Bizarre question and equally bizarre follow-up comments from OP.
While you seem to accept that there are people who simply aren't interested in sex, you've got a hair up your ass about such people calling themselves "asexual".
My conclusion is that you have a black and white view of life, people, and sexuality. Many people find life easier when they can shove others into neat little pigeon holes, but the fact is that humans are more complicated than that.
You also seem to believe that only that which you can conceive of can possibly be true. Asserting that, "asexuality, as in ZERO attraction whatsoever... is [not] a thing," does not make that true.
The way you declare that there are only three valid labels that can be applied to human sexuality also suggests that you find understanding others very challenging, you might be lacking in empathy, or have a deep need for hard and fast rules. Perhaps you're just young and naïve, and you're finding life in general confusing, but I wonder if you might be on the autism-Aspergers spectrum.
You are obviously correct that evolution selects for interest in having sex and reproducing, and any organism which does not reproduce is a genetic dead-end. Who knows? There could well have been species in Earth's history which became extinct because the individual animals simply couldn't be bothered to fuck.
I don't know enough zoology to cite research which proves that there are other species where some members clearly demonstrate no interest in sex, but I'd be willing to bet that this has been observed. I believe that much of human behaviour can be attributed to deep-seated drives that we've inherited from our evolutionary ancestors and which we're not consciously aware of, but we humans are far more than machines driven by our genetic heritage. The selfish-gene model is valid to a point, but it only goes so far.
Okay so let me get this straight.... I'm young, naive, confused and have autism, but we never actually get to much material adressing the actual post. How am I the one seeing things as black and white? I'm the one saying there is no absolute zero sex drive and it is rather a spectrum of vastly varying levels of libido. Asserting something is true does not make it true... WELL I SURE HOPE SO!!! This post is an opinion! Did you read where it said to THINK asexuality is not a thing?? And apparently thinking it doesn't exist apparently means I have autism, just like 40% of the other people who voted on this post ...
How about this? Give me a concise reply that directly states why you have a different opinion than me about asexuality?
Sorry, but I don't do concise. I either do nothing at all or lengthy. 😜
I'm not an academic researcher of human sexuality, but I've been interested in sex for decades, and I'm familiar with at least the outlines of the research that's been done going all the way back to Kinsey and Masters and Johnson in the 1950s. I suspect we have different opinions on asexuality since it's been clear to me for a long time that my sexual feelings and urges are not exactly the same as every one of the 107 billion human beings who have ever lived. Just as it's possible for me to imagine finding other men sexually attractive, so I can imagine not having any sexual feelings at all. You, however, seem to believe that, since you cannot imagine not having any sexual feelings, nobody else can possibly be completely devoid of sexual feelings.
You say you accept that people have "vastly varying levels of libido". Say that it was possible to objectively assess a person's interest in sex and define it as a precise numerical value up to 100 (that's a silly idea, but it's a thought experiment). You appear to believe that it's not possible for that scale to range from 0 to 100, but that it must range from 1 to 100. You also seem to believe that anyone who has Level 1 interest in sex cannot describe themselves as truly asexual.
That's a faulty view for two reasons:
First, the little change from starting the scale from zero to starting from one is based on nothing more than an assumption on your part - based on projection of your personal experience - that everyone must have _some_ urge to have sex.
Second, even if you were to start the scale from one, while someone with a Level 1 interest in sex might not be truly asexual, they are effectively asexual. If someone has such severe problems with their vision that they are only able to just barely detect the sun when it shines directly into their eyes, you could say that they are not blind, but they are blind for all intents and purposes. If a guy going through peak-puberty experienced a weird little twinge of interest when his twelfth grade teacher leaned forward over his desk and he got a glimpse of her cleavage, but he's never felt anything like that in the fifty years since that moment, then you could say he's not truly asexual, but he is effectively asexual, and it might be helpful to him to think of himself in that way and to describe himself as asexual to others.
Also, consider that the scale would actually have to include negative values. Not only are some people completely indifferent about sex, there are those for whom even the briefest thought of sex triggers feelings of disgust, physical revulsion, panic, fear and so on.
I'm willing to accept that there are those these days who slap a label reading "asexual" on their foreheads and wear it with as much pride and just as vociferously as vegans do their dietary choices. I also accept that some people might decide that they are asexual because of poor social skills or fear of sex based on some earlier trauma.
It doesn't bother me if people do those things, and it shouldn't bother you either. Their life; their choice. I think it's sad that such people aren't able to enjoy sex for some reason, since good sex can be one of life's greatest pleasures in many ways, but they have the right to define and label themselves that way if they so choose.
Where I do draw the line is when people attempt to tell me that because they feel a certain way or believe certain things, anyone who doesn't believe as they do or admit to feeling the same things is lying, perverted, sub-human, or something equally negative.
I have already said this but I'll say it again. I do not belive this just because I can't imagine it being myself. That goes along with evolutionary and hormonal factors that combine to form my belief.
Now about this scale of yours... if being a zero is no sexual feelings at all, then I do not think that is possible. You say that I think this is faulty because of experience, but again, experience is only a small part of why I believe asexuality is fake. Then is your whole banter about 'effectively' asexual, and you bring up a good point no doubt. I am sure some people have such little sex drive, that for almost all intents and purposes, it is fine to call them that. But still by definition, they are not asexual. And its the use of this misleading term that grinds my gears. And also people who claim asexual andsay they have never had any feelings at all, I don't believe them at all
Is it normal to think "asexuality" is totally not a thing?
← View full post
Bizarre question and equally bizarre follow-up comments from OP.
While you seem to accept that there are people who simply aren't interested in sex, you've got a hair up your ass about such people calling themselves "asexual".
My conclusion is that you have a black and white view of life, people, and sexuality. Many people find life easier when they can shove others into neat little pigeon holes, but the fact is that humans are more complicated than that.
You also seem to believe that only that which you can conceive of can possibly be true. Asserting that, "asexuality, as in ZERO attraction whatsoever... is [not] a thing," does not make that true.
The way you declare that there are only three valid labels that can be applied to human sexuality also suggests that you find understanding others very challenging, you might be lacking in empathy, or have a deep need for hard and fast rules. Perhaps you're just young and naïve, and you're finding life in general confusing, but I wonder if you might be on the autism-Aspergers spectrum.
You are obviously correct that evolution selects for interest in having sex and reproducing, and any organism which does not reproduce is a genetic dead-end. Who knows? There could well have been species in Earth's history which became extinct because the individual animals simply couldn't be bothered to fuck.
I don't know enough zoology to cite research which proves that there are other species where some members clearly demonstrate no interest in sex, but I'd be willing to bet that this has been observed. I believe that much of human behaviour can be attributed to deep-seated drives that we've inherited from our evolutionary ancestors and which we're not consciously aware of, but we humans are far more than machines driven by our genetic heritage. The selfish-gene model is valid to a point, but it only goes so far.
--
perfectxsilence
4 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
-
Anonymous Post Author
4 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
Well said boojum.
Okay so let me get this straight.... I'm young, naive, confused and have autism, but we never actually get to much material adressing the actual post. How am I the one seeing things as black and white? I'm the one saying there is no absolute zero sex drive and it is rather a spectrum of vastly varying levels of libido. Asserting something is true does not make it true... WELL I SURE HOPE SO!!! This post is an opinion! Did you read where it said to THINK asexuality is not a thing?? And apparently thinking it doesn't exist apparently means I have autism, just like 40% of the other people who voted on this post ...
How about this? Give me a concise reply that directly states why you have a different opinion than me about asexuality?
--
Boojum
4 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
Sorry, but I don't do concise. I either do nothing at all or lengthy. 😜
I'm not an academic researcher of human sexuality, but I've been interested in sex for decades, and I'm familiar with at least the outlines of the research that's been done going all the way back to Kinsey and Masters and Johnson in the 1950s. I suspect we have different opinions on asexuality since it's been clear to me for a long time that my sexual feelings and urges are not exactly the same as every one of the 107 billion human beings who have ever lived. Just as it's possible for me to imagine finding other men sexually attractive, so I can imagine not having any sexual feelings at all. You, however, seem to believe that, since you cannot imagine not having any sexual feelings, nobody else can possibly be completely devoid of sexual feelings.
You say you accept that people have "vastly varying levels of libido". Say that it was possible to objectively assess a person's interest in sex and define it as a precise numerical value up to 100 (that's a silly idea, but it's a thought experiment). You appear to believe that it's not possible for that scale to range from 0 to 100, but that it must range from 1 to 100. You also seem to believe that anyone who has Level 1 interest in sex cannot describe themselves as truly asexual.
That's a faulty view for two reasons:
First, the little change from starting the scale from zero to starting from one is based on nothing more than an assumption on your part - based on projection of your personal experience - that everyone must have _some_ urge to have sex.
Second, even if you were to start the scale from one, while someone with a Level 1 interest in sex might not be truly asexual, they are effectively asexual. If someone has such severe problems with their vision that they are only able to just barely detect the sun when it shines directly into their eyes, you could say that they are not blind, but they are blind for all intents and purposes. If a guy going through peak-puberty experienced a weird little twinge of interest when his twelfth grade teacher leaned forward over his desk and he got a glimpse of her cleavage, but he's never felt anything like that in the fifty years since that moment, then you could say he's not truly asexual, but he is effectively asexual, and it might be helpful to him to think of himself in that way and to describe himself as asexual to others.
Also, consider that the scale would actually have to include negative values. Not only are some people completely indifferent about sex, there are those for whom even the briefest thought of sex triggers feelings of disgust, physical revulsion, panic, fear and so on.
I'm willing to accept that there are those these days who slap a label reading "asexual" on their foreheads and wear it with as much pride and just as vociferously as vegans do their dietary choices. I also accept that some people might decide that they are asexual because of poor social skills or fear of sex based on some earlier trauma.
It doesn't bother me if people do those things, and it shouldn't bother you either. Their life; their choice. I think it's sad that such people aren't able to enjoy sex for some reason, since good sex can be one of life's greatest pleasures in many ways, but they have the right to define and label themselves that way if they so choose.
Where I do draw the line is when people attempt to tell me that because they feel a certain way or believe certain things, anyone who doesn't believe as they do or admit to feeling the same things is lying, perverted, sub-human, or something equally negative.
--
Anonymous Post Author
4 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
I have already said this but I'll say it again. I do not belive this just because I can't imagine it being myself. That goes along with evolutionary and hormonal factors that combine to form my belief.
Now about this scale of yours... if being a zero is no sexual feelings at all, then I do not think that is possible. You say that I think this is faulty because of experience, but again, experience is only a small part of why I believe asexuality is fake. Then is your whole banter about 'effectively' asexual, and you bring up a good point no doubt. I am sure some people have such little sex drive, that for almost all intents and purposes, it is fine to call them that. But still by definition, they are not asexual. And its the use of this misleading term that grinds my gears. And also people who claim asexual andsay they have never had any feelings at all, I don't believe them at all