Do you think asexuality is naturally ocurring in humans?

Can you clarify your criteria for calling something an “aberration”?

There are asexual people, and for many of them it does not appear to be the result of trauma, so that puts it firmly in the “naturally occurrring phenomeon” camp as far as I’m concerned.

I’m going by dictionary terms.

Aberrant:
* Main Entry: 1ab·er·rant
* Pronunciation: \a-ˈber-ənt, ə-, -ˈbe-rənt; ˈa-bə-rənt, -ˌber-ənt, -ˌbe-rənt\
* Function: adjective
* Etymology: Latin aberrant-, aberrans, present participle of aberrare to go astray, from ab- + errare to wander, err
* Date: circa 1780

1 : straying from the right or normal way

Absolutely, asexuality is a naturally occurring trait in humans. Then there are those with anything in the range of sexuality, from asexuality to satyrism.

It is a result of genetics, development, and the hormones produced by the body itself. It is in no way “straying from the right or normal way” unless you are judgmental.

There was an article in the local news site the other day about the asexual community.
The article allowed for user comments.

An overwhelming majority of the comments suggested that many people there thought it was something to make fun of, berate, belittle and ridicule.

Most of those comments were in particularly poor taste. The word “aberration” was used several times.

Is it weird that I wouldn’t mind being asexual? I feel like I could get a lot more done in my life.

Plus you could never be hurt in a relationship.
But then again I guess you’d never experience romantic love.

Yes, I do think it is naturally occurring. I believe that some people simply never develop a sexual attraction to one gender (or both). I have no reason not to believe them. I see know difference between asexuality and any other sexual preference. I never understood why sexual preferences other than heterosexual are things to belittle and ridicule. It makes no sense to me.

@Insomnia Affirmative. It would make life much easier for tons of people if they were asexual, myself included. Calling it an aberration is sort of ironic, seeing as a very large portion of the population is religious, and in many of the books they follow, it would moreso seem that THEIR way, what the norm is NOW (sex before marriage, sex without the intent of making babies) is the aberration. And one certainly COULD accomplish alot more for themselves being this way. Alot of mistakes people make are made in the shallow pursuit of sexual gratification. Alot of the hurt people face is from others who deem them “unsexy”. There’s plenty more I could say, but I’m sure it’s all very ‘duh’ stuff, falling into the same vein.

who knows….i reckon anythings possible i man its clear that everyone has different sex drives

@Insomnia: I don’t think someone asexual couldn’t experience romantic love, they just simply wouldn’t experience the sexual component that tends to go along with love. I think even non-asexual people are capable of love that is romantic but non-sexual.

As to the question, I think it is natural but not an aberration. I actually had a friend in high school who I believe may be asexual. Obviously, I don’t know for sure since I am not a qualified medical professional, but she never had any interest in any sexual contact with either sex. It also makes sense from a hormonal standpoint. I think she got her period very late (something like 15 or 16, but this is just a suspicion) and she was very underdeveloped physically. Her voice never deepened and she never developed breasts or hips. She never seemed unnatural to me, just un-interested in sex.

In India, they have what is called a “third sex” which I think is like LGBT people. But still, that could include, “no I don’t like weenie or vag”. I was like that for awhile, my girlfriend found out about my boyfriend, and to get back at me they made a sex tape and sent it to me, now there married, and all I have is this heartbreaking porno, which is actually pretty well done.

@KatawaGre

I see what you mean.

I was implying sexual romantic love.

wow @bumwithablackberry thats harsh tho i suppose cheating on people is pretty harsh too….i dunno if you cant tangle sexuality up with love i mean dosnt that confuse the issue i always figure sexuality is attraction based and that’d be chemical

@Insomnia: Okay, I getcha now. Generally romantic love goes hand in hand with sexual love. Things might be a little less complex if this wasn’t so.

Some people have very low sex drives, so I don’t see why it wouldn’t be also true that some people have no sex drive. Just because it is the norm to want to procreate, doesn’t mean that it applies to everyone.

All human sexuality is distributed along a normal curve. From this we can anticipate that some will be hypersexual and some will be hyposexual, with most of us concentrated within two standard deviations from the mean.

I identified as an asexual when I was younger, just because I was so behind all of my friends in development. Instead of tapping my feet waiting around for something to happen, or worse, forcing myself into situations where I felt uncomfortable, I said “Okay, well, if that’s the way it’s going to be, at least for now.”

I believe it’s natural to occur, but yeah, it is different from the norm and average. If somebody views it as a negative, for example, they are in a marriage and their spouse wants to have sex, then it should be up to them to consult a doctor about it. For an outsider to judge somebody with no sexual attraction as an aberration (all negative connotations included) is just wrong. It just doesn’t lead anywhere good.

I think as we continue to go up the Hierarchy of Needs the need for sexuality becomes diminished as we choose to spend more of our time on the self-actualization parts. I also think that in a relationship, after the infatuation has worn off, that overall sexuality may go down a bit, which I believe is in part because back a hundred years ago the woman would have had a child or more by then, thus they would be in family mode. Would I say that asexuality is an abberition? Not really, but it certainly doesn’t help in increasing the population. Then again, since we are in no risk of underpopulation, I would say that there’s no harm in asexuality. The same would apply to a person outside of a relationship having no need for sex, reproductively this doesn’t make sense but life is more than just reproducing nowadays, so I think it’s more than fine.

“reproductively this doesn’t make sense ”

Actually, it can make sense reproductively. If a family includes both sexual beings who reproduce and asexual beings who share the same genetics but who help the sexual individuals raise their children (the old “maiden aunt” scenario), the children will have a better chance at survival. The parents have more time to corral resources (food, housing, pay checks) and there are more people to keep an eye out for dangerous situations that could affect the kids. Thus, the genome has a better chance at being passed on.

In other words, the nuclear family (two parents plus children), while the most common these days, is not necessarily the best scenario for reproductive success.

Based on your definition, no, asexuality is not aberrant, because it occurs naturally and is normal. It is not normative, because asexual people are a fairly small minority, but it is within the range of normal behavior.

@dynamicduo You’re right. The population is at no risk of scarcity. But I do somewhat argue the statement that asexuality would be harmful to it, anyway. A good portion of the births that take place here are accidental. And the people who do it on purpose are doing for the goal of procreation, not sex. Whether someone is interested in sex or not has no bearing on whether or not they’re interested in kids.
Unless they’re a pedophile, I mean.
But the point is.. If someone wants kids, one of these proclaimed ‘asexuals’, they know that sex is necessary for the making of the offspring, and when weighed out.. they’ll have sex anyway, for the sake of having children and that alone. They don’t need to be “into it” to DO it. How many people do you know who love their jobs? Not many, right? But they still go. Because they know it’s an important step they have to take in order to reach and maintain what really DOES make them happy. So I really don’t think we’d be at risk either way.

As people we like to feel good, sex feels good, if you don’t like to feel good, something wrong with you.

@bumwithablackberry – The problem is that in order to have sex (and in women, sex that feels good) certain hormones have to kick in and certain physiological processes have to take place. If you are asexual that doesn’t happen. Thus, it can be totally impossible, or at the very most, about as much fun as doing sit ups (or push ups, depending on who’s on top). I don’t mean to denigrate anyone who likes doing sit ups better than having sex.

@bumwithablackberry Wow. That’s quite simplistic.

Humans are designed to breed, sexual arousal leads to breeding so anything absent of that may be natural but not advantageous to humans’ prime directive.

@hungryhungryhortence Again, someone wanting sex is a separate issue from someone wanting kids, and most people eventually do. They’ll do it once, to make a baby, then go right back to being non-sexual. Ffs.

@hungryhungryhortence I thought the prime directive was Star Fleet’s law that no one should tamper with the natural development of an alien species.

Guess I’ve been looking for Lurve in all the wrong places

@The_Compassionate_Heretic: perhaps this is why Hx3 has no kids

Earlier Question on Asexuality

yeah it is naturally occurring. It is thought that about 1% of humans are asexual….

and ya, people can be assholes (mostly due to the fact that they have no idea what they are talking about—read some of the posts in that question. a lot of people were telling the asker that asexuality does not exist and she was mistaken about her own identity…)

@hungryhungryhortence All the parents I know say they can’t sleep, have no money, and are stressed out all the time.

I have none of those problems.

@The_Compassionate_Heretic: Lurve for the star trek reference.

@KatawaGrey It was the only logical response… Captain.

I tell people I’m abstinate, just because I can’t get laid.

It’s a rare naturally occurring phenomenon.

Naturally occurring? Yup. It’s not like we look around and say we want to miss out on this apparently awesome part of life. Aberration, in the sense that this differs from the norm? Also yes, but that term has many negative connotations so I wouldn’t use it or support it’s use. As Katawa demonstrates, it can be taken to mean “unnatural” far too easily.

We can still be in relationships, and experience both romantic and physical love. We can experience the sexual component that often goes along with love – but we are not really that into it under the vast majority of circumstances.

It does not make life easier. Piper, I think you may be confusing asexuality with abstinence. The former is not chosen, the latter, by definition, is.

@all Check out AVEN.