They describe themselves as asexual, and they call their condition normal, not the result of confused sexual orientation, a fear of intimacy or a temporary lapse of desire. They would like the world to understand that they can live their entire lives happily without ever having sex."People think they need to convert you" -- that reminds me of the scene on the yacht in "Some Like It Hot," where Marilyn Monroe is trying to help Tony Curtis (who's just pretending).
"People think they need to convert you," said Cijay Morgan, 42, a telephone saleswoman in Edmonton, Alberta, and a self-professed asexual. "They can understand if you don't like country music or onion rings or if you aren't interested in learning how to whistle, but they can't accept someone not wanting sex. What they don't understand is that a lot of asexuals don't wish to be quote-unquote fixed."
Go to the link to see a picture of a young man wearing a shirt proclaiming his asexuality. I wonder what sorts of things people say to him when he's parading around in that? I'm sure most people think he's kidding and trying to get attention. But he's quite serious.
Posts
12 comments:
Maybe they will soon demand their own bathrooms....
I wonder though... if he's quite serious, then why wear the tshirt? Not that he doesn't have every right to express his belief in asexuality... but by wearing the tshirt, he's basically asking people for an argument about it.
If he were truly not interested in the debate, or being converted, why would he advertise it?
If he's not serious, the Times was had. Not that it never happens, but it would be so lame!
Why be out if you're not subject to discrimination? What's the motivation? He says he wants friends. He wants people to understand him and wants to be thought of as normal. Presumably, there are a lot of people who feel this way and may spend time worrying about it or seeking treatment, so there is a motive to band together with people and assure each other that they are okay and even just fine.
-they give that fellow a wide berth on the street when they see all the lubricant dripping from his hand, that's what people do.
Interestingly, I remember my biology teacher in high school stating that sex was a drive to perpetuate the species, but not for the individual's survival. One doesn't necessarily need it like one does food, shelter, water.
In our highly sexualized society, I can see such a want becoming a "need," however. I can also see people who are, for all intents and purposes, asexual taking on "beards" in order to not be singled out - much like gays have in the past.
As for Ann's question - why be out with this if there is no apparent societal discrimination - how many times have you ever tried to engage in a friendship with a male (or a lesbian) and have it turn 'weird,' because there was hope (in spite of your being up front and direct) on the part of the other person that they could 'change' you? How many times have you been force-set-up by well-meaning friends who (like some of my gay friends have dealt with) think that you're just emotionally overwrought because of a bad relationship in the past? How much of your social interactions are centered around other couples/families with children?
If you are a person who is not a breeder (as my gay friends call us) and who is not gay, wouldn't it be good to have a bit of visibility so that others like you might find you?
Add one more thing to the growing list of things we can't just do (of not do in this case). No, we have to advertise what we do or don't do, demand that society tolerates and accomodates us, require support groups so we don't feel uncomfortable, and dare anyone to stick a hand up as we throw a figurative punch at them.
I have to hope its a joke.
If the guy is being straight, and this is an issue with more than him, I would suggest that it is more likely from environmental factors than through genetics.
As noted, the drive to procreate is pretty well universal throughout the animal kingdom. As it has to be, for the survival of a species.
So, in the long run, if this were truly inheritable, it would die out, as those who had it would fail in the competition for offspring with those with a high drive to procreate.
Ann had a discussion going earlier on the inheritability, etc. of female ability to climax and whether or not there was selection pressure involved. I think the last word is going to be that there isn't, based primarily on the shape of the statistical curve or line involved.
I would suggest though that, esp. in late teens and early twenties, and esp. with males, the curve has the required peak, and it is extremely sharp at that end, indicating that most guys are extremely motivated at that age to breed.
Miklos,
I would suggest that if he does so, it is less frequently than average.
I can see three different reasons why someone might be
"Asexual". First, a low libido. Second, a weaker sexual identification or orientation. And third, possibly, history of some sort that has turned him away.
I don't think we see that later in men as much as in women. But still, quite possibly some asexual malesmay be the result of an overbearing mother combined with a strong sexual orientation.
But, still, in my limited experience, the guys I know who have never really connected up with women by their 40's, and now 50's, seem to have lower than average libido.
I see the usual amount of inanity in this thread, as in the world.
bruce hayden wrote:
"the drive to procreate is pretty well universal throughout the animal kingdom. As it has to be, for the survival of a species."
Now, without revealing my own lack of biological scientific credentials, could I suggest that this is a naive remark?
If _the whole_ of the species stops being interested in following one of two strategies: 1) reproduction to replace dying members, or 2) prolongation of the lifetime of members, then I would guess numbers of the species would decline. But it doesn't take a genius to realize that not every member of the species needs to have that same drive. It takes only a slight amount of insight to realize that if some don't, that can improve the situation overall for those who do wish to reproduce. Thus, when dolphins have helpers, when gay or lesbian or asexual individuals in other animal species don't decrease, but either have net zero or net positive impact on species survival in other animals, we don't act surprised. We say "oh, Nature is not as simple as I might have thought it was."
Just as homosexuality combined with pre-modern medicine (not going to pass on your own genes if you choose not to reproduce) is likely to stop the passing on of _your own_ genes, but could improve the survival of those related to you- say you help raise your niece or nephew- asexuality might well improve social fitness. Especially if it only appears or becomes prominent when there's a high enough concentration of humanity.
ed,
The problem is that you, and all of us, are descended from those with a higher, not lower, drive to procreate - by necessity. The genes of those who didn't died out. By definition.
Yes, if you have a population that can reach or exceed the carrying capacity of its environment with ease, and has no real preditors to worry about, then yes, the pressure to breed is significantly reduced.
And that, of course, describes the current state of human existance. But, we weren't always on the top of the food chain. And we couldn't get by with just 2.1 kids.
Less than two hundred years ago in this country, and within our lifetimes in many other places in this world, women would have to have kids pretty much as fast as they could in order that 2.1 or so would live to have their own kids. And the women would, more often than not, kill themselves (literally) doing this.
We, at least, have been at or near the top of the food chain for 10,000 to 50,000 years now. But even through almost all of that, disease, etc. took their toll.
Most animals don't have that luxury. After all, the food chain is really a food pyramid, with room for very few of us at the top.
So, in most of the animal kingdom, even in times of surplus, it pays, genetically, to keep on breeding, stocking up, as it were, for those times of scarcity (or surplus of their preditors).
So, we have maybe a century or two (in western Europe and their descendants here in the U.S.), less for most of the rest, of a significantly lowered pressure to breed. Hardly time to change our basic genetics, much, if any.
I mentioned earlier about a previous discussion that basically debunked the idea that there was pressure for selecting women who didn't climax as easily. The article I cited pointed out that the biggest indicia here was the flatness of the curve. Traits being selected for tend to have a very sharp peak.
Well, let's look at males in their late teens and early 20s. By all accounts, all that most of them have on their minds is sex. Given the option, they would sow their oats as far and as thickly as they could.
If you were to graph male sexual desire at those ages, I suspect that the curve would be anything but flat. Rather, I suspect, having been a male of that age (half a lifetime ago), that there would be a very large peak down around the "think about sex every couple of minutes" part of the curve, and what the guy called "outliers" around the "don't think about sex much at all" part of the distribution. In other words, a classic case of selection.
Solodric made a lot of good points. Interesting, the distinction he makes between low labido, which he claims not to have, and just no real sexual orientation.
In a different day and time, when there were significant social pressures to mate and have kids, the later would probably have worked better than the former. One could do one's duty, no matter how distasteful. And, thus, this would not really be that great of a survival burden for one's genes.
Sex is a very funny thing. I'm one of those people what considers himself asexual. Well, sort of. Thing is, I've probably just got a low libido, but sex doesn't make me happy. It's much of an anticlimax for me.
Some people like sex. Some people only like it if whips and chains ar einvolved. Some people like it between two men, or two women. Some people like group sex, anonymous sex or sex tied to a bed. And then you get people who just don't like sex.
Some people are content with masturbation, and some people don't even want to masturbate.
I do think that asexuality should be considered to be an orientation. Sure, many people would consider me to a be a bit weird, but at the end of the day, I'm a 20 year old beer drinking student. I'm normal enough. I'm just a bloke that ain't too keen on sex.
I think it would be good if more people were made aware that some people don't like sex. It doesn't make someone weird. OK, it does make them different, but it's not harmful in any way. Sex is just a bit of fun, and some people would rather have fun other ways.
As I say, it doesn't matter if you're drinking beer or wine, or even if you're just on the soft drinks, as long as you're enjoying the night.
Post a Comment