You should not reject your sexuality for intellectual reasons. That's called repression. Asexuality, like any sexual orientation, is how some one is by default, not how someone chooses to be. Imagine how insulting (homophobic, actually) it would be to talk about choosing to be gay for political reasons... now think about how your post would feel to someone who identifies as legitimately and uncontrollably asexual.

Your whole premise seems to rest on the idea that all male sexuality is inherently violent, oppressive or emotionally destructive, which is patently false. Male sexuality has definitely - and is still - used as a weapon, as an aggressive and objectifying force - but the best way to fight that idea is to be a caring, respectful lover, not to reject what comes naturally to you.

It seems like your ideas are rooted in guilt and shame. Only asexuals completely reject rape culture? I guess. But an asexual person could still be abusive or hurtful or misogynistic or homophobic or transphobic or disrespectful...

You seem to be speaking like by embracing and enacting your sexuality you are becoming a part of a force - the negative force of male sexuality - that exists outside of yourself and are therefore contributing to something ceaselessly horrible.

Reject violence by not being violent. Reject objectification by desiring a partner not as an object or possession but as a whole person. Embrace love, empathy, patience, and respect. And, if you meet someone to whom you are physically attracted, you can communicate that attraction, as well as your love, empathy, patience, and respect, in a way that elevates that person and yourself.

Furthermore, your stance seems to shun the experiences of people who are engaged in D/s relationships where their personal sexual expression comes through - in a loving, consensual way, no less - through power games, dominance, control, even violence.

Be the change you want to see in the world. The solution isn't rejection, but embracing the positive aspects while shunning the negatives. If you do what you are considering, you will be living your life based on shame and fear and that's not good for you or anyone you will encounter in life. It's bound to fail and make you unhappy in the process. Be who you are genuinely, don't try to force yourself into some false construct. That's disrespectful of yourself and disrespectful of people who actually are that orientation. Sexual orientation is a part of a person's identity, not a choice they make for ideological reasons. To force oneself to make such a choice is cheapening, harmful, and just plain bogus.

How is reading "asexual superiority" any different from reading "straight superiority" material? Go be a loving, positive person, not a superior person.

I don't want to suggest that I don't appreciate the response, but I'm not wholly convinced. The Superiority critique argues that while asexuality is an orientation, it also exists outside of the sexual orientation spectrum and that anyone on the sexual spectrum should abandon sexuality. If not become inherently asexual, then in a celibacy as practiced globally by persons of faith. While "choosing to be gay" would be appropriating, abandoning sexuality would not impose on the domain of an identity that faces the denial of negative rights. That is to say, while other-than-straight persons struggle for the right to marry whom they choose, live safely, and identify publicly as such; while the rights that the asexual community seeks are more positive rights, such as equal representation in media (though certainly there is hatred of persons who openly identify as asexual as well.)

"Being part of the solution," strikes me as tilting at windmills. It is high minded and comes from the right place, but an anecdotal *sexual person perpetuates the norms and mores that enable violence. Commenting on the attractiveness of a media figure, even, or especially in jest, for example is to add to a dialogue that demands a standard of beauty and objectification -- decrying someone else who does so only flares tensions and shuffles the conflict away. The critique suggests that only total rejection presents a real solution to exclusivity and hate culture.

Yes, I have a lot of shame about myself. I have tremendous privilege as an able cis-het-white-male. This demands equal responsibility and recognition of the unfairness I have. "We stand on the shoulders of giants" and such, but giants that have spent the whole of human history engaging in behavior we must categorically reject. In particular, it occurred to me that I was fantasizing about a former partner. First, that this person had withdrawn my privilege to think of her sexually. And second, that any similar thoughts she might have, or memories of being involved with me would be hurtful and violating to dredge up.

The Asexual Superiority critique goes on that unlike any other orientation, asexuality is unique. By rejecting sexuality, it argues that relationships are objectively deeper and more fulfilling for all parties because there is neither the possibility of sexual tension (between one or more persons oriented toward the other), nor the privilege of being free of it (when no persons are oriented towards another.) Further, that asexuality is the most individualist identity, and that relationships are part of a communitarian culture that enables socialism and parasitism. Last, that asexuality is the only identity which recognizes the most fair division of resources. Without inheritances to children, social stratification falls to the individual to realize, and without partners, the individual succeeds or fails on their own and the resources consumed by population growth are minimized.

I want to stress that I am personally conflicted here, that if it is justifiable to be *sexual. If the responsibility of my privilege demands radical rejection -- I'm not sure I have a right to be happy with myself when my identity is that of the agent of oppression. "He's not like the others," is fine and good but "I'm just following orders," does not excuse actions taken as part of a system of violation. The "kum ba yah" of the positivists seems like weak tea in a dialogue when a woman can be literally hanged to death by the authorities for defending herself from violence.

Thank you and good evening.

You're barking up the same tree as vegetarians. If you wanna feel good about yourself and change the world by not eating meat (or in this case having sex) go for it. The other 7 billion of us are going to keep eating meat and banging, making your efforts null and void.

Im not saying rape and pillage. If fighting a losing battle that goes against evolution/biology/sociology will make you happy, then enjoy yourself.

Feminism is going far out of its way to be get attention these days. Be sure to tell the starving children in Africa (and everywhere else) that your fight for women's rights is more important than giving them a sandwich. I suppose if you want to fight for them too, you'd give up eating. That still doesn't put food on their dirty broken table.

No matter what you do, you're not making a difference. There are a thousand losing wars, and women aren't doing half bad. A casualty here and there sure, but MOO, Im a hamburger; bred, fed, dead. There's greater tragedies.

If you're going to protest something, don't torture yourself and act superior, no one listens to that. Often it annoys us to the point of doing the opposite. Find another way to support women (if that will truly alleviate your "privilege" guilt-trip nonsense. If not, do it anyways if you actually care) or suffer.

Do what you want, you're not doing anything either way. So at least be happy (Not being a self-hating celibate feminist) and cool (IE; not a meat-eating, orphan-starving, rapist).

Im'ma have me a steak and watch porn.

>>3276
Should I turn straight?

There's a ton of evidence indicating that this guy was asexual. If you think not having sexual desire will make you incapable of hurting people, I've got some land outside of Oświęcim, Poland to sell you.

>>3341
Um, didn't Hitler have a wife and kids?

Hitler did not have kids, he did marry shortly before he committed suicide together with his wife (Eva Braun). According to Braun's biographer he had a normal sex-life, though he did present himself as a celibate man solely devoted to his political vision.

>>3350
For clarification, committed suicide shortly after marrying his wife.