The Nineteen Sexualities and You!

[Unsilenced]

*snip*

Sexuality's a spectrum, imo, so people who like men more then women while still liking women would have no problem having kids. There's also a desire for children that is removed from sexual feeling. When you couple that with societal pressure toward heterosexuality throughout history, it's not unlikely that gay men or at least gay leaning men would spread their genes. Of course, there's always the possibility of random mutation causing both nonsexuality and homosexuality, but this is far more unlikely to occur on a level that lends about 7% of people a certain sexuality as homosexuality does. In fact, it's the only statistically relevant way for genetic nonsexuals to occur short of nonsexual women being raped.
In short,
Gay gene: Rape, Bisexuals passing genes down, random mutation, cultural pressure
Nonsexual gene: Rape, random mutation (A true nonsexual man would not be able to give in to cultural pressure due to inability to get aroused, nonsexual woman could theoretically, but the conditions would be similar to rape, it's a gray area)
Gays are still more likely to occur.

Edit; Also, homosexuality as a mutation simply requires a change in the target of desire, nonsexuality as a mutation requires a far greater change in one or all of the parts of the human reproductive and hormonal systems. Also, as you claim to be nonsexual, can you actually gety an erection, climax, or feel sexual desire? Or have you just never wanted to or felt like having sex? There is a difference.

In order to be incapable of physical arousal, one would have to have suffered some sort of damage to the nervous or circulatory system. Attraction is not necessary, hence why women can rape men. An asexual man could agree to and have sex. They just wouldn't have any emotional drive to do it.

Different asexuals are... well, different, but I personally just don't want to have sex. I still have sexual feelings, but not for other people.


Genetics, for the most part, don't operate in an on-off way by direct genotype-phenotype coordination. Obviously not all gays are the children of gays, and gays that reproduce do not always have gay children. In fact, unless I'm mistaken, the rate of homosexuality isn't any higher. What can happen though are genes that give predispositions. If there's a gene that, in males, makes them less sexually aggressive, then an individual with that gene dominant would be more likely to end up asexual based on the hormone balance and other genetic traits.

And asexuality isn't that radical of a psychological change from heterosexuality. Just take the way a straight man feels about other men and copy/paste to women.

I was in no way inferring that all abnormal personality traits originate from trauma. Being straight or gay is determined by physiology, most likely.
But a complete lack of sex drive despite pristine health is something I have yet to see outside of our species. To lack such a basic drive, something must have transpired to classically train them to have a neutral or averse attitude towards intimacy.

Our species does a lot of things that aren't often found in nature, but that's besides the point. If the desire to fuck is so universal, you'd think it would be hard to suppress it before it ever presented itself, don't you? A behavior must be exhibited before it can be conditioned against.

 

[NoNameMcgee]

As other people have said, the Kinsey Scale already applies to the most number of people. No real need for anything else, its the simplest and most accurate.

Here's the link again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale

I think honestly very few people are a "0" or a "6" on that scale. I have very slight emotional/romantic interest in specific types of men but even less physical interest and no sexual interest, so I'd say I'm a "1".

The Kinsey scale explains why very few bisexual people are attracted to both sex equally (ask a bisexual person this question, from my experience they tend to be 40/60, or 30/70, and many have purely physical attraction to one sex and physical and emotional attraction to the other) It also explains how plenty of straight people admit to gay fantasies and vice versa.

People pick the label that fits them closest, I pick Heterosexual because that fits me, and chances are I'll never be with a man in any way, but I wish the Kinsey Scale was used more often.

Despite my open mindedness in this area though I think when people consider themselves "asexual" or "nonsexual" its OFTEN a reason to excuse themselves from their crappy abilities in relationships, or getting into relationships. It's sad because it takes credibility away from actual asexuals who are extremely few and far between. I think most of the people on this forum who have inexplicably started calling themselves asexual in the past year or two is a good example of that, since there are so many socially incompetent people here. Asexual is the new "feel better about yourself" label.

 

[Nieroshai]

The way I see it, there are those who have a set gender niche (straight, gay), or don't (bisexuality). For men, there are those who want to penetrate and those who want to be penetrated, and those who don't care. Also, there are those with no sexual drive whatsoever or are purely autosexual (masturbation only). The rest comes down to flavor, I think. Say, a bisexual man who prefers transvestites or transgendered. (Transvestites are an identity, not a sexuality, FYI. Dr. Frank'n'furter of Rocky Horror fame wasn't just a transvestite, he was a bisexual one.) For the sake of this list, I've left out bestiality, furries, and necrophilia. Just because. Count them if you want, I'm keeping this to living humans.

So the tally goes: 2 straight, 3 male homosexual, 1(?) female homosexual (feel free to correct me please), 1 autoerotic, 1 asexual. I see eight sexualities in total, accounting for some variations just being a tiny bit different. There are gay men who insist on being "pitchers," this being totally different from a guy who just likes his lady to ride cowgirl.

 

[Colour Scientist]

According to that Kinsey Scale test, I'm predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual. Wow, I'm so boring!

 

[Unsilenced]

I realize about arousal, I was questioning the nature of your nonsexuality, and your definition of such, as it's not a set-in-stone type of thing. I don't think, however, that a lowered or even nonexistent sex drive constitutes nonsexuality. If it's a simple matter of your emotional drive toward sex, I don't think it constitutes an entirely different sexuality, especially given that it is at least as much nurture than nature. I also understand the subtleties of genetics but I'm simplifying it to make a point and keep my post reasonably short. I'm also not entirely satisfied with the idea of predispositions in genetics, which are off/on in the sense that a set of DNA codes for one protein or another, or one that doesn't work as intended. We couldn't even be sure what a "gay gene" would do, what it would code for.

But if not asexual, what would I call myself? Straight doesn't work because I do not prefer females over males. Gay does not work because I do not prefer males over females. Bisexual could be used, but only by the technicality that 0=0, therefore my attraction to both sexes is equal. If someone asked me what my sexuality was though, and I said I was bi, they'd probably then be a bit surprised that I don't find men or women attractive.

Asexuality has a place as a functional label. It describes a behavior group that does not display strong sexual attraction to either sex.

The chances are in all likelihood that there is no one "gay gene," which is what I meant by dispositions. If you have the appropriate genotype to produce blue eyes you will have blue eyes, but homosexuality may not be linked to one gene, but rather the interaction of many genes and outside factors. The same thing could be said of asexuality.

 

[Radoh]

Assuming that I have some severe childhood sexual trauma and then proceeded to repress it all is far easier to accept than the fact that I'm just not interested in sex? Are you by chance a proponent of Freudian Psychology?

And I don't know anything about my own sexuality and how I view it, all of which is presented here not as fact, but something I took some time in concocting while at work one day, all because you are objectively right, since because.

Doesn't have to be a single event, it could be a number of events that made you have a Pavlovian negative response to sex. There's nothing Freudian about it.
It's either psychological or physiological, but aside from some serious illnesses I don't know of anything physical that completely eliminates sex drive other than castration.
And as for the second paragraph: yes. People need to realize they know far less about everything, including themselves, than they think.

Suggesting that everything begins and ends with sex is Freudian, though.
I was a normal sexual creature until either one or multiple events put me off of sex, most likely in some way involving sex, nudity, or some other such nonsense. 'Being unable to accept that someone just likes what they like because that's what they like seems too much of a stretch, so it must be some kind of trauma' is about as Freud as you can get without coking up and sleeping through a session without taking any notes.
This second sentence you wrote seems suspiciously like you are saying the reason I am nonsexual is entirely an illness, but I'm going to assume that the sentence structure is what's making it look like that, as that's pretty much the exact same thing people said about homosexuality not too long ago.
And once again we come back to this: I don't know as much as I thought, because you do. You just have a theory, but it's right. You know nothing about me or any other nonsexuals in the room, but you know everything about us because you have a theory.

 

[Angryman101]

How do I factor into your calculations? I'm asexual, I'm not sexually attracted to anyone, but I've still got a sex drive. I still want to have sex (seems like a fun thing to do), Hell, I'm even kinky.

So...what, you masturbate a lot?

 

[General Twinkletoes]

I don't think a "nonsexual" or "asexual" exists. There's only so far that we can go resisting our natural urges.
..I actually think it's a mechanic to hide the facts that you're sexually frustrated.

Some people just don't have those natural urges at all. Just born to not want sex.

 

[orangeban]

How do I factor into your calculations? I'm asexual, I'm not sexually attracted to anyone, but I've still got a sex drive. I still want to have sex (seems like a fun thing to do), Hell, I'm even kinky.

So...what, you masturbate a lot?

Well, yeah, but that's not the point. I'm saying I wouldn't mind having sex, I just don't really care about the appearances of those involved. I don't find people sexually attractive.

I see it like bowling, bowling's a fun thing to do, I enjoy bowling, but I wouldn't only go bowling with people I deemed attractive. I don't see why I should be different about sex.

 

[AnarchistFish]

Because everyone gets so obsessed and tedious with it, and becomes obsessed with categorising everything to the nearest detail. And it irritates me when someone tells me they're something like "pansexual". Never been given an explanation which convinces me its that different to bisexuality to bother referring to it differently.

Inquisitive thinking? An urge to categorize? It's called the scientific method, I do believe. I really don't see the harm in it.

Also, there's a simple explanation. Bisexuality is an attraction to either gender. Pansexuality is an attraction regardless of gender. Thus, if you find transexuals appealing you are Pansexual, not bisexual. Also, if you have a preference for either gender, you can't be pansexual. Not that complicated at all.

Transexuals are still either one gender or the other though. Other than the two genders, the exceptions are too uncommon to be that precise. I don't get why people here obsess over this.

 

[Zen Toombs]

Spoiler

..Yeah, I think I do have a sexual attraction to my own sex, even though hetero.

Face it, there are some guys/gals that are just yum.

After thinking about it for a while, asexuality makes a little bit more sense to me now.. However, I am still skeptic about the ridiculous amount of asexuals that sometimes pop up on the Escapist.

Accepted. I will point out that there are a statistically higher number of people who are asexual who are involved with nerdly habits (you've got to fill the time the rest of us spend rutting, after all) as well as pointing out that straight people don't have a need to come out and say "hey, I'm straight" because they're the "norm".

There are over many people who say they are asexual though.

i dont know if this makes me bi, but i can look at a guy and say "wow he's attractive, he must get all the ladies", but im not aroused in the slightest.

Well, do you think it makes you bi? If not, then you are not.

Although, if you were to ask me my opinion based, II would say that you seem to be a standard straight guy (or lesbian girl, as the case may be). You don't have to be attracted to something to recognize its beauty.

 

[Starik20X6]

I've got to take umbrage with the assumption that girls are somehow "less sexual than men", when based on my experience, girls want to and enjoy getting off as much as I (male) do. So yeah, if you do add an 'HSI', don't be worrying that girls are going to skew your results.

As for myself? While I can appreciate that Jon Hamm is a ludicrously handsome man, I don't want to touch his junk.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

(Reasoning being that as I see it Men are far more sexual creatures and thus much more likely to skew results in favor of the top half while women would likely stay around the average range

You clearly never met my ex.

Men and women are equally sexually motivated. The only difference is that womens' drive comes in peaks and troughs on a monthly cycle and changes signifiantly post-menopause, while men are generally constant and level from puberty till pretty much the end. Women in oestrus though will generally have a higher libido.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

You know, I?ve heard people say that there?s more than one gender, and point to intersex people. But, I?m sorry?how? Even if they?re born with both genitalia or something, aren?t they still technically both male and female? That?s not a new gender; that?s just a combination of the only two existing ones. What would be the ?other genders?? I hope I don?t come off as totally ignorant, since I?m willing to learn.

Oh, and in case some people didn?t know, there are some asexuals that can be attracted to another romantically, just not sexually. There?s a distinct difference which many don?t seem to separate, or have the ability to, in relationships. And it?s not as if all asexuals have no sexual activeness or interest at all. I mean, haven?t you ever just masturbated without an aid and just focused on exploring your body without thinking of a man or a woman? Especially when you were younger? Yeah. And, as I aforementioned, some just like sex, no matter who it?s with. Just because asexuals are a minority doesn?t mean they don?t exist. They?ve done sexology tests for all this stuff, haven?t they?

So yeah, you can get sexually comfortable heterosexual men that have had sex with other men and still identify as heterosexual, and you can get sexually active asexuals with relationships with others. And just count how many gay guys in the public eye there are who have had children with women. Humans are?complicated.

And I?m one of those people who finds the category of ?pansexuality? mostly worthless, because it?s basically the same as bisexual, just with less focus on the sexual attraction and more on the romantic attraction. Just because you like transsexuals doesn?t make you pansexual, since a trans woman would overall exhibit the traits of a genetic woman, even if she has a few angular features and a penis. I?m straight, I?ve got something of a trans fetish (that encompasses transsexuals and transvestites, oddly enough; although, of course, it depends), and I probably wouldn?t mind banging a trans woman either, because I?d still class her as just a woman nonetheless. Just with that something special. Not much different than cute freckles, a unique hair colour or a charismatic attitude.

I have been compelled to say that, objectively, women are sexier than men, but that would be an oversimplified way of describing things I don?t quite know how to describe in a competent enough way. Does anyone know what I?m talking about? I?m just saying, even aside from society?s effect itself, there seems to be quite an?imbalance, which might make sense from a purely biological standpoint. Maybe men are ?meant? to be more sexually attracted to women (and more consistently) than women are ?meant? to be sexually attracted to men, and the conventional missionary sex is basically the man giving and the woman taking. And I think I recall someone here saying that the female orgasm has no biological purpose, whereas the male needs to orgasm to inseminate (or whatever the scientific word for it is) the woman?s eggs. Although a man can orgasm without ejaculation, but I think that takes so much training that it?s virtually irrelevant.

To be honest, I find the whole thing quite fascinating, and I can't possibly imagine how someone can dislike another just because they happen to like a member of the same sex. But I know, humans will be humans.

 

[Shiftygiant]

?

But we already have sexualitys. You can be a Omni/pansexual, you can be Asexual, transexual, ect. I dunno, I guess Asexual leaning onto Heterosexuality. (?)

 

[StBishop]

Although I'm sure it's been pointed out what about the difference between people who're attracted to androgynous individuals or not; or people who are attracted to transexuals more than traditional genders; or people who are attracted only to (wo)men who're in drag?

 

[AngelOfBlueRoses]

I'm one of those rare True BisexualsTM who is equally heterosexual and homosexual. I have no preference; I just love beauty no matter what sex or gender it takes on.

 

[Iron Lightning]

Fuck the categorization of sexuality. I'm attracted to whomever I'm attracted to on an instinctual level. I've never found a man that I was sexually attracted (just as I've met women whom I'm not sexually attracted to) to but if I do then I will try to fuck him. A lot of people feel they must deny their own urges to maintain their identity of straight or gay or what-have-you. I realize that categorization makes things convenient for people and spares the feelings of some people. I also realize that this categorization has led to a lot of hatred and bigotry against certain sexualities. Therefore I believe that the categorization of sexuality does more harm than good and ought to be done away with.

 

[chuckman1]

Commendable effort, but what you came up with sounds pretty much like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale

Also, for the curious: http://vistriai.com/kinseyscaletest/

Just took it I got 0 for completely heterosexual.
Not surprised I am somewhat obsessed with women.
This is a test everyone should take I think too many people mis identify themselves purposefully and accidentally.
Example I have a cousin that dates/kisses guys/girls.
She also insists she is 100% heterosexual and all heterosexual girls date/kiss each other.
Why she thinks this I don;t know.

 

[CentralScrtnzr]

I don't think sexual identity is terribly important. Of course, I don't think much of identity and identity politics. What you do is far more important than who you are and what you think.

Identity is subjective; action is objective. The latter can be observed, measured, quantified. The former depends too much upon your reporting, and our belief of the reliability of that reporting.