asexuality

[Newprimus]

Asexual? No such thing. What you people are looking for is probably "autosexual," if your right hand is the only person you love and will ever love.


Asexual as a sexual preference? Still no such thing. You're not asexual, you're just a cold fish.


Masturbation is still a sexual act for all intents and purposes. If you were truly asexual, you'd feel no desire for anything sex-related at all. The concept would be totally foreign to you.


And I just want to say that sex doesn't define mankind. Mankind's goal is to survive and reproduce, and sex is just one tool/ability in pursuit of that goal. That is all.

[ubb]

You mean there are other ways to reproduce?

[TronDD]

Originally Posted by Shinova

Asexual? No such thing.

Mankind's goal is to survive and reproduce, and sex is just one tool/ability in pursuit of that goal. That is all.

If you had read what was posted and linked to, all your arguments have already been refuted.

Mankind's goal is not to reproduce. That's the goal of reasonless animals and plants. Mankind has the ability to think and reason. Their goal can be anything they want. Even self destruction if they so choose.

[boneyjellyfish]

Originally Posted by ubb

You mean there are other ways to reproduce?

Jellyfish multiply by fertilizing an egg, letting it drift in the ocean, and then let it clone itself. Didn't you know that?

[Newprimus]

Originally Posted by TronDD

If you had read what was posted and linked to, all your arguments have already been refuted.

Mankind's goal is not to reproduce. That's the goal of reasonless animals and plants. Mankind has the ability to think and reason. Their goal can be anything they want. Even self destruction if they so choose.

What you call your "refute" is mere idealistic thinking.

Humans have developed the ability to think and shape their environment. We can choose whatever careers or specializations, we can be artists or engineers.

But all to what end? To make ends meet, wouldn't you say? To make a decent living.....to survive.



All our intellect and ability to reason and manipulate the environment came about to help us survive, dominate and shape the world into an environment most fitting for our survival and continued existence.

All for survival and evolution. To reproduce and pass your genes onto the next generation.


You say you refute this because people commit suicide? Not to sound crass honestly, but people who commit suicide either have some mental disorder, or have failed in life. The fact that they've either of these two, and the fact that they choose to commit suicide rather than perservere and somehow find some way to survive and find a way out of their mess, proves that they are of "inferior" quality than someone who can find the courage to attempt to survive.

When that failed person commits suicide, he removes his inferior genes from the human genome and mankind as a whole benefits from his absence.


Or when a certain occupation fades away and is rendered obsolete and said people lose their jobs, they can either attempt to adapt and find a way to change themselves to fit into a changing world, or they can fail to do so and not succeed. Chance of marriage or seriously surviving become low. That's how it is in our first and second world countries.

The people in third world countries are more closer to "instinctive humans" than us first world people in that they simply just breed like rabbits in hopes they have more hands to help around the home or that at least one won't die off at an early age and be able to go on to have his or her own family and whatnot. The struggle to merely survive is more pronounced in those regions.


What I'm saying is: the "components" of evolution in a given species, their physical traits and their behaviors; humans have these as well except that the list of traits has grown to include personality, likes, dislikes, what we do, what we'd like to do, our thinking and reasoning skills, etc. All of these determine who will be successful and who will not.

People who can make the right choices will prosper and easily afford to have a family and as a result let their genes pass on. People who make the wrong decisions, fail and don't. And those who succeed but don't want children, then there's obviously something wrong with them from an evolutionary standpoint, so their genes don't get passed on anyway; better to let someone who has great inclination to have children pass his/her genes on than someone who, for some weird reason, doesn't want to find a partner and have kids.


Again all this is from an evolutionary standpoint. Why has Western democracy thrived and Communist regimes fallen? Obviously because the democracies create environments more suited and comfortable for us. Communism doesn't, obviously, so are more prone to decline and failure. People who espouse communism or fascism, for example, Hitler and Stalin, are conveniently removed from the human genome by those who uphold ideals that afford them better environments and living conditions: the Allies and the Western democracies.


Enough examples. That's basically the reason why there's no such thing as an "asexual" human being, and why your points are wrong, and why your "refute" was not a refute at all.

[ZeppelinJ0]

That being said, there are definite trends among those identifying as asexual. While these trends by no means limit who can and cannot identify as asexual they broadly outline the experience of most people in asexual communities (including AVEN.) Asexual people describe their asexuality as fitting into one or more of the following groups:

* A) Those who experience sex drive but no attraction: These are people who are aware that sex, on a purely biochemical level, might feel good but who would never feel compelled to engage in it with another person. The sex drive is dormant. Asexuals fitting this description may find sex with another person so socially and emotionally awkward as to be completely unpleasurable. (Yeah it might feel good to have sex with someone, it might feel good to run out and shoot up herion but for the time being I've got other things to do with my life..)
* B) People who experience attraction, but no sex drive: Those who feel an attraction to others similar to sexual attraction but have no desire to consummate it sexually. Attraction is centered less on sexuality and more on emotional and sometimes physical (though non-sexual) intimacy. Like sexual attraction this sort of attraction can be oriented along specific gender lines. (Sure I like you, but why of all things would we want to do THAT?)
* C) Both: People for whome sex biologically feels good who experience attraction that is purely emotional. This person may find it pleasurable to masturbate, and they may see someone and feel an unexplainable emotional attachement to them but they would never see any reason to put the two together.
* D) Neither: Those who don't find sex pleasurable and don't experience attraction to other people. It's important to note that not experiencing attraction does NOT mean that these people do not form intimate emotional relationships, like those in group A they are fully capable of forming intimate bonds with others and finding particular people particularely interesting without feeling anything that they define as "attraction."

* E) Someone who feels both, but can't get any: This person often experiences moments of physical attraction toward others, and generally find themselves compelled to engage in sex with others. However these individuals are often refuted with remarks similar to "Eeew! Get away!", "You're such a nerd!", "Let's just be friends", or "HELP!" These individuals are coined "asexual" as their only means of sexual pleasure is through masturbation.

[Newprimus]

Originally Posted by ZeppelinJ0

* E) Someone who feels both, but can't get any: This person often experiences moments of physical attraction toward others, and generally find themselves compelled to engage in sex with others. However these individuals are often refuted with remarks similar to "Eeew! Get away!", "You're such a nerd!", "Let's just be friends", or "HELP!" These individuals are coined "asexual" as their only means of sexual pleasure is through masturbation.

[TronDD]

Originally Posted by ZeppelinJ0

* E) Someone who feels both, but can't get any: This person often experiences moments of physical attraction toward others, and generally find themselves compelled to engage in sex with others. However these individuals are often refuted with remarks similar to "Eeew! Get away!", "You're such a nerd!", "Let's just be friends", or "HELP!" These individuals are coined "asexual" as their only means of sexual pleasure is through masturbation.

That's called celibate.

Shinova: I was stating that you points on the nonexistence of asexuality was refuted, not the idea that man's goal is survival. Though I do disagree with that on an individal level.

And it's quite interesting that most of the "reasons" asexuality doesn't exist can also apply to homosexuality, which we are all know does indeed exist.

I don't understand why someone can't believe there can exist a person who has no sexual desire for another person.

[Newprimus]

Originally Posted by TronDD

That's called celibate.

Shinova: I was stating that you points on the nonexistence of asexuality was refuted, not the idea that man's goal is survival. Though I do disagree with that on an individal level.

And it's quite interesting that most of the "reasons" asexuality doesn't exist can also apply to homosexuality, which we are all know does indeed exist.

I don't understand why someone can't believe there can exist a person who has no sexual desire for another person.

The answer to this debate: you've got the wrong terminology.

The term you're looking for is a "platonic relationship"

True asexuality is non-existent to any human, so the term you're looking for is platonic relationships.


EDIT: Oh yeah, and you did dedicate a paragraph to saying mankind's goal is not to reproduce, and I responded accordingly.

[Blodvatten]

Asexuality is bullshit if you ask me.
But.. Well well.
I personly don't care. If someone wants to call him/herself asexual, they can do that.
But I really can't imagine thar any human can be completly asexual.
That's like.. not normal ._.

[TronDD]

Originally Posted by Shinova

the term you're looking for is platonic relationships.

And one who only desires platonic relationships is asexual. The terms are fine.

Originally Posted by Blodvatten

But I really can't imagine thar any human can be completly asexual.
That's like.. not normal ._.

Whether or not you can imagine it, and whether or not it's "normal" is irrelevant to it's existance.

[YummyYummyKirisuChan]

Originally Posted by mantidor

first...have you ever heard of the edipo complex? the alexandra complex? (sorry, probably the names are wrong...)

I honestly can't define sex, but for me is more than just intercourse, is a human dimension... I don't know how to say it...( probably is just that my english ability (more like inability) sucks big time, I'll try to make a nice composition later )

for the impression I have (and the definition in the forum) asexual is someone who does not feel sexual atraction. I suposse they refer to phisical atraction.

A> Freud was a coked out hack who died with no septum.

B> Don't throw around terms that are wrong. Seriously, it would have taken you no more than 5 minutes to check your info on any decent psychology database.

[Yeti]

I think asexual human behavior would be cloning humans , since biologically that offspring is a genetic clone of the parent in asexual reproduction. I guess people may have reasons to do such as mentioned , experiences and so on.

[Secca]

Don't you become more asexual as you get older and older?

At least that what I tought when you start thinking to spend the rest of your life with your partner and grow old. Maybe you just want the comfort of being with someone which doesn't necessarily have to be a sexual attraction anymore.

That you don't want to die alone.

[Access]

Originally Posted by YummyYummyKirisuChan

A> Freud was a coked out hack who died with no septum.

B> Don't throw around terms that are wrong. Seriously, it would have taken you no more than 5 minutes to check your info on any decent psychology database.

Yeah Frued was pretty screwed up, some of his ideas were the beginning of modern psychology but others were totally off-the-wall.

What about people like me who just don't want to be pestered with sex stuff online. If I know someone in person that is one thing. If I know or deal with someone online and online alone I don't see any reason to involve sex in it at all. Why bother since you will never know them irl. I know people who are the opposite, even online they make a big deal as in 'i am a girl' (or 'i am a 12-year-old girl') and often expect people to acknowledge it every day and treat them specially because of it. I'd bet a lot of these people aren't even girls irl, they are just pretending for the special treatment they get in a community of mostly guys. What's the point in parading around who/what you are online, intentionally meeting people from online is too dangerous and something I'd rather not do.

That's how I was taught to use internet from the very beginning, never reveal any personal info, never give away anything that could be used to locate you, never talk about / criticize real life friends (or anyone know irl) on internet, especially not by name, etc.

I know you cannot escape 'sex' on internet ie. even on animesuki look at that add 'Handylogo und Kingelto:ne...' that comes up occasionally, don't tell me that add ain't sexual yet for the most part you can ignore it and not involve yourself in it.

[ZeppelinJ0]

I don't understand why someone can't believe there can exist a person who has no sexual desire for another person.

Get laid, then you'll understand.

[JOJOS'STAR]

No sex? Never. Impossible. Unless your mazochist or having sex with your hand. I believe it is possible to have no love relationship in life but sex as nothing to do with behaviour, unless you're phisicaly or mentaly handicaped of tromatised by a serious event. But to all NORMAL people, don't try to convince yourself

[Newprimus]

Originally Posted by TronDD

And one who only desires platonic relationships is asexual. The terms are fine.

Nope. Being asexual would mean you have no sexual desire, never had any (which I seriously doubt this was the case for you, otherwise there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with you), and don't have the sexual organs or hormones either.

So nope, you are not asexual, and no modern human being is. Everyone has felt some sexual desire at some point in their lives. And if they never have, they either have some physical disorder or mental disorder.

Don't you become more asexual as you get older and older?

At least that what I tought when you start thinking to spend the rest of your life with your partner and grow old. Maybe you just want the comfort of being with someone which doesn't necessarily have to be a sexual attraction anymore.

That you don't want to die alone.

Losing sex drive does not equal becoming asexual.

I think asexual human behavior would be cloning humans , since biologically that offspring is a genetic clone of the parent in asexual reproduction. I guess people may have reasons to do such as mentioned , experiences and so on.

It could be considered asexual, but you have to keep in mind that it's ARTIFICIAL reproduction, so we can't really peg that as proof of asexual human behavior. And note that it's not a behavior, since the act of cloning ourselves was never a part of our basic psyche, merely a technology we imagined, now possible.

[Secca]

Originally Posted by Shinova

Losing sex drive does not equal becoming asexual.

Loosing sex drive is exactly the reason people become asexual. And there are alot of reasons why people can loose their sex drive.

An extreme example are victims of rape or child molestation. These kind of thing can scar a person for life. I don't know if you are insensitive person or something. But believe it or not, there are people who find sex repulsive.

[Jordan]

Hello people. Interesting topic here, I just thought I should add my thoughts. I'm asexual, but I do understand people not believing it at first since it has not recieved much publicity, and it's rare.

Originally Posted by mantidor

sorry, but im not buying it, people are sexual, is what defines the human genre

And many other species of animals on this planet too

Originally Posted by mantidor

in my opinion this "asexual" people just had a very traumatizing experience, (like the one of your skin, thats pretty awful), looking around that forum I found more that one time traumatizing experiences (like rape) and people saying that they think sex is gross. Of course I didn't read the whole forum, but that was the impression I have from it.

I was just born asexual. Yeah, some people on there have had bad experiences, but that doesn't justify most of them.

Originally Posted by mantidor

So you people never fall in love?

We do, we just don't need the sexual part.

Originally Posted by mantidor

male asexual people never ever have an erection? thats hard to believe... unless theres some sort of traumatizing experience as I already said.

Some I know of have had erections. Erections aren't necessarily caused by sexual desire, just other stimulations.

Originally Posted by Mantidor

I just feel extremely sorry for you, sex is the greatest gift that humans have.

Awww, shucks, you don't have too^^ I'm perfectly fine and healthy(and happy). Now people with STDs on the other hand........

Originally Posted by ZeppelinJ0

Get laid, then you'll understand.

Some asexual people I know have been laid, they either didn't mind or they didn't like it.