I agree with the idea that this is just one of the ways that ol' mother nature works. Also, it's not all choice for all asexuals. A very small percent of the population is actually considered to be biologically asexual, due to genetic disorders (technically they're not all hermaphrodites either).

I actually just remember this from a college human sexuality course (so I have no proof of this info). I've tried to find a link or two but have given up after a few pages of transgender sites and bible links lol

edit for grammatical error


[edit on 14-10-2004 by veritas93]

It is pretty difficult to explain how an essentially lethal mutation can attain a frequency of 1% in the population. An asexual mutation has no evolutionary lineage, and hence, cannot fix in the population--unless through drift. Clearly there is no drift affecting most human populations. Hence, we are left to assume that asexuality is arising at a rate of 1 in 100. That is, of course, an astronomical mutation rate for humans--especially for a trait that is one would guess is coming from one or a few loci. Which is to say, sure, you're asexual, but, it is purely environmental. Homosexuals, in all mammals, generally have sex with both sexes. That is not to say that human homosexuals enjoy sex with the opposite sex--but, through social stigma or shame or whatever, many do, in fact, have sexual relations with both sexes. Thus, whatever the genetic basis for homosexuality is, those alleles are maintained at a low frequency. Asexuals, by their own definition, never have sex, and can't spread any asexual alleles. Nevermind, of course, that there are no truly asexual organisms. All microbes have some form of genetic exchange, so even the haploids get into the sex game. No attempt at genetic exchange just sort of goes against life altogether.

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
I wonder how our fundamentlist Christian freinds will bode with this....

Deep

As a matter of fact, asexuality is viewed as positive by both Catholics (obviously - after all, this is the church that brought you the celibate priesthood) and by Protestants - liberal and conservative alike. For, if they were reading their Bibles (as fundamentalists are wont to do) they would see that Paul refers to his lack of sexual desire as a gift (see I Corinthians 7, especially verse 7).

NOW, I have somewhat overstated the case since there does seem to be this bizarre tendency within the more conservative branches of Christianity to suggest that we should all get married and have lots of kids. But, it is not REALLY stated as a UNIVERSAL and I have never seen any sort of theoretical defense of that position such as would be offered against homosexuality. In short, no one is arguing everyone should get married and have sex, though they might hint YOU should.

So.... Those in the church have known this at least since Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians, so it is actually OLD news in Christian circles.

Right let see............you dont have to have sex to have kids, we all know that, test-tube daddys!

NO SEX PLEASE WERE BRITSIH !!

Now thats even older.


Doesnt matter whether your gay, straight, bi etc etc etc, sex is good for you. Good for the heart and helps you lose weight as well (mmmm gone wrong somewhere there?). When my partner suffered a heart-attack earlier this year, his doctor actually told him that sex was good for someone who suffered a heart-attack. (within reason)

So as for asexual, go back to the drawing board.

so which 1% group is going to tell the cultural majority they desreve to alter the cultural norms now and get special entitlements or protections not available to others??

So how many special interest minority groups based on sex are we going to have to officially recognise now? str8, gay, asexuals (unics?) Is NAMBLA next?

If the math is correct on this issue, then with asexuals numbering right about the same level as homosexuals, shouldnt there soon be a asexual rights issue come up?

I have read several posts that seem to advocate homo/asexual behaivior as a method of birth/population control because no births would result from these relationships.
What a terrible thing to contemplate...encouraging gay/asexual behaivior to avoid procreation. If the gays say that saying "no procreation" doesnt mean their not a "family", then this also applies in reverse, it shouldnt be used to promote sexual identities OR deny them.

And this talk of reading the bible together as FOREPLAY?
Talk about refering to a religious text as a marital sexual aid seems to demean the religious beliefs of those that do respect this book.
Even tho i understand the people saying this are being religious together....
still....doesnt the church/religions have enough problems with the sex issues, like we need to create more ways to really confuse things here.

Ahh the sexual slippery slope continues to pull us faster and faster downhill. More divisions of people means more ways to misunderstand and be self segregated from others.
We are going to niche this country to death.....instead of united we stand and a common overall cultural outline, we are going to wake up to hundreds of little groups all jockying for position, entitlements and dominance.

Lets bet on which 1% group is next on the scene.

Finally! I shall get some respect. A pride parades.........yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously. I have generally considered myself asexual since i was a teenager. I have had a couple of relationships. But I have found that men make me quite unhappy, and I have zero desire for women. In fact, I really dont have the desire, period. Occasionaly I have had relationships, mostly because I thought thats what I needed or wanted, and really didnt.

I am niether married or divorced, nor have I kids. I have had good relationships and bad ones, but have discovered I am happiest when I am not involved with anyone, even casually.

For the longest time people would laugh when I said, well, I dont like girls, but I dont like guys either. And theyd be like, well, what do you like...plants?

But seriously, there is a good chunk of people in the world really that, while they may have relationships from time to time, are really asexual, and havent been told that its ok not to like sex, find people attractive, ect.

There is nothing unhealthy or abnormal about it. Asexuals do not have to worry about VD, pregnacies, or screwy mental states of ones partners. When you remove all that crap that comes with "togetherness" I have found that asexuals are pretty stress free.

So............I can come out of the closet now, and proudly join my ameoba bretheren!

Look for the A pride parade on capitol hill soon!

Originally posted by Quicksilver
Thats the stupidest thing ive heard in awhile. I mean gosh. Sorry everyone but sex between a man and a women is needed to further life on this planet! Period. NO arguing about it. IF everyone was gay or asexual we would only live for one generation. NOw does that seem like someting something GOd would design...well lets not even make this a GOd issue. Is taht something evolution or nature would put in people???? DOesnt sound like what natures all about.

In Quicksilvers' post...is there a subliminal message being sent? the bold/underscore are only errors in typing??

strangely the 'mistakes' in upper/lower case typos sequence this way?!

....NO....NO....GO....GO....DO....

or a cryptic 'message' might be revealed-->

....NO....NO,GO....GO,DO....

....NONO....GOGO....DO....

maybe a musical 'code'....a beat or resonance for the A-sexual parade band? which may debute in Seattle !?

?

Originally posted by St Udio

Originally posted by Quicksilver
Thats the stupidest thing ive heard in awhile. I mean gosh. Sorry everyone but sex between a man and a women is needed to further life on this planet! Period. NO arguing about it. IF everyone was gay or asexual we would only live for one generation. NOw does that seem like someting something GOd would design...well lets not even make this a GOd issue. Is taht something evolution or nature would put in people???? DOesnt sound like what natures all about.

In Quicksilvers' post...is there a subliminal message being sent? the bold/underscore are only errors in typing??

strangely the 'mistakes' in upper/lower case typos sequence this way?!

....NO....NO....GO....GO....DO....

or a cryptic 'message' might be revealed-->

....NO....NO,GO....GO,DO....

....NONO....GOGO....DO....

maybe a musical 'code'....a beat or resonance for the A-sexual parade band? which may debute in Seattle !?

?

Or maybe a ritual chant confirming our asexuality?

Or...maybe an Alien message to their bretheren on earth! Telling us in Zetan to come out, come out, of the closets, wherever you are?

Or he is some evil agent trying to kill all the asexuals.......

I'm completely confused...these people are hurting anyone...they're not gay, so the thumpers can't hate them for that what seems to be the problem here? I must be missing something. Since when was not having sex a a problem!? Damned if you do, damned if you do it with the same sex..........damned if you don't do it all

Originally posted by Quicksilver
DOesnt sound like what natures all about.

Sure it does, the earth is over populated, Nature is slowing down the baby making.

When there need to be a change, it changes with or without us.

It's an intersteing story. I read it in a few places over the last week or so. At first I thought nothing of it. I thought they were just describing those people who don't want a relationship.

This isn't the case though as the question asked was: "I have never felt sexually attracted to anyone at all."

This is very specific, and 1% answered 'No'

The only thing I wasn't sure about was wheher this 1% couldn't be put down to misunderstanding the question, or deliberately giving a false answer?

Why haven't we heard of this before? I've never known anyone say they've never been 'sexually attracted' to anyone.

It makes total sense though. There are people of every other persuasion, so you could expect asexuals too.

Originally posted by Quicksilver
Is taht something evolution or nature would put in people????

Humans, being intelligent, aren't subject to nature in that sense. If some people aren't interested in sex or having kids, its hardly going to be a problem for the population at large, and if -everyone- lost interest in sex, then people could still use artificial means of reproduction.
[]quote]It is pretty difficult to explain how an essentially lethal mutation can attain a frequency of 1% in the population
But we're not talking about a mutation, we're talking about people doing stuff. Genetics determines a lot, but it doesn't control everything. Besides, this is 1% of the population.

cazmedia
shouldnt there soon be a asexual rights issue come up?

Such as what?

Talk about refering to a religious text as a marital sexual aid seems to demean the religious beliefs of those that do respect this book.

So? Who cares if any religious group has had their religious sensibilities offended? Why should religious sensibilities get special treatment?

Ahh the sexual slippery slope continues to pull us faster and faster downhill.

Why in the world are you so upset that some people just aren't interested in sex? There's nothing wrong with that anymore than its right to only think about sex.

We are going to niche this country to death

Hows that? These people exist as a phenomenon, you'd rather pretend that they don't exist? What special niche rights are they claiming that you see as a problem? IT looks like at most they are simply saying 'could you please stop saying we're whacked for not wanted to bang'?

spittincobra
Sure it does, the earth is over populated, Nature is slowing down the baby making.

Nature doesn't act as a group. Even species don't evolve traits for the 'good of the species'.