Rights for ‘Asexuals’?
August 19, 2012 - 7:21 am
It’s not like we don’t have enough faux minorities clamoring for non-existent or made-up “rights.” With the obesity epidemic, I thought that fat people would have been next up in the victimhood lineup, but there appears to be another entrant in the race to make us feel guilty about…something.
There’s nothing wrong with minorities who have been historically oppressed to demand their rights under the Constitution. But how far do we take the concept that a minority — any minority — is owed the kind of redress that racial, religious, and ethnic minorities currently enjoy under the law? Is there no limit — no bar — to the notion that someone may be discriminated against — say, someone with red hair — and that this is a wrong that must be made right? The idea of equal rights has been perverted by quotas and other gimmicks that far from seeking equality, look to punish the majority and create outcomes rather than opportunities. The fact is, victimhood is a profitable enterprise. And new “victims” are always seeking a way to break through to the mainstream where there’s a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Apparently, a book is coming out next month that will make the claim that about 1% of the world’s population feels no attraction whatsoever to either sex. The author, Professor Anthony Bogaert, wants official recognition of a “fourth sexual orientation” — Asexuality.
Professor Anthony Bogaert’s book, Understanding Asexuality, argues that a growing number of people consider themselves asexual. He believes asexual people are “an under-studied population” who can feel excluded from our “very sexualised culture”. He said our society, “can place expectations on both sexual and asexual people, but particularly asexual people”.
Joshua Hatton, 23, a language student from Birmingham, agrees. “Three years ago, I came across asexuality – it explained everything. I no longer had to lie to myself. Young men are expected to have some sort of casual sex; it’s all around. Now I feel more comfortable.”
Bogaert, an associate professor at Brock University in Canada, defines asexuality as a complete lack of sexual attraction. “There are two forms: people who have some level of sex drive, but don’t direct this drive toward others (so they may masturbate); and other people who have no sex drive whatsoever.”
The first non-academic conference to tackle asexuality took place at Southbank University, London, last month. Michael Doré, organiser of the World Pride conference, said: “We want asexuality to be recognised as a valid sexual orientation, rather than a disorder or something people have to hide.”
The term asexual became popular in 2001, when David Jay launched the Asexuality Visibility and Education Network – or Aven – website. There are now more than 50,000 members worldwide.
The asexual community is made up of people who define themselves as hetero-romantic, meaning they feel romantic feelings towards the opposite sex, though no sexual desire, homo-romantic, meaning they feel affection for the same sex, and bi-romantic.
Dizzying, isn’t it? Note the language of the victimhood lobby. The “discrimination” comes from treating asexuals like they are suffering from a disease, or humiliating them so much they feel they must hide their “condition.” And God forbid we place “expectations” on asexuals. Perhaps we should ask them to wear a sign delineating their “Fourth Way” sexual orientation so we don’t hurt their feelings.
No one is calling for asexual rights — yet. But the pathology of victimhood is already present and only needs an incident, or a leader, to get the ball rolling. Then we will be treated to perhaps the most boring people in the world whining for their “rights.”