The nature of sexuality?
5 posters
Page 1 of 2
Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2 
The nature of sexuality?
by Biscotti Fri Apr 22, 2016 3:47 pm
You know sometimes I wonder if I'm missing something as to why people have sex. The sheer number of people who are at odds with me causes that to happen.
But I just fund this article http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/why-people-have-sex?page=2 on "why people have sex". On Page 1 and 2 there are lists of reasons why, and if that's it? PPpppshhhhh I feel better now knowing I'm not missing anything.
Edit by Admin: This thread was split off from discussion in "Everything about everything and nothing" in Off-Topic.
But I just fund this article http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/why-people-have-sex?page=2 on "why people have sex". On Page 1 and 2 there are lists of reasons why, and if that's it? PPpppshhhhh I feel better now knowing I'm not missing anything.
Edit by Admin: This thread was split off from discussion in "Everything about everything and nothing" in Off-Topic.
Biscotti- Posts : 1014
Join date : 2015-04-26
Re: The nature of sexuality?
by SCH0206 Fri Apr 22, 2016 4:12 pm
Thanks for posting that, Biscotti. After reading it, I know I'm not missing anything either. Pro-sex stances are so mind-boggling.
SCH0206- Posts : 527
Join date : 2015-04-30
Re: The nature of sexuality?
by Bobbb1 Fri Apr 22, 2016 10:48 pm
.
Last edited by ☘ Nacht Klaue ☘ on Tue Jul 26, 2016 11:00 am; edited 14 times in total
Bobbb1- Posts : 1421
Join date : 2015-04-17
Re: The nature of sexuality?
by ForeverPure Fri Apr 22, 2016 10:50 pm
I can't even bring myself to read such lists anymore, it's like hearing the same old tiresome reasons over and over again. I can almost predict exactly the kind of shallow reasons they'll come up with. The simple answer to why they engage in such behaviour is because a good number of them are instinctive-bound animals shaped easily by the slightest bit of manipulation, any sign of reason is just imitation.
I don't think all of them are entirely primitive mind you, just most of them. This mass group of primitives can turn society into a far worse nightmare if pressured in a certain direction. They're like mindless shoppers being guided by the brightest colours, loudest sounds and strongest scents.
They are neither naturally evil nor good and that's what makes them especially dangerous. They can appear good when pushed in the right direction and suddenly turn evil when in the right environment and or with the right people. They are totally and utterly manipulatable. They are your average consumer, your everyday man, woman and child. They have no morals except for the ones enforced by their environment. They are the very factor that defines what is "public opinion" or "popular opinion".
For the most part, the "masses", keeps mostly to themselves unless pressured otherwise. It is the smaller forces of evil and the even smaller forces of good that ultimately shapes the fabric of society. In any system bounded by the profit-motive, good will ultimately fail to control the masses as they lack greed, one of many evil desires. Without the desire of greed, good cannot possibly compete against evil, which sees no end to its power.
Evil then uses the vast quantities of wealth it has obtained from its desire of greed to fund think tanks, businesses, advertising, charities and every possible form of influence that has a price. Through these entities of influence, the masses are pushed into the direction of evil. I am not sure on the exact percentages, but I know for certain from experience not only in North America, but in Europe as well that these primitives represent the largest social group. The second largest would be those naturally evil and the third largest would be those naturally good.
Whenever good does have a chance at causing big change, evil usually steps in and kills them off someway or another. It is important to remember that nothing is sacred to evil, they are fully willing to murder their own family, leaders, soldiers, farmers, you name it, as long as they are a significant threat to their power.
Evil often justifies itself to the "masses" by branding itself a provider of security, opportunity and freedom. None of which evil can provide, but it can fool and fool it most certainly does. Security to evil is protection money, opportunity to evil is rigged lotteries and freedom to evil is perpetual sacrifice.
I don't think all of them are entirely primitive mind you, just most of them. This mass group of primitives can turn society into a far worse nightmare if pressured in a certain direction. They're like mindless shoppers being guided by the brightest colours, loudest sounds and strongest scents.
They are neither naturally evil nor good and that's what makes them especially dangerous. They can appear good when pushed in the right direction and suddenly turn evil when in the right environment and or with the right people. They are totally and utterly manipulatable. They are your average consumer, your everyday man, woman and child. They have no morals except for the ones enforced by their environment. They are the very factor that defines what is "public opinion" or "popular opinion".
For the most part, the "masses", keeps mostly to themselves unless pressured otherwise. It is the smaller forces of evil and the even smaller forces of good that ultimately shapes the fabric of society. In any system bounded by the profit-motive, good will ultimately fail to control the masses as they lack greed, one of many evil desires. Without the desire of greed, good cannot possibly compete against evil, which sees no end to its power.
Evil then uses the vast quantities of wealth it has obtained from its desire of greed to fund think tanks, businesses, advertising, charities and every possible form of influence that has a price. Through these entities of influence, the masses are pushed into the direction of evil. I am not sure on the exact percentages, but I know for certain from experience not only in North America, but in Europe as well that these primitives represent the largest social group. The second largest would be those naturally evil and the third largest would be those naturally good.
Whenever good does have a chance at causing big change, evil usually steps in and kills them off someway or another. It is important to remember that nothing is sacred to evil, they are fully willing to murder their own family, leaders, soldiers, farmers, you name it, as long as they are a significant threat to their power.
Evil often justifies itself to the "masses" by branding itself a provider of security, opportunity and freedom. None of which evil can provide, but it can fool and fool it most certainly does. Security to evil is protection money, opportunity to evil is rigged lotteries and freedom to evil is perpetual sacrifice.
ForeverPure- Posts : 163
Join date : 2015-05-02
Location : Ontario, Canada
Re: The nature of sexuality?
by Biscotti Sat Apr 23, 2016 1:08 pm
INCORRECT. I've been working on a video and there's a section on this. Pointing out that first and foremost everybody has agency. (Belows a draft summary)
Now let's look at a..certain attitude about sexuality that is permeated through different circles
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/why-people-have-sex
"'We are programmed to do so', sex therapist Richard A Carroll, associate Northwestern University psychiatry and behaviorial science professor says." Oh well nice to see it's full of rational and intelligent meaning then, that makes up for everything else.
(((TWO MORE EXAMPLES TO BE ADDED)))
So clearly these guys have demonstrated that sexual people are nothing more than animalisitic robots. Of course, who wouldn't spring for that?
Except let's look back at these posts. This person claims that "We are programmed to do so" and "sex is a basic human need.".
Hey Alan (Some placeholder counterexample man) is sex a need for you? "Nope." And even though you don't want it, you're going to have sex right, because your "Programmed to do so" right? "Nope."
Ok.
See that's the thing, sex isn't "primal" it's not an "instinct" there is no "biological imperative". It's definitely stupid, brainless and pathetic beyond belief, and maybe animalistic to some degree. But any "drive" to do it is at most social conditioning, due to high importance sex has in cultures, as well as possibly some chemical addicitions that people may have.
But here's the thing. The people that posted these... believe what they posted. And they still have sex. So this is still just as stupid as what was originally thought, if not more so.
Now perhaps this "Need to reproduce" was referring to, or was originally referring to the human SPECIES. Just the unsapient concept of a SPECIES. In that case...surrre.
So don't get me wrong, sex is still a degrading waste of time, but it's not because it's some mystical instinctual mysticism bullshit. Get over it.
Thoughts? (I have seperate section on feelings of digust)
Now let's look at a..certain attitude about sexuality that is permeated through different circles
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/why-people-have-sex
"'We are programmed to do so', sex therapist Richard A Carroll, associate Northwestern University psychiatry and behaviorial science professor says." Oh well nice to see it's full of rational and intelligent meaning then, that makes up for everything else.
(((TWO MORE EXAMPLES TO BE ADDED)))
So clearly these guys have demonstrated that sexual people are nothing more than animalisitic robots. Of course, who wouldn't spring for that?
Except let's look back at these posts. This person claims that "We are programmed to do so" and "sex is a basic human need.".
Hey Alan (Some placeholder counterexample man) is sex a need for you? "Nope." And even though you don't want it, you're going to have sex right, because your "Programmed to do so" right? "Nope."
Ok.
See that's the thing, sex isn't "primal" it's not an "instinct" there is no "biological imperative". It's definitely stupid, brainless and pathetic beyond belief, and maybe animalistic to some degree. But any "drive" to do it is at most social conditioning, due to high importance sex has in cultures, as well as possibly some chemical addicitions that people may have.
But here's the thing. The people that posted these... believe what they posted. And they still have sex. So this is still just as stupid as what was originally thought, if not more so.
Now perhaps this "Need to reproduce" was referring to, or was originally referring to the human SPECIES. Just the unsapient concept of a SPECIES. In that case...surrre.
So don't get me wrong, sex is still a degrading waste of time, but it's not because it's some mystical instinctual mysticism bullshit. Get over it.
Thoughts? (I have seperate section on feelings of digust)
Biscotti- Posts : 1014
Join date : 2015-04-26
Re: The nature of sexuality?
by Admin Sat Apr 23, 2016 2:07 pm
I read that article and there's a lot wrong with "We are programmed to do so". That wording makes it seem like it's inevitable that everyone will have sex whether they want it or not, and implying that non-asexual peoples are animalistic robots. But they aren't, and they have free will. Why would some pro-sex people want to buy into that idea that they are and don't have free will?
The arguments about reproduction may be about the species as a whole instead of individuals, but a lot of people who don't want to reproduce say they have no instinct for it.
Most people intrinsically desire sex, so there's some physical drive to it for them, but it still isn't all-consuming, and they are capable of not acting on it. Social conditioning can lead someone to think they want sex a lot more than they actually do though.
I think it'd be a good idea to move the last few posts into new threads for The Main Area to keep it more organized.
The arguments about reproduction may be about the species as a whole instead of individuals, but a lot of people who don't want to reproduce say they have no instinct for it.
Most people intrinsically desire sex, so there's some physical drive to it for them, but it still isn't all-consuming, and they are capable of not acting on it. Social conditioning can lead someone to think they want sex a lot more than they actually do though.
I think it'd be a good idea to move the last few posts into new threads for The Main Area to keep it more organized.
Admin- Admin
- Posts : 746
Join date : 2015-04-07
Re: The nature of sexuality?
by Bobbb1 Sat Apr 23, 2016 2:14 pm
.
Last edited by ☘ Nacht Klaue ☘ on Tue Jul 26, 2016 11:01 am; edited 4 times in total
Bobbb1- Posts : 1421
Join date : 2015-04-17
Re: The nature of sexuality?
by Biscotti Sat Apr 23, 2016 2:52 pm
Here's a question. Is sex even natural? How many of us has rolled our eyes but conceded at sexuals saying "B-but sex is naturaL! You can't criticize it, it's natural!" . Well googling "natural" definition brings up
1. "Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind."
And yes, I suppose sex is natural in that sense, but what about
2. "Of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something."
And this is where this question begins to get some legs. In this sense tthat sex very much isn't natural in this way for many of us.
Sexual activity should always be done through what lines up with your character and values, and not emotional sway or else it isn't 'natural' is it?
1. "Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind."
And yes, I suppose sex is natural in that sense, but what about
2. "Of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something."
And this is where this question begins to get some legs. In this sense tthat sex very much isn't natural in this way for many of us.
Sexual activity should always be done through what lines up with your character and values, and not emotional sway or else it isn't 'natural' is it?
Biscotti- Posts : 1014
Join date : 2015-04-26
Re: The nature of sexuality?
by SCH0206 Sat Apr 23, 2016 2:56 pm
Good point, Biscotti. Plus, natural doesn't automatically mean good. Plagues are natural, but they are far from beneficial.
SCH0206- Posts : 527
Join date : 2015-04-30
Re: The nature of sexuality?
by Biscotti Sat Apr 23, 2016 3:03 pm
Oh yes that appeal to nature fallacy is near and dear to my heart. But this also brings up a question related to something Sexuality_killer thinks. Why do (asexuals) have to prove that they're normal. I've always saw sexuals as the ones that are abnormal.
Prove to us what makes sexuality normal. What values make it natural to a person (And I mean the 2nd definition of natural).
I mean, yes you could say "sex is more natural because that's how people reproduce" but I'm looking for answers based on a persons individuality and character. Not the species.
Prove to us what makes sexuality normal. What values make it natural to a person (And I mean the 2nd definition of natural).
I mean, yes you could say "sex is more natural because that's how people reproduce" but I'm looking for answers based on a persons individuality and character. Not the species.
Biscotti- Posts : 1014
Join date : 2015-04-26
Re: The nature of sexuality?
by Bobbb1 Sat Apr 23, 2016 3:41 pm
.
Last edited by ☘ Nacht Klaue ☘ on Tue Jul 26, 2016 11:02 am; edited 1 time in total
Bobbb1- Posts : 1421
Join date : 2015-04-17
Re: The nature of sexuality?
by Bobbb1 Sat Apr 23, 2016 6:58 pm
.
Last edited by ☘ Nacht Klaue ☘ on Tue Jul 26, 2016 11:03 am; edited 1 time in total
Bobbb1- Posts : 1421
Join date : 2015-04-17
The nature of sexuality?
by Admin Sat Apr 23, 2016 10:51 pm
†Sexuality Killer† wrote:I don't understand.. Was that an answer to me or ForeverPure? (maybe both?)
In any case, I already know that people are brainwashed into sexuality, I have made a thread about it. But in my post (above) I wrote about how a sex-drive works, how the sexual body works, it happens exactly how I wrote it and if you don't believe it, then I hope one day that you will become sexual yourself (Biscotti) as a lesson (I don't mean it as a bad thing, that's how people learn things, by their own experience).
Regarding the animal insticts, I don't think you understand that really. During the moment / time when having a sex-drive, that makes one to turn into an animal. I felt it every time that I was like an animal. I mean, in those sexual thoughts, I was like an animal.
I hope sexual people will make themselves member and explain better than I do. This forum is still not visible on google, I think that's one of the reasons why people can't really find these topics..
Edit: Oh now I understand. I think it's the thing which I wrote about that I don't believe asexuality is an orientation? I can't believe that i forgot how I used to think before, but all that can be found in my older posts, how I used to think. I still believe 100% that asexuals have something wrong with their body or brain until asexuals proof it by going to a doctor, show the checkup / physical examination, if that does not show anything, then try the autism test and should also do test for mental illnesses, not until then I will believe it's an sexual orientation..
Edit again: Oh now I remember more.. I used to think that all the sexual brainwash on me was removed. But now I don't really know what to believe.. Could it not possibly be that when I was younger that I got problem with the things which makes one to have sex-drive and now when I began to take vitamins and started to works again, the sex-drive? testerone or whatever.. You have to understand this, how can an aromantic asexual just SUDDENLY get sex-drive??? Several months ago, last year I began to feel things in my body, I felt to stretch all the time, during the whole day. I even asked in chat rooms if other people also felt like that. They seemed to not understand what I was talking about. And this year I become sexual. I took vitamins last year too, but it was not from same company, but still D-vitamin and calcium.. I no longer stretch like I did before.. When I become sexual that stretch-thing seem to be gone.. Anyways..
I don't know how many times I should repeat myself.. I was aromantic asexual for 15 years! And then I took vitamin D because I have vitamin D deficiency and also to cure my PTH hormone which was high. And during that time I listened to some types of music I usually don't listen to. I watched american got talent, some of them had contained sexual things, at the beginning I was very disturbed by it and never continued to watch it, but during that time, I watched it any way, and I notised I was changed, from feeling disturbed by watching it to find it funny, so i watched it over and over again and become used to it. I also watched American Idol.. That's it I think.. I didn't do anything else which was unusual those months when I become sexual. So are you saying that these music, and tv program made me sexual while I was PRO-antisexual? That's what I thought before and still believe that it had some effect on me deep inside in some way and I think I even mentioned it in the hidden thread, that I mentioned that I had watched american got talen or american idol.. I don't know if admin deleted that thread or hided it, if she hided it she can look if I have mentioned it unless I didn't delete it myself.
I don't think that is the number one thing which made me sexual. The number one thing wich I believe is the vitamins which I took to treat both D-vitamin deficiency and high PTH hormone. I do believe that the types of music I usually didn't listen to and the american got talent, etc.. had an influence on me, in some way, deep in my mind otherwise I had not mentioned it in the other thread which is removed because I didn't want my problems to be public. But now I feel stronger in myself. But I'm not so into discussion about sexuality. I will keep having a break from it and only post things in threads which will be about non-sexual things, such as health, etc..
I look forward for your video.. If you will upload it here.. hope so
My last post was in response to Biscotti's. Sorry if this discussion is getting frustrating. It's a very difficult experience you've been going through, but you took the time to explain it for the rest of us, who haven't been through anything like it. I can understand why someone would feel like an animal when having those thoughts. I think what Biscotti and I were trying to get at is non-asexuals still have free will.
Maybe we should be more clear when talking about how sexual desire affects people in general vs. how it personally affects oneself. I remember, I've seen others also say personally they felt like sexual desires felt like something possessing them, that they didn't feel like themselves, and describe it as a dreadful experience to go through.
There's only been one other non-asexual person I've seen describe their experiences here, but they haven't been here in months, but it's important that we understand.
Biscotti wrote:Oh yes that appeal to nature fallacy is near and dear to my heart. But this also brings up a question related to something Sexuality_killer thinks. Why do (asexuals) have to prove that they're normal. I've always saw sexuals as the ones that are abnormal.
Prove to us what makes sexuality normal. What values make it natural to a person (And I mean the 2nd definition of natural).
I mean, yes you could say "sex is more natural because that's how people reproduce" but I'm looking for answers based on a persons individuality and character. Not the species.
The reasons asexuals have to prove that they're normal may because of being outnumbered, and because everyone is assumed to desire sex, so that whoever doesn't is assumed to have something wrong with them that needs to be "fixed". Sexual desire is assumed to be universal, although it isn't. I also can't stand the appeal to nature fallacy.
Admin- Admin
- Posts : 746
Join date : 2015-04-07
Re: The nature of sexuality?
by Bobbb1 Sun Apr 24, 2016 5:09 am
.
Last edited by Sigh... on Wed Mar 27, 2019 2:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
Bobbb1- Posts : 1421
Join date : 2015-04-17
Re: The nature of sexuality?
by Bobbb1 Sun Apr 24, 2016 6:07 am
.
Last edited by ☘ Nacht Klaue ☘ on Tue Jul 26, 2016 11:04 am; edited 1 time in total
Bobbb1- Posts : 1421
Join date : 2015-04-17
Re: The nature of sexuality?
by Admin Sun Apr 24, 2016 9:15 am
†Sexuality Killer† wrote:I decided to explain it here instead of PM. I felt embarrassed to do it before. But if I don't make it more clearly then I guess people will continue to misunderstand me. Later today I will explain it shortly.
Today I feel very asexual. I tried to trigger the body to become sexual only to see if it would work when I felt so asexual. But no, the whole thoughts didn't even work and didn't lead to sexual feelings. It felt foolish and eww. I have forgot to take 1600 mg D-vitamin for 3 days and don't know if that's the reason.
I'm still learning about how this body works. I already know that I have some days when I'm not sexual. But there are things which can trigger the body to become sexual while I'm not sexual, such as sexy clothes which leads to sexual thoughts (which I already have mentioned). But today this body has been 100% asexual for some reason. Also yesterday I was asexual.. without knowing it, I thought I could trigger it yesterday but avoided it so I thought it was just a day whicch was not sexual. Maybe sexual people have days when they are asexual?
Being "sexual" doesn't mean having to experience sexual attraction or sexual thoughts every day, and there may be factors that can affect how often or how intensely they feel that desire. There could be days where a non-asexual person just doesn't feel that desire for sex. It's good that you haven't had those thoughts bothering you today, but I wouldn't want for your health to be in danger over it.
Admin- Admin
- Posts : 746
Join date : 2015-04-07
Re: The nature of sexuality?
by Biscotti Fri Apr 29, 2016 12:51 am
BTW we're sticking a pin in this. That video posted in the excerpt is getting a major rewrite, and I am reworking a better theory on the "nature of sexuality".
But I'm sticking a pin in it.
But I'm sticking a pin in it.
Biscotti- Posts : 1014
Join date : 2015-04-26
Re: The nature of sexuality?
by Bobbb1 Wed May 04, 2016 10:23 am
.
Last edited by ☘ Nacht Klaue ☘ on Tue Jul 26, 2016 11:05 am; edited 1 time in total
Bobbb1- Posts : 1421
Join date : 2015-04-17
Re: The nature of sexuality?
by Admin Wed May 04, 2016 1:33 pm
†Sexuality Killer† wrote:I wrote a long text but decided to not post it. Since I don't know the difference between sexual arousal, sex-drive, orgasm, sexual attraction. I usually call it sexual feelings. But it can be misunderstood. I've read that asexual people, do have normal functioning organs, and some can have orgasms, some of them have sex, some of them have sexual fantasies. All that made we wonder if I am still asexual but has changed to an sexual version of asexual, lol?
I read asexuals don't experience sexual attraction. To be honest, I no longer know what sexual attraction means.
I will maybe paste the long text I wrote about but then I have to edit and write sexual attraction instead of sexual feelings if it's more correct word. I have become very consfused since i thought I had become autosexual and when I see all those sexual asexuals they make me confused. They're saying that they have sex (some of them..) they feel orgasms (some of them..) they have normal functioning body, that they have tested their hormones and it was normal but they don't experience sexual attraction?
Explain someone, in a simple way because I don't understand this...
I hope this helps, but one of the simplest ways I've seen asexuality described is lacking any intrinsic desire for sex with others for the sake of it (as opposed to having it solely to please another person, or other externally motivated reasons), and that is completely separate from arousal, libido and physical reactions to sex.
The body's reaction to it is an automatic reaction, and so is arousal. Experiencing sexual attraction isn't required for it. Some asexuals have libidos, and they describe it as not being directed at anything or anyone.
Admin- Admin
- Posts : 746
Join date : 2015-04-07
Re: The nature of sexuality?
by Bobbb1 Wed May 04, 2016 3:19 pm
.
Last edited by ☘ Nacht Klaue ☘ on Tue Jul 26, 2016 11:06 am; edited 1 time in total
Bobbb1- Posts : 1421
Join date : 2015-04-17
Re: The nature of sexuality?
by Bobbb1 Fri May 06, 2016 7:31 am
.
Last edited by ☘ Nacht Klaue ☘ on Tue Jul 26, 2016 11:07 am; edited 1 time in total
Bobbb1- Posts : 1421
Join date : 2015-04-17
Re: The nature of sexuality?
by Bobbb1 Fri May 06, 2016 1:46 pm
.
Last edited by ☘ Nacht Klaue ☘ on Tue Jul 26, 2016 11:09 am; edited 5 times in total
Bobbb1- Posts : 1421
Join date : 2015-04-17
Re: The nature of sexuality?
by Biscotti Fri May 06, 2016 2:45 pm
Ok that's it. I didn't want to post this down for quite some time more, but if you insist on being worried then I'll give you this advance screening, because really whatever.
Now I'm going to explain how sexuality plays into a person. Here we go.
First let's talk about masturbation. Are antisexuals also against anti-masturbation? I do not think there's an absolute answer for this. I have always thought that masturbation is not as harmful as sex. And how harmful it is, is up to the person themselves. Unlike sex, it does not affect other people.
And as a kid I was not against it. You said, you hoped I would become sexual sometime, well I already am/have been, it's just I don't let it make me insecure. It's not something that alligns with my values.
So like I said, it's up the individual to decide whether masturbation is harmful for them or not. And I consider masturbation as harmful to me for quite some time. Yet, similar to you, even though I wanted to stop, when the time was right I would fall into it. There wasn't enough motive to stop in the moment, there's no risk, it's just your own thing you can forget about later. It's similar to how you might be motivated to work on a big project, but then we you have the time, you find yourself being lazy and then don't work on it.
But an even closer example is, it was an addiction, that started when I was young (I was always anti-sex but not so much on masturbation, even then I still consider it a personal issue as there's not much of a "Pro-masturbatory culture" to fight). Addiction is the definition of "unwanted behaviour".
To further clarify, I still counted myself as asexual as I never wanted to have sex with someone, and would only get sexually excited at depictions found on the internet that were specifically meant to cause sexual excitement.
Well that's all good, but why am I writing about this now, the reason is because I FINALLY BEAT THE SON OF A BITCH
I posted a theoritical model in another thread, that focuses on letting people's values drive their sexual behaviour. And what I just found was a reason, a motive, a value that enabled me to overcome this unwanted sexuality. And this value was seeing your post (And other peoples posts) about dealing with unwanted sexuality, and having nothing to say to them. Thus this sexual habit was now DIRECTLY hurting my life, and my goals and after that moment it went away. I don't fall into it anymore because I have a something I value over it.
This is what cured me finally, but some other things followed. Because afterward I still came across sexually stimulating images, but was able to deal with them. Mostly by pulling from all my knowledge of my previous behavour and knowledge on addiction. The reason I was getting sexually stimulated was nothing more than neron pathways lighting up that were associating the image with my addiction. Using this knowledge to "de-mystify" the process it made it much easier to handle. Same with "sex seeming less disgusting" which you seemed to also encounter? There's an article here somewhere that talks about that. And I'm able to dismiss them as neurological trickery. This is why sticking to your values is important, because otherwise you'll fall into addictions, or bad intuition.
So I do not try to block "sexual excitement" I just de-validate it.
But this whole process is going to be different for every person. You'll have to conquer it yourself, but I hope my experience helps. I'm very self-knowledgable and can usually find out why I do everything (Except for when I fell into sexual behaviour addiction, which is why I considered it harmful to myself and which I now attribute to addiction theory)
Final disclaimers for political correctness: I don't translate my personal sexual frustration with my behaviour to my antisexualism. I consider any trouble I had with my sexuality purely my own fault and shortcoming. And don't assume everybody deals with going against their values when having sex (Though the question is, what values could you possibly have to motivate sex. The mind comes up blank.). I also am well aware any pornographic imagery is not representative of normal sex. That doesn't help.
Now I'm going to explain how sexuality plays into a person. Here we go.
First let's talk about masturbation. Are antisexuals also against anti-masturbation? I do not think there's an absolute answer for this. I have always thought that masturbation is not as harmful as sex. And how harmful it is, is up to the person themselves. Unlike sex, it does not affect other people.
And as a kid I was not against it. You said, you hoped I would become sexual sometime, well I already am/have been, it's just I don't let it make me insecure. It's not something that alligns with my values.
So like I said, it's up the individual to decide whether masturbation is harmful for them or not. And I consider masturbation as harmful to me for quite some time. Yet, similar to you, even though I wanted to stop, when the time was right I would fall into it. There wasn't enough motive to stop in the moment, there's no risk, it's just your own thing you can forget about later. It's similar to how you might be motivated to work on a big project, but then we you have the time, you find yourself being lazy and then don't work on it.
But an even closer example is, it was an addiction, that started when I was young (I was always anti-sex but not so much on masturbation, even then I still consider it a personal issue as there's not much of a "Pro-masturbatory culture" to fight). Addiction is the definition of "unwanted behaviour".
To further clarify, I still counted myself as asexual as I never wanted to have sex with someone, and would only get sexually excited at depictions found on the internet that were specifically meant to cause sexual excitement.
Well that's all good, but why am I writing about this now, the reason is because I FINALLY BEAT THE SON OF A BITCH
I posted a theoritical model in another thread, that focuses on letting people's values drive their sexual behaviour. And what I just found was a reason, a motive, a value that enabled me to overcome this unwanted sexuality. And this value was seeing your post (And other peoples posts) about dealing with unwanted sexuality, and having nothing to say to them. Thus this sexual habit was now DIRECTLY hurting my life, and my goals and after that moment it went away. I don't fall into it anymore because I have a something I value over it.
This is what cured me finally, but some other things followed. Because afterward I still came across sexually stimulating images, but was able to deal with them. Mostly by pulling from all my knowledge of my previous behavour and knowledge on addiction. The reason I was getting sexually stimulated was nothing more than neron pathways lighting up that were associating the image with my addiction. Using this knowledge to "de-mystify" the process it made it much easier to handle. Same with "sex seeming less disgusting" which you seemed to also encounter? There's an article here somewhere that talks about that. And I'm able to dismiss them as neurological trickery. This is why sticking to your values is important, because otherwise you'll fall into addictions, or bad intuition.
So I do not try to block "sexual excitement" I just de-validate it.
But this whole process is going to be different for every person. You'll have to conquer it yourself, but I hope my experience helps. I'm very self-knowledgable and can usually find out why I do everything (Except for when I fell into sexual behaviour addiction, which is why I considered it harmful to myself and which I now attribute to addiction theory)
Final disclaimers for political correctness: I don't translate my personal sexual frustration with my behaviour to my antisexualism. I consider any trouble I had with my sexuality purely my own fault and shortcoming. And don't assume everybody deals with going against their values when having sex (Though the question is, what values could you possibly have to motivate sex. The mind comes up blank.). I also am well aware any pornographic imagery is not representative of normal sex. That doesn't help.
Biscotti- Posts : 1014
Join date : 2015-04-26
Re: The nature of sexuality?
by Admin Fri May 06, 2016 4:36 pm
The blog posts that you linked were correct that someone can have a sex drive or libido without any sexual attraction.
The libido isn't necessarily directed at anything, and some asexuals with libidos describe theirs as something they can handle themselves, while a non-asexual would naturally and usually feel like they'd rather have it be fulfilled by another person. Sexual attraction is by definition directed at other people.
The libido isn't necessarily directed at anything, and some asexuals with libidos describe theirs as something they can handle themselves, while a non-asexual would naturally and usually feel like they'd rather have it be fulfilled by another person. Sexual attraction is by definition directed at other people.
Admin- Admin
- Posts : 746
Join date : 2015-04-07
Re: The nature of sexuality?
by Bobbb1 Fri May 06, 2016 11:55 pm
.
Last edited by ☘ Nacht Klaue ☘ on Tue Jul 26, 2016 11:10 am; edited 4 times in total
Bobbb1- Posts : 1421
Join date : 2015-04-17
Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Page 1 of 2
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum