after all, no diseases, no drama, etc..............
2006-06-22 07:28:53 · 33 answers · asked by safarlsun33 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
no, just easier to get a date
2006-06-22 07:32:00 · answer #1 · answered by Kenny ♣ 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I would say no Because I know someone who is asexual and there is just as much drama and on top of that a lot of people will shun you, in which I believe is stupid. Also STD's are spread through sexual contact with another person, Not just meaning the opposite sex
2006-06-22 07:33:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is better for organisms to be asexual only when the environment is stable. Anyway, sexuality ensures genetic variability, while asexuality produces clones. Besides, the drama is fun, I don't think you would like becoming asexual.
2006-06-22 07:34:16 · answer #3 · answered by Shaz 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes, i think u can spend more time workin than wasting time having sex.
and i think even as a virgin, is the cleanest of all humans because u have no contact with anyone, not just sexually but for example: husband uses same shower as u, or sleeping together sharing body sweat, and kissing, getting germs. i mean, humans are a dirty filthy thing.
i'd stay away from everyone as much as i can, but they tend to always come near me, and i do get offended
WOULD U GIVE ME THIS A BEST ANSWER?
2006-06-22 07:54:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
One word: NO! No drama, no life... do you really just want to just get by on auto pilot with all of your sensuality and capacity for intimacy shut down?
I bought that line for many years... family telling me it was a sign of "maturity" to accept an asexual relationship and focus on "higher" values... that the ability to live that way meant I was a grownup. What a load of ****. Wasted a lot of good years that way. Healthy, balanced, emotionally mature grownups enjoy healthy sexual intimacy as an integral part of the joy of a relationship. It's part of what makes sticking out the ups and downs worthwhile. Don't settle for anything less.
2006-06-22 07:40:51 · answer #5 · answered by Fogjazz49-Retired 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I don't see anything wrong with that. I wouldn't say more advanced, but 'safer' is better terminology. It is better to be asexual than promiscuous!
2006-06-22 07:31:42 · answer #6 · answered by coconut 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Be careful what you wish for, it may come to pass! Sure, sure, if that's what You want, no diseases, no drama, no passion, no love, no solidarity, no body to keep you warm (unless you go dig one up), no one to talk tp you when you're all alone & worst of all (I think), nobody to back you up when you take a stand for something (You Must be Very Lonely)
2006-06-22 07:44:18 · answer #7 · answered by brmick1 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
You can still get diseases and drama. I think it would really suck to be alone like that and not be able to experience sex and all the intimacy.
2006-06-22 07:30:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Hmmmm, very interesting idea. I wish I could provide a good argument against it, but I can't think of any right now. Very good question.
2006-06-22 07:30:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If we were all asexual, humans would become extinct. Not a good way to advance...
2006-06-22 07:33:12 · answer #10 · answered by gremlincollie 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
bacteria, some fungi and many monocellular organisms (such as amoeba) are asexual. so are many plants.
so no, being asexual is more primitive.
(and why did you never listen in your biology classes)?
2006-06-22 07:35:11 · answer #11 · answered by synopsis 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋