Haven for the Human Amoeba

well, I've seen a few that say that having children is a sacred duty (the Adam and Eve story is quoted a lot in those)... I think some even would equate asexuals with gays... (they're BOTH "bad" to them)

Wow, Robin, thanks! That was great.

On Christianity - I grew up semi-Catholic (atheist dad, not-too-devout catholic mom) and while I consider myself "spiritual" I'm not at all religious. I don't go to church, I like to relax on Sunday. I don't like to hear people preach. I certainly don't enjoy being told that I'll go to hell. What I'm saying is that I don't like militant religious people, but I do respect people who accept a religion (any religion, um, except maybe Satanism)and abide by its rules.

We all agree that heterosexuality is biologically founded. Homosexuality is biologically founded (yes, this is debatable, but evidence does show that this is the case). I firmly believe that asexuality is also biologically founded. Surely, there are practicing heterosexuals out there who may be biochemical homosexuals, but use their marriages and relationships as a "cover". There have also been many documented cases of child molestation leading to homosexuality. Asexuality may also (as we've discussed) be the result of a psychological disorder. Mental problems often manifest themselves in the form of sexual behavior, deviant or not. The converse of this statement is not necessarily true. Deviant sexual behavior (including celibacy, to pay homage to Oscar Wilde) does not have to imply a mental disorder, choice, or traumatizing experience.

Side note about choice:

I don't feel I've made a choice not to date. I think that in order for me to date I'd have to make a choice to get out and flirt or...do whatever it is dating people do.

It would be an effort. I'm not restraining myself, so I don't see it as a choice. We only make choices when something doesn't come 100% naturally. I'm not making a choice to breathe, I'm simply breathing. I'm not making a choice to refrain from flirting, it just never occurs to me to do so.

I, myself, do not have any hormonal problems that I am aware of. I pretty much live a healthy life without any pills and supplements, and while that isn't very scientific, I think that if I did have hormonal problems, there would be something at least a bit noticeable. Really the only odd thing about me is an ultra-fast metabolism that keeps me thin no matter what I eat.

I think in my case, the previously mentioned social anxiety would be a much bigger factor on any source of asexuality within me. In certain severe cases, or cases where social anxiety/phobia is the result of other disorders, it *can* cause a lack of sexual drive.

That said, I'm not certain that is the problem though, as my lack of sex drive predates the emergance of the phobias. Looking inward, it doesn't have the same "texture" as other characteristics about me that are influenced by the phobia. It simply is, just as I like pancakes with strawberries. Things that are driven by the phobia are very "stretched" if you can imagine that. They have no depth, but a lot of strength. It is difficult to describe, so you'll just have to trust me when I say they do not feel the same.

Eiji, not to be rude or anything, but you are pulling your references from a 'fringe' group in relation to religion. Due to its complexity and eclectic nature, the Bible has obviously spawned thousands of splinter beliefs. Thus it is best to view only the patterns between them, the common beliefs. Taking the views of a severe minority and reflecting it upon the whole isn't fair to the rest. After all, there are Christians who still honestly believe the world is flat because there are a number of texts that reference the earth as having corners, and mountains that can see the entire earth.

Naturally, 99.9% of the other Christian's out there understand these texts are not to be taken literally (or whatever their excuse is) and to take the .1% and say the whole deal believes in a flat world would be absurd.

The same goes for asexuality. Sure, there are some fringe elements that have their verses to say anybody who doesn't get married and have lots of babies is evil. That doesn't mean the entire God Fearing Portion of the World agrees with them though.

As with the person who posted the numerous texts from Paul's writings, most would have absolutely no problem with it, and some might even see it as an honorable thing.

Don't get me wrong -- I am not pro-Christian in any way shape or form. Despite that, I must recognise that there *lot* of people that are, and any anti-christian sentiments would only serve to harbor ill feelings towards any future asexual community, and perhaps even alienate Christian asexuals and prohibit them from realizing something about themselves that might give them hope, and a reason to smile again.

I think it just makes sense to view things fairly.

I never meant it that way... I was only trying to state the facts for my two yen's worth.

Ok, i have a question. Can you be religious and asexual? Are any of you religious?

I believe you can. I have a very strong faith and am not planning on giving it up.<<

I suppose it all depends on which religion you adhere to. Christianity has a long history of endorsing sexual abstinence and praising those who forgo carnal desires in favor of spiritual ideals. In some sense, the very nature of spirituality requires a certain level of asceticism, particularly sexual asceticism.

Judy

Now I don't doubt for a minute that there are persons who are utterly devoid of any sex drive whatsoever, and who can indeed be labeled as asexual. What I do doubt is that such persons constitute the majority of persons who are not engaging in sexual acts. Rather than being devoid of a sex drive, I believe that most "asexual" persons are actually making conscious decisions not to engage in sexual behavior for whatever reasons. This isn't necessarily based on biology but, rather, on rational thought or certain sensibilities. Thus, such persons are not "asexual" but can more accurately be labeled as "celibate" (if they have made a life-long committment to a sexless state) or "abstinent" (if they are simply waiting for the right conditions under which to have sex).

Judy

I don't feel I've made a choice not to date. I think that in order for me to date I'd have to make a choice to get out and flirt or...do whatever it is dating people do.<<

Okay, if someone (let's say someone whom you had been having a friendly conversation with), asks you out, what is your response? You haven't been flirting in your estimation, but let's say that your companion isn't particularly gifted in discerning nuances. You are not interested in dating anyone. Soooo.....you tell the person to shove off. This is a choice, a choice that is in tune with your own idealogy. What baffles me here is the claim that sex is something a person has to actively pursue. I've always thought that it was something that you had to actively avoid. I mean I could get laid within the next half hour if I wanted to, as I'm sure could most persons. So, to reiterate, celibacy is a choice.

Judy

Well, if you tear it down to that level, sure it is a choice. By the same rationale, at every moment of the day we *choose* not to pull out a weapon and slaughter a random individual!

I think the more relevant question is whether or not the choice is a conscious intention. Just as it is not a conscious choice for most people to avoid murder, it seems with us, it is not a conscious choice to live a sexless life. We seem to just live that way by default for whatever biological/psychological/philosophical reason. That is what makes one an asexual, in my humble opinion.

If however, you *are* drawn to thoughts about sex; if that comes by your nature, and you *choose* to not engage in activities that would lead to it -- then you have your typical celibacy, or abstinence.

I am not sure how it is for you, but for me, it is an unconscious choice, hence, and inclination.

J+I: I think that both sides of your argument are extremely valid. On an initial level asexuality (not celibacy, I'll get to that later) is entirely passive. An asexual person (whether due to lack of sex drive or lack of sexual attraction) doesn't have to exert any energy to be asexual any more than she/he exerts energy to have a skin color, it is just a part of who they are. What gets complicated, is being maintaining that existance in a sexual society. Asexual people are trained to act sexually, and expected to be sexual, in infinite number of subtle and obvert ways. It's unlearning that training and countering those expectations that's the difficult part (which is where the notion of asexual identity comes in.) Also something to note is that those expectations differ a good deal along gender lines. So, ioapetraka, not being sexual for you may mean simply not making sexual advances, because (straight) men in our society are expected to be sexually agressive. Judy, since women are expected to be sexually receptive, you're placed in the much more awkward situation of desexualizing or somehow countering the sexual advances made at you, which is a much more active task. Don't get me wrong, there's still stuff to worry about for asexual men, (since your sexual agression is tied to you masculinity and therefore to your overall worth) but its different.

So asexuality isn't a choice, but it is an effort. Same as race. Same as gender. Same as other sexual orientations.

Celibacy: I feel like it is a relevant topic only in as much as that when we first say the word "asexual" to someone that is the image that they will get. So even though it is important to examine (asexual people have historically fallen into that group, so whatever group history we share lies within that context), I feel like its more important right now to distinguish asexuality from celibacy than to find what they have in common. This flows very well into the notion of asexual and religious celibacy. All my studies of sexual asceticism (mostly hindu and buddhist nuns and monks), have indicated that 70% of the spiritual benefit is derived from the process of GIVING SEXUALITY UP. There are certain other advantages (not being "tied down"), but mostly its about learning to detach oneself from something so intricatly ingrained. Since asexual people don't go through that process of detachement, I don't see how a real comparison can be made.

Sorry, ran out of space in the last post. One more thing to say, which is that I want to reassert that religious acceptance of asexuality will be a function of how asexuality fits in with religious culture, NOT with religious scripture. I reach this conclusion after alot of work around heterosexism and homophobia, a decent amount of which was with very religious people. I've seen the religious scripture denouncing homosexuality debated to a bloody pulp, and its gotten nowhere. The scripture just give people a reason to stick to culturally ingrained views. Once those views have been dealt with the scripture becomes a nonissue.

-BRC

To get laid in the next half hour, you would have to leave your house, right? That's no simple feat. Once most people graduate from college they pretty much go to work each day, drive home and plant it on the couch. There isn't much of an arranged social program unless you go way out of your way to make it happen. Luckily sexual harassment is illegal so work is not a great place to try to get laid. Personally, none of my social activities are arranged around pick-up joints. I don't enjoy bars. I mostly enjoy sports, gardening, volunteer work, and other things I do with my close friends or alone. Not to be a smart ass, but where are you hanging out, Judy?;) Seriously, I believe that most people do have to try to get sex. It doesn't just happen easily for most people. And not to be blunt, but being attractive doesn't help. I get asked out extremely rarely. Most men who know me know I don't accept most of the things they do, for example I will not have a relationship with anyone who uses pornography, and that eliminates the vast majority of men from my repertoire right there.

I am just beginning to accept that my being nonsexual is ingrained into me, just as everyone else's sexuality. This all began because i decided during high school i did not want to have sex, mainly for religious reasons, so you could say i was celibate, but now my thinking and investigation into the heart of my self has made me realize that my not wanting to have sex or date or be physical was not because i was just trying to stay celibate. Ok that is all i have to say for now!! Sara

The only two things that matter to me are my own acceptance of myself & sexuality and my relationship with God based on my beliefs, and my pursuit of truth, which I opt to intelligently and critically use scripture as one source of. No one should demand that another one be beholden to his personal "filter" or interpretation of scripture, but I don't see how we are going to have all people disregard scripture when scripture is a part of many of our religions and it is part of our relationship with God. Furthermore there is no reason to disregard scripture as historical information either. I guess part of it is, I don't know what your definition of "religious culture" is as it seems to be defined as excluding any culture that would view scripture as important. It is not less correct to say that "asexuality is ok because it says so in the bible" (as if that is a universal truth for everyone), than it is to say that scripture is supposed to be unimportant to religions because of what some people think it says about sexuality.

Thanks for starting this club, it was a great idea! All of the other clubs about abstinence/celibacy are totally conservatively religious and moralistic. I am also religious but not extreme or orthodox. I enjoy the fact that this club does not specify a religion, but I agree it is an interesting facet of the discusssion.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. In some ways I'd say you're right...there have been occassions where I've avoided sex, but it's not a general rule. I don't think about avoiding sex nearly as often as most people think about pursuing sex. In fact, I almost never think about it. I can actually count the number of occasions during which I have avoided sex. Those who do pursue sex don't pursue sex with -everybody-. I avoid sex with even fewer people.

Few people dare to ask me out, so really I don't make any sort of choices in the matter. Most of the people who have asked me out have sent me running away screaming (not literally), and would have done the same had I been so sexually inclined. I get really creepy guys. Yes, I did make a choice to tell *those* guys to shove off, my sexual status has very little to do with that.

I haven't avoided a sexual situation in years, that's not to say I've been exposed to many. I just don't send out vibes that tell anyone I'm interested.

I'll admit, quite shamefully, that a nice guy I knew once kissed me, so I never spoke to him again. I wasn't mean or angry about it, I just didn't call him anymore. That was years ago, and probably the last time I actually had the intention of avoiding sex.

>>What baffles me here is the claim that sex is something a person has to actively pursue.

I've always thought that it was something that you had to actively avoid.<<

Yes, for most people, that's the case. I don't see it that way, that just explains the difference between someone not interested in sex and someone who lets his or her sexuality control every action. Sex just seems unnatural and weird for me. I could get laid in half an hour, too (hmm, ok, well maybe 2 hours), but that would require going out and putting on some act to be someone I'm not. Even when I go to clubs, I don't get propositioned. I just don't. The times I have usually involved me making a huge prat of myself, which is what going to clubs is all about.

Yep, I agree.

I think the more relevant question is whether or not the choice is a conscious intention. Just as it is not a conscious choice for most people to avoid murder, it seems with us, it is not a conscious choice to live a sexless life. We seem to just live that way by default for whatever biological/psychological/philosophical reason. That is what makes one an asexual, in my humble opinion.<<

Choices by definition are conscious intentions. I think you're being way too generous to the human species when you assume that most persons do right by default. I'll tell you right now that the only reason I don't kill at least 10 persons a day is because I fear punishment and/or retribution and for no other reason. But back to the subject. To say that you are asexual by default still doesn't offer any insight into how you deal with sexual situations when confronted with them. If you actively rebuff any potential suitors, then you are most definitely making conscious decisions to avoid sex. Very little of what we do as humans is truly unconscious. Our sensibilities may be ingrained and inexplicable, but how we act on those tastes is based on reason and judgement.

Judy

All my studies of sexual asceticism (mostly hindu and buddhist nuns and monks), have indicated that 70% of the spiritual benefit is derived from the process of GIVING SEXUALITY UP. There are certain other advantages (not being "tied down"), but mostly its about learning to detach oneself from something so intricatly ingrained. Since asexual people don't go through that process of detachement, I don't see how a real comparison can be made.<<

I actually like this definition very much. Celibacy implies relinquishing one's sexuality while "asexuality" denotes a fundamental disinterest in the sex act. Celibacy implies that one is lacking a thing (i.e. sex) that one values, while "asexuality" implies that one is utterly comfortable with a sexless state. It's sort of like the difference between "childless" and "childfree." Yes, I like this very much indeed. It clarifies for me that I am indeed asexual and not celibate as I had previously labeled myself. But what if we start to question what sex is exactly. Is it just the act? Or does it comprise all of the fairly ritualistic behavior surrounding the act as well? Is a person who reads porn but doesn't desire to have sex really asexual?

Judy

Personally, none of my social activities are arranged around pick-up joints. I don't enjoy bars. I mostly enjoy sports, gardening, volunteer work, and other things I do with my close friends or alone. Not to be a smart ass, but where are you hanging out, Judy?;) Seriously, I believe that most people do have to try to get sex. It doesn't just happen easily for most people.<<

You just explained how all of your social activities make it fairly easy for you to avoid sexual advances. Yet, you acknowledged that there are other situations (e.g. pick-up joints, etc.)that would make it fairly easy for you, or anyone else for that matter, to get a casual partner. That's what I'm talking about. If you avoid or simply aren't interested in being in places with a bunch of fairly loose strangers then of course it's easy for you to avoid sex, but don't say that it isn't readily available for those who really want it.

Judy

"Choices by definition are conscious intentions."

Absolutely, which is what I was trying to say. It sounded as if you were saying that a choice is even an inclination. A derivative action from that inclination is a choice, but the inclination itself is not.

Perhaps I am too generous, but I certainly do not believe that most humans are moral by default! That is why I chose a somewhat extreme example. My point has nothing to do with morality, but day to day living. Because of our society, and how down we view murder, the non-act of murder is not really a *choice* that we make all day long. Correct, during spikes of anger it might become a true choice with some people, but that isn't really what I'm referring to here.

How I deal with sexual situations: I'm not really the best person to be answering this. I never get into "sexual situations" except on extremely rare occassions. This is due to the fact that I really do not get into social situations either.

Within the spirit of the game though: An active rebuttle to a proposition is an example of external manipulation. By default the choice would not have come up, since I personally would not have even thought of it. Just as I don't make an active choice to pick blueberries when there are no blueberry bushes in sight, there is no active choice involved in my default rationale.

By placing an external motivator into the equation you increase instigation and decrease natural stasis.

"Very little of what we do as humans is truly unconscious."

I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to here. The vast majority of what we do is "unconscious." Breathing, blinking, heart-rate, chemical/hormone level distribution, glandular control, ect. I am saying that it is within these automatic biological functions that sexual orientation is determined in a natural state.

(Additionally, please do some research on information theory in relation to consciousness and brain function. You will likely be shocked at just how very *little* goes through the conscious layer of the brain -- and I'm not just talking about heart-rate here. Vast amounts of information and "choice" go completely unnoticed by our consciousness.)

The option of conscious choice does not enter into it until:

A) You choose to seek it. OR

B) Somebody chooses you as a target in seeking it, whether directly or indirectly.

Example: Person A is a heterosexual and person B is a homosexual. Person B makes a subtle advance on Person A in an attempt to discover their orientation. Person A detects that, and informs person B that they are not interested.

Is Person A simply choosing not to be homosexual in that situation? No, they are just acting upon their deeper settings (inclination) in response to the elevated state of intentional thought towards the topic of homosexuality.

They thus made a choice (as defined at the top) based on an inclination, but the inclination itself is not choice based. Even if it is not a biological function, *very* few people would deny that it is not a deep psychological setting.

So in summery: Yes, if given a proposition, an asexual would choose abstainence over intimacy. This however, does not mean that at the core they are making this active choice, all it means is that the choice is based off of an inclination. If not given a proposition, a true asexual would not have thought of the entire deal -- at all.

For me, i dislike most physical parts of life. I find it is mainly used to get sex. I choose not to have a lot of physical contact. So for me sex is more than just the act.

Oh come on. Now you're just being ridiculous.

Sure, there have been times in my life when I could have killed a person...or at least maimed them. I made a conscious choice not to do so. There are a few people I wouldn't mind eliminating from the planet, but I wouldn't go on a rampage, even if I knew I wouldn't get caught.

I don't do certain things not because I'm avoiding them, but because I'm not even thinking about them.

I'm not rebuffing suitors left and right. I've rebuffed maybe 4 in my whole life, and that's counting junior high, high school, college, and work. They usually get the message before such a situation would arise.

Why should an asexual have to defend his actions when they are confronted with sexual situations? Iopetraka stated that he doesn't get into many sexual or social situations. I for one, get into a lot of social situations, but not many sexual ones. I make a choice to get into social situations, because often I enjoy them.

One of the most annoying experiences I've had (and experienced repeatedly) can be represented in the following conversational paradigm.

Random other person (to me): So...do you have a boyfriend?

Me: No.

Other person: Why's that?

The reason I find this so incredibly annoying is because I'm put in a position where I have to make an excuse for being completely passive. No one ever asks why I'm not out scuba diving, or why I don't have a pet iguana, or why I don't know how to fly a helicopter. With those situations, the assumption is that I "just don't", i.e. the occasion has not come up, or I wouldn't be interested if it has.

Why then, should we have to give friends, relatives and strangers an explanation for sexual things that we "just don't" do? I know the answer to this...to most people, the statement "I don't date" is almost as bewildering as "I don't eat" or "I don't breathe". I'm not much of an idealist, but I hope that we can sort of declare war on the "Why not?s" of the world and just get rid of the thoughts that keep them alive.