Another minor asexuality-related quibble
The "BUT WE ARE SEXUAL CREATURES" nonsense.
I don't know what the hell makes people do this. First they throw out the "Butbutbut . . . we're sexual creatures!" comment, and when I (preferably politely) explain to them that there do exist people who are not attracted to anyone, I get this:
"Butbutbut . . . you have sex organs! Therefore you ARE a sexual being!"
And I'm sorry but this is fucking irrelevant.
Did I make any claim about atypical biology when I described my sexual orientation? Granted, there is a tiny minority among asexuals consisting of people with undeveloped/missing sex organs. They do exist, but that's also irrelevant, because we are not talking about physically not having sex organs. We are talking about an orientation.
So . . . why do they bring this up? Do they think "You have sex organs = you are sexual = your orientation is not what you said it is"? And when I ask them such things, they always dick around pretending that's not what they're saying--just that HUMANS ARE *DEFINED* AS SEXUAL--and I ask them why it is that they think I need a middle school biology lesson. I know what human anatomy is. And it literally has nothing to frigging do with whether I'm attracted to anyone, which is the only relevant piece of information when we're talking about asexuality.
Recent example of a bit some guy sent me on OKCupid:
Sex is part of life, we are sexual beings as well as thinking ones. But our sexual life is different because we think. Clearly seeing and understanding the other is one basis for a lifelong friendship, and the sexual attraction is an element of those special relationships that provide more than a social fulfillment. [Extra stuff removed]
Sex is part of some people's lives, and some people are interested in sex while some others aren't. I would hope that sexuality would be affected by thinking, yes. Sexual attraction is wonderful when it brings people closer but it is not the only element of human experience that makes relationships intimate and special, and those of us who don't feel it still have the capacity to love deeply and authentically.
For some romantic asexuals (which I am not), trying to push sexuality into the relationship where it doesn't evolve naturally would be a mistake--and if anyone were to insist that it is required for any relationship that isn't "just friendship," that person would just be announcing his inability to empathize with others who think and move through the world differently than he does. I can't tell based on what you said if you're telling me those with an asexual orientation are making some kind of mistake because you perceive that sexuality is important in your relationships, but if that is what you're saying, I do suggest you investigate what people who have the experience you're analyzing say about their own relationships.
It's not for people outside this group to grant or deny legitimacy for our relationships and judge them to "only" provide a "social fulfillment." People who are asexual need to be trusted to determine whether their relationships are romantic and how to negotiate them, and it would be really dismissive and erasing for anyone to stride in and announce that someone else's significant other is, for all intents and purposes, NOT significant unless it inspires sex.
No judgement, just writings. I personally like sex, [blahblahblah about what sex does for him in ideal situations].
The problem with you saying "no judgment" is that when you say "we are sexual beings," you suggest asexual people aren't part of whatever "we" you are describing. You seemed, while saying "we," to be discussing a general we that encompasses humanity. Obviously, I disagree.
Humanity perpetuates itself through sex, but that's not how we define ourselves. None of the non-sexual ways by which we perpetuate ourselves, our ideas, or our legacies are irrelevant without sex.
No one is devaluing your liking of sex by not enjoying it themselves, so I don't see that a defense of sex (or a placing of it on a pedestal) is necessary. [Extra stuff removed]
Interesting. I say we are sexual beings because reproduction is defined as a sexual process. The emotional, spiritual, reflective, philosophical, etc components of physical sexuality are related to our being thinking beings. Thinking beings may have no thought connections to physical sexuality, (possibly a definition of asexuality?) - however unless you do not have sex organs, or unless you start budding a new life from your elbow, then you Are a Sexual being as well as a Thinking being. [Cut for rambling about poetry and how his relationship with his significant other is totally awesome, plus some condescension about transcendence, beginning with "I am sorry that you . . . " blah blah blah]
I don't think the fact that humans reproduce sexually and biologically have sex organs is relevant in a conversation about asexuality. "But we ARE sexual beings--because we have sex organs!" is not a revelation, right? I'm pretty well aware of how biology works. I don't see what humans reproducing sexually has to do with asexuality as a sexual orientation. Orientation isn't reproduction. And yet "but sexual reproduction!" is invoked more often than I can see justification for. [Cut for my smackdown on the condescension and my explanation for why I am blocking him.]
So . . . what is this, guys? Why does this keep happening? Why does informing me that I have sex organs or that people reproduce through sexual reproduction and are therefore sexually reproductive as opposed to asexually reproductive have FRIGGING JACK TO DO with ME???