Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Responses to Orientation

I admit I have neglected this blog. That's one problem with being busy, but there was a comment that I felt I needed to respond to in a few months ago. The easiest process would be finding the post and responding to the comment there, but the person just found the blog.

The post in question had more to do with asexuality and how she thought she could understand it. The response by far is one of the most uncommon ones I have ever seen. Most people when they learn of asexuality respond with confusion, you just have not found the right person, or you must be gay responses. Yet, I have my doubts that the person really understood what I meant. Even worse, I'm not sure I knew exactly what I meant.

I would love to share a connection with someone on a deeply spiritual (for lack of a better term) level, but I do not expect to have the desire ever to jump into the sack with anyone. If I were still a Mormon, this would be problematic because marriage is a requirement to get into the celestial kingdom and entering into such a marriage would likely not be a pleasing thing to most partners.

The good thing is because the organization of asexuals is a relatively new phenomenon, there are no idiotic opinions from General Authorities on the topic. I am sure that if Boyd K. Packer had enough time he could issue an ignorant statement about how asexuals are broken or not a person. The Jesuits, who seemed to use the term asexual to mean a person without a gender identity, have already informed the world that a person who is asexual isn't a person.

But at least it's better to be assumed to be broken and mentally deficient because of a lack of attraction than it is to go through what gays and lesbians go through. If I start to make the transition, I imagine things will be much the same as they are for the latter two groups.