Being asexual and never having orgasms are two different things in my mind. If someone is truly asexual then having orgasms would not suddenly make them interested in sex. There may be a significant number of people who report themselves as asexual when really they need therapy for some reason and labeled themselves asexual instead of sexually repressed because they are lying to themselves rather then seeking help.
This doesn't seem possible. An orgasm - regardless of gender - requires some part of active interest in the act or events at hand.
A lot of what I hear described as "I'm asexual but can have sex/achieve orgasm" seems like taking pride in low libido - of which there's no problem with really, but I fail to see how it makes one particularly different from anyone else.
An orgasm is a physical reaction.
That's like claiming it's impossible for a woman to rape a man, because if a guy gets an erection, then that "proves" that he likes it
Being asexual and never having orgasms are two different things in my mind. If someone is truly asexual then having orgasms would not suddenly make them interested in sex. There may be a significant number of people who report themselves as asexual when really they need therapy for some reason and labeled themselves asexual instead of sexually repressed because they are lying to themselves rather then seeking help.
This doesn't seem possible. An orgasm - regardless of gender - requires some part of active interest in the act or events at hand.
A lot of what I hear described as "I'm asexual but can have sex/achieve orgasm" seems like taking pride in low libido - of which there's no problem with really, but I fail to see how it makes one particularly different from anyone else.
An orgasm is a physical reaction.
That's like claiming it's impossible for a woman to rape a man, because if a guy gets an erection, then that "proves" that he likes it
You're putting a false dichotomy on nature and nurture while simultaneously ignoring a third pathway, which is fetal development. The current general scientific opinion is that there are certainly genetic underpinnings, as identical twin studies have repeatedly shown a statistically significant correlation between being gay and having a gay twin, even when the twin was raised in a different family, but that environment and fetal development also play strong roles. Genetics are certainly an effect even if they are not deterministic.
And Xq28 was never identified as a "gay gene" except in popular media. The researchers studying Xq28 said, humbly, that there appears to be a statistically significant correlation between Xq28 and homosexuality. One replication of that study failed to find a result, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence when we're talking about one study with a small sample size.
Beyond that, in as much as homosexuality is genetic it is highly doubtful that there is a single chromosomal location that controls it; it is probably far more complex than that.
No, your information is incorrect. The initial twin studies done showed, at best, a 50% chance that a twin would be a homosexual if his sibling was. That means, even when they are 100% genetically identical, its still a coin flip. That same study was also shown to be incredibly biased as participants were taken from a very select population. Every twin study that has come out since has stated that any possible genetic link is insignificant.
Wasn't there another study that showed that the more older siblings someone has the more likely it is that they will be gay? Man, that looks even more ridiculous in text but I know I heard that somewhere. I think it was in a collection of science writing from 2006.
Having sex tends to increase, not decrease, many people's appetites for sex. That's why erotic fiction is filled with metaphors for "awakening desire" and such.
That probably explains a lot of my current indifference to sex.
Being asexual and never having orgasms are two different things in my mind. If someone is truly asexual then having orgasms would not suddenly make them interested in sex. There may be a significant number of people who report themselves as asexual when really they need therapy for some reason and labeled themselves asexual instead of sexually repressed because they are lying to themselves rather then seeking help.
This doesn't seem possible. An orgasm - regardless of gender - requires some part of active interest in the act or events at hand.
A lot of what I hear described as "I'm asexual but can have sex/achieve orgasm" seems like taking pride in low libido - of which there's no problem with really, but I fail to see how it makes one particularly different from anyone else.
How do you feel about "I'm gay but can have sex/achieve orgasm with a woman"?
The same.
EDIT: Actually, no - that isn't true and doesn't stand up to the evidence. But it is non-analogous - a homosexual still has a sex drive, they just are focussed on different things. The basic elements of the sex drive are still there - I can close my eyes and imagine the thing that does work for me. I can just pound away and enjoy the feelings from my penis inside something - ergo the sales of fleshlights.
Asexuals, if we are to believe the meaning the word indicates, do not have this drive or desire. They are uninterested in these feelings. So what exactly do they do to hold interest long enough to achieve orgasm? Because I've gone flaccid during sex due to fatigue, lack of interest at the present moment, etc. So the question is, what exactly is different between these moments for someone who is not self-described as asexual, and someone who is?
If they are the same, then I don't think asexual has meaning - it simply means low libido. Which is fine - unless it bothers you.
To me the difference is, someone who is asexual has zero libido constantly, doesn't respond to efforts to raise libido at all, isn't interested in sex with males/females/robots/anything. If someone is asexual they should be equally disinterested in having sex with males/females/anything.
There are people do have some level of sexual desire for a particular sex (male/female) but might not achieve orgasm, or might not be interested in intercourse. These are simply people with low libido and it isn't the same at all.
Not to mention the characterization of sex as the ultimate experience of a human body is rather subjective.
Sorry I should've said most pleasurable, I knew someone would peg me on it. No, it's not, happiness is measurable via brain chemicals and physical reaction, the happiness you get from an orgasm far surpasses the happiness you get from say food, or friendship. It's a half second(+/-) high on cocaine basically.
elfdude on
Every man is wise when attacked by a mad dog; fewer when pursued by a mad woman; only the wisest survive when attacked by a mad notion.
I see that you too have passed fifth grade sex-ed.
Maybe you should go back, since an orgasm is not simply a physical reaction. It involves a state of mind and emotional response as well.
There's a biological component, and if you are unable to do any more than that, then you have no frame of reference to tell the difference.
Of course there's a biological component, the point being made is that it doesn't work without the others. Simply put why are you there pounding away if there is not a self-reinforcing reason to do so?
Being asexual and never having orgasms are two different things in my mind. If someone is truly asexual then having orgasms would not suddenly make them interested in sex. There may be a significant number of people who report themselves as asexual when really they need therapy for some reason and labeled themselves asexual instead of sexually repressed because they are lying to themselves rather then seeking help.
This doesn't seem possible. An orgasm - regardless of gender - requires some part of active interest in the act or events at hand.
A lot of what I hear described as "I'm asexual but can have sex/achieve orgasm" seems like taking pride in low libido - of which there's no problem with really, but I fail to see how it makes one particularly different from anyone else.
How do you feel about "I'm gay but can have sex/achieve orgasm with a woman"?
The same.
EDIT: Actually, no - that isn't true and doesn't stand up to the evidence. But it is non-analogous - a homosexual still has a sex drive, they just are focussed on different things. The basic elements of the sex drive are still there - I can close my eyes and imagine the thing that does work for me. I can just pound away and enjoy the feelings from my penis inside something - ergo the sales of fleshlights.
Asexuals, if we are to believe the meaning the word indicates, do not have this drive or desire. They are uninterested in these feelings. So what exactly do they do to hold interest long enough to achieve orgasm? Because I've gone flaccid during sex due to fatigue, lack of interest at the present moment, etc. So the question is, what exactly is different between these moments for someone who is not self-described as asexual, and someone who is?
If they are the same, then I don't think asexual has meaning - it simply means low libido. Which is fine - unless it bothers you.
To me the difference is, someone who is asexual has zero libido constantly, doesn't respond to efforts to raise libido at all, isn't interested in sex with males/females/robots/anything. If someone is asexual they should be equally disinterested in having sex with males/females/anything.
There are people do have some level of sexual desire for a particular sex (male/female) but might not achieve orgasm, or might not be interested in intercourse. These are simply people with low libido and it isn't the same at all.
This would be fine as a useful definition then, but I feel it would preclude "sex and orgasm, but I'm not interested" self-defined asexuals.
And so we come back to "and yet how do you achieve orgasm if you don't want to or claim to gain nothing from it?"
This literally boggles my mind, and unlike most issues, it's not one, when I see the associated social interactions being built around it and a suddenly surging populism, that I'm content just to say "ok" to.
Or to be gruffer: I can rub my cock all day and get nothing from it while maintaining an erection. It requires a special focus to achieve an orgasm. What exactly is an asexual focusing on to do this?
And so we come back to "and yet how do you achieve orgasm if you don't want to or claim to gain nothing from it?"
This literally boggles my mind, and unlike most issues, it's not one, when I see the associated social interactions being built around it and a suddenly surging populism, that I'm content just to say "ok" to.
Or to be gruffer: I can rub my cock all day and get nothing from it while maintaining an erection. It requires a special focus to achieve an orgasm. What exactly is an asexual focusing on to do this?
I agree that if someone is truly asexual they aren't likely to orgasm, I imagine they might get off once from 1000 attempts just by some fluke of brain chemistry but I really do not know enough about it at all.
I can rub my cock all day and get nothing from it while maintaining an erection.
I can't. Emotion and mental state definitely makes things go quicker, but in a completely neutral state of mind, I still get a physical reaction of some sort.
Evander on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
Not to mention the characterization of sex as the ultimate experience of a human body is rather subjective.
Sorry I should've said most pleasurable, I knew someone would peg me on it. No, it's not, happiness is measurable via brain chemicals and physical reaction, the happiness you get from an orgasm far surpasses the happiness you get from say food, or friendship. It's a half second(+/-) high on cocaine basically.
If you're willing to state that an orgasm produces the same level/equivalent of brain chemicals as being high on cocaine, then an orgasm can't possibly be the most pleasurable experience someone could have, turning it back into a subjective argument over what one who does have sex thinks, to them, is the most pleasurable.
I can't imagine anyone who is asexual and doesn't have something wrong with them be it physically or emotionally. In both cases there's probably a solution. In either case denying someone the greatest experience the human body can feel without the aide of drugs when there's the slightest chance they could orgasm seems cruel to me.
Sorry thought amending my previous statement was simple enough didn't know I had to repeat what I didn't amend.
elfdude on
Every man is wise when attacked by a mad dog; fewer when pursued by a mad woman; only the wisest survive when attacked by a mad notion.
Not to mention the characterization of sex as the ultimate experience of a human body is rather subjective.
Sorry I should've said most pleasurable, I knew someone would peg me on it. No, it's not, happiness is measurable via brain chemicals and physical reaction, the happiness you get from an orgasm far surpasses the happiness you get from say food, or friendship. It's a half second(+/-) high on cocaine basically.
If you're willing to state that an orgasm produces the same level/equivalent of brain chemicals as being high on cocaine, then an orgasm can't possibly be the most pleasurable experience someone could have, turning it back into a subjective argument over what one who does have sex thinks, to them, is the most pleasurable.
furthermore, wouldn't you logically have to argue that everyone should be required to try cocaine?
Not to mention the characterization of sex as the ultimate experience of a human body is rather subjective.
Sorry I should've said most pleasurable, I knew someone would peg me on it. No, it's not, happiness is measurable via brain chemicals and physical reaction, the happiness you get from an orgasm far surpasses the happiness you get from say food, or friendship. It's a half second(+/-) high on cocaine basically.
If you're willing to state that an orgasm produces the same level/equivalent of brain chemicals as being high on cocaine, then an orgasm can't possibly be the most pleasurable experience someone could have, turning it back into a subjective argument over what one who does have sex thinks, to them, is the most pleasurable.
furthermore, wouldn't you logically have to argue that everyone should be required to try cocaine?
I don't think anyone's arguing these people MUST be fixed. In fact this seems to be your major objection, and I don't know where you're getting it from.
Sex, unlike cocaine, also will not innately be quite likely to damage you.
Not to mention the characterization of sex as the ultimate experience of a human body is rather subjective.
Sorry I should've said most pleasurable, I knew someone would peg me on it. No, it's not, happiness is measurable via brain chemicals and physical reaction, the happiness you get from an orgasm far surpasses the happiness you get from say food, or friendship. It's a half second(+/-) high on cocaine basically.
If you're willing to state that an orgasm produces the same level/equivalent of brain chemicals as being high on cocaine, then an orgasm can't possibly be the most pleasurable experience someone could have, turning it back into a subjective argument over what one who does have sex thinks, to them, is the most pleasurable.
furthermore, wouldn't you logically have to argue that everyone should be required to try cocaine?
I don't think anyone's arguing these people MUST be fixed. In fact this seems to be your major objection, and I don't know where you're getting it from.
Sex, unlike cocaine, also will not innately be quite likely to damage you.
I can't imagine anyone who is asexual and doesn't have something wrong with them be it physically or emotionally. In both cases there's probably a solution. In either case denying someone the greatest experience the human body can feel without the aide of drugs when there's the slightest chance they could orgasm seems cruel to me.
I can't imagine anyone who is asexual and doesn't have something wrong with them be it physically or emotionally. In both cases there's probably a solution. In either case denying someone the greatest experience the human body can feel without the aide of drugs when there's the slightest chance they could orgasm seems cruel to me.
Did he say they must be fixed? No. Did he say he thinks we should try and ascertain whether there is an underlying issue? Yes.
If I believe in anything, it's that people always with exception, deserve a choice. If we can offer a blind man sight we should, even if he later chooses he would rather be blind. A deaf child hearing? Yes - even if he later chooses to be deaf. An asexual a heightened/existent libido? Yes, even if they later choose to remove it (and heaven told I wish I could delete mine when it suited me).
Lots more people who seem to simply have no idea what this means... I tried to explain it once, but obviously people didn't get it so I'll try again.
If you are heterosexual, I want you to imagine having sex with a guy... how much desire do you have? if you are actually heterosexual, you should have correctly answered 0!!!
Now... with that exact same feeling, try to imagine if both sexes gave you the same feeling.
Does this mean your penis stops feeling pleasure? No, it doesn't. You simply aren't attracted to anything is all.
You feel it is necessary to have some kind of fantasy or object in mind to orgasm, this is because you have ALWAYS had something in mind when you did.
Despite that, you do not actually have to have anything in mind. I don't, yet I have no problem pounding satisfying one out while i go on with my day.
I can't imagine anyone who is asexual and doesn't have something wrong with them be it physically or emotionally. In both cases there's probably a solution. In either case denying someone the greatest experience the human body can feel without the aide of drugs when there's the slightest chance they could orgasm seems cruel to me.
Did he say they must be fixed? No. Did he say he thinks we should try and ascertain whether there is an underlying issue? Yes.
If I believe in anything, it's that people always with exception, deserve a choice. If we can offer a blind man sight we should, even if he later chooses he would rather be blind. A deaf child hearing? Yes - even if he later chooses to be deaf. An asexual a heightened/existent libido? Yes, even if they later choose to remove it (and heaven told I wish I could delete mine when it suited me).
The issue is the focus.
If when you think about a deaf person all you think about is how they are lacking hearing, you are creating an environment where even if they want to stay as they are, it is uncomfortable to do so.
Look at elf's choice of language, and try to honestly tell me that there is acceptance of people reasonably choosing otherwise in those words. There is a pretty clear value judgment being made there.
I am a fan of giving people choices, but I prefer TRUE choices. If a deaf person does not wish to hear, or a blind person does not with to see, or an autistic person does not wish for a cure to autism, I believe that is a valid choice on their part, and that society should not treat them as though they are somehow "lesser" for that.
Lots more people who seem to simply have no idea what this means... I tried to explain it once, but obviously people didn't get it so I'll try again.
If you are heterosexual, I want you to imagine having sex with a guy... how much desire do you have? if you are actually heterosexual, you should have correctly answered 0!!!
Now... with that exact same feeling, try to imagine if both sexes gave you the same feeling.
Does this mean your penis stops feeling pleasure? No, it doesn't. You simply aren't attracted to anything is all.
You feel it is necessary to have some kind of fantasy or object in mind to orgasm, this is because you have ALWAYS had something in mind when you did.
Despite that, you do not actually have to have anything in mind. I don't, yet I have no problem pounding satisfying one out while i go on with my day.
Yes, this is an important distinction to make.
the people out there who use "asexual" to mean zero sex drive are misusing the term. Asexual, as opposed to hetero or homosexual, means no attraction to either gender.
And so we come back to "and yet how do you achieve orgasm if you don't want to or claim to gain nothing from it?"
This literally boggles my mind, and unlike most issues, it's not one, when I see the associated social interactions being built around it and a suddenly surging populism, that I'm content just to say "ok" to.
Or to be gruffer: I can rub my cock all day and get nothing from it while maintaining an erection. It requires a special focus to achieve an orgasm. What exactly is an asexual focusing on to do this?
Here's a thread on asexuality.org on that exact question. There are some pretty interesting answers there:
The pleasure derived from orgasm.
(male) I try not to think about what I'm thinking about or else I have to start over... my fantasies never involve a person I know, though, if that helps.
If I focus on one thing I get turned off pretty fast, so I generally try not to think of anything at all.
I don't think. I close my eyes and try to get it over with. The only reason i'm doing it is because if i don't, i'll have "spots" in the sheets.
But i hate it.
...as well as a bunch of more normal fantasies, of course.
Does this mean your penis stops feeling pleasure? No, it doesn't. You simply aren't attracted to anything is all.
Feral's post on fetishism deals with this.
Except that has absolutely nothing to do with anything... fetishism implies that you have a FETISH on something... do you understand that? If you are not attracted to anything, by definition, you do not have a fetish.
I can't imagine anyone who is asexual and doesn't have something wrong with them be it physically or emotionally. In both cases there's probably a solution. In either case denying someone the greatest experience the human body can feel without the aide of drugs when there's the slightest chance they could orgasm seems cruel to me.
Did he say they must be fixed? No. Did he say he thinks we should try and ascertain whether there is an underlying issue? Yes.
If I believe in anything, it's that people always with exception, deserve a choice. If we can offer a blind man sight we should, even if he later chooses he would rather be blind. A deaf child hearing? Yes - even if he later chooses to be deaf. An asexual a heightened/existent libido? Yes, even if they later choose to remove it (and heaven told I wish I could delete mine when it suited me).
The issue is the focus.
If when you think about a deaf person all you think about is how they are lacking hearing, you are creating an environment where even if they want to stay as they are, it is uncomfortable to do so
Look at elf's choice of language, and try to honestly tell me that there is acceptance of people reasonably choosing otherwise in those words. There is a pretty clear value judgment being made there.
I am a fan of giving people choices, but I prefer TRUE choices. If a deaf person does not wish to hear, or a blind person does not with to see, or an autistic person does not wish for a cure to autism, I believe that is a valid choice on their part, and that society should not treat them as though they are somehow "lesser" for that.
If you don't want to orgasm don't, if you don't want to do drugs don't. Seems like a pretty empty life to me, but for someone who can't experience it like I do I guess it just seems like a hassle, in that case have fun without it. You managed to get out of something nearly every other person on the planet has to deal with constantly, of course most of them enjoy it more than anything else (non drug related) but that's their deal, you still have sunsets, butterflies, books, television, friends to fill your road to happiness.
Key thing here is depression is a common cause for lack of labido as is vegetarianism/sedentary lifestyle/weight/blood pressure/hormonal imbalances, all can be easily fixed. Depression is also notable for disliking change or not wanting to make a choice as well as not wanting to do anything as is several other causes. So how do you know that you really don't want it and it isn't just something that screwed up both your choice and your labido?
Just food for thought. I'm all for anarchy and all but at least make your choices logically.
elfdude on
Every man is wise when attacked by a mad dog; fewer when pursued by a mad woman; only the wisest survive when attacked by a mad notion.
Lots more people who seem to simply have no idea what this means... I tried to explain it once, but obviously people didn't get it so I'll try again.
If you are heterosexual, I want you to imagine having sex with a guy... how much desire do you have? if you are actually heterosexual, you should have correctly answered 0!!!
Now... with that exact same feeling, try to imagine if both sexes gave you the same feeling.
Does this mean your penis stops feeling pleasure? No, it doesn't. You simply aren't attracted to anything is all.
You feel it is necessary to have some kind of fantasy or object in mind to orgasm, this is because you have ALWAYS had something in mind when you did.
Despite that, you do not actually have to have anything in mind. I don't, yet I have no problem pounding satisfying one out while i go on with my day.
Yes, this is an important distinction to make.
the people out there who use "asexual" to mean zero sex drive are misusing the term. Asexual, as opposed to hetero or homosexual, means no attraction to either gender.
Part of the confusion is that there are people who self-identify as "asexual" who fall into either category.
In fact, we've had people in this very thread who declare themselves to be asexual but differed on this basic distinction.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I can't imagine anyone who is asexual and doesn't have something wrong with them be it physically or emotionally. In both cases there's probably a solution. In either case denying someone the greatest experience the human body can feel without the aide of drugs when there's the slightest chance they could orgasm seems cruel to me.
Did he say they must be fixed? No. Did he say he thinks we should try and ascertain whether there is an underlying issue? Yes.
If I believe in anything, it's that people always with exception, deserve a choice. If we can offer a blind man sight we should, even if he later chooses he would rather be blind. A deaf child hearing? Yes - even if he later chooses to be deaf. An asexual a heightened/existent libido? Yes, even if they later choose to remove it (and heaven told I wish I could delete mine when it suited me).
The issue is the focus.
If when you think about a deaf person all you think about is how they are lacking hearing, you are creating an environment where even if they want to stay as they are, it is uncomfortable to do so
Look at elf's choice of language, and try to honestly tell me that there is acceptance of people reasonably choosing otherwise in those words. There is a pretty clear value judgment being made there.
I am a fan of giving people choices, but I prefer TRUE choices. If a deaf person does not wish to hear, or a blind person does not with to see, or an autistic person does not wish for a cure to autism, I believe that is a valid choice on their part, and that society should not treat them as though they are somehow "lesser" for that.
If you don't want to orgasm don't, if you don't want to do drugs don't. Seems like a pretty empty life to me, but for someone who can't experience it like I do I guess it just seems like a hassle, in that case have fun without it. You managed to get out of something nearly every other person on the planet has to deal with constantly, of course most of them enjoy it more than anything else (non drug related) but that's their deal, you still have sunsets, butterflies, books, television, friends to fill your road to happiness.
Key thing here is depression is a common cause for lack of labido as is vegetarianism/sedentary lifestyle/weight/blood pressure/hormonal imbalances, all can be easily fixed. Depression is also notable for disliking change or not wanting to make a choice as well as not wanting to do anything as is several other causes. So how do you know that you really don't want it and it isn't just something that screwed up both your choice and your labido?
Just food for thought. I'm all for anarchy and all but at least make your choices logically.
Again, what if a person who has depression does not want to not have depression?
You are making a WHOLE lot of value judgments about people, and tossing them around everywhere. The fact is, other people get ENTIRELY different things out of life from what you do. The focus should be that everyone has the options to be however they like, but also that they are not looked down upon for whatever they choose.
Does this mean your penis stops feeling pleasure? No, it doesn't. You simply aren't attracted to anything is all.
Feral's post on fetishism deals with this.
Except that has absolutely nothing to do with anything... fetishism implies that you have a FETISH on something... do you understand that? If you are not attracted to anything, by definition, you do not have a fetish.
Except in the cases cited, there seems to be zero functional difference between fetishism with an unidentified fetish and being "asexual". "I'm only doing it so I don't get spots on the sheets" is an insistant explanation. I don't buy it. In a case like this they are free to believe what they want but I don't see how something new or different is being described (asexuality).
Similarly the "don't want men or women" argument is just another level of obfuscation. It would apply equally well to autoeroticism. Again, how is asexuality a meaningful descriptor if one routinely achieves orgasm, as the given quotes suggest?
I'm not sure that "fetishism with an unidentified fetish" is a meaningful concept.
A fetish is something that takes the fetishist's attention. If the fetishist isn't giving it attention, how can be a fetish?
If you have a particular fetish then surely it has to be discovered. Homosexuals for example usually have a story of awkward heterosexual relationships which just don't do it for them, before eventually realizing where their interests lie.
I am not well-versed in the matters, but surely a similar logic must apply to a fetishist? You don't necessarily always know that you love shoes for example.
People seem to be mistaking my position for declaring asexual's can't possibly exist - however I'm willing to accept the colloquial use of the term. It's just I think it's more of a social phenomenon that's suddenly gained popularity in recent years and a lot of people self-describe in the desire to have some well defined group of what they are. Yet all a lot of what I hear seems indistinguishable to just having a very low libido, rather then something that is meaningfully described by a new term.
My position has been, if you can be stimulated achieve orgasm (routinely), then I don't think the term asexual is really describing you - it seems more like it's low libido and possibly some type of specific focus. I mean if you only masturbate, but do so infrequently, why is it not autosexuality with a low libido?
I'd be content to call it pretty much asexuality colloquially, but I feel the term should apply more to those who experience no sexual interest what so ever.
EDIT: For example -
If I focus on one thing I get turned off pretty fast, so I generally try not to think of anything at all.
This doesn't seem like it's describing asexuality if you're still masturbating. I have this exact experience - my teenage sessions were characterized by a need to not specifically focus on one image or it didn't work. Am I asexual because of this? No. Do I need a specific focus to orgasm? Yes.
This is my problem with a large number of the cases I see presented: they do not seem unique even against my own experiences, they just seem like misattribution of a low libido to something else. Disclaimer again: I am not denying that asexuality is possible, I am simply saying that we seem to have a meaninglessly broad descriptor for it. The % examples coming from the internet seem more like the high number of self-diagnosed asperger's cases on the internet.
Again, how is asexuality a meaningful descriptor if one routinely achieves orgasm, as the given quotes suggest?
When no other person is involved, not even in any fetishes which might be, 'asexuality' was intended to be used as a meaningful descriptor for "not physically attracted to, or interested in, persons of like or unlike sex or anything in-between."
This is how I was using it. If I got into an awkward spit with someone said, "well I'm clinically fetishistic," I'd need to explain what that meant. When I've said, "well I'm asexual," then that's a certain cultural touchstone that instantly bequeathed functional understanding. Even if I wasn't academically correct in my thinking, I was using the word that other people intuitively understood.
Unlike you, electrictylikesme, the majority of people I've met that encountered the term 'asexual' took it to mean 'neither hetero- nor homosexual,' not 'incapable of sexual fulfillment.' Now, going off the literature, it seems like me and all my friends and acquaintances were in the wrong, possibly, at least going off my private example (though obviously I didn't always disclose any masturbatory practices).
For me and those I've associated with, it's always been a word that shared a common suffix with heterosexuality and homosexuality and mirrored their function. To be attracted to the unlike sex; to be attracted to the like sex; and, to be attracted to no sex.
electricitylikesme, it kinda seems like you are just picking fights with people who have adopted the used-meaning of the word as opposed to its academic meaning (and an academic meaning, among several others, that many of us only learned as of this thread); since the fact a lot of us are talking past one another is now out in the open, it doesn't seem like this is a worthwhile question to keep asking. It's just a word that's been culturally reappropriated, and incorrectly with regard to certain references.
edit The post you wrote while I wrote this post outlines your position much more clearly, and I agree that it would be ideal if all of these words came into general use and people were able to that much more clearly speak to, both to themselves and publicly, their sexual wants and needs.
I am not well-versed in the matters, but surely a similar logic must apply to a fetishist? You don't necessarily always know that you love shoes for example.
OK, you could be a fetishist and not know what you like, however in that situation, you would be unable to orgasm... that's what defines a fetish, without the object/focus you are unable to orgasm.
I.E. People who are routinely masturbating to orgasm without that object/focus do NOT have a fetish.
It sounds like you want the word asexual to only mean the utmost extreme case. i wonder if you demand homosexuals be absolutely FLAMING, or they aren't real ones?
edit - took out an easily misunderstood sentence for focus purpose... don't really feel like going into that now.
Homosexuals have a somewhat positive criteria. Asexuals by definition are defining the absence of a pretty broad swathe of experience which is otherwise defined differently.
Again, what if a person who has depression does not want to not have depression?
I'll be the one to say it. Those people are both wrong and dumb. Scratch that. They're wrong, dumb, and depressed.
We should always err towards the side of a complete person being the ideal. Whether the deficiency be in sight, hearing, depression, or asexuality. If the broken person decides that they don't want to be made whole, then we have every right to look down upon them with pity for choosing to not fix themself if a viable solution exists. No normal person in their right mind would want to permanently remove an aspect of themself, be it sight/sound/happiness/sexuality.
Posts
An orgasm is a physical reaction.
That's like claiming it's impossible for a woman to rape a man, because if a guy gets an erection, then that "proves" that he likes it
Wasn't there another study that showed that the more older siblings someone has the more likely it is that they will be gay? Man, that looks even more ridiculous in text but I know I heard that somewhere. I think it was in a collection of science writing from 2006.
That probably explains a lot of my current indifference to sex.
I see that you too have passed fifth grade sex-ed.
Maybe you should go back, since an orgasm is not simply a physical reaction. It involves a state of mind and emotional response as well.
There's a biological component, and if you are unable to do any more than that, then you have no frame of reference to tell the difference.
I must have replied before you edited anything, so no, I didn't ignore you, I simply responded to what you said.
And as for ignoring points in favor of quips, I guess you're the pot in this scenario?
To me the difference is, someone who is asexual has zero libido constantly, doesn't respond to efforts to raise libido at all, isn't interested in sex with males/females/robots/anything. If someone is asexual they should be equally disinterested in having sex with males/females/anything.
There are people do have some level of sexual desire for a particular sex (male/female) but might not achieve orgasm, or might not be interested in intercourse. These are simply people with low libido and it isn't the same at all.
Sorry I should've said most pleasurable, I knew someone would peg me on it. No, it's not, happiness is measurable via brain chemicals and physical reaction, the happiness you get from an orgasm far surpasses the happiness you get from say food, or friendship. It's a half second(+/-) high on cocaine basically.
Because society has made you feel that you are some how wrong for not doing so?
People do plenty of things that they don't actually want to every day.
This literally boggles my mind, and unlike most issues, it's not one, when I see the associated social interactions being built around it and a suddenly surging populism, that I'm content just to say "ok" to.
Or to be gruffer: I can rub my cock all day and get nothing from it while maintaining an erection. It requires a special focus to achieve an orgasm. What exactly is an asexual focusing on to do this?
I agree that if someone is truly asexual they aren't likely to orgasm, I imagine they might get off once from 1000 attempts just by some fluke of brain chemistry but I really do not know enough about it at all.
I can't. Emotion and mental state definitely makes things go quicker, but in a completely neutral state of mind, I still get a physical reaction of some sort.
If you're willing to state that an orgasm produces the same level/equivalent of brain chemicals as being high on cocaine, then an orgasm can't possibly be the most pleasurable experience someone could have, turning it back into a subjective argument over what one who does have sex thinks, to them, is the most pleasurable.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Sorry thought amending my previous statement was simple enough didn't know I had to repeat what I didn't amend.
furthermore, wouldn't you logically have to argue that everyone should be required to try cocaine?
Sex, unlike cocaine, also will not innately be quite likely to damage you.
If I believe in anything, it's that people always with exception, deserve a choice. If we can offer a blind man sight we should, even if he later chooses he would rather be blind. A deaf child hearing? Yes - even if he later chooses to be deaf. An asexual a heightened/existent libido? Yes, even if they later choose to remove it (and heaven told I wish I could delete mine when it suited me).
If you are heterosexual, I want you to imagine having sex with a guy... how much desire do you have? if you are actually heterosexual, you should have correctly answered 0!!!
Now... with that exact same feeling, try to imagine if both sexes gave you the same feeling.
Does this mean your penis stops feeling pleasure? No, it doesn't. You simply aren't attracted to anything is all.
You feel it is necessary to have some kind of fantasy or object in mind to orgasm, this is because you have ALWAYS had something in mind when you did.
Despite that, you do not actually have to have anything in mind. I don't, yet I have no problem pounding satisfying one out while i go on with my day.
The issue is the focus.
If when you think about a deaf person all you think about is how they are lacking hearing, you are creating an environment where even if they want to stay as they are, it is uncomfortable to do so.
Look at elf's choice of language, and try to honestly tell me that there is acceptance of people reasonably choosing otherwise in those words. There is a pretty clear value judgment being made there.
I am a fan of giving people choices, but I prefer TRUE choices. If a deaf person does not wish to hear, or a blind person does not with to see, or an autistic person does not wish for a cure to autism, I believe that is a valid choice on their part, and that society should not treat them as though they are somehow "lesser" for that.
Yes, this is an important distinction to make.
the people out there who use "asexual" to mean zero sex drive are misusing the term. Asexual, as opposed to hetero or homosexual, means no attraction to either gender.
Here's a thread on asexuality.org on that exact question. There are some pretty interesting answers there:
...as well as a bunch of more normal fantasies, of course.
don't flatter yourself. I wasn't calling you out on anything. I was defnding myself after you attempted to call me out.
Except that has absolutely nothing to do with anything... fetishism implies that you have a FETISH on something... do you understand that? If you are not attracted to anything, by definition, you do not have a fetish.
If you don't want to orgasm don't, if you don't want to do drugs don't. Seems like a pretty empty life to me, but for someone who can't experience it like I do I guess it just seems like a hassle, in that case have fun without it. You managed to get out of something nearly every other person on the planet has to deal with constantly, of course most of them enjoy it more than anything else (non drug related) but that's their deal, you still have sunsets, butterflies, books, television, friends to fill your road to happiness.
Key thing here is depression is a common cause for lack of labido as is vegetarianism/sedentary lifestyle/weight/blood pressure/hormonal imbalances, all can be easily fixed. Depression is also notable for disliking change or not wanting to make a choice as well as not wanting to do anything as is several other causes. So how do you know that you really don't want it and it isn't just something that screwed up both your choice and your labido?
Just food for thought. I'm all for anarchy and all but at least make your choices logically.
Part of the confusion is that there are people who self-identify as "asexual" who fall into either category.
In fact, we've had people in this very thread who declare themselves to be asexual but differed on this basic distinction.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Again, what if a person who has depression does not want to not have depression?
You are making a WHOLE lot of value judgments about people, and tossing them around everywhere. The fact is, other people get ENTIRELY different things out of life from what you do. The focus should be that everyone has the options to be however they like, but also that they are not looked down upon for whatever they choose.
Similarly the "don't want men or women" argument is just another level of obfuscation. It would apply equally well to autoeroticism. Again, how is asexuality a meaningful descriptor if one routinely achieves orgasm, as the given quotes suggest?
A fetish is something that takes the fetishist's attention. If the fetishist isn't giving it attention, how can be a fetish?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I am not well-versed in the matters, but surely a similar logic must apply to a fetishist? You don't necessarily always know that you love shoes for example.
People seem to be mistaking my position for declaring asexual's can't possibly exist - however I'm willing to accept the colloquial use of the term. It's just I think it's more of a social phenomenon that's suddenly gained popularity in recent years and a lot of people self-describe in the desire to have some well defined group of what they are. Yet all a lot of what I hear seems indistinguishable to just having a very low libido, rather then something that is meaningfully described by a new term.
My position has been, if you can be stimulated achieve orgasm (routinely), then I don't think the term asexual is really describing you - it seems more like it's low libido and possibly some type of specific focus. I mean if you only masturbate, but do so infrequently, why is it not autosexuality with a low libido?
I'd be content to call it pretty much asexuality colloquially, but I feel the term should apply more to those who experience no sexual interest what so ever.
EDIT: For example - This doesn't seem like it's describing asexuality if you're still masturbating. I have this exact experience - my teenage sessions were characterized by a need to not specifically focus on one image or it didn't work. Am I asexual because of this? No. Do I need a specific focus to orgasm? Yes.
This is my problem with a large number of the cases I see presented: they do not seem unique even against my own experiences, they just seem like misattribution of a low libido to something else. Disclaimer again: I am not denying that asexuality is possible, I am simply saying that we seem to have a meaninglessly broad descriptor for it. The % examples coming from the internet seem more like the high number of self-diagnosed asperger's cases on the internet.
This is how I was using it. If I got into an awkward spit with someone said, "well I'm clinically fetishistic," I'd need to explain what that meant. When I've said, "well I'm asexual," then that's a certain cultural touchstone that instantly bequeathed functional understanding. Even if I wasn't academically correct in my thinking, I was using the word that other people intuitively understood.
Unlike you, electrictylikesme, the majority of people I've met that encountered the term 'asexual' took it to mean 'neither hetero- nor homosexual,' not 'incapable of sexual fulfillment.' Now, going off the literature, it seems like me and all my friends and acquaintances were in the wrong, possibly, at least going off my private example (though obviously I didn't always disclose any masturbatory practices).
For me and those I've associated with, it's always been a word that shared a common suffix with heterosexuality and homosexuality and mirrored their function. To be attracted to the unlike sex; to be attracted to the like sex; and, to be attracted to no sex.
electricitylikesme, it kinda seems like you are just picking fights with people who have adopted the used-meaning of the word as opposed to its academic meaning (and an academic meaning, among several others, that many of us only learned as of this thread); since the fact a lot of us are talking past one another is now out in the open, it doesn't seem like this is a worthwhile question to keep asking. It's just a word that's been culturally reappropriated, and incorrectly with regard to certain references.
edit The post you wrote while I wrote this post outlines your position much more clearly, and I agree that it would be ideal if all of these words came into general use and people were able to that much more clearly speak to, both to themselves and publicly, their sexual wants and needs.
OK, you could be a fetishist and not know what you like, however in that situation, you would be unable to orgasm... that's what defines a fetish, without the object/focus you are unable to orgasm.
I.E. People who are routinely masturbating to orgasm without that object/focus do NOT have a fetish.
It sounds like you want the word asexual to only mean the utmost extreme case. i wonder if you demand homosexuals be absolutely FLAMING, or they aren't real ones?
edit - took out an easily misunderstood sentence for focus purpose... don't really feel like going into that now.
I'll be the one to say it. Those people are both wrong and dumb. Scratch that. They're wrong, dumb, and depressed.
We should always err towards the side of a complete person being the ideal. Whether the deficiency be in sight, hearing, depression, or asexuality. If the broken person decides that they don't want to be made whole, then we have every right to look down upon them with pity for choosing to not fix themself if a viable solution exists. No normal person in their right mind would want to permanently remove an aspect of themself, be it sight/sound/happiness/sexuality.
Would you want to strike yourself blind?