Viewing Thread:
"Asexuals"

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).

Black Glove wrote:
> Pandaemonium wrote:
> 3. Lacking interest in or desire for sex.
>
> Yeah, but the website I referred to doesn't define it as such. It
> goes much farther than mere lack of interest.

*shrug* I really don't see what's so difficult to believe. some people need sex regularly, some are quite happy with once a month. Some people are extraordinarily kinky, some very straight laced.

What's so difficult to comprehend that some people don't feel the need for sex or even a partner at all, or feel zero attraction?

Pandaemonium wrote:
> 3. Lacking interest in or desire for sex.

Yeah, but the website I referred to doesn't define it as such. It goes much farther than mere lack of interest.

Im Asexual - I have problems attracting the opposite sex...

I've offered to deball a few men in my time. If I ever actually go through with it I'll let you know if they stop feeling attraction for anyone (thing?) else.

It's not something I can comprehend... no sexual attraction at all? Perish the thought.

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.

Smedlos wrote:
> Train spotters are afflicted with the aforementioned condition.

Tunnels and trains? Surely not.

Some deep rooted thing from their past no doubt to make it feel dirty and wrong.

I reckon they still have these urges but choose to ignore them for one reason or another.

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.

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