Should one get benefits if they are "Asexual"

[jimnyc]

What if you are "born that way" and have no sexual attraction whatsoever. Should you receive any type of "benefits", any at all, or be treated as a single person your entire life? And do you think they should change forms nationwide to recognize new sexual orientations as they are 'found'? And we're being told that we should "recognize" them. How exactly? Does this about cover all of the possible orientations, or is there other possibilities we just don't see yet? These people act like there is some active campaign holding them back, and that they have to hide. Oh, and this is absolutely normal too, not any type of disorder! :lol:


Asexuals – the fourth sexual orientation

Around 1 per cent of the world's population is reckoned to feel no sexual attraction at all
From playground chatter to high-street billboards; from magazines, newspapers and television to the subject of junk emails in our inboxes, sex is common currency. But a small, often misunderstood, sometimes disbelieved minority of the population is almost totally overlooked: they feel absolutely no sexual attraction to other people.

A book published in the UK next month claims such men and women, an estimated 1 per cent of the population, should be recognised as a fourth sexual orientation – asexuals.

Professor Anthony Bogaert's book, Understanding Asexuality, argues that a growing number of people consider themselves asexual. He believes asexual people are "an under-studied population" who can feel excluded from our "very sexualised culture". He said our society, "can place expectations on both sexual and asexual people, but particularly asexual people".

Joshua Hatton, 23, a language student from Birmingham, agrees. "Three years ago, I came across asexuality – it explained everything. I no longer had to lie to myself. Young men are expected to have some sort of casual sex; it's all around. Now I feel more comfortable."

Bogaert, an associate professor at Brock University in Canada, defines asexuality as a complete lack of sexual attraction. "There are two forms: people who have some level of sex drive, but don't direct this drive toward others (so they may masturbate); and other people who have no sex drive whatsoever."

The first non-academic conference to tackle asexuality took place at Southbank University, London, last month. Michael Doré, organiser of the World Pride conference, said: "We want asexuality to be recognised as a valid sexual orientation, rather than a disorder or something people have to hide."

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/asexuals--the-fourth-sexual-orientation-8060092.html

[Said1]

Ohhh, the poor marginalized asexuals and other peoples expectations...what expectations, moron. :laugh2:

[Noir]

If you're single, you should be treated as being single, if you're married, you should be treated as being married, what does being asexual have to do with anything?

[fj1200]

For what "benefits" are they eligible?

[logroller]

I bet asexuals get really pissed off that some claim to be asexual when, in reality, they're just not gettin any!:lol:

[logroller]

For what "benefits" are they eligible?
Assuredly, many a man has fallen victim to the pretenses of a sexual marriage. In that sense, I'm a huge proponent for "traditional" marriage!:cool:

[Sidestreamer]

For what "benefits" are they eligible?

They should be eligible for the same benefits given to married people.

[Monkeybone]

If you're single, you should be treated as being single, if you're married, you should be treated as being married, what does being asexual have to do with anything?
Why are you trying to repress those poor people Noir? :beer:

[taft2012]

If you're single, you should be treated as being single, if you're married, you should be treated as being married, what does being asexual have to do with anything?

Seems like common sense and pretty obvious.

However, it was only a few years ago that the definition of marriage seemed like common sense and pretty obvious.

[fj1200]

They should be eligible for the same benefits given to married people.

Which benefits are those?

[jimnyc]

If you're single, you should be treated as being single, if you're married, you should be treated as being married, what does being asexual have to do with anything?


For what "benefits" are they eligible?

Same answers I would have expected on gay marriage 40 years ago. But this is how it starts.. "It should be valid and recognized"... "These people shouldn't have to hide"...

As to what benefits? Lord only knows. But it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest bit if you would start to see more and more people claiming to be "asexual", that they should be accepted, and then they'll want something in the name of equality. Mehopes not, but the beginning story sounds eerily familiar!

I wonder if this will be classified as a disorder and then reclassified as normal?

[fj1200]

Same answers I would have expected on gay marriage 40 years ago. But this is how it starts.. "It should be valid and recognized"... "These people shouldn't have to hide"...

As to what benefits? Lord only knows. But it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest bit if you would start to see more and more people claiming to be "asexual", that they should be accepted, and then they'll want something in the name of equality. Mehopes not, but the beginning story sounds eerily familiar!

I wonder if this will be classified as a disorder and then reclassified as normal?

:confused: Marriage, gay or otherwise, is about two people committing to each other. To whom is an asexual person committing?

[jimnyc]

:confused: Marriage, gay or otherwise, is about two people committing to each other. To whom is an asexual person committing?

If I were asexual, my argument would be that because of the way I was born, I am denied the opportunity to have a committed relationship and the benefits that come along with it, so I should receive a percentage of them based on my "situation", which is no fault of my own and no choice of my own. :laugh:

Sounds crazy, don't it?

[fj1200]

If I were asexual, my argument would be that because of the way I was born, I am denied the opportunity to have a committed relationship and the benefits that come along with it, so I should receive a percentage of them based on my "situation", which is no fault of my own and no choice of my own. :laugh:

Sounds crazy, don't it?

I will admit that there is some crazy going on here. :poke:

That being said, there is nothing stopping them from forming a committed relationship.

[jimnyc]

I will admit that there is some crazy going on here. :poke:

That being said, there is nothing stopping them from forming a committed relationship.

As my friend Rodney once said - "Let's get a grip on our man to hand relationship"

In case you haven't realized, I was being rather sarcastic and facetious in this thread. But I do find it odd that this asexual thing come out of nowhere and talk of it not being labeled a disorder and letting them "out of the closet" sort of, is kind of odd since I don't think there has been any recognizing of this condition, let alone any concerted effort to make them hide.

[fj1200]

In case you haven't realized, I was being rather sarcastic and facetious in this thread.

Of course, but everyone needs to be special right? It's helpful to sell books too. ;)

And if I understand correctly, you're pretty close to being able to access those benefits right?

[jimnyc]

Of course, but everyone needs to be special right? It's helpful to sell books too. ;)

And if I understand correctly, you're pretty close to being able to access those benefits right?

If so many people deserve things simply for the way they were born, then assuredly I deserve 'something' for teaching myself to be such an asshole at times. Some people are born that way too, but I took 40+yrs of hard work to perfect my craft. :coffee:

[cadet]

As my friend Rodney once said - "Let's get a grip on our man to hand relationship"

In case you haven't realized, I was being rather sarcastic and facetious in this thread. But I do find it odd that this asexual thing come out of nowhere and talk of it not being labeled a disorder and letting them "out of the closet" sort of, is kind of odd since I don't think there has been any recognizing of this condition, let alone any concerted effort to make them hide.

3882

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

3882

Libs/leftists are like that, if they dont have a convenient affliction to use to further their agenda they'll just make one up. After all , making shat up is their favorite pasttime.:laugh:-Tyr

[Abbey Marie]

And do you think they should change forms nationwide to recognize new sexual orientations as they are 'found'? And we're being told that we should "recognize" them.

The very question on a form is insulting, and just proves our society is asexphobic.

[logroller]

If so many people deserve things simply for the way they were born, then assuredly I deserve 'something' for teaching myself to be such an asshole at times. Some people are born that way too, but I took 40+yrs of hard work to perfect my craft. :coffee:
Noting your toungue in cheek; as I see it, people deserve certain freedoms merely for the fact they were born, regardless of how. The onus of proving that unions are deserving of special privileges should be upon the beneficiaries, not the excluded.

[jimnyc]

Noting your toungue in cheek; as I see it, people deserve certain freedoms merely for the fact they were born, regardless of how. The onus of proving that unions are deserving of special privileges should be upon the beneficiaries, not the excluded.

Surely you'll look back over this thread and realize no one was speaking of "freedoms", and although tongue in cheek, the discussion was focused on benefits.

[logroller]

Surely you'll look back over this thread and realize no one was speaking of "freedoms", and although tongue in cheek, the discussion was focused on benefits.
Freedom to enjoy the benefits then; if one is excluded by way of their sexual preference, or lack thereof, it is an affront their individual freedom. Say, for example, you and I decide the married life is not for us and we enjoy a life of companionship (nothing sexual, other than wingman status), why should I not be able to claim you as dependent partner for purposes of insurance or something? What disqualifies our relationship as lesser than man and wife if sexual interaction is excluded?

[Said1]

Freedom to enjoy the benefits then; if one is excluded by way of their sexual preference, or lack thereof, it is an affront their individual freedom. Say, for example, you and I decide the married life is not for us and we enjoy a life of companionship (nothing sexual, other than wingman status), why should I not be able to claim you as dependent partner for purposes of insurance or something? What disqualifies our relationship as lesser than man and wife if sexual interaction is excluded?

Well, I think that describes A LOT of marriages. :laugh2:

[Noir]

:confused: Marriage, gay or otherwise, is about two people committing to each other. To whom is an asexual person committing?

Erm, you realise asexuals have relationships, commit to eachother, and get married etc? Sexual attraction is only one aspect of identity. Romantic attraction is just as important and just as varied (though it gets much less attention)

So one can be asexaul, not sexually attracted to men or women. But still be hetroromantic, homoromantic, biromantic, panromantic, or transromantic. Though ofcourse there could also be people who are aromatic as well, but that would be a vrey small minority within an already very small minority.

[fj1200]

Erm, you realise asexuals have relationships, commit to eachother, and get married etc?

Try reading the question in the context of the thread.

[Noir]

Try reading the question in the context of the thread.

I don't get where you're coming from...your question was who is the asexual committing too, the answer is that they are committing to the person they are in love with, like any other marriage.

[fj1200]

I don't get where you're coming from...your question was who is the asexual committing too, the answer is that they are committing to the person they are in love with, like any other marriage.

Excellent.

[Noir]

Excellent.Oh, i see, we're in agreement! :salute:

[fj1200]

Oh, i see, we're in agreement! :salute:

I didn't know we were in disagreement.

[tailfins]

Surely you'll look back over this thread and realize no one was speaking of "freedoms", and although tongue in cheek, the discussion was focused on benefits.

I think the Staples Singers sum it up pretty well:


If you walk 'round thinkin' that the world
Owes you something 'cause you're here, well
You're goin' out the world backwards
Like you did when you first come here



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1II2nPmBZJk