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.sinisterporpoise@yahoo.com
