Venevus wrote:
You know, I'm surprised at the total lack of tolerance from some of these posters, thinking that a flawed understanding of evolutionary theory can somehow prove that variations of people in this regard (asexuality) are impossible when the same logic could be so misused against concepts that they seem to agree with (homosexuality so totally makes sense but asexuality doesn't???)
I know not where I stand sexually myself, but politically I'm on the side of the Asexuals here. It is entirely possible to have no desire for sex, if we can even completely understand how sexual desire even works (which right now we do not understand and might never). Someone who feels most comfortable as asexual should not have to be coerced into being sexual if it does not work for them for whatever reason (in regards to the comment about "getting testosterone levels checked"). And on a personal note, if the greatest pleasure of a relationship for someone is sex, i find that rather depressing. You can get sex from just anyone really, but to have something deep and long term is much more valuable to myself.
ps: Kudos to you both
pps: i frikkin LOVE the sonic series lol.
While I am supportive of them. I object to this idea that having a different opinion is that same thing as being intolerant. In fact that idea is totally fascist/intolerant. Not everyone was showing intolerance, the vast majority weren't. Very few where making the procreation argument, as many people now agree evolution is far more complex than Darwin’s Theory. They have an opinion about human psychology, which is quite popular and backed with some evidence. That is people can have periods of asexuality during their life. I may be possible to be always asexual though you can't say for certain that you'll never be sexual. These are valid opinions. Also valid is the idea that you can't have romantic relationships without some sexuality present, which doesn't necessarily mean they have to engage in typical sex acts. Although not popularist there is considerable weight to the idea that romance is connected to sexuality and hormones.
I did not mention the anti-sexual comment that went the other way because I didn’t see much point. These two people have generally good intentions like anyone else here.