FWIW, I think asexuality is just something along the spectrum of all healthy sexuality. No weirder than any other way to be.
Although I will mention, with some frustration, prior to finding my mate, I had a habitual tendency to fall for asexual men, which is a pain in the ass. But that’s not their fault.
Yeah, that’s that weird thing that languages do - people use a word out of context, and then it takes on overtones (connotation) that aren’t in the definition (denotation), then the definition changes.
But since I’m pretty sure the big brain is long dead, there’s not much to be done about it.
Human beings have a reproductive drive - which is basically built in to ensure survival of the species. Humans, being humans, apply it in all manner of creative and strange ways - But an absence of reproductive drive means essentially that person is no longer responding as designed by evolution / nature / diety of choice.
Sexuality, like most things, exists on a spectrum. A person who behaves as if they lack any reproductive drive could well just have such a weak drive that it essentially manifests as no drive. IMO
By that logic, homosexuality is perverse. If you’re claiming that it is, then the definition of ‘perverse’ is essentially meaningless.
Well, one would have to find a way to determine what’s the dividing line between “Low” and “No.” Yes, sexuality is a spectrum - being OFF the spectrum entirely is what was described as perverse. Or whatever word you wish to use.
No. Wrong - There is still a sexuality in homosexuality. It’s just being exhibited in a format that is reproductively null. That’s entirely different from having no sexuality.
Edit to fix an amusing typo
People are turned on by a wide range of things, I don’t see why this is different. Being attracted to someone because they are disabled is no different than being attracted to someone because they have red hair or glasses.
This^^
Well… not all women are equally attached to their hair.
There are perfectly healthy women who shave themselves bald by choice (rare, admittedly) or very short buzz cuts. They probably would have less problem with someone attracted to hairless women than women for whom their femininity or identity is much more wrapped up with having hair. And, again, there’s a difference between shaving yourself bald and being bald because you’re sick.
I had a friend who permanently lost some of her scalp hair due to chemotherapy, but she viewed it as a small loss for surviving cancer. Other women would be horribly devastated. Those two categories of women would probably view someone with a bald woman fetish very differently.
I’m guessing that there are a certain number of devotees who hook up with disabled people willing to accommodate their fetish, or perhaps happy to do so. But there are a lot of disabled folks (and able-bodied) who would be skeeved out, as Ambivalid seems to be.
I guess I’d have to say a lot depends on the particular circumstances. There’s a spectrum between slight kinky and way too weird for my tastes.
Maybe this is one of those “agree to disagree” things. But I don’t think the woman described in the OP is more normal than me.
I’d at least have come up with a smoother line than “I love your atrophied legs!” I suppose there’s something to be said for being upfront and honest, but dayum. Get to know a guy first.
[QUOTE=Wesley]
Being attracted to someone because they are disabled is no different than being attracted to someone because they have red hair or glasses.
[/QUOTE]
I suppose the real difference is the personal impact it has on the object of fixation. I doubt ‘‘red hair’’ or ‘‘glasses’’ quite has the same sting.
If a black girl came up to you and said “I want you to slave master rape me, Massa Wesley, since I’m attracted to your white power”, don’t you think you’d feel a bit uncomfortable?
I agree that people can’t help what they are attracted to. But they can help how they convey that attraction so that the situation isn’t creepy.
I’m going to keep calling a sexuality like Jeffery Dahmer’s “perverse”, if that’s all right with you. Because “perverse” has a distinct meaning in my head, and it doesn’t jibe with how I’d describe 1% of the population who is just minding their business.
If you have read and understood this thread and still think this, wtf. I feel like Im in The Twilight Zone.
Being attracted to a disability is weird, but no more weird than being attracted to fat people. My ex was, and was always encouraging me to gain weight. And over the years, I’ve encountered more than one person who told me I’d be really hot if I put on 50 or 100 pounds.
But then my ex noticed that many of his former lovers were acquiring severe health issues, including coronary heart disease and diabetic, some resulting in amputations and death. But of course that didn’t cure him of his fetish.
I, myself, am attracted to guys who are very thin, even anorexic. I guess you can say I’m a devotee of sorts. I have no idea what that says about me.
This bears repeating. Being attracted ONLY to women with giant goiters sticking out of their necks is not at all similar to preferring red headed women.
Eh, I suppose. Except that I don’t consider “Less Normal” to = “Weird.” Distribution curves are thing of beauty, and all the really interesting stuff happens with the outliers.
That IS pretty damn bold, yeah. 
Fat people are still attractive as people. A better comparison is someone only being attracted to fat legs.
Just like Spice Weasel mentioned upthread, it is not normal or healthy to be someone who is only attracted to sexually abused/raped women. ** Preferring women who have red hair is IN NO WAY similar to only being attracted to women who have been raped.**
It may be one of those things where people over compensate to show how the disability does not deter them. Hard to say. Some may actually be attracted to that. Your brain will always be the primary attraction once you get past first impressions.