>>60395 >best faggots in history >best asexuals in history Fucking faggots get out. Stop turning this board into shit. Nobody gives a shit about who you think is the best faggot in history. We are here to discuss about history.
>>60395 Asexual is a weird term that probably doesn't fit that well most of the time when used. Can you prove Tesla didn't jerk off? Maybe he was just too neurotic to spend time with women? Maybe he smashed boipussi on the side or at least craved too. It's not good for discussion.
But since the thread is here, Robespierre. Danton said that "Robespierre simply can't fuck and money scares the hide off of him." So virtuous he made a poor wizard of himself.
Erasmus of Rotterdam Thomas Aquinas Heraclitus Meister Eckhart Plato Epicurus Jesus Augustine of Hippo Giovanni Pico della Mirandola Giordano Bruno Georges Cuvier Robert Boyle Johannes Brahms Roger Bacon Ludwig van Beethoven Johannes Brahms Frederic Chopin Nicolaus Copernicus Eugène Delacroix Henry Cavendish Rene Descartes Gustave Flaubert Galileo Galilei Vincent van Gogh Thomas Hobbes Horace Plotinus David Hume Immanuel Kant T. E. Lawrence Gottfried Leibniz John Locke Michelangelo Friedrich Nietzsche Sir Isaac Newton Blaise Pascal Alexander Pope Marcel Proust Franz Schubert Benedict de Spinoza Arthur Schopenhauer Herbert Spencer Adam Smith Nikola Tesla Henry David Thoreau Leonardo da Vinci Voltaire Ludwig Wittgenstein
Asexuality is a meme and doesn't exist, most of the people you're listing were either closet gays or just weren't really interested in sex (not expierencing the act of sex is not the same as being asexual, if it actually existed)
>>60395 >Best asexual people how stupid. an asexual person is simply inferior to a sexual person. anyone who is alive and has children today is a more successful person than an asexual. the whole point of life is to procreate, the rest is just gaudy man-made accessories. anyone who does not procreate has failed as a human being. there is a starving nigger in africa right now who can't feed their family of 10 that is superior to any asexual.
>>72568 That's really a narrow and oversimplified view of humanity. I mean, sure, if you're going just by evolution or whatever, but doing nothing but having kids and dying, without doing anything to give life meaning, would be pretty pointless to most people. It's like a biological computer program running in an infinite loop, never ending or doing something. And the majority of people reproduce, babies are essentially a dime a dozen from a species or civilization standpoint. But if you take one or two people, and they become a Newton or Tesla instead of having kids, they'd add more to humanity than adding just one more kid among many.
>>72634 Sorry to burst your bubble, but you didn't state any facts.
>>63861 >St Augustine You realize he fucked about the entirety of the Roman world before becoming Christian right? >Frederic Chopin You mean the boytoy of a domineering Polish slut? He was a musical dildo. >Rene Descartes You mean the philosopher who was literally killed by sex?
>>72934 they might add more but by natural standards they are objectively failures as human beings. it isn't an oversimplified view of humanity, humans are animals and everything else is a social construct. gender roles (not the hurr boys like blue trucks and girls like pink flowers one that retards cite) aren't social constructs, they are reflections of our animalistic nature. men are larger, more aggressive due to competition for mates and dominance, women are sheltered and more delicate due to centuries of being protected because of their inherent biological value being much higher than the males, nature is everything. getting a job, getting paid, music, fine dining, all of these things are social constructs. they aren't important to humanity on a fundamental level because we are animals and our purpose is to procreate and claw at life. this isn't a narrow or simplified view, this is the truth. people don't want to die and they have a biological imperative to leave a legacy in the form of a genetic heir.
failing to do this is failing life as a human. succeeding in other areas is window dressing.
>>73249 You're choosing to focus exclusively on one criteria. There's nothing inherently GOOD about reproducing, there's no morality or value judgments in nature, it's only a matter of IS and not SHOULD. A society based exclusively on reproduction, and not using reproduction to facilitate other things (like quality of life) would fail. No one would want to live that kind of meaningless life. It would be like working in an assembly line, but where you're on the job 24/7.
Women are a different story and i won't claim to completely understand them as i'm not one. Men however who don't fuck women can easily fall into a few categories.
1. They are gay 2. They are too introverted, ugly, poor, generally unwilling or unable to fuck women. They still want to/wish they could and most likely jerk off all day anyway thinking about it. 3. There's something medically wrong with them, as in they can't get an erection or get horny, don't have a sex drive etc.
And that's it. There is no asexual that's fucking stupid. There's guys that like other guys, guys that wish they could fuck women but can't or won't, and there's guys that are broken.
>>73983 monkeys and lions. why are you condemning them to a meaningless existence? what is the point of vegetarian or vegan? the existence of cows and chickens and shit is meaningless. all life aside from humans is entirely meaningless because humans have colourful clothes, apple ipads and air-conditioning.
>>74034 >Provider roles and protection roles are just social constructs i literally said that they weren't, and that music, employment etc are social constructs. i'm not putting any emphasis on sex, i am putting an emphasis on the fact that we are all animals and there are quite a few people today who are giving into their instincts while still maintaining a smug superiority because they are human and that is pretty fucking disgusting to be honest. it is fine to feel superior as a human but at least fucking act like one.
Most people would love to have a harem of girls to fuck every day at leisure
The problem is that it's a fucking pain in the ass to have a woman and mantain enough interest (by game, providing support or money, or mantaining looks) to be able to fuck her
And in contemporary times it's so much fucking worse unless you live in some poor shitty af city.
I can get woman on tinder or real life, but it's a pain in the ass to go through two dates to get sex and then mantaining it to be able to get more of it. Most bitches in university are entitled bitches so it's worse now than ever. I have got more sex from Tinder rather than my uni it's a fucking joke, I prefer buying prostitutes nowadays and crying to my dog when i need emotional support desu
Also sex get diminishing returns so fucking fast unless you live next to the woman and basically it's your bitch and slave
>>74087 I'm an asexual guy, and while I won't claim that I'm not "broken" (though that's really a subjective thing anyway desu) I do have a sex drive but I have no desire for sex itself. It simply does nothing for me in terms of arousal. Genitals of both sexes are actually a turn-off for me, it's really the outward appearance of women (i.e. how they appear in public, completely PG stuff) that I'm attracted to.
>>65854 Asexuality means you can watch any kind of porn involving people and not feel anything, if somebody passes that test they are asexual in my mind, people try to tell me im asexual because im not interested in women or men, but I'm sexually attracted to women, therefore I'm str8, thats what being asexual is in my mind anyway
>>60395 Also wasn't Telsa like one of the most desirable bachelors in New York at one point?
What you call "natural standards" were just the ambient we lived off for centuries
nowadays our ambient is a complete social construct, but it's our ambient, so it's stupid as fuck to use another ambient as the basis for values in our new ambient. You just adapt to whatever environment you have in, and nowadays you can do whatever you want if you can provide yourself. It's useless, vain and stupid to cripple yourself emotionally just because you have erectile dysfunction or another thing that prevents you from having sex. There are many virtues apart from fucking like a god desu
>>74276 >Just because something is talked about on Tumblr doesn't mean it doesn't exist. they are the inventors of the famous "kin"-community where people basically claim to be planets or dragons stuck in human bodies so I hope you don't actually take that site seriously. People were, as a species, programmed to have sex, saying you don't have any interest in sex is like saying you don't have any interest in breathing or eating.
>>74245 People might find them disgusting in an "aesthetic" sense, but they're still able to be aroused by them.
>>74247 I see sexuality as being defined by attraction, who you want to have sex with, so not desiring sex with anyone would make me asexual, at least functionally. If I want to be specific I'd say I'm somewhere on the border between hetero and asexuality, these categories aren't a perfect fit for everyone anyway and I'd rather leave it at just four than make up a Tumblr sexuality for every little preference or difference in attraction.
You know, if you want to be a special snowflake and believe in these kind of delusions, go ahead but just keep historical figures out of it since most of them would probably agree on how retarded it sounds when they'd hear it. Most of the people listed in this thread were either gays who didn't want to "come out" or people who were just not really interested in sex or women (no, that doesn't mean they had no sexual drive at all).
>>74287 >our ambient has changed so you can't judge whether or not an organism is successful or not based on whether or not it reproduces who said anything about being crippled emotionally? you can exist without reproducing, you are going to die and all of the genetic heritage that your ancestors spent tens of thousands of years refining will be lost to the aether but you'll still exist. even if you manage to use science to pass your genes on, it doesn't change the fact that you are a genetic dead end if you are asexual. same goes for homosexuality or being a tranny. you can still reproduce, but if nature told you any harder that you shouldn't then you'd have been born without reproductive organs.
>>74359 I don't take Tumblr seriously at all, but that doesn't mean that anything discussed on Tumblr automatically doesn't exist, specifically if it's also discussed in more reasonable places.
>People were, as a species, programmed to have sex, saying you don't have any interest in sex is like saying you don't have any interest in breathing or eating. Asexuality is a defect from a purely biological viewpoint (unless one can find evidence saying it's beneficial in terms of kin selection or population control or something) but it's well known that defects do exist in humans. And asexuality is far less debilitating than lacking the instinct or ability to breathe and eat. And honestly, if I would die from not having sex I'd probably end up doing it, but that's simply not how things work. Apart from that, or someone paying me a very large sum of money to have sex, it's just not worth it to me.
>>74424 >inb4 someone gets triggered and reports my post for being "/pol/" If you didn't want to hear different opinions on this you shouldn't make a bait thread, these people never stated themselves they were asexual so therefore you can't just suddenly claim they were also some kind of special snowflake. History is based on facts, remember?
>>74424 It's not the asexuals who derailed this thread into a "special snowflake" debate, it's the baiters who kept saying asexuality isn't real or whatever. I think it's certainly possible that some historical figures were asexual (which isn't the same as being totally without a sex drive, it basically means you're "gay towards women" and "straight towards men" assuming you're male) if there's no evidence of them being gay, but discussing the sexuality of historical figures is inevitably speculation in any case
>>74579 This is a history board and history is based on facts, not on stupid theories that appeal to special snowflakes from tumblr. Next thing you know we'll be having a thread about how adolf hitler was a transsexual dragon-kin.
>>74579 Also, this thread is nowhere near based on theories or speculation. >best asexual people in history OP is just assuming everyone who gets posted in this thread is asexual without any further proof of it.
>>74701 >What proof exists has already been offered - that they are not known to have any sexual relationships or any signs of being gay. >hurdur they didn't like sex so they must be one of our special snowflakes, we wuz kings n shit
>>74744 You're projecting. Also, by your reasoning it sounds like we should never speculate about anything. I've already explained that when we call a historical figure asexual/gay it's pretty much speculation.
>>74814 History has to be based on at least SOME proof, the fact that some of those guys never had sex doesn't proof anything. If you want to talk about how all the great historical figures were actually asexual/pansexual/genderqueerkinsexual then I suggest you should try out tumblr.
>>74449 >And asexuality is far less debilitating than lacking the instinct or ability to breathe and eat. From a reproduction standpoint, only conditionally. Unless you contribute somehow while alive to other people reproducing (by supplying food or whatever - but more than you're taking yourself) you're "better off" dead. Of course anyone arguing that reproduction = success has more pressing concerns.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.