SomeoneElse Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 I would like to know whether asexuality is an aquired lifestyle or whether it is a natural aspect. Link to post Share on other sites
mackat5 Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 I really don't know. I didn't become aware of being asexual until after I was in my late 50's. Link to post Share on other sites
Penumbra Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Isn't everyone born asexual? Children in general don't experience sexual attraction. Link to post Share on other sites
Aeriel Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 I agree with Penumbra. I just never developed the interest (obsession?) with, and/or understanding of sexual attraction that seemed to come normally to others at puberty. So yeah, since I can remember. Link to post Share on other sites
Lady Heartilly Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Yeah, I picked the first one too. I can't ever remember a time in my life when I wanted sex. Link to post Share on other sites
Rabger Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Asexuality is natural. Its like any other orientation/sun-orientation. Of course, people still say "So when did you become gay?" but I'll be polite and not give my usual response to that *L* But its like asking when I became human. Link to post Share on other sites
Goonie Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 yeah what lady heartilly said Link to post Share on other sites
SomeoneElse Posted April 25, 2006 Author Share Posted April 25, 2006 Yes, but do you think that it is caused by your thoughts, or by genetic predisposition? Link to post Share on other sites
Rabger Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 omnistpriest: Yes, but do you think that it is caused by your thoughts, or by genetic predisposition? Caused by your thoughts? I don't get it. I can think my hair is blue until my brain explodes, but thats not going to make my hair blue. I'd assume you mean the standard nature vs nurture arguement. In that case I'd guess its both, but largely biological. Link to post Share on other sites
Lors Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 I didn't become asexual, I just didn't become sexual and so realised I was asexual. So I could say I've always been asexual because I've never been sexual. I could also say 16 because that's when I decided I wasn't anything. I could also say 20 because that's when I found out about asexuality. You seem to be asking two questions. Just because someone becomes asexual at 40 say doesn't necessary mean there isn't a genetic predispoition involved. Similarly, just because someone has always felt asexual it doesn't mean that there isn't "something" in their head that's making them feel that way. Link to post Share on other sites
SomeoneElse Posted April 26, 2006 Author Share Posted April 26, 2006 Well it will become blue in your own mind. When I say your own thoughts I mean your own preferences that develop because of experiences. Link to post Share on other sites
Xenon Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 I don't remember ever not being asexual. Link to post Share on other sites
Neurovore Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 It is not something that you can just "become". Either you are, or you aren't. Link to post Share on other sites
SomeoneElse Posted April 26, 2006 Author Share Posted April 26, 2006 That is unfair. Many become asexual after trauma, or even from hormonal problems. Link to post Share on other sites
Dargon Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 omnistpriest wrote:That is unfair. Many become asexual after trauma, or even from hormonal problems. This is true, but often times these people did once experience sexual attraction, and I would say that they are more likely to view it as a problem and not a change in orientation. Link to post Share on other sites
Rabger Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Dargon: omnistpriest: That is unfair.Many become asexual after trauma, or even from hormonal problems. This is true, but often times these people did once experience sexual attraction, and I would say that they are more likely to view it as a problem and not a change in orientation. I agree with Dargon to a point. Someone does not "become" asexual. If there are hormonal problems, that is NOT an orientation, that is a chemical imbalance. A medical issue. Not an orientation. Now, I'm one that believes orienation is somewhat fluid, but it sure as hell isn't caused but stuff like that. I am also one of doubt that trauma can change anything either. It might make someone make a conscious decision, or fear may get the best of them, or they become depressed, etc. but that doesn't in all reality change their orientation. Outside influences may affect how we behave and even how we think, but it can't change something that is basically ingrained into who we are. You can beat the shit out of a gay man every single time he sees another man, for the rest of his life. Some serious trauma there. He may then make the decision to stay away from men, but that doesn't change the fact that he'd still be attracted to them. Because that can't be helped. Link to post Share on other sites
ghosts Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 I'm not sure if asexuality is natural, in that it's biological or something. But that goes for any sexual orientation. As for the poll, I guess I might pick "Since I can remember", but that's kind of hard to say, since I doubt most people are sexually attracted to anyone until around puberty. Link to post Share on other sites
SomeoneElse Posted April 26, 2006 Author Share Posted April 26, 2006 That is right. I thought the whole argument about homoexuals is that they are not responsible because the disorder is purely chemical, and not because of choice. Link to post Share on other sites
Dargon Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 omnistpriest wrote:That is right. I thought the whole argument about homoexuals is that they are not responsible because the disorder is purely chemical, and not because of choice. You might want to watch your wording. I don't think you meant any harm, but some might take offense to the word "disorder." Link to post Share on other sites
SomeoneElse Posted April 26, 2006 Author Share Posted April 26, 2006 LOL, I am not that forgiving. I call anything that is not the natural state a disorder. I am not saying that the natural state is always the best state, however. Link to post Share on other sites
ghosts Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 How can you say what the natural state is, though? "Disorder" doesn't really work for me though, makes it sound like a problem or an illness. Link to post Share on other sites
SomeoneElse Posted April 26, 2006 Author Share Posted April 26, 2006 Natural is what happens in nature. Homosexuals cannot naturally reproduce so that sort of sex is not natural. Link to post Share on other sites
Rabger Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 omnistpriest wrote:That is right. I thought the whole argument about homoexuals is that they are not responsible because the disorder is purely chemical, and not because of choice. You might want to watch your wording. I don't think you meant any harm, but some might take offense to the word "disorder." You're damn right. I did. And he just dug himself deeper when he responded. My ass homosexality is not natural. It is NOT a disorder any more than heterosexuality or bisexuality or anything else is. Fact of the matter is evidence supports that, taking away social pressure, humans are largely bi-sexual. So I could say hetero-sexuality is a disorder but that would just be stupid on my part. Just because a certain type of sex can't produce children doesn't make it "unnatural." Natural is what happens in nature? Try hetero-, homo-, bi-, a- and pan- sexuality. ALL found in the wild. Link to post Share on other sites
Derp Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 Kiri-Kin-tha's First Law of Metaphysics: Nothing Unreal Exists. I suppose the words "real" and "natural" could be used interchangeably in this context... Link to post Share on other sites
SomeoneElse Posted April 27, 2006 Author Share Posted April 27, 2006 That is debatable. The wild is not a good source for modeling your behavior. Animals have disorders as well. No creature is perfect and everyone is bound to have some kind of disorder. Link to post Share on other sites
Rabger Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 That is debatable.The wild is not a good source for modeling your behavior. Animals have disorders as well. No creature is perfect and everyone is bound to have some kind of disorder. Humans are animals. And YOU are the one that said natural is what takes place in nature. Homo-sexuality is not a disorder. And that's just incredibly fucked up and closedminded to even suggest. I thought we got over that what like 60 years ago? Link to post Share on other sites
ghosts Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 Nah, I've met plenty of bigots. Although I still feel uncomfortable calling a sexuality a "disorder", it does seem like omnist is calling his own sexuality- asexuality- a disorder as well. So, perhaps he doesn't mean it in as negative way as could be interpreted. ::shrugs:: I could be wrong. Natural is what happens in nature. I'm certainly not the expert here, but I have heard of other sexualities occurring in nature. Would you consider them natural, since it's happening in nature? Link to post Share on other sites
Hallucigenia Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 I think perhaps omnistpriest is confusing "nature" with "the majority". This can be debunked (and, if I'm not very much mistaken, debunked politely! Here goes!) Please look for a minute at some trait unrelated to sexuality. Let's say, intelligence. Now, in humans, there is a bell curve of intelligence - most individuals are of "average" intelligence, some are slightly below or above average, and a very small number have very high or low intelligence. Any statistician will tell you that the bell curve is a "natural" shape for a trait like this to take. So, an unusually intelligent or unintelligent individual, assuming that nothing else about them is particularly unusual, isn't unnatural at all - they're just a less common part of the natural statistical curve. And there you have it - a natural minority. Take, say, height or physical strength and you'll see the same thing. So why can't there be a bell curve of sexuality, with most people wanting a certain amount of sex, some wanting more, some wanting less, and some lying so far down on one end of the curve that they don't want to have any sex at all? The same thing can be said about the kinds of people you're attracted to, but that's a slightly more complicated argument and I'll leave it to others. I caution you very strongly about using the word "disorder". As psychiatrists currently use it, the word "disorder" implies a state of being that is actively harmful and must be forcibly cured. Many states of being, such as depression and schizophrenia, certainly fit into this category. Homosexuality and asexuality don't. How are these people hurting themselves by not being heterosexual? They're not. Now, I've read your other posts and I don't think that you're seriously suggesting that heterosexuality should be enforced, but that's what a lot of people read into what you say when you say they have a disorder. As you've seen, it makes them upset, and justifiably so - it wasn't all that long ago that psychiatrists did see homosexuality as something that had to be cured by force, and some still do. Perhaps your point could be made better with a more neutral word such as "minority" or "difference from the norm"? Just a thought. Link to post Share on other sites
SomeoneElse Posted April 28, 2006 Author Share Posted April 28, 2006 I just meant that it is the kind of sex that has a purpose in nature. Sex without a purpose (with the other sex) is just masturbation. And another thing, I am not saying that any other sexuality is right or wrong, I am always the first to stop people from using those terms. Link to post Share on other sites
Brodertun Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Natural is what happens in nature. Homosexuals cannot naturally reproduce so that sort of sex is not natural. If it isn't natural than why is it possible to find homosexual behavior on every species on Earth? I've observed homosexual sex in both male cats and cows. And in the studies of asexuality, the animals are tested for homsexual preferences to be sure that isn't the reason they appear asexual Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.