The "Sex" 'urge': Fact or Fallacy?

[Telecaster68]

Do you think a thread in which a couple of sexuals argued nobody was innately asexual would have been allowed to run for nearly 400 posts? ? 

[Skycaptain]

18 hours ago, asexjoe said:

Sex is ambiguous. The word "fucking" is not.

 

 

 

'course fucking. Is ambiguous, something can be fucking heavy or fucking cold and they're total opposites for example 

 

It's just an emphasising pronoun

[JDP]

1 hour ago, Skycaptain said:

'course fucking. Is ambiguous, something can be fucking heavy or fucking cold and they're total opposites for example 

 

It's just an emphasising pronoun

An adverb, actually.

[m4rble]

3 hours ago, Skycaptain said:

'course fucking. Is ambiguous, something can be fucking heavy or fucking cold and they're total opposites for example 

 

It's just an emphasising pronoun

Heavy is the opposite of cold now? 

[Snao Cone]

6 minutes ago, m4rble said:

Heavy is the opposite of cold now? 

It might be more like autocorrect is the opposite of correct.

[m4rble]

4 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

Do you think a thread in which a couple of sexuals argued nobody was innately asexual would have been allowed to run for nearly 400 posts? ? 

Probably not, but those those discussions are had plenty elsewhere on the internet. Anyway, I suppose I don't know what precisely @vega57 was saying but my understanding wasn't that people aren't innately sexual, just that people wouldn't innately desire sex without ever learning about it. They may seem similar but the difference is that the actual argument is that sexuals still have sexual instincts, they just aren't directed as exactly as people think they are. I guess if such instincts are strong enough, it wouldn't be that hard for people to figure it out on their own though. 

[SithLord]

56 minutes ago, m4rble said:

Probably not, but those those discussions are had plenty elsewhere on the internet. Anyway, I suppose I don't know what precisely @vega57 was saying but my understanding wasn't that people aren't innately sexual, just that people wouldn't innately desire sex without ever learning about it. They may seem similar but the difference is that the actual argument is that sexuals still have sexual instincts, they just aren't directed as exactly as people think they are. I guess if such instincts are strong enough, it wouldn't be that hard for people to figure it out on their own though. 

There are a lot of things I can do elsewhere on the internet (like calling someone a troll) but just because they're allowed elsewhere doesn't mean it's something that should be allowed here. 

 

I want to clarify something before I allow myself to go off.  Do you mean sex as the act?  As in people wouldn't desire to have PiV or other kinds of sex without learning about those being possible?  As opposed to desire sexual satisfaction through masturbation?

[Telecaster68]

I don't have a problem with discussing the theory. The problem is that @vega57 is saying that asexuality is the norm from which sexuals have been taught to deviate, and repeatedly refuses to countenance any arguments that challenge it, by either ignoring them or saying 'no you're wrong' then putting  up lots of chaff rather than engage with the points made.

[m4rble]

Just now, sithgirlix said:

There are a lot of things I can do elsewhere on the internet (like calling someone a troll) but just because they're allowed elsewhere doesn't mean it's something that should be allowed here. 

 

I want to clarify something before I allow myself to go off.  Do you mean sex as the act?  As in people wouldn't desire to have PiV or other kinds of sex without learning about those being possible?  As opposed to desire sexual satisfaction through masturbation?

I mean sex as in the act of partnered sex, but especially piv. People seem to think that Piv is the only "real" or true form of sex, but it may just be one sexual experiment among many. 

[JDP]

3 minutes ago, m4rble said:

I mean sex as in the act of partnered sex, but especially piv. People seem to think that Piv is the only "real" or true form of sex, but it may just be one sexual experiment among many. 

That is certainly what I learned. That bias in favor of copulation is stronger than ever, even as religious identification and participation has declined.

 

Why would anyone object to the length and activity of this thread? That's a good thing, if you ask me.

[Telecaster68]

Quote

Why would anyone object to the length and activity of this thread? That's a good thing, if you ask me.

I think it's a good thing. What isn't a good thing is the way any discussion that asexuality isn't always innate is closed down very quickly on AVEN. Passing mentions that trauma or illness etc. can temporarily kill someone's libido are allowed, but the idea that, for instance, asexuality might have a cause is sat on fast. Compare and contrast...

[JDP]

1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

I think it's a good thing. What isn't a good thing is the way any discussion that asexuality isn't always innate is closed down very quickly on AVEN. Passing mentions that trauma or illness etc. can temporarily kill someone's libido are allowed, but the idea that, for instance, asexuality might have a cause is sat on fast. Compare and contrast...

The search for a cause implies the search for a solution.

 

Whether asexuality, whatever that is, is innate or acquired, or a bit of both in whatever proportion, is not something about which I lose sleep.

 

I didn't asked to be the inspiration for this thread, but it's fine with me. I have a personal interest and stake in the strength, omnipresence and effects of pro-intimacy bias of popular culture.

[m4rble]

I wonder though, what does drive people to associate sexual activity with other people. This is a bit of a trick question because there is obviously a lot of variation, but I don't think it's usually as simple as, "I saw someone attractive and got an urge to copulate,". I think the human motivation for sex almost always is very different from the grasshopper's motivation for sex. It's a very social activity for humans, maybe it's similar to the human affinity for non-sexual touch, like the feeling of connectedness that comes from hugging and caressing. 

 

Saying that for sexuals sex has to be undeniably innate could actually expand the definition of asexuality, which may be the perspective some people take when they coin terms such as, "cupiosexual". 

[Telecaster68]

Quote

The search for a cause implies the search for a solution.

I understand the politics of it, but closing down discussion because you're assuming it will end up with a conclusion you don't like tends to lead to nobody understanding anything, which in turn leads to situations like Charlottesville.

[JDP]

7 minutes ago, m4rble said:

I wonder though, what does drive people to associate sexual activity with other people. This is a bit of a trick question because there is obviously a lot of variation, but I don't think it's usually as simple as, "I saw someone attractive and got an urge to copulate,". I think the human motivation for sex almost always is very different from the grasshopper's motivation for sex. It's a very social activity for humans, maybe it's similar to the human affinity for non-sexual touch, like the feeling of connectedness that comes from hugging and caressing. 

 

Saying that for sexuals sex has to be undeniably innate could actually expand the definition of asexuality, which may be the perspective some people take when they coin terms such as, "cupiosexual". 

I had to look that up. I am trying to understand why someone would want a sexual "relationship," whatever that is, when one feels nothing when having sexual intercourse.

 

Unless I'm misunderstanding the term.

 

I can't imagine any person not wanting to pair up with another and become extremely close, irrespective of any copulatory urge. I certainly do, but for me it has not been possible offline to do that.

 

For me hugging and caressing has zero effect. I was never touched as a child (literally), by anyone, for any reason, so when I am hugged I act as though it feels nice and I do appreciate the sentiment, but I won't remember it later.

 

 

[Telecaster68]

Quote

 I was never touched as a child (literally), by anyone, for any reason, so when I am hugged I act as though it feels nice and I do appreciate the sentiment, but I won't remember it later.

Research into early child development indicates that how carers relate to a child in its first few weeks and months puts neural hardwiring in place that is often (not always) beyond the brain's neuroplasticity to change. In your case - the early neural pathways that react to touch were never developed because you were never touched, so there was nothing to build on as you grew up, which leaves you feeling nothing now. Doesn't mean you're broken or wrong or bad, just that something that most people have isn't there in your case.

[JDP]

3 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Research into early child development indicates that how carers relate to a child in its first few weeks and months puts neural hardwiring in place that is often (not always) beyond the brain's neuroplasticity to change. In your case - the early neural pathways that react to touch were never developed because you were never touched, so there was nothing to build on as you grew up, which leaves you feeling nothing now. Doesn't mean you're broken or wrong or bad, just that something that most people have isn't there in your case.

The correct word is stunted.

 

As I get older I look for my kind, but they don't seem to exist.

[m4rble]

7 minutes ago, asexjoe said:

I had to look that up. I am trying to understand why someone would want a sexual "relationship," whatever that is, when one feels nothing when having sexual intercourse.

 

Unless I'm misunderstanding the term.

 

I can't imagine any person not wanting to pair up with another and become extremely close, irrespective of any copulatory urge. I certainly do, but for me it has not been possible offline to do that.

 

For me hugging and caressing has zero effect. I was never touched as a child (literally), by anyone, for any reason, so when I am hugged I act as though it feels nice and I do appreciate the sentiment, but I won't remember it later.

 

 

When I see people use the term, "cupiosexual" they usually say, "I desire sex but I feel no sexual attraction," I don't think this is a useful way of viewing things, it usually comes from a warped view of sexuality. It's possible some people enjoy sex but don't feel an instinctual urge for it, in which case they probably wouldn't discover it without being taught it even though they are sexual. 

 

11 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I understand the politics of it, but closing down discussion because you're assuming it will end up with a conclusion you don't like tends to lead to nobody understanding anything, which in turn leads to situations like Charlottesville.

What happened in Charlottesville? 

[Telecaster68]

Quote

What happened in Charlottesville? 

Really? Do you not read the news?

[Telecaster68]

3 minutes ago, asexjoe said:

The correct word is stunted.

That seems unnecessarily derogatory to me.

[m4rble]

2 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Really? Do you not read the news?

Oh yeah, just looked it up. I'm usually a bit slow to catch up with current events. 

[SithLord]

49 minutes ago, m4rble said:

I mean sex as in the act of partnered sex, but especially piv. People seem to think that Piv is the only "real" or true form of sex, but it may just be one sexual experiment among many. 

Okay, I just wanted to clarify.  Personally I think sexuals would figure it out and that we're actually taught to repress this desire, so the opposite of what I think the OP is arguing.  I think most sexuals experiment and that sex ed. helps figure out the mechanics of it all but in the end two sexuals living free of society's rules would figure it out on their own.

I agree more with you than the OP in that I think sexuals do have an innate drive for partnering in sexual attraction and that would cause them to desire sex, hence why I see desiring sex rather than just desiring orgasm as something innate more than learned.  

 

I also think that the wording of the OP's statement is what's the main cause of debate.  It smells strongly of asexual elitism by seeming to claim that desiring sex is learned, and their follow-ups have not yielded much in the way of clarifying this or not.  Personally I would find that offensive, just like Telecaster said in that if sexuals started a thread saying asexuality was learned rather than innate it would be shut down.

[m4rble]

1 minute ago, sithgirlix said:

that if sexuals started a thread saying asexuality was learned rather than innate it would be shut down.

Well, it's not exactly a fair playing field considering that the only place on the internet a conversation like this could ever happen without being massively trolled is on Aven. 

[SithLord]

Just now, m4rble said:

Well, it's not exactly a fair playing field considering that the only place on the internet a conversation like this could ever happen without being massively trolled is on Aven. 

No, that it's not.  But AVEN tries to be fair all the same and this shows a clear bias.

[JDP]

8 minutes ago, m4rble said:

When I see people use the term, "cupiosexual" they usually say, "I desire sex but I feel no sexual attraction," I don't think this is a useful way of viewing things, it usually comes from a warped view of sexuality. It's possible some people enjoy sex but don't feel an instinctual urge for it, in which case they probably wouldn't discover it without being taught it even though they are sexual. 

Yes, warped. I can't get my head around it. For me it's easier to understand someone having inchoate sexual feelings and arousal without knowing what to do with such feelings.

 

Attract is a transitive verb, in common usage. Attraction, therefore, implies an object to which one is attracted.

 

I also what distinguishes female cupiosexuals from male cupiosexuals.

 

An example of the latter might be someone like Wilt Chamberlain, who claimed to have copulated with 10,000 women. I could argue that he wasn't attracted to any of his partners. He just liked the thought of adding to his list of conquests.

 

Would an example of a female cupiosexual be a nymphomaniac? Seems plausible to me.

 

 

[Telecaster68]

It's hardly educational to shut down a thread because someone's saying something you don't like though. Both points of view should be discussed, which is why @vega57 opting out of replying to any arguments just underlines the feeling that the OP is fixed on the idea that sexuals don't really like sex, they've just been brainwashed, unlike smart, rational, pious asexuals.

[JDP]

14 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

That seems unnecessarily derogatory to me.

Prevented from growing or developing properly is an accurate description. I don't see it as either derogatory or unnecessary.

 

Precise use of the written word is always necessary.

[Telecaster68]

Quote

Precise use of the written word is always necessary.

I agree. But you have to take connotation as well as denotation into account, and 'stunted' has negative connotations in general usage.

 

Go start a thread asking if asexuals are neurologically stunted and see what reaction you get...

[JDP]

15 minutes ago, sithgirlix said:

if sexuals started a thread saying asexuality was learned rather than innate it would be shut down.

I wouldn't have a problem with that argument. Who's to say it isn't? It's worthy of discussion.

 

Does AVEN shut down such threads often, just because some of its members don't like them?

[JDP]

7 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I agree. But you have to take connotation as well as denotation into account, and 'stunted' has negative connotations in general usage.

 

Go start a thread asking if asexuals are neurologically stunted and see what reaction you get...

It's denotation that counts, and if the truth hurts, it hurts. It's still the truth, to the extent the statement is successfully defended.