Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[i2amroy]

Asexuality (or nonsexuality) is the lack of sexual attraction to anyone, or low or absent interest in sexual activity.

There are multiple definitions for the word. In this case we are referring to this particular one, not to it's biological meaning. Please try to understand that instead of attempting to use a definition that we have fairly specifically noted we are not using.

As noted, in this case it's like wishing that you don't desire something in the first place in order to make living an ascetic lifestyle (where you resist your temptations), easier.

[TD1]

Meh. I desire it, but I'm hardly driven mad by it.

I suppose I'm ascetic by Rolan's definition. I don't do it, though I'm fairly sure I could have by now, because (not to sound cliched) I'm waiting on "the one."

Even I can't take myself seriously when I say that, but I suppose I mean that I don't want to degrade myself by being that intimate with someone I wouldn't want to spend quite a lot of time with.

[Arcvasti]

Meanwhile, in Lolwutland, a glorious new fashion trend arises.

This is beautiful. And terrible. Like the dawn.
I too can pretentiously quote LOTR~!

OK, then, what are the benefits you see of not being interested in sex?

Not having yet another annoying biological imperative mucking with your judgement?

[Tawa]

Not having yet another annoying biological imperative mucking with your judgement?

Well, if your sexual desire is interfering with your ability to make everyday decisions, I think you have a bit of a problem.

[UXLZ]

It's more subtle than that, Tawa. It influences people's decisions quite majorly even if they aren't sex-crazed loons.

[Gunner-Chan]

I would actually argue I trust someone without sexual urges far less than someone with them. Desires are a big part of what makes people human as far as I'm concerned.

[Tawa]

It's more subtle than that, Tawa. It influences people's decisions quite majorly even if they aren't sex-crazed loons.

Well, yes, you're right. Sex appeal and the possibility of sex can influence one's decisions in large ways. But if that's influencing somebody to the point that their only alternative is to ignore all sex and sexuality entirely, then there's a problem.

[UXLZ]

I would actually argue I trust someone without sexual urges far less than someone with them. Desires are a big part of what makes people human as far as I'm concerned.

Desires as a whole, yes, most definitely. Arguably something totally without desire can't really exist without being a rock, though it might also be that we can't comprehend the total lack of desire properly.
However, lacking specific things like sexual urges wouldn't be so major.

@Tawa: Maybe someone just wants to be... Not influenced?

[Arcvasti]

Not having yet another annoying biological imperative mucking with your judgement?

Well, if your sexual desire is interfering with your ability to make everyday decisions, I think you have a bit of a problem.

Not "interfering with" so much as "affecting". Essentially, I dislike, as a concept, having something I have little to no control over nonetheless influencing my thoughts and behaviour. This includes quite a lot of things, sexuality amongst them.

I would actually argue I trust someone without sexual urges far less than someone with them. Desires are a big part of what makes people human as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah, that's true enough. Desires are a big part of being human. Which is my sole beef with transhumanism, really. Fiddle with desires and you get something different. Not necessarily something BAD, mind you, but definitely different. I would, however, disagree with the trust thing. A human stripped of all desires is quite different then a normal human. Having one less desire doesn't make nearly as much of a difference.

[UXLZ]

A human stripped of all desires would... Well, just sorta... Stop. Maybe they'd go trough the motions to survive, but... Well, really, something like that is far too alien to even try and think about in the first place.

[Tawa]

@Tawa: Maybe someone just wants to be... Not influenced?

Fair enough. At this level, I suppose that it's merely a matter of philosophical thought.

[Arcvasti]

A human stripped of all desires would... Well, just sorta... Stop. Maybe they'd go trough the motions to survive, but... Well, really, something like that is far too alien to even try and think about in the first place.

I've probably been reading too much Stephen Erikson, but I will use the metaphor of chains. Too many chains restrict, preventing you from moving freely. Too few leave you unanchored and drifting.

[UXLZ]

Thing is though, complete and TOTAL lack of desire... Would such a person ever move? Would they breathe? Would they avoid unpleasant things? Would they find things unpleasant?

They would have no desire to work.
They would have no desire to move.
They would have no desire to talk.
They would have no desire to groove eat.
They would have no desire to sleep.
They would have no desire to procreate
They would have no desire to imagine.
They would have no desire to think.
They would have no desire to live.

Where does it end? Where do we draw the line?

[TD1]

Draw the line at philosophy,

[UXLZ]

We aren't talking about philosophy, we're talking about at what line we could conceivably stop removing someone's desires and still have them function automatically.