Aren't Snails Asexual?

With morning caffeine, the Star I perused
The headliner in Health section left me confused
"Homo" and "hetero" don't suffice -- so what's next?
It seems that we need a term for those "anti-sexed..."

I have a confession to make. When I was younger, I used to watch Jerry Springer every once in a while. To be fair, it was a popular show at the time and in the beginning it was fascinating -- it was a freak show. Everyone had weird habits or fetishes or relationships and it was like taking a soap opera and cutting out the wasted time developing characters.

But that's the thing. As weird as kink or fetishes are (and I've learned from Jerry that they can be weird...I once saw a show on vomiting...but that's another story) it's easy enough to say "to each his own," and go about your merry way knowing that "whatever floats his boat" is really none of our business except to be a laughing matter on Fox at 10 pm. But this...I don't understand. According to the Star's headlining Health article today, existing terms to reflect trends in sexual orientation are not enough: heterosexual, homosexual, gay, transgender, queer, bisexual, and the multitude of others...just don't cut it. It seems that we're doing a great disservice to the "asexual" few by not labelling them properly.

HUH?

Yeah. I thought that asexual meant that, like snails, you had all the parts and could fertilize your egg yourself and have offspring. Referring to the animal kingdom, of course, because we know (at least I think I know) that humans can't do that. Correct me if I'm wrong.

But now this term has been hijacked to refer to a person who has no interest in sex. They may feel sexual attraction, arousal, romantic feelings, carry on platonic relationships, enjoy physical contact like cuddling or kissing, be attracted to people of the same or opposite gender, or masturbate...but have no interest in sex itself.

The current dogma on sexual orientation (hetero-, homo-, and bi-sexuality) makes sense to me. Okay, I get that...people are attracted to whatever gender they're attracted to. Fine. Makes sense. But the reason I don't understand this asexual thing is because I don't see how it differs from celibacy, which, in itself, is just abstinence for whatever reason (and is not linked necessarily to religious beliefs). "Celibate" has no bearings on past sexual activity either. And celibate people can be aroused or physically attracted to someone, so why the need for this new "orientation," when it really seems less like an orientation and more like a lifestyle?

There's a journal article that's going to be published soon in one of the big Psychology journals about how men who claim to be bisexual are really only sexually confused; according to this study, the men who were studied only responded to one gender or the other in a sexual manner. Apparently the results were statistically significant. I'm not saying one way or the other, because I don't know. My point is just that I currently believe that bisexuality is indeed a sexual orientation. And if it's not, then how could asexuality be more likely to actually exist? And isn't this asexuality thing more likely to be an artefact of sexual confusion, especially given that it differs in no way at all from celibacy? I mean, why the need for a new term unless one is unclear as to his own understanding of his sexuality?

Anyways, I don't mean to stir anything up...I just don't understand. But I hope my ignorance is not a sign of my tolerance...because it's not. And I don't mean for my ignorance to be offensive to anyone in any way (and if I have offended anyone, I truly apologize). My intention was just to bring light to this interesting topic I came across. After all, we are who we are.