FOOD!! for thought "no gender"

[Sexy Street]

I would keep being awesome.
That's what the fuck I'd do.

 

[infohippie]

you never know maybe we would have breast i didn't say we would all like like men.

now you can think about what you would do with your new "development"

about the strippers it might be acceptable to go outside naked if we were all the same

Hang on... you mean I would get boobies of my own? O.O

...

...

...I might never leave the house again.

 

[Faux Furry]

On the upside, it would put an end to inequalities regarding gender and sexual orientation. On the downside, none of the positive things that come from gender differences or interactions between genders will remain unless the newly sexless people went out of their way to fake secondary or even primary sexual traits. While on the one hand, the creative capabilities of those who fall on the left side of the Kinsey Scale (0-3) would be compromised, those on the right side (4-6) might be unaffected though that's a mighty might there.

 

[Megahedron]

XD no no i wasn't getting offended or anything just this is the kinda introspective thinking i wanted to hear very interesting to think of a possible marriage less society but i do tend to get jealous of my best friends ignoring me for other people. so maybe some kind of binding commitment might still be necessary.

Yeah, sorry. I get a little defensive about this stuff because my friends make fun of me for being a little... traditional. Specifically, I've turned down (how explicit can I get here?) sexual favors at a party from a stranger, and I wouldn't take part in a threesome. So then for this conversation I'd get either an "YOU can't be in a relationship without sexual stuff? lol" or "you'd be jealous over a relationship in which there was no sexual attraction, in which there was no possible infidelity? lol" Fortunately, it doesn't come up too much.

So, to STOP TALKING ABOUT MYSELF, would children raised in a genderless society end up pairing up like most(?) of us do? I mean, if we remove all social context and sexual urges, maybe they'll just pick the 4/5 people they enjoy the most and start living together. Eternally living like college students, but with money. And I'd like to note I don't know any neuter people (If my comments didn't make that so woefully obvious; I don't even know if neuter's the right word) so I have no idea what their impulse to socially structure themselves is, or if it would change if everyone was the same way.

 

[KaiKai753]

It's simple really. In order for evolution itself to occur, you require a mix and spread of genomes. (This isn't precisely true due to mutations, but it occur much quicker with the mixing) So for organisms that have evolved, they must have reproduced sexually, and that's why (almost) all organisms now can reproduce sexually (some can do both).

As for the social fall out of what is essentially my penis falling off:
Without sexual drive, the drive to impress the opposite sex war would end, most fighting would end and it'd be a horrible thing for humanity. Sex drives innovation, war drives innovation, being better than others drives innovation.

On a far more serious note: DON'T TAKE AWAY MY BOOBIES

 

[conflictofinterests]

like if life evolved from non living matter what did the very first organism eat and how did it reproduce.

It was most likely photosynthetic, and most likely reproduced asexually.

if it reproduced asexually why dont more animals today reproduce that way

They do. By weight, you are made up more of microbes than you are of your own tissue. That applies to lots of things. Bacteria are, by far, the most numerous creatures on the earth, they're just microscopic.

it seems far more effective in assuring the continuation of a species.

Asexual reproduction is good at spreading genes, but is terrible at preservation of the species as a whole. Sexual reproduction is slower to spread genes, but is incredible at preservation of the species as a whole. It's all because of genetic variation. In asexually reproducing organisms, DNA is copied almost exactly from generation to generation, and the only variation is introduced through mutation, which cannot be shared between organism ancestries. In sexually reproducing organisms, variation is introduced the same way, but can collect in ancestry lines because both parent organisms contribute some DNA. Sexual reproduction is, in effect, hedging the bets of the species (because of the wider and deeper variation allowed), while asexual reproduction is a reckless push for dominance, which could easily be wiped out by a slight change of conditions.

so heres the real question: if everyone became genderless including you what would you do?

Go on about the same? I'm asexual with libido as it is... I guess I wouldn't have libido anymore? But if I did, I'd be attracted to exactly the same people (it's personalities that get me)

 

[Mikeyfell]

What on earth would all the homophobes do?

Wait is everyone monogender or does everyone reproduce asexually?
And secondly would we all have boy parts or girl parts?

 

[GodofCider]

i offten tend to wonder why things are not different then they are. like if life evolved from non living matter what did the very first organism eat and how did it reproduce. if it reproduced asexually why dont more animals today reproduce that way it seems far more effective in assuring the continuation of a species.

so heres the real question: if everyone became genderless including you what would you do?

Things are not different from the way they are, because things are they way they are. Astounding notion I know.

Define 'very first organism' and I can go from there. It gets a bit hazy when you go from non-living to living after all.

Cellular division. Basic stuff; it splits in two.

"If it reproduced asexually...far more effective..."

Because...it's not. Relatively speaking anyways. Sure you need not search for a mate, but that also means the amount of genetic variation in the offspring will be considerably less. This tends to work out rather well in quickly reproducing organisms, such as bacteria. As they succeed through sheer weight: where trillions die, and one survives, binary fission yields a rapid recovery.

Now jump over a step and asexual reproduction in a slower breeding organism works nicely in a stable environment; but tends to struggle significantly in a turbulent one.

 

[nima55]

For some reason I remember reading that organism that reproduce asexually require much more energy to do so. Thought that could all be made up lol ¯\(°_°)/¯

 

[Xan Krieger]

To be blunt I would go fuck myself. Why? Because nobody else will regardless of if we're all asexual or sexual.

 

[AlexNora]

would we all have boy parts or girl parts?

i dont know witch ones do you want? XD i would think more girlish since its more fit for reproduction as far as i know.

i just realized that if everyone was asexual jesus wouldn't be so special anymore

also im learning alot about why asexuality would not work even though thats not quite what i was hoping for XD

 

[Biosophilogical]

And secondly would we all have boy parts or girl parts?

I'd imagine we wouldn't have any parts ... though to be honest, how something as large as a human being could reproduce asexually confuses me (unless we get ourselves pregnant and have mini-mes, in which case we'd have vaginas (for birthing, nothing else), and we'd have breasts (for raising our baby-clones). So we'd have girl parts, but we wouldn't be sticking anything in them because there'd be no need to feel pleasure.

OT: Okay, I'm going to go with a different approach. Let's say we all lose our genitals, having only an anus and a urethra (lady style), and we can consciously excrete (every few months or so) a form of goop or whatever that will grow into a clone-thing (which will probably mean the requirement of a cocoon or something to that effect). In this scenario we wouldn't have breasts (cocoon means no breast-feeding).

So what would I do? Surf the internet, never masturbate (one me is plenty, thank you), play some video games, and finally not have to put up with the sex-obsession my friends all seem to have.

 

[kypsilon]

That's assuming genderless identities were eradicated from the first. Asexual personages still exist. Those of us who identify not with male or female. What would I do given the freedom from my own impulses? Spend more time doing the things I already do likely without the guilt of doing them.

 

[AlexNora]

And secondly would we all have boy parts or girl parts?

I'd imagine we wouldn't have any parts ... though to be honest, how something as large as a human being could reproduce asexually confuses me (unless we get ourselves pregnant and have mini-mes, in which case we'd have vaginas (for birthing, nothing else), and we'd have breasts (for raising our baby-clones). So we'd have girl parts, but we wouldn't be sticking anything in them because there'd be no need to feel pleasure.

OT: Okay, I'm going to go with a different approach. Let's say we all lose our genitals, having only an anus and a urethra (lady style), and we can consciously excrete (every few months or so) a form of goop or whatever that will grow into a clone-thing (which will probably mean the requirement of a cocoon or something to that effect). In this scenario we wouldn't have breasts (cocoon means no breast-feeding).

So what would I do? Surf the internet, never masturbate (one me is plenty, thank you), play some video games, and finally not have to put up with the sex-obsession my friends all seem to have.

i think that would mean nothing would ever change unless your naturally compelled to change like inverters. could you imagine if some of the smartest people in the world had someone just as smart to compete agents. it be like Kiyotaka and Ayumu

 

[zedel]

I'm already genderqueer, so I doubt that much would change. Maybe I'd be able to get along with other people, but I doubt that'd be possible even then. : /

 

[Kpt._Rob]

Biology not your major I assume

Asexual reproduction is terrible for genetic diversity. And for organisms with so a long developmental process and such a complicated genome we really can't afford that.

Not that I know shit about shit. Just saying.

But I bet I would still fuck quite a lot even if I would reproduce asexually. Assuming you don't take away millions of years of evolutionary psychobiology with this change.

i kinda thought if it was the same as it is now we would be more susceptible to viruses and such, but i meant a more advanced asexuality (or whatever) something without the negative effects

It's not like evolution is exactly a conscious process. There are tons of traits which would be highly adventitious for a species to have. Breathing fire, psychokenesis, x-ray vision, the power to manifest pizza rolls at will. These things would all be highly adventitious for a species to have, but evolution by natural selection, being the blind process that it is, can't pick things that would be an advantage for the creature.

As the good Mr. Richard Dawkins has pointed out in many of his books, regarding any trait a species has, you can look back at its ancestors and see a series of small gradual mutations which lead to it. The things is, every tiny mutation has to be adventitious for that creature, or else that mutation wouldn't survive. The classic example is eyes. It's not like some creature randomly mutated to have eyes. The mutations furthest back would have nothing more than simple light sensitive organs. The next step would give it the ability to see areas of greater or lesser dark (as opposed to just how light or dark it was right at the light sensing organs). Then the next step would let it sense the outlines of objects, then greater detail, depth and distance, colors, textures, etc... all of these things would come as small steps in an evolutionary process, and they would stick because all of them would be adventitious even though they are just small steps.

The sort of complex asexuality you're talking about, however, is a much more complicated mutation, and while there could be some, I can't think of any small steps which could be taken towards something like that which would be adventitious with each step. This means that such a mutation would be incredibly unlikely.

That is to say that the reason such a trait does not exist is because there aren't any small steps which could be taken towards it, and the odds against its occurring on its own are incredible. For such a thing to happen without some sort of intervention by highly advanced genetic engineering is nearly impossible.