Jump to content

Changing from being asexual...


injiktoplqkto

Recommended Posts

injiktoplqkto

Does such change can occur?

From being asexual, to something sexual? (like attraction)

I think the other way around is possible, but was wondering about the above!?

p.s. by the way, it's not just a question, but more of a deep thought and inquiry.

i hope the question is not dull and/or stupid

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, most humans do this during puberty.

As for the rest of us, it is possible, but it's extremely improbable and absolutely not something you can force. It's like any change in sexual orientation - it almost never happens, but it can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people report experiencing fluid sexuality, although I believe they're in the minority. So, for sure it does happen; if you're asking whether or not someone can consciously decide to change their own sexuality, I highly doubt it. Attraction isn't a conscious phenomenon, so the only procedure I can think of to even impact it in any real way is forcing oneself to associate the object of one's attraction with negative things -- i.e., if someone who's attracted to men undergoes several high-intensity situations that result in that person hating and / or fearing men, that would impact their attraction (although probably not actually end it; they most likely wouldn't stop being attracted to men exactly, they'd just be horribly confused). And I don't think it's at all possible to give oneself a different orientation.

I think the other way around is possible

Where are you getting that from, if I may ask? Why would sexual -> asexual be any different from asexual -> sexual?

^ FoxEars ^

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it's possible, I've even heard of that happening for a few people on this forum. It can't be forced and it's very rare, but it can happen.

Your question is not dull or stupid :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all.

It's a very valid question many here have asked and/or are still asking.

There are different categories, gray-A, demi-, sex-repulsed, low-intensity sexuals, etc.

Some find themselves romantic asexuals, others aromantic asexuals. Others decide other things. That's the neat thing about AVEN.

Me? I can't figure out the difference between romantic and sexual. I'm a middle-aged virgin ace guy. I'm lonely, but the idea of romance is confusing. I don't get it. I can't separate between attraction and romance. And attracted I ain't. So I have questions too.

Check out some of the forums. Feel free to explore away! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think that it could happen, but it's quite unprovable and always unconscious.

Our bodies and minds are so complex that even scientists, biologists, etc have a hard time trying to understand them completely. So that such changes could happen is not impossible. We go through a lot of changes during puberty, and then again when we keep growing up. Women are known to change when they have kids, when they get their first period, etc.

So yes, I'm sure it's possible, but not by choice or by trying to force it to happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, most humans do this during puberty.

I like the difference Dr Bogaert made in his book "Understanding Asexuality" between "asexuality" and "pre-sexuality". While we all go through the latter in our childhood, not everyone develops into the former.

I think it helps looking at asexuality as more legitimate as an orientation and less of a case of "late bloomer", "undeveloped sexuality" etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, most humans do this during puberty.

I like the difference Dr Bogaert made in his book "Understanding Asexuality" between "asexuality" and "pre-sexuality". While we all go through the latter in our childhood, not everyone develops into the former.

I think it helps looking at asexuality as more legitimate as an orientation and less of a case of "late bloomer", "undeveloped sexuality" etc.

It's probably best to present asexuality in that way for political reasons, because it's easier to convince people of its legitimacy if you distinguish it from "pre-sexuality." But if we don't take that into account, I kind of think the only difference between my sexuality now and as a child is that I know more about sex now. And I'm not sure you can call something that never becomes sexual "pre-sexual."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the other way around is possible

Where are you getting that from, if I may ask? Why would sexual -> asexual be any different from asexual -> sexual?

^ FoxEars ^

It's more likely that a person go blind than a blind becoming sighted.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am grey-a and I have "flipped" several times in my lifetime, meaning that I have experienced times where I have had no attraction to anyone at all (and I mean long periods of time, several years, way longer than would be typical for most sexuals) and other, more fleeting times where I have been in the throes of being attracted to someone. To me this isn't a matter of changing (for good, as it were), but rather just the way I am. If you had met me ten years ago you would have no problem believing that I was 100% asexual, as I had no interest at all, and I didn't even masturbate. But if you met me now, you'd be hard pressed to tell me from a sexual, as I have a boyfriend with whom I have regular sex (and I usually enjoy it).

I would say that someone who is grey-a is more likely to seem to have changed, especially if they are very young and don't have a whole lot of life experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Foxyears: I feel being one of these post-sexuals mentioned by the OP. - Why are we likely to happen? - There is a lot of mental conditioning towards sexuality going on. But although I was into it for a while it got lame.

No clue about the other way round. But: why not?

Link to post
Share on other sites
butterflydreams

Technically, most humans do this during puberty.

As for the rest of us, it is possible, but it's extremely improbable and absolutely not something you can force. It's like any change in sexual orientation - it almost never happens, but it can.

I'm not sure if I'd say it's something I tried to force over the years, but I certainly tried to force myself to feel things, experience things, and behave in a way I thought I was supposed to. It indeed does not work. Obviously people are free to do whatever they want, but all those years put me in really awkward positions and a lot of unnecessary struggle and pain. Would not recommend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, most humans do this during puberty.

I like the difference Dr Bogaert made in his book "Understanding Asexuality" between "asexuality" and "pre-sexuality". While we all go through the latter in our childhood, not everyone develops into the former.

I think it helps looking at asexuality as more legitimate as an orientation and less of a case of "late bloomer", "undeveloped sexuality" etc.

It's probably best to present asexuality in that way for political reasons, because it's easier to convince people of its legitimacy if you distinguish it from "pre-sexuality." But if we don't take that into account, I kind of think the only difference between my sexuality now and as a child is that I know more about sex now. And I'm not sure you can call something that never becomes sexual "pre-sexual."

Many asexual people develop a libido (that can be low from high) that they didn't have as children. Even though it's generally not directed at people and often taken care of with masturbation (or by ignoring it, or other ways), I'd say that's a good difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, most humans do this during puberty.

... That's what society would like you to believe. :>

Link to post
Share on other sites
injiktoplqkto

I think the other way around is possible

Where are you getting that from, if I may ask? Why would sexual -> asexual be any different from asexual -> sexual?

For example, you thought you were sexual (maybe you were confused, or be in the unawares). Then after one (and/or more) act(s) you discovered that through this experience, that it is a kind of unncessary, gratuitous, boring, toilsome, you name it, which makes you dig deeper (no pun intended) in order to find out that you are transforming yourself into an asexual. In other words, sorry for the long thing, the person figures out that "What I thought was I, turns out not". Being sexual being kind of equivalent of process through which you realze that you are not such thing. The non-understanding, the confusion.... etc.

You can admit at least that in some points in life, AFTER A LONG (or short 8) ) PERIOD of being "blind", you discover amazing pair of glasses with which you can see the world in different aspect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
injiktoplqkto

I think the other way around is possible

Where are you getting that from, if I may ask? Why would sexual -> asexual be any different from asexual -> sexual?

^ FoxEars ^

It's more likely that a person go blind than a blind becoming sighted.

Actually, BOTH are possible, especially with today's advancement of technology.

Check this video out (esp. the woman at the end).

I promise it is not a spam or anything non-serious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, most humans do this during puberty.

I like the difference Dr Bogaert made in his book "Understanding Asexuality" between "asexuality" and "pre-sexuality". While we all go through the latter in our childhood, not everyone develops into the former.

I think it helps looking at asexuality as more legitimate as an orientation and less of a case of "late bloomer", "undeveloped sexuality" etc.

It's probably best to present asexuality in that way for political reasons, because it's easier to convince people of its legitimacy if you distinguish it from "pre-sexuality." But if we don't take that into account, I kind of think the only difference between my sexuality now and as a child is that I know more about sex now. And I'm not sure you can call something that never becomes sexual "pre-sexual."

Many asexual people develop a libido (that can be low from high) that they didn't have as children. Even though it's generally not directed at people and often taken care of with masturbation (or by ignoring it, or other ways), I'd say that's a good difference.

Ah, okay. Makes sense, that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the other way around is possible

Where are you getting that from, if I may ask? Why would sexual -> asexual be any different from asexual -> sexual?

^ FoxEars ^

It's more likely that a person go blind than a blind becoming sighted.

Actually, BOTH are possible, especially with today's advancement of technology.

Check this video out (esp. the woman at the end).

I promise it is not a spam or anything non-serious.

I guess both are possible, but as I am an advocate that sexual orientation has to do with the brain, and it's easier for the brain to lose something than gain something, then it's still far more likely that a person become blind than it is for someone who's born blind to become sighted unless that blind person gets something to gain vision. This is why I support the thesis that it's more likely for a person to become asexual than it is for a person to become sexual after a long time after puberty. What's the probability that you would become sexual if you seem to never had a potential in the first place? It's lower than the probability that you would lose those feelings because of what may been lost in the brain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the other way around is possible

Where are you getting that from, if I may ask? Why would sexual -> asexual be any different from asexual -> sexual?

For example, you thought you were sexual (maybe you were confused, or be in the unawares). Then after one (and/or more) act(s) you discovered that through this experience, that it is a kind of unncessary, gratuitous, boring, toilsome, you name it, which makes you dig deeper (no pun intended) in order to find out that you are transforming yourself into an asexual. In other words, sorry for the long thing, the person figures out that "What I thought was I, turns out not". Being sexual being kind of equivalent of process through which you realze that you are not such thing. The non-understanding, the confusion.... etc.

But ... thinking you're sexual and actually being sexual aren't the same thing. I assumed I was sexual (but really bad at it) for a long time, far longer than I've known that I'm ace; however, I have never been sexual.

^ FoxEars ^

Link to post
Share on other sites
injiktoplqkto

I think the other way around is possible

Where are you getting that from, if I may ask? Why would sexual -> asexual be any different from asexual -> sexual?

For example, you thought you were sexual (maybe you were confused, or be in the unawares). Then after one (and/or more) act(s) you discovered that through this experience, that it is a kind of unncessary, gratuitous, boring, toilsome, you name it, which makes you dig deeper (no pun intended) in order to find out that you are transforming yourself into an asexual. In other words, sorry for the long thing, the person figures out that "What I thought was I, turns out not". Being sexual being kind of equivalent of process through which you realze that you are not such thing. The non-understanding, the confusion.... etc.

But ... thinking you're sexual and actually being sexual aren't the same thing. I assumed I was sexual (but really bad at it) for a long time, far longer than I've known that I'm ace; however, I have never been sexual.

^ FoxEars ^

What if you WERE sexual but after a priod you got bored, or it came time that you no longer desired or had any attraction or interested.

After being actively sexual, something happens (does not matter whether small or big) and you no longer are.

OR you have mixed up feelings. Like thinking that the excitement of having an orgasm (or even an erection) is due to being with someone (due to the VERY someone else) INSTEAD of the very act of stimulating your...

Because this exactly reminds of the situation about masturbation performec by asexual. You are doing it now because of the person but because of the very act, emotions, reactions and the very view. You do not think "I want to do it to her (with her)" but the "energy" the "vibes" are guiding you toward the apogee.

Again, I apologize for the long talk.

Just trying to look at different viewpoints and perspectives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think It's important to understand that every person has two levels to their sexuality:

A person's sexual identity can change and often does as the person grows older. Someone who identifies as asexual might later on identify as any other sexuality. Certain sexual orientations lead to fluid sexual identities, for example someone who is bi-sexual will often identify as only heterosexual or homosexual depending on his life circumstances.

A person's sexual orientation, on he other hand, is more stable and there is no real proof that it can change. Some believe that sexual orientations can change but in most (Or all) cases it is simply a person having a change in the sexuality they identify with and confusing such a change with a change in their inherent orientation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
injiktoplqkto

I think It's important to understand that every person has two levels to their sexuality:

A person's sexual identity can change and often does as the person grows older. Someone who identifies as asexual might later on identify as any other sexuality. Certain sexual orientations lead to fluid sexual identities, for example someone who is bi-sexual will often identify as only heterosexual or homosexual depending on his life circumstances.

A person's sexual orientation, on he other hand, is more stable and there is no real proof that it can change. Some believe that sexual orientations can change but in most (Or all) cases it is simply a person having a change in the sexuality they identify with and confusing such a change with a change in their inherent orientation.

Interesting...

I'll take this as the best answer :)

BUT that does not mean the discussion is closed.

Anyone can add something. Good to learn something new everyday. It's great having aquired different views.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's more likely that a person go blind than a blind becoming sighted.

I guess both are possible, but as I am an advocate that sexual orientation has to do with the brain, and it's easier for the brain to lose something than gain something, then it's still far more likely that a person become blind than it is for someone who's born blind to become sighted unless that blind person gets something to gain vision. This is why I support the thesis that it's more likely for a person to become asexual than it is for a person to become sexual after a long time after puberty. What's the probability that you would become sexual if you seem to never had a potential in the first place? It's lower than the probability that you would lose those feelings because of what may been lost in the brain.

The first thing I will point out, is that you have assumed that being asexual involves broken or missing parts, i.e. a malfunction or an absence of stuff this is not at all necessarily the case. It's easy to think that based on the way that we talk about sexual attraction--you have sexual attraction or you do not have it. However, that's just language that reflects our worldly experience or observation; it does not necessarily translate physiologically. I could use sight as an alternative example of this kind of thing; when you see white light, it translates as no colour, but in an objective sense, it is every colour. It's perfectly possible for something like this to be true of sexual attraction (i.e. perhaps it is not an absence of something, but a presence of something else/some other things).

The second is that it is probably less difficult for the brain to gain things and more difficult for it to lose them than you are thinking. Gaining we call learning and losing we call forgetting. Gaining is much easier in a wider range of things the younger we are, but I'm sure you've heard stories of brain plasticity that show people learning things with different parts of their brains after having strokes--that's a phenomenal capability given what was thought about the brain before. As far as losing goes, use it or lose it is a common phrase that applies pretty well, but some activities and some thoughts you may find to be insidious (they won't leave you alone!) and sometimes you may return to a task after a long period of not doing it and find that with only a little practice, you can pick it up again (i.e. still your brain has not totally forgotten it). With those things said, it isn't the brain's capability that makes sudden cures of blindness highly improbable; it's the complexity of the organ, the eye itself. If you are blind, it is most likely because of the hardware, and that's something that your body can't correct on it's own in the case of the eye--it's too difficult to rebuild (this includes the nerve tissue involved in sending signals to the brain).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The first thing I will point out, is that you have assumed that being asexual involves broken or missing parts, i.e. a malfunction or an absence of stuff this is not at all necessarily the case.

Well, I wouldn't say that asexuality is broken, though you could say that I'm implying possible asexuality can be due to physical trauma though the probability of that is next to 0, and there was a man whose orientation changed from homosexual to heterosexual (vice versa too) after a stroke. And, I am not implying asexuality is in anyway broken as there's no evidence that asexuals are any less functional than your average peers that at least feel some sense of sexual attraction. It still wouldn't be too far of a stretch to suggest that there may be something odd or missing in asexuals much in the same way that people with language problems may have neurological evidence that suggests they have a pattern in the brain that implies they can't perceive language as efficient as control peers, or even introversion itself showing a bit different patterns than control. Does this mean that introverts are broken, not at all because there are evidence that introverts can be successful.

Some sources to support my claims

Correlations between introversion and brain differences

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18400680

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886997000275

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9989562

Correlations between language problems and brain differences - Not exactly a study, but....

http://www.neuroanatomy.wisc.edu/selflearn/Dyslexia.htm

Does any of the introversion study means that they are dysfunctional? Absolutely not. They just show that the way they work is different than your average person. And, does this mean asexuals are not broken? They ain't broken as they just work differently with no evidence of being dysfunctional. So, yes, they ain't broken.

The second is that it is probably less difficult for the brain to gain things and more difficult for it to lose them than you are thinking. Gaining we call learning and losing we call forgetting. Gaining is much easier in a wider range of things the younger we are, but I'm sure you've heard stories of brain plasticity that show people learning things with different parts of their brains after having strokes--that's a phenomenal capability given what was thought about the brain before. As far as losing goes, use it or lose it is a common phrase that applies pretty well, but some activities and some thoughts you may find to be insidious (they won't leave you alone!) and sometimes you may return to a task after a long period of not doing it and find that with only a little practice, you can pick it up again (i.e. still your brain has not totally forgotten it). With those things said, it isn't the brain's capability that makes sudden cures of blindness highly improbable; it's the complexity of the organ, the eye itself. If you are blind, it is most likely because of the hardware, and that's something that your body can't correct on it's own in the case of the eye--it's too difficult to rebuild (this includes the nerve tissue involved in sending signals to the brain).

When I read this part, I see that you're saying that it's easier to gain something because it is still possible for one to learn something even if they haven't applied that skills they may have yet. I still don't get how this applies to sensory system which are more or less something that you can only improve on interpreting and maybe improve to a extent, but gain much less than if you can improve on your drawing skills.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The second is that it is probably less difficult for the brain to gain things and more difficult for it to lose them than you are thinking. Gaining we call learning and losing we call forgetting. Gaining is much easier in a wider range of things the younger we are, but I'm sure you've heard stories of brain plasticity that show people learning things with different parts of their brains after having strokes--that's a phenomenal capability given what was thought about the brain before. As far as losing goes, use it or lose it is a common phrase that applies pretty well, but some activities and some thoughts you may find to be insidious (they won't leave you alone!) and sometimes you may return to a task after a long period of not doing it and find that with only a little practice, you can pick it up again (i.e. still your brain has not totally forgotten it). With those things said, it isn't the brain's capability that makes sudden cures of blindness highly improbable; it's the complexity of the organ, the eye itself. If you are blind, it is most likely because of the hardware, and that's something that your body can't correct on it's own in the case of the eye--it's too difficult to rebuild (this includes the nerve tissue involved in sending signals to the brain).

When I read this part, I see that you're saying that it's easier to gain something because it is still possible for one to learn something even if they haven't applied that skills they may have yet. I still don't get how this applies to sensory system which are more or less something that you can only improve on interpreting and maybe improve to a extent, but gain much less than if you can improve on your drawing skills.

Sorry, I should have kept writing beyond that end:

This is why it is inappropriate to liken a change from asexual to sexual with a change from blindness to sightedness; the difficulty that you have pointed toward in going from blind to sighted has to do with the physical complexity of the organs and tissues involved. If sexual orientation has something to do with the organization of or patterning in the brain (this is what I understood from the following quote), then they should not be compared as these kinds of changes in the brain, as I tried to point out, are not of the same nature as the analogy implies.

(Here's the quote I mentioned)

I guess both are possible, but as I am an advocate that sexual orientation has to do with the brain, and it's easier for the brain to lose something than gain something, then it's still far more likely that a person become blind than it is for someone who's born blind to become sighted unless that blind person gets something to gain vision. This is why I support the thesis that it's more likely for a person to become asexual than it is for a person to become sexual after a long time after puberty. What's the probability that you would become sexual if you seem to never had a potential in the first place? It's lower than the probability that you would lose those feelings because of what may been lost in the brain.

Also, that quote explains why I wrote the first part in my original post. I'm working mainly off, "it's still far more likely that a person become blind than it is for someone who's born blind to become sighted unless that blind person gets something to gain vision [emphasis added]." This is implying that an asexual person must gain something to get sexuality, as though sexuality is a something and asexuality is not having that something. Indeed, this is what the language implies--you add the "a" to get "none" or "no" or "not". Just because that's how we say it, though, doesn't make it an observable, or concrete, reality. Just like you said in your response to me, it could actually be that way, and I agree with that. Also, it might not be. So that's just another reason why it's not appropriate to compare vision/blindness with sexuality/asexuality as you have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some people who say that they've changed, but in those cases I don't think they were ever strictly sexual or asexual, but were, instead, somewhere in the gray area. I just don't believe it's possible to change your sexuality. Just my opinions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some people who say that they've changed, but in those cases I don't think they were ever strictly sexual or asexual, but were, instead, somewhere in the gray area. I just don't believe it's possible to change your sexuality. Just my opinions.

No one said it's possible to change your sexuality. In my case of change, I was pretty much your highly sexual kind of heterosexual, and my sexuality died years ago. For me, my sexuality changes on it own.

Link to post
Share on other sites
injiktoplqkto

There are some people who say that they've changed, but in those cases I don't think they were ever strictly sexual or asexual, but were, instead, somewhere in the gray area. I just don't believe it's possible to change your sexuality. Just my opinions.

If you read my post earlier, you will notice that I meantion cases of something (big/small) happening to your life that makes change in you (perhaps 180).

Think how there are things in our life which we simply cannot control no matter how we want them within our grasp.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some people who say that they've changed, but in those cases I don't think they were ever strictly sexual or asexual, but were, instead, somewhere in the gray area. I just don't believe it's possible to change your sexuality. Just my opinions.

If you read my post earlier, you will notice that I meantion cases of something (big/small) happening to your life that makes change in you (perhaps 180).

Think how there are things in our life which we simply cannot control no matter how we want them within our grasp.

I found your post, but I still believe what I said before: someone who either discovers that they lack sexual attraction one day but gain it the next, or someone who has sexual attraction one day but lose it the next, were never exactly sexual or asexual, but are instead in the gray-area (to repeat myself). These are just my opinions and I promise I don't mean this in an elitist-y way.

As for the bit you said about sexuals who get "bored" of sex, well, that doesn't actually mean anything. Sexuals--not all sexuals--get bored of sex on a daily basis, but that doesn't mean that they're asexual. Also, no big (or small) life event is going to change a person's sexuality--or at least, according to the science of today, sexuality is determined solely from the "inside" (i.e., your genetics, your brain chemistry, things like that--sexuality hasn't exactly been found to have a cause), and not by outside forces, meaning that a sexual who has been raped isn't going to "go asexual," though they might have a lack of desire to engage in sexual activity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some people who say that they've changed, but in those cases I don't think they were ever strictly sexual or asexual, but were, instead, somewhere in the gray area. I just don't believe it's possible to change your sexuality. Just my opinions.

If you read my post earlier, you will notice that I meantion cases of something (big/small) happening to your life that makes change in you (perhaps 180).

Think how there are things in our life which we simply cannot control no matter how we want them within our grasp.

I found your post, but I still believe what I said before: someone who either discovers that they lack sexual attraction one day but gain it the next, or someone who has sexual attraction one day but lose it the next, were never exactly sexual or asexual, but are instead in the gray-area (to repeat myself). These are just my opinions and I promise I don't mean this in an elitist-y way.

As for the bit you said about sexuals who get "bored" of sex, well, that doesn't actually mean anything. Sexuals--not all sexuals--get bored of sex on a daily basis, but that doesn't mean that they're asexual. Also, no big (or small) life event is going to change a person's sexuality--or at least, according to the science of today, sexuality is determined solely from the "inside" (i.e., your genetics, your brain chemistry, things like that--sexuality hasn't exactly been found to have a cause), and not by outside forces, meaning that a sexual who has been raped isn't going to "go asexual," though they might have a lack of desire to engage in sexual activity.

Regarding science, there is absolutely no evidence that a large degree of secual orientation changes is impossible just because there is nothing ruling out dramatic brain changes to areas of brain responsible for sexuality altering it to a extreme degree. Right now, I want you to find my sexuality history and gray-sexuality is still a terrible explanation for how my sexuality died.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...