Asexuals are Sub-Human

[Natalie86]

I don't know if anyone saw the Jan. 19 issue of "Time" magazine that had the huge sex feature, but I was reading it last night for a school paper, and this is how one of the articles ended:

It's clear that human beings would not be fully Homo sapiens-at least not as we've come to know ourselves- without the great, mysterious, preposterous pageant of our sexuality."

Nice, huh? I love how dramatic and passionate sexuals get when they talk about how *magical* and *profound* it all is.

~Aspen

[KAGU143]

" ... at least as we've come to know ourselves ... "

That conclusion just shows how severely humanity's preoccupation with sex has warped our (their) ability to make objective decisions!

-Greybird

[mm10646]

i disagree with that statement on so many levels i don't know where to start but what jumps into my mind first is....... what makes us 'human'?....wouldn't those qualities be intelligence, compassion, accomplishments, ect? and sex when it is abused and exploited like it appears to be a great deal of the time destroys these qualities. i don't think its always the case but it certainly is evident in the way women are oppressed and the media promotes self worth based on appearance and sexuality. i mean animals have sex and so how on earth does this make any more human? i would see it as being the opposite.

[mindlife]

I used to buy that lie.

When I was in high school I often referred to my peers as humans.

I left myself out of that set.

I just didn't feel very human by their defintion of it.

I still don't.

[Des]

put objective observation on the scales against deep-looking thought about sex and see which one sells more magazines.

[IT]

Most animals reproduce by being sexual.

Being a human being and being sexual is just the sort of behaviour that many mammals and insects exhibit.

Humans having sex therefore does not make them any more unique than any other animal on this planet.

This means that sexuality or asexuality is irrelevant to the criteria of being a full Homo sapien. Sexuals therefore cannot view themselves any more human than asexuals.

[Ineptitude]

What IT Wiz said.

But by sexuality does it mean having sex or just the capability to do so? Not that it really matters, for the reasons mentioned above.

[Guest]

:roll:

So in primary school, when we sang songs about how "we are all humans," it was a lie?!?

[Adnama]

I'm refured to [and think of my self as] my own species for many more reasons than my asexuality.

Really though, people put WAY to much emphasis on sex though... I mean... get over it!

They had this abstinance presentation at school a bit ago, which was actually pretty good, and they gave us these little pamphlets, and one section is entitled "What to say if someone says..."

And one of them which I think applies here is

"If you were a real man you'd have sex with me!"

To which the responce is "My dog has sex and he's not a real man."

My favorite is "It's ok, I have protection!"

"You're going to -need- protection if you don't keep your hands off of me!"

Hehe

[Borrible Cal]

"It's clear that human beings would not be fully Homo sapiens-at least not as we've come to know ourselves- without the great, mysterious, preposterous pageant of our sexuality."

Well, maybe the species would be a bit different--niceer, for a start! I think their list of adjectives is a bit dodgy, though. Great? Definitely not, given how much misery and suffering it's been responsible for. Mysterious? Well, not really, except in the sense that I can't work out why anyone would want to bother with it in the first place. Preposterous? Now that's more like it...

Still, I suppose one out of three's not bad.

I love how dramatic and passionate sexuals get when they talk about how *magical* and *profound* it all is.

At moments like that, I always want to quote Hamlet: 'The lady doth protest too much, methinks!' I frequently get the sense that many practising sexual people feel, at some level, that their personal experience of sexuality is not the wonderful thing myth tells them it should be, so they ramp up the rhetoric rather in reaction--trying to convince themsleves as much as anyone else, that sex is as wonderful as we're always told.

I don't know if that applies here, though--this seems more like direct myth-speaking (any surprise how close that is to mis-speaking?).

Borrible Cal.

[AVENguy]

Grr... abstinence only education...

Anyone interested in writing a LETTER to time. I might...

[fluffy_hime]

Meh. The ole argument "you must have sexuality to be human." Seen it. Human beings as a whole are so depraved, not one of them really has any place to tell anyone else they are less-than-human.

Anyway, I don't think the article is saying a lack of sexuality equals subhumanity. They're probably just going with the 60s/70s-esque movement of embracing all parts of oneself, including the always controversial sexuality part.

[Jayann]

Hell, if anything, bonobos are more in touch with their sexual culture than humans are. Whereas humans (and chimps) tend to solve sex issues with power, bonobos resolved power issues with sex. It's used as a great equalizer among them, and their employment of sexuality in ritual and in daily affairs help to keep their social groups running smoothly.

Compared to them, most humans are pretty antisexual.

[Natalie86]

I'm refured to [and think of my self as] my own species for many more reasons than my asexuality.

I kinda always thought that maybe I was meant to be a tree instead of a human, standing alone and watching the world go by. Anyone else have any thoughts on what species you were "supposed" to be?

~Aspen

[mindlife]

Tressa,

I'm human in my own estimation, perhaps not human in "theirs."

That was how I felt in junior high & high school.

When you don't fit in, define humanity for yourself- frame it in terms you can live with.

[Guest]

When you don't fit in, define humanity for yourself- frame it in terms you can live with.

Too true. If people were themselves instead of conforming to what they "should be," think of how happier we'd all be. But I suppose that could fit a whole other thread...

[fluffy_hime]

Silly nymphomanic bonobos.

Interesting question, Aspen. I think I'll stick with human. The question reminds me of the Ents in LoTR. I LOVE the Ents in the movie, though in the books they were kinda boring. I like when they're flooding Isengard and all the trees brace against the water and one tree puts the fire out on his head. Hehehe...crazy trees.

[VivreEstEsperer]

So in primary school, when we sang songs about how "we are all humans," it was a lie?!?

Ha! I'm with Tressa!

The people who wrote that at Time are idiots, idiots, idiots, and sex obsessed. You have to be sex obsessed to write something like that. Either that or wanting the money that would come from writing an article that came up with a conclusion like that (aimed at sexual people) and putting the sensationalism of pushing a certain view of sexuality over journalistic integrity.

And funny, that's just what we were talking about in my communications/tv class today, about making a point over being accurate. Interesting tie-in.

Kate

[Friendly]

WHAT? :evil: That's bull, in my humble opinion. We are NOT subhuman just because we feel no need to have sex and make babies. I don't condone that theory, even though my literary idol (Shakespeare) condones sex. ("The world must be peopled!" Benedick in Much Ado and "Let copulation thrive!" Lear) It might just be me, but, I think we could possibly be a little more highly evolved than those sexuals. We have one less thing to distract us from doing all sorts of cool stuff.

[LostDaemon]

Hrmph.

We can either succumb to the myth of asexual superiority as a comfort from the depredations of a sexual society, and think ourselves above sexuals because we don't waste time and energy upon mating activities, or we can accept the normalisation of hypersexuality in sexual society. Neither is correct. We're no better than sexuals, we're just different. However, damn it, we're certainly not inherently inferior in any way to sexuals because we couldn't be bothered with ridiculous mating behaviours.

No good way to think about it except as we're fine the way we are, and anyone that thinks otherwise can shove off.

That wasn't coherent, sorry. I'm a bit cranky today.

-LD

[IT]

The basic requirement of most animals is to eat, sleep and have sex to keep their species alive.

Humans are at them top of the food chain because in addition to eating, sleeping and having sex they can form complex social groups, invent things, stimulate their minds with art, poetry, sports, web forums and many other activities to increase the enjoyment and meaning of their existence.

The challenge for asexual humans is to break free from the mental and social restrictions of the sexual world around them and to contribute to the world with the added bonus that rampant sexual desire cannot get in the way of their spiritual development.

In fully accepting who we are we could in fact find it easier to be rounded human beings than many sexuals weighed down by the desire procreate without being able to control those basic animalistic sexual tendency's.

Asexuals by enlarge have little chance of, for example, succumbing to uncontrollable lust that results in an unwanted pregnancy and an unloved child. Our relationships and marriages will not faulter because we couldn't resist having sex with the stranger we met in the pub who had huge breasts or big muscles.

If you can speak in a complex language to another human being, sexual or asexual then you MUST be a human being.

Colin

[hizbollah]

Nice, huh? I love how dramatic and passionate sexuals get when they talk about how *magical* and *profound* it all is.

it *can* be both magical and profoud, but that doesn't mean people of an asexual nature cannot experience the same feelings in a different way.

[Jayann]

*points up at LD's post* The woman took the words right out of my mouth.

Perhaps I'm a bit cranky as well.

[Gorax]

It's come to the point where I don't even comment on ridiculous passages such as the one listed in the first post. Sure, I read the thread, I agree with everything, but my only true response is just "Hahaha!"

[davelwhite]

Hell, if anything, bonobos are more in touch with their sexual culture than humans are. Whereas humans (and chimps) tend to solve sex issues with power, bonobos resolved power issues with sex. It's used as a great equalizer among them, and their employment of sexuality in ritual and in daily affairs help to keep their social groups running smoothly.

True, as far as I know, but I read an interesting article or book (forget where) that explained how it could have evolved genetically that so many animals engage in homosexuality or bisexuality (including bonobos) and their theory was basically that since sex was obviously not serving solely a reproductive function in many of these animals, maybe one of its primary functions was communication (as with the bonobo example-- I've heard that they are very bisexual).

Of course, in all things evolutionary, sometimes a species retains the capacity for doing something (walking on all fours, communicating via sex) even after it has evolved something else with greater capabilities (walking on two feet and having opposable thumbs, or communicating using actual LANGUAGE). Which isn't to say that physical affection or sex don't have any place as communication now that we have passed beyond the ape phase of our evolution-- they do-- but it could be argued that sex as a form of bonding is really the older, pre-human form of communication. Now that we have words, and the many skills and trades we can use to communicate commitment to each other (creating art or music, building shared housing, etc.), these specifically human behaviors are much more expressive in so many situations.

So as far as sex being this sacred form of bonding and intimacy that nothing else can match, it is kind of like saying that walking on all fours is the most sacred form of transportation, because it was the first. Just as people say that mere friendship isn't "REAL love," we should say that walking, or bicycling, or driving a car to San Francisco, isn't "REAL travel." You go back and walk to San Fran on your hands and knees, and I'll know you're REALLY committed. :)

dave