OK, here's an imaginative thread, broadly on topic too!
This is kinda me...
.... always has been, really.
Not that I am not interested in sex, or don't have a sex drive or owt weird like that, it's that when I really think about it, the people that I actually find attractive or have ever found attractive, is minimal.
Naked bodies of either sex -- YUK... no way, keep yer clothes on.
I do have a fetish for certain types of clothing, which has always been my saving grace where sexual interactions are concerned, so I consider the body just a bit of a convenient clothes horse really.
So, in short, I have given over labelling myself as bisexual. I now, if any label were ever needed, consider myself asexual - which means I don't find anyone attractive.
Anyone else like this?
Interesting.
I can't say that I'm in the asexual camp, but it makes perfect sense to me that people are.
In the past, I've probably naively been guilty of associating asexuality and celibacy. I obviously know the two are completely different, but it's probably due to asexuality not being discussed that much.
It is interesting.
I just thought I was weird when I didn't go "phwooooarrrrr" at the people (of both sexes) that others seemed to.
I only discovered the word "asexual" as a concept of identity 3 or 4 years ago, when I saw it in a newspaper article. Like you, previously, I had assumed asexuality was another word for celibacy.
But no, the two things are completely different.
I think I've always been asexual in the sense that attraction to the human form just isn't there, unless it's dressed up in some way. That's maybe why swinging held so much for me --- I could do sex in all sorts of interesting situations, with dressed up people. I could avoid the YUK of nakedness pretty easily because there was so much more interesting things going on.
I'll have to think about it some more, as actually today is the first time I've put the concept of asexuality and swinging together.
:confused2:
Damn. Just made a long post and it got deleted!!!
MUST. REMEMBER. TO. SAVE.
Start again.
With bisexuality there is the whole "which sex is most physically attractive" verses "which sex I would rather have a relationship" thing going on for a lot of people.
For example, some people find both sexes attractive, but will only date one.
There are all sorts of combinations really. It gets confusing.
One person I heard of recently classes herself as an asexual bi-romantic.
I think this means that she finds neither sex physically attractive, but would date members of either sex. Which does get confusing if you think too much about it!
The "bi-romantic" label was a new one on me too
My sister believes she identifies as Asexual.
She has no sexual attraction to either male or female, nor does she really have a sex drive as such. She wants a family one day, and is actually considering adoption as a means of having that family, rather than indulging in a sexual relationship. She does really actually have no interest in sex in any form. She even admitted to me a year or so ago, she has never even masturbated, she is 31!!!
If I had to put a label on me it would be 'heterosexual with situational bi tendencies'. Looking at the tick box in the OP's graphic I can identify with the 'neither' and with some of the logic behind it, but conclude I'm not asexual. It's more that I 'can't be arsed' anymore. Is there a one worder for that? Other than lazy or frigid? :-?
I think the term "asexuality" is a bit of confusing word to use because it is not very well defined in the mind of the average person. We might come across it at school when studying biology, where they talk about asexual reproduction in organisms where they reproduce on their own, without the input of genetic material from another individual. But to translate that into human terms? It just doesn't really make sense.
So I guess human asexuality must be to do with something other than reproduction. Basing it on attraction seems to make sense, I guess. So if I'm a human who is not attracted to either sex, I'm asexual... Unless I'm just attracted to myself, in which case that would make me... a wanker? (Or should I rather say "onanist?")
Like Bluexxx, I've never really thought about how human asexuality does not necessarily imply celibacy if you define it in terms of who you are attracted to (though it does raise questions about the morals and methods of having sex without attraction, e.g. is it possible for an asexual to "make love" as opposed to "having sex?")
In terms of my own sexuality, I'm a heterosexual with unrequited bisexual yearnings, discovered comparatively recently in my life's span. I'm beginning to wonder if the Ancient Greeks had it right - they encouraged middle-aged men to have relationships with young men in order to nurture and guide their burgeoning sexuality. It seems rather "wrong" in our cultural and moral terms but I can certainly see the benefits for both the younger and the older men!
This thread made me think of Kiss... does anyone keep in touch? /hijack
I don`t like labels because not everything is black and white, some people like both sexes to different degrees, some guys are orally bi but wouldn't have full sex with another guy, some women might like playing and kissing other ladies but wouldn't let them fuck them with a strap-on etc, some like white, some like black, tall, short, the list can be endless to what makes us tick as individuals.
I like men no two ways about it but when meeting or at clubs I have palyed and kissed women and enjoyed it but wouldn't seek it as a ff thing.
As for falling in love apparently its a chemical thing that happens, but for me its not looks it is definitely personality, even someone who you would not find "attractive" at first becomes so if their personality is one that intrigues and beguiles you.
Waffle over.
But then your point was that attraction is about so much more than physical attraction to someone's body, and that I wholeheartedly agree with. 
