A question about Asexuals Non-sexuals or Anti-sexuals?

Question

This question was also posted in the the sexualality section so I can hear both sides of the arguement.

Do you feel there is anything wrong with this lifestyle. Some would say that sexuality is a gif from god and but others feel its more holy to abstain. And still the Anti-sexuals are in favour of everyone sharing their preferance cause the ahinalation of the human race. But the Non-sexuals just have the lack of desire. What is your take on this subject.


This was put out there to get the general publics point of view on the topic. the most in depth resonse gets the points.

Answer 1

I feel sorry for people who claim to be asexual. I've heard about them on the news. Its a growing trend as more people are feeling willing to come out - I fear there is a deep gray line between those who are really lacking in sexual desire and those who are just spectacularly unsuccessful in romance.

Its not as if they're going to reproduce heterosexuals out of existence due to basic biological laws so I wouldnt worry about it.

Answer 2

Some people have no sexual desire to speak of. Others are completely neurotic about sex and can't enjoy it. Most have a relatively "healthy" appetite and are able to get off regularly without bothering themselves or others about it too much - in spite of whatever their religion, etc has to say about it. And, of course, there are always the freaks. All we're talking about is the fundamental difference between people. I think anybody who's "in favour of everyone sharing their preferance" is asking for trouble - and, personally, I'll give it to him!

With sex, the only rule that makes any sense is "keep it consensual." Beyond that, I fail to comprehend how it's anybody's damned business what people do or don't do, save the people concerned. Nor should anybody suppose that his or her own feelings on the subject are or should be universal.

Answer 3

i anticipate that you mean via 'asexual', the non secular ascetics, who abstain from sex, no matter if gay, promptly, or bisexual, for applications of non secular devotion, which incorporates Roman Catholic monks, nuns, friars, Buddhist monks, etc. This asceticism, thus far because it takes position contained in the Judeo-Christian sphere, looks a logical end drawn from a philosophy it really is inherently dualistic, it really is, it sees God and Nature (creation) as opposing dichotomies, a minimum of at the same time as it includes human sexuality. Sigmund Freud and Karl Jung are 2 psychologists who had a heyday de-progression the suppressed sexual personalities of people who construct their lives round a religious ideal, which deplores human sexuality. at the same time as think about many differing varieties on your universal monastry: anti-sexual individuals, asexuals, covert sexually lively, and sexuaally anorexic. Suffice it to say, you do not hit upon quite a number of healthful sexuality in those cloistered communities.

Answer 4

I don't believe that their is anything wrong with someone who chooses to be non-sexual, as long as they aren't denying their partner conjugal rights should their partner desire sexuality. When a marital contract is entered, it is a contract that allows for each other to be fulfilled sexually within that agreement. However, if two people want to live together and they have agreed not to have sex, and it is consensual then I don't see why it would be wrong. If a person decides to stay single and celibate then I see nothing wrong with that either. Human beings are created for sex both for recreational reasons, and pro-creational reasons so it is highly unlikely (impossible) that anyone trying to force their non-sexual agenda on the human race would be successful.

Answer 5

God did ordain sex between one male and one female. Some people do not have the desire for sex and that's alright. I don't want it nearly as much as my husband does but whether that is the norm or not, I don't know.

God created both the male and female and told them to be fruitful and multiply. Without one male and one female, multiplicity isn't possible except for having a Dr. implant sperm into a female or by adoption.

Thank God that not everybody is A-sexual,Non-sexual or Anti-sexual.

I don't know what more I can say that would be relevant.

Answer 6

I don't think these are all the same...
Priests are often expected to be celibate, but the reason stems from property laws that turned over ownership rights of the physical church buildings to their sons during the middle ages.

Some people choose to be permanently sexually in-active due to physical or emotional reasons, although you may argue that they may not have a 'choice'. There are those who are abstinent prior to marriage, but that is not a permanent choice either.

I'm not a religious fellow, but I don't fault the religious types for their expectations of abstinence prior to marriage, even if I didn't practice it myself. I do think it wholly (not holy!) immoral to get married and THEN decide to be abstinent (unless it's a mutual decision.)

Answer 7

For me personally the entire thing is silly. Sexuality is not a gift of God. Sex is my greatest pleasure. I don't deal with narcotics. Some would say narcotics is the greatest pleasure. Far anyone who wishes to deny themselves that is fine with me. Save your point for some one who cares. I get two point here. I'm satisfied.

Answer 8

Of course there is nothing wrong with it if it works for you. However, you may have a hormonal imbalance which is the cause for your low libido. But otherwise, if it doesn't bother you, I don't see that it is anyone else's business.

Answer 9

I don't get it, but hey if someone doesn't want to have sex fine with me.

I do rather agree with the overpopulation thing. That is why we chose to only have one. I don't think it is as dire as they would have you believe. But there are more than enough humans.

Answer 10

I will say it is right for people to choose what they wish, as long as they know the consequences. And as long as they do not call themselves Christians.