What if the whole world were asexual and aromantic?

[BunnyK.]

My point is that most people don't do it properly or safely.

And how would you know?

Are you God, that you can look down on the lives of all sexuals and determine whether their use of sex is "safe and proper"? Are you like The Shadow, who knows what lurks in the hearts of men?

Honestly, I just don't think so, and I don't think you have the right to say that people aren't handling sex well, when it's not something you engage in or understand. I understand that you may have had bad experiences that gave you a certain perspective, and I understand that you may have heard a lot of people complaining about this or that - but you have to keep in mind that comparatively few people are in your situation as far as being transgender, and that is going to affect the way you see things. And people complain a LOT when things are bad, because that's way more interesting to talk about than when things are going great.

It seems to me that what you're basically saying is that you know better than the majority of sexuals what's good for them. I submit that you don't know what's best for everyone. If it was really that bad out in the sexual world, sexuals would change - we may have bodily urges that asexuals don't, but that doesn't make us stupid or masochists (well, not all of us :lol: ). Most sexual people are capable of living without sex, and would, if the risk outweighed the benefits enough. But from our perspective, they don't. Saying that sexuality is like "dynamite in the hands of a four-year-old" is just plain condescending - and clearly untrue, because almost everyone I know has sex, and no one has blown up yet.

[Gatto]

.

[BunnyK.]

Dynamite in the hands of a four year old is relatively safe, actually. It's hard to set off without a blasting cap.

Maybe not quite as safe as a gun with no bullets.

:lol:

Maybe GirlInside was right without quite meaning to be!

[Jordan]

I think it would solve some big problems in the world. Not all, just SOME.

If we want the world to do it, we SHOULD NOT FORCE people to adopt this society. People who want to live this way should start a "Little Society" somewhere, like the Chinatowns and Little Tokyos, and see how it goes.

I'm sorry but for all the posts that said the world would be boring without sex border on the lunatic. I like to do many things for fun and survival without the need or thought for sex. I'm not saying sex is horrible. Sex creates families and can destroy families.

Napoleon Bonaparte had this interesting quote, "Women are nothing but machines for producing children."

And people complain a LOT when things are bad, because that's way more interesting to talk about than when things are going great.

That sounds like you would except slavery.

[Atheno]

I'm too lazy to read what everyone's said, but the talk about how the population would go about it, it should be voluntary (or not), and all that seems sort of silly. I mean, I'd guess this was just sort of meant as a speculative question, not anything that's ever likely to happen. I wish it would happen, but I don't think the point is whether or not it's actually going to, and as much as I'd like it to, I'd be really really surprised if it did.

Anyways, yeah, I think it'd be better. Someone mentioned we'd have less reason to approach strangers. There'd still be plenty reason to approach strangers... they might be interesting. So they'd be approached in a better, more honest manner. Sure, people like sex but there are too many complications, too many STDs, too many unwanted pregnancies, too much heartache; friendship is best, not what we have now. There's still plenty of interesting things, activities, and what have you as people here know.

[GirlInside]

Jordan, Atheno, thank you both very much. :)

[Trogdor]

IVF fertilization, the only alternative to sexual reproduction, is very time-consuming and resource-intensive. If the entire world used it, the world economy would head into the shitter. In addition, many people in the third world (and the poor in the first world) would not be able to afford it at all and large groups of people would all but go extinct in a few generations. The precipitous drop in population would starve the rich people of labor and resources, making it harder and harder for them to continue the IVF program. A lack of young people would leave the elderly in destitute poverty. Eventually, widespread disorder and total social collapse would put an end to the IVF program. If the entire world were asexual, I believe the human race would go extinct in five or six generations.

Of course, this might actually make the world a better place. Choosing my vote here was very difficult.

[Satori]

The whole point of having children to most couples, is sharing something with your partner. Having their child, and sharing that experience with them. You sort of lose that aspect of having children, when you go pick from a catalogue, on which father you'd prefer receiving the insemination from.

There are already some single women who go to sperm banks.

I have a child as a result of DI and maybe its selfish but it never occurred to me that having a child should be an experience to share with someone. From the time I was a small child having a child as a single mother by choice has always been in my mind. I honestly can't imagine doing this (pregnancy and parenting) with a partner. DI was a means to an end and honestly, getting pregnant without having to get near a penis was quite nice and for once I was the one who got to roll over an go to sleep after it was over with no guilt of "did my partner enjoy themselves too?" lol:)

[Satori]

IVF fertilization, the only alternative to sexual reproduction, is very time-consuming and resource-intensive. If the entire world used it, the world economy would head into the shitter. In addition, many people in the third world (and the poor in the first world) would not be able to afford it at all and large groups of people would all but go extinct in a few generations. The precipitous drop in population would starve the rich people of labor and resources, making it harder and harder for them to continue the IVF program. A lack of young people would leave the elderly in destitute poverty. Eventually, widespread disorder and total social collapse would put an end to the IVF program. If the entire world were asexual, I believe the human race would go extinct in five or six generations.

Of course, this might actually make the world a better place. Choosing my vote here was very difficult.

IVF is not the only route for having children without sex. If memory serves, the entire process cost me a whopping $350 US dollars for 1 AI cycle (which worked). Now if I'd had to use IVF then yeah it would be more like $16-20k and even more if I had to use a surrogate but I did simple home AI, little vial came in a liquid nitro tank, it was simple and 2 weeks later I found out I was pregnant. If I'd been willing to use a known donor (i.e. friend) it would have been free. Its a great misconception that fertility treatment is super expensive and that IVF is all thats available. IVF is the 2nd to last stop to fertility treatment but there's things like ICI, IUI, and a few others along that way that are much cheaper then IVF and are usually tried for a year before IVF.

[Guest Pelagic]

...

[Jordan]

IVF fertilization, the only alternative to sexual reproduction, is very time-consuming and resource-intensive. If the entire world used it, the world economy would head into the shitter. In addition, many people in the third world (and the poor in the first world) would not be able to afford it at all and large groups of people would all but go extinct in a few generations. The precipitous drop in population would starve the rich people of labor and resources, making it harder and harder for them to continue the IVF program. A lack of young people would leave the elderly in destitute poverty. Eventually, widespread disorder and total social collapse would put an end to the IVF program. If the entire world were asexual, I believe the human race would go extinct in five or six generations.

Of course, this might actually make the world a better place. Choosing my vote here was very difficult.

We don't have the tecnology NOW, but that will change in the next 20 to 30 years.

[SorryNotSorry]

The thread "Blessed are the asexuals" got me thinking.

If the entire world became asexual and aromantic, and we all reproduced through in vitro fertilization and gestating fetuses in a tank, what do you think the consequences would be?

Personally, I think the change could only be for the better, because our minds would be more free to pursue other things, and we would be more free to be ourselves without worrying about how it affects our romantic/sex lives.

Hard to tell. Even virgin births will produce a few people who will be prone to doing stupid things, and that would be bad.

OTOH it would be good, because we'd roll our eyes at sex-filled advertising. We'd also have more time to compose music and write books, when we could be wasting our time on sex.

We'd practically eliminate STDs, which would be good... but then doctors who treat STDs would be unemployed, which would be bad.

Go figure.

[waterbear]

Definitely better, I miss being a child when everything was (relatively) aromantic and asexual.