I'm not sure if you're still replying to or reading comments, but here's my take.
a) tonnes of people don't buy asexuality, so I wouldn't say it's abnormal
b) I was reading through a lot of your comments, and I came across a few notions that I'd like to address specifically.
So first, I think the question really you should be asking is if you believe sexualities exist at all.
If you don't believe that homosexual men are only attracted to males, and you instead believe that their attraction to females is just very very low, then your belief that asexuality doesn't exist makes sense, and you also wouldn't believe that gay (or straight) people exist. If you think that someone can be fully heterosexual or homosexual, though, then your theory is completely thrown out the window. If a man can be entirely gay, then that means that he has no attraction whatsoever under any circumstances to women. Why then couldn't someone have this lack of attraction all genders?
So, if you're following so far and you agree that maybe gay people really aren't fully gay, I guess that leads us to: do you believe that they shouldn't they label themselves as such either?
If they feel attraction to their same gender 99.9999% of the time and that remaining 0.0001% of the time to people of another gender, should they just not call themselves gay?
If you're for foregoing labels entirely, that's fine, but recognise also that they're an easy way to explain to other people what you're interested in.
Also, I feel like it should be noted, if it hasn't already been, that asexuality is specifically not feeling attraction to people. It is not necessarily having zero libido (though some asexuals report this), it is not necessarily being sex repulsed (although some asexuals are)--it is just not ever looking at someone and being attracted to them in a sexual way. If you will take this to be true, even if their attraction to other is just shockingly low, if they'll never meet someone they feel attracted ENOUGH to to actually desire sex with them, why shouldn't they just call themselves asexual and be done with it?
Anyway, I hope you see this. Sorry if my points have already been mentioned, I don't have enough free time to read through 120 comments on this right now.
Is it normal to think "asexuality" is totally not a thing?
← View full post
I'm not sure if you're still replying to or reading comments, but here's my take.
a) tonnes of people don't buy asexuality, so I wouldn't say it's abnormal
b) I was reading through a lot of your comments, and I came across a few notions that I'd like to address specifically.
So first, I think the question really you should be asking is if you believe sexualities exist at all.
If you don't believe that homosexual men are only attracted to males, and you instead believe that their attraction to females is just very very low, then your belief that asexuality doesn't exist makes sense, and you also wouldn't believe that gay (or straight) people exist. If you think that someone can be fully heterosexual or homosexual, though, then your theory is completely thrown out the window. If a man can be entirely gay, then that means that he has no attraction whatsoever under any circumstances to women. Why then couldn't someone have this lack of attraction all genders?
So, if you're following so far and you agree that maybe gay people really aren't fully gay, I guess that leads us to: do you believe that they shouldn't they label themselves as such either?
If they feel attraction to their same gender 99.9999% of the time and that remaining 0.0001% of the time to people of another gender, should they just not call themselves gay?
If you're for foregoing labels entirely, that's fine, but recognise also that they're an easy way to explain to other people what you're interested in.
Also, I feel like it should be noted, if it hasn't already been, that asexuality is specifically not feeling attraction to people. It is not necessarily having zero libido (though some asexuals report this), it is not necessarily being sex repulsed (although some asexuals are)--it is just not ever looking at someone and being attracted to them in a sexual way. If you will take this to be true, even if their attraction to other is just shockingly low, if they'll never meet someone they feel attracted ENOUGH to to actually desire sex with them, why shouldn't they just call themselves asexual and be done with it?
Anyway, I hope you see this. Sorry if my points have already been mentioned, I don't have enough free time to read through 120 comments on this right now.