Ask Your Question today
I'm convinced that the concept of humans being asexual is total and complete bullshit. It is just people with less hormones who don't act on their urges and want a special orientation to call themselves to feel like a special snowfalke. Is it normal to think human asexuality is bull shit?
Someone I know is asexual , they never desire sex with anyone and are in fact repulsed by it so let's not label it but then if someone asks, it's so much easier to just say "I'm asexual" than "I'm not interested in having sex with anyone"
Yes asexuality exists.
Someone telling you they are asexual, is not enough convincing evidence to make asexuality a fact. It is more of a theory, for it has not been proven.
If someone says they hate meat and can't even stomach it every time a friend or family member made them try it, they hate meat. It doesn't mean they're in denial about liking it, it means they won't eat it because they don't like it.
Just because the majority have a preference towards something doesn't mean everyone will.
I see your point however I don't think the meat analogy is the same. Sexual desire is something that is more subconcious than food tastes. People are attracted subconsciously at first and on many other occasions also. And also, everyone has sex hormones that play a role in sex drive. Because if this many people at times have a higher sex drive than they want, while others have one lower than they want. Hormones regualate our desex drive to some extent and everyone has these hormones, so our level of attraction is not under our control. I think poeple who are asexual simply ignore the urges they have. So it appears that they may be asexual from the outside looking in, but hormones still work on them.
I find it impossible to imagine, and I think there are people around who just cling onto labels to make themselves feel special. But also there really are people out there who experience no sexual attraction. Just because we can't imagine it doesn't mean it's not real for anyone else. Also the argument about it being human nature to be sexually attracted to people doesn't work either, because even when something should be innate there will always be a few people who break the mould genetically, and there will also be people who respond to the world around them in a way that causes them to go against nature (e.g anorexia, suicidal people etc). Not trying to compare asexuality with anything destructive, I'm merely pointing out that our idea of natural isn't a hard and fast rule that every human fits in to.
The rationale is used is not the fact that I could not imagine it. Even though I can't imagine it, it coukd still be a thing based off that. But rather, things like anatomy, hormones and evolution, make me belive that it is not a thing. Like asexual guys still have testosterone which plays a role in sex drive. And asexual girls still have a clitoris, which is an organ whose only purpose is sexual pleasure. If a guy is 'asexual' what would happen if you put a vibrator on his penis? You really think he would not feel a thing? Does he have no nerve endings or what?
You’re misunderstanding the definition. Asexuals are not interested in having sex, doesn’t mean they can’t get aroused. They just don’t get aroused by the idea of having sex with people, your vibrator example kinda proves that. just as you’re not aroused by the same sex if you’re straight, or even ugly people. That’s how they feel about everyone.
That is kinda the point. They still have some sexual drive and feelings, they are just to low to amount to outwardly wanting to have sex. But regardless, the idea that people have no sex drive at all or no sexual feelings is BS, and that tends to be what asexual people claim. In my opinion of course!
So what? We just want a simple word to refer to the more lengthy meaning. That's how language works.
I know it is not the most important thing ever, but I do think the term is misleading. All people have some small degree of sexual desire, and its the ones that never act on it that call themselves asexual. The term is misleading though.
Imagine someone walk up this guy and say, "I don't like music." And he's just like, "What do you mean you don't like music, you have ears! You need to PROVE you don't like music."
Why does someone need to prove they're asexual? They don't want to have sex with anyone. Why is that something that needs to be proved?
Bizarre question and equally bizarre follow-up comments from OP.
While you seem to accept that there are people who simply aren't interested in sex, you've got a hair up your ass about such people calling themselves "asexual".
My conclusion is that you have a black and white view of life, people, and sexuality. Many people find life easier when they can shove others into neat little pigeon holes, but the fact is that humans are more complicated than that.
You also seem to believe that only that which you can conceive of can possibly be true. Asserting that, "asexuality, as in ZERO attraction whatsoever... is [not] a thing," does not make that true.
The way you declare that there are only three valid labels that can be applied to human sexuality also suggests that you find understanding others very challenging, you might be lacking in empathy, or have a deep need for hard and fast rules. Perhaps you're just young and naïve, and you're finding life in general confusing, but I wonder if you might be on the autism-Aspergers spectrum.
You are obviously correct that evolution selects for interest in having sex and reproducing, and any organism which does not reproduce is a genetic dead-end. Who knows? There could well have been species in Earth's history which became extinct because the individual animals simply couldn't be bothered to fuck.
I don't know enough zoology to cite research which proves that there are other species where some members clearly demonstrate no interest in sex, but I'd be willing to bet that this has been observed. I believe that much of human behaviour can be attributed to deep-seated drives that we've inherited from our evolutionary ancestors and which we're not consciously aware of, but we humans are far more than machines driven by our genetic heritage. The selfish-gene model is valid to a point, but it only goes so far.
Okay so let me get this straight.... I'm young, naive, confused and have autism, but we never actually get to much material adressing the actual post. How am I the one seeing things as black and white? I'm the one saying there is no absolute zero sex drive and it is rather a spectrum of vastly varying levels of libido. Asserting something is true does not make it true... WELL I SURE HOPE SO!!! This post is an opinion! Did you read where it said to THINK asexuality is not a thing?? And apparently thinking it doesn't exist apparently means I have autism, just like 40% of the other people who voted on this post ...
How about this? Give me a concise reply that directly states why you have a different opinion than me about asexuality?
Sorry, but I don't do concise. I either do nothing at all or lengthy. 😜
I'm not an academic researcher of human sexuality, but I've been interested in sex for decades, and I'm familiar with at least the outlines of the research that's been done going all the way back to Kinsey and Masters and Johnson in the 1950s. I suspect we have different opinions on asexuality since it's been clear to me for a long time that my sexual feelings and urges are not exactly the same as every one of the 107 billion human beings who have ever lived. Just as it's possible for me to imagine finding other men sexually attractive, so I can imagine not having any sexual feelings at all. You, however, seem to believe that, since you cannot imagine not having any sexual feelings, nobody else can possibly be completely devoid of sexual feelings.
You say you accept that people have "vastly varying levels of libido". Say that it was possible to objectively assess a person's interest in sex and define it as a precise numerical value up to 100 (that's a silly idea, but it's a thought experiment). You appear to believe that it's not possible for that scale to range from 0 to 100, but that it must range from 1 to 100. You also seem to believe that anyone who has Level 1 interest in sex cannot describe themselves as truly asexual.
That's a faulty view for two reasons:
First, the little change from starting the scale from zero to starting from one is based on nothing more than an assumption on your part - based on projection of your personal experience - that everyone must have _some_ urge to have sex.
Second, even if you were to start the scale from one, while someone with a Level 1 interest in sex might not be truly asexual, they are effectively asexual. If someone has such severe problems with their vision that they are only able to just barely detect the sun when it shines directly into their eyes, you could say that they are not blind, but they are blind for all intents and purposes. If a guy going through peak-puberty experienced a weird little twinge of interest when his twelfth grade teacher leaned forward over his desk and he got a glimpse of her cleavage, but he's never felt anything like that in the fifty years since that moment, then you could say he's not truly asexual, but he is effectively asexual, and it might be helpful to him to think of himself in that way and to describe himself as asexual to others.
Also, consider that the scale would actually have to include negative values. Not only are some people completely indifferent about sex, there are those for whom even the briefest thought of sex triggers feelings of disgust, physical revulsion, panic, fear and so on.
I'm willing to accept that there are those these days who slap a label reading "asexual" on their foreheads and wear it with as much pride and just as vociferously as vegans do their dietary choices. I also accept that some people might decide that they are asexual because of poor social skills or fear of sex based on some earlier trauma.
It doesn't bother me if people do those things, and it shouldn't bother you either. Their life; their choice. I think it's sad that such people aren't able to enjoy sex for some reason, since good sex can be one of life's greatest pleasures in many ways, but they have the right to define and label themselves that way if they so choose.
Where I do draw the line is when people attempt to tell me that because they feel a certain way or believe certain things, anyone who doesn't believe as they do or admit to feeling the same things is lying, perverted, sub-human, or something equally negative.
I have already said this but I'll say it again. I do not belive this just because I can't imagine it being myself. That goes along with evolutionary and hormonal factors that combine to form my belief.
Now about this scale of yours... if being a zero is no sexual feelings at all, then I do not think that is possible. You say that I think this is faulty because of experience, but again, experience is only a small part of why I believe asexuality is fake. Then is your whole banter about 'effectively' asexual, and you bring up a good point no doubt. I am sure some people have such little sex drive, that for almost all intents and purposes, it is fine to call them that. But still by definition, they are not asexual. And its the use of this misleading term that grinds my gears. And also people who claim asexual andsay they have never had any feelings at all, I don't believe them at all
That is quite a self contradicting statment. You can not PROVE someone is asexual, so how can it be normal? Just because someone says they are asexual, does not in any way PROVE it is a legit thing.
Its a weird. My friend who is “Asexual” cant get hard for anything. Nothing can turn him on.
What does that mean? It takes a certain level of arousal to get hard, not just any shred of arousal will cut it. I see a hot chick in the hallway and glance at her tits, do I get hard right away? No! Am I sexually attracted to her? Yes, just not enough or for long enough to get hard. Just because you can't get hard does not mean you have no attraction.
Lol how does it make someone a special snowflake more than any other orientation does? Sexuality is a major part of life, what are they supposed to say when people wonder why they are never dtf, “i don’t have high enough hormones for that”?
I'm a little confused here. Do you agree or not? What is dtf? The onky other sexualities that are ligitimate is Hetero, homo and bi, the rest are either pointless or do not exist. All three of those sexualities need to be a thing to describe someone's attraction. But being sexually attracted to nothing is not possible in my opinion, hence the post.
Down to fuck; willing to have sex.
It is possible to not be sexually attracted to either sex. Asexuals can still experience nonsexual (romantic) love though, which is one reason it’s as useful a label as gay or bi.
I mean I don't understand why you want to force your sexually promiscuity on others. Why does it matter if someone feels like bonign every penis or vag they see? Shouldn't that be thier right?
lol if asexuality didn't exist it wouldn't have been scientifically and medically acknowledged,its really a thing,if there are people who are attracted to the opposite sex then surely there will be people with no sexual attraction whatsoever
It depends on your definition. Asexuality, as in ZERO attraction whatsoever, I don't think is a thing. But the people the term desrcibes actually just have a low sex drive and shy away from acting on an of their urges, so it appears that way. But by definition, I think the term is misleading.
You're entitled to believe that asexuality doesnt exist but it won't change the fact that it does exist and some people have zero sex drive. Just like not all people are straight and attracted to the opposite gender. We're all different whether or not you want to accept it.
What do you believe gives you the right to define other people's sexuality? Mind your own business.
I am not telling anybody what is what. I am wondering if it is normal to think this. That is the point of this site isn't it? I am not staing it as a fact, for I know it cannot be definitively proven either way. But it is an opinion that I have, and opinions, last I checked, are sonething you are allowed to disagree with...
You have a right to your opinion, but whether you like it, or not asexual is a thing. You're free to think that it's not a thing if you feel so inclined, but that doesn't change the fact that asexuality is a thing, and many people recognize it as such.
Thanks for understsnnding it is an opinion at least! And I know many people recognize it ss a thing. But I think the people that we recognize as asexual just have very low and or concealed sex drives. So the term is misleading, nobody has absolutly no sex drive, but there are people who seem asexual because their sex drive is so low.
You sound like an ignorant twat, in fact I know who you are, calling everyone a snowflake just because some people have morals and you'd fuck anything that moves and want everyone to agree with your immoral warped degenerate behavior
Can we please actually adress the post in our comment on said post? Or should we just take turns insulting eachother? Because that is also fun, just let me know which one you want to do beforehand.
Says you calling people on the ace spectrum snowflakes 😂 Grow up snow flake
You sound like a cunt head who is insecure about his identity because he did not get hugged by his mom when he was a kid. And also got beat up at recess.
Lots of people are gonna be so triggered by this post XD it’s normal tho
I think there probably are a lot of people that jump on the band wagon as it does have somewhat of a cool orientation kind of feel ...like "Im not plagued like all you mortals and your worldly sexual desires" lol Im not going to make a claim to how many are sincere or faking or somewhere in between...but I do believe there must be people who exists who are %100 asexual just do to the sheer sample size of nearly 8 billion people on the planet...it seems as if it would be a variation you'd see.....now whether it be as common as people think idk.... certainly there are also young people who are just confused...hell I kinda thought i might be asexual at one point in my early years, it proved not to be true for me. but ya know, like a lot of things.. i wouldn't be an absolutist about it...even if you have kind of a point that there probably are heaps who are not quite as they say ...maybe even a majority ...but all? i think not.
How am I the one being too absolutist? Asexual people claim ABSOLUTLY zero sex drive, and I call bull shit. I am saying there is not absulute, not the other way around.
i said, "like a lot of things.. i wouldn't be an absolutist about it" extra emphasis on "I" you think what you want. thats just my opinion.
I don't consider my point of view as being absolutist, but being absolutist in many senses is bad. No doubt about it. And respect to you for actually stating your perspective as an opinion and not a fact.
well actually I guess to be fair.. your point of view.. at least as you stated it in your post does at the very least come across to me as somewhat absolutist, i mean you did say "I'm convinced that the concept of humans being asexual is total and complete bullshit." emphasis on "total and complete". but there is nothing necessarily wrong with that, an absolutist doesn't instantly mean wrong, it could very well be right.
In my comment though I just explained how for me, when it comes to something as tricky as human sexuality and sheer number of people we are talking about, like 8 billion, that while i do agree there is a lot of BS when in comes to asexuality, perhaps not as nearly as much as you think, I'd disagree its a "total & complete" Bs sexual identity. Even though it may very well be total horse shit either knowingly or unknowingly for a good portion or even a majority of the people who claim to be/have it.
Its one of those things where I feel the baby can too easily be thrown out with the bathwater. But I definitely hear you, we certainly have some common ground in the sense that we both agree there is at least some BS that comes along with this identity, especially given it's trendy among young people and what not. In my opinion, its unfortunate that so many wolfs in sleeps clothing damage the reputation/believability of someone who might genuinely feel that way.
I am curious to know though, let's just say its all made up, that no one on earth actually feels this way, and everybody who claims it is wrong....what harms and or benefits do you see it causing by people claiming to be this identity either out of pure dishonesty or confusion?
Glad to hear your perspective. I figuered a lot of poeple like you would agree that it is at least exaggerated, if if you don't think it is compete bullshit. But I still think it is.
Now I'm not trying to call for specific change because of this post. I'm not saying we need to ridicule tbose who claim asexuality or anything like that. It just bugs me when people use the term because it is misleading per the definition. And also is bugs me when people act like they have no feelings when I think they do in fact have them.
I cant keep up with all the new liberal labels. theres what 72 genders now? Theres labels for every disagreement. They use the labels like weapons. They say shit like "Im LGTBYQ and youre xenophobic and islamaphobic with a tad bit of homophobia against the Asexuality of the toxic masculinity"
Im like "stfu"
People like that don’t exist in real life. You’re making up things to be upset over, much like “they” do.
As a confirmed liberal, we're not nearly as insane as the vocal minority on the internet makes us seem.
I've yet to meet a single nonbinary person that uses a made-up pronoun, or gets "triggered" when you misgender them. They'll just correct you, in the way you'd correct someone if they mispronounce your name. Some of my nonbinary friends like specific labels, but ultimately labels are just a tool, not a religion, and very, very few people actually are that dedicated to them.
Those who lack a sexual urge is in my view just defective. Defective as in when you are in a tribe if one does not reproduce then your bloodline is lost. Thus you are defective in survival of your genes wise. Self survival is of course the number one priority... until you have kids that's when its shifts to number two.
That is what I'm saying! Evolution would have finished these people off by now! It makes no sense for a species to just have no sex drive. People like that would die off a long ass time ago with natural selection, if there even were asexual in the first place.
I'm not sure if you're still replying to or reading comments, but here's my take.
a) tonnes of people don't buy asexuality, so I wouldn't say it's abnormal
b) I was reading through a lot of your comments, and I came across a few notions that I'd like to address specifically.
So first, I think the question really you should be asking is if you believe sexualities exist at all.
If you don't believe that homosexual men are only attracted to males, and you instead believe that their attraction to females is just very very low, then your belief that asexuality doesn't exist makes sense, and you also wouldn't believe that gay (or straight) people exist. If you think that someone can be fully heterosexual or homosexual, though, then your theory is completely thrown out the window. If a man can be entirely gay, then that means that he has no attraction whatsoever under any circumstances to women. Why then couldn't someone have this lack of attraction all genders?
So, if you're following so far and you agree that maybe gay people really aren't fully gay, I guess that leads us to: do you believe that they shouldn't they label themselves as such either?
If they feel attraction to their same gender 99.9999% of the time and that remaining 0.0001% of the time to people of another gender, should they just not call themselves gay?
If you're for foregoing labels entirely, that's fine, but recognise also that they're an easy way to explain to other people what you're interested in.
Also, I feel like it should be noted, if it hasn't already been, that asexuality is specifically not feeling attraction to people. It is not necessarily having zero libido (though some asexuals report this), it is not necessarily being sex repulsed (although some asexuals are)--it is just not ever looking at someone and being attracted to them in a sexual way. If you will take this to be true, even if their attraction to other is just shockingly low, if they'll never meet someone they feel attracted ENOUGH to to actually desire sex with them, why shouldn't they just call themselves asexual and be done with it?
Anyway, I hope you see this. Sorry if my points have already been mentioned, I don't have enough free time to read through 120 comments on this right now.
It's ok to not understand but it's not okay to be disrespectful if someone is asexual. I'm bisexual and intellectually I understand how people can be attracted to ONLY one gender, but emotionally I don't. Still I don't think it's bullshit
Well, A lot of people have said what you have said. Something along the lines of 'you are offending asexual people! And you don't understand because you are not one of them!
People can call themselves whatever the fuck they want, but asexuality has not been proven and I don't have to awknoledge it as a thing. Quite frankly, when people say they are asexual, I just don't belive them. Per the deinition which is not-sexual, nobody is asexual, In my opinion of course! Also I do understand that I can not relate to them, but that is not the reason I don't believe it. The reasons are primarily hormonal and also a little bit evolutionary.
I’m asexual myself and I don’t see your point here. Asexuality is just the word to describe someone who doesn’t experience sexual attraction.
It took a lot of time and experimentation to come to the anti-climatic realisation that no matter what or how hard I try I just don’t feel sexual attraction. My hormones are normal and I’ve never been mentally ill.
It’s nothing to do with being “special”. I don’t think sex is wrong or gross, nor do I need to resort to having an unusual sexuality to be interesting, it’s just the correct word for me and the other 1-4% (studies vary) of the population who fall on the asexual spectrum.
If you’re still confused I recommend you go on asexuality.org and learn more.
Interesing to hear from soemone who claims to be asexual. Now could you be honest with me and say you have never looked at tits or ass with admiration? And have never fondeled your genitals to feel good even once? And also how the fuck is there a 'spectrum' of asexuality? Even if it is possible, it would be either you have it or you do not.
I also took a peek at your site. It seems legit, but also there is some gray areas. I'm not sure I'm looking in the right spot, but it does say under the learn more tab, that asexuals expirience 'other' forms of attraction, but don't actually want to have sex. I would say that these other attractions are because of weak sexual drive, that is just so weak it never translates into actually wanting sex. After all, at first when I was young and my sex drive was less, I just saw girls as interesting. But now that I'm older and have a reved up sex drive, its now like I actually want to stick my dick up there. So weak sexual feelings that don't amount to much may appear as other nonssexual feelings. Does that make sense? Remember, its all my opinion and perception. Don't get triggered or change your life because of me!!
I don’t look at people’s bodies and get sexually excited, I used to look at topless and naked pictures of both genders in the hopes I would feel something but I just don’t.
It’s important to note that asexuality only means a lack of sexual attraction, most asexuals can feel sensation in their genitals, it just doesn’t correspond to another person. I understand this may sound odd to someone who isn’t asexual. When I masterbate my mind mostly drifts to beautiful parks and forests, I’ve tried inserting naked people into these forests sometimes making them bathe in a lake but it does nothing to enhance the sensation. My genitals feel something but it’s probably akin to a non-sexual getting a back massage, it’s not enhanced by seeing attractive people.
Other kinds of attraction refers to romantic attraction, which I sometimes feel towards both genders, so the correct word for people like me is bi-romantic asexual. It means that when I like someone I want to go on dates with them, hold hands, kiss, cuddle, etc but for me that’s where the excitement ends. I like every part of romantic relationships except the sexual parts.
If I date again I will be honest from the start that I am asexual and will only be interested in dating other asexuals or people who feel so little attraction that they would be happy with a sex-less relationship.
My point is, you don’t have to fully understand every niche of asexuality, all you need to know is that it’s the lack of sexual attraction. The words asexual, grey-asexual, Demi-sexual really exist to help asexual spectrum people and their partners understand and communicate what they’re feeling.
I dunno if I belive you. You used to look at topless women just to 'see if' they were attractive? I habe a hard time buying you looked at naked women just out of curiosity. But that is nonoe of my buisness really, so I'll beleive you for now.
While your response did sound well thought out, you did not really adress my idea of that other forms of non sexual attraction, may actually be just weak sexual impulses. That is still my theory. I don't buy that you like cuddling with women but have not a shred of sexual urge. Not enough urge to have sex, or perhaps even get hard, but I don't see how sexual deisre plays no part in it. On another note, feeling sensations in your genitals makes you a sexual being in my book. You are designed to feel pleasure there. And even f the pleasure never amounts to actually wanting to have sex, sexual urges still play a role in causing you to feel that pleasure in the first place. In my opinion of course!
As to your theory that romantic attraction stems from sub-conscious sexual currents, perhaps research could be done into whether patterns of neural firing and release of nuerotransmitters in the brain are similar for what asexuals and non-asexuals describe as romantic love.
But however my brain is working it does not manifest into feelings of sexual attraction. So even if hypothetically the same neurotransmitters were being released it would not change the fact that I am asexual.
I used to look at topless pictures back in high school hoping I would like them, trying to make myself like them. I wanted to be “normal”. I didn’t understand why I didn’t get excited by bodies the way my friends did until years later when I started reading up on asexuality and it finally “clicked” that asexual was the word for how I feel.
I think your difficulty understanding asexuality likely stems from a lack of exposure in the media. Asexual people are presented as robotic or discluded from the narrative entirely. As a society we are told that everyone experiences sexual attraction. This makes sense in evolutionary terms and everyone around us seems to feel it so combine the fact that you feel it too and I see how strange it must be to be introduced to the concept that some perfectly healthy adults just don’t. But for better or for worse that’s how it is.
Your view makes sense, and I can tell you know what you are talking about. But I still disagree the asexuality in the pure sense, is a thing. I think poeple like you are close enough to no attraction that people call you asexual, and that is fine. I'm jsut wondering uf I'm the onky one who thinks the term is a little misleading, and that bugs me.
I think there probably are some rare cases, but ye, most of them probably just have a very low libido.
Well we almost agree then. Some people have such low libido that they like to characterize themselves as asexual. But by definition, they are not asexual becaude they still have some desire of some sort, however weak that may be.
That's like saying someone's hair isn't white because it's "not pure white!!!"
The prefix 'a' means not. Atypical means not typical, ect. Asexual would mean not sexual. And if you still have any sexual feelings, you cannot be asexual. Being close enough works in some things, but the term asexual is too direct and people insist they have zero feelings at all. The term is misleading an by definition, it is not a thing. In my opinion of course!
All words are made-up. A term is defined by how we use it, and we use it in accordance to its definition.
Sorry if you don't agree with what everyone else thinks "asexual" means. :/
All words are made up? Bit really buster. Asexual is a word that was made from a word that already existed, "sexual" and a prefix with an established meaning "a". I know a lot of poeple have such low sex drives that it may seem easier to call them asexual. But the whole concept bugs me because the actual defintion of the word is not true. This post is asking uf it is normal to thing asexuality, by definition, is not true. I'm not saying we need to ridicule claimed asexual people, or even change the word. I'm just wondering if I'm the only person who deosn't buy it.