I'm aroace but I have doubts if it's a real orientation or not. I just realized, that asexuality (plus sex repulsion in my case) is kind of evolutionary dead end. Why would evolution choose for individuals like me? It doesn't make sense. I'm considering the possibility that it's a sickness... I'm not trying to start discourse or offend anyone - I'm really sorry if I did... 😢 But it's a serious and deeply troubling question for me and I just can't stop thinking about it. Help please...
struggling with myself whether I should answer that or not, but I’m going to
give you the benefit of a doubt and try my best here. [Aphobia Warning! for all my followers who don’t want to read this]
all, yes, aroace is a real orientation. It means a person does not feel
romantic and sexual attraction. It is not a sickness or disease. And sex-repulsion is not a bad thing. It’s just the way you are and that’s ok.
Secondly, you can’t just apply evolutionary biology to people like that. You just can’t. People are so much more than their biological traits. The last people who literally applied evolutionary biology to human beings were supporters of eugenics and literal Nazis. (And I don’t want anything to do with either.) However, I don’t believe that your views are influenced by this (I sincerely hope not), but rather by learning raw biological theories at school without any context. I remember learning the “five signs of life” (or something like that) in biology class in high school, and one of those “signs” was “the need to produce offspring” and I was like “lol according to that theory I’m not alive”, but of course I am. Because some biological models you can’t just apply to human beings literally. We’re more than our genes and our ability to procreate.
Just think about what exactly you’re saying here. You’re basically saying that you think that life (including your life) only has value if you procreate and “pass on your genes”. So what about infertile people? People who simply don’t want any children? People in same-sex relationships, who will never have any biological children? Don’t their lives have value? (The last one is a super old homophobic argument by the way, which was used to portray homosexuality as “unnatural” and “wrong”. I hope you don’t support this. Or any of this for that matter.)
Your life does have meaning, even if you don’t have children. I found this list of important people who never had children on Google (http://brianhassett.com/2010/06/people-who-dont-have-kids/) and it includes people like Plato, Isaac Newton, Michelangelo, Jane Austen, Nikola Tesla, Dr. Seuss, Alan Rickman, Harriet Tubman (who had an adopted child), Queen Elizabeth I, Amelia Earhart and Rosa Parks. Their lives had meaning, they changed the world without ever having children. You can contribute so many other things than your genes and offspring in order to make the world a better place. Inventions, art, writing, music, teaching children, providing expertise - and even if you “just” help an old lady with her groceries you’ve made the world a better place for someone.
let other people tell you that your life is only significant if you have
children. You can have a fulfilled, childless life. This attitude that having children is the only/most important way you can contribute to society is both homophobic and misogynistic, and it ends in “women
are obligated to have children”, “women are birth machines” and “any
relationship which differs from the heteronormative “norm” is unnatural”. I really hope I’ve made you reconsider your
point of view, because it’s very damaging and hurtful- not only to other people, but also to yourself.
(Also, I’m pretty sure that asexuality also appears in other species- just like homosexuality. There was this semi-serious post going around ace tumblr for a while, about a snail that rejected all partners that zookeepers wanted to pair them with. I’m sure there are better examples, though, if you go around digging through scientific sources.)