Guest IrishGirl Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 I picked definitely no for me since I don't see myself as needing a cure but others might choose yes if it made their relationships easier to maintain. Link to post Share on other sites
janine9999 Posted December 31, 2005 Share Posted December 31, 2005 ................................................. Link to post Share on other sites
Adelaine Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 DEFINITELY NOT I'm at a point when I have really good feelings about this, so why turning back to absolve all this psychical tests inside of me again? But if there will be any cure, I will stick up for everybody who wants to take a cure. Link to post Share on other sites
starrysky Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Hell yeah I would get cured in a second. I have spent thousands of dollars over the years on therapists, both individual and with my husband, even taken an anti-depressant with a side effect of increased sex drive (I don't know what it did to my sex drive because it sent my blood pressure way up--I spent 3 weeks with a splitting headache before I gave up and stopped taking them). It would be a miracle not to have to think every damn day 'how long has it been since we had sex, is it almost time to do it again' and have it hanging over my head like a student dreading a final exam. The contradiction of doing the thing I hate most, with the person I love most, has been driving me nuts until I feel like at times I might have a nervous breakdown. Link to post Share on other sites
Brodertun Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 I was always of the impression that an asexual is one who wouldn't even bother to seek out a cure. Hence the difference between medical problem and asexuality. I couldn't imagine even considering changing my inherent thought processes and feelings just so I could engage in a needless act that others enjoy. Link to post Share on other sites
starrysky Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 I was always of the impression that an asexual is one who wouldn't even bother to seek out a cure. Hence the difference between medical problem and asexuality. Are you saying that people who want to be cured have a medical problem and aren't really asexual? If so what is the name of the medical problem? I've asked every doctor I've been to in the past several years, but none of them can find anything wrong with me. The last one told me that even if a woman's hormones are out of whack and cause her not to have a sex drive, there is nothing that can be done to fix it... all you can do is say "ah so that is why." I did not make a choice to be this way, but I have no medical problem either... not sure what that makes me. Link to post Share on other sites
Bahamut240 Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 I would never change, ever. Being asexual is liberating, I am freed from sexual disire, I dont have to worry about STDs or making babies. I dont have to be distracted when an attractive lady walks by and I cant be taken advanage of by the other party using sex as tool to get what they want (which does seem to happen in sexual relationships.) Some people spend their entire lives enduring discomfort in order to remain celibate. I have been given a gift, and I would never want to get rid of it. In the same way, I cannot smell anything, and I would never want to. I dont know what it is to smell, so I dont miss anything, but I do know that there are a lot of stinky things in the world, and I am uneffected by them. Yeah, sexuals say that sex feels good, but if you listen to them for any period of time, there are a lot of less than good feelings that come as a result of sex. Link to post Share on other sites
Brodertun Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Are you saying that people who want to be cured have a medical problem and aren't really asexual? If so what is the name of the medical problem? Kind of. I have a medical disorder (I doubt my body has produced any testosterone since November) but I don't have a medical problem, because it doesn't bother me in the sex sense. It does bother me in the cancer sense, but without insurance i can't afford the pill, and the doctor did originally tell me that it was okay to not go on the pill in the beginning = I'd just have higher risk factors for other problems and would never know when/if I was going to ovulate I've asked every doctor I've been to in the past several years, but none of them can find anything wrong with me. The last one told me that even if a woman's hormones are out of whack and cause her not to have a sex drive, there is nothing that can be done to fix it... all you can do is say "ah so that is why." The common solution is to put the woman on birth control. I noticed the only time I really had sexual thoughts would be in the third week of the pills cycle, but I was asexual for the 10 years I had normal production of hormones, so I don't truly associate my asexualness with a zero presence of testosterone. And I was having hormones in the normal range at the time I had sex, and sex still didn't appeal to me. I did not make a choice to be this way, but I have no medical problem either... not sure what that makes me. If its a condition thats bothering you, than you do have a medical problem, even if you can't find a cure for it. The bothering you is the problem. Personally I can't begin to understand why it would bother you, aside from the fact it makes it nearly impossible to find a mate. Link to post Share on other sites
starrysky Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 The common solution is to put the woman on birth control. That is an odd solution, because everything I have ever heard says that birth control pills take away your sex drive, not help it. There was a news story a couple weeks ago about how birth control pills may keep on suppressing the sex drive by reducing testosterone production even a year after you've stopped taking them. (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=...+pill+sex+drive for several links to the story). I took the pill for 4 years and if anything, it made it worse instead of better. If its a condition thats bothering you, than you do have a medical problem, even if you can't find a cure for it. The bothering you is the problem.Personally I can't begin to understand why it would bother you, aside from the fact it makes it nearly impossible to find a mate. It bothers me because I am married to a person who wants to have sex. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I'm gonna vote for "don't know". Honestly, I wouldn't know. Maybe being sexual makes it easier to get/have relationships, 'cause the amount of fish in the sea would then be much bigger. But that would be the only reason why I'd even consider it. Hmm, I'm leaning toward probably not at the moment.... Could I try it out first, see if I like it or not, and not be irreversebly cured? :D Link to post Share on other sites
DarkcatXXC Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 My reaction to this question was more like, ABSOLUTELY NOT. This is part of me and who I am. I wouldn't change that for the world. Besides, I think we have more than enough sexual people already, we don't need anymore. Link to post Share on other sites
Ack42 Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 Talk of a cure for "abnormality" is the central theme of the "X-men 3" movie coming out in May. Apparently someone discovers a way to "cure" super mutants of their mutation. The mutant characters have a variety of reactions to the opportunity to be "cured" - as members of this board do to this topic... Link to post Share on other sites
sonofzeal Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 Talk of a cure for "abnormality" is the central theme of the "X-men 3" movie coming out in May. Apparently someone discovers a way to "cure" super mutants of their mutation. The mutant characters have a variety of reactions to the opportunity to be "cured" - as members of this board do to this topic... That's interesting - in the only issue I ever bought, all mutants were automatically "cured" by this weird technological thing. Basically the same idea though, they all had different reactions. Storm coped, but any sort of weather reminded her of what she'd lost. Rogue could touch people, but hates being touched (there was a great cut between images of her flirting with jetplanes among the clouds, and her crammed shoulder to shoulder in a subway). Marrow was overjoyed to be free of the pain and be "normal" again. Nightcrawler missed his powers, but managed. Angel started living it up as a playboy now that he could go to the beach without scaring people. Wolverine started dying of adamantine poisoning. Like real people, like US, they have a variety of reactions. The problem in our case would be the social pressure to take it. I'd rather be myself than be normal though. Link to post Share on other sites
Aeriel Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 I voted NO, no way would I want to be "cured". I would never wish to be a sexual. Sexuality seems to complicate people's lives so much, and override rational thought with animal compulsion. And as we age, it gets embarrassing...I have a dear friend who is 60, extremely sexual and still looking for someone, anyone, to sleep with. She gets emotionally involved with partners like she was still in college or something. To me this seems inappropriate and pathetic, not something I would ever want for myself. Horny old men are equally embarrassing. Link to post Share on other sites
Neurovore Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 No, because sex causes more trouble than it is really worth. I feel quite lucky to not have any motivation to bother with the whole business. Link to post Share on other sites
AotoSora Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 No way. I don't think I could get boyfriend if I wanted to, so why would I want to? Link to post Share on other sites
JokeyFairbobbin Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 I voted probably not. I'm not completely certain. On the one hand, it'd be nice to function normally in society, but on the other hand, it would be compromising part of what makes me me, and it seems like sex just gets in most people's way. Link to post Share on other sites
Elizabeth I Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 I had to respond "Don't know" or uncertain. I am fairly certain I would have a more fullfilling life if I were a masculine heterosexual male, but wouldn't anyone?. A "cure" would have to change my gender AND my preference, and would have to be without disabling side affects. That being said.....there are a GREAT many women my age who have been BEGGING medical researchers for a drug similar to viagara to treat female sexual dysfunction. The mental and emotional well being of women just doesn't seem to be of much consequence unless it seriously effects their ability to serve men! I have been told by more than one doctor that a female sexual dysfunction is not really a medical problem, because women do not have to be sexually aroused to participate in the sex act, (or more accurately...have it done to them) so it does not interfere with their reproductive freedom. If you happen to be past childbearing age ....it's just a moot point! Lizzie Link to post Share on other sites
Ziffler Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Actually this is more difficult that it first seems. Right now. No way, I have gotten used to myself and have accepted myself, so now I don't need a cure cause there isn't anything wrong with me. BUT! When I was a teen. I knew something was wrong with me. I can remember thinking it would be better to be gay and have a direction for all the pent up sexual urges that I had than be the way I was with no way to satisfy them with anyone. And remember, back in the 60's and 70's being homosexual was the lowest form of life on the planet, sorta like being a pedophile is today. So if I had been offered a pill to make me sexual then I probably would have taken it. Link to post Share on other sites
Boq Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Ziffler makes a good point, and that's about how I feel. I still think being asexual is far easier (if only socially) than being gay, even today, but sexuality is a part of life I would like to not only experience but understand. Nonetheless, I'm happy the way I am, so it's not something I worry about. Think of it this way: some people just plain don't like the taste of coffee. People can live their entire lives happily going along not drinking coffee. But say a guy is told by his father that "coffee is a very fulfilling part of life" and "tastes much better with cream and sugar" and whatnot. It's not a choice the guy made; he just has never, ever liked the taste of coffee and he sees no reason why he should pretend he does just to please his father. Now then, suppose someone created a pill this guy could take that would make coffee taste good to him. He takes a sip, it's the same flavor as it always was, but his brain tells him it's good. He now gets to have coffee in the morning with his bagel, go out for dessert with friends at coffeehouses, etc. His life was perfectly fine without it, but now that it doesn't disgust him, he enjoys it and understands why so many others drink coffee. How's that for a convoluted analogy? :) Boq Link to post Share on other sites
Tarnera Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 Very convoluted, Boq. Me, I said no way would I get my asexuality 'fixed'. I get along with sexuals just fine as I am; I just don't want to have sex with any of them. Why would I want to make it so I can get my heart broken by some muscle-bound clod who counts how many women he's gotten into his bed as a social coup? Link to post Share on other sites
Charlieee Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 I said "probably not." Echoing what Ziffler said, I might be just a teen, but I have gotten used to the way I am and the way I act. If it was for my health, for wahtever reason, sure. Link to post Share on other sites
Neurovore Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 Why would anyone be in a rush to wallow in the bottomless mire that is the bleak landscape of sexual politics? Link to post Share on other sites
spinneret Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 :D I've missed your sunny outlook, Neuro. (incidentally, I rather agree) Link to post Share on other sites
ChildOfTheLight Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 I wouldn't be any other way. Link to post Share on other sites
Roofie Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 I said that I definitely would take it and be cured. I don't like being an asexual, and if I could be a sexual then I would (not for the sex necessarily, but so that sexuals wouldn't not want to be with me because I'm asexual). It would solve a lot of the complications that I have in my life. Link to post Share on other sites
Neurovore Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 I said that I definitely would take it and be cured. I don't like being an asexual, and if I could be a sexual then I would (not for the sex necessarily, but so that sexuals wouldn't not want to be with me because I'm asexual). It would solve a lot of the complications that I have in my life. But think of all of the personal fuss that it saves you. Link to post Share on other sites
Roofie Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 But think of all of the personal fuss that it saves you. Trust me when I say that I have more than enough personal problems, and a lot of it is caused by my asexuality. I'd be more than willing to take the risk of having other problems after the cure. Link to post Share on other sites
neurofreez Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Absolutely not. You are you. And I am me. Accepting a cure to change me to you would be stupid imho. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.