NationStates Jolt Archive

All these people on NSG claim to be asexual, hell I even have. I say I am asexual because I haven't felt any sexual or physical attractions to either sex. I am still young(17) so I feel I might change and find somebody I would like to have sexual relations with. I know there are true asexuals out there and I am wondering why so many people are saying they are? Is it that they are afraid to jump in bed with someone, or their religion is telling them NO SEX. I am just wondering why.

It's all a bit strange, and doesn't make much sense to a lot of people, that's all. It's interesting as a psychological condition, that's for sure. :p

It's all a bit strange, and doesn't make much sense to a lot of people, that's all. It's interesting as a psychological condition, that's for sure. :p

Well I understand the psychological aspect, but I am wondering why so many people are saying they are.

All these people on NSG claim to be asexual

...like, what, 4?

...like, what, 4?

Yeah, pretty much

Well I understand the psychological aspect, but I am wondering why so many people are saying they are.

It's not many. But I suspect youth and confusion are responsible.

I don't claim to be asexual per se, but merely have little sex drive. I am attracted to people, just don't really care about having sex with them.

It's not many. But I suspect youth and confusion are responsible.

Sounds right.

I put down bisexual but that's not really any more accurate than "I haven't decided yet" - the reason I didn't tick the latter box is that it implies I'm trying to figure it out.

Well, screw that shit. I'm not attracted to a gender, I'm attracted to individuals. So why should I make generalisations based on the few people I've been attracted to so far just so everyone else can put me in a nice comfortable box?

I'm private-list-sexual, and proud of it.

It's not many. But I suspect youth and confusion are responsible.

Never....:p

Any bets on Chandelier being a nympho by 2015 then?

Meh. It's just the topics on NS cycling around. Give it a few months and it'll be abortion, or religion, or gays, or maybe Iraq.

I don't claim to be asexual per se, but merely have little sex drive. I am attracted to people, just don't really care about having sex with them.

I'll buy that. Describes me from about age 16-22 - the brain is unpredictable. :p

Any bets on Chandelier being a nympho by 2015 then?

:rolleyes:

All these people on NSG claim to be asexual

It didn't seem like there were too many of us here... 4 or 5 maybe? That's not too many, but I'll still be interested to see the poll results.

I say I am asexual because I haven't felt any sexual or physical attractions to either sex.

Same here. I suppose I could change someday, but I don't know how likely it is that I'll suddenly develop a sex drive and sexual attraction to people when I never have before, and regardless of that possibility I'm asexual now. And even if I do change that doesn't mean I have to have sex...

I'll buy that. Describes me from about age 16-22 - the brain is unpredictable. :p

Awesome! My story is believed by a random internet person! Now I can truly go out and live. :D

Awesome! My story is believed by a random internet person! Now I can truly go out and live. :D

That's right - you have my blessing. Play safe. :p

That's right - you have my blessing. Play safe. :p

well you just pay attention to the nobel prize recipients. One day, as a result of your blessing, I shall be the most honored man of our times, And you, Mr. Crabbe, shall recieve your due honor for having inspired me. Watch, Mr. Crabbe. Watch for the Monkeys that cometh.

I don't claim to be asexual per se, but merely have little sex drive. I am attracted to people, just don't really care about having sex with them.

for some strange reason I believe that.

well you just pay attention to the nobel prize recipients. One day, as a result of your blessing, I shall be the most honored man of our times, And you, Mr. Crabbe, shall recieve your due honor for having inspired me. Watch, Mr. Crabbe. Watch for the Monkeys that cometh.

Awwww, I want an award, nobody likes me.Whaaaaaaaaa....sniff, sniff

Ask yourself: Are you gay enough to go beyond hard gay?

:confused:
I don't get this.

Asexuality is for sponges.

Ask yourself: Are you gay enough to go beyond hard gay?

:confused:
I don't get this.

nobody does

Like many of the things on the internet, you're better off.

Yay!

nobody does

Like many of the things on the internet, you're better off.

Like many of the things on the internet, you're better off.

That is one of the most true statements I have ever heard, I applaude you *clap, clap*

Some people just don't like sex. Big deal. Trust me, a person's sex life is utterly meaningless to me in all contexts outside of a relationship with them.

another 17 year old?! dammit get your own forum! :p

Lol, I actually joined when I was 17.

its to do with ignorance or something along those lines

I am still young(17)

another 17 year old?! dammit get your own forum! :p

You forgot pansexual from your vote. :p

I prefer not to be labeled, hence the "still deciding" sounded the best option.

That is one of the most true statements I have ever heard, I applaude you *clap, clap*

I learned that after finding out what "Shaota Cat" was. D:

"I didn't want those grapes anyway...they were sour..."

its to do with ignorance or something along those lines



another 17 year old?! dammit get your own forum! :p

haha

Meh. It's just the topics on NS cycling around. Give it a few months and it'll be abortion, or religion, or gays, or maybe Iraq.

Why not one mega thread on religious gays aborting Iraqi fetuses?

You forgot pansexual from your vote. :p

"Get outta my goddamn house, you fern fucker!"

Ah, the problems of being pansexual. Parents, they just never understand...

Why not one mega thread on religious gays aborting Iraqi fetuses?

Religious gays aborting asexual Iraqi fetuses...:p

Religious gays aborting asexual Iraqi fetuses...:p

You have the gift. The gift of Generalitosis.

The severe, irreversible mental condition that conjures up such ridiculous, mind-boggling thoughts. Congratulations, you're one of us.


*hands you my coveted special award*

Ah, but aren't all foetuses asexual? :p

I guess anythings better than causing asexuality in others.

Meh. It's just the topics on NS cycling around. Give it a few months and it'll be abortion, or religion, or gays, or maybe Iraq.

When you put it that way these topics seem pretty good. At least we're not yelling at each other and some people are changing their minds a little bit.

"I didn't want those grapes anyway...they were sour..."
Would you prefer they whine about how they can't get at the grapes?

Addressing the topic, I wish I was asexual, but I've far too much intellectual honesty to pretend to be so.

I see the statistically improbable number of supposed asexuals on the internet the same way I see the overabundance of individuals on the internet who supposedly have Apereger's syndrome, teens with too much free time and not much of a social life resorting to self-diagnosis to excuse who they are (a practice I abhor) and/or make themselves feel special.

I see the statistically improbably number of supposed asexuals on the internet the same way I see the overabundance of individuals on the interneet who supposedly have Apereger's syndrome, teens with too much free time and not much of a social life resorting to self-diagnosis to excuse who they are (a practice I abhor) and/or make themselves feel special.
Yup, I have to agree. It's either 'I want to be different' or 'hey, I read this thing about the symptoms of OCD, and I'm sort of like that sometimes, so hey, I have OCD! W00T!'.

Would you prefer they whine about how they can't get at the grapes?

Addressing the topic, I wish I was asexual, but I've far too much intellectual honesty to pretend to be so.

I see the statistically improbably number of supposed asexuals on the internet the same way I see the overabundance of individuals on the interneet who supposedly have Apereger's syndrome, teens with too much free time and not much of a social life resorting to self-diagnosis to excuse who they are (a practice I abhor) and/or make themselves feel special.

Now when you say internet, are we talking about the whole thing?

And I have a question...do people think that asexuality is an orientation, in most cases of self-declared asexuality? I mean...I know plenty of people who have gone through periods, even very long periods where sex was of absolutely no interest to them. They were 'asexual' at that time. But it wasn't their overall sexual orientation.

Because...I've yet to meet someone who 'used to be gay but isn't anymore' or visa versa.

Now when you say internet, are we talking about the whole thing?

We're talking about the parts of it that regulars of this forum would generally frequent for purely recreational purposes, not counting, of course, the unspoken understanding that is pr0n.

Yup, I have to agree. It's either 'I want to be different' or 'hey, I read this thing about the symptoms of OCD, and I'm sort of like that sometimes, so hey, I have OCD! W00T!'.

Probably just skipping over the "Moreover, the obsessions or compulsions must be time-consuming (taking up more than one hour per day), cause distress, or cause impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning" part.

That's usually what gets them...

Probably just skipping over the "Moreover, the obsessions or compulsions must be time-consuming (taking up more than one hour per day), cause distress, or cause impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning" part.

That's usually what gets them...

It's the same with people claiming to be bipolar. Just having mood swings doesn't make you bipolar. But for some people, it's like...hardcore to pretend to have a serious mental illness.

Look! There's as many imaginary asexuals as imaginary bisexuals :D /joke

All these people on NSG claim to be asexual, hell I even have. I say I am asexual because I haven't felt any sexual or physical attractions to either sex. I am still young(17) so I feel I might change and find somebody I would like to have sexual relations with. I know there are true asexuals out there and I am wondering why so many people are saying they are? Is it that they are afraid to jump in bed with someone, or their religion is telling them NO SEX. I am just wondering why.

I am asexual, I am a 22 year old atheist who has had sex in the past which means I can rule out things such as me being to young, my religion or being afraid to jump into bed with someone as a contributing factor to considering myself asexual.

I was never interested in sex, it just doesn't interest me, just like most people don't spend much time thinking about tidal analysis. I have had sex in the past and I found it to be god awfully boring. It wasn't fun, it wasn't horrifying, it was boring and in a world where most things are not boring, there is no reason for me to be having sex.

We're talking about the parts of it that regulars of this forum would generally frequent for purely recreational purposes

That could, uh, vary widely. I know of NSers what have Myspace, after all. So if we're including that...

, not counting, of course, the unspoken understanding that is pr0n.

Of course.

It's the same with people claiming to be bipolar. Just having mood swings doesn't make you bipolar. But for some people, it's like...hardcore to pretend to have a serious mental illness.

Oh, I knew a bipolar kid...he was, uh, 'difficult'?

Look! There's as many imaginary asexuals as imaginary bisexuals :D /joke

I really would've rathered the poll be public...b'eh...

Look! There's as many imaginary asexuals as imaginary bisexuals :D /joke

Just as annoying. I've got a friend who claims to be bisexual but says he'd "never have sex with a guy.":rolleyes:
That could, uh, vary widely. I know of NSers what have Myspace, after all. So if we're including that...
Then my statement remains accurate.

Just as annoying. I've got a friend who claims to be bisexual but says he'd "never have sex with a guy.":rolleyes:
Well, I've had sex with men and women, and plan to continuing doing so as long as is possible. So :P

Budding *nods*

"I didn't want those grapes anyway...they were sour..."

:rolleyes:

Then my statement remains accurate.

Yes, yes it does.
But would your observations carry over into NSG alone?

Yes, yes it does.
But would your observations carry over into NSG alone?
Not from what I've observed, no.

Not from what I've observed, no.


Mhmm...

Kay, jus checkin'.

I don't claim to be asexual per se, but merely have little sex drive. I am attracted to people, just don't really care about having sex with them.

I can relate to this.

Would you prefer they whine about how they can't get at the grapes?

Addressing the topic, I wish I was asexual, but I've far too much intellectual honesty to pretend to be so.

I see the statistically improbable number of supposed asexuals on the internet the same way I see the overabundance of individuals on the internet who supposedly have Apereger's syndrome, teens with too much free time and not much of a social life resorting to self-diagnosis to excuse who they are (a practice I abhor) and/or make themselves feel special.

How else would an orientation be diagnosed other than by self-diagnosis, though? Do people have to go to a doctor and get diagnosed as heterosexual or homosexual or whatever they are as well?

Never....:p

Any bets on Chandelier being a nympho by 2015 then?

Its possible. Maybe she will find out how good sex is, and try to recover the lost time.

Also, sometimes the quietest girls are the wildest in bed (BDSM, screaming, fetish etc).

I guess anythings better than causing asexuality in others.

Lol. Yeah, if making someone an homossexual is bad, I imagine how bad you must suck to make someone an assexual.

Anyway, unless its a genetic trait:

Heavy Depression + Social awkwardness = Assexualism.

How else would an orientation be diagnosed other than by self-diagnosis, though? Do people have to go to a doctor and get diagnosed as heterosexual or homosexual or whatever they are as well?

I think the point is more that self-diagnosis has a large chance for error or bias and therefore if people want to have an illness they will make the criteria fit themselves.

And I have a question...do people think that asexuality is an orientation, in most cases of self-declared asexuality? I mean...I know plenty of people who have gone through periods, even very long periods where sex was of absolutely no interest to them. They were 'asexual' at that time. But it wasn't their overall sexual orientation.

Because...I've yet to meet someone who 'used to be gay but isn't anymore' or visa versa.


That could be caused by depression, and we all know how common depression is.

Depression makes someone emotional numb. And that means the sex drive just diminishes a lot, meaning someone could not even think or desire sex. But it is expected out of a healthy individual to want and desire sex, either for reproduction, entertainment or as a way to bond with their loved ones.

Also, its possible someone doesnt want to have sex because they arent confortable with their bodies. And when you are not confortable with it, you dont expect others to like it too.

I think the point is more that self-diagnosis has a large chance for error or bias and therefore if people want to have an illness they will make the criteria fit themselves.

Yeah, for illnesses, but if people can "diagnose" themselves as straight or gay, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to decide for myself that I'm asexual.

Yeah, for illnesses, but if people can "diagnose" themselves as straight or gay, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to decide for myself that I'm asexual.

You can decide it all you want but just with any other self diagnosis expect people to be sceptical. The only reason homosexuality and heterosexuality don't face the same criticism is that they have established themselves in society and don't seem to be so much of a fad. Heterosexuality isn't seen so much as a rebellion against parents, society, etc. Homosexuality is also reaching a level of acceptance that makes it less of a rebellion. It may seem wrong but if asexuality expects to be taken seriously it can't expect it immediately

You can decide it all you want but just with any other self diagnosis expect people to be sceptical. The only reason homosexuality and heterosexuality don't face the same criticism is that they have established themselves in society and don't seem to be so much of a fad. It may seem wrong but if asexuality expects to be taken seriously it can't expect it immediately

That's true, but I'm not waiting until everyone approves of it before I can know what I am and say it. I just hope it's accepted sometime in my lifetime. I feel sorry for the asexuals who are discovering it now in their 50s or 60s after a long time of being married to meet societal demands and thinking that there was something wrong with them when they didn't want sex through all those years.

How else would an orientation be diagnosed other than by self-diagnosis, though? Do people have to go to a doctor and get diagnosed as heterosexual or homosexual or whatever they are as well?

I dont think you need to go that far.

But you should watch some porn and see if something interests you. Dont go for the "Huge Black Guys and Small White Girls", but the average stuff.

See some girl on girl action and guy on girl action. If your mouth waters or your niples get hard watching it, those are some good sympthoms that you liked what you saw.

I dont think you need to go that far.

But you should watch some porn and see if something interests you. Dont go for the "Huge Black Guys and Small White Girls", but the average stuff.

See some girl on girl action and guy on girl action. If your mouth waters or your niples get hard watching it, those are some good sympthoms that you liked what you saw.

Or possibly look into other reasons for asexuality before settling on a self diagnosis of asexuality as a natural sexual orientation

I dont think you need to go that far.

But you should watch some porn and see if something interests you. Dont go for the "Huge Black Guys and Small White Girls", but the average stuff.

See some girl on girl action and guy on girl action. If your mouth waters or your niples get hard watching it, those are some good sympthoms that you liked what you saw.

I'm not going to watch porn. That sounds gross.

Or possibly look into other reasons for asexuality before settling on a self diagnosis of asexuality as a natural sexual orientation

I've been going to therapy for some of my fears and stuff to deal with those. What else do you want me to do? I can't get my hormones tested or anything because then they'll assume that there's something wrong with me and keep testing me even when it turns up that nothing is wrong, and I'll never have any peace.

I've been going to therapy for some of my fears and stuff to deal with those. What else do you want me to do? I can't get my hormones tested or anything because then they'll assume that there's something wrong with me and keep testing me even when it turns up that nothing is wrong, and I'll never have any peace.

You talk about self diagnosis being a valid route to take and while I agree you also need to make sure you're working by a differential diagnosis. Look at all the possibilities causing your asexuality and eliminate them one by one. Depression, hormones, etc. They can't keep testing you for something without your consent so if you find the first results are normal then eliminate that as a possible cause and move on

You talk about self diagnosis being a valid route to take and while I agree you also need to make sure you're working by a differential diagnosis. Look at all the possibilities causing your asexuality and eliminate them one by one. Depression, hormones, etc. They can't keep testing you for something without your consent so if you find the first results are normal then eliminate that as a possible cause and move on

But if I ask them to test me in the first place they'll assume that there is something wrong. I'm not depressed, so I know it's not depression.

But if I ask them to test me in the first place they'll assume that there is something wrong. I'm not depressed, so I know it's not depression.

Explain it to them then. Does it matter what they think anyway? They can't do anything you don't want.

Explain it to them then. Does it matter what they think anyway? They can't do anything you don't want.

I don't know who to ask or how to ask, and at this point I don't want to be tested yet.

I don't know who to ask or how to ask, and at this point I don't want to be tested yet.

Thats fine if you don't want to be tested but you can understand, i'm sure, others maybe not believing you fully when you haven't looked at all the possibilities. If you ever wanted to a doc is the one to ask and just say it whatever way you can. They're pretty good about gathering information that might not be forthcoming.

Anyway it's your choice and i'm just some randomer on the internet so I wouldn't claim to know everything about you or your circumstances.

Thats fine if you don't want to be tested but you can understand, i'm sure, others maybe not believing you fully when you haven't looked at all the possibilities. If you ever wanted to a doc is the one to ask and just say it whatever way you can. They're pretty good about gathering information that might not be forthcoming.

Anyway it's your choice and i'm just some randomer on the internet so I wouldn't claim to know everything about you or your circumstances.

It's just that I'd have to tell my parents before I could tell the doctor...

I'm not going to watch porn. That sounds gross.


That is nature. And sex is pretty gross anyway, at least until you get used with it.

That is nature. And sex is pretty gross anyway, at least until you get used with it.

If it's gross then why should I do it?

If it's gross then why should I do it?
Sex isn't gross to some people. If it's gross and off-putting to you, then don't do it. You shouldn't have sex unless you want to have sex.

Think of life like a restaurant with unfamiliar foods. It's a good idea to try new things, because you never know what new favorites you'll encounter, but it's also a good idea to use your past experience to help you in making your selections. If you know that you find tomatoes revolting, it's probably not wise to order a tomato-intensive dish. If you're lactose intolerant, avoid the dairy options.

If you really find sex repellent, don't do it. Don't feel obligated to force yourself to have sex just because other people want you to. Don't feel obligated to pretend you like it if you don't.

Just keep in mind that your tastes may change, and keep an open mind about it. If your tastes don't change, that's fine! You can live a full, happy, healthy life without ever having sex, if that is what you want. But if your tastes do change, don't be too proud to give sex a chance, lest you miss out on some happy experiences.

If it's gross then why should I do it?You do tons of things that are gross, certainly. Masticating, defecating, urinating. It's all gross.

And I have a question...do people think that asexuality is an orientation, in most cases of self-declared asexuality? I mean...I know plenty of people who have gone through periods, even very long periods where sex was of absolutely no interest to them. They were 'asexual' at that time. But it wasn't their overall sexual orientation.

Because...I've yet to meet someone who 'used to be gay but isn't anymore' or visa versa.

Thats what I am talking about.

If it's gross then why should I do it?

Because its good and you get used to it.

Like a fruit (not a banana) that you think looks very weird, but after you eat it, you like it.

And some people like it a lot :p

Anyway, just look at kissing. Some people think spiting is gross, some people think kissing is gross, but it really isnt. Same thing with sex, you just have to get used to it.

You do tons of things that are gross, certainly. Masticating, defecating, urinating. It's all gross.

Yes, it's gross, but that stuff is necessary. Sex isn't necessary for me, so I shouldn't do something gross that isn't necessary that I don't even want to do.

Sex isn't gross to some people. If it's gross and off-putting to you, then don't do it. You shouldn't have sex unless you want to have sex.

Think of life like a restaurant with unfamiliar foods. It's a good idea to try new things, because you never know what new favorites you'll encounter, but it's also a good idea to use your past experience to help you in making your selections. If you know that you find tomatoes revolting, it's probably not wise to order a tomato-intensive dish. If you're lactose intolerant, avoid the dairy options.

If you really find sex repellent, don't do it. Don't feel obligated to force yourself to have sex just because other people want you to. Don't feel obligated to pretend you like it if you don't.

Just keep in mind that your tastes may change, and keep an open mind about it. If your tastes don't change, that's fine! You can live a full, happy, healthy life without ever having sex, if that is what you want. But if your tastes do change, don't be too proud to give sex a chance, lest you miss out on some happy experiences.

All right. :)

Heh heh, masticating..

I dont think you need to go that far.

But you should watch some porn and see if something interests you. Dont go for the "Huge Black Guys and Small White Girls", but the average stuff.

See some girl on girl action and guy on girl action. If your mouth waters or your niples get hard watching it, those are some good sympthoms that you liked what you saw.

I watched porn before, never enjoyed it.

Never....:p

Any bets on Chandelier being a nympho by 2015 then?
2010's my guess :p

It is after you do it once.

If that's true, then why should I do it the first time then and introduce a need for something that I neither want nor at the moment need?

Yes, it's gross, but that stuff is necessary. Sex isn't necessary for me, so I shouldn't do something gross that isn't necessary that I don't even want to do.


It is after you do it once.

I am a heterosexual (straight) but I don't want to screw every woman I see, but I don't have a girlfriend and I am only a teenager so I don't have to worry about it all yet.

All these people on NSG claim to be asexual, hell I even have. I say I am asexual because I haven't felt any sexual or physical attractions to either sex. I am still young(17) so I feel I might change and find somebody I would like to have sexual relations with. I know there are true asexuals out there and I am wondering why so many people are saying they are? Is it that they are afraid to jump in bed with someone, or their religion is telling them NO SEX. I am just wondering why.

Asexuality is just one end of a spectrum.

Most asexual types still identify as gay or hetero, if only to define identity.

If that's true, then why should I do it the first time then and introduce a need for something that I neither want nor at the moment need?

What is the goal of sex?

It's good for:
fun
morale
procreation
drama
relationship catalyst

I'll leave it's drawbacks to another thread.

Asexuality is just one end of a spectrum.

Most asexual types still identify as gay or hetero, if only to define identity.

well then I would say I am hetero.

I watched porn before, never enjoyed it.

Have you masturbated? Have you goten pleasure out of it?

I mean, I can imagine someone that doesnt feel sexual atraction towards someone, but feels pleasure nonetheless.

Have you masturbated? Have you goten pleasure out of it?

I mean, I can imagine someone that doesnt feel sexual atraction towards someone, but feels pleasure nonetheless.

I've tried but was never able too.

I identify as asexual because I consider it the best label for describing me currently. If I change, I'll change labels, simple as that.

Next question?

Edit:

It's a label, just like the others I use - steampunk, geek, nerd, mathematician, crypto anarchist, Christian, liberal*. If I change my views on something, I change the label I use.

Have you masturbated? Have you goten pleasure out of it?

I mean, I can imagine someone that doesnt feel sexual atraction towards someone, but feels pleasure nonetheless.

I have masturbated, and I don't find it particularly interesting or compelling. Sure, it's a fairly pleasant sensation, but I don't have any drive to do it.

*liberal isn't quite the right fit, nor is anarchist. The best fit would be something like the Professor's views from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (Heinlein), but not anti government. However, I'm getting off-topic here.

I identify as asexual because I consider it the best label for describing me currently. If I change, I'll change labels, simple as that.

Next question?

M'Kay

How else would an orientation be diagnosed other than by self-diagnosis, though? Do people have to go to a doctor and get diagnosed as heterosexual or homosexual or whatever they are as well?

Well, actually I think people who claim to be asexual should see a doctor because, more than likely, there's either a hormone problem or some psychological issue.
It's a label, just like the others I use - steampunk, geek, nerd, mathematician, crypto anarchist, Christian, liberal*. If I change my views on something, I change the label I use.

Wow. You sound like a huge loser.

Asexual. I'm a Campylobacter.

I put down bisexual but that's not really any more accurate than "I haven't decided yet" - the reason I didn't tick the latter box is that it implies I'm trying to figure it out.

Well, screw that shit. I'm not attracted to a gender, I'm attracted to individuals. So why should I make generalisations based on the few people I've been attracted to so far just so everyone else can put me in a nice comfortable box?

I'm private-list-sexual, and proud of it.

That's kind of where I landed with my sexuality. Here's the way sexual orientation was explained to me. It's for the person who is identifying themself's convenience. And it can be totally fluid.

Meh. It's just the topics on NS cycling around. Give it a few months and it'll be abortion, or religion, or gays, or maybe Iraq.

We aren't due for abortion until Christmas. This cyclical stuff is wierd though.

Well, actually I think people who claim to be asexual should see a doctor because, more than likely, there's either a hormone problem or some psychological issue.


Agree. Low sexual desire is a sympthom of many physiological and psychological problems. Mainly, if there is anything slighly wrong with your body or mind, your desire to have sex diminishes.

Ah, but aren't all foetuses asexual? :p
They have ultra sound of female fetuses masturbating.

They have ultra sound of female fetuses masturbating.

How do they know thats what they're doing?

It's the same with people claiming to be bipolar. Just having mood swings doesn't make you bipolar. But for some people, it's like...hardcore to pretend to have a serious mental illness.
That's a disorder in and of itself. Borderlines love to do that, and there's one or two other disorders that love to collect mental/physical illness so to speak.

Wow. You sound like a huge loser.

Well, thanks. I noticed you haven't put up anything about yourself for criticism by anyone else. Care to do so, or do you prefer hiding behind faceless anonymity and insulting random people?

When it comes down to it, as a society we judge people based on labels. Labels might be applied based on dress, intelligence, wealth, sexual orientation, or number of library fines incurred. I'm not necessarily saying it's right to judge people like that, but just using handy labels to give people an idea of who they're talking to.

I'm introspective, I look at myself, analyze, and decide what would apply. That's why there's so many.

Memo to self: Don't bother trying to hold a mature, sensible discussion when you can just insult some random person and be done with it.

And in response to your other point, which I've edited out and can't be bothered to bring back, you do realize that's basically exactly what people were saying about homosexuals fiftysomething years ago? Nowadays, say that and be prepared for a flaming for 'homophobia', but if you pick a less militant target, one that's still considered strange, go right ahead.

People like you make me sick.

I watched porn before, never enjoyed it.
To be fair, a lot of porn doesn't do it for me, either.

Of course, most porn is about some over-weight guy battering away at a woman's orifices while she tries (unsuccessfully) to hide the look of boredom/discomfort on her face. I can only assume that the average hetero male enjoys watching this for some reason, since there must be a market for them to be producing so much of it, but as a female I just find myself sharing the opinion of the woman in the porn: either slightly uncomfortable, or bored.

Wow. You sound like a huge loser.

And flaming people makes you a winrar!

They have ultra sound of female fetuses masturbating.

Hmm, but then what are they attracted to? What can they be attracted to?

This line of thought is not going to end well.

To be fair, a lot of porn doesn't do it for me, either.

Of course, most porn is about some over-weight guy battering away at a woman's orifices while she tries (unsuccessfully) to hide the look of boredom/discomfort on her face. I can only assume that the average hetero male enjoys watching this for some reason, since there must be a market for them to be producing so much of it, but as a female I just find myself sharing the opinion of the woman in the porn: either slightly uncomfortable, or bored.

Yeah, the thing is, I am a guy, and I still didn't enjoy it.

Yeah, the thing is, I am a guy, and I still didn't enjoy it.
Yeah, my (hetero) partner doesn't appear to like that sort of porn either. At least, not from what I've seen in his porn folder, or from the material he's recommended for me.

Sex is kind of a weird subject, because people can't always agree on what sex is supposed to be like, or even what it's supposed to be for. An awful lot of people use sex as a means of obtaining/asserting power, or a way of venting feelings that have relatively little to do with pure lust. That makes it very complicated to talk about sex, because a lot of times it's not just sex in the first place.

I can't blame anybody who looks at mainstream images of sex and thinks, "Eeeww!" Hell, I do, and I love to shag.

There is no big deal, to anyone with a brain.

I think I'm with the legendary Jimmy Durante. He said, "I wish everybody would just leave everybody else alone."

Honestly, sexual orientation -- if you're not the one having the sex, where's the concern coming from? I mean, besides the bane of religious meddling....

Yeah, my (hetero) partner doesn't appear to like that sort of porn either. At least, not from what I've seen in his porn folder, or from the material he's recommended for me.

Sex is kind of a weird subject, because people can't always agree on what sex is supposed to be like, or even what it's supposed to be for. An awful lot of people use sex as a means of obtaining/asserting power, or a way of venting feelings that have relatively little to do with pure lust. That makes it very complicated to talk about sex, because a lot of times it's not just sex in the first place.

I can't blame anybody who looks at mainstream images of sex and thinks, "Eeeww!" Hell, I do, and I love to shag.

Brilliantly put.

The almost deliberate inability to talk about it is what causes the majority of problems. It's going on 400 years since the Puritans landed at Plymouth Rock, and the rock, to borrow from Malcolm X, is still landing on us.

They have ultra sound of female fetuses masturbating.

If that's not child pornography, I don't know what is.

13 asexuals. Hmmm. Really now. That's believable.

You talk about self diagnosis being a valid route to take and while I agree you also need to make sure you're working by a differential diagnosis. Look at all the possibilities causing your asexuality and eliminate them one by one. Depression, hormones, etc. They can't keep testing you for something without your consent so if you find the first results are normal then eliminate that as a possible cause and move on
I don't see why asexuals should have to explain themselves any more than heterosexuals, or homosexuals. We don't ask them to "get diagnosed," why should we ask an asexual?

13 asexuals. Hmmm. Really now. That's believable.
Why is that so unreasonable?

13 asexuals. Hmmm. Really now. That's believable.

Apologies if you were being serious, but I parsed this as sarcasm.

We have how many people on NS? Allow for puppets, inactive accounts, and non-posters, and there's still thousands to consider.

Also, consider that a topic title such as this one will likely bring most of the asexuals who notice it to respond, and 13 or so doesn't seem particularly outrageous.

Edit: Snafturi got there first (kinda)

I'm introspective, I look at myself, analyze, and decide what would apply. That's why there's so many.
If that were true, then there would be no such labels. Not the ones you assigned yourself. The application of traditional labels to oneself is intellectual laziness.
And in response to your other point, which I've edited out and can't be bothered to bring back, you do realize that's basically exactly what people were saying about homosexuals fiftysomething years ago? Nowadays, say that and be prepared for a flaming for 'homophobia', but if you pick a less militant target, one that's still considered strange, go right ahead.
The difference being, of course, that a homosexual suffers no detriment to his quality of life because of his sexuality outside the intolerance of others. An asexual certainly does.

And in response to your other point, which I've edited out and can't be bothered to bring back, you are easily sickened.

The difference being, of course, that a homosexual suffers no detriment to his quality of life because of his sexuality outside the intolerance of others. An asexual certainly does.


How has my asexuality in itself had a detrimental effect on my life? As far as I can see it hasn't.

An asexual certainly does.

How do you know?

Hmm, but then what are they attracted to? What can they be attracted to?

This line of thought is not going to end well.
It was a random comment to a random comment. I'm not basing an argument on it.

Because its good and you get used to it.

Like a fruit (not a banana) that you think looks very weird, but after you eat it, you like it.

And some people like it a lot :p

Anyway, just look at kissing. Some people think spiting is gross, some people think kissing is gross, but it really isnt. Same thing with sex, you just have to get used to it.

How does it benefit and asexual to "get used to it"? I mean, if they are living full and happy lives, who cares if they aren't having sex? Their lives are a hell of a lot less complicated than any of us non-asexual's lives.

To be fair, a lot of porn doesn't do it for me, either.

Of course, most porn is about some over-weight guy battering away at a woman's orifices while she tries (unsuccessfully) to hide the look of boredom/discomfort on her face. I can only assume that the average hetero male enjoys watching this for some reason, since there must be a market for them to be producing so much of it, but as a female I just find myself sharing the opinion of the woman in the porn: either slightly uncomfortable, or bored.

There is all kind of porn. If you can imagine it, it exists (yes, even your most gruesome thoughts).

People watch porn for all kinds of reason: to masturbate, to get horny, to watch with their special othes, to have fun, to laugh, to fulfill their curiosity... The possibilities are endless.

And well, its a job, and some women dont act very well. Some do, and some even like it a lot.

This poll sucks, because the "Still deciding" option makes it sound like sexual orientation is a choice.

Which, you know, it isn't.

The difference being, of course, that a homosexual suffers no detriment to his quality of life because of his sexuality outside the intolerance of others. An asexual certainly does.

How does not having sex affect your quality of life? Sex is not the be all and end all of life.

If that were true, then there would be no such labels. Not the ones you assigned yourself. The application of traditional labels to oneself is intellectual laziness.

Is it? Note the following: I have noted where traditional labels don't apply perfectly, and the intention of including them was to give people some idea what they were talking to. I'm quite willing to use them as a starting point, assign slightly different meanings, and even invent my own; but I wouldn't expect you to recognise my terminology if I did. Seem logical?

The difference being, of course, that a homosexual suffers no detriment to his quality of life because of his sexuality outside the intolerance of others. An asexual certainly does.

That's a pretty big claim. Can you demonstrate it? I'm sure we could have a productive discussion on this line, so I'm happy to debate it. For a start, how can you claim that my quality of life is impacted by my desire (or lack of it, to be more accurate). I've experimented with sex[1]. Sure, it's a enjoyable sensation, but I have no desire for it. How does this impact my quality of life negatively?

In fact, I'll argue that this lack of sex drive is a positive thing, for the following major reason - that it leaves me free to focus these energies on other things, which could quite probably prove useful to society (or just as likely not, I hope to work as a mathematician[2]).

And in response to your other point, which I've edited out and can't be bothered to bring back, you are easily sickened.

Well, they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I will admit that last line was a bit of an over-reaction, possibly understandable given your comments to me.

[1]Well, not sex directly, but sexual acts - oral, masturbation, cyber. All has a distinct 'meh'ness to it.

[2]Read A Mathematician's Apology, by G.H. Hardy. I'll admit this footnote was only to make it sensible to number them.

Edit: Bloody hell, about four people have already responded to the same post. Meh, I like this one, I'll keep it.

How has my asexuality in itself had a detrimental effect on my life? As far as I can see it hasn't.
The only thing I know about you is that you're in high school. So, I guess if your ugly your life wouldn't have been any better or worse thus far. Maybe even worse because of all the wishing cute boys would ask you out and such.
However, your later life will be significantly worse because you never had sex with those two to five ugly guys with low standards thus achieving some measure of temporary joy for a person that is incapable of perpetual contentment.

This of course, all assumes that you, like the average person, are ugly and stupid. This may not be the case, but it serves as a good enough illustration for the average person claiming to be an asexual.
And that's not even factoring in the pleasures of masturbation.
How do you know?
Sex is one of the things that keeps simple-minded people happy.

Sex is one of the things that keeps simple-minded people happy.

I see no reason why the necessity of sex for a full and happy life should be assumed to be universal... any more than the necessity of heterosexual relationships for a full and happy life should be.

I can't blame anybody who looks at mainstream images of sex and thinks, "Eeeww!" Hell, I do, and I love to shag.

Well, most sex is very diferent from porn. They usually shoot porn in diferent days, since a normal guy or woman wouldnt be able to do all that in the time period of the movie.

Many people watch porn because they want to see something diferent from the stuff they do.

Never....:p

Any bets on Chandelier being a nympho by 2015 then?

lol thats mean. I worked my ass off to get her confidence up in that thread!

How does not having sex affect your quality of life? Sex is not the be all and end all of life.
For a lot of people, it certainly is. For many, its the only reason they do anything, from working to drinking.
Is it? Note the following: I have noted where traditional labels don't apply perfectly, and the intention of including them was to give people some idea what they were talking to. I'm quite willing to use them as a starting point, assign slightly different meanings, and even invent my own; but I wouldn't expect you to recognise my terminology if I did. Seem logical?
If the terminology isn't recognizable by a frequenter of this forum, then you haven't thought hard enough.
That's a pretty big claim. Can you demonstrate it? I'm sure we could have a productive discussion on this line, so I'm happy to debate it. For a start, how can you claim that my quality of life is impacted by my desire (or lack of it, to be more accurate). I've experimented with sex[1]. Sure, it's a enjoyable sensation, but I have no desire for it. How does this impact my quality of life negatively?
The fact that you don;t enjoy would suggest that, according to most, you're missing out.
In fact, I'll argue that this lack of sex drive is a positive thing, for the following major reason - that it leaves me free to focus these energies on other things, which could quite probably prove useful to society (or just as likely not, I hope to work as a mathematician[2]).
Understandable. You're an intellectual. For you, the idea that the greatest joys in life can be found within yourself comes naturally. You are lucky, and your asexuality, be it affliction or not, is inconsequential.

How does it benefit and asexual to "get used to it"? I mean, if they are living full and happy lives, who cares if they aren't having sex? Their lives are a hell of a lot less complicated than any of us non-asexual's lives.

Well, maybe an assexual doesnt want to have sex, but maybe he/she wants to have a family and children. And, AFAIK, the easiest way to have a children is through sex, and usualy through a regular partner.

And to have a regular partner, you will have to do regular sex, unless he/she is an assexual too.

I see no reason why the necessity of sex for a full and happy life should be assumed to be universal... any more than the necessity of heterosexual relationships for a full and happy life should be.

Sex is an instinctual driven urge, like the urge to eat or sleep. Only those of exceptional intellects, or those who've been fortunate enough to understand that true happiness is subtle and constant, could go their whole lives without it and not be at least partially depressed.

The only thing I know about you is that you're in high school. So, I guess if your ugly your life wouldn't have been any better or worse thus far. Maybe even worse because of all the wishing cute boys would ask you out and such.
However, your later life will be significantly worse because you never had sex with those two to five ugly guys with low standards thus achieving some measure of temporary joy for a person that is incapable of perpetual contentment.

This of course, all assumes that you, like the average person, are ugly and stupid. This may not be the case, but it serves as a good enough illustration for the average person claiming to be an asexual.
And that's not even factoring in the pleasures of masturbation.


I may be ugly, but I'm not stupid. At least I don't think I am. I score at the 99th percentile in pretty much every standardized test and I'm ranked first in a class of about 500 people (which doesn't necessarily mean that I'm not stupid, but I'm smarter than most people my age at least.)

I don't want sex, so my life would be worse with sex in it, not better.

For a lot of people, it certainly is. For many, its the only reason they do anything, from working to drinking.

If the terminology isn't recognizable by a frequenter of this forum, then you haven't thought hard enough.

The fact that you don;t enjoy would suggest that, according to most, you're missing out.
.
Understandable. You're an intellectual. For you, the idea that the greatest joys in life can be found within yourself comes naturally. You are lucky, and your asexuality, be it affliction or not, is inconsequential.

Jesus, if what you're saying were generally true then I'd view asexuality as a cure.

What a horrible idea, that sex is the end-all and be-all, that it's the most we can aspire to. Sure it can be wonderful. So can creme brulee but I don't act like people who don't like are broken.

And if peopler were running around shaping their lives around getting more creme brulee THAT would be the affliction, not the people who don't like it and are happy without it.

I may be ugly, but I'm not stupid. At least I don't think I am. I score at the 99th percentile in pretty much every standardized test and I'm ranked first in a class of about 500 people (which doesn't necessarily mean that I'm not stupid, but I'm smarter than most people my age at least.)

I don't want sex, so my life would be worse with sex in it, not better.

Honey, you're neither and what he's saying is just wrong. I had a hard time even getting through it.

This poll sucks, because the "Still deciding" option makes it sound like sexual orientation is a choice.

Which, you know, it isn't.

I think the OP meant still deciding as still figuring it out. I don't believe it was implying there was a choice.

Not everyone is born with a road map. Some people know right away whether they are gay, straigt, bi, or asexual. Some don't.

Sex is an instinctual driven urge, like the urge to eat or sleep. Only those of exceptional intellects, or those who've been fortunate enough to understand that true happiness is subtle and constant, could go their whole lives without it and not be at least partially depressed.

Eating and sleeping are required for survival. Sex is a requirement for the species but not the individual. As such, it's much more like childrearing than sleeping or eating.

Meanwhile, being able to forego sex doesn't necessarily require intellect at all. You're just making things up.

And I don't know people who don't have sex or do have sex who aren't at least partially depressed.

I may be ugly, but I'm not stupid. At least I don't think I am. I score at the 99th percentile in pretty much every standardized test and I'm ranked first in a class of about 500 people (which doesn't necessarily mean that I'm not stupid, but I'm smarter than most people my age at least.)

I don't want sex, so my life would be worse with sex in it, not better.

You´re a genius. It is not uncomon for your kinds to live their whole life without sex. Hell, Dalton is said to have died a virgin.

Anyway, you probabily has three options:
1) Get old and mad.
2) Die young and sane.
3) Get married and maintain your sanity, even without sex.

Honey, you're neither and what he's saying is just wrong. I had a hard time even getting through it.

Thank you. :)

Well, maybe an assexual doesnt want to have sex, but maybe he/she wants to have a family and children. And, AFAIK, the easiest way to have a children is through sex, and usualy through a regular partner.

And to have a regular partner, you will have to do regular sex, unless he/she is an assexual too.

That's not the only way to have kids, and asexuals can cross that bridge when they come to it.

They can adopt, they can visit a sperm bank, ect. That's no reason they should be pressured to "get used to" sex.

Sex is an instinctual driven urge, like the urge to eat or sleep.

Yes, life-long abstinence for people who have a sex drive would be difficult and likely negatively impact their happiness--even if they possessed incredible intellect and understanding.

Life-long abstinence for asexuals is a wholly different matter.

Jesus, if what you're saying were generally true then I'd view asexuality as a cure.
It would be, if the average person didn't require it so much.
And if peopler were running around shaping their lives around getting more creme brulee THAT would be the affliction, not the people who don't like it and are happy without it.
Ever heard of a glutton? There are plenty of people who live to eat.
Eating and sleeping are required for survival. Sex is a requirement for the species but not the individual. As such, it's much more like childrearing than sleeping or eating.
And a great many people won't ever be happy unless they have children.
Meanwhile, being able to forego sex doesn't necessarily require intellect at all. You're just making things up.
Doing so happily in a vacuume, that is without the involvement of religion or guilt, certainly requires a great deal of rationalization, ordering of priorities and thoughtfulness.

You´re a genius. It is not uncomon for your kinds to live their whole life without sex. Hell, Dalton is said to have died a virgin.

Anyway, you probabily has three options:
1) Get old and mad.
2) Die young and sane.
3) Get married and maintain your sanity, even without sex.
In no way does marriage help you maintain your sanity.

You´re a genius. It is not uncomon for your kinds to live their whole life without sex. Hell, Dalton is said to have died a virgin.

Anyway, you probabily has three options:
1) Get old and mad.
2) Die young and sane.
3) Get married and maintain your sanity, even without sex.

Anecdotal. I think we are more likely to be aware of the genius that went without sex because Chandy is right that it is one less distraction and a relatively large one.

I don't see why someone who doesn't desire sex should be affected by going without in any way. Everyone seems to be assuming that she's not really asexual and as such is denying herself in some way.

<snip>If the terminology isn't recognizable by a frequenter of this forum, then you haven't thought hard enough.<snip>

Hang on a minute. If my own terminology, invented by me, isn't recognizable by someone that hasn't been told it, I haven't though hard enough?

For Bog's sake.

First, using mainstream terms is intellectual laziness. Then, I explain why I do, and it's suddenly not thinking hard enough. Am I supposed to be telepathic, able to tell everybody what I mean just by thinking?

Let me go over this again:

I use the general labels because people understand these. If I wanted something more specific, I would invent the term, but then I wouldn't expect you to know my invented terms without me explaining them. Does that make sense to you?

[/offtopic]

I'm starting to suspect you of trolling by the way, some of your posts seem borderline.

Chandelier: I haven't seen pictures of you, and I'm not sure if I'm exactly qualified to judge beauty anyway. However, I have a feeling you're unlikely to be ugly, and you're definitely smart, which is worth a whole lot more.

General Discussion: Asexuality/celibacy does seem to be extremely common in the highly intelligent, doesn't it. Newton, for instance, and I think G.H. Hardy tended that way as well (According to Wikipedia, non-practicing homosexual). Why could this be?

In no way does marriage help you maintain your sanity.
"But I don't want to go among mad people," cried Alice.
"Oh, you can't help that," sad the Cat, "we're all mad here."

It would be, if the average person didn't require it so much.

I'm a little scared of your definition of the average person. Apparently the average person is a nymphomaniac.

Ever heard of a glutton? There are plenty of people who live to eat.

Yes, and we consider it a disorder.


And a great many people won't ever be happy unless they have children.

Asexuals can have children. It's an entirely seperate issue.


Doing so happily in a vacuume, that is without the involvement of religion or guilt, certainly requires a great deal of rationalization, ordering of priorities and thoughtfulness.

Ridiculous. It only requires that if you view sex as important. Asexuals by definition, don't.

Yes, life-long abstinence for people who have a sex drive would be difficult and likely negatively impact their happiness--even if they possessed incredible intellect and understanding.

Life-long abstinence for asexuals is a wholly different matter.
You are thinking like an intelligent person.

As far as peak experiences are concerned, almost all the stupid have is sex or things that come from sex (children, long term relationships in which they pretend to be in love etc.). Without sex, all they have is food, intoxicants, killing animals and the vicarious victories of their favorite sports team or NASCAR driver. Factor in that in our consumer culture it is nearly impossible for that average person to be content and you have a recipe for depression. A person would have to seriously overindulge on those other activities, even more than they currently do, to not be effected, but that in turn could have very negative effect on their quality of life.

.General Discussion: Asexuality/celibacy does seem to be extremely common in the highly intelligent, doesn't it. Newton, for instance, and I think G.H. Hardy tended that way as well (According to Wikipedia, non-practicing homosexual). Why could this be?
Two reasons.
Intelligent people tend to be ugly.
The intelligent can rationalize away their need for sex in favor of higher pursuits without a detriment to their happiness due to the joy they receive from these higher pursuits.

You are thinking like an intelligent person.

As far as peak experiences are concerned, almost all the stupid have is sex or things that come from sex (children, long term relationships in which they pretend to be in love etc.). Without sex, all they have is food, intoxicants, killing animals and the vicarious victories of their favorite sports team or NASCAR driver. Factor in that in our consumer culture it is nearly impossible for that average person to be content and you have a recipe for depression. A person would have to seriously overindulge on those other activities, even more than they currently do, to not be effected, but that in turn could have very negative effect on their quality of life.

Do you honestly believe this is a reasonable argument?

Do you honestly believe this is a reasonable argument?
Why wouldn't it be?

In view of this and previous comments, can I ask you one thing:

Do you think that there is such a thing as a person with no sex drive?

If you don't, would you be willing to accept, for the purposes of debate, that such a person can exist?

It's not that I believe it can't exist. It's that in certain people it has a detrimental effect on their well-being.

Two reasons.
Intelligent people tend to be ugly.
The intelligent can rationalize away their need for sex in favor of higher pursuits without a detriment to their happiness due to the joy they receive from these higher pursuits.

In view of this and previous comments, can I ask you one thing:

Do you think that there is such a thing as a person with no sex drive?

If you don't, would you be willing to accept, for the purposes of debate, that such a person can exist?

I'm not stupid, yet I enjoy food, intoxicants, and killing animals nonetheless. (NASCAR? Hell no.)

At least, I don't think I'm stupid, but then I can hardly claim to be unbiased in the matter.

It's not that I believe it can't exist. It's that in certain people it has a detrimental effect on their well-being.

I see. However, most of your previous comments appeared to be based on the idea that a person must try to do it, and that it takes conscious sacrifice.

Would you care to explain how it lowers my quality of life, now that we've accepted it can exist, and probably isn't related to human choice[1]?

[1] If you want to debate that, bring it on.

I see. However, most of your previous comments appeared to be based on the idea that a person must try to do it, and that it takes conscious sacrifice.
Only because I didn't elaborate enough. If one is intelligent enough to be, more or less, perpetually content, then asexuality is liberating.
However, the stupid need all the peak experiences they can get because a consumerist society does not allow them to be content.
Would you care to explain how it lowers my quality of life, now that we've accepted it can exist, and probably isn't related to human choice[1]?

As I said, you are intelligent, so it probably does not.

I'm going to, for the time being, ignore the brewing standoff between two of our esteemed fellow forumers to put in my two cents.

On Asexuality: Is it normal? No, not in the typically understood sense of "normal," but that doesn't make it an affliction. If you're happy without mucking about with sex, then more power to you. Do what makes you happy; by the same token, don't do what makes you unhappy. Just, for the sake of the rest of us, reserve the right to change your mind, okay? :p

As an aside: Sex may not be the be-all and end-all of life, but it is the start-all.

On Porn: I've read much mention of porn on this forum, & I would like to address it. If you find porn disgusting, it's probably because it (or any I've seen, at least) bears small resemblance to the natural act of sex. Plus it's degrading to the "actors" and it strips the act itself of all that is healthy about it. Studies show that excessive exposure to pornographic material can reduce sex drive. I think this is because it cultivates a "so-what" attitude by saturating a person's mind with something that is otherwise special, kind of like when you eat sugary treats 'til you get sick. For those who are asking themselves, "Am I asexual?" I would say, don't use porn to help you decide. There is plenty of art to be found which has erotic content, yet is tasteful and respects the human element within itself. In addition, I read (though I don't have any first-hand knowledge of this) that women are a great deal less visual than men, and that they are more likely to be sexually aroused by stories than by images. Well, I guess that explains the success of Harlequin.

Only because I didn't elaborate enough. If one is intelligent enough to be, more or less, perpetually content, then asexuality is liberating.
However, the stupid need all the peak experiences they can get because a consumerist society does not allow them to be content.


As I said, you are intelligent, so it probably does not.

For an asexual, sex simply is not a peak experience. Intelligence, social class, country, all have no bearing on this.

Let me make it clear: Ignoring all other factors, an asexual has no drive for sex.

It doesn't matter if I'm intelligent and therefore feel it unnecessary, or any other reason, these are all secondary. I am not asexual because I choose to be due to intelligence, I am asexual because that's my natural way of feeling.

Got that?

[Sex is not the be all and end all of life.

Actually it is.

I'm going to, for the time being, ignore the brewing standoff between two of our esteemed fellow forumers to put in my two cents.

Probably a good idea, I really need to take some time out before I flip. This will be my last post for tonight[1], people.

IOn Asexuality: Is it normal? No, not in the typically understood sense of "normal," but that doesn't make it an affliction. If you're happy without mucking about with sex, then more power to you. Do what makes you happy; by the same token, don't do what makes you unhappy. Just, for the sake of the rest of us, reserve the right to change your mind, okay? :p

Very good. I'm not claiming you have to be like me, and if I ever find that a different label describes me better, I'll use it[2]. Incidentally, I don't think normal is the right word to describe anyone. By the standards of an asexual, you're all quite strange. However, considering the issue from the point of view of the majority of society seems reasonable.

You have the makings of a very sensible poster in you, cultivate them.

IAs an aside: Sex may not be the be-all and end-all of life, but it is the start-all.

Very droll. :)

IOn Porn: I've read much mention of porn on this forum, & I would like to address it. If you find porn disgusting, it's probably because it (or any I've seen, at least) bears small resemblance to the natural act of sex. Plus it's degrading to the "actors" and it strips the act itself of all that is healthy about it. Studies show that excessive exposure to pornographic material can reduce sex drive. I think this is because it cultivates a "so-what" attitude by saturating a person's mind with something that is otherwise special, kind of like when you eat sugary treats 'til you get sick. For those who are asking themselves, "Am I asexual?" I would say, don't use porn to help you decide. There is plenty of art to be found which has erotic content, yet is tasteful and respects the human element within itself. In addition, I read (though I don't have any first-hand knowledge of this) that women are a great deal less visual than men, and that they are more likely to be sexually aroused by stories than by images. Well, I guess that explains the success of Harlequin.

Not so sure how to respond to this part, but it seems generally accurate.

All in all, you get a stamp of approval, 10 points, and a cookie! Have fun.

[1]Well, for a few hours anyway. I may post again before I go to bed.

[2]Apologies for using my experience and focusing on myself, but I don't know others well enough to use their experiences.

General Discussion: Asexuality/celibacy does seem to be extremely common in the highly intelligent, doesn't it. Newton, for instance, and I think G.H. Hardy tended that way as well (According to Wikipedia, non-practicing homosexual). Why could this be?

I guess there could be many reasons.

For example, they could have developed mentaly so early that when they were 12, 13 or so they were already far beyond their age, and didnt had a lot of contact with people of their age.

Also, they could be so atached to their work and research that they dont even care about anything else. Its possible and quite "common", all things considered.

And maybe they feel like they are too diferent from people to engage in sexual activities with others that they feel share nothing with them. They may also have this romantic and intelectual view on sex, and that doing it just for pleasure is "wrong" or "useless".

Hell, who knows?

I guess there could be many reasons.

For example, they could have developed mentaly so early that when they were 12, 13 or so they were already far beyond their age, and didnt had a lot of contact with people of their age.

Strangly that sounds like me, I developed early. I was and still am different from the rest of my peers.I am one of the top in my class.I am quite, and a recluse. I have very few friends who which i do not socialize with outside school. When I was 12 or 13 I was still quite innocent. I never knew what prostitution, masturbation, or what sex actually was till I was 14. I also am a huge Otaku/nerd, so my social skills aren't great.

All in all, you get a stamp of approval, 10 points, and a cookie!

Yay! I love cookies!

And for my part, I didn't know what 'social skills' are till I was about 16. Now, I'm a happy, healthy, and sociable member of real-life society. The point of this is to say, don't worry Dracellia, there is hope for you and countless others . . . unless you happen to like being a quietly innocent nerdy recluse . . . which is fine too.

:headbang:
I get it now. It's all so clear because everyone is talking in riddles so i'll just answer me these questions 3...
Question the first. Can you really say that you're any way inclined without prior sexual relations to relfect on?
Second. Are those ticking "asexual" monks, or just not too excited?
Third, kind of a statement sort of: The legal age to engage in sexual relations is 16 for herterosexuals and 18 for homosexuals. If they could, many governments would disband all non-straight relations and never look back.
I ticked the hetero box and i stand by it, but anyone could just lie.
If you're quoting me don't be too harsh because i'm coming off a huge caffeine high and i might go a little crazy.
I was just checking to see if you read this far..If you have then what kind of high was i on? Seriously i forgot why are we here?

And for my part, I didn't know what 'social skills' are till I was about 16. Now, I'm a happy, healthy, and sociable member of real-life society. The point of this is to say, don't worry Dracellia, there is hope for you and countless others . . . unless you happen to like being a quietly innocent nerdy recluse . . . which is fine too.

I am content with being a recluse.

Sex is like chocolate.

Most people absolutely go nuts over chocolate. We love it, we eat it, we can't seem to ever get enough(at least I know I can't!).

There are, however, a few people out there who don't like the taste of chocolate. They're a minority, but they're there. Whenever I meet one, I think to myself "How can you not love chocolate? It's so delicious!". Still, for a reason nobody understands, they don't like it, and it's all there is to it. Sure, they could try to acquire the taste, but what for? They don't eat chocolate and they're really happy despite that.

Now, if *I* had to go without chocolate, I'd probably go mad, see. Luckily, them not loving chocolate does not prevent me from indulging in my chocolatey decadence, in fact, it only leaves more chocolate for me to eat. So despite me not understanding(and that will probably never change) why they don't love chocolate, I just respect the fact that they don't and leave it at that.

Sex == chocolate, and asexuals are those funny people who don't enjoy chocolate.

Sex is like chocolate.

Most people absolutely go nuts over chocolate. We love it, we eat it, we can't seem to ever get enough(at least I know I can't!).

There are, however, a few people out there who don't like the taste of chocolate. They're a minority, but they're there. Whenever I meet one, I think to myself "How can you not love chocolate? It's so delicious!". Still, for a reason nobody understands, they don't like it, and it's all there is to it. Sure, they could try to acquire the taste, but what for? They don't eat chocolate and they're really happy despite that.

Now, if *I* had to go without chocolate, I'd probably go mad, see. Luckily, them not loving chocolate does not prevent me from indulging in my chocolatey decadence, in fact, it only leaves more chocolate for me to eat. So despite me not understanding(and that will probably never change) why they don't love chocolate, I just respect the fact that they don't and leave it at that.

Sex == chocolate, and asexuals are those funny people who don't enjoy chocolate.

Incredibly good analogy, well applied, understandable, general awesomeness. I bow to you, sir.

I guess there could be many reasons.

For example, they could have developed mentaly so early that when they were 12, 13 or so they were already far beyond their age, and didnt had a lot of contact with people of their age.

Also, they could be so atached to their work and research that they dont even care about anything else. Its possible and quite "common", all things considered.

And maybe they feel like they are too diferent from people to engage in sexual activities with others that they feel share nothing with them. They may also have this romantic and intelectual view on sex, and that doing it just for pleasure is "wrong" or "useless".

Hell, who knows?

Or maybe they were asexual, and didn't even have a sex drive in the first place? Seems a reasonable explanation to me.

And for my part, I didn't know what 'social skills' are till I was about 16. Now, I'm a happy, healthy, and sociable member of real-life society. The point of this is to say, don't worry Dracellia, there is hope for you and countless others . . . unless you happen to like being a quietly innocent nerdy recluse . . . which is fine too.

I'm also quite a nerdy person, but I'm not sure about social recluse. Never the less, it seems to be a common pattern. Could be worth some consideration.

Apologies for the colossal quote:original content ratio.

Incredibly good analogy, well applied, understandable, general awesomeness. I bow to you, sir.

I'm also quite a nerdy person, but I'm not sure about social recluse. Never the less, it seems to be a common pattern. Could be worth some consideration.


I agree. It was a good analogy. :)

Of course it's also possible that people who frequent online forums are more likely to be a bit nerdy. Maybe? ;)

As for my social patterns, I have several close friends who I don't get to see very often but talk to and a best friend I see at least once a week in real life and talk to online as well. I think that's pretty good, although I'm very shy around people I don't know very well.:)

I agree. It was a good analogy. :)

Of course it's also possible that people who frequent online forums are more likely to be a bit nerdy. Maybe? ;)

As for my social patterns, I have several close friends who I don't get to see very often but talk to and a best friend I see at least once a week in real life and talk to online as well. I think that's pretty good, although I'm very shy around people I don't know very well.:)

Well, it is of course true that the internet nicely filters out many of the less nerdy types.

I have a very small group of close friends, and a reasonable circle of acquaintances, the second batch of whom are mostly online. Shyness also features, and I have a tendency to simply sit in a corner (back to the wall) and read a book.

Thanks. I have to say I was quite satisfied with my little equation.

Like I said above, I don't think I'll ever really understand how people can *not* love sex and want to have lots and lots of it.

However, tastes cannot be argued, can they? It's like wondering why my neighbour or sister doesn't recognize Orange as the most beautiful color. No point arguing about it.

Meanwhile, I'm gonna keep enjoying having lots of sex. And chocolate. And, hopefully, someday I'll get to try sex with chocolate. And that day I will know true happiness. =D

Thanks. I have to say I was quite satisfied with my little equation.

Like I said above, I don't think I'll ever really understand how people can *not* love sex and want to have lots and lots of it.

However, tastes cannot be argued, can they? It's like wondering why my neighbour or sister doesn't recognize Orange as the most beautiful color. No point arguing about it.

Meanwhile, I'm gonna keep enjoying having lots of sex. And chocolate. And, hopefully, someday I'll get to try sex with chocolate. And that day I will know true happiness. =D

Well, you can keep the sex, but in return, I want the chocolate :P

And you're wrong, the most beautiful colour is Cherenkov blue.

@Chandelier: You sound like an interesting person. I'll TG you tomorrow, as it's time for bed in the UK (1 am).

@Chandelier: You sound like an interesting person. I'll TG you tomorrow, as it's time for bed in the UK (1 am).

All right. :)

Why wouldn't it be?

Well I don't see how talking about stupid people while saying stupid things is going to thelp you.

Saying intelligent people tend to be ugly is stupid. Looks and intellect are not connected. At all. It's a stereotype. If you're looking to be taken seriously try not making every post about "the stupids" and try to actually work with ideas instead of stereotypes. You'd be surprised how it changes people's reaction to you.

Why is that so unreasonable?

Hey, you were the one saying there were only 3. Now there are...14?

My comment was referring to my belief that because of the anonymity of the poll, some people might just be trying to bump the numbers up, for whatever reason.

Hey, you were the one saying there were only 3. Now there are...14?

My comment was referring to my belief that because of the anonymity of the poll, some people might just be trying to bump the numbers up, for whatever reason.

What? That was my idea, when did you steal it?

Sex is like chocolate.

Most people absolutely go nuts over chocolate. We love it, we eat it, we can't seem to ever get enough(at least I know I can't!).

There are, however, a few people out there who don't like the taste of chocolate. They're a minority, but they're there. Whenever I meet one, I think to myself "How can you not love chocolate? It's so delicious!". Still, for a reason nobody understands, they don't like it, and it's all there is to it. Sure, they could try to acquire the taste, but what for? They don't eat chocolate and they're really happy despite that.

Now, if *I* had to go without chocolate, I'd probably go mad, see. Luckily, them not loving chocolate does not prevent me from indulging in my chocolatey decadence, in fact, it only leaves more chocolate for me to eat. So despite me not understanding(and that will probably never change) why they don't love chocolate, I just respect the fact that they don't and leave it at that.

Sex == chocolate, and asexuals are those funny people who don't enjoy chocolate.

My friend Alex doesn't like chocolate. He's also British.

There is an obvious connection there.

Just, for the sake of the rest of us, reserve the right to change your mind, okay? :p

This bit. Why does everyone have this bit? Do people go up to Fass, saying "keep an open mind, you might turn out straight"?

Saying intelligent people tend to be ugly is stupid. Looks and intellect are not connected.

Oh but they are. Society is designed to breed stupidity, selfishness and ignorance. Only those who reject the society's common standards have a chance of achieving a proper understanding of the universe and their place in it, or or even a proper amount of empathy.

Someone who is ugly is more likely to reject societal pressures and messages simply because they've less to gain. They will already automatically be less in the eyes of others, why not reject the expectations of others all together?
For an asexual, sex simply is not a peak experience. Intelligence, social class, country, all have no bearing on this.

Precisely. Thus, the total number of peak experiences they will experience in their lifes will be much too low unless they are intelligent. Thus asexuality is something extremely unhealthy for the stupid.

Oh but they are. Society is designed to breed stupidity, selfishness and ignorance. Only those who reject the society's common standards have a chance of achieving a proper understanding of the universe and their place in it, or or even a proper amount of empathy.

Someone who is ugly is more likely to reject societal pressures and messages simply because they've less to gain. They will already automatically be less in the eyes of others, why not reject the expectations of others all together?


...Are we talking about people, or is this a more personal tirade-let?

As for my social patterns, I have several close friends who I don't get to see very often but talk to and a best friend I see at least once a week in real life and talk to online as well. I think that's pretty good, although I'm very shy around people I don't know very well.:)

Probably nowhere near as bad around people you don't know as I am.

If you're looking to be taken seriously try not making every post about "the stupids" and try to actually work with ideas instead of stereotypes. You'd be surprised how it changes people's reaction to you.

It's annoying me a little bit too.

This bit. Why does everyone have this bit? Do people go up to Fass, saying "keep an open mind, you might turn out straight"?

Most people want to live.

Oh but they are. Society is designed to breed stupidity, selfishness and ignorance. Only those who reject the society's common standards have a chance of achieving a proper understanding of the universe and their place (or lack thereof) in it, or or even a proper amount of empathy.

Precisely. Thus, the total number of peak experiences they will experience in their lifes will be much too low unless they are intelligent. Thus asexuality is something extremely unhealthy for the stupid.

You're assuming that there's a quota that needs to be met that is the same for everybody.

I don't see why asexuals should have to explain themselves any more than heterosexuals, or homosexuals. We don't ask them to "get diagnosed," why should we ask an asexual?

Because there are possible pathological reasons to explain asexuality

Because there are possible pathological reasons to explain asexuality

There are ''possible pathological reasons'' to explain almost anything. I'm not hungry right now. Do I need to disprove all the possible pathological reasons for that before you'll accept it?

There are ''possible pathological reasons'' to explain almost anything. I'm not hungry right now. Do I need to disprove all the possible pathological reasons for that before you'll accept it?

Explain the pathological reasons for heterosexuality or homosexuality

Explain the pathological reasons for heterosexuality or homosexuality

You're missing my point. Why are the pathological reasons the first things that come up for you? If I told you now I wasn't hungry, would you ask if I have an eating disorder?

You're missing my point. Why are the pathological reasons the first things that come up for you? If I told you now I wasn't hungry, would you ask if I have an eating disorder?

If asexuals want to convince me (which they have no reason to but threads like this were put up on a debating forum) then they would have to disprove other causes. If you said you weren't hungry now I would have no reason to suggest eating disorders. If you said you were never hungry however.....

If you said you were never hungry however.....

That would be something pathological in and of itself, wouldn't it? That'd be more akin to Chandy starting a thread detailing her decreased sex drive due to depression. She didn't do that.

So much to reply to since I last visited this thread. A very good discussion, with very little vituperance and vitriol. Congratulations all 'round.

How does not having sex affect your quality of life? Sex is not the be all and end all of life.

Well, to your cerebellum, it is. To every animal lower on the Linnean taxonomy chart it is. Perhaps asexuals are somehow bypassing or overruling their cerebelli with the cerebri. Who knows? What's more important is that it doesn't really matter. What if years of scientific research were poured into this topic and it was discovered that asexuals were missing some key hormone or some key gene. Further, what if that hormone or gene absence could be corrected with a medicine or therapy of some sort. Would asexuals take it? Would it matter to them? I'm sure some would wonder about what they've been assured they've been missing and try it. I'm just as sure that a majority would prefer to stay as they are. I don't mean to wander into Gattaca territory, but at some point, there must be a line we don't cross. Congenital heart defects? Fix 'em. Asexuality? That's up to the individual.

The only thing I know about you is that you're in high school. So, I guess if your ugly your life wouldn't have been any better or worse thus far. Maybe even worse because of all the wishing cute boys would ask you out and such.
However, your later life will be significantly worse because you never had sex with those two to five ugly guys with low standards thus achieving some measure of temporary joy for a person that is incapable of perpetual contentment.

This of course, all assumes that you, like the average person, are ugly and stupid. This may not be the case, but it serves as a good enough illustration for the average person claiming to be an asexual.
And that's not even factoring in the pleasures of masturbation.

Sex is one of the things that keeps simple-minded people happy.

Wow. So many faulty assumptions here I don't know where to start. Wait. Yes I do. You assume she wishes all the cute boys would ask her out. If the primary drive behind that asking is sexual in nature (and as a former public high school teacher, I can assure you that it is...no kid in high school is as subtle as they like to think they are), she was wishing nothing of the sort. Now, if you mean that she wished to be asked out in order to be "included" in the various reindeer games of the high school herd, that's possible. The only way to know (and no, your baseless and even offensive assumption isn't it) is to ask Chandelier. Chandelier?

Her life will be "significantly worse"? You just pulled that right out of your alimentary canal, son. Assuming that "giving in" to guys with "low standards" even remotely equates to "temporary joy" is such a blinkered, philistine, pig-ignorant thing to say that I can only reply with "huh?" "Incapable of perpetual contentment? Mate, you've just described the whole of the human race! Even the Dalai Lama isn't peachy 24/7. I should think she'd be a lot LESS content if she compromised her principles for the meaningless messy-exercise type of juvenile grope-fest you're describing as somehow integral to life.

You say the average person is "ugly and stupid", I read "transferrence". My God, you're condemning an entire segment of the population, having met how many in person? You make it very difficult to take you seriously.

Well, most sex is very diferent from porn. They usually shoot porn in diferent days, since a normal guy or woman wouldnt be able to do all that in the time period of the movie.

Many people watch porn because they want to see something diferent from the stuff they do.

Nope. The vast majority of porn is shot in as little time as possible. If a porno takes more than a day, it's actually bothering with a theme (like mainstream film parodies and the like) -- most don't. Your assertion that most sex is different than porn is, in fact, an understatement. The woman can lie there all day; it's the man who's pressure to perform is greatest. Try to watch a few documentaries (HBO's Pornucopia: Going Down in the Valley is a sanitized, but fairly informative place to start).

Yes, life-long abstinence for people who have a sex drive would be difficult and likely negatively impact their happiness--even if they possessed incredible intellect and understanding.

Life-long abstinence for asexuals is a wholly different matter.

*sigh* Apparently, you've never heard of nuns. I have a slightly unfair advantage in that I teach at a Catholic university, but none of the nuns I've ever met are unhappy, and most of them possess a great deal of intellect and understanding...most probably because they've been able to subordinate their sex drives. Do I think every monastic is perfect in that regard? Of course not. But that's what confession and penance is for. This is an entire branch of humanity (and not just Catholics) for whom asexuality is a choice. It seems to me that monastics might possibly even pray to be genuinely asexual in order to make their vows of chastity easier to keep (I'm sure as hell not going to ask). And just to pre-empt any anti-priest posts, I'm well aware of the problem of priest paedophilia, and I'll even grant that the vow of celibacy might play a role. However, you're talking a minority, and those who take that vow but don't live the ascetic life are doubly tempted by living within a sex-charged society. It doesn't excuse anything, but it might explain the fact that priests were overwhelmingly inplicated in that scandal, while ascetics/monastics (by definition shut to a degree away from mainstram society) were not.

You are thinking like an intelligent person.

As far as peak experiences are concerned, almost all the stupid have is sex or things that come from sex (children, long term relationships in which they pretend to be in love etc.). Without sex, all they have is food, intoxicants, killing animals and the vicarious victories of their favorite sports team or NASCAR driver. Factor in that in our consumer culture it is nearly impossible for that average person to be content and you have a recipe for depression. A person would have to seriously overindulge on those other activities, even more than they currently do, to not be effected, but that in turn could have very negative effect on their quality of life.

Okay, now you're being deliberately obtuse and baiting the opposition in an almost trollish fashion. It's okay to be a cynic, or even a pessimist (I've been in both camps and in fact, still write letters to them occasionally) -- but you've completely overlooked the pride many people take in their work, religious or spiritual people, popular entertainers, hell, even adrenaline junkies and athletes. Massive intelligence is not required for "peak experiences", and it's the purest manure to assume so, as you have. I know you're assuming because that kind of assessment can only be made by someone who thinks they've met enough people in their tiny sliver of the globe to accurately judge.

I'll even reverse your assumption for you: intelligent people never have peak experiences because they're too wrapped up in their minds and the world of words, books, study and/or academia to ever seek them out! OR, they're far too sensibly phobic to ever experience peak experiences like sky diving, running with the bulls (go bulls!), hunting big game, and all kinds of peak-type stuff.

You're trying to square off people into neat little boxes in order to fit your reality. Your reality includes the perception that nobody could POSSIBLY feel neutral about sex, let alone not crave it. Sorry, pal, there are far too many humans and far too much neural and hormonal chemistry going on for anything remotely approaching that kind of neatness. Humans are messy, and you're the one who needs to adapt, not Chandelier.

Two reasons.
Intelligent people tend to be ugly.
The intelligent can rationalize away their need for sex in favor of higher pursuits without a detriment to their happiness due to the joy they receive from these higher pursuits.

I understand why you've repeated such horseshit as an argument here. It's based on the hordes of bad books, bad TV, bad movies and other cultural stereotypes. Newsflash: the intelligent can be (and in my experience, often are) as horny as the C-average tartlet wearing the t-shirt with "slut" written on it in rhinestones. People tend to be intelligent. They also tend to be dumb as glass mallet. They also tend to be ugly. They also tend to be hot enough to melt the iron bands of self-imposed morality. People are everything to any number of other people. To sit here in judgement, making statements so blatantly cribbed from Revenge of the Nerds or similar garbage entertainment, is making you look like a class-A fool.

An intelligent person with a strong sex drive can no more rationalize it away than the village idiot...or the village bicycle, for that matter. That drive can be managed, but it doesn't go away...sometimes not even in senescence. Personally, I pity you because you've never met somoene intelligent and attractive. Actually, more's the pity, because you probably have and just didn't notice because your definition of "not ugly" is somehow distorted. Only you know how.


On Asexuality: Is it normal? No, not in the typically understood sense of "normal," but that doesn't make it an affliction. If you're happy without mucking about with sex, then more power to you. Do what makes you happy; by the same token, don't do what makes you unhappy. Just, for the sake of the rest of us, reserve the right to change your mind, okay?

Changing one's mind is not something you have to reserve the right to do. Should it happen, it usually happens completely without your consent -- especially regarding something as base to personality as sexuality can be.

Now -- please give me a working definition of "normal" in a world that is perfectly content to produce everything from communion wafers to edible underwear; from rosaries to ben-wah balls; from Mary Poppins to I Spit on Your Grave; and from the book of Jeremiah to the movies of Ron Jeremy. Quite simply, you can't. Life is balance. If there can be nymphomania and sex addiction, there can be asexuality. Whether they're treated as problems is entirely up to the person who experiences them. The range of psychological experiences is limitless, and to call any one of them normal is to deny humanity itself. Not only that, it sets a dangerous precedent for "othering" those not in the "normal" box.

Or, more briefly, as a good friend of mine likes to to say, "normal" is a cycle on a washing machine.

Sex is like chocolate.

Most people absolutely go nuts over chocolate. We love it, we eat it, we can't seem to ever get enough(at least I know I can't!).

There are, however, a few people out there who don't like the taste of chocolate. They're a minority, but they're there. Whenever I meet one, I think to myself "How can you not love chocolate? It's so delicious!". Still, for a reason nobody understands, they don't like it, and it's all there is to it. Sure, they could try to acquire the taste, but what for? They don't eat chocolate and they're really happy despite that.

Now, if *I* had to go without chocolate, I'd probably go mad, see. Luckily, them not loving chocolate does not prevent me from indulging in my chocolatey decadence, in fact, it only leaves more chocolate for me to eat. So despite me not understanding(and that will probably never change) why they don't love chocolate, I just respect the fact that they don't and leave it at that.

Sex == chocolate, and asexuals are those funny people who don't enjoy chocolate.

A fair analogy. What about people who are allergic to chocolate?

Oh but they are. Society is designed to breed stupidity, selfishness and ignorance. Only those who reject the society's common standards have a chance of achieving a proper understanding of the universe and their place in it, or or even a proper amount of empathy.

Someone who is ugly is more likely to reject societal pressures and messages simply because they've less to gain. They will already automatically be less in the eyes of others, why not reject the expectations of others all together?

Precisely. Thus, the total number of peak experiences they will experience in their lifes will be much too low unless they are intelligent. Thus asexuality is something extremely unhealthy for the stupid.

I've covered this earlier. You assume too much. Archive these posts of yours and return to them in five to ten years and see if you still feel the same way. You may, but I sincerely doubt it. There's a lot of anger in these words. Don't worry, you'll learn to transcend that...or you'll be consumed by it.

Because there are possible pathological reasons to explain asexuality

There's no way you're dodging this post unless you explain it or retract it.

Pathology can apply to any human behavior.

Please enlighten us as to the pathology of asexuality. You posited it, now prove it.

A fair analogy. What about people who are allergic to chocolate?

Screwed.

Screwed.

Or can't get screwed.

Screwed.

I would think just the opposite...but I know people who love the food they're allergic to so much that they'll have some on special occasions and live with the hives (I have an ex who was that way about onions...she was Greek, and to be Greek and allergic to onions was...difficult...for her).

I voted for asexual coz I'm just a wanker.

There's no way you're dodging this post unless you explain it or retract it.

Pathology can apply to any human behavior.

Please enlighten us as to the pathology of asexuality. You posited it, now prove it.

Dodging? I prefer to call it sleeping

You're right though. I could have explained it better. What I should have said is that a lack of sex drive is a possible symptom of a variety of medical problems.

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sex_relationships/facts/lackingsexdrive.htm

I'm happy to be corrected. It's the reason I bother debating at all here so I can improve my understanding of things

Well, screw that shit. I'm not attracted to a gender, I'm attracted to individuals.

Pansexuality?

Dodging? I prefer to call it sleeping

You're right though. I could have explained it better. What I should have said is that a lack of sex drive is a possible symptom of a variety of medical problems.

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sex_relationships/facts/lackingsexdrive.htm

I'm happy to be corrected. It's the reason I bother debating at all here so I can improve my understanding of things

Okay then, I'll play it your way.

(As I'm a guy, list taken from here (http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sex_relationships/facts/malelacksexdrive.htm))

Physical causes

Alcoholism - quite common.

Don't drink. I don't like the taste of alcohol.

Abuse of drugs such as cocaine.

Never tried any such drug. My drug consumption, if you can call it that, is a cup or two of tea a day, and the occasional painkiller for a headache.

Obesity - quite common; slimming down will often help.

Not obese. Definitely not obese.

Anaemia - unusual, unless the man has been bleeding for any reason.

Don't have the symptoms. I'll admit it's an outside chance

Hyperprolactinaemia - a rare disorder where the pituitary gland produces too much of the hormone prolactin.

Never tested for it. Again, this is a possibility, but unlikely.

Prescribed drugs - particularly Proscar (finasteride), a tablet used for prostate problems.

Not on any prescriptions.

Low testosterone level - contrary to what many people think, this is rare.

Also unlikely. How does one measure one's own testosterone level? Have normal development for person my age, beard, leg hair, etc.

Any major disease such as diabetes.

Don't have any.

Psychological causes

Depression - very common.

Pity I'm not depressed.

Stress and overwork.

On holiday for the summer, and have been for some time. Have no stress, no work I have to do. Seems very unlikely.

Hang-ups from childhood.

Normal enough childhood - stable family, nice parents. Seems very unlikely

Latent homosexuality.

Let me know when you can test for this, but it seems incredibly unlikely. All of the people I have been romantically attracted to are female.

Serious relationship problems with your partner.

Don't have one, therefore no problems.


So, discarding rare conditions, and medical conditions for which I haven't developed any of the symptoms, it seems that I'm fine, so there must be some other explanation.

Such as me being wired that way. Next?

So, discarding rare conditions, and medical conditions for which I haven't developed any of the symptoms, it seems that I'm fine, so there must be some other explanation.

Such as me being wired that way. Next?

And yet I never said that asexuality can't exist. All i've said is that I don't believe it is as prevalent as is made out.

If I was the one in the same situation I would prefer to have ruled out other possibilities first. That's not to say I care either way if someone else disagrees with that but i'm going to be sceptical about their self definition if they haven't looked at all the possibilities. They don't have to care how I feel about it though

And yet I never said that asexuality can't exist. All i've said is that I don't believe it is as prevalent as is made out.

Okay. So, having dealt with the alternate reasons, will we accept, for the purposes of discussion, that I am, in fact, asexual? (Bloody hell that was a lot of commas. I really should get out of the habit of using them as balanced delimiters)

And that therefore we must have at least one on NationStates?

I'm not claiming it's prevalent, I'm claiming that it's a reasonable possibility in enough cases to make it silly to dismiss out of hand. Shall we start asking homosexuals if they've gone through all the possible pathological reasons before we accept their choice?

Now, if you mean that she wished to be asked out in order to be "included" in the various reindeer games of the high school herd, that's possible. The only way to know (and no, your baseless and even offensive assumption isn't it) is to ask Chandelier. Chandelier?


No. Whenever people used to ask me out I always said no. Now people seem to have stopped asking me out, which is good.

Okay. So, having dealt with the alternate reasons, will we accept, for the purposes of discussion, that I am, in fact, asexual? (Bloody hell that was a lot of commas. I really should get out of the habit of using them as balanced delimiters)

And that therefore we must have at least one on NationStates?

I'm not claiming it's prevalent, I'm claiming that it's a reasonable possibility in enough cases to make it silly to dismiss out of hand. Shall we start asking homosexuals if they've gone through all the possible pathological reasons before we accept their choice?

I think we're basically agreeing with eachother to be honest and I wouldn't dismiss asexuality out of hand but, personally, I wouldn't take it on faith without having looked at other possibilities.

I can't really think of any medical conditions as a likely cause of homosexuality or heterosexuality

I think we're basically agreeing with eachother to be honest and I wouldn't dismiss asexuality out of hand but, personally, I wouldn't take it on faith without having looked at other possibilities.

I can't really think of any medical conditions as a likely cause of homosexuality or heterosexuality

Well.. either asexuality is much more prevalent than once thought, or else scores of people are hopping on a bandwagon because they think being asexual makes them complex.

Guess which one I'm leaning towards.

Well.. either asexuality is much more prevalent than once thought, or else scores of people are hopping on a bandwagon because they think being asexual makes them complex.

Guess which one I'm leaning towards.

Or some people are skewing the poll, since it's anonymous...

Two reasons.
Intelligent people tend to be ugly.

That clinches it: you're trolling.

I've read a lot of your previous posts. You aren't that stupid.

[...]
On Porn: I've read much mention of porn on this forum, & I would like to address it. If you find porn disgusting, it's probably because it (or any I've seen, at least) bears small resemblance to the natural act of sex. Plus it's degrading to the "actors" and it strips the act itself of all that is healthy about it. Studies show that excessive exposure to pornographic material can reduce sex drive. I think this is because it cultivates a "so-what" attitude by saturating a person's mind with something that is otherwise special, kind of like when you eat sugary treats 'til you get sick. For those who are asking themselves, "Am I asexual?" I would say, don't use porn to help you decide. There is plenty of art to be found which has erotic content, yet is tasteful and respects the human element within itself. In addition, I read (though I don't have any first-hand knowledge of this) that women are a great deal less visual than men, and that they are more likely to be sexually aroused by stories than by images. Well, I guess that explains the success of Harlequin.

I commend this interpretation, particularly the bolded bit.

I'd like to add that watching sex, which clearly stimulates the libido for a lot of people, is quite a narrow form (voyeurism) of sexual activity. Pornographic writing is different, not necessarily a better simulation of sex.

Sex itself is overwhelmingly a matter of touch, with pheremones and so on (smell and taste I guess) also playing an important part. Perhaps that is why people (even active and adventurous sexual people) find it so hard to say anything meaningful about sex, and why they deviate so easily into talking about physical appearance. It's in the structure of language and in the fact that the human brain is so good at visual and verbal, but still essentially a dog's brain for the sense of touch.

Hey, you were the one saying there were only 3. Now there are...14?

My comment was referring to my belief that because of the anonymity of the poll, some people might just be trying to bump the numbers up, for whatever reason.

By the definition most here seem to be using, I'm an asexual too. But being a stickler for terminology, I prefer to describe myself as "a celibate" since I am so entirely by choice. I have a low level of sexual drive, my sexual attraction to people is easily chanelled into affection and the urge to share in their welfare, and I quite consciously choose not to go beyond a bit of flirting or cuddling.

Equating hyposexuality and ascetism (in this regard ... I'm a pig for other pleasures) with "asexuality" displeases me. It seems dishonest (intellectually dishonest, lying to oneself) to say "I am at an extreme of the spectrum" when that is true for only a very tiny number of self-styled "asexuals."

The word is "celibate." It expresses perfectly that a person chooses not to have sex. I suspect that it is only losing currency because of a negative association with priests.

I voted "still deciding," but you could count me as # 15 I guess.

[...]


Yikes! This and all that follows will have to wait until I've had my nap.
I'll be back soon.

Okay, I'll do the same thing UNIverseVERSE did, although some of these seem to be talking more about a loss of libido rather than a lack of it from the start...

Anaemia, which is very common in women because of iron loss during periods.

This is a possibility for me, as I do tend to get very pale during my periods.

Alcoholism.

The only alcohol I've ever had is the sip of wine at church...

Drug abuse

I don't do drugs.

Major diseases such as diabetes.

Nope.

Post-baby coolness, a term we have coined for the loss of libido that often happens after childbirth. It is almost certainly linked to hormonal changes that occur at this time. The general trauma of childbirth also plays a part - and after having a baby, many women are too exhausted to think about sex.

Umm...obviously does not apply.

Prescribed drugs, particularly tranquillisers.

Don't have any presciptions.

Hyperprolactinaemia - a rare disorder in which the pituitary gland is overactive.

Haven't been tested for it or anything, so I don't know.

Other hormone abnormalities: leading Swiss gynaecologist Dr Michael Nemec claims that abnormalities in the production of luteinising hormone (LH) often cause lack of desire. And top British gynaecologist John Studd says that many women who have lost their libido lack androgenic (male) hormones. This view remains controversial.

Well, I haven't lost it, it just wasn't there to start with.

depression

Not depressed.

stress and overwork

I'm on vacation now...

anxiety

I do have some at times, but it's gotten a lot better and now I really don't.

hang-ups from childhood

None that I can think of.

past sexual abuse or rape

No.

latent lesbianism

Ok, my mom would accept me if I came out as a lesbian and will not accept me as an asexual. Why would I lie and say I was something she won't accept if I really were something that she would accept?

serious relationship problems with your partner

N/A

difficult living conditions, eg sharing a home with parents or parents-in-law.

Well...I presume that it would be more of a difficult living condition for a minor to NOT live with their parents than for them to live with them... I assume this is more talking about adults...

Anyway, like I said, a lot of these seem to be talking about loss of libido, not absence of it.

Oh but they are. Society is designed to breed stupidity, selfishness and ignorance. Only those who reject the society's common standards have a chance of achieving a proper understanding of the universe and their place in it, or or even a proper amount of empathy.

Someone who is ugly is more likely to reject societal pressures and messages simply because they've less to gain. They will already automatically be less in the eyes of others, why not reject the expectations of others all together?

Precisely. Thus, the total number of peak experiences they will experience in their lifes will be much too low unless they are intelligent. Thus asexuality is something extremely unhealthy for the stupid.

Intelligence has nothing to do with what you WANT to do. You're talking about ignorance or lack there of. That's why your point is stupid. People can't become more intelligent by rejecting societal pressures. It's genetic.

The rest of what you said is just silly. You wouldn't be complaining people would be depressed if they didn't like symphonies. For asexuals, sex is not a peak experience. And given they would not waste their time focused on something they don't want, they would have much more time for other peak experiences. Sex is by far not the easiest peak experience to find.

You have the entire world as completely dysfunctional. Stop trying extend your personal experiences to everyone else.

Explain the pathological reasons for heterosexuality or homosexuality

Almost every reason you could wish to avoid sex altogether you could wish to avoid it with one sex or the other. If your sex drive could be removed by a tumor it could certainly be altered by one. There is pretty much no reason you could come up with that would make someone not want sex that could equally affect who they wish to have sex with.

There is pretty much no reason you could come up with that would make someone not want sex that could equally affect who they wish to have sex with.

I'm not sure I understand your post completely.

There isn't a reason I could come up with to explain a lack of sex drive that doesn't also affect sexual orientation?

Sorry i'm just not sure i'm reading you correctly

I'm not sure I understand your post completely.

There isn't a reason I could come up with to explain a lack of sex drive that doesn't also affect sexual orientation?

Sorry i'm just not sure i'm reading you correctly

I'm saying that everything you listed as a potential cause of asexuality could cause one's sexuality to be altered.

Personally, I sincerely doubt heterosexuality is a prevelant as people claim. Maybe I should start making people prove they are heterosexual.

And if you're claiming you don't understand why people might appear to be heterosexual when they aren't, you're being deliberately obtuse.

I'm saying that everything you listed as a potential cause of asexuality could cause one's sexuality to be altered.

Personally, I sincerely doubt heterosexuality is a prevelant as people claim. Maybe I should start making people prove they are heterosexual.

And if you're claiming you don't understand why people might appear to be heterosexual when they aren't, you're being deliberately obtuse.

I can understand why people would want to be heterosexual when they aren't. I can also understand potential reasons for people to want to be asexual.

Everything I listed has been shown to cause an alteration in sexual orientation as a potential symptom? I'm sorry but i'll need proof of that.

You're making a valid point and I accept that there is no reason for me to demand proof of asexuality from others.

I can understand why people would want to be heterosexual when they aren't. I can also understand potential reasons for people to want to be asexual.

Everything I listed has been shown to cause an alteration in sexual orientation as a potential symptom? I'm sorry but i'll need proof of that.

You're making a valid point and I accept that there is no reason for me to demand proof of asexuality from others.

Amusing. You need proof that a tumor that you've already listed can affect sexuality does not have a single effect? Are you serious?

You need proof that a person with a healthy sex drive can be turned off sex with one gender when you've already cited that as happening but with both genders?

Seriously, I don't think you're thinking about what you're asking. All of this is part of the reason homosexuality used to be listed as a disorder. Because they found in a small number of cases, much like asexuality, that people who were practicing homosexuals weren't actually homosexual.

Interestingly enough, they seem to ignore that it was as frequent to see heterosexuasl and even married heterosexuals realize they were actually homsexual.

It seems the mostly conservative medical establishment seems to define heterosexual sexuality as normal and everything that might push you to be heterosexual when you're not, they ignore, but they seem to find plenty of pathological reasons why you'd not be heterosexual. Is this coincidence to you?

*snip*
Sex itself is overwhelmingly a matter of touch, with pheremones and so on (smell and taste I guess) also playing an important part. Perhaps that is why people (even active and adventurous sexual people) find it so hard to say anything meaningful about sex, and why they deviate so easily into talking about physical appearance. It's in the structure of language and in the fact that the human brain is so good at visual and verbal, but still essentially a dog's brain for the sense of touch.
*snape*


You aren't talking to the right people, reading the right books, or watching the right films. In my experience, and that certainly doesn't mean that I think it's universal, people who have nothing meaningful to say about sex are usually people who imagine themselves in porn situations (or similarly disinclined to think or talk about things sexual) rather than actually engaging fully in the experience.

You aren't talking to the right people, reading the right books, or watching the right films. In my experience, and that certainly doesn't mean that I think it's universal, people who have nothing meaningful to say about sex are usually people who imagine themselves in porn situations (or similarly disinclined to think or talk about things sexual) rather than actually engaging fully in the experience.

I think you should have attributed that quote to Nobel Hobos rather than me

Amusing. You need proof that a tumor that you've already listed can affect sexuality does not have a single effect? Are you serious?

You need proof that a person with a healthy sex drive can be turned off sex with one gender when you've already cited that as happening but with both genders?



I don't doubt that some of the examples I gave could have the result you're saying but I do doubt that they all could. If someone is turned off of sex with men for example, why would that result in them becoming attracted to women instead?

I don't mind being wrong here but if i'm going to be wrong i'd prefer proof


Seriously, I don't think you're thinking about what you're asking. All of this is part of the reason homosexuality used to be listed as a disorder. Because they found in a small number of cases, much like asexuality, that people who were practicing homosexuals weren't actually homosexual.

Interestingly enough, they seem to ignore that it was as frequent to see heterosexuasl and even married heterosexuals realize they were actually homsexual.

It seems the mostly conservative medical establishment seems to define heterosexual sexuality as normal and everything that might push you to be heterosexual when you're not, they ignore, but they seem to find plenty of pathological reasons why you'd not be heterosexual. Is this coincidence to you?

You're right

I don't doubt that some of the examples I gave could have the result you're saying but I do doubt that they all could. If someone is turned off of sex with men for example, why would that result in them becoming attracted to women instead?

I don't mind being wrong here but if i'm going to be wrong i'd prefer proof

Well considering that complete abstinence from sex is as unnatural to them as sex with women is, I think the burden is on you to show the difference.

Meanwhile, are you honestly suggesting that people who are brought in religious groups to believe that homosexualty is disgusting and sinful (thus turned off homosexual sex) haven't frequently in the past been forcing themselves into heterosexual relationships? Didn't you just agree to that? Why is one way of being turned off different than others?

I think you should have attributed that quote to Nobel Hobos rather than me

You're right! I have no idea how that happened. Careless mistake on my part, I apologize.

I love pussy and boobies too much to be anything but hetero. :cool:

I´m pretty sure many people that are in fact homossexuals or assexuals have heterossexual relationships, and that may even be married to other heterossexuals and have kids with them.

There are many reasons. One of them is that they never truly figured out they were assexual or homossexual, and just went with the society flow. Maybe a woman that never had an orgasm (since I doubt there are men that never had it) was in fact an homossexual or assexual, and was having relationships with the wrong kind of person.

Also, they could be denying it to themselves. Or they decided that their public persona is more important to them than engaging in homossexual behavior or becoming assexuals (specially because many people think that someone that isnt in a heterossexual couple are actually homossexuals "in the closet").

Yet, at the same time, I think that love doesnt necessarily needs to be atached to sexuality. Someone that is assexual or homossexual can become a couple with someone heterosseual just to get the benefits of a relationship. In this regard, I think its easier for homossexuals than assexuals, because they at least are more prone to engage in sexual activities, even if its not with their favorite genders. Anyway, I think that most homossexuals, if they are willing to engage with sex with their same gender, are just as easily inclined to have sex with the oposite gender, "maybe" making them bisexuals.

I love pussy and boobies too much to be anything but hetero. :cool:

Sir, I shall leave the boobies in your capable hands.

Meanwhile, I will happily compensate for all the asexuals who voted in the poll by having lots and lots of hot sweaty gay sex with my new boyfriend.

No, seriously, guys? Different people have differing sex drives. I know men who want to have sex five times a day. I know women who want to have sex ten times a day. And I know men and women who have sex once every few weeks, and some married couples only have sex a couple of times a year. Every person's sex drive is different, and while we can generalize to an extent that a certain number of times per unit of time constitutes "an average", there is nothing that might lead us to believe that not having desire to perform sexual acts is abonormal. Outside the norm, yes, but nothing wrong with being outside the norm.

Sure, a handful of people might be abstaining from sex because they might have been scarred by a previous experience and/or because of a pathology. But being blocked from having a healthy sexual life because of a disorder does not equal the absence of sexual desire. Just because a handful fo people abstain for this doesn't mean all asexuals are suffering from a disorder, just like finding a handful of heterosexuals with disorders that prevent them from having a healthy sexual life means that every heterosexual is incapable of having a healthy sexual life.

Bottom line is: sex is great, but some people don't dig it. Get the fuck over it already and go make sweet love to your partner or stuff your face in chocolate.

And if you're both asexual and allergic to chocolate, I cry for you, and fluffle you for comfort. :fluffle:

I put down bisexual but that's not really any more accurate than "I haven't decided yet" - the reason I didn't tick the latter box is that it implies I'm trying to figure it out.

Well, screw that shit. I'm not attracted to a gender, I'm attracted to individuals. So why should I make generalisations based on the few people I've been attracted to so far just so everyone else can put me in a nice comfortable box?

I'm private-list-sexual, and proud of it.

Amen. At least some people understand that what we are attracted to are humans in general, and not necessarily any specific gender. *nod*

I love pussy and boobies too much to be anything but hetero. :cool:

Isn't there something Shakespeare has to say about this?

I love pussy and boobies too much to be anything but hetero. :cool:

Ah, unrequited love.

Isn't there something Shakespeare has to say about this?

You mean besides "what fools these mortals be"?

Isn't there something Shakespeare has to say about this?
O Romeo, Romeo! Check out these baps!

You aren't talking to the right people, reading the right books, or watching the right films. In my experience, and that certainly doesn't mean that I think it's universal, people who have nothing meaningful to say about sex are usually people who imagine themselves in porn situations (or similarly disinclined to think or talk about things sexual) rather than actually engaging fully in the experience.

Hmm. It would follow that talking is a part of "engaging fully in the experience."
It's been a few years, but I seem to remember the talking being pretty much essential.

Recommend me a book, then. TG if that embarasses you.

I really should try my hand in the trolling business. I seem to have a knack of hitting the wrong note. :rolleyes:

18 asexuals on NSG is very strange. I'm guessing at least the majority on NSG are lying to themselves.

18 asexuals on NSG is very strange. I'm guessing at least the majority on NSG are lying to themselves.

There might be a simpler answer. Being a poll, it represents people who read the forum, not just those who post to it.

Chandelier's thread (of which this is a copycat) may have attracted some interest from ... er another forum.

I was also going to mention the age of posters, but I can't seem to find that poll ...?

'Asexual' is ridiculous. Nobody is asexual.

Either they are idiot conceited teens, or undiagnosed schizoids (who are famous for their complete disinterest in sex).

There might be a simpler answer. Being a poll, it represents people who read the forum, not just those who post to it.

Chandelier's thread (of which this is a copycat) may have attracted some interest from ... er another forum.

I was also going to mention the age of posters, but I can't seem to find that poll ...?

Yeah. There actually is an asexual forum. It's a lot of whining, not surprisingly. Could be someone called for help. :p That, or the demographics of internet forum patrons skew toward it.

Either they are idiot conceited teens, or undiagnosed schizoids (who are famous for their complete disinterest in sex).

Aha, the plot thickens. :p I had no idea that was part of the illness. Odd stuff.

18 asexuals on NSG is very strange. I'm guessing at least the majority on NSG are lying to themselves.

I voted for asexual coz I'm just a wanker.

I reallly would've rathered a public poll.

Aha, the plot thickens. :p I had no idea that was part of the illness. Odd stuff. There'd be a heap of them here. Despite their characteristic distaste for social interaction, schizoids can and often do maintain quite active online lives. Not sure exactly why or how the two are different, but I believe it has to do with the control a schizoid has with online social interaction, as well as the fact that one does not need to leave one's 'bubble' to do so.

There'd be a heap of them here. Despite their characteristic distaste for social interaction, schizoids can and often do maintain quite active online lives. Not sure exactly why or how the two are different, but I believe it has to do with the control a schizoid has with online social interaction, as well as the fact that one does not need to leave one's 'bubble' to do so.

Wow. Sounds like the internet would be a schizophrenic's dream. :p Although my money's still on migration here from an asexual internet forum, to explain those 18 votes in that category. :p

Not schizophrenic, schizoid. A different thing entirely.

I iz in mi bubble, looking at you funny.:p

Not schizophrenic, schizoid. A different thing entirely.

Eh. Alright. :p

Why am I ignored?

OH, sorry... Forgot to release the talk button.

Carry on good buddy.

Why am I ignored?

I voted for asexual coz I'm just a wanker.

OH, sorry... Forgot to release the talk button.

Carry on good buddy.

Yes. I'm willing to bet NSG has more than one such wanker.

Yes. I'm willing to bet NSG has more than one such wanker.

Hey, It's hard to keep something in mind when you barely care.:p

'Asexual' is ridiculous. Nobody is asexual.

Either they are idiot conceited teens, or undiagnosed schizoids (who are famous for their complete disinterest in sex).

'Homosexual' is ridiculous. Nobody is homosexual.

How about this? If you can prove that asexuals don't exist, then you've got something worth listening to. Otherwise we'll just reasonably assume you belong to one of the two aforementioned groups.

I think asexual is a bit of an odd term for not having sexual attraction. Usually the term describes a species that has no sexes and reproduces without intercourse. Such as bacteria.

It's my opinion that perhaps nonsexual would be a better term to use in this circumstance.

I think asexual is a bit of an odd term for not having sexual attraction. Usually the term describes a species that has no sexes and reproduces without intercourse. Such as bacteria.

It's my opinion that perhaps nonsexual would be a better term to use in this circumstance.

Asexual reproduction is what you're talking about. We're talking about asexuality. They are not the same. Asexual means without sex. Nothing more, nothing less.

Or some people are skewing the poll, since it's anonymous...

Definitely.

Asexual reproduction is what you're talking about. We're talking about asexuality. They are not the same. Asexual means without sex. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yeah, you'd think that considering that we speak English, we'd be used to terms with more than one meaning :rolleyes:

Definitely.



Yeah, you'd think that considering that we speak English, we'd be used to terms with more than one meaning :rolleyes:

Seems like it...

And yeah...

'Asexual' is ridiculous. Nobody is asexual.

Either they are idiot conceited teens, or undiagnosed schizoids (who are famous for their complete disinterest in sex).

I've already spent hours yesterday arguing your first point, it seems I have to do so again.

Warning, this is going to be a long post.

Having a schizoid personality should not be considered a disorder.

Throughout history, we have seen society demonizing those it does not understand. In the Middle Ages, you were a witch. Nowadays, you have a disorder. The principle, however, is the same: If you don't fit with societal norms, be prepared to be labeled, scrutinized, and 'treated' until you fit in. This may sound like a extremely defensive, victimized position, but I feel we can show some interesting ideas about it.

Take, for instance, homosexuality. In the 1950s, this was considered a mental disorder, and something that could be repaired with therapy. Observe how something that is considered 'wrong' by society is seen as a mental illness, to be cured. Nowadays, of course, very few people consider it as a possibility, and homosexuality is generally accepted.

(Much of this next part is a brief overview of here (http://www.pipeline.com/~dada3zen/schizoid_a_personality_not_a_disorder.htm))

Society as it stands has certain expectations of people. These cover many features of life. For instance, you are expected to be social, to be willing to talk with and interact with others. You are expected to be conventional, to go to university, get a job, work, raise a family. If you don't fit these molds, you're considered 'rebellious' or 'counter-cultural'. You're expected to want to engage in a 'normal' amount of sexual activity. If you engage in more, you're suffering from nymphomania; less, and you're asexual, and obviously suffering from some disorder.

Specifically, let us examine sociability. We divide people into two rough categories, and assign labels based on these. Introvert, and Extrovert. Society in general shuns the introvert, unsurprisingly, as the introvert shuns society. However, society considers large amounts of introversion to be a disorder, and assigns it a name: Schizoid. I recognize that there are other features involved, but the all of the key characteristics seem typical of introversion.

The most interesting feature of the disorder, if we can call it such, is that there is no corresponding opposite for extreme extroversion. Why could that be? Possibly because society considers such persons to be well developed socially, not pathological. And yet it seems to be exactly what, in the case of introversion, is considered a disorder.

For further information, read this (http://www.pipeline.com/~dada3zen/schizoid_a_personality_not_a_disorder.htm).

Presuming Schizoid personality is considered a disorder, certain features that characterize it make it ill-suited for explaining asexuality

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder#Akhtar_phenomenological_profile)
Love and Sexuality

Outward

* asexual, sometimes celibate
* free of romantic interests
* averse to sexual gossip and innuendo

Inward

* Secret voyeristic and pornographic interests
* vulnerable to erotomania
* tendency towards compulsive masturbation and perversions

(Emphases mine)

On the face of it, the outward features seem to be a fair characterization of many asexuals. I have purposely ignored the point on romantic interests, as that is often false. However, the interesting point here is the inward manifestations of the condition, none of which are true in most asexuals. I know for a fact that none of them are true for me.

Asexuality can and does exist without needing to be explained by other factors.

It would seem that, while there may be some sort of link between introspective persons and asexuality, I would hesitate to say that there is 'no such thing as asexuality'. Instead, I would consider it as another spectrum of human experience, and if you dismiss it as you have been I would opine that your existence is less for it.

Instead, why not accept people as they are, and realize that it is quite possible, indeed probable, that there are people who simply do not feel sexual attraction towards other people. Seem reasonable?

Other comments

I'll admit this hasn't exactly been a scholarly paper, merely a collection of thoughts.
I take serious issue with the science of psychology as a whole, but that's definitely off-topic.
Having read the whole Wikipedia article on Schizoid personality, I'm fairly sure I don't fall into that category.

Main Sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder
http://www.pipeline.com/~dada3zen/schizoid_a_personality_not_a_disorder.htm

Hmm. It would follow that talking is a part of "engaging fully in the experience."
It's been a few years, but I seem to remember the talking being pretty much essential.

Recommend me a book, then. TG if that embarasses you.

Very little embarrasses me.

Sex and Reason by Richard Posner
Women on Top by Nancy Friday (illuminating look at women's fantasies.

...for starters.

'Asexual' is ridiculous. Nobody is asexual.

Either they are idiot conceited teens, or undiagnosed schizoids (who are famous for their complete disinterest in sex).

:rolleyes:

YDKJ.

'Homosexual' is ridiculous. Nobody is homosexual.

How about this? If you can prove that asexuals don't exist, then you've got something worth listening to. Otherwise we'll just reasonably assume you belong to one of the two aforementioned groups.

Ok. Asexual reproduction is that which involves no sexual process, but rather simple generation from a single parent cell (or group thereof). Humans are innate sexual beings, being mammals. Humans cannot be asexual.

That being said, let me run with your erroneous definition of asexual being an absence of sexual attraction to either sex ( different thing entirely to 'asexuality'). As noted, humans are innate sexual beings. It can be argued sexual reproduction defines the purpose of our existence, and controls everything therein. Every aspect of our selves is built around the notion of reproducton. In particular, there are hormones which directly effect our mind to desire sexual activity. If you lack hormone activity, you do not lack sexuality, you lack hormone activity.

Be it homosexual or heterosexual, you do have a sexuality. You cannot tick the 'N/A' box, because you are an innately sexual being. A lack of interest or drive is more likely a mind or hormone related problem.

An 'asexual' human is as ridiculous as an homosexual sofa.

There is no category for Schediaphiles like me. >_>

Ok. Asexual reproduction is that which involves no sexual process, but rather simple generation from a single parent cell (or group thereof). Humans are innate sexual beings, being mammals. Humans cannot be asexual. What definition of "sexual" are you using here? Certainly people have a sex and are caused by sex, but not all of them want sex because of that.
Humans are not asexual, in the sense that they have a sex.
But humans can be asexual, in the sense that they may not desire sex.

As noted, humans are innate sexual beings.Note that noting something doesn't make it true.

It can be argued sexual reproduction defines the purpose of our existence, and controls everything therein.It can also be very well argued that existence has no purpose; and also that people confuse purpose and causation.. Sexual reproduction causes our existence; c'est tout, there is no purpose.
Just because evolution tends toward promoting traits that promote reproduction on the scale of a species doesn't mean that this is also true at the individual level.
As you might recall, in ants and bees and similar species it's only the queens that do actual reproducing (sex and birthing). The workers do have a sex, but have no drive for sex; and that is quite natural. Of course the workers do play another role in the continuation of the species (care for the family/colony).

Every aspect of our selves is built around the notion of reproducton.Every aspect? Talk about a one-tracked mind..
So in how much are your contributions to this forum revolving around sex? Because I don't think you'll be bedding many people here.

Be it homosexual or heterosexual, you do have a sexuality.You do realize you're inconsistent right? Asexuality is out because people have the drive to reproduce, yet somehow homosexuality is not at odds with that?

You cannot tick the 'N/A' box, because you are an innately sexual being.People are innately sexed, not innately sexually driven.