"Asexual" girl talks about her rare orientation

Burlyman · Post by **Burlyman** » Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:38 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16552173

Technically, she's not asexual, because,

1.) She's a girl

2.) According to one of the selected comments on the article, "asexual" people can still have relations and enjoy it.

Discuss ^_^

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Feb 07, 2012 6:09 am

Looks like Tim is slowly working that

vision · Post by **vision** » Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:19 am

What is there to discuss? She isn't sexually attracted to anyone. Big deal. Is this really the first time you've heard of something like this? Are you complaining about the use of the word asexual? Should we invent a new word even though this one is appropriate?

The only thing I can imagine discussion worthy is the biomechanics behind such a thing, which of course is nothing I'm qualified to discuss.

Burlyman · Post by **Burlyman** » Tue Feb 07, 2012 8:18 pm

No, I'm not complaining about anything.

It makes no difference whether or not this is the first time I've heard about this, but it was on BBC, so apparently they never heard about it. ^_~

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:16 pm

They've been studying sexual orientation and sexuality in sheep at the U.S Sheep Experiment Station and at Oregon State University for years. They discovered that 7 to 10 percent of rams are gay, 1 in 5 swing both ways (as they put it) and a whopping 15% are asexual. So that makes asexuality less rare than homosexuality.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... utton.html

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 5:43 pm

here is where the Biologist in me gets a bit perplexed. Asexual refers to an individual(species, whatever) that REPRODUCES, but not via a sexual mechanism. This person would be considered 'non-sexual' insofar as having no interest. Way different.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 5:52 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality

Someone shoot me…I posted a Wiki page.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 7:35 pm

Shoots Spidey:

Slickski is right also:

"Asexual reproduction is a mode of reproduction by which offspring arise from a single parent, and inherit the genes of that parent only; it is reproduction which does not involve meiosis, ploidy reduction, or fertilization."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 7:56 pm

Yeah, it's kind of a confusing overlapping of terms. Definitely not the only time that's happened though.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:06 pm

If you ask me, someone put something in her water, and we're next.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:14 pm

I wouldn't mind putting something in her....

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:18 pm

Top Gun wrote:Yeah, it's kind of a confusing overlapping of terms. Definitely not the only time that's happened though.

what you see is the conflict between the scientific terminology, which is very specific, and vernacular. In no way, to anyone with a Biology degree, is this woman ever going to be asexual.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:43 pm

I have no idea why anybody would think the word is being used in the biological context when referring to humans…

“A” as a prefix is used loosely in casual vernacular to mean “non” or “disinterested”

Examples:

apolitical and areligious.

Context is important, as there are many “overlapping terms”.

Burlyman · Post by **Burlyman** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:36 am

tunnelcat wrote:They've been studying sexual orientation and sexuality in sheep at the U.S Sheep Experiment Station and at Oregon State University for years. They discovered that 7 to 10 percent of rams are gay, 1 in 5 swing both ways (as they put it) and a whopping 15% are asexual. So that makes asexuality less rare than homosexuality.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... utton.html

Yeah, and in the article I posted, it states that about 1% of the human population would consider themselves "asexual," yet you see gays running around all over the place.

I propose the term 'non-sexual' or something similar be used so it won't be confused with true asexuality.

If you ask me, someone put something in her water, and we're next.

I wouldn't mind being asexual. ^_~

flip · Post by **flip** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 8:45 am

Maybe they evolved from sheep

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:32 am

callmeslick wrote:here is where the Biologist in me gets a bit perplexed. Asexual refers to an individual(species, whatever) that REPRODUCES, but not via a sexual mechanism. This person would be considered 'non-sexual' insofar as having no interest. Way different.

Semantics. I didn't coin the term, I just quoted it. It seems that the word asexuality can have 2 different interpretations, either one valid depending on what you're talking about. One meaning refers to an organism as being non-sexual and having no desire to have sex, the other meaning referring to a single organism that can reproduce by itself without sex.

http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.ph ... Asexuality

By the way boys, you may not want to drink out of those clear plastic containers that contain BPA. Oh wait, even the new non-BPA containing plastics, including the stuff they use to coat the inside of metal cans, will still leach out some form of estrogen-mimicking compounds. All that fake estrogen you consume will kill your testosterone production and turn you into non-sexuals with man boobs.

http://www.fastcompany.com/1733715/bpa- ... e-chemical

Heretic · Post by **Heretic** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:48 pm

Hey I like my man boobs

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:57 pm

Heretic wrote:Hey I like my man boobs

Until you get old and they hang down lower than your navel and you need a bra just to hold them up.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:07 pm

this thread is taking an ugly turn into mental imagery I really didn't need to see before dinner.........

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:03 pm

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm using the wrong descriptor. They're called "moobs".

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:07 am

tunnelcat wrote:Oh, I'm sorry. I'm using the wrong descriptor. They're called "moobs".

manmaries??

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:08 pm

back titties!

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:06 am

she's going to be lonely when or if she gets old.

Grand-kids rock!

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:10 am

You can still have kids, the least exotic way being to adopt.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:41 am

Jeff250 wrote:You can still have kids, the least exotic way being to adopt.

Or be artificially inseminated.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:13 am

If she's truly asexual, she may not have the mothering instinct either and not want any kids at all.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:11 pm

There is nothing natural about this lady's condition. I find it laughable that the notion of "asexuality" in humans is accepted as something that follows natural asexuality, and even extended upon base on this assumption (tunnelcat). Humans are not asexual by nature, and they are not homosexual by nature. If we were to bring reason into it, we should look for a cause, not just swallow the assumptions or popular explanations to spare the feelings of people who are apparently asexual or homosexual, or to lend some artificial legitimacy to their place in normative humanity. It is neither normal nor healthy.

There seems to be the idea inserted in there that this is the next human rights battle, already partially won in the victories for the acceptance of homosexuality as normal in society. Absurd. There is something causing it, or something that, somewhere along the line, caused it.

vision · Post by **vision** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:04 pm

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:13 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:There is nothing natural about this lady's condition. I find it laughable that the notion of "asexuality" in humans is accepted as something that follows natural asexuality, and even extended upon base on this assumption (tunnelcat). Humans are not asexual by nature, and they are not homosexual by nature. If we were to bring reason into it, we should look for a cause, not just swallow the assumptions or popular explanations to spare the feelings of people who are apparently asexual or homosexual, or to lend some artificial legitimacy to their place in normative humanity. It is neither normal nor healthy.

Well, we're listening. If want to show that an attractive, smiling young woman in a happy relationship is unhealthy (however you define that word, which you should), then the burden of proof is on you.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:39 pm

...and they are not homosexual by nature.

loooooooool

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:00 pm

Jeff250 wrote:Well, we're listening. If want to show that an attractive, smiling young woman in a happy relationship is unhealthy (however you define that word, which you should), then the burden of proof is on you.

First off I don't need to define "unhealthy", since Webster and any number of websites since have done it for us. I am clearly speaking in the context of the health of the individual in question, so you or anyone else can make use of the English language and take it from there. Secondly the burden of proof is not on me. It doesn't need to be proven, as if it were some abstract notion. The article takes pains to show that she is still able to have some semblance of a relationship with her boyfriend, albeit without some of the primary tenants of an intimate relationship between a man and a women. This indicates a recognition that a relationship without these things is lacking/missing them, and endures despite their absence. Unhealthy. A question we might pose would be if a person in this situation could recover the influence of their natural sexuality, should they want to? And why or why not? I would insist that they should, and that any of a number of reasons for thinking they should not are absurd, and serve some interest other than the health and happiness of the individual (or in denial of health, and ignorant of where happiness is derived from in life).

flip · Post by **flip** » Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:03 pm

I think way too much is being made out of this. She is only 21, she may be built small and this is her angle. I bet she grows out of this "asexuality" as soon as she loses some inhibitions. Weirdos and their labels is what this boils down to.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:34 pm

ST wrote:First off I don't need to define "unhealthy", since Webster and any number of websites since have done it for us. I am clearly speaking in the context of the health of the individual in question, so you or anyone else can make use of the English language and take it from there.

Please don't be intentionally obtuse. You know that even in a dictionary there are multiple definitions of words like "unhealthy." For instance:

1) "not in a state of good or normal health; in an unsound, weak, or morbid condition"
vs.
2) "morally bad, harmful, or contaminating"

can make a huge difference in what you're arguing. It's not unreasonable to ask you to define how you're using words like this. Otherwise, we won't understand what you're arguing.

ST wrote:The article takes pains to show that she is still able to have some semblance of a relationship with her boyfriend, albeit without some of the primary tenants of an intimate relationship between a man and a women.

When they say they enjoy their relationship, my first instinct is to believe them, not try to come up with some rationalization for why they might lie about such a thing.

You've never been in a relationship that never had any sex? Or at least one that you were happy in?

Since Christianity prohibits sex before marriage, I would have expected you to be championing the merits of relationships without sex instead of accusing these two people of being "unhealthy" for not engaging in it!

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:13 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:There is nothing natural about this lady's condition. I find it laughable that the notion of "asexuality" in humans is accepted as something that follows natural asexuality, and even extended upon base on this assumption (tunnelcat). Humans are not asexual by nature, and they are not homosexual by nature. If we were to bring reason into it, we should look for a cause, not just swallow the assumptions or popular explanations to spare the feelings of people who are apparently asexual or homosexual, or to lend some artificial legitimacy to their place in normative humanity. It is neither normal nor healthy.

There seems to be the idea inserted in there that this is the next human rights battle, already partially won in the victories for the acceptance of homosexuality as normal in society. Absurd. There is something causing it, or something that, somewhere along the line, caused it.

Coming from a uninformed, religious-biased point of view. Didn't you get the point of the animal studies I posted links to? These sexual variations appear to occur in animals naturally, and by extension, probably in humans. We're all basically very complicated organic programs, and that programming is not always perfect, nor is it necessarily "wrong" when it doesn't always match societal "norms". It's just natural variation. It also doesn't seem to be impacting our reproductive rates either, despite religious leaders' fears of hoards of homos taking over the country. So why does it bother you religious types when a person is not a perfect heterosexual? What skin is it off your backs? I see no threats to society.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:18 am

Never said it was a threat to society. Said it wasn't an ideal situation for her, and that it has a cause outside of some natural variation. I can't prove that last part, but I know there are all kinds of things impacting us, from hormones added to the things we eat, to neurotoxins like MSG (and the host of other names they use for it), to chemicals in our water. It's a pretty big assumption to take the position that it's a natural variation. Wiping aside the possibility of outside influence at a stroke for no reason other than that you choose to believe that this is just another form of non-heterosexual "individuality" to be embraced by the enlightened mind.

Jeff, I think you make it overly difficult to understand what I'm arguing. Also you seem to derive meanings where there are none. I never suggested that they were lying about being happy. Lastly I think it would be kind of fucked up to turn a Biblical view on the proper domain of sex into a reinforcement for relationships entirely devoid of the same. It is not somehow Godly to abstain from sex in a relationship, and I have no confusion on that point. It's just that it has, as I said, a proper domain.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:12 am

ST wrote:Jeff, I think you make it overly difficult to understand what I'm arguing.

Asking you to define a word like "unhealthy" is not unreasonable, especially when you seem to be using it in a way that causes many of us to scratch our heads. Why don't you just tell us what you mean by that word? It'll be less of an inconvenience for you than having to go back and forth with me about whether you should.

ST wrote:Lastly I think it would be kind of fucked up to turn a Biblical view on the proper domain of sex into a reinforcement for relationships entirely devoid of the same. It is not somehow Godly to abstain from sex in a relationship, and I have no confusion on that point. It's just that it has, as I said, a proper domain.

I personally wouldn't use the Bible to justify anything, but I am trying to find common ground with you. The two people from the article weren't married, so if they were Christians, then they wouldn't be having sex anyways. So how can you see their relationship as "unhealthy"? I would think that most Christian relationships would not have any sex, since most don't lead to marriage. Are those relationships unhealthy?

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:58 am

callmeslick wrote:
Top Gun wrote:Yeah, it's kind of a confusing overlapping of terms. Definitely not the only time that's happened though.
what you see is the conflict between the scientific terminology, which is very specific, and vernacular. In no way, to anyone with a Biology degree, is this woman ever going to be asexual.

I think she's going to spontaneously impregnate herself just to prove you wrong.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:02 am

I'd buy the video of that one.......

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:06 am

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Never said it was a threat to society. Said it wasn't an ideal situation for her, and that it has a cause outside of some natural variation. I can't prove that last part, but I know there are all kinds of things impacting us, from hormones added to the things we eat, to neurotoxins like MSG (and the host of other names they use for it), to chemicals in our water. It's a pretty big assumption to take the position that it's a natural variation. Wiping aside the possibility of outside influence at a stroke for no reason other than that you choose to believe that this is just another form of non-heterosexual "individuality" to be embraced by the enlightened mind.

Given the fact that instances of homosexuality have be recorded throughout human history in the past, well before those nasty man-made chemicals invaded our everyday culture, I'm betting that it's a natural variation that doesn't negatively impact the survival of the species as a whole and thus is not removed by natural selection.

But I'm also guessing that goes against your belief that God is perfect and by extension, made man perfect at birth, and therefor no homosexuals or asexuals are possible states before birth by condition because that would mean God had screwed up and made them imperfect, which in not possible in your eyes. So you conclude it must be an environmentally caused defect not made by God.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:29 am

tunnelcat wrote:Given the fact that instances of homosexuality have be recorded throughout human history in the past, well before those nasty man-made chemicals invaded our everyday culture, I'm betting that it's a natural variation that doesn't negatively impact the survival of the species as a whole and thus is not removed by natural selection.

But I'm also guessing that goes against your belief that God is perfect and by extension, made man perfect at birth, and therefor no homosexuals or asexuals are possible states before birth by condition because that would mean God had screwed up and made them imperfect, which in not possible in your eyes. So you conclude it must be an environmentally caused defect not made by God.

I can't answer for Thorne, but I can answer for myself:

On the first point, I agree. Nothing new about homosexuality. IMO, even nothing new about seeing it as a normal part of society. I'd venture to say that the phobic view of it found in recent history is actually the abnormal state for mankind. I'd be one to argue that the nature of humanity really hasn't changed in any significant ways in recorded history (other than in the garden of eden, if you consider that part of recorded history). If you want to take issue with that thought, it might make for an interesting separate thread.

As far as your theological implications go: 1. I disagree that God made the world (and man) perfect. He made it good, but I'd argue that the only thing ever capable of perfection is God... and that creation, by definition, cannot be perfect because it cannot be God Himself. 2. I disagree that man is born fully "good". I think everything on this earth went from good to bad in the garden of eden, due to sin's influence.... including all people from the moment of conception. Everything's still got little glimpses of good in it, because it still has the touch of the creator (perfection Himself), but everything's also got touches of bad (or, more technically, not good) in it, too. All that leads me to conclude that homosexuality is just another wart caused by sin, along with death, rot, hard labor, painful childbearing, hate, pride, etc.

Hint: The root of the problem with homosexuality isn't about men having sex with men, but is really pride.... which is really the root of all sin.