Asexuals and low sex drives

Malconvoker

New member
Nov 1, 2011
86
0
0
Oh god there is already so many thing in this thread. I just kinda want to post this here. I don't know if this will help but its a good place to start.

http://www.asexuality.org/home/
 

Signa

Noisy Lurker
Legacy
Jul 16, 2008
4,749
6
43
Country
USA
I'm pretty sure I fall under the umbrella of asexuality, and I have no idea how to answer those questions. I do get horny, but I don't really have an impulse to "do" anything as a result. I imagine it's like being hetero, and then being asked if you'd do something gay; I'm just not interested. The difference is that applies to both genders.
 

sanquin

New member
Jun 8, 2011
1,837
0
0
Eh, I don't like such clear-cut definitions. They're great for when you first tell someone about it. But after that they're too black and white. I prefer to see it as a spectrum, where each individual has varying degrees of attraction to the two main sexes.

As for asexuality. I understand a (very) low sex drive, but I can't say I can understand asexuality. Then again, it's not really my business when, with whom, and how often someone else has sex. If they don't feel like having sex, so be it.
 

AwesomeHatMan

New member
Jul 24, 2012
71
0
0
This is a touch off-topic but I still find it interesting anyway. I at one time thought:

"People aren't asexual they just haven't found a person they're attracted to yet"

But then I thought to myself that the same thing could be said about homo/heterosexuals (monosexuals?) And bisexuality yet that would be something I would disagree with. Then I just felt puzzled. Then I thought maybe there actually are both asexuals and people who think there are, when they truly are not... Then I found twenty bucks, cool story bro...
 

Smooth Operator

New member
Oct 5, 2010
8,162
0
0
AuronFtw said:
Biologically and evolutionarily speaking, yes, everything is wrong with that. It's "not natural."
Well that isn't quite right, evolutionarily speaking every permutation of every system will eventually happen and that is the main principle behind evolution. Hindering new variations from propagating would stop evolution completely.
The deciding dominance of these variations is survivability, needless to say a genome that keeps you from producing offspring has a hell of a hard time propagating through generations.

OT: Yes there is asexuality, along with every other kind of sexuality you can think of. And these are not black-white markers, most people will be told what they must like by peers but spend their entire life figuring out what actually does and does not work for them.
 

Tarfeather

New member
May 1, 2013
128
0
0
Asexuals don't have directed sexual attraction, it's that simple. It's not related to masturbation. You can masturbate without directed attraction. You can even have sex without directed attraction.
 

chiggerwood

Lurker Extrordinaire
May 10, 2009
865
0
0
stroopwafel said:
No, I don't believe 'asexuality' is a thing unless there is a clear neurological, endocrinological or cardiovascular cause. Now espescially in young people this seems very unlikely.

Now, the mind is a powerful thing and people can 'pretend' to be(or not be) anything, but thinking so doesn't necessarily make it so. Some people go through great lengths to avoid the pain of rejection or the stress and uncertainty of emotionally investing in another person. Suppressing desire might be an easy cop out but I think its a choice most will regret later on. You're only young for a short time. Soon enough you'll be old, bald and ugly. :p

I don't know but I think not just sex but also physical intimacy and affection are just essential for people. The degree of which ofcourse differs from person to person but I don't think there is anyone who can live entirely without unless making some serious concessions to their emotional well-being. As such I think there's a serious amount of self-deceit in 'asexuality'.
No I am not ill, my neurologist, neuropsychologist, psychologist, and Primary care physician can attest to that. I am not pretending, nor am I worried about being rejected seeing as I am pretty outgoing and tend to make friends quickly, nor do I worry about uncertainty; all of life is uncertainty, so if I was afraid of uncertainty I would be afraid of everything, I am not suppressing desire, I'm emotionally fulfilled, I take after my dad so I won't be bald and ugly for another forty years, and it is not a choice. You don't need sex, you can want sex, you can have the desire for sex, but it is not a necessity.

Your world view of how humans is, unfortunately, quite narrow. Me and all the other seventy million asexual individuals out there in the world who don't fall on the Kinsey scale are happy and healthy. I don't suffer from a lack of affection, nor am I incapable of being intimate, but romantic, or sexual desires have no part in my life. I find no interest or joy in them; I enjoy being friends with people,I'll love them like they're a sibling, but asking me to be romantic or sexual with them is like asking a heterosexual person to engage in homosexual relations.

And as a final point, I tried. I tried heterosexuality, and it didn't work. I tried homosexuality, and that didn't work either. I entered puberty at nine years old, and for fourteen years I struggled with my sexual identity, and trying to figure out what my deal was. It wasn't the lack of sex that bugged me, I'm fine with that, hell I'm happy as hell being a virgin. It was the fact that nothing seemed to fit, it was the uncertainty that surrounded my identity. I'm asexual, I know this because it's the only identity that has ever fit me, because when I found out about asexuality it felt like a giant puzzle piece in my life had just been fitted into place and for the first time in my life I could point at something and go, "That's my deal." So please expand your view points and know, from someone who spent half of his current life searching, asexuality is an actual thing, thank you for your time.
 

JagermanXcell

New member
Oct 1, 2012
1,098
0
0
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.
 

Eddie the head

New member
Feb 22, 2012
2,327
0
0
AuronFtw said:
Biologically and evolutionarily speaking, yes, everything is wrong with that. It's "not natural."
I don't want to get into the finer point of things as I'm hardly articulate enough to explain most of these things. However I think you kind of misunderstand the evolutionary drive here. Evolution isn't survival of the fittest, it' survival of whatever works. The net benefit just needs to be grater then the loss. Sometimes you will get kids that are asexual doesn't matter if most people aren't.

You might call it a hormone imbalance or a genetic defect. I call it evolution. There is noting unnatural about evolution. It has dead ends sometimes even within a species.

More on topic. If you want to call it a sexual orientation fine whatever. If you want to call it the lack of one fine I don't give a shit. What you call something is entirely up to you I don't care.
 

lionsprey

New member
Sep 20, 2010
430
0
0
well lets just take a look in a dictionary http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/asexual

"A person who has no sexual feelings or desires."
 

Colour Scientist

Troll the Respawn, Jeremy!
Jul 15, 2009
4,722
0
0
JagermanXcell said:
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.
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
Bocaj2000 said:
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?
The way I understand, it isn't really known. Perhaps, but I don't know of any extensive studies on it.

Second question, what is the opposite of an asexual?
I would assume someone highly interested in sex.

Third question, why is 'asexual' its own orientation?
Asexuals I've encountered seem to think of it that way, but formally I don't think so.

Last question, can the opposite be it's own orientation as well? If not, why not?
An interesting thought. I would assume not because there are already orientations for those who are interested in sex with the opposite sex or same sex: heterosexual and homosexual, or bisexual. Asexuality is simply interest in neither, at least as far as sex is concerned.

EDIT:
Followup question: How is an asexual's romantic relationship different from platonic companionship?
That would be a question for an asexual, which I am not. I feel like it wouldn't be that different from a romantic relationship, just without sex. Living together, going on dates, finances, etc. Some level of physical affection most likely, but just not sex. But again I'm not asexual so I don't know.
 

Eclipse Dragon

Lusty Argonian Maid
Legacy
Jan 23, 2009
4,259
12
43
Country
United States
Bocaj2000 said:
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.
 

Eclipse Dragon

Lusty Argonian Maid
Legacy
Jan 23, 2009
4,259
12
43
Country
United States
TakerFoxx said:
I've heard various definitions, with some people saying it means a lack of or having a very low sex drive, having a sex drive but not having an attraction toward any gender, or a combination of the two. So like most things relating to sex, the term tends to be fluid I guess (heh).

Personally, I have to admit that I do find the idea of having no sex drive to be kind of appealing. My sex drive is fairly active and I'm pretty much straight, but due to various reasons I have a complete lack of interest in ever actually having sex or getting into a relationship (so, aromantic?). So having no sex drive at all sounds like a real time saver.
Let me first preface this post by giving a popular definition
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.
Aromantic is the lack of interest toward anything romantic (kissing, hugging, ext), if you'd prefer to skip all that, you may be aromantic. Now if you don't want to have sex at all with anyone ever, if you know you won't enjoy it, have no interest in seeking it out, you may be asexual [footnote]you said you had personal reasons, I'm not going to ask you about them because they're personal and they're your reasons[/footnote] though if you choose to call yourself that is up to you, I don't know you personally and you know yourself a lot better than I do XP