DesertDog, that’s a very sad story. Not to further hijack, but are you content with the way things are now, or do you wish for a full relationship with someone else?
I’d hate to see you treading water if that’s not what you truly desire. And I’m sorry for your roommate…like I would be for someone blind since birth. They may have a full life, but there’s a part of the human existence they will never experience.
Gee DesertDog, that was a very interesting and illuminating story. I live a chaste life. Not asexual, but chaste. I do that for a variety of psychological and moral reasons, but I choose to do it. Further, I mostly enjoy my life. Sex would not make me happier.
OTOH, I am not asexual. I like girls just fine. I simply do not want to have sex with anyone at the moment.
I don’t know if you’re referring to my post, but I said:
There’s a kind of Catch-22 here because a lack of interest in sex is (IIRC) a symptom of depression. Depression could cause a lack of interest, but not being interested could cause depression if the person feels like a total outcast.
I wish I had added:
And what if there’s a person who’s depressed, say, because a loved one died and he never got over it—but he would have been asexual anyway? I.e. the asexuality could also be depressed but the depression is no causal relation, no matter which way you point the arrow.
Also, if you’re asexual but not depressed, some would probably say you’re “in denial.”
If you (not Broomstick specifically, but people in general) start from the assumption that intrinsically all people want some form of sex—because evolution requires it or the psyche demands it or whatever—you’re bound to “prove” your point one way or another.
I interpreted it as “Some people assume “asexual” really means that a person is effectively gay but in denial, in the same manner that some people assume “bisexual” really means that a person is effectively gay but in denial.” Or, in less words, “Some people assume “asexual” *and *“bisexual” really means that a person is effectively gay but in denial.”
I can understand your parsing of it, however. I didn’t understand it from your first response, but I do now.
It depends. He could have one of the myriad of disorders falling under the label Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. In some of these, it’s not a testosterone production problem so much as a testosterone recognition problem; no matter how much testosterone you pump into him, his cells won’t recognize it and use it.
On the contrary, it may count for everything. It seems to me that a fairly common technique that rape victims use to cope is to shut down their intimacy for a while. Maybe she just got stuck there, poor thing.
The show included the information that he is now back at a normal level of testosterone.
Really? You really see no way that:
could be construed as asserting that bisexuals are “effectively gay but in denial”? I mean, it says it right there in the sentence. If that’s not what you meant, fine: I’m willing to believe you if you can show an ounce of understanding of how that sentence can be misconstrued. In fact, if you had simply said something like “Come on, dude, that’s not what I meant”, I might be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. But don’t blow smoke up my ass.
Look, I’m not going to Pit you, because I don’t see any need to fire up the torches over a silly little grammatical ambiguity. I just wish you weren’t in such denial over the whole thing.
Is GQ really the forum to cast aspersions on my ability to understand my own sexual orientation? Some people are more equal than others, I guess. Whatever.
Moderator Warning
I instructed you above to dial it back a few notches. I don’t think telling someone “Don’t blow smoke up my ass” is in accord with that instruction.
I agree with the assessment of others that you are insisting on a rather tortured reading of the OP. No one here has “cast aspersions on your ability to understand your own sexual orientation.” You are making this into a personal issue when no such thing was intended or apparent.
Knock it off NOW.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I can’t say I get how that’s a personal insult, but my understanding of this thread is clearly divergent with the official line, so I’ll just bow out. Peace.
Not an insult per se, but unnecessarily hostile in tone, as was the rest of the post.
Shot of testosterone? Sure, I’m scheduled for one tomorrow.
It may be statistically likely that some people would exist in this condition, but I’d imagine that that number would be extremely low, since the whole point of life is to continue itself. We are clearly programmed to reproduce, so everyone should have some degree of interest. I understand that social and pscychological, and even physical factors may interfere, but it is certainly not in the species best interest to create individuals that are not inclined to multiply. Or to engage in some version of reproductive-type behavior. Hell, sex feels good, most likely for the simple reason that we’re likely to do it more often if it does. I’d guess it’s mighty rare for someone to have no interest in sex.
I suppose ant colonies, termites, bee hives, and wasps nests are interesting examples where many in a species are “not inclined” to engage in reproductive behavior.
Granted, humans aren’t any of the above, but you look at a wolf pack, where normally only the alpha male and female produce pups but all the wolves help raise them, and it because less astonishing that individuals forgo reproducing on their own at times. Perhaps the selective pressures against non-reproductive individuals aren’t as great as first supposed, particularly if they assist close relatives in reproducing more successfully than they would without aid.
Hostile Dialect, he said people ASSUME that asexual or bisexual means gay in denial. And people do. He didn’t say he thought that. As a former asexual, I found nothing offensive in what he said.
(I had low libido, but not none whatsoever. It was low enough that I wasn’t interested in having sex with anyone, but I did drool over guys. My libido has finally kicked in. )
I’ve read the AVEN forums years ago. They have articles about asexuals who are in chaste marriages. I didn’t stick around because I didn’t feel asexual enough (and single-interest forums tend to bore me quickly). If you’re willing to take random posters at face value, then Yes, there are people with no sexual interest at all.
I’ve discussed this with another former asexual. We were both curious as to how many of them it WAS from depression or something, like it seemed to have been for us. Neither of us wanted to follow up on it because, like most interest-websites, people had their identity really wrapped up in their asexuality. But I’m willing to believe people until they contradict themselves.
I wouldn’t be at all shocked if asexuals comprised 1-2% of the human population, and even they’re outnumbered (in industrialized countries, at least) by people who like sex but have no intention of reproducing.
Everyone here seems to consider being asexual as “just a phase”, several posters have spoken of being asexual and then not being asexual. Now, if anyone said that about homosexuality (or bisexuality ;)), then half the posters on here would go nuts, because many gay people claim that their sexuality is ingrained and unchangeable.
This seems to indicate that most posters here don’t view asexuality as a “real” sexuality, but rather as a temporary psycological disorder that people who are depressed or stressed go through (Yes, the irony is intentional).
And, if you read the wiki, this seems to be a popular view (Although I got a giggle from “they haven’t met the right person yet”).
I don’t think that anyone has really answered what I think is the OP’s question - Is asexuality a real sexuality?
In a thread with an already ridiculous number of generalizations, don’t be so eager to add another.
Yes. Yes it is. And for people who think it’s temporary, I suggest reading this
Will it help if I tell you that I’m sometimes, but not always, gay? Seriously. And sometimes, but not always, I’m bisexual. I am legion.
To phrase it in a less, um, hostile dialect, there’s two ways the sentence in question could be interpreted:
You apparently meant 1, but HD read 2, and it needed no torturing of syntax to do so. “Some people believe ‘republic’ like ‘democracy’ is when a nation votes for its leader.”
To make this post at least a little remotely on topic, I’ve had a brief relationship with an asexual person. She wanted an SO, and presumably liked romantic stuff, but the actual idea of sex was out of the question. I felt like a heel for wanting sex to be part of a relationship, or at least for the potential to exist, but I can’t imagine spending life with someone uninterested.
ivylass, Paul, WhyNot, so as to not clutter up this thread any more, I’ve responded to your comments and questions over here.