NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.ktk.ru/~cm/faqnew.htm

How interesting this movement is. Wasn't there a thread of this nature a while ago here?

Oh, here's a great quote:
Because a norm can't be determined by majority. Normal is not "like everybody", but "as it should be", "as optimal". In a psychiatric hospital the doctors are normal, not the patients, though the latter prevail in number. Totalitary governments were not normal, though supported by almost the entire fooled nations. Et cetera, et cetera. Of course, you can define "normal" as "conventional", but such a term would be purely statistical.
Huh?
Another:
Sex is a disease that combines features of drug addiction and paranoia; it requires healing like any other socially dangerous disease.
Okay then...

God, I love these people! Unless they get any sort of power, in which I will be terrified. It's interesting how the people who say this typically lack knowledge in general, such as is demonstrated all too clearly with their definition of normal. Terrible lexicography right there. There's also the psychological, physiological, and sociological problem with their whole concept, as well, to be fair.

I love how if you ask any person against sex whether they've had it or whether they truly love someone they say no... btw, hi again. It's Matt... again...

No, it makes perfect sense. And is entirely reasonable. Just not preferable.

btw, hi again. It's Matt... again...
:eek:
Where?
Eek!

:D

Q. Well, okay, but is it worth the trouble to deny yourself sex?
A. There is no trouble. During the transitional period there is a possibility of suffering withdrawal - as with all drugs. But eventually it comes to an end, and further sex-free life requires no effort, no "self-forcing". Problems arise only from involuntary abstinence, but with a voluntary decision to remove sex from life everything is OK. Sexual tension is like an itch; it will not hurt unless you scratch it.

Is reading this supposed to degrade me into being a non sexual being?

:eek:
Where?
Eek!

:D
:P if that's what I get for telling people off for you... lol

No, it makes perfect sense. And is entirely reasonable. Just not preferable.
Nope, not prefered at all.

This is nuts!

This is nuts!
More like "this is non-use of nuts".

No, it makes perfect sense. And is entirely reasonable. Just not preferable.
Name one sociological, psychological, or physiological disadvantage to sex besides the three I'm about to list. Volutnary abstinence allows one to concentrate on other matters one might find important. Abstienence also eliminates the threat of VD's from copulation. And finally, it eliminates sexual tensions that can be dangerous. There are no more. And the benefits are much more than the detriments.

Name one sociological, psychological, or physiological advantage to sex besides the three I'm about to list. Volutnary abstinence allows one to concentrate on other matters one might find important. Abstienence also eliminates the threat of VD's from copulation. And finally, it eliminates sexual tensions that can be dangerous. There are no more. And the benefits are much more than the detriments.
Hmm?
It seems your first two support abstinence, but your third doesn't.
Do I misunderstand?
On top of that, your first line says "Name one sociological, psychological, or physiological advantage to sex besides the three I'm about to list," when two of the list seem to be against sex.

Hmm?
It seems your first two support abstinence, but your third doesn't.
Do I misunderstand?
If you don't desire sex, then there is no tension as a result of those feelings. That is more from sexual feelings than actual sex itself.

On top of that, your first line says "Name one sociological, psychological, or physiological advantage to sex besides the three I'm about to list," when two of the list seem to be against sex.
Oops. I meant "disadvantage". I'll rememdy that posthaste.

Hmm?
It seems your first two support abstinence, but your third doesn't.
Do I misunderstand?
On top of that, your first line says "Name one sociological, psychological, or physiological advantage to sex besides the three I'm about to list," when two of the list seem to be against sex.
I didn't get it either, but I assumed it was jsut me being stupid... lol

I didn't get it either, but I assumed it was jsut me being stupid... lol
My bad. Typographical error.

Well, scratch 'antisexual' off my list of synonyms for nonsexuality... :D

I personally don't get what the big deal about sex is, but getting rid of it seems a bit silly... it's something that's too wired into humanity on a whole. And sex itself hasn't really caused any problems, I mean, one of the biggest things would be STI's and those can be avoided. Eh. Though I can't say I'd really be bothered one way or another if sex was ever banned.

My bad. Typographical error.
Okee Dokee then...

Sexual tension is like an itch; it will not hurt unless you scratch it.
oh, but scratching feels so good.

mmm...

and who seriously scratches itches until they hurt. i scratch my itch until it goes away and if it doesn't then i see a doctor about why i'm so damn itchy and probably get some kind of cream for it. but then i live in canada and can see a doctor whenever i want for free... i dont' know how things work when you have to pay for that kind of thing all the time.

If you don't desire sex, then there is no tension as a result of those feelings. That is more from sexual feelings than actual sex itself.
Ah.
Although, I don't see how one would get rid of the sex drive. They say it's possible through ignoring it here, but in practicality I haven't seen it happen. So, that's more theoretical than currently practical.

Then again, that doesn't matter, and I'm probably just ranting about something inconsequential.

Well, scratch 'antisexual' off my list of synonyms for nonsexuality... :D

I personally don't get what the big deal about sex is, but getting rid of it seems a bit silly... it's something that's too wired into humanity on a whole. And sex itself hasn't really caused any problems, I mean, one of the biggest things would be STI's and those can be avoided. Eh. Though I can't say I'd really be bothered one way or another if sex was ever banned.
And you're sure about that... *wonders how someone could ever say they wouldn't mind at all if sex was banned*

These people really need to get laid. :eek:

And you're sure about that... *wonders how someone could ever say they wouldn't mind at all if sex was banned*
Well, there are asexuals or nonsexuals, people without a desire for sex. They wouldn't care.
KK might be one of those. Or something else, I dunno.

oh, but scratching feels so good.

mmm...

and who seriously scratches itches until they hurt. i scratch my itch until it goes away and if it doesn't then i see a doctor about why i'm so damn itchy and probably get some kind of cream for it. but then i live in canada and can see a doctor whenever i want for free... i dont' know how things work when you have to pay for that kind of thing all the time.
I agree with you on that one...

lol... *sighs* that's great... Well at least in Cleveland, people usually don't see doctors when they're itchy...

Well, there are asexuals or nonsexuals, people without a desire for sex. They wouldn't care.
KK might be one of those. Or something else, I dunno.
That's bull. There is no way a person can not desire sex ever in their whole life, they can ignore the desire for sex and stay abistinent but they can't just not have sexual drive.

That's bull. There is no way a person can not desire sex ever in their whole life, they can ignore the desire for sex and stay abistinent but they can't just not have sexual drive.

This is completely untrue.

This is completely untrue.
It's my opinion, it can't be untrue. In my opinion there isn't a way to not experience a desire for sex at some point in your life.

That's bull. There is no way a person can not desire sex ever in their whole life, they can ignore the desire for sex and stay abistinent but they can't just not have sexual drive.
No, there seriously are. At least, there are a large group of people that say they don't have a desire for sex.

Anybody smart like Gnostikos reading still that might know a bit more about this and be able to enlighten us?

It's my opinion, it can't be untrue. In my opinion there isn't a way to not experience a desire for sex at some point in your life.

You hide behind "it's my opinion" when there is actual evidence to refute your point. There are human beings with no sex drive whatsoever. The fact that you have a sex drive doesn't mean that everyone does, anymore than the fact that I have blue eyes means that everyone else does.

No, there seriously are. At least, there are a large group of people that say they don't have a desire for sex.
That's nuts... How can you never in your life have a desire for sex. I've never known anyone who could truthfully say they don't desire sex. Maybe they haven't desired sex for awhile, but not never. I still don't think there are human beings that have never desired sex, I suppose there could be but I don't think so.

You hide behind "it's my opinion" when there is actual evidence to refute your point. There are human beings with no sex drive whatsoever. The fact that you have a sex drive doesn't mean that everyone does, anymore than the fact that I have blue eyes means that everyone else does.
I do hide behind it's my opinion, because it is my opinion. It has nothing to do with being proven wrong if I'm not sure about something but I have an opinion about it I would naturally say, "In my opinion".

That's nuts... How can you never in your life have a desire for sex. I've never met anyone who could truthfully say they don't desire sex. Maybe they haven't desired sex for awhile, but not never. I still don't think there are human beings that have never desired sex, I suppose there could be but I don't think so.

I've never seen a platypus. They don't exist. I am absolutely sure of this because I've never seen one.

I don't believe in the pyramids either.

I do hide behind it's my opinion, because it is my opinion. It has nothing to do with being proven wrong if I'm not sure about something but I have an opinion about it I would naturally say, "In my opinion".

It is my opinion that there is no sun.

It is my opinion that there are no people.

It is my opinion that George Bush has three heads.

It is my opinion that there is no sun.

It is my opinion that there are no people.

It is my opinion that George Bush has three heads.

I think all three things are true if you stand in the right place. :)

I've never seen a platypus. They don't exist. I am absolutely sure of this because I've never seen one.

I don't believe in the pyramids either.
I have seen a platypus and pyramids and they do exist.
What is your "proof" that someone hasn't felt something? How are they monitered? Not every time you have a sexual thought or a sexual feeling is it able to be seen by someone. You have what these people say is true, but at the same time I could say I'm a virgin when I'm not, so where is your refuting proof. Proof is fact that can reject all challenges, though a feeling can't be proven.

It is my opinion that there is no sun.

It is my opinion that there are no people.

It is my opinion that George Bush has three heads.
I wish he did, he might be a bit smarter if he did.

You hide behind "it's my opinion" when there is actual evidence to refute your point. There are human beings with no sex drive whatsoever. The fact that you have a sex drive doesn't mean that everyone does, anymore than the fact that I have blue eyes means that everyone else does.

The only human beings with no sex drive whatsoever are people too old to have one, people too young to have one, and people without hormones. Anyone else is lying to appear to be taking some kind of twisted moral high ground. A desire for sex is biologically induced, not consciously. If sex were like a drug that you were addicted to, virgin teenagers wouldn't have a sex drive. We all know how untrue that would be.

The only human beings with no sex drive whatsoever are people too old to have one, people too young to have one, and people without hormones. Anyone else is lying to appear to be taking some kind of twisted moral high ground. A desire for sex is biologically induced, not consciously.
That's exactly what asexuals/nonsexuals are. They aren't claiming a moral high ground or anything, they just have some wires crossed in the brain, to use a metaphor, and POOF! there goes the sex drive.

Or something like that, I probably don't know what I'm talking about.

That's nuts... How can you never in your life have a desire for sex. I've never known anyone who could truthfully say they don't desire sex. Maybe they haven't desired sex for awhile, but not never. I still don't think there are human beings that have never desired sex, I suppose there could be but I don't think so.

My point happened around age twelve. Barely. Then it just went pfft! Not that I noticed or anything, it's not as though I could compare it to what other people were feeling. Then I got talking to this friend of mine, really in depth stuff, and I am quite lacking in sex drive.

If sex were like a drug that you were addicted to, virgin teenagers wouldn't have a sex drive. We all know how untrue that would be.
Yep... I agree

Or something like that, I probably don't know what I'm talking about.
That's okay!

My point happened around age twelve. Barely. Then it just went pfft! Not that I noticed or anything, it's not as though I could compare it to what other people were feeling. Then I got talking to this friend of mine, really in depth stuff, and I am quite lacking in sex drive.
Interesting. I've never spoken with a person about this before.
I, myself, have little, as in I never enjoyed masturbation and felt no desire to do so, but I suppose that has more to do with my having gender identity disorder than anything else, so it probably doesn't count.

Wow. Somebody besides New Anthrus who agrees with me! Looks like I can finally have that "anti-sex pride" parade! We can't let the gays have all the parading fun!

people without hormones
However, people that lack in hormones also won't grow or go through puberty or be able to make adreneline, etc... So that's a gven exception since little kids don't have a sex drive till their hormones start acting up.

Interesting. I've never spoken with a person about this before.
I, myself, have little, as in I never enjoyed masturbation and felt no desire to do so, but I suppose that has more to do with my having gender identity disorder than anything else, so it probably doesn't count.
I've enever spoken about it, either, it is rather interesting when you think about it. Oh. Masterbation, what does this club thing that the website linked to think aout masterbating, is that evil, too?

Wow. Somebody besides New Anthrus who agrees with me! Looks like I can finally have that "anti-sex pride" parade! We can't let the gays have all the parading fun!

True, but that could be the most boring parade ever. No provocative costumes. No attractive beauty pageant-types on the floats. No clowns. :(

True, but that could be the most boring parade ever. No provocative costumes. No attractive beauty pageant-types on the floats. No clowns. :(
lol

Masterbation, what does this club thing that the website linked to think aout masterbating, is that evil, too?
Probably. Lemme check...

Ah.
http://www.ktk.ru/~cm/faqnew.htm#q14

They don't like it much.

Interesting. I've never spoken with a person about this before.
I, myself, have little, as in I never enjoyed masturbation and felt no desire to do so, but I suppose that has more to do with my having gender identity disorder than anything else, so it probably doesn't count.

I was never arsed about masturbation (the thought never really occured much through puberty) and now, I just can't be bothered. It seems like a mightly waste of time to me. :D

True, but that could be the most boring parade ever. No provocative costumes. No attractive beauty pageant-types on the floats. No clowns. :(
Well, clowns would be okay as long as they weren't having sex.
Unless clowns are somehow rooted in sex?
:D

Probably. Lemme check...

Ah.
http://www.ktk.ru/~cm/faqnew.htm#q14

They don't like it much.
Assumed as much...

True, but that could be the most boring parade ever. No provocative costumes. No attractive beauty pageant-types on the floats. No clowns. :(
Yes, but we tend to expend the energy we don't waste on various creative means. And I'm sure I can find several effigies to burn...

Well, clowns would be okay as long as they weren't having sex.
Unless clowns are somehow rooted in sex?
:D

Clown sex. It's a very common fetish.

Or so I'm told. :)

Well, clowns would be okay as long as they weren't having sex.
Unless clowns are somehow rooted in sex?
:D
Yep, those sexy clowns aren't allowed at the parade because they may provoke people to masterbate...

Sounds like the Junior AntiSex Leauge from 1984 to me.

Yes, but we tend to expend the energy we don't waste on various creative means. And I'm sure I can find several effigies to burn...

Burning fake people gets old fast. :(

Sounds like the Junior AntiSex Leauge from 1984 to me.
Sex doubleplusungood?
Hee. I had forgotten about them.

Yes, but we tend to expend the energy we don't waste on various creative means. And I'm sure I can find several effigies to burn...
lol... How about using the time that you normally sleep and just not sleep like most people do?

Burning fake people gets old fast. :(
So let's burn some real people!
:D

Here is a semi-recent article about asexuals from CNN

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/10/14/asexual.study/index.html

Sounds like the Junior AntiSex Leauge from 1984 to me.
*lol* Wow... good times...

Some of their replies may appear logical, but I notice that there is a consistent underlying assumption that sex is disgusting, ugly and stupid. When it is, in fact, the opposite.

So let's burn some real people!
:D

It works for the Buddhists.

Sex doubleplusungood?
Hee. I had forgotten about them.

Heh. At that point, the word "sex" probably didn't exist.

Here is a semi-recent article about asexuals from CNN

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/10/14/asexual.study/index.html
Cool. I wasn't aware they were getting media attention.

Excuse me, but did you just fill 5 pages, talking about anti- sex people? I don't care if you like having sex or not, and you apparently don't care If I do. So what is the point of this thread?

Some of their replies may appear logical, but I notice that there is a consistent underlying assumption that sex is disgusting, ugly and stupid. When it is, in fact, the opposite.
Exactly, a lot of virgins think of sex as barbaric and violent. It's not, it's delicate and elegant.

Excuse me, but did you just fill 5 pages, talking about anti- sex people? I don't care if you like having sex or not, and you apparently don't care If I do. So what is the point of this thread?
Yes we did.

I find it sad that anyone would look down on asexuality. People always write it off as having no benefits (when that is factually inacurate as people have often demonstrated.) It should be considered similar to being gay. Many people are the way they are, you should not judge them because they are just like us. And at the same time (just like with sexuality) the reasonableness (that a word?) of a given sexuality can appeal to people and generate 'converts'.

More than any other, this can be seen with asexuality.

Wow. Somebody besides New Anthrus who agrees with me! Looks like I can finally have that "anti-sex pride" parade! We can't let the gays have all the parading fun!

Hey I've been on your side since the very first Sex Is Bad post. I think I was one of the only people representing us for a few pages..

Excuse me, but did you just fill 5 pages, talking about anti- sex people?
Not quite, some of it was about a/nonsexuality.
I don't care if you like having sex or not, and you apparently don't care If I do. So what is the point of this thread?
Point?
Well, I think it left.
The original point was mostly that website, I guess.

I find it sad that anyone would look down on asexuality. People always write it off as having no benefits (when that is factually inacurate as people have often demonstrated.) It should be considered similar to being gay. Many people are the way they are, you should not judge them because they are just like us. And at the same time (just like with sexuality) the reasonableness (that a word?) of a given sexuality can appeal to people and generate 'converts'.

More than any other, this can be seen with asexuality.
Abstinence does have benefits, just not benefits I would give up making love to my wife for.

I find it sad that anyone would look down on asexuality. People always write it off as having no benefits (when that is factually inacurate as people have often demonstrated.) It should be considered similar to being gay. Many people are the way they are, you should not judge them because they are just like us. And at the same time (just like with sexuality) the reasonableness (that a word?) of a given sexuality can appeal to people and generate 'converts'.

More than any other, this can be seen with asexuality.

The really funny thing about asexuality/nonsexuality/anasexuality/whatever is that romantic attraction is still a possibility, and therefore we still fit into hetero, homo, bi sort of things, along with not feeling sexual attraction. I'm like bi-asexual or something. :D

The really funny thing about asexuality/nonsexuality/anasexuality/whatever is that romantic attraction is still a possibility, and therefore we still fit into hetero, homo, bi sort of things, along with not feeling sexual attraction. I'm like bi-asexual or something. :D
Okay... :headbang: well I don't like those labels anyway, so that's all very interesting...

Hey I've been on your side since the very first Sex Is Bad post. I think I was one of the only people representing us for a few pages..
Yeah, but I'm a veteran of Anthrus' first thread (Ban Sex) which was even earlier then the Sex is Bad one. But hey, did you check out that CNN article? It's not just the three of us! 1 out of 100 people is asexual!

Yeah, but I'm a veteran of Anthrus' first thread (Ban Sex) which was even earlier then the Sex is Bad one. But hey, did you check out that CNN article? It's not just the three of us! 1 out of 100 people is asexual!
Are you serious? How many are "bisexual" then? And "homosexual"?

Abstinence does have benefits, just not benefits I would give upmaking love to my wife for.
It's a flaw of our culture, but I suppose it has to be forgiven at this point. It is very common for us to seek the "quick fix" of the random moment, trying to substitute its temporary joy for a solution to problems really affecting our lives.

Sex isn't the issue alone. It's about a value system where sex is the foremost issue of concern. Forcing yourself to be abstinent without understanding why and what the benefits are is just as wrong as sex is. But directing your life torward real contribution and benefit to mankind, re-enforcing our TRUE values rather than going astray is what this is about. It just so happens that sex is the centerpoint of our flawed value system which is almost universally endorsed by everyone in the world today.

I am serious, CC. Viola! http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/10/14/asexual.study/index.html

Yeah, but I'm a veteran of Anthrus' first thread (Ban Sex) which was even earlier then the Sex is Bad one. But hey, did you check out that CNN article? It's not just the three of us! 1 out of 100 people is asexual!

Sorry.. that's the one I meant. I don't think I even had too much involvement in the Sex is Bad one.

It's a flaw of our culture, but I suppose it has to be forgiven at this point. It is very common for us to seek the "quick fix" of the random moment, trying to substitute its temporary joy for a solution to problems really affecting our lives.
I disagree, I don't believe sex is a "quick-fix". Sex is an expression of emotional significant. Sex is also beneficial in developing a truly satisfying relationship to a majority of people.

Okay... :headbang: well I don't like those labels anyway, so that's all very interesting...

Labels huh? Well, you can take it in that light, but really what else are you supposed to use? Terms like that are simply a way of getting across an idea quickly... like 'bi-asexual' would translate out to 'person who is not sexually attracted to people, but is romantically open to both genders'. To me it's a label in the same way that gravity is a label for 'the force that stops us from falling into the sky'.

Labels huh? Well, you can take it in that light, but really what else are you supposed to use? Terms like that are simply a way of getting across an idea quickly... like 'bi-asexual' would translate out to 'person who is not sexually attracted to people, but is romantically open to both genders'. To me it's a label in the same way that gravity is a label for 'the force that stops us from falling into the sky'.
Well then techinically I could be considered hetero-bisexual. In other words I have been atracted to people of both genders but yet I'm most sexually attracted to women and I'm in a permenant romantic relationship with a woman.

I disagree, I don't believe sex is a "quick-fix". Sex is an expression of emotional significant. Sex is also beneficial in developing a truly satisfying relationship to a majority of people.
CC, you asked me if I was serious. Just notifying you that I provided proof a few posts back that you may have missed.

Normal is not "like everybody", but "as it should be", "as optimal".

WTF? You can't just change what words mean!

CC, you asked me if I was serious. Just notifying you that I provided proof a few posts back that you may have missed.
If it was a link then yes I missed it because my computer will not allow me to load many websites at a time, namely two.

WTF? You can't just change what words mean!
That doesn't seem to stop those guys, though.
:D

That doesn't seem to stop those guys, though.
:D
Apparantly not.

Well then techinically I could be considered hetero-bisexual. In other words I have been atracted to people of both genders but yet I'm most sexually attracted to women and I'm in a permenant romantic relationship with a woman.

Sure, I guess, though it does almost seem contradictory. It's whatever goes, everyone has there own degree of heterosexuality to homosexuality and their own degree of sexuality to nonsexuality. You decide what you consider yourself.

and who seriously scratches itches until they hurt.
I do sometimes, and my dog does it all the time when he has an ear infection. Even though it hurts, the pleasure gained from scratching it more and more outweighs the pain. It is a bad case of positive feedback until it starts to hurt more than is reasonable, which I rarely reach. But, then again, I also enjoy depression.

I agree with you on that one...

lol... *sighs* that's great... Well at least in Cleveland, people usually don't see doctors when they're itchy...
It's not because of not seeing a doctor, it's because, according to my self-diagnosis, it is not necessary. If I had, say, itchy open lesions, then yes, I would go see a doctor.

My point happened around age twelve. Barely. Then it just went pfft! Not that I noticed or anything, it's not as though I could compare it to what other people were feeling. Then I got talking to this friend of mine, really in depth stuff, and I am quite lacking in sex drive.
This is what I've heard happens with most nonsexuals. They experience a brief period of libido, then it dies off.

Wow. Somebody besides New Anthrus who agrees with me! Looks like I can finally have that "anti-sex pride" parade! We can't let the gays have all the parading fun!
You do, of course, realise what the protesters will be doing? ;)

Burning fake people gets old fast. :(
For you, perhaps.

So let's burn some real people!
:D
Though this isn't a bad suggestion!

Exactly, a lot of virgins think of sex as barbaric and violent. It's not, it's delicate and elegant.
A lot? The virgins I know, including myself, do not exactly think that way.

I find it sad that anyone would look down on asexuality. People always write it off as having no benefits (when that is factually inacurate as people have often demonstrated.) It should be considered similar to being gay. Many people are the way they are, you should not judge them because they are just like us. And at the same time (just like with sexuality) the reasonableness (that a word?) of a given sexuality can appeal to people and generate 'converts'.

More than any other, this can be seen with asexuality.
Almost. I don't look down on nonsexuals, though I do feel some pity. It's not the same as homosexuality or bisexuality on an individual level, but socially should be viewed that way, in my opinion.

The really funny thing about asexuality/nonsexuality/anasexuality/whatever is that romantic attraction is still a possibility, and therefore we still fit into hetero, homo, bi sort of things, along with not feeling sexual attraction. I'm like bi-asexual or something. :D
Nonsexuality is the best term to use. Non- means "not or lacking", and is actually Latin in origin, unlike the homo- in homosexual. A- comes from the Latin ab, "away from", so is less suitable. But anasexual has no contemporary meaning whatsoever. Ana- means "upward; backward; anew". It has many meanings, but none fit here.

WTF? You can't just change what words mean!
Indeed! Terrible lexicography, I must say!

Nonsexuality is the best term to use. Non- means "not or lacking", and is actually Latin in origin, unlike the homo- in homosexual. A- comes from the Latin ab, "away from", so is less suitable. But anasexual has no contemporary meaning whatsoever. Ana- means "upward; backward; anew". It has many meanings, but none fit here.
I think we should start a new movement.
Hrm, what's a good prefix?
How about "quasi-"?
Quasisexuality?

Sure, I guess, though it does almost seem contradictory. It's whatever goes, everyone has there own degree of heterosexuality to homosexuality and their own degree of sexuality to nonsexuality. You decide what you consider yourself.
I know it's contradictory, which is another reason I hate those lables.

Nonsexuality is the best term to use. Non- means "not or lacking", and is actually Latin in origin, unlike the homo- in homosexual. A- comes from the Latin ab, "away from", so is less suitable. But anasexual has no contemporary meaning whatsoever. Ana- means "upward; backward; anew". It has many meanings, but none fit here.
a- also is Greek for "not or lacking"

I disagree, I don't believe sex is a "quick-fix". Sex is an expression of emotional significant. Sex is also beneficial in developing a truly satisfying relationship to a majority of people.

I wasn't saying that in all and every situation that that is the ultimate definition of sex. I was saying that it is often the case. What else would you call a man employing a hooker for 15 minutes at midnight on the way home from work?

And is there absolutley no element of a 'quick fix' in typical sex, ever? Would you really say that it plays no part at all? The answer is it does, and it plays a larger part than many people would want to think.

I understand what you mean when you call sex beneficial- it is the popular viewpoint of society after all. But it bases itself on a flawed value judgement. If sex is where you derive the value of your relationship and not the character of the person you are with, that is a flawed value judgement. If you value people based on how good they are at sex rather than their qualities as a person, I don't think you are being a fair judge of people.

But can you have it both ways? Most people say they can. That oh they enjoy sex and are with an attractive person but at the same time they value their partner as a person. While I won't disagree, I will say that if sex is the basis of that relationship you will not help but to judge them on it, and the extent to which you do is the extent to which you neglect their true values of character.

It's not an abscence of love or emotion, it is the highest form of it- to be able to value people for who they truly are and not for looks or sex.

If it was a link then yes I missed it because my computer will not allow me to load many websites at a time, namely two.
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/10/14/asexual.study/index.html

Almost. I don't look down on nonsexuals, though I do feel some pity. It's not the same as homosexuality or bisexuality on an individual level, but socially should be viewed that way, in my opinion.


Ok. We could argue over whether to call it a sexuality but I think we are all on common ground here. It is a stance torward sexuality as atheism is a stance torward religion. That's probably the best way to look at it.

no sex i go completely banana's without it :D

Nonsexuality is the best term to use. Non- means "not or lacking", and is actually Latin in origin, unlike the homo- in homosexual. A- comes from the Latin ab, "away from", so is less suitable. But anasexual has no contemporary meaning whatsoever. Ana- means "upward; backward; anew". It has many meanings, but none fit here.

Whoo! Learn something new every day! Dunno, got anasexual/ansexual off a site, they had it meaning something different. Another one to cross off the list then!

Sexual tension is like an itch; it will not hurt unless you scratch it.

These people have never had chicken pox.

Well, Bunglejinx, I personally believe the whole idea of romantic relationships is wrong. It is utterly pointless, as it gives no benefit besides empty feelings of pleasure. A waste of time, I say!

Ok. We could argue over whether to call it a sexuality but I think we are all on common ground here. It is a stance torward sexuality as atheism is a stance torward religion. That's probably the best way to look at it.

A stance seems a funny way to look at it... I mean, as far as I know, you don't choose nonsexuality any more than you choose whether you're homosexual or heterosexually. It's just the way you're wired.

I wasn't saying that in all and every situation that that is the ultimate definition of sex. I was saying that it is often the case. What else would you call a man employing a hooker for 15 minutes at midnight on the way home from work?

And is there absolutley no element of a 'quick fix' in typical sex, ever? Would you really say that it plays no part at all? The answer is it does, and it plays a larger part than many people would want to think.

I understand what you mean when you call sex beneficial- it is the popular viewpoint of society after all. But it bases itself on a flawed value judgement. If sex is where you derive the value of your relationship and not the character of the person you are with, that is a flawed value judgement. If you value people based on how good they are at sex rather than their qualities as a person, I don't think you are being a fair judge of people.

But can you have it both ways? Most people say they can. That oh they enjoy sex and are with an attractive person but at the same time they value their partner as a person. While I won't disagree, I will say that if sex is the basis of that relationship you will not help but to judge them on it, and the extent to which you do is the extent to which you neglect their true values of character.

It's not an abscence of love or emotion, it is the highest form of it- to be able to value people for who they truly are and not for looks or sex.
That's why I sais mostly bacuasue I understand that there are occassions that sex isn't morally right.
I agree with most of society then because I do value my wife as a person and yet I still enjoy sex with her.

I think we should start a new movement.
Hrm, what's a good prefix?
How about "quasi-"?
Quasisexuality?
No. Quasi- means that it is in some sense or degree. People who have little libido, not none, could be considered quasisexual.

a- also is Greek for "not or lacking"
Yes, yes, there is also the Greek a- and an- meaning "not", but only the Latin derivative includes the "lacking" aspect as well. And plus, it doesn't bastardise the languages.

But can you have it both ways? Most people say they can. That oh they enjoy sex and are with an attractive person but at the same time they value their partner as a person. While I won't disagree, I will say that if sex is the basis of that relationship you will not help but to judge them on it, and the extent to which you do is the extent to which you neglect their true values of character.
So basically you're saying that platonic love is the only true love? You are demonstrating your ignorance right there.

Ok. We could argue over whether to call it a sexuality but I think we are all on common ground here. It is a stance torward sexuality as atheism is a stance torward religion. That's probably the best way to look at it.
No, not really. Most nonsexuals don't proselytise, only the extremists who probably do not have it for physiological reasons, but psychological. And, no, it is either an inborn characteristic or a choice, and should not be compared to things like religion, in my opinion. I see the analogy clearly, but don't think it's appropriate for this discussion.

Don't call me ignorant but I don't have time to read all I missed... I would but then I'd miss even more.

Whoa, I can't believe a thread of mine lasted to 100 posts.
Usually, they die after 3 pages, and I hadn't thought any serious discussion would come out of this.
Cool.
:)

Whoa, I can't believe a thread of mine lasted to 100 posts.
Usually, they die after 3 pages, and I hadn't thought any serious discussion would come out of this.
Cool.
:)
Congrats...

These people have never had chicken pox.
Smallpox makes your entire skin itch like nothing you can ever imagine. Not to mention the fact that it feels like it's on fire.

Well, Bunglejinx, I personally believe the whole idea of romantic relationships is wrong. It is utterly pointless, as it gives no benefit besides empty feelings of pleasure. A waste of time, I say!
I can never remember this, despite having probably read it many times--have you ever fallen in love? And, if so, have you ever had a good romantic relationship?

No. Quasi- means that it is in some sense or degree. People who have little libido, not none, could be considered quasisexual.
I was joking about creating a new, useless movement, with a prefix that doesn't make much sense in that context.
Unfortunately, it seems that prefix can make sense there.
Foiled again!
:(

Hey all im jsut addin my two bits........I dont have a girlfriend now, and i have had sex..........i dont rly care either way........i mean i never had an "itch" for it but im not against it. I think if its done with somewhat responsibility then go for it.....and....now im off my soap box.

That's why I sais mostly bacuasue I understand that there are occassions that sex isn't morally right.
I agree with most of society then because I do value my wife as a person and yet I still enjoy sex with her.

Ok I respect your opinion on the issue, but as I said before, I think sex is something you enjoy, but not something that makes your wife your wife. I think you chose her because of who she is as a person and not because of the sex. It's just a background component to a bigger picture.

Don't mistake sex as a value of character, because it's not. It's primal, it doesn't care about people. But MANY people make the mistake of replacing sex or sex appeal with actual virtues of character when they judge people.

Well, Bunglejinx, I personally believe the whole idea of romantic relationships is wrong. It is utterly pointless, as it gives no benefit besides empty feelings of pleasure. A waste of time, I say!

We agree here. I think relationships of typical kinds: friends, etc. are ok and that is what I was justifying. But romantic relationships we are both against.

Yes, yes, there is also the Greek a- and an- meaning "not", but only the Latin derivative includes the "lacking" aspect as well. And plus, it doesn't bastardise the languages.

Hehe. Bastardizing foreign languages is what the English language is all about. Homo-sexual for example. I love the quote:

"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."

Ok I respect your opinion on the issue, but as I said before, I think sex is something you enjoy, but not something that makes your wife your wife. I think you chose her because of who she is as a person and not because of the sex. It's just a background component to a bigger picture.

Don't mistake sex as a value of character, because it's not. It's primal, it doesn't care about people. But MANY people make the mistake of replacing sex or sex appeal with actual virtues of character when they judge people.
I agree with you on that. That's exactly what I was trying to get across if I was unclear.
I know it's not.

Don't mistake sex as a value of character, because it's not. It's primal, it doesn't care about people. But MANY people make the mistake of replacing sex or sex appeal with actual virtues of character when they judge people.
Not as many as you'd think, I would guess. Does anyone have any statistics for this?

Hehe. Bastardizing foreign languages is what the English language is all about. Homo-sexual for example.
Oh, I know. I even contemplated putting that in my post. Homosexual is my most popular example of bastardisation. But I make my best effort to reduce it.

I love the quote:

"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
That's awesome! Who said it?

Ok I am not going to spend any time arguing over definitions with you, Gnostikos. If you would have used a different word here or there, fine, and persisting reeks of belligerence and a stronger concern for belittling than for actual content. I'm trying to deal with the content.

So basically you're saying that platonic love is the only true love? You are demonstrating your ignorance right there.

Virtue of character, or sex appeal? Which one should you judge people on?

That's awesome! Who said it?
James D. Nicoll, though I'm not sure what he was noted for other than this quote

Not as many as you'd think, I would guess. Does anyone have any statistics for this?

One good was to judge is by advertising. What values do a vast majority of advertisements appeal to? If you think they deal straightforwardly with relevant and purposeful values, and never ever have tried to appeal to people's primal, less rational urges, you'd be sorely mistaken.

Ok I am not going to spend any time arguing over definitions with you, Gnostikos. If you would have used a different word here or there, fine, and persisting reeks of belligerence and a stronger concern for belittling than for actual contenct. I'm trying to deal with the content.
Yes, I get this type of thing a lot. I was really into words and language a few years ago, and still have some of that left over.

Virtue of character, or sex appeal? Which one should you judge people on?
In my opinion, the former, naturally. However, sexual appeal is a very important trait in any organism, since that is one of the ways that sexually reproducing life propagates. Why do you think peacocks have huge, colourful tails? The answer isn't about survivability, I can tell you that. It has a little somethign to do with peahens.

James D. Nicoll, though I'm not sure what he was noted for other than this quote
Enough for me!

One good was to judge is by advertising. What values do a vast majority of advertisements appeal to? If you think they deal straightforwardly with relevant and purposeful values, and never ever have tried to appeal to people's primal, less rational urges, you'd be sorely mistaken.
What's your point? That propaganda appeals to the irrational part of humans? That's been scientifically documented. I can not remember when it was that people suddenly realised that humans are not rational beings. In the U.S., I believe it was the '20's.

In my opinion, the former, naturally. However, sexual appeal is a very important trait in any organism, since that is one of the ways that sexually reproducing life propagates. Why do you think peacocks have huge, colourful tails? The answer isn't about survivability, I can tell you that. It has a little somethign to do with peahens.

Agreed. However I don't think that justifies sex appeal as a valid form of judgement, but only as a prejudiced and flawed way of looking at things, and it would be better off if we could make progress by having to appeal to base, irrational things (like the peacocks and how colorful their tails are! ;) )

Back again... not that any of you would like to see me back here arguing again...

What's your point?
Remember? I said:

Don't mistake sex as a value of character, because it's not. It's primal, it doesn't care about people. But MANY people make the mistake of replacing sex or sex appeal with actual virtues of character when they judge people.

and you said:

Not as many as you'd think, I would guess. Does anyone have any statistics for this?

You were saying that people don't make value judgements based on sex appeal. I was using advertisements to show that they in fact DO.

Agreed. However I don't think that justifies sex appeal as a valid form of judgement, but only as a prejudiced and flawed way of looking at things, and it would be better off if we could make progress by having to appeal to base, irrational things (like the peacocks and how colorful their tails are! ;) )
But reproduction is the goal of all life. What is most condusive to that is what is best to have.

You were saying that people don't make value judgements based on sex appeal. I was using advertisements to show that they in fact DO.
I don't, but I do not want to impose my values on others.

But reproduction is the goal of all life.
Not nessessarily.

Not nessessarily.
When isn't it?

But reproduction is the goal of all life. What is most condusive to that is what is best to have.

See here I disagree. I think there is more to life than reproduction. And I don't think that when people are looking at victoria secret models that sex pops in their head because they want to preserve the human race by reproduction. I think there are other motives. (i.e. sex for the joy of it.)

I think life is for making the most of yourself, and contributing to society and leaving the world as a better place. Reproduction is only done so we can do that.

When isn't it?
There are other things that people can do with their life besides have children. Though my wife is expecting, there are plenty of people that have decided that they would rather practice safe sex or no sex and concentrate on better things.

I don't, but I do not want to impose my values on others.
You DON'T beleive people make value judgements on sex appeal? From the person who just said this?

What's your point? That propaganda appeals to the irrational part of humans? That's been scientifically documented. I can not remember when it was that people suddenly realised that humans are not rational beings. In the U.S., I believe it was the '20's.

You don't think sex could possibly be considered a part of the irrational desire of humans under any circumstance???

See here I disagree. I think there is more to life than reproduction. And I don't think that when people are looking at victoria secret models that sex pops in their head because they want to preserve the human race by reproduction. I think there are other motives. (i.e. sex for the joy of it.)

I think life is for making the most of yourself, and contributing to society and leaving the world as a better place. Reproduction is only done so we can do that.
Well, someone that is in a truly healthy relationship (which doesn't have to be sexual) doesn't think of sex when they see sexual things. I'll admit if you are horny it happens, but it's not just cause of sexual stuff alone.

Though my wife is expecting...
Congrats!!! :D

Well, someone that is in a truly healthy relationship (which doesn't have to be sexual) doesn't think of sex when they see sexual things. I'll admit if you are horny it happens, but it's not just cause of sexual stuff alone.

Yeah that makes sense. Adds don't ONLY cause primitive sexual thoughts.

See here I disagree. I think there is more to life than reproduction. And I don't think that when people are looking at victoria secret models that sex pops in their head because they want to preserve the human race by reproduction. I think there are other motives. (i.e. sex for the joy of it.)
Ahh yes, but why do they feel those urges?

I think life is for making the most of yourself, and contributing to society and leaving the world as a better place. Reproduction is only done so we can do that.
Do bacteria think that?

There are other things that people can do with their life besides have children. Though my wife is expecting, there are plenty of people that have decided that they would rather practice safe sex or no sex and concentrate on better things.
But do they matter in the long run? In ecological or evolutionary time?

Congrats!!! :D
Thanks! :)

Yeah that makes sense. Adds don't ONLY cause primitive sexual thoughts.
True true...

Ahh yes, but why do they feel those urges?
Probably because it is cool and acceptable in society to fall to those urges even if unreasonable, mixed with the fact that we are programmed to desire it and feel joy for it, so that our species might continue.

Do bacteria think that?
I see what you are saying. But I think that that is exactly what makes humans different from bacteria.

Ahh yes, but why do they feel those urges?


Do bacteria think that?


But do they matter in the long run? In ecological or evolutionary time?
Dude, my main goal in life is to provide for a family and to love them, all I'm saying is that some people's aren't.
About those urges, you mean horniness, I assume, um well that's hormonal.

You DON'T beleive people make value judgements on sex appeal? From the person who just said this?
I do believe that many do. However, that is their choice, and not mine. It leaves the less superficial women for me. :D

You don't think sex could possibly be considered a part of the irrational desire of humans under any circumstance???
It is. Under pretty much every circumstance.

Probably because it is cool and acceptable in society to fall to those urges even if unreasonable, mixed with the fact that we are programmed to desire it and feel joy for it, so that our species might continue.


I see what you are saying. But I think that that is exactly what makes humans different from bacteria.
I disagree, but that's okay.
Humans are very different from bacteria, I really don't think that's a good compairison myself...

I do believe that many do. However, that is their choice, and not mine. It leaves the less superficial women for me. :D


It is. Under pretty much every circumstance.

Then we agree. Sex can appeal to baser and irrational values.

From that you can argue: it would be right to stop with the base and irrational values we always fall victim to.. which is what I am saying.

Probably because it is cool and acceptable in society to fall to those urges even if unreasonable, mixed with the fact that we are programmed to desire it and feel joy for it, so that our species might continue.
Thank you.

I see what you are saying. But I think that that is exactly what makes humans different from bacteria.
But we're both form of life.

About those urges, you mean horniness, I assume, um well that's hormonal.
Why do the sex hormones do that, though?

Humans are very different from bacteria, I really don't think that's a good compairison myself...
Again, we're all life with a similar goal of propagation.

I disagree, but that's okay.
Humans are very different from bacteria, I really don't think that's a good compairison myself...
That's cool. I just think that what makes us humans is that we are complex and care about more than just the survival of the species. We are capable of thoughts and values and unique concepts and all of that. So I think we are nothing like bacteria and if bacteria think differently, so be it. We aren't the same as bacteria.

From that you can argue: it would be right to stop with the base and irrational values we always fall victim to.. which is what I am saying.
But if it is natural, why do so?

Thank you.
Sure thing. I thought it was an agreeable point in general.

However I don't think that when we think sex appeal we think "propagate the human race"

We aren't the same as bacteria.
We share the same basic components. Deoxyribonucleic acid.

Why do the sex hormones do that, though?


Again, we're all life with a similar goal of propagation.
It's a sexual drive to continue the race, why wouldn't sexual beings have that? freaking plants even have that because they they periodically release seeds at the appropriate time or when distrubed in many cases.

Plants are also a form of life, so are we very similar to them, they are entirely designed to live, reporduce and die, why are we capable of so much more if thats our purpose?

Personally, I came here for the tacos. Sex is a perk. :)

However I don't think that when we think sex appeal we think "propagate the human race"
No, but that is why we like sex so much. It is advantageous to the propagation of the species to think like that. It's evolution, baby!

We share the same basic components. Deoxyribonucleic acid.
Why are we capable of so much more then? Why is it that many different species exist not only one type if we are all the same?

It's a sexual drive to continue the race, why wouldn't sexual beings have that? freaking plants even have that because they they periodically release seeds at the appropriate time or when distrubed in many cases.
Sexual pleasure is a very recent and highly evolved characteristic. Only humans and dolphins actually feel sexual pleasure, neurologically speaking.

Plants are also a form of life, so are we very similar to them, they are entirely designed to live, reporduce and die, why are we capable of so much more if thats our purpose?
Because that has been advantageous to our propagation.

Sexual pleasure is a very recent and highly evolved characteristic. Only humans and dolphins actually feel sexual pleasure, neurologically speaking.


Because that has been advantageous to our propagation.
and monkeys, technically, but i disagree with that cause my dog and cat fuck things every time my wife and i are in bed together, i dont know why but everytime i find a sweatshirt or something wet and indented/folded in interesting positions, so i dont think i agree with that casue my pets masterbate.

No, but that is why we like sex so much. It is advantageous to the propagation of the species to think like that. It's evolution, baby!

We can still understand the purpose of reproduction WITHOUT AT THE SAME TIME HAVING TO PERMIT IRRATIONAL DESIRES AND FLAWED VALUE SYSTEMS. The latter is NOT advantageous to us.

About bacteria, that we have similar DNA is entirely irrelevent. Bacteria is not capable of valuing and thinking on the same level as us. Just because we have similar DNA as them doesn't mean we should have to emulate their values as a species. I have the same hair color as a guy named Joe. I like baseball.. Joe has to like baseball!

It's totally irrelevant and again you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing and straying from the point.

But if it is natural, why do so?
It's also natural to hate people different than us. To want to solve a problem by resorting to violence, to want to steal. Greed is natural. If it is natural, but also has negative impacts on humanity, we should do what we can to curb it's ill effects.

It's also natural to hate people different than us. To want to solve a problem by resorting to violence, to want to steal. Greed is natural. If it is natural, but also has negative impacts on humanity, we should do what we can to curb it's ill effects.
But love is natural also...

and monkeys, technically, but i disagree with that cause my dog and cat fuck things every time my wife and i are in bed together, i dont know why but everytime i find a sweatshirt or something wet and indented/folded in interesting positions, so i dont think i agree with that casue my pets masterbate.
That doesn't mean they enjoy it. Urge to copulate does not equate pleasure. Only in our limited subjective experience. And monkey's don't actually feel pleasure, though it's analogous.

Sexual pleasure is a very recent and highly evolved characteristic. Only humans and dolphins actually feel sexual pleasure, neurologically speaking.

I heard that but I find it tough to beleive. I mean there is a form of monkey that just rub their genitals together without having sex. It doesn't impregnate the female monkey but they do it anyway.

And if a sexual pleasure is a new, recent thing, and all this time we got along without it, why is it suddenly necessary now? At the age of cavemen when we didn't understand things such as propogation and preserving our species a drive that appeals to primal urges would have been necessary. If they could do it, as you say, without any pleasure, why is it sudennly needed now in an age that fully understands the importance of propogation?

And why is it right that it should have to come with all these side concequences like making stupid girls popular and ugly people who are actually good at heart ignored? We have to permit that?

That doesn't mean they enjoy it. Urge to copulate does not equate pleasure. Only in our limited subjective experience. And monkey's don't actually feel pleasure, though it's analogous.
They totally enjoy it, maybe not but that's okay... I still think they feel pleasure cause when my cat grooms himself he gets erected. I guess it has something to do with the fact that animals sense humans or whatever, guess the fact that me and my wife are in bed arouses them or something.

But love is natural also...
Good emotions and drives should be promoted. I'm not against ALL natural drives, only those that harm us.

Good emotions and drives should be promoted. I'm not against ALL natural drives, only those that harm us.
I don't feel that a sexual drive harms us.

and people without hormones.

Bingo! There are people who lack the levels of certain hormones needed to produce a sex drive. Congratulations, you win.

I don't feel that a sexual drive harms us.

The part of it that irrationaly values it as if it is a virtue of character. I mentioned this before. We often value people based on their sex appeal rather than based on their virtue of character. That is harmful, that we would rather be impressed by how hot someone is rather than who they are as a person..

We can still understand the purpose of reproduction WITHOUT AT THE SAME TIME HAVING TO PERMIT IRRATIONAL DESIRES AND FLAWED VALUE SYSTEMS. The latter is NOT advantageous to us.
It's obviously not too flawed if we're alive today.

About bacteria, that we have similar DNA is entirely irrelevent. Bacteria is not capable of valuing and thinking on the same level as us. Just because we have similar DNA as them doesn't mean we should have to emulate their values as a species. I have the same hair color as a guy named Joe. I like baseball.. Joe has to like baseball!
Really? Because DNA has the same ultimate goal--self replication.

It's totally irrelevant and again you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing and straying from the point.
No, I'm arguing for the sake of biology and evolution.

It's also natural to hate people different than us. To want to solve a problem by resorting to violence, to want to steal. Greed is natural. If it is natural, but also has negative impacts on humanity, we should do what we can to curb it's ill effects.
True, but the difference is that there are victims in one and none in the other.

The part of it that irrationaly values it as if it is a virtue of character. I mentioned this before. We often value people based on their sex appeal rather than based on their virtue of character. That is harmful, that we would rather be impressed by how hot someone is rather than who they are as a person..
But we don't always, so that it's always able to be applied. Take for example you admire someone and you hapen to think they are also attractive, however you like them more than how attractive you find them to be.

I heard that but I find it tough to beleive. I mean there is a form of monkey that just rub their genitals together without having sex. It doesn't impregnate the female monkey but they do it anyway.
That has social advantages. Not individual.

And if a sexual pleasure is a new, recent thing, and all this time we got along without it, why is it suddenly necessary now?
It is not suddenly necessary. It has suddenly evolved. There's a bid difference.

At the age of cavemen when we didn't understand things such as propogation and preserving our species a drive that appeals to primal urges would have been necessary. If they could do it, as you say, without any pleasure, why is it sudennly needed now in an age that fully understands the importance of propogation?
Animals want to have sex. It is natural. But there is no sexual pleasure as we know it, according to neurological scans.

And why is it right that it should have to come with all these side concequences like making stupid girls popular and ugly people who are actually good at heart ignored? We have to permit that?
We can not force people to like anything. Only through propaganda can we do so, which is fundamentally wrong to me.

They totally enjoy it, maybe not but that's okay... I still think they feel pleasure cause when my cat grooms himself he gets erected. I guess it has something to do with the fact that animals sense humans or whatever, guess the fact that me and my wife are in bed arouses them or something.
Wrong. There is no sexual pleasure there. It is an empathetic occurance, that when others are in heat, so are they. Empathetic oestrus, I'd say. And pleasure does not equate sexual pleasure, either.

But we don't always, so that it's always able to be applied. Take for example you admire someone and you hapen to think they are also attractive, however you like them more than how attractive you find them to be.
I'll give you a more specific example. Morrissey, a wonderful singer, amazing lyricist, etc, happens to be very attractive and I happen to find him extramly sexually appealing, however that doesnt make me respect him or his music more or less, he could be hugely fat and mutated and id still love his music.

Wrong. There is no sexual pleasure there. It is an empathetic occurance, that when others are in heat, so are they. Empathetic oestrus, I'd say. And pleasure does not equate sexual pleasure, either.
That's really sort of weird, but I guess it really isn't since it's natural and all it's just kind of weird that it all rubs off on them.

Ok I will go so sleep now but I am sure plenty of people will disagree with Gnostico's unrealistic viewpoint when they wake up to read this tommorow. This thread will continue.

Ok I will go so sleep now but I am sure plenty of people will disagree with Gnostico's unrealistic viewpoint when they wake up to read this tommorow. This thread will continue.
I'm going to leave also, night everyone!

Ok I will go so sleep now but I am sure plenty of people will disagree with Gnostico's unrealistic viewpoint when they wake up to read this tommorow. This thread will continue.
Read some biology. It's a basic concept of evolutionary biology. The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins comes to mind.

...

Sex drive, like everything else we do, is due to the brain works.

If that brain is abnormal in some sense, it can very well have an abnormal or non-existant reaction to sexuality.

Consider this: Humans do not, on average, have many things there are sexual towards. There's a huge number of things (damned near anything in existance, and many things NOT in existance) that one could, in theory, be sexual towards (After all, not every living creature on the planet wants to hump a human, so, obviously, there are other possibilities).

The sheer variety of fetishists in the world should make this clear.
Not only do some people find themselves sexually attracted to fictional human-like non-humans (furries, aliens, robots, etc), but to animals of any variety (I had the recent misfortune to be let in on a net-associate's disgusting little secret.. egh), to organic matter (interest in body products, sexual and otherwise, is fairly common), and, of course, to objects, like all those leather fetishists and such.

Now, are -all- of you sexually interested in -all- of those things?

Asexual people just happen to have an extra number of non-interests than the rest of us.

Objectively speaking, it's a rather odd sort of thing we do. We (in the case of males in regards to others, at least) take a bodily probe and shove it in to another organism with the primary intent of inserting fluid in to them which our bodies intend to -remain inside them to fester and be absorbed-. In the case of women, they're generally trying to give something a massage with their internal organs, and, if it's a male, their body is trying to more or less feed off of what comes out of his urinating projector.

That said, sex is damned fun.

Objectively speaking, it's a rather odd sort of thing we do. We (in the case of males in regards to others, at least) take a bodily probe and shove it in to another organism with the primary intent of inserting fluid in to them which our bodies intend to -remain inside them to fester and be absorbed-. In the case of women, they're generally trying to give something a massage with their internal organs, and, if it's a male, their body is trying to more or less feed off of what comes out of his urinating projector.
Copulation is pretty similar in all organism.

Sounds like the Junior AntiSex Leauge from 1984 to me.

Curses, you took my post. :(

Well, you got to it first, it's yours. :)

what are they on about? really religion is the thing that causes most wars. maybe we should get rid of that first.

Copulation is pretty similar in all organism.

Indeed.

And it's certainly an amusing little set up, no?

Running around squirting in each other.

:fluffle:

Indeed.

And it's certainly an amusing little set up, no?

Running around squirting in each other.

:fluffle:

Powders are too messy. :p

I wonder what sex would be like if we had the little 'gel caps' like octopi do...

I wonder what sex would be like if we had the little 'gel caps' like octopi do...

Like a game of Paintball. :D

Indeed.

And it's certainly an amusing little set up, no?

Running around squirting in each other.
Spiders actually don't squirt. They use two appendages that are also used for other purposes, and cover them in sperm.

Powders are too messy. :p
For most animals, yes.

I wonder what sex would be like if we had the little 'gel caps' like octopi do...
Octopodes! Octopi is no a word.

No one probably cares but there's also a condition called 'hypoactive sexual desire' in which a person's sex drive is, for either physiological or psychological reasons, unusually low, if not entirely absent. I think I may suffer from this myself; as a teenager, I never understood all the people who said things during sex ed like, "There will be times when you feel very tempted to have sex and it will be almost impossible to stop yourself". I had effectively no sexual feelings throughout my teenage years, either because I grew up with a warped view of sex as bad, scary and evil or because my brain just doesn't work right (I have depression as well, so my brain is kind of a big mess, I think - not to mention that both depression and anti-depressants decrease libido.) I didn't even realise that I was abnormal until a bunch of friends and I were playing a drinking game (only with cheerios instead of booze) where you had to eat a cheerio every time you had done something the other person hadn't. Out of curiosity I said, "I've never wanted to have sex with anyone." All my friends dived for the cheerios instantly and then I realised that maybe my feelings that it wasn't at all hard not to have sex weren't normal. I was 18 at the time.

Since then I have had my 'awakening' or whatever but my sex drive is still quite low...I find men attractive physically from an aesthetic point of view, and I like kissing and cuddling and feeling loved, but it's only very rarely (once a month to once every six, maybe) that I feel particularly aroused. I would probably not be terribly bothered if sex were banned, although it does seem rather like trying to ban the sun from rising. I also think that there is so much more to life than just sex and it has always annoyed me the way some people act as if sex is the be-all and end-all of life. I know we have a biological urge to reproduce (or so I'm told...I'm terrified by the prospect of having children) but as humans have managed to evolve into intellectual as well as physical beings, beings which can create art and music and poetry for no utilitarian purpose apart from enjoyment, I think it's normal and fine for people to find other ways to enjoy themselves and gain fulfillment instead of just focussing on sex all the time. It doesn't help that between being terrified of getting pregnant and being terrified that it's going to hurt, my body renders normal sex virtually impossible most of the time because the relevant muscles constrict so tightly, if you follow my meaning. There's a very limited amount of sexual activity that I actually enjoy, so I suppose it makes sense that I don't desire it as much as other people do. I'd rather go to a U2 concert than have sex any day of the week.

Like most things in life, it's probably on a sliding scale of shades of grey rather than black and white; some people have extraordinarily high sex drives, desiring it many times a day; some have unusually low sex drives and rarely or never desire it; and 'normal' is defined by the bell-curve average somewhere in the middle.

It's obviously not too flawed if we're alive today.

You are either stupid, or deliberatley missing points so that you can try to prove yourself right in argument. If you don't understand this time, I will not bother with you anymore because you are hopeless.

Sex drive- base, primitive desire not necessarily prone to reason. (If you remember you yourself agreed with this- that people are prone to primitive irrational desires- sex drive being one of them.)

One could argue (as you have) that it is benefitial to humans because it encourages the propogation of our species. I have consented that this is to an extent true (because I am not a retard idiot just trying to win an argument and disregard the facts). That doesn't suddenly make the irrational part of it magically disapear. You still have to deal with the fact that a base desire which is supposed to benefit our species can at the same time have some negative side effects.

See that part in bold? See it? Really, look at it. Don't glaze over it like you constantly have been doing. It's a point I have brought up at least twice (if not more than that) and it's a point that a person with common sense would have realized a long time ago without requiring me to go out of my way to bring it up.

Really? Because DNA has the same ultimate goal--self replication.
You completley missed the point on this one as well. You don't think humans with minds of their own set goals independent of what their DNA wants? Humans are capable of choosing their own purpose, we only reproduce so we can be alive- and being alive will allow us to choose some cause in life.

You can stop pushing your reproduction point. Humans are different from other animals (again, something I have said several times) because we can think on a higher level and have more complex values. We have a capacity for joy. If reproduction is the only purpose and there is nothing else- no happiness, no contribution to mankind, if all we should do is reproduce than there would be no justification for any passion anyone has. No justification for music, friendship, reading, study. You yourself are proof that there is more to life than reproduction by playing Nationstates. You are here because it is fun to be here. That is a cause that has nothing to do with reproduction. If you glaze over this as well I have absolutley no interest in wasting any more time with someone so bafflingly stupid.

Anthrus, Armandian, if you are reading.. help me out here! How hard is it for someone to beleive that sex drive has negative impacts!?

Hey-hey, my thread's still alive!
Wow.

You are either stupid, or deliberatley missing points so that you can try to prove yourself right in argument. If you don't understand this time, I will not bother with you anymore because you are hopeless.
Or perhaps I just disagree, and that just because you believe something to be obvious doesn't mean that it appears that way to me? In my opinion, you are missing the obvious.

Sex drive- base, primitive desire not necessarily prone to reason. (If you remember you yourself agreed with this- that people are prone to primitive irrational desires- sex drive being one of them.)
Certainly.

One could argue (as you have) that it is benefitial to humans because it encourages the propogation of our species. I have consented that this is to an extent true (because I am not a retard idiot just trying to win an argument and disregard the facts). That doesn't suddenly make the irrational part of it magically disapear. You still have to deal with the fact that a base desire which is supposed to benefit our species can at the same time have some negative side effects.
Many things have both positive and negative effects on anything. If it is disadvantageous enough, then we will eventually evolve out of it, in all likelihood. Though none of us or our direct descendents will be around to see it.

See that part in bold? See it? Really, look at it. Don't glaze over it like you constantly have been doing. It's a point I have brought up at least twice (if not more than that) and it's a point that a person with common sense would have realized a long time ago without requiring me to go out of my way to bring it up.
I have seen your point before. I looked at it. No glazing or glossing over. Still hasn't convinced me that sex is bad.

You completley missed the point on this one as well. You don't think humans with minds of their own set goals independent of what their DNA wants?
Oh, we think we do, of course. I think I do myself. That doesn't change the reality of the situation, however.

Humans are capable of choosing their own purpose, we only reproduce so we can be alive- and being alive will allow us to choose some cause in life.
Really? Because it actually turns out to be that we choose life in order to reproduce.

You can stop pushing your reproduction point.
Apparently not. It is one of my core biological beliefs. Seeing as I will likely take a career in entomology, I better not start going out on fanciful trips of ignorance.

Humans are different from other animals (again, something I have said several times) because we can think on a higher level and have more complex values.
Egocentric naïveté. We are animals. Nothing more. We are organisms. Nothing more. We exist to propagate our own recipe of life. Nothing more. I myself have no plans to have children, though that may change. If I do or I don't, it doesn't much matter. But if I do not, then I do not pass on my genes, and I do not matter in the long run.

We have a capacity for joy. If reproduction is the only purpose and there is nothing else- no happiness, no contribution to mankind, if all we should do is reproduce than there would be no justification for any passion anyone has. No justification for music, friendship, reading, study.
:p I take it you haven't seen many other animals. Dogs play. Many dogs I've seen are happier than any human I've seen. You seem to be missing the point that those are all sideshows, the only thing that really matters is reproduction.

You yourself are proof that there is more to life than reproduction by playing Nationstates. You are here because it is fun to be here. That is a cause that has nothing to do with reproduction. If you glaze over this as well I have absolutley no interest in wasting any more time with someone so bafflingly stupid.
Why, now! Because I play NationStates, suddenly I am not merely the avatar of my DNA?

Anthrus, Armandian, if you are reading.. help me out here! How hard is it for someone to beleive that sex drive has negative impacts!?
I believe that libido has negative impacts. I have actually stated what those are. I just believe that those negative impacts are certainly not justification for anything you want.