It’s not bigoted or asexual-elitist to believe that sex can often be negative

[Georgetown]

Between risks of pregnancy (even when trying to use birth control), sexually-transmitted disease (even when trying to use protection), and other scary health issues resulting from various forms of sexual activity and also the fact that one always wants to be super respectful of consent and autonomy, sex outside of marriage or a committed relationship probably shouldn’t be something people take as lightly as they do in the Western world. I don’t think that any properly consensual behavior is immoral or unethical, but I certainly think it can be spiritual negative or abstractly exploitative in many situations. It certainly shouldn’t be considered bigoted or asexual-elitist to question hookup culture or question the encouragement of sexual activity in teenagers. And I think there is also nothing wrong too with claiming a spiritual or religious benefit to asexuality / celibacy, especially given what the Bible says in places like 1 Corinthians 7.

 

I think asexuality is to some extent a gift that can be embraced alongside love for humanity so that one can have an easier life, free of certain physical desires. It’s like a person who is blessed without any sweet tooth or love of junk food so that they can always eat healthy with ease. I don’t think it’s elitist to think this because it’s not saying other people are wrong. It’s just embracing about yourself. Everyone might as well think they have it best in their own head 🙂.

[SorryNotSorry]

Well, I view it a little differently. Many sexuals complain about "baggage", but it's ironic that having no sexual baggage at all is something which some people consider to be baggage in its own right.

 

In other words, nobody wins.

[uhtred]

Hmm, ,your title and your text are different:

 

Your title:   "Its not bigoted..... to believe that sex can often be negative",    I agree with that. This is basically stating an almost undeniable truth that sex is not always good.

 

Your post: " .... sex outside of marriage or a committed relationship probably shouldn’t be something people take as lightly as they do in the Western world."   There I disagree.  This is suggesting how other people should think about their lifestyle. 

 

I see nothing wrong with ones personal choices about sex - whether those choices are to limit sex to marriage, or those choices involve any variety of sex between consenting adults. 

[Philip027]

I'm more or less in agreement with this topic, but even still it's usually not for the best to try to rub it in people's faces.

[Sally]

2 hours ago, Georgetown said:

 And I think there is also nothing wrong too with claiming a spiritual or religious benefit to asexuality / celibacy, especially given what the Bible says in places like 1 Corinthians 7.

 

Why do you assume that everyone cares about what Corinthians says?  

 

You of course can decide for yourself that you have a spiritual benefit being asexual.  But claiming that for all asexuals is elitist.  

[Sally]

1 hour ago, CBC said:

Oh haha, so yeah, what @Sally said.

And what @CBC said, pretty much always. 

 

 

[ben8884]

Not a green but just wanna drop in a line reminding us all about asexual elitism.

In terms of is my asexuality a gift, I dunno...not really. I mean I am fine being asexual and all but I wouldn't say its any more of a gift then being left handed, just something that is. 

[Philip027]

Quote

Why do you assume that everyone cares about what Corinthians says?  

Presumably because a lot of the detractors that the OP has gotten have used Bible passages as a means to defame him?  And that if you take the Bible so seriously that you will use parts of it to try to defame somebody while willfully ignoring the other parts of the Bible that discredit your own argument, you're being kind of a hypocrite?

 

The argument was purely from a religious perspective anyway; obviously the people who don't care about religion (and therefore presumably wouldn't use the Bible as a means to attack asexuality) wouldn't need to be shown this counter-argument.

 

Quote

Not a green but just wanna drop in a line reminding us all about asexual elitism.

The topic is specifically ABOUT asexual "elitism" and what is widely considered such that honestly shouldn't be.  I think the OP is well aware of what he's saying.

[Galactic Turtle]

I have largely negative views about sex as I find pretty much every aspect of it to be unnecessarily risky and unwise. It just so happens that without PIV sex we'd be extinct. Luckily there are so many of us now that as an individual I feel no guilt not adding to the population. I don't go around telling people they should be like me or that I'm better than them, but if I were to ever speak freely about my views on sex I know it would not be received well since my audience would most likely entirely consist of sexually active people. I think my views on sex were influenced by how it was pitched to me as a concept when I was younger through school gossip and media. Nevertheless, when my peers come running to me for advice for their problems caused by their sexual desires, I can't help but think I lucked out being devoid of them. I had waited for those urges to hit me during puberty suddenly like some sort of spell of madness because from my point of view that is exactly what was happening. One day a friend wouldn't even know some boy existed then the next this near stranger was the only person they could think about. Then two months later they wouldn't matter at all and it would be someone else.

 

 

[Philip027]

Quote

Nevertheless, when my peers come running to me for advice for their problems caused by their sexual desires, I can't help but think I lucked out being devoid of them.

Yep.  Some of them have even told me as much (that they considered me lucky).

[Homer]

9 hours ago, Georgetown said:

I don’t think that any properly consensual behavior is immoral or unethical, but I certainly think it can be spiritual negative or abstractly exploitative in many situations. It certainly shouldn’t be considered bigoted or asexual-elitist to question hookup culture or question the encouragement of sexual activity in teenagers. And I think there is also nothing wrong too with claiming a spiritual or religious benefit to asexuality / celibacy, especially given what the Bible says in places like 1 Corinthians 7.

I'm antitheist and not "spiritual" by any means, so whatever some scripture or other says has zero significance for me personally. However if you're questioning sincerely, you gotta take a look at the case at hand from all the angles. It'd be interesting to know the ratio between people who think that there's a religious benefit to asexuality and those who have found that religion has actively harmed their ability to figure this out about themselves.

 

Also, what does "can often be negative" mean? 5% of the cases? 30%? More than 50%? Literally everything you do comes with a risk/reward ratio and it's up to the individual to determine whether taking a risk is worth the reward.

[Lonemathsytoothbrushthief]

Alongside that, it IS elitist to assume a relationship which doesn't involve sex and other kinds of physical intimacy is automatically "friendship" or cannot be romantic. Or that a sexual or partner relationship needs to be romantic to be a positive for the people involved(shoutout to any romance repulsed and aromantic spec people here). I think that happens more.

[ElasticPlanet]

2 hours ago, Homer said:

It'd be interesting to know the ratio between people who think that there's a religious benefit to asexuality and those who have found that religion has actively harmed their ability to figure this out about themselves.

Well... I'm the atheist offspring of atheists, but...

 

I see the widespread non-communication and closed-mindedness about sex, orientation, gender and the issues around those things, in the society I grew up in, to be a product of the long history of religion and the conservative politics that it is linked with. So yes, religion harmed me even though I never believed in any version of it.

 

12 hours ago, Georgetown said:

I think asexuality is to some extent a gift that can be embraced alongside love for humanity so that one can have an easier life, free of certain physical desires.

I've read a few stories about people feeling that being asexual made them 'broken' in some way. But when I started to find out what sexual attraction really meant (in my late 30s, yes, really) I had the opposite experience and it felt more like nearly everyone else was broken except for me! But in no way did that make me see asexuality as a gift.

[ElasticPlanet]

7 hours ago, CBC said:

In what way did you feel other people were broken?

Actually reading what I wrote there again the next day, maybe it does sound a bit judgemental, even by my usual ISTJ standards...

 

When I started to dig into the subject of asexuality online, I heard it defined as lack of sexual attraction. Which of course started me questioning the definition of sexual attraction itself. Since the usual kind of age, I've had what I now know is called romantic attraction. When I see or think about someone I like, my brain might spontaneously feed me fantasies about going on dates and doing other 'romantically coded' stuff with them, and the fantasies come packaged with a desire to do the same things in reality with that same person.

 

I was utterly gobsmacked when I started to find out from reading about it, that for most people, fantasies about, er, orgasm sharing and the activities and body parts involved in that, could also be triggered by thought of a particular person, spontaneous, involuntary and automatically linked to a desire to make them happen for real, and that that was the sort of thing people were talking about when they said 'sexual attraction'. I'd had no idea that was how anybody's mind worked, and it was just so alien to me!

[degenerate]

It's not the sex that's the problem, it's the unwanted consequences... society needs to work harder at removing the unwanted consequences of sex for people. Most people really enjoy sex and experience something akin to a need for it- so I consider it a human rights issue to try and make sex something that these people can enjoy freely without fear of abuse, STDs, unwanted pregnancy, etc. I don't understand why so many people seem to want to stop others from having safe, enjoyable, consequences-free sex. There really does seem to be a campaign against this, particularly against women.  

[SorryNotSorry]

On 6/17/2019 at 4:50 AM, Galactic Turtle said:

I have largely negative views about sex as I find pretty much every aspect of it to be unnecessarily risky and unwise. It just so happens that without PIV sex we'd be extinct. Luckily there are so many of us now that as an individual I feel no guilt not adding to the population. I don't go around telling people they should be like me or that I'm better than them, but if I were to ever speak freely about my views on sex I know it would not be received well since my audience would most likely entirely consist of sexually active people. I think my views on sex were influenced by how it was pitched to me as a concept when I was younger through school gossip and media. Nevertheless, when my peers come running to me for advice for their problems caused by their sexual desires, I can't help but think I lucked out being devoid of them. I had waited for those urges to hit me during puberty suddenly like some sort of spell of madness because from my point of view that is exactly what was happening. One day a friend wouldn't even know some boy existed then the next this near stranger was the only person they could think about. Then two months later they wouldn't matter at all and it would be someone else.

 

 

Your perspective isn't much different from my own.

[Liana]

I think that there can be downsides and that an excessive obsession that is 1 notch down from being a religion isn’t positive. 

 

As an example, there’s an internet challenge that is to go a month without masturbating. Within 2 days of the month for the challenge, half of my friends were complaining about how difficult and painful it was. I may or may not have been laughing at them the entire time. I think that would be considered an addiction there.

 

Some aspects to sex (orgasm) could be considered a drug. It results in hormones and neurotransmitters flooding the brain, which alters perception and cognitive ability (could be wrong, since I have 0 anecdotal evidence). No clue if it’s enough of a change to alter memory pathways or not.

 

Without it, none of us would exist here to talk about it. It is the reason for continuation of the human race and for genetic change. It has importance in this world, but excessive worship of it like some people seem to do can be harmful and problematic. Simple absistence could help prevent problems such as teenage pregnancies (where someone doesn’t have the means to take care of what they make) and the spreading of STDs. 

 

It is however ignorant to think that not feeling a drive for it or desire to do it makes us superior. Most likely the vast majority of us here originated from 2 people having sex, and those that didn’t were probably from people that tried to that way first. 

[Guest]

I think the vast majority of what I do during any given day is a waste of time that makes no major difference in the world, and I think that's true of the vast majority of what all of you do during any given day as well. I think spending too much time fiddling alone with a guitar is likely to turn you into a dbag, too much time playing video games will reroute your brain toward instant gratification, too much work will make you neurotic... 

 

If you remove pregnancy from the equation, your risk factor is pretty low. Just an activity with a few pros and cons, like everything else. 

[Anthracite_Impreza]

1 hour ago, Skullery Maid said:

too much time playing video games will reroute your brain toward instant gratification

Depends what games you're playing, most of mine are long winded strategy

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

Depends what games you're playing, most of mine are long winded strategy

Those weren't necessarily scientifically backed claims 😂

[everywhere and nowhere]

On 6/17/2019 at 6:49 AM, uhtred said:

Your post: " .... sex outside of marriage or a committed relationship probably shouldn’t be something people take as lightly as they do in the Western world."   There I disagree.  This is suggesting how other people should think about their lifestyle. 

But this isn't saying "You should never have sex outside a relationship! I know better and you should do what I tell you!". It's just saying that perhaps it's harmful to many people if it's taken lightly. And here I agree. Normalisation of casual sex has lead a lot of people - including asexuals who either would genuinely want to try or were lead to believe that they "should" try sex - to consider such circumstances as a first sexual experience. And casual sex is a deeply suboptimal environment for a first sexual experience. It's completely normal to be anxious about one's first time and therefore if someone truly wants to do it, it should be with someone whom they know they can trust. Not necessarily a partner, but perhaps a friend. When hooking up with someone, one has no way of knowing whether the other person is trustworthy enough, even if they make sure to say that this is their first experience and the other person promises to consider that.

I'm sorry, but I just can't perceive sex without committment as something right. I'm not going to force my beliefs on other people, but I believe that sex is something which should be done out of love, affection, and not only for "fun". Aren't people allowed to be more conservative about sex anymore?

People are going to do what they want anyway, but I don't think that casual sex should be portrayed in a way which makes people wonder whether they are "prudes", "close-minded" or "unadventurous" if they would personally never have sex with someone they don't love and don't know well enough. For some people it's fine - and let me just disagree with them - but for some people it's never a good choice and these people shouldn't be made to believe that connecting feelings to sex is some outdated superstition.

[everywhere and nowhere]

1 hour ago, CBC said:

Has it? That's just speculation, is it not? 

"A lot" may be speculation, but such cases happening - this is a fact. I have seen such people.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

Far as I'm concerned, as long as I'm left out of it, the reasons for and amount of sex other people have are absolutely fuck all to do with me. I find asexuals moralising about sex painfully ironic.

[ElasticPlanet]

2 hours ago, Nowhere Girl said:

I just can't perceive sex without committment as something right. I'm not going to force my beliefs on other people, but I believe that sex is something which should be done out of love, affection, and not only for "fun".

I understand this line of thought... but, I also tend to think of commitment as something you'd build on the basis of compatibility. So it'd make sense to test your level of sexual compatibility before getting too far along the commitment route. Far enough to have achieved the trust and communication needed, of course.

[Homer]

8 hours ago, Darth Plagueis the Wise said:

As an example, there’s an internet challenge that is to go a month without masturbating. Within 2 days of the month for the challenge, half of my friends were complaining about how difficult and painful it was. I may or may not have been laughing at them the entire time. I think that would be considered an addiction there.

Thing is that no matter whether you enjoy doing it or not, it's a bodily function. Your body keeps producing semen and there's only so much storage space... it is possible to reduce the frequency if you reduce it gradually, so your body will learn to adjust to these fewer chances to find relief. However if you go from, say, daily masturbation to no masturbation from one day to the next, it's not going to work.

 

That is not an addiction by any means. (Also I'm not sure what the point of this challenge is, but I'm old )

[uhtred]

4 hours ago, Nowhere Girl said:

snip

 Normalisation of casual sex has lead a lot of people - including asexuals who either would genuinely want to try or were lead to believe that they "should" try sex - to consider such circumstances as a first sexual experience. And casual sex is a deeply suboptimal environment for a first sexual experience. It's completely normal to be anxious about one's first time and therefore if someone truly wants to do it, it should be with someone whom they know they can trust. Not necessarily a partner, but perhaps a friend. When hooking up with someone, one has no way of knowing whether the other person is trustworthy enough, even if they make sure to say that this is their first experience and the other person promises to consider that.

I'm sorry, but I just can't perceive sex without committment as something right. I'm not going to force my beliefs on other people, but I believe that sex is something which should be done out of love, affection, and not only for "fun". Aren't people allowed to be more conservative about sex anymore?

snip

I think it depends on how to interpret your position.  I think its completely fine for you to think that casual sex is generally bad. Where it gets tricky is the extent to which its OK to tell others how you feel.  (Not talking freedom of speech - IMHO anyone is free to say just about anything), but rather what is the preferred behavior. 

 

I tend to agree with you about not liking casual sex *myself* but arguments about what is "normal" can sound a lot like those made against homosexuality. 

 

I'm not sure, but I think "first sexual experience" can mean something very different these days.  In the past, people, especially women, often would go into their first sexual experience with almost no knowledge and no experience.  The wedding night was a dramatic (and maybe traumatic) event.   Now though I think most people tend to more gradually engage in sexual behavior from kisses, to fondling ,oral sex etc, and I think most have access to a great range of information about sex.  Other than a somewhat arbitrary definition of "virginity", I think things are much more gradual now.

 

My feeling is that peoples personalities vary a lot.  Some people are "wired" in a way that casual sex works for them, others are not.  It would not work for  me, but I don't have any problems with other people engaging if it works for them. 

[Karst]

In my opinion, sex isn't inherently bad or good.  It provides some of us with tremendous pleasure and comfort, but it can have horrific unintended consequences (for example, the AIDS epidemic) and be wielded as a weapon to harm others physically and emotionally.

I also think that modern society puts too much pressure on people to have sexual experiences as soon as possible.  Even people who aren't asexual may not be emotionally ready for sex until they're a bit older, or need a strong emotional connection to their partner.  In addition, we should respect people whose personal preferences or religious/ethical beliefs preclude casual sex.  Looking down on those who are cautious or restrained about sex is every bit as bad as slut-shaming.

[everywhere and nowhere]

3 hours ago, Homer said:

Thing is that no matter whether you enjoy doing it or not, it's a bodily function. Your body keeps producing semen and there's only so much storage space... it is possible to reduce the frequency if you reduce it gradually, so your body will learn to adjust to these fewer chances to find relief. However if you go from, say, daily masturbation to no masturbation from one day to the next, it's not going to work.

 

That is not an addiction by any means. (Also I'm not sure what the point of this challenge is, but I'm old )

I don't think that is true. If a man doesn't ejaculate, his body just won't produce more semen until it's needed. It's not like men's testicles are constantly on the verge of bursting... It's rather 90% psychological habituation.

Then, there's nothing wrong with self-pleasuring. But there's also nothing wrong with not self-pleasuring and there's nothing wrong with taking challenges. On the other hand, I'm fairly disgusted by this kind of conversations in which guys seems to brag about who is more addicted to sexual stuff...

[Homer]

1 hour ago, Nowhere Girl said:

If a man doesn't ejaculate, his body just won't produce more semen until it's needed. It's not like men's testicles are constantly on the verge of bursting... It's rather 90% psychological habituation.

The body adjusts to your habits. If you ejaculate every day, your body will be ready to ejaculate every day. If you do it once a month, it will adjust to that. It's just something that takes a bit of time to adjust to. From what I've heard, breastfeeding works about the same way. If you always feed the baby at 7am, your body will have milk ready at 7am. If you suddenly stop feeding it at 7am to switch to 3am, the breasts won't be as, er, fruitful. (I heard that the body is really quick in adjusting when it comes to breastfeeding, so the issue would probably be solved in a day or two tops. It's a bit different for people with penises.)

 

Source: I have a penis and a pair of testicles.