Asexuals and low sex drives

[Lucem712]

[]|:{

Can't answer the follow up question being Ace/Aro[footnote]Aexual/Aromanic[footnote]Lack interested in romantic partnerships[/footnote][/footnote]. Although, I do consider my Bestfriend/Squish[footnote]Aro/Ace term for platonic crush or really intense friendship.[/footnote] my Platonic Life Partner, if I was Demi, I'd definitely be in love with her based on relationship status.
[hr]

1) But, there are a couple of scales of Asexuality; demi, Grey, Aro. So, Asexuality can be anything from low to non existent sexual drive, or even sexual drive based on emotional attraction.

2) There's actually a word for someone who is "Normal", as in someone who experiences attraction based on physical traits. Can't recall what it is at this moment, if you dig around Ace forums and such, you'll probably encounter it.

3) Not sure for a good answer for it, but Asexuality is my sexual orientation. I don't feel physical attraction to any genders or persons. I do have a sexual "preference" and that preference is "Nope", thus I am not straight, gay or anything else.

4) I think the opposite would be just general sexuality (as in feeling it) or maybe Pansexuality? Take that with a grain of salt.

I think the best way to describe Asexuality and how it feels would be, you know that feeling when you see something really aesthetically pleasing? Such as fine art or maybe a really nice lamp? I feel like that all the time, but towards people. I know what's attractive in a typical sense but have no drive to be sexual with it or even be in a relationship[footnote]Not all Aces are Aromanic, thus they have romantic partnerships[/footnote]. Honestly, I've done double takes with a drop dead gorgeous car more often than a drop dead gorgeous person.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

Honestly, I've done double takes with a drop dead gorgeous car more often than a drop dead gorgeous person.

I was at a car dealership with my mother the other day and they had Cobra just sitting there. I had to double take on that one, just look at it, who wouldn't find this thing aesthetically pleasing?

Spoiler

Alass it was $40,000 and a car insurance spike.

 

[Lucem712]

Honestly, I've done double takes with a drop dead gorgeous car more often than a drop dead gorgeous person.

I was at a car dealership with my mother the other day and they had Cobra just sitting there. I had to double take on that one, just look at it, who wouldn't find this thing aesthetically pleasing?

Spoiler

Alass it was $40,000 and a car insurance spike.

Daaaaaaamn, probably wouldn't be worth the spike or the car payments, but a day to drive that? That'd be perfect.

I'm particularly fond of classic cars from the 1920s-1960s. I was on the highway recently and saw one of those classic beauties and could hardly keep my eyes off it.

 

[cleric of the order]

I've been talking to my friends about asexuality, which is something neither of us understand, and the guess we came up with is that an asexual is simply someone with a low sex drive.

First question: Is that true?
Second question, what is the opposite of an asexual?
Third question, why is 'asexual' its own orientation?
Last question, can the opposite be it's own orientation as well? If not, why not?

EDIT:
Followup question: How is an asexual's romantic relationship different from platonic companionship?

back when i was in the ASD programme at my school i had a friend that was Asexual.
And while i would say that from my understand seems right, (I have not slept for 24hours and really feeling it).
It doesn't seem wholly right.
I think in the instance, it is a low sex drive to the lack of a sex drive at all. a genetic dead end.

Having a sexuality should in theory be the opposite. Perhaps a strong BI to be specific and cheeky, but an sexuality at all.

They have no orientation towards any sex, gender or whatever word tumblr is coming up today.

Can the opposite be itself? you two must have been digging deep. Perhaps in a metaphysical sense but as afar as i can understand it, no and yes. it by nature denotes a complete lack of definition in sexuality, given definition. it is a paradox.

[edit to your edit]my friend said he'd be up for a romantic relationship with people, it would be more about emotional involvement, and intimacy of the emotional kind as opposed to the other kind. a romantic relationship is a partnership, a complementary mix [edit]

>shiggity snippity-

I am retarded and this is similar to things i did, though not to the extreme when i was younger, specifically then them.
Someone gave me the theory that it might be the result of them being, born to early as the parts of the mind that can distinguish between fantasy and reality develop at that time.
Or it could just be edgy fucking teens being edgy fucking, stupid teens.
Teenagers didn't and will not stop being stupid.
But I'll admit it does worry me that these people might end up seeing this shit as normal because of online communities and this shit becomes a subculture.
That could become a part of the main culture

Perhaps this is what the Camerata, these kids are going to doll themselves up with whatever fashionable identity they can find as with the advent of the computer physical form is out of style. Parade themselves out as great new individuals, free thinkers, one of a kind wonders, etc,etc. And when everything changes, nothing changes.

 

[Bocaj2000]

I've been talking to my friends about asexuality, which is something neither of us understand, and the guess we came up with is that an asexual is simply someone with a low sex drive.

First question: Is that true?
Second question, what is the opposite of an asexual?
Third question, why is 'asexual' its own orientation?
Last question, can the opposite be it's own orientation as well? If not, why not?

EDIT:
Followup question: How is an asexual's romantic relationship different from platonic companionship?

1. No, asexuality is lack of sexual attraction, that's not the same as having a low sex drive.
Sexual attraction is who you'd have sex with when your sex drive acts up.

-Homosexual people are attracted to the same gender, they know they won't enjoy sex with the opposite.
-Straight people are attracted to the opposite gender, they know they won't enjoy sex with the same.
-Bisexual/ and or Pansexual people are attracted to all genders.
-Asexual people are attracted to no genders, they know they won't enjoy sex with anyone, period.

2. The opposite of asexual is pansexual (or bisexual) however you define them, attracted to everyone. Basically all or nothing.

3. Because it's an orientation that describes no orientation. If you however, want to argue that it's not an orientation because by definition it describes a lack of orientation, that's fine though kind of nitpicky IMO.

4. Yes, it is, that's pansexual (or bisexual).

For the follow up:
Romantic relationships often involve kissing, hugging, long moonlit walks on the beach, all that other lovey dovey stuff, platonic relationships don't involve these things, however, you may not also have a romantic orientation (in other words skip all the lovey stuff). This is called aromatic, and any orientation can be aromatic, not just asexuals.

This is the most concise and well thought out answer of the thread so far. The only confusing thing is the answer to the followup question (I warn you, it's nothing but semantics):

Sexual orientation is about sex in the male/female sense, not in the intercourse sense; i.e. toward which sex to you orient yourself. Only an asexual has no orientation towards either sex and would therefore not have any interest in romance with anyone. You said it yourself that "Asexual people are attracted to no genders." This is especially confusing if they can do "kissing, hugging, long moonlit walks on the beach, all that other lovey dovey stuff" without being attracted to that other gender. Being an asexual that dates seems to be like a massive contradiction to the idea of the sexual orientation.

 

[Lucem712]

[]|:{

Honestly, if you sat me down in front of a monitor displaying sex or photos of classically sexy people with switches hooked up to my brain to record which parts highlight during sexual arousal, nothing would show up. I've never felt sexual or romantic attraction, now or in my youth. Of course, I didn't know the words or terms for it at that age, but I distinctly remember describing my "attraction" as aesthetic as early as maybe 14/15. It was difficult for awhile because I felt very different from my peers who were dating and discussing sex.

I do not masturbate or watch pornography. But, I do happen to be a perfectly happy individual. Though, that might just be a phase, maybe I'll grow out of it and love dick in a few years, or something.

I understand pretending to be Asexual (or any of the variants) to deny yourself the displeasure of rejection but there are people who are interested in romantic (hugging, kissing, being partners) who are Asexual. That'd be incredibly difficult and straining on a partnership if your partner was completely unattractive to you physically. I don't see why someone in a relationship would pretend to be Asexual, seems like an unnecessary hardship.

 

[MetalShadowChaos]

Asexuality to me is the lack of interest in sex, and sex in particular. In regards to relationships, it has no direct impact. If you have no interest in RELATIONSHIPS then that's Aromantic.

 

[Lieju]

Being asexual tends to mean you're not attracted to people. People who identify as asexual can have romantic relationships, they can have sexual fantasies, or masturbate, or even have sex (for different reasons).

Sexual attraction and drive varies from person to person anyway, and individual people can have very different preferences and sex drives in the first place, so different people can use these terms differently, and a lot of people speak about an 'asexual spectrum', that includes people who only very rarely experience sexual attraction, or who only get attracted to people after they know them.


I know several asexuals, some of them don't care about sex or find it icky, some are interested in the idea of sex and enjoy for example reading about it but don't want to do that themselves, some are in relationships, some don't even want romance.


Why do people find this difficult to understand?
(Almost) everyone has at least one person they're NOT attracted to, why is it difficult to believe for some everyone is like that?

And people talking about evolution, you are aware that humans can have sex without being sexually attracted to someone? Especially women in many times and cultures had no choice in the matter: they had to get married and have sex with a man.

Even in modern times, I know several asexual/lesbian women who were in relationships with men because they thought they were heterosexual or it was expected of them. Maybe they didn't want to be different, or confused friendship or thinking someone is good-looking for sexual attraction...

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

This is the most concise and well thought out answer of the thread so far. The only confusing thing is the answer to the followup question (I warn you, it's nothing but semantics):

Sexual orientation is about sex in the male/female sense, not in the intercourse sense; i.e. toward which sex to you orient yourself. Only an asexual has no orientation towards either sex and would therefore not have any interest in romance with anyone. You said it yourself that "Asexual people are attracted to no genders." This is especially confusing if they can do "kissing, hugging, long moonlit walks on the beach, all that other lovey dovey stuff" without being attracted to that other gender. Being an asexual that dates seems to be like a massive contradiction to the idea of the sexual orientation.

Also about semantics.
Asexuality operates on the sexual attraction in the "I want to have intercourse with you sense"

Sexual orientation and romantic orientation are viewed as two separate things. Asexual people may not want to participate in the act of having sex (with anyone). Quite a few feel it's perfectly okay to go an entire life without ever having sex, however, they aren't robots, they do desire companionship, be it platonic or otherwise.

If you define sexual orientation as what you were assigned at birth (your biological sex), that also delves into the topic of sex vs gender.

Sex= what you were assigned at birth
Gender= what you personally identify as

This subject alone could take up a whole new thread, but it boils down to "people are complicated" and that's not even touching on people with intersex conditions who may not fit into either or biological sex and if "sexual orientation" is defined by what sex you're assigned at birth, where do these individuals stand? Intersex conditions are actually not as uncommon as they appear, so if that is the definition of sexual orientation*, it may call for retooling.

I hope that what I just said is understandable, if it's not, I'll try to explain further, though I make no promises.

 

[JagermanXcell]

Oh sweet, a thread I can really dig my two cents into considering a talk I had earlier.

"Asexuality" basically has range to it. An earlier conversation with my partner had us both coming to the conclusion that she and I were both asexual, but with high sex drive. Which leads to the other explantation as to why that is: Our own personal orientation (which can factor in wether a person has a high/low sex drive). Both of us admitted to frequent masterbation prior and even during our relationship, while openly admitting how we personally saw sex as.... mmmm... more or less undesirable and for different/good reasons. That's not to say it's because I don't like/love her. We've both been considerably attached to one another mentally, emotionally, physically, and even sexually for a long time now. It's just that the physical and sexual aspect is and can be held back from going to the end all be all that is intercourse: because of our orientations as individuals (pleasure seeking between two people isn't exactly limited is what i'm saying).

Which in my opinion IS GREAT! when it comes to investing in the persona rather than the body. In due time things can change, but that's what makes us as humans so fascinating.
So yeah, basically I think it applies to both genders, the amount of drive may vary from person to person, and that overall it's just simple f***ing orientation!

Either screw the pooch or embrace the purity peeps.

So, you and your girlfriend are sexually attracted to each other, physically intimate, have high sex drives but you label yourselves asexual just because neither of particularly want to have sex right now?

Am I misunderstanding? If not, that really doesn't seem like asexuality to me. Sounds like a heterosexual couple who just don't want to have sex.

Eh, no you got the gist of what I meant.
Labeling us as an "asexual couple" is what my gal pal says to others when asked about our state as a pairing (note: she considers herself pansexual, ironically being the opposite of asexual). Me, I just roll with it cause it saves the long unecessary explanations. I myself have never been a fan of labeling something as simple as orientation, which is why I put "Asexuality" in quotes thar in the beginning, only ever using it, what 2 times? (hmmm... reading back I could have paraphrased those two first sentences better)

Sooooo yeah, heterosexual couple who find sex icky. Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue but I hope I cleared that up.

 

[Colour Scientist]

Sooooo yeah, heterosexual couple who find sex icky. Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue but yeah.

Doesn't roll off the tongue but it's more accurate.

You could just say you're abstaining or something.

I know you weren't really being serious and I'm not having a go or anything, I just think some people really do struggle with things like asexuality and whatnot so when you throw around the label just because you and your partner aren't into sex at the moment, it doesn't really help their case, you know?

 

[JagermanXcell]

Sooooo yeah, heterosexual couple who find sex icky. Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue but yeah.

Doesn't roll off the tongue but it's more accurate.

You could just say you're abstaining or something.

I know you weren't really being serious and I'm not having a go or anything, I just think some people really do struggle with things like asexuality and whatnot so when you throw around the label just because you and your partner aren't into sex at the moment, it doesn't really help their case, you know?

Why is that... do you wanna GO?!

God damn it, abstaining. That's the word I was looking for, thank you.
Yeah I understand, my sincerest apologies for that. I'll be sure to phrase that better for future reference to respect those whom are coming to grips. They're definitely a group that has every right to be listened to.

 

[Colour Scientist]

Sproggin McLoggin

That's a beautiful name, is it French?

 

[Lieju]

Asexuality is a mental illness. Reproduction is as basic and necessary as eating, and look how we'll treat someone who has lost the will to eat. If you don't want to have sex with anything, there's something wrong with you and you should try to get it fixed. We don't encourage anorexia, we shouldn't encourage asexuality.

???
Anorexia actually damages your health though, and is horrible for the person who suffers from it. Not having sex, and not wanting to have sex... Doesn't.

You sound like an alien who failed their human biology course.

We human beings don't actually need to reproduce to avoid dying. Besides, asexual people can have children, even biological ones, so...

 

[Lucem712]

It's just another trendy thing for attention whores to grab onto. Everyone wants to be special, and in a highly sexualized environment like the one we live in how would you not stand out?

That's the perfect way to stand out by having a sexual orientation that absolutely no one could actually detect unless you told them. Those young'ins and their asexuality. It's a menace, I tell you.

EDIT:

Also, I am one of those attention grabbin' whores. So attention grabbing by flaunting my Asexuality that almost no one knows about it! Am I doing this attention grabbin' whore thing right?

 

[Mr Companion]

1) From what I gather, yes, asexuality is the complete absence of a sex drive, at-least one directed at other people.

2) The opposite would either be a bisexual or a hypersexual, depending on whether you're looking at orientation or strength of sex drive.

3) A true asexual is not attracted to either males or females, so logically they can't be gay, straight or bi right?

4) I wouldn't count hypersexuality as an orientation in itself, since hypersexuals can be still prefer only one gender, or both. It's an additional thing on top of a regular sexuality, unlike asexuality.

For the record, I'm not asexual but one of my close friends is.

You sir are correct. I'm 22 and I've never even held hands with a girl but neither do I have desire to sleep with men. I don't care. I would describe this as sexual apathy. As an asexual you see sex as something that happens to other people, you define yourself not by your relationships but by who you are. In a way lack of sexual desire frees you yet also makes one self-centered. Personally? I love being free of desire.

For the record, I'm apparently a handsome gent (people say so anyway, I tend not to look in the mirror) so it isn't for a lack of opportunity. I simply don't follow up on any advances made towards me. Luckily girls figure out I'm a dead end pretty fast. People are still gonna say "Huhuh you don't sleep with gurls cus ur ugly lol" but luckily as as somebody who is sexually apathetic I don't care if people find my behavior strange.

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

Oh sweet, a thread I can really dig my two cents into considering a talk I had earlier.

"Asexuality" basically has range to it. An earlier conversation with my partner had us both coming to the conclusion that she and I were both asexual, but with high sex drive. Which leads to the other explantation as to why that is: Our own personal orientation (which can factor in wether a person has a high/low sex drive). Both of us admitted to frequent masterbation prior and even during our relationship, while openly admitting how we personally saw sex as.... mmmm... more or less undesirable and for different/good reasons. That's not to say it's because I don't like/love her. We've both been considerably attached to one another mentally, emotionally, physically, and even sexually for a long time now. It's just that the physical and sexual aspect is and can be held back from going to the end all be all that is intercourse: because of our orientations as individuals (pleasure seeking between two people isn't exactly limited is what i'm saying).

Which in my opinion IS GREAT! when it comes to investing in the persona rather than the body. In due time things can change, but that's what makes us as humans so fascinating.
So yeah, basically I think it applies to both genders, the amount of drive may vary from person to person, and that overall it's just simple f***ing orientation!

Either screw the pooch or embrace the purity peeps.

Sounds like my marriage...

I often wonder if part of asexuality is a counter-response to the gradual pornification of the current mainstream culture. For every progressive culture there is usually a rubber-band effect where once the "norms" get stretched out too far they snap back the opposite way.