...stroopwafel said:Obviously it is not my intention to lump everyone in the same category or suggest 'asexuals' are could-be abusers, but with sexual desire being an integral part of human instinct similarly like wanting to eat or sleep(what other mechanism could there be to preserve the species?) 'overruling' this desire with whatever ridiculous make-belief our conscious mind makes up does not render a person 'asexual'.
Human behaviour is a complex thing primarily b/c our higher brain functions have exploded over the course of our evolution as a species. And it is exactly this that enables us to suggestively distance ourselves from our base instincts and desires, yet thinking so doesn't make it so. I don't buy into quack theories from psychology or social 'science'. So yeah, unless there is a clearly defined medical explanation I don't believe 'asexuality' is a thing. I understand there are a multitude of reasons that make people not act on their desires or that people can even pretend or genuinely believe to not feel any(espescially when it encapsulates parts of their identity) but eventually the frail construct that constitute our conscious mind won't subjugate the baseline instinct that is the source of all life. Ego, identity and sense of self be damned.
You are aware humans are a social species, yes?
And that things like sexual orientation can be dependant on multiple genes?
Those same arguments (which are quack theories based on partial understanding of evolution) are commonly used to 'prove' how homosexuality cannot be a thing, btw.
There could very well be an advantage for a social species to have asexual members.
Members who don't feel the need to breed and will help take care of the offspring of their siblings for example, indirectly ensuring their genes continue to the next generation.
And of course asexual people can have children and could have been coerced to do it, or chosen to.