LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
  • Indy
    +3

    The only reasonable explanation for the word asexual being used this way is that people heard it in biology class and didn't have the vocabulary to express what they mean for a different phenomena among humans. Non-sexual (or perhaps 'insexual')seems like a far more appropriate term, as asexual has a more definitive meaning relating to a creature that reproduces without a mate, rather than one who avoids reproductive processes. It's somewhat (though not entirely) similar to the difference between amoral (something that is without morals) and immoral (something that goes against morals).

    I suppose fortunately the language does generally maintain the proper idea when speaking about something other than 'identity'. We would typically say, for instance, that two friends have a non-sexual relationship, rather than an asexual relationship (among other differing examples). Asexual is reproductive. Non-sexual is not reproductive.