Asexuality - normal or not?

[qyernv]

Why is the asexuality considered as something not normal if most sexual people consider sexuality as something to reproduce? I mean, most of the people have sex for pleasure using condoms, then at some point of their life they decide they want to have children and they stop using condoms then after birth they start using condoms again to not get pregnant and have fun. Where is there logic? Asexual people can have children as well, but they just have sex for reproduce, which is more nature than fucking every person they meet for pleasure, isn't it?

[sound_the_bugle]

I'm not sure I know what you mean. If we didn't have contraception, all sex would carry the "risk" of reproduction. It's really a very new thing that it doesn't.

How is having sex only to reproduce more natural?

[Braydin]

Sex has more than one purpose. If sex was just reproduction based we would have evolved to be like plants or fish, 'pollinating/fertilising' with minimal interaction. But human infants need alot more care and attention, so humans need 'community' especially 'family' to raise children (less so these days with our resources and technology, but in evolutionary terms it was vital). Sex helps keep couples together because it is pleasurable, not just because it makes the babies.

But as for asexuality being 'normal', if by normal you mean natural, I would argue that there is an intention for asexualities existence. We can still be part of the 'community' that is vital to humanities survival, while also being a limiter on population growth. That doesn't mean asexuals can't have or don't want children, but biology isn't exactly clear cut and all controlling of our actions, as we can defy our natural urges with our wills and intentions, for example, suicide overrides our natural predisposition and instincts that make us want to survive.

[Philip027]

It isn't normal. Assuming we make up 1% or whatever of the population, that's a big minority, which means by default that it isn't a normal aspect about us. But, normal does not necessarily mean that it's bad.

Why is the asexuality considered as something not normal if most sexual people consider sexuality as something to reproduce?

I'd actually think most sexual people DON'T consider sexuality as something designed to reproduce. It's more about the physical bonding and pleasure, and the fact it produces kids tends to be regarded as a potential risk or side-effect, which is why we have all these contraceptives and birth preventers and whatnot.

[Sally]

qyernv, on 24 Apr 2014 - 4:02 PM, said:

Asexual people can have children as well, but they just have sex for reproduce, which is more nature than fucking every person they meet for pleasure, isn't it?

Asexual people have sex to please their partners, and some asexuals actually enjoy it, so it isn't just for reproduction. Sexual people don't usually fuck every person they meet for pleasure. Lots of stereotypes there.

[averylongwalk]

I lack sexual attraction, I don't have sex for only reproduction; nor do I do it solely to please a partner, if I don't want to have sex I won't, regardless of pressure from a partner.

The logic is that sex helps bonding, releases stress, can help the immune system, usually intimate, fun and...well pleasureable.

Asexuality is not considered normal because the vast majority of humanity experience sexual attraction and desire. Sex drive along with body temperature, thirst, hunger, sleep, circadian rhythm and moods are one of the core functions of the human brain, and in almost all mamals; it would be abnormal or even a severe condition if someone didn't experience any one of the others. And unlike being attracted to same or different sexes, when someone says asexual many people hear "I'm not play for your team or the other team, I'm completely not playing."