was fun, but I don't feel like I would miss much if I never had it again. I just don't care about sex.
Yes, people can be asexual. Sexuality is a continuum. As such, a person can fall anywhere on that continuum, including a complete lack of sexual feeling, which is asexuality. This is not a bizarre or bad thing to be. It is simply one of the many types of sexualities or lack thereof that a person may have.
People can be whoever and whatever they want in my eyes everyone is equal and deserve equal human rights as everyone else. Being Asexual doesn't make you less of a person, it doesn't make you more of a person, you are equal to me and i think everyone should treat everyone equaly.
How can you even expect to be taken seriously as a phenomenon or movement if you can't even apply proper nomenclature? "Asexual" has a very clear, precise, historical and well-known scientific meaning related to reproduction. You can't just co-opt a term a claim it means something else; the English language is flexible but this misappropriation just serves to further discredit any claims to this "orientation's" validity.
A single person can not reproduce itself on its own. Self-reproduction is the main requirement for being asexual. There a some people that are born with male and female sexual organs, however there has never been a person with both sexual organs that has been able to reproduce another human being.
No, people cannot be asexual. Yes, one may be able to fill their sexual needs on their own without a partner but to to truly be asexual, you have to be able to reproduce on your own and humans are not able to do that. It is one thing that is simply not possible.
However, just because you do not want to have sex with people or you aren't physically attracted to people doesn't make this a "sexuality". It is simply a character trait, or something about you and who you are and what you like and what you don't like. People who aren't interested in other people shouldn't need a new label. I do indeed know it is possible to be a bisexual, homosexual, or heterosexual who is simply not interested in other people, but giving yourself an entirely new name is ridiculous. Simply further classifications on titles that already exist, like we're apart of an animal kingdom chart of sexual orientation. You do not need the title of an "Asexual", because you can simply state "I am not interested in anyone right now."
Like previously stated, "Asexual" denotes reproduction by oneself, like a cell splitting apart. A human naturally can reproduce with two parents to form one offspring. The unnatural changing of gender roles cannot change the physical reproduction system. That being said, there are many other words to use instead of "asexual." Depending on the person there is gay/homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, heterosexual, transexual, and so forth.
Inherent asexuality would make absolutely no sense. A human's only biological task is to reproduce. However, a lack of sexual urges can be something that an individual makes a conscious decision to have, based on previous experiences with intimate relationships. Otherwise, it is an effective method of avoiding relationships you don't necessarily want.
Asexuality does not refer to someone who lacks sexual desire. That is as stated: low sex drive. Asexuality can not exist among humans, due to the fact it is a reproductive term. I can't make humans with just myself. It is simple biology. It disappoints me to know that so many people are capable of misconstruing this simple fact.
It doesn't make sense that someone would be asexual. Our brains are built to want to reproduce. If anyone doesn't feel any sort of sexual attraction to anything, then I think there must be something wrong with them, either emotionally, psychologically, or physically. Maybe something traumatic happened to them that just makes them really afraid of sex. Or maybe they just want to feel "different".
It is a part of human nature for a person to want another person. It is what keeps human civilizations from disintegrating. Nobody how much a person says they are asexual, somewhere inside that man or women, there is an emotion that makes him or her from wanting to be with someone else and reproduce children
So far, arguments I've read here that are pro-asexuality boil down to "I know it exists because I identify as one" or "you just don't get that we don't feel the need for sex". While on the side against asexuality is "it's a scientific term for self-reproduction, you can't derive a new meaning for a word simply for it to fit your narrative". As one might notice, each stance justifies itself through explanations that have little to nothing to do with each other. If we're not discussing on the same page, what's the point in arguing?
Also, since the asexual community is the first to claim its position, and since there's no solid scientific evidence outside of the fields of modern psychology or tumblr, I'll attain from following something without solid evidence. After all, asexuals have the burden of proof.
-A straight male currently dating an asexual female