NationStates Jolt Archive

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. There is only one definition of asexual, and that is the one that refers to reproduction which isn't sexual. However, as noted, I felt like being generous and taking it to your erroneous definition to even show that it also was not valid.

Note that noting something doesn't make it true.Or noting that noting something does not make it true, does not make it false. Seriously though, are you contesting that as a species, humans are innately focussed towards reproduction (as a means of propagating our species)?

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. And yet, such an argument, whilst philosophically ornate, is biologically irrelevant. Unfortunately we are talking about biology when we discuss sexuality.
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. Perhaps not directly, but indirectly yes. Even something which is directly counterproductive to reproduction can be indirectly aimed towards furthering it on the grand scale. Take an incredibly ugly person; their genes have made them physically unattractive, and thus made it harder for them to mate- yet the fact that they have been allowed to have inherited an unattractive combination of genes is part of a grander scheme of random gene mixing (which is better for the species in the long run, even if it does mean a few runts). The same goes for the sexually dysfunctional, nature is always trying new things.
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). Yes, and those are Bees, not humans. Humans, and most mammals, create progeny through sexual reproduction of any two fertile adults of the opposite sex.

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.Indirectly. My capacity to contribute to this forum owes itself to several features including a well developed brain, hands, and eyes. These features were evolved to help me to reproduce, and thus further the species. Furthermore, the specific contributions I make are bound within a conception of reality grown for the purpose of having sex. All of my feelings and though patterns are aspects of a mind which is really designed for one purpose. Whether or not I am using it directly for that purpose is immaterial to the the fact that the purpose defines and binds all that I am.

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?As noted, not everything has to be directly toward the goal of sexual reproduction for it to belong to a fundamentally sexual system. Also, the very clear point was that Be you homosexual, heterosexual, or lacking in sexual drive altogether, you are a fundamentally sexual being; and these petty aspects deal only with your hormones (a small piece of that pie). The point is, if you are lacking in desire, or homosexual, your difference is not a sexual one, but rather a hormonal one.

People are innately sexed, not innately sexually driven.Right. Meaning one cannot be asexual. We are innately sexxed. It defines everything we have developed to become, and everything we will ever be. All of our capacities were raised for this purpose. This does not mean that we directly and actively pursue this purpose, but rather that it forms what we are, regardless of what we pursue. It is a system that wiseless rests not on our actions, but on our existence.

There is only one definition of asexual, and that is the one that refers to reproduction which isn't sexual. However, as noted, I felt like being generous and taking it to your erroneous definition to even show that it also was not valid.


Dictionaries document the meanings of words at their time of publication. If a majority start using asexuality to describe a disinterest in sex then in future dictionaries it will be included. Don't set so much faith by the dictionary. The meaning in this context has been explained plenty throughout the thread

GreaterPacificNations, can I ask you to clarify a few points about your position?

Firstly, you state that: Humans, and most mammals, create progeny through sexual reproduction of any two fertile adults of the opposite sex. Which seems accurate enough. Would you go so far as to say that asexuality does not exist in any mammals?

If no, what is so special about the human in that case?

Also, how would you account for the existence of homosexuality, which also doesn't produce offspring (modern technology notwithstanding).

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.

This is called equivocation. As has been pointed out, fortunately, the English language allows for multiple meanings for a single word, whether you acknowledge that or not.

Asexual - from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/asexuality
3 : devoid of sexuality <an asexual relationship>

In other words, asexuals are deviod of sexuality.

You are assuming the only two meanings are 1 and 2
1 : lacking sex or functional sex organs <asexual plants>
2 a : involving or reproducing by reproductive processes (as cell division, spore formation, fission, or budding) that do not involve the union of individuals or gametes <asexual reproduction> <an asexual generation> b : produced by asexual reproduction <asexual spores>


I don't see how you could possibly hope to have anything useful or meaningful to say on a subject we're you're being knowingly silly about the terms.

There is only one definition of asexual, and that is the one that refers to reproduction which isn't sexual. However, as noted, I felt like being generous and taking it to your erroneous definition to even show that it also was not valid.

Now you're just blithely wrong. The dictionary has three meanings of asexual, one of which has two submeanings. Even you are addressing two different meanings.

60% is heterosexual. Wow, I thought it would be higher, especially because so many Americans are on these forums :p

Why is everybody debating about asexual. There is nothing wrong with people being asexual, neither with being lesbian or gay. I am straight myself, so don't think I just say that because I am one myself. Being asexual is ok, but I do think the definition is that somebody just don't like having sex, although those people can get attracted to each other, sure. Maybe they are too young to think about it. I am not an asexual myself, by the way. There, that was my opinion.

*snip*
Indirectly. My capacity to contribute to this forum owes itself to several features including a well developed brain, hands, and eyes. These features were evolved to help me to reproduce, and thus further the species.

I pick this one point out of your long reply to another poster because I think it contains a germ of understanding in you.

The human race are not bacteria, they are social animals. The survival of the species does not depend only on the survival of individuals, but on the ability of those individuals to form a working society. As such, we have evolved many features which would have zero survival value in a lone individual. The verbal areas of the brain, for a prime example.

This might help you to answer UNIverseV's question above this post, as to your explanation for homosexuality. "It's a hormonal malfunction" is not going to cut that.

It is quite possible that the relative asexuality of children is an evolved characteristic which makes it far less likely that societies will ever treat them as adults. Without an urge to mate with others, children will always be protected from the competetive urges adults feel towards other adults.

Is it even remotely possible that hyposexual or even asexual adults have a survival value to the whole species? That they provide some useful social role, a moderating influence on mating schemes which could overturn societies?

I am merely suggesting that for your consideration. I'm certainly not convinced of its truth.

Think of the instinct we have to protect and be gentle to the old. Before there was widespread literacy, the knowledge of old people was enourmously useful to society as a whole, even more so before there was writing at all. It is written in our genes to respect the old, and only in times of utmost desperation (wars, famine) do we kill them off.

If your "it's all about sexual reproduction" thesis was entirely correct, we would have the opposite instinct, and our societies would reflect it: women would be reviled and ritually slaughtered at menopause, when they become incapable of breeding. And children would probably be roasted on spits, since they can't reproduce either.

Furthermore, the specific contributions I make are bound within a conception of reality grown for the purpose of having sex. All of my feelings and though patterns are aspects of a mind which is really designed for one purpose. Whether or not I am using it directly for that purpose is immaterial to the the fact that the purpose defines and binds all that I am.

And so you go on. If you consider that some of those feelings and thought patterns are not entirely selfish you will see that your individual reproduction at some point in the future is not the entire reason for your being.

As noted, not everything has to be directly toward the goal of sexual reproduction for it to belong to a fundamentally sexual system.

One could as easily argue that the system is fundamentally social. That the perpetuation of a human individual serves the perpetuation of society, rather than the other way around. That would also explain why we aren't still picking food up off the ground and fighting each other for mates.

Dictionaries document the meanings of words at their time of publication. If a majority start using asexuality to describe a disinterest in sex then in future dictionaries it will be included. Don't set so much faith by the dictionary. The meaning in this context has been explained plenty throughout the thread No I actually mean the etymological meaning of the word 'asexual' (i.e. not sexual). Anyhow, the only mainstream usage of the word is in biology anyhow, to describe asexual reproduction.

GreaterPacificNations, can I ask you to clarify a few points about your position?

Firstly, you state that: Which seems accurate enough. Would you go so far as to say that asexuality does not exist in any mammals? I'm not totally certain. I shouldn't think so, though with monotremes and marsupials running around here in Australia it is hard to rule anything out.

If no, what is so special about the human in that case?Nothing in particular, it is just the species of reference in this discussion (unless NSers are not, in fact, human- a very possible scenario).

Also, how would you account for the existence of homosexuality, which also doesn't produce offspring (modern technology notwithstanding). As I said, homosexuality is to do with hormones, not sexuality per se. As an abberation in hormones, it most likely results from genetic variation, an important mechanism for keeping the species gene pool diverse (even when specific examples may encumber reproduction).

This is called equivocation. As has been pointed out, fortunately, the English language allows for multiple meanings for a single word, whether you acknowledge that or not.

Asexual - from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/asexuality
3 : devoid of sexuality <an asexual relationship>

In other words, asexuals are deviod of sexuality.

You are assuming the only two meanings are 1 and 2
1 : lacking sex or functional sex organs <asexual plants>
2 a : involving or reproducing by reproductive processes (as cell division, spore formation, fission, or budding) that do not involve the union of individuals or gametes <asexual reproduction> <an asexual generation> b : produced by asexual reproduction <asexual spores>


I don't see how you could possibly hope to have anything useful or meaningful to say on a subject we're you're being knowingly silly about the terms. No, I am pointing out that self-proclaimed 'asexuals' are using a silly term for what they have (a lack of hormonal drive for sex). It is not a sexuality in and of itself, it is just a hormone, or even psychological problem.

This has been my point from the beginning. I even crossed over to your invalid definition of 'asexual' to help carry this point (after first pointing out that it is indeed erroneous).

Ha, I'd just like to point out, once again, to those who loudly proclaimed...'what...there's only like, 3 or 4 people here who have claimed to be asexual' that well...clearly there are more.

But hey, let's just pretend that the numbers still make sense, okay? Yeah.

Why is everybody debating about asexual. There is nothing wrong with people being asexual, neither with being lesbian or gay. I am straight myself, so don't think I just say that because I am one myself. Being asexual is ok, but I do think the definition is that somebody just don't like having sex, although those people can get attracted to each other, sure. Maybe they are too young to think about it. I am not an asexual myself, by the way. There, that was my opinion. The thing is, though, 'asexual' isn't a valid sexuality. Nobody is asexual. They are probably just anhedonic, or suffering an hormone imbalance.

Anyhow, the only mainstream usage of the word is in biology anyhow

Really?

The first six results from a Google search all deal with "asexual" in the "human sexual orientation" sense... so perhaps your notion of what is "mainstream" is behind the times.

Nobody is asexual.

How do you know?

I pick this one point out of your long reply to another poster because I think it contains a germ of understanding in you.

The human race are not bacteria, they are social animals. The survival of the species does not depend only on the survival of individuals, but on the ability of those individuals to form a working society. As such, we have evolved many features which would have zero survival value in a lone individual. The verbal areas of the brain, for a prime example.

This might help you to answer UNIverseV's question above this post, as to your explanation for homosexuality. "It's a hormonal malfunction" is not going to cut that. It is not neccesarily a hormonal imbalance. In fact, it doesn't matter what it is. The fact is that it is a sexual attraction toward the same sex, and thus still a sexual attraction (even if misguided in terms of reproduction). How it comes about is irrelevant beyond that there is probably a good reason that it does, perhaps a simple one like gene variation, or perhaps a more complex one involving societal factors. It really doesn't matter.

It is quite possible that the relative asexuality of children is an evolved characteristic which makes it far less likely that societies will ever treat them as adults. Without an urge to mate with others, children will always be protected from the competetive urges adults feel towards other adults.

Is it even remotely possible that hyposexual or even asexual adults have a survival value to the whole species? That they provide some useful social role, a moderating influence on mating schemes which could overturn societies?

I am merely suggesting that for your consideration. I'm certainly not convinced of its truth.

Think of the instinct we have to protect and be gentle to the old. Before there was widespread literacy, the knowledge of old people was enourmously useful to society as a whole, even more so before there was writing at all. It is written in our genes to respect the old, and only in times of utmost desperation (wars, famine) do we kill them off. See, I'm not arguing that asexuality is inferior or stupid, I'm saying it doesn't exist in humans. On one hand it is a stupid term for what it's users are trying to describe, and on the other it suggests freedom from the defining aspect of our existence (reproduction, in humans case- sexual). All I am saying is that supposed 'asexuals' are in fact sexual, but possess difference or problems in other areas (social, psychological, hormonal, or whatever).


If your "it's all about sexual reproduction" thesis was entirely correct, we would have the opposite instinct, and our societies would reflect it: women would be reviled and ritually slaughtered at menopause, when they become incapable of breeding. And children would probably be roasted on spits, since they can't reproduce either.That is just ridiculous. I think, (though it is hard to say, that is a pretty wacky position), that you have missed the part where I emphatically said that "sexual reproduction defines us, it is us, and makes us who we are. Sexual reproduction does not guide us or control us directly, so we can be directly opposed to sexual reproduction, whilst being inherently sexual at the same time".



And so you go on. If you consider that some of those feelings and thought patterns are not entirely selfish you will see that your individual reproduction at some point in the future is not the entire reason for your being. Ok, two things here. Every single action a human enacts is at least on some basic level selfish. However, that has little to do with the discussion at hand, and is most likely a debate for another day. My individual reproduction is indeed the entire reason for my being, whether or not it is actively pursued. Do you catch my drift? I am saying that even if you use a spanner to belt someone over the head, it is still for the unscrewing of bolts. It is to that purpose that it was designed and made, any features it may have were put in place with this purpose in mind. You can still use a spanner for many other things, and may not ever unscrew a bolt with it. However, a spanner is inherently a bolt unscrewing device. The unscrewing of bolts defines everything about what it is. The unscrewing of bolts does not, however, directly control everything it does. The spanner is not forced to unscrew bolts, it is just made for that.



One could as easily argue that the system is fundamentally social. That the perpetuation of a human individual serves the perpetuation of society, rather than the other way around. That would also explain why we aren't still picking food up off the ground and fighting each other for mates.This would constitute an alto-strata of sorts. That is, any social system must first lay upon a reproductive system to ensure continuing life for the species. In the humans case, this system is sexual, and it cannot be escaped. If you are human, you are sexual.

Social structures definitely do exist, and are not at all mutually exclusive to the sexual substructure. Rather, it rests upon, and in many ways works with it.

It is not a sexuality in and of itself, it is just a hormone, or even psychological problem.

I fail to see your basis for distinguishing between this "problem" and, say, homosexuality.

Why is one a sexual orientation and the other not?

Really?

The first six results from a Google search all deal with "asexual" in the "human sexual orientation" sense... so perhaps your notion of what is "mainstream" is behind the times. Perhaps indeed. Forgive me for clinging to the definition of asexuality as meaning 'not sexual'.

See, I'm not arguing that asexuality is inferior or stupid, I'm saying it doesn't exist in humans. On one hand it is a stupid term for what it's users are trying to describe, and on the other it suggests freedom from the defining aspect of our existence (reproduction, in humans case- sexual). All I am saying is that supposed 'asexuals' are in fact sexual, but possess difference or problems in other areas (social, psychological, hormonal, or whatever).

Oh, so you're just engaging in baseless speculative bullshit.

Reminds me of all the old attacks on homosexuality: "Human beings are naturally heterosexual, obviously, so we must figure out what weird problem these freaks have that makes them attracted to the same sex."

Forgive me for clinging to the definition of asexuality as meaning 'not sexual'.

Um... that's EXACTLY what it means.

As applied to humans, it refers to those with no sex drive... it does not suggest that they can somehow engage in asexual reproduction.

How do you know?

Actually, I'd like to know how the people themselves are defining it. Are they listing asexuality as a sexual orientation, or as a lack of sexual interest that may or may not change?

Actually, I'd like to know how the people themselves are defining it. Are they listing asexuality as a sexual orientation, or as a lack of sexual interest that may or may not change?
Both, though I am listing asexuality as 'not sexual'. You know, what the word means.

In a nutshell, humans are in essence fundamentally sexual. It forms everything that we are in design and capacity.

No, we aren't, and no, it doesn't.

Sex is not the be-all and end-all of our existence; there is no reason to suppose it is.

How do you know?

I explained. In a nutshell, humans are in essence fundamentally sexual. It forms everything that we are in design and capacity. It does not control us, however, and we can be directly opposed to sexual reproduction very easily. However, this does not change the fact that we are inherently sexual.

A human asexual is like a heterosexual lampshade.

Both, though I am listing asexuality as 'not sexual'. You know, what the word means.

What do you mean 'both'. Unless you believe that sexual orientation is something you can change by choice, or that can change over time, it can't be both.

or that can change over time

It can.

No, we aren't, and no, it doesn't.

Sex is not the be-all and end-all of our existence; there is no reason to suppose it is. You are just contradicting me. I have put forward reasoned arguments as to why this is the case. Again, in a nutshell, the reason is that as living organisms, our first and only order of existence is to reproduce. That is how we came about, and how we will continue. It so happens that humans reproduce sexually. It is the chosen mode of reproduction for the human species. As such, for a human to claim 'asexuality' is just stupid.

It is like the aforementioned spanner claiming not to be for the unscrewing and tightening or bolts. It is a spanner, this function defines what it is and how it is manifested. It matters not whether it is used for this purpose, because this purpose has forged all of it's features and capacities.

What do you mean 'both'. Unless you believe that sexual orientation is something you can change by choice, or that can change over time, it can't be both.

No, I mean others are saying both.

Again, in a nutshell, the reason is that as living organisms, our first and only order of existence is to reproduce.

Therefore, all humans are inherently heterosexual, because only heterosexual sex can result in procreation.

Homosexuality is not a sexual orientation.

Wait....

How it comes about is irrelevant beyond that there is probably a good reason that it does, perhaps a simple one like gene variation, or perhaps a more complex one involving societal factors. It really doesn't matter.

And this can't be true of asexuality because...?

Ha, I'd just like to point out, once again, to those who loudly proclaimed...'what...there's only like, 3 or 4 people here who have claimed to be asexual' that well...clearly there are more.

But hey, let's just pretend that the numbers still make sense, okay? Yeah.

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

That makes 19. You willing to bet there aren't, oh, a few wankers on NSG?

Strawman. No. Therefore all humans are inherently sexual, as sexual reproduction is what results in procreation, our only purpose as a species.

Ah, you are merely engaging in equivocation.

"Asexuality" as applied to humans indicates lack of a sex drive. It does not (obviously) indicate membership in a species that does not reproduce sexually.

And this can't be true of asexuality because...?
Because asexuality describes a separation from the fundamental sexual nature of our species. Homosexuality describes a form of misguided sexuality (in terms of reproduction) wherein one is attracted to the same sex. Homosexuality is clearly in the bounds of sexuality, where is asexuality posits exclusion therefrom.

Asexuality is as much a sexuality as atheism is a religion.

Therefore, all humans are inherently heterosexual, because only heterosexual sex can result in procreation.

Homosexuality is not a sexual orientation.

Wait....Strawman. No. Therefore all humans are inherently sexual, as sexual reproduction is what results in procreation, our only purpose as a species. On the individual level, much can vary and even oppose sexual procreation (such as being but ugly, homosexual, or born with no sexual organs). Nevertheless, these differences arise from other areas (be it mental, social, hormonal or developmental), not from a break in the sexuality of humanity.

Because asexuality describes a separation from the fundamental sexual nature of our species.

Not in the sense you're using "fundamental sexual nature", no.

Asexuals, like all humans, are the products of evolution, and insofar as they are, they have some characteristics indicative of a species that reproduces sexually.

Nevertheless, they lack a sex drive.

Ah, you are merely engaging in equivocation. I've explained my dispute lies with the use of the term numerously, not with the lack of a sex drive. That is the whole point. People who would call themselves 'asexual' are in fact probably just suffering from a hormone imbalace, or psychological anhedonia. Not a genuine separation from the sexuality of man.

"Asexuality" as applied to humans indicates lack of a sex drive. It does not (obviously) indicate membership in a species that does not reproduce sexually. I was arguing somewhere in the middleground. Not that humans are not asexual in terms of reproduction on a biological level, but that no human individuals are truly 'asexual' in terms of being free of the pervasive sexuality that defines who they are. Someone who claims to be 'asexual' is in fact very sexual, but merely lacking in a drive to express this. They are *not* without sexuality.

Someone who claims to be 'asexual' is in fact very sexual, but merely lacking in a drive to express this.

Obviously the sense in which you say they are "sexual" is not the sense they are talking about. That is why you are committing the equivocation fallacy.

You say that they are not truly "asexual", but you only say this because you fail to recognize that the sense in which they are not sexual is not the sense in which you say they claim they are not sexual.

Generally when people refer to human beings as "sexual beings", they are referring to our desire to seek sexual relationships with others, and the level of influence this has on our lives and behavior.

It makes sense, then, to refer to human beings who have no such desire as "asexual."

Because asexuality describes a separation from the fundamental sexual nature of our species. Homosexuality describes a form of misguided sexuality (in terms of reproduction) wherein one is attracted to the same sex. Homosexuality is clearly in the bounds of sexuality, where is asexuality posits exclusion therefrom.

Asexuality is as much a sexuality as atheism is a religion.

No, it doesn't. That's only one use of the word and doesn't describe this usage. Homosexuality and heteroseuxality does not refer to sexual reproduction but to attaction. Sexaulity has a relationship to sexual attraction as well as the usage you are trying to put out. Ignore the dictionary all you like, it's still equivocation.

Obviously the sense in which you say they are "sexual" is not the sense they are talking about. That is why you are committing the equivocation fallacy.

You say that they are not truly "asexual", but you only say this because you fail to recognize that the sense in which they are not sexual is not the sense in which you say they claim they are not sexual.It's fine, I can see that you have clearly missed the point. Mine is not equivocal, I am very aware of the varying definitions, and have even layed it out clearly to avoid said fallacy. My position deals not only with asexuality, but with the relevance of the definition that I use, especially in regard to the validity of others.

If you think this is somekind of accidental muddle up, you have failed to grasp my position. Don't feel bad, though, it is just as easy to propose I failed to convey my point as it is that you failed to understand it. Play with this notion, and you'll feel and look better.

you have failed to grasp my position.

Reading back through your posts, I'm pretty sure that you don't grasp your position, either.

It's fine, I can see that you have clearly missed the point. Mine is not equivocal, I am very aware of the varying definitions, and have even layed it out clearly to avoid said fallacy. My position deals not only with asexuality, but with the relevance of the definition that I use, especially in regard to the validity of others.

If you think this is somekind of accidental muddle up, you have failed to grasp my position. Don't feel bad, though, it is just as easy to propose I failed to convey my point as it is that you failed to understand it. Play with this notion, and you'll feel and look better.

Bullshit. Clear and utter bullshit. You came in and said that usage is wrong, not yours is right. There is a difference. If you were just saying your usage was right, you'd be off the subject, but not wrong. You are saying their usage is wrong and asexuals don't exist. That's completely different. Being dishonest about it, doesn't help anyone.

A human asexual is like a heterosexual lampshade.

You were specifically speaking about sexual desire, not reproduction.

It can.

What, sexual orientation?

So what...one day I might wake up and be totally heterosexual?

*curls up into a fetal position*

I've explained my dispute lies with the use of the term numerously, not with the lack of a sex drive. That is the whole point. People who would call themselves 'asexual' are in fact probably just suffering from a hormone imbalace, or psychological anhedonia. Not a genuine separation from the sexuality of man.

I was arguing somewhere in the middleground. Not that humans are not asexual in terms of reproduction on a biological level, but that no human individuals are truly 'asexual' in terms of being free of the pervasive sexuality that defines who they are. Someone who claims to be 'asexual' is in fact very sexual, but merely lacking in a drive to express this. They are *not* without sexuality.

I find your method curiously persuasive, and I commend your persistence. Have a cookie:

http://images.allrecipes.com/site/allrecipes/area/community/userphoto/big/12891.jpg

It's easy for me, I guess, since I've been uncomfortable with the term "asexual" in this context for ... a week now?

People who would call themselves 'asexual' are in fact probably just suffering from a hormone imbalace, or psychological anhedonia. Not a genuine separation from the sexuality of man.


How am I "suffering" of something if it doesn't cause me distress? How can you dismiss the way I feel as simply a problem?

You compared asexuality to atheism. So you think atheism is a problem, too? Or that it doesn't exist?

How am I "suffering" of something if it doesn't cause me distress? How can you dismiss the way I feel as simply a problem?

You compared asexuality to atheism. So you think atheism is a problem, too? Or that it doesn't exist?

I'm not going to dive into this ugly can of worms. However, I recall that someone compared it to deafness. Some deaf people aren't distressed by their condition, but it's certainly a problem. There are plenty of conditions which are problematic but don't cause their sufferer distress.

This may or may not reflect what I actually think. I won't disclose my opinion.

I'm not going to dive into this ugly can of worms. However, I recall that someone compared it to deafness. Some deaf people aren't distressed by their condition, but it's certainly a problem. There are plenty of conditions which are problematic but don't cause their sufferer distress.

This may or may not reflect what I actually think. I won't disclose my opinion.

Some bits of the thread were pretty ugly admittedly. I wasn't very comfortable with the comparison to deafness or any other disability.

You try telling a deaf person (write it down perhaps) that they have a "problem" and you'll get the one gesture of sign-language EVERYONE understands in reply. It's only a problem, if it's a problem for the person who has the condition.

i think i might be turning asexual it's been so long since i've seen anyone that got my blood running hot. my standards are way to high

You know, I can't be bothered to argue any more. You've obviously got your mind set on the wrong answer.

These papers may prove enlightening:

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro06/web2/jengelman.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_3_41/ai_n6274004/print
http://www.biolreprod.org/cgi/reprint/67/1/263 (PDF)

Heterosexuality, on the other hand, is like body odour. They can't keep it to themselves even if they try!

*ducks*

I resent that, I'm perfectly aware of my chances. Outlook not so good = not trying.

Some bits of the thread were pretty ugly admittedly. I wasn't very comfortable with the comparison to deafness or any other disability.

You try telling a deaf person (write it down perhaps) that they have a "problem" and you'll get the one gesture of sign-language EVERYONE understands in reply. It's only a problem, if it's a problem for the person who has the condition.

Heterosexuality, on the other hand, is like body odour. They can't keep it to themselves even if they try!

*ducks*


I made the deaf comparison and for the exact reason you just gave. Because a deaf person would be equally upset if you suggested they aren't really deaf, just broken.

However, where the comparison falls down is that there really is no quality of life issue. It's doesn't prevent from living, loving, working, moving about, making a mark on the world. For the deaf there is at least an impact on certain jobs. Though that's really the only place I'd accept it as being much different from most of the qualities of a person.

Asexuals can have children, can have families, can have wonderful lives completely unfettered by being asexual in any way. The only thing they won't do is fall in love or desire sex. They aren't attracted to anyone, fortunately, so I can't see why this would matter to them.

I find it sad that people feel the need to attack them, tell them they don't exist, when by the very nature of the trait they will never harm anyone by beinng asexual. It's so important for some that their addled world view be true that they will blatantly ignore facts and harm people just to pretend it's right. See our friend above pretending there is only one definition of sexual and asexual in the dictionary.

I made the deaf comparison and for the exact reason you just gave. Because a deaf person would be equally upset if you suggested they aren't really deaf, just broken.

However, where the comparison falls down is that there really is no quality of life issue. It's doesn't prevent from living, loving, working, moving about, making a mark on the world. For the deaf there is at least an impact on certain jobs. Though that's really the only place I'd accept it as being much different from most of the qualities of a person.

Asexuals can have children, can have families, can have wonderful lives completely unfettered by being asexual in any way. The only thing they won't do is fall in love or desire sex. They aren't attracted to anyone, fortunately, so I can't see why this would matter to them.

I find it sad that people feel the need to attack them, tell them they don't exist, when by the very nature of the trait they will never harm anyone by beinng asexual. It's so important for some that their addled world view be true that they will blatantly ignore facts and harm people just to pretend it's right. See our friend above pretending there is only one definition of sexual and asexual in the dictionary.

Some asexuals even have fallen in love (because they say they have romantic attraction even though they don't have sexual attraction; sometimes it's with other asexuals but usually it's with sexuals, and that can cause some conflict). I can't really describe this well because I haven't felt it.

I made the deaf comparison and for the exact reason you just gave. Because a deaf person would be equally upset if you suggested they aren't really deaf, just broken.

Well, you know you made a good post when people take it on board and use it as if they thought it themselves. You made that post, and I did that.

However, where the comparison falls down is that there really is no quality of life issue. It's doesn't prevent from living, loving, working, moving about, making a mark on the world. For the deaf there is at least an impact on certain jobs. Though that's really the only place I'd accept it as being much different from most of the qualities of a person.

Asexuals can have children, can have families, can have wonderful lives completely unfettered by being asexual in any way. The only thing they won't do is fall in love or desire sex. They aren't attracted to anyone, fortunately, so I can't see why this would matter to them.

(I'll just take a moment and point out to other posters that I've been voluntarily celibate for many years. I don't claim to be asexual or even very hyposexual. I feel rather normal, bisexual but mainly hetero. I made a conscious choice, for reasons I don't fully understand myself. Jocabia would remember.)

But it is a quality of life issue! Not in a physical sense, of there being things you aren't capable of, but socially it is very difficult. Couples in particular are extremely awkward or even hostile, I find. There often seems to be this expectation that you should flirt with one of the partners, not seriously but as a way of complimenting them, and by association making the other feel good to have such a sexy partner. A sort of ritual competition for mates.
Now I've seen gay men relating to couples. If the straight man won't play (he's resolutely hetero) he'll still tolerate the gay man talking to his woman. He'll just flip into "it's girl's talk" mode and just watch. If the gay man and he are getting along, and he doesn't have homophobia, he might even enjoy flirting with the gay man, but it's very similar to the case in the pargraph above. "Well, try all you like. My good woman here is all I need" and they both get a kick out of it.

Of course it can be worse than that. There are real homophobes, who want to beat up gays for being attracted to them. But gays have made a lot of progress, and I respect their courage and their collective aptitude in building some kind of model in the predominantly straight world of how to relate to them. Coming out through the media was clever and effective, "look fella, I can't possibly grope your ass, I'm in the TV. Just watch and examine your own feelings, here I'll crack some jokes at my own expense. I'm really not trying to hurt you."

A lot of people are defensive about their own sexuality, and that's understandable. It's pretty personal. They need a model of how to relate to people of different sexuality, they need a safe environment to practice that model. Stereotypes are our friends in this, though they are usually thought of as a demeaning to the diversity of real people.

Mr. Bean. Pee-wee Herman. Only examples I can think of just now. There are probably female examples but I guess I don't look for them.

I find it sad that people feel the need to attack them, tell them they don't exist, when by the very nature of the trait they will never harm anyone by beinng asexual. It's so important for some that their addled world view be true that they will blatantly ignore facts and harm people just to pretend it's right. See our friend above pretending there is only one definition of sexual and asexual in the dictionary.

Compared to the multi-page stands of two other crusaders before him/her, I found GPN quite pleasant. You got a bit angry with his/her defence ... but watching from a comfortable distance I found it cheering to see someone lose the point with such civility. There was one bitter one at the end, but GPN had the sense to log out then. Perhaps I'm reading too much between the lines, but that looked like someone changing their mind to me.

I've got a quote from Gandhi in mind here ... it was something like "Change is the rule of nature. Whoever seeks only to be consistent moves away from the truth."

There's still more nice wholesome cookies on the plate. Have one yourself. :)

I resent that, I'm perfectly aware of my chances. Outlook not so good = not trying.

I could offer you advice, but that would be SO inconsistent as to be rank hypocrisy.

It was a joke. There wasn't a smilie strong enough to express the irony, so I just ducked.

EDIT: Irony should always be at least clever, preferably funny. Otherwise, it is sarcasm. That the BIG GRIN icon didn't seem strong enough probably showed a defect in my sense of irony. Deleting it now.

I'm not going to dive into this ugly can of worms. However, I recall that someone compared it to deafness. Some deaf people aren't distressed by their condition, but it's certainly a problem. There are plenty of conditions which are problematic but don't cause their sufferer distress.

So what is the problem with certain people being asexual? The only thing I can't do that most others can is enjoy having sex (though I can still do it.) I don't enjoy falafels either. Is this a problem I am suffering from too?

So what is the problem with certain people being asexual? The only thing I can't do that most others can is enjoy having sex (though I can still do it.) I don't enjoy falafels either. Is this a problem I am suffering from too?

Well, I'll cross you off my list of potential NSG dates then!

My local Lebanese does a fantastic Falafel Roll, lots of mint in the Tabouli and the garlic sauce is to die for. Only $3:50 too ...

I refuse to use a smilie on this one!! Look at the clock, huh? My local time is GMT-10 hours.

So what is the problem with certain people being asexual? The only thing I can't do that most others can is enjoy having sex (though I can still do it.) I don't enjoy falafels either. Is this a problem I am suffering from too?

If I've parsed this post correctly, we now have 4 people who have posted as being asexual.