I'm convinced that the drives to survive and reproduce are the most basic form of genetic programming in life, and every other more complex behaviour in life derides from these drives in some form.
After all these are the core of what Freud, and Nietzsche said, and are the crux of entire fields of study in psychology and biology.
Anyway, yesterday I had a debate with some monkeys before being censored and shut up by a PR mod, and they countered by stating asexuality as a sexual orientation.
I disagreed, stating that all sexual orientations (homo/hetero/bi), still function on those basic needs for human interaction and physical intimacy. Asexuality, is literally the opposite of that. And I asked them what could lead a biologically sexual being to reject the need for sexuality. Concluding that in the end it must either be a form of mental illness (in the form depression), or some physiological or genetic deficiency that prevents the basic drive from manifesting. I even accepted that for people that CHOOSE to be asexual, that sex drive is still manifesting in some higher for of CREATIVITY, see inventora, writers, poets, etc... one way or another, the human being has a NEED to leave information behind, be it as ideas or genes.
Ofc, this pissed everohe off, and I got banned. So this morning I did some reading on the matter, and OF COURSE, there is a "special snowflake" social justice movement here too. I read some articles claiming that asexuality was an orientation, but they were just polls with no actual studies being done, and funny enough, the asexual community claims that asexuality is different from celibacy... which, would make it an illness or deficiency 100% of the time according to them.
So, for the sake of hearing different opinions, was I wrong in anything I said? And if so, how?
See, that's the thing. Everyone has to be so goddamned sensitive. I'm a pedo, I'm perfectly aware that it's atypical, and probably due to a genetic mutation or something that I can't control. But I'm not afraid to admit that. I don't need to delude myself that I'm totally normal and that I just HAVE to fit in, because the truth is I'm just different due to factors way out of my control. I can only imagine how pissed this must make other people with genuine mental disorders who have no choice but to face the realities of their problems every day.
Granted, I don't go about showing my disorder to everyone, lest I be locked away for being a "potential threat". But at least these people can go to therapists and psychologists without the fear of bring arrested for trying to get help.
>I asked them what could lead a biologically sexual being to reject the need for sexuality.
Just a proposal: when a population grows a sexual drive stops to be a signifucant one. I am not sure really.
Asexual people still want human interaction and emotional connections, they just don't want sex. I don't see that as being any more beneficial than being gay as that would still prevent reproduction though not interaction. There may be people who are asexual and also asocial, who post about needing no one and incorrectly say it's about their asexuality. The question is, what do you hope to accomplish from those discussions? Proving that it's actually wrong that people are asexual while having no means of fixing it? If it's an illness or deficiency and you aren't offering fixes, what is the point? Reproduction isn't a needed thing anymore. Would it be better for asexual people to think there's something fundamentally wrong with them that they can't fix? Again, what were you trying to accomplish? If you were arguing for the sake of arguing, that's generally something people are banned for.
Well, I was mostly focusing on human drive, they simply used "you forgot about asexuals" to counter my pov, which prompted me to look into it.
Well, I was posting from my phone, plus, I got the feeling half of what I said was being overlooked in violent vitriol, so I doubt citations would make a difference. But I did find a number this morning.
It's possible, though I would argue it's still taking effect baring less strongly.
The only exception would be escapism through drugs and vidya, and even then... well, waifus are still a thing, and a Japanese dude married his ds, meaning that drive is still in effect, misdirectrd, but still in effect. So, society growing would misdirect the drive, but it wouldn't do away with it without causing some form of hopeless depression.
See, that's a good point. If we're gonna be all inclusive about sexual orientations, then pedophilia is just as valid as asexuality.
I didn't think of that. It's wrong to label one as an illness and the other as not cause one wants to be recognized as unique. I agree with you.
The issue with asexuality is that it's an actual form of reproduction, used by all prokaryotes, but it's been shoehorned to fit the constraints of human sexual orientation. Traditionally, "asexual" just means sexless reproduction; reproduction without the fusion of sperm and ovule or egg sells.
However, among animals with a social hierarchy, it's not uncommon for there to be sexless members. Wolf packs are a good example. Typically, a pack only has one breeding pair; the alpha male and the alpha female. In less common cases, there may be a second breeding pair within the pack. But, the rest of the pack does not breed. This can also be considered asexual orientation at the individual level.
It's not truly asexuality though. These animals know that breeding is occurring between the more dominant members of their group. It's not that they aren't "programmed" to reproduce, they just aren't compelled or necessitated to reproduce when it's already being done by their social unit. To compensate for the numbers of non-breeding pairs, wolves give birth to 4-7 pups. This works, nothing is wrong with the non-breeding wolves, and the genes of the stronger wolves are passed on.
Similar behavior can be seen in gorillas, where the most dominant male is typically the only male to mate with the female members of the troop. The difference is that the subordinate males are usually younger, and they leave the troop at the point of sexual maturity. Multiple females have to mate with the dominant gorilla to compensate for the small litter sizes, when compared to wolves. This works as well, the genes of the stronger male are passed on.
The same underlying principle applies to gorillas and wolves--and it can also be used to explain human asexuality--here: Sexual reproduction happens on the scale of the social unit (society, in humans), therefore it is not necessary for all members of the social unity to reproduce, and as a result not all members are compelled to reproduce.
Human drive to what though? If you mean reproduce, then being gay doesn't help either. If human drive is to just reproduce, there's never any motivation to relate with the same sex, friendships or deeper relationships.
My entire viewpoint is that all human behaviours derive from the two basic drives to survive and reproduce. Only reason you pursue a career, buy a car, house, etc... is cause it facilitates those two needs in some way.
Really reflect on it, every human action, barring escapism is being driven by those two drives in some way lest there be some mental illness, eg, suicide.
As for gays and reproduction, it's cause instinct works through emotion, so, it doesn't have logically make sense just, emotionally, it just needs to feel good. This is why masturbation can offset sex drive and kill motivation to do other things if excessive, since ot tricks your instincts into believing you're fulfilling your genetic programming.
And socializing, socializing is a basic need for mental health, it makes you more savvy, and it increases your odds of meeting new mates and attracting them.
I'm not saying that these are your conscious reasons for doing these things, but that your genes act on you and will you into doing many things from a subconscious level.
Well, but the deal is, humans cannot reproduce asexually, all the living beings that are asexual in nature reproduce that way, they have code in their DNA that causes behaviors that facilitate asexual reproduction. Humans defying that basic programming goes against the most basic genetic code.
Plus, we have to talk about someone who is TRULY asexual, as in, they cannot masturbate, they cannot feel any form of attraction for other humans or human-like things, and they cannot have depression or any sort of mental illness that kills libido.
Does such a person exist? Perhaps, but then, what causes that?
Only people I can think of are those who choose to be celibate and repress that sexual drive, but it's still there, and it still manifests in some way.
Also, I didn't know about the wolves and gorillas. I'll look more into that, thanks.
>Well, but the deal is, humans cannot reproduce asexually
I already pointed out that the traditional meaning of "asexual" has been forced to fit human sexual orientation. As a sexual orientation, it's not the same as a form of reproduction; most easily described as "without having sex or wanting to have sex".
In the same way that many members of nonhuman social units can go without having sex or feeling compelled to have sex--due to the lack of necessity--members of human social units can do the same.
The most efficient form of reproduction is for the strongest members to pass on their genes without the population becoming unsustainable. It's not for every single member to reproduce, regardless the limitations of sustainability or the detrimental effects of producing weak offspring; that would be unnatural and harmful to a species.
Re-read my other post for more detail.
It is to my understanding that as you say, humans are programmed to survive and reproduce.
That is our core drive.
Now think of it in this way, in our day and age, people do not need to have sexual stimulation to achieve both survival and reproduction.
Hence, asexuality, or better described as, the lack of sexual activity for purposes of reproduction, can exist.
We as humans have evolved to the point were we are advanced enough to survive almost any kind of problem and also produce offspring in the harshest of environments.
Question is then, is asexuality, and relationships that work against reproduction something that is natural?
I would argue yes.
If you would look at the population and how new people are born, you see that in many cases, children are born prematurely. The parents weren't ready to have children, but their sexual drive made them come to that point.
If you take into consideration that asexuality works to limit the spreading of genes, until you make the concious decision to spread them. Then, asexuality should be the next step in human evolution, were children only get conceived when you want them to.
Watching a growing number of "beta" people and virgins tell you that social interaction is no longer the prime source to spread your genes. As we have come to the point in technology were you don't sex to make a child, then the drive to have sex should decline, at least in the areas were this is apparent.
I suspect that what annoyed everyone was not your debating position, but your vehemence. Your tone even in this posting is angry and argumentative, and if you brought that into what was a friendly conversation, you came on as creepily intense in inappropriate ways.
Don't take every conversation so personally. If people offer different opinions, you can disagree, but with no more intensity than the general tone of the conversation. And certainly don't turn it into a lecture. At some point - probably long before you'd prefer - back off and agree to disagree, and change the subject.
>Don't take every conversation so personally. If people offer different opinions, you can disagree, but with no more intensity than the general tone of the conversation. And certainly don't turn it into a lecture. At some point - probably long before you'd prefer - back off and agree to disagree, and change the subject.
This should be the warning sign before entering any board on 4chan.
Actually, you're spot on.
And honestly, this is something I've noticed myself doing a lot ONLY in online communities. Like, I start getting overly confrontational and impatient, which is weird cause irl, I'm the exact opposite. I'm very chill and laid back, and actually a very popular dude.
But online, lately, I've gotten myself into a lot of trouble for how I express myself. Somehow, I always wind up in heated arguments online.
However, online and irl, the things I tend to talk about are more or less the same.
In fact, I've even noticed that the more social I become irl, the more confrontational I become online.
Like, I'll even say it myself. Irl I'm a cocky but charming dude, but online, I've become this asshole, arrogant douche with a superiority complex, and I can't say I'm too happy with always getting into dumb fights online for expressing my views. And I will admit that it's my fault mostly, I have changed, like, I wanna say it in a way that doesn't come off as bragging, but I've put effort into developing my personality and interacting with women, and it's yielded many positive results, but I'll also admit that it's sorta had an adverse effect on how I come off online.
If given the option to choose, ofc I'll pick irl over online, but still.
Any ideas?? Advice?
Not entirely sure what you're saying. Almost everyone you meet will be doing things to survive unless they're suicidal. If things just emotionally need to feel good, people only need the emotional fulfillment of relationships, and not the sexual side. So again, what makes you argue specifically against being asexual vs gay? Both can get an emotional fulfillment by talking to other people.
>n pedophilia is just as valid as asexuality.
No it's not
Pedophilia is still either heterosexuality or homosexuality
Age doesn't matter when deciding which one of those the person fits in
Besides pedophilia is immoral amd asexuality isn't
The problem with online interaction is that you are essentially missing a TON of conversational cues that would have been apparent if you were talking to them face to face. Things like reactions, facial expressions, change in tone etc.
That is why we develop this impersonality with text.
When you see written text, and it is written in a way that looks aggressive, then the fault is on the writer, because he is not expressing himself truly. However, its hard sometimes to get your expression across.
A funny thing with imageboards is that you can attach images to them, and the image can provide a lot of the cues that you would have missed, and could help change the tone of the conversation if used correctly.
When you speak to people online, you may perceive them as either being ignorant or not engaged enough, and they probably are the latter. Because online interaction that isnt chatting, is not going on in real time, people answer when they feel like it, and they write in the way that they know how.
If someone with more experience and more engagement to the topic comes and thinks he can dictate the course of the conversation, he will instantly come of as a hostile person.
If you are an avid lurker on 4chan. I would suggest, that you go to /pol/ and just study how people seem to come across trying to make their points there.
Almost every opinion post is very hostile to the reader, often takes them for a retard, and tries to lecture, instead of having a genuine debate.
>I would suggest, that you go to /pol/ and just study how people seem to come across trying to make their points there.
Are you seriously telling the aggressive asshole to go to /pol/? Don't. He won't learn a thing. It'll just make it worse, encourage his behavior and he won't make it back
>Almost every opinion post is very hostile to the reader, often takes them for a retard, and tries to lecture, instead of having a genuine debate.
It was more of a, go there to learn what NOT to do kind of suggestion
Well, the idea was that physical intimacy is a key component in a relationship. Remove that, and it falls appart. I'll elaborate more later when I have time. In fact, I'll just copy my post from the thread since I did go quite in depth with that one. In fact, the discussion really began there, and then deviated into the whole asexuality bit. I assume that's the part that pissed a lot of people off, since I said a lot of things that are not the sorta things lonely nerds and SJ females with mental issues who are holding out for "true love," really wanted to hear.
It's not offensive, but I was speaking from exp.
Yeah, I know, but I hesitated to suggest that to avoid derailing the thread into the valudity of pedophilia. I mean, based on what I suggest, asexuality means there's something wrong with someone, and not pedophilia. It's a tough issue to tackle in that sense, and I'd really have to sit down and think about it.
Obviously pedophilia can be harmful to minors, so it's better not to allow it.
But really, from a psychological stand points, it's about the same as homosexuality.
Yeah, I know.
Irl, my stronger demeanor is offset by a sorta not-to-serious tongue in cheek humor. I say a lot of provicative shit to stirr up people, but you can tell by my tone and gesture that I'm not trying to offend, and in fact being challenging, but open minded.
Plus, one thing I learned was that women are drawn to genuine confidence, thus, being more edgy and dominant/assertive is par to the course. You just sorta learn to express yourself without holding back, and calibrating after the fact if you truly stepped on some toes.
Both of these things don't translate well to communities that are focused around groupthink mentalities, where everone tries too hard to be nice to each other in fear of starting flame wars. Anything that might offend someone, is typically avoided. At least that was my exp. Last night, literally the first thing I said was met with
>that's offensive, and it's none of your business. It's not appropriate discussion.
On 4chan it's not so bad, since images help convey the right message, but not always.
I guess that thanks to learning to not give a fuck about social norms, and in fact defy them in favor of my own values, and effectively getting away with it irl, I've gained this severe distaste toward being told to conform to certain behaviours, which in turn turns me into an asshole, I don't do well with closed minded people. However, irk, most people who might disagree barely challenge me since I look cool, I act cool, and I put off a vibe that tends to win over people, so people might be offended by me, rarelt if ever challenge me face to face. Online though, people don't know anything about me, so it makes them more confident, and ofc, I personally love it when people try to challenge my views, so I'm drawn to those discussions.
However, given my nature, they usually end up heated even if I'm not trying to start shit...
>But really, from a psychological stand points, it's about the same as homosexuality.
How so? At least homosexuals are attracted to grown persons, people who have all the sexual characteristics fully developed, and those characteristics are attractive by instict. The instict just of works towards the opposite sex with homos
Pedophiles on the other hamd are attracted to characteristics that are not sexual AT ALL
Maybe the other people just wanted to have a good time on the internets and not have a debate
Happens all the time here on 4chan, you're just happily shitposting away and some cuck just HAS to keep insisting
Not everyone take online arguments with the same fervour
>the idea was that physical intimacy is a key component in a relationship
To sexual people, yes. But that's not meant to be a limitation of what a relationship is about. And personally what do YOU view as the point in relationships?
You still didn't answer remotely what your point would be in arguing any of those things. Do you have a solution, or something you can improve/change with your ideas? Otherwise, outside of 4chan it's pretty common to block someone if they're just fighting for the sake of getting to disagree with someone.
If you're just having fun, why be so serious about it?
It's just arrogant butthurt, and it happens all the time on 4chan. Does calling them cucks make you feel better about having a weak ass argument?
>If you're just having fun, why be so serious about it?
What's so serious? It's just like kicking the annoying kid out of the party
And sorry I said the work cuck, cucky, it's force of the habit from being here so long. Before everyone was "faggot", then "retard", now it's cuck. Don't take it so seriously
Oh yea, asexuality has been a buzzword movement for special snowflakes to define themselves as for a long time. Especially popular among tumblr users.
I completely agree with you. I just can't take anyone who says they are asexual seriously. Granted, there is like 1% of actual cases or something, and I won't doubt those necessarily, but if someone who is between the age of like 14-28 claiming they are asexual... I just can't take that seriously.
I think at times our sexualities become repressed depending on our current state of mind. I remember I was like 17, and I had a boyfriend that I was sexually active with for about a year. I also became extremely depressed around this time. I didn't want to have sex at all. I had zero sex drive. I was the opposite of the horny teenager I was at the beginning of the relationship. And I remained this way until I was about 20 years old. My relationship failed obviously. I didn't have sex, I didn't masturbate. I thought sex was disgusting and that I could possibly have relationships without it so I could avoid it.
I think many people are just going through some sort of phase for the most part. But then they post it on social media, people argue them, they become stubborn, and stick to it longer than they should.
>What's so serious? It's just like kicking the annoying kid out of the party
It wouldn't be annoying if you didn't take yourself so seriously.
>Don't take it so seriously
As promised anon:
Not having sex is a bad move, because plain and simple, people have needs.
Sex isn't "just sex," sex is a beautiful and intimate connection between two human beings. It is a physical expression of love, hence "making love."
When you take sex out of a relationship, you're essentially taking out that physical expression of love. You can have sex with a stranger you don't love, and it mean nothing, but you cannot truly love someone you're not physically intimate with. This is why all marriages start going to **** the moment the couple stop having sex, either out of boredom, or lack of attraction. And why psychologists and marriage counselors ALWAYS encourage their clients to have sex if they are having trouble getting along with each other.
In addition to this, sex is a much more intense experience for a woman, than for a man, again, due to the physical intimacy, and how it triggers the emotions. Women are more emotionally reactive than men, and you can argue with me on this, but it's not sexist, nor is it wrong. Men and women are equal, yes, absolutely so, but different, biologically, physiologically, and psychologically different. One of those differences is that women are much more strongly affected by, and swayed by emotions, it also means that they naturally posses a stronger keeness for empathy.
Yes, I understand all the progressive moments, but gender differences are still an undeniable thing. Now, these don't shouldn't define your social role, but the still exist. Men cannot have periods, in the same way men find women's ability to so freely live in the "emotion of the moment" confusing. Now, this doesn't mean that men can't be emotional, or emotionallt driven, cause they can, but they generally have a harder time with it.
What I'm getting at is that this is one of the reasons why sex is a much more emotionally intense experience for women. Take for example, female orgasms are more powerful than men's.
We're typically satisfied when we cum, girls... uh-uh. They can build much stronger and more powerful orgasms, especially if they feel comfortable with the person. And they build a strong emotional connection to those feelings they have during sex.
In fact, it's here where women start to really fall in love with someone, and I speak from experience here. A general rule of thumb for a guy should be, "if you want a girlfriend, sleep with her first." After a couple times, she'll start asking, "so.... uhm, what are we?" and start doing all sorts of things for him and chasing after him in hopes of winning him over. Because she's fully opened up to him, and she's vulnerable. Nothing would hurt her more than losing someone after she's invested so much.
And again, this goes back to the basic drives. Typically, sex leads to a baby, and as such what a woman needs then is a man for support and help raising the child. And yes, I know this is not entirely the case in modern times, and that there are lots of nuances and exceptions, but 1000s of years of evolution have programmed this into our instincts, and while it doesn't logically make much sense anymore, it still acts on us, and makes sense emotionally. 100 years of social change isn't gonna do 10,000+ years of evolution. Change in nature is slow.
So anyway, what does this add up to? Sex is emotionally impacting on girls, and as such, believe it or not, it makes them want it more than men, they have a general stronger drive for it, and when a woman is attracted to a man, the idea of having sex with with him will pop into her mind numerous times, even if her social conditioning goes against it, be it parents, culture, religion, etc... if a a man provides her with an excuse that makes her feel comfortable, and allows her to not harm her reputation (eg, keep it private) she'll take it. Why? Because she wants it to happen. Again, I speak from experience.
However, if there's one thing I know, it's that relationships get stale once the novelty wears off. And as I said, if you remove the physical intimacy from the equation, the you're really not giving much room for things to grow (this is why online relationships always fail, barring the cases where both parties are so needy they don't bother to seek love elsewhere), it's always the physical intimacy. And well, once that novelty wears off... the chips are stacked against you.
As I said, you essentially have a friend, but with kissing, and in some cultures, there really isn't a difference.
This is why I always laughed when people in hs claimed the loved someone when they we're just a couple that held hands, because you knew it wasn't real, and that it wouldn't last. It was almost hypocritical in a way. Love is built through sex, if you're not MAKING LOVE, then you don't really love them, you're just infatuated.
Sex is a normal, natural, human act, no matter how much society tries to condition people into making it taboo (while violence is OK, ironically enough).
As for the other part, I'll reply to it later, I ranted enough.
And yes, I know I left out gay couples from my thing, but I'm not a girl, and nor am I into the same sex, so I have zero experience there. Sorry.
Was that meant to be a reply to me? I get everything you're saying, but that applies to people who want to have sex, and have been having sex, but for some reason stopped. Obviously there is an issue if someone wanted and needed sexual intimacy and then suddenly doesn't. I wasn't trying to argue anything about gender.
Well, isn't the most attractive trait of a woman youthfulness? Or maybe pedos are attracted to innocence? Honestly can't answer this since I have a hard time understanding why pedos can be attracted to children in the first place.
It might be a mental illness, but at the same tine, it was nornal during classical and medieval times, so idk.
Well, I wasn't trying to win anything. But in all honesty, I won cause no one bothered to give me any sort of response outside you, "that's offensive" and "you must be a troll."
All I truly wanted was to have my pov challenged, like ITT. The discussion here has been MUCH more civil than last night.
The forum in question was Smashboards btw. And it's startingvto dawn on my that the place has been overrun by tumblr. I read some posts now that I went back to get that pasta, and it really hit me.
Why I argued them? Honestly, causevI like having my views challenged, I like hearing opposing opinions.
But for what it woyld change? Well, I'm still convinced that 99% of people who claim to be asexual, actually aren't. They're just depressed and backwards rationalizing things. Like the waifufags and the 3DPD deal, and ultimately, that sorta mentality does more harm than good.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more convinced I become that it's impossible for a human to truly be asexual, without it being some sort of genetic error.
According to the asexual community, being asexual is not a choice, which means that it's not a case of repressing that drive or choosing to be celibate.
Physiological and hormone deficiencies can't be the case either, since the drive is there, but the libido is diminished.
And psychological just means that it's a byproduct of depression, as >>16321982 stated. Just part of a phase in life, and I've experienced heightened and lowered libido due to mood before.
For someone to truly be asexual, they cannot be attracted to other people, tge cannot have masturbated ever, they cannot seek or desire physical intimacy of any sort, as that is sexual by nature, and they cannot be depressed, and their asexuality must not be a choice.
The only option left is genetic, in which, it's merely an error in their genetic programming.
This cannot compare to homosexuality, since hay parents don't have gay kids, and gay kids can come from heterosexual parents. Homosexuality is in fact not genetic I would say. I'd have too look into that though.
Yeah, I agree. I do feel that 99% of the cases where people are claiming to be asexual are merely just feeling decreased libido and lack of motivation due to a form of depression.
The other 1% would be true asexuals where they merely have some genetic defect. Something that affects their hormones or their drive similar to how other genetic disorders work. This is not orientation.
>Sex isn't "just sex," sex is a beautiful and intimate connection between two human beings. It is a physical expression of love, hence "making love."
Not entirely no. It's what I copied over from the shitstorm last night. Honestly, I don't even know where I'm going with things anymore.
But I'm still having a hard time picturing a human being who has never felt the need for physical intimacy genuinely. Not repression through social conditioning or religion, not because they're afraid to talk to girls and claim asexuality while masturbating to hentai, and not cause they're depressed and have lowered sex drive.
Most of the people I've met who claim to be asexual, still fap to porn and have pictures of cute anime girls as avatars. That's not asexuality, cause you still have that sex drive to reproduce, even if it's misguided.
When people repress their sex drive and don't channel it, it always leads to strange and adverse side effects.
Like catholic priests taking advantage of young boys. Or just waifufags in general. If you feel sexual attraction for someone or some thing, that's your sex drive taking effect, even if it's a computer program with a picture of an anime girl. It's misguided, but it's still there. Thus, not asexual.
>not cause they're depressed and have lowered sex drive.
Why not? There's one possible cause for it, why wouldn't you count it? Just to disprove it?
The cause of asexuality could be mental illness just like at some point homosexuality was considered and being caused by mental illness. The cause doesn't change it from being a thing no. It just gives a reason as to why it exists, and it exists
Yes please, I have a lot of questions.
I was talking to a SJW who was already riding my ass over a lot of bullshit. I was trying to cater to them to get them to chill out.
Hmmm, I'd say its different, it's not driven by a need to reproduce, but a need to survive.
From there the love stems from attachment due to years of investment.
It's a different thing, but we call it love all the same cause we don't have separate words for it.
But the way you love your mother and the way you love your mother, is different. Usually, you don't feel attraction cause it's not conductive toward genetic diversification. This is also hard wired into your genetic code along with that drive. And that said, incest can still be a thing. An error in the programming.
Because the debate began with "all human drives derrive from the drive to reproduce and survive" the debunk was that asexuals don't have that drive.
But if they have it, and its repressed, then it doesn't debunk that statement.
>I'd say its different, it's not driven by a need to reproduce, but a need to survive.
Then what if asexuals feel the need to survive, thus have relationships, but not to reproduce, thus not have sex? Maybe they're just born without it. Doesn't mean they can't love.
And the reason people masturbate is simply because it feels good, they may be asexuals but they're not robots, if they diddle the skittle it'll still feel good
Because that's the physical expression of love, where love grows. It's what builds that intimate connection, prior to... It's just an obsession, desire, and again, it goes back to that drive.
Love creates commitment, and commitment is needed to rear a child, this, love is an evolutionary product to aid in the rearing of children. No sex, no love.
>I'm still convinced that 99% of people who claim to be asexual, actually aren't
Then that's not an argument against asexuality, that's an argument against people who misuse the term.
You're saying pretty much the same.
>If you feel sexual attraction for someone or some thing
Then you're not asexual. You can still say the words, but you're not. I don't think asexuality doesn't exist just because people misunderstand/misuse it.
Does that mean children have no drive? After all children don't have desire for sex until puberty starts and the hormones kick in. They still have the drive for survival and relationships and friendships and things tho.
I'm not saying they're robots, and understand that love means two things in English, both different from each other.
Also, my entire implication is that we're ALL robots. Not just asexuals. We're meat machines with genetically programmed behaviors.
My entire premise is "what makes us tick?"
Well, the core of it. What causes asexuality in from your pov? Have you ever felt sexual attraction for someone? Sexual desire? A need to masturbate? Are you motivated in life? What are your goals and aspirations?
And if you don't mind getting personal, what makes yoy asexual? Was it by choice, did you ever try a sexual relationship and fail? It might take sone introspection, and I don't mean to be overly personal, but I am very curious.
Perhaps, but the question would be how motivated they are in life.
Is that sex drive being channeled into something creative behind? Is it being repressed. Bear in mind that by sex drive I don't mean the "will to bang" but rather the will to create and pass on information to the next generation.
>We're meat machines with genetically programmed behaviors.
But those behaviours are not even half of it
Most of them are socialized
How do you know your belief that sex is a great expression if love and necessary to all relationships isn't socially programmed?
>Bear in mind that by sex drive I don't mean the "will to bang" but rather the will to create and pass on information to the next generation.
Then that just seems like moving goalposts. The only thing that asexuals lack is the will to bang. Not the will to create. The will to bang amd will to create come from different places
>Gene vs. Meme
Shit man, that's a good question, the truth is, this is the premise of it all. What makes us tick? Our environment? Our social context? Our genes?
This is the age old debate in psychology.
It's obvious both play a big role, and it's hard to prove one over the other, since both heavily influence complex human behaviours.
I would personally gene lays the foundation, and meme molds it to how we see fit. Thus is why sex drive can be repressed, and channeled toward a higher purpose. However, the drive is still there, that drive to reproduce is still pretty much pushing you to do every thing you do in life in some way, meme then just twists it around.
You keep talking like the drive to reproduce and the drive to produce come from the same place. I don't think it does tbh
When you're kids you still want to create and do things before the drive to reproduce even begins to exist
I think it's quite possible that in some people the drive to reproduce doesn't start at all
I disagree there, and here it is personal experience.
Obsessive infatuation with someone is NOT love. Not by a long shot. It's needy validation seeking cause you lack self-love and a purpose in life.
True love comes from choice, not from desire.
Infatuation is literally a desire to bang not manifested.
If you've ever fallen madly in love with a girl, only to some how finally bang her, and then quickly lose attraction as you realize she's not as perfect as you thought then you know what I mean.
This is why I say love comes after and is built through sex and physical intimacy. Because then it's non-needy, and here I do speak from exp. It's some thing that took me many years and many heartbreaks to finally understand.
Love is the desire to give, not the desire to take.
>Love is the desire to give, not the desire to take.
I don't see how any that cancels out my statement that it is built on emotions tho? You can give someone as much emotion as you receive from them
>What causes asexuality in from your pov?
I think it can be caused by things in people who would otherwise be sexual, like a trauma or disenchantment or something, but for me and probably many others I found the whole shacking up business ridiculous since I was a kid. I remember being in elementary school and seeing kids calling themselves boyfriend and girlfriend and I was just like "Why." Even now that I'm an adult and I look at people who are older and presumably mature, I still think the same thing.
>Have you ever felt sexual attraction for someone? Sexual desire?
That's a tough question to quantify. Around 10 years ago I was in a relationship and I felt that I wanted to please him sexually, but I didn't exactly want to be part of it. I didn't want to have sex, but I thought about blowing him and stuff, and I thought he would like it, so I would like it? It's hard to put into words.
>A need to masturbate?
I don't want to have anything to do with sex now, but I like certain kinds of porn. Not real people. I'm a repulsed asexual, meaning the thought of other peoples' fluids and germs and whatnot near/on/in me is really gross. Only fictional ones that I'm invested in, and not a lot at that. I suppose I feel that sex is a way that other people bond and show love for one another. I like to see them happy. I don't masturbate to it or at all but I do get wet.
>Are you motivated in life? What are your goals and aspirations?
This'll be disappointing. I have no goals or aspirations, or anything that I really want besides a dog. I attribute this to having had depression since I was around 12 years old and fighting with it since. It sucked all interest out of me for a long time and I guess I haven't recovered. Like I said before though, by then I already knew that I wasn't into pairing off, so I don't think it caused my asexuality.
>And if you don't mind getting personal, what makes yoy asexual? Was it by choice, did you ever try a sexual relationship and fail?
Don't worry about being rude, I offered.
There could be a lot of reasons, I guess. I was raised in church but people get married and have kids and love each other there, so if anything I just believe people should wait until marriage.
The guy I mentioned before was the only man I think I'd ever loved like that and I didn't like it when it was all said and done. We did not mention sex ever. It was more like we were best friends but we knew we loved each other. Since then I have not felt infatuation at all, nor have I wanted anything to do with anyone's genitals. There's a pretty good chance I am just not wired to want sex.
I like to believe they do, but here I'm literally talking from my ass, so take it with a grain of salt. This is just a personal belief.
What ARE genes?
What are ideas (memes)?
The entire purpose of a human being is to live, learn, and then pass on that information to the next generation to better its chances of survival. Doesn't matter if that information is genetic, in the form of a baby, or memetic in the form of records, art, literature, inventions, discoveries, etc...
Something is hard-wired into the very core of every human that pushes them toward this goal of "passing information."
It's this passing of genetic information that successfully created intelligent life through billions of years of evolution, and when humans learned to pass on memetic information, lt succesfully propelled that to a highly advanced society that learned from previous intelligent species on Earth. Human's ability to learn from previous generations, and leave an ever evolving memetic record of things is what's brought us to this point we're at today.
Thus, if the entire purpose of genetic reproduction is to pass on genetic information to future generations to further extend the survival of those genes, the ability of humans to pass on memes must have also stemmed from there as it's equally as important, if not more. Either way though you're passing on information, and that's all we live for, every single other thing we do in life, love, learn, create, etc... all of it is to facilitate that need to pass on information.
So, in your case, you'd say its more of a, psychological issue. Decreased sexual interest due to a lack of motivation. So perhaps if your outlook on life became more positive, you'd perhaps see an increase in libido? No?
I've felt deoression before, and during that time, my sex drive hit rock bottom, as well as my general motivation for life.
Also, your outlook on peers as a kid is near identical to.mine when I was a kid. Difference being is that I was raised catholic, and when I became atheist, I literally did a 180.
Would you say that asexuality as an orientation like SJWs try to push, or perhaps really just a byproduct of lowered sex drive?
In your opinion.
>I'm convinced that the drives to survive and reproduce are the most basic form of genetic programming in life, and every other more complex behaviour in life derides from these drives in some form.
There are species that give some individuals specific roles that rule out direct reproduction. Bees and ants are the most extreme example, as only few of them actually breed. This to some extent applies to gorillas and crows
You are calling vast majority of bees insane just because they do their best to ensure survival of their species
I'm on my phone now so please bear with me for any mistakes.
I'm in my 20s so I'm not guaranteed to be who I am now for the rest of my life but I'd say that by now I should have a good idea of how I'm likely to think. I doubt I'll change the way I feel about love and sex unless something absolutely huge were to happen that would shake me as a whole. I don't want kids, and I don't want a man to hold me. I don't like touching in general.
I haven't exactly strayed from the church myself, but I'm sorry you were Catholic. I'm Protestant, actually volunteering at my church atm. I feel that religious or not, the bible still has a lot of good advice to follow. And even the apostle Paul was a guy with "the gift of singleness," which he thought was cool because it gives you more time for God.
Anyway, I wasn't old enough to have a sex drive before depression so I doubt it'll show up any time soon. It could be that I would've had one if I hadn't been depressed so young. A shortcoming in my mental development as far as emotions go? I really don't know.
I think asexuality is unrelated to orientation. I can still find a very small amount of men attractive in that they're nice to look at but I would never want to touch them or vice versa. For that reason, I'd still say I'm straight although that implies I want to have sex with men. In all, asexuality should probably be treated as an orientation for convenience's sake. It should be respected the same way people are pushing all the actual sexual orientations to be respected, in my opinion.
I would just say bees are more community driven than humans who are more individualistic. Those drives are still in effect though, just in a different way.
Alright, thank you very much for your time, your insight was definitely very helpful. You answered a lot of questions that I was trying to fill in through guesswork.
I wish you the best femanon, and whatever it is you choose to do with your life, as long as it's fulfilling for you and it makes you happy, then that's fine. We all define our own values after all, no matter how different they might be.
ace here, what up
imagine sexuality as a door. straight people's doors open one way, gay people's doors open another. bi people's doors open both ways. pansexuals have revolving doors b/c all door all the time. demi, you gotta have the key, its locked. and for asexuals, there isnt a door, it's a wall.
celibacy is a choice (often moral or religious); asexuality is an orientation (like being gay or straight). similarly, just because you can feel sexual arousal, doesnt mean you're not ace - if you're a straight guy, you'll probably still get hard if some dude fondles your dick, even if you're not into them.
(also asexual orientation =/= asexual biology term, we're not plants or cells)
I don't fully understand your analogy.
How is asexuality an orientation. Do you feel sexual arousal/attraction?
If so, then in your opinion what causes asexuality?
Likewise, I never understood pansexuality. People are coming up with so many new terms I fail to keep track of them all. Everyone wants to be a special snowflake.
And when it comes to sexuality, you have very limited options where there are only two genders.
Which there are, only two, we're not getting into THAT topic.
>I can't argue with this, it MUST be bait!
I've realized something, and if any other asexual people are lurking could you share your experience?
I've come to see how music can affect people after a long time of listening, especially teenagers. People who listen to music with angry lyrics are probably angry people themselves, people who listen to positive music with uplifting messages probably try to stay upbeat and improve themselves, etc. I'm the asexual femanon from earlier in the thread, and I've noticed I've never cared for music with sexual themes (which of course eliminates most of the top hits of the last 30 years or more). Instead, I either listen to something with different lyrics or no lyrics at all.
Have any other asexuals deliberately or unconsciously avoided this type of music? Anyone, asexual or otherwise, would you say listening to music with sexual lyrics or videos have impacted your desires for sex?