| Posted: 18 September 2017 at 9:34am | IP Logged | 9
|
post reply
|
|
The issues that asexuals deal with are akin to the issues that of atheists in the US, where they are, as Paul stated, looked at as "less than".-------------------------------------------- But this is purely a product of identity politics. Sure, if you publicly identify yourself as an atheist, especially if you publicly go after religion, religious people are going to be suspicious of you. If you publicly identify as asexual, most people are going to be confused about what that means. Does it mean you're neither male nor female? And if you say it just means you're not interested in sex, I bet most of them will say, "Sounds like my wife after 5 years of marriage...."
Most of the atheists in this country don't publicly identify themselves as atheists. They just aren't religious. They don't pray. They don't go to church. The don't practice a religion. Religion isn't part of their life. This is true to such an extent that they don't have to identify as atheists, because 'being non-religious' isn't a major part of their life either. Their life doesn't revolve around religion or lack thereof, it revolves around other things. They don't define themselves by their atheism, they define themselves around the positive things that are important to them.
I'd bet the vast majority of asexual people are the same way. They just aren't out there pursuing physical relationships. Sex isn't a part of their life, but neither is 'not-having-sex'. They enjoy rich friendships and other things that make them happy, and probably don't think about sex much. So they don't have to publicly define themselves as asexual, they define themselves by the positive things in their life that are important to them.
It reminds me of a recent joke, "An atheist, a cross-fitter, and a vegan walk into a bar...I know, because they kept telling everybody."
Edited by Steve De Young on 18 September 2017 at 9:37am
|
