Political Crossfire Forums

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

Maybe asexuals are those who find the idea of having sex with someone else unappealing? I used to know a person who was like that. I don't think there is anything wrong with these individuals because we are all different and want different things in our lives.

Tracker · Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 12:10 am Post subject:

George W Bush wrote: i'm not an expert on 'asexuality' - but, in terms of common unions with people - i'm not on the fence, gay, or straight. relative in context, i am asexual.
it is a preference. its a choice. i choose to be this way.

someone may say, "well, you are hurting yourself".

saying this is assuming arousal is to me what arousal is to them.

one consideration that resonated with me, from the AVEN site was that such arousal is often acknowledged through choice of company - or freindship. Theres no sex there. It may be just as satisfying have convo with a beautiful, well endowed woman as it is to have sex with her.

This may seem simple, and it is. But, its not a complex decision making posture. Its simple in that I dont need to undress and do the mating dance ritual to get off. I dont have to cum to feel good, although that is a bonus.

What an excellent post. Thanks for sharing that, George W Bush.

I have to say I agree that the most rewarding/satisfying experiences with another have often been experienced without words nor sex.

Tracker · Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 12:16 am Post subject:

George W Bush wrote: i'm not an expert on 'asexuality' - but, in terms of common unions with people - i'm not on the fence, gay, or straight. relative in context, i am asexual.
it is a preference. its a choice. i choose to be this way.

someone may say, "well, you are hurting yourself".

saying this is assuming arousal is to me what arousal is to them.

one consideration that resonated with me, from the AVEN site was that such arousal is often acknowledged through choice of company - or freindship. Theres no sex there. It may be just as satisfying have convo with a beautiful, well endowed woman as it is to have sex with her.

This may seem simple, and it is. But, its not a complex decision making posture. Its simple in that I dont need to undress and do the mating dance ritual to get off. I dont have to cum to feel good, although that is a bonus.

What an excellent post. Thanks for sharing that, George W Bush.

I have to say I agree that the most rewarding/satisfying experiences with another have often been experienced without words nor sex.

Tracker · Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 12:20 am Post subject:

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Maybe asexuals are those who find the idea of having sex with someone else unappealing? I used to know a person who was like that. I don't think there is anything wrong with these individuals because we are all different and want different things in our lives.

Tell me about them. Please.

George W Bush · Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 8:12 pm Post subject:

Tracker wrote: George W Bush wrote: i'm not an expert on 'asexuality' - but, in terms of common unions with people - i'm not on the fence, gay, or straight. relative in context, i am asexual.
it is a preference. its a choice. i choose to be this way.

someone may say, "well, you are hurting yourself".

saying this is assuming arousal is to me what arousal is to them.

one consideration that resonated with me, from the AVEN site was that such arousal is often acknowledged through choice of company - or freindship. Theres no sex there. It may be just as satisfying have convo with a beautiful, well endowed woman as it is to have sex with her.

This may seem simple, and it is. But, its not a complex decision making posture. Its simple in that I dont need to undress and do the mating dance ritual to get off. I dont have to cum to feel good, although that is a bonus.

What an excellent post. Thanks for sharing that, George W Bush.

I have to say I agree that the most rewarding/satisfying experiences with another have often been experienced without words nor sex.

thanks tracker. :-D
i guess i'm not as weird as i thought.
:lol:

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

Tracker wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Maybe asexuals are those who find the idea of having sex with someone else unappealing? I used to know a person who was like that. I don't think there is anything wrong with these individuals because we are all different and want different things in our lives.

Tell me about them. Please.

Most scientists work on assumptions and generalizations. One of their assumptions then is that every single human being wants sex and sex is the driving force of human beings.

From Socrates to Plato to Jesus to Mohammad to Freud, etc etc have all worked based on this assumption. Because of the prevalence of this assumption, anyone who is not like that gets branded as having some type of disorder.

George W Bush wrote: thanks tracker. :-D
i guess i'm not as weird as i thought.
:lol:

I always think the process that a some type of condition is branded as a disorder is a commercial and political one. So defining asexuality as a disorder is more political and commercial rather than asexuality actually being a disorder in and of itself.

Tracker · Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 4:07 am Post subject:

Well, it is a disorder. Every biological entity has sexual relations. Not having sexual relations, therefore, is 'not in order.'

As for it being a 'problem,' well, that is the debatable issue.

Some people are pursue happiness through 'scoring' sex-partners as often as possible. This, too, is a 'disorder.' As to it's harm, well, that is also debatable. Are they being open and honest, or lieing to 'score'? Forced to hide and being condemned, shamed, hatefully labeled 'negative' and hammered ruthlessly to the merciless CrossOfShame by so-called 'positive-godly-good-people?'

LIES. What about the lies? Is somebody with emotional-issues, claiming, 'asexuality is not a disorder,' COVERING for something ELSE?

Are they really REBELS, raging against the machine?

Are they merely FOLLOWERS, Scheople-izing, bah-bah-bah, in order to 'belong' to ... well, ANYTHING AT ALL that's DIFFERENT?

Are they photo-op'g? Attention-seeking in their so-called 'uniqueness' that isn't?

Have they really, honestly, never had an erection, wet-dream, fantasy, got 'wet,' or yearned? Truthfully?

*shrug*

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

Tracker wrote: Well, it is a disorder. Every biological entity has sexual relations. Not having sexual relations, therefore, is 'not in order.'

As for it being a 'problem,' well, that is the debatable issue.

Some people are pursue happiness through 'scoring' sex-partners as often as possible. This, too, is a 'disorder.' As to it's harm, well, that is also debatable. Are they being open and honest, or lieing to 'score'? Forced to hide and being condemned, shamed, hatefully labeled 'negative' and hammered ruthlessly to the merciless CrossOfShame by so-called 'positive-godly-good-people?'

LIES. What about the lies? Is somebody with emotional-issues, claiming, 'asexuality is not a disorder,' COVERING for something ELSE?

I don't know what you mean by "disorder" because you are assuming that there is some kind of "order" that applies to everyone and that is clearly not the case.

Tracker wrote: Are they really REBELS, raging against the machine?

Are they merely FOLLOWERS, Scheople-izing, bah-bah-bah, in order to 'belong' to ... well, ANYTHING AT ALL that's DIFFERENT?

Are they photo-op'g? Attention-seeking in their so-called 'uniqueness' that isn't?

The problem is that people think everyone has the same kind of wants and needs. That is clearly not the case.

Tracker wrote: Have they really, honestly, never had an erection, wet-dream, fantasy, got 'wet,' or yearned? Truthfully?

*shrug*

Having fantasies is one thing, wanting to have sex with someone is another thing alltogether. One is imagination, the next is reality. They don't find the idea of having sexual relationship with someone appealing. Nothing is wrong with that. I think the problem is the society because the society tells us that everyone need to have sex to be a happy individual, but happiness is an individual condition and cannot be forced onto people by the society.

connermt · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 1526 Location: CMH OHIO

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Tracker wrote: Well, it is a disorder. Every biological entity has sexual relations. Not having sexual relations, therefore, is 'not in order.'

As for it being a 'problem,' well, that is the debatable issue.

Some people are pursue happiness through 'scoring' sex-partners as often as possible. This, too, is a 'disorder.' As to it's harm, well, that is also debatable. Are they being open and honest, or lieing to 'score'? Forced to hide and being condemned, shamed, hatefully labeled 'negative' and hammered ruthlessly to the merciless CrossOfShame by so-called 'positive-godly-good-people?'

LIES. What about the lies? Is somebody with emotional-issues, claiming, 'asexuality is not a disorder,' COVERING for something ELSE?

I don't know what you mean by "disorder" because you are assuming that there is some kind of "order" that applies to everyone and that is clearly not the case.

Tracker wrote: Are they really REBELS, raging against the machine?

Are they merely FOLLOWERS, Scheople-izing, bah-bah-bah, in order to 'belong' to ... well, ANYTHING AT ALL that's DIFFERENT?

Are they photo-op'g? Attention-seeking in their so-called 'uniqueness' that isn't?

The problem is that people think everyone has the same kind of wants and needs. That is clearly not the case.

Tracker wrote: Have they really, honestly, never had an erection, wet-dream, fantasy, got 'wet,' or yearned? Truthfully?

*shrug*

Having fantasies is one thing, wanting to have sex with someone is another thing alltogether. One is imagination, the next is reality. They don't find the idea of having sexual relationship with someone appealing. Nothing is wrong with that. I think the problem is the society because the society tells us that everyone need to have sex to be a happy individual, but happiness is an individual condition and cannot be forced onto people by the society.

Quote: I think the problem is the society because the society tells us that everyone need to have sex to be a happy individual, but happiness is an individual condition and cannot be forced onto people by the society. Interesting. I think one of the major problems is the fact that people (westerners specifically) are all so tense when it comes to our bodies & sex. Of course sex doesn't = total happiness. GOod grief - people need to lighten up some :roll:

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

connermt wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: I think the problem is the society because the society tells us that everyone need to have sex to be a happy individual, but happiness is an individual condition and cannot be forced onto people by the society. Interesting. I think one of the major problems is the fact that people (westerners specifically) are all so tense when it comes to our bodies & sex. Of course sex doesn't = total happiness. GOod grief - people need to lighten up some :roll:

If you think the West goes crazy over their bodies and sex, try some of the Middle Eastern countries ... sex and body? BIG TABOOOOOO!!!

connermt · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 1526 Location: CMH OHIO

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: connermt wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: I think the problem is the society because the society tells us that everyone need to have sex to be a happy individual, but happiness is an individual condition and cannot be forced onto people by the society. Interesting. I think one of the major problems is the fact that people (westerners specifically) are all so tense when it comes to our bodies & sex. Of course sex doesn't = total happiness. GOod grief - people need to lighten up some :roll:

If you think the West goes crazy over their bodies and sex, try some of the Middle Eastern countries ... sex and body? BIG TABOOOOOO!!!

HAHA Good Point - I have heard stories, but never experienced it first hand