h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Asexuality - A3599481
Author: Ming Mang - U114655

Hope the content is all OK for h2g2. It's been a while since I've been through the review and editing process, so I'm sorry if the entry isn't good enough yet... just let me know though, and I'm sure you will.

¦M¦

Great entry! I can't find a thing to criticise. I especially liked the line "There are no a-football groups."

NBY

Excellent!

The asexual's dilemma of being defined in relation to sex (something they are not concerned with) seems similar to the atheist's. It must be frustrating to be constantly pigeon-holed into a category that defines you based on something that doesn't exist for you.

Very well-written and informative.


az

Fascinating - made me think quite deeply about something I've never really considered before - just casually tossed the word out (Kenneth Williams was to all intents and purposes asexual) - I can see I'll come back to this again.



Just one sentance I disagree with - "This was also thought of homosexuals, but studies have shown that even in endangered species there are homosexual specimens." I dislike the assumption about homsexuallity in animals - we have no idea why they're having sex with a member of the same gender - it could be dominance - loneliness - experimental.

GREAT article! I loved it!!! My autistic son uses a similar statement to your algebra one: "You can make us act like you, but we'll never see the point."

Author John Irving has written a lot of books where the main character has no desire to "hook up", and is considered a "non-practising homosexual" by their collegues. I always thought, "Why make that assumption? Why couldn't they as easily be non-practising heterosexuals?" The chars, however, get perturbed at that statement because they don't feel an attraction to ANYONE, and can't understand why people won't just get off their back about it. Now, we know!

Many people feel pressured ... I know quite a few happily married couples who don't want to have children; they're constantly battered by friends & family about it. As a mother, I always tell them, "Do NOT have a child unless it's something YOU want - it's a huge responsibility, and you don't want to risk resentment!" It also has huge rewards, but I've always known that I wanted kids!

Nice work!

<>

Shouldn't this read "a higher percentage of asexual introverts than asexual extroverts"?


Noggin

UNK... I don't understand *any* of this. Especially the part about masturbating, and asexuals having sex. You state that that's OK with the definition of asexual, because they don't do it motivated by attraction to sex, or to any gender (you say they don't think about people when they masturbate). Instead they just like the sensation (right?)... C'mon...like the sensation! If someone masturbates thinking about a lizard or a Rorschach inkblot does it make the person asexual??? If that person masturbates seventeen times a day, would that make him/her asexual?

!?!?!

Maybe I am too confused or too limited to imagine any of this. On the other hand... Hey ho if that's how people think their asexual, why not?

Great Entry, by the way.

HELL

PS: Sometimes I think I am the only one in *my* minority. The only non-asexual, agnostic, brazilian male with an oval liver-spot on his right arm. Hey, don't laugh we're different from you folks!

Perhaps the idea of an asexual person having sex is similar to a homosexual having 'straight' sex - which also happens quite frequently.

As for masturbation, it isn't necessary that the person be thinking about anything or anyone in particular - they could simply be enjoying the physical sensation, which wouldn't require a sense of sexual attraction.

I think what the entry showed very clearly is that there are many definitions of 'asexual'. Not unlike vegetarians who eat fish or chicken. Which is always the difficulty when we try to label people, fit them into a category that makes sense to us. I think most people are far to complex to pidgeon-hole in this manner, so I don't tend to do this. But it seems that many people feel more comfortable with labels, either for themselves or others.

az

I was thinking... Could it *be* that people are asexual and sexual intermittently. Like at different times of the day, or in life. Like, when I was 7 I didn't think about sex. Was I asexual then? Then, between 17 and 25 I was thinking primarily about sex. Did I become sexual? My grandpa, 75, told me he doesn't think about sex. He said he's actually glad he doesn't. Is he asexual?

Or... Right now I am not thinking about sex... Am I asexual? Am I asexual 30 minutes after I had sex? Am I normal?

No...no...no... This all doesn't work.

*However* if people like that label why not?

just

HELL

PS: Further thoughts... What is the line between asexual and anti-sexual? Can people become asexual, or become sexual again? To me that's all too fuzzy. Some people really have too much time to think about these things...

re azahar: Just liking the sensation? Of what? Having the genitals massaged? Is that not in any way sexual? Or what did I get wrong?

HELL

Picture this:
"What are you *doing* there Mr. Smith?"
"Oh, Miss Miller, I am writing my report..."
"No! You are masturbating! (Disgusting!)"
"Jeezus! You're right! (surprised) I *am* massaging my genitals!!! I am terribly sorry, you see, I don't really think about it, I am asexual, you know, it's just that I like the sensation... But I wasn't thinking about anything sexual, really!"
"Ah (reliefed) in that case, OK, just bring me the report when you're finished!"

I personally think that using the term 'asexual' in reference to humans (and other animals) is a misnomer. Since, as the article pointed out, we are not amoebas, and we all possess sexual organs.

Again, it's similar to calling someone an atheist because they don't believe in any sort of god concept. Why should they be labelled based on something that doesn't exist for them, based on someone else's beliefs?

Calling someone asexual is using the reference point SEX in order to define someone. Without this reference people who aren't interested in or who don't participate in having sex are simply other people.

I tend to see asexual behaviour as either a personal choice or natural inclination - I wouldn't call someone who never has sex 'asexual'. Simply because, biologically speaking, we are all sexual beings.

So in the case of someone who habitually masturbates and yet insists they are asexual, I would take this in the same way as some people I've met who insist they are vegetarian but still eat fish. I mean, a fish isn't a vegetable, is it? And yes, masturbating is a sexual act, though perhaps because it is done on their own, people who see themselves as asexual look on this as something different.

Anyhow, I made my comment based on one definition given - that asexuality means not feeling sexual attraction towards another person or whatever. In this sense, masturbation is frequently practiced without the feeling of sexual attraction towards someone else.


az

I don't think the comparison with atheism is a good one.

Atheist is someone who believes that god doesn't exist. Those folks can be atheists to the point you could call them religious fanatics. This is different, I think, from someone who doesnt know or care about god, like an agnostic, for example.

In that sense an asexual person would insist that sex doesn't exist. Which is - pardon me - bulls*it. An asexual person just doesn't care about it.

So far, fine.

But a masturbating asexual person is beyond my comprehension. Maybe autosexual or ipsosexual would be a better term for someone like that. (Hey, that's a new minority there!) The term 'asexual' in that specific context is probably ill-chosen.

Also, right now I am feeling asexual. (But I am not!?)
Or, my wife and me are asexual, we just like to have sex together because we like the feeling... To me this is absurd.

HELL

Interesting.
Haven't done a complete read through but I did notice

"This is noticable in all a great majority of internet communities including h2g2."

which seems to need some re-wording to my mind. I guess you meant to replace 'in all' with 'in a great majority'

Good stuff.

Well spotted Ictoan, I'll try and remember to change that, thanks.

The reason that the word asexual has the word sex in it is dealt with in the article.

As to defining asexuality... yes there are grey areas. Of course there are grey areas. There are grey areas in all parts of the human brain, for example, where is the line between a person having a quick temper and not having a quick temper?
Where do you draw the line between straight and bi? If a straight man has fancied one other man in his entire life, and apart from that always fancied women, does that make him bi?
Yes, asexuals can enjoy the sensations of sex and sexual activities without feeling sexual attraction to anything at all. As stated in the article, sexual arousal and sexual attraction are two completely different things. As for masturbating in public - society has taught everyone, regardless of orientation, that it is not the done thing.

Asexual and anti-sexual are also very different things. 'A' is indifference. 'Anti' is loathing.

Just as a few people do drift between sexualities, you can become asexual having been sexual. And you can become sexual having been asexual. And yes, some people have reported that they find they have 'cycles' of low or no attraction and/or drive, and high attraction and/or drive. Cycles can last anything between weeks to years.

I just want to point out as well that asexuality is not a choice, it is just part of who you are. Just as much as heterosexuality is a part of who you are.

Yes, there are different sorts of asexuals. There are also different sorts of straights, bis, and gays.

(By definition vegetarians do not eat the flesh of any animal. People who call themselves vegetarian but who do eat fish are called pescetarians.)

Anyway, I've dealt with all that in the article. Does anyone have any comments on the article other than how unbelievable asexuality is?

¦M¦

Yes, comments on the article rather than the content (in a general sense):

I would rearrange and simplify slightly get rid of some of the subheadings. So, for example change the heading to Love and relationships remove subheads and move marriage into that section. Then Keep the heading sex, but remove the subheads. I just think it looks overly cluttered - up to you, of course.

Some typos (sentence given to aid you locating them)
"settle down and have childen" -> children

"Many asexuals have gone through rigourous" -> rigorous

"This is noticable" -> noticeable

"Some not-so-commonly tauted reasons:" -> touted

Stylistically, according to the Writing-Guidelines, I think the underlines would have to go (replace with bold?) and also make consistent whether starting a new line or not. The smiley at the end would have to go too.

Thanks Scrumph, I'll go through that later.

For people who want to discuss asexuality itself rather than the technicalities of the article, please go here: A3874872

¦M¦

Good entry, with a nice level of detail and question-answering discussion

Quick comments:
- "It?s like algebra. I understand the concept, but have no interest." I get a question mark, not an apostrophe, in IE on my computer.
- "This is noticable in all a great majority of internet communities including h2g2". 'Noticable' -> 'Noticeable'. Still needs the removal of the word 'all'
- Many people may still associate 'queer' as nothing more than a synonym for 'gay' (male). A link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer is good) or footnote is needed, I think.

Do you know anything about the 'treatment' (an offensive word, but I'm too tired for synonyms. Sorry.) of asexuality? The administration of hormones would appear a solution, but your bit on 'Hormonal or Chemical Imbalances' seems to reject this idea. I can find nothing on psychological approaches.

I remember watching a TV programme about gender identity, in which a person - formerly female - had her breasts, clitoris etc. removed to become gender neutral; I'm fairly sure from what I remember that she could also be labelled as 'asexual'. I have googled quite a lot, but found nothing online about surgery for those asexuals who wish to lose sexual feeling.

My lack of findings can at least lead to conclusion of the non-existence or impossibility of 'treatment', so I feel there is at least something worth including. But if you can find some info, it might be noteworthy.

I think the word used for surgery is 'nullification' or 'gender nullification'. See: http://www.asexuality.org/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=7557&highlight=nullification&sid=0668dce22b90e375a1b02d89077bb53d.

Thanks for pointing that out Rocket Man.

I know of no cures for asexuality just as I know of no cures for heterosexuality.
Certainly hormones can be used to reduce (or increase) sex drive, but the lack of a sex drive is not what makes people asexual. It is a lack of sexual attraction.
From my very limited knowledge of 'gender nullification' or whatever it's called, I doubt it is confined to asexuals who have a drive and don't want one. I suspect it extends also to sexuals who have a drive and don't want one. I know there are sexuals out there using drugs or hormones to suppress their drive...

¦M¦

It's good to see something in here that you can really get your teeth into and provokes pondering. However as you'll soon see, my pondering nearly caused my head to explode.

So on with the corrections/suggestions/ponders!


'having an ability to clone yourself'
having THE ability...?

Should the definition perhaps be extended to mention it's a lack of sexual attraction to anything? Otherwise...lack of sexual attraction tooo....popcorn? toilet rolls? geckos?

Who conducted the study? Oh and would it be possible to link to the article concerning the study rather than the front page? Unless there's an evil opportunity to purchase, it's fine to link directly.

'an orientation in it's own right'
an escapee it's where there should be its

'more of a lack of orientation.'
more A lack of orientation? or is it more of a...oh now I'm confused.

the 'queer' footnote could do with being in the first, rather than the second, mention of it.

I'm personally finding the romantic orientation section a little confusing. What constitutes a *romantic* relationship? I have friends who I'm really close to and love lots, but I don't see it as romantic. I have close friends, both male and female, but am technically gay...but if I used your orientation paragraph as it stands, the way I would see it would create a muddle. Is this just me though? Am I being picky and super-logical?

'Most physical asexual relationships focus more on hugging and stroking than sex, however there are asexuals who do enjoy sexual sensations and acts.'

I'm really sorry to bring this up when it looks as if people have already been arguing about it...as this is written, couldn't anyone who doesn't have penetrative sex be defined as asexual? I mean...you say that there are asexuals who enjoy sexual contact, kissing blah blah...so how does this differ from me? Sorry I know I'm probably muddying the waters, I'm guessing it's more the way it's been written than what you're really meaning. Whilst I view sex as an intimacy I share with someone I love...of course there's the random sex with people I'm attracted to (even if it's not actually on a sexual level) and even the random sex just because what I need right then is a really good...ahem. Oh dear now I look bad. I'm sure you all know what I mean really though.

In fact I have to say that I'm possibly more confused than ever having read this entry! Oh no!

'there are just as many reasons for an asexual to marry.'
...as a sexual person? as there are not to marry??

'Where you abused?'
Whoops! Where=Were


General Guide-ML points. You can't use You need to make all of these their own separate words words words more words things.
It is, after all, P for paragraph

I believe the underlining does indeed need to be instead. Currently you have Abuse, this will need to become Abuse:

No smiley! Smiley is not allowed in an entry Sorry about that.

Hope these points have helped...apart from my confused bit in the middle which I hope you can help solve.

Kat