Why is Asexuality present in humanity?

[Nonz16]

its our orientation definitely, we can't help it

[grape]

It's my personal opinion that asexuals are freaks of nature. I wouldn't consider it an orientation so much as a glitch much like homosexuality. I know it's not the popular theory, but let's face it, it goes against every natural animal instinct to procreate for the survival of the species. I'm well aware that there can be signs of such things in other animals, but that doesn't mean they're not freaks too. Just to clarify, I don't think it's morally wrong, I just think it's unnatural. On that note, I consider homosexuality an orientation, but not asexual. I equate it with religion and how atheism isn't a religion because it's the absence of theism much like how asexual is the absence of a sexual orientation. But that's just my one person's opinion.

I mean, not that there's anything wrong with being unnatural. :)

[Vampireseal]

I put down other. I'm not going to claim I know the origins of asexuality, but it merits mentioning that Bonobos, one of our dear closest ape relatives, do go through an asexual period. Or rather the female bonobos go through an asexual period, mainly when they leave the tribe of their mother to join a troop of other bonobos. During this transition, the normally flaming omnisexual bonobo goes through a curious asexual state.

I just wanted to throw that out there.

[mypsychoticself]

While I do think that asexuality is more nature than nurture (if nurture is involved at all), I think it has less to do with evolution and more to do with the bell curve. The majority of the population has an average amount of sexuality, a small percent is addicted to sex, and a small percent couldn't care less about sex.

[Guest Pelagic]

I believe that orientation is fluid, just as we are.

We are always changing, we are never EVER the same person for more than a moment.

Sexuality is no different. It is always changing to some degree.

But I also am starting to think that it's evolution.

If you believe it's a mutation, then that's evolution. Evolution consists of only mutations...

I voted other, because I stand by the "orientation is fluid" opinion.

[Sammie]

It's my personal opinion that asexuals are freaks of nature. I wouldn't consider it an orientation so much as a glitch much like homosexuality. I know it's not the popular theory, but let's face it, it goes against every natural animal instinct to procreate for the survival of the species. I'm well aware that there can be signs of such things in other animals, but that doesn't mean they're not freaks too. Just to clarify, I don't think it's morally wrong, I just think it's unnatural. On that note, I consider homosexuality an orientation, but not asexual. I equate it with religion and how atheism isn't a religion because it's the absence of theism much like how asexual is the absence of a sexual orientation. But that's just my one person's opinion.

I mean, not that there's anything wrong with being unnatural. :)

Just wondering what you thought of my earlier post:

Asexuality or homosexuality or celibacy or very late marriage or more of the above, are accepted and widely practiced in a lot of cultures to limit the amount of children born. This is socially-biologicaly sensible in a survival-of-the-fittest kind of way: When less children are born, there's more care, food, etc for the one's that are born and they therefor have a better chance of survival and strength in mature life. Also, the group as a whole is stronger because it doesn't need to spend all its time taking care of kids and can therefor spend more time on other aspects of survival.

Not everyone reproduces. Its perfectly natural, perfectly normal, and the smart move for a society.

I've heared a lot of people with opinions like yours, but never any that bothers to explain why it is healthy for a society/group/herd for everyone to procreate.

[KAGU143]

In social species it is definitely to the advantage of the group if all of the members of the group don't reproduce. In solitary species the situation might be different.

Interestingly, as far as I know, the documented cases of animals which appear to be asexual have all been observed in social species, ie: rats, sheep, horses, scrub jays, etc.

I don't know why asexuality is present in humans but I'm sure that it's for the same reason that it's found in other animals.

-GB

[Sally]

Orientation is the "how" (and I think orientation is biological, not caused after birth), but that doesn't say why asexuality is present in humanity (which implies cause).

Whatever the cause is (and I don't know enough about genetics or evolution to say anything intelligent), when you think about it, homosexuality doesn't serve reproduction any better than being asexual, since homosexuals couldn't reproduce without the help of heterosexuals until artificial insemination was developed. So anything other than straight heterosexuality -- hmm, redundacy there --didn't serve the propagation of the race.

I think all that stuff is just a "sport" -- like plants developing differences from their parent plants. But then I don't know what I'm talking about there, either.

Help, someone who knows!

[Sammie]

In social species it is definitely to the advantage of the group if all of the members of the group don't reproduce. In solitary species the situation might be different.Interestingly, as far as I know, the documented cases of animals which appear to be asexual have all been observed in social species, ie: rats, sheep, horses, scrub jays, etc.

Now thta you mention it, I've also read that these 'social species' have a special way of caring for the survival of the fittest: they safeguard not only their own childrne, but anyone carrying genes very similar to them. Brothers, sisters, mothers. The more genes, the stronger the instinct to protect them.

So.... asexuals, not reproducing naturally themselves.... must be family people? lol.

[matt1285]

Quite simple really

Across humanity as a whole there is an average level of sexual activity. Most people get it right, but some get too much, and thus some have to get too little to ensure the balence is kept. :D 8)

[Solodancer1]

To free at least some of us to think about something INTERESTING now and then, so such thoughts can exist somewhere in this gigantic universe.

[Rix]

In the new testament there is a passage which says that some are enuchs by birth.

I take that to be a veiled reference to asexuality.

[Solodancer1]

In the new testament there is a passage which says that some are enuchs by birth.

I take that to be a veiled reference to asexuality.

Yeah, I think St. Paul was one. In Heaven people will be like angels, who are asexual too.

[Sally]

Odd little website stumbled upon:

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/...-vs-nature.html

[SoleilSmile]

I think asexuals exist so we won't over breed as a species.

[asexysjsfan]

Semi-regular mutation.

I think a lot more people are asexual than people think, they just don't have a clue about what it is though.

Unfortunately, I don't think it will ever amount to a larger amount of the population because, in being asexual, it is selected against.

I think asexuality could play a vital role in our future, especially with regards to overcrowding... I envision a huge step back to the conservative roles of sexuality being influenced by asexuality (and eventually anti-sexuality if need be), but the vast majority of the population will always be sexual.

[squiggle]

to make the world a more interesting and diverse place, I think. To provide a contrast to orientations that are dependent upon sexuality. And because we rock! :cake: :cake: :cake:

[Sciatrix]

I suspect that asexuality is caused by a variety of genetic or environmental factors (or a combination of both, depending on the case) which interfere with the development of sexual attraction before birth. I also think asexuals may simply be a function of genetic variability and we're just the farthest on the "hyposexual" side of the curve (as opposed to hypersexuals).

ETA: Opinions like "asexuals evolved so we don't overpopulate the planet" and "asexuals evolved so that you'd have more caretakers of offspring" don't fit with basic evolutionary theory. First off, evolution doesn't care if a species exceeds its habitat's limits; as far as Nature is concerned, you'll just winnow out the less fit if that happens by encouraging animals which can forage enough to survive (or, in humanity's case, survive the effects of global warming). Second, Hamilton's Rule, which explains the evolution of altruistic behaviors (including social insects) refutes the idea that asexual humans have evolved as caretakers for others' offspring. Hamilton's Rule states that altruistic behaviors will be favored only as long as the likelihood of shared genes between individuals times the reproductive advantage gained by the altruist outweighs the cost of the altruistic behaviors. Humans, because of our sex system, don't share enough genes between, say, sisters and brother to evolve the kind of sterile females which social insects have. (Female bees share more genes with their sisters than with their own offspring or brothers because of the way their sex system works.) In our case, the evolutionary cost of not having offspring outweighs the possible advantage of helping our relatives' children survive to adulthood.

Because asexuals often have children and reproduce, even if they do not do so accidentally as often as sexuals do, the mutation as such might remain in the population. Ditto with homosexuality, as a matter of fact, but at least in males another factor increasing the frequency of gay men in the population has been noted (i.e., their sisters tend to have more children than those women who do not have gay males in their family).

[smiling.trees]

ok. this is a weird theory. Perhaps there are asexuals (as ell as homosexuals and a little of bisexuals) in order to control overpopulation. Nature has weird ways of working itself out. Obviously, if certain people don't experience sexual attraction, they will be less likely to have sex and reproduce. Maybe this is compensation for the baby boomers? I don't know. As I said, it is a weird theory.

As for who would be asexual and who would be sexual, the process is the same as what determines whether a person is gay, straight, or bi, whatever that may be. I think sometimes it is determined by genetics. I think that a person can inherit asexuality or sexuality (as well as homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality), or the person may have genes turned on or off depending on unknown environmental factors. Such changes in environment would account for an asexual born into a sexual family or vice-versa.

Please let me know whether or not you think I'm crazy.

[smiling.trees]

Oopps. Sorry! thats what I get for not reading the whole topic. ignore me, please.

[SilverCandleKid]

i like the evolution theory. it's not that i think we're removing ourselves from the gene pool, more like we're being about ten times (exaggeration/guestimation) more careful with our health (no STDs) and the gene pool itself (less reckless sex and accidental babies).

[Puiseag]

I would have to go with other, I think that it's because of the bell curve.