Nonlibidoist anyone?

[MobiusX]

I was just wondering how many people in this forum are nonlibidoists. I am going to give you a site (thanks to Cate Perfect) that explains whether you are one or not.

http://www.theofficialasexualsociety.com/p...ctssimple6.html

Hope to hear from you, thanks.

[Jael L]

The page on the site has a short definition of a non-libidoist (sic): 'A nonlibidoist is a person who does not experience sexual urges and desires' surrounded by a raft of terms they do not identify as non-libidoist eg. frigid, celibate etc.

There doesn't seem to be any inclusion of romantic asexualism on this page (though romantic attachment is mentioned elsewhere on the website).

I don't care for the term 'non-libidoist' (and suspect it's failed to make its way into an English dictionary) but as an asexual - albeit one capable of romantic/cerebral attraction - I suppose I would fall into that category.

[lyrebird]

My main issue with that site is how to determine if you're truly a non-libidoist, you basically fill out a form and send it to The Authority; it just strikes me as asking someone else if you're cool enough to join the popular clique. I wasn't diagnosed as asexual (or non-libidoist, although I may fall into that category based on the site's description); I decided on my own that the term asexual fit me and I was much happier and comfortable with myself when I identified as such. If someone else feels the same way about the non-libidoist thing, that's great too. There might be some idle curiousity on my part, but really I'm not too interested in finding out whether I "pass judgment" or whatever.

*rereads writing* Um, that came off as sorta rant-esque. Oops. Anyway, am I non-libidoist? Quite possibly, but I feel no attachment to that particular term.

[Wild Seven]

I quite dislike that in the definition that site has "desire" while on the contrary some space lower they tend to dismiss it as "drive"- which is apparently not the same thing. However, in the concept of desire they are quite right by my opinion. To me it fits, however, I still find it more useful to identify like ASEXUAL, because it is not about desire/drive part as much, more so of a kind of attraction. To me level of attraction is what makes me asexual, sexual drive, desire (libido) and such are just support findings, not the most important part itself.

On the matter of "authority" I am with Lyrebird.

[Hexpiral]

No. I'm just glad they stopped calling themselves the 'official asexual society'. Now that they dropped their claim on 'asexual', I have no problem saying I'm not one of them.

Technically, though, everybody has a libido, even people with no sex drives. But I don't really want to re-read Freud right now.

[Cate Perfect]

No. I'm just glad they stopped calling themselves the 'official asexual society'. Now that they dropped their claim on 'asexual', I have no problem saying I'm not one of them.

What he said.

Cate

[Shockwave]

Technically, though, everybody has a libido, even people with no sex drives. But I don't really want to re-read Freud right now.

Right. The libido controls all physical desires. therefore, a Non-Libidoist would have no desire to eat or poop either.

[Cate Perfect]

That would explain a lot about that bunch, Jeremy.

Cate

[Shockwave]

That would explain a lot about that bunch, Jeremy.

Cate

:lol:

[Jael L]

Sighs, wish I didn't need to... ahem... 'eat or poop'. Dreams of not being trapped in a body at all.

[Hexpiral]

Right. The libido controls all physical desires. therefore, a Non-Libidoist would have no desire to eat or poop either.

Which would imply no desire to live. In freudian terms, the defeat of eros by thanatos.

[Wild Seven]

Technically, though, everybody has a libido, even people with no sex drives. But I don't really want to re-read Freud right now.

Right. The libido controls all physical desires. therefore, a Non-Libidoist would have no desire to eat or poop either.

Nothing against you, but I have something right against this Freud's concept. I hope we overcame it , at least it is century or such old psychology paradigm, and, you know, those opinions cannot help to explain many things that appeared as a boom through the time from that time. There are as well mechanisms that Freud had no clue about. It is virtually impossible to have libido "controlling" all physical desires to a degree, they have to be independent, but correlating, mechanisms.

Also, who says that non-libidoism is COMPLETELY about LACK of libido? It may simply mean that you have LOW libido. Or at least from my understanding of it.

[Shockwave]

I think I explained libido wrong. It's not that which controls physical desire, it IS physical desire. Freud called all of our instinctual desires "the libido" and defined the stages of it's development. However, people have come to think of it as meaning sexual desire.

[Wild Seven]

I think I explained libido wrong. It's not that which controls physical desire, it IS physical desire. Freud called all of our instinctual desires "the libido" and defined the stages of it's development. However, people have come to think of it as meaning sexual desire.

Then, I understand it :) I just didn't have enough information, sorry. I've read only his book on dreams and then some quotations of him, so I didn't know what properly he said in this manner. He said lots of things, after all.

Thanks for closer explanation;)

[MobiusX]

However, people have come to think of it as meaning sexual desire.

- I guess I am one of them.