45 replies to this topic

[John]

If anyone wishes to continue discussion of asexuality, specifically pertaining to anti-war94/TGR/Kristy's personal issues with it, this is the place to do so. The meta-argument which developed from the previous thread may be continued in the riot zone.

Please stay on topic. While not every post has to be directly about asexuality, try not to let the thread turn into further meta-arguing and losing its general direction.

I will skim through this topic and make sure the discussion is staying on track, anything else will be moved. Provocations and bullying, and any forms of trolling, will be deleted from this thread.

[TheGrimReaper]

So let's continue.

I just want to know some things here.

How many of you guys on here are Asexual or think you might be?

Which ones of you aren't Asexual at all?
Do you think Asexuality is real, or not? And why?
And whether you believe it's real or not, do you have problems with Asexual people, like, would you discriminate against them?

[Jaade!]

TheGrimReaper, on 21 March 2011 - 12:50 PM, said:

So let's continue.

I just want to know some things here.

How many of you guys on here are Asexual or think you might be?

Which ones of you aren't Asexual at all?
Do you think Asexuality is real, or not? And why?
And whether you believe it's real or not, do you have problems with Asexual people, like, would you discriminate against them?

Thought I'd come in here and post given that the other thread is going crrrazzzyy.

I'm not asexual myself, but I do believe that it is 'real'. Denying something like asexuality is pretty reductionist from my point of view, a lot like denying the existence of mental health/illness (not that I'm comparing asexuality to mental illness! lol, but in terms of denying it's existence I think it works along the same lines in that it's a pretty narrow minded approach to do so). Also only you can know how you genuinely feel, how can anybody else deny that?
Also agree with what Skaz said in the other thread - people may go through extremely long periods/lifetimes of it, but then you can also have asexual tendencies for a shorter period of time, maybe as a function of depression etc., there's no definitive timescale by any means.

I don't see why anyone should have a problem with or discriminate against asexual people, that's just immature.. BUT THEN AGAIN THIS IS THE WORLD.

[SertraOD]

Quote

I'm not asexual myself, but I do believe that it is 'real'. Denying something like asexuality is pretty reductionist from my point of view, a lot like denying the existence of mental health/illness (not that I'm comparing asexuality to mental illness! lol, but in terms of denying it's existence I think it works along the same lines in that it's a pretty narrow minded approach to do so). Also only you can know how you genuinely feel, how can anybody else deny that?
Also agree with what Skaz said in the other thread - people may go through extremely long periods/lifetimes of it, but then you can also have asexual tendencies for a shorter period of time, maybe as a function of depression etc., there's no definitive timescale by any means.

Ok. I can set things on fire with my mind. But only I can do it when nobody is looking.

Don't discriminate against me!

There is a subconscious and then there is a conscious. Just because somebody claims that something exists doesn't mean it does, nor does it mean their interpretation of that condition is correct. People are not nearly as self-aware as you think they are and that is a simple reality. Asexuality is a supposed orientation, not a temporary or even long term lack of sex drive.

Also, mental illness is mostly caused by malnutrition in people predisposed to it. This "it's just what I am and if you don't agree you're discriminating" mentality is, quite frankly, not true.

[Jaade!]

SertraOD, on 21 March 2011 - 02:19 PM, said:

Ok. I can set things on fire with my mind. But only I can do it when nobody is looking.

Don't discriminate against me!

There is a subconscious and then there is a conscious. Just because somebody claims that something exists doesn't mean it does, nor does it mean their interpretation of that condition is correct. People are not nearly as self-aware as you think they are and that is a simple reality. Asexuality is a supposed orientation, not a temporary or even long term lack of sex drive.

Also, mental illness is mostly caused by malnutrition in people predisposed to it. This "it's just what I am and if you don't agree you're discriminating" mentality is, quite frankly, not true.

I know a lot about the subconscious.. and, from what I can make out, the stuff you've been talking about recently. My family follow a lot of that kind of stuff, my mum in particular, and since I got ill a few years ago (which you've talked about before in some thread somewhere, with the diet change etc.) I've learnt a lot more about that 'way of life' and that viewpoint as I've pretty much been open to trying anything. You'll know that while psychology runs hand in hand with it in some areas, it completely conflicts in others - and at the moment I'm very much living psychology, what with my degree and everything, and in the next few months, particularly if I don't see positive change in my health, I will most likely be exploring more what are considered 'alternative' ideas further, particularly when I graduate in June/July. But, the way I personally stand at the moment, if something exists to you on the conscious (whether it is rooted in subconscious or whatever) then that exists in some shape or form to you, it is how you consciously feel, and that is good enough for me. It's my opinion, and on a largely simple view of it all, asexuality exists to me. That might not be your thing, but it doesn't have to be..

I also am aware that mental illness can be largely caused by malnutrition.. I'm not saying it isn't.. what I'm saying is that mental illness DOES exist, regardless of its cause. Others would deny its effects entirely. Though that's another thread..

Anyway. I think this post was largely.. offtopic. hahaha. SO.

[TheGrimReaper]

So I just told my parents I THINK I MIGHT be Asexual......I wasn't planning on telling them since I really am not sure as of right now....but the a conversation got brought up about my sister going back on Birth Control "in case" anything happens with her and her new boyfriend.
And I was saying, that she should know how to control herself, it shouldn't just happen.
I didn't really meant it though, I'm just a little concerned because she's my sister, so it's kind of weird to think about it, even though it's obviously not her first time.
Anyway, my mom said something like, "You can't tell when you're older you're not going to have sex with a guy."
I was hesitant to tell her, so I was like "No." But then I said eventually, (and said it very nervously), that I was thinking I might be Asexual, and she says "What's that?" I told her they don't usually have sex, unless they just want to, they don't really get a sexual attraction towards people though. And she just basically said there's no way I would never want to have sex, I just haven't might someone yet, I've never been in that situation before, and that there's no way I'd find a guy that wouldn't want to have sex.
I told her there are though, but she just kept saying stuff.

Yeah, I sort of get what she's saying, but...........it just upset me, she just wouldn't understand, I thought if anyone would understand, it would be her, because even though we argue alot, she seems understanding about things like that.

I didn't feel sad about the thought of being Asexual before, but now I do, I really hope I'm not Asexual. :/

[Dopamino]

Honestly, I don't think you could really know whether you are or not since you're so cut off from people. You have almost no real contact with anyone besides family members, so all that proves is that you aren't attracted to them--which is healthy.

[All Dead]

Dopamino, on 21 March 2011 - 06:40 PM, said:

Honestly, I don't think you could really know whether you are or not since you're so cut off from people. You have almost no real contact with anyone besides family members, so all that proves is that you aren't attracted to them--which is healthy.

This.

I think 'asexuality' is a sort of defense mechanism in response to actual or perceived rejection. Reproduction is a biological imperative, denying sexuality is unhealthy and unnatural.

[Dopamino]

All Dead, on 21 March 2011 - 06:59 PM, said:

This.

I think 'asexuality' is a sort of defense mechanism in response to actual or perceived rejection. Reproduction is a biological imperative, denying sexuality is unhealthy and unnatural.

I would agree with that up to calling it unhealthy. I don't think we're in a position to make that judgment, but I do think it's probably a manifestation of problems that are unhealthy.

[Vandevick]

All Dead, on 21 March 2011 - 06:59 PM, said:

This.

I think 'asexuality' is a sort of defense mechanism in response to actual or perceived rejection. Reproduction is a biological imperative, denying sexuality is unhealthy and unnatural.

Asexuality isn't about denying sexuality, it's just a lack of interest. and while it may be a defense mechanism etc for some people that's not always the case.  your argument that reproduction is a biological imperative and that makes asexuality unhealthy and unnatural, but then what about homosexuality, there is no reproduction there, do you see that as unhealthy and unnatural also?

[All Dead]

Vandevick, on 21 March 2011 - 10:30 PM, said:

Asexuality isn't about denying sexuality, it's just a lack of interest. and while it may be a defense mechanism etc for some people that's not always the case.  your argument that reproduction is a biological imperative and that makes asexuality unhealthy and unnatural, but then what about homosexuality, there is no reproduction there, do you see that as unhealthy and unnatural also?

No, homosexuality exists in nature, and homosexuals are still satisfying their basic sexual needs, even if it's not for reproductive purposes. My point is, there's a biological drive for sex. I'm sure even those who describe themselves as 'asexual' still experience sexual arousal.

[Renan]

TheGrimReaper, on 21 March 2011 - 12:50 PM, said:

Do you think Asexuality is real, or not? And why?

The problem with asexuality is, at least apparently, the repression of sexual feelings by different factors...

Yes, it was said that some asexuals do have sex but dont feel any kind pleasure ...

And this isn´t normal...

The need of the human being for sex is like the need to socialize, to learn etc...

That is, it isn´t strictly necessary for survival in itself but it is something natural...

[Punk Rock Geek]

All Dead, on 21 March 2011 - 10:37 PM, said:

No, homosexuality exists in nature,

Asexuality exists in nature.  http://www.biolreprod.org/content/67/1/263.full

Quote

and homosexuals are still satisfying their basic sexual needs, even if it's not for reproductive purposes.

Asexuals are satisfying their sexual needs.  It's just that their sexual needs are different from heterosexual "needs", which are different from homosexual "needs".  They don't feel the "need" to have sex with either gender, much like the way homosexuals don't feel the need to have sex with the opposite gender.  

Your case presupposes that masturbation is a less natural or common method of satisfying basic sexual desires than is gay sex.  Obviously not the case, but I never cared for appeals to nature in the first place.

Someone asked in the other topic if I masturbate.  But that has nothing to do with asexuality, and sexual arousal has nothing to do with sexual attraction.  It's a red herring.  But for those curious, Brahmacharya includes abstinence from all sexual pleasures.

[SertraOD]

Sexuality must stem from biology and socialization. If it was genetic and innate, homosexuals and asexuals would die out. If it's socialization, you need to confront your trauma...

Truth is, you may be predisposed to a low libido... but there's a reason you don't pursue sex. You do not have the characteristics of a healthy person. You just don't.

It's that simple. Just because the behavior exists in nature doesn't mean it's healthy.

[SertraOD]

Asexuality as a healthy variation doesn't make any sense biologically or socially. The simple existence of the behavior changes absolutely nothing.

[SertraOD]

SertraOD, on 22 March 2011 - 07:48 PM, said:

Sexuality must stem from biology and socialization. If it was genetic and innate, homosexuals and asexuals would die out. If it's socialization, you need to confront your trauma...

Truth is, you may be predisposed to a low libido... but there's a reason you don't pursue sex. You do not have the characteristics of a healthy person. You just don't.

It's that simple. Just because the behavior exists in nature doesn't mean it's healthy.

Two neg reps and not one response? Seriously?

How can you argue that it's genetic? That doesn't make any sense. Homosexuals and asexuals don't reproduce enough to maintain their populations. Therefore, a predisposition is only genetic.

Everything else is determined by early experiences.

That's obvious.

Jesus fuck the internet has really made you lot disconnected with the real world...

[Dopamino]

Genes can lie dormant for multiple generations. Homosexuals don't need to reproduce to continue to exist, straight people screwing and multiplying takes care of it for them. That's not to say that homosexuality can't be learned behavior as well, but I don't think your argument holds water.

I'm curious, do you think that homosexuality needs to be "cured" as well, Sertra?

[John]

SertraOD, on 22 March 2011 - 10:27 PM, said:

Two neg reps and not one response? Seriously?

How can you argue that it's genetic? That doesn't make any sense. Homosexuals and asexuals don't reproduce enough to maintain their populations. Therefore, a predisposition is only genetic.

Everything else is determined by early experiences.

That's obvious.

Jesus fuck the internet has really made you lot disconnected with the real world...

Because there is no scientific evidence that has ever produced a correlation between homosexuality and environmental conditions that has ever been sound. And the evidence clearly points to it not being a choice, and after that, there are no options left.

Homosexuality is a limited trait that has a limited effect on population control. Such an effect has so far proven beneficial.

[SertraOD]

Quote

Genes can lie dormant for multiple generations. Homosexuals don't need to reproduce to continue to exist, straight people screwing and multiplying takes care of it for them. That's not to say that homosexuality can't be learned behavior as well, but I don't think your argument holds water.

I'm curious, do you think that homosexuality needs to be "cured" as well, Sertra?

No, because they're content and meet their social needs.

Their numbers would diminish if that was the case, even if they still existed til this day. I'm not about to go learn the details about dormant genes and do the math. Come on dude. The idea that you come out of the womb liking the cock is just a fucking retarded idea. Why is there a correlation between boys who get molested and them growing up to be gay/pedophiles? Are people born pedophiles? Are people born attracted to sheep? No--it's situational.

Did you know that if you're the youngest male born you're more likely to be gay? It's because the mother is depleted of available testosterone or some shit (I'm not looking it up). But, this doesn't mean you will be gay. The conditions of the womb can be the same, and one kid could be gay and the other might not be. People are born with PREDISPOSITIONS and that's it.

Reducing everything to genes is not scientific at all, it's oversimplified and fucking retarded. Not to mention, the science is highly politicized. Just because it's called science doesn't mean there isn't outside influence. You're not an expert, so don't pull that "but science says" bullshit. Besides, the experts would agree with me: sexuality is predisposition and then experiences growing up.

Quote

Because there is no scientific evidence that has ever produced a correlation between homosexuality and environmental conditions that has ever been sound. And the evidence clearly points to it not being a choice, and after that, there are no options left.

Homosexuality is a limited trait that has a limited effect on population control. Such an effect has so far proven beneficial.

What? Environmental conditions!=choice. Seriously. The politicization of this issue has gotten to your head BAD.

Yeah. Population control ain't happenin' bud. Even if it is... well, kind of beneficial doesn't explain why the trait would survive if every time it actually manifests those people rarely pass it on. It would eventually die out.

Shit, even down syndrome is a genetic fuck up, not something that is passed down through individuals. Only full blown genetic fuck ups like that can be reduced to genes. Everything else is predisposition. Even your motherfucking HEIGHT. If you smoke too young, your growth will get stunted. FUCKIN THINK ABOUT IT FOR YOURSELF RATHER THAN JUST REGURGITATING SOME SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS NONSENSE.

[SertraOD]

You know why I ain't stickin around much longer? It's because of this.

I post my own legitimate thinking. My own conclusions that I've made through independent research and, at times, life experience. What do y'all give me? Somebody else's words spoken through your mouth.

What a waste of time. Honestly, my talents are too good for this. I'm better than this. I'm wasting away doing this.