The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
From asexuality.org:
Asexual: A person who does not experience sexual attraction.
Is that really believable?
I can comprehend a person not being particularly sexual/sensual - I'm like that myself, but to not find anyone sexually attractive... surely that's an impossibility (deballed men excluded).
Asexual: A person who does not experience sexual attraction.
Is that really believable?
I can comprehend a person not being particularly sexual/sensual - I'm like that myself, but to not find anyone sexually attractive... surely that's an impossibility (deballed men excluded).
Page:
From asexuality.org:
Asexual: A person who does not experience sexual attraction.
Is that really believable?
I can comprehend a person not being particularly sexual/sensual - I'm like that myself, but to not find anyone sexually attractive... surely that's an impossibility (deballed men excluded).
Asexual: A person who does not experience sexual attraction.
Is that really believable?
I can comprehend a person not being particularly sexual/sensual - I'm like that myself, but to not find anyone sexually attractive... surely that's an impossibility (deballed men excluded).
Train spotters are afflicted with the aforementioned condition.
Why not?
A simple chemical imbalance could be enough to destroy sex drive.
A simple chemical imbalance could be enough to destroy sex drive.
A chemical imbalance called getting married?
Umm....I'm confused...should we feel sorry for them because they don't have sex, or not feel sorry for them because they don't want to?! XD
Pandaemonium wrote:
> Why not?
>
> A simple chemical imbalance could be enough to destroy sex drive.
But asexuals claim it to be their sexual orientation, on par with heterosexuality - homosexuality. It's not about a chemical imbalance resulting in lack of libido, it's about someone never fancing anybody ever. I'd say that is biologically not possible.
> Why not?
>
> A simple chemical imbalance could be enough to destroy sex drive.
But asexuals claim it to be their sexual orientation, on par with heterosexuality - homosexuality. It's not about a chemical imbalance resulting in lack of libido, it's about someone never fancing anybody ever. I'd say that is biologically not possible.
I reckon they still have these urges but choose to ignore them for one reason or another.
Some deep rooted thing from their past no doubt to make it feel dirty and wrong.
Smedlos wrote:
> Train spotters are afflicted with the aforementioned condition.
Tunnels and trains? Surely not.
> Train spotters are afflicted with the aforementioned condition.
Tunnels and trains? Surely not.
Black Glove wrote:
> It's not about a chemical imbalance
> resulting in lack of libido, it's about someone never fancing anybody
> ever. I'd say that is biologically not possible.
adj.
1. Having no evident sex or sex organs; sexless.
2. Relating to, produced by, or involving reproduction that occurs without the union of male and female gametes, as in binary fission or budding.
3. Lacking interest in or desire for sex.
> It's not about a chemical imbalance
> resulting in lack of libido, it's about someone never fancing anybody
> ever. I'd say that is biologically not possible.
adj.
1. Having no evident sex or sex organs; sexless.
2. Relating to, produced by, or involving reproduction that occurs without the union of male and female gametes, as in binary fission or budding.
3. Lacking interest in or desire for sex.
Page: