The Student Room Group

What are your opinions on asexuals/ asexuality?

Scroll to see replies

does it even exist?
Original post by Schrödingers Cat
Yeah IMO asexuality doesn't actually exist, just another word for naturally occurring low libidos of humans


Libido and sexual orientation are separate, low sex drive =/= asexual.

There's a bit more on it here: http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Libido
He who can not geteth laid shalt call oneself asexual.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Iggy Azalea
I see humankind (and life for that matter) as a 'virus' on the Earth.

Eventually we will screw over Earth and move to another planet as our next prey. Or we might at least send primitive forms of life to survive on other planets which eventually evolve and reach humanity again.

I personally won't be committing suicide though as I'm human and rightfully I want to survive, no matter how much the planet suffers. :biggrin:

Thus asexuality, and maybe homosexuality, is what is best for the Earth.


But you're at a dilemma.

If you don't commit suicide then either you're a hypocrite because you just refuse to live by your own moral obligations. Or you must admit that humans have the potential to do well and actually aid the world and everything else and so there's a reason we all should commit mass suicide.

Just because modern humans do a lot of bad that doesn't mean we should commit suicide since we have more than the capacity to do good...

Why not go about trying to persuade others to use their capacity to do good instead of going around preaching how we all have an obligation to kill ourselves and not doing it yourself?
Original post by TorpidPhil
That's not illogical, you're illogical for thinking that people are missing out just because they have different subjective preferences from you.




The less people find pleasurable, the less happy they will be. The vast, vast majority of people find sex one of the most pleasurable and fulfilling experiences of their life. If some people are unfortunate enough to miss out on that, it is utterly absurd to suggest that they cannot be said to be missing out because they don't enjoy it. That's circular reasoning of the most idiotically simplistic nature. You might as well say people who are blind "aren't missing out" because subjectively they have no experience of being able to see. A poor attempt at an argument. Very poor indeed.
Reply 85
Original post by TorpidPhil
Well yeah, but everyone is born asexual. What precisely is it that is required in order to cease to be asexual?

" I wouldn't describe an asexual person heterosexual (for instance) if they watched hetero porn."

Why not? What is the difference between a heterosexual person who enjoys non-male gay porn but doesn't want sex and an asexual who enjoys such?

It makes no sense to me to have the intent or desire to watch porn and definitely to enjoy sex if one has no sexual attraction to others.


The first question I don't have an answer to, because it's something I found very confusing myself. Personally, I identified with it when my friends found other people attractive, and I didn't see what the fuss was about. I'd just say it's a puberty thing, some people start finding people sexually attractive, some don't. I'd say you cease to be asexual when you start experiencing sexual attraction.

I've never really found porn interesting so I can't really answer that, but I'm aware of other asexuals that do. I think it's because there's a difference between watching porn and actually wanting to have sex. Ah I've just done a quick google search, it looks like it's because an asexual might find the actual actions in porn sexually stimulating, without finding the performers sexually attractive :smile:


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by AmyL7
"Asexuality is not a lack of libido.
Libido is also known as a “sex drive”, that is, the desire or impulse to experience sexual satisfaction. Some asexuals do have a libido, it’s just that it’s essentially aimless. Their bits downstairs will activate and call out for attention, but that doesn’t make a person feel sexually attracted toward anyone else."

I've just quoted this from http://www.asexualityarchive.com/things-that-are-not-asexuality/

A libido and sexual attraction are different, an asexual can have a libido, it's just that it might not be based on other people :smile:


Posted from TSR Mobile


That's their opinion, you can't scientifically prove asexuals don't want sex because their brains are different.

I agree sexual attraction and sexual activity are mutually exclusive but what I said is true for some asexuals who have little sexual desire
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by shadowdweller
Libido and sexual orientation are separate, low sex drive =/= asexual.

There's a bit more on it here: http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Libido


Asexual isn't a sexual orientation though is it? It's a lack of sexual attraction. Which can be cause by a low libido.

You can't use science to prove asexuality unlike being gay
Reply 88
Original post by Schrödingers Cat
That's their opinion, you can't scientifically prove asexuals don't want sex because their brains are different.

I agree sexual attraction and sexual activity are mutually exclusive but what I said is true for some asexuals who have little sexual desire


People with a low libido might still experience sexual attraction though. I can see how it can be confusing, but basically libido doesn't effect sexual orientation. If you have a low libido and it causes you to have no sexual attraction then yeah, sure, that's asexuality


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Schrödingers Cat
Asexual isn't a sexual orientation though is it? It's a lack of sexual attraction. Which can be cause by a low libido.

You can't use science to prove asexuality unlike being gay


It's not caused by that though - you can have a high libido and still be asexual, that's irrelevant. There may be correlation between the two, but that doesn't discount the validity of asexuality as an orientation.

There's research here: http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Research_relating_to_asexuality
Original post by shadowdweller
It's not caused by that though - you can have a high libido and still be asexual, that's irrelevant. There may be correlation between the two, but that doesn't discount the validity of asexuality as an orientation.

There's research here: http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Research_relating_to_asexuality


Mhmmm, yeah I still don't really buy it tbh sorry :/
Original post by cole-slaw
The less people find pleasurable, the less happy they will be. The vast, vast majority of people find sex one of the most pleasurable and fulfilling experiences of their life. If some people are unfortunate enough to miss out on that, it is utterly absurd to suggest that they cannot be said to be missing out because they don't enjoy it. That's circular reasoning of the most idiotically simplistic nature. You might as well say people who are blind "aren't missing out" because subjectively they have no experience of being able to see. A poor attempt at an argument. Very poor indeed.


I concur.
Original post by AmyL7
The first question I don't have an answer to, because it's something I found very confusing myself. Personally, I identified with it when my friends found other people attractive, and I didn't see what the fuss was about. I'd just say it's a puberty thing, some people start finding people sexually attractive, some don't. I'd say you cease to be asexual when you start experiencing sexual attraction.

I've never really found porn interesting so I can't really answer that, but I'm aware of other asexuals that do. I think it's because there's a difference between watching porn and actually wanting to have sex. Ah I've just done a quick google search, it looks like it's because an asexual might find the actual actions in porn sexually stimulating, without finding the performers sexually attractive :smile:


Posted from TSR Mobile


Yeah. I get it now, thanks.
Original post by TorpidPhil
But you're at a dilemma.

If you don't commit suicide then either you're a hypocrite because you just refuse to live by your own moral obligations. Or you must admit that humans have the potential to do well and actually aid the world and everything else and so there's a reason we all should commit mass suicide.

Just because modern humans do a lot of bad that doesn't mean we should commit suicide since we have more than the capacity to do good...

Why not go about trying to persuade others to use their capacity to do good instead of going around preaching how we all have an obligation to kill ourselves and not doing it yourself?


I do not believe I am at a dilemma. I do not believe I have a moral obligation to support the world. But if the world is to recover instantly, humankind need to be wiped out. This is merely logical, not necessarily my opinion. It does not mean I want to end my own life.

It's interesting to see that you aligned non-reproductive asexuality with suicide, as opposed to natural death.

Unfortunately, persuading people to do good is also an unethical action, especially since we do not know what good actually is. It takes away their liberties and only creates a 'moral dictatorship'. By being persuaded, it also suggests their good actions are not genuine and only serve from a manipulation.

We simply have to let things happen as they happen.
Female asexual here.

I'm finding it immensely disturbing that people are suggesting that asexuals must have had some sort of psychological trauma affecting them. As an asexual myself, I can say that I'm not repulsed by sex, but I don't feel an immense urge to go have sexual relations with people. In fact, I don't feel any urge at all.
Original post by Schrödingers Cat
Mhmmm, yeah I still don't really buy it tbh sorry :/


Why?
Reply 96
it's unnatural and men especially should not be be asexual because it would be very un-manly.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Iggy Azalea
I do not believe I am at a dilemma. I do not believe I have a moral obligation to support the world. But if the world is to recover instantly, humankind need to be wiped out. This is merely logical, not necessarily my opinion. It does not mean I want to end my own life.

It's interesting to see that you aligned non-reproductive asexuality with suicide, as opposed to natural death.

Unfortunately, persuading people to do good is also an unethical action, especially since we do not know what good actually is. It takes away their liberties and only creates a 'moral dictatorship'. By being persuaded, it also suggests their good actions are not genuine and only serve from a manipulation.

We simply have to let things happen as they happen.


Oh so you're not even a moral objectivist...

Boo, that's boring. Everyone pretends they aren't moral objectivists these days but then they go home and debate politics with their family...

Even if we don't know what good is (although I think I have a pretty darn good idea, granted it won't be perfect, just like our beliefs about what is real are/aren't) you could still, you know, try and find out what good is.

Rather than just sitting there letting false beliefs accumulate. In fact if one already is a moral objectivist then one would have a moral duty to do that really. I don't think liberties have anything to do with moral good in and of themselves. If we assume that humans now-a-days are doing more bad than good then it follows that if all humans ceased to exist then the world would be more good. Yet the world would also lack human liberty so there is a contradiction. Either it wouldn't be more good or human liberty is inconsequential to good. That's your dilemma I find. So yeah, I don't see why persuading people to do good would be immoral whatsoever. There is of course a genuine problem in that persuading someone to do what you think is good may not necessarily be good but that's why you study ethics before you start doing the persuading. Chances are you will bring them closer to good than other non-educated folk will.

Of course you could just say you're not a moral objectivist but then we'de end up hi-jacking the thread because I'de be disappointed in you and have to ask you 5 more questions to see why you would have such an absurd belief :wink:

Mass suicide right now ad everyone being asexual will, in the long run, lead to the same morality of the world (with only negligible differences) - the same outcomes arise, no humans exist.
(edited 9 years ago)
Your body, your choice, your life. :thumbsup: I don't mind them, why should I? :rolleyes:
Original post by slade p
it's unnatural and men especially should be be asexual because it would be very un-manly.


Oh wow, I don't think :facepalm: is fitting enough here.

How is it unnatural?

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending