Being Asexual In A Sexual Society

[nomadic_chad]

I never got other sexualitys. Like I'm perfectly fine with gay people and bi-people and tranny peoples...as people. But I still never got how or what good an organism that doesnt sustain its own race is. If every dog was gay...what would happen, there would be no more dogs.

Would anybody care to explain?

All dogs aren't gay, all people aren't gay, but some of both species are gay. Both species continue to thrive. Probably a better way to see it.

In an already overpopulated world, I don't see the point of basing someone's worth on their ability/proclivity towards procreation.

 

[FolkLikePanda]

I don't really understand asexuality probably because sometimes I become a randy little bastard even though I ain't got a rat in hells chance of getting laid soon.

 

[PureIrony]

Does asexual translate into "doesn't really see the enjoyment nor understand the intricacies of sexuality?"

Because, if so, I'm totally asexual.

 

[nomadic_chad]

I never got other sexualitys. Like I'm perfectly fine with gay people and bi-people and tranny peoples...as people. But I still never got how or what good an organism that doesnt sustain its own race is. If every dog was gay...what would happen, there would be no more dogs.

Would anybody care to explain?

Could be genetic mutations. We're all defective so don't flame me for calling you a mutation. You might be, I am, surely.

That and perhaps their brain is simply wired differently as they've grown and now the nueral pathways found a connection saying penis > vagina or Nothing > Penis > vagina etc.

There's plenty of biological reasons why a dog would be gay.

What scares me though are the numbers. I can take some brain mutations, thats all a part of being an organism some evolve differently. But what I don't get is how this gene keeps passing on on the rate it does. Something like 1/10 people are gay (a lot of people seem to think...Ive also read 1/100). But will we all be gay eventually and our race will cease to exist or will it always be the same numbers? Will we hit a maximum ammount of gayness. Or will we eventually destroy the gene through genocide or other scientific matters?

I've got a theory based on absolutely no scientific fact that when any creatures' population reaches a critical mass, that the genetic mutation (I say that in a respectful and positive way) for homosexuality increases, in an attempt to level off the population. Bi-sexuality is included as it opens up the number of available sexual partners while hypothetically "halving" the odds that the sexual encounters will (or could) result in offspring.

Could explain why captive animals (especially those in herds) tend to get their same sex freak on more often (though is could just be documented more since they're captive animals) and why big cities have higher gay populations (I know a lot of that is migration, but is it all?)

 

[Shockolate]

I'm not asexual.

I'm just too fucking lazy to get a girlfriend.

 

[Scobie]

DELETED

 

[Riku'sTwilight]

I am not asexual, but I do believe that sex is an important thing that our society has perverted and devalued in horrible ways. Meaning that though I cannot identify with the lack of sexual desire, I really appreciate your stance on the issue. Especially the bit about teenagers being socially and culturally driven to have sex before they may be physically or emotionally ready for it. Amazing how, if we want to do something we're not ready for, we'll simply justify it by saying it's really not that important, huh?

Exactly yeah, there is a lot of pressure on people to get into someone's pants these days and I think know that this is the case with teenagers, believing it will make them cool and popular if they do sleep with people at a young age. I'll admit while I was that age I didn't notice it as much being a boy as a lot of my friends weren't sleeping around at a young age, however a few years later when I knew girls who were under 16 (pre-legal UK laws) I found that they were having sex and it disgusted me, mainly because the guys they were sleeping with were over 18 which to me highlights some social and cultural pressure just from their partner.

I messed about when I was younger, but have since lost all interest in pursuing any sort of relationship, sexual or emotional. I just don't have the mental stability to deal with it at the moment. To sacrifice this tiny piece of melting-ice that I call my emotional foothold, just for a meaningless (probably unadventurous and probably quite dull) fuck with someone would be pretty stupid. I am attracted to women, just not enough to bother going through the whole dating palava.

I've aired my views in previous asexuality threads, but never said how long I've been like this. Well, it's now been 13 years since I was drunk enough to consider sex a good idea, before waking up in the wet spot with a serious hangover and realising it was just time wasted.

Besides, I don't plan on being around in ten years time, so it'd be unfair on someone :/

That's a very unhappy post. How come you don't plan on being around in 10 years time if I may ask?
I am impressed with how long you have been asexual (if you define yourself that way) and your view; "To sacrifice this tiny piece of melting-ice that I call my emotional foothold, just for a meaningless (probably unadventurous and probably quite dull) fuck with someone would be pretty stupid. I am attracted to women, just not enough to bother going through the whole dating palava." is pretty much exactly how I feel.
Dating is a stressful social activity, one that i've experienced in the past and seen my friends be involved with. There's a lot of rules to know and redtape to avoid.

 

[Private Custard]

I messed about when I was younger, but have since lost all interest in pursuing any sort of relationship, sexual or emotional. I just don't have the mental stability to deal with it at the moment. To sacrifice this tiny piece of melting-ice that I call my emotional foothold, just for a meaningless (probably unadventurous and probably quite dull) fuck with someone would be pretty stupid. I am attracted to women, just not enough to bother going through the whole dating palava.

I've aired my views in previous asexuality threads, but never said how long I've been like this. Well, it's now been 13 years since I was drunk enough to consider sex a good idea, before waking up in the wet spot with a serious hangover and realising it was just time wasted.

Besides, I don't plan on being around in ten years time, so it'd be unfair on someone :/

That's a very unhappy post. How come you don't plan on being around in 10 years time if I may ask?
I am impressed with how long you have been asexual (if you define yourself that way) and your view; "To sacrifice this tiny piece of melting-ice that I call my emotional foothold, just for a meaningless (probably unadventurous and probably quite dull) fuck with someone would be pretty stupid. I am attracted to women, just not enough to bother going through the whole dating palava." is pretty much exactly how I feel.
Dating is a stressful social activity, one that i've experienced in the past and seen my friends be involved with. There's a lot of rules to know and redtape to avoid.

My ten year plan, ha!

I've been thinking about it for a long time now. I see no future for myself and I'm buggered if I'm gonna let myself become 'an old person'. I already have a blatant disregard for my own safety. I ride superbikes......fast, I smoke, eat badly and don't look before crossing the road. If that fails, maybe the Swiss will sort me out (after my parents are dead, they wouldn't understand and I wouldn't want to put them through it).

For now, I'm too stubborn! My friends don't understand how someone can hold such apathy for life and still keep functioning normally. I think it upsets and confuses them in equal measures!

Relationship-wise, I somehow managed to go through my twenties without anything happening. Pink Floyd were right, ten years got behind me, no-one told me when to run......I missed the starting gun.

I've now reached the point where a sexless existence is totally natural. I've even told girls that flirted with me that they'd be a fucking idiot to have anything to do with me in that way. I'm lonely, but basically holding my life together. Sex doesn't have enough appeal to risk anything.

I guess it's a form of asexuality, formed from numerous outside influences. Not sure if I'd feel otherwise if things were different, or if it's an inbuilt thing?

 

[Lyx]

What scares me though are the numbers. I can take some brain mutations, thats all a part of being an organism some evolve differently. But what I don't get is how this gene keeps passing on on the rate it does. Something like 1/10 people are gay (a lot of people seem to think...Ive also read 1/100). But will we all be gay eventually and our race will cease to exist or will it always be the same numbers? Will we hit a maximum ammount of gayness. Or will we eventually destroy the gene through genocide or other scientific matters?

I've got a theory based on absolutely no scientific fact that when any creatures' population reaches a critical mass, that the genetic mutation (I say that in a respectful and positive way) for homosexuality increases, in an attempt to level off the population. Bi-sexuality is included as it opens up the number of available sexual partners while hypothetically "halving" the odds that the sexual encounters will (or could) result in offspring.

Could explain why captive animals (especially those in herds) tend to get their same sex freak on more often (though is could just be documented more since they're captive animals) and why big cities have higher gay populations (I know a lot of that is migration, but is it all?)

Phobic much?

For starters, genes normally aren't fast enough for this. I highly suspect that those things are simply changes in REPORTS, not changes in actual population. But for a moment hypothetically assuming that something like this were to happen, then i can only think of two ways:

1. Culture and mental evolution. Culture fixes everything that genes don't do, humans just haven't figured that out, because they are too busy with rejecting responsibility for who they are, and genes are an easy scapegoat ( A wizard gene did it!

2. A way to drastically change natural selection, depending on the population size. The problem here is: how does biology know? I can only think of one approach here: Let us assume, that choice of sexual partner is not "atomic", and that it is instead a bias on a spectrum of possibilities (i.e., a 2D grid, with the corners representing hetero, homo, bi, and "neither"). Then, lets assume that when life is harsh, the highly heterogenous ones get the best chance of getting a partner (with the more moderate ones getting less spread). That way, heterogenous sexuality would be escalated. Now, lets say life gets less harsh, and the density of population increases. Then, more variety can survive without getting overly marginalized.

Still, the result of 2. can never be "the gays and asexuals killed humanity!". I mean, come on! If this is gene stuff, the choice of partners influence the offspring. Meaning: You can only get so many gays and asexuals until a soft balance is created - reason: gays and asexuals do not make children (ignoring more fancy tricks, i'm talking old-school here

So no, there cannot be some homo/asexual menace that kills off humanity - if that ever happens, then it will have been done on purpose by humans messing around with stuff. Number one way for humans to get killed off, is by doing it themselves - and they're constantly inventing more variety in how to bring on doomsday.

 

[nomadic_chad]

I've got a theory based on absolutely no scientific fact that when any creatures' population reaches a critical mass, that the genetic mutation (I say that in a respectful and positive way) for homosexuality increases, in an attempt to level off the population. Bi-sexuality is included as it opens up the number of available sexual partners while hypothetically "halving" the odds that the sexual encounters will (or could) result in offspring.

No, that wouldn't work at all. That would imply that evolution is a consciously-directed process that acts to benefit the species as a whole and that's not true.

I don't think your disagreement works. I have no problem with disagreement, yours just doesn't sound well thought out. Evolution would of course develop to benefit the species, it's the reason for the evolution as it were. "Consciously driven" makes no sense and I'm not sure where you got it. I have no idea what drives evolution, but I'm sure it's not a conscious decision on the part of the creatures doing the evolving.

You may want to take a minute and assess the reason you're arguing a theory that was pre-defined as being based on NO scientific data whatsoever. You may also want to assess the logic in arguing with anyone positing such a theory since they're obviously a mentally disturbed individual with too much free time on their hands and possibly a dependency on one or more illegal substances.

 

[nomadic_chad]

What scares me though are the numbers. I can take some brain mutations, thats all a part of being an organism some evolve differently. But what I don't get is how this gene keeps passing on on the rate it does. Something like 1/10 people are gay (a lot of people seem to think...Ive also read 1/100). But will we all be gay eventually and our race will cease to exist or will it always be the same numbers? Will we hit a maximum ammount of gayness. Or will we eventually destroy the gene through genocide or other scientific matters?

I've got a theory based on absolutely no scientific fact that when any creatures' population reaches a critical mass, that the genetic mutation (I say that in a respectful and positive way) for homosexuality increases, in an attempt to level off the population. Bi-sexuality is included as it opens up the number of available sexual partners while hypothetically "halving" the odds that the sexual encounters will (or could) result in offspring.

Could explain why captive animals (especially those in herds) tend to get their same sex freak on more often (though is could just be documented more since they're captive animals) and why big cities have higher gay populations (I know a lot of that is migration, but is it all?)

Phobic much?

For starters, genes normally aren't fast enough for this. I highly suspect that those things are simply changes in REPORTS, not changes in actual population. But for a moment hypothetically assuming that something like this were to happen, then i can only think of two ways:

1. Culture and mental evolution. Culture fixes everything that genes don't do, humans just haven't figured that out, because they are too busy with rejecting responsibility for who they are, and genes are an easy scapegoat ( A wizard gene did it!

2. A way to drastically change natural selection, depending on the population size. The problem here is: how does biology know? I can only think of one approach here: Let us assume, that choice of sexual partner is not "atomic", and that it is instead a bias on a spectrum of possibilities (i.e., a 2D grid, with the corners representing hetero, homo, bi, and "neither"). Then, lets assume that when life is harsh, the highly heterogenous ones get the best chance of getting a partner (with the more moderate ones getting less spread). That way, heterogenous sexuality would be escalated. Now, lets say life gets less harsh, and the density of population increases. Then, more variety can survive without getting overly marginalized.

Still, the result of 2. can never be "the gays and asexuals killed humanity!". I mean, come on! If this is gene stuff, the choice of partners influence the offspring. Meaning: You can only get so many gays and asexuals until a soft balance is created - reason: gays and asexuals do not make children (ignoring more fancy tricks, i'm talking old-school here

So no, there cannot be some homo/asexual menace that kills off humanity - if that ever happens, then it will have been done on purpose by humans messing around with stuff. Number one way for humans to get killed off, is by doing it themselves - and they're constantly inventing more variety in how to bring on doomsday.

Not phobic at all, actually. Sorry if my post gives off that vibe. Again, I'd advise you to read my rebuttal to someone else arguing my post just above this one, my post was based on absolutely NO scientific evidence. However, I do like your reasoning and the 2D grid explanation is clarifying and simple...I like it.

 

[nomadic_chad]

*double post*

 

[Lyx]

No worries - in this case, i quoted two people, not because of relevance, but instead because i was replying to that entire "discussion". So, i didn't specifically reply to you - sorry if i gave that impression.

 

[Requx]

I never got other sexualitys. Like I'm perfectly fine with gay people and bi-people and tranny peoples...as people. But I still never got how or what good an organism that doesnt sustain its own race is. If every dog was gay...what would happen, there would be no more dogs.

Would anybody care to explain?

Could be genetic mutations. We're all defective so don't flame me for calling you a mutation. You might be, I am, surely.

That and perhaps their brain is simply wired differently as they've grown and now the nueral pathways found a connection saying penis > vagina or Nothing > Penis > vagina etc.

There's plenty of biological reasons why a dog would be gay.

What scares me though are the numbers. I can take some brain mutations, thats all a part of being an organism some evolve differently. But what I don't get is how this gene keeps passing on on the rate it does. Something like 1/10 people are gay (a lot of people seem to think...Ive also read 1/100). But will we all be gay eventually and our race will cease to exist or will it always be the same numbers? Will we hit a maximum ammount of gayness. Or will we eventually destroy the gene through genocide or other scientific matters?

I've got a theory based on absolutely no scientific fact that when any creatures' population reaches a critical mass, that the genetic mutation (I say that in a respectful and positive way) for homosexuality increases, in an attempt to level off the population. Bi-sexuality is included as it opens up the number of available sexual partners while hypothetically "halving" the odds that the sexual encounters will (or could) result in offspring.

Could explain why captive animals (especially those in herds) tend to get their same sex freak on more often (though is could just be documented more since they're captive animals) and why big cities have higher gay populations (I know a lot of that is migration, but is it all?)

See this person is talking the sense now. I always viewed us humans as animals and think that what we think has some underlying survival instinct. That's also the reason for disease. When something becomes too populated disease overtakes and evens out the playing field...problem is modern medecine kinda defeats it. But super bugs eventually rid that out. But yeah you make a lot of sense.

 

[Scobie]

DELETED

 

[Lyx]

It's a misconception that has been debunked in scientific circles for several decades, but for some reason stubbornly refuses to die in the public consciousness. Evolution does not act for the good of the species. There is no reason why it should. Each individual evolves to spread their genes as efficiently as possible. In this regard they are in competition with all non-relatives in the population. Any individual that was genetically inclined to act for the benefit of the population as a whole rather than itself would quickly be outcompeted by all the selfish bastards. There is such a thing as group selection, but it occurs as a side effect of normal selection. Essentially, it's a happy coincidence.

If you'd drop your consciousness, you may be able to understand evolution, because its your mental preconceptions and dualistic thoughtstyle, that is in the way of understanding it. Only problem with that, is then then you wouldn't be able to... umm, understand anymore.

Hint: False Dichotomy. As usual. What goes around, comes around. Maybe someday humans, and especially scientists and sciencefans, may figure out that there ain't no such thing as interactionless interactions.

Scientific fact my ass. Please retry appealing to authority, when the authority stopped breaking logic and causality over and over.

 

[Scobie]

DELETED

 

[nomadic_chad]

I insisted that my posited theory was based on NO scientific evidence and still stand by it as containing no fact whatsoever.

For those of you who choose to argue one way or the other over what I said, more power to you. I'm not the dullest knife in the drawer (and far from the sharpest to be sure) but I don't really feel the need to flex any intellectual muscle here on these boards. The theory I posited is based off my increasing belief that there's more connection among us out there than either science or religion can offer...at least as we currently understand both science and religion.

I do have to say that I don't understand how evolution doesn't act in the best interest of the organism. Perhaps I don't understand evolution as well as I thought I did. I thought that evolution essentially made an organism more efficient or suited to their environment or circumstances.