TED Conversations

MA Crawford

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

We have left out an even smaller group from the discussion - asexual people - people who are not atrracted by either sex or the act itself.

There are those who spent as much time figuring out that they were born asexual as those who spend lifetimes figuring out whether they are gay or straight or somewhere in between. They too are a part of the infinite spectrum of human realtiy

Related Talks:
0
Share:
progress indicator

  • reine des violettes

    • 0
    Mar 11 2013: presumably there is an essential difference between asexuality and (elective) celibacy ?

    I have never heard asexuality discussed, and I am wondering what the true definition of this is in biological meaning?

    With celibacy, there is a long tradition of its practice. It was once held to be a virtuous state, though it would appear this viewpoint is no longer in vogue, (if one is generalising).

  • Barry Palmer 50+

    • 0
    Mar 11 2013: Perhaps they are not motivated to join the discussion.

    I am not aware of any asexual complaints, causes, or any attempt by asexual people to gain attention at all. I have never heard of an asexual club.

    Your issue may be an issue only for sexual people.

    I may be wrong, and am open to new information.
  • thumb

    Pabitra Mukhopadhyay 30+

    • 0
    Mar 11 2013: As long as they have a sense of humor, can strike a conversation and contribute interesting insight, I don't mind asexual people. I am the last person to wish to be attracted sexually here!

  • ZX Style 20+

    • 0
    Mar 11 2013: .
    Those who figure out whether they are straight or not, are NOT a-sexual.
    A-sexual means: NOT attracted to ANY gender.
    So that's that.

    I think the people you are talking about are the fifty shades of gay from Tillet's talk, they are not left out.
    However the a-sexuals according to the common definition are allready accepted by society.
    At least i would accept them. But i can imagine their mothers try to pursue them to get a relationship and not stop the blood-line.

    • MA Crawford

      • 0
      Mar 11 2013: Tillet seemed to be attempting to see how people defined themselves sexually, not scientifically. I was commenting on the fact that it seemed that inclusive as she was, she could perhaps consider another box as she goes forward. It would be interesting to see. And I don't necessarily agree that because you would accept them, that they are accepted. I a society in which sex sells everything, would you feel comfortable admitting you defined yourself as asexual? It takes just as much courage as to admit you are homosexual.

      • ZX Style 20+

        • 0
        Mar 11 2013: It is true that i am not everyone so i can only speak for myself.

        But i think asexuality is easier to accept.
        the main reason for me is, that this person has not admitted to be homo.
        So there is still a chance left of getting straight (at least in my imagination).

        I also think that scienitific a-sexuals perform better at their job, because they aren't bothered by the constant stream of thoughts about sex etc.

  • MA Crawford

    • 0
    Mar 11 2013: I am not a scientist, so you have me there. However, it has been my experience that both science and society overlook possibilities, especially when (as in the possibility I am referring to) the group has no "bling" and can generate no social agenda. I have never heard asexuality discussed, so there doesn't even seem to be a box to check,Therefore the group remains invisible, and without context in the society for their experience other than being defined as ill. Anytime science and society exclude a group through ignorance or willfulness, possibilities are overlooked, case in point when a great deal of medical research was done only with male subjects and results were assumed to be appropriate for females also. Has anyone ever even asked the question, or is it an assumption that everyone is born with a sexual drive? Just asking as a layman and someone who has come across the question and never heard it discussed. Also it is my first time here, so if I am being inappropriate, my apologies.
    • thumb

      Fritzie Reisner 100+

      • 0
      Host
      Mar 11 2013: You are absolutely appropriate. People in a broad community simply differ in the aggressiveness of posture they take in conversation.
  • thumb

    Gail . 50+

    • 0
    Mar 11 2013: Is there a reason why we should have such conversations?

    • Random Chance 30+

      • 0
      Mar 11 2013: Certainly there is a reason to have such conversations and they are not the only group to be left out.
      Amerikans are always leaving "other groups" out.
      You live in a society that demonizes others, particularly sexually.
      It also demonizes sex itself, always relegating it to the world of evil, immorality and only allowable for those in one particular religion.
      As the Poop said, "Using condoms is not as evil as......hmmmm, sex is not as evil as........................................ but it is evil.............

      People are shamed, made to feel guilty for their sexual interests, likes and dislikes, most of which are perfectly normal and natural to them, vary greatly and are not immoral or evil at all.

      Sex itself, is not a moral issue to begin with. Sex itself does not have a moral nature to it.
      So those who wish to discuss it, certainly may, may they not?
      Or are you the moral arbiter of other people's sex conduct, interests, likes and dislikes and discussions?

      Are you a budding Mary Eberstadt who desires and works towards having "all the right to privacy laws" repealed so that people of her ilk can go into any bedroom in the world (well, Amerika), including those who are married and married in the only religion that sanctifies sex, to monitor, direct, restrict and enforce the guidelines she believes are the only ones people should be "allowed to" follow and engage in?

      Ted is open to anyone. Notice, I wrote open.
      If one wishes to start a conversation that discusses the ins-and-outs (no pun intended), then why shouldn't they be allowed to and you simply don't read about it?
      Just curious
      • thumb

        Gail . 50+

        • 0
        Mar 11 2013: I am not a judge of anything or anyone. I merely wondered if the asexual are being denied human rights, like women and LGBT people are. It was a question - not a condemnation.

  • george lockwood 30+

    • 0
    Mar 11 2013: Maybe on a scale of 1 to 10 Oh yes, you are proposing a scale of 0 to 10, and you want to look at the 0. Who knows? Theodore has made a good point.
  • thumb

    Theodore A. Hoppe 200+

    • 0
    Mar 11 2013: Re: "born asexual "

    How so? What are you defining this as in scientific terms?
Showing all 15 comments