Unattractive Girls & Asexuality

[Shorts]

I question your asexuality then. Maybe you just don't dig dating?

Well, either way, it's your life yo.

 

[Exdeath]

Good point there then, ex.

And about gay, straight stuff. I would say straight-asexual.

I mean, even if I don't have interest, I don't feel right at all about kissing a male. It's seriously frikin' weird, lmao. No offense, but it's how I feel, you know?

The latter part is what I was referring to by "Stigma." It's common to have notions of sexuality developed through your experience. This is natural and nothing to be ashamed of. After all, no one's sexuality develops in a vacuum. As someone previously mentioned, there is a wide spectrum of sexuality.

 

[Vinylic.]

I don't really find interest in dating anyone, really.

It's hard to describe, but I like how being that and hangin' with friends and etc. feels great alone.

 

[Shorts]

Do you find girls... attractive... in a.... sexual way?

(Trying to word this and not sound gross)

 

[Vinylic.]

I'm uninterested in porn.

I think that answers it, lol.

 

[Shorts]

I'm uninterested in porn.

Are you uninterested in girls? Lots of people don't like porn, and the kind of porn you watch doesn't always reflect your sexuality anyhow.

 

[Vinylic.]

I like them as a friend, but not as a lover.

As I said, it's hard to describe. Alright. Say.....like.....they're cool. I just don't feel like I'm in love with them. Or sexually attracted.

 

[Ussi]

I'm uninterested in porn.

I think that answers it, lol.

I don't watch porn (or hentai)

Interested in girls (dem urges exist, just controlling myself)

:/

 

[Spelt]

While it's entirely possible that he's mistaken, I personally believe that it is indeed possible to be conditioned to a sexual preference. As such, it was hardly a stupid post from my perspective.

That doesn't change anything. It's still a stupid post.

The irony of this post. **** off. Vinyl is a homie.

That sucks. I'm sorry?

 

[Vinylic.]

Please do not start, man. I've already dealt with you once and so has many, so I don't want go at it again. :/

 

[Spelt]

Don't give me things to start with.

 

[Shorts]

I like Spelt, he's a ****, but usually right. The best kind of ****s out there.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Well, porn (I think) can require an actual taste. While pornography is like raw "energy" and sensations of that nature, having sexuality doesn't necessarily mean that something like that would appeal to you, but it isn't precisely natural, or maybe I should say your social/mental state might reject that energy. The reason why pornography is so popular is that males widely have that sensation, but among probably a minority, there has to be a bit more substance, or rather it is initially hard to get into because there is an initial barrier to it, and thus filters people like you. This either happens by being too timid, possessing high love-moral standards, or having motivational/interest issues in general. This is me speaking purely out of intuition, so I could be wrong with these ideas.

 

[Teran]

I'm asexual because I considered and then decided to be asexual.

So yeah.

Just like I considered and chose to be gay.

What can I say, God didn't love me enough.

 

[GwJ]

Just posting to say Vinyl is dodging the questions asked of him.

 

[Vinylic.]

Not sure what you mean by that.

 

[BarDulL]

I was convinced I was asexual up until I turned 20 because I never felt compelled to try my hand at women or men, but I feel the reasoning was either due to an undeveloped level of attraction towards one sex or the other (stagnated puberty) or that I was simply too scared to act on my attractions. I haven't determined which one it was, but I don't think it really matters.

I don't really believe in platonic relationships. Men have penises, women have vaginas, thus there is potential for reproduction. That being said, attraction is the very basis for friendships between individuals. If you don't feel attracted to a girl, chances are you won't be friends with her, let alone like her, but if she's attracted to you, then she'll go out of her way and give you a lot of attention. You'll be friends with her because it's "flattering" despite the fact that you do not immediately have sexual feelings for that person.

You may not reciprocate those feelings initially because you're attracted to other individuals, or perhaps she likes you more than you like her (which is always unattractive at first because subconsciously you feel you can "have" the individual, so that individual's "sexual value" isn't high up on your list as a result.) Given a scenario where there is no one else trying to attract you however, you will eventually reciprocate the feelings of that individual, or you may even begin to like that individual and the original situation (her liking you more than you like her) actually becomes reversed.

 

[GwJ]

For clarification, there's a difference between being asexual and having no desire to pursue the opposite sex, correct?

 

[BarDulL]

For clarification, there's a difference between being asexual and having no desire to pursue the opposite sex, correct?

It's better defined as simply "not feeling sexual attraction towards any organism" since "no desire to pursue the opposite sex" doesn't directly imply "not feeling sexual attraction." You can still feel sexual attraction but not desire pursuing the opposite sex for reasons like homosexuality, fear, or stagnant puberty (which isn't necessarily the same as asexuality since asexuality implies a distinct absence of sexual feelings towards other organisms.)

To clarify in my earlier post, I determined that there was enough doubt to allow for scrutiny for being asexual, and I certainly am attracted to females of attractive figurines now (and make something of an effort whenever a fraulein comes my way. Meow.)

 

[Chronodiver Lokii]

It's better defined as simply "not feeling sexual attraction towards any organism" since "no desire to pursue the opposite sex" doesn't directly imply "not feeling sexual attraction." You can still feel sexual attraction but not desire pursuing the opposite sex for reasons like homosexuality, fear, or stagnant puberty (which isn't necessarily the same as asexuality since asexuality implies a distinct absence of sexual feelings towards other organisms.)

To clarify in my earlier post, I determined that there was enough doubt to allow for scrutiny for being asexual, and I certainly am attracted to females of attractive figurines now (and make something of an effort whenever a fraulein comes my way. Meow.)

Thiiisss. A good friend of mine at school is asexual. She still romantically likes people, she just does not have to be attracted to them sexually. They just do not have the desire (usually).

Though, some will have sex if thats what they want to do for their partner, or to have kids or something. But once again, asexuality = no desire for sex.

It's really difficult to explain, and BarDulL's explanations were probably a lot better than mine....but yeah. Asexuality. They still can "like like" people. It just isnt a sexual attraction.

 

[BarDulL]

That's something peculiar that I never really investigated. I think what you speak of is infatuation, or "young love" which is fairly commonplace in younger individuals. Essentially, it's possible to feel an infatuation for someone but not desire sexual relations with that same person, but it eventually begs the question of "where do we intend to go with this infatuation," which is soon answered with the death of the infatuation or the spurring of higher romantic interest (at least in adults.) If the infatuation persists in the absence of sexual feelings, it probably has more to do with stagnant puberty (youth) than it does anything else. Fear is another common factor (specifically the fear of pregnancy/negative stigmas regarding youth having sex. However, if fear is a factor, that implies that there is sexual feelings in circulation, thus the relation isn't asexual in nature.)

 

[Teran]

Romantic love and infatuation and all the other things people say to belittle people's love is actually love.

Love isn't as big a deal as people make it out to me, it's a biological drive in the reptilian part of your brain, not an emotion. Also, it's the same part of your brain that's stimulated when you take cocaine.

What makes the whole "mature" love nonsense is the other combining factors like attachment and strong sexual attraction etc.

Also the fact that you're older and hopefully less stupid.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

The only thing that differentiates love from another love is the social contracts between them. As such I don't really judge others in how they handle such affairs unless it results in people being affected negatively from it.

 

[Spelt]

I don't really believe in platonic relationships. Men have penises, women have vaginas, thus there is potential for reproduction. That being said, attraction is the very basis for friendships between individuals. If you don't feel attracted to a girl, chances are you won't be friends with her, let alone like her, but if she's attracted to you, then she'll go out of her way and give you a lot of attention. You'll be friends with her because it's "flattering" despite the fact that you do not immediately have sexual feelings for that person.

You may not reciprocate those feelings initially because you're attracted to other individuals, or perhaps she likes you more than you like her (which is always unattractive at first because subconsciously you feel you can "have" the individual, so that individual's "sexual value" isn't high up on your list as a result.) Given a scenario where there is no one else trying to attract you however, you will eventually reciprocate the feelings of that individual, or you may even begin to like that individual and the original situation (her liking you more than you like her) actually becomes reversed.

I don't agree with any of this at all.

 

[BarDulL]

@Teran - That's a bit harsh, defining love between younger individuals isn't intentional belittling, let alone belittling at all. If you feel that love is just love and doesn't carry any definite form, that's your take. I don't necessarily disagree with you however, as humanity is entirely too complex and I can't personally vouch for everyone since I'm not studying several people. I can only study my own interpersonal relationships and apply trial and error.

I don't agree with any of this at all.

I knew someone wouldn't. Care to elaborate?

Whether you like it or not, attraction is the basic building block of any interpersonal relationship between individuals, otherwise you wouldn't be interested in a friendship. You have to attract or be attracted in order to develop interest with another. "Clicking" with someone is also important, but it's up for debate as to whether or not clicking is more important than how attractive someone else is (it's also debatable as to whether or not 'clicking' in itself is attractive, but it most likely is.)

Between same sex friendships, typically "influence" is the big interest; an individual of physical beauty and stunning intellectual capacity will always captivate the most interest. Clicking is important as well.

It's possible to be just friends with the opposite sex when sexual intimacy is already being fulfilled on both sides, but if one side isn't being fulfilled sexually (a lack of sexual intimacy outside of the friendship), then that side will fall prey to sexual interest in the previously established would-be "platonic" friendship. It literally happens every time, and when the interest isn't reciprocated, the friendship dies and both people end up moving on.

 

[Luigitoilet]

I don't agree with any of this at all.

Great post.

 

[Spelt]

So basically what you're saying is that every single action throughout one's life is just part of a grand ideological scale in order to find a suitable mate.


The obvious error with that theory is that not everything revolves around your love life.

Great post.

Greaterer post!

 

[Pachinkosam]

Spelt rulez.

 

[BarDulL]

So basically what you're saying is that every single action throughout one's life is just part of a grand ideological scale in order to find a suitable mate.


The obvious error with that theory is that not everything revolves around your love life.



Greaterer post!

Not necessarily, survival of the fittest is equally important. Humans want to be friends with those of influence because it will get them further ahead in the ball game.

My theory isn't based solely on myself, only a large portion (because obviously I'm the biggest sample of evidence available.) Either way, I'd love for you to go in-depth regarding why you believe me to be wrong aside from merely saying "you're wrong."

 

[Exdeath]

The obvious error with that theory is that not everything revolves around your love life.

That is actually... quite an interesting theory. It could be said that eating/drinking/shelter/etc. are all merely to delay death until reproduction.

In anticipation of the inevitable "If that's the only purpose then why don't you die after reproduction," the answer can be best seen in the uterus; even once a female loses her fertility, her uterus does not necessarily whither away. Just because an organ (in this case, that is the entire organism) has served its purpose does not mean that it immediately expires.

If it helps, think of a genetic line as the organism and yourself as nothing more than something temporary, like a skin cell. Even once your replacement exists, you will persist on the skin before you -- and eventually you as a corpse -- are flaked off.

 

[Spelt]

Not necessarily, survival of the fittest is equally important. Humans want to be friends with those of influence because it will get them further ahead in the ball game.

...So they'll have an easier time finding someone who wants to fondle their genitalia!

My theory isn't based solely on myself, only a large portion (because obviously I'm the biggest sample of evidence available.) Either way, I'd love for you to go in-depth regarding why you believe me to be wrong aside from merely saying "you're wrong."

I could, but when have I ever done anything reasonable? I don't really feel any obligation to prove anything, especially since it's not going to change your opinion and definitely not mine and likely just devolve into us talking in circles or likelier people calling me an *** for some inane reason, and that just does not sound like fun.

And I didn't say "You're wrong." I said I don't agree, completely different. You can have your opinion, and I can choose to have another. Nothing wrong with that! Carry on.

 

[BarDulL]

@Exdeath - one could say that the purpose after reproduction is to insure the safety and security of one's legacy, however there are those who continue moving on and spreading the seed as they try to move from better to best in terms of mates, so perhaps the continuing functioning of reproductive organs is merely a way to keep options open for the organism. Either way, it's about pursuing attraction (as general and vague as it is for me to say), not necessarily anything else in particular.

Like I said earlier though, clicking IS attractive, and if you happen to find a mate that you really click with, then that's a wrap regardless of influence or fertility. Usually.

@Spelt - Sex and survival nearly coincide with each other, however the survival of the organism takes priority, sex essentially comes second (however they are very, very, very close to each other in terms of priority.)

I'm not the type to tread old ground and I love hearing different kinds of input regarding these kinds of discussions, so I'm mildly disappointed that you're not sharing your thoughts on why you think I'm wrong (because not agreeing with me essentially means that you don't think my line of logic is the correct one). But no, you certainly don't have to do it if you don't want to.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I also do not agree with your premise Bar. Sexual intercourse is not the intrinsic value of humans by which all other values become instrumental. We have happiness as an intrinsic value, which has social and cultural causes, some of which can directly defy natural instincts (evolution vs. cultural evolution; our cultures do not always harmonize with what is instinctual). In fact, if humans didn't have fun with intimacy or sexual interactions (which ultimately pleases the intrinsic value of happiness, so it too is instrumental), while it would diminish considerably, it'd still exist in forms because of social and pro-creational desires, which we do because the ideas please us. Of course, what you say about people interacting with each other because of their attraction for them is a large cause of them because people are animals, and in some situations there is nothing else to go on, but it isn't the alpha and omega, and isn't what keeps it stitched together (at least not entirely, a relationship glued together by such desires is small and/or feeble, and ultimately to give us happiness).

Point is, we do things to be happy. Attraction of the physical kind is a significant cause and even glue for relationships, but it is not the only kind because physical attraction is not the only instrumental value that can lead to happiness and thus not the only reason why individuals sacrifice and seek human relationship (humans only act out of a reason and cause, and the source of us being social creatures is because their is reciprocity and/or desires that are instrumentally pleased in using them).

I can see where you're coming from. In an environment where you aren't desperately seeking to get something done or achieve a desire, and you're just wanting to talk to someone, you look around and see some attractive females, unattractive females, and males. The one chosen will be the one that seems to have the most value or potential value to us. Your basis is possibly of this kind, because most of us would see the greatest value, a lot of the time, in the first option (assuming of course we aren't too shy/afraid). But there is more to go off of than just that and sometimes it won't go down that way, and not all situations are as simple as that. Ultimately what is most attractive to us is happiness and the things we believe will get us there, and that isn't always the *****es.

To conclude: there are many avenues to happiness involving others, intimacy and physical attraction are consistently chosen as the avenue for this self-validation, though it is not the only one.


This post was probably a lot longer and convoluted than it could have been, but yeah that's just not my style I guess.

 

[BarDulL]

I'm more inclined to agree with you because "pursuing attraction" is essentially "pursuing happiness" in the grand scheme of things. It's true. Some people want to climb the mountain for themselves and not for others, others like to draw. Personal satisfaction.

Sexual intimacy is still a large part of human happiness (see Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it is a basic necessity at two different levels), but you suggest that it is but a tool for achieving happiness and not the primary functioning of the organism. I can't agree or disagree in this regard because we aren't necessarily credible enough to pass down that kind of judgment, so we are at something of an impasse.

Interesting line of thought: when you see an individual of the sex that you're attracted to for the first time, what is it that goes through your brain?

Admittedly, I usually scale down the person physically and go from there. If they're physically attractive, interest develops and I'll probably try to strike conversation with that person simply because they're physically attractive. Granted, I'm single at the moment, so naturally I can't help my manly tendencies. However, when I'm with a woman I like, it's possible to be friends with other women simply because my sexual intimacy is already being provided for. When it isn't being provided for however, that is when the BarDulLian tiger goes on the hunt (because sex is a basic human necessity at its core.) I'll still check girls out despite being in a relationship though (which is fairly common among men.) What does this mean about humanity?

I have more to say, but I just got busy. More on this later.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Well, Maslow's hierarchy's legitimacy aside (I do thank you for introducing me to it though), I'm not exactly contesting that happiness is the function of living things, I'd actually go ahead and grant simply living and progressing as that, because strictly biologically speaking, that is in a practical sense true (and I wouldn't find any other form of ascertaining the function of organisms legitimately from any other way). My point is that the one thing that is desired by itself can only ever be the fullfilment of desires, why desires are manifested in the first place, and that is categorized as what we would call happiness. Making that argument is the only thing I felt was needed to show that sexual attraction wasn't the sole motivator for relationships. But you're right, it's a big part of it, like I admitted. As for not being credible enough to pass down that kind of judgment, pffffft, I think we got dis. I look forward to more.

 

[BarDulL]

Quick hit.

"Simply living and progressing," but progressing towards what? You can't have progression without a goal or some kind of ideology of a perfect being in mind, otherwise you are merely changing as an organism which isn't necessarily "progression."

This is the part where I'd normally say "progression towards finding the best possible mate," is technically how an organism progresses. Getting physically fit, getting a job, living on your own, getting a car, and being self sustaining, are all various forms of societal progression that also act towards allowing you to get the best mate possible.

On another note, does progression (whatever the end goal may be) coincide with "pursuing happiness/attractions?"

 

[Exdeath]

I believe that when Holder is saying "Progressing" that he means "adaptating."

@Exdeath - one could say that the purpose after reproduction is to insure the safety and security of one's legacy, however there are those who continue moving on and spreading the seed as they try to move from better to best in terms of mates, so perhaps the continuing functioning of reproductive organs is merely a way to keep options open for the organism. Either way, it's about pursuing attraction (as general and vague as it is for me to say), not necessarily anything else in particular.

My understanding of your theory is that reproduction is the primary objective of an organism's life in evolution.

Holder's point-of-view since can coincide roughly with (my understanding of) BarDull's theory. If a person's primary is to reach a maximum of happiness (this is a very common belief) and reproduction gives a maximum of happiness, then reproduction is the a way to reach maximum happiness.

 

[Teran]

@Teran - That's a bit harsh, defining love between younger individuals isn't intentional belittling, let alone belittling at all. If you feel that love is just love and doesn't carry any definite form, that's your take. I don't necessarily disagree with you however, as humanity is entirely too complex and I can't personally vouch for everyone since I'm not studying several people. I can only study my own interpersonal relationships and apply trial and error.

Romantic love is a scientifically observed occurrence, and really isn't all that complex. Liking someone as a friend is also something almost everyone experiences, what makes each friendship different is just the memories and such attached. Same with love, it's the same basic biological drive, but it's just the memories and circumstances of your life that make your situation unique.

Love really isn't as mystical as people make it out to be, and I think people try too hard to either totally deny its existence or overplay what it really is. Either way, they all lose.

 

[BarDulL]

I believe that when Holder is saying "Progressing" that he means "adaptating."



My understanding of your theory is that reproduction is the primary objective of an organism's life in evolution.

Holder's point-of-view since can coincide roughly with (my understanding of) BarDull's theory. If a person's primary is to reach a maximum of happiness (this is a very common belief) and reproduction gives a maximum of happiness, then reproduction is the a way to reach maximum happiness.

Not necessarily reproduction. Sex, and the collecting of mates as options for the future, yes. What you do with those mates is entirely relative to your interests, but the key factor is sex.

Romantic love is a scientifically observed occurrence, and really isn't all that complex. Liking someone as a friend is also something almost everyone experiences, what makes each friendship different is just the memories and such attached. Same with love, it's the same basic biological drive, but it's just the memories and circumstances of your life that make your situation unique.

Love really isn't as mystical as people make it out to be, and I think people try too hard to either totally deny its existence or overplay what it really is. Either way, they all lose.

Lol, probably. Still, there's enjoyment to be had in attempting to understand what it really is.

 

[Exdeath]

Not necessarily reproduction. Sex, and the collecting of mates as options for the future, yes. What you do with those mates is entirely relative to your interests, but the key factor is sex.



Lol, probably. Still, there's enjoyment to be had in attempting to understand what it really is.

Sex for sex' sake seems pointless.