Why don't people try to understand asexuality?

"On the romantic side of things". Again, this is contradictory. Romance is a feature of sexual relationships, it does not exist without sexuality. "romantic feelings" is another way of saying "sexual feelings".

I'm not certain that there is a sufficient consensus within psychology for you to be so certain in ruling that out. While some theorise that physical passion is a prerequisite for romantic love, others do not. Generally, the field of social science isn't one that lends itself to iron-clad statements of certainty like that.

I get asexuality generally, but I don't understand this. You say you get aroused because "your body" is ready for sex. But it isn't your body that causes arousal, it's your mind. So you are saying your mind gets sexually aroused, but doesn't want sex, which seems contradictory.

Also, you say you are demisexual, which means you would have sexual desire in a loving relationship (I assume you've had one, or how would you know?). Surely that's really a type of heterosexuality (assuming you only would be with a woman), not asexuality? There's nothing about heterosexuality that says you have to be attracted to random women before you get to know them. Just because the stereotypical straight guy is always looking to get laid, I don't think it's actually true for all of us. Just wanting sex in a loving relationship isn't a separate sexuality, a lot of straight women are like this.

You're talking about romance as if it exists independently our understanding of it like its some kind of natural phenomenon rather than a social construct.

We have a world for non-sexual relationships, that word is "platonic".

Someone you have a platonic relationship with is called a friend. You can take your friend out to dinner and buy them flowers and even cuddle them, but unless there is some kind of sexual motivation there, they're still just a friend.

Well, considering you didn't actually respond to what I said, it's hardly a surprise that you'd continue to labour under your previous error.

To reiterate; the "definition" of romance, and the delineation between platonic and romantic relationships isn't nearly so certain as you seem to think. It's easy for you to assert to the contrary, but that makes you more blinkered than it does correct.

Your apparent tendency to disregard the flexibility with what these words can imply doesn't do you credit- it doesn't show you taking a hard and confident line, it only serves to demonstrate your fairly fundamental misunderstanding of the discipline of the social sciences.

Well, considering you didn't actually respond to what I said, it's hardly a surprise that you'd continue to labour under your previous error.

To reiterate; the "definition" of romance, and the delineation between platonic and romantic relationships isn't nearly so certain as you seem to think. It's easy for you to assert to the contrary, but that makes you more blinkered than it does correct.

Your apparent tendency to disregard the flexibility with what these words can imply doesn't do you credit- it doesn't show you taking a hard and confident line, it only serves to demonstrate your fairly fundamental misunderstanding of the discipline of the social sciences.

Maybe I have a bad idea of friendship, but if you were dating someone then bought someone else flowers, took them for dinner and cuddled them a lot without a good reason, your partner would probably think you were cheating on them. Which basically means you are dating.

Secondly, are you saying the only reason to actually date somebody is for the sexual side of things?

Maybe I have a bad idea of friendship, but if you were dating someone then bought someone else flowers, took them for dinner and cuddled them a lot without a good reason, your partner would probably think you were cheating on them. Which basically means you are dating.

Secondly, are you saying the only reason to actually date somebody is for the sexual side of things?

What I'm saying is that it is not a reasonable position to rule out romantic feelings in the absence of sexual attraction, based on existing theories of romance as a cultural and psychological phenomenon, nor is it fair (or supportable) to necessarily define romance as having an inherent sexual element.

Sorry, but that is nonsense.

You are misunderstanding the fundamental nature of science - social science or otherwise - which is that before attempting to debate or discuss anything, we must first come to an agreement on the definition of the words we are using.

Words with multiple, shifting meanings are completely useless meaningless gibberish. You might as well be speaking in tongues for all the insight you will gain.

My argument holds for the common scientifically defined definition of the words I am using. If you have a different definition, then spell it out explicitly and I will rephrase my argument accordingly.

If you don't have a different, concrete definition you wish to propose, then you are no longer debating, you are obfuscating.

So you accept that for some people there is romantic attraction without sexual desire?

They would get mad because they'd think you were doing those things as a precursor to sex.

However, lets say your sister was ill, so you bought her flowers, cuddled her and took her out for dinner. Does that mean you're dating your sister?

Oh and by definition, yes.

I don't ever recall having denied that.

Romance is a cultural and psychological phenomenon with many mechanistic explanations, some of which require sexual elements, and some not. Your error is simply to define romance as having a necessary sexual element, and then to assert that anyone disagreeing is wrong.

That is obfuscation. You are deliberately ignoring the inherent flexibility of these terms, as they progress with understanding. There is no "concrete" definition of such a feature of the social sciences, as there is no "concrete" explanation. So long as things have different psychological models, you won't be able to use these words with the certainty you endow them with, it's simply inappropriate.

Hence my conclusion; you couch things with an iron-cladding they do not deserve. You can stop, or you may continue to make the same mistake.

I did say "without good reason". Being ill is a good reason. Going on a romantic date is something that I think is reserved for couples.

yes, sexual couples.

I am not making any mistake, don't be so patronising. You're only a second year, and you don't even study social science. Wind your neck in, please.

If you can't give me a better definition, I'm going to assume you don't have one and are just trolling.

My grandparents no longer have sex, but they still go on dates occasionally.

I'd have thought the persona you were trying to cultivate would be above ad hominem attacks.

Having described your mistake on at least two occasions now, I'll refer you back to one of those posts until you understand it. I don't need to provide an alternative definition for you to be wrong; your mistake is fundamental in your approach. As previously described, and unaddressed by your part.

As for being patronising, I find it hard to avoid when the person I'm speaking to is clearly a moron.