The Guardian writing weird things about asexuality

[Lucas Monteiro]

7 hours ago, ConorOberst said:

Any deviation from heterosexuality is clearly wrong from an evolutionary standpoint.  You can accept it, you can be happy but clearly it is a deviation from the natural order of things.  Unlike a useful quirk like say, having a supreme talent in art or something like that, asexuality has no inherent usefulness...it doesn't help us in any way, it only prevents us from either us being completely happy in a relationship, or our partner being completely happy.  Only if we find another asexual person can we really find a complete relationship...and that pool to choose from is restricted.

Okay, now you are totally talking bullshit. Anything beyond heterosexuality is wrong by evolutionary point of view ? You clearly don't understand even the basics of Evolution, so I will suggest to you read Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and after that you read some topics about genetics and mutation. Because if you would have studied, you would simply see that heterosexuality is just the most common form to conceive new beings, thus generating new populations and passing genes and building the survival of the species. 

 

But if you look more further in genetics, you will see that for example, homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality, it is just an extreme way of Nature, by some theories, to try to control population or simply to some animals to take care of babies who don't have father or mother. And it is by default, if you took what you mean by normal in most animals, a genetic mutation from heterosexuality, but it does never say that it is wrong or right. You just did not learn that in Nature there is no right or wrong, simply evolution  and by evolution, there is always something changing and modifications apart are always rising. 

 

Asexuality doesn't have any usefulness ? Well, in fact there it is, because with asexuality the population control gets more easily to happen, and you don't have an exponentional grow of population happening. 

 

Go study some books before saying utter non sense things, or otherwise you will have to learn by the hard way or never learn and continue ignoring people with facts, but you know what ? You can't deny facts, sorry.

 

You say you are in peace with your asexuality, but you aren't, because if you had the chance to change you would. Someone who truly accepts it's own a/sexuality would never try to change it, because he sees that it's part of who he is. Anyway, do what you think make you more happy, as long as you don't try to shove ignorant views like you did in this whole post.

 

I am sorry if I did offended you, but I just get mad when I see people saying things as if they were true without even trying to see if what they speak has some truth in it. When you talk about something with Science to try to make your point, you have to see from different perspectives and point of views, otherwise you could be very wrong in what you are talking about.

 

Some links that will colaborate with what I said : 

 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1001836320541?LI=tru

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsb/271/1554/2217.full.pdf

https://books.google.com.br/books?hl=pt-BR&lr=&id=dNVIOYX-_3QC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Homosexuality+in+Evolution&ots=khz53rYW7J&sig=FMmgPp-ThyS9DV8y7Yfv0ez9fH8#v=onepage&q=Homosexuality in Evolution&f=false

 

[timewarp]

45 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

'Orientation' means which way something is facing. Asexuals aren't facing in any direction. On the other hand, as a set of logical categories, male/female/both/none *does* make sense. 

 

Oh, I don't necessarily disagree. But lack of direction is still not a condition. In fact there are some researchers who define asexuality as absence of sexual orientation. That I can accept.

[Homer]

7 hours ago, ConorOberst said:

Any deviation from heterosexuality is clearly wrong from an evolutionary standpoint. 

Factually wrong yet again. Evolution is about adapting to the surroundings; ye olde "survival of the fittest". That does include some people (read: their genes) NOT "surviving". Picking people out is a core part of the evolutionary process.

[Sea Lemon]

9 hours ago, ConorOberst said:

I'm sorry but I think you have to be in denial if you think it isn't a condition.  It's good that we have all become comfortable with it, but it's just plain wrong to say you wouldn't change if you could. 

Please don't assume that you know other people's feelings about their asexuality better than they do themselves - it's patronising and insulting. Several of us have already said pretty clearly that we wouldn't change even if we could, and I'm sorry that you are having trouble accepting that, but it is how it is.

[Nidwin]

Any deviation from heterosexuality is clearly wrong from a creationist/Intelligent design standpoint.

 

Fixed for you. You're welcome.

[Waterstiller]

Condition.

So sad, to be a condition.

Maybe that's why our humanity can be so conditional. 

 

Maybe in coming to understand - and claim - ourselves

we are unconditioning something long past due in the collective.

 

.. And the established hierarchies which broadcast the various conditionings have yet to get the memo.

[ConorOberst]

On 27/10/2017 at 1:15 AM, Lucas Monteiro said:

Okay, now you are totally talking bullshit. Anything beyond heterosexuality is wrong by evolutionary point of view ? You clearly don't understand even the basics of Evolution, so I will suggest to you read Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and after that you read some topics about genetics and mutation. Because if you would have studied, you would simply see that heterosexuality is just the most common form to conceive new beings, thus generating new populations and passing genes and building the survival of the species. 

Darwin never wrote a book called the "theory of evolution" and he never used the word "evolution" so what are you talking about?!!  Hey, I'm being dick, I know what you meant .  You seem to think I don't know anything about evolution - I admit it's not my favorite subject (quantum mechanics is) but I know enough about it to talk about it.

 

You are right about passing genes - I side with Dawkins view on this instead of Gould.  I believe that we are merely vehicles for genes.  Everything about us is about the continuation of our genes, we are literally the product of billions of cycles of evolution - everything about us has evolved purely to help us pass our genes on more successfully.  I know you know about this so I'm preaching to the choir, but don't assume I don't know anything about the subject because I do!

 

You state evolution (and sexual orientation) as a complete and understood theory which is ridiculous.  There's many arguments raging - lots of ideas but no real way to prove it.  Sexuality overlaps with theories on altruism - lots of ideas but no way to prove it.

 

So again - my theory is that any deviation from heterosexuality is wrong.  Something has broken because EVERYTHING about us is designed to pass on our genes.  Every step of evolution is there purely to increase of chances of sexual reproduction and to pass on our genes.  Homosexuality, asexuality and everything else goes completely against evolution.  It is wrong, not morally but from an evolutionary point of view.  Just because it is normal to be born with 2 heads doesn't mean it is correct, it is just a mutation. 

On 27/10/2017 at 1:15 AM, Lucas Monteiro said:

 

But if you look more further in genetics, you will see that for example, homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality, it is just an extreme way of Nature, by some theories, to try to control population or simply to some animals to take care of babies who don't have father or mother. And it is by default, if you took what you mean by normal in most animals, a genetic mutation from heterosexuality, but it does never say that it is wrong or right. You just did not learn that in Nature there is no right or wrong, simply evolution  and by evolution, there is always something changing and modifications apart are always rising. 

I agree and disagree at the same time.  Homosexuality in the animal kingdom is wildly exaggerated and most of the studies on it are political rather than scientific.  Most cases of homosexuality in the animal kingdom are one off events, or are forced into being through altering the brain chemistry of the animal or putting it into unnatural situations.  The times homosexuality has been spotted in the wild it's normally a one off thing and then the animal returns back to heterosexual activity once the opportunity is available to it.  They vastly prefer heterosexual activity over homosexuality and this is to be expected - an orgasm feels good so I'm more suprised that bisexuality isn't the default animal preference to be honest.

 

Returning back to my main point, there is a "right" and "wrong" - it's all about passing genes on.  If something prevents you from passing on genes then it's wrong, if it helps you passing on genes then it's right.  There are countless diseases and conditions that are "natural" but it doesn't mean they are right.  They are mutations.  I just don't buy the theories about over population and taking care of babies...that seems to hint at intelligence behind design and I don't think that's right.  The book you linked to suggested that there is a gay gene that gets passed on because women find gay men attractive...again, this is just a wild theory that I don't think holds water at all.  I could go on an on about the things that were incorrect in the book you mentioned "homosexuality and evolution"...the author is a psychologist for a start so it's not like he was an expert in the subject.  There's no mention in the book about the difference between gender and sexuality and absolutely nothing about sexuality being a social construct.  His entire theory is that there is a gay gene.  Not buying it, sorry.

 

On 27/10/2017 at 1:15 AM, Lucas Monteiro said:

 

Asexuality doesn't have any usefulness ? Well, in fact there it is, because with asexuality the population control gets more easily to happen, and you don't have an exponentional grow of population happening. 

Again, not buying it.  Evolution, in my mind, doesn't work that way.  Genes don't care about what's happening around them - their only mission is to reproduce and be passed on.  It's more likely that predators would increase IF overpopulation was a problem.  It seems a real stretch to suggest that asexuality is evolutions answer to over population.  Not buying it at all.

 

On 27/10/2017 at 1:15 AM, Lucas Monteiro said:

 

Go study some books before saying utter non sense things, or otherwise you will have to learn by the hard way or never learn and continue ignoring people with facts, but you know what ? You can't deny facts, sorry.

I have read books on this subject - you seem to think that evolution is a complete theory and everyone agrees on everything.  That's not even close to reality and it is disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.

 

On 27/10/2017 at 1:15 AM, Lucas Monteiro said:

 

You say you are in peace with your asexuality, but you aren't, because if you had the chance to change you would. Someone who truly accepts it's own a/sexuality would never try to change it, because he sees that it's part of who he is. Anyway, do what you think make you more happy, as long as you don't try to shove ignorant views like you did in this whole post.

I am perfectly at peace with my asexuality.  As I mentioned before, the way I see it is like my millionaire analogy - I'd love to be a millionaire but I'm not, it doesn't cause me any mental issues NOT being rich, but I would love to have a lot of money.  Same goes with my sexuality - I would love to be normal but I'm not.  Your argument is ridiculous - it's like a downs syndrome person saying they are perfectly happy having downs and they wouldn't change....of course they would, and if they wouldn't it's purely because of denial and because that's all they know.  If you had a disease and the chance to cure it was available and you DIDNT take the cure....well, I think you have mental problems to be honest.  I don't see my asexuality as part of my identity, it is a disease, a mutation and a mental issue....it's something that needs curing, not part of me!!

On 27/10/2017 at 1:15 AM, Lucas Monteiro said:

 

I am sorry if I did offended you, but I just get mad when I see people saying things as if they were true without even trying to see if what they speak has some truth in it. When you talk about something with Science to try to make your point, you have to see from different perspectives and point of views, otherwise you could be very wrong in what you are talking about.

Not mad at all, we just obviously view things very differently that's all.

 

 

On 27/10/2017 at 1:15 AM, Lucas Monteiro said:

 

 

 

[ConorOberst]

On 27/10/2017 at 3:25 AM, Nidwin said:

Any deviation from heterosexuality is clearly wrong from a creationist/Intelligent design standpoint.

 

Fixed for you. You're welcome.

My views on religion are extremely complicated but it doesn't colour my view of evolution.  As I mentioned in my post above, EVERYTHING about evolution is to pass on our genes.  It is fundamentally wrong if we have a mental or physical issue that prevents us from passing on our genes.  It is simply wrong!  

 

In fact, only the religious people would see sexual deviancy as "right" because God doesn't make mistakes.  Well I believe nature does and when it comes to people like us, it did.

[Telecaster68]

You're basically right Conor but I think the problem is that you keep using the 'right' and 'wrong' terminology, which have moral connotations for most people. You're not using them that way I know, but that's how people are taking them so they're feeling you're saying they're morally or medically defective. 

[Ankh-Morpork]

11 hours ago, ConorOberst said:

So again - my theory is that any deviation from heterosexuality is wrong.  Something has broken because EVERYTHING about us is designed to pass on our genes.  Every step of evolution is there purely to increase of chances of sexual reproduction and to pass on our genes.

Then how do you explain working bees? They don't pass on their own genes, but they help their mother to raise their siblings. Some of said siblings will become queen bees or drones and pass on their genes, so working bees help others to pass on their genes. It makes sense because the bee hive (and its set of genes) will prevail.

 

Human families may work similar. It's good to have asexual (or homosexual, whatever) children because they can take care of your grandchildren born by other children, so it helps you to pass your genes on. So it might be an advantage to have a gene that has the potential to make you a non heteeosexual.

 

I don't see how that will only work with intelligent design.

 

Please don't forget: Evolution is not only about children. It's also about grandchildren and great-grandchildren etc.