Asexuals and low sex drives

[sanquin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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'.

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]

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]

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]

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."

 

[soren7550]

I believe Cracked has an article on the matter, hold up:

http://www.cracked.com/article_21988_6-weird-ways-world-looks-different-when-youre-asexual.html

Given how they describe it, being asexual sounds pretty different from just a lack of a sex drive.

 

[Colour Scientist]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[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.