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/
http://www.asexuality.org/home/
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.AuronFtw said:Biologically and evolutionarily speaking, yes, everything is wrong with that. It's "not natural."
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.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.
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'.
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.AuronFtw said:Biologically and evolutionarily speaking, yes, everything is wrong with that. It's "not natural."
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?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.
The way I understand, it isn't really known. Perhaps, but I don't know of any extensive studies on it.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?
I would assume someone highly interested in sex.Second question, what is the opposite of an asexual?
Asexuals I've encountered seem to think of it that way, but formally I don't think so.Third question, why is 'asexual' its own orientation?
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.Last question, can the opposite be it's own orientation as well? If not, why not?
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.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.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?
Let me first preface this post by giving a popular definitionTakerFoxx 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.
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 XPAsexuality 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.