Pyrian said:
CrystalShadow said:
Now... Does any of that make me asexual? or not? I really don't know. You kind of have to establish a definition of what a word actually means before you can say who (if anyone) it applies to.
And then if you
do set a definition, people get offended because they are or are not included. Or you just let people call themselves whatever the heck they want and accept that it all doesn't really mean much.
In truth, human sexuality is really quite varied, and the broad categories commonly used are not adequate in all cases.
Quite true of course. As soon as you start trying to make rigid definitions for something like this, you get a lot of problems.
AuronFtw said:
Drummodino said:
These threads scare me, there are always some people who get seriously angry over this topic. They tend to be on the asexuality doesn't exist side for some reason...
OT: Yes asexuality is a thing. Some people just aren't attracted to others, nothing wrong with that.
Biologically and evolutionarily speaking, yes, everything is wrong with that. It's "not natural." Not a bible-thumping "hurr durr you have to be straight" natural, I mean it runs counter to everything our bodies are built for. If you look at any species at surface level, all they exist to do is continue existing. Any individual of a species will invariably die, but what they try so hard to do from the minute they're born is stay alive and reproduce. Animals of all kinds, including us humans, do this.
While most of what you are saying is quite true, when you argue from biology it's worth noting that biology is VERY messy. Lots of things go 'wrong' some things have detrimental effects long term for a species (even if they seem OK in the short term), individuals can often have traits detrimental either to their own survival, or their ability to pass on their genes.
This happens all the time, because the recombination of genes is semi-random.
The existence of 'unfit' individuals is a side effect of how evolution works.
Because it basically takes a known starting point, creates as many recombinations of it as possible, and sees what sticks.
Yet, this by definition means you will sometimes get individuals with traits detrimental to long-term survival of their gene line. There's nothing unnatural about it. It's just what happens.
Being fit or not in an evolutionary sense is irrelevant. Both the 'good' and 'bad' traits are completely 'natural', because that's how it works! It's just that long-term, any traits detrimental to either immediate survival, or long-term reproductive success
should get weeded out. (But may in turn be replaced by newer kinds of detrimental traits.)
Being bad at reproducing isn't in any way 'unnatural'. That is to misunderstand how evolution functions. It
DOES mean that you are arguably a 'failure' at the only real goal life seems to have, but Being a 'failure' is something quite different from being 'unnatural'.
You're confusing 'not as suitable for the primary purpose of life' with 'unnatural' (which actually means something which can only exist due to being messed with, or which shouldn't arise under normal circumstances).
Asexuality, homosexuality, intersex conditions, damaged reproductive systems, etc... None of these are 'unnatural' all of them can and do arise just through the normal everyday processes of reproduction and evolution.
What they ARE however is 'evolutionarily unfit', meaning their prevalence should decrease over time, all things considered. (Unless they are a side effect of something else which is beneficial to the survival of the species in some way, or perhaps an unavoidable consequence the inherent imperfection of another process. Eg. The complexity of creating sexually dimorphic traits from a single set of genes may inherently carry the risk of intersex conditions developing just because of how complex it is.)
Anyway... Whatever. XD